So what is the problem?

Ok I just needed to get this off my chest... Over the past month or so I have read numerous articles/posts, heard politicians deliver speeches and heard Television "News" dismissing the idea of opening up more offshore drilling as "just a stop-gap measure". First it was the flat out lies about it taking ten years before any of these blocks would be drilled and thirty years before these measure would affect gasoline prices, now it is just a stop-gap measure and hence is a foolish endeavor. My question is "so what is the problem?" No, opening up offshore drilling is not going to solve our country's energy needs, be an environmentally perfect "alternative fuel", or completely absolve us of any dependence on foreign oil suppliers. No one says it will. But it can help. Recently we have all been suffering from sticker shock of the high oil and gasoline prices, but those with less flexible finances have suffered much, much more. Opening up more offshore US drilling blocks would help them immediately. As most of us know oil price, like that of any other commodity (gold, oranges, etc, etc), is based on not only strict supply/demand economics, but also speculation on how that will change in the future. Therefore if the US government voted to open up more offshore drilling blocks it would have an almost immediate impact on the oil price, and shortly afterwards the gasoline prices. No, it would not be a perfect long-term solution but it would be a stop-gap measure that would help alleviate suffering right now and would cost the US Government nothing. We spend millions and millions of dollars on imperfect solutions and stop-gap measures such as medicare and wellfare that are not the final solution but help those in need right now. So why not take similar action for this problem especially if it is free? While opening up more offshore US drilling blocks is not a prefect environmental solution, it can help there too. US and foreign companies are going to spend money, time and manpower exploring for oil. By allowing some of this time and investment to happen within the US (or US waters) we force these companies to follow strict environmental rules and regulations. Very strict, in fact, compared to the environmental rules and regulations these companies will face in most other parts of the world. If there are environmental regulations there at all. So by keeping some of the exploration and production under our control we are actually helping ensure less global pollution and environmental impact. At some point in time fossil fuels and hydrocarbons will have to be replaced as primary energy sources. However, in 2008 we are not even close to being there yet. We are going to continue to explore for, produce and use hydrocarbons as our primary energy source at least for the near future. Why not make the choices that help cause the least environmental damage right now? Lastly the amount of oil we will produce from these additional offshore blocks is never going to end all dependence on foreign oil. There is no chance. Not even close. But it will 100% for sure reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and both political parties agree that is a good thing. I am sure there are some viable draw-backs to opening up more offshore US drilling blocks, all I am saying is that I have not heard any of them yet. By refusing to even allow debate and a vote on this issue in Congress, slamming it with nonsensical arguments, and ignoring it as a viable course of action our government and our media are selling this country short and short-changing the people they are supposed to be working for. Fileitunder is a pretty conservative blog and usually are pretty pro-Republican, anti-Democrat with most of our posts. However this issue should not be a partisan issue at all. It is not adding to or removing government bureaucracies or expenses and is not a battle of human rights versus public or human safety. It fits both parties goals, as it helps increase the free-market economic base and also would add millions of tax dollars that could be used to help fund government programs to help our people. So what is the problem?

My pal, Ruben Navarrette Jr.

If you haven't read here long, you're probably unaware with my self-professed addiction to reading the commentaries of Ruben Navarrette Jr. That addiction is driven by the fact that he has consistently shown that he takes on issues for what the issue is. Does he always agree with my assessment? Hell no, but unlike many who write and editorialize on idealistic things he has shown to be rational. If you make a point, and it's good, he concedes to it. Likewise, he expects you to admit when he has a valid point. As far as the media goes, he actually comes the closest to having an open, intellectually honest dialogue. That is why when he did a column last week over the murder of a 25-year-old illegal immigrant named Luis Ramirez by three white teens in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania I found I had an issue. As an editorial, he had the right to use emotionally charged language to point out the senseless and horrific nature of these events. Likewise, I agreed with his position that America needs to be better about facing racism in light of what fits neatly within the definition of a "hate crime." However, as an Anglo Saxon male, I found the alluded stereotype of being a subtle racist for not storming the streets and for supposedly teaching racism to the young around the dinner table to be offensive. As Ruben is quick to point out so often, the readers don't "know" him. Well, it seems he doesn't know all of his readers either. Being a blogger, it took only a few second to post on CNN's comment section under his story. I asked, because I think Ruben needed to address it, whether he considered the crime committed by Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien in SF who killed a father and his two sons, to be equally barbaric. To be honest I didn't expect a response. However, I did suspect that the answer was "yes, he did." As I said before, Ruben strikes me as being intellectually consistent and honest in his opinions. I didn't, and I don't, think he has a double standard between illegal immigrants and everyone else. However, I do think he suffers from a personal bias, as everyone does. Engineers, for example, think like engineers. School teachers view things from a standpoint tied to education. Likewise, Ruben sees stories and the angle of immigration stands out to him. I'm not saying that he's narrow minded but I do believe that he is guilty of omission in the sense that he doesn't present the moral offense of the story in universality of being human, which is ironic because I do think he does see it that way. However, I think he needed to be reminded that our illegal immigration stances and racism are not always connected. To do so is as dangerous as us assuming that his positions are always immigration or racially motivated. So the comment was fired off and forgotten, until today. It seems that I got a response. So, do you think I struck a nerve?

ABCWMDs

George W Bush has grown so powerful in recent years that he can now create 550 metric tons of enriched Uranium just to cover himself. The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans. Thoughts from American Thinker The AP does not say alleged nuclear program. It does not add "according to military experts." It simply says "Saddam Hussein's nuclear program." That's pretty big news, isn't it? From slashdot It appears that when George W. Bush, the CIA, and Tony Blair said that Saddam Hussein had yellowcake uranium, which was a violation of the UN resolution after the Gulf War, and one of the reasons why the USA and UK invaded Iraq to start the war, they were speaking the truth. 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium was found recently in Iraq, that Saddam had hidden for over five years from UN weapons inspectors, and sold to Canada recently. That rascal Bush... he's now such an idiot that he has figured out how to go back in time and plant enriched uranium.

Ripped from today's stupid headlines...

