CFT Phalanx

Treatise on The War on Separation

2008-11-26T19:15:00.004-06:00

Hello, everyone. It certainly has been a long time since we here at Phalanx have managed to spend some time on our humble loudspeaker to the world, but I am pleased to announce that I will undertake a well-intentioned endeavor to begin contributing some thoughts on a regular basis.

For anybody who cares, here's a quick update of the main authors of Phalanx and what we've been doing with our time:

Jason received his commission from the United States Navy and was stationed at the naval base in Norfolk, Virginia. He is currently underway on deployment to the Persian Gulf where his battlegroup is conducting air operations. Obviously (since he's in a combat zone), the details of his exact location and activities are not for mass consumption, and there's a good chance that I've said too much already. I'm going to have to check my closet for government operatives before I go to bed.

417Fan is currently pursuing a very prestigious education and has moved out of state to do so. Also he got married. Those items are not listed in the order of their significance or importance.

Open_Skies is working full time in corporate America and is biding his time until he can start his own business. In the meantime, he lives in a house with two Kenyans, and the experience has been quite eye-opening.

Anyway, I would like to get started on the topic of my post, and that is the idea of separation. I don't mean separation in the sense that a married couple is spending time apart, or that the border collie has gathered all the sheep on one half of the pasture and all the goats on the other half. No, the concept under review this evening is the separation that exists in the realm of the mind - the separation of ideas, if you will, although I will freely admit that such a phrase strikes me as cheesy.

There is a war against separation in our culture. People have taken the idea of "America as a melting pot" and ran farther with it than Forrest Gump ever ran in his life. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not the kind of guy that advocates keeping everything separate. Just to head off all the haters in advance, please let me say the following:

I am not a racist. I live in a house with two Kenyans. I am the minority in my house. English is not the number one spoken language at home - Swahili is (specifically, the kikuyu dialect). The separation of races is not the issue here.

So what is the issue? Simply this: ideas that were once separate are now melded together or ignored completely. There are five areas of separation under fire in American culture today that I will do my best to describe. In this post I will discuss the first four and introduce the fifth. I will discuss the fifth in my next post, whenever that may be. The first separation:

Good and evil

There are those in America who wish to dispel the notion of good and evil. According to them, there is no such thing as good and evil. The only evil is to acknowledge evil, or worse, fight against evil. Here's why they think that:

If you acknowledge that there is evil in the world, then you must fight it. It makes no sense to allow evil to continue if it is in your power to eliminate it. However, if you do not wish to fight, then this presents a very problematic situation. On the one hand, there is evil in the world, but on the other hand, you don't really care to fight against it. How does one solve this dilemma?

If you do not wish to fight, simply remove the reason for fighting. If you remove your reasons for fighting wars, then you are free to pursue your life as you wish to pursue it without this pesky idea that it is up to you to fix what is wrong in the world.

(I would like to quickly acknowledge Jason, here, and his amazing contribution in this regard as he serves as an officer on board our fighting fleet. For those of us who still choose to recognize evil in the world, we will also recognize those who fight it. Jason is one of those who fights. God bless you, sir, and may peace and safety be yours always.)

Thus, the anti-Jasons of the world choose not to recognize the evils of their day, and instead adopt a postmodern attitude about the whole good v. evil debate, which is this: there is no such thing as good and evil, just vague perceptions about who or what may or may not fall in such metaphysical categories. This attitude is most succinctly summed up in the oft-quoted phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I'm reminded of an ancient Greek word that describes that sentiment, and that word is "hogwash." Okay, so it's not ancient Greek, but it still applies. There is good in this world. There is evil in this world. For the sake of the one, we must recognize the other. If we recognize the other, we must fight it. Go fight the good fight. Don't delude yourself into thinking that evil doesn't exist. Evil is out there. Go pay a visit to Charles Manson if you have any doubts.

(By the way, a note to any dissenters that may or may not be inclined to post a reply - if you think you're clever by turning my good v. evil argument around and grouping me in the evil category, just remember that you're not very clever. Or original. Just FYI.)

Pure and profane

The second separation is that between what is pure and what is profane. If you don't understand what I mean, let me assure you that this is a very simple distinction and I will simultaneously argue my point and clarify the issue as follows:

The ubiquity of cursing in America is a sign of the war against the idea that there is that which is pure, and that which is profane. The once-upon-a-time standard in America dictated that profanity had no place in the publice forum. That standard has been lost (along with several others). The use of profanity in public and even on TV has ballooned in recent years. One can stand in line at the grocery store and hear people behind them swearing as part of a normal conversation. It's gotten bad enough that the F-word is used as an adjective in the present progressive as an additive to virtually any part of speech available to the English-speaking world. Last month as I was traveling, I enjoyed a six hour layover in Chicago during which I walked from Union Station to the Shedd Aquarium on the shore of Lake Michigan. One way was about 3.5 miles, and I lost count of the number of people I passed who used curse words. Go read Rolling Stone magazine. Those guys don't hold back at all.

For those of you who use profanity - don't display your lack of intelligence. If you swear, you obviously don't know how to communicate your thoughts in a descriptive, intelligent manner, so you resort to vulgarity. Go read the dictionary and find some more vocabulary to use. You will come across much smarter in the world, I promise.

Man and God

"God is man, and man is God."
-Marx and Engels

"God is dead."
-Nietzsche

We have somehow come up with the idea that God is not a real entity in the sense that He operates independently of man (when I say man, I mean "mankind," so before anybody freaks out, just be aware of that little distinction, if you will). What is really going on here?

Everyone who advocates the "man is God" position is showing an attitude of arrogance and superiority the likes of which is heretofore undocumented in the history of wisdom literature. Pretty much this: "Every culture of wisdom before me was wrong and stupid, and I am right. There is no god and it is silly and unintellectual to believe the opposite."

For anybody who has any sort of beginner's knowledge about theology, God is not as easily explained away as all that. However, because it's getting late and I am getting somewhat tired of typing, I will let you investigate the theological implications of this "man is God" idea and instead argue my point my means of counter-questioning.

To all of you who say "man is God," or that there is no God, I would like to ask the following questions:

1. How do you know? Do you know because somebody else said so? That's an awfully weighty thing to say based simply on what somebody else said. Or do you know because you've thought it out yourself? Have you ever been wrong about something before? Of course you have. I hope to God you're not wrong about this one. Besides, logic and reason (properly followed) lead right to God's doorstep. Read Part 1 of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.

2. If you're right, then why does it even matter? If God is merely a figment of man's imagination, then why are you even bothering to change the mind of someone who is following a non-existent entity? If following God brings them happiness, why can't you just leave well enough alone? Who cares if you think that this new revelation will bring them some sort of intellectual freedom - if they are happy and content, and if there is no God, then what does it even matter?

3. What if you're wrong? Let's say Rupert says there is a God. Jacob says that man is God (the equivalent of saying that there is no God). Consider the following:

If Jacob is right and there is no God, then nothing matters. Jacob and Rupert both die and nothing happens. They go to the grave and that's it.

If Rupert is right and there is a God, then Jacob is in big trouble. When Jacob and Rupert die, Rupert's got the afterlife made for him, and Jacob has some serious explaining to do to the God he thought was a fantasy. (As a matter of propriety, I hereby choose to end this scenario before the concept of hell is introduced. That's a discussion for another day.)

Man and animal

Because we have been taught that man is simply the latest evolutionary trend and in no way higher or different from the animals outside of a biological context, we as a culture have naturally drawn the corollary that man is merely another animal, on par with any other animal that has developed as a result of the proverbial amoeba that crawled out of the prebiotic goop. And yet we are surprised and indignant when the kids in our schools harm each other. I'm not talking about a couple of boys getting into a fight on the playground; that's just what boys do. What I mean here is exemplified in the Columbine shootings in 1999. On the day that he and his friend killed 19 students plus one teacher, Eric Harris wore a t-shirt that said "NATURAL SELECTION." If Eric believed that humans were simply animals, then of course he would feel no moral objection to killing his classmates, at least no more than if he had gone deer hunting.

Check out what these teens did to a Mexican immigrant: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/25/immigrant.killing.ap/index.html

If they are taught that a human being is simply an animal, then why does it matter if you murder somebody? PETA, the foremost and most militant group of animal activists, put a program together a couple of years ago called "Holocaust on Your Plate." PETA members traveled across America displaying pictures of barbecue juxtaposed to pictures of tortured and cremated Jews in the Holocaust. The thesis of this program is that there is no moral difference between barbecuing a chicken in your backyard and cremating a human being in the Holocaust. If you barbecue a chicken, if is just as if you barbecued a person in Auschwitz because humans and chickens are equal moral agents. How stupid is that?

And finally, the last issue of separation I would like to address...

Man and woman

Again, in case anybody has an issue with the fact that I put the word "man" before "woman," I would like you to know that I arbitrarily listed man first in recognition of alphabetical order. I would also like to distinguish that my use of the word "man" in the previous bolded titles is meant as a synonym for "mankind," not the male half of the human race. The fact that I even feel it's necessary to explain idiotic things like that is a sign that some folks out there take offense to just about anything.

Anyway, if you wish to see my thoughts on the difference between men and women, please read my Treatise about that subject that is archived on the left. What I wish to say about it is that men and women are, in fact, different, and I mean in more ways than just physiologically.

However, there are some in our culture today who wish to erase that notion of difference, which is a dangerous thing. I'm going to skip all of the fluff and get straight to the point:

If there is no difference between men and women, then we are interchangeable. And if we are interchangeable, then there is nothing that a man can do that a woman can't and vice versa. Also, if there is no difference, then it does not matter with whom one has sex. And that, my friends, is the basis for the call of legitimacy for homosexuality. If men and women are the same, then the sex of the person you have sex with is of no relevance or importance.

As I said before, I am going to expound on the idea of homosexuality in my next installment. Please feel free to comment about the material thus far, but if you are inclined to do so, please observe some degree of respect and decency. I am not a Nazi any more than you are.

Grace and peace be unto you!

Mike Huckabee CAN divide by zero.

2007-10-22T10:51:00.001-05:00

Chuck Norris has announced his endorsement of Huckabee in an editorial on WorldNetDaily.

The campaign also set a goal of raising $200,000 this month and they have already exceeded that goal with over $250,000 in contributions (with 9 days left to go). All this on the heels of Huckabee's impressive performance at the Values Voters conference makes for a pretty good weekend.

Additionally, any Huckabee opponents must now be worried about a roundhouse kick coming out of nowhere.

Out of My League

2007-10-07T16:03:00.000-05:00

The song that accompanies the Jim and Pam montage I posted a couple of days ago is "Out of My League" by Stephen Speaks. If you haven't played the video yet, I would recommend it because this is an absolutely beautiful song (and the video itself is good too). If you are interested in purchasing the song, or listening to other works by this artist, you can do so on http://www.isound.com/.

I normally use Napster, but the iSound site was the only place I could find this song. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it is DRM-free and the track was still only 99 cents.

Good News out of Iowa for Huckabee

2007-10-07T16:02:00.001-05:00

Story: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressRelease&ID=295

Escapism and PB&J

2007-10-06T12:35:00.000-05:00

I posted a Scrubs video a few days ago and mentioned that there might be some forthcoming posts on Scrubs. This post will be about a comedy currently on NBC, but it isn't about Scrubs. I still would like to discuss Scrubs at some point, but this post will focus on The Office.

Like Scrubs, The Office is an absolutely hilarious show. It is not just the humor, though, that makes this show one of my favorite shows on TV, it is the appeal of the characters and their interactions. Scrubs is a much deeper show and tackles emotional issues deftly without compromising its comedic nature, but ironically I am much more emotionally invested in The Office. That is what I'd like to discuss in today's post.

A quality which I believe is integral to good entertainment is its ability to allow its consumer to indulge in some harmless escapism, to suspend disbelief and identify with the characters and fictional environment as if it were real. We need this occasional escape from reality as a respite from the stress and tribulations of our real life. Obviously, too much escapism is harmful (completely replacing reality with fantasy makes your life contingent on the whims of whoever created the fantasy world) but the regular person, I believe, benefits from the 30 minutes a week of their favorite or reading a good book before going to bed.

(Please note that in the last paragraph I said enter and not art. I believe that works can occasionally be both, but I don't believe that escapism is an integral, or even necessarily desirable, component of art. Art, I think, should exalt the values and beauty we see around us in real life. It can take place in a fantastical setting, but it should have relevance that is apparent even to those viewers who aren't looking for it.)

The Office is one of my favorite shows because it succeeds in providing this escapism. A friend and I, watching the final episode of the second series, literally cheered when Jim and Pam finally kissed. The fact that they are now, finally, dating brings me genuine happiness. I know they are not real, but the quality of the show makes it easy to suspend disbelief and identify with them. In the real world, too many people get hurt or are lonely. Too many “Pam”s stay with jerks like Roy and too many nice guys like Jim must suffer from unrequited love alone (which, I think, must be one of the worst possible feelings to endure). It allows us to temporarily enter a world where your co-workers may be quirky, but at the end of the day they are all friends. It allows us to enter the world where a horrible boss, Michael Scott (who would have been fired long ago in the real world), is a source of comic relief to his employees, rather than frustration or fear. Even in the midst of his craziest schemes, Michael is almost always motivated by good, if terribly misguided, intentions...which is more than one can say for everyone in the real world.

I realize that by writing this I run the serious risk of portraying myself as an obsessive fan of the show. It certainly is possible that I am, but I don't think that is the case. I also risk portraying myself as someone who needs escapism because of an unhappy life and I know that this is not the case. I have a wonderful wife, whom I love very much, great family, great friends, and too many other blessings to count. Even so, the world is not perfect and I enjoy being able to escape occasionally to a world where the imperfections can be a source of humor rather than sadness...and where true love conquers all. So thank you to the creators of The Office, I will likely never meet you but your show has brought me humor and happiness. For that, I am appreciative.

I have posted three video clips from The Office below (the first is from the end of season one, the second is from the end of season three, and the third is a Jim and Pam montage created by someone).

By the way, if any NBC executives are reading this and are looking to pay someone for writing favorably about their comedies I take Discover card or Schrute bucks. I post this videos in the hopes that any readers who haven't watched this show will consider doing so and to illustrate the point of this post.

Jim and Pam- Out of My League

2007-10-06T12:33:00.001-05:00

The Office - Season 3 Finale (Last scene)

2007-10-06T12:30:00.001-05:00

The Office Kiss

2007-10-06T12:24:00.001-05:00

Huckabee Gains in Polls

2007-10-05T14:28:00.001-05:00

Story: http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mediahawk/2007/oct/05/mike_huckabee_continues_to_make_impressive_gains_in_state_and_national_opinion_polls

Hopefully Huckabee can sustain this momentum despite what looks to be a disappointing 3rd quarter of fundraising.

If you'd like to help Huckabee, his website now has a sign up form for volunteers: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=GetInvolved.Volunteer

Of course, if you don't have time to volunteer you can always make a financial contribution as well: https://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contribute.Home

More Than A Feeling Scrubs Style

2007-10-02T22:50:00.001-05:00

I forgot to add in the previous post that my favorite rendition of Boston's classic song "More than a Feeling" has to be this performance by the Cool Cats.

