20070625

Science Avenger: The Fading of Intelligent Design

(See here) where the Science Avenger crows about some victory he thinks "scientific" evolutionists have achieved against "creationists".

The Science Avenger evidently believes in evolution. Well, then let us examine just how much he is willing to bow to "science" and "evolution" and how willing he is to sacrifice the bullshit "liberal" viewpoint.

What does the Science Avenger think about homosexuality? Will you be willing to sacrifice the homosexuals for your viewpoint of evolution?

Do those that practice homosexuality do anything to further natural selection?

Does the Science Avenger preach evolution and then "encourage" homosexualty?

Homosexuality is a dead end in evolution. No argument that "scientists" can put forth to try and prove mankind should, from an evolutionary standpoint, accept homosexuality can withstand their own point of view. Homosexuality is a dead end. I can accept accepting homosexuality. I can not accept encouraging it.

I have a problem. By evolution us humans were given the ability to reason. Is it "reasonable" to encourage the dead end of evolution that is offered through homosexuality?

Can science and religion coexist? I think it can (because reality is reality) as long as science bows down to their own reality.

My God's reality is your reality. You just have to bow down to your own reality. If mankind is going to prosper (through evolution - God's reality) we have to discourage homosexuality. Homosexuality is a hindrance to natural selection.

Perhaps we can "tolerate" homosexuals just as we "tolerate" other failures of evolution. Get my point? I encourage that society accepts the failures of evolution. I am unwilling for society to encourage the failures.

Stem Cells

Are you willing to allow experimentation with stem cells? Yes or no. Do not try to confuse the issue by drawing the line on experimenting with "adult" stem cells or "embryonic" stem cells.

Is experimentation with stem cells going to be allowed or not?

Stop being hypocrites.

There is no difference between "adult" stem cells and "embryonic" stem cells. Even if you force medical researchers to deal with only "adult" stem cells, you are only going to force these researchers to develop "cloned" embryos to achieve their results.

Now personally I do not see anything wrong with research obtained from embryonic stem cells. I think that anyone who thinks it is OK to do research on adult stem cells (and these people are also most often against "cloning") is a hypocrite.

A "cloned" embryo that results from an "adult" stem cell has as much potential to become a person as does the "embryonic" stem cell. Meanwhile American medical researchers are prevented from experimenting on the "real thing" up until American medical technology advances to the point "adult" embryos can serve the same purpose.

If you are going to allow experimentation on adult embryos, you might as well allow it on infant embryos. Do not force medical researchers to deal with your bullshit, twisted and unrealistic ethics.

Shocking - No Sign From God

Yesterday I asked God for a sign. I didn't get it. Well, actually this is a little complicated, I might still get my sign, since I offered God a choice. I might still get my sign, however I will now have to be patient. What worries me is that if I still get my sign, I will personally benefit from it. I have never attempted to ask for a "sign" previously from which I would benefit.

Let me attempt to explain this. I have "prayed" to God for "favors" from which I would benefit, and have sometimes had my "prayers" answered. However "answered prayers" are not a "sign". Answered "prayers" are requests for favoritism from God when I will understand if the request is not granted. However, I look at my requests for "signs" differently. I have a pretty good track record for getting my "requests" (perhaps "demands" is a better word) for "signs" to be successful.

Getting back to what has happened over the past 36 hours. I asked God for a sign. I'm trying to figure out what went wrong. I am fairly confident that if God had granted me my sign I would have heard about it by now.

I am confused. I am actually shocked that I did not get my sign. You see, I have to deal with reality. I have to deal with the fact that "most" people when they ask for "signs" to prove God exists are not granted them. God leaves them in the dark and forces them to depend on "faith" that He exists. But for some reason, God has repeatedly given me signs. Now, perhaps I am not alone in getting "signs"....

Break, break, break.... I have just witnessed a miracle. I have to deal with reality. I have to bow down before God. God is so much smarter then I am. Praise the Lord. I am humbled and grateful for the lesson God has given me. God is great!

20070619

10 Commandments for the Road

(See here) a list of the "Ten Commandments" for the road that appears on the MSNBC website as reported upon by the Associated Press.

These "Ten Commandments" for the road come from the Vatican. As hard as it might be to quibble with the Vatican, well... you know me... I am going to quibble - grin.

The Vatican document evidently included many recommendations towards the faithful in how to deal with travel on the road. This document culminated in the "Ten Commandments" for drivers, so I guess everything else discussed in the document was only a "recommendation" (such as saying the rosary while traveling).

However let an experienced truck driver, or at least an American truck driver, examine the "Ten Commandments".

First off, I take issue with "commandment" number four. Here it is:
Be charitable and help your neighbor in need, especially victims of accidents.

Sorry. At least at one point in time, during my truck driver career, I attempted to be charitable to my "neighbor in need" when I felt my action might be able to assist this neighbor. However I now have to deal with governmental regulation that might mean that if I dare to stop to assist the "neighbor in need" I might no longer be able to meet my delivery appointment. Failure to meet my delivery appointment means I might have to wait for hours, or even days, to make delivery. Failure to make delivery could cost me several hundreds of dollars, potentially reaching beyond a thousand dollars. Should I stop to save the stranded motorist the couple hundreds of dollars it would cost them for road side assistance from an experienced mechanic when the result might be that it will cost me more then the cost of the assistance of the experienced mechanic to the stranded motorist? There is a reason modern truck drivers are reluctant to still be the "roadside angels" they once had the reputation for being. In the "old days" charity didn't cost anything but time. Now-a-days time for the truck driver equals money. Why should the truck driver stop to give assistance to your family when it is going to cost money for his own family?

