Strangely Normal

New Blog!

2006-09-25T18:54:00.001-04:00

Yes folks, it's true: I'm leaving behind this worn-out blog in favor of something new and exciting... or, well... at least new.

My new blog is called Quicksilver Commentary, and can be found at http://quicksilver.typepad.com. It's still kinda under construction, but that's where I'll hopefully be blogging for a while...

I'm Thinking About Moving Again...

2006-08-24T12:54:00.000-04:00

Moving blog services, that is. You see, I've wanted a paid blog for a while, so I could have my own domain name and such. Plus, this blog's getting kinda old. Over two years old, to be exact, and a lot of things have changed since I first started blogging. My views are a little different, my interests are different, and it just seems like it may be time to graduate to something else and get a fresh start.

So, despite the fact that I probably shouldn't spend the money, I'm looking at some paid blog services right now... Right now, TypePad looks the most promising. For all of you bloggers out there who use paid services, do you have any recommendations? Please keep in mind that I am quite inept when it comes to the technical aspect of blogging... the term PERL means nothing to me. :-P

Please Enlighten Me...

2006-08-19T22:12:00.000-04:00

What is it about trash that makes people want to throw money at it? I recently watched Lady in the Water by M. Night Shyamalan in theaters (and loved every second of it, I might add), and I just finished Shyamalan's Unbreakable... and now that I've seen all of his major movies, I have come to the conclusion that he is the most talented moviemaker of our time.

The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, and Lady in the Water... All beautifully executed movies with complex and intelligent plots and vivid characters; and yet, they will forever be outsold by trash. Titanic will still have better box office results (I will now brace myself for unprecedented hatred, as I've now referred to Titanic as "trash"), Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill will forever be more beloved by critics, and Dumb and Dumber will forever be seen as a masterpiece by the majority of Americans.

What is wrong with these peoples' minds?

And while I'm thinking about it...

Why did The Tick only last three seasons and Frasier never receive popular acclaim, while Cops is in its 15th season, and Friends quotes were a part of American life for ten miserable years?

Why don't Reese Roper, Derek Webb and Sufjan Stevens get the kind of recognition and album sales that come so naturally for talentless wonders like Kelly Clarkson, Green Day and Fall Out Boy?

Art is meant to be beautiful. Beauty is not subjective. Truth is essential.

Don't be satisfied.

A Gargantuan Post

2006-08-07T22:42:00.000-04:00

Here it is... over 2900 words, straight from my heart. I wrote this as an e-mail to Christians I know, and I decided to post it here as well.

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

Hi everybody...

What I'm about to write to you will most likely seem a bit out of character for me. I'm not cutting up in this message, and I'm not inviting people to go paintballing or see a movie; instead, I'm writing a letter that I want all Christians to read. I am not trying to single anyone out with this message, but I hope everyone who reads it will think about it, and consider forwarding it to other Christians if they feel it would be prudent.

I challenge you to read the whole thing. It will be long, but it is full of words that have been on my heart for well over a year. If you are my friend, and truly wish to know my heart, then please read it when you get the time. No need to read it all at once, either, just as it is convenient.

So, to begin...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Part 1

I view you all as my brothers and sisters in Christ our Lord, who was born of a virgin, crucified, and rose from the dead. We are all members of the Church; though many of us hold different doctrinal beliefs, we are all followers of Christ, and strangers in this world. We are all residents of Heaven, and it is our commission to make the most of our time in this place by spreading the Gospel of Christ, that others may come to Heaven as well.

Jesus Christ is our Savior; He died for your sins and mine, and for the sins of all the world. So why doesn't the world know this? Why is it that we can be confident that Heaven is our destination, while the world is drowning in what can only be called a hopeless Hell on earth? Does the church not see the suffering? Have we gone deaf to their cries? Why doesn't the world know and understand the salvation we were all so freely given?

I believe the answer to that question lies in what the world does know. The world knows that we in the Church sin, and go through pain and suffering just like they do. The world also knows that, unlike them, we try to cover up, ignore, and explain away our sin, and sugarcoat all our suffering ('cause gettin' saved will make everything better, right?). The world knows, then, that we in the church are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, sitting in pews and singing hymns (or Praise and Worship songs) to make ourselves feel better about the fact that we just can't live up to the standards we face. The world sees us, in all our wretchedness, and laughs when we tell them to conform to the same standards we ourselves fail to meet.

They know what we expect. We expect them to abstain from premarital sex. We expect them to not have abortions. We expect the homosexuals to magically become heterosexual. We expect them to not curse. We expect them to not lie. We expect them to be good, something that we ourselves cannot do apart from Christ (and even when He makes us good, we will not always do good). Are these not the expectations we've communicated to the world? Through legislation and our blissfully ignorant personal actions, we've made it clear to the world that we believe we're better than them because we like to pretend we don't do bad things (and we expect them to do the same).

I write this letter to you all as a sinner, wretched and ignorant. I have sinned simply for the sake of sinning, and I exulted in it. I have lied, cursed, cheated, lusted, and lusted some more. I have been arrogant, spiteful, disrespectful,
manipulative, crude, divisive, and everything else that my fallen nature can conceive. I have committed many of the sins that males often fall into, and even so, I rejoice in my undeserved forgiveness. I rejoice because the state and destination of my spirit, in spite of what I've done, is a testimony to God's infinite love and forgiveness.

That is what our sin is supposed to be... a testimony. This doesn't mean we have license to sin with abandon, and claim it's because Christ has forgiven us; rather, it means that we can show the world all that we've done, and they can take comfort in the fact that Christ forgave our sin, and can forgive theirs too. But how will the world know this if we don't own up to our own sin? It is not nearly as harmful to the body of Christ for a member to sin as it is for member to sin, and then deny that sin. That is what causes the world to perceive us as hypocrites, and it is absolutely indefensible.

So I would urge you all to remember your sin, so you will never forget the magnitude of Christ's blessing and its ability to help even the most unlovely of the world. Jesus Christ isn't just the savior of the Christians; as Reese Roper said, He's the "Savior of the prostitutes, drunkards, rapists and the gays."

-----------------------------------------------------------
Part 2

There is another issue facing the Church (of which we are all members) today, which I feel I should address. Romans 12:2 says this:

"Be not conformed to the patterns this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God."

The first question that must be asked is this: What are the patterns of this world? The short answer would be, quite obviously, "sin," as we are all born into it as a result of Adam's fall. The longer answer would detail exactly what is sin and what isn't, but I'm afraid that discussion is beyond the scope of this e-mail. Suffice it to say, though, that if there is a morally questionable behavior that the world indulges in, it is our "reasonable service" to God to stay away from it.

It saddens me, then, that statistically, the church is no different from the world. People who profess Christ have the same worldview as non-Christians; they do the same things, listen to the same music, use the same language, think about the same things, and believe the same lies that the world does, and they don't give it a second thought. Now I ask you, is this being "transformed by the renewing of our minds," or is it "conforming to the patterns of this world?" Go ahead, answer for yourself...

Now, you may point to Part 1 of my message, if you are hoping to maintain some pattern of the world to which you've grown particularly attached, and say "But Jacob, you're contradicting yourself! You just said that we should be proud of our sin so that it will be a testimony for non-believers!" Of course, that is not true. To essentially repeat what I said earlier, we are to use our sin as proof of the infinite nature of God's forgiveness; however, this does not mean we are to seek further sin. That's just plain ungrateful.

There is another group of Christians who might also attack my message, saying "Jacob, you Pharisee! By emphasizing our need to do good works, you are becoming legalistic, and attempting to impress your legalism on us!" To this, I would simply reply that James told us that "Faith without works is dead." I would say, then, that if someone professes Christ, but continually conforms to the patterns of this world without trying to glorify God, the quality of their faith is dreadfully low. I can't make a judgment about their salvation-- that is God's work, not mine-- but I am not ashamed to say that they are doing a very poor job as a Christian. That's not legalism, that's common sense.

Now, in addition to the fact that God commands it, we have another reason to avoid conforming to the patterns of this world (which I'm sure God was thinking of when He inspired Paul to write Romans 12:2). That reason is this: The world is watching everything we do. It is said that "actions speak louder than words," and it is true. The world knows this (smart people, they are), and they are watching us; they hear us profess Christ, and they watch to see if our actions bear the fruit of our faith. Again I say, faith without works is dead, as James 2:17 tells us, and if our own faith doesn't incite us to act upon it, then why would the world want that faith?

So are we acting on our faith, or suppressing it? Is it bearing fruit in our lives, or is it sitting there idly while we indulge our flesh with the same things the world uses to fill the holes in their own naturally depraved lives? I believe each and every one of us should take it upon ourselves to examine our actions and see if what we do bears the fruit of our faith, or our flesh. What we do reflects what is inside of us, so we should ask ourselves hard questions.

Do our words reflect our faith or our flesh?

Does the music we listen to reflect our faith or our flesh?

Does our attitude reflect our faith or our flesh?

If we are to lead the world to Christ, as is our commission, then we must strive to make every aspect of our lives reflect our faith in the One who is inside of us. This means we should put away from ourselves things like strife, envy, lust, and other carnal things, and instead we should take the advice Paul gave the Philippians:

"Whatever is true, whatever is honest, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
-Philippians 4:8

So these are the things we should focus on. We must focus on and do things that reflect the faith that is inside of us. If we are Christians, and we do not do this, then we are being unbelievably selfish, choosing to gratify our own flesh at the expense of the souls of the world, who will see our actions and thus have their hearts hardened against the Savior we've so poorly represented.

Let us as a Church cease this selfishness, for the sake of the lost.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Part 3

The final topic that has been on my heart to write about is the shallowness of Christians, and the tendency of the Church to unintentionally condemn non-believers. This is a complex issue, and one that is difficult to address simply. That is why I list it after the previous two topics; if the first part of this e-mail was about the attitude we should have about our personal sin, and the second part was about why we shouldn't sin, then this section is about what to do when others sin (as it is our shallowness of thought and communication that causes others to feel condemned).

Just as non-Christians are watching everything we do, they are also listening to everything we say, and in our zeal to "stamp out sin," some of us (myself included) have come across as condemning. We become so wrapped up in our "pro-life, pro-family" message, trying to sway those who are on the fence, that we forget how we come across to those who have had abortions, or who struggle with homosexuality. Essentially, we fall victim to shallow thought, assuming people who struggle with particular issues are going to receive our words the same way anyone else would, and this insensitivity alienates them. Then, when the "pro-life, pro-family" message becomes our vernacular, and we begin to speak about it without thinking about it, we appear even more shallow.

I'm afraid I haven't been very clear thus far, so allow me to use an example. Imagine a person who is a Christian, and thus believes the Bible when it says homosexual activity is a sin. He is, of course, correct to believe this, but he (like most people) sometimes forgets to be specific. One instance of this would be when he refers to "homosexuality" as a sin; he may well be correct, if he is using "homosexuality" to refer to homosexual activity, but he neglects to take into account the fact that homosexuals by and large define "homosexuality" as "the attraction of one person to his or her same gender." So, through shallow thinking, our Christian friend has alienated any homosexual who heard him say "homosexuality is a sin." Though the Christian was denouncing homosexual activity, the homosexual believes he is saying that the attraction which he has no control over is in itself a sin.

This scenario goes even further too. Imagine a Christian who openly says "I don't like gay people." Is this the right thing to say? Again, imagine what would happen if a homosexual heard someone who claims to represent Christ say "I don't like gay people." It would certainly alienate him. Therefore, we must refrain from speaking like that, no matter whose presence we are in. We are all sinners, and the fact that someone struggles with a particular sin is no reason to dislike them, since we all have sins that we struggle with. That is the nature of Man.

Now, I used the example of homosexuality, but Christians addressing many issues, such as abortion, euthanasia, Islam (and other religions), alcoholism and drug addictions have all succumbed to shallow thinking and poor communication with non-believers. This is why the pro-abortion crowd, pro-euthanasia crowd, pro-homosexual marriage crowd, and all the other "crowds" have become so radically anti-Christian. They feel attacked because we are too lazy to think all the way through the issue and communicate with them in ways they understand, so they retaliate with shallow thought and incendiary communication of their own. We may not like the way these people treat us, but we've brought it upon ourselves.

The solution, obviously, is for us to be careful of how the world receives our talk of sin. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't address sin, because without understanding sin, the world cannot understand salvation from sin, but it does mean that we should speak in terms they can understand, rather than our wonderful buzzwords and religious-speak that we use to let other Christians know we're "on fire." Perhaps instead of denouncing homosexuality, we should denounce homosexual activity. Perhaps instead of preaching so vehemently against abortion, we should preach more in favor of adoption. Perhaps instead of preaching against euthanasia, we should learn to take care of those in need. Perhaps we should temper all of our communications with compassion, as Christ did.

So we must learn to think through the tough issues, and be careful of our communication. As I said, the world is watching what we do and listening to what we say, and the way we react to hot-button issues like homosexuality and abortion will influence the way much of the world views the whole of Christianity, and Christ with it. Is our intellectual laziness worth the souls of people just like us? Is it worth it to condemn millions to Hell, just because we didn't feel like taking the time to communicate Christ's message properly? Of course not. We must be willing to think hard, and communicate well, because the souls of people just like us can be won or lost based on how we react to the sin in their lives.

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

If you've read all the way through this e-mail, I'd like to thank you. As I said in the beginning, this stuff has been on my heart for a long time, and I had to write it out and send it to you. It wasn't only meant for my friends though; this e-mail is written essentially to every Christian, though not every Christian will read it. So, now that you've read it, I ask that you do two things: First, if you find that it was profitable to read, I ask that you would forward it to other Christians you know, that they could read it too; and second, if you care to, e-mail me your thoughts on the issues I attempted to address. You don't have to do this, of course; I'd just like to know who stands with me, and who disagrees.

I don't know if this e-mail will do anyone any good. I only wrote it because I feel that God placed it on my heart. I have no illusions; as I said in Part 1, I sin just like everyone else, and I don't claim to always hold to the principles I advocate. I only believe in them, and try to uphold them to the best of my ability; the rest is up to God.

So again, thank you for reading this e-mail, and may God bless you all as you walk the path He has ordained for you.

In Christ,
Jacob Thrasher
sixohsixoh2004@yahoo.com

To Lead As Christ Did

2006-07-29T16:08:00.001-04:00

Well well well, it's been a while, hasn't it? I'm afraid to click on SiteMeter to look at my hit count, and I'm a bit worried about even posting, for fear that no one reads this blog anymore, but I think I will anyway. I've been writing so much lately, it'd be a shame not to put something up here.

I just got back from Worldview Academy for my second year, and I must admit that it was every bit as enjoyable as the first time. I will say this, though: It was an entirely different experience this year, not because anything about it had changed, but because I viewed it from an entirely different perspective. Let me explain...

Worldview Academy is a Christian Leadership camp, training students in how to lead the culture as servants, how to defend the faith and how to analyze the various worldviews inherent in our culture. Last year, I did several things that I later regretted. First, I neglected to take enough notes; second, I did not take the lead in the Evangelism practicum; and third, I didn't ask enough questions in class or speak up enough in small group time. For all of these, I had an excuse: I didn't know what was expected of me. This year though, that excuse wouldn't work.

I was an alumnus this year, so I knew the ropes. I knew what was expected of me, and I knew what I had to do to get the most out of camp. I had to put the principles of servant leadership that we were learning into practice, even when it seemed a little awkward or unusual. I had to take the lead in the Evangelism practicum, which was essentially street evangelism, because I knew that no one else would. I had to ask the questions and speak up in small group time so that I would get the answers I need.

I remembered being a first-time student, and I knew what it was like. I knew that it could be a bit intimidating to go out witnessing, and that indecision could often get in the way of practicing servant leadership. I also remembered that when I didn't know what to do last year, I looked to the alumni to see what they were doing. The second-year and third-year students who knew the camp well were the ones I knew I had to imitate, so that's what I did.

This year though, I wasn't able to relax and let the alumni take the lead, because I was an alumnus. I knew that some of the first-year students would do what they saw me doing, just as I did what I saw the alumni doing during my first year. Last year, anything I neglected to do only hurt me; this year, my negligence could influence others. This year, in essence, was more like real life.

This isn't to say that I view myself as being some sort of trendsetter, or great leader. To understand what I am saying, I suppose you have to understand one of the basic lessons that Worldview teaches: The lesson thatwe all are leaders. Leadership is simply defined as "influence," and given that definition, everyone is a leader. We all have some sort of influence over other people, and it is how we use this influence that determines what kind of leaders we are.

Influence can come in various forms, but one major source of influence is the services we provide. If we provide any service to someone else (and we all do), or if they depend on us for that service, then we hold influence over that person. For example, when I am eating at a restaurant, and a waiter takes my order, that waiter holds influence over me. That influence extends from the obvious question of whether or not I get what I ordered, all the way down to how the rest of my day goes. If I sat down at this restaurant, and a surly waiter shows up to take my order, his attitude will rub off on me. If he messes up my order, is slow, or does anything else that is generally displeasing to me, it will affect the way I go through the rest of my day, and my attitude will change.

So we all are leaders because we all have influence, and we all have influence because we all provide services for others. Therefore, it could be said that whenever we serve, that is when we lead. This is the crux of servant leadership.

As a sidenote, who was the greatest servant of all time? If you answered "Jesus," you deserve a cookie. Jesus was the most humble of servants, God incarnate lowering himself to be sacrificed for a corrupt and ungrateful world. Thus when it is said that we are to be imitators of Christ, and when we take on the name "Christian," meaning "Like Christ," it is expected that we will serve as Christ did, that we may also lead as Christ did. That is what Worldview is all about.

Anyway, back to the relationship of the alumni to the first-year students. The reason I viewed it as my job (and the job of the rest of the alumni) to ensure that the first-year students got as much out of camp as they could is because we alumni are called to serve the first-year students. The service we provide to them is that of setting an example for them, and ensuring that they enjoy the camp. This is our influence over them, and if we use it wisely, then they will have a good camp experience and grow in Christ. That is why I took our responsibility so seriously.

So I was able to take many lessons away from Worldview this year, as my new perspective on it made me get more involved, and thus get more out of it. But now, the million-dollar question is how I will apply what I have learned.

All around me, I see Christians who don't understand how to represent Christ. They don't understand that the world is watching and listening to us, waiting to see if our actions will match up with our words. They don't understand that they are the very source of the world's disdain for our religion, that they are poorly representing something they don't understand, and that it is driving people away.

These people, adults and teenagers alike, don't even see the need to understand their religion, or to act in a Christlike manner, leading as Christ would and thinking God's thoughts after him. I could attribute this to ignorance, intellectual laziness, poor training, or any number of other possible causes, but it really doesn't matter, because all of these problems have the same solution. I must use what influence I have to effect what change I can; by this, I mean that I must serve to the best of my ability those who I feel the least obligation to serve. Not a pleasant thought, but it is the only way for the situation in my area to change. After all, if I really believe this, then I must take action upon it; otherwise, it is a hollow belief, for "faith without works is dead."

Worldview was a great experience for me this year. There is so much I'd like to write about, and so much I've learned, but this post sums up the concept that stood out the most to me, for it is the concept that is the most desperately needed in my youth group. I went to Worldview with the stated goal of growing in my ability to lead as a servant, and now with my new perspectives and knowledge, I am left with a choice: Will I put the lessons I've learned into action, or will I continue on in the same way I have for 17 years now? I pray that I will put these new principles into action, and I would appreciate your prayers as well.

Busy, Busy, Busy

2006-05-25T23:09:00.000-04:00

That's what I've been. Busy. And it looks like things are only going to get worse into the summer... Though at least then it will be a kind of busy that I can appreciate.

My Summer starts on June 15, when I go to the ICTHUS MUSIC FESTIVAL!!! That's right, I'll get to see Relient K, Hawk Nelson, Kids In the Way, Slingshot 57, Project 86, Eleventyseven, and many more! This is great, considering that the only bands I've seen in concert before this were Third Day and Casting Crowns... you can imagine how disappointing that is.

That's not to say that Third Day or Casting Crowns are bad or anything... I mean... Yeah... Anyway...

While I'm at Icthus, I'll get to visit a college in the area I'm considering... Namely, Asbury. That promises to be fun... yes, it will be a good trip indeed!

After Icthus, my summer will be filled with Worldview Academy, Forward '06 (my church's youth camp), tennis camps, and much more... And I can't wait! Let's just hope that in all this excitement, I still find time to blog... I'll have a post of some substance coming soon (though it may be exceedingly short, and intended for discussion), so stay tuned!

And one last thing... I'll soon be adding a new link to my sidebar, the website of my fellow THH Mod Prm753. Until then, here is a link in a post...

