Tip of the Day:
Don't walk between parked cars.
If I can just interject for a moment; isn't it plain to see that if you don't walk between parked cars, you'll never get home? Heck, many people have to walk between parked cars just to get from their driveway to their house. What are they supposed to do? And how does one get into a car if his car is parked on the far side of the garage?
Sooner or later, if you want to get anywhere, you have to take the risk, and walk between parked cars.
Unless you take the bus...but don't take the bus heading nowhere.
10/30/2006
10/29/2006
THE PARTY LINE?
What is the largest complaint I hear people tell me about the politicians we elect?
With the elections looming on the horizon, and with so many people (possibly everybody) dissatisfied with their government officials, I thought now might be the time to share my opinion about this year's elections.
With the elections looming on the horizon, and with so many people (possibly everybody) dissatisfied with their government officials, I thought now might be the time to share my opinion about this year's elections.
From my history, I have never been a republican or a democrat, although I have voted for members of both parties at times. I struggle to find the perspective of others who tell me they ALWAYS vote democrat or they ALWAYS vote republican. I just can't relate to such blind (or maybe wise?) loyalty.
Considering that I haven't met a person who is completely satisfied with the US government, nor have I met a person who is even content with our government's performance, it strikes me as odd that so many vote the "party line". This becomes especially odd when you consider that there are usually almost equal numbers of both parties in each branch of government at any time, meaning that you can't really blame one party or the other for the current woes.
What it does mean is that you can blame both parties, and if we are going to be fair and balanced, then we must. I never understand why an adult in any area of our nation will blame one party or the other, while turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the party he usually supports. Look at the facts; members of both parties SHARE the duties of congress and senate, which act as checks and balances against the executive and judicial branches of our government.
This year, I'd like to encourage you to do something different; even if for the last fifty years, you have voted republican, or for the last sixty years, you have voted democrat.
This year, I'd like to encourage you to consider the two parties as nonexistent, and simply vote for the person (not the party) who you think best defines what this country is all about. That means you might have to do some research, but if we are ever going to get off this dead stalemate of corrupt, rotten, dead-in-their-skins patrician politicians, we are going to have to kill their parties first. We are going to have to take the power of their party away, and make them vote according to issue, and not according to party.
It starts with us. We cannot expect our politicians to vote anything but the party line if we don't do it first.
Have you guessed yet what the largest complaint I hear is? I'll give it to you straight. "I wish our politicians would vote their conscience, and not their party".
You can make them do it.
But you are going to have to kill their party first, and you can only do that by voting YOUR conscience.
Things are never hopeless in this redeemed world of Christ. We in America are more free than we dare grab hold of. The vote is not worthless, unless you choose to vote "no contest" and hand the power to the patrician politicians by voting the usual party line.
I think it's high time we make voting a contest again, and make the politicians do what they say they will do. And if you should happen to run into a couple of politicians whose only advertisement for themselves is to cut their opponent down, treat them as though they don't exist on the ballot. For myself, I stand by what my mother told me a long time ago; If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
Wouldn't it be nice if our politicians campaigned that way, too?
Remember, all of this is just surface stuff. The deeper issues belong to God, and He'll never abandon you, or throw mud at an opponent. You belong to a family of love, not a family of strife. Whenever I think of that, I always find renewed strength in the hope for mankind.
You all belong to a family of love.
Considering that I haven't met a person who is completely satisfied with the US government, nor have I met a person who is even content with our government's performance, it strikes me as odd that so many vote the "party line". This becomes especially odd when you consider that there are usually almost equal numbers of both parties in each branch of government at any time, meaning that you can't really blame one party or the other for the current woes.
What it does mean is that you can blame both parties, and if we are going to be fair and balanced, then we must. I never understand why an adult in any area of our nation will blame one party or the other, while turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the party he usually supports. Look at the facts; members of both parties SHARE the duties of congress and senate, which act as checks and balances against the executive and judicial branches of our government.
This year, I'd like to encourage you to do something different; even if for the last fifty years, you have voted republican, or for the last sixty years, you have voted democrat.
This year, I'd like to encourage you to consider the two parties as nonexistent, and simply vote for the person (not the party) who you think best defines what this country is all about. That means you might have to do some research, but if we are ever going to get off this dead stalemate of corrupt, rotten, dead-in-their-skins patrician politicians, we are going to have to kill their parties first. We are going to have to take the power of their party away, and make them vote according to issue, and not according to party.
It starts with us. We cannot expect our politicians to vote anything but the party line if we don't do it first.
Have you guessed yet what the largest complaint I hear is? I'll give it to you straight. "I wish our politicians would vote their conscience, and not their party".
You can make them do it.
But you are going to have to kill their party first, and you can only do that by voting YOUR conscience.
Things are never hopeless in this redeemed world of Christ. We in America are more free than we dare grab hold of. The vote is not worthless, unless you choose to vote "no contest" and hand the power to the patrician politicians by voting the usual party line.
I think it's high time we make voting a contest again, and make the politicians do what they say they will do. And if you should happen to run into a couple of politicians whose only advertisement for themselves is to cut their opponent down, treat them as though they don't exist on the ballot. For myself, I stand by what my mother told me a long time ago; If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
Wouldn't it be nice if our politicians campaigned that way, too?
Remember, all of this is just surface stuff. The deeper issues belong to God, and He'll never abandon you, or throw mud at an opponent. You belong to a family of love, not a family of strife. Whenever I think of that, I always find renewed strength in the hope for mankind.
You all belong to a family of love.
10/19/2006
YOU'VE GOT A FRIEND
All people are the same.
All people are different.
How can this be?
In my experiences throughout this thirty-nine year old life, I have learned many things about people, and I know I have much, much more to learn still. Here is what I know:
1. All people who are in their right mind (please don't ask me to explain what "in their right mind is"; I just hope there is a commonality we can begin from) tend to shy away from pain.
2. All people feel anguish or hurt in the same situations. Some will openly admit their pain, while others (especially men) will put up a brave front. But the common ground is that what hurts you will also hurt me. I know this simplifies things, but for the sake of discussion, let's leave it simple.
3. All people carry on internal "conversations". In other words, no, you aren't the only one who is crazy enough to talk to yourself inside of your own mind.
4. All people struggle with seeing their "neighbor" as a real person. This is not to say we ignore their humanity. We simply fail to cross the divide between the two of us, because we live out only one perspective; our own.
5. All people crave true love (not romantic love). True love is the type that not only loves its neighbor, but likes them as well; is willing to accept any fault and forgive any wrong, rejoices with triumphs and collaborates with calamity, and hopes to receive the same from someone...anyone.
6. All people feel lonely at times; some feel lonely all of the time.
7. Despite what Freud says, sex is not the driving factor in a person's life. Sex is merely eye candy, surface waves; no deeper than a tumbleweed crossing your path in a high wind. All people crave to be accepted. That is the single most important driving influence in any person's life. We like to be liked. We crave it. We want everyone to see how wonderful we are, even if we can't admit those words out loud.
There is much more, but this list of things I have learned has come at great cost, and through many mistakes in my life. Now, if you look at this list again, can you see why Jesus Christ is so attractive to so many people who hear of his story? Even those who are stuck in Christian legalism believe Jesus has a special soft spot for them inside of his heart. Despite century upon century of manipulation and sheer audacity, the one thing the church has failed to kill is overwhelming ability of Jesus to say in any way, "I truly love you".
I have met many fine people in my life; some of whom were so afraid to do anything wrong that they were living in a kind of daily self-fulfilling prison. Others were so free that you wondered what their secret was. But each person I met who knew Jesus, even the devoutest Lutherans and Catholics, knew they had a friend in Jesus, despite anything and everything they had ever done.
Some have closed their eyes to Jesus, but in the end, they will know he is their friend as well, because the message of His life was not to condemn, but to befriend. "No greater love has man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends". I can't recall the verse number or chapter, and I don't care. Jesus doesn't care either. He just knows that I know I have a friend in Him.
Even the most guilt ridden people I have met held in their hearts this secret place that they share with few others; the place where Jesus lives, and says to them, "Everything is going to be alright. You'll see". It is the place where hope lives, and whether you know Jesus or you don't, he is alive in you, and breathing words of comfort and hope, and of a future that has to be...just HAS to be, better than this.
Sometimes things are so good that you can't imagine things could be better than this. But being alive and free, and under the full knowledge that whereas once you didn't know you had a friend in Jesus, now He has revealed himself to you fully; well friends, life don't get better than that, no matter what happens from here on out.
All people are different.
How can this be?
In my experiences throughout this thirty-nine year old life, I have learned many things about people, and I know I have much, much more to learn still. Here is what I know:
1. All people who are in their right mind (please don't ask me to explain what "in their right mind is"; I just hope there is a commonality we can begin from) tend to shy away from pain.
2. All people feel anguish or hurt in the same situations. Some will openly admit their pain, while others (especially men) will put up a brave front. But the common ground is that what hurts you will also hurt me. I know this simplifies things, but for the sake of discussion, let's leave it simple.
3. All people carry on internal "conversations". In other words, no, you aren't the only one who is crazy enough to talk to yourself inside of your own mind.
4. All people struggle with seeing their "neighbor" as a real person. This is not to say we ignore their humanity. We simply fail to cross the divide between the two of us, because we live out only one perspective; our own.
5. All people crave true love (not romantic love). True love is the type that not only loves its neighbor, but likes them as well; is willing to accept any fault and forgive any wrong, rejoices with triumphs and collaborates with calamity, and hopes to receive the same from someone...anyone.
6. All people feel lonely at times; some feel lonely all of the time.
7. Despite what Freud says, sex is not the driving factor in a person's life. Sex is merely eye candy, surface waves; no deeper than a tumbleweed crossing your path in a high wind. All people crave to be accepted. That is the single most important driving influence in any person's life. We like to be liked. We crave it. We want everyone to see how wonderful we are, even if we can't admit those words out loud.
There is much more, but this list of things I have learned has come at great cost, and through many mistakes in my life. Now, if you look at this list again, can you see why Jesus Christ is so attractive to so many people who hear of his story? Even those who are stuck in Christian legalism believe Jesus has a special soft spot for them inside of his heart. Despite century upon century of manipulation and sheer audacity, the one thing the church has failed to kill is overwhelming ability of Jesus to say in any way, "I truly love you".
I have met many fine people in my life; some of whom were so afraid to do anything wrong that they were living in a kind of daily self-fulfilling prison. Others were so free that you wondered what their secret was. But each person I met who knew Jesus, even the devoutest Lutherans and Catholics, knew they had a friend in Jesus, despite anything and everything they had ever done.
Some have closed their eyes to Jesus, but in the end, they will know he is their friend as well, because the message of His life was not to condemn, but to befriend. "No greater love has man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends". I can't recall the verse number or chapter, and I don't care. Jesus doesn't care either. He just knows that I know I have a friend in Him.
Even the most guilt ridden people I have met held in their hearts this secret place that they share with few others; the place where Jesus lives, and says to them, "Everything is going to be alright. You'll see". It is the place where hope lives, and whether you know Jesus or you don't, he is alive in you, and breathing words of comfort and hope, and of a future that has to be...just HAS to be, better than this.
Sometimes things are so good that you can't imagine things could be better than this. But being alive and free, and under the full knowledge that whereas once you didn't know you had a friend in Jesus, now He has revealed himself to you fully; well friends, life don't get better than that, no matter what happens from here on out.
10/17/2006
I AM HERE
Yes, I'm still alive, and I have no intention of closing down this blog. I have just been sick for two and a half weeks (still am). I get up at five a.m. and go to work for ten hours. I come home, make supper, spend some time with my daughter, and go to bed, starting the same cycle over the next day. This is how it will be until I feel healthy again. I really don't have much desire to do anything else right now.
I am sure I will feel better soon. In the meantime, enjoy the World Series, and watching your favorite politician lie on TV, while your favorite talking head pontificates, and says, "Yes, but WHAT'S it ALL about Basil?"
I am sure I will feel better soon. In the meantime, enjoy the World Series, and watching your favorite politician lie on TV, while your favorite talking head pontificates, and says, "Yes, but WHAT'S it ALL about Basil?"
9/30/2006
GLOBAL COMMUNITY
Global community. You hear those two words lumped together every so often. Global. Community.
What does a global community bring to mind? I can tell you what it brings to my mind, and I can tell you what I have heard about it, but what I have heard about it, and what I see in reality are two different things. What I see is massive wishful thinking, followed up by the almost complete hypocrisy of nearly everyone who utters the words "global community" together.
Take the situation in Iraq, for instance. We have started a war there; no one denies that at this point. I myself have been involved in some discussions about the topic. But for me, it's so much more than just a topic.
In my last post, I denounced politicians as being users of buzzwords for political gain. The people I have spoken with regarding the war in Iraq bring up the topic of the war for the same reasons I do; because they actually care about something that is going on, and they want to change it.
We may not all agree on what the best way to change it is, but so long as we agree that something needs to be done, then we have a start that our politicians simply cannot grasp. You see, they talk about change for political gain and use the buzzwords as political capital. It's obvious. since the two largest political parties in our nation are complete polar opposites of each other, and not because of ideology, but because of politics.
There are many I have discussed topics with in bloggyland who are almost complete polar opposites of me; yet when we discuss things we know we hold differences in, we do not discuss them to score points or for political capital. We discuss them because we truly care, and I think we discuss them because we want to learn more, and share what we know.
But this topic of global community has me flustered. I hear of it most often by the two groups of people I feel the most disdain for; politicians and news people. I hear from others, as well, but I wonder if their ideas about a global community must be different from mine, because the words they use to explain the best plans of action for the world do not describe a global community to me at all. In almost one sentence, I hear a phrase such as, "We are all one big global community...like a big family", mixed with a phrase such as, "We need to get out of Iraq and let them kill each other if they want to." A slight but equally as disturbing variation on that is "Americans are dying in Iraq, it's time to bring the soldiers...all of them...home."
I'm all for bringing the soldiers home, if Iraq is settled down. I am not for leaving that nation hanging like we did in the early nineties. I'm not for leaving them to blow in the wind the way we left the Afghanistan rebels against the Taliban blowing in the wind right up until September eleven, 2001. I am against leaving anyone in the global community under the thumb of the same despots we have left them with since World War Two, because we were tired of our soldiers dying, and we were tired of fighting the good fight; tired of fighting evil.
Here is my view on what a global community is. All the people in this world are my brothers and sisters; every last one of them. The name of the nation they live in is immaterial in the face of even one of those brothers or sisters suffering at the hands of evil. In a global community, the needs of the people outweigh the needs or wants of sovereign nations. In fact, no nation, regardless of its age or rank in the world scheme has the right to hold the people within its borders to any system of organized oppression in this global community.
If we are truly a global community, the global community steps up to make sure it never happens. And we do not leave a nation of people to suffer; never; we end the bickering, we find a way to finish the job, and then we carry it out. We assess blame later, if at all.
In the business world, especially in the construction industry, you have the majority charging in to assess blame before the problems are solved. Whenever this happens (and it happens a lot), two other things occur; the first is that the mission (or project) is compromised, delayed, and sometimes even abandoned. The second is that it costs more money to assess blame first and then try to pick up the pieces and fix the problem. My goodness, by the time we are done playing the blame game, we have lost sight of the original problem. That's not good for business, and it's certainly not good in a global community.
My vision of a global community is of people actually caring about others well-being, be that in a local neighborhood, or across the globe. It's a vision of people seeing equality in all others. I trust you can see that this is not so in reality. Despite the good will towards the victims of the Tsunami almost two years ago now, I actually witnessed discussions on the internet about how the Western people and their way of life is far superior to Eastern ways. Global community? I think not.
You see, so much of our opinions about what is right and what is not, about whether a slower way of life is worse than the breakneck pace of the West is really only about taste.
Your taste differs from mine. I actually prefer a slower life, less gaudy architecture, real wood as opposed to plastic and glass, and stained woodwork rather than black laquer. It's a matter of taste.
But in the things that matter most, such as an individual's right to self-determination (within the scale of the global community and all of its circumstances), no sovereign nation has the right to subject a law abiding citizen to oppression.
If we are truly a global community, then the old boundaries of nations needs to disappear. Our brothers are across the ocean, and that is a long way away. But in a global community, they are our brothers.
The situation in Iraq has been mishandled. We are still trying to win the hearts and minds of the people there with guns. It's not going to happen. Guns alone will not finish this job. So what will?
I am again reminded of the good will shown to the victims of the horrendous Tsunami two years ago. I think that kind of individual good will, from individual American citizens, individual global citizens, will win the hearts and minds of Iraqi citizens. We will kill the terrorists with kindness to the very people they hope to oppress. What, then, will be their war cry? "Death to global citizens who try to bring good will to Muslims!"? Yeah, somehow, I think the terrorist movement will lose a little bit of steam if it comes to that.
There is just something about kindness that cannot be oppressed. There is something to kindness that evil has never understood; that you can't fight kindness with evil, and win. Kindness will kill terrorism. Guns can only go so far. The rest of this battle, if we are truly the global community that I hear so many lightly speak of, is going to be up to individual global citizens who want to show the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that there is a whole world out here who is willing to help them help themselves. And once the citizens of those two nations realize that, the terrorists will lose their recruiting base.
Global community. It can be a reality, but it won't be if we expect our government to lead us there. We have to lead our governement instead. If it is a global community we talk about, and a global community we want, then Iraq and Afghanistan is as much our responsibility as it is our government's. The global community does not belong to sovereign governments. It belongs to each and every individual global citizen; it trancends borders and politics. Iraq and Afghanistan belong to us, not to our president and congress. The people of those nations are our brothers and sisters, and look how we have left them. Pointing fingers isn't going to solve the problem.
What is your view of the global community? I'd be happy to hear about it. I'd be happy to hear also any ideas you might have to help the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank you.
What does a global community bring to mind? I can tell you what it brings to my mind, and I can tell you what I have heard about it, but what I have heard about it, and what I see in reality are two different things. What I see is massive wishful thinking, followed up by the almost complete hypocrisy of nearly everyone who utters the words "global community" together.
Take the situation in Iraq, for instance. We have started a war there; no one denies that at this point. I myself have been involved in some discussions about the topic. But for me, it's so much more than just a topic.
In my last post, I denounced politicians as being users of buzzwords for political gain. The people I have spoken with regarding the war in Iraq bring up the topic of the war for the same reasons I do; because they actually care about something that is going on, and they want to change it.
We may not all agree on what the best way to change it is, but so long as we agree that something needs to be done, then we have a start that our politicians simply cannot grasp. You see, they talk about change for political gain and use the buzzwords as political capital. It's obvious. since the two largest political parties in our nation are complete polar opposites of each other, and not because of ideology, but because of politics.
There are many I have discussed topics with in bloggyland who are almost complete polar opposites of me; yet when we discuss things we know we hold differences in, we do not discuss them to score points or for political capital. We discuss them because we truly care, and I think we discuss them because we want to learn more, and share what we know.
But this topic of global community has me flustered. I hear of it most often by the two groups of people I feel the most disdain for; politicians and news people. I hear from others, as well, but I wonder if their ideas about a global community must be different from mine, because the words they use to explain the best plans of action for the world do not describe a global community to me at all. In almost one sentence, I hear a phrase such as, "We are all one big global community...like a big family", mixed with a phrase such as, "We need to get out of Iraq and let them kill each other if they want to." A slight but equally as disturbing variation on that is "Americans are dying in Iraq, it's time to bring the soldiers...all of them...home."
I'm all for bringing the soldiers home, if Iraq is settled down. I am not for leaving that nation hanging like we did in the early nineties. I'm not for leaving them to blow in the wind the way we left the Afghanistan rebels against the Taliban blowing in the wind right up until September eleven, 2001. I am against leaving anyone in the global community under the thumb of the same despots we have left them with since World War Two, because we were tired of our soldiers dying, and we were tired of fighting the good fight; tired of fighting evil.
Here is my view on what a global community is. All the people in this world are my brothers and sisters; every last one of them. The name of the nation they live in is immaterial in the face of even one of those brothers or sisters suffering at the hands of evil. In a global community, the needs of the people outweigh the needs or wants of sovereign nations. In fact, no nation, regardless of its age or rank in the world scheme has the right to hold the people within its borders to any system of organized oppression in this global community.
If we are truly a global community, the global community steps up to make sure it never happens. And we do not leave a nation of people to suffer; never; we end the bickering, we find a way to finish the job, and then we carry it out. We assess blame later, if at all.
In the business world, especially in the construction industry, you have the majority charging in to assess blame before the problems are solved. Whenever this happens (and it happens a lot), two other things occur; the first is that the mission (or project) is compromised, delayed, and sometimes even abandoned. The second is that it costs more money to assess blame first and then try to pick up the pieces and fix the problem. My goodness, by the time we are done playing the blame game, we have lost sight of the original problem. That's not good for business, and it's certainly not good in a global community.
My vision of a global community is of people actually caring about others well-being, be that in a local neighborhood, or across the globe. It's a vision of people seeing equality in all others. I trust you can see that this is not so in reality. Despite the good will towards the victims of the Tsunami almost two years ago now, I actually witnessed discussions on the internet about how the Western people and their way of life is far superior to Eastern ways. Global community? I think not.
You see, so much of our opinions about what is right and what is not, about whether a slower way of life is worse than the breakneck pace of the West is really only about taste.
Your taste differs from mine. I actually prefer a slower life, less gaudy architecture, real wood as opposed to plastic and glass, and stained woodwork rather than black laquer. It's a matter of taste.
But in the things that matter most, such as an individual's right to self-determination (within the scale of the global community and all of its circumstances), no sovereign nation has the right to subject a law abiding citizen to oppression.
If we are truly a global community, then the old boundaries of nations needs to disappear. Our brothers are across the ocean, and that is a long way away. But in a global community, they are our brothers.
The situation in Iraq has been mishandled. We are still trying to win the hearts and minds of the people there with guns. It's not going to happen. Guns alone will not finish this job. So what will?
I am again reminded of the good will shown to the victims of the horrendous Tsunami two years ago. I think that kind of individual good will, from individual American citizens, individual global citizens, will win the hearts and minds of Iraqi citizens. We will kill the terrorists with kindness to the very people they hope to oppress. What, then, will be their war cry? "Death to global citizens who try to bring good will to Muslims!"? Yeah, somehow, I think the terrorist movement will lose a little bit of steam if it comes to that.
There is just something about kindness that cannot be oppressed. There is something to kindness that evil has never understood; that you can't fight kindness with evil, and win. Kindness will kill terrorism. Guns can only go so far. The rest of this battle, if we are truly the global community that I hear so many lightly speak of, is going to be up to individual global citizens who want to show the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that there is a whole world out here who is willing to help them help themselves. And once the citizens of those two nations realize that, the terrorists will lose their recruiting base.
Global community. It can be a reality, but it won't be if we expect our government to lead us there. We have to lead our governement instead. If it is a global community we talk about, and a global community we want, then Iraq and Afghanistan is as much our responsibility as it is our government's. The global community does not belong to sovereign governments. It belongs to each and every individual global citizen; it trancends borders and politics. Iraq and Afghanistan belong to us, not to our president and congress. The people of those nations are our brothers and sisters, and look how we have left them. Pointing fingers isn't going to solve the problem.