I will note one exception which is noted in the commandment. It mentions "especially victims of accidents". I doubt few truck drivers are so pressed for time (and income then be damned) that they can not stop to rend assistance to the victims of accidents where injuries might be included and adequate assistance is not already on the scene. We truck drivers might, thru necessity, now have hard hearts, but our hearts are not yet cold.

Here is the only other "commandment" which I have a problem with. Perhaps I do not fully understand what is meant by it. Number seven:
Support the families of accident victims.

Let's examine this one. Does this commandment mean to emotionally support the families of these accident victims on the scene? No argument from me there. But this commandment seems to hint at something else. Perhaps I am supposed to support the families of these accident victims financially. I do have a problem with this. If the family was "wealthy" and is used to a fortunate lifestyle from the breadwinner, however the breadwinner is killed and does not have any life insurance, is it my responsibility to "support" that family? How much support? To the point of continuing the lifestyle they are used to or only keeping them from starvation?

Why single out the victims of auto accidents? Is the family that loses their breadwinner due to cancer or other illness less worthy of "support"?

If I lose my life in a truck accident, will "good Christians" ride to the aid of my family after I die in the truck accident? This worry is not without merit. Truck driving consistently rates in the top ten of most dangerous occupations in America. I noted with interest that in a recent analysis, the occupations of police officer and even fire fighter did not crack the top ten.

All in all, I will grant that the "Ten Commandments" for the road might be a decent place to begin as you start up your automobile in the morning. Where I find fault with these commandments, well... I have to remember that they were written by Christians. Maybe they are just trying to motivate fellow Christians to follow Jesus or something. No harm in motivating people to follow Jesus.

I do love Jesus. I just wish that in my so called "Christian nation" more Christians were willing to follow Jesus. My experience in my "Christian nation" is quite the opposite. My experience in my "Christian nation" is that it is "every man for himself".

Defending Bill OReilly

(See here) where the Science Avenger takes radio and television talk show host Bill OReilly to task for a piece he wrote about his interview with well known atheist Richard Dawkins.

Now, I did not get the chance to view the interview with Richard Dawkins, nor did I get to read the original piece that the Science Avenger quotes from or attempts to link to (the link does not work); however I am still motivated to defend Bill OReilly because I respect him so much.

I also have heard some interviews with Richard Dawkins as he made the circuit attempting to publicize his most recent book The God Delusion. I witnessed one interview (I believe it was on National Public Radio) where Richard was treated most respectfully and given ample time to put forth his argument in favor of an atheistic point of view. My own opinion of Richard Dawkins? He is as unreasonably atheistic as many God Fearing Bible thumpers are with being unreasonably Bible thumpers!

Now let me explain my own point of view. I think it is entirely reasonable for a person to be an agnostic. In fact, for at least a portion of my life, thusly (agnostic) was how I chose to describe myself. I bought into the argument that while it is impossible to prove God exists, it is also impossible to prove God does not exist. That was until God proved to me that He (or is it a She?) does exist in a way that I would have to be delusional to not deal with the reality that there is a God. What was the proof? I won't go into that. Even if I explained in detail my "signs" that God exists, a devout atheist or even an agnostic would just say "Yeah right". I know that back when I was an agnostic, that this is how I would have viewed the testimonial I could offer up. I would have dismissed my own testimonial as either a fabrication or a delusion. My "signs" (notice plural) were for my own consumption only to prove to ME that God exists. I do not believe they were provided to me to convince others.

What about Bill OReilly? Is he unreasonably religious? Is the Science Avenger just as guilty of being a bigot in defense of his atheism as Bill OReilly is in defense of his belief in God? Again, I did not get to read the original OReilly piece (I am not about to subscribe to the Bill OReilly website Premium Membership package in order to do so) so have to limit myself to the Science Avengers quotations from Bill's piece.

The Science Avenger starts with:

Right out of the gate, O'Reilly departs from reality:

Atheism is chic, it's cool, it's the latest craze. The book stores are chock full of authors declaring that "God is Not Great," that God is a "Delusion," that you are a moron if you believe in the Deity.
He (Science Avenger) then includes, in his defense of the almost unreasonable publicity that atheists receive, the statement:
We are a minority that numbers anywhere from 3-30% of the American population, depending on how the question is asked. At one extreme, very few people are sure there are no gods, at the other, a sizeable minority hold no formal god belief.

I'll use his own words against him: "very few people are sure there are no gods". I think that these "very few people" are the only ones who would qualify to describe themselves as atheists. As for the "sizeable minority" who "hold no formal god belief" it is my opinion that this group is mostly comprised of agnostics. It is unfair for atheists to try to lay claim to the agnostic crowd as being included in as those who share their beliefs.

Here is another unreasonable statement the Science Avenger makes as he tries to make his point:
Notice there is no reference for BO's claim that atheist authors believe "you are a moron if you believe in the Deity". There's good reason for that: he made it up. We are quite capable of recognizing the intellect of those that believe. We just believe they are wrong.

OK Science Avenger, perhaps "moron" was a poor choice of words for Bill OReilly to use. He should have stuck to "delusional". Richard Dawkins uses the word "delusion" in the title of his most recent book and you use the word "delusion" in the title of your own piece criticizing Bill OReilly. I have heard Richard Dawkins speak as he publicizes his book. He is not, in my estimation, a "reasonable" atheist, his argument is that anyone who believes in God is delusional (or perhaps only a moron - grin).

