YETI Hype

I don't normally write about marketed items that I find silly.  Though, if I did, I would have a seemingly infinite amount of topics to write about.  If you really consider most items you find in your local market for very long, you will likely conclude very quickly that the majority of what you see, you don't need.  But, there are also those items that clearly go beyond the 'unneeded' category and well into the realm of 'ridiculously unnecessary'.

I feel that the entire YETI line of products easily falls into this category.  I've been seeing this stuff everywhere.  First, there was a guy in my office who was showing off his new cup that he got from Sam's.  It's a YETI knock-off, but works just as well, he says.  Something about the acoustics of the office space I work in results in my ability to hear virtually every conversation that takes place on our floor.  So, I ended up being marketed by my co-worker's tales of keeping ice all day long in his cup despite multiple refills of water.  Over and over again, I overheard the boasts as he told everyone individually.

Then, on a visit to Race Brothers, a local farm & home store, to pick up some bolts and washers, I saw a large display of YETI products, most of which were wearable gear sporting the brand name, not the actual product.  I was confused.  Having a desire of keeping your drink cold, I get.  But buying a $50 hoodie that proudly displays the brand name of your $40 cup that keeps your drink cold is a bit asinine.

A couple days later, while waiting in traffic at a stoplight, I noticed that the Jeep in front of me had a YETI sticker in the back windshield.  This wasn't a graphic like you would see on a sales representative's vehicle, this was just some boob that was proud of his discretionary spending choice.

A family member of ours recently commented on the trend of water bottles.  It was a good observation.  She humorously pointed out that many people these days take a water bottle with them wherever they go.  "What are we?  A bunch of babies that can't be without our bottles?", she mused.  "We never carried bottles of water with us when we left home and none of us ever died of dehydration."

So, with the YETI, not only must we never be caught without our most beloved beverage, but we'll be able to keep it cold all day long for the low low price of a ridiculous amount of money.  Craigslist is even teeming with new and used YETI products.  When I saw this soft carry cooler for $350, I didn't doubt that this was probably a "deal" in comparison to the cost of a new one.  I found that they sell the new ones for $400.  These hold 32 12-ounce cans and keep them cool for $400.  I've never paid as much as $400 for a refrigerator let alone a cooler.

I also ran across this ad on Craigslist.  This person evidently left their $400 YETI cooler in the back of their truck while they slept at a local Days Inn.  Someone capitalized on the easy pickens along with their 6' aluminum ramps.  While I feel bad for them and hope that they do miraculously see their stolen goods returned, I sort of think that they should simply purchase some replacement steel ramps at Harbor Freight with a coupon for $50 and a nice cooler of similar size for $40, and save the remaining $410 they are offering for a reward. 

I don't mean to call anyone stupid for purchasing anything YETI.  I'm sure if someone looked at my life and all my purchases they could find plenty of things that I spent money on and didn't need, too.  I'm no better than the next consumer in the grand scheme of things, I'm sure.  I guess it's these moments in life that I realize the extent of the frivolous nature of American consumerism that I am floored by how meaningless some of our materialist fads can be.  And, perhaps, in my own way, I'm just trying to get others to practice some introspection of their own.

Read More

Phone Upgrade

A couple months ago, it occurred to me that Jodi and I would be up for our bi-annual cell phone upgrades this fall.  My initial reaction was excitement only to be immediately followed by confusion.  We both have a Samsung Galaxy Note 4.  And, frankly, I couldn't imagine a phone that would be an upgrade from what we already had.  So, my momentary excitement dissolved almost as quickly as it arrived.

The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 has been out for some weeks now and normally I would be considering it my no-brainer go-to for an upgrade.  But, aside from its well publicized potential for exploding, I have several deterrents that are based upon the features that the phone boasts.

First, and most impacting to me, was the removal of the removable battery.  For years, most Android phones have had two major design advantages over their rival Apple products.  Those advantages were expandable memory via a micro SD card slot and a removable battery.  Apple still charges a high premium for their products with more storage well above the market cost of micro SD cards with that same storage capacity.  This is designed to benefit Apple with a higher profit margin and more big-brother-control over their devices rather than bring any value to their customers.

Samsung had removed it's expandable memory micro SD card slot it the Galaxy S6 and quickly realized its mistake.  They corrected it when they added it back for the S7.  So, I couldn't understand why once again they were removing such a prominent feature, this time the removable battery, that had helped catapult them and other Android based phone manufacturers into the top tier of mobile devices.  As a matter of fact, much to my dismay, most of the phones that I would have been normally considering for this upgrade also did not have a removable battery.  I was appalled.

Then, it occurred to me this morning.  Water resistance.  These companies have not figured out how to have both a removable battery and have the ability to be submerged in water.  And, evidently, they have prioritized water resistance.

Jodi and I watched several review videos last night trying to figure out which direction we would likely go when we did upgrade.  Every time I saw someone texting in the rain, or laying their phone down on the bottom of a shallow pool, or rinsing it off in the sink like a dinner plate, I couldn't help but wince in shock.  Granted, these were promotional videos and the majority of people will still make every attempt to avoid water ever becoming in contact with their phones.  I get that.  But, I still don't understand why water resistance has become a higher-perceived value over having the ability to change the battery.

We all know that rechargeable batteries have a finite number of charges and cycles it can handle.  I have had to replace batteries in several mobile devices in my lifetime.  Off the top of my head, I've bought a replacement battery for my Macbook Pro, a Dell laptop I once had, my Samsung Note 4, my wife's old iPod Nano, my wife's Asus tablet, and several batteries for my Canon camera.  That's six devices.  And, the only time I had a device ruined by water was a point and shoot camera I got for my son who accidentally left it outside just before a rain.  I think he was seven years old at the time.

So, aside from my child having an issue with water and electronics, the adults in my household have far exceeded the need for water protection by the ability to change an old worn out battery.  So, I'm afraid that I won't be moving up the Samsung ladder this upgrade.

Which brings me to my next point of irritation.  Why are Apple users so loyal?  Over the years, my wife and I have had phones by Nokia, Pantech, LG, Motorolla, and Samsung.  When we have the ability to get new phones, I do a full comparison of phone features and price.  I watch and read reviews and find customer comments.  I want the best device to compliment our lifestyle that we can afford.

Some features are a requirement for us.  It has to have an Android operating system and it has to have expandable memory.  When I added these two filters to my search on Verizon, I got a result of 18 phones (pictured here) which are produced from six different manufacturers.  What sort of choice does a die-hard Apple customer get when its time for an upgrade?  Exactly.

I've already mentioned how I was turned off by the Note 7's non-removable battery.  I am also not a fan of the rounded edges that the phone sports on both sides.  I suspect that it limits the phone's aftermarket availability of covers.  But, even if it doesn't, I have a co-worker with the S7 Edge who showed me why if he had it to do all over again, he wouldn't have bought the Edge model.  When operating the phone with one hand, the bottom part of his thumb gets detected by the screen and causes issues.  His only fix: use two hands.  Yeah, not cool.

