Friday, February 27, 2009

The Third on a Moral Dilemma

Today is the day that I wrap up the "series", if you will, on morals and moral codes. If you haven't read Monday's or Wednesday's blogs, you may want to read them so that today's blog may be a little more lucid; although I'm not certain how clearly I have expressed my views on the issue of morals. It is a difficult subject to tackle in three, short blogs. Once you begin to study and consider morals and moral codes, you realize that it peels like an onion, thin layer after thin layer.

I have stated that my intent is not to be an exhaustive or definitive source on all things moral, but to cause all of us to think about how we come to decisions and what leads us to actions.

I began this series with a synopsis of two women and some of their decisions; decisions that reflect their moral code. One woman has fourteen children, the other woman has been married twenty three times. Then I asked the question, "Which of these two women is the most immoral?" Then came some analogy and observations, opinions and philosophies. No real answers of right or wrong were given.

And today is the day that I give my answer to which of the two women I feel is the more immoral. And my answer may or may be agreed upon. And it is probably anti-climatic to many readers who have followed this weeks blog entries.

I have to admit, I have no definitive, resolute answers here. At least no answers in terms of pure logic. I could probably post about a thousand more questions, but we have considered enough questions on this topic. And I hope that the point I am trying to make is a little more clear; and that is that when we compare individual moral codes to other individual moral codes, all we get are questions, gaps, and inconsistencies.

So how do we come to an answer to which woman is the most immoral? And how can there be more than one answer to a dilemma when there is only one reality? I can only answer for myself here; the final piece of this moral "series" will be written from my perspective, using my philosophies of life; otherwise we would chase our tails for weeks and weeks, only to find that there is no "one answer fits the question" type of answer to the question.

And my answer is the anti-climatic as mentioned before; my answer is that I am not qualified to make an answer as to which woman is the most immoral. Even if I believed that one person can be more or less immoral than another person, I would not be qualified to give an answer as to which woman would be lower on the moral totem pole or caste system. The reason is that I cannot give an answer is because that I try to follow a moral code that, I believe, is higher than any code I could create on my own. It is a code that God has ordained in His actions and through His son and by means of His Spirit. It is a code recorded in The Holy Bible. It is a code that is revealed to me as I pray. It is a code that I have accepted when I made accepted Jesus as my saviour. The same code that remains constant through all of these things, revealed and guided by the Holy Spirit.

I cannot answer as to which woman should be deemed as more or less immoral; the code I follow is not my own. And to pass judgement on someone using a code other than one that is my own, not only gets into the area of law, but is moral plagiarism. Sure, I can make a guess as to either woman's morality. I can judge "by the fruit of the tree that is their life" as some say in church circles. But the ultimate answer is God's; because He has given us a code to follow. A code that is intended to bring a full life now and salvation after this life in the here and now.

This is the section of the series that I was to give some proof and credibility as to Christianity having absolutes. This is the part where I get into apologetics and defend Christianity. This is whereI give examples of there being more evidence that Jesuswasa real person than proof of George Washington's existence. Here is where I give the some of the records of the historical significance and extensive documentation of The Bible. I then would follow up by saying that there is More documented proof of the Bible's historical accuracy and more historical proof of Bibles authenticity than the authenticity of all ancient literature, including Plato, Socrates, Pliny, etc and so forth. But God has reminded me that he doesn't need me to defend His honor or His integrity,and that there is no sense in trying to convince anyone to join His side. Only The Holy Spirit can bring that conviction. I can only hope that He uses my feeble talents and my words.

And I realize that acceptance of this code relies on faith and not logic. So why ask all of the logical questions if I have been leading to an answer that is faith based? I hope it was so to show that we cannot live by a logical,moral code due to the conflicts of individual moral codes; that there is one real answer for one real reality. I hope to make you think about your logic and your faith. If you claim to be a Christian, are more or less moral if you follow God's code more or less? Just as you cannot be more or less pregnant or have more or less than five dollars worth in a five dollar bill, you cannot be more or less a Christian. You are or you aren't.

This not where I lecture about why don't we who call ourselves Christians, live more like Christ. This is not where I chastise anyone because their belief is different than mine, regardless of how strongly we may feel individually. This is where I would like to take a whiffleball bat, the old yellow kind we played with as kids, to both of these ladies whose morals we have questioned, but instead istheplace where I must remember grace.

We can look at the various breaches in moral codes committed by these two women, although none have been illegal. And we will not muddy the waters with the difference between law and morals. But we can look at the "sins" that have been committed by these women, but we cannot condemn them. We can bring their breach of code to attention, but only as a means to help correct their lives. We can keep our distance from them and even discipline them in their church, but only as means of restoration and love. We have no moral or legal right to condemn them; that is reserved for someone bigger than you and I.

There are several other words I wanted to say and several other aspects I wanted to focus on, but I really feel that enough may be enough. I hope that I have made my point clear; that there are no absolute answers to absolute reality if we consider individual moral codes. There is one definitive source for answers to our moral dilemmas, and that is God. Not a religion or a sect or a demographic, but God.

Treat this "series" as one may treat Pascal's Wager,that even if there were to be no God wouldn't it be better to live as though there were a God? That may help society, but not any one's individual salvation.

I end this by asking again, How do we come to the decisions that we make and what leads us to actions? I also want to leave this subject open if anyone wants to ask questions, so that I may be more clear on specifics than I may have been the last few days. Contact me at or join the group "Readers of The Self-Inflicted Blog" on Facebook and post a question there.

I hope this has caused us all to think and more importantly, I hope I used the words God asked me to use and that this is part of something bigger than my two-cent opinions or an opinionated blog. God Bless and have a great weekend!

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Part Two on a Moral Dilemma

Today's blog deals with morals and is the second part of something that I started on Monday. You may want to go back and read Monday's article to get up to speed on the issue of Morals, at least morals discussed on this site. This is not an exhaustive study or a definitive source for the issues of morals and ethics. This "series", if you will, is really more questions than answers. And my intent is to cause all of us to think about how we come to decisions and what leads us to actions.

