Stuff

A couple of points:

First, there's some news about a college student who desecrated a couple of Korans and is now facing felony charges. It seems that this young man snagged two copies of the Koran from Pace University's library and tossed them into toilets. Presumably he attempted to flush them, but they were too bulky. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is understandably upset. The student is being charged with two counts of criminal mischief (both misdemeanors) but with the added zing of New York state's hate crimes law, which makes both charges felonies, since they were crimes directed at a specific religious/cultural group. Personally, hate crimes legislation goes against my grain. It seems to me that if you beat the snot out of me because you don't like my color or you beat the snot out of me to take my wallet, that should be prosecuted the same way. Quite frankly, if you beat me up because you don't like my color, and then take my wallet, it would be pretty hard from the prosecutor to prove that it was a hate crime. I do think that, in America, where we have freedom of religion, that the freedom should include a responsibility to respect other religions. I don't buy into Scientology, but that doesn't give me the right to throw a copy of 'Dianetics' into the toilet--especially if it isn't my copy. Personally, I'm torn. I think this miscreant deserves to be punished, but I also think much more is being made of this than it really is.

Also, the US Senate has done some investigating into Global Warming, specifically, the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Their findings are very different from the findings of former Vice President Gore. Is this because it is convenient? Perhaps. One thing I can't get away from, though, is that we have created an awful lot of pollution (both air and water) and we've cut down a lot of trees. That can't be good for the environment, and we have to live here. Let's suppose for the moment that Global Warming is a grossly exaggerated threat. Maybe that's just the threat we need to do what we need to do, if only for the sake of our children and grandchildren. I'm not anxious for Global Warming to be proven wrong.

The FBI served a search warrant on a Senator from Alaska, to search his house for any evidence that he has been getting favors in exchange for advantageous considerations for Federal projects. In the meantime, the Senate is rewriting the law on 'earmarking,' to make it easier to do exactly what Senator Ted Stevens is accused of. Meanwhile, the House has approved a bill that would make it harder to earmark... I'm guessing neither one of those bills is going to become law anytime soon.

Also, a new study indicates that smoking marijuana is more dangerous than smoking cigarettes (at least, on an ounce-for-ounce basis--actually still less dangerous when you take into consideration that nobody chain-smokes pot). And another study indicates that working near an office printer poses similar risks to smoking (tobacco).

Things I find interesting

I find it interesting that so soon after Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards launched a fundraising effort based on the criticism of his $400 haircut, Senator Hillary Clinton has launched a fundraising effort because a fashion reporter commented (favorably, by the way [at least it seemed favorable to me]) on Senator Clinton's appearance. I almost wonder if she didn't ditch the pantsuit on purpose. Although, to be honest, Senator Clinton has a point. She has taken more flack about how she dresses than any man in the race (except maybe Edwards).

I also wonder if Jenna Bush (scroll about half-way down) shouldn't be campaigning for Mitt Romney, if only because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Of course, following that logic, Michael Vick should be stumping for Romney, as well.

I also wonder about this new documentary that's coming out, "Shooting Michael Moore" (the title refers to shooting with a movie camera, by the way). This movie claims that Michael Moore promised to create jobs for the people of Flint, Michigan (subject of his documentary, 'Roger & Me'), and that Moore owns stock in Pharmaceuticals companies and at least one HMO (odd thing for the maker of 'SiCKO' to buy into, although the claim could be made that, as long as the government protects those interests, one might as well make money off of them, even if one doesn't agree with them), also that Moore owns two mansions, one in Michigan and one in New York (again, odd things for one who claims to stand for the little guy--but, again, poor people could definitely benefit from a wealthy benefactor). Of course, I have learned that documentaries are not always accurate. Still, if the 'Fairness Doctrine' becomes law, will ever public showing of a Michael Moore documentary be followed by a showing of 'Shooting Michael Moore?'

I also find it interesting that the New York Times, which has long advocating getting out of Iraq as soon as possible to avoid throwing good lives after bad, is now publishing the opinion that we might just succeed in Iraq. Who would have thunk it?

I have also heard that the Weekly World News is shutting down. Is there no longer a need for tabloid journalism, or is it just that it's getting so hard to tell the difference?

The Guardian has published an article, supposedly based on a report from Parliament's intelligence and security committee, that says that MI6 was prepared to give the CIA information about Bin Laden's whereabouts in 1998, but didn't because they were unable to get an assurance from then-president Clinton that Bin Laden wouldn't be tortured. And here I thought torture was the brainchild of the current administration...

The Democratic candidates did a 'YouTube' debate--questions were submitted by voters as YouTube videos--earlier this month. They have tried to schedule a similar debate with the Republican candidates in September 17th, but those candidates appear to be wimping out. Romney has cited scheduling... I don't know, maybe the timing is just bad, but this is something that I would like to see every presidential candidate get involved in. Never in my lifetime has Joe Voter been able to ask a question in a presidential debate. It's about time, and nobody should duck it. I'd be willing to dress up as a snowman to toss out a question or two...