Then comes this quote from Bill:
Believing in God is not very stylish in mainstream media circles these days.

The Science Avenger then launches into the demonstrations some football players display after they cross over into the endzone for a touchdown. What does this have to do with how the media DISCUSSES religious faith when the subject comes up? Or perhaps the Science Avenger thinks these religious displays by sports figures should be censored out from the broadcast?

The Science Avenger also states:
And did you see the powder puff treatment Ken Ham's creation museum got, even from the NY Times!

First off, I too have engaged in criticism of Ken Ham, (see here) where I engaged in such criticism of his preachings. However my own experience with how specifically the "Creation Museum" and the general subject of the creationism versus evolution debate is dealt with in the media is that it is dealt with in a manner that is not completely enlightening. Every time the subject comes up, the opposing viewpoints are represented by the extremes in the debate. I have yet to witness (other then on EWTN, the Roman Catholic radio network) the viewpoint represented that faith in God does not prevent belief in evolution! Even within the Evangelical community itself, there is some disagreement on just how valid the Genesis account of the creation of the universe is. There are nuanced opinions even within "Creationists". Ken Ham has engaged in criticism of Dr James Dobson for pointing out the discrepancy that if the account of creation contained in Genesis is accurate then God did not create the sun until the fourth "day" which begs the question of "How could there be a first, second or third "day" without any sunlight?"

I also wish to explore what Bill OReilly's own beliefs on the subject of evolution might be. I have never heard him go into the subject in any great detail, however Wikipedia gives a history of his education (see it here). Please note that Bill's childhood education and even his first years in college were experienced at Roman Catholic educational institutions. It is my understanding that most parochial, Roman Catholic schools teach religion in religion class and evolution in science class. Roman Catholics (or at least the Vatican) do not have a problem with accepting evolution as being fact.

I am going to skip over a few quotes of Bill's piece and the comments about them. However one quotation from Bill is worthy of note; Bill wrote:
"Jesus is a real guy," I said. "I know what he did. I'm not positive that Jesus is God, but I'm throwing in with him rather than throwing in with you guys, because you guys can't tell me how it all got here."

Now note just how reasonable Bill OReilly is being. He is pointing to how the preponderance of the evidence points that in fact, once on our planet trod a "man" named Jesus. It is from this same "man" that the religion called Christianity sprung. Bill OReilly is just not sure if this "man" was in fact "God". Bill OReilly is not timid with thus describing his own religious beliefs. As much as Science Avenger tries to paint Mr OReilly's broadcasts and statements of opinion as being attempts to "sing to the choir" (the "choir" being his supposed audience) such a belief would run counter to the belief's of the only audience that Science Avenger seems to think Bill OReilly has.

Science Avenger then opens up the closing of his piece with this one:
Then of course Bill trots out a creationist oldie but goodie:
But the atheists will never get it. The universe and the earth is so complex, so incredibly detailed, that to believe an accidental evolutionary occurrence could have exclusively led to the nature/mankind situation we have now, is some stretch of the imagination. I mean, call me crazy, but the sun always comes up, while man oversleeps all the time.

Science Avenger seems to have problems considering the fact that some of us that believe in God might also believe in evolution. That when we look at evolution, we see the "fingerprints of God".

Here are some of Science Avenger's closing remarks, specifically about the last quote I gave from Bill OReilly:
Uh, Bill, the sun one day isn't going to come up. It's got a finite life span. It might be billions of years, and that's a big big number, but it's not infinite, however much it may seem that way to you. Likewise, evolution is a very long, slow, bit by bit process, and that may be hard for you to grasp. It might seem like just one big accidental occurrence, but in fact, it is not very accidental at all. Selection is the opposite of chance. The unfit systematically, nonrandomly, die out. So no, it does not take much imagination at all.

So in my own closing, I ask this question: Who's the bigger bigot? Is it Bill OReilly or is it the Science Avenger? For anyone needing a refresher on the definition of "bigot" from Merriam-Webster:
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Seems to me Bill OReilly is less of a bigot when it comes to the subject of religion and evolution then is the Science Avenger. Bill OReilly's viewpoint seems to witness to actual willingness to consider "the other side" while the Science Avenger already has his mind made up and his statements witness to an unwillingness to any longer even consider an opposing viewpoint. Bill OReilly at least gave Richard Dawkins the opportunity to give voice to his own point of view.

Introducing the Science Avenger

Recently I stumbled upon a relatively new blog, titled Science Avenger which I wish to point out to others. The "Science Avenger" seems to be an unapologetic atheist who strongly defends the scientific viewpoint as being a valid anchor within which to understand our world and existence. While I might disagree with some of his viewpoints, I find that he puts forth his point of view in an interesting and articulate manner.

Since, as a believer in a God, I enjoy "testing my faith" I intend to revisit his site often as long as his posts continue to be of the quality that several of them I sampled displayed.

I have included a permanent link to his site here on this blog.

20070616

Presidential Politics

I am dismayed by the way, thus far, the nomination process for our political candidates for the office of President of the United States has been going.

I have watched as those candidates who I wished could run from the center from their respective parties ran towards the extremes of their respective parties.

An example? John McCain ran away from what "we" liked and ran towards the extreme of his party. Not only did he not energize the conservative base of the Republican Party towards his candidacy, he alienated those who supported him by doing so.