Yes I'm lazy. I'm also happy. So what?

Two Invitations

2006-05-15T11:50:00.000-04:00

Hey everyone, I wanted to alert you to something I'm trying to set up... It's a forum for playing the game of Mafia (also known as Werewolf). It's great fun!

If you've never heard of it before, Mafia is a game which pits an uninformed majority against an informed minority... in other words, it's kind of like having 20 blindfolded people fight two or three seeing people.

To read an overview of the game, go here, and to register with my forum, go here.

Also, I have an invitation for all my homeschooled readers: Recently, I joined a forum called TeenHomeschoolHang, a forum exclusively for homeschooled teens. It's a great place, and I'd love to see you all there. Oh, and the Board Administrator recently made me a moderator... Heck yes!

So anyway, I'd be much obliged if you'd check out those two sites.

Cheers!
Neo

Voting with Your Dollar

2006-05-14T15:06:00.000-04:00

So yeah... The Da Vinci Code is coming out in theatres this Friday. But then, you all knew that by now... I'm just the guy that comes in and announces the event to make himself feel important, even though it's too late to do any good. I've never claimed to specialize in 'breaking news.'

Too much pressure.

Anyway, I have a job for all my faithful blog readers: When The Da Vinci Code comes out, let's all... well, let's ignore it. If you really need a reason, then just listen to Brandon Booth of Worldview Academy, who says this:

In just a few short days the movie “The Da Vinci Code” is coming to theaters. What will you do?

If you’re smart, you’ll ignore it... Don’t vote for it with your dollars and tell Hollywood that you want more of this garbage. You don’t have to be vocal about it, just quietly treat it the way you treat the National Inquirer in the checkout isle, pass by it with a chuckle.

Oh, and if you want to read the book, borrow it please.

Fair enough, I'd say. I've always thought the uproar about The Da Vinci Code was a bit overkill, since it's just a book (and now a movie) that is repeating a theory that's been around for quite a long time. I think we'd do a lot more good if we ignored the book and movie rather than working ourselves into a frenzy about it. That way, we could focus our energy on defending ourselves against the ideas that this work of fiction could conceivably propogate.

Dan Brown had every right to write the book, which he admits is a work of fiction. Ron Howard had every right to direct the movie. If you don't like it, I would suggest exercising your own rights: Namely, the right to ignore the book and movie, and the right to prepare yourself to defend against its inaccurate portrayal of Christ.

Please note that this doesn't mean shouting about how stupid and untrue the book is. Fiction generally is untrue, and getting upset about this fact might be a bit counterproductive. You might also avoid trying to get the book banned, as I'm sure there are many books which are far more offensive than The Da Vinci Code sitting on your local bookstore's shelves.

So let's just ignore it. We'll ignore the book, and we'll ignore the movie, and if people start believing that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that French Royalty was descended from them, then we'll explain how those ideas are untrue, and how a recent book that was admittedly fictitious makes a poor foundation for one's theology.

Ignoring The Da Vinci Code is the most effective way of opposing it. And it's rather thrifty too, because if you ignore it, you will save money. On the other hand, buying an admission ticket, or making signs to thrust in the face of those who do, requires money.

And then there's the gas it takes to get to the theatre in the first place. Gas prices are killer.

And driving kills the environment. Trees die.

And don't we all have better things to do with our time anyway?

So please, ignore the movie. Do it for the trees.

Top Baby Names

2006-05-12T17:19:00.000-04:00

Jacob and Emily Still Top the U. S. Baby Name List.

This is because all the "Jacobs" out there are named after me. That's right, I'm famous.

And you're not.

Unless your name is Emily.

So uh... you want me to post something meaningful? Not right now...

I'm too busy being famous.

This Made My Day...

2006-05-09T14:53:00.000-04:00

Mallard Filmore on Homeschooling...

Wanna go out on a date?

Excuses, Excuses...

2006-04-30T21:04:00.000-04:00

Hey folks, sorry for my apparent inability to post lately. If you've been reading my blog for any length of time, you probably know that I have this strange compulsion to neglect posting, and then apologize for it. That's my way of doin' things.

My excuse this time is that I've been working on a stupid research paper. Yes, it's stupid, and no, I won't post it on here. No self-respecting human being would read the stuff I write for school. It's amazing how boring and uninspired something has to be in order to get an A... It's like the less the teacher enjoys reading through it, the higher the grade.

I fear for my future. By the time I've graduated highschool and college, I imagine I will have been reduced to writing expository papers on shoelace manufacturers in San Marino for fun. I say "for fun" because my writing will be so mind-numbingly bland by this time that no one would ever consider paying me for it.

Thus my life as a starving writer has begun before I was either starving, or a writer.

It seems that my parents are willing to contribute to this bright future in their own special way. I was recently informed that I must finish the research paper by April 30 (tonight), or face the consequences. Now, being as lazy and unmotivated as I am, I'm well acquainted with consequences, and just as I was considering whether or not it would be worthwhile to procrastinate a little while longer, I learned that the consequences would be my being kept from going to the prom.

The prom! I can't miss that! You can't be serious! I'm a good kid, with good grades, who will somehow finish all his work this year like he always does! Don't do this to me... I can't handle it!

My social life will be ruined! Girls will hate me! I'll never get married! Heck, I could very well meet my future wife at this prom (or discover who she is), so if I'm grounded, I will be something worse than a starving writer: I'll be a lonely starving writer.

Unless I write that paper... If the paper is written, then I will go to the prom, get married, and live a happy and fulfilled (though hungry) life. To me, the choice is clear.

It's going to be a late night at Neo's house...

UPDATE:

Let it be known that I, Neo, did in fact finish my paper on time and will be going to the prom. This, however, will do nothing to help my writing, and I don't believe there will be any ramen noodles for sale.

How depressing.

And... uh...

"All in all, I say that you need to hold down the fort and take the pond by it's ears. Who can stop you when you have a donkey? Or a ducky?"

That was, hands down, the single most amazing quasi-paragraph I have ever read. Ever.

And I didn't understand a word of it.

Underground Music Spotlight: brave Saint Saturn

2006-04-25T11:35:00.000-04:00

As some of you have noted, I like music. In fact, I like it so much that I link to some of my favorite artists on my obscenely long sidebar. Now, I do not have any sort of a rule that the music I listen to must be Christian, but by and large, that's what it is. Christian. The only reason for this that I can think of is that I prefer my music to be clean, and I have a rather hard time finding clean music that isn't religious in nature. Not that that bothers me...

That's why my Underground Music Spotlight for this [insert period of time] is such an enigma to me. Indeed, brave Saint Saturn is one of the most intelligent and overtly Christian bands I have found, and they also are one of the most controversial.

Headed by the inordinately talented Reese Roper and composed of several other former members of the ska legend Five Iron Frenzy, BS2 has only released two albums, and does little if any touring. The reason for this? Well, they're really just a studio project, and they use so many unorthodox effects in their music (such as synths and xylophones) that it's easier just to record their music and sell it.

And please don't look at me like that. Yes, I did say they use synths and xylophones... and it sounds great! Don't take my word for it though... check out this (most likely fake) MySpace where you can listen to four songs from their latest album, The Light of Things Hoped For. What does it sound like? Well... I think the most apt description comes from the band itself; they often say their genre is "Astro rock" or "space pop"; fair enough, since both of their previous albums and their upcoming one follow the crew of the USS Gloria on its voyage through space. Creative use of previously mentioned unorthodox instruments helps communicate the feeling of the utter loneliness and desolation of space as well...

So, besides the unusual sound, what makes BS2 so controversial? Well, no one can be quite sure, but it most likely has something to do with the fact that this Christian band's most recent album was censored by Tooth and Nail Records, the Christian label who produced it.

I saw that double-take. But please, let me explain:

On the entire album, three words were censored. Twice, the word "H*ll," and once "P*ss." But wait, I can explain! Two of the words were used on the song "Heart Still Beats," one of the most jarring yet profound songs I have ever listened to. It was written about the pain and suffering of so many around us, from the strung-out harlot to the ex-convict with a grudge against the world, and the life that remains in them even when we choose to ignore it. In the second verse, the song speaks of an ex-convict answering the door:

He always looks P***ed off//
And his sunglasses stay on//
I think he got his biceps and tattoos while in prison//
And it doesn't seem to bother him//
When he says "go to H***"//

Harsh, and maybe a little crass? I think it paints a picture of the individual that could not be adequately portrayed otherwise. And why is "H***" considered a curseword anyway? I can understand why every other word is considered obscene, but why "H***?" Either way, it was censored on the cd.

The other instance of censorship comes in the song titled "Enamel." I have no good excuse for it, except that it was used as a literary device which even some of the great Christian authors recognize as legitimate.

The uncensored versions of their songs can be found here.

Controversy notwithstanding, BS2's lyrics are very nearly beyond compare. Consider the song "Under Bridges" from their first album "So Far from Home":

Verse 1:
Yesterday while walking//
Beneath an overpass//
I saw the figure of Jesus//
Standing barefoot on broken glass//
His beard was greying//
The smell of urine filled the air//
Asking if I had some change//
Anything that I could spare//

Bridge:
And all have hated//
Crucified, and walked away//
The Savior of the prostitutes//
Drunkards, rapists and the gays//

Of course, not every song is about this sort of thing, but it's always a breath of fresh air to find a Christian band that is not afraid to deal with real life issues that are too often ignored by the Church.

In conclusion, BS2 is a refreshing change from just about everything you thought you knew about Christian music. With compelling lyrics and a musical style that is... rather memorable... Brave Saint Saturn's newest album is the crown jewel of my cd collection. This underground side project with a mere two albums has succeeded in impressing me more than the vast majority of mainstream Christian artists, and I highly recommend that you check them out!

Top 10 Reasons Why You Should Blog

2006-04-23T20:52:00.000-04:00

Blogs are great. I'm serious. They're absolutely great. In fact, I think they're so great that I'm dedicating this post to convincing my non-blogging readers that they should create their own blog. Having blogged for very nearly two years now, I should hope that I understand some of the benefits to blogging, and so with my usual pompous assumption that I know something you don't, I shall proceed to tell you why you all should blog.

10.) It's a great way to improve your writing. It's true! My writing style has grown in leaps and bounds since my first ventures into the world of commenting on blogs, and writing my own (thankfully) ignored rants in my isolated corner of the blogosphere. Please, don't try to imagine my writing style BEFORE I started blogging... It could lead to high blood pressure. And don't visit my old posts in my archives either... they're like cyber-cholesterol.

9.) It helps your college professors feel important. After all, unless you are the most boring blogger on the planet, your writing style will not be able to transfer to English 101, so your professor gets to feel quite powerful as he teaches you how to write "academically."

8.) It improves your vocabulary. Within a few short days of blogging, most bloggers discover that "blog" is actually short for "weblog." Soon thereafter, you'll learn the meaning of the term "hat tip," and if you're one of those annoying overachiever types, you'll probably even figure out what the heck "WYSIWYG" stands for.

7.) You can laugh at people who don't know what a blog is.

6.) You can laugh at people who think Myspace is a reputable blog service.

5.) It helps you network with awesome and extremely intelligent people. After all, we all need someone to help us write papers or fend off trolls from time to time.

4.) It gives you a reason to take your laptop into one of those hip internet cafes now. You know, the ones where you always wanted to go before, but couldn't because you'd immediately be labeled a poser by the guy looking over your shoulder?

3.) It gets rid of all that pesky free time. 'Cause we all know there are too many hours in the day to begin with...

2.) It's a great way to vent your anger after a really bad day. And, if you're mad at someone in particular, it's a convenient way to bring your grievances to light without seeming confrontational. "Oh, you mean you read my blog? Wow..."

1.) You'll meet the love of your life, and run away together to live happily ever after. ... Okay, so I made that one up. But you might end up with a stalker or two.

Our Greatest Strength, Our Strongest Weakness

2006-04-22T22:52:00.000-04:00

Over the past few months, I've been giving quite a bit of thought to the concept of Christian Liberty. Can it truly be that we, as Christians, are free to act in whatever manner we want, and still go to Heaven? I do believe so; I believe we have a moral obligation to act in accordance with Christian beliefs, but we also have the freedom to act as though we are still complete heathens. This is part of the reason that I am loathe to judge any person's salvation based on whether or not they listen to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and live a moral life.

Salvation is a gift from God, and it is one for which there are no requirements. We need not act a certain way to gain entrance to Heaven, and there are no actions by which we can conclusively determine a person's salvation. After all, since we cannot ever know the state of a person's heart or if they truly have been saved, and since salvation is a gift from God, and since "God's gifts are irrevocable," I believe it is impossible to say that we can question a person's salvation based on their actions.

But I digress... Back on the issue of Christian Liberty, I would suggest that it is one reason Christianity has endured so long. Let me explain...

The great beauty of Christianity is in its perfect melding of moral requirements and total freedom. This is the reason it has endured for so long, through so much persecution! No other religion so seamlessly combines the need and command to act in a manner consistent with the religion with the freedom to not do so. For example, a Muslim who does not act like a Muslim is not, in fact, a Muslim. He is a failed Muslim, one who will be eternally damned (according to his religion) because he did not uphold his religion's moral code. Then consider the Buddhists: A Buddhist with many possessions, who fails to follow their moral code, is not so much a Buddhist as a failed Buddhist, who has no hope of reaching Nirvana any time soon.

Christianity though, is different. Beautifully so. Our religion emphasizes love, forgiveness, mercy and grace, but it also requires Christians to exhibit these virtues. However, in order for the religion to truly practice love, forgiveness, mercy and grace, those who adhere to the religion must be able to live their lives under perfect love, forgiveness, mercy and grace. This means that they do not, in fact, have to exhibit these virtues or any others in order to call themselves Christians. They need not fear the eternal consequences of their transgressions against the faith.

This requirement to act in a certain way, but freedom to not do so is an integral part of Christianity, and at first glance, it seems as though it lead to the death of the religion. After all, if anyone may call himself a Christian, regardless of his actions, then it is no wonder we are seen as hypocrites by so many in the world. It is because of the freedom we have that people see our religion as being so hypocritical.

But it is that very hypocrisy that makes our religion so believable. No other religion is so forgiving, and so thorough in its worldview. Christianity takes no account of the wrongs done to it, and that is our call as well; and, when we fail in this area, it is just another great testimony of the beauty of our faith. The religion is strong because we are weak. Since we are weak, then something stronger than ourselves must be behind this irrationally strong religion, and that stronger power is easily seen to be Christ.

Failure to Communicate

2006-04-20T17:37:00.000-04:00

(originally posted to a discussion forum that I help moderate.)

In my experience, Christians and homosexuals have a misunderstanding when it comes to talking about sexuality and sin. Christians, in general, use the term "homosexuality" to mean the actual practice of sodomy, and the term "homosexual" to mean an individual who actively participates in homosexual intercourse.

However, because of their situation, homosexuals define terms differently. They tend to use the term "homosexuality" as simply the state of being attracted to a member of the same sex, and "homosexual" as any person who experiences that same-sex attraction. Therefore, when we as Christians say that homosexuality is sinful, homosexuals believe we are condemning them for the attraction that they undeniably (and uncontrollably) feel.

Of course, this is not so. Christians do not (or at least, should not) condemn anyone in the first place. Secondly, feeling a homosexual attraction is no more sinful than feeling the urge to lie, or more relavently, the urge to masturbate. The temptation to sin, whether it is same-sex attraction or the urge to masturbate, is NOT sinful.

Furthermore, you will never catch me saying that homosexuality feels unnatural to homosexual individuals, or that they have some innate "knowing" or "feeling" deep down that it is wrong. It is what is known as a "signature sin": a particular sin that an individual struggles with more than others. Homosexual activity is sinful according to the Bible and a perversion according to nature, but no amount of preaching about this will change a homosexual's urges. It's the same as if you were to confront a compulsive gambler about his gambling addiction (as gambling would be his signature sin); laws of God and nature may be set against him, but words alone will not change his ways because he struggles with this particular issue more than with any other, and has begun to cope with it the only way he knows how. Namely, accepting the sin.

Now, I have already stated my case elsewhere that homosexuality (even homosexual activity) and Christianity are not mutually exclusive; however, it would be (as C. S. Lewis would put it) rather difficult to be a practicing homosexual and a *good* Christian simultaneously... but a homosexual can be a Christian just like a practicing liar can be a Christian, because lets face it, we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Another Kind of Total Depravity

2006-04-12T13:26:00.000-04:00

I Don't Want to Die' Heard on Flight 93 Tape

"The last words heard as [Flight 93] nears the ground were repeated four times in Arabic: 'Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.' Then, just the sound roaring static can be heard."

Does anyone else find it odd that someone as "great" as Allah is scared out of his wits by Jews and people who convert to Christianity? How great can he be if he needs a bunch of men with rugs on their heads to blow themselves and the infidels up? Sounds more like desperation than greatness... but then, what do I know?

I'm just a civilized Westerner.

Total Depravity

2006-04-08T22:00:00.000-04:00

Okay, for my first foray into posting about Calvinism, I'll simply ask this question, in hopes that one of my kind Calvinist readers will explain it to me:

How do you define "Total Depravity?"

Of course, I believe in Total Depravity, but perhaps not in the same sense that Calvinists do... then again, we may completely agree, I don't know. Hence the fact that I asked the question.

I understand that Man's Fall led to a sin nature in all men, and thus Total Depravity, but beyond that, I don't think I fully understand the Calvinist point of view. Is Total Depravity the belief (or does it encompass the belief) that we are "incapable of doing any good on our own," or is it the idea that we all have the tendency to sin, and no amount of good works on our part can ever save us from that sin?

I would just research it myself, but this is quicker and I wanted to post before I go to bed. Now if only I can get the Great and Powerful David Ketter to watch my back and kick me in the head if I say something stupid.

Er, when I say something stupid...

Once in a Lifeti-- Er, Eternity!

2006-04-04T21:50:00.000-04:00

On Wednesday
at two minutes
and three seconds
after 1:00 A.M.
in the morning,
the time and date
will be

01:02:03 04/05/06.

This won't ever happen again.

Just thought I'd let you all know.

Hat tip: My dad.

No... Freakin'... Duh...

2006-04-03T18:41:00.000-04:00

Sexually Charged Media Encourages Teenage Sexuality (from Y!News)

When I read the headline, I was struck speechless; not because I disagreed with it, mind you, but simply because I wondered what poor sap was so undecided on the issue of the media and teenage sex that he needed someone to study it. We can be reasonably certain, though, that this guy doesn't have kids.

Or a frightful overabundance of common sense.

Regenerate Our Culture

2006-03-24T14:23:00.000-05:00

... and so I says to the guy "There is no punch line, I just needed a way to start this post about Regenerate Our Culture!"

That's right folks, I don't place buttons at the top of my page for nothin'! It's gotta be something special, like Worldview Academy or really awesome music for me to place a button up that high... and even the music only has a slim chance.

So what's Regenerate Our Culture about? Well, it's part online magazine and part aggregator of the best recent posts from seventeen teenage bloggers, all aimed at bringing our culture back to a Biblical worldview. It seems that the powers that be in ROC even chose yours truly as one of those bloggers! Thanks, ROC!

Anyway, check them out! ROC's a great resource for keeping up with all the blogs that you always wanted to read, but never had time for. So get over there!

And while I'm posting... I might be considering changing the focus of my blog... I really don't know at this point. You see, while I'm still interested in politics, I have had an increased interest in theology and church structure for some time now, and I am considering writing more about that. I don't know though... I'm all confused, you see, but none of it really matters because I haven't posted enough lately. Yay for procrastination.

Anyway, if you can think of anything you'd like me to blog about, whether it's a broad subject like theology or Calvinism (Lord help me), or something specific like Bush's ports deal or Perseverance of the Saints, let me know... Maybe that will motivate me to write.

Unless, of course, you'd rather I just didn't write. I could understand that too... This is a very welcoming blog when it hasn't been written in for a month and the last comment came from my little brother. That's right, things are always exciting around here...

Okay, I'll stop now...

Terri Schiavo Blogburst

2006-03-20T22:30:00.000-05:00

In keeping with Agent Tim's blogburst about Terri Schiavo, I have decided to polish and re-post something I wrote back when she was being starved. I continue to be appalled that the same justice system that is so hesitant to sentence a criminal to death would so gleefully sentence a handicapped woman to starvation, especially in the absence of any concrete proof that she would wish it.

