Too Many Indians and Not Enough Chief

High School "Cuddle Puddles"???

2006-02-03T15:27:00.000-04:00

A NY Metro magazine article about high school "cuddle puddles" during the learning day has left me flat stunned.

(this is a long article but it's worth the read).

There are so many issues with the material presented in this article:

1. On a silly lexicon level, what's with all these freakin' terms like "pansexual, bi-queer, metroflexible" and so on (not to mention the flexisexual term from a previous post)?

2. How the HELL does a puddle cuddle of the size, scope, and involvement described in this article happen on a high school campus?
"Alair is headed for the section of the second-floor hallway where her friends gather every day during their free tenth period for the “cuddle puddle,” as she calls it. There are girls petting girls and girls petting guys and guys petting guys. She dives into the undulating heap of backpacks and blue jeans and emerges between her two best friends, Jane and Elle, whose names have been changed at their request. They are all 16, juniors at Stuyvesant. Alair slips into Jane’s lap, and Elle reclines next to them, watching, cat-eyed. All three have hooked up with each other. All three have hooked up with boys—sometimes the same boys. But it’s not that they’re gay or bisexual, not exactly. Not always...Since the school day is winding down, things in the hallway are starting to get rowdy. Jane disappears for a while and comes back carrying a pint-size girl over her shoulder. “Now I take her off and we have gay sex!” she says gleefully, as she parades back and forth in front of the cuddle puddle. “And it’s awesome!” The hijacked girl hangs limply, a smile creeping to her lips. Ilia has stuffed papers up the front of his shirt and prances around on tiptoe, batting his eyes and sticking out his chest. Elle is watching, enthralled, as two boys lock lips across the hall. “Oh, my,” she murmurs. “Homoerotica. There’s nothing more exciting than watching two men make out.”"

3. Where the HELL are the administrators and parents in this whole matter? These cuddle puddles spew over into houses when parents are out and no one seems to be concerned?

4. How does this reporter know where to find the puddle cuddle, see the puddle cuddle, and report on the puddle cuddle yet the administration does nothing? Didn't they allow the reporter on the campus and know why she was there?

The sexual exploration and experimenting is tragic. The fact that this is a growing trend among 15-18 year olds is disheartening. Granted it's a small group of kids at this high school (and not the norm), it's naive to think it's not carrying on in schools across this country.

What Whitey really "did" to the Black Community...

2005-09-13T10:28:00.000-04:00

Much of the discussion about Katrina and the feds role or lack there of during the crisis has hinged around racism and the perceived neglect of the African American community.

Well, John McWhorter wrote an amazing piece over the weekend that really gets at the heart of the issue. The discussion has got to get beyond this idea that this event was just another illustration of how the white majority keeps down the black population or at the very least is indifferent and slow to care.

The reality is that our welfare system (as McWhorter points out) was created by do-gooder whiteys looking for votes and and a "gold star" back in the 60's. Their efforts changed welfare from something that was a true safety net of ultimate last resort to a system of empowerment for poor decision making and little motivation for improvement. If you think the federal government is going to save you (as many in poverty now cling to) you are doomed to a life of barely surviving and barely getting by. And pumping more money into the system won't fix it b/c it's the idea of pumping more money into the system that create the problem in the first place!

Some profound points by Mr. McWhorter:

In fact, white America does remain morally culpable — but because white leftists in the late 1960s, in the name of enlightenment and benevolence, encouraged the worst in human nature among blacks and even fostered it in legislation. The hordes of poor blacks stuck in the Superdome last week wound up there not because the White Man barred them from doing better, but because certain tragically influential White Men destroyed the fragile but lasting survival skills poor black communities had maintained since the end of slavery.

Few thinking people regret the flower children’s opposition to the Vietnam war, sexism and racial discrimination. But these advances also spelt the demise of old standards of responsibility. Taught that criminality and violence must be judged in proportion to the extent to which poverty and discrimination have coloured one’s existence, the enlightened white person saw black violence as “understandable”.

In 1966, however, a group of white academics in New York developed a plan to bring as many people onto the welfare rolls as possible. Across the country, poor blacks especially were taught to apply for living on the dole even when they had been working for a living, and by 1970 there were 169% more people on welfare nationwide than in 1960.

Only in 1996 was welfare limited to five years and focused on training for work. But by then generations of poor blacks had grown up in neighbourhoods where there was no requirement that fathers support their children. Few grew up watching their primary parent work for a living. Most people paid nominal subsidies as rent and were thus less inclined to treat their living spaces well.

What Katrina stripped bare, then, was not white supremacy, but that culture matters — even if what created the culture was misguided white benevolence. Social scientists neglect that before the 1960s poor blacks knew plenty of economic downturns and plenty more racism.