Update: I had Scrubs on tonight while I was working on research and this episode was one of the two aired...a nice coincidence. For any of you who haven't watched the show, I can't recommend it highly enough. In fact, you might see a Scrubs-themed post (or two) here in the future.

Is Support for Huckabee "More Than A Feeling"

2007-10-02T13:37:00.001-05:00

Huckabee played bass guitar with local group "Mama Kicks" and Barry Goudreau, from the band Boston, in Londonberry, NH. Read the full story here.

Simple Steps that Make a Difference

2007-10-01T16:34:00.000-05:00

I have decided to start a new series that will be posted simultaneously on this blog and Patriotic News from the Ozarks. The series will be titled, as you can probably guess from this post's title, "Simple Steps that Make a Difference". I realize that this isn't the most creative series name, however as the focus of this series is on simplicity, I believe that a straightforward title is the most appropriate.

This series is based on the belief that most people really would like to make a positive difference in their community, but they also often face obstacles in doing so. This series is designed to offer tips on simple things we can do in our everyday lives to help. This steps aren't designed to supplant charity work or donations, but simply to provide additional opportunities to make contributions. Without further ado, here we go:

Simple Step #1: "Target" better schools while you shop.

If you ever shop at Target (as I do, since there is one right across the street from my apartment) you might find this tip helpful. Target offers its own charge card called the REDcard.
This in itself is not noteworthy, but what is noteworthy is their Take Charge of Education program that they offer in conjunction with the REDcard. With this program, you can designate a school of your choice and Target will donate one percent of all that you charge at Target to your school. One percent may not seem like much, but if you are going to spend the money anyway you might as well have one percent go towards education (at no additional cost to you).

For example, I have selected my old elementary school (Wanda Gray) for my account. You can view on the Target website how many people have selected each school and how much Target has donated. So far this year Target has donated $3,167 to Wanda Gray with only 87 people have designated it as their school, you can see the data here.

Now, I am hesitant about advocating any credit cards with the debt problem that faces many Americans today, but this is a different situation. You can use the Target card to pay for your purchase, then stop by the service desk on your way out and pay off your balance so you don't ever have to encounter interest rates. The only cost to you is the short period of time it takes to pay off your balance on your way out and the potential reward to society is significant.

Again, it may not seem like 1% of your purchases is much, but what if everyone adopted this simple step? In 2006 Target's revenue from sales was $57,878,000,000 (according to their annual report), just think if everyone who shopped at Target adopted this approach then about $578,780,000 would be donated to our schools annually at the cost of only minutes per shopper.

Huckabee's $400 Haircut

2007-09-30T21:21:00.000-05:00

The story of Mike Huckabee's $400 Haircut

Some candidates pay $400 for a haircut out of vanity, Huckabee paid $400 for one for charity.

Rules of the Road...Trip Book

2007-09-27T12:48:00.000-05:00

Some of you may recall the Rules of the Road...Trip series of posts on this blog. For those of you who recall it fondly, I have good news. The series, which has been modified and expanded, is now avaliable in book form: http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Road-Trip-Matthew-Simpson/dp/1434804062/ref=sr_1_1/102-5210982-2976134?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190915099&sr=8-1

The book is just the right size to fit in your vehicle's glovebox and it comes with three handy appendices, including the rules for calling shotgun. Thanks for your readership and keep on trucking!

More Huckabee Info

2007-09-27T12:36:00.000-05:00

A good interview by Mike Huckabee: http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070925/cm_rcp/mike_huckabee_an_interview

Huckabee's website:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

Also, the All-American Presidential Forum debate, moderated by Tavis Smiley, will be on PBS tonight. The four "first-tier" Republican candidates won't be at this forum, which "marks the first time that a panel comprised of journalists of color is represented in primetime", but Huckabee will.

Vertical Day!

2007-09-24T16:22:00.000-05:00

I would like to pass along this message from former Governor (and current candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination) Mike Huckabee:

"Everywhere I go on the campaign trail, I meet voters with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don't care whether an issue comes from the left or the right. What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better. It's what I call "Vertical Politics." On Monday, our campaign has set aside 24 hours, for what we are calling a "Vertical Day". The focus of Vertical Day will be a discussion of the most important issues facing America. The plan is to promote my positions on these issues through video and personal blogs, and to have an online conversation with voters about our ideas, the solutions we see possible, our hopes for America and the challenges we face. "

I would encourage you to check out Huckabee's platform and if you approve then consider participating in "Vertical Day" activities.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=VerticalDay.Home&l=69663AD6BF1B4E3EE78BAD3B24D34127

Bicycling and the Free Market

2007-07-27T09:59:00.000-05:00

All this summer, I have been riding my bicycle to work. It is about one mile each way and the streets are very wide so it is a pretty easy ride (hey, that rhymed). It is also kind of nice because the breeze from riding the bike really takes away from the summer heat. This, though, is not the reason that I use my bike rather than my car.

Why, you may ask, do I choose to pedal to work rather than push down on the gas pedal to get there? Well, it is not because I like the way my bike helmet looks on me; nor is it inherently because of a concern for the environment (more on this later). There are two primary reasons for my decision: fitness and economics. The latter is the most important for the purposes of this article.

As everyone knows, gas prices are extremely high compared to what we have been accustomed to paying. Filling up my Explorer and seeing the numbers on the pump go past $50 caused me physical pain. So, did I go on with my normal behavior and just keep wincing at the gas stations? No, I changed my behavior to save money. Biking to work is one change I made, but I also purchased a more fuel efficient car and put my Explorer up for sale. Again, I did not do this because I prefer sedans (although I do like the look, feel, and cabin space of my Focus), I did this because the economic motivations were more compelling than my preference for SUV's.

This is just an individual example of the market at work. As resources (such as oil) become more expensive people will change their behavior to use less of it (such as riding their bike, or purchasing more fuel efficient cars). This change in behavior creates demand for products which use less oil, thus we are seeing increasing availability of hybrid cars, increased research into alternate fuel technologies on the part of the auto companies, and increasing fuel efficiency across the board. This isn't happening because of a massive government program or because of a worldwide series of rock concerts, but because of good old supply and demand. The most powerful force to preserve resources comes from the market itself, because increasing scarcity creates increasing costs and people just don't like spending more money than they have to.

Admittedly there are some people who change their behavior out of a concern for the environment, but the primary engine for change is when a large number of people react to the increased prices and demand alternatives. These motives are not mutually exclusive, either. I am primarily making the change because of economics, but the fact that it benefits the environment is also something I consider as I would like my kids, and their kids to be able to enjoy camping and hiking in the great outdoors just as I do.

There is a place for the government in providing alternatives. An increased focus on expanding bike paths within cities and expanding Amtrak to make rail service a viable transportation alternative for Americans would, I think, be very desirable. A combination of the government focusing on expanding public transportation options and the marked-driven changes which are occurring can reduce our dependency on foreign oil, help the environment, and drastically decrease the pain at the pumps that many of us now feel without requiring massive government spending and infringements on individual liberty.

UPDATE: I have started a new blog advocating the expansion of passenger rail service in Missouri and providing relevant news. If you would like to visit it, you can find it at: missouritrains.blogspot.com

Confessions of a Former Xbox Devotee

2007-07-13T10:58:00.000-05:00

I have a confession to make. The following is not something I would ever have anticipated writing, but here goes.

I was a committed Xbox devote since I received mine as a Christmas gift. I requested it primarily because of Halo, quite possibly one of the best games ever, which I had been very excited about trying since long ago in middle school when I watched a Halo demonstration video on one of my PC Gamer demo disks (back before Microsoft intervened and Halo was being designed as a PC game). The move from the PC to the Xbox caused me to have to wait longer than I would have liked to experience Halo, but it was worth it. I have had little time to play Halo in the past couple of years, but when I was living in the residence halls my first two years of college my roommates and I played it very frequently. Now, I really only play it when I get together with my old roomies and other Halo-playing friends (which has only occurred twice this summer, once when one of my old roomies traveled down from KC to hang out before my wedding and once when I went up to KC for his bachelor party).

Aside from Halo, my other favorite aspects of the Xbox were its collection of college sports games (which allowed me to play as my beloved Missouri State Bears) and the Karaoke Revolution games (which allowed some great karaoke parties and gave me the opportunity to live out my secret dream of being a lounge singer). My Xbox has served me well and so has Clicky, my controller. As a result of this experience and the fact that Halo 3 is forthcoming, I initially wanted to buy an Xbox 360 after my wedding if we had the money to do so. We had the money, but I don't have an Xbox 360. The reason for this is the subject of my post today.

When I initially head about the Nintendo Wii, I was skeptical to say the least. The motion controllers seemed like an unworkable gimmick to me and the idea that this console could have broad appeal to non gamers struck me as laughable. Despite these initial impressions, I am now a Wii devotee and chose to side with my wife in purchasing a Wii over an Xbox 360 (and I have not regretted this decision).

The controllers for the Wii have greatly surpassed my (admittedly low) expectations. Even just playing Wii Sports (the free game bundled with the Wii) is both very fun and actually does provide a bit of a workout. The wristbands the controllers come with really are necessary because you do go very into the game and just as bats occasionally fly out of a player's hands in real baseball, so too can controllers fly out of your hands as you swing for the fences in Wii Sports. Without the wristbands, Wii players would likely have to replace their televisions fairly frequently.

The fact that the Wii actually comes with a game (especially since it is one that is actually fun to play) is also very impressive. It also comes with a built-in wireless adapter allowing you to connect to your home wireless network. The adapter has worked very well so far for us, even though the Wii is at the opposite side of the house from our router. The internet channel is great as it allows us to check e-mail or watch Youtube videos from the couch or dining table. When you look at how much more the Wii comes with as compared to the much more expensive competitors, the Wii is an easy choice for all but the most hardcore gamers.

The Wii also actually does succeed in appealing to the casual gamer because gameplay is so intuitive. The rest of my family, who have never been big gamers, really enjoyed the Wii and were able to start playing well without really any instruction. The Wii also allows us to turn our TV into a digital picture frame using its photo channel which has been nice when we have had guests over for dinner. To receive all of this for only $250 (especially considering the prices of the competitors) is an excellent deal (and no, I am not receiving any compensation whatsoever from Nintendo, although I wouldn't turn it down if they would like to offer some :) )

I do understand the point made by Microsoft and Sony that it is not fair to compare the systems because their systems have much better gaming graphics and performance and the PS3 comes with Blu-Ray technology. I believe there is some validity to this, but the fact of the matter for most consumers is that they are comparing these three systems when deciding to purchase a game console. As a result of this comparison most hardcore gamers, if they have the resources to do so, will likely choose a 360 or PS3 and those who would really like to be able to play Blu-Ray disks in the console will choose PS3. However, for most everybody else in the market for a console the Wii based on its price, intuitive (and fun) play, included extras, and range of non-gaming options will have very strong appeal.

I also understand that there is a mix of concern and anger among hardcore gamers over the Wii's popularity. There is a legitimate concern that the success of the Wii could push Microsoft and Sony to appeal primarily to a broad audience, to the exclusion of the hardcore gamer demographic. This could happen, but what also could happen is they realize that there is a large enough market of these hardcore gamers to sustain a console (which I believe there is) and focus on them rather than attempting to take on Nintendo on its home turf. This is what I hope happens because I believe there is room for both types of consoles on the market and that these choices serves consumers well.

I would be interested in hearing the opinions of fellow gamers who read this blog.

On Israel and the War on Terror

2006-10-06T16:46:00.000-05:00

To everyone who wonders if we are doing the right thing regarding the war on terror and Israel:

The answer is "yes." We are doing what is right and necessary. And I hope we will continue to do so. When the Arabs train their children to shoot rifles and kill Israelis, something must be done. And I am glad we are doing it.

Semper Fi

Coming Soon...

2006-09-12T23:10:00.000-05:00

Not to worry, faithful readers. Phalanx has not drifted quietly into the night. Coming soon will be a multiple part series from Big Sky outlining several scientific discoveries and theories that I have found interesting. Also on the way are some apologetics and perhaps another post devoted solely to the issue on which the coming elections hang (in all likelihood); homosexual marraige and the Federal Marraige Amendment.

Please bear in mind that we are in school and at least I am writing my senior thesis this semester, so what spare time I have between doing that and contributing to other priorities that I am now currently entertaining may or may not be used exclusively for writing blog posts. Regardless, something is on the way. And soon. That much I can promise.

Grace to you.

Across the Magical Bridge of Hope and Wonder...

2006-06-24T12:09:00.000-05:00

...and onto Candy Mountain!

Grizzly Man: A Commentary

2006-06-22T10:46:00.000-05:00

Recently, thanks to my good buddy Acolyte, I have been able to watch the documentary Grizzly Man twice. This is a very interesting movie, and one which I would recommend seeing, that raises issues which I would like to discuss. If you haven't yet seen the movie, you can get information about it at its official website. As a quick summary, the movie covers the life and death of Timothy Treadwell who spent his Summers living with Grizzlies in Alaska until he, along with a girlfriend who accompanied him, was killed by one of the Grizzlies.

Although most of this post will be critical of Treadwell, I have to first acknowledge that the fact he survived for so long was impressive. His footage was even more impressive and provided an amazing view of the beauty of nature and majesty of these creatures.

Creating an idealized view of these animals as friends sharing a secret world, as Treadwell did, does not at all constitute respecting them. To respect nature you can appreciate the elements which are beautiful and majestic, but you must also acknowledge the cruel realities of life in the wild and the danger posed by many creatures when humans cross into their territory. Far from respecting this animals, Treadwell anthropormorphised them and treated them essentially as toys.

At one point in the film, Treadwell claims that the bears are not dangerous but are simply misunderstood. This claim shows that it is Treadwell who truly misunderstands these creatures. Grizzly Bears are dangerous, this is not a subjective claim but a factual observation; this observation is also not a negative statement about these creatures, as Treadwell believes, but is rather an acknowledgement of their impressive physical characteristics which make them the top predator within their environment. If anything, this observation compliments the Grizzlies because it speaks to their ability to survive in the wild. The mistakes Treadwell makes are ignoring the less pleasant aspects of life in the wild and assigning a moral element to the actions of animals. Through assigning this moral element to creatures which act based on their instincts for survival Treadwell is again anthropomorphising them in a dangerous way as well as doing a disservice to animals. When we see nature footage showing weak creatures being killed by predators we view at as cruel and look down upon the predator for this perceived cruelty because in civilization we value protecting our weak. What we do not recognize is that the predator is simply doing what it needs to survive and is not considering anything beyond its basic instincts because it lacks that capacity. For an insightful and more detailed discussion of this issue, I would encourage you to read the essay "Nonmoral Nature" by Stephen Jay Gould (which can be found in his book Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes).

Treadwell's oft-stated believe that he was the sole-protector of the Grizzlies is similarly misguided. It can be demonstrated that this claim is factually misguided through the fact that the closest he ever gets to encountering poachers in his video-taped experiments is his observation of some fishermen/tourists throwing rocks at a bear in an attempt to scare it off. More importantly, however, this the principle behind this belief is dangerously flawed. Treadwell seemed to truly believe that he was both protector and master of his bear "friends". This belief that he was the one protecting these Bears from threats shows Treadwell's hubris. These bears did not need Treadwell's protection to survive, in fact quite the reverse was true: Treadwell's survival rested precariously in the claws of the Grizzlies. If anything, Treadwell's presence harmed the bears through acclimating them to humans and conditioning them to view humans as harmless. Although the bears are capable of avoiding and defending themselves from poachers, the bears that Treadwell spent time with will no longer have the instincts to do so.

