My America, How I love her.

          As this is the last post of the week due to the holiday, I felt that I should write on what this country means to me.  Although I believe that John Wayne did it better (look up his "America, Why I love her), I will try my best to put my feelings on her into words we can all agree with (or at least not get angry over).
         America, to me, is a country that means freedom.  This, by itself, is not enough to make her great or enamor me to her.  No, America draws me home for so many more reasons.  While its lands are vast and its sights awe inspiring, it is her way of life that keeps bringing me back.  Oh, we have our problems, but, then, who doesn't?  We pride ourselves in our freedoms.  Freedoms that few countries truly have.  Freedom to say what we will about our government and debate its merits or pitfalls openly and without fear.  Freedom to worship or not as we see fit.  Freedom to choose how we spend our lives.
          America has been called the land of opportunity, and rightly so.  This doesn't mean it is given to you and you are guaranteed success, only that you have the freedom to chase your dream as hard as you want.  If you decide it is to hard and you don't want to pursue it it is your choice, no one can, or is allowed to, make that decision for you.  Yet, you also have the freedom to go where you wish within this nation to chase your dreams.  So many come here, not because life is easier, but because it is freer.
          America is not perfect, no land where humans lives ever will be, but it is a place you can call home.  The American dream is to own our own chunk of land.  A parcel we can call our own and use as we will.  We are granted the ability to not just vote, but to write to and speak with those we vote for.  We are allowed to see our government in operation and the freedom to at least read what it does.  While we may not agree on what has been done or will be done, we have the freedom to debate it.
          Why do I love America?  She is the mother of freedom and the guiding light of democracy.  Though that light may dim at times and freedoms may falter, the light always returns to shine brighter and the freedoms return to stand stronger.  When endangered she rises up and stands together, her light shining brighter than the sun and bringing even those who are unhappy with her to her call.  She leads where others dare not tread and stands where others would fall.
            America is a nation of passion. We share what we are passionate about freely, without fear.  We are granted the ability to follow our beliefs where and how we will.  We are allowed to share those beliefs freely and invite others in.  Thank God for that freedom.
           In closing, I believe I can sum this up by simply saying that America is a land where we get to be who we choose to be, how we choose to be, when we choose to be, and where we choose to be.  It is all a matter of personal choice, a choice we are free to make.  God bless America.   Have a great Independence Day!
          Thanks for reading and, as always, thanks for reading.

The problem with the misnamed Affordable Health Care Act.

          Seems that everyone is talking about yesterdays SCOTUS decision on the affordable health care act.  Guess that means that I need to weigh in as well.  Let's clear something up first.  The first thing I need to tell you is that , for the most part, I agree with what is in the act.  What I don't agree with is the mandate that everyone have health insurance, the misnaming, and the lack of protection from the insurance companies.  These all go hand in hand so I will start with the most basic problem, the name.
           This act does nothing to affect the cost of health care.  Why do I say this?  Firstly, it does nothing to address the issue of health care costs.  The bill deals almost exclusively with health insurance and provision of care.  In otherwords, who pays for the health care.  Either insurance companies, the states, or the federal government.  The same as it was before.  This has no effect on the cost of health care.  At best, the name should be the health insurance reform act.
           Now for the meat of the problem, the mandate.  The supreme court ruled that there will be a fine for those who don't have health insurance.  The first thing you need to realize is when this fine is levied.  It isn't on your tax form or by the policeman pulling you over, it is levied when you visit a doctor without health insurance.  This means that you still visited the doctor without health insurance and have to pay that bill and now you have an additional fine on top of it.  So lets figure out who wouldn't have health insurance. 
           When it comes to health insurance, There are several categories.  There are those that can afford it and pay for it.  Those that can afford it, think they are healthy enough not to need it and thus don't buy it (a minority).  Those that can't afford it and qualify for state or federal health care (Va, Medicare, etc.) and are on it.  Then there is the last 2 categories.  These two are the ones hurt most by this bill.  The first category is those that can't afford health insurance but aren't poor enough to get government health care.  Then there are those that have been denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions.
             Let's talk about those with pre-existing conditions and how this bill does nothing to help them.  While it is true that health insurance companies cannot deny coverage to someone with preexisting conditions, there is no provision to make that affordable.  We are talking about private comanies here.  They exist to make money, not to care for people.  Everything they do needs to be profitable.  They aren't going to offer insurance at reasonable rates for everyone if it affects their bottom line.  Here is what I see happening.  A person with a pre-existing condition applies for health insurance and the company, because they have to offer insurance, quotes them an annual rate that will cover their costs and then some (for profit, remember).  Now, the applicant can't afford the coverage and thus declines it.  The insurance company complied with the law and offered to cover you, you chose to decline it adn thus it is your fault you aren't insured.  Nowhere in this law is that prevented. 
             As for those who couldn't afford health insurance already, once again, there is no provision to make it affordable or get them on government programs.  All we've done is make criminals out of people who are just trying to survive and increase the profits of a bunch of health insurance companies.
             The idea that your health insurance will go down as a result of this law is highly laughable.  The reason is simple.  These companies are making huge profits on those who are already paying, they aren't going to jeopardize them for this law.  They will make up the costs in whatever way they can.  This means by raising rates for those of us that are healthy should their lawyers advise them to insure the previously uninsurable.  What motivation do they have to lower rates?  To be nice?  They're trying to make profits.  If they can increase rates to increase profits they will.  At some point someone is going to mention auto insurance, so I will address that right now.  Yes, there are a ton of auto inurance companies out there and they all claim to save money.  The fact is, auto insurance rates have gone up signaificantly over the years at a rate higher than inflation.  But yours has gone down?  Has your driving record improved?  Did you get older?  If you compare apples to apples, auto insurance has gone up, not down.  Sure people are always saving according to the commercials, but what they don't tell you is that people don't switch unless they are going to save money or their insurance dropped them (in which case, they usually don't save money).  The reason these people save money is because, for the most part, they haven't reviewed there policy in years and were getting charged at the rate they started in which didn't reflect there current status (good driving, accident free, getting older, etc.).  Health insurance will be no different.  Why should it be?  They both are working for profit.
           Now for the solution.  In order to make health care affordable, there has to be a baseline alternative.  Something everyone can afford and sets a bar that the health insurance companies need to meet.  The only way to do this is through a government offered insurance plan.  The way that would work of there is an allowable deduction for health care.  If you take the deduction, you are saying you have purchased health insurance from a private company.  If you opt to not take the deduction, you are enrolled in the government health insurance which is a basic insurance (regular preventative medicine, emergency care, etc.) for one year (your next tax return).  Then, if you go to the doctor and you don't have health insurance, instead of a fine, you get and IRS audit, are investigated for tax fraud/evasion, and face jail time.  This would increase tax revenues, make health insurance affordable for all, and allow freedom of choice of providers.
            Let's go back to the point I made about the unisured visiting hte hospital.  Under this bill, a fine is levied if you visit a doctor, for any reason, without insurance.  Those that are currently visiting doctors wihtout insurance usually do so via the emergency room.  This wouldn't change.  Those without insurance would visit the ER and then have a fine to pay ontop of an ER bill.  As I mentioned before, the primary group that does not have insurance are those that can't afford it.  If they can't afford health insurance, what makes the politicians think they will pay for an ER visit and a fine.  They would already ignore the bill from the ER so what is ignoring a fine.  Health care costs stay the same and insurance goes up.  We all lose.
         This is my opinion and I take responsability for it.  If you can dispute any of this, I welcome it.  I love being proven wrong.  OK, I don't love it, I do accept it though and learn from it. 
          Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Why cut the pay for those that work and not those that don't?

