Absences and Disasters

Well, after a crazy end of semester, a thoroughly busy-yet-enjoyable Christmas season, and the beginning of a new semester, I have returned to the world of blogging. Please, hold your applause.

A lot has happened in the news in the last few months. Probably too much for me to even try to catch up on it. There isn't really anything you could get from me that you wouldn't have gotten reading some other conservative/religious blog (and, really, why aren't you reading any of those?).

But while I'm here, I would like to add a few insights on the tsunami disaster over in Asia.

First, I'd like to say that I'm proud to be an American. Why? Because when that disaster struck, Americans began pouring out their money and their time to help the people affected by it. In fact, they still are. Money continues to pour into those regions affected by the tsunami, and aid workers seem to toil endlessly for those people (although I've read that some of the countries want all foreigners out by sometime in March). I've seen some stories about people abusing the chance to aid the less fortunate, but overall I think this has been a positive sign that humanity isn't a totally lost cause.

That being said, I find the comments of some cranks (in both the media and in our government) to be absolutely ridiculous. Some have complained that we are not spending enough on helping these people. Others are making the comparison of $3 billion in aid to Florida for the hurricane damage, while the government pledged only $150 million to help (those are old numbers, back from only a short while after the tsunami hit, but I'm sure the current figure is still far below $3 billion). Some have even commented that it is ridiculous for the Bush administration to spend $40 million on inaugural festivities when the money could be used for tsunami relief.

Let's tackle the last challenge first. Either Jim Gerraghty or Hugh Hewitt (I can't recall which one, at the moment) like to point out that, for most of those who attended the inaugural festivities, their private donations to tsunami relief efforts far exceed $40 million. So, let's not take this as a sign of overindulgence on the part of the Bush administration and friends. Next, there is always going to be some disaster or another to spend money on. There are still starving people on every continent. This does not make it wrong for us to celebrate. Celebration in lieu of helping others is one thing, but there is no reason we cannot do both. Finally, people who ask this question have not asked the same of other celebrations in our country. What about the numerous Hollywood celebrations, such as the Emmy's, Golden Globes, Oscars, Academy Awards, etc.? Will those events be cancelled, and all proceeds given to charitable organizations? I guarantee they won't, and yet the town criers will say nary a word. So, is what's good for the goose good for the gander? Or is the charge just another way of picking at the Bush administration?

Finally, I'd like to tackle the comparisons to Florida. $3B vs. $150M is a big difference, truly. But I would contend that the US government has a much higher obligation to help out American citizens than it does to help foreign citizens. Does that make sense? Why should the US government pay to rebuild one disaster halfway across the globe when it hasn't yet finished paying to rebuild the disaster in its own back yard?

Oh, that's right. Some of you may not realize it, but the hurricane mess in Florida has yet to be fully cleaned up.

Isn't that amazing? Apparently, $3B has gone into Florida, and there is still work to do. This blows my mind. But let's look at this and try to learn something: We are remiss if we put all this time and effort into helping people in another part of the world but will not even help our own neighbors.

Several of the BCMers went on a mission trip to Florida over New Years to help a church with the cleanup. The tale of First Baptist Fort Ogden is incredible. The church has become, essentially, the community center. People slept there when they had no home to return to. Food, clothing, and personal supplies are constantly distributed there. And the community of the church has spent nearly this entire time helping to clean up and repair the damage, but not for themselves, only for the community. They have said, when the community is repaired, then they can take care of themselves. They even found the opportunity in their to take up an offering for the tsunami victims. Those are the details that I can remember as they were told to me.

Wow. That is what a Christian community is supposed to be like. That is what we should strive to show. That is the kind of charity that is needed in this country. Not to say that America shouldn't help those who were affected by the tsunami. But I think it is a travesty that we haven't even cleaned up our own soil so many months later. But people like the members of FBFO show us what kind of good can come out of all of that.

Well, that's it for now. Welcome back to the blog. I hope you'll be back for more this semester. I know I will be.

The Nature of Faith

I spent a lot of time laying in bed last night and just thinking about this. It troubles me that this even comes up in my head, but I suppose no one can remain intellectually honest if this doesn't cross their mind at least once.