Reality

I have been curious as to what the brouhaha was about as far as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ that is being proposed in Congress. The liberals want fairness in media, the conservatives have been complaining for years that the main-stream media is too liberal, but they are fighting the Fairness Doctrine. WIRED magazine reported on the fairness doctrine, and there, in the third paragraph, is the explanation. Conservative talk show hosts exposed the liberals attempt to grant amnesty to the illegal immigrants, even though the main stream media ignored the bill. People found out, and a lot of the members of Congress got a lot of angry communication from their constituents. I wonder what sort of E-mails and letters they would have gotten if they had actually gotten the bill to pass. It strikes me as particularly odd, since George Clooney’s movie, 'Good Night, and Good Luck' quotes the journalist Edward R. Murrow as saying that sometimes you just can’t present both side of an argument and still be fair to the facts. I guess this Congress hasn't seen that movie.
If the 'Fairness Doctrine' becomes law, does that mean that anytime Al Gore's movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth' is played, that the BBC's documentary, 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' will be played also? BTW, out of a sense of fairness (if you'll pardon the expression), I feel I must point out that I found out about the BBC's film because one of the scientists (perhaps the only scientist), Professor Carl Wunsch, has since said that his statements were taken out of context and that he absolutely believes in global warming, but that some things that have been presented as fact by the media are really just theories.
How would the 'Fairness Doctrine' play on the subject of honor killing? Newsweek ran an article on the Juha sisters, who were killed in Gaza, allegedly after having been found guilty of prostitution in a considerably less than formal court. Now there is a man being held for murder, but there isn't much hue and cry about three girls being murdered, because it was an honor killing. It's tradition. Newsweek quotes the man who found the bodies as saying that this is not their religion, but it is tradition. I am not familiar enough with Islam to know, one way or the other. I do know the Jesus talked about men making the law of God of none effect by their tradition...
Really, though, what's on my mind is this: People either think that once you become a Christian, then you become perfect, and you never have any more problems, or people think that Christianity is *obviously* not the true religion, because it has so many imperfect people in it. I guess that's really kind of the same thing, but neither one is true. People tend to be, whether Christian or not, generally those type of people generally referred to as human beings. We make mistakes. When you stop making mistakes, then you are no longer human. Human people have a hard time relating to people that are not human, so God leaves us human after He redeems us. Much as I would like to stop making mistakes...
Let me just throw in 3 quick links: Two for commentaries in Christianity Today magazine: one, and two; and one in Newsweek here.
Somebody told me recently that he had noticed a sign of political correctness creeping into the church: Where we used to talk about 'Saints and Sinners,' we now say 'Churched and Unchurched.' I don't think that it's got anything to do with PC, I think it's just a casting off of naiveté. We used to think that when people became saints, they stopped being sinners. We have come to realize that we still fall short. Apostle Paul wrote extensively about his own struggles with sin in Romans 7.
It has been pointed out that, during the early years of the United States, it was common practice for preachers to preach using passages of Scripture that talked about servants pleasing their masters to justify slavery. In retrospect, that was obviously wrong. On the other hand, who were the abolitionists? Do you know of any abolitionist that wasn't a Christian? We can look to the Spanish Inquisition, and see what a horrible thing that was, done in the Name of Jesus. We can even look to the stories in the Bible. Scripture tells us that David was a man after God's own heart, and yet David had an affair with Bathsheba, and then had her husband, Uriah, killed, to cover it up. Does that sound like something God would do? Of course not; but it shows that even the best and most blessed of us make mistakes. No wonder David said that he was shapen in iniquity.
I've commented before that we, as human beings, are capable of great monstrosities. Even those of us who call ourselves Christians sometimes make horrendous mistakes. I've known people that were 'unchurched' who lived better lives than some of us who are 'churched.' Why does God allow such things? God gave us free will. We are free to do what is good, or what is evil (as melodramatic as that may sound). The nice thing about freedom is that it makes it pretty easy to tell who does the right thing simply because it is the right thing, as opposed to those who do the right thing simply out of a sense of obligation. Unfortunately, it also makes it easy for some people to just not do the right thing at all. If you can come up with a system in which all human beings have free will, and yet no one ever wants to do anything selfish or just plain wrong, I'd love to hear it. Or better yet, explain your idea to God (but try not to talk down to Him too much).

Names

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs who hangs on the wall?

Art.

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs who sits in a firepit?

Ash.

What do you call a woman with no arms or legs who sits on a fence?

Barb (of course, it would have to be a wire fence).

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs who floats in the water?

Bob.

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs who spews oil?

Derrick.

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs who sits in a hole?

Doug.

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs who sits in the trees?

Forrest.

What do you call a woman with no arms or legs who sits on a wall?

Ivy.

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs who sits in the trunk (or boot) of a car?

Jack.

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs who sits in the bathroom all day?

John.

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs who sits in front of the door?

Matt.

What do you call a cow with no legs?

Ground beef.

What do you call a dog with no legs?

It doesn't matter. He's not going to come.

Okay, enough. I met a man with an unusual name today. Of course, I've met people with some very unusual names in the past. I think the most unusual has got to be a guy whose parents were such huge Star Wars fans that they actually had their last name legally changed to Starcruiser.

One of the things that bugged me about Star Wars was the inconsistency in the pronunciation of the name "Leia." Some of the characters pronounced it, "LAY-a" and some "LEE-a." But she introduced herself (via hologram) near the beginning of the movie. Everyone should have pronounced her name the same way she did. Only Darth Vader might be forgiven for mispronouncing her name, since he might have read her name from a report (we don't know how he learned her name). The bottom line is, that each of the actors was given a script, and memorized the lines, and by the time they started filming, some actors had the name firmly planted one way, some had it set the other way. Not to suggest that Star Wars was the only movie that happened in. Lesson learned? Use common names in movie scripts.

Still More Logic Flaws

Another flaw in logic that seems to run rampant is the tendency to believe what one wants to believe to the point of ignoring all evidence to the contrary--or even refusing to examine the evidence for fear of being proved wrong. I think this is related to 'Ugly Baby Syndrome' that I mentioned the first time I blogged about logic flaws, but it isn't quite the same. I do think that is basic human nature--nobody wants to be wrong (myself included). One thing I have noticed, though, the sooner one will at least open up to the possibility that one might be wrong, the easier it is to put the mistake (if it is one) behind oneself and move past it.

Over a year ago, I heard a sermon that mentioned a point that I had never considered: After Abraham took Isaac up the mountain to offer him up as a sacrifice unto God, their relationship was never the same. After service, I had a man want to argue the point with me, saying that in Hebrews chapter 11, verses 18 and 19, it indicates that Abraham had faith that if he did kill Isaac, that God would raise Isaac up from the dead, so, the intended sacrifice shouldn't have affected their relationship at all. I responded that Isaac didn't know that. His position was that it didn't matter if Isaac knew, Abraham did, so it shouldn't have any affect. I tried for some time to get across to him that just because one person knows why they did something potentially harmful to the relationship, it does not by any means show cause for the other person in the relationship to be understanding. He would not (or could not) accept that. This past weekend, the same minister preached a sermon about relationships and mentioned this point again, but went into a lot more detail about how this would have affected Isaac (Unfortunately, my friend that wanted to argue about it wasn't in church Sunday).

This, of course, brings up another logic flaw: at times we will do things, expecting that other people will understand why we do what we do. Other people can't see motivation, they can only see results. If the end result is to push people away, they aren't going to see that the intent was to be helpful. Even in a father-son relationship (or mother-daughter), what is intended as a protective act is often interpreted as a vindictive one.

We have a tendency to develop 'filters' for dealing with other people. If one has been treated badly for a long time, one eventually learns to expect to be treated badly, even by strangers. I know a couple of attractive, twenty-something women that have grown accustomed to the fact that when a young man compliments them on their appearance, that he usually has more on his mind than just being glad to see something that looks nice. As a result, sometimes when people comment on their appearance, they either don't respond at all, or they respond with considerably less enthusiasm than might otherwise be expected. Essentially, they have developed a filter, so that when a man says, 'You look nice today,' even if he means it in the most innocent manner possible, they hear, 'Let's go to bed.' I believe that psychologists would call that filter a defensive mechanism. That happens to be a pretty good one; most guys don't persist long after a reaction like that. There are, of course many other filters, and even types of filters. These all come about from experiences, and the human brain doesn't always notice the subtle differences between the current situation, and the situation that established the filter. There used to be a T-shirt that said, "I know you understand what you think I said, but what you may not realize is that what you heard is not what I meant." I thought that shirt was hilarious at the time, but now that I understand more about filters, it's not nearly as funny--in fact, it makes a lot of sense.