How about Hillary? Seems that she has to run extreme left in order to defeat the threat imposed by the Obama run. By the time she ends up winning the nomination from the Democratic Party, she will have run so far left she might no longer be acceptable to the "we" members of the center. With all of Hillary's coat-tails, if she wants to attempt to run as a centrist in the general election, she needs to run as such in the nomination process. Perhaps she has already swung so far left that she will no longer appeal to many moderates. Her only hope is that the Republicans nominate someone so far to the right that a vote for her would be the lesser of two evils.

Is it too much to expect a candidate to just run on "here are my opinions, judge me as you will"? And then expect the candidate to not adjust their opinions according to what their opinions need to be to be elected? I guess I am asking for too much. For some reason the lure of the power of the Presidency entices the candidates to adjust their sails to however the prevailing winds blow.

20070614

Teddy Roosevelt on Immigration

Recently I came upon a comment somewhere which quoted from Teddy Roosevelt on the issue of immigration. I was intrigued by the quote and sought to further explore what this past President of our United States had to say about the "threats" immigrants back in his day posed to his nation and how he attempted to lead his nation in dealing with the "threat". What the heck, by my estimation somehow our nation managed to deal with the "threat" of new immigrants posed back then. Is it wrong to credit some of the success in dealing with this "threat" as being due to the leadership provided by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt?

Now the quote I came across as being attributed to Teddy is fairly accurate, however it seems to redact and insert other of his comments for impact, but it does justice to the comments he made somewhere along the line. While I can agree with the some of the redactions made to the comments for brevity's sake, I can not agree to the further insertion of comments taken out of context.

I am going to link (see it here) to a Snopes.com piece that explores the validity of the comment that I am going to quote. The piece even provides a link to a .pdf file of a document that comes from The Library of Congress to prove the validity of the quote.

What did Teddy Roosevelt have to say? Here is the quote:

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American

If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.


Now if you are astute, you will note my own piece contains redactions. However note the quote does not contain additions. I only left out the portions that pertain to Old World immigrants. Things like the Red Scare and the fear of Old World conflicts.

But what interests me is how Teddy Roosevelt was dealing with the Deutsch(German)-American scare during his time. Teddy only threw down reasonable expectations for Deutsch immigrants to abide by. Become American. Learn English.

Well, evidently my Deutsch-American forefathers understood this. While I come from strong German roots, what little Deutsch (German) I know came from a high school class that I took on the subject (most of which I have since forgotten). It seems that the "scary wave" of Germans coming into America was absorbed and became part of the "great melting pot".

My demands on Mexicans coming into America is no less then the demands my own forefathers faced. My demands? They become American. They learn English.

To further sharpen my demands, I will again quote from Teddy:
If I could I would have the kind of restriction which would not allow any immigrant to come here unless I was content that his grandchildren would be fellow-citizens of my grandchildren.

20070612

Immigration Bill - Dealing With Malcontents

In dealing with the immigration issue, one needs to deal with a plethora of malcontents. The "Grand Compromise" is not enough for them. Everybody had their own ideas about perfection.

In dealing with right wing objections to the "Grand Compromise" I have sought out the opinion of Bill O'Reilly, who I consider to at least be a reasonable right wing kind of guy. At least this man has come up with a plan (which proponents of the "Grand Compromise" have asked for) which is worthy of consideration.

Here I will attempt to take into consideration Bill O'Reilly's "Four Point Plan". I am going to weigh this plan seriously.

Point one:
1) secure the southern border with 700, not 300 miles of barrier, double the border patrol and back them up with 10,000 National Guards people. That would effectively shut down human and drug smuggling from Mexico.

We can put up a fence along all the dry land along the Mexican border and it will only marginally help. Will we then also put up a fence along all the borders of the United States that fall on the seas? Bill wants 10,000 National Guards people to man the fences. My estimation is that this is not going to be enough. Even if the dry land border fences are made impregnable, we will be dealing with enforcing the sea boundaries of our great nation. Who's going to pay for all this manpower? 10,000 National Guards people would be expensive enough, but just how expensive is it going to be to pay National Guards people to survey every inch of our borders?

My answer? Well I am going to get to that. The answer lies in Bill's point number three.

Point two:
2) require all illegal aliens in the country right now to register at the post office with Homeland Security. After registering, they would be given a tamper proof ID card, designating their status and their right to work temporarily in the USA. If the illegal aliens do not register, it's a criminal felony. Right now sneaking across the border is a civil action. Remember that. Subjecting the person to immediate deportation or jail time. The criminal penalty goes way up.

OK, we'll use the post office as a point for registration. However my concerns are about how long the lines will be at the post office! Should the "average citizen" be forced to wait in lines numbering the hundreds of people in order to only buy stamps? But... those registering do need to be pointed to somewhere generally available to register. Since there are post offices in every nook and cranny of our nation, the post office would seem to well serve as this point of registration. However, this special event should not undermine the ability of the post office to conduct business as usual. The post office might need special funding to deal with this one time event and who is going to pay for it?

Point 3:
3) Any business that hires an illegal worker who doesn't have a tamper proof ID card faces draconian fines and possible prison time for the executives.

OK, now it is time for applause. If we control the demand, the supply will follow this demand. Some things need to be worked out, because I do not believe that anything like a "tamper proof ID card" exists. Even if such a thing existed, it is going to be a hard sell to convince every American citizen they must carry such an ID card (or would only hispanic citizens be required to have this card?). However here is the real meat. Stop the employers from hiring the illegals at substandard wages and you limit the demand. Make it more risky to the bottom line of the businessman (with the possibility of real jail time) and the businessman is going to stop hiring the illegals because it is unprofitable to do it.

