Trying to work through my faith (Part 1)

I have no false illusion that people are hanging on my every word, waiting to find out how I feel about faith(or anything else for that matter)...but bear with me. Much of this blog is for me, as it is for anyone else that may stumble upon it. And indeed, I think it will help me to put it all out in writing. So while this may or may not help you in your faith, whether it be to help you figure out what you think or further entrench you in your own belief, please indulge me slash ignore me.

My faith is....unconventional. It even makes my wife angry when I start to talk about anything that deviates from strict bible teachings. I haven't read the bible, at least not cover to cover, so that may automatically discount my beliefs in many people's eyes. And that's ok...it certainly makes sense. But it makes just as much sense to me (at the present time) that I don't strictly follow the bible even having not read it cover to cover. This first part, of who knows how many a part-series, will talk about my growing up in faith and my current ground works for my current beliefs...up until my first "snag" as it were.

I should start off by declaring that I unequivocally and unabashedly believe in God, though you may already know that from previous posts. I grew up in a small town in Illinois. I went to church regularly when I was little, to the First Christian Church, which I'm guessing is almost like Baptist. It was mostly at the insistence of my Mother, but I still went and learned. When I was in High School, and perhaps at the end of Junior High, I stopped going...my Mother stopped making me. I wouldn't stay I stopped believing, in fact, I think I still prayed regularly at night, but I just stopped going to Church.

The thing is...it was sorta like a passive belief. I believed, but partly because I was told to. I listened, however, every time my Mom would say, "Thank God for (this)" or "God did (this activity) for us" or "What if God wouldn't have put me here to help these people".

And then...I was shot in the face with a pellet gun at close range when I was in high school...by a good friend's younger brother. The pellet tore through my cheek and slammed into one of my rear teeth. That was it. I had a hole in my cheek, but other than an aching tooth for a few weeks, I was fine.

That's when it hit me, even before my Mom ran through the scenarios over and over, God was with me that day. I could have lost an eye, shattered a cheekbone, or even been shot in the temple and died...but all I had was a hole in my cheek. Now any atheist will jump right on pure randomness and luck...and that's fine if that's how they want to explain it. To me...on that day...God, or maybe more accurately, Angels, were with me to protect me and ensure that I endured the minimum amount of pain is what could have been much, much worse. And I still believe it to this day.

THAT'S when I truly started believing. I didn't go back to church...not for years...but I could honestly say, without a shadow of doubt, that I was a Believer as of that day. The Baptists would say that was the day I was Saved, but that's something I'll touch in a bit.

So over the years, my belief has never wavered. I didn't start going to church again until my first daughter was born. And to be honest, I don't go very much now, but that's because of my work schedule.

I should disclose, before I start with my belief system, that I draw quite a bit of influence in my train of thought from Sylvia Browne. She's a psychic who gives all the praise for her gift to God. She is/was on the Montel Williams show many, many times. To watch her do her work is to watch God's glory shining brightly through earthly deeds. She is the one who started me thinking about sin, or the lack thereof, in God's eyes. Some, and perhaps even much, of my belief comes from her. But even as she always says, and the Bible does too, search for and ask questions for yourself...don't just go on blind faith of someone else's thoughts/beliefs. So while I haven't fully researched things on my own, I have certainly thought things through on my own...and here's what I'm coming up with...

So my big starter is...I don't believe in the notion of sin. I've talked about that before, but I wanted to reiterate it here and explain why I don't believe in sin, and then move on to my subsequent train of thought.

I should take a quick step back, and say why, even though the bible speaks of Sin, do I not believe in it. I am taking this from Sylvia Browne in her book, The Mystical Life of Jesus, that the Bible has been changed throughout the centuries to meet the needs of those in power. Sylvia cites examples from specific texts that I may or may not agree with (it doesn't matter), but it just makes sense to me that throughout the centuries people who want to rule and/or scare others, can easily do it through the bible, and will have it changed to fit their needs...even if not in dramatic fashion. I can't explain it...I certainly have no proof...it just makes sense to me. To me, Sin is a notion that creates fear that world leaders centuries ago could use to get people to do what they want. It may have been added, it may have been changed in translation, or it may have been in the Bible from the beginning, but the following explains why I discount the notion of Sin...

So...we are God's childern...he's our Father. He created us in His image. As a father, who has had multiple kids, who would never deny them my love for anything, who didn't create them with the sense that they owe me something (be it their love or anything else)...I find it impossible to believe that our Father, God, would create us with the first breath we take, owing him our love and devotion, otherwise he would deny us his love (allowing us into Heaven). I just can't fathom it. It's something no one will be able to convince me of. I would actually hope that any parent would feel this way...if they dig down deep and ponder it. If he made us like him...and it's not in our, as a parent, realm of possibility to deny our kids our love...they why is it hard to believe he would do the opposite?

Now that's from the Baptist point of view...who believe that you're a sinner from the moment you are born. Even from the Catholic point of view, who believe that you earn your way into Heaven through good deeds...Do parents believe that their kids EARN their love?? No. We give our love to our kids regardless of what they do. They may make us more or less proud, based on their actions, but the love remains the same. So why would our good deeds be what gets us into Heaven? Of course God is proud of us providing good deeds, but he loves us just as much if we don't perform as many good deeds as he'd like.

SO...now the snag.

If there is no Sin...they why was Jesus sent to earth, if not to ultimately die for our sins?? That's the current million dollar question that I'm pondering and I'll hopefully discuss in Part 2. If Jesus didn't come to bear our Sins, what was he here for?

Feel free to comment on that, or your thoughts on anything in this post so far. Dissertations are welcome. :)

Congrats Michael Phelps!