Ultimately what this documentary illustrates is that contrary to the viewpoint of Treadwell and others, life in the wild is not a utopian paradise but is rather "nasty, brutish, and short" (to borrow from Mr. Hobbes). This is again not making any sort of moral judgment about the nature of animals, they are simply acting out of survival instincts. What distinguishes nature from civilization is the fact that humans are are capable of judging potential actions not simply based on survival, but on higher order issues, and civilized humans use this ability. Nature footage, such as that shot by Treadwell, provides both an illustration of this distinction and a warning of what human life may become if we discard the morals and elements of order which govern society in favor of surrendering entirely to our baser instincts. Treadwell simply could not understand this and as a result he discovered firsthand the violence and cruelty that is often displayed by animals in their fight for survival. While Treadwell's death is tragic, what is far more tragic is that he brought a, apparently reluctant, companion out into the wild where she meet the same fate.

In conclusion, please do watch Grizzly Man and please continue to take time to enjoy and appreciate the beauty of nature which surrounds us; but do so in a way that is respectful and deferential to the reality of life in the wild. Also, take time while you are doing so to appreciate the fact that you live in a civilized society and remind yourself of the necessity of maintaining those elements, morals and implements of social order, which separate civilization from the wild.

Return of "The Rules of the Road...Trip"

2006-06-20T12:03:00.000-05:00

Yes, the summer vacation season is now upon us and I am sure that all you out there in reader-land are impatiently waiting to commence your vacation plans until you have been enlightened by part two of our popular series. If you have somehow missed the inaugural entry in this series then you can find it here. Well, dear readers, your wait is at an end as we proudly present (cue musical fanfare):

The Rules of the Road...Trip

Leg Two: Rules 6-10

Sixth: "Don't go in there!" or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Rule

This rule tops this entry in the series because of its profound importance in ensuring that all members of your trip retain a quality which is essential to enjoying any vacation: life. Yes, as most anyone who has watched horror movies knows there is substantial risk to life and limb involved in traversing highways and back country roads from chainsaw-wielding maniacs and other such miscreants. To avoid such danger, simply heed this admonition: if you are driving on an empty highway, through creepy surroundings and hear a song such as "Sweet Home Alabama" (see the new version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) or "Dueling Banjos" (see Deliverance) then get out of there and whatever you do DON'T STOP AT A RANDOM HOUSE TO ASK FOR DIRECTIONS. I cannot overstress the importance of this rule, although there is a caveat to be made regarding the songs that will be covered in the next rule.

Seventh: "On the Road Again" or The Vital Importance of Tunes

This rule allows for greater discretion in its implementation than most others, but the basic principle of it is non-negotiable: music is extraordinarily important to the road trip experiment. This rule's discretion lies in the fact that it is up to the driver, and the passengers (to the degree allowed by the driver), what type of music is best. However, this rule will provide some basic guidelines to help in this selection. Some genres, such as Classic Rock, are better suited to road trip music than others. There are also some standard songs, such as "Sweet Home Alabama" (which is recommended as part of any Road Trip compilation, but must be played with care as per Rule Six) and "Ramblin' Man", which are always good choices for a Road Trip. The type of road trip also plays an important role in the selection of music as the tunes best suited for a camping trip will be different than those for a trip to some big city destination. Finally, this rule dictates that if at all possible a road trip CD should be created with tunes selected specifically for the trip. If this is not possible, then a generic road trip CD should always be ready (though radio still presents a good alternative).

As a side note to this rule, if you are looking for good road trip songs which are politically conservative in nature, I would highly recommend that you look at the list of the 50 Greatest Conservative Rock Songs compiled by John Miller of the National Review (an outstanding publication).

Eight: "Honey, I think we're lost" or The Code on Asking for Directions

The premise of this rule is pretty straightforward: guys should not ask for directions. If a guy is driving and becomes temporarily off-route, we are never actually lost, he should consult a map and use his inherent navigational abilities to get back on course. Never in this situation should he stop and ask for directions or, even worse, admit that he is lost. Some guys in this situation will skirt the rule by stopping and having a female companion ask for him, however this is in fact a more egregious offense than if the guy had asked for himself. There are two exceptions: 1) Confirming that your planned route is correct while conversing with a local is a grey area, but typically acceptable; 2) Asking a local about the availability to better and/or more expeditious routes, once you have already established that you have a planned route and have a good command of the situation, is perfectly acceptable if not encouraged as part of a good conversation. Female drivers are of course allowed to stop and ask for directions should they so choose, but are reminded that they have an opportunity to prove their navigational ingenuity by not doing so. The restrictions imposed by this rule make the following rule particularly important.

Ninth: "X Marks the Spot" or Bring a Map!

Whether your road trips has been excruciatingly planned, thrown together at the last minute, or anything in-between there is some basic planning and preparation which is mandatory. This rule covers a mandatory item of preparation. Before embarking on a road trip one must always acquire a map covering the region which you are traveling and providing a means of determining a path to your destination. Once acquiring this map, one should always ensure that it is actually brought on the road trip rather than left at home (this should go without saying, but this author has learned from personal experience that it doesn't always). To prepare for cases in which you do forget the map, or any other similar circumstances a responsible driver should always have at least a map of their state in their glove box. Other maps of individual cities which are frequented can also be helpful, as can a copy of a road atlas, but the amount of maps permanently carried in the car should be limited to prevent excessive clutter.

Tenth: Concerning the Term "Driver" or The Rights of Ownership

A comment on the first installment of these rules brought up a very good point that the use of term driver seemed to assume that the driver and the vehicle's owner were one in the same, but the rules never explicitly stated this or defined the term "driver". Because this term is integral to many of the rules it deserves a rule defining it and clarifying the rights of the vehicle's owner when he or she is not the driver. When the term driver is used in the rules it refers to the person physically piloting the vehicle, who is assumed to be the vehicle's owner but doesn't have to be. The owner of the vehicle, of course, has the right to drive the vehicle for himself or herself or assign that task to a passenger of his or her choosing. If the owner does pick another individual to act as driver they also transfer all rights assigned to the driver to that individual for the period in which they are driving; however, the vehicle's owner retains the ability to retake the driver's role at any point or veto any decisions which could have a direct effect on the vehicle itself.

There you have it, Rules 6-10 of the ever-popular The Rules of the Road...Trip series...you may now embark upon your long-awaited summer vacations or simply hop in the car with some friends and start driving, knowing that you are navigating the highways with proper guidance and order. Again, please feel more than free to print copies of both installments of the Rules and store them in your glovebox to serve as a point of reference or to settle disputes. We still have much more ground to cover so please stay alert to future installments of this series. As always, thanks for reading and keep on trucking!

2006-06-18T12:59:00.000-05:00

I know it has been a long, long time since we have posted and to those who still check the blog regularly we sincerely apologize. Honestly, I (and my fellow Phalanxers would likely echo this sentiment for themselves) have just been too occupied with life to think about coming on here and posting. I wouldn't be posting today except for the fact that checking my e-mail I saw we had two comments made on the blog yesterday and I have some free time to quickly respond to them.

Both of these comments were actually made on posts composed by Big Sky, so I hope he won't mind that I am responding to them initially (I'll leave it up to him as to whether he wants to write his own response as well). Because we here at the CFT Phalanx believe in freedom of speech and the value of civil, reasoned debate I will reprint the comments in their entirety here in order that all our readers may view them. The text of the comments will be italicized and I will bold portions of the comments to emphasis key portions for the purposes of responding.

Comment 1

The first comment was made on Big Sky's "Guantanamo Bay" post from February 27, and reads as follows:

You are just plain sick. That's all I can say about you. You are wrong on every point in your disgusting, sickening diatribe.

The comment begins with this very impressive introduction as everyone knows that the best way to begin a debate is to thoroughly degrade your counterpart as a person (a technique known to students of rhetoric as an "ad hominem" attack-one of many types of fallacies). Please also note that contrary to the second sentence, this author did in fact have more hatred to spew.

Maybe when you get older and more experienced in the world your views will (hopefully) change and you will see just how wrong you really are in the entire way you look at people, life, politics, and the world. It's people like you who have made America the most hated country on the planet... not to mention making Missouri - the Ozarks especially - appear to the rest of the world to be full of backward, backwoods, rednecky, uneducated, unsophisticated, hate-filled, gun-toting, pickup-driving, nutty Religious Reich-supporting, gay-bashing, Ted Nugent/Rush Limburger/G. Gordon Liddy-supporting, trailer-dwelling white trash hillbillies.

We appreciate your subtlety, but why don't you go ahead and tell us how you really feel about those of us in Midde America. As shown in the above paragraph, this comment is devoid of any reasoned contention as its author seems to firmly believe that effective discourse constitutes attacking not the arguments made by individuals, but the individuals themselves with every attack contained in the author's mental thesaurus, including genius compositions such as "nutty Religious Reich-supporting" and "Rush Limburger"...brilliant (again, please see the definitions of "ad hominem" and "fallacy).

Fortunately though, with the incredibly high and ever-increasing prices of real estate along the coasts of the country and California in particular (a product of your conservative Repthugnican politics and allowing so many immigrants in), more and more people from California are cashing-out and moving to places like Springfield and Joplin and will of course be bringing their more normal, humane, and civilized brand of politics and way of looking at the world to us... which means the backwards hate-filled, pro-torture, hypocritical, Bible-beating, nutty religious types like you will eventually be outnumbered around here and at the voting booths too (not that it'll make much difference though since the Repugnican-owned Diebold and ESS rigged all the electronic voting machines to change votes to Repug candidates so future elections will go to the Repugs... all thanks to criminals like Tom DeLay and how he wouldn't allow voting machines under the HAVA ACT to have a paper trail). Nevertheless, backwards troglodytes like you will be a dying breed in these parts.

I've already addressed the author's sole reliance on ad hominem attacks which continues in this paragraph so I'll just address one more point and then move on to the next comment. The bolded portion, taken in context with the rest of this comment, would be hilarious if not for the fact that the author seems to genuinely believe it. You cannot spend your entire comment relentlessly attacking your opponents as human beings and never once making a point that even bordered upon a reasonable contention and then claim that your side constitutes the "normal, humane, and civilized brand of politics". The absurdity of the claim is highlighted further by the fact that you launch into another hate-filled diatribe in the very next sentence. I'm not going to even bother talking about the conspiracy theory which you espouse in your conclusion.

Comment 2

The second comment was made on Big Sky's "The Six Month Plan" post (which was satirical in nature, in the vein of Swift's "A Modest Proposal") from January 19, 2006 and reads as follows:

What logic. Killing cows is OK because they don't have sentience.

By that logic, we should kill all conservatives, Republicans, Baptists, and Christian fundamentalists. Yet these are the very same hypocrites who say abortion is wrong, but then don't give a flying f**k about that very same baby after it's born (the childhood poverty rate, rise in infant mortality, and shrinking middle class under the criminal Bushitler administration easily proves that), or if it should for some reason end up an adult on Social Security disability.

Yet we don't go around killing conservatives, Republicans, Christian fundamentalists or Baptists... and Heaven knows they don't have any more sentience than cows do. But oh what a better world it would be if they weren't around (Republicans, conservatives, fundamentalists, and Baptists... not the cows. As if that had to be explained!).

And that's no sarcasm.

Even acknowledging this post gives it far more attention than it deserves, but I will make a some quick comments. The author of the post is clearly right on the money. We conservatives here on CFT Phalanx show that we all lack sentience through our belief in reasoned discourse and debate over important issues when we should simply be degrading those we disagree with and stating that the world would be a better place if they were all killed (as the author of this comment does). Again, the comment is as devoid of reason as the first one, but it at least cuts to the chase of the author's hateful mindset rather than hinting at it with paragraphs of personal attacks.

As always we do encourage people to comment on our blog. We of course love hearing compliments from our friends that read, but we also would love comments which raise reasoned contentions that would allow for a civil debate. The comments highlighted today though are simply a sad, and disturbing, illustration of the lack of civility that exists in many areas of political discourse today.

Although I don't at all respect the style of discourse displayed in these comments, I also don't dislike the person who wrote them. Speaking to the author: If you are so consumed by hatred that you believe the best way to spend their time is to write comments directing this hate towards people who dare to write commentary contrary to their opinions on the internet then I have a lot of sympathy for you. I would strongly encourage to spend some time away from the internet and go enjoy life, for there is much to enjoy and much to be thankful for. Who knows, you might even meet someone who is a conservative and realize that we are all just human beings like you. Life is too precious and this world is far too beautiful to let yourself be consumed with hatred because of something as insignificant as disagreements over politics. Also, you might try actually debating political issues sometimes, if you are truly interested in politics I'll bet you'd find that a much more enjoyable experience than simply ranting against those on the other side of the aisle.

I hope all of our readers have a wonderful day and be sure to wish your dad "Happy Father's Day"!

Something to think about

2006-03-16T17:13:00.000-06:00

Wow. It's amazing what Arab women can do under the banner of freedom.

This is amazing.

Guantanamo Bay

2006-02-27T18:13:00.000-06:00

For those of you who don't know, the UN released a report about the US-managed detention facility affectionately known as Club Gitmo. This report outline the usual UN banter about US activities as well as standard concerns about the endless list of American human rights abuses. Among the allegations are the usual charges of torture through force-feeding and prolonged solitary confinement. However, the report went a step further than just merely suggesting the United States should stop this insidious and plain-as-day behavior. It also advocated the immediate closure of the facility.

Kofi Annan decided to throw his two cedis into the fray by backing the report and urging the US to close its premier detention facility. He even went as far as to say that the detainees should be "given a chance to explain themselves."

By explaining themselves, I'm sure he means offer legitimate reasons why, if given half a chance, each and every one of the terrorists we are holding would kill every single American on the planet. Islamist terrorists claiming jihad who would gladly reopen the killing fields of Cambodia in the plains of Nebraska are being detained, and somebody is worried that the terrorists are getting too lonely in solitary confinement.

Here's the really stupid part. None of the UN officials that authored and released the report about Guantanamo Bay actually visited the facility. That's right, they weren't even there! And yet somehow they come up with sufficient reason and evidence to charge the US with human rights violations (again) and suggest that we should close the detention center. The definition of "ridiculous" is floating around here somewhere...

Furthermore, the reason the UN boys didn't bother to go to Guantanamo Bay is because they would have been prohibited from interviewing the terrorists being held there. Well, duh- the terrorists would love nothing more than to inform the whole world of the grievous abuses they are suffering at the hands of the Americans, whether they're happening or not. We can't expect the terrorists to say that they are being treated well, that they like the food, or that they even enjoy the time they spend with their FREE COPY OF THE QURAN AND PRAYER MAT that is so generously provided by Uncle Sam so that they are free to practice their religion. No, they will lie through their teeth to make the US look bad so that they can get out sooner and go kill more Americans.

