Is college really necessary?

            Why do we push college on our kids?  I think this is a valid question.  First let me clarify why I ask it.  I recently came across a statistic that said that nearly 60% of college graduates were working in fields unrelated to their degree.  That made me wonder why they had to have a degree in the first place.  The more I looked into it, the more I began to realize that we have been scammed.
            I am not saying there aren't jobs that require a degree, a doctor or an architect are two that come to mind quickly.  I would hate to go into surgery and have my doctor show me his high school diploma and say, "let's get cuttin'."  It just isn't happening.  I also don't think I would want to walk into a high rise designed by a guy whose credentials include, "I lived in one once," and no degree.  But for a lot of the other jobs out there, you just have to wonder.  Then there is the trusting the university thing.  I find it increasingly difficult to trust a university that tells me that in order to get an engineering degree I need to take 4 hours of elective courses.  Let me point out that these are 4 credit hours of courses that in no way aid you in your field of study.  It should also be noted that most elective courses taken are 1 credit hour each and cost close to $500 these days.  In other words, the university wants you to add $2000 of useless credits to your degree for unspecified reasons.  What if your mechanic told you that you had to rechrome your wheels in order to complete your oil change?  I think we would all end up going to a different mechanic.  So why do we let a university do the same thing?  Because we want the name of the university on our diploma because it sounds impressive.
              Let me clear the air here.  I do not have a college degree, nor will I ever have one.  I spent 20 years in the military getting experience in my field.  If that means that someone beats me out of a job based solely on the basis of a degree, so be it. 
              We have been feeding the lie of college to our kids for so long; we have begun to believe it ourselves.  We send them off to college and tell them to follow their dreams.  They do that and get their degrees only to find that there is no job for those degrees in the field they love.  Why?  Because no one bothered to also tell them that a degree in photography is only worth something if your father happens to own a publishing company and you are at the top of your field.  Congratulations, you just spent $100k on a piece of paper to hang on your wall so you can look at it on your way to you minimum wage job.  Yet, having a degree is a must today.  We need to start teaching our high school students what the job market is really like.  Or what jobs require a specific degree and what jobs prefer experience.  Instead we tell them go to college.
               It used to be that a degree is what made a candidate stand out.  It used to be just getting into college was a big deal.  These days, if you have a pulse and an ability to fill out forms (most colleges will have someone help you with that), you can get into a college somewhere.  Here, fill out this form for financial aid, this form for grants, this form for you student loans, this form for waivers for your grades, and this form to choose your classes.  Congratulations, you are now going to college.  Sure there are a few colleges that are still selective in who they allow to attend, but they are in the minority.  Most colleges just look at filling all their classes to make sure that they can pay their bills. 
              Let me restate that I understand there are some fields that a degree is a must and I wholly support those degrees, but when a job lists "degree or experience" or just degree as a need without any clarifiers, it makes you wonder just what the degree is needed for.  I would think that if any degree is good enough because it shows dedication, that working for 2 years while involved in sports and graduating with decent grades from high school would be enough as well.  Then again, what do I know, I never went to college.
           Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Take a stand

       As I listen to the news, I am made aware of an interesting duality in our society.  As multiple riots rage throughout the Islamic world as a result of a video insulting the Islamic prophet Mohammed, the world jumps forward to point out that the is not representative of all Muslims.  I agree that this is not representative of all Muslims and that is not what this post is about.  What it is about is the idea that hundreds of riots large and small do not represent a majority, yet individual protests do.  That's right, I am talking about how a small group of "Christians" seem to be the accepted representation of all Christianity, yet if we apply the same standards of representation to other religions or sections of society we are bigoted at best, racist and intolerant at worst.
             Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating categorizing anyone based on a sample of any size.  I believe each person is an individual and is accountable only for his/her own actions as it pertains to the group they are a part of.  What I am saying is that, if we apply the standards equally, Westboro Baptist does not represent all Baptists, a few select Catholic priests do not represent all clergy, and a small group of rioters do not represent the entire Muslim world.
            I think a friend of mine put it best when he said, just because I stand for my beliefs, doesn't make me an idiot, fool, or intolerant.  In today's society, to take a stand is to be intolerant and to continually shift your morals and beliefs to adhere with the ever changing tides of society is considered progressive.  Another way to look at this is an analogy to ships.  A destination is reached by trimming sails, adjusting the rudder, and continually checking your course.  If you simply go where the wind takes you, you may very well find yourself somewhere you don't want to be, a hostile land at best or sunk by the rocks.  This is what today's society tells you is best, to go where the wind blows you. 
             I want you to notice one thing in the previous statement.  I mentioned three things in regard to reaching a destination, trimming the sails, adjusting the rudder, and checking your course.  All three of those things require effort, knowledge, and practice.  In other words, if you aren't willing to put the effort into where you want to be, you will never get there.  The weirdest thing is that everyone seems to ignore this.  One other thing that needs to be noted is the practice part.  If you don't continually practice navigating and trimming your sails, you tend to lose some of the skill you gained.  Think of it like reaching the top of any skilled profession, if you stop practicing, your skills will wane.  A professional pianist once admitted to an interviewer that he practiced more now that he had reached the top of his profession than at any other time in his career.  Why?  Because he wanted to stay at the top and he knew that the only way to do so, was continual work.  The same is true of any profession.
            So why are we so lazy about our lives?  Why are we willing to put so little effort into where our lives are headed?  Why do we continually decide to take the easiest route even though we know that it leads us nowhere at best?  I can't understand it and I find it unnerving that so many people are willing to go there.
           I am going to leave you with a challenge.  Look deep within yourself and find one thing that you think is worth standing for.  It could be a belief in the constitution, a moral stance on nudity, a belief in God, or simply the belief that your diet is the right one.  Just pick one thing.  Now, ask yourself if you are willing to stand for that one thing no matter what is thrown at you.  If all your friends and family take the opposite stance, are you going to waiver or continue to stand for your belief?  Are willing to maintain that regardless of societal change?  The final part of this is do you apply your morals and standards equally across the board?  Think about it.  To stand for nothing is to allow everything.  We all have to make a stand somewhere on something.  Whatever we allow will eventually come into our homes.  It may not be this generation, but someday it will come in.
                Thank you for reading and, as always, thanks for reading.

