Affirmitive Action or Not?

Yesterday I discussed four different news items, today I have two that I want to discuss. This one and this one.

There have always been white people that felt that affirmative action was discriminatory against whites, but the idea was to level the playing field, and, maybe, to make up for past wrongs. Now we have reached the point that a lot of blacks still don't feel that they have actual equal opportunity, but a lot of whites feel that they no longer have equal opportunity, either. As a nation, we are essentially acting as a mother trying to divide some yummy desert between two rival offspring, and no matter how she cuts it, both complain that the other child got an bigger slice of the pie. Personnaly, I think we are closer to achieving Dr. Martin Luther King's dream than we ever have been before, but we aren't there yet. It seems to me that some people think that we have finished, it is equal now, and don't see the fine details that haven't been worked out yet, while others make too much of the rough edges that remain. Time will help to heal the wounds, but there are those among us who won't quit picking at the scabs, even as other problems continue to fester.

As far as school busing, I have heard some things that indicate people don't understand what busing was all about, anyway. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education made the case for segregated educational facilities with the phrase "separate but equal." The courts ruled that separate was not equal. What the courts didn't say (probably because of the political climate at the time), was that separate could be equal, but the Board of Education hadn't made any real effort to make it equal. It was common practice that, whenever the school system needed new anything, the new stuff went to one or more of the white schools in the district, and the old stuff in the white schools was sent to the black schools. Books, desks, chalkboards, erasers, etc. were, at best, well worn by the time they got to the 'colored' schools, and sometimes the 'new' stuff at those schools arrived already broken. Black kids generally went to whichever school building in the district happened to be the oldest. Equal? hardly. By forcing the schools system to integrate classrooms, the Supreme court ensured that black kids didn't get stuck in the corner somewhere where their education was treated as an afterthought. It would have been nice if the kids had learned to share common experiences and gained the understanding that color is only skin deep, but, for the most part, the kids kept themselves segregated even while in the same classroom.

I still remember an episode of 'Good Times' where Michael was selected as part of the City of Chicago's busing program to be bused to a white school. He didn't want to go, the idea of being around kids that were different from those he was used to was a little scary (it's much easier to stick with people you know). He asked his father, James Evans (played by John Amos) if he ever had to deal with busing when he was in school. Dad's reply was classic: "Yeah, I got bused. By foot. I had to walk past three beautiful white schools to go to one crummy black school." 'Good Times' was a comedy, but there was a lot of truth in it.

The other news item, a young man from a show called 'Grey's Anatomy', claims to have fired for his color. Leading up to this, he was in the news for taunting another actor on the show regarding his sexual preferences. Isaiah Washington has expressed that he is the better actor, and that the homosexual should have been let go. My question is, if he's such a good actor, why couldn't he act as though the other man's lifestyle didn't bother him? From what I understand, none of the rest of the cast had a problem with the other cast member, but several of them felt put off by Washington's intolerance. Maybe there are others who feel the same way, but are reluctant to express it, either due to fear of reprisal, or fear of creating offence amongst other cast members. Either way, if you have a job to do, then you should do your job. If someone else at your job makes you uncomfortable, then either deal with it, or look for another job, unless that person makes you uncomfortable by doing something illegal or against company policy. Generally, there are going to be people that you are going to have to work with, that maybe you don't like their attitude, or their hygienic practices (or lack thereof), or their religion, or their skin color; but, if you get fired because you created a hostile work environment for one of your co-workers, don't cry 'discrimination' when you're the one who started it.

Four things that are only loosely related: National HIV testing day, Patti Davis wrote a column for Newsweek in which she says Ann Coulter cured her road rage, a marriage in Pakistan leads to criminal charges because the 'husband' is a transsexual, and an Italian schoolteacher has been acquitted.

First, National HIV testing day was yesterday. I didn't find that out until today. Realistically, it's probably a good idea to get tested, even if you know you are not 'at risk' for the disease. Hopefully, you'll find out that, sure enough, you don't have it. On the other hand, you may find out that, through some kind of a fluke, you are in the early stages, and treatment can prolong your life considerably. I know a lot of people have said that AIDS is a gay disease, but let's not forget Ryan White, the Eagle Scout with hemophilia who died of AIDS, contracted through a blood transfusion. At the time, a lot less was known about AIDS, and blood screenings were much less likely to catch it. This also helps me to ignore those people that say that God created AIDS as a"gay plague." If God wanted to wipe out homosexuals, He could find a much more effective and selective way to do it.

Patti Davis' column in Newsweek references Ann Coulter making a snide remark questioning John Edwards sexuality. To be honest, I don't pay much attention to Ann Coulter. The first time I heard of her was when Senator Clinton created a fuss that Ann Coulter accused the 9/11 widows of being glad that they had the insurance money, rather than their husbands. Shortly after that, I started seeing ads for Ann Coulter's book that said "Read for yourself what she really said." That was not enough reason for me to buy the book. Of course, I can appreciate the fact that Senator Clinton says that Ann Coulter said that, it doesn't necessarily follow that she did, although she probably did say something similar to that. To be honest, I think it's kind of a stupid idea. You might convince me that there are a few (very few) widows that feel that they are better off now, but I imagine that there are a lot more who would gladly give the money back (and more) to get their husbands back. And, as far as the remark that Ann Coulter made regarding John Edwards; from what I understand, she didn't call him a derogatory term for homosexual, she implied that he was a homosexual, using a derogatory term. Evidently she thought she was being clever. In any case, even if she really thinks that he is gay (which I doubt), the use of the term was, at best, in poor taste, and really reflected badly on her, rather than on him. At least it helped Patti Davis.

In Pakistan, criminal charges are being brought against a married couple because the husband is a transsexual. The Pakistani government conducted DNA tests and determined that, at the genetic level at least, both bride and groom are female. Pakistan is a predominantly Muslim country, and transsexuals and gay marriage are both haram. Now, my question is this: There are a lot of people in this country that want to legalize gay marriage, and attack the 'religious right' for trying to define marriage as 'one man-one woman.' There are also a lot of people that say that we should be sensitive to, and respect the beliefs of, other religions (other, in this case, meaning other than Christianity, which is the predominant religion in this country). Granted, this is not a theocracy, nor should it be, but how do you respect the beliefs of 'other' religions and still practice what is forbidden?

Okay, I hadn't intended to get into it today, but, let's consider for a moment, separation of church and state. Religious organizations and governmental bodies should respect each other, but laws should be made for the good of the people. A lot of religious debate against 'gay marriage' has centered on 'protecting the sanctity of marriage,' and yet, a lot of these people fight the idea of a 'civil union' also (a civil union is just another name for marriage). I have a hard time understanding that if the government (which is not religious) chooses to afford the same rights to couples joined under a secular, legal civil union as to those that are joined by a religious ceremony which happens to be recognized by the government, what that has to do with the 'sanctity of marriage.' I could understand if our government just decided that, yes, we are going to let gay couples get married, and we will issue them the same licenses that we do to heterosexual couples, and if you don't want to be prosecuted under hate crimes laws, then you will perform the ceremony... I can see how that would interfere with the sanctity of marriage. Let's face it though, we have one of the highest divorce rates in the world; we're not exactly keeping marriage sacred as it is. Let's also consider that the religious right likes to talk about how homosexuality is an abomination. Okay, the scriptures tell us that. Of course, when God listed out the things He didn't want us to do, somehow, homosexuality didn't make the top ten. Adultery did. Would you have me to believe that homosexuality is a greater sin than committing adultery? You might convince me that it's just as bad, but this is a country where adultery has become fairly socially acceptable. Where is the outrage about that affront to the sanctity of marriage?

I'll tell you something else: I don't think that are too many homosexuals who want to get married for the sake of being married; I think most of the ones making noise about it just don't like the idea of somebody telling them that they can't. If we legalize civil unions, and then make dissolving a civil union as much of a production as a divorce, then there probably won't be many. To be honest, gay marriage makes me nervous. But the idea of our government deciding who can and who can't get married makes me even more nervous.

Now, about the Italian teacher. She made a student write, "Io sono deficiente," (I am deficient) on the blackboard 100 times. The boy's family filed a civil suit against her, and the local prosecutor brought criminal charges. At first, the "I am deficient" phrase does sound a little extreme, but the student in question tried to stop another boy from using the boys' room because he considered the other boy to be 'girly.' He also taunted the boy about being gay. Now you understand why I included this. For what it's worth, I agree with the court, the teacher needed to do something. Writing on the blackboard seems pretty appropriate, if a little old-fashioned. Maybe we need more old-fashionedness.