Headline #1: Do Obese People Aggravate Global Warming? Researchers Say Obesity Epidemic Threatens Environment That's a real headline. No, I'm not kidding. Seriously, I'm not - stop asking. Click the link. Here's another real headline: Today's Quakes Deadlier Than In PastStudy: Seismic Activity 5 Times More Energetic Than 20 Years Ago Because Of Global Warming So... two headlines - one from ABC News and the other from CBS lead me to the following: If Fat people --> global warming and Global warming --> stronger earthquakes therefore Fat people --> stronger earthquakes QED. Now given the fact that 2/3rds of Americans are overweight, it's clear that America is causing Global Warming and stronger earthquakes. America: Horrible for the world. Proven by science. I think the silver lining here is that Obama could definitely fix this...

I am the king of reporting

This was the story they reported on CNN: Boy Scout foils attack on Maldives president (CNN) -- A teenager described as a Boy Scout saved Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom from a knife attack Tuesday, a presidential spokesman said. The assailant "aimed at the president from about 10 feet away, but another young boy -- about 15 years old -- maybe one feet away jumped to prevent him," spokesman Mohamed Shareef said. The boy "came in the way and grabbed the knife," Shareef told The Associated Press. "One brave boy saved the president's life." The attacker's knife was wrapped in a national flag, Shareef said. "The knife touched the president's shirt but not his body," he said. The teen, whose name was given as Jaisham, is a Boy Scout, Shareef told AP. Jaisham received a hand wound and was flown to the capital of Male for treatment because he could not move some of his fingers, Shareef told AP. Gayoom was unhurt, Shareef said. The Maldives is a nation of islands in the Indian Ocean, southwest of India. The president was visiting one of those islands, Hoarafushi, to inaugurate an energy project, Shareef said. Police arrested the attacker, he said. Not bad reporting, but at FIU we don't accept just "not bad" effort. Hell no. We're hard core and we roll gangsta up in this news. So what did we do, we found the boy scout. The Devil is in the details, baby. We get you the "whole story." Represent.

Sometimes I kick antpiles just because I can

One of my favorite scenes of cinema is from Braveheart. Sure that "they can't take our freedom" line is good and he says a lot of romantic stuff to the female lead but my favorite line was a throw away line. His friend calls to William Wallace, after his inspirational speech to the Scots, as he turns his horse out to the center of the field of battle. He says "Where are you going?" And Wallace replies, "I'm going to pick a fight." Well, I'm posting this to pick a fight. Just like Wallace rode out there and delivered stinging insults to taunt the generals into battle let me issue mine. Anyone that tries to "save the planet" is a fool. In fact, anyone that tries to save a species is an even bigger fool. The ebb and flow of popular ecological environmentalism is based off of equal parts of emotion and stupidity. This is evident in the hubris of it's presentation, the blind obedience of method and the willful ignorance of most of it's followers. As a result, it is an armchair pseudo-science that is fostered and manipulated by salesmen and politicians. The presentation of environmentalism to the masses has been marketed with all the sentiment of a Hallmark card in a shiny green envelope. The message underlying the efforts of environmental education to the public are variations of the following: "The earth is interconnected. X is an important thing. Your lifestyle/humans/energy/food/whatever is killing X. Your money can save X so you can be guilt free." The problem is that contrary to the picture that environmentalist paint, not all earth systems cooperative despite however much you give. Additionally, more often than not, it's not a single pressure kills of a species. More often than not, any species near the edge of dying was there for a reason besides us. More often that not, environmentalist never point out the humanistic moral query of consequence: Even if we can save, say the "Horned Owl", is it our place to? Environmentalist always talk about biodiversity as if its a good thing. After all, more types of bug lead to more evolution of bugs. Great. However, what if we save a species that would have died otherwise and then later discover that it spreads cancer? Was there a moral reason to save it? On the counter point, what if we save a bug that would have died otherwise and would have had it's niche replaced with a bug that adapted to fill that niche and in the effort of evolution generated a sting that cures cancer? Once again, was there a moral reason to save it? If the possible ability of the bug doesn't matter then we should be saving anything from our presence because we are part of the biota? If it does matter, then how do we account for the unintended consequences of preservation? Even deeper, who is to say that our efforts to save one species doesn't doom that species if there is an environmental change. Likewise, who is to say that in saving one species that we don't doom another? For that matter, the H-bomb of these questions is this, who is to say that the animal, and even the environment, need some form of salvation from our presence when they have preexisted our presence for billions of years? To say we are morally bound to tinker with life is an arrogance that knows no bounds. Another reason that environmentalism is a fools errand is that it has such a blind obedience to methodology that ignores basic thinking for emotional solutions. A perfect example is the Greenpeace movement and it's save the whales platform. Forgoing the basic question of whether the whales are suited to survive long term, we are struck with the more basic question: Why? Why save the whales? Just because we kill them? Is it because they are a needed component of the food net we are a part of? When asked people typically respond with discussion about the brutality of whaling or how docile and peaceful whales are. Right. Whales may be docile but then so are cows. If docility and the brutality of slaughter are the main reasons why not "save the cows." The reason is that whales, quite simply are foreign and evoke an emotional reaction. Cows are more common and evoke cow paddies. As Denis Leary pointed out, we only save the cute ones.( ahem...9:10 on the video) Additionally, why not save the killer whales? Oh yeah, because they are less cute and more "killer." This brings me to my final point. So many of the people that are clearly concerned with saving the environment are also clearly ignorant of the thing that live within it and their interactions. What they are sure about is that saving the planet is good, or at least it makes them feel good. Despite toxic air and global warming she seems to breath so well on the cold wintry day. Let's look at today's primary scare: CO2 driven global warming. If CO2 causes global warming, by trapping the sun's heat and all it takes is the exhaust from fossil fuel to shift the balance then we need to accept that we are more than likely already dead. Why? Because man made CO2 is just a fraction of total CO2. Most of our CO2 comes from volcanoes. That would suggest that we are just a few eruptions away from tipping the scale too far. But wait, there has been thousands of volcanic eruptions over human history and we are still here. Why? I suggest it's because of the fact that water vapor and CO2 and Sunlight, the three global warming culprits, are also the three things used in photosynthesis. It's called biofeedback and it works because plants can grow pretty fast. Environmentalism is, at it's essence, stupid. It is stupid because it presumes that we can stop change. It is stupid because it believes that we can deny entropy. It is also stupid because it believes that where we are right now is the best it can be, that we won't be forced to evolve by a planet that has a consistent history of forcing evolution and that we can control and predict a systems makeup thousands of years from now with technology that can't reliably predict the weather tomorrow. So why does it persist? It persist because it feels good to think that you are being moral. It persists because it's a wonderful political point to say you are "for the earth" because who really wants to campaign as being "against the earth." It persists because most people don't want to understand the world around them, they just want things to stay the same. And as long as that continues, the Al Gores of this world will continue to whip up fear over a process that very few every truly investigate while he makes investments in the green technologies. I guess that saving the earth is in every body's best interest but some of us profit off of it more than others.