Glass Houses

File this one under 'Figure the Odds.'
It has occurred to me that I should probably have multiple blogs, and blog on a different theme on each blog, but I really don't have the time to keep up with one blog as it is... I admit that I think it would be nice, from the reader's perspective, if you could just check 'Religious Ramblings' for my latest thoughts on Religion, or 'Crime Ramblings' for crime stories, or 'Immigration Ramblings,' etc. Maybe when I retire (in about fifty years).

In the meantime, let me take an entirely different tack: In the movie 'Blazing Saddles' (which some of you have probably never heard of), Gene Wilder plays the town drunk, who also happens to be (or have been) the Waco Kid. The Waco Kid, in his heyday, was so well known for being a fast draw and an accurate shot, that people came from miles away just to see if they could outdraw the Waco Kid. Eventually, the enormity of that caused him to 'crawl into a bottle.'

It occurs to me that we, as human beings, have a certain amount of competitiveness built into us. Sometimes it's healthy, sometimes it's not. When you hear about a gunslinger, and just have to know if you're faster than he is (and that sort of thing really did happen), that's not healthy. If you run across someone who is much better at something that you thought you were good at, and it encourages you to practice, practice, practice, until you are really good at it, too (even if you eventually have to accept the fact that you will never be as good), then that's healthy.

Sometimes people will go out of their way to knock someone down a peg. That's not necessarily healthy--although, sometimes, a person does need to be knocked down a peg. Occasionally, someone will get bad press about something that is totally unrelated to their specialty. You've heard statements like, "Einstein was a genius, but he never learned to tie his shoes." I don't know if that's actually true, but what if it is? Granted, it kind of makes the rest of us feel less inferior, but let's face it, everybody has problems; everybody has lapses in judgment.

I asked the question the other day, "Know any perfect people walking around today?" I didn't then, and I haven't met any since.

Us vs. Them

Some time ago, I blogged about common flaws in logic. It has occurred to me since then that I missed the 'Us vs. Them' mentality. Some of that gets blown out of proportion by the media, for example, the 'Red State vs. Blue State' debate. In all actuality, if you look at the actual voting totals for each state from the last two elections, most states were fairly evenly split, with only a few thousand votes tipping the state one way or the other. It isn't that any one state is predominantly Republican or Democratic, most states have a pretty good mix.

I'm not sure if Ross Perot suffered from an 'Us vs. Them' mentality when he made his famous verbal gaffe in 1992, but it definitely sounded that way, and he certainly created an 'Us vs. Them' mentality in his audience.

To some extent, I think that it's human nature. During Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the 'Us' was the common people or Iraq, and the 'Them' was the ruling party--particularly Saddam himself. Now that Saddam has been deposed and executed, there is a new 'Us and Them'--the Sunnis and the Shiites (and to some extent, the Kurds).

Here in the United States, we have had conflicts between the haves and the have-nots, blacks and whites, Jews and Gentiles... The latest, though, seems to be 'Us' that have been here since before 1950, and 'Them' that have not. There seems to be a particular prejudice against Mexicans and Muslims. Of course, most Americans can't tell a Mexican from a Brazilian, or an Arab from a Jew. Newsweek online has four different articles (one, two, three, and four) dealing with the attitude of Americans towards Muslims. One thing that seems clear is that most Americans didn't really pay much attention to Muslim immigration prior to 9-11; another is that we, as a nation, have become suspicious of all Muslims since. IMHO, the Muslims that have immigrated to this country in recent years have, for the most part, been trying to get away from crazies like Saddam and Osama. There have obviously been a few who came specifically for no good, but those would seem to be the exception, rather than the rule. I have heard some talk that the Muslims living in the United States 'scare' people, simply because (the reasoning goes) they must know who the terrorists are, and warned no one. I think the terrorists are smarter than that. They have a pretty good idea that Muslims that have taken up permanent residence in the US like it here (or, at least, they did before 9-11), and that they are here to get away from terrorism. The terrorists aren't going to take any chances by letting on to the American Muslims what their plans are. There's this about it, though, if American Muslims continue to be treated as though they don't belong, or as if they are somehow responsible for the tragedies that have been perpetrated by others flying the same flag of religion, it will make it much easier for them to empathize with the terrorists, and possibly become embittered enough to join the ranks of Al Qaeda or some other collection of nuts.

Would you want to be held responsible for the Crusades? I think most of us realize now that the motivation behind the Crusades was, at best, questionable (and a lot of us think that 'questionable' gives them too much credit). How about the Spanish Inquisition?

Can't we all just play nice? If you are only willing to be friends with people that you agree with 100% on every single political, religious, and social detail, you are going to have a very small circle of friends (I'm guessing you could count them on your thumbs. On one hand). There are always going to be disagreements. In some cases, you may feel that your friends have let you down. You may feel that your society has set you up. But for any given individual, you should be able to find some point of agreement. Once you find something you agree on, then work from there. It may be that the things that you feel most strongly about are the things that the two of you disagree most strongly about, but if you try, you can probably gain some understanding as to why that individual feels the way they do, and you may even learn to respect their opinion, even if you don't agree with it. Somewhere down the road, we have to work out our differences, or we are all going to make a very long trip in a very crowded handbasket.

Charlie Hustle

I'm not much of a baseball fan, so maybe I'm not the best one to express this opinion, but I wanted to publish my opinion of Pete Rose and the Baseball Hall of Fame.
First of all, let me point out that I think gambling in and of itself is wrong. If you think it's okay, and you want to go out and 'have a good time' with it, okay. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live his life. For Pete Rose, as a player and a manager, to bet on baseball is particularly wrong. I can understand if he felt like he was batting on games that he had no special knowledge, for example, playing for the Reds, but betting on a game played between to other teams that the Reds had not faced yet that season. Does that make sense? If he was betting on a game between two teams that he had recently played against, then he has some knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of each team. This would be something akin to insider trading.
He denied betting on baseball for years, even after the Dowd Report came out in 1989, but, in 2004, finally wrote a book, My Prison Without Bars, admitting his gambling activities. To a lot of people, that was too little, too late. I can somewhat understand that; it would have been different if he had made the admission ten or fifteen years earlier.
He says that he never bet against his team. I tend to believe him, although, to be honest, it's complicated. Obviously, a bookie isn't likely to take a bet from Charlie Hustle against his own team. That would be foolish, unless he already has a bunch of people betting that the Reds would win, and paying off on Rose's bet would actually mean making more money than if he didn't take the bet, and the Reds wound up winning (the theory being, that if Rose is betting against the Reds, either he knows something that the rest of us don't, or he knows that this is a game that the Reds should win, but that he could prevent them from winning and profit off of the long odds). Of course, Rose could have used an intermediary, but I would wonder why this person has never come forward, although, there could be many reasons).
In any case, it seems to me that the Hall of Fame should be celebrating players' accomplishments on the field. What he did off the field is not so important to his Hall of Fame consideration. He's got some pretty impressive stats, even after you compensate for the fact that, as player-manager of the Reds, he occasionally put himself in the game when he really should have given a younger player a chance. He was only the second player in MLB history to break 4,000 career hits (and, yes, that was before he became a player-manager), is the only player in MLB history to play five different positions in All-Star games... I could go on, but let me refer you to Baseball-reference.com; they factor in all of the different statistics of Hall of Fame worthiness, and produce a number. Several players have been inducted into the Hall with lower numbers than Rose's, in fact, the only non-inductee with a higher number than Rose's is Barry Bonds, who is not yet eligible (and, may not ever be). He's made some mistakes, but so have we all. Do you know anybody walking around today that has lived a perfect life? I don't.

