29 May 2010

Priorities all Awack

Share
The Senate just tried to pass a bill to subsidize teachers in local school districts while they try to cut funding to the US Coast Guard. Reporters tell us that the administration says that the USCG lacks the ability to deal with the crisis. Cut their funding, and that's a veritable guarantee.

We pay taxes so that the government can deal with things we cannot do for ourselves, not to redistribute wealth.

28 May 2010

Stand Together as One People

Share
The illegal immigration debate and the multiculturalistic effort are attacks at the very fiber of America. Since my days in public school, they spoke of a melting pot, but now they focus on the distinctness of a fruit salad, where everything remains identifiable from the rest. Out of that we have Italian-Americans, African-Americans, and Mexican-Americans, but heaven forbid you identify yourself as an Anglo-saxon-American. That's just not ok. The formation of a uniquely American identity is what makes America strong. it unites us behind our athletes at the Olympics, behind our soldiers in wars abroad, and when anyone challenges our morals, values and norms. Any attempt to balkanize us is an effort to break America.

Most people know of the stick analogy. If you try to break just one stick, it's easy. Put together a dozen or a hundred, and the difficulty rises exponentially or factorily, not just in an additive fasion. So, it takes more than ten times the force to break ten sticks than it takes to break one, because all of the other sticks help resist the tendency of those around them to break. That's why trees grow together. Single trees are much more vulnerable to the elements than a cluster.

I am inclined to believe that trends and fashion are designed to affect us in the same way. Every youth wants to be "unique", to "stand out", and so it pits us into conflict with one another at a time when they should be making friends based on things that are really common rather than on taste in music or threads with which they adorn their bodies. All of them are quickly rendered alone and isolated, each an island, and they find commonality based on activities, 'likes' and fads rather than on their honest feelings in an attempt to fit in somewhere. Detractors mock what is good and brave and true and endorse things of transient value and duration. Those without strong family units find themselves the slaves of drugs, alcohol and promiscuity.

Family is the great rock that is supposed to hold us together. The economy and other socio-political movements have robbed society of the safety that can be found in a family. Instead of a refuge, homes become places to store crap. Instead of being at home, parents are out working or socializing or 'living life to its fullest'. Our quest for wealth has robbed us of the mother as watchman over the home refuge. The fires are all gone out, and so are our children.

Unity is a great historical precedent for success. During the civil war, officers were there chiefly to make sure men kept formation and moved forward. Few of them had experience or credentials to render them effective leaders by example, and so most of them walked behind. I have seen the GAR field manuals. They dictate exactly where the officers should follow behind the men. Greece and Rome held military hegemony for centuries based on their fighting technique. It bound men together, but unlike the loose association by geography of the civil war, they were united by other values as citizens of a great empire. One Spartan phalanx of 300 men held off Persia long enough for the rest of Greece to unite, an army of nearly one million men.

Even, ironically, the popular culture reflects this principle. From time to time, a cunning director will insert a theme of unity into their message in film. In Spider Man2, a new yorker throws something at the villain and declares "you mess with one of us, and you mess with all of us". You can see the Roman fighting style at work in Gladiator where the general orders his men to cluster together to stop the chariot attack. Even JK Rowling, bless her heart, wrote one into her stories. Luna Lovegood tells Harry that if she were Voldemort she would want him to feel like he was alone because that renders him less of a threat.

In case you doubt me, consider the pledge of allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Indivisible. Aliens don't have to abide by the laws. What about justice for all?

We place far too much emphasis on what makes us unique at the expense of the things that bind us together as a people. Our enemies smile at this prospect because it is easier to destroy your enemies in handfuls than to face them in their combined strength. Rome and Greece were strong because of the phalanx principle. Unless breached, this "group of people standing, or moving forward closely together" was a nearly invincible fighting force. As Ben Franklin said, 'Gentlemen we must all hang together or we shall most assuredly all hang separately'. Let us move forward closely together, and we shall overcome any power that stands in the way of Liberty and Justice.

27 May 2010

Taking Advantage of a Crisis

Share
The president speaks of 'we' today, when he has done jack squat. He takes credit for things he did not do and ignores the responsibility for things he created. Until yesterday, he had no idea about the back fill plan. If he had, he would have announced it beforehand. He has stonewalled Governor Jindal's efforts to take charge and waited for BP to do stuff. Now we hear that BP has done nothing without Obama's express written prior consent. He has not been on the case. All he has done is baste BP while they did what they could to stop an oil leak a mile underwater.

Now, he has an ace up his sleeve. Months ago, Obama announced that he would open land for oil exploration. Now that this spill has exceeded the Exxon Valdez crash in severity (due to his inaction I add), he will capitalize on it to ban all oil exploration everywhere, including in Alaska. How convenient. Then he scapegoats BP and holds them responsible. I'm surprised he didn't blame some corporation for the volcano in Iceland. That volcano hurt the environment more than BP's leak has.

BP would have had an easier time if not for the government. First, government regulation mandates that we go so far offshore, away from help and resources and equipment. Secondly, the equipment mandated by the CLinton administration for this kind of eventuality was not immediately available when it was small, and Obama, like when the Somalis took an American sea captain hostage, sat on his hands. He takes credit for what BP does just like he did when the Navy Commander ordered the SEALs to shoot. that Commander was court marshalled for disobeying the commander in chief.

This man will destroy oil if he can. If BP operates at Obama's direction, then Obama owns it if this new technique fails. He will however conveniently escape any blame and scapegoat someone.

If he had been serious, he would have spent some time at sidewalk level. We have a picture of Obama on the phone with governors in the gulf but not one of him cleaning up ducks or sea lions or kelp covered with oil. We have corporate entities on the way but no actual federal help aside from the military which has no expertise in resource extraction or control. Obama just shot America in the foot again with his incompetance. Even if you don't have a good idea, you get out there and ask your boots on the ground what they need and then bend over backwards to give it to them as soon as you can.

Obama doesn't care about your hardships. He says he's praying for the families of the workers who died in the explosion and for those affected by the spill. Yet, until today, he made no mention personally of any lives lost and offers no real mediation of our sufferings. Any idiot can pray. That's the least he can do. Mr. President, I don't want or need your prayers. Your god offers me nothing that I desire.

26 May 2010

Nerds are Trendy

Share
When I was younger, it was socially disadvantageous to be a nerd. Nobody wanted to date you. Everyone picked on you. When people spoke to you, you were always cautious of their motives, and for good reason. I could tell you personal anecdotes which I will keep to myself for now. Now, however, it has become vogue to be a nerd.

When Bill Gates made his fortune, it was suddenly fashionable to be a nerd. Gates, arguably one of the nerdiest men on the planet perhaps ever, rose to be for a time one of the richest men ever on the earth. As his empire boomed, so did all of the vocational pursuits generally selected by nerds in information technology. We had turned to that to keep busy when we were excluded from activities with other people, and now that those people want those gadgets, they need us and want us to help them keep their lifestyle. Everyone I know knows a nerd on whom to call if they have any sort of computer hiccup whatsoever.

of late, I have noticed that many of girls with excessive 'hotness' want to date nerds. The nerds they seek are not necessarily the brainiacs or 'dweeb' class like that to which I belong. They look for nerds who are into computers, play video games all the time, etc. I worked with a woman once who bought her live-in boyfriend a computer game so that she could get some time away from him. I know a young lady who only wants to date nerds because she likes their innocence in bed. Part of this might be the assumption that nerds will get rich like Gates, but a large part is that nerds stay. Eventually, these girls know they can count on their nerds because nerds usually have no hope at the kinds of relationships or the kinds of girls that jocks and preps could catch, and so if they win a girl like that, they keep her.

There are other reasons. I don't know the minds of girls very well who choose that kind of guy, but I have heard some disturbing things about why girls started to choose nerds. It might be part of the chickification of society- it's no longer vogue to get a masculine man. Look around at all the girls who pick guys with small waistbands and small ambitions over men who can protect them and earn a good living with which to care for them. More and more, some nerds act like girls. It probably comes from the time they spend with them, because girls would befriend nerds because they were safe, easy to put into the Friend Zone.

Being a nerd protected me from a lot of things when I grew up that no longer seem to be spared us. My peers knew I was a prude and a straight edge and a 'Puritan', and so they never offered me drugs, alcohol, or physical intimacy. It kept me away from places where and people with whom I might get into trouble. That's no longer the case. Everyone wants their nerd, and the nerds need to be wary.

The woman who offers you the enjoyment of her body outside of wedlock doesn't do it for you. She does it for her. She is after validation that she is desireable. She invites you to a feast which brings only disease. There was a good reason they didn't use to choose us, and there is an equally deceptive reason why they choose us today. It's not about us. It's about something else.

25 May 2010

Government Entrenched Segregation

Share
The presence of the law indicates that without the law some people could not be forced to behave in the way the law seeks to enforce. As such, since there are laws once established to enforce segregation, that means some people chose to serve everyone and that Americans were less racist before those laws than they were because of them.

The presence of segregated counters or segregated restaurants means that some restauranteurs, streetcar operators, and school officials refused to segregate until the government forced them to. Why would some people want to serve everyone? It's sa matter of simple economics: the place that makes no distinctions gets the most business, like Wal-Mart, where you can see customers from every socio-economic status side by side in line. Like all regulations, it was geared to protect businesses whose owners were racist from going out of business.

Governmental regulations helped us endure, then embrace a world separated on race. Would fewer laws make us less racist? I think so. We have spent decades trying to enforce equal opportunity by law. Let us now try liberty.

20 May 2010

Nervous Auction Anticipation

Share
I find I prefer to just buy things I like. Auctions get me excited and wound up so much that I either make poor choices or can think of nothing else. Even as I rise this morning with several hours to go on an auction, I can feel my body tense up and it might be difficult to run. It was.

When I first moved to the Vegas valley, my dad took me to the auto auction. We kept an eagle eye out every week for Saturns in the event we could pick up a replacement for Car2-D2 on the cheap through the auction. That first trip, we weren't serious and made it more of an educational experience. We watched two people get caught up and bid up over $4500 for a vehicle that was clearly in a front-end collision and was worth way less than that.

Ever since I got onto eBay in 1997, i have hated their auctions too. In the very last moments, people will get on and snipe things away from me. There's really very little point to watching anything all week because in general the action occurs during the last half hour or even within the last few minutes with everyone jockeying to get it for as cheaply as they possibly can. I bid what I can afford and watch tons of items slip through my fingers.

Tuesday afternoon, when I discovered someone auctioning a full set of Thomas Jefferson's works from the memorial limited edition run in 1909, I was intrigued. Since I visited Monticello, I have longed to get ahold of his writings. It was too tempting, and so I got involved. Now, with only a few hours to go, I can feel my heart pound in my chest in anticipation of a possible win. it's killing me.

When I buy things, I prefer to just skip just to best offer. For 14 months I have been looking for a house, and I refuse to pay more than asking price. Other people can get caught up in bidding wars, but my best offer is my best offer, and I refuse to hurt myself and other people by paying more than an item is worth. That is kind of what happened with the housing market in the first place, and it's certainly what happened with the Tickle Me Elmo craze I remember back in High School. When I bought a replacement car, I asked what the asking price included (tax, title, doc, etc.) and then pointed out there were some slight damages to the car. He gave me best price, and I took it.

If I see something I like, I buy it. I like Buy it Now offerings because I can get it right now. I like Half.com because I list media for what I want and people select mine if they like. Sometimes I wait for things to go on sale, as they almost inevitably do, but I am not much of a haggler or bidder. I don't like how I feel during an auction or what it does to me to anticipate something. My life since High School has been replete with disappointments aplenty, and so I count my eggs as I gather them and not in advance of the harvest.

Once I bought something on eBAY for more than I was willing to pay. I still own it, and I think I keep it as a reminder to pay only what an item is worth to me. When I was tempted to offer more than I could actually afford on a home in anticipation of the tax credit, I thought twice. Sure, I might not win this auction either, but it might come back up again. Chances are that most of the bidders want it, not for the knowledge it contains, but for how much they believe it to be worth to other people. They want, like many who inflated the housing market in the last few years, to flip this item and resell it for a profit. I see plenty of profit in the item itself. That wealth of knowledge is what I seek.

I intended to buy this collection anyway eventually. Instead of a reprint bought piecemeal used for $30-$40/volume, I could pick up a matching set right now for less than that. Sounds like a good deal to me!

Update at 12:10PM: I have a strange auction strategy. I set as my maximum bid a strange dollar amount like $11.07 or $92.61 because most people use round figures in their bids. Five seconds before the auction ended, someone bid $0.07 less than my max bid, and so I won. Price with shipping comes out to less than $14/book, and they are a special limited issue. In all this week, I have purchased 71 books for $423 including shipping which is less than $6 per book. Beat that Amazon!