Thoughts on Cindy Sheehan and her Crawford Protest

2005-08-15T10:32:00.000-04:00

let's talk about this whack chick, cindy sheehan, in crawford. it's sad really to see her now being played by the michael moore's of the world. if she was all about peace and meeting with bush again, certainly she should have enough sense to stay away from michael moore and his venomous rhetoric of lies and deceit. she comes off everyday saying "how dare bush have a life when my kid died". hell lady, it's sad as hell that your son died in war and if i lost my child to war i'd be devastated for sure but i damn sure would be runnings around ranting about how bush shouldn't go on a bike ride and "go on with his life". what the hell is he supposed to do? stop being president? ah now we get the point! this isn't about meeting with that lady, it's about getting rid of bush and assurping his rightful election as president. hell, her own family claims she's whacked out about this whole thing.

this is an excerpt from her latest post at michaelmoore.com (evidence of her real intention--self promotion):
" I wish I could EVER be able to get on with my life. Getting on with my life means a life without my dear, sweet boy. Getting on with my life means learning to live with a pain that is so intense that sometimes I feel like throwing up, or screaming until I pass out from sorrow. I wish a little bike ride could help me get on with my life. . . I need to focus on the positive, though, and there is so much. I had so many amazing things happen today. I couldn't walk through Camp Casey or the Crawford Peace House today without hugging people and getting my picture taken. Now I know how Mickey Mouse feels at Disneyland."

what the hell? one minute she describes being so devastated she's gonna throw up everyday and then "camp casey" makes her feel like Mickey Mouse and Disneyland? why? b/c of hugs and pictures? see her original purpose, allegedly, was to have a second meeting with bush about her son but she has done everything possible to daily decrease that meeting's chances of every occurring by lining up with the michael moores, moveon.orgs, and maxine waters of the world. of course those folks love this b/c they get to use this woman as fodder for their anti-bush agenda. don't kid yourselves folks, they have no use for her other than to advance their agenda under the guise of supporting this woman's efforts to meet with bush. it's a strawman effort at best. she becomes more sympathetic to the left and more of a loon to the rest of us...exactly what the extreme lefties want.

question: why did she pull the picture of her and bush from her first meeting when she was pictured with bush and other families and bush giving her a kiss on the cheek? perhaps it was for the same reason he is no longer saying this (her quote after the first meeting with bush):
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith. Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.
"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.
For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again. That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

of course now the story goes like this:
"It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.
"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.'

now of course she's added to her cause (that originally was about a meeting regarding her son, right?) the removal of israel from palestine. what does that have to do with the death of your son ma'am? oh yeah, that's the reason muslims hate us...nevermind they've hated christians and most of europe since the crusades.

does anyone even mention casey's name anymore? it's all about mamma. isn't he the real issue here? casey and all of our service men who've died over there--according to the lefties on this issue? casey, a man who "chose" to fight in this war and "chose to re-enlist for another tour" to figh this war. to hell with what casey might have wanted, right? all that matters is that bush get the hell out of d.c.

anyway, that's my rant and now i feel better.

NARAL-Pro Choice group Ad is dispicable

2005-08-10T11:03:00.000-04:00

It's very interesting to me how political everything the government does now has become. I can understand 527s and other political groups jumping in on elections and what not trying to get folks in office that suppor their agendas but NARAL ( a pro-choice group) has crossed the line in my view with their new commercials against Nominee Roberts.

A couple things annoy me about NARAL's ad such as this is not a political office and he's not essentailly running for office but rather is up for a nomination with input via a vote by senators. Also, their ad is just flat a LIE!

According to Factcheck.org (non-partisan media group) there are gross and intentional distortions that are flat out slander to be honest.

From Factcheck.org:
In words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false. To the contrary, during the Reagan administration when he was Associate Counsel to the President, Roberts drafted a memo saying abortion-clinic bombers "should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

The ad fails to mention that the "court briefs" it mentions are actually from nearly seven years before the abortion clinic bombing talked about in the ad.

The brief that Roberts signed, and on which the NARAL ad is based, is from another matter entirely. It is dated April 11, 1991. Furthermore, it is from a civil lawsuit brought by abortion clinics against protesters who were blockading the clinics. Bombing was not an issue.

This really is dispicable on so many levels. The idea that as a judge he cannot sever his political leanings from ruling law is absurd and shallow at best. I hope that this NARAL ad embarasses many pro-choicers and they voice their concerns at the outright distortions and politization of the SC nominee process. Every nominee that's ever been up for confirmation has had a stance on the issue of abortion but apparently the only ones (from NARAL's viewpoint) that can possible rule on the issue with clarity, integrity, and constitutional reliance are liberal pro-choice leaning judges.

Sad really.