So, I believe that we have settled on a phone choice: the LG G5.  The screen boasts the same resolution on its 5.3" screen held by the Note 7 on it's 5.7" screen.  This means that there is greater pixel density at 554 ppi versus the Note's 518 ppi which will provide a crisper, more detailed display.  It's an LCD as opposed to an AMOLED screen, so the colors are less exaggerated, less cartoonish and more true to life.  The camera has a 16GB rear/ 8GB front (with wide angle) versus the Note's 12/5, respectively.  I realize that megapixels aren't everything but the camera got great reviews and out-performed several of its competition in almost all categories particularly in low-light scenarios and in bright landscapes.  The camera is probably the most important requirement of all.  Coming from a DSLR owner, I have even occasionally preferred my phone's camera over my Canon's in some conditions but mostly due to the fact that I don't usually have my Canon on me, but I always have my phone.  So, my phone captures more of my actual life.

The LG G5 won't have the built-in stylus that I am used to but I only rarely used it with my Note for some tasks that didn't necessarily require it.  I can only recall one game that I played with my son that it really came in handy and helped us.  Aside from that game, every other use of it was more because I was trying to justify having it.

LG's G5 is also a less expensive choice for us.  So, that's a bonus.  The G5 has 4GB RAM just like the Note 7.  My current Note 4 only has 3GB RAM, so I'm looking forward to the increase of speed.  The glass of the LG G5 is the same Corning Gorilla Glass 4 used on my Note 4 that I, unfortunately, dropped a lot yet never had so much as a crack.  The G5 is 11% lighter that my Note 4 so I suspect that a drop of the G5 would be even less likely to result in damage than my Note 4.

So, while I'm disappointed with the Samsung Note 7, I'm not at all surprised.  I couldn't imagine how they were going to get better.  In my opinion, they only got worse.  One bit of curiosity is that the Note 4 had a 16 megapixel camera and the Note 7 has a 12 megapixel camera.  I'm surprised that they did this.  Again, I know megapixels aren't everything, but the general public doesn't really know that.  I wonder how they spun that in the marketing department.

Read More

Lottery "Winner"

There's been a lot of talk about Powerball around the office for the last week or so.  With the jackpot reaching $1.5 billion, it has probably propelled even non-gamblers into the arena of ticket purchases.  I certainly don't blame anyone for doing so.  It's a dream that everyone has, I'm sure.  At one time or another (if not lots of times) all of us have dreamed about what it would be like to come across a seemingly endless supply of money.

Now the sad reality is that the jackpot is entirely comprised of lost and wasted money.  It's not quite as alluring when you think of it in those terms.  That money comes pretty much from the bottom of society, financially speaking, and is paid to someone who gets unpreparedly thrust to the top.  It's a backwards Robin Hood effect.  ThinkProgress stated the following concerning the subject.

And it’s those who can least afford to lose any money who are most likely to be buying tickets. Low-income people account for the majority of lottery sales, while sales are highest in the poorest areas. One study found that the poorest third of households buy more than half of the tickets sold in any given week.

Profit from those ticket sales go to government coffers. The share of lottery profits that is paid out to players varies greatly by state, from just 15 percent in West Virginia to 76 percent in Massachusetts. But even that smaller share in the latter state is an important source of revenue. In 2009, lotteries in 11 states brought in more revenue than the corporate income tax. And thus the lottery acts like an implicit 38 percent tax on mainly the poorest people.

Others suppose that there is a curse on lottery winners.  NYDailyNews lists a select few of the known disasters to the lives of lottery winners as

• Abraham Shakespeare - won $30 million in 2006 and was so hounded by family and friends for money that he desperately transferred his assets to his newfound female friend who offered to help him avoid those seeking money from him only to be murdered by her shortly afterwards.
• David Edwards - won $27 million in 2001, returned to drug abuse, spent it all, had almost nothing to show for it after living in a storage unit and then dying in 2013 on hospice at only 58.
• Jeffery Dampier - won $20 million and reportedly showered his family with cash and gifts and yet was kidnapped and shot in the back of the head by his sister-in-law.
• Urooj Khan - won $1 million and was found dead the next day of apparent cyanide poisoning.  Despite both his sister-in-law and father being suspected of being involved, no one was ever charged.
• Michael Carroll - won $15 million in 2002 and managed to burn through all of it on parties, prostitutes, and cocaine so that he was left with nothing when he was finally jailed in 2006 for drug possession.
• William Post - won $16 million and managed to be $1 million in debt just one year later.  He was forced to declare bankruptcy, his own brother was arrested for hiring a man to kill him, and he died while on food stamps at 66 years old.
• Jack Whitaker - was already worth $17 million when he won $315 million in the lottery. He had churches built and donated 10% to Christian charities and even started a charity to provide food and clothes to low-income families.  But, his life fell apart when he became an alcoholic, had his wife leave him, was robbed twice, was sued, had his granddaughter and her boyfriend die of drug-overdoses while she lived on a weekly allowance from him, and even had his daughter die of unknown causes.  Both he and his ex-wife said that they had wished that he had torn the winning ticket up.
• Evelyn Adams - won the lottery twice in two consecutive years totaling $5.3 million and then gambled it all away at casinos in a short span.
• Billie Harrell Jr. - won $31 million, donated money to those in need, lent cash to close friends, but when he went broke two years later, his wife left him and he subsequently committed suicide.  Before his death, he said "winning the lottery is the worst thing that ever happened to me."

The article where I found all this stated that nearly 70% of lottery winners wind up broke within seven years.  I don't know that there is a "curse" per se on the lottery, but I am not sure there isn't.  Perhaps, and more likely, it's that when you take a normal person with normal problems and you very publicly pour money into their lives whereby exponentially amplifying their finances they also have their problems exponentially amplified in turn.

It makes you wonder.  Before I read all the crazy stuff above, I was already aware that I would have to bump up my family's security if I were to win (not that I play the lottery, I don't).  I would want some things that we don't have now, sure.  But, I realized that along with that, I would need to hire some security or something, because it's not living confortably if you're living in fear of being robbed or threatened.  When people know you have money, it likely attracts people who would like to take that money from you if given the opportunity.

Come to think of it, I'm willing to bet that most people are forced to move to avoid all the people who would just show up looking for a handout.  That would have to be unfortunate.  Just to have to uproot your life because of something "good" happening to you.

All this makes me think about one thing.  I will never win the lottery.  I know this because I don't play the lottery.  And, I understand that not playing the lottery seriously diminishes the chances of a person winning them.  That said, I will live in luxury some day.  I will live in a palace built by the King of Kings and I'll get to hang out with Him face to face.  I will dine with Him and I think that I'll even get to play soccer with Him.  I won't have to worry about security, or financial advisers, shady accountants, or anything.  I'll be taken care of and I will want for nothing.  I won't have to go to work and I'll get to chill with the family all day.  Jesus already won what matters for me, so I don't need to win anything.  With that knowledge, I don't need to want for anything here either.  I don't need to worry, because I'm already being taken care of regardless of what my circumstances may look like.  Just like a lottery winner, I didn't do anything that makes me "deserve" what was given to me.  But, far unlike a lottery winner, what was given to me cannot be taken away, lost, or destroyed.  AND, I can share all I want!  It never runs out!

Read More

Friends: The Least of Your Priorities

I wrote about friendships over four years ago in the blog titled, Friends for a Season.  Then, I wrote about what friendships looked like both on and off Facebook in the blog, Goodbye, Facebook, that I penned just before I deleted my Facebook account in September of last year.

I just read a very long article about friendships and how they change over the years of a person's lifetime.  But, don't let me discourage you from reading it.  I found it to be pretty interesting.  So, if you feel like a long read about friendships, stop reading this right now and click the link to the actual article above.  However, If you'd rather see some snippets from the article about what I thought was interesting enough to elaborate on then please continue.  I promise that mine is shorter.

The understood uniformity about friendships is that people consider them very important.  However, in reality, they get pushed to the bottom of the relationship hierarchy which looks more like:

1. Spouse
2. Children
3. Extended Family
4. Friends

 When you think about, it's true that a friend-relationship can survive with months in-between times of communication.  Though, the more you go up the hierarchy, the more communication is required.  Clearly, if months went by without communication from your spouse, there would more likely be court proceedings being scheduled than a movie night.  However, in most cases of 30-something friendships, the requirement for communication measurably lessens due to people's increased commitments.  As teenagers, if your friend went two days without talking to you, you'd think that something was up; a week and you'd know that your friendship was over.  Whereas, as 30-somethings, an April to September span between conversations might even go unmentioned let alone fretted over.

The article claims to present four main levels of maintaining a relationship.  (However, I only could find two that they spoke about, so it remains a mystery what the other two may be.)

The first is just keeping a relationship alive at all, just to keep it in existence. Saying “Happy Birthday” on Facebook, faving a friend’s tweet—these are the life support machines of friendship. They keep it breathing, but mechanically.

I touched on this in my Facebook departure blog.  It's these sorts of attempts at maintaining something that's probably worth pulling the plug on that just got on my nerves.  I mean... really...why put off the inevitable.  It was time to rip off the band-aid.

Next is to keep a relationship at a stable level of closeness. “I think you can do that online too,” Langan says. “Because the platforms are broad enough in terms of being able to write a message, being able to send some support comments if necessary.” It’s sometimes possible to repair a relationship online, too, (another maintenance level) depending on how badly it was broken—getting back in touch with someone, or sending a heartfelt apology email.

I can see this.  Not every relationship I had on Facebook was a shallow one that deserved to die.  But, just because the social platform is built doesn't mean everyone has to get on it.  This sort of social life didn't exist 20 years ago.  I pity the mindset that believes it's now a requirement for social connectivity.  There are other ways, people. (Sorry if I sounded like Mr. T there for a second.)

“But then when you get to the next level, which is: Can I make it a satisfying relationship? That’s where I think the line starts to break down,” Langan says. “Because what happens often is people think of satisfying relationships as being more than an online presence.”
Social media makes it possible to maintain more friendships, but more shallowly. And it can also keep relationships on life support that would (and maybe should) otherwise have died out.

Amen.

By middle-age, people have likely accumulated many friends from different jobs, different cities, and different activities, who don’t know each other at all. These friendships fall into three categories: active, dormant, and commemorative. Friendships are active if you are in touch regularly, you could call on them for emotional support and it wouldn’t be strange, if you pretty much know what’s going on with their lives at this moment. A dormant friendship has history, maybe you haven’t talked in a while, but you still think of that person as a friend. You’d be happy to hear from them and if you were in their city, you’d definitely meet up.
A commemorative friend is not someone you expect to hear from, or see, maybe ever again. But they were important to you at an earlier time in your life, and you think of them fondly for that reason, and still consider them a friend.
Facebook makes things awkward by keeping these friends continually in your peripheral vision. It violates what I’ll call the camp-friend rule of commemorative friendships: No matter how close you were with your best friend from summer camp, it is always awkward to try to stay in touch when school starts again. Because your camp self is not your school self, and it dilutes the magic of the memory a little to try to attempt a pale imitation at what you had.
The same goes for friends you only see online. If you never see your friends in person, you’re not really sharing experiences so much as just keeping each other updated on your separate lives. It becomes a relationship based on storytelling rather than shared living—not bad, just not the same.

Perhaps friends are more willing to forgive long lapses in communication because they’re feeling life’s velocity acutely too. It’s sad, sure, that we stop relying on our friends as much when we grow up, but it allows for a different kind of relationship, based on a mutual understanding of each other’s human limitations. It’s not ideal, but it’s real, as Rawlins might say. Friendship is a relationship with no strings attached except the ones you choose to tie, one that’s just about being there, as best as you can.

Not every one gets this.  But, I think that most do.  It's an unfortunate fact that adults will get hurt from time to time by their friend's lack of communication.  But, it's imperative that we understand our own limitations and those of our friends, as well.  I think that a healthy embrace of our limitations can help relax the expectations we place on others, which in turn can protect us from getting hurt.

The older I get, the more I have come to embrace my limitations.  If I don't have any time to dedicate to people because of my current commitments to fill, it would be wrong of me to let on that I might have time by saying things like, "We should get together some time" or replying with, "Yeah, we should" when they tell me this.  It would be better to reply with "That would be nice. Maybe when (fill-in-the-blank-with-current-time-consuming-activity) is over we could do that because that is sure limiting the amount of free time I have right now."

This is, of course, assuming that you would want to spend time with this person.  Because, if you don't then don't make any promises.  That doesn't do anyone any favors.

Some of you right now might be thinking I'm kind of a jerk.  And, maybe I am.  I don't know.  But, I am trying to put honesty into practice when it comes down to social activities.  Being polite and tactful is obviously important, but not to the extent that we're lying to people to spare their feelings now just to have them disappointed with your lack of availability later.

Read More

Goodbye, Facebook

I have decided to delete my facebook account.  It was an easy decision to make, yet did not go without several instances of personal reluctance to do so.

Why?  This is the question I keep getting asked by those who have a facebook account.  I'm not getting asked this question by those who don't have one.  Because, they don't know I'm deleting my account.  And, they don't care.  I look forward to being one of those people.

There is a grand myriad of reasons why I am tossing off the yoke of facebook.  I couldn't list them all if I tried, but I can list some of the top reasons that immediately come to mind.  They are, in no particular order:

• Lack of security.
• Facebook is a business.  They sell your information.  They always have.  And, they don't hide or apologize for this.  It's genius, really.  They have created a motive to get people to willingly profile and track themselves.  Since this information is so specific, it's very valuable for marketing.  Marketing you, that is.
• It's not reality.
•  What people post on facebook doesn't usually say much about them at all.  I cannot compare the time I have spent with friends with the time I have spent reading those same friends' facebook posts.  Time spent with friends is meaningful and I get to know them well.  That time is real and so is the content.  I can't say the same for facebook.
• It's not a responsible use of my time.
• I am married.  I am a father of three children.  I am involved in my church.  I work 50 hours a week.  I have many real friends.  I am renovating a house.  I am restoring a car.  I am coaching a soccer team.  Etc.  Etc.
• With all that I have going on in my life, I don't have time to maintain a digital profile of myself for others' sake of "knowing" me.  Nor, do I have time to browse an endless sea of junk to spot the few tidbits of "knowing" others.
• Define "friends"
• Let's face it.  I'm not friends with most of my facebook's friends list.  I've even been pretty picky about whose friend requests I've accepted.  Still, if not for facebook, I wouldn't know two cents about a lot of people and those people wouldn't know two cents about me.  That's not a bad thing. 
• I know things that I'd rather not know.
• Some of my facebook "friends" and I have not seen eye to eye on things.  And, while it's no requirement of mine that those I associate myself with carry all my same values, I wish there were some others' soapbox speeches I hadn't been exposed to.  I wonder if I would be better friends with some people if I weren't subconsciously using my "facebook impression" of them as a screening tool.  Don't hate on me.  You do it, too.  The difference is that I'm admitting it.
• I read that "Facebook Erodes Real Community" and I agree.
• I know that people don't make as much of an effort to visit friends since the introduction of facebook.  Why would I see that friend I haven't seen in three years when I've seen every post of his/hers since our last visit.  What could I possibly catch up on with them since we're already "caught up".  At the very least, it stands as a seemingly valid justification to put off visiting someone.
• What am I teaching my children?
• Do I want my children to be on facebook?  Maybe you do and that's fine.  Use your own judgement for what's good for your children.  But, I don't know that I want mine on there being exposed to an online social world where people say and do things that they wouldn't say or do in person.  Or, maybe I would allow them to have a limited profile with some heavy monitoring.  I don't know.  But, seriously, when I think about it, I think of how heavy of a burden to parenting it will be if or when it comes up.  Maybe things like that are better left to adults.  Regardless of how I want my children to use or not use it, one thing is for sure: I can't legitimately limit or restrict it's use for my children while I have given myself no limits or restrictions.
• At the end of my life, what total number of hours spent on facebook would satisfy me?
• 1,000?  100?  2?  It seems that whatever the number winds up being, it isn't anything to be proud of.  I tend to think that the greater the number the greater the shame, actually.  I'm glad that I don't know how much time I've burned scrolling, commenting, and liking.  It's too late for me to have 0 in that category.  But, it's certainly not too late to stop the number dead in its tracks.

I could go on, I'm sure, but then I'd be wasting my time doing this.  Plus, my lunch hour is over.  Time to get back to work.

Read More

Gender-Neutral Parenting

Gender vs. Sex.

Have you ever thought about it?  Have you considered the differences between the two words?  Well, some have and while it seems that the vast majority of people haven't given it much thought at all, there is a very small but growing faction of those that have apparently thought about it so much that they've filled the thought quota for the rest of us.

The words 'gender' and 'sex' are used interchangeably throughout our culture.  Though, according to some sources, it is said that sex is biological and therefore more black and white, while gender is sociological and better thought of as a scale.

They say that gender is more of a culturally learned thing.  And, it is true that many things are decidedly masculine and decidedly feminine (certain behaviors, activities, interests, etc.). I'm reminded of all my years of learning French.  Like many latin languages, nouns are given a gender.  The gender of the word denotes whether you say 'la' or 'le' preceding it.

So, with all this assumed gender being thrown around, there are those that take issue with it.  They believe that girls are unfairly missing out on "boys" activities and, likewise, boys are missing out on "girls" activites.  They suspect that with all the societal gender's understood do's and don't's, children are being limited to certain activities and thus only acquire certain skill sets.  Hence, enter gender-neutral parenting.

But, what is gender-neutral parenting?  It seems that the answer to that question is a parenting style in which the parents attempt to avoid all gender stereotypes for their children.  They do this by keeping their children's environments free of "extreme" gender-specific clothing, toys, colors, etc.  They may also try to keep a balance between the toys and such that are made available to them to allow for the freedom to choose what they want to play with.  They might take efforts to balance playtime so the child gets equal exposure to playing with both sexes.  It could be said that they are simply parenting their children while consciously avoiding stereotypical situations that might "force" their children into a stereotypical social slot.

The issue that proponents of gender-neutral parenting have (as far as I can gather from articles I've read) is that they believe that children growing up in traditional settings (with which some label "gender-specific" parents) at the very least will be limited in their skill development or at worst be oppressed by this setting.  The idea is that a boy will be led to believe, whether directly or indirectly, that he shouldn't need to learn how to cook, sew, do laundry, etc., and that they will be limited in their vocational scope due to these inabilities. The true would be the same for a girl but in regards to other "decidedly male" skills.

Here are some situations that would pass as "gender-specific" parenting examples:

• A girl's bedroom appearing to be a "girl's" bedroom.  Same would be true for a boy's.
• Telling a girl that she looks "very pretty" weightedly more when she is wearing a dress than when she is wearing pants.
• Having an imbalance of traditionally boy's toys versus traditionally girl's toys in any play area.

"Gender-enforcing" is more directly from a parent as opposed to the child's surrounding environment.  Here are some situations that would pass as "gender-enforcing" parenting examples:

• Telling your son "boys don't cry."
• Telling your girl "to sit like a lady" as opposed to "sit properly."
• Not supporting your son if he wants to wear pink or your daughter if she wants to play football.
• Discouraging play with toys that are decidedly the opposite gender of the sex of the child.

I'm sure that people who support gender-neutral parenting can come up with a slew of more reasons to support their belief that it is the better parenting option.  But, this provides you the basic idea.

Now, alas, my opinion.  I agree that "gender-enforcing" in most examples is probably wrong.  Of course, boys can cry.  But, I think it's fine to tell a girl to sit like a lady.  So, I can't agree whole-heartedly.  And, I don't really agree with most of the "gender-specific" examples as being in any sense "bad".  Ultimately, I find the psychology of gender-neutral parenting to be well-intentioned but nevertheless flawed.  In no particular order, here are some issues that I take with it:

•  It ignores behavioral science.  Our biology does affect our behavior, our likes, our priorities, etc.  It's very well established.  Gender is not just culturally learned.  Yes, it is culturally learned, but not exclusively.
• It inherently disrespects the "extreme" ends of gender.  It wrongfully assumes that people who are in a "traditionally stereotypical" position are so because of their socially-ingrained gender-specific limitations. Lots of people willfully choose "traditional" roles and live fulfilled lives, and it's disrespectful to purposefully try to avoid that end result with your own children for fear that it is a result from limitations.  Society already fails to put enough well-deserved value on roles like stay-at-home moms and blue collar dads.  Why reinforce this backwards concept?
• It denies children all of the so-called extremes.  If you're refusing to provide your daughter a pink dress on principle then you are limiting your daughter's development (by the definitions set forth by pro-gender-neutral-ness) while claiming the high-road that states the opposite.  The irony is that, in an attempt to avoid the perceived limitations of a stereotypical childhood, the parents are limiting typical childhood things and activities.
• It takes the "you can be anything you want to be" lie to the furthest extreme.  Yes, I said lie.  Let's face the truth.  You can't be anything you want to be.  Limitations are very real and vary from person to person.  Also, skill sets vary from person to person.  Encourage your children to break out and do amazing things, sure.  Champion the skills they do have.  But, feel free to tell them that the levels of resistance will vary between differing goals.  They'll appreciate the truth.  Also, I find it very strange that any parent would encourage their boy to be as feminine as he wants to be, while purposefully avoiding the same for their daughter just because that would be stereotypical.
• It assumes that there is value in the sheer number of opportunities provided.  I'm reminded of those little Asian children that are full-on concert soloists in their adolescence.  It's an extreme example, I know, but isn't it also valuable teaching your children to master a handful of skills instead of a million skills somewhere shy of mediocre?