What kind of faith do I have? I don't know. I suppose it could be stronger. I mean, I'd like to think that I have a strong faith. After all, I believe everything in the Bible is true and that God will fulfill his promises. Yet . . . do my actions reflect the "strength" of faith I seem to think I have? It often seems not. I'm too willing to sit in my safe little den of solitude and comfort rather than venture out and actually share what I know or what I have. Is that the mark of a strong faith, or just a different faith? It's not like I never do those things. But when does it become enough? Is it ever?

The really scary thing is that sometimes my doubts become frighteningly strong. Usually, when I consider my faith, the thought is, "This all makes sense, it's logical and reasonable to conclude that this is true, I can trust that God is there and these things have happened because everything points to that conclusion."

And yet then there are times when I think about it, and the thought becomes, "What is going on here? Do I really have any good reason for thinking these things? Is all of this just something I've convinced myself of because it's comforting and helps me deal with problems I couldn't handle otherwise? Have I not given enough thought to the atheist's arguments? What happens to my life if none of this is true?"

That becomes one of the scarier thoughts. What happens next if that were to actually become my state of mind? I'd probably lose all of my friends. I've so surrounded myself with Christians and Christian culture, I'd find myself alienated in my own world. That would be weird. Would it change my morals dramatically? I still have plenty of non-religious reasons for not doing things like drinking, taking drugs, and having sex. That would make befriending new people difficult, though. It's not like there's a large contingent of people in the college world who aren't Christians, yet don't get into the "alcohol and sex" thing.

But what is the end result? These thoughts pass through my mind, thoughts that maybe it's all a lie and I'm just fooling myself, and then . . . I just ignore them. Why? Do I bring up the arguments I've had in my mind in the "pro" column to counter the opposition? No, I just set it aside and try to keep living my life as best I can. Somewhere in there is the thought that God will help me through the doubts that peck at my soul.

I make it sound much worse that it truly is, I suppose. My doubts are never truly overwhelming, and I never find myself perched on a precipice between belief and a total lack thereof, but it just bothers me that these thoughts creep up every so often, far more often than I would prefer, and I really don't seem to deal with them in any satisfactory way at all.

So . . . what do I say?

Life in a college town

I'm trying to talk as little about politics for now as possible. It's like the week after Thanksgiving or Christmas. You've just spent so much time being stuff constantly, once the events are over, you just want to lay low and eat some celery for a while.

With that in mind, some interesting occurrences from this past weekend:

I must say that I'm frustrated with the location of my house. Don't get me wrong, being close to campus is great. The problem is that there is a parking lot right outside my house and it is directly in the path between campus and a large clustering of fraternity houses (a veritable "party central").

Friday night I was up reviewing material for the Chemistry GRE Saturday morning. I knew I needed to get a decent night's sleep, so I went to bed as soon as I thought I could, which ended up being about midnight. No sooner had I laid down than a group of people on their way back from "party central" decided to congregate on the parking lot. This is not an unusual occurrence. What was unusual was 1)The early hour at which they were returning, 2)The length of time they stayed compared to the air temperature outside, and 3) Their overall noise level. I'm used to drunk people being noisy, but for some reason these guys were just really loud. I could hear their conversations outside from my room, laying in bed. It didn't help when they started hootin' and hollerin'. Ugh. I waited them out, but they stayed for half an hour. Who stands around outisde in 30ºF weather for that long with only light jackets on? Yeesh.

Saturday night was no better. I had just fallen asleep Saturday night when a couple of guys started arguing outside. Now, this wasn't like the folks before. These guys were right outside my window. I could clearly hear every word they said, and it was really disconcerting that they would get right up next to the house when they have no business walking there. From the sounds of their conversation, they had just come from a party, and had been drinking. How much, I'm not sure. One tends to be fuzzy on details when one is woken up by conversation at 1AM. In any case, at one point they started hitting on the wall to emphasize their points to each other. That was that. I pounded on the wall knowing they could hear it. They took the cue to move out into the parking lot where I could still hear them. Yeesh! I ended up calling the cops to get them out of there, but I have no idea how well that worked out. The cops showed up almost immediately after I had called, but spent a good deal of time just talking with the guys. What they were saying, I have no idea. It's bizarre how I could hear drunk people in the lot talking, but when the cops pulled up, I couldn't hear their conversations. In any case, they left, and nobody threw rocks through my windows or anything, so it was all well and good, but man! What a pain!