Don't be Fooled...Iraq Is NOT State Sanctioned Murder

2005-06-09T12:50:00.000-04:00

an acquaintance of mine posted a link on a forum related to the Iraq War and the U.S. perhaps being guilty of State Sanctioned Murder. here's the site if you wish to read the article by Laurence M. Vance.

i take some exceptions to mr. vance's stance.

first off, regarding the title "state sanctified murder":
the Ten Commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, were given for the good of mankind. one of these laws is in verse 13: "Thou shalt not kill." the hebrew word for "kill" is the word "murder" or "to slay someone in a violent manner unjustly." unjust, premeditated killing with the wrong motives of hatred, vengeance, greed, jealousy, etc. is murder. killing in self defense is not murder nor is executing condemned killers. now if this author or you want to debate whether this is a just war or not based on self-defense motives then that can happen but it's a judgement call and clearly this author you posted doesn't see the war as remotely justifiable. i'm not sure where common ground can be had there.

the more interesting debate is the one on "sanctioned government authority" which this author appears to have a very real issue with. he claims two verses as the absolute authority on decisions about state authority:
As a Bible-believing Christian, I reject this ghastly statolatry, and for two reasons:
* "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3).
* "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

first off, we need to understand that the bible deals with the role of government differently than that of an individual christian. throughout the bible, the main role of governments was to protect its people from threatening invaders and to maintain law and order within its borders. a military force did this. those who argue against our country's military position, must also ask what our nation would be like without policemen and prisons.

God set boundaries on mankind by establishing ruling authorities that would make and enforce the laws He gave. He knew degenerates would try to destroy the good...it's part of the fall of man dating from adam/eve. most folks have an issue reconciling God's law of justice with His law of mercy fulfilled ultimately by Christ. i don't b/c i'm convinced God instituted civil authorities to maintain order on earth--God uses them to restrain evil and they should be obeyed for this purpose.

i choose to use the teachings of the NT more for my life than the OT not b/c they are contrary or conveient but b/c Christ came to fullfill the law and the apostles/disciples walked with Christ and were commissioned to teach the fullfillment of the law through mercy and Christ's atonement. Paul takes time to speak on this perceived confliction b/w OT law and serving "earthly leaders" in Romans:
Romans 13:1-5 (RSV):
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

governments have the right to bear a sword if they want. the results may be devastating but in light of not, it could be worse...the slaughter and destruction of the innocent by the wicked. certaily there are codes we should follow and biblically, God commands those that go to war to find or at least seek peace before being the aggressor. i'd argue the u.s. did this for over 8 yrs regarding iraq. the point though is that there is a biblical explanation for why a state has the right to "sanctify" a war though that author would rather you just rely on the OT to make that judgement. he threw out acts 5:29 to tell the reader to obey God but to do so in a NT times, it requires further readings than the two verses he laid out as the premise for his piece.

Scalia...Bush please make him the next Chief Justice!

2005-03-16T10:54:00.000-04:00

I happened to be watching CSPAN the other night and caught SC Justice Scalia talking to a group at the Woodrow Wilson Center. He was talking about the ways in which this court has overstepped its bounds and is trying to hide behind the idea that the Costitution is “a living document” in which judges can find new meanings that were not intended by those who wrote it.

Here's the CSPAN clip if you care to watch.

Some points he made that I find rather brilliant:

--“What was ‘cruel and unusual’ and unconstitutional in 1791 remains that today. Executing someone under 18 was not unconstitutional in 1791, so it is not unconstitutional today. Now, it may be very stupid, it may be a very bad idea, just as notching ears, which was a punishment in 1791, is a very bad idea. But the people can … eliminate those stupidities if and when they want. … All you need is a legislature and the ballot box.” Can someone remind federal appeals courts and moronic state supreme courts of this?

--“If, on the other hand, we are picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a new constitution, with all sorts of new values to govern our society, then we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look principally for people who agree with us, the majority, as to whether there ought to be this right, that right or the other right. When judges become lawmakers reflecting the will of the majority, Scalia said, “We have rendered the Constitution useless.”

--""We want moderate judges...what is a moderate interpretation? Halfway between what the law says and what some judge wants it to say?" Brilliant!

Bush....when Renquist steps down, please have the courage to appoint a man who finds the U.S. Constitution as the original legal document by which to make judgements rather than some amorphous "sense of decency" that evolves over time.

Dr. Dobson's Issues with Spongebob

2005-01-25T17:23:00.000-04:00

As should be expected, the media has totally taken Dr. James Dobson out of context in his recent denouncement of the All Star Cartoon Video (starring Spongebob, Barney and others) singing We Are Family. The issue isn't about gay rights or even tolerance. It's about parents being forced to deal with sensitive sexual topics at timings they don't have control over.

Dr. Dobson states (rightly) "We believe that it is the privilege of parents to decide how, when and where it is appropriate to introduce their children to these types of sensitive issues. The distribution of this video trumps the authority of mothers and fathers and leaves it in the hands of strangers whose standards may very well be different than the children they teach."

