First off, I would like to apologize for not posting last week. I was busy and decided to put the blog on the bottom of the list. After a week off, I feel as though I was missing something so I am back.
Today is Monday, which means, Manic Monday! Today, I think I will tackle this Occupy Wall Street thing. After reading what it's about and what the protesters are saying, I find myself of two minds. On the one hand I sort of agree with what they are saying, but on the other, I find it to be overridden by angst against our system. Allow me to explain.
The parts I agree with are the some of the base points. The first being that the majority of Americans have the minority voice in our government. Our Government tends to listen to the biggest donors (this is done by both Democrats and Republicans), which are not the majority. How many middle class families can afford $1,500 a plate fundraising dinners? The Democrats like to point out that the republicans are the most vocal for these businesses, but you have to ask yourself, are the Democrats really against them? They had 2 years in which to raise taxes on them and they waited for the inevitable swing to blame it on the Republicans. I agree that we should raise the taxes (or at least remove the deductions they use to not pay taxes) on the rich.
The second thing I agree with is the underlying message we are feeding our kids these days. The one that says you have to go to college to get a job. Years ago, college was what you used to make yourself stand out. You got your degree in the field you were going to work in and you worked in that field. You followed it all the way and became as close to an expert in the field you wanted to work in as you could, then you worked in it. Now, we are told to, "just get a degree." Really, what in? It doesn't matter, the employers "just want to see that you are capable of learning." I looked it up (it was quoted to me so I had to), less than 30% of college grads are working in the field in which they got their degree. Granted, Lawyers don't necessarily have to have a pre-law degree to go to law school, so they aren't technically working in the field they got their degree in, but it is still a statistic that I find disgusting. Especially when you add on the fact that the average college grad owes $30,000 in student loans. Couple that with a tight market and you start your career in debt and behind. Not a recipe for success. Let's be realistic, we don't need a degree to be work in a mail room or as a receptionist. These two positions were the starting points of many a millionaires careers. The other side of this is that these college grads are led to believe that their degrees rate a higher starting pay. The sad truth is that this is false. When you have 20 people vying for the same job, the person who will do it most economically (cheaply and good enough), gets it. The guy that tells the hirer that he will do it for whatever and has the ability, will get it over the guy with the degree that demands a higher salary. That's just econ 101.
Now for the tough part. I disagree with the Occupy Wall Street movement on a couple of issues. The first being the ire directed at inequality in pay. Yes, there is inequality in pay. This happens in a society such as we have. The rich must be taxed. If you tax their income, they will keep it in the company as much as possible. If you tax the company profits, the company will put the money into expanding the company and thus create more jobs. Simple economics. Yes, this is contrary to what the republicans preach, but it is the truth. This means the problem isn't with the CEO's or the wealthy, it's with our government. The Idea that all pay should be equal, or close to it, is a communist ideal. To protest that corporations should share their wealth, is ludicrous. You have to reward innovation and business sense. Failure to do so, will lead to loss of business and thus loss of jobs. Allow the rich to amass wealth, but at the same time, tax them in such a way as to aid the nation. The difficult part is finding the balance. We have to find a balance where we tax the wealthy enough that they find it better to reinvest in society, but not so much that they leave altogether. The same with businesses.
The second thing I disagree with is where it is located. As you can tell from my comments above, this should be a Occupy Washington movement. Camp out on the capital's steps, in front of the White House, and at the congressional offices. The CEO's are laughing at you because you are ineffectual in your actions. Move to Washington, and they may start quaking in their boots. Right now, the CEO's are finding your actions laughable because, while you may inconvenience them a little bit, they are still raking in the cash. While you may draw attention to yourselves, you are not inconveniencing anyone who can be swayed by your stance. True, the media is following you, but you are railing at the CEO's to change. True, some elected officials are listening and commenting, but they aren't afraid because you haven't targeted them. Move you your protest to Washington and start naming who is donating to who. Start pointing out the money and what needs to be done, not just in Washington, but in their home states. You can affect the elected officials' jobs with your protest by pointing out how they are stopping the necessary change. You can't do that by protesting the guys who worked their way up to the top and managed a company that made money. they just aren't going to listen because you can't affect their pay.
That's all I have for today. I know some of what I said is controversial, I just ask that you be respectful in how you respond. Thank you.
Showing posts with label Manic Monday. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Manic Monday. Show all posts
Monday, October 17, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Happy Manic Hump Monday? Huh, what?