           So I missed yesterday's post because I got sent home to deal with my Septic system.  Turns out, I shouldn't have worried.  Hopefully it happens today.  Unfortunately, I have duty so I will not be able to be there and my wife will have to take care of it.  She worries about it, but I think she will do fine.
            As I was looking at various things, I came to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with politicians.  How else do you explain the idea that in order to save money, you cut pay and wages from working people (military, federal workers, etc) in order to maintain pay to those not working (welfare, jobless benefits, etc.)  Don't get me wrong, I think that these programs are necessary to a point, but to justify cutting pay from those who work and not to those that don't at the same time is ludicrous.  We cut jobs for the sake of savings only to have those whose jobs we cut end up on unemployment and other costly programs as they search for jobs to replace the job we cut to save money.
            Now comes the fun part.  I was always taught that if you don't have a solution or aren't willing to discuss one, don't bring up the problem.  So here goes.  I say put the people on welfare to work.  Set up day care that is open only to those on welfare and staff it with those on welfare.  Next, put those who now have free time to work in jobs appropriate to their physical abilities.  If they don't know how to do the job, they get trained.  If they don't want to work, they don't get welfare.  I can hear some of you saying, "what about those who are disabled?"  I didn't say anything about those on disability, I said welfare.  But they can work too.  There are phones that need answered, data that needs inputted, etc.  There are jobs out there for all disability levels.  Just as there are jobs out there for all ability levels.  Streets need cleaned, ditches need dug, parks need mowed.  Fences need built.  Fences need painting.  Trees need planting.  I could go on and on.  But we continually complain about those on welfare and the job market.  But no one wants to do the jobs that are available, either because the job is not at their particular "skill level" or because it doesn't pay as well.  I think that if you gave people a choice of working for their welfare and unemployment checks on these needed government jobs that they would either work or get off of welfare. 
              The other side of this is that the work we are either not doing or contracting out at exhorbant rates would get done rather cheaply.  One other thing to throw out there.  Because they are working and may actually want to better themselves, you put into place a policy that gives them the freedom to job hunt while doing the work.  What I mean is, you give them the flexibility of schedule that allows them to better themselves.  If they want, you give them the option of going to school on the governments dime with the agreement that they will stop getting welfare in 5 years.  This gives them the time to get a degree and another year for the following job search.  Once they sign up and take money, there is no turning back.  They are off of welfare regardless of whether they finished school or not.  Of course this means we supply tutoring, but in the long run, it saves us a ton of money.
             This is all my opinion and you can take it however you want, but we have a problem here in the US and it is a selfish problem.  No one wants to take responsibility for themselves.  Everyone wants the government to provide for their comfort.  And it does, as long as you are willing to claim that you can't do anything else and throw everything away and start over.  Do that and you will find that you can live pretty well on the government dime.  Especially if you combine programs properly.  If you give something to someone for Free without any end in sight, you find that there is no reason for them to take a risk and get off of it.
             Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

The pay gap that isn't

              As you may have noticed, I haven't posted in a couple days.  There is one good reason and one bad reason for this.  The bad reason is that, on Tuesday, I didn't feel like it.  It wasn't anything in particular, I just didn't have anything constructive to say so I chose not to post.  In retrospect I should have posted another answer that I gave my sons as I have done in the past, but I failed.  The good reason is that, yesterday, the guys came to put in my septic tank so I was involved in that all day.  Which turned out to be a bit of a waste as the only thing they got done was removing my old oil tank.  That was a bit angering, We replaced the tank based on information that it was leaking because sediment was found in the oil filter during servicing.  When the tank was pulled, it looked good.  In fact, it still had oil in it and didn't leak.  talk about a bummer.  Oh well, one less thing to mow around.
                Now for today's post.  There is a piece of legislation going around that the Democrats would have us believe is part of the Republican's war on women.  You may have heard of it, it is the pay equality act, or something similar.  It is supposed to ensure women get equal pay.  This is a piece of useless legislation at best and downright political maneuvering in any other case.  Why?  First off, let's get the idea that I am against equal pay for women out of the way.  I am not.  I have always been a big supporter of equal pay for equal work.  It is right and what is fair and I won't deny it. 
                 Now on to why this is a piece of legislation that makes no sense.  I would like someone to show me a job that women get paid less for doing the same work as their male counter parts.  I couldn't find one.  I found stats showing that over all women got paid less than men, on average, across the US, including all jobs.  But when you delve into it the average used is done wrong.  First off it includes all jobs including ones that are typically avoided by women, such as construction, deep sea fishing, window cleaning (I am kidding there), and other high risk jobs.  I am not saying that women don't or can't do them, I am saying they are typically avoided by women.  Secondly, the average does not take into account for longevity.  This is a major factor in a lot of jobs.  For instance, until recently, the majority of CEO's were men.  This wasn't because of sexism as feminists would have you believe, but because the position of CEO is typically filled by someone that has a track record of efficient leadership.  This can only be achieved through experience and time.  In other words, in order for there to be women as CEO's there have to have been women as VP's and on down the line.  Of course there is going to be a disparity here since men have been in the work place longer.  Factor in the fact that a lot of women leave the work place to have a family and that those that stay are outnumbered as they move up the ladder and you can see why this may be.
              Now for the real shocker.  For the most part (professional sports excluded), women get paid as much, or more than their male counter parts.  This is from data that compares job to job.  It took an average of all men and women working in the same area in the same jobs during the same time frames.  Which makes sense as it is comparing the same things.  Think about it, if you compared your end of year totals with your coworker and you worked twice as many hours as he did, would you consider it fair if your boss paid him the same amount based on pay equality?  Or what if you went in to work one day and found that the new intern was getting the same pay as you, even though you were a manager, because there is a pay gap.  This is what the act to fix the purported pay gap is trying to do.
                  Overall, it was a piece of legislation that served no purpose, wasted time and money, and was strictly to give the appearance that Republicans hate women.  Oh, did I mention that the bill required added funding in a time when we are trying to make budget cuts?  So the Republicans voted against wasting tax payer money on a bill that served no purpose and they are being castigated for it.  Makes sense to me (please note that the last statement was made with the highest level of sarcasm possible).
                Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Secret Service Scandal: What else would you expect?