Folks, don't be deceived by the elite media. This isn't about gay rights or tolerance. It's about a parent having the right to decide when their child is introduced to such issues as homosexuality, sex, and yes even racism.

As a public school elementary administrator, if I receive this video package, it will go straight to the trash.

"Even Saddam Didn't Do This To Us..."

2005-01-12T10:05:00.000-04:00

So just up the road from me at Ft. Hood they are trying one of the army officers in charge at Abu Ghraib. I've been following this story for a couple reasons--proximity to Austin and I was wondering what kind of allegations would come out of this trial.

Well, it didn't take long for the "torture" statements to start flying. The latest report details how one Iraqi imprisoned at Abu Ghraib described having to get in a pyramid/dogpile with other naked inmates and even had to masturbate in front of guards. He followed it up with the statement "They were torturing us as though it was theater for them . . . I was extremely emotional because (even) Saddam didn't do this to us."

Now, this is going to come off wrong to some people but this statement about "even Saddam didn't do this to us" is absurd. What was done there was intolerable, unexcusable, and those responsible need to be punished for what they did. And while the descriptions of what was done are embarrasing and degrading to those forced to behave in such manners, it is NOT in any way, shape or form torture. And it sure as hell isn't even in the same league as what Saddam did to tens of thousands of his own citizens. Humiliating acts do not constitute torture. I'm not using Saddam's behavior in any way to justify the soldiers' behavior. I'm simply illustrating exactly what torture is and is not.Torture is cutting of hands and feet for sport. Torture is hog-tying people and dropping them off 3-story buildings alive. Torture is slitting throats to bleed out to death. Torture is cutting off ears and tongues.

Until I hear accounts of such behavior by our troops in that prison, I don't want to hear that T-word thrown around so flippantly. For sure it was dead wrong and unacceptable on every term, but it wasn't torturous.

America’s Faithful Can Take Back, From A Broken Welfare Program, The Responsibility to Care for Its Bretheren In Need?

2005-01-03T12:47:00.000-04:00

^“All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need . . . All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had . . . There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.”

It’s the biblical description of God’s welfare program. It describes a time when people, primarily the early New Testament church believers, relied on people and relationships for provisions in times of trouble and misfortune. It describes a system where needs were met and relief was swift.

Today, most people look to their government for such resources in times of misfortune. Europe is largely defined by its socialist programs and “progressive” welfare systems. America largely fought such ideals throughout its history but in the 1960’s finally embraced a welfare system to fight poverty and provide widespread monetary support for poverty-stricken individuals. This welfare system has grown with each passing year to where it now barely resembles that which Lyndon Johnson had in mind when he stated the poor need a “hand up” not a “hand out”. But sadly, and largely through sheer abdication, America has given over the burden of caring for it’s less fortunate to the government - a government that is inefficient, bloated, ill equipped, and through it’s means-tested policy structure only creates and perpetuates a cycle of handout-seeking pauperism. Americans, and Believers alike, have no one to blame for this dilemma but themselves.

This abdication of “brethren helping brethren” has given us a welfare system in America that is broken yet only continues to grow in size and scope with each passing year. Johnson stated during his first speech outlining his War on Poverty that “the war on poverty is not a struggle simply to support people, to make them dependent on the generosity of others.” Our current welfare system now encompasses some 70 programs overseen by 6 different federal government departments. When Johnson started his War on Poverty, the government spent roughly $8.9 billion ($42 billion in today’s dollars) on welfare programs. Welfare spending in 2000 was $434.3 billion and Bush has done nothing to slow this spending juggernaut down as estimates are that welfare costs under his watch are now pushing $525 billion. The annual cost of the welfare system for taxpayers is about $5,600 per household. The system now covers such programs as cash aid, food, medical aid, housing aid, job training, social services and urban/community development programs. The total cost of our welfare system since it’s inception in 1965 is estimated at $8.29 trillion.

Yet for all of this money that’s been thrown at the alter of government sponsored welfare, we have seen only marginal improvement in the national poverty rates since 1965. The poverty rate in 1965 was at 13.9%. Today it’s around 12% depending on your source and calculation method. Since 1965 the poverty rate has remained between 9% and 11% every year or about 5.5 to 7.5 million families a year.

The reason for this marginal improvement is because our government runs a “means-tested” welfare program where eligibility for funds is based on a certain income level. Moreover, these funds will often times continue to come in even if behavior of the individual is not changed.

There is a core message being delivered via our public welfare system structure that will inhibit the eradication of poverty (or at least wide scale reduction of rates). The message is that it’s ok if you are jobless and it’s ok however you got there, because the government will give you enough money to maintain your autonomy in the system and in society; all the while you never need to change your behaviors or make yourself better. Our current system promotes degradation, idleness, apathy, and dissolution all the while promising financial support while individuals embrace such ideals. Research is clear that prolonged exposure to welfare receipts only fosters the continuance of the cycle and is harmful to children who are surrounded by non-working role models who provide no incentive for future success.

Our current government sponsored welfare system has done damage to the war on poverty by enabling single parent households via a support system to “get by on”. Clearly there is a problem when women are rewarded with increased benefits for establishing a separate household. Deadbeat fathers can escape the system and receive their welfare benefits by remaining “homeless” and thus not having to pay a dime in child support or other court ordered disbursements. We have a system that does not require accountability of those receiving benefits; Accountability in terms of the embracing of structure, family (patriarchal values primarily), and productive contribution to society.

The alternative to this system is for America, and primarily Christian believers, to take back that which they’ve abdicated to the federal government—the care and support of those in need. However, before this can happen, America’s view of tithing and giving to benevolence entities needs to change along with their expectations for services rendered as well.

The most recent research indicates that about 4 out of every 5 adults (84%) donates some amount of money to charity or churches each year. About 1 out of every 4 adults (26%) donates more than $1000 to charity or churches each year. The median amount given to non-profits and churches each year is about $300 per adult. However, all of these numbers are on the decline from pervious years and previous decades. Americans are giving less and less to their churches and to non-profits with amounts given to charity/churches as a percent of household income at about 2% across the board, no matter one’s income level. The Chronicle of Philanthropy estimates 2003 donations to charity equaled $241 billion.

There are a number of theories out there on why the level of giving in America has decreased over the past couple decades. Some suppose it’s because our oldest generation, many of whom tithe and donate regularly, are passing away and being replaced by a younger generation that does not tithe nor give regularly and does not plan to in the future. Others point to the objections some have to the value-free giving of the current welfare system while still others point to cultural changes in America. Perhaps our society has become comfortable with the current welfare distribution system and they see their payroll taxes as a form of “giving” to the needy rather than actually giving to benevolent organizations.

Regardless of the reasons, if America and its believers are going to provide for the needs of its unfortunate rather than abdicate such duties to the government, a calling out of truth needs to occur and accountability brought out to the open. Accountability not only in terms of believers actually giving but also for those receiving the distribution—the indigent, the unemployed, the single head of households, etc.

Starting with believers, giving cannot remain at the current level—2% of income on average. BARNA reports that survey results indicate 1 in 10 “born again” believers tithe regularly (that is gives 10% of their income every month). While evangelicals and other believers are definitely “giving” more regularly and more often to non-profits than non-believers (about twice as much), it is not currently at a level that would effectively fund the transfer of welfare services from the state to other entities.

Certain Christian subgroups also need to be educated about the necessity of tithing and giving to non-profits. BARNA reports that Hispanics, liberals, households earning less than $20K a year, Catholics, and home-school families tithe less than one-tenth of one percent of their income. Fiscal accountability for those expected, no less commanded, to give to the church and other benevolence organizations must be prized, taught, and developed.

Accountability, though, goes much further than mere dollars and cents. The state welfare system belongs in the hands of churches, non-profits, and America’s citizens because currently, there is little to no incentive for change of circumstance or accountability to manage such potential for change. President Carter once said of the welfare system, “[it] is anti-work, anti-family, inequitable in its treatment of the poor and wasteful of the taxpayers’ dollars”. The current state welfare system is value-less and in many ways, fosters the continuance of a pauper society with little to no incentive for redirection. Recipients receive funds when a family dissolves to a single head of household. They receive funds for additional births or children in the household. They receive numerous extensions for unemployment. All of these come without any strings attached, for the most part, requiring effort, education, and self-improvement. To say it simply, there are plenty of carrots but very few sticks.

Churches and non-profits are in a much better position to provide, and even require, accountability of action for receipt of funds. Churches and even some non-profits have seen this type of welfare system work all the time—granted it’s in a smaller and more local scale. But it’s that relationship component, that daily or weekly or monthly accountability that is needed for the welfare system in America to be truly effective and live out the intentions of President Johnson.

Churches and non-profits can create a localized system of welfare that doesn’t foster or encourage autonomy within a destitute or poverty sub-culture. These organizations can provide structure, values, and personal connections that will move individuals from reliance on benevolence to actions and strategies for self (and familial) improvement. These organizations realize that compassion isn’t about “giving to” someone but rather partnering with someone to accomplish specific goals—a concept not often embraced or promoted by our politicians and the welfare system they craft.

Reports of successful and effective faith-based and non-profit benevolence outreach is common throughout this country. Whether it’s homeless shelters, foster homes, single parent shelters, apprenticeship programs or even church families partnering together to provide financial, medical or spiritual assistance, there are systems in place across this country and in every city that proves it does work.

