Tax simplification

Question from Jeff Dunkel

"Do you think that a consumption tax or flat tax would be more fair to taxpayers than the current income tax system?

It seems that one of the biggest complaints is how some people pay too much and some too little in taxes. If you could start from scratch, and it was necessary to choose a taxing system to raise revenue, do you think the current income tax system, flat tax, or consumption tax would be best?"

My response:

Consumption tax has the following benefits, among others:

1. Eliminates evasion. Nobody gets to be paid, "under the table." Even illegal aliens get taxed.
2. People get to choose whether to pay taxes and how much to pay. If you don't want to pay the taxes, you don't buy the product.
3. Simplicity. There are no tables and no exceptions. I believe there should be no exceptions based on type of product, income of consumer, etc.
4. Overhead management task for the government is greatly reduced. Instead of tracking a huge number of individual and corporate taxpayers, we track a far smaller number of businesses who are acting as tax collectors.

Potential problems.

1. Some tax collectors could still evade. Even today, we hear of companies who run off with the sales tax receipts!
2. Black markets will be created reducing receipts.
3. Bartering will increase, also reducing receipts though somewhat minimally.
4. Current tax specialists may lose work volume.

Ironically, as messed up as our current tax system is, I continue to hear that we need to change to flat taxes and yet, along with those proposals, a series of caps, exceptions and variances for any number of reasons which pretty much sabotage the entire concept! If we can shoot for a consistent simplicity, we aren't helping ourselves.

The biggest obstacle of any "new" tax system is that of educating the public about how it works. Since everyone is pretty much familiar with how sales tax works, educating the general public about consumption tax is markedly simplified.

Just brainstorming.

Lou

Memoirs of Don and Emily - part 2

Note: Again, this is a more expanded version of a post I made to our family online group. I take a bit more license here to be more honest and less politically correct than I was with my family. My reasons for doing so may be a bit obscure at the moment but over time, it may become more apparent.

Also, to clarify, Don and Emily are my grandparents on my father's side.

----------

Watching Grandma and Grandpa interact with one another during my year with them was sometimes an adventure, sometimes a treat, other times curious and always educational, even if to determine, "Hey, I better not do that!" Grandma and Grandpa had been married for a lot of years and that meant a successful relationship, right? Ummmm, yes. In many ways, yes. In other ways, not so much but to be fair, I think most relationships are like this. Some couples live together for decades and cannot be said to have a successful relationship. Many times, they have just been roommates for a very long time and avoided divorce only because it was supposedly, "bad."

Other couples do have successful relationships and after a few years of learning how, they move right along, happy and content and able to confront issues with maturity and tact. Note, I did not say, "without anger and strife." Successful couples can still get frustrated and angry with each other but how they deal with those issues is what makes their relationships succeed.

Those are the two ends of the bell curve. Most normal people reside somewhere in the middle, of course, as did Grandma and Grandpa. From day to day, they might even move back and forth along the curve from good, to better and back again. There were some indications that Grandma and Grandpa might have been better off divorcing, however, they were comfortable with each other and could manage their feelings because of their vast experiences with each other.

Grandpa used to grow the most beautiful garden. His green thumb could be seen from space, to be sure. Or at least, from the top of the water tower! It was a luxury beyond compare to have the best and freshest produce of my life. During season of course. When the apricots came on, I indulged to the point of being stupid about it. It didn't matter how much I ate, though, I could never put a dent in the production of that apricot tree. I've never enjoyed store-bought apricots since because they simply don't have nearly the exquisite flavor I remember. Grandpa gave them away by the bucket load and still finished the apricot season by dumping a lot of it in the trash. Even the birds had their fill. The same was true of the peaches, plums, nectarines, etc. Grandpa wanted all of them and had them. Even a pomegranate tree, a fig tree and a Thompson seedless grape arbor!

I think Grandma was the only one who bore a slight resentment about all the produce but probably not just because of the produce itself. The problem was, Grandpa would get up first thing in the morning before the birds, even, and go pick all the produce in the garden that had ripened the previous day. Later, Grandma would go into the kitchen after getting up and find several dozen pounds of produce in the kitchen, on the counters, in the sink, in a bag on the floor, all waiting for something to be done to it. Grandma complained a bit. Not a lot. She knew the benefit of the garden but dangit; she just didn't like the frequent surprise and the implied expectation that it was her job to deal with all of this. She never complained to Grandpa about it that I heard, though. She mentioned it up to me just once after weeks of putting up various produce.

Then she rolled up her sleeves and canned or dried all of it. I would come home at the end of the day to a kitchen counter and a dining room table loaded down with jars of apricots, corn, green beans, peaches, or whatever else she had spent the day preserving. The jars were beautiful. Most of them disappeared into the basement storage and were never seen again, unfortunately, but there were plenty of times when we did retrieve a jar during the winter for a dessert. Good stuff. A significant amount of that stored produce, unfortunately, went bad as things do and had to be disposed. This was more of a testament to how much produce was harvested and canned by Grandma and Grandpa rather than that they didn't necessarily handle it right. It was just too much for them to keep up with.

Two things drove them to create all of this sustenance: The church was a driving force for food storage and insisted that people put up a year's supply to carry people in the event of an disaster. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course. In the early years, however, the church didn't promote the management of such storage and quite a few families out there put up food only to find that they hadn't taken care of it properly and it became a total loss. Grandma and Grandpa seemed to know what they were doing but were overwhelmed with the quantity of food they produced and they refused to waste any of their garden's production. Church duty called and they kept working it.

I wonder just how many people these days even know how to do this any more? Is there any need any more? Grandma wasn't about to waste any of it, that's for sure, and Grandpa wasn't about to not grow it so long as he had space to grow stuff. The other driving force behind their production and storage was that they had been children of hard times and they worked hard and sweated and bled and produced for themselves and then saved and saved and saved, whether it was money or the production of their garden. They were the hardest working people I ever met alongside my maternal grandparents and nothing ever stopped them.

In spite of a few minor snipes they directed toward each other, they never fought with each other while I stayed with them in Thatcher. There were a couple of occasions when Grandma would bring up something Grandpa had done thirty years ago and he would sit there nodding his head and giving an, "Uh huh," now and again. Later, he would tell me, "I suppose that actually happened but for the life of me, I can't remember it. It's just not worth arguing about." He was right; it wasn't worth arguing about but if she had a reason to bring it up to him again these many years later, who was he to say that her need was not important? Let her go on about it. There was a minor complaint in his comment but not to her.

By the same token, Grandpa would undertake to accomplish a project to the inconvenience of Grandma and her daily comfort. The garden produce was a significant example. She complained to me a couple of times in terms of, "I wish he wouldn't . . , " but she didn't mention it to him. She knew it made him happy to be doing things and working on something or other. I'm sure that if they had lived in Thatcher long enough, Grandpa would have had a skyscraper on the property, built by his own hand still producing fruits and vegetables worthy of a property with five times the acreage!

There was a plaque hanging in the kitchen which I'll never forget. I don't recall if Grandpa made it or bought it in a store but it expressed his feelings for Grandma in, "the most perfect terms," his words to me. It said,

"I don't love you because I need you, I need you because I love you."

This profound statement has remained with me ever since. It suggests more thought than I can even write out over time and the more I reflect on it, the more meaning it has and the more I engage in a relationship with my life mate, the more it suggests what that relationship is all about. I seem to recall that Grandpa had given the plaque to Grandma later on in their relationship, something that bears a great deal of meaning well beyond the empty platitudes a young man often uses to flatter his woman.

After so many years of marriage, Grandpa was still deeply in love with his wife. Grandma was in love with her man. Quite often, I could see it in their eyes when they spoke of each other to me in private. When Grandpa told me of the plaque and how he felt about it and about Grandma, his eyes grew misty and touched with an emotion that he wouldn't ever let out for another person. He never let it out for me to see except for that small bit that he couldn't hide, then he moved on to a different topic. Grandma sometimes told stories of Grandpa's past accomplishments with a similar touch of feeling in her face and a barely perceptible tremble in her voice which spoke of admiration, adoration and pride.

When it is said, "Love knows no bounds," I think it's right and good to say that Grandma and Grandpa were an example of that kind of love.

--Wag--

Memoirs of Don and Emily

Note: This is a more expanded version of a post I made to our family online group. I take a bit more license here to be more honest and less politically correct as I was with my family. My reasons for doing so may be a bit obscure at the moment but over time, it may become more apparent.

Also, to clarify, Don and Emily are my grandparents on my father's side.

------------------------------------

Memoirs of Don and Emily

Early in 1982, my father came to me and said, "Son, with 10 kids to feed, I'll never be able to help pay your way through college so if you want to go, you better keep your grades up and hope for some scholarships." That was about the extent of that conversation. A 16-year kid now saddled with the challenge of paying his own way through college. We were hillbillies living 10 miles out of town and job prospects were slim at best even IF we had enough cars running to get me back and forth. Fortunately, I wasn't the first teenager in the world to have that problem thrust upon him and I'm pleased to know I was not the last!

The scholarship idea sounded pretty good, though. Free money! Of all the advice I ever received from my father, this was probably the only one that ever turned out to be of much value over the long term and probably the only advice of his I even really remember. I started working hard in school for the first time and brought a 2.90 GPA up to a 3.67 by the middle of my senior year. Not bad for a year's effort. I think that's the same GPA I had when I graduated or perhaps slightly better. At some point in the middle of my senior year, I wrote a letter to Grandpa and asked if he would be willing to house me while I went to school at Eastern Arizona College in Thatcher where he and Grandma lived.

In the meantime, I applied to EAC and also applied for Pell Grants and several other scholarships and grants.

Grandpa returned a very complimentary letter. He informed me that I had been polite and deferential and that it had surprised them to read a letter from a "young man" with that much maturity and grace. He stated that because of my letter, he and Grandma would love to have me come and stay with them! I don't think they quite realized at the time what they were really getting into! In his letter, they offered to drive from Thatcher, AZ to Sullivan, MO for my graduation and then I could ride back with them to start a summer semester at the college. I accepted their offer immediately, of course.

Shortly after that, due to my improved grades plus the poverty level in which we lived at the time, I received several grants and scholarships which not only paid for my tuition and books but also room and board. EAC also accepted me as a student and I was off and running. Grandma and Grandpa were extraordinarily generous and refused any sort of payment for boarding me or for any of their other costs for that matter. They also insisted on paying for numerous perks which added to my personal comfort. In short they spoiled me quite badly!

One of the more important things they did was to get legal paperwork completed so I could be on their health insurance while I was in school. I don't know how much that cost them but it was plenty, I have little doubt. I'll be eternally grateful to them for all of the extra assists they gave to me. It made my life during my first year of college worry and stress free.

Sometimes, the juxtaposition of their generosity was slightly humorous. Early on, they bought me a cassette player radio combo which was not top of the line but was quite good. It was the alarm clock I needed the most but it was helpful to have the music and everything else along with it. Some nice little features for its day. The point is, it was pretty high tech for the time. At the same time I started my first English class, they also bought me a typewriter. Not the IBM Selectric which was pretty high-end back then but an old run-down manual typewriter. Yup. No power at all. The damn thing worked, though! I did all of my term papers and compositions on that thing for a year. I wonder to this day if they thought it would, "build character!" I suspect they got it just out of nostalgia. I wish I still had that typewriter, just for the memories.

As a result of their monetary generosity, I was able to really focus on my schoolwork and took 21 hours of core classes the first semester and 22 the second. Grandpa helped me tremendously with my first summer English Comp and Critical Thinking class. Because of his tutoring, I was able to pull an easy 'A' in that class and in several others for which I wrote term papers, etc. I don't think I ever got less than an 'A' on any term paper while I lived with Grandpa and the education I received from him was priceless beyond compare. It has served me to this day. Granted, I'm not the perfect writer but I'm light years ahead of where I would have been without his assistance.

The nice thing is, he didn't just point out errors I had made, he told me why they were errors and coached me on form and style, usage and grammar, etc. Things I had missed, somehow, while sleeping, er, sitting in high school English classes!

Ahhhh, the memories. Grandma and Grandpa both insisted on focusing me toward things they felt were important. Piano was very high on the list, probably #2. Not only did they pay for my private lessons but, at their insistence, every morning at 4:30am, I rose and showered and then hit the piano for at least 90 minutes of practice before classes. As time went on, they both expressed to me on several occasions that it helped them sleep better in the early hours of the morning. On occasion, Grandma would have a headache in the afternoon and if I happened to be playing or practicing, she would lay down for a nap and the piano would soothe her to sleep. It's a comfort to me to know how much they appreciated it and it was an honor then to play for them.

As a footnote, Grandma loved Chopin but at the time, I wasn't capable of playing any of it. It was a pleasure years later to finally be able to play, "Fantasie Impromptu," and, "Ballade in G minor," among others for her on a couple of occasions. The ecstasy in Grandma's voice and in her eyes was all I needed to see and hear in order to motivate me to excel at the piano for many years afterward.

More to follow as time allows!

--Wag--

A better place

Why is it when people hear of another person's passing, they offer this comfort to survivors: "They're in a better place."

Is that really always the case? How would you know, anyway? A few years ago, I wrote a paper for a class about people's right to die. A key source document was Derek Humphries,' "Final Exit." The whole thing about it is, What is life?

A fundamental question is, can a person in a wheelchair enjoy his or her life? Absolutely. Can another person confined thusly have a miserable existence? Of course. Who gets to decide which one gets to enjoy life and which has to suffer? Assuming there is no god making this decision and that life just happens, who gets to decide? Congress? May the stars fall from the sky first. The family? Who's to say they will make an unbiased decision. A court? No better than congress and assuredly not unbiased, people.

The point made by that long ago paper is that the decision should be made by the person whose life is in question. There are those who can enjoy a life as a paraplegic or quadriplegic. I suppose they are to be admired. Let them live their lives as best they know how. Nobody else is in a place to determine what is right for those individuals. Only the individual should decide.

By the same token, if a helpless confined person decides that life has already ended for them, who are we to say they are required to live? The decision is no more ours than the decision that a guy should die if he wants to live. Why would we be in a better position to tell a person he should live if he wants to die?

I'm not talking about your healthy individual suffering from depression who is looking for a way to commit suicide. No, those people should be helped with whatever it is they need in order to make the decision to live. They have a treatable problem and should be assisted to take every opportunity life has to offer.

No, I'm talking about the person whose physical ability to live has been severely impaired and for whom opportunity has been severely limited.

Sooooo, having said all of that, my original point is, why is it that people think that when someone dies, they should say, "It's just as well. They're in a better place now?" How on earth or heaven would they know? Suppose you're a believer, maybe the guy is now in hell treading flames? How would you know that the person is sitting on the right hand of a (sadistic) god? Regardless, what if there nothing after this life, maybe the guy really wanted to live, not die, how does that put him in a better place? I should think that it's only a better place if the person was really interested in dying in order to end suffering at the end of a well-lived life.

Maybe I'm picking on a point which hasn't much impact but hey. how many people have ever thought of this? I've never heard it discussed.

--Wag--

Nobody is crying to get OUT!

America seems to be taking a beating these days. We get verbal abuse from every population in the world but the fact is, this is a damn nice place to live. Millions of people all over the world are risking life and limb to get here for one thing and one thing only: Opportunity.

Nowhere else on earth does it exist in such abundance. Look at Saudi Arabia. Rich with oil money to the extent the really don't have a clue what to do with it. At least, the people who have it. That means, the royal family and their people. They're rolling nicely. The average Saudi, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have a whole lot of it and more importantly than anything else, seems to have little opportunity to get any of it.

There's that word again. Opportunity. Look at Mexico. Same thing. Most of South and Central America. Cuba. China. Indonesia. With the exception of Europe, where is ample opportunity besides America? Even comparing Europe and the U.S., the opportunity you have in Europe is taxed to oblivion. Oh, wait. Don't forget about Canada but there again, you're taxed to death!

Only in the U.S do we have the wealth of opportunity so great WE don't really know what to do with it. Opportunity great and small. Opportunity far and wide. Opportunity for education, experience, wealth, leisure, social interaction with your chosen people. Opportunity exists for health, peace, prosperity, information, religion . . . . Even the opportunity to say how much you love it here. Or hate it here.

What saddens me is just how many people who are here, enjoying all of these opportunities (or choosing not to), are so intent on expressing their hatred of it. But what's always more telling than words, as we all know, is action.

These people aren't leaving. When was the last time you heard of a boat full of people drowning en route to Cuba? Illegal (non-criminal) American immigrants in Mexico? People risking their lives and well-being and even their families to get from America to China? Never? Me either.

People stay here. They speak loudly with their actions that frankly, this place is a pretty damn nice place to live. Indeed, it's the nicest place on the planet to live. There is no better place.

You know what else we have the opportunity to do? Change things. We have the opportunity to make changes to everything under the sun and improve everything we see. We get to change out our leaders and get them to do what we want. I don't think there are very many other places in the world where this can be done quite as well as here.

Frankly, I'm impressed with this country. I still believe in it, in spite of it's flaws, in spite of it's weaknesses. I see that even though we frequently waste the opportunities which are so freely given to us by this great country, we still have ample left to go around.

It's a grand thing, isn't it?

--Wag--

Writer's Block

Thank gawd I don't make my living as a writer. I've had a bad bout of writer's block lately. For the last couple of years, eh? Mostly, I can't decide if I want to be funny, which is difficult enough as it is, or if I want to be serious.

My wife told me the other day, "You're funny!"

I responded, "Yeah, but looks aren't everything!"

Ba dum dum.

Commentary is good but all too often, I feel like I'm just reinventing the wheel. I mean, just how many more opinions do we need about global warming, the pending political elections, religion, the crappy economy, etc. We do NOT need another movie reviewer on line, that's for sure.

Funny and sad at the same time: The other day, I bought two new stocks. They both tanked within 5 minutes of being bought. It's as if the other people who owned them were just waiting for me to buy and then all together, they all sold off all at once. I didn't lose a LOT of value but definitely an instantaneous loss.

THAT is a sucky economy. A recession is when your co-worker gets laid off. A depression is when YOU get laid off. Anyone know who originally said that?

Jeez. I'm writing about the economy without prior warning. My apologies. That's what I get for writing at 3:30 am.

I should just go surf for some porn but even that is boring any more. At least it doesn't require conscious thought.

Or just go back to sleep.

G'nite.

--Wag--

How to attract hot chicks

Posted this elsewhere recently but thought it would fit in well here.

True story which has happened to me on more than a couple of occasions. Details have been changed to protect the innocent.

Scenario is, I'm sitting in my office as I generally do at my job. Nobody has bothered me all day. I'm getting a trainload of work done. 4:00 rolls around and I'm doing well.

All of a sudden, I have to fart, but I'm doing well so I don't want to get up to go outside. Lean over and tear off an SBD. It's a rank mutha, too.

Almost like there was a director in a crappy comedy movie making this production, the hot chick from marketing walks in and needs to discuss something that A) could have waited till next month to give the air time to clear or B) it's too damn late for the discussion to do any damn good at all. It's worth mentioning that marketing personnel ALWAYS call me on the phone for such discussions because their building is a half mile or so away from ours.

In the meantime, the SBD continues to scream its presence. There is no way you could miss it. She doesn't say a thing and keeps a straight face. I work hard to extend the discussion as long as possible both because she has great hooters but also because I shouldn't have to suffer with the fumes all by myself.

Sooooo, since this happens over and over again I can only assume that farts attract hot chicks. In fact, I'm beginning to hypothesize that farts can actually breach time and space and teleport hot chicks right to your side. Further testing is required.

Try it some time! Keep some Febreze nearby.

--Wag--

Biker T-shirts

Check out this site for Bike T-shirts! Motorcycle t-shirts, that is!

Great service, fast delivery if you want it and you won't come away dissatisfied. Of course, I get shirts and hoodies with my Busa logo on them but they have stuff for all bike brands.

Enjoy!

--Wag--

Yes, the site is owned by the guy who runs the Busa Board I use all the time. Nice guy and you'll love the product!

Frightening movies. I don't think so.

I'm using the movie series, Saw as an example here because it should still be fairly recent in everyone's minds and because the fourth part is about to hit the theaters. Bear in mind, I don't have a whole lot of problem with gore in movies. It's easy for me to remember it ain't real and it just rolls right over me. Really, it does. (Gore in real life is a different story, however but that's a topic for another time.)

The real terror of a movie is in the building of suspense and the threat of something freaky or evil or dangerous being about to happen. Look at The Ring or Ju On (or The Grudge). At least, as long as the potential victim of same is not being so utterly stupid as to make you laugh instead of jump in your chair and toss your popcorn on your date. Hollywood film makers forget what normal people are apt to do, even aside from the armchair directors in the theaters. Bottom line is, a scary movie needs to make you think pretty hard for a while after you walk out into the lobby.

I've digressed overly much. Back to the Saw series. And yes, there are a couple of spoilers so if you've not seen it, don't blame me for not warning you. Or maybe you'll read this because you're not going to go see it! In that case, you'll still be disappointed because I'm not really going to disclose so much.

The first Saw was a very nice Hitchcockian suspense flick. There was gore and such but it was incidental; not the focus of the movie. I mean, even though there was a dead guy in the middle of the room in a pool of his own blood, how could you possibly forget that the only way those two captives could get loose was if they were willing to saw off their own foot? Very easy to put yourself in that position, wondering what you would do if you were in that situation and feel a cold chill go up and down your spine.

Add to that the suspense built by the possibility that the two guys may have had a connection which could have caused one to kill the other even though they should be working together to escape, a time limit to figure out how to escape and a half dozen other sub plots equally horrifying and really, the gore is of little consequence, even when the one guy actually does cut his foot off in order to escape. (Just a thought here, the music at this point was absolutely PERFECT!)

The second movie added a bunch of gore but still had a degree of the suspense that the first one had. You could easily go, "good grief," at some of the excessive gore but after all was said and done, it was still pretty decent. The rats-trapped-in-a-maze theme was a little overdone in my opinion but the puzzles were creative enough to take the, "hokey malokey," out of it.

The third installment made the gore the primary focus of the flick and while the story still sort of carried pretty well, it was splattered upon overly much by blood and guts. In short, it was crap. It might have been the kind of thing that would make people look away but it didn't add to my enjoyment of the movie and sure didn't scare anyone.

To be fair, they created and then answered some questions linked to the first movie so that was pretty decent of them. Still, by the end of the movie, I was done with gore-centric flicks. No more desire to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre which was released right about then, no desire to see The Hills Have Eyes 2 (yes, I saw the first one), no urge to get out to rent Hostel and then watch Hostel 2. Now, in place of the urge to see good scary movies, I prefer instead to avoid the gore-focused movies and be more selective with my scary movie selections. The have to be truly scary now. It's just hard to tell, really until you're sitting in the theater.

The fourth one? Jury's still out on it but if they continue the trend, it's going to be a loser just like the third one. I doubt I'll watch it. I may go see it just because I saw the first three but essentially, I'm done with movie makers who can't stay focused on the story, the plot, or just don't really have the skills it takes to make a great frightener.

The new Halloween movie, now, there is a GREAT horror flick! Kudos to Rob Zombie for that one. Well done even if you didn't really care for it.

--Wag--

Miscellaneous crap

Sometimes, I'm on. Other times, I go a fairly long while before writing. I was reading through some of the posts a moment ago and realized, I used to write some funny stuff. Funny to me, anyway. Lately, though, the crap I'm putting up here hasn't been funny any more. Too serious. Am I losing my sense of humor? Did I ever have one in the first place? Does anyone give a rat's ass? If you do, worry about yourself. Your life is too small!

What the hell. I'm enjoying my life. My wife and I were talking about that the other day. We're plenty happy, really. We have what we want. Steady wage, house, two motorcycles we love riding, the vehicles we need in order to get around. Good news, too. We saved a bunch of money on our insurance by switching to . . .

. . . Farm Bureau. Yup. 30% per year for all four vehicles and our homeowners policy.

Niiiiiiiice!!!

Well, we're not independently wealthy yet but we're moving that direction. I think. It's going to be a while, of course. Patience is a virtue in such things. Of course, financial brains would help, too. Anyone have a supplier for that?

I'm cruising down on my 42nd birthday in about three weeks. No, EXACTLY three weeks.

Dayum!!!!

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't feel old. Well, I have to use reading glasses a lot of the time now. No big deal. But as for the rest of me? It's all still working quite well. I feel that I'm still in my prime. I should go get a degree, though. The most discouraging thing about it, though, is that all my school credits are too old to transfer now. I'll likely have to take them all again.

BUT. That may mean it's a perfect time for me to change careers. 20 years is too long to do the same thing over and over again. Been thinkin' about it for a few days. Okay, a couple of months! I just still haven't figured out what I want to do when I grow up.

Doh!!!

Well, as long as I can keep my luscious, hot wife sleeping with me, probably nothing much else will matter, eh?!

Couldn't sleep tonight. I quit smoking a little over a week ago and it's effing killing me so far. Seems that when I smoke, my immune system gets suppressed. Then, when I stop smoking, my immune system kicks back into high gear and I start feeling the pain of allergies I never knew I had. It sucks, of course. Dammit. I'm on my 9th day now, though, so I'll just have to tough it out some more. I haven't slept well for about the last five or six days which explains why I'm up at 1:30am typing this up even though I have to work tomorrow.

Don't start smoking. If you do, you'll want to quit some day and it might kill ya!!!

For some reason, that's funny to me. Go figure.

Cheers to all y'all!

--Wag--

What's the difference?

What's the difference between Muslim terrorists and Christian or other fanatical religious terrorists?

I've been told, though I haven't read it myself, that the Quran directs its followers (Muslims) to kill all infidels.

But the Bible, especially the Old Testament, preaches the same thing, really. Read, the following (For this reference, thank you to The Dark Bible, found at http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)

Of course, the Old Testament is full of stories of how the followers of Moses spent a great deal of energy engaging in fierce genocide against those were were considered unbelievers.

Of course, Christians like to say that Jesus did away with such things when he brought forth a new way of life, a better belief. If that's the case, why is the Old Testament still attached to the New Testament?

Christianity at heart is not that much different from Islam.

o-Both would like to kill you for not believing as they do, at least historically
o-Both would like to force you to believe as they do
o-Both would like you to give up your life for their particular god
o-Both look down on believers of other faiths as inferior peoples (infidels and heretics)
o-Both are uninterested in your opinion
o-Both would like to prohibit you from even expressing or thinking your opinion

The list could go on, of course. I'll give Judaism credit, though. They aren't promoting the deaths of others because of differing beliefs any more insofar as I've heard lately. Frankly, they don't seem to be saying a lot about what to do with unbelievers at all these days. Good on them.

Soooooo, what's the difference? Not much, really. What I mean is, when you strip away the professed litanies of doctrine and their teachings, the activities of both are geared toward one thing only: They look forward to the sterilization of the world in order to make it 100% Christian. Or 100% Islam.

Come to think of it, I get the idea that they are the only two major world religions who still believe in such a thing.

--Wag--

Saying goodbye

How much do you love someone?
Is it hard to say goodbye?
But you know you'll see them again,
You just don't know when.

How about when you know,
It's the last goodbye?
When you know you'll never
See them again. Ever.

She had cancer and she had had it
For quite a while.
You could tell; and it had done its evil
Something you could feel.

We said goodbye. She knew and I knew
This was going to be the last time
We looked into each others' eyes and cried
We laughed with each other at our happier memories.

We hoped things were going to turn around but,
We both knew the end was in sight.
It wasn't possible to deny.
I looked deep into her eyes, those eyes had taught me,

The meaning of the literary term,
"A twinkle in the eye."
I knew I'd never see it again.
I held her close as we prepared to part for the last time.

Tears from from her eyes to my chest and
From my eyes to her skin
Our bodies shook together with sobbing
We became one in our sorrow

But we were one in our happy memories of the
Beauty of our friendship, the happiness we had had
For all those years and for all those smiles.
As we parted ways, we cried.

We knew each others' sorrow, felt each others' pain
Suffered each others' suffering
But we smiled as we knew the other smiled
And our hearts began to share with one another.

She still lives in me. My memories of her will endure
Forever and ever.

--Wag--

The Farmer

Story

One spring, a farmer went out and plowed his fields and planted his corn. The rain came; he fertilized and irrigated. The corn sprouted and grew. It was doing well, growing and flourishing. A few weeks later, though, the farmer began to become impatient. He wanted his corn now. RIGHT now.

Impatient beyond belief, he plowed the cornfield under and the next day, planted wheat. Again, the rains were sufficient and the farmer cared for his new crop. It was doing very well but again, impatience set in. A few days later, the farmer plowed under his newly-sprouted wheat and planted potatoes.

Over the rest of the summer and fall, the farmer repeatedly planted and plowed and planted and plowed until the end of the summer when his last crop, his tomato plants, died in the cold of the frost. The farmer had nothing. In spite of his hard work, in spite of doing nearly everything right and despite the perfect weather of the perfect summer, he had nothing to show for it all.

It was a long, cold, and very hungry winter.

Moral

If you have everything under the sun going perfectly for you, you still need patience.

Discussion

How many times have you worked for a company which had good policies but kept changing them over and over again? How many times have you seen your friends or family change jobs over and over and over again? Each time, they have to start over and begin with nothing again.

My father was that kind of man. The rate of changes for his jobs became so numerous that by the end, he was changing jobs nearly every month or even faster. He attempted to start several businesses in succession but never worked any of them to fruition. He signed up for several MLM's only to abandon them shortly afterward. Over time, he destroyed his ability to accumulate money, to acquire knowledge, to gain experience, to retire well.

Instead, he died penniless and without self-respect.

But he was a brilliant man, intellectually. Competent and capable in many areas. There is some evidence which suggests that he may have had ADHD and possibly, that interfered with his ability to remain pointed toward a goal's achievement.

Regardless of why, the object lesson is that it takes time to accomplish things. If something is planned and set into motion it will not happen overnight. But it will happen if it is given the proper time along with all other good things.

I realize there are other variables in real life but the thought experiment succeeds in a fashion which illustrates the need for focus on an end result.

After the planning is done, the growth begins.

Any comments?

--Wag--

Mr. Deity

Okay, you have to check this guy out!

Mr. Deity

--Wag--

Load yourself up!

As a kind of corollary to the post below about efficiencies of organizations with lots of people, I was thinking back on the days when I was most efficient.

Simply put, the more shit I have to do, the more I can get done and the better I get it done.

It's about focus and intensity, I think. When I was working 50 hours a week and taking 18 units in school, I got straight A's and got great reviews at the office. I got everything done, too. That's the amazing part of it.

At times when I didn't have the workload, I got less done. Free time, for some reason, doesn't have the impact on me that lack of time does. Don't get me wrong; I've overloaded from time to time and done poorly. Likewise, there have been times when I had a lot of free time and got a lot done.

There's just something about the urgency of several pressing needs drawing your attention and forcing you to be efficient, organized and to prioritize effectively.

--Wag--

Pessimism

Is pessimism a defense mechanism? The HR director at my new job asserted that it is.

People who are pessimists don't run the risk of getting hurt by plans gone awry. I suppose that if they believe things will go badly and then things DO go badly, they are not disappointed. They may fear that if they hope for something good to happen and it does not, they have to deal with the problem of how to confront the disappointment. Of course, that requires effort. It requires thought and work.

Are pessmists just too lazy to confront their disappointments in a productive way? I leave that to others more intelligent than I to decide.

Pessimists and optimists are born, not created. Look around you. There are those who are optimists in spite of any string of bad luck or in spite of their circumstances. Maybe it's the optimists who are lazy 'cause they don't take the time to review the real horror of their situation! Figure THAT one out, eh?! There are plenty of people who are in dire straits but they're still smiley and still happy. A pessimist would say, "What the hell for? There's no point to it." An optimist would say the same thing about a pessimist, of course!

Still, the pessimist has a good defense mechanism. Just assume everything is fucked and you'll be right quite a bit of the time.

On the other hand, an optimist can look at all the same problems in their lives and assume that everything is still pretty good, okay, and all right and better yet, they're going to improve at any moment!

Gotta love that!

Now and then, you'll see an optimist who has lived with let-downs for an exceptionally long time and they start to exhibit some of the behaviors of the pessimist for a while. But as soon as circumstances improve, they are right back to their usual optimistic self. The pessimist, on the other hand, waits for things to go to hell in a handbasket, of course.

I was born an optimist and raised in a pessimistic envrionment. I learned all the right behaviors of a pessimist. Over the last few years as I've gotten out of that environment, I've been able to realize that maybe I'm an optimist after all. I should rephrase though. I THINK I'm an optimist. The jury is still out on it! We'll see what the verdict is if my life goes to shit for some reason!

--Wag--

New Job

Started a new job on Monday. Nice company, lots of opportunity and potential. I'm looking forward to how it develops in the near and long-term future.

It's a lot bigger company than what I'm used to working in. They have 50 employees and I've been in the habit of working in companies with less than 20 employees. With me, it was always, "The smaller, the better."

After a week at it, I have several observations. One of them is this: With all of the people working there, I find that I and others are hugely burdened with the interruptions of people coming and going and starting extraneous conversations, etc. etc. I find that I have about half as much time to get things done. So far. Also, the burden of communications is increased a great deal which also impairs my ability to get things done.

Here's how it has worked for me in the past. I've always worn several hats due to the small size of the companies I've worked for. I love doing that. I have a lot of power and that translates into an ability to get a lot of things done and get them done quickly. If I put a task on my to do list, it generally only lasts a moment or two because I'm the head of several departments and instead of asking other people questions, I simply answer them myself, tie up the loose ends and move on.

In this larger company, I've discovered that because I have fewer hats to wear, it's more time-consuming to get things answered and resolve the issue at hand. My task list gets a LOT of churning because each task needs to be updated every time something happens to affect that task. Finally, after several trips through the list, a task here and there will pop out which has enough info to finally wrap it up.

Incredible. Different. A learning experience. A challenge in the extreme.

People running around here and there is a problem. Impromptu conversations happen a lot more often and socialization takes up a significant amount of time. Interruptions, both business related and non-business related occur regularly. I'm not 100% sure about others but for myself, if I'm working up to my elbows in a project and I get interrupted, even if it's for a business item, it takes me quite a while to regroup and return to the project when I'm done dealing with the interruption.

So, it got me to thinking: Do business owners and company HR departments attempt to calculate the cost of having MORE employees added to their personnel lists? Is there a cost to having too many employees? Every time you add an employee to your company, are you increasing the amount of time lost to them? What are the costs of more communication interactions between employees?

Are these costs mitigated by narrowly defining the scope of each person's position? If you have a guy whose job is sticking tab A into slot B over and over and over again all day and he only has to interface with one boss, is he going to be the most efficient and effective employee in the company?

Just some basic thoughts. I dont' have a lot of reason to complain about anything just because it's too early in the game to tell. These are just observations generated due to the culture shock I'm experiencing! The reality could just as easily be that I'm having to learn new skills and it's going to just take a little time.

With any luck, I'll come back to this in a year and readdress the questions and the conclusions. I like the long experiments, I just have to remember to follow up!

--Wag--

A retelling of a story

In response to a post on another forum by a respected Christian believer, I wrote the following story. It's a fresher version of my deconversion out of religion about 8 years ago and it has a cleaner feel along with a more broad application.

Just some thoughts.

--Wag--

-----------------------------------------

I find it truly appealing that we as potential opposition can discuss religion without getting flaming mad at each other and remaining friends at the other end of such discussion. At least, I hope that's the case. I have a great deal of respect for you, Ron, and for others here who have been so patient and collected during these discussions of their beliefs.

I recall at about age 7 or 8 I was first taught about the flood and Noah's miraculous escape. That is my first memory of doubting religion. (I was only given a Mormon perspective of it but for that particular story, it was a fair and comparable version to that which is told by Judeo-Christian religions and sects everywhere.) I just couldn't see it. The world is a big place. How did ALL of the pairs of animals get on the ark? Was it really THAT big? Then, I read it a little closer and discovered that only the unclean animals were in pairs. The clean animals were sent seven pairs each! Talk about making the problem worse!

My boat of belief was really foundering. I asked my parents who said, "Have faith and in time, god will reveal the secret of that mystery to you." To me, though, faith meant searching for the answer and showing one's seriousness and devotion by doing so. I continued to ask around. One of my teachers at church suggested that the flood was regional and didn't encompass the entire earth, just the local area. That made a little sense but didn't quite jive with the written word as I understood it. I filed the idea away as a possibility for later reference.

I went back to my parents a couple of times. They didn't know the answers to my questions but wouldn't say so. After only a couple of rounds, they finally got frustrated (read that, "angry") with me and told me to keep my peace. I learned to keep my mouth shut and have a care when asking questions or challenging certain religious teachings of which I had doubt. There were several: The virgin birth (the Mormon answer to THAT is wild!!), the adventures of Moses, the miracles of Jesus and Paul, etc.

As I grew up and left home, I continued to wonder and ask questions here and there but the habit of my childhood was to accept everything on faith and to not challenge the teachings of my childhood. I really wanted to believe. I wanted to believe that god was ever present in my life. Indeed, Mormonism taught that you can actually KNOW by god's influence that he is there in our lives.

That, then, was always the critical test: Pray and know. Throughout my entire life for as long as I could remember, I had been doing exactly that: Praying to know. No answer had been forthcoming by the time I was 34 or so years old. Again, parents and teachers kept telling me that in god's due time, I would get my answers from the spirit of god. All around me though, friends and family were getting THEIR answers, where was mine?

I think any belief I might have had began to die a slow death as people suggested that perhaps I was too sinful and needed to repent. Suggestions began to come forth from people indicating that perhaps I was not reading the scriptures enough or not praying and fasting enough or that I had too many contentious relationships with people which were unresolved or that I wasn't paying my tithing diligently or . . . .

The list was pretty long but it boiled down to the idea that I was not righteous enough to get a testimony of the truth from god. I wanted it, though, and I struggled ever more and more all the time to get that answer.

Finally, at one point, a book I read cut it loose for me: It was NOT me that was the problem. God was there for the sinner, not the righteous and that if anyone deserved his spiritual testament it was me but not because of anything I was doing or not doing. Simply because I was one of his children. That book made it clear that Jesus was not waiting for me to do anything in particular except for one thing: To have faith.

If I had felt I ever had faith before, I was mistaken. At that moment, belief coupled with faith swelled in my heart and soul to the point that I believed with all my soul that I was going to be given my answers by god and Jesus right then and I immediately hit my knees in prayer, fully expecting to get the answer I had sought throughout my life.

Nothing.

I continued to pray. Still nothing. For an entire day, I was on my knees, praying to know, praying for greater faith and belief. It was not about Mormonism any more, it was about Jesus and about god. Still nothing. At the end of that day, I arose with a belief that there was no god. I hadn't expected god to speak to me with thunder and lightning. Indeed, I had no expectations on how he would answer my prayer. But I believed with all my heart that if god answered me, there would be no doubt remaining in my heart and soul about what god and Jesus were all about and what their intentions are for me.

This next part is the most important part of my story:

I stood up from those prayers with greater doubt than I had ever had before. For a brief moment, I was angry. Angry at my life, my parents, my religion, my religious teachers, the rest of my family; pretty much everyone I had trusted throughout my life.