             For those of you isolated from the real world, there is a scandal going on with the secret service.  It involves legal activities in a foreign country.  Apparently, in their off time, a group of secret service members hired prostitutes and took them back to their room.  In the country they were in it is legal.  What brought this to the attention of the US is one of the girls brought a complaint against one of the Secret service members.  It then came out, that in another country a year earlier, another detail had gone to a strip club, got drunk and took strippers back to their hotel room.  Once again, nothing illegal happened.  The women were willing and the detail was off duty.
             Why am I mentioning all this?  Let me begin by saying I don't condone any of it.  The crux of this is that, we live in a society that hinges on the belief that it is your life, do what you want as long as it is legal.  Yet, when sex is involved, that same society, is decidedly fickle.  The real tragedy is that society doesn't even recognize it as hypocritical.  When you push for sexual freedom, freedom to do as you will in private (as long as it isn't rape and is legal), and freedom from responsibility for your sexual actions, it should come as no surprise when people exercise those rights.  How dare you castigate those who stand for sexual morality while crucifying those who practice sexual freedom.  This is the same as saying build roads where ever they are needed, but not here.  It's the same as saying treat animals as equals then euthanizing hundreds of stray pets because you don't have room to keep them.
              The men involved in this did nothing illegal.  One man had a complaint brought against him and we aren't even sure if it was legitimate or not.  Another group did absolutely nothing illegal, in fact, it was only brought to light because a reporter dug into it.  So either this is about the immorality, or something else, but for a society that embraces sexual freedom to investigate, punish, and revile those who practice it, is hypocritical in the extreme.
               Once again, I must iterate that this is not something I will ever condone.  I find it immoral and disgusting (apparently the sexually free society does as well, but they won't admit it) and think they are reaping what they sow.  This post isn't about defending them, it is about pointing out the hypocrisy society is displaying in pursuing them.
               This is the part where I preemptively answer a few possible comments.  The first being someone randomly pointing out various hypocrisies in various religions.  To that, I say, "that isn't me."  The second is someone randomly quoting scripture or saying something along the lines of who am I to judge.  To that, I say, "If I were to judge, I would have to pass sentence.  I am pointing out truth and hope that it may bring change to what is right.  It is not my place to judge, merely to point out the truth and allow it to be heard."  The third is someone who mentions that I am not perfect and who am I to speak.  To that, I say, "You are right, I am not perfect, never have been, never will be.  I have committed many sins of which I am not proud and have had them forgiven by my lord and saviour Jesus Christ.  I speak from experience and that gives me the insight to see it.  I will, most likely, sin again and he will forgive me again.  Once again, I point these things out merely to point out the irony and hypocrisy of it all." 
                 The final type of response is one which brings new information to the table or tries to brush this off.  To that, I add the following:  What we don't know is whether or not the resulting punishment to the secret service agents is due to an internal policy forbidding such activities while off duty in foreign countries or external pressure.  The news sources have only reported on the incidents and the results.  The fact that it has garnered such attention on such few details is what I comment on, not on the unknowns  of internal Secret Service policies.
                 Where do you stand on it?  Are you a proponent of the "sexual freedom" or are you against sexual immorality?  It isn't a gray area, either the men in question did nothing wrong, or they did.  If they did, how can doing legal acts that fit in with "sexual freedom" be wrong?  Just food for thought.
                Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

What do I believe about the gay community and God.

            I understand that the following commentary will be controversial to many.  I also understand that if you only read the first paragraph or two it will probably anger, confuse, or insult you.  All ask is that if you start reading it, you finish it.  It was written as a whole and should be read as such.  To pick it apart based on a single paragraph is to do an injustice.  That being said, I stand by what I have written.
            There has been a recent resurgence of posts denouncing the Christian stance toward the gay community.  One of the more notable ones proclaims that we as Christians tend to decide who we will be Christians toward.  I find this reprehensible and, unfortunately true in many cases.  The problem isn't that we are hateful and mean, it's that we tend to confuse the sin with the person.  You see, we are directed to try to be like God.  To hate the things he hates and love what he loves.  God loves all people and wants all people to come to him.  God also hates all sin.  So how do we reconcile the difference between sin and people?  The simple answer is, we don't.  We have to leave that up to God.
           That doesn't mean that we have to accept sin.  The bible is very clear on how to react toward unrepentant sinners.  We are to love them and care for them, but at the same time, we are to direct them in his ways.  If they become hostile to us, we are to leave them be as they have hardened their hearts and have rejected God's love and forgiveness.
           That being said, where do we stand on the gay community?  With the above in place we have to separate ourselves from the gay community as they tend to revel in their sin.  Let's not kid ourselves, the bible clearly states that gay sex is a sin (read Romans 1:26-32).  This doesn't mean that we should spew hateful messages about God's wrath or not minister to them in hopes that they will come to God, it means that we should not do anything that would indicate we support their sin just as we should not protect someone who stole our car.  Both are sins and to condone either is a sin in and of itself. 
          If I were to offer one piece of advice it would be this, treat all people with love and respect at all times.  This includes those we see as living in sin.  This includes those who hate us.  This includes those that "rub us the wrong way."  It isn't easy and never will be.  We have to share our testimony and show them that Christians aren't hateful bigots.  We have be clear in how we treat others what it means to love the sinner but hate the sin. 
           Too many Christians forget this and see the sinner as the sin.  The bible is also clear on that.  When you decide the sin and the sinner are inseparable, you act as their judge.  Romans 2 states, "1 Therefore, anyone of you who judges is without excuse. For when you judge another, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the same things.  2 We know that God's judgment on those who do such things is based on the truth.  3 Do you really think-anyone of you who judges those who do such things yet do the same-that you will escape God's judgment? "  The thing to remember is that, to God, all sin is the same, disobedience to him.  Reading the bible has taught me that, to God, lying and murder are both sins and deserve the same punishment, death and separation from God.  So if murder and lying receive the same punishment so do any other sin such as theft or homosexuality.  Degrees of sin is a human concept.  When you judge another on their sins, you place yourself above them as though you have no sin.  I don't know anyone who hasn't sinned.  Even my pastor admits that he has sinned.  The difference is, whether you confess it or not.
            I could continue on and on, but the reality is this, either you believe or you don't.  Either you accept what I have written or you don't and continuing on will add nothing else.  As always I welcome comments and debate as long as it is respectful and not hate filled.  If I offended you, I can't help that, I meant what I wrote.

Gay marriage: Wrong by definition.