What is your view of the global community? I'd be happy to hear about it. I'd be happy to hear also any ideas you might have to help the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank you.
9/28/2006
THE STATUS QUO MUST GO
I don't know if you have noticed my growing frustration with politics and the demagogues who hold the power in our nation. I certainly have noticed it.
I'm frustrated by ALL of our congressmen, senators, and yes, even our president.
Somehow, I do not think that the framers of our constitution had this in mind. I do not believe they desired hundreds, even thousands of politicians to be career politicians; nor do I believe they envisioned a time when "issues" meant nothing more than buzzwords to grab more attention.
Something is very rotten in the states of America, and the press, the politicians, and the president are at the top of the dung pile. In case you haven't noticed, your senators and congressmen aren't really all that concerned about the war in Iraq, or about the thousands of people dying there every month, both Iraqi and American. What they are more interested in is what's at stake politically. Since the war is on the mind of the press, and the press has direct access to citizens the way every politician could only dream of, the politicians are following the press like a well-trained lap-dog.
But to the press, the war on terror is merely a story, one that makes money for them hand over fist. A common mistake of Americans is to believe that the press exists to tell the truth. I want to dispell that gross rumor here and now. The press only exists to sell itself, to make money, and as such, are controlled by every whisper and rumor that might draw attention to their spin on issues.
Politicians, on the other hand, no longer really care about the issues we care about. As a group, either republicans or democrats, the war in Iraq is interesting only because it can serve as a launching point for four more years of elected "service".
Democrats say they'll pull our soldiers out of Iraq. Republicans say no.
The truth is, no one is going to pull those soldiers out of Iraq, and those who say they will are lying. Are you going to vote for them?
How do we change this? Voting doesn't work. The fact is, we can vote every existing politico out of office, and next year, they will have been replaced by carbon copies, leaving us wondering if we really can change things in this nation. A major shakeup must take place. At the very least, our nation should be pulling together; realizing that while the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not going the way we expected it to, pulling out is not an option, at least not yet. And if it is an option, then we need to figure out, TOGETHER, how to do that, and how to still help the millions of Iraqi citizens reclaim their nation, and thus, their safety.
The enemies of this country predicted this split in our nation. They claimed that Americans had soft underbellies, and that despite all of the furor over 9/11, we would lose interest and tire over the war on terrorism. Sort of like over fifty percent of all marriages in this country, huh? I guess if we can't stay in marriages, we sure as hell don't have the balls or the constitution to stay in a fight against terrorists when the going gets bad.
But, before you believe that, please understand that the press and some (maybe most) politicians want you to belive that the war on terror is tearing us apart. They want you to believe that it is the war in Iraq, and most recently Afghanistan, which has set a rift deeply into this nation.
There is most certainly a general division within our nation. The word for that division is called politics, and there are two sides; Democrat and Republican.
The real truth is, the division in our nation was here long before any war on terror. In fact, it has been here for as long as democrats and republicans have been at each other's throats. The dividing sword is politics and power, and two guiltiest parties in our nation are not everyday citizens like you and me; raher the two guiltiest parties are the two political parties that have DOMINATED this nation for far too long. And on the sidelines stands CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC, and every major media outlet, loudly egging the two parties on, like some sort of witness to a cockfight who cannot get enough of the violence of division.
Hey...division sells. You can't expect a whore like the press to act any differently than their nature.
But as I see it, our nation is tottering perilously close to an edge which, if we fall over it, we will not climb back up in any recognizable condition. Do not expect politicians to sort it all out; they are paid to muddy waters, not filter them. Normal working everyday citizens like you and me will have to be the ones to make the changes necessary. Lest you think this will be easy, we will have the Old Guard (Repubs and Democrats) fighting us tooth and nail, telling us we wouldn't know what we were doing, along with the press, telling the "truth", just as it "always" does.
The status quo must go.
Learn that phrase. Memorize it. It's kind of catchy, isn't it? I wonder if I should make a bumper sticker of it, and sell it. I wonder if the politicians would see a million of those bumper stickers, and figure out that they are the status quo which must go.
Anyone out there got any ideas? We need to start talking, because "our" politicians are too busy preening for photo ops and notoriety (oops, I meant publicity).
If you believe I should begin making bumper stickers of "The Status Quo Must Go", kindly leave me a comment, so I can know if there is general interest in sending such a message to our politicians. Thank you.
I'm frustrated by ALL of our congressmen, senators, and yes, even our president.
Somehow, I do not think that the framers of our constitution had this in mind. I do not believe they desired hundreds, even thousands of politicians to be career politicians; nor do I believe they envisioned a time when "issues" meant nothing more than buzzwords to grab more attention.
Something is very rotten in the states of America, and the press, the politicians, and the president are at the top of the dung pile. In case you haven't noticed, your senators and congressmen aren't really all that concerned about the war in Iraq, or about the thousands of people dying there every month, both Iraqi and American. What they are more interested in is what's at stake politically. Since the war is on the mind of the press, and the press has direct access to citizens the way every politician could only dream of, the politicians are following the press like a well-trained lap-dog.
But to the press, the war on terror is merely a story, one that makes money for them hand over fist. A common mistake of Americans is to believe that the press exists to tell the truth. I want to dispell that gross rumor here and now. The press only exists to sell itself, to make money, and as such, are controlled by every whisper and rumor that might draw attention to their spin on issues.
Politicians, on the other hand, no longer really care about the issues we care about. As a group, either republicans or democrats, the war in Iraq is interesting only because it can serve as a launching point for four more years of elected "service".
Democrats say they'll pull our soldiers out of Iraq. Republicans say no.
The truth is, no one is going to pull those soldiers out of Iraq, and those who say they will are lying. Are you going to vote for them?
How do we change this? Voting doesn't work. The fact is, we can vote every existing politico out of office, and next year, they will have been replaced by carbon copies, leaving us wondering if we really can change things in this nation. A major shakeup must take place. At the very least, our nation should be pulling together; realizing that while the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not going the way we expected it to, pulling out is not an option, at least not yet. And if it is an option, then we need to figure out, TOGETHER, how to do that, and how to still help the millions of Iraqi citizens reclaim their nation, and thus, their safety.
The enemies of this country predicted this split in our nation. They claimed that Americans had soft underbellies, and that despite all of the furor over 9/11, we would lose interest and tire over the war on terrorism. Sort of like over fifty percent of all marriages in this country, huh? I guess if we can't stay in marriages, we sure as hell don't have the balls or the constitution to stay in a fight against terrorists when the going gets bad.
But, before you believe that, please understand that the press and some (maybe most) politicians want you to belive that the war on terror is tearing us apart. They want you to believe that it is the war in Iraq, and most recently Afghanistan, which has set a rift deeply into this nation.
There is most certainly a general division within our nation. The word for that division is called politics, and there are two sides; Democrat and Republican.
The real truth is, the division in our nation was here long before any war on terror. In fact, it has been here for as long as democrats and republicans have been at each other's throats. The dividing sword is politics and power, and two guiltiest parties in our nation are not everyday citizens like you and me; raher the two guiltiest parties are the two political parties that have DOMINATED this nation for far too long. And on the sidelines stands CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC, and every major media outlet, loudly egging the two parties on, like some sort of witness to a cockfight who cannot get enough of the violence of division.
Hey...division sells. You can't expect a whore like the press to act any differently than their nature.
But as I see it, our nation is tottering perilously close to an edge which, if we fall over it, we will not climb back up in any recognizable condition. Do not expect politicians to sort it all out; they are paid to muddy waters, not filter them. Normal working everyday citizens like you and me will have to be the ones to make the changes necessary. Lest you think this will be easy, we will have the Old Guard (Repubs and Democrats) fighting us tooth and nail, telling us we wouldn't know what we were doing, along with the press, telling the "truth", just as it "always" does.
The status quo must go.
Learn that phrase. Memorize it. It's kind of catchy, isn't it? I wonder if I should make a bumper sticker of it, and sell it. I wonder if the politicians would see a million of those bumper stickers, and figure out that they are the status quo which must go.
Anyone out there got any ideas? We need to start talking, because "our" politicians are too busy preening for photo ops and notoriety (oops, I meant publicity).
If you believe I should begin making bumper stickers of "The Status Quo Must Go", kindly leave me a comment, so I can know if there is general interest in sending such a message to our politicians. Thank you.
9/25/2006
WHAT DOES WORLD WAR TWO HAVE TO DO WITH TODAY'S MIDDLE EAST?
There's so much news on the news today, that it's hard to keep track of it all. Many Americans find themselves either willingly or unwillingly focused on news from the Middle East. Why not? War grabs headlines, and focuses our attention like almost nothing else.
For myself, I have been focusing on life, until very recently, when I began focusing on World War Two, as well as on the events occuring right now across the world. We might as well focus on World War One while we are at it, because World War Two was almost certainly a continuation of the first War to end all wars. Some people believe that the second World War was a direct result of uncompleted missions and expectations left over from World War One; in short, unfinished business resulting from going too far in some ways, and not nearly far enough in others.
I am beginning to believe that the hate, wars, and occurences in the Middle East partially stem from World War Two's unfinished business.
In the Twentieth Century, the world witnessed the German Nazis, the Russian communists, and the Japanese Shintos all with the same resultant ideologies; mainly that their way of life would bring peace to the world through world conquest and domination.
More recently, in the last part of the Twentieth Century, and this opening part of the Twenty-First, we see one ideology following its own resultant creed. Strangely enough, that creed does not differ one iota from Nazism, Communism, or Shintoism in its expected end game; world peace through conquest and domination. The ideology is Radical Islam.
There is another ideology which claims to fight for freedom, and up until this point, the aims of American Democracy have always been freedom not only for Americans, but for the world. It is true, however, that American Democracy does not have a sterling record. We cannot claim even near perfection in treating with our worldly neighbors, nor even in treating with our own; this last including but not limited to our native American Indians.
The two most talked about ideologies of our time, Radical Islam and American Democracy, have squared off, and tremors abroad and within speak of the possibilities of yet another world conflict, no matter how unlikely it may seem at any given point.
So I ask the question; What does World War Two have to do with the events of our time? I believe the Second War to End All Wars has much to do with these troubling moments in history. I believe that both Britain and America are if not wholly, then somewhat responsible for the plight of the vast majority of the Middle East, in that when World War Two was over, a large vacuum was left in place of what had once been almost solely British vassal states.
In the years following World War Two, Britain continued it's de-imperialization, and The Middle East, as much as any part of the world, felt the sting of the new policies of the Americans and British; that of supporting dictatorships in the Middle East, much as they had supported Stalin in Russia only to learn later that the mouth had bitten hard the hand that fed it.
There is so much history regarding the two world wars and the events following. Much of that history, including today's history, can be in many ways tied to the policies of post World War Two America and Britain, and to the work we left undone, and the people we left in the hands of dictators and less-than- humitarian leadership. I intend to learn as much as I can about the events of World War two and after, because I believe within those events lie many answers to the question we ask ourselves most often these days pertaining to the Middle East; Why?
For myself, I have been focusing on life, until very recently, when I began focusing on World War Two, as well as on the events occuring right now across the world. We might as well focus on World War One while we are at it, because World War Two was almost certainly a continuation of the first War to end all wars. Some people believe that the second World War was a direct result of uncompleted missions and expectations left over from World War One; in short, unfinished business resulting from going too far in some ways, and not nearly far enough in others.