Whose testimony condemned Terri to death? Why, it was the testimony of her husband Michael, the very same man who testified in an earlier malpractice trial that Terri would NOT want to die, and the very same man who stood to gain even more money as Terri's guardian, should she die. Don't you find it funny (or sickening) then, that Michael stopped Terri's therapy after he won that malpractice trial? Is it not just a little suspicious that Michael tried to deny his wife treatment for an infection after he had been awarded the money?

But enough of that... what does our culture's willingness to starve a brain-damaged woman say about us?

Just asking...

If I saw a homeless guy on the street, and remarked in passing "I just couldn't live like that," does that mean I would starve myself if I were to lose all my money?

If I saw an amputee, and said "I'd rather just die if I were to lose a limb," does that mean that you would order doctors to starve me, should I lose my right arm?

Beware the culture that embraces death. Our love and respect for life has dwindled so much that many Americans want to kill a brain-damaged lady simply because they think they "wouldn't want to live like that." These people, some of them Christians, say they would rather die themselves than be brain damaged... Yet there is no love or respect for God's gift of life there; just the search for an easy way out.

We as a culture have become so dependent upon prime living conditions that we don't know how to weather any storms. We're a country of sissies, pansies and wimps; we don't see life as something worth fighting for, because we fear the battle more than the loss. If something not handed to us on a silver platter, we are too arrogant to get it ourselves, and if we don't get it, we'd rather die.

What does it say about the state of the country when everyone has the mindset of a three-year-old?

And these people are so proud of their convictions.

Let There Be Humor!

2006-03-09T12:22:00.000-05:00

I read this. And then I laughed.

A lot.

Then I read this. I laughed some more.

Then I decided to write an uninspired post.

So what if that's the story of my day?

Why Read the Headlines?

2006-02-18T21:37:00.000-05:00

Really folks, what's the point of even reading the headlines on Yahoo! News anymore? Is it just so we can say "Hey look honey, Muslim radicals killed fifteen more people today?"

So maybe this murderous lot isn't the majority of Muslims. Maybe they are; the fact is, I don't really care. Until the moderate Muslims start speaking up and take the lead in finding and eliminating the radicals, I refuse to refer to Islam as the "Religion of Peace." As long as violent individuals keep blowing things up in the name of Allah, undeterred by the peaceful segment of the population I can find no reason to be nice about the whole thing.

I mean, come on... Somebody drew a blasphemous picture of Allah, and the WHOLE MUSLIM WORLD is in a state of turmoil! Like little children or wild monkeys (the more appropriate comparison), these people simply don't operate like normal human beings! There have been caricatures of Jesus and Buddha, Darwin and Freud, but never did the followers of these individuals take offense and begin to blow things up! Only when Muhammad is the subject of ridicule do the massacres start.

Christians and Muslims alike have been killed in the name of Allah. Westerners and Arabs, young and old have been tortured and decapitated at the hands of Islamic baboons, and still, there are no riots in the street. No angry mobs protest Muslim-on-Muslim violence, and certainly they do not grow outraged over Muslim-on-Westerner violence. Then, when someone makes a cartoon of Muhammad, the weeks and months following its publication lead to worldwide violence and massacres of innocent victims, many of whom have never even seen the offending cartoon. How's that for reasoning?

From the Left, I've heard about how the problem isn't really Islam... No, they say, the real issue here is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a stripped-down version of a religion... one that relies only on the "fundamentals," so to speak, to determine its doctrine. Of course, no person would adhere to Islamic Fundamentalism of their own volition... Usually, a fundamentalist is an otherwise reasonable person who finds himself in unfamiliar, unfriendly, and unstable conditions (such as are present across the entire Muslim World), and must rely on this stripped-down version of his faith to give him stability and purpose.

So you see? These violent people aren't really that bad... They're just victims of poverty and the despotic regimes that lord over them. And besides, they're basically the same as the fundamentalist Christians in this country, like Pat Robertson! Fundamentalism is always bad, and Christian fundamentalism is our responsibility. That's the way the argument was put to me by my Comparative Politics professor.

Nevermind the fact that Christian "fundamentalists" have nothing in common with Muslim fundies... economically, behaviorally, rhetorically, or socially! Nevermind the fact that you're free to wear your "Jesus is my Homeboy" shirt to the local mall without someone hacking your head off with a machete. Fundamentalism is bad, and some Christians have been called "Fundamentalists." Therefore, Christian "Fundamentalists" are like radical Muslims!

I love the smell of an association fallacy in the morning.

The truth is, the problem IS Islam; or rather, the problem is what seems to be the predominant type of Islam. Whether this radical sect really is more common, or simply more vocal, I do not care. Poverty or no poverty, fundamentalism or no fundamentalism, religion or no religion, INSULT or NO INSULT, no group of people has the right to riot and massacre innocents because somebody offended them by putting a bomb on the head of their favorite prophet.

Nothing can excuse the actions of these Muslims. Nothing can change the fact that they commit their atrocities in the name of Allah. All that can now justify any form of Islam is for the moderates to stand up and stop their violent brothers. If they fail to do so, they make themselves as bad as those who murder innocents, and give credence to the cartoon that sparked the Muslim World's latest outburst.

So here's an idea... Muslim violence is likely to continue for years to come, as will the War on Terror. So, by January 1st, 2007, if there is still no significant and vocal Moderate Muslim resistance, the West can make the justified generalization that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, and is free to conquer and subjugate the Muslim World as they see fit. If the moderates do not organize and speak up by the beginning of next year, then we can reasonably assume that they do not exist in any significant numbers, and can then crush the violent movement unencumbered.

Sound rough? Consider it, for the countless innocent victims of Islamic Extremism.

Today Was Long

2006-02-10T22:28:00.000-05:00

So what do you do at 10:30 p.m. when you've had a crappy day? When you're tired, angry, hungry, and sweaty? When you can barely keep your eyes open long enough to fume about how bad today was? Why, it's obvious! You write a post, and dump the whole sad story on your poor unwitting readers, who would undoubtedly find Jack Kevorkian's memoirs to be more uplifting and entertaining than your tale of bitterness, idiocy and general bewilderment.

That's what I'm gonna do, anyway. Feel free to skip this post if you have no wish to go Gothic, dressing in all black and wearing makeup styles that even your eccentric Aunt Bertha would frown upon. This story has that effect on people, so should you at any time begin to feel the urge to write a depressing poem about blood, please stop reading this post. For your own good.

My story begins on Friday, February 10 at about 4:30 p.m... It's time for me to head to the tennis courts for a rendezvous with my current... uh, love interest (let's call her Q). I have just gotten off the phone with my Mock Trial witness, who I am convinced will perform wonderully at the competition(in contrast with the unprepared stupor I will undoubtedly stand in), and today is going about as well as can be expected.

I head downstairs, very much anticipating my trip to the tennis courts and considering the possibility of even playing tennis while there, and I get ready without a hitch. Finally, I am done getting ready... I've put in my contacts, my teeth, and against all odds, I've found some clean tennis clothes. Yes, this is a GOOD day!

Then the trouble started. It's almost 5:00, and my mom's on the phone. This shouldn't really be a problem... I do have my driver's license after all! I've had it for six months, so I could be driving my FRIENDS around, not to mention myself! But alas, this was not to be.

You see, even after I've had my license for six months, my mom still won't let me drive by myself, and though I've had half a year to think about it, I still can't understand her reasoning. It would be one thing if I were a bad driver... if I were putting my life or the lives of others in danger when I get behind the wheel, it would be perfectly understandable for her to want to ride with me. If I were really a bad driver, I would welcome her riding with me, because she could teach me safer driving habits and tell me what to do should I become confused by one of those funny intersections where the arrows don't point in the direction you'd actually be turning.

But none of this is the case. I'm a safe driver; she has been watching me drive for a year and a half now, and since I've had my license she has not ONCE screamed or held on for dear life because of a mistake I've made. Not ONCE has her life flashed before her eyes as I hit 80 in a 45 zone. Not ONCE has she had to stop me from running a redlight, or hitting that unwitting pedestrian on the sidewalk. See, I'm not a bad driver... but she still insists on riding with me.

This is where my problem arises. Despite what appears to me (as a mortal human) to be a big mistake, God designed time to be linear. Therefore, while my mom is trapped on the phone at 5:00 now, I am losing precious time that could be spent... uh, at the tennis court.

The obvious solution to our problem is to simply have dad ride with me... I'd always rather drive by myself, but hey, I'll take anything, just GET ME TO THE TENNIS COURT! But that won't work... dad's at work. And sick. Between those two things, I don't think it would be wise to ask him to take me, so instead, I wait for mom to get off the phone.

She is finally able to end her conversation... at about 5:30 or 5:40. By this time, I'm getting antsy, and even a little peeved. No, I don't blame her for the phone conversation, she couldn't really get out of that, but I could have been at the courts fifteen minutes ago if she would have just let me myself. Now, I've still got to make the 20-30 minute drive, and hope that the whole reason I was going to the tennis courts hadn't already left. I wasn't even sure if she'd be there, but she said she'd try to make it, and so had I.

So now I'm finally on my way. I'm a little miffed, but I am consoled by the fact that my grandmother is arguing with mom on the cell phone about how she won't let me drive. Thanks to my safe driving, she was comfortable enough to talk on the phone as though she were in our living room, paying no attention to the road or other drivers. She didn't have to correct me once, so I could have safely driven to tennis WITHOUT her, and done so in a timely manner as well! Of course, explaining that to her proves impossible...

It's now 6:10, and at long last, I've made it to the tennis courts! And look, there's Q! Hooray! I was afraid I'd missed her...

And had I been twenty minutes later, I would have. She had been at the courts since a little after 4:00, and at 6:30 she left with her mom. Darn. If I had been allowed to leave when I wanted to and drive myself, I would have had more than an hour to spend with her... instead, I got less than twenty minutes. Thanks mom.

So at this point, I was officially irritated, and only consoled by the fact that I was able to set up an impromptu lesson with my tennis coach because another student had canceled. The lesson went reasonably well, though it hardly made up for my lack of freedom in the transportation department, and finally, at 7:00, the lesson ended. Time to go home after what was very nearly a wasted trip. "At least once I get home," I thought, "things will get better."

That was stupid.

As I'm leaving the country club, I make sure to give my mom an ear-full about how I could have been at tennis earlier and had more time to spend with Q. This didn't sit well with her, obviously, and she made sure to give me an ear-full about how I'm not going to be driving myself anywhere for a long time to come with that attitude. She then proceeded to tell me about her trip to the grocery store. It seems that she was going to buy stuff to make chili, but couldn't buy the beef because the store's beef grinder was broken. Too bad she had already bought all the other ingredients.

Since chili was now out of the question, she decided to have me stop by Mrs. Winners for a nice take-out meal. I was fuming by this time (though still driving safely, as I drive better when I'm ticked off), and happy to stay in the car while she went in to order the food. While I was alone, I decided to listen to my iPod.

I reached back and grabbed it out of my tennis bag, only to find I had left it on during my lesson. "Oh joy, now my play-count will be messed up," I thought. I didn't really care though. I just wanted to listen to some loud punk music.

Then came a rude surprise: The click-wheel on the iPod wasn't responding. As any good iPod owner would do, I promptly reset the thing and prepared myself for a bit of MxPx... but the music never came on. I glanced down at the screen again, only to see some stupid little picture of a folder and an exclamation mark, with the URL http://www.apple.com/support/ipod underneath.

I started seeing red. This hadn't been a good day, and I really didn't need a problem with my iPod now... especially not a problem that I hadn't encountered before. With the cd player already up loud, I yelled. I yelled mean things. I yelled at the iPod. I yelled at Apple. I yelled at mom (but only because she wasn't there). It made me feel better.

But then, as sort of a physical exclamation mark for my furious wailings, I flung my iPod into the back seat. "Oh no," I thought! "I've broken it!"

Did I break it? I had no clue; I couldn't FIND the thing! I didn't throw it hard! It had to be there somewhere! As I was frantically digging around in the grocery bags and other paraphernalia lying in the back seat, I knocked over a box that apparently had a lot of styrofoam in it. Styrofoam that had been torn up into absurdly small pieces. As I was digging through the menacing white beads trying to find my iPod, my mom came up to the window:

Mom: "They don't take debit cards."

Neo: "Darn."

Mom: "I don't have any cash."

Neo: "That's not good. Would you care to join me in shouting strings of profanity?"

Mom: "(ignoring last statement) I can't believe they won't take debit cards... Listen, would you go wait inside so they'll know I'm coming back for my order, while I go get some cash?"

Needless to say, I went in. It didn't really bother me... it gave me time to sulk about having been late to tennis, and how it was mom's fault, and how I can't find my iPod, and how it's messed up anyway, and how those stupid balls of styrofoam keep mocking me from the back seat.

My mom got back and paid for the food... I sullenly carried it out and plopped myself back into the driver's seat, figuring I'd just find my iPod when I get home. The ride was for the most part silent.

After we got home and carried in the groceries and food from Mrs. Winners, I went back out to the car to look for my iPod. No luck. Even with me and both of my parents scouring this little Mazda, we couldn't find it.

"What did you do with your iPod last?" They asked.

"I threw it."

"You threw it?"

"Yeah, it was messed up and I was mad. But I just threw it into the back seat, and I didn't throw it hard!"

We began to assume the worst: In my rage, I must have thrown the iPod so that it lodged between the seat and the door, and when mom opened the door, it probably fell out in Mrs. Winners' parking lot!

Immediately, my dad grabbed the keys and off we drove, hoping to find my iPod still lying on the asphalt. On the way, I went ahead and filled him in on everything that had happened so far that evening. Had he not had a cold, he would have been amused. Had it not all happened to me, I would have been amused. As things stood, neither of us were amused.

Once we were back in the parking lot, we began searching for the iPod. It wasn't near where we had parked during our previous visit, so dad went inside to see if anyone had found it on the pavement and turned it in.

No dice.

Downtrodden, I got back in the car and we headed home. By this time, I was so disappointed in the day that I just wanted to get in bed. I still do, actually, and soon I will. But the story isn't quite over.

On the way home, dad called mom to let her know we didn't find anything, and to see if she might have opened the door at the bank where she went to get money. It was during this phone call that she made a discovery: The iPod was in one of the bags of groceries that she bought to make chili. At last, we had found my iPod!

And I was left feeling like a complete moron. How could I NOT check those bags? I CARRIED THEM IN! Jeez, I'm an idiot. An idiot with little styrofoam pellets in the back of his car.

We returned home and I quietly retrieved my iPod, hoping to fix its problems and get that little exclamation mark off the screen. It was beginning to mock me, and I couldn't take it much longer. Unfortunately though, the little icon didn't go away. In fact, even now as I look down at it, that menacing mark of iniquity still dominates the screen. How depressing.

So what do you do at 12:00 a.m., and you have a seemingly unfixable problem with your iPod and seven hours worth of frustration that have finally been released to dissipate into the cyberworld? Why, it's obvious!

You go to bed.

Faust, Opera, and Satan Worship

2006-02-03T12:18:00.000-05:00

Sound like an odd combination? On any other day, the strange grouping of Faust, opera and Satan worship would undoubtedly be seen as some sort of free association exercise. Today though, it is a Yahoo News headline.

According to Y!News, a teacher decided to introduce about 260 first, second and third-graders to opera, and did so with a video about Gounod's Faust. This choice did not sit well with parents in the community: "I think it glorifies Satan in some way," said parent Casey Goodwin.

Isn't it touching? These parents are so committed to protecting their children! Three cheers for you, Bennett, Colorado!

Or not. Come on, these parents aren't concerned, they're just stupid! If they were really concerned about their children being exposed to violent images, mention of suicide, and the "glorification" of Satan, they wouldn't be sending their children to public schools anyway. You think that opera's bad? Wait 'til I tell you about what happens in the halls of my friends' schools every day! You wanna protect your children from that? Then pull them out of the school. Don't whine about a comparatively innocuous opera video.

Faust is a classic. It does not glorify Satan any more than Don Quixote glorifies windmills. You want to talk about glorification of Satan? Talk to me in eight years when half of your kids are listening to Slipknot. You want to protect Christian ideals? Stop buying your kids the latest Harry Potter book. Don't come cryin' to me because your kids saw some puppets talking about a classic opera.

It just makes you look stupid.

Condi Tells It Like It Is

2006-01-30T10:45:00.002-05:00

"'The United States is not prepared to fund an organization that advocates the destruction of Israel, that advocates violence and that refuses its obligations,' under an international framework for eventual Mideast peace, Rice said."

Thank you. If we're devoted to rooting out terrorists, terror organizations and those who fund terrorism, this would be a really bad time to get caught sending aid to Hamas. Europe, take note.

"Better Than Expected"

2006-01-25T17:16:00.000-05:00

Better than who expected, exactly? But don't worry, anything that happens is probably the fault of those evil Israelis...

And Bush.

And global warming.

Whoops... wrong conspiracy theory.

Hamas Doing Better Than Expected in Palestinian Vote

Listen Up, and Listen Hard

2006-01-16T18:49:00.000-05:00

Hark! Do you hear that sound? Quiet everyone, quiet! Listen!

...

Do you hear it yet? It's the sound of Liberals ignoring religious zealotry, intolerance, and a breach of the Separation of Church and State! I'm presently waiting for them to work themselves into an uproar, but so far, I've heard nothing. Here's what they should be angry about:

Mayor Ray Nagin suggested Monday that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that "God is mad at America" and at black communities, too, for tearing themselves apart with violence and political infighting.

"Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country," Nagin, who is black, said as he and other city leaders marked Martin Luther King Day.

"Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."

Nagin also promised that New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city again. Many of the city's black neighborhoods were heavily damaged by Katrina.

"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans — the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

Now do you hear it? The silence on the Left is deafening. Nagin invoked the name of God. Strike one, and that's enough for the Left to jump on the back of any American politician (e.g. Roy Moore).

Nagin then claimed that this God he refers to must also be punishing America. Strike two, and that's enough for the Left to assail any American televangelist (e.g. Pat Robertson).

Finally, Nagin put on display his bigotry, again citing "God's will" in his wishes to make New Orleans a "chocolate" city once again. Desegregation, anyone? That's strike three, and I defy anyone who reads this to produce ONE reputable white Conservative who called for his city to become a "white chocolate" community, and yet managed to escape the ire of the Left.

I'm not horribly disappointed in Ray Nagin... I've known for some time now that he's a complete moron. Sure, I had no idea he was such a racist bigot, but his level of intelligence has been in question ever since Hurricane Katrina when he sent out fliers to tell the citizens that they were on their own. Everything just went downhill from there.

The surprising aspect of his comments, however, is that up to this point, he has gotten away with something no WASP ever could. He made racially bigoted comments, in God's name, from a position as an elected official. I, as a white Conservative, must be extremely cautious even if I'm simply noting a person's race, and I cannot invoke God's name without ridicule from some trollish commentor. Meanwhile, Nagin does both, and makes unsubstantiated jabs at the War in Iraq to boot! Where's the Left now? Why aren't they upholding the wall of Separation of Church and State? What happened to integration, racial tolerance, and a colorblind America?

Who's calling for this man's resignation?

No one. The Left is ignoring his antics, because he is a Leftist too. And that's what matters; it's not class, or age, or income, or race. To the Left, a person's politics are what determine the validity of his words and actions. Anything else is just a checkmark on a census sheet.

I'll be listening though... I would love a pleasant surprise from the Left. Maybe, for a change, they'll hold a member of their own ranks to the same standard they hold everyone else. I won't hold my breath, but I will be listening, and listening hard for any signs of consistency on the Left. It would be music to my ears.

A Bunch of Silly Topics, Mostly Pertaining to My Blog

2006-01-11T21:25:00.000-05:00

Yeah. That's the best title I could come up with for this post. I spent about 7 seconds thinking it up. Please don't hate me.

Topic #1: I am writing this post to you all, my faithful readers, because I have been very bad about not posting for quite a long time. I'm sorry about that... I've just had very little time, and little attention to devote to blogging. I also seem to be having trouble motivating myself to write the stuff that started me blogging in the first place: Politics. I still have all the opinions I used to have, but getting them out of my head and onto paper (or this glowing screen in front of me) has proven to be more difficult than in days past. It honestly feels like I'm thinking more, but simply writing less. What's wrong with me?!

Topic #2: My 250th post was published on January 6th... Yay me! I just pray I can make it to 500.

Topic #3: I have so many ideas for my blog! And for pretty much everything else... I have too many ideas, and too little time to turn any of them into reality. One such idea is to get a Movable Type blog... I've wanted one since I started blogging, and I'm considering asking for one on my birthday. Would you all continue to read if I moved? Also... I would love to start a podcast, because I think it might help me get out some of the opinions that I can't seem to get motivated to write about. Only problem is that I don't know where to start... or how to find the time. I guess that's just one more thing to consider doing, but never find time for. Maybe it should be my New Year's Resolution!