That anger lasted for the blink of an eye. In the next blink of an eye, I became an atheist and all of my anger dissappeared. Why be angry at a god who isn't there? The feeling of peace that washed over me was the spiritual experience I had been seeking all of my life. The description of it matched what I had always had taught would happen to me by true believers, both within my childhood religion of Mormonism and by those who had taught me from a true Christian faith. (Yes, I do know the difference! :D)

THAT was the spiritual experience I had sought for so very long. All of my anger, my guilt and my fears were gone and ever have been since that time about 8 years ago. The feeling is barely describable and at that time was when I realized that I had been chasing someone else's dream.

I went on a crusade. There was a short time there when I went on the attack and was truly militant toward religions of all types but especially Mormonism and Christianity. I said quite a few hurtful things to people though fortunately, it was possible to work to repair that damage. My tirade lasted for about three months or so.

One day I was reading a book by Carl Sagan and getting heated up about a lot of things he was saying. Two thirds of the way through it, I realized all at once that I was becoming again what I thought I had left behind. I realized I was becoming dogmatic and chauvenistic about my atheism more than I had been about religion!!!

I consider myself very fortunate that I was able to stop and realize that the most important thing in life is our loved ones. Our friends and our families are our highest priority and other people come very close to that priority as well, just because they are all human beings. (No, it doesn't mean we become indisciriminately open to people without thought and with only emotiion but that's a subject for another time.)

In other words, what life is all about is the people around us. How we treat people in this life is the most important aspect of what we will ever do. Indeed, that belief is also taught by many religions.

I also realized at that point that open-mindedness is a critical factor. I resolved to stay open-minded about the things people try to teach me. (Again, that does not mean that we have to indiscriminately take in everything and incorporate it. It could drive a man crazy.) It did mean, however, that any well-conceived teaching was well-worth consideration. Not the ramblings of mindless idiots, don't get me wrong. I don't believe that all Christians are fools at all. I do run into Christian fools from time to time but I run into just as many atheist fools, Buddhist fools, Wiccan fools, etc. etc.

By the same token, there are just as many intelligent people within all of these beliefs to whom it is well worth the time it takes to listen.

I spent about two years taking in various teachings from a lot of different people, many who are preachers and teachers within their religions. They are devoted followers or practitioners and deserving of the respect of any of us. They have yet to be convincing to me, however. As we talk, they have yet to move me.

Still, I keep my eyes open. I no longer spend time looking under the rocks and in the holes. I no longer go out into the field seeking answers. But I watch. I listen and I carefully consider the possibility that there COULD be a god and there COULD be a sacrifice that was made for me by Jesus.

There have been many comments made here on this board and elsewhere which serve to keep my mind open on the subject of the existence of god. I still read to see where they go and how they approach. To see if there is the possibility that I'm wrong and they are right. Thus far, as I said, I'm still unconvinced but rest assured, I'm not switched off to the possibilities! There is still a chance, at least in my mind, that perhaps some day someone will say something that changes my mind.

Until that day comes, however, I remain an atheist. However, I am still devoted to the idea that people are the most important aspect of our lives and that all peope deserve a fair shot. Of course, I go off from time to time but not as much as I used to and I surely work to keep that from happening as much as I possibly can.

Beyond this point, my story will become a ramble so I sign off from writing this now. There is more, of course, and there are always more questions from religious adherents and I'm always open to answering those beliefs in the full expectation that open-mindedness is something that is needful for all of us.

My best,

--Wag--

This morning, I got an e-mail from a Christian friend of mine who was contemplating the idea that if god has such a beautiful plan of salvation via Christ's sacrifice, why did He make it so much of a hassle to show that it is fact? There are questions about how and why and wherefore, etc. etc. Challenges do not fall easily by the wayside.

His e-mail was his experience in overcoming doubts raised in his mind.

At least, that's what I think he was trying to say in his article. Without posting his exact commentary, that should give you adequate context for my reply, copied below.

--Wag--

------------------------------

I'm not 100% sure I get what you're trying to say, but I appreciate the effort. It seems almost that you're worried about the mechanism of establishing truth. Almost as if to say, "IF god could have done this at all, why leave any doubt about it?"

There are two kinds of people in the world (don't you just hate that statement?!!): One type questions everything, another type questions nothing. For some, it's good enough that the Bible says it. For others, no statement of any kind is good enough, it has to be seen with their own eyes. The two extremes are both faulty.

There are, of course, every degree of people in between. These are the ones with whom we take an interest.

These people are the reason we have science. People want to learn how things work. Sometimes, so much so, that they will buck the current trends in order to establish the facts and truths they discover. Galileo was an example of this. Prior to him, the general belief about the earth was that all planets and the sun and moon all orbited the earth. Galileo proved conclusively that in order for that to be true, the planets would have to have a kind of spiral orbit and even that concept was not fully workable. Finally, he broke the mold and discovered that the planets orbited the sun and the moon did, in fact, orbit the earth.

Pretty major accomplishment in his day but even more so because as a result, he was roundly persecuted by the church until later, others proved that he was correct. The church had to back off eventually but not before they went to great lengths to castigate Galileo, et al. I rather suspect that Galileo and his associates would have had to suggest that they were seeking to know the wonders of God's creation in order to avoid a righteous lynch mob but I digress a small degree!

So what is truth, really? How does "truth" compare to "fact?" Remember, Indiana Jones in, "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" He tells his archaeology class, "In archaeology, we deal with fact, not truth. If you want to talk about truth, the philosophy class is down the hall."

It's a salient point. Fact can be demonstrated with repeatable tests. For example, 2+2=4. A fact. We can test it over and over and over again and get the same answer. Every person on the planet can reproduce the result the exact same way every time. That's science. It doesn't always work, though. Science has it's failings, to be sure but it grows over time. More and more facts are discovered all the time because of the innate curiosities of scientists and their overwhelming drive to see things as they really are. Vision is increased over time and they can see more and more and more. That they often raise more questions in their answers is merely an assurance that science will continue to invfluence our lives

Truth, on the other hand, is centered very squarely on the foundation of Perception. How I see something may differ from how you see something. Given the same set of facts, we may both draw conclusions and opinions which differ mightily from each other. As we explain and write and speak of our thoughts on the subject, we may actually cause greater variation of thought as time progresses rather than actually coming to closer agreement on the topics. Othes who listen to us may choose sides or further muddy the waters with their own opinions. Two types of people, remember?!

Fact, you can't debate. Yes, there are fossils in the earth. Yes, they are hundreds of thousands or millions or even several billion years old. We can't debate that these are facts, nor can we dismiss them out of hand and ignore them. They are there in our faces. What we can still debate in the absence of additional facts, however, is how the fossils got there. That's where truth comes in. It may occur to me to believe that it's all evidence of evolution, in spite of missing facts. You, on the other hand, may see it as evidence of the might of god, also in spite of missing facts. We either argue about the truth or go our separate ways, content that we have the truth of the matter firmly in hand.

We both do exactly that, each convinced of the efficacy of our respective truths. However, the next blast of fact may dislodge our grip on truth fairly readily if we are open-minded. On the other hand, either of us my cling to that truth forever and shelter it, guarding it from all assault and variation if we, in fact, decide that no other outer influence may sway us from the truth. Dogma, blind chauvenism and unchallenged loyalty may prevent us from revising our truths when it is appropriate.

It goes both ways, though. At times, we may actually devoid ourselves of truth AND fact by failing to test the things in which we believe. That little collection of truths we hold in our hands. Granted, you can't always run around testing everything which comes our way against our individual handfuls of truths. We don't have time. However, we do have the catalog of truths in our minds and various instances of fact may raise questions about those truths if we allow them to do so. Nothing wrong with it either way. As we expose our truths to scrutiny, we find that healthy truths will flourish and grow and unhealthy truths can be easily discarded without further question.

A difficulty arises when someone approaches us with an assertion of truth. Is he using fact or truth to support his position? Often, truth is camoflaged as fact. It takes a degree of discernment to tell the difference. Avowals of, "He said, She said," or, "I saw it in an article," are sometimes used to support various assertions. Still, we can and should take the time to review and suggest that it be studied and discussed further in order to discover whether or not the statement is factual or not and whether or not the truth, OUR truth, needs to be redefined or refreshed.

