Forgot about this - The Duct Tape Bandit

Been a while since this came out, but it's worth revisiting, especially since I've been coming up with a list of "signs that someone is not dating material" for my daughter. This is definitely one of them.  So the deal on this guy is that he wrapped his face in duct tape, pulled his shirt over his head and tried to rob a liquor store. He got beat by the store owner with a baseball bat, and tackled by another store employee and choked out until the cops arrived. Then he gives a most eloquent interview with the cops. My favorite excerpt might be "I went to sleep on the...couch, man, and then I turned around - I'm in handcuffs...So I mean, I remember going to the, uh...coming back from, um...Food Land, and I'm just...get...varely convenient coming back from Food Land when I was com...walking through Food Land I'm getting tackled." 

Whole video below:

Oh, man.

A report this morning from the AP actually says that "While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming." Cooling shows how fast (or quickly, if you're using your adverbs correctly) warming is occurring? I guess that's parallel to how having 20,000 more polar bears than 30 years ago shows just how fast they're becoming extinct, right? Give me a break. It's all about passing legislation to cap carbon dioxide (in other words, to collect taxes on industry), which has not been proven in any respect to have an effect on the temperature of the earth. Way to start off a monday...

Dec 13 - It was a very good day

My "little" is learning to crawl. This Saturday, we put her down, and she pops up on all fours, then moves both of her knees forward and moved a hand forward. In the immortal words of cookie monster, "C is for Cookie...that's good enough for me." She's pretty much got the fundamentals down, she just needs to repeat them in order to crawl for an entended period of time. Go little...

Atlas Shrugged

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. WOW. This is such an incredible book, and I'm only a third of the way through. It's a very long book, but I just want to keep reading it. And it parallels today's society so very much - it's amazing. I want to type some of the better parts of the book, but I feel like it would lessen the impact once you get to it, should you ever decide to undertake this particularly rewarding literary journey. I don't want to give anything away, so I guess I'll wrap this up with one word...WOW.

Edit: Just found out they're in production for the movie, supposedly starring Angelina Jolie. I know it's a very pertainant film in today's american society, but how the writer/director will be able to cram the substance of ~1200 pages of story into a 2 hour movie is beyond me. The screenplay is written by the same gentleman (Randall Wallace) who wrote Braveheart, Pearl Harbor and We Were Soldiers, so it stands a decent chance.

Is this gross?

I brush my teeth at my desk in the mornings. I have a container of water, a toothbrush, and some toothpaste. Squeeze the paste on the brush, get a little water in the mouth, and get to brushin'. So what happens when someone walks in on me whilst I am brushing away? Doesn't matter. What matters is WHY I'm reduced to maitaining my oral hygiene at my workstation. That would be because every day, until roughly 10:30am, the bathroom is, shall we say, taken? And by taken, I mean cloudy. And by cloudy I mean rank. As in "just ate those two greasy sausage egg and cheese biscuits and downed four cups of coffee and MAN...is my stomach tore up!" rank. dangit...

Heroes

http://www.heropaintings.com/

Just thought this was really great. This site, run by an organization called Project Compassion, will paint an 18*24 oil painting on canvas of any military member who has died in active service to our country since Sept 11, 2001. Oh, yeah...for free. Great to see charity at work.

The Case For Sobriety

The Case For Sobriety
I. Preamble
I have been asked many times in my life if I'd "like a beer" or some other spiritual libation. I reply graciously, with a "No thanks. I'm good." I'm then often asked why I don't want one, and sometimes immediately asked if it's for "religious" reasons that I refused (keep that in mind - had I declined a Hostess snack cake, the same question would surely not have been asked). So, for posterity's sake, I decided to put my reasoning down in this journal, should they or anyone else need an answer as to why they choose not to imbibe.

II. The Question - Part I
"Why don't you drink?" There it is. The first half of the question. I actually didn't say that I don't drink, I just said that I didn't want a beer, or a drink. While I appreciate the offer, in social settings, I find it works more to my advantage to NOT be the drunk retard at the party. I went to college at UGA for a few years, and my house was "party central" for at least two of those. I had plenty of time to observe the effects of alcohol - whether beer, cheap table wine, "hunch punch," or any and
every other liquor - on both the behavior and the lives of my friends and neighbors, as well as random strangers.

III. AnecdotesHere's a few tales to embody my stance on public drinking:
a. The Pinch of Salt
Athens, 1998. I come home from work to yet another party. I park my 1991 Ford Escort, come in the front door, and begin greeting friends and meeting new people. I make my way to the back door, to find my boy, one of my roommates. Instantly, I'm met on the back porch by some guy I've never seen before, who initiates dialog with "Who the hell are you?" I swallow my pride and humbly respond, "My name is Justin. I live here. Who are you?" He immediately apologizes, but not for the brash welcome. "Oh, man. Dude, I am so sorry. I threw up on your couch. I tried to clean it...I'll buy you a new one." As the story goes, he'd been drinking since he'd gotten there, and and some point, had blown down the inside of the loveseat arm. I won't delve into the regurgital details, as they're largely unimportant for this purpose, but suffice it to say that after a whole bottle of Resolve upholestry cleaner, the couch still had a slight gouda smell any time the temperature in the apartment approached 80 degrees. As the night progresses, the guy kept drinking more and more, but out
of the same bottle. I start to wonder if he's found the legendary "bottomless bottle," a sacred artifact among collegiate types. I ask friend of mine (who had actually brought this guy to my house), "The bottom of that bottle has spent more time pointed towards the celing than not. What's going on?" He replies, "Dude...we keep taking turns pissing in the bottle, and he's so drunk that he's DRINKING IT!!" Disgusting, right? Well, that's really only half of the story - the half that's fit to print. At any rate, he's drinking other people's urine, and is "toasting" to everything in sight (i.e. a commercial came on tv and there was a Merle Hagggard song playing in the background - "Hell yeah! To Merle Haggard!!" ). At the end of the evening (for me, at least), I decided to retire, for work would come early the next morning. As I'm climbing the steps to my bedroom, and I hear the drunkard shout, "Who put a PINCH of salt in my drink?! Who put a PINCH of salt in my drink?!..." I learned the next morning that his friend backed out with the car door open and knocked him to the ground. Now how could his situation have been different had he not been drunk? Maybe he wouldn't have puked on my couch. Maybe he wouldn't have made a total and complete fool of himself. Perhaps he wouldn't have drank other people's bodily waste for several hours. Maybe he could have made some friends or been remembered for something other than a story on a blog.

(As supporting evidence, I would like to present Exhibit A, which clearly shows that the gentleman in the center is drinking heavily from a bottle of what he thinks is Southern Comfort. Note the expressions on the faces of those surrouding him in the picture, as they're in on the gag...)

b. It's the Thought That Counts
Valdosta, 2001. A friend of mine at work a few years ago was complaining about the manner in which she and her boyfriend spent valentine's day. I personally have serious objections to the bloated, completely commercial farse of a celebration that is Valentine's Day, but that's just me. She had bought him something that he'd wanted, like a video game or some mudflaps for his truck or whatever. What upset her was that he didn't buy her anything, because it was at the end of a
pay period, and he didn't have any money. That's understandable, right? Although, if he "loved" her like he said he did, he could've set aside a few dollars before the week got started and maybe not ate at fast food restaurants every meal of every day. I mean, you can get a decent pair of earrings for $10 at target, and can even find them on sale for $4 sometimes. Back to the lecture at hand, the proverbial "straw" was that he brought over a 6 pack of mini liqour bottles, and then proceeded to drink 5 of them. So he can't buy his girlfriend a small gift - a token of his "love" - but he makes sure that he can buy alcohol. Needless to say, they ended up parting ways. Unfortunately, it took her close to a year to see what a waste of time the guy was.

c. The Skatepark
Athens, 1999. In college, I was the only one in my townhouse of 5 people who had a full-time job (I was also the only one who'd been kicked out of college, and needed to work to support myself). My place was "party central," and I remember early one morning (2:45 am) when I'd been unable to get to sleep because of the noise. I was on the bottom floor by myself, and the party was on the second floor/third floor and the back deck. A guy that I'd been friends with in high school was regaling some of the partygoers with a story. I couldn't make out most of it, but it must have been the high point of the story when he repeatedly screamed, "I'll see you at the skate park, mother f-----r! I'll see you at the skate park, mother f-----r!" Finally, he called a girl on the phone (this is around 2am), and was talking all kinds of nonsense, which I could hear through the ceiling/floor. I picked up the phone and waited quietly for him to take a good long pause. When my moment arrived, I said, very firmly and slowly (so that he could understand, as his faculties were noticeably impaired), "Dave - If I hear you shouting one more time, I am going to cut your head off. Good night." He said, "Good night." and hung up the phone. To this day, I have no clue whether he knew who was talking to him over the
phone, but I still don't care much to even think about him. It's worth noting that we also had a video game in the place where you could "create" a wrestler. Someone else (not me) modified a wrestler and named it "Drunk Dave the Tard." The wrestler was an edit of "Big Hawk Hanna," a native american wrestler, and he was modified to be wearing flesh colored tights, so it looks like he comes running in naked. We were all playing one day, and Dave just happens to be over there when his character comes running down the aisle, and it says "Drunk Dave the Tard" across the screen. He says, "Hey, who is that supposed to be?" Cue the cricket sounds...

IV. The Question - Part II (i.e. "The Better Half")
"Is it for religious reasons?"This is a good example of where the logical path of brain -> mouth should be utilized. I don't necessarily want to reply with a "Yes." and leave it at that. While that is an acceptable reply, it can give the impression of a holier-than-thou kind of attitude, and actually is a nice opening to expound a bit on my Christianity. I don't believe that getting drunk can bring me closer to God. As a Christian, I seek ultimate guidance from God, and look towards the Bible on matters such as these. The bible mentions "strong drink" several times, and gives an overall unfavorable picture of the inebriated.

One of my favorite verses when looking at this issue is Romans 14:21. "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to stumble." It doesn't say that you can't eat meat, or that you can't eat wine, but it is better NOT to, if it can cause your brother to stumble. Basically, if you're doing something that is going to get in the way of someone else's relationship with God, it's better not to do it, even if it's not wrong in God's eyes.

Later on, in Ephesians 5:18, Paul says, "And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit." In that chapter, he say not to be "drunk with wine." If you read the chapter, he has a pattern of saying, "Don't do , but instead do ." The drunk with wine would classify as the "bad" in that sentence.

One last one, Romans 13:13 says, "Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature." Here, drunkenness is being grouped with all sorts of other immoralities. To me, that makes it clear as to what is right or wrong.

All that said, I don't think it is wrong to have a glass of wine with dinner, if you're in close company and not among strangers or in public. On the same note, I guess a beer would be okay, too. The only misgivings I hold towards that, is that buying it to drink supports the alcohol trade, which is responsible for the problems I list in the next section.

V. Observations on Intoxication
Why are things "funny" if alcohol is involved, but stupid if the person is sober? A manager at a store where I worked told me, "One night, I had some Jagermeister and walked home. At least, I started walking home, but then I decided to sleep under someone's SUV parked in their driveway. When they started the car in the morning, backed out of the driveway and saw me lying there, they freaked out." Is that funny? Why? Would it be funny if you (or your wife) backed out of the driveway and saw someone lying there, or could see them under the car as you were walking up to it? Of course not. Would it make it funny if they were drunk? Nope.

Alcohol is the cause of many hardships. The scenarios are repeated so often that no one can keep up with it all. I've seen alcohol destroy friendships, marriages, careers, and of course, lives:
- A kid who went to high school with me was drunk and driving his car down the road, when he crossed the median and hit a minivan. I'm not sure if the people in the van were hurt, but he was killed.
- A friend that I worked for at a recording studio drove home drunk from a bar one night after seeing a local band. He blew through a stoplight and hit another car. The guy in the car was killed, and my friend wasn't even hurt, which I'm both thankful for and infuriated at.
- Some people I work with recently were on a work-related trip, and one person's inability to live without alcohol, even at the expense of inconveniencing her travel partners caused a huge rift in their relationship that is still not repaired.
- People I was friends with in high school turned into completely different people in college, because they were constantly drunk and obnoxious. As a result, they ended up hanging out with people who acted just like them, and ended up getting hurt.
- People I know cheated on their girlfriends/boyfriends/spouses, and they say it's because they were drunk. It's really because they were stupid and put themselves into the situation where that could happen, but I won't deny them that alcohol really hampers your ability to make good decisions.
- A lady I work with is apt to lose her job if she ever gets caught coming into work late because she's drunk, and then lying and saying she's going to give blood, so she gets 4 hours paid leave. Not only that, but she is COSTANTLY griping about not having enough money, but has an alcohol budget of $100 or more a month.

VI. In Conclusion
In light of the stories I just told, I believe my reasons for abstaining from social public drinking can be whittled down to about 6 points:
1) People typically drink to excess (to get drunk).
2) People who are drunk do not make better decisions than they would if they were sober.
3) People who are drunk are not cooler, or a better person than they are when they're sober. Have you ever seen someone who's just a type A, loud, obnoxious flaming butthole, that gets drunk and mellows out and is kinder and polite to people? Of course not. If, for some strange reason, you are more likeable when you are toasted, then you may want to work on your regular personality.
4) My parents are largely of the same mind as I, and would be sorely disappointed if I should surry the family name, and much moreso if I shoudl ge thurt or hurt someone else as a reuslt of being drunk, which can easily be totally avoided.
5) I have to set an example for the women in my life. I have a little sister, teenage cousins, a wife, a daughter, and female friends. I also know how often drunk women/girls get taken advantage of. I don't want that to happen to any of them, and I can't preach it if I don't live it, so I don't do the social drinking.
6) "Birds of a feather," "a man's face is reflected in the friends he chooses," etc. If I'm seen publicly drinking alcohol, then in most people's eyes, I'm lumped in with everyone else who drinks - a drunkard. That would ruin the credibility of my witness for God.

Can anything good (and I mean really truly good) come from drinking? If not, then why do it? If not, then you're doing it for some other reason - more than likely to "fit in" or gain acceptance from other people. Will they not accept you without a beer in your hand? Is it too tough to be different? God loves you, with or without the beer. Isn't that the kind of love you want, a love with no limits?

Campbell's Butt Soup

Man, oh man. My lovely wife sent me to work with a can of soup for lunch today. It was Campbell's Select Harvest Garden Recipes Potato Broccoli Cheese soup. Now I like Campbell's Potato soup. I like broccoli. I like cheese. I like broccoli with cheese. I like potato with cheese. So why don't I like this soup? Because it tastes nasty. Like someone expelled it into the can directly from their rectum. I don't want to eat it, but I've already opened it and heated it, so now I've resigned myself to just pouring it in my mouth in between full-body shudders. Maybe the soup tastes good (or even great). Maybe something messed up with my taste buds (or my brain). All I know is it's nasty, and I'm almost done with it. "Campbell's, mmm mmm soup, possibilities"

Here it is...my quick take on the election

So the most irritating election is recent memory is finally over. Myself, along with 54 million others, are disappointed with the outcome, but 60+ million are quite pleased. I'm personally not knowledgeable enough about the inner workings of the political scene, so I won't try and make some profound, yet witty analysis of things to come. I will, however, say a few sentences about what I'm feeling inside.

Obviously, I voted for McCain. I voted for McCain because he was running against Obama. McCain was not a great candidate in the first place, and he either had the worst campaign advisor ever, or he himself decided not to listen to his advisor, because the man ran a terrible campaign. That aside, I voted for him because he promised to eliminate pork barrell spending coming from Congress. I voted for him because of the conservative republican platform (pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-family, etc). I voted for him because I know he would get to appoint some supreme court judges who actually believe that they ought to rule by the Constitution. I didn't vote for Obama for a number of reasons, but hey, I'm a conservative, so you can figure them out.

At any rate, I was driving home Tuesday night, and I felt like I needed to pray for Obama. So I did, for about 10 minutes, and then a couple more times over the next few days, after the results were in. It might not have made any difference to Obama, but it sure did to me. And I'll tell you, I do not feel any better about the damage I feel his presidency can bring about to America (undermining the Constitution with Supreme Court appointees, signing restrictive laws based on the global warming - or climate change, as it's currently called - krap that he and McCain both bought into, but can't actually explain to you if asked, etc.). I don't feel one bit better about that. But I do feel better, in a different sort of way. I guess it's the whole "turning it over to God" thing.

So what do I pray when I take our Pres-elect to the throne? I don't ask God to make him a conservative. I ask God to give him wisdom; to give him strength to make decisions that he KNOWS are right, and to NOT make decisions that he knows are WRONG; to keep he and his family safe from anyone who would try to harm him; to put people around him who can challenge his way of thinking; and that he'll develop a closer walk with the Lord.

Bottom line, just like Pres Bush, he's going to be dealing with things - probably on a daily basis - that you and I have NO CLUE about, and would never be able to handle. So devote a few miuntes in prayer every day for our next president. He's gonna need it...

Turn it off!!

I was flipping through the television channels this evening, and instead of trying to find something entertaining, I was silently making note of just how many things were not worth watching.  Basically, everything is krap. I kind of watch things differently, now that I'm a parent, and I notice how many things are on television that I do NOT want my kid to see. One of my "guilty pleasures" was COPS. But I've started noticing how much the show makes me angry inside, and I often find myself saying out loud, "They need to just shoot the dude in the head and be done with it." And right now, I'm justifying that statement to myself.  Whether or not it's justified, I can't let that kind of stuff sit and fester in my head. 

I don't watch the local news on television, because everything is bad news. I remember one evening, the commerical break was the local news spot - "Coming up after House on your evening news" "Three children die in a tragic fire on the northside." "A teenager mauled by his neighbor's pitbull clings to life at St. Vincents'." "An elderly woman shot and killed - find out why on the news at 10." Now which of those headlines is appealing? None! Sure, they're sensational, and people like to see people in worse situations than themselves - makes them feel better, I guess.  You know, I can see showing some of the negative stuff if it's for a reason, as in, "Three children die in a tragic fire. Their mother and father have one child left, and lave lost everything they have. Here's how you can help..." But there's none of that to be found. So why waste your time? Just cut the tv off...

Here's an insightful quote on the topic:

Avoid destructive thinking. Improper negative thoughts sink people. A ship can sail around the world many, many times, but just let enough water get into the ship and it will sink. Just so with the human mind. Let enough negative thoughts or improper thoughts get into the human mind and the person sinks just like a ship. 
--Alfred A. Montapert

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies...(aka the ignorant American voter)

(title borrowed from a fleetwood mac song)

So this is just a random thought on the election campaigns currently underway. I am so sick of the candidates thinking that I'm ignorant, and sick of being lied to. 

Here's the meat:

I'm watching television, and I see an advertisement by the Obama campaign on abortion. 

Obama: I'm Barack Obama, candidate for president. And I approved this message.

Announcer: As president, John McCain will make abortion illegal. McCain says quote, “I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned.”

Alright, so the issue is with the announcer's first sentence. The Obama campaign is assuming the ignorance of the typical american voter (in this case, the female voter), and is not afraid to let you know it. "How so?" you ask. 

They assume you're ignorant because the campaign KNOWS that the president cannot, by himself, "make abortion illegal." There are three branches of government - legislative, judicial and executive. The President is the top of the executive branch. He DOES NOT, and CAN NOT make laws. The legislative branch does that by drafting the legislation (bills), and sending it to the president to either be signed into law or vetoed, which sends it back to Congress to be redrafted or to see if enough votes can be mustered to overrule his veto (it's in the Constitution, people...).

The president can not even overturn the infamous Roe v Wade court case (which in itself wouldn't make abortion illegal, anyways - would return the decision to the individual states - it's in the Constitution, people...). To overturn the case, there would have to be another case brought before the Supreme Court, and the opportunity given for them to correct the mistake the court of 1973 made. THAT is where your vote really matters - this president will more than likely be able to appoint three Supreme Court justices. One of our sitting President's high points is that he appointed two justices who promised to rule by the Constitution, instead of by public opinion or by their own "feelings" that they find an interpretive wording for and attribute to the Constitution.

Anyways, to say that McCain WILL make abortion illegal is a prediciton of the future, which will certainly turn out to be a lie. As such, it is an example of the much dreaded "fear-mongering" always attributed to conservatives by the media. Of course, they let Obama run with this one...

This is not to say that the McCain campaign isn't guilty of the same types of advertisements, because they are. This is just one that I decided to write about. Love ya.

Why don't I have one?

As I look around my work environment this Friday morning, it seems an innumerable amount of men are wearing "hawaiian" shirts. And so I ask myself, "Why don't I own one?" I won't go into my answers, but most of them center around the fact that I need no additional help being uncool. The other thing I notice is that there seems to be an age limit on who can wear a hawaiian shirt (and untucked, at that). The average age appears to be mid to late 40s. So I guess maybe in 15 years I can get one. I wonder if WalMart will still be carrying them...

Can't Wait

Tuesday marks the day of the "New Surrender." What are you talking about? I'm talking about Anberlin's 5th album - and their major label debut. These guys are incredible, in every way. Besides the music, the lyrics are always great, and I know the band is big on helping others. I had a post a while back about faceless International, and that's what these guys do.

At any rate. I'm excited to get the album. Here's where the title comes from, according to lead singer Stephen Christian:

"We will all come to the point in our life where we have to admit that we feel defeated, that something has conquered us. We must change, not because we want to, but because we desperately have to. We can not take life in its current suffocating state, even to admit such desperation shows that we are feeling deserted, wandering the barren desert, a shell of our former selves. It is only up from here, it is impossible to sink any lower into ourselves or our circumstances. But we can be salvaged, a deliverance. No vice can stand, no fix can take. The thorn in the side can be removed, but you have to be willing to admit and surrender. Surrender your habits, your lifestyle, your past, your present, and your future. This is your new surrender. The new surrender."

Part iii

Today's segment of the conversation will deal with three statements that I wish to address regarding pregnancy as a result of rape:

"Women will say they're against it, but when it really comes down to it, deep inside, they know they want the ability to have an abortion if they were raped or something."

will be combined with this one:

"If your daughter or wife was raped, you would want her to be able to choose the abortion."

and this one:

"the mother would resent the child, as it was unwanted and unplanned, and the last thing we need is another unwanted baby."


Without trying to validate those statements on some level, We'll just get straight to the analysis.