Topic #4: Check out my Stickam! It's the newest addition to my sidebar... you can use it to listen to music that I can't put on the player at the top of the screen! I'll change out the music every so often (it only plays 3 songs) so you can continually check out the songs in my music library! Also, you can use the Stickam to chat with me if I'm online! Give it a try, and if you like it, get one for yourself!

Topic #5: Tomorrow, on January 12, I'll be getting some of my braces off. My braces, which I've had for five or more years. And that's still not the end of my dental woes which I outlined in Lessons from the Orthodontist's Chair. It seems that my front three teeth are going to come out sometime before the end of January. Long story... I'll try to post it some time.

Topic #6: Mock Trial is awesome.

Topic #7: I don't have much more to write. I'm currently IMing two of my favorite people in the world, and we've a lot to talk about. Bye guys! I'll try to post something worth reading soon!

Happy Not-So-New Year!

2006-01-06T14:58:00.000-05:00

Please tell me, someone: is there a deadline for "happy new year" posts? Do they have to be submitted by January 1st, or do we get a week to post them? I don't really care. I'll say "Happy New Year" whenever I darn well please. So HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

In honor of the new year, which is completely inanimate and neither honorable nor dishonorable, I have made up my mind to NOT post New Years Resolutions.

Why? Because no one keeps them anyway. And if you do happen to keep your resolutions... Please don't tell me, I'm trying to live out the rest of my denial here! It makes me feel better.

So today, instead of posting a list of goals that I will forget about before Valentine's day, I'll post something else: A list of things I have learned through the past year. That's right, just because I'm a teenager, it doesn't mean I can't learn a lesson or two. Or twenty. So without further ado, I give you Neo's Lessons for the New Year!

Guests, like fish, begin to stink after three days. After something like thirty days, it's just ridiculous.

If the guests are old people who bathed once during their stay, the word "stink" is meant to be taken literally.

If the guests slept in your room with their dogs... buy new sheets. And pillows. And lots of Febreze.

A new mattress wouldn't hurt either.

Xbox is better than Playstation 2. I'm sorry, I didn't believe it either...

Nobody listens to the best bands or musicians.

In order to be a successful music artist, one no longer needs to be a talented lyricist. Or musician. A loud bass guitar and some non-sensical/profane lyrics will suffice for most purposes.

God is not "scientific" because He cannot be observed or experimented with; however, "dark matter" is an acceptable explanation for most inexplicable galactic phenomena.

There is a reason that Latin is a dead language.

The Iron Law of Blogging is as follows: The number of visitors a blog receives is directly proportional to the frequency of with which the administrator posts.

Worldview Academy is the greatest place on earth, and every teenager who reads this should look into going.

The Christian Faith, when examined, is more reasonable than any philosophy borne in the Age of Reason.

Fedoras are the most wicked-awesome hats on the face of the earth. I want one.

Simply taking Driver's Ed, passing the driving test and getting one's driver's license does not mean that one will be allowed to drive alone.

Smart people who know that smart people do really dumb things still do really dumb things.

Having one friend you can talk to is worth more than having ten friends who won't listen. To those friends: Thank you.

Adults really need to stop lying to us teenagers: These are not the best years of our lives.

A split-second decision in 2003 can lead to years of treatment and massive dental and orthodontic bills. Take it from someone who knows, people: When in doubt, just duck!

Ignorance isn't really bliss... if it were, then most of the world would be unreasonably happy.

The final lesson I learned this year: In blog awards, I'm still a third party candidate. And a darn good one at that!

So there you have it. Say, this might just become a Strangely Normal tradition, seeing as I've written a post like this two years in a row. Does that sound like a good idea... or at least, a little more entertaining than reading a list of things that I don't plan on doing for the next year?

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

2005-12-28T23:22:00.000-05:00

Oh my... Never has there been a movie that I wanted more desperately to like. As a matter of fact, I have seen The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in theatres twice now, and would see it again, if given the chance. Needless to say, I loved the movie, but my view of it may well be tainted by the fact that I have always loved the Chronicles of Narnia, and was positively thrilled when I heard there was to be a series of movies based on them. So, with my bias in mind, read on.

Overall, I was pleased with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which I will henceforth call "Narnia" for ease of typing. It did at times stray from the book, but in many cases, the tangents taken were beneficial to the story, revealing things about the characters which could not have been revealed otherwise, except through the use of a narrator (which, for the record, I would not have minded in the least).

I did notice some issues with Narnia, however, that struck me as being particularly grievous transgressions against the original work. Though many of the additions or omissions that the movie made helped it move along at a decent rate, some of those changes were not only unnecessary but detrimental to the story. One such change was the addition of the opening scenes, which take place in the Pevensies' home with their mother.The Pevensies', of course, are the children around whom the story is centered. Peter Pevensie is the oldest of the bunch, followed by Susan, then Edmund, and finally Lucy.

In the opening scenes, we begin to see the dynamics of the family's relationship. In particular, these scenes set the tone for the relationship between Peter and Edmund, and regrettably, this addition to the movie starts them out on the wrong foot. If you have not seen the movie and want to watch it without knowing how it begins, then I suggest you skip the following three paragraphs.

The setting is WWII England, and the movie opens as bombs are being dropped and the children are at home with their mother. In the midst of the explosions, the Pevensies do as any sensible family at the time would do, and rush to the bomb shelter. All, that is, except Edmund.

Edmund dashes back in the house, obviously intent upon saving something or someone inside: "I've got to get dad!" He says, or something to that effect. As he runs back inside, Peter volunteers to retrieve him, and gives chase. Peter eventually catches him, but not before Edmund reaches his destination. Edmund grabs a picture of his father, and is soon taken back to the shelter by Peter.

Upon reaching the shelter amidst the explosions, Edmund cowers on the ground as Peter scolds him: "You're so selfish!... Why can't you just do as you're told?" And this is the beginning of an inaccurate portrayal of Peter and Edmund's relationship. It may seem harmless, but it (along with subsequent incidents involving Peter and/or Edmund) ends up changing the entire theme of the movie in at least a small way.

I believe the problems that exist with Edmund's character are most aptly described by Stephen Lewis in his (decidedly unfavorable) review of Narnia:

It’s very important that the full ‘Asmodeus-ish fishy fume’ stench of Edmund’s evil is portrayed in its entirety, because Aslan is ultimately What Edmund (and by extension, us) Is Not: completely pure and holy, even frighteningly so. Aslan’s goodness is accentuated all the more by the emphasis on Edmund’s badness. This is really essential to the story’s meaning.

But Edmund Was Wrong. In the movie, Edmund is portrayed as largely misunderstood, upset and confused by the war-time situation he finds himself in; missing his father and mother enormously. His brother seems to spend an inordinate amount of time yelling and nagging at him for the most picayune offenses. He seems very lonely. All this combines to lessen the magnitude of his treachery—it would be hard to blame him for his actions, tempered as they are with his ignorance of the Witch’s intentions and his immediate repentance once he figures out what she intends. Edmund’s not really a bad chap.

And so, Stephen articulates so well what I find wrong with Edmund's portrayal; as a matter of fact, his entire review is well-worth reading.

Let us now add to Edmund's inadequate portrayal another mistake: A small but evident superiority complex on the part of Peter. This is made most evident during the scene at the waterfall, an addition that I felt was otherwise beneficial to the story. In this scene, Susan objects to hastily crossing the thawing river, saying "I'm just trying to be logical about this," to which Peter replies "No, you're trying to be smart... as usual." This exchange serves no good purpose... it presents for us a kind of friction that was not present in the book, and makes Peter's snubbing of Edmund, which could otherwise be excusable as a result of Edmund's antics, seem more like a problem he has with those who object to his authority. No, this exchange was not good; it was not good in terms of storytelling, and it was not good in terms of faithfulness to the theme of C. S. Lewis's original book.

Those are my objections to the storyline of the movie. A misunderstood Edmund and a small superiority complex for Peter. That's it, really, and for a movie these days, that's simply spectacular! However, I would like to briefly take issue with some lesser offenses on the part of Narnia...

First, there is Aslan. Make him bigger. Please. And somebody give him a deeper voice! He is described as being terrible, and yet good. He is Aslan, after all.

Also, I would have personally advocated a bit more blood in this movie. Nothing gratuitous, but enough to make the point; after all, with all the talk of "traitor's blood," for Aslan to give himself in a bloodless sacrifice makes the movie seem self-consciously... fuzzy and warm, if that makes sense. I understand that this was intended to be family fare, but it could have depicted Aslan's sacrifice within tasteful boundaries without keeping it completely bloodless.

During the sacrifice scene, I would have also appreciated a better representation of Aslan's power than a simple snarl. In Lewis's book, he mentions repeatedly that Aslan was powerful enough to kill all present, but saw fit to humble himself as a sacrifice. This aspect, crucial to the scene, was regrettably not well depicted; to the movie's credit, though, such a point would be hard to depict without the aid of a narrator. Which is why I said earlier that I wouldn't have minded a narrator for this movie in the least.

Does it sound like I hated this movie yet? I hope not... Even after spending the majority of this review describing Narnia's shortcomings, I will still unabashedly say that this was an EXCELLENT movie. The casting was superb, in my opinion; every character (save perhaps Aslan) was just as I had imagined him or her, and almost everyone I have talked to feels the same way. Similarly, the scene at the pavilion were beautifully done, and conformed perfectly to what I had imagined when I read the book so long ago.

Despite my objections, the storyline of the movie actually followed that of the book very closely. Some might disagree, but anyone attempting to make a movie from Lewis's book would have to take quite a bit of liberty to begin with, considering Lewis's "almost vague" writing style. In this movie, director Andrew Adamson and Walden Media did an outstanding job of portraying a written story on film, without significantly straying from the original theme.

So yes, Edmund seemed a little misunderstood; yes, Peter came off as being a little too big for his britches; and yes, Aslan was a little, shall we say, wimpier than I had expected. Still, these are forgivable offenses considering the movie's many virtues, Lewis's writing style, and the fact that many movie-goers won't catch on to these discrepancies with the original story anyway. Simply put, Narnia is one of the best movies to come out of Hollywood in quite some time, and thankfully rivals another fantasy series that I never fell quite so in love with, The Lord of the Rings. With that in mind, I will wait with bated breath for the next installment of the Narnia series, which is slated to be Prince Caspian.

My rating for The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: 8.5 out of 10

Merry Christmas to All...

2005-12-25T15:55:00.000-05:00

Yes, I am writing on Christmas day! And oh, how much I have to say!

Oops! You don't want me rhyming. Sorry, y'all...

Today, I hunch myself over a keyboard to wish all my faithful readers a very merry Christmas. In the spirit of the season, I give you a post and powerpoint presentation by D3 about some of the prophecies Jesus fulfilled. Go watch it, and press the arrow keys on your keyboard to scroll from slide to slide.

Also for Christmas, I decided I'd finally go vote in the Homeschooled Blog Awards... if you haven't voted, this is the last day. And don't forget to vote for me, seeing as I'm leading the most inefficient campaign ever (two posts and an IM conversation). I need some pity votes!

Here's how I voted:

Best Team/Group Homeschool Blog: The Rebelution
Best Canadian Homeschool Blog: Oneway Purpose
Best Current Events Homeschool Blog: Legal Redux
Best Homeschool Arts Blog: Rhetorical Response
Best Homeschool Blog Template Design: Fellow Random One
Best Homeschool Dad Blog: Daddy Pundit
Best Homeschool Humor Blog: Fish in my Hair
Best Homeschool Mom Blog: Guilt Free Homeschool
Best Homeschool Teen Blog: In Rejection of Mediocrity
Best Informational Homeschool Blog: The Account
Best Inspirational Homeschool Blog: Jennifer's Musings

Wow, I had more to say, but that took a while, and my computer's freaking out... I hope this gets published! More to come later... in theory...

Announcement

2005-12-19T15:00:00.000-05:00

For the first time in the history of my blog, I have closed comments on one of my posts. I apologize for any inconvenience, though I don't believe anyone was posting on it except for Toad and me.

For details, read the conversation.

So... Vote for Me... Yeah...

2005-12-14T11:09:00.000-05:00

Well, it appears that while I sat around, inexplicably unmotivated to write a post, Spunky Homeschool decided to start the voting for her 2005 Homeschooling Blogger Awards without telling me! What gall! I mean, come on, what do you expect me to do, read the post she wrote announcing it or something? Sheesh!

At least I know about it now. Oh, and remember all my grand schemes for wonderful sidebar features that were sure to wow the voters and win me the award? Turns out I still haven't done any that. No matter; my sidebar can take the heat without a "Best Of" feature. Speaking of sidebars, did anyone nominate me for the "Most Awesomely Cool Homeschooled Sidebar" Award? What? There is no "Most Awesomely Cool Homeschooled Sidebar" Award?! Shame on you, Spunky! You might wanna add that category next year... I know it would be a hit with those of us who have awesomely cool homeschooled sidebars of DOOM!

On a more serious note, I'd say Spunky deserves a big hand for hosting these awards. Rest assured, I'd be applauding right now if my hands weren't glued to the keyboard. I can't wait to see the results!

Alright guys, it's time to vote! Just go here and vote as you please. As long as it's for me. That's right, I have no shame, I am campaigning for myself! Vote Neo 2005!

And my campaign slogan:

"NeoFascist?: Out to prove he's more than a third party candidate since 2005!"

Heck yes! With my new slogan and sidebar, I'm bound to win! It's only a matter of time...

There Is... Another...

2005-11-30T21:02:00.000-05:00

*Gasp* It can't be! All this time, I thought I was so special, too...

Folks, it appears there's another Neo in the blogosphere. It's alright though... for this ex-Liberal, the name is short for "neo-neocon." A "lifelong Democrat mugged by reality on 9/11," Neo is an excellent writer, and I have been enjoying her blog since I found it a couple of days ago.

Go check it out!

The Best of Neo?

2005-11-29T16:20:00.000-05:00

Since we're gearing up for a new round of Blog awards, it has occurred to me that I should probably create a list on my Sidebar of Doom for my best posts. That way, anyone coming to my blog would not have to spend their time sifting through my archives just to find a decent post.

Also, this new list will for the most part keep people out of my archives, where many dangers lurk. You might not believe it, but studies have shown reading my old posts can actually be dangerous to one's health, as those posts almost exclusively deal with John Kerry. Those that do not deal with John Kerry usually deal with John Kerry's chin. And in the event that the subject of my post has nothing to do with Kerry or his chin, it probably involves me ranting about terrorists, finding creative new names to call them (such as pig, dog, barbarian, troglodyte, animal, etc.). Not that any of this is necessarily bad... I simply wish the old posts were not so poorly written.

So, what are your favorite posts on Strangely Normal? Let me know, and I'll try to include them on my "Best of Neo" list.

Homeschooling Blogger Awards 2005

2005-11-28T17:30:00.000-05:00

Okay, I know what you're thinking: "Didn't we just go through this?" Well, sorta. You might remember the Kings Highway Blog of the Year Awards, where I came in third... This time though, the host of the award is Spunky Homeschool.

Here's the list of categories:

Best Homeschooling Mom Blog

Best Homeschooling Dad Blog

Best Homeschooling Family blog

Best Homeschooling Teen blog

Best Informational Homeschool blog

Best Inspirational Homeschool blog

Best Homeschooling Humor blog

Best Team / Group Homeschool Blog

Best Homeschool Curriculum / Business Blog

Best Homeschool Blog Design

Best Canadian Homeschool Blog

Best International Homeschool Blog

Best Current Events Homeschool Blog

Best Homeschool Arts Blog

Best Homeschool Photo Blog

[end of list that serves no purpose except to make me feel important]

If you have a blog (or blogs) to nominate (hint hint), go here and nominate it (or them).

And yes, as a matter of fact, I AM a glutton for punishment.

A Logical Truth: Three Fallacies of Liberal Thought

2005-11-24T21:42:00.000-05:00

Nine days ago, I posted a question for all my readers, in hopes of using their answers to illustrate a point. I received a total of twelve responses in among 47 comments, and Seanny will be glad to know that the point of my question was not to make an argument for gun ownership (I’ll leave that to Grizzly Mama...)

Here’s the breakdown of my responses:

I received 2 responses from individuals with a Liberal history, 9 responses from individuals with a Conservative history, and 1 response from someone with a more or less apathetic history.

Conservatives unanimously voted to take some sort of action against the criminal, either warning him before blowing his brains out, or shooting first and asking questions later.

The apathetic individual joined the Conservatives in favoring swift, and if necessary, lethal action.

The two Liberals, however, were divided. One Liberal (the younger and more moderate of the two) joined the Conservatives without hesitation, while our friend Toad concluded that swift, lethal action would be a very bad idea.

What do these (admittedly rudimentary) statistics reveal? Well, as Toad astutely observed, they do a fine job of illustrating “the difference between the liberal and conservative mind.” This difference lies at the heart of our respective worldviews, and helps determine all of our actions.

We can pin down the difference I speak of by examining the reasons behind the answers my question received. As Seanny McShawn noted, there was only one logical answer to my question; some action must be taken to save the woman and children. This was the reasoning behind the answers given by the Conservatives, Clive, and Swede. Toad’s response, however, revealed a very different kind of logic.

Toad’s response was first that there are too many possibilities for us to assume the most probable scenario, that a thug has killed a family man and is prepared to do the same to his family. This logic was followed by the claim that to help would simply be too dangerous, as it could be an elaborate trap. The final bit of justification that he offered is that any evil that could be done would have been done already. These are all fairly typical Liberal stances; they are not universal, but Liberal leadership has shown that these considerations come well before any consideration for the lives of the victims of the crime. I will illustrate this point later.

Allow me to clarify now that this post is not intended to be an attack on Toad. He was simply the most forthcoming with his answers, and provided the example that I needed. I’m glad he participated and provided us with honest answers.

Let us now deal with the three fallacies of Liberal Thought, which Toad provided us with in his argument:

(1) There are just too many possibilities... This is the First Fallacy of Liberal Thought. It is the idea that we simply can’t be certain of who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy in a situation, or of anything else for that matter, so it’s best for us to just sit on our hands. Rather than believing what is obvious, this fallacy forces adherents of Liberalism to fear what might be more than they fear what is apparent.

It is unclear what causes this fallacy. Its roots could lie in Postmodernism, the idea that because of the random nature of the universe, Truth is unknowable in any situation. In other words, there are so many possibilities that it is impossible to know all the facts about a given situation, and therefore any swift action would be irresponsible. This philosophy is irrational, however, because it ignores all laws of probability, and would rather allow evil to happen than believe the logic that says evil will happen.

The First Fallacy of Liberal Thought may also be a simple cop-out; perhaps its adherents are too lazy, too cowardly, or too selfish to deal with any evil that does not directly affect them. I cannot say, because any one of these motivations (or Postmodernism) could lead someone to avoid engaging an apparent evil. No matter the motivation, however, there is no justification for the First Fallacy. Laziness, cowardice and narcissism could never justify it, and Postmodernism would be an irrational justification as well, so the idea that “there are just too many possibilities” can, in most cases, be laid to rest.

(2) It would just be too dangerous (or costly) to get involved... This is the Second Fallacy of Liberal Thought. It is the idea that, no matter how noble the cause, no good work should be done for another if it involves an element of risk. “Always look out for Number One” is another way of phrasing this philosophy, which places more value on the life of the would-be helper than that of the victim. It allows the potential savior to avoid risking his life to prevent the almost-certain death of another.

This fallacy can sometimes be combined with the First Fallacy, which produces an argument like the one Toad presented. Essentially, such an argument states that “We can’t know everything about this situation; there could be some danger we don’t know about yet, so it’s best not to get involved.” Either way, this fallacy has little basis in logic.

The Second Fallacy, like the First Fallacy, could be an excuse for laziness or cowardice. If taken at face value, however, such an argument is a blatant admission of narcissism, which is easily established as a fault. After all, what possible justification can one have for not taking a chance at death to save another from certain death? To fail to save a life on impulse is one thing, but it is quite another to live according to this Fallacy of Liberalism, having your mind made up that in most cases, risk of personal injury outweighs the value of another human life.

(3) Any evil that could be done would have been done already... This is the Third Fallacy of Liberal Thought, which is defeated by the First Fallacy. How is it possible that there are so many possibilities as to the cause of this evil, but only one possibility as to when any resulting evil will be committed? If we can’t immediately know everything about a situation, then how can we assume that no more harm will come from it?

