Dobson, Obama and "The Speech"

Funny how today we hear James Dobson, a man with whom on many issues I agree, attack Senator Obama on a speech he made two years ago at the liberal Christian conference Call to Renewal. In reading the text of this speech I bristled at the comments Dobson made about Senator Obama and his exegetical prowess. Now don't get me wrong, if the Senator and I were to sit down and "talk Bible" I would probably disagree with him on quite a bit, but with regards to this speech there wasn't much I had trouble with.

Obama makes some good points (which obviously are those I agree with *snicker*). In fact, most of what I disagree with is not so much his interpretation but rather his typical liberal way of thinking. I agree with much of what Obama says on the role of personal religion in politics, that the word personal means "private, individual". If you are going to thrust religion into the political spotlight and in a democratic-republic try to declare one of them as "the truth" then Obama is right to ask which one are we going to pick? In truth, if we are going to go with denominational lines, we should embrace some type of Catholicism as that is where the plurality resides. Going protestant causes a lot of headaches, for though non-Catholic Christians are the majority, Episcopal beliefs differ somewhat from Southern Baptist, UCC is in places radically different from Presbyterian. So who do you hold up the as "the standard"? And then there is the messy issue of the existence of agnostics and atheists. I had this discussion with a fellow conservative at work today when I declared I didn't want to know all of the details of a person's personal faith. I kinda like my Christianity minimal but deep and strong, not shallow and public (kinda like prayer, I prefer to pray in my closet rather than on the street corner wearing bells and covered with ashes). And as for Dobson taking Obama to task over his mixing Old Testament with New Testament, while I agree with him as a good Dispensationaist he should know there is a small sect within Christianity that wants us to go back to Old Testament laws even though we are "no longer under Law but Grace" (I would hope that if he considers himself as a spokesman for Christianity Dr. Dobson has heard of these Theonomists, a scary lot).

Now where do I think Obama went off track? Let me put your gray cells to work. Consider this:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

First off, it sounds good, but Senator Obama seems to ignore the fact that most conservatives who engage in public debate do try to "translate their concerns into universal... values... amenable to reason". The problem is he disagrees (or seems to) with many of the stronger philosophical arguments against abortion on demand (among other things, but most arguments against abortion do not introduce god into the discussion). Most liberals do this and think they are the rational ones when what they often do is take a knee-jerk reaction to anything that could have some tie back to religion (and seem to turn secularism into its own type of "religion"). In the following example he does it again. Notice how nothing is said of the individual as a possible causative agent in the situation, instead they are always at the whim of external forces around them:

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man

Why are the problems of the uninsured and the unemployed rooted in societal indifference? I hate when people talk about slippery slopes but honestly here I think we are one one... if the roots are societal then what are our options? What must change to kill this weed in the human garden? Like almost everything in his campaign, Senator Obama doesn't tell us, doesn't seem to want to do more than point fingers and if I take this last quote of his along with other things he has said what I see is that he thinks a Socialist/Marxist society would be of the greatest benefit. In this Obama seems to have missed some portions of Scripture too... about the worker deserving his wages (in context of getting what he is given for his work) and the example (and rule) given in 2 Thessalonians 3:9-11 ("... If a man will not work he shall not eat"). No one is owed anything in this life. At some point we have to take some responsibility for what we do. Perhaps the Right take this too far, but if he was honest in his speech Senator Obama should have admitted that the Left tend to veer off track in the own direction just the same.

Surprised?

In working on a project in my Leadership and Creativity class for my MBA I took a test to see if I was left brain (logical and analytical) or right brain (artistic and creative). The results:

You are a right brain dominant student!

You probably get bored during long lectures and prefer to take classes with a lot of freedom of movement and thought. You like to write stories and even tell stories about your funny experiences. You might be a little suspicious of other people's motives sometimes, but that's only because you can usually tell whenever someone is lying or when they're up to no good. You are a little on the dreamy side--or a lot. You plan books or movie plots but you don't always follow through on things you think about. You should work on that. You are fun and spontaneous. Your feelings run deep, and it shows. You have strong instincts, and you solve problems on hunches and feelings. You are artistic in some way. You can believe in things based on experience, without seeing scientific proof. You might be a finalist on Survivor some day, since you know how to read people so well, and you have great survival instincts.

A Gem In Temecula

Mr. Beau has been showing an interest in wines so last Saturday we took a little trip up the 15 to Temecula. In earlier posts you read of my trip with Elbert and some of the places we visited. On this trip I thought I would do two things: introduce Mr. Beau to more wines and find perhaps another place where I could get local wines that I would not be afraid of offering to my friends. As luck would have it I hit the jackpot on both with our first stop, Leonesse Cellars. In fact, I liked it so much I joined their wine club. After a couple of samplings together (a good representative Pinot Grigio, stainless-steel fermented so you get the melon and light green apple notes and their not overly oaked Chardonnay showing some traits of malolactic fermentation) I turned Mr. Beau loose on the whites (his palate tended towards the sweeter white Merlot and their rather good Riesling with very nice fresh fruit aromas) while I went off into red land. Their Melange de Reves is a nice medium bodied Rhone blend of Syrah, Cinsault, and Grenache with good berry tastes and just a hint of smokiness. Their 2004 Syrah is a good representation of a smooth Syrah, almost seductive with layers of black fruit, pepper, and a hit of smokiness. A big surprise was their Zinfandel which, given the current trend of overly alcoholed concotions was very smooth with good blackberry, pepper, and hints of clove with soft tannins. To top it off we had a fantastic lunch at their recently opened Block 5 restaurant. I really do recommend spending the extra time there sipping wine in the outdoor environment and enjoying their wonderfully prepared food.

So, Temecula is showing promise. I look forward to seeing how the area develops over time.

Harvey Corman R. I. P.

The passing of a great comedian always make the world seem a little less bright, a little more dull.
I was fortunate to see Harvey Corman and Tim Conway at Harrah's Rincon. It was such a pleasant evening to see funny, clean comedy for a change.





You know, I always had my suspicions about Methodists. Thanks Harvey.

More Than Just Numbers

646,392

320,518

1,076,245

103,284

211,454

2,442

44,308

What are these numbers? They represent the number of U. S. soldiers wounded or killed in

War Between The States (Civil War)

World War 1

World War 2

Korean War

Vietnam

Afghanistan (as of 31-Dec-2007)

Iraq (as of 31-Dec-2007)

How strange and how disheartening to me that the majority of people in this country will honor these men and women (and many others) by getting drunk and watching television. At 3:00pm I would hope that there is at least a slight pause in your activities to remember those who gave their all so that you have retained your right to do whatever it is you are doing today. These and many others took the following oath and lived those responsibilities:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Those of us who remain should remember what it means to affirm, to commit, to "swear" an oath. In today's world it is far too easy to be morally "squishy", to be non-commital, to not choose a side, to wait and see if something better comes along, to save our own hides at the expense of others. These men and women didn't, and we are a better country for it. I am reminded of what President Reagan said at the 40th anniversary of D-Day:

" Today the living here assembled -- officials, veterans, citizens -- are a tribute to what was achieved here 40 years ago. This land is secure. We are free. These things are worth fighting and dying for."