Paying for what we want.

           I came to a realization this weekend and it is so overwhelming that I felt I had to share it.  When the government is asked to give something to the people, it must raise taxes in order to pay for it.  To some of you, this is an obvious statement and you just said, "Well, duh," to me.  The rest of you need to take heed.  No one wants to pay taxes and we get our politicians to agree to cut our taxes.  We then turn around and start yelling that we want special programs to fix some problem, we want lawmen to protect us, teachers to teach us, soldiers to defend us, doctors to heal us, and roads to drive on.  These all cost us.  Yet, no one wants to pay for them.
          We have a deficit, not because our government can't do math, but because we the people refuse to.  We the people demand that our government give us all these things and while refusing to allow it to tax us.  The fact that our politicians are elected, leads to their desire to give us what we want so they can be re-elected.  This leads to a deficit as we demand bigger government oversight and lesser taxes.  You can't have both.  If we were to take the annual budget and ensure it was fully funded, everyone would have to pay their fair share.  For some reason, we the people have decided that those who were either born into money or made their own fortunes should pay for those of us who aren't as well off.  Tax the rich has become the mantra we live by.  We should be living by the standards of pay equally.  If every American paid his or her fair share we could kick this deficit, we just refuse to.
            I always felt that it was an obvious statement that you don't buy more than you can afford.  It always amazed me when the government continued to pay for things it couldn't afford.  Then I took a closer look.  I found out that we continued to expand to give more to programs people wanted and then gave them tax breaks because they wanted that as well.  And so we ended up where we are today, deep in a hole with only ourselves to blame.
          Allow me to make a confession; I am one of those that take advantage of our current tax system.  I have been receiving tax refunds for years and have actually been getting more back than I pay into it because of all the breaks and credits I receive.  I am at the low end of the middle class with four children and thus get a lot of deductions.  In other words, if we were suddenly made to pay our fair share, my tax bill would go up significantly.  I am still for paying our fair share.  We need these programs.  Our teachers, firefighters, policemen, and military need paid.  Our roads and infrastructure needs repaired, maintained, and built.  There are a ton of programs that we need to continue.  Sure, we could work to make them more efficient, and that should definitely be one of our goals, but we still need to pay for them.  We need to trim some of the excess, but we still have to pay for the necessary.
           We all have the same problem.  I call it the gimme syndrome.  We all want the government to ”gimme, gimme, gimme," just doesn’t want to pay for it.  You don't walk into a grocery store and expect to walk out without paying for your groceries, so why should we expect our government to give us all that it does without paying for it?  This is something we all need to remember as we move into this election season.  If a politician promises a ton of new programs, reduced taxes, and a reduced budget, you know he/she is lying.  It just isn't possible.  You can do 2 of the three but the other has to go a direction you probably don't want.  New programs and reduced taxes means an increased deficit; reduced deficit and new programs means increased taxes; and reduced taxes and reduced deficit means, not only no new programs, but a reduction in existing programs. 
             This is something every American needs to understand.  We can't end the cycle without understanding the truth of the matter.  We can't solve the problems by turning a blind eye and using wishful thinking.  We are supposed to be about equality, yet we continually strive to punish those who, using the rules established, have made their fortune.  In order for America to be truly equal and to have the same rights, we must stop the inequality in what we pay in taxes.  Be honest, what percentage of your income do you actually pay?  I don't mean adjusted or what the government says you pay, I mean the money that you get before anything is removed, what percentage of that, do you pay?  I am willing to bet that it is less than 10%.  Why should we throw a fit when a millionaire pays 15%?  Fair isn't fair when we use different standards.  That's my two cents.
               Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Why I hate Politics.

