Blaine Staat

Lethal Profit Machine

2011-08-25T11:29:00.003-04:00

I recently was directed to an article that Vanity Fair ran back in January of this year entitled “Deadly Medicine”. It’s a pretty good article, but the problem is that it’s quite long, which means that most people won’t invest the time to see what it actually says.

And that's a shame, because people need to know what it says.

With that thought in mind, here are some of the most telling – and in some cases the most disgusting – quotes from the article. I haven’t commented on them since they pretty much speak for themselves, however, please note that bolded passages reflect my own emphasis on items that I believe deserve a few extra moments of mental digestion:

“Prescription drugs kill some 200,000 Americans every year. Will that number go up, now that most clinical trials are conducted overseas—on sick Russians, homeless Poles, and slum-dwelling Chinese—in places where regulation is virtually nonexistent, the F.D.A. doesn’t reach, and “mistakes” can end up in pauper’s graves?”

“All of this is taking place when more drugs than ever—some 2,900 different drugs for some 4,600 different conditions—are undergoing clinical testing and vying to come to market.”

“Around the time that drugmakers began shifting clinical trials abroad, in the 1990s, they also began to contract out all phases of development and testing, putting them in the hands of for-profit companies.”

“The F.D.A. gets its information on foreign trials almost entirely from the companies themselves. It conducts little or no independent research.”

“In 2008 seven babies participating in drug testing in the province suffered what the U.S. clinical-trials community refers to as ‘an adverse event’: they died.”

“In all, at least 14 infants enrolled in clinical trials for the drug died during the testing. Their parents, some illiterate, had their children signed up without understanding that they were taking part in an experiment. Local doctors who persuaded parents to enroll their babies in the trial reportedly received $350 per child.”

“In the mid-90s, Glaxo conducted clinical trials on the antidepressant Paxil in the United States, Europe, and South America. The clinical trials showed that the drug had no beneficial effect on adolescents; some of the trials indicated that the placebo was more effective than the drug itself. But Glaxo neglected to share this information with consumers; annual sales of the drug had reached $5 billion in 2003. In an internal document obtained by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the company emphasized how important it was to “effectively manage the dissemination of these data in order to minimize any potential negative commercial impact.” The memo went on to warn that “it would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated.”

“It turned out, however, that AstraZeneca had been less than candid about the drug’s side effects. One of the most troubling: patients often gained weight and developed diabetes. This meant a new round of drugs to treat conditions caused by Seroquel.”

If you’d like to read the whole thing, you can find it here: Deadly Medicine, Vanity Fair Jan 2011

A Bag of Popcorn and a Bag of Hammers

2011-07-12T14:28:00.005-04:00

I’m always amazed at how ignorant I can be, especially when it comes to food.

Like the first time I made butter a couple of years ago by taking the cream I skimmed from the raw milk I get and shaking it up in a mason jar.

That’s all you have to do. Just shake it up. It’ll turn into butter all by itself. Who knew? I sure didn’t. Talk about feeling dumb.

Even after making my own butter every week for two years now – I still get a kick out of it, by the way – I’m still amazed that there was ever a time when I didn’t know how easy it is to make. But there was.

Well, color me ignorant once again. This time concerning popcorn.

I’ve always thought I was pretty familiar with popcorn. I know what air poppers are, I’ve operated the same types of machines that are used in movie theaters, and I’m old enough to remember those Jiffy Pop commercials on TV.

But the two main ways I’ve always made popcorn at home have always been by either microwaving pre-packaged bags of popcorn or – because I’m turning into an old-fashioned, self-righteous, crotchety old goat when it comes to food – buying the bags of cheap, loose popping corn and cooking it on the stove with a little oil in a big pot.

That’s how I rolled, and all was well in my little tunnel-visioned world for 45 years.

And then a friend of mine made an almost off-hand comment one day about cooking that cheap, loose popcorn in the microwave. All you had to do, he said, was to put some popcorn in a brown paper bag, stick it in the microwave, and nuke it.

And just like that I suddenly felt about as intelligent as a bag of hammers, because it had never even occurred to me that you might be able to do that.

I’m not exactly sure why. I guess I always thought that you had to have a “special microwave bag”, or “special microwave popcorn”, or “special microwave popcorn sauce”.

Something.

But you don’t. All you need is some popcorn and a brown paper lunch bag. What you get is a bag of fluffy, hot popcorn and nothing else. Add your own salt & butter to taste.

Not only is making popcorn this way far less expensive than regular microwave popcorn, it’s also healthier and faster because you’re not eating – nor having to heat up – all the other “stuff” that comes with pre-packaged microwave popcorn (which in my test sample included: partially hydrogenated soybean oil, salt, natural & artificial butter flavors, lecithin, and beta-carotene coloring).

How cool is that?

I guess even a bag of hammers can learn something new.
:-)

Dissection of a pre-packaged 3.5 oz. bag of microwave popcorn. There are 3 ounces of popcorn and .5 ounces of "stuff" that looks vaguely like butter but isn't. (Nasty - even the Honey Badger doesn't want to eat that!)

Cheap popcorn and cheap lunch bags . . .

. . . cover the bottom of the bag . . . .

. . . nuke as you normally would (but be ready, it will cook faster than you're used to) . . .

. . . eat straight from the bag or pour in a bowl. Season / butter to taste. And yes, it tastes as good as it looks!

The Pareto Principle

2011-03-10T09:14:00.003-05:00

(Originally published in The Casey County News in February 2011):

In 1906, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto noted that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by only 20% of the population. Over the years, his initial observation morphed into what has become known as “the Pareto Principle”, or what is more commonly referred to today as the “80/20 Rule”.

The 80/20 Rule can be – and is – frequently applied to just about anything that can be measured; 20% of the population controls 80% of the wealth, 20% of the workers perform 80% of the work, 20% of the inventory takes up 80% of the stockroom space, and on and on.

In short, the 80/20 Rule states that – regarding pretty much anything – 20 percent is vital while the remaining 80 percent is relatively trivial, and while anything that is “measured” by the 80/20 Rule is obviously a generalization, it is also a generalization that has been repeatedly shown over the years to be surprisingly accurate.

The 80/20 Rule is well known in the business world because, by its principle, 80% of a company’s profits are generated by only 20% of its customers. Corporate America knows this very well, and dedicates their efforts toward making that elite 20% very, very happy, since they constitute the core of their entire business.

And what about the remaining 80% of customers who generate the other 20% of their profits? Well, to be brutally honest, it just isn’t worth it for big companies to spend much time on that segment of their business. Not enough “bang for the buck”.

I know this is true because I worked for years at one of those big “global” companies, and that is exactly what we were instructed to do; get rid of the “little guys” as fast as possible so that we had time to create & nurture “personal” relationships with the “whales” (i.e., the big spenders).

For the people in that upper 20%, this system works out pretty good; they have direct access to real people, their phone calls are returned quickly, and things actually happen if & when they complain.

But for the rest of us – the average consumers that make up the other 80% – it’s not so much fun. We have to call 800 numbers, navigate phone trees, wait on hold for minutes or even hours, and, in many cases, simply get pushed to conduct all of our inquiries through a cold, impersonal on-line interface.

If it sometimes feels like no one really wants to help us, it’s because no one really does.

Looking at all of this from a strict business perspective, it does make sense. However, there is an extremely important element that gets overlooked when business is conducted in this manner: the human element.

What I mean is that there is a certain human dignity that each and every one of us deserves to have, and by submitting ourselves to companies who view us as no more than an account number, credit card swipe, or line item on a spreadsheet, we deny ourselves the privilege of that most basic right: to be treated like a human being.

When dealing with a large business, it’s hard to get around that. But when dealing with a small business – a local business – it becomes a whole lot easier.

If I have a question about my insurance, for instance, I don’t have to dial an 800 number and follow the directions of an automated attendant. I know my insurance agent personally; he lives and works here in Liberty. I can call him up directly, stop in to speak with him face to face, or even walk down the street and knock on the front door of his house.

The local grocery store down the street from my home started carrying Altoids 5 years ago simply because I told them I would buy them if they did (I've been a loyal customer ever since).

Doing business locally has a different feeling, and it’s a good one.

I like the way it makes me feel when I walk into a local business and everyone there knows me personally. I appreciate the fact that when local business owners ask me a question, they really want to know the answer. And there’s something genuinely pleasing about seeing people that I do business with everyday also attending church with me on Sunday mornings.

They’re my neighbors. They’re my friends.

I understand that in the grand scheme of things I am not that important, and I also realize that I will probably never be a “whale” on any business’ top “20 percent” list. But I also know that when I do business locally with people I know and trust, they never treat me as if I were something trivial.

I’m important to them, and that’s important to me.

So treat yourself to some human dignity this week; Shop local. Be local.

How a Bailout Works

2011-02-07T16:10:00.003-05:00

Note: I found this fascinating anecdote posted as a comment to an online news article; the author is unknown. I took the liberty of modifying it to reflect a U.S. setting rather than European one. Conceptually, it reminds me very much of M.C. Escher’s “Waterfall” lithograph, except that if “Waterfall” is simply an illusion, how is it possible that the below could be “real”?:

The rain beats down on a small Kentucky town. The streets are deserted. Times are tough. Everyone is in debt and living on credit.

A rich New Yorker arrives at the local hotel, asks to view its rooms, and puts a $100 bill on the desk. The owner gives him a bunch of keys and he goes off for an inspection.

As soon as he has gone upstairs, the hotelier grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher hurries down the street to pay what he owes to his feed merchant. The merchant heads for the bar and uses the note to pay off his tab.

The bartender slips the note to the local hooker who’s been offering her services on credit. She rushes to the hotel to pay what she owes for room hire.

As she puts the $100 bill on the counter, the New Yorker reappears, says the rooms are unsuitable, picks up his $100 bill, and leaves town.

No one did any work. No one earned anything. Everyone is out of debt. Everyone is feeling better.

And that is how a bail-out works.

USAD Debate Hits Wall

2011-01-31T16:27:00.002-05:00

WASHINGTON - In the small but controversial world of men’s problems, a new menace affecting over 90% of the male population has recently pushed erectile dysfunction aside to become the prominent topic of the day. The issue? Urine Stream Accuracy Disorder, commonly referred to as USAD.

While the issue is not a pretty one, it is widespread, and sources say it has existed in relative obscurity for decades. “The problem has always been there,” said longtime urinal user Kent Shute, “but up until now, nobody wanted to talk about it. It’s just something we all wished would go away by itself.”

USAD is a disorder which causes men of all ages to relieve themselves on the walls next to, above, or even underneath bathroom urinals. But while everyone can agree that the problem exists, there is huge debate as the to actual cause of the malady. In one corner is the healthcare industry, which insists that USAD is a biological condition easily treatable with prescription drugs.

Just last year, pharmaceutical giant Plaxico-Burress, Inc. received FDA approval of it’s new super pill “Tak-āme!”, the first medical approach to combating USAD. But public acceptance has been slow, due in part because initial marketing efforts were directed at the wrong demographic; women between the ages of 18 – 45.

“That problem has been corrected,” said PBI Chairman Tony Bruschetta. “We cleaned out the whole marketing department. Whacked ‘em all.”

But while PBI may have cleared that particular obstacle, what they haven’t yet overcome is the other reason for lackluster sales, namely the severe side-effects associated with Tak-āme!, most alarming of which is permanent blindness in over 16% of those treated, a condition which many think actually exacerbates the problem of urine stream accuracy. PBI has refuted the claims, saying the numbers are inflated, and has taking legal recourse in it’s effort to fight what it calls “a smear campaign”.

“It’s all smoke & mirrors,” Bruschetta said. “Nobody knows how many of those guys were blind in the first place. It’s not something we checked upfront. And even if those numbers were correct,” Bruschetta continued, “it certainly doesn’t diminish the effectiveness of Tak-āme! on the problem of urine stream accuracy disorder. Blind or not, guys hit the target. Our product works, and we’re confident that people are going to start forking over the cold hard cash to get it.”

On the other side of the USAD controversy is the International Coalition of Urinal Providers who counter that USAD is not a biological problem at all, but is instead due to engineering defects in urinal design.

“If you look at what’s out there today,” says I.C.U.P. spokesman Seymour Butts, “what you’ll see is that there’s no standardization. You’ve got [wall urinals of] different shapes, different heights, different materials, different colors; it’s just insane. And don’t even get me started on troughs. How’s a guy supposed to handle all that and still be able to concentrate?”

However, Butts admits that while all member organizations of the I.C.U. P. may concur that standardization is the key, there is discord within the group when it comes to agreement on a comprehensive solution. Some industry insiders think that special UWP’s (urinals of wide proportions) will relieve 95% of the problem, while others argue that only a combination of UWP’s coupled with other devices such as self-cleaning floor grates will be truly effective.

Also engaged in the fray are service organizations such as Gentlemen’s Helper, LLC, who argue that labeling USAD as either a simple biological or mechanical issue is a rush to judgment.

“It’s a behavioral condition,” insists GH president Lucy Cannon. “There’s just no quick fix for this type of thing, and we certainly don’t intend to provide one. We’re in this for the long haul.”

What GH proposes are specially trained on-site bathroom consultants, whose services range from simple recommendations & tactical advice, to actual “hands-on” assistance for those suffering from advanced stages of USAD. But while behavioral counseling holds promise to many, most analysts think these guys are way out.

As the controversy continues to rage and a real cure remains as of yet just a distant hope, the vast majority of men seem to be content just with that fact that the topic is finally getting some attention.

“People suffering with USAD are just like everybody else,” concluded Shute. “We just want to be able to pee straight.”

Rest assured, Mr. Shute, anyone using a public toilet wants that for you too.

Pole Position

2011-01-17T11:13:00.002-05:00

If you love to speculate as I do, here’s something that you might find worthwhile to consider. As a lot of my personal speculation has a tendency to do, it involves the merging of science and religion, but even if you don’t subscribe to “God”, you may still find it an intriguing topic.

Scientists have discovered that the North Pole is on the move, and they’ve been tracking its advance for several years now. Not only is the position of the North Pole moving (which is pretty fascinating all by itself), but its rate of travel is actually speeding up.

Take a look at the below National Geographic article from 2009:

North Magnetic Pole Moving Due to Core Flux
"The magnetic north pole had moved little from the time scientists first located it in 1831. Then in 1904, the pole began shifting northeastward at a steady pace of about 9 miles (15 kilometers) a year.

In 1989 it sped up again, and in 2007 scientists confirmed that the pole is now galloping toward Siberia at 34 to 37 miles (55 to 60 kilometers) a year."

Maybe it’s just me, but I sure think that fits the definition of “fascinating”. I mean, how often do you hear scientists use the term “galloping” as a description?

As interesting as this documented phenomena is all by itself, however, and despite its possible contribution to noted weather pattern and ocean current changes currently being attributed to “global warming”, I can’t help but wonder if it is part of something even bigger.

By “bigger”, I mean something that very few people would think of in the first place, and almost nobody would even begin to believe could be included within the realm of realistic possibility.

But isn’t that what makes speculation fun?

So there’s the documented science; now switch gears with me for a minute.

There’s an interesting and entirely ridiculous passage in Revelation where John is describing (as best he can) a vision he is seeing of the future.

It’s important to remember here that John is not a “high-tech” guy. He lived 2,000 years ago; he has no idea what weather satellites, carbon dating, or combustion engines are. He’s never surfed, tweeted, or emailed. Submarines, aircraft, and microwave ovens are beyond the borders of his imagination.

If we are to believe what he wrote in Revelation, he’s being shown a vision and simply describing it in the best way he can with the knowledge that he has.

So with that in mind, here’s the passage in question that I’m referring to:

“and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.”
- Revelation 6:13-14

Like I said, pretty ridiculous.

We know today – obviously – that there’s no way that the stars could ever fall to the earth. It only takes a cursory reading of that passage to understand that John has no idea what stars are, or how big they are, or that they’re all varying degrees of distance from the earth (and literally “astronomical” distances at that).

Ridiculous. Dismissed. A “busted” myth that doesn’t even merit a test.

Or is it?

Granted, if John is thinking the way we think today – with the knowledge that we have today – it would be. But remember, John doesn’t know what we know; he’s only writing what he sees in the best way he can with the knowledge and understanding that he possesses.

Imagine this as a possible hypothesis for what John is seeing in his vision: John is looking out at the Southern horizon at night when suddenly the earth starts to quickly rotate directly back towards him.

What would he see?

Because he is standing on the earth in a fixed position to the horizon and because of his limited knowledge, it would appear to him that the stars in sky – all of them – were falling towards the horizon. Falling to earth.

And if the earth did actually rotate quickly in that manner, could we expect the atmosphere to undergo violent changes (perhaps clouds “rolling up like a scroll”) as the earth spun inside? And would not every mountain and island truly be in a different position?

Whoa. Not quite so ridiculous anymore, is it?

Of course, for all of that to occur, the earth would need to physically rotate very quickly, like what might occur if the North and South Poles were to suddenly switch positions. Is that even a remote possibility?

Going back to the above National Geographic article: “Geologists think Earth has a magnetic field because the core is made up of a solid iron center surrounded by rapidly spinning liquid metal. This creates a "dynamo" that drives our magnetic field.”

I’m not a physicist, but I have played with magnets before, and without exception, if I try to “move” the pole of a magnet using another magnet or piece of steel, the entire magnet follows the pole.

So the question is, “If the earth’s core is essentially a giant magnet, and the north pole is now moving away from the axis about which the earth spins, and that spin is what is keeping the earth in it's current orientation instead of following the pole (much like a gyroscope), what happens if & when the pole moves beyond the point that the earth's rotation can continue to hold it in position?"

Well. Like I said, it’s all just speculation.

You Are The Market

2011-01-06T11:25:00.003-05:00

There’s an old saying regarding consultants: “If you’re not part of the solution, there’s good money to be made in prolonging the problem.”

It’s kind of funny; and it’s kind of not.

Over the past few years there has been an increasing amount of distrust, skepticism, and anger regarding healthcare in general and vaccines in particular. More and more people have “opted out” of having their children vaccinated; a movement whose wake is creating a large divide between two sides:

People are concerned over mercury based preservatives, while the medical establishment assures us they are safe.

People are concerned about possible side effects of vaccines (including the fear that they may cause autism), while the medical establishment insists that there is no clinical proof of any such connection.

People are questioning the number of vaccinations that children now receive (an average of 36 vaccinations through age six, as opposed to only 10 in 1983), while the medical establishment assures us that they are all necessary.

Who do you believe? Who can you believe?

No loving parent would intentionally cause their children to suffer pain or to inflict a lifelong debilitating injury upon them, so with so many organizations (CDC, NIH, WHO, FDA, etc.) telling us that vaccines are perfectly safe, why are so many people questioning this authority?

Maybe a better question is, “Do they have a valid reason to question it?”

Consider the follow excerpt from the current issue of Forbes magazine (don’t ask me why I have a Forbes magazine; I’m not exactly sure either). The following is from an article about a new DNA decoding machine, with the author exploring its potential future:

“Cancer is the biggest near-term market. Today treating a cancer patient costs hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars. Some breast cancer patients already get a specialized gene test to help determine what treatment is right for them. If similar gene tests become routine for all 4 million cancer patients in the U.S. and Europe, as many oncologists expect, this alone could be a $20 billion market. Some patients might be sequenced multiple times as a tumor spreads and mutates.”
- Forbes magazine (pg. 72), Jan 17, 2011

It’s hard for me to imagine a more telling statement, and straight from the horses mouth, no less.

To me, that paragraph exposes the core problem with our entire healthcare system: it’s run by people who have no intention of being part of the solution. They understand – very clearly – that there’s good money to be made in prolonging the problem.

Your health is of concern to them only if it turns a dollar, and let’s face it, healthy people don’t spend a whole lot of money on healthcare; sick people do. To put the above example into perspective, if a cure for cancer were found, a $20 billion dollar market – just for this new DNA decoding technology, mind you – would disappear. That’s a lot of money.

Regarding vaccines, how big is the vaccine market today? How much money would be “left on the table” if tens of millions of people “opt out” and stop getting them? Do you think that’s not cause for concern?

We are told that vaccines don’t cause autism, but we are not told what does cause it or how to prevent it. We are given treatments for it instead. In fact, we have treatments for everything, but not too many cures. With a cure, treatment stops. And so does the money.

You might say, “Well Blaine, those are businessmen; of course they’re only interested in profit. But the CDC, NIH, WHO, FDA, etc., are non-profit government organizations dedicated to serving the pubic interest.”

On the surface, that’s true. But who are the people running those organizations? Where do the come from?

Is it surprising to know that many of the people who work in executive positions for those organizations are “subject matter experts” who used to work in the “for-profit” healthcare field? Is it also surprising that many of them return back to the “for-profit” healthcare field when they leave those organizations?

Isn’t there a potential conflict of interest in that?

Upton Sinclair was quoted as saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

I would also suggest that it is difficult for a business to find a cure for a disease when the very existence of their business depends upon not having one.

Revisionist History

2010-12-28T10:27:00.002-05:00

Several years ago I came across the book “Underworld”, by Graham Hancock.

For those of you not familiar with Hancock, he is a modern day “explorer” who has investigated and written about some very intriguing topics, from ancient astronomy to the Ark of the Covenant. What makes him interesting is that he takes a completely unbiased view of the things he researches and pushes no agenda in his conclusions, leaning neither toward science, religion, superstition, or conventional wisdom.

In the book “Underworld”, he explores some very interesting “ruins” in several parts of the globe that are located under approximately 100 feet of water. He posits that these may in fact not be “ruins” at all in the conventional sense, but that they may in fact be the remains of human architecture that was originally built above sea level, only to have since been covered with water.

(You can see a few of the startling photographs here; take a look and make your own determination)

What Graham suggests is that at one time, sea levels were around 100 feet lower than they are today, and that these human-made ruins were covered up as frozen water from the last ice age melted and joined the oceans around 20,000 years ago.

That’s kind of interesting. What was also very interesting to me is that, in the book, he had a map of the globe showing how the land masses of the earth would have looked if the oceans were 100 feet shallower than they are today.

One of the things that caught my eye was that in this scenario, the present day Persian Gulf would not have existed at all; the entire area currently covered by the waters of the Persian Gulf would have been dry land!

What was immediately intriguing to me about this is that both the Tigris & Euphrates rivers empty into the Persian Gulf. The Tigris & Euphrates are two of the four rivers that the Bible uses to mark the geographical location of the Garden of Eden. The locations of the other two rivers – the Pishon and Gihon – along with the Garden itself, are unknown.

I remember thinking at the time, “What if the Biblical Garden of Eden – along with the Pishon and Gihon rivers – are all actually located beneath the Persian Gulf?"

An exciting speculation? I thought so. True, the Biblical and scientific timelines don’t match up, but if you could account for that, it would certainly explain a lot.

Having that brief look into my “mental history”, you can understand why the following article caught my eye a couple of weeks ago:

Lost Civilization May Have Existed Beneath the Persian Gulf
The article is quoted:

Veiled beneath the Persian Gulf, a once-fertile landmass may have supported some of the earliest humans outside Africa some 75,000 to 100,000 years ago, a new review of research suggests.

At its peak, the floodplain now below the Gulf would have been about the size of Great Britain, and then shrank as water began to flood the area. Then, about 8,000 years ago, the land would have been swallowed up by the Indian Ocean, the review scientist said.

How interesting is that? In addition to the fact that we now have Hancock’s speculation merging with current scientific research, we now have a scientific timeline (8,000 years) much, much closer to the Biblical flood account in Genesis.

That certainly doesn’t prove anything, and it still leaves a thousand questions unanswered, but it is interesting. And, it also raises – inadvertently – another question: If the Persian Gulf did indeed “swallow up” that land, where did the water come from? The last Ice Age, remember, was 20,000 years ago, not 8,000. Or was it?

Ahhhhh! Don’t you just love a good mystery!

But while we’re at it, why don’t we throw a little more wood on the fire? Here’s a couple of paragraphs from an article that started working it’s way around just yesterday (emphasis mine on bolded items):

A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.

The accepted scientific theory is that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and migrated out of the continent. Gopher said if the remains are definitively linked to modern human's ancestors, it could mean that modern man in fact originated in what is now Israel.
Source: Researchers: Ancient human remains found in Israel

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know; the timelines aren’t even close. Still . . . very interesting to see “science” continuing to dovetail with myth, legend & religion despite it’s best efforts not to.

The Ridiculous Island

2010-12-27T16:13:00.003-05:00

I was going to start this off by saying that I’m not a big fan of Jules Verne’s writing, but I decided against it.

I mean really, who am I to criticize him? After all, Verne was – along with H.G. Wells – one of the Founding Fathers of Science Fiction, and he was an enormously successful author back in a day when books didn’t just roll off the presses like rain.

He brought us 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and Around the World in 80 Days. His most successful titles are still widely read today, and his work has inspired dozens of movies either directly or indirectly.

But . . . ?

Yeah. But.

I don’t know how to explain it other than to guess that I’m just spoiled. I love his imagination; I’m just not a big fan of his writing. The best I can explain is that – in my mind at least – he doesn’t tell a story so much as he tells what happened.

And that in itself wouldn’t be so bad except that he doesn’t really even do a good job of making me believe “what happened”.

Well Blaine, it is science fiction after all . . .

No! See that’s just it. I can believe him when he tells me about the wild submarine, the expedition to the earth’s core, or the “bet” to circumnavigate the globe in two and a half months. He’s got me. I’m in.

The problem is when he tries to tell me about the things that I should have absolutely no trouble believing in at all – that’s where he loses me.

Here’s one glaring example of what I’m talking about that I ran into while reading “The Mysterious Island” a few weeks ago. (The “five brickmakers on Lincoln Island” refer to the castaways who have become stranded on the island. In this passage, they are building an oven so that they can begin forging metal from raw materials to make tools and weapons.):

Generally bricks are formed in molds, but the engineer contented himself with making them by hand. All that day and the day following were employed in this work. The clay, soaked in water, was mixed by the feet and hands of the manipulators, and then divided into pieces of equal size. A practiced workman can make, without a machine, about ten thousand bricks in twelve hours; but in their two days work the five brickmakers on Lincoln Island had not made more than three thousand, which were ranged near each other, until the time when their complete desiccation would permit them to be used in building the oven, that is to say, in three or four days. - excerpt from “The Mysterious Island” (Chapter 13), by Jules Verne

Did you catch that? In case you missed it, here it is again in slow motion: “A practiced workman can make, without a machine, about ten thousand bricks in twelve hours”.

Okay. Now, let’s forget for a moment that, within just a few days of becoming stranded on the island the castaways have already learned how to make usable bows & arrows and have become proficient in hunting big game with them. Let’s push the “I Believe” button and submit that it is possible that one of the castaways could have knowledge & abilities eerily similar to the Professor from “Gilligan’s Island”.

So far, not so tough. I have a big imagination, and I want to believe.

But . . . A practiced workman can make, without a machine, about ten thousand bricks in twelve hours?

My imagination just broke. Why? Because that’s just not possible.

In case you don’t have a calculator, ten thousand bricks in twelve hours breaks down to about 833 bricks per hour, or 14 bricks per minute, or 1 brick every 4.3 seconds.

Non-stop.

For 12 hours straight.

Not possible.

By way of comparison, last week I had to mail out 81 letters. I timed myself on how long it would take me to affix address labels to them.

Bear in mind, I’m sitting in a comfortable chair at a clean desk with all my envelopes and labels ready to go right in front of me, and while I wasn’t trying to set a land speed record, neither was I sandbagging. Elapsed time: 9 min, 45 seconds. Or one envelope every 7.2 seconds.

So that’s what I mean when I say that Verne loses me on the things that he should have no trouble making me believe – ordinary, everyday, commonplace tasks.

The puzzling thing to me with this particular thing was, How could he have erred so badly?

Verne was an educated man who came from a privileged French family. His father was a successful lawyer and his family spent their summers at their country home on the Loire River. Verne studied law himself until he began writing.

Is it difficult to believe that Verne never made a brick in his life?

That perhaps he saw a “practiced workman” make a single brick in a matter of seconds at a country fair once and extrapolated his “ten thousand bricks in twelve hours” from that, never considering that it was simply impossible for any human being to maintain that kind of output for any sustainable length of time?

I don’t know. What I do know is that he apparently saw nothing unbelievable about it, which would suggest that even everyday tasks were science fiction to Verne.

So who cares right? Big deal.

Well, ask yourself this: Who is it that makes the decisions in our world on what is made, how much of it is made, and how fast it is made? Who decides how many animals a single man can slaughter in the course of a day, or how many brackets can be welded in an hour? Who makes decisions about what kind of food we should eat and how it should be produced?