The Last Of My Vices

And given what current research is turning out, soon the wine will not count. Good.

Beginning Of The End For Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

OK, it's time to grow up and get rid of that incredibly stupid Clinton legacy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT). Just how many ways could Bill Clinton say "smoked but.. didn't inhale"? That is what DADT reminds me of... you can be gay, but you can't tell anyone or "act like it" (whatever that means). How so very Catholic of him. But now we may have a glimmer of hope. This week the 9th Circuit became the first court to review the military policy of DADT since the landmark case of Lawrence v Texas. Under Lawrence, the 9th Circuit said Wednesday, "Don't Ask" must be subjected to something more stringent than the rational basis test. The upshot is that the 9th Circuit's ruling makes it far more difficult to discharge someone simply because of their sexual orientation. They now have to make a specific case for discharging that person under consideration and that no other options are possible for that particular person. If it stands, this means being gay is not enough to disqualify you from active military service. You can read the entire ruling here.

Dinner Conversation

Saturday night I had the pleasure of spending time with Mr. Beau and friends, eating and drinking the evening away. At one point the mass of cells located in my cranium aligned to make me think strange thoughts (well, not so strange for me but it would be strange for many people) about how given the different genders, sexual orientations, ages and backgrounds that it would be a good time to talk about something "deep" (after all, Smurfs seemed to dominate the first part of the dinner). Given the situation I launched into Plato's Symposium. Given that the title itself comes from the Greek and roughly meaning a "drinking party", I introduced the same topic discussed in that work, namely, what is love? I took a little different tact and asked the more concrete question "What do you look for in someone to form a relationship?". While not allowing for such responses as Aristophanes' regarding the feeling of wholeness one finds in that special person they love (one of my favorite pieces in Plato's writings), I admitted that I look for a "Dr. Phil" guy. What I meant was someone who observed many of the "life rules" set forth in one his earlier books Life Strategies. In short the idea is that you have to be realistic in that the world is the way it is. It's not fair, it's not nice, and you have to have your eyes open. You have to take responsibilities for your actions. Each of us create our own experiences. You have to be honest to yourself before you can be honest with anyone else. In short, someone who is real, grounded, honest. I don't want someone who is the way they are because they think that is what I want but they are the way they are simply because that is the way they are. In a relationship I want someone who understands that how they treat me creates their own experience of the relationship. If you ignore me, you can't sit around asking why I don't contact you, you need to start with yourself. If you don't make time for me in your life because you want me in it, then don't be surprised if I don't make time in my life for you. Get the picture? Outside of autoeroticism or narcissism, love and relationships involve more than one person. I think that starting with these traits as the foundation, traits of moral strength and looking at the world in a realistic way, you can be more assured that the person you are with is the person they say they are and that their feelings for you are real, honest, and open. I was lucky, because sitting at the other end of the table was someone who has almost all of these traits and he wants to be with me.

Not as eloquent as Plato, but I think I am more fortunate.

What We Miss By Not Looking

Mr Beau took me on a date today to see the second installment of the Chronicles of Narnia, Prince Caspian. Like the first movie, this one touched me. Call me silly and sentimental, but simple statements of faith and truth can move me to tears. One of the most poignant exchanges comes between Lucy, the youngest child, and Peter who is the oldest:

Peter: Why didn't I see Aslan?
Lucy: Perhaps you weren't looking for him.

Immediately thoughts go to Jeremiah 29:12 - 14 where we find the promise given to Israel "Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you," declares the LORD, "and will bring you back from captivity."

If you seek, you will find. How often we miss this simple truth in our daily lives. We walk around with blinders on, often missing the big picture of life happening around us. How many relationships are ruined, opportunities lost, hours drained from our lives just because we do not open our eyes and look around us? How much do we miss by not living in the moment, observing our own behaviors and the reactions of those closest to us? As Doctor Phil says, we create our own experiences. The choices we make each day have consequences, but how often do we go about our lives asking how things could be like they are rather than asking how they could be any other way? How much do we miss because we don't look? Whether it is of eternal value (missing God because we don't look for Him in our daily lives) or temporal (the chance for happiness or to cut off actions that could lead to sadness and trouble), our lives are lessened when we fail to look.

Dang, My Character Died

Your Harry Potter Alter Ego Is...? created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Albus Dumbledore Strong and powerful you admirably defend your world and your charges against those who would seek to harm them. However sometimes you can fail to do what you must because you care too much to cause suffering. Albus Dumbledore 90% Hermione Granger 80% Remus Lupin 75% Sirius Black 65% Ron Weasley 65% Ginny Weasley 65% Severus Snape 65% Harry Potter 60% Draco Malfoy 55% Lord Voldemort 25%

My Oh My

And in other "pink" news we have the disgraced former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy. I love this bit in the article:

"Now an Episcopal seminary student, McGreevey, 50, said he owes a prior divorce lawyer at least $116,000 and has not paid his first ex-wife any child support this year. He said he relies on his boyfriend to pay legal bills and other expenses.

McGreevey said he is indifferent to money and passed up opportunities to increase his income during his marriage by instead running for public office."

Indifferent to money? Typical Democrat... I'm indifferent to money so I will take all of yours to spend. OK, cheap shot (but true LOL). I suppose if I didn't pay my own bills and didn't pay child support to my first ex-wife I would be indifferent to money as well.

I wonder how his "boyfriend" is taking this? Perhaps I should have a talk with him given my own background in such relationships, but you would think being a financial adviser he would know about the "investment" in McGreevey...

First Battle's Over

The California Supreme Court overturned the ban on gay marriage (you can read the brief announcement here or the entire opinion on it here).

Now the really hard work comes. It appears there are enough signatures on a petition to put it to a vote on amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. If this passes then the Supreme Count in California will have no choice on any further cases since it is the sole purpose of the court to determine the constitutionality of a law. But for the moment, a little celebration.

Almost Forgot

I got sick over the weekend and almost forgot to tell you that Mr. Beau took me to see Michael Bublé live in concert! So this is for him...

One Of My Favorite Dr Who Scenes

Proof That Republicans Have Been Infected

Front page of the 06-May-2008 San Diego Union Tribune in an article titled States join call for gas tax relief we have this quote for Florida's Republican Governor Charles Crist:

It's about trying to serve the people and trying to understand and have caring, compassionate hearts for what they're dealing with at the kitchen table... I'm supposed to respond to the people and try to make them happy

Ugh. Just like Democrats Gov. Crist's remarks separate him from others in his state ("the people", "they", "them"). Then to add even more evidence of their leftward march he states that he is "supposed to... try to make them happy". Sad. Very sad. It was my understanding that we as citizens have the right to pursue happiness ala the Declaration of Independence, but for someone, especially an elected official, to feel like they have to make people happy? As any good therapist knows, others cannot make you happy, only you can make you happy. Until we get out this entitlement type of mindset we will never honestly address the ills of our society.

Iron Man A Conservative?

Well, at least Robert Downey, Jr. In an interview with the New York Times Downey makes the following self-outing:

"I have a really interesting political point of view, and it’s not always something I say too loud at dinner tables here, but you can’t go from a $2,000-a-night suite at La Mirage to a penitentiary and really understand it and come out a liberal. You can’t. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone else, but it was very, very, very educational for me and has informed my proclivities and politics every since."