Raising your green awareness

Last night, the NBC halftime show between that Cowboys and the Eagles was done by candle light in order to raise awareness of NBC's focus on the environment. To say that I found it to be stupid is an understatement. I can't trust Chris Collingsworth to not be a marginally intelligent on the subject of football and your going to let him explain the environmental impact of energy conservation to me? Please, don't waste my time. However, I felt compelled to do the math that the true eco-warriors would really want to show you is their final goal, if the PR spin didn't kill them. The average person takes roughly 10 4.6 liter breaths of air a minute. In return they expel roughly 4.6 liters of CO2. That translates to 2760 liters of CO2 a hour, 66,240 liters a day, 463,680 liters a week and 24,111,360 liters a year per person. That translates to 24.111 kg of CO2 per average person per year by just breathing. Considering that there are an estimated 6.6 billion people on the planet, we generate 159,135,000,000 kg of CO2 a year by just breathing. Adding no activity at all, the human race dumps the equivalent of 3% of the earths total atmospheric volume in pure CO2 a year. This would seem to suggest that by merely breathing we will overcome the O2 volume of the atmosphere in under 7 years. Wow, it's a shocker that we aren't all dead already. Yet, when we look at the atmosphere we see that CO2 comprised .038 of the atmosphere. Odd isn't it? I mean, how could that be? Consider what I just showed you. I just showed you that humans will kill themselves by just breathing in 7 years but ,as you notice, we're still alive. The reason for that is biofeedback mechanisms. If you have never heard that term before, it's because the media doesn't bother telling you about it while the are trying to scare you and control you through global warming hype. Here is some "green awareness" for you, plants consume CO2 and create 02. So if they have sunlight, you know that same sunlight that causes global warming, and CO2, the same one that causes global warming, and water, once again a part of global warming, then they create O2 and sugar. SO, for what it's worth, cutting CO2 won't "cool" the planet as much as it will kill plants. For some reason, I doubt Chris Collingsworth gets that. Achieving an equilibrium might be advisable but thankfully plants do that pretty well on their own. The only thing left is to effect the energy effecting our system. Is anyone here for a massive reflection of solar energy? Yeah, I though not. Besides, who says that the current environment is the optimal one for the human species? I think that despite NBC's aspirations, the issue of global warming is a little more complex than can be effectively discussed at a halftime show in the dark.* *~ That description of being "in the dark" is both literal and figurative.

Taking your kids to the movies? An FYI

A movie called the Golden Compass is apparently out or going to be out and marketed to children. It is based on a series of books, written by a "proud Atheist", that sport a very anti-religious theme. Apparently the marketing is/will be designed to look like just another kids movie, but in the end the characters kill God and everyone lives happily ever after. "It is the Alethiometer. It tells the truth. As for how to read it, you'll have to learn by yourself." The Golden Compass, a fantasy film starring Nicole Kidman that is scheduled to be released into theaters on 7 December 2007, has been drawing fire from concerned Christians. The film is based on Northern Lights (released in the U.S. as The Golden Compass), the first offering in Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy of children's books, a series that follows the adventures of a streetwise girl who travels through multiple worlds populated by witches, armor-plated bears, and sinister ecclesiastical assassins to defeat the oppressive forces of a senile God. Just an FYI so you don't take your kids or let someone else take your kids to see something you don't intend them to be exposed to.

Beyond Stupid

Hat tip to DrewM at Ace of Spades who quite eloquently states: "The media really are beyond parody at this point." As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch NAJAF, Iraq — At what's believed to be the world's largest cemetery, where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried and millions already have been, business isn't good. A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that's cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds. This shit could've been on The Onion.

Who is Tom Tancredo Anyway?

So I took that Candidate Calculator test that Hoodlumman linked somewhere down below, and this is what I came up with: Your Top Match You planned to vote for Paul. Based on your responses, your top candidate for 2008 is below. Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo (R) 86.67% match Your Other Top Matches You will want to pay close attention to these candidates through election day. View/Hide Other Top Matches California Representative Duncan Hunter (R) - 76.00% Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) - 76.00% Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) - 74.67% Middle of the Pack If your top choices aren't in the running, keep an eye on these candidates in 2008. View/Hide Middle of the Pack Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) - 68.00% Businessman John Cox (R) - 66.67% Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) - 65.33% Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) - 63.33% Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 62.67% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) - 40.00% New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) - 32.00% Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) - 24.67% New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 18.67% Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) - 18.67% Bottom of the Barrel You won't be getting on the campaign trail with these candidates anytime soon. View/Hide Bottom of the Barrel Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D) - 18.67% Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) - 18.67% Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) - 16.67% Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) - 13.33% Um....yeah..... So, I'm still planning to vote for Rep. Ron Paul. We disagree on Iraq, but I pretty much agree with the guy where it counts most for me. The calculator appears to be broken. Besides, who the hell is Tom Tancredo?

Say it with me, sheeple:

There is no media bias. It's probably just indigestion.

Propaganda Bytes ...