19 May 2010

Hippocrite President of Mexico

Share
Realfacts posted some interesting excerpts from Mexico's official statutes in the wake of the visit by Mexican President Calderone.

UNDER MEXICO’S IMMIGRATION LAW (GENERAL LAW ON POPULATION): [1][3]
Mexico’s Immigration Law(General Law on Population)
1999• Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:- Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)- Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)- Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)- The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
• Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:- Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)- A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)- A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
• Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:- Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)- Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
• Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:- Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)- Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)- Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
• Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,- “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)- Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)- Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
• Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:- A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)- Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
UNDER MEXICO’S CONSTITUTION :[2][4]
Mexico’s Constitution(English translation)
-
• The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life.Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, “only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country.” Article 33 is unambiguous: “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”
• The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners.If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast.
Article 27 states, “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.” (Emphasis added)• The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legalones, in the public sector.
“Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.” (Article 32)
• The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:
“In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.”
• An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.
• Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).
• The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82), thus giving secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.
• The Mexican constitution singles out “undesirable aliens.” Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.”
• The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests.Article 16 states, “in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.
• The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”

Some people argue that these aliens make a significant contribution to society. They do not contribute to society if they BREAK THE LAW. Society is based on law and order. If we allow them to break the law and then reward them with citizenship, the result is anarchy.

I will not be lectured on mercy and justice by the President of Mexico who himself is executor of laws far harsher than any we employ. Our president sat there in a vain stupor and let that imbecile decry us for our efforts to preserve our society which compared to those employed in his own country are benign.

He suggested they atone for their disregard for the law by paying taxes as a penalty. Does that mean we all paying a penalty for the privilege of being citizens? Should taxes be a path to citizenship? They never have been. They didn't guarantee us representation under George III.

Obama says he will punish businesses that hire people with the proper paperwork, yet we're not allowed to force them to carry papers. that would be like nazi germany. How can we verify your status via documents if you have no documents? How come you cannot ask them the land of their nativity when they commit a crime? Even worse, he won't take questions and defend what he said. everything is a talking point. Everything is a campaign slogan. Mr President, you never have to account for what you say. You are a coward, a liar, and a hypocrite, the dumbest smart man ever elected to public office.

A naturalized citizen in Mexico is always a second class citizen. They cannot have the same rights as someone who is citizen by birth. Who in Falkirk does Calderon think he is to come here and baste us? That blathering blatherscythe!

18 May 2010

Jack, Jill and Relationships

Share
Now that I'm older, I think Jack and Jill is a metaphor for relationships. They both went up the hill together after the water, and it was an uphill climb. Jack is the one who falls first, which is the stereotype that guys terminate the relationship through poor choices or commitment phobia. He breaks his crown which implies a loss of focus, a loss of concentration, and a lost train of thought. Jill "comes" after, which implies that as the relationship falls apart both people fall a bit. There is a loss of trust, of comfort, and of identity. In the end, many people never taste the refreshing waters.

As I look at a lot of relationships around me, I find that they are codependent at best. Even worse, there seems to be a rising conglomerate of people who prey upon one another. There are people who want sexual gratification, monetary advancement, or prestige of family status. A few months ago, a Facebook friend posted "First time you marry for love. Second time you marry for looks and money" and people opined that they could not skip to marriage #2! A few weeks ago, I wrote of a Craigslist story where both of the people played against each other for their own advancement. It calls to memory one of my favorite comedy skits on Jack and Jill:





The POE version is the best...it actually depicts an attack!

Not everyone is like that. Not everyone starts out like that. The problem starts when the romance period ends and two lovers settle down to the rigmarole of making a life together. I know I write about this way too much. I'm single.

Everything worth having takes work, and even the length of the rhyme illustrates the short-term thinking that pervades expectations for romance and happiness in families.

16 May 2010

iJunk: Status Symbol

Share
I follow a blog where today the author detailed a list of reasons why you don't need an iPad. He makes a good point. Nobody actually "needs" an iPad. Everyone can get along without one just fine. Like everything else produced by Apple, it's simply a status symbol.

For a brief period of time, I owned an iPod. Most of the time I spent listening to music was in my car, and rather than buy an adaptor for iPod-Cassette, I just listened to cassette mix tapes, which I already filled with songs I like. After I realized I had no use or desire to keep it, I sold it and I own nothing from Apple. They have some neat applications, but I don't really need them. I use a MacBook at work from time to time, but I leave it chained up in a drawer when I go home.

As to this post, allow me to summarize. You already have plenty of devices that do exactly what the iPad does. They do it better. They are designed to. The iPad unites them into one device, but it's not optimized to do any of them well. In order to integrate with any of your other devices, you have to buy aftermarket adaptors from Apple. These are rather pricey. Electronic devices have not made our lives simpler. Now we worry about whether we have them or not, if the battery will last, and if we'll have signal. They have become a way for people to track us when we want to be alone, chains that reduce our freedom in some ways when people think they absolutely have to get ahold of us for the most asinine banalities imaginable. I heard today the iPhone v4 will be out soon. Everything from Apple is a fad and has to be constantly updated. I have owned three actual cellular phones in my entire life and I only dumped the first one when they forced me onto the digital network. The second one died when I dropped it off a cliff... Make it do or do without.

If you own Apple and love it and always have, then you're the exception. Most people who buy Apple products do so to fit in. They use their iTouch/iPad/iPod/iPhone/iWhatever to update their Facebook and Twitter and play dumb games in low quality. You're not cool if you have a regular phone, especially if it doesn't have a camera. Phones are for status, to show what you or the business who gave it to you can afford. iDontcare.

There are advantages to old things. They are easy to fix yourself. They are cheaper to register, to insure, and to operate. They are not fit with chips from Echelon so the CIA can track what you do URL or IRL. Books don't require batteries to be read. Radio doesn't require special earbuds or have a
Doomseed to destroy your entertainment. Nobody wants to steal old technology, and in fact you can probably pick up extra spares on Craigslist or through Freecycle. I do. Many old things are tried and true, which is why they still work in the first place.

I watch what comes out. I learn how it works and what it's useful for. The iPAD doesn't do anything new that I can't do better with something I already own. If you're a techie and you love that kind of stuff, great, but you don't need one. My needs are small, I buy them all at the nickel and dime. It gives me great freedom to do other things with my time and money.