Wow, it's already lunch. Where did the time go? I will admit I did spend a fair amount of time this morning complaining about the new Face Book lay out with the guys in the office. Turns out we all found it equally horrifying. For some reason the people that run the sight have the Navy mentality. The one that says, "If we change it, it is an improvement and we always have to improve it." Never mind that the change made it worse. It was a change and thus an improvement. Never mind that it is now next to impossible to figure out what was posted in the past 12 hours since you last logged on. It was a change and thus an improvement. Never mind that, and forgive the yelling, WE DIDN'T ASK FOR IT. It was a change and thus an improvement.
This attitude is one of the many reasons I would not go beyond 20 years of service in the Navy if I had my choice. What makes it even worse in the Navy is the fact that sometimes the change is simply adding to the current policy. It says to me, "the original policy was good enough, but if I make an additional requirement I made things better." This is not only wrong, but makes thing harder and worse. Just once I want someone to look at the policies in place, and remove requirements to make things better. The idea that you can't remove requirements that were made at your level by your predecessor because it might, and I quote here, "confuse the watch stander" is ludicrous. If removing onerous and excessive requirements would be confusing, what do you think adding on to them will do? It makes no sense, but then again, a favorite quote amongst the leaders here is, "The Navy doesn't have to make sense and usually doesn't."
I just realized that it is Happy Hump day and I am not being very happy. Instead, it appears I did a Manic Monday post. I hate it when I get angry on my happy days. Sorry, I apologize for my rant and will now penalize myself by mowing the lawn this afternoon and maybe fixing the boys' bikes. Interesting though this week has been, it just keeps getting better. There was no sarcasm in that. Rehearsal is going great and I love the part I got. I did another section on my story page. I just received a certificate entitling me to 96 hours of special liberty (a free 4 day weekend) and I am looking forward to it all. Except the mowing the yard part. I could do without that. Oh, yeah, I found out the check engine light on my truck could be a simple crack in my exhaust, a vacuum hose, or a loose gas cap. I doubt the last because of the timing, but either way, there is no real risk in taking my time to repair it. I should be able to fix it next paycheck. We'll see.
Once again, I apologize for the lack of the usual post. I will make it up to you somehow. I just am not feeling very funny right now. Have a great day and don't take yourself to seriously. No one else does.
This attitude is one of the many reasons I would not go beyond 20 years of service in the Navy if I had my choice. What makes it even worse in the Navy is the fact that sometimes the change is simply adding to the current policy. It says to me, "the original policy was good enough, but if I make an additional requirement I made things better." This is not only wrong, but makes thing harder and worse. Just once I want someone to look at the policies in place, and remove requirements to make things better. The idea that you can't remove requirements that were made at your level by your predecessor because it might, and I quote here, "confuse the watch stander" is ludicrous. If removing onerous and excessive requirements would be confusing, what do you think adding on to them will do? It makes no sense, but then again, a favorite quote amongst the leaders here is, "The Navy doesn't have to make sense and usually doesn't."
I just realized that it is Happy Hump day and I am not being very happy. Instead, it appears I did a Manic Monday post. I hate it when I get angry on my happy days. Sorry, I apologize for my rant and will now penalize myself by mowing the lawn this afternoon and maybe fixing the boys' bikes. Interesting though this week has been, it just keeps getting better. There was no sarcasm in that. Rehearsal is going great and I love the part I got. I did another section on my story page. I just received a certificate entitling me to 96 hours of special liberty (a free 4 day weekend) and I am looking forward to it all. Except the mowing the yard part. I could do without that. Oh, yeah, I found out the check engine light on my truck could be a simple crack in my exhaust, a vacuum hose, or a loose gas cap. I doubt the last because of the timing, but either way, there is no real risk in taking my time to repair it. I should be able to fix it next paycheck. We'll see.
Once again, I apologize for the lack of the usual post. I will make it up to you somehow. I just am not feeling very funny right now. Have a great day and don't take yourself to seriously. No one else does.
Monday, September 12, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, August 29, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Manic Monday: Postponed
As with last week, due to my thumb injury, I am shortening my posts. For this reason, I have decided to postpone my Manic Monday posts until I am healed. The pain has lessened, but is still strong enough that I don't want to do any prolonged typing.
I had a great weekend camping with my boys and the church group. We did a couple of hikes and the boys did a lot of Nerf wars. It was a blast. There really isn't much left to say. I am zoning out so I need to log off before I go to sleep. Have a wonderful day.
I had a great weekend camping with my boys and the church group. We did a couple of hikes and the boys did a lot of Nerf wars. It was a blast. There really isn't much left to say. I am zoning out so I need to log off before I go to sleep. Have a wonderful day.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Manic Monday: Slaving Away, a true definition.
I had yesterday off to clean my house to get ready to put it on the market. Good thing to as it took all day to finish everything. In fact, my wife still has a few minor things left to do this morning. The great thing is the house looks good. We are now where we should be able to keep it clean with minimal input. Now that you know why I didn't post yesterday, I will do yesterday's post today.