Another little tid-bit... when Downey was trying to get back into films but uninsurable, it was Mel Gibson who put up the money to insure him so that film companies wouldn't be scared off. Now Mel has his own issues, but it's an interesting little piece of news that somehow didn't quite make it into the major press markets (shoot, look how far down the interview RDJ's "confession" was buried).

Hmmm... will Stark Enterprises make a bid for Halliburton?

Cynical on Obama

This morning I was greeted with the yet another Obama/Wright story.
I'm sorry, but this really smells like an attempt by the Obama people to try to evade the fact that Obama sat under the teachings of a racist hatemonger masquerading as a minister of the Gospel. I can just see Obama's people talking with Wright saying "Barrack is really taking some heat. Go out and something that he can really denounce so he can say 'See, I disagree with my former pastor'." Is this too cynical? Watching Wright's interview I don't see so much more than what I saw in the released sermon videos. NOW Obama's "outraged"? NOW, just after the interview, he condemns the remarks? Let's get real... even the article says that Wright reiterated his charges against the United States. Of course, Obama uses his standard method of deflection of anything that could damage him... he called them divisive and said his supporters should just move on. Hopefully this story doesn't move on because it is just such things that provide insight into who Senator Obama really is. I mean, it's not like he really has legislative leadership or a voting record we can examine.

Elite

If I hear one more defense of Obama not being an elitist I think I will wretch. The arguments of the Democrats are so lacking in any logic that the mere fact people repeat it makes me want to suggest psychological counseling for them (or at least philosophical counseling). I saw three TV talk shows with three different Democrat pundits spouting the same two pieces of "evidence" to prove that Obama is not an elitist:

1. He was brought up by a single mother.
2. He is just now paying off his student loans.

Please, can anyone tell me what this has to do with being an elitist? Being an elitist has nothing to do with how many people reared you or how long it took you to pay off your college loans (perhaps had he not attended such elite schools he would have been out of hock sooner... or perhaps he should have taken a job that would have allowed him to meet his obligations in a more timely manner). Being an elite has everything to do with a sense of who you are compared with others, being "better" or superior to others. Take a look at what Merriam-Webster has to say about the definition of elite and then tell me how either of the aforementioned two points come into play on whether or not Obama is an elite. The man degraded a large number of folks in Pennsylvania on their beliefs, and please don't forget his backhanded statement on wearing a flag lapel pin (apparently only his definition of patriotism is true patriotism). When he isn't elitist he's patronizing.

I swear, the more I pay attention to this man I don't understand the magic.

The One Thing

“We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”
-- Victor Frankl, Man's Search For Meaning

I may not be able to chose many things in this life that affect me, but I can choose how I react to their effect. I can let things get me down if I so choose, or I can select another attitude toward the situation. That choice is mine and mine alone. I accept responsibility for my choice and take responsibility for whatever comes of that choice for it is mine and mine alone to make... or in other (better) words:

"Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible."

The Real Reason For My Elevated Blood Pressure

I think it was this article in U. S. News & World Report that set it off. That's what I get for reading it while working the elliptical machine at the gym. Sadly, almost every "problem" that the article discusses as needing big government to fix was caused by government in the first place. In IT we call this "job security".

Officially Entering Old Age

Well, it happened... yesterday I have officially entered "old age". Why? Yesterday my doctor put me on blood pressure medication. It's mild, hydrochlorothiazide, a diuretic. We had a good discussion (I really like my doctor, he listens to me and lets me tell him what to... up to a point, but that is because he has done a good job of educating me over the years). But the elevation is most likely caused by bodily changes including the roughly 20lbs I have accumulated over the last couple of years. Everything else is excellent, no worries about anything else. So until I drop the weight and we test again I will at least have a valid medical excuse for leaving long, boring meetings early.

What I Was Taught

I don't know if either of my parents read Kipling in high school but these sentiments create memories of what they tried to instill in my sister and me:

If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!

--Rudyard Kipling

My Usual Movie Experience

It is usually the case that the more often I see a movie I originally didn't care for the more it grows on me. That was the case as I watched Star Trek The Motion Picture. As I watched it while working from home I found I actually enjoyed it. One thing that stood out for me this time is that I have come to think that the first 20 minutes had some of the best mood-setting music I have heard for a movie. Guess that is what happens when you pay attention.

Life In Southern California

Well, it's been about 8 years since I moved to San Diego and I still find myself trying to adjust. Granted, the weather is wonderful and I love my little place in Ocean Beach. I've finally found a work environment that can provide a stable source of income (and hopefully a real career). In the relatively short time I have lived here I have seen changes in the city, an increase in options for recreation, growth in the number of culinary and cultural offerings, and a revival (somewhat) of the downtown area. But things are not as they should be. With very, very few exceptions I have found it difficult to meet and create good, solid friendships. Part of my time in therapy last year delved into this issue but I have not found any resolution. I keep wanting to say "It's not like it was in Kansas City and St. Louis, people are more friendly there." To be completely honest though that was what, 10 years or more ago and I do not know what it would be like to move back there. I have never had a lot of friend, but the friendships that were forged were strong and deep, they cut across educational, social, and economic boundaries... they were people who worked at Subway, people who were programmers, doctors, auto mechanics, dancers, and people who worked in pipe shops. The friendships tended not to be based on one thing but were grounded by common interests (time was taken to find out what those interests were) and went beyond the singular event that brought us together. Events were both formal (planned) and informal. Discussion was always lively, sometimes deep, sometimes just good friends spending a sunny afternoon together maybe having a beer and or going out to watching a movie or bowling or taking a hike. We kept in touch which often created spontaneous "meet-ups". We were always introducing each other to new people and we could expand our groups as we wanted. I think the common bond was that we just enjoyed being around each other, period. Maybe it is different back there now. It has definitely been different here. Seems like people pigeon-hole you quickly and place you into a certain category out of which it is difficult (if not impossible) for you to extract yourself. Am I wrong? It really seems like here that people are always looking for something better and they treat others that way. It's not been uncommon for people to set things up with me and then break them, not just once but repeatedly. It's like pulling teeth to get people to commit to doing something, again as if they want to keep their schedule open just in case something "more fun" might come along. I dunno... am I wrong? If so, please let me know and if you have any suggestions I would love to hear them.

Oh Hillary!

For My Geek Friends

Top 10 April Fools Day Jokes To Play On The Enterprise:

10) Everybody act like Riker is the captain

9) Pretend you've been taken over by an alien being

8) Program the replicator in Troi's room so that it won't make chocolate

7) Replay file tape of Borg ship on main viewer

6) Tell Data that Starfleet has decided to dismantle him

5) Put a small speaker in Dr. Crusher's bedroom to play garbled voices

4) Lock Picard in the children's schoolroom with several children and no adults

3) Substitute some of Dr. Crusher's moss with moss showing 24 hours more growth

2) Put a sign on Worf's back that says "Kick Me!"

1) Yell into your communicator "Captain, the antimatter containment fields are collapsing"

I have to admit, these aren't original with me. You can read them (and more) here.

Same-Sex Marriage Again

Well, no posted comments but several emails, surprisingly none of them supportive. I will try to post a general "one size fits all" response since they were all similar in nature.

First, every email that came to me was religious in nature. As I stated in the previous email, I did not address this as a religious issue. If a particular religion wants to ban same-sex marriage more power to them, but if you look at the history of what marriage actually is (at least the last 2500 years), it has had a much less religious meaning and more financial-political meaning. If you try to go down the road of religion the immediate questions become:

1. Why should we take this road in discussing marriage in modern terms?
   
2. Whose religion should take precedence?
   

Marriage today has more to do with rights as a citizen than it does a religious connotation. You do not need the blessings of the Church or of its elders, neither do you have to believe in any particular creed or even have your ceremony performed by a minister in a chapel. The true power in our society to declare something a marriage rests with "the state" and not any particular minister, otherwise why is it that marriage performed by ministers for same-sex couples are not recognized by the state even though it is recognized by the celebrants, the minister, the congregation, in fact the entire sect to which they belong? And what about the Catholic church which recognizes marriages only if performed according to their edicts? Are marriages performed by a Justice of the Peace of non-effect with respect to the state? I think not (two very close friends of mine have seen that even though their marriage was technically not recognized by the Catholic church their divorce required jumping through all the hoops required by secular law). And now that about 20% of the world is Muslim, how does a state handle the sanctioned divorce ritual of simply saying "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you"? Religiously separated but according to the laws of the state they are... what?

Some people tried to create an argument based on the idea that homosexuality is a sin and therefore homosexual marriages should not be allowed. Such an argument doesn't really work in the situation of marriage. Theft is a sin yet thieves can get married (as long as they are of appropriate gender). Rapists can get married, pedophiles can get married, murderers can get married... the list goes on and on. And when it comes to sin remember all of the things that are sins and yet liars can get married, those disrespectful to their parents can get married, those who worship false idols can get married (we can go on and on with this). Please do not misunderstand me, I count myself in the fold of those who believe and am a pretty rock-ribbed conservative evangelical, but I don't think that this idea of sin can be brought into the debate since All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We can discuss and debate whether or not homosexuality is a sin, but that debate is not the same as whether or not same-sex marriages should be allowed.

Looking At Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

As you may know the California Supreme Court recently spent 3.5 hours listening to arguments on the issue of whether the state law defining marriage as the union of man and a woman is constitutional. This has the potential to be the biggest domestic issues verdict since 1948 when the California court overturned the state's miscegenation law in Perez v Sharp(for those of you suffering from a California public high school education, miscegenation comes from Latin meaning "to mix race" or for a more concrete definition interracial marriage). A ruling is due by June of this year. I have to tell you, after looking at arguments on both sides I have come down on the side that says the marriages should be allowed. This has nothing to do with being gay. As with many other issues I held that separate from the fact-finding and information processing activities. The issue for me comes down on the side of viewing it as a civil matter rather than a religious one. Personally, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and simply issue certificates of legal partnership. If particular religions wish to have marriages they can have a ceremony but these would have no legal legitimacy, simply being a religious ceremony. Thus the government would have no say whatsoever on whether or not a religion had to perform same-sex marriages and those that were gay friendly would be allowed to do so. What mattered in the eyes of the government for tax and legal purposes would be the certificate of legal partnership (call them civil unions if you wish).

OK, I know this is far too radical for most people to contend with (but thus far I have not heard of any coercive arguments against it), so let's look at the issue of marriage. The issue as it appears to me depends on the how you answer the question "What is the purpose of marriage?" For the moment I am going to remove the religious-based responses, those will be dealt with in a subsequent post. Once we leave the realm of religious responses the most common I have encountered are:

1. Marriage is between one man and one woman.
   
2. Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.
   
3. Marriage is for procreation.
   
4. Same-sex relationships are detrimental to children.
   
5. Same-sex marriage would lead us to polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.
   
6. Granting same-sex marriage creates a special right and you conservatives are against making more of those.
   

Each point deserves its own post but truth be told I'm too lazy to type them and I don't think you want to see all the clutter in the blog so I will try to my utmost to condense my responses to each.

1. This one is easy (remember, no religion as this is strictly a civil matter). Just who says that marriage is between one man and one woman only? Allowing same-sex marriage does not preclude one man/one woman, it just broadens the set of possible marriage combinations. Well, you might say, we needed to draw the line somewhere but I ask you "Why there?" Who gets to say where the line is drawn? Why, the majority you might respond. Be careful of going there especially in California because the polls were 2-1 against allowing interracial marriage when it was struck down. You can read the anti-miscegenation ruling here (and if you do pay close attention to Judge Traynor's opinion). Simply saying that marriage is between one man and one woman gets too close to creating a circular argument to be of much effect.
   
   
2. Just about as easy as the first one. First, how does allowing people to marry threaten marriage? If marriage is such a wonderful institution that carries with it beneficial societal and health benefits, why not encourage it? If we are honest, heterosexuals haven't been the greatest protectors of their ideal of marriage. If nothing else (and there is much more) think of the divorces that would not happen if gay people were allowed to enter into gay marriage rather than a sham heterosexual marriage that can end only in traumatic divorce. And isn't it possible that the other arguments of why marriage is great (such as the domestication effect on promiscuity) could apply at least in part to a male-male or female-female marriage? If you want to protect the institution of heterosexual marriage make divorce almost impossible to exist and make adultery punishable by death.
   
   
3. Oh please. If this were true then lets not allow marriage to those who cannot regardless of the reason, instant divorce to those who have procedures that disallow the creation of children, and make it law that all marriage must produce at least one child within the first three years of marriage else the union in delcared null and void. And who says that children cannot be produced within a same-sex union? A nice gay couple could donate sperm to a nice lesbian couple and voila, children! OK, bit of a stretch but you get the idea.
   
   
4. The literature on this one is at best mixed. The fact is, many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages and what the literature does seem to indicate is difference is in the quality of the experience, not the sexual identity of the parents. Anecdotally, what seems to be detrimental is that narrow-minded parents raise narrow-minded children who seem to think it is OK to bully and harass children whose parents are gay. Now whose problem is this?
   
   
5. Ah, the famous slippery-slope argument. Lets be frank, allowing marriage at all could be the beginning of the "slippery slope" but that, like this argument against, is a bit silly. The argument is one used to generate fear, but unlike say the argument against allowing a mother to marry her son (which could be made on genetic grounds), allowing two men or two women to marry does not carry those potentially harmful outcomes and unlike polygamy a man-man or woman-woman union would not muddy the waters of rights and responsibilities of those entering the marriage contract. In the words of another writer: If we allowed Terri Schaivo to have two husbands and they disagreed on her care, then who gets the final word? This is exactly the sort of question marriage exists to answer. Polygamy not only wouldn't answer it, it would make it unanswerable. Such issues would not exist within a same-sex marriage.
   