I am beginning to believe that the hate, wars, and occurences in the Middle East partially stem from World War Two's unfinished business.
In the Twentieth Century, the world witnessed the German Nazis, the Russian communists, and the Japanese Shintos all with the same resultant ideologies; mainly that their way of life would bring peace to the world through world conquest and domination.
More recently, in the last part of the Twentieth Century, and this opening part of the Twenty-First, we see one ideology following its own resultant creed. Strangely enough, that creed does not differ one iota from Nazism, Communism, or Shintoism in its expected end game; world peace through conquest and domination. The ideology is Radical Islam.
There is another ideology which claims to fight for freedom, and up until this point, the aims of American Democracy have always been freedom not only for Americans, but for the world. It is true, however, that American Democracy does not have a sterling record. We cannot claim even near perfection in treating with our worldly neighbors, nor even in treating with our own; this last including but not limited to our native American Indians.
The two most talked about ideologies of our time, Radical Islam and American Democracy, have squared off, and tremors abroad and within speak of the possibilities of yet another world conflict, no matter how unlikely it may seem at any given point.
So I ask the question; What does World War Two have to do with the events of our time? I believe the Second War to End All Wars has much to do with these troubling moments in history. I believe that both Britain and America are if not wholly, then somewhat responsible for the plight of the vast majority of the Middle East, in that when World War Two was over, a large vacuum was left in place of what had once been almost solely British vassal states.
In the years following World War Two, Britain continued it's de-imperialization, and The Middle East, as much as any part of the world, felt the sting of the new policies of the Americans and British; that of supporting dictatorships in the Middle East, much as they had supported Stalin in Russia only to learn later that the mouth had bitten hard the hand that fed it.
There is so much history regarding the two world wars and the events following. Much of that history, including today's history, can be in many ways tied to the policies of post World War Two America and Britain, and to the work we left undone, and the people we left in the hands of dictators and less-than- humitarian leadership. I intend to learn as much as I can about the events of World War two and after, because I believe within those events lie many answers to the question we ask ourselves most often these days pertaining to the Middle East; Why?
9/17/2006
CONTROL IS NOT FREEDOM
There is a complex collection of reactions, emotions, circumstances, and events each of us lives within at any small moment in time. Most of the circumstances and events are out of our control, and therefore, somewhat unpredictable. The two remaining items, reactions and emotions, just about sum up the totality of our sphere of influence.
Ironically, we make attempts to completely plan events and circumstances, in order to rationally control our reactions and emotions. We call this "freedom".
But is it really freedom? For as far back as I can recollect, I was taught to make good plans, by my parents, siblings, teachers, and various elders who were either related to me, or had some impact in my early life. I was taught that I was in control of my successes or failures. Around the age of twenty-five, I began to see that this idea wasn't reality, that it was more closely associated with idealism.
As a teenager, I learned disappointment, and grew to an ability to not only walk through it, but accept it. All of my life, until near the age of thirty-two, I believed that all I had to do was try harder, and harder, and harder, and "success" would follow.
I came close a couple of times, to a success that the world would understand. I came close those times to wild financial success, or unbelievable spiritual success, only to have my legs torn out from underneath by circumstances and events clearly beyond my control. Throughout the first series of close encounters with wild success, I was told that more planning had been necessary; that I had to learn to eliminate every circumstance which could do me in, and ruin my chances for success. So, I worked harder, and harder, believing the lie, that if I only planned correctly, all of my effort would one day result in what I had hoped for.
I placed my early faith in myself and my efforts, and my faith failed, a little more each time my plans and hard work failed to achieve the results I expected. I wasn't destitute, but I was not where I thought a person such as me should be. I was uncomfortable with my results, and I had no one to blame but myself.
I lived all of those years under the illusion that I was in control of my life. I lived all of those years believeing I was so free that the right amount of planning and effort would overcome any circumstance I happened upon. I was wrong.
Oddsmakers cannot even begin to calculate the complexity that is one single human life in one moment in time. Psychologists and scientists spend lifetimes studying the human mind, brain, and emotions. But for all of their effort, they cannot touch the complexity of human life; not even for a moment.
How many people now live in this world? Is it three billion? Is it five billion? At some point, that number becomes meaningless; lost in the eternal hurricane that is humanity, and more broadly, this world.
How many circumstances and events occur to one person in a single day? A single hour? A single minute? A single moment? Can anyone count them?
How many of those events and circumstances are truthfully beyond our control? Can anyone count them? Does anyone have an answer?
How many of those circumstances and events are we able to control? Certainly someone should be able to count that?
I no longer measure success financially or with how well my family is doing, or how wonderful a Christian I am. I have failed in all of them, and have come to grips with it. I am content to live; merely to live. I enjoy the events and circumstances that make up the purview of my control now, and simply experience the ones that aren't, filing what I can away into memories that I will recall as I walk through the hurricane of life.
I will never, ever admit that I set my sights too high, and that was the reason I didn't achieve what I thought I could. I would admit that my sights were set on the wrong things, but more than that, I willingly admit that none of it mattered.
The truth is, we are not in control. I am a witness; we can fool ourselves all of our lives into believing that we are. But can you count all of the events and circumstances out of your control that occur around you in a single minute? Because until you can do even that simplest of things, you are most definitely not in control. It means that you don't even know everything you need to know to be in control. You don't even know what you don't know.
Freedom does not lie in in this trumped up idealism we call control. We have planned events and circumstances to control our reactions and emotions; literally to design the desired outcomes we dream of. At best, all we can do is react to events and circumstances, because the overwhelming majority of events and circumstances that make up our lives consists of things well beyond our control.
Freedom lies not in believing you are in control, but in knowing you aren't.
I think Jesus was trying to tell us all something two thousand years ago. I think he was telling us we weren't held responsible because we weren't ever in control to begin with. And those who know this, who embrace it, can now live a life of freedom experienced by few others before them, while those who grasp and plan and scheme a concocted and false control in their lives have condemned themselves to a jail they cannot escape from.
The truth indeed will set you free. We are, the entire world, reconciled to God. But in this life, which we all must live, we will come to many conclusions. I count the greatest conclusion of mine being the understanding that I am free from the jail of knowing the right path and the wrong path, as being free, and knowing it, from planning to be in control, when all evidences surrounding me show me that I am not.
I live in this world working hard because I can, but not because I have to. I live in this world reacting to events and circumstances around me, because that is the best that I can manage. To be certain, I make plans and set goals, even sometimes for the smallest things. But always these plans understand the greater truth; that I am not in control.
I live with far fewer disappointments in my life right now than at any other time. My expectations are not of the type you will read about in Wallstreet Journal. Rather, they are the expectations of a free man; that I will live until I die, and everything up until that point is a wonderful and sometimes frightening surprise.
Ironically, we make attempts to completely plan events and circumstances, in order to rationally control our reactions and emotions. We call this "freedom".
But is it really freedom? For as far back as I can recollect, I was taught to make good plans, by my parents, siblings, teachers, and various elders who were either related to me, or had some impact in my early life. I was taught that I was in control of my successes or failures. Around the age of twenty-five, I began to see that this idea wasn't reality, that it was more closely associated with idealism.
As a teenager, I learned disappointment, and grew to an ability to not only walk through it, but accept it. All of my life, until near the age of thirty-two, I believed that all I had to do was try harder, and harder, and harder, and "success" would follow.
I came close a couple of times, to a success that the world would understand. I came close those times to wild financial success, or unbelievable spiritual success, only to have my legs torn out from underneath by circumstances and events clearly beyond my control. Throughout the first series of close encounters with wild success, I was told that more planning had been necessary; that I had to learn to eliminate every circumstance which could do me in, and ruin my chances for success. So, I worked harder, and harder, believing the lie, that if I only planned correctly, all of my effort would one day result in what I had hoped for.
I placed my early faith in myself and my efforts, and my faith failed, a little more each time my plans and hard work failed to achieve the results I expected. I wasn't destitute, but I was not where I thought a person such as me should be. I was uncomfortable with my results, and I had no one to blame but myself.
I lived all of those years under the illusion that I was in control of my life. I lived all of those years believeing I was so free that the right amount of planning and effort would overcome any circumstance I happened upon. I was wrong.
Oddsmakers cannot even begin to calculate the complexity that is one single human life in one moment in time. Psychologists and scientists spend lifetimes studying the human mind, brain, and emotions. But for all of their effort, they cannot touch the complexity of human life; not even for a moment.
How many people now live in this world? Is it three billion? Is it five billion? At some point, that number becomes meaningless; lost in the eternal hurricane that is humanity, and more broadly, this world.
How many circumstances and events occur to one person in a single day? A single hour? A single minute? A single moment? Can anyone count them?
How many of those events and circumstances are truthfully beyond our control? Can anyone count them? Does anyone have an answer?
How many of those circumstances and events are we able to control? Certainly someone should be able to count that?
I no longer measure success financially or with how well my family is doing, or how wonderful a Christian I am. I have failed in all of them, and have come to grips with it. I am content to live; merely to live. I enjoy the events and circumstances that make up the purview of my control now, and simply experience the ones that aren't, filing what I can away into memories that I will recall as I walk through the hurricane of life.
I will never, ever admit that I set my sights too high, and that was the reason I didn't achieve what I thought I could. I would admit that my sights were set on the wrong things, but more than that, I willingly admit that none of it mattered.
The truth is, we are not in control. I am a witness; we can fool ourselves all of our lives into believing that we are. But can you count all of the events and circumstances out of your control that occur around you in a single minute? Because until you can do even that simplest of things, you are most definitely not in control. It means that you don't even know everything you need to know to be in control. You don't even know what you don't know.
Freedom does not lie in in this trumped up idealism we call control. We have planned events and circumstances to control our reactions and emotions; literally to design the desired outcomes we dream of. At best, all we can do is react to events and circumstances, because the overwhelming majority of events and circumstances that make up our lives consists of things well beyond our control.
Freedom lies not in believing you are in control, but in knowing you aren't.
I think Jesus was trying to tell us all something two thousand years ago. I think he was telling us we weren't held responsible because we weren't ever in control to begin with. And those who know this, who embrace it, can now live a life of freedom experienced by few others before them, while those who grasp and plan and scheme a concocted and false control in their lives have condemned themselves to a jail they cannot escape from.
The truth indeed will set you free. We are, the entire world, reconciled to God. But in this life, which we all must live, we will come to many conclusions. I count the greatest conclusion of mine being the understanding that I am free from the jail of knowing the right path and the wrong path, as being free, and knowing it, from planning to be in control, when all evidences surrounding me show me that I am not.
I live in this world working hard because I can, but not because I have to. I live in this world reacting to events and circumstances around me, because that is the best that I can manage. To be certain, I make plans and set goals, even sometimes for the smallest things. But always these plans understand the greater truth; that I am not in control.
I live with far fewer disappointments in my life right now than at any other time. My expectations are not of the type you will read about in Wallstreet Journal. Rather, they are the expectations of a free man; that I will live until I die, and everything up until that point is a wonderful and sometimes frightening surprise.
9/10/2006
GOD'S LOVE ISN'T ENOUGH?
I was talking with a Christian friend the other day and she asked me how I knew I was redeemed.
Knowing a little about evangelical Christian doctrine, I looked my friend squarely in the eye, and answered, "Because my Father loves me."
Now I knew even before my friend opened her mouth that there was going to be a "but" in this discussion. Still, it doesn't hurt to hear people out.
"But, that's not enough, Tom!" she cried, seemingly astonished at my answer.
To which I replied, "Wait a minute. Did you just say God's love is not enough?"
"Yes", she answered, firmly, nodding and slightly stamping her feet on the ground.