Is it the people who actually know how to do these things, or is it, more possibly, people from privileged families who sit in Ivory Towers around lacquered mahogany boardroom tables? People who – like Verne – have only the merest suggestion about how to do any of the things that they have been charged to manage?

What if all of our important decisions regarding government, manufacturing, agriculture, medicine, etc., were being made by people just like that?

Yeah, maybe you’re right. It is just science fiction after all . . .

Disappearing Into the FOG

2010-12-01T15:43:00.003-05:00

I seem to have a knack for predicting the future, or, barring that, at least making pretty good educated guesses. I haven’t been keeping track, but since writing “What So Proudly We Hailed”, three years ago, I’ve seen roughly two dozen concepts from the book come to fruition in the real world, ranging from mandatory healthcare to RFID implants that can kill the wearer remotely.

Here’s another interesting news article I read today:
FTC proposes Do Not Track tool for Web marketing

Compare that with the below excerpt from “What So Proudly We Hailed” written in the summer of 2007:

FOGNet was the first company to take advantage of the situation. What FOGNet did was allow you to log into their system first, at which point you would receive a randomly generated IP address. From there you could then surf the web, visit chat rooms, send email – whatever you wanted – and no one could trace anything back to you. No “cookies”, no electronic trail; nothing. And no one could access FOGNet’s records either, because they didn’t have any. They didn’t have any storage at all. No disc, no tape; nothing at all. Everything just passed through and anything you did just vaporized in the next instant.

Their company slogan was “Disappear Into the FOG”, and that’s exactly what millions of people did.

The only problem was, you were still trusting someone else – yet another corporation – to provide your anonymity, and it wasn‘t long after FOGNet and a couple of other like startups hit the scene that the first scramblers entered the market. Scramblers did essentially the same thing – scrambled your IP address so you looked like a different user every time – but it was hardware that you could buy and own, and in doing so, not have to put your faith into a service provider like FOGNet, because, let’s face it, who really knew how benevolent they were either?

Huh. Pretty good shootin', don't you think?

A Piece of the Action

2010-11-09T08:41:00.004-05:00

This is Fiction:
Your entire life is now part of a central database, and all aspects of it are intricately woven together and can be used for individual study or in comparison to any other person or group to gather statistical information. Everything can be monitored, and of course, since it can be monitored, it is monitored.

Who used this information? Maybe a better question was, who didn’t?

Regardless of whatever else had changed, capitalism was still the shining star of America, and the huge corporations that owned and ran the economy still lived & died by one thing and one thing only: continuous year over year revenue growth.

Wall Street wanted results, and doing as well as you had the year before impressed no one. The stock market analysts and the brokers and the shareholders didn’t care how you increased revenue, they only cared that you did.

And what Wall Street wanted, Wall Street got.

Every publicly listed corporation wanted their hands on that information, and since almost every one of them was already tied to the database in some way because of the broad encompassing reach of the DHS who controlled it all, the vault was opened. And why not? They all put data into the system; it wouldn’t be fair if they weren’t allowed to take some out.

Things just began to happen.

(from the novel "What So Proudly We Hailed")

This isn’t:
"The age of the plain old credit score is gone, says a report at the Wall Street Journal, and it's been replaced by ever more intrusive efforts by banks and credit agencies to gauge exactly what you're worth, and what you can pay.

To that end, financial firms are now tracking their customers' bank deposits, rent payments or home values, and even utility bills to figure out who may soon become a financial risk, reports WSJ's Karen Blumenthal.

So, for example, if your employer pays you through direct deposits and those deposits stop, financial institutions can now have warning that your money situation is likely to tighten, and may deny you credit on that basis.

But the efforts don't end there. A new area of research, income estimation, "took off earlier this year," WSJ reports, and involves financial firms collecting information about mortgages, personal loans and credit history to determine how much an individual makes and how much credit they should be given.

In this new era of deep data-mining, even your utility bills and rent check aren't out of bounds."

(source: Banks spying on your bills, rent payments, paychecks: report)

I'm confused now; which one was fiction again?

Money Well Spent

2010-09-21T09:34:00.002-04:00

A fellow ponderer got me thinking about time the other day.

He was referring to all of the additional time that it now takes people to get through airport security, and how this is being done solely in the name of saving lives. The question then, was how many millions of additional hours has this now totaled the American people, and how many “man-lives” does it equal to?

That’s kind of an abstract concept. After all, even if hundreds or even thousands of additional “man-lives” have been “lost” at airport security, each individual passenger has only lost a few of those hours themselves. For most of us, if a concept doesn’t affect us personally, we either have a hard time grasping it or it simply doesn’t matter to us all.

Five years ago I left Orlando, FL and moved to a tiny little town called Liberty, KY. The change was dramatic; a population of half a million people to less than 2,000, a 6-figure paycheck to hovering around the poverty line, and, for this example, a 45 minute commute traded in for (quite literally) a drive of less than 2 minutes.

I should clarify to say that my 45 minute commute was one-way; I spent fully 1-1/2 hours in my car every day, 5 days a week, just going to and from work. By comparison, the 4 minutes I spend now isn’t even worth mentioning.

It was this 1-1/2 hours that I no longer spend each day that I started to think about in earnest. 90 minutes a day doesn’t necessarily sound like a lot until you consider that it equals over 16 days each year.

Think about that! I used to spend 16 days each year just sitting in my car.
Usually frustrated.
Usually stuck in traffic or sitting at a stoplight.
Talk about a waste of time!

To take it further, what that means is that in just the past 5 years I have gained almost 3 entire months of time – 3 entire months of my life – that I was able to use for anything I wanted!

How many times have you heard someone lament that they wish they could have had “just one more day” with a loved one? How would they react if they learned that they could have had days, weeks, months – even years – simply by getting rid of one or two of those things that we waste our time on every day?

Each of us has a finite amount of time on this earth, and yet so often we spend it without even thinking about it, as if there was an unlimited supply.

There’s not.

And the cruel twist is that none of us even knows how much time we have left on our own personal lunch ticket. In light of that, how could we ever waste it as if it means nothing?

To look at it from another perspective, if we could buy time, how much would we pay to get an additional 16 days of life each year? For that matter, what is a single day worth in monetary terms?

I would imagine that if you needed one bad enough, it would be priceless.

Money for Nothing

2010-08-23T15:30:00.002-04:00

For various reasons - not the least of which is that they wanted to try it out - we decided to put our remaining two children in a local Christian Academy this year.

We’ve homeschooled since 2001, and we don’t subject our children to vaccines. People might say that’s not good parenting, but our kids aren’t plagued by the issues that affect so many other children these days so I would argue otherwise.

Our kids are healthy and have strong immune systems. They are not overweight, have no medical conditions, and take no prescriptions. They are like children used to be when I was growing up.

To enroll them in school, however, we needed to either get them caught up on their vaccinations or request a waiver from the health department. (The only way you can bypass vaccinations is with a “religious” exemption, even if it has nothing to do with your religious beliefs).

So I went to the health department, wrote out the statements for each child, and then had to wait 30 minutes to have a “state mandated counseling session”, which amounted to a nurse telling me for 3 minutes what a good idea it is to have my kids vaccinated. This undoubtedly has a high success rate for 19 year old mothers who are too shy to say “no”, but it doesn’t have much affect on a grizzled old cynic like me.

But okay. I’ll jump through the hoops. Dot the “i’s” and cross the “t’s”. So I did.

They charged me $48. Twenty-four for each kid, neither of which was even there.

How’s that for a deal? It cost fifty bucks to not have anything done. Is it just me, or is it a strange world we live in when we not only have to pay to get something, but we also have to pay to not get it.

The funny thing, though? I would bet that there is some state program that would have allowed me to have each child fully vaccinated at no absolutely no charge.

Go figure.

Moby Dick - Smash or Trash?

2010-04-01T09:34:00.003-04:00

I enjoy reading classic literature and have finally gotten around to Moby Dick. It’s taking awhile to read, partly because I have to concentrate harder to comprehend the style of English used at the time of its writing, and partly just because it’s a very long book in its own right.

Moby Dick is, without a doubt, a classic piece of literature. But, 159 years after its original publication, I have to wonder how well Herman Melville’s story would be received had he written it today.

My honest guess? He would not even be able to get it published. Certainly, at least, not without massive amounts of editing.

As a case in point, consider the below passage taken from Chapter 42. It’s just one piece of a much longer explanation that Ishmael is giving about the color white; how, while it is usually associated with cleanliness, good, purity, etc., it can also have a much more sinister and ominuos connotation (such as the pale white of death):

From Moby Dick, Chapter 42 – “The Whiteness of the Whale”:
“Though in many natural objects, whiteness refiningly enhances beauty, as if imparting some special virtue of its own, as in marbles, japonicas, and pearls; and though various nations have in some way recognised a certain royal preeminence in this hue; even the barbaric, grand old kings of Pegu placing the title "Lord of the White Elephants" above all their other magniloquent ascriptions of dominion; and the modern kings of Siam unfurling the same snow-white quadruped in the royal standard; and the Hanoverian flag bearing the one figure of a snow-white charger; and the great Austrian Empire, Caesarian, heir to overlording Rome, having for the imperial color the same imperial hue; and though this pre-eminence in it applies to the human race itself, giving the white man ideal mastership over every dusky tribe; and though, besides, all this, whiteness has been even made significant of gladness, for among the Romans a white stone marked a joyful day; and though in other mortal sympathies and symbolizings, this same hue is made the emblem of many touching, noble things- the innocence of brides, the benignity of age; though among the Red Men of America the giving of the white belt of wampum was the deepest pledge of honor; though in many climes, whiteness typifies the majesty of Justice in the ermine of the Judge, and contributes to the daily state of kings and queens drawn by milk-white steeds; though even in the higher mysteries of the most august religions it has been made the symbol of the divine spotlessness and power; by the Persian fire worshippers, the white forked flame being held the holiest on the altar; and in the Greek mythologies, Great Jove himself being made incarnate in a snow-white bull; and though to the noble Iroquois, the midwinter sacrifice of the sacred White Dog was by far the holiest festival of their theology, that spotless, faithful creature being held the purest envoy they could send to the Great Spirit with the annual tidings of their own fidelity; and though directly from the Latin word for white, all Christian priests derive the name of one part of their sacred vesture, the alb or tunic, worn beneath the cassock; and though among the holy pomps of the Romish faith, white is specially employed in the celebration of the Passion of our Lord; though in the Vision of St. John, white robes are given to the redeemed, and the four-and-twenty elders stand clothed in white before the great-white throne, and the Holy One that sitteth there white like wool; yet for all these accumulated associations, with whatever is sweet, and honorable, and sublime, there yet lurks an elusive something in the innermost idea of this hue, which strikes more of panic to the soul than that redness which affrights in blood.”

Wow.

Other than the obvious changes in grammar & language that make it almost incomprehensible to today’s reading public, two things drew my attention to this particular passage.

For one, it is a single sentence, 467 words long. Do you think you could have gotten away with that had you turned it in to your English teacher in high school? That single sentence is 1/3 the length of my entire senior term paper!

Secondly, did you notice the whopper of a politically incorrect statement buried inside the text: “and though this pre-eminence in it applies to the human race itself, giving the white man ideal mastership over every dusky tribe”.

Whoa, Nellie! That dog ain’t gonna be hunting in 2010, now is it? In fact, “classic” though Moby Dick may be, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that particular statement didn’t one day make a quiet exit from the text entirely. (And maybe more telling is that I doubt anyone today would even notice if it did.)

Anyone who has ever attempted to put pen to paper with the intention of forming a novel can truly appreciate - and stand in awe - of the sheer craftsmanship that was required to carve out the 500 pages of Moby Dick. In today's world unfortunately, that, plus $1.50, will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's.

Dear Mr. Melville,

I regret to inform you that your manuscript “Moby Dick” does not fit our needs at this time. The book is so endlessly complicated by details and reference information that the very action of the story becomes hopelessly bogged down, making the book, eventually, unreadable. It is so dry, airless, and lacking in pace, that whatever drama and excitement the novel might have contained is entirely dissipated by what seems to be nothing more than an immense amount of extraneous material.

Yours sincerely,

21st Century Editor

Why I Believe in God: Part III - The Church of Evolution

2010-03-30T10:08:00.003-04:00

(to start at the beginning of this series, click here)

If there is one single overriding factor that gives evolution presumed validity over creation, it is that evolution is based on science, whereas creation is based on superstition and ignorance.

In ancient times, it is supposed that people didn’t understand the things that happened in the world around them. They knew that things did happen, and they also knew that they were not the ones that caused those things to happen, and so they assumed that someone or something had put those events into motion. They called these unseen – and obviously very powerful – things “gods”.

Science, on the other hand, establishes fact based on cause & effect, not wild speculation. Science is non-judgmental. It is unbiased. It is rational. It seeks the truth.

“Creation” says that the earth, stars, mankind – everything – was created by an unseen entity of incomprehensible power. “Evolution” says that it all came about through natural causes, random chance, and progressive evolutionary growth. Religion is based on wishful thinking; Science, on the other hand, is based on fact.

It certainly sounds like evolution – backed with the authority of science – has a legitimate argument. Until you realize that science doesn’t really have any facts at all, and evolution is, like Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc., merely another religion.

How could I believe that?

Well, start with the concept of evolution, or more to the point, the theory of evolution, because despite all of the pomp & circumstance, that’s really all that it remains – a theory.

While evolution is “widely believed to be true” by the scientific community, it has not been proven by any stretch of the imagination. If it had been, you can bet the very first thing scientists would have done would be to trumpet that particular fact to the world.

But they haven’t. All they have done is to simply stop referring to evolution as a theory and forge ahead under the assumption that it is true.

Personally, I have never been presented with any “proof” of evolution, only a “preponderance of evidence”. The problem with that is that there is also a “preponderance of evidence” for the existence of God – a creator – as well, though, like evolution, there is no “proof’ of God either.

People believe in God by faith, and faith, by definition, is belief without proof. That poses a big problem for evolutionists, because evolution is based on science, and science is supposed to be based on fact, not speculation. But regarding evolution, there are no facts and there is no proof, and without those, evolution is just as surely a faith-based religion as any other.

Make no mistake about it, evolution is a religion. It all boils down to which church you choose to enter; the church of God, or the church of man.

In fact, the only thing that even remotely resembles “proof” of evolution seems to be time, or more specifically, the dating of fossils and artifacts.

Looking at the Biblical record, there certainly appears to be roughly 6,000 years from the time of Adam to the present date. Scientists, through several different means, have dated things back millions of years. How to account for the huge discrepancy?

Some people fault the methods that scientists use to date objects, saying that they are loaded with assumptions (which they are) and that their results cannot be validated (which they can’t). But though there may be some anomalies with the various different dating methods used, I have no doubt that they are essentially correct. Even if they are not 100% exact, I would have to guess that they are at least “in the ballpark”.

The “time” issue is without a doubt a massive hole in the argument for creation. It’s a huge disparity, and it is that disparity – from all that I see and hear and read – that seems to be the one single horse upon which almost all information about evolution is riding. If there was ever anything at all that provides legitimacy to the theory of evolution, “time” would have to be it.

But what if “time” was not an issue? What if there was no disparity? If “time” were taken out of the equation entirely, is there anything left that would truly lend any sort of factual, scientific validation to evolution?

Those were some of the questions that I asked myself, and once I started looking at time as a separate entity, I realized that there could actually be a very plausible explanation to account for it. Not proof mind you, but certainly something that I think casts plenty of “reasonable doubt” on the issue.

If you’re following my train of thought, I’ll need you to humor me at this point and suspend your belief about the disparity of “time” as I did; I’ll address it at a later date. And please remember, I’m not trying to convince you of anything; I’m only trying to share how I came to believe that God is real. You can believe whatever you want. You will anyway.

But if you have followed me to this point, let me summarize where I found myself:

1) There either is a God or there isn’t, and I either believe in Him or I don’t.
2) Evolution is just as much of a religion as Christianity.

Once I truly understood what I was dealing with, I was finally able to get down to some real searching.

"Geico" Bread

2010-03-25T09:41:00.005-04:00

I love fresh bread, but it can be a pain to make; mixing it up, letting it rise, punching it down, letting it rise again . . . It takes awhile, which is why most people (myself included) usually opt to purchase bread from the grocery store. Fresh, homemade bread is killer, but simply because of the time that it takes to make, it unfortunately winds up being more of a periodic “special treat” than an everyday staple.

So how excited was I when I found a way to make fresh bread anytime I want with only a few minutes of my time? Pretty excited.

A friend of mine shared a recipe with me that she found in Mother Earth News. It’s easy, requires no kneading, and is darn near fool-proof (which is a huge bonus for me). And the kicker? The bread is good.

All you have to do is invest about 15 minutes to mix up a batch of bread dough once a week or so. Then, anytime you want fresh bread, you cut some dough off and cook it.

The recipe is easy to remember too: “63313”. If you can remember that number, the rest is easy. It stands for 6 cups water, 3 tablespoons yeast, 3 tablespoons salt, and 13 cups flour. That’s it. (I usually cut the recipe in half.)

Here's the step-by-step:

Ready to start; Flour, water, yeast, & salt.

Add yeast & salt to lukewarm water. Let sit
for 10 minutes.

Add flour . . .

. . . & stir until all flour is moist. (It will look

like this when done.)

Cover loosely and let it sit on the counter for

2 - 5 hours (it will rise by itself), then stick it

in the fridge. YOU'RE DONE!

When you want some bread, pull the dough from

the fridge (this is the remains of my last batch)

and sprinkle some cornmeal on a cookie sheet

(or cooking stone if you have one).

Cut off a chunk of dough (grapefruit/canteloupe

size) and shape. I usually make round loaves, but

you can make others. Just pull the edges up and pinch

in the middle. The dough will be wet, so use as

much flour on your hands and counter as needed.

Place on cookie sheet with pinched side down

and stick it on the counter to sit for 1 hour.

Ready to put in the oven; glaze with butter

and slice top to allow expansion just prior to

baking.

Cook at 450 degrees for 30 minutes and this is

what you get! As good or better than I've had

in restaurants. Really good toasted w/butter.

I've made loaves of various sizes & shapes, and have also experimented with adding a little Italian seasoning & garlic. I make a loaf almost everyday now; it's so easy it's ridiculous.

Men take note: Chicks dig men that know how to cook bread. It's a very "Renaissance" kind of thing that provides a good "shock & awe" reaction. So whether you're looking to make an impression on your new girlfriend or you just want to score some serious brownie points with the wife, it's a "win-win" either way.

And the bread ain't too bad either. :-)

Blaine Does Butter

2010-03-18T19:30:00.005-04:00

Last summer, at age 43, I did something for the very first time: I made butter. And it was so absolutely rockin’ cool that I’ve been making it every week since. Don’t ask me why I enjoy it so much because I really don’t know.

Maybe it’s because we only use real butter in our house and a pound of it in the grocery store goes for around $3.50 these days (we almost never have to buy any since I've started making it).

Maybe it’s because it tastes better than store-bought butter and we know EXACTLY what’s in it and how it was made (not to mention who made it :-)

Or maybe it’s just because I like making it so much. Did I mention that I think it is SO ROCKIN’ COOL?

I know; I’m weird.

Every week I skim about a quart of cream from the milk I get from a local farm. Catherine uses a little bit of the cream to put in her coffee, and in the summertime we’ll put some to good use making homemade ice cream. The rest of the time, it’s butter.

It’s so easy to make it’s ridiculous. Just shake it up and watch what happens. The below photos are from a batch I made last week. From cream to butter took about 10 minutes total time.

Half a jar of cream (it will expand).

Starting to thicken up . . .

Just before it starts to separate; really thick here

and hard to shake, but only for a few seconds.

Starts collapsing and clinging together . . .

And suddenly, you have pure butter and

old fashioned buttermilk!

Pour it into a collander (I got this one for $1

at the dollar store) . . .

Unworked butter (still needs residual buttermilk

wicked out or it will have a slightly sour smell)

Push the butter around for a minute or two until

no more buttermilk squeezes out . . .

Press into a mold . . .

New batch ready to stick into freezer. Once frozen,

I'll remove from mold, cut in half, wrap, & put in

freezer until needed.

So Rockin' Cool.

Peak - a - Boo

2010-03-12T13:15:00.002-05:00

Interesting to see this kind of article in the mainstream news:

Oil Production to Peak in 2014, Scientists Predict

More and more I see topics that used to be relegated only to conspiracy theorists showing up through more “credible” sources like the Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters, etc.

I have no idea if the scientist’s predictions in this case are correct, but it would sure seem to me that regardless of the specific date, sooner or later we will reach that “peak oil” plateau. And just for the record, very few scientists seem to be proposing that it will be “later”.

Most people, when thinking about a contracting oil supply, tend to focus on rising gasoline prices. It's viewed more as an annoyance and a personal financial burden than anything else.

Rising gas prices would certainly be one effect, but they would only represent the very tip of a what is actually an extremely large iceberg.

Think about how you live your life now and compare it to what life was like just 100 years ago. (Do a little Googling into history for photographs & descriptions if you need to.) What you will see is that up until the beginning of the 1900’s, the way people lived didn’t really change all that much from one century to the next. There were improvements to be sure, but they were all generally very small and incremental.

And then suddenly, just a little more than a century ago . . . Boom. Everything changes, with incredible speed.

Our entire way of life today – from interchangeable parts and the industrial revolution, to plastics and electronics, to transportation, to food production, to heating, to manufacturing – is all based on oil. If it’s not made of petroleum it was made with petroleum and transported by petroleum.

It’s all possible because of oil. It is all completely dependant on oil. And if – or maybe more appropriately when – oil isn’t available anymore?

Well now. That's something to think about, isn't it?

Why I Believe in God: Part II - Pascal's Wager

2010-03-10T14:56:00.004-05:00

(to read Part I click here)

Back in the late 1980’s my brother and I had an in-depth discussion in my sister’s kitchen one day. The topic: Did God exist or not? I must have been 23 or so, because I’m four years older than my brother and he was in college at the time.

It was not an antagonistic conversation, but it was most certainly a debate; I was making the case for the existence of God, while my brother – who was a philosophy student – was taking the opposite stance.

(Some might question at this point which “god” I’m referring to; there are, after all, more than a few to choose from. At this point, simply understanding God as a “higher power” (i.e., the antithesis of evolutionary doctrine) will suffice. Explaining why I believe in the Christian God of Abraham as opposed to others is another discussion entirely, though there is certainly a reason for that too.)

As we went back and forth, each presenting our “evidence” for or against the existence of God, I wound up stumbling upon (and verbalizing in my argument) a realization that I have never forgotten: There either is a God or there isn’t, and you either believe in Him or you don’t.

I’ve always thought of this in my mind as the “Four Outcomes”, because it lays the groundwork for understanding that there are only four possible paths – and therefore only four possible “outcomes” – that are open to us.

Outcome #1: God does NOT exist / You do NOT believe in God.
If you are an atheist, this would be the outcome that justifies your existence. The big “win”, if you will. You were right all along. But it’s an interesting “win” if you dig into it a little.

First of all, you would never even know that you were right. Upon your death, consciousness would abruptly end and you would simply cease to exist. No thoughts, no realizations, no “I told you so”. Certainly no parades or celebrations. You would never even know.

And before that, what kind of life would you have “knowing” that there is no God? “Knowing” that when someone that you love dies, that’s it for them; too bad, so sad, they’re simply gone? “Knowing” that you are completely alone, with no one to talk to, no one to listen, and no one to help? Your life is an accident, and it has absolutely no meaning or purpose whatsoever.

And hope? Hope in what? It’s just you. Hope for what? There is nothing else.

It’s important to know that if you are an atheist, this is the best case scenario for you. This is as good as it will ever get; your “value proposition” for denying God, if you will. And this is what you’re telling other people that they should want as well.

I don’t know about you, but that just doesn’t sound all that good to me, especially when you consider the alternative . . .

Outcome #2: God DOES exist / You do NOT believe in God.
I don’t think there needs to be a whole lot of elaboration here. As before, your life would be just as meaningless and hopeless as if God did not exist, only this time, the end of it would be very different.

You wouldn’t just “fade away” into nothingness at your death; instead, you would have thoughts, you would have realizations, and you would understand that you were terribly, terribly wrong.

Not a situation I wish upon anyone.

Outcome #3: God DOES exist / You DO believe in God.
Again, not a lot of elaboration is necessary. If you’ve ever been to church, you’ve heard the message: no more tears, no more pain, just an eternity in heaven.

Outcome #4: God does NOT exist / You DO believe in God.
This one is a little more interesting, and it is the scenario that a lot of atheists seem to get very upset about; that people would believe in a God that does not exist. How foolish and silly. But look a little closer.

Again, just as in the “best case” for an atheist, if God does not exist, I would never even know. I’ll go through my life believing in God, and then, when I die, I would simply cease to be. I’d never know that I was wrong.

But before then, what a difference! A life filled with meaning, purpose, and hope. Facing my own mortality without fear. “Knowing” that when someone I love dies it is not the end, and being able to hold that hope in my heart for the rest of my life. “Knowing” that I am not alone; that there is someone watching over me, listening to my pleas, and helping me when necessary.

“Knowing” that I am loved in this world.

I have to ask, even if it turns out that I’m deluding myself, so what? Why should that bother anyone?

What’s interesting to me too, is that this would be the worst case scenario for a Christian, and yet, it seems to me that it is a far better outcome than the best case scenario for an atheist.

And, of course, all of this assumes that I'm wrong, which I don't believe I am.

This was all pretty deep stuff for me back in my early twenties, and I’ve carried it around in the years since thinking that I was pretty wise for being able to lay it all out like that. But you know what they say about pride, and as you might imagine, I eventually wound up eating a couple slices of humble pie when I discovered several years ago that – big surprise – I was not the first person in the history of the world to unearth this concept.

Solomon wrote that there is nothing new under the sun, so it wasn’t really a big shock for me to find out that Blaise Pascal outlined the same thing in almost the exact same way back in the 1600’s (and undoubtedly so did many others before him). The concept is commonly known as “Pascal’s Wager”, and there are some very interesting viewpoints & discussions on it if you should choose to run it through a search engine.

And if you do read some of the commentary about Pascal’s Wager, you’ll eventually see (roughly) the same “fatal flaw” that my brother made to me over 20 years ago in my sister’s kitchen: You can’t just decide to believe in God the same way that you would make a business decision.

My brother was absolutely right. Belief is not something that you can turn on or off with the flick of a switch. But if that’s true, then why even mention this at all, whether you call it “Four Outcomes” or “Pascal’s Wager” or anything else?

In and of itself, Pascal’s Wager proves nothing. It’s not a foundation to build anything on. It won’t make you believe or disbelieve anything.

But for me it was incredibly important because it was the first time I realized what the “playing field” looked like, and I was able to understand with all clarity that there are not an infinite number of possibilities available to us.

There are only four: There either is a God or there isn’t, and you either believe in Him or you don’t.

Once I understood how simple the playing field was, the search for the truth became a whole lot easier.

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. – Matthew 7:7

(to read Part III, click here)

Why I Believe in God: Part I - Introduction

2010-02-25T13:13:00.003-05:00

One of the things that I’ve struggled with on this blog is what to write about.

In the beginning, my main purpose was to use it as a means to help market the books I had written. Over the past few years, I’ve made more than a few posts relating to What So Proudly We Hailed, especially in instances where I’ve seen the reality of the world following the fiction of the story. I’ve also posted half a dozen or so of the stories from Finding Liberty to give people an idea of its subject matter and style.

To date, I’ve witnessed no “Harry Potter” type of mass hysteria for either book, but that’s okay; while hopeful, I wasn’t really expecting that anyway.

But the blog remained. What to do with it? What to write?

At first, I tried to differentiate myself from the approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000 or so other blogs on the web. Right.

I tried posting funny stuff. Nothing.
I tried some “thoughtful” posts. Nothing.
Political: Nothing.
Historical: Nothing.
Etc., etc., etc.,: Nothing, nothing, nothing.

This eventually led me to ask myself, “Why do I bother doing this at all?” It’s not like my “fame” & “renown” is growing (15 to 20 hits a day has been about the average), I don’t make any money from doing it, I’m certainly not saying anything that can’t be found on more credible sites, and – as previously stated – it’s not driving the sale of my books.

So, other than being a questionable use of time and maybe even becoming something of a burden, what was the point?

I settled on the answer of continuing to post simply because I like to write. I like to think, I like to speculate, and I like to ask questions, and writing posts has helped me to do that in a concrete, visible way. For myself.

If I had – or have – any other agenda to my writing, it would simply be that maybe, just maybe, I could encourage someone else to look at a particular topic in a way that they never had before. To question conventional wisdom, shun the “experts” of the world, and think about things for themselves and, subsequently, arrive at their own conclusions.

