Long Overdue...

After Valentino died, we decided that we needed to honor his death by saving another kitten from the shelter. And we did just that.

Denise has always wanted a little orange kitty, so we went looking for one at our shelter. And we found one. Or rather, she found us.

We were walking down the aisle of cages and all the kitties and puppies were making all kinds of noise, "Pick me! Pick me!" they were saying....

But this one skinny little orange kitten was quiet, but stared us down, cocking her head to the side and pawing the glass with one paw, following us as we passed. Of course we had to check her out and she snuggled up to us, purring, as soon as we got her out of the cage. There was no going back after that. Our fate had been decided.

She sure was sickly, though. She had worms and fleas very bad, ear mites, too, and she was so skinny that we could see her ribs through her fur. Her face was "alien-like" as Denise would say. And after we got her first round of shots, she went through this funk and we thought she wouldn't make it. She quit eating and drinking and just laid around squeaking (barely meowing). We had to feed her kitten milk replacement for a couple of days before she came around.

She's a good cat now. Denise wanted to call her Dulce (Dul-che) which means "sweet" in Spanish, so that is her name.

She's still a little small. She's got huge ears and a very long tail, so we think she'll grow into them and maybe get to be just a bit smaller than Mr. Roboto (who is HUGE now!).

Dulce's favorite trick is to sleep on my face when I'm sleeping or watching TV. And she's very playful. She loves running around the house with her little stuffed animals in her mouth, growling at Mr. Roboto any time he tries to come near her. Every other day we have to go around the house and pick up all the cat toys that she drags out and carries around with her and put them back in their cat-toy basket.

Dulce and Mr. Roboto love to play. They chase each other around the house all the time, climbing on absolutely everything and making all kinds of noise.

Farewell, my faithful friend...

It is with great sadness that we had to put Valentino to sleep a couple days ago- a remarkably terrible coincidence, considering we lost Vincenzo only a couple months ago.

Valentino lost about five pounds since Vincenzo died, and we thought that it was because of some psychological "thing," maybe he badly missed Vincenzo, or he wasn't the alpha cat, so he didn't have "permission" to eat or something. We didn't really realize that Valentino had lost so much weight until one day, Denise began to notice that Valentino was looking rather bony, so I weighed him. That much weight was really more than just an emotional problem for a kitty, especially since we tried many, many kinds of cat food to see what he would like to eat, instead of the stuff we had been feeding him for so long. We found a couple of foods that he seemed to love, but after a bite or two, he would simply walk away, which is abnormal behavior for a cat.

Turns out that for the past few months, Valentino had been suffering from some kind of liver disorder, like liver cancer or some other kind of liver disease. The vet said we could aggressively treat his condition, but without guarantee of a relapse, especially considering his age: eleven. Basically, Valentino had been almost literally starving for months now, and we felt it was simply best to end his suffering. We feel very bad that we didn't catch this sooner and that he had to suffer as much as he did, but the vet did say that very soon and he would have started having seizures and other serious neurological problems. We are very glad that we will never have to remember Valentino in such a degraded position and that the last moments with him were relatively normal, him getting petted and held and loving every second of it.

I simply remember Valentino as an attention hog. He loved being petted and wherever we were, he was right there, snuggling up to us, purring his little heart out. Yeah, we called him psycho-kitty sometimes because he was so scared of everything, but that mellowed with age and while he never got completely over his skittishness, he became a very sociable cat.

I always loved how he jumped in my lap when I was on the computer, or he jumped in the bed with us and literally leaned against my side or chest, just to get petted.

He was always a finicky cat, but he loved a certain kind of cat treat and would come running when he saw the bag in our hands. I'll miss how he did that.

Valentino, I'll miss you, my friend. I know you are in better place, with no loud noises or sudden movements. I'm sure I'll see you again one day. I can't wait to pet you again.

Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto

Valentino, our striped cat, hasn't taken the loss of Vincenzo very well. He's been acting up, not eating, waking us up in the middle of the night and just being a general nuisance. So, the vet said that we should get another cat.

And we did.

We did our good deed for the week and went down to our local shelter and saved a kitty.

Denise wanted an orange tabby, and they had a few, but when she saw this kitty, she knew she had to have him.

He's a seal-point domestic shorthair. His brothers and sisters were all pretty much normal, average looking kittens, but he stood out, which is why I think Denise liked him so much.

So, since she picked him, I got to pick his name.

Friends, Romans, Countrymen, I introduce you to Mr. Roboto! We call him Robo for short. As of right now, he's about 9-10 weeks old and he is as kittenish as can be. He's into everything, plays all the time and is one of the cutest things ever.

Of course, Valentino, pictured left, didn't like him very much at all at first. Lots of hissing, swatting and running away. But now it seems they are getting along a little better. Robo especially loves Valentino's tail and the more he bites it, the more Valentino swishes it around, which makes Robo even more playful.

Most of the time, Valentino just ignores Robo, even when he's getting bit all over. Occasionally, he'll fight back by giving him a swat and sometimes a bite, but Robo just keeps coming.

It's very cute.

Something Valentino has been doing is very cute. Robo will just get on his last nerve and he'll put his paw out against Robo's chest and keep him at bay, while Robo swings away. Of course, Valentino is a 15-pound cat and he's big, so it's like an adult putting their hand on a kid's forehead and allowing the kid to swing away, hitting nothing but air. It's very funny to see, but we haven't been able to get a video or picture of it.

Robo eats like a cow. He's only been in the house for about a week now, but he eats almost a full bowl of cat food a day. We think that Valentino has been sneaking Kitten Chow on the sly, but I've not seen it and Denise has only caught him once. But Robo's got a little fat belly and he's getting big now. He's healthy and happy. I'm very glad we got him, except for the fact that cats are nocturnal and they've decided that the best time to play is in the middle of the night when the humans are sleeping.

Valentino has been doing better, too. He's not as mopey and he's been eating more, though we've kind of had to read his mind when he's hungry and put his adult indoor cat food down and then take it up when he's done, because Robo seems to like Valentino's food a bit more than his own. Small price to pay, though.

And here is a video of our boys playing. Usually, they go longer than this, but this is a fair representation of what usually happens.

An interesting case of social engineering

I noticed an interesting thing the other night while I was watching television, in how certain "groups" of people are portrayed.

In African-American circles, there's a lot of outcry about how television wrongly depicts black people as this or that and how American television is actually responsible for a large portion of racism in modern America. From what I've seen and read, that is mostly viewed as borderline conspiracy theory. I'm not so sure I can say that television is responsible, but I do believe that television certainly perpetuates it, or at least doesn't do anything to abate the tide of racism that we have in our country. And really, I'm not so sure that it's television's job to conquer racism, especially Prime Time television. I certainly believe, however, that television should not be promoting racism as it appears to do on a regular basis.

In the past decade or so, a new "group" of individuals has been "showcased" on television: homosexuals. From what I've observed from the shows I've watched and the pop culture I understand, I've begun to see a bit of social engineering.

Just from what I've seen, I think that homosexuals are over-represented on television, just as much as black people are under-represented and stereotyped.

Basically, homosexuals represent a very, very small portion of the population, but they are represented through television in a large portion of shows. If you look at how often black people are represented, you will notice that black people are under-represented. Meaning, that, in real life, you will more likely run into a black person (about 17% of the population) than you will a homosexual (about 3-5%, according to most studies). In fact, it is a bit more likely you will run into say, an atheist (about 9% of the population), than a homosexual, but the representation of atheists on television is extremely small. Of course, that also leads to another question: Atheism is something you can't see, unlike race, as is homosexuality. Why is it such a big deal that some characters are determined to be characterized by something that is practiced in private? Does it really matter?

Additionally, something I've noticed is the kind of representation that homosexuals receive on television. Black people are generally represented as a kind of "token" character, like "we have to have a black person on the show, or else the show won't be believable." But, in a lot of these shows, black people are given every type of character, good and bad.

However, in all of the shows I've seen where a homosexual is in the cast, they are all cast as a "super-normal" individual. No crime. No hang-ups. Just a homosexual trying to make it through life, all the while letting everyone know that they are gay. Not only is this odd, it's completely illogical.

It is unreasonable to believe that homosexuals don't commit crime or don't encounter the same societal issues that the heterosexuals do and if they do have the same struggles as heterosexuals do, it is certainly unlikely that all of them come through it as easily or heroically as portrayed on television.

Why am I getting hung up on television when we all know television is fake? Because we don't all know that television is fake. Yes, we can intellectually understand that television is fake, but psychologically, when we are exposed to the same stimulus over and over again, fake or not, we tend to believe it as reality. We are basically conditioned by television every day of our lives.

So, am I saying that homosexuals shouldn't be portrayed on television as generally good people? Am I saying that homosexuals shouldn't be portrayed on television as much as they are? Not really. What I am saying is that it is completely ludicrous that homosexuals are being portrayed as often as they are, without all the problems that the rest of us face.

Of course, I don't watch every show on television, and I certainly don't watch every show that has a homosexual on it. So, it's possible that I simply haven't observed enough television to make an accurate statement. But, isn't that the point, that the television I do watch, about 2-3 hours a day sometimes, is approximately the same amount of television (at least!) that everyone else watches? Is it really fair that African-Americans get portrayed the way they do, usually with many issues, many times related to crime or poverty, but homosexuals are portrayed nearly as often as African-Americans, but without any of the hangups?

A Question for the Candidates

Obesity is an epidemic. The cost to treat health problems related to overweight and obese Americans is now in the billions. At least 34% of Americans are overweight and 32% of Americans are obese. This number is rising all the time.

As President, what will you do to curb this trend?

Some useful health links

I am trying to live a healthier life, so I've been trying some new things.

Fitness and Diet Journal
This journal is fantastic. And it's free. It is super easy to use. It is one of the best fitness tools I have ever used.
Pose Running
Well, if you have read this blog at all, you know that I have a love/hate relationship with running. I've never considered myself to be naturally good at it. Pose Running is the form taught to professional and Olympic athletes. It's not that easy at first, because there are all kinds of drills I have to do to understand the fundamentals of the technique, but I really think this is exactly what I needed to get through my running "problem."
Combat Swim Stroke
This is a bit interesting. Since I got hurt, I've taken up swimming and I got this video. It's kind of like a cross between a side stroke and a butterfly stroke (I think that's the name.) It's supposedly super-efficient and it's not too tiring. I'm still working on it, but I think I'm getting it down.
Rock Climbing
Yes, I finally went climbing last night and I loved it, as I thought I would. I recently bought a pair of climbing shoes, these, and they were wonderful! They didn't hurt my feet and they kept me on the wall like I had claws for feet. Of course, I hurt all over, but that will go away. I'll be joining the gym on payday so I can go whenever I want.

I recommend all these products.

lolcats

I love cats.

I also love pictures of cats.

I recently discovered something called lolcats. A good description can be found here and here.

Originally, most were created to use on forums, which is why many of them will talk about "threads" which is just another word for topic.

So, I'd like to share lolcats with you. The first entry on the top left of my blog is devoted to websites that have lolcats on them. Visit them. You will laugh. A lot.

You will need to understand "leetspeak," though. You can do a Google Search for other lists and explanations of leetspeak.

And below is one of my favorites:

Hi, I'm Matt. I used to play Video Games.

I've played video games for as long as I can remember. I played the Atari 2600, I owned an Atari 5200 and I also played the Atari 7800. Before any of that, I played the Commodore 64 and played something called The Magnavox Odyssey. I've owned every Nintendo console ever made.

I played Pong. I played Pac Man when it came out. Same for Space Invaders, Galaga, Centipede and Missile Command.

Video Games have been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. And now they are not.

Basically, I think it was just time for me to grow up a little bit. I realized that my compulsion to play video games was causing me much trouble.

For instance, while I was deployed, I had a lot of time on my hands. What did I do? I played my favorite game of all time, Eve. It is, in my opinion, one of the best games of all time. I had a great group of folks I used to play with.

However, because I spent virtually every waking hour playing Eve, I did nothing else. No school work. No PT. No nothing. Instead of using the internet connection I had to get ahead on my degree, I used it to play video games. I deeply regret that.

My problem is, I get too involved. I've often thought that I might have an addictive personality, that I just get far too wrapped up in things, without considering other alternatives for my use of time.

When I got back from Kuwait, I made a decision that I would spend time with my wife first and then play video games. Or, I would only play video games a couple times a week.

Yeah.

That lasted about two weeks.

I quit playing Eve, but I started playing other games, like Dawn of War and Auto Assault. I thought I would be able to take it easy and play them just a little here and there. Within a month, I was doing the same thing.

So, after a few months, I, with a LOT of help from my wife, decided that I would simply stop playing video games. It's obvious I can't handle playing them.

See, video games of today, like Eve or World of Warcraft or Auto Assault, are designed to be addictive. Really, they activate the same area of the brain that drugs activate. Once you play, it's incredibly hard to stop. Plus, because we are social beings, the socialization that comes with online games keeps us coming back for more.

So, I made the decision that I would simply quit playing. It's been a couple months and I don't regret the decision.

Like a smoker, though, every once in a while I'll get a peculiar desire to play a game, specifically Eve. Most of the time, I'll just ignore it and it goes away. Sometimes, I'll visit the website and take a look at some of the game play pictures and I'll be fine. Those incidences are becoming fewer and fewer, though.

I've since replaced my addiction to game with several things, like working out and spending time with my wife. I've lost a bit of weight and I think my wife likes having me around now.

It's not a decision I regret.

Ode to our Doughboy

On Thursday, 17 May, we made the decision to put our cat, Vincenzo, to sleep. It was truly the only humane option.

He was throwing up a lot, urinating on the floor and acting very odd- laying around on the floor, not eating or drinking and not using the litter box. We took him to the Emergency Vet who thought it was just an infection. After force feeding him medicine, which did nothing, we took him to the Vet on Monday morning, who determined that he had a urinary tract blockage. The Vet put in a catheter for 48 hours and all seemed fine. On Wednesday, he took it out. By Thursday morning, he was blocked up again. The Vet gave us greater than 50% odds that he would experience more blockage if he put the catheter back in and surgery was too expensive- and also had high odds that the blockage would return. Since Vincenzo had been suffering for almost five days already, we decided that the most humane option would be to put him to sleep.

It was one of the hardest moments of my entire life. I don't think I've ever cried so much or so hard. My wife was surely more heartbroken. She's had Vincenzo longer than she's known me.

Vincenzo lived a good, long 10 years. He was an indoor cat, so he lived a life of luxury and never wanted for anything. We loved him and showed our love to him at every opportunity. He will be greatly missed.

Vincenzo, we love you and we miss you. We'll always remember how you loved to hang your front feet off the sofa, or sleep on our shoes, or the scale, or anything else that you could find on the floor. We'll miss how you waddled when you walked. We'll miss how you would remind us every night to brush you. We'll miss how you followed us to every room. We'll miss how you would let us know that your feeder was getting low several days in advance and how much you loved Clean Water Day. We'll miss how you came running for one thing: tuna juice.

But most of all, we'll miss your ever-present company and just knowing that you were always around.

I hope God has plenty of tuna juice and clean water for you in heaven.

We love you.

Random Political Thoughts

New Bumper Stickers

Hillary/Obama/Edwards:
Not George Bush since 1776

Guliani/McCain/Romney:
Not George Bush since 1776

Er... wait...

Those who don't trust anyone else cannot be trusted

I think I've figured out the Left/Progressives. I've been trying to figure out what exactly is the core of the Left's belief system and until now, it's mostly boggled me. But I think I've got it now.

Trust. The Left doesn't trust the Average American. Yes, that's scathing. Yes, it's a blanket statement, but walk with me for a minute as I explore this line of thinking.

Let's go with Gun Control first. The Right generally supports the Second Amendment. There are some that want everyone to have guns. They are idiots. Not everyone (criminals, mentally ill, underage, etc.) should have guns. But the more level-headed realize that it is our right to have guns and that "an armed society is a polite society." (Thank you, Robert Heinlein!) The Left, from what I can generally gather is the polar opposite. No one (except for the military and police) should have guns. Period. There is plenty of research out there that confirms that guns do not cause crime. In fact, that same research explicitly proves that if the citizenry is armed, crime is reduced, and if the citizenry is disarmed, crime increases. It's like magic! This is proven over and over again. So, what's the deal?

Well, I've already made my major point in that it's a matter of trust. The Left doesn't trust "other people" with guns. Right after the VA Tech massacre, there was a short debate about gun control and basically as soon as it was demonstrated that a single student with a gun would have stopped the whole thing, the conversation was pretty much dropped from the news. I was listening to someone talk about gun control and they stated, "I don't think I would feel safe if an entire major American city's population was armed." Er... why? Because they'd all be violent, crime-loving barbarians as soon as they bought the firearm? Hardly. It's because he didn't trust anyone but himself. Rest assured that more people carry concealed weapons than you probably realize.

This is kind of like how, for a long while, pretty much everyone believed that everyone else on the internet was some kind of homosexual, child-stalking, porn-watching pervert or something.

Let's move on to another topic: Poverty and the welfare state. What's the deal with the Left always wanting to raise the minimum wage and put more folks on welfare? Remember, welfare was supposed to eliminate poverty. I guess in one way, it did. Our poor have more stuff/money/resources than the rest of the world's poor. So, we have the richest poor in the world. But it's all relative. The poor (and the Left) measure their "poorness" against the "rich" and their "richness." The average family in poverty has a microwave, TV, cell phone and a car. The average rich family? Well, I don't know. But I can use my imagination and choose to believe that they have a better microwave, a larger TV, more minutes per month on their cell phone plan and better and more cars. Whether that's true... I don't know.

But, getting back to the point, the massive expansion of our welfare state was caused by the Left. Why? Because they didn't trust the Average American to take care of the Less Than Average American. Now, I don't know if that is really true. But what does it matter? The Left scored a huge voting block because of this. However, I am inclined to think that if The Church (yes, the Christian Church) spent more time taking care of the poor then, we wouldn't have so much of a poverty problem now. Basically, and I have no facts to back this up, I believe that The Church fell down on the job and that is why the Government decided to step up. Now, I concede that it is possible that The Church could possibly have been doing very well at caring for the poor and the government just wanted to score that big voting block, but I guess we'll never know.

Next topic: Affirmative Action. In short, the government doesn't trust the private sector to hire enough people of race (whether they are qualified or not) so the government stepped in and dictated how many of every race you must hire. Or else.

Abortion: Well, I haven't quite figured this one out. I do know, however, that calling it a "women's rights issue" is bogus. It's all about the money. Sure, it may have started as a women's rights issue, but that's not the case any more.

So, now that I've given you a prism through which to view politics of the Left, see if you can take an issue and break it down this way. See if you don't get as ticked off as I do about it.

My Dream Republican Ticket

Romney/Gingrich or Gingrich/Romney

Gingrich totally excites me. He's the most intellectual person I think I've ever seen on television. Check out the Contract with America to see some of his handiwork.

Romney is smart, looks good, has great Christian values and doesn't say "nuk-u-lar," at least I haven't heard him say it.

50% of something is better than 100% of nothing

I heard someone say that today on the radio. He was referring to Guliani, and how he is pro-choice, and how many conservatives won't vote for him because of that. Sad, really. Put it this way, you don't have to vote for Guliani in the Primaries, but you had better vote for him the general if he's the nominee. What would you want more:

Guliani, a pro-choice Republican who shares a few of our values, will be strong on terror and crime and will be a strong presence in the White House

Hillary/Obama/Edwards, pro-choice Democrats who share none of our values and will appease and attempt to negotiate with terrorists (including probably passing laws to make it illegal to detonate a nuk-u-lar weapon inside a U.S. city)

What do you get if you don't vote for Guliani because he's pro-choice? A Democrat who is pro-choice. You lose.

If you don't vote, we will lose.

The Tornado in Kansas

As you should be aware, there was a huge tornado in Kansas this weekend. I heard on the radio that at the strongest point, the tornado cut a swath 1.7 miles wide. The whole town is destroyed. Luckily, fewer people died than would be expected from such a disaster.

My thoughts and prayers are with the citizens and family members of Greensburg.

But it didn't take long for the media to politicize this and how the Iraq war has caused the state to not be prepared for a time such as this. Isn't there some kind of psychological term for when everything you see is somehow related to one thing? Isn't that a form of religious fanaticism?

Anyway, the MSM reported this: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius says a shortage of trucks, helicopters and other equipment - all sent to the war in Iraq - has hampered recovery in a US town obliterated by a tornado.

"There is no doubt at all that this will slow down and hamper the recovery," Governor Sebelius, a Democrat, said in Kansas, where officials said the statewide death toll had risen to 12.

"Not having this equipment in place all over the state is a huge handicap."

"Boo Hoo! That meanie President Bush sent all my trucks and planes away and now I have nothing to help my citizens with."

Nowhere does it say how many of the actual Soldiers are deployed. I know for a fact that a lot of Guard units leave their stuff over there when the Soldiers themselves return from deployment. So, we really don't have the full story about who and what is here. It's unlikely we'll get it, too, since 1. The MSM likely won't tell us. 2. They couldn't get that info anyway because it's sensitive information. Troop strength and stuff, you know.

I'm not doubting that a majority of the Kansas NG stuff is in Iraq. But I'm doubting and questioning the reason something else.

We've been deploying the National Guard to foreign soil since Clinton was president, so for at least 10 years. They went with their stuff then, too, and brought it back when the mission was done. At what point did someone ever think, "Hey, a lot of our stuff is gone. Since we're the National Guard, and our main job is to help in times of domestic crisis, and our stuff is not here, shouldn't we get new stuff? Especially since we live in FREAKIN' TORNADO ALLEY! Especially since the EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED TWO YEARS AGO WITH HURRICANE KATRINA?"

I mean, come on. Really. No one had the foresight to think about this? I would love to know whose job it is to think of stuff like this.

I suppose, though, that it would have been a catch-22. "What? You have BRAND NEW equipment here in the States that you aren't sending to Iraq? You sent them to war and now you won't send them new equipment? You Loser."

God vs. Science

There's been some talk about a couple Christian guys getting ready to debate a couple atheist guys and how the Christian guys are going to prove God exists through Science and without the Bible.

Ugh. I hate it when Christians (or atheists!) think they can do this. I have a bad feeling the atheists are going to take their lunch and walk all over the Christian guys, but not because God doesn't exist, but because the Christian guys are... well... dumb for trying this.

Let's get one thing straight. You can't prove or disprove God with science. Period. Anyone who thinks they can clearly has no idea what science actually is and risks basically making a fool of themselves. I say this for both sides. Atheists can't disprove God with science, either, because that's not the way this works.

I like to define stuff, so let me define science.

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws science and an art
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

I added the bold in definition 3. Basically, science is the study of the observable, what is around us. Additionally, it uses the scientific method to describe and prove/disprove concepts, events and theories. This is not how to prove God exists.

Revelation 12:11 says, " They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony..." That is how to do it. You're not going to prove anything about God in 10 minutes. If it was possible to do so, it would be done over and over and over again. Plus, half of the Bible would be useless because we would no longer need faith. Also, if science could do it all, why would Evangelism even be a gift of the Spirit? People don't instantly get convinced that they need Christ. They get convinced that they need what Christians have. This takes time and some folks will never be convinced of that. That's just the way it is.

Anyway, science uses methods to prove concepts. There are many divisions of science, like physics, chemistry, meteorology, astronomy and the like. In every single one of those divisions, there are theories and concepts and principles that follow rules that don't change. F=MxA (Force equals mass times acceleration) is one. The Laws of Thermodynamics are others. Over and over and over again, these can be proven.

The problem is, many people think that a Theory is something that is not provable, that it is a "belief" that scientists have. (Actually, that's criminally oversimplified.) A Theory is a belief, but not because there's no evidence to prove the Theory and scientists need "faith" to understand said theory. A scientific theory is called a theory because there are parts of the theory that aren't quite understood or haven't been figured out quite yet or predict how something is supposed to act, but we haven't had the chance to prove it. A large (or small) part of a scientific theory follows the laws that should be followed, but there are some parts that are missing, and those parts are expected to follow whatever laws should apply. Okay, let's make this more complex.

Relativity. Wait! Stop! Keep reading! It's called a Theory because it best explains the behavior of an object inside a gravitational field. No one else has a better explanation, and the principles stated within General Relativity best explain what happens to objects that are affected by gravity. In fact, parts General Relativity can be proven over and over and over again and have been. However some parts, specifically relating to, say, black holes, are only predictions, since we can't actually visit or even really see black holes. However, we expect them to act a certain way, and no one has any reason to believe that they won't. That is how theories work. Okay, done with Relativity.

You can't prove/disprove God with science because that's not how He works. Besides, if God created science, why would he allow Himself to be disproved by it and if he wants us to use faith (as evidenced by the many times in the Bible it says so) why would He allow himself to boxed into being proven by a simple scientific experiment?

So, good luck guys. I hope you know your stuff because I think you are going to get trounced.

Oh, and to anyone who may think so: SCIENCE IS NOT EVIL. Period. And I'll debate anyone who thinks so... as if anyone actually reads this blog....

Some good links

Here are some great links I've picked up in the past few days:

Why a College Degree really isn't about the education. This is a really great article from a Left-of-Center website, that in and of itself is pretty good.

The Force is Strong with this one. Holy Cow, I haven't laughed this hard at a clip in a long time. Yes, it's picking on the President a bit, but who cares! It's very, very funny. "Get me a taco!"

... and the Empire will be defeated by Ewoks! Yes, I had to start surfing YouTube for a bit after I saw that first one. Robot Chicken is totally awesome

There are more. I'll post 'em when I remember 'em.

I'm not as broken as I thought I was...

I don't have a Stress Fracture in my right femur. I have "stress changes."

Basically, I have an area on both of my femurs (right is much more acute) that are evidence of stress to the bone: an inflammation in the periosteum of my femur, in other words. This is according to the PA that saw me yesterday.

Now, I could not find an actual medical reference to something called a "stress change." But, I was able to track down what I really have, or at least as close as my non-MD mind can figure out.

I have shin splints in my thighs. The medical term is periosteitis, but I don't know for sure if that term refers only to shin or to other bones as well.

Naturally, I am a bit skeptical. The femur is the largest bone in the body and the spot on my leg that has the injury is right in the middle inside, away from any joints. I may yet request a second opinion, but I want to see how my physical therapy goes; this starts Monday.

I did get a whopper of a profile, though. (In the Army, if you are injured and see a doctor, he should give you a sheet of paper stating what you can and can't do, in terms of activity. This is to relieve stress to the injured part and allow it to heal. It can range from "Run at own pace" to having nearly all activities curtailed or prohibited.) Basically, I can't run, jump, stand for more than 20 minutes, march, forced march or do any kind of heavy leg activity, like flutter kicks or "froggers." So, looks like swimming is going to be my exercise, along with biking.

And I still can't climb rocks. My profile ends on June 3rd. You can bet I'll be climbing that night.

How to discredit a kook or a kook movement

1. Allow someone like Rosie O'Donnell to speak for your movement.

-End-

Oh, wait. Just kidding. I'll continue.

1. As above.

2. Allow said representative to say something totally insane. “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.” credit: www.popularmechanics.com, 30 March 2007

3. See this story. "'Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange above to buckle. Bolts holding the structure together also melted, leading to the collapse,' California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said."

Voila!

Of course, no one in the MSM will actually make this connection and O'Donnell will continue to roam free, making even more ridiculous assertions.

This is all I am going to say about her. She doesn't deserve my blog time any more than she's already gotten.

A Prediction

Okay, I want to predict something. I know I can and probably will be wrong, but if I'm not, I at least want to be able to say that I predicted it.

As far as I can see, the political atmosphere is like this:

The Democrats desperately want to liked by the rest of the world and don't care what the Republicans think about them. They (Democrats) use the whole "the world hates us because of Iraq" thing and the media gives them way too much airtime for it. Nothing America does will never actually be the right thing to do, according to the rest of the world, which is why the Democrats take that tone, too. The rest of the world has disliked us for one reason or another since WWII, whether it's because we're such a young country and are so powerful and rich so early, or because we just have the best looking girls, or just because Donald Trump is from the US, and not, say, Germany.

The Republicans desperately want to be liked by the Democrats and don't care what the rest of the world thinks about them. They (Republicans) don't understand that this sort of inferiority complex is actually a media bias and have yet to understand that about 95% of the media favors Democrats. Nothing any Republican will ever do will ever be right, even if they actually compromise or agree with the Democrats. Therefore, the Republicans will always compromise their values in order to score points with the Democrats, only to find themselves at square one... again... and then trying to figure out what happened. Just remember, the Democrats don't care about being liked by the Republicans. They just want to be liked by everyone else that isn't American.

So, enough funny stuff. Keep my expert analysis in the back of your mind as you read the rest of this, though.

Basically, Iraq is going to come down to a hellacious nightmare. (Not there. Here.) We're going to fight about it for the next two years, until the next president is elected, which will probably be a Democrat.

I predict that at some point, Russia (and maybe a few other countries) will seize on all our infighting and "volunteer" a bunch of troops in order to "help" us with Iraq. This will happen once the Surge has been reasonably effective.

After we get the message that Russia wants to help, the next administration (likely a Democratic one) will take credit for restoring the world's faith and trust in us and will gladly allow Russia to put some troops in Iraq so that we can bring a large portion of our guys home. It's a win-win. Everyone else likes America again, the Democrats shove this down the Republicans' throats, who agree to allow the Russian conglomerate to take a larger role in Iraq just so they can show the Democrats how bipartisan they can be.

Once the transfer is complete, Russia will "suddenly" become friends with Iran. You can guess where that will lead: an Iran/Russia-ruled Iraq.

Remember that Russia has been the sort of go-between for Iran and the rest of the world. Russia has played it cool with them, offering to help the rest of the world sort out the different impasses we've had with Iran.

So, there you have it. I hope I'm wrong.

Getting the Chair...

I had my semi-annual teeth cleaning the other day. I'm lucky. I have good teeth, like my dad. Yeah, I don't take care of them like I should, or so says the dentist, but I've never had a cavity.

So, I was in the grocery store today, pondering the experience in my dentist's office and I remembered that I needed some refills for my fancy-schmancy flosser thing. It's the Reach Flosser, the one you click on the flossers and click them off when you are done. Ah, forget it, here's the link.

Anyway, I'm sorting through the multiple flavors and my choices basically this: mint, another version of mint, some other kind of mint and unflavored. I don't like mint anything. I don't like mint candies, mint toothpicks, mint-flavored gum and whatever else kind of crap can be flavored with mint. I don't know why this is. Maybe it's genetic. Or something.

So, I'm standing there realizing that I'm just going to wind up settling for the unflavored flosser refills when I have this great idea. Why not have other flavors of flossers? Heck, it's only string, right? Why not a fruity flavor, like strawberry or pineapple? Or maybe pizza flavor? Why not steak flavor? (I'd love to have steak flavored anything, really: Ice Cream, Fitness Water/Sports Drinks, Toothpaste, Cereal, you name it. If there was anything else out there that was steak-flavored, besides steak, I would have it. My whole house would essentially be a carnivore's heaven.... until my wife came home and made me take it all back to the store, of course.)

There's always been this old joke about why cat food is always flavored the way it is and why there is never any rat-flavored cat food.

I gotta say that if these tooth-care companies wanted to increase business and sell more, they should definitely make more flavors of their products.

Yeah, I understand why toothpaste is "Minty Fresh" and mouthwash basically tastes and feels like you are gargling with sulfuric acid. I mean, I wouldn't want to have to talk to someone whose breath smelled like pizza or steak, either, so that makes sense. But, come on... can we get a decent flavor of those flosser things?