Point 4:
4) Each illegal alien would have his case reviewed by federal authorities. And they would decide who would receive a Z-visa to stay and who would not. That takes the blanket amnesty, something many American hate, off the table. It also allows the feds to make rational decisions about who's helping America and who
isn't.

Come on now! We're going to come up with a new bureaucracy bureaucracy to examine the record of each prospective new citizen? Doesn't the current bureaucracy already serve the purpose? Must we come up with something new? How about George Dubyah Bush's method of examining the records of those who are confined at Gitmo? He can't even get those who are trying to destroy us honored as such through the courts and you would try to dream up a new court system for the illegals? Who's going to pay for this black hole of federal funding to prosecute the results?

All in all, I like point 3. When we remove the motivation for the flood, the flood will stop. As long as we American citizens continue to tolerate the employer of the illegal immigrants, the flood of illegal immigrants will continue. There is not enough room in our prisons for all of the illegals. However, we can find enough room for the employers.

20070608

Pampering Paris Hilton

Should Paris Hilton be subjected to "above and beyond" ordinary treatment for her transgressions against the American justice system?

Was it not right for Paris to be expected to serve at least a significant amount of time behind bars?

Let us examine other possible "extraordinary" cases where a "common" person sentenced to prison would not have received an ankle bracelet and be allowed to serve their time at home.

What about a drug king pin? If allowing the drug king pin to serve his time at home would have resulted in no pain to him, where he could have continued to conduct "business as usual" while his vassals simply came "home" to him for a few days instead of waiting for him to visit them? Would the county sheriff have agreed to release such an individual to home confinement and make a mockery of the justice system or would the sheriff have insisted upon confinement in the "big house"?

I do not think my comparison is that far off the mark. Paris Hilton pleaded guilty to careless and reckless driving charges after she failed a sobriety test. Now snot nosed rich kid Paris should not in any real measure of the term "inconvenienced" been subjected to any real hardship by the sentence which briefly suspended her license. All she had to do was hire a chauffeur to drive her Bentley for her during the suspension. Please note that the "average" citizen can not afford to hire a chauffeur, or even pay for a taxi, during a license suspension.

However, rather then hire a chauffeur to do her driving for her, Paris insisted on doing her own driving. She was even pulled over once, and issued only a warning ticket, for driving with a suspended license. Did she then learn her lesson and hire a chauffeur? Just how much inconvenience would it be for the snot nosed rich kid to put someone on the payroll and do her driving for her during the remainder of the license suspension? She could have continued to do all her clubbing at whatever local club was trendy and even gotten snot nosed drunk as long as someone else did the driving for her.

But she thumbed her nose at the justice system. Something needs to be done to get the attention of this young lady. If she is going to live her life in the lime light, the lime light that her life thus far has sought, encouraged, even demanded, well then the "justice" she receives is going to be subject to the same lime light.

It is unfair to compare Paris Hilton's home confinement to the "average" citizen who might receive the same outcome. Paris gets to go home to luxury while the average citizen goes home to hardship. The "average" citizen goes home to a period of time where they will be unable to earn any income. For the "average" American citizen this would be a hardship. Loss of freedom of movement to Paris, through home confinement, might be an inconvenience, however something more then inconvenience needs to happen.

Home confinement for the "average" American citizen results in true hardship. I do not think home confinement in a luxury mansion for Paris would result in the required amount of hardship.

Paris Hilton has thumbed her nose at the American justice system long enough. Perhaps she was encouraged by the fact that OJ was found innocent? Maybe she thinks that as long as you are rich enough, you can get away with murder? (Or in her case, driving with a suspended license.)

Paris Hilton needs to serve real time in jail. Her initial sentence of a suspended license should not even have been an inconvenience for someone with her wealth. In fact, I am wondering if it is only preferential treatment that earned her the first instance of only getting off with a warning the first time she was caught driving with a suspended license.

We need to get the snot nosed rich kid's attention. I am unimpressed with claims she has already learned her lesson. She did the crime. Let her do the time.

Considerate Drivers

If you ever equip your automobile with a Citizen's Band (CB) radio and set off on a cross country journey, please be sure that you do not have kids in the car. Things have gotten that bad on the CB. The conversations and language that you will sometimes be subjected to defies even being described as locker room language. The anonanymity of the CB allows for transmissions that go beyond filth.

However that (the filth) is not the point of this post. My intent is to discuss one aspect of vehicle transportation that you will frequently hear from truck drivers on the CB. All them "inconsiderate 4 wheelers" is something that, if you judge from the CB alone, you will come to the conclusion is the opinion that all truck drivers have of the drivers of passenger vehicles.

Well I am saying it isn't so. One thing that I have come to the conclusion of when it comes to the CB is that most of the truckers you hear talking on the CB are the rookie truck drivers. Most of the "old hands" long ago gave up on all the foolishness going on nowadays on the CB, and if they even have their CB turned on anymore, they only listen in and rarely key up their microphones.

I now have 10 years as a truck driver and have covered well over a million miles during that time. While I am not the most experienced, nor do I in any way qualify as being the "best" truck driver on the road, I do think my experience qualifies me to put forth my own opinion as to how good a job the "amateur" drivers of passenger vehicles do out there on the road.