There is an unbelievable freedom in thinking for yourself. That much I know without a doubt. But I would also suggest that it doesn’t even make any difference what it is that you think about; even if you’re wrong, you’re still right, because in your mind, whatever answer you arrived at is the correct one.

It’s what you believe. It’s yours. It belongs to you, and no one can take it away without your consent.

One of the “answers” that belongs to me is the fact that I believe in God.

I know that puzzles some people. Makes them angry in some cases. After all, “God” is nothing more than a fairy tale for the ignorant, right? Haven’t we settled this already?

How could I be so archaic in my thinking? How could I ignore the “preponderance of scientific evidence” that supports evolution? How could any reasonable, educated, intelligent person – humor me here – actually believe in God?

Those are good questions. They deserve answers. And I’m going to try to answer them, because I know that there are a lot of my friends (and some of my family) who think I’m just being simple. That I walked into a frenzied church service one morning and left as just another brainwashed, hand-waving basket case.

I can see how some people might think that, but, in my case at least, it’s just not true. I have real reasons. I’ve given it real thought. I have real life experiences. I was told that the “debate” was over; I simply decided to open it back up again and take a look for myself. I’m like that sometimes.

So if you care to know, I’m going to share with you why I believe in God. It will take awhile, because there’s a lot to it, but my plan is to add posts over the next few weeks (or months), providing as much explanation as I can put into words.

Why would I do that, and, more importantly, why would you care?

First of all, understand why I’m not doing it; I’m not doing it to change anyone’s mind. If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I respect that. I’m not evangelical; it’s not my job – nor is it in my power – to make someone believe in God.

Christians may be shocked at that statement; “What about the great commission?”

What about it?

If you’re already familiar with God and the story of Jesus then the purpose of the Great Commission – spreading the word – has been satisfied. The way I read it, there is nothing in the Great Commission about “convincing” people to believe in Jesus Christ; just making them aware of Him.

I think the fact that Jesus Himself did nothing to “convince” people bears that out. When He sent out the disciples to spread the word, He told them that if people didn’t want to listen, the disciples were to shake the dust from their feet, leave town, and go find people who did want to listen. Not a word about staying around and preaching until people were badgered into submission.

So if you already know about Jesus Christ and choose not to believe, then that’s your decision.

My purpose then in doing this is simply to let you know why I believe in God, because I have real reasons and I don’t think most people understand what they are. Interestingly enough, I’ve never had anyone - Christian or Atheist - ever ask me why I believe in God. I find that very odd.

And I think it’s important that you understand why I believe in God, because I can absolutely understand why you may not. I grew up in the same public school system. I see the same TV shows, commercials, and movies. I read the same news articles. I hear the same disembodied voice on the Discovery Channel.

I was – and continue to be – inundated with the same continuous barrage of evolutionistic messages that serve to reinforce the concept as everyone else. I just see them differently.

I feel the ridicule and condescension of non-believers, but I choose to ignore it.

I see the hypocrisy of so many people who wear the label of “Christian”, but I try to let my own life be an example of my faith since that’s the only thing I have any amount of control over anyway.

I am well aware that “religion” can be – and often is – used as a self-serving tool for control, power, and wealth, but I focus on what it should be rather than what mankind has turned it into.

My question is: Are you curious as to why?

If so, check back from time to time and I’ll tell you. I can’t promise any sort of time frame, but I will eventually put it all down in words. If you're not interested, that’s okay too. Just skip anything you see that has “Why I Believe in God” in the title.

Comments along the way will be welcome, but please remember: I’m not trying to convince you that God exists, so please return the favor by not trying to convince me that He doesn’t. It would be a waste of your time anyway.

(to ready Part II, click here)

Funny Money

2010-02-18T09:15:00.002-05:00

Over the past year there has been a lot of saber rattling by various states over states rights. Here’s an interesting concept out of South Carolina, a place where a lot of interesting things have come from in the past year:

South Carolina Lawmaker Seeks to Ban Federal Currency

"South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts has introduced legislation that would mandate that gold and silver coins replace federal currency as legal tender in his state."

The article points out two problems with his legislation:

"As one expert told the Scoop, however, his bill would likely be ruled unconstitutional because it 'violates a perfectly legal and Constitutional federal law, enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, that federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts public and private.'"

They are legal tender, but by the U.S. Treasury’s own admission, you don’t have to accept them:

Question: I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

Answer: The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy. Source

That’s why, as one of our (very) small local businessmen here in Casey County found out recently, Frito-Lay was perfectly within their rights when they told him that they would no longer accept cash or checks starting in January of this year. This particular businessman is now faced with either setting up electronic payments with Frito-Lay (which he has no desire to do) or simply walking away from using them as a vendor.

So if a business can dictate the terms of how they will accept payment – including the mandated use of tokens, bus passes, or electronic payment – what would be so wrong about using silver and gold, other than the fact that the Federal Reserve vehemently does not want us to?

The article goes on to say:

"In addition, since gold and silver regularly fluctuate in value, they could not easily function as stable currency."

Okay, do I really need a reference for this one? I mean, c’mon; that statement is so ridiculous I have a hard time believing that it’s being passed off as a serious comment. Since when does the dollar not fluctuated in value?

Interestingly, the following article also came out recently. This one is a complete satire from “The Onion”, but while it is absolutely hilarious, I'll leave you to tell me how much of it is conceptually wrong.

U.S. Economy Grinds To Halt As Nation Realizes Money Just A Symbolic, Mutually Shared Illusion

I thought it was a pretty sad day when I realized that “The Daily Show” was the most unbiased news source on television. How much more so when we now see that the entire U.S. monetary policy has been nailed down tight by "The Onion”?

At least we can laugh about it. For now at least.

Greecing the Skids

2010-02-16T10:12:00.004-05:00

When we think of money, our minds automatically conjure up images of paper bills with presidents on them, and, to a lesser extent perhaps, the loose change of quarters, nickels, and dimes.

Strange that we think that way, because how much do we even use those things anymore? Other than a newspaper here and a soft drink there and maybe a couple of dollars at a garage sale, I would suggest that our reliance on actually currency – the kind you can hold in your hand or jingle in your pocket – is virtually non-existent.

Think about this for a second: In today’s world of checks, debit & credit cards, Paypal, direct deposit, and online payments, it is 100% possible to live your life without ever touching any actual money at all.

Ever.

I can readily admit that I rarely ever carry cash myself, other than a few dollars that I keep on hand for “emergencies”.

It might give us pause to wonder, do we even need cash anymore?

December 22, 2009:
National Irish moves to cashless banking

National Irish Bank has written to thousands of its customers this month informing them of a “new style of banking” in which branches will not handle over-the-counter cash transactions.

The letter says branches will no longer handle cash withdrawals and lodgements, night safe lodgements and foreign currency cash. Branches will continue to lodge cheques, drafts and postal orders and issue drafts.

February 9, 2010:
HIGHLIGHTS-Greek FinMin unveils tax reform, wage policy

"From 1. Jan. 2011, every transaction above 1,500 euros between natural persons and businesses, or between businesses, will not be considered legal if it is done in cash. Transactions will have to be done through debit or credit cards"

July 4, 2021:
United States Outlaws Use of Hard Currency (from the novel What So Proudly We Hailed)

In the past, whenever two people wanted to make a transaction, they agreed on a price and money was exchanged for goods or services. The entire event was contained solely between the two people involved.

When a transaction was made electronically, however, there were actually three parties involved; the buyer, the seller, and a middleman who transferred funds from one account to another.

No one doubted the convenience or safety of electronic transactions because they were easy, and it was much safer than carrying cash, but no one had ever questioned the role of the “middleman” either, or more specifically, the power that the middleman had to decide whether the transaction should occur at all.

Of course, those “middlemen” had always held a rather benevolent position in the past. They didn’t cause problems because they wanted us to use their services, and they knew we had the option to forego them entirely and just use cash instead if they made things difficult for us.

But that was just it; we didn’t have the option of cash anymore.

Every transaction was now required to go through that middleman, which gave them the final authority to approve or disapprove as they saw fit. The power to buy or sell had been taken away from the actual buyer & seller, and transferred instead to these unknown, unseen middlemen.

And the funny things is, that power? That unbelievable power? We had just given it to them.

Not so funny, was that they now began to use it. Who was going to stop them?

You're right. Probably never happen.

Sweet Nothings

2010-02-09T09:41:00.003-05:00

So here is a news story from what I would guess would be considered a “reliable” source (Reuters):

Study links sugary soft drinks to pancreas cancer

The conclusions from the article are right upfront:

* Regular soda drinkers had 87 percent higher risk
* Theory is that sugar fuels tumors

The substance behind the conclusions starts with:

WASHINGTON, Feb 8 (Reuters) - People who drink two or more sweetened soft drinks a week have a much higher risk of pancreatic cancer, an unusual but deadly cancer, researchers reported on Monday.

Then:

"The high levels of sugar in soft drinks may be increasing the level of insulin in the body, which we think contributes to pancreatic cancer cell growth," Pereira said in a statement.

And finally, in conclusion:

One 12-ounce (355 ml) can of non-diet soda contains about 130 calories, almost all of them from sugar.

The rest of the article was filler material (both literally and figuratively), but please feel free to read it if you like; it’s not very long.

I counted the word “sugar” used a total of 6 times in the article (if you include the title), and although the article does not claim that the conclusions of the study are definitive, it certainly implies that “sugar” should be considered a dangerous substance.

But here's the funny thing:
Soft drinks do not contain sugar.

Don’t believe me? Take a look for yourself. Read the label.

With very few exceptions - and I mean very few - regular soft drinks are sweetened with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) - not sugar - and diet soft drinks, of course, use aspartame almost exclusively.

Interesting that they didn't mention that. Just an oversight perhaps?

I’m no detective, but I’m a little hard-pressed to understand how sugar can be blamed as the villain when it wasn’t even at the scene of the crime.

Beat Me Up, Scotty

2010-02-03T09:32:00.002-05:00

Just when you think you’ve scraped the bottom of the stupid barrel, you discover there is a secret compartment underneath whose depths are as of yet unknown.

If you lift the lid to this compartment and plunge your hands beneath the oily surface, you might pull out something like this:

Studies Reveal Why Kids Get Bullied and Rejected

I’ll spare you all of the touchy-feely-zen tripe from the end of the article; mercifully, the “money shot” is right upfront:

Kids who get bullied and snubbed by peers may be more likely to have problems in other parts of their lives, past studies have shown. And now researchers have found at least three factors in a child's behavior that can lead to social rejection.

The factors involve a child's inability to pick up on and respond to nonverbal cues from their pals.

What they’re saying – and the rest of the article bears this out if you don’t believe me – is that if a child is being bullied, it is their fault because their “social skills” are not up to par.

Makes perfect sense to me. Remembering times when I was bullied as a child I can now realize that it was the fact that I was walking home from school on the sidewalk minding my own business that earn those kicks and blows.

I’m sure rape victims will now be able to understand – if they think about it with an open mind – that they did indeed “ask for it”.

And the kid whose drunk father beats him with a stick is not only guilty of inspiring that wrath, but he’s also probably to blame for why his father is a drunk in the first place, having not provided him with sufficient pleasure to remain sober.

I remember the first time I read “1984” and saw those three ridiculous slogans “War is Peace”, “Freedom is Slavery”, and “Ignorance is Strength”. They make no sense at all, I thought; how could the people in Orwell’s fictional world “buy-in” to them without a second thought? Surely in the “real world” the lines of truth and fiction could never become so blurred.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

You were a child once; you lived in that world where children were left to their own devices and allowed to shape their faux society as they saw fit. What do you think?

Lord of the Flies

2010-01-28T09:49:00.003-05:00

It’s pretty sad when you have to leave your own country to get away from a government that insists on intruding into your private life. There may come a day when there’s nowhere left to run, but for today I can not only say “Yeah!”, but I can say “Yeah!” to a judge.

US judge grants German homeschooling family asylum

If you’re not up to speed on homeschooling, Germany has been turning the screws on any type of education other than state education for years, hence the problem for the referenced family.

What’s really amazing are the statements in the article made from a state school representative, which range from the ridiculous to the hypocritical. It amazes me that someone could make these statements with a straight face:

"The [public] school is an embryonic democracy and will help to integrate children and young people coming from different backgrounds into the democratic culture," he said.

Embryonic democracy? Are you kidding me? It’s government approved “Lord of the Flies” in a controlled laboratory setting.

If you want an honest appraisal of the public school system, I refer you to one of my absolute favorite articles on the subject, “Why Nerds are Unpopular”, by Paul Graham.

Integration into democracy and learning to get along with those who hold opposing opinions are important skills that children cannot learn when homeschooled, Bruegelmann said, and that is especially true with highly religious parents.

WHAT!?! I’m sorry, but that really burns me, both for the “cannot” and the “especially true” parts. It is an absolute, unequivocal, 100% false statement. All you have to do is look at the “product” being pumped out of the public school system to see the fallacy of this statement.

"They should not have the right to indoctrinate their children," he said. "It's important for children, besides the experience they make at home, which is respected, to have access to other sources of understanding the world."

Ah! So here is the actual crux of the matter! The issue at hand is indoctrination – not education – and obviously, it is the state that should have the right to tell our children what to think, how to think, and when to think it.

Forgive me if I abstain.

Investing or Infesting?

2010-01-22T10:01:00.002-05:00

According to a recent Bloomberg poll, 77% of U.S. investors see President Obama as “anti-business”. (Source)

Why?

According to the article, it’s because of his “efforts to trim bonuses and earnings, make health care his top priority over jobs and plans to tax ‘the rich or advantaged’”, and the fact that he “has been in a “constant war” with the banking system, using ‘fat-cat bankers’ and other misnomers to describe a business model which supports a large portion of America.”

Should we be concerned about the views of this 77%? Well, yes and no.

Certainly investors are essentially to capitalism. They are needed.

If, for example, I had a great business idea that I wanted to put into action, I would need money to start it, and odds are that I wouldn’t be able to come up with the money by myself. Finding someone who shared my vision and would invest some of their own money to help start it would be the only way for me to get my business off the ground.

If my enterprise is successful, the investor is rewarded for their risk by sharing in that success. If it’s a failure, they share that too. Fair enough.

The question I have to ask though, is at what point has the investor been fully compensated for their investment? Is there a point at which their investment has been repaid in full, or is the investor entitled to continue to make money from my labor in perpetuity?

If you buy a house with a 30-year mortgage, for instance, some entity has essentially “invested” in you to allow you to purchase the house. They’re taking a risk in lending you the money with your promise to pay it back. The interest that you pay is that entity’s reward for taking the risk.

As a general rule of thumb, by the time you finish paying back the loan over that 30-year period, you will have paid 3 times the actual purchase price of the house. So if your home cost $150,000, you will actually pay roughly $450,000 for it by the time the smoke clears, with $300,000 of that being free & clear profit to the lender.

I would think that tripling your money on a single investment would be more than a reasonable return, especially when you consider that the lender isn’t actually doing anything except cashing checks. Whether you consider a 3x profit to be fair or not, the point here is that there is an endpoint to the profit taking.

With Wall Street investing, however, there is no endpoint. “Investors” are invited to attach themselves like a remora to a business and ride it forever if they so choose. They add no value to the business; they do no work. They merely make a profit from the labor, ideas, and initiative of others, and in doing so they deny those same profits to the ones who have actually earned them.

Certainly the investment of their money is essential. Certainly they should be rewarded for the risk when their gambles pay off, just as they should be liable for the loss when it doesn’t.

But should their rewards be allowed to go on forever, or should there be a point where the rewards shift to the people doing the actual work instead?

I believe that this is the underlying cause of dissent from that 77% of investors – they are simply unhappy that there might be limits placed on their profit taking.

Should we care?

I don’t think so. It would only matter if they suddenly stopped investing entirely, but I don’t think they will. Like spoiled children they’ll be unhappy that they can’t make as much, but they’ll still invest, because money for nothing is still money for nothing.

Day 1

2010-01-21T09:59:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, January 20th, was the first time in over 20 years that the earth made a complete rotation on its axis without me smoking a cigarette.

I’ve smoked for just over 30 years. There have been 2 occasions when I’ve gone a week or more without a cigarette – instances in the Navy when I found myself in situations where they were simply not accessible – but they both occurred back in the 1980’s, and both were involuntary.

When I started smoking at age 13, cigarettes were 55 cents a pack; today, they are $3 to $4 (or more) a pack. Over my lifetime, I figure I’ve given Phillip Morris & R.J. Reynolds somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000.

At 2 packs a day, I estimate I’ve smoked approximately 440,000 cigarettes. If laid end to end on the ground, that would stretch out over 20 miles.

Through the years I’ve heard countless pleas from my children to quit, and I’ve callously ignored the fear I saw in their little eyes just as many times. I’ve put unnecessary strain on my family’s finances to support my habit. I’ve made my wife endure the smell I wore daily on my clothes and on my breath.

And I’ve witnessed children die of cancer before age 10 through no fault of their own, while I arrogantly continued to pump toxins into a perfectly healthy body that they would never be able to have.

The earth has rotated 10,950 times since I started smoking. In light of that, 1 revolution doesn’t seem like very much, and it’s not. But the earth is still spinning.

Here’s going for 2.

A Shot Across the Bow

2010-01-20T09:27:00.002-05:00

Last night the people of Massachusetts – without a doubt one of the most liberal states in the country – did something that is almost unthinkable; they elected a Republican to fill the Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy.

A quick perusal of Facebook shows that my “Democrat” friends are shocked, dismayed, and feeling as if the everything right in the world has suddenly gone sour. My “Republican” friends – as might be expected – are delighted, happy, and popping the corks in anticipation of even more “good news” in November.

For myself, I’m very encouraged by the results of last night’s election, but not because I’m happy that a “Republican” won; I have no more faith in the label of “Republican” than that of “Democrat”, and I don’t associate myself with either.

I’m encouraged because maybe, just maybe, the people of Massachusetts are seeing beyond the “Us” vs. “Them” mentality that our 2-party system has devolved into.

Forget about “Democrats” & “Republicans”. Back away from the “liberal” & “conservative” labels. Don’t get caught up in the political sideshow of “everything we do is right and everything they do is wrong”. None of that has anything to do with the underlying problem.

I think last night’s election was a clear message from the people of Massachusetts, not to any particular party, but to the United States government as a whole.

The message is this: “We told you we wanted things to be done differently, and you’re not listening to us.”

Nice shot, Massachusetts.

Heroes in the Mist

2010-01-08T10:44:00.002-05:00

For the past few months, we’ve had a homeless woman living on the streets of Liberty. That may be no big deal for most cities, but for a small town like us with a population of about 1,800, it’s the exception rather than the rule.

I don’t know this woman’s story. I do know that she is from Casey County, that she graduated from high school here years ago, that she has resisted help from the community on several occasions, and that she has been arrested a couple of times, but that’s about it. I’ve heard she may have some mental problems, but I don’t know. I’m guessing that she’s in her forties or fifties.

This past Monday morning I was told that a local “Good Samaritan” had put her up in our local motel for the weekend because of the extremely cold temperatures, but that they weren’t financially capable of continuing. The woman was due to be back on the street Monday afternoon facing an entire week where the “high” temperatures weren’t expected to get out of the 20’s, and lows at night down into the low teens & single digits.

I was asked, as the director of the local Chamber of Commerce here, if I could talk with the folks at our local motel and see if they could grant a reduced rate if we could get volunteers to help "sponsor" one night each of a week's stay, which would get her past the worst of the cold spell.

This request really didn’t have anything to do with the Chamber of Commerce, and in truth, it almost slipped my mind to follow up on it, but I drove down to the motel and spoke to the manager. I explained what we were trying to do, and he agreed without hesitation to cut his daily rate by 25% if we booked a room for the whole week.

Just after lunch on Monday I wrote a brief email to the folks on my mailing list requesting help. The message was pretty simple: $30 bucks and the woman gets to sleep inside for the night. I needed 6 volunteers. (I had already decided to pick up one of the nights myself).

I pushed “send” and went to get a cup of coffee. I couldn’t have been gone 2 minutes. When I got back, over ten people had already responded, and more were coming in even as I watched.

It was like a wave:
“I’m in.”
“I have $60 for two nights.”
“Where do I send the money?”
“Put me down for a night.”
“Does she need food? Clothes?”
“Our business would like to do three nights.”

And on and on and on.

I immediately sent out another email telling everyone that we were covered for the week, but that didn’t stop people from responding. I continued to get calls and emails from people wanting to help for the rest of the day and on into Tuesday. It’s strange to find yourself in a position where you are telling people that you don’t need their help, but that’s where I was.

Some people where genuinely upset and hurt that I was telling them they couldn’t give money to help out. Others simply ignored me and sent in money anyway. Cash was dropped off anonymously at my office. One lady who had committed $30 brought in $150. Like that.

Currently, our homeless woman is booked into our local motel until next Monday. Good thing too, as it was 12 degrees this morning. Our local leaders are working to come up with a more permanent solution for her, but in the meantime, I have a surplus of cash in my desk in case we need to put her up longer.

And I know where to get more if I need it. All I have to do is ask.

You need to understand; None of these people have any obligation to take care of this woman, and Casey County is a not a rich community. I can’t think of a single person living here who drives a Lexus. Over 20% of our population lives below the poverty line, and 10% live below half of the poverty line. Not a lot of “bling” around here unless that description includes rolls of hay.

And many of the small-town rural stereotypes certainly apply to us: We gossip a good bit. We’re too nosy. We certainly can be a little backwards, simple, petty, self-righteous, opinionated, and judgmental at times. All that may be true.

But nobody’s going to freeze to death on our streets.

A Self-Defeating Business Model (with a side order of guilt)

2009-12-29T15:49:00.002-05:00

Over the Christmas holidays I saw a commercial on TV that I thought was absolutely shameless.

It showed a bald-headed young girl in a hospital bed on the sidewalk of a busy city street pleading to those walking by to make a contribution for Hodgkin’s Disease research, only to see all of them walk right on by without a glance, ignoring both her and her pleas.

The message – complete with its triple helping of guilt – was that Hodgkin’s Disease needs more money for research. I don’t doubt that it does; but then again, who doesn’t “need” more money? I have yet to see any business, organization, government, non-profit, or charity hold up their hands and say, “Okay, you can stop now. We’ve got all we need.”

How many non-profit organizations exist today whose stated purpose is to “find a cure” for whatever medical condition they represent? I have no idea, but there’s a bunch, and many of them have been around for a long, long time.

Pick your condition – cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, AIDS, etc.; Have you ever thought about how much money the organizations “fighting” these conditions collectively rake in every year? Year after year? Decade after decade?

And yet, for all of the money pumped into them, can you name one that has actually come up with a cure for anything? Just one?

The short answer is that none of them have, and the reason why is exactly the same reason why GE will never sell a lightbulb that won’t burn out and Duracell will never invent a battery that actually lasts a really long time, because if they ever do, we won’t need them anymore.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that these organizations don’t do anything to help – they do – but finding cures is not one of them. If you’re looking for a cure for cancer, for instance, don’t look to the American Cancer Society to find one. What possible reason could the ACS have for finding a cure for cancer?

The ACS has over 3,400 offices nationwide, thousands of employees making a nice living, and tens of millions of dollars pouring in each & every year. It’s a pretty cool business model as business models go, but it does have one tiny little flaw: If a cure for cancer is ever found, the ACS goes away.

Make no mistake, the ACS is in it for the long haul – 96 years and counting; an organization doesn’t advertise “careers” on their website unless they honestly believe you’ll have plenty of time to have one. Finding a cure for cancer isn’t even one of ACS’s corporate goals. Why would it be? It would put them out of business.

So am I saying that you shouldn’t give money to the ACS and organizations like them? Absolutely not. Just don’t be under the misconception that your donation will actually help find a cure, because it won’t, no matter how much guilt is thrown your way.

Upton Sinclair is credited with stating, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

I would suggest that with the tweaking of only a few words, Sinclair’s statement could describe every medical non-profit organization in the world: “It is difficult to get an organization to find a cure for something when their very existence depends on not having one.”

If that makes me a cynic, so be it.

The Gitmo Bait & Switch

2009-12-15T10:15:00.002-05:00

The AP reports this morning that a significant step in closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay has been taken. The article is below, but to cut to the chase, the prisoners currently held in Gitmo will be moved to an underutilized prison located in Illinois.

AP sources: Ill. prison to get Gitmo detainees

This is being painted, of course, as good news. Moving the facility to the U.S. will bring much needed jobs to Americans, and the President, no doubt, will throw this achievement on the table as a flagship campaign promise that he kept.

There are just two little problems.

First, the whole issue with Gitmo was not that there was a prison located there; it was – and still is – what was happening at that prison:

Hundreds of “suspected terrorists” were being rounded up, arrested, and held there indefinitely. No charges were being brought against them, they were not told what they were arrested for, and they had no right to an attorney or a speedy trial or anything else that we afford to even the most base of criminals.

Oh, and we tortured many of them repeatedly, in a variety of new and exciting ways, kind of like they did during the inquisition except that 1) since we are the “good guys” it’s ethical now, and 2) because of improvements in torture technology, any confessions we gained were 100% viable.

The fact that these things were done on a military base located in Cuba is what really made all of this remotely acceptable, because Cuba isn’t the United States, and the prisoners weren’t really criminals in the ordinary sense; they were military combatants, and since – conveniently – there was a war going on we could hold them as prisoners of war for as long as we wanted.

The outcry about Guantanamo was that people wanted it shut down, not moved. What sense does moving it make?

Imagine a wife being angry at her husband for having a long-standing affair with “Lucy”. She wants the affair to end. What has been accomplished if her husband stops seeing “Lucy” only to start sleeping with “Susan”? Would this make the wife happy?

No? Then why would we be satisfied, because that’s exactly what is going on here with Gitmo.

But it’s actually even more ridiculous – and damning – than that, because there is a second problem with this Gitmo solution, and it should make every American bristle with alarm.

To continue with the “affair” analogy for a moment, not only is the husband merely dropping one mistress for another, he’s actually moving her into his own house! Again, should the wife be happy about this?

Think about this for a second: We are moving the Gitmo prison into the United States.

What does that mean? It means that it is now acceptable to the American people to have a prison within our own borders where people can be arrested, held without being charged with a crime, afforded no rights, given no trial, and – if a confession is needed to validate the whole thing – tortured.

And it's okay with us!

We have created a war that is unwinnable, and can therefore be “fought” indefinitely. We have made it acceptable to arrest people based on what they might do. We are continuing to broaden the definition of “terrorist” to include almost any group of people who might speak out against the government.

And now we have our very own U.S. “terrorist” prison to lock them all away.

Well, let me rephrase that; we have our first U.S. “terrorist” prison. We can certainly build more of them if we need to, because we’re setting a precedent here, and once a precedent is established, it’s simply a matter of repeating it over and over and over.

We’ll Tell You Everything, But First We Need to Talk About What We’re Going to Tell You

2009-12-08T10:09:00.005-05:00

I read this article the other day and thought it was laughable:
Yahoo, Verizon: Our Spy Capabilities Would ‘Shock’, ‘Confuse’ Consumers

Basically, the story is about Yahoo! &Verizon refusing to divulge information that should be available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Verizon's justification for not providing it is that the information “might confuse” the American public. Their concern is touching. But shouldn’t the public be the ones to make the determination of whether or not it is confusing? After all, if it “might confuse” the public, it also “might not”. Either way, is that a legitimate reason to say “No” when the law says “Yes”?

Even more ridiculous is Yahoo!’s stance: “'Therefore, release of Yahoo!’s information is reasonably likely to lead to impairment of its reputation for protection of user privacy and security, which is a competitive disadvantage for technology companies,' the company writes.”

So, let me get this straight. The American People have the right to information unless it will make an organization look bad.

Oh. Okay.

I was scratching my head after reading that, wondering where these guys get off coming up with this kind of stuff. And then I read the below article and suddenly I remembered; they learned it from the United States Government: PROMISES, PROMISES: A closed meeting on openness

To spare you from having to read the entire article, it basically describes how the government is having a meeting about “openness”, and as proof that they are both serious and that they know what they’re talking about, the meeting is closed to the public.

“The closed conference will provide tips for FOIA public liaisons on communicating and negotiating with people who make requests, and introduce the new Office of Government Information Services to them, said Melanie Ann Pustay, director of the Justice Department's Office of Information Policy, which takes the lead on government openness issues.”

Really. And what “tips” would be needed to respond to a FOIA request? Hey! Here’s one: provide the information. And what needs to be “negotiated”?

“Pustay said she planned to say the same things at the private workshop that she would say publicly. She offered these reasons to explain why it was closed: She wanted government employees to be able to speak candidly, and the conference would be in an auditorium at the Commerce Department, where she said a government ID was required to be admitted. The AP and others news organizations routinely enter government buildings to cover the government.”