Congratulations to Michael Phelps, eight time gold medal winner in the Beijing Olympic Games. I followed his journey, these games, with great amazement and wonder. I watched all his races, or will have after I catch the DVR from Friday. What an astonishing accomplishment. Congrats, Michael, on the record of 8 Gold Medals in one Olympic Games, and 7 World Record times to go along with it!

We Are Failing Democracy...

Democracy is under attack...and we are able/willing to do NOTHING. Here we are, fighting for Deomcracy in Iraq...at least the third different reason for the war...a country that is, at the very best, hesitant to embrace democracy; all the while, a friend and ally, whom have already fully embraced and allowed Democracy to thrive, sits...waiting...under attack...hoping for help.

You may not know much about the current Russian invasion of Georgia, but you will want to pay attention. Russia is sending a message...it is loud and clear...We Are A Superpower...and We Aren't Afraid of the United States.

While President Bush has been gazing into Vladamir Putin's eyes, seeing a friend, former President Putin has been creating a superpower of energy out of Russia. Now Prime Minister, Vladamir Putin despises Deomcracy...he always has...and is picking on former USSR Republic, Georgia.

The current situation is, according to Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili, that Russian tanks began rolling into Georgia territory, unprovoked. Once they were 100 miles into Georgia, Georgia opened fire against the hostile action. Then, by some miracle, hundreds more Russian tanks quickly appeared and began their attack on Georgia. They have taken over Georgia's ports, bombed their towns, taken over airport(s)...all in less than a week.

Folks, it doesn't take a genius to realize that this was a planned attack, weeks, if not months, in the making. Hundreds of tanks don't just suddenly show up at the first sign of fire, without them being ready to do so.

Why is Russia doing this? Because Georgia is a thriving democracy, and because they allowed a oil pipeline to be built through their country, connecting the Caspian See and the Black Sea. This is a non-Russian controlled pipeline, which Russia opposes, because as I mentioned before, they want to control all the energy in Europe.

So Russia Invaded Georgia.

Georgian citizens have been quoted as saying, "Where's help from the United States?" "Why aren't they coming to help us?" "Why are we helping them in Iraq if they won't help us when we need it?"

So why aren't we helping out Georgia? We can't. It's that simple. Our troops are already overextended, thanks to simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even if we did have troops to lend, I'm not sure we could. You see, Russia and China are closer allies than China and the US are. If China sided with Russia, China could merely threaten us economically, and we'd HAVE to back down. They could more than cripple our economy...they'd devidtate it. All they would have to do is cash in all their US Treasury Bonds they own.

For those not fully aware, US Treasury Bonds are Debt owed by the US Government. China owns LOTS of our outstanding US Treasury Bonds. If they decided to cash them in/sell them...someone would have to buy them. That someone would likely be the US treasury, because no investor would likely buy them. Of course, the US Treasury doesn't have enough money to buy them all, so they'd have to print money to buy them, which would further devalue our Dollar. Devaluation of our dollar would lead to further inflation...probably massive inflation...which this economy can't handle.

So while the US has been pandering and keeping a short-sighted view by bailing out Bear Stearns and reckless home buyers, China and Russia have kept their eye on the horizion...knowing that they could one day use their fiscal standing to control the US's actions by threatening to crush our economy.

They know that the US is not suited for this World Economy that we preach about. We owe too much, and we run deficits year after year, putting us further into debt.

If we decided not to heed China's threats...it would be World War III. A true War for Oil/energy.

I don't know what we can do...all I know is that we, as Citizens, need to demand better from our Government. We need to demand that they take a long-term view. Would it be nice to insure everyone in the United States? Absolutely. Would it be the best thing for the country? Definitely not! We can't afford it!! And "taxing the rich" isn't going to cut it, folks. It's only going to prompt "the rich" to work less. Why would all kinds of small business owners work hard on their own business, only to get half of it, or more, taken away?? Would you??

Struggling with the Abortion issue...

Well, let's see, we've got the Olympics, Brett Farve, first day of kindergarten...but nah, let's bypass the light-hearted stuff and jump right to one of the most controversial issues today. Way to go Mad Hoosier.

Anyway...so I used to be hardcore pro-choice. Not that I'm not now, but I'm wavering. Let me explain.

I think I've said in previous posts about believing that the Lord doesn't want me to tell other people what they should get to do with their bodies. While I still believe that, I'm finding Abortion more wrong than I used to, and I am torn with the Lord wanting me to be a advocate for those that don't have a voice.

So how have I suddenly found Abortion to be "more wrong" than I used to? Well...I've read a couple of books recently that have touched on partial-birth abortions. I guess in my desire not to upset people who I believe should have their own choice to do with their bodies that they wish, I haven't really paid attention to what exactly partial-birth abortions are. Shame on me...and shame on anyone else who believes abortions are ok and don't know what partial-birth abortions are.

If you do happen to know what partial-birth abortions are, and you are still fully ok with the notion of abortion in general...well, that's between you, your conscious, and God. At least you've done your homework, and I will try to not stand in judgement of that notion and however you justify it. But if you believe that abortions are ok, then it is incumbent upon yourself to fully educate yourself with all matters of abortion.

I guess there are a couple different ways to perform partial-birth abortions. I apologize, but I feel like I must very briefly explain two of them, so if you don't wish to read, stop now, or skip to the next paragraph. One involves suffocating the baby...depriving it from oxygen during the birthing process, and another is actually delivering the baby part of the way, but driving some kind of rod/tube into the baby's head after the partial-birth, to kill it.

I don't know why I read those books and thought, "that's murder of an innocent life" when I hadn't thought of it that way before...perhaps because of the graphic nature of it...but I did.

