Witless Protection Program

Watching the Super Bowl on the Internet

2012-02-06T09:53:00.003-06:00

This year, for the first time, the Super Bowl was legally available for viewing on the Internet. "Just in time," I say, because I cut the cord last spring, and have been without cable, network and satellite TV ever since. I'm not a big sports fan, but I do watch the Super Bowl every year, and I had been hoping that I'd be able to see it on the Internet.

In addition to watching the game, I usually throw a small Super Bowl party. I didn't do that this year, because I realized that there could be a technical glitch. If this glitch caused ME to be unable to see a big play, that would have been one thing. But if there had been a problem causing a major fan to miss a play, that would be another matter entirely. So, I decided to just watch and evaluate.

I've got to start by saying I was impressed with the outcome. The video stuttered and froze a bit during pregame, and the frame rate was occasionally a little low during the game, but overall, things were good. The only real problems occurred during short passes, when the low frame rate would cause the football to "disappear," but this really wasn't a big thing.

I was also impressed with the PIP (picture-in-picture) options offered on the stream, though I didn't really take advantage of it. There were four or five different camera views, and viewers were able to swap on the fly. That was a neat feature. Another cool feature was the live Twitter-style commentary in the right hand area of the screen, which automatically disappeared during gameplay, and automatically re-appeared during the commercials.

Commercials and halftime were a bit of a letdown. The internet didn't show most of the much-hyped commercials. Instead, they primarily scrolled through four of the less-entertaining spots... the Samsung commercial, the commercial for the upcoming Navy Seals movie, the GE generator and cancer patient spots, and the Bud Platinum one. The halftime show was unavailable too, but not being a big Madonna fan, I didn't care too much about that one.

The bottom of the screen said that I'd be able to watch commercials after they aired, but they didn't pop up on my TV. (My computer feeds into my TV, so that I don't have to watch on an itty-bitty computer monitor.) I ended up going to other sites, after the game, to see the commercials.

In relation to this, though, NBC DID have the option to watch NBC-based commercials and interviews during pregame. I loved the 30 Rock skit, and the Jimmy Fallon Head Swap! Great entertainment to break up the incessant droning of the talking heads.

So... overall, I thought it was great. My recommendations for next year... make sure that the frame rate is a bit higher during the game... include the commercials and halftime show... keep the PIP feature... keep the twitter-style comments section... keep the "extras" bar on the bottom during pregame/postgame. Keep the feature that automatically hides the twitter/extras bars during the games. Good job, NBC. You did an admirable job of setting expectation for next year's game.

Right Back Atcha, RayRay

2012-02-04T09:45:00.002-06:00

Today's post is a response to RayRay's blog post from yesterday. In his post, Ray takes issue with an Iowa Supreme Court ruling, and with the lack of action on an Iowa bill that would place fathers on equal footing with mothers in child custody cases. I had started to simply comment on his page, but before I knew it, I had enough material for my own post. Besides, it's been a while since I've written anything here. With that said, I'm going to re-write my comments here. This is going to be a long article, so grab a beer, relax, and get ready to think.

I'll start out with HF345, which is a bill in the Iowa legislature that essentially would mandate a presumption of joint physical custody of minor children in divorce cases, but does allow for deviation in cases of abuse, geographical separation, or when both parents agree to deviate from joint physical custody. From my perspective, this seems like a common-sense, straight forward bill... one that I have vocally supported since its inception, by writing congressmen, and giving others a framework letter that they too could forward to their congressmen. I do this despite, nay because, I am a father with primary physical custody of my kids, who appreciates what he has. In fact, I continue to PAY child support, despite having primary physical care of the kids. This is PRECISELY because it's not about the money, it's about the time with my kids!

Apparently, there's an old codger of a legislator who said "Men of IowaFathers (a FaceBook group) just don't want to pay their child support," though I've been unable to locate this specific quote anywhere other than on Ray's blog page. But let's go with the assumption that this cat actually made this quote... if so, I assert that he's misguided on two counts. First, it's a false presumption that Iowa Fathers are doing this for the money. I am not a member of Iowa Fathers, but I am associated with them. The ones I've talked to, or written to, are, to a man, NOT doing this for money, but because they want to be with their kids.

There's apparently another legislator who's a trial lawyer, and mother with primary custody of her children, who's receiving child support, and is on record as opposing HF345. Ray says that she's got too much of a personal stake to make an informed vote. I agree.

The second issue is one of personal choice and liberty. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that these Iowa Fathers WERE in it for the money. If that's the case, then custody would be strictly about the money for BOTH parents... that is, unless the legislator in question could somehow demonstrate that mothers are more altruistic than fathers. Either way, it seems reasonable to give these parents an opportunity to work the custody/financial balance out for themselves, as opposed to the current status quo, which still tends to favor the mother. Like I said, this is an issue of personal choice and liberty.

The second issue, the one where the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that Mennonites can continue to use metal wagon wheels for religious reasons, is an area where I disagree with Ray. This, again, is based on personal choice and liberty, but also includes a bit of logic.... well, at least I think it's logical.

I am a big fan of personal responsibility, personal choice, and personal liberty. This also means that, as a result, I need to tolerate the fact that others might make choices differing from my own, and that the Bill of Rights will (okay, SHOULD) protect our choices equally. I believe that drugs and prostitution should be legal, though I would not choose to engage in those activities, and I believe that the Mennonites should be allowed to drive their metal-wheeled, horse-drawn carriages on asphalt highways.

But let's throw the personal liberty issue aside. Let's, instead, discuss the logical side of things. First, the Mennonites are still taxpaying citizens. They, like other Iowa residents, have their tax dollars go toward road maintenance. This means that they too should be allowed the freedom to drive their buggies to town, just like we drive our cars. Furthermore, when I run across Mennonites (or Amish), I see that they are driving on the shoulder, utilizing the caution triangles on their buggies, and otherwise obeying laws that realistically compromise their desire to practice their religion as they view it, while acquiescing to the customs and laws of society at large.

Finally, there's the practical side of things... I will concede that on a mile-per-mile basis, the Mennonites' metal wagon wheels cause more wear and tear than a car's rubber tire. With that said though, others seem to neglect the fact that weight, speed, and the number of miles also cause wear and tear on the road. In all three of these areas, a car causes exponentially more wear and tear than a horse-drawn wagon. With this in mind, I assert that it's all a wash, and since there's no reason to punish the Mennonites for choosing to drive horse-drawn carriages. Also, in practice, as I mentioned earlier, I almost invariably see the Mennonites driving in the gravel shoulder.

So... dude, I agree with your HF345 assertion, but I think you're a bit off on the Mennonite thing.

There Are Reasons

2012-01-22T08:12:00.003-06:00

The reason I ask you to put your dirty dishes into the dishwasher is because it takes you no extra time to put one bowl, plate or glass into the dishwasher. But it takes me 10 minutes to move a sink full of dishes into the dishwasher.

The reason I ask you to move the clean dishes from the dishwasher to the cupboards is because I provide you with food, clothing and shelter. That shit's expensive. The least you could do is show me a bit of gratitude by putting the dishes away.

The reason I ask you to use the left side of the sink for dishes that won't fit into the dishwasher, is because the garbage disposal is on the right side. This way, you can properly dispose of the leftover food, instead of leaving it in the sink, where it starts to stink.

The reason I ask you to put the entire toilet seat down is twofold. First, it's a fairness issue. If you girls are going to ask me to put the seat down, then turnabout's fair play. Second, the dogs like drinking from the toilet.

The reason I ask you to move your stuff to your room is because I'm tired of tripping over your shit at night.

The reason I don't let you eat in your room is because you would never bring back the dirty dishes and half-eaten sandwiches.

The reason that we only have one TV is because I've seen what happens to families with multiple TVs. They never hang out together.

The reason that we don't have cable TV is because I am trying to help this family live within its means, and teach you how important it is to do the same.

The reason I ask you to clean your bathroom is because it's just nasty. Women may wonder how guys can "miss" the toilet when they pee. Well, I want to know how you can miss when you throw your applicators into the garbage, and then not pick them up. Oh wait. I DO know. It's because you realize that if you don't pick them up, the dogs will think they're a treat. And I won't discuss the hairballs in the shower, make-up all over the vanity, and toothpaste spit all over the bathroom sink.

The reason I ask you to put your empty soda cans into the recycle bin is because I shouldn't have to. It's true that I was put on this earth to clean up after you, but only until you became old enough to do it yourself. Guess what? You're old enough.

Hopefully kids, you can now see that there are reasons for the things I do. You may think I'm a bit crazy. You may believe that I am unreasonable. You might disagree with my rationale. But there ARE reasons. Live with it.

The Union Pendulum

2011-12-29T15:21:00.003-06:00

I read an article today about how the United Auto Workers (UAW) union is making a push to get non-union auto manufacturing plants to become union shops. Here's the article, if you're interested in reading. For those of you not interested in reading the original piece, it basically says that UAW leaders are going to try to convince auto workers who work in American Volkswagen and Daimler plants to unionize.

I'm going to make a prediction that the push will fail, and that the UAW will fade into irrelevance. In fact, I think that unions in general are charging headlong into obsolescence. It's widely accepted that union bosses are corrupt, unions tend to be adversarial with management, and their strong demands erode profitability of union shop companies. Basically, unions have become their own worst enemy.

The funny thing is, unions came about, in part, because of huge disparity between rich and poor, which is happening again in our society. The divide between the rich and poor is growing, and the unions are powerless to stop it. This is partially because non-union shops are less adversarial, and non-union shops tend to hire employees who are invested in the overall well-being of the company.

Unions did, and do, serve a purpose. They help to ensure that greedy individuals and companies don't take advantage of labor. Because of globalization however, companies can simply ship jobs overseas, reducing their costs, and putting Americans out of work. I'm not railing against this reality, I'm just pointing it out.

But unions are stuck in the 1920's. What they need to do is look forward. They need to realize that times have changed, and instead of helping maximize the wages of the individual laborer, they should act as a liaison between management and workers. They should encourage union members to find ways to save the company money and increase profitability, and acknowledge that jobs can go overseas.

Furthermore, they should focus on McJobs... service-based positions that can't be shipped overseas, but require little skill, which allows an employer to pay substandard wages to employees.

But that's not what's going to happen in the near term. What will happen is that union bosses will continue to be greedy, and advocate an us vs. them mentality. Union shops will close as a result, bringing unions effectively to extinction. Then, corporations will smell an opportunity to once again take advantage of the little guy, working conditions and wages will deteriorate, while the rich get richer. Eventually, the pendulum will swing back toward unionization, but it will be in a different form than what we see now. Furthermore, I suspect that next time unionization will be on a more global level, which will undermine corporations' ability to simply ship jobs to a country with low wages.

But then again, on a long enough timeline, any prediction is bound to come true.

I'm Better Than This Guy

2011-12-17T09:20:00.015-06:00

People that know me realize I tend to treat people relatively equally. For the most part, I give the waiter the same amount of respect at the CEO, and the professional athlete deserves the same consideration as the invalid.

With that said though, there are some who earn my scorn and contempt. Con-men, thieves, politicians, rapists, and murderers don't rate very high in my book. Basically, if you consistently, consciously and willingly screw your fellow man in order to fulfill your selfish wants and desires, then you're not worth my time.

JD is a good example of someone who's not worth my time. When we were kids, I used to hang out with JD. He was a guy who lived by his own rules... he stayed out past curfew, cut class, smoked cigarettes and stole his parents' alcohol. In short, he was a lot of fun.

As I got older, I started seeing the dark side of his lifestyle. He stole money and valuables from his parents and friends. When most of us grew up and settled down, JD became a professional vagabond... working carnivals, begging on street corners, staying in homeless shelters, and preying on the lonely and downtrodden. Though he and I are no longer in touch, we do have one or two mutual friends who occasionally hear from him, and then feel compelled to fill me in on JD's latest goings-on.

At one point, several years ago, he was either engaged or married, and it looked like he was going to settle down. We shot some pool at one of our hometown bars and caught up. But this was an aberration. Within a few months, he was back on the road.

Every now and then, JD still calls one of our mutual friends. JD is homeless and jobless, but somehow manages to afford a cell phone. In fact, he even has a laptop, which he (apparently) conned some dumb chick into buying for him. But I'm digressing. JD will ask to stay with this friend, who for some reason, still allows JD to crash at his place. And after every visit, the friend invariably discovers that some moderately valuable item has disappeared. JD hasn't figured out that you don't shit in your own nest.

So... what brought today's story about? Well, it goes like this. Several months ago, when JD got his laptop, he got a Facebook account. He sent me a friend request, which I promptly ignored. Two of our mutual friends accepted his friend request.

JD updated his status a short time ago with something like "You can all just fuck off." One of the mutual friends said "Dude, chill out," and JD went off on him... extending the sentiment to me. I guess that JD is finally learning that people don't associate with you when you continually fuck your buddies. As for me, I didn't accept his friend request because he's one of those guys who consistently, consciously and willingly screws his fellow man in order to fulfill his selfish wants and desires. If JD would start contributing to society, instead of continually detracting from it, I would re-evaluate my opinion. But until then, I'm better than this guy.

The Twelve Days of (Marine Corps) Boot Camp

2011-12-13T14:29:00.003-06:00

With the Christmas season comes the onslaught of Christmas carols. Whenever I hear the Twelve Days of Christmas, I can't help but think of a version I learned while I was in the Marine Corps. I'm going to just write up the list. After all, I know that my readers are all smart enough to apply the list to the song. I know that there will be one or two items that non-Marines may not understand. If you're that curious, you could always enlist :)

Either way, Enjoy.

On the (x) day of Boot Camp, the Marine Corps gave to me...

12 Court Martials
11 Office Hours
10 Page Elevens
9 Tops a' spinnin'
8 Gunnys Jumping
7 Staffs a' Sweatin'
6 Sergeants Bitching
5 F*cking Shots
4 Sets of Cammies
3 Cammy Covers
2 Combat Boots
And a Haircut that wasn't worth a F*ck

Thank you, Adam Carolla

2011-12-03T14:11:00.003-06:00

I’ve been thinking about Adam Carolla’s recent rant about OWS. In case you haven’t seen... rather, heard it... (the “view” is merely a still picture of Carolla during his audio rant) here’s a link. But you’ve got to read this BEFORE you listen to his diatribe. This isn't because I want the first shot per se. No, my request is based on a far more practical rationale. Carolla's piece goes on for over nine minutes, and statistically speaking, our collective attention span isn't long enough to read my words AND listen to Carolla's rant in a single sitting. So please, for the love of God, read my stuff first, and then, by all means, go listen to Carolla. (And dammit, I keep wanting to write Corolla... as in the Toyota economy car. Nothing against Adam... that's simply a slip of my fingers.)

Since I've asked you to read my article before listening to Carolla's take on life, I should give you a quick summary, which is my interpretation of what was said. Essentially, he asserts that the Millennials are a bunch of self-entitled whiners who were all brought up to believe that they were unique and wonderful. Now that they're adults, the millennials, who have entered the real world, are crying that life isn't puppies and rainbows, and the OWS movement is a result of this trend.

I'm going to start out by saying that I agree with Carolla -- to a point. When I was a kid, we played dodge ball, red rover, and tackle football. We rode bikes without helmets and rode in cars without seat belts. In school, we were even judged based on (gasp!) our academic achievements. Some kids earned their way into advanced placement classes, and others actually failed. Believe it or not, I know a couple of kids who were held back a year. And, you know what? We turned out okay.

Based on what I've read, Carolla and is only a few years older than me. We're both part of Generation X. We came of age in an era that required a lot of self-reliance, but society made a radical shift in its child-raising technique shortly after we became adults. Somewhere along the line, adults decided that declaring a winner and loser in competitive sports was damaging to the self-esteem of the losing team. They determined that dodge ball was too aggressive. They figured that holding back an illiterate child was counter productive.

Over time, this mentality grew to ludicrous proportions. The fat kid who took 30 minutes to walk 100 yards because he couldn't put down the f*cking twinkie long enough to concentrate on the race was labeled "equal" to the track star. The Mathlete was placed on the same plane as the kid who couldn't correctly answer "2+2." The young Shakespeare was placed in the same class as the kid who struggled to read "See Spot run." Everyone was a unique snowflake in a beautiful, unspoiled winter meadow.

This is an area where I agree with Carolla. The side-effect of this was that mediocrity and failure were celebrated, and excellence was downplayed -- nay, ignored. The best and brightest were stifled, and the slackers were rewarded. Now, in adulthood, they've entered the real world. The laziest of them, thinking that they're wonderful and special, are demanding their due, not realizing that they're actually receiving it... because WE brought them up to think that they're better than they are. The best of them seem to understand this, but have been raised to believe that striving for more yields no rewards.

To use a crappy parallel, this is a microcosm of Communism. Communism, in its theoretical form, is great. "From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs." It's a wonderful idea. In practice though, it sucks. Communism drags everyone down. If we're all treated equally, then nobody excels, because there's no reward for excellence... intrinsically or extrinsically.

But with that said, it's time to diverge from Carolla's point. In order to explain MY position, I'm going to start with a different Carolla piece. Roughly three to six months ago, I heard a different Carolla monologue. I assume that it was a podcast, but I can't find it. In that monologue, he used an analogy that discussed pushing a car. The point was that the top 1% of wage earners paid about 50% of America's taxes. So, picture the economy as a stalled car. In his discussion, the top 1% is already pushing half of the weight of the car, and he cries that it's not fair. And not only is it not fair, but some of the other half -- the ones that aren't carrying their weight, are screaming that they're tired, and that one percent isn't doing enough... that they should push more.

On the surface, Carolla makes a great point. If all things were equal, everyone pushing that car would be putting an equal amount of force into getting that car to move. What Carolla ignores though, is the fact that those pushing this theoretical car don't all have the same amount of strength. Some of the people pushing this car are old women. Some are in wheelchairs. At the opposite end of the spectrum, some of them are bodybuilders. To take this loose analogy a step further, some of the people involved are quadriplegics, and their only place is inside of the car. Let's say that there are 20 people pushing a 2000 pound car. If all things were equal, everyone would push with 100 pounds of force, and the car would move. (Okay, my physics is off, but the analogy remains.) But the fact of the matter is, two or three of the guys are quadriplegic. One guy is an Olympic power lifter who could theoretically push half of the car himself. The remaining seventeen of the people pushing this car are a few fifty-somethings who are past their prime, a couple of kids who haven't reached their potential, a couple of 90-pound weaklings, and a few average Joes. While it's reasonable to expect that everyone do their fair share, it's not reasonable to expect the quadriplegic to push with the same amount of force as the Olympic power lifter.

THAT is the idea behind asking the rich to pay more in taxes than the poor. During Carolla's discussion of the car analogy, he went back to the money issue. He basically said that he makes a lot of money, and he resents that he should be asked to pay for the poor. I'm not disputing what he's saying. In fact, I agree with what he's saying to some extent. But at the same time, he shouldn't expect the quadriplegic guy to push the car beyond his physical ability. That's just not reasonable. In fact, the quadriplegia should be sitting IN the car, and everyone else should push the car with the disabled dude inside of the vehicle. I agree with his assertion that there's a 20-something guy, in his prime, who's giving lip service to moving the car. These people do exist.

But reality is far messier than the analogy. We basically have two choices. We can either acknowledge that we won't tolerate people not carrying their weight, and screw the legitimately disabled in the process, or we can help the legitimately disabled, acknowledging that some people won't carry their weight. That's the reality of the situation. What that means in practice is that we don't assist everyone who genuinely needs it, or we agree to help everyone in need, with the understanding that some people will play the system and receive assistance that a moral person would not accept. In a pure capitalistic society, we are willing to let the least of us fall through the cracks. In a highly socialistic society, we allow the lazy to sponge off of the system. This is the crux of the moral dilemma we're facing right now. Personally, my best hope is for some sort of middle ground. I am willing to accept that some of us will fall through the cracks, while acknowledging that a few undeserving, immoral individuals will receive aid that they don't deserve. Realistically, that's the only answer that I can find. I just hope that whatever we come up with -- something that's open to refinement along the way -- will minimize abuse AND collateral damage.

In the end, it seems that the best answer will come from average, everyday citizens. When I am elected as your President, here's what I'd like to do... assemble a group of 50 to 100 Americans who will be tasked with the goal of implementing a sustainable economic agenda. They will propose an overall policy, in plain language, that will be forwarded to Congress for approval. This will have many ramifications. 1) It will show the public at large that finding a real solution to our current problems isn't as easy as it sounds. 2) It will accurately reflect the will of the people. 3) It will prove that average Americans from disparate walks of life are able to work toward a common goal. 4) It will reflect the will of the people at large. 5) It will expose politicians who are more concerned with their personal quest for power and wealth, those who are focused on the will of lobbyists, and those who genuinely care about the will of the people. 6) It will consider the reality that we need to live within our means... something that our current elected officials are unable or unwilling to understand.

My Sound Bite for the Day

2011-11-23T07:45:00.001-06:00

I don't want socialism, I just want businesses to be more concerned about people than dollars. I don't want anarchy, I just want a government that listens to its constituents instead of lobbyists. I don't want communism, I just want the poorest of the poor to have a fighting chance.

{Remember me on election day}

The Man Can't Keep Good Men Down

2011-11-21T16:44:00.001-06:00

My town of Cedar Rapids Iowa has a small but committed Occupy movement. Unlike Oakland and New York, the Cedar Rapids occupiers have kept the area clean, and they have collectively decided on zero tolerance for drugs, alcohol and so forth at the occupy site. Furthermore, the site is in a location that in no way impedes the day-to-day operations of the city or its inhabitants. Yet, for some reason I can't quite figure, the City of Cedar Rapids has decided to evict the Occupiers, who are, in my opinion, exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I have stated previously that I generally support the fundamental ideas of the Occupy movement. Corporate greed and government corruption have undermined our collective ability to improve the average family's quality of life. What I envision is not a welfare state, but a country where industry puts the interest of people before profits, and where politicians listen to their constituents before kowtowing to corporate conglomerates.

I generally disagree with Oakland and New York in their disbanding of the local Occupy movements, but with the reported violence, assault, and other law violations, a small piece of me can understand their decision. However, based on what I have witnessed firsthand at the Occupy Cedar Rapids location, I see nothing other than a blatant power play on the part of local bureaucrats, and I believe that it an absolute infringement on the Constitutional rights of those who choose to Occupy Cedar Rapids. I support the Occupiers, and actively denounce the actions of my elected officials and the employees who carry out the order forcing Occupy Cedar Rapids to leave their site.

More About Dave

2011-11-19T10:58:00.001-06:00

In my last post about my presidential candidacy, I invited people to ask questions, and Sunny seized that opportunity and asked me a couple of questions. Below are her questions, and my responses. Furthermore, her questions brought to mind a few other items that I will address.

Question 1: What is your stand on drug testing for welfare benefits?

I am personally opposed to drug testing for welfare benefits. In fact, I am personally opposed to a lot of our country's drug laws. I believe that marijuana should be legalized, taxed and regulated in a manner similar to alcohol. This would be a major blow to organized crime, would free up our police force and prisons for bigger issues, and would be a financial boon to our economy through reduced law enforcement and increased tax revenue. Furthermore, there is the slippery slope argument. Should we prohibit welfare recipients from purchasing alcohol and tobacco? After all, they are addictive and mind-altering, despite the fact that they're legal. I understand that people don't want their tax dollars being wasted on drugs. Hell, I even AGREE with this prospect. But this is a question of liberty in my mind.

With all of this said though, I wouldn't consider this one of my bedrock issues. What that means, in plain English, is that I am willing to defer to the will of the people in this instance. If a large majority supports drug testing as a condition of receiving welfare, then I am willing to support it. I know that sounds a bit wishy-washy, but I hope this illustrates that I am open to discussion and compromise.

Question 2: What exactly is your tax reform plan? Is it based on a (percent) of income for everyone, or something else?

A percentage tax is also known as a flat tax. In plain terms, workers are taxed a flat percentage on every dollar they earn. In principle this is a great idea. Everyone pays their fair share, and everything is gravy. But in reality, this doesn't work. Let's take a strictly hypothetical 10% tax rate. Tax on $20,000 is $2000. Tax on $2 Million is $200,000. The problem with a flat tax is that the poor guy is going to suffer a lot more over the loss of $2000 than the rich guy will suffer over over the loss of his $200,000. With this illustration as my base point, I support a graduated tax, which is far more stimulative to the economy. After all, the poor guy is going to spend all of his extra money, which circulates through the economy. The rich dude is going to be as likely to save that money, as opposed to spending it, which doesn't circulate through the economy to the same extent.

My big difference is that I want to extend this philosophy to the business world as well. Business should be taxed in the same manner as the family. Close the loopholes and pay your fair share, based on the amount of money that you made. There would be a few benefits from this approach... Businesses would be encouraged to spin off in to smaller (and leaner) entities. This would effectively eliminate the "too big to fail" connundrum we currently experience, and it would make business more nimble. The closing of existing loopholes would also allow a given business, industry or technology the opportunity to succeed or fail in its own right. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in technology. This would also undermine a lot of the special interest lobbying in Washington.

I do not yet have specific numbers in mind. I DO believe that EVERYONE should pay some sort of tax... even the poorest of the poor. But what are my percentages? I really can't answer that sufficiently because I have not yet done the research (What percentage of Americans and corporations make what amounts of money.) Furthermore, I realize that what I espouse is kind of a pie-in-the sky kind of vision. The fact is, those who have will fight viciously to hold what they have. For this kind of thing to happen, we need to really clean our Congressional house, and get rid of the politicians -- on BOTH sides of the aisle -- who are beholden to special interests.

Okay, I originally planned to write more, but I also expected my answers to be more succinct than they've ended up. With that said, I am going to stop for now.

By the way, this is a Saturday, my day off, so I haven't spent a lot of time proof-reading for grammatical errors. Please forgive me, but my family time is important to me. Besides, I'm more interested in being authentic than being polished.

Vote Dave in 2012

2011-11-17T12:00:00.003-06:00

Manifesto: : A written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its issuer.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am running for the office of President of the United States of America. I’m a little surprised by the small number of people who have asked me follow-up questions. Perhaps this is because people are afraid to vote for someone who is not a Democrat or Republican, because they don’t want to “waste their vote.” Maybe it’s because people are too jaded to consider an outsider as a real possibility. Maybe it’s because I smoked pot when I was younger. Who knows? What I do know, is that in order to have a real chance at becoming President, I need to keep my name in the press, or my candidacy will disappear. With this in mind, I’d like to rehash some of my policies, and re-invite you to ask questions about my candidacy… and, of course, to ask for your write-in vote come Election Day next November.

First and foremost, I am running on a write-in basis, because I don’t want money to corrupt my vision. This means that you’ll actually need to write my name on the ballot, instead of simply checking a box. I know this is asking a lot, but hey, nobody said that Democracy is simple. And if you believe that voting your conscience is "wasting your vote" when compared to buying in to the false choice of Democrat vs. Republican, then... well, then I guess I don't want your vote.

Though I’m not poor, the Presidential salary is significantly higher than what I currently make. Correct me if I’m wrong, but last I heard it was somewhere in the $300k per year range. In my household, that’s a lot of cash. I’m not doing this for the money. With this in mind, I plan to give somewhere between ½ and 2/3 of my salary away each year. This will be contingent on a few things though. For example, I’m a jeans and t-shirt kind of guy, so if I have to go out and buy a bunch of spiffy suits to impress other heads of state, that will probably come out of my salary. But I won’t need a bunch of new suits every year. I’m perfectly content with my used vehicles, my wife wants to continue working (as opposed to being a full-time First Lady), and I’m happy with the public school my kids attend. In fact, I’d be perfectly content to work from my existing home, only traveling to Washington when it’s specifically required. But if I need --truly need-- this income to be a successful President, then I will reluctantly take it. However, I suspect that my needs will diminish as my Presidency progresses. (Like I said, I won't need new suits every year.)