14 May 2010

Housing Market Returns to Free-Market Levels

Share
As some of you know, I have been looking for a house for over a year now (since March of 2009). I refused all along to pay more than asking price and lost a few other properties to better offers or "cash" buyers. Truth is that this was a bunch of speculation and false signage. Now we have the truth. According to a report out today, with the expiration of the housing tax credit, the market has responded as I hoped and expected it would.


One full week after the tax credit's expiration, mortgage applications fell 9.5 percent; this as mortgage interest rates dropped below 5 percent.


Inventory is up, applications are down, and the prices are headed back where they were.

There have been some suspect behaviors in the past few months. An appraiser friend of mine says that banks have been asking for $10-15K more than offers when they counter. He thinks that's to cover the back taxes they owe as well as gobble up the tax credit. My realtor reported that prices were up about $10K, suspiciously near the tax credit, so that banks would essentially get the money and you would put it into your loan. She told me that offices were flooded with people desperate to buy before the credit expired facing a shrinking inventory. My realtor says that cash buyers are speculative investors who borrowed the money already from somewhere else. I have seen homes on which I made offers come back on the market a few months later in better condition albeit $30-50K above the previous price. This week I went to a new housing tract where I can buy a new and nicer home for that. The investors are crazy to think I'll pay that. A friend of mine in banking said there was no excuse for that because banks are sitting on inventory. I saw a house last Friday where there was no sign out front as many are- completely without signage. KXNT News reported yesterday in Las Vegas that we are in the 40th consecutive month at the top of foreclosures with 1 in 69 homes in the metro area receiving foreclosure notices. Consider that 1 in 25 homes are already there, and there should be TONS of inventory. Banks were holding it to inflate the price and create bidding wars. Add to that, starting 5 April there were new incentives for banks to close short sales. That didn't stop Chase from countering an offer I made on a home at $14,000 more than my offer which was $11,000 over list price. They think they can have their cake and eat it too at my expense. I don't think so; I know the law and current events.

Two weeks after that, there are new homes on the market near my price range. Some of them are new listings. Some of them are price reductions of about $10,000. Hmm... Good thing I didn't get caught up in the bidding war and overpay now that prices are headed back in my direction. Add to that, I expect that many people who were in the market a month ago will be out now that there is no tax credit to offset their purchase investment. As Vegas continues to lose jobs and tourism dollars, there will be less demand for housing. If we pass a law like Arizona, say goodbye to a large part of our population as well.

Later today the Treasury will release a report on how effective their program was. I expect they will lie and gloss over the realities. Truth is that it was an abject failure. The banks got the money in the end. The people got screwed again, because government transferred more of our money from us to the banks. I thought banks were evil. They're not stupid. They wanted a piece of the pie too.

So this week, I have made three offers on three different and rather large and nice homes. I may make another offer this weekend. I would have liked the tax credit, because I could use it, but if the price goes down another $8000, I will consider it even.

13 May 2010

Armstrong: My Favorite Explorer

Share
Neil Armstrong is my favorite explorer. First man to officially walk on the moon, brave man to leave the confines of the earth where if you make any mistakes you're dead immediately, and now going where nobody has gone before as far as NASA and Obama are concerned, this man is amazing. Today, he criticized Obama's NASA ideas as "likely contrived by a very small group in secret" and of doubtful value to America's space supremecy. With Jim Lovell (Apollo 13) and Eugene Cernan (Apollo 17), they described the plan thusly: "We (Armstrong, Lovell and myself) have come to the unanimous conclusion that this budget proposal presents no challenges, has no focus, and in fact is a blueprint for a mission to 'nowhere."

How is this a surprise? This man led the way. He has 'gravitas'. From whence cometh Obama's expertise in space travel? From watching "The Jetsons"? This man is an expert. This man went where nobody had been before, where many said we could never go, and with far poorer equipment than that currently available to us. Armstrong is a hero.

I hope I get to meet him one day.

Kagan: Keep Faith With Our Fighting Men

Share
It suffices for me as reason alone to oppose Kagan's nomination that she as Dean did, in a time of war, launch opposition to the Solomon Amendment in an attempt to ban military recruitment on campus. As a legitimate function, it is the Federal Government's Obligation to raise up armies, equip them and train them and send them forth to protect our sovereignty. Anyone who disagrees opposes the Constitutional law of the land itself. Greet her with a filibuster and stop her at all costs.

Apparently, the only thing required to get on the Supreme Court under this administration is to drool all over yourself in praise for the President. I for one would rather be shot behind the chemical shed.

12 May 2010

Privilege of Worshipping the Almighty

Share
A friend of mine sent me a message today that she assumed I would not like. She announced that she had decided to become a wiccan. I was unclear why I would disprove of this choice since she has thus far in her life been agnostic and so wiccan faith represents in my estimation an increase in faith and gravitation towards some religious belief even if one with which I am only superfluously familiar and of which I am not necessarily a fan. She told me it was a belief that "members of your religion don't look kindly upon".

People who attend church with me might feel that way. As I already said, I view it as a victory for faith because now she believes in something. I have known this girl for almost five years and get to finally see her embrace some kind of a faith. Some of the people with whom I attend church like to pick and choose the parts of the Faith in which they believe. I shared with my friend this quote which is one cornerstone of our religious belief:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. --Joseph Smith

It is also why we so staunchly support religious liberty and the Constitutional amendment that vouchsafes it.

There are many in my Faith who think it their mandate and orders to enforce other people to believe like they do. If they read yesterday's entry, they will see that I believe in freedom to choose, and SO DO THEY. Honest confession of our Faith's tenants includes the ability for men to choose their own adventure. While I believe that eventually every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, nowhere in what I have read has it ever ordered us or informed us that it will be compulsory. Everything I read speaks contrary to compulsion.

My attitude sets me apart as a member or as a leader. If I were in a position of responsibility, I would divest my personal beliefs from my policy. A politician's first duty is to the Constitution. A bureaucrat's first duty is to the LAW. If you disagree, you lobby to change it, but you always obey it. I have neither mandate nor authority to impose my beliefs on others or to legislate morality, yet there are those of my Faith who believe exactly that, that they are to create a Theocracy.

If that were true, why would God have gone to such great lengths to write the Constitution? If that were true, then why protect religion in general? How convenient of them to memorize that Article of Faith as a youth and forget it now that they are adults. They should do well to remember this:

“Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States.” (David O. McKay, Conference Report, October 1939.)