So for this late installment of manic Monday, I have decided to tackle a topic that has been bothering me for a while. It seems that every time someone mentions something the bible says we should do, a dozen people come out of the woodwork and mention a half dozen things that most Americans would find repulsive that are in the bible. Most of them you can ignore as you find that not only are they being taken out of context but are blatantly wrong. There are others though that need addressing and that is where we are today. I can't address them all, so I will address the one that irks me the most, Slavery. The first thing you need to understand is the image most people get when you mention slavery. Most people get the image of an overloaded sailing ship packed with human beings, slaves being beaten, families separated, and all other kinds of horrendous treatment. Thus when someone says the bible condones slavery, it immediately turns people off. The fact is, that the slavery practiced in the 1800's, the slavery we most associate with the word, is completely contrary to biblical slavery.
The first thing you need to understand is the rules associated with slavery that the bible lays out. First off the bible forbids kidnapping for the purpose of procuring slaves. Slaves were either bought, voluntary, or captured during time of war. At the time, if you were unable to pay a debt, you became a slave to the person who held your debt. If your country was conquered, you became a slave to your conquerors. If you were bought, it was the purchasers responsibility to ensure the slave wasn't kidnapped.
The next thing you need to understand is that slavery wasn't permanent. The bible required that all slaves be freed every 50 years, no matter when you acquired them. Slaves were then given the choice of remaining free and responsible for themselves or returning to their masters as slaves for life. If you became a slave due to a debt, your master was required to give you a wage so you could eventually pay back your debt and be freed.
Thirdly, treatment of slaves was not to be cruel. Slaves had to be clothed properly. In fact, how well your slaves were dressed was a direct reflection on how well you off you were. If your slaves wore rags, you were obviously poor and to be pitied and probably would be a slave yourself soon. You dressed your slaves as well as you could afford to. Your slaves had to have proper housing of the same type you had. If you lived in a stone house, your slaves had to have a stone house. You had to feed them properly. You weren't allowed to give them scraps, you had to feed them decently. You were also forbidden from beating them without cause. Not working as fast as you wanted them to is not considered cause. Theft, refusal to work, and the like, things that would get you fired today, were cause.
Further, if you sold slaves, you couldn't break up families. Until the children were old enough to be considered adults, they stayed with their parents. Further, if the slaves were slaves due to debt, the children were freed upon adulthood as it was the parent's debt and not the children's
Finally, you were required to give them wages for their work. You could subtract the cost of keeping them from their wages, but you couldn't add onto their debt by charging them more than they made. Further, if a slave were to save their wages and pay their master the equivalent of their worth, they were to be freed.
With all this data, it sounds to me like biblical slavery and employment are awfully similar. Most of what we make goes to paying for our housing, food and clothing. What little we have left we can either save for retirement (freeing ourselves from our masters), or spend on frivolous things. this sounds nothing like the slavery practiced in the 1800's.
There were even different levels of slavery. There were slaves, people who were bought or captured, servants, people who owed debts and were working them off, and bond servants, people who chose to be slaves as a way of life. Why would you choose to be a slave you ask. The simple answer is, it simplified your life. You didn't have to worry about where you lived, or where your next meal was coming from. In fact, you weren't reduced to begging for a living. Further most masters went beyond what the bible required and treated their slaves well. If you were a top performing slave, is was perfectly acceptable for the master to not only free your family upon his death, but to leave you a part of his estate.
Next time someone tells you that the bible supports slavery, remind the speaker that by biblical definitions, we are all slaves, we just have a little more freedom to choose our master. Those of us who have signed contracts (military, professional athletes, etc) have a little less freedom than others and would fall into the bond servant category.
Well, that's my two cents for this week. If you feel I overcharged, by all means make a withdrawal and give me yours. Thank you.
So for this late installment of manic Monday, I have decided to tackle a topic that has been bothering me for a while. It seems that every time someone mentions something the bible says we should do, a dozen people come out of the woodwork and mention a half dozen things that most Americans would find repulsive that are in the bible. Most of them you can ignore as you find that not only are they being taken out of context but are blatantly wrong. There are others though that need addressing and that is where we are today. I can't address them all, so I will address the one that irks me the most, Slavery. The first thing you need to understand is the image most people get when you mention slavery. Most people get the image of an overloaded sailing ship packed with human beings, slaves being beaten, families separated, and all other kinds of horrendous treatment. Thus when someone says the bible condones slavery, it immediately turns people off. The fact is, that the slavery practiced in the 1800's, the slavery we most associate with the word, is completely contrary to biblical slavery.