Here's a question for the candidates:

I'm pretty sure that we will be withdrawing from Iraq within the next couple years, whether the job is finished or not. I am thinking more and more that the Democratic Congress will essentially force the President to sign a war funding bill with an exit date attached. If that doesn't happen, it is a distinct possibility that we will get a Democrat for President. I think they have all promised, on some level, to withdraw us from Iraq. If that happens, the "insurgents" in Iraq will likely find a new place to attack. My guess is Afghanistan, where will wind up "losing" there, too, in a matter of years.

So here's my question:

After we withdraw, what do you intend to do about Al-Qaeda and terrorism?

They/It will come here. Our borders are like a sieve, and anyone who thinks that Al-Qaeda hasn't taken advantage of that is a fool. (If even 1% of the illegal immigrants that have crossed our souther border are Al-Qaeda...) Many places I have read think it really is just a matter of time before we see another serious act of terrorism in America. Since Al-Qaeda isn't a country that we can attack, how will we retaliate? Half-jokingly, if we withdraw from Iraq, it will be come the next country Al-Qaeda occupies, much like pre-9/11 Afghanistan so does that mean we will invade Iraq again?

Two new additions to this Blog

Okay, I want to add two new features to my blog, to which I would like to contribute on a regular basis.

They are:

If I were the President...

and

Here's a question for the Presidential Candidates:

I can't say how often I'll be posting in those two lines of thought, but I will try to go for about once a week at minimum.

Hand over foot over hand over foot...

So, in my mind, I would like to think that I'm an avid rock climber. Yes, I did some indoor rock climbing a little less than two years ago and I loved it. I never went back, but the experience has always been one of my favorites of my time here in Texas.

After I came back from Kuwait, I picked up some weight, maybe about 15-20 pounds (partially from getting my wisdom teeth out and not being able to exercise for almost a month- complications....) and I needed to lose it. So, I started running more. And more. And not much happened.

I decided that I needed a new hobby since I no longer play video games. (Oh, wait... I'm going to have to blog about that, too.) I already have a lot of experience in Karate, so I didn't want to do that all over again, so I figured I'd take up something that is healthy and fun. Rock Climbing it is!

So, I made that decision and on the day that I was going to go down to the local rock climbing gym, I had a doctor's appointment because my right thigh had been hurting for a while, and a few days of rest didn't get rid of the pain.

Turns out, because of all the running I've been doing lately, that I likely have a stress fracture in my right femur. Don't know for absolutely sure, but I have a Bone Scan on 1 May, possibly earlier if I can get squeezed in because of a cancellation.

So, I can't run, I can't bike, I can't climb. I'm just supposed to take it easy for 30 days or more.

But, I can swim and that's cool. I've never done any kind of athletic swimming before. So, every day, I go down to the indoor pool and I swim for 30 minutes. It is much more enjoyable than running, and it's better for me, too.

So, hopefully, I can get through this low point in my physical health rather quickly so I can get on with my life. I've got some stuff I need to get done but I can't do until I get better.

Yes, I did run that Triathlon

Way back when, I said I was going to run a triathlon before I was 32. Well, that did happen. Sort of.

Coalition Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) actually did sponsor a triathlon, and I did compete in it. However, it's not exactly like you would think.

It gets so ridiculously hot in Kuwait that they didn't want to risk anyone becoming a heat casualty, so they ran the Triathlon in three parts, with teams of three- one person doing each event.

Of course, I jumped on the opportunity to do this. So, I found two other Chaplain Assistants and we did it. It's been quite a while and I don't even remember their names now, but I had a girl and a guy on my team. She swam and he ran. I biked.

There were something like 48 teams that registered and we came in like 16th or something, if I remember correctly. So, we didn't do too badly. It was fun.

And I got another T-Shirt.

Pacifism isn't what you think it is...

One of my favorite conservative pundits that I have ever known is Michael Graham. (His blog is on my links section.) Back when I lived in SC, he was a radio host on the local station. He was funny, irreverent, but really, he was very, very smart and he knows the business of politics. He's never run for office, that I know of, but I know he has participated in a few campaigns.

So, moving to the point. Somewhere, he got involved in the VA Tech massacre discussion and said something incredibly profound and now there's a bit of a backlash. To make a long blog short, he simply asked the question why no one in VA Tech actually did anything to stop the killer. During that brief time, where he killed 32 students and then himself, he came into contact with dozens, possibly hundreds, of students. And not one of them did anything to stop him.

Apparently, no one tried to talk to him. No one tried to physically apprehend him. No one tried to rush him. No one tried to band together, a la Flight 93, to end his murderous rampage. That is an important question, I think, because it says a lot about what our parents are teaching our children.

In this discussion, he's been placed in the line of fire by a Lefty group, Media Matters. They posted a story, linked in Michael's blog, to what he said and what others have said.

One comment summed up what I think is the crux of how many people feel about violence. "I've never met a parent who did not teach their kids that it's OK to protect themselves and others. My wife was a pacifist and she and I raised our children to never fight, unless there is no other option." Sure, it sounds nice and makes you feel good. But it's dumb.

I've been trying to think of a word for stuff like this, for incomplete thoughts, or positions held about a certain idea that are just so out in left/right field that they are actually dangerous. The best I can come up with is "Not Thought," as in, not thought out, or not educated enough about a topic to be able to think something through. Tune in to future blogs for other Not Thoughts.

First, let me define Pacifism. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as:
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

So, right off the bat, this is not pacifism. It's non-confrontationalism. Or passiveness. Or just plain wimpiness.

The problem is, pacifism equals no violence. Period. Gandhi was a pacifist. MLK Jr. was a pacifist. They faced personal danger and death many times and at no time did they physically defend themselves. At any time, their opponents could have killed them with no resistance from Gandhi or MLK Jr.

What the person in the comment above is talking about is nonsense. See, in an effort to shield their children (and everyone else) from violence, they have not taught them how to use violence to actually defend themselves. No Karate. No Concealed Weapons permits. Heck, they probably don't even watch the Three Stooges. So, when the time comes to actually defend themselves, they are impotent, incompetent and inept. That is, of course, if they can actually discern when the time is right to defend themselves.

In a effort to pacify others, these so-called pacifists have taken away or paved over a person's primal instinct to defend themselves. (More on that later....) For years, this person has been taught that in no situation is violence appropriate. What do you think is going to happen when the "acceptable" time to use violence occurs? If a person has been trained to not defend themselves at any time, that is exactly what they will do. Furthermore, as we humans are terrible at determining risk to our own safety AND we see others as we see ourselves, it is unlikely that a pacified person will actually know when a situation is dangerous enough to actually defend themselves. And if the situation warrants a defensive action, well, the person has no tools to do so.