We began by discussing two women; one is the octuplet mother who has fourteen children and is unwed and unable to provide care for her children. But she wanted many children, so she had many children. The other woman is a sixty eight year old lady who has been married twenty three times, the last marriage admittingly was a publicity stunt. I then asked the question of which woman is more immoral. Then I asked several questions and gave my two cents worth on some of the issues of morals.

And that brings us to where we are currently, to a point of which I really must admit, I do not know where to pick up at. The topic of morals is so deep and philosophically broad. And every question asked about morals leads to another question. We can even cross into the realm of physical, spiritual, and mental. For starters though, I think we need to examine the question of which of the two women mentioned at the beginning of the last couple of blogs, is the most immoral. And what determines our answer? Is it even possible to be more or less immoral? Is that like being more or less pregnant? More or less deceased? And are we qualified to pass judgement as to which woman we feel, personally, is more immoral? If we are qualified, to what degree are we qualified and by what code are we using to impose judgement, even if it is only a silent, personal judgement?

And remember that are discussing morals, not reason; although the two can be difficult to separate in some instances. Our reasoning to eat is not a matter of morals. The reasoning that leads us to eat, comes from fulfilling a physical need and fulfilling a basic need that requires to be met, in order that we survive. But what we eat, and how much we eat, is a matter of morals. For instance, let's take cannibalism. It is obviously considered immoral in most every society in existence today. And the main reason cannibalism is frowned upon is due to the fact that to fulfill the requirements of a cannibalistic diet or ritual, a human life must be taken. I have read many times that cannibalistic societies are the lowest form of societies in the history of mankind. My question is, why is cannibalism looked upon so badly and with such contempt? I know why I find it detestable, but why do entire civilizations frown upon it? What moral code is in place in every single individual in a given society, that makes cannibalism so "uncivilized"? And how has this come about? Is the code for or against cannibalism based on emotion? If such code isn't based on feelings and emotions, then it must be based on moral decisions. And who determined that those moral decisions are correct? What standard was used when developing such code? Was it a majority rule type of thing? Did a chieftain declare eating people to be good or bad? What was his decision based on?

I am not pro cannibal. Do not read that into what I am writing here. I am only asking questions to make us consider the bigger picture of our moral codes and our actions. And I am asking who makes the rules and writes the codes of conduct. And by who's standard have we set our moral codes by?

So we have an idea as to how the act of eating is moral and how the same act is performed due to reasoning. Hopefully I painted a picture of how muddy the water of morals can be if we were to be "technical" and logical about the issue. And I do this to make us consider our individual morals as well as our society's moral code, or laws; which are two different things, but we will avoid that for the here and now. But back to the logical thing and the technical, how do we come to our moral codes? And are our moral codes consistent?

For instance, many people in this country are vegetarians and vegans. Some for health reasons, some for moral reasons. Let's take those who come to the dietary decision due to their moral code. Not speaking for all vegetarians and vegans, many decide on their non animal diet, due to the moral code that they have instilled in their lifestyles. They deem all life sacred and not to be taken. But would a dietary moral conscious vegan swat a mosquito that was sucking the blood from a capillary on their arm? But that is a different subject, I guess. Let's focus on the dietary issue. Let's say that you had a dinner party and you had a vegan friend coming over as one of the guests. Let's say that you prepared a big batch of spaghetti. You used ground beef and real cheese in all of the spaghetti, but separated some just before your guests arrived, placing a smaller portion in a bowl for your vegan guest. You then tell your vegan guest that the smaller bowl is his and that you used all soy/tofu kind of stuff when preparing his meal; so to help him maintain his personal moral code of a non animal or animal product diet. Everyone eats the meal and expresses gratitude for being fed and all of the usual social graces exhibited at a dinner party. You then tell your guests that you have an announcement and that all of the food was cooked in the same manner and that the vegan friend had indeed ate animal and animal products. What moral codes are broken in this situation? You told a lie. You were deceptive. You did what you wanted to do despite the feelings or morals of those around you. You satisfied your individual desires. Your vegan friend now hates you for causing him to break his self instilled moral code just to satisfy your own whim. Your friends with carnivorous diets are even appalled, even though they were not caused any negligence in their moral code, or directly affected by your decision. You are the bad guy at your own dinner party? You just played a joke that was funny to you, personally.

But what makes you the bad guy in this scenario? Why is their right to fulfill their desires and their moral code, greater than your desires to fulfill your own moral code? We discussed that we all have moral codes and that even by not adopting a moral code, you have a moral code. Everyone at this dinner party believes that you acted as if you had no moral code when you tricked your vegan friend; but we know that it is impossible to not have a moral code. So why is their code the correct code and why is your code wrong, even though it appears as if you have no code? By what standards were the two different codes developed? Who deemed which code more or less moral? To what degree was morality breached?

Using this same argument, it is impossible to determine if our octuplet mother of fourteen kids, or the most married lady from Indiana is the most immoral. If we are not certain why we have moral codes or who deemed these codes "good" or "bad", than we cannot determine which moral code is more or less; we cannot determine which woman is more immoral. At least not by using reason. And not if we are consistent with our moral codes, not suppressing our personal codes of conduct due to feelings or emotions.

So it is difficult to make a decision as to which woman is the more immoral, even if we have an answer inside our own head. Even if we have an opinion as to which is more immoral, if that is possible, we are not certain as to what makes them wrong if we consider much of the logic and reasoning by which many of our moral codes are drawn up and practiced in our society. Without an answer as to who is the definitive creator and "maker" of our moral code, it is impossible to answer as to which woman is more or less immoral, if immoral at all. Unless we use feelings and emotions and suspend our moral codes due to such, we cannot determine the issue of morality in this case. Not if we logically use the argument for our moral codes.

