The Life of an Everyday Minