Let Me Try

I'm sorry to read what seems to be a rather bitter tone in the comment to the previous post. All I can do is try to respond. I'm no trained theologian, but let's see:

Point-by-Point:

1. there is still no better theory put forth by christians than evolution
From my point of view, it's not necessary or required that a Christian prove scientific arguments for or against evolution. That's not the business of religion. Strict literalists may interpret Genesis to say that the earth is no more than 7,000 years old. For me, I can't say because I wasn't there.
I understand the arguments being made by some that the idea of "Intelligent Design" should be presented alongside Macro Evolutionary theories, suggesting that both theories rely as much on faith as measurable science.
I see an observable and solid case for adaptation of species to changing conditions - those species that do not adapt to their environment tend to be doomed to extinction. It seems to me it requires a great deal more faith to believe all life evolved from single-celled organisms that evolved from a chemical soup than to believe there was some divine influence.
On the other hand, it does not seem particularly antireligious to me to consider that God simply followed His own rules in enabling creation of life, including the amazing ability of life to sustain itself against all odds.

2. when we die, there's no one who can justify the assertion that that is NOT it except by saying "you have to have faith"

This touches on something that is core to Christianity - the idea of an eternal spirit and life after death. If Jesus did not die on the cross and rise from the dead, then Christianity would not exist. He is the proof, but absolutely - it is difficult 2,000 years later for people to believe the story really happened. Without getting into all the potential evidence for thinking people on this topic, my first thought is to look at his disciples. If Jesus was crucified and was not resurrected, why would every single one of them become his evangelists to the known world, causing all but one to be killed for their preaching? Many of them by horrific and painful means. Would they subject themselves to such torture for no good reason?

Ultimately, yes, you have to believe the story. That's where our personal search for the truth and our life experiences come into play.

3. show me a miracle, performed recently, that cannot be easily explained by rational means.

I've had events and experiences in my life that I feel were somewhat miraculous. So have other family members. But outside those, let me use some Catholic miracles. Mother Teresa was about the best example of true Christianity in modern times, and she will be canonized by the Church as a saint soon, if not already. To be canonized, miracles must be attributed to the saint, and such miracles are reportedly being investigated by the Church. The miracles attributed to intervention of saints are typically unexplained healings of severe illnesses, where the patient may have asked, say, Mother Teresa to intervene for them with God.

Do you think that when Mother Teresa is canonized, the Church lied about the miracles claimed to be based on Mother Teresa's intercession on behalf of the patient(s)? Essentially, your comment suggests that the Church not only has been lying about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for 2,000 years, and also has lied about miracles attributed to hundreds of saints over that time.

Is it reasonable to accuse the entire Catholic Church of 2,000 years of deceit? If it's all a big lie, how has the Church been able to avoid exposure through all those generations?

4. a vocal portion of Christians ARE ignorant superstitious sheep

A vocal portion of Americans are ignorant about their constitution and form of government. Does that make the constitution invalid? Vocal groups of all kinds are ignorant about all manner of things.

People are what they always have been. The ignorant will always be with us, boldly proclaiming their ignorant ideas as truth. As will those who seek to profit from them. Those truths do not invalidate the truth that can be found in the Christian faith as defined pretty well in an old book called The Bible.

5. have you seen televangelists... ever?

Honestly, I don't pay them much attention. Some are money-grubbing charlatans, I'm sure. Tammy Faye just died. Do you think she was sincere, at least when she and her (then) husband Jim Bakker started their TV empire? Do you think they went into televangelism with a cynical profit motive, or did they fall victim to the greed and power they found when their TV empire took off?

I don't know. But I tend to believe the latter.

More importantly, do you watch televangelists? If so, do you think their message is inherently evil? Do you think their programs are worse than the trashy stuff on commercial television?

What have they done to you to make you so bitter, hateful, and angry? As far as I know, not a thing.

if christians want respect, they need to start earning it.