Illegal Aliens

Interesting article in BBC news (here). Part of what makes it interesting is that I heard about this from the BBC, and not from any domestic (American) news sources. A forty-year-old mother-of-four was elected to the city council of Adelanto, California in 2004. She resigned after ten weeks in office and applied for US citizenship. She has since entered a guilty plea for illegally voting in the election. She now faces deportation. Now, here we get into several different questions and concerns: First, how in the world did she get elected without first becoming a citizen? Doesn't someone check eligibility prior to the election? Second, she has four kids. What happens to them when their mother is deported? Third, is this why illegal aliens generally keep a low profile? One of the arguments given for granting amnesty is that (other than the obvious entering the country illegally) illegal aliens are statistically less likely to be involved in criminal wrongdoing than US citizens. Fourth, if we are going to get into the habit of deporting illegal aliens, is this where we want to start? Some would say it's as good a place as any, while others would point in a different direction. All right, let's wade through this. It seems odd to me, but, a lot of people can slide through an entire local election without anyone becoming aware that the candidate isn't eligible for the office. National elections are scrutinized much more carefully, but, if she managed to convince officials that she had the right to vote, then they probably didn't even question her citizenship. Second, some people have screamed that our government is working to separate families. They generally stop short of referring to Elian Gonzalez, but try to evoke the emotion conveyed by the photograph of little Elian being separated from Donato Dalrymple in Florida. They don't actually mention Elian by name, because Elian was not related to Dalrymple, and was being deported to be reunited with his father--his closest living relative (Elian's mother died trying to get into the United States with the boy). Does that sound like our government is trying to separate families? Of course, this is our government--it's hard to be sure, one way or the other.
Third, yes, I would imagine that illegal aliens try to keep as low a profile as possible because they wouldn't be here if they had been happy wherever they were before. They don't want to be deported. It seems strange, though, I've mentioned before that I spent some time in the Navy. I've known people that just decided that they didn't want to deal with the Navy anymore, and just took off. They tried to keep low profiles, too. Some of them ended up getting returned to us over a traffic violation. Yet I keep hearing about illegal aliens that have multiple traffic violations, or public intoxication charges, and somehow, the system never seems to catch on that they don't belong here until somebody winds up dead. (Just a side note: I heard on the radio this morning that this new amnesty bill that the Senate passed yesterday would allow illegals who have been here for four years to get a visa to stay. How does an illegal prove that they have been here for four years if they have spent the last four years trying not to leave any vidence that they are here?)
Fourth, to be honest, I would feel more comfortable if they would at least start deporting the ones that can't seem to obey our laws. It certainly doesn't hurt to deport women like this one in California that was elected to her local city council, but, at least she isn't hurting anybody. There's been a lot of talk about there being twelve million (some say twenty million) illegal immigrants in this country. Oh, surely we're not going to try to deport twelve million people! Why not? It seems to me, that if we pull some guy over for speeding, and find out that he's here illegally, he should be on the next boat out (or train or plane or whatever). Let's not bother with a trial, or even a traffic ticket. You're not supposed to be here, we'll get you home. And, maybe, after a couple of million like that, the other ten million will keep a low profile.
A couple of other things to be aware of. IMHO, there are two main things that concern people about undocumented workers. One is that, they may be terrorists. Okay, if you've got an undocumented worker named Ahmed or Tariq, who keeps to himself and doesn't socialize much, then you may have a problem. How many of those twelve million do you think fit the terrorist profile? I'm guessing not many. Still, if Ahmed and Tariq know that it's easy to get into the United States by going to Mexico and hiring a coyote, that could definitely work against us. The other concern is that, a lot of American jobs have either vanished or been moved to other countries. I think a lot of felt like, if it really came down to it, I can get a job sweeping up, or flipping burgers, or something. Now those jobs are drying up, but we're told not to worry about it, because those are just the jobs that "Americans won't do." Even now, jobs that used to be summer jobs or after-school jobs for American teenagers are being taken over by immigrants (some legal, some not). Are these jobs that our teenagers won't do? Maybe. I'm not a teenager.
One other thing: The search for illegal aliens should not become a witch-hunt. If you have a neighbor that you know is an illegal alien, you should report him or her. If you know somebody that you don't like that you think might be an illegal alien, leave it alone. In some cases, it may leave you with a hard decision. My neighbor, José, he's such a nice guy, he helped me when... Okay, I can understand your reluctance to turn him in. I can't force you to, but I can tell you that you should. On the other hand, some people get so fed up with this Latino or that Latino working here and working there. There is a car wash near where I live that has a number of Latinos on their payroll, and every so often, somebody will phone in an anonymous tip that there are undocumented workers at this car wash. The feds come out and check everybody's documentation, and, they have yet to catch anybody doing anything illegal. The owner of the car wash spends a fair amount of money on background checks to be sure anyone he hires is legal before they ever start work (not nearly as much as he would be fined if ever got caught with an undocumented worker on his payroll). The bottom line is, a lot of tax dollars get spent, and law-abiding citizen's get harassed because somebody didn't like the way their car got washed, or didn't like the look of the guy wiping off their fender, something. It shouldn't be like that. Report what you know, if you know anything. Don't waste time and money reporting something if you don't know. You know?

Where Would Jesus Shop?

There has been some hubbub about, if Jesus walked the earth today, what would He wear, who would He hang out with, what would He do, and where would He shop. Well, I don't claim to know, but, I do have some ideas.
One thing that has been suggested is that Jesus would definitely NOT shop at Wal*Mart. Their hiring practices, foreign made goods, slave-labor wages, etc. I can see the point. I have to disagree, however. I don't find anywhere in the scriptures where Jesus made a big deal out of business practices, except when people were getting cheated right in the temple, the House of God. He did tell His followers not to cheat anybody. It seems to me that the main thing Jesus did was talk to people; generally not so much an=bout what they were doing wrong, but about what they could be doing right. If you read about Jesus' ministry, he spent a lot of His time with 'sinners.' The pharisees gave Him a hard time about that, but He told them that the whole need not a physician--that the religious people didn't need Him. There we get into another aspect of Jesus' ministry: His biggest criticism was not of people that were normally considered sinners, but of the religious people who tried to tell Him how to act. The common people didn't seem threatened by Jesus--they got along with Him most of the time. It was the Pharisees, Sudducees, and Scribes (the religious leaders) who wouldn't come near the common people that Jesus railed on. Given that understanding, would Jesus avoid Wal*Mart? Aren't the shoppers at Wal*Mart the kind of people Jesus wanted to reach? Shopping at a given store doesn't necessarily mean that you approve of or condone the habits or business practices of the owner.
Let's expand this a little farther. Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Jesus wouldn't shop at Wal*Mart. What kind of movies would He watch? Would He watch movies that star Scientologists? How about people who can't seem to stay married? Gay actors/actresses? How about people that are just plain weird? Alcoholics or drug users? Let's be honest about it, if you are looking for an excuse not to watch a given movie, you can probably find one (It's rated 'R.' There's some foul language in it. There's sexual content in it. One of the actors is a drug user. One of the characters is gay. It's got that weird guy in it. Oh, it's a 'Christian' movie; the production values aren't very good). Does that pretty cover it? On the other hand, if you don't watch movies at all, how do you relate to people around you that do? Can you explain your behavior without sounding like a Pharisee?
You know what? I watch movies. Some of the movies I watch have Scientologists in them (I think John Travolta is a better actor than Tom Cruise, but I generally find both of their movies to be entertaining). I have watched movies knowing that one (or more) of the actors involved lived a lifestyle that I wouldn't approve of. If you buy an apple at the supermarket, do you investigate to see if the guy who picked the apple was living a good, Christian life? Of course not. But because movie stars are public figures, and we are inundated with details about their private lives, there is a certain amount of, "Oh, I just don't approve of that..." You know, if you object to foul language in a movie, that's one thing. If you don't want your kids watching movies that glorify witchcraft, I can understand that (but let's not forget that Harry Potter has weened a lot of kids off of video games, and we need more of that kind of 'magic'). But to refuse to watch a movie because you don't approve of somebody's lifestyle (or religion); all I can say is, get a life.

American Ignorance

There was an interesting survey sponsored by Newsweek--you can look at it here. 81% of respondents at least knew that they didn't know who the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court was. 28% knew that they didn't know who the Speaker of the House was. 40% knew that they didn't know who the first Republican president was. As Americans, our ignorance is astounding. We should be the most blissful nation on earth.