          I am back on days and so I will be posting more often.  Today I think I will address an issue that is coming up on the ballot here in the state of Washington.  It is a referendum on gay marriage.  I understand that this is a hot issue and that it will be hotly debated, so let me start with some facts.  First of all, here in Washington state, there is the civil union law.  This law gives any couple who apply for it (much like a marriage license) may enter a civil union.  Those in that union receive all the same privileges and benefits of a married couple.  In other words, no rights or privileges granted a married couple may be with held from a couple with a civil union.  It also adds that this union may be between couples of the same sex.
           Why did I mention that?  Simple, it means that any move for gay marriage ceases to be about civil rights as no rights are being denied.  It is about redefining marriage.  The argument that we are trying to deny people basic rights is ludicrous at best.  By law, if a same sex couple is denied something a married couple gets, then they have every right to bring charges and sue the person discriminating against them.  The law that enacts same sex marriage is about definitions, not rights.  I have yet to see any right or privilege that a married couple gets that a couple in a civil union is denied by law.
            The one thing that has always bugged me as well is the idea that marriage is a right.  The fact is, we can't call it a right.  If we do, then we have been denying this right for years and the gay marriage law will not change that.  I am referring to 2 consenting adults of legal age.  I agree that the idea that enacting gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals or that it will legalize pedophilia is asinine at best.  What I am talking about is relational marriage.  If it is a rights issue, no two consenting adults of legal age can be denied this right, yet we continually deny marriage between close relations (1st cousins, siblings, father daughter, mother son, etc.).  Don't get me wrong, I understand the implications of these marriages and don't agree with them either, but the fact remains that we discriminate against these marriages as well.
           Call me what you will and be as angry as you want.  The fact remains that this ceased to be a civil rights issue when the only thing being argued is a definition.  Why am I concerned?  Because it means that, in order for a religious entity to maintain its beliefs and convictions, it must, by definition, discriminate and go against the law.  By enacting a law that redefines marriage, you force churches into a situation where they are forced to either run afoul of the law and discriminate, or go against their convictions and beliefs.  There shall be no laws establishing religion or infringing the free practice thereof.  How can a church fee free to practice its religion is against the law to hold on to their beliefs.
            Now, to answer and argument that jumps up every time religion is brought in on this.  Slavery is not directed by the bible.  As I read the new testament, it is clear that it did not agree with slavery.  In fact, every instance of slavery in the new testament that I have read has mentioned paying proper wages and treating them fairly.  I am not a theologian, but it appears to me, the biblical definition of slavery can be paralleled with someone under contract today.  Yes, it was twisted and used wrong in early America and elsewhere and I could never condone that, but I am not talking about early America.  The fact is the bible is very clear on this issue.  Homosexuality is wrong according to the bible (new testament included) and since this is what my beliefs, and most Christian beliefs, are based on I cannot condone it nor agree with it. 
            That's about it for today.  Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Affirmative Action: Legalized discrimination.

            Sorry it's been a while since my last post.  For some reason the computer wouldn't let me compose these past couple of days.  Anyway, here is something that caught my attention and I feel needs to be said.
           Recently, a case went befoer the supreme court on affirmative action.  The case involved a student trying to get into a university in Texas.  If you haven't heard of it you can look it up as I don't feel the need to rehash it.  This post is on my thoughts on affirmative action.  I feel that affirmative action, by its very nature, is discriminatory.  If you give someone preference based on the race or gender and it is considered discrimination, yet this is exactly what affirmative action does.  Based on the fact that you are a part of a minority, you are given "special consideration."  I don't understand the logic of using discriminatory actions to "ensure equality" by forcing quotas.  We have a system that is very sensitive to discriminatory issues.  In fact, if you are a minority and want to get a bunch of money, bring a lawsuit against any company for discrimination and see how fast it gets settled.  It doesn't matter how legitimate it is, even the hint of discrimination will open their checkbooks.  Yet, we still feel it is necessary to pass laws and make rules that give special considerations to minorities.
            So how do you make the process fair?  You may ask.  Simple, you remove any hint of a persons race, gender, etc. from the application process.  You take a look at their qualifications and choose the best based on that.  When it comes time for the interview, trust your interviewer to be fair and choose the best candidate.  If you suspect discrimination after that, then sue and be prepared to pay.  As I said, I can't think of any major company out there that doesn't fear a discrimination lawsuit.  Just the hint of impropriety is enough to get people fired.
            As is so often pointed out to me, this is the 21st century, the practices of 50 years ago are past.  It is time to move on and start allowing people to earn jobs based on merit, not whether or not they belong to a minority.  I am sure there are people out there that will decry me as being insensitive to the minority plight.  That couldn't be further from the truth.  I believe that race and gender have nothing to do with ability and skill.  They are completely seperate.  I don't think I could take a job that I knew I got because of my race or gender.  Yet, it happens all the time.  And not because the hired person is white, but because they are a minority and that is apparantly an OK form of discrimination.
               So ask yourself this, if discrimination is wrong, how is affirmative action legal?  In summary, it isn't.  Affirmative Action is discrimination.  Affirmative Action promotes racism by saying that a minority couldn't compete without preferential treatment.  I say it is time to do away with affirmative action and embrace a new concept of equal treatment for all, regardless of race or gender.  Then again, isn't that what the Civil rights movement of the 60s was after in the first place?
             Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

The 2nd Amendment: What I read into it.

           This weekend was a bit insane.  It started off with duty on Saturday.  That went well until midnight when I got woke up to be told to go back to sleep.  Same thing happened again about 2 hours later.  Then around 3:30 I got woke up yet again to let someone into an office.  Needless to say, I was worn out by the time I got home Sunday.  I got about 3 hour of sleep before I woke up.  Then around 2pm my wife noticed the toilet was draining slowly.  After a bit of trouble shooting, I realized I was going to have to crawl under the house to fix it.  Since it was already dark out and I really didn't feel like going under the house at the time, I decided to put it off until this afternoon.  In all, the weekend wasn't all that great.
            On to the meat of the blog.  Today, I want to address an article I found on my local news site (KOMO news if you want to know).  It was about an anti-gun lobby holding a vigil.  The article was interesting on its own, but the comments following it really brought to light an interesting mix.  The majority of the comments (9 out of 10) were pro-2nd amendment.  This makes me wonder if the anti-gun movement is a majority movement or just something that a minority is trying to push on the majority.  That is beside the point though.  The real interesting part of the entire thing was the politicians stance. 
             To quote, "U.S. Representative Jim McDermott, (D-WA),  whose colleague is Gabby Giffords, said certain guns should be banned.
             "The whole issue of these clips that will shoot 33 bullets in an instant, you don't need that if you're hunting, you don't need that, that's only for war or terrorism, and I think they ought to be banned," he said."
             The funny thing is, the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with defending one's rights against a tyrannical government.  I may not be a Constitutional lawyer, but if you read the constitution, study the revolution and historical era, it seems pretty obvious, why the second amendment is in place.  I am sure there are those that will refute some of this, but the fact is that the second amendment wasn't put into place to protect hunters and hunting, but to protect the people from their government and each other.  It reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The framers realized that without the privately owned guns, there would have been no revolutionary war.  This is why the second amendment reads arms, not guns or firearms.  It was meant to include any weapon needed to fight a war so that the citizens had the means to defend themselves and reclaim their government from a corrupt and/or tyrannical leader. 
               If you follow this thought then you have to ask about the word militia.  The idea behind this was in the definition of militia.  According to webster-dictionary.org this definition is: "In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in the military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies."  With a bit of basic understanding, you can say that you are a part of the militia once you have signed up for selective service since you are considered available to serve and have not yet been considered incompetent to serve.
                To limit weaponry to only that needed for hunting spits in the face of the second amendment.  I enjoy hunting, but the second amendment in no way, guarantees the right to hunt, only the right to keep and bear arms.  In itself, that phrase is powerful.  It ensures you have the right to buy, hold, obtain ammo for, and care for your arms.  It ensures you have the right to carry, transport, load, fire, and show your arms.  It means that, sense the word arms is used, these arms may include, rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, cannons, howitzers, tanks, rocket launchers, missiles, etc.  Look up the definition of arms and you will find that it is pretty broad.  Do I think I should have an M1 Abrahms in my drive way?  No, but I believe I have the right to it based on the definitions.  Besides, you have to be able to afford the weapons as well.
            Which begs the question, what, exactly, infringes on ones rights.  Does making it harder to obtain infringe on my rights?  Does a requirement to register my arms infringe on my rights?  What does that mean?  I don't believe making you register your arms infringes on your rights.  You are still allowed to keep and bear those arms.  Making it harder to get a weapon does.  Think of it this way, if what you have to do to get that weapon is more than it takes for you to get a drivers license, it infringes on your rights to bear arms.  This is especially pointed since a drivers license is not a right.  Could you imagine if you had to have a 30 day waiting period every time you went to buy a car?  Or better yet, a 30 day waiting period every time you went to renew your license.  Take a look at what you have to do in Chicago to own a gun.  Now replace the word Gun with car in that list of requirements and claim that it doesn't infringe on you.  "Cars aren't the same as guns," you say.  You're right, you have a right to keep and use guns.  You don't have a right to a car.
            Wow, I just went off.  I guess I had better end this.  I enjoy reading your opinions on this and would appreciate any insight you may have.  If I am wrong in something, please let me know as I am not above admitting when I am wrong. 
             Thank you for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Challenges of Faith