But let's go deeper than just conditioning. Let's move into the brain for a moment. There is a part of our brain that separates us from our dogs/cats/fish. It is the fore-brain. It is in the fore-brain that we rationalize, that we set goals, that we experience guilt and have the ability to socialize with others. Our dog can't do that on the level we can.

All animals have what is called the mid-brain. This is the instinct part of our brain, where we have fight-or-flight, or where we process certain instances of danger and how we determine that we are hungry or need to reproduce. Humans are the only animal in the world that can override their mid-brain... because we have a fore-brain.

It is the mid-brain that causes a snake to bite you when you step on it, or a dog to attack with no warning when you enter its territory. It is absolutely instinctual for an animal to react violently when its life is threatened. There is no overriding this because they don't have the capacity to do so.

(Also, as a side-note, nearly every other animal, maybe except for primates, has some method of self-defense: Fangs, teeth, claws, horns, antlers, hooves, etc. Humans have no such defenses. Don't tell me about punching and kicking, either, since most folks have no idea how to do that right without hurting themselves. Our primary method of self-defense is... yup, you guessed it, our fore-brain, since unlike animals, we can generally discern what is truly life-threatening and what is not, unless of course we have been conditioned otherwise.)

Another thing that separates us from animals is that we are virtually the only animal on the planet that kills its own kind. Snakes don't kill other snakes of the same species, even though they could. Dogs rarely kill other dogs. Virtually no other animal will kill another animal of the same species because the most important facet of an animal's being is the perpetuation of the species. There's some really fascinating reading on this subject if you care to go into it. I won't for the sake of time.

That said, in our mid-brain, we understand this. Call it what you want- spirituality, lawfulness, common sense- but we just know that it is wrong for us to kill another human being. It's deeper than that, but if you strip away all of the rationalizations, you basically will come to, "It's just wrong!" with most people. But remember what I said about our fore-brain?

As humans, we can override our mid-brain with our fore-brain, just as our mid-brain can sometimes override our fore-brain. This is why we are virtually the only species on the planet that will kill another of the same species: because we can rationalize it away.

So, where am I going with all of this, and how does our fore-brain overriding our mid-brain have anything to do with pacifism? Simple: we can become pacifists because of our fore-brain.

In other words, it is counter-instinctual to be a pacifist. I'll leave you to figure out the ramifications of the points I have just made. As you may be able to tell, you can go many directions with this.

But specifically pertaining to this point about what was said way up there about raising kids to be pacifists, by continuously overriding instinct, almost irreparable psychological damage has been done to a person. Judgment is altered. Reactions are altered. Discernment of risk is altered.

And that is one reason why no one stopped the VA Tech massacre... even when he stopped to reload.

Book Review

Crazies to the Left and Wimps to the Right. Sounded like a fair assessment to me. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that everyone on the left is a nutjob. Nor do I think that everyone on the right is... right. We need both sides for balance. Our country would not be the great nation it is today if it weren't for contributions from both sides. The problem is, when one side thinks that everyone on the other side is wrong or stupid, then we have a problem.

Anyway, I bought this book because the title really spoke to how I've been feeling lately about our politicians. It's an easy read; only took me about two or three hours to read it.

But, honestly, it's not that great. Most of the stuff in there I already knew and it's not really a 50/50 split against the Left and Right. It's probably about a 75/25 split against the Left. Near the end, there's like three or four chapters where nothing is said about the position of the Right on the specific subject.

Basically, it wasn't an idea book, which is really what I'm after. And I should have known that from the title. In fact, I had another book in my hand and I was trying to decide between the two and now I am sorry I didn't pick it up. I don't need someone to tell me that the media is biased or that the Right just wants to be liked by the Left. As much reading as I do on a day to day basis, I could have written the book myself.

However, if you don't consider yourself to be informed... er... well... Let me put it another way, since most people really do consider themselves to be informed...

If you don't spend much time surfing the web for politics information (at least a few times per week) or if you don't listen to talk radio very much, I would recommend this book, but only if you really just want to bolster your anti-left thinking.

My Reading List

Here are the books on my reading list.

Freakonomics
Resurrection
Rock Climbing: A Trailside Guide (I'll have to explain why I've taken up Rock Climbing in another blog... which reminds me, I have so much to talk about!)
What If? (Bargain Bin. Looked interesting and I have a secret love of history.)
Crazies to the Left of me, Wimps to the Right (I read this yesterday, and I'll review it later today.)

So there you have it.

Do I really need that?

Advertising... what has it become and how stupid can it get?

Advertising has always been a curiosity to me. I mean, I understand why companies advertise, but the methods have made me wonder what what going through the heads of the folks in the advertising department.

As far as I can tell, advertising has one specific, overlying goal: brand recognition/awareness which makes the consumer comfortable with the product. The reason for brand recognition/awareness is obvious: you won't go out and buy something you don't know exists. So, companies get their product out there with clever placement, specifically going after that target consumer. Commercials and ads are refined to make a convincing argument to that target customer to purchase that specific product. The whole process is very complex, so I'm not going to go into it. Plus, I'm just a layman, so I'd probably screw it up.

The other benefit of brand recognition is making the customer comfortable with their product. In our primal brains, we tend not to venture into unknown territory. When exploring an unknown area, we experience anxiety and certain parts of our brain don't function as well as when we are uncomfortable with our environment. (I've just stated a lot of oversimplified psychology, so do a bit of research on something called schema if you want more information.) If you don't believe me, think about the last time you bought soda.

Most people buy the same soda over and over again. Why? Because it tastes good, right? Well, maybe. But, I'm willing to bet it's because that's the soft drink they have bought for a long time. Next time you are at the store, instead of grabbing that Pepsi/Coke, go for the store brand or the alternate brand, like R/C cola or something. When you are reaching for that alternate cola, notice how you feel about it. You second guess yourself. You wonder if you are making the right decision. You hope you will like it. And you'll think about that bottle of cola in your cart the whole time you are shopping- and it only costs a buck! If you don't like it, what have you lost? A dollar? The time it took you to buy the soda and take it home? Negligible consequences, but for a lot of people, the brain doesn't see it that way.

So, companies spend lots of money making sure your brain knows the name of the product they are trying to sell, so that when you go to buy a product in that category, you will pick their product over another product because you are familiar with that company's product. Plus, if they can present a great argument for you to overcome your dissonance (another psych word) about choosing a new brand, you will buy from them and cease buying from their competitors. Coupons work this way. A company overcomes some of a customer's anxiety about buying a new product by compromising a bit. Once you have the product and are using it, unless it just absolutely sucks, you'll continue to buy it because you are familiar with the product- until you get a coupon from a competitor.