You may or may not know, I have three kids, so I know the various stages of progression in a pregnancy. For instance, as early as the 5th week (that's before many people know they're pregnant) the brain and heart begins to form. So the natural progression of thought is...if partial-birth abortion is wrong, then 3rd-term abortion is just as wrong.

Then you, or at least I, begin to wonder..."if partial-birth and late term abortion is wrong, isn't all abortion wrong"?

So then I ponder...and meditate on...and wonder..."Maybe abortion is ok if the soul isn't in the body yet." Which of course leads to more pondering and meditating over just when does the soul enter the body? Any parent knows, the first time they feel the baby, that baby is alive as sure as you are.

And since I believe strongly in Sylvia Brown-type issues, such as past lives and life on the other side, I even asked my kids if they can remember when they were in Mommy's belly. I got many cute answers, but nothing specific that could help me on my journey.

So I just went back to feeling the baby moving. Once I felt the baby moving, I knew they were alive and well...which to me says their soul has already arrived. So did my child's souls arrive the first time I could feel them? Of course, the mother can feel the baby before the father...maybe the soul just magically arrives the first time they feel that flutter in their belly??

Well, it just doesn't make sense to me, that the soul just magically arrives at any one point. Even in the first two weeks, when they are cells, dividing and creating life, would it be week 5 that the soul magically arrives, when the brain and heart begin forming...and indeed the heart begins beating in week five. Even if that is the case, which I'm not convinced, that's still having the soul arrive before most people know they are pregnant.

Henseforth, along those lines, any abortion after week five, is murder of a soul...which can only be murder of a life, even if it can't sustain itself yet...and is therefore wrong.

BUT...after all that...I still have this part inside of me saying, "God doesn't want you to tell other people how to live their life and what to do with their bodies."

So I'm still torn...completely lost for what to think. So...anyone that has any other input out there, please feel free to add your thoughts.

I promise to keep this topic, at least in this thread, out of the political realm...if you promise not to cite how hard the decision for abortion is. I have no doubt that many people struggle with it....but we all know that the majority of women who have abortions are teens and young 20-somethings that weren't responsible in the first place and are making the decision for selfish reasons.

"Affording" the GOP...

Ok Ray Anderson of Newburgh, Indiana...you're the first person I'll speak to regarding your opinion in the Viewpoint section of the Evansville Courier and Press on August 1st, 2008.

Ray called out Republicans as the supposed fiscally sound bunch and supposedly good business managers, citing large deficits and supposedly inept agencies like FEMA and the EPA. He even went so far as to say, "...we don't know if our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, or our air safe to breathe."

Trust me, in Southwest Indiana, we have no issues with poor air quality, unless you count humidity so thick you could cut it with a knife as poor air quality, or unsafe water. Of course in Evansville, IN, if it storms bad enough, there is a section bad enough that will cause the sewers to overflow, leaving raw sewege strewn about yards. But that's a city infrastructure issue that the Democratic mayor finally addressed. Of course, that was due in large part to the 8th District Democratic Congressman writing the bill for it into the overbloated Spending Bill forced through by the Democratic-led congress late last year. What? You don't live in Southwest Indiana? That's ok...you are now the proud financier of a new updated sewege system in Evansville, Indiana. Congratulations!

Thank you notes can be sent to Representative Brad Ellsworth, 513 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. If you want, you may also send Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel a note and thank him for allowing the issue to be passed on to the nation's taxpayers, rather than keeping it at the state or local level.

Anyway, back to Ray Anderson of Newburgh, IN and the broad brush he painted "republicans" with. He has, clasically, used a few isolated issues to blame one party(remember that I despise the party system) for the nation's woes. Now certainly, in the case of Katrina, some of the downfalls have been collassal in nature, FEMA has done lots of good too. Even here in Southwest Indiana when a Category F5 tornado ripped through Evansville, Indiana in November (yes November!) of 2006, FEMA was on the scene and helped MANY families locally.

What Ray forgets, or fails to realize, is that doubling the size of FEMA or the EPA, as the Big Government Democrats want to do, will only add to the woes exponentially. Factually, large organizations do not and can not adapt quickly. They are slow to recognize, and even slower move through the red tape, much less act.

Sure, there are bad apples in every bunch. I make no apologizes for any Republicans who spent poorly in the past 8 years. Of course, much of the deficit is due to the war(s). Sure, we don't like the war in Iraq...but it is what it is. But there would have been deficits regardless, even if Gore would have won 8 years ago...unless he would have done as I suspect, and not have a strong reaction to 9-11.

So if you have people in your community like Ray Anderson, who are quick to blame Republicans, take heed. The grass only looks greener. Big government and Socialism(Obama's plan to tax the rich and give to the poor is indeed socialism) won't fix the country...it will send it reeling.

Calling Out local...misguided individuals.

Perhaps I'm becoming more jaded. I used to have a code on my blog that stipulated that I wouldn't typically name names. But there seems to be a plethora(I love that word) of liberal-leaning forces out there these days. So if some one's going to publish an article, or write in to an opinion section, where names are already used, I've decided that there's nothing wrong with referencing the person specifically. That's what good journalists do, right? Does it not add credibility to an article?

OK, so I'm not really a "journalist", and my reasoning may not be solely to add credibility to my "article". But if people are going to be journalists, or they are going to opine, they should know that their opinions aren't unchallengeable.

Now there is something to be said that "calling people out" actually stifles conversation, but I assure you, that's not my intention. I've just had enough of sending in rebuttals to my local paper and not having them published. So I'll self publish them.