There were some trick questions in the poll. One question asked when did the Korean War officially end, and included in its multiple choices both '1953' and 'Did it ever end?' Both of those answers could be considered correct. The fact is that in 1953 an armistice was signed, which ended hostilities between the two nations and established a de-militarized zone (DMZ) between the two. This agreement is considered by some to be the official end of the Korean War, while others point to the fact that no formal peace treaty was ever signed, and wars are normally ended by peace treaties. Another asked how many countries have nuclear weapons, but did not offer seven or eight as a choice--the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, China, India, and Pakistan have all been verified as having nuclear weapons. North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons, however, there has been no detection of radioactive fallout from their tests, indicating that they may have only detonated a rather large conventional weapon. Israel will neither confirm nor deny their nuclear capabilities, but they certainly like for their neighbors to think that they have nuclear weapons. That would make nine the correct (or, at least, most correct) answer. Considerably more people answered five, presumably because only five nations have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (the first five on the above list).

I was surprised that 20% thought that Christianity was older than Judaism--one out of five are not aware that Jesus was born a Jew? At least that means a good chunk of our population don't blame the Jews for the death of Christ... 21% thought Islam was older than Judaism. Wow.

There were a good many things that I did not know: I did not know that Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population. I could not have told you what year the Internet stock-bubble burst. Did not know the current Dow-Jones average, or the current chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (I had heard some noise awhile back about Alan Greenspan retiring, but I didn't know that he actually had). I was unaware that childbirth kills one woman every minute somewhere in the world (I wonder how many women die from botched abortions?). I could not have named the winner of American Idol this year (and I am surprised and comforted by the fact that 77% of the respondents couldn't either).

Perhaps the biggest surprise was the breakdown of political affiliations: 35% identified themselves as Democratic, 34% as Independent, 25% as Republican, 3% as no party affiliation, and 3% didn't know (just at a guess, I would say many of the 3% who responded 'don't know' would have responded 'Republican' eight years ago). If that breakdown truly represents the national population, then our next president may be an Independent. Perhaps we should pay more attention to Ralph Nader than to John McCain...

Movies

Well, Michael Moore's latest film is about to be released: SiCKO, about the health care industry. I haven't yet quite figured out why he needed to go to Cuba to film this, and I'm not sure that I care. I don't intend to watch it.

From what I understand (let me remind you, I've already said, I haven't seen it, so this may be way off base), this is his push for health care reform. It seems to me that if "John Q" didn't convince you that the health care system needs reform, then this won't either. I don't think it's so much a question of, does the system need improving, it's a question of which direction does it need to go. A lot of people have pushed for socialized medicine. I think that would be a mistake. Rightly or wrongly, our economic system, here in the United Sates, is built on capitalism. In some ways, it's a flawed system, but, mostly, it works. It would be nice if we had a system that worked simply because of people's love and care for their fellow man, but, realistically, we have a system that works on a principle that we can count on: Greed.

Take a minute, and let that sink in. That's really what it's all about. I work a job so that I can pay my bills and buy groceries, etc. If I didn't get paid, I wouldn't come to work. It's that simple. Some people are lucky enough to have a job doing something that they actually love doing (most of us don't), but even those people generally can't afford to work for free. I would imagine that a lot of people get attracted to the medical profession out of a sincere desire to help people, but, let's face it, for many people that desire wears off pretty fast, and then it's the money that keeps them going. Medical school isn't cheap, and a lot of doctors and nurses get pretty burned out by all the things that they have to deal with before their student loans are even paid off.

Let's consider something else: If we socialize medicine, who controls the program? Who decides what surgeries are necessary, what drugs are approved, when life-support is no longer cost-effective? Presumably our government. Think back a few years. I'm betting you don't have to think back very far to be able to think of something that our government made a total mess of. I'm not even going to give you a hint. Think about it. Now think about that same government controlling your health care. That should frighten you. I can understand that you may want to blame your favorite mess on one particular individual. That's fine. You may even feel confident that one person won't have anything to with the socialized health care system. Fair enough. What guarantee do you have that the health care system won't be overseen by someone who is no more capable than the person that you blame for the mess that you thought of? Oh, well, it will be someone from the other party. Do you really think that incompetence is the hallmark of one political party?

By the way, here is a list of other documentaries on the subject (that I also haven't seen):
"A Short Course in Brain Surgery", "Two Women", and "The Lemon" (unfortunately, I don't have links to information about those films).

Problems With Logic

Some time ago, I read an essay on common problems that people face with logic, or thought processes. I wish I could remember where I read it (or even all of what it said), but it was interesting, and I will try to reproduce as much of it as I can:

Circular logic: circular logic basically starts with an assumption, and then uses logic to prove it true. Of course, if you eliminate the assumption from the proof, then the proof falls apart. For example, I had a man tell me that he had come to realize that baptism was not essential to salvation, that as long as one believed, that was enough. When I asked him how he reached that conclusion, he tld me that he had noticed that every time someone got baptized in the Book of Acts, that didn't get baptized until after they were saved. I countered that I wasn't aware of any place in the Book of Acts that it ever said anyone was saved. He opened up his Bible, and proceeded to show me several instances where individuals made a statement of faith before they were baptized. So I asked him where did it say that they were saved, and he pointed to the verse where it said they believed. If I start with the assumption that all you have to do to be saved is to believe, and then check the scriptural timeline, substituting the phrase 'they were saved' for each time someone makes a confession of faith, then, yes, people always 'got saved' before they did anything else. On the other hand, can you find any instance where someone believed, but didn't get baptized? Okay, let me stop there; the idea is not to argue baptism, but logic. I'm just trying to point out the flaw in his logic.
"Ugly baby syndrome" is the name given to the situation where a responsible person (business manager, church leader, or other similar position) is directed to solve a problem or find a new way to do something. The come up with an idea that seems feasible, but, as the organization devotes more and more money to it, it becomes more and more obvious that this is not the way to go. Except to the person who came up with it. The term comes from the concept that, 'It may be ugly, but it's my baby, and I'm not abandoning it!' Some of these people will go down with the ship, rather than admit that the ship has a design flaw.
Jumping to conclusions, or arriving at a conclusion with insufficient evidence. I actually remember the example used in whatever it was that I referred to earlier: "My car won't start. Rogue clowns must have stolen my spark plugs." Put that way, it sounds ridiculous, but most of us engage in something similar more often than we would care to admit. Something evil befalls me, and a person across the room laughs. What I don't know is the person next to them just told a joke, and they didn't notice what happened to me. If I follow my gut, I'm probably going to confront them in such a way that their bewildered denial sounds less than convincing. And so it goes. The Navy actually has a regulation on the books that forbids speaking a foreign langauge in the workplace (unless you are acting as an interpreter) because there have been problems in the past where two foreign-born servicemen were joking around in their native language, and some other sailor got his feeling hurt, thinking that they were laughing at him.
Biased research: Deciding ahead of time what you want the results to be, before you do the research, and then ignoring any data that doesn't support your conclusion. Sometimes this isn't even done consciously. Ernst Haeckel was a biologist that published a series of drawings (in 1874) purporting to show similarities between species at various stages of embryonic development. It was his contention that theses similarities showed that there were vestigal remnants of evolutionary ancestors that were apparent at certain stages. More recent technology has allowed us to photograph embryos from these different species and it makes it clear that, at best, Haeckel exaggerated the similarities, and, at least in some cases, it really looks like he falsified his data. Realisically, for what? Darwin's theory certainly doesn't depend on such things. Was it to make a name for himself? I suggest that it may simply be a case of him getting careless with data that didn't support his theory. You can read more about Ernst Haeckel here and here. By the way, I purposely linked to pro-evolution web-sites because I'm trying to talk about logic problems, not evolution.

Unfortunately, that's all I have time for now. Until tomorrow.

Killing Abortionists

James Kopp has just received a second life sentence for killing Dr. Barnett Slepian 9 years ago. He was already serving a life sentence for killing another abortionist. You can read about it here.
These people puzzle the snot out of me. How can you be pro-life and then be out there committing murder? Kopp claims that he didn't intend to kill Slepian, that actually Slepian was killed by a ricochet, but that several children are alive today because of Slepian's death. So, basically, I didn't mean to kill him, but I sure am glad he's dead. Is he saying that he isn't so much a murderer as just a man with really bad judgment? I was always taught that using a firearm outside of an approved shooting range was using deadly force, even if you weren't actually pointing your weapon at someone. Part of that is the range that firearms have. If you don't hit a target with a solid backing, the bullet could travel a very long way and end up who knows where, potentially killing someone other than the one you were trying to scare. Furthermore, as to his claim that several children are alive now because Slepian is dead, no, more likely, several women had to drive farther to get their abortions than if Kopp had obeyed the law.