Computers, Death, and God

There's a bumper sticker out that says, "We are Microsoft. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." When things like this and this show up in the news on the same day, I really think that bumper sticker is not so funny. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want ads in my applications, even it does allow me to get free Wi-Fi access.
We now have a computer that can play checkers (draughts in the UK) and never lose, and a car with AI.
I'm curious as to how a goddess can sin. Shouldn't their goddess being telling her priests what is, or is not, a sin?
Meanwhile, a couple of thought-provoking things in Newsweek: I See Dead People, and Rabbi Marc Gellman's take on near death experiences. Rabbi Gellman postulates that research into NDE's is dangerous from both a religious and a scientific standpoint. I have read his arguments, and I have to disagree. I don't see any danger to either. Quite frankly, I do think that it is a waste of time and money, but I fail to see the danger. I don't expect that the research will ever find definitive proof one way or the other about the afterlife. That is a matter of faith. There is the idea of placing objects in the ER out of sight of the clinicly dead individual, to see if said individual remembers seeing them in their recollections of their out-of-body experience. Interesting thought, but a good number of NDE'rs don't report seeing the ER from the ceiling, and most of the ones that do are focused on their own bodies, with some attention given to the medical team attempting to revive them. If someone does get revived, and then recalls seeing the number for Dial-A-Prayer written on the top of the ER room light fixture, is that sufficient proof that they had an out-of-body experience? It would be quite a stretch to consider that proof of life after death. I must admit, I have a certain amount of curiosity as to whether the experiences reported by NDE'rs are real, or simply elaborate hallucinations, but, IMHO, it really only matters to the people who went through it.
I do appreciate the fact that Rabbi Gellman states that Genesis tells us why we are here, while Darwin tells us how we are here, and goes on to say that they do not conflict. I'm not entirely sure that they don't conflict, but they can co-exist. The bottom line is that religion tells us that God made the universe, and then made man; science attempts to explain the process by which God did that. I do think that people on both sides tend to get a little too serious. There has been some discussion as to whether the 6 days mentioned in Genesis are literally six twenty-four hour periods of time. It seems to me, that since God didn't create the sun and moon until the fourth day, that isn't talking about a day in the sense of sun-up to sun-rise. Also note that in 2nd Peter 3:8, the scriptures tell us that, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So, am I saying that creation actually took 6,000 years, instead of six days? No, I'm saying that time, with God, is pretty insignificant, even though, with us, it seems vastly important. 6 days, 6,000 years, 6,000 millennia; it's all the same to God. At the same time, the evolutionists insist that mutations happen randomly, but when a random mutation happens to benefit the species, then the mutant strain becomes dominant. If the mutation is not beneficial, then it quietly fades away. They readily admit that most mutation are harmful. That makes evolution a painfully long process, doesn't it? Quite frankly, the odds against humanity evolving by the process of natural selection would seem to be astronomical, and yet, the evolutionists tell us that this must be the case. Look, it's a theory. Granted, right now, that's the most plausible scientific explanation for how we came to be here that anybody has been able to come up with so far, but it is a long way from being considered scientific fact. Don't get all in an uproar if some people challenge its veracity. I can understand that some people are still upset that Galileo Galilei was placed under house arrest by the church for suggesting that the earth orbited the sun (even though I still haven't found any scripture that contradicts him), but that was a long time ago, by people that didn't like having their beliefs challenged. You should be able to empathize with that.

Loosely Related Things

Just a few things that are only loosely related:
First, a municipal building in Pennsylvania burned down, courtesy of the township supervisors. File this one under, "It could never happen to me."
A new life for old cigarette machines, which is good, I think. It's nice that they can be useful again, and possibly even beneficial, not to mention, flame-free.
A man in Washington state has his wages garnished because he buys his cigarettes online. To be honest, I'm not sure what to think of this. I don't like cigarettes, but I think the state's tactics in this case were draconian. On the other hand, they mailed him several notices, and even had a tax collection agent leave a business card at his door; he ignored them all.
Two border patrol officers have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms, ostensibly for shooting a drug smuggler (more here). That seems even more draconian than Washington state, until you read the fine print. It seems that they shot him in the back as he ran away, and then tried to cover it up when they realized that he wasn't armed. Even with that understanding, though, the prison sentences they received do seem harsh. A lot of people are upset that the drug smuggler was granted immunity from prosecution to testify against the border patrol officers, but, let's face it, once Ramos and Compean tampered with the evidence to cover up the fact that they shot Aldrete, they pretty much flushed the case against him, anyway.

Animals and Immigration

Several animal stories in the news today: A Joey (baby kangaroo), a panda, a snake, a serval (wildcat), and a monkey. It seems odd to me that so many animals hit the news on the same day.
The town where I live voted on a proposition to have local law enforcement apply to be given special federal deportation authority. Some people are very upset about it, some think it's overdue. New Haven, Connecticut has decided to go the other way, citing public safety as a concern. I can somewhat understand that. Just because a person is in this country illegally, doesn't mean that they should be taken advantage of--enslaved or robbed, with the knowledge and the understanding that these people won't go to the police under fear of deportation. This is a valid concern. I still think that the police have a responsibility to enforce existing laws--including immigration laws. I don't think that enforcing immigration laws should be the number one priority of any local law enforcement agency--violent crime should be. If the victim of a violent crime should happen to be an illegal alien, then the police officer should make every effort to arrest both parties, but it would be somewhat understandable if the victim 'got away,' although that may make it difficult to prosecute the violent offender without the victim to testify against him. In other words, illegal immigrants are criminals, just by virtue of being here illegally, but, the criminals that victimize them need to be taken care of. Even if you care nothing about the immigrants (and you should care about them, they are still people), keep in mind that murderers and muggers will find somebody else to prey on if the illegal aliens are deported.
Some of the objections raised to using local law enforcement supplement ICE is that our local police have been accused of racial profiling in the past, and this may simply give them another tool to harass Latinos. I hope that is not the case, but, to be honest, it seems to me that some of our police have shown some bias against Latinos. From what I understand, the town's position is that if someone is accused of a felony, and there is reason to suspect that they are here illegally, then their status will be checked, and, if it is deemed appropriate, then they will be deported. The Mayor has promised that we are not going to check status of traffic violators. I would assume that to mean that people reporting crimes are not in danger of being deported either.