I'll try to always be respectful, and not bloviate. Yah, I got that(bloviate) from Papa Bear, O'Reilly. And I got that(Papa Bear) from Steven Colbert.

So...to remind everyone. I'm a conservative. A conservative does not equal a racist. A conservative does not equal hate. And it does not equal closed-mindedness. But conservatism is where my perspective comes from. So if you believe that the United States should be a citizen of the world first, or you think anyone that is skeptical of mainstream ideas is crazy, then this blog may not be for you (not that there's any people out there reading this to begin with).

I do welcome respectful conversation...just do a search for "atheists" and you'll see how two opposing views can have a respectful conversation here. Just know that I mean no ill will, or mean-spiritedness, to those that I mention here. I don't wish to "shut you up". But I do wish you to know that your opinion may not be the final word on the topic.

So I guess that's my "warning". Now I just have to search through my work bag to find a good article from the Evansville Courier and Press that I've saved.

Time to Grow Up. I'll Miss You Ultima Online!

No, my hiatus wasn't due to playing Ultima Online 24/7 this summer. But how I do enjoy the game...or used to. I played it for 5 years straight at one point. Then I sold the account because we couldn't afford our rent, much less shell out $15 bucks a month for an online game. I traded it for the much less expensive, and more creative, Wrassle[dot]Net. But after a while, I missed it, and wanted to play again. So once we could "afford it", I bought my old account back, and began playing again. It was fun, of course, I wish I could play it forever.

But this year, my oldest starts kindergarten. For a plethora of reasons, I'm terrified.

You see, over the years, since I've been married, I've caught glimpses of "adulthood" in myself. I'd catch myself in the middle of mowing the yard, or cleaning the measly easy set pool we have and think, "wow, I feel like my Dad"..."I feel like a grown-up."

Now, I've got to move beyond those glimpses, and live it full time. I've taught my kids, of course, in between playing and having fun. But now I've got to teach my kids. No, they aren't going to be home schooled, though sometimes I'm sure I'd just as soon they were.

I can already tell, that I don't fully trust schools to teach my kids what they need to know. Secularism, political correctness, and liberalism that infiltrate and encompass the school system pretty much dictate that I'll have to give my kids "perspective" on a daily basis.

So while I've slowly been trying to make myself "more responsible" by setting reading goals for myself, ridding my life of clutter, and generally trying to break away from frivolous time consuming activities, it hasn't been enough. Time to put responsibility into hyper-drive.

Now I've probably been a little hard on myself. I rarely play Ultima Online these days...though the bill for $15 mysteriously has not adjusted to reflect less usage of Origins servers. And, in reality, I'm quite a responsible parent. But I think the overwhelming nature of my daughter starting school...you forget until times like these how resilient kids are...along with the symbolism of still playing an online game that I played when I was a "kid" is what has me rattled.

But for some reason, I feel like the symbolic gesture of quitting Ultima Online officially...though my pocketbook will realize that it's more than symbolic to the tune of $180 per year...will make a difference. So, by the end of this month, Ultima Online will be removed from my computer.

Welcome to adulthood, Mad Hoosier.

I won't soon forget Eight Bells...

On the day of the Preakness Stakes, the second race of Triple Crown fame, many may still be thinking of fillie Eight Belles, whom raced hard at the end of the Kentucky Derby to finish second. The tragedy that happened afterwards, most know.

I shed tears for Eight Belles, just as I had for Michael Vick's dogs. And the more I think about it, the more I lean towards horse racing, in it's current form, being cruelty to animals.

Arguments as tremendously feeble as "it's part of the sport" or "we treat these animals like royalty, but sometimes these things happen" are flatly unacceptable.

I was disgusted by the news stories and interviews with industry insiders, and I think everyone else should be too. These majestic animals don't deserve this treatment, and when one interviewee suggests that horses are meant to be raced because if you see they in a meadow, they are running about playfully, it makes me sick.

Do these people have no conscious? Like dog owners who fight their dogs, these people who think like this don't deserve to be pet owners.

Associated Press sports columnist Tim Dahlberg wrote, "The people who cried for Eight Belles got it out of the way on the track. They had no choice, because the business of racing goes on."

What a nice compassionate observation there. Tim goes on to say, "Racing is a brutal business because it has to be. If we mourned every horse that lost its life early on the track or in the barn, we'd have no time left to cheer those who can still run." Is this guy serious? When he explains that "...these 1,000-pound beasts are bred and raised for maximum speed, not maximum life span", does not a little of him die inside? Maybe he's made these matter of fact statements so callously in the past that he is completely dead inside. The evidence may be in Tim's final statement where he quotes Big Brown trainer saying how this is part of the game and you have to go through it, before ending his article with "said Big Brown trainer Rick Dutrow Jr., who should have been spending the day celebrating his horse's big win."

Now folks, I don't typically call people out here...I like to keep things civil. But this kind of unparalleled lack of empathy has my blood boiling. And this is just a reporter. Imagine what the people in the business say and think.

So for me, this is right along the lines of dog fighting. These beautiful animals can't tell us what they want...they can't tell us that they are hurting...they can't opt not to race. They do what they are told/trained to do. They are loving animals, like many pets, and mostly want to please us....and we thank them with ultimate betrayal.

I don't know what the answer is...maintaining over 100 years of tradition vs. banning the sport entirely...you don't get more polarized than that. All I know is that a young female horse, who like all animals should be bred for maximum lifespan, is no longer with us. She did nothing more than love her owners and tried to please them. It's sad. It's cruel. And it needs to stop.

God's Greatest Gift...