The Dreaded SBs You thought it was all about OIL ... You thought it was the AFGHAN PIPELINE... You thought it was the illusive WMD ... ... or, even DEMOCRACY in the ME ... Courageous and tenacious journalism has uncovered the truth ... it's all about the SBs. via small dead animals and Celestial Junk If you think that this kind of fallacious crap ... which is all it is, doesn't do great harm, consider that I found it on Kavkaz, an Islamist site that promotes jihad all over the planet. Funny though, as one reads Kavkaz editorials, one would swear they'd been written for Koz, or MoveOn, or even the NYT. Is it any wonder, at all, that y'all are frustrated? Have at it, Rob.

"Eff this Congress!"

As a recovering 40-hour-a-week addiction suffering player of EverQuest I still find myself drawn to the message board of my old server. The interesting thing about this particular server though, is the sheer number of elitist Lefties who happen to gather in the forums discussing politics. Today, while digging for an entry to deliberately troll, I found this gem: Eff this Congress! So, this week the US Congress voted to "condemn" MoveOn.org for the now infamous "General Betray Us" ad they ran in the New York Times. John McCain made a blown-up version of the ad a cornerstone of his stump speeches the last few weeks. Senators like the always radiant Mr. Lieberman used phrases like, "an outrageous and despicable act of slander that every member of the Congress — Democrat and Republican — has a solemn responsibility to condemn.” I happen to agree with the sentiment presented by the ad. Furthermore, I' sick and fucking tired of our congressmen being big, fat vaginas on the war. I'm sick to death of Democratic congressmen being spineless. Time and time again, when given the opportunity to stand up to this president on this issue they cave like a house of cards. In the Spring, they voted to approve a Defense Appropriation on the stipulation that pending Patreus's report in September that there may not be another funding bill. They voted down the Webb bill giving our soldiers more time at home. They voted FOR the Lieberman bill escalating military tension with Iran. And now they're probably about to approve another defense appropriation. ... If you are even remotely annoyed by this, if you are anywhere near as angry about this as I am, this is what I want you to do. Here are the names and numbers of some prominent Democrats that voted to condemn MoveOn. Call them. Let them know exactly how you feel about this... Ask their staff how they justify their vote. Then take a look at the roll call lists for the MoveOn condemnation vote. Find some more numbers. Call those assholes, too. And call a Republican fuck if you feel like it, not a single one of those jerk-offs voted against this measure in either house of Congress. What I find most humorous about this is that no matter how many indignities someone like this gentleman suffers at the hands of the Democrats, he will continue to blindly vote for them - because "anything is better than having the Republicans in charge." Murtha accepting bribes? No biggie, beats Craig hitting on male cops in public restrooms. Teddy binge drinking his way through confirmation hearings or leaving his girlfriend in the car while he takes a little swim? Not nearly as frightening as the possibility of the Republicans lowering taxes or cutting a government program. As long as Democrats have guys like this drinking the party's own special brand of Kool-Aid, they will never actually have to work for votes. Now, I've had discussions with this guy on that forum before. He's intelligent, but horribly misguided. For some reason, like so many Democrats, he thinks that his elected candidates represent the interests of the "little guy" rather than those of George Soros or the American Trial Lawyers Association. But the blind make the best voters. Another tip of the hat indicating you might do what they want when elected will get you in the door every time. NOTE: Profanity isn't allowed in the subject lines of posts to the forum in order to keep the portal page SFW. EDIT: In case you're wondering about my follow-up to the post on the forums. I responded with this: Hey thanks.....it took some time, but I went through the house.gov site and I sent a form letter "thank you" to all the Representatives who voted in favor of this non-binding resolution. Had you not mentioned it I wouldn't have thought twice about the importance of letting the "Yay" voting house members know they'd done the right thing. Thanks again.

The whole Kathy Griffin thing

In case you haven't heard, let me throw out the celebrity news shocker of the day. LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Comic Kathy Griffin's "offensive" remarks about Jesus at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards will be cut from a pre-taped telecast of the show, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences said on Tuesday. Griffin made the provocative comment on Saturday night as she took the stage of the Shrine Auditorium to collect her Emmy for best reality program for her Bravo channel show "My Life on the D-List." "A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus," an exultant Griffin said, holding up her statuette. "Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now." Since that, there have been several people on either sides of issue try to fight to claim the moral high ground on this. Some call it a point of free speech. You also have some calling for her job and equating this to the Imus thing or the Micheal Richards outburst or Eddie Griffen having the mike cut on him at the BET show by Rev Al Sharpton for dropping the N-word. The truth of the matter is that this isn't the same. Any one that thinks it is, is fooling themselves. Any person that is really honest in their assessment of American culture has to accept that we are no longer a Christian nation. Christians are not part of the grievance narrative. We're not going to get equal consideration. We can't expect any reverence from anyone. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. Yes, millions go to church and affiliate themselves as "Christians" in the polls but this country has no claim to the title of "christian." Why would I say that? The proof is in our culture for everyone to see. Pick almost any social ill effecting the US and it's against Jesus' teaching. Drugs, teen pregnancy, gay marriage, corruption, ect. Everything we deal with has a moral component to it that is covered by the concepts that Jesus gave. Our society has decided instead that what they want is more important than what Christ said was right. Sure, Jesus said not to be a drunk but I feel like tying one one and as a result we have drunk drivers. Sure Jesus said that sex should only be between a man and his wife but I can screw whenever I like so as a result now we have sexual abuse, kiddie porn, AIDS and gay sex in airport bathrooms. The list goes on and on and each time we see a social ill, it crosses the line at the point where people decide what they want is more important than what's right. I'm not immune. I do stupid things that I know for a fact are wrong all the time. As a result the society stands back and yells "Ha ha, you're a hypocrite! See, we can do our own thing because you Christians can't even follow you're own guy's rules." If justification is all they are looking for that's fine. They'd find a way to rationalize it anyway. The point they miss is that even when God's followers don't follow His guides what happens? Pain, heartache and loss. If anything, it proves the point. He gave us those rule to help us because he loves us but people think they don't need Gods love. The want their freedom from morality more. The moral vacuum left is the interesting thing to watch. I doubt that Kathy Griffin was shocked that her statement would offend people. In fact, I'm betting that she hoped that it would. By being intentionally rude, she got publicity and increased her standing in Hollywood by being an "edgy comedian" who is unafraid to take on the social taboo of religion. Of course, that's BS. If she had guts, she would have mocked Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, Global Warming, MLK and an entire pantheon of other religious and quasi-religious entities. Of course, in 20 seconds, that's a long joke. She knew Jesus was a safe shot because what's Jesus' rep? He forgives, right? You crack that joke with Allah and you better start checking your car for bombs. So what should be done? How should Christians react to this? My personal response is to say "who cares." Kathy Griffin may or may not believe in God and, by extension, Jesus. If she does, I hope that she realizes that she just put a stumbling block in front of a lot of people. If she doesn't, I hope that she rides her new found fame to the inspiration of reading more bible to get better researched jokes. I'm a pretty firm believer that most resist doing that because they fear conversion and they should. However, for us, Protesting her doesn't show God's love. Quite to the contrary, it just validates the whole group that are looking for an excuse in Christan behavior to rationalize doing what they want. If anything, we should pray for her. It would be a sad existence to actually have an award be your God. Validation from a statue has a historic element, to be sure, but most of them end up museums. They also don't love you and if Jesus took the nails for Kathy, he can tolerate her insults long enough to tell her that he loves her. Someday, she might get that.

