yankeejwb's Xanga

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:02:23 GMT

More bragging pics

I've written enough this week. Time for some more domestic goodness.

Don't think you're gonna break out the ice cream without her getting her share.

Little Miss Independent, getting ready to sleep over at Mimi's.

Sunday School Memorial Day picnic.
That dog puts up with an awful lot.

Working in Daddy's shop means being safe.

Not too macho to play dolls with my daughter :]

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:38:46 GMT

That's right. I'm listening to ABBA. I'm a wierdo, remember?

Going Green

Okay, so it isn't exactly enough to sustain the whole family. But at least those tomatoes will be salmonella-free. Maybe I can sell the surplus and put some gas in my car. So technically I'll be fueling my car with tomatoes. That's being green, right? Especially if they're green tomatoes! Hey wait, I can fry those and put them on a burger, just like Zoo Zoo's on St. Simons Island in Georgia...

Got some green pepper plants and some sweet basil too. I love plants you can just pick and eat right there. I need some parsley too, maybe some cilantro. Our front porch area is quickly filling up with assorted plant life. Helps filter out that nasty carbon dioxide that's causing global warming. Plus there won't be any transportation cost to get them. Just step outside and pick em.

Oh yeah. Bought a reel mower today, the kind that's people powered, no motor. Actually, they say those things cut the grass much better than power mowers. Something about the way the blades slice. In all honesty, it's no harder to push than a power mower (not a self-propelled type), and it uses no gas or oil, which means I'm reducing my carbon footprint even further . See, I'm doing my part!

Okay, I'll be up front: our old mower broke for the second time, and a self-propelled was too stinkin' expensive. This one was a third of the cost, and will probably last longer. Plus, mowing is probably the most exercise I get all week, so I'm probably better off providing the push power. But I should still get some environmental kudos.

Anyone interested in purchasing a carbon offset credit from me, just send me a message. Better hurry before Al puts his bid in...

Ain't the one on the left just a cutie? Just thought I'd post a recent family pic. Jackie's growing. She's 2 1/2 now. Knows most of her letters, can count to 20, basic colors, shapes, and can spot Spongebob Squarepants a mile away. Must be all that time she spent at her Gran's, because I don't let that freaky sponge in my house. Anyway, she's pretty sharp. Gets it from her mom.
A Good Book

The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls. Big time best-seller, I gather. Apparently Oprah had her on (my wife's aunt told me. I don't watch t.v., and even if I did, I wouldn't watch the O). If you think you have a crazy family, you should read this book. One moment you're thinking, "What a cool family", and the next moment you think, "What a psychotic, selfish @$%!" Still trying to decide which.

A Good Movie

The Great Debaters. Produced by Oprah. Really, I'm not that much of a fan of hers, but Denzel Washington directed and acted in it, and he's one of the best actors around in my opinion (John Q excepted). It's the true story of a debate team from Wiley College, a small black college, during the mid-thirties. It embodies what Bill Cosby tried to say in 2004.

A Good Dish

Austyn's Restaurant. If you're ever near southern Ohio, you really should check it out. The restaurant is a converted train depot. The food is a mix of American and Oriental cuisine. I never get the same thing twice. The chef there is one of the few in this area (unless you want to shell out 60 bucks a plate or more) that takes aesthetics as seriously as the cooking, a mark of a true chef. I've had the roast duck tenderloin and Orange Roughy Roulade. And the portions are actually enough to fill you. Five stars.

A Good Cause

Operation Smile. I think I've mentioned it before. It's one of those tear-jerker operations you see on t.v. like Feed the Children, and every bit worth your generosity.