It is often said that God's greatest gift to us is his Son, whom he sent to deliver us from sin. But what if you aren't in the vast majority that believes the notion of original sin, or sin in general for that matter? If you don't believe in the notion of sin, then you are left with love. It is love, that I believe is God's greatest gift, but first I should explain why I am in the minority of dismissing the concept of sin. Before I start, I should make it clear that I don't begrudge or believe myself better than anyone that believes in the notion of sin...it's just not a concept that I embrace within my relationship with God.

Original sin. While we are all born human, and therefore destined to free-will flaws such as greed or lust, I can't accept that merely being born with free-will, and the inevitability of being imperfect, renders us doomed to hell from the start. My God would not bring an infant into this world, and with an unfortunate early death, deem that original sin prevents that precious child from rejoining Him.

Now in my branch of Christianity, Baptist, it is said that a child is exempt from damnation until the day they are capable of realizing they are sinners. This goes back to the concept of original sin, that somehow a child has lived 5, 6, 7+ years...the only way a child knows how...only to find out that he or she has been a sinner their entire life. Is this some massive guilt trip that God would lay on a child's shoulders? Haha, you've lived your life happy-go-lucky, or so you thought, but you are actually a sinner and need to repent your happy-go-lucky years. That doesn't make sense to me.

And how can God who supposedly loves us dearly, which I know he does, bring us into this world and become so angry with us that if for a flash in time, which is our life compared to eternity, we don't acknowledge him that we are doomed? That too, perplexes me.

Does He not make us in His image? Would you make a decision to bring a child into this world and if he or she doesn't do exactly as you say, you would harm that child? Of course not.

And THAT is where God's greatest gift lies. Unconditional Love. God's love is unconditional. He wants us to live the best life possible...to treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. If we stray, His love doesn't wain. If we falter, He may be disappointed, but His love remains...just as the love we have for our children.

His gifts are infinite, but so is His love for us. And that's His greatest gift to us...to allow us to love someone, our child, just as much as He loves us, His children.

Miley Cyrus' problems...

As everyone knows by now, Miley Cyrus posed for pictures in the Vanity Fair magazine, which includes no one remotely close to her fan base. The pictures were distasteful to say the least, leaving people to blame Vanity Fair as well as photographer Annie Leibovitz. But I say the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of her parents, and specifically Billy Ray Cyrus...who was at the photo session.

Regardless of the claims of many stars of "whatever Annie says, you do", a father's judgement should trump everything else. We live in a culture that's rapidly becoming desensitized, but a parent's first priority should be to protect their childern.

I've been critical of Billy Ray's approach to parenting for some time now...ever since I saw him on Glenn Beck. His approach is really hands off, and he values friendship far more than the father/daughter relationship.

He speaks of Miley having a good head on her shoulders and trusting her judgement, suggesting that he allows her to make many of her own decisions. While it's happened to work well so far, it's a dangerous and slippery slope, and a sloppy approach to parenting.

Any father who hasn't done so yet, please read Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters by Meg Meeker. Her research indicates that while people believe that kids are growing up faster and becoming adults quicker, there minds still don't become fully developed with the ability to foresee some of the consequences of their choices until into their mid-20s.

This, do a degree, negates the notion of trusting your child to make their own choices. It's unfair and puts an undue burden on the kids, even if they don't realize it.

I urge and plead fathers to stay connected...push through the draining feeling and urge to just give in. You're doing your daughters justice by staying in the fight...even if it makes her unhappy for a time.

The key to our future in deeply entrenched in family values...please let our children learn the family values from you, rather than the culture at large. Resist the notion of wanting to be your daughter's friend first...later on in life, it will make all the difference in your relationship...when your daughter is truly ready to run her own life. And when that time comes, not only will you have been put up on a pedestal as the man she most respects in her life...which will far out weight the notion of being a friend or the coolest parent when she's younger.

Ron Paul was right...

...and so was George Bush, 8 years ago. Yes, when President Bush was just a former governor running for president, he was asked in a debate about his views on the role of the military. He stated, in no uncertain terms, that the military was not to be used for nation building.

Now for some reason, President Bush has revised that belief he stated 8 years ago, but this is exactly the stance that Ron Paul took, which many people scoffed at during recent debates.

Granted, Ron Paul took an even more extremist view in that he believed that our military should shut down all it's bases abroad and come back home. To be honest, I don't know why more people didn't love that viewpoint...but it made Republicans leery.

But the overall premise stays the same. The military is designed to fight wars...or more accurately, protect America. It should not be and isn't designed to rebuild nations. So we should have been looking to withdraw our military in a quick and orderly fashion long ago...once we discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

That's not to dismiss the "we broke it, we fix it" crowd. But our military doesn't do that...we have the Peace Corps, and hundreds of other government and private humanitarian aid organizations for that.

Had we followed that plan, it would have likely feed the conspiracy crowds with all kinds of outrageous accusations, but our country wouldn't be as broke as it is. And as much as I'd love to help others, if we aren't in the position to help ourselves, it makes it hard to help others.

I know that the parties are nearly set...but it makes you realize that neither John "another 100 years" McCain, nor Barack "I'm pulling out for the sake of pulling out and because I was right before the war started about no war except that I was a state senator not a US senator who would privy to more detailed information" Obama have it right.

Barack is Out of Touch

In a quick follow-up to my previous post, here are two quick examples of how Barack Obama is indeed Out of Touch. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain jumped on Barack's statement about bitter Pennsylvanians and middle-Americans, calling him out of touch. In each instance, he fired back, saying that he wasn't out of touch. Unfortunately for him, he gave horrid examples of how he "wasn't out of touch".