Our Constitution as well as our Articles of Faith specifically protect the right of people to worship the Almighty as they choose. I am glad my friend is a wiccan. My best friend is a Deist. I have friends who are Jews, Quakers, Methodists, Catholics, etc. I have no friends who are Born Again Christians. They always unfriend me when they discover my Faith. I am glad they believe in something. Those who believe in nothing tend to fall for anything.

On a hike a few months back, one of the attendees said I was not a very good adherant of my faith. When I asked him why, he told me it's because I actually do the things I say I believe instead of giving them lip service. I asked him, "So doesn't that mean I'm good and the others aren't very good?" It was a matter of his perception, and just like my friend today, they expect things of me by convention instead of codification.

Be you. Do what you do. Accept the consequences, as will I. I follow the admonition of Abraham Lincoln who said: "I do the very best I know how--the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."

Worship as you will. Enjoy that right while you can. Fight for it if you are inclined. I will be glad of your company on that front whatever your religious affirmation.

11 May 2010

Free to Choose

Share
I thought it relevant to point out something I realized today about the Founding Fathers and their Constitution. As I have read William Penn's writings, I enjoyed the book because it allowed me to study the scriptures at the same time as I read about economics, politics, and family. It also taught me something about how they put together the Constitution and how important it was for them that we all be able to choose their own adventure.

Had they so wished it, the Founders could have set up a utopia on this land and compelled men to conform to their morays. They were Puritans and Quakers and they could have filled the Constitution chock full of laws that outlawed behaviors with which they disagreed like adultery, sodomy, profanity, blasphemy, etc. The fact of the matter and the only relevant detail is that they did no such thing. They left that kind of thing where it belonged- with the pastors at their pulpits. They knew that unless men were free to choose they could not progress. They knew the words of Joshua who told the Israelites: “and if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve ; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord (Joshua 24:15).” Unless men were able to choose, they could not really show their loyalty or be happy. The Founders advocated the pursuit of happiness. If you think it be by way of sexual indiscretion or fiduciary malfeasance, then go head and try. If you think you can do better than God, good luck and good bye.

Our Founders left us with one more unwritten freedom- the freedom to leave. If you think it's wrong, then go somewhere else. If you want to live another way, then live somewhere else. While not explicitly mentioned, that was what they practiced in their townships, that you conform locally to efforts rather than imposition of global federal law. They were Federalists, for State's Rights. This is why I support originalists on the Supreme Court and why I oppose a large federal government. That is the only place I value restraint. When the Supreme Court struck down Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, they went against the states. Some 37 states already had laws outlawing sodomy, and so Anthony Kennedy as swing vote essentially said that we have a Constitutional right to Sodomy. It's not really there, maybe it's in invisible ink on the back of the Declaration of Independence. Someone call Nicolas Cage.

That meant there were 13 states where you could sodomize if you like. Yuck. Yet, that's exactly where they were headed. Do it if you must, but do it somewhere else.

Man cannot grow unless he is free to choose. He cannot choose unless he is inticed to act by both options. If we prevent wickedness, ultimately we prevent righteousness. If you keep people from disobedience, you prevent them from obedience. They "obey" because they have no other option. That is a dead end, and the Founders knew it. If they had meant it otherwise, they would have banned those things in the Constitution.

It's not so much what the Constitution says as much as it strikes me whereon it remains silent. Think about it.

10 May 2010

Why Bob Bennett Needed to Go

Share
I first encountered Bob Bennett when I applied for a job with the USDA in Logan, UT in 2007. As I spoke with people who were his benefactors, it became evident that he wasn't concerned with results and utility of research as much as he was with ranchers and researchers banding together to buoy him up at the caucus. At that time, I was unaware of some other details that have since come to light.

When he ran for office originally, Bennett made promises he did not keep. Among others, he made a promise to serve only two terms. This would have been his fourth.

During my job interview with the USDA, I discovered some unholy alliances. Bennett is deeply connected to the ranching community, and given the money they have, all he has to do is deliver pork to them, and they will help ensconce him forever.

Bennett is a poor steward of public money. He voted for the bailout.

My grandparents were surprised to discover that I dislike Bennett. Bob bennett is a Mormon. His grandfather was Heber J Grant, and his wife is the granddaughter of David O McKay. Just because he is mormon does not mean I support him. Harry Reid and I have, for example, yet to agree on anything.

Bennett was not faithful to his stewardship. Media sources are angry at the backlash, but that's because they have little regard for the public opinion. Bennett forgot for whom he worked, and so they fired him.

08 May 2010

Graduation: For the Students

Share
I attended my kid sister's graduation this afternoon, and I have to say it was quite an ordeal. Although it brought back memories of my own graduation in 2002, I wondered if mine was as painful as this one. Graduation is supposed to be for the students, and they seemed to be more like a footnote than the actual message.

Since when did graduation become a time for the administration to pat themselves on the back? They spent ninety minutes of the ordeal giving awards to citizens in the community, awarding honorary degrees, and pontificating about how great UNLV is. Don't get me wrong, I like UNLV, but if the president of the university really thinks that "no public university has done more for students than UNLV" he has another thing coming. This type of activity would be best reserved for a private ceremony or maybe a press conference where they could invite the media and people who care instead of forcing the families of 1400 students, which included myriads of young children, to sit there and listen to them babel on.

Who picks the people who give the commencement addresses? The undergraduate speaker compared life to a casino. While appropriate for the metropolitan area, it was grossly inappropriate for the audience and a poor analogy when other more relevant options might be chosen. The graduate speaker misattributed his success to UNLV. Sorry sir, but it was the Army and that drill sergeant of whom you spoke who turned your life around and saved you from the gutter and not the faculty. He got you out. UNLV gave you a new direction.

No matter how much they pat themselves on the back, faculty are not in the end responsible for student success. The university doesn't "give" diplomas. It awards them to students who earned them. Everyone here seems to forget that we get paid to teach. The students pay us to give them information, and the diploma attests to competancy in subjects, not to our skills as educators. Yet, it seems to me now that I am graduated that graduation is an excuse for faculty to festoon themselves in black robes and parade around with puffed-out chests and act like they are great. I didn't come to see them. I came to see my sister walk and a few of her friends that I've come to know over the last three years.