The only possible cause for such an assumption to be made up-front is that it is convenient. Someone doesn’t want to get involved, so he convinces himself that it’s all over and he would only be risking his own skin if he stepped in. Obviously, this fallacy is rooted solely in narcissism (not to mention self-delusion), without a bit of logic.

These three fallacies are evident in much of Liberal philosophy, but show up most notably in cases involving foreign affairs. Consider the Rwandan Genocide, where Clinton, Blair, Chirac and Annan failed to do anything except save the white foreigners who were trapped in Rwanda at the time of the genocide. The UN, with its American and Western European military force, was perfectly capable of ending the genocide, being better armed and trained than the Interhamwe, who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Tutsi Rwandans. However, the UN and all the Western powers neglected to do anything to stop the slaughter.

In their apathy towards the plight of the Rwandans, the Liberal-led Western powers succumbed to a sort of national narcissism, called ethnocentrism. Even though they were better armed and trained, as was the person in the scenario I posed nine days ago, they decided it would be too dangerous or too costly to protect the weak. They knew no one else could stop the genocide. They knew that if they didn’t help, the genocide would continue. They knew who the offending party was, and STILL, they didn’t step in. As the Clinton presidency and the rest of the UN allowed the First, Second, and possibly Third Fallacies of Liberal Thought to guide their foreign policy, more than 800,000 people were being senselessly killed.

The same could be said of the War in Iraq: There is a legitimate argument to be made against the War, but it is not an argument that Liberals will make (I will address it in a later post). Instead, most Liberals will refer to the war in terms of one or more of the Three Fallacies.

They may say the war is for oil, or that we had no way of knowing whether or not Saddam still had WMDs, which is to succumb to the First Fallacy, ignoring what is obvious in favor of a conspiracy theory.

They may also say the war is simply too costly in terms of lives or money, which requires belief in the Second Fallacy; in other words, they are saying that the victim group just isn’t worth risking our lives or money for. Ethnocentrism at its finest.

Finally, the Libs may say that Saddam had definitely disposed of his weapons and would not seek or use more, which is an example of the Third Fallacy. According to true Liberalism, however, we couldn’t know WHAT he would have done, and logically, his history of genocide does not in any way prove that he would not commit genocide again.

These are not the only examples of the Three Fallacies of Liberalism being put into action, but they are two of the more recognizable ones. They illustrate for us the mistakes that have been repeated throughout the history of modern Liberalism, from the ceding of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union all the way to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. These mistakes even continue to be made, and what’s more, they are still defended by many Liberals in the United States and around the world.

It is time that both Conservatives and Liberals alike began to recognize these Three Fallacies of Liberal Thought. Any intellectually honest person will agree that they are fallacies. Any intellectually honest person will agree that they are based out of narcissism, which is the common bond running through all of them. Any intellectually honest person will conclude that a philosophy founded on narcissism can never be legitimate.

Therefore, could it be that Liberalism should be renamed? Is it really the philosophy of narcissism, the Philosophy of the Self? It seems that way. With three narcissistic fallacies to govern the interactions of all true adherents of this philosophy, there seems to be no other way to describe it. When the individuals who claim Liberalism as their own philosophy determine their actions based on what they can positively know (according to them, nothing), how much harm could possibly come to them (according to them, too much), and how much evil they could prevent for the future (according to them, none), there is no word to describe them, except narcissistic.

It’s time to start calling the Liberals on their lapses in logic. The Three Fallacies which have propped up Liberalism thus far need not go unchallenged, and should be attacked at every opportunity. Narcissism has never been a strong basis for a philosophy, and it is a horrible foundation for foreign policy; this has been proven by the modern Liberal movement time and again, and now is the time to call the Liberals on the shortcomings of their philosophy. If we want to end world hunger, genocide, oppression and poverty, we must not allow ourselves to fall into the trap of narcissism, whether we call it by its name or seek to conceal the ugly truth behind it in terms like “Liberalism.”

For after all does not a narcissist by any other name govern as poorly?

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

2005-11-20T20:44:00.000-05:00

You Passed the US Citizenship Test

Congratulations - you got 10 out of 10 correct!

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

Hat Tip: Rabenstrange

We Are Gathered Here Today..

2005-11-18T14:21:00.000-05:00

...To mourn the loss of one of the greatest bands of all time. It is a sad thing to have to announce, but ladies and gentlemen, the O. C. Supertones are no more.

Unfortunately, to most of you, this will mean nothing. Either you've never heard of them, or you just couldn't get past the fact that they played ska... Either way, the Supertones were easily one of the most underappreciated bands of their time (1995-2005).

With a sound that evolved as time went by, the Supertones were the final remaining members of the Christian Ska Triumvirate that formed during the Third Wave Ska Revolution. This triumvirate also included Five Iron Frenzy, the most popular band to never win an award, and the Insyderz.

The Supertones owed their longevity to a combination of factors. First and foremost, there is songwriter and lead singer Matt Morginsky's powerful lyrics. Never shy about his Christianity and never afraid to defend it, Mojo frequently delved into theological topics that most bands would never touch, such as the Fall of Man and the significance of Jesus' sacrifice (Everything's Broken). This uncommon depth in the Supertone's lyrics is what made them one of the underground greats in Christian music.

But the Supertones also knew how to have fun. Blasting brass solos and adrenaline-pumping beats provided a perfect avenue for both their apologetics-themed music and their "battle-cry" songs. Even when the Supertones happened to sing about themselves (yes, they sang about themselves), the energy in their music was enough to carry the song, and carry it well.

Thus the Supertones were truly great, combining wonderful music (brass or no brass) with Matt Morginsky's powerful lyrics, which continue to go virtually unmatched in both Christian and secular circles. This combination was a great asset to Christian music, and will undoubtedly leave a gaping hole within the genre. This is a band who, love them or hate them, will be sorely missed.

Please, anyone... I have two questions that need to be answered. First, DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE I CAN GET THE SUPERTONES' FINAL EP? And second, is there a band whose lyrical quality can match that of the Supertones? I am dying to find a band (preferably punk/rock) to replace the Supertones now that they are gone. If anyone can help, I would very much appreciate it.

A Moral Question

2005-11-15T15:55:00.000-05:00

I have a question for you all. Please give me your opinions; feedback is critical, as I plan on using this information in a later post. The more responses, the better, so links would be appreciated.

Here's the question: Your views on gun-control notwithstanding, please consider the following scenario...

You are taking a walk late at night. As you come around a corner, you see four people: a man, a woman, and the woman's two children. The man is holding the woman up at knifepoint; he is threatening to kill her and her children if they do not give in to his demands. Nearby on the pavement, you spot a man you assume to be the woman's husband, stabbed to death. As you reach down and feel your gun in its holster, and you are faced with a decision: Do you help the woman and children?

There would certainly be an element of danger for you, but you have the advantage of superior firepower. Is it worth the risk? Would you be justified in simply walking away, since any number of variables could make the situation more dangerous, or would ignoring the problem make you as guilty as the thug who commited the crime? Let it be stipulated that there are no police in the town, so if you do nothing, the criminal will never be caught.

Please give me your answers; I'm interested in everyone's opinion.

Recent Writing #1

2005-11-09T15:48:00.000-05:00

Well, as you all might have noticed, posting time has been scarce around here lately. Since my last post, The King's Highway Blog of the Year Award went to a very deserving Agent Tim. Second place in the competition went to world-class blogger Spunky Jr., and third place went to yours truly. Click here to read the final vote distribution and click here to read Agent Tim's very gracious acceptance speech.

Wow, it was a fun competition! Congratulations to Agent Tim, and thanks to all you folks who voted for me! I can't wait 'til next year...

Well folks, until I can satisfy my essay-happy teachers, here's a bit of writing I put on one of my Xangas. It's directed more towards people who know me in person, but I guess it's fit to post over here...

My Philosophy

I'm not what you'd expect. I'm quite smart, but good luck figuring that out on your own; like a secure man wearing pink, I am secure in my intellect, and thus I have no qualms with acting the part of the random idiot. So long as it makes people laugh, anyway... You see, I've found that unless someone is willing to lay down his pride and make a fool of himself, he will inevitably be made a fool of, by a crowd of fools who are too self-conscious to open up and be themselves. That's why I act crazy; you either make a fool of yourself, or are turned into a fool, so if we are all fated to seem like fools, why not make a joke out of the absurd concept of what is or isn't cool?

In this world where we're all too full of ourselves to admit that we act stupid sometimes, that we occasionally slip up and do something geeky, that we have that tendency to babble stupidly in front of the opposite sex, I say the best way for us to all get along is to admit these things freely. We must admit that sometimes we all do stuff that's not cool, or make a joke that's not funny, or trip over our own feet, and we must laugh *with* those who happen to do these things, not at them. But first we must learn to laugh at ourselves.

If you're tired of feeling awkward, stupid, and alone, just remember that everyone feels that way, they're just too insecure to admit it; if you really want to do some good, accept yourself for being the way you are, complete with your occasional geekiness. It's time to drop the mask: We're all uncool, so stop killing yourself to measure up to what everyone else pretends to be. Life is much better when you're not trying to live a lie.

Quotes of the Day

2005-10-27T10:56:00.000-04:00

"Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another, 'What! You too? I thought I was the only one!'"

C. S. Lewis

"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason... The madman is the man who has lost everything but his reason. "

G. K. Chesterton

Blog of the Year Award

2005-10-21T07:07:00.000-04:00

Hi everyone,

It appears that my sidebar and I have been nominated for the King's Highway Blog of the Year Award, by none other than the great and powerful David Ketter! Voting has officially begun, and will last until the 28th, so what are you waiting for? Get on over there and vote for your favorite blog!

To vote, first go here to read the list of candidates and check out their blogs, then go here to read the rules and vote. You may vote using your profile or anonymously, but you may not vote more than once. Got it?

Good. Have fun voting!

I Must Be Dreaming...

2005-10-19T21:10:00.000-04:00

I was wondering where that spike in hits came from.

Okay, so it's not like I was quoted and asked for an interview, but it's still a link!

Harriet Miers: What's All the Hubbub?

2005-10-14T23:56:00.000-04:00

THIS JUST IN: Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist has died, and President Bush has nominated the virtually unknown Harriet Miers to fill Rehnquist's seat. How's that for news, huh? That's right, depend on Neo for all your late-breaking news.

Emphasis on "late"...

Okay, since you all know the story, I'm gonna jump right in. Bush's nomination of Miers has thus far been fraught with controversy; not from the Left, mind you, but from the Right! Various Conservatives have referred to her nomination as Cronyism, "a slap in the face" to conservatism, and a "gamble." Democrats, meanwhile, tend to view it as a victory, as shown when Daily Kos proclaimed:

"...my early sense is that this is already a victory -- both politically and judicially -- for Democrats. In fact, it should be great fun watching conservatives go after Bush. He may actually break that 39-40 floor in the polls, given he's just pissed off the very people who have propped up his failed presidency."

Obviously, somebody's unhappy. With a large segment of the Republican voting base going ballistic, one has to ask: "What's all the hubbub? Can't we just be happy Bush nominated a pro-lifer who might help overturn Roe v. Wade? Can't we just trust that she'll rule according to the Constitution?"

Maybe.

Though I haven't studied Mier's history in great depth, I have read and heard a variety of opinions regarding her character, and the wisdom (or lack thereof) of her nomination. Here are the undisputed facts:

Miers is an Evangelical Christian.

Miers is reported to be pro-life.

Bush places a great amount of faith in Miers.

The people who know Miers, when questioned about her potential as a SCOTUS Justice, have often made reference to her Conservative worldview.

Good stuff, right? Well... maybe. At this point, I am not horribly worried about discovering a year from now that we have another Souter on the bench; from what I've read, she seems conservative enough. I could be wrong, of course, but I've not seen anyone produce enough evidence to suggest that Miers will be an unreliable Justice; the real problem with the nomination is who was passed over.

It is well known that Miers has no experience as a judge, which can hardly be taken as a positive trait. One can debate whether or not this will hamper her ability to uphold the Constitution, but the fact is that there are many other potential nominees who hold much better credentials than Miers, who have been working within the judicial system to further the cause of Conservatism and the interpretation of the Constitution as it was written for years. These nominees were all snubbed, so to speak, when Bush nominated the woman who was his personal lawyer to sit on the Supreme Court bench.

In the eyes of many Conservatives, the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown would have been the wisest pick, and allow me to say that I wholeheartedly agree. Brown has a provable record of Conservatism, which is a plus, but is not the sole reason I would support her nomination. Rather, the reason for my support is her record of Conservatism along with her near-immunity to a filibuster. Why would a reliable Conservative be immune to a filibuster, you ask?

Anybody remember all those judges that Bush nominated to lower courts, only to have them filibustered in the Democats' monumental obstruction of American democracy? Well, if you will remember, Janice Rogers Brown was one of those filibustered nominees. Not only was she filibustered, though; she was later confirmed after a Senate compromise determined she was not enough of an "extraordinary circumstance" to filibuster. Therefore, if she was not worth filibustering before, how can she possibly be worth filibustering now? She'd either be a shoo-in for confirmation, or she would provoke a filibuster that would thoroughly discredit the Democratic Party; either way, I'd be pretty happy.

Unfortunately though, it seems the President doesn't see things my way. Maybe he's blinded by cronyism. Maybe he just didn't think things through well enough. Maybe, on the other hand, he knows something I don't. No matter what, I can't say I like this nomination.

The adoration of Liberals always leaves me uneasy with the object of their affection; when that object is a Supreme Court nominee, I start to break out into cold sweats. When that nominee was appointed by a Republican President, however, I know that something's wrong. As hard as I may try, I cannot fathom why the President would appoint a little-known, liberal-pleasing personal acquaintance rather than an established Conservative whose nomination is sure to result in political gains for Republicans.

Luckily, I don't care to delve into Bush's possible motives for nominating Miers. At this point, I only care about getting another Conservative on the bench, preferably an established Conservative whose worldview is not in doubt. In the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown, Bush had a golden opportunity, a chance to nominate just such a conservative judge who was all but sure to be confirmed. But he blew it.

So now we are all left to wonder, "Will Miers maintain her reputation of conservatism once she is confirmed to the Supreme Court?" If that same question had been asked about a nominated Janice Rogers Brown, the answer would have been "Without a doubt." When dealing with Miers, however, it seems we can only answer the question with one, rather unreassuring word:

"Maybe."

CORRECTION: Miers was appointed after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, but she is to fill the the seat of the recently-retired Sandra Day O'Connor.

By Popular Demand...

2005-10-08T18:07:00.000-04:00

Okay, at least two people have tagged me with this little meme-thingy, so I guess I should do it. And for those of you expecting a more Neo-like post, I am working on one. It will come. Until then...

Isn't it funny how the Dems have taken to using the "if you like war so much, why don't you join the army" argument? I thought that logic only reigned supreme in middle school, where suggestions of "well if you love it so much, why don't you marry it" are considered to be high wit. Interestingly, I have yet to find a Liberal who was willing to go to Med School and dedicate his life to providing free health care, or a Democrat who would gladly stop breathing so as to protect the environment from all that pesky Carbon Dioxide. Seems like they're afraid of playing their own game...

Now on to the meme!

TOP SEVEN

Seven things I plan to do before I die:
1) Fly on an airplane
2) Write an Op/Ed column for a major newspaper
3) Meet Serendipitous and Giggle Fritz
4) Win a tennis tournament
5) Go to college
6) Run for office?
7) Finish this meme

Seven things I can do:
1) Wiggle my ears
2) Play tennis
3) Carry on an intelligent conversation with adults
4) Convince people I'm Australian (or English, or Irish)
5) Drive (at least, I have my license)
6) A Chewbacca impression
7) Watch Anne of Green Gables without once questioning my masculinity

Seven things I cannot do:
1) Eat with chopsticks
2) Logarithms
3) Sing
4) Draw (or do anything else artistic, for that matter)
5) Eat Sushi
6) Keep from acting like a self-centered idiot around girls I like.
7) Flap my arms and fly to the moon

Seven things that attract me to the opposite sex (assuming godliness is a given):
1) Looks (yeah, I said it, and any guy who doesn't say it is a liar)
2) A good attitude toward others
3) Compassion and understanding
4) She must be trustworthy
5) Modesty, but not legalism. Perhaps "good taste" would be a better term.
6) Ability to understand me, tolerate me, and also keep me in check.
7) Willingness to be herself, and to let me be myself

Seven things I say most often:
1) "I didn't do it!"
2) "Well, I thought it was funny..."
3) "Hi!" (in a strange, Stitch-like voice, only higher-pitched. I say this to my friends at random points in the conversation, just to get on their nerves)
4) "I don't know"
5) "Wait..."
6) Like
7) "Yeah, I love you too" (after someone cracks on me)

Seven celebrity crushes (you did not just ask me this...):
1) Alexis Bledel
2) If only Lindsay Lohan weren't such a... foul individual.
3) Uh... I dunno... Alexis Bledel again?
4) I tend to not think about these things... Renee Olstead.
5) Remind me why I'm doing this again?
6) I don't know of any more...
7) See above

Seven people who should do this (oh boy, sorry guys):
1) Jennifer
2) Laura
3) Ryan
4) Eric
5) I'm so sorry, MonicaR...
6) Aha! I say you should, Loneamigo!
7) Book-Bound Idiot

I'm done! I'm actually done!!! Okay, so I know it wasn't a typical post, but at least I'm giving you something to read now! I'll try to get started on another post...

Be blessed!
Neo

I Am a Bad Blogger

2005-09-12T16:39:00.000-04:00

Yes, it's true. I'm a very bad blogger. This is only my fourth post in a month... but there is a reason for this! I'm not just being lazy!

You know, though I try not to post about stuff like this, I think I'll let you folks in on what's going on in my other life for a change...

School's really hectic right now. I'm only taking five classes (it's my senior year), but things are still busy. I'm taking three of my classes in an online academy, and so as to stay ahead, I'm trying to do twice the allotted amount of work per day. For my remaining two classes, I'm going to college for joint enrollment; for anyone who doesn't know, this means that for one college class, I get both a high school credit and a college credit. Pretty nifty, if you ask me.

Unfortunately, this means I have less time to spend blogging than I would like. My two classes at college are English 101 and Introduction to Comparative Politics... one requires a lot of writing, and the other requires a lot of studying. It seems pretty fun so far though! English is by far my favorite class this year, believe it or not; we are reading a compilation of essays called Rereading America, and doing analyses of the essays. At some point next week, I'll even have the privilege of reading a Michael Moore essay... happy me...

In addition to the amount of school I have to do, I have been playing tennis three times a week (and that will soon increase). I have a new tennis coach now, and I've been improving greatly since she started teaching me; I may even start practicing with the men's varsity team at the college where I'm taking joint enrollment! Of course, that would do nothing to increase the amount of time I have to spend blogging... And then there's the stuff I do at church...

But never fear! I don't plan on leaving the blogosphere any time soon. It's simply a matter of finding time to blog, and then getting motivated! Perhaps you could all pay me? I'm sure that would motivate me to write more! ;-)

Until I get my schedule under control, amuse yourself with the music I added to my blog! I will keep adding more whenever I can, so keep checking back for the latest updates.

Also, before I leave, I'd like to welcome some people to the blogosphere:

First, there's Book-bound idiot (she said it, not me); looking at her profile, I have to ask... Am I a member of the odd group?

Also in the blogosphere, we have fellow worldmagblog commenter Fyne Jr. I always enjoyed reading his comments, so it's great that he has a blog now!

And finally, we have Crazy Nichole joining us from North Carolina. Hopefully my post will explain the reason why I haven't commented on her blog yet...

Now, ladies and gentlemen, this post must end, for I have much to do. I will do my best to post again when I get a chance though... Don't give up on me!

Be blessed!
Neo

Okay, That's It...

2005-08-31T17:28:00.000-04:00

Sorry for any inconvenience, but I'm turning on Word Verification for my comments... hopefully that will control some of my spam comments. I had to delete a comment linking to porn, and I'd prefer that such links not be on my blog.

Along similar lines, if you haven't already, please take note of the new "Flag" option, and flag any and all spam blogs you come across. I'm getting sick of them.

Be blessed!
The Spaminator

What Moral Decay?

2005-08-28T18:39:00.000-04:00

I mean, haven't movies and stories like this ALWAYS met with success?

Pardon me while I puke...

Anti-War, or Anti-Iraqi?

2005-08-16T16:24:00.000-04:00

In an astonishing... unbelievable... Okay, just plain stupid protest of the War in Iraq, Cindy Sheehan has camped outside President Bush's Texas ranch following the death of her son Casey in Iraq. Mrs. Sheehan has become the face of the anti-war movement in America, even though it is about to cost her her marriage, and her family has allegedly issued a statement requesting that she end her protest out of respect for her slain son's "good name and reputation."