"Turn your TV on..."

I was dead asleep. Two days before the water pipe that connects to the sink had busted and flooded our kitchen, the entire living room and most of the hallway. As a result, the insurance had paid for having the carpet ripped out. The day following was full of fans and helping my wife move her and the baby's stuff over to her parents house so that she could stay over there while I dealt with the contractors and the smells of mildew trying to happen. I might as well deal with it, after all I was out of work. The insurance has paid enough money to have new carpet installed. Instead, I decided to put in pergo myself because that was the only way we could afford it and it's not like I didn't have the spare time. So the evening prior I had worked late into the evening. The phone rang and I woke up expecting it to be my wife, calling to check on my progress. It wasn't. It was my one of ministers at my church. A friend. All he said was "Go turn on your TV. Turn on CNN." That was the morning of my September 11, 2001. Alone in the half floored living room of my house, unemployed and very confused/scared/angry/stunned. So much has happened since that day but there is one thing that I hope we never forget from that day. More importantly, it's something that I wish that we wouldn't just "remember" but would instead "adapt." I wish that Americans would realize that "we" are not the biggest enemies of "us." Americans are good people, both individually and corporately. We care. We care enough to give, to work, to sweat, to spend and to give our lives for other people. We might make mistakes but we fix a lot more mistakes than we have ever made. We might not always be right, but we've brought more right to the world than anyone else. We've created, discovered, engineered, financed, funded, fought for and sacrificed for more noble and just causes for people, both foreign and domestic, than countries with epic histories can claim. Even at our self indulgent worst, we are still the country that everyone else calls to fix their problems. 9-11 was not a military attack designed to reduce capability. It was a terror attack aimed at reducing our will. 6 years later we are still making that gut check and I hope today we recall that at our heart we are a nation of great people. People Like Cindy Ann Deuel.

Republican Debate Chat

I watched the Republican debate on Fox tonight. Over all it was pretty good, the best so far. I found that it made for some pretty interesting viewing and I did learn a bit about some of the lower tier candidates that I didn't know before. As I am prone to do, here are some random impressions from tonight's events. Let's start with Ron Paul. When Alan Combs is pointing out that you reside so far off base that getting nominated will be an issue and your answer to is that your going to "appeal to the independents" to win a REPUBLICAN primary you're in dire trouble. I'm sorry, but the view point is way, way too isolationist for me. All pulling out and back does is encourage the fight to come here. I say if they want to fight, why make them commute. Yeah.... I just don't think so. Oddly, Giuliani came off weird to me tonight. First off, I get it. You did things in New York. Great! So what are you going to do now? What's you're personality. What do you think? What drives you at the core because when push comes to shove that's what I want to know. I could care less about New York history and statistics. Tell me "why" and "how" more. That's what I need to hear, because make no mistake, I'm still not convinced I trust you to have a moral center to guide from. Your inability to see why abortion is wrong is a huge handicap and by not addressing it you damn well better show me a reason to trust you. McCain did better tonight that I expected and I was impressed with a lot of his answers but he has two problems. In my opinion, they are fatal problems. The first is that he's too arrogant. I don't mean to the other statesmen. Hell, that's fine with me. But you can tell that he's still pissed that the base rose against him on immigration. Hell, i bet he's still mad about being "swift boated." The problem isn't so much that he's been dinged, it's that he can't stand being dinged or answering to the people. You can see he feels above it. "Why didn't you sign the tax measure?" You didn't sign it because you feel that you above answering to us. The second is that I'd torture to save Americans from nukes, why wouldn't you? And don't give me the whole "America's reputation speech" because I saw the American soldiers bodies being hung from the bridges in Iraq and I saw the Nick Berg tape. I liked Mike Huckabee tonight. He was pretty good in the answers but i was disappointed in that he didn't hammer Paul when he had the shot and that he didn't show more force on the "Iran gets a nuke" question. Mike, domestically and morally, you're my guy but I have to see some strong authoritarian backbone in there to really trust you. I know that violence is not the first answer for you but I have to know that you will not flinch in the face of making people die to protect my family. So far, I'm just not sure that I see it. Brownback, I'm sorry but no. You got nothing. Rommney had a bad run but all night it was "kick Mitt in the balls" with the question night. I thought he took it like a man. In my book, he didn't gain ground but he didn't lose ground. Additionally, don't try so hard to separate from "MR New York." Every stat he gives us does that. Tell us what you want to do. Also, get hawkish. I don't want a realist as President. Realist suck because they dream realistically and provide realistic vision and realistic goals. Show more optimism. I know you were getting blindsided but you have a strong shot if you can provide a vision. Tancrado, I like you a lot and you have some damn good stuff but I'm sorry. There might be a veep out there for you though. Other than that, a parting comment for the Fred. Whoever told you tonight was a great time to announce was a moron. All you did was allow everyone to kick your ass while you were not there. Seriously, you've pissed away a great window breaking by not coming in earlier or coming in in a few days after today. You better stake a claim soon because right now you are still very much a face in a race of names.