One more Good Movie

The Champ. 1979. Starring Jon Voight, Faye Dunaway, and Ricky Schroeder in his film debut. If you haven't choked up at least once by the time this film is over, you are a heartless stump. This is one of those films a guy wouldn't be the least bit ashamed to cry over. It is the story of a son who idolizes a dad that, in many respects, doesn't do a whole lot to give the kid a reason to do so. It's way over dramatic, and it isn't fast paced like modern films, and the plot at times seems to be held together with a shoestring, but you'll want to watch it again anyway.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:53:29 GMT

Jim the Gun-loving wierdo fascist

I've had this blog for almost three years, and in that time I've had quite a few 'debates' with people on issues that could be considered controversial, that tend to evoke very emotional responses. I've lost a few and won a few. Most have been between me and one of you. I can't think of anyone I've had one of those debates with that wasn't intelligent, honest, and, usually, well-informed. Some of those debates have touched on issues close to home for one or both of us. But in the end, I think we've come away having both learned something, and grown a little.

For the past couple days I've been trying to engage in a discussion over gun rights issues with someone that I will not name. This discussion came to an unfortunate conclusion when I was told that she had decided to unsubscribe to this site, removed me from her friend list, and asked that I do the same (which I have). She has since written another post where she has attached the label found in the title of this post to me, hyperlinked to this site.

Now, this really bothers me. It's the first time it's happened, and any time something like that happens, I think it's a good idea to take a step back and do a self-examination. I mean, part of why I do this blog is because I think that keeping a public conversation going on certain issues is an important service, and as insignificant and flawed as it is, I feel like I have something to add. However, I also believe that one can win the battle and still lose the war, so to speak. I have seen a lot of arguments on this forum that became nothing more than everyone trying to beat the other guy over the head and prove how much smarter one person is than another. That does nothing to advance understanding or the greater good. If you manage to prove you're right, but you do so by just rubbing someone's nose in the dirt or hurling mud at them so fast that they just cave, have you really accomplished anything of value?

Those of you who actually bother to read the ramblings and ravings I post here (and if you don't I don't hold it against you. My wife rolls her eyes at much of what I say too, and probably with good reason), know that I can be, um, strong-headed about some things, certain hot-button issues that I care very deeply about, like abortion, the decline and destruction of childhood, the deplorable state of the popular media, etc. You have all been very gracious in trying to see through some of my stubborness and believe that I'm not really trying to be a bully or an antagonist. The fact that some of you still subscribe is evidence of that (Lorelli, you especially, because I know you have no interest in much of what gets posted here, and I don't blame you). But I really want to know something: am I really as bad as that person thinks I am? Do you think I push too hard? Seriously.

Now, don't get me wrong. I firmly believe that hardball debate is a legitimate means of working through an issue, that sugar coating something does no service to the truth. However, I think I try fairly hard to avoid letting it descend into insults, unnecessary sarcasm, and personal attack.

Look, don't get the wrong idea here: I'm not fishing for easy affirmation to salve any wounds here. I'm a big boy who is willing to take his licks just as much as I dish 'em out. But I also know that sometimes it can be hard to stay objective about oneself, and an outside opinion can be valuable.

So let me have it. Both barrels if necessary. I promise I won't sic my storm troopers on you.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT

One simple question

Can you think of at least three people you've seen/met/heard of that could be considered lazy? I don't mean the kind of lazy we all indulge in from time to time. I mean lazy to the point that he/she seriously neglects his/her responsibilities.

I bet you can. So here's a follow-up: how come you never hear a Democrat (or any left-leaning pundit/politician/voter) admit that a significant number of people out of work are that way because they're the type of person described above? Just too lazy to get and/or keep a job?

Because if I were to only listen to politicians and activists from the left, it would be awfully easy to get the impression that lazy people fit into the same category as green men from outer space - there's rumors of such beings floating around, but the only people willing to confirm their existence are the type you don't really want to listen to anyway. Oh, they'll tell you all about people being oppressed, laid off, discriminated against, victimized, downsized, ostrasized, and disenfranchised. And of course, there's always that group that keeps getting 'shut out of the American dream', the ones from the less fortunate of the 'two Americas'. But no lazy people. Not a one. Well, not quite. There are the lazy ones that are lazy because they're rich and can pay someone else to do all their work for them, but that's not who I'm talking about. I mean the ones that are in that 'lesser America', not because their job got outsourced, or because they couldn't gain access to a decent education. I mean as in poor, living in the dumps, just scraping by, and living that way because they are just flat-out lazy.