"At the risk of sounding as if I am condescending to you, could you please think about that statement for a little while? Could you please repeat out loud for me, 'God's love isn't enough?' " I asked.
She paused, looked at me as if she had been dazed for a moment, and kept silent for more than another moment. When she finally spoke, she said, "I never realized I was saying that!". She seemed distressed, even, as she understood what her retort to my belief was.
When she recovered, she asked me, "So...what's the answer?"
I looked into her eyes briefly, smiled softly, and said, "You already know the answer. Will you allow His love for you to be enough for everyone else?"
And that's it, isn't it?
When I am asked from now on how I know I am redeemed, I will simply answer, "because my Father loves me."
And if you say, "That isn't enough!", I will ask you the same question I asked my friend.
You mean God's love isn't enough?
Knowing a little about evangelical Christian doctrine, I looked my friend squarely in the eye, and answered, "Because my Father loves me."
Now I knew even before my friend opened her mouth that there was going to be a "but" in this discussion. Still, it doesn't hurt to hear people out.
"But, that's not enough, Tom!" she cried, seemingly astonished at my answer.
To which I replied, "Wait a minute. Did you just say God's love is not enough?"
"Yes", she answered, firmly, nodding and slightly stamping her feet on the ground.
"At the risk of sounding as if I am condescending to you, could you please think about that statement for a little while? Could you please repeat out loud for me, 'God's love isn't enough?' " I asked.
She paused, looked at me as if she had been dazed for a moment, and kept silent for more than another moment. When she finally spoke, she said, "I never realized I was saying that!". She seemed distressed, even, as she understood what her retort to my belief was.
When she recovered, she asked me, "So...what's the answer?"
I looked into her eyes briefly, smiled softly, and said, "You already know the answer. Will you allow His love for you to be enough for everyone else?"
And that's it, isn't it?
When I am asked from now on how I know I am redeemed, I will simply answer, "because my Father loves me."
And if you say, "That isn't enough!", I will ask you the same question I asked my friend.
You mean God's love isn't enough?
9/05/2006
THE WAR ON TERROR: A PERSPECTIVE
On the heels of President Bush's speech today outlining American policy in Iraq and on the war against terrorism, I offer this post. I do not often delve into politics, and I do hope that isn't what this turns out to be. However, some things need to be said regarding our presence in Iraq, and our policies against terrorism worldwide, as well as the safety of not just Americans, but poeple of all colors and creed, all over the world.
The first part I offer is really just a reiteration of what President Bush said regarding Al Qaeda's ambitions. The following paragraphs outline Osama bin Laden's and Al Qaeda's self-proclaimed ideology.
4. In February 2004, U.S. forces intercepted a letter believed to have been written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian radical. The letter outlined plans to destabilize Iraq by igniting sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Al-Zarqawi is thought to be the mastermind behind the roughly 1,000 foreign insurgents fighting in Iraq. For a time, al-Zarqawi appeared to position himself as a rival to bin Laden, but in Oct. 2004 he officially declared allegiance to al-Qaeda, changing the name of his organization from Unification and Jihad to al-Qaeda in Iraq. In an audiotape a few months later bin Laden declared that "the dear mujahed brother Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the prince of al-Qaeda in Iraq," and announced that "we, in al-Qaeda organization, welcome him joining forces with us."
These are the stated beliefs and ambitions of Al Qaeda.
Source for above Al Quaeda "Ideology": http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html
For over a year now, many politicians, both US senators, congresspeople, and political hopefuls, have been calling for troop reduction in Iraq. Some of those initially calling for troop reductioon are now calling for a "pullout" altogether, claiming that the war in Iraq is not the way to win the war against terrorism, and that the actual front of the war on terrorism should not be in Iraq, but somewhere else.
I ask the simple question; If not in Iraq, then where should the front be? If there is anyone out there who is in favor of a pullout, please help us answer that question, because to date, no politician seems to be able to.
Furthermore, there is the small faction of Americans (many who I believe have been misled and incited by politicians) who believe that all we are doing in Iraq is enraging the terrorists, and further inciting them to acts of war against us.
That may be true; I am not a terrorist, I wouldn't know how to answer that charge.
However, please consider this: In 1993, Al Qaeda attacked our World Trade Center for the first time, clearly trying to topple the towers and kill everyone inside. If you recall that time period as I do, then you also recall that although Americans were upset by the attack, we were not necessarily angered, nor were we incited enough to do much of anything about the attack. As a result of our response, the following occured:
For those people who want our soldiers out of Iraq, I can understand your angst. Americans are dying nearly every day, and certainly, we desperately want it to stop. Make no mistake; Americans are a target, but by far, they are not the only target. Zarqawi's letter openly stated that the goal of Al Qaeda in Iraq was not to win a war, but to stir the shit. That is their only goal. Thousands upons thousands of Iraqi citizens have been sacrificed for their freedom.
Al Qaeda does not differentiate. They do not differentiate between apostate or Muslim. They do not differentiate between American or Arab, Jew, or white, black, yellow, or red. They do not differentiate between soldier and civilian. They simply do not differentiate. Their goal is subversion, and their means are violent. Everyone is a target, regardless of age, sex, creed, or career.
Consider what will happen if we leave Iraq.
1. Al Qaeda will continue to threaten, attack, and mutilate the weak in Iraq. It is part of their creed; they will not ever deviate from that ideology. True, if Americans are there, they will attack us any chance they can get. But they are not fussed over who their target is; whoever is handy at the moment will do just fine. And recall that the ambition of Al Qaeda in Iraq, literally, was to start a civil war. That goal is close to being met; Al Qaeda will not stop stirring the shit towards that goal just because we leave.
2. Americans are targets, wherever they are. If we are not in Iraq, we will be attacked somewhere else. Most likely; in fact, almost defnitely, if we pull out of Iraq, the next attacks will be here, in the Homeland. Attacking Americans is part of the Al Qaedan ideology; they will not ever deny that part of their ideology, and thus, they will not ever stop making attempts to attack Americans...wherever we are. Right now, the American soldiers in Iraq are convenient targets. I know that sounds heartless, but I'd bet if you asked bin Laden, he'd agree. In fact, I'd bet he's said it already long before I ever did.
If we leave Iraq, the war on terrorism will come here. Make no mistake about that. If the front is no longer Iraq, and the American people have fulfilled bin Laden's prophecy about being soft-bellied (or "Yellow bellied"), he will bring the front back to our borders and press his advantage.
I asked the question earlier; if not in Iraq, where will the front for the war on terror be? I have given you my answer to that question. Maybe I am wrong; I would be willing to listen to anyone who could provide a more likely alternative.
3. As shown in the chart of Al Qaeda's attacks against US interests since 1993, the presence or non-presence of US military personel in Iraq or Afghanistan has nothing to do with frequecy of attacks, or magnitude of violence. Our response to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in 1993 served to encourage the terrorists towards future attacks.
On September 11, 2001, we lost over three thousand citizens following an attack on the same World Trade Center that Al Qaeda had targeted eight years prior. Because we only lost six citizens in 1993, we didn't react. We were confused, surprised, and a bit irked. We did not enter the Sudan and go after bin Laden or his generals at that time. I think maybe we might have tried a missile lauch at an empty tent some years later. Our overall apathetic response led to thousands of deaths in 2001.
We are in Iraq right now, and we are there to stay until the evil is rooted out, or until the Iraqi government can root out that same evil itself.; and any politician that tells you he will bring the troops home before then is lying.
What we are hearing on CNN and the Network News broadcasts is nothing more than political rhetoric, and the muscle to pull the plug in Iraq is non-existent, neither in the Republican nor Democratic party.
No one wants the front for the war on terrorism to come home. We may want the soldiers to come home, but we don't want to pay the price for their homecoming, and regardless of what Russ Feingold says, he won't pay the price either, because the price is to bring the front to your backyard.
We have the world's best police forces, the best anti-terrorist agencies, and the best army. But it only takes one time out of hundreds of attempts to kill thousands of people in an attack on the Homeland. The terrorists only have to get lucky. We have to be perfect. They know this. Do you?
Al Qaeda will never change its ideology. Terrorists will never stop targeting whomever is on hand at the moment. Better to meet them where they are at, than to let them meet us where we are at.
At the moment, they are in Iraq, and other Middle Eastern places. Would you rather they came here to find us? Because it only takes once for us to fail, and we will once again re-live the nightmares, and the endless CNN and Network News broadcasts of terror in America. Who wants to go through that again?
When the towers crashed down, and the Pentagon was dented, when thousands were dead and many more injured, we cried as one nation, "Give us our cake, and let us eat it, too! We just want our way of life back!"
The price of that cake, my fellow Americans, is dead soldiers. It has always been dead soldiers, and it will always be dead soldiers. The cost of our way of life is borne upon the same shoulders that carry the guns that kill our enemies. It is not borne by the politicians who send these soldiers to war, nor by the talking heads who try to shape American consensus with their rhetoric.
We are a passionate and enterprising people. We raise, train, and employ a passionate and enterprising army, to provide, and protect our way of life. When they are not at home, it means the front of the war is not at home either. Bring them home, and the war will come home, as well.
I don't have to remid you how we all felt during the days of the terror in America. We have a thank you to give to to all of our men and women carrying the rifles that kill our enemies. They have done their job since September eleventh, 2001. The front is not here. It's somewhere else, and you are free to carry on, to have your cake and eat it, too. But never forget for a moment that someone has paid, is paying, and will pay the price for the cake you eat.
Are we a nation of ingrates, or are we a nation that is thankful that the front for the war on terror is not in sight of our front door?Are we after all, only soft, yellow bellied Americans who cannot stomach the cost?
While you are remembering who is paying the cost, please also remember that if they don't pay the price for you, then you or someone dear to you is going to pay a price, and you still won't get your cake, because you only get cake when someone else buys it for you with their blood.
A perspective of all of this needs to be drawn. Our nation has enemies who no longer abide by the conventional rules of war. They will attack Americans wherever Americans are found, and they do not differentiate. You are a target. A bullet has your name on it, most definitely. A bomb, be it nuclear, dirty, or conventional, is aimed at a location near you. The resolve to launch that bomb has already been made. The only thing that stands between you and that bomb is a soldier. We should be thankful that this soldier is thousands of miles away.
But if you want to bring him home, don't be looking to eat cake any time soon.
The first part I offer is really just a reiteration of what President Bush said regarding Al Qaeda's ambitions. The following paragraphs outline Osama bin Laden's and Al Qaeda's self-proclaimed ideology.
1. The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.
2. According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).
3. Al-Qaeda's ideology, often referred to as "jihadism," is marked by a willingness to kill "apostate" —and Shiite—Muslims and an emphasis on jihad. Although "jihadism" is at odds with nearly all Islamic religious thought, it has its roots in the work of two modern Sunni Islamic thinkers: Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb.
Al-Wahhab was an 18th-century reformer who claimed that Islam had been corrupted a generation or so after the death of Mohammed. He denounced any theology or customs developed after that as non-Islamic, including more than 1,000 years of religious scholarship. He and his supporters took over what is now Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism remains the dominant school of religious thought.
Sayyid Qutb, a radical Egyptian scholar of the mid-20th century, declared Western civilization the enemy of Islam, denounced leaders of Muslim nations for not following Islam closely enough, and taught that jihad should be undertaken not just to defend Islam, but to purify it.
Further, the principal stated aims of Al Qaeda in Iraq are:4. In February 2004, U.S. forces intercepted a letter believed to have been written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian radical. The letter outlined plans to destabilize Iraq by igniting sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Al-Zarqawi is thought to be the mastermind behind the roughly 1,000 foreign insurgents fighting in Iraq. For a time, al-Zarqawi appeared to position himself as a rival to bin Laden, but in Oct. 2004 he officially declared allegiance to al-Qaeda, changing the name of his organization from Unification and Jihad to al-Qaeda in Iraq. In an audiotape a few months later bin Laden declared that "the dear mujahed brother Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the prince of al-Qaeda in Iraq," and announced that "we, in al-Qaeda organization, welcome him joining forces with us."