I want to abolish our existing tax system and go with a simplified, slightly progressive tax rate that will apply to everyone… individuals and businesses alike. This means that the well-to-do will probably pay higher taxes than they do now. In conjunction with this, I plan to slightly reduce government assistance for the poor. Like I said earlier, everyone needs to suck it up in order to get our country back on track.

I do plan to continue saving for retirement. With this in mind, I will hire a money manager to make my retirement decisions. This way there will be no conflict of interest between my retirement and pending legislation.

I am ardently against spending more than we take in. It’s time that the government cut up its proverbial credit card and start working toward financial solvency. This is going to REALLY SUCK!! And for the people that are my age and younger, who have never benefited from the government’s coffers, I’m sorry! With that said though, I oppose a balanced budget amendment. Such an amendment would prevent deficit spending during times of bona fide National emergencies (such as if someone were to declare war on the U.S.).

For those of you who have crushing student debt, and are demanding relief: Sorry, but you’re on your own. I used the GI Bill AND took out Student Loans. I also worked part time. I’ve been paying back my debt for a decade, and will continue to do so for the next decade. Nobody ever promised you a job after college. Furthermore, it’s your responsibility to know what you’re getting yourself into when you apply for these loans. And finally, the government is more than flexible and fair when it comes to paying your debt. You have many repayment options, you can get deferments, and you can get part of your debt forgiven by doing grunt work for little money.

And while we’re talking about college, let’s look at tuition costs. It costs a LOT of money. In fact, it’s cost prohibitive. This is for many reasons… The state governments no longer have the money to subsidize post-secondary education as they once did… Society places an inordinate amount of value on post-secondary education (as opposed to trades like plumbing and so forth), so the demand is higher than it used to be, and professors are (theoretically) the cream of the intellectual crop. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard (or said) that professional athletes, actors and musicians – those who do little to advance our society – shouldn’t be making millions per year when our teachers make peanuts. Well, the fact is, that professors make good money and have killer benefits. But if we’re going to have qualified people teaching our kids, we should expect to pay for it.

I believe that officials in New York and Oakland were looking for an excuse to force the Occupiers out of their parks. Did drug use and violence occur in the parks? Most assuredly. Was there too much trash and uncleanliness in the parks? Absolutely. But I sympathize with the movement. This cracking down is just too close to Totalitarianism for my taste.

I guess that’s all for now. Once again, I invite you to ask questions, and ask that you vote Dave in 2012.

"Proving" God's Existence

2011-11-05T16:31:00.004-05:00

In addition to my blogging, I am known to occasionally haunt Facebook. Today, while cruising through the Facebook status updates of various friends of mine, I saw that RayRay had written this little gem. The text is unedited other than adding punctuation and spelling corrections...

If anyone can show me one example, in the history of the world, of a single spiritual or religious person who has been able to prove, either logically or empirically, the existence of a higher power that has any consciousness or interest in the human race, or ability to punish/reward humans for their moral choices, or that there is any reason (other than fear) to believe in any version of an afterlife, I will give you one of my legs.

That sounds like a challenge to me... a contest in which I will participate, but I want it to be said up front that if (when) I fulfill RayRay's challenge, I do NOT want his leg... nor any other part of his body. Let the games begin!

Dude... there is a major flaw in your phrasing. According to Wikipedia, empirical research is "a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience." Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed all EXPERIENCED God in a way that lends enough credence (and subsequent documentation) to the existence of a God who is personally involved in, and concerned with, the lives of His children. THAT should be enough for me to be able to lay claim to that leg. But with that said, let me continue...

It seems that the basis of your question revolved around a fundamental belief that life is unfair. Well, let me be the first to acknowledge that life IS unfair. The thing is, God gave us ALL free will at the outset. The consequence of free will is that people can choose to act in a selfish manner, screwing over their fellow man for their own personal gain. This has perpetuated itself -- and even magnified itself -- through the ages. So, the question I believe you're asking is NOT "how can God not care," but rather "how can God let this crappy stuff happen to me?" The answer is free will.

Now, with that said, I would like to submit that you are looking at things from the wrong perspective. Instead of expecting God (the supreme being) to prove himself to you, maybe you should be prepared to do some of the work yourself. After all, how often are you willing to justify your decisions to your kids? Don't you expect them to take your words at face value, at least occasionally?

Still another way to look at things... You are asking for proof. But what kind of "proof" do you expect? And are you willing to look in the right direction? Are you willing to look at all? Let me give you a crappy analogy. For whatever reason, you've spent your entire life underground. You've heard that there's a place called "outside" where there is fresh air, the ceiling is so far away that you can't touch it, that the light is so bright that you need to shield your eyes, and that even the nighttime is never completely quiet. You've never experienced it. But does that mean it doesn't exist? THAT is a crappy analogy of faith. There is no scientific proof for what you seek, based on your hypothetical experience, but that doesn't mean that "outside" doesn't exist. Just because something cannot be scientifically reproduced with our current technology, does not mean that the "something" does not exist.

So, long story short... The Bible IS the empirical proof you have requested. But that's not the answer to your fundamental question. THAT answer can ONLY be provided by YOUR willingness to look beyond your five senses. You have challenged me... now it's my turn to challenge you. Are you up to it??

Running for President

2011-11-02T08:37:00.004-05:00

Today I am declaring my candidacy for the Presidency of the United States of America, for the 2012 election cycle.

I am running on a strictly write-in basis, and this is for several reasons. First (in no particular order), I believe that it's foolish to ask supporters to donate money to my cause. We have more than effectively proven that campaign contributions are a corrupting influence in American politics. Second, the system rewards candidates who toe the party line, not people who think individually. Third, my political beliefs do not fall within the purview of a single political party, so I would not be a good fit within any party; therefore, my candidacy would not thrive if I were to affiliate with a single party. Fourth, I do not want to spend a lot of time polishing my image, my appearance, or my message, only to have a complex issue boiled down to a two-second sound bite, and then taken completely out of context. No, I'd rather campaign by my rules, remain true to myself, and risk losing.

Besides, I really don't want the job. The fact of the matter is, anyone who genuinely WANTS to be President (or hold any other elected office for that matter) is just a little off kilter. I am not a person who seeks power, fortune and fame. I am by nature a problem solver. I am willing to compromise. I want to keep my integrity. I am announcing my candidacy because I believe that none of the current candidates possess any of the traits genuinely necessary to get our country out of our current mess.

I understand that every candidate is required to take a stand on the issues of the day, so here are my positions on the various issues. If there's an issue that I've missed, please ask me about it, and I will tell you my position.

-The first thing you need to understand is that I don't plan to make any campaign promises. The word promise means a lot to me; I don't take promises lightly. I will tell you what I'd LIKE to do. I will tell you what NEEDS to be done, but I realize that I cannot make a promise that I cannot keep, so I will keep my promises to a minimum.

-I will likely change my mind on issues from time to time. This is not flip-flopping. This is absorbing new information and re-evaluating a position as I grow and learn. Contrary to what some people think, I believe that it's a good thing to be open to new facts, and to understand the necessity of compromise.

-I will vote with my conscience. Sometimes I will listen to what you have to say, sometimes I will not. This is NOT arrogance on my part. It goes back to previous statements that I try to be a man of integrity. Therefore, I cannot promise to do what's popular if it directly goes against what I believe is right.

-I WILL disagree with each of my constituents on at least one issue. If I agree with everything that every single constituent says, then I am pandering.

-I will try to get compensation reduced for politicians. They have voted raises for themselves for long enough. I also realize that there's a small chance that this will actually happen. After all, many of these politicians have grown accustomed to an elaborate lifestyle, and are unwilling to reduce their own standard of living. I understand that such a cut is overwhelmingly meaningless in the grand scheme of our federal budget, but the symbolism is huge.

-I will try to reduce or eliminate foreign aid to all of our allies. If they're truly our friends, they will understand that we need to take care of our own back yard for a bit. If they're not truly our friends, then they don't deserve our aid in the first place.

-I do not believe in too big to fail. The mere idea flies directly in the face of capitalism.

-Given the reality that Washington DID bail out big banks, and that these banks in turn did not live up to their end of the bargain by helping out Main Street, I believe that a bailout of Main Street is reasonable. However, I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility. So people who over-leveraged themselves in the first place through continually refinancing their homes and spending that money, through liars loans, and so forth, do not deserve a bailout. I think that a bailout should require people to prove that they deserve it.

-I believe in Keynesian Economics. The problem is that government is too quick to say "times are hard, let's borrow," and never get around to saving for that rainy day.

-I believe that EVERYONE needs to share in the pain necessary to get America back to where we should be. This means that benefits will be cut AND that taxes will increase. In conjunction with this, I believe in a progressive tax rate, because we are all Americans, and we should all feel an equal amount of pain in meeting the needs of our country. This is NOT a statement designed to punish the wealthy, it's simply an acknowledgement of the reality that a single dollar means a lot less to people who have many of them.

-In conjunction with a progressive tax system, I believe that every entity in America should pay taxes... no loopholes, no exceptions. It is farcical that people and businesses cry about high taxes on the rich and then exploit loopholes to pay lower taxes than the rest of us. Again, this is not a cry against the rich; it is pointing out flaws in the system. I realize that a simple graduated tax without loopholes would cause many IRS agents and CPAs to lose thier jobs. Unfortunately, I don't have a simple answer to that complex problem.

-I believe that being pro-life, yet supporting the death penalty is an inconsistent moral position. I also realize that neither of these issues will be resolved during my tenure as President.

-I believe that personal liberty has suffered too much, for too long. I believe that individuals should be able to decide whether or not to wear a seat belt or smoke marijuana.

-I believe that we have worried about ourselves long enough, and that it's time to start thinking about our neighbors and our country again.

-You need to understand that, when I'm elected, I will say or do things that anger you. I may drink a beer, smoke a stogie, or drop an F-bomb. Despite what you may think, I am not above reproach, and I am NOT politically correct. On the flip side of the coin, I will remain honest, and I will not cheat on my wife.

-You need to understand that I'm a jeans and t-shirt kind of guy. You will RARELY see me in a suit, even in my State of the Union address.

-You need to understand that I will still carry an expectation of privacy... for me, and for my family.

-I believe that if you have a question regarding my position on any issue, you should leave a comment.

A Radical Thought

2011-10-24T14:20:00.002-05:00

I read a crazy idea from some nut-job proposing that the US Government give everyone a cool million, instead of doing bailout after bailout. At face value, it seemed absolute, positively ludicrous. Then I did a little number crunching. Based on my cursory research...

-We have a population of roughly 300 million people.
-The 2011 Federal Budget was 3.83 Trillion
-The 2011 Federal Deficit was 1.27 Trillion

This means that giving every man, woman and child in America a million bucks would be...

-Raise the total Federal Budget by about 5%, based on 2011 figures.
-Produce a one-time deficit increase of roughly 20%, based on 2011 figures.

However, the Federal, State and Local government could turn around and tax this money at the standard rate, which would give the Federal, State and Local government a HUGE influx of cash, which could (theoretically) be used for infrastructure and so forth (even though in reality it would probably be spent on $100 hammers for the military).

Even at a 33% tax rate, a family of four would still rake in a cool $2.6 Million (rounded down), affording the average family the opportunity to pay off every single debt, pay for kids' college, sock away enough money for a rainy day, and STILL buy a new car for every person in the house. Crazy? Maybe, but after a bit of reconsideration, it may not be as nutty as it first sounds.

I Believe

2011-10-19T12:16:00.002-05:00

I am part of the 99%. I believe that America has fundamentally lost its way. I believe that everyone who reads this will disagree with at least one thing I say today. I believe that our nation, once founded on personal freedom, has become enslaved by economic pursuit of the almighty Dollar. I believe that a select few corporate and political elite are the slave owners. I believe that many of us willingly shackled ourselves by going into debt simply so that we could keep up with the Joneses. I believe that we have forgotten that life’s not about what you have, but who you have. I believe that the only way we can continue to survive as a country is for everyone to sacrifice… rich and poor… individual and corporation. I believe that we need to raise taxes and cut spending. I believe in God. I realize that, as a middle-class American, I may be asked to sacrifice more than the rich or the poor. I believe that the middle class is shrinking. I believe that your chance of being heard in Washington is directly correlated to the amount of money in your bank account. I believe that money has corrupted the premise of one man, one vote. I believe that 99% of us got the shaft in corporate bailouts. I believe I’ll have another beer. I believe that every man can choose to believe (or not believe) in any God he chooses. I believe in God, family, country… in that order. I believe that if we, the 99%, continue to scream loud enough, and for long enough, that the 1% will have no choice but to hear us. I believe that my standard of living will end up lower than that of my parents. I believe that my generation should sacrifice so that my children’s generation will not have a standard of living lower than mine. I believe that I have no right to expect my country to carry me if I’m too lazy to work. I believe that my country has made a social contract, promising to help if, through no fault of my own, I am thrown into hardship. I believe in the short-term hand up. I believe the long-term handout is wrong. I believe that changes in circumstances occasionally require changes in the rules. I believe that the only rules set in stone are the Ten Commandments. I believe in personal freedom. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe that the casual reader may consider some of my belief contradictory. I believe that 99% of you have stopped reading my words. I believe I’ll stop writing now.

Occupying Wall Street

2011-10-11T17:31:00.003-05:00

Like a lot of people, I've been paying attention to the whole Occupy Wall Street movement. I've kept my mouth shut until now, because I've been formulating how to respond. That silence ends today.

I suspect that I'll have something to say that'll piss everyone off, but I'm going to start off by irritating the right. There's one of my Facebook friends who has spent a lot of time ~~and energy~~ re-posting right wing propaganda bashing on the Occupy Wall Street people. (By the way, I struck the "and energy" part, because any of the sheeple can re-post shit that others have already said.) My favorite one was that fancy little quip about 700 people getting arrested in one day, but saying that nobody has been arrested at a Tea Party rally. Well, whoop-dee-fucking-doo! I suppose that the civil rights protesters were wrong too. And while we're casting stones, let's DO talk about the Tea Party activists who cheered the idea of letting the uninsured die, or those who booed a gay soldier. It looks like somebody missed the point of this movement.

And let's look at Herman Cain's commentary on Occupy Wall Street. (By the way, I am going to paraphrase. If you want to know exactly what he said, then look it up yourself.) "It's not the fault of the rich that they're rich. But it is the fault of the poor and unemployed that they're unemployed." That statement has a LOT of truth in it. But it's not looking at the whole picture. First, that statement assumes that everyone was born with an equal opportunity of success and failure, and that all of your financial success and failure in life is in your hands. The fact is that those born middle and upper class have a large advantage over those born into poverty. But let's put that aside. Cain's comment absolutely dismisses the widely-accepted conclusion that our current economic circumstances is essentially a result of greed. Yes, the middle class was stupid by leveraging their homes, but it was the greedy bankers and Wall Street advisers that created the opportunity in the first place.

And let's look at the Democrats. These idiots want to "claim" and "take ownership" of the movement... something to offset the Tea Party. You're a bunch of fucking morons. You're just as guilty as the rest. The fat-cat union bosses, collecting their six and seven figure salaries, are jumping on the bandwagon, conveniently forgetting that they refused to negotiate when problems first arose, which contributed our abysmal employment situation. The Democratic politicians seem to ignore their votes that advocated stealing money from the poor and middle class, in order to prevent private businesses from failing, because they were "too big to fail."

What a lot of people are missing is that this isn't just a few lazy welfare cases squawking because the government isn't giving them enough crack money. In fact, there is no real, single issue uniting the Occupy Wall Street movement. This isn't a flash protest to a single hot-button issue. This is the result of a slow realization that a small group of financial and political elite have screwed the population at large. We don't begrudge people their rags-to-riches success. What we DO object to, is the corrupt and privileged few raping and pillaging the masses in order to protect their already-obscene level of wealth and power.

The super-rich (stereotypically) seem to resent paying high taxes to help the 10+% of the unemployed population. But these same individuals had no issue with walking, hat in hand, to our government, asking for a bailout for their pet company, because they were "too big to fail," all the while, ignoring the fact that their short-sightedness created the whole "too big to fail" scenario in the first place.

Many people decry my words as class warfare. Tax the rich. Screw the poor... Yada yada yada. No, the Occupy Wall Street movement is an issue of fairness. The rich are willing to let the poor and middle class twist in the wind, but when it comes to THEM losing THEIR creature comforts, the game suddenly changes. Occupy Wall Street is not about welfare, taxation, or what have you... it's about a perception that there's a fundamental unfairness in society. And yeah, life isn't fair, but the majority of us think that it's getting ridiculous.

Faith VS. Science

2011-10-10T14:28:00.002-05:00

One of the most frustrating things I experience as a Christian is seeing the far right Christians completely dismissing science, and the far left wing atheists completely ruling out the possibility of God's existence. What people on both extremes of this alleged debate fail to realize is that they're not even waging the same argument.

The science buffs claim that God doesn't exist because there's no evidence that he does exist. I will concede this position, but only to a point. When an atheist says there's no proof of God's existence, what they are REALLY saying is that as of today, there is not sufficient scientific evidence to convince that atheist that God exists. From there, the atheist essentially claims that since there's no proof that He DOES exist, then he must NOT exist.

Unfortunately, there is a fundamental flaw with that argument. Mankind is constantly making new discoveries, therefore the advancement of our knowledge has not reached a conclusion. Remember... 2000 years ago, mankind believed that it was a man's seed that caused a child, not the sperm plus the egg. Only a few hundred years ago, we had no idea that germs caused illness. In other words, we don't know it all. Just because we can't PROVE the existence of something -- anything -- doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

On the opposite side of the coin, we have the religious fundamentalists who refuse to acknowledge that the Earth is older than a few thousand years, and absolutely discounts the possibility that we did descend from apes. These individuals suffer from the opposite outcome to a similar blindness. Science has provided ample, reproducible evidence that the world has been around for more than a few thousand years. But because the Bible, which they believe to be the absolute, irrefutable, infallible, literal word of God says that we've been around for less than 10,000 years, it must be so.

What I'd really like to know is why we can't have it both ways. Specifically, I'd like to point out some of the worst-case scenarios if people would open their minds a bit, and allow themselves to explore this possibility that I've put forth....

Atheists: If I'm wrong, and no God exists, then what, exactly, are you out? So you've allowed yourself to hold on to a misconception. Bummer. The only reason that would be a big deal is if allowing yourself to believe in a God who didn't exist was your only mistake. On the other hand, if I'm right then you've earned an eternity with God. And even if there is no God, the general principles of Christianity, IMHO, is a great moral compass, even for non-believers. Furthermore, scientific studies show that people who believe in God are happier, healthier and generally live longer than those without faith.

Religious Fundamentalists: If I'm wrong, and all of our science is hokum, what exactly are you out? So you've allowed yourself to hold on to a misconception. Bummer. The only reason that would be a big deal is if allowing yourself to believe in science exist was your only mistake. On the other hand, if I'm right, then you have opened up an entire world of learning and growing as a person. And God takes delight in His children learning.

At the end of the day, this is my point. Faith is not science. Science is not faith. They are not mutually exclusive.

Love is Work

2011-10-06T14:12:00.002-05:00

I read an internet article sometime last week that had a nugget of wisdom that's been rattling around my little brain for over a week. "Love, without rebuke, is not love." That phrase has come to mind many times since I originally read it, and the more I think about it, the more I respect the statement.

Rebuke. Constructive criticism. Reality check. The specific terminology may vary depending on the circumstance, the relationship, and the roles of those involved, but the idea behind the terminology is the same. I disagree with something you do or say, and I express my displeasure. Overall, there are two ways that people tend to react to criticism. Either they learn from the criticism, and grow as a person, or they become defensive and justify their actions, no matter how misguided the defense may be. In an ideal world, the recipient learns and grows from the critique. Unfortunately, the person receiving the reality check tends to justify their position, nothing is learned, and only hard feelings result.

The thing that rebuked people fail to realize is that reality checks are done out of love. I rebuke my children, not out of a need to control, but because I want what's best for them. My wife nagged me about smoking because she doesn't want to see me die a slow, painful death. I talk to my friend about his alcohol consumption because I see how it's undermining his relationship with his wife and kids. I rebuke because I care.

I try to be a good person and love my fellow man, but the fact of the matter is, I reserve my harshest criticism for those closest to me. "We only hurt the ones we love" is one of my most frequently-quoted euphemisms. Generally, I say it to a close friend after a particularly sarcastic comment. I love teasing my friends, and that's kind of my way of letting them know I love them, even if I did hurt their feelings.

That phrase is far more pertinent than most people realize though. When I rebuke a loved one, their feelings may be hurt, but all too often, those on the receiving end of my harsh reality checks fail to understand that I am saying things from a place of love. I chastise my daughter, knowing full well that she may become defensive and, in anger, tell me that she hates me. I counsel my friend, completely cognizant that he may shut me out. I was not always patient when my wife talked about my smoking. But as the title of today's post says, love is work. And love, without rebuke, is not love.

I Remember

2011-09-11T11:18:00.002-05:00

Today's post is simply a repost of what I wrote on the 5th anniversary of September 11. There is nothing I can say that would better reflect what I'm sure we're collectively feeling.

I’m a little reluctant to write about 9/11, but I’m going to anyway. My reluctance comes from the belief that nothing I write could adequately express the importance of that day or those events, and from the knowledge that everyone else will spend a lot of energy reading and writing about that life-altering day. I’m doing it anyway because I feel that I must honor and observe the significance of that day, inadequate as my attempt may be.

Some of the events are indelibly seared in to my mind; others have undoubtedly faded with time. I remember getting to work and settling in to my chair for the day’s work, when one of my co-workers asked if I had heard the news.

“We’re at war,” he said. “Someone just flew a plane into one of the twin towers.”

“Are you sure it was deliberate? Maybe it was an accident,” I answered hopefully. I somehow knew that he was right, but wasn’t quite ready to accept the fact. We had a TV in the general area and decided to power it on. The reception was poor, but after a few minutes, we got a static-filled reception. The signal cleared up just in time for me to see the second plane hit the other tower. “Oh God,” I said, dumbstruck.

“What?”

“You’re right, we’re at war. Another plane just hit the other tower.” We stared at each other, speechless. It felt like someone had hit me in the stomach, and we both knew that everything had changed. After standing there dumbfounded for what seemed like an eternity, we agreed to move the TV so a location where everyone could watch. We knew that no work would be accomplished that day.

From that point on, I don’t recall very many specifics. I remember talking to certain people, and I know the conversation was about the day’s events, but I don’t know what was said. I remember sitting in a restricted-access room in my office building, listening to the radio, watching streaming internet media, and reading articles. I remember being so numb that I had no reaction when I heard about the third plane hitting the Pentagon and the fourth plane crashing in the field. I remember watching the lines form at the gas station across the street, and seeing the prices rise as the lines grew progressively longer. I remember deciding that I’d go ahead and pay the higher prices the next day rather than stay in that line.

I remember the subsequent outrage at the price gouging over gas and other emergency supplies. I remember all planes in the nation being immediately grounded and thinking that was a great idea. I remember finding out that some of my friends were stuck at a conference because of the planes being grounded, but my company got them home by chartering a bus.

I distinctly remember being numb, and noticing that everyone else appeared to feel the same way. I remember the worldwide outpouring of grief and sympathy, exemplified by candlelight vigils. I remember our collective sorrow, and the global outpouring of love.

I remember watching the firefighters raising the American flag above the rubble of the towers, and seeing the irony in the flag being flown upside-down (a sign of distress). I remember how well Giuliani handled the situation, and how united we were behind our Commander in Chief. I vividly remember President Bush’s “sage” advice, telling us to fight terrorism by supporting our economy and rolling my eyes thinking “This is the best he’s got? Fight terrorism by spending money?” For the most part though, I remember instantly knowing that everything had changed. I remember America being united like I have never experienced before and probably will never experience again.

What do you remember?

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

2011-09-02T10:38:00.006-05:00

I've been hearing a lot of shit about WikiLeaks, and I've got to say that I've carried very mixed feelings about it. Part of me thinks that people who do bad things deserve to be exposed. Another piece of me understands that we are able to maintain our way of life because some of us are willing to do things that others shouldn't (or don't want to) know about. Part of me believes that crooked politicians should be exposed for their corruptness. Another piece understands that our diplomats need to put their best foot forward and express their true feelings about our alleged allies only behind closed doors. It is this ambivalence that has up until now buried my curiosity and kept me away from WikiLeaks. My need to know more finally outweighed my mixed emotions today, and I visited the site. As I cruised the site, I settled on a page entitled "Collateral Murder."

The contents of the site angered me, but not in a way that many of you think. After spending an hour watching the videos, all I could say was "Wrong." That word, in my context for today's post, means all of its socially accepted meanings at various times... incorrect... offensive to the senses... morally reprehensible... absolute bullshit... Please continue reading, as I explain.

The web page contains a written editorial of the videos, written in such a way as to lead a reader to believe that they are going to witness a premeditated, callous war crime. It also contains three video links.. a short version of a battle in the streets of Iraq, a long version, and an eyewitness account. I watched the long version, and the eyewitness account, and have come to a conclusion that's significantly different than the written overview, and from what Julian Assange alleges on the web page. (Based on what I see, the web page is a wholly owned subsidiary of WikiLeaks, but has its own domain name.) The following is my interpretation of what happened...

I started by reading the text of the web site, which talks about the "indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people." I was angered that the US Military could engage in such behavior, and needed to see the war crime with my own eyes. What I saw was reasonable behavior taken by rational military personnel. Basically, there were military aviators flying around in a hot zone, and they identified potentially hostile individuals walking with weapons. Our rules of engagement allow us to destroy armed Iraqis, and they did so.

After the armed personnel were killed, a van came to carry off one of an enemy who was wounded, not killed. The vehicle and its occupants were fired upon as well. The video later shows foot soldiers arriving on the scene, discovering two wounded Iraqi children, and arranging for medical care for the kids. The closest thing to "criminal" activity in the video is what comes out of a soldier's mouth after the discovery that kids were injured... "That's what happens when you bring your kids to war." This is a paraphrase, but the statement is reasonable, when taken in context.

The second video is an eyewitness account, and contains information not covered in the initial video. It turns out that two of the KIA were reporters, and one of the "weapons" was a camera. The kids were in the van that showed up to pick up the wounded guy, who was one of the reporters. The role of the van and the driver were never discussed. The soldier told his story. He was the guy who found the two kids in the van... the one who carried them out of the van, and arranged the medical evacuation of the kids.

-I am going to take the video of the firefight at face value.
-I am going to take the eyewitness account at face value.
-I am going to take the allegation that two of the KIA were reporters at face value.

With the aforementioned assumptions in mind, I am going to give my interpretation of the events of that day...

-The personnel in the Apache, who fired on the armed Iraqis, made a reasonable assumption. The camera was not the only item identified as a weapon, which means that the reporters were walking with armed Iraqis, who intended to fire on American soldiers. It is unfortunate that the reporters were killed, but based on my interpretation of the events, the reporters were not murdered.

-It was reasonable for the soldiers to destroy the van. There was no clear indication that children were in the van until AFTER the events unfolded. Was it unfortunate? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that the events were criminal.

-The soldier who rescued the children from the van was clearly traumatized by the event. He attempted to get counseling, but his chain of command was unhelpful.

-Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, had a heavy hand in the compilation and dissemination of this information. He claims to be simply putting out information, but that's not true. He did not simply report the events. He blatantly allowed his personal opinion to color the events. If this is the manner in which Assange handles all of WikiLeaks, he is not a reporter. He is a man with a personal agenda, and is simply using information to achieve his ends.

So...

-The reporters who were killed were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But they knew the risks when they chose to go to Iraq.

-The pilots of the Apache helicopter were wrong by incorrectly identifying a camera as a weapon, and they were mistaken in their assumption that the van was another enemy trying to recover his wounded comrade.

-The superiors of the soldier who rescued the children made numerous, grave errors in judgment by blocking the soldier's attempts to get help for his trauma.

-But Assange is the worst of them all. He sensationalized his discovery, and tried to turn tactical errors into war crimes. What happened that day, assuming that I've interpreted things correctly, suck. No doubt about it. Two reporters died. Two children were gravely wounded. A soldier was traumatized by the events. His chain of command let him down and left him to flounder. But there is no war crime here. If this is typical of Assange's mode of operation, then the guy is pond scum and deserves every bad thing that's coming to him.

Comedic Genius

2011-08-30T13:50:00.002-05:00

Laurel and Hardy died before I was born, but through the magic of film, my father was able to introduce me to their work. To this day, I still love Laurel and Hardy. They are often imitated, but never duplicated. Their films bring back fond memories of hanging out with my dad, and allow me to re-experience the joy and innocence of childhood... partially through their pure, clean comedy, and partially from my own recollections.

Another (Futile) Plea for the Return of Personal Responsibility

2011-08-18T13:58:00.003-05:00

I couldn't help but read this article about some dude in Houston who tried to break into some woman's house for the purpose of sucking her blood. Apparently, it "remains to be seen" whether or not "pop culture played a role in the attack," because the psyche eval hasn't yet occurred.

Ummm... GET A GRIP!!! It is not society's fault that this guy broke into this chick's house. Even if it turns out that the guy is a little bonkers (and face it, you've GOT to be a bit off your rocker to do what he did), it's NOT society's fault. The blame cannot be laid on Twilight, True Blood, Anne Rice, Bram Stoker, or any of the countless millions of people who love any or all of the things vampire. Going with the odds, I will (for now) assume that he's some sort of homicidal or sociopathic individual, which is not the same as insane. This would make him, and ONLY him, responsible for his actions.

And in the unlikely event that he's schizophrenic or something like that, it's STILL not society's fault. That would just be chalked up to bad things happening in life. I'm really tired of people shifting responsibility away from the individual.

Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients?

2011-08-13T10:50:00.001-05:00

Over the last few days, I’ve seen variations of the following status on Facebook. Such-and-such a state just passed a law requiring drug testing for all welfare recipients. Woohoo!! Make this your status if you agree. Six months ago, when I first started seeing this post, I angrily, vocally dissented, but now I’m ambivalent. I should start off by saying that I’m not on welfare, and I don’t do drugs. Whether or not this law impacts me is not the point. The issue I’m really trying to tackle is whether or not it’s okay to implement this type of law, and as I start this post, I’m really not sure what my answer will be at the end.

As I said a moment ago, I have long been against drug testing, for a couple of reasons. My first issue with drug testing isn’t against the testing per se, it’s a fundamental belief that the government should not be able to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body. If women are allowed to have an abortion, which is GUARANTEED to end a life, then I should be able to smoke a joint. Whether or not I CHOOSE to ingest THC is not the point… I should have the RIGHT. The second reason I have a problem with drug testing is that everyone is presumed to be a drug user, and people are required to submit a sample to PROVE that they do NOT break the law. This flies directly in the face of “innocent until proven guilty.” The fact that my employer could require me to pee in a bottle is a mere technicality, and the fact that we allow a variation of innocent until proven guilty because it’s a civil issue, not a criminal one, is unconscionable.

At the same time though, we as a nation are starting to finally realize that we need to change our government’s spending habits. Requiring people on public assistance to abstain from drug use is a reasonable request at face value. In fact, cutting public assistance to anyone convicted of breaking a law is reasonable at face value. But how far do we carry our reasonable thought process? Do we revoke welfare checks for someone convicted of jaywalking or someone who receives a parking ticket? By the same token, alcohol is legal, but excessive alcohol consumption is correlated with poverty, joblessness and so forth. Should we prohibit welfare recipients from consuming alcohol? How do we handle the medicinal use of cannabis in states such as California, where it’s legal?

If we are going to require drug testing for welfare recipients, then why stop there? Would it not be reasonable to expand this testing to people who receive ANY government benefits? What about the low-income working family who receives food stamps? Yeah, they’re working, but they could theoretically trade their food stamps for drugs. What about Social Security recipients? Yeah, I know they paid in to Social Security, but let’s face it; they’re receiving FAR more than they paid in, so they’re eligible for drug testing too. And what about the disabled war veteran? Yeah, he served his country, but now that he’s getting disability, he should have to pee in a bottle like everyone else.

The fact of the matter is, ALL of these seem like reasonable requirements. After all, my money is more important than your personal liberty. Why should I spend my hard-earned tax dollars to support anyone who does drugs? In fact, why should my tax dollars be spent on alcohol? It seems VERY reasonable to me that anyone on the government dole should be required to stay clean and sober… or lose their benefits. And what the heck… we should extend this to kids as well. Let’s make our kids submit to random drug testing. Because after all, if my kid doesn’t see that food is more important than drugs, then my KID should no longer be eligible for public assistance either!

Ohhhhh… but wait. I like beer! What will happen to ME if this is enacted? Sure, I can have a beer now, but what about if I lose my job? What about when I retire? Oh… then I’ll have to give something up. And let’s face it, my money is more important than you are, but my freedom is important than your money! Oh wait! Now I have a philosophical issue… because if I feel that way, then chances are most everyone else does as well. This means that I have a choice to make… which is more important in general… personal liberty, or money? Cash or freedom? I, for one, am going to choose freedom.

Like I said, I really didn’t know where I would end up as I started this blog post. I guess I know. I would really like to know who agrees with me, and who disagrees. So, let me ask a few questions of you, my readers…

-Should welfare recipients be required to submit to random drug testing?
-Should the dependents of welfare recipients be required to submit to random drug testing?
-Should those on social security be required to submit to random drug testing?
-Should those on disability be required to submit to random drug testing?
-Should any of the above groups be required to abstain from alcohol? Tobacco? If so, which groups?
-Should any of the above groups lose benefits for being convicted of a crime? If so, where do we draw the line?

An Open Apology to God

2011-08-12T15:18:00.002-05:00

Dear God,

Hi, it's me [Evan]. I know that when many people experience problems in life, that they tend to doubt Your existence, or grow angry with You for punishing them. I'm not going to do that today. Nor am I going to ask You to reach down and fix my petty issues. No, what I AM going to do is publicly acknowledge that I got a bit preoccupied with the insignificant little details in my day-to-day life, and became complacent... complacent in my relationship with my family, and half-hearted in my relationship with You. Though I cannot promise that I will achieve the relationship that you desire, for I am mortal, I will do my humble best to pay attention.

Your Humble Servant,
[Evan]

Power Change in Washington? Don't Hold Your Breath.

2011-08-10T13:08:00.002-05:00

According to this article, a majority of Americans believe that incumbent politicians don't deserve re-election. Though the article says that "only 24% of all adults surveyed in the USA Today/Gallup poll said most members of Congress deserve re-election," the same article said that "56 percent of adults believe their own representative deserves re-election." What this basically means is that "your politician sucks, but mine is okay."

This mentality seriously undermines the idea of a major change in Washington. After all, I don't vote for your politicians, and you don't vote for mine. The ONLY way we will have any major change in Washington is for all of us to band together and throw out our own bums.

Tighten Your Belt Already

2011-08-09T12:17:00.002-05:00

I’m really sick of hearing my fellow countrymen bellyaching about money. Everyone’s crying about our country’s financial situation, but when push comes to shove, nobody is willing to make a real sacrifice and actually pay more in taxes, or suffer a reduction in their Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment, or whatever. You know what? It’s time for all of you to just shut the fuck up! I’m going to pick on a few demographics, but as I do so, you need to realize that I’m only singling out these groups to make a larger point.

Let’s start off with Social Security recipients. They’re a large, powerful demographic. When they speak, politicians shudder. As a result, Social Security has remained largely untouched, despite the fact that we’ve known for over two decades that current trends are unsustainable. Their rallying cry is that the government made them a promise. Am I the only one who thinks they have a selective memory? How many other promises has the government broken? What makes this promise so special? Has your age and wisdom taught you nothing? Are you still so immature that you fail to realize that circumstances change, and that not all promises can be kept? I honestly don’t care that you’ve paid into Social Security all of your life, because you are receiving FAR more than you paid in. I’ve paid in all of my life as well, but the sad fact is, there’s a very high likelihood that I will never get anything back. And you know what? I’m ready for that! So quit your bitching and share the pain!

What about the rich? They already pay more in taxes than everyone else. Yeah? So what? You are asked to pay more because you CAN pay more. I hear that high taxation on the wealthy is a disincentive to become wealthy. Sure, there’s a certain amount of reasoning there, but those arguing this position neglect to consider all of the super-rich trust fund babies who have never had to work a day in their lives. People who earn a lot of money deserve to keep it? Okay, but the operative word is “earn.” The wealthy may be asked to carry a heavier burden than the rest of us, but they have been more richly blessed as well.

Now let’s take a look at the opposite end of the spectrum… the super poor. They don’t have anything to begin with, so it’s not fair that they should be asked to sacrifice more. BULLSHIT!!! If you take more from society than you contribute, then you have no right to complain. You are not entitled to suck off of the government teat!

Corporations need to shut the fuck up too! I’m sick of hearing them complain about our high rate of corporate taxation, yet conveniently forget when the loopholes in our tax system allow them to effectively pay zero for the privilege of employing some of the most talented and dedicated employees in the world.

The reality is that our own selfishness got us where we are. The big question is whether or not we are going to man up and do what needs to be done, so that we can get ourselves and our decedents back on the road to fiscal sustainability. WE elected a government so partisan that we lost our top-notch credit rating. WE have allowed our politicians to spend money at an unsustainable rate. WE have come to expect the other guy to suffer so that we may keep our little creature comforts. And if WE don’t collectively tighten our belts – every one of us, then WE will collectively fail – every one of us. It’s time to put up AND shut up!

Evan’s 25th Reunion, Part VII of III (Wrapping it Up)

2011-08-08T18:45:00.002-05:00

Over the last several days, I’ve written quite a bit about my 25th high school reunion. Along the way, I kept wondering just how long I should string things out. I wanted to be thorough, I wanted to have fun, and I wanted to keep everyone entertained. Including this post, which is my last on the topic, I will have written seven installments of my Reunion Trilogy… same as the number of Harry Potter novels. Coincidence? I think so.

On this, the last installment of my High School Reunion Trilogy, I am going to make a few random observations, in no particular order…

-When I first saw Trinda and Laurie, I thought they were a couple.

-I was pleasantly surprised and mildly disappointed at the turnout. Fifty-plus is a lot of people, but it’s also less than 20%. Those of us who showed up had a lot of fun. I suspect that many who didn’t, are still hung up about shit that happened in high school. And I AM speaking from experience. That’s why I boycotted the 10th. Having attended the 25th, I am happy that I got over my little high school hang-ups. I also hope that what I’ve written over the last week or so will help others get over their shit and choose to attend the next reunion… the 30th?

-I wish that Greg would have gone. I think that he would have had more fun than he realizes.

-It’s kind of interesting that Jim, a long-time friend of mine, lives 30 minutes away from me, but it requires a reunion for us to actually get together. Heck, our families are even buried next to each other at the local cemetery, and we STILL don’t see each other more than once every few years.

-It was really good to see Joe, and it was funny to discover that we’re both computer geeks.

-I’m glad that I could talk Sonny into going. He expected that nobody would remember him. I think that he was surprised at how many people did… and at how many of them were part of the popular crowd in high school.

-Russ graduated high school a year behind us, and he went on to become the band director at our high school. I’m very proud of him. And I think it was REALLY cool when Linda came up with the idea of all of us leaving him a note on the band director’s podium.

-Steve. I can’t say enough good stuff about him. We were very good friends in high school, and life sent us in different directions. Seeing him was undoubtedly one of THE highlights of my weekend. Keep in touch, maestro.

Evan’s 25th Reunion, Part VI of III (The Pits)

2011-08-07T13:30:00.000-05:00

One of our Saturday events was an afternoon at the local swimming hole, affectionately dubbed “The Pits,” because the place started out as a clay pit that had filled up with water. I’m kind of proud of this one, because it was my recommendation to have a get-together there on Saturday, after the originally-planned afternoon at the skating rink fell through.

This was designed as a family-friendly event, so I took my kayaks along, with the idea that my younger daughter and I could spend some quality time together, and so I could help her learn how to roll a kayak. The day was hot and sunny, and the water was clear and cool… a wonderful combination that allowed us to spend a good hour or so puttering around in the boats.

One of the early arrivers was Linda, with her family in tow. When I saw Linda Friday evening, she showed pictures of her family, and I teased her about having a litter, because her family was so large. I really feel bad, because I can’t remember her hubby’s name, and I can’t remember if they had five kids or seven… but I seem to remember seven. And the reason I feel bad is because Linda’s husband seemed like a really cool guy, and awesome father. (You should have seen him playing with the kids at the pits! He was great!!) And the kids were just awesome… cute and polite, yet outgoing and fun. One of her boys was riding a little inflatable shark, and kept “attacking” my daughter and me when we brought our kayaks into range. It was a hoot!

Another fun part was the kayak rolling. There was a group of kids, not with the reunion, hanging out at the pits. As soon as I got my boat in the water, they came up to me and said “Hey, can we tip you over?”

“Sure,” I replied, without telling them that I could roll the boat back up. “Just give me a minute.” After I got myself situated, I told them to go ahead and tip me over. I stayed upside-down for about 15 seconds or so… just long enough to build up a little tension… and then I righted myself. The kids definitely weren’t expecting that. In fact, they were shocked that it could be done.

I should point out that I’m not exactly telling the story in a linear fashion, because THIS is when Linda’s family arrived. Linda asked about my spray skirt (a functional, though unfashionable accessory that’s absolutely necessary for rolling a kayak). When I told her the skirt’s purpose, she gathered her kids around, explained kayak rolling, and then I demonstrated. The kids were appropriately impressed, and I was sufficiently cool.

Shortly after this, others started showing up. My wife hung out with Duane and his wife, I focused on Erin, Linda’s family was a relatively self-contained unit, and the rest of the folks mingled very well. Though I was primarily playing with my kid, I did occasionally interact with my classmates, and I spent a lot of time feeling like I was a kid again, hanging out at the old swimming hole.

Evan’s 25th Reunion, Part V of III (I’ve got Street Cred)

2011-08-05T14:18:00.004-05:00

Today's story is one that I can't thoroughly and accurately relay in one simple blog post. But I'm going to, so please forgive me if my words are a bit disjointed...

I know it sounds horribly stereotypical, but I believe that black people are generally better dancers than whites. I KNOW there are exceptions, and this is NOT some sort of value judgment, so just take the statement at face value… I’m going somewhere with this, so work with me.

Towards the end of the first night, a group of us decided it was time to hit a different bar. The building was home to a club we used to frequent when we were younger, but that establishment has long since disappeared. The business that replaced it was phenomenal! When I walked into 11 (I believe that was the name of the place… I was too intoxicated to remember), I felt like I was walking into an actual urban dance club! The music was the perfect volume and tempo for some serious booty-shaking, and the décor was exceptional. Heck, they even had a dress code (but they made an exception for us, cuz we RULE)!

Despite the atmosphere, the place was relatively empty. The bouncer said that they’d just opened up, which worked well for us… more room to dance. One thing I noticed was rather typical of any dance club. There were several young women dancing together, and invariably some dude tried to get in on the action… with absolutely no success. The women would turn their backs on the “player” and pretend like he didn’t exist until he (they) got the hint and skulked away. That all changed when I hit the scene.

I’m not going to make things sound like I was some sort of playboy myself, because that’s NOT the case. I’m a happily married man. The truth was far simpler… I just wanted to go out and dance. Since the wife was unavailable, I looked around for a classmate (or two) who wanted to hit the floor, and off we went. Ann, Babette (I think Shelly) and I were on the floor for only a couple of minutes, when the sharks started circling. Since we’re all veterans of the nightclub game, we all knew how to react… we didn’t specifically shut them out and we didn’t specifically ask them to join us either. But when they tried to do some not-so-subtle grinding, the girls moved closer to me, and the guys got the hint. Eventually, I was the only guy on the dance floor, and even the aforementioned young women, sensing that it was safe… rather, that I was safe… came back out to shake it. It kind of became an unspoken agreement that when the sharks circled, I was the safety net.

Now, this wasn’t JUST a case of me being a safe guy. In all humility, I’m pretty fly for a white guy. In fact, during this dance-fest, Babette’s boyfriend joined us on the dance floor, and she said something along the lines of “No offense honey, but I’d rather dance with [Evan]. Fortunately, Brian understood that I wasn’t moving in on his woman, and it was all good in the hood.

I must say that it was really FUN to dance like that… I haven’t done so for quite a while. And it was a nice boost to my middle-aged ego to be surrounded by all of those ladies. But what I think was funniest, was that all of the guys were standing at the edge of the dance floor, studying my moves. At one point, I leaned in to Ann and said “You know, every guy in this place will be copying my moves for months.” And, by the way, this is the point where I should mention that most of the guys studying my moves were black dudes, about 20 years younger than me.

And when I eventually did leave the dance floor to grab a beer, every guy in the joint – the ones who didn’t know me, anyway -- showed their respect by giving me a wide area of space. Seriously, these cats walked waaaaay around me. What can I say? I guess I’ve got street cred! Apparently, more than I realize.

By the way... there's a hidden moral to all wannabee playas out there. If you want a chance with the single ladies who are out there in a group with their girlfriends, you will NOT get what you want by imposing yourself and sticking your junk in their faces. What you need to do is get out on the floor, be willing to look like a fool, and just dance with yourself. Hell, you don't even need to have that many moves... just get out there and look confident. The women will come to you!

Evan’s 25th Reunion, Part IV of III (Waxing Philosophical)

2011-08-04T14:13:00.002-05:00

Welcome to the fourth installment of my trilogy. I suspect that, unless you’re a regular reader of my blog, you didn’t think I could drag things out this long. The secret is to think like a politician… use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. But enough of that. Let's talk about the reunion.

Friday night, my classmates and I all met up at a bar we used to frequent in our younger days. Many of us hadn’t seen one another for decades, so we did what comes naturally in this type of situation… we played catch-up. But how do you cram 20+ years of life experience into bite-sized chunks… and do that several times in the same evening? You talk about common stuff... marriage, kids, employment and so forth.

The problem with talking about this kind of stuff is that some people think of it as a competition. “Yeah, we both have jobs, but who makes more money? We’re both married, but who has a trophy wife?” We’ve been taught from a very young age that success has a relatively narrow, quantifiable definition, and too many of us allow ourselves to be defined by others. I’m going to use two examples…

I hadn’t seen Mike C. for a very long time. I know that it had been 15+ years, and am reasonably confident that it had been 20+ years. We used to run around in some of the same circles, so I was genuinely interested in hearing a bit about his life. He looked and sounded a bit embarrassed as he told me that he still lived in town, and was an exterminator. I could sense his self-consciousness, but was unable to put him at ease. The conversation was short, and we both moved on to speak with different people. What he didn’t seem to realize was that I was genuinely interested in hearing a bit about his life. I wasn’t there to compete and brag.

There was another guy there that I didn’t immediately recognize. This wasn’t a deterrent to me. I walked up to MANY people throughout the course of the night and re-introduced myself. Duane, however, beat me to the punch and said hi to me. I would never have recognized him! But what really struck me was how he carried himself. Duane was obviously a man content with his lot in life. There were people there who had “better” jobs, or more children, or whatever, but Duane didn’t seem to care. It appeared Duane was at the reunion because he honestly wanted to catch up with people from his past.

If you ask me, Duane’s approach to is far superior. The idea of competing in life can only lead to stress and despair in the long run. This is because in any given competition, there can only be a single victor. And, taking the occupational competition as an example, not everyone is cut out to be a rocket scientist or professional athlete, and not everyone wants to be a rich banker or brain surgeon. Maybe I misinterpreted Mike’s apparent unease, but from my perspective, if he’s happy with his lot in life when nobody else is around, then he’s a successful man.

Evan’s 25th Reunion – Part III of III (The Accommodations)

2011-08-03T19:38:00.001-05:00

This one’s for Lynn, who said “Go for 3 in one day… be crazy!!! Just do it!! Peer pressure!!!!" But let me be clear… I’m done for the day after this post! You will need to wait until tomorrow (at the earliest) for the fourth installment of my trilogy.

This will cover a topic I touched on during my last post, but I need to back up over three decades before truly delving in. When I was twelve years old, my parents decided to move from Kansas back to their hometown of Mason City, IA. During the move, we stayed at the Sleepy Bear motel. I’ve always had fond memories of that place, but I am also a bit more skeptical with age. One thing that’s almost always a red flag when it comes to hotel accommodations is external doors. In my terminology, this is also what separates a motel from a hotel.

So, when I looked for a place to stay in Mason City, I considered a grand total of three places. I ended up selecting the American Best Inn for a combination of reasons… 1) I had fond memories of the place growing up. 2) It was very close to the weekend’s festivities. Close enough that I could walk, and not have to worry about drunk driving. 3) Price. Let’s face it, I’m money-conscious. 4) I asked my parents, who still live in Mason City, and they didn’t have anything negative to say about the place (until the next morning). I was willing to overlook the fact that it had external doors when I booked for the weekend. Big mistake.

When I got there, I saw that the pool was empty and broken. The front desk staff took… well, far too long… to realize that I had shown up. They fucked up my reservations and informed me that I’d need to change rooms the next day. And my motel room smelled like wet dog. With that said though, I planned to do nothing other than sleeping in the room, so I was willing to overlook the… ummm… minor inconveniences… that I had experienced. I went out and partied like it was 1999. My mom stayed in the room with my daughter while I was out living the high life.

When I got back, I was fairly intoxicated… and by “fairly intoxicated,” I mean “very drunk.” My head hit the pillow and I was out in seconds. The next morning is when I started noticing shit. When I woke up, I discovered that the comforters had a LOT of… ummm… feminine stains… on the underside. The bathroom (which I hadn’t visited until the next morning) was small, old and dingy, complete with peeling wallpaper. There was no bathtub, but the shower still contained a sleepy bear tile. I have to admit, a bit of nostalgia kicked in when I saw that.

Despite the fact that my daughter and I went to bed at the same time, I was up before her. So I left the motel and started my day. On my way out, I noticed that not only was the pool empty, it was downright TRASHED. I also saw that two of the prime first-floor rooms had become storage rooms. The curtains were not closed, and the rooms were in a major state of disrepair. But the capstone was probably when I saw too guys rolling “something” in Zig Zag rolling papers, right in the parking lot. Okay, that wasn’t the… ummm… lowlight.

At this point, I will remind you (from my earlier posts) that my wife met me in Mason City on Saturday. When we got back to the hotel, she saw a guy smoking from what she’s sure was a crack pipe, on the second floor balcony of his room.

We immediately cancelled our remaining night at the American Best, and moved to the Quality Inn. It was shortly after this that my dad told me that the American Best had a seedy reputation in town. Umm… thanks, dad, for telling me this when I originally asked!!

So, the moral of this story is that, unless you’re a crack whore, you should avoid the Mason City, Iowa American Best Inn motel at all costs. It really sucked.

Evan’s 25th Reunion, Part II of III (The Arrival)

2011-08-03T15:25:00.002-05:00

I’m going to do something I don’t ordinarily do… a second blog post in a single day. I’m doing this ONLY because Gina, one of my classmates, said that she couldn’t stand the suspense. (Okay, that and because I have the day off.)

I have to admit, I was looking forward to my class reunion long before the actual event. In addition to seeing some of my classmates for the first time in a quarter century, I was also giving my life a mash-up… introducing my wife and younger daughter to people from my past. It’s always interesting when my past meets my present. My original plan for Friday was to drive up, register at the motel (which is a story unto itself), eat, and hit the first night of the reunion. The first hiccup of the weekend occurred when my wife called me at about 4:00, saying that she got hit with a last-minute task, and there was no way that we could all leave on time. Being light on my feet, I took it in stride and said that there were three options… we all three leave home a bit later, that she meets us later at the reunion, or that she flakes out altogether. She ended up meeting me the next morning, and I let my younger daughter (who is 14) make the drive up.

Once we got to town, I registered at the motel. The motel was MUCH more run-down than I remember it. But then again, the last time I’d stayed there was 30 years ago. I’ve got to say, my entire graduating class has aged far more gracefully than that motel. The room – nay, the motel in general – sucked so bad that we checked out after one night and moved to a different place. I don’t remember the last time I’ve done that. In fact, I don’t think I’ve EVER done that.

Okay, Gina, I will end your suspense now, and actually say something about the reunion. My overall impression was that we’d aged well, that the stereotypical high school drama was conspicuously absent, and that we all interacted well with one another based on who we are today, not who we were in high school. This exceeded my wildest expectations. More about that in my next installment.

Evan’s 25th Reunion, Part I of III (The Forward)

2011-08-03T11:05:00.001-05:00

As the title suggests, I’ve decided to write about my 25th class reunion in a series of posts. Let me say from the outset that I pulled the number three out of thin air. I’m writing this on the fly, so I don’t know exactly how many parts this story will contain in the end. I do, however, suspect that it will be more than three, which means that I could theoretically end up writing “Evan’s 25th Reunion, part X of III.” Hey, it’s my blog, so they’re my rules.

I chose to break my experience into several posts for many reasons. You may have noticed that I don’t do daily posts like I used to, and this is an opportunity for me to get a lot of mileage out of one event… kind of like how the media got weeks’ worth of fodder over the government’s stupid, self-induced budget crisis. Furthermore, real life keeps me busy enough that it’s difficult to sit down and write an entire story in one sitting, even on weekends. And even if I did have enough time, I’d probably be too lazy to do it. Besides, let’s face it… we all live in the internet age, which means that our collective attention span is significantly shorter than it used to be. Therefore, if I had chosen to write a single long post, the chances of anyone reading my words start to finish are virtually zero. So why bother? In fact, I’ve decided that I’m going to end today’s post now. After all, I wouldn’t want to lose anybody. (And I get to draw things out for an entire extra day.)

Days Gone By

2011-07-29T10:35:00.002-05:00

This weekend I will be returning to my hometown to celebrate the 25th anniversary of my high school graduation. It’s with a nostalgic approach that I tell the following story of days gone by. I’ve written and re-written an introduction to this story numerous times today, but I keep straying too far from the point, so I’m just going to skip the intro and just delve right in.

During the summer between my junior and senior year of high school… wait… I need to back up a little farther…

When I was in high school, I noticed a lot of girls. Yeah, that’s natural, because, after all, I was a teenage boy. So of course I was going to notice a lot of girls. But I’m thinking of one girl in particular here. She was a year older than me... she had wonderful, waist-length, jet-black hair... a wonderful smile, even with braces... In short, she was beautiful. Though she had caught my eye on many occasions, I figured that we were worlds apart, and that I’d never have a chance with her. Somehow though, the planets aligned, and we met. I don’t recall when, where or how, but a cast party keeps coming to mind.

Knowing that was probably my one and only chance, I seized the opportunity and struck up a conversation with her. Again, I can’t remember what we discussed, but things must have gone well, because next thing I knew, we were dating. I was completely smitten with this young woman, and looking back it seems that I spent virtually every waking moment consumed with her. It seems that we were constantly together. When we weren’t together, I was looking forward to our next meeting. I was obsessed with her – in that teenage crush sort of way, not that creepy stalker way.