Some people, I'm told, support Kopp and believe that he was acting on a 'calling.' CNN doesn't mention what religion Kopp claims to be, but usually people like him claim to be Christian. Does this make sense? I'm following the Prince of Peace, who taught me to turn the other cheek, and I'm out there shooting at people. My Bible says Thou shalt not kill, and, to obey every ordinance of man. I understand that some people think that they are above the law, because God's ways are higher than man's ways, but it was God who told us not to kill (can you think of any Biblical prophet that God instructed to break the commandments of God? I can't). The problem with deception is that, when you're deceived, you don't know that you're deceived, because you're deceived.

There was also a poll recently in which, supposedly, 56% of atheists responded that they felt that Christians were more dangerous that Islamic jihadists. Perhaps people like Kopp are why. Maybe they just don't understand that the jihadists consider any non-Muslim to be an infidel (heck, some of them believe that Muslims in a different sect are infidels). When I first heard that statistic, I was prepared to say that I haven't heard of any Christians flying airplanes into buildings, but, some of these nutbags are just about as bad. I think some Christian fundamentalists would like to see the practice of women wearing burkas to become widespread in this country. Let's be honest with ourselves, though, if the only way that you can maintain is if you have no temptations, then you're really not a very good Christian anyway, now are you?

Staten Island Landfill

I was just reading about a new flavor of ice cream called, 'Staten Island Landfill' from a company called '5 Boroughs Ice Cream.' It's vanilla ice cream with brownie chunks, cherries, heart-shaped chocolate crunchies, and fudge. Sounds delicious to me. Almost makes me wish I lived in NYC. I understand that borough president James Molinaro is calling for a boycott of the new flavor. Of course, the proposed boycott has gotten the flavor (and the company) a whole lot more publicity. I don't live anywhere near Staten Island, but I have now heard about this ice cream, and, quite frankly, I want to try it. I can understand that the landfill isn't exactly the biggest source of pride in Staten Island (although it may very well be the biggest anything else), but, you know, if you can't laugh off stuff like that, then maybe you should see about relocating the landfill to one of the other boroughs, or outside the city entirely. Maybe even build a plasma converter.
Have you heard about these things? You can read about them here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/plasma-converter.htm
Anyway, I was also reading about Michael Moore's trip to Cuba. Apparently he took three Americans into Cuba to film a documentary about Cuban health care. He requested permission from the State Department, and received no response, and so just went. I don't know if he had a timetable as far as working with the Cuban government... To be honest, that seems likely. I have a hard time believing that he would just blatantly break US laws without some form of justification. Would the State Department have given him permission, had he waited? Hmm. The administration that was the subject of at least one of his previous films gets to decide whether or not to let him pursue this. On the other hand, even if the administration were inclined to grant his request, I'm sure that there are a lot of considerations (one of which would be his safety. Hmm. Maybe this administration would be inclined to let him go). Did he submit his request in a timely enough manner to get through just the normal bureaucratic red tape? I don't know. It's easy to see that going either way. Now Mr. Moore finds himself in the position that he may end up going to jail over this. Of course, if he does, it means that much more publicity for his film. That's definitely not what the current administration wants. I suspect that Michael Moore is more than willing to play the martyr, if it means more people watch his movie. On the other hand, though, now that said movie is available on the Internet, a lot of people will probably watch it for free. It should be interesting to see Moore's response: On the one hand, he wants people to see his movie--he wants people to be aware of the problem that he went to Cuba to document; on the other hand, he would like to make some money on the film, at least to recoup his expenditures...
It's kind of the same thing though, on the one hand, a new ice cream flavor is getting lots of publicity because somebody doesn't like the name; the other is a movie may be getting a lot of publicity because the filmmaker broke a law to film it. The difference, in my mind, at least, is that the ice cream company is right. Michael Moore clearly broke the law, but, the State Department may be wrong, also. I predict that Michael Moore will not go to jail, simply because the current administration does want him to become a 'martyr' (and maybe because they don't want to have to answer questions about why Moore never got any response from the State Department about his proposed trip). Now, I could (and probably will, someday) get into whether the law should exist. I'm not sure that it should (or that it shouldn't), but, then, if it shouldn't, does that mean that Michael Moore was engaging in civil disobedience? I don't want to think about that. That would make my head hurt.

Does God Really Answer Prayer?

The big news this past week was the death of Ruth Bell Graham, wife of Billy Graham. I just recently heard an interesting quote from her. She said, “If God answered every prayer of mine, I would have married the wrong man seven times.”

I was taught in Sunday School as a kid that God answers every prayer, but sometimes the answer is 'No' and sometimes the answer is 'Not now.' We colored a picture of a traffic light with the green light marked 'Yes,' the yellow light marked 'Wait,' and the red light marked 'No.'

In the movie, "Bruce Almighty," Jim Carey's character is given God's powers for part of Buffalo. This includes hearing and answering prayers. Bruce finds out quickly that there are a lot of people in Buffalo that pray an awful lot. Still being somewhat self-centered, he worries that "this is going to suck up my whole life!" so he simply answers everyone's prayers, "Yes." Soon there is rioting in the streets. And with good reason. (By the way, I avoided seeing this movie for a long time, because it seems to me that Hollywood makes enough fun of religion, and because I think Jim Carey has a bad tendency to go way overboard with his characters.)

There is a quote going around something to the effect that you must be gullible if you believe that God answers prayers, even though he only answers .001% of yours, and the rest of the time, 'it just wasn't God's will.' I think that it's easy to scoff at such things, when you are predominantly looking at quantity, rather than quality. I will admit that most of my prayers are of the "Please let that light stay green until I get through it" variety. And most of those, the answer is a resounding, "No!" Big deal. It's easy for me to look at situations like that and say, "Well, that just wasn't God's will." It's harder, when a loved one is severely sick or injured and one prays for a healing, and the person dies anyway. At the same time, this world would be really overcrowded if God only let people die that nobody was praying for. On the other hand, it's really exhilarating when the doctors have done all they can do, and the church joins together and prays, and that person walks out of the hospital. Granted, that's generally not what happens, but when it does happen, it becomes hard to deny that God answers prayer.

We have a man in our church who, several years ago, had heart problems. His doctor got him on the list for a heart transplant, but it looked like it was going to take awhile. The doctor tried not to talk about what his chances were, but it was pretty clear that the doctor didn't think that he was going to live long enough to get a new heart. We prayed for him as a church. After his next examination, the doctor took him off the transplant list. He said his heart was fine.

I've been healed, myself. I don't really talk about it, because it's kind of silly. To be honest, I was being kind of stupid. But, anyway, here it is: I grew up a very nervous individual. I learned to direct my nervous energy into things that were socially acceptable; things that most people wouldn't find annoying. One of my nervous habits was chewing on the insides of my cheeks. By the time I finally made my personal commitment to follow Christ, I had a line of scar tissue down the insides of both cheeks. One day, I accidentally took a chuck out of my right cheek, about the size of a dime. I suppose I could have gone to the doctor about it, but I was afraid that He was going to pull together the edges of the hole and stitch it up, leaving me with a deformed cheek. Of course, I knew I couldn't just put a band-aid on it. So I prayed about it. The next morning, I woke up with a mouth full of blood. So I prayed some more. And the next morning, I woke up with a mouthful of blood. So I prayed even more. And the next morning, I woke up feeling that something was different. It didn't register right away, but there was no blood in my mouth. When I did realize that I wasn't bleeding, I checked the inside of my right cheek. It was perfectly smooth. Not only was there no hole, but all the scar tissue was gone. I actually tried to convince myself, at the time, that I had not been healed, that I had just healed. After all, it's been three days. But there was a hole there the night before, and it wasn't there that morning. And that wouldn't explain the scar tissue being gone either. It occurred to me that the scar tissue has had years to heal, so I checked my left cheek. The scar tissue was still there on that side of my mouth. Now I know I've been healed. I prayed a little bit more, just telling God that I felt stupid with scar tissue on one side of my mouth. A few days later, the scar tissue on the left side of my mouth disappeared.

So, okay, it's kind of a silly story, it's not nearly as impressive as the guy waiting for the heart transplant that suddenly didn't need it anymore, but this happened to me. How can I doubt that God answers prayer (even if the answer to most of my prayers is "No.")?

Fathers

It occurred to me that Sunday is Father's Day, so I ought to blog about fathers. I had started another blog that I had intended to post today, but that can wait until next week.

I recently saw 'The Pursuit of Happyness' starring Will Smith as Chris Gardner. I thought it was a very good movie. If you haven't seen it, then let me just say that Chris Gardner is a man that wants to be sure, above all else, that he continues to be a part of his son's life. It struck me the there was a particularly interesting contrast between that role and Will Smith's first acting role, playing a young man without a father in 'Fresh Prince of Bel Air.'

The TV series storyline was basically that he had been, up until the first episode of the show, being raised by a single mother in Philadelphia. His mother's sister had married a lawyer, who had managed to do well, and Uncle Phil now has a house in Bel Air. Mom gets worried that he may not live through his teen years in their neighborhood, but her sister's family has lots of room in a very safe neighborhood. One of the most memorable episodes in the series was one where his father, Lou (played by Ben Vereen), actually did come to see him. When Lou shows up at the house, Uncle Phil (played by James Avery), says simply, "Hello, Lou." James Avery is such a great actor, though, with those two words he conveys the message: "Look, I'm not happy to see you. Normally, I wouldn't even let you into my house. For Will's sake, I'll make an exception. But I'm going to be watching you." The final scene of the show, Lou has spent a lot of time with Will, and ends up disappointing him, and then just leaves. Will turns to Uncle Phil, who has basically been his father for the last four years, and starts explaining why he doesn't need his father. "Ive had fourteen great years without him. I've had fourteen great birthdays without him." etc. Uncle Phil just stands there, agreeing with him, but waiting, like those of us in the audience, for the dam to burst. When it does, Will Smith's line is, "Why don't he want me?" and he collapses into Uncle Phil's arms. I wept when I saw that. To be honest, I'm not sure why. Maybe because I know that things like that really happen, it isn't just TV; maybe because my own father has always been there for me.

I am sometimes surprised when I do something, or say something, and I see or hear my father in it. Obviously, he has been an enormous influence on my life. I can't imagine what it would be like to not have that influence. Sometimes I'm disappointed with myself because I get into a situation, and, afterwords, realize that my dad would have handled it better. I remember when I was about ten, for some reason my father and I went to a special church service. I don't remember what the occasion was, or why the rest of the family didn't come, but there we were. It was a hot day, and the air conditioning wasn't working. The pastor got into his sermon, I don't know, fifteen or twenty minutes, and one of the altar boys let out a sigh and collapsed on the floor. He hit his head on the foot of the altar. I remember thinking that somebody should check on him. As I was thinking that, I became aware that the seat beside me was now empty. As I was thinking that it might not be a good idea to move the altar boy because he might have a spinal injury, my father scooped him up and carried him out the side door to the church office. After some time had passed, my father quietly slipped back into church and sat back down. The sermon had not been concluded yet. Afterwards, I found out that he had called the paramedics, they had come, checked the boy out (I say boy, he was older than I was), put a band-aid on him, and left again (he broke open his forehead when he hit the altar, but other than that, he was fine). I was impressed that Dad knew just what to do. There were at least twenty other men in the service, none of them moved. I suppose it's possible that the minister gave a signal, that I missed, for my father to take care of it and everyone else stay put; I don't know. What I feel, is that if I were placed in a new situation, something I've never encountered before, I would almost certainly react like the other men, and not like my father. Out of all the things that I have inherited from my father, I really wish I had inherited the ability to confidently make the right decision in a strange situation.

Let me just repeat a couple of stories that my father has been known to tell:

One is that a farmer had his tractor break down just as he was about to start planting. He had way too much land, and seed, to do the whole farm by hand, but getting the tractor repaired is going to take some time, and there's only so much time to plant. If he doesn't get the seeds in the ground soon, they won't have time to grow before harvest. He doesn't have the money for a new tractor. In the process of the back and forth, trying to work something out, he notices that his neighbor (who is also a farmer), has finished planting and is putting his tractor away. So he goes to his neighbor, hat in hand, explains the situation, and asks to borrow the tractor. The neighbor considers this, scratches his head, and then says, "Well, I'd like to help you out, but, my rope's broken." The first farmer, crestfallen, turns to go, and then stops, and says, "Waitaminute! What does your rope have to do with you loaning me your tractor?" "Well, nothin', really, I guess, but when you don't want to do something, any excuse is good enough."

(Personally, I would think that, under those circumstances, a farmer would loan his tractor, even to another farmer that he didn't like.)

The second story deals with a little bird that wondered why it is that birds are supposed to fly south for the winter. None of the other birds knew, it was just something that they did. He decided that he would stay 'north' one winter and find out. So September comes, and all the others birds fly south. October comes, and it starts to get a little chilly. November comes, and it's getting worse. December comes, and he decides he's had enough. Flying south, though, he encounters a violent snowstorm. He can't get over it, it's too big to go around it, and before you know it, the poor guy's wings are frozen. He manages a survivable landing in a field in southern Indiana. As he's lying there, he thinks to himself that he's going to die. Then he looks up, and sees a horse coming towards him. It doesn't look like the horse has noticed him. He cringes, thinking that he's going to get stomped, but one hoof hits close by, then another, then another, and another; and the horse stops. Now he is almost directly between the horse's two rear hooves. The horse's tail goes up in the air, and, in much the same way that this little bird has made deposits on new cars all over North America, he finds himself on the receiving end. Now he's laying there, thinking to himself, "What a horrible way to die! I would have been better off staying where I was--at least then I'd just freeze to death; I wouldn't die like this." But as he lay there, he realized that the he was warming up; that he had a 'blanket' that was essentially the same temperature as the horse. As soon as he had thawed out, he pulled himself out from under the horse's gift, climbed on top of it, and began to sing. The farmer's cat, however, heard him singing, snuck up behind him, and ate him. There are a number of morals to this story: 1) Not everybody who dumps on you is your enemy. 2) Not everyone who gets you out of a mess is your friend. 3) Just because you're on top of the heap, it doesn't mean you have to sing about it. 4) If you know that you're supposed to do something, then do it. You don't have to understand why you're supposed to do it, just do it.

Of course, some people would rather just make excuses.

Blogging

I have been advised that I should 'tighten up' my blog. I should state (somewhere) just exactly what my blog is about. I should set a schedule when I will post new material to my blog. I should have information about me on my blog, so that people can tell if I am someone that they can relate to or not. I should decide who I want my readers to be and I should direct my posts to them.

Things that make you go, "Hmmm."

I really don't feel the need to state what my blog is about--really, I did that in one of my first posts, it is about whatever I happen to feel a need to talk about whenever it is that I post. I'm tempted to say that it's kind of like the 'Seinfeld' show, but then some idiot would think that my blog is about 'Seinfeld' and then he would get very disappointed when he finds only this one reference to that show.

When do I post? The plan is, every weekday. If you look back, you will find that I have missed a few deadlines (deadlines amuse me). I think one week I only posted once out of the five workdays (actually, that was Memorial Day week, so there were only 4 work days). I've been getting better, though; I think blogging is becoming more a part of my routine.

I don't think that I can write a terse summary of myself and have it convey who I am. Remember that old bumper sticker song? The verses were just recitations of clever bumper stickers, but the chorus said something about "There's no way you can tell the world exactly who you are, with a two-bit bumper sticker on your car." I'm probably misremembering that somewhat, but you get the idea. I can't sum up me in one paragraph. I tell you what though, the most important thing to me is God. I am a Christian. That doesn't mean that every day I'm going to go on some religious tirade. Look back through my past blogs. I did post a Bible study once, and I have made references to scripture a couple of other times, but I'm not looking to shove anything down anyone's throat. It's available if you're interested. If you're not interested, that's okay. I'm not going to offended if you 'change the channel.' I am a Navy veteran--I served for ten years and got out. Partly because I didn't feel that God's calling on my life included serving any more, but also because I just plain didn't want to go back to sea. I was an Electronics Technician in the Navy, and I am currently employed teaching electronics. Sort of. Maybe someday, I'll tell you more about that. I grew up in Georgia, but I haven't lived in Georgia in a while. I actually grew up in the suburbs of Atlanta, in an upper middle class home. I didn't even see a trailer park until I was a teenager (are there trailer parks in Georgia? Oh, yeah). To be honest, I lived in an upper middle class home, but we lived on a lower middle class income. Now I think that my parents were earning an upper middle class income, but, as a kid, I always thought that we had just managed to squeak into the neighborhood we were in. All the other kids seemed to have nicer stuff than we did. What I didn't understand, then, was the my parents lived through the Great Depression. They lived within their means. In fact, we lived well within their means--they kept putting money aside just in case. They live a very comfortable life, now. My parents were, I think, the oldest parents in our neighborhood. The rest of the families lived beyond their means, as is now common. I don't think any of them are nearly so comfortable, now. I wish that I had learned more from them about financial planning. Really, though, if you want to know who I am, just keep reading this blog. It's bound to come out, some time.