These are the stated beliefs and ambitions of Al Qaeda.
Source for above Al Quaeda "Ideology": http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html
For over a year now, many politicians, both US senators, congresspeople, and political hopefuls, have been calling for troop reduction in Iraq. Some of those initially calling for troop reductioon are now calling for a "pullout" altogether, claiming that the war in Iraq is not the way to win the war against terrorism, and that the actual front of the war on terrorism should not be in Iraq, but somewhere else.
I ask the simple question; If not in Iraq, then where should the front be? If there is anyone out there who is in favor of a pullout, please help us answer that question, because to date, no politician seems to be able to.
Furthermore, there is the small faction of Americans (many who I believe have been misled and incited by politicians) who believe that all we are doing in Iraq is enraging the terrorists, and further inciting them to acts of war against us.
That may be true; I am not a terrorist, I wouldn't know how to answer that charge.
However, please consider this: In 1993, Al Qaeda attacked our World Trade Center for the first time, clearly trying to topple the towers and kill everyone inside. If you recall that time period as I do, then you also recall that although Americans were upset by the attack, we were not necessarily angered, nor were we incited enough to do much of anything about the attack. As a result of our response, the following occured:
- 2/1993: Bombing of World Trade Center; 6 killed.
- 10/1993: Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia.
- 1994: Investigation of the WTC bombing reveals that it was only a small part of a massive attack plan that included hijacking a plane and crashing it into CIA headquarters.
- 6/1996: Truck bomb explodes outside Khobar Towers military complex in Saudi Arabia; 19 American servicemen killed, hundreds of others injured.
- 1997: Massacre of 67 Western Tourists in Egypt
- 8/1998: Bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa; 224 killed including 12 Americans.
- 12/1999: Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S. Other Algerians subsequently arrested were "Afghan alumni."
- 12/1999: Jordanian police arrested members of a cell planning attacks against Western tourists.
- 10/2000: Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen; 17 U.S. sailors killed.
For those people who want our soldiers out of Iraq, I can understand your angst. Americans are dying nearly every day, and certainly, we desperately want it to stop. Make no mistake; Americans are a target, but by far, they are not the only target. Zarqawi's letter openly stated that the goal of Al Qaeda in Iraq was not to win a war, but to stir the shit. That is their only goal. Thousands upons thousands of Iraqi citizens have been sacrificed for their freedom.
Al Qaeda does not differentiate. They do not differentiate between apostate or Muslim. They do not differentiate between American or Arab, Jew, or white, black, yellow, or red. They do not differentiate between soldier and civilian. They simply do not differentiate. Their goal is subversion, and their means are violent. Everyone is a target, regardless of age, sex, creed, or career.
Consider what will happen if we leave Iraq.
1. Al Qaeda will continue to threaten, attack, and mutilate the weak in Iraq. It is part of their creed; they will not ever deviate from that ideology. True, if Americans are there, they will attack us any chance they can get. But they are not fussed over who their target is; whoever is handy at the moment will do just fine. And recall that the ambition of Al Qaeda in Iraq, literally, was to start a civil war. That goal is close to being met; Al Qaeda will not stop stirring the shit towards that goal just because we leave.
2. Americans are targets, wherever they are. If we are not in Iraq, we will be attacked somewhere else. Most likely; in fact, almost defnitely, if we pull out of Iraq, the next attacks will be here, in the Homeland. Attacking Americans is part of the Al Qaedan ideology; they will not ever deny that part of their ideology, and thus, they will not ever stop making attempts to attack Americans...wherever we are. Right now, the American soldiers in Iraq are convenient targets. I know that sounds heartless, but I'd bet if you asked bin Laden, he'd agree. In fact, I'd bet he's said it already long before I ever did.
If we leave Iraq, the war on terrorism will come here. Make no mistake about that. If the front is no longer Iraq, and the American people have fulfilled bin Laden's prophecy about being soft-bellied (or "Yellow bellied"), he will bring the front back to our borders and press his advantage.
I asked the question earlier; if not in Iraq, where will the front for the war on terror be? I have given you my answer to that question. Maybe I am wrong; I would be willing to listen to anyone who could provide a more likely alternative.
3. As shown in the chart of Al Qaeda's attacks against US interests since 1993, the presence or non-presence of US military personel in Iraq or Afghanistan has nothing to do with frequecy of attacks, or magnitude of violence. Our response to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in 1993 served to encourage the terrorists towards future attacks.
On September 11, 2001, we lost over three thousand citizens following an attack on the same World Trade Center that Al Qaeda had targeted eight years prior. Because we only lost six citizens in 1993, we didn't react. We were confused, surprised, and a bit irked. We did not enter the Sudan and go after bin Laden or his generals at that time. I think maybe we might have tried a missile lauch at an empty tent some years later. Our overall apathetic response led to thousands of deaths in 2001.
We are in Iraq right now, and we are there to stay until the evil is rooted out, or until the Iraqi government can root out that same evil itself.; and any politician that tells you he will bring the troops home before then is lying.
What we are hearing on CNN and the Network News broadcasts is nothing more than political rhetoric, and the muscle to pull the plug in Iraq is non-existent, neither in the Republican nor Democratic party.
No one wants the front for the war on terrorism to come home. We may want the soldiers to come home, but we don't want to pay the price for their homecoming, and regardless of what Russ Feingold says, he won't pay the price either, because the price is to bring the front to your backyard.
We have the world's best police forces, the best anti-terrorist agencies, and the best army. But it only takes one time out of hundreds of attempts to kill thousands of people in an attack on the Homeland. The terrorists only have to get lucky. We have to be perfect. They know this. Do you?
Al Qaeda will never change its ideology. Terrorists will never stop targeting whomever is on hand at the moment. Better to meet them where they are at, than to let them meet us where we are at.
At the moment, they are in Iraq, and other Middle Eastern places. Would you rather they came here to find us? Because it only takes once for us to fail, and we will once again re-live the nightmares, and the endless CNN and Network News broadcasts of terror in America. Who wants to go through that again?
When the towers crashed down, and the Pentagon was dented, when thousands were dead and many more injured, we cried as one nation, "Give us our cake, and let us eat it, too! We just want our way of life back!"
The price of that cake, my fellow Americans, is dead soldiers. It has always been dead soldiers, and it will always be dead soldiers. The cost of our way of life is borne upon the same shoulders that carry the guns that kill our enemies. It is not borne by the politicians who send these soldiers to war, nor by the talking heads who try to shape American consensus with their rhetoric.
We are a passionate and enterprising people. We raise, train, and employ a passionate and enterprising army, to provide, and protect our way of life. When they are not at home, it means the front of the war is not at home either. Bring them home, and the war will come home, as well.
I don't have to remid you how we all felt during the days of the terror in America. We have a thank you to give to to all of our men and women carrying the rifles that kill our enemies. They have done their job since September eleventh, 2001. The front is not here. It's somewhere else, and you are free to carry on, to have your cake and eat it, too. But never forget for a moment that someone has paid, is paying, and will pay the price for the cake you eat.
Are we a nation of ingrates, or are we a nation that is thankful that the front for the war on terror is not in sight of our front door?Are we after all, only soft, yellow bellied Americans who cannot stomach the cost?
While you are remembering who is paying the cost, please also remember that if they don't pay the price for you, then you or someone dear to you is going to pay a price, and you still won't get your cake, because you only get cake when someone else buys it for you with their blood.
A perspective of all of this needs to be drawn. Our nation has enemies who no longer abide by the conventional rules of war. They will attack Americans wherever Americans are found, and they do not differentiate. You are a target. A bullet has your name on it, most definitely. A bomb, be it nuclear, dirty, or conventional, is aimed at a location near you. The resolve to launch that bomb has already been made. The only thing that stands between you and that bomb is a soldier. We should be thankful that this soldier is thousands of miles away.
But if you want to bring him home, don't be looking to eat cake any time soon.
8/31/2006
THE COINCIDENTAL NATURE OF WHY WON'T GOD HEAL AMPUTEES
I guess I'm felling my oats tonight. Over at Why Won't God Heel (mispelled word purposely) Amputees, you can read about all sorts of "reasons" why God isn't real. You can read about why prayer is worthless, and why answered prayers are nothing more than "coincidence".
It is with great hilarity that I take issue with the authors of that website, should they ever have enough balls to name themselves.
I am Tom Reindl. I believe in God, and in Jesus Christ. I will give you all sorts of reasons in the future (and have done so in the past) why I believe. What I will never give you is bad logic followed up by bad english...and then not give you my name. I will remain known, never anonymous, because I, like most people, realized long ago that the "power" in anonymity is merely an illusion.
You will never catch me ripping someone else's beliefs, and not giving my name. You'll never watch as I state "facts", and hide behind my anonymity. If I say something is fact, right or wrong, I'll admit to it.
However, I could say, anonymously, that the other day, I was run over by a unicorn, therefore, unicorns must exist. Such is the tripe you will read at Why Won't God Heal Amputees.
Obviously, my first problem with the website (have you guessed it yet?) is its anonymity. But it doesn't end there.
We live in a completely cause and effect universe, yet Why Won't God Heel Amputees "scientifically" tries to prove that "answers to prayer are nothing more than a coincidence".
Who here sees a problem with that logic?
For every cause, there is an effect. For every effect, there was a cause. There are no coincidences, unless you actually use the definition of the word "coincidence" correctly. Coincidence equals two separate incidents seemingly having something to do with one another, but not necessarily. Or, to get "old english" on this, merely, more than one incident, usually two, happening simultaneously.
In those definitions, there is nothing about cause and effect, nothing about "coincidences" meaning more than a term used to describe several incidents, neither benevolent nor malevolent. A Coincident cannot be the cause of an effect. It, therefore, cannot used to describe or define the reason behind an event, nor can it be used scientifically to prove that God does not answer prayer, as if by the mere use of the word "coincidence", God has been replaced by a perfectly "logical" reason. Reason dictates that for every effect, there was a cause, and reason also dictates that "coincidence" had nothing to do with the effects witnessed.
Two incidents. Several times, (actually more than several) the website mentioned above uses phrases such as "It's just a coincidence" as citing some well known "fact".. Not only is that phrase not provable, it's just plain bad English. But if it is provable beyond the shadow of a doubt, then I ask the wonderful authors of that website to display their unquestionable proof, which is what evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt is all about. And while you are at it, why not display your names? My name is Tom Reindl...what's yours?
Did I say "just plain bad English"? Of course I did. You never say "It's just a coincidence" and walk away unharmed. Okay, maybe I am exagerrating a little bit. But you certainly don't say "It's just a coincidence" and walk away believing you have solved the mystery of prayer, much less used good English. If you really wanted to use the word "coincidence" in a sentence, you'd have to pluralize it, and say something like "They were just coincidences", because a coincidence can never, ever, ever, be singular. By rule, a "coincidence" requires at least two separate incidents, and thus, is always plural.
English books away, please. Now take out your science books. In a cause and effect world, "coincidences" can never cause something. Nor can they be used to explain the cause of something, as Why Won't God Heal Amputees is well in the habit of doing. It would be like me saying, the light turned green just as you ran through the intersection by coincidence. On the surface, that sounds intelligent, but it's not. You ran through the intersection when it was green because the intersection before didn't hold you up long enough for you to have to stop on red, or you weren't side swiped while passing through two previous intersections. Both of these might be reasons, or causes, why you ran through an intersection just as it passed into green, but "coincidences" would never explain why you did what you did, or why something happened the way it did.