During the next couple of months, our mutual affection became more physical, though we never “went all the way.” Believe me though, I tried! I remember telling her that I didn’t kiss and tell. That was technically true, because I didn’t tell my friends per se, but I did have two friends in whom I confided enough vague detail that they were able to fill in the blanks.

Late that summer, I went on a family vacation. I didn’t want to go, because I couldn’t bear being away from her. But despite my longing for this girl, I met someone while I was on that vacation. I never got physical with the girl I met on my vacation, but the emotional connection was real enough for me to question the relationship I had with the girl back home. I came to believe that I had a crush on the girl back home, knew that I couldn’t carry it on any longer, and decided to end it after the vacation.

Wanting to say things as eloquently as possible, I wrote her a Dear Jane letter. Looking back, that was a shitty thing to do. But in my own defense, I had planned to at least deliver it in person and stand there while she read it. I stopped by her house many times during that day, but each time I knocked, there was no answer. Eventually, I lost my courage, and just left the note.

I was at a birthday party some time later… maybe later that week… and a couple of guys came up to me. One was one of the two friends I mentioned earlier… the other was a dude I had never met. They asked if they could chat with me in private. They took me aside and they both hit me… one in the jaw, the other in the gut. They said it was a message from the girl I’d left. They also told me that she wanted to talk to me, immediately… and further informed me that if I didn’t leave, right then and there, that they would find me and kick my ass.

I left the party and met with the girl. It was her and me, in public, surrounded by her friends, as she screamed and cried, and called me every name in the book. At the time, part of me felt bad for her. For the most part, I just wanted it to be over.

I don’t remember seeing her after that. In time, it all became a memory… the romance… the break-up… all of it, faded into the hazy, distant past. But every now and then, that summer comes back with a vengeance. And looking through the eyes of one who is much older, and a little bit wiser, the thing that re-surfaces most is a twinge of regret. Not over the relationship… not over having dated her… and not even at the public berating. No, what I regret is that I didn’t have the balls to look her in the eye, and actually say that I was breaking up with her. She was a good person who treated me very well. She deserved at least the courtesy of a face-to-face break-up.

Still Lame, After all these Years

2011-07-25T18:37:00.002-05:00

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... my high school graduating class is lame.

Don't get me wrong, we suck less than we did five years ago, which sucks less than we did twenty years ago, and that's not as bad as when we actually graduated. But for the most part, we suck.

Why do you ask? Well, it's generally accepted that 20 and 25 are big reunions. I didn't find out anything about the 20th until about a month before the event. I had planned to go, but life got in the way (which proves that I'm not immune to the lameness of my graduating class).

Fast-forward three or so years. I started talking to and hanging out with some of my high school classmates (aside from the one or two that remained my friends throughout). The ten to twenty of us who talk and hang out all seem to realize that we're not who we were, while reliving fun, sad or embarrassing times from our past.

I had kind of hoped that things would change for this year's 25th class reunion. No such luck. People started planning events around nine months ago. The events included...

-A Friday night get-together at a local bar. It's a rare establishment that was cool then and is still cool.

-A walk-through of the school Saturday morning.

-Hitting the skating rink. Designed to be a family-friendly event, but it was canceled because too few people committed to and paid for the event. (This is another areas where I'm not immune to the lameness. But in my defense, this is because I didn't read the itinerary carefully enough.)

-A big party Saturday night. $40 per person would buy the venue, food, two kegs, and a DJ for 4 hours. There was also a planned cash bar. Canceled because too few people committed and paid. (I did pay for this event.)

I still hold out a bit of hope though. Saturday afternoon, we're having an informal gathering at the local swimming hole. (I'm kind of proud of myself on this, because it's my suggestion.)

Saturday night is a pub crawl. I think I'll probably be done drinking by the time this really gets going, and I'm a little disappointed that there aren't more kid-friendly events, but the kids are old enough to fend for themselves for a while... besides my parents LOVE to spoil their grand kids.

Either way... I'll fill you in after the event and let you know how things went.

Sweet Birthday

2011-07-24T10:17:00.002-05:00

Yesterday was my birthday. Thanks to all of my friends and family who sent me birthday wishes.

I wasn't celebrating a milestone birthday or anything like that, so for the most part it was just another day. It was nice to have my birthday on a Saturday though. But with that said, it was a good day...

My younger daughter bought me a copy of King Rat, by James Clavell. I'm VERY impressed at the thoughtfulness of this gift, and here's why. Months ago, she and I went to Barnes and Noble to buy a gift for either my wife or my older daughter. I think it was the wife. While we were there, I saw King Rat and mentioned that it was a good book. The kid recommended that I pick it up, in addition to the gifts we bought, and one or two others. I left King Rat behind because I had already exceeded my budget. Now... take a look at this story... I don't remember how long ago this was, who I was shopping for, or the exact books I purchased. But my daughter not only remembered the title of a book I didn't purchase, she went out and bought it for me months later! That's one of the most thoughtful gifts she's ever bought me.

I also went to the Jones County Fair with my neighbors and younger daughter, where we saw My Darkest Days, Hinder and Seether. My neighbors asked me to go... I figured "What the hell, it's a free concert." I was more than pleased with their performances. I think that My Darkest Days has a lot of talent, and if they stay disciplined, they've got a shot at making it big. Hinder is comes across as an old-school, good time partying rock band, and Seether blew me away. I liked Seether before, but last night made me realize how many songs they have that I love... and their performance was dark yet polished. They turned me into an actual fan.

It was a good day, spent with family and friends. What more could a guy want?

Evaluating the Scrubbing Bubbles Automatic Shower Cleaner

2011-07-23T09:45:00.004-05:00

I'll admit it. I hate cleaning. Well, that's not exactly true. I can tolerate cleaning up after myself. But I really, really dislike cleaning up after other people. Geez, here I am, three or four sentences into what's supposed to be a review of a product, and I'm already going off some irrelevant tangent. Too bad, it's my blog, so you'll have to tolerate it for a bit. Anyway...

One thing I'm not wild about cleaning is my shower. Unfortunately, my shower is a high-moisture, low-light area, so mold and mildew tend to accumulate relatively quickly. I've tried all kinds of tricks to reduce the frequency of cleaning, but nothing's really worked.

-I don't like the idea of running a squeegee over the walls immediately after a shower. Why would I clean a shower before I finish cleaning myself?

-I tend to forget to spray the stuff after I shower.

-And once I've left the bathroom, cleaning is out of the question.

As a result, I've come to the realization that every few weeks, I'm going to need to scrub down my shower stall. But being a procrastinator, this turns into a quarterly job, which of course makes the clean-up all the nastier and more time-consuming.

Enter the Scrubbing Bubbles Automatic Shower Cleaner. The commercial shows a woman happily pushing a button, and the animated bubbles scrubbing the shower surround, leaving a tub so clean that it's almost like staring at the sun. I'm kind of a skeptic, so Dow's marketing department set themselves up for failure on this one... big time.

When I bought and installed the shower cleaner, my shower was already dirty and slimy. The fact is, I was hoping that I'd install the shower cleaner, push the button once, and the shower would be all bright and shiny clean when I walked in the next morning. I didn't EXPECT this result, but I did HOPE for it. Alas, my hopes weren't fulfilled.

But the packaging DID lead me to believe that running one full bottle of the cleaner, over its natural course, WOULD slowly but effectively clean the shower. Alas, that also failed to happen.

In fact, my first impression of this product was so dismal that I was having a hard time deciding whether to try taking it back, or to just smashing the piece of crap with a sledgehammer. But please, don't take this as my final review... stick with me. This story has a happy ending.

But like any good story, there must be trials and tribulations for the hero to overcome. such is the case here. In my specific instance, there were two things about the shower cleaner that I just hated...

-The first thing I hated was the abysmal battery life. And when I say "abysmal," I am not exaggerating... The day I bought the cleaner, I put four newly-charged AA batteries in. Within three days, the batteries were too weak to power the cleaner.

-The second thing I hated was how quickly I chewed through the bottle of cleaner. I should clarify on this one... the cleaner has two buttons... one for every day cleaning, and one for cleaning up bigger messes. I used the buttons a lot... each time I changed out the batteries... after every shower... and I ALWAYS used the heavy cleaning button. I plowed through the first bottle of cleaner in less than a week, and my shower was still grimy.

After this week, I had gone through two sets of rechargeable batteries, one bottle of cleaning solution, and my shower was still icky. Now you can see why I was frustrated and ready to toss this piece of crap into the garbage. But I am, if nothing else, a tinkerer at heart. I like knowing how and when things work, and how and when things fail to work. So I didn't give up.

With this tinkering mentality, I had two suspicions. One was that alkaline non-disposable batteries might work where rechargeable batteries failed. So I ditched the rechargeable batteries and installed a set of alkalines. I am happy to say that the alkaline batteries are working like a charm after several weeks of daily use.

The second thing I did was clean the shower and start from scratch. While the automatic shower cleaner failed to prevent me from having to scrub the shower clean, I will report that when I finally broke down and scrubbed my grout and tiles, it was a breeze. Using just a water-dampened scrubbing brush, I had my shower clean in less than five minutes. So it didn't exactly "clean" my shower, but it did make life simple when I finally did so. Furthermore, since the shower has been clean, I've been using the daily clean setting, which has dramatically slowed the rate at which my cleaning solution is depleted, AND my shower is staying pretty clean. Perfect? No. But it is a lot better.

So, at the end of the day, I will give the Scrubbing Bubbles Automatic Shower Cleaner a qualified thumbs up. I say "qualified" because there are a couple of things that consumers need to bear in mind when purchasing this product...

-You need to use non-rechargeable, alkaline batteries.

-You need to start out with a clean shower.

-This device will not make it so that you never again need to scrub your shower. What it WILL do, however, is significantly reduce the frequency of your cleanings, and noticeably decrease the amount of labor required to clean the shower when it's time to do so.

If spending a little bit more money is worth saving a little time and labor, but this product.

Bowl Full of Awesomeness

2011-07-22T17:00:00.003-05:00

Sometimes I need to toot my own horn. Today's one of those days. During the last week I...

-Had two clients ask me if I would leave my current employer and work for them directly.

-Got into a pull-ups contest with three other guys, and I successfully did as many pull-ups as all three of them combined. One guy was ten years younger than me, and one was five years younger. One guy was about ten years older than me, and couldn't do one pull-up, so it almost doesn't count... but then again it does, because he still thought that he was manly enough to crank one out.

-Got my kid to try buffalo meat, and she LIKED it. In the same meal, I took my first stab at cooking elk fillets, and they were freakin' TASTY!

Sometimes life is just really good.

Coming Home

2011-07-14T08:56:00.003-05:00

It's not hard to reach back to the day the war finally came Home
-"Sullivan," by Caroline's Spine

Over the last three years or so, I've had the pleasure of establishing a working relationship, nay a friendship, with a delightful woman named Erica. Erica has always been one of the shiny, happy people, with a bright smile and a positive outlook. And she frequently spoke about her husband, a man she obviously adored... a soldier in the National Guard.

Roughly six months ago, Erica told me that her hubby was being deployed to Afghanistan. As a veteran, all of my experience with family separation was as the person being sent overseas, and even then, it was my parents, brothers and friends I was leaving behind, not a spouse. So it was kind of interesting to hear about the deployment from Erica's point of view, and I made a point to ask about her husband each time I saw Erica. I distinctly remember her calling me when her computer died, because that meant that she lost her ability to video conference with him while he was in Afghanistan.

On Monday, I found out that he was killed on this tour of duty. I cannot speak with any authority, but it sounds like he was killed by an Afghan native at a routine checkpoint. I've also heard that this was his last patrol before coming home, and if I remember correctly, he planned to retire after this deployment. Erica and her husband were planning to have kids after he retired, so yes, they literally put their lives on hold for the military.

While I can empathize with Erica, I will not be so bold as to say that I understand what she must be going through. My heart really aches for her. Erica is a genuinely cool person, and doesn't deserve this agony.

This event, as you might understand, has prompted me to take a step back and once again ask myself if it's all worth it. For almost a decade, my country has embroiled itself in two separate conflicts, under the banner of protecting and preserving our freedom, with a secondary goal of bringing freedom to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. The question that keeps coming back to my mind is "Is this all worth it?"

In a word, I guess that my answer is 'no,' and now that I think about it, that's been my answer for a while. Now, since this is my freaking blog, I'm going to explain myself. And I suspect that once you read my rationale, you will find it difficult to refute my conclusions... but I'm MORE than willing to entertain any dissenting opinion.

Before I continue, I want to remind you that I'm not a liberal pantywaist who thinks that war is never the answer, and that all human life is sacrosanct. In fact, I firmly believe that if someone invades my home, or threatens my family with bodily harm, I should be able to reserve the right to preemptively kill that motherfucker so that my loved ones remain safe. My reasons for believing that we should bring our troops home are far more pragmatic.

I believe that the majority of the people in both countries we're occupying do not want democracy. What they want is security. The citizens of these countries knew what was necessary to get by under the old system. Shut your mouth, keep your head down, and play by the rules. Most of them were happy to oblige, as long as they were left alone. The thing is, we, the people of America, thought that we knew better. For better or worse, we are 100% convinced that everyone seeks our brand of freedom. What we fail to acknowledge is that not everyone thinks like we do. And the only way to change a society's fundamental thought process is by starting with the youth. This means that in order to successfully change the mindset of the citizens of these countries, we need to remain in these countries for a full generation, AND to win the hearts and minds of an overwhelming majority of the youth. I am not convinced that we can do this. I don't think that we can do it tactically, and I don't think that we can do it financially.

Speaking of tactics, there's another area of contention that I have with our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Tactically speaking, history has proven that a two-front war is virtually unwinnable. (I've said this many times in previous posts.) Yet here we are, trying to win wars in two countries. Furthermore, Afghanistan in particular has proven itself virtually impossible to conquer as a country. I thought that we went there to kill bin Laden... he's dead, so why are we still there? Oh yeah, to install a democratic (translation: Pro-American) government.

And what the hell are we doing with our rules of engagement? Apparently our politicians have forgotten the lessons of Korea and Vietnam. Once again, so that our stupid leaders can understand... we can let our military leaders do their job, their way, and win a war, or we can hamstring them and eventually lose. There is no middle ground.

Then there's the financial piece. Why are we spending money that we don't have to "protect" a people who don't like us? Can't our politicians see that we're already broke and hurting? Can't they see that our money would be better spent at home?

Damn. My original intent was to express sympathy for a friend during her time of loss -- an expression that I'm pretty sure she'll never see, because I haven't told her about my blog. But here I am, getting on my soapbox. Let me get back to my original point...

Erica, my heart aches for you during what I expect will be one of the most painful periods in your life. I am sorry for your loss. I know there's nothing that I can say that will ease your agony for a single second, so I won't even try. But please know that you have my condolences.

Lazy Children + Stupid Dogs = Hilarity

2011-07-04T10:06:00.003-05:00

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. My children are lazy little pigs, and my dogs are stupid. Generally, this frustrates the hell out of me, but every now and then, the results are really funny. Take what happened this morning as an example...

If you look at the picture, you will will see a hair straightener (circled in white) hanging next to the dog, and if you look closely, you will see an electrical cord below the white arrows.

The dog went into the kids' bathroom and got the cord wrapped around her neck. The hair straightener was not powered on, but it was still plugged in to the wall. As a result, the dog thought that she was on a very short leash, and just sat in the hall until I got to her and "let her off her leash."

Tackling Issues

2011-07-02T09:43:00.002-05:00

Roughly six weeks ago, I wrote a post about my older daughter's boyfriend. It was a post that I'd been avoiding, that covered a topic I'd been avoiding. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the boyfriend subject has once again reared its ugly head.

I found out a couple of weeks ago that the boyfriend has been charged with four crimes... first degree theft, burglary, conspiracy and using a minor to commit these acts. My original intent was to keep this information to myself. I've already told Bakin my position on her boyfriend, and I know that the only thing that would result from harping is a damaged relationship with my daughter.

My plans changed though, and I ended up talking to her about this again. Lately, she's been nagging me to let her boyfriend stay overnight, an idea I dislike for more reasons than I can count. She kept asking, and I kept saying no. One night though, she asked me how long until I'd let him sleep over. I didn't answer. Another night, she asked why I wouldn't let him sleep over. I didn't answer immediately. But when she asked why, I realized that I had to talk to her again about her boyfriend. That day was yesterday.

She wasn't feeling good, so it was a mercifully short conversation, but here's essentially what I said... You have asked me why Derek can't stay the night. It's because I don't trust him. He's been charged with first degree theft and burglary, and I don't trust him. I don't want him in my house. I get that you don't like this answer. But what you don't seem to get is that I am making a major concession to by letting him in my house at all. You need to be done asking me to let him stay the night.

She didn't yell back. She did inform me that she knew about the charges against him. (At least he's not hiding it from her.) She basically shut down for a while, and then left... ostensibly to hang out with him.

USS Dubuque Decommissioned

2011-07-01T17:35:00.003-05:00

I read an article today that said the USS Dubuque has been decommissioned. I spent almost a year on this boat. Out of EVERY place I have EVER been stationed as a US Marine, only two are still actually military installations... the USS Okinawa, and MCRD San Diego. And I expect that the Okinawa's days are numbered.

Correction. I just did a fact check to verify that the Okinawa is still in service. Nope. She was decommissioned in 1992... right after I left the Corps.

Free Society, My Ass!

2011-06-27T18:21:00.003-05:00

If we are a free society, then why do we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world?

If we are a free society, then why is the Supreme Court deciding whether or not cops have the right to put a GPS tracking device on someone's car without a warrant?

If we are a free society, then how is law enforcement allowed to seize a person's assets without due process?

If we are a free society, then why can I lose my job or freedom if I choose to consume marijuana?

If we are a free society, then why are parents thrown in jail for failure to pay child support?

If we are a free society, then why is the government saying that two consenting adults cannot marry?

Feel free to chime in...

A Month and a Half

2011-06-25T15:34:00.003-05:00

About 45 days ago, I got a migraine that directly led to a decision to quit smoking. I'm not going to preach. I'm not going to tell anyone else to quit. What I AM going to do is mention some of the differences I've noticed since I decided to give up tobacco.

-I may be free from tobacco, but I am not calling myself nicotine-free. I am chewing the nicotine gum, and I have no specific deadline for quitting that. In other words, I freely acknowledge that I may be substituting one addiction for another.

-Unlike other times in my life, this commitment to be tobacco-free seems to be sticking. A couple of weeks ago, a friend offered me clove cigarettes -- a major weakness of mine -- and I declined his offer without batting an eyelash. Okay, it took a LITTLE bit of willpower, but I resisted.

-I get heartburn MUCH less frequently than I did as a smoker.

-My appetite has pretty much returned to normal. For the first couple of weeks, I was CONSTANTLY hungry. That seems to have subsided.

-It was not, and is not, nor do I expect it to be, difficult to have a beer without a smoke in my hand. The gum is a perfectly viable substitute.

-I spend FAR less money on nicotine gum than I spent on my daily cigar habit. I chew two to five pieces of gum per day. I also smoked (and inhaled) three to five cigars per day.

-I have FAR fewer headaches.

-I don't get winded doing (insert activity here).

-My sleep patterns are far healthier.

-I am STILL very cognizant of how clear my lungs are. But with that said, I am STILL coughing up itty bitty chunks of phlegm each morning in the shower. I think, though, this is a result of allergies. I believe that I'm done coughing up stuff due to smoking.

-No more dragon breath. There are two types of dragon breath brought on from smoking. One is the horrible morning breath. The other is the result of a mixture of coffee and smoking.

-No more hysterical laughter devolving into coughing fits.

-Noticeably more money in my pocket.

-I am FIRMLY convinced that inhaling cigar smoke is less damaging to the human lung that cigarette smoke. I have smoked cigarettes or cigars for years. Each time, I am surprised how much more quickly cigar smoke clears from my lungs, despite how heavy cigar smoke is when compared to cigarettes. I believe the difference is the amount of processing that goes in to manufacturing cigarettes as opposed to cigars.

Again, this isn't designed to convince anyone else to give up tobacco. I am a firm believer in personal choice and personal responsibility. You can smoke or not smoke... it's your choice. I am simply sharing some changes I've noticed as a result of giving up tobacco.

Evaluating the Plantronics Explorer 240 Bluetooth Headset

2011-06-21T14:45:00.002-05:00

I've always been kind of irritated by those kinds of folks... you know, the ones that ALWAYS walk around with a bluetooth headset in their ear. The ones that especially pissed me off were the ones with a bluetooth headset, a three-piece suit, and a grande mocha latte (or whatever) from Starbucks... they just come across as people who take themselves FAR too seriously.

With that said though, there are three things that helped me realize the wisdom of a bluetooth headset...

1) I am a computer geek. And over the years, I've learned that it's no fun to try to type a command on a keyboard while holding the phone. The same thing applies to crawling behind a computer located in a dark corner. Bluetooth is VERY handy during long, drawn-out tech support calls.

2) Driving and talking on the phone is also a drag if you have to hold the phone. Furthermore, some states REQUIRE hands-free driving. Driving is another situation where bluetooth is awesome.

3) Talking to my mom. Look, I love my mom to death, but that woman can talk. I can't count how many hour-plus conversations I've had with her over the years. When it comes to talking to my mom, bluetooth and cellular service are a Godsend. They allow me to do other things (like scrub my toilet, or work on my belly button lint sweater) while I talk to my mom.

As you've probably concluded, I broke down and bought a Plantronics Explorer 240 bluetooth headset just shy of a month ago. I will spare you a long, drawn-out evaluation and simply say that I like it. It's got good battery life, and good voice quality, both for me AND for the person on the other end of the call. The only thing I don't like about it is that it's uncomfortable sitting in my ear for hours on end. But that's because I wear glasses, and both of the over-the-ear pieces are competing for limited space. This isn't a design flaw on Plantronics' part.

Now with that said, if you do invest in a bluetooth headset, you should know a couple of things...

1) You look like a ~~dork~~ douche if you always walk around with your headset on. If you're not actively on a phone call, put the damn thing away.

2) Be prepared for people to not realize that you're on the phone when you use a bluetooth headset. If you're listening to the person on the other end of the phone, be prepared for friends, family and co-workers to not notice the headset, walk up to you, and just start yammering away as if nothing's going on in your world. Be patient with them. Try to come up with some sort of sign to explain that you're on the phone. If you're speaking, be prepared for them to look at you as if you've lost your mind, because they'll think you're talking to yourself.

3) Re-read rule number one. Seriously. If you're not actively using the headset, put it away.

Evaluating the Samsung Mesmerize

2011-06-16T08:28:00.002-05:00

I've been using the Samsung Mesmerize for roughly two months now, after switching from the HTC Touch Pro 2 that I owned for two years. Let me say up front, I'm a convert. Over the years, I've had several smart phones with several different operating systems. I've used the Palm OS, Windows CE and its variations, and now the Android OS. I can confidently say that Google got it right.

The one negative I found with the Mesmerize was the abysmal battery life. When I first bought the phone, I frequently had to charge the phone multiple times per day. The poor battery life kind of took the "mobile" out of mobile phone. However, a little research helped me find a couple of different ways to extend the battery life significantly. And when I say "significantly" I mean that my phone will now hold a charge for three-plus days during periods of light use. The two major changes I made were to reduce the screen brightness and to turn off GPS. GPS was the big power hog. My recommendation is to kill it if you're not actively using it.

Once that was out of the way though, I found nothing to dislike about the Mesmerize. It outperformed my HTC in every possible way. Yeah, I know it's not fair to compare these two phones, since the HTC was two years old, but this is how end users tend to evaluate their new phones. "Is it better than the old one?" Yeah. It's faster, brighter, lighter and almost never needs to be reset. The old Windows phone needed a reset almost weekly.

I think that Swype typing is really cool. At first it's a bit slower than typing, but once you get used to the change, it's really fast. I also like having voice-navigated GPS (about the only time I actually turn on the GPS feature), and the wide variety of free apps available for Android users.

My one concern going in was that I would have difficulty connecting to my exchange server at work. It took about five minutes to figure things out, but once I did so, the phone connected right up.

After a couple of months with this phone, there are only a couple of things I don't like... the late-night texts and emails... but that's because I chose to own a smart phone, not because of any weakness in the actual device. The Samsung Mesmerize is a great device that I'd highly recommend.

Evaluating the Vega V-Tune Motorcycle Helmet

2011-06-11T08:45:00.003-05:00

After owning nothing but entry-level helmets for the last five years, I figured that it was time to upgrade a bit. For as long as I've ridden, I've worn no-frills helmets. My position was that a helmet's job is to protect my head in the event of a crash, so why spend all the extra money?

As time went by though, I understood that it would be nice to be able to talk with my passenger. I bought a chatterbox CB50 system. Again, the job was communication, and maybe listening to music, so why spend all the extra money. The CB50 did its job, but after riding for an hour or so, the speakers began to press on my ears uncomfortably. The helmet was not designed for the speakers. With this in mind, I figured I'd bite the bullet and buy a new helmet. After looking at available features, I decided on the Vega V-Tune.

Getting a helmet over the internet was a huge leap of faith, because every helmet fits a little bit different. The Bell helmet I've worn for several years was snug. The V-Tune fits noticeably looser than the same-sized Bell. The thing is, this ever-so-slight increase in room makes a tremendous difference in comfort without being unsafe. Additionally, the V-Tune is far lighter than the Bell.

Bluetooth is a nice feature that I don't use nearly as much as I expected I would. I've coupled the bluetooth with my smart phone, giving me the capability to send and receive phone calls, and to listen to music. Both features work adequately in town, but I wouldn't recommend a phone conversation at speeds over 35 to 40, and listening to music isn't worthwhile past 55 to 60.

One feature I absolutely love is the built-in flip-down sun visor. It makes riding into the sun a non-issue.

One thing I don't like is that the visor is kind of noisy at high speeds. The visor vibrates against the base of the helmet unless your head is even slightly tilted down.

Overall, I am satisfied with my purchase. The Vega V-tune is far more comfortable than my old helmet, and the bluetooth feature functions about as well as I had expected. I'd probably buy it again.

Relief

2011-05-25T17:42:00.003-05:00

My oldest daughter completed her last day of high school today. Graduation is this Saturday. I know a lot of parents out there who are feeling anxiety over the fact that their babies are graduating high school. I, for one, don't really share that sentiment.

You see, my kid is bright, but she's not that motivated. Maybe that's the wrong way to phrase it... because she's willing to work on something if she is interested, or if she sees a payoff. But if something fails to capture her imagination, or if she's not really interested, then she's not prepared to put much effort into it. As a result, her grades in math and science tended to really suck. I can't remember a single semester where she didn't bring home at least one D.

My kid and I really butted heads over her grades. I tried yelling, grounding, tutoring... nothing worked. Eventually I resigned myself to the fact that my kid was going to have less-than-stellar high school grades... and the possibility that she might even have to stay in school for an extra semester.

But it looks like she's actually made it. I wish that she could have done better, but I'm happy for her... and I'm relieved.

An Ocean of Peace

2011-05-24T19:56:00.002-05:00

Every once in a blue moon... I mean REALLY rarely, I will be be doing (whatever) and out of nowhere my subconscious mind tells me to stop. I'm still aware of what's going on, but I am kind of disconnected from life for the briefest of moments, and drowned in a wave of peace. While life continues whizzing by me for that microsecond, I am removed just long enough to appreciate what I have, and to be thankful for my life.

I just had one of those moments, and they're part of why I am convinced that God exists.