"Women will say they're against it, but when it really comes down to it, deep inside, they know they want the ability to have an abortion if they were raped or something."
Taking the position - solely for argument's sake - that every woman in the U.S. would consider having an abortion were they impregnated as a result of rape, IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE BIT. What a woman wants/desires has no bearing on the fact that aborting a baby still destroys innocent human life. No matter that they are in an awful predicament that someone else forced them into. No matter that they might be in a position of high visibility in the community. No matter that they are 15 and were robbed of their childhood. Circumstances nonwithstanding, abortion is still consciously choosing to destroy an innocent human life. And the sad thing is, that as little as a few weeks (see the previous post "When your rights are wrong - part ii") is the difference between it being illegal/legal kill your baby.


"If your daughter or wife was raped, you would want her to be able to choose the abortion."
My daughter is 11 weeks old at this point. My wife is 23 years old. Lord willing, both have long promising futures full of love, family, life, etc. Should either one of them be violated like that and raped, I can say, most assuredly, that I would never seriously consider abortion as a viable option to change the situation. And I say that with fervor, in large part because of my daughter and the joy she brings us. Now, I am in the optimal situation - we were wanting a baby for some time, my wife had a very good pregnancy, an easy delivery, and our baby is perfectly healthy. Even more related blessings have been showered upon us, but suffice it to say that we're so much better off than we ever thought we could be, in the sense of our family. Take all that away - take the house, the vehicles, the career, the television (oh NO!!), the cell phones, etc - take it all away and we've still got the baby girl, and we've still got each other, and we've still got love, and we've still got God. If the baby had been born to other circumstances, such as a product
of rape, we would still have those same 4 things. We may not have all the extra things we have now, and life would definitely be more difficult, but I could still love the baby as much as I do now. You don't love a child because it's a product of your genetic material (ask any adoptive parent), you love the child when you accept responsibility for it and invest your heart and soul into it. I would never want my wife or daughter to have an abortion (unless their life was in jeopardy - I'll address this later).


"The mother would resent the child, as it was unwanted and unplanned, and the last thing we need is another unwanted baby."


I can't begin to think of all the ways that being impregnated as a result of rape would effect a woman, and would also effect her loved ones (husband, parents, etc.). And this is a valid issue, as rape happens all the time in our country. It is entirely possible that both the mother and father could resent the child. There's also a huge possibility that they could love it with all their hearts. And there may be emotional scars that hurt every time they see the baby or hear it cry, but those could also very well be erased in a short time when they see the baby smile or sleep. Bottom line, this statement gets the same response as the first one: IT DOESN'T MATTER if the mother and father resent the baby on some level. One, if they have any shred of intelligence, they would recognize that they resent the person who interrupted their plans and forced them into the situation, and not the innocent child in their arms. Resentment, frustration, disdain, choose any word you want and it still does not mean they should be able to destroy the child. The child hasn't done anything wrong, and has no say-so in the situation, but has the most to lose. If they were capable of speaking for themselves, how many would choose to die? None. How many two and three year olds wish they were dead? None.


As to the "unwanted baby" statement, I have to respond with the standard line of the pro-life movement:
"There may be unwanted pregnancies, but there are no unwanted babies." Without getting into the tremendous hurdles of adopting a child (which is why so many people, including relatives of mine, have gone outside the country to adopt), I can tell you that there are many people who want a child but are physically unable to have one. Most of the "unwanted" children she's speaking of are not the product of rape, but rather the result of carelessness and loose morals (and I'm sure alcohol fits in there somwhere quite a bit of the time). And that problem can be fixed by people either protecting themselves or by offering sterilization services to those willing to accept it.

One final mention - this post (and the following/previous posts on the subject) are discussing abortion as a topic, and not condemning women who have had abortions. You can't go back and undo something like that, and I'm sure the scars remain, even if they're not visible from the surface. Jesus Christ offers forgiveness for anything you've ever done, no matter how wrong it may be, and He offers it to everyone. Women who have had abortions need prayer and love, the same as woman who are thinking about having one.This was part three in a series of posts dissecting points from a conversation between a coworker and myself on the topic of abortion. Thanks for reading.

When your rights are wrong - Part II

Welcome to our continuing analysis of a conversation I had with a friend at work on the ultra-flammable topic of abortion. Today's statement is a compound statement, and will be: "Men just want control. It's men who are pushing to overturn Roe V Wade. Any time that you're talking about men taking away a woman's rights, I get scared."

As I put in the last post, if you're talking about the right to choose a pantsuit (ala Hillary) over a skirt, or Harvard over UGA, that's great. But she's talking about the "right" to do something so very wrong. In all fairness, the whole "taking away my rights" is a large part of her stance, though it doesn't make it right. She is very much into the whole independent woman thing, is a divorced single mother with a good job and an education. She's worked hard, and God has blessed her. But her paranoia about repealing the 19th amendment to the Constitution and having to redo the whole women's suffrage movement doesn't justify murder. So to her "take away my rights" statement, I offer a brief scenario:

The year is 2003. Mob rule prevailed and the 2000 election went to Al Gore, who is now the President of the United States. As such, he carries on the legacy of his predecessor, Mr. Clinton, and vetoes the Partial Birth Abortion ban (which makes it illegal for abortion providers to deliver the baby's head or deliver all but the head and then kill it) when it gets sent to him from Congress. He also signs a bill into law a few months later, making it legal for the abortion provider to kill the baby within the first five minutes after delivery. Despite the public outcry, he makes the argument that "It's the same thing, right? The baby is alive in both cases, just in one the torso or the face is still inside the birth canal." And the sad thing is, he's right. I mean, if the face is still inside, it's 2 inches away from being on the outside; if the torso is still inside, it's 12 inches away from being on the outside. So before the "5 minute rule" law was passed, the baby was basically between 2 and 12 inches away from being "illegal" to kill. 2 to 12 inches away from legal protection of the law and 2 to 12 inches away from being considered as something that has value.

In 2004, every Senate/House member who voted for the bill is replaced (save those elected representatives from the states of California and New York) . New legislation is passed stating that it is now illegal to kill a baby outside the womb, even within the first 5 minutes after birth. As expected, NOW and Planned Parenthood are railing against the great injustice, which is "just the first step to repealing all of a women's 'rights.'" This begs the question, "Have a woman's 'rights' been violated by telling her she can't murder another living human being?" Of course not. It may inconvenience her and make her unable to do what she wants to. So what's the difference between that situation and the current one we have in 2008? Simply put - location. Inside the womb, legal to kill. Outside, illegal. Whatever happened to humans being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..."(see the Declaration of Independence)?

Another thing worth a second look would be the word that I keep putting in quotes – the word "right." In the sense of "human rights," it means an entitlement, be it legal or moral. How can a human have a moral right to take the life of another innocent human being (key word here is "innocent")? They can't. The right all humans have is the one first mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the inalienable right to Life. If anyone's rights are taken away, it is the right to life of the unborn.

One final mention - this post (and the following posts on the subject) are discussing abortion as a topic, and not condemning women who have had abortions. You can't go back and undo something like that, and I'm sure the scars remain, even if they're not visible from the surface. Jesus Christ offers forgiveness for anything you've ever done, no matter how wrong it may be, and He offers it to everyone. Women who have had abortions need prayer and love, the same as woman who are thinking about having one.

This was part two in a series of posts dissecting points from a conversation between a coworker and myself on the topic of abortion. Thanks for reading.