We are all basically creatures of our own, personal moral codes. We have no method of determining the morality of our own codes or the codes of others if we have no one central person, who must be universally correct and moral, to determine one such universal set of morals or one accurate moral code. Otherwise it is survival of the fittest, morally, and we are pitting all of our individual moral codes against each others individual moral codes.

So the answer to the original question of which woman is more immoral is now a mute point. Or is it? Friday, I will try to wrap up this moral code stuff and give my thoughts on how we can be more certain on things moral.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Opening Questions on Morals

I'm sure most of you have heard or read about the woman who had octuplet babies; the same woman who already has six children; the same woman who lives with her mother in a small house; the same woman who has no means of support to, well, support these children.

Has anyone read about the Indiana woman who has been married twenty three times, making her the most married woman in the world?Not counting polygamy, I'm sure. Her first marriage was at the age of sixteen and her longest marriage lasted seven years. She admitted that her last marriage was a "publicity stunt", as she married the most married man. She was his twenty ninth bride.

Now, I would like to ask which one of these ladies is the most immoral? The woman with selfish disregard of Innocent children or the woman who not only marries as a publicity stunt, but just so she can be married? Both women have little regard for life other than their own. Both women are selfish, have little regard for others lives, physical or mental, of others; especially those whom they should "love", or those who are close to them. So which woman is more immoral?

Before you answer that and even though you probably have an answer in your own mind, ask yourself why you came to the answer as to which female is more immoral than the other. Then ask yourself by what "moral code" you are judging these ladies by; your own personal code or society's code. Now ask yourself if there is a conflict of the current social code and your own personal code of morals. If you aren't tired of "asking yourself" yet, ponder on whether your personal code of morals is influenced by our society's moral code, or is our society's moral code of conduct been influenced by the individual moral codes of the people of who the code represents.

Now if you think that I am out of questions, you are wrong. Now ask yourself, if you have determined which came first, the "moral chicken or the moral egg" in the development of our social and personal moral codes. Now ask again how we have arrived at your own, personal moral code. Have you just accepted a code that society has placed before you, even though you are not certain how society came to create this code? Are human beings born with a moral code already in place? What shapes your moral code, if you are born without such code? Does your moral code change due to circumstances or emotions? Do you take the things that you read blindly, or accept with minor questions, the angle at which an issue is presented by a politician or a newscaster? Does celebrity opinion, or political opinion, figure in the formula by which you have created your individual moral code? Do you accept the majority vote as the answer to the code of morals that we all, as a society, should accept and follow? Are you even aware that you follow a moral code? Or do you just do the best that you can, just to get by, hoping not to disturb your fellow man or his moral code?

Whether or not you were aware of some of these questions or their answers, you have a moral code. How you live your life is a reflection of that moral code. The manner in which you live your life and answer moral questions reflects the consistency of your values, and is part of your moral code. You cannot make a decision or perform an action without "tapping into" your individual moral code. It is impossible; for even to live life by ignoring any social or moral code is , its self, a code of morals.

It is not my intention to reduce our lives to merely a code of morals and decisions based on the philosophical questions and answers of morals. It is my intention to cause us to think about how we come to decisions and what leads us to actions. It is my intention to cause us to consider how we live our lives and how we come to the decisions and actions that are consider, our "lives". Our "lives" are more than just the physical beating of a heart and the functioning of the brain and all of our other organs. Our "lives" are more than water, minerals, and chemical compounds. Our "lives" consist of more than the physical and mental fulfilling of the needs to eat and reproduce and avoid pain. Our "lives" consist of spiritual issues, and the issues of morals, as well as the physical and mental aspects of who we are; or what makes us, "us".

So today, I ask that everyone who reads to think about these questions and comments. I ask that we think about how many decisions and actions we make and perform in a day, and whether we are making and performing than blindly or out of a conscious effort to obey our personal code of morals. Are our actions and considerations consistent, or do they change from day to day and circumstance to circumstance? I also ask that if you read today's blog, that you come back and read Wednesday's, when we look closer at the issues of the women I wrote about at the beginning of today's blog.

I do realize that this may not be everyone's cup of tea and that this may be just a bunch of nonsensical questions and answers by another two cent blogger/pseudo philosopher. But I feel that this is something that I need to tackle, and something that some people need to read. As I have expressed before on this site, my desire is for this blog to have a bigger purpose than sarcasm and opinion. This series on morals is part of that bigger picture. And I make no apologies or excuses as to the subject I am tackling this week. I do hope that everyone can gain a little something form my words and that this blog can have a purpose in some of our lives.

I appreciate your support! Please come back and read Wednesday's blog and encourage those who may get something out of this site to read also.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Stuff for Friday

Is anyone else glad that it's Friday? Or is it just me?

I am not going to get on a soapbox about the spending bill, I mean stimulus package or the fact that a chimp could have written a better piece of legislation. I will hold my tongue, or fingers in this case, and not type about the hidden nuggets of goodness that are being discovered inside such a "monumental" bill, as some called it, such as the transparency acts. I will not "get into" the fact that there are laws in our books now that NO ONE, except some Washington intern, has read. I will not even get into the fact that I dislike Bill Clinton much more, personally, than Barak Obama, but that Obama is really the new face of evil as far as I am concerned. And I will not elaborate on that here and now. Just trust me, I know what is best and what is the truth; just as our new president has been campaigning that he knows as much. I would like to point out that the global and national economic indices are not responding favorably to the pork, excuse me, the stimulus package. And no campaigning or fear mongering will change that. At least not today. But more important events, like an Osmond Family reunion could trigger an upward spike in the markets.

And before I go any further, has anyone else been reading articles urging Paul Krugman to be a new economic czar of some kind? I guess no one can get enough of the Keynesian school of thought and it's failed effects on the economies of the world. It's like reinventing Marxism and professing it to work better this time because someone has learned what the mistakes in Marxism were the first five thousand times it has failed to work. But what do I know? I only have a semester and a half of college and I need someone with more hours and degrees to tell me how ignorant I am. At least I have our government to do my thinking for me now; and to look out for my best interests. Mark my words, if Paul Krugman gets any real power, we are in real trouble. And i will leave it at that.