The first thing you need to understand is the rules associated with slavery that the bible lays out. First off the bible forbids kidnapping for the purpose of procuring slaves. Slaves were either bought, voluntary, or captured during time of war. At the time, if you were unable to pay a debt, you became a slave to the person who held your debt. If your country was conquered, you became a slave to your conquerors. If you were bought, it was the purchasers responsibility to ensure the slave wasn't kidnapped.
The next thing you need to understand is that slavery wasn't permanent. The bible required that all slaves be freed every 50 years, no matter when you acquired them. Slaves were then given the choice of remaining free and responsible for themselves or returning to their masters as slaves for life. If you became a slave due to a debt, your master was required to give you a wage so you could eventually pay back your debt and be freed.
Thirdly, treatment of slaves was not to be cruel. Slaves had to be clothed properly. In fact, how well your slaves were dressed was a direct reflection on how well you off you were. If your slaves wore rags, you were obviously poor and to be pitied and probably would be a slave yourself soon. You dressed your slaves as well as you could afford to. Your slaves had to have proper housing of the same type you had. If you lived in a stone house, your slaves had to have a stone house. You had to feed them properly. You weren't allowed to give them scraps, you had to feed them decently. You were also forbidden from beating them without cause. Not working as fast as you wanted them to is not considered cause. Theft, refusal to work, and the like, things that would get you fired today, were cause.
Further, if you sold slaves, you couldn't break up families. Until the children were old enough to be considered adults, they stayed with their parents. Further, if the slaves were slaves due to debt, the children were freed upon adulthood as it was the parent's debt and not the children's
Finally, you were required to give them wages for their work. You could subtract the cost of keeping them from their wages, but you couldn't add onto their debt by charging them more than they made. Further, if a slave were to save their wages and pay their master the equivalent of their worth, they were to be freed.
With all this data, it sounds to me like biblical slavery and employment are awfully similar. Most of what we make goes to paying for our housing, food and clothing. What little we have left we can either save for retirement (freeing ourselves from our masters), or spend on frivolous things. this sounds nothing like the slavery practiced in the 1800's.
There were even different levels of slavery. There were slaves, people who were bought or captured, servants, people who owed debts and were working them off, and bond servants, people who chose to be slaves as a way of life. Why would you choose to be a slave you ask. The simple answer is, it simplified your life. You didn't have to worry about where you lived, or where your next meal was coming from. In fact, you weren't reduced to begging for a living. Further most masters went beyond what the bible required and treated their slaves well. If you were a top performing slave, is was perfectly acceptable for the master to not only free your family upon his death, but to leave you a part of his estate.
Next time someone tells you that the bible supports slavery, remind the speaker that by biblical definitions, we are all slaves, we just have a little more freedom to choose our master. Those of us who have signed contracts (military, professional athletes, etc) have a little less freedom than others and would fall into the bond servant category.
Well, that's my two cents for this week. If you feel I overcharged, by all means make a withdrawal and give me yours. Thank you.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Manic Monday: National Debt = National Disaster
To start off today's post, I would like to give a shout out to my brother in law, Joe. Thanks for coming and spending time with us. It was truly wonderful and we had a great time. Next up, the news. A week from Wednesday, our house goes on the market. This means my wife and I will be busy cleaning house for the interim as we try to make it presentable. This also means we need a ton of boxes. Which means I need to find them. It is what it is. I am not looking forward to this. So much work.
Now for the part you've been waiting for (either with dread or hope, I am not sure which I find more frightening), Manic Monday. Today's topic: The Debt limit and the politics around it. Let me start with a quote from a bumper sticker. "Truth isn't always popular, but it is always Right." How could it be any more simple than that. Let's look at the current situation and find the truth in it. Truth: 40% of every dollar the US government currently spends is borrowed. Truth: You can't pay reduce a debt unless you spend less than you make. Truth: You can't reduce your income when you spend more than you currently make. These should be obvious, yet for some reason, the people WE voted for don't understand this. For fear of insulting their constituents they make it easier to get on government funded programs. They add on other programs and increase the area of responsibility. They haven't "created" new programs, just enlarged current ones.
Then they cut taxes (read income). So they didn't really cut taxes, they just refuse to repeal previous tax cuts. Do I want to pay more in taxes? Not really, but the question should really be, will I pay higher taxes now for reduced taxes later. The answer to that will be yes.
The final nail in the coffin in this debate is the fact that, while they are talking cuts, they are meaningless if they don't remove earmarks and special interests. The fact is that government needs to become more efficient. We need to remove waste and have a directed approach.