Evolution

A couple of things hit the news regarding evolution that struck me as odd. First: Wired magazine has published a political commentary on "The Evolutionary Brain Glitch that Makes Terrorism Fail." It's an interesting read, but I have to say that I though terrorism failed because it's based on faulty logic to start with--not because the victims engage in faulty logic. The idea behind terrorism is that if I can scare you, you will give me what I want. That works on the playground (usually), but not so much in adult life. It's much easier to bully one kid, than to bully large numbers of adults. If something bad happens to someone I know, my natural reaction is to go after the person that I blame for what happened. I think most people feel the same way. If you kill my sister, you better watch your back. If you kill people indiscriminately, then I can't help but think that the next time, it might be my sister. You didn't know it wasn't my sister. Heck, you didn't even know that it wasn't your sister. You expect me to give you something for that? You think you've created a platform for negotiation? Let me assure you, you have not. If you had threatened me, personally, with bodily harm, that might have gotten you somewhere, but to attack large groups of us, no, that dog just don't hunt. The commentary also makes reference to something known as 'correspondent inference theory,' which holds that people tend to make assumptions about motivation based on results. For example, if we go to war with an oil-producing country like Iraq, and gas prices go up, then clearly, our government's purpose in invading Iraq was to force gas prices to go up. Okay, nobody's quite buying that, but a lot of people believe that the government's purpose was to affect gas prices, it just didn't work out the way they had planned (our government is not known for being good at planning things). Second: The BBC has published an article about an observed evolutionary change in the tropical blue moon butterfly. It seems that a bacteria called Wolbachia that is carried by female butterflies, but is deadly to males. If the mother passes the bacteria to her eggs, then the males die before they even hatch. Six years ago, the males numbered about 1% of the blue moon butterfly population, now they number about 40%. Apparently the butterflies have developed a suppressor gene which controls the parasitical bacteria. Gregory Hurst, a University College researcher stated, "We usually think of natural selection as acting slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years. But the example in this study happened in the blink of an eye, in terms of evolutionary time, and is a remarkable thing to get to observe." Several thing occur to me: If the gene existed before, but only in a small percentage of the population, then once the parasite killed off all of the males that didn't have the gene, only the ones that had the gene would be left to repopulate the species. The gene would have represented no evolutionary advantage until the bacteria became widespread. Perhaps this change did not happen so much 'in the blink of an eye' as first thought.
Also, if evolution can happen that quickly, how long will it take us, as a species, to adjust to the new environmental conditions that result from global warming?

Internet Happenings

There's some interesting stuff happening. Guy Kawasaki (CEO of Garage Technology Ventures, a venture capital firm, and regular blogger, whose mantra is 'empower entrepreneurs) has interviewed Jeffrey Pfeffer, author of the book "What Were They Thinking?" which explores corporate conventional wisdom (or lack thereof). The interview is entitled, "Ten Questions with Jeffrey Pfeffer" but there are actually 16 questions.

The Seattle Times has published an editorial in which Whole Foods CEO John Mackey is pilloried for maintaining an anonymous blog on Yahoo Finance for about eight years. I read the entire editorial, and I'm not convinced that Mackey did anything wrong. I'm not entirely convinced that he was right, either. The editorial's argument seems to be summed up best by one line, "You have to assume, whenever and wherever you speak, that people believe you are speaking as the company's CEO and for the company." My response would be, unless, of course, you are posting to an anonymous blog. Personally, I think that's one of the advantages of blogs. Somebody like Mackey can post his opinion (or someone else's opinion) and get an honest reaction to it. Not a reaction to it as in, this is John Mackey's opinion, just a reaction to this guy, that as far as any of us knew, was just a regular guy.

Internet Radio stations have to adhere to a new set of licensing fees starting Sunday. Several have already announced that they are closing up. This decision was pushed by SoundExchange, an organization created by the recording industry. What were they thinking? I believe that this is what Jeffrey Pfeffer would refer to as 'ignoring feedback effects.' Commercial radio stations play music, and sell advertising. The ad revenue pays the costs of broadcasting the music, and people get to listen to what are essentially samples of the music industry's product. (Generally only one or two songs of a given album are actually played on the air). Most commercial radio stations play music that they already have a good idea that their listeners are going to want to hear, so that their ratings stay high, and they can continue to charge high rates for advertising. It's kind of a symbiotic relationship. Internet radio, on the other hand, generally doesn't create anywhere near the advertising revenue (if they advertise at all), and frequently direct their netcasts to more of a niche market. That is, if you have a website, and there's a handful of bands that you really like, but they aren't popular enough to be played on Commercial Radio, guess what? If you make that music available on your website, there are other people out there with a similar taste in music, that will come to your site and listen. Get enough hits on your website, and advertisers will pay you to place their ads on your website. Get enough hits, you might even generate enough ad revenue to pay your domain fees. In the meantime, some little known band becomes known through your website, and people start buying their CD's. Except, that now you have to pay exorbitant licensing fees, because the recording industry is more concerned with making money off of the Internet than making money selling CD's. Make sense? Not at all.

Something totally unrelated: Congratulations to Clayton County Georgia Police Chief Jeff Turner for doing what every police chief should be doing. I understand that Clayton County has a Police Department and a Sheriff's Department, and the Sheriff has been trying to absorb the Police Department. I would endorse that, if Jeff Turner is elected sheriff.

Parables

In the gospels, Jesus did a lot of teaching in parables. This was a way to get a point across by relating to people, talking about things that they already knew, but relating that to something that they didn't. One of the things that I have heard people say about parables is that, since they don't represent things that actually happened, they aren't actual doctrine; you can ignore them with impunity. That position doesn't make sense to me. Jesus, God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16), was teaching His followers through parables (Mark 4:2). Now He was able to create characters and situations to convey an idea. If anything, we should probably pay more attention to the parables than to all the stories in the Bible (not to suggest that it would be okay to ignore the stories, it wouldn't be).
In Luke 14:15-24, Jesus taught something which has become known as, 'The Parable of the Great Supper." In this story, a man planned a great supper, but his chosen guests started making excuses, so he sent his servants to look for other people to eat this dinner, so that, at least the food wouldn't go to waste. They went out and just found anybody they could, even carrying in crippled people to partake of the feast. Now, the obvious interpretation of this parable is that, since the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah, God opened the door to the Goyim, the Gentiles, to attain salvation. Some people have gone as far as to say that we are the new chosen people. I don't think that's the case; I think the parable is somewhat broader than that. Keep in mind that Apostle Paul wrote, in Romans 11, that we Gentiles have no right to boast against the Jews, because, just as Paul himself, being a Jew, had rejected Jesus but had repented and been saved, so too, other Jews could be brought to the knowledge of Christ. They were taken out because of unbelief, but, if they, God's first choice, were to accept Jesus as their Messiah, they would be saved. Perhaps Antisemitism has some of it's roots in jealousy--they were God's preference, and, even now, God would prefer them over us. Of course, the other excuse is that 'they killed our Lord and Saviour...' Please. Get over it. It was His plan to die for our sins in the first place. In any case, back to the parable, anybody that rejects Jesus, misses out on the reward--be they Jew or Gentile. Fortunately for us, anybody can repent, and get back in God's grace--be they Jew or Gentile. Remember Romans 1:16?