Well, if she really planned to say the same things, what would it hurt to have a couple of reporters there? And what would government employees not be able to talk about in an open session that they would be able to discuss in a closed one? Perhaps, oh . . . . I don’t know, things that they don’t want to discuss in front of the public? You know, things that might “lead to impairment of its reputation”?

“Pustay said she is looking for ways to improve how the government responds to information requests, which costs roughly $400 million each year.”

Maybe the public would be able to provide some “tips” on how to do that. If they were allowed to attend, that is.

“The director of the new Office of Government Information Services, Miriam Nisbet, said the event was closed to make sure there would be room for all the government employees attending.”

This just sounds like a bad joke:
Q: How many government employees were at the meeting?
A: All who attended.

Sorry, there’s just no room. Can’t fit even one more person in. Nope. Not even one. Not a square to spare.

"I can understand skepticism anytime a meeting for government people is not necessarily open to the public," Nisbet said. "However, everything that is discussed there is absolutely available for the public to know about."

“Not necessarily”? Are you kidding me? What kind of people even say things like that? Do they actually think it makes any sense?

No worries, though. Ms. Nisbet has assured us that everything in the closed meeting - er, . . . I mean, the "not necessarily open" meeting - will be available for the public to know about.

Unless it won't.

How to Get a Job in Government

2009-11-20T09:05:00.003-05:00

Note: Neither of these are mine; just passing along. Enjoy!

Case Study #1:
A country boy answered an ad to buy a mule and paid $500 for it. A few days later he came by with his truck to pick it up and the seller came around and said, “I’m real sorry son, but the mule has died and I can’t give you your money back ‘cause I already spent it.”

The country boy said, “Well, just give me the mule anyway and I’ll raffle it off.”

Weeks later, the seller met the country boy and asked him how the raffle went. The country boy said it was a rip-roarin’ success; he raised $900 by selling raffle tickets for $2 apiece.

The seller exclaimed, “Wasn’t the winner upset when he found out the mule was dead?”

“Oh, landsakes, yes,” the country boy replied, “he was real mad.”

“Well, what did you do?” the seller asked.

“I apologized and gave him his $2 back,” the country boy said.

One year later, the country boy was hired to run the U.S. Treasury.

Case Study #2:
A father was trying to prompt his teenage son into choosing a career, but he had no idea what the boy’s interests were. Sneaking into his son’s room one day, he laid a Bible, a silver dollar, a flask of whiskey, and a girlie magazine all in a row on top of his son’s dresser.

He then hid in the closet with the door cracked open so he could see what his son would do when he came into the room, thinking to himself, “If he picks up the Bible, he’s going to be a preacher. If he picks up the silver dollar, he’ll probably be a banker. If he picks up the whiskey, he’ll wind up a drunk. And if he picks up the girlie magazine, he’s doomed to be a womanizer.”

Pretty soon the his son walked in the room and went straight over to the dresser. He picked up the Bible and put it under his arm, slipped the silver dollar into his pocked, took a shot of whiskey, and then started flipping through the girlie magazine.

“Oh, no!” the father thought, “he’s gonna be a congressman!”

Intent to Deceive

2009-11-18T10:13:00.002-05:00

There is a lot of concern today over the accuracy of information found on the internet. That concern is absolutely justified; anyone can get on the web, start a website or blog, and say anything they want. Dress it up nice, write intelligently, provide lots of references, and you gain instant credibility for your position (with at least some of the world).

With so much disinformation out there, we have to be careful to take what we read (and see) on the internet with a grain of salt. We are encouraged – and rightfully so – to get our information from trusted sources rather than from extremists in any direction.

But what constitutes a trusted source these days? Take me for instance. Surely my blog carries far less weight than a more “respectable”, well known institution, does it not? After all, who am I anyway? What makes me an authority? Why should I be trusted?

Good questions, and I don’t have answers for them, other than to say, “no one”, “nothing”, and “no reason”, respectively. If that’s okay with you, it’s okay with me.

Where we all run into a problem is when sources that should be reliable & credible prove that they aren’t.

For example, I ran across an article from the Anti-Defamation League this morning entitled
Rage Grows in America: Anti‑Government Conspiracies

I would consider the ADL to be a legitimate organization, more so than “some guy” blogging from a little town in Kentucky, anyway. But right off the bat they lose all credibility. The article starts with this:

“Since the election of Barack Obama as president, a current of anti-government hostility has swept across the United States, creating a climate of fervor and activism with manifestations ranging from incivility in public forums to acts of intimidation and violence.”

Wrong. Completely wrong. Yes, there is most definitely a “current of anti-government hostility”, but it has nothing to do with Barack Obama. Anti-government sentiment has been building steadily – and, in fact, began to skyrocket – throughout the Bush era. I know that, because I’ve been keeping my eye on it for years. It is merely continuing to grow under Obama, namely because nothing has changed.

By trying to twist “anti-government” to mean “anti-Obama”, the ADL is purposely misinforming its readers.

Later in the article it makes the following statements regarding a group that refers to themselves as “Oath Keepers”:

“One manifestation of the ideology of resistance was the creation in March 2009 of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government group that tries to recruit police and military personnel and veterans. Members refuse to obey hypothetical “orders” from the government, “orders” that speak more to their own paranoid and conspiratorial beliefs than to any realistic government action.”

Again, this is a complete misrepresentation of what the Oath Keepers are about. Oath Keepers make one assertion and one assertion only: that they will not enforce un-Constitutional orders. That’s it. Period.

Is that anti-government? Does that speak to paranoid and conspiratorial beliefs? Why would a group that has vowed to uphold the Constitution of the United States be considered a “manifestation of the ideology of resistance”?

Do you want to know why there is a growing frustration and anti-government current sweeping the country? Because people feel that they cannot trust the government, and they feel that the government is overstepping its constitutional bounds.

Is that unreasonable? I don’t think so. It’s not like they don’t give us plenty of reason to feel that way. We are lied to all the time.

My definition of a lie, by the way, is “anything that is done with a purposeful intent to deceive”. This would, of course, include “bald-faced” lies, but it also includes those other things we call “half-truths” and even complete silence, if it is done with the intent to deceive.

And, unlike the below*, that’s no lie.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

*Excerpt from a conversation (or lack thereof) that occurred on Oct 22nd between a reporter and Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi never did answer the question; her spokesman later made the statement that she didn’t answer it because it was not a “serious question”.

The Drone Wars

2009-11-17T11:48:00.004-05:00

In the very first “Star Wars” movie back in the mid-70’s, Obi-Wan Kenobi makes a reference to “the Clone Wars”. Although he didn’t elaborate on what the Clone Wars were – and regardless of how silly it actually played out when George Lucas finally got around to putting it on the silver screen decades later – it was easy to surmise from his comment that the Clone Wars were a bad time.

Clones and drones aren’t the same thing, but are they really so different? One is biological, the other is mechanical. Other than that, both are carbon copies of a set design, and both presumably exist for a single purpose.

Drones are becoming more and more commonplace in modern warfare, with increasing capabilities and deadlier payloads. Conventional wisdom (at least for those who have drones available to use at their pleasure – namely us) seems to be that they are a good thing: Destroy your target without incurring any personal risk to yourself.

Sounds nice. But have we really thought this through?

Below is an article by Tom Engelhardt that questions our current love affair with drone warfare.

The Folly Of A `Drone War'

As I read this piece, a couple of things caught my attention. The first was this:

“Everything, in fact, will be almost infinitely upgradeable, since we’re still in the robotics equivalent of the age of the "horseless carriage," as Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution assures us. (Just hold your hats, for instance, when the first nano-drones make it onto the scene! They will, according to Jane Mayer of the New Yorker, be able to “fly after their prey like a killer bee through an open window.”)”

I’ve been hearing about “nano-drones” for some time, and although the technology may or may not be there yet to do what Engelhardt describes above, it’s certainly not a stretch to believe that if we can’t do it today, it won’t be long before we can.

What would a man living 2,000 years ago think if he saw something like that in a vision? How would he describe something he couldn’t possibly understand? Would it possibly sound like this:

Then out of the smoke came locusts upon the earth, and power was given them, as the scorpions of the earth have power. They were told not to hurt the grass of the earth, nor any green thing, nor any tree, but only the men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.

And they were not permitted to kill anyone, but to torment for five months; and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings a man. And in those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death flees from them.

The appearance of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle; and on their heads appeared to be crowns like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. They had hair like the hair of women, and their teeth were like the teeth of lions. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was like the sound of chariots, of many horses rushing to battle. They have tails like scorpions, and stings; and in their tails is their power to hurt men for five months.

- Revelation 9:3-10

Interesting. In and of itself, it means nothing; just pure speculation.

But it is interesting.

Moving beyond possible Biblical connections, Engelhardt goes on to say:

“So why am I not excited -- other than the fact that the drones are also killing civilians in disputed but significant numbers in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, creating enemies and animosity wherever they strike, and turning us into a nation of 24/7 assassins beyond the law or accountability of any sort? Thought of another way, the drones put wings on the original Bush-era Guantanamo principle -- that Americans have the inalienable right to act as global judge, jury, and executioner, and in doing so are beyond the reach of any court or law.

Whatever the short-term gains from introducing drone warfare in these last years, we are now locked into the 24/7 assassination trade -- with our own set of non-suicide bombers on the job into eternity. This may pass for sanity in Washington, but it’s surely helping to pave the road to hell.

Haven’t any of these folks ever seen a sci-fi film? Are none of them Terminator fans? Are they sure they want to open the way to unlimited robot war, keeping in mind that, if this is the latest game in town, it won’t remain mainly an American one for long. And just wait until the first Iranian drone takes out the first Baluchi guerrilla supported by American funds somewhere in Pakistan. Then let's see just what we think about the right of any nation to summarily execute its enemies -- and anyone else in the vicinity -- by drone.”

Think closely about these two statements in the above:
“ . . . that Americans have the inalienable right to act as global judge, jury, and executioner, and in doing so are beyond the reach of any court or law.”
“ . . . the right of any nation to summarily execute its enemies -- and anyone else in the vicinity -- by drone.

Judge, jury, and executioner. Not just of your enemies, but anyone else you choose.

Surely, however, not your own people. It would never come to that. Would it?

. . . the AG was squeezing harder and harder. Already they were starting to fly patrols out west using UAV’s equipped with thermal scanners, computer recognition systems, and Vulcan III cannons. They had decimated our ranks in the desert regions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada, and as the AG’s grip got tighter , they were becoming bolder about their methods and less concerned with who might see them. There was a war going on, you know.
- excerpt from What So Proudly We Hailed

Behold My Beautiful Wife

2009-11-12T08:54:00.005-05:00

My wife is beautiful.

She is outwardly beautiful.
The clothes she chooses are feminine and appealing, yet they reflect a modest aura of mystery that others can only guess at. She is lovely when she wears her hair down; whether carefully sculpted before an evening out or carelessly tousled on her pillow as she awakens, it gives her a beauty and a soft feminine grace that defies logic. I feel as though she is teasing me when she wears her hair up, and I’m still amazed that with the simple pull of a comb and a gentle shake of her head, her beauty can be magnified so greatly with such little effort.

She is physically beautiful.
I love the softness of her body, the smoothness of her skin, and the warmth that I feel when I touch her. My favorite part of her body is where her waist gently swells out to her hips, and to feel that swell with my hands is to know without a doubt that I am in the presence of a woman. She thinks it’s unsightly, but she couldn’t be more wrong.

She is inwardly beautiful.
The genuine kindness and caring that dwell in her heart is magnificent to witness. She has a playful spirit, and I will go to great lengths to break her composure, and then delight in her tears of laughter. She is beautiful when she smiles. The light in her eyes, the happiness on her face. Her joy is my heart’s desire, and when that contented inner beauty shines out in her smile, all is right in my world.

She is spiritually beautiful.
What makes her most beautiful to me is something that no one else can experience. She is beautiful because she is my wife. Because she wears my ring. Because she said “I do”, and in doing so chose to spend the rest of her life on this earth with such an imperfect man, and to share her beauty with me despite all of my faults. She knows there will be no refunds on her time; there will be no “do-overs”. And yet, by my side she remains.

If that’s not beautiful to behold, what is?

“Like a lily among the thorns, so is my darling among the maidens.”
Solomon 2:2

The Monster Devouring Us

2009-11-05T08:34:00.002-05:00

Just an interesting article on the potential perils of the internet. It's not very long, but it raises some very pertinent questions that very few people today seem to be concerned about:

The monster devouring us: Even the men who created the internet are beginning to fear its power to destroy our freedom

If the above is intriguing to you and you haven't read "What So Proudly We Hailed" yet, maybe you should. Every nightmare begins with someone crawling into a warm, comfortable bed, but what would it be like if you couldn't wake up?

Just Between You & Me

2009-11-03T10:19:00.004-05:00

I’ve been thinking a lot about secrets lately. Not just secrets themselves, but more to the point, things that are done in secret.

As far as I can tell, there are only two real reasons why someone would hide something from you:

1) It’s none of your business
2) It’s something that they shouldn’t be doing

Are there other reasons? Quite possibly, but I would guess that any other justifications for secrecy would probably fall somewhere under those two, even if they appear to be different on the surface.

There are obviously many legitimate things that fall under the category of “none of your business”. Intimacy between a husband & wife, for example, would certainly qualify as something you have every right to do in private (even though there are some today who opt not to).

The government uses secrecy with different classifications that also fall under the “none of your business" category, such as “NoForn”, “Classified”, “Secret”, and “Top Secret”. To have access to something with one of these classifications you must not only have the clearance to view it, but just as importantly, you have to have a “need to know”. (In other words, just because you have a “Secret” clearance doesn’t mean you can arbitrarily look at everything labeled as “Secret”; if there is no valid reason for you to see it, you’re still out of luck.)

As long as everything is on the up and up, and the people holding the secrets are men & women of integrity, there’s really no problem.

But any study of history – secular or Biblical – will show beyond a shadow of a doubt that not everyone is a person of integrity, and regardless of how our environment may have changed over time, human nature has not. All people are inherently greedy, selfish, and power seeking to some extent, and we always have been.

There are some, however, who take that greed, selfishness, and lust for power to a much higher level than the rest, and they too have always been. Integrity is not an issue for these people; it’s something to be bartered or traded or sold outright to achieve what they want.

Consider this quote from an article that I read the other day:

“It's a safe bet that if control of the world is up for sale, you will be outbid. And the people who want to buy it--the people who crave dominion over everyone else--will not be good people. Good people don't want to rule the world.” Source: Government = Corruption

Do you agree with that statement? If you do, and if good people truly don’t want to rule the world (or rule anything else for that matter), then who does that leave?

And if we’re not talking about “good people” anymore, what reason do you suppose the people who want to be in charge have for doing things in secret? Is it really just “none of our business”, or is it possibly – or even more likely – that they are doing something that they shouldn’t be doing? Something that they know we would not approve of?

Evil lives in darkness & shadow because it wants to remain hidden; it cannot live in the light. Should we then be a little more skeptical of all the things done in secrecy these days? If there is nothing to hide, then why hide? Because there sure seems to be a lot of things that are hidden from the “unwashed masses”.

I don’t trust anything or anyone whose existence is shrouded in secrecy. Whether it has to do with the Federal Reserve, the Bilderburg Group, Bohemian Grove, Freemasonry, even the Vatican; if you’re doing it in darkness, you’re hiding something.

And my guess would be that it’s because you’re doing something you’re not supposed to be doing.

Hippos Under the Blanket

2009-10-26T09:37:00.002-04:00

Amid all of the hoopla and controversy about health insurance and the “public option”, ostensibly to be offered by the federal government as an option to private insurance, this is the first time I’ve seen the below statement, included almost as an afterthought midway through this article from the Washington Post: Prognosis improves for public insurance

"The public option would effectively be just another insurance plan offered on the open market. It would likely be administered by a private insurance provider, charging premiums and copayments like any other policy."

Interesting. But why would that particular statement jump out at me? Because I’ve seen it before, in concept if not in verbatim script:

Excerpt from “What So Proudly We Hailed”:
“ . . . they never changed the infrastructure of the private system already in place. They “ran” the program on the surface, but the real meat & potatoes of the whole thing was still run by the insurance companies, those 3rd party middlemen who added no value at all and did nothing except transfer money from here to there and grow rich in the process.

The only difference was that now they had more customers, which, the last time anybody at an insurance company checked, wasn’t a bad thing. More customers meant more money, and all the healthcare companies had to do to get those customers (and the money that came with them) was to allow the state government offices to have access to patient accounts and medical records. No harm in that; they were all working together after all.

So when the program went federal, all that really happened was that instead of the health insurance companies working with state governments, they started working with the feds instead. It was a different colored blanket, but the hippos wrestling underneath hadn’t changed. They’d just gotten fatter.”

Just dumb luck? Apparently I'm either very dumb or very lucky, because this isn't the first time reality has followed the fictional words I penned two years ago. I always thought the conclusion to What So Proudly We Hailed was beyond the realm of any real possibility, but as we continue to head in that direction, I'll admit that I'm not so sure anymore.

For the Common Good of All

2009-10-23T10:03:00.002-04:00

When it comes to the government executing on the statement in the U.S. Constitution that reads “ . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . .”, is there a limit on what they “provide”?

Apparently not, according to the House Majority leader:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”
Source: Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance

Is it just me, or is Hoyer’s definition of what “provide” means a little different from what you or I would find in an average dictionary? It seems to me that in addition to the “broad authority” which Hoyer grants the government, he also afford himself a “broad interpretation” of word meanings as well.

What’s really disturbing about this is not just the prospect of the government telling people that they have to purchase health insurance (or pay a fine if they don’t), but the fact that if/when this is done, a precedent will have been set that will undoubtedly give the government the ability to dictate what you must buy in the future, if it so chooses.

What else will come up in the years ahead that the government will deem necessary for all Americans to purchase “for the general welfare”?

Hoyer refers to car insurance as an example of a comparable mandate; but that’s not even close to the same thing. You only have to buy car insurance if you decide to drive a car; you have the option not to, even though very few people exercise that option.

Not so with mandatory health insurance. If you’re alive, you will have to buy it.

Is there anyone naive enough to actually believe that this would be the last thing the government would force its citizens to purchase once we give it that ability?

He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

Hoyer’s words, not mine.

Female Word Meanings

2009-10-12T10:13:00.002-04:00

I don’t think Catherine attended the same type of schools that I did because she doesn’t seem to understand the meanings of normal everyday words. I’m also aware that she isn’t the only woman who doesn’t seem to have a good grasp of the basic concepts of the English language; it’s an affliction that apparently affects wives everywhere.

When I was in school, I paid attention sometimes, and that investment during my youth - added to the vast store of information that I have gleaned during my marriage - makes me somewhat of an authority on this subject.

With that in mind, and in my constant struggle to make the world a better place for all, I’ve decided to clarify a few simple words that seem to have completely a different meaning to women than those that have been officially defined by that famous bachelor Mr. Webster (and we know that he was a bachelor because if he had ever been married he might have actually defined some of these things differently and thus saved many a newly married man from countless hours of confusion and lonely nights sleeping on the couch, not to mention entire forests that have been mown down over the years to print out credit card receipts for roses).

1) nothing (n) – something of no importance

Female definition: something of great importance that is so ridiculously obvious it will not be explained to the husband even though he needs to apologize for it and make massive & immediate reparations. (In context: “What’s wrong, honey?” “Nothing.”) It should be noted that the magnitude of “nothing” will increase exponentially if the husband naively mistakes its use to actually mean “something of no importance”.

2) minute (n) – a period of time equal to 60 seconds

Female definition: any period of time required to accomplish a task that the wife wants done right now, the scope of which may range from hours to days. Usually preceded by the words “Honey, can you come here for a - ”

3) phone-call (n) - a convenient, easy way to transfer information over a distance

Female definition: a convenient, easy, and absolutely non-negotiable action required whenever a husband will miss his expected arrival by more than 5 minutes (of the type that equal 60 seconds). Not applicable to wives at all, regardless of time frame involved.

4) money (n) – coins or paper currency issued by a government as a medium of exchange

Female definition: an inexhaustible and magically appearing resource that must be exchanged for goods & services as quickly as possible in order to prevent its accumulation.

5) period (n) – an occurrence of menstruation

Female definition: a time of extreme fatigue and crankiness lasting from 5 to 31 days of any given month.

6) no (adv) – a term used to express categorical refusal

Female definition: a term used to express categorical refusal. Common synonyms: I’ve got a headache; I just washed my hair; Is that all you think about?; Your parents are sleeping in the next room; Your parents will be visiting next week; You have parents. Sometimes also used to mean “yes” - but rarely - and you’ll never realize it if it does.

One-Stop Chipping

2009-10-12T09:45:00.004-04:00

Every time I’ve written a plug for What So Proudly We Hailed I’ve told myself “this is the last time.”

And then I read something else so disturbingly close to what is in the book that I feel compelled to do it again. So I apologize in advance, but . . .

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology has been around for a long time. This excerpt was from a news article I read this morning:

About the size of a grain of rice, the microchip is inserted just under the skin and contains only a unique, 16-digit identifier. The microchip itself does not contain any other data other than this unique electronic ID, nor does it contain any Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking capabilities. And unlike conventional forms of identification, the Health Link cannot be lost, stolen, misplaced, or counterfeited. It is safe, secure, reversible, and always with you.
Source: Microchip Implant to Link Your Health Records, Credit History, Social Security

It’s not quite “one chip does it all”, but it’s pretty close. GPS tracking technology could be added easily to this particular chip, and, as was announced back in May of this year, the ability to remotely kill with an RFID chip has already been invented, if not yet patented: Saudi 'Killer Chip' Implant Would Track, Eliminate Undesirables

Should GPS and remote termination capability ever be added in, you’ll have the exact same RFID chip that is depicted in What So Proudly We Hailed.

And then the fun really begins.

What So Proudly We Hailed is a novel of the future. It was not written as a “light Sunday afternoon read”, but as a warning of where technology can lead when it is coupled with a blind, unquestioning trust in mankind. In that respect, reading it is kind of like waking up to a cold, overcast Monday morning.

Most people don’t like cold, overcast Monday mornings. But how else would we know we don’t like them unless we have personally experienced one? What So Proudly We Hailed depicts a future that nobody would want; but how will we know for sure that we don’t want it unless we know what it is?

I would suggest that it could even be important to see that unwanted future, because unlike the weather on Monday, we might actually be able to do something about it.

Maybe you should read What So Proudly We Hailed. You don't have anything to be afraid of.

Then again, maybe you do.

What So Proudly We Hailed and Finding Liberty can be purchased from http://www.linearwavepublishing.com/. Both books – including delivery – for only $20.

What Changed?

2009-10-06T10:36:00.003-04:00

Back in the mid-80’s I went down to Engineroom Lower Level (ERLL) on the U.S.S. Woodrow Wilson to relieve the watch. I got a turnover from the previous ERLL watchstander who gave me an update on the current status. Among other things, he told me that he had just switched the lube oil purifier to the #2 TG lube oil sump.

A submarine has two steam driven turbine generators (TG’s) which generate all of the electricity for the entire ship. Each generator has its own lube oil system to flush & cool its bearings. Because it isn’t possible to do an oil change of these oil systems like we do on our cars, the ship also has an oil purifying system that takes oil from a sump, cleans it, and then pumps it back. The lube oil purifier, or “LOP”, gets switched around during the day to different oil sumps so that all of the oil systems are under a continuous cleaning cycle.

It’s not hard to switch the LOP. Each oil sump has an inlet and outlet valve; all you have to do is shut those two valves on the sump you’re done with and open them on the sump that you want to purify. Pretty easy. And this is what the prior watchstander had told me he had just done.

About 5 minutes after he left, I’m standing there drinking my coffee and trying to fully wake up when suddenly, out of the corner of my eye, I see lube oil shooting out of the vent line for the #2 TG sump and spraying all over the place, which is certainly not what it was supposed to be doing.

When a casualty happens on a ship, one of the first things that we were taught to do is to ask “What changed?” In other words, it everything was fine a few minutes or hours before, did anything happen recently that might have caused the problem you are seeing now?

In this case, the ship was not doing any maneuvers or speed changes. No evolutions or drills were in progress. We were simply cruising along submerged in the North Atlantic at a leisurely 1/3 bell with all of the regular hums and vibrations that our engineroom normally had. And yet, for some reason, there’s oil shooting out of the vent on this sump, which, again, was definitely not normal.

Knowing that the last watchstander had just changed the valve lineup on the oil system that was now exhibiting this problem, I ran to check that the valves were in the proper alignment.

They were not.

In the state I found it, he had left the system so that the LOP was pulling oil from #1 TG sump, purifying it, and then dumping it into the #2 TG sump. I took corrective action and fixed the problem.

And then spent the rest of my 6 hour watch fuming mad as I cleaned up a whole bunch of spilled oil.

It’s a simple concept; not even close to rocket science. If there wasn’t a problem before and now there is, did something change that might have created the problem?

Granted, sometimes things just break or go wrong for no specific reason at all. But what I’ve found is that, more often than not, when things go wrong it’s usually because something changed. This applies to relationships, employment, the economy, our healthcare system; pretty much anything.

Over the past two years I’ve written some very pointed & critical posts about vaccines, modern drugs, artificial sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), and other “modern marvels”.

Do I know that any of these things are dangerous? Do I have any proof at all? Absolutely not. I don’t know for sure that there is anything wrong with any of them.

But I do know that most of those things came into being in just the past few decades. Today, we are dealing with an explosion of diabetes, obesity, and autism in our kids. Just this morning, I read about a new study which states that 1 in 100 children are now diagnosed as autistic. 1 out of every 100! Why?

In our small community here, 2 kids have already died this year from cancer, and a third is fighting for his life. Why?

In all my years growing up in public school, I can’t remember a single kid who had autism or that died from cancer. I remember a couple of kids with Down’s Syndrome, a couple who were diabetic (from birth), and a couple who were morbidly obese.

Nothing like what we are seeing today. It didn’t use to be this way; why is it like this now?

I find myself asking that same question that I did 20 years ago – What changed? – and I see that the number of vaccines we are pumping into our kids has more than doubled since I was young. I see HFCS in everything we eat. I see people bypassing sugar for chemically created sweeteners. I see people rushing their kids into the hospital emergency room for antibiotics every time they get a sniffle or a slight temperature.

We didn’t do or have any of these things when I was growing up. Is it possible that there may be a link? Should we not at least take a hard, unbiased, objective look?

My kids are not autistic, diabetic, or obese. They are healthy, fit, and suffer no allergies. Is this simply due to “good genes”, or could it possibly be because we avoid vaccines, HFCS, aspartame, and emergency rooms in general whenever we can?

What about our school systems? Our kids used to get a decent education – what has changed that would allow my kids who are homeschooled to outperform kids being taught by dedicated, educated experts in their field? I’ll readily admit that I don’t know more than the teachers do; so how is it even possible that I can do a better job than them? But I can. Why?

What has changed during the last 20 or 30 years in our school system? Is the problem simply cultural; a sign of the times? Or did we in fact do something – or several things – that fundamentally altered the system to create what we have today?

I’m not a betting man, but if I was, I’d put my money on the latter.

I don’t know all of the answers. I’m not even sure that I know all of the questions. But I’m not blind either, and while I may not be the brightest bulb in the lamp store, I’ll at least give myself credit for having a persistent – and possibly annoying – flicker.

In closing, what unsettles me even more than the fact that nobody seems to be investigating the question of “what has changed”, is another question which, if we ever get around to answering the first one, would seem to be the obvious follow-up:

Why was it changed?

Delayed Reaction

2009-09-29T11:54:00.001-04:00

I watched a movie a few weeks ago called “Flash of Genius”. The movie was based on the true story of Robert Kearns, the man who invented the “delay” feature that is now part of the windshield wiper systems of every car manufactured today.

The movie depicted how Kearns was able to solve a problem that had, to that date, stumped the engineers of all the major car companies. In fine fashion, Ford Motor Company then stole his idea and he was forced to spend years in legal battles with Ford to gain credit for his patent, which he was eventually able to do. Chalk one up for the small guy.

What was most interesting to me, however, was the time at which this happened. Kearn’s original patent was filed in 1964. Remember, he was able to figure out the solution to a problem that was baffling the best car engineers of the day: how to delay the timing on windshield wipers.

Why is that so interesting?

Well, think about it. The time is 1964.

The Brooklyn Bridge had been constructed a half century before. We had already split the atom, invented atomic weapons, and had a fleet of nuclear powered submarines prowling the oceans. We had invented radio and television, broken the sound barrier with manned flight, and put an object into orbit around the planet.

We had done all of those incredible things – and many, many more – and yet we couldn’t figure out how to make a windshield wiper delay for a second or two until 1964.