Reports from unnamed sources claim that the Islamic militants who killed her son also appreciate her protests, which are meant to urge the President to pull American troops out of Iraq. In a statement issued by the Baathist Party of Iraq, an "insurgent" spoke these words of gratitude:

"We in the Baathist Party of Iraq would like to commend and thank Cindy Sheehan for her outstanding work behind enemy lines. Her support for our cause has been noted, and we are confident that her work has gotten us one step closer to our goal of vanquishing the freedom-mongering Americans from Iraq. Thanks to Mrs. Sheehan and her band of supporters, we in Iraq have been able to move our focus to other goals, such as re-instating the Baathist regime in Iraq and torturing all dissenters. We are grateful for Mrs. Sheehan's continued support, and we pledge to honor her cause by killing the sons of more American women. Long live Saddam Hussein!"

The Baathists' report made no direct statement regarding Mrs. Sheehan's slain son.

Sometimes I wonder about people like Cindy... Do they realize what they're doing? Is she actually in her right mind?

Sure, let's remove all American soldiers from a fledgling democracy in the Middle East. That'll bring peace! No more American troops will have to die for the cause of freedom then!

But how much is freedom worth? To bring about democracy in a place like Iraq will undoubtedly cost lives (since dictators and jihadists will not give up their power without a fight), but is that any reason to tuck our tail between our legs and run home? Our own liberty was given to us, won by the blood of men who never even saw the freedom they fought for, so can we not spill some of our own blood for another nation's freedom?

I respect our soldiers, and I pray for them. I admire their courage in serving our country in this war, and I want them to be safe. However, I believe that people like Cindy Sheehan are doing them no favors by calling for America to pull out of Iraq. If we left Iraq now, then everything that our soldiers, including her own son, have fought and died for would be in vain. The country would fall to the terrorists, and the freedom that we paid for in blood would be entirely lost.

Have people like Cindy been spoiled by their own freedom, so much that they can't fathom giving it to anyone else? Or is the problem perhaps selfishness? Or even racism?

Could it be that the real reason these people fight tooth and nail against the Iraq War is simply a kind of racism? Could the real reason for their opposition of freedom be that they simply are bigoted toward Iraqis? I mean, the anti-war folks are advocating a pullout from Iraq, because it's just not worth our effort. So are the Iraqis just not worth the effort, or is it everyone? Are these people just bigoted toward Iraqis, or are they equal-opportunity discriminators?

Whether they're racists, cowards, selfish, insane, or just short-sighted, they don't seem to understand the problems that would be caused by an American pullout from Iraq. They don't understand that the terrorists will perceive such an action as a weakness, and simply push harder. They don't understand that we'd dishonor our armed forces by abandoning all they've fought for. They probably don't even understand that we'd actually lose what gains we've made. All they see is big, ugly war, and they want the war to stop (even if that won't make the killing stop).

Let's honor our troops by distancing ourselves from voices like Cindy's. Let's support the troops, and encourage them, and pray for their safety. Let's encourage our representatives to cut pork spending and use the money to fund safety precautions for our armed forces. The anti-war crowd's motivation, whether it is cowardice, selfishness or bigotry, will fix nothing. We must carry out our plans and help build a free Iraq if we truly want to do our slain soldiers justice. That is the way to honor them.

God bless our soldiers, and keep them safe.

UPDATE: Here's what Mark Steyn has to say about Mrs. Sheehan's antics.

Bush Makes Kids Fat?

2005-08-08T17:09:00.000-04:00

Mark Steyn has a hilarious response to the DNC's recent allegation that Bush is making America's children fat.

A Strange Sort of Culture Shock

2005-08-03T22:00:00.000-04:00

After spending a week among my peers at Worldview Academy, I seem to be experiencing a letdown of sorts.

Let me explain: While at Worldview, I met eighty (or so) teenagers who were, in a sense, like me. Yes, we all had our different styles, interests, ideas, and senses of humor; in that regard, Worldview seemed to be more diverse than your average gathering of teens. However, on a basic level, we all had one thing in common: We had all come to a camp where the motto is "Think Hard, Think Well," and we didn't view this as a hardship or a punishment.

Being around this group that still regards thinking as "cool" was quite refreshing, but it set me up for a rather discouraging crash once I returned home. For a week, I had a peer group that was respectful, polite, and unafraid of deep thought, but back in my hometown such people are few and far-between. For many of my fellow teens, "Think hard, think well" is more of a torture tactic than a motto. The very thought of an apologetics and leadership camp sends them into convulsions, followed by the ridicule of the very idea of such a camp. "What's the point? Why bother?" They say.

The sad part is that these are often Christian teens. Since when was it acceptable to not understand your own worldview? Since when was it cool to follow as a dumb sheep, rather than lead as a shepherd? When did these kids stop caring? What happened?

The kids at Worldview were polite, and yet, in their consideration for others, they sacrificed none of their personality. In some art that is apparently unknown in my neck of the woods, these kids were able to be funny as all get out WITHOUT having to cut someone else down. Imagine that! Eighty teenagers who can feel good about themselves without having to make someone else feel bad! And you know what's sad? That kind of consideration is not a hard concept to grasp. It's really not too difficult to be kind every once in a while... So why can't more people do it?

The way teenagers treat each other is appalling, and I'm discouraged to see Christians falling perfectly in line with everyone else, mocking whomever and whatever seems uncool. I've watched smart kids dumb themselves down, polite kids become unruly, and kind ones become cold and withdrawn, all because they were outnumbered by peers who consider intelligence, politeness and kindness to be "stupid." I've watched it happen from the first snide remarks to the time when such rudeness is no longer necessary to keep the victim beaten down, and I've seen Christians participating all the way.

This is not acceptable, and yet my comrades can't seem to understand that. Everything that Christianity is-- compassion, servant leadership, love-- these things are all lost on so many Christian teens, to the point that they seem to be Christians on only a nominal level. They take the name of Christ, and they accept their own salvation, and then they continue to torment everyone around them who dares to exhibit kindness, compassion, or intelligence.

These Christians ridicule anyone who stands up for his own beliefs (even if they share his beliefs) simply because he chose to stand up. They themselves are convinced that there is nothing worth standing up for-- for even what should be most near and dear to their hearts can't motivate them to step out of their unconcerned stupor in its defense-- and they are quick to ensure that no one else stands up for their beliefs either.

And so, it has been quite depressing to leave the environment of Worldview and re-enter everyday life. No longer do all the Christians around me act like what they are. No longer can I speak of a subject that requires more than a 5th grade education to comprehend. No longer can I take a stand for what I believe without fear of reproach.

But stand I will, by the grace of God. When opposition comes at me even from those who are on my side, it is my job to stand for what is right, and I pray that I will not be swayed. It is a hard challenge before me (and truly, before us all), for I must stand, but stand in compassion. As resentful as I may feel toward those who I believe are betraying Christianity, I must show them the exact same love I would show anyone, lest I become exactly what I decry. I must fight against cynicism and bitterness, and lead by example, rather than by arguments, for an argument will never change the mind of someone who won't stand for anything to begin with. I must first show love and compassion toward those who won't show love and compassion, if I wish them to change.

And so I ask that you would all pray for me. Pray that I will stand strong in faith, hope and love. Pray that I would practice what I preach, and show compassion toward those who have no concept of it. This is my goal, to effect change in the hearts and minds of my peers, to make them more effective Christians, and to do it all in love. Please pray that I would succeed, and that I would find others who are like-minded and will help me reach that goal. Your prayers would be greatly appreciated.

Be blessed!
Neo

Fighting Back

2005-08-01T15:59:00.000-04:00

According to Yahoo News, Bush has finally appointed John Bolton as America's ambassador to the U.N.

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about UN reform," Bush said. He said Bolton had his complete confidence.

Bush put Bolton on the job in a recess appointment — an avenue available to the president when the Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until a newly elected Congress takes office in January 2007.

Bush said that Bolton's nomination had been supported by a majority of the Senate but that "because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up-or-down vote that he deserves."

Now all that's left to do is listen for the Liberals' screeching. Oh wait, they've already started... Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid claims that Bush "chose to stonewall the Senate" by using a recess appointment.

But did he really? Or did Senate Democrats choose to stonewall the Senate by using the filibuster? After all, Bush is simply trying to get things done; the Dems are the ones using the obstuctionist tactics.

Come on, now: Democrats said they would not use the filibuster except in extreme circumstances. A week later, they began another filibuster. Bush got tired of seeing a vacant government position, but he would rather fill that position with a nominee that the majority supports, so he appointed the nominee during a recess of congress.

Obviously, we'd all prefer that our U.N. Ambassador have been confirmed (or rejected) by a majority vote, but with a minority that will do whatever it takes to avoid having a vote that they lose (even if that means preventing a democratic vote altogether), Bush had to take matters into his own hands. And I applaud him. If the Left will not allow our democracy to function as it was intended, then what place do they have in the government of that democracy?

The Senate was created to pass laws through the votes of representatives of the people. When those representatives refuse to allow a vote simply because they can't win it, they are abusing our democracy and obstructing our lawmaking process. Now, if some of the representatives display such a contempt for our democracy that they will abuse it, what the heck are they still doing in office?

Isn't that what impeachment and recall elections are for?

I'm Back, For the Moment

2005-07-23T21:51:00.000-04:00

Hi folks!

I got back from Worldview Academy yesterday, and I thought I'd write a brief update...

First off, I'd like to give a shout out to any WVA Alumni who happen to visit my blog; you guys are always welcome here.

I had a great time at Worldview. When I first arrived, I was met with the smiling faces of the staff, and was told that I was in for the best week of my life. Turns out they were right. I really have had the best week of my life. I spent five days there, listening to entertaining and enlightening lectures, getting to know new people, and participating in awesome small group discussions. I wish I could describe the whole week, but I haven't the time (as I must pack yet again for another trip, where I'll be gone until Wednesday) or the ability to put such an amazing experience into words.

I would like to recommend Worldview Academy to everyone ages 13-19 who visits my blog. As I said, it is a Christian worldview, leadership and apologetics camp, and it is well worth the time and money. If you would like information on WVA, by all means, send me an e-mail, and I'll tell you everything I can.

And now, I must go pack. I encourage all teenagers to look into WVA, and remember that if you let me refer you as an alumnus, you will get a $25 discount off of the tuition price. And of course, for more information, visit the WVA website and send me an e-mail; I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Be blessed!
Neo

My Appendix Story, Part 1

2005-07-23T19:59:00.000-04:00

No, it has nothing to do with politics, but I figured I'd post it anyway. Allow me to say that since the appendectomy, I have been horribly busy, which accounts for my lack of posts. Never fear though, even as we speak, things are calming down (though only slightly), so I hope to post more.

Now, for the main attraction... This post covers a few "bathroom" issues, so I ask that you forgive any crudeness, as it is generally a necessary part of the story.

On Saturday, June 4 I had an appendectomy. I suppose my problems started around 12:30 AM while I was up late playing Xbox. Out of the blue, I felt a pain in my stomach, just below my navel. The first thing that came to mind was that I had to use the restroom, so I paused the game and off to the bathroom I went. I came back several minutes later, feeling a little better, and continued to play my game.

The pain returned shortly, leaving me wondering if I just hadn't properly finished the job on my first visit, so I headed back to the restroom. This time, I did nothing and I did not feel any better. I thought that perhaps the problem might have been caused by sitting hunched over with a controller in my hand for so long, so I decided to call it a night. After shutting off the video game and walking downstairs, my stomach started hurting a little less; by the time I made it to bed, however, the pain had returned.

Several more visits to the bathroom did nothing to ease my pain, and before I knew it, it was 2:15 AM. I headed back for the bathroom one last time, and this time while I was in there, I felt my hands tingling, and I started to get dizzy. At this point, let me assure you that it is not a pleasant feeling to know that you have fallen off a toilet, but that is exactly what I did. At that point, I decided that it was time to get my parents.

I woke them up, and as soon as they turned on a light and saw me, my mom commanded me to lie down. Needless to say, I complied; really, I would have complied whether she told me to lie down or not. As I was lowering myself (rather quickly) to the ground, I began to feel cold and started shivering.

The first thing my mom did was shove a thermometer in my mouth (which, by the way, was brand-spankin' new). When we took it out, we couldn't believe what we saw: 90.7 degrees! Being certain that that couldn't be right, we took my temperature again, with the same results. Surely it wouldn't malfunction again...

But we got the same temperature even on the third try. This thoroughly worried my mom, who briefly consulted with my dad before calling 911. We ended up taking me to the emergency room, where I answered a barrage of questions about the pain, where I felt it, how long I had felt it, what I am allergic to, what medicines I take, etc... All in all, I think I answered the same set of questions about nine times. Maybe they were just testing to make sure I wasn't delirious...

They finally finished asking me questions and helped me shuffle back to a room where I climbed into a bed. Once there, the first thing the nurse said to me was "Here's a cup, we're going to need a urine sample." Oh joy. I won't go into details, but even in private, that is a rather humiliating task. I had not had a drink of water for about four hours, so it was rather hard to come by. Then, of course, I got to stumble back to my room carrying a clear cup of hard-earned urine.

I climbed back into my bed, only to be summoned again, this time to the X-ray room. That went relatively smoothly (besides the fact that for a few minutes I went almost completely deaf), and they finally let me go back to my bed. All the walking had made my stomach start hurting again, so sleep was not an option.

Enter the morphine. After this point, things get a little fuzzy. The nurse inserted an IV into my arm, gave me a dose of morphine that I (at the time) thought didn't affect me. However, witnesses have informed me that even on morphine, I STILL have to have the last word. Now, they couldn't actually *understand* the last word, but that didn't stop me! A mumble is harder to respond to than a well-planned wisecrack, after all. While on morphine, I also remember spending upwards of ten minutes staring at my hands... Or was that later, when they gave me Percocet?

Anyway, just as I was getting comfortable (the morphine was starting to help the pain), the nurse came back in with what I thought were two pints of milk. "Finally, something to drink!" I thought. I was so thirsty, I thought I would drink anything.

I was wrong. The nurse informed me that they needed me to drink those two bottles of Barium Sulfate so they could run a CAT scan on me. My next question was obvious: "What does it taste like?" "Oh, some people say it tastes kinda like coconut," He told me.

He lied. It tasted like a soapy coconut, dipped in sour milk. I imagine it took me an hour to chug all of that junk, though my concept of time was distorted; I was no longer on standard minutes, instead chillin' out in morphine minutes. I guess it doesn't really matter... I drank the stuff, and they ran the CAT scan on me.

Now, there is something unnerving about being placed in a tube that makes Star Trek noises, while a computerized voice tells you when to breathe. I could have sworn I went to Warp 6 and back at least three times, and nearly passed out when they told me to hold my breath. Not that it really mattered, since I was sleep-deprived and on morphine (and thus barely functional) anyway. All I know is that they ran the test on me and wheeled me back to my room.

After waiting for several hours (either Standard or Morphine hours), we got the results back, which confirmed that I had appendicitis. They scheduled me for surgery around 9:00 AM (I think), so I had approximately four hours to burn before my surgery. Of course, it occurred to me that I should try to sleep. Somehow though, that just didn't work out...

Maybe it was the pain in my side. Maybe it was the IV in my arm. Maybe it was the unbelievably small bed I was laying on. Maybe it was the fact that I hadn't had anything to drink since before midnight. Regardless, I don't think I got much sleep. I do know, however, that my memory of the period between my CAT scan and the actual surgery is very fuzzy. The last thing I remember was a foul-smelling mask being placed over my face, while the surgeons were asking me questions about my SAT score...

Hey Everybody...

2005-07-16T18:44:00.000-04:00

I wanted to let you all know that starting tomorrow (Sunday), I will most likely not be able to post for about a week and a half. I will be going to Worldview Academy, a Christian apologetics and leadership camp, and as soon as I return, I'll be going out of town again for a few days with my friend Duke.

I just thought I'd let you know where I'll be. I have a lot that I'd like to post about right now, but no time to post it; hopefully I'll at least get around to posting my appendix story before I leave. I can't make any promises, but I can certainly try, right?

Ah well. I wish I could write more, but I just don't have time (you know how packing goes). I'll see you all soon!

Neo

So Now I'm "It"...

2005-07-14T22:14:00.000-04:00

I have officially been tagged, by none other than Jennifer of Jennifer's Musings! Sorry I took so long to type this...

Number of books I own: You know, I'm really not sure... And I don't feel like searching and counting... Let's say that I own about 20 books personally, and there are probably 150 books in the whole house. I receive several magazines though (including WORLD Magazine, which I highly recommend), and I read them constantly. I'm presently working on getting more books, though in the past I've mainly borrowed books from the library.

Last book I bought: Lord of the Flies by William Golding. Wonderful book, as it was both entertaining and thought provoking. I nearly bought The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis, but I figured I'd wait on that...

Books I like: Well, I must say I greatly enjoyed The Chronicles of Narnia, and I plan on reading them again. I like Lord of the Flies, as I've already stated. Um... Anything by Frank Peretti... He's just about the only current author that I can say I like. I am very much a fan of George Orwell's Animal Farm, for its creative depiction of Communism. I must admit that I also enjoyed reading Silas Marner, as it was a well-written and entertaining story. I am beginning to take an interest in some of Shakespeare's plays, such as Twelfth Night, as well.

Last book I read: The Metamorphosis, by Franz Kafka. Quite a bizarre little book, but I enjoyed it. Seemed to be something of a critique of society, involving a man who mysteriously changed into a giant roach. Hey, I told you it was bizarre...

Books I plan to read (added this one myself): I plan to read some Asimov books, some Ayn Rand, some C. S. Lewis and some Schaeffer, The Federalist Papers, as many classics as I can get my hands on, and I PROMISE that one day I will finish Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America was the first book to ever defeat me; the page-long sentences got to me before page 75. I will finish it though. Any suggestions as to where to start with my reading of Asimov, Rand, Lewis and Schaeffer? Any other books or authors you'd suggest?

Well, there you have it! I believe S. Lewis asked me what books I like quite a while back... Hey, at least I finally answered!

Now I get to tag people, right? I'm not sure how many to tag, so I'm just gonna tag as many as I want. Sometimes ignorance really IS bliss...

Okay, I tag Seth at Standing Up for Nothing, Stephen Lewis at The Mouth of Iron, DagneyT at Dagney's Rant, and David S. MacMillan III at D3's Blog.

In addition, I'd like to tag Grizzly Mama (does a homeschooling mom have TIME to read?), Serendipitous (you know I'm not letting you escape un-tagged), and TheLoneAmigo (what is my friendly arch-nemesis from Australia reading, anyway?).

So there you have it. If I didn't tag you and you're wondering why, it's because I had to leave someone for my victims to tag! :-)

Have fun!
Neo

Live 8: Why Celebrities Don't Run the World

2005-07-02T22:30:00.000-04:00

According to Technorati, this phenomenon they call Live 8 is all over the blogosphere. I guess I'll add my two cents on the "long walk to justice."

Essentially, Live 8 is a campaign of concerts and such that seeks to influence international leaders at the G8 Summit. Their cause? Organizer Bob Geldorf puts it this way:

Every single day, 30,000 children die, needlessly, of extreme poverty.
On July 6th, we finally have the opportunity to stop that shameful statistic.
8 world leaders, gathered in Scotland for the G8 summit, will be presented with a workable plan to double aid, drop the debt and make the trade laws fair. If these 8 men agree, then we will become the generation that made poverty history.

That's nice. This is one of those "smile and nod" moments. Let's all just give Bobby a benevolent pat on the head, and quietly walk in the other direction.

Honestly, I find it hard to see where he's coming from. He tries to make it clear to us that "LIVE 8 is about justice not charity," but I'm just not feelin' it. Dictators and Jihadist Muslims have ruined many countries, so our money is supposed to fix that?

Let me show you something, Mr. Geldorf: Pretend there is an African country called X. X is a fairly prosperous country, with plenty of promise. Unfortunately, a totalitarian leader named Jimmy comes to power in X. Jimmy ruins the nation's thriving economy and plunges the nation into poverty. Now the citizens of X are needlessly dying of extreme poverty.

Now, it's very honorable to try to find a solution for X's woes, but we need to be careful of what solution we propose. For example, cancelling X's national debt and throwing more money at X will do very little to combat poverty. Yes, money is good, but if you don't address the cause of X's poverty, then you have done nothing to help the nation, because the money will have little effect.