I believe that the core goal of gender-neutral parenting is to protect children from having their identity "imposed" upon them by our culture.  I can relate to this goal quite well and find it to be a good one.  In many cases such as morals, ethics, moderation, modesty, etc. I would completely agree that our culture is a bad influence and thus, I support counter-cultural efforts in these categories.  Where we disagree is the case of gender.  I don't believe that gender is necessarily a cultural imposition.  I believe that children's discovery of gender traits is part of the natural development of a child and, dare I say, a necessary one.  Children categorize things and activities naturally.  My young children ask me all the time questions with a false dichotomy in an attempt to classify things.  "Is McDonald's good or bad?", they'll ask.  I often provide a "gray scale" answer such as, "It's bad if you eat there all the time, but a meal there every once in a while shouldn't hurt us."  This is all fine to do when answering questions like my example, but providing gray scales for everything in an attempt to allow the child to find his/her own way isn't parenting at all.  Purposefully trying to filter out the black and white found virtually everywhere trying to force a gray scale on certain things such as gender could not only be non-beneficial but potentially detrimental to the child's normal development.

Remember that the main arguments being made for gender-neutral parenting are against "forcing" children into categories.  Perhaps, the creation of a new category, the non-category, is equally "forcing" your child into something.  Perhaps, even more limiting?  Perhaps even greater prejudiced?

Read More

Social Justice

I saw this graphic yesterday on facebook and it just sort of got me thinking.  I like the graphic for its cuteness, I suppose. I mean, who doesn't like the big kid helping out the toddler so that he can enjoy the game, too?  I also like that it points out that there is a difference between equality and justice.

What I don't like about the graphic is its over-simplicity.  To be fair, this is true of most graphics, if not all of them.  Obviously, the point of these sorts of memes is not to address every nuance surrounding the issue, but rather to make a pointed argument sparing all the detailed implications that the argument makes.

I take no issue with the premise being displayed here.  Being a father of three with children these sizes, I would even encourage my eldest child to willingly give up the box he's standing on for the benefit of the youngest who can't participate without it.  However, while this example works quite well for three children taking in a free baseball game, it doesn't translate to many other real world examples in which people are calling for "equality" and "justice".

Take financial benefits offered by social programs, for example.  These programs are funded by taxes.  Taxes are monies taken by our government from people earning an income, purchasing a product, paying for a service, or for simply owning personal property.  So, apply this scenario to our graphic above.  In place of age, let the size of the individual in the graphic represent his/her contribution towards the general fund of collected taxes.  The proverbial boxes then represent the tax-funded benefits received from the general fund.  Naturally, the largest individual receives nothing from the general fund but contributes the most.  The smallest contributes the least and receives the most.

In the graphic, everything seems fine.  Everyone seems to be equally enjoying themselves.  An equalization has been reached.  So what's the problem?  Well, there are many, in fact, when applying it to the scenario of taxpayer-funded social programs.  Note that the box wasn't willfully given by the largest to the smallest, the box was taken (through taxes) from the largest and distributed to the smallest.  This may have a tendency to create the following:

1. The largest will: 
1. Despise the taking of this earned property.
2. Tend to feel he/she has contributed enough and will cease to give any willful contributions to any other charities.
3. Feel contempt for the smallest for being a "burden".
4. Possibly lack motivation to work harder fearing that more success will lead to even more forced removal of earnings.
2. The smallest will:
1. Eventually feel entitled to the distributions given him/her.
2. Tend to feel he/she needs help from others and therefore doesn't have enough to contribute to any other charities.
3. Feel contempt for the largest for an assumed and projected superiority complex.
4. Possibly lack motivation to work harder fearing that more success will lead to the removal of  the benefits currently being received.
3. The government will:
1. Require much overhead to oversee both the taking and the distribution of these funds.
2. Be pressured to crack down on those taking advantage of the system which will require more overhead auditing the entire process.
3. Be limited in its ability to stop individuals from taking advantage of the system due to over-zealous liberal organizations who sue, lobby, and slander.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not against social programs.  And, I'm certainly not trying to say that the behavior listed above is true of all people.  I'm all for people having help available when they need it.  But, there has to be some safeguards in place with every charitable program.  Every non-for-profit charity knows this.  The only problem is that government-run programs are not at all structured like non-for-profit charitable programs.  And, they make no effort to learn from their successes.  The truth is that government-run charities are presently and historically the least effective and least efficient means to positively impact society and reduce the need.  My implication here goes beyond this fact, though, and delves into the lasting psychological and sociological impact that forced charity (taxes) has in the long term.

I realize that this is a sensitive subject.  It is particularly difficult, as a Christian, to approach a discussion about it.  After all, aren't we supposed to want to help people?  Of course, we are.  And we do.  Religious organizations and members of such give the most to charities.  Presently as well as historically, that has always been the case.

I can't sum up this rant because I'm surrounded by rabbit trails that are beckoning me but, in the interest of time, to close, I'll say that there are many virtues that we all understand to be intrinsically good.  Equality and justice are both viewed in this regard.  However, like our parents told us, the world is not fair.  And, they were spot on.  We are all given different lives with varying degrees of prosperity or lack thereof.  While it may be easy for some to claim that it is not equal or just that some are less fortunate, let me leave you with this question: Up to what percentage of earned income taken from a working individual and distributed to non-working individuals constitutes justice and at what percentage is it no longer just?

Read More

I pledge allegiance... or do I?

I recall citing the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in school at the beginning of the day. I can't recall exactly when we stopped doing it, though. I am certain that I was in elementary school when the cease took place but the exact time alludes me.

Over the years since, I have heard many discussions concerning the Pledge and many opinions stated about how we were better off as a nation when we did it. Many people talk about how different our youth are today and speculate that the lack of citing the Pledge has much to do with these changes.  I don't know how many times I've seen something on Facebook about it, but certainly enough.

I saw a meme shared on Facebook today that asked the viewer whether school children should be made to cite the pledge.  It then instructs to 'Like' it for a 'yes' or comment on the photo for a 'no'.  At the time I viewed it, there was more than 600,000 'Like's and just over 20,000 comments.  I skimmed some of the comments quickly and saw that many of those were in fact affirmations from people who clearly don't follow instructions very well.

So, with the majority of people vocalizing their agreement that children should be made to cite the Pledge of Allegiance, the following may not be too popular.  But, that's alright.  Popularity is highly over-rated, I assure you.

I've never been against pledging my allegiance to the flag before.  However, I also grew up doing it and never gave much thought to what it was that I was being directed to do.  When I did give thought to what the Pledge is and what it means, I actually objected to it.  Do let me explain.

My allegiance is to my Lord and when asked about taxes and thus allegiance, Jesus responded with the answer to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's (Matthew 22:21).  He was referencing to give the money to Caesar since Caesar's image was on the coins.  Without spelling it all out for them, Jesus was also implying that we, as the image bearers of God, are to give ourselves to Him (Genesis 1:27).