Fact is discovered. Truth is created and destroyed.

Which brings us back to the beginnning of the thought. The Bible says it, is it true? Who cares? Is it factual, is the question. The original documents are available. Do the say what interpretation says they say? Yes, they do. Were they inspired by god or insanity? Were the stories faith-promoting folktales and legends or were they historically factual? Depending on the document, it could be a little of both. COULD be. Some of them, we don't know for sure. Some of them we do. Does a statement of fact make another unproven statement a fact also because the two are contained within the same cover? No. Each must stand on its own. Did Babylon conquer Israel about 600BC? Yup. Did they steal the ark of the covenant from the temple? We don't know.

Did Jesus get crucified? The bible says so. Is it fact? Does the secular record say? Josephus seems to think so, if I recall correctly. Was anyone resurrected from the dead? Facts outside the Bible do not support that assertion. We don't know if it's fact or not. Using the Bible as evidence, however, we can suggest it as truth to some and they will accept it as truth in their own hearts. Lacking supporting fact, they can use another agent of truth called "faith."

Faith can be a tricky thing. Grounded faith would propel us to act with the belief that something good will come of that act. Believing I can make a million bucks, I may act in faith by investing in the stock market and will do so with research and intelligence to maximize my chances of success.

There are those, however, who will cry, "Faith!" in prayer for the succor of the destitute and yet, they will not bring a sack of groceries to solve the immediate problem. By the same token, these same will sit in church regularly and frequently, all the while using faith to cover and protect their truths from the assault of fact. True faith would take truth and hold it to the candle of fact in order to assure oneself that the truth is well-grounded and can bear scrutiny.

I think lack of scrutiny is a failing among many, scientists and religionists both. Scientists, however, do have the means to test each other in many cases. Religionists . . . . What do they use to test each other? Assertions of fact? Very often not. Very often, only the Bible is used and the isolationist nature of the tome renders it too subjective for adequate testing. Opinion abounds as to beliefs, truths, religions and faiths. The claim that any one religion or sect could be a sole repository of truth becomes highly questionable at best and laughable at worst.

Who's going to win? The man who will ask questions. The man who will seek for answers at every possible turn. The man who is willing to understand that not everything WILL have an answer and that some truths must stand without scrutiny, simply because the truths cannot be tested against fact. It is the man who is willing to reassess his truths as often as possible and add new ones while disposing of those which are moldy and full of decay.

Truth is a good thing because it gives us a beautiful world in which to live outside the cold sterility of fact. Fact, however, is a good thing because it gives us the ability to check that the colors of our truths will still appease the eye.

If you believe in god and you search for answers from his good graces, you may find that there are missing facts. Until such time as god chooses to provide, it's possible to use faith to shore up truths in spite of absent facts. It may, however, cause you to doubt the efficacy of a god and that's okay. So long as the faiths used to support truths are not so exclusionary that we cannot see the light of additional information which may give us reason to conclude that perhaps we at least need to reassess the efficacy of our personal handful of truths.

At least, I think so.

:-)

--Wag--

Prejudicial voting

The e-mail below came to me the other day. I gave the reply following.

--Wag--

Original e-mail:

Christians Voting for Cultists?

By Richard Engle, President NFRA

Can a Christian vote for someone who is a member of a cult? As the elections of 2006 are upon us many Christians face a dilemma. Do they vote for a member of a church that they consider a cult or do they vote for someone who is a member of a denomination that is widely accepted?


In Oklahoma the incumbent Governor, Brad Henry, is officially Baptist but is pro-abortion, pro-gambling, and pro-corrupt contracts with tribal bosses. The Republican challenger, Congressman Ernest Istook, is pro-life, against expansion of gambling, and opposes the corrupt contracts. He is also a Mormon.

Go to any Christian bookstore and look for books about cults and you will find that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are the most commonly referenced cults with others adding Seventh Day Adventists, and the Worldwide Church of God or the United Pentecostals.

The first thing that must be done is to define a cult. Many dictionaries define cult as nothing more than a sect. By such definition each and every denomination would be counted as a cult. As such the negative connotation would be greatly diminished. What is ordinarily intended is a religious group that significantly deviates from the authentic/original. By such definition the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox might consider all Protestants to be cultists.

The contemporary American understanding of what is and isn't a cult stems from the Fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalism, far from being a 'lock step' religious orthodoxy, was actually a movement towards ecumenicism. The premise being that any 'true' Christian may well fellowship with any other despite the denomination if they held to the 'fundamentals of the faith'. Any group that denied these fundamentals was something less than, or other than Christian.

Fundamentalists hold to 'five fundamentals of the faith' but oddly they identify six. They are the Bible as inspired and inerrant, the deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, Christ's substitutionary death, Christ's resurrection, and the Second Coming. In some references the deity of Christ and the Virgin Birth are combined as one and in others the substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ are combined. Any church that upholds these without compromise could well consider itself a fundamentalist church.

The liberal media has portrayed fundamentalism as a theology that allows for no variation whatsoever and one that condemns all who hold to any such variation to hell. Reality is that fundamentalists disagree among themselves on any number of theological issues other than the five (six) and even on issues that approach them such as details regarding the Second Coming.

What Constitutes a Cult?

Well, a cult of Christianity must under any definition be a variation from Christianity. Buddhism, for example, is a completely separate religion. Buddhists hold to a very distinct understanding of religious ideals including morality. A Christian voter may well wish to have persons in public office who agree with their beliefs and values. Preferring Christians in elective positions is completely understandable. What happens if one candidate claims Christianity but has public policy positions that are anathema to Christians? America faced this question when Jimmy Carter faced reelection. Carter broadly proclaimed his 'born again' beliefs but supported abortion on demand. Governor Brad Henry can be compared to Carter's
inconsistencies on several fronts.

Should we vote for a Mormon?

All of us attend or are members of churches that we each believe to be the best available. If the church across the street were better we would be there! Yet when we vote we are faced with choosing among candidates that seldom hold to our own exact theological positions. Perhaps we could set aside the question of a candidate's eternal status and seek to understand his political positions and his moral standards. Without a biblically based moral ethic it is difficult to trust that the candidate will govern in accordance with his promises.

For the purposes of public policy and how religion impacts such, I would suggest that any who accept the moral standards of the Bible (Old Testament, New Testament, or both) have a common cause. Observant Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Mormons, and all others who so revere the scriptures are in the same boat and need to work together on matters of public policy. We may disagree on matters eternal but can and should agree on things temporal.

Anyone who holds to a Biblical ethical standard is helpful in our conservative cause. I can, will, and have voted for persons who are Mormons. I will be voting for one for Governor of Oklahoma. I know the man well and trust he would be one of the best Governors in our history. I would not knowingly vote for an atheist and don't know of a Hindu or Buddhist that I could support. Why? Because I don't trust that they hold to the same basic moral standards. If I can't trust that they understand good and evil as I do then I cannot trust them with the public purse.

Let us draw a line of distinction that works in public policy. Realize that a Biblical ethic is what we need and we (or more likely, God) can sort out the rest later.

My response:

Very interesting, G.

Among other things, a cult is a group which struggles to eliminates a person's ability or willingness to think for himself. That includes Amway, The Boy Scouts, American patriotism (I am willingly guilty here) and various churches, companies and other types of organizations. My opinion, of course, but its toehold is planted firmly in the writings of Steven Hassan. VERY good reading, especially his second book, "Releasing the Bonds." But I digress.

That a person could be prejudicial in voting is just as good a study as any other activity wherein prejudice is practiced. The fact is, only ONE criteria need be present to cast a valid vote: Can the person do the job with integrity and compentence?

Having said that, it is a fact that Mormons typically have a religious agenda that supercedes everything else in their lives, including their own families. I will suggest that it would not be easy to find an avowed Mormon who is not guided by their dogmas so it would be difficult to research and figure this one out case by case. The easy thing would be to vote against a Mormon, even though there is always the possibility that you would be voting for a lesser qualified candidate or even a reprobate. How would you feel to know that a Mormon political official claims that his god is guiding his hand?