So, I said all that to come to the actual point: what the heck is going on with advertising these days? I see so many ads and commercials that are just absolutely pointless and do not convince me to buy a product. (Maybe I'm not the target consumer, so it doesn't work on me....) In fact, many advertisements just make me say, "What? Is that supposed to make me want that?" I'll use an example from when I worked in a grocery store so very long ago.

A bread company, Merita, I think, delivered their bread every other day to my store. On the side of their truck was their slogan: Baked while YOU sleep. I've never quite understood why that was supposed to make me desire their bread. Was I supposed to be impressed that their bread-baking employees were working while I was sleeping? Or was I supposed to get the idea that their bread was somehow fresher than everyone else's bread because the magical bread fairies that only came out at night made their bread fresher? I never figured out how that worked. (One could argue that by having such a dumb slogan that I remembered the brand of bread over other brands and hence, the advertising worked.... except I've never bought that brand of bread.)

Okay, another thing that gets me: children and babies in advertising. Again, maybe I'm not the target audience, so maybe I'm just not getting it. But, I hear lots of commercials on the radio ("Come shop at my daddy's store for the best prices!") and I see quite a few commercials on TV that, quite frankly, just annoy me. And in some cases, they just plain freak me out.

Quizno's had an ad campaign a while back where they had this talking baby promote their food. I like Quizno's, but I refused to eat there while that talking baby was their spokesperson. Maybe it's just hard for me to suspend disbelief, but I know that a baby can't talk, and I know a baby can't eat Quizno's. Despite all of that, I simply don't see how a talking baby can convince me to eat at Quizno's. I don't know... maybe I just take stuff too seriously.

I'll likely write a part two to this at some point in the future, but for now, I hope you can get what I'm saying. I know that pretty much every concept for a commercial has been done already, so many companies are getting desperate for the consumers to recognize their name. I just don't understand how some of the ideas made out of the board room.

Madam Speaker, come back!

Well, I'm a little late, but I think there's a couple things I could say that haven't been said yet.

If you haven't heard or read any of the story about the Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) going to Syria and Israel, do some research. The whole story is funny, really.

What you haven't heard in the media is that the whole visit is completely illegal! Read this for more clarification.

The other thing that's not been mentioned anywhere that I've seen is the grave protocol error that she committed. See, in Muslim countries, women don't talk to men that aren't their husband. At least that's the way it's supposed to be. While America shuns the treatment of women in the Middle East (and rightfully so), they aren't exactly up to our standards just yet. Yes, in some parts of the Middle East, women can vote, and if I remember correctly, there are a couple women that have successfully run for office in Kuwait, but that is rare.

One more thing: the Democrats seem to think that getting everyone to like us is of prime importance. That really goes to show their lack of leadership. Ask any successful leader in any capacity, and he/she will tell you that if you strived to be liked by everyone, you will get nothing done. Basically, the very opposite will occur. Everyone will see through the sham and you will be liked by no one. Decisiveness and consistency are two of the most important leadership qualities and it seems that our politicians (on both sides) are lacking in both areas.

This is really a dead issue now, since this happened so long ago, so I'll just end it here and hope that she comes to her senses and doesn't decide to visit Iran...

My Political Slant

I think it's only fair that I post my political leanings on my blog (as if anyone reads anyway...) so that the reader can have a fair idea of where I am coming from when I post something political, like my next post will be.

I am a moderate conservative. But, I imagine most people would equate the word "moderate" with "reasonable," so that they themselves are moderate and everyone else to the right and left of them are Kool-Aid drinkers. So, by moderate, I mean that I share some standing with the conservative side, but I also share some standing with non-conservatives. ("Liberal" is apparently an offensive word to liberals, and I refuse to call them Progressives.)

I do listen to talk radio. If you didn't know any better, one would say that makes me unequivocably a right-winger. I listen to Air America when I can... stand... it. But I can barely stand to listen to the top two conservative hosts, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

See, there's a saying: "Great people talk about ideas, average people talk about things, and small people talk about wine." I've heard a couple variations of that saying, like replacing "things" with "people" and completely removing the clause about wine. If you've ever listened to those two guys, they mostly talk about people. Rush isn't so bad because he at least has some entertaining discussion on his show. But, Hannity... I can barely stand to listen to him when he has someone on his show with whom he disagrees. He baits them, he personally insults them and the dialogue basically degenerates from there.

Anyway, the two radio hosts I like the most are Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, in that order. There are lots of reasons I like them, but mostly because of their discussions, and Beck is soooo funny. He's got his own show on CNN, and that's very good, too.

For my own personal views, I try very hard to come up with views of my own. I read a lot, and I try to make sure that my views aren't just stuff I heard on the radio or read somewhere. I really try to evalute my opinions against other viewpoints. I do use what I hear and read to shore up my views, but I really try to evaluate my own views against other views, agreeing and opposing.

But, that's all I'll post for now. I'm sure you'll get a good idea of where I stand if you read more of my stuff.

When's that Global WARMING going to happen?

It's snowing. In Texas. On Easter Eve.

It's been snowing all day long, though it started as sleet this morning when I took my wife to work.

My wife took some pictures and video of the whole thing. Here is the video of my Easter greeting. We were supposed to go out tonight, but I think that is not going to happen. We'll just stay in and watch a Pay-per-View movie or something.

Happy Easter!

Upcoming Blogs

These are the next topics I'd like to blog about:

1. Advertising... what has it become and how stupid can it get?
2. Madam Speaker, please come home. We miss you. Well, not really, but you're making a fool of yourself.
3. Lance Armstrong beat me in the Tour de France. How is that possible? I'm so surprised that this happened!
4. Positive and Negative Consequences. How raising kids and house-breaking a dog are almost exactly the same thing.

I've got a couple more, but I can't remember them now. I'll edit as I remember. Hope to see you soon!

The New Me

I'm just going to say that our cruise to Mexico was nice, except for the sea sickness. That's not really something that can be controlled, so don't let it scare you away.

Starting this week, I'm going to start blogging a couple times a week. Every once in a while I have some thoughts that go through my head that I would like to flesh out, and it just feels good to put it all on paper.

I'll probably have a routine to stick with for regular blogging times. I'll work that out soon.

Inbetween, I'll probably post stuff like what movie I saw recently or something like that.

I'm looking forward to starting this again!