Who am I blogging for? Let's be honest. I'm blogging for me. If you happen to be like me, you may appreciate some or all of what I post on my blogs, but I'm a pretty unique individual, so there may not be too many people enough like me to appreciate my posts. That's okay. Alternatively, you may be completely different from me and want to read my posts just so that you can form arguments. That's okay, too. Evidently there aren't too many of you, either, because I have yet to receive even one negative comment. Not that I've received very many positive comments either...

Also, I signed up for Google's AdSense, and in their terms of service, they say that I can't have drugs or paraphernalia on my site (not even tobacco products). I don't really have a problem with that, I don't use tobacco or illegal drugs, but I have talked about tobacco, drugs, and paraphernalia. I don't think that's what they mean, though. If that is what they mean, then I will probably get a nasty-gram from them soon. It's not like I have pictures, or am promoting the use, of drugs, you know?

Animal Testing

I was just reading about the animal testing for stem-cell research in fighting Parkinson's disease. It shows a lot of promise, but it got me thinking about certain groups that oppose animal testing, and their logic (or lack thereof).

One of the big arguments used against animal testing is that Thalidomide was not found to cause birth defects during the testing process. That is completely true. Usually, the argument continues that the reason Thalidomide was approved by the FDA was because the animals used in testing were so dissimilar to humans that the animal testing indicated that Thalidomide was perfectly safe when used to prevent 'morning sickness.' Let's examine that claim.

First of all, Thalidomide was not developed as a 'morning sickness' pill. It was developed as a sleeping aid. It was tested as such.

Secondly, as far as the animals being too dissimilar to human beings, after the animal testing is completed, there is at least one round of 'human trials' before a drug can be brought to market (in both the US and the UK). So why didn't the UK human trials result in birth defects? Because they never tested it on pregnant women (or animals, for that matter). Some women who were prescribed Thalidomide became pregnant and continued to take the drug (after all, they didn't know that they shouldn't). Part of the problem was that Thalidomide really was an effective 'morning sickness' pill. When women found out that they were pregnant, and hadn't suffered from the usual nausea in the AM, word got around. Now, I don't pretend to know what British law says on the subject, but in the US, if a product has been tested safe, and then it is determined that said product is also effective in treating other ailments, it does not have to go through clinical trials again. Most of the time, this is reasonable. Minoxidil was a blood-pressure medicine that was also found to be effective, in some instances, for treating male-pattern baldness. In the case of Thalidomide, this was not reasonable. As it turns out, the pill cured 'morning sickness' by radically altering the developmental cycle of the fetus--causing birth defects. After word got around that these birth defects were happening, the researchers went back and test it on pregnant animals. Guess what happened? Birth defects.

Thirdly, The FDA did not approve it. There were two reasons for this: 1) the clinical trials indicated that although the drug caused no side effects in animals, it also did not make them sleepy (the fact that a drug was being marketed that had undergone animal testing but did not have the desired effect on animals raised a red flag), and 2) it had not been tested on pregnant subjects . The UK National Health Services approved it, as did the equivalent agencies in several other European countries.

For what it's worth, it was not actually FDA policy at the time to insist on pharmaceutical testing using pregnant subjects, but the doctor that was assigned to the Thalidomide case, Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, had studied Quinine in the 40's (Quinine is a drug used to treat malaria that has also been known to cause birth defects when taken by pregnant women). FDA policy changed on October 10th, 1962, when President Kennedy signed a bill extending the powers of the FDA and requiring more rigorous testing--thanks to Thalidomide.

I believe in animal testing--at least, as a precursor to human testing. I do think that sometimes lab animals get mistreated, and I think that is wrong. I mean, think about it, if you're testing to see if Rhyzomapan is safe, but then you're mistreating the lab animals, and they all die; is Rhyzomapan the problem, or is it just the way the animals are being treated?

(In)justice

Yesterday I promised to talk about Tommy Chong's jail sentence for misdemeanor possession. I think by now everyone who cares knows the story, but here it is anyway:

Belay that, I just did a little research to make sure I had my facts straight, and I wasn't even close. What I had heard was that TC had gotten busted for misdemeanor possession, along with several other people. All of then were first-offenders, but that he was the only one who got jail time. That's what I had heard. In actuality, he could have gotten busted for possession, but they didn't bother. They busted him for selling paraphernalia through an Internet/mail order business. Out of all the people that got busted--several different companies went down that day--he got the longest jail sentence. Some have said he got the only jail sentence, but, no, he just got the longest.
Now, what I was going to say, was that if several different people get busted for the same crime, but one of them has made a lot of money making fun of that exact crime--in fact, Cheech & Chong's records and movies make it pretty clear that they were familiar with drugs--then it's fairly obvious that the judge is looking at it from the standpoint that, "This may be the first time he's gotten caught, but clearly, he's done this lots of times before." And he'd be right. But he'd be wrong to impose a sentence based on that. Sentence should be based solely on the evidence presented in court.
Now that I have a better understanding of what really happened, though, well, to be honest, most of that still applies. On February 24th, 2004, the DOJ coordinated two separate sweeps of companies selling paraphernalia across state lines. One of those companies was 'Tommy Chong Glass.' TC wasn't the largest dealer of paraphernalia, he hadn't been in business the longest, but he was the most visible. He was also one of the most co-operative. But again, the visibility made him an easy target to make an example of.
I'm not a fan of marijuana use--I think it's a bad idea. I'm not going to get into that (What? Ramblings is missing an opportunity to go down a rabbit trail? Maybe some other time). Here's the thing, though: What constitutes paraphernalia? When I was in the Navy, a coworker of mine got busted because somebody noticed that he had a feather pinned to his hat with an alligator clip (he was in civilian clothes); a "roach clip." They tested the clip for marijuana residue and found none. As far as they could tell, this clip had never been used as a 'roach clip.' Maybe he washed it really good, but I doubt it. I nearly got busted one time because I picked up some trash in a parking lot (being the civic minded person that I am), and included in that trash was an empty pack of rolling papers. I could almost understand if I had actual rolling papers in my possession... Anyway, both of these items, alligator clips and rolling papers, have legitimate and legal uses that have nothing to do with drugs. The prosecutor in TC's case cited the verdict handed down by the US Supreme Court in the 1994 case of Iowa v. Poster-N-Things, which basically said, what would a reasonable person believe that this product was intended to be used for, given the packaging and the way it is marketed? There's a thought-provoking question. Now Tommy Chong Glass didn't just sell bongs, they also sold a home urinalysis kit--in case you had a job interview with urinalysis and you weren't sure if it had been long enough since your last toke--and a chemical that was supposed to remove traces of THC from urine, and a shampoo allegedly designed to remove marijuana smell from hair (won't pretty much any shampoo do that?). Some of these bongs had pictures of marijuana leaves on them (some had Tommy's picture on them). Okay, I would have to agree, that meets the criteria.
But let me ask you this: If I wanted to smoke tobacco in a pipe that had a picture of a marijuana leaf on it, is that a crime? Apparently it is. Let me rephrase: Should it be a crime? (BTW-small rabbit trail--I don't smoke (not even tobacco), and I don't own a pipe. Just thought I should let you know.) Let's look at this another way: What if I were one of those people that believed marijuana should be legal (I'm not), but I was a law-abiding citizen (in other words, not toking, just protesting the fact that I can't, legally), and I wanted various products with pictures of marijuana leaves on them. Do I have to paint the pictures myself, because it's illegal to sell paraphernalia?
Look, I don't think that marijuana should be legalized. I DON'T. But I don't think justice is served by putting people in jail for selling paraphernalia. Maybe if we had lots of prisons sitting half-empty just waiting for people to be convicted, but in some cases, judges are having to reduce sentences because of prison overcrowding.

Just a quick celebrity checklist (what I think):
Tommy Chong--I don't think he should have gone to jail.
Martha Stewart--I don't think she should have gone to jail.
Jim Bakker--Maybe, but it should have been a minimum security prison.
Paris Hilton--Oh, she definitely belongs in jail.