Good thing I wasn't gonna get into the politics and economics of the stimulus package...

I have another confession to make to the readers today; I have just finished reading "Atlas Shrugged" and it could not have been at a worse time. It has not helped me feel any better about our countries direction as of late. It was a good read, when Rand wasn't beating me to death with her philosophy, which has too many holes in it to be considered realistic or possible. But I did enjoy the entire experience, philosophy and all. There are a lot of things one can at least glean from Rand's writings. And there are several scenarios that are not only possible, but seem to be happening now, albeit to a lesser degree for now. And I agree, almost, entirely with her economic philosophy. For a book that has over 1000 pages, it read like it barely contained 750 or 800 pages of disastrous economic and philosophical declines. It really was a good read. I don't know if I would recommend it or not. What do you think?

And how about Roland Burris? I read that his support among black people is beginning to waver. I'm not sure what that means or why that is important, but the support of this demographic group is wavering. I wonder how his support among white people is, and if anyone has done such a poll. And what would that mean or why would that be important? And what about his support among Chinese Americans? Western Samoans? Brazilians? Jews? I guess any peer evaluation or support is important in politics, but I find it all to be moot. People should be people. But we must remember that we need, or at least Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson need, racial divide to help fuel, even mildly, the social wars in this country. But again, what do I know? I've been banned from the Rainbow Coalition website before. I guess I didn't fit into the correct demographic category to be taken seriously. That or Jesse Jackson didn't like that I said that he had one hand in black, people's pocket and the other one on his Bible. Or was it one hand holding a knife to the backs of black people and the other on their checkbooks? I can't remember know. I do know that I told him that he was not, and never will be, another Martin Luther King Jr. And I hope that i don't come across as hateful. I just wish that the day were here when we do forget about color and race. Not ignore our races, but just forget our races. But as long as there are ultra conservatives and ultra liberals, we have less hope in forgetting race as being something other than that separates. Until we all get the chips off of our shoulders, all of us, it will be an issue. And it is now to the point where it is the fault of blacks, whites, browns, reds, and yellows. And whatever other color I left off of the list. It may not have started out that way, but it is where we are now and I just wish that it weren't so. I wish that it weren't such a touchy subject to some. I wish it were a non subject. Maybe our children will do better at bridging the gap the so-called racial divide. I sure hope they do.

Did anyone watch the Bristol Palin interview with Greta Van Susteren? Did anyone else wonder why Sarah Palin crashed the party? I like Palin, don't get me wrong. And maybe she was looking out for her daughter's best interest in her own mind. But she should not have crashed onto the scene with Bristol's baby. It was tacky to me. And to those who made a big deal about some of the things that was said about sexual abstinence and the like, they need to watch the interview and remember that it was an 18 year old kid that was being interviewed and that the 18 year old, or 19 year old now, I'm not certain, was not exactly charismatic or comfortable in front of the camera. I wouldn't read much into this interview other than Sara is a little smothering at times.

And speaking of children and newborns, how about the octuplet mother? And what about her receiving death threats? To me that is despicable. Why would someone send death threats? I know that the media coverage and the mother as well have stirred some controversy and has caused emotions to run a little high, but death threats? Is that the best way to deal with this mother and her selfish ignorance? Actually, what is the best way to deal with this mother? I don't think that you can legislate morality. And you certainly can't make people take a test before becoming a mother or there would be few mothers in our country. I hate to say it, but it was this lady's right to have fifteen kids. Now don't get me wrong, just because she had the right doesn't mean that she still should have had all of these children. I think it was very wrong, ethically and morally. But legally, it is a different matter. I think it was irresponsible, selfish, dangerous, ignorant, and many other adjectives that show negative connotation to her "desire" for children. I think it is a shame that her and these children will be living off of "the system" as many mothers do these days. But the problem therein is the system, not the decision to have children; even if it is a littler of kids. And more importantly, these innocent children are starting off in the hole, if you will. The will be raised, most likely, to be dependant on the government and the charity of others. And while both have a place in our society, the abuse of the two is in the realm of overkill. It forces people to be taken care of when things get to this point. Charity is only Charity when it is voluntary. But back to what is most important, the innocent children. If these children are not taken care of properly, then someone needs to step in a take care of them. But that opens a whole new can of worms. But I do feel that our children, innocents, should be protected. If they are not then their rights have been infringed upon. The right to eat, and be nurtured, and to have hope for the future should be guaranteed for our children. "Grown ups" often make decisions that negate some of their right, both legally and ethically, but an Innocent child has done nothing that should endanger their rights as citizens and more importantly, people. I know that this paragraph doesn't cover the issue adequately and that I may not have explained my view as clearly as I would have liked to. But I do think that death threats are extreme and that the bigger picture needs to be evaluated here. That and the mother slapped about twice an hour; but not legally. Rather by the hand of all things ethical.

And I will end on that ambiguous, if not vague, note of mild licentiousness. I have to go redress my 21 month old for the tenth time today, she just walked into the room naked as her birth day except a pair of her brother's rubber boots. So I am not taking time to proofread, so overlook any obvious errors; and consider my heathen children and their behaviour as I wrote today. I know, you all have been there too...I hope everyone has a good weekend!

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

A Confession on Wednesday

It is all that I can do not to get on my usual soapbox about the stimulus package that has infuriated me so badly. Instead of beating a dead horse, I suggest that you read or re-read last weeks post about a Bigger Argument Against the Stimulus Package. My sentiments haven't changed, only become stronger against the bill that is now law. I still can't help but to remember that our country revolted against taxation without representation in the 18th century; yet here in the 21st century, we allow a bill to pass that over two thirds of the American people are against. Do we call this representation? And we basically take all of this laying down. We fuss a little, but we really feel that it is out of our hands anyway. "What are we to do about it?"." The government is bigger than we are anyway." These thoughts should never occur in this country and the fact that they do occur is very saddening.