   
6. And now a big one for conservatives like myself, but I don't see the problem that some of my conservative brothers and sisters do. If 95% of the country is already allowed the right to marry (I am assuming 5% of the population is gay because I am not quite convinced of the statistics pointing to the usual 10%), then how is extending that right to the other 5% creating a "special right"? Polygamous heterosexual can still marry a person of a sex they desire, they just have to pick one. The only marriage homosexuals can currently enter into are those that would be shams, lies, and deceitful from the beginning. By not allowing gay men and women to marry the only possible marriage union would be mendacious and fraudulent. so please tell me how this allowance is a "special" right.
   

Do you want to really know the real reasons people are against same-sex marriage? Here it is:

Fear. For some reason many straight people are afraid of "the different" or "the other".

Religious views. Sadly, many people confuse religion with civil law. Granted, many statutes are based on our religious beliefs (and they are wonderful) but some were misguided (prohibitions against interracial marriage or even pro-slavery stands were made on the grounds of some religious interpretation). We must be very careful on how religion carries over into the public square.

In my opinion the biggest is what I call the "ick factor". Rather than thinking of people who are gay, many in our society really view us in terms of how we practice sex (the one difference seems to be how straight men view lesbian sexual practice, something I simply don't understand). Many straight men just can't seem to past the sexual acts of gay people. Sorry, but for those of us on this side of the fence we don't quite understand what you get out of your practices either.

Sad But True

It really is sad what we have come to call "news" these days. Given all the valuable sources of data open to us here in the 21st century, we tailor our "news" to our preconceptions so that what we "already know to be true" is simply reinforced. We have gone from the news supplying information to "infotainment" to (at best) data. We can't call it information any more because information implies context and meaning which our hundreds of channels and millions of Web pages tend not to supply and because when it IS available most people are too intellectually lazy to dig deeper, simply willing to take what is given to them at face value.

What We Call the News | Funny Jokes at JibJab

Easter

People flippantly say "Happy Easter" when they meet you, but Easter is Happy. Why? It's simple:

Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures... Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty. Also, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified against God that he raised Christ from the dead, when in reality he did not raise him, if indeed the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also came through a man. For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 12-22)

Or, as a hymn rarely sung these days recounts:

One day when heaven was filled with his praises,
One day when sin was as black as could be,
Jesus came forth to be born of a virgin—
Dwelt amongst men, my example is he!

Living, he loved me; dying, he saved me;
Buried, he carried my sins far away;
Rising, he justified freely, for ever:
One day he's coming—O, glorious day!

One day they led him up Calvary's mountain,
One day they nailed him to die on the tree;
Suffering anguish, despised and rejected:
Bearing our sins, my Redeemer is he!

One day they left him alone in the garden,
One day he rested, from suffering free;
Angels came down o'er his tomb to keep vigil;
Hope of the hopeless, my Saviour is he!

One day the grave could conceal him no longer,
One day the stone rolled away from the door;
Then he arose, over death he had conquered;
Now is ascended, my Lord evermore!

One day the trumpet will sound for his coming,
One day the skies with his glories will shine;
Wonderful day, my beloved ones bringing;
Glorious Saviour, this Jesus is mine!


For any who believe how can Easter be anything but happy?

An Interesting Text

Had an interesting text from an acquaintance of mine. This younger guy, after commenting on the attractiveness of someone on a television show, asked me "r (sic) relationships w/goodlooking men possible these days?" Take a moment to let this soak in. I realize this was in a text and it was sent while he was looking at a guy on TV so the scale was skewed, but it seems that this is a rather common question. In hookup circles it is like being asked "Are you goodlooking?" Like many things in life the answer begins with "It depends..." To some people (like Mr. Beau) I am considered goodlooking. However, if you only like twinks or Blacks or Asians or muscle-studs the answer would have to be "No". If your idea of goodlooking is something from "Bear Monthly" then yes, if it is from the now-defunct A&F catalog, it's a resounding no.

Now lets return to the original question. I have to say that I have found EVERY boyfriend/partner goodlooking. Let's face it, we all say looks don't matter but who's kidding whom? Often physical attraction is the first thing to bring two people together (not always, but often). Brains, wit, common viewpoints, mutually enjoyed activities, etc help bring about the second date, but that first is often when you notice someone standing across the room (oops, giving away my age there... I mean, when you first see their nude pic on bootycall.com) and tell yourself "I want to get closer to that guy/gal at least for tonight". So often people you are in a relationship you at least consider them to be goodlooking. But lets go even deeper... a relationship with someone who is goodlooking. It takes TWO to have any type of relationship (even in mathematics you have two or more elements from one or more sets that are needed to be in a relation, even a narcissistic one like the identity function). In all honesty, you would have to know what that "goodlooking guy/gal" is looking for in a relationship and then ask if YOU bring that to the table. I suppose the hidden implication is that goodlooking people do not want relationships or have set such high standards that they will never be fulfilled. Well, as I am in a relationship with someone I consider goodlooking, I can at least say that if those two states are the rule I am lucky to be part of the exception.

Preachers Say Crazy Stuff All The Time

First, the incredibly incendiary crap spewed from the man Obama declared his mentor:



And here we even get a bit of Obama trying to defend the biggot (amazing, he's been there 20 years and claims not to have heard his minister say things like this):



Personally, I like this take...



Ah, those "crazy a**ed preachers". You know though, they are right... it's hard to find a preacher that "ain't a little crazy".

And away we go...

See latest stories on Yahoo! News

Book Review: Gods Behaving Badly

I recently finished reading Marie Phillips' book Gods Behaving Badly. Not bad for the first time out of the chute. In this tale Ms. Phillips brings us up to date on what happened to the Greek Pantheon. Seems that after losing the limelight to that young upstart Jesus and the spread of Christianity, Zeus, Aphrodite, Apollo and the clan have done a reverse "Beverly Hillbillies" and moved downmarket from Olympus to a tumbledown house in modern day London. It seems that, for reasons only alluded to early in the book, the gods have lost most of their powers, able to barely perform their assigned tasks (or in D&D terms, oversee their portfolio). Apollo can still make the sun rise and set but to work on on television as a TV psychic he has to rely on tricks having lost his ability to prophesy. Poor Demeter can no longer cultivate plants. And Zeus seems to have disappeared completely (you find out where he is later). Mankind is represented by Neil and Alice, two rather ordinary people who go about their lives. Neil is the typical nerdish engineer and Alice works as a cleaner who winds up taking the job of cleaning the townhouse of the gods. Due to squabble between Apollo and Aphrodite the lives of Alice and Neil are turned upside down as they learn what happens when mortals interfere with the gods (or at least those of Greek mythology whose historic exploits are marvelously updated by Ms. Phillips for those who never read Edith Hamilton's works).

Is this a tome for the ages? No, but I did come away with some thoughts particularly in the area of the power of belief (or to "religify" it, faith) and the concept of myth. Let me try to tie the two together without creating too vulgar (in the sense of undeveloped and not that of profanity) an analysis. What Phillips shows her readers (or at least those who care to look) is the consequences of a people who forget the myths and narratives of humanity. Modern man carries on actions without any meaning or context (some of the Christian existentialists like Gabriel Marcel immediately come to mind). In the book Artemis talks about dogs becoming docile and forgetting what it means to be a dog. Sex becomes common to the point where Aphrodite works as a phone-sex operator. Dionysus runs an underground club where he dispenses his special wine. In mythology the gods embody the meaning, the "why" of various human activities. As belief in the gods wane man carries on but there is something lost, the activities become hollow when separated from their raison d'être. For the existentialists this is part of what is referred to as an inauthentic life (for some wonderful analysis I really do recommend Marcel's Man Against Mass Society).