Sure there would need to be some structures put in place to transition from state welfare to faith-based and non-profit provided welfare. However, this need not be a huge obstacle for this reason: churches and non-profits can begin to act now and as their efforts grow in success, more folks are taken off the public doles and the state system shrinks in scope.

Right now, the public is beholden to the machinery of the American political system. “Need” is a subjective term. Compassion and handouts are seen as synonymous. The faithful of this country have a calling. The calling hasn’t changed in 2,000 years. They need to provide for the needy of this country and they can. They can because the author of their faith stated it would work if done His way. What they have to do now is decide to take back the welfare programs of this country and fund it as well.

Why Bush Won!

2004-11-03T19:15:00.000-04:00

i think that results speak well of america. bush won b/c he has been able to define himself and present the voters with "something to vote for"--kerry did not do that. he was a candidate who offered clear vision (whether one agreed with that vision or not, he/she clearly knew what he stood for), his core values center around faith and the value of life which resonate with middle america, and he's an "everyday" kinda guy. he may not have won the debates but in the end, i think people went in to those voting booths and had to decide if they were going to vote for someone they knew or someone they still could not define. bush was probably not a lot of those 51%-ers solid choice but rather their best among the two (or three).

i think bush should feel quite justified in taking office this time (not that he didn't the first time). he received more votes than any other president in history. he is the first president since his dad to have a majority of the votes at 51%, and he won states that clearly were up in the air last time with relative ease this time. he has a mandate now.

i'm trying my best to avoid bitter complaining about the liberal media but i do think that once again they have egg on their face this year. after disbanding the exit poll conglomorate post-2000, they re-configured it this year and still they got things wrong having boldly proclaimed kerry with 1-3% leads from 2pm on. as it turns out, those exit poll numbers were bogus just as they were in 2000. why, well i have a few theories on it with a simple one being that a lot of republican voters just flat don't want to share their voting preferences with exit pollsters and thus the majority of what they have to talk to is liberal/democratic voters (many of which would love to sit down and talk about their progressive votes over a double mocha latte). i think that the media did their best to push kerry's candidacy with suspect pre-polling practices, promotion of the "young vote" which again did not materialize, grandiosed news stories of little truth or releveance such as 60 minutes junk, kitty kelly, the missing bombs, and cable news shows openly endorsing kerry on Monday (chris matthews, imus, etc.). it makes me wonder had the liberal media not been in kerry's camp, would this have been a 10-12 point bush win?

my reference to secularism was not so much that bush is the great "chosen one" for christians but that this victory really speaks volumes to what many americans believe and feel about our country's origins and future. this country has firm religious roots that have created morals many in this country do not want to release or minimize. things such as gay marriage, abortion, and the ability/freedom to craft one's own destiny without government interference are issues that too many americans this time around were unwilling to see trampled. it's not that so americans are opposed necessarily to homosexual relationships as it is they don't want an institution that has core moral values at its epicenter to be de-valued for the sake of "progressivism". i think many americans are still quite appalled at the thought of abortion and it's air of "convenience" nowadays and saw kerry's unwillingness to stand up against what damn near any sane human being declares immoral and unnecessary in partial birth abortions. a great deal of americans also don't want the government to take things (like money, right to bear arms, etc.) from them that they feel the constitution is clear in telling them to butt out of. kerry's values of governmental redistribution of wealth apparently did not fly well with many voters even if they do think the rich have loopholes in tax law.

i say some of this b/c the sentiments expressed by many at the exit polls (which can be quite different in validity than the "who'd ya vote for" question) indicated that values topped the list of issues that swayed their voting while other issues such as the iraq war and the economy were well under that. that to me, says volumes about what this election really measured. it was a referendum of sorts. it was vote for the man more americans felt would preserve our way of life and uphold our country's 200+ year values and integrity. the u.s isn't perfect by any means. our ways are not necessarily the best ways. but they are just that, "our ways". those values define many of us and when it boiled down to touching the screen or punching that card, 51% of america trusted george w. bush to protect our future, preserve our past, and deliver on a year's worth of promises.that's why i'm so happy. that's why i voted for bush. that's why i think our future is in very good hands.

Crawford, TX Rag Dumps Bush for Kerry...Big Deal? Eh...