Bill Cosby would have no problem finding such people. Why can't Obama? Or Clinton? Or Olberman? Or Pelosi? So tell me: what gives?

I can just hear all the 'But's' and excuses now. But please, give me your ideas on this. I'd really like to know.

And in the interest of 'fairness', I'll pick something from the other side of the aisle in my next post.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:37:37 GMT

God Bless America

Looks like the SCOTUS finally acknowledged the fact that I have a right to take appropriate measures to defend myself and my family, including the right to own a handgun.

It took over 200 years to come to that conclusion, but better late than never.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:37:12 GMT

The broken record

Until you can give me an honest, reality-based, workable means of making Medicare AND Social Security solvent, AND strengthen the dollar so it isn't the laughing stock of the financial world, don't talk to me about:

-4K tuition grants to every college freshman

-federally subsidized health care

-cutting corporate taxes

-using the regulatory power of Congress to force a switch to alternative fuels by preventing further oil exploration without explaining where you're also going to find the funds to placate the screaming millions of working voters who will not tolerate soaring food and energy prices while you're waiting for this magic solution to our 'oil addiction' to bear substantial fruit. Because if you don't placate them, you're out of office bud. And the guy/girl that takes your job will waste no time in looking for more oil just as fast as he/she can to at least give the appearance of doing something to relieve the supply market and lower oil futures, undoing all that 'hard work'.

- how tax cuts will pay for themselves. No, they won't. Not now. That only works when tax rates are already at a certain level, and they haven't been at that level since 1981. Sorry Rush. I used to believe that one too.

Neither candidate can or will come up with an answer to all this. Not a real answer based on fact. So what's a voter to do? Well, since I'd like to think that I try to avoid letting my vote become based on who makes me 'feel inspired' or comes across as a guy I'd 'like to have a beer with', I've whittled it down to one simple criteria: who will do the least damage.

The way I see it, Congress will only become more dominated this election by the Democratic party. For that reason, I want a government as balanced as possible, with a president that won't be able to just swoop down and do whatever the heck he wants with a rubber-stamp Congress backing him up and failing to provide the checks and balances the Constitution was constructed to preserve. It is for this reason and, sadly, this reason above all, that I'm going to go ahead and vote for McCain. Is he a dunderhead on economics? Yup. Is he shamelessly exploiting his military experience? Yup. There's actually very little about the guy that makes me want to vote for him (this wasn't always true. About six months ago I really thought he might be a good choice. That is, until he started opening his mouth and revealing just how clueless he is about some things). But having him in office will force the White House and Congress to actually negotiate legislation a bit, and while that still doesn't guarantee that what does become law will be good law, at least it will have a filtering effect of some sort. An Obama victory would mean a tidal wave of foolish, ill-considered 'change' that would not have the benefit of substantial debate. It will be carried on the wings of emotionistic populism and euphoric, wishful thinking. Let's not forget what a lack of balance between the two branches got us the last eight years: an ill-conceived and poorly executed war, a disastrous monetary policy, and an expansion of government where it had no business (or funding for) expanding, i.e., Prescription Drug Program. Obama with a willing Congress is a bad idea.

Oh yeah. At least with McCain I'm not worried about my right to arm myself. The more I read the news, the more I want that right safeguarded. My handgun is not a threat to you or any one else that isn't a threat to my life or that of my family. Obama has no right to suggest that it is, and certainly no right to call for any legislation or court action that would treat it as such. That's a Bill of Rights issue. I'm not compromising on that.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:48:48 GMT

My field trip

Yesterday our family headed to Cincinnati Children's Hospital because one of my wife's cousins had an appointment. It was decided beforehand that we would take the opportunity while we were out there to make a day of it and head over to the Creation Museum, just across the Ohio River in Kentucky. Maybe you've heard of it. It's a brand new museum built to present the Young Earth Creationist perspective.

I'll clear the air a bit right off the bat: I'm not sure where I stand on this. I believe in a Creator, therefore I have no problem believing that He could take as long or as little time as He wished to create all that exists. The real question is, which origin theory does the physical evidence best support, and which one does the text of Scripture demand? That's a big question, one I'm not going to get into here. What I will state for the record is that I do not agree with the concept of macroevolution (species evolving into different species), but have no issue with microevolution (variations within species), and regardless of one's position, there is little doubt that an awful lot of the arguments over this matter are the direct result of not keeping the distinction between those two concepts clear. I will also state for the record that I find a number of the arguments for Young Earth Creationism increasingly dubious, particularly the dependence upon biblical geneologies for arriving at a figure of roughly 6,000 years as the age of the Earth. In short, I made this trip committed to maintaining as objective a mentality as possible.

One thing is for certain: it is a facility entirely devoted to one specific interpretation of origins, and it makes no bones about it (harhar). A pro/con list would probably be the best way to summarize things.

PRO:

- Very professionally done. Top notch facility with state-of-the-art everything, including the bathrooms! They had a number of animatronic dinosaurs that were realistic enough to give you a profound impression of what it would be like to actually encounter one. That alone was worth the price of admission ($20 for adults). After seeing only picture books, skeleton re-constructions, and a couple Spielberg movies, it's amazing how seeing something life-size moving and sounding like a real animal can transform your thinking and make you realize, "These things really did walk the earth".

The grounds were beautiful, with a mile of walking paths through an incredible array of plant life.

- They make no attempt to waylay visitors about the purpose of the place: they are interested in evangelism. It would probably seem a little heavy-handed to the unconverted, but I'd say you know what you're paying for before you ever actually get to the ticket counter, so you have a clear chance to turn away long before you get to the outright gospel presentation (which is a short film at the end). And no, there are no 'altar calls'. My point is, they don't try to trick anyone about why they're there, so however you may actually feel about what they're doing, you can't say they are being deceptive.

- If you're a Christian and you want to give your kids a chance to 'see' a full-scale, realistic depiction of the first eight chapters of Genesis, I couldn't imagine a better place to take them. There is a large display dedicated to Noah's Ark that is pretty neat.

CONS:

- as I said earlier, totally one-sided, even to the exclusion of any other origins model with a belief in a Creator. I think this severely hampers the larger purpose of fostering an intelligent, comprehensive belief in that Creator, because even if a person ultimately decides on Young Earth Creationism, the ability to understand and appreciate other perspectives is both healthy and necessary.

- It really isn't a museum. It's a walk-through gospel presentation focused on Creationism. For one thing, I have to wonder if they'll be able to periodically change displays and offer comprehensive presentations of archaeological findings. If not, the entire thing risks becoming a static facility after a few years and losing its appeal.

- An awful lot of really neat, detailed models and full-size diplays depicting biblical events and characters, but not nearly as many displays dealing with hard archaelogical artifacts and research findings. Obviously, a lot of people will contend that this is because 'hard' evidence and research would blow apart their entire theory, so of course they exclude such things. While I think certain parts of their theory would indeed become much more questionable (and that bothers me, that they're not wanting to put anything in there that would 'complicate' things too much and 'interrupt the flow' of the 'presentation), there are countless things that they could incorporate to introduce people to natural history. But that isn't the point of it all. The point is evangelism. So the pro listed above is also a con. They spent almost 30 million dollars to build a facility that isn't really about developing a love of science and educating people about any individual aspect of the natural world. The dinosaurs, plants, geological displays are simply 'tools' to make a point. Kinda like building an art 'museum' for the sole purpose of proving that, say, Impressionism is superior to Cubism. The objects themselves lose something. They become devices to be utilized rather than wonders to be admired and observed for their own sake. There's something very unfortunate - and short-sighted, I think - about such a thing, and it bothered me.