           The one thing I hate about elections is the never ending rhetoric.  The thing that is different this year than from 4 years ago is the profuse use of face book in the campaign.  This means I see a ton of posts attacking each party.  What it comes down to is the fact that there is no real positive message from any candidate.  I have heard a few statements on what they intend to do in office, but usually it is over run by negatives on either side.  It has become of a game of who is less evil instead of who is better and it makes me sad.
         The question is, if a law were passed that required a week of positive messages only during each campaign, would we hear anything from either candidate?  It seems that they have taken the old adage of "if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything," and turned it around to say, "If you don't have anything good to say about someone, put it on air."  It is a sad state of affairs.  What really makes it suck is that it has become what people expect.  If we got a politician that was honest (yes, I know, honest politician is an oxymoron), I think people wouldn't vote for him on the grounds that he was too different.
       Speaking of honest politicians, growing up, I actually knew one.  He was our local state representative.  The story goes that he was first elected without campaigning because the people in his district knew him and felt he would do right by them.  He was a farmer and was one of the people.  Between sessions he actually returned to his farm and worked, politics was something he did as an extra duty and he claimed his profession as farmer.  You actually had to point out that he was a representative because he looked at it as a side gig.  The funny thing is, he never campaigned but he was re-elected year after year.  One year he even had an opponent.  The funny thing was the opponent got 5 votes, his, his wife’s, his campaign manager, his campaign manager’s wife, and the incumbent.  The sitting representative said he voted for his opponent because he didn't really want the job but would continue to do it as long as the people wanted him to and he was competent to do it.  He finally resigned at 82 or so and it was a loss.
       I used to say I was a republican and would never agree with a democrat.  I have sense come to realize that that mind set is exactly what is wrong in government.  The largest problem we have in our government is that we have become polarized with very few exceptions.  Either you are a republican or a democrat; if you claim to be independent you are labeled as indecisive.  What further complicates this is that if you have convictions and stand by them no matter what, you are a radical and a hatemonger; if you go with the current trends, you are pandering; and if you compromise you are a traitor to your party or an indecisive fool.  We have decided it is better to give negative labels to people rather than look at what their decisions are based on.  I would rather vote for a man that follows his convictions and votes against his party than for a man that follows the party line no matter what.  I would rather vote for a man that compromises to get things done over a man that refuses to listen to the opposing party because they are the opposing party.  We as a people have allowed this to happen and we as a people have directed it.  It is no coincidence that the very people we complain about hold the power to limit what we can do about it.  The saddest part is that the independents have very little influence.  They are such a minority that the only influence they have is when the parties are deadlocked and even that is rare.
            The one thing that makes this worse is that the politicians start looking at the next election almost as soon as they are elected.  Instead of looking at what this country needs, they are looking at what will make them look good for the next election.  The only regular exceptions are a second term president or a senator that has decided to retire.  It is a rare politician these days that repeatedly does what is best for the country over what his party wants. 
               Am I to critical of all this?  Maybe, but then again, if I weren't wouldn't I be like most of us who just take what the media gives us as truth and move on.  Sure, most of what the media says is true, but then a half truth is still true even if it isn't the whole story.  The media takes some flak, but most of it is directed at the "extreme" media.  Those sources that make no secret of their political leanings and jump on anything that helps their party affiliation are targeted most harshly allowing the more subtle sources to be taken at face value. 
               The most interesting part is that, with a little research, you can find the truth and it usually isn't what you are led to believe.  Both sides use statistics and numbers that, while true, only tell a part of the story at best or are downright misleading.  Take the "discretionary spending" argument used to cut the DOD budget.  In budget speak, discretionary means anything not specified by amount to be spent.  In other words, if the amount to be spent is estimated, it is discretionary.  Since caring for personnel (medical, logistical, pay, etc.) is estimated it is discretionary.  This means the department uses its discretion to ensure the people are paid and cared for properly.  So is it right to say that the DOD has a large discretionary budget?  Yes it is very true.  But then, by the budgetary definition of discretionary, teachers, policemen, firefighters, roads, electrical power, and the air traffic controllers are all discretionary as well. 
            The problem isn't what it means; it is how it is used.  The politicians use it knowing that most people will read it as the department has a choice on whether they spend it or not and thus can just cut it.  To most people, discretionary means that part of the budget spent on extras.  Discretionary means to them the excess after bills are paid, not the portion used to pay bills that are in flux.  If we used discretionary the way the government uses discretionary, our electrical, gas, water, grocery, and clothing would be a discretionary part of our budget.  I don't know about you, but I think I would be in a little bit of trouble if I just stopped using or paying for all of that. 
          I guess what I am saying is that we as Americans have to stop looking at the surface of what we are told by the media and politicians.  It is our responsibility to dig deeper and find the truth in what is being said and discover where it is we really fall on the issues.  What is said may be true, but that doesn't mean it is the truth of the matter.  A twisted truth may still be true, but it becomes a lie when it is interpreted wrongly.  Take the time to look into the truth.
        Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Family vacation: the Finale