The one refuting John McCain's out of touch claims showed him to be eager to give money to Americans who very clearly bought more house than they could afford. He mocked John McCain's answers to the foreclosure crisis.

I'll be honest, I have no clue what McCain's plan on the "foreclosure crisis" is...but odds are, I'm against it. Folks, I'm living in a dinky little home, because that's all I can afford at the moment. Do I like it? Do I want to raise my three kids in this small little home in a hole-in-the-wall town? No! But that's what I've got to do for the moment. So you can be absolutely sure that I don't think someone that bought a $300,000 home on a salary of 60K per year deserves to keep that home that they clearly can't afford. That's Barack's plan...keep people in the houses they have...reward them for stupid judgements. If you actually thought you could afford a $300,000 home on 60K per year, I'm sorry, but you deserve to lose your home. You don't even have to ask me if I feel sorry for you as I live in my $50,000 home making 70K a year, struggling to make ends meet...you should know the answer.

And this one is, to me, far worse...the "slam" he gave Hillary Clinton for her saying he was out of touch. He said, "Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I'm out of touch?"

Do you understand what he's saying here? He's saying that bankruptcy is a get out of debt plan!!!! Can we say, "personal responsibility"? And do you think that all those bankruptcies won't cost us in taxes somehow?

Hey, I don't like Credit Card companies as much as the next guy, but of course they want to make it harder for people to walk away from their responsibilities. If you loaned your best friend every penny you have in savings with they promise that they'd repay you ASAP, only to have them not pay you at all, you'd be upset too, right???

These are the things that Obama needs to be explaining. Does he really think that bankruptcy is a get out of debt plan??? If so, is that someone you'd want as your president? Would you let him talk you into saying that it's the big bad Credit Card companies' fault for their lending practices? Or would you hold his feet to the fire and demand that people that run up thousands of dollars in credit card bills on a part-time job need to take responsibility for their actions?

Barack, this is where we part ways...

...and by we, I mean the country and yourself. Forgive me for being late to the party regarding the "clinging" statement, but times have been busy around the Mad Hoosier's household.

But indeed, the "clinging" statement is what completely turned me off from Barack Obama. I wasn't going to vote for him, but I didn't have any reason not to trust him, I just didn't agree with his vision for the country.

First, his non-explanation for staying in Trinity United for 20 years wasn't enough. And the mere statement about middle Americans being bitter and clinging to a variety of things to explain their frustrations away was bad enough...but the man never rephrased his quote, or even tried to give it full context from his point of view. Instead, he repeatedly defended his statement, either by saying it himself or quoting someone else who came up to him and saying he "was right".

In my estimation, this statement didn't get enough publicity, and what publicity it did get, solely focused on religion and guns. So I won't even cover those two, as they've been covered to death. But I'm a middle-American...that he claims to understand...and whether or not I'm bitter isn't even the issue. I mean, I'm Mad...but not necessarily bitter...but I digress.

What angers me...errr Maddens me...is saying that middle-Americans have antipathy for people who aren't like them...that they are anti-immigrant, or anti-trade. Folks, he's basically calling middle-Americans bigots!

A typical middle-American like myself are not only accepting but welcome diversity. Heck, we want immigration...we just want it legal. And let's be serious...anti-trade? Anti-Trade???? 70% of our economy is based on consumer spending...spending on foreign made products...thus our enormous trade deficit. We aren't anti-trade...we just want a balanced trade...which means someone in Washington needs to do something to get America producing products...not only services (which is also what the majority of our economy consists of).

America...I believe that this single statement, and his insistence that it was an accurate approximation of middle-Americans, proves that Barack Obama doesn't understand the majority of America and thusly has no idea how to put America on the right track.

He may understand hope, and be intelligent and a brilliant lawyer, but he has zero business sense. You CAN'T tax the rich and big businesses and expect them to want to keep employing more and more people. They will cut their businesses and continue to move those jobs out of America where they can make some money.

Folks, if you support Obama, you have to hold his feet to the fire. Don't get so caught up in the message of hope, that you fail to demand substance. You've got a responsibility to find out what kind of leader he wants to be, and you can't find that out if he avoids answering tough questions.

A Culture Warrior In-Training

Yes, I'm a conservative...yes, watch The O'Reilly Factor nightly, and yes, the Glenn Beck show too. I've read Culture Warrior, and am almost done with Power To The People. I have An Inconvenient book ready in waiting, but will likely pick up Real Change, by Newt Gingrich or Thou Shall Prosper to read before it. I listen to O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingrahm on the radio when I get the chance, but for some reason I can't go Shawn Hannity....and I can't stand Limbaugh.


What I've come to realize during this political and social awakening in me, is that the saying "knowledge is power" is true. I'm not as much of a cultural debator as I am political, though I now am quick to recognize issues that belong in the "culture war".


And really, I don't debate...I just discuss. But it was a recent discussion with a liberal colleague at work, in which I knew exactly how to rebut the points....errrr...suggest a different point of view based on their viewpoints.

The topics ranged from taxes to healthcare to the economy, and each time I had an answer that seemed to stump the other person. Granted, this person wasn't James Carville or anything, but had they been better equiped to answer back, I think I could have still held my own. And what's better, I think it is starting to get this person thinking about their beliefs. I could be wrong, and the person could have just been tired of hearing me talk, but that's a glass half-empty approach. :)

But whether you're a conservative or not, there's great satisifaction in understanding processes and nuiances of politics/culture and believing that you're beliefs are right. Sure, your satisifaction is deflated rather quickly when you realize that "the government" still thinks their way is best...but hey, at least you felt like you had all the answers to the country's problems for a few seconds. :)

Regrets...