My own opinion? I am impressed - not just impressed, a better word might be amazed - at how considerate the average American motorist is out there on the road. Now I am not going to say that "all" passenger vehicle motorists are especially considerate. Just like not all truck drivers are perfect, there are inconsiderate passenger vehicle operators out there as well. However it is my experience that the majority of "them damn 4 wheelers" are operated by drivers that have an amazing amount of consideration for their fellow drivers in general and for the drivers of the "big rigs" in particular.

Oh yeah, I have a few horror stories that I can tell about the times I ran into a flurry of inconsiderate drivers when I was attempting to change lanes or something. However the instances of this happening, in comparison to the number of times drivers of 4 wheelers have been willing to share the road with my large, slow truck, makes these occurences almost insignificant relative to the number of times I can point to where drivers went "beyond the call of duty" to be considerate towards me.

So my message to all the considerate operators of "them damn 4 wheelers"? Your considerate driving habits are noted and appreciated by all the truck drivers who have any real experience on the road. Don't be frustrated by all the negative comments you hear on the CB. Those are the rookies talking.

Perhaps not even every truck driver with even more experience then me will agree with my appraisal of the consideration displayed by the "average" 4 wheeler. So perhaps I should just stick with voicing my own opinion.

So here goes. In "my own opinion" all of us truck drivers (or at least this one) needs to send out a great big THANK YOU to the amazing number of considerate 4 wheelers there are out there for helping me get my job done. If it wasn't for all these considerate drivers, I am of the opinion that long ago I would have had to give up this job.

I am in awe of the consideration - perhaps kindness is a better word - that the "average" American motorist displays to the drivers of the big rigs. Once again, THANK YOU. Keep up the "good works"! <--- Tie in to previous posts on religious topics in the previous sentence intended - grin.

Senate Immigration Bill

(See here) a Washington Post piece that reports the Senate Immigration Bill is stalled and in danger of withering and dieing. Now, even if the Senate is successful in fashioning a compromise, action on this issue in the House of Representatives is going to be difficult to achieve. However, the House is not even going to take up the issue until after the Senate passes legislation. Since I strongly feel that SOMETHING needs to be done about this issue, I am rather frustrated that we can't even get anything out of the Senate. Since I noted that both of my Senators were amongst those who voted against cloture, I felt it would be worth my time to write both of them to encourage them to work towards a compromise.

Here is the identical e-mails I sent to both Senator Warner (Republican) and Senator Webb (Democrat).

Dear Senator,

I am writing to encourage you to work towards some form of compromise on the issue of illegal immigration. It is my understanding that the Senate bill being considered on the issue is in danger of dieing. It is my understanding that you voted against cloture that would have allowed the bill to come up for an up or down vote before the entire Senate.

SOMETHING needs to be done about the illegal immigrant issue. NOTHING that is going to be done is going to satisfy everyone, since this is such a charged issue. However even imperfect action on this issue is better then doing nothing at all. Inaction on this issue is unacceptable.

We have 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in our nation. Something must be done about it. Since there are extreme positions on both sides of the issue, leadership is going to have to be provided from the center in order to fashion a compromise.

I like to think of you as being in the center. Please work towards compromise legislation so that SOMETHING is done about this issue.

I myself am rather torn on this issue. I realize that a compromise will surely have some aspects that I will not like. However I am willing to hold my nose as long as the Senate is successful in addressing this issue.

Where I am going to be unwilling to hold my nose is if I have to deal with the stench of inaction.

20070606

Jesus Saves - Action Required

Often as you listen to preachers engaged in preaching on the radio and TV, you'll hear the phrase "Jesus Saves". Then they might launch into how they think Jesus saves quoting from various Bible passages that prove their particular viewpoint.

One of Christianity's most favorite passages is John 3:16. You will see it mentioned frequently with only the title, chapter and verse listed and without quoting the text. For those of you who do not have it memorized, here it is from the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
One of the reasons I feel this passage is such a favorite is that it packs a lot of punch. It not only "proves" (to the "infallible Bible" crowd) that Jesus is God's "one and only Son" but also points out "that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Since nearly all who call themselves Christians seem to nod their head in agreement at this passage, I am going to start here to examine the issue of, if Jesus saves, HOW does he save? I am going to quote from some of the passages that follow after the mentioned verse to defend my own beliefs and engage in some criticism of those with whom I disagree. I am not going to quote each and every following verse, not because I fear them, but only in an attempt to be brief. I encourage anyone interested read all the verses that follow John 3:16 for themselves, they can be found on the internet.

Many preachers like to preach that Jesus saves through "grace". That it is by grace ALONE that one is saved. They can quote from many passages of scripture to defend their beliefs. They preach that merely believing Jesus was the Saviour is the only action required and that no further action (they often use the term Good Works) are required after that to get into heaven. They criticize any sect of Christianity that encourages good deeds (or again good works) from their congregations. No, no, no they will almost scream. We are saved by grace alone and good deeds will not get anyone into heaven. No action required.

John 3:19 states:

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil."
Notice the word "deeds" is mentioned; "because their deeds were evil." Lets see... men loved darkness because their deeds were evil, but if instead they had loved the Light, their deeds would have been? What? Still evil?

Or how about this one? John 3:21:
"But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Notice here the use of the word "lives" as in "whoever lives by the truth comes into the light". Seems to me that living by the truth calls for a little bit more action then just "thoughts" or "beliefs" that Jesus was the Son of God.