I have always said, don't complain about a problem unless you can present a solution along with it (I wasn't the originator of this, but I can't remember where I heard it). That being said, here goes. Please note that these are long term solutions and it may take a few years for the effects to be seen and the results to match. The first thing that needs to be done is to increase revenue. Until the debt is paid, we have to increase taxes. This isn't a hope, or a want it is a must. The simplest way to do this is to revert to remove deductions and credits. No matter what you do, people will be angry, but it must be done. We all need to pay. I am not a tax lawyer so I don't know the exact sections to repeal, but I think the best way is to start at a flat 20% tax across the board. We can reduce later when the debt is paid. As for those whose income is such that paying 20% taxes would reduce them below the poverty level, they would be exempt (after all, if we put them into poverty, that would be that much more spending the government would have). As for businesses, they are taxed for 20% of their profits. Thus, they can avoid taxes by expanding the business thus creating jobs, thus reducing unemployment and increasing tax revenues. Obviously, we have to define legitimate business expenditures (a company jet would not be one) so that buying a house for the CEO from business funds is not counted as a business expenditure and thus no taxes paid on that money. Now that we have raised revenue by putting more people to work and actually taxing income, we can move on to reducing spending.
The second part of this, spending reduction, now comes into play. First off, we partially solved it by reducing the number of people on unemployment and welfare by increasing jobs. Now we need to look at other areas. First off, welfare. I have never liked it, but I recognize that there is a legitimate need. The biggest problem I have with welfare is the fact that it makes it easy for people to stay impoverished and becomes a way of life. Welfare should be a stepping stone, not a living. Start with drug testing of those on welfare. If you fail a drug test, you are placed in government funded rehab (yes, I know, one more expenditure, but hear me out), this way when you are sober, you may find a better way to make a living and no longer need welfare. If you fail a second drug test after you complete rehab, you lose welfare. If you are on welfare and you have children, you will only get one welfare increase. This is for the first child, after that, if you can't provide for them, the government will take them and place them into the foster care system until you can (having children as a means of increasing pay only compounds the problem, it doesn't gain anything). Studies have shown that only a small percentage of people born into a poor family rise above the level at which they were raised. In fact, from what I have found, most people raised on welfare end up on welfare themselves.
Another way to reduce spending (and maybe even raise revenue) is to put our criminals to work. At one time, the US prison system actually made money after paying for itself. Now we are paying around $30,000 per inmate to house them. They are criminals, they had their day in court and were found guilty. Make them earn their keep. If we made them just tend the fields where their vegetables came from, they would save the tax payer thousands.
Another place we could save money from is by giving incentives to various agencies to become more efficient. Instead of saying that if they don't use all their funding this year they won't get it next year, tell them that funding won't decrease and that it will increase by a percentage of what was saved. The current system merely punishes underspending. Overspend and you get berated, but you get your extra funding (it wouldn't be right not to pay your people). Underspend and you get you funding cut. This is fundamentally wrong. We should reward people for doing good things with our money.
Will we see results from all of the above this year? Not even close, I would estimate that it would take a decade for the debt to finally be paid if all the above was done (and I am no expert), but it is a start. The biggest problem with all of this is that, for some inexplicable reason, once the politicians get to Washington, DC, everything they ever learned finances goes right out the window. If any house in America operated like the US government, they would be bankrupt at the least. I can't imagine a bank saying OK if someone were to try and borrow more if they already were spending more than they made and had to borrow to pay their bills. It just doesn't happen. In reality, we have to live within our means. Raise taxes, reduce spending and pay our debts now. Then we can reduce our taxes later and decide if we really need to increase spending at that time. That's just my opinion, maybe you have a better solution. No matter how you look at it, something needs done. Thank you and have a wonderful day.
Now for the part you've been waiting for (either with dread or hope, I am not sure which I find more frightening), Manic Monday. Today's topic: The Debt limit and the politics around it. Let me start with a quote from a bumper sticker. "Truth isn't always popular, but it is always Right." How could it be any more simple than that. Let's look at the current situation and find the truth in it. Truth: 40% of every dollar the US government currently spends is borrowed. Truth: You can't pay reduce a debt unless you spend less than you make. Truth: You can't reduce your income when you spend more than you currently make. These should be obvious, yet for some reason, the people WE voted for don't understand this. For fear of insulting their constituents they make it easier to get on government funded programs. They add on other programs and increase the area of responsibility. They haven't "created" new programs, just enlarged current ones.
Then they cut taxes (read income). So they didn't really cut taxes, they just refuse to repeal previous tax cuts. Do I want to pay more in taxes? Not really, but the question should really be, will I pay higher taxes now for reduced taxes later. The answer to that will be yes.
The final nail in the coffin in this debate is the fact that, while they are talking cuts, they are meaningless if they don't remove earmarks and special interests. The fact is that government needs to become more efficient. We need to remove waste and have a directed approach.