True. Ultimately, non-Christians judge the faith not on its true teaching, but on the people who profess to be Christians. If such people are mean, pushy, unethical, immoral, etc., then they are doing more damage to the Church than they will ever know.

I wonder if you are making the comment because you have seen too many such hypocrites. If so, I only hope I can offset them just a little.

God Bless.

Just Pity

That's mainly what I feel about the angry atheists who seem to have ascended to political and social power these days.

How desolate and hopeless it must be to believe that

humans are just more highly evolved mammals

when we die, that's it

there are no miracles, only coincidences

Christians are ignorant superstitious sheep

Christian leaders are evil greedy burgeoisie happy to clip the sheep to fill their own desires for wealth and power

religion is nothing but a set of arbitrary rules enforced only for the benefit of Christian leaders (interesting that the only Christian "rules" that really upset these folks are related to sex; they seem more upset at those than Muslim Jihad)

government should replace religion and control every aspect of human life (except sex, of course)

that stamping out religion will somehow lead to a peaceful, utopian planet

I indeed only feel pity for such people, who for their own reasons have become bitter and angry crusaders against God. It must be a sad and empty existence.

Tax

Indy has been in turmoil lately over their property tax reassessments. Most people don't pay much attention to such things until they get a tax bill with a big increase, which is pretty much what happened in Indy. And down here everybody's nervous, because our bills haven't been sent yet. It's almost certain that the property taxes here will go up for almost everybody, and people are hoping they don't double like the poor residents in the Indianapolis area.

Mitch ordered a review of the assessments in Indy, plus a couple of other counties. It could partially be a political decision to dampen down the level of anger, but he says there seems to be some evidence that commercial property was undervalued, shifting a bigger burden to homeowners.

The larger problem of taxation goes to all levels of government and all types of taxes. Government exists to perpetuate itself, and bureaucrats are driven by a desire for personal power rather than the public good. Politicians argue about how high the tax rates should be on "rich" folks, but are strangely silent on the question of whether they're spending the tax money wisely.

The proponents of the "Fair Tax" plan, which would eliminate federal income taxes and replace them with a national sales tax, have some decent ideas. But they're fighting an impossible battle against the very system used by our politicians to keep them in office. It's not going to happen.

I think the best solution is a very simple one. It would probably require a constitutional amendment at the Federal Level to be enforceable, but here's the idea: The law of the land should simply say, "No citizen or for-profit organization may be exempted or relieved of any tax levied by federal, state, or local government entities."

Ever seen the Federal Tax Code? Know why it's contained in such a gigantic volume? Because it's loaded with exemptions, rebates, credits, and other considerations given to specific individuals and businesses. Not by name, because that would be gauche. But with a description of the person or entity being exempted worded in such a way as to remove all uncertainty about who's getting the special exemption.

Why do they exempt certain corporations and individuals from taxes? Because those individuals and corporations help insure the congressperson who inserted the exemption in the tax code is re-elected. Not a bad deal for a businessperson, really - all he has to do is contribute $100,000 to the campaign, and he'll get a $200,000 tax break. It's corrupt. And it's a way of life for our legislators.

It happens at the state and local levels too. Honda is building a new plant nearby in Greensburg. The governor and other state and local politicians get to crow about their great success in attracting this big Japanese automaker to Indiana. What do you think they offered to help incent Honda to locate in Greensburg? Tax exemptions, of course. Ever heard the term "Tax Abatement"? It's a simple device used to favor certain businesses. Honda's probably getting free infrastructure (roads, power, water & sewer, etc.) from the state as an added bonus.

Imagine what would happen if the law were written as I suggested? Nobody - no congressman, governor, mayor, city councilman, could hand out any tax favors to anybody. Honda would have to choose their sites based simply on the best place overall for them, not on how much of a tax break they're getting. I think it would force legislators to be more responsible in their tax policies, and maybe even rethink their wasteful spending habits.