2004-09-30T10:03:00.000-04:00

Yesterday a left-leaning rag in the tiny town of Crawford, TX--Bush's current home town and population 691-- came out in favor of Kerry over Bush. So is this a huge blow? Well, hardly. Let's take a look at the Iconoclast endorsement shall we.
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

....Iconoclast purports Bush has done the following as a "hidden agenda":
(my counter to the assertion in blue)

• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
Bush has borrowed from the "current surplus" in SS as has most every other president who's been in office sinc LBJ. I'd be interested in seeing what info tells them that SS benefits have been "slashed", I'm not aware of that and can't find reports that indicate such a truth. Perhaps they've stayed steady and b/c there is no increase that's perceived as a "slashing" of benefits. Bush has NEVER said he'd get rid of SS and even as recently as Tues. on O'Reilly stated that SS is a program that can't be abandoned and is an expectation since LBJ and he'll protect it yet would like to introduce a private component to it for those who'd like to invest rather than rely on the gov't handouts--which is quite progressive actually but dems didn't think of it so they hate it.
• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.
Where are the facts on this? Did they account for the largest prescription drug plan in the history of the country that was just passed earlier this year? Truth is that Bush isn't reducing benefits to vets but rather opposes changing the law that currently reduces a vet's benefits by the amount of disability they've received. He cites fiscal responsibility as a reason to resist this $58billion deal. I thought dems were pissed b/c Bush is carefree in spending but now he's heartless b/c he won't spend--what do you guys want?
• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
Most of the workers who will lose overtime are already paid well. And more than 1 million low-wage workers -- who probably could use a salary boost -- would get overtime under the new rules. Salaried employees making less than $425 a week, or $22,100 a year, automatically would qualify for overtime, up from $155 per week, or $8,060, previously. Workers who make $65,000 or more would be exempt from overtime pay. And to suggest Bush can control oil prices is laughable. Period.
• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
Bush gave tax cuts to everyone and those considered "rich" by most often times are our entrepreneurs, small business owners, etc. Furthermore, somehow Bush is spurring outsourcing by tax cuts--saving money sends jobs overseas--huh? Are people bitching in Japan when Toyota opens a car plant in San Antonio, TX which empolys thousands of skilled workers here in TX that didn't have jobs before? Japan's leader must suck too b/c of outsourcing. What would the dems propose? Increase taxes on corps thereby making cost of production higher and making them look out of the country for cheaper alternatives even more? Nice fix.• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
This is an opinion, not an indesputable fact and no evidence of a hidden agenda for this is available so they shouldn't make such an assertion. Hate the war, that's fine but don't suggest a hidden agenda w/o proof.
• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.
Can you say, recession? Can you say 9/11? Can you say Afghanistan and Iraq? These events caused this government to pump money into it to provide for safety and prevent a recession from becoming a DEPRESSION. The economy was beginning a tailspin when Bush came in to office and on the heels of 9/11 the economy was dealt a huge blow--just ask the airline industry and others. Bush chose a tried-and-true method to pump up the economy which is reduce taxes to increase economic spending. We now have an unemployment rate that is equal to Clinton's in '96 which many consider one of our country's most rubust economic times. We see growth rates in the economy at near record levels this year. Sound like it worked. Now as the economy grows and tax income increases via spending increases and employment rate growth, the deficit will be reduced over the next 5 yrs. as proposed by Bush.Again, just trying to give the alternative view since this editorial doesn't.

2004-09-17T14:06:00.001-04:00

Ashley!

2004-09-17T14:06:00.000-04:00

Here's Andrew at 1!

New Stavesacre Tunes!

2004-09-14T16:46:00.000-04:00

Awesome new Stavesacre mp3 at purevolume.com [ http://www.purevolume.com/stavesacre ]

One of my fav bands of all time has a new tune for listening pleasure.
Please go give it a hear....

RNC Day 3--The Zell Miller Show!

2004-09-02T10:51:00.000-04:00

So where do I start with this one. I tell ya, I was so pumped after listening to Zell Miller lastnight that I almost came in and posted my thoughts right then and there. But, I decided to wait and see how I felt this morning before posting on my blog.

Lastnight was an amazing night in the history of American political conventions. Zell Miller took the stage with a passion and zeal not seen in a very long time...especially from the Republicans who tend to be afraid of such outburts and their perceptions. Zell came out firing from the word go and point-by-point filleted John Kerry on every stance he's taken in this campaign.

Zell was harsh but not personal. Don't listen to the editorialists in the major print media b/c they will tell you a lie. The New York Times, L.A. Times, Houston Chronicle, Washington Post and others will play the "insensitive" card and the "it was an attack unseen before" card but that's, let's see let's use a Zell-ism " a big bowl of mush!"

This speech WILL resonate with women too. It may come off as sexist but women in this country want a manly-man to tell them things are going to be ok and by damned those terrorists are going to have to deal with a mighty hammer the next time they even think of doing something like 9/11 again. Women want a strong, manly, leader in their home and it transfers to the presidency in a time such as this.

Zell's delivery will resonate with many voters, especially those in the south who know exactly where Zell's delivery style was coming from. See, in the south, we're familiar with a term called "bein' taken to the woodshed!" For those of you not so familiar with it, it's when the leading figurehead in your life as a child took you out back and "set you straight about some things". Sometimes it was a little barking like Zell unleashed lastnight and sometimes it was a little more, shall we say "physical."