Anyhow . . . enough about that hooey.

Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

According to this story by CNN, a machine is being given a trial run at Heathrow Airport which can x-ray a person and see under their clothing. The purpose? To find solid, and potentially dangerous, objects a person might have on them. The response of passengers? Almost unanimously positive. People like to feel safe. The response of civil liberties groups? Voyeurs are looking at your dangly parts!

Ahem. Personally, I'm all about safety and security, though the thought of some random airport security guy looking at my dangly parts does fill me with a certain sense of creepiness. I guess my only question is, what is it that these things pick up that the metal detectors missed? I mean, are those things even good for anything anymore?

Why am I surprised by this?

So, I've been studying in Julian's computer lab this morning, and that is where I'm posting from right now. It was all quiet and normal until these two girls came in to check their email and look at other random things on the internet.

The reason this stands out is that one of them starts reading her email, and, since her computer was in plain view, I could see what the subject was. Someone, later revealed to be the girl she came in with, sent her a forward about getting gift certificates from Applebee's. She asks her, "Did you get your gift certificate?" The girl responds, "No, that's not real, I didn't know until after I sent it." "It's not?"

Oy. They didn't know this was a hoax? Where has everyone been the last 10 years? We've had junk like this spreading across the net for the longest time, and yet nobody ever seems to figure it out. The girl actually had to go to Applebee's website to confirm that this was truly a hoax.

How many offers for gift certificates, money, or products have we seen? These things list Microsoft, AOL, Applebee's, Outback, Gap, Disney, Abercrombie . . . and yet none of them are legitimate. Ever. Why do people continue to be snookered like that?

In fact, why do people start that junk in the first place? It's ridiculous! Are they just trolling for email addresses to use in spam? Or are they just trying to cause trouble? Do they know the strain it puts on the net infrastructure? (Well, maybe not as much as real spam does, but that's beside the point)

People like this annoy me. Their ignorance just astounds me. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I've known far too many people whose sole activity on the internet was to fill my and all of their friends' inboxes with innumerable forwards of jokes, "free" money offers, cheesy poems and text pictures declaring how evil you are if you don't forward it, "email snowballs," endless surveys, and so on. I think most people are beginning to outgrow that phase of internet life, but it seems that some people still haven't caught on.

Oy.

Apparently.

So, yesterday I had this great dialogue written up; a satire of video games (such as Prince of Persia) where something happens and somehow the hero is left escaping the inexplicably unreasonable and illogical "defenses" of the palace or fortress of someone. Imagine if your home was built like that. Or, well, that was the premise of the piece.

But no. Stupid Blogger has to fail on me when I tried to post it. I spent the time typing it up and the piece was chewed up and spit into the endless void of the internet. I wouldn't be so frustrated by it if it were the first time something like this has happened, but it's not.

Apparently the people at Blogger don't like satire.

C'mon, tell us how you REALLY feel . . .

If you follow my link above, you'll see Jay Nordlinger's excellent column for this week. The part I'm particularly interested in is his section regarding the left's opinions about those of us who voted for Bush. Oh, sure, they were playing nice (well, sort of) before the election, but now that they've lost, they're not pulling any punches. It's quite amazing what they really think of us. Or what they'll say about us, Christians especially, when they don't care about being politically correct. This just reminds me one more time that hate speech applies to everyone but Christians (or, in some cases, conservatives in general; the left isn't picky). Go figure.

Oh, and if you want to read some of those columns but can't or don't want to register for, say, the New York Times, you can use this wonderful little website known as Bug Me Not. It's great!

Look, a crack!

Random stuff for right now. It's so . . . freeing, to be done with the election. But now I don't even know what to do with myself. I've spent so much time reading about election stuff, Democratic antics, and John Kerry's multitude of positions on one topic that now that it's done, I can't figure out what I should do!

Well, in part, I started playing Prince of Persia: Sands of Time again. It's a fun game with some pretty difficult puzzles (although, let's face it: jumping puzzles get old after a while). The sequel is coming, and it looks like it will be cool. But playing this game just makes me wonder.

Why? Well, you, as the prince, accidentally unlock the Sands of Time on the palace of Azad and turn everyone in it except for you and two other people into mindless zombies bent on killing you. When you're not killing zombies, you're running amongst the ruins of the palace (the Sands of Time apparently invite structural failure . . . go figure). But it's not only the crumbling platforms and broken columns that you have to watch out for; no, you also have to avoid the palace "defenses." You know, radial saws that run back and forth on the walls, pressure activated spikes that rise out of the floor, spinning columns covered with blades, those sorts of things. And they're everywhere. This is apparently the kind of place that you don't want to walk to the bathroom in the middle of the night without a light. "Where's my servant?" "Well, he was bringing you your breakfast, but he wasn't looking and accidentally walked down the hall with the pit of spikes in it. Terribly sorry."

Just one question: Are we to actually believe that someone would build that death trap of a home?

Okay, on to other issues.

Politics, thy name is Specter

So, during the campaign, Bush went out to Pennsylvania to help out Arlen Specter, a man most are loathe to call a Republican. Despite his title as a Republican, he is rabidly pro-choice and incredibly resilient to all pro-life agendas. All of Bush's advisors told him not to go out and stump for Specter. After all, it does tend to tick off your conservative base when you support politicians who go against one of their most deeply held values. Nevertheless, Bush campaigned for Specter. And the thanks the man gets after being re-elected? He's already declared that, should Bush nominate any judicial nominees that are even slightly pro-life, he'd do everything in his power to block them.

What a schmuck.

And this seriously is a problem. The consensus seems to be that, with another term under his belt and a bigger majority in the Congress, the first thing Bush should do is get his judicial nominess to work. This hold-up spells bad news, especially for those of us who want to see changes to abortion law in America. Let's face it: Rehnquist's recent hospitilization makes it ever more important to remember that the highest court in the land is old. I've seen people estimate that Bush could appoint up to three or four justices in this term. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but not beyond the realm of possibility. I find it more likely that some of them would hold off on retirement until they were certain a Democrat was in office and would appoint like-minded justices, but perhaps I'm just being jaded. The issue still remains: Bush could likely appoint one or two in his time in office. We can't be held back by these shenanigans anymore.

It's about time

So, Arafat is in a hospital in France. None of the doctors are saying that he's dying, but everyone else is whispering that his time is short. I hate to say it, but it's about time.

Look, I'm not a monster. I'm sure his family will miss him, and I know that no one is beyond redemption. God could still reach this person and I pray that it will happen. But let's not tip-toe around the facts because we want to play nice: This man was a monster. He was the leader of the longest standing terrorist organization(s) that I can think of. His life quest has been to wipe the nation of Israel off the map, to see the death of every Jew in Israel. This is not a man to miss. The people who will mourn his death cry out for the death of the Jews as well. I'll say it: It's about time he went.

And, perhaps there is something else good to find in this. The story is that, with rumors flying that he won't make it, the leadership within his ranks are asking who will take control. We want to see a power struggle there. If these people fight amongst themselves, all the fewer to strap bombs to their chests and run into an Israeli cafe or bus. This could severely weaken the organizations Arafat controlled, and that is good for everyone.

Yes, I'm a bad, bad man. Eh.

Post Election Thoughts

Well, the election has come and gone. My thoughts on things:

1) Illinois went to Kerry and Obama. Big surprise, eh? I figured as much. But, well, what can you do? Actually, I think next time around I will run for governor or senator. I certainly couldn't do any worse than what the Illinois GOP is bringing up lately.

Or maybe I should just move to Texas. We'll see. Are there any celebrities who need plane tickets to Canada?

2) John Kerry has conceded the election. This is good, although I've still got an inkling in the back of my mind that we're not out of the "quagmire election" danger zone yet. Al Gore conceded the election too, at first. Give it time, we'll see.

Funny story. I was walking through Atkin-Colby just before the concession speech, and CNN was on the TV. I love this. John Edwards was speaking. I couldn't make out what he was saying, but the caption/headline at the bottom of the screen said, "BREAKING NEWS. Edwards: John Kerry is a great American." Let that sink in for a second. John Edwards thinks John Kerry is a great American. CNN is calling that "breaking news." Heh, must be a slow day in the newsroom, eh? Maybe they need to get someone else to write the captions.

I've already heard the democrats and liberals grumbling about how America is going to go to Hell, and how we're doomed as a nation, and blah blah blah. Sore losers. Okay, maybe that's not fair. I'd have been a bit upset if Kerry had won. But, well, let's face it: if America had decided to elect one or the other, then they get what they deserve. Let's not forget that we're all adults here (at least those of us who can vote), and we are responsible for the decisions we make.

Although, I must say that I'm quite scared. Why? Well, I've seen some theorizing that a loss for Kerry was what the Democrats really wanted the entire time. That way, there would be smooth sailing for a Hillary Clinton ticket in 2008. It wouldn't surprise me if that plan starts fomenting soon. THAT scares me. I don't know who the GOP will get to run in '08, but for some reason, people like to elect Clintons to office. I hope never to see a Clinton in the Whitehouse again. Let's just hope the next four years don't bring that.

And, something humorous just to wrap things up. For those who don't know, I'm taking an applied ethics class this semester, and we're discussing racism and affirmative action. The section about it in our book has this little blurb: "Racial discrimination can take many forms, from racially motivated hate speech to the use of Asian mail-order bride services by middle-aged American men who blame their problems with women on feminism." Wait, what? That last part . . . what does that have to do with anything? Am I the only one who finds that weird?

Okay, enjoy the time, folks. Four more years!

Scripture interprets itself!

Okay, this reeeeeeeally bugs me.

I know lots and lots of people like to take Psalm 46:10, where God is quoted as saying "Be still, and know that I am God." in the NIV, as saying, "God just wants you to have some quiet time with him, shutting out the outside world and being with him and doing quiet God-things."

Is this something Christians should do? Yes, spending time that is explicitly set aside for God, one on one, is a good thing. Does the Bible teach this? Absolutely. Does Psalm 46:10 teach this? No no no no no!!!

For crying out loud people, when we say what a verse means, we use CONTEXT! We don't just take a solitary verse (in this case, just a portion of a verse) and take its meaning verbatim, otherwise we would assume that Jesus is a door, a vine, a gate, and a shepherd. Literally.

Let's look at the FULL verse of Psalm 46:10, and for kicks and grins, let's use the New English Translation (www.bible.org):

"He says, 'Stop your striving and recognize that I am God!I will be exalted over the nations! I will be exalted over the earth!'"

Interesting. The translator's notes indicate that yes, the literal hebrew translation of the first part of the verse is as it is in the NIV. But why does he translate it that way? Because this message is being delivered to the nations that are warring around them, and God's message is for them to trust in his protection and to cease their senseless warring. The translator gets this because it is a similar meaning given to other verses elsewhere in the Old Covenant. The best part is that you get this very meaning by examining the context of the entire psalm. I'll let you read the entire thing, but here's what you get: Nations war, drowning out the voice of God with the clash of their spears. But God speaks up for their silence. In the end, he will shatter their swords and rend their shields, for He is the supreme, and they will learn to obey and trust in him.

Now does that have anything to do with being quiet and reading your bible? No. I hope this has been informative for those of you who don't let the bible speak for itself.

Hal

They never cease to amaze me

Well, yesterday I saw the College Democrats on the quad selling t-shirts and handing out stickers. "Buck Fush in '04" they read. Clever, if thinly veiled hatred towards the President. Actually, it's not really clever. It's old and ridiculous. If you hate the President that much that you're willing to wear a t-shirt so as to let the whole world know, why not just skip the niceties and say it minus the spoonerism? Yeah, remember when people were saying that the Democratic party was not a party of hate? That hate is not a family value? Right. I continue to find that line hard to believe when it comes from Democrats.