So, is this a "must buy"? No, but if you enjoy anachronism and the figures of myth as I do it does merit consideration for your hard-earned dollars (thanks for giving this to me Eugenia). Ms. Phillip's easy writing styles creates a breezy book that can, if one wants to, make you think and if not you come away not regretting having picked it up. I'm looking forward to seeing what she does for an encore.

Further Tributes to E. Gary Gygax

Thanks for the link Gregg.

How Gary Gygax touched other lives

The following from the theatrical release of "The Fellowship of the Ring" strikes me as poignant:

"The world has changed. I see it in the water. I feel it in the Earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it."
- Galadriel

(Funny, at lunch with Andrew yesterday in which a Callahan's Red was raised to the memory of Gary he mentioned that some artist posted somewhere that he didn't feel much attachment to Gygax, that was his father's time... ah, how soon the young forget that we today stand on the shoulders of giants, where JRRT-EGG provide the foundation).

And sadly, with them both now gone, so does this quote...

"Our list of allies grows thin!"
Elrond (to Gandalf)

And Following Up...

Thanks Gary

Gary Gygax died today. "Gary who?" Gary Gygax, the father of modern gaming, the visionary of what became known as "Dungeons and Dragons". I'm sad for many reasons. The more narcissistic reason is that it means I am getting older. I started playing D&D around 1982 in college and back then Mr. Gygax was still active, still a household name in my burgeoning circle of friends. It's difficult for me to believe that it was 26 years ago that I first "slung dice" with my friends. 26 years ago... I now have friends who weren't even born at that time! The passing of personalities who influenced by life brought on by the passing of time simply reinforces my own feeling of mortality.

I'm sad for other reasons too. Regardless of your views on role playing games, I have to say that some of my most intense and closest friendships were formed over a makeshift table, dice in the form of Platonic solids, pencils, papers, cold pizza and warm soda (later replaced by warm beer). I miss those times, the closeness of those friendships. My college roommate Gregg and I still talk (well, more often the 21st century version of talk) after all this time. I recall quite vividly nights in the dorm room gaming with Gregg, Patrick, and Pete as well as many a Saturday afternoon spent in Brady Commons at Mizzou with the gaming society (and after being kicked out going to The Old Heidelberg to play beer and pretzel games). Through gaming I finally had friends. I had gone the first 18 years of my life without any real friends in it and because of Gary Gygax's desire to expand gaming I finally had friends. And this wasn't the only time either. When I later moved to Kansas City to work on my PhD my first group of friends THERE was created because of gaming. Thomas, Darrin, Van... oh so many Saturday nights spent at Thomas' place gaming, eating pizza, and just having fun. Shoot, gaming even got me a date with someone still special to me. In many ways a connection through gaming brought me my friend Andrew here in San Diego as well. So I owe a lot to gaming and Mr. Gygax because through it I discovered a place where I could fit in and find out what it meant to belong.

On a more academic and philosophical level, D&D opened me up to the realm of fantasy, of myth and legend and what they can mean to a person in modern times. My current love of philosophers who talk about issues of myth and story telling I can trace directly back to D&D. The idea of narrative, the power of story, the search for meaning, the beauty of using your own imagination to create, all of these go back in some manner to playing D&D. It was during D&D games I learned to tell my own stories, to spin tales that others found entertaining, to sharpen my own intellectual tools when questioned, to think quickly and coherently outside of simple college work.

So for all these reasons and many others you will be missed E. Gary Gygax.

Tying Two Books Together

Well, I just finished reading Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within. All the while I was reading this I was reminded of a section in David Frum's most recent opus, Comback where he strongly encourages the next Republican president (and I would say, the next president regardless of party affiliation) to strengthen ties with whomever we consider allies in the east (particularly India) because it may soon be the case that we as a people who love freedom of expression and who enjoy a high level of personal liberty to live our lives as we see fit can no longer count on many of the countries of Europe. Why? Because of the massive growth of radical Islamists in those countries. This is happening because of two major trends. First, after World War Two, the birthrate of Europeans has declined to about 1.45 per couple, well below the rate of 2.1 needed simply to sustain a population. Birthrates to Muslims living in Europe tend to be much higher, about three times as high according to The Council on Foreign Relations. The second trend is that of what are called "fetching marriages" where young Muslim women are betrothed to Muslim men in other countries. The marriage will allow not only the husband but his entire family to emigrate to most European countries. These combine to create a situation of high concentrations of Muslims in many European cities. In a 2005 report the Pew Forum On Religion & Public Life:

they make up at least 25 percent of the populations in
Marseille and Rotterdam, 20 percent in Malmo (in Sweden),
15 percent in Brussels and Birmingham, and 10
percent or more in London, Paris and Copenhagen.
Over the next few decades, a number of large European
cities will likely become majority Muslim.

Now Bawer is NOT some ranting ultra-right-xenophobic writer but a pretty liberal gay man with a Ph.D. in English who left the United States in 1997 to live in Europe and currently resides in Norway. The accounts he describes in the book are a mix of both personal (such as his partner being attacked by a small gang of Muslim youths for being gay) to those of how the European press handled the attacks of 9/11, 7/7, 3/11, up to and including the 2006 uproar over the publishing of cartoon images of Islam and Muhammad which lead to the deaths of about 100 people by the "peace loving" radical followers of Islam. The accounts of how European "leaders" and "intellectuals" submitted to the terrorists are tale of legend. I didn't have time to track down all of the quotes (I do have a day job) but those I did find made me ill and seriously question how we can trust them if push really comes to shove. Shades of Neville Chamberlain... the only question is which city will be the modern version of Munich? Interestingly, Bawer, no huge fan of religion, says that one of Europe's problems in dealing with what is happening is due to the fact that the marginalizing of Christianity has left a vacuum in the souls (and apparently heads) of Europe's intelligentsia. Since they have no place for religion in their own lives they simply do not understand the power religion can have in the lives of others.

One of the largest hurdles to any hope of integration is that most European Muslims seem to not view themselves as citizens of the country of residence but to hold primary allegiance to the greater global Muslim community. Why do they get away with this? In large part it is because rather than trying to be a "melting pot" like the United States, European countries approach immigrants like one would a patchwork quilt where you are not only encouraged to keep a separate identity from your new home country, but often though subtle (and not so subtle) societal pressures made to keep yourselves distinct from the true "native born".

Now some of the gutless wonders of Europe are calling for the implementation (or at least allowance) of Sharia legal system. Technically this is supposed to apply only to Muslims, but as one site promoting religious tolerance says "sometimes this is not the case". Two interesting sites to read about what implementing Sharia would mean can be found here and here.

I know that many of you do not have the time to read Bawer's book, but I do urge you to read his commentary 9/11 Five Years Later: A View from Europe.

I wish!

I mean, have you seen this guy?! Love his real accent and that nude scene in the show... wow...

Which Battlestar Galactica Character Are You?