For the record, I would like to say that I believe our operation of Guantanamo Bay is in perfect legal standing and that, even if it isn't, there's not a darn thing anybody else can do about it. First of all, these terrorists have no right to claim the privileges of the Geneva Convention because the GC accord only recognizes officially recognized national combatants. Terrorists are not affiliated with any one nation, they are independent combatants who have only their own interests and violence fueled agenda at heart.

Also, holding them without trial is following a perfectly legitimate legal precedent set forth by none other than the Great Emancipator himself, Mr. Abraham Lincoln. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus and thus authorized Union officials to indefinitely detain Confederate troops and operatives. How much more dire are our circumstances now; sure, the Civil War threatened to split the Union, but the Confederacy wanted only to break away from the USA. The Confederates didn't fly planes into skyscrapers. Terrorists like bin Laden are calling for a "clash of civilizations" and would probably use a nuclear device without a moment's hesitation. I think it's going to be okay to give some terrorists free room and board for a while to ensure that we don't get blown off the map.

Going even further, I simply cannot believe how much of a hissy fit the UN throws every time they think America is being too aggressive or abusive. Where's the UN reports when the terrorists cut hostages' heads off and upload the videos to the web? Where's the UN reports when Palestinian snipers shoot Israeli infants and their parents? Where's the UN reports when terrorists blow up a sacred Shiite mosque in Iraq to try to spark a Sunni/Shiite civil war? The silence is deafening. But when something like Abu Grahaib pops up or when they think we're putting terrorists in solitary for too long, America is suddenly the bad guy and needs to take it easy.

I'm tired of the UN and their perpetual attitude of smug self-righteousness. Maybe if a suicide bomber got into the General Assembly and took out a few delegates, they might see things differently. Of course, when the suicide bombers infiltrate Iraqi orphanages and kill dozens of children and US troops, the UN criticizes the Army for not doing more to prevent that from happening.

I stand behind our administration, and I stand behind every single American soldier who goes out on patrol every day not knowing if an IED is around the corner or not. It should make you think, too, about how 87% of the military voted for Bush last election. I think they understand the situation a little more than those nancy-boys fromt the UN human rights department.

Semper Fi

The Six Month Plan

2006-01-19T16:21:00.001-06:00

Note from Big Sky: Be sure to check my comment after you are finished reading my article.

We all know that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. It is immoral to tell her otherwise. Thus, we have legalized abortion in the United States. The reason a lot of women have abortions is because they can't handle the responsibility of raising a child. They don't have the money. They don't have the time.

Sometimes, women really want to have babies. They think it will be fun or something. Then the baby comes and they realize it's not so much fun all the time. They realize they don't have the money to feed, clothe, and house this kid. They don't have the time to look after him or her properly because of school and/or work. Or they think it's more responsibility than they can handle.

So the question is this; the reasons for not wanting a kid after birth are the same as not wanting a kid before birth. So if abortion is okay before birth, why wouldn't it be okay after birth, when the reality of raising a kid really sinks in?

I think we should start allowing the six-month plan. A mother can take her child to an abortion clinic to have it aborted up to six months after birth.

The first and foremost objection people have against this idea is that they think such a procedure is called murder. This is merely a simple legal obstacle that can be overcome in less than one session of Congress. No problem. The real question is morality.

Consider: Newborn babies can't survive on their own. Babies are just fetuses outside the womb for the first six or twelve months, perhaps even longer. What we have in this case is a semantics mismatch: calling a fetus a baby once it emerges from the womb is only a matter of mistaken labels. Calling it a baby instead of a fetus doesn't change anything about it. The only difference between a baby and a fetus is that the baby is outside and the fetus is inside. An infant is not capable of intelligent thought. Is a fetus outside the womb all that much different from a fetus inside the womb? Can we even argue about what rights either has?

Now back to the "murder" thing. I'm not even sure "murder" is the right word for a post-birth abortion. "Killing" might be appropriate, but it's not wrong to kill. We kill enemy combatants every day and nobody does anything about it. We kill cows for food. Our bodies kill bacteria that invade our tissues and organs. So what makes it wrong to kill a fetus outside of the womb? Sentience can't be the issue; it has no more reasoning ability than a cow, and we kill cows every day. What makes a baby better than a cow? Because we raise cows for food? By that logic, if we raised fetuses for food, that would make killing them okay. Semantics can't be the issue either; the only difference between a "baby" and a fetus is their locale. What's the difference between a fetus five minutes before birth and five minutes after birth? Absolutely nothing, except for the fact that the fetus has emerged from the womb.

The basic idea is that a fetus outside of the womb is still so dependent on its parent that it is still practically part of the mother. Take the mother away during the first six or twelve months, and the baby dies. It's exactly the same scenario that gives pre-birth abortion its argumentative foundation; the fetus is so dependent on the mother that it is basically only an appendage, and is therefore subject to the mother's decisions.

The bottom line: mothers need to be given the option to rectify their situation after the full responsibility of motherhood is realized. The Six Month Plan, and by proxy, post-birth abortion, allow the mother to ensure her future in several ways. Furthermore, since there is no difference between a fetus five minutes before birth and a fetus five minutes after birth, there is no reason to administer extra rights to either (the only barrier is semantics). If we can abort one, we should be able to abort the other. Why wouldn't we? A fetus doesn't even know it is human. It has no rational thought. It has no immediate practical value. At best, it is a drain of resources and time.

Let's hear it for the Six Month Plan.

Treatise on Nuclear Weapons

2005-12-26T10:07:00.000-06:00

Warfare is an interesting phenomenon. People just keep coming up with new and inventive ways to slaughter each other. I'm not about to say this is a good thing, but at times it is definitely necessary. Some of history's brightest and most practical minds have applied themselves to the development of weaponry. From the days of swords and spears and chariots to the modern era of supersonic jet fighters and ICBMs, war's evolution through time is truly fascinating. I have no idea what other folks consider to be the measuring stick of war's progression, but I prefer to examine one factor to determine how advanced weapons are. That factor is distance, specifically, from how far away one human being can kill another. This is slightly morbid, for sure, but bear with me because this is a truly academic exercise designed to stimulate thought and reflection.

Consider Alexander the Great. His armies were equipped with swords and spears, both of which are close-range weapons. That changed with the advent of the bow and arrow, increasing the distance from which one human being can kill another. Range estimates for the bow and arrow are, under the best of circumstances, no higher than 200 yards, using a 100 pound bow (a 100 pound bow means that it takes 100 pounds of force to make a sufficient draw; same concept for a 50 pound bow). Then came siege weapons, and the range of effective firepower was extended to over 500 yards. Then it was muskets, then jacketed bullets made to fit rifled firearms, and the effective range was extended yet again. Then airplanes showed up, and it became possible to rain bombs on targets hundreds of miles away and from several miles in the air. Many historians consider the long-range bomber to be the most advanced and practical weapon of the 20th century (I happen to be one of those historians). The projection of firepower has become so advanced that snipers routinely shoot targets ofup to 1000 yards (10 football fields, for people who can't do arithmetic) and M-1 Abrams tanks can put a shell on a target over 2400 meters away. But the ultimate weapon, in terms of effective range, is the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile.

ICBMs are more primitive than a "smart-bomb;" weapons like JDAM munitions that follow an infrared laser to a specific target. No lasers are needed to lead an ICBM to its target. Only an inertial guidance system is necessary to get an ICBM from point A to point B. Even then, the guidance system is only used on the way up, figuring out where it is by means of "dead reckoning;" calculating where it is by remembering where it started, where it was headed, and how fast it was going. Once the missile has reached the apogee of its trajectory, it shuts off the rockets and free-falls the rest of the way like a javelin. This means that it could miss its target by as much as 400 yards, but, given the type of payload ICBMs traditionally carry, 400 yards is close enough.

That payload is, of course, a nuclear warhead, and many a great mind has said their piece about the merits or demerits of such weapons in our modern world. I am of the opinion that the world is a better place overall because of the implementation of nuclear technology, specifically the nuclear warhead stockpile and the means to deliver those warheads to any point on the globe. Many people disagree with me on this one with very valid objections. However, I believe those objections are outmoded, outdated, or outweighed by the following points.

1. Nuclear weapons prevent nuclear war.

It is an inherent characteristic of nuclear weapons that they negate themselves collectively by virtue of their individual existence. The concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) has, and always will, deter nuclear warhead-wielding countries from ever using their nuclear weapons (on each other or even on countries who have no nuclear weapons). To do so means that they will have signed their own death warrant such that they would bring upon themselves a full-scale nuclear retaliation since, once your country is going to be obliterated by a nuclear strike, you might as well launch everything you've got at the offending country. Even if the target country had no such weapons (i.e., India launching a nuclear strike on Sri Lanka), a nuclear retaliation would be sure to follow from a nuclear-equipped country.

The idea that nuclear weapons create deterrence is one of the most basic and concrete concepts in contemporary political science and modern warfare. No one doubts the effectiveness of MAD. What's more, to launch a first strike would immediately place the offending country into a militarily and morally inferior position. As in any other military campaign, you must plan ahead, and if somebody launches a first strike, some warheads will have to be kept in reserve to ward off other potential nuclear exchanges. The second strike, launched by the target country, would include everything they've got (they don't need to plan ahead and keep some in reserve since they will be blown to oblivion) and would thus inflict far more damage (here I am thinking about the civilian population). Nobody in their right mind would initiate a first strike. And, no, there are no crazy leaders. Ask any dictator what they want most and they will tell you that they want to keep their power and position. Having your country turned into a glass parking lot is not something a leader wants.

To illustrate my point, recall Gulf War I when the threat of chemical or biological attacks on UN Coalition troops was high. Bush '41 said explicitly that, were chemical or biological weapons launched against the troops, Baghdad would become a smoking, radioactive crater in the desert. Knowing that the invaders were covered by the US nuclear umbrella prevented the use of WMDs.

2. Nuclear weapons prevent large-scale conventional war.

If anybody remembers, World War II was ended through the use of nuclear weapons. Projected casualties for a conventional invasion of Japan included more than 1 million US soldiers dead times two wounded and between 2.5 to 4 million Japanese soldiers and civilians dead. Bear in mind that women and children were being trained to fight the invaders with baseball bats and sharpened bamboo sticks. They weren't going to surrender until they had been by and large wiped out. But with the use of the atom bomb, we demonstrated that we could wipe them out anyway and relieve ourselves of the painful deaths of 1 million of our boys. Japan wisely surrendered.

Since World War II, no major war has come about. Sure, we have experienced regional conflict like in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Bosnia, and Iraq, but even all of those put together don't match the carnage and devastation of either of the World Wars. The reason we haven't seen World War III is because the world's major players are covered by the nuclear umbrella.

Recall how, at the end of World War II, Germany was divided into four zones and Berlin was split between the Soviet Union the the rest of the Allies. Berlin lay deep inside the Soviet zone, leaving west Berlin a virtual island. The Soviet Union would have liked nothing more than to acquire all of Berlin and the rest of Germany, but to do so would have risked a nuclear strike from the US. Thus, conflict was avoided.

Also, nuclear weapons (and ICBMs, by proxy) eliminate the strategic incentive for territorial expansion. Countries have often sought more land as a defensive measure against rival countries. The more total area in a country, the harder it is to invade successfully (that's why every invasion of Russia has failed miserably; it's just too big). Conventional wisdom as per defense demands the acquisition of resources and territory, but when a country can be destroyed without a single enemy soldier crossing the border, the amount of land you have is completely obsolete. Thus countries don't engage in wars of aggression for the objective of gaining territory for defensive purposes.

3. Nuclear weapons project an image of dominance and maintain international stability.

The testing and deployment of nuclear weapons send a signal to the rest of the world. Anybody who says differently is beyond reason. All the world's major powers have nuclear weapons, and they account for the bulk of why those countries are still major powers. When faced with overwhelming force and destruction, people tend to defer. It's like if you try to rob a guy with a knife but it turns out he's got a gun. A gun is much more powerful than a knife, and you will think twice before robbing him. Along the same lines, it's when a country thinks it has a fighting chance that disputes arise and wars happen. But when faced with overwhelming power and certain doom, said countries tend to not be so tough and aggressive. And when countries start deferring to other countries, the international scene stabilizes.

4. Nuclear weapons present our only available means of defense against incoming asteroids.

This is a little more far-fetched than my previous points, but it is still pertinent. We have all these great ideas about how to deflect or destroy incoming "killer" asteroids (and they include coating an asteroid with a reflective film, affixing rockets to slow it down or speed it up, or burning off chunks of it with lasers) but none of those ideas are anything more than a sketch in a notebook. Right now, the only option we have to protect ourselves from a "doomsday" scenario is to stick a warhead on a rocket and blow the sucker out of the sky. It's a little more complicated than that, but in effect that's what happens. Kind of like "Armageddon," but the idea is to deflect rather than destroy the asteroid (blowing it up would only change our predicament from getting clobbered by a big rock to getting clobbered by a bunch of smaller chunks that will collectively do more damage).

The big thing to remember overall is that, just because something is capable of doing a bad thing doesn't mean it will or that it itself is bad. Yes, nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy the world, and I will never dispute that fact. However, we all have the potential to choke on carrots when we eat them. Does that mean we should stop growing carrots? No. Choking on a carrot is a bad thing, but that doesn't mean that carrots are bad. Likewise, nuclear weapons are not a bad thing. Capable of bad things, yes, but not a bad thing themselves.

Watch out for carrots.

Semper Fi

Remember...

2005-12-24T14:06:00.000-06:00

During this time of holiday cheer and festivities, I would like to pause and remember our boys and girls in uniform who will be spending their holiday on patrol on the other side of the globe. Their courage and dedication remain exceptional and worthy of admiration during this time that is traditionally spent with family and loved ones.

I encourage everyone to offer a prayer to comfort and strengthen our soldiers as they fight on our behalf many thousands of miles away during our Christmas holiday.

God bless America, God bless and protect our troops, and God bless you, dear reader.

Merry Christmas

Battlecry

2005-12-15T12:53:00.000-06:00

Where now the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?
Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing?
Where is the hand on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing?
Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing?
They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow;
The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.
Who shall gather the smoke of the dead wood burning,
Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?

"Thus spoke a forgotten poet long ago in Rohan, recalling how tall and fair was Eorl the Young, who rode down out to the North; and there were wings upon the feet of his steed, Felaróf, father of horses. So men still sing in the evening."

There comes a time in every man's life when he must face finals, whether it be the finals of school or the finals of life. To both, as he stands to put his heart on the scale, a man answers the same call - the call to war. For he does not idly allow such troubled times upon the world, but instead takes his shield in hand and draws his sword, steeling himself against the drifting snow and riding out to meet his fate on the Pelennors of academia. If he is to make this end, he would have it be such an end as to be worthy of remembrance. His life is suddenly an endless array of preparations, all guiding him to this moment. He has but one choice to make: to rise above the deeds of all who came before him, or to fall into darkness with all that is left of his kin. How simply then, and how assuredly he leads the charge.