Unfortunately, this idea likely has no better chance of passing than the "Fair Tax". For the same reasons.

Overblown

All the hand-wringing over child obesity is getting out of control. Maybe more kids are fat than ever before. It's a sign of prosperity. To me, some kids are going to be fat; so what?!

What is more disturbing is what some in positions of power are doing about it.

Taking the candy and soda machines out of the schools. What a joke. As if fat kids won't be fat anymore if they can't buy Mountain Dew and a Baby Ruth at school?

Passing laws against restaurants serving food with trans fats. Big Brother is alive and well and living in our big cities.

The worst idea: Removing fat children from their homes under the philosophy that the parents of fat kids are guilty of abuse and neglect. If the government can define child abuse any way they choose, what's next? Removing children from Christian homes where they are taught intolerance of homosexuals and skepticism of Darwinian Evolution? Totalitarianism.

Do we really want to find ways to solve the problem, assuming it's really a problem? How about some practical ideas -

Stop the practice of washing out kids from sports by the fifth grade. Get everybody playing their favorite sports on organized teams without slamming the door on them before they even got the chance to develop! Make active sports and games a required hour in every school day, then let everybody play on a school team that practices every afternoon. If 100 boys want to play basketball, then form 10 teams.

See, all the Big Brother policies will ever accomplish is denial of everybody's freedom to do whatever they want with their lives. We live in a society of rampant permissiveness in all areas, including raising of children. Parents don't want to do the hard parenting stuff, so they let their kids eat whatever they want, play stupid video games all day, and pretty much do whatever they please. No wonder lots of them get fat. They also fail to learn the most basic concepts of morality and civility.

So government can't fix that problem except through long-term policies that value and support those institutions that teach morality. But they can provide plenty of opportunities for kids to do active things that are fun. And if they have the courage to buck the ACLU, maybe even provide teachers and coaches who serve as strong role models for the kids while giving them outlets for healthy physical activities.

It's just one of the many issues of our age with a huge disconnect between the common-sense solutions that can work and the non-solutions proposed and implemented by the ignorant elites.

Better than Hotels

This week and next I get to work in my own office, which means no airplanes or hotels. It's nice to have an almost normal working schedule and sleep in my own bed at night.

Even though I usually get rental cars much nicer than my old beat-up Jed. Sometimes the hotel rooms can be very nice, with some recent examples with flat panel HDTV and kitchenette and big beds. I still prefer home.

This web training is a pretty decent gig. It will never be as effective as face-to-face classroom instruction, but the more I do it the better I get. Been teaching classes over the web all week, and today I felt like I am really getting the hang of it. I'll be doing a lot of it through the end of this year, so we'll see how that works out. So far not bad.

I need a secretary.

Destiny

There's a strange feeling nagging at me today that something momentus is about to happen. I can't identify what or when or even if it's a good or bad thing.

Then again, these days I don't really think about events so much in terms of good and bad. Sure, I have days that are better than others. I don't especially care for things that cause me physical or emotional pain. I can get irritated by stupid and unreasonable people.

But I've never really been one to get terribly worked up worrying about things. I never felt like I feared my own death, but I did fear intense pain and suffering. I have feared disability. But these no longer elicit fear for me. Not that I'd welcome them, but neither do I worry much about them.

Maybe its the age I'm reaching, but I've come to realize that I am the culmination of my life experiences. The pleasant experiences leave nice memories I can recall to cheer me up. The unpleasant experiences, in most cases, led to something better. Or they made me more resilient, perhaps a bit less fearful.

I've been taught from an early age in Sunday School that God doesn't give any of us more than we can bear. Now the way I think of that old idea is that we don't have much choice in the matter - whatever happens, we must accept and find a way to deal with or overcome.

Even though I'm disheartened at the state of today's world and the corrupt people who run it, I no longer fear the collapse I think is imminent. Sort of like Sodom and Gomorrah, perhaps the only way to cleanse the world of its corruption is some major catastrophe. Not that I wish for it, but it seems somehow natural and inevitable.

So whether my strange feeling involves a momentus success or catastrophe in my personal life, my community, nation, or the world, I can accept it. Whatever occurs, assuming I survive, I will simply re-evaluate the situation and make the best choice I can to move forward.

Is that destiny? Is the course of life preordained, or do we choose our own? Is there a destiny out there for each of us, but only a select few have the courage to find it?

I can't say. But whatever is coming, let it come.

Stuff that Wastes Time

Being independent implies that I don't have to answer to anyone.

But that's not the reality.

I answer to my customers every day. And my biggest customer is the one that supplies me with the bulk of my work. So in that sense, I regularly answer to them.

Lately they've been getting irritating, asking for extra time-consuming things that they of course don't pay for. Stupid little administrative rules designed to shift paperwork from their staff down to me. Playing games with what they will and won't accept in terms of billing, expenses, and so forth. It all costs me, in time or money or both.

The essential problem of a small business is that you must constantly make your biggest customer happy. Knowing that, the big customer raises the bar and lowers the pay. And the small business person, despite seeing all his (my) other costs continue to grow year after year, just has to accept the fact that the trend will continue until it becomes so one-sided that there's no longer any point to continuing the business relationship.

The only avenue open to me is to do my best to be more sought-after than any of the customer's other contractors, which hopefully grants some small bit of leverage to push back against the next list of silly rules and requirements. The ability to just be able to say, "Sure, we would be happy to comply with your new requests. To cover our cost of providing these additional services, our rate will be increased to $X."

I know. Dreaming again.

Faulty Logic

I've listened closely, and the point about the Iraq war is that Bush should be forced to end it. Because war is bad, people die, we never should have started it, and so on.

So I think, sure war is bad. Nobody likes a war, except maybe people who like to watch war movies in the safety of their living room. Was Iraq a bad idea? I didn't know when it started, and still don't know. I don't think all of us ordinary people get in on the information that led to our leaders (not just Bush, but an overwhelming majority of congress, democrats included, by the way) to decide we needed to take on Saddam.

But then I start to get lost. See, they tell us the war should end because we shouldn't have started it in the first place, Saddam wasn't that bad a guy and wasn't really a threat, and now our soldiers are just stuck in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shia.

From what I'm able to discern, it's true that lots of the current violence involves turf wars between the Sunni and Shia. And our soldiers probably are unfortunately caught in the crossfire from time to time. But aren't they mostly killing each other? And if we just leave, won't they kill each other in massive numbers until one side or the other wins?

See, I'm confused by the left side's position on that, given they've been clamoring for us to intervene in Darfur for years. Isn't the situation in Iraq likely to become a repeat of Darfur the minute our soldiers leave the country? So what are you saying, anti-war lefties? That people in Darfur are more valuable than Iraqi people?

Then are the other questions the anti-war people never seem to want to answer. Like Al Quaeda. They're the ones who blew up the towers in New York - you know, September 11th? They're making Iraq their central front in their war on America. They say so, openly and often. Then there's Iran. They're arming and training people and sending them into Iraq to blow up our soldiers, so they're actually at war with us too.

So here's my big question for the get out now folks: How exactly does it help protect our country from terrorism if we just drop everything, say "never mind", and bug out of Iraq? As soon as we do that, doesn't it seem reasonable to predict that a holocaust will soon follow among the Iraqi people? That Iran will move swiftly in alliance with the Shia to rule what used to be Iraq? That Al Quaeda will strengthen with the aid of Iran and immediately begin hatching plans to bring Iranian nukes into America to set off in our cities?

Oh yeah, you guys say those are just scare tactics by the Nazi Republicans. Just let me get this straight - you're saying that if we leave Iraq immediately, somehow all those radicals that want to kill us will suddenly like us and leave us alone?

Please explain it to me. Because I don't get it.

If Asked for Advice

Interesting that lately I've been watching the political scene in sort a detached, analytical manner. Deeply disappointed by Republicans on the Immigration issue and dumbfounded by the antics of the Democrats, I've lost any hope for reason or common sense to prevail.

So instead, here are some of my suggestions for the outgoing President and those who want to be President when he leaves.

Bush only has one chance to salvage his presidency, and that's a miracle in Iraq. The miracle has to be in the form of a great success with his surge and actual progress in stabilizing a US-friendly government there. Problem is, even if the surge becomes a resounding success, we'll never get to hear about it, because the Bush-haters between congress and the news media are way to deeply invested in failure.

Hillary can win if she succeeds at shutting up those who mention her personal inconvenient truths. You know, her baggage from the years she spent with Bubba in the White House. Like the travel office firings, the Whitewater billing records, Vince Foster, the FBI Files, HillaryCare. Stuff like that.

Oh yeah, she's already succeeded. Nobody is talking about that stuff. So she wins, unless Obama can knock her off.

Speaking of Obama, all he has to do is say something really good. So far, he's an empty suit, but is doing well partly because of that. He needs to verbalize some bold plan for something or other that nobody else has, but can get people excited.

I don't know what that is, but it might not matter. The media are drooling over both Obama and Hillary, and don't really care which one wins - as long as one of them wins. Probably both, because I think the Dems will end up with a Hillary/Obama ticket.

The rest of the Democrat candidates are window dressing.

On the Republican side, Rudy could wrap it up with a simple strategy: He should clearly define his stance on the two big social issues he's on the wrong side of the party on - abortion and gay marriage. If he suddenly does an about-face on those issues (ala Romney), nobody will believe him. But if he tells everyone something like he can't force abortion law to be changed himself, but will use the bully pulpit as president to educate women and encourage alternatives to abortion, it could go a long way. On gay marriage, hmm, I think he's got a problem there.

Romney just has to get past the Mormon thing. I think that instead of running away from the issue, he should take it head-on and challenge those who want to make it an issue. He needs lots of prime-time publicity letting everyone know that his religious faith will influence him no more and no less than the faith of any president before him. Those who keep hammering him on it should put up or shut up.

Fred Thompson has a great opportunity. When he gets in the race, he has to personify the image he currently has as a common-sense, no-nonsense guy. Like Reagan, he can draw on his acting talents to project a straight-shooter that never backs down on his principles. But also like Reagan, he can somehow make his critics and enemies with nowhere to go by meeting their attacks head-on.

If Fred does it right, I think he might be the only Republican who can beat Hillary/Obama. Or I could just be fantasizing.

McCain's already done because of Immigration. And nobody else has a chance, even if there are a couple of them that deserve one. Because the Media chooses the candidate, not the rest of us.

By the time Indiana has primaries next summer, the choices will have already been made. So I'll only be a spectator anyway.

Scent Sensitivity Rights

Check out this story.

Some people would scoff and say Ms. McBride is just creating a stupid issue.

Not me, because I share her pain. Fortunately I'm not in a situation where I need to share a small office space with a woman that bathes in perfume or lathers her hands in pungent lotions several times a day. If I were, I would be forced to resign the job, because such things make me violently ill.

Our society has gone smoke-free almost everywhere to protect people from secondhand smoke. What's wrong with sensitive people like us being protected from toxic perfumes?

My bigger question is, why is this woman's co-worker so insensitive that she refuses to skip the perfume out of respect for her office mate? She certainly can pour it on as much as she likes on her own time, and it's hardly an imposition on her to skip it at work. Unless she's got a bad case of B.O. and uses the perfume in lieu of a daily shower (?)

I'm not big on Ms. McBride getting damages, but I do think it would be reasonable to accomodate her need for a perfume-free workplace.

Happy Independence Day

This will be a very nice day for the July 4th holiday. I'm looking forward to a relaxing day off.