It is still my belief that it might be easier for a "good" atheist to get into heaven then it could be for an "evil" Christian to get in there. If an atheist "walks the walk" while the Christian "talks the talk", well.... After all, Jesus said it is easier to put a camel through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to get into heaven. So what verdict are all the rich Christians going to get when they approach the Pearly Gates? Do you think Jesus is going to give them credit as long as they tithed their 10% to the local mega church?

As a sidebar I wish to point out that it is nearly universal for preachers, even if they preach it is grace alone that gets you into heaven, to preach tithing (although they might not describe it as a "good work") is an action that is required. I think this is because their salary depends on it - grin.

My verdict? Jesus Saves - action required.

Defending the Death Tax - It's a Paris Hilton Tax

The tax that the federal government and most states place on estates after death is some times referred to as the "Death Tax". Why do opponensts of the tax like to call it the Death Tax? Because of the spin it puts onto the issue. With the title arises the implication that, even after death, once the Grim Reaper departs the next knock at the door will be the tax man.

(See here) a National Public Radio (NPR) audio clip where Patrick Murphy, Democratic candidate for Pennsylvania's 8th District refers to the tax as the "Paris Hilton Tax" during a campaign debate.

Beautiful. Let me add my clapping hands to the applause and chuckles Mr Murphy should be receiving for that one!

Let me attempt to put my own spin on the "Paris Hilton Tax". The tax is not on Mr (or Mrs) Hilton, after all, since once they are dead and gone, they can't take it with them. The tax is on snot nosed rich kids like Paris Hilton who did nothing to earn the money, that only get the money due to being born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

One of the most persuasive arguments that opponents of the Paris Hilton Tax have is that family farms are having to be sold to pay the tax. However back in 2001, the American Farm Bureau Federation (which opposes estate taxes) could not provide a single example of where an American family farm had to be sold to pay the federal estate tax. (However it is important to differentiate between the federal estate tax and some states' estate taxes; unlike the federal tax which only kicks in on estates valued in the millions, some state estate taxes kick in after only a few hundreds of thousands.) However, even the federal estate tax could come into play for certain "family farms" on the outskirts of large cities. For an example of this, one only need drive around the outskirts of Chicago and Cook County in Illinois. I could imagine that where some farmers still continue to attempt to farm in the face of urban sprawl, their property value could indeed now be valued in the millions of dollars. However, by only increasing the value at which the federal estate tax kicks in to a higher level (I suggest $10 million) even this "problem" could be solved for all but the most extreme circumstances. Increasing the value to $10 million across the board would also offer relief to "small" family businesses which conduct business in areas other then farming as well. Even in an extreme case where the small "family farm" is threatened due to urban encroachment, the "family" could always sell the farm to developers, pay the tax, buy another farm in a more rural area (where farming might also be more appropriate anyway) and still have a tremendous wad of cash left over for new combines, a new "family farm McMansion" (complete with in ground swimming pool), or whatever.

The Paris Hilton Tax does not threaten the family farm! The Paris Hilton Tax is a tax on snot nosed rich kids.

20070603

Illegal Immigrant Issue - Steny Hoyer

First off, I am going to say that on the Illegal Immigrant Issue, I am extremely torn. I have attempted to float my own ideas on this issue in the past and, no surprise (few people read my blog) my ideas failed to catch wind.

However let me state that SOMETHING needs to be done to deal with this issue. Perhaps I am not the one who needs to lead on this issue. But SOMEONE needs to grab the ball and run with it.

My understanding is that the Senate has passed legislation on the issue. George Dubyah Bush has even spoken up on the issue. However, it seems like the House of Representatives is going to let the issue wither and die.

My new idea? Well it seems like Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, is incapable of providing action on this issue. Well if the Speaker of the House can not provide the leadership, then someone else needs to provide the leadership that is lacking. Who will I point to? Steny Hoyer, the Majority Leader of the House. Moderate Steny leads (I won't attempt to say "controls", even saying "leads" is a stretch, perhaps "influences" is a better word) the Blue Dog Democrats. Blue Dog Democrats can affect the outcome of proposed legislation and ensure that SOMETHING is done.

If Steny Hoyer takes on this divisive issue and produces SOMETHING that might be a step forward from the House, he might prove that it is HE instead of SHE that would best serve as the next Speaker.

What we are faced with is a "Speaker" that refuses to go against the majority in the majority party controlling the House while we might have a "Majority Leader" who might be willing to make deals with members of the minority party in order to get legislation passed. Does this scream that these two parties (Nancy and Steny) should swap seats of power?

We have a problem. The problem begs for a solution. SOMETHING must be done. NOTHING that is done is going to satisfy everyone. Who can lead, actually lead, when leadership is called for? Evidently Nancy Pelosi is scared to step to the plate because she fears she will strike out. Well then, who will step up to the plate? I think the home run can be hit by someone with "Blue Dog Democrat" emblazoned on his jersey. If Nancy Pelosi can not lead, then let us put in the pinch hitter. Let's send Steny Hoyer to the plate!

20070601

Even More Moderate View on Abortion

In past posts I have attempted to discuss and consider something that I could point to as being a "Moderate's View on Abortion".

Back in December of 2005 I posted a piece (see here) where I put forth that perhaps a compromise on when abortions should be allowed and when they should be prohibited might be reached by defining a point at which that which is growing inside a woman's body first starts to "think".

In February of 2007 I came upon evidence that led me to believe that this (that which is growing "thinks") does not happen in most cases, even intermittently, prior to 20 weeks gestation. I posted a piece (see here) that discussed my discovery.