The polls will be interesting to watch come the weekend and early next week. The libbies are running scared right now and not sure how to respond to Zell's rant lastnight. BTW, I hope you were able to watch Chris Matthew's show "WiffleBall" lastnight after the convention. On it, Zell tore in to Matthew's and left him and his bully style of interviewing speechless.

I leave you today with the best line from the speech lastnight...

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

RNC Day 1

2004-08-31T18:28:00.001-04:00

Well I have to admit Day 1 of the RNC lived up to my hyped expectations. Sen. McCain was excellent and very statesman like. He definitely drove home the validity of Bush being the guy to deal best with terrorism and the threat it is to our safety. It was pretty clear that he will be a front runner in 2008 for the Republican nomination. Pair him up with a Condi Rice or Colin Powell and the Dems are doomed!

Guiliani was brilliant! He had the crowd in the palm of his hand and illustrated the Kerry inconsistencies with wit, humor, clarity and conviction. Here's the guy who led NYC thru that horrible disaster and who better to talk about what it takes to rise from such ruins than Giuliani. He praised Bush for his efforts and his humor while attacking Kerry's record allowed the point to be made without sounding harsh and cruel. He left me feeling very good about things and compared with that ridiculously boring DNC, I was quite impressed with the first speakers.

Well tonight is the governator and Laura. Two more good ones. Tomorrow night is Zell Miller and I can't wait for Zell!!!!!! He's gonna be so good.

Thank God the RNC is finally here!

2004-08-30T14:19:00.000-04:00

Alrighty! The RNC is finally upon us. It begins today with speeches tonight by John McCain, Rudy Guiliani and Zell Miller(? I think he's tonight).

I'm looking forward to hearing some positive messages about our president and his efforts to make our country safer and more prosperous. I'm going to try and watch some of the speeches tonight although they are in direct conflict with the Dallas Cowboys' 3rd preseason game. The Cowboys get first dibs tonight.

I'm also interested in listening to the cable shows afterwards to see how they can dissect the speeches and what libbys they bring in to debunct the speeches. Whatever you can do, check in on Hardball and O'Reilly when Laura Ingraham is on so that you can get the real take on the conservative speak. She's outstanding!

Swifties and Kerry

2004-08-27T14:50:00.000-04:00

For those of you who know me well, you are probably aware that I'm a bit of a political junky and dont' mind hashin' out the latest political-topic-du-jour! Of course right now the presidential election is taking front stage and thank God the RNC is coming up next week so we can hear some common sense for a few days in the mainstream media.

Anyway, I wanted to give my two cents worth on the whole Swift Boat v. Kerry thing. I've posted many a thoughts on the Vagrantcafe.com/forums website about my position on this matter. I think that where there's smoke there's usually fire. John O'Neill, who wrote Unfit for Command, has been an adversary of John Kerry for over 30 years now since he started rambling about atrocities and dispicable acts committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam. O'Neill's story has been consistent for 30 years. Now the Swift Boat Vets come along and are still quite pissed about Kerry's ramblings from 30 years ago and how they were played by the Viet Cong to torture our POWs. Many soldiers served admirably--make that most-- yet Kerry smacked them all in the face with his venomous words.

Something to keep in mind about all of this is the fact that O'Neill's story hasn't waivered for over 30 years however, Kerry's story seems to have a new chapter almost daily. Whether it's ribbons and medals are interchangeable, to whether he threw them over the fence in protest, to whether or not his boat was under fire to the latest of which is his commendation being re-written some 15 years posthumously. Not to mention new words added to it at that.

While I agree that the 527s have gotten completely out of hand and need to be controlled in a major way, the reality is that Kerry is not going to be able to run from this issue. He has been protected for a long time by just serving in the liberal enclave of Massachusettes. He was safe there and his record wasn't going to be contested to heartily there b/c of the leanings of the populous. However, now that he's running for the most powerful office in the world, those who've been willing to be silent all these years are not going to let this spineless, centerless, jellyfish of a candidate run without being held accountable for what he's done and said.

My prediction is that the whole did-he-or-didn't-he-deserve-the-medals-talk will die down well before the election. What won't die down, and hasn't for over 30 yrs, is the venomous and inflamatory words Kerry spoke when denouncing the war and it's troops actions. Those words hurt vets and their families and will continue to do so for a long, long time. That is what is hurting Kerry more than anything and that is what just may cost him the presidency.

Welcome and Greetings!

2004-08-27T14:19:00.000-04:00

Well I've re-tooled the blog with the idea that posts will be more regular and timely. I'm going to link the site with MOYL.com and my signature on Vagrantcafe.com so perhaps there will be more visitors.

My challenge will be to post thoughts on everything from sports to politics but all the while keep a good sense of humor about things along the way. I hope you like the place though it's a bit sparse right now. Come on back in a few days and see what's changed. Also, feel free to drop a post on a rant I have and we'll have some good discussions.

Late.