Commenting on the News

Just a few comments on recent news:

Isn't your porn star name supposed to be your pet's name and the name of the street you grew up on? (If I find out somebody's making porn flicks using the name, Tigger Keswick, can I sue them?)

Where's the beef? Who cut the cheese?

So, in Utah, a brown lawn is a crime, but in Georgia, a green lawn is a crime?

You know, there are some things I don't want in my mouth--even if it is a lollypop...

Now, if only we could convince our government that Karaoke bars were a threat to security.

I've been using the wrong public restrooms. In the wrong country.

When do we get the three shells?

D'oh! I missed this movie when I blogged about movies the other day.

When do we get the three shells?

Somebody's seen 'Jurassic Park' too many times...

Does this mean we're going to stop fixing the blame and start fixing the problem?

Speaking of problems...

More Problems in Logic

Some years ago I attended a political rally. A number of us in the community had gathered to oust a local politician. This man had made a comment, in a council meeting, regarding a bid that a contractor had made, trying to get a government contract. To be honest, I don't know exactly what the man said (I can guess), but I don't like the fact that he said it. The local newspaper printed that he called the contractor a "black baptist preacher." They later printed a retraction, based on the politician's claim that he did not say "black" or "preacher" (I suspect that what he really said probably had something to do with the word that the NAACP buried in Detroit yesterday. About time). I like the irony that the man that we elected to replace him was, in fact, an ordained, African-American baptist minister. The rally was emceed by another African-American minister, who expressed his surprise at the racial makeup of people attending the rally. He had apparently expected a crowd of all the same color. It was not. Almost half the people attending the rally were white, and outraged that this other white man thought he could make such a statement and get away with it. He said something to the effect that, I expect people who look like me to think like me. There is a certain amount of logic to that, but it really doesn't hold true.

I admit that it seems that it's generally easier to find common ground, and common life experiences with someone who shares one's own skin color. The fact of the matter is, though, that sometimes, if you try, you may find that you have a lot in common with somebody whose skin color, education, economic background are completely different. Okay, it's harder if it is all three, but you mean to tell me that you can't find common ground with a person with similar education and economic background just because their color is different?

It isn't just skin color either. I used to know a man who was a vice principal of one of our local junior high schools. He mentioned once that if he went into a department store on his way home from work, he was treated pretty much the same as I was. But, if he got home, changed into jeans and a sweatshirt, and started working on a project, and then realized he needed something, he could go back to that same store, and the store detective would follow him around. That doesn't seem to make much sense, until you realize that he's a rather large black man. Go in wearing suit and tie--Oh, yes, we trust you. Go in wearing grungy clothes--Uh oh, he's probably shoplifting.
On the other hand, let an educated black man walk around in a black neighborhood wearing a suit and tie, and speaking in a proper manner, and he gets flak for 'trying to be white.' Was Martin Luther King, Jr. trying to be white when he got his doctorate? What about Malcolm X (or El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz)? I realize that he got a lot of his education in a prison library, but listen to the man's speeches! he spoke in a way that made it clear, he had some education. He did that because he didn't expect people to take him seriously if he didn't. So many people today still have so much to learn from him. What about Bill Cosby (William H. Cosby, PhD)? Is he trying to be white? Look, I realize that people want to be able to be themselves. Nobody wants to come off looking like Steve Urkel, or Jamie Kennedy's character in 'Malibu's Most Wanted' (which really is the opposite-a white guy trying to be black, and all the more ridiculous because he doesn't have the first clue about what it means to be black). Still, education only helps you. Whatever you learn, nobody can take away from you. Don't let stereotypes keep you from being the bast that you can be.

Is it just me, or does it seem like Hollywood is getting less and less imaginative? This year we've had Spiderman 3, Shrek the Third (a.k.a. Shrek 3), Pirate's of the Caribbean: At World's End (a.k.a. Pirate's of the Caribbean 3), Live Free or Die Hard (a.k.a. Die Hard 4), Ocean's Thirteen (a.k.a Ocean's Eleven 3), Evan Almighty (a.k.a Bruce Almighty 2)... I've heard Ratatouille is very good, but I have a hard time getting into animated movies, although we did a Father's Day presentation at church that involved clips from The Lion King, and now I kind of want to see that movie.
It also seems like if it isn't a sequel, then it's a TV show that's been taken to the big screen. Transformers is doing very well (although I hear it's not really aimed at 9 to 14 year old boys like the original series--it's aimed more at guys that were 9-14 when the series aired). I've also heard that there is a Get Smart movie in the works.

I think I've made it clear previously that I like movies. I prefer movies that make me think, but, sometimes it's good to watch a movie that just lets me not think, you know? I've seen the first three movies listed above, and will probably end up seeing the others as well.

There is also a new Stephen King movie coming out on Friday the thirteenth. Sounds appropriate, doesn't it? Isn't also funny that this past Saturday was considered to be so lucky? July 7th of '07 (7/7/7), just 6 days prior to Friday the thirteenth. If Saturday were so lucky, wouldn't the day one year, one month, and one day previous have been a really bad day (6/6/6)? Where do these superstitions come from?

I've also heard that Six Flags over Georgia had a septuple wedding ceremony on Saturday (seven different couples tied the knot). Shouldn't they have found someplace with 'seven' in the name, instead of six? I don't know of any such place in the Atlanta area. Maybe if they measured the distance from Five Points to Six Flags and then continued on past Six Flags the same amount...

Personally, I think the smartest choice for a wedding date would be February 14th. I know a guy that got married on Valentine's day. I told him after the wedding that he has no excuse for ever forgetting his anniversary,and he told me that was the idea.

The Holocaust

I was just reading that they have recovered a diary of a Jewish girl killed in the holocaust. They are calling her the Polish Anne Frank. NPR has an article about it here.
There are a lot of people that don't believe the Holocaust actually happened, or, if it did, it wasn't nearly as bad as it has been made out to be. There are various reasons for this:
First, let's face it, the Germans during the Third Reich weren't really very much different from Americans during the same time period. We survived the Great Depression without committing genocide, why couldn't they? For starters, we didn't have a madman in charge (Adolf Hitler was very charismatic, and he was able to bring about a number of changes in the German economy that made life better for a lot of people. Some have said that 'he was a good man--at first,' others have said that he was just building his power base. In any case, by the time he started publicly doing things that normal people would recognize as insane, a lot of Germans were already fiercely loyal to him--and the rest were very much afraid of the Nazis). For another thing, who would we have exterminated? The blacks? Granted, Americans of African ancestry weren't very popular, but most of them didn't have any money. To be fair, a lot of European Jews didn't have any money either, but there was a lot of Third Reich propoganda about how they were all rich, and they had gotten their money by cheating good Aryans. There was also a lot of propoganda pushing the idea that just the presence of the Jews weakened the power of Germany. That would have been a much harder idea to sell in a country that had long taught that our strength comes from our diversity--even though so many were willing to overlook the contributions of darker-complected Americans. Keep in mind also, that Germany suffered through the Great depression while making 'reparations' for World War I. Many of their largest industries were either shut down or severely limited as part of the peace treaty--we didn't want them building up their military again. You may have heard horror stories about how the Great Depression affected the US ecomony--Germany was much worse off.
Second, some people are bad at math--or, just haven't looked at the big picture. There were over 6 milion Jews in Poland before World War II, less than 200,000 after. There were about 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust. Obviously, not all 6 million of the Polish Jews were killed in the Holocaust--some of them escaped to England, or the United States, or even to Palestine. That's true. And, I have to admit, it does seem like an odd coincidence that the number of Polish Jews that escaped matches up almost exactly to the number of Jews from other countries that died in the Holocaust. Remember, the Holocaust started in Germany.
Third, some people don't believe in the Holocaust simply because they are anti-semitic. I know that sounds strange, but the philosophy works something like this: Because of the Holocaust, Great Britain and the United States decided that the Jews needed their own homeland--a nation that would fight for them if any nation ever tried to oppress Jews like that again. Obviously, then, the Jews faked the Holocaust in order to gain sympathy with the world powers and orchestrate the creation of the nation of Israel. Some of them hid, and then paid the German SS to lie at the Nuremberg trials... Interesting theory, but, what if Germany had won the war? Then what? For that matter, going into the Nuremberg trials, the Germans that testified really didn't know what was going to happen to them. Many of them were executed. How much money do you pay someone to confess to crime that was never committed and accept the death penalty? Not to mention, the Jew's assets were seized by the Third Reich to support the war effort. Are we to believe that they managed to hide enough money away to bribe men to die for their cause? Further, even though, we've established a motive for faking the Holocaust, did the Jews really have the means to fake something that huge? I think not. There were an awful lot of poeple that witnessed how badly the Jews were treated by the Germans under Adolf Hitler. Most of these witnesses were not aware of the death camps, but, in order to fake the Holocaust, there would have had to have been people high up in the German government working on the conspiracy. There were no Jews in such positions.

Fourth, the revisionists claim not so much that the Holocaust didn't happen, but that it has been exaggerated, and that too much emphasis has been placed upon it. Most of these don't believe that the Nazis had gas chambers (in spite of the fact that three of them were still standing when the Russian troops arrived). They claim that the number dead was much less than 6 million, and that most of the ones that died were simply victims of disease or malnutrition. They also point out that there were a lot more than 6 million killed in battle during the war, so why the emphasis on the Jews? (Most of them don't point out that Stalin actually killed more Jews than Hitler did.) Personally, I think most of these really fall under the first heading, they can believe that the Jews were badly mistreated, but a campaign to eradicate them? Surely not. You might convince me that the Holocaust history should be revised. Maybe the numbers are exaggerated. Maybe it was only 5.5 million (I don't really know how the numbers were arrived at, but I suspect that the 6 million number is non-negotiable because if we start saying, well, maybe it was only 5.5 million, then somebody will say, oh, but it was only 5 million, and before you know it, the Holocaust didn't happen at all, which would be absurd). Maybe, most of the dead really did die simply because the Nazis didn't feed the Jews or provide them medical care in the camps. It certainly would have been less expensive to let them die through neglect than to spend money on diesel fuel to create carbon monoxide to gas them.

I think that bottom line is, it was a terrible thing, and we don't like to believe that we, as human beings, are capable of such things, but we are, and we need to be reminded occasionally of just what we can do. The Holocaust should not be remembered as an example of what bad poeple the Germans were, or even of how terrible the Nazis were, but just how terrible we human beings are. We can be real monsters. We are also capable of great good, but sometimes that seems to be the exception.

Politics

Interesting situation that has been brewing. I've referenced this once before: Ann Coulter has made some disparaging comments about presidential candidate John Edwards, and now Elizabeth Edwards (Mrs. John Edwards) has verbally attacked Ann Coulter. Let us consider for a moment:

This started with a comment that Ann Coulter made (video available here): She said, "I was going to make a few comments about John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go to rehab if you use the word f@&&*!--so, I'm kind of at an impasse--I can't really talk about John Edwards." To be honest, the statement doesn't make much sense: she showed that she was aware that she shouldn't use the term, and then did anyway (and didn't go to rehab!). I am at a loss as to why she wouldn't be able to talk about John Edwards without using that particular term. I'm sure that she thought she was being clever by suggesting that the term applied to him, but also left herself an out when people complained about it. Which they did. Realistically, though, the complaints should have been directed less at her, than towards the candidate that she was introducing, Mitt Romney, who should have corrected her on the spot and didn't. She then, on Good Morning America, said, "I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. Now, that would be mean. But at about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

Now Elizabeth Edwards has said, on the Early Show, that it didn't used to be acceptable to "call names, to say these hateful kind of things." Apparently she's much older than she looks, or she's not accustomed to the political arena. In everyday life, certainly those kinds of things should not acceptable--we try to teach our children not to do them--but in the political arena, this has long been an accepted standard. Can't stand the heat? She has also defended the use of Ann Coulter's remarks (more correctly, the use of Ann Coulter's remarks edited to suit the Edwards campaign) as a fundraising tool, to show the voters what to reject. Let me get this straight: I shouldn't vote for Senators Clinton or Obama because of Ann Coulter? How does that work? Ann Coulter is not running for office, how do we vote against her? One comment posted on the AJC's website posed the question, "[W]hat if some nut job that thinks that Coulter can do no wrong, decides to act on her comments?" Good point, but, at the same time, nutcases tend to do what they think is right, and their justifications generally don't make sense anyway. Does anybody remember John Hinckley's justification? He had seen the movie 'Taxi Driver' with Jodie Foster, and decided that he could impress Jodie Foster by assassinating the president. Does this make Jodie Foster (or Robert DeNiro) an accessory to Hinckley's crime? The same thing could be said if a homophobe went around killing people, and then claimed it was because he was an Isaiah Washington fan. Would we then arrest Isaiah Washington?
Another comment posted on the same website makes a lot more sense, in kind of the same vein as Elizabeth Edwards' comment. It's gone on long enough, and it really should stop. Unfortunately, both parties know that it's effective, and that people tend to vote based on emotional feelings, rather than intellectual thought. Drew Weston of Emory University has written a book, "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation." Newsweek reviewed the book here. I haven't read the book, but it looks like an interesting read.

One other thing: the 'Scooter' Libby deal. I saw another opinion from a news site in New Zealand, and i couldn't have said it better myself. See it here.