         Today's post is directed at my fellow believers.  While it should come as no surprise that I am a Christian (at least I hope it isn't a surprise), this post is not meant to push you away.  It is just something that I felt the need to say.  I gave that warning so that those of you who have decided that "all things God are wrong" and get angry at the mere mention of religion can be aware of what this post contains.  I would encourage you to read it, but I don't expect it.  It is your choice and one I respect.  Thank you for following my blog.  I hope this doesn't chase you away from it.  Have a great day.  For the rest of you, please read on.
         Things are always the most interesting when you challenge God.  Just a quick hint, God wins...always.  You may think you are winning and that you have proven him wrong, but you need to remember that he knows just how big a fall it takes to bring you to him.  Some of us only need to stub our toe, while others require getting a bit closer to meeting him in person.  Some think that just because God doesn't answer immediately, he isn't going to.  All you have to remember is, God's schedule and your schedule are not necessarily the same.  God has eternity, you don't.
        I always find it funny when my wife gets angry at shows that contradict her beliefs.  At least until I realize that a lot of people are like that.  Of all the things I have learned from the bible, the lesson I find the most interesting is the lesson of patience with others.  Take James, Jesus's brother, for instance.  James refused to believe that Jesus was the Messiah.  What makes this so amazing is that, of all the people in the world at the time, James knew more about him than anyone.  Yet he refused to believe.  We don't know why, it isn't really pointed out.  It took Jesus's resurrection to convince him.  What this means to me is that God will reveal what he needs to to those that need it when they need it and until that time, they will refuse to believe.  I have to think that of all the people to disbelieve in Jesus, James hurt the most, and yet God was patient.  He knew that once James witnessed the resurrection, that he would realize the truth and become the leader he needed to be.
         It is the same today.  We have to have patience with other people's beliefs.  they just haven't been properly introduced to God.  I am not saying that they need to be physically introduced, that is extreme.  I am saying that we have to have patience and introduce God to them by showcasing what he has done for us.  We have to live in a way that stands out.  If you are blending in and keeping your head down, you are probably not living as Christ wants you to live.  To live as a Christian is to be fundamentally different.  When you make a decision based on your faith, you have to call it that, you can't blame it on your schedule or on your wife.  The best example I can come up with is a topless club.  If a guy asks you to go and you respond with any excuse other than "I believe that is wrong and I refuse to go there," you are being dishonest with the person who asked you and your faith.  That is the hardest thing for you to do,  live in your faith and by what you know is right in a society that redirects the norms toward the immoral. 
       I think the biggest mistake that we as Christians make, is to try and push our beliefs and morals on others through laws and extremist actions.  What I am saying is that, we have to live with in the society and prove that our way is better by living it, not by beating others with it.  There are some things we do need to take a stand on and share our beliefs.  There are somethings we need to help direct laws towards, particularly when it comes to our children.  If something can adversely affect our children and how we raise them, then by all means we need to ensure we push laws to protect them.  Otherwise, we end up driving more people away from the faith than towards it. 
          While we may be passionate about something, we have to be able to argue for our beliefs to the public without basing our arguments on our faith.  While it may be true that our faith is what drives our arguments, today's society has decided that anything faith based is wrong.  What this means is that the instant you mention your faith in an argument, you have lost against a non believer, because at that moment, they have decided you are a religious nut and thus everything you say is based on your beliefs and not rooted in fact.  Regardless of whether or not it is true, that is what they believe.  I know, because I was one of them for many years.  "The bible says it?  Then it is a useless argument, no further action required.  Negate all previous comments."  That is the modern mantra and what I followed until I started looking at the facts.  God brought me around by logic and truth.  Although the bible was involved, it wasn't what ultimately brought me back to God, it was examples set by other Christians through actions and logic.
          The interesting thing in all of this is that I have yet to find a single belief and moral direction in the bible that you can't argue without mentioning the bible.  What I mean is that you can convince nearly anyone that what the bible directs is right and needs to be done without mentioning the bible or God in any way.  Then when you convince them of the biblical standard (without using the bible) you get to see the look on their face when you reveal your source.
          I guess through all this, the main theme is, live your life through faith to the best of your ability and god will take care of you and the rest.  People will judge you on your actions, even if they ignore or dismiss your words.  I believe that your words support your actions, not the other way around.  Actions will always reveal the truth eventually.  You may be real good at hiding that little vice you have, but I guarantee, at some point, someone will discover it and your actions will reveal the truth, or falsehood, of your words. 
      Thank you for reading.  I know that this won't change a lot of minds, but it is what I think needs to be said.  Have a great day.

Manic Monday: Cut the budget somewhere else.