No Mr. Geldorf, lack of money is not the ultimate cause of X's poverty. X's dictator Jimmy has decimated the country's economy and squandered the nation's money, and THAT is the cause of their poverty. If you give them more money, Jimmy will squander it. If you eliminate X's debt, Jimmy will run up an even higher debt. Until Jimmy the money pit is dealt with, money from even the world's richest countries cannot improve the living conditions of X's citizens.

Now, multiply X's story by oh, say, fifteen. Mr. Geldorf, meet Africa. You say many times that Live 8 is about bringing justice to Africa, but how is it just to eliminate the debts of tyrants? Do you really believe that enabling dictators to continue driving African nations into the ground qualifies as justice?

I hope Bob Geldorf is just short-sighted; I'd rather think he's a total moron than think he supports the genocidal autocrats of the world. Regardless, I think it's quite obvious why he's a performer rather than a government official.

The Gathering Storm

2005-07-01T16:49:00.000-04:00

It has happened. Sandra Day O'Connor has retired from the Supreme Court, leaving a vacancy to be filled, and a battle to be fought.

Normally, I would be thrilled that the swing vote in a divided court had stepped down. I would probably be excited about the possibility of the majority confirming a nominee who would uphold the Constitution.

Not right now. From where I'm standing, I see only two viable options for replacing Ms. O'Connor, and neither are as desirable as the intended operation of our democratic republic.

In Scenario One, Bush makes me proud by appointing a nominee who would interpret the Constitution as it was written, rather than one who would interpret the Constitution as a "growing, changing document." This, however, would require appointing a social conservative. Unfortunately, the democratic nomination of a judge whose views represent the majority has been met in recent years with undemocratic filibusters by the obstructionist minority. Why would this nomination be any different?

Oh, but wait! The Senate Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement about filibusters! Now Democrats will only use the filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances!"

Yeah, sure. And about seven days after they came to that agreement, the Dems filibustered again. If they can't win the vote, then they just stop the vote, and this will happen over and over and over again until the Senate Republicans work up the backbone to change the Senate rules regarding the filibuster.

Representative democracy requires that there be an actual VOTE on laws and nominations. With the Dems telling us that they will only allow a vote if they can win it, our nation's starting to look more like an oligarchy that you'd find in, say, Iran. You know, one of those dictatorships that wants everyone to think it's a democracy, so the leader holds token elections in which there is little or no viable opposition? Sounds like a Democrat's dream.

Obviously, the prospect of a seat on the Supreme Court being vacant during a drawn-out Senate battle is far from appealing. This is, however, the more desirable option. Here's why:

In Scenario Two, Bush falters and chooses a nominee who would not be considered an "extraordinary circumstance" by Senate Democrats. Sounds like that would be much smoother doesn't it? Sure it does, but to paraphrase Mark Levin, "anything short of nominating Ted Kennedy to the SCOTUS would be considered an 'extraordinary circumstance.'" It's a sad fact, but the Democrats' views are so out of proportion that any nomination other than that of an ultra-liberal Democrat is seen as a crisis that must be averted by any means necessary (whether democratic or not).

And so, I hope for scenario one. I hope for a strong, conservative nominee, and yes, I even hope for a filibuster. Why? Because it would bring out the Democrats' true colors. It would prove to the entire nation that the Left is willing to hinder the processes of democracy at every level until they get their way. It would show once again that the will of the people is irrelevant in the minds of the Democrats, and that they would rather have an incomplete judiciary than a judge who disagrees with them on the Supreme Court.

I hope for a Battle Royal that resolves this issue once and for all. I mean a knock-down, drag-out. Yes, it would be nice if the Senate Democrats would just allow an up or down vote on whomever Bush appoints, but I just don't see that happening. I guess the democratic process is just too old-fashioned for the Progressives.

My First and Only Zombie Post

2005-06-27T19:15:00.000-04:00

Boffins Create Zombie Dogs

Is it really possible? I mean, there was a similar hoax a while back that actually DID fool some people... Can this story be for real?

And of course, the logical next question is "What the heck is a boffin?"

Quick Apology

2005-06-22T21:30:00.000-04:00

I realize that I have been neglecting my posting duties lately... This has been because I have absolutely no time.

Since my appendectomy (which I am writing a post about), my great-grandparents arrived at our house, and will be staying for a month. In addition to that, I have been taking Driver's Ed for the past week and a half (with two days to go), trying to finish my school year in time, cutting grass, practicing piano for church, and playing tennis. As you can see, that leaves very little time for the computer.

Not to worry though... Once Driver's Ed is over, things should start to get better, and I will hopefully be able to post more.

As for now though...

Today the House of Representatives voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would outlaw flag burning.

The House debate fell along familiar lines over whether the amendment strengthened the Constitution or ran afoul of its free-speech protections.

Supporters said there was more public support than ever because of emotions following the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They said detractors are out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

Critics accused the amendment's supporters of exploiting the attacks to trample the right to free speech.

Free speech? No. Flag burning is an expression of treason. I understand that many don't want the government to get involved in censorship, but to burn an American flag is to express wishes of violence against the United States. Is it really wise to allow people like that to roam free within our borders? 9-11 proved that it's not.

Treason should not be tolerated just because it involves some form of expression. If you don't like America, then get out; we don't want you here, and there are plenty of people who would love to take your place. You want to express your violent thoughts against the USA? Do it somewhere that you WON'T be taking advantage of the freedom she has to offer.

I'll Be Back...

2005-06-12T15:07:00.000-04:00

Just so no one is left in the dark, I thought I'd let you all know that I will have no internet access for the next few days (I'll be at my grandparents' house). Things have been crazy lately so it's been hard to blog, but soon things will be back to normal (hopefully).

Until I get back, I encourage you to check out Stephen Lewis's new blog, The Mouth of Iron, and as always, you should go read Standing Up for Nothing as well.

Finally, tell me what you think about the situation with the girl in Texas (Grizzly Mama has posted about it).

I'm out!
Neo

Impersonator Alert

2005-06-10T12:24:00.000-04:00

There is someone out there impersonating me. They claim to have made a new blog, and often leave comments directing you to it. This is a lie; if I make a new blog, I will announce it here. Ignore the fake profiles.

How desperate and immature can you be? Who would stoop that low?

I have a pretty good idea... if the impersonator stop impersonating me NOW and delete the blogs, I won't point any fingers.

Neo currently indisposed

2005-06-04T20:27:00.000-04:00

Hello readers,

Neo's wacky counterpart here.......
just a quick note to tell you all that Neo is currently recovering from an appendectomy, performed this morning. Everything went great, Laproscopic procedure was sufficient. Heck, they even super-glued him shut, so he can shower today!
I expect him to go home tomorrow, with some sort of quirky observations forthcoming about his first experiences with CT scans, morphine,etc.
Praise God for taking care of him, with good doctors and procedures,

be blessed, yall.

Not Neo

Modern Mythology

2005-05-27T08:52:00.000-04:00

The theory of Evolution reads like an ancient legend:

"Eons ago, long before the first man walked the earth, there was nothing. And then, after many years, there was something. Creatures were formed which were so strange that to even look upon them would strike fear into the hearts of men. They began as small plants, but through the magical powers of the passage of time, the plants would spawn small creatures.

As time went by, the small creatures would beget larger creatures, and creatures that walked on land, swam in the sea, and flew through the air. And these creatures would beget creatures stranger still, and they would sometimes reproduce after their own kind. After many billions of years (because time and necessity are the keys to physical change), man was created, the greatest of all animals, the spawn of the monkeys and the monkeys' children.

By pure chance, and the providence of the almighty absolutely nothing, a human was spawned of the opposite gender somewhere nearby. The humans mated and reproduced after their own kind, despite the natural laws that would have rendered them impotent, and after many thousands of years, man (from the house of Monkey) filled the earth and formed a thriving species.

Man's attempts to Evolve always met with disaster. They came up with names for their own attempts at Evolution: they called their spawn which would be better suited for life than themselves such things as challenged, deformed, and retarded. The new super-humans were not treated as great triumphs, but rather as beings to be pitied."

"And that is how, by the all-sufficient grace of the omnipotent,
omniscient absolutely nothing, man came to be on the earth."

The unproven theory (more like a hypothesis) of Evolution has been the subject of debates since it was first conceived by Charles Darwin. It has a tendency to crumble under close inspection, and was even doubtful in its creator's mind. Even the Father of Evolution could not convince himself of the truth of his assertions! Obviously, an assertion with as many fallacies as Evolution has cannot have a place in true science.

And yet, it is treated as though it were truth. Those who accept the THEORY of Evolution and thus ridicule Creationism are, in the name of logic and reason, forsaking logic and reason. Those who accept Darwinism or any other form of the THEORY of Evolution are placing their faith in something less observable (for observation is part of the scientific method) than the existence of God.

Let's go over a few things about Evolution.

Evolution requires massive amounts of time (even under the punctuated equilibrium theory). However, there is a stifling lack of evidence supporting an old earth. Truthfully, all methods of dating the earth either require excessive amounts of guesswork and assumptions (such as carbon dating), or they reach the conclusion of a young earth (amount of helium in the atmosphere, amounts of rock or water).

Evolutionists also love relying on anecdotes to prove their case. Ask for a missing link, they point to Lucy or Homo habilis. They don't point to a species; they instead refer you to individuals that have been pieced together to an incomplete skeleton from shattered bone fragments. Why is it that we can find lots of trilobites, and lots of dinosaurs, and lots of coelacanths, but when it comes to missing links, we can only find individuals? And most of all, why is anecdotal evidence considered sufficient in this supposedly scientific theory?

Let's go back to the Coelocanths for a second... Why is it that they have gone for (according to Evolutionists' numbers) 400 million years, and not changed? Isn't it high time they became frogs or something?

Now, talk to any Creationist, and he'll tell you he believes in evolution on a small scale. Survival of the fittest and the genetic variations that are already present and possible within a creature's DNA make it and its offspring more likely to survive. The Evolution that Darwin suggested would require a major change in genetic information, as well as the creation of enough new genetic information to actually keep the new organism alive and capable of reproducing. Only problem is that this has never been done. Such drastic genetic changes always kill the organisms.

It would be a very exact touch to have an animal evolve and be capable of reproduction. The most minute problems in the gametes (which help organisms reproduce and transfer genetic information to their offspring) can cause great damage to the offspring, which are never considered to be "Evolved." One extra chromosome and you've got a child with Down's Syndrome. Missing a chromosome, and they've got Turner's Syndrome. Try adding or taking away other chromosomes and genes, see what happens. Neither an increase nor a decrease in genetic information will result in a healthy individual, much less one that is better suited for survival. The only beneficial genetic "changes" that have been recorded for any living organism are the changes that are already built into that organism's genetic information. The color of a human's eyes, the color of the peppered moths, or selective breeding are all examples of this. However, these characteristics can change for as long as you want, but they will never yield a new species.

Even the very foundation of Evolution is flawed. The Big Bang theory requires that somehow, miraculously, vast amounts of order spring from complete disorder. So essentially, Evolutionists would rather believe their own THEORY than a longstanding LAW (the Second Law of Thermodynamics). This is, again, hardly worthy of the label of "science." Any school of thought that would rather disregard an accepted scientific law than challenge its own theory (which requires a great amount of faith, I might add) cannot possibly be called "science."

There has been no Evolution observed. Evolution has not been experimented with. Evolution has not been proven to have taken place in the past. Evolution contradicts at least one proven natural law. There is, therefore, nothing scientific about Evolution. It is pure philosophy, and is commonly accepted simply because it provides a (deeply flawed) alternative to the possibility that there might be something out there that's greater than us.

God forbid that there should actually be a God.

Chalk Up Another One for the Homeschoolers

2005-05-25T16:56:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to Nathaniel Cornelius, winner of the 2005 National Geography Bee!

A 13-year-old home schooled youth from Minnesota won the 2005 National Geographic Bee on Wednesday.

Nathaniel Cornelius topped young people from across the nation to win a $25,000 college scholarship.

The winning question: "Lake Gatun, an artificial lake that constitutes part of the Panama Canal system, was created by damming which river?"

The answer: Chagres River.

Cornelius, of Cottonwood, represented the Marshall Area Home Educators Association. In addition to knowing his way around, he plays piano and classical guitar and enjoys photography. He also represented Minnesota in the 2003 and 2004 National Geographic Bees.

Way to represent, Nathaniel!

Compromise

2005-05-24T08:21:00.000-04:00

Yes, it's true; Senate Democrats and Republicans have struck a deal to end the filibusters of three of Bush's judicial nominees.

"The agreement, which applies to Supreme Court nominees, said future judicial nominations should 'only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances,' with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met."

"Under the terms of the agreement, Democrats said they would allow final confirmation votes for Owen, Brown and Pryor, three nominees all assailed by Democrats for what they say has been their conservative activism. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers."

Please note that the filibuster problem has not necessarily been fixed. It leaves room for Democrats to filibuster more nominees under "extraordinary circumstances," whatever those might be.

Yes, this compromise is better than nothing, but we'd be better off getting rid of the filibuster in its current form and going back to the original filibuster procedures. The minority was never intended to be able to impede progress like that, and judicial nominees were never supposed to be filibustered.

Of course, I favored the "nuclear option," but at least SOMETHING'S getting done now regarding Bush's judicial nominees. We'll just have to wait and see whether or not this compromise will work in the long run. I don't hold high hopes, as the Democrats seem to view any Conservative judicial nominee as an "extraordinary circumstance," but maybe they'll surprise me.

What do you think about the compromise?

If Only the Majority Had Rights...

2005-05-23T08:55:00.000-04:00

Yahoo News has some interesting statistics in this article about the ID vs. Evolution controversy.

According to a November national Gallup poll, "only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence." The rest said they didn't know.

A CBS News poll taken the same month found that two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught with evolution. It also indicated that 55 percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form and only 13 percent think that humans evolved without divine guidance.

So obviously, we know what the majority wants. Currently, a philosophical idea (Darwinism) is being taught as fact in science classes across the nation. This philosophy is not supported by the majority OR scientific evidence (circumstantial evidence has yet to prove this case), and yet it is being taught as an unquestionable fact. This is being done in the name of Separation of Church and State (another fictional idea).

So rather than teach according to the views of the majority, schools must appease the 13 percent who directly oppose the majority. Does this seem rather undemocratic to anyone else?

Trying My Hand At Relativism

2005-05-18T21:05:00.000-04:00

According to Yahoo! News, Bush has proposed a corps to aid new democracies.

"This new corps will be on call — ready to get programs running on the ground in days and weeks instead of months and years," Bush said at a dinner hosted by the International Republican Institute, a federally funded group that promotes democracy worldwide. "If a crisis emerges and assistance is needed, the United States of America will be ready."

Bush cited a series of what he referred to as revolutions during the past 18 months in ex-Soviet republics and across the Middle East: in Georgia, Ukraine, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan and Lebanon.

"We are seeing the rise of a new generation whose hearts burn for freedom — and they will have it," Bush said.

Do you think Liberals are going to be outraged over this? I can just hear their shrill cries...

If there is going to be a corps to help young nations, it should embrace diversity! We should aid any young nation, be it a democracy, dictatorship, or monarchy!

This ethnocentricity that Bush exhibits by wanting to help only democracies is OBVIOUSLY the reason that the international community hates us! Conservatives think that democratic government is better than letting one person have all the power, but guess what? THE WORLD'S TYRANTS DISAGREE! Should they just be left out in the cold just because SOMEONE thinks their governing habits are wrong? I mean, hey, if a dictator gets a kick out of a little genocide, who are we to deny them the help they need to retain power in the early stages of their government?

Sheesh, learn a little tolerance, people!

Kansas Reconsiders Definition of "Science"

2005-05-17T08:47:00.000-04:00

According to Yahoo News, Kansas is attempting to redefine science.

"The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world."

"Last year, the board asked a committee of educators to draft recommendations for updating the standards, then accepted two rival proposals."

"One, backed by a majority of those educators, continues an evolution-friendly tone from the current standards. Those standards would define science as 'a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.' That's close to the current definition."

The other proposal is backed by intelligent design advocates and is similar to language in Ohio's standards. It defines science as 'a systematic method of continuing investigation' using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena."

This, of course, has Evolutionists in quite a tizzy. They love to study natural phenomena, but they refuse to believe (despite the abundance of proof) that something supernatural might cause (or have caused) natural phenomena.

Now, it doesn't seem too scientific, in the study of natural phenomena, to exclude certain possibilities from even being considered. That's actually quite arrogant! How can you completely exclude a possible cause without scientifically disproving it, and continue to call your study "scientific?"

Science is the study of natural phenomena, but in order to study natural phenomena, it is necessary to consider the possibility of the supernatural. We can't rule out possibilities before they've been disproved.

Why Bother?

2005-05-17T08:27:00.000-04:00

The judges are at it again! Who needs the Constitution and a majority when you've got a black robe?

Reggie asks a good question: "Why do we even bother holding elections anymore?" It seems that the only way to have your voice heard in government nowadays is to be a judge! So much for that "by the people, for the people" stuff; now it's just a bunch of power-hungry activists, crushing the rights of the people with every tap of their gavel.

Why don't we impeach these buffoons?

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

2005-05-14T21:28:00.000-04:00

UCAUTION

IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY IT IS ADVISABLE TO KEEP NEOFASCIST? AWAY FROM FIRE AND FLAMES.

From Go-Quiz.com

"Welcome to the Republican Party"

2005-05-09T19:30:00.000-04:00

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and supported the distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & the addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He stopped her and asked her, point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. She studied all the time and never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying because of her more difficult curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?"

"Mary is barely getting by," she replied. "She barely has a 2.0 GPA, and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies. But Mary is extremely popular on campus. College, for her, is a blast. She goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0? That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done little or nothing! She played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Hat tip: The Conservative Legion

Go, Fight, Win!

2005-05-04T08:49:00.001-04:00

So there may be hope for decency in the public forum after all...

Does it appear to anyone else that problems like suggestive cheerleading are being addressed with renewed vigor? First a principal who bans "freak dancing," then in Virginia the legislature tried to pass a law requiring that one's undergarments not be visible in public, and now Texas is attempting to restrict suggestive cheerleading. Maybe some other states will take the cue from Texas and Virginia and bring back decency within their borders as well...

Of course, suggestive cheerleading is by no means the only representative of indecency in our nation, but it's a start. Think about it: At a high school game, is it really doing the adult men any good to see underage girls dancing in ways that most adult women would be ashamed to? Heck, is it even good for the boys? Tell me, what purpose can such suggestive cheerleading really serve, besides promoting unhealthy lust?

Rah rah.

You Know You're From 2005 When...

2005-05-02T08:49:00.000-04:00

1. You accidentally enter your password on the microwave.

2. You haven't played solitaire with real cards in years.

3. You have a list of 15 phone numbers to reach your family of 3.

4. You e-mail the person who works at the desk next to you.

5. Your reason for not staying in touch with friends and family is that they don't have e-mail addresses.

6. You go home after a long day at work and you still answer the phone in a business-like manner

7. You make phone calls from home and you accidentally dial "9" to get an outside line.

8. You've sat at the same desk for four years and worked for three different companies.

10. You learn about your redundancy on the 11 o'clock news.

11. Your boss doesn't have the ability to do your job.

12. You pull up in your own driveway and use your cell phone to see if anyone is home.

13. Every commercial on television has a website at the bottom of the screen.

14. Leaving the house without your cell phone, which you didn't have the first 20 or 30 (or 60)
years of your life, is now a cause for panic and you turn around to go and get it.

15. You get up in the morning and go online before getting your coffee.

16. You start tilting your head sideways to smile. :)

17. You're reading this and nodding and laughing.

18. Even worse, you know exactly to whom you are going to forward this message.

19. You are too busy to notice there was no #9 on this list.

20. You actually scrolled back up to check that there wasn't a #9 on this list.

I hope this redeems me, after that Napoleon Dynamite joke...

Yes, I'm Still France-Bashing

2005-04-28T22:47:00.000-04:00

Jacque Chirac defending his foreign policy:

"Bonjour, my name is Jacque Chirac. I lead a country where the people eat snails, make heterosexuality look like a bad thing, and share a common language with baboons. Unfortunately, these virtues make us rather ineffective in war, so I cover up our weaknesses by cozying up to every dictator I can find. And you know what? Once you get past their genocidal side, these guys are pretty nice (go figure)! It's those freedom-mongers across the sea that you have to look out for; if they had their way, I'd have no despots to associate with! Without these vital associations, I would have no way to cover up France's military weakness."