Handyman

2011-05-23T18:57:00.003-05:00

Well, it took me two trips to the hardware store and several hours, but I have once again demonstrated my handy man repair abilities. The pipe for my outdoor faucet burst over the winter, so I fixed it. Since it was a non-critical pipe, and I was able to do it at my leisure, I figured what the hell. I may be slow at it, but I have to admit that I'm getting reasonably adept at repairing copper plumbing. And of all the jobs I've done in the past, this one didn't suck too bad.

By the way, this is the second year in a row that this pipe has burst, so I replaced the internal shutoff valve and insulated the pipe while I was at it. Hopefully I'll be done plumbing for a while.

Just for shits and grins, here are a couple of pictures...

Here's a before shot. Notice that the pipe burst at the elbow...

Here's the after shot. During my work, I noticed that the pipe going through the wall had also burst, so I replaced that as well. It was actually easier to cut out the old valve and replace it too, which I did, but when I installed the new one, I installed the valve so it was pointing toward me instead of facing away.

A Long Post I've Been Avoiding

2011-05-19T18:16:00.002-05:00

Today's post has been rolling around in my mind for quite a while, but I've avoided actually writing it. In fact, I've avoided the topic so much that I still don't know exactly what I'm going to say.

Regular readers know that I am pretty open and plain-spoken. I am willing to write freely and honestly about a lot of things. That said though, I have a couple of guidelines that I try to follow... I try to avoid writing stuff that I know will be absolutely hurtful, and if I am going to cover something uncomfortable, I try to wait until the actual event has passed to write about it. But this just won't wait anymore...

My older daughter, the one who's over 18 and graduating high school in a couple of short weeks, has been dating a ~~man~~ boy who doesn't meet my standards. This is a tough topic for me, because I've kind of prided myself on my ability to roll with the punches. Furthermore, I've generally been satisfied with my daughter's judgment. And to top it all off, I've BEEN the not-good-enough boyfriend on more than one occasion.

Bakin has been dating Derek for somewhere between six months and a year. My first impression of him reminded me of Eddie Haskell. He knew the right things to say to the adults, but he was kind of mischievous, in a harmless sort of way. I had a bit of Eddie in me as a kid, so it was easy to recognize and difficult to condemn.

After a few months, he got into a major tiff with his mom, who booted him out of his house. A friend took him in, and within a week he and the friend got into a fist fight, and the friend's parents booted him out of the house. A second friend took him in, and within a week he and the second friend got into a fist fight, and the friend's parents booted him out of the house. He was forced to sleep in his vehicle for a couple of nights, and then started sleeping in cheap motels.

A couple of times he butt-dialed me from his cell phone. One time, he was talking about how high he was... the other time he was talking about how he was drunk and stuck. I don't have a problem with consuming mind-altering substances per se, but both butt dials kind of showed a general lack of judgment on his part.

In addition to this, he's had difficulty maintaining steady employment. Are you seeing a pattern emerging here?? Difficulty maintaining friendships, difficulty maintaining a stable home environment, and difficulty maintaining a job.

Now, with that said, the guy is kind of charming. In fact, I could see my 20-year-old self hanging out with him and having a good old time. But I am no longer my 20-year-old self, and the people I hung around with at 20 weren't good enough to be dating my daughter (with a couple of exceptions). So it's not that I started hating the guy, it's just that I decided that my kid deserves better.

But there's another complication... About a month ago, I was pulled over by the cops. The OFFICIAL reason I was stopped was because my license plate lights were out. The REAL reason I was stopped was because the cops were looking for Derek.

To shorten a VERY long story, I let them come to my house and talk to Bakin about the investigation they were conducting on Derek... he ended up showing up at my house during this questioning. They didn't have enough evidence to arrest him. But this DEFINITELY made my opinion of the boy go south.

Another month went by, and it seemed that the investigation was going nowhere. But then again, maybe not. The cops showed up at my house AGAIN last night and arrested Derek, who was in my driveway, dropping Bakin off. (Ever since the first time he's pretty much not been around the house, other than to pick my kid up, or drop her off.) And when the cops were arresting him, Bakin was ragging on the cops.

Eventually, I had enough and sent her inside, except that she didn't listen. I had to physically restrain her and drag her into the house. She was STILL going off on the cops, and me as well. The cops finally threatened to arrest her for disturbing the peace and domestic disturbance, at which point she finally shut up.

I'm really at the end of my wits over this. I know that I can't make her break up with him. In fact, she's been talking about getting an apartment with him after graduation -- this is despite the fact that I actually broke down a couple of months ago and told her that she deserves better. But even more than I know I can't will them to separate, there is no doubt in my mind that he's done SOMETHING to warrant the cops' attention... that my little girl deserves better... that the longer she stays with him, the worst things will end...

Too Long

2011-05-17T10:00:00.003-05:00

I had a thought stuck in my little head last night, which prompted me to write this morning. Before I start with the real topic though, I've got to admit that I'm a bit chagrined over how long it's been since my last entry... it's been far too long. With that said, let's get on with the topic for today.

Those of you who know me realize that I'm hooked on nicotine. I've smoked cigarettes or cigars, or chewed tobacco off and on (mostly on) for about 25 years. I've quit too many times to count. I can easily make it for a week to a month, but after that I've relapsed.

Well, about a week ago, I bought a pack of cheap cigars and smoked them all in just a few hours. Later in the evening, I got a raging migraine headache, complete with nausea so bad that simply rolling over in bed caused me to vomit. That was enough. I've quit (again).

Having gone without any tobacco for almost a week (today is day six), has given my lungs a chance to clear out. As I was laying in bed last night, a thought kept running through my mind. Those of you who have gone from long hair to short will understand...

After a major haircut, I always noticed the breeze on my neck and ears for the first couple of weeks. While laying in bed last night, I very acutely noticed the "breeze" in my esophagus and lungs. It's kind of nice letting my lungs clear out again. They've been clogged with crap for too long.

Food for Thought

2011-03-30T14:32:00.001-05:00

I received this message earlier today. The premise of the message is that We the People should band together and strip congress of most of their perks. A lofty goal indeed…

---Begin original Message---
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure. I'm asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. Term Limits. Twelve (12) years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure/No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!! If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete

Please keep it going.
---End original Message---

I’ve got some comments on the original text of this email. (Gee, THERE’S a shocker!!) The premise of the text is that our elected officials are corrupt, greedy, and believe themselves exempt from the very laws that they create. This is a sentiment that a large majority of Americans, myself included, seem to have toward politicians. The problem is that the original author seems to overlook the fact that the very politicians who receive these obscene benefits would have to support the legislation that strips them of their privileges – something that goes against human nature.

The email begins by referring to constitutional amendments, and implying that with enough grass-roots support, we could do virtually anything. What the author fails to recognize, however, is that constitutional amendments are, by design, very difficult to enact. There are four methods for a constitutional amendment to pass, two of which have never been used, and the third has been used only once. These paths are as follows…
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
My point is that for any constitutional amendment to become a reality, BOTH HOUSES will be required to pass the proposal by a 2/3 majority, and then 75% of the states have to ratify (approve) it. Considering that the politicians would be stripping themselves of the very privileges they have granted themselves, I think that it’s unrealistic to believe that 2/3 of congress will vote to pass a law turning them back into mere mortals. Furthermore, history has demonstrated that many of our federal officials have started out at the state level, so I have an equal amount of skepticism that the states would ratify such an amendment.

Let’s take a different approach and ask for simple legislation – a law that would enact the aforementioned recommendations. Do you believe that even a simple majority of our politicians would support these common sense recommendations? I certainly don’t! As I said before, this goes against human nature. To bring my point a little closer to home, ask yourself how you voted in the last one or two elections. Did you vote for a candidate who has a track record of restraint and fiscal discipline? Or did you vote for the candidate who promised to do the most to benefit YOU? It is very difficult to expect a politician to carry values that constituents don’t themselves possess. As an example, Americans are currently screaming that our government can’t continue spending money like drunken sailors, but we scream even louder when our tax bill increases, or when our Medicaid/Social Security entitlements decrease. We demand that legislators stop pork barrel spending, but re-elect our politicians when they bring home the bacon.

I still agree with the original author’s premise that our elected officials have too many perks, pay that’s too high, and benefits that are downright obscene. But until we can exercise a little bit of discipline of our own, I kind of wonder how much we can fault them.

Sick of It

2011-03-29T08:28:00.002-05:00

I really don't know why I keep reading political articles... all they tend to do anymore is fill me with disgust. It's like I'm a junkie who knows that political information is bad for me, but I continue to take just one more bump. Next thing I know, I'm filled with anger and disgust, mixed with helplessness over the knowledge that I don't have enough influence to change things myself.

The article that set me off this morning was about the union flap in Wisconsin. For the record, I'm rather ambivalent about the actual issue. What continues to gall me is how the Governor is handling the situation. Most recently, the law (which significantly changes unions for public employees in Wisconsin) was passed and signed by the Governor's office. But apparently a court order prevented the Secretary of State from signing and publishing the new legislation. This court order, based on my understanding, essentially prevented the law from going into effect. However, the executive office in Wisconsin posted the law on some web site and is now claiming that the law is in effect.

Whether or not this is actually the case from a legal standpoint, I am disgusted with the action in and of itself. From where I stand, this is a case of the Governor saying to the judicial branch "Fuck you, I'll do what I want." The era of honoring the spirit of our system of government is long dead. We are firmly rooted in the technical aspect of our system. Can't get what you want? Oh well, do it anyway and then claim a technicality.

I really wish that my fellow constituents would stay disgusted at our system long enough to throw all of our politicians out on their collective asses. Yep, make EVERYONE start all over again... because I, for one, am sick of the way things are now.

Springy

2011-03-18T08:06:00.001-05:00

Spring must be approaching, because I took my bike out for my first ride of the year. It was a bit cool and damp in the morning, but the afternoon ride home was nice.

Operation Christmas Child

2011-03-16T14:24:00.009-05:00

My Church participates in Operation Christmas Child. My understanding of Operation Christmas Child is that we give a shoebox full of goodies (toys, school supplies, hygiene items and so forth) to children in poor areas of the world. Today I received a news letter from the Church saying, in part, that "one out of three children will probably accept Christ from receiving a shoe box." I'm kind of ambivalent about this.

I guess I'll start with my "against" argument... mainly because I want to end on a positive note. From MY perspective, being a Christian is about serving, and talking about Christ to those who are ready to hear what I have to say. Sometimes I have intellectual discussions with people, other times I have emotional/spiritual talks. Occasionally I bring up the topic of my spirituality, but usually I try to simply respond when others broach the subject. Always... always, my goal is not to try to convince anyone that my way is right. My approach is to listen to people, ask thought-provoking (or soul-searching) questions, and leave people with food for thought. In my experience, trying to brow-beat or debate someone into believing in God is counter-productive. I have had better success in sharing my story of faith and allowing others to find God in their own way and time.

This is what I have against Operation Christmas Child. Instead of simply giving to... serving.. our fellow man, as Jesus instructed us to do, this organization packs the shoe boxes full of literature, requires recipients to attend some sort of rally, and then does a follow up. I have nothing against this in and of itself, but I do have an issue with the psychological aspect of it. Basically, we're bringing stuff to children, and then saying "Look at how awesome we are. You should convert to Christianity, and then you could be awesome too." Furthermore, from a strictly psychological standpoint, we are exploiting the vulnerabilities of the weak. Those who are starving will say or do just about anything for a good meal. Isn't it realistic to expect that many of these "one out of three" are simply paying lip service to their benefactors? Not only is Operation Christmas Child cajoling the needy, they are manipulating statistics to perpetuate their cause. It seems to me that if people are giving for the sake of giving, then the statistic shouldn't matter; and if people are giving strictly for the sake of turning pagans to Christ, then a .001% success rate should be considered a success, because one cannot place a value on salvation of the damned.

On the other side of the coin, I should say for the record that ministry is not a bad thing. I believe that I am a better, happier person since I started going to Church and actually putting effort in to my relationship with God. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to tell others about God. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting friends, family and even total strangers to experience the peace, love and joy that people of faith can experience. With this in mind, I need to acknowledge that there's nothing inherently wrong with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and so forth sharing this joy as well. But I draw the line at Mormons. [KIDDING!!!] I think it's a good thing to talk to one another about spirituality, as long as those involved in the discussion understand and respect the boundaries. It's okay for an atheist to question my beliefs, as long as they don't discount and ridicule them. It's acceptable for me to challenge a Muslim's view on God, as long as I realize that they are coming from their own position of faith. It's cool for a Buddhist to chat with an atheist about Siddhartha Gautama, as long as the Buddhist understands that the atheist's faith that there is no God is as understandable as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Oh crap. I think that I totally lost the point. Oh yeah, the point is this... it's okay to discuss faith. It's not okay to force your beliefs on another autonomous being.

How Discouraging!

2011-03-11T15:27:00.004-06:00

Last year when the Mrs. and I did our taxes, we ended up owing about $1000 to the Federal Government. In an attempt to get ourselves closer to zero, we amended our W-4s so that we were claiming married with zero exemptions. Despite the fact that Uncle Sam withheld more from each paycheck, we ended up owing $2000 this year, and nothing's really changed. It's almost enough to make me join the Tea Party.

Proof that Black and White can Co-exist

2011-03-08T18:43:00.002-06:00

Success!

2011-03-08T07:53:00.002-06:00

You may remember my post from last month, where I said that I was going to do a test-run of cutting the cable cord. I am pleased to announce that it was a resounding success, and as of yesterday, I have officially canceled my cable TV service. From now on, it's all Netflix and Hulu for this family.

YAP

2011-03-06T12:21:00.004-06:00

In this case, "yap" is neither a euphemism for speaking nor for the mouth. No, for the sake of this post, "yap" is an acronym for Yet Another Project. This was kind of a side project, especially when compared to the scale and time I've taken to refinish my kitchen cabinets.

For a little background, the picture above is what things looked like before. I ripped out the carpet over the summer because my dog (the one who got her tail chopped off last month) decided to turn this area of the house into her personal urinal. The carpet reeked and was beyond saving, so I yanked it out, leaving bare cement in the basement for months and months. Eventually, enough was enough, so I decided to lay some vinyl flooring.

Here's the finished product. It took a couple of days to lay this 10'x12' section of flooring, with the lion's share of the task being prep work... scraping off any remains of the carpet padding, removing the carpet tacks, and filling in any divets with epoxy. The actual laying of the vinyl squares was pretty simple, and I am VERY happy with the finished product. One of these days I will repaint the walls and the brick surrounding the fireplace. That beige is so freaking boring.

Blog Comments

2011-02-22T14:01:00.002-06:00

Am I the only one who is experiencing the mysterious disappearance of my comments? The last three comments I've made, on three different blogs, have vanished as if I had never made them.

OMG, It's Been a Whole Freaking Year!!

2011-02-19T18:23:00.003-06:00

Those of you who know me know that I tend to be addicted to doing projects. Last February, yes, and entire year ago, I decided to reface my cabinets. I have long despised my not-quite-white-anymore cabinets and after consulting with Mrs. Evan, I decided to reface them. I plugged away slowly but steadily for about three months... doing one cabinet door every now and then as time allowed. And then the project stalled. It's been a LOT of work. Finally, after months of seeing my not-quite-halfway-finished project staring me in the face day in and day out, I have broken out of the rut.

Over the last couple of days, I've gotten back into the swing of things, and I am moving forward again with the cabinet refacing. Here's a shot of the first set of cabinets that I've refaced...

For those of you keeping track, note that these cabinets started out completely white. I punched out the center and installed frosted plexiglass, sanded the paint off of the cabinet doors, and put a wood veneer over the cabinet frames.

I've got to say that I'm VERY pleased with the outcome thus far (bearing in mind that I'm a LONG way from finished... this is only the first cabinet, and I haven't stained them yet.) But at the same time, I had NO IDEA how labor intensive this project would be. If I had it to do all over again, I would have never started this, saved up the money, and started from scratch. It's relatively inexpensive, but the amount of labor I've put in thus far is downright obscene.

By the way, if you're interested in what things looked like before, take a look at the original post I wrote when I started this.

Interviewing a Writer

2011-02-19T09:10:00.003-06:00

This is actually the second time I've interviewed Paulius. But since he's managed to write and publish a book, I figured that it was time for another interview. This time it'll be strictly about his book. My questions are in black, and his responses are in blue.

Fill me in on the whole national novel writer's month.
National Novel writing month is exactly what it sounds like. The aim is to write a novel during the month of November. It’s not exactly a competition. There are no judges…it’s purely about word count. Anyone who makes the 50,000 word limit by November 30th ‘wins’. There are no prizes either, except for a few special offers from sponsors. Essentially, it’s just an event to motivate you into writing.

What made you decide to do it?
To see if I could, basically.

My hard drive is littered with short stories and abandoned novels. I have a habit of starting a new story and getting bored of the idea long before the story is finished. I figured that having a set deadline and publicly stating on my blog that I’d entered Nanowrimo would motivate me to actually finish something.

Plus, I figured if my finished story was good enough, I could sell it and raise some money for Child’s Play.

Tell me a bit more about Child’s Play.
Child’s Play is a children’s Charity that was started by Mike Kruhulik and Jerry Holkins from the Penny Arcade webcomic.

The original idea was essentially a used toy drive. Penny Arcade readers would donate their old games and hardware which would then be given to local Hospitals… basically something to make life a little more pleasant for the kids who spend hours and hours per week hooked up to dialysis machines or undergoing chemo. Unfortunately, they were told that the hospitals couldn’t accept used merchandise. Some of these kids are so sick that even the dust from your house can cause them serious problems. So, instead, they set up a few Amazon wish-lists and asked for new, sealed items.

The first year they didn’t know what to expect, so they were using Mike’s house to accept deliveries. UPS turned up with a full truck…then Fedex arrived…then multiple USPS trucks. They had to get a warehouse company to donate some space just to have somewhere to put it all. From there it developed into a full-blown charity that collects literally millions in donations every year for hospitals worldwide.

With the popularity of Penny Arcade, Mike and Jerry found themselves in a position of influence over millions of gamers, and rather than use that influence to make themselves richer, they used it to help people…just because they could. I can’t think of anything more admirable, and that’s why I chose Child’s Play to donate my royalties to.

Also, in a society that views gamers as violent, anti-social deviants, I really appreciate the opportunity to show that the gamer community is made up of good people. We raised over 2.2 million dollars last year, and have surpassed the previous year’s total every year Child’s Play has been running.

Now that you’ve finished and published a novel, is there any motivation to go back to these abandoned pieces and see if you can polish or rework them to a usable point?
It’s highly doubtful. Firstly, a lot of them are from my teens before I had any formal training and they’re just plain awful. The ones that aren’t terrible are experiments that just didn’t go anywhere.

At best, I could just take a concept I’d abandoned and start over from scratch…but as I mentioned earlier, the reason I abandoned most of these ideas is because I got bored of them. I really need the excitement of a new idea to start me writing.

Why a zombie story?
I chose a Zombie story because I wanted something with a relatively simple plot that I knew I’d be able to finish in time. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized I had a pretty cool opportunity.

It struck me that if a Romero-style zombie apocalypse started tomorrow, 99% of the stuff you see in movies would result in an early, painful death. Given that Zombies are only dangerous in large numbers and, even then, only if they have you surrounded or cornered… why would you even consider barricading and trapping yourself anywhere. You can escape at a fast walk!

So I wanted to write something different…a more ‘realistic’ zombie story that points out the sheer ridiculousness of the usual zombie tropes and avoids all the usual clichés. No mall siege, no chainsaws, etc, etc. I’m not saying I did anything spectacular or groundbreaking, the book is basically the novel version of a popcorn movie, but it’s different from the usual stuff.

I can also not express the sheer amount of rage I felt when ‘The Walking Dead’ premiered just as I was finishing the first draft. Walking Dead is an awesome show that matched my overall ‘realism’ concept exactly…which just proves that AMC are a bunch of time travelling plagiarists.

Why a single plot line as opposed to dual plots?
I think a lot of the book’s ‘atmosphere’ comes from Jake and Helena’s isolation and lack of knowledge. They never have any idea of what they’re about to walk into and I wanted the reader to share that sense of tension and uncertainty with them. The basic idea was that if Jake and Helena weren’t aware of something, then the reader shouldn’t be either. Having a side plot from a different point of view would have given the reader more information than the protagonists and compromised that sense of vulnerability.

What was the basis for your main characters?
I wanted them to be perfectly ordinary people. Jake is the guy you know from the office and Helena is the pretty girl next door.

This is going to sound weird, but my characters tend to write themselves. All I do is come up with their basic concept, then throw them in a situation and watch how they react. After a while, their personalities come out and you get to know them just like you’d get to know a real person.

The real magic of writing is when your characters start to argue with you, or refuse to do what you tell them. That’s when you know they’ve taken on a life of their own.

Fill me in on the Fake marines (The “m” is lower case intentionally, because they aren’t real)
The problem with writing a Zombie story is that if you’re trying to avoid the clichés (such as the evil, shadowy corporation behind the outbreak), you’re left without an interesting intelligent antagonist. The Zombies themselves aren’t really characters, they’re more like a force of nature.

So I knew I wanted some human bad guys… but the idea of plain vanilla raiders just seemed boring (and overdone in every post apocalyptic story ever)so I came up with the idea of a group of murderous conmen… but I also needed a plausible way for Jake to see through their act. I already knew that Jake’s father was a Marine…so the rest wrote itself.

Creed was an absolute joy to write. He was just so despicably and unapologetically evil.

Did you know the whole plot up front, or did it unfold during the writing process?
I think over planning and sticking to a rigidly detailed plot is a mistake. It leaves no room for the happy accidents and discoveries that make a good story great. So, before I start writing, I just set up my main plot points and start with only a very rough idea of how I’m going to get from point to point. For example, I know my characters are going to start at A and end up and B, but not how they’re going to get there.

Also, when you start writing, you only ever have a vague sense of who your characters are. For example, I originally intended for Helena to just be a classic damsel in distress, but discovered as I was writing that she was far stronger than that…so she started taking a far more active role and that changed the overall shape of the story and opened up options I hadn’t considered when I started writing.

What part of the process surprised you most?
Writing Josh. In the original draft, we never actually met him, he was only ever referred to. The more I thought about Jake’s back story, the more Josh kept popping into my head and demanding ‘screen time’. Like Creed, he was insanely fun to write.

What part of the process was your favorite?
As always, being surprised by my characters. I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but the real magic of writing is when your characters develop personalities of their own and do things you never expected…like arguing with you over what you’re trying to get them to do.

I know the idea of arguing with and being surprised by my own fictional characters makes me sound like a mental patient…but apparently JK Rowling called a family member in floods of tears when Sirius in the Harry Potter series died because she wasn’t expecting it and it caught her off guard… so at least I’m in good company.

What part sucked most?
Everything after the second draft.

I think it was Stephen King who said that if you’re not totally sick of your story by the time it’s released, you didn’t work on it hard enough.

The first draft is a lot of fun. The second draft is still fun, but it’s starting to feel like work. By the third draft it is work…and by your fifth pass you’re ready to stab your eyes out with a screwdriver.

It doesn’t matter how good your story is, by the time it’s finished you’d rather do anything than read it again. Imagine grabbing a book off your shelf and reading it cover to cover for ten hours a day for two weeks straight. That’s essentially what I did.

I remember you mentioning how much the editing sucked (either on your blog or in one of our email conversations). Are you going to have someone else edit your work next time?
It would be a very difficult decision. Editing is extremely difficult for the original author because you never know when to stop. You’re just never 100% happy. There’s always something you think you could punch-up or make better. The problem is that when you do change something, you’ll probably change it again on your next pass…and the next, and the next… so you start spinning your wheels. I can definitely see the attraction and reasons for handing your work over to an editor.

The hard part is finding someone you trust enough to do it.

When you’re writing a book, it becomes your whole life. It’s all you think about and you spend so long working on it that you even start to dream about it. The final draft represents hundreds and hundreds of hours of your blood, sweat and tears. Handing it over to an editor means entrusting another person with something you’ve poured your heart and soul into.

As it stands, Restless Dead is ‘all me’. I did everything from writing the story, to the layout, fonts and I even designed and produced the cover…so if someone reads it and doesn’t like it, I can live with that. Any mistakes are mine. If I handed over my final draft to an editor, I’m giving that responsibility to someone else.

Long story short, if I was going through a traditional publisher and had access to a professional, proven editor, I’d definitely consider it. As an independent author, I’ll do it myself…however unpleasant it is.

What's your next story going to be and when can we expect it?
My next project is going to be a lot more ambitious. It’s a sci-fi story and it’ll probably be out late 2013 – early 2014.

Maybe you could write a short story first… sort of a corollary to your last book… the same story from the Zombie’s view. It would definitely be a shorter story. “Brraaaaiiiinnnnnnnsssss”
I know that was a joke, but I actually considered writing another Restless Dead book. One idea was a prequel written from the point of view of the military and the CDC covering the events leading up to the initial destruction of Oakvale. The second was a true sequel set a year or so later. I may still write it, but my current idea is one that I’ve been wanting to write for a few years. It was too long and too complex for Nanowrimo…but writing The Restless Dead managed to shake out the last of the ‘Brain Crack’ that was keeping me from writing it.

What question did I forget to ask? And what’s the answer?
The only question I can think of is ‘Where can I buy it?’ You can get it direct from the publisher, or you can purchase it through Amazon.

The Nuts and Bolts of Cutting the Cord

2011-02-14T16:37:00.003-06:00

As part of my grand experiment, I needed to acquire a few new items. I needed to ~~upgrade~~ rebuild my computer, so that it was robust enough to output streaming media at 1080p to my TV, I needed a new wireless mouse and keyboard, which was capable of working from over 20 feet away from my computer, and I needed a new video card.

For those of you who are considering cutting the cord, one thing you should understand is that you don't necessarily need to spend thousands of dollars to make this happen. Here's essentially what you need.

-You need a decent TV that's capable of VGA, DVI or HDMI input.

-If you choose HDMI (which is what I chose), then you need a video card capable of HDMI output. Take some time and do your research. Some HDMI cards have the audio aspect build in to the card itself. Other cards require spdif. If your HDMI card requires spdif, then you need either a sound card or a motherboard that will output the spdif signal to the video card's input. (SPDIF stands for Sony/Philips Digital Interface. It's geek speak that you don't need to worry about much, but you should be aware of it.)

-If you choose DVI or VGA, then you will need a sound card that is capable of outputting audio to either your TV or to your Home Theater system. This is not a tall order, considering that most Intel motherboards manufactured over the last couple of years includes an optical audio output, and most home theater systems now include an optical audio input. If you choose to go the old school route, and use analog soundcard outputs to analog TV audio inputs, this too is simple. Your friendly Radio Shack guy can help you there.

You will need a decent video card, regardless. I chose n ASUS EAH5550, with 1 GB of Video RAM. Most of my research said that 512 MB of Video RAM was sufficient. I primarily chose this card because it had an on-board fan (as opposed to passive cooling), and because it has HDMI out.

As for the motherboard and processor, I am running an Intel Quad Core CPU, and the DG33TL media series motherboard, with 4 Gig of RAM and Windows 7 Pro. I chose ALL of these items because they were cost effective in my specific situation. To put this in perspective, I spent around $600 on the entire computer... not high end by any stretch of the imagination.

Stay tuned for continued updates on the grand experiment.

The Grand Experiment

2011-02-13T09:55:00.002-06:00

You may remember a post from last month where I said that I was ready to get rid of cable TV. During the last month, I have built a computer that meets my needs, and two days ago, I disconnected my cable, hooked up the PC, and got a subscription to Hulu Plus. (We already have a Netflix subscription.)

Two days in to our 30-day experiment, I am going to declare a qualified success. The kids are adapting well to the idea of doing without cable TV, though they have grumbled once or twice that an episode of a show hasn't been available. In all honesty though, I fully expected this to happen. They ARE, however, doing a grand job of adjusting to the idea of searching through Hulu for their entertainment, as opposed to channel surfing.