I'm not defending Mormons here. In fact, plug any religious cult name in its place and the discussion is identical in every way. It is merely a defense of the fact that voting is a serious issue which should not be relegated to the realm of thoughtless dogma and prejudice.

Atheists might prove to be a special case but again, it's no slam dunk to make the decision not to vote for an atheist. Can the guy handle the business of his office or not? Will he do so with integrity? I know plenty of atheists I would trust far more than some errant Christians we have seen over the years but as we all know, there are exceptions present in every group of people, either way, good or bad. Again, I'm not defending atheists, per se, although the repetition here might make it seem so. The stark comparison appeared to give the discussion greater clarity.

It boils down to several very important conceptual questions, one of which is, "How lazy are you willing to be in your voting?"

Food for thought?

I received this from a friend today. It IS thought-provoking. The question is, "How do we preserve a nation AND preserve individuality and personal freedom?" I'm sure you've all read Huxley's book, "Brave New World," but have you read his recap on it: "Brave New World: Revisited?" The first was entertainment. The second is chilling. In and of itself, it's frightening. In view of our current social climate, it's terrifying.

We will ultimately have a choice to make:

1. Country
2. Self

Which do YOU love more?

I post the following to stimulate thought. I don't necessarily endorse or contend with the article.

My only other comment about it is that we live in a time when people desire divisiveness more than they desire unity. Keep that thought in mind as you read this.

--Wag--

---------------------

Food for THOUGHT?

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal - was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.

Here is how they do it," Lamm said. "First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures.

It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy." Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences, I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other -- that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" - (From many, one.) In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century -- that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion in and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally, he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World. America - take note of California and other states -- to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble! and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

---------------------

Some last comments: The greatest strength of any economy is it's people. The article above suggests that diversity and divisionism are evils to be avoided. That is partly true. However, it would be equally problematic to be isolationist and avoid diversity altogether. A balance of the two must be maintained.

Is our problem diversity and tolerance as the article above suggests or is it hatred of others? If your black/white/hispanic/Chinese/Muslim/Indian neighbor is attacked will you rise up to that person's defense? Will you let that neighbor fall prey instead of lending your strength to him? Would he do it for you? What if his attacker were of your race not his? His race, not yours?

What is your choice?

--Wag--

A couple of cool sites

As president of The Exmormon Foundation (http://www.exmormonfoundation.org) I get the privilege of having ideas passed along to me which are intriguing, to say the least.

Recently, I received an e-mail from a moderator at the Exmormon Forums. It's run by a host named Infymus who I don't know yet. I say, "yet," because I hope to get to know him at some point in the near future. As a matter of fact, there's a good possibility I already know who he is! Small electronic world out there.

But while Exmormon Forums is intriguing and worthwhile, his other site, The Mormon Curtain, is even more fascinating. I'd love to have my blogs be even a percent as comprehensive as his is.

Maybe Infymus is a her?

--Wag--

A Check

Wrote myself a check for a million bucks today.

--Wag--

The rights of religion

Many of you have seen this before. It was spread all over the internet just after the human tragedy at Columbine. It was posted yesterday on a board I frequent and it inspired some new thought, included after the text.

-----------------Begin-----------------

DARRELL SCOTT TESTIMONY

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this, hmm? On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy-it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. "I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!


"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc. Spiritual presence were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws.

"Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes-He did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!

I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA - I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first
stone!

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"

-----------------End-----------------

My comments:

I do not believe in prayer, of course. Anyone who reads below should be able to figure that out quite easily. However, I adamantly believe in people's right to take comfort in their own sanctuary, physical or mental. If that includes prayer to their respective deity, who am I to wish to deny it to them? Legislating morality is insane. Robbing people of their ability to pray in any place for any reason is insane. I may be an atheist but I don't understand atheists' mentality for denying people their religious freedom. Indeed, many atheists have become that which they vehemently criticize. It's divisive and destructive to the fibrous bonds which have held this country together for 220+ years. It's not at all about who, how, where or what you worship. It's about your freedom to do so. THAT is what brought our country together and has held it together for so long.

I find it nearly calamitous that there are those who believe we should create any law restricting religious practices in publicly-owned places. Religion does a LOT of good in this world, probably moreso than any other type of organization that exists. More than government, that's for sure. Church welfare programs kick the hell out of gov't instituted welfare systems and guess what? Nearly ZERO fraud or graft!

At the very least, religion has done so much good for this country they deserve the right to pray when and wherever they wish.

--Wag--

P.S. Don't think I sympathize with religious teachings. I do not. But I do subscribe to the idea that tolerance is a virtue and kindness to others a necessity.

Punished by the Laws of Insanity!

Can you be punished for spelling it right?

What if you send an e-mail to someone very important? A top customer, a prospective employer, a potential business partner or venture capitalist. You take the time to look up various words in the dictionary to be sure they are spelled correctly.

However, the recipient, being a little less well-educated or less diligent than you, reads your e-mail and wrongly decides that you've spelled those words wrong. He deletes your e-mail, vowing never to associate with you again because you, "can't spell!" He moves on, ignorant of his error (and your diligence and care while writing) and you waste a few more contact attempts on the guy, never knowing why he is no longer interested in speaking with you.

Tough situation.

Remember David Howard? He was that guy in Washington, D.C. a few years ago who used the word, "niggardly" and was forced to resign because of it. Someone or several someones got bent out of shape because they thought he was uttering a racial epithet. Much ado was made and some called for his resignation which he eventually gave. Columnist Tony Snow said Howard had been forced to apologize for the ignorance of others.

Painfully true.

Of course, these particular uneducated idiots, by getting all up in arms about it, revealed their own ignorance and broadcast it all over creation. There have been all kinds of remarks made about how Howard, "should have known," that the word could be misconstrued by people who heard it and Howard himself actually apologized for it. Indeed, it's said in such a way as to assume that Howard is the one who was the imbecile for using the term. Kind of like attacking the rape victim for the assault.

Howard lost his job to fools. Maybe he shouldn't have given in but I suppose he didn't want to perpetuate his association with people too stupid to understand a simple word. On the other hand, something else was lost in the process: Ignorance, ineptitude and stupidity were validated as being okay. Ignorance was glorified and intelligence was vilified.

It's the same as the schoolyard bully who harasses the nerd on the playground in third through tenth grades because he got an 'A' in English class. Why is it that excellence is so often downplayed while stupidity is heralded? Ever hear of Outcome Based Education? It ranks (deliberate use of the term) right up there with another rank program called Affirmative Action.

I don't think the internet is to blame for the Howard fiasco, however, it has had a hand in perpetuating ignorance alongside education. Especially when it comes to things like spelling and other word craft. I'm sure many of you have encountered enough spelling and grammar errors in your daily web perusals to make you go half insane. I've even been in the middle of writing some diatribe or other and found myself typing "site" instead of "sight" and vice-versa. Someone I respect and admire once pointed out that I had used "their" when I should have used "they're." Maddening, of course.

For me, the problem is one of having seen the words misspelled so often that I've become acclimated to seeing them written incorrectly. When I see someone else's spelling and grammar errors, I know what the guy meant and castigating him for his goof just isn't a big deal in many cases. Too time consuming at the very least. Either that, or the error is on Yahoo or some other big name news service and who do you contact over there?

What if you send an e-mail to a major supplier overseas and their primary language is not English? I could, at this juncture, make a switch to suggesting that knowing your audience would be wise. If you use big words, long sentences and English slang and jargon, you're just begging for trouble. If your contact doesn't understand English very well and you know it, tone it down for them so you don't force them to go looking everything up in their English/native language dictionary, cursing you all the while!

Granted, we all drop the occasional typo here and there. There are plenty in my blog which I haven't caught. Hopefully, I'll get to them some day. In spite of the potential hypocrisy inherent in writing this little blurb, the fact remains: The language is getting slaughtered out there. And it's killing us.

--Wag--