Racism as an extension of Stupid: A systemic crap ball of absolute idiocy

For those who currently surf CNN, one of today's stories has to do with racial discord, violence and charges in the town of Jena, Louisiana. The story is linked here and is truly a train wreck of stupidity on many levels. I'd suggest reading it because I won't mass post it but to sum up the relevant points: ~ A group of black kids decide to sit under a tree that the white kids normally hang out under. ~ The white kids hang nooses there which the black kids find there the next day. ~ The white kids responsible are suspended for 3 days ~ Racial tension in the school increases, fights both on and off campus happen ~ The school system has the DA address the school ~ The schools main academic building gets torched, as in 'arson' ~ Six students "reportedly" jump one kid and beat him until he is unconscious ~ The six are arrested and face charges ~ Parents of all the kids say their sons are being railroaded via Jim Crow Justice So where to start? The whole thing got touched off because, let's be honest, the kids hanging the nooses were trying to be dicks. Was that racial motivated? Hell yeah, it was as some level. Those kids may have deserved more or less time out of school based on your personal opinion but as an educational administration you know they have rules regarding race relations and common sense that those kids broke. They showed a major lack of judgment in thinking that idea was "cute" or "harmless" in today's social environment. So, I don't have any problem with those kids getting punished and would point out that if it were one of my sons, there would have been some punishment at home that would make a 3 day suspension seem like a vacation. What happened from that point was where the pure stupidity stepped up. Should those kids have been ostracized in school? That's a debatable social theory depending on whether your pro-enforcement or pro-rehabilitation. I can honestly say that they could expect to be fairly hated when they get off suspension. However, should their actions light off a powder keg with other students who weren't involved? No. And yet, it did. In my estimation it did for 2 reasons. The first is because black culture has not accepted that they are an easy mark when it comes to getting a reaction. The second is that schools and society's do an exceptionally poor job of handling teen boys and violence. Those two thing let 3 stupid kids melt down a whole school. Look racism is a problem in America. Period. And I know that some people can't accept it but it's not a one sided problem. I'm sorry, I've worked in predominately black environments and in predominately Hispanic environments. The result surprised me because you guys seem to dog each other and, even funnier, you just assumed that I agreed. The irony is that I don't. Sure, the races are different as genetics would tell you but I haven't seen that as any type of limiting factor in any type of human endeavor, much less a sign of superiority. However, that's something I had to learn from experience with individuals because culture sure doesn't teach it. White culture, for example, seems to say that I'm supposed to help every other culture out because it seems that every other culture needs help and I'm of the culture that's supposed to provide it. That was news to me considering that when my dad left, my mom was making 14k and I was having to hot glue gun the soles back on to my shoes. Still, it seems that "I'm responsible because I'm the man." I also found out that I'm responsible for slavery and I took Texas from the Mexicans who stole it from the Spanish who took it from the Indians. The fact that 1/16 of me is Indian doesn't supposedly void me of the white guilt for the Trail of Tears or Wounded Knee, either. While all of that is fun to learn as a heir apparent to "the man" franchise, I believe that I can correctly assume that several other boys have since learned that they are the heirs to being the "aggrieved black man" or the "downtrodden Latino" or whatever bullshit society is pedaling. As a result, black culture, from a white perspective, is so predictable that you could almost write a scientific law of universal response: Something like, "Any reference to the KKK, Jim Crow, Slavery or the use of the "N" word by anyone not Black is guaranteed a negative response at twice the energy level expressed and grows exponentially as the number of black recipients of said utterance is increased." Disagree? You think it was a accident that In Die Hard 3 that it was just accepted wisdom that Bruce Willis' character was going to get a serious ass beating, if not die, for wearing a lunch board saying "I hate Niggers?" Why is that? Furthermore, why is that acceptable wisdom? Have you ever stopped to consider the response if you drop a black character in the middle of white America with the counter sign of "I hate Crackers" or Whitey or Jews or whatever? Is that a guaranteed ass beating or death sentence under today's conventional wisdom? Not hardly. The point is that regardless of how you feel about it, and in today's PC world none the less, all it takes is saying "nigger" and people get wound up past all conventional wisdom and personal responsibility. As a result, they lose the power of initiative because their emotions dictate over their reason, more often than not. Who is the exception to that? The people who define themselves and others as individuals. Racism will continue to be a problem for one reason: People employ it to define who they are and who other people are because it's easier than being an individual or treating people as individuals. Society, and more specifically their parents, failed these kids in not enforcing that. The second issue is that society at large has a horrible grasp of what a man is, much less how to raise one, much less how to deal with a immature one. Violence is just one aspect where society fails miserably. Being a man is about understanding your value, your strengths, your weaknesses and how you allow those things to interact with those around you. Today's kids are barely taught to make sound decisions, typically isolated from risk, over protected from consequences and totally uncoached in understanding the power of their actions. There is a reason that martial arts can often market it's self for teaching responsibility and respect. The reason is that it is incredibly stupid to be disrespectful to a person who is able to break bricks with their head. The interesting factor is that it is typically the person who can break bricks with their head that is the most respectful to the people in the room that pose him no threat for a reason that most people don't get. A teacher is typically the most respectful of the power that he has learned, but he has also learned that the true power is in the choice to not put himself in the position to have to use it because of the damage that it can cause. He understands the consequence to action. Some kids today need to have their asses tossed around a dojo once or twice to realize that violence is just a tool. It can be effective but it can also run contrary to what you are trying to accomplish. In plain English, kids today see violence as the final step in a confrontation when it isn't. The aftermath of a confrontation still has to be dealt with and eventually the root cause of the confrontation before it is resolved. However, most boys are never taught that so they believe that "kicking ass" will fix the problem. Wrong. That might be a step, but normally there are other things that could be done before, or during, that confrontation that would be better than unchecked aggression. Society, and specifically these kid's parents, have failed to teach them, and possibly understand themselves, that when the only tool you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. When you place this all together the result is what you see. Kids that are in trouble, kids that are in pain, kids that are in discord, a community wrecked, fear mongers circling the wagons and everyone generally unimpressed with the whole thing because it could have been prevented. However, I want to take a second to say that for once in the news, the school system in this seems to have acted responsibly. They alone addressed the issues along each step. They alone took preventive action. In short, they are the only ones I see in the whole thing that tried to defuse things. Where all of this will go is beyond me but the point that we need to take away from it is this: fixing the problem of racism doesn't lie with the schools. They tried. It lies with society and parenting. We need to better coach our own kids on living in a equal society of individuals and educate them to the nature of their actions, including but not limited to violence.