There is one hiccup that I didn't expect... I've seen a couple of bandwidth issues while watching Hulu. The picture freezes for a few moments, the show rebuffers, and things continue. After using Netflix for over a year, I didn't expect the buffering issues quite to the extent we're experiencing. It's not horrible, but after years of watching cable TV and DVDs, ANY disruption to the streaming is quite disruptive.

With these issues aside though, I think things will work.

My Stupid Dog

2011-02-04T18:00:00.004-06:00

As a follow-up to my earlier post, I thought you might like to know that my dog is home, minus part of her tail. The best way to describe her new tail in words is to say that it's about the length of a Pointer's tail, or maybe a Doberman. It's probably easier to SHOW you the difference.

Here's a picture of her when she had a nice, healthy tail.

Here's a shot after the vet removed what she had mangled during the last week or two.

My Poor Sick Puppy

2011-02-04T11:00:00.002-06:00

Okay, she's not a puppy... she's almost ten years old. But she's still sick.

She's been chewing on her tail today. Over the past week and a half, I watched the tip of her tail go from slightly bald, to slightly inflamed, to the point where the vet is amputating a little over half of it. I think that she started chewing on it because of nerves, and I tried to prevent her from chewing... I wrapped her tail in gauze and sprayed that bitter stuff that prevents chewing, I put that dorky cone around her head... but I guess it was too little, too late. So, she's losing about half of her tail today. As long as it truly fixes the problem, I guess it's no big deal.

I've already begun, and plan to continue, behavioral modification... exercise and stuff like that. Wish us luck.

Are We Hypocrites?

2011-02-03T13:01:00.002-06:00

This may be a slightly disjointed ramble, but I want to talk about the American position on the recent unrest in Egypt.

Our relationship with Egypt, as with many other countries, isn't a simple one. For right or wrong, America supports Israel, a country that's largely hated by its neighbors. Egypt is pretty much the only country in the Arab (Muslim) world that has achieved a long-lasting peace with Israel. Egypt has pretty much toed the American line in diplomatic issues as it relates to Arab countries. At the same time though, Egypt is not a democratic society.

Life would be easy if we could simply say that Egypt is an ally or an enemy, but life rarely works out that way. I think the best way to say it is that we're allies because it's mutually convenient.

With that said though, I believe that there's a fatal flaw in our thinking. We preach democracy to the world, but we only tend to support democracy when it's a carbon copy of our system. We get downright pissed when democratic societies don't walk in lock-step with our beliefs. A great example of this is how we bashed on France when they didn't patently buy in to, and support, our invasion of Iraq.

Instead, like many individuals, our country tends to form alliances based on conveniences. This means that we form alliances with nations who support us on given issues, despite their radically differing opinions on the issue of personal liberty. In my opinion, this is a major shortcoming of America's foreign policy.

At the end of the day, we need to determine our primary goal. Do we want to support democracy, regardless of how the voice of a country's people may differ with ours? Or do we push our own self interests, regardless of another nation's principles regarding individual liberty?

Taking a simplistic view, I believe that we should push democracy. America was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of (individual) happiness. The idea of individual autonomy is what makes America great. The downside of this, of course, is that reasonable people disagree with what constitutes personal freedom.

It is perfectly reasonable, for example, that a given Arab country would want a democracy based on Islamic law. Such laws could oppress the rights of women, Christians, and so forth, but if the people of that country genuinely want such a system of government, and that country's constitution was genuinely the will of the people, we, as a country that values the will of the people, should support this system of government.

It is also reasonable that the people of a given country value the collective over the individual... that the desire of a single person is subservient to the will of a village or country as a whole. Again, if that is the will of the people in that country, then we, as a country that values "we the people," should support these differing ideas.

The problem is that we seem to think that personal liberty is inviolable. The reality is, that liberty can take many forms. An individual can choose to think of themselves first, or they can decide to put the needs of others first. Failure to realize these fundamental differences is where we fail as a country in our ideal of democracy. People can, and do, put the needs of the collective before the desires of the individual. People can, and do, place spirituality above secular desires.

If we are going to preach democracy, we need to be prepared for the possibility that a given nation's idea of democracy, due to cultural differences, may not walk hand-in-hand with our own brand of freedom.

Evlauating the Logitech - Harmony 650 Universal Remote

2011-01-28T17:21:00.003-06:00

Over the years, I have used, owned and purchased many, many remote controls. In fact, the first remote control I used did nothing more than power a TV on and off, or change the channel up or down. It had a grand total of three buttons, was about the size of two decks of cards, and cost about $100. Remotes have come a long way since then.

In their infancy, remote controls were great... they prevented us from having to walk to the TV to choose between the three or four available channels, and maybe allowed us to increase/decrease the volume as well. In the decades since their introduction though, we've grown to have a love/hate relationship with remotes. It's convenient to never have to leave your chair. But it sucks to spend 20 or 30 minutes finding a lost remote, and having to juggle between a half dozen different clickers.

The answer, of course, is the universal remote. But all universal remotes aren't created equal. When you buy those $10 Wal-Mart jobs, well, you get what you pay for. At the opposite end of the spectrum, you can spend several hundred dollars on a high-end remote, but these things are generally too complicated for the average end user. (I say this as someone who has actually been hired to program the high-dollar remotes.)

I think I have found the sweet spot with the Harmony Universal Remote series. The device I bought was the 650, primarily because I have a new TV and Blu-Ray player, but I only need to control a grand total of four devices. The programming was good... three of my four devices were in the pre-existing online database, and the fourth device was flawlessly learned through the remote-to-remote learning function. I was up and running relatively quickly.

I particularly like the one button macros. I can choose "Watch TV" and the remote will automatically turn on the TV and Cable box, select the correct inputs and so forth. I will say that this is not 100% flawless, but it also brings me to my absolute favorite feature of the remote control.

At the end of every macro, the remote asks you if it did what you expected. If not, there's a help function that gives you step-by-step assistance until you achieve the expected result. THIS is my favorite feature, because even my mom could use it.

In short, I recommend this product. It's not perfect, but it's a great bang for the buck, and the help feature is just awesome.

Commemmorating a Significant Event

2011-01-24T18:02:00.000-06:00

It's seven years ago today that I met my wife at a wine tasting. Seven years, and no, I don't feel the itch.

Interview with a Conservative, Part III

2011-01-11T11:48:00.008-06:00

Today is the third installment of my interview with Rob Gettemy. For those of you missed either of the previous two installments, here is Part I, and here is Part II.

---Interview with a Conservative, Part III---

What is your plan to fix Social Security?
The retirement age has to be raised. Probably starting with people who today are 55 or under. Maybe even 50 and under. The reality is that Social Security had 17 workers for each retiree in the past. Now it is down to 3 on the way to 2. Think about that for a moment. Each worker today is paying for ½ of the retirement benefits of retiree. I would also be for allowing younger workers to opt out with some or all of their contributions. Social security is a ponzi scheme that would make Madoff blush.

How do you propose improving our public school system? Do you support no child left behind?
Get the federal government out of education. All we hear about education is how we have lost ground over the last 30 years. Guess what happened a little more than 30 years ago…the federal department of education. End it now. I don’t support no child left behind. I do support local control of the schools. I would consider abolishing all public sector unions as well. They have been a disaster for the school system.

How would you change the tax code?
Flat tax or fair tax. One or the other and eliminate the income tax.

If you could have accomplished only ONE thing as a legislator, what will it have been?
Reverse the growth of government.

Since you ran on a Republican platform, who are some of your favorite historical DEMOCRATIC politicians, and who are some of your least-favored REPUBLICAN politicians?
Kennedy understood the need to lower taxes and have a strong national defense. I liked that.
Least favorite republicans…The two senators from Maine, Snow and Collins, John McCain, Arlen Specter….see my pattern? [grin]

What is your opinion of our current child support system?
I honestly don’t know enough about it to comment.

Your campaign web site said that "profits are not obscene." Does this statement apply to top banking executives, Wall Street brokers, lawyers, politicians and so forth who oversaw our current economic situation?
Profits are not obscene. Period. Are you asking about compensation? Some of that may be obscene, but I don’t believe it is the government’s role to decide what it should be.

Are you saying that profits are NEVER obscene? If that’s the case, then do you support a credit card company’s ability to charge incredibly high interest rates?
I am saying it is never the government’s role to declare profits obscene…and as a general rule, I have not seen any profits that I believe are obscene. I am ok with limited usury laws…but, let’s take pay day loans as an example. They are horrible, and many want to outlaw them. But, suppose I need to fix my car to get to work and I need $200 to do that. A bank, charging 10% annually would earn $20 a year on that loan. Assuming it is paid off in a week, they would earn 38 cents. No bank is going to do the paper work to loan you $200 for a 38 cent return. So, by banning such things, yes, you keep people from falling into the trap of continually rolling over the loan, but you also eliminate the ability for responsible people to get out of a jam. Your good intentions may even cost them their job. Liberals often don’t think through the consequences of their decisions.

Are there any Congressional perks that you'd like to abolish?
Pensions after 5 years, many of their personal expenses, some of their trips etc. I have not studied the perks of the office, but I suspect they’d make me blush.

Your campaign web site said "We are at a point in this country where approximately 60% of the people receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes." Theoretically, this 60% would include the military, Social Security recipients, Welfare recipients, Medicare and Medicaid recipients, Federal law enforcement (FBI, TSA, and all of the other acronym agencies), and federal employees. What would you consider a reasonable percentage of people as net beneficiaries, and how would you achieve this percentage?
My understanding of that statistic is that it is not government employees, but of course includes all those who receive direct payments such as welfare, ssi, etc. I think this number should be probably less than 10% after taking out the SSI. (But, of course, based on my comments above, you also know I would raise the retirement age for SSI, so that percentage would go down as well)

Your campaign web site said "In the year since President Obama has taken office, we no longer have the respect and prestige of many nations across the world." How is this different from the respect and prestige we lost due to Bush's "cowboy diplomacy?"
I believe they like us more, but respect us less. Of course, neither can be proven, but it appears to me Obama is more inclined to want to be liked than respected. I am also sick of hearing him apologize for the US. We are the most giving society in the world. Obama clearly does not believe America is exceptional. When asked this question directly, he answered it that he believes in our exeptionalism in the way a Brit believes in the UK’s exceptionalism etc. That is like a child saying my dad is the greatest…it is somewhat meaningless. America is exceptional, but that exeptionalism has been eroded over the last 100 years.

“…We are the most giving society in the world…” What is your position on foreign aid?
I’m ok with limited foreign aid. I get a bit pissed off though when I hear other countries saying we are not doing our share. As you say, we are the most giving in the world. No other place has the level of private charity the US does.

For clarification, I quoted you in my last follow-up question. Since you are ok with limited foreign aid, do you believe that our current level of foreign aid is acceptable? If you believe it should be cut, where would you cut foreign aid, to what extent, and why would you make these cuts? Also, some say that, considering our current economic state, any foreign aid is unreasonable. (How can we donate money to other countries when we can’t even pay our own bills??) Your thoughts?
I haven’t studied what the current rate of foreign aid is, so I can’t say yes it is the exact right amount. I am saying I am not philosophically against all foreign aid as some are…or to follow up with your second point…in current conditions…I am still ok with foreign aid. In fact, I would go as far as to say I think foreign aid is better spent money than much of our welfare spending. In the US, everyone has opportunity…go to Haiti or Honduras and you’ll realize that is not the case in much of the world. I am very much for personal humanitarian assistance as well. I even took a humanitarian mission trip to Honduras in 2007

One last question… what question did you expect me to ask that I haven’t asked, and what is the answer to that question.
Not so much a question…but, I think liberals assume conservatives don’t care. That is simply not the case. Conservatives believe that many if not most of the government programs designed to help do far more harm in the long-term. One of my favorite books is by a former welfare queen and crack addict Star Parker who wrote a book called “Uncle Sam’s Plantation” where she described how being in the system was not a hand up, but instead, it was enslaving.

You appear to not be a total liberal…just a partial! [grin]

Yes, I will acknowledge that I am a partial liberal. For what it’s worth though, several of the questions I ask are strictly from a Devil’s Advocate standpoint. I also want you to know that you have given me a lot of food for thought. I firmly believe that honest, open discussion and debate are good things. I feel that people who are unwilling to have their beliefs challenged are not firm in their beliefs. The best people are the ones who are willing to logically defend their point of view, AND open to change.
I enjoyed it as well.

Interview with a Conservative, Part II

2011-01-11T11:38:00.006-06:00

Today is the second installment of my interview with Rob Gettemy. For those of you missed the first installment, you can find it here.

---Interview with a Conservative, Part II---

You seem to be a constitutionalist... but there are several things that the framers of the constitution could not foresee, such as automatic weapons, medical advances that allow a woman to terminate pregnancy, the automobile, the internet, the unintended environmental consequences of industrialization and nuclear energy. How do you tie these unforeseen changes back to the constitution? Do you have a basic philosophy that guides you in situations that the founding fathers did not foresee?
The founders had the foresight to provide a way to amend the constitution. We should follow that instead of make laws from the bench. I do not believe in the concept of man-made global warming. There is little scientific evidence at this stage. It appears sun spots have a lot more to do with climate than man does. That said, I believe in being a good steward of the environment. I am an avid outdoorsman, and value the environment greatly.

Does this mean that you believe congress should pass fewer laws and that we increase the rate of proposed constitutional amendments? Also, how does your answer to the previous question address the idea that congress’ reason for being is the creation of legislation?
Yes to fewer laws…I’m not advocating for a bunch of new amendments though. I am saying that the founders did restrict government, but also left a path to raise some of those restrictions through amendments. Rightfully so, they made it hard to amend the constitution though.

How is it okay for legislators to propose and pass unpopular laws, but it’s somehow inappropriate for judges to strike down or uphold laws in a manner that’s unpopular? (This is in reference to your “make laws from the bench” comment.)
Judges should not be restricted from striking down laws in a manner that is unpopular. They should be restricted from creating laws and “rights” from the bench. They are to uphold the laws, not make them.

With this response in mind, I am going to refer the Iowa Supreme Court’s recent ruling that allowed homosexuals to marry in Iowa… The Declaration of Independence said, point blank, that all men are created equal, and that one of our inalienable rights is the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not you agree with the premise of homosexual marriage, can a reasonable person conclude that outlawing homosexual marriage creates an inequality among otherwise similar men? Is it reasonable to believe that the prohibition of same-sex marriages infringes on the inalienable right to pursue happiness?
Under your scenario…anything could be classified as an act of pursuing happiness. Like I said, I see marriage as an institution that is about procreation which is necessary for the continuation of society. Like it or not, it takes male and female DNA to procreate.

Based on your counter-point, yes, anything could theoretically be classified as an act of pursuing happiness. With this as a frame of reference, it would be up to the courts to decide whether not the case at hand genuinely falls under the right to pursue happiness. As individuals in American society, we may or may not agree with the outcome of the court case, but some governing body needs to accept this responsibility and rule accordingly.
I guess I agree with what you are saying here…but, I think they need to take a minimalist approach.

On a related vein, (separate question) the Miranda Rights came to being as a result of the Supreme Court. In effect, the Supreme Court “created a right from the bench.” The Supreme Court also ruled that segregation was inherently unequal in Brown vs. Board of Education. Does this mean that you disagree with implementation of Miranda and the end of segregation? If you do not disagree with both of these rulings, then is it not reasonable to conclude that “creating rights from the bench” is a legitimate function of the court system?
So, are you saying if I do agree with these cases, I should agree with any ruling the court makes? That said, I don’t believe it was creating new rights, it was simply guaranteeing rights as the constitution provided for.

No. I am not saying that we should agree with any (and all) rulings that the court makes. I am merely stating that if you agree with the aforementioned cases, that you must concede, to some extent, that “creating rights from the bench” is a legitimate function of the court system.
I knew you weren’t saying that per se, but my point is perhaps the same as above….courts should take a minimalist approach.

18-year-olds are required by law to register for the selective service. They can enlist in the military, putting their lives on the line for our nation. If an 18 year-old commits any crime they are tried as an adult. They can get credit cards, yet they cannot legally consume alcohol until they are 21. Are there any instances where you would support reducing the drinking age to 18? (My personal bias: Any active-duty member of the armed services should be allowed to legally consume alcohol... after all, they're responsible enough to put their life on the line for our country... why should they be prohibited from drinking??)
I would likely support the drinking age be reduced to 18. This is a liberty issue, not that I hope more young people drink. I haven’t had a drink in 20 years.

Do you support gays serving openly in the military?
My gut reaction to this is no…but, I’m not sure it matters a great deal. My deference on this would be to the commanders in the field, not to politicians or even those who have spent most of their recent military duty in the Pentagon.

Do you support gay marriage, civil unions, or any variation thereof?
I don’t. However, I do believe there probably needs to be some sort of contract that people can undertake should they choose to live in a committed relationship. Frankly, I’d rather the state not be involved in marriage at all. I think that should be between a man, a woman and his or her church or other entity that would “sanction” their marriage. Keep in mind, society’s long-term benefit from marriage is pro-creation and raising children. It does take a man and a woman to procreate.

If you believe that the states not be involved in marriage at all, then is this a federal issue, or a private issue where the GOVERNMENT has no say? What is your take on a church that sanctions homosexual marriage?
My choice would be a private issue. I would not attend that church because I don’t believe it is a biblically based church.

So you believe that the government, at all levels, should be completely removed from the institution of marriage? Considering this a separate issue from our tax system, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you could get this done, but not tax reform… how would you handle such a situation?
Not sure what you are asking. If you are asking have I developed a plan for how we decouple government from marriage…no. I have plenty of opinions…that doesn’t mean I have personally developed a plan to implement them.
Your acknowledgement that you don’t have a detailed plan is a thoroughly sufficient response. It is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to state that you don’t have all the answers.

What are your thoughts regarding limits in campaign contributions and/or restrictions on political advertising?
I don’t believe in any limitations of speech short of truly dangerous (yelling fire in a theater) utterances.

Doesn’t your position imply that the rich, by virtue of their ability to donate more money to their cause/candidate, have more” freedom of speech” than the poor?
Depends on how you define freedom. Anyone has the freedom to speak, not everyone has the forum to speak…that is the reality of life. I suspect someone with a pretty smile has more freedom of speech than I do because people want to be around the pretty girl. That is life.

Does this freedom of speech apply only to individuals, or does it apply to business as well?
Businesses are made up of individuals, so yes. Perhaps if this is detrimental to our country, this would be an area where an amendment to the 1st amendment would be appropriate. (I am not advocating that of course.) To have judges decide that this speech can be restricted, which they did prior to the recent case, was an affront to the first amendment.

Would this not, in effect, give higher-ups in a large corporation “two voices?” It seems to me that say, the CEO of GM, would be able to state his opinion as an individual, AND as the CEO of GM. Furthermore, a corporation is comprised of individuals, but a corporation is NOT a person. With this in mind, I’d like a bit more clarification.
I’ll stick with my answer above. Some have more capability, but that is different than freedom.

Interview with a Conservative

2011-01-11T11:16:00.005-06:00

Last election cycle, an acquaintance of mine decided that he was tired of politics as usual, put his money where his mouth is, and ran for Iowa's 2nd District of the U.S. Congress. I followed him early on, and with great interest. While I didn't agree with everything he said, it seemed to me that he formed his political position through genuine thought, and he came to rational conclusions. Rob Gettemy didn't win the election, but he did provide a lot of good food for thought during his campaign. With this in mind, I asked Rob to do an interview; he graciously agreed, and during the process I came to the point where I could call him a friend. For those of us with short attention spans, I will break the interview into multiple parts.

---Interview with a Conservative, Part I---

What is your position on the death penalty? If you support the death penalty, how do you reconcile this position with your pro-life stance, considering that the crux of being pro-life is that all life is sacrosanct?
This is the toughest question I had to answer as a candidate for office. I support the death penalty, but cannot fully reconcile it with the idea of being anti-abortion. The fundamental difference though is the child is clearly innocent where as the death row inmate has been convicted of a heinous crime. I do think with advances in DNA technology, the level of proof for the death penalty should be elevated.

Studies have shown that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Ostensibly, this is because of the appeals process. Do you support abolishing the death penalty from a financial perspective?
No, I would not abolish it for financial reasons. Given I am for the level of proof being elevated, I’d like to see some reform in the number and length of appeals. If we fought crime purely on a financial basis, we’d not follow through on all sorts of punishment, not just the death penalty.

As I continue on this line of questioning, I want to state for the record that I am not against the death penalty. With that said though, the death penalty has not been proven as an effective deterrent in crime; it is more expensive than life in prison; there are documented cases of miscarriages of justice; many victims or families of victims do not get the expected sense of retribution when a death sentence is carried out. What is your justification for supporting the death penalty?
I don’t need to justify supporting the death penalty…I support it because I believe that the ultimate punishment should be available for heinous crimes. I don’t believe all studies say that there is no deterrent. As I tried to indicate earlier…this is a tough call, but I still come down on the side of supporting the ultimate punishment.

Your statement that there needs to be an ultimate punishment is justification enough. It is analogous to the premise of corporal punishment for children, or the justification for war between countries. None of these stances are universally agreed upon, but you have reached your conclusion based on rational thinking. I am curious though, what crimes are heinous enough to warrant the death penalty?
Certainly capital murder would be in that category. Probably treason.

What is your position on our current drug policy?
I’m certainly not an expert on drug policy. It is not something I did a whole lot of research on as a candidate, because frankly, it was not a big issue in 2010. That said, I am not for legalization.

In that case, what’s your position on medicinal marijuana?
I don’t know enough about it. My gut feeling is that it gets abused based on some of the articles I’ve seen, but I haven’t done any real digging in this area.

Okay, but laws allowing Americans to marry immigrants are abused as well. Does the potential for abuse outweigh the potential benefits to such an extent that allowing medical marijuana isn’t even worth trying?
I didn’t say it wasn’t worth trying…I just don’t have the expertise to say it is necessary. I’m sure you can find studies that say it is and others that say it is not. As I’ve tried to say earlier, I have never done any serious research in this area as it is not high on my list of concerns.

Had you been elected, your job would have been to represent those who put you in office. What would you have done if your constituency clearly and overwhelmingly wanted something that you didn’t support?
That is likely to happen from time to time. We are a representative republic for a reason…the founders knew that a true democracy is not a practical form of government. There are times when politicians must go against the current popular opinion of their constituents. Some examples might include slavery (it violated basic tenants of our constitution), civil rights (same thing) and I’m sure there are others. However, if you simply voted the will of the people, we’d be in and out of wars. You may recall that at one point something like 70% of the population approved of the Iraq war. At other times, it was in the low 30’s. You simply cannot fight a war based on public opinion. I would say that the Democrats passing Obamacare is a clear example of what you are asking about. I do think it was a mistake to go against the will of the people in that case. It was not one of basic human or constitutional rights, nor was it war.

You mentioned on your web site that congress should spend as much time repealing laws as they do passing laws. Please provide examples of laws that should be repealed? Do you support sunset clauses in legislation to ensure that future laws remain relevant to our future society?
I don’t have a strong opinion on sunset clauses. As far as repeal, I would roll back many of the regulations, much of the tax code (70some thousand pages), the new health care law, laws that tell me what kind of toilet or light bulb I can have in my house etc. Nationwide, there were over 30,000 new laws passed last year. I suspect the majority of them do not expand liberty, but many in fact reduce liberty.

Don’t drug laws, prostitution laws and gambling laws restrict personal liberty?
Good question…I would say they do. In our society, we need to decide what level of infringement we are willing to tolerate. I believe we need to error on the side of very little tolerance on liberty infringement. I’d rather see no drugs, no casinos, no prostitution. But, perhaps I’m being too intolerant for some. I think the argument for laws prohibiting drugs is that it affects others…but, I understand that same argument could be made for alcohol. Overall, I’d error on the side of freedom.
I think one of our fundamental problems when it comes to freedoms [is that] we only fight for those freedoms that matter to us. When our politician is in charge and is restricting freedoms we don’t care about, or maybe even agree should be limited, we forget that eventually they will get to a freedom we do care about and no-one will be there to fight for us.
I realize…just like with the death penalty case, I cannot fully reconcile this answer!

Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that we (as a society) have already decided that a high level of infringement is acceptable? You say, “When our politician is in charge and is restricting freedoms we don’t care about, or maybe even agree should be limited, we forget that eventually they will get to a freedom we do care about and no-one will be there to fight for us.” Isn’t that a slippery slope argument?
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I think this is a very slippery slope (emphasis Rob’s). That is why we need to hold both politicians we agree with and those we disagree with accountable. Most people don’t do that. If it is their guy or gal, they look the other way. I was guilty of that myself for a long time…but no more!

Do you support term limits? If not, then how do you reconcile the fact that the President has term limits, but Congress does not?
I did not run on term limits, but would have likely supported it had it come up if I were in congress. That said, I do believe voters have to take responsibility to elect good representatives. As a society, we have outsourced way too much of our lives to government, yet they are less able to make good decisions than individuals are. We’ve outsourced education, most of healthcare and many other basic functions. It is time we take control of those items as individuals. Take a look at education and healthcare…we are told by government that these areas are in crisis and inflation is out of control. These are two areas where government involvement and funding has skyrocketed.

You mention God repeatedly on your web site. How do you resolve your faith with the separation of church and state?
I don’t believe my website mentioned God hardly at all. That said, my faith is important to me. I don’t believe the constitution called for Separation of Church and State at all, it said the government cannot establish a state religion. Even if you subscribe to the notion of “separation”, it is clear that your question does not understand how our founders viewed state and religion. They clearly were guided by faith in the founding of the country and make it clear in many of our founding documents and their early public proclamations.

...Tune in tomorrow for Interview with a Conservative, Part II

Cutting the Cord

2011-01-06T20:33:00.002-06:00

I'm ready to ditch Cable TV. That's right, I'm ready to give up a couple of my favorite shows -- Boardwalk Empire and Sons of Anarchy -- and test the uncharted waters of Internet TV. I've been thinking about this for several months, and have talked to the family about it a couple of times recently. They seem hesitantly open to the idea. They are concerned that they'll have to give up a couple of their favorite shows. But I've got a plan that's elegant in its simplicity.

Over the next couple of months, I hope to build a solid, yet cost-effective PC. For good-quality streaming video, a high-quality video card is the most essential piece. I want a card that has HDMI out, and I will need surround sound audio to feed through the HDMI cable. Not a tall order.

After building the PC, I will do a trial run without Cable TV. I will keep the cable service, but it won't be connected. Instead, we will get our entertainment through a combination of our existing Netflix service, and the computer. I figure if we can get through a month without cable, we will cut the cord for good. I hope to implement this test within the next three to four months.

Am I the only one who's ready to ditch cable?

Liberal Pantywaists!

2011-01-02T11:45:00.009-06:00

I read a news article this morning, which stated that the Navy is going to probe a "lewd video," made in the 2006-2007 time frame, apparently on board the USS Enterprise, and that the Executive Officer (XO) at the time, Capt. Owen Honors, appeared in this video. It seems that people were offended that Owens "broadcast to his crew a series of profanity-laced comedy sketches in which he uses gay slurs, mimics masturbation and opens the shower curtain on women pretending to bathe together."

All I've got to say is people, get over yourselves! Look, the military is not a daycare center, a group therapy session, or a church. Joining the armed forces places you in an occupation where you're in harm's way, and a place where macho bravado is the norm. It is not a "safe place." Being overly sensitive and cautious could cost lives... not just yours, but the lives of your fellow service members.