That just absolutely boggles my mind.

The Cancer of Negativity

2009-09-09T15:56:00.005-04:00

Note: Every month our local newspaper, the Casey County News, graciously affords me valuable space to contribute an article on behalf of our local Chamber of Commerce. The below article ran in last week's paper. I almost didn't send it in because I thought it might be too personal and not "newsy" enough, but I have received more comments about it from our local residents than any other article I've written in the past 2 years. On the assumption that maybe I did something right, I thought I would share it here.

Five years ago I almost got fired.

It was a shocking experience, because nothing like it had ever happened to me before, and I never saw it coming.

For years I had been a sales manager with VERITAS Software, and a good one at that. But the head of our department – my boss – was entirely self-serving. Under his “leadership”, a similar attitude was bred among most of my fellow managers, and while they were busy furthering their careers, indulging in 3-hour lunches, and pretty much doing as they pleased, their employees lived in a neglected, hostile work environment.

I tried to keep myself apart from my peers as much as possible. I was committed to those who worked for me, rather than for myself. My own employees frequently told me how glad they were that they had me as a boss, while many others told me that they wished they did.

And then one day we got a new department head, and everything changed.

I loved my new boss. He was down to earth, grounded, and dedicated to doing the right things for the right reasons. 3-hour lunches were suddenly a thing of the past.

I felt a great deal of excitement, not only at the prospects of what the future might hold, but also in the knowledge that my self-serving peers were finally going to get what they deserved.

So imagine my surprise when less than 2 months later I found out that it was my head on the chopping block. I went home that day with an ultimatum from my new boss: “decide if you want to work here, but know that even if you say yes, one more mistake and you’re gone”.

I spent that night in a confused daze, trying desperately to understand what was going on, until finally, I had no other choice but to look at myself. I didn’t like what I saw.

Ever since my new boss arrived, I had been waiting for my fellow managers to get what they had coming to them. What I hadn’t noticed, however, was that none of them were acting selfishly anymore; now that they had a true leader, they were working together as a team for a common good.

But I wasn’t.

Because of my own vengeful desire, I was working for their failure, and as a result, every word I said was motivated by that desire, and it was all negative. Without even realizing it, I had somehow allowed myself to become the very thing that I had always fought against.

Instead of being a pillar of strength for my new boss to lean on, I had become his biggest problem. I was a cancer that was eating away at his organization from within, and like any cancer, I had to be removed in order for the body to live.

Understanding this brought me incredible amount of relief, as well as an equal amount of shame. This was not who I was. Luckily, I still had a chance to prove it. So I did. I forgave the past, I let go of my hate, and I started clean. From that point on, everything was different. Everything was better.

So what does this have to do with commerce?

All of the organizations here in Casey County – whether individual businesses or the community as a whole – have a lot of issues to deal with. The good news is that there are a lot of good people working really hard to make things better. But there are also a fair number of people who have allowed themselves to become predominantly negative in the comments that they share.

The irony is that those people who voice negative comments truly do want things to get better, and yet their own negative words actually work to prevent things from changing.

All of us would like to see a brighter future for Casey County; for our businesses, our organizations, our churches, and our community as a whole. But to accept a brighter future, we have to walk away from the past. We have to let it go.

There is no other way.

Addiction

2009-09-01T11:46:00.008-04:00

I received a rather nasty comment last week to a post that I wrote a long time ago. The comment bothered me because it was apparent that the person knew me personally – either now or at some point in the past – and obviously held me in low enough regard to make a hurtful comment while staying under the cover of anonymity.

It wasn’t the comment that upset me so much; it was more in finding out that someone that knows me personally doesn’t like me. Don’t get me wrong on that; it has nothing to do with ego or a need to be “loved by everyone”. I’m not quite that shallow. It’s just that I’m honestly puzzled about who I might have offended. I just don’t know. And that bothers me.

But while I may not be able to do anything about the commenter, I would like to address their comment, or at least the subject of it – addiction – because it might help those of you who have never experienced addiction if you understand what’s going on with people who have.

I’ll get straight to the point: I am a drug addict.

While my drug of choice – nicotine – is legal and may seem mild compared to others, I don’t try to sugarcoat what I am. I’m not a “smoker”, I don’t suffer from a “bad habit”; I am an addict. It’s that simple.

I started smoking when I was 13, which puts me at 30 years and counting. And I’m not a casual smoker either; I smoke like I mean it. Two packs a day. Every day.

I can’t stop.

I don’t say this because I want your sympathy or pity; I am very aware of the fact that I could stop if I really wanted to. But that’s the thing; I don’t really want to, and I just want you to understand why.

Because that’s the question, right? Why wouldn’t I want to stop? Why would any halfway intelligent person smoke when they know how bad it is for them?

Believe me, I know every single reason there is to stop smoking, and I would wager that, by experience, I can name a few more reasons that you aren’t even aware of.

So why don’t I just stop then? Simple answer: Fear.

When most people think about addiction – and I mean those who are not addicts themselves – they think about the physical withdrawals to the drug, whether it’s nicotine, alcohol, meth, or whatever. Regarding cigarettes, you see the patches and the gums and all of the other things that are supposed to ease withdrawal. And they do work, by the way. So what’s the big deal with quitting then?

That’s what I want to explain, because I’ve had the opportunity to give that question a great deal of thought while “standing on the front lines”, so to speak.

The problem is that there are two parts to addiction. The first is the physical addiction.

When you start putting a drug into your body, it throws your body’s balance out of whack, and being the smart machine that it is, the body automatically makes adjustments to compensate for it.

When you continue to put that drug into your body, your body continues to adjust to it, and after awhile, this new condition – drug & compensation – becomes the new “normal”. Your body starts to expect that this drug is going to continue, and if it stops, it throws everything out of whack again.

Your body realizes that something is “wrong” and tells you to fix it. With a craving.

A craving is a lot like hunger. Non-addicts understand hunger. Your body wants food and you get hungry. If you get something to eat, the hunger goes away. For a little while. At some point you get hungry again, you eat again, the hunger goes away again. Same thing with a drug.

And, like hunger, if you don’t eat something, the hunger doesn’t go away; it starts to get stronger. Where at first it might have been mildly annoying, after awhile it starts becoming imperative. You really need something to eat. Same thing with a drug.

At some point, if you continue to resist your hunger by not eating, your body starts having a physical reaction – fatigue, stomach cramps, shaking, faintness, shortness of temper, loss of concentration, etc. Your body is, in effect, going through withdrawals. It wants food, and you’re not giving it any. Same thing with a drug.

And here’s the thing: All you have to do to make that physical discomfort go away is to eat something. That’s it. Same thing with a drug.

The difference between hunger and drug addiction is that if you don’t address your hunger, your body eventually will start to self destruct. With addiction, the body will only go so far, and then it will start to rebound. Your body has to have food; it doesn’t have to have the drug.

For an addict, if you can make it through that incredibly uncomfortable period of days (or weeks), your body will eventually fix itself. It will balance itself out back to the old “normal”, just like it was before the drug use started.

It’s this physical reaction that all of the patches, gums, and other drugs are aimed at relieving. They help the addict get through that withdrawal period by easing the physical symptoms until such time that the body is no longer craving the drug.

Sounds simple. Sure, it’s an uncomfortable period of time, even with the patches & gums, but it’s not forever; you know it will eventually end. You just have to hang in there until it does.

But the physical addiction is only half of the story, and I would suggest – at least for me – the lesser half. I can handle pain. I’ve been uncomfortable before. For me, the real battle is overcoming the mental addiction.

How do I explain what I mean by mental addiction?

Think of it this way: imagine yourself going through everything that you do in a normal day. Eating breakfast, driving your car, working or going to school, getting groceries, spending some time with friends and family – whatever it is that you normally do during your day.

Imagine yourself doing all of those things just like you normally do, with one exception: You are completely naked. No clothes at all. Everyone else is dressed; you’re not.

Don’t take this lightly; try to really imagine that you are doing it, or that you will have to do it. How would it make you feel? Would it be uncomfortable for you? Could you honestly do it at all?

It’s important to understand that going through your day naked would have no physical effect on you whatsoever. It wouldn’t hurt. There would be absolutely no pain at all.

But could you do it? Of course, you could do it, but would you? Even if it was in your best interests to do so? It's all about "willpower", right?

That’s kind of what the mental addiction to a drug feels like. It's not exactly the same, but that's as close as I can describe it. Like clothing, you don't really need it, but it has become so much a part of your life that you cannot imagine living your life without it.

And it’s incredibly powerful too, far more powerful than the physical addiction (at least for me). It’s so powerful, in fact, that just by seriously thinking about quitting, my body will start exhibiting physical withdrawal symptoms, even if I’m smoking while I’m thinking about it. That’s some serious mojo.

Now ask yourself, if you had your choice of either going through your day feeling as physically bad as you’ve ever felt, or going through your day naked, which would you choose? My guess is that you’d probably take the physical discomfort over nakedness. I would too.

But what if you had to do both? Not only would you have to feel physically terrible, but you’d also be completely naked at the same time. And not just for one day either; you have to do this for weeks. And you know from talking to other recovering addicts that the desire never really ever goes away entirely. You’ll always be in some state of undress for the rest of your life.

Would you go through that if you didn’t have to? What if you could just . . . postpone it for awhile? Would you do that instead? Be honest. Just for a little while? Because you can, you know.

It’s easy.

And suddenly 30 years have gone by.

Please know that I’m not making excuses for myself. I know what I need to do. I have that conversation with myself every day. I know I’m pushing my luck, and I know that my luck will only go so far. Maybe it’s already passed the point of no return. I don’t know.

But I didn’t write this for sympathy. I wrote it because maybe it will help those of you who aren't addicts to have some understanding of what’s really going on with someone who is. And maybe it might also help someone else to never make the mistake I did.

Not all knowledge is worth gaining. On the topic of addiction at least, I often wonder what it must feel like to be blissfully ignorant.

The View from the Top

2009-08-28T11:35:00.004-04:00

When I first reported to the submarine U.S.S. Woodrow Wilson back in my Navy days, I was immediately classified as an “air breather”. This particular designation was given to me – and all new submarine sailors – based on the fact that I was not capable of contributing anything productive.

I wasn’t qualified to stand any watches, I didn’t know how the ship’s systems worked, I couldn’t repair equipment; I didn’t know how to do anything other than the most rudimentary tasks.

About all I could effectively do was breathe the air. The same air that could have been used – and should possibly have been reserved for – those crewmembers who did productively contribute to the operation of the boat.

The labeling was meant to be an incentive for me to hurry up and get to a point where I would become a productive member of the crew. After all, nobody likes being called an “air breather” (i.e., worthless).

All of this was done primarily in fun, of course, but the distinction was also very clear and very real: there were those who deserved the air on that submarine, and there were those who did not.

Class distinction, in its most basic form.

Throughout history, people have always been delegated into a class structure. In it’s most simplified form, civilizations were made up of a very small minority called the aristocracy, and a much larger group which was essentially everyone else. The “common” class.

The aristocracy considered themselves above everyone else. Certainly they had their own internal subdivisions of status, power, & wealth, but as a group they were held to be entirely superior to any of those who were not a part of their small circle.

As a society today we no longer have an official “class” structure, but merely denying the existence of a hierarchy doesn’t make it go away. We no longer use the term “War on Terror” either, but what has actually changed other than the elimination of that particular term? Nothing.

Do we really believe that there is no class distinction today? If we do, it’s only because we aren’t paying attention. You can see it easily if you look.

But so what? Is that a bad thing? I mean, if our societies have always been like that anyway, what difference does it make if we’re still like that now?

Consider that these people – the very wealthy & powerful – are still a very small minority. Consider also that they fully control our government, either by holding the political seats of power themselves, or by leading the institutions that influence what direction our government takes.

Everything they do may be entirely legal, but does that even make any difference when they are also the ones who make and interpret the laws?

Again, so what? What’s wrong with that? Well, nothing on the surface. At least, nothing that those of us who belong to the vast majority of the common class could necessarily tell.

The problem with us, though – the common rabble – is that we assume that because we are good people, everyone else is too. We are all decent human beings. We care about each other. We all have the same basic core values.

But in making that assumption, we’re forgetting a basic principle: There are those who deserve, and there are those who do not. Who do you think today’s “aristocracy” thinks is “deserving”?

For a small insight, consider the below:

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing . . . War…has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective.

If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s…

There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority…”

Those are verified passages from Bertrand Russell’s “The Impact of Science on Society”, written in 1953. Understand that Russell was hailed as one of the most brilliant philosophers of the 20th century. He was also a Nobel Prize winner; the recipient of an elite title bestowed to the elite by the elite.

Do we really believe that Russell was alone in his thoughts? Do we really think that other “high-minded” people don’t think exactly the same way? A little research may convince us otherwise. Do some searching on what the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and others in their class have openly stated; you may be surprised at what you hear.

But again, what’s wrong with that? So what if they think they’re better than everyone else? Who cares? What difference does it make? Let them live in their privileged little world and they’ll let us live in ours. They always have before.

Yes, they most certainly have. But then again, they never really had a choice before, because never before in recorded history has there been means of doing anything about it, at least, not anything on a global scale.

Now there is.

Which really leaves only one unanswered question: Will they act on their beliefs?

We may think it’s incomprehensible that anyone could ever even contemplate such a thing, much less actually do it, but remember, there are those who deserve, and there are those who do not.

Too Much to Ask?

2009-08-26T09:03:00.002-04:00

He Said / She Said - Grocery Shopping

2009-08-21T10:27:00.002-04:00

He Said - by Blaine Staat

If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. That’s why I’m presently pushing this shopping cart down the grocery aisle. Shopping is so easy-peasy it’s ridiculous. And yet Catherine seems to struggle with it a LOT.

I just can’t figure out why she has so much trouble bringing home quality groceries. You know, real “straight from the farm” stuff that can be used to make good, healthy, sit down dinners at a properly set coffee table in front of the TV.

Oh look, Red Baron Supreme pizzas are on sale for $6.99 each. Well, well, well, a tantalizing price and all four food groups in one shot. I’ll take 6, thank you very much.

See how easy that was? Catherine, on the other hand, likes to buy things called “greens”, which take up a lot of space in the fridge and block your access to the cheesecake, much like the one I’m now putting in the cart at only $15.95.

Hey, you can’t make it for that.

Plus, there’s a lot of impulse buying when Catherine shops, even though I constantly reinforce to her that she needs to stick to the shopping list that I’ve been considerate enough to carefully review for her.

Wow! Check this out; a 2-pack of WD-40! One for the house and one for . . . well, the other part of the house.

Catherine will say - of course - that I “already have 3 cans of WD-40”, but she doesn’t know where they are any more than I do. Oh, hang on a minute, I’m at the cereal aisle. This could take a bit . . . . [time lapse] . . . . okay, I’m back.

You know, it’s amazing how much physical space 9 boxes of cereal takes up; I hardly have any room left in the cart. I guess it’s difficult to stuff all those vitamins & minerals into small packages, but hey, I love my kids, and I want them to be healthy, even if that means I have to do without something that I would like.

Like a couple bags of these powdered donuts which I happen to have just enough room for.

Well, that’s it. I’m done. See how easy that was? And how fast? Just one more little stop on the way to the checkout counter; my keen eyes happened to notice that they have Little Debbies on sale for only a buck a box. Can I spot the bargains or what?

Think I’ll pick up a few.

Of each kind.

Catherine would object, of course, but that’s why I didn’t bring her with me. And before any of you ladies point a finger, raise an eyebrow, or give me an “a-ha”, I promise you, these delicious individually wrapped snack cakes will be used for medicinal purposes only.

She Said - by Catherine Staat

Having one of “those” kind of days, I was relieved when Blaine offered to help out by running to the grocery store to pick up a few essentials, but there is always a bit of trepidation when I hand over the list to him because I never know what he will bring back along with the milk, bread, eggs, and cereal.

One huge spending area in any family’s budget is groceries. Blaine and I have sat down on several occasions, going over our family budget and finding ways to cut out the non-essentials. Being that I do most of the grocery shopping for the family, this is one way I can help with saving money.

I try to make sure that we stay away from “junk food”, as those tend to be the biggest cost items. I make sure I have a list before I go and follow it strictly, knowing what we will need for the week and buying only what we need.

I carefully chart out the menu items for the week and take into consideration that we can use leftovers from one night and remake them into something new for another night…again trying to conserve where I can, but without jeopardizing my family’s health in the process. Careful consideration not only goes into the grocery budget, but also in making sure everyone is getting a well balanced diet.

I take this job of grocery shopping very seriously! I also take my time reading labels and checking prices to see where I can get my best deals, which can often take well over an hour to do. Before heading to the store, I double check with Blaine to find out if there is anything more we may need to add to the list. He gives the list a once over and tells me that everything looks good and off I go with budget on my mind and list in hand.

It makes me wonder then when Blaine goes into the store and forgets our many discussions regarding our budget or his telling me how we need to “buckle down” on extra expenditures and only purchase items that we need.

I also remember the Need Vs. Want conversation. Did he forget how much those extra trips to the grocery can cost us without the list, or how he showed me on the computer – complete with graphs & charts - our spending habits and how those side trips are the biggies in our budget?

No, he won’t remember that until we go over the budget again next month, and he won’t remember that he was the one who went to the store and bought all of those said “extras.” He will however, again remind me that we need to “buckle down” some more, and that I need to be careful about buying items we really don’t need. I think Blaine just becomes like the kid in a candy store.

~ sigh ~ What is a mother . . .err . . . I mean, a wife, to do?!

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

2009-08-14T09:26:00.004-04:00

Below is an excerpt of a real life event experienced by William N. Grigg as related in a post he wrote called "Hotlined":

“Grab some clothes and get into the van, now."

For an instant, that directive, and the tone in which it was issued, had the opposite of its intended effect: Korrin and our five older children, momentarily paralyzed by shock, looked at me in alarm. There was something in both the tone of my voice, and the expression on my face, that was new and a little frightening. None of them had seen my "game face" before. They were seeing it now.

Just seconds earlier, Korrin and I had been confronted on our doorstep by two very nice, well-dressed women who informed us that an anonymous "child endangerment" complaint had been filed with the Child Protective Services. Read more . . .

Mr. Grigg's experience is not even close to being an isolated event, and though we can take comfort that the story ended well for him, I think we would be foolish to automatically assume that that will always be the case.

Below is an excerpt from "What So Proudly We Hailed":

They came in, right through my front door, all seven of them – one social worker and five cops and a DHS agent.

The social worker, a flinty woman with short blonde hair, read off some kind of warrant while two of the cops grabbed Matty and Brooklyn and pulled them out the front door. Lisa was screaming, flailing her arms at the two men who were restraining her, and I vividly remember seeing the splashes of her spit and her tears as the droplets landed on the black body armor of the police.

And I just stood there and watched. I didn’t do a thing. Not a single thing. I just stood there and watched as my beautiful children vanished through the front door. I saw the terror in their wide eyes as they looked to me for an answer, and I heard their high pitched, panicked voices as they begged their daddy to help them as they were being dragged away.

And I did nothing. I stood there, just as a good boy should, just as they wanted & expected me to.

I like to think that I did the noble thing. That I didn’t react because there was an assault rifle aimed at my chest and I didn’t want my children to see their father gunned down in front of their eyes. But part of me doesn’t believe that. Part of me thinks that I did nothing simply because I was – and still am – a coward.

If you think that sounds unrealistic, far-fetched, or even downright ridiculous, it's only because you didn't hear about this when it happened a year and a half ago: SWAT officers invade home, take 11-year-old at gunpoint

Anatomy of a Jihadist

2009-08-05T09:55:00.003-04:00

There has been a good deal of news lately about Daniel Boyd and the members of his family that were arrested in N.C. last week.

Let me say first that I have no idea whether Boyd & company are guilty or innocent; I don’t have all the details, and they may very well be just as dangerous as the news outlets are portraying. But this case pushes the thought police game a little farther than it has gone before, because not only have they not committed any crime, there isn’t even any evidence – by the FBI’s own admission – that a specific crime was being planned.

The story originally perked up my ears when an acquaintance posted it on Facebook, along with the assertion that this – a white American man arrested for planning jihad – was proof that profiling does not work. That may be true, but of course, that would also mean that every man, woman, & child in the U.S. is now automatically a potential suspect, and if we are all suspects, I suppose we should all willingly submit to any & all intrusions into our privacy to prove that we are not.

Then yesterday I saw something disturbing. The AP reported that “A case against seven North Carolina terrorism suspects accused of plotting "violent jihad" may involve classified material that will raise national security issues if given to their defense attorneys, federal prosecutors said Monday.” Terror case in NC may involve classified material

Wait a second; so they’re saying that the defense doesn’t get disclosure? The defendants have been arrested without bail, will no doubt be tried in court (in a year or two or five), and the prosecution doesn’t have to give the defense attorneys the information they need to defend their clients because, like everything else today, it is a matter of national security?

How convenient. If you’re the prosecution, that is.

And then there is the other incriminating evidence found in the family’s home as reported by CNN: N.C. terror suspects had arms, ammo, FBI 'playbook,' agent says

According to the article, the Boyd’s had in their possession:

- Several weapons.

How many families in America do not have “several weapons” in their homes? Obviously there was nothing really odd or nasty like a .50 cal or you can bet we’d have been told (unless doing so might compromise national security).

- 27,000 rounds of ammunition, including some armor-piercing types.

Okay, that’s a lot of ammo, but I can list 3 reasons right off the top of my head as to why they might have that much.

1) Everybody has been stocking up on guns & ammo since Obama took office on legitimate fears of new regulation. Though none have been passed into law (yet), there have been bills proposed ranging from the required registration of all firearms (including rifles & shotguns) to the serialization of ammunition for identification purposes. How much ammo is "okay" to have, anyway?

2) Unlike cash, ammunition is worth something and will always be in demand. It would be usable for barter should hyperinflation render the dollar bill useless.

3) Constant government induced fear-mongering has prompted people to prepare for the worst. We are all in danger, remember?

- $13,000 in cash. In addition, Dylan Boyd had a deposit slip for $16,000.

So having cash in hand rather than sitting in the bank as an electronic number is incriminating? As in the case of ammunition, how much cash does it take to suggest that you are a felon? If he only had $8,000 in cash would that be okay?

I think the real issue here is that he “had cash”. I’m sure he also had a lot more than that available for use on his credit cards (I sure do), but credit card transactions leave a paper trail that can easily be monitored. With cash, well, who knows what people might buy. Apparently we are guilty if we even have the option.

- Four gas masks.

Guilty. Oh wait, gas masks are used for defense; they assume “the other guy” might gas you. In fairness though, I bet they also had some chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction laying around – most rednecks from N.C. do – but the FBI can’t tell us that because it might compromise national security.

- A book called "Emergency Response to Terrorism," a document described as a fatwa (Muslim religious edict) of jihad (holy war) against America, and an old identification card with suspicous wording.

I have a copy of the Quran and a few other books on the Muslim faith that I use for reference. I also have about a dozen Bibles in various translations, The Books of the Apocrypha, several copies of Animal Farm & 1984, and a couple hundred copies of my own little dystopian book What So Proudly We Hailed. Am I an extremist because I have those things? Are we going to start banning & burning books now just because we don’t like what they say? Weren't the Nazis bad guys for doing that?

- They also found a trench under the deck of the house, which a witness told the FBI was a bunker to store and conceal weapons, and a plywood plank placed in a tree so that someone sitting there could see anyone approaching the house, according to Sutton.

A trench under the house and a piece of plywood in a tree? Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? Call in Judge Dredd. Then line them up and shoot ‘em.

Dangerous precedents are being set here my friends. Precedents that will affect all of us whether the Boyd's are guilty or not.

Nation of Children

2009-08-03T10:35:00.002-04:00

Back in April, the Chinese movie star Jackie Chan caused a little stir with some comments that he made:

"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said. "I'm really confused now. If you're too free, you're like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic."

He went on to say: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."

Source: Jackie Chan: Chinese People Need To Be Controlled

As you might imagine, Chan took a good deal of flak for those comments. But was he wrong? And could his comments be expanded to include all people, not just the Chinese?

If you’ve read my posts over the past couple of years, you know that the majority of what I’ve written has dealt with the erosion of our civil liberties. What you haven’t necessarily seen is my frustration that so few people seem to care.

Like Jackie Chan, I too have often wondered if the American people even deserve freedom. We don’t seem to handle it very well, and these days we certainly don’t seem to value it very much either.

Years ago I had a revelation of sorts. I was thinking over my life and trying to determine at exactly what point I had become an “adult”.

1 Corinthians 13:11 says this: When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

When do we become men? And what are these “childish things” that we should put away?

In our materialistic culture, “childish things” would seem to be toys and other playthings of our youth. But I don’t think that that’s what Paul is talking about at all.

Children are immature (no one would argue that), and adults are supposed to be mature. But what is maturity anyway? Knowledge? Wisdom? I don’t think so. I think it’s simpler than that.

Children are selfish by nature. Their whole world revolves around themselves; what they want, when they want it. They don’t think of other people because at that point in their lives all they can focus on is themselves. The world beyond that is too big for them to comprehend.

When a child acts in a selfish manner, we call it childish behavior. Immature behavior.

But if the dominant characteristic of immaturity is selfishness, then it would stand to reason that the dominant characteristic of it’s opposite – maturity – would be selflessness, and if that is true, than the “childish things” that Paul speaks of doing away with are not toys at all; they are selfish behaviors.

There is a ring of truth to that. Think of all the people you know that you consider to be “mature”. My guess would be that they are very selfless people.

So where does that put us? When I look at our society today, I see what I believe is the same thing that Jackie Chan sees; an entire nation of people who have never matured. A nation of people who have been trained from the beginning of their lives to think of no one other than themselves. A nation of children.

And we are spoiled rotten.

The danger in this is that children cannot care for themselves. They are entirely dependent on others to care for them, set boundaries for them, and discipline them.

If this line of reasoning makes sense to you, then consider where that puts us as a culture:

Throughout history, all nations have followed the same cycle: a rise and a fall. Some of these nations lasted for centuries, while others only a few short years, but none have ever endured indefinitely. All of them started, rose in power & wealth to varying degrees, and then eventually met their demise.

It’s very similar to life itself; we’re born, we grow, we decline, we die.

For every nation that has completed this cycle – and they all do eventually – there is an accompanying chain of events that each has followed:

1. People in bondage gain spiritual faith
2. Faith evolves into courage
3. Courage brings about liberty
4. Liberty results in abundance
5. Abundance progresses to selfishness
6. Selfishness turns to complacency
7. Complacency devolves into apathy
8. Apathy leads to dependence
9. Dependence delivers us into bondage

So I would ask you: Where do we stand as a nation today?

Personally, I would have to think that our best days appear to be behind us. And though it pains me to say it, maybe that’s the best thing. It’s certainly what we deserve.

The Emperor Has No Clothes

2009-07-28T10:54:00.003-04:00

I’ve always loved reading. I don’t know why; I’m just boring that way, I guess. Even as a kid I read a lot, sometimes even preferring to read (if it was a really good book) rather than play outside with my friends.

I have no idea how many books I’ve read over the course of my life. 2,000 maybe? I’m guessing, obviously, but that’s probably somewhere in the neighborhood.

While that doesn’t make me an authority on literature by any means, I do think it allows me to make the claim that - when it comes to books - I have accumulated a fairly decent body of comparison by which to judge good from bad.

And when it comes to bad, there are two novels that have made the Top 10 of my all time “hackers” that I wanted to warn you about. Why these two? Because they have somehow gained the status as being “classics”, and are both also considered to be part of a group known as the “Best 100 Novels of All Time”, which I think is a travesty and an insult.

I was recently reading William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury. The key word here being “was”.

What an unbelievable piece of junk. If you’ve never had to read The Sound and the Fury, consider yourself lucky. I’ll share a brief insight into what reading it is like with the below example, which, while not taken from the book (I made it up), certainly could have been:

I walked to the edge of the cliff Sweet corn and looked faraway at the don’t go there don’t go there I must you can’t and mama turned to look at me “Got to get yo feet out’d mud boy” before she faded into a door that was black and then it wasn’t black and then I made the noise again
what
are you going to the dance
maybe
well you should ‘cause you dance nice
says you
says me
but the lights came back and I went away the watch the watch why isn’t it ticking she smells like grass because you broke the hands off of it and cut your finger smells like grass and bled like grass on the new white tablecloth.

Now let me ask you: Was that enjoyable to read? Does it make any sense? Would you read 350 pages of that clap-trap without someone holding a gun to your head? Would you believe that I actually read 140 pages of it before coming to my senses?

Now, I don’t profess to be the sharpest tack on the bulletin board, but I had to go to Wikipedia and read the synopsis just so I could discover what the story I had been reading was actually about. It blew my mind. It also didn’t resemble anything that I read in the book.

Faulkner was credited with writing this novel using the “stream of consciousness technique”. Ooooooo, that’s so Avant-garde! I’m sorry, but I’m not impressed. I’ll give William credit for trying something new, but at best it was a bad idea and at worst it was just plain annoying and stupid.

The “stream of consciousness technique” reminds me of that period of years back in the 90’s when every commercial and TV show suddenly was filmed with “shaky-cam”. Do you remember that? The camera is bouncing up and down, zooming in and out - even going in and out of focus – as if the cameraman was either drunk or a 12 year old child.

Have you realized that the Avant-garde “shaky-cam” era has passed? Do you know why? Because it was a BAD IDEA. Just like The Sound and the Fury. Don’t waste your time.

The second book of jaw-dropping dumbness that I want to point out is The Catcher in the Rye. This book starts nowhere, ends nowhere, and doesn’t do anything of any importance in between.

If you enjoy reading about a teenage boy with nothing to be upset about that is dead set and determined to be upset about everything anyway, then you might enjoy this waste of paper and the innocent trees who gave their lives to see it in print.

My guess is that The Catcher in the Rye probably got its undeserved attention & acclaim because it deals with teen angst punctuated with a continuous barrage of foul language, both of which would have been considered “shocking”, “ground-breaking”, and – dare I say (yes! dare! dare!) – “Avant-garde” at the time of its publication.

It's notable to me that J.D. Salinger only published this one book. My guess is that his daddy used up the only favor his friend at the publishing company owed him.

I know that some of you may cry foul that I would pan both of these books, but reading should be a pleasure, not a chore. It should not require in-depth “study” to figure out what is going on or what it means. I didn’t have to ponder the concepts & themes that Dickens relayed in David Copperfield; they were transferred inherently. I didn’t even notice.

And before someone says that I just don’t understand or appreciate “classic” literature, let me set the record straight: I do. Very much so. Just not these two. I’m sorry, but with The Sound and the Fury and The Catcher in the Rye, the emperor has no clothes, and I’m not going to say otherwise, no matter how many other people insist that he’s dressed in grand fashion.

As an antidote to the above, here’s a few “classics” I’ve read this past year that are worth reading:

Silas Marner by George Elliot – I can understand why high schoolers would not like this book - the sentences are much more complex than what we see today and the vocabulary that Elliot uses shows how much our language has degraded over the years – but she penned a great story.

The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins – A nice little mystery delivered in a clever manner. The passages of the story told by the self-righteous church lady are, by themselves, worth the price of the book.

The Last of the Mohicans by James Fennimore Cooper – Requires a little bit of concentration, but a wonderful story that leaves you feeling as if you lost a good friend.

The Price of Existence

2009-07-14T09:32:00.003-04:00

It sounds like a noble concept: “universal healthcare”. Everyone gets the medical attention they need. What could be wrong with that?

A few statements to start:

First, in the U.S., we aren’t talking about universal health care, we’re talking about universal health insurance. There is a huge difference, make no mistake.

For years, this country did have universal health care; doctors and hospitals were available to anyone if they were needed, and you paid them for services rendered when and if you used them. It wasn’t until the early 70’s and the Nixon administration that health insurance really took off.

Now we speak of “health care” and “health insurance” as if they are synonymous. They are not.

Second, there are (at least) two main reasons why our current healthcare system is broken and cannot be “fixed” in it’s present state:

1) It is a “for profit” system. Insurance companies make money by collecting premiums. They do not make money by paying claims. If claims start cutting into profits, they will either raise premiums or deny claims or both. They do not care about you; they care about getting your money. Period.

2) People expect to get something for their money. Nobody wants to waste money. People pay thousands and thousands of dollars into their “healthcare plans” every year. Is it any wonder why they take themselves or their children in to the emergency room for every sniffle, cough, ache or pain? They’ve paid for it; they want to use it, even if they don’t really need to. Having insurance encourages people to use it as much as they can, and as the claims go up, so do the premiums.

Knowing that, it’s interesting (but no surprise) that our “fix” for healthcare is to make it bigger; to expand it so that everyone has to be a part of it whether they want to or not. The following article is a couple of weeks old; I just haven’t gotten around to addressing it. You can read it in it’s entirety, but the title really says all you need to know:

Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage

“Mandatory insurance” is not a new concept. It’s mandatory that we have insurance to drive a car. It’s mandatory to have insurance if we have a mortgage on our home. But this is different, because in all other cases, the insurance is mandatory only because we chose to do something that we didn’t have to do (drive a car or borrow money for a home, for instance).

This insurance would be mandatory on everyone simply because we exist.

Think about that for a moment. Think hard.

If we can be forced by law to be a part of a system against our will, can we also be forced to do whatever that system tells us we must do?

Logic says that if the uninsured are being forced to participate in mandatory insurance because they are a “burden” on the rest, then everyone will be forced to do what we are told by this healthcare system for the same reason. And, like the system itself, you won’t have choice in the matter.

Vaccines, drugs, exams, blood; whatever we are told to do, we could be forced to do, whether we wanted to or not.

We need to understand that once we give up control of our lives, they no longer belong to us.

He Said / She Said - The Car

2009-07-13T13:27:00.002-04:00

He Said - by Blaine Staat

Catherine has this thing about me working on the car. I don’t get it. She’ll walk into the garage and see me working - tools and parts spread out all over the place in logically oriented random piles - and she’ll cringe, do an about face, and walk back inside.

Hey! What’s the big deal? I used to fix nuclear power plants in the Navy, how hard can this be? I’m in my garage – a state of Zen – the cans of paint on the shelves and my Scotts Speedy Green 3000 rotary fertilizer spreader with foam handgrips hanging on the wall having a robust Feng Shui effect on my mind. I am man, the hunter. I am becoming one with my car.

And sometimes becoming one with my car means that I have to completely disassemble the entire dashboard. Hmm. That’s an interesting looking metal . . . thing. I wonder where it came from?

See, my car is 37 years old. It needs me. I have to love it and become intimately familiar with . . . uh, oh. I’m gonna need the most dreaded “special tool” to take this piece off. I told Catherine I needed that. But nooo, we needed to buy groceries. No matter. I can get that thing off with my ViseGrips no sweat.

Anyway, like I was saying, I don’t see why she gets all upset when I do this. I’m good at it. In fact, I could have saved - ouch! that hurt - those GM engineers a lot of money, because I’m constantly finding things that they put in that don’t need to be there.

I kid you not. Every time I finish a job, I always wind up with a few parts left over. Springs, screws, weird shaped metal things. Obviously they aren’t too important or I would’ve installed them somewhere when I put everything back together. I’ve got a whole box of that stuff.

Alright, alright, I’ll be right there!

Okay, I gotta go. Catherine wants me to put the washing machine back together. I guess the laundry needs to be done “right this very exact second”. I told her I’d get around to it. She can be so impatient.

She Said - by Catherine Staat

Okay…let’s back up a bit here (hitting the reverse button). There I was going about my day checking things off my “To Do” list. Things are running pretty smoothly – everything is in order and being done in an orderly fashion. Life is good until…(insert the sound of a car putting on its brakes)!

It was as if walking through the door, from the laundry room into our garage, became some type of portal into another world. We go from peace, tranquility and order to what looked as if the whole car was picked up, turned upside down and shaken for its lunch money!

Parts, pieces, gizmos and gadgets littered on the garage floor and half of my husband’s body is being gobbled by the hood of the car! Not a pretty picture let me tell you (the parts and pieces part of it that is)! It was down right scary. May I also add that there tools of every shape and size imaginable along with not just one but two – TWO - car repair manuals. Oh yeah…

Blaine is a very organized person. He is what you would call a B.O.; that is, “Born Organized”. He has a place for everything. When we go on trips he has this natural talent of getting everything into the car and still have room for us to sit comfortably. The man has an uncanny ability to make things fit and find spaces you would never have thought of. He had plenty of practice when our four children were under the age of 10 – back then when we had a small Geo Prism to fit us all in.

So when I walk into the twilight zone…err…I mean, the garage, it tends to be a bit disarming at first knowing my husband as I do. Another thing that goes through my head is all those parts and pieces and is he going to be able to put them all back as Blaine is thumbing through his car repair manual trying to figure out what is what and where does it go exactly! One more thought…how much is this going to cost us?

So after walking through the door, my brakes go on and I do a quick turnaround right back to my nicely organized little world and pretend I didn’t see a thing!

Color Me Panicked

2009-07-03T13:43:00.004-04:00

If you've already read "Plus or Minus 95%" and "Hype Disection 101", the drivel included in the below news story won't come as a surprise:

WHO warns swine flu 'unstoppable'
"The UN's top health official has opened a forum in Mexico on combating swine flu by saying that the spread of the virus worldwide is now unstoppable.

[Margaret Chan] stressed that the overwhelming majority of patients experienced mild symptoms and made a full recovery within a week, often in the absence of any form of medical treatment.

The exceptions, she said, were pregnant women and people with underlying health problems, who were at higher risk from complications from the virus and should be monitored if they fell ill." (emphasis mine)

I know I'm stupid for even asking (and no doubt a bonafide "conspiracy theory" whack-job for questioning what the WHO has fed me), but:

1) Should the terms "mild symptoms" and "unstoppable" really be associated with each other?

2) Aren't people with "underlying health problems" prone to be at higher risk from just about anything?

3) Wouldn't we all be better served if the word "pandemic" was reserved for really nasty things like smallpox, bubonic plague, and ebola, rather than something that is no more (and apparently much less) dangerous than any other flu?

I don't know. Maybe I'm the problem. Maybe I just need to drink the Kool-aid like everybody else. You know; war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, 2 +2 = 5 . . .

It does have a certain appeal, doesn't it?

Quick! Throw the Life Anvil!

2009-07-02T09:45:00.004-04:00

There are many pieces of useless information gained through the years that have become firmly stuck in my mind. Keeping them company are an equal number of ridiculous images & scenes that I’ve conjured up for some reason or another and have never been able to let go.

One of these images is of a man who falls out of a boat and begins yelling for help as he struggles to stay afloat. His friends, seeing his peril, attempt to save him, but instead of throwing him a life preserver, they instead throw him a blacksmith’s anvil painted bright orange – the “life anvil”.

I know, it’s silly. Don’t ask me why that image would be stuck in my head; some things can’t be explained.

I couldn’t help but be reminded of it, however, when I saw the following news story: Feds could seize Calif. parks if closed by budget

Isn’t that nice. California’s in a world of hurt financially right now; you’d think that the Federal government might try to offer some sort of assistance, or at the very least, follow the old credo “first, do no harm”.

Nope.

It certainly sheds new light on these words:
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste" - Rahm Emanuel
"Never waste a good crisis" - Hillary Clinton

Not to be outdone, our benevolent banks – fresh off of being saved by the American taxpayer – are now showing their gratitude to the hands that pulled them back into the boat: Bank Fees Rise as Lenders Try to Offset Losses

Did we really expect anything different? And you know what the worst thing is? There’s nothing we can do about it.

Don’t think so? Go ahead. Try to live your life – the life you are accustomed to living – without a bank. My guess is you can’t. Neither can I.

I have a new image in my head now: I’m standing on a boat looking at a man struggling in the water. He’s wearing a suit that cost more than my car. His hand is stretched out to me; he’s begging me for help.

I look down in the boat and see something. It’s painted bright orange, and it’s really heavy.

I fear it's going to be very difficult to get that picture out of my mind.

Hype Dissection 101

2009-06-26T11:57:00.002-04:00

Here’s how it all went down last night:

Thursday, June 25, 6:45 p.m.

“Dr. Staat, you’re wanted in the ER, stat!”

(rushing in) “What seems to be the problem, nurse?”

“We have a breaking news story that just came in with massive factual hemorrhaging; the propaganda is severely bloated, agenda’s exposed, and the fear-factor is 7.5 and rising!”

“I’m going in.”

“But doctor, you haven’t scrubbed . . .”

“No time. And stand back; this may get messy.”

Okay, maybe it didn’t happen quite like that, but it probably should have. The patient in question is yet another AP news story about the H1N1 “swine flu” pandemic that is sweeping the world and not killing near as many people as pharmaceutical investors would like.

Lest we – the unwashed masses – become complacent about getting that flu shot when it becomes available simply because we don’t know anyone who has died from it (or indeed, anyone who has even gotten the sniffles from it), the corporate controlled media continues to remind us about the looming danger. Not the danger to public health, mind you, but the danger to a whole lot of money that will be left on the table if we don’t get those shots when they’re ready.

Here’s the story in question should you care to read it: US Swine Flu Cases May Have Hit 1 Million

You don’t have to read it if you don’t want to, though; for your convenience I’ll take you through the parts that caught my attention, the first of which is the very title itself.

My diagnosis: pure fear-mongering.

When you say that flu cases “may have hit 1 million”, it can just as easily be said that flu cases “may not have hit 1 million”. Of course, the latter doesn’t have quite as much “zip” to it, and when you’re trying to drive the spike of fear into people, it always helps to describe the glass as half-empty. Half-full, and we might not panic.

Ankle deep into the article we are shown this:

“The estimate voiced by a government flu scientist Thursday was no surprise to the experts who have been closely watching the virus. "We knew diagnosed cases were just the tip of the iceberg," said Dr. William Schaffner . . .”

Did you see what just happened there? The 1 million number is clearly stated as an estimate that has been given by a government source (tingles of credibility are running up and down my spine already), but immediately afterward, this estimate is then treated as if it were a categorical fact by Dr. Quackner . . . er, Schaffner.

Sorry, this fish has seen that bait before, and it didn’t smell good the first time either.

A short hop & a skip later and we arrive here:

“The United States has roughly half the world's swine flu cases, with nearly 28,000 reported to the CDC so far.”

Now, I’m no Jethro Bodine when it comes to ciphering, but by my calculations, if the U.S. has half of the world’s reported cases, then that means there’s about 56,000 cases worldwide that we know about. Is it just me, or does it seem like we’re taking a pretty liberal jump to get that number up to 1 million? I tried to figure out what percentage increase that is, but I ran out of toes.

Then: “The U.S. count includes 3,065 hospitalizations and 127 deaths.”

Ciphering again, if there’s 28,000 U.S. cases and 127 deaths, then that means that the dreaded swine flu has a death rate of less than one-half of 1 percent. Far better odds than you’ll get in Vegas. And that’s only if you believe that those 127 deaths were actually from the flu, which may or may not be the case.

Finally, my favorite passages:

“The numbers again highlight how the young seem to be particularly at risk of catching the new virus. But data also show that the flu has been more dangerous to adults who catch it.

The average age of swine flu patients is 12, the average age for hospitalized patients is 20, and for people who died, it was 37. It seems to be deadliest to people 65 and older, with deaths in more than 2 percent of elderly people infected, Finelli said.”

So, if I’m reading this right, everybody is particularly at risk. If you’re young you need to be scared because you’re going to catch it. If you’re old you need to be scared because for you the mortality rate is highest. And if you’re anywhere in between you need to be scared because the average age of people who die is 37 years old.

Yup. That pretty much covers everybody alright.

This is “spin” at a hyper-ridiculous level, intended to get your attention regardless of your age group.

Averages are so notoriously misused today I don’t even think most people really even know what they are anymore.

Weather forecasters, for instance, consistently compare the day’s temperature to the “average” temperature for that day in history, always making a big show about how much higher or lower the temperature is to that average. Most take it a step further by calling the average temperature the “normal” temperature.

Pure drivel.

An average is not a “norm”; it is an average. What’s normal is that the day’s temperature would be some amount higher or lower than the average since THAT IS HOW AVERAGES ARE DETERMINED IN THE FIRST PLACE. It would be rare for the day’s temperature to actually be the same as the average.

To understand how badly averages can misrepresent reality, consider this: If you’re sitting naked on a block of ice and your hair is on fire, on average, you feel pretty good. So take the averages in the article for what they are (which, just in case you’re still confused, are averages).

beep . . .beep . . . beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep

Well, unfortunately, my patient has flat-lined; time to put my surgical instruments away. Please believe me when I tell you that I did everything I could to save it. In this case, though, the integrity was just too far gone already for me to help. It happens.

I’m 100% sure of that.

A Walk Through the Gallery

2009-06-24T13:46:00.009-04:00

Join me on a leisurely tour through the virtual museum of trivial stupidity . . .

Exhibit “A” - Attention to Detail
We have a park here in Liberty that includes several walls built of memorial bricks dedicated to veterans. A third and final wall is being constructed and the city has been taking applications for the bricks it will be built with, which can be purchased by the veterans themselves or family members in their honor. Each brick has the person’s name, service, dates of service, and the war they fought in (if applicable).

One of the applications received listed the individual’s service dates as “1921 – 1924” along with “World War I”.

Here’s a tip: If you’re going to “honor” a family member by giving them credit for a war they didn’t fight in, at least have the courtesy to take the time to find out when that war was actually fought.

World War I ended in 1918.

Exhibit “B” – Good Idea #1
I think it’s time to go back to our roots and put the Cosa Nostra boys back in charge of things. Imagine the Mafia running our banks, insurance companies, credit companies, mortgage companies; you get the idea. Let them run the whole show.

It’s not as crazy as you might think. First of all, the people involved in organized crime - while criminals by definition - are at least honest about it. They know who they are, they know what they do; and they also know that you know. Nobody’s trying to pass themselves off as something they aren’t.

Secondly, although they are criminals, they aren’t quite as greedy as those who are currently in charge of all of our country’s institutions. They even give back to the community on occasion. And you’re almost guaranteed to have a very nice funeral when the time arrives.

Finally, people will start paying their bills when they’re supposed to, because when you’re 15 days late on a payment, instead of getting a reminder in the mail that you completely ignore, you get a knock on your door from Vinnie & Sal.

Sal doesn’t talk much.

Exhibit “C” – Good Idea #2
This one isn’t my idea, but I think it has merit. If we really wanted to fix the economy, it sure seems like this would have more of a chance than pumping trillions of dollars into the same institutions that got us into this mess in the first place.

The concept is simple: Take 5 million of the current U.S. employees in the 54 – 65 age range and give each of them 1 million dollars. These are people who are going to be retiring within the next 10 years anyway. Send them on their way early with a nice little sum to enjoy in their golden years.

To accept the $1m, each of these employees MUST:
- Quit their job and retire (5 million new jobs created; unemployment crisis fixed)
- Buy a new GM, Chrysler, or Ford car (5 million new car sales; automotive crisis fixed)
- Pay off existing mortgage or buy a new home (5 million home sales; housing crisis fixed)
- Stay out of the workforce for at least 5 years. (They may, however, use their remaining money to start a new business if they wish).

That’s it. Sure sounds like it would work to me. Certainly better than giving the same money to the crooks who run our banking system (unless, of course, they happen to be crooks of Sicilian descent; see Exhibit “B”)

Exhibit “D” – Just in Case You Thought Exhibit “C” Was Stupid
A buck-a-day -- that's the incentive being offered to young girls to keep them from getting pregnant.

The group College-Bound Sisters was founded at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro by Hazel Brown, a maternity nurse who thought too many teens were having babies.

Brown said she hopes the program, which pays $1 each day to 12-to-18-year-old girls, will keep them from getting pregnant. In addition to remaining pregnancy-free, the girls must also attend weekly meetings.

The program is funded by a four-year grant from the state.

Source: Program Pays Girls $1 Per Day To Not Get Pregnant

Your tax dollars hard at work. I wonder if they’ll make the same offer to boys for not getting someone pregnant? Seems only fair . . . .

He Said / She Said - Landscaping

2009-06-15T16:04:00.002-04:00

He Said - by Blaine Staat

I’m just full of good advice. Here’s some for all of you eligible young bachelors: Before you get married, make sure that you take a real close look at those vows your blushing bride will be making to you, and if, along with the “to have and to hold’s” and the “for richer & for poorer’s”, you don’t see the words “promise to keep my little grub-hooks off your yard”, make sure that you get them added in before she starts walking down the aisle.

I know, I know, you would think that that concept is simply implied along with all the other words about her “love” and her “devotion” and all that other jazz. Any reasonable man would. But alas, my friend, we’re not talking about “reason”, we’re talking about “woman”, and once your new bride is done throwing all of your stuff out of the house (a blindingly fast process in it’s own right) she will soon move into your domain. The backyard.

Last year Catherine planted – and this is absolutely no exaggeration – exactly 4,723 “things” in the yard. As if that’s not bad enough, let me also fill you in on what I must assume is her “landscape planning procedure”, which is basically to walk around aimlessly before suddenly thinking “Oh, this looks like a good spot for something”, at which point the evil dagger of her shovel bludgeons it’s way through my pristine lawn so that some sickly thing that looks like a dead stick can try to take root.

Oh! And does she get all snippy with me when I tell her very nicely to take her shoes off and get back in the kitchen? You know it brother! All tears, and boo-hoo-hoo, and “you’re so mean to me, I was only trying to make our yard look nice”. Did I shed a tear when she took down my vintage Farrah-Fawcett poster - framed, no less – from our bedroom wall and gave it to Goodwill? Okay, okay, maybe that’s not a real good example, but still . . . you know what I mean.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask of her to just leave my yard alone, especially when you consider how much I do for her. I mean, if I see garbage overflowing from the trash can onto the kitchen floor, do I not take it out? You betcha I do. Almost every single time. And do I not put most of my dirty clothes in the laundry hamper? Hello! Yes. And do I not rinse out my dishes before I stack them on the counter simply to make it easier for her to load the dishwasher?

Yup. Yup, yup, yup.

What women don’t seem to realize is that whenever something is placed in the yard, you must then mow around it. This takes effort, which is why I usually just push the mower straight over it instead. It’s not a personal attack, it doesn’t mean I don’t love you, and yes, I’m sure that whatever it was that you planted would have been beautiful had I let it live, but it was just easier not to.

Sometimes a man has to take a stand. That’s why I do hereby boldly proclaim to the world that my yard belongs to me and ME ONLY! It’s mine, d’ya hear? Mine! Mine! Mine! I don’t care what you want to plant; I’m not going to do it. Don’t wanna, ain’t gonna, can’t make me. So there.

Now quit acting like a big baby and just accept it.

There, that wasn’t so hard, was it? All that’s left to do now is to let Catherine know where I stand on this issue, and as soon as she comes home from the grocery store, I’m going to tell her the exact same thing. You just better believe I will too. Pretty soon after she gets back. Maybe after dinner.

Or tomorrow.

She Said - by Catherine Staat

Well! I think that 4,723 “things” is a slight exaggeration, but okay, I’ll go with that for just a moment (some advice for soon-to-be brides: we sometimes let our guys think the way they want to, but only temporarily mind you!). When we moved here to Kentucky, I was so very excited at the prospects of what we would be able to grow; having the opportunity to plant my absolute favorites (and I’m sure Blaine’s as well once he sees just how much they please his loving and devoted wife) in a garden that was not possible to have living in the central part of Florida.

Learning what will grow here as opposed to Florida has been a learning lesson, and, as with the inside of my home, I wish the outside to also reflect who we are as a family. Much care is taken in the planning of one’s garden, or what I like to call my own personal “Claude Monet's garden at Giverny” or “Jefferson's Monticello: The West Lawn”. Since these beautiful gardens are not a hop, skip and a jump from us here, I will try and bring a little bit of them right into my…err…our backyard.

~Sigh~ I think of how things can possibly look one day when we will be able to sit back and enjoy the view and really appreciate all 4,723 things that we so carefully and lovingly planted. And to my wide eyed and green behind the ears young bachelor friends…my husband does enjoy our Monticello “West Lawn in the making”, and not only that, but also the compliments we have received in how the yard is shaping up.

As gardeners, we need to carefully consider the amount of sunlight each individual plant requires along with soil properties, and if they like their feet (roots) wet or dry. Is this plant suited for the intense heat of the afternoon sun, or would it be better planted elsewhere to give it shade and protection? Do we not show this very same consideration for our husbands in caring for them and their needs as well? Absolutely! We wouldn’t just throw them a plate of food without giving some consideration to his needs and requirements! Aimless wandering? Oh no, no!

Another consideration - and one that a wife does need to be tuned in to - is the mowing of the lawn; specifically, whether or not the plants you have lovingly laid into the soil will be mowed over by a husband who is really only thinking of getting the yard work done in time to watch “the game” at 1 p.m.! I have lost many a precious plant due to this so called “mishap”. Did Blaine really not realize that the rare bulb sprouting up from the ground - or the hard to start & grow Clematis vine that was so heinously attacked by the weed whacker - were actually not weeds at all? Mishap?

Ohhhh, I think not! In fact, most of those 4,723 things that my husband - who loves and is as devoted to me as I am to him - mentioned earlier are actually re-plantings of the very things that he mowed over and weed whacked away in the first place, despite my attempts to mark them with bright red and yellow tags. And that “dead looking stick” that he is so quick to assume is not alive will soon grow into a beautiful River Birch Tree that will grace our yard with years of beauty and much needed shade.

So you see, I do give great consideration for Blaine and his soon-to-be beautiful domain. I would never think of taking over this area with my…what was that again? Little grub-hooks? Would these be the same “little grub-hooks” that so lovingly and devotedly take care of you?! Hmmm…

Funny Meeting You Here

2009-06-09T10:54:00.002-04:00

I had a really weird experience this past weekend.

On Saturday, I was part of a Home School Book Sale that was held in the community center at our local park here in Liberty. This was a very small affair; there were only about 7 vendors there in the first place, and I use the term “vendor” very loosely.

One of the vendors, for instance, was a local family selling used books. I was also there as a “vendor” with my 2 books and back issues of Making It Home magazine for sale. Maybe 35 people attended over the course of the day (and at least 15 of those were children accompanying their parents).

By noon, the “mad rush” was over, and I was thinking about packing up and going home except that at 1:00 p.m. a small group was going to discuss homeschooling through high school, and Catherine wanted to join them.

So here’s the situation: It’s about 1:30 p.m. and I’m at the tail end of a small event that only a few people even knew about in the first place. It’s being held in a relatively secluded building in a tiny little town in the middle of nowhere (or barring that, certainly well off the beaten path). I’m just sitting there at my table, reading a book and killing time. Other than us “vendors”, the place is deserted.

All of a sudden I look up to see a woman standing at my table. She’s the only one there, and I didn’t see her come in.

She’s looking at the sign I had made for my book What So Proudly We Hailed, which pretty clearly describes it as an Orwellian, “dystopian future” kind of novel.

We strike up a conversation, and she asks me if I’ve ever seen Aaron Russo’s film “America: Freedom to Fascism”. I said yes, although it’s been 2 ½ years since I watched it.

Then she says, “I’m Marci Brooks, the juror”.

And my jaw dropped.

If you’re not familiar with “America: Freedom to Fascism”, part of it highlighted a court case in Illinois or Indiana (my memory fails me) in which a man was brought to trial for failing to pay Federal income tax. His defense sounded almost ridiculous: there was no law that said he had to pay income tax.

The amazing thing though, is that he was right! As incredible as it may sound, the prosecution could not show the jury that there was any law in existence that said the man had to pay income tax, and since there was no law to break, he had committed no crime. The jury acquitted him.

Marci was on that jury, and Aaron Russo interviewed her for the documentary.

And now here she was at this little nothing event out in the sticks talking to me. Funny who you bump into in the middle of nowhere. As it turns out, she’s moving here to Casey County. How interesting.

So what does that mean? I have no idea. But you have to admit, it’s kind of weird. Some people might call it a “strange coincidence”, but since I don’t believe in coincidences, all I can think of is that God is up to something. He’s moving people around where He wants them to be, and there’s a reason for it, even if I don’t know what it is yet.

I have a feeling though, that I’m going to find out. Maybe sooner, maybe later. But eventually.

For a man with a completely boring life, mine sure is interesting.

Bartertown

2009-06-08T09:49:00.004-04:00

I came across an interesting article this morning about a man arrested for devising a bartering program which used real silver as a method of exchange. According to the article (Asheville man charged in alleged Liberty Dollar fraud scheme), over 70 local businesses agreed to take part.

There's just one problem with this; it is illegal for precious metals (silver, gold, etc.) to be used as a medium of currency, and even though the program was using the coins as “barter” and not “legal tender”, some toes were getting stepped on.

The best quote from the article:

“People understand that there is only one legal currency in the United States,” said Owen Harris, special agent in charge of the Charlotte office of the FBI. “When groups try to replace the U.S. dollar with coins and bills that don't hold the same value, it affects the economy.

“Consumers were using their hard-earned money to buy goods and services, then getting fake change in return.”

There are three things that jump out to me in that quote. The first is the phrase stating that 1 ounce silver coins “don't hold the same value” as Federal Reserve Notes. It’s a very true statement, because they don’t hold the same value; silver is actually worth something (and always will be).

Secondly is the statement that “it affects the economy”. It certainly does; it puts real money in the hands of real people. Real money that won’t lose value and cannot be manipulated by untouchable, unaccountable entities (i.e., the Federal Reserve, corporate entities, banks, etc.).

Third is the statement that customers were “getting fake change in return”. You just have to laugh at this one. Silver, a precious metal that cannot be created out of thin air is “fake”; a piece of paper that is worth nothing and can be created in any quantity on a whim is “real”.

I won’t give you my conclusions as to why gold & silver can’t be used as currency; if you have any amount of concern & curiosity you can easily figure it out for yourself. And if you're more concerned with who will be kicked off American Idol this week, what would be the point of telling you at all?

What’s interesting to me about this incident is what precedent it sets for “bartering” in the future. We know that we can’t use silver and gold as currency. With this incident we now know that we can’t use silver and gold for “barter”. How far down does the line get drawn?

I raise chickens. You have a milk cow. I need milk. You need eggs. Can I still trade 2 dozen of my eggs for a gallon of your milk?

Maybe for now. I mean, seriously, how could anyone stop us from doing that?

Depending on what happens with the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) in the years to come, the answer may be that you & I simply don’t have any chickens or cows to barter with at all.

We’d both have to buy our milk & eggs. With legal currency, of course.

That may sound a little extreme, but then again, I’m sure there was a time when people would have laughed at you if you’d told them that there would come a day when gold & silver couldn’t be used as money.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

2009-06-03T10:19:00.003-04:00

Last weekend, as we’ve done for the past 3 years, our church youth group participated in World Vision’s “30 Hour Famine”.

The program has two main objectives: 1) to raise money to help feed starving children, and 2) to raise the awareness in our youth of what “hunger” really is, or, at least to give them a vague idea of it.

From noon on Friday until 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, the kids (and the adult volunteers) don’t eat anything. We can have as much water or Gatorade as we want, but no food. We take the kids out to a nearby camp where they build boys & girls shanty-towns out of cardboard boxes. Then they sleep on the ground in their cardboard shelters.

To pass the time, we keep the kids busy with exercises and activities. We have devotions and read scripture. We sit around a campfire with no hotdogs or s’mores. We share the statistics:

26,000 children dead every day from hunger & malnutrition . . .
1,100 children every hour . . .
1 child every 3 seconds . . .

It’s a worthwhile exercise, and by late Saturday afternoon everyone is feeling the effects from the activity, heat, and lack of food & sleep: Fatigue. Headaches. Stomach cramps. Hunger.

Just a taste of what it feels like. A few little sprinkles on the tongue.

The difference is, we know it will all end at 6 o’clock. We know there will be a buffet of food waiting for us to gorge upon. We know that a cool shower, clean clothes, and Tylenol are right around the corner. We know we will sleep in our comfortable beds in air conditioned luxury.

And we know that in a few days, we will forget all about it for another year.

Every time we do this I’m reminded of the photograph below:

If by chance you’re not familiar with it, the photo shows a starving Sudanese girl trying to make it to a United Nations food camp. The vulture is waiting for her to die so it can eat her. The photographer, Kevin Carter, won the Pulitzer Prize in 1994 for the photograph. He committed suicide a few months later.

I think we can accept the concept of starving children because we don’t have to see them suffer or bury them when they die. Thinking about them interferes with our lives and what we want to do. We don’t like that. It’s uncomfortable.

But what if we did have to see them? What if we did have to bury them? Would we feel any differently then?

1 child every 3 seconds . . .

I think we can accept war because it is not us who has to die. We can accept a million abortions a year because we don’t have to see the mangled bodies of the infants. We can accept torture because it is not us who feels the pain.

We can accept all of these things – and a host of other atrocities – simply because we don’t have to deal with them ourselves.

But what if we did?

I make no judgments except against myself.

Media Influence

2009-05-29T10:59:00.003-04:00

How much toothpaste do you put on your toothbrush?

Do you put a line of toothpaste from one end of the bristles to the other, or do you use a little bead about the same size as the tip of your pinky?

For years, I had fed my toothbrush with that full line of toothpaste, but at some point in my life – probably at a time when I was almost out of toothpaste – I realized that I could brush my teeth just fine by using only a little bead of toothpaste instead.

Same effect; the only difference being that there were no longer any clumps of unused toothpaste falling into the sink, and a tube of toothpaste suddenly lasted 3 times longer

Which got me wondering, “Why had I ever thought it was necessary to use so much in the first place when I didn’t need to?”

What I realized was that my parents taught me how to brush my teeth, but it was the TV that taught me how much toothpaste to use. Without even realizing it, I had been influenced by every toothpaste commercial I had ever seen to cover my brush with toothpaste from end to end.

I was indoctrinated into this mentality from my youth, even though it was unnecessary and wasteful. In a word, it was wrong.

It doesn’t bother me that toothpaste companies would want me to use toothpaste faster (and therefore need to buy more sooner), but what does bother me is that I was subtly manipulated to think a certain way, and I never even knew it was happening. I never questioned it. I never even thought about it. The “thinking” had been done for me.

All for a corporate dollar.

When I first started shaving I used to coat my face with about a ¼” of shaving cream. Why? Because that’s how I had seen it done on TV. Today, I use just enough to barely coat my face. A regular can of Barbasol now lasts me the better part of a year instead of a couple months.

I remember seeing a commercial decades ago (and long before I even started shaving) that made a big deal about a disposable razor that could “shave 10 tough beards”. The commercial showed a bunch of manly football players in a locker room all passing a razor around from one to another – not something you’ll see in today’s AIDS influenced world – and acting incredulous that the same blade could actually shave 10 of them! Wow! (It should be noted that they all had about ¼” of shaving cream on their faces.)

For decades I used to use a razor for about 2 weeks before throwing it away for another. Then one day, just for kicks, I decided to see how long I could actually shave with the same cheap disposable razor. It lasted for months. I was shocked.

I started using a new razor in January of this year. I only threw it away a week ago. Funny thing is, now that I’m using a new razor, I find that I’m suddenly cutting & nicking myself.

Toothpaste. Shaving cream. Disposable razors.

Trivial things, yes, but they start adding up, and they are not the only things that TV has influenced (taught? indoctrinated? manipulated?) my mind about.

Why are our medicine cabinets so full of drugs & ointments? Because TV has taught us that they should be. It’s “normal”. Commercials tell us what we need, and movies & shows reinforce the concept by showing us medicine cabinets that are always full of stuff.

TV shows us that when we drink beer, we will have a great time and be surrounded by good looking women with large breasts.

TV shows us what to think about sex. TV show us how a “family” acts at home. TV shows us that fathers are idiots who aren't really necessary and can’t do anything right except be the butt of a joke.

TV tells us what to like, when to like it, and how much we should like it. TV tells us what to eat, what to wear, who to love, where to go, and what to do when we get there.

In short, it tells us how we are supposed to live. And without even thinking about it, we pattern our lives after what we see. We live the way TV tells us too.

And why not?

According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day (or 28 hours/week, or 2 months of nonstop TV-watching per year). In a 65-year life, that person will have spent 9 years glued to the tube.

* Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes

* Percentage of Americans that regularly watch television while eating dinner: 66

* Number of minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 3.5

* Number of minutes per week that the average child watches television: 1,680

* Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked to choose between watching TV and spending time with their fathers, preferred television: 54

* Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900

* Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1500

* Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000

* Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000

* Number of 30-second TV commercials seen in a year by an average child: 20,000

* Number of TV commercials seen by the average person by age 65: 2 million

We.
Never.
Stop.
To.
Think.

Update 6/3/09 This related story seemed timely: TV Causes Learning Lag in Infants

Lewis & Clark Abbreviated

2009-05-28T08:37:00.002-04:00

from the book "Finding Liberty"

“Daddy, can we go camping in the backyard sometime?” my 8 year old son asks.

“Sure,” I reply, safe in knowing that a camping trip is well off into the future. It’s January - we’re still living in Florida at the time and I’m still running a daily sprint in the corporation rat race - and though the landscape is not exactly covered with a blanket of snow, it’s still cold enough to keep two novices (this one without even a sleeping bag) indoors and waiting for warmer weather. “But we’ll have to wait a few months,” I finish.

A happy & excited boy bounces off like Tigger, already imagining the adventure.

“Daddy, is it warm enough to go camping now?” He’s back, and he hasn’t forgotten the promise. The seasons have changed - perhaps faster than I would have liked - and it is now April. This time, I lift my head to make a serious looking inspection of the outside world through the living room window. Cold weather is no longer an issue.

“I don’t know, David,” I say with due gravity. “Looks pretty cloudy out there. I think it’s supposed to rain tonight.”

“Okay, Daddy. But we’ll go soon, won’t we?”

“Absolutely. Very soon.”

A happy & excited boy again bounces off like Tigger. For a moment, though, it seems to me that his bounce is maybe not quite as high as it once was. Must be my imagination, I think to myself.

My son is blessed with an uncanny memory and dogged persistence. His father has been given the gift of procrastination and the ability to prioritize those things that are important only to himself. And so as the weeks go by, the litany of excuses continues:

“Can we do it tonight, Daddy? Can we?”

“Maybe next week, David.”
“Daddy’s not feeling too well today, buddy.”
“It’s Wednesday, David. Daddy has to be at work tomorrow.”
“Daddy has to finish some work for a big meeting on Monday.”
. . . and so on, and so on, and so on.

With each request, my little Tigger approaches me with boundless optimism and excitement, and with each rebuff, no matter how gentle, I can’t help but accept the fact that his bounce is a little less than it was before.

Finally, almost as if to spite me, a beautiful Saturday arrives that can accept no excuses. A promise must be kept. Lewis & Clark, however long delayed, must now depart for the wild unknown, even if the wild unknown is only 50 feet from the back porch.

Supplies are gathered, coonskin caps are donned, checklists are reviewed. The two intrepid adventurers cut their way into the dense wilderness - St. Augustine grass cutting viciously at their ankles - as they find the perfect spot to make camp. A site is selected and the tent is pitched, with only minor confusion and sorting of poles, rods, & ropes.

Soon, our meager supplies are safely stored inside; our one sleeping bag for David, a few threadbare blankets for me, and what little food we have left. We take our minds off of the peril of our situation by playing some video games on the 12” color TV that I rigged up.

By sheer luck more than anything else, I had rescued the 100’ orange extension cord from my pack just before it had plunged over the cliff earlier in the day. As more sheer luck would have it (what can I say, I’m a pretty lucky guy), we had located a natural 110v 3-prong power source nearby.

In preparation for the next day, Lewis patiently instructed the older Clark how to play a wide variety of video games. Lewis’ favorite teaching method seemed to involve trouncing Clark into oblivion over and over, but to his credit, the elder Clark was an attentive student, and soon learned methods & skills that allowed him to get trounced not quite so badly.

Midnight came and went. Finally, the two weary explorers, facing dawn in only a few hours, secure from the day’s instruction, take a quick walk of the perimeter, and then lock down the tent to keep the savage forest creatures at bay. As they lay there in the darkness, with only the nighttime sounds of insects, animals, and people driving around way past their bedtimes, the ever inquisitive Lewis begs to be regaled by some of the more perilous stories of Clark’s past. Namely, he wants to hear some ghost stories (“but not too scary, Daddy”).

And so passes the night.

In the morning, the two adventurers are abruptly awakened by a beautiful Indian squaw, who had thoughtfully prepared both men breakfast in a nearby teepee. The young Lewis was up almost instantly and bounded off, without even a glancing thought for his own safety. The older Clark, however, took a little more time shaking off the effects of the night; somewhere in the past 30 years, the ground had apparently gotten a little harder, and wounds once ancient and forgotten had been reawakened.

Two things entered into Clark’s mind as the morning sun bathed the stiffness in his body. The first were the words of another great adventurer, Indiana Jones, who once said “It ain’t the years, it’s the mileage.” The second was a Far Side cartoon where a settler lay beside his wagon, his body pierced with a dozen arrows even as the Indians still circled, who looked up to his partner and said, “Yeah, Clem, I hurt. But it’s a good hurt.”

The expedition was a success.

After breakfast, I came out to the back porch with a cup of coffee to enjoy the peace of the morning with Catherine. David had returned to the tent and was just lying there inside, looking up at the top of the dome with his hands behind his head, a smile on his face. When we asked him what he was doing, he stated that he was just trying to make the campout with his dad last a little bit longer.

Suddenly, I realized for the first time how truly important this had been for David. This had not been a silly campout in the backyard at all, but a chance instead for a young boy to get the attention & affection of his father that he so desperately wanted.

I made a decision: Lewis & Clark would travel again. And if a brave little air mattress happens to make the next journey with them, well, so much the better.

In Defense of Fort McHenry

2009-05-22T09:42:00.005-04:00

In 1814, British forces captured Washington D.C. and set fire to much of the city, including the Capitol building and the White House. President James Madison was forced to flee.

The British then advanced to Baltimore, knowing that the loss of both Washington D.C. and Baltimore would be a demoralizing blow to American troops.

In September, a young lawyer named Francis Scott Key sailed out to meet the British commanders to negotiate an exchange of prisoners. Although the negotiations were successful, Key was not immediately allowed to return to land because of the imminent British attack, and he was forced to spend the next several days on a ship behind the British fleet.

At 7:00 a.m. on the morning of September 13, the British attacked Ft. McHenry from both land and sea. The battle raged all day and throughout most of the night, and Key was a witness to it all.

Early in the morning, the bombardment suddenly stopped; the battle was over. But who had won? In the darkness, Key could see nothing, and for the next few hours he waited with anxiety to see which flag would be flying above the fort when the sun arose.

Key was so moved by the experience that he wrote the poem which we know today as the American National Anthem. However, the lyrics we sing are only the first of four stanzas to his original poem, and though we sing those words with boldness, pride, and conviction, it becomes very clear in the context of the entire poem that they are actually words filled with the anxiety and fear that Key felt during the hours of darkness following the battle.

Although I had 12 years of public education and served 8 years in the U.S. Navy, I had never read the original poem in it’s entirety until about 3 years ago (shame on me). In fact, I never even knew there was more to it than what we sang as our National Anthem (shame on them).

It has haunted me ever since, and I still have a hard time reading it without my eyes welling with tears.

Happy Memorial Day.

“In Defense of Ft. McHenry”
By Francis Scott Key

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

A Real "Full Service" Bank

2009-05-22T09:24:00.001-04:00

Every Friday morning the Casey County Bank across the street has free doughnuts. It’s my usual habit to walk over and get a few for me & the ladies who work here in City Hall.

This morning we got a phone call from Denise at the bank just after 9:00 a.m. She hadn’t seen me yet and was a little worried that I had forgotten. I can’t help but laugh.

Does that kind of thing happen in your town? It does in mine.

We don’t have much, but we have each other.

No Muss, No Fuss

2009-05-18T13:16:00.003-04:00

I’ve known for quite some time that they existed . . .

VeriChip – RFID for People

And, of course, I knew they would eventually make them smaller . . .

Luddites still objecting to having an 11mm chip implanted in an arm will no doubt be relieved to hear that VeriChip has developed an even-smaller implantable RFID tag, measuring a diminutive 8mm by 1mm.
VeriChip shaves 3mm off human RFID chips

But even I was shocked to actually see this:

German media outlets reported last week that a Saudi inventor's application to patent a "killer chip," as the Swiss tabloids put it, had been denied.

The basic model would consist of a tiny GPS transceiver placed in a capsule and inserted under a person's skin, so that authorities could track him easily.

Model B would have an extra function — a dose of cyanide to remotely kill the wearer without muss or fuss if authorities deemed he'd become a public threat.

The inventor said the chip could be used to track terrorists, criminals, fugitives, illegal immigrants, political dissidents, domestic servants and foreigners overstaying their visas.
Saudi 'Killer Chip' Implant Would Track, Eliminate Undesirables

At the risk of being redundant, I’ll refer you to yet another excerpt from What So Proudly We Hailed. The line between fiction and reality sure looks mighty blurry from my perspective:

The answer, as it had turned out, was incredibly simple.

All that was needed was a slight modification to the RF chips that everybody already had at that point anyway, and as it happened, there had been manufacturing facilities already setup to start producing them. Imagine that.

They called them Deterrent Identification Tags, or “D-Chips” for short, and they were going to revolutionize the criminal justice system. They weren’t much different from the regular chips – they still emitted a unique ID number – but they also came equipped with a self-destruct mechanism that would cause the ampoule to shatter if it received a special signal. That was a serious problem for anyone who had the D-chip implanted in their body, because inside the chip was a tiny – but highly toxic – amount of neuropoison that would shut down your vital organs in a matter of seconds,

Although everybody called them D-chips, nobody but the government and the media ever had the gall to use the word “deterrent” with them. The “D” stood of something else, and everybody knew it.

If you’ve already read What So Proudly We Hailed and thought that it was a little paranoid and “over the top”, maybe now you’re not quite so sure. If you haven’t already read What So Proudly We Hailed, maybe you should.

He Said / She Said - Chivalry

2009-05-18T09:17:00.003-04:00

He Said - by Blaine Staat
There I was, reclined in the banquet hall in front of the roaring hearth, feasting on a leg of roast mutton and a stein of ale following an arduous day of riding around the countryside on my noble steed. Content was I in my day’s work of saving maidens, slaying dragons, swinging my sword around a lot, and generally making quite a ruckus as I pursued my chivalric tendencies.

Suddenly, a shrill cry pierces the dusk, and the peace and tranquility of my gluttony is shattered. A damsel in distress!

Woe to be a knight in these dark days; our work forever unfinished. I jumped instantly to my feet and paused only the few merest of seconds to take another couple of bites from that well cooked hunk ‘o meat before I dashed out across the cobblestones to the stable.

My warhorse snorted at my approach, it’s breath a white fog spewing from flared nostrils, and he stamped impatiently at the cold earth. He too knew that evil was yet to be confronted this night.

In moments the hedges, ramparts, and rows were but mere blurs as together we raced towards what peril we knew not; battlecries and the thunder of hooves now issuing an urgent reply to what could only be the fairest of maidens whose fearful plea must place her in the direst of straights indeed.

A corner is turned, a sword unsheathed, and a nemesis so vile as cannot be described is revealed, hideous in countenance and unscrupled in intent. And at it’s mercy, trembling with fright - an angel. A vision so pale and beautiful as to rival a petal from the most delicate of England’s roses.

I say to you now, all who may witness these words, that there may come a day when evil triumphs over the hearts of men, but it will not be this day, and with a cry of Havoc! I charge, and the steel of my blade sings through the night to find mortal purchase in the heart of the beast.

In but moments I am at her side, even as the slain oppressor still writhes in it’s agony, and I lift her fainted body in my arms to spirit her away. After a few steps I hear a ‘pop’ in my lower back and I gently lower her back to her feet, taking instead her arm and assisting her – with much strength and gallantry – back towards the safety of the castle walls.

This is a true story.

She Said- by Catherine Staat
I’m not sure about the “whole fainted body in arms thing”, but…okay that works for me as long as that creepy crawly “nemesis” that has made it’s way within 5 feet of where I’m standing is slain (smooshed). I’m a very happy damsel in distress who will gladly fall into the arms of a gallant and not to mention rather good looking knight.

I hate roaches. Wait, “hate” is a strong word…nope…it fits! Living in Florida, roaches were just a part of life; no matter how much you tried to prevent them they unscrupulously made their way inside. As far as I’m concerned, they are what He Said, “…a nemesis so vile as cannot be described . . . hideous in countenance and unscrupled in intent”, not to mention unwanted, disgusting and just plain gross.

When I see one - and believe you me you will hear me scream from a block away - I cannot rest until it has been obliterated from the face of the earth. Man…another strong word there but I kinda like it…o-b-l-i-t-e-r-a-t-e. (Please see definition number 2 below – That one works for me!

Obliterate: oblit·er·ate
1 : to make undecipherable or imperceptible by obscuring or wearing away
2 a : to remove utterly from recognition or memory b : to remove from existence : destroy utterly all trace, indication, or significance of

The house will be turned upside down until it has been found and destroyed by my very strong and very brave knight in shining armor who has no problem in slaying the oppressor (squishing the intruder). Sometimes it is one of “those” that flies – which are called Palmetto Bugs.

They are still roaches, but far worse! Not only are they roaches with wings – yes, I said wings! - but they are about 2 inches long and always seem to make a beeline right for me! Sounds like something from a science fiction horror movie, but I kid you not these things are HUGE! It might as well be a Cessna! A Cessna that has radar (antenna) and knows where to find me.

Can you tell that I am totally creeped out by them? I’m sure there is much joy and pleasure - by the mini airplane-like creature - in hearing me scream and watching me run like a wild person as I’m hitting myself frantically to get the thing away from me.

Blaine knows that scream all too well. He doesn’t have to ask what it is that I’m screaming about, but quickly comes to my rescue with his oblitteratus (shoe and bug spray) in hand.

Did I mention that the bug spray is the kind you can spray from 20 feet away? Yes, he is a very brave knight indeed. Who wouldn’t be with a range like that?

Please tell me there are no such “things” here in Kentucky!

Just Like That

2009-05-11T10:16:00.001-04:00

About two weeks ago there was a bad automobile wreck on Hwy 127 about 10 miles south of Liberty. It was a gorgeous, sunny Spring day; good weather on a good road.

A southbound car had slowed to a stop in order to make a left hand turn into a driveway. A second southbound vehicle directly behind it also slowed to a stop. A third vehicle didn’t.

Instead, it hit the second stopped car and went airborne, directly into the northbound lane.

In the northbound lane was a 17 year old girl from Michigan who was driving home with her family from Tennessee, where she had gone to visit the college she planned to attend in the fall.

She was a beautiful young girl.
She won’t be going to college.

Last Friday, I drove southbound past the site where the wreck took place. A flowered cross was all that remained to mark what had happened.

Later in the day, as I was driving back home, I realized that I was taking the same path this young girl had on the day she died. The same road. The same direction. The wreck site was about 5 miles ahead of me.

I couldn’t help but imagine her taking this same route two weeks before. Seeing what she saw, taking my car through the same meandering turns as she had. I felt like I was looking at it through her eyes.

She has no idea that she only has 5 minutes left to live. What conversation was she having with her family? Was she smiling? Laughing? What song was playing on the radio?

A feeling of sadness follows me as I retrace her final steps.

She could have never known when she got dressed that morning that it would be the last time she would ever do that. What did she eat for breakfast? Was she excited about getting home? Was there a young man she was looking forward to seeing again? Girlfriends to celebrate with?

I can see the cross up on the hill now.
She has less than 10 seconds to live, and she still has no idea.

I imagine that she sees a car coming towards her now, slowing down with it’s turn signal on. It’s waiting for her to pass by. Perfectly normal. What is she thinking about? Is she speaking or listening? Does she see the second car coming to a stop behind the first? Does she see the third car at all?

A fraction of a second.
A moment in time.

I pass through the spot marked by the flowered cross. She never does.
My life goes on unaffected. Hers ends instantly.

I glance up and see the cross in my rearview mirror, slipping away behind me, then disappearing altogether.

Singular Choice

2009-05-05T10:09:00.002-04:00

Several months ago I read an article in one of the major news magazines – Time or Newsweek; I can’t remember which one – dealing with religion.

This particular article dealt with morality, and the author was trying to make a point that while it’s nice to say that there is such a thing as “good & evil” and “right & wrong”, the reality is that it isn’t so cut & dried as it may appear. The “reality” (according to the author) is that morality is actually a very gray area, and subject to interpretation.

To help prove his point, he listed out several scenarios that were all very similar in their presentation. One of these scenarios was that you are part of a group of people – a dozen or so – who are hiding from armed men. These men are looking for you, and if they find you they will kill you. You know that.

One of the people in your group is a woman with an infant child. The baby starts crying, and it’s only a matter of time before the men hear the child and find you.

So the question is this: What do you do? Do you – because of your deep sense of morality and belief in the sanctity of human life – do nothing, and thereby allow the men to find you and kill everyone? Or, do you sacrifice the child – kill it – in order to save the lives of the rest of the people in the group?

It certainly sounds like a difficult dilemma. Until you realize – if you realize – that it’s a trick question. It’s loaded. It is a question specifically designed to illicit an incorrect answer. It’s no different than asking someone “What’s the answer to 2 + 2? Is it 5? Or is it 6?”, even if it’s not quite so obvious.

The author is counting on a couple of things here. For one, he’s counting on the fact that you’ve never seen this question before, and that, unlike “2 + 2”, you won’t notice the fact that both answers that you are given to choose from are incorrect.

He’s counting on the fact that you’ll be concentrating so hard on the question that you’ll never stop to think about who’s asking the question or why they’re asking it (which in this case is a secular humanist who is trying to discredit Christianity and reduce the concept of morality to a pile of rubble).

And he’s also counting on the fact that you’ll be so focused on trying to pick the best answer that you’ll never realize that they are not the only options available to you.

Who is to say, for instance, that if I were in that situation, I couldn’t leave the group myself and lead the armed men away from the others and thus save their lives by sacrificing my own?

Sounds perfectly plausible to me. As plausible, at least, as the original scenario itself. Funny, though, that it wasn’t listed as one of my possible choices. Can you think of any other possible courses of action that someone could take in that situation? I can.

So why write an article like that?

Well, I can’t be sure of the author’s intentions, but realizing that a world in which morality can be defined (and redefined) at will is definitely part of his personal agenda, I can take an educated guess.

In my opinion, the article serves 3 purposes.

First, it is meant to initiate the uninitiated. To influence the thinking of those who really haven’t given morality much thought one way or the other and guide them to the author’s point of view.

Second, it provides reinforcement to those who already subscribe to the author’s philosophy by presenting a series of seemingly concrete examples which prove his point.

And third, it is intended to sow seeds of doubt in the rest of us – Christian or otherwise – who are already well grounded in our understanding of right and wrong. It serves to make us second guess ourselves; to think that maybe morality isn’t quite as black & white as we originally thought.

Whether you agree with that analysis is entirely up to you, but I’ll leave you with one question of my own: If what the author of that article says is really true – that morality is open to interpretation – then why does he have to resort to deception in order to prove his case?

Real truth can stand on its own. It needs no lies to prop it up.

Plus or Minus 95%

2009-04-29T16:50:00.004-04:00

I’ve been hearing the number 36,000 a lot lately.

I heard it on the radio during a “news update” on the pending swine flu pandemic. I read about it in a recent news story on the same topic.

36,000 is the number of annual U.S. deaths attributed to be caused by influenza.

It’s not the first time I’ve heard that number. Several months ago I was having a conversation with my mom and the topic of the flu – and the number of deaths from it per year – came up.

She asked me if I have ever known anyone who had died of the flu.

I admitted I hadn’t.

She asked me if I thought that was odd. She then told me that during the Vietnam War, just about everyone had some sort of personal acquaintance with a soldier who had died there. A relative, a friend, a friend’s son, a kid that went to your church, a classmate; regardless of what it was, just about everyone had some sort of connection with a soldier who had been killed in Vietnam.

That was a war that lasted 10 years and resulted in around 57,000 U.S. dead. With the flu, we’re talking about 36,000 deaths every single year. What are the odds that I wouldn’t have some sort of a connection with somebody who had died from the flu at some point during my lifetime?

She also pointed out that in over 20 years as an RN working in Intensive Care Units at hospitals in several different states, she could not recall a single death from influenza.

So when I started hearing this number “36,000” again recently, I decided to do a little digging.

The first place I went was to the CDC website (http://www.cdc.gov/), which is, according to their tagline, “Your Online Source for Credible Health Information.”

Sure enough, there it was: CDC estimated that about 36,000 people died of flu-related causes each year, on average, during the 1990s in the United States. (Source)

But there was also this little statement in the document as well: Flu-related deaths are deaths that occur in people for whom influenza infection was likely a contributor to the cause of death, but not necessarily the primary cause of death.

“Not necessarily the primary cause of death”? Isn’t that essentially the same thing as “not the cause of death”?

It also goes on to say that, Flu is a serious disease that causes illness and deaths nearly every year in the United States.

"Nearly every year"? What the heck does that mean?

Curious – and now a little suspicious as well – I dug a little deeper and found a document that listed the leading causes of death for 2005 and found the following information:

2005 Leading Causes of Death
· Heart disease: 652,091
· Cancer: 559,312
· Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
· Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
· Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
· Diabetes: 75,119
· Alzheimer's disease: 71,599
· Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001
· Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901
· Septicemia: 34,136
· Suicide: 32,637
· Chronic Liver Disease & cirrhosis: 27,530
· Renal Diseases: 24,902
· Parkinsons Disease: 19,544
· Homicide: 18,124
· All others: 433,800

(Total number of deaths: 2,448,017)

Okay, we’re grouping Influenza and Pneumonia together now. Not sure why, but okay. Still, it should be safe to assume that since we have already been told that Influenza accounts for 36,000 deaths, Pneumonia would account for the other 27,001, right? After all, these aren’t conflicting sources; it’s all from the CDC.