If I were in charge, and my sister begged me not to every be, I would make a few other changes. Since this is the first time for undergraduates, I would either not make them wait until last or give them their own separate ceremony. Was it not taught that the greatest among you should be your servants? Then why do we spend so much time on the graduate students? What's more, they processed the undergraduates in 35 minutes giving them hardly enough time to clear the spot where a photo was shot before the next person walked up. Bad form. All in all, the undergraduate portion was 1/6th the total time spent in the arena, and if that's why we came, it should have been the major time block and not a minor one.

On the whole, I am disappointed with attitudes. Clearly the administration has it backwards about why we exist and why we hold graduation. They spoke about how it was a "celebration" for those who had finally made it. They spoke how UNLV had "taken a chance on the students". What arrogant hubris! Students paid us money. We gave them information. They demonstrated mastery, and we gave them a diploma in return. They earned it. Many of them would have in spite of the faculty.

Mr. President, academics is not "one part of what we do here" it is the major part. It is why we exist. We can exist without sports programs, research, and the like, but if nobody pays to take our classes, then it doesn't matter how good our faculty are, how well our teams play or what our research generates. Without customers, we have no revenue, and you sir become completely irrelevant.

Focus on the students. That's one thing that's wrong with education in Nevada.

07 May 2010

iPROBLEM

Share
In a tech-saavy age, I have a problem with some of Apple’s devices. About a week ago, I saw an advertisement for an application on the iPAD where a guy speaks English and it reads back the Spanish translation. For a moment, I thought that would be really cool. It’s much easier than Rosetta Stone, which is about the same price upfront, but then I had another contrary thought. I worry that we have become so dependent on technology that we cannot do without it.

Recently, there was a brilliant mock advertisement for the iPAD. I present it here for your viewing pleasure.
I remember a simpler time. I remember a time when, prior to final exams, we were handed a pencil and paper and turned loose without any other materials to help us. Now, I have students who are constantly looking things up on the internet to supplement their discussions and arguments real time. I remember a time when calculators had only four functions and cost $100 or more. Now, I have students who cannot do simple calculations on their own and whip out their iPHONEs to use the calculator application for simple things. I remember a time when you had to actually talk to or write to people in order to communicate and share in their lives. Now I have students who are on the internet tagging people in photos, worried about stalker-finder applications, and who read about others on Facebook without actually talking to them.

Apple’s devices lead to less communication and higher costs. As we turn more to electronic gadgetry, we draw on more electricity at a time when the global energy availability has reached a low for our lifetimes, when they want us to power everything with the wind and the sun instead of fossil fuels. There is not capacity to capture enough power to fuel the world, and when there is a power outage, people who depend on the types of items such as those Apple produces are completely lost and debilitated because they can’t do anything without their phones.

Many of apple’s devices are fine so long as we remain their master. The problem is that more and more they draw us into a virtual world that does not really exist. People play games without exercise, keep tabs without actually talking, and speak foreign languages without any knowledge of what the words the translator applications actually mean. I present a quote from a friend prior to her disappearance from the virtual world:
I've always hated social networking sites. I've always hated the internet in general. It connects me to the virtual world, but disconnects me from reality. I'm picking up more books, going on walks that will be full of thought, writing incessantly, and spending time with actual people. I will not allow the internet to consume me like it does so many others.
Electronic entertainment provides to some the mistaken notion that if they can conquer a fake world that they can succeed in the real one. The more we become tech-savvy at the expense of other skills, the weaker we are. What happens when a time comes when nobody knows how to actually do long division or speak Spanish without a device? What happens when the satellites go out or the power spikes and we have to actually communicate with one another?

I worry about Generation Why and the technology with which they have been bombarded. There was a time when that kind of person was considered a nerd, a dork, or a geek, and pronounced unworthy of association or relationships. They have more means of communication than ever before but they communicate less. They have more technology to help them do work but they accomplish less. They have more access to information than ever before but they know less. The fill countless wasted hours with complete strangers instead of going out and actually interacting with people, and in the process they never grow up. So now we have internet dating, social networking sites, blogs, ad infinitum. We don't meet people anymore or talk to old friends or even know how to use a phone. So many of them are socially awkward, immature, and rough around the edges. If they can surreptitiously communicate, calculate and copulate, then what happens to civilization?

Technology was supposed to make life easier. While none of our electronic creations have overtly taken over our society such as in iROBOT or other films, the devices seem indeed to have done precisely that. We use Word instead of pen and paper, we use Guitar Hero instead of real instruments, and we use eHarmony.com instead of going out and asking people on dates. Apple didn’t create this mess, they just create some of the tools that facilitate the end of civil society. Technology is fine as long as we remain its master. Like the ad mocking the iPAD, they have really just created something we already have at a much higher price as a means of fitting in, keeping up, and playing favorites.

Gadgetry plays into the balkanization of society, because if you don’t know how to use one or don’t own one, you fall under the pirate’s code. Those who fall behind get left behind. I thought we left medievalism in the past. iWRONG

06 May 2010

A Great Wall

Share
The President refuses to do anything about border security. It takes him about eight days to respond to threats against this nation but about eight minutes to betray its founding principles and ideals for those of European socialism. Whether it was the pirates on the Maersk Alabama or the Times Square Bomber of 2010 or the assassination of Americans by drug lords in Mexico, he’s off to play golf, give speeches, and take vacation. He cannot be bothered to do his job. Instead, he’s out vilifying Arizona’s governor and BP Executives. Mr. President, you are the Chief Executive, and by definition it is your duty to execute the law, not to make new ones.

The wall on our border would solve some of our problems and help him keep some of his promises. A wall on the border is the most effective and efficient way to secure our borders. First of all, it would create jobs while we build it. Secondly, it would free up domestic jobs for the desperately unemployed because illegals would not be available to fill them. Walls have worked wherever they were tried. The Mongols had to ride all the way around the Great Wall of China to get in. Sparta’s 300 were able to funnel Persia’s millions into a tiny crevasse with a wall they built on the beach. Walls cannot be breached with wire cutters or driven through in SUVs. A wall was the main bulwark for Helm’s Deep and to protect Mordor in Tolkien’s novel The Two Towers. The problem is that the presidents promises were pandering and nothing more.

Walls work. A virtual frontier works against virtual aliens. A fence slows the flow but does not stop it. Build the wall. Some Democrats compare it to the Berlin wall. How many of them have been to Berlin and seen the Brandenburger Tor? The Soviets built that to KEEP EAST GERMANS IN. Is that what we’re doing? Trying to keep our people from fleeing the nation? Hoboken no. The arrogant hubris and presumption of these people who draw analogies to disparate things appalls me. These nitwits have no idea what it’s like to live in Germany under a foreign force or to worry about ethnic cleansing. That’s not what this is about. This is about the Law.