And we are now following a European model of government, designed by egghead intellectuals and a greater degree of socialism. Even though our economy drives the world, we feel that the European model is a better model of how to do government. The only thing is that we forget to look at the economies and governments of European socialism in reality instead of looking at them with theory colored glasses.

And I'm not anti Europe. There are many good people and ideas that have come from Europe. Our country has some good allies in Europe. It is continent rich in history and culture. But America rose above all of them in a short time and I believe that we truly live in the greatest country in the world and that being anything other than American is selling ourselves short. Surrendering our freedoms and our principles when the going gets a little rough is not American. Accepting lousy legislation for fear that we may lose some money out of our pockets and some channels from our television is not American. Blindly following inept leadership is not American. Giving elected officials a free pass because we voted for them or because people deemed smarter than ourselves agree with them, is not patriotic; it is idiotic. But many people seem to be just accepting things and turning a blind eye, staying more focused on our actual checkbooks for the here and now instead of looking at the bigger picture of what may lay ahead for our future and it's generations.

The country is facing serious issues, that is for certain. And one of the scariest issues in my mind are the words our president said about only the government being able and qualified to bail us out of this mess; not that the American people, the strength of our nation, has the means to rise above conflict and economic woes. To say that things are so bad that only the government can fix things, smells of fear mongering. Obama peddled fear under the guise of hope during his campaign and is continuing to do so in every promise broken action that he takes and every empty word that he speaks.

That is one of the things that disturbs me so. That and these compromises and the neglect of our principles and ideologies, is what keeps me up at night. This entire stimulus package has sincerely got me worked up, in case you haven't noticed. When the president says unabashedly that stimulus is government spending, it makes me sick; in the deepest pit of my stomach. The things that are happening by our government and to our people, ans so few seem to notice or care, is what has me so rattled.

These things are also what has brought me back to remembering what is important and what the basic truth by which I try to live: God is in control. Always.

I get so irritated and I desire so much for my country and my friends and my family, that I feel that I must act right here and right now in order to single handily save everyone from all of the things evil in the world. I forget that God already has a plan for that. Sure, we will experience some suffering in our lifetime; but God is in control. He doesn't need me to save anyone or to defend His plans, although in my impatience, arrogance, and temperament I take it upon myself to try to do such. And I have to admit to everyone who reads this blog, I have lost focus on the bigger picture, the biggest picture of all, and have forgotten that God is always in control. I believe that He wants me to write and to speak up against certain things in this country and this world we live in. But I have been guilty of doing much more, if even only within my own heart. I have impatiently and hot temperately ran ahead of God and am now asking Him to rubber stamp His seal of approval on all of the things that I deem important. And that is not how faith, hope, or love work. That is not what my relationship with God is based on. It is not what Jesus died for or what the Holy Spirit empowers me to do.

It has been all Ronnie and Ronnie's ideas for the past week or more. Hopefully it is not very noticeable on the outside. Thankfully those close to me know how worked up I get and have treated my rants as such. Thankfully my friends and I respect each others views and each others differences, and outwardly that is all this last week of ranting has been. But I feel compelled to admit that inside I have been tied up in knots over the direction our government is heading. But thankfully that ever small voice has reminded me to trust God and to chill out. He is in control.

And on that note, I will finish up today's blog. This is not the blog that I set out to write today. And when that is the case, I hope as always that my broken words and scattered thoughts find the eyes and ears of whoever needed to hear them and that these words are a message about something bigger than ourselves; besides the obvious person who needed to understand these words the most, me.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Random Thoughts on Things Other Than Politics

It looks as if the stimulus package is a done deal and there is really no sense in crying about it any longer, so I will regress on the pork, I mean spending, I mean stimulus package and all of it's wonderfully nonpartisan, American people first glory. Not to mention that I am out of Pepto, so I can only think of the measure for a brief moment.

And so much for campaign promises. Although I had hoped that i was wrong about our president, I see that I was not. And I think he will be historically worse than Carter, although the media and the leftists will never let it happen without a good fight and much propaganda.

But enough politics. And if you need a couple of words that will make you chuckle, just think Tim Geitner...see?!!? You feel better already...

I see that the new Friday the Thirteenth was the big winner at the box office this weekend, grossing $42.5 million. Wow! Maybe the government should nationalize the movie industry and turn a profit. Oops! I said enough politics, didn't I? Anyway, I see that the industry is 22% higher in earnings verses this time last year. And I'm sure that means something to a statistician somewhere. My thoughts initially focused on the fact that Hollywood has had so few new ideas, that they are rehashing the old hashed movies. Nothing like riding a dead horse all the way to the bank. But I also have to admit that the thought of kids lining up to see Jason Vorhees slashing people to pieces brings back some good memories. I remember going to those flicks in the 80's. The theater would be full of friends and schoolmates eating popcorn and throwing Junior Mints, screaming every time the pet cat jumped through a window on the big screen. And if you were lucky enough to sit by any one of the four girls that you were sweet on that week, well it was a given that she needed to be protected and would feel much safer with your arm placed ever so clumsily around her. Everyone in the theater would allow themselves to be scared for an hour and a half and love it. Of course that was the good ole days, before the real fear of government bailouts and spending. Oops! That one slipped...

I also have to admit that I am the Grinch, who stole Valentine's Day. And I was glad that a slasher flick was the biggest grosser of Cupid's weekend. I am also glad that my wife finds Valentine's Day to be useless; because if she didn't, my opinion on this subject would be moot. And let me explain my stance on v.d. the holiday, not the malaise that comes from some people who celebrate the holiday. I just think it is a holiday for insensitive people. It is a day where you are forced to express your sentiments or else be labeled a cad.Forget how you treat those that you love the other 364 days a year. And who really wants affection when it is forced, less than spontaneous, and required? And what about the people who don't have anyone on Valentines Day? And I don't make reference to those who gloat that they are alone or those who try to pity the rest of us who have someone special in our lives. I am typing about those who don't say anything about it, but go home to an empty house or apartment every day and hate it even more so on Feb. 14. I have always been fortunate to have someone in my life and have rarely been without companionship unless by my own choice. God only knows why, I am nothing special. So I don't write on this from a jaded, lovelorn point of view. It just makes me sad to think of the truly lonely people on Valentines Day. Almost as sad as broken campaign promises of an arrogant, narcissistic leader. Dang! Where did that come from?

