The puzzling silence of the unborn human community

This news story is about a man who had hired a hit man to injure his pregnant girlfriend to the point that she miscarried. Fortunately, the hit man was actually an undercover cop. The man was found guilty of solicitation to commit manslaughter and sentenced to 76 months in jail. In the state of Washington, a "viable fetus" counts in such a charge. In other words, the state recognized the humanity of the unborn human in this instance. This story brings up something that occurs to me from time to time, and that is the lack of outrage from the unborn human community over these kinds of stories that recognize their humanity in one instance, but then ignores it in another instance.

The unborn human community (UHC from here on) suffers an image problem in our day and age. The very definition of their humanity is subject to the whims of the state and to their mothers like no one else in our society. Can you imagine any other group or community tolerating having their humanity being defined so arbitrarily? Why doesn't the UHC do something about this? Why don't they rally to have their rights recognized? With so many victims groups out there, you'd think that the UHC would have organized something by now.

For instance, the UHC could contest that the arbitrary nature of their rights are largely based on their location - namely, in their mothers' wombs. This necessity of human reproduction is totally beyond their control. If they could pick and choose which womb they could grow in, don't you think that they'd pick the womb of someone who would be willing to carry them to term? Thus, why are they being made to feel disenfranchised over something that they have no control over?

Another thing that the UHC could protest is the death sentences that are carried out against them by their mothers (and often other people responsible or otherwise connected to their existence), and often for the most arbitrary of reasons. For instance, they're not the gender that the parents want. Or they MIGHT have some sort of medical condition (diagnoses HAVE been wrong, even for those made of the born community). Or, their birth would complicate their mother's or father's life in some form or fashion. Or the mother might not be able to "handle" giving birth. In other words, all reasons that the member of the UHC had no control over, and yet is being made to pay the ultimate price for it. Their only crime? An inconvenient existence.
Boy, I'm starting to feel really outraged over the lack of response from the UHC. Injustices are being levied against them all around, and yet not a peep from them.

Now let's look at the issue of embryonic stem cell research and the lack of reaction from the UHC over this controversial issue. Here the very young members of the UHC are being sacrificed much like guinea pigs for the sake of scientific research. An embryo, the youngest of the UHC, is destroyed in the process of doing this form of stem cell research. The UHC should be in an uproar, because it's not just the rights of these very young members that are being violated, they're also being exploited and executed all for the sake of science! The UHC should be bringing up the fact that there are alternatives available to the usage of embryos in stem cell research, and none of them are fatal to them.

Adult stem cells, for instance. Also, the placentas that remain after one of the members of the UHC leaves their ranks. Both of these forms of stem cells actually work while the embryonic stem cells are yet to work at all, despite the promise that they'll be so adaptable that they can become any cell that is necessary. Thus, the UHC should be all over this like flies to honey so as to protect the members of their own community from the scientists' instruments.

But no, the UHC is still stone silent. How big an outrage is it going to take, one has to wonder, for the UHC to say something - anything - over the many violations that are being put against them? If these threats to their rights and to their very lives isn't enough to rouse them, then nothing will.

By now you've caught on to the point that I've been making: The UHC does not say anything because it can't. The UHC is years away from even forming basic sentences, much less grasping concepts such as rights and violations and outrages. The UHC, in other words, is wholly dependent upon the ranks of the already-born. Hopefully you've seen what an unenviable position that the unborn are in: Their existences - and their very lives - hinge on the whims of those whom they should be able to fully depend on.

If those they depend on fail to live up to their responsibilities, then it is the UHC that pays the price. During their 9-month existences, the UHC lives silently, and they can die silently, without a word or whimper of protest over events that they have absolutely no control over. If that realization doesn't break your heart, I don't know what will.

The UHC, then, is totally helpless and totally at the mercy of others who may or may not have their best interests at heart. Imagine belonging to any other group in which your humanity was defined so casually that it could be turned off and on like a light switch. Wouldn't this arbitrary definition of your humanity scare the hell out of you?

For the supporters of legalized abortion, the heart of their argument is the "right to choose" - that is, the mother must have the full right to choose whether she wants to carry her pregnancy to term or to end it. That's it. There are no exceptions to this, and the humanity of the unborn is irrelevant to the question; so irrelevant in fact that the unborn are usually defined as a "fetus" so as to dehumanize it in such a way that making this "choice" doesn't look so unpleasant.

For opponents of legalized abortion, the heart of their argument is the humanity of the unborn. They recognize that if they don't constantly remind others of the humanity of the unborn, then very few will. For them, the issue regarding abortion is not so much "choosing", but making the right choice.

A pregnant woman can indeed choose to have an abortion. Just like someone can choose to set a building on fire, or can choose to "cook the books" so as to embezzle from a company. Yes, people can choose to do these things. However, merely having the option to do something does not mean that they should do it. The issue of the humanity of the unborn can - and MUST - be discussed.

But the UHC is not in a position to discuss the issue. By the time they are able to discuss the issue, they will have been born for many years, which would makes their pleas to be born a moot point. No, only the rest of us can discuss the issue of legalized abortion for the unborn when they are still unborn. Many a brave soul fought for the humanity and the rights of slaves, of women, of immigrants, and many other groups that were greatly wronged, and their bravery is recognized and rewarded today. Now new brave souls must rise to the occasion today for the unborn, a group that won't be able to thank them for many years. They must be the voice for the ultimate group of the voiceless. History judges the civilizations of the past by how they treat the powerless among them. How will history judge us?

Easter

Easter has in common with Christmas in that there are a lot of secular stuff attached to it that is in no way related to the real reason for the holiday. In other words, the Easter Bunny and egg hunts have as much to do with Christ's resurrection like Santa Claus and reindeer do with Christ's birth.

And yet, when these holidays roll around, what's plastered on the ads for Easter and Christmas? Those secular images. I suppose that it's easier to use those secular symbols for their sales than using actual Christian symbols. As well, I'm not sure that I'd want the folks who come up with those ads (sometimes referred to as "Madison Avenue") to put their creativity into using the true Christmas and Easter images in their ads. Most likely, they'd come up with something that would come off as disrespectful at the least and outright blasphemous at the worst.

So it's probably for the best that those ads stick to secular symbols. We will have to rely on our churches instead to tell us "the reasons for the seasons" - which is how it should be anyway. So... what IS Easter about anyway? I'll touch a little bit on it with this blog entry - at least from a Catholic perspective.

Easter actually is the end of the season of Lent, which began on Ash Wednesday. During the period of Lent, Catholics are to reflect on their lives and how they live it, and it is customary to give up something as a way for us to better our lives, which is sometimes referred to as a sacrifice. For Americans, that generally means giving up something like chocolate or other sweets - which reflects a lack of understanding of the term "sacrifice". Giving up chocolate is not a sacrifice. It might feel like it to a group of people who are accustomed to living in overabundance, but in truth, it's not a sacrifice.

A sacrifice would be something like giving up smoking or alcohol, or giving up watching television. Hopefully with such a sacrifice, the Lenten observer would be inspired to give up smoking entirely, or he (or she) will develop the strength to curtail drinking or viewing habits. Anyway, this customary sacrifice is supposed to provide for us a taste of what it was like for Christ to spend the 40 days in the desert.

A priest that used to be at my parish had a term for our human weaknesses: "sin-affected humanity" - that is, sin taints our efforts to lead good and wholesome lives. Before I continue, something needs to be explained about the term "sin". In our society, sin is often viewed as synonymous with "breaking rules". But sinning isn't necessarily about "rule breaking"; rather it's about falling short of the good that we are capable of doing. For example, we could lead productive lives, which is a good, or we can lead lazy, slothful lives. Or, in the case of someone wronging us, we can either find the strength to forgive them, or we can plot our revenge against them.

Basically (and I'm really cutting a lot of corners here in order to keep this blog entry from running too long), sinning is about making wrong choices in our lives that lead us away from the potential for good that we could be living. Since we frequently make a lot of wrong choices, this accumulates in our psyches in such a way that, if we aren't making ourselves aware of when we're doing wrong, we can lose our ability to tell right from wrong. This is why Catholicism concentrates so much on sin and developing habits that help us to strengthen our souls against such temptations. Catholicism is also aware that we are indeed human, which is why Catholicism has confession.

Okay, with that, let's move on. Catholicism teaches that, with our sin-affected humanity, we aren't capable of reaching heaven, for nothing tainted with sin can enter heaven. We also can't earn our way there. No, the only way the path to heaven can be cleared is for someone without sin to offer himself up for our sake by taking our sins upon himself. Catholicism teaches that this person is Jesus Christ. We (that is, Catholics) believe that Jesus was born without sin, and that by dying for our sins, he made it possible for us to enter heaven.

In fact, Jesus' whole life was a series of lessons of how we should live our own lives. The teachings, parables, and examples that he provided were meant to be teaching tools for us. His life was lived for us, so that we may learn how to live lives that are pleasing in the eyes of God. The closer we get to living Christ-like lives, the more we understand not only what is pleasing to God, but also why it is pleasing to God. Most of us think of Jesus as a hippie-ish, "let's all get along" huggy-feely type, but he actually was viewed as a rabble rouser by the authorities at that time. They were so concerned about him that they had him executed. Can you see a hippie-ish "let's all get along" huggy-feely type today being willing to die for someone else - especially in so public a way, and especially for a people who largely would not appreciate their sacrifice?

