Why The Right hates John McCain

So, it's pretty much official now: John McCain is virtually the last man standing. Well, Huck is still around, but we know, and have always known, that he'll never make it. He's just in it to be VP or SecState or something. Thanks a lot, Huck. Thanks a whole lot.

Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about John McCain and been doing a little research on some of the stuff he's done. And if you read this blog (population: 3?) you know that I have a love for psychology and trying to fit things into that perspective. I think I've figured out why The Right hates John McCain.

No, it's not because of McCain-Liebermann (Global Warming) or McCain-Feingold (Campaign Finance Reform- CFR) or McCain-Kennedy (Immigration). Well, it is a little bit. As someone said, the attempt at bipartisanship was nice, but what did the GOP get out of those? (answer: nothing)

I think The Right hates McCain because they lack a perception of control over him. McCain mostly votes with the GOP. He's really not a conservative, but he is definitely a GOP. He's probably a little more to the left than W, but he is certainly a Republican. There is no denying that.

The problem that most people have over him (and they probably don't even realize this) is that they feel they can't control him, or more precisely, they can't really predict his behavior. He's not entirely consistent in his voting and legislation creation.

(If you know anything about our basic needs, you would know that the need for control is our most basic need. Forget food. Forget shelter. Forget reproduction. Perceived control is our most basic need. Without it, our health and mental state deteriorates rapidly and all kinds of other bad things happen to us.)

Take any other GOP senator. Let's say... just off the top of my head... Elizabeth Dole. I don't even have to look up her voting record to tell you that she probably consistently tows the party line and votes pretty consistently along GOP lines, doesn't try to work much with Democrats and if something came up, you could probably figure out which direction she would vote. Not every member of Congress completely consistently votes with their party, but a near totality do. You can reasonably predict the direction most of them will take on nearly any issue.

McCain, and a few others, are different. Joe Lieberman has the same problem on the Democratic side. He fairly consistently votes to the Left of Center, but sometimes, he stands up for something on the Right, and the Left then whine and wail and then things settle down until it happens again.

Basically, I think that The Right simply doesn't trust McCain. He's not predictable and therefore he somewhat messes up the little box most of them have their worlds packaged into. I personally think that McCain's leadership ability leaves a lot to be desired for this exact reason, but politicians really aren't leaders so much as they are managers. Most Americans don't really understand this, but that's another story.

What most people on The Right don't understand now is that there is really nothing that McCain loves more than his own power, which is pretty much like most other politicians (This is why CFR was passed). And to keep that power, he will need to appeal to The Right, which so far he has not done because he hasn't had to or desired to. But what they don't understand is that if he is elected President (Ha Ha Ha!) the control we would have over him, or the perceived control we would have over him, would be greatly increased. First of all, if McCain is elected, it is because the GOP elected him. If that is the case, then the GOP will have likely retaken Congress, which wouldn't send any bills to him that would anger his base. Secondly, if you remember what happened with the whole immigration thing last year, I'm sure it would happen again if McCain tried to pull any dirty tricks.

So, I think that if McCain could possibly convince The Right that he'll "be good" and tow the party line from here on out, he'd probably get a lot of mileage out of that and win a good portion of The Right back from the brink of leaving the party. The only problem is, he'd lose a lot of independents, which is exactly who gave him the nomination.

A Perspective on Political Persuasion

Here's an interesting take:

Look at it this way. You've been stranded on an island inhabited by people who look like you but who have strange beliefs. They think you get more jobs by raising costs on people who provide them. They think you get less poverty by paying people to prove they are poor. They think you move toward a color blind society by requiring people to check a box for "race" on official forms. They think a jury is better informed if evidence is withheld from it. They think war is best avoided by not preparing for one. They think voter choice is improved by outlawing ads paid for by citizens (with exceptions given to the candidates themselves and newspaper editors).

Can you guess to whom it refers?

Primary Predictions

If you've been paying attention, you'd know that it's basically a fight between Romney and McCain. I'm not going to go into all the details about how McCain has gotten to where he is or why this was Romney's race to lose or whatever else I've had on my mind lately. I just want to offer a few predictions as to what I think is going to happen on and after next Tuesday (Super Duper Tuesday).

1. Huckabee will not drop out before Super Tuesday. Everyone, including Huck, knows that he cannot possibly win. But, every vote for Huck is a vote for McCain, simply because Romney and Huckabee attract basically the same voting block. I smell something fishy.
   
2. If McCain wins the lion's share of delegates on Super Duper Tuesday, point number one will be why.
3. Because of this, McCain will pick Huck for VP. I suspect some sort of collusion.
4. As soon as it is absolutely clear that McCain is the nominee and there is no chance of anyone else getting it, the tone in the media will change. McCain will be MURDERED (no, not literally) by the MSM. No more love-fest for him. Ever heard of the Keating 5? Probably not. But you will. Did you know that McCain called his Vietnamese captors "gooks?" You will. Over and over again. Did you know that McCain had Melanoma? Oh, you certainly will. And you'll get worst-case scenarios all over the place about how he could have a recurrence of it.
5. If McCain's should candidacy should possibly survive the nine-month onslaught of vicious negative reporting and he happens to win the presidency, the millions of GOPers that contributed to his nomination will very quickly have a "Oh God! What have we done?" moment.
1. The Fairness Doctrine will be passed. Why? Because the Democrats will have a majority, possibly a Super-Majority in Congress, so even if McCain would veto it, they will over-ride it. I predict that he would sign it, as punishment to the conservatives who now are trying to mobilize the GOP to vote for Romney.
2. Shamnesty. Period. It will likely be the first law he signs.
3. Supreme Court justices? Ha! You think Bush had a hard time? Geeeez....
4. McCain will start his presidency with lower approval ratings than Bush had at his worst. The GOP doesn't trust him, even dislikes him. The MSM will ensure that McCain is well-hated by the GOPers that don't already dislike him. The Left hates him because he has claimed total credit for the success of the Surge, which has utterly embarrassed the Left on the subject of the war. McCain is in a Lose-Lose situation.
   
6. If it's McCain vs. Hillary, then McCain might possibly win because of the high negatives that Hillary has and the possibility of Nader or Bloomberg getting in the race and taking votes from Hillary.
7. If it's McCain vs. Obama, you can forget it. Obama will crush McCain. Easily. The debates will be like a train hitting a compact car.

Okay, so it looks grim now, according to my predictions. I hope I'm wrong and Romney pulls out a few victories on Tuesday so that the GOP doesn't all go into this big 5 year state of depression...

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.