I Did anyone read about the super volcano, The Siberian Traps? It seems that "they" have discovered it was responsible for the world's worst extinction. It seems that "they" say that the toxic gas emitted from the super volcano caused 90% of all life on the planet to die off. Which raised a question in my mind: Wouldn't that mean that all of the remaining life on Earth would have to evolve from the remaining 10% of life left after the toxic gas clouds had left? Wouldn't that alter, or set back if you will, the process of evolution? Wouldn't that change the statistics of how long it has taken life to evolve, not adapt, into what it has become today? Doesn't that make the "odds" that evolution was even more unlikely to have occurred? So instead of billions of years, we are now talking about millions, which would alter the stats I have seen on the evolution process. And my same "theory" goes the same for the flood that caused dinosaur extinction and the ice age and the big meteor that landed in Siberia, so on and so forth from mega disaster to mega disaster. It seem like a flaw in the theory to me. If we could only cause the extinction of our major political parties. Oops again. My bad...

And that brings into conclusion, today's random thoughts from yours truly. And those close to me thought that all I thought about was the bogus stimulus package and it's resemblance to horse manure. See?!!? I hardly mentioned it...

In all seriousness, it is time for me to spend some time with the kiddos and take my sorry butt to the gym. I hope that all of you have a good Monday and it sets the tone for what may be a wonderful week!

Friday, February 13, 2009

A Random Friday Blog

A few people have said to me that the my philosophies and political ideals are getting a little boring, so following the advice of some of the readers, and the fact that it is Friday, today's blog is just some random thoughts on random issues. And for the record, the readers who said I was getting dull may be correct...

If anyone still watches hockey, or follows the Blues, the last two losses should seal the fate of this years chance at making the playoffs. And it should seal the fate of Andy Murray as head coach for St.Louis as well. I understand that there have been injuries and that the Note is a very young team, but excuses don't win hockey games. And coaching not to lose doesn't win many games in a passionate sport...and writing about hockey may be as boring and out of touch as my political views.

So we move to more of a pop culture story. How about Joaquin Phoenix on The Letterman Show? I never watch Letterman, but for some reason stopped when I saw Phoenix. And i was glad that i did stop to watch. I got a kick out of the interview. I'm not much on celebrity worship and not much on Dave, even though he is funny sometimes. And I'm even less on Paul Schaffer, who's took a mild cussing from Phoenix during the interview. The interview was the kind of interview that I would like to give if I were a famous celebrity type of person. I may be almost forty, but I still get a charge out of thumbing my nose at the staus quo. And I really got a kick out of the interview. It was out of the ordinary and broke the pattern of the same old same old that is so preval;ent on television these days. I don't think Phoenix was high or crazy. And I can't speak for him personally, but i know what I got out of the episode and it was refreshing. I guess I'm weird like that, but I did get a charge out of the ordeal.

In politics this week, Obama has taken a beating. He is definitely learning on the job. And his cabinet picks aren't looking too good either. Not counting Judd Gregg. He probably shouldn't have taken a position anyway. I guess he believed the hype and empty words as much as the next. But maybe Obama can appoint a businessman instead of a politician to this post now...The stimulus package, or liberal spending spree, looks like it is very close to a done deal. But we really should be very cautious of this. Some of the measures, which have little to nothing to do with spending, are leading towards a bigger, more powerful government. And towards more of a socialist mix in our economy. I will let it go at that, but think about what it means when a president says that the government is the only one who can help us out of our economic situation. Sounds as if "The Government" is more of an entity than a group of elected people representing the citizens. And it isn't very flattering to say that the American people are helpless and reliant upon the government. It undermines our spirit, integrity, and resilience. It is about as patriotic as redistribution.

In the business world the stock market is responding to the lack of, well, anything, by Geitner, who is showing to be another stellar choice for his position. And in unpolitical business news, the man in charge of the peanut scandal; the man who knowingly used the tainted peanuts to save a few bucks, should have the book thrown at him. I can't think of his name at the moment, and he doesn't warrant a search, but this kind of thing is absolutely despicable. And not like Sylvester says in the old Looney Tunes flicks, but literally despicable.

Has anyone else with small children noticed anything odd this week? I mean in their children's behaviour? I don't know what is up with my two, but they have been crazed! I don't know if it the moon's fault or something in the air, but my savages have been more heathen than usual!

Anyone found any good music lately? I tried to watch the music channels to find something, but it was all reality stuff. What a crock! Remember good ole, unpolitical MTV in the 80's? How about Night Flight on the USA Network? Radio 1990?

And how about the old Sid and Marty Croft television shows? Especially "Land of the Lost". I see that they are coming out with a remake that will feature Will Farrell. Maybe it's just me, but that makes me really sad. Kind of like Steve Martin doing the Pink Panther movies...It just makes me sad.

I read an article yesterday that said it shows seven signs that evolution is correct and happening today. Did anyone else read it? It was MSN I think. Anyway, it supported adaptation which few can argue, but there was no evolution support. The frogs that were adapting were still frogs. The lizards were still lizards. Flowers were still flowers. I won't get on a big soapbox here, but I think the terms here need to be defined and not blurred so that science can quit pulling the wool over people's eyes.

And that is all that time and my 21 month old beast will allow for today. I have to pick up cereal for the fourth time in twenty minutes and redress her for the third time since starting this blog. I hope that everyone has a good weekend while I beat the snot out of my hard-headed children. God Bless!