And yet, dying for us is precisely what Jesus did. Even after all these centuries, it's still something that prophets and scholars meditate upon. But there's only so many ways that you can examine Jesus' death on a cross; to truly understand how much love it took for him to be willing to die for us, we have to try to see the world through his eyes. And here's the rub: we can't start seeing the world through his eyes until we try to live like him, and to live like him is to live in a way that is inconsistent (to say the least) with the thinking of the world today. Our day and age is largely selfish and self-serving. Such a mindset is far, far from understanding Jesus' act of loving sacrifice.

It is the mindset of such people that can see giving up chocolate as a genuine sacrifice for Lent. Let's face it: We in America live in a world of overabundance, so much so that even those of us who try to live loving spiritual lives are often swayed by that overabundance. There's simply so much to easily distract us. We are the proverbial bird living in a gilded cage; that is, we are so blinded by the glitter that we can't see that we are trapped by our wants.

Our overabundance can and most likely does block the view of the road to heaven for many of us. Thus, the loving example of that Nazarene of long ago is still needed and relevant to today. For those of us living in overabundance today, we'd have to let go of all of that in order to better understand why Jesus did what he did. And it would take much more than giving up chocolate.

So this Easter, go ahead and take the kids to the egg hunts. Eat those Peeps - and yes, have the chocolate. But try to set aside some time for the "reason for the season". Meditate upon Christ's death and resurrection, and see if there's some way that you can put yourself on the path toward seeing the world through Christ's eyes. Then you'd be putting yourself on the path to seeing that you're living in a gilded cage, which is the step before getting out of that gilded cage. And once out, you'll have a better understanding of the kind of love it took for Christ to sacrifice himself on that cross. And then you will finally learn the real meaning of Easter.

God bless.

Editorial Statement for April 2007: No War in Iran

In the weeks and months before Iran had taken the British sailors hostage, the Bush administration had seemed to show signs of wanting to take the war on terror to Iran. Right here and right now, I say "Don't do it!"

The main reason: We aren't finished in Iraq. Why start a new trouble spot when we aren't done with the old trouble spot?

Look at a map of Iraq and Iran (source):















See how much bigger Iran is than Iraq? Think of all the problems that we've had so far in Iraq. Now triple it. That's how much more of a problem that a stay in Iran would be than Iraq. If we're lucky, it would only be triple the trouble. I'm only making that guess based on the fact that Iran looks to be at least 3 times as big. Actually, imagine us trying to manage BOTH Iraq and Iran. You forsee a long, long stay, don't you? If we go into Iran, then my grandkids would probably still be serving there, and I don't even have kids yet.

So Mr. Bush, don't do it. There are other, better, and more effective ways of dealing with the terrorists than going into yet another Middle Eastern country when we haven't finished with the Middle Eastern country that we started in. The main problem with our war in Iraq is that we have largely put all of our anti-terrorist eggs in one basket when the terrorists are located in more areas of the world than just Iraq. What good would it do to expand the basket that we are putting our anti-terrorist eggs into when the terrorists are still located elsewhere?

One more Gore comment

I'll mention one more Gore comment, and then I'll leave it alone (unless Gore does something else).

Someone commented to me that, while Gore may be making "green purchases" to "offset his carbon footprints" made by his energy inefficient house, imagine how many more of his carbon footprints that he would be erasing if he still made those green purchases AND had the energy efficient home that George Bush has. As I said the other day, the example that he'd be setting would bring him an endless amount of praise from the non-biased media. So from Gore's standpoint, this is all win-win. The only sacrifice he'd be making is what he expects the rest of us to do.

However, if even the prophet of global warming can't be bothered to make his own home energy efficient, then why should the rest of us bother? The scandal here is not just that Gore is not setting a good example, but that the members of the media aren't making a bigger deal out of this. The hypocrisy is so thick that you can cut it with a knife - that's how bad it is.

Gore's house vs. Bush's house

One of my recent blog entries discussed Al Gore's house and how energy inefficient it was. Later on, someone sent me a Snopes article that discusses Gore's house as compared to President George Bush's house. In this Snopes article, we see that George Bush's house is made in the environmentally correct way that we expected Al Gore's house to be. So I ask: What gives?

I know that the media doesn't have a liberal slant, because they told us that they don't, and if it's in the newspaper, then it must be true. However, don't you think that if Bush had the house that Gore had, the media would be telling us CONSTANTLY on how much energy is being wasted? No doubt there'd be a running meter somewhere in the front page - or on their website - which kept track of "How much energy Bush's house wasted today".

This would especially be the case if Gore was the one that had the environmentally friendly house that Bush has. No doubt that, along with the running meter of how much Bush's house is wasting, there would be another meter next to it showing "How much energy Gore's house saved today". Don't you think that, if Gore had Bush's environmentally house, the media would practically be canonizing Gore for sainthood? "Environmental prophet practices what he preaches", "Gore shows the way", and other such headlines would be a regular in their headlines.

And I say all this folks, not as a conservative (my political viewpoints are explained in my profile), but as someone who is tired of the hypocritical double-standards that are often on dispaly in the non-biased mainstream media. Should the media level any criticism against Bush? You betcha! Especially over the way this war in Iraq is being conducted. I'm not the kind that thinks the sitting president should be held above criticism. Bush deserves the criticism he's getting, and he should have to answer for his actions, especially in those decisions that affect American citizens. And his feet should be held to the fire over the war's progress.

However, Al Gore has been in the news a lot lately - especially in regards to environmentalism. He's made a movie that won an Oscar. He's very outspoken and passionate about the environmental cause. And yet, he lives in an energy inefficient house. His counters of carbon-offsetting actions come across as weak, especially since he's the prophet of environmentalism. Since the non-biased media is largely on his side, it would only be to his benefit for him to have an energy efficient home - and not just excuses of "carbon offsetting".

Just off the top of my head, I can think of reasons why Gore should renovate his home to be energy efficient like Bush's. Let me rattle them off:

* He would no longer be preaching a message of "Don't do as I do, do as I say".
* He would be setting the example for other "Don't do as I do, do as I say" environmentalists.

* He would no longer be upstaged by a Ree-publican - especially a currently unpopular one.

* He would have the non-biased media bowing at his feet and giving him as much positive press as possible.

* And most importantly, he would be helping the very environment that he claims to care very much about.

You'd think that Gore, at least, would follow Bush's example- if for no other reason than to live up to what he expects the rest of us to live up to. But that's just plain logical, and we can't have that nowadays, can we?

Old Star Wars art

Recently when digging through old papers, I came across some Star Wars art that I had done back when Star Wars wasn't relabeled "A New Hope" and it was still the first Star Wars. Anyway, I did this art when I was a teen and before I had ANY art training - so it looks like the art of a teenager before he had any art training. It ain't pretty, in other words. I had to slightly "Photoshop" it in order to show the pencil strokes, because the passage of time had faded the art somewhat.

Anyway, here's one artwork of Princess Leia:

Can't figure out what that is from? Actually, it's from The Empire Strikes Back. Below is a pic of Leia in that costume that I'm supposed to be drawing:

So what do you think? I suppose, considering that it's done by someone with no art training, it's actually not bad. But he does need some art training to get better. And why am I referring to myself in the third person?

Later this week I'll post another Star Wars art. It's one of the few color art that I've ever done, and I'm surprised that I had the patience to hand color it, especially when I was a teenager.

I think I'll also dig out other old art and let you try to figure out what I was supposed to be drawing back then. By the way, I also had a full head of hair back then. Ah, where have the years gone?

Keep an eye on Opinion Dump

Keep an eye on upcoming entries to this blog: Opinion Dump

I'm a regular reader, because JB has a talent for explaining even complex stuff in a way that is simplified without being simplistic. And he adds a touch of humor as well. :-)

Now he's taking on one of my recommendations, and has a good start. Stay tuned to what follows!

Inclusiveness luncheons and dinners

Once in a while, I see ads and promos about "Inclusiveness Luncheons" and "Inclusiveness Dinners" and other such gatherings to promote inclusiveness and diversity and such.

I recently noticed that many of these inclusiveness affairs charge to attend their gatherings. That got me to thinking: What if the person couldn't afford to pay? Would they exclude that person from attending? That is, would this person be excluded from attending this inclusiveness gathering? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having an inclusiveness gathering?

What if the person was a vagrant? What if the person had horrible body odor? What if this person tended to scream obscenities out loud for no apparent reason? What if they were nude? What if they had radically conservative views, and weren't afraid to let everyone around them know about it? What if it was a KKK member fully attired? Theoretically, they'd have to let all these people in to be true to the concept of inclusiveness, wouldn't they?

I wonder if the planners of those inclusiveness events ever think about that; how they might actually be going against the ideal of inclusiveness by preventing (whether intentionally or not) some interested parties from attending? You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see one of these inclusiveness events have this in their promos:

"Come one, come all! No charge! No restrictions! No kidding!"

It would be interesting to see who shows up.

Carbon Offsets: Con job?

Three familiar phrases come to mind when it comes to global warming activist Al Gore. One is "Practice what you preach." The other is "If you can't walk the walk, then don't talk the talk." Last is: "By their fruits you shall know them."

This is in reference to the news report of Gore's Tennessee home being outrageously energy consumptive at a time when he's criticizing the rest of us for wasting energy. When offered the chance to live up to his ideals as an example for others, Gore refused at the time that this story ran. There's a word for such a person, and the first syllable rhymes with hippo and the second syllable rhymes with grit.

But this blog entry isn't so much about Gore as it is about the concept of "carbon offsets". Gore explained that his actions in the cause of global warming offset what he doesn't do to make his home energy efficient. However, doesn't it ever occur to him that his dire words of warning would ring much stronger if he also made his home energy efficient?

The credibility gap is the size of the Grand Canyon, because if global warming is genuinely the threat that Gore makes it out to be, then he'd be doing his best to live up to the very standards that he expects the rest of us to live. In other words, if he's not concerned enough about global warming to make his own home energy efficient, then why should the rest of us be concerned about global warming?

But then there's the concept of carbon offsets. Basically, if you're the type that is environmentally concerned but lack the ability to make the necessary changes to your lifestyle to help the environment (we would normally call this "being too lazy to do the work", but that would be calling it what it is, and we just can't have that), then your tortured conscience can find solace in carbon offsets. Basically, if you do things like fund programs to plant trees, recycle used oil or other such environmentally friendly actions, then you "erase your carbon footprints."

Doesn't that sound lovely? Boy, I feel good just thinking about that. I wonder if hugging a tree counts as carbon offsetting? Hugging makes the tree feel better about itself, right? And happy, friendly trees no doubt make for a better environment for us all. But I'm digressing here...

Anyway, carbon offsets are basically a metaphorical broom for the metaphorical footprints that you leave behind with your environmentally hazardous behavior (shame on you!). In theory, they sound like a great idea, but in practice, the abuse of it is way too easy. A given major polluter could "offset" his pollution by environmental donations while he kept on polluting unabated. So I ask, what's the incentive for the polluter to change his ways?

This sounds more like a scheme for environmental groups to obtain funding for their cause while allowing polluters to give the appearance that they're doing something about their polluting when they are not. The phrase "selling out" comes to mind for some reason. So does the word "enabling". So who benefits from this little arrangement? The environmental groups get their money, and the polluters get a shiny star to wear while they keep polluting. In the meantime, the environment suffers.

So if Al Gore and other environmental groups want the rest of us to get on board with environmentalism, perhaps they need to get on board first.

Ads in my blog

Some of the more observant of you may notice that there's some ads in my blog. Bascially, I'm checking to see how much it actually brings in to me. If the monthly "take" is anything substantial, then I might make it a permanent thing, for your favorite blogger is not financially independent by any means. However, if having ads is more trouble than it's worth, then I'll just go back to having an ad-free blog.

Also, I don't have direct say-so on what shows in the ads, so you might see stuff there that might suprise you. I've already e-mailed the org in charge of the ads about not having ads that endorse a candidate for office or support some social or political cause. Basically, I don't want anything that might give you good folks any sort of impression that I support this cause or that candidate because their ad happens to appear in my blog.

I told the powers-that-be (PTB) that I want all the opinionating and endorsing to come SOLEY from yours truly, and NOT from the ads on my blog. Right now, there are ads in support of Barack Obama even though just yesterday I said that I would not vote for him. Let me say again: I DO NOT support Obama, nor do I support his views. If the PTB can't comply with my request to block ads that endorse a candidate or a cause, then I'll just drop having ads on my blog - so determined am I to not give you good folks the wrong impression about me.

If you have questions about any ads that appear in my blog, please don't hesistate to ask. Like I said, if this becomes more trouble than it's worth, then I'll just drop it. I'll end this entry with this disclaimer:

Views expressed in the ads of this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the author

Is Barack Obama black enough?

Of all the inane arguments to be bringing up in this day and age - especially since we have allegedly moved on from our racist past - is the issue of whether Democratic candidate for president Barack Obama is "black enough" to represent the interests of the black community. This question is asked because Obama is what is referred to as "mixed heritage"; that is, he has one black parent and one white parent.

I'll say this: If Obama had lived in the ante-bellum South, he would have been TOO black. I'll also ask this: What exactly was Dr. Martin Luther King talking about when he said the following in his famous I Have a Dream speech?

" I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. "

The line above embodies the very gist of Dr. King's hope of our nation one day rising above skin color, which was necessary to bring up at that time because of all that blacks had endured in this country. So in light of this, why is Obama's skin color still something that he has to explain, much less defend?

Part of the reason is that his critics don't feel that he experienced the "African-American" experience of growing up black in the U.S. This is what I say: His father is African. His mother is American. Thus, Obama is "African-American" in a way that even his critics aren't. But such labels goes against what Dr. King had wanted. I can't see Dr. King bringing up such criticisms - that's not what he was about.

Another way to highlight the short-sightedness of asking if Obama is black enough is to see it this way. What if Obama was a Republican, and the GOP was asking if Obama is white enough to run for office? After all, whites are the majority in this country; so would white America be willing to elect a candidate who was only half white? Can you imagine the uproar that asking such a question would raise? So if it's wrong in that instance, what makes it right in the opposite instance?

My last point on this issue is to state this: I won't be voting for Barack Obama. It's not because he's not black enough, or too black, or not white enough, or too white. Rather, I won't be voting for him because I don't agree with the stands that he's made so far. And I would disagree with them regardless of whether he's "mixed heritage", or fully black or fully white or whatever labels one wants to stick on him. I wouldn't vote for him even if he was Hispanic.

In other words, his skin color has nothing to do with it. And in truth, the skin color of the candidate shouldn't mean a thing for ANY candidate. It's not what's on the outside that makes a man or woman a good president, it's what's on the inside - the content of his or her character, in other words.

That's what Dr. King had spoken about, and that's what we should be applying today to all candidates for office. So be a part of Dr. King's dream and vote the way he would have wanted you to vote: by the content of their character.

Weekend Wrap-up: YouTube Weekend

Yep, it's time for the second installment of the Weekend Wrap-up YouTube Weekend! Basically, they're links to YouTube that were sent to me by e-mail, and for which I saved until I had enough links to make another YouTube Weekend. Enjoy!

This first one is of a squirrel that had a little too much to drink. The only thing he didn't do was puke his guts out.

This second one comes from Japan, and it's of the world's longest slam dunk. Ah, if only he could do that without the trampoline - then the NBA would be all over him like creepy on Michael Jackson.

This one brought back memories. It's of MacIntosh's introduction back in 1984. I hadn't seen that commerical in years. It's funny that, back then, we were worried that we would end up like the USSR. Little did we know that the USSR was in its death throes, and needed only a little nudge to make it collapse.

Here are two videoclips of a dude with a talent for bouncing coing into a glass. First one is Get a Girlfriend, the second one is Got a Girlfriend. While his ability to bounce coins into a glass obviously took some practice and is impressive, I still think his next video clip should be Get a Life.

No doubt you've seen those touch-free towel dispensers in the public bathrooms. There's also touch-free faucets as well as touch-free flushing. I thought that the last thing left was touch-free soap dispensing (which someone claims to have seen), but I was wrong. No doubt coming soon to a bathroom near you is touch-free toilet paper dispensing.

And last, some stop-motion animation of the familiar Star Trek characters. This one's called Spock's Crib. Spock talkin' like a homey had me rolling.

And that's it for now! At least until I get enough other links to YouTube.

Have a great week, folks!

Sean Hannity loses it

I've listened to Sean Hannity before in regards to his views on birth control and the Catholic Church, but after seeing this particular segment in which he discusses it with a priest, I've lost all respect for the man.

Hannity is so wrong in so many ways, and he doesn't even see it. First, what he believes about what the Catholic Church teaches is not what the Catholic Church teaches. He uses arguments that he SHOULD know the answer to, and for him to even bring it up suggests that he's either amazingly ignorant for a man who claims to be informed and knowledgeable, or that he is simply covering up for what he knows is wrong. Either way, it's not a respectable thing for him to do.

I think that Hannity shouldn't even bring up his Catholicism anymore, because based on what I've heard so far, he isn't Catholic anyway. There's plenty of Protestant churches that are more in line with his current views. The priest called Sean a hypocrite, and I agree.

Michael Jackson: Muslim?

In a news story qualified for the "Truth is stranger than Friction" department comes this article that Michael Jackson may convert to Islam.

I thought it was a joke or an "Onion" article, but it turns out to be for real. It seems rather odd for a celebrity like Michael Jackson to be interested in Islam. Most of the time, celebrities become Buddhist or Kabbalah as a way to say that they're "spiritual" without being Christian.

Am I suggesting that such celebrities join these other faiths or belief systems partially as a protest against Christianity? Yes, I am. I say that because if it was truly spirituality that they were interested in, then they would consider Christianity as well. Some celebrities do convert to Christianity, and this is also not to suggest that those who chose Buddhism or Kabbalah didn't also look at Christianity, but that - as a career move - choosing Christianity isn't good for someone like Michael Jackson or Madonna (a Kabbalah follower). Their left-wing secular friends and business people would frown on a conversion to Christianity.

This is also not to suggest that Christianity is the way to go. I believe it is, just so you know (for the record for those of you who don't already know, I'm Catholic), but I also know that the best converts are those that come into it willingly, rather than those who came into it against their will. For well-known celebrities, however, having it known that you are of a particular Christian faith is pretty much a death knell for your career. Even for someone like Mel Gibson, who has enough power and influence to continue his career in the movie business, he is going to encounter resistance from others in the business so long as he stays in the business. The outspoken resistance to his 2004 Passion of the Christ is an example of the kind of resistance that can mobilize in a heartbeat against members who take up Christianity.

People like Michael Jackson and Madonna made their careers being counter-cultural, and part of being counter-cultural is being anti-Christian. Thing is, anti-Christian rhetoric got old a long time ago, so it's past stale today. And yet, it continues. Granted, there are also anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim rhetoric out there among the secular elite left, but there's a limit on how much even they can get away with statements that go against these other faiths. Being anti-Christian for them is still "the way to go".

But I have to ask: Why? I especially ask this because the secular elite left is supposed to be about open-mindedness, tolerance, and diversity. They're supposed to be enlightened and in full support of allowing one to live "according to the dictates of their conscience." However, their anti-Christianness makes them look as bad as any Christian fundamentalist. Granted, Christian fundamentalists also make it a habit to bash Catholicism, but fundies don't make claims of being enlightened and open-minded, so at least their actions are consistent with their words.

And that's the whole crux for me on this: consistency. Claims to open-mindedness and shows of the worst kinds of anti-Christian venom in the same group of people fly in the face of logic. This is especially in light of the fact that not all Christians are of the fundamentalist stripe. In fact, very few Christians are of that extreme point of view. There are even some Christians that are virtually as "enlightened and open-minded" as the secular elite left. But in their hatred of all things Christian, the lefties tar all with the same brush. And with such actions, they lose potential allies. Such is their loss.

By the way, the term, "secular elite left" suggests that there's a "religious elite right". Indeed there is. However, they make no claims to open-mindedness and tolerance, so while they can be as unpleasant and unforgiving as their ideological and spiritual opposites, at least they are consistent with their views. For the secular elite left, the way they need to show consistency is to be tolerant of even the intolerant. Being intolerant of intolerance goes against being tolerant, and their credibility goes downhill from there. Maybe if enough of them read my blog, they'll see the errors of their ways. I'll be praying for them.

Oops! I hope I haven't offended them by saying that!

Dallas Mavericks' win streak ends at 17

Well, we knew that it had to end eventually. I mean, yeah, I hoped that the Mavs could just keep on winning, but as of last night the win streak is over.

I WILL say this, however. If this streak had to end, I'm glad it was against the Golden State Warriors and former Mavs coach Don Nelson. If it had been the previous night with the LA Lakers - and especially if Kobe Bryant had a good night - then the media would be gushy with praise. When Kobe scored 60 points against the Mavs a year or so ago, the media went all ga-ga over it, and it was a topic for days.

It's really embarrassing to watch grown men get all giddy like little schoolgirls over an athlete, but when it comes to certain athletes, that's how they act. One example that comes to mind is the former San Franciso 49ers QB, Steve Young. Man, week in and week out, it was a lovefest with the sports shows over that guy. I wouldn't doubt if they had a framed picture of Young in their bedrooms, it was so bad. In the meantime, Troy Aikman and the Dallas Cowboys were winning Super Bowls. Young was a great athlete, but I was glad when he retired.

And I thank the basketball gods that it wasn't the Lakers who ended the Mavs' streak. Otherwise, we would have heard about it for the rest of the week!

Now the Mavs have the pressure of keeping the streak going off of their shoulders, and they can concentrate on playing basketball again. This could end up being a good thing.

Weekend Wrap-up 3-11-2007

These Weekend Wrap-ups seem to be coming on a bi-weekly basis now, huh? Oh well.

Spring forward
Did you remember to spring forward last night? If not, you'll have to wait an hour before you can read this entry. But I bet that if you go right now and set your clock, an hour will go by just like that. Try it. If you don't remember last night, then I might be able to excuse you this one time. Just don't do it again.

A solution to the Bush/Chavez situation
It's no secret that Venzuelan leader Hugo Chavez does not like George Bush. No doubt the feeling is mutual. However, I bet you are like me in that you're tired of hearing about how they don't like each other. I bet you are like me in that you wish they would just settle this already. Either find a way to get along, or have at it and then shut up. Well, I have a solution, and it's based on this news report about Donald Trump. On April 1's WWE Wrestlemania, "The Donald" and WWE owner Vince McMahon are having a "hair match" in which the loser loses his hair. (Honestly, I hope Trump loses, because he's had that ridiculous haircut for years).

I think that Bush and Chavez should also have a hair match at that same wrestling event. Can't you see those two going at it, not just as Bush and Chavez, but also as symbols of conservatism and liberalism? "The right wing nut job vs. the left wing looney". But they have to take it serious. No sissy slapfests, I want to see body slams, pile drivers and the works. THEN they both have to shut up about their feud, or they'll have to wrestle again. And again. And again, until they shut up about thier mutual dislike. And each time, the stakes will be raised. Maybe for the second match, it will be the wives' hair that will be put to the razor. I betcha that the ladies will get their husbands to shut up! Write your congressman today!

Celebrity imprimatur
The concept of imprimatur comes usually from Catholicism, but in recent years in news reports, issues aren't settled until a celebrity has spoken up on it. After that, it's beyond discussion - although the more stubborn among us persist for some reason. I got to thinking about this when someone had asked me about the Dixie Chicks winning all the Grammys that they had been nominated for. Basically, they wanted to know whether I felt that the Grammy sweep meant that the Chicks were vindicated after their negative experiences from criticizing Bush some years ago. My response was to ask how it qualified as vindication. The Grammy judges voting for the Chicks was like the National Rifle Association voting for an award for Charlton Heston. In other words, how in the world is this unexpected?

It's hardly a secret that the left wing hates Bush, and a great deal of left-wingers work in the entertainment industry. So how is it a surprise that a group that made news criticizing Bush end up sweeping awards from another group also known to harbor hatred for Bush? Honestly, it was a surprising as Al Gore getting an Oscar for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. Ah, and there's another one. Somehow, Gore winning an Oscar means that his statements about global warming are true. Again, it's a group of similarly-minded people drooling over one of their own.

And of course is James Cameron (whom I discussed in a previous blog entry), who somehow is qualified as an authority on the bones of Jesus (AND his wife. AND their son) because he is the director of Titanic. Whenever any celebrity is given any credibility over their statements by virtue of their status as celebrities, it makes the media industry look stupid. I mean, c'mon! James Cameron, for cryin' out loud! Of course, it also helps if that celebrity just happens to be of a left-wing slant - and then by golly, their word is golden, and they can walk on water!

It's no wonder that the mainstream media is losing readers and viewers to the Internet.

Gum spelled backwards
I just noticed that gum spelled backwards is mug. That's not quite a palindrome, which is a word that is the same spelled backwards or forwards, like radar. See? Flip radar over and it's still radar. Gum and mug spell words backwards or forwards - just different words. I guess that makes it a pseudodrome.

Yeah, I just made that up.

And no, I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Spring Break
Yes, it's that time. I hope you're having fun. (why do I suddenly feel the urge to follow that with "Baaand on the run"?)

Have a great week, folks!

Editorial Statment for March 2007: Be Yourself

Last year when the Fort Worth ISD had announced that it was going with uniforms in all its schools, the expected outcry came from the students about the uniform policy “stifling their individuality and creativity” and other such blather. I say “blather” because these teens were all expressing their individuality in exactly the same way: They’d all wear tattoos, body piercings, pants that were several sizes too big so that half their underwear showed and a tennis visor that they’d wear upside down and either to the side or backwards. Had they really given it any thought, they’d see that they were dressing pretty uniformly already.

To be fair, teenagers have always expressed their creativity through dressing exactly like their peers, so their outcry was hardly unexpected. But the pressure to conform is very strong, even when one moves from adolescence and into adulthood. After graduation, we all have to go to the right college, get the right job, find the right person to marry, get the right house, the right car, the latest tech, and so forth and so on. While the call to be yourself is still out there, it takes a strong person to do just that.

Most of us outgrow the need to “express individuality by dressing like everyone else”. However, one of the outgrowths of our increasingly politically ideological society is that the pressure to conform is probably stronger than even the legendary 1950's era of conformity, which is a tad ironic given that it was followed by the 1960's era of "fight the establishment". It's even more ironic in that these 1960's non-conformists then became the establishment, and are currently trying to institutionalize their form of rebellion, ignoring the fact that institutionalizing and rebelling are opposite concepts. Their ignorance - or apathy - of this dichotomy means that the onus is on us to be the ones who rebel against the ones who once were the rebels.

This is where "be yourself" comes in. We also arrive at one of the reasons that I started this blog. I hope to be setting an example for others to follow that it's not only okay to rebel when "our betters" are wrong, it's actually expected (and many times, required) that we rebel. It's easy to rebel when we have nothing to lose - it's much harder when we have a good paying job, a family and kids, house, car, etc. that we could stand to lose if we rebel. I can't provide a matrix to say when to rebel and when not to rebel - that has to come from you. However, what I CAN do is to explain how I got to be where I am today in regards to holding the views that I hold, and perhaps from that you can find the strength to also be yourself.