I did it - Part I

Well, I did it. I coerced my friend/debate partner at work to verbalize a logical contradiction. I'd like to think that means that I win, since by contradicting yourself in the same sentence you are deemed "babbling" (eg "I hate potato chips, but I love potatoes that are sliced really thinly and then fried, flavored, bagged and sold in grocery stores."). The topic was abortion, and she was using many of the "old standards," which we'll look at one by one in a series of posts over the next few weeks. Today's argument will be the ever-popular, "I'm not for abortion, but I'm for the right of a woman to choose what she wants to do with her own body."


What a grand idea - a woman being able to do as she pleases with her own body (and, by default, life)? Well, that's fine, if you're evaluating that statement verbatim. I fully believe that a woman should have the right to be in control of her own life and even her body, and make choices for herself as she sees fit, right? Choose a Volvo over a Hyundai (although I really like the Sonatas)? Absolutely. Pursue a career as a mortgage broker vs. a district manager for a retail outlet? Definitely. Eat a whole container of lard over crackers and ruin her heart/arteries? If she wants to. Smoke pot until her brain doesn't function properly anymore? I guess so (although there are consequences for actions, and there should be no complaining when they set in). But when you're talking about abortion, that sentence can no longer read as it was dictated, because you're actually supporting the right of a woman to choose what she wants to do with her own body, AS WELL AS the body growing inside of hers (which could be a woman's, by the way). So it should be reworded to say "I'm not for abortion, but I'm for the right of a woman to choose what she wants to do with her own body and life, as well as her unborn baby's body and life."


Now, let's look at her statement for just a moment. "I'm not for abortion..." Why would she say that, given her position on the argument? She's pro-abortion, or "pro-choice" (of course, the "choice" being given is the choice to kill your child if you want to, so that should be worded "pro-death". I'd stick with the "pro-abortion" if I were her. I digress...). Why would she start with "I'm not for abortion...?" The answer to that would be because she thinks (knows) that it is wrong, morally reprehensible, selfish, and murder to condone a person killing their own child. However, she is conveniently able to separate the actual event from the idea by thinking of it as "terminating the pregnancy." That sounds much nicer and cleaner than vaccuuming the baby apart or dissolving it in a saline solution (much like pouring salt on a slug), or birthing the baby in breech position all the way to the base of the head, cutting open the back of the skull, and then sucking the brains out with a vaccuum. WAY better to just "terminate the pregnancy."

Anyways, on the way out the door, she went back to this sentence and said, "I'm just for the woman's right to choose." To which I replied, "Right to choose what?" "An abortion." "Which does what to a baby? Helps it grow? Or ends its life - kills it?" And she said, "Kills it." "So while you're not for killing babies, you are for the woman's right to choose to kill her baby." And she said Yes. My goodness...game over.

One final mention - this post (and the following posts on the subject) are discussing abortion as a topic, and not condemning women who have had abortions. You can't go back and undo something like that, and I'm sure the scars remain, even if they're not visible from the surface. Jesus Christ offers forgiveness for anything you've ever done, no matter how wrong it may be, and He offers it to everyone. Women who have had abortions need prayer and love, the same as woman who are thinking about having one.

In the following posts, I'm going to dissect the other points from our conversation and offer my take on them. Thanks for reading.

See, here's the problem

I wrote a database for a department here at work using Visual Basic as the programming language for the interface, and Microsoft Access as the backend database. I also wrote a design specification and user's manual, and put it all in a binder that sits over in their area. Now some computer "scientist" is claiming that the software wrote (or created) itself and didn't use any programming language, because it wasn't programmed. It just "evolved." Nevermind the fact that there's nothing for it to evolve from, he still says it did. Now I know that I designed and created it, because I did it. A few people in the department know that I did, because they know me and have a relationship with me, and sometimes watched me as I was working on it. Also, others who have never met me know that I did because they've read the user's manual that I wrote, and it has my name in it, my company, etc., and accurately tells how the program operates, and even how and why I built it. Still others know that I created it, because I told them that I did. But there may be some people who are not bright enough to realize that software can't write itself, and therefore what this person is claiming can't be true. There are software programs that are "self-documenting," but they still have to be told to do that. There are even software programs that can write other software programs, to some extent. But they still have to be programmed or given instructions on how to do that.

(this was all a response to a conversation that a woman here at work and I were having about evolution vs. God. She was using the familiar lines about, "why couldn't God have used evolution to create...God still did it, right?")


That is the same thing we face with having evolution taught and forced upon us. You can't get a good grade in class if you put 6000 years on a government school test when it asks how old the earth is (of course, the textbooks don't even agree themselves on the age). Or if they say when was the last ice age, and you say 4000 years instead of however many million. Evolution still doesn't make sense, and trying to tie God to it does no one any favors. It doesn't do God any favors, anymore than it would do me a favor for you to tell everyone, "Well, science says that the program evolved and created itself. Justin still turned the power on to the computer, so he's indirectly responsible." That completely takes the credit away from me, and gives it to nothing, or to the software. It's like I tried to explain to you, if evolution can do it by itself, if it stood a chance of being real and working, then why would you hitch God to it? If it works and can stand up to criticism, then why would you involve God. And if it's a broken theory, and God's really doing the work, then why would you make God drag it along like a broken down car? If God's doing the work, give Him the credit. Don't give it to the broken down car and say, "The car got us here, and God was riding in it." God doesn't need the nonsense. Remember? God is limitless. He can do anything. Man isn't, and can't. We can't even understand God's ways or His being in a full sense. So why would someone trust man's theory on what happened before the earth existed when we weren't there, and don't even know when it was? God was/IS there, and He is God, so I trust Him.

What say you?

Water baby

My kid enjoys being in the bathtub more than anything, it seems. Say it's because the warmth and the whole "being suspended in liquid" thing is like the womb, but I think it's a trait she gets from her dad. Those of you who know me know that I spend about 1 hour a day in the bathtub. Rarely do I take a shower, and sometimes I even start taking a shower and then put the plug in and lay back and let the tub fill up that way. Baths are the way to go, and as it turns out, are a pretty dern effective method of birth control (for me, at least). Without diverting from the subject of the post too much, I'll just say that Jess and I used no form of birth control at all for almost two years, I believe. But I was taking a bath every day in really hot water, and staying in for sometimes upward of 2 hours. Run the water hot, and when it gets cold, drain it and fill the tub back up with hot again. I digress...

Anyways, my girl loves the bath. We don't really use the baby bathtub thing, Jess just gets in and holds her in the water. Allison gets really slow and relaxed, and looks around, and flares her nostrils, and makes faces. She loves it. And her mom and I just laugh and laugh and kiss her and laugh. She's my girl...

Monday the 23rd

Today was the first day in almost two weeks that I have woken up and not had one or both of my in-laws in the house with me. I appreciate all they have done for us, especially my mother-in-law, who stayed with Jess the first week, but it's just not "normal" life when other people are in the house

Jess hadn't been in the car for longer than 30 minutes at a time since she came home from the hospital, so today we decided to take a small family trip. She needed some new bras, so we went to the outlets at Darien. We stopped in Brunswick to eat at Michael's Deli, and then went to Target. Jess went to use the restroom, and when she came out, I had women all around cooing and aww-ing over Allison. We left, and pulled to the far side of the parking lot, where Jessica fed Allison for about 15 minutes. Baby filled her diapers, and Jess changed her in the back seat in the Old Navy parking lot. Kid had it all over her stomach, coming out her diapers. Bought daddy a shirt at Old Navy ($5.99), and then stopped at the back of a Burger King to feed her again. She filled her diapers again, so we tossed the changing pad down on the grass and got her nice and clean.