Jesus spoke tirelessly of the Kingdom of God.  That is where my allegiance lies.  I cannot give my allegiance to any single earthly nation as this would be in direct conflict with and forsaking my allegiance with the Kingdom of God.  Suppose the U.S. went to war with another country, a country in which Christians lived and were threatened by such war.  How could I pledge allegiance to the U.S. without forsaking the principles of the Kingdom of God?  Now, we can stop supposing.  Because the U.S. has already provided weapons to be used against Christians in many places and continues to do so.

Now, I love my neighbors.  And, I am blessed to have been born here in the United States.  I pay my taxes.  I obey the laws.  I am thankful for all the brave people throughout the centuries who have fought for the life and freedom that I enjoy.  But, they didn't do these things so that I would give my allegiance to them or any other group of people.  They did these things so that I could choose to give my allegiance to God and thus be used and empowered by Him to help my fellow man.

We were never promised by either God or our government that the laws of our land would line up with the laws of God.  Quite the opposite, the early church found themselves imprisoned much of the time for breaking the law of the land in order to spread the good news of the Gospel.  I will give to the U.S.A. what is the U.S.A.'s but it didn't create me and therefore has no ultimate authority over me to require my allegiance.

Read More

The Moral Argument

"...I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts..." - Hebrews 8:10

The moral argument is a logical argument that goes something like this:

1. If objective morality exists, then God must exist.
2. Objective morality exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

I love the moral argument for its simplicity and ease of use in conversation.  Intuitively, we all agree, atheists and theists alike, that there is such a thing as objective morality.  However, some atheists do try to deny it for the sake of argument despite the fact that they secretly live by it.  Their attempts to argue it usually miss the point by circumventing it.

A common rebuttal goes something like this: "You're saying that atheists cannot be moral and I personally know some atheists that live to a higher moral standard than even some theists I know."  The problem with this argument is its completely misdirected basis.  First, the moral argument makes no assertion about one's ability to live morally.  Rather, it's discussing objective morality.  Of course, an atheist can live morally.  They have the same objective morality standard that theists have.  The issue is not whether atheists can be moral, but rather that they have no standard to which to attribute the morality they live by.

They'll claim subjective morality.  They claim that some action is either right or wrong because they or society or both deem it either right or wrong.  Subjective morality is subject to either personal or popular opinion.  But, subjective morality is not a standard at all.  It's a moving target.

So, what is objective morality?  It's a standard or a basis of right and wrong independent of our opinions or beliefs.  Undeniably, we all carry objective moral beliefs. For example, strangling babies is always wrong.  It just is.  No one will argue against that.  But where does this morality come from?  Surely, it has a source.  Why do we feel bad when doing wrong?  What internal force restrains us from the carnal survival instinct by which evolution theory suggests we should be driven?  Why do we inherently know right from wrong?  Where does our conscious originate?

Bible-believing Christians have an explanation for all objective morality.  We believe Hebrews 8:10 and know that God has written his laws on our hearts and in our minds.  We know right and wrong from the start.  Any parent can attest to that.  Objective morality is not a learned thing, but rather it is ingrained in each of us.  (We don't teach our children morality, we appeal to the objective morality they already possess to shape their behavior patterns.)  Objective morality is a code that is there whether we choose to live by it or not.  Atheists have no satisfactory logical explanation for objective morality.  And, certainly, evolution and natural selection don't offer up any suggestions.

Read More

Issue of Equality?

Last Tuesday, I was listening to the "Bible Answer Man" radio show on Bott Radio Network.  This is a live broadcast that welcomes people to call in and get a chance to ask whatever question they like.  The show's host, Hank Hanegraaff, then does his best to answer that question from what he sees as a biblical perspective.  I found that I like the show despite the fact that I don't always agree with his answers.  I guess I just like interacting in conversations about things that matter to people and how they relate to the Bible.  Granted, the conversation is taking place without my ability to interact.  But, being a fly on the wall is apparently alright with me since I continue to tune in.

I downloaded the mp3 from the show last Tuesday and trimmed it down to the one caller's two-part question along with Hank's responses.  I have included that at the bottom of this blog entry in case you would like to hear it for yourself.

The question essentially went like this:  Since we are equally granted the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, shouldn't same-sex couples be equally granted the same rights and benefits as heterosexual married couples but in the form of civil unions?

This question came from a Christian who thinks that it is "inequality" to give benefits to married people yet deny those same benefits to same-sex couples.  The more common argument is that they want same-sex couples to be granted the right to get legally married thus providing them with the same benefits.  Though, in listening to their arguments, most are not so concerned with the benefits.  They just use them as a point to argue about, but really they're looking to be treated as equals by the law.  This is a tough one to argue simply because, like the photo depicts, one who disagrees with the misguided movement is quickly labeled as a bigot, a hatemonger, a racist (quite the stretch there), intolerant, unloving, etc.

I thought, at first, that Hank was going to answer this question as I would have answered this question but he didn't.  He dived straight into the arguments against redefining marriage.  Which is fine, but I feel that he missed the opportunity to confront the underlying assumption that the question is posing.  The question is assuming that there is a lack of equal rights between a heterosexual man/woman and a man/woman who self-identifies as a homosexual.  The assertion being made is that heterosexuals enjoy a right to marry and the rights to the benefits that go along with that while those who claim to be homosexual are denied those rights.  However, this assumption is simply not true.

The fact is that all adults have the equal right to marry whomever they choose as long as they meet the criteria required to be a lawful marriage.  We all have the same criteria to that right.  Therefore we all have equal rights.  There are certain criteria that need to be met in order to receive a marriage license.  Just off the top of my head, here are some of those criteria:

• There must be two applicants applying for the marriage.  (You can't marry yourself, or your imaginary friend.)
• Both applicants must be humans.  (No explanation necessary.)
• Both applicants must be alive.  (No marrying dead bodies.)
• Both applicants must be present.  (No absentee ballot marriages.)
• Both applicants must be adults.  (I believe that some states will allow minors of a certain age to marry with parental consent, though I don't personally believe this is a good practice.)
• Both applicants must consent to the marriage.  (No forcing marriage on someone.)
• Both applicants must be of sound mind.  (No forcing marriage on someone who may not willfully choose it if they had the ability to properly communicate their wishes.)
• Both applicants must not be immediately related.  (No one seems to be debating this despite the fact that pretty much all of the same arguments being made for the allowance of same-sex marriage also apply to this category.  Right?)
• The two applicants must consist of a man and a woman.  (This gets into the popular "redefinition of marriage" debate.)
• The two applicants must not already be married to another person.  (The polygamy argument.  Not too many debating this one either, albeit with the spotty success of same-sex marriage legalization, more polygamists are coming out of the woodwork looking to piggyback with the same set of arguments and the watered-down legal definition of marriage.)

Since we all have the same rights that have the same restrictions we do have equal rights.  Where the argument takes the turn is when someone makes the statement that they can't legally marry who they love.  What is happening here is two things: 1.  They are trying to say that marriage is the legal recognition of those that love each other.  But, even Tina Turner points out the problem here with her hit song "What's Love Got To Do With It?"  As demonstrated in the list of criteria above, the government doesn't require nor recognize love.  And, we don't want them to.  2. They are trying to shift the equality from people to actions.  But, equality doesn't translate to actions.  Actions are not equal unless they are the same action, which in the example cited (the love between a same-sex couple versus the love between an opposite-sex couple) is not at all the same action.  One can't compare one love to another regardless of "sexual orientation".  But, that is another argument all together.  Hank went straight to this argument when trying to answer the question.  And, I can see why.  He knew that this is where it was going.