You reap what you sow

From the Help.com Post topic: "global warming will kill us all, so why should i go to school?" Joh ~ Hey, global warming won’t happen for a long time yet, so make the most of your education. It will help, trust me. I see your point, but make most of the time we have left, but i think your using it as maybe an excuse to get away from school, nice try! But make the most of life, people could say i’m not going to work/school! But in the end we all die, MAKE THE MOST OF LIFE my friend. Do well at school! Arnday ~ I like this guys excuse, good idea, drop out, free yourself, lead a better life. Educate yourself in what you love, not state preparation for miserable jobs. 2Sweet 2pick i guess ~ are you serious anonymaously! go to school!! you will regret it in the end if you don’t!! get educated and then when that is over its your choice what to do then!! Live your life to the fullest you only have 1 chance but you can change it at anytime you want! Arnday ~ Its hardly irresponsible. Young people clearly have enough intelligence to work out the decision for themselves im simply promoting an alternative, a job isnt everything. There are plenty of other ways to make money, whether that be via crime, or via communal support, he could go elsewhere in the world and reinvent himself, the education system is hardly for everyone. the_girl_you_knew ~ are you seriously suggesting crime is a legitimate method of making money? Arnday ~ I am, crime pays does it not, just have to steal from the right people thats all, the rich in this world have taken money from the vunerable by underhand means, I see no reason it cant be taken back by similar means. Not bad advice, eh? Well, let me try to answer the query of "global warming will kill us all, so why should i go to school?" You don't really need to go to school. What you need to do is join up with Al Gore's super secret Earth defense squad. The paramilitary training they will give you will be invaluable in beating back the CO2 horde's imminent attack. Also, watch a lot of post apocalyptic movies like Cyborg with Van Damme, Escape From New York and of course Battlefield Earth. Then model everything that you do off the screen lives of those characters. (I'd have suggested Waterworld or the Postman but Kevin Costner would turn you into a pussy.) Then make sure you stock up on rocket launchers because you're gonna need them. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS: DON'T EXHALE The CO2 in your very body could turn against you. Seriously, bro, the life you save could be your own. So until the CO2's attack, stay hard. Actual simulated image of a CO2 attack

Why video games can be a parents best friend.

When I was born they had Pong. By the time I was a kid they had Atari. In my teen years it was Nintendo. By college we had Sega. By late college we had the PlayStation. I'm living right in the wheelhouse of the video game generation. I was a master of both Pac-man and Tekken Tournement. I wasted time with both Galaga and Grand Theft Auto. As I have grown, video gaming has been a constant influence in my life. Now, as a dad, I have to weigh that influence again from a different perspective. The cons of video games get a lot of popular press. It's not too hard to find a story linking video games to obesity, anti-social behavior or violence. Honestly, I am typically critical of these stories for the fact that most make rather loose leaps between the correlation and the causality of social ills. For example, if I had research that said that "By their 15th birthdays, close to 100 percent of males have masturbated to orgasm." and I have data that says "95 per cent of the teens surveyed said they had access to either a video game machine or home computer and a similar proportion (90 per cent) said they owned at least some video games." Does that mean that video games makes boys by age 15 masturbate? No, it's a correlation. However, the media rarely takes the time to explain the methodology of their comparative data or it's collection in the inferences that it makes when blaming social ills on video games. I can honestly admit that as a result of my childhood, I'm jaded about the validity of these results because I belonged to several "at risk" groups of my adolescent time. I was a single parented child. I also listened to heavy metal rock. I played D&D. I had dyslexia. We were, for most of my life, below the poverty line. My parents didn't have a college education. Somehow, through all of that statistically proclaimed "adversity" I managed not to become a drug fueled, Satanist who was kept down by socio-economic underpinnings of a corrupted upbringing. Who knew? The truth of it is, a lot of that so-called study done at the time was conducted to blame a social phenomenon that people didn't understand or like or correlated with an event that they would accept either happened for a different reason or no reason at all. Like the kid that killed himself while listening to Ozzy. His parents wigged out and blamed Ozzy, and heavy metal, for their sons death. In the process, they actually sued Ozzy for causing their sons death. The court killed the case but the standard of people blaming external events for an issue that would have more than likely been tied to the home was set. Additionally, I never forget that the media is generated not by experts in relevant fields but by people with journalism degrees. They can write about science but are rarely scientist themselves. On the other hand, the positive effects of video games are rarely ever discussed. In passing we are told that these games are horrible things that teach our children horrible things. Really? If they teach horrible things, then is it possible that they can teach good things too? For example, some video games teach children problem solving abilities dictated by logic and memory. Not only are children given objectives, but they are given limitations in multiple areas that govern the problem, that must all be managed, simultaneously, in order to solve the problem. All of this is done in an environment that rewards success, promotes learning, increases hand eye coordination, has consequences for failure and works within a construct of fair play. For example, the "Lego Starwars" video games are ones that my kids love. In them you have to solve puzzles, both short and long term. Achievement is rewarded. Mistakes have an immediate cost but the option to retry and learn from mistakes is available. It forces players to make logical problem solving steps while under character constraints, physical constraint and chronological constraints. Most importantly, it's fun. This is a game that my four year old can play at a totally different level than what my six year old does or for what I do. The complexity increases the reward of play while not governing the game play itself. The Shrek and Spiderman3 video games are similar but for older players, due to plot complexity. Most sports games fit under this mold, as well. In this, parents who are willing to take the time to research and pay attention to game play can find that some video games are great learning tools that create their own reward while giving the parent the open forum to show the real life benefit of the lessons learns in the virtual world. Even this morning, as my son sat, stuck in a part of the Ratatouille video game, he was frustrated with his ability to pass the level. I pointed out that sometimes multiple attempts have to be made to correctly time any event in order to pass the level. If that fails, back tracking and reevaluating the steps you made to get there and looking for a missed part of the level sometimes helps to show another path to progress. However, I stressed, there is always a way to get over any objective because the game is governed by it's design so that once you truly have all the options the answer will present itself. Sure enough, before I left he had passed it and in that exchange he was reminded of the same qualities that make real people succeed in the real world. Of course not all games are suitable for all kids and some games are just crap but the same can be said of books, TV or ,in some cases, parents. The point I am making is that video games, out of hand, are no worse than any other tool that a parent has for teaching, yet offer a somewhat unique way to allow for an interaction that mimics the real world in the tasking that one must acquire in order to solve real world issues.