And it just keeps getting worse. I saw them out there today again. I would have shrugged it off if I hadn't overheard one of the sellers lambasting someone who was surely planning to vote Republican in a few days. This is what I heard: "Because Bush is a maniac . . . and how about, you're an idiot?" Ah, intelligent political discourse. I'm convinced! I'll vote for Kerry! Really, I wish I had said something to the girl right then, but I was too concerned with getting food in my stomach to think about it much at the time. Maybe I'll leave early for my next class and give 'em hell out on the quad.

This is sad, really. Last week, the College Democrats and Republicans had a debate on the election, and it was talked up in the paper as being this intelligent, polite exchange. It's all a lie. The Democrats (at least here) aren't in their natural state with that approach. That's just what they pull out to make nice to the public. Really, they're much more comfortable with a "We hate Bush and everyone who disagrees with us" type approach. Sad.

Side note: Where on earth have the College Republicans been at ISU for the last year or so? I mean, I know the College Democrats have been doing big voter registration drives and what not, campaigning big time for Kerry and Obama. Where's the Republicans? Did they give up? Are they scared of the Democrats' gestapo tactics? Is it just too much to expect Illinois to vote Republican? What gives, people?

Well, that's it for now. I'll have some more soon (hopefully).

Hal

Vox Blogoli IV

Well, I’ve been meaning to post for a while, but classes have gotten way out of hand lately. There’s been a lot going on, and I really wish I had covered some of it. I must be the only conservative blogger on the planet who didn’t talk about Dan Rather and the CBS memos (otherwise known as “Rathergate” to the “Pajahmadeen” . . . if you don’t get that term, you need to go here and here).

Well, rather than comment on the mountains of things that have been happening in the world as of late, here is something special of my own. With apologies to David Letterman . . .

Top Ten Reasons I am Voting for Bush

10. Economy. I’ll admit that my eyes tend to glaze over when politicians and economists start blabbering on about growth percentages and productivity increases and . . . and . . . zzzz . . . er, um. In any case, there is something I think I can add meaningfully to this. The economy, as far as I have read, is growing again. Growing in a very good way. I’m willing to bet that his economic policies have had something to do with this.

9. Taxes. George Bush cut our taxes. Everyone complains about how they don’t like paying taxes. George Bush cut our taxes. Let me repeat: George Bush cut our taxes. Repetitive: yes. Important: yes. John Kerry, on the other hand, has no plans to do so. I can’t possibly believe his “promise” during the second debate to not raise the taxes of the middle class (apparently everyone else is about to get the shaft . . . sorry Teresa). The numbers for his new, proposed spending is somewhere between $2.2-3.2 trillion. I’ve heard/read both numbers. Either way, I’ve also heard/read that his proposed increase in taxes for the rich (>$200,000/year) will accrue about $900 million. Wait, that’s a much smaller number than a couple of trillion dollars. Where is the difference going to come from? Me thinks a problem is at hand . . .

8. Homosexual Marriage. Yes, I don’t think homosexuals should be given government sactioned marriage. And say what you will about him or his stance on the matter, at least he has the guts to stand behind his conviction on this issue. Not like most other politicians, who have almost overwhelmingly declared that they don’t support such a thing, but won’t support any national legislation regarding the issue. “Let the states handle it.” Have you noticed that it’s only when the politicians are scared of something that they actually give authority of an issue back to the states? But I digress.

7. Affirmative Action. Okay, so Bush hasn’t exactly come out against this outmoded system. But, as in the case at the University of Michigan, he at least is standing against quota systems. Good. If we want a truly colorless, we must consider people apart from their race, not because of it. I’m glad we have a President who realizes this.

6. Faith. I’m a sucker for a Christian man. Granted, there are people who will disagree about whether or not his actions (i.e. Iraq) would be considered Christ-like. However, the way he talks about his faith tells me that it has at least some spark of genuineness about it. Could it be a well-coached hoax intended to lure Christians into voting? I doubt it. Until I’m given reason to doubt his faith (something besides “War is wrong/Bush is evil”), I feel I can take him at his word.

Contrast this with Kerry, a man who has said that he has strong faith, but can’t let it dictate his actions as a politician. Huh? What good is a faith that doesn’t change your actions?! Does this man know anything about the faith he claims to have?