Where my answer would've differed is that I would have started with the refutation of the assumption of the question that implied that there is a lack of equal rights happening here.  I did this in the paragraphs above.  Then, to refute that civil unions should be allowed to offer the same benefits to same-sex couples, I would've simply stated that the benefits given to opposite-sex marriages are given because it's the only union that can possibly produce our nation's greatest asset: children.  Same-sex unions can not do this.  The argument goes like this in its purest form:

1. By nature and design, 100% of children are produced by one man and one woman.
2. Only male/female relationships can provide a mother and father to a child — the intuitive ideal supported by countless studies.

Same-sex unions cannot produce children nor can they ever produce the ideal household in which to raise other children.  Without the production of children, our nation will not survive.  And, without the production of ideal child-rearing environments, our nation will fail to produce successful future generations.  It is in the best interests of our government and the advancement of our culture to encourage opposite-sex marriages through whatever means within our power.  Therefore, the government has no business offering same-sex unions the same benefits since their unions are not nor will they ever be equally beneficial to society as opposite-sex marriages have always been.

Read More

Gender Confusion

Yes, evidently, there are people that believe it's not only possible to be confused about one's own gender but also believe that one IS actually the gender one believes themselves to be regardless of one's physical characteristics.

In Queensland, a nine-year-old boy who was named Ronan Hayes at birth has since had his name changed by his parents to Emma Hayes.  According to the family, the boy at the age of four said that he wanted to cut off his penis and be a girl.  I would have thought this to be the point where the parent(s) explain to the little boy that removing a boy's penis doesn't make that boy a girl, but rather just makes a boy that's unfortunately missing a penis.  See?  I'm a male not just because I have a penis, but because every cell in my body is a male cell.  Remember the whole XX/XY chromosome thing we all learned in school?  We're either a male or female through and through not just in a particular physical area.

Did Ronan's parents teach Ronan that he'd only be a disfigured boy after his malpractice of a self-surgery?  No.  Instead, they allowed the boy to act like and be referred to as a girl at home.  He was enrolled in school as a boy and was being treated like a girl at home, living an essential double-life.  Until this year, that is, when the parents decided to re-enroll him in school as a girl named Emma.  The misguided and incredibly selfish parents demanded that the school treat the boy like a girl in every way including the use of the girl's bathrooms.  As a compromise, the school decided to allow the boy to use the handicapped bathroom and renamed it the "unisex" bathroom.  Was that good enough?  Of course not.  No, these parents wanted every (actual) female student's privacy violated so that "Emma" could feel like a real girl.

Another blog, Eternity Matters,  stated the following that I feel sums it all up very well:

Something I don’t understand: If your body actually is male and your mind says it is female, why do we assume that means there is something wrong with the body instead of something wrong with the mind?

If you have an emotional problem with your body’s gender, it seems like common sense that we need to address the emotions which contradict reality instead of the gender which is perfectly fine.

I'm reminded of that old encouraging saying "You can be whatever you set your mind to be."  Of course, all sane people know that this was never meant to apply to gender.  Or ethnicity.  Or species.  Just think how stupid that is.  I feel I'm a dandelion and want to live my life as one from now on.  Do not refer to me as a man lest you discriminate against me.

Or, how about celebrity identity?  I believe that I am Brad Pitt.  I demand access to my bank accounts right now lest you discriminate against me.

Read More

Past Planned Parenthood Paradox

Last month, Chelsea Clinton spoke at the Women Deliver Conference in Malaysia.  From the stage, she revealed that her much-admired maternal grandmother was the child of unwed teenage parents who “did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned Parenthood helps provide.”

Does anyone else see the oddity of this statement?  I mean, we've all been exposed to enough time travel science fiction through books, movies, and television shows to have a pretty good grasp on what becomes of the "present you" if your great-grandparents were to have aborted (or at the very least, family planned) your grandmother out of existence.

I can totally see the Saturday Night Live skit in my head already with them mashing up the video of Chelsea Clinton speaking at the conference with the scene from Back To The Future where Marty McFly's character's hand is disappearing while trying to play the guitar.  (Chelsea is lamenting about how unfortunate it is that her great-grandparents had no access to Planned Parenthood.  Suddenly, she drops the microphone she is holding and stares in shock at her missing hand.  Quickly, someone comes to her rescue and reads aloud from Wikipedia about how Margret Sanger didn't start what would later become known as Planned Parenthood until 1921, well after her grandmother was successfully born alive.  Chelsea's hand fades back in and everyone sighs with relief.)

Even if Chelsea was referencing contraception rather than abortion, it still doesn't sit right.  What it does is point out an error in the thought process of those who support abortion.  If you can't make sense of an argument supporting the availability of abortion for your parents, you equally can't make sense of an argument supporting it for your children.

Some may be quick to dehumanize others, but it stands out as blatantly foolish to fail to recognize the humanity of oneself from within one's own skin.

Read More

Religious Right

In recent news, a Kentucky high school graduation included a student-led prayer despite some objections by a handful of students.  The prayer itself, however, was very well received and was followed by a standing ovation.  One of the six known students to have objected to the school's principal, an atheist, has made his plans of contacting the ACLU known.  The article states that he feels that the public prayer violated the civil rights of students who are not Christian.

The ACLU's website makes it clear that they believe that graduation prayers are unconstitutional regardless of who leads them.  Their site states the following:

Think about it: graduation prayers would give non-believers or kids of other faiths the feeling that their participation in prayer is required. It doesn't matter who leads the prayer -- a minister, a priest, a rabbi, whoever, or whether the prayer is non-denominational -- some kids would feel left out.

The main problem that I see here is that judges keep entertaining these frivolous cases when they should immediately be thrown out.  The first amendment, among other things, strictly prohibits the government from prohibiting the individual's exercise of religion.  No one has the "right" NOT to hear someone else's right to free speech.  Likewise, no one has the "right" NOT to hear someone else's free exercise of religion.

Many people get hung up on the "establishment clause" part of the amendment and thus violate people's rights to freely exercise their religion.  The government is to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion." When a student decides to publicly thank God it's nothing short of a mile-wide stretch to say that this is the government making a law establishing religion.  What's not at all a stretch is to demonstrate that silencing that student is a violation of that student's right to free speech and the free exercise of his/her religion.

I realize that the ACLU has played a good role in years past advocating for the actual rights of people, but they have brought on themselves a bad reputation for advocating for rights that don't exist and, in doing so, violating the actual rights of many in the process.  For example, the ACLU, in it's self-described battle to keep religion out of science classrooms, has fought to keep Intelligent Design out of schools while being just fine with Evolution being taught.  The main difference between the two theories is that Evolution suggests that all things known to exist have come into existence by time and chance and under the influence of Natural Selection while Intelligent Design suggests that all things known to exist came into existence by the design of an intelligent source.  Evolution points to the evidence of similarities between species as well as what we currently know about adaptation.  Intelligent Design points to the evidence of the apparent design of all things and the irreducible complexity of most organisms.  If the ACLU contends that the teaching of Intelligent Design equates to the teaching of the existence of God thus violating the "civil right" of an Atheist, then they must also logically contend that the teaching of Evolution equates to the teaching of the nonexistence of God thus violating the "civil right" of a Theist.  But, they don't do this.  They fail to see their own hypocrisy on the issue.