My racist bonafides

I once wrote on this blog that I liked to read stuff by Ruben Navarrette Jr on CNN's web page because he usually made a pretty decent point and argued it without appealing to empty rhetoric or emotion. Yeah, well, I guess I have to say that then and this is now. In my time blogging, I learned by being critical of Islam that I'm a racist. See, I regularly commit the worst of all racial crimes, I disagree with people and I'm white. Every time I open my mouth it's a hate crime. So, since I'm embracing that inner racist, let me illuminate why I am turning off Navarrette. Since the immigration debate became newsworthy, Navarrette has done several stories on it. In each the central theme is the same: "Immigration issues center around white people being scared and hating Latinos who are always pure intentioned people who do manual labor for just the scraps off your table to feed their whole families." I disagree, ergo I am a racist. See above for clarification, if you need it. Look at his current example of writing: We already knew we had broken borders. And when Congress chickened out on immigration reform and showed that it's not equipped to tackle anything more challenging than pork or pay raises, we knew we had a broken branch. Now it's clear that we have a broken dialogue. We like to think of ourselves, and our communities, as innocent victims of sinister forces that are beyond our control. Concerned that there are too many illegal immigrants in the United States, that our culture is getting too spicy, and that the country is becoming too Hispanic, we blame Mexico or mega-corporations or what one commentator ominously labeled "socio-ethnic centric groups" such as the National Council of La Raza. You see, illegal immigration is always someone else's fault. At least that's what we tell ourselves. It's easier that way. So does this mean that we should get involved? Are we to all join the minutemen and protect our borders since the government, congress and the Mexican government fail to do so? I'm pretty sure that's not what Ruben wants. Do we start political action to force large companies to refuse Mexican contracts and strictly enforce immigration reform on business hiring in the US? Ruben would say no. Why? Wouldn't that force the US to address the issue of illegal immigration? Wouldn't that be the people's way of making the nation look at what the influx of cheap, undocumented labor has done to the Mexican people who are here without an invitation or documentation? Sure it would, but Ruben doesn't want that. See, whitey, Ruben knows better than you that you're just too stupid to understand that the brown people are here out of the goodness of their hearts to help your stupid white self with all the things that you don't want to do because God knows that white people are too stupid and lazy to build and mow stuff. Think I'm bullshitting. Look: What we should be talking about instead is just how disingenuous these types of localities are being. Illegal immigration is a self-inflicted wound. And it's not just employers and landlords that benefit. It's also, yep, the same communities and towns that are doing all the complaining. There is only thing that lured illegal immigrants to Hazleton. It wasn't the scenery, the schools, or the local sports teams. It was jobs -- jobs willingly provided by individuals and businesses that, in turn, forked over tax dollars and filled town coffers. When businesses do well, the town does well. And when the town does well, the people who live there feel as if they're doing well. I've never been to Hazleton. But I imagine that the place is lovely and has its share of restaurants, hotels and construction firms. It probably also has plenty of working mothers who rely on maids and nannies and plenty of working dads who come home to nicely manicured lawns maintained by gardeners and landscapers, all courtesy of our broken borders. And for years, it's been this way, and no one said a thing about it. Because everyone prospered. Towns like Hazleton seem to think that they deserve some relief and some sympathy. But one thing they don't deserve is a free pass. Well, Ruben, point taken. Are you happy? The disagreeing racist now agrees. Except, wait, we have a problem. Your not arguing the same point I am. See, if we were having the "are the brown people and white people beneficial to each other" argument, I'd be hard pressed to say otherwise. However, we aren't, or rather most of us aren't despite your inability to see that. We were having an "illegal immigration" debate. Illegal immigration is also a "black letter law" situation that our country isn't addressing. It effects a lot of other black letter laws like due process, which illegals tend to not get in shady employment deals, or human rights, which they lose to shady employment deals, or freedom from oppression, which they suffer under in shady employment deals. It also addresses things like illegal voting, social services, welfare, identity theft, social security, drugs trafficking, human trafficking, murder, rape, domestic violence and education. Things that effect the people here legally, as well as us native white devils. Additionally, I'm not sure if you consider this to be fair, but as a 6' 3" red headed white guy I am often pulled aside at the airport. I am asked to verify who I am. I am wanded. My belongings are searched. I must remove my shoes. All of this is done as my identity is checked to make sure that I am who I am. We both know why, no need to labor that point. However, Ruben, how exactly am I the white man, or man of any color for that matter, supposed to justify that level of scrutiny to protect me from the people that may wish to harm on a flight from Dallas to Houston, a distance I can drive in 2 or 3 hours, when we have no clue who is coming over our borders, with what, for what reason, where they are going and why? I kind of consider that an important question during a war. In fact, I kind of consider that an important question just due to 9-11, and the Cole and the embassy bombings. I consider it important for no other reason than it's the law. If you can't see that those other points are a part of the needed dialogue then I might, just might, have to ask you to consider something: Maybe all of those people aren't only worried about American jobs going to illegal Mexicans or whether or not the culture is too spicy. Maybe some of us just want to know who is crossing the Rio Grande, when, why and who is here already. Alternatively, maybe you might consider your inability to see that is blinded by your racial preferences and your assumptions about mine.

Lohan: 'I am innocent'

I saw this on CNN and I couldn't pass it up.