A little more digging, however, led me to the “Final Data for 2005”. It even has the CDC logo right on the top of the page. If you scroll down to Table 10 on page 33, you’ll see the breakdown of deaths from Influenza and Pneumonia:

Influenza: 1,812
Pneumonia 61,189

Isn’t that interesting? What happened to 36,000?

Even more interesting is when you take a look at the demographic breakdown. If you do, you’ll find that of the 1,812 people who died from Influenza, 80% of them were 75 or older.

To be honest, I already knew that people died when they got old, but I didn’t realize until now that the CDC will provide estimates that are plus/minus 95% accurate, which I guess is the government equivalent to “pretty good shootin’”.

Maybe the CDC should change their tagline to “Your Online Source of Incredible Health Information”.

Did you know?: During the 1976 Swine Flu scare, only 1 person actually died from the flu, but 25 died from the vaccinations given to prevent it. (Source)

Only Human

2009-04-29T10:11:00.001-04:00

If you’ve never heard of the term “corporate personhood” before, don’t feel bad. It’s not something that is splashed all over the news or taught as part of your average school curriculum. I had never heard the term myself until just a few years ago, and I worked for a corporation for years.

When I did hear it – and learned what it was – I was amazed.

Corporate personhood is the concept that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings. In other words, in the eyes of the law, there is no difference between you and General Electric. Or Microsoft. Or Monsanto.

Below is a great article that explains corporate personhood in much more depth if you have the time & desire to read it.

Abolish Corporate Personhood

If not, below is an excerpt from the article that pretty much puts it into its proper perspective:

It is important to remember what a corporation is to understand the implications of corporate personhood for democracy. A corporation is not a real thing; it's a legal fiction, an abstraction.

You can't see or hear or touch or smell a corporation - it's just an idea that people agree to and put into writing. Because legal personhood has been conferred upon an abstraction that can be redefined at will under the law, corporations have become superhumans in our world.

A corporation can live forever. It can change its identity in a day. It can cut off parts of itself - even its head - and actually function better than before. It can also cut off parts of itself and from those parts grow new selves. It can own others of its own kind and it can merge with others of its own kind.

It doesn't need fresh air to breathe or clean water to drink or safe food to eat. It doesn't fear illness or death. It can have simultaneous residence in many different nations. It's not male, female, or even transgendered. Without giving birth it can create children and even parents.

If it's found guilty of a crime, it cannot go to prison.

I would add that it also cannot feel pain, remorse, or compassion. It is incapable of love, has no conscience, and is entirely devoid of any inherent sense of morality or ethics. It does not have the ability to discern good from evil.

And, of course, it really doesn’t care that it can’t do any of that.

There is, in fact, only one thing that a corporation does care about: its own well-being. And despite all of the things that it doesn’t need, there is one thing that is absolutely essential for it’s survival: money.

It must have a continuous – and ever increasing – supply of money in order to “live”.

And since it gets that ever increasing supply of money from us, it is absolutely essential to it’s survival that we consume what it creates – in ever increasing amounts – in order to feed it. That’s why we are called “consumers”, after all, and we’ve done our job well; to the point of going into massive personal (and governmental) debt in order to let nothing interfere with our rate of consumption.

But now imagine what would happen if one of these lifeless, soulless, unfeeling entities saw its very existence threatened; its “food supply” dwindling. To what lengths might it go to ensure its own survival, especially knowing that it can’t go to jail?

Would anything really be out of the question?

"How Scared Should We Be?"

2009-04-27T10:32:00.003-04:00

That question is taken from the article Swine Flu: 5 Things You Need to Know About the Outbreak. Not only is it from the article, it is actually one of the 5 things that we apparently “need to know”.

Step back from this for just a second and think about that question. Have we become so dependant that we can’t even think for ourselves anymore? Do we really need someone else to not only tell us when we should be scared, but to actually tell us how scared we should be?

Now that's scary.

Here’s a question for you: If we’re no longer capable of determining our own actions and emotions, is there really any difference between us and a computer? After all, they also need someone to tell them what to do because they can’t think for themselves either (well, for now anyway).

Maybe I should go ahead and get “Dell” tattooed on my arm. I sure wish somebody would tell me if that’s okay.

Ask Your Doctor if ________ is Right for You

2009-04-24T14:44:00.006-04:00

(I normally don’t post twice in one day, but this seemed a natural tie-in with my post from earlier today).

From Vioxx maker Merck and Co drew up doctor hit list:
Staff at US company Merck &Co emailed each other about the list of doctors - mainly researchers and academics - who had been negative about the drug Vioxx or Merck and a recommended course of action.

The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday as part of a class action against the drug company, included the words "neutralise", "neutralised" or "discredit" against some of the doctors' names.

It is also alleged the company used intimidation tactics against critical researchers, including dropping hints it would stop funding to institutions and claims it interfered with academic appointments.

"We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read to the court by Julian Burnside QC, acting for the plaintiff.

Well, if that doesn’t sound like a benevolent organization looking out for the health & welfare of people everywhere then I just don’t know what does. Is there any reason to suspect that the other members of the “Brotherhood of Big Pharma” behave any differently?

When you have a company like this that manufactures the vaccines we pump into our children & babies (which they apparently don’t do very well either: FDA warns Merck to clean up vaccine plant), is it any wonder that some people may choose not to trust their products or to believe the drivel that constantly spews from their PR department?

Here is an excellent article on the topic of vaccines: The Judgment on Vaccines is In???

FYI - If you're interested, below is a list of vaccines that Merck manufactures:

HIB
Hepatitus A
Hepatitus B
Rotavirus
MMRII (measles, mumps, rubella)**
Chickenpox
HPV

**made with fetal cells from aborted babies

The Importance of Being Compliant

2009-04-24T09:42:00.003-04:00

(my apologies to Oscar Wilde on the title of this post)

An article published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution back in February just caught my attention this morning. Below is the opening sentence from More Atlanta-area kids get shots after crackdown at schools:

Five months into the school year and fearing bad publicity, Atlanta Public Schools kicked 105 students out of class on Jan. 30 for failing to get vaccinations they should have had on Day One, documents show.

Interesting. So they kick the unvaccinated kids out of school. Does that strike anyone else but me as odd? Apparently this was done in the name of “safety” if the tagline SPOTLIGHT: WATCHING OUT FOR YOUR SAFETY AND POCKETBOOK posted above the article’s title is to be believed.

But that doesn’t make any sense. All of the students that were allowed to remain in school have dutifully received their vaccinations; they should have nothing to worry about, right? So if kicking out the unvaccinated children wasn’t done for the “safety” of the others, then what was it done for?

Later in the article comes this statement:
“I think the positive part of this is that all the principals, as well as the public school superintendents, now understand the importance of compliance,” said Juliet Cooper, nursing director at the Fulton County Department of Health and Wellness.

Ah. There it is: compliance. Now I understand.

- excerpts from the novel “What So Proudly We Hailed”:

Girls were immunized for HPV and began getting pap smears every year starting in grade school. Everybody got at least one flu vaccine a year for whatever happened to be the biggest threat to the population at that moment, and the number of vaccinations in general required for children tripled by 2017 as new vaccines were developed for diseases that nobody had even heard of ten years before.

If you were 18 or older, you were also required to donate two pints of blood a year for the national blood bank (in addition to the increased need for the expanded healthcare system, there was still a war going on too, don’t forget).

The hospitals were numerous and clean, the nurses would always smile as they herded you through from station to station, and the doctors would all nod their heads as you answered their questions. It seemed the same as before, and yet, there was a definite underlying current that everyone seemed to pick up on even thought we were all afraid to say anything about it. A negativity that you could literally feel. Because even thought the smiles were the same as before, there was now an unspoken message that was as plain and blunt and non-negotiable as it was taboo to even mention: Shut up and take your medicine.

So we did.

The (One Hundred and Eighty) 3rd Time’s the Charm

2009-04-22T16:41:00.002-04:00

One of the details that has come out of the recently released White House “torture” memos is the revelation that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (still in U.S. custody) was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 (which works out to an average of 6 times a day – every day – for the entire month).

Forget for a moment that this in itself is probably the best evidence you could ever put forth if you were trying to prove the complete ineffectiveness of waterboarding. What is even more insane to me is the kind of rationale that would have ever considered it to be a good idea in the first place. I mean, how does this conversation go?

CIA Interrogator #1: “Well, that was disappointing.”

CIA Interrogator #2: “Sure was. I really thought we had him that time.”

CIA #1: - - heavy sigh - -

CIA #2: “So, what do you say? One more time? It’d really be a shame to stop now after 182 only to find out later that the next one would’ve been the mother lode.”

CIA #1: [nodding] “Yeah. Yeah, I think you’re right. One more might just do the trick."

Nothing says “Home of the Brave” like torture.

Brainwashing 101

2009-04-20T09:57:00.002-04:00

Question: How do you get someone to believe a lie?
Answer: Keep telling it to them over and over again.

Don’t believe it? Then answer this: What document does the term “separation of church and state” come from? If you said the U.S. Constitution, you’re wrong. Nowhere in the Constitution or any of the amendments can the phrase “separation of church and state” be found.

So where does that phrase come from? It comes from an interpretation of the First Amendment which was then repeated again and again through the years until it became accepted as truth. Here’s what the First Amendment actually says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Not quite the same thing, is it? But while the guidelines in the First Amendment are very specific and finite in scope, the catch-all term “separation of church and state” can be applied on a much broader scale. And that can come in real handy for enterprising minds who might wish to apply it on a much broader scale.

When our minds are continually bombarded with something over and over, we eventually becomes desensitized to it. We stop questioning it. We accept it as fact; as “normal”.

And it makes no difference what it is that we are subjected to either. No matter how shocking, how vulgar, how blatantly false it may be to us initially; if we are hit with it again and again and again, it eventually – over time – becomes normal and inoffensive and true.

That my friends, is what you call brainwashing.

I read an interesting (and at this point, still shocking and vulgar) article this morning called: UMass faculty member argues for human cloning

You can read the whole thing if you like, but I would simply direct your attention to this one quote from the article:

Eddon acknowledged that the thought of human cloning is probably disturbing to most. But the “gut feeling” that cloning is immoral may be erased with exposure to it.

I agree with that statement. It might take awhile, but eventually, if we as a society continue to be subjected to the concept over and over again, it will take.

Ask yourself why you believe the things that you do. There’s lots to choose from: Evolution. Global warming. Terrorism. Food. Nutrition. Medicine. Insurance.

Regardless of what your views are on those topics – or any others – do you believe what you do about them because you gave them independent thought, study, and investigation yourself? Or do you believe what you do because it was told to you by someone else?

Over,
and over,
and over,
and over . . . .

Here There Be Monsters (Reprise)

2009-04-17T09:42:00.002-04:00

Fiction:
'I have pressed the first lever,' said O'Brien. 'You understand the construction of this cage. The mask will fit over your head, leaving no exit. When I press this other lever, the door of the cage will slide up. These starving brutes will shoot out of it like bullets. Have you ever seen a rat leap through the air? They will leap on to your face and bore straight into it. Sometimes they attack the eyes first. Sometimes they burrow through the cheeks and devour the tongue.'

The cage was nearer; it was closing in. Winston heard a succession of shrill cries which appeared to be occurring in the air above his head. But he fought furiously against his panic. To think, to think, even with a split second left -- to think was the only hope. Suddenly the foul musty odour of the brutes struck his nostrils. There was a violent convulsion of nausea inside him, and he almost lost consciousness. Everything had gone black. For an instant he was insane, a screaming animal. - excerpts from “1984”, by George Orwell

Non-Fiction:
Justice Department lawyers said the CIA could place [Abu] Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box. Because Zubaydah appeared afraid of insects, they also authorized interrogators to place him in a box and fill it with caterpillars (that tactic ultimately was not used). - CIA interrogation tactics: a terrifying ordeal

Funny what things become acceptable to a nation of people when they blindly believe that they are the “good guys”. It makes no difference who you are - or who you once were; the moment you descend into evil, you become evil yourself.

The flag of the United States – and everything it stood for – is burning.

"Roots" - Alex Haley

2009-04-16T10:46:00.002-04:00

Although I had seen most of the TV mini-series back in the 70’s, I’d never actually read the book that started it all, and memories being hazy things, I couldn’t really remember the story. Reading Roots was a reminder of why this book was such a phenomenon when it came out.

Other than being a well-written, interesting, and moving story, there were several things about the book that made a notable impression on me.

First, was the amount of time at the beginning of the story that Haley devoted to Kunta Kinte’s life growing up in Africa. You know what’s eventually going to happen to him, but it took a lot longer to get to than I thought it would. Haley purposely makes you spend a lot of time with Kunta as he grows from a boy into a man, and I noticed that I became very interested in this boy and his life just as it was. Knowing the inevitable was coming, each page got harder and harder to turn, and I started wishing that Kunta would just be able to continue living out his life in his village with the people & the customs that he knew. Of course, that wasn’t his fate, and just when you get to the point where you begin to think that everything will be okay, you reach the page that changes everything for him.

Secondly, I was impressed with the tone of the book. There was no malice, anger, or agenda in Haley’s writing. He wasn’t trying to make a statement or pass judgment; he was simply telling a story about his ancestors, and that is exactly how the story is presented. I thought he was very fair and impartial in his depictions of everyone in the story, white and black. I don’t know how accurate his descriptions & depictions were, but they certainly seemed real; not contrived or sensationalized.

Third, were the abrupt changes that occurred in the story. As an example, for 600 pages or so the story focuses almost exclusively on Kunta, and then suddenly – without warning – you leave him behind while the story takes another path. You never hear another word about him. You never find out his ultimate fate. You are left instead to simply wonder, just as his daughter did. I couldn’t help but feel a deep sense of loss.

Finally, as Haley brings the generations of the story up to his own life, he relates how, during his research on the book, he was able to track down the actual village in Africa where his ancestor Kunta had lived before his abduction. Kunta was still very much a part of the village’s oral ancestral history, and there was a very moving moment when Haley relates what happened when the people of the village came to realize that he was one of the descendants of Kunta Kinte, this young 17-year old boy who vanished without a trace one day hundreds of years before.

In the end, Roots isn’t really a story about slavery; it’s a story about human beings, the things that we do to each other, and how those things shape every generation to come. I highly recommend it.

Blaine's 30 Step Guide to Pretty Good Livin'

2009-04-13T16:30:00.002-04:00

1) Get out of debt. All debt.
- Do whatever you can to pay off your home, or sell it and buy one that you can pay off.
- Pay off your car(s) and drive them until the wheels fall off. All a car does is move you from point “A” to point “B”; anything & everything else about it is worthless.
- Cut up your ATM card. You don’t need it.
- Get rid of all but one credit card. Pay it off every month; revolving debt will kill you.

2) Cancel your TV cable or satellite. It’s a propaganda machine that’s rotting your brain. I am absolutely serious. Watch movies from Netflix or get them free from the library.

3) Cancel your home internet service. You can surf at work during off hours if you need to (and you do anyway); don’t waste your time or money doing it from home.

4) Realize that your integrity is one of the few things that can never be taken from you. Your house, your car, your belongings, your children, your spouse – even your life – can all be taken from you in a variety of ways. No one can take your integrity away from you without your consent. Don’t give it, sell it, or barter it.

5) Stop trying to ‘keep up with the Jones’. You’ll never catch them, and they’re jerks anyway.

6) Find something you love to do and do it. One half of your waking life is spent at work; you better like what you do, where you do it, and who you do it with.

7) Stop shopping at Wal-Mart.

8) Get rid of your cell phone. I’m sorry, but you’re not important and you have nothing important to say. Important people don’t have cell phones anymore; they have people like you make their calls for them. Be important. Chunk it.

9) Live below the poverty line. Not only will you never have to pay any state or federal income taxes at all, but you will probably get a substantial “refund” even though you didn’t withhold any money from your paycheck in the first place. If you are debt free, have no mortgage or car payments, and you aren’t wasting your money on TV, internet, & cell phones, you can live very well on less than $20k a year.

10) Stop eating at Ruth’s Cris, Emeril’s, and other “high-end” restaurants. The emperor has no clothes.

11) Quit working for any large corporation. You are nothing more than a line on a spreadsheet that will be deleted without any qualms at all if it will “help the bottom line”. It’s not a question of “if”, it’s a matter of “when”.

12) Stop drinking “diet” soda. Instead, sprinkle some aspartame around ants and watch them die. Then ask yourself why you eat it and feed it to your children. A spoonful of real sugar has only 15 calories and doesn’t kill anything if it’s consumed.

13) Stop drinking soda period.

14) Start researching the theory of evolution for yourself and watch it fall apart in your hands. You have time to do this now because you’re not wasting your life sitting in front of the TV.

15) Throw out every food item in your home that contains HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) and see what you have left.

16) Use real butter.

17) Read.

18) Understand that the odds of your home being completely destroyed are very low and then drop the insurance on your home (which you can do if you own it outright). Realize that if it is destroyed you can simply start over.

19) Drop any other insurance that you can. It’s a rip-off.

20) Accept the fact that you are mortal and will die.

21) Get out of stocks, 401(k)’s, money market funds, and all other “virtual” wealth. It’s “virtually” worthless (as many people are now finding out). If you want to invest, invest in things that will always be valuable; guns, land, gold, etc.

22) Do something really nice for someone without any strings attached and without letting them know who did it. See how that makes you feel. Decide whether you want to feel that way more often.

23) Don’t promise more than you can deliver; always deliver more than you promised.

24) If you are a man, love your wife. If you are a woman, respect your husband. Do it unconditionally, even when they don’t deserve it.

25) Understand that the lives you touch are the only legacy you will ever leave. Think about what you are leaving behind and ask yourself if you are satisfied with it. If not, start doing something about it.

26) Pray for the people you love. Pray more for the people you don’t.

27) Seriously ask yourself if you could live – as in “exist” – without a car. Without access to a bank. Without electricity. Understand that if you can't answer "yes" to those questions, you are subservient, not independent. It’s always illuminating to know where you fit into the grand scheme of things.

28) Stop drinking alcohol. If your life is really that good, why do you feel the need to experience it through the veil of an alcoholic haze? If it’s not that good, why do you keep living it the same way? If you can’t enjoy yourself when you’re stone-cold sober, realize that something is wrong. Fix it.

29) I wasn’t kidding about the cell phone. It’s nothing more than a leash. YOU DON’T NEED IT.

30) Treat everyone in your life as if it’s the last time you will ever see them, because one of these days, it will be.

Amortals Among Us

2009-04-08T09:33:00.004-04:00

The March 23 issue of Time magazine included a list of “10 Ideas that are Changing the World”. The list ran the gamut from such ground-breaking concepts as the #1 listed “Jobs are the New Assets” (i.e., you make money from working – insert collective “ahhhhh” here) to more disturbing things like #8 “Biobanks” (facilities that collect and store blood & tissue samples from as many people as possible so that they may be available for use in unrestricted scientific research).

Huh.

Also included in the list at #5 was something entitled “Amortality”. You read that right; not "immortality", but "amortality". What does that mean? Here are some selected passages from the article:

[Amortality] is about more than just the ripple effect of baby boomers’ resisting the onset of age. Amortality is a stranger, stronger alchemy, created by the intersection of that trend with a massive increase in life expectancy and a deep decline in the influence of organized religion – all viewed through the blue haze of Viagra.

The defining characteristic of amortality is to live in the same way, at the same pitch, doing the same things, from late teens right up until death.

Amortals don’t just dread extinction. They deny it.

“We are in serious striking distance of stopping aging,” says De Grey, founder and chairman of the Methuselah Foundation . . .

It is “bleeding obvious,” he adds, that it is possible to extend the human life span indefinitely. “Most people take the view that aging is this natural thing that is going on independently of disease. That’s nonsense”.

To sum it all up then, to be “amortal” is to be Peter Pan: To refuse to grow up; to pretend you will never die; to believe that science will save you; and to make no plans for – and indeed, to deny completely – your own eventual demise.

How sad. And yet, how entirely predictable if we’d given it any forethought.

We have taken God out of our society and our culture, which means - by logical default - that we have created a godless society and a godless culture. Is that really what we wanted?

Put it this way: When you hear the term “godless society”, what do you think of?

Do you think of things like utopia, happiness, fulfillment, and light?
Or do other words come to mind, like mayhem, pain, hopelessness, and darkness? "Godlessness” is, by definition, “evil and wicked”.

Funny that we would ever want to create a world like that. Funny too, that once we created it, we would then have the desire to live in it forever.

Sorry, but I’ll pass.

What's in Your Vaccine?

2009-04-07T09:05:00.002-04:00

As if there weren’t enough reasons already not to trust vaccines:

WARSAW (AFP) – Nine health workers went on trial in northern Poland Monday accused of having tested a vaccine against bird flu on nearly 200 patients without their knowledge, court officials said.

The accused -- three doctors and six nurses -- are charged with "fraud, creating false documents and delivering health care without authorisation" to 196 patients, judge Piotr Szadkowski of the Torun region told AFP.

If found guilty, they risk up to 10 years in jail.

All nine accused, some reportedly clad in wigs and sun glasses to avoid being identified, pleaded not guilty.

The medical personnel are charged with administering a vaccine banned in Poland against the deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu that can be transmitted to humans.

The patients were paid for the vaccines, Polish news agency PAP reported.

They allegedly led their patients, many of them poor and homeless, to believe they were being vaccinated against ordinary flu.

Police discovered the scam by chance when they were called to break up a fight at a homeless shelter, PAP said.

Source: Health workers on trial for vaccine scam in Poland

What they don’t mention in the story above is that 21 of the homeless volunteers died in the test, a number which is – interestingly – quoted as being “well above the average of eight”. (Nice to know that we have collected enough data on vaccine testing to know what the “average” number of fatalities will be!). Don’t feel too bad though; they did get paid prior to being killed:

Homeless people die after bird flu vaccine trial in Poland

I sure am glad to know that this kind of thing could never happen in the United States!

What a relief to know that our government institutions, corporate entities, and culture in general are all grounded in clear set of ethics, morals, and integrity. Whew!

Above the Law - Update

2009-04-06T09:50:00.002-04:00

Last week I made a post entitled “Above the Law” in which I questioned two very disturbing events. I’m happy to say that the second one – a planned “seatbelt checkpoint” in Tennessee involving police, the U.S. Military, and the Department of Homeland Security – was cancelled after the governor's office was questioned about it:

In response to a number of calls to the Tennessee Governor’s office, the Whiteville, Tennessee police have canceled a planned seat belt checkpoint operation that was to be conducted in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security and the 251st Military Police in Bolivar, Tennessee.

Keith Sherley of 101.5 FM in Jackson, Tennessee, interviewed Representative Johhny Shaw earlier today. Shaw indicated Governor Phil Bredesen “didn’t need another headache” and canceled the checkpoint. Shaw, who represents the area in Tennessee where the exercise was to be held, admitted the checkpoint was a “bad idea in the first place.” Shaw voiced his opposition to military involvement with local law enforcement. “It would have frightened more people than it helped,” Shaw added. He said he did not think the operation would be rescheduled.

The fact that this was shut down after only a small amount of public scrutiny & questioning strongly implies that it would not have held up to any sort of legal inquiry, nor would whatever justification used for doing it prove to have any merit.

I think it’s also safe to say that the authorities in charge were well aware of that. Why else would they be so quick to pull the plug?

And yet, while it certainly makes me feel better to know that this “operation” was cancelled, the question of why it was planned in the first place is still left completely unanswered.

Above the Law

2009-04-03T11:25:00.002-04:00

If you have any concern whatsoever about the United States, your family, or your freedoms, I urge you to go to the below link and watch the embedded video. It’s only 9 minutes long. I wouldn't ask if it weren't worth spending the time.

Please put your politics aside for this 9 minutes. Forget about Republicans and Democrats. Forget that this video is from Fox News. Forget the commentary on the video if you like. Just pay attention to the taped conversation that occurred between a detained man and the TSA authorities who were interrogating him.

Man detained and harassed at airport for carrying CASH!

Did this man do anything wrong? Was he rude or belligerent? Is it a crime now to carry cash, even if it is $4,700? Does this have anything to do with airport safety or protecting American citizens? Do government agencies have the right to pry into any area of our lives that they want, even if there is no legal justification for doing so? Are the “authorities” not required to provided answers regarding the legality of their own actions?

This is not conspiracy theory, folks. It’s not paranoia. And it’s not an isolated incident. Abuse of government mandated power is happening in this country everyday, everywhere. Below is yet another news item (just from today) that illustrates a similar disturbing show of force:

DHS, Military Police, Law Enforcement Plan Checkpoint in Tennessee

This is for a seatbelt checkpoint in Tennessee. Why does the Department of Homeland Security need to be involved in a seatbelt checkpoint in any way, even if only as “observers”? And what about the military? Forget that it’s illegal for the military to be used in this way in the first place, why would they need to be involved at all? It’s a seatbelt checkpoint. Or is it?

Why are these things happening?
Who gains from them?
What is the motive behind them?
And most importantly, to what end are they leading us?

Is the world of tomorrow one where we should be expected to divulge information about any and every aspect of our lives to anyone wearing a badge, simply because they want to know? Should we come to expect more and more “checkpoints” in the future? Perhaps even ones that are wholly administered by the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Military?

Lots of questions. Few answers. One really bad feeling.

In The Beginning

2009-04-01T10:23:00.002-04:00

What do you think of when you read the series of statements below?:

1) A government rounds up people that it has deemed to be “undesirable”

2) These undesirable people are forced to produce papers proving who they are and where they are from

3) The undesirables are then catalogued, separated into different groups, and given a highly visible marking which reflects their final disposition

4) The undesirable people are then “processed” according to a predetermined fate selected for them by the government

If you’re like most people, you probably didn’t have to read through all 4 of those statements before visions of Swastikas, death camps, and smoke belching chimneys came to your mind. It is an accurate description of what occurred in Nazi Germany.

The problem is, this isn’t Nazi Germany in the 1930’s, this is Ontario today:

'Ontario Residents Only' at Tent City
Dozens of Ontario police and code enforcement officers descended upon the homeless encampment known as Tent City early Monday, separating those who could stay from those to be evicted.

Large, often confused, crowds formed ragged lines behind police barricades where officers handed out color-coded wristbands. Blue meant they were from Ontario and could remain. Orange indicated they had to provide more proof to avoid ejection, and white meant they had a week to leave.

Many who had taken shelter at the camp -- which had grown from 20 to more than 400 residents in nine months -- lacked paperwork, bills or birth certificates proving they were once Ontario residents.

"When my husband gets out of jail he can bring my marriage certificate; will that count?" asked one tearful woman.

Another resident, clearly confused, seemed relieved to get a white band -- not understanding it meant she had to leave.

Pattie Barnes, 47, who had her motor home towed away last week, shook with anger.

"They are tagging us because we are homeless," she said, staring at her orange wristband. "It feels like a concentration camp."

Ontario officials, citing health and safety issues, say it is necessary to thin out Tent City. The move to dramatically reduce the population curtails an experiment begun last year to provide a city-approved camp where homeless people would not be harassed.
Read Entire Article

Granted, we’re talking about homeless people, not Jews & Gypsies.
Granted, they are only being marked with wristbands, not tattoos.
Granted, they are only being removed, not exterminated.

I’ll grant you all that. But those 4 statements above still apply in their entirety.

I’m not saying that this is the same thing – because it’s not – but you have to admit, the similarities are disturbingly close. I also understand the justification for doing it; after all, it sure seems to be in the best interests of everyone.

But then again, I’m sure the German people thought the same thing over 70 years ago.

At least in the beginning.

A Rose By Any Other Name Actually Smells Sweeter

2009-03-31T10:06:00.002-04:00

I originally heard about this last week, but then I read later that it wasn’t true. Apparently it is true after all.

So what’s the big news? Well, our government has decided that they are going to stop using the phrase “war on terror”.

Obama Team Drops "War on Terror" Rhetoric

Sounds like good news, doesn’t it? After all, how often have we heard that lame phrase thrown around again and again while it was used to justify anything & everything that our government saw fit to cram down our throats in the interests of “protecting its citizens”?

The problem is, its not good news. Nothing has changed. Nothing at all. Our soldiers are still in Iraq & Afghanistan, our civil rights continue to be destroyed, and the policies that were created – and continue to be created – under the tired ruse of the “war on terror” have neither changed nor slowed down.

The “war on terror” has not ended; all that is happening is that it will now be called something else.

Apparently that makes it better somehow. I guess it’s supposed to smell sweeter.

Well, I sure smell something, but it ain’t no rose.