            When I last posted, I left off at just after Golden Spike national memorial.  The next day we finished our journey to the Grand Canyon.  Let me begin this by saying that just the drive to the North Rim is beautiful.  You pass through two national forests that are astounding.  It makes it even better after seeing desert for a hundred or so miles before hand.
           We arrived at the North Rim campround around two in the afternoon.  This gave us enough time to go to the visitors center and get our initial view of the canyon and it was amazing.  I believe on of the most endearing features of the North Rim is that it isn't as populous as the South Rim.  Whether this is due to the fact that the nearest freeway is 200 miles away, a 50+ mile drive on 2 lane roads, or that it is just not as well advertised as the South rim is up in the air.  Any way you look at it it makes it very easy to get around.  That night the rangers informed us that there was a campfire event where a ranger would talk with us.  We went and learned alot.  The ranger talk was on the ancient pueblonians (I hope I got that right).  We learned about their lore on where they came from and where they got their ability to make pottery and baskets.  At the end the kids got to make figures out of clay.  The kids loved it.
           The next day we took a bike ride from the campgrounds to the visitors center.  It was only about 1.5 miles, but it was over some decent sized hills.  The two older boys rode there bikes and I got to pull the two younger kids in the trailer.  We saw some majestic views and thoroughly enjoyed ourselves.  The ride back was even harder as the campground is higher that the visitors center.  In other words, mainly uphill.  I actually had to make the kids get out of the trailer and walk with me a couple of times.  Once again the kids loved it.  We got back to the camprounds about noon.  As we were eating a park ranger came up to us and informed us about another ranger talk that was going on at one.  The talk was very informative.  It was on the animals that live in and around the Grand Canyon and the relationships between them. 
          That night we relaxed and just enjoyed being a family.  The next day we headed out to take a few hikes along the rim.  Let me tell you that, unless you have some health defect that makes strenuous activity a death defying feat, you really have to do some hikes to fully appreciate the majesty of the Grand Canyon.  They don't have to be long hikes.  The longest we took was about a mile or so.  I would attempt to describe the views here, but I just don't have the vocabulary.  All I have to say is, after the Grand Canyon, everything else is just a hole in the ground.  Yes, I borrowed that from my dad. 
           The next day I learned that, apparantly, Arizona has a pretty loose definition of what a city is.  When we left the Grand Canyon we decided to make the drive to Mesa Verde in one day.  This meant backroads through Arizona and southern Colorado.  The maps showed towns every 9 miles or so.  Apparantly, if it has a gas station (or did at one time) it gets a spot on the map as a town.  Luckily, the route we were taking stuck to one road for quite a ways and thus my wifes confusion as to where we were was not detrimental.  It really wasn't her fault.  It wasn't until we had passed the fourth or fifth gas station that we realized that those were the towns listed on our maps.  Overall, it was some beautiful country to drive through and well worth it.  We arrived at Mesa Verde about 6 pm.  We made camp and had our dinner.  That night they had a talk about the animals in park.  It was quite interesting.  The next day we headed out right after breakfast.  We ended up going all over the park.  We probably hiked around 5 miles.  We were able to go through a few of the cliff dwellings and were amazed at the sheer scope of the work that went into them.  There was an eerie beauty to it all.  The only downside was the heat.  That night we did another load of laundry and played Uno as a family.
            The next day we headed out for home.  As we were driving we dicided that, since it was on the way, to drive through Arches National Park.  It was decidedly worth it.  The boys got to climb up around the double arch and our youngest wouldn't stop talking about it.  Everywhere we went in the park, he wanted to go climbing.  Overall, the boys fell in love with the park. 
             We ended up making it to Salt Lake City that night despite the 2 hours we spent at Arches.  The next day we drove straight through to Boise.  We arrived around 3 pm.  Since we were a little early, we decided to go to Cabela's.  There I found one of the .22 rifles that I had grown up with.  My wife allowed me to buy it.  This meant the boys got to roam Cabela's for about 2 hours while I made the purchase.
            That night, we ate with my wife's brother at Golden Coral.  It was a good meal and we all enjoyed ourselves.  We ended up talking until almost midnight.  It was a good time.  The next day we shared breakfast and had a good timie.  We ended up swimming for most of the afternoon and the adults ended up getting sunburned since we ran out of sunblock on the last of the boys.  It was so worth it though.  Onec again we talked until late at night before saying good bye. 
          The next morning we made the journey home.  In all it was great vacation.  I know it was because I still haven't recovered from it.
          Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Defining success in a round about way.

                  I know I eluded to a well written article that would incorporate facts and figures and be neat and concise.  I know that is what I promised.  This obviously isn't it.  I am still gathering data and looking into the post I eluded to, but it may take longer than expected.  It isn't that there isn't a wealth of data, in fact, quite the opposite, there is almost to much.  But that is not the point of this post.
                  As I sat here doing research and surfing the internet (more of the latter than the former I am embarrassed to admit), my mind started wandering as it tends to do and I got to thinking about human successes and how they are achieved.  I realized that worthwhile successes either come about through sheer luck (miracles if you lean that way) or hard work and perseverance.  We have no control over the sheer luck aspect and, let's face it, if you are waiting for sheer luck to bring you success, then you will be waiting a while.  In fact, I would wager that, usually, when sheer luck strikes, the success has been worked toward and was accomplished through the sheer luck.  What do I mean?  Simply put, while experimenting (the hard work) an inventor discovers something unrelated to what he was working on (the success).
                   So what am I getting at, you ask.  Simply this, in order to succeed, you have to go against your human nature.  Human nature is to find the easy way out.  Human nature says, I want the reward, but don't make me ask for it.  You have to go outside of what it is you want to do and go further.  Think on it.  Was there anything that you wanted, worked for and got?  Wasn't that thing more cherished and celebrated than the thing you were given for free? 
                  I admit, I am lazy and really don't want to go outside of myself.  I don't like doing extra work and tend to wait until the last minute to do many things.  The fact is, that my biggest achievements and the things I remember the most, are those things that I went after and clung to tenaciously to achieve.  Those things that I was able to concentrate on and do to the best of my ability and hold up as what I could do.  It was those successes that I like to look on.  The stuff I got lucky with, I really don't remember (that may also be because I don't get lucky to often).
                 Ask yourself this, am I waiting on luck, or chasing success?  The first does nothing, the second gets you there.  The funny thing is, when you chase success, you may not end up where you thought you were headed.  The great thing about that is that the new place may be better than where you thought you wanted to go. 
                    I am not talking about monetary success alone.  Whatever it is you want success at requires effort.  If you want a long and successful marriage, you have to work at it.  You can't just sit back and let it happen, you'll end up with a roommate instead of a spouse.  If you want your kids to grow up right and happy, you have to work at it.  You have to discipline them, teach them, and spend time with them.  If you sit on the couch and ignore them, they become the kids you complain about at the store.  You get the picture.  If you are living life under the assumption that you deserve something because of who you are for no effort, then you need to reevaluate your life.  People who believe that have a name, spoiled brats.  If you define yourself by the success of others (Do you know who my daddy is?;  I work for ___), then you are a nobody.
                    I may have ranted and gone off the dep end a bit here, but there is a worthwhile point.  Your successes define you.  I hope that people can recognize me as a good husband and father and that that is how they define me.  I don't want who I am to be defined as a good sailor or a good inspector and nothing else.  Don't get me wrong, I would appreciate those definitions, but the definition I strive for is great husband and father.  How are you defined?  How do you want to be defined?  Do they match?  If not, why not?  What can you do to make it happen?
                   That's all for today.  Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Things to come.

             This is just a short post to let you know where I am headed with all this.  I have decided that my next post will be on a topic that has been bothering me for a while.  I am not going to reveal it until I am done with the research and have figured out what I am going to write.  Just know that I am doing the research and that it will be a bit more fact laden than usual.  The down side of this is that I may not complete it this week, and with school next week, that means that it could be the following week before I post again. 
                No, I will not be posting next week as will be in class.  I have enjoyed posting regularly for you, but I have come to the realization that the quality has been beginning to slip.  Thus, I have decided to opt for quality over quantity.  I will try and give you a time line for each post, but they will not be as often.  Thank you for regularly reading my blog, I just felt that it was time to step up what I was writing.
              Thank you for reading, and as always, have a great day.

A plea for help. Not that kind, I just need topics.