All in all, we had a WONDERFUL day. It was great to be able to spend some time with my wife and daughter, as the family Mahaffie. A lot can be said for family outings (we're leaving for a two or three day stay at Hilton Head with my side of the family in a couple days), but I NEED the time with the two of them, and most of all, with just my wife.

Hopefully, this week at Hilton Head will allow Jess and I some alone time, as we'll have babysitters galore all wanting to hold Allison. It'll be hard, and we won't be gone long, but I am planning on taking my wife for a nice walk on the beach at sunset, and need to plan something really special for us to do. God is good, and I am so blessed.

Take My Breath Away

whew. I had a baby girl last Saturday. Vitals were 7lb 10oz, 19.75 inches, APGAR score of 9.9 out of 10. That's really good. The kid is INCREDIBLE. must restrain myself...I'd like to give an all-inclusive account of the delivery, laboring, hospital experience, etc. - from this father's point of view.

A bit of pertinent background information - my mother-in-law wasn't able to deliver her first naturally. Her cervix wouldn't dilate like it needed to, even after chemical induction. There, all done.

Cast of characters:
Dr. Fareed Kadum - Was great to accept us as new patients when we were having a lot of trouble getting in at the other offices. We had initially made an appointment with another very capable OB doctor in town, but Jess kept getting sick and dehydrated from all the vomiting, and our appointments was too far out. We needed to try some medicine and didn't want to end up in the ER overnight every two days (we were there twice), so we had to find a doctor to admit us. Kadum's office made us an appointment within one or two days, and he was pretty nice. He'd been practicing in Cartersville, GA for some 20 or 30 years, which sealed the deal for my wife, as her all-time favorite music artist (Butch Walker) is from there, as well. We only saw him once or twice, but he also encouraged questions, and was willing to entertain any questions you could come up with, instead of dismissing them as many docs do.
Cynthia Wallace - midwife at Dr. Kadum's office (St Marys OBGYN). We had our first appointment with her on our third or fourth visit, and saw her for evey other one but the last. She is a delightful person to be around, encourages questions, and likes for the dad to be involved. I didn't know how she'd respond when I asked her if she could show me how to check the cervix for dilation - she responded by giving me 5 or 6 pairs of gloves and a bunch of sterile lube to take home, and talked me through doing it there in the office. The woman is wonderful. I can't say enough good things about her. She is a true asset to the St Marys OBGYN office.
Dr. Steve Kang - New OB in the office. I believe he worked with Dr Kadum for some time before coming here, but this was his first weekend on rotation. The nurses all told us that they didn't know anything about him because they hadn't worked with him yet. He's terribly nice, and did an exceptional job delivering my baby, and then cleaning my wife up/out afterwards. I have much confidence in this man's abilities.
All the nurses at SGHS - I don't remember all the names - Maria Villinauve (sp), Trish Woods, Belinda Smith, and the others who stopped in. They were all different, but a perfect combination. One had been there a long time, and did things her way, another was new and did things strictly by the book, another helped us with making the baby breastfeed, etc. They were wonderful.

So at 40 weeks, my wife was getting pretty upset. She still looked great, didn't have the problems that plague many women, such as the swollen hands and feet (she wore her wedding ring set throughout the pregnancy) or the stiff back, etc. At our 40 week appointment, Cynthia checked and said that her cervix was still only 1cm dilated. She hadn't really had any real contractions at that point, either. By the end of week 41, we were both pulling our hair out. We had our weekly appointment at 40 weeks and 6 days. Dr. Kang (I'll talk about him later - he was wonderful) checked the cervix, and it was still thick and at about 1cm. For those of you who haven't been through the childbirth experience yet, and don't remember high school anatomy class, the cervix is the "opening" to the uterus that the baby has to squeeze through before it can enter the birth canal. Kang said that he would have Jess admitted to the hospital on Friday (not what she wanted to hear), and that they'd give her a drug called Cytotec to "ripen" the cervix. They could do this every four hours. If her cervix responded to the Cytotec, then at some point they'd administer Pitosin and get the contractions really going. If she didn't respond too much, they'd send her home for the weekend to hopefully labor on her own and come back Monday and have the baby either naturally by induction, or via a c-section.

Cytotec was administered at around 8am. By 1pm, her cervix had effaced (thinned out) a great deal, but was still only at 1 cm. Positive change, but not much. We found out later from the night nurse that usually one pill is enough to make the necessary change, and then they begin the Pitosin. Well, they gave her another pill, and started the Pitosin drip, which was increased every 45 minutes or something. After the contractions started, they increased to the point where she was having them about every 30 seconds, and they were hurting her pretty good. I've always called her my "pain baby," because everything hurts her. Anyways, this stuff was hurting her pretty badly.

Doc came back in and checked on her around 11pm. She had dilated to about 1 1/2 cm, but that wasn't very good. He ordered the Epidural. The anesthesiologist showed up around 1am, and was great. I don't remember his name (maybe Woodruff, Wood-something), but I believe he's the same one who did the anesthesia for Jess' sinus and my hernia surgery. Anyhow, he was smooth, and the process took just a few minutes, after which she felt great. She was actually able to go to sleep and labor through the night painlessly. Many times, the epidural can stop the contractions if they had to be induced and weren't coming naturally. But hers continued, and Saturday morning she was at 3 1/2 when Dr. Kang came back in. He told us that we should expect to have the baby sometime on the near side of midnight. A nurse checked after he left, and said she was at a "good" four centimeters.

Some visitors came by, time passed, and my inlaws went to lunch. When they came back, I went to lunch with my parents. This was around 3 o'clock. We went to Ruby Tuesdays, and I got a HUGE salad with pumpernickle croutons in abundance. I sat down at the table and felt my phone vibrating. I looked at the caller ID and it said "Georgia" (my state), so I silenced the call. It vibrated again about 20 seconds later, and I looked at the number this time - it was my mother-in-law. I picked up the phone and she said that Jessica was at 10cm, and the doctor would be in in 1 hour to begin delivery. I finished my salad (albeit with shaky hands) and rushed back to the hospital. Found out that the nurse had went to put the fetal heartbeat monitor under the baby's scalp, and the crown of the head had already presented itself...you could see it between my wife's legs. It was gray and wrinkled, like a little brain.





So doctor Kang showed up and got his scrubs on, and we got down to business. I say "we," because at one point he looked at me and said, "Hey, dad...put on some gloves." "wha...okay." I put on the gloves, and he tells me to interlock my fingers and keep them in front of my chest - basically "keep sterile because you're going to be delivering the baby." Then he tells me to come around to the other side. The first this I do is grab Jess' leg, and Dr. kang says, "No, can't touch her leg. Put on some new gloves." So I reach over and grab a pair off the table the nurses have set up for him with all the necessary instruments for childbirth. Dr. Kang says, "No, can't touch anything on the table. The nurses will give you a new pair." I get a new pair of gloves, and when the baby is ready, he has me catch her head, and then with his hands over mine, guides the baby down and then up to gets her shoulders free. At that point, she slipped right out. Daddy (I refer to myself as "daddy" quite often now, which is kind of weird) caught her bottom end as it came out, and lifted her up. Doctor Kang told me to put her on Jess' chest, so I did, and Jess was - as I hope all new mothers are - compeltely overcome with emotion, and relief, and joy, etc. Here's a pic after they got her cleaned up a bit...

I intentionally left out someone from the "cast of characters" at the beginning, and that is God. He was as involved in this as Dr Kang, or even myself. Looking back at the marvelous way in which things came together, it could have only turned out as smoothly as it did through His leading. God has blessed us with so much, when we don't deserve anything. And now with this baby, we are overwhelmed, in a good way. In the best way. Sometimes it almost takes my breath when I really think about all God has given us and done for us. But that's for another post. For now, suffice it to say that God gets all the praise for everything good in my life.