To men and women everywhere, you are called this day to the battlefields. Do you leave the earth to its fate, or do you meet your enemy in battle, resting on God's promise of salvation? For sudden the worst turns the best, to the brave. The enemy has many weapons besides the sword, and before you ride to fulfill your destiny he would attempt to stay your foot, to harness your enthusiasm, reminding you of your endless failings and the false promise that is your hope. But should you allow your heart to become the battlefield, then the war is already lost. Surely you deserve death and hell, what of it? For you know One who suffered and made satisfaction on your behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God - where He is, there you shall be also! You must always remember that there are other forces at work in this world besides the will of evil. You were meant to live in these days, in which case you were also meant to carry them - and that is a comforting thought.

So then, to war! - for I am convinced that there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God. Now for wrath, now for ruin, and a red dawn! Forth Eorlingas!

Pearl Harbor Day

2005-12-07T10:55:00.000-06:00

Lest we forget.

Brevity

2005-12-05T10:49:00.000-06:00

I would like to take this opportunity to address all the recent posts attacking us which contain civil and reasoned contentions (the only kind which I will be acknowledging in my posts from now on) and then move on.

This post will be very brief.

To all my readers: I wish you a Merry Christmas that is full of joy and free from hate.

Coming Next Post: Back by popular demand, it's the second installment of The Rules of the Road...Trip.

An Illustration

2005-12-04T11:24:00.000-06:00

Here is an exchange of comments between myself and our hateful poster:

Him:
Here's something much better to place in those Salvation Army kettles:
http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/kettlevoucher.pdf

The Salvation Army went to the mat fighting tooth and nail in court to be able to discriminate against gay people. If you're a person in need of their services, the Salvation Army will not help you either.

Anyone who supports the Salvation Army supports discrimination against gay people. Supporting discrimination isn't Christian.-pw

*Incidentally, the news quote on the voucher they want you to distribute says that they don't discriminate in providing assistance to homosexuals, they just don't believe that hiring them is consistent with their Christian theology.

Me:
Attacking an extraordinarily worthwhile charity simply because of a petty political difference...real classy.

While you are slandering those who dare to disagree with you, they are actually helping out individuals in need. I will be sure to donate even more than usual just to make up for you.

I really do feel sympathy for you, as it must be very hard to go through life with such a spiteful outlook. I hope things begin to look up for you soon.

Have a Merry Christmas!

Him:
Shove it, publius pubicus! I guess you would call the extermination of the Jews a petty political difference, huh? Go ahead and give those Christian jerks more cash. In my happiest dreams your kids' eyes are covered with AIDs lesions.
(Emphasis Added)

To sum it up: he attacks a charity, I defend it and wish him well, and he responds with name-calling and wishing horrible things upon my children. I will leave it up to you, the reader, to determine from this exchange which is the rational and kind side.

To the commenter: I still do feel sympathy for you, as that last comment shows that you are an even more sad and twisted human being than I previously thought. I really do hope things improve for you. However, I must now inform you of something. I don't mind personal attacks on me because I recognize that though I refuse to stoop to that level, they are something you subject yourself to by getting involved in the public sphere. I really don't like personal attacks directed at my good friends, but I know they are perfectly capable of responding to them on their own and don't need me to take action for them. What I will not accept are attacks on current or future members of my family and/or threats or wishes of harm towards them. You have shown yourself in these posts to have no standards of civility, decency, or respect towards your fellow human being and if you compose more comments in the future directed towards me with similar statements I will delete them.

I still hope you continue to read the blog and I hope that you read my post "Dear Sir or Madam" before composing any more comments. However, do not take my above statement as an idle threat. I despise conflict as a matter of my personality, but I will unreservedly enter the fray when such despicable comments are made about those that are, or will be, dear to me.

To all my readers: I wish you a Merry Christmas that is full of joy and free from hate.

"Bah Humbug"

2005-11-30T12:21:00.000-06:00

UPDATE (December 5): In comments to this post, the Salvation Army has been harshly attacked. These comments present the perspective that this Christian charity is a bigoted organization. To get both sides of the story, with links to current and past criticisms of the Salvation Army along with evidence that counters the claims made by the charity's critics, I would recommend going here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/011/33.43.html

Regardless of your take on the controversy, I think it is clear that the Salvation Army has provided assistance to countless people throughout its long history and continues to do so and this point has not been contested. If you would like to support the Salvation Army online (or find out more about the organization) you can find the U.S. chapter's website here: http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's post will be pretty brief.

I want to start by stating that I love the Christmas season. Aside from it being an extraordinarily meaningful holiday, I love Christmas decorations, Christmas carols, Santa Claus, the Salvation Army Bell Ringers, Santa Claus, exchanging gifts, getting together with family and friends...

I don't much care for shopping during this season (or stores putting up Christmas stuff prior to Halloween), but that is an issue to be addressed, perhaps, in another post.

I have been, as usual, drawing a great deal of enjoyment out of the Christmas season thus far. I got to go out this past weekend, with my wonderful girlfriend, and purchase my first Christmas tree for my house (I got a cut tree from a Boy Scout operated tree lot) as well as other Christmas decorations. We then went to my house to set up and decorate the tree, all of which was very enjoyable. I extend an open invitation to any of my friends who read this blog to come visit the house some to view the tree if you would like, just give me a call or shoot me an e-mail.

I also have been listening to a radio station which plays only Christmas music during this time of year. This is where the main subject of today's post comes into play. I was driving into school this morning and the morning hosts on this station were taking some calls. They had been discussing how some businesses have prohibited their employees from saying "Merry Christmas". Well, an individual called in and said she thinks these prohibitions are great and that Christians should all say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" to demonstrate universal acceptance and tolerance.

Regardless of your opinion on these concepts, the simple fact of the matter is that saying "Happy Holidays" does not represent tolerance. It represents, as pointed out one of the radio hosts, a lack of conviction. People of faith should be free to express their faith in this nature. If you are Jewish, by all means wish folks "Happy Hanukkah". If you are not religious, which folks "Happy Holidays". Don't, however, expect others who hold a different faith not to similarly express their sentiments. There are few things more innocent and well-wishing, but so hated by certain circles, than the phrase "Merry Christmas". This phrase, and the Christmas holiday in general, have come under attack by those who don't like what it stands for; they are the ones attempting to impose their ideology and values on others. The Grinch who lived near Whoville may have had a revelation and grown a heart, but there are many other Grinches who have not...and they are, sadly, succeeding.

What is the best thing we can do in the face of such "Bah Humbug"-ery? Simply continue to celebrate, enjoy, and appreciate the Christmas season. Put up your own Christmas decorations. Wish those you see a "Merry Christmas". Be cheerful and generous (a real, good simple way to do so is to just drop your change in the Salvation Army kettle after you have done some Christmas shopping). Listen to and/or sing Christmas carols. Watch the Charlie Brown Christmas show. Have get-togethers with those you care about. Most of all, appreciate the joy and significance of the season within yourself. If all who believe in Christmas do this, the Grinches lose their ability to intimidate and succeed. Along these lines I have decided to end every post from now until Christmas by extending my good wishes to all those who take the time to read our blog, we really do appreciate you. If you are lucky, I may even do some online caroling in future posts.

Have a very merry Christmas season!

Dear Sir/Madam,

2005-11-28T11:38:00.000-06:00

I would like to briefly acknowledge and address some aspect from the recent spate of comments posted on our humble blog. The timing and content of the posts strongly suggests that most, if not all (which is most likely), have been composed by the same individual. Therefore, this post can be considered a public letter to that individual.

If you have not seen these comments yet, they were posted in response to Andy's posts on Tolerance and PA Labels, as well as my post on Responsibility.

I would first like to say that it is somewhat gratifying that someone thought enough of our writings to take the time to post responding comments which were substantially more lengthy than our initial post.

However, the content of those comments does leave something to be desired; a point which I would like to now illustrate through a few excerpts from these comments (which I have italicized and any bolded portions have been done so by me to add emphasis).

Please note that I will not be undertaking a point-by-point refutation of your comments. There are two primary reasons for this, with the latter being the most important. First, I simply do not desire to commit the time necessary for this because the many comments are extraordinarily long and there are too many better things to be doing.

Second, even if it were not for the time issue I would still not attempt such a refutation because the comments do not have reasoned contentions to which I could respond. The comments consist either of material which appears to have been copied from other sources or consist of long rants full of ad hominem attacks and other fallacies. Since you have shown such interest in our blog I will address your comments in this post, but I likely will not do so in the future if their content remains similar (though I do reserve the right to still highlight portions of them). If you choose to write some comments which are at least somewhat concise and contain logical arguments addressing specific contentions I have made then I will, time permitting, engage you in civil debate (something which I have been known to enjoy). However, it is simply not possible to have such a debate given the nature of your posts thus far.

Now, onto some select passages from your comment in response to my post on responsibility:

The reasons that liberals have been assigned such monikers as "elites" are for a reason. Liberals really ARE elite compared to the pious, sanctimonious, hypocritical and evil rob-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-very-rich konservatives and Republikkkan scabs who take bigotry and hatred for other American citizens and other human beings and wrap it in pages from the Bible and the guise of faux patriotism. A liberal would never stoop to such levels.

Ignoring, for now, the extreme hatred evident in this statement I would like to focus on the last sentence. You are very right, liberals such as yourself participate in a much higher level of discourse. Your use of "Republikkkan" and "Rethugican" throughout the article was pure brilliance and referring to President Bush as "Bosh" far surpassed any persuasive device ever employed by the greatest rhetoricians. As was referring to those who voted for him as "simpletons and douchebags". I am, of course, being sarcastic. You cannot fill page after page with extraordinarily uncivil discourse and a lack of rational argument and then claim that your side takes the high ground when it comes to discourse.

On the subject of ad hominem attacks, you obviously like them and are free to use them but be aware that they are simply not persuasive and they destroy your credibility.

Now, moving on to the hatred expressed throughout your comments...

You're right about one thing though: Evil does exist. You'll find it to no end in Republicans, conservatives, Bush supporters, Baptists, Evangelicals, and the like.

You continue...

George Bush is easily not only the WORST president this country has ever had, he's a sicko, a total fascist, a megalomanical sociopath, a repugnant (sub)human being, and Satan incarnate. George W. Bush makes Adolph Hitler almost look like a decent guy in comparison. And in some ways Hitler was actually a BETTER leader than Bush. At least Hitler put people to work by doing things like building the Autobahn.

These two passages illustrate the genuine, irrational hatred present throughout these posts. Anyone who resorts to calling a leader "Satan incarnate" and claims that make Adolf Hitler look good in comparison simply because the leader does things which you find disagreeable has lost all credibility. I really feel sorry for you because it must be awful to go through life with the hatred you have expressed towards so many people (us, President Bush, conservatives, and Americans in general). The world is really much more enjoyable if you recognize that you can disagree with someone without hating them as a person.

Again, I am glad that you find this blog so interesting that you have devoted this amount of time to reading and replying to our posts. We hope that you continue to read our blog and you are more than welcome to continue to use the comment section of our blog as a forum for your opinions. I would, however, request of you three things: 1) That you refrain from making assumptions about the three of us as individuals. I don't feel it necessary to defend myself to you, but I can tell you that the accuracy of your assumptions thus far is abysmal. These statements do nothing to bolster your arguments and actually make you look silly and excessively antagonistic. 2) Please keep your discourse civil. There is no need to make personal attacks and they do not constitute effective arguments (they are, in fact, fallacies). 3) Lighten up just a little bit. You don't have to start including humor in your comments, but at least recognize that I do use humor in mine. In your post you misinterpreted my concluding joke about the meaning of life as an attack on Bill Clinton. I would agree with you that political issues are serious matters, but I believe that most issues have room for some levity and a good laugh now and then is very desirable.

I imagine that this post will likely elicit a response from you, and that is perfectly fine. However, I would like to offer a friendly suggestion. Instead of immediately composing this response please consider stepping away from the computer for a while and doing something to really enjoy life. Some possibilities: going to a park (or doing something else which will allow you to experience nature's grandeur and tranquility, as well as feel the invigorating effects of being outdoors), read a good book, listen to some Christmas music, and/or spend some time with family or friends. No matter how much political issues may agitate you, life is still worth living and we all have many blessings to appreciate and enjoy. I genuinely hope that you have a great day and a wonderful Christmas season!

Sincerely,
Publius Wonka

Comments on (In)Tolerance

2005-11-27T22:19:00.000-06:00

This is great! I love America, and I love people like the folks who wrote comments on my Treatise on (In)Tolerance. I hope they come back to read what I have to say.

I am not joking. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm not trying to be spiteful (although some may see things differently, and that's okay because I am a tolerant guy when it comes to people's freedom to have opinions, but I will fight them when they try to force their opinions on others, just as I expect them to fight me if I try to force my opinions on others; more on this later). I am going to respond in the best way that I can much like I attempted to write my original treatise the best way I could.

I (as a previous high school debater) prefer to engage in a point by point debate and cover things as thoroughly as possible before moving on. That being said:

Comment 1:

Well, actually, Acolyte wrote comment 1, but I'm not going to do anything about it. So comment 1 is actually comment 2, but for the sake of ease, I will call it comment 1.

"You're not only intolerant, you're an ignorant bigot as well.You're intolerance of gay people is based on foolish, outdated, ridiculous, stupid, and idiotic beliefs. This is what happens when one's been brainwashed into ChristoHet Supremacist ideology. You want to deny equal rights to gay people because that allows you to maintain the (false) belief that you are somehow superior to them. This is no different than those who opposed putting an end to slavery and not wanting miscegenation laws to be put to an end.The simple fact of the matter is, you are wrong. Maybe someday when you grow up you will realize this. "
[emphases added]

This is exactly what I mean about the "tolerance movement." They're just not very tolerant, especially when it comes to people who think differently than they do. I, on the other hand, welcome their beliefs, but I also welcome the chance to change their mind about what it is they believe. Like I said, I am tolerant of the fact that other people have opinions. I am intolerant when people try to force their opinions on others. That's not to say that I won't try to force my opinions on others; remember my approval of the gay marraige ban. If people want to be gay, then that's their business. I honestly don't care. I will try to change their mind, but in the end it's not my problem. I will, however, take pains to protect the sanctity of marriage as a Christian-based unity of one man and one woman under the guidance of the good Lord.

But back to the comment. I really liked the part about the ignorant bigot because anybody who knows me knows that I am a lot of things, but an ignorant bigot is not one of them. Ask Eldad Kungu, the student from Africa that came over to my house the other night. Ask the gay guy who signed my yearbook my senior year in high school telling me I was the coolest conservative Republican he had ever met (I think I'll post a picture of this later just in case someone doesn't believe me). Just because I don't approve of someone's lifestyle or beliefs doesn't mean that I don't recognize the fact that they are a human being and that God loves them just as much as He loves me. And if they're cool with God, then they're cool with me. It's what they stand for that I don't like. Don't get the two confused or else you will sell yourself short on a lot of friends.

The superiority part was good too. Like I said, God loves the gay guy from my high school just as much as He loves me. I'm no better than anyone else. I might think my beliefs are better than theirs, but I am not superior to them. And as far as minorities go, nobody, and I mean nobody, is better than somebody else because of the color of their skin. I've been pretty laid back so far, but I am deadly serious when I say this. I will get into a fight (a real fight, one that isn't over until somebody is on the ground not moving) with somebody over this because the idea that one "race" is superior to another is simply not true. If you think you are better than someone else because of the color of your skin, you're wrong, you're stupid, and you're not right with God.