Well, I was surfing blogs today, and checked Rocketstar's blog today. I hadn't checked blogs in a while, so I was going back a bit and found a post he did on regrets. His take is that people shouldn't be so ashamed to be regretful, being that the definition of regret is just to be very sorry for something. I started to post a reply, and it started to become too long, so I decided to just make it a post on my blog rather than a post-long reply on his blog.

A couple of people had already replied, and I started to chime in saying, I (too) don't think it's a matter of being shameful of admitting that you've made mistakes. What I think it is a matter of, is that most people associate regret with is wishing that they hadn't done, or moreover could change, some bad act or decision they did or made.

Right or wrong, based on definition, that's what I and I think most people associate regret with. And I don't know about other people, but I think of "regret" as a large-scale type of thing whey I use the word.

I wouldn't say, "I regret saying that to my sister." I'd say, "I shouldn't have said that to my sister," or "I wish I hadn't said that to my sister."

In the large-scale use of "regret" I think it makes it sound as if I wish I could actually change what I did. In that sense, I really only have two real "regrets" in my life. However, (much like Colette said) if I would made a different decision or could change those two "regrets", my life would have turned out much different.

My life isn't peaches and creme, but I wouldn't change what I have right now, at this very moment, for anything in the world. I think most people, at least the ones that say "I don't have any regrets" feel the same way.

In the scope of the definition of regret, they may not be using the right word when saying "I have no regrets", but I don't think they mean, I've never made bad decisions...or I'm not sorry for the things I've said/done. I think they mean they wouldn't change anything that would affect their lives differently to lead them on a different path than would lead them to right where they are today.

Just Words Part II...

Sorry I haven't been around as much folks...for any of those that follow my blog *chirp* *chirp*...but I haven't forgotten about or given up on the blog. Just been busy, spending time with the family, playing internet games, and the like. There are lots of things I love to discuss, but the topic on my mind at the moment that I have to get off my chest is the recent controversy with Barack Obama's preacher, Jeremiah Wright.

In the past, Barack has spoke about, and I whole-heartedly agree, that words can be inspirational. They can call people to act, they can cause people to change their ways, they can envoke emotions in people that they didn't realize existed inside them, they can change lives.

What he has recently failed to acknowledge, via his weak decrying of Jeremiah Wright's sermons, that words can also discourage. They can create hate, they can cause people to lash out, they can tear people, family, and/or friends apart, and they can equally envoke emotions in people that would scare others.

On one hand, I can understand that he must be in a hard position. He has to balance his loyalty to his spiritual advisor with his desire to be president. On the other hand, it's worrisome that someone who would want to be president of the United States would be loyal to someone like that to begin with.

It's not cherry-picking. The clips are there for the world to see, unedited. They show a man speaking passionately and confidently. They indicate that this man, a pastor, firmly believes everything he is saying, and it's hard to believe that this is just one side of a man's personna that is able to be switched off after the sermon is over.

They are hateful words. They come from a place that I don't know about, can't fathom or even barely empathize with. Jeremiah Wright is entitled to those opinions and is allowed to speak them freely. Barack Obama is allowed to believe what Jeremiah Wright says, or believe that this is only a small slice of who the man is.

The President of the United States, however, is not allowed to believe that.

Jeremiah Wright believes that the United States is a bad place...that it's government purposefully harms people and that it intends to harm people. By default, the President of the United States can not believe in these things.

If Barack Obama hopes to be the next president of our country, we should accept nothing less than a full denouncement of Jeremiah Wright and a full explaination of how his beliefs differ from Jeremiah Wright and why he differs from those views yet still attended his church for the past 20 years. I hope he does, for his own sake.

Economics 100...

Yes...the class before Econ 101. It's basic really. People apply it to their personal lives daily. Don't spend more than you make. Sure, there's the use of credit cards...but credit only lasts so long. Eventually, you WILL be bankrupt. And not the kind of bankrupt where you write everything off but get to keep your house, cars, etc. The kind where you're thrown onto the streets with little more than the clothes on your back.

In your personal lives, you're expected to live realistically, lawfully, and dutifully. You can't print more money to suddenly make more than you spend. You can't insist that your friends or family give you the money so that you make more than you spend. And you can't rob someone so that you make more than you spend. You spend less, or your in the aforementioned homeless predicament.

So let's extrapolate that out to the national level. How on earth do we plan to function as a nation by spending way more than we make?? In the national scene, the government doesn't exactly act realistically, lawfully, or dutifully...at least not at the moment. And it will catch up to us. The printing money, borrowing money, stealing money...the government does that too...but it's just a temporary fix. The answer lies in less spending, and we as citizens must demand it.

Let's talk realistically for a minute. We can't afford to add all the new programs that Hillary or Barack will propose once they get into office. We can't. The war spending...yeah, that sucks. And it will create less spending once one of them end the war. But they plan on running deficits right back up with Universal Health Care, National Education programs, and a plethora of other programs.

Now, they could continue printing more money. But as I've talked about before, that temporary fix leads to low valuation of the dollar and high inflation.

They could borrow money from other governments. Yeah, let's let China, Saudia Arabia, Japan, and others practically own our government. They will surely look out for our best interests.

Or...let's look at what they will do...tax. First they will tax the rich. Besides, everyone says that the rich can afford it...that they don't need the money. But make no mistake, when that money dries up, they will come after everyone else. Basically, we will become Denmark. And Denmark's fine...for Denmark. They're no super power...they certainly aren't a wealthy nation...and they don't help other countries out because they have enough to worry about theirselves. You know how much taxes they charge? Upwards of 60%. Sure, that sounds fine to rich people and people who aren't you. But imagine your income cut in half. Then add 10% for good measure.