            Why is it that I really don't have much to say beyond the usual rants.  I could go off on how people misuse various resources to prove points.  I could spout my opinion on any number of current events.  I could pull up statistics to support my arguments just as you could to support your side.  The fact is, I don't feel like starting arguments or becoming angry over things that I have no control of.  This makes me realize just how tough it is to write articles day in and day out.  New ideas are hard to come by and old ideas get repetitive.  What is a writer to do?
             I've thought about writing a nonsense post, but that gets old quickly (and I've done it a few to many times for it to be funny anymore).  I thought about posting another answer, but those are more for my sons and there are only a few that have any relevance outside my family. 
              I guess what I am trying to say is that I am running out of ideas and am looking to you, my readers, to throw me a bone.  What do you want to read about?  What interests do you have?  I really don't mind looking things up.  It doesn't bother me at all.  I have all day.  My job allows me to do whatever as long as I am available to do inspections when required.  This means I have 8 hours (give or take 15 minutes or so) to do research and write articles.  As my boss said, we get paid for what we know, not what we do.  Sure there are times when we get busy, but they are spurious and we usually have a few days between them. 
             All that being said, I look forward to your input.  Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

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.

Fireworks, the 4th, and the traffic

           What a week!  I look back over the past week and I realize just how busy I have been.  I didn't even have a hour to fix my truck until Sunday and I knew what I needed to do for over a week.  That's what happens when family visits.
            I have a question.  Who is planning on going to a public fireworks display?  Personnaly, I don't want to go to one because it is a pain in the rear.  If I can find a spot nearby that I can see the display from, then I would rather go there.  The reason is that when you go to a public display you find that everyone else went as well.  Either you arrive hours ahead of time and stake out your spot, which means your car is now blocked in and you also don't get to leave for hours afterward, or you arrive just beofre it starts, walk a mile to get to a decent spot, hope that you can actually sit (with 8 people this year, not going to be easy), then try to navigate the crowd on your way out.  No matter how you look at it, is 15 minutes of fireworks really worth the hassle?  Maybe if we planned on meeting a couple of families there it may be worth it, but I just don't see it as worth it with what we have to deal with.
            Don't get me wrong, I love seeing fireworks, I just don't like all the problems that come with it.  At least if we stay close to home, the boys can go inside if they get scared or decide they are too tired.  I just don't want to go.  I want a couple of days at home without running in circles.  Is it too much to ask to have a holiday at home with my family without pressure to run somewhere for some reason?  Oh well, making hte wife happy is important too.
             Other than the fireworks dilema, I really am looking forward to the 4th.  I am making homemade ice cream again this year (strawberry this time).  We are planning on going traditional with burgers and hot dogs.  I have a few fireworks to light off at home and of course, we have games to play.  So much fun.  I hope you have a wonderful 4th.  Tomorrow will be my last post of the week due to the holiday and the wierdness of my schedule.
           Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

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.

The art of being right.

           Let me begin by apologizing for not posting last week.  I got shifted to swing shift on short notice Monday and was not up to posting.  This means I need to catch you up on what happened last week.  It began with the Septic guys showing up to finish the job.  Some time the preceding Friday, the inspector showed up and okayed it.  Tuesday and Wednesday were spent removing the rocks, trash, and clumps of old grass from the dirt in preparation for seeding.  Thursday, we actually seeded the lawn.  Now we just have to wait for it to grow.  Luckily we have spare seed if we need it.
           The fun didn't really start until Friday night.  First I need to give you the lead up.  About a week or so ago, my mother in law (great woman, not a battle axe, but a wonderful woman) called and asked if it would be OK to come out in July.  She also wanted to bring out our neice with her.  We said sure, we really don't have much planned for July.  So Friday night we get a call and she says, would Monday be OK.  The wife says sure.  If you note, it is Monday, most definitely not July, and, yes, she is arriving this morning, 15 year old Niece in tow.  I should point out here that she is welcome and we are glad to have her.  I have no problem with her visiting on short notice.  The problem I had was with my wife.  We have discussed it and we have since come to a reasonable solution (I am wrong, she is right and that is that, at least that was how it ended). 
               You see, about 4 weeks ago, I volunteered to help out at my church's fireworks stand.  We discussed what times would be best and settled on Friday evening and Saturday afternoon as that was what worked around our schedules.  She also had a dinner with friends scheduled for Saturday evening.  The problem came when I reminded her of our prior commitments for this weekend as she started trying to plan things to do with her mom that the conflict arose.  Apparantly, she was against the times I scheduled from the beginning and I chose those times on my own.  Thus, it is my fault that she can't plan a great weekend with her mom.  Apparantly, I should have known that she was against me working those days even when she agreed to them and scheduled my time volunteering for during the week.  Thankfully we got it worked out that I was wrong so we can move on.
           Quick note, men, if you end an argument with your wife and you were right, you may want to check back and make sure you actually have a bed to sleep in.  I'm not saying women are vindictive and always right because that would get me in trouble.  I am just warning you that if your wife ever tells you you are right, you had better make sure that you are in fact right and that whatever it is you are right about is not something that will come back to haunt you.  Just saying.
           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 dirt on the backyard dig