But there's one last thought I have about this trip. If I had to guess, I'd say that the Creation Museum will have only two possible effects on most people: either confirm what they already accept, or provide further ammo for those who reject Young Earth Creationism. But there's one part of the museum that was both the strangest and the most though-provoking.

Near the beginning of the 'walk through', there is an area devoted to attempting to show the social, religious, and political consequences of accepting Darwinian (and Neo-Darwinian) Evolution. It argues that the loss of the existence and relevance of a personal Creator will eventually bring about everything from the breakdown of family to genocide to the collapse of the Church as a viable social influence. There's a section made to look like a crime-ridden street, a crumbling church, and a dilapidated 'home'. There's also a room that flashes pictures of everything from the Killing Fields to the L.A. Riots.

Now, I know that a lot of people would immediately raise a lot of objections to this line of argument, that those displays are slanderous, innaccurate, and hopelessly simplistic. I've had arguments with people in the past over such issues, but that's not why I mentioned this part of the museum. The reason I mention it is because, at least at first glance, one would probably wonder, "What the heck does a display like that have any business doing in any facility with the word 'museum' on the front of it?" Honestly, as I was going through it, I wondered that a bit myself, and my comments above about the complete lack of objectivity are tied to this. But as I thought about it last night, another thought came to me.

However slanted, innaccurate, or heavy-handed it may have been, that display was ultimately about one thing: arguing that however one decides such things, there is no avoiding the fact that what one believes about the origin of the universe, and all that is contained therein - particularly the human race - has unavoidable, long-term, and far-reaching implications for every aspect of society.

Whenever you walk into any 'normal' museum of natural sciences, you see a lot of bones, artifacts, pictures, etc. One could, I suppose, spend all day in such a place examining various specimens and never consciously rise about the level of mental activity beyond observation and curiosity. But the one thing you'll never be asked to deliberately, consciously examine is your worldview. In other words, you're never asked to examine the assumptions in both your own thinking and that of the scientists behind all those displays and commentary offered through the diplays themselves along with various audio and video supplementation. In other words, think. Really think about what you've seen, about what it has to do with you. Just what does a bunch of old bones in a display case matter to you? Why bother to see them? What can they teach us? Why should it matter?

Now, the Creation Museum is designed to arrive at that answer for you. It's an answer many find downright silly, if not dangerous. So be it. But in the process of feeding you that answer, it does at least raise the question, in a very direct and unavoidable way. For all of its shortcomings and deficiencies, I'd say that if you walk out of there having at least found yourself devoting a few moments pondering the implications of how you choose to explain how 'it all got here', then the experience has been worth your time, and the Creation Museum does, after all, have a noble purpose to serve, one recognizable and worth of appreciation even by those who have little or no use for the evangelism that is the plain intent of its founders.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:14:28 GMT

The real cause of high gas prices or What neither Candidate is likely to change

There's been a lot of talk about how gas prices are rising because of increased demand and the inability of supplies to keep up. I've started hearing more about Peak Oil too. I don't deny that those are legitimate concerns, but the REAL reason why prices are out of control now is very simple: Oil futures. Democrats want to chalk it up to unchecked speculation in the market. Republicans want to chalk it up to fears because of numerous threats to the supply of oil - war, refinery limits, disruptions in distribution. Both are wrong. Oh, and let's not forget these two classics that are both ridiculous: greedy Big Oil companies and gas taxes.

None of that is to blame, and addressing any or all of them will not solve the problem. The real culprit has nothing at all to do with oil itself.

In yesterday's news there was a story about Treasury Secretary Paulson. He hinted at the possibility of 'intervention' (read: interest rate hike) to strengthen the dollar against the euro. Guess what immediately followed? Oil futures dipped.