My main objective for this blog is to at least make you think whether there is a better way of doing things. Almost always, there is, but we lack the courage to do the right thing. Early on when I got into this opinionating thing, I was made to feel that I either had to be a liberal or a conservative, and whichever side I chose, I had to also agree to the usual slate of views that goes along with that side. My response was: Why? Why do I have to choose just one side? A third alternative was to take the middle ground between them, often referred to as "moderate". On the surface, finding a middle ground betweend the two sides sounds like a reasonable compromise, but below the surface it becomes obvious that "moderate" is basically another way of saying "indecisive".

The fourth alternative is the one I ended up choosing, and that's to basically ignore the labels usually attached to the various stands on issues and to take those stands, regardless of where on the ideological divide they happen to fall on. That's how I can be both anti-death penalty (a "liberal" view) and anti-legalized abortion (a "conservative" view). The term I chose for my way of thinking is "independent". I was hesitant to say "independent" because that's often considered another way of saying "liberal" - a lot like when a liberal will instead call himself "progressive" rather than liberal (which fools no one but the liberal). However, "independent" comes closest to describing my way of thinking, because it's independent of the liberal, conservative, OR the moderate point of view.

So that's my challenge to you folks: Be independent as described above by being yourself. After all, it takes no courage to think like everyone else. Teenagers do as much, so what credit is there for you if you still do the same thing as an adult that you used to do as a teenager?

Dumb sports ideas

Here's a couple of dumb ideas involving school athletics that I just gotta comment on.

First is the proposed booing ban in Washington state. Yeah, you read that right. They want to ban booing at high school games. Their explanation is that they want to cut down on boorish behavior, but we all know that Washington is one of those so-called "blue states" and that they frown on such things as competitiveness because there will be winners, which means that there will be losers, who will be hurt and traumatized for life and will have to spend thousands of dollars for therapy for the rest of their life and so forth and so on and blahblahblah. Well, of course we just can't have that.

What a dumb idea. What a stupid idea, actually. Booing is part of the game. If you're the home team, booing can motivate you to do better. After all, the best way to make the boobirds shut up is to turn things around. Even a good effort will often be enough to stop the booing. If you're the visiting team, then booing will motivate you to win as well, if for no other reason than to stick it to the home fans. For the visiting team, when you make the home team go silent, then it's a beautiful thing. You don't want the crowd to be silent because they've been banned from booing. Booing sends a message, and whether you're the home team or the visitors, you take that message and respond to it. I hope this idea is fought stubbornly and ferociously. In a real sense, this is a form of restriction of free speech. So I say to these bozos: BOOOO!!!!

Next up is another idea thunked up by those who have no idea what they are doing. In this instance, I refer to the NCAA's Committee on Women's Athletics, which is proposing to ban the practice of women's basketball teams practicing with men (usually not the men's team, but a group of volunteers), because they feel that the usage of such men sends the message to the female bench players that they aren't good enough to practice with the starters. The coaches of these teams aren't complaining about this practice, nor are the players involved. The only ones seeing discrimination is this committee. No one asked them to step in - nope, just like in Washington state, a group of "our betters" simply decided that they need to tell us what to do.

The women basketball players benefit from practicing with men, because men give them a different challenge than does practicing with other women. Plus, who says that the starters aren't ALSO practicing with the bench, AND that the bench isn't likewise practicing with men? No one is being robbed of anything - rather, this is to the benefit of all. While trying not to sound sexist, women's basketball is boring when compared to men's b-ball. Men's b-ball is fast and furious and exciting to watch, with the bullet passes and dazzling dunks and all. By comparison, even the women's pro leagues look like high school basketball by comparison.

You ask me, women's basketball needs all the help it can get. So rather than banning the use of male volunteers, the NCAA should be ruling the useage of men practicing with women in ALL colleges and universities. If the NCAA (and whoever else came up with this clueless ban idea) really wants to help women's athletics, maybe they should ask the women themselves what they want instead of deciding for them. What this NCAA ban idea - along with the Washington state idea - actually represents is a form of social engineering by people who think they know what's better for us. I say we tell them to take their bans and shove it! Keep your social experiments out of our arenas!

Steven Wright one-liners

From an e-mail:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're not familiar with the work of Steven Wright, he's the
famously erudite scientist and comic who once said:

"I woke up one morning and all of my stuff had been stolen and
replaced by exact duplicates."

His mind sees things differently than most of us, to our
amazement and amusement.

Here are some of his gems:

1 - I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.

2 - Borrow money from pessimists -- they don't expect it back.

3 - Half the people you know are below average.

4 - 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

5 - 82.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

6 - A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel
so good.

7 - A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.

8 - If you want the rainbow, you got to put up with the rain.

9 - All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand.

10 - The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse
gets the cheese.

11 - I almost had a psychic girlfriend.....but she left me
before we met.

12 - OK, so what's the speed of dark?

13 - How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?

14 - If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously
overlooked something.

15 - Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.

16 - When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong
lane.

17 - Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to
be lazy.

18 - Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.

19 - I intend to live forever......so far, so good.

20 - If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her
friends?

21 - Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet
engines.

22 - What happens if you get scared half to death twice?

23 - My mechanic told me, "I couldn't repair your brakes, so I
made your horn louder."

24 - Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

25 - If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that
you tried.

26 - A conclusion is the place where you got tired of
thinking.

27 - The hardness of the butter is proportional to the
softness of the bread.

28 - To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal
from many is research.

29 - The problem with the gene pool is that there is no
lifeguard.

30 - The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to
catch up.

31 - The colder the x-ray table, the more of your body is
required to be on it.

32 - Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have
film.

33 - If your car could travel at the speed of light, would
your headlights work?

I think that I shall never see...

I made an artwork with that virtual dry erase board.

See what you think of this: TREE

I like the way it draws itself. :-)

If you also make any artworks, send them my way and I'll post them. If I get enough of you sending artworks, maybe I'll have an online artshow, along with artsy-fartsy sounding critiques.
If you have any questions about how that program works, let me know and I can tell you what I've figured out so far.

New look for blog

I checked over the new templates for this blog, and the one you're seeing now is what I came up with. Let me know what you think. If most of you prefer the old look, then I'll switch back to it. It's been a whole year since I started blogging, so I thought that I'd try a new look. Maybe I'll make this a yearly event. :-D

Anyway, I'll try to post something later, because there's stuff I wanna talk about with you good folks. Stay tuned!

Virtual dry erase board

Check this out. It's a virtual dry erase board, with a few added touches. (Note: I had to open it in Internet Explorer).

It's pretty cool. I'll see if I can make something with it, then post it here. If you make something with it, then send it to me, and I'll post it.

James Cameron finds Jesus

There are two kinds of "finding Jesus". The first type is basically a way of saying that this person has become a Christian. Another way of saying that is to say that they've "found religion".

Then there's the other kind of "finding Jesus", and James Cameron, whose archaeological qualifications include directing the hit movie Titanic, claims to have "found Jesus" in this second way: He claims to have found the actual bones of Jesus Christ. And his wife Mary Magdalene. And their son Judah. Such a bold claim for someone who isn't an archaeologist, and for which scholars have said that "Jesus", "Judah", and "Mary" were common Jewish names at the time. But he directed Titanic, so we have to at least hear him out.

Jesus is "found" in this way from time to time, and often the results tell us more about the seekers and their intentions than it does the Nazarene from 2,000 years ago. By "finding" Jesus' bones, the seekers hope to undermine Christianity by proving that Jesus really didn't rise from the dead. The problem is always in their "proof". That is, how do they prove that it's actually the Jesus from Scripture? It's not like they found his driver's license in the coffin with the name, "Christ, Jesus" on it with the DOB being "12/25/0". And back then, the Romans didn't keep DNA records of the citizens of Israel.

Simple logic should tell you that there's absolutely no way for anyone who claims to have found Jesus' bones to prove it. Cameron is relying on statistical probability as his proof. But statistics aren't the same as proof. Statistical probabilities, in other words, are no substitute for hard DNA evidence. Statistically speaking, actually, it's more likely that the coffin that Cameron has found is NOT the bones of Jesus of Nazareth. It may be A Jesus of Nazareth, but not THE Jesus. Claims of finding Jesus' bones is so silly and pathetic a strategy for Christian-bashers that I'm surprised that media outlets still give it air time.

All the articles I've read so far have more comments doubting Cameron's claim than supporting it. So why keep doing it? It's the only way that these folks know how to do. But if this has been tried before and failed, what makes them think that it's going to work this time? That, I have no answer for, other than that these folks are just that desperate.

And besides, I don't need the bones of Jesus - or even something like the Shroud of Turin - to define for me what I'll believe about Jesus. I do believe that he rose from the dead, which means that his bones are not there to be found, so in my mind, searching for Jesus' bones is a fool's quest. The quote attributed to St Thomas Aquinas is a fitting way to end this particular blog entry:

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary; to one withouth faith, no explanation is possible.

Lite Brite 2K7

Remember Lite Brite when you were a kid? Well, some yahoo has made an online version of it. Knock yourself out.

And after that, you can check the Lite Brite article on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia for the rest of us.

Weekend Wrap-up 2-24-2007

Has it already been two weeks since I last did one of these? That's too long, buckaroo!