More on Battlestar Galactica. Created by BuddyTV

Another Warrior Passes

William F. Buckley, Jr. died today. I grew up listening to Buckley and even during my liberal phase earlier in life I loved to hear him. The man was brilliant, urbane, eloquent... three traits that seem to be missing in today's Conservative landscape. Buckley met liberal "intellectuals" head on, out in the open in public debate, showing that to be conservative does not mean you are uneducated, unthinking, and backward but that we did have a strong offering in the great marketplace of ideas. Compare how Buckley responded in this debate with Gore Vidal and ask yourself who is more erudite, the more heartfelt, the more realistic of the two:





Ah, Bill... I'm sorry that you're gone, but even more sorry that there seems to be no one at present able to begin to fill your shoes.

Movie Sunday

OK, being on-call sucks on the whole. I have to stick around the house, I can't spend time Mr. Beau, I am forced to actually do some housework since there is little else to do. However, in an act of rebellion against that last bit I decided to spend time watching movies (ok, so I am folding clothes at the same time). One of the movies I decided to watch is For The Bible Tells Me So. Below are two of the trailers for the film (thanks YouTube):





I have to say, to the most ardent of literalists this film will not change your mind about your interpretation of the Bible (and I found a few logical fallacies when they tried to confront literalism), but my hope is that this film will in some small part help change how religious families view their child if he or she comes out to them. Given that gay youths are 3-to-7 times more likely to commit suicide as their straight counterparts any little bit helps. I was particularly proud of that old Missouri congressman Richard Gephardt and his wife when talking about their lesbian daughter. After being told by Chrissy that she was gay Mr. Gephardt, in the best portrayal of family values in the film, said that his first worries about all this was for his daughter, for her safety and fear for her (not him and his wife) of the discrimination that he knew was out there. Now the movie is NOT anti-Christian or anti-religion, but it does show some scenes that are disturbing (like the well know clip of Jimmy Swaggart saying that if any man looked at him "that way" he would kill him and just tell God that the man died), but these five family all have at their core a strong vein of religious belief and faith and they did have struggles. One daughter, after not speaking with her mother for several months after coming out, committed suicide. I can't think of anything more difficult for a mother or father to take. My own parents have had a difficult journey over the years and at various times in the film I could see their faces and even hear their words coming from the mouthes of others. But like most of the parents in the film they concluded that there will just have to be some things that will be resolved between God and me, and as for the rest I am their son and nothing will ever change that. If only others could be that fortunate.

Poor Michelle Obama

For the first time in her life she has felt proud of the United States? What a sad, sad person.

Reading List - 2008

Here is my current reading list for the rest of 2008. A bit late, should have had this up in January since I've finished a few already, but I guess better late than never. I'm leaving off the job-required readings and the course material for my MBA classes since those will be on an "as needed" basis and I can't really plan for what they will be. As with most lists, this will morph over time but at least I have a plan. Finished books will be noted by (x) so this creates a bit of a socialized responsibility as everyone reading this can note my progress (or lack thereof).

Fiction
Clarke, Childhood's End (X)
Dante, The Divine Comedy
Dick, The Man In The high Castle (X)
Dick, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep (X)
Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Phillips, Gods Behaving Badly(X)
Stephenson, Snow Crash
Tolkien, The Hobbit


Social Science and Current Events
Bawer, While Europe Slept(X)
Frum, Comback: Conservatism That Can Win Again(X)
Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative
Postman, Amusing Ourselves To Death (X)
Smick, The World Is Curved
Steyn, American Alone
Sullivan, Same Sex Marriage: Pro and Con(X)

Science and Mathematics
Hester et al, 21st Century Astronomy (X)
Shilov, Elementary Real and Complex Analysis
Shilov, Elementary Functional Analysis

Philosophy and Religion
The Book of The Acts of the Apostles (with Commentary)
Blackburn, Truth, A Guide (X)
Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane
Frankl, Man's Search For Meaning (X)
Montaigne, Complete Essays

Outer orbit

Just to throw out a question... how in California does one change "friend orbits"? For some reason I feel like, after knowing people for years, that I remain on the fringe of what could be called "friend orbits". It seems like no matter what I do I cannot move from "slightly better than an acquaintance, rarely thought of" to "actual friend"? To be honest I am at a loss as to what to do. Any suggestions?

Truth From A Cartoon

My friend Andrew sent me this clip today. It really does ask an interesting question... how do you offer a tax rebate to people who don't pay taxes? Good start, but it doesn't go far enough so I will do it one better... why don't those who pay the majority of the taxes get a part of the rebate? Here I am, not poor but not uber-rich either, the perfect mugging victim, er, tax payer in the eyes of government (single, renter, no children, 6-figure income) and yet my current economic situation precludes me from participating in something that I am paying for! I mean, I have about 47% of my income withheld for some type of tax (and let's not go into consumption taxes, I am talking just withholdings). Personally, I think the rebate is a joke and one of the worse panderings of the political season, but what really sticks in my craw is that those of us paying in get absolutely no benefit. Zip. Zero rebate. The rebates are phased out for higher-paid people, starting at an adjusted gross income of $75,000 for a single person or $150,000 for a couple. There are no rebates for people with no children who make more than $87,000 each or $174,000 per couple. So lets go back to the cartoon... given that the noun rebate literally means to give back part of a payment, how do you give a rebate to someone who made no payment?

Ideology v Politics

Well, "Super Tuesday" has come and gone and the race for both the Republican and the Democrat parties has narrows to two people each (and that is a stretch for the Republican side where McCain holds a daunting delegate lead over Huckabee). I haven't said much about the election thus far mainly because of my disappointment in the available candidates. In a matter of public confession, I am 0/2 in my choices on the Republican side. I was initially leaning towards Giuliani who proved that when it comes to political tactics he is no Bill Clinton, then decided to mildly support Romney who after being sandbagged by the McCain-Huckabee team bowed out. Am I cursed? If so, I should throw my support to Obama just so he will lose (it is sad that my instincts tell me to fear the least experienced, the challenged, the least thoughtful of the bunch but I do... tells you about my faith in the American electorate).

But that isn't the purpose for the post. The main purpose came from an online article I read about a few days ago regarding McCain. It said that many Republicans consider him to be "a liberal and not a Republican." I thought to my self "Surely this is not right." I read it again and yep, that is what they said. Did you spot the problem? If not I'll tell you. Liberalism, like conservatism, is an ideology. Republican, like Democrat, is a political party. It is entirely possible to be liberal AND a Republican just as it is possible to be a conservative and a Democrat. Being a conservative or a liberal applies to how one views the world while being Republican or Democrat defines political policies. A more accurate assessment in the article would have been that Republicans consider McCain a "liberal and not a conservative" or even "more like a Democrat than a Republican". One statement defining his ideology and the other his politics.