Furthermore, with the military generally being a high-stress environment, the ability to relieve stress, and an unbreakable sense of camaraderie are essential to the well-being of our military personnel. A bawdy, slightly irreverent mentality seems to accompany the people that are drawn to the military. While it is reasonable to expect a high degree of professionalism and a clean-cut demeanor in public, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines should be allowed to cut loose in the privacy of their own homes. And what this article discusses is an officer addressing his fellow shipmates in their own language, in their own home. Because yes, a ship is a sailor's home.

This article, and the story behind it, is just another example of a dual mentality on the part of some liberals. What made America great is its unique ability to allow freedom of speech. The Constitution gives us the right to pursue happiness. The First Amendment gives us freedom of speech. There is no right to "not being offended." So, for those liberal pantywaists out there who seem to think that only touchy-feely, kumbaya-singing, politically correct speech is acceptable, all I can say is this...

Shut up and accept the fact that freedom of speech applies to everyone, which means that you WILL NOT go through life without hearing something that offends you. Let our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines speak their minds sometimes -- especially in the privacy of their own homes! After all, they are the ones defending YOUR right to bitch about how offensive you find their words.

---A Little Follow-Up---

After writing the article, I searched and found what appears to be the original video. If you're interested in seeing what all the hubbub is about, here's a link. The actual video is at the bottom of the article, and it's about 12 minutes long.

I watched the video, and it's really tame. He makes liberal use of the word 'fag," and drops a lot of f-bombs. Big whoop! He also says clearly and repeatedly, that if you are easily offended that you should not watch the video. If you ARE easily offended, and still chose to watch the video, then you've only got yourself to blame, so f*ck you, f@g!

Author's Disclaimer: For the record, I've got no problem with homosexuals, intercourse, or even homosexuals having intercourse.

Debunking the Doctrine of "Legislating from the Bench"

2010-12-31T11:47:00.003-06:00

Over the past several years, I've read many articles about judges who "Legislate from the Bench." Anecdotally speaking, it appears that it's generally conservatives who strongly disagree with the judicial outcome of specific cases. For example, the Iowa Supreme Court recently ruled that prohibiting gay marriage was unconstitutional. As a result, homosexuals may now marry in the state of Iowa.

Today's post is really not designed to discuss whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. Indeed, I am merely using this case for illustrative purposes. The case was brought before the Supreme Court, and the judges unanimously agreed that prohibiting gay marriage was unconstitutional. Conservatives decried the decision as an attempt by Iowa's Supreme Court judges to legislate from the bench. My issue is not whether or not the decision was correct, but whether or not such a condition exists.

For starters, I should define "legislate." My non-legal definition of legislate is the making of laws. The legislative process, in America, always starts with congress. The idea for a law may come from anywhere... the executive branch, the legislative branch, or even the constituents of a given government. The actual process of making a law, however, always starts with congress.

The process itself is generally complicated and time-consuming. A legislator writes up the bill. The bill is then reviewed by the appropriate committee(s) in congress. Most proposed laws never get past this initial phase. Assuming that the recommended legislation (a bill) passes committee scrutiny, it then goes to the full congressional body for a vote. Each body -- the House of Representatives and the Senate -- must approve the bill. Furthermore, the bill must have the EXACT SAME WORDING before it goes to the next stage, which is that it is presented to the head of the executive branch for approval (the Mayor, Governor or President for the purpose of this article). The executive head has a period of time to approve or deny the legislation. If approved, the bill becomes law.

If the bill is not approved, congress can STILL force the bill into law. This is done by congress re-voting on the bill, but it has to be approved by a 2/3 majority. As you can imagine, this doesn't happen very often. The idea here is a balance of power. The legislative branch and Executive branch of government are supposed to be equally powerful.

The branches have different, but equally important functions in our government. The legislative branch proposes and writes laws... and to an extent makes the laws. The executive branch ratifies and enforces laws. The judicial branch interprets laws.

In order for the judicial branch to interpret the law, that law must be challenged through the judicial system. Going back to the gay marriage issue, someone has to say It's not fair that gays can't marry, and then file a lawsuit. The case goes before a judge who decides whether or not the law behind this claim is valid. Regardless of the outcome, the loser can appeal. Then, the appeals court chooses whether or not to hear the case again. (Most cases are appealed, and the appeals court declines to hear the case.) And even then, the loser of the appeal can appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, like the appellate court, has the right to decline to hear a case. If at ANY point, the next higher court declines to hear a case, the lower court's ruling stands, and that's that.

By now, you should understand that VERY FEW cases get to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court is the ONLY body that has the authority to invalidate a law by calling it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot draw up legislation. They cannot approve or enforce the legislation if it becomes law. The Supreme Court's purpose is to interpret laws, and their interpretation of the law is based on the constitution. Please note, that I said "based." The Constitution was designed as a framework of laws, written with the understanding that times and circumstances change.

The term "Legislating from the Bench" implies that judges are somehow writing laws from the courtroom... and a more subtle implication is that this judicial activism is destroying the country. The reality is that each branch of the government... the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary... have all taken their turn as the prominent branch of government. But in the end, NONE of them have been able to achieve and maintain a dominant position in government. Anyone who believes that these alleged activist judges are out of bounds should seriously brush up on their constitutional law, and their history. I would also like to point out that the ONLY time a judge is accused of legislating from the bench is when a long-standing law is overturned.

Crafty

2010-12-26T16:46:00.003-06:00

Here's a shot of my latest craft...

There's a bit of a story to this. The charms you see on this necklace are crushed pennies, and it all started as a lark. I got my older daughter a "present" a couple of years back. Without going into the details, she wasn't wild about the original gift when she received it, but it inadvertently started a tradition. Over the last couple of years, every time we'd pass one of those penny crushing machines, I'd give the kid a penny and make another "charm."

After a while, the kid acquired quite the collection, and I decided to do something about it. My original idea was a charm bracelet, but I quickly realized that she had too many charms for a mere bracelet. Thus, the necklace you see here. The cool part is that we can add to the necklace as time passes and continue the tradition.

Evan's Christmas Memories

2010-12-22T17:36:00.002-06:00

In response to Sunny's latest post, discussing times of Christmas Past, I've decided to share a couple of Christmas memories of my own. So, without further ado, here are a some of my fondest recollections...

One Christmas, somewhere between ten and fifteen years ago, my kids' mom and I were slumbering peacefully, when my older daughter came in and whispered "Dad, it's Christmas! Time to wake up and open presents." When I opened my eyes, I immediately noticed that it was still dark; once my eyes finally focused, I saw that it was about 4:30 AM. (I don't recall the exact time, I just remember that it was waaaaay early.)

Figuring that I'd be clever and stall for some more time, I said "Go back to your room and go to sleep. We'll open presents when your little sister wakes up."

"Okay daddy," she replied.

Pleased that I had dodged that bullet, I closed my eyes and starting drifting back to sleep, when I heard it... barely a whisper...

"Erin, wake up. It's Christmas. Daddy said that we could open presents when you get up."

I didn't get back to sleep that morning.

--------------

Fast-forward a few years... The kids' mom and I had recently split up. It was the first Christmas since we parted ways, and I wanted to get the kids something that they'd remember. Unfortunately, I was on a budget. So I did a couple of things...

I went out and purchased about a dozen unfinished ceramic Christmas ornaments, and we spent a full night hanging out and painting the ornaments. They still adorn our tree every year. In fact, every year since then, I have purchased an ornament for each kid, and for Mrs. Evan. I've been doing this for enough years that we need a bigger tree.

--------------

That same year, I also wanted to get each kid something "big." When I say "big," I really mean large, because everyone knows that children love to unwrap big boxes. Baby Evan didn't yet have a bicycle, so I scraped enough cash together to get her her first real bike. The older little Evan already had one, so that took a bit more creativity. I looked around and finally decided to get her a nice sleeping bag. She was at the age where she was doing sleep-overs, and I thought it would be something that she'd like for that very reason, and something that she'd use a lot.

I was half right... it was something that she did use a lot. Unfortunately, she was really pissed that her sister got a new bike, and all she got was a lousy sleeping bag. Big fail on dad's part!! In fact, every time she used it... and every Christmas since that fateful morning... she has gone to great pains to remind me that baby Evan must be the favorite, because she got a new bike for Christmas, and all the older Evanette got was a sleeping bag. Just to reiterate, Big fail on dad's part!!

Really Cool Gift!

2010-12-20T18:33:00.003-06:00

I got the coolest Christmas gift from my friend Adam. The gift seems pretty self-explanatory, but I'm going to describe it anyway. It started out as a bottle of "Jarhead Chard" wine. The wine bottle was melted flat, and the labels were reapplied and epoxied. The result is a very creative cheese serving tray. A VERY appropriate gift, considering that Adam and I met in the Marine Corps.

@ Adam: Dude, you've got a panache for finding the perfect gift.

Forgive? Forget? Naaaah.

2010-12-17T18:30:00.003-06:00

Back in August, when my Uncle died, I wrote this post. That article obviously discussed my Uncle's passing, but it also had another topic, and I'm going to back up a bit and rehash that today.

My uncle lived in the same town where I grew up as a kid, so when he was in hospice, I was also visiting my hometown. I considered calling a select few people, but I only made one call... to Lisa. As I said in the last post, she hung up on me when I called her. To clarify, I called, she answered, and when I said "Hi," she instantly hung up the phone, without a word. On the off chance that she had been disconnected, I called again and the line was busy. I figured that I'd wait for a bit, just in case we had both tried to call each other and both ended up with a busy signal. After another ten to fifteen minutes, I tried again. This time, I didn't even have a chance to say "hi." The phone was simply picked up and immediately hung up again. The message was loud and clear. She had nothing to say to me. With that, I have washed my hands of her.

For the most part, I have to admit that I felt relief. As I said in my last post on this topic, we had a falling out of sorts. At least this brought some definitive end to things. I don't need the last word, I don't need any additional closure or anything like that. I am willing to accept that we are no longer friends, and I don't lose any sleep over it.

Fast-forward to yesterday, when I went to the mailbox and discovered a Christmas card from her, addressed to the entire family. I could certainly understand if she'd have sent a card to my kids. She's known them both since infancy, and they love their Leesee. I am a little flummoxed, and slightly irritated by this one. I really don't like the idea of getting a Christmas card from someone who's at best pretending to be my friend. It certainly hasn't changed my decision to let the relationship remain dead. It would require too much time and effort on my part to try to forgive and forget.

Why Is Life so Difficult?

2010-12-08T07:08:00.005-06:00

Despite the title, I am not writing today about some trial or tribulation of my own. In fact, for the record, I will say that I'm content with my life. Today, I'm answering a question that I seem to have heard several times in passing over the last few days. Maybe it's a bunch of people who just happen to be whining at the same time... maybe it's the Winter Blues... maybe they're all experiencing a bona fide big problem at the same time... Regardless of how they all got here, a lot of people seem to be asking "Why is Life so Difficult?"

Well, I have a couple of answers. (Hmmm... imagine that... me claiming to have the answers!) As I say this though, remember a couple of things. I am NOT here to give you chicken soup for your bruised little soul, and I am NOT Dr. Phil, giving you a couple of little feel-good catchphrases that you can take home and transform your life. With that said, let me tell you why I think life is difficult.

My first explanation is a little philosophical, but it's pretty simple. You need to experience the bad to appreciate the good. Let's go to pretend land for a little bit, and use food as an analogy. Let's say that through your entire life, you've eaten nothing other than your favorite foods... pizza, ice cream, chocolate... whatever your favorite foods may be. By most people's standards -- you know, the ones who've had to suffer through life with nothing but brussels sprouts -- your life has been pretty good. But since you've experienced nothing but pizza, ice cream and chocolate, all you know is two things... first, you don't like ice cream, and second, your life is rather dull. The only way to truly appreciate the good things in your life is through a little bit of suffering.

The second explanation is a little more straight-forward. Just as physical pain is the body's way of saying that something is wrong, emotional strain is how your mind says that something's not right. Sometimes you have to just cope. Losing a loved one, for the sake of illustration, is similar to breaking a bone. It hurts like hell in the short term, but with a minimal amount of care, you heal and life goes on. Chronic stress -- think depression, unhealthy relationships, things like that -- is the mind's way of saying that something has to change permanently. Poor posture and ergonomics can bring on back pain and carpal tunnel syndrome. The only way to fix it is to make a permanent change in your lifestyle. Similarly, you need to take care of your emotional well-being, or you will end up with, well, repetitive stress injuries.

Like I said, this is an over-simplification. But maybe it will give a few people a little food for thought.

... A Little Remiss

2010-11-29T07:44:00.002-06:00

My apologies to both of my regular readers for my lack of recent posting. I've been firmly rooted in 3d-land, and enjoying every minute of it. Okay, with the women-folk doing that mood swing thing lately, I haven't loved EVERY minute of it, but my point stands.

As I mentioned in my last post, I now have my girls full time, and that's required a bit of adjustment on my part. Add to this the fact that they've both got learner's permits, and you should start getting an overview of why I haven't been posting as much.

I'm also discovering that I have a bit of a green thumb. I inherited a few plants from my uncle's house after he died... a couple of dieffenbachia, a snake plant and one that I think it a peace lily. All of them were in rough shape when I received them, so they've all been re-potted, and I also took a couple of pups from the snake plant. I also bought a bromeliad last winter, and it gave me a pup, which I just transplanted into its own pot. And to top it off, a friend gave me a spider plant clipping, which I'm trying to get to take root.

Speaking of pups, one of my dogs isn't feeling well. Her nose is dry, she's absolutely pounding the water, and she's having a bit of a bladder control issue. I think it's a urinary tract infection. I will find out today.

And on top of this, it's Christmas time, so I need to get the tree up.

...A Long Time Coming

2010-11-11T10:13:00.002-06:00

Today is a day I've anticipated for over seven years. When my ex-wife and I parted ways, she stayed in the area, and we shared custody of our children -- joint legal custody, and joint physical care. I had the kids every Monday, Wednesday, and every other weekend. She took the kids on Tuesday, Thursday and alternate weekends. In actuality, the kids spent significantly more time at my place. On the ex's days, they came over early the next morning to get ready for school here; they stayed here after school until she picked them up on her way home from work. She frequently asked me to take the kids on her evenings or weekends for one reason or another. My ex is leaving town today -- in fact, she's leaving the state -- and now I have the kids full time.

My ex has never hid the fact that she didn't like Iowa. She said this when we were together, and she's said this to the kids many times over the years. I guess that she's finally had enough, and she's moving to Texas to start a new life. She plans to see the kids monthly, and for a couple of extended visits during the year, so it's not like she's dumping the kids and skipping town. Fortunately, she seems to realize that it's in the kids' best interest to let the kids stay here, where they have a stable home, good schools, and an established network of friends. The kids seem to be okay with their mom moving away, so I guess it's a win to the fifth power. I say "fifth power" because everyone seems to be pleased with the new arrangement. The ex gets to move out of Iowa. The kids are happy that their mom is moving somewhere that she'll be happy, and my wife and I are incredibly pleased that we get the kids full time.

Investing in My Future

2010-10-21T17:40:00.002-05:00

While I'm not a financial guru, I do know a bit about investing, stocks, commodities, debt and so forth. Like many people, I had a lot invested in my 401(k), and like most investors, I lost a lot when the market crapped out. The way I differed from most people was that the ONLY reason I lost so much, was because my timing was a little off. I had planned on reallocating my investments because I saw the writing on the wall, but I was a bit too slow. It was a hard lesson, but I'm not losing sleep over it, because a lot of people lost a lot more than I did. And until I actually start realizing any gains or losses from my investments, it's all theoretical money. Besides, I'm young enough that I'll have time to recover my losses... as long as I play it smart and don't get greedy.

Since the crash, I haven't really invested anything in my retirement. My current employer doesn't offer any retirement package, and my income is lower than it was when Wall Street went south. With this in mind, I have taken a different approach. While the market is effectively moving sideways, I am paying off debt. Paying off debt provides a guaranteed return on my investment (something that no stock, bond or commodity investment can do), and it has a higher rate of return when compared to anything except for gold.

I've thought about investing in gold, but I don't have enough disposable income to buy a single ounce, much less the large stash required to really make some money from gold's current trend. I know that there's a major bull market on the horizon, but I'm going to let my 401(k) handle that for the near future.

Silver, however, is kind of intriguing. It's got the intrinsic value that gold has (though on a far smaller scale), but it also has industrial uses. I may be able to pick up a bit of silver over time. Another thing I've noticed regarding precious metal investing is the lackluster performance of platinum and palladium. Platinum generally runs several times what gold costs, but recently gold has taken off to such an extent that it's very close to the price of platinum. This ratio can't stay the way it is forever. Either gold will have to drop or platinum will have to skyrocket too. Palladium is in the same boat. It generally trades somewhat less than gold (50%??), but like platinum, its value hasn't appreciated much. This kind of makes sense. Palladium is a main ingredient in catalytic converters in cars, and face it, cars aren't selling like hotcakes lately. But again, at some point, palladium needs to take off. Silver seems to be starting to catch the coattails of gold, and it may be worth it to pick up some "poor man's gold" in the future. But for now, the way I'm going to invest is with a guaranteed return... pay off my debt.

Now, if only my government would follow my lead...

I'm Kinda Proud of This One

2010-10-06T07:56:00.002-05:00

What you see in this picture is a pair of earrings. There is one other pair that's similar to them, but these pieces of jewelry are very unique, and each of my daughters has a pair.

You may wonder what's so special about them. On the surface, they look like simple gold earrings. Well, I'll tell you, there's a bit more to these earrings than meets the eye. These earrings, which I gave to my girls this morning, are made from the wedding ring I wore when I was married to their mother.

When I divorced their mom, I didn't throw away the ring. My decision to keep the band wasn't out of some deep-seated belief that we'd one day end up back together, nor was it strictly financial. I figured that one day, I'd hand it down to the kids. As time passed, I kept wondering how I was going to pass one ring to two children. This, coupled with the fact that my kids were young when their mom and I divorced, is why the ring stayed in my possession.

More time passed... the kids got a bit older... and I forgot about the ring. Every now and again, I'd run across it, which would get me thinking about how I was going to pass it to the kids. Eventually, I came up with two possibilities. One was to get the ring cut in half, flatten out each half, and make pendants out of them. The earrings were the second idea, an idea which didn't come until much later. Recently, the inspiration, opportunity and inclination to get this done all came together.

I spoke to an acquaintance of mine who is a master jeweler. He said that due to the pattern, the gold would probably crack if we tried to flatten it out, so we went with the earrings for practical reasons. There was an inscription on the back of the ring, and I asked the jeweler to preserve the inscription if possible. The inscription was preserved, and is on the back of two out of the four earrings, each daughter having one earring bearing part of the inscription.

I've showed these earrings to a few people, and the reaction has been incredibly consistent. I'd show them, and people would give me the "Those are nice" response, at which time I'd tell the aforementioned story. You could see the light bulbs go on as they understood the full significance, and their "Those are nice" responses, would become "Ooooooh.... that's COOL" responses.

Yeah, I'm kind of proud of this.

All Growed Up

2010-10-01T08:06:00.002-05:00

My older daughter turned 18 this morning.

Color Me Confused

2010-09-30T08:27:00.002-05:00

I really don't understand my ex-wife sometimes. From the time my older daughter was born, she constantly said that the kids were her primary responsibility... that she would always put them first... that she'd never do anything to compromise or jeopardize their well being...

When we divorced, she stayed in the same town as me because she wanted the kids to be able to spend equal time with both parents. Over the years, this changed a bit, and the kids started spending more time at my place. A headache here, a flat tire there, the occasional weekend getaway, and so forth, brought about a pattern where the kids ended up spending 60 to 65 percent of their time here. This combination of words and deeds brought me to the conclusion that, while her "best" wasn't quite as good as mine, she did provide for the kids to the best of her ability. Her idea of an "emergency" that would require her to give up the kids for a day or two was significantly lower than mine, but she never out-and-out abdicated her responsibility for the kids.

My perception changed last week, when we had lunch to discuss "something important" regarding the kids. During this lunch, she informed me that she planned to move to Texas, about 12 hours away from here. Apparently, she's met a man, and sees this as a golden opportunity to leave town. It's really never been a secret that she doesn't like it here... that she's staying for the sake of the kids. But this totally flies in the face of her alleged kids-come-first mentality.

Before I continue, I need to back up a bit. My older daughter will turn 18 tomorrow. Technically, she will be an adult, but in reality, she's still in high school, and not quite grown up. My younger daughter just turned 14, and in the throes of the whole teen angst part of life. And for those of you who aren't regular readers of my little blog, I should state that I am remarried, and my wife is an excellent parent to our kids. In fact, I've said on more than one occasion that sometimes she's the best parent out of the three of us. But this isn't really about my wife or me. It's about my ex effectively abandoning her kids... especially my younger one.

I've long held a perception that my ex has given my older daughter preferential treatment. My older girl has always been a daddy's girl, a little closer to me than to her mom. As a result, it seems that the kids' mom has spent significantly more time and energy trying to gain the older kid's affection, and neglecting the younger one, who's always been available to mom, but still somehow overlooked. I think that my younger one shares this perception as well, though we haven't talked about it a lot. So let's look at this from the younger one's eyes... Mom hangs around until older sis turns 18, and then suddenly she's found a boyfriend and is ready to move half way across the country.

To further illustrate the inconstancy between the ex's words and actions, she talked to the kids about her desire to move several weeks ago. I don't know the details of the conversations, but my understanding was that she told the kids that she's in love... that she's got an opportunity to move to Texas (she has family in Texas, by the way)... that she's always hated it here... and she asked the kids if it was okay to leave. Well what are the kids going to say?!? They want their mom to be happy. Of course they're going to put on a brave face and say it's okay to leave. In fact, I suspect that they genuinely believe that it's okay. But they don't understand the full ramifications of what they're saying -- especially the younger one.

There really is a lot more to this. Let's face it; my ex moving away would make life more... convenient. More convenient for me, for my marriage, and for the stability of my blended family. From a strictly selfish standpoint, it would be a good thing. And of course I have grand reservations about the man who, in theory, could become my kids' step-father. That's a complete blog post in and of itself, so suffice it to say that something smells fishy with the ex's new love interest.

But what bugs me most is that the ex would even ASK the kids if this was okay. If she REALLY had put the kids' welfare first, this would never have come up. She would have realized that moving away from the younger one now could NEVER be putting the kids first. Even ASKING them such a question forced the kids to be adults before they're ready. This whole thing is unfair to my kids... especially my little one. Color me confused.

I Never Thought...

2010-09-19T11:56:00.003-05:00

...that I'd be writing a blog post that reviews toilet flush valves. But here I am, doing just that. Over the years, I've replaced many of these things. I don't know what it is, but I've had bad luck with flush valves wearing out quickly. In some cases, I've replaced a flush valve after a couple of years. I've tried the hush-flow, but it required WAY too much maintenance, and eventually just shelled out. After the hush-flow, I went back to the ballcock float system, because it was tried and true.

The problem with these, is that I kept getting the old Wal-Mart el-cheapos, which kept crapping out after a couple of years. The fill valve would get stuck, so the toilet wouldn't quit running without manually pulling up on the lift arm.

Tired of continually replacing the toilet valves, I went out yesterday and bought a good valve system. This is the MJSI Hydroclean 660. The cost for the system was two to three times the cost for the cheap ballcock float system, but like I said, I'm tired of replacing these damned things every couple of years.

The Hydroclean was just as easy to install as any other system. The reason that I'm writing a review on this thing is how it works. It's got this jet system that, in my case, seems to force water down the bowl faster during a flush, which allows the toilet to flush the same amount of crap using less water. And during the bowl refill, it's got another adjustable valve that controls how much water goes into the bowl during the refill process. The net effect is that each flush uses less water. My toilet tank has about 40% less water in it after replacing the valve, and the toilet is definitely as effective as it was before. (Yeah, I "tested" it this morning.)

I'm not a plumber. In fact, I don't even really like doing plumbing, despite the fact that I seem to have a moderate amount of skill at it. and I NEVER thought I'd do a review of a toilet flushing valve. But I was so impressed with this thing that I HAD to write about it. In fact, I think that I'm going to proactively change out the valves in my other toilets and reduce my water bill.

Random Notes

2010-09-11T13:15:00.002-05:00

Well, let's see here. It's September 11. It should come as no surprise that nine years after a day that changed America forever, a day that could bring us all together and unite us as a country has instead become a day for politically charged rhetoric and general partisan anger. On the good side, that Florida preacher I mentioned in my last post has changed his mind, and won't burn the koran after all. Of course, that idiot God-hates-fags church in Kansas has picked up the torch, so to speak. Apparently the Kansas church is ~~pissed that they got one-upped and missed a chance for publicity~~ more convinced than the Florida church that Muslims are evil and destined for hell, so they picked up the book burning when the Florida parish chickened out. I guess I'll never get it... how these idiots can turn the love that Christ espoused into something so unrecognizably angry, dark and evil. But then again, while I can't understand it, I also am no longer surprised that this religious-born hatred exists.

On the good side, I read this morning about the first US soldier from Afghanistan to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor without dying for the privilege. To make it even cooler, he's from my neck of the woods. It's good to get concrete confirmation that America still has men of honor and valor.

Oh Yeah, THIS is Gonna Help Things...

2010-09-07T18:19:00.006-05:00

I read an AP article today, talking about this pastor in Florida who is going to hold an "International Burn-a-Quran Day" on Saturday, September 11. I can't even count the number of ways this chaps my hide, but I'm going to try to enumerate a few anyway, because silence is tantamount to a tacit form of approval for this alleged minister's actions.

Before I present my position, I'm going to tell you the reverend's rationale, just in case you didn't read the original article. He says that Islam "is evil because it espouses something other than biblical truth and incites radical, violent behavior among Muslims." Even though several organizations -- the White House... the U.S. Military, and coalitions of religious leaders -- have asked the preacher to reconsider his actions, his response was "How much do we back down? How many times do we back down? Instead of us backing down, maybe it's to time to stand up. Maybe it's time to send a message to radical Islam that we will not tolerate their behavior."

There's a little piece of me that agrees with his response. We should let radical Muslims know that their actions have consequences. But aren't we already expressing this sentiment in Iraq and Afghanistan? Haven't we effectively been saying this for the last several years?

Next, we need to discuss the definition of "radical Islam." In my opinion, the radicals are the ones who blow up historical landmarks, stone women for adultery, and fly airplanes into World Trade Centers. And even then, I would be very tempted to "allow" the destruction of historical landmarks and death penalties, because these are internal affairs. It's not my place to forcefully impose my morality on the rest of the world. But with this all said, let's deconstruct the rev's position, and share some of the ways that this guy is, well, just fucking stupid!

Since this church is claiming to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, let's start there. Jesus did NOT preach violence, and to my knowledge, he never espoused inciting violence. In fact, he was the guy that (basically) said "turn the other cheek." Jesus sought out those who were lost and without hope, and gently showed them God's love. Christ helped the helpless and recommended that people without sin be the first to cast stones. In short, Jesus came to Earth to help people find God.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Isn't this quran burning counter-productive? From a human behavioral standpoint, you're not going to get someone to change their fundamental spiritual beliefs by saying "Hey, stupid, you're wrong! This is the way." The only way to open up a person to the possibility of something different is through your actions. Why? Well, to use an old cliche, actions speak louder than words. If I'm going to introduce someone to Christ's teachings, I need to do so through what I do, and by how I live. When a person is ready, I can explain that I realize I'm not perfect, but God forgives and loves me regardless. I can expound by saying that I know I think, say and do things that are ungodly, but that God's love for me is unconditional, and THAT drives me to do better in His eyes. To fall back onto another cliche, you get more bees with honey than with shit.

My next few points will be a bit more succinct...