Look, I could see making TC pay a fine, and confiscating all his paraphernalia (I'm not sure I agree with even arresting him, but, at most, he should have gotten the aforementioned).
I'm not a fan of Martha Stewart, but throwing her in jail did not make me feel safer.
Jim Bakker did a lot of things wrong, but, let's face it, who did he hurt (some would say that he fleeced money from a lot of people--but if they hadn't given their money to him, they would have found someone else to give it to; another televangelist probably)? A lot of people felt better about themselves (and felt closer to God) just by watching PTL on TV. Basically he was running a pyramid scheme with his followers (every time he needed money, he would promote something on his show, and people would send money in, and then when they collected on whatever it was he had promoted, then he would have another promotion to cover the cost of the last promotion), but, unlike your run-of-the-mill con artist, Jim Bakker wasn't going anywhere. He just had to keep coming up with new schemes to finance his old ones. Is that a crime? Yes, I would have to say that it is; eventually the pyramid is going to collapse. But the sight of him being led off in an orange jumpsuit and shackles just seemed so unjust. I'm sure some people thought it was better than he deserved. I think that sort of treatment should be reserved for dangerous criminals--ones convicted of violent crimes.
Paris Hilton--got her license suspended for DUI, then got pulled over again, and convicted for driving on a suspended license. Should we fine her? How much would we have to fine her before she pays attention? Let's be honest about it, if you are I were convicted of the same thing, would we be sentenced to *only* 45 days (with a possible 22 days knocked off for good behavior)? And her excuse? She says her publicist told her that she could still drive to work. To work? I didn't know 'The Simple Life' was back in production. Maybe her next reality series will be... Never mind. I'm being hateful, now. But didn't she just make a big deal about how the dumb blonde act is just an act? I'm sorry, give me some time, I'll cool off, and I'll be more tolerant of her. At least they didn't shackle her.
Notice I didn't talk about the ones that didn't go to jail: O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake. You know what, though? I'm just not even going to get into that.

What are you smoking?

I just read an interesting quote: supposedly, Tommy Chong said that "The GOP-run media is using 'Parisgate' as a distraction." Now, of course, just because somebody said that Tommy Chong actually said that, doesn't mean that he actually did. If he did say it, it doesn't necessarily mean that he believes it--after all, what have you heard from TC lately, other than his jail sentence for misdemeanor possession (more on that later)? It seems to me that he may be just trying to garner some attention. This link supposedly has video of TC spouting the above quote (but I couldn't get the video to play on my computer): http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/11/tommy-chong-the-gop-run-media-is-using-parisgate-as-a-distraction/
Anyway, let's examine the statement. If the GOP controlled the media, do you really think that we would be hearing all the criticism in the media about GOP policies? Wouldn't a GOP-run media tell us about how well the war in Iraq is going? Mission accomplished! we have lost a few soldiers in 'training accidents' in Iraq, but nothing serious. Everything is going well. Isn't that the sort of news you would expect?

I think that the basic mistake is that the media (in general) is pushing a particular political agenda. I think that there are individuals in the media that are, but that the media itself is not. If you look at media coverage of our elected officials, generally, in the early days of a given administration, the media gives whoever favorable coverage, but after they've been in office a few months, the coverage starts to get less and less favorable. The coverage that President Bush has gotten lately makes it seem as if the media is controlled by the DNC, but the coverage that President Clinton got during his last days in office supports the GOP-run media theory. A lot of people seem to think that the purpose of a news agency is to report the news. It's not. The purpose of a news agency is to sell advertising. If a news agency thinks that it can sell more newspapers (and thereby get their ads in the hands of more people) by covering Paris Hilton's escapades than by reporting on the war in Iraq, then that's exactly what they are going to do. If a television news program thinks that more people want to hear about Pat Tillman than Rosie O'Donnell, then that's what they are going to report on. Is that fair? No, not really, but that's the way it is.
I got into a discussion a few years ago with a guy that was of the opinion that John F. Kennedy Jr. should not be entitled to more and better search and rescue operations than ordinary citizens. Well, I don't know too many 'ordinary citizens' who get lost at sea when their private jet goes down, but anyway, okay, basically, I agree, a person lost at sea should expect to be looked for, whether they are rich and/or politically connected or not. But I pointed out to him that just because JFK Jr. got more media coverage, it didn't necessarily follow that he got more rescuers looking for him. I explained that usually when somebody goes missing, the media only really covers it locally, where that individual is known, as opposed to JFK Jr. who was nationally known, and was the son (and namesake) of one of the most popular presidents ever. His search and rescue merits national attention, and he ends up getting a lot more media coverage. His response was that he wasn't talking about the media coverage, he was talking about the efforts being expended to try to find him. So I asked him why he thought more effort was going into the JFK Jr. SAR than for Joe Average. His response: Just look at the media coverage.
I'm sorry, but you are never going to get the whole story from the media coverage, no matter who happens to be controlling the media. Even when you have news agencies with editors and reporters that are legitimately committed to reporting the news without bias, when you get right down to it, the organization has to make a profit. If you can't attract people's attention, you can't sell advertising. And if your news offends the sensibilities of the companies that are buying your ad-space, something's gonna give. Sometimes the truth is a casualty of reporting the news.

What Do You Want?

Well, it is time to blog again, and, once again, I am at a loss for words.

The men's group at church is having a fish-fry tonight. As much as I like fish, and as much fun as it promises to be, I find myself really not wanting to go. I don't really have a reason not to go, I just don't want to. I don't even have a reason why I don't want to. I'm going to go; and hopefully I'll have a good time. Maybe I need to pray about that.

It's funny how sometimes what we want and what we need not only don't match, but are directly opposite of each other. Of course, sometimes what we want and what we want are in direct opposition. For example: I want to be built like Governor Schwarzenegger, but I also want to eat like a pig, and lay on the couch and watch TV all the time. I want to be able, at any time, to give an answer of the hope that I have of eternal life, but I would rather take a nap than study my Bible. You can probably think of lots more examples.

I'm going to do a little travelling down a rabbit trail, now (just letting you know). I know a lot of people who want to be spiritual and want to go to Heaven, but they don't want to study the Bible, or they don't want to do any of the things in the Bible. I've had people tell me, "Oh, as long as you're doing your best. God will let you into Heaven." What I'd like to know is, if doing your best doesn't include reading the Bible, then what makes you think any of the rest of that is any good anyway?

Once I had somebody use the 'car wash analogy' on me. What he said was, basically, "If you owned a car wash, and you had an employee that didn't do things exactly the way you wanted, you wouldn't just fire him, as long as he got the cars clean, right?" That makes sense, in and of itself, but let's look at it a little deeper. First of all, you have a lot of chemicals in a car wash. There's glass cleaner, detergent, bug cleaner, degreaser, tire cleaner, and whitewall cleaner. OSHA (Our Savior Has Arrived) will expect any employee at the car wash to be familiar with the safety precautions and interaction warnings of each of these chemicals. If you, as my employee, don't get to know these things, OSHA can, and probably will, shut down my car wash (I am not letting you get my business shut down--besides, I don't want any of my employees to get hurt). Furthermore, although the main objective is to make sure cars get clean, I, as the owner, want to make sure that ALL the cars going through my wash get clean. If Ray normally brings his car through on Tuesday, but this week got something nasty on his car on Friday, and comes in Saturday for a wash, he's going to expect the exact same treatment that he normally gets on Tuesday. For that reason, I'm going to have a checklist made up to make sure everything that supposed to get done gets done every time a car comes through my wash, no matter which of my employees happen to be working that day. That means that I'm going to have some written material at my car wash: The checklist and the MSDS sheets for the chemicals. Each of my employees is going to know these things. If you haven't read, indeed, are not familiar with, the written guidelines of my car wash, then, no, you are not going to collect a paycheck. Having said that, do you really think that God gave us the written material that he gave us just for it to sit on a shelf and collect dust? Granted, God isn't worried about OSHA shutting Him down, or maintaining ISO 9001 certification, but there are things in there that He wants us to know. Isn't it just common sense that we read up?

I read somewhere that the Bible is still the best selling book in America, but that more Americans have actually read the IKEA catalog. I think they were being facetious, but it's kind of a scary thought, just the same.

Everyday Stupidity

So far this week we have talked about boasting, speculation, and education. What's next?

How about just general stupidity?

Of course, sometimes, general stupidity isn't so much stupidity at all, it's either ignorance, or an ingrained response that doesn't quite fit the current situation.

Case in point: Back in the 70's, I knew a guy that used "The Dry Look" (the advertising was that it was the first hairspray designed for men). Anyway, he normally kept his hairspray on the back of his toilet (on the tank lid). The flush mechanism started acting up, so he moved his hairspray, and took the lid off of the tank. He wasn't able to actually fix the problem, but he did find that it was easier to stop the toilet from 'running' inside the tank than just jiggling the flush handle. You've probably already guessed the next part. Next morning, he's getting ready for work, he sprays his hair, and goes to put the hairspray on the tank lid. That isn't there. Sploosh! That's not the stupid part. As soon as he realized what he had done, he looked around to see if anyone saw him do it. In his bathroom. The guy lives alone. At the same time, that's not really that stupid. Basically, he got double-whammied by two different ingrained responses: 1) He always put his hairspray in the same place, and 2) Whenever he felt he had done something stupid, he looked around to see if anybody saw him.