          It is Manic Monday.  Today's subject, the national budget.  Recently a friend pointed out that the first thing the government seeks to cut is the defense budget.  I wonder why.  The fact is that the defense budget is less than a quarter of the entire national budget.  This means that three quarters of the budget is considered secondary when it comes to cuts.  The pentagon was instructed to cut 600 billion from its budget.  If all of the rest of government were to cut the same amount, it would amount to 2.4 trillion dollars in savings.  Yet, it is only the defense budget that is facing these type of cuts.  Now, add in the fact that, of all the programs on the budget, only Defense is named specifically in the constitution.  I know that some of the other expenditures are implied, but only defense is actually named. 
            So, why is defense always targeted?  Because for years it was viewed as a black hole for our money.  We would drop in millions and what did we get out?  Some new weapons, maybe a new building.  Then there were the rumors of thousand dollar hammers and million dollar toilet seats.  While these may be exaggerations, there is some truth to the premise.  The military does end up paying more for what they buy, than the average Joe would for the same items.  Why?  Because of the acquisition rules set for us by congress.  Because every congressman wants the big government contract for his constituents.  The fact is that we are overcharged because the businesses can.  Let's take a look at a simple valve.  That part may cost $20 at Lowe's.  But the government will end up paying $30 for the valve and here is why.  That mom and pop business competing with Lowe's begins with an advantage.  They get to deduct 10% from what they charge because they are a small business.  Next, they get to deduct another 10% because they are woman owned.  Then another 10% because that woman is a veteran.  Then another 10% because she is a minority.  After all of these deductions, the small business can charge $30 and their bid shows up as $19.70, which is obviously less than $20 and thus wins the contract.  This is a small example.  There are hundreds more like it and it adds up.  As I said, these rules were set by congress and are known throughout the contracting world.  Thus, if a company wants to win a government contract, they split off a division that makes a specific item the government wants and ensures that it is small enough to be classified as a small business.  They list a minority, veteran, woman with a disability as the owner and now she charges 1.5 times what her competitors charge and wins the contract.  This drives up what we have to pay for defense.
           That being said.  I wouldn't have a problem cutting the defense budget if we also got rid of these rules so that we didn't have to pay twice as much for items as they would cost a guy in the street.  The problem is, because of these rules, we have to pay the extra to just maintain our military.  This means, the cuts we are now looking to make must come from the personnel budget.  That's right, we are looking at ways to take away what those of us who have served our country have earned.  They are going to start charging us more for the health care we were promised would be free if we served for 20 years.  We are being told that the next generation will no longer receive a retirement they earned for 20 years of service.  Instead they will be given half of what is now considered small and they have to wait until they are 67 to get it.  How is this right?  We have a welfare system that is broke.  A government that is dysfunctional at best.  Yet, our military, which is considered the finest in the world (and by the way is one of the very few all volunteer force), is the first to get the axe.  Apparently, what works must be destroyed so that that which doesn't appears better. 
          Am I a bit disappointed?  Yes.  Am I bit angered?  Who wouldn't be?  The reality is that those who don't serve or have never served, look at the military as a huge drain.  They don't see the need for it.  there is a need.  The role of our military is to protect our nation and its interests.  We do this by providing a military force within our boundaries.  We do this by taking the fight to those who would bring it to us.  We do this by protecting those who would be our allies.  We do this by ensuring we leave a place better than when we got there.  Some say the military is not protecting our interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I beg to differ.  Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11.  Deny it all you want, but we went in with almost 100% support.  Iraq, although not as obvious, was a threat to us and the region.  Saddam Hussein continually threatened those around him and pushed us.  For 8 years under Clinton, he would regularly flaunt our indecision by first denying access for inspectors then allowing them just as we were about to take action.  Did we use a bad excuse?  Maybe.  We don't have the briefing papers the president had when he authorized it.  It doesn't watter now though.  Remember that last thing I said we did?  The one about leaving a place better than we found it.  This means we are responsible to help establish a government that can function and give its people the freedoms that we enjoy.  This means we can't just leave a defeated nation to fend for itself.  Especially a nation that was a breeding ground for terrorists.  If we had just left them, the Afghan and Iraqi people would have been saddled with a country with no government, no infrastructure, and no help to rebuild.  By staying and helping them set this up, we are helping to maintain and build stability in an unstable region.  This is what we do.  To do any less would be un-American. 
          Now that I have ranted and raved about what I believe on this.  It is your turn.  Tell me where I am wrong.  Let me know what I have said that has upset you.  I look forward to any discussion on this topic you wish to have.  I think its time we look at the other three fourths of the national budget for our savings.  But maybe I am mistaken.
          Thank you for your time.  Have a wonderful day.

Manic Monday: Remember 9/11 and Unity Lost

         It's Manic Monday.  This week I think I will skip the rant and go for the memory.  With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 yesterday, I got to thinking, "what exactly has changed because of that day?"  Yes, air travel has become more inconvenient.  We have a sense of loss when we are reminded, but really what else has changed.  Have we become a more unified country?  Are we truly stronger and better able to care for ourselves?  Or did we sink lower than we were before hand?  When we are asked to remember that day, some of us tear up and are moved.  Some of us simply say what a tragedy, but it's time to move on. 
         In the first months following 9/11 we saw a united nation.  We saw something that hasn't been true of our nation for decades.  There was no partisan politics when it came to what must be done.  We reached across the aisle and mourned together as Americans.  We worked together to find a solution and pass legislation that was required.  The sad state of affairs is that less than 10 years later, we do nothing but play the blame game and refuse to pass anything that the "other party" has proposed.  The good of the nation has been replaced with the good of the party.  Bush is continually blamed for two wars, yet when you look at it through the filter of history you find that the war in Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11 and a bipartisan war.  That's right, it was a unanimous decision to go into Afghanistan and eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  The nation rejoiced when we were told we were going.  Yet, not even 10 years later, we blame Bush and denounce the war we all wanted.  Granted the announced reasons for the war in Iraq were wrong and less than ideal, but in all it was necessary as part of the war on terrorism.  There may not have been WMD's, but there was most definitely direct support of terrorism.  Yet, we still denounce this.  The biggest problem I have with those that denounce these wars is that they want us to just leave.  We, as Americans, don't go somewhere, mess stuff up in major ways and not fix it.  It just isn't in our natures.  We learned from our past mistakes (at least I hope we did).  The fact is that, if we had left these two war zones when public opinion turned against them, they would be havens for terrorists today and back under totalitarian regimes again.  When you leave a country torn by war with no leadership or established government, the strongest military force takes charge.  In this area of the world, that would be the best armed and that means the very people we went to defeat in the first place.  This means we have to establish a stable government before we leave.  This means we have to ensure that government can defend itself.  This takes more time than we expected.
       I find it hard to believe that we have sunk so low in 10 years that we can no longer act for the good of the nation.  That we must put the election of those in our party over what the nation needs.  That politics has replaced patriotism.  That the strength of the party is mistaken for the strength of the nation.  Support your soldier was been replaced with support your party.  Remember the fallen has been replaced with remember what the other party did.  We are no longer happy with doing what is right for the nation, we only blame the party we don't like for where we are.  It isn't our fault that we didn't act on what was right, the other party made us.  This has become the mantra of both parties and it needs to stop.
     As I look back at 9/11 I see 2 tragedies.  The first is obviously the loss of life from the attacks and the extremism that spawned the attacks.  The second (and greater loss I believe) is the loss of the national unity glimpsed following this tragic day.  We saw a unified nation.  A nation where differences were put aside for the national good.  A nation where, though we may have differed in opinion, we were united by patriotism and the ideals that made the nation great.  A nation where we stood together and denounced the wrong.  That is lost now.  Instead of standing together to denounce the wrong, we stand apart and denounce each other right or wrong.  Instead of being united by love of country and national ideals, we are torn apart by opinion and blame.  Instead of putting aside differences for the national good, we emphasize the differences and use them to highlight the individual bad.  I am saddened by this and look toward the future with trepidation.  Unless things change, it will only get worse. 
       I am not pointing fingers at any party.  All parties are to blame.  We as a people are to blame.  I have fed the flames of separation by denouncing other parties just as many of you have.  We as a nation need to stop finding the bad in everything and start pointing out the good.  When a new piece of legislation is passed or proposed, we need to find the good in it first.  And then try and make it better.  Instead we find the bad and say that this makes the entire thing bad.  When I offer my children something new to eat, the first thing they see is something unfamiliar.  One of 2 reactions ensues, either revulsion because it is unrecognized, or excitement because it is new and maybe better.  I work with my boys and have asked them to try it s though they expect it to be good.  I understand that not everything tastes the same to everyone, but if you believe you won't like it before you try it, you won't.  It's just a given.  You won't like it because you have already made up your mind (and none of us likes to admit when they are wrong, especially when it is a matter of opinion and personal taste).  The opposite is true as well.  If you go into something expecting to like it, you at least have a chance of enjoying it.  True, you may sometimes still end up hating it, but at least it isn't due to stubbornness.  How many great foods are passed up because we decide they look horrible?  The same can be said of legislation.  Our first take on it can sour the rest of it.  If we believe that it bad before we read it, then it is hard to find anything good in it.  But if we look for the good, we may find bad, but we can at least find something worth saving.
         I guess what I really want to say is, let's put our priorities straight.  We have allowed our priorities to be reversed and it is destroying our nation.  Nation before party.  Let's remove the party blinders and do good by the nation.  I love this country, but it's politics are destroying it.  I think we should remember 9/11 and strive to achieve the elusive cohesiveness we had following it.  If we wait for the other guy to start first it will never happen.  Reach across the aisle and be the first.  Lead by example and end the divisiveness that is the catchword of the day.  Sit next to someone different from you.  Greet your opposite with a smile and a friendly handshake.  Step out and be open and honest.  Heal our nation.
       Thank you for tolerating my rant today.  It is just my thoughts and feelings.  Thank you.  God Bless America.