Why? Because the real reason oil futures keep rising is because of predictions that oil will be worth more and more, and European nations are increasingly investing in them to shore up their own economies. And oil prices are tied to the - drum roll, please - the dollar. Why does that matter? Because value of the dollar is falling, thus it takes more and more dollars to buy anything. Why is the dollar's value falling? For a number of reasons, but here's the biggest one: debt. So how does the government attempt to reign in debt?

Raise interest rates.

So if debt is the number one reason for the falling dollar, and the falling dollar is ultimately the reason for skyrocketing oil futures, then I guess we ultimately need to reduce borrowing.

Now just go out and find a candidate that is actually serious about reducing the federal budget AND taking steps to increase revenue. Lessee....McCain wants to cut 'wasteful spending', but even if you cut every single bit of 'fat' (which is not as simple or painless as it seems. Bridges in Alaska are not the only earmarks. Got a bridge or section of interstate near you ready to collapse? Yup. Earmarks are what will pay to replace/repair it. Fire Department in dire need of a few new trucks? Yup. Earmark.), you still won't come anywhere near the kind of spending cuts needed. And that business of lowering taxes actually raising revenues? The dirty little secret is that the math that's based on requires that taxes first already be at certain levels, and we haven't been at those levels since the eighties. But before you start cheering for Obama....

He has no intention of reducing spending. In fact, he will increase it dramatically. Now, he claims that he will pay for that by raising taxes on the 'rich'. Yeah, except that he's not talking about two very important qualifiers:

1) All his projections are based on GAO numbers that assume (by law they have to) that all the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010. They won't. Congress won't let them. Nobody is going to repeal the Child Tax Credit, and that is a huge piece of the pie. If by some miracle they do, so much for Obama claiming he won't raise taxes on the middle class.

2) Once again, there's still Medicare and SSI/SSD. That's a 50 trillion dollar liability. Eliminating the ceiling on income subject to Social Security tax won't cover the cost of 77 million retirees entering the system, and it doesn't even begin to address Medicare, which is already broke and about to explode. Look for retirement age going up to 70 and everyone paying higher taxes. So much for the poor not paying more taxes.

Oh yeah, and rather than end the war and stop the financial 'bleeding' of having to continually fund it, he'd just divert the spending to his own programs. So there's no peace dividend there, and even if you put the entire amount currently going to Iraq towards something like Social Security, it won't even come close to making a dent. But he also wants things like subsidized day care, preschool funding, college tuition grants of 4K per freshman, and who knows what else.

Green technology, drilling in Alaska, and all the other 'solutions' to lowering gas prices are bogus. The real problem is deficit spending. Neither candidate is going to serious address it.

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:45:44 GMT

More of this will guarantee Obama wins it all

One or two points of agreement with a candidate is usually not enough to convince me to ignore the vast majority of disagreements I might have with him/her. There is probably too much I disagree with Obama on to convince me to vote for him, though in all honesty I'm more worried about what the Congress is going to do/not do with a Democratic President than who lives in the White House. But if Obama can take the theme he recently sounded in an appearance at a high school and run with it, I promise you he will win, hands down.

Barrack Obama urges Parental Responsibility

I only wish he wouldn't be pushing so hard for the very kind of government that has helped create the dependency upon government that has helped dissolve family bonds. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand that Marxism and family are not compatible.

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:14:47 GMT

All the estrogen a man can stand

Candice and I got some movies from the five dollar bin at Wal Mart. Watched two of them this past weekend: What Women Want and Mona Lisa Smiles. It was the last one that was, uh, hardest to sit through.

Way too many knowing looks from my wife. Yes, I rose up to defend the man's view of things whenever possible. Now squint really hard because I'm not going to repeat this ever again...

It wasn't a bad film.

I would obviously offer a counter perspective in the interests of having a balanced conversation concerning the themes raised. But in my book, if a movie - or book - sparks an intelligent conversation, then whether or not you agree with, or even liked it, is secondary. It was still worth watching/reading.

If you ask nicely I may elaborate on the contents of that conversation. But be careful. My male ego is still nursing a few wounds.

Next week we're watching Rocky, Rambo, and Star Wars.