"Therefore, it is crucial that France oppose freedom and its supporters WHEREVER they may raise their ugly heads; our national security depends on such dictatorial oppression. I am confident that not only France will benefit from this foreign policy, but that the entire world will also. By opposing freedom and and turning a blind eye toward the activities of totalitarian heads-of-state, we will prevent a repeat of WWII. Instead of all that nasty conflict, we will instead live in peace as tyrants destroy their own people, and passively plot against Western civilization. Such safety as I have guaranteed you has not been seen since Saddam was still in power, and I am confident that it will last at least as long as the current Pope."

"VIVE LE FRANCE!"

Least Interesting Headline of the Month

2005-04-25T21:12:00.000-04:00

Elton John to "Marry" His Partner

Wow. So what am I supposed to do with this bit of info? I'm glad someone was there to tell me about it...

Seriously, I don't care who STRAIGHT celebrities marry, so why would Elton John's lust life be of any interest to me?

It's nothing but National Enquirer fodder. Even Yahoo should be above posting that waste of bandwidth.

Just Give Her Candy

2005-04-23T18:37:00.000-04:00

Wow, this is a story that would make me lose faith in humanity, if it didn't happen in "How-do-you-work-this-thing" Florida.

So a little hellion down in Florida pitches a hissy-fit, and the teachers and administrators called her mom to come restrain her. The child climbed on desks, tore paper off of a bulletin board, and became violent with the teachers, kicking and punching several of them.

According to the articles I have read, the mother couldn't come to restrain the child, so after many pleas to calm the child down, the powerless school administrators called the cops. The police came and, recognizing the child from a previous incident, handcuffed her (gently).

Now, from an irrational point of view, this is obviously unacceptable! The school should have found a way to calm the girl down! "Talk to her calmly to defuse the situation," says the imbecile lawyer! Nevermind the fact that that had already been done... Maybe we should just give her some cookies, for cryin' out loud!

This irrational point of view is where the mother is coming from, as she is now suing the police department for handcuffing her daughter.

Now let's look at this logically...

The child was having a *violent* temper tantrum. She hit teachers, was destructive, and distracted the other students. The first thing the teachers did was talk to her, trying to get her to calm down. Good move, but unfortunately it didn't work. Next step? Send her to the principal. Well, the principal (or assistant principal) tried talking to the girl, and that didn't work either. She continued being violent. Next, the school did the logical thing and called the girl's mom. The mom, as I understand it, couldn't come to restrain the girl, which put the school in an awkward position.

The school had exhausted all its resources for dealing with this unruly girl. They could not restrain her, and she was being violent, which is quite unacceptable and must be stopped. The only option that the school had left was to call in a higher authority, and that's what they did by calling the cops, who handcuffed the violent child.

John Trevena, the lawyer for the girl's mother, said it is incomprehensible that the police officers would take such action over a youngster's behaviour. Heaven forbid anyone should teach the child a lesson she apparently wouldn't learn otherwise.

The police were perfectly justified in what they did. I don't care if you are 5 or 55, if you are violent, you need to deal with the consequences. Now, I'm not advocating locking the girl up, but she needed to learn where such behavior can lead. If no one can intervene (the girl's mom is obviously opposed to this), then the girl is setting patterns that will be very harmful for herself and others in the future.

The behavior that this girl exhibited was entirely unacceptable, and I'm all for finding other ways to punish the girl besides calling the cops. However, there was no other option available in this situation, as the school is not allowed to punish children adequately. If the parents won't give a child consequences, and the schools can't, then the cops are going to have to do it sooner or later. Should they do it now, while the girl won't be locked up and can't really hurt anyone, or should they wait until she commits a serious crime and spends time in jail?

The impotence of the school administrators is just more proof that the public school system is broken... I pray for my peers who are stuck in it.

A Long-Awaited Post

2005-04-21T21:40:00.000-04:00

Ah... I've GOT to post something!

The Cardinals have finally elected a Pope, Benedict XVI. Word is he's very conservative, which means that we've still got a Conservative ally in the worldwide Catholic church. For now, anyway... he seems rather old, don't you think? I'm glad he was elected, though I didn't have too strong an interest in the election because I, obviously, am not Catholic.

I look forward to having a cultural ally, even if I don't agree with Catholicism.

And those are my thoughts. Please stand by for real blog posts... I'm very busy at present, but I'm going to do my best to bring you more of the Neo you know and love (or simply tolerate).

Peace (through strength) y'all,
Neo

A Joke I Heard Recently

2005-04-16T21:11:00.000-04:00

Highlight the rest of the post for the answer to this joke...

What did Napoleon Dynamite say to Michael Jackson?

The defect in this one is bleach...

You Guys Are Great!

2005-04-15T17:59:00.000-04:00

Hey, I just wanted to give a shout out to all the great people who read and comment on this blog! Whether your Conservative, Liberal, or even if you just don't care, it's great to have you here reading and commenting. I love seeing what you have to say about my posts, and I'm firmly convinced I have the coolest group of blogfriends this side of cyberspace.

You guys rock!
Neo

2005-04-10T19:33:00.000-04:00

"I agree with you completely." -Saddam Hussein

"Who Would Want To Live Like That?"

2005-04-09T21:24:00.000-04:00

That is the question asked by Beth Gaddy, referring to her grandmother's glaucoma and heart problems. Mrs. Gaddy, because of her grandmother's heart problems and glaucoma, is attempting to have her starved by the removal of her feeding tube. The kicker? The grandmother, Mae Magouirk, has a living will that states she does not want food or water withheld from her UNLESS she is comatose or in a PVS. She is neither of these things.

Check out Reggienation and Grizzly Mama for the story.

My question is this: How long have pro-lifers been warning that acceptance of euthanasia can lead to more and more human beings getting killed? I'm not going to go all alarmist on you just yet, but when a granddaughter can trump a living will, just because of the value she places on a life, I get a little worried.

In response to Mrs. Gaddy's question, "who would want to live with disabilities like these?"

I tell you that I would. Keep me alive until I am comatose, the majority of my body is not functioning on its own, and it is known beyond shadow of a doubt that I can not recover. I would rather live than die. It's that simple. If it's tough, if I've got some disabilities, so did Helen Keller. So did Beethoven. So did FDR. Countless people have lived with disabilities, and I'm not going to be the one to dishonor them by saying "a life like that isn't worth living." It is worth living. It is life, and whether it is made more difficult by deafness, paralyzation, a coma, heart problems, or an array of other disabilities, it is still a life, and it is worth fighting for.

If we lose our respect for life, then what can we respect? Life is the most basic thing we have; we can lose our jobs, our pets, our money, our houses, our families, and our friends. We can lose every single thing we own, but we will have our lives as long as we remain alive. Life is the thing that sticks with us until our dying day, and if we can't even respect it and find it worth fighting for, then how can we respect anything else we own? If we can't respect our own lives, then how can we respect our friends lives? If we are like Mrs. Gaddy and we can't even respect our family's lives, then how can we respect the life of a total stranger?

And if we can't even respect a stranger's life, my friend, then what kind of society do we live in?

Sorry, Yes, but I've Got a Lucky Horseshoe!

2005-04-09T12:45:00.000-04:00

"... As a matter of fact, I didn't want this for the oppressed Iraqis or underprivileged kids stuck in failing schools either. I'd rather keep all the freedom for myself, thank you."

"So yeah, I'm sorry."

Sorry Liberals

2005-04-09T11:16:00.000-04:00

...And the other half misspell it.

Your daily dose of sorry liberals at sorryeverybody.com

Democracy vs. Oligarchy

2005-04-06T21:36:00.000-04:00

According to Yahoo! News, Kansas has banned gay marriage as well as civil unions. The legislature approved it, and the voters did too. That, my friends, is democracy in action.

Democracy, meet Oligarchy. Oligarchy in this country is characterized by a group of people in black robes with an apparent disdain for the Constitution as it was written. They attempt to bypass proper democratic means of creating laws, instead creating a common law that looks nothing like the written law it claims to uphold.

Democracy and Oligarchy are directly opposed to each other. Democracy, by definition, involves rule by the people, while oligarchy is rule by the few. In the imminent court battles over the ban on gay marriage, we will see which form of government prevails in our country. Do the people rule, or do the judges? I vote that the people do, but the if we live in an oligarchy, then my vote doesn't really matter, does it?

Judicial tyranny must end. Impeachment is an option; maybe soon the judges will have to face the consequences of their usurpation of power.

We're the citizens of the United States, and we'd like our voices back.

Paying Respect

2005-04-05T14:27:00.000-04:00

On Saturday, Pope John Paul II died at age 84. As the world mourns, the College of Cardinals is preparing to elect a successor. Here is an interesting article on potential successors.

Although I'm obviously not Catholic, I feel that JPII was a great man who took a strong stance on important cultural issues. May he rest in peace.

Terri Schiavo's Murder is Complete

2005-03-31T10:37:00.000-05:00

Terri Schiavo is officially dead. After 13 days of starvation at the hands of her husband, she has finally passed away. May she rest in peace.

Welcome to our society, our culture of death. We pamper our pets, and starve our wives when they become inconvenient. In sickness or in health, Mr. Schiavo; you made that vow, and you honored it only as long as it would help you win malpractice suits. You sick... Well, I don't have to call him any names; we all know full well what he is.

The frightening thing is that so many people in America support this greedy, adulterous murderer. Ladies and gentlemen, when humans attempt to decide whose life is worth living, and kill those who aren't worth keeping alive, that is playing God. We can't ascribe value to these people's lives! And yet, so many want to take the life of anyone who "isn't worth it." The sad thing is that this isn't the first time such an attitude has pervaded a culture.

Anybody remember Adolf Hitler? He did the exact same thing! He took the lives of people based on how valuable he determined their lives to be. Nazism is a horrible thing, and yet many people in America are infatuated with its tenets, fighting to end life based on how valuable we perceive it to be. This is not compassion, and it is not dignity; it is blatant, selfish stupidity, and I am ashamed for my country.

This happened in my country. Right here, in MY AMERICA, a lady was starved by Nazis, crusading under the banner of dignity and compassion. This country that I love, the Land of the Free, is being changed into its very antithesis. Freedom for all has been given some fine print: Freedom for All (unless you just ain't worth it).

And now, at the hands of the Michael Schiavo and his Nazi-esque supporters, Terri is dead. My neighbor's crippled dog is still fed adequately, but Terri just wasn't worth it. I had hoped that Hitler's ideology would have stopped killing people after WWII. Instead, it's just migrated to the United States.

Sieg Heil, baby.

Top Ten Reasons to Criminalize Homeschooling

2005-03-30T23:07:00.000-05:00

I love Scrappleface! Hat tip to Grizzly Mama!

The Top Ten Reasons to Criminalize Homeschooling:

*Most parents were educated in the underfunded public school system, and so are not smart enough to homeschool their own children.

*Children who receive one-on-one homeschooling will learn more than others, giving them an unfair advantage in the marketplace. This is undemocratic.

*How can children learn to defend themselves unless they have to fight off bullies on a daily basis?

*Ridicule from other children is important to the socialization process.

*Children in public schools can get more practice "Just Saying No" to drugs, cigarettes and alcohol.

*Fluorescent lighting may have significant health benefits.

*Publicly asking permission to go to the bathroom teaches young people their place in society.

*The fashion industry depends upon the peer pressure that only public schools can generate.

*Public schools foster cultural literacy, passing on important traditions like the singing of "Jingle Bells, Batman smells, Robin laid an egg..."

*Homeschooled children may not learn important office career skills, like how to sit still for six hours straight.

DARE to Resist Theistic Evolution

2005-03-29T18:40:00.000-05:00

Bible Sponge has a nice verse to demolish Theistic Evolution. Simply put, Theistic Evolution attempts to reconcile Evolution and the Bible. Sorry, but this verse leaves no room for reconciliation.

Check it out.

I Love Open Threads

2005-03-29T16:59:00.000-05:00

WorldMagBlog is currently experimenting with "open threads," or threads with an open topic. In them, commenters can just chat, or discuss any topic they like. They're fun!

Here's the first one.

Terri Moans and Grimaces

2005-03-28T23:13:00.000-05:00

I'm just amazed. As Terri starves, she moans and grimaces, such that even the nurses notice, and yet she is still said to be in a Persistent Vegetative State, and is still being starved.

Part of the reason they're starving her is because they believe she's in a PVS. The pain she is experiencing proves she's not in a PVS. But they're still starving her. I don't quite see the logic...

"Johnny, eat your peas. There are starving people in Florida who would love to have them."

Schiavo Moans and Grimaces

2005-03-28T22:56:00.000-05:00

I'm just amazed. As Terri starves, she moans and grimaces, such that even the nurses notice, and yet she is still said to be in a PVS, and is still being starved.

The starvation she is experiencing because of the alleged PVS proves she's not in a PVS. But she's still being starved. I don't quite see the logic...

"Johnny, eat your peas. There are starving people in Florida who would love to have them."

Congress and Terri Schiavo

2005-03-27T19:42:00.000-05:00

Of all the arguments that the Terri Schiavo case has sparked, the issue of whether or not the federal government should have gotten involved appears to be the saddest.

It's like this: The Constitution provided for "checks and balances" within our government, with each of the branches helping to keep the other two in check. When one gets out of line, the other two have to put it back in place (as though you all didn't already know that).

The judges in Terri Schiavo's case have gotten out of line, and the action taken by Congress and the President was intended to keep judicial tyranny in check, not meddle in personal affairs. Simply because it involved a person, you can't shout "personal affairs" and pretend that the government is not allowed to get involved.

The judges issued rulings based on the testimony of a party that would receive money should
Terri die, and they even allowed hearsay, which is usually inadmissible in court. The courts ignored the logical alternative to putting an innocent to death, and decided on starvation as the method of execution. These actions needed to be checked, and the government is the only group capable of doing so (aside from impeachment by the people).

So yes, the government WAS out of line... if you're referring to the judicial branch. Congress was just doing it's job, and it just so happened that they were trying to save an innocent woman in the process.

The horror!

Just Asking...

2005-03-26T21:44:00.000-05:00

If I saw a homeless guy on the street, and remarked in passing "I just couldn't live like that," does that mean I should starve myself if I were to lose all my money?

If I saw an amputee, and said "I'd rather just die if I were to lose a limb," does that mean that I could legitimately commit suicide, should I lose my right arm?

Beware the culture that embraces death. Our love and respect for life has dwindled so much that many Americans want to kill a brain-damaged lady. These same people would rather die themselves than be brain damaged. No love or respect for God-given life; just the search for an easy way out.

We have become so dependent upon prime living conditions that we don't know how to weather any storms. We're a country of sissies; we don't see life as something worth fighting for, so forget about fighting for freedom. If it's not handed to us, we won't try to get it, and if we don't get it, we'd rather die.

What does it say about the state of the country when everyone has the mindset of a spoiled 3-year-old?

And these people are proud of their convictions.

Terri Schiavo's Health Deteriorates

2005-03-25T09:00:00.000-05:00

According to Yahoo, Terri's health is waning.

If your health is capable of deteriorating, doesn't that mean there's enough for it to be preserved? If you're healthy enough that your health can get worse, doesn't that mean you shouldn't be put to death?

See what Kate Adamson has to say! Starving and dehydrating can't be fun, and any callous son-of-a-gun who thinks otherwise can try it himself, and then he can kiss my pro-life butt.

More Facts About Terri Schiavo

2005-03-22T19:14:00.000-05:00

I've been looking around for a little more information about Terri Schiavo, and I've found some interesting stuff.

In 1992, the jury in a medical malpractice suit against one of Terri's physicians awarded Michael Schiavo and Terri over one million dollars. After attorney's fees and other expenses, Michael's money from the suit totaled 300,000 dollars. Of the award, about 750,000 dollars of it was put in a trust fund specifically for Terri's medical care. Since the jury's decision, Michael has not spent the 750,000 dollars on treatment for Terri. How convenient, considering that should Terri die, Michael, as her legal guardian, would inherit this money.

During the malpractice trial where the jury awarded this money, Michael and his attorneys claimed that Terri WOULD NOT want to die in this situation. Michael also claimed he would take care of Terri and help her get better, something he has made no effort to do since the trial. He may have even claimed that Terri wanted therapy in her condition, but regardless of whether or not he said that, the fact is that he has refused to do what he said he would in the trial.

Michael is also reported to have said this on national television:

We didn’t know what Terri wanted but this (the feeding tube removal) is what we want…

That means he can now be tried for perjury. Let's get the ball rollin', people!

Terri had no living will when her heart stopped. Therefore, there is no evidence as to her wishes that would be admissible in court. The decision to remove her feeding tube was made based on what Michael reported that Terri had said. However, that is hearsay, and is inadmissible in court under most circumstances. Furthermore, Michael clearly has a stake in whether or not she dies (if she dies, he gets the money), so his testimony was unreliable.

Michael has tried to kill Terri in more than one way. In 1994, he attempted to deny her treatment for an infection. As I understand it, it was at this time that the Schindlers sought to have Michael removed as her guardian, citing abuse and other allegations.

Obviously, Michael is in this for the money. He has denied Terri the rehab that she was awarded money to pay for, he has denied her treatment for an infection, and he has not even allowed Terri's parents to see her. Furthermore, he has lied under oath. The man is a lying, cheating scumbag, and no matter what happens to Terri, he should be charged with neglect, abuse, and perjury, among other things.

Based on these facts and others, Terri's feeding tube should be put back in, and Michael should be replaced as her guardian and taken to court. It's time for this injustice to stop.

SOURCES:

Dr. Cranford's Complete Terri Schiavo Report

The Empire Journal

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

Terri Schiavo

2005-03-21T14:16:00.000-05:00

Terri Schiavo's feeding tube has once again been removed, and the fight to have it reinserted is underway.

For those of you who don't know, Mrs. Schiavo is a brain damaged lady in Florida. Her husband, Michael, is fighting to have her starved to death, rather than rehabilitated. Keep in mind that it's illegal to starve a horse, my friends... Somehow a disabled human does not deserve such protection.

According to the article:

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a possible potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.

Michael Schiavo insists that she is in a persistent vegetative state, and is attempting to have her starved. However, a persistent vegetative state (PVS) is defined this way:

A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.

Terrisfight.org records many instances in which Terri has shown a definite awareness of her environment; she has been shown responding to music, tracking a balloon with her eyes, interacting with her mother, and has even been reported to use words. Despite the diagnoses by the court-ordered doctors, Terri Schiavo is certainly not in a PVS.

So why have her starved (or murdered in any way)? She obviously is aware of her environment, and others in her position have fully recovered with therapy. Take, for instance, Kate Adamson. She was once in a worse condition than Terri, being unable to even *blink her eyes*. Doctors tried to starve her too, but her husband who loves her (unlike Michael Schiavo) fought to have her treated. Today, Mrs. Adamson is fully recovered, and fighting for Terri.

So, with all the evidence that Terri is NOT in a persistent vegetative state and that she CAN recover, why does Michael continue to fight for the murder of his wife? What could cause him to be so heartless?

Obviously, the physical therapy would be costly, and emotionally draining. Mr. Schiavo, however, could easily sign over custody of Terri to her parents; he won't consider that option, however. The schmuck insists that Terri would want to die, despite the fact that she could recover.

But why? Why, why, why, why, WHY?! I'll tell you why: He's a greedy, contemptible dirtbag with no respect for anyone's life but his own. He wants the insurance money from her death. He wants to be free to marry his mistress (who he has lived with for ten years and fathered two children by), but he doesn't want to do that until he has Terri's insurance money. If he divorced her and signed custody over to her parents, he'd never get the money. This unfaithful neanderthal can't even respect his own wife's right to life.

This case has been called a "Right-To-Die" case. That's a complete lie. This is a "right-to-murder" case, and until now, the courts have been ruling in favor of the aspiring murderer. Does a man have the right to deny his wife treatment and have her killed, despite the fact that she has a good chance of recovering? Can a doctor procure the murder by starvation (or any other means) of a woman, if a doctor's duty is to TREAT the sick, not kill them?

This is a clear-cut case, and only the most despicable among us could deny Terri Schiavo's right to life, nutrition, and treatment. Michael does not have to remain married to her, but he could at least try to do one unselfish thing with his pitiful life. He could at least sign custody of his wife over to her parents. Then he'd be free to do as he wishes.

Please Mr. Schiavo. Just one thing. Just do one respectable thing, after 15 years.

I won't hold my breath though; old habits die hard, and selfish ones die hardest. We may need to find another way to help Terri.

God save Terri Schiavo.

Presidential March Madness

2005-03-17T22:06:00.000-05:00

Surfing the blogosphere, I came across a link to an interesting website, via Bunnie Diehl's blog.

Please, go here and vote for J. C. Watts! And anybody else you like... :-D