Faceless

http://www.facelessinternational.com/site/

What initially drew me to the site and made me want to find out more about it is that there are some rock bands that are partnering with this organization and actually "giving back" in so many ways. Groups like Anberlin, The Classic Crime, Showbread and Hundred Year Storm. I've not heard of the last two, but I saw pictures and read commentary from the trip anberlin took to India, and it is moving. Wouldn't it be incredible if other bands (maybe those with more MTV sponsorship) would do this kind of stuff, and set an example for the rest of us? I'm not talking about donating money (although in this world there always seems to be a place for that), but about serving. What if Nickelback or Fall Out Boy or The All American Rejects or Slipknot (haha) would give of their time and energy and heart to go help those in need?

Some sad news

I don't like the news, especially the local news. I don't like it that every headline on the websites, or that every talking point on the "next on the news" thing during commerical breaks is about how many people were shot in Jacksonville, or who burned up when a building caught on fire, or who killed his neighbor. I like good news, although there's not much of that to be seen on the television. As such, I hesitate to put this on my blog because it's about someone dying. Here it is copied from the Foxnews website (not sure how to give credit, but it's from the Associated Press)

CHICAGO — Chicago police say a man died as he tried to shield his four-year-old daughter from an auto allegedly driven by a man under the influence of a controlled substance.

Joseph Richardson was walking his daughter Kaniyah to a McDonald's for burgers late Monday when a car jumped the curb. Police say the 39-year-old Richardson grabbed his daughter just before the car slammed the two into a fence.
Richardson was pronounced dead at the scene. Kaniyah was taken to Comer Children's Hospital in serious condition.
Police say the driver of the car, 32-year-old Angelo Thomas of Chicago, was charged with two felony counts of aggravated DUI. Witnesses say the man was driving erratically before the accident. Richardson, a church musician, was the father of three, two girls and a boy, all under the age of 10.


So there it is. So this guy sacrifices his own life to save his daughter, as any father should. He is a hero, and hopefully he is in heaven now. Pray that the little girl will survive. And pray for his family. But can we do more than that? Who is going to take care of the other girl and boy and Mrs. Richardson? That's where the church comes in. If they have a church family, hopefully they will step up and help the mother raise the children and provide for her needs as well. What about the rest of us as Americans and human beings? Have we any concern? I wish there were some way that I could help them, even though I am of "little means." I could certainly afford to send the family $20 to help them out. "What's $20 gonna do?" If you're asking that question, you're missing the point. If 10,000 of us sent them $20, it could certainly help out. Total of $200,000 (tax free, by the way). It would pay off their home, most likely, provide for funeral bills for the dad and hospital bills for the little girl, and the mom could put some money aside for the kids' college funds.

What can we do? What can we do? I've got $20. Where do I send it? And who will join me?

Uncle Bigbones

So I'm an uncle now. First time ever. Hopefully not the last. My little buddy Seth was born yesterday afternoon by c-section, and is a perfect baby boy. My sister said that he nursed well after he came out, and he took that dern soothie pacifier pretty well, too. I get to go see him again this weekend at his home (vice the hospital), and can't wait. Also exciting is the fact that he'll have a baby girl cousin (and Jess & I will have a daughter) in less than 6 weeks.

Let me just say that anyone who firmly says "I don't believe in God" must never have held a newborn baby. "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." (Psalm 139:13). Amen to that. God is good.

I'm so excited, and I just can't hide it

cheesy title, but it's the truth.


Here's the deal...I just found out about Bethesda Software's (developers of Morrowind, Oblivion, etc.) plans to release Fallout 3 in fall of this year!! Here's the description off the webpage:

Vault 101 – Jewel of the Wastes. For 200 years, Vault 101 has faithfully served the surviving residents of Washington DC and its environs, now known as the Capital Wasteland. Though the global atomic war of 2077 left the US all but destroyed, the residents of Vault 101 enjoy a life free from the constant stress of the outside world. Giant Insects, Raiders, Slavers, and yes, even Super Mutants are all no match for superior Vault-Tec engineering. Yet one fateful morning, you awake to find that your father has defied the Overseer and left the comfort and security afforded by Vault 101 for reasons unknown. Leaving the only home you've ever known, you emerge from the Vault into the harsh Wasteland sun to search for your father, and the truth.

http://fallout.bethsoft.com/eng/home/home.php

For those who don't know or have never played the Fallout series, I would highly suggest playing them ASAP. Fallout & Fallout 2 were turn-based roleplaying games, with a tile-based scrolling graphics engine. Fallout: Tactics gave the option to dispense with the turn based stuff, and have it appear more real-time, instead of choosing your move every time. I really like the game. I would say that I like Tactics the best of the three, but maybe I wouldn't if I'd never played the first two. There was also a Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel game for the XBox, but I never played it. I didn't like the graphics, and didn'thave an XBox at the time, so no big deal.

Anyhow, I'm seriously jazzed, and hoping that my new video card (new to me, anyways - bought it for $25 off of Newegg.com. It's a 256MB Radeon x700 series. Not top of the line anymore, but better than my old one and definately affordable) will be able to run it. Yeah.

What do you think...

When you look at the dots above, do you see a pattern emerge? Is it the first 10 dots in a pattern, and the pattern beginning to repeat with the last 4 dots? Could the pattern be the first 13 dots, and begin repeating with the last dot? Or could it be a pattern in itself from beginning to end? Or could it even be the tail end of a larger pattern?

What do you think after looking at the picture with more dots added in? Appears to be the tail end of a larger pattern. And now there's no telling whether the first two dots are the end of a pattern, and the rest of the dots on screen are the repeat, or what. And imagine if this thing was more than three lines, more like 639333333 lines.

"What the heck is this blog about?" I know. Well, here's the deal. I'm trying to understand how people buy into this whole "global warming" stuff, based off of only a couple hundred years of data. Now before you go all whirling dervish on me, please let me say that I think humans are supposed to be good stewards of the planet that God has created for us. I can't stand littering. I cringe inside when I see all the new developments going up here in Camden County, where they just bulldoze the place flat, not leaving a single tree for shade or beauty or oxygen. I think we are in pretty poor shape when it comes to taking care of the earth. I'm glad more attention and focus is on it, but I don't think that creating hysteria out of partial data is the way to do it. And people are fighting so hard to keep this stuff in the news. This morning, it was "Leading Climatologist reverses view on the relationship between global warming and hurricanes." Guy is a scientist at MIT. Smart guy, right? Right. So why is he buying into this global warming thing?

There is always the chance that I'm just totally missing the proverbial boat. But I really do try to look at the facts on something before I make a definite decision. I'm talking facts now, not the interpretation of the data. Recorded numbers and information, no problem. Someone telling me what they think the numbers mean, okay, but that's your opinion. Someone passing laws, trying to get people fired from their jobs, etc. based on what they say the numbers mean, without being able to prove it by the scientific method (which amounts to a theory), I have a big problem with.