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

A Bigger Argument Against the Stimulus Package

It looks like the stimulus package is closer to becoming a reality. This despite the fact that the latest poll that I saw showed that 66% of Americans are against the package. Granted, the poll I looked at is several days old and the numbers may not be accurate now. But the point I want to make is that although the majority, about two-thirds of a majority, of American citizens are against the package, our government keeps pushing the bill through. So my question is, who are our elected officials representing? And is it just me, or does it seem like our government thinks that they know best for us, individually? Does it seem to anyone but me that our elected officials give off the air of arrogance in their actions? Our government and elected officials seem to ignore the wishes and desires of it's people because they are so much smarter than the average Joe, and that we really need them much more than they need us. Congress seems to think that they are doing a favor for all of us ignorant folk who don't really understand the issues. And for some reason, this group of arrogant elitists try to convince us that they better understand the real issues in our personal lives and can better help us than we can help ourselves, God love us and our little pea brains.

This is what gets me so worked up about all of the stimulus and bailout stuff, the principles at work and at risk. Never mind all of the "temporary" programs that were started eons ago that are still in effect, see the income tax. Never mind that. Forget about all of the social programs that were in the best interest of the people during a time of crisis and that now cripple generations and cost us esteem, work ethics, and resilience of nature. The most alarming thing is that our government is not just out of touch, but they are ignoring the wishes of the voting citizens; they are not truly representing it's people. And when the opinion of economists and socialists and intellects trump the needs and desires of the American people, nothing but bad is coming down the pike.

And I'm not trying to be pessimistic, or is it called unpatriotic now? It is out of frustrated optimism that I write from. We have the greatest country in the world. Period. And I do not like the mediocrity that is being peddled these days. I do not like that so many, especially in government, overlook the resilience and the tenacity of the American people. The things that made us great; that nurtured innovators, that produced movers and shakers, that lead to grand ideas and thoughts, are being slowly destroyed. That is what is tragic to me, myself, personally.

And that is why I feel that we should forget numbers and economic strategies and theories by "intellects", and return to the basic principles and ideals that made our country great in the first place. Forget the concepts of Keys and government regulations in our economy. We should deregulate and leave the free market alone. Let "the invisible hand" decide what companies survive and what companies fail; because those companies should control their own destinies, just as we the people should control our own individual destinies. No company is "entitled" to exist. There are no rights guaranteed to businesses. It is the rights of individuals that need protecting and fighting for; and that are guaranteed in our constitution.

We need to stop rewarding failing businesses. We need to stop propping up industries just because of their size. The principle should be that the company that makes the best decisions and produces the best products and best meets the needs and demands of the people, will be rewarded by receiving the most dollars from the consumers and, in turn, will be reflected on and in the stock market. That is a win-win situation for the American people. Better companies produce better products and the dollar gets more value with it's purchasing power as well as what it purchases, as well as better companies in which to invest our money.

There is no need for regulations and rules to govern the regulations and rules written to enforce rules and regulations in the marketplace. In such an inefficient government/market with such regulations, values and monies are inflated, deflated, bubbled, manipulated, and misrepresented. This in turn affects the value of the dollar, which in turn affects the return an individual receives for their works and their products. But the government gets tax monies and can flex it's inflated muscles at every point along the way. Then the interests of the individual, whoever it may be, is lessened and ignored.

And maybe the best interest of the American people is let sectors and businesses fail. Maybe that would help clear away the deadwood and allow for the growth of what is healthy. The market and economy could "right" it's self and we could then see real growth and less manipulated figures in the economy.

And I know that this is dangerous thinking and that there will have to be sacrifices. I know that we may lose leisure time, convenience, and some cable t.v. channels. But in my optimism, I feel that the American people are sturdy, resilient, and capable of enduring such difficult times. I feel that not only are we able, but that we may begin to shine; we may see great men and great products, and great ideals emerge again from our society. I do not want to invite disaster or difficulty, but I think if such were to occur that the American people could begin to take back the country and begin to get real representation back into our government. More deadwood cleared so that the healthy can better grow. I think our economy would flourish. I think our dollar will be closer to being worth 99 cents again. I think that the individuals wishes and needs will be met with greater efficiency; and that is more like the freedom I desire.

I realize that I sound like an anarchist, but I am anything but that. I just think that the role of government should be less instead of more and that bureaucratic red tape could be done away with if the role of government is not redefined, but returned to what it was originally intended for. That would be not only efficiency, but freedom for our government as well.

And lastly, all of the things I write about, as well as our society, requires the morality of the individual to function. So our struggles and our issues are ethical in nature. That is why I feel that most of the people's issues should be dealt with by most of the people. We have to begin to make decisions based on morals and principles and forget theories and abstract economies. we cannot focus on what is best for ourselves financially, but wait for the financial reward that will come when individuals make moral decisions in the best interest of freedom and the pursuit of happiness. No government can give that to any individual. It is a personal choice of every citizen. And remember that Jefferson said that a government that is big enough to give you all that you need is big enough to take all that you have. So it is in everyone's best interest to reject more help from the government and to demand less of a role of government in our economy and in our lives. And it is our duty to make decisions based in principle and backed by ethical choice, and not wait for government to legislate morality as they legislate our money.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Battlefied: Capital Hill

What a week for President Obama. He is beginning to find out that being President of the United States is very much different than campaigning to actually become the President of the United States. That may explain why Obama is hitting the campaign trail to muster support for the stimulus package. And it does appear that he is learning on the job, much like his vice president and secretary of state claimed that he would have to do. I do hope that people will remember that he has inherited a mess and that he hasn't been in office very long yet. He needs our prayers and he needs the citizens to be fair in their assessment of his actions thus far. Granted, many still have major concerns about President Obama's policies, myself included. But in all fairness, he must be given time to do the job. Even though he campaigned as if he would have all of the mess fixed in a week or two, the reality is that it is a very difficult job that requires some time... And our biggest concern should be our congress at the moment.