              I am a bit frustrated right now.  The guys doing the septic system told me Friday that they would have the inspection and finish up yesterday.  My wife even asked them what time the inspector was going to be there when they showed up in the morning.  The told her sometime in the afternoon.  I told my boss and got the afternoon off so I could be there for the inspection, just in case.  As you may have guessed from the way this post is going, they didn't finish and the inspection didn't happen.  The real kicker is, from my experience with my dad, I fully understand why they are where they are.  I can't fault them for anything they have done or where they are in the work.  I've been there.  Digging large holes in the rain isn't fun, nor is it something you do if you can avoid it, especially with heavy machinery.  You also don't just dig randomly, you have to plan it out and make sure what you plan works before you start or you find yourself digging a lot larger hole than you need and you have that much more dirt to move.  So, I can't fault them for their progress.  In fact, I actually find that they are quite efficient and do well.  They are just working in a tight space with little room for error and it makes it that much harder.  I guess I am more frustrated at the fact that I have been taking half days off for no reason and I can see I am frustrating my boss.  I'll get through it though.
            How bout you, have you ever had something take longer than expected or planned?  Were you able to justify the added time and were still frustrated by it?  It is natural, when things don't go according to plan, to get frustrated.  It is how we deal with it and others involved that we show our true nature.  Do you rage against the situation or do you calmly nod in understanding?  Do you stew and growl or do you smile and let it go?  Patience is not easy, but it is something that is important.  Try it, you will be amazed at the results.
          Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

My biggest mistake.

              What a great weekend.  We have a new septic tank, we are now just waiting on the drain field.  That should finish up this afternoon and then we have to reseed the yard.  Saturday, we got to spend some family time on a much needed family outing on a bike ride.  Then we got to spend Sunday afternoon with friends playing games and sharing our lives.  What a great week end.  Of course Monday follows that, but that can't be helped.
              I can't help but feel rejuvenated after all that.  Even though I was spent after the bike ride, I felt great.  There was a smile on the entire family's faces even though you could see they were tired (at least the adults, the kids wanted to go again).  We thoroughly enjoyed it.
             I love being able to spend time with my sons and time near them is time well spent.  That being said, I think that for the rest of today's post I will share another excerpt from my answers for my sons.  This one is particularly close to home.

10-3 What’s the biggest mistake you’ve ever made?  What can I learn from it?

I think of so many mistakes I’ve made when I am asked this question that it is almost impossible to answer.  I will give it my best though.  First, allow me to clarify something.  To me, a mistake is an error in judgment or a decision made based on faulty information.  It is not an intentional action nor is it something you plan.  While it would be wrong to rob a bank and a horrible decision, it is not a mistake, it is a choice. 

So, looking at it from that point of view, I believe my biggest mistake was my choice of friends growing up.  You see, I had some of the information and, while it was my choice to be their friend, I erred in my judgment as far as what my will power was.  My friends growing up were diverse and I had two sets.  The first set is not the mistake.  They were my friends from church.  They were Christians and as far as I can tell, they lived it.  No, my mistake was the second set.  They were my friends from school and around home.  They were the ones I chose to hang out with the most.  There is that word again, chose.  My mistake wasn’t choosing to hang out with them, or even to be their friend, no, my mistake was to believe that I was strong enough by myself to resist their ungodly influence.  You see, not one of my friends from school were Christians.  They didn’t even pretend to be good.  Still, I thought I could be strong enough to resist the temptation on my own.  Boy was I wrong.

By the time I had graduated from high school, you couldn’t tell a difference between the way I acted and how my friends from school acted.  I allowed myself to be led astray and to go down a path I still regret to this day.  Because of that mistake, I walked in sin for nearly 20 years.  I told coarse jokes, made fun of others, thought only of me and my pleasure.  I refused to acknowledge God and what he wanted of me.  In my selfishness, I blamed others for my failures and felt cheated when I didn’t get my way.  I tried to live by the rules I had learned in church growing up, at least when I wanted to convince others I was good.  I pretended to be a Christian when I was home to make my father happy, but I was no longer following Christ.  It all came back to the mistake of thinking I could do it on my own, to thinking that I could be friends with ungodly people the way they wanted to be friends, without falling into their lifestyle.  While it was a bad decision to be their friend and to continue in that relationship, it was a decision, not a mistake.  We need to be clear on that.  Bad decisions are not mistakes, they are bad decisions.