Let me state this simply: "Coincidence" is just another word for an excuse or an attempt to try and explain away something you haven't researched enough, or do not have enough scientific information to "explain" in any other way. Sadly, "coincidence", as stated above, can never be used as an explanation or a definition. It can't really even be used to philosophically explain why you do or don't believe something, such as the authors of Why Won't God Heel Amputees seem to be doing.
But, if you insist, we can at least allow for your bad English, and grant that "it's just a coincidence" that you think you have offered a scientific explanation for why God won't heal amputees when all you've really done is both misuse an overused word, and used it improperly in a sentence. Now those are coincidences, (Note the proper English), and as such, they are irrelevant, and have nothing to do with God or prayer at all, or any other form of scientific endeavor toward "disproving" the existence of God and answered prayer.
I am Tom Reindl, and I state, for the record, that IT is merely a coincidence that I wrote this post several days after reading Why Won't God Heal Amputees, or at least, several days after reading as much as my stomach could handle before vomiting voluminously. Two separate incidents, but do they really have anything to do with each other?
I hope you enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. It is, after all, only done in good fun.
It is with great hilarity that I take issue with the authors of that website, should they ever have enough balls to name themselves.
I am Tom Reindl. I believe in God, and in Jesus Christ. I will give you all sorts of reasons in the future (and have done so in the past) why I believe. What I will never give you is bad logic followed up by bad english...and then not give you my name. I will remain known, never anonymous, because I, like most people, realized long ago that the "power" in anonymity is merely an illusion.
You will never catch me ripping someone else's beliefs, and not giving my name. You'll never watch as I state "facts", and hide behind my anonymity. If I say something is fact, right or wrong, I'll admit to it.
However, I could say, anonymously, that the other day, I was run over by a unicorn, therefore, unicorns must exist. Such is the tripe you will read at Why Won't God Heal Amputees.
Obviously, my first problem with the website (have you guessed it yet?) is its anonymity. But it doesn't end there.
We live in a completely cause and effect universe, yet Why Won't God Heel Amputees "scientifically" tries to prove that "answers to prayer are nothing more than a coincidence".
Who here sees a problem with that logic?
For every cause, there is an effect. For every effect, there was a cause. There are no coincidences, unless you actually use the definition of the word "coincidence" correctly. Coincidence equals two separate incidents seemingly having something to do with one another, but not necessarily. Or, to get "old english" on this, merely, more than one incident, usually two, happening simultaneously.
In those definitions, there is nothing about cause and effect, nothing about "coincidences" meaning more than a term used to describe several incidents, neither benevolent nor malevolent. A Coincident cannot be the cause of an effect. It, therefore, cannot used to describe or define the reason behind an event, nor can it be used scientifically to prove that God does not answer prayer, as if by the mere use of the word "coincidence", God has been replaced by a perfectly "logical" reason. Reason dictates that for every effect, there was a cause, and reason also dictates that "coincidence" had nothing to do with the effects witnessed.
Two incidents. Several times, (actually more than several) the website mentioned above uses phrases such as "It's just a coincidence" as citing some well known "fact".. Not only is that phrase not provable, it's just plain bad English. But if it is provable beyond the shadow of a doubt, then I ask the wonderful authors of that website to display their unquestionable proof, which is what evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt is all about. And while you are at it, why not display your names? My name is Tom Reindl...what's yours?
Did I say "just plain bad English"? Of course I did. You never say "It's just a coincidence" and walk away unharmed. Okay, maybe I am exagerrating a little bit. But you certainly don't say "It's just a coincidence" and walk away believing you have solved the mystery of prayer, much less used good English. If you really wanted to use the word "coincidence" in a sentence, you'd have to pluralize it, and say something like "They were just coincidences", because a coincidence can never, ever, ever, be singular. By rule, a "coincidence" requires at least two separate incidents, and thus, is always plural.
English books away, please. Now take out your science books. In a cause and effect world, "coincidences" can never cause something. Nor can they be used to explain the cause of something, as Why Won't God Heal Amputees is well in the habit of doing. It would be like me saying, the light turned green just as you ran through the intersection by coincidence. On the surface, that sounds intelligent, but it's not. You ran through the intersection when it was green because the intersection before didn't hold you up long enough for you to have to stop on red, or you weren't side swiped while passing through two previous intersections. Both of these might be reasons, or causes, why you ran through an intersection just as it passed into green, but "coincidences" would never explain why you did what you did, or why something happened the way it did.
Let me state this simply: "Coincidence" is just another word for an excuse or an attempt to try and explain away something you haven't researched enough, or do not have enough scientific information to "explain" in any other way. Sadly, "coincidence", as stated above, can never be used as an explanation or a definition. It can't really even be used to philosophically explain why you do or don't believe something, such as the authors of Why Won't God Heel Amputees seem to be doing.
But, if you insist, we can at least allow for your bad English, and grant that "it's just a coincidence" that you think you have offered a scientific explanation for why God won't heal amputees when all you've really done is both misuse an overused word, and used it improperly in a sentence. Now those are coincidences, (Note the proper English), and as such, they are irrelevant, and have nothing to do with God or prayer at all, or any other form of scientific endeavor toward "disproving" the existence of God and answered prayer.
I am Tom Reindl, and I state, for the record, that IT is merely a coincidence that I wrote this post several days after reading Why Won't God Heal Amputees, or at least, several days after reading as much as my stomach could handle before vomiting voluminously. Two separate incidents, but do they really have anything to do with each other?
I hope you enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. It is, after all, only done in good fun.
8/28/2006
SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND
I would like to lay down a challenge today.
My best friend is currently looking at changing career paths, and has a few concerns about the financial aspects of what he hopes to accomplish. That is understandable. I have been there many times myself.
It was during those times that I realized something. I would spend much of my time praying and worrying to God to provide for me, to bring me what I needed. The culmination of understanding and experience began to wear me down, until I finally realized that what I was praying for was ALREADY done.
Knock, and maybe the door will open. Seek, and you might find.
Words of Jesus?
I think not. Those are more likely the words of we who say we believe in Him.
What we need is already here. Those are the words of Jesus. Seek, and you shall find. Knock, and it will open for you.
Praying isn't going to magically dump what you need in your lap. But there is something that prayer might accomplish. It just might help us understand that what we need, what we are asking for, has already been provided, long before we even knew we needed it. We only need to seek it, for it is already somewhere within reach.
That has been my experience.
So the challenge is this:
Can we act and live as though everything we need is already given? What would that do to our lives?
My best friend is currently looking at changing career paths, and has a few concerns about the financial aspects of what he hopes to accomplish. That is understandable. I have been there many times myself.
It was during those times that I realized something. I would spend much of my time praying and worrying to God to provide for me, to bring me what I needed. The culmination of understanding and experience began to wear me down, until I finally realized that what I was praying for was ALREADY done.
Knock, and maybe the door will open. Seek, and you might find.
Words of Jesus?
I think not. Those are more likely the words of we who say we believe in Him.
What we need is already here. Those are the words of Jesus. Seek, and you shall find. Knock, and it will open for you.
Praying isn't going to magically dump what you need in your lap. But there is something that prayer might accomplish. It just might help us understand that what we need, what we are asking for, has already been provided, long before we even knew we needed it. We only need to seek it, for it is already somewhere within reach.
That has been my experience.
So the challenge is this:
Can we act and live as though everything we need is already given? What would that do to our lives?
8/22/2006
RANDOM CHECKPOINTS
Wisconsin may soon be considering adding random checkpoints for sobriety along its highways and streets as a means of fixing the drunk driving problem in our state. I listened today to a fellow named Jeff Hanson on WTMJ news radio out of Milwaukee extol the virtues of such a plan.
One fact he kept repeating was that Wisconsin was one of about ten states who do not currently use such checkpoints in the fight against drunk drivers. About forty states, he said, employ such checkpoints, and in his words, "It works".
It is against the law in the state of Wisconsin for a police officer to pull over any driver without reasonable cause which he can articulate in report. That used to be against the law in every state. In the case of a drunk driver, no police officer can pull over a vehicle merely because that vehicle is the only vehicle on the road at a very late hour; that alone is not sufficient cause. But if the officer can articulate that the driver is speeding, or swerving across the center line, he then has enough cause to pull the vehicle over. Under current Wisconsin law, random check points are illegal.
On his talk show, Jeff Hanson seemed to be very much for this system of random check points, citing other state's success time and again. Many of his callers agreed with him, especially when Jeff stated that thses types of check points would only be utilized after bar closes (2:30 am in Wisconsin). I got the feeling that many of the callers who agreed with him wouldn't feel the same way if there was the chance of a random check point squaring up on them after happy hour (5:00 -6:00 pm). After all, that type of checkpoint system might produce some very interesting results for many people between the ages of thirty and fifty-five, including Mr. Hanson. But it seems these adults have no problem with subjecting the youth of our state to a checkpoint system that likely will never affect them.
I am not against such a checkpoint system. Neither am I for it. In fact, I think such a system could lead to further infringes upon a person's privacy, but since the system is still just in the discussion stage, there's no reason to raise a red flag.
What bothers me most about such "systems" isn't that they are good or bad. It's that they are worthless.
If we take out the rhetoric "it works", and change the vocabulary to what should be said, such as "it produces more arrests than not doing it", then maybe one might be able to make a case that such a system "works". But the goal shouldn't be more arrests. The goal, if we are going to shoot for something that "works", should be no more drunk driving...period.
A check point system will not deter drunk drivers. Such a system only reacts to a problem in an untimely manner. It doesn't solve anything, and that's why I am a little bothered by the rhetoric "it works".
Law enforcement's job is too protect citizens. Meeting a drunk at a checkpoint when he has already driven several or many miles is too late. It's also completely hit or miss, leaving many other drunk drivers free to wreak havoc or barely make it home. The moment an intoxicated person starts his car, it's already too late. At best, law enforcement can only react, and everyone knows that wars are lost when the initiative belongs to the other side. Reacting isn't the answer.
What ever happened to devices that wouldn't allow any driver to start his or her car if they were intoxicated? The type of device I am thinking of is a small computer that measures blood alcohol content, and if a certain level is reached, renders the ignition system of the vehicle unusable. Such a system would certainly eliminate almost ALL drunk driving incidents, leaving the police free to protect us in other ways.
Does anyone know more about the ways in which we might eliminate drunk driving? Obviously, eliminating alcohol would be one way, but let's face it; it won't happen again in this country, and for my part, I am not certain we would ever need to.
Is there a way to introduce such a computer into every vehicle at a cost that is neglible? Wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate the opportunity rather than simply trying to react to an already large problem by invading everyone's privacy?
What do you think?
One fact he kept repeating was that Wisconsin was one of about ten states who do not currently use such checkpoints in the fight against drunk drivers. About forty states, he said, employ such checkpoints, and in his words, "It works".
It is against the law in the state of Wisconsin for a police officer to pull over any driver without reasonable cause which he can articulate in report. That used to be against the law in every state. In the case of a drunk driver, no police officer can pull over a vehicle merely because that vehicle is the only vehicle on the road at a very late hour; that alone is not sufficient cause. But if the officer can articulate that the driver is speeding, or swerving across the center line, he then has enough cause to pull the vehicle over. Under current Wisconsin law, random check points are illegal.