Here are some questions I've got, and some observations I've made since this push started a year or so ago:

• How do you know it's warming, in the sense of an uncontrollable rise in mean temperatures all over the globe, when you've only been measuring data for such a small amount of time? Back to the dots at the top of the post - can you really tell if we're at the end of a warming wave and getting ready to start getting cooler, or can you prove that we're on a steady uphill climb with no end in sight? An accurate thermometer wasn't even invented until Mr. Farenheight in the early 1700s. So the last 300 years is really all that we could possibly have reliable data on, for the sake of trending, and at that time there weren't all the climate agencies like we have in modern times to record all the data. We've only been keeping seriods records for some 150 years.You could make some predicitons based off of that if the earth had only been around 500 years, but "scientists" (there come the quotes again) have once again changed their minds based on their interpretation of data collected from telescopes, and the general consensus of the secular scientific community seems to be that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. Yet they're looking at just the tip of the tail, and creating mass hysteria.
• How can you prove that all this CO2 is turning up the dial on the universal oven, crisping all out polar bears and making slushies of our glaciers? Weren't the icecaps (made of frozen carbon dioxide) on Mars melting over the last several years, too? Have they had an Industrial Revolution on the red planet and are now cranking out CO2 as fast as we earthlings are? Or could the two similar results be caused by the same thing, - maybe the increased solar activity? Sun = hot.
• I know that in my community, we have bulldozed acres of shade giving trees and laid acres of heat holding asphalt. Wonder why your neighborhood (this is more "community warming" than global ) feels so hot? How many trees are in your yard? I can go 5 miles down the road to my mother's house, and the breeze over the lake, plus the shade of the hundred-year-old oaks amounts to a difference in temperature of probably a good 5 degrees from my house.

There are many more things that have come up, such as Chicago having the coldest winter on record, and all those meetings on Global Warming initiatives being cancelled because of snowstorms. Article today called "Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say" By Jim Efstathiou Jr. A research scientist says "If we don't experience warming over the next 10 years, it doesn't mean that greenhouse-gas warming is not with us. There can be natural fluctuations that may mask climate change in the short term." Another says "Natural variations over the next 10 years might be heading in the cold direction, but if you run the model long enough, eventually global warming will win." One more person says that "The world will become at least 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100, compared with the pre-industrial period." How often do weathermen accurately predict tomorrow's weather? Ever looked at the 10-day forecast? Is it ever on the money? Look. I work with a group of people whose job it is to produce forecasts. Not weather forecasts, but production forecasts based off of years and years of accumulated data. There are computer systems that produce the results after the data is fed into them, etc. These people get thrilled and give high fives when their predictions from a year ago turn out to be within 10% of the actual amount. But here this guy is going to predict a mean rise in temperature from 92 years out? He doesn't even care, because he'll be dead and the legislation will all have been passed by the time his prediction is proven true or false.

How about the "farm under the sand" in Greenland? Look it up. Farm buried beneath 20+ feet of permafrost for 500 years. So at one time, Greenland was MUCH warmer than it is now. Right now it's about 85 percent covered by a sheet of ice. If we're colder now than we were 500 years ago, how can a warming spell (which isn't happening anyways) be the "end of humanity," as Al Gore spells it? Friggin' short sighted idiots.

Did Jesus really walk on water?

A “scientific report” came out about a year ago claiming that Jesus may have walked out to the disciples in the Sea of Galilee on a small sheet of ice instead of the biblical account of him walking on the water. You know how "science" always has to have a natural explanation for things, as they can't accept anything supernatural as a possibility. If you remember the story from the bible, Jesus goes off to pray alone, and the disciples get in a boat and row out. Storm comes up. Jesus catches up to them by walking across the water. They’re scared, and think it’s a ghost. Jesus says to have courage, and identifies himself. Peter says, “Lord if it’s you, then let me come to you.” He gets out of the boat and begins walking across the water towards Jesus. Becomes afraid of the waves beneath him and starts to sink. Jesus grabs him and lifts him out of the water. When they get back to the boat, they worship Jesus. You can read the actual bible text in Matthew 14:22-33.
Below is the text from the article being discussed:

Rare conditions could have conspired to create hard-to-see ice on the Sea of Galilee that a person could have walked on back when Jesus is said to have walked on water, a scientist said today.
The study, which examines a combination of favorable water and environmental conditions, proposes that Jesus could have walked on an isolated patch of floating ice on what is now known as Lake Kinneret in northern Israel.
Looking at temperature records of the Mediterranean Sea surface and using analytical ice and statistical models, scientists considered a small section of the cold freshwater surface of the lake. The area studied, about 10,000 square feet, was near salty springs that empty into it.
The results suggest temperatures dropped to 25 degrees Fahrenheit (-4 degrees Celsius) during one of the two cold periods 2,500 –1,500 years ago for up to two days, the same decades during which Jesus lived.
With such conditions, a floating patch of ice could develop above the plumes resulting from the salty springs along the lake's western shore in Tabgha. Tabgha is the town where many archeological findings related to Jesus have been found.
"We simply explain that unique freezing processes probably happened in that region only a handful of times during the last 12,000 years," said Doron Nof, a Florida State University Professor of Oceanography. "We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account."
Nof figures that in the last 120 centuries, the odds of such conditions on the low latitude Lake Kinneret are most likely 1-in-1,000. But during the time period when Jesus lived, such “spring ice” may have formed once every 30 to 60 years.
Such floating ice in the unfrozen waters of the lake would be hard to spot, especially if rain had smoothed its surface.
"In today's climate, the chance of springs ice forming in northern Israel is effectively zero, or about once in more than 10,000 years," Nof said.
The findings are detailed in the April 2006 Journal of Paleolimnology.


Okay, so they pick a part out of a bible story and then attempt to discredit it (although maybe not maliciously), but don’t include any supporting details. Here’s why I have a problem with this: Other than the fact that I believe the bible is the infallible authoritative Word of God, they leave out any analysis of the story that would contradict their findings. Let me set the scene using the biblical story combined with their hypothesis and tell me if it sounds plausible:
You have the disciples out in a boat, rowing like mad in the midst of this storm. Now, the boat isn’t embedded in ice, or they wouldn’t be rowing like mad. So they don't see any ice. However, Jesus comes walking or floating out to them on a sheet of ice. Disciples are afraid and think He’s a ghost. So Jesus says not to be afraid. Peter tells the Lord to call to him. Jesus does. Peter gets out of the boat and begins to walk to Jesus. On what? Ice? How would the disciples be rowing in fluid water if Peter can get directly out of the boat onto ice strong enough to support his weight? Did they dock at an ice floe?

And if it were a thin sheet of ice Jesus was walking on, when Peter stepped out and realized that it were ice, wouldn’t he say, “Aw, Jesus. We thought you were walking on the water. This is ice.” But he doesn’t. He keeps walking, and then starts to sink. Jesus, on this sheet of floating ice just beneath the surface walks immediately grabs him and says, “You have so little faith. Why did you doubt me?” Does that sound like something Jesus would say to someone who had just fallen through ice? It takes “faith” in the natural to walk across ice, just as it does to drive your car across a bridge, but it takes faith in the supernatural to walk across water. 

Two other points: 1) Peter was a fisherman from Galilee by trade. He knew the seas. He had been doing this for years. Even if this was the only time in 60 years that it had frozen over, he would understand that it was ice. 2) If this never happened, then Jesus is a fraud in the miracles department. Of course, Peter would realize this, and would not have been bold enough to die for the name of Jesus later in his life. 

Also amazing is how this guy knows pretty much how many times the sea of galilee has frozen over in the last 12,000 years. What data is he analyzing? I mean, what sort of scientific tests is he running to make this determination, and what historical data is he looking at? It's all bullkrap, which is why you shouldn't swallow everything "science" feeds you.

P.S. Don't think I'm anti-science, because I keep putting it in quotes. I am all for the Law of Gravity, and for all the things that can be proven through the scientific method, and for historical happenings (although though the events happen as fact, they are reported/interpreted subjectively quite often - revisionist history).