The Oscars
In recent years, I haven't cared one whit about the Oscars. So far, that hasn't changed. And despite this headline, I doubt the ratings will increase by THAT much - if at all. They're SO long and SO boring that it's hard to watch it until the very end. And rarely is it a surprise who wins in the various categories. I'll just read the paper on Monday morning to see who won. YAWNNNN... Wake me up when it's over.

Heroes
Now THERE'S a show worth watching! I hope you folks have been keeping up. Coming Monday, Mr. Bennett is facing all those super-powered folks and what he knows of what was done to them to make them that way! At the end of each episode, I'm left waiting for next week's episode! Someone at work had called it a "soap opera for nerds."

Okay, I'm a nerd. ;-)

The Teaching Company
I recently got a catalog from The Teaching Company that has pages and pages of college level courses on numerous topics. For a Master of Liberal Arts graduate like me, it's like Nerd Nirvana. Check out their website and see what kinds of topics they cover. I bet you'll find something that you'll like. As you might have guessed, I found several. If I had a ridiculous amount of money like many of the nominees in tomorrow's Oscars, I'd probably buy nearly all of the topics they have listed. I wanted to list one that I'd like to buy right now, but just looking over their list, there's too many for me to mention just one!

But one that I might get first is the one titled "Science and Religion", since that's so frequently an issue that comes up on the news. There's easily several more that I want to get as well. By the way, if anyone wants to know what to get me for my birthday in April - drop me a line and I'll send you my list from that site. ;-)

Critters and creatures in the news
This was the week for critters in the news. First was a gigantic squid worthy of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. You can almost imagine that squid grabbing the Nautilus, couldn't ya? Next is something a little smaller, but you have to wonder just how slow a news day it is in New York City when a beaver makes the news. Granted, it's been 200 years since the last beaver was in town, but with all the traffic in NYC in recent days, can you blame the little tree gnawers for being a little late?

Next is something even smaller, but definitely gross-out - maybe more than the giant squid. Rats were running wild in a Taco Bell/KFC restaurant in NYC. Be sure to click on the video clip to see the images that were captured - and prepare to be creeped out! This must be NYC's week for critters to be in the news or something. Meanwhile, in nearby New Joisey, the city of Clifton is going to set a time limit on how long dogs can bark. How do you make a dog shut up anyway? All I can think of is to knock it out in some form or fashion, but that would get PETA on your behind faster than a rat at KFC.

Last bit of critter news is actually a "dumb burglar" story, but a dog's involved, so it qualifies as critter news. Apparently, a burglar in Canada tried to break into what turned out to be a facility to train police dogs, but when he tried to split, he ran into a snow bank (how many of those does Canada have anyway?), and a police dog caught up to him, slapped the cuffs on him, and read him his right. Yep, that's one smart police dog. Just don't tell him any "donut shop" jokes. He hates those.

Sports
Okay, football's over, and baseball hasn't started up. For guys, this time of the year is known as the "2 months of hell". Fortunately, there's basketball going on, which helps things - especially when the college basketball season rolls around. The "Road to the Final Four" March Madness format for college basketball is exactly what college football should adopt. In this format, any given team can go all the way. That, my friends, is the classic American sports story, and the football Bowl Championship Series is robbing us of that classic American tale. Whoever came up with the BCS system should be made to eat at a KFC restaurant in NYC.

Yeah, yeah, technically there's hockey, racing, tennis, and - erk - golf also going on, but we all know that the U.S. is built around football, baseball, and basketball. If it weren't for basketball going on right now, I'd be going nuts - or I'd be writing to my blog a whole lot more.

That's it for now, folks. Have a great week!

"Governor Goodhair" Gets Jiggy with Gardasil

In recent weeks in Texas, the GOP governor Rick Perry (AKA "Governor Goodhair" so dubbed by the recently deceased Molly Ivins) got into hot water from mostly his conservative constituent base over his sudden, surprising mandate that all 11 to 12 year old girls get the vaccine for cervical cancer as a requirement for school attendance. The thing is, this vaccine only got approved mere months ago, and it also turns out that the manufacturer - Merck - of the vaccine - named Gardasil - was running a behind-the-scenes campaign to get the usage of the vaccine mandated in various state legislatures. Since there's been such a public outcry against this mandate, Merck has withdrawn its lobbying campaign.

First, it probably shouldn't be a surprise that a pharmaceuticals company runs a behind-the-scenes campaign to get a given state to run its products. Also, I don't necessarily dismiss the idea that these young girls should get vaccinated (but don't you go around saying that I accept the idea, either!). However, to MANDATE it, and to mandate it so soon after it got approved, and to discover that the company that just happens to make said vaccine was instrumental in getting a politician to mandate it is just a bit too much for your average Texas parent to take. The operative word here regarding Gov. Perry is "sellout".

I suppose that it shouldn't be a surprise that a politician has sold out on his constituency. In fact, the bigger surprise probably is when a politician DOESN'T sell out on his or her constituency. It's just that - well, Perry was so obvious about it. Yeah, yeah, he gave the ol' "I was thinking of the children" speech, but we all know that he pulled the standard M.O. for sellout politicians (is that a redundancy?) by implementing as public policy the profitary desires of a company that slipped him a campaign donation.

He also knew that some of his usual critics (liberals, in case you hadn't already figured it out) would be on board with the idea, since they're into socialized medicine and handing over your health concerns to Big Brother and all that. But to risk alienating the base that had stuck by him all these years . . . ! As the previously mentioned Molly Ivins once said, "You gotta dance with the one that brung ya!" So Perry's move comes across as almost foolishly greedy. I say "almost" because he's not up for election for another 4 years, and we don't know yet whether this will hurt his re-election chances. Time will tell. In any case, Perry has his money, and I hope both he and his money are very happy together.

Just so you know, I didn't vote for him. Now you see why!

That's Amore! Pt 1 of 2

I had initially hoped to post this on Valentine's Day, but I had some stuff to take care of last week, plus I ended up saying more than I thought on this topic. Thus, I'm posting the first half today, and the second half possibly later this week.

---------------------------------------------------

The power of love is a curious thing. It makes one man weep, and another man sing.

Sorry. For some reason, I started singing that old Huey Lewis song.

Anyway, love is indeed a curious thing. And it's also hard to pin down a definition! Love means, basically, caring for another. But there's different forms of caring. I care for my family and friends. I care more for family than for friends, obviously, but even within family, I care more for some family members than for others. Parents and siblings, in other words, should come before aunts, uncles, and cousins. Then there's the caring for another in the special way that can lead to romance, and then possibly to marriage.

Romantic love is probably the ultimate puzzle of our human existence on this mortal sphere (sounds rather deep and poetic, eh?). There's infatuation, which is basically a type of uncritical and unreasoning form of idolizing, and then there's the true and mature love. When one is infatuated, then the idolizer can't see any faults in the object of their adoration. That can get problematic (to say the least!) in that we all have faults, and some more glaring than others, but while we are "in love", we are blind to those faults - and often to our dismay later.

I've been in that state before. "Goofy in love", I mean. But it wasn't love, it was infatuation. I know this, because if it had been true love, then I would have married that woman, and I would still be with her to this day. And maybe I would have already had a child or two by now. I might also be in debt up to my eyeballs as the wife buys yet another pair of shoes from the most expensive shoe store in town while son Johnny is charging up a storm getting the latest electronic gizmo that will gather dust by the end of the month while daughter Suzie is dating some weirdo named “Skrattch” who’s wearing so much metal with his body piercings that he can’t go through airport gates without tripping all of them off at the same time.

Ahem. Sorry. Got off on a tangent there. Anyway, those infatuations proved to be just that – immature infatuations – and not true love. In other words, it wasn't meant to be; and perhaps it was for the best. It's entirely possible that "Miss Right" has already come into my life and gone.

Possible…

....but I don't think so.

Why do I doubt it? Because I think I would have known by now that “Miss Right” had come and gone out of my life. In other words, right now I'd be ruing having let her go. But I have no such regrets over any woman of my past. Actually, now I can see that those I had been infatuated with in the past would have been wrong for me for one reason or another. While I do regret not having gotten to know more women in the past, there is still not anyone from the past that I now regard as “Miss Right”.

So what does that mean? That means two things: 1.) "Miss Right" is still in my future, or 2.) I was not meant to get married. Thing is, not being married for the rest of my life no longer scares me. I've come to accept the possibility. It's not something that I necessarily desire, but at the same time, I'd rather be single for the rest of my life than to be miserable from being married to the wrong person. People marry the wrong person because of different reasons. Among those reasons (and this list does not pretend to be complete) is a lack of patience, a lack of maturity, being "goofy in love", or being afraid of NOT being married. None of those reasons will ever lead to a happy marriage.

This, I know, because I have seen many, many examples of how to marry the wrong way. Ain’t that sad? I can’t count the numbers of marriages and divorces just among the people I know or have known. And the lesson from those failed marriages is that there is such a thing as marrying the wrong way. There’s many examples of marrying the wrong way, actually. Fortunately, there are some people I know that are still in their first marriage. For those folks, it looks like it’s going to stay that way, too. They’re examples of mature love, and it’s such people that gives me hope that I, too, may one day know the truest and best form of caring for another.

I shall be continuing this topic later.