I have always said, don't complain about a problem unless you can present a solution along with it (I wasn't the originator of this, but I can't remember where I heard it). That being said, here goes. Please note that these are long term solutions and it may take a few years for the effects to be seen and the results to match. The first thing that needs to be done is to increase revenue. Until the debt is paid, we have to increase taxes. This isn't a hope, or a want it is a must. The simplest way to do this is to revert to remove deductions and credits. No matter what you do, people will be angry, but it must be done. We all need to pay. I am not a tax lawyer so I don't know the exact sections to repeal, but I think the best way is to start at a flat 20% tax across the board. We can reduce later when the debt is paid. As for those whose income is such that paying 20% taxes would reduce them below the poverty level, they would be exempt (after all, if we put them into poverty, that would be that much more spending the government would have). As for businesses, they are taxed for 20% of their profits. Thus, they can avoid taxes by expanding the business thus creating jobs, thus reducing unemployment and increasing tax revenues. Obviously, we have to define legitimate business expenditures (a company jet would not be one) so that buying a house for the CEO from business funds is not counted as a business expenditure and thus no taxes paid on that money. Now that we have raised revenue by putting more people to work and actually taxing income, we can move on to reducing spending.
The second part of this, spending reduction, now comes into play. First off, we partially solved it by reducing the number of people on unemployment and welfare by increasing jobs. Now we need to look at other areas. First off, welfare. I have never liked it, but I recognize that there is a legitimate need. The biggest problem I have with welfare is the fact that it makes it easy for people to stay impoverished and becomes a way of life. Welfare should be a stepping stone, not a living. Start with drug testing of those on welfare. If you fail a drug test, you are placed in government funded rehab (yes, I know, one more expenditure, but hear me out), this way when you are sober, you may find a better way to make a living and no longer need welfare. If you fail a second drug test after you complete rehab, you lose welfare. If you are on welfare and you have children, you will only get one welfare increase. This is for the first child, after that, if you can't provide for them, the government will take them and place them into the foster care system until you can (having children as a means of increasing pay only compounds the problem, it doesn't gain anything). Studies have shown that only a small percentage of people born into a poor family rise above the level at which they were raised. In fact, from what I have found, most people raised on welfare end up on welfare themselves.
Another way to reduce spending (and maybe even raise revenue) is to put our criminals to work. At one time, the US prison system actually made money after paying for itself. Now we are paying around $30,000 per inmate to house them. They are criminals, they had their day in court and were found guilty. Make them earn their keep. If we made them just tend the fields where their vegetables came from, they would save the tax payer thousands.
Another place we could save money from is by giving incentives to various agencies to become more efficient. Instead of saying that if they don't use all their funding this year they won't get it next year, tell them that funding won't decrease and that it will increase by a percentage of what was saved. The current system merely punishes underspending. Overspend and you get berated, but you get your extra funding (it wouldn't be right not to pay your people). Underspend and you get you funding cut. This is fundamentally wrong. We should reward people for doing good things with our money.
Will we see results from all of the above this year? Not even close, I would estimate that it would take a decade for the debt to finally be paid if all the above was done (and I am no expert), but it is a start. The biggest problem with all of this is that, for some inexplicable reason, once the politicians get to Washington, DC, everything they ever learned finances goes right out the window. If any house in America operated like the US government, they would be bankrupt at the least. I can't imagine a bank saying OK if someone were to try and borrow more if they already were spending more than they made and had to borrow to pay their bills. It just doesn't happen. In reality, we have to live within our means. Raise taxes, reduce spending and pay our debts now. Then we can reduce our taxes later and decide if we really need to increase spending at that time. That's just my opinion, maybe you have a better solution. No matter how you look at it, something needs done. Thank you and have a wonderful day.
Monday, July 18, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Manic Monday: Contextual Quotes
This week end we took the boys camping for the first time this season. As we were setting up, I discovered that I had no power in the camper. The same problem I had that led me to drop $200 to have a new battery installed. I was devastated. My camper didn't work and I had just dropped a lot of money to get it fixed. Because I now knew that the battery was good (yes, I checked, they did give me a new one), I decided to do some trouble shooting. As I started tracing the wires from the battery I found something interesting. The two red wires coming from the battery (yes, two red wires) were connected to each other. I also discovered that the two black wires coming from the camper (yes, two black wires) were also connected to each other. After some simple deduction, I disconnected the black and red wires ate their connectors and connected one red to the black with the appropriate connector and repeated with the remaining wires. Low and behold, I had power.
Luckily, my wife was very nice about it and simply said, "are you done setting it up yet?"
Of course I was, but I wasn't about let the sheer idiocy I was feeling ruin the weekend so I just replied, "yes, dear" as any good husband does. The rest of the weekend went well. The boys enjoyed themselves and my wife and I are worn out. So all in all, a typical camping weekend.