Someday when I grow up? I'm 20. I go to a private, liberal arts college. I have been to many places and seen a great many things (my time in Washington, D.C. was particularly enlightening). Please don't patronize me. I respect your opinion and your right to tell me what it is. Please give me the same courtesy. That's the grown-up thing to do.

The best part was the last bolded statement, "you are wrong." That's the true hallmark of tolerance right there.

Comment 2:

This one was really long and I am not going to paste any of it because I don't really have that big of a beef with it. This guy was considerate, articulate, and brave enough to put his name at the end, and for that he has earned my undying respect and admiration. He brings a lot of good thoughts to the table, and although I may not agree with all of them, this was by far my most favorite comment to read. Keep 'em coming.

Comment 3:

This fellow started off with an anecdote about the Nazis, which I took to mean that I am one, or at least am showing signs of being one. While this is not true and I certainly don't appreciate being portrayed as such, I am not going to get bent out of shape about it because I know the truth about me. The comment concluded with a somewhat ominous beginning-of-the-end type of thing about the gay movement. Here are some excerpts:

"You can't fight the tide of history. Gays and lesbians are going to continue to gain broader and broader acceptance in American society."

Um, I think 70% of Nebraskans would disagree with that. 73% of Missourians disagree. 67% of Illinois' citizens disagree. 74% of Louisiana's citizens disagree. Numbers that large are the tide of history. And when 3 out of 4 people wish to maintain marraige as a union between a man and a woman, I don't think you will find much "acceptance" for the other side.

"For unlike you, our "family values" are no oyxmoron."

My family values come from the Guy that invented the concept of a family. I'm just the messenger, here. If you want to include gays and lesbians in the idea of "family values," take it up with the Big Guy Upstairs. Besides, I still have secular reasons for the preservation of the traditional family model, most of which stem from my ideas about men and women (see that treatise for more). Also, studies consistently show that kids from families with a mom and a dad commit drastically less crimes, get higher test scores, start and maintain more businesses, and give more to charities.

"The petty dime store legislation that you are passing today to take away our rights will be quickly swept away. Your backlash will be more and more insignificant as the years go on. Your screaming will continue to get more shrill. You already know this. The writing is on the wall; on the TV tube, the silver screen, the computer monitor, the daily newspaper."

Ah, the bell tolls. Or does it? No rights are being taken away. Marraige is a privelege, not a right. Consider driving. Driving your car is not a right. Getting married is not a right either. Free speech is a right. Freedom of religion is a right. Getting married? Nope. It's definitely a perk, but it is by no means meant to be showered upon anyone and everyone. Again, talk to the Guy that invented getting married. And backlashes? Conservatives are in control of the House, Senate, Presidency, and the general population (see the numbers of people who voted for a gay marraige ban). This is no backlash. This isn't even the "tip of the iceberg". This IS the iceberg. As my philosophy teacher would say, "Mess with the bull, and you'll get the horns."

"We are everywhere. Every person that comes out of the closet is another defeat for you. And once we are out, you will never, in a million years or with whatever power you can bear, force us back in! Love will triumph over hate. The freedom to love is the freedom that makes America great."

I remember seeing videos about the sixties wherein hippies said much the same thing. Where are the hippies now? Either they saw the light and got a life and a real job, or they are living on welfare off of their aforementioned buddies. People "coming out of the closet" don't bother me. I will still let them sign my yearbook. I think this is just a case of mistaken perspective.

Comment 4:

This is the one about Robert's Rules that I didn't really understand. Whoever wrote that, please leave another comment and fill me in on what you're saying because I really want to listen.

Comment 5:

This person brings up the fact that heterosexuals haven't done such a hot job in the marraige department themselves. And that's true. Mostly. Yes, half of all marriages end in divorce, but 75% of first time marraiges succeed until one or both partners die. The other 25% are just crazy enough to skew the statistics by getting married and divorced so much. And even if the "straight" people are destroying marriage, then that is a problem that needs to be fixed from the inside out. Besides, I seem to remember that marriage began to fall off the map during the sixties when the you-know-whos were in control. The feminists, hippies, and "swingers" at the time were the ones who destroyed marriage, not the conservative heterosexuals. Is it any wonder that their kids follow in their thinking that sex and babies out of wedlock is normal and okay, or that divorce is actually a solution and not a problem? Conservatives didn't start this mess, but we'll do everything we can to fix it. It just so happens that a gay marriage ban is on the agenda.

"In other words, this entire pile of crap is based on a "straw man" argument that what is sought by those you dis is "tolerance." It's the word most used, yes, probably by people who don't do a lot of research on the word. You are required as a citizen of this country to not intentionally mess up the lives of other law-abiding citizens, whether you "like" them or "tolerate" them or "accept" their equality or not."

Pile of crap? I'm glad you think of me and my words so highly. And I am not "required" to not mess up people's lives. What do you think business owners do? They try to squash the competition and run them out of business. That has a way of messing up people's lives, yes? And I don't think I'm messing up anyone's life. I'm sorry if they feel that way, but if they expect the world on a platter, then they need to move to a new planet because that certainly isn't going to happen in this world. Do you think I get everything I want? Why should someone else get everything they want just because they portray themselves as an oppressed minority?

This is a good one (from the same comment):

"I'd love to meet you in person for a sweet discussion about how much of your college-protected life is sheltered from the natural street realities of who you be talkin' 'bout, mofo. Too bad you're in such a trailer-trash state, so far away. I don't want your toleration and you'll get none from me. And if you keep shoving your "intolerant" xtian crap into people's faces as you so proudly state "you" all must do, don't be surprised if one of my fellow "intolerants" decides to give you the comeuppance you deserve you little twit.Yes, I'm sick and tired of "your" crap. Lies don't build a very steady platform from which to spread your filth, regardless of how popular such idiocy may be these days. "

Natural street realities? And don't call names, you jerk (that was a joke). I actually would like to meet you. Come visit me in my trailer sometime.

Well, I actually don't live in a trailer. You should come visit Missouri sometime. Our state is actually pretty cool, and there really aren't that many trailer parks. Besides, even if there were, I resent people who look down on others for living in a trailer. We're all just doing the best we can. No one can expect anything more.

And now for my favorite line: "And if you keep shoving your "intolerant" xtian crap into people's faces as you so proudly state "you" all must do, don't be surprised if one of my fellow "intolerants" decides to give you the comeuppance you deserve you little twit."

Ah, the true nature of hypocrisy rears its ugly head. It's interesting how you won't write the word "Christ" and instead replace it with an x. Do you really expect anything other than a reciprocal effect when you trash that which is important to me? And I would be more than happy to receive my comeuppance, although I should probably say that I am two weeks away from being certified yellow belt and I plan to get more training as my time and financial resources permit. The shodokan method of karate is truly awesome. If you're lucky, you can see it one day without being on the business end of a three-step chudan chokozuki.

The best part about that line is how one of his fellow intolerants might show up one day. He himself can't muster up enough guts to come and teach me a lesson himself; he'll let somebody else do it. That's the good ole can-do attitude.

Call my opinions crap, call me a bigot, threaten me with violence, and label my words as lies, but in the end, your irrationality, impersonable attitude, and lack of adequate grammar will convince me that I am right.

Comment 6:

"Let me guess: you grew up in a religious household, you've never visited anywhere outside the U.S., and probably been to no other states outside of Missouri."

Wow! That's absolutely right! Except for the travel parts. By the way, I heard Miss Cleo is looking for an intern.

That was a joke.

"Did you grow up in a trailer too?"

Again with the trailer thing. Is there a conference somewhere that teaches people how to insult conservatives? You guys need some original material. A well-founded and presentable opinion wouldn't hurt either.

"I'm embarrassed to be from the same state as you. You see the comment from the last person? Do you see the kind of reputation you give us and other people who are from or live in Missouri?"

If people will stereotype an entire state based off of the essay of one person, then that person is truly ignorant. If you want to give us a good reputation, then write your own dadgum essay. Hopefully it will be infinitely better than mine and Missouri can be restored to its image of tolerance and candy gumdrop landscapes.

"I'm very proud to be gay."

All kidding aside, good for you! I am truly glad that you are confident with yourself. I am confident in the same way. At least we have that in common. Keep on keepin' on, but don't be surprised if I walk up to you one day and try to change your mind about some things.

"Please refrain from openly expressing your thoughts until you become more enlightened and/or start practicing some real tolerance of your own."

Translation: Don't express yourself until you can conform to my mode of thinking which is inherently better than yours.

"I think it is you heteros who should be seeking tolerance and acceptance from us gay people. "

I'm not seeking acceptance from anybody. I don't think you should be either. If you want my acceptance, you've got it. I will invite you to my home, play video games with you, and make you my famous Kraft Instant Vanilla Pudding. But I will not accept your lifestyle nor condone your way of thinking.

That is the end of it (for now). Hopefully we will see more comments posted soon because I really like reading what other people have to say. Contrary to popular belief, we here on Phalanx stand for freedom, so please drop us a line.

For the record, if I see a man lying cold and bleeding on the street, the first thought that comes to my mind is not "Is he gay?" Nor is it "Is this man tolerant of me and my beliefs?" No, my thought is "Holy cow, let's get you to a hospital." I like people. And I like to help people. But I am not overarchingly tolerant. Sometimes you have to be intolerant, because some things are just plain stupid.

Coming soon: Treatise on Nuclear Weapons (no joke)

Semper Fi

Slight Pause...

2005-11-12T23:07:00.000-06:00

As all of you who attend college know, this is a very hectic time in the semester. A lot of students are lucky if they can find time to sleep. Hopefully we will be back soon with more material, but if it takes us a while, believe me, it's not from lack of trying.

Good luck to all of you in the same boat as we are.

Semper Fi

Catch and Release

2005-10-27T21:57:00.000-05:00

This post can actually be attributed to Acolyte who originally sent this to me in an email.

Implementation of the Navy's new catch and release program

The US Navy today announced that it has released a senior Al Quaida terrorist after questioning him extensively for 27 days while being held prisoner aboard a US aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea. In a humanitarian gesture, the terrorist was given $50 US and a white 1962 Ford Fairlane automobile upon being released from custody. The photo below shows the terrorist on his way home just after being released by the Navy.

Treatise on Censorship and Personal Responsibility

2005-10-27T10:47:00.000-05:00

It is against the law to be stupid in America.

We think we live in a free society. And for the most part, we do. We get to choose what we buy, where we go, what we say, where to live, who we marry, what we watch on TV, etc. There's lots of stuff we can do. That's what freedom is all about, right?

What lots of people don't realize is that the same freedom mentioned above is being taken from us little bits at a time.

Disclaimer: not everybody agrees with me on this. Most folks with whom I have discussed this issue think I am mistaken to some degree. But, quite frankly, this is my post and one third of this blog (legally speaking, I guess) belongs to me and not to them. So here's my observations.

My first experience with censorship and personal responsibility (and the two are related, for sure) first began with my realization of the existence of Parental Advisory labels on CDs.

I believe Parental Advisory labels are wrong. And too many people view PA labels the wrong way. Nearly everybody I have talked to about this feels that the Parental Advisory label is an information carrier, just a nice, easy way of saying there just might be bad words on a particular CD. That is not the case. PA labels are a counter-influence. They are the government deciding what is good for you and me. The government putting labels on CDs is like saying, "we think this CD is bad and has bad influences, thus, while we technically cannot stop you from buying this particular disc because of our basic economic and political principles, we can try to influence your decision to buy this CD through the application of this label." PA labels aren't information. It's a message straight from Mrs. Gore saying, "Tsk, tsk, you should not buy this junk, and if I had my way, this band's music would be banned from the free world."

The original intent of labels hasn't changed. They were meant to ward off potential buyers from material that a few Washington ladies didn't like.

What's worse, Parental Advisory labels induce bad parenting. Hear me out on this because, on the surface, it seems counter-intuitive. The idea that was pushed in the early nineties was that music was bad and getting worse, so to help parents out, we need labels on CDs so that they know whether or not their kid is listening to someting bad. All a parent has to do is check for the label and, voila!, their job is done.

This is wrong on several levels. First, some CDs still contain bad stuff, but just not enough of it to warrant a label. Record companies still want CDs to be edgy enough to sell to the mainstream consumer base, so they push the envelope regarding what is and isn't acceptable under PA labels.

Consider my Silver Side Up CD from Nickelback. I bought it my junior year in high school, almost four years ago. I had seen the music video for How You Remind Me and thought the song was really cool, so I bought the CD. There was no PA label on the CD. Being only 17 at the time, I would have been restricted from buying a disc with a PA label. So I bought it and took it home, only to find that, even though there was no Parental Advisory, there were still plenty of four letter words thrown around. There was even a song that talked about ripping somebody's heart out (in a literal sense) and cutting their hands off.

Janet Jackson has several CDs out (none of which I own, by the way; just thought I'd clear that up) that don't have PA labels, but there are songs such as "Love Scene" that talk about, well, you get the picture. There's even a song called "Go Deep," and she's not playing football, folks. (There's a joke to be made somewhere...)

Now, back to the original intent of PA labels (to help parents be better at parenting). If all a parent does is make a quick check for labels, then my Nickelback CD would have passed muster. No label on the front means a clean CD, right?

Wrong. Silver Side Up has no label, but it is still pockmarked with four letter words and images of dismemberment. And that is what makes a bad parent. When a parent allows the government to take their responsibility for regulating their kids' media exposure, that parent has a serious problem.

Besides, it's not as though the government forces record companies and bands to release edited CDs. Most record companies will do that on their own free of government provocation because they realize that there is money to be made off of people like me who prefer not to be bombarded with profane material. Go back to what I said about Matt and my conversation about market economies being self-regulating.

What does this mean? It means that we are going to have to take responsibility for ourselves and our children when it comes to what we allow to influence us. We don't need PA labels, we don't need internet filters, and we don't need the V-Chip. We need better self-control. We need more personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility has been put on the back burner and replaced by product labeling and laws regulating our decisions. Consider chainsaws. Getting a hand sawed off is (in most cases) the result of a personal decision to use the chainsaw in a manner not in keeping with proper handling. What is oppressive, at least to me, is that there are warning labels on chainsaws telling folks not to try to stop the chain with your hands. Some guy did that once, sued the chainsaw company, and won. And now we have chainsaw labels telling us not to do stupid things. This takes away personal responsibility. I know, I know, the labels aren't government labels, they are put there by the company to ward off lawsuits. But that wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have a judicial system that awards people inane amounts of money because they chose to do something and got burned for it. For example:

A man sued Winnebago (the RV company) because he crashed his RV. He had just bought it at the dealer's and was driving it home on the freeway when he decided he needed a cup of coffee. No problem, he thought, and he put the RV on cruise control, got up, and went to the back to fix a pot of joe. Needless to say, the RV veered off the highway and crashed. The guy sued Winnebago because he said he was never informed that cruise control didn't actually drive the RV by itself. My fellow Americans, we have a problem.