Manic Monday: Coffee, With clothes please.

        So I am going to try a full post today.  It is Manic Monday after all.  Today's subject is a local problem.  Up here in Washington state, we love our coffee.  With good reason, it is cloudy (I'd say rainy, but it really doesn't rain that much, just a lot of drizzle and no sun) and miserable for most of the year so we need our coffee to keep ourselves going.  To recognize this fact, all you have to do is pay attention to your morning drive and you will notice coffee stands all along the road, and most of them drive through.  I have around 12 drive through stands within the first 3 miles of my morning commute. 
         So it is no wonder that they have to find something to make themselves competitive with the other nearby stands.  Some are cheap and others are really good.  The ones I want to talk about are the ones that sprang up a couple years ago.  They started as bikini stands.  Stands where the girls wore bikinis to serve you.  Bikinis are worn everywhere so no one had a problem with these stands.  Then a second one opened and they started competing.  At first it was prices, then they started pushing boundaries.  Now, they have become a hot point.  Why?  The baristas are wearing practically nothing.  They wear the smallest panties they can and only stickers covering the nipple area as they serve coffee.  I understand that, in today's society, this may be an acceptable way of doing business.  While I don't agree with it, I understand they have a right to do business the way they want, but I won't give them my business. 
           No, my problem is that they are infringing on my rights as a parent.  How are they doing that you ask?  These stands are drive through and thus up against major roads.  The nature of the business requires that they have windows so they can serve their customers and peddle their wares, so to speak.  The problem is, they have very little in the way to block the view through the window from the road, and nothing to stop someone, no matter the age, from standing on the side of the road and getting an eyeful.  Thus, in order for me to keep from having to tell my boys why the lady is naked in that window, I either have to go miles out of my way, or find some way to distract them as we drive by. 
          Luckily, my boys are not old enough to drive yet so I don't have to worry about them going through the drive thru as there is nothing to stop anyone underage from frequenting the place.  You see, if these places stay the way they are, I will have to have the talk with my boys long before I am ready.  I will also have to worry about on more place that they can go that I don't approve.  While I wouldn't be upset if these places close, I understand that in today's society they have a right to exist.  All I want is for them to completely block the view from the road and control access.  Put someone at the entrance to check ID before they can see in and only allow those of age to drive through.  That's all I can reasonably ask for.
          I could cite instances of these places doing more than serving coffee and being busted for prostitution and other such things, but I also understand that not all of these stands do that.  I also understand that, while I don't like these places, there are those that do.  I also understand that the women work there of their own free will and choose to do so.  This isn't about me pushing my morals on them.  In fact, what is happening is they are pushing theirs on me.  They claim that it is their right to parade themselves that way and that my attitude offends them.  Apparently, I am not allowed to be offended as I am a Christian and have to turn the other cheek.  Apparently, if I tell you I am offended by something and offer a reasonable solution, I am pushing my morals on you and by not allowing you to expose yourself to my children, I am somehow oppressing you.  Sorry, I just don't see it.
         The reason I decided to write this is this.  Last week I saw an article where one of these places was busted for lewd conduct.  They had a stripper pole installed in it and they video taped one of the ladies (I use the term loosely) dancing on the pole from across the street.  If they can tape it from across the street, what is stopping a child from seeing in the window as his mother drives by?  That isn't what upset me the most though.  It was the comments that followed.  By and large, there was a large contingent that was upset that the police bothered to enforce the law and they actually defended these places by using the arguments I mentioned above.  No condemnation of the actions of the baristas, just outrage that the police would actually take the time to enforce the law on these places.  It is what it is.  Luckily, my area is taking action to define what is to be done.  Hearings are being held and we are trying to do something about it.  I can't make them put on clothes, but I hope we can make them block the view and control access.  Let those that want to frequent these places do so, and let those of us that don't, well, let us not see them. 
        Thank you for sticking it out and being patient with me.  May you have a wonderful day.