Now for the part you've either been waiting for, or dreading, Manic Monday. Today I am going to be talking context. The society we live in today loves using things that sound the way they want it to sound. It is nothing new, it has been done for millennia One political or religious figure, will use one particular phrase from some source and as it is written it will sound just like he wants it to sound. When someone quotes something to you, get the source and read the entire passage. Sometimes, if you read the entire passage, you find that the original quote means the opposite of what it sounded like. We have all seen this happen in some circumstances. The problem comes when we perpetuate it. We may not do it intentionally, but we have done it. I have as well. You know what I am talking about, you hear a seemingly controversial quote and you pass it on. Either because you agree with it, or because you want to hear others agree with you that it is wrong. But did you hear the entire quote? Was the quote you read meant to be a stand alone quote, or was it part of an entire passage? Think on it. The next time you are planning on passing on a quote you heard, look it up. Read the entire passage. You may be surprised.
Why am I writing this? Over the past few months my Sunday school class has been going over the book of Ephesians in the new testament. The last couple of weeks we have been looking at just such a verse. By itself and out of context, it has been used incorrectly for centuries and has pushed many away from the church and religion. The verse is Ephesians 5:22. I challenge you to read it and look at the context. Compare the words in the original Greek with how they were translated. Look at the entire chapter. Find similar areas and expand on it. Look at the area and era for which it was written. Time and area play a huge part in context. Abraham Lincoln himself used the word negro many times. The difference is that in his time, it wasn't an insult, it was how the African American community was categorized. Where we say black or colored, in the 1800's they used that word. Thus time and area play a huge role in context. I think sometimes we forget this. Just something to think about.
Luckily, my wife was very nice about it and simply said, "are you done setting it up yet?"
Of course I was, but I wasn't about let the sheer idiocy I was feeling ruin the weekend so I just replied, "yes, dear" as any good husband does. The rest of the weekend went well. The boys enjoyed themselves and my wife and I are worn out. So all in all, a typical camping weekend.
Now for the part you've either been waiting for, or dreading, Manic Monday. Today I am going to be talking context. The society we live in today loves using things that sound the way they want it to sound. It is nothing new, it has been done for millennia One political or religious figure, will use one particular phrase from some source and as it is written it will sound just like he wants it to sound. When someone quotes something to you, get the source and read the entire passage. Sometimes, if you read the entire passage, you find that the original quote means the opposite of what it sounded like. We have all seen this happen in some circumstances. The problem comes when we perpetuate it. We may not do it intentionally, but we have done it. I have as well. You know what I am talking about, you hear a seemingly controversial quote and you pass it on. Either because you agree with it, or because you want to hear others agree with you that it is wrong. But did you hear the entire quote? Was the quote you read meant to be a stand alone quote, or was it part of an entire passage? Think on it. The next time you are planning on passing on a quote you heard, look it up. Read the entire passage. You may be surprised.
Why am I writing this? Over the past few months my Sunday school class has been going over the book of Ephesians in the new testament. The last couple of weeks we have been looking at just such a verse. By itself and out of context, it has been used incorrectly for centuries and has pushed many away from the church and religion. The verse is Ephesians 5:22. I challenge you to read it and look at the context. Compare the words in the original Greek with how they were translated. Look at the entire chapter. Find similar areas and expand on it. Look at the area and era for which it was written. Time and area play a huge part in context. Abraham Lincoln himself used the word negro many times. The difference is that in his time, it wasn't an insult, it was how the African American community was categorized. Where we say black or colored, in the 1800's they used that word. Thus time and area play a huge role in context. I think sometimes we forget this. Just something to think about.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, June 27, 2011
New feature: Manic Monday. (warning political and religious content) The Bible VS. Gay Marriage.
I've decided that I've avoided hot button issues long enough. So I give you Manic Mondays. Once a week I will go ahead and rant on whatever happens to be bothering me at the time.
Today I am going to talk about gay marriage VS The Bible. This is a quick rundown on what I believe. It is not all inclusive, but the basis of my beliefs. This is probably the hottest issue we have today and it continues to haunt us. The catalyst for this discussion today, is the fact that New York state just recently passed a law allowing gay marriage. The thing that really disgusts me is the arguments used against us Christians.