-Christianity is responsible for the crusades and the inquisition

-Christianity is responsible for the Salem Witch Trials

-The Nazis burned religious material as well. Were they holy?

So, in the end, here's my take... these clowns are a bunch of right-wing crazies who are more concerned with generating publicity than with actually saving souls.

Fun With Yaks

2010-09-05T08:42:00.002-05:00

No, I'm not talking about the fuzzy, Tibetan cow-like thing. I'm talking about kayaks. If you know me, you know that I enjoy whitewater kayaking, even though I haven't actually been in a whitewater kayak for about five years, and I haven't made a bona fide whitewater run for even longer. But whitewater kayaking is still something I enjoy, and I'd welcome the opportunity to run some whitewater in the future.

The primary reason, by the way, that I no longer kayak is because my whitewater peers have all quit. More specifically, my annual boys' trips were whitewater trips for a few years, but one by one, everyone quit for various reasons. Eventually, I quit as well. Partially because it's not as much fun to paddle alone, and partially because it's not as safe. Either way, the result was the same. My kayak, paddle and spray skirt started to collect a serious amount of dust.

Over the winter, another friend who also happened to kayak, gave me her whitewater boat, spray skirt and paddle. She suffered an injury that prevents her from returning to whitewater, and she said she'd rather give it to someone she knew than sell it to a stranger.

Since then, my girls have been asking me to teach them how to kayak. In fact, they started asking me about kayaking back when I actually used to do it, but they were too young then. Now, they're a little older and I have a second boat, so I gave them their first lesson yesterday... teaching them the Eskimo roll. Neither of them completely got it, but they both made a tremendous amount of progress, and the three of us had a grand old time just putzing around in the water.

Maybe next summer I'll take them on a real trip.

Aging Vets' Costs Concern Obama's Deficit Co-chair

2010-08-31T17:46:00.005-05:00

I just read this article on yahoo news. The original article was posted by AP. The gist of the piece was that former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson, the co-chairman of President Barack Obama's deficit commission, expressed "concern" that "the system that automatically awards disability benefits to some veterans because of concerns about Agent Orange seems contrary to efforts to control federal spending." (How's that for a jumbled mess of a quote?) The article further quoted Simpson as saying "the irony (is) that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess."

I've got a few issues with Simpson's comments. Let me start by acknowledging that Simpson is an Army veteran, according to the article. The clip does not, however, say when he served, or if he saw any action. I suppose that this is supposed to give his words a bit of additional weight, but in my book, it demonstrates that his loyalty is with politicians, not with veterans.

Based on what I see, the public voicing of this "concern" is merely a first step in cutting expenditures for VA benefits. I'm not wild about this idea. As I say this, I need to remind my readers that I have served two combat tours during my enlistment in the U.S. Marines. (Bear in mind that I was "in the rear with the gear," not a true front-line grunt.) I am fortunate to have suffered no long-term effects from my time in the Persian Gulf, but not all of us are so lucky. Simpson's words concern me greatly, not for my own sake, but for the sake of my fellow veterans.

What concerns me even more is the fact that a great many of the Vietnam Veterans who receive these benefits were drafted. They didn't join the military by their own free will. Our country told them that they had to go overseas and fight for the American way, and now the government is insinuating that it costs too much to support these veterans? What kind of precedent does this set for our current military personnel, and those who will serve in the future?

Furthermore, it's the government who set up automatic disability for veterans exposed to agent orange. How is it the veterans' fault that "we're spending too much" in benefits? But I think what chaps my hide most is Simpson's insinuation that veterans, who literally put their lives on the line at our government's request, are somehow once again required to take the front line in controlling "this fiscal mess."

No, wait. There's something that chaps my hide even more. A politician is talking about sacrifice. The guy who's talking about controlling spending is a former senator... and politicians have one of the greatest sweetheart deals in the world when it comes to "retirement" benefits.

Hey Simpson, if you want to give your words some credibility, why don't you go without your entitlements? Or better yet, get your buddies to make the entire congress cut back on their benefits?

Please don't get me wrong. I think it's long past time for ALL OF US to tighten our belts. We need to raise taxes AND cut benefits across the board. If veterans' benefits get cut in the mix, I guess that's a necessary evil. But, in my humble opinion, veterans should be among the last who are asked to sacrifice their entitlements. Veterans are among a small group of individuals who literally put their lives on the line for our country. That sacrifice deserves some consideration.

Pong... Ping...

2010-08-24T14:33:00.002-05:00

Sunny and Paulius made comments on my last post that sort of ask me to do a bit of follow-up. My last post was a bit of a ramble, but to summarize it, I essentially said that my generation, and the generation of my kids is a lot softer than my grandparents' generation. I stand by my comment, but I'd like to clarify the statement a bit, so that everyone has a better understanding of my point of view.

First and foremost, I should say that I'm speaking on the aggregate. I understand very well that society has a lot of poor people who can't afford the luxuries our culture at large takes for granted... air conditioning, Cable TV, cell phones, and automobiles. But at the same time, I will refer to a comment that Sunny and Paulius made one of their podcasts... "Even hobos have cell phones." So yeah, people DO go without common accommodations in our society, but when the homeless have access to cell phones, it's certainly arguable that our society's standard of living is significantly higher than the highest standard of living of our ancestors... which is a nice segue into my main argument that we as a society, specifically our generation, is far softer than our forefathers.

Let me bring up another point. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that it was Paulius who pointed out in one of his blog posts that many people don't know where their food comes from. There is a serious disconnect between the farm and the table. Consumers go to the store, purchase and prepare their beef, dairy, grain and vegetables without having a clue where these items came from. Many city dwellers are completely unaware that hamburger comes from a cow, that pasta comes from grain, and that cheese originated in milk-producing animals. Furthermore, if our society was actually required to hunt and gather food for our survival, I believe that a majority of us would perish.

Furthermore, Paulius mentioned that our grandparents were frugal and went without because they had to. This also underscores my point. They had to do without. Modern society, on the whole, really doesn't know what it's like to do without. We don't understand what it's like to wonder where we'll get our next meal. (This is a reference to the Depression.) We can't fathom recycling rubber and rationing sugar because our greater way of life is at stake. (A reference to WWII.) In fact, we are so averse to the prospect of denying ourselves our creature comforts that we are willing to increase our federal debt, forcing future generations to pay our bills. I understand Paulius' argument that the availability of technology doesn't make us soft, and I can see Sunny's point that some of us aren't affluent enough to afford a lot of our modern conveniences, but this doesn't negate my position. In fact, I agree, to an extent, with Paulius when he said that we started going soft many, many generations ago. (This is my interpretation of his overall point, not something he specifically said.)

Where my opinion diverges though, is when I think about the sacrifices that generations before made to make my country... my world... a better place. The American war for independence... the Civil War (aka the War Between the States, for you southern-types), WWI, WWII. During each of these times, our people made huge sacrifices for our way of life. Could you imagine a draft in today's society? There's no way it would work, because most parents are not willing to sacrifice their children. Indeed, most of these same children would not sacrifice themselves. Rationing? Yeah right. We'll simply borrow more money to buy what we need, and pass the bill to our decedents. Learn to hunt our own food? Oh no, that's just gross! Raise our own food? That would require us to spend time on our hands and knees, in the hot sun.

THAT.... is why I think we are soft. It's not because we have conveniences and creature comforts that our ancestors lacked. It's because we have become so self-absorbed that we are unwilling, or unable, to think of the bigger picture. It's because we are so accustomed to our way of life that if we had to REALLY fend for ourselves... provide our own food, clothing and shelter... that many -- nay, most -- of us would perish. THAT is why I say we're soft. And, by the way, I know how to provide for myself better than a huge majority of people. But even I am not 100% certain that I could keep my family alive. So when I say that we're soft, I'm including myself in that statement.

The Greatest Generation

2010-08-21T07:38:00.008-05:00

Yesterday, I helped my dad with the task of cleaning out my uncle's house, following my uncle's death. This house is in the town where I grew up... the town where my parents still live. It's the house where my dad grew up, and I have a lot of memories of this place... visiting with Grandma and my uncle.

Hoarding seems to be a proud tradition in my family. My parents do it, my grandmother did it, and my uncle did it. This makes sense. My grandparents were adults during the Great Depression. Between the Depression and World War II, my grandparents understood first hand what it meant to make do with what you had, and to go without. Their years of sacrifice had a tremendous impact on ... well, on everything they did.

My grandmother saved everything. She was the original recycler - and far better at it than we are today. She wrote her grocery lists on the back sides of cereal boxes. She kept used bread wrappers and transformed them into woven seat cushions (Shown in this picture). She started cutting paper towels into thirds long before the manufacturers picked up on the idea of half-sheets. Even twist ties were kept, because "you never know when you might need one."

My uncle inherited these habits. Now at this point, I've got to digress a bit. You see, my uncle effectively lived with my grandparents for his entire life. He was in Germany during a two-year Army enlistment shortly after WWII, and he played minor league baseball in 1949 and 1950, but aside from those four years, he lived at home. He never married, and for as long as I've known him, he never had a job.

Well, that's not quite true. His job was to help take care of my grandparents. My grandfather was an alcoholic, and had several strokes. My only memories of my granddad were essentially of an infant in an old man's body. He could say a few slurred words, and could walk with a little help, but that was about the extent of his ability. My grandmother was a shut-in. I can count on one hand the number of times I saw her out of her house.

When my grandparents died, my uncle got everything... the house, any money, and the hoarding instinct. He picked up where my grandparents left off, with his own twist. He loved gardening, so he raised a lot of his own food, and unlike my grandmother, he would leave the house. He used to ride his bicycle all over town, and would pick up just about any little treasure he found. The house was full of mismatched gloves, lug nuts, tire balancing weights and other tidbits he found when riding around town.

Yesterday, while I helped my dad clean out the house, I saw the results of two generations worth of hoarding. We threw out two old sofas, two old televisions, three old living room chairs, and several hefty bags of trash. Among the items I tossed...

-Hundreds of twist ties. Enough that I couldn't fit them all into my hand.

-A stack of plastic food containers approximately three feet high. This isn't counting the lids... all of these items were interlocked.

-A hundred or so plastic forks, knives and spoons from Dairy Queen, Wendy's and so forth.

-A stack of tin can lids (yes, the LIDS) approximately six inches high.

-Dozens of tin cans of various sizes

-Hundreds of Kraft Singles cheese wrappers.

The list of crazy shit goes on and on, and I really didn't make much of a dent in my quest to help dad clean out the house. While I was cleaning, a few thoughts went through my head...

-How can anyone live like this?

-All of this stuff... two generations and literally a house full of stuff... the total accumulation of many lives... and it will all be reduced to a few select mementos for my uncle's surviving relatives. The rest will end up in the dump. Even the house will most likely be demolished, and the empty lot sold to someone else.

-But mostly, I was amazed at the frugality and ingenuity of my grandparents and uncle. They used scraps of newspaper, cardboard and scrap clothing to seal drafty windows. They ate canned meat because it didn't require refrigeration. They never had cable TV. The only real indulgence my uncle allowed himself was his art. He was a very accomplished painter. I got one of his oil paintings while I was helping my dad clean out the house, which is what you see here.

I look at how they lived, and I compare them to my generation, and my kids' generation. We're so soft. We don't understand what it's like to do without. If we ~~need~~ want something, we simply go out and get it. When we're done with things, we simply throw them away. If it's hot, we sit in the air-conditioned living room and watch Blu-Ray Movies on our HDTVs. If it's cold, we don't put on a sweater, we turn up the heat. I actually brought home the aforementioned bread-wrapper seat cushion... to remind myself of the sacrifices of those who came before us, and maybe to instill this into my kids.

My uncle was one of the last relics of a generation that understood sacrifice and ingenuity. I look at the people of his era, compare them to my generation, and stand in awe of them, and with a bit of contempt for my peers. I can't picture us being able to live without our cell phones, fashionable shoes and computers. When I compare us to them, it's like putting a bunch of marshmallows against an oak. Tom Brokaw had it right... these folks really were the greatest generation.

Funerals are for the Living

2010-08-15T19:06:00.004-05:00

We laid my uncle to rest yesterday. It was a good funeral. The morticians did an awesome job of preparing the body. More people showed than I expected. It was a warm, but not hot summer day. After the funeral, the extended family went out for lunch. There were twelve of us all together. Many of us hadn't seen one-another for over a decade, but we instantly fell into a rhythm which had us laughing and joking with one-another as if it had been minutes since seeing each other, not years. We celebrated my uncle's life, caught up with others, and we were all enriched for the experience. I hope that another funeral is not required for us to get together again.

By the way, it turns out that my uncle and grandparents are interred next to a childhood friend's parents.

Just Do It Yourself

2010-08-11T15:50:00.002-05:00

Okay, I'll admit it. I'm a do-it-yourselfer. I enjoy troubleshooting a problem, finding a solution and implementing a fix. I like the of fixing things, and I find joy in the outcome. In fact, it's kind of therapeutic for me to fix things when I'm stressed.

Over the last few weeks... maybe months... I've noticed that the engine in my truck has been surging. It started with just a little bit of fluctuation at idle. Over time, the fluctuation grew, and it started happening while driving down the road. It wasn't unsafe in and of itself, but after a while the truck started shifting into overdrive while highway driving on the smallest of inclines, and quite frankly, the ride became rough and annoying.

Today, I did a little bit of self-therapy and fixed the problem. It was a simple, inexpensive fix that just about anyone can do in their own garage. The rest of this post is going to be dedicated to helping other do-it-yourselfers. If you don't fit into this category, you may as well stop reading.

And of course, since we are a land full of lawsuit-happy attorneys and money-grubbers, I will throw in this disclaimer: What I'm doing here is simply telling you about my experience. If you ended up here because you were researching the problem I will discuss below, feel free to use my experience, but do so at your own risk. I'm not your mechanic, and I make no guarantees about your specific outcome if you try what I did.

Anyway, here's the scoop... I have a 2002 Dodge Dakota with a 4.7L V8. As I mentioned above, I've been having problems with engine surge. Research told me that there were a few things to try. And since they were all closely related, I took an and-all approach and did three different things at the same time.

1) I cleaned the Throttle Body
2)I replaced the Throttle Position Sensor (TPS)
3)I reset the Powertrain Control Module (PCM)

I'll give a brief overview of how this is done. Again, this is a guideline, not a step-by-step tutorial.

-In order to clean the throttle body, I needed to remove the black plastic shroud in front of the throttle body. This is VERY easy. There is a hose between the air cleaner shroud and the throttle body shroud. (These are my terms, not necessarily the manufacturer's.) At each end of the hose, there is a hose clamp. Loosen the hose clamps and remove the hose connecting the shrouds.

-Loosen the hose clamp on the back end of the throttle body shroud.

-Remove the two screws that hold the throttle body shroud to the intake, and gently remove the throttle body shroud.

-Inspect and clean the throttle body with throttle body cleaner. (For those of you familiar with carburetors, the throttle body looks like a giant one-barrel carb, and throttle body cleaner is similar to carb cleaner.) Caution: throttle body cleaner will damage plastic and paint. Follow their directions. (In my case the throttle body was surprisingly clean, but I cleaned it anyway.)

-Remove and replace the TPS. On the right side of the throttle body, there were two sensors. The TPS is the upper sensor. Pay attention to the reinstallation of the sensor. You need to line up the tines on the sensor with the mechanical end of the throttle body. (This sounds a bit convoluted now, but it will make sense when you do the replacement.)

-Reset the PCM. Unplug the negative battery terminal. Put your key into the ignition, and pretend like you're starting the truck for about 30 seconds. This will reset the PCM. This is necessary when you repair or replace electronic devices in the vehicle.

In my case, I am fairly certain that the TPS was the trick. But like I said, since I had the shroud off, I went ahead and cleaned the throttle body, and resetting the PCM was necessary following the replacement of the TPS.

After doing this work, I took the truck on a quick test drive - about 20 miles, both in-town and highway driving, and the problem appears to be 100% fixed.

I hope this helps someone else.

Sometimes, it's not too Late. Other Times, it Is.

2010-08-10T21:44:00.004-05:00

I'm sitting in hospice right now, watching my uncle "resting comfortably." It's apparent to me that he's having difficulty breathing, and I know that any breath could be his last. From what I've been told, he's got "everything." His heart is failing... they say it's operating at about 5% efficiency. His kidneys are failing. And they suspect that he has late-stage cancer, but there's no sense in opening him up to find out.

This is going to be a flashback post. I'm going to rewind God-Only-Knows how far. I guess that I should start in my childhood. On both sides of my family, we've been what you could conservatively call loose-knit. My parents live two hours away, and I see them a couple of times per year. My brothers each live four hours from me. One brother I see once or twice per year, and the other I haven's seen in about five years. I haven't seen most of my aunts, uncles and cousins in about a decade.

I know that there's no excuse for this. But I also guess that we're all happy with the way things are. We're all involved enough in our own lives that nobody is willing to call us all together. Another thing we've got going against us is that a lot of us hold grudges. My dad and my uncle (the one I'm watching now) didn't speak to one-another for years. They finally buried the hatchet over the last couple of days, before my uncle's condition deteriorated to where it is now.

I too haven't seen my uncle for I-don't-know-how-long. This had nothing to do with the dad-uncle feud. In my case, it's because I didn't make enough effort to visit an uncle who never left the house.

During my two-hour drive, I wondered a lot of things... Would I make it? What would I say? Would he be coherent enough for us to have a conversation? Would he be angry with me for waiting so long? Was I going for him? For me? For my dad? None of it really mattered. We're all family, and my place was in the hospice room.

My aunt and one of my cousins were here. I kept thinking what I'd be saying if I were in the bed instead of my uncle. "Well, geez, if I knew that it was this easy to get the family together, I'd have done it years ago."

The catching up is mostly done. Now it's just my uncle, my dad and me. My uncle is still sleeping peacefully. I am writing in bits and pieces... in between my dad and I telling stories.

I stepped out a while ago and grabbed a burger. I figured that while I was out, I'd look up Lisa, and old friend of mine. I've known Lisa for over fifteen years. I talked to her a lot when I was going through my divorce. I suspect that was a bit tough for her, because she stayed friends with the ex too. Anyway, when I started dating again, Lisa and my now-wife had a disagreement, which caused a fall out between Lisa and me.

A few months back, Lisa called. We caught up. I thought things were good. Fast-forward back to tonight. I figured I'd call and or drop by while I'm in town. She hung up on me. I'm not sure what I did, but that's not important.

Sometimes, it's not too late. Other times, it is.

Visiting With an Old Friend

2010-08-07T10:32:00.003-05:00

Sorry for the long gap between posts... I'll say once again that life in 3D-Land is keeping me away from my virtual life. Oh wait. I guess I'm not sorry. I kind of enjoy my real life. Anyway...

During my trip to Florida, I had a chance to see an old friend. And when I say "old," I really mean that he's a long-standing friend, even though he's four or five years my senior.

When I was in the Marine Corps, almost 20 years ago, Adam and I were tighter than that glove on OJ Simpson's hand. Anyone who's been in the military can attest that friends from the service are as close as family. For me, Adam is a grand illustration of how these friendships stand the test of time. When we were in the Corps, we constantly hung out together. He was the best man at my first wedding, and he's my older daughter's godfather. With the passage of time, we've drifted apart to some extent, but even 20 years and 1500 miles fail to diminish my fondness for this guy.

Fast forward to the present. You know how the story goes... you get invested in your day-to-day living. The phone calls become less and less frequent. Your friendship gets reduced to occasional emails, and Christmas cards. (The cards are from him. I've never been good at sending Seasonal greetings.) But deep down, the friendship has never really faded. You think of the friend occasionally, and you honestly want to visit and catch up, but again, life doesn't allow it.

To put the time line in perspective, Adam left the Marine Corps in 1991, but he stayed in the area, so we kept in touch. My enlistment ended in 1992, and I moved back to Iowa in 1993. He decided to move back home in 1994 I believe, and Iowa was on his way back home, so I saw him then. We didn't see each other again until 2004, when he got married, and I saw him again in 2005, when I remarried.

Each time we saw one another, we spent the first few minutes catching up on what had happened since our last visit, but essentially, it was as if no time had passed... we always picked up where we left off. This, in my opinion, is one of the hallmarks of true friendship... a friendship that stands the test of time.

Well, it just so happens that Adam lives in Florida... a few hours south of Orlando. Fortunately, he was able to stop in Orlando, and we had a chance to catch up. In fact, we had an entire day! We met up mid-morning, where he joined my extended family-in-law for lunch, and agreed to tag along on our planned trip to Epcot. I must say, my family was awesome. Though I hadn't seen a lot of them for a long time -- and had met some of them for the first time -- everyone intuitively seemed to understand that catching up with Adam was very important to me. Adam and I tended to lag a little behind the main group, which gave us a chance to have some semi-private conversations, and reminisce without boring everyone else to tears.

We spent a LOT of time talking about days gone by, revisiting some of our favorite times together, but we both seemed to be firmly rooted in the here and now. We discussed how the Marine Corps really is a a brotherhood that never dies... something I think we both failed to thoroughly realize when we were on active duty. I think the highlight, for me, was when we visited Japan at Epcot.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Epcot, there's a feature called World Showcase that has highlights of various countries. Adam and I had both visited Okinawa during our enlistment, and we looked forward to seeing what Epcot had to offer. The one thing in Japan that I had looked most forward to seeing was an authentic Japanese cork carving. When I was in Okinawa, I was stunned by the detail of these Japanese handmade works of art. One of my regrets is that I never picked one up when I had the chance.

Anyway, while we were at the Japanese area of Epcot, I looked for these cork carvings, but none were to be found. I told Adam that I was a bit disappointed by this. He replied that he was thinking the same thing, and then proceeded to tell me that while he was in Okinawa, he had purchased a coffee table that was a Japanese cork carving with a glass top, He was studying it a few days before our visit, and noticed something that he'd never seen before, despite owning the table for over 20 years. We marveled at the detail of these spectacular works of art, and that cemented my impression that despite the passage of time, we were still in sync as if we'd been separated by days, not years.

We had a full day of catch-up. It was great. I was gratified that we got to visit. I know that it will once again be a long time before we see each other again, but I am thankful for the time we had.

A Trip to Disney

2010-07-30T17:37:00.002-05:00

Most of you already know that I took a trip to Florida last week. After all, the majority of my readers are also my Facebook friends. What I haven't done though, is talk about the details of my trip. There are a lot of stories for me to tell. I haven't started before now because as soon as I got back from vacation, I went back to work, and have been once again putting in a lot of hours. I certainly won't complain about that... after all, I have a vacation to pay for.

We spent our time in Orlando, known, of course, for Disney. We stayed at the Hilton right outside of Downtown Disney, and we hit Magic Kingdom and Epcot. With this trip, I can now say that I have been to both Disneyland and Disney World. The first time I went to Disneyland was in the early 1990's, and then I went again around four years ago. I was impressed with Disneyland on my first trip (despite the fact that Snow White refused to have her picture taken with me), and the second trip was even better. They did a great job of expanding and improving the park. With that said though, Disney World blows Disneyland out of the water. I'd often heard this, but reserved judgment until I experienced things for myself.

There are a few reasons that I like Disney World better. For starters, I really like that Downtown Disney is a completely separate entity from the theme parks. This affords people the opportunity to focus on shopping while at Downtown Disney, and concentrate on the rides and attractions at the theme parks. This was a stroke of genius. With that said though, if you're short on time, or aren't wild about commuting to a completely different location for shopping, Magic Kingdom and Epcot both had plenty of opportunities for shopping. My point is that Disney ironed out some of Disneyland's kinks when they built Disney World.

My favorite feature of Disney World, however, was the tickets we purchased. Certain hotels have some sort of partnership with Disney that allows the hotel guests to buy discounted tickets to the theme parks. In our case, the discount basically worked like this... you buy the discount ticket, which allows you to enter the park late in the day, but you get to remain in the park after it closes to the other ticket holders. This was a quintuple win for us. 1) The kids got to sleep in. 2) Many early birds had already departed by the time we arrived, so the lines were shorter. 3) Lines were significantly shorter after the park closed, because there are very few hotels that offer this deal. 4) We were NOT at the parks during the hottest part of the day. 5) We got a DISCOUNT for the four aforementioned perks!

With this all said though, the hotels that offer these perks are a select few, and they're not budget hotels. However, I would ABSOLUTELY do the same thing again if I were to hit Disney World. I'll talk a bit more about the parks themselves, and other aspects of the trip in later posts.

Faith vs. Religion

2010-07-20T07:07:00.003-05:00

I've got to say that Paulius has been very flattering to me lately. He mentioned me in his inaugural podcast, and he gave me credit for influencing a change in his attitude toward religion. While the former is kind of cool, it's really the latter that I'd like to discuss a bit more in-depth.

Paul's post started off by talking about the Westboro Baptist Church... you know, the "God Hates Fags" idiots that protests at the funerals of military personnel who were killed in combat. He then used these morons as illustrations of larger issues. In fact, you should just take a moment to read his article, and then come back when you're done.

Okay, now that you've read his post, and gotten a bit of background, you should have a better understanding of where I'm headed with today's words, which are going to discuss the differences between faith and religion. The words are used quite interchangeably, but there is really a cavernous difference in their meanings.

Religion, as Paulius' reference to the Westboro haters illustrates, has been the cause of a great deal of suffering and oppression throughout history. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials are three glaring examples of evils that the Christian Religion alone can perpetrate under the right circumstances. This is because religion is not faith. Religion is religion.

My definition of faith is the belief in something that cannot be definitively proven. My belief in God is, by definition, faith because I cannot create and recreate an experiment that can provide sufficient evidence of God's existence. My inability to prove God's existence has absolutely no bearing on whether or not He Is; I am simply unable to prove things one way or the other. With this in mind, I would like to point out that atheism is technically a faith, when using my definition of the word. Paul, a self-proclaimed atheist, cannot prove that God doesn't exist any more than I can prove that God does exist. Absent this proof either way, we simply have different preconceived notions regarding this existence. Both of us have an equal amount of faith. It's simply that we have faith in different answers to the same question.

With this in mind, I will freely concede, from an intellectual standpoint, that I could be absolutely wrong about God's existence. It's completely possible that my communion with God is nothing more than neurons firing in my brain under the right circumstances... that these neurons release serotonin and other chemicals, causing a feeling that I interpret as feeling God's presence. Science has talked about the process, but it has not yet found a method of addressing causation, which means that science hasn't come any closer to proving or disproving God's place in the universe.

But enough about faith. I hope that I've sufficiently defined and illustrated what faith is. It's now time to talk about religion. While faith is the core belief, religion is the set of rules, traditions and rituals that are associated with this belief. Taking communion, the premise that the Pope is infallible, and going to Church are examples of some of these rules. In other words, religion is the set of dogmatic principles that an individual follows in the practice of faith. Faith is the core belief. Religion is what happens as a result of faith.

For example, some people believe that if they behave in a certain way on earth, they will receive certain rewards in heaven (or punishment in hell). They follow certain rules with the expectation of a certain outcome. Atheists have a belief system that’s not incongruent with the belief of people with faith. Atheists are convinced that there is no God, so the only consequences for their actions are here on earth. Their belief system is self-imposed, and by society.
With this in mind, an atheist can be a good person while someone professing faith in God can be an absolute monster. My friend Greg doesn’t believe in God, but he does believe in being faithful to his wife, loving his children, honoring his parents, not stealing, and taking care of his friends. These are all tenements of the Christian religion, and by my definition, Greg is a good person. As for evil Christians?!? I think that we can all agree that the Westboro idiots are not a shiny happy example of people practicing a healthy faith in God.
So the next time someone talks to you about your religion, maybe you can bring up the possibility that they’re talking about the wrong thing. Because what they’re interested in is not the set of rules, but the belief itself.