Okay, so let's move to something outside of the private economic sector. Take seat belt laws. I believe that if someone doesn't want to wear their seat belt, then don't. But if you crash your vehicle and are not wearing your seat belt, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences. But our helpful, bureaucratic government steps in and makes a law requiring all drivers and passengers in cars to wear their seat belts. The government has assumed the personal responsibility of everyone in the car. That is wrong. I don't know about you, but I believe in personal autonomy, and when the government says I have to wear a seat belt, I lose part of my liberty, specifically the freedom to not wear a seat belt if I don't want to.

This is where it gets tricky. Buying CDs, using chainsaws, and wearing seat belts are personal decisions that affect the individual. Those should be left alone. Drinking and driving, using drugs, and all that jazz affects not only the user, but the people around them as well. When a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, he is a hazard to himself, for sure, and if that were only the case, then I couldn't care less if he gets in a wreck. It's a result of his own personal choice. But he is more than a hazard to himself. He is a hazard to anybody within driving distance. He has the potential to injure or kill other people. That is an issue of public safety, not just merely personal responsibility. That is open to government regulation because the lives of citizens are at risk when a driver high on weed gets behind the wheel of a car. But buying a CD? That's a personal matter. And the government should stay out of it.

Now, don't get me wrong. If a referendum is initiated and people agree that PA labels are a good thing, then so be it. I won't like it, but that's the way America works. Far be it from me to question the will of the people in a constitutional republic. This is why I agree with the legitimacy of the state referendums regarding marraige definitions (which all passed overwhelmingly, for those who don't remember). But as it stands right now, Parental Advisory labels are not the will of the people. They are the will of a few Washington ladies who marry rich guys and have probably never even been in a Wal-Mart store.

Get control, folks. This is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not over the people's personal choices.

Semper Fi

Happy St. Crispin's Day

2005-10-25T14:57:00.000-05:00

"This story shall the good man teach his son;

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remember'd;

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition:

And gentlemen in England now a-bed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

-William Shakespeare, Henry IV

Treatise on (In)Tolerance

2005-10-20T20:34:00.000-05:00

A lot of things today mean something different than they did when they first possessed meaning. For example, during WWII, many times American soldiers on the ground would suffer from low morale due to several circumstances, and so to buck up the troops, Allied pilots would circle the battlefield in low sweeps and hold up two fingers in the window of their cockpit. This was a symbol of "V for victory," and it was a noble attempt by pilots to raise the spirits of the grunts by letting them know that the US Air Force had their back. Today, however, holding up two fingers is no longer a symbol for "V for victory," it is "the peace sign." Hippies in the sixties literally stole a wartime gesture of support and goodwill and turned it into an anti-war sentiment.

The rainbow is something else that means something different today than it did years ago. The rainbow was originally a promise from God to the human race that He would never again flood the world as a means of judgement (Genesis 9:8-17). Whether or not you believe the Bible is irrelevant; the point is that the rainbow had significance to Jews and Christians, even if only in a cultural context. But today, a rainbow is a sign used by homosexuals. If you walk into someplace with a rainbow over the door, rest assured you aren't entering a Christian establishment, no sir.

The issue before us today also has a different meaning than it did several years ago. When the word tolerant (or intolerant) was first used, it implied inherent pre-existing disagreement. You don't have to tolerate something that you agree with, right?

Say you are at a barbecue at a friend's house (for the record, this has never happened to me or any barbecue I have been to at my friends' houses). You are having fun, eating good food, meeting people - and then you see that guy. You know who I am talking about. That guy is annoying, loud, rude, and he smells bad. He may look something like this guy. But because you are a nice person, you look the other way and try to have fun. You tolerate that guy.

Now consider if that guy was a nice person (like you are). He is thoughtful, intelligent, funny, and courteous. You don't have to tolerate him. You get along with somebody like that very well.

Thus, by original definition, tolerance means that you must disagree with something. Intolerance, then, means that you will not tolerate something that you disagree with (duh). Hitler was intolerant of Jews. He killed six million of them. Josef Stalin was intolerant of political dissent. He killed millions of his own countrymen because they disagreed with his authority. Heck, even our court system is (supposed to be) intolerant. When a criminal commits a crime, they are locked up and their rights are taken away. Intolerance means actually taking steps to eradicate and remove that which you see is wrong.

However, to be tolerant of somebody's beliefs and opinions does not mean you are restricted from challenging those beliefs and opinions. You are allowed to attempt to convince the other person that their thinking is flawed, their information faulty, and their conclusions wrong. Likewise, they had the ability to do the same to you. There is an inherent equality in disagreement under the old interpretation of tolerance. You do not have to condone their way of thinking; as a matter of fact, you are encouraged to convince them otherwise, with the expectation of reciprocal action.

But that is the old definition. Today's definition goes something like this:

To tolerate somebody's beliefs and opinions, you must legitimize their claim to truth, accept their opinions as valid and factual, and you must keep in mind that they are probably smarter than you are.

To be intolerant, then, is to challenge somebody's beliefs and opinions that are different from your own, view their opinions as invalid and based on faulty thinking, and show that they are, in fact, dumber than you.

This new interpretation of tolerance is not only stupid, it is a specific anti-conservative and anti-Christian weapon used by people who are (ironically) intolerant of conservatives and Christians. To begin with, it is my opinion that conservatives are misunderstood to a high degree. Most people define conservatives as folks who are resistant to change. While this may be true in a sense, on the whole it is a fallacy, as well as a serious misrepresentation of the standing of conservative ideology.

Conservatives can be thought of as resistant to change, but I don't like to say that because a lot of people view the word "change" with extremely varied and not-too-consistent meanings and interpretations. I would say that conservatives are resistant to change, but we are in favor of progress. There is a difference, at least as far as conservatives are concerned. True, conservatives tend to favor the preservation of the status quo. We like the way things are going, or how they have gone in the past. If we preserve our present state of affairs in America as they stand today, we already possess some degree of progress. Companies make new and better products, new laws are enacted, new ideas surface, etc. We like this. As long as the new stuff conforms with the spirit of the present and (to a lesser extent) accurately represents American traditionalism, we don't have a problem with their introduction. Now we may disagree about the merits or benefits of the new things, but we don't object to their being introduced into the American mainstream. If it works, we should stick with it.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to support "change." By change I mean the rules of society, the ideas of government and its role in America, and the constant revision their worldview as they see most expedient. For example, it isn't enough that companies make new products, we must have new programs and protocols to encourage what types of products are made as well as who makes them. If GM begins making an automobile that contains software that enables it to drive itself and is cheaper than most economy cars, convervatives would be the first to buy one. Liberals would be the first to impose regulations over the software regarding its development, marketing, sale, and use.

So conservatives, because we attempt to make policy that conforms to American traditions and ideals, are often labeled as intolerant of other peoples' views and ideas that conflict with American traditions and ideals. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Intolerance would be killing folks for believing differently. Conservatives don't do that. There are some nuts out there that think blowing up abortion clinics is the way to get things done, but trust me, that is not at all what conservatives support. Instead, we use legal means such as referendum, lawsuits, and legislation to support our way of thinking. We do nothing that our opponents are not allowed to do. The problem is that sometimes we are better than other folks at getting our way, and so people have to resort to other means to get their way. In this case, people are using rhetorical subterfuge to paint the conservative movement as intolerant when, in fact, we couldn't care less what other people think. What you believe is your business. But that's not going to stop us from enacting legislation that stems from our position. And if you don't like it, you are free to try to enact your own legislation. And we are free to try and stop you. A constitutional republic is a wonderful thing.

This is one of those "don't hate the player, hate the game" types of situations. Don't hate conservatives for passing gay-marriage bans; either start your own referendums to change what you think is wrong or move to Canada. You are free to do both.

Christians, too, are subject to the "intolerance" label. We don't approve of homosexuality, babies born out of wedlock, excessive drinking, etc. And because we get into peoples' faces about it, we are labeled intolerant.

Even when it comes to other religions, Christianity is pretty exclusive. John 14:6 says (and this is Jesus talking) "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me." Any Bible believing Christian will acknowledge the fact that there is only one Truth. Any Christian who says differently isn't a Christian. And so when something conflicts with that Truth, we enter search-and-destroy mode. We will not kill people for being homosexual, but we will put pressure on them to change their ways. We will pass legislation. We will speak from the pulpit and at the grassroots level. We will publicly protest gay marriages.

But people say we are being intolerant. There are several ironies to this. First of all, if I say you are intolerant and should change, I am being intolerant myself. It's like saying "I won't tolerate intolerance." Well how do you tolerate yourself? This is akin to saying, "There are no absolutes." Well, are you absolutely sure about that?

Another irony to labeling Christians as intolerant and calling for change within the Christian ranks is the fact that disallowing for Christian "intolerance" is a denial of the very basis of what it is to be a Christian. Christians as followers of Jesus are bound to the Word of God. If Jesus says "I am the Way, I am the Truth, I am the Life," then that is that. Jesus didn't say "I am one of the Ways to God, I am one of the many existing Truths about the nature of things, and I am one representation of Life. Whatever you believe is cool with Me." If somebody believes something that falls outside of the Way, the Truth, and the Life, then a good Christian will challenge whatever it is that contradicts his beliefs. And for somebody to say we must accept an opinion or lifestyle that doesn't fit what Jesus says, a Christian must deny what it is to be a Christian in order to conform to that level of "tolerance."

If people of tolerance really want to be tolerant, they will let those of us who they see as "intolerant" be intolerant. "Tolerant" folks usually don't care what someone else believes; if it works for them, fine. Good for you for finding your own way. But that attitude goes out the window when they come across somebody they see as intolerant. "Intolerant" people should change their ways.

There seems to be no end to this hypocrisy. It seems as though "tolerant" people will tolerate anything except for intolerance. But thank God there are some of us who are stubbornly intolerant, because some things are just plain stupid.

Like the "tolerance" movement.

Semper Fi

Master Chief vs. The "Freeman"

2005-10-20T19:51:00.000-05:00

The universe...belongs to one.

2005-10-19T19:07:00.000-05:00

Today's post will deviate slightly from the typical academic nature of the posts here, but I think you'll find this post covers an intellectually underrated topic. I am of course speaking of road trip etiquette. I am making a trip up to see Acolyte this weekend and it brought back to mind the importance of this subject. Though we have developed many customs and traditions which are followed on these trips, we do not have any formal standards. This creates problems as we see differences between individuals without any definitive source to mediate these disagreements, resulting in many serious conflicts. I have decided to take it upon myself to rectify this situation and now humbly present to you:

The Rules of the Road...Trip

The First Five Rules

First: The authority of the driver is paramount and must be respected. In all situations not covered by the rules the passengers must defer to the driver. Although he or she is encouraged to conduct discussions in a democratic manner, the driver remains the arbiter of all decisions. This rule is most important both as a matter of principle and because angering the driver can cause harmful consequences to the riders such as being left at a truck stop or, in extreme cases, being driven off the edge of the cliff.

Second: "With great power comes great responsibility" or The obligations of riding shotgun. Aside from being the driver, shotgun is widely recognized as the best set in any vehicle (some would even argue that it is preferable to driving). Obtaining this privilege carries certain obligations. The shotgun rider becomes the navigator for the trip and must be capable of reading, and folding, maps. If the shotgun rider provides wrong directions then they are subject to being unceremoniously replaced at the driver's discretion. The shotgun rider is also responsible for operating the radio, at the direction of the driver or a passenger deferred to by said driver.

Third: Concerning bathroom stops. If a passenger states that he or she must use the bathroom the driver is obligated to stop at the first reasonable opportunity. This is a matter of principle, but also a matter of sanitation and the driver protecting their vehicle. The consequences of denying a stop can easily ruin any road trip for those involved.

Fourth: Concerning food and drink stops. The driver is not obligated to stop for food at the insistence of a single rider, however if the driving covers a period of time in which a meal would traditionally occur then a food stop must be made. Additionally, if a majority of the riders demand a food or drink stop then the driver is obligated to make one.

Fifth: Concerning the choice of a restaurant. If time is a serious factor than it is acceptable to choose a fast food chain which is acceptable to at least a plurality of riders. If time is not a factor it is highly encouraged that the driver endeavor to find a local restaurant as they add to the road trip experience and typically have better food for prices near or lower those of fast food chains. If a road trip is being made along a route which will be traveled again, it is also highly encouraged to identify the best local establishment for the future trips.

Well, there you have it. The first five rules of road trip etiquette. Feel free to print these out and keep a copy in your glovebox, I am sure you will find it an indispensable guide. Also, look for future installments of The Rules of the Road...Trip as there are many other aspects of the trip which must be covered. Thanks for reading and keep on trucking!

2005-10-18T12:52:00.000-05:00

Update (4:44 PM): After reading the post, I would encourage you to read this article by NRO's John Miller.

I would like to begin this post by stating two things about myself, for any readers who may not know me: I am a conservative and I am a Republican.

There is a reason for my ordering of that statement. I am a conservative because the I believe that the conservative values and principles are right and deserve support. I am a Republican because it is the party that offers the best choice in the U.S. for those who believe in conservatism. However, the Republican party has been doing some things recently that have disappointed me and I would like to discuss one of these things today.

There is a primary battle occurring for the Republican Senate nomination in Rhode Island. This battle pits incumbent Senator Lincoln Chafee versus Mayor Steve Laffey of Cranston.

It must be stated that Lincoln Chafee is a Republican in name...but in little else. He has a lifetime rating of only 41 from the American Conservative Union. He is by no means conservative and his voting record reflects this. But at least he helps by supporting President Bush and fellow Republicans? Right? Right?

Nope. After opposing Bush on many issues, including casting the only Republican vote against the resolution granting Bush authority to invade Iraq, he announced to the media that he would not be voting for the President in the 2004 but would instead be casting a write-in vote for former President George H.W. Bush as a "symbolic protest." He has also flirted on a number of occasions with changing parties and stated he would do so if President Bush lost reelection.

Mayor Laffey, on the other hand, is a solid conservative with an excellent record as Mayor and a great personal story. In running he is offering the Rhode Island Republicans a choice between supporting a liberal or conservative and also offer all RI voters a genuine choice in the general election between a liberal (Democrat) or conservative (Republican).

How does the Republican party respond to this? Well, they of course welcome the competition and vow to support whoever wins in the general election. No, that would make too much sense, they actually have already started running a series of attack ads against Laffey funded by the NRSC. That's right, the party apparatus is taking money donated by Republican supporters and using it to defeat a conservative Republican. The NRSC, at this point, is spending more money to defeat Laffey then to help defeat Democratic incumbents or challengers in the general election. Is it any wonder that discontent among the conservative base is growing?

This sort of thing just really frustrates me and in response I, Publius Wonka, enthusiastically endorse Mayor Stephen Laffey for Senate. I think that Andy and Jason will go along with this (please make a comment in support or opposition guys) and so Mayor Laffey also has the endorsement of the CFT Phalanx. I would strongly encourage all our readers to visit his website www.electlaffey.com and support him financially or however you can. I can't, as a Missouri resident, vote for him but I will send him a donation once I get some money (if any of you want to help with this, please click on the ads on the top of our blog). I would also encourage that if you donate money that you choose what candidates to donate to yourselves, rather than just giving to a national committee like the NRSC.

The Laffey campaign is a relative longshot at this point, defeating an incumbent in a primary is always incredibly difficult, but he has overcome daunting odds before and it looks to me as if he is off to a good start and he deserves our support. Good luck Mayor Laffey!