Given this then, just what IS a conservative? It kinda depends on who you ask. There are economic conservatives, social conservatives, foreign policy conservatives. In the marketplace of ideas there is a vast, rich offering of conservative ideas to choose from. But if this is so, what is the issue with McCain? Is he conservative or is he not? To help examine this I turned an old "friend", one of the fathers of modern conservative intellectual thought, Russell Kirk. In his monumental The Conservative Mind, Krik provides six key canons of conservative thought which I will summarize as the following:

Belief in a transcendent order, or natural law governing both the individual as well as society

Belief in human plurality and natural diversity and a resistance to arbitrary systems of leveling and false equality

Ultimate equality is in the judgment of God and should exist before our courts, but again creating an artificial equality of condition means equality in servitude and boredom

Freedom and property are closely linked. Economic leveling is not the same as economic progress

Distrust of people who would remake society strictly on some abstract design. Custom and tradition can be a useful guide.

Change does not equal reform. "Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a statesman must take Providence into his calculation, and a statesman's chief virtual... is prudence."

This, according to Kirk, is the kerygma of conservatism. Conservatism isn't policy on school choice, abortion, tax reduction, illegal immigration and a host of other policies that form planks in a political party's platform. Conservatism is a world view. It's a true belief in diversity, that people are different, have different goals, dreams, talents and should be allowed to pursue them with the understanding that the outcomes will be different for different people. It's an idea that change for the sake of change is not the same as progress. It's a very firm belief in the law of unintended consequences. of understanding that while sometimes you have to take certain leaps it is wise to look before you jump. It's acknowledging that while not everything that happened has been good, not all of it has been bad and that the past can guide us to a better future if we are wise enough to examine it. Can you be a Republican and not hold some of these beliefs? Sure, but on the flip side it is possible to be a Democrat and believe them too. So is John McCain a conservative? Taking this view he possibly is. Is he a Republican? Well, that requires another post.

Time To Flush The Turds From Sacramento

Vote NO on Proposition 93! What a load of crap masterminded by Fabián Núñez and his cronies who are holding Sacramento hostage. If Núñez and his supporters win, 42 elected officials (parasites) would hold on to power, including Núñez and his partner in crime Don Perata. Both will be able to stay in power as head of the two branches of our state legislature. Oh but they are fighting to hold on. They try to spin it to make you think you are really shortening their terms in office from a total of 14 years to a total of 12 years. What they AREN'T saying is that it's not a reduction but an actual EXTENSION of their existing terms for another 6 years. If Prop 93 fails they cannot run again for the same office! If it does pass they can run again (and the way people tend to vote in California, will be elected again). They claim that experience is needed, but neither is a novice when it comes to politics and look where we as a state are now.

Remember, vote NO on 93. Push the level and flush the poop from the state capitol.

Where Oh Where Is Ron?

If Ronald Reagan were elected in the 2008 election he could use this portion of his first inaugural address almost verbatim... which is sad considering he would be a Republican president following a Republican president. But I guess that is the difference between being Republican and being Conservative:



For many reasons I really miss Ron. In recalling what Lady Thatcher said in her 1997 address to the Heritage Foundation about President Reagan I remember why:

Right from the beginning, Ronald Reagan set out to challenge everything that the liberal political elite of America accepted and sought to propagate. They believed that America was doomed to decline: He believed it was destined for further greatness. They imagined that sooner or later there would be convergence between the free Western system and the socialist Eastern system, and that some kind of social democratic outcome was inevitable. He, by contrast, considered that socialism was a patent failure which should be cast onto the trash heap of history. They thought that the problem with America was the American people, though they didn’t quite put it like that. He thought that the problem with America was the American government, and he did put it just like that.

The political elite were prepared to kowtow to the counterculture that grew up on American campuses, fed by a mixture of high-brow dogma and low-brow self-indulgence. Governor Reagan would have none of it...

Silly Democrats

I was shocked, amazed, stunned... the party of compassion and openness (as the Democrats like to pompously trumpet to the world) could be done in by that old bugaboo, race. Imagine my surprise when I read this article about the spat between those two paragons of "change" who claim to represent "new ways of thinking", Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. First of all, Obama's rejoinder to Clinton's remarks about Obama raising false hope doesn't really address what she was saying. Now don't get me wrong, I am not a Hillary supporter at all, but I clearly think that she was attacked out of context because what she said about Senator Obama has at least some ring of truth to it. And I am sure that her response about LBJ was not intended to diminish the work of MLK. The whole reaction stunned me until my sensible conservative mind took over and reminded me that this is what happens when you turn politics into pandering to special interest groups. And let's face it, the Republicans have their own problems with interest groups (look at the extreme religious right trying to bully the others in the old fusionist coalition), but what happened between Hil and Barack looks down right silly in comparison to what could be taken on the Republican side as actual ideological differences. The scary part is, if the Democrats control everything are we all going to have to watch what we say about or to anyone with whom we disagree? Are we witnessing the death of free speech?

What Would Hillary's Response Look Like?

Giuliani Girls v Obama Girls v Clinton ?????

Hey, if it gets people interested at all...

Jackie Mason's Political Statement

I don't know where Mr. Mason's political predilection lies but this is interesting. Yeah, it's not terribly deep, but then again most of the candidates aren't either...

Once More, With Feeling

Another year gone, another year come. It's already 2008. When I was much, much younger it seemed so far into the future. Now here I am, soon to be 45, near the end of the first decade of the 21st century. From my early "vibes" this will be an interesting year. I am approaching a "record" age (I'll write more on that when I turn 45). There is an old superstition that how things are at midnight on New Year's Day, that is how they will be for the year. So taking inventory on how things were at that time:

My bills were up to date and I had money left over

My house and yard were (relatively) clean (thanks to Mr. Beau)

I had friends who either called or texted me "Happy New Year"

Romeo was healthy and purring

My family was doing well

I had a job

I was healthy

I was happy

I was with someone who loves me

Not a bad start... and if that is the pattern for this year it looks like a good one.

Old Fashioned Kinda Guy

For the first time in my life someone proposed to me. And it wasn't a throw away "Hey, how about we get hitched?" line either. I'm talking about a guy getting down on one knee, taking your hand, telling you right from the heart how he feels about you, producing a ring box from nowhere, pulling out a ring, slipping it onto your finger and asking "Will you marry me?"

That happened.

I said "Yes".

Christmas Eve, 2007

The Family You Would Choose

There is an old saying that friends are the family you would choose. This year that point was really driven home for me. It was about 52 weeks ago (that's one year for those of you who went to school in California) that Aleks and I separated. As recently as this summer I was not looking forward to the Christmas season and the specters it would raise, but something happened along the way. This Christmas season found me surrounded by friends all weekend and upto and including Christmas Day. On Sunday I had friends both old and new in attendance as well as someone who is insane enough to say he loves me filling my home with warmth (those of you who could not make it I hope know that even with a full house you were missed). The next day I was given a wonderful gift from the insane one (will blog on that later), then on Christmas Day Mr. Beau and I went to Disney to enjoy the hospitality of the "House of Mouse" with our friend Sarah, ruling queen of "Astro Blaster". So while my biological family (whom I love with all my heart) is 2000 miles away they need not worry about me, because I did spend Christmas with "my family".

My '80s Toy Personality

What childhood toy from the 80s are you?

You're a Speak & Spell!! You nerd, you. Just because you were disguised as a toy doesn't mean you weren't educational, you sneaky bastard. Take this quiz! Quizilla | Join | Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code

Company Christmas Party