On his talk show, Jeff Hanson seemed to be very much for this system of random check points, citing other state's success time and again. Many of his callers agreed with him, especially when Jeff stated that thses types of check points would only be utilized after bar closes (2:30 am in Wisconsin). I got the feeling that many of the callers who agreed with him wouldn't feel the same way if there was the chance of a random check point squaring up on them after happy hour (5:00 -6:00 pm). After all, that type of checkpoint system might produce some very interesting results for many people between the ages of thirty and fifty-five, including Mr. Hanson. But it seems these adults have no problem with subjecting the youth of our state to a checkpoint system that likely will never affect them.
I am not against such a checkpoint system. Neither am I for it. In fact, I think such a system could lead to further infringes upon a person's privacy, but since the system is still just in the discussion stage, there's no reason to raise a red flag.
What bothers me most about such "systems" isn't that they are good or bad. It's that they are worthless.
If we take out the rhetoric "it works", and change the vocabulary to what should be said, such as "it produces more arrests than not doing it", then maybe one might be able to make a case that such a system "works". But the goal shouldn't be more arrests. The goal, if we are going to shoot for something that "works", should be no more drunk driving...period.
A check point system will not deter drunk drivers. Such a system only reacts to a problem in an untimely manner. It doesn't solve anything, and that's why I am a little bothered by the rhetoric "it works".
Law enforcement's job is too protect citizens. Meeting a drunk at a checkpoint when he has already driven several or many miles is too late. It's also completely hit or miss, leaving many other drunk drivers free to wreak havoc or barely make it home. The moment an intoxicated person starts his car, it's already too late. At best, law enforcement can only react, and everyone knows that wars are lost when the initiative belongs to the other side. Reacting isn't the answer.
What ever happened to devices that wouldn't allow any driver to start his or her car if they were intoxicated? The type of device I am thinking of is a small computer that measures blood alcohol content, and if a certain level is reached, renders the ignition system of the vehicle unusable. Such a system would certainly eliminate almost ALL drunk driving incidents, leaving the police free to protect us in other ways.
Does anyone know more about the ways in which we might eliminate drunk driving? Obviously, eliminating alcohol would be one way, but let's face it; it won't happen again in this country, and for my part, I am not certain we would ever need to.
Is there a way to introduce such a computer into every vehicle at a cost that is neglible? Wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate the opportunity rather than simply trying to react to an already large problem by invading everyone's privacy?
What do you think?
APPROACHING THE FINISH LINE
Just a brief update for those of you who may be interested.
I am coming to a close on the big project I have been working on for nearly two years, and it is a fulfilling set of moments to see a project come together, apply the finishes, and then step back and view the entire scope of it all. Millions of dollars went into this project, which is a renovation of an old hospital to be used soley for senior citizens as a nursing home as well as over forty assisted living apartments and various amenities pertaining to such.
In all, I am pleased with the end product, insofar as it is not yet complete, but things have come together as well as could have been expected. To be certain, the project has taken longer than antiicipated, but then again, I expect most projects to take longer than anticipated, so it's really not a surprise. With so many aspects and so many disciplines of construction involved in a project this size, it is sometimes a wonder to me that it would be completed at all. But, when you have a set of plans, and you walk resolutely towards the completion of those plans, I suppose sooner or later somehow those plans will be complete.
However, there were many changes, and the original plans are not so much a map of this project anymore as they are what was once a dream of how things could be. Plans change, and learning to live flexibly is as true in the construction industry as it is in real life. I can't count the changes any longer; I just deal with them one by one as they come up.
I guess my advice to anyone I meet would be the same; don't sweat the changes in life, just be flexible and deal with them one by one. We truly don't have more control than that.
I am coming to a close on the big project I have been working on for nearly two years, and it is a fulfilling set of moments to see a project come together, apply the finishes, and then step back and view the entire scope of it all. Millions of dollars went into this project, which is a renovation of an old hospital to be used soley for senior citizens as a nursing home as well as over forty assisted living apartments and various amenities pertaining to such.
In all, I am pleased with the end product, insofar as it is not yet complete, but things have come together as well as could have been expected. To be certain, the project has taken longer than antiicipated, but then again, I expect most projects to take longer than anticipated, so it's really not a surprise. With so many aspects and so many disciplines of construction involved in a project this size, it is sometimes a wonder to me that it would be completed at all. But, when you have a set of plans, and you walk resolutely towards the completion of those plans, I suppose sooner or later somehow those plans will be complete.
However, there were many changes, and the original plans are not so much a map of this project anymore as they are what was once a dream of how things could be. Plans change, and learning to live flexibly is as true in the construction industry as it is in real life. I can't count the changes any longer; I just deal with them one by one as they come up.
I guess my advice to anyone I meet would be the same; don't sweat the changes in life, just be flexible and deal with them one by one. We truly don't have more control than that.
8/13/2006
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT I AM DOING
I don't know what I'm doing.
Have you ever admitted that to anyone? Well, I am admitting it to you. But first, I admitted it to God, many times lately.
It's true; I really don't know what I am doing. Oh, I know how to do my job, and I know (somewhat) how to love my daughter. Heck, I even know how to change oil in my car and truck.
I use to love to think I could sit here, and type words of wisdom showing you all how much I know, and how together I am. But the truth is, I am not together. This admission does not come on the heels of any depression or anxiety disorder, and finally and loudly, no, I do not have adult attention deficit disorder, and I am not autistic; not even somewhat. I do not need Xanax or Paxil to help get me through this, and I do not need to see a pshrink.
You see, this is life...real life.
I do not know what I am doing. I do not have a plan, except to live through this one day, and maybe a few various hopes or dreams that vaguely represent my ideal future.
I could tell you all about the things I'd LIKE to do, and what I think it would take to accomplish those things, but then I'd also have to explain how ridiculously small and foolish my plans are when compared to the fact that I have no control over anything that is not in my control. What does that mean? It means that despite the idea that I am an intelligent man, there are people, and circumstances that will not bow down to my will no matter how hard I try, and no matter how loud my temper tantrum. In essence, I am not in control, and I'd be a fool to try and convince you otherwise.
I do not have it all together, and furthermore, I have no idea how to get it all together. But, I CAN fake it pretty good, and sometimes, for your benefit, I think I should fake it. After all, if we don't all try our best to keep the illusion of togetherness alive...why...someday, we may actually have to face the truth.
And what is that truth?
That none of us have it all together; not a single one of us. I can pick out a clean pair of underwear with the best of them, brush my teeth in the morning, and go all the way until 9:30 AM without a bite to eat. But if I go much beyond that time, I start to feel faint. Truly, this cowboy does not have it all together.
So maybe you'd like to think you have it all together? Maybe you'd like to share with me, and with the rest of us goofs what the secrets to your success are? Or maybe here, for the first time in your life, you'd like to share, even if it is anonymously, just how untogether you really are? Maybe you'd like to share your greatest plan, and how bit by bit, that plan fell apart, and you found yourself revising it to the point where in the end (if there ever is an end) that plan no longer even remotely resembled your original plan.
Welcome to the human race.
Maybe you'd like to share with us instead how every plan you have ever set in motion has succeeded exactly as you designed?
I know, it's not likely, is it?
I do not know what I am doing. I guess I haven't even got a clue. I tell God that all of the time now. Some might say that isn't really a prayer, but maybe just an admission is enough to qualify? After all, I don't really even know what I'm doing when it comes to prayer, either. Could you expect more from someone whose opening statement here was "I don't know what I'm doing"?
But this I do know; Living in the grace of God has allowed me to admit that I do not know what I am doing, to be okay with it, and to know that God is also okay with it. In fact, He's more than okay with it. He's more than okay with my fumbled attempts at prayer, with my starts and stops in faith, with my deepest faults and guilts, many of which I could never admit openly to anyone but Him. Living in the grace of God has allowed me to begin to see myself, the REAL me, for the first time in my life. He is more than okay with me.
The depth of love He feels for me I do not understand, and yet again, I find myself admitting that when it comes to feeling His love, or returning it...I do not know what I am doing. Day after day now, I enter the day not knowing what I am doing, not knowing what will happen, and somehow, trusting that everything will work out fine, that my highs will be higher than I imagined, and my lows will be lower than I want. I just never know what the day will bring, because with each day, I know I have never lived this day before; how could I be expected to know what I am doing with it?
You know what? It's sort of exciting; this not knowing what I am doing.
Have you ever admitted that to anyone? Well, I am admitting it to you. But first, I admitted it to God, many times lately.
It's true; I really don't know what I am doing. Oh, I know how to do my job, and I know (somewhat) how to love my daughter. Heck, I even know how to change oil in my car and truck.
I use to love to think I could sit here, and type words of wisdom showing you all how much I know, and how together I am. But the truth is, I am not together. This admission does not come on the heels of any depression or anxiety disorder, and finally and loudly, no, I do not have adult attention deficit disorder, and I am not autistic; not even somewhat. I do not need Xanax or Paxil to help get me through this, and I do not need to see a pshrink.
You see, this is life...real life.
I do not know what I am doing. I do not have a plan, except to live through this one day, and maybe a few various hopes or dreams that vaguely represent my ideal future.
I could tell you all about the things I'd LIKE to do, and what I think it would take to accomplish those things, but then I'd also have to explain how ridiculously small and foolish my plans are when compared to the fact that I have no control over anything that is not in my control. What does that mean? It means that despite the idea that I am an intelligent man, there are people, and circumstances that will not bow down to my will no matter how hard I try, and no matter how loud my temper tantrum. In essence, I am not in control, and I'd be a fool to try and convince you otherwise.
I do not have it all together, and furthermore, I have no idea how to get it all together. But, I CAN fake it pretty good, and sometimes, for your benefit, I think I should fake it. After all, if we don't all try our best to keep the illusion of togetherness alive...why...someday, we may actually have to face the truth.
And what is that truth?
That none of us have it all together; not a single one of us. I can pick out a clean pair of underwear with the best of them, brush my teeth in the morning, and go all the way until 9:30 AM without a bite to eat. But if I go much beyond that time, I start to feel faint. Truly, this cowboy does not have it all together.
So maybe you'd like to think you have it all together? Maybe you'd like to share with me, and with the rest of us goofs what the secrets to your success are? Or maybe here, for the first time in your life, you'd like to share, even if it is anonymously, just how untogether you really are? Maybe you'd like to share your greatest plan, and how bit by bit, that plan fell apart, and you found yourself revising it to the point where in the end (if there ever is an end) that plan no longer even remotely resembled your original plan.
Welcome to the human race.
Maybe you'd like to share with us instead how every plan you have ever set in motion has succeeded exactly as you designed?
I know, it's not likely, is it?
I do not know what I am doing. I guess I haven't even got a clue. I tell God that all of the time now. Some might say that isn't really a prayer, but maybe just an admission is enough to qualify? After all, I don't really even know what I'm doing when it comes to prayer, either. Could you expect more from someone whose opening statement here was "I don't know what I'm doing"?
But this I do know; Living in the grace of God has allowed me to admit that I do not know what I am doing, to be okay with it, and to know that God is also okay with it. In fact, He's more than okay with it. He's more than okay with my fumbled attempts at prayer, with my starts and stops in faith, with my deepest faults and guilts, many of which I could never admit openly to anyone but Him. Living in the grace of God has allowed me to begin to see myself, the REAL me, for the first time in my life. He is more than okay with me.
The depth of love He feels for me I do not understand, and yet again, I find myself admitting that when it comes to feeling His love, or returning it...I do not know what I am doing. Day after day now, I enter the day not knowing what I am doing, not knowing what will happen, and somehow, trusting that everything will work out fine, that my highs will be higher than I imagined, and my lows will be lower than I want. I just never know what the day will bring, because with each day, I know I have never lived this day before; how could I be expected to know what I am doing with it?
You know what? It's sort of exciting; this not knowing what I am doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