Coming soon: Part 2

Foenettic blog entrée

Hi, folks. Sorry that it’s been a week since my last blog entry, but I had some adult responsibilities to deal with. I had a Valentine’s Day entry planned that was nearly done, but I didn’t have a finishing statement for it yet, and I didn’t want to post it until it had one. That entry WILL be posted, though, either tomorrow or Wednesday. However, I shall go ahead and talk about something, just because you good folks have been as patient and understanding as Jet Blue customers (that might be another blog entry later this week, by the way). But this time, there will be a little twist. I shall be writing the words phonetically to see if you can still understand it. Just consider it a little test of reading and writing comprehension. :-)

Did yu heer abowt Britnee Speers? She’z now bauld! Whoo’dathunk that eye’d evur hav moor haeir than hur, eh?

It's uh bit saad that sumwon so yung kin ulreddy bee sew skreued uhp. Shee prety mutch haz it awl: Luhks, muhney, anduh hyoogh interrist uv thuh meedeeyuh. Anjyet, rhathur thaan helpuh hur, thuh fayme seemz to hav herrt hur groueth and devellupment az an induhvidjyuell. How kan aneewun becum ai well-adjyusted induhvidjyuell with thuh kiend uv attenshun that shee offton getts? Andjyett, eye hav trubble feeling sohry for hur, becauz she haz sew much moor than most uv us will evur hav. Eye dohn't envee whut shee haz tu goh throo. Such iz thuh pryce uv fayme, I suppozz. Let'ss juzt hope that shee duzzn't goe down thuh rowd that Anna Nikkole Smith took in hur lyfe.

Weekend Wrap-up 2-11-07

Been a while since I did one of these, so...

Dollar coins
A new dollar coin is going to be introduced later this week. The good folks at the U.S. Mint are hoping that if you weren't crazy about Susan B. Anthony or Sacajawea, then maybe you'll like a series of dollar coins that feature all the U.S. presidents. Yes, even George Bush ("Dubya", that is). I figure that those who have a strong dislike for a past or present president will be using those dollar coins in such a way to express their dislike for that president. Well, it's their money, I suppose. The Mint has been trying to substitute the dollar bill for quite a while, but with no success. There's even been a $2 dollar bill at one time. My suggestion: Make the Washington dollar into the new $2 bill. That only makes sense, I think - but what do I know?

Harvard's new president
I had wondered why Harvard's new president was news. I figured at first that it was because it was Hah-Vahd, and that was supposed to be reason enough. But once I checked out the first paragraph, then I figured it out. Hah-Vahd was where the previous president got into hot water because of his statements about genetics and gender being one possible reason why there is a dearth of women in the maths and sciences. Of course, nowadays you just can't say stuff like that, even if it might be true. The truth is supposed to be because we are an oppressive patriarchic society that keeps women out of higher places because the old boys don't want no dames where they are at. Nope, to make it something other than that means that you're one of those oppressive patriarchic types, and you just can't be trusted.

Well, hopefully the hiring of a female president will solve all of that, and there will be no more of this nonsense about genetics and the lack of women in the maths and sciences and stuff. After all, Hah-Vahd no doubt hired this woman because she was an ace at math and science, which will bounce the genetics theory out the door. Yep, surely she was hired because of her abilities, and NOT because she happened to be a woman. Yeah, I'll just leave it at that and move on to the next topic.

The Vagina Monologues
And speaking of not treating women as body parts, coming soon to my fair city is The Vagina Monologues. Okay, I'll admit that I never read the book. Judging by what I've heard about it so far, I'm not sure I want to. It's NOT because of the topic of women discussing their vaginas (although I'll admit that I'm no more likely to read a play about women discussing their vaginas than I would a book of men discussing their penises), but because it seems so - I don't know - stupid, I guess. I can see discussing women's experiences in other parts of the world, but to discuss women's experiences in other parts of the world as it relates to their vaginas...?

All this time, men have been conditioned to not treat women as just "tits and ass" - and yet this book does basically that. Is it supposed to be okay if the objectification is done by women? Also worthy of noting is the fact that the play originally contained a monologue in which a 13 year old was given alcohol and raped by a lesbian. In the play, the girl had said that it was a "good rape".

Uh-huh. This criticism has been countered by making the 13 year old into a 16 year old; but apparently, she's still given the alcohol, and still taken advantaged of. This still falls under the definition of statutory rape, and last time I checked, that was still illegal. It's this particular monologue and the lack of outrage from feminists over the story that largely keeps me from reading TVM. Rape is supposed to be wrong - no matter how it's done or who does it, and for feminists to not be outspoken and outraged over it makes me seriously question their credibility over their alleged concerns for women and their rights and safety.

Understand that I have absolutely nothing against plays that tell of the plight of women living in a man's world. More power to you, I say. But I think that there has to be better plays than TVM. I don't see how men are supposed to see that objectification of women as being wrong if a play of women doing basically that is glorified. It's called "sending conflicting messages". Maybe it's because I'm just a man, but TVM just seems so wrong in so many ways.

Anna Nicole and the astronaut
I never thought that anything would displace from the front pages the Iraq war and the amount of death and carnage that is going on. Once again, I am wrong. Sigh. When will I learn? The sudden death of Anna Nicole Smith, plus the surprising behavior of one of our NASA astronauts has taken over the headlines. There's really nothing that I can say about Smith that hasn't already been said many times over, so all I'll say is that I'll be praying for her young daughter, who is now in the unenviable position of being at the center of an estate and custody dispute. As for Lisa Nowak, it goes to show that even a woman skilled in math and science can still fall prey to human weaknesses (I guess she didn't go to Hah-Vahd).

But what Anna Nicole and Lisa Nowak demonstrate is the often schizophrenic judgment on the part of the media of what makes the front page. Again, I didn't think anything would displace the Iraq war, but to be displaced by something like this...? In recent days, the front pages of many newspapers have come to resemble gossip columns instead of hard-hitting journalism. And the media wonders why their readership and viewership is dwindling...

Election '08
Well, it's official. 3 Democratic candidates have thrown their hat into the ring, and at least one Republican is close to doing the same. I'll say right now that of that foursome - Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Rudy Giuliani - I wouldn't vote for any of them. Nope, if you want to make for an election that will be unprecedented, then go with Joe Lieberman for the Dems and Dr. Condoleezza Rice for the GOP. That way, you have two unprecedented candidates running for office. Thing is, I still probably wouldn't vote for either of them, but at least such candidacies would be VERY interesting to keep up with.

The '08 election is also likely to be a good time for an independent to also make a run for it. Well, that's if they don't pull a'92 Perot and pull out just when a movement is building! The recent Texas governor's race showed that an independent can succeed if he or she plays their cards right. Texas actually had TWO independents, and if it hadn't been for that fact, then one of them might have had a much stronger showing. I think this shows that the good people of this nation are primed for the right person to step in. Such a person would have to have a combination of a charismatic personality, independently wealthy, a flair for timing, and a personality that comes across as sincere and genuine (as opposed to many of today's politicians, who come across as manufactured and processed as canned meat).

At this time, I know of no one whom I could suggest as well as vote for. I'll have to think about that some more. But I do believe that the time is right for an independent to step in. If Perot hadn't fumbled away his opportunity back in '92, who knows where our nation might be right now? Now's the time for a new Perot to step up. And not screw up this time!

Have a great week, folks!

Dove products

As I was watching a Dove commercial earlier, I wondered if anyone ever got Dove soap and the Dove bar mixed up? I suppose you could tell if someone was either foaming at the mouth, or that they smelled of B.O. and chocolate.

Just wondering.

Promotional stunts in the news

Two promotional stunts were in the news recently. One stunt resulted in the death of Jennifer Strange, who participated in a water drinking contest titled "Hold Your Wee for a Wii". I've read various articles on this story, many of which state that since Strange signed a waiver, then the station shouldn't be faulted for the death. However, I think it's foolish to have such stunts to begin with. The attached article said that Strange drank almost two gallons of water, and that her belly was like that of a woman in early pregnancy.

She's not a camel, and that's way too much water to be drinking in one sitting. I think that this suit should go through, because any station that has such stunts should seriously think it through and speculate all the potential problems that could occur. It wouldn't have taken a lot of "Googling" to find that a couple of years ago, a college student died of the same thing. My heart is broken over the loss of the woman's life, and I think that the creators of this stunt should be made to sit in a court of law and explain their actions. Strange's children deserve that much.

The second stunt involved the placement of electronic signs that caused the city of Boston to go on alert for a possible bomb threat. Now here, I must concede that there was a bit of an over-reaction on the part of the city of Boston - but just as quickly I say that in this post 9-11 day and age, such reactions are to be expected, especially by those who plan such stunts. The emergency responders were basically just doing their job. Like the radio promoters, the producers of Adult Swim should likewise sit in a court of law and face the music.

There are good promotions, and then there are those promotions that need a little more thought before they are put into action. The two examples above should have been thought out some more. I find it very surprising that someone along the way in the planning of these stunts didn't stop and say "Should we be doing this?" I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. Mainly because we live in a lawsuit-happy age, and any of these public organizations are a screw-up away from having their places of businesses sued out of existence. You'd think that keeping the nature of our day-and-age would be second nature to such folks by now. Funny how I keep being proven wrong. I don't know what that says about us.