What can you learn from all this?  Simply put, trust in God.  Can you have non Christian friends?  Certainly, and you should.  You must, however, be on guard at all times and realize that without God and Christian friends, it is all too easy to fall away from God and into the ungodly lifestyle of your non Christian friends.   You must also be wary of the relationship with them.  A non Christian friend should never be your first source of advice concerning, well, anything.  This is because their advice, while it may sound good, is based on worldly teachings and not on what God says.  Sure, some of their advice may even be exactly what God says, but if you rely on their advice, you will find that God has no part in your life and you will regret it.  I know I do.  You must also never let their opinion of you be a reason to do something.  God’s opinion is all that matters and an ungodly friend does not know or even hear God’s opinion.

This may seem to be a bit harsh.  It may even sound like I am against having ungodly friends.  This couldn’t be further from the truth.  Even God encourages you to have friends among non Christians.  Read Luke 5:29-32: “29 Then Levi gave Him a great feast in his own house. And there were a great number of tax collectors and others who sat down with them. ³⁰ And their scribes and the Pharisees complained against His disciples, saying, ‘Why do You eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?’
³¹ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. ³² I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.’”

Jesus sat with the worst of the society with reason.  The key is to remain rooted in your belief and to not allow them to sway you.  You should also note that, while he sat with them, he did not count them as close friends, that privilege was reserved for his disciples, those who had already committed their lives to him.

In closing, the biggest mistake I ever made was not trusting God over my friends on earth.  Don’t let this happen to you.  Keep your eyes on him and you won’t go wrong.

           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 you see?

        As you look out your window (provided you are lucky enough to be near one), what do you see?  More importantly, what do you notice first?  Think about it, what was the first thing you noticed?  Was it the bird in the tree, or the worn out building across the way?  Was it grass on the lawns or the empty parking spaces in the street?  In other words, was it natures beauty or man made things that caught your eye first?  We all see things differently.  That is a fact of life.  Where some See beauty, others see desolation.  Where some see man made junk, others see art waiting to be set free. 
          Take a junkyard, for example.  In it you expect to find rusty, dented cars, stacks of tires, worn out engines, and mud.  What you don't expect is the flowers growing in the corner or the cherry tree blossoming in the middle.  What about the cars themselves?  Can you look at them and see that one of them may have been a thing of beauty when it was new?
         We tend to do the same with people we meet.  We categorize them and sort them by initial appearance.  We don't think that that guy with the purple 12 inch Mohawk is a florist and regularly volunteers at the local soup kitchen.  We don't think that that girl in the nice suit and shoes that is well manicured and beautiful hair is on her last dollars hoping that the interview she is on the way to will get her a job, any job.  It is our first reaction to make assumptions on generalities regardless of the specifics.  We associate purple Mohawks with punk rock and anarchists and thus anyone who has one is one.  We associate well dressed and manicured people with affluence and assume they can afford whatever it is they need.  Yet if we only look a little closer, we can see that the guy with the purple Mohawk is wearing a name tag and apron for the local florist and the lady's shoes show a bit of wear and her purse is held together with clothes pins and mismatched stitching.
         It is in our nature to place people into categories.  We want everything to fit where we want it to fit.  We define our world by what we've seen and heard and we try and cram everything we know into those definitions.  As an example, if I were to set a recliner next to a standard sized moving box (2'x2'x3') and asked you if the recliner would fit in the box, you would, most likely, say no.  But if you break up the recliner into small enough bits, it will fit (trust me, I have experience).  It isn't about Destroying something, it is about changing assumptions.  When I first posed the question, you assumed I wanted the recliner kept whole.  I did not specify it, yet is was assumed.  And you would have been right, a whole recliner will not fit into a standard moving box.  Change your assumptions into questions.
             We make assumptions because we are afraid to ask the questions.  This is because we either are afraid of looking less intelligent, because we are afraid of the response, or just plain arrogance.  The fear of appearing less intelligent is a self centered fear.  You are afraid of what others think of you.  If you ask the question, you find the truth and maybe you weren't the only one with the question.  If you are afraid of the response you get, you are typically making another assumption.  This one about the character of the person you are asking.  You are assuming that the person is going to respond negatively and cruelly.  Once again, if you are polite when you ask, very few people will respond negatively.  The final is the tough one.  It is when you decide you know what the other person wanted.  You know best and thus, you don't need to ask.  They left it up to you, so why should you ask for clarification.
                I guess what this all comes down to is, find the beauty in everything.  Oh, and don't make assumptions.  Oh, and look at specifics.  Wow, looks like I just rambled incoherently for a while.  Makes for an interesting read I guess.
             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.