2005-10-15T22:53:00.000-05:00

There is a community-wide campaign going on in Springfield that I want to mention. It is a character education campaign started by our Chamber of Commerce. The campaign has 624 partners including many businesses, the Springfield Public Schools, and Missouri State University. It is a year-long campaign and they have selected 12 words-one for each month.

I think that this campaign is an excellent idea and have been glad to see all the support that it is getting. Many problems in our society are because of a dearth of character.

The word they have selected for this month is: Responsibility. This is a word you hear fairly often nowadays. However, it is usually used in the context of "That is not my responsibility." Irresponsibility is not a problem unique to the present, but what is different is that our society has moved to the point of not only accepting but encouraging it in many ways.

We commonly see people absolving themselves of the consequences that result from the safe and/or bad lifestyle choices they make and passing the responsibility for addressing them onto society. We hear far too often that it is unfair to blame individuals for their actions because they were drunk, high, or in some other way inebriated at the time. If someone was forced to consume a large amount of alcohol, forced behind the wheel of a running car and then hit someone...then this would be a compelling argument. Since this is rarely, if ever the case, these claims are absurd and appalling in their audacity (how's that for alliteration?). Making the choice to partake in a substance that causes inebriation in no way absolves you from personal responsibility from your actions.

It is bad enough that we accept these excuses, but this has not been enough. Now, not only are we not responsible for our lifestyle choices but society is. This is imposing a substantial cost upon the people in society who do act responsibly. Much of our country's health care costs are spent to treat problems with behavioral causes. We bear the burden not only as taxpayers but also through higher insurance premiums.

If you watch Law and Order shows you typically see the shift of responsibility for crimes from criminals to society. Many in our society, particularly the "elites", look at murderers and terrorists and see not the evil but people who have been forced into doing this by some root cause and who deserve our sympathy not condemnation. They don't understand that evil does exist and it should not be understood and coddled but condemned and punished.

We also see an alarming amount of litigation, backed by a substantial degree of public sentiment, based upon the premise that businesses, particularly those darn multinational corporations which ooze malevolence, are responsible when consumers suffer due to their misuse or excessive consumption of a business' products. For example, it would not at all be uncommon to hear an individual state "McDonald's made me fat (munch munch)". What these people, and many liberals, fail to understand is that one of the great beauties of a free market economy is that consumers have a choice what products they consume. The Hamburgler does not put a gun to your head and force you to drive towards those Golden Arches, nor will Ronald McDonald march you off to a gulag if you fail to supersize your value meal. When you eat at McDonald's you are choosing to spend your money on their product over the many alternatives available to you. With this choice comes responsibility. If you choose to eat Big Mac meals on a daily basis and you become obese that is your responsibility, not McDonald's.

This lack of responsibility was not always the case and it can be found as a common characteristic in the truly great leaders and individuals throughout history. Perhaps the best example of this, which I was reminded of in class by my Peer Leadership instructor, is Dwight D. Eisenhower. We all, of course remember this famous speech he delivered over BBC Radio:

"Our landings have failed and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

You don't remember that speech? Well, the reason for that is it was never delivered. The D-Day invasion, thank God, succeeded and began the liberation of the continent. Eisenhower is given a great deal of credit for planning and commanding this operation, and rightly so, what what I find almost as remarkable and admirable is the preceding speech which was never delivered. It was discovered by one of Eisenhower's aides after D-Day and saved. Eisenhower had written this prior to the operations and was planning on delivering it if things went wrong.

If there were any task that would lend itself to evading responsibility it would be a military operation on the scale and riskiness of Operation Overlord. There are any number of factors that Eisenhower could have blamed for a failure, or he could have simply argued that he was given an impossible task. He could have even blamed the troops themselves for failure to execute his plans correctly, which is not aunprecedenteded claim throughout military history. Look at the speech again though and you will see it is brief, contains absolutely no mention of the difficulties he faced, praises the troops, and takes responsibility clearly anunambiguouslyly.

This is one of the reasons that Eisenhower was such a great leader and is such an admirable individual. What would things be like if we all followed Eisenhower's example and wrote a statement of responsibility to deliver if we did not succeed in the tasks we undertook? We can't know the answer for sure, but I believe we would see people shift their focus from making sure they are not blamed for anything to actually doing their job to the best of their ability. What a novel idea-actually going into a task with the idea that you will accomplish it.

This applies to life in general as well. Too many people respond to difficult circumstances by adopting a defeatist attitude and simply giving up. Do people born into poverty have the same advantages of Bill Gates' kids? Of course not. Does that mean they can't succeed? Again, of course not. Many times people with these, or other difficult circumstances, don't succeed because they believe that the deck is stacked against them and it is much easier to complain about all the factors that prevent their success than it is to overcome them. It doesn't help that ougovermentnt programs, for the most part, encourage this type of attitude.

This is incredibly sad to see, because once people have adopted this attitude they have really made a decision which will make their life miserable. The fact of the matter is that everyone faces difficulties, what defines us is how we respond to them. The people who achieve greatness are those who turn from the easy path of victimhood and choose to face these challenges with a good nature and do their best to overcome them. Do we always overcome all our challenges? No. Do we always feel better if we at least try than if we never do so because we believe that conspiring forces won't let us succeed? Yes.

I would like to quote an excellent poem by Edgar Guest which I believe outlines this dichotomy of approaches very well:

Somebody said that it couldn't be done,

But he with a chuckle replied

That "maybe it couldn't," but he would be one

Who wouldn't say so till he'd tried.

So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin

On his face. If he worried he hid it.

He started to sing as he tackled the thing

That couldn't be done, and he did it.

[...]

There are thousands to tell you it cannot be done,

There are thousands to prophesy failure;

There are thousands to point out to you, one by one,

The dangers that wait to assail you.

But just buckle in with a bit of a grin,

Just take off your coat and go to it;

Just start to sing as you tackle the thing

That "cannot be done" and you'll do it.

Well, that about wraps up this post. I hope you liked it, but if you didn't...rest assured it was not my fault. I was actually attempting to write exactly what you were looking for, but my darn keyboard misinterpreted what I was typing. My opinions are also exactly the same as yours and the portions here that disagreed are simply because of my parents who indoctrinated me in this responsibility stuff when I was young, which is entirely not my fault. Also, that portion that you really didn't like was actually edited by Jason or Andy or...

One final thing: What is Responsibility? 42. Nope, doesn't quite work.

Treatise on Men and Women

2005-10-14T10:34:00.000-05:00

This topic actually started with a conversation between Jason and myself one day earlier this summer when we decided to go to Silver Dollar City (we are not coordinating our posting, so if anybody thinks that we are collaborating on topics here, think again). Both of us had some kind of situation on our hands at the time that prompted us to consider the basic operating principles of the genders. Aside from being one of the most thoughtful and insightful conversations I have ever been involved in, a lot of things that I hadn't previously thought of were brought to light and made me see things a bit differently.

To begin with, I would like to make a quote from FaceBook that I found a few days ago. Here it is:

"Women are like apples on trees. The best ones are at the top of the tree. Most men don't want to reach for the good ones because they are afraid of falling and getting hurt. Instead, they just get the rotten apples from the ground that aren't as good, but easy... So the apples at the top think something is wrong with them, when in reality, they're amazing. They just have to wait for the right man to come along, the one who's brave enough to climb all the way to the top of the tree. Share this with other women who are good apples, even those who have already been picked! And... Men? Men are like a fine wine. They start out as grapes, and it's up to women to stomp the [expletive deleted] out of them until they turn into something acceptable to have dinner with. Whoever sent this to you thinks you are one of those few women who are apples found at the top of the tree."

I would agree with the first part about the apples. What I don't agree with is the attitude with which the second part (the example of the wine) is presented. Whoever wrote that was not a good apple.

That kind of condescending attitude has become the standard inside our culture. A few months ago, I was sitting in church waiting to hear a lesson about Song of Solomon when the teacher asked us for our attitudes regarding men and women. One girl stood up and said, "Men don't complete us. Men complement us."

I disagree. I would not say that 'women complement me, not complete me.' Whoever says that is holding themselves back from a truly meaningful and wonderful thing. Sure, the Apostle Paul wrote that "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry [1 Corinthians 7:1]". Now, be sure to read the rest of the chapter here for better context and understanding. But obviously men need women and women need men. Otherwise, God wouldn't have bothered to make Adam a wife. Adam was created by God Himself and he still got lonely and asked for a companion.

So, I see relationships as a completion of the human form, a natural extension of what it is to live and breathe and desire things.

That being said, it is difficult to find the right relationships because (this is the really surprising part) men and women are different. They see things differently. They act differently. They want different things. They operate on totally different levels. Anybody who disagrees has been living in a cavern of self-delusion all their life.

For one thing, men like things to be logical and definite, measureable and calculable. In the words of Dave Barry, if a guy has to form an opinion of someone, he would prefer to do it based on something concrete about that person, such as his or her earned run average. And this goes way beyond just opinions of people. This is a lifestyle characteristic. I myself subscribe to this line of thinking. If I have nothing to say, I say nothing at all. If I don't have a reason to do something, chances are I won't do it. The things I do are borne out of motivation and are intended to acheive results. I expect to be rewarded (if only in the cosmic sense) for my effort. I need to see the results of my work to appreciate its value.

Women, on the other hand, are comfortable acting and judging based off of feelings. In the baseball example above, women would not be concerned with a pitcher's ERA so much as they would with the dynamic between each pitcher and individual batter. This phenomenon is revealed in a study that was done with elementary age boys and girls to determine differences in thinking regarding a specific situation. [Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4th Ed. McGraw-Hill; Boston. 2003.]. The thought experiment went like this:

"Heinz's wife was near death, and her only hope was a drug that had been discovered by a pharmacist who was selling it for an exorbitant price. The drug cost $200 to make, and the pharmacist was selling it for $2000. Heinz could only raise $1000. He offered this to the druggist, and when his offer was rejected, Heinz said he would pay the rest later. Still the druggist refused. In desperation, Heinz considered stealing the drug. Would it be wrong for him to do that?

"Heinz's dilemma was presented to an 11-year-old boy named Jake, who thought it was obvious that Heinz should steal the drug. Jake explained:

"For one thing, a human life is worth more than money, and if the druggist only makes $1000, he is still going to live, but if Heinz doesn't steal the drug, his wife is going to die.

"But Amy, also 11, saw the matter differently:

"Well, I don't think so. I think there might be other ways besides stealing it, like if he could borrow the money or make a loan or something, but he really shouldn't steal the drug-but his wife shouldn't die either... So they should really just talk it out and find some other way to make the money.

"Amy will not budge; she refuses to accept the terms in which the problem is posed. Instead she recasts the issue as a conflict between Heinz and the druggist that must be resolved by further discussions."

To Jake, it is logical that the drug must be procured, and in this case, the only way to get that done is to steal it; to him, that is the logical approach. But Amy feels there must be some other resolution to the matter that doesn't involve such a cut-and-dried solution.

This situation also reveals that men and women value different things. Men tend to value what I would call 'the tangibles' in life. In Jake's case, he values Heinz's wife, and by proxy, the drug. Amy on the other hand, values the relationship between Heinz and the druggist, thus not wanting to risk undermining that relationship by stealing. (Somebody stop me if I'm misinterpreting this one; I have been known to do that from time to time).

Imagine a set of Legos. A man puts them together to form a Lego spaceship. The value of his creation lies in its existence and assemblage. The final result has meaning in and of itself. It is my belief that, if such a spaceship were made by a woman, that the value of the spaceship lies in the connection between the creation and the creator by virtue of pride in ownership, as well as the memories held of making the spaceship. The spaceship itself doesn't have as much meaning as does the fact that it was made by its creator and exists as a symbol of connectivity.

So, to men, relationships in and of themselves are enough to warrant a contribution of time and commitment. But women value what the relationship means to each participant in said relationship. This is not to say that men don't value meaning or the dynamic of a relationship, I'm just saying that it plays a smaller role because men are more comfortable making logical assumptions and calculating measureable indicators. This is why we have a concept of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd base. Not to say that it is a good thing to get to one of the three, but that is just an example of how guys measure relationships.

A lot of folks (and here I am thinking about women) think that most situations don't fit this black-and-white approach. As a result, a lot of men-bashing develops among the subjectivist camp. Perhaps they are on to something. I mean, it was men who invented nuclear weapons, spitting, ice hockey, and the remote control. Being a man, though, I find it difficult to take criticism about being male (kind of like how guys don't like like it when they're being tailgated but could care less if they're tailgating), but nuclear weapons are sweet. Hockey is awesome (or would be if the weenies that pass for players would shut up and play). The remote control is so convenient.

Whether guys need to be chastised or whatever is not the issue. The bottom line is that men and women think differently. For example, over last spring break, Jason was telling me about a weekend he spent with Lutheran Student Fellowship. They went to a church camp and cleaned it up for a weekend, staying in the bunks. Here's the gender breakdown.

The girls- Upon entering their bunkhouse, they noticed it was really cold, so they immediately set about looking for the thermostat. They found it and turned it up to a comfortable level. The girls stayed up until 2:30 in the morning talking about boys and relationships. They slept comfortably in a toasty building.

The guys- Well, they were angry that they were stuck in a freezing bunkhouse all weekend, without the thought that there might, just possibly, be a thermostat for their building. The guys stayed up until 12:30 tossing a football from bunk to bunk. When someone announced that it was after midnight, the guys panicked, believing that this was way later than normal and that the girls were probably already asleep, resting for a full day of picking up trash. The guys barely slept as they were shivering under only one sheet and whatever clothes they piled on top of themselves.

Men simply operate differently than women. As a matter of fact, at the time Jason was telling me this, we were down on the shoreline of Table Rock Lake. As we were discussing his trip, we picked up the biggest log we could find, tossed it into the lake, and began chucking rocks at it, never taking a break from conversation to ask ourselves what we were doing. We're guys. Guys like to chuck rocks at floating logs (at least the guys I know do). Girls like to, well, I don't know, not chuck rocks at floating logs.

So, for you women out there in a relationship who are wondering what your male counterpart is thinking, rest secure in the knowledge that the answer is very little.

That's not true for all guys. I happen to know three of them who just started a blog together that are extremely thoughtful, sensitive, and intelligent. But they are definitely in the minority.

Now please excuse me, I'm on my way to the top of the apple tree.

First Post

2005-10-13T11:29:00.000-05:00

Since this is the first post, I'd like to start off by saying that this blog is dedicated to all things academic. But since that phrase seems to lack the focus we desire for a blog that will pride itself on professional publication, we will try to narrow down "all things academic" into the scope of something more finite - like life, the universe, and everything. Fortunately for us, we already know the answer to life, the universe, and everything (42). What this blog will do is try to find the ultimate question that helps us understand the ultimate answer.

May I profer a question that, as far as I can tell, comes closest to helping us understand life, the universe, and everything? It is at least as broad and difficult a question to answer as one would expect of the "ultimate question". It is a question that I have pondered with increasing curiosity. And it is a question that I don't necessarily have an answer for.

What is love?

To help me out, at least until a later post, I call upon one of the most eloquent dissertations on love ever written:

Love

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

-The Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 13.

Welcome to the Phalanx! She's a fine ship.