Another case: My mother worked for awhile for a guy that had a thing about computers. He had one computer in his office, and several typewriters. Anytime he needed a document, he would have one of the secretaries type it up on one of the typewriters, and then he would proof-read and edit it. Once he was satisfied, he would have her type it into the computer, and print it out, so that he could proof-read and edit it again. I'm not sure what his thing with computers was (If it initially goes in wrong, then the incorrect draft might print out later?), but I don't think that it was as much stupidity as just a mistrust of computers.

A friend of mine was working as an RDC for the Navy (RDC stands for Recruit Division Commander and it is the current title for the Navy's version of Drill Instructor), and he had a very quiet, soft-spoken wife. He used to spend long hours trying to instill discipline and professionalism into a group of about 80 Navy Recruits, and then come home to his wife. It generally took him a while to unwind at the end of his workday. Generally it didn't take very long for his wife to say something that he would chew out a recruit for saying (such as "yeah"--and that may sound kind of mickey mouse, but, there are some things that are tolerated, even expected in civilian life that do not fit with a military life-style), and he would respond with, "YEAH? WHAT DO YOU MEAN, 'YEAH?'" Eventually she learned to say, "Don't take that tone with me; I'm not one of your recruits!" Again, for several hours of each day, this would be the correct response. This becomes ingrained. It isn't something that can be simply 'turned off' at the end of the workday (Try untraining Pavlov's dog).

I'd like to tell you about something stupid that I did, but I'm afraid that if I tell you something stupid that I did and then explain it away like I have these other examples, that would create the impression that my whole purpose for this blog was to justify my own stupid act. On the other hand, I don't want to confess to something really stupid and then have it come back and bite me later. That would be really stupid.

Here's one that combines my stupidity with someone else's, and could have caused some severe problems: Years ago, I had a room-mate that liked to set his alarm for 2:00 AM, and then, when it went off, get up and re-set it for 7:30. When I complained to him about that, he said, "Oh, but the most blessed sleep is the sleep you get after the alarm goes off." Soon he started complaining about my alarm going off at 4:00 AM. I'm not sure what he expected me to do about it--quit my job and then not have to set the alarm at all (I'm sure it wouldn't have taken him too long to complain that I wasn't paying my share of the rent). It wasn't like I wanted to get up at 4:00 AM--especially since, a lot of times, I was just getting back to sleep after hearing his alarm when I had to get up. After several bouts of him complaining that I was being 'inconsiderate,' I finally got clever enough to tell him, "Oh, but the most blessed sleep is the sleep you get after the alarm goes off." His response: "I think that only works if it's your own alarm clock." I said, "Exactly." I'm not sure if that just took awhile to sink in, or if he talked to somebody else about the situation, but he continued to set his alarm for 2:00 AM, and complain about my alarm going off at 4, for about three weeks after that, and then, suddenly, no more. During those three weeks, I refused to be dragged into a conversation about it. Whenever he would start in, I just ignored him. Much, much later, it occurred to me that I should have suggested that he set his alarm for 4:00 AM instead of 2, then I could get up and get ready for work when his alarm went off, and he could get his 'blessed' sleep... I bet I could have talked him into that; after all, he really just wanted the psychological effect of being able to turn off his alarm and go back to sleep--I can't believe it really would have made that much difference what time his alarm went off. To be honest, his alarm woke me more effectively than mine did, anyway (although, that may have been a psychological effect also, in that it really made me mad that he woke me up just so he could go back to sleep).

Of course, some of you are saying right now, "Hey, that's cheap! He said he was going to tell us about something stupid that he did, and the story that he told us was mostly about his room-mate's stupidity!" Yeah, you're right. How about that. There was some of my stupidity in there, but, most of it was his. I told you I didn't want to share something that might come back and bite me later... I suppose I could tell you about the time that I got cocky and cut an aluminum rail with a hacksaw after only measuring once (I am a firm believer in the rule, measure twice, cut once); that was pretty stupid, but I got lucky, my first measurement was right.

In any case, this is getting to be a really long post. I'm sure that I could come up with lot's more stupid stories, but I've rambled enough for today. If you really want more stupid stories, I bet you could google, 'stupid stories' and get a bunch.

Education

In yesterday's post about speculation, I included some comments on the educational system. Today I would like to address the system itself. I'm speculating, of course.



First off, I want to talk about school vouchers. Some states have a school voucher program. One of the provisions of the "No Child Left Behind" Act (also known as the "No Teacher Left Standing" Act) is to make school vouchers available to parents with children in under-performing schools (another is to allow that student to simply transfer to another school in the same district that has higher scores). I have two problems with school vouchers:

1) If we make school vouchers available when a school is under performing, where does the money for private school come from (or, for that matter, if we transfer a student from one school to another school, where does the school the student is transferred to get its funding for this new student)? Presumably from the underachieving school. Now, if the underachieving school loses money every time one of its students jumps ship in the attempt to get a better education, granted that is a pretty strong motivator to get the school up to speed, but, let's face it, budget was probably a factor in the school's original problems anyway. If you stop and think about it, the school building still has to be heated in the winter (if anything, losing students will increase the heating bill), the teacher's still have to get paid (how many students have to leave before we can fire a teacher? realistically, about 125 to 180 in a given grade), the principal, the secretary, and the custodian all still have to get paid. So where do we cut corners? It's not like they can sell the unused desk and recover the money from their budget that they lost when the student transferred. On the other hand, we can't very well increase the school's budget every time it fails to meet a benchmark--some of our schools would deliberately fail just to get more money.

2) The courts have ruled that school vouchers cannot be used at schools sponsored by religious organizations (This is cited as separation of church and state, in that tax dollars would be going to a religious institution. Personally, I think that the ruling is itself a violation of church and state in that the state is now discriminating against schools based on religious affiliation, but that's a subject for another time). Let's face it, the vast majority of private schools in this country are religious in nature. I could be mistaken, but I think the Roman Catholic church operates most of the private schools, but other churches, as well as temples, and mosques operate private schools as well. If we eliminate most private schools from the list of ones where vouchers can be used, we have severely limited what schools these parents can take their kids to. Are they really going to get a better education there? In most cases, yes, because the private school wouldn't have survived without vouchers if it didn't do its job well, but what happens if the private school suddenly becomes flooded with students from public schools? How long will it take before somebody figures out that if he throws together a building and hires a few teachers, that he can make a lot of money providing sub-standard education to kids just because the local public school stinks?



So what's wrong with public schools? I think that we have too many students in a class. Of course, to reduce class size would entail hiring more teachers, and, in some cases (most cases?), would require adding classrooms. Both of these cost money. This means more tax dollars. We, in general, fight increases in taxes, not just because it's more money out of my pocket, but also because we frequently see tax dollars get spent wastefully. Could we eliminate waste and hire more teachers? That's an idea, but we're going to have to ping on our elected representatives pretty hard to make that happen.

Also, I think that our schools are poorly designed. Let's face it, most public schools are just plain ugly. What does your child think when you send him off to an ugly, inefficient building to learn? Doesn't that send the message that learning isn't important? (so does paying a professional athlete {and possible steroid user} millions of dollars a year, while paying a teacher starvation wages.) We have a lot of old school buildings in this country. They aren't insulated well, and they don't have efficient heating/air conditioning. The buildings themselves are expensive to maintain, but as long as they stand and can be heated, they aren't likely to be replaced, or even re-insulated.

Another problem that we have is textbooks. Many schools are still using old textbooks, because the money's not in the budget to buy up-to-date textbooks. Even then, textbooks are often written by professional writers, rather than by scientists, historians, mathematicians, biologists, or other professionals. Granted, a writer may be better at getting ideas across, but there are a lot of content issues with textbooks because they aren't compiled by people that actually work with the material that should be in the book. What good is it to get the idea across if the idea is just plain wrong?



Mostly, it comes down to money. How much are we, as a society, willing to spend on the education of our children? We should be willing to prioritize. Which is more important to us: Watching an exciting sporting event, or our child's future? Having a federally funded government project in our home state, or having a child that knows the names and capitals of every state? Maybe what we really need to consider is that what nursing home we wind up in may very well depend on how much money our kids are earning, which in turn depends on how good their jobs are, which, in turn, depends on how good their education was...