Immigration

I know I have blogged about the immigration issue in the past, but some things have occurred to me that I didn't include then.
One: Some people are trying to make this an issue of racism. For some people, maybe it is. I personally have found Latinos to be some of the kindest and most considerate people I've known. Furthermore, I don't really understand the White Vs. Hispanic issue anyway. Last time I checked, 'White' meant of European descent, and 'Hispanic' meant of Spanish descent. Unless it's moved, Spain is still part of Europe. Now I will admit that I have known some Latinos that didn't seem white to me, but most of them do, so what's the big deal? Besides, it's not as though all of the illegal immigrants are Latinos. That does seem to be the face that's been put on it, though...
Two: It seems to me that the major political parties have this issue backwards. For the most part, big business supports the Republican party; big business likes cheap labor, so why is it that, for the most part (President Bush is bucking his own party on this issue), the Republicans are the ones fighting illegal immigration? On the other hand, Unions generally support the Democratic party, organized labor doesn't like illegal aliens taking jobs from Americans, so why is it that the DNC is pushing for amnesty? The only reason I can think of is that minorities generally vote Democratic; that would explain both sides of the issue (but that's just a guess, and it still involves both parties risking alienating their respective power base).
Three: I've heard a certain amount of talk about making new laws to prevent illegal immigration. We aren't doing a good job of enforcing the laws that we have. Do we really want to pass a bunch of new laws for various government agencies to ignore?
Four: Some people seem to think that deporting 12,000,000 illegals is a lot of work and that it isn't realistic to think that we will ever do it. It is a lot of work, and, we're probably going to end up deporting more people than that, because some of those people have family members that are legal, but that can't, or won't, stay in the US without their spouse/parent (whatever the relationship is between the legal family member and the undocumented family member. How would we go about this? Let me ask you this: How do you go about eating an elephant? The answer is: A little bit at a time. If we deport 1,000 this month, then that sends a clear message to the remaining illegals. Some of them may go home on their own--more likely, they will dig in and try to be as unobtrusive as possible. I'm okay with that. An illegal alien who's afraid to show his face in public is almost as good as one who isn't here illegally anymore.
Five: Shouldn't we just let them stay? On a case by case basis, if some have got compelling reasons to be here, maybe so. But I think that, all else being equal, a foreign national who applies for a visa to come to the United States from his/her country of origin should be given preference over one who entered this country illegally and then tried to get a visa to stay.
Six: One of the rumors that just won't die is that all an illegal alien has to do is get married to someone who is US citizen, and then, poof! they're legal. Nope, it is waaaay more complicated than that. Our government still wants to do a background check on the foreign national (just because you fell in love with a convicted felon doesn't mean we're going to let them stay here), and make sure that his is not a 'marriage of convenience,' i.e., the US citizen wasn't duped (or bribed) into marrying someone just so they could get citizenship.

Seven: One of the accusations that I've heard hurled is that we are "against immigration." I haven't lost site of the fact that I am descended from immigrants. I can fully understand that a lot of Native Americans would consider all of the rest of us 'Boat People.' Rumor has it that the Chief of the Apache tribe once wrote a letter to president Lyndon Johnson saying, in part, "Be careful with your immigration policies. We were careless with ours." Good point. As far as I know, I don't have any Native American blood in me, so basically, I'm an immigrant, too; but I'm here legally. And as far as the claims that the Mexicans coming into this country are the indigenous people of this continent, and they're just taking it back, how many of them do you think are part Cheyenne, or Apache, or Shawnee, or Pawnee, or Sioux, or Iroquois, or Illiniwek, or Cherokee, or Yuma? No, they are mostly Aztec--indigenous to Mexico. And, not all of the illegals are Mexicans.

I understand that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. What if a person comes here on a student visa, and then gets a job to help pay tuition, and after graduation, the job turns into very lucrative full-time employment, but the state department turns down the request for a work visa? or falls in love with a classmate and can't bear to part with that individual, but, again, can't get a work visa after graduation. I know that there are people like that, and I understand. That's something that has to be considered on a case by case basis. 12,000,000 cases to be considered individually? are you mad? no, I'm patient. Grab a fork--your elephant's getting cold.

Urban Legends (and some not so urban)

I blogged recently about common logic problems. One thing I've noticed is that people are often quick to believe something that sounds only remotely plausible. Some of these things get spread around and are widely believed, but they just aren't true. Usually a little thought can dispel these notions, but I heard from a friend of a friend who's wife's cousin works for Senator Clinton that...

When I was in school, we were taught that the reason George Washington never smiled in any of his portraits was because he had wooden teeth. This was in school; I took it in, and accepted it as truth. Shortly thereafter, though, we were studying Thomas Jefferson, and the teacher put his picture up on the wall. My hand shot up. "Did he have wooden teeth, too?" I was told that he did not, but quite frankly, if you look at any of the portraits of our earlier presidents and statesmen, they all have that same, serious expression on their faces. It seems to me that they didn't want people to think that they didn't take their positions seriously. Much, much later, I learned that the main reason that the Father of our Country married Martha was because she had money. His letters indicate that he did end up falling in love with her, but not until after they had been married for many years. Now my second question is this: If they had money, why would he wear wooden teeth? Couldn't they afford the best dentures? Do you expect me to believe that wood was the best-known material for dentures at the time? BTW, an article on GW's dentures can be found here.

I've heard for years that you shouldn't swallow your chewing gum, because it takes 7 years for it to go through your digestive system. I think that it's probably good advice, but, gum passes through in about the same amount of time as anything else you swallow. The difference is, it comes out pretty much the same as it went in. It's 'indigestible,' meaning, simply, that your digestive system really doesn't do much of anything with it, except pass it. Read more, here.

Let's consider a couple of images that are commonly accepted: Christ and the devil. I have heard a lot of talk about the paintings of a "blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jesus." To be honest, I have never seen a picture of Jesus with what I would consider to be blonde hair. Blue eyes, yes. Unrealistically light brown hair, yes. I think the "blonde hair" is just an exaggeration. To be honest, Jesus was Jewish (although, apparently, 20% of Americans don't know that), and as such, probably did not look any near as Caucasian as the paintings make out to be. The French philosopher Voltaire once said, "God created man in His own image, and then man returned the favor." We have a tendency to see Jesus in our own image. I don't think Jesus looked like me, because I don't look at all Jewish. I would like to think that Jesus looked like me, but I don't. He would have had an olive complexion, dark eyes, and either black or very dark brown hair. Don't like that image? Sorry, but that's what I think. As far as Satan, the standard picture shows him as basically a bigger, redder version of Pan. Why? My guess is, because, in mythology, Pan was a trickster. So, this became the template for the devil. I believe in the devil, but I believe that he is an invisible spirit. The Bible says that he was created as an angel; it never says that his form was changed. I know that a lot of people don't believe in Old Scratch, these days. That's your decision, but I have to say, if he's not real, that means all those evil thoughts that keep popping into your head are your own. Do you really want to claim them?