Once you breach the firewalls of the law, society ceases to exist. While we submit to police stoppage and searches in airports the bureaucracy gives aliens amnesty and aspirin. Mr. President- enforce the law. If we’re going to have them, you might as well enforce them against criminals and not just against innocent citizens.

05 May 2010

Why I Ignore May 5th

Share

Even my calendar at work proclaims May 5th as it really is. It’s not Mexican Independence day. It’s the anniversary of the battle of Puebla, a minor skirmish of some 12000 troops at the end of the Franco-Mexican war. While a defeat for the French, they lost about 500 out of 8000 men, which hardly makes it either a rout nor a crushing blow compared to similar clashes in the American Civil War (Pickett lost 5000 of his 12000 men in about an hour). It’s not a day of celebration in Mexico. There’s a good reason why.

Cinco de Mayo is a regional holiday limited primarily to the state of Puebla while there is some limited recognition of the holiday in other parts of the country. Sold in America as a time to celebrate Mexican heritage and culture, it is primarily a time to puncture piñatas and binge on booze, the kind of riotous behavior that marks other similar “holidays” such as St. Patrick’s Day, Oktoberfest, etc. It can’t be about troubled economic times or the French war. Puebla was not strategic or pivotal, but the victory became a bit of propaganda, similar to Washington’s victory in Trenton on Christmas Day. The French went on to win several battles after Puebla, and Mexico had huge troubles under the Dons just before their independence from Spain. Let’s also remember that George Bush 43 bailed Mexico out with money when their economy went south.

Honestly, Cinco de Mayo is a holiday created by corporations. It’s primarily a day on which beer companies like Cerveza, Corona, and Tecate see a boost in sales. Equally important, Frito-Lay sells loads of chips, dips, and guacamole mix for parties. Forget any attempt to get a reservation in a Mexican restaurant that day. It has largely become a party day dressed up in the drag of something that really wasn’t that pivotal. Whereas most people continue to focus on party and profits, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, a growing number want to take back the holiday, returning it to a celebration that focuses on family and culture, instead of on tequila and taquitos.

Consumer advocacy groups point out the true problem of the party phenomenon. Their biggest fears are that Coors and Anheiser-Busch, which have devoted a whole new line of advertising to young Hispanics, have identified the real premise for the party and sought to douse them up with a deluge of drunkenness. If they start drinking earlier, then these companies have new customers for life, even if only this one day per annum. Every holiday can be used as an excuse to overindulge, but the battle of Puebla celebrates a “great Mexican victory” which was in actuality nothing more than France’s version of Pickett’s Charge, which would occur almost exactly a year later in Pennsylvania, equally futile and ill-advised as a miscalculation.

03 May 2010

Smothering Romantic Flames

Share
I appreciate those who seem to care about other people. I appreciate their desire to spend their lives together. I wonder if we are not our own worst enemy when it comes to dating because we try so hard to start the fires that we inadvertently put them out. In our gestures, our use of time, our search for perfection and our complacency with our present state and direction, we first do harm as we think we do good and by so doing put out the flames.

As previously mentioned on this blog, I come from years of active scouting. We learned in scouting that you can smother a fire with too much fuel. Whether that be the burnable materials or the air to fan the flame, a fire and a relationship is like holding a bird: clutch it too tightly and you choke it; too lightly, and it flies away.

1. It has bothered me since the day on which I first realized I liked girls to watch other people in excessive public display of affection. I feel that when you parade it in front of me like that you are trying to show that you have something I don't. I am not into one-upmanship, and I also believe as said Jesus that those who do things in public in the street to be seen of men have their reward.

Gestures need to be appropriate. You hear very rarely the warnings of necking and petting, and you may see "Throwing Away Parties" after bitter breakups. Someone wise once said that jewelry and presents are not gifts; they are excuses for gifts. The only true gift is the gift of yourself. Besides, only you know what you consider fashionable, and buying lingerie is just tacky. Also, when you receive a gesture you value, be sure to express gratitude. I've never heard anyone pour out thanks in abundance for having had a makeout session. That's not love.

2. Shop the entire package. Everyone has shortcomings. Even the best of men are exactly that- men. Sometimes we think about ourselves or sports or our jobs or the "guys" or what it would be like with another woman. That does not mean we are not interested in you. It means we are interested in more than one thing. Focus on the whole package. Some people will advise you focus on the strengths, but chances are the strengths come BECAUSE of the weaknesses, at least in part. I know I can't make myself cuter, but I can get into better shape. The secret is to learn to love even the things you hate about him—or at least recognize that they are to be embraced as part of the gloriously imperfect package. Plus, if you see past my problems, I am more likely to return the favor. People think they can do better and go looking for a better person. True love involves an appreciation of a particular person's idiosyncrosies. Everyone has them; they make us who we are. I am who I am because of my unique character quirks.

3. Quality time should focus on quality. Few people actually court anymore. They make themselves available all the time to just while away the hours with their significant other and in so doing often lose themselves. Then they overreact and withdraw. It is absolutely paramount to a healthy relationship to maintain your own identity. Then you avoid this "I thought you were someone else" nonsense and avoid codependency. If you both have independence, it is easier to empower one another because you don't need one another to maintain your own sense of self. Confidence is always attractive.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not actually endearing to spend every waking moment together. After a 12 hour day together, is it really too much of an imposition to let me go home and get a good night's rest? If you don't let me, I am likely to be irritable the next day. I shake my head whenever I see a guy sucking a girl's face off in the hallway before a 50 minute lecture class. Dude, it's 50 minutes you can't stand to be apart. What will happen when you have to get a job and can't talk to them every hour of the day? You might personally find it sweet, but it actually betrays a selfish lack of regard for the other person in the relationship. Since I respect you, if I know you open for work at 5AM tomorrow morning, it is right to get you home at a decent hour so you can rest up for work. If you have a test or a project or a family emergency, out of respect, unless invited, I leave you to it, because it's not my place to distract you. In essence, people who spend every waking moment from the other person steal that time which could have been used to do something more productive than snog or stare into each other's eyes.

4. I gravitate towards people who inspire me. I choose to spend time with people who help me become a better person, physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, socially, etc. Unfortunately, we tend towards complacency in our relationships. Once we have "hooked the big one" and reel it in, we think there is no need any longer to demonstrate our prowess and prove ourselves. On the contrary, it is more important then than ever before.