Evidence is that the United States Supreme Court is now willing to consider some restrictions on late term abortion procedures (even if the uncompromising opponents in this issue are still unwilling to compromise). I am willing to take on the issue of when exceptions should be allowed to the "fourth month" line I have personally drawn as being the point a woman should be allowed unrestricted rights to an abortion. If some exceptions to the line drawn in the sand should be allowed, just what should these exceptions be?

Most arguments for ANY exception to ANY restriction on abortion procedures or restrictions seem to begin on these three exceptions. Rape, incest and life (sometimes health) of the mother. I am going to use these exceptions as a starting point for my own discussion.

First rape. Should an exception to the fourth month line be allowed for instances of rape? Perhaps some extremely rare instance could be identified for allowing this exception, however such an extreme instance would indeed be rare. My argument? In the vast, overwhelming number of instances the woman is immediately aware the rape occurred. If she is not murdered upon completion of the rape, she is left free to go on with her life, however difficult her life might now be due to the rape. After the rape happens, she still has four months to make up her mind whether or not she wants to give birth to a child that was conceived through the act of rape. Four months allows her sufficient time to obtain counselling, seek advice from whatever confidants she values, meditate etc etc and make up her mind. Instances where the woman is not granted this amount of time would be so rare as to be almost non existent. Even where the rare instance exists, the woman is held captive or something until after the fourth month of pregnancy for example, the rights of the "person" inside now come into play. While she might decide she would never be capable of loving and nurturing the child born of an action of hate, somewhere exists a couple who would love to give this infant person a loving environment and nurturing upbringing. So my opinion is: no exception for rape.

Second incest. Should an exception to the fourth month line be allowed for incest? I think the need for this exception would be extremely rare, however probably not as rare as the instances of rape. It is highly more likely that a father or other relative might impregnate an underage child through incest, and after the pregnancy is discovered, attempt to cover up the incestuous relationship. However even here the rights of the "person" inside the young woman needs to be considered. While there are justifiable reasons for why incestuous relationships are illegal, do all products (babies) of incestuous relationships REQUIRE destruction? Inbreeding within confined geographical areas and mini societies that set themselves apart already exist. Who would argue that all of these humans must be destroyed? If the 5 year old "person" or 30 year old adult that exists due to such an incestuous relationship, why should the destruction of the "person" who exists 5 months after gestation be allowed? Surely there exists people within our society that would love to give such a newborn infant a loving environment and nurturing upbringing even if they were informed in advance of the circumstances behind the conception. So my opinion is: no exception for incest.

I am going to break the last proposed argument for exceptions into two categories. First the "life" of the mother is at risk, and then when the "health" of the mother is at risk. First the life of the mother. While I do not think that every mother is going to reach the same decision when faced with an either/or dilemma... that being one or the other must die... I respect that the decision should only rest with the mother. I will even respect the mother's right to choose even if continuing with the pregnancy will probably (although not certainly) result in the death of both. Problems might remain even here as to just how much risk of death must the mother have to endure after the fourth month, however I do believe we will gain some headways by reaching the conclusion that when a mother's life is in endangered after the fourth month of pregnancy, the mother gets to decide. My opinion: mothers life endangered, exception allowed.

Now comes the most difficult and slippery exception to be considered. How do we get our hooks into the "health" of the mother is at risk? I am extremely torn on this one, and it is my opinion that where to draw the line on this issue is going to torment humanity until the ends of time. For example, if the woman carries the child through to birth, she is going to lose the ability to give birth to any additional children. Should she be forced to give birth to one and only one child when her desire is to raise a large family? I can give further examples. A mother, without health care coverage, is faced with giving birth to a child that will drive her already existing family into bankruptcy due to the medical costs required to care for the infant. The infant will be born into a life of pain and suffering with the only hopes for the infant being the prolonging of suffering through expensive medical care. I heard of one example where a mother was informed that, late into her pregnancy, what was growing inside her was co joined little girls. The girls were joined at the chest and shared one heart. After delivery, the prognosis for the girls was glum. Most certainly, both would not survive, and even with outrageously expensive surgery, probably neither would be viable. The mother decided on early delivery so that she could hold the prematurely birthed children and wrap them in her loving arms while they expired on her chest. Did this mother make the wrong decision? It is hard, if not impossible, to argue that she did. I do believe that this woman appropriately took into consideration the "greater good" as she came to her decision.

However pointing only to exceptional cases where the rights of the mother should be respected does not do justice to the other side of the argument. By allowing these exceptions we allow the loopholes that will be exploited by those whom many, or at least I, would condemn. While I tend to agree that mothers are those who are wired by nature (or God) to be most concerned for the well fare of their children and even the unborn growing within them, exceptions to the hard wiring exist. I could site the names of mothers who exist who have killed multiple children under her care. I will not seek to sensationalize any particular instance of where this has happened. Let me just state: it happened in the past... it still happens today... it will continue to happen into the future. Society has the right to intervene in the mother's decision when the rights of another created individual come into play. We can not trust that "all" women will "always" make the perfect decision. My opinion: restricted exceptions (with oversight) allowed when the mother's health is at risk.

I think it is unwise to insist that women (mothers) alone should be entrusted with this issue. I do not want to be forced to endure a "Girls Gone Wild" video on You Tube that addresses the abortion issue.

Condemn me if you will, however realize it is guys (and gals) like me that are going to decide this issue. An unwillingness to compromise is not going to win favor.