It's a temporary fix...raising taxes, and particuarly taxing the rich. Who do you think employs you, if you aren't self employed? Someone wealthy. Who comes up with and sees through to fruition all great inventions and ideas. Someone wealthy....or they eventually become wealthy. Why else would they see their ideas through to the end if there wasn't a payoff for all their hard work? Did I mention that wealthy people who aren't named Warren Buffett already pay almost 50% taxes? How much higher do Barack and Hillary want to go? 55%, 60%, 75%?? Do you think someone's going to come up with a cure for Cancer, or create the next great renewable fuel, if they don't get rewarded monetarily for their vision and hard work? In the words of the great John Wayne...Not hardly.

So are you satisified becoming Denmark? Again, it's a nice enough place, I'm sure. I've got nothing against them. But they aren't the leader of the world...they don't have everyone clamoring to become migrate there to become citizens. If you are, maybe you should check it out first. They don't have as many freedom's as we do. And if that still sounds good to you...you're in the minority. Do us all a favor and move there instead of making everyone else convert to your idea of happiness is. Let this country do what it was founded on...let the free market decide. Oh, and I forgot...you may not be welcome there....because diversity isn't exactly embraced there...since 90% of their residents were born and raised there. Good Luck with that.

Like all parents know...you have to let your kid fail so that he or she will learn. It's an unfortunate and heartwrenching fact of life. That's what we have to do here...some times things have to fail. Recessions have to happen. And as all teachers know...you can't save everyone. So let's say we stop before the government tried to do just that....spend the money we work for to save everyone...even those that may not deserve it...which is also unfortunate but a fact of life...some people don't deserve to be coddled.

Hope is great...I like hope. But hope in one hand and...well, you probably know how the rest of that goes. Just don't blindly buy into Barack's hope, or Hillary's rhetoric. Make sure to look beyond it and make sure it makes sense and isn't just a quick fix that could change the composition of our country...to be like a Denmark.

Just Words...

Recently there has been a controversy about a speech that Barack Obama gave that was "plagiarized". There was a clamor about his speech being lifted from a speech that was given by the Governor of Massachusetts. The coverage on this issue has ranged from non-existent to calling the Illinois senator lazy.

To be honest, I think it's all getting blown out of proportion. The speech in question contains about 30 seconds of material that Barack Obama borrows from friend Deval Patrick. The two more or less collaberoted over the material, according to Deval Patrick, and seems as though it could have easily have been Deval Patrick being made as the scapegoat had Barack given his speech first. Or more likely, it would have been a non-issue.

The coverage that I saw on the news last night did the two speeches more injustice than justice. From the two mini-clips, it appeared to me as though Barack Obama was mocking Deval Patrick. Obama delivered his speech with more passion than Patrick, if you ask me, and since both programs I watched last night played Deval Patrick's speech first, it gave it that appearance.

In reality, Barack Obama was answering Hillary Clinton's criticism that he was all words and rhetoric, implying that he had no substance.

It's just another example of how news organizations aren't careful on how they report their stores, and an example of people trying to bring others down.

So if I, a conservative, whom is supposed to be one of the ones that would leap on a story such as this, can write it off as a complete non-issue, do you think we can get the media to do the same and focus on important things such as issues, hmmm?

*Sigh* Voting Games...

In much the same respect that I don't understand people who will choose to stay home and not vote, I don't understand people who say they are Republican's but during the primary they go out to vote for the democrat that they think will have the least chance of winning.

Ignorant games like that is why those people deserve not to have their candidate win. I couldn't stand there and say, "Yeah, I voted for someone that I have the exact opposite views of." Maybe it's a self-repsect thing...I don't know.

All I know is that I don't feel justified in griping about anyone if I didn't stand up and vote for the guy, or girl, I thought best suited to represent me. If you're playing these games, you clearly don't take your duty of voting seriously, and I don't even want to hear your opinion if you can't take our democracy seriously.

Straight Talk Express on the Economy...

A while back, McCain talked in Michigan and gave them some 'Straight Talk' stating that they needed to face reality that their auto jobs weren't coming back to America. Like many other economists and experts, McCain is happy with manufacturing jobs leaving America. He thinks that we are now a service-oriented economy and that we don't have to have manufacturing jobs here because of that.

The truth is, the loss of manufacturing jobs, of blue collar jobs...that's what's killing the middle class. It used to be that a worker could put in a 40 hour work week of honest, hard work, and make a descent living at it. No longer. Those jobs have all but left...to China, Indonesia, India, Hong King, Taiwan, etc.

Why? Because it's cheaper. Think about that for a second. It's cheaper for a company to build a manufacturing plant in another country, pay for cheap labor, pay for global shipping, and pay low import taxes/tariffs than it is to keep a plant in the United States. Does anyone else see anything wrong with that?

Sure many people make companies out to be the bad guy...to be all about the almighty dollar...and in many cases they are true. But wouldn't you rather have those companies here, keeping solid jobs in the United States rather than sending them abroad?

We charge WAY too high taxes on companies. So much so that they would rather leave than keep the American dream, of merely making a descent living, alive for fellow Americans.

In one way, this may be the perfect time to reduce corporate taxes and make it easier on companies to produce things here. So many manufacturing jobs have left...there are so few here now...that we can create a new set of rules with wish to reward companies to come back. Make it beneficial to have them bring jobs back and make the plants and buildings environmentally friendly. Or not. But what I think is a mistake is to depend on the rest of the world to provide us with all of our "stuff" that we buy. We must demand that government make it easier for Americans to provide ourselves with "stuff". Perhaps then can we create the honest, hard-working middle class again.