I recall having this discussion with one of my FB friends a while ago. At the time I was not as well read on the subject and was unable to effectively counter his arguments as I always operate on the rule that if I can't back it up with my own research, then I shouldn't say it. His argument was that the bible doesn't expressly forbid gay marriage nor homosexuality and thus Christians had no basis for argument. To further compound this is the fact that I continue to see time and again where the bible has been skewed with the gay community stating that God loves them and thus it's OK. While it is true that God loves them, God loves all sinners and will readily forgive and love any sinner who confesses his sin and honestly seeks to come to him. So yes, in that sense, God loves gays, just as he loves all sinners, this doesn't mean that he will ever condone the sin. As for the argument that the bible doesn't forbid homosexuality, that too is wrong. I give you:
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
There are other examples but that is the clearest. As for Gay marriage the answer isn't as clear. The bible doesn't come out and say directly no gay marriage. It does, however, point directly to marriage being between a man and a woman. Every passage I have ever read in the bible that refers to marriage (and I have read nearly all of them), refers to husband and wife. Since the idea that any sex can be husband or wife is a recent development (I would guess the 1960's at the earliest), the argument that this can mean gay marriage is OK is invalid. That would be like implying that when Shakespeare said to light the fags in one of his plays he was meaning to burn the gays. It's just silly. To retroactively apply a modern (albeit twisted) definition of a term to a past document to attain a desired meaning is not only dishonest, but blatantly wrong. Thus, the arguments that the bible is not against gay marriage and homosexuality is flawed at it's most basic sense.
If there is one thing where the bible is most clear, it is the issue of sex. Throughout the entire bible, sex is reserved for marriage. The bible is very clear that, within the confines of marriage, sex is a beautiful and wonderful thing that should be shared intimately and often. Since the bible states that marriage is between a husband and wife (male and female), this means that sex should only be between a man and a woman who are married. Note that I didn't say married couple, I said man and woman who are married. Since sex outside of marriage is wrong and only a man and woman can be husband and wife and husband and wife are male and female, not only is gay marriage wrong so is gay sex. For these reasons, I cannot and will not condone gay marriage. Sorry if this has offended anyone, but it is how I feel on this issue. If you have an argument that is biblical based, please present it. I do not do this out of hate nor will I come and protest at your wedding. I will not preach hate to get my message across, I will simply pass on God's love for you. May god bless and watch over you.
Today I am going to talk about gay marriage VS The Bible. This is a quick rundown on what I believe. It is not all inclusive, but the basis of my beliefs. This is probably the hottest issue we have today and it continues to haunt us. The catalyst for this discussion today, is the fact that New York state just recently passed a law allowing gay marriage. The thing that really disgusts me is the arguments used against us Christians.
I recall having this discussion with one of my FB friends a while ago. At the time I was not as well read on the subject and was unable to effectively counter his arguments as I always operate on the rule that if I can't back it up with my own research, then I shouldn't say it. His argument was that the bible doesn't expressly forbid gay marriage nor homosexuality and thus Christians had no basis for argument. To further compound this is the fact that I continue to see time and again where the bible has been skewed with the gay community stating that God loves them and thus it's OK. While it is true that God loves them, God loves all sinners and will readily forgive and love any sinner who confesses his sin and honestly seeks to come to him. So yes, in that sense, God loves gays, just as he loves all sinners, this doesn't mean that he will ever condone the sin. As for the argument that the bible doesn't forbid homosexuality, that too is wrong. I give you:
1 Timothy 1:8-11
New International Version (NIV)
There are other examples but that is the clearest. As for Gay marriage the answer isn't as clear. The bible doesn't come out and say directly no gay marriage. It does, however, point directly to marriage being between a man and a woman. Every passage I have ever read in the bible that refers to marriage (and I have read nearly all of them), refers to husband and wife. Since the idea that any sex can be husband or wife is a recent development (I would guess the 1960's at the earliest), the argument that this can mean gay marriage is OK is invalid. That would be like implying that when Shakespeare said to light the fags in one of his plays he was meaning to burn the gays. It's just silly. To retroactively apply a modern (albeit twisted) definition of a term to a past document to attain a desired meaning is not only dishonest, but blatantly wrong. Thus, the arguments that the bible is not against gay marriage and homosexuality is flawed at it's most basic sense.
If there is one thing where the bible is most clear, it is the issue of sex. Throughout the entire bible, sex is reserved for marriage. The bible is very clear that, within the confines of marriage, sex is a beautiful and wonderful thing that should be shared intimately and often. Since the bible states that marriage is between a husband and wife (male and female), this means that sex should only be between a man and a woman who are married. Note that I didn't say married couple, I said man and woman who are married. Since sex outside of marriage is wrong and only a man and woman can be husband and wife and husband and wife are male and female, not only is gay marriage wrong so is gay sex. For these reasons, I cannot and will not condone gay marriage. Sorry if this has offended anyone, but it is how I feel on this issue. If you have an argument that is biblical based, please present it. I do not do this out of hate nor will I come and protest at your wedding. I will not preach hate to get my message across, I will simply pass on God's love for you. May god bless and watch over you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)