What I would do as an editor-in-chief

Someone posed the following question to me (who asked in response to my previous blog entry) : If I were editor-in-chief of a newspaper, what would I do?

1.) First, I'd tell all the reporters that they can no longer belong to any political parties or other political organizations so long as they are employed as reporters. In other words, I don't want any Democratic reporters or Republican reporters. I want reporters, period. All political and sociological ideologies are going to be left at the entrance. Either I or someone I assign will be periodically checking for any slants in reporting. It's very important that my newspaper gains the reputation of fair, objective, and unbiased reporting. I want the story to be the news, and not the style that it was reported to be the news.

2.) Since we can't completely isolate ourselves from the social and political influences that are out there, I will have a greatly expanded opinion section. Opinion columnists will be allowed to belong to political parties or organizations, but they will have to note in their columns or bylines that they belong to X group if they are going to be commenting on it. They will also not be allowed to be reporters any more. The newspaper's Op/Ed page of the website will also be greatly expanded, and perhaps organized by topic. It is my hope that the Op/Ed pages will provide backdrop for the stories that are reported in other sections of the newspaper. For instance, while the front page will provide the details of Bush's latest stategem in Iraq, all the reporters will be doing is listing the details. There will be NO headlines that say, "Bush's latest strategy faulty" or other implications of judgment. The Op/Ed pages will be where such headlines will appear, along with criticisms of it.

3.) Last, and probably most important, once the reporters and columnists get the hang of my style and expectations, I also want them to get it in their heads that I will back them up on what they say - even if it is potentially controversial. For instance, I want them to feel confident being aggressive against a politician who has proven to be getting bribes or otherwise entangled in such illegal or unethical ways. This means that I want to have developed enough faith and confidence in my reporters and columnists that they'll do the job that I expect them to do, and in turn, they'll have faith and confidence in me that I'll back them up against the people they're reporting on, the public that may get outraged, or the publisher that wants us to "not be so aggressive against Candidate X". In short, so long as they do their job right and along my expectations, I'll take all the heat that results from their doing their jobs. I want the reporters to not be afraid to seek and to report the unvarnished truth, no matter where it takes him or her. And part of reporting the unvarnished truth is for the reporter to be consciously aware of not putting any "slant" to their reporting, because any "slanting" will slant away from the truth. It is said in the news business that the only commodity it has is the truth. That statement will be everywhere in my newspaper.

All this will also call, of course, for publishers with balls. Wimpy publishers produce wimpy newspapers. If they can't take the heat, then they should get out of the business. In addition to ballsy publishers will be the need for lawyers who are thoroughly versed in the law as it is related to the news business. That will be part of protecting reporters and columnists. I think that with such a dedication to the truth will come the reputation for truthful reporting, and from that will come more readers. The traditional newspaper business can - and SHOULD - be saved. Our democracy depends on it.

Editorial statement for February 2007: Free the Press!

This article ran in the Fort Worth Weekly almost two years ago. It's titled, "Speak up, Woman" by Tracy Everbach. In this article, Everbach laments the lack of female opinion writers in the Op/Ed pages. While it was a good article that brought many interesting points, I wrote a Letter to the Editor pointing out that Everbach listed only left-wing writers. In my response (last letter of that webpage), I noted that if Everbach wants more women opinion writers, then she needs to support the writing efforts of ALL women, and not just those who agree with her left wing views (I assumed that Everbach was left-leaning because she chose only left-wing writers as examples, plus in her two e-mails to me, she never denied being left-wing).

There's a reason why it's important to support ALL women writers, and here's an excerpt from my Letter that explains it:

Potential columnists need a motivation to write, and that often comes with replying to views that they disagree with. So if Everbach desires more female columnists, then I advise her to support all female columnists who are out there now, not just the ones who agree with her political slant. Or it could be looked upon this way: With more conservative female columnists will come liberal female columnists motivated to reply to whatever opinions the former express. In such a scenario, all points of view will benefit.

I got the idea for this month's editorial statement because of the death of columnist Molly Ivins yesterday. In many of the accolades that I read, I was surprised to see how often she was referred to as "liberal" and "liberal icon". I say surprised, because most time she is referred to as "progressive" rather than "liberal". "Progressive" is a liberal's way of saying "liberal" without actually saying "liberal". I never liked that liberal tendency to try to hide what they are. And calling one's self "progressive" never fooled anyone beside the person using the label.

So why am I harping on the term "liberal"? It's because of one of the problems with today's media: Members of the media are too overwhelmingly Democratic AND liberal. Why is this a problem? It's because the work environment that is slanted too heavily toward one political viewpoint (regardless of the viewpoint) is going to be reporting with that slant, whether they intend to or not. It's called "groupthink", and it can get so pervasive that those who are caught in it are not able to see it even when they are surrounded by it. This is why I chose this month's editorial statement of "Free the Press".

The numbers of newspaper circulation has gone down, partially because the Internet helps provide news instantaneously to a generation that is used to getting what it wants instantaneously. However, I believe that newspaper circulation wouldn't be suffering so much if it weren't for the predictability of what a newspaper will say about a given story. Most of the time, you know that the reporting is going to be anti-Bush, or favor embryonic stem cell research as opposed to other forms of stem cell research, or that it will give favorable reporting to cherished liberal icons such as Barack Obama or Al Gore.

By the way, did you know that Obama smokes? If Bush had been a smoker, you'd be hearing it every freakin' day. Why isn't Obama's smoking habits reported more? It's because the press loves Obama. This isn't how news reporting should be. We knew of Bush's past alcohol problems and other legal indiscretions a long time ago, because the press doesn't like Bush. However, the press is not in the business of playing favorites. If they're going to report on the skeletons in the closet of one candidate, they should be doing them all that way.

And there's another problem the media has: Political correctness (PC from here on). PC belongs only in one area: politics. PC does not belong in our universities, and it most certainly does not belong in the press. In fact, PC should be anathema to any credible news professional. Understand that this is NOT to say that news reporters or columnists need to go out of their way to be offensive, but that they shouldn't be afraid to say what needs to be said just because someone somewhere is going to be offended. The plain and simple truth is that there is NO WAY to avoid being totally inoffensive. And being inoffensive is not a value to cling to for a news professional. If they don't have the guts to say what needs to be said, then they don't need to be in the business.

And last is the problem of more and more media outlets being bought out by fewer and fewer major corporations. This makes the media accountable to a bottom line. It makes the media accountable to stockholders. These profit-driven goals totally diverts from what the press should be doing. The press is not in the business of making profit, they are in the business of reporting the news. To hold a given news entity to a bottom line is to undermine its credibility. It has to have the freedom to report the bad news even of the corporation that owns it; otherwise, they are nothing but a public relations department for that corporation. This means that they aren't in the news business, in other words.

So folks, that's my editorial statement for this month: Free the press. Free it from not just liberal bias, but all biases. It needs to get back to even-handed reporting. Free the press from PC. Dare to be offensive if a given fact or story needs to be heard. And free the press from corporate takeovers. Let the press have the freedom of not being beholden to a profit margin.

Despite what might be reported about the decline of newspapers, I still believe that there is a role and a place for them in our society. Without a free and independent press, our leaders won't feel so accountable for their actions. The press needs to return to its roots, and it needs to restore its core values of reporting what needs to be heard. That's how to get readers back.

To paraphrase a familiar movie quote, "If you print it, they will read."

Free the press!

Models in the news

Tyra Banks was in the news recently over some pics of her in a bathing suit that makes her thighs look huge. Banks took the right attitude over this, and confronted it by wearing the same bathing suit on her show.

I hope more models and others in the fashion and modeling industry also take on the dangerous habits that models often go through to get VERY thin. One New York lawmaker hopes to get that process started. It's also highly ironic that our day and age has gotten so image-obsessive at a time in which "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" are constantly preached to us like a steady drumbeat.

There's something deeper going on that's interconnected with the "thin" ideal of the modeling industry and our "inclusiveness" obsession - but I need to think on this a little more first before I address this issue with any more depth. However, I will address the response that the ladies usually give when I ask them about this issue. Their response is basically "Men prefer thin women".

That's not totally correct. While men may indeed prefer a slender woman to a woman with a few pounds or more, I don't know of a single man (myself included) that prefers the "Olive Oyl" figure to a woman with healthy feminine curves. The vast majority of men I know (myself included again) prefer women with curves. While some men may like more curves than others, most want women with figures that look feminine - and not the walking skeletons that many models adapt as ideal.

For instance, in this pic of Tyra on the recent cover of People Magazine, I think she still looks totally hot. I prefer her looking like that to her looking like Olive Oyl. If Tyra ever looked like Olive, then I'd seriously worry about her health. I wish I could find the article that gave the following statement - and I apologize for not knowing it word-for-word - but it said something along the lines that women aim for this too-thin ideal not so much to impress men as it is to impress other women.

In other words, women generally are more image-conscious and aware of how they look than men generally are. This is why eating disorders are conditions that largely affects women. It's also why Tyra Banks putting on a few pounds becomes the subject of news stories. Wanting to look good is one thing, but our society's obsession with perfection when it comes to appearance often borders insanity. That needs to change.

When I have thought on this some more, I'll bring it up here again.