So many people put on a charade when they date. My father, in his wisdom, imposed a year rule on dating to allow us to get to know the other person in a variety of situations, seasons, and activities. After about six months, if people are dishonest, their true self begins to leak out or break out. If it's a ruse, people cannot keep it up for long. Also, you get to see the whole person and not just one part (like in the Allegory of the Elephant from a few posts back).

When you stop trying to be the best you for me you can be, I start to worry. If you get too comfortable so that you always wear your very comfortable but very worn clothes every time we hang out but you dress up for other things, I figure that those things matter more to you. People make time and go to effort for things about which they really care. If you stop caring about and for me while we date, how likely will you be to care for and about me five or ten years into the marriage? That doesn't give you license to be insecure. I am confident in myself and know that I am a great guy. If they think they can do better, they are welcome to try; I prefer that to infidelities post-ceremony.


In conclusion, romance is a delicate balancing act. The problem in the rising generation and in my own is that we have been fed a false precedence in the popular media about how relationships work. If we can't solve our problems in a 60 minute window or before bed or by taking them on a date, because it's so easy to get divorced, people stop trying. They treat relationships as starter marriages much like starter homes. I see posts on Facebook about how "first you marry for love. the second time you marry for looks and money". What kind of tripe is that?

Romance is a lost art. Couples rarely court anymore. They "hang out" with each other in a superfluous attempt to get to know one another. What do you really know about the person with whom you have chosen to spend your life? What gestures do you exchange both in word and deed on which you base the strength of your relationship? What activities fill your time both when you are together and when you are apart? What skeletons does he have and what skeletons do you have, and how did they respond? How does he/she rank on your list of priorities?

Many relationships are codependent. In such circumstances, they smother the flames of romance, if they ever existed, and put out the fire. If you ever really loved the person with whom you are, ask yourself what you can do to stoke the fire and do so slowly. Remember that embers are tender and need just the right amount of fuel to reignite and burn brightly.

Who can find a
virtuous woman, for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her...She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

02 May 2010

Busy Doing Nothing

Share
As I sit and watch what the administration does and that from which it abstains, it called to mind a song I saw many years ago in an old Bing Crosby movie.



When the public starts to take notice, Obama starts looking busy while in reality he's doing nothing, at least nothing useful. On his show Friday night, Mark Levin said this:

Obama is too busy playing political games, race-baiting, and attacking Wall Street executives to be bothered to do his job. It’s easier for an incompetent, inexperienced ideologically-driven lame duck president to attack and undermine and obstruct than to actually lead. Why did Obama fail to act in a timely manner? Why did he fail to address the American people in a timely manner? Why didn’t he direct every available resource to combat this oil spill before it got out of hand?

The people the president dispatched are the wrong people. What good will SWAT teams, lawyers from the justice department, and cabinet secretaries do? The truth is that the President sat on his duff trying to boss us around and did not take this seriously. He still hasn’t taken it seriously. If they really cared about the environment like they claim, he would have been down there himself garbed in a baseball hat cleaning it up. He is unwilling to do his job; he is incapable of doing his job.

He is very much like Stalin prior to the German invasion of 1941. He looks busy, but the impending disaster will roll over him like the Nazis rolled over the Red Army. Stalin worried as the Germans approached Moscow that the Polit Bureau would remove him from power because he was unfit to lead. Obama is unfit to be President of the United States. He can say what he likes, but in the face of a real disaster, he does too little too late and does and says the most asinine banalities ever to issue forth from a President. Obama is issuing a study to be returned by Secretary Salazar in 30 days. In 30 days, the damage, like a stain upon the seashore, will be set, but it will still be ongoing. Get to work.


Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant –attr James Madison

01 May 2010

All Men Are Blind

Share
There is an old story, originally of Indian origin, of five blind men who are all asked to describe an elephant. It is a fitting parable for perception of all things by all people. I have been accused of "not being the man I thought you were" and I have heard many people complain of God as not what they thought him to be. Here is the story by way of illustration.

The first blind man leaned up against the side of the elephant and exclaimed, "An elephant is like a wall." The second blind man felt of the legs of the elephant and said, "No, the elephant is very much like a tree trunk." The third blind man was examining the ears of the elephant and said, "The elephant is like a fan." The fourth blind man was holding the elephant's trunk in his hands and thought the elephant was much like a fire hose. The fifth blind man holding on to the elephants tail said, "The elephant feels very much like a rope."

Of course all of them had a brief "look" at the elephant, and described it based on their own experiences. The problem is that in truth none of them had the entire picture of the nature and image of what an elephant was really like. These features described were of course the physical features of the elephant and didn't even begin to describe the temperament or character of this gentle giant of an animal. Even though true, they were also only part of the truth, kind of like a puzzle with some missing pieces.

Men have complained about God since the concept of God came among them. Some of them see the God of the Old Testament, full of wrath, ready to turn you into a pillar of salt just for looking back at the sin you just left. Others see him as love itself, mercy personified, or divine Providence. For the same event, some men blame God while others thank him for his mercy. How can they all be right? Are any of them? The fact is that every one of us has our own vision of what God is like. We have had a glimpse of His nature, His character, and His image; but none of us have "seen" God. We are all like the blind men describing the elephant.

Throughout my life, I have been accused of many things which are not true. My ex wife complained that I "was not the man [she] married". What she thought I was may have been true, but just like the parts of the elephant, it was only part of the true person that I am. The other things were true too, but she unjustly extrapolated a small part of my personae to all aspects of my life and then cried foul when I acted differently. I do not change to please the jury and I never have. Then of course, there are the people who have seen some small semblance of something and assumed that it was true of me all the time, if it was true at all. None of them bothered to ask, and some of them never bothered to even get to know me, and so they do not know better.

God and I are what we are. He is just, all-knowing, merciful, good, kind, patient, vengeful, etc. I am serious, spontaneous, a planner, fun-loving, etc. We are not those things at the same time all the time. Some people never get to know me. Some people know me better than to follow every assertion or allegation. Some people never get to know God. Some people follow whatever wind of doctrine is passed to them by another man about God.

How do you "see" God? How do men "see" you? I decided a long time ago that if I am going to be damned, I might as well be damned for what I really am. people who know me at all know that I am what I purport myself to be, and they know better than to believe whatever jonny come lately tells them about me.