Manic Monday: Islam Vs Christianity

     So many issues, so little time.  Today on Manic Monday, I think I will discuss a few things that caught my eye in the news.  Two stories on the KOMO news web site caught my eye and they are related in a way.  The first is about a Muslim man who felt he was being discriminated against by the border patrol and the second is covering a quote from a potential presidential candidate who says that communities have a right to ban mosques.  The thing that really caught my eye was the parallels in the comments.  This post will dwell primarily on those parallels vice the subject matter of the articles since the discussions from each forum tend to cover most arguments (thought they tend to denigrate to Christian/religion bashing).
      The first thing that caught my eye were the repeated references to terrorism and the following replies that Christianity had done the same.  The fact is that, while their were the crusades and the inquisition, in context of the times, all religions (or peoples for that matter) were pretty much at war and it was the accepted means of resolving disputes (and the side that had the church backing them was considered more right, unfortunately).  I am not saying that it made it right, I am merely putting it in perspective.  This is further complicated by the arguments of the core of religions. 
        At some point, any discussion of Muslims eventually leads to someone pointing out that the Quaran (spelling?) directs killing of unbelievers.  This inevitably leads to someone pointing out that the bible does as well.  The fact is that the Christian bible doesn't.  The quote used recently to point out that it does was Leviticus 24:15 & 16.  This line of reasoning is flawed.  Firstly, Islam directs you to hunt out non-believers and kill them whereas these particular verses are directed towards blasphemers.  This means that unless you directly blaspheme God (Def.: To speak of, or address, with impious irreverence; to revile impiously (anything sacred) or in clearer terms: to attribute to God that which is contrary to his nature, and does not belong to him, and to deny what does or it is a false reflection uttered with a malicious, design of reviling god).  In other words, if you don't mock God with evil intent you are safe from the Jewish community, whereas Islam, just not believing and following Islam is death.  The reason I stated Jewish instead of Christian is this, the New testament is the driving force for Christians.  The Old Testament is the basis and background for the New Testament and is the Christian copy of the Torah (Hebrew bible).  The primary set of rules is for Christians is in the New Testament as it is the teachings of Christ (you know, the guy we are named for).  The difference is that as Christian, we are taught (or should be) that your sin is between you and God and it is not our place to punish you for it.  We can call you out on it and show you where you went wrong, but it is between you and God.  Don't get me wrong, there are also directions in there for dealing with repeat offenders, but if you read closely, you find that the most severe punishment in the New Testament that Christians are to impose is kicking the sinner out of the Church and then only after many attempts to keep them in (at least that's how I read it).  I may have missed something as I am not a Theologist by any stretch of the imagination, so I welcome any further additions you have.  I can hear some of you already, what about the laws in our society?  They serve a purpose which is to prevent society from being overran by the lawless and, while some may be based on biblical principles, they are generally man made. 
          I can't blame a lot of people for their stance on religion.  There are a lot of hypocrites out there after all.  I turned away from religion for many years myself for that reason.  Luckily, I found a place that taught and followed the bible and has allowed me to follow what I believe.  For those of you who have been disenfranchised by hypocritical churches and Christians, and I am sorry.  You shouldn't have had to deal with that.  I can't help but think that those of us who try our hardest to live as Christians should are hurt the most but those who claim to be Christians and yet don't act it.  That's my two cents for the day.  Whether you agree or not.  I enjoy hearing from you.  Thank you.

Manic Monday (on a Thursday?): The Casey Anthony Verdict

   So, yesterday I posted a note on my Face Book page about the Casey Anthony thing.  Turns out it is a hotter topic than I thought (and I thought it was extremely hot).  Today, on the KOMO news website, there was a story about the sentence Casey Anthony received for lying to investigators.  The story itself was a bunch of the usual filler and post trial reporting.  It was the comments afterward that really had me interested.  There were a lot of people who seemed to be after the jury and angry at the outcome.  Seems they wanted a conviction based on purely circumstantial evidence.  The problem is, circumstantial evidence doesn't meet the criteria for a capitol murder case.  It may for manslaughter or maybe even second degree murder but not murder one with capitol punishment in the mix.  The fact is that hard evidence is needed linking the murder to the killer with premeditation in the mix.  As I said on face book, the Prosecution failed on all these accounts.
     Here are the facts: 
1.  Caylee disappeared and 31 days later her mother reported it.  Yes, she lied and told tall tales, but this only points to bad parenting and irresponsibility, not murder.
2. Caylee's body was found with duct tape on her mouth.  Once again, could mean any number of things.
3.  An unsubstantiated report of the smell of "human decay" by a impound lot worker was reported, when the car was picked up (note that it was not reported to the police but the grandparents upon pick up).  Further the technique used to determine the odor came from a human body could not be reproduced with actual corpses, thus invalidating it.
4. The tape on Caylee's body was "consistent" with tape at the Anthony residence.  Note here that it consistent does not mean matches.  A chrome bumper is consistent with a Studebaker, but could also match a corvette.  Thus, the tape could have come from a neighbor, a stranger, or you.
5. No DNA/fingerprint evidence linked the tape on Caylee to Casey or Caylee to the car.  Now you have to stretch and assume that she was smart enough to clean her car of all evidence (hair, fibers etc.) of Caylee, yet still have left enough remains for their to be an odor.
6.  The cause of death was asphyxiation, but what asphyxiated her could not be determined.  It could have been drowning, the tape, a pillow, a hand, or even a dog sitting on her face.  There was nothing to point at what actually killed her.  Once again, how can it be murder if you can't even prove the victim was murdered?
     Given the above facts, all you are left with is the witness statements which only prove that Casey is an unfit mother.  Especially since the above facts fit both the prosecutions story of murder and the testimony of Casey that it was a cover up of an accidental drowning.  Since the jury is required to err on the side of the defense and there was no testimony or evidence providing a direct link to murder or otherwise, not guilty was the only possible verdict in this case.  Was Casey guilty of something related to her daughters death?  I believe so.  Does it meet the required evidential rules for capitol one murder?  Not even close.  Over and over I hear people shouting that cases have been won on circumstantial evidence.  The fact is that every capitol case that has been won on circumstantial evidence has been overturned on appeal.  Yes, some circumstantial evidence cases stand, but not when it comes to capitol cases.
       I have really disliked writing these things the last few days as they go against the grain and make seem as though I am standing up for this horrible mother (I can't think of any other way to put it).  I am not, I am standing up for the jury and our justice system.  I am glad the system worked, I just feel the prosecutor erred in going for capitol murder with such poor evidence.  We as a nation tout our justice system and the fact that we are innocent until proven guilty, yet we are happy to jump in head first into very shallow water based on what the media said.  We as a nation had her convicted long before it went to trial.  I am surprised they were able to seat a jury based on that alone.  How many of you could honestly say that you could have sat on that jury and provided unbiased opinions on just the evidence?  How many of you could have weighed equally the defense and the prosecution based on the evidence given?  The only reason I think I could have is because I didn't follow the story until the verdict was announced and my face book news feed blew up with anger at it.  Once my news feed blew up I researched the facts and found that I had no choice but to support the jury.  My heart goes out to them as they had a horrible job to do and now they are being threatened because of it.
        As for the prosecutor in this, I think he should be fired.  He allowed himself to overstep the evidence and let the media guide him to go for the big one when the only thing he had was the smaller one.  Thus he allowed Casey to walk with 4 years instead of life.  Some of you are saying that the defense muddied the water like in the OJ trial, the fact is the defense didn't have to because the prosecution never had a case for murder one in the first place.  As sad as it is that is the truth.
       I am sorry if this has ruined your day or you think this is a bad article.  I didn't mean to upset you, I just wanted to make you think about what I saw in all this.  I can't determine which is a greater crime, overstepping the evidence and letting someone like this walk free, or blaming the jury for doing what they had to in accordance with the law.  Thank you for reading this and bearing with my rant.  I just had to say it.  Have a great day (provided I haven't ruined it for you).  God bless.