5. September 11, 2001. Let Michael Moore and company say what they will. I think the President reacted marvelously to such a catastrophic, defining moment. Yeah, he has had to make some tough decisions since then. At least he has considered them carefully and made them. I’d prefer that over a man who would let our country sit idly by and ignore outside threats.

4. The U.N. I’m glad Bush stood up to these guys. They are not the moral authority for the world. The Oil-For-Food scandal, as well as continued inaction in Sudan, shows it. Why should the U.S. need the approval of such a self-interested group as this in order to act in the best interests of not only the U.S., but the entire world?

3. Afghanistan/Iraq. They harbored terrorists. They posed a threat to the safety of Americans. They broke all the rules. President Bush did what had to be done. And now what do we have? Democracy for people who have not known it . . . ever. Power-mad regimes and dictatorships either dead or imprisoned. Terrorist organizations scattered and struggling for life. Countries likely to find themselves in the crosshairs next disarming and reforming. I’ll gladly vote for a man who made these things happen.

2. Defense. It’s not just about Iraq. Bush has shown that he will not take threats to the U.S. lightly. He has shown that he wants our military to be as strong and well-equipped as possible. He has shown that he won’t just sit and wait around until we get attacked to go after the bad guys.

Again, contrast this with Kerry. He says he will make terrorism a “nuisance?” Like prostitution? First, you ask those people whose lives have been ruined by prostitution, who have been trapped by that lifestyle and can’t get out, whether they consider it a “nuisance.” Next, when was terrorism ever a “nuisance?” These people aren’t smashing mailboxes, painting graffiti, and keying your car. They are plotting to kill as many Americans (and American allies) as possible as often as possible, both at home and abroad. Repeat: They want all of us dead. That is not a nuisance.

1. Life Issues. President Bush stands up against abortion. President Bush encourages adult stem cell research, and has prevented government funding of embryonic stem cell research that would kill more of the innocent unborn. For Christians, I can’t stress enough how important this should be.

Say what you will about Iraq, or anything else. Chide me for being a “single issue” voter. More than forty million abortions in the last thirty years far outweighs any other issue in my mind. The senseless death of that many innocents should be more than enough incentive for anyone who values human life to vote for those who will work to end such slaughter, rather than increase its lifespan.

Well, that’s it. Hope you enjoyed. Until next time!

Hal

The system doesn't work

Yeah, yeah, I know. Eighteen days.

Before I get on to the main update, I wanted to add something. Today in my Instrumental Analysis class, the professor says, "The average on the last test was a little high. We'll have to make the next one a bit harder."

Wait, the average was too high? Isn't that what you want to see? Why should you think you did something wrong if people did good on the test?

The educational system seems to suffer from some fundamental flaws.

Hal

Vagina!

Where does the time go? Perhaps I have been a little lax in my posting habits as of late, but I am arguably busy. In fact, this is just a quick tid-bit before I head off to bed anyhow, so . . .

Here they come!

Okay, so last week I saw someone tromping across the quad with a shirt that read, "The Vagina's are coming! Vote Vagina!" Ah, the Vagina Monologues must be coming up sometime soon, methinks. I thought that usually happened in the spring, but perhaps someone is misinformed. "Vote Vagina." Cute. Someone has a clever play on the upcoming election.

But then I thought to myself . . . what if that isn't just a joke? What if they're serious? This lead to an interesting question . . . which Presidential candidate best represents the "Vagina ticket", if you will? I would imagine the end-goal of this is to have a President concerned about "women's issues" (whatever that would mean to the Chief Executive).

Granted, this is usually a liberal topic, with a liberal answer: The liberal candidate. Abortion tends to be one of the centerpieces of the discussion, of course. But . . . does supporting abortion really make John Kerry more "pro-Vagina"?

At this point, I don't have many answers to give. Given how very little I know about feminist issues, I can't really say who actually fulfills the "Vagina" requirements. Granted, given the typically liberal agenda of the feminist movement, Kerry is their man, but I'm curious on what basis such a conclusion is reached.

That's all folks. Stay tuned . . .