And the biggest issue that congress is working on is the stimulus package. While Obama is campaigning for a plan that he did very of the actual work on, reminiscent of his days as a senator, congress is back to business as usual of their pork barrel politics and spending. We had hoped that Obama would keep this campaign promise to lessen the nonsensical spending, we are finding the truth to be that congress holds the real power. The president is more responsible for setting a tone and communicating to the people, something I think that he will do well on his campaign for this economic stimulus package. And I think that President Obama should receive high marks for communicating with the people. Whether or not you agree with his policies, it is refreshing to see our president talking to the people, especially after we tolerated Bush hiding his head in the sand for three years.

It is disappointing, in a sense, to see that Obama passed the buck on the stimulus package. He campaigned with a promise and a plan of his own that was second to none. But I guess he was overwhelmed or something and he passed the majority of the writing of this package to the congress. Proof is the section of the bill that allocates $50million to habitat restoration in San Francisco, ala Nancy Pelosi and the large amount of money earmarked for improvement to the casinos and airports in Las Vegas, ala Harry Reid.

So we can forget the promise of less pork. I haven't read the entire bill but have seen some it. There is an exemption for companies that make recreational boats longer than sixty five feet. There is a provision that lifts Medicare regulations for only three long term care hospitals in the U.S. There is a section that wishes that $198 million of the taxpayers money goes to Filipino veterans of World War Two, of which the vast majority live outside of the United States. I agree that we should honor those who fought with us in our wars and that we should be true to our commitments, but in an economic stimulus package? This package is mostly spending that the Democrats have been trying to get passed for some time, not economic stimulus. And this is not economic stimulus in as much as it is a test of muscle in our congress. It is an, "I told you we would get this passed even if it took a hundred years" kind of thing instead of a plan to help the people who's money they are playing with. This is the same old politics.

But before I go further, it is of interest that the GOP is bucking this package so heavily. I guess that they want to show us that they have now discovered fiscal responsibility. After the brilliant economic plan of Hank Paulson and Bush, where no one knows what happened to the billions of dollars, the Republicans now want to be responsible. They now want to be the party that cares. They want to pretend that they have a real plan now...This is the same old politics. People voting party lines because they are party lines. Politicians drinking the kool aid and telling the American people that they have a plan and that they are our hope...The politics of pull...

It is no wonder that this economic stimulus package is popular with only about one third of Americans. There is no trust of our elected officials' and they have given few people very little reason to trust. This is why it is important for the President to go to the people. This is why I am glad that Obama is going out on the campaign trail again. I am absolutely against another bailout and disagree with an economic stimulus package that has anything other than economic stimulus. But at least our president is trying to set a tone for the nation instead of imitating an ostrich.

And we need to remember that our most imminent threat is our congress. We need to be active in our letters to our officials and we need to let our voices be heard. And if we do live in a democracy, then no bill that only has 33% of the approval of the American people can be passed; and that for congress to pass such package shows that the struggle and desire for power is greater than the struggle and desire to serve the citizens. It shows the arrogance of a group of elite who believe they are above the majority's intelligence. Capital Hill is the battlefield of a greater war than we may recognize.

Friday, February 6, 2009

The Week That Was

It has been some days since I have been able to post anything due to the Ice Storm, power outage, disaster cleanup, and life in general. I am hoping to get bqck into a regular routine on Monday.

I do hope that everyone who had to endure the storm and it's aftermath are doing well. It still looks like a war zone around here, but it feels a bit more manageable. And it was nice to see so many neighbors helping neighbors during the crisis. It was good to know that you're friends are your friends and that there are still some people that you can really count on in life.

The storm lead to an interesting lifestyle for a week or so. I had some reaffirmations and some insight to many different things. I found that I still tend to be very aggressive in most "stressful" situations and that my wife tends to be very patient; yet somehow we are rarely, very rarely, at each other's throat. That is more of a testament to her than of any kind of positive for myself. But either way, there are few people that I would enjoy being "cooped up" with, but Brandy made it very bearable. Despite the difficult week.

And it was a difficult week. We had the stomach bug run through the family during the week. We spent two sleepless nights helplessly listening to tree limbs and ice bombard our roof, knowing that there were massive holes being made. But praise God, we haven't found any yet! We, like everyone else, ran out of firewood. We lived out of the trunk of our car, like gypsies, for a few days; until the latch on our trunk messed up. And yes, all of our stuff was inside the unopenable compartment.

I caught a frozen limb in the head, leaving a decent cut. I was shielding my son and would gladly do it again, like most every dad would. And to hear my son tell me that he could take the hit next time so that I wouldn't have to makes me feel very proud. What a good kid he is!

Both kids did really well during the week. It was more of an adventure for them. They liked sleeping by the fireplace and cooking food wrapped in foil then placed on the stove. It was exciting and new and we were all together, very closely, and they loved it. You can't buy that kind of bonding or those kind of memories at any store in the world. I am so thankful for my kids.

I found that I do miss the Internet much, much more than cable television. If it weren't for insomnia, I wouldn't watch much t.v. Don't get me wrong, I like the shows that I like, but I really think that I was better off without cable. And that is all that I will say about that today; I'm trying to spare any controversial thoughts today.

Like many others, I take a lot of things for granted. Like light bulbs. My own bed. My quiet time. And like many others, I wonder what would happen to our society if we had to live on and with less. I found that it could be as much of a blessing as anything.

I still can't talk about the Superbowl.

I chased down a drunk driver while my wife talked with the highway patrol on the cell phone. That was interesting! Luckily we rarely got over 80 mph on good roads, but it was none the less nerve racking for my wife. My aggressive nature took over, so I was good. I kept thinking of my family and my friends and their families traveling on the highway and desperately wanted the drunk off of the road. Maybe I will write about it some other time. It really wasn't that spectacular, thank God.

And that is the week in a nutshell, minus the chainsaw incidents, the regular life stuff, and the like. I'm certain that my week was much better than many people and I am more thankful for more things than I was a week ago.

I do hope everyone is well and that I can get back to a normal routine next week. Thanks for reading and thanks for all of your support!