Whenever I read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I am reminded of what an amazing group of guys our founders were. To think that they created this system of government in a world where nothing like it existed adds to my awe and respect for this group of gentlemen. To think that the Brits regarded them as nothing but rabble and hayseeds from the colonies who didn't have the sense to govern themselves. I think they were proven wrong.

The very act of signing that Declaration they knew to be very likely their own death warrants, but they stepped up and did it anyway.

Happy 4th!

Must be Racist

The elite media and government types are angry. They're angry that the American people overwhelmingly panned their very complex legislation dealing with immigration.

Anger makes people lash out. When it comes to our Washington elites, lashing out usually means wielding the racist club. All over the airwaves are angry legislators and media types, blaming racist Americans enflamed by racist AM Radio talkers.

The either refuse to look past their idealistic noses to find out the real reasons behind the public outcry, or they actually understand that outcry but prefer to ignore it in favor of propagandist messages designed to club people with accusations they hate the most - that they must be a bunch of racists.

From my point of view, I don't care if it's a bunch of poor Mexicans or Swedish Swimsuit Models; if they are in the country illegally, they should be just as subject to enforcement of our laws as anyone else.

The opposition to the bill is not some simplistic xenophobic fear. It's based simply on the reported content of the bill itself. The Washington ivory tower residents say it isn't an amnesty bill, but their own defense of the bill admits it is. Only those illegal immigrants who want to climb on the yellow brick road also known as the "path to citizenship" are required to do anything at all. Everybody else here illegally gets essentially an unlimited free pass, as long as they don't want to apply for citizenship.

There were lots of other things reportedly in that monstrosity, such as a deal-killer national id card. But mainly, niether congress nor the president have the slightest hint of credibility in this area. They can promise they will secure the borders, but their actions to date seem to prove those are the emptiest of promises.

I think there is a very easy, common-sense solution to the problem. Once again, common sense is a foreign concept in Washington, but I'll outline it here anyway.

First, put everyone on notice. Run an ad campaign in all the media telling illegal immigrants and employers who hire them that time is running out. The ads say this:

The United States Immigration and Naturalization Agency is implementing new policies and procedures for enforcing our immigration laws.

Employers, within 6 months you will be asked to submit a full roster of your employees, with monthly updates to follow with new employees hired.

New government systems will be implemented to confirm your employees are legally entitled to live and work in the United States. You will be notified on a monthly basis of those of your employees that do not appear to hold valid social security or work permit documentation. Once notified of a discrepancy, you have 30 days to either correct the information, provide copies of proof of citizenship or current work permits, or terminate employment of the employees in question.

Immigrants, if you are in the country illegally, you have 6 months to return to your country of origin. If you do so within this 6 month period, you will not be subject to fines or imprisonment in the United States, unless you have committed punishable offenses other than your illegal immigrant status.

Once you have returned to your country of origin, you may make application to return to the United States through your consulate. If your application for legal entry into the United States demonstrates you are proficient in English, have a written recommendation and job offer from a United States employer, and have no serious criminal record, your application is likely to be approved on an expedited basis. If your application is approved, you will be permitted to return to the United States under a 2-year work permit.

Any employers found to be in violation of the law with respect to ongoing employment of illegal aliens after the afore-mentioned 6 month period will be subject to fines of up to $10,000 per illegal employee. Repeat offenses will be subject to higher fines and imprisonment of those company officials involved in such illegal employment.

Any persons remaining in the country illegally after this 6 month period are subject to arrest and immediate deportation to their country of origin, with a permanent flag attached to their record, indicating they cannot re-enter the United States under any circumstances.

Of course, the other piece of this is shutting down the borders - both northern and southern. Fences, cameras, agents - whatever is necessary.

Simple, common-sense, very fair I think. I know some would object to the part about letting them apply to get back in, but if they can show they're already pretty well assimilated, know the language, and have a company sponsoring them for return, I don't think it's unreasonable.