It's time that the courts stop allowing these kinds of "violated civil rights" issues when the "violator" is someone peacefully exercising their civil right.  To allow these cases to continue to be heard only encourages others to make such claims and ultimately produces upside-down fascism where a small minority makes the rules that remove the freedoms of the majority.

Read More

Age of the Earth

When entering "age of the earth" into a Google search, the near-instant result is 4.54 billion years.  That's a pretty long time.  I suppose anything could be possible for that given time period, right?  Planets could form.  Elements could be created out of pretty much nothing.  Life could spring up out of virtually nowhere.  That life could evolve over time and somehow turn into say, you, for instance.  Right?

This view is accepted by many people, including many, if not most, Christians.  I, too, once believed such a way.  My belief wasn't based off having been convinced by the evidence but rather I simply believed the information that was given to me through my public education, television, children's books, and my peers.  All I had ever heard of evolution and a billions-year-old earth had been presented to me as fact.  I simply didn't question it.

When I did question it, I found that the model presented to me my whole life failed to make sense to me anymore.  I couldn't pretend any longer that my acceptance of a proposed old earth could coincide with my theology.


I have become thoroughly convinced of a young earth, one that was supernaturally formed and intelligently designed for purpose by God.  I believe that the evidence is clear and that the logic clearly points for this to be true.  No other theory, no matter how much it gets treated like fact, makes near as much sense of the data.  And, this is not nearly as complicated a subject as we have made it out to be in our minds.

But, that's why I think that an idea of an old earth has become so widely accepted.  I think that educated people, professionals in their fields over the course of the last 200 years have decided that this is true and have propagated it.  Meanwhile, the church, not being professionally trained in the sciences were not prepared to refute these claims.  Neither was the church aware of exactly how incompatible the idea of an old earth was to the Bible's clearly given historical account.

An easy, entertaining, and thought provoking read on this subject can be read online at  http://answersingenesis.com/articles/nab.  If in reading this blog, you have come to think that I must be gullible, uneducated, unreasonable, religious or any other accusations that are so commonly hurled at young earth creationists, then I challenge you to read the book that I have linked to above.  I challenge you to find its illogical arguments, its incorrect findings, its lies, if you will.  Regardless of why you read it, you should read it.

The truth of the matter is that it was almost universally understood that the earth was thousands of years old until the late 18th century when a handful of scientists started positing that it was much older.  One of these, James Hutton (1726–1797) is known as the father of geology.  He was the first to propose that the earth is being created today at the same speed in which it always had.  He based this off of his proposed Theory of Uniformitarianism.  This is the platform that began a myriad of incorrect science.  Uniformitarianism is simply stated as the belief that things are how they have always been and that current rates of spread, growth, erosion, etc. can be used as a basis as a set rate throughout all of history.  It's totally stacking the deck no matter how you look at it.  And, conveniently for proponents of an old earth, it sets the stage to introduce the gods of time and chance.

Perhaps the most asinine belief is that life was created from nothing.  I have seen and heard many proposed models of how this could have happened and they are all ridiculously flawed.  It has been aptly demonstrated that these models could not have produced even the most simple building blocks of a living organism much less the organism itself.  But, one point that came to mind today while contemplating this was that even if the impossible odds were somehow beaten and the building blocks of a living organism were created AND those somehow perfectly fell into place and just the perfect places AND they somehow fused to become this living organism, how did this living organism replicate itself?  Think about it.  Even IF everything lined up to create life, what are the chances that this life would somehow also contain the ability and will to reproduce itself.  If you can believe that despite no credible evidence pointing to it then you certainly have more faith in nothing than I have in God.

Read More

Frowny Town

I saw this last week and laughed out loud.  I loved that someone properly captured the absurdity of this address to the press.  In case you don't know where this image originated, it was from the moments after Congress failed to pass a bill that would have required background checks for all gun transfers specifically at gun shows and online sales (of course, neither the cat nor the elderly puppet were actually there)(and by elderly puppet, I'm not referring to Biden).

The President was introduced by a father of one of the murdered students from the Newtown, CT incident.  I take no issue with any facial expression that he might have produced in reaction to any disappointment of the preceding legislative actions.  But, the forced expressions on the faces of the President and Vice President were nothing short of ridiculous.

They were melodramatically frustrated with the Senate for not passing the bill and they evidently wanted to make that well understood even to the hearing impaired.  This sort of behavior doesn't lend much credibility to them politically, in my opinion.  I'm picturing what the rest of the world must think of the U.S. when they see images like these (the original, sans the comical additions).

They were upset because they viewed the bill to be a perfectly non-invasive and helpful addition to gun control.  Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V. who co-authored the bill even went as far to say, "If you're a law-abiding gun owner, you'll love this bill."  Though, as a law-abiding gun-owner, I neither love the bill nor do I see it as either non-invasive or helpful.

First of all, it requires a background check to be performed which is a service that costs money.  Who is going to pay for all these background checks, you ask?  Why the people, of course.  Call it what you will, but it's in essence another tax on a product that we have explicit rights to own, buy, and sell without the government's intervention or restriciton.

Meanwhile, the background check inherently requires a registration of all transfers.  We've already seen this be abused by our own federal and Missouri State governments at this link and at this link in direct violation of State law.  Yet, over and over again, we hear that the information will not be compiled into lists ever used for any purpose or made available to any other agencies.  Why is this bad?  Because the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the country from any tyrannical government, including its own.  By requiring this information, compiling it into lists, and making this information available to other government agencies, they are collecting data to potentially use against us by a future tyrannical entity.  This right of the government to be able to collect this information was never granted to it and when brought before the Senate last month they affirmed that the government should not be granted this ability.

Let's now deal with the fact that the President wants to make this about protecting our children.  It's undisputed that he's using the Newtown massacre as a catalyst for these new gun control measures.  But, the logic being used is all fallacious.  A required background check would not have prevented Newtown.  For that matter, it would not have prevented any of these recent mass-murders.  No supporter of this bill has yet to come forward demonstrating that any of the weapons used in any of these events would have been restricted by the implementation of this required background check.  The reason for this lack of demonstration: because it cannot be demonstrated.  So, why is the President so emotionally involved in trying to pass this added restriction?

What the bill would have done is this:  Law-abiding gun owners would have been burdened with the cost of more government regulation on all new gun transfers.  Law-breaking criminals would still have their weapons of choice to do their destruction.  The number of lives saved due to this legislation would not have been affected.  It would have created a compiled list of all gun owners and the guns they own, giving the government an even larger advantage over their one check and balance: the people.  It would have undermined our Constitutional right to bear arms.  It would have been used to argue the need of even more regulation and restriction.

In conclusion, last month our U.S. Senate did their job.  They recognized an unconstitutional, ineffective, and costly infringement on the rights of all U.S. citizens being proposed and they kept it from passing despite a large number of supporters interested in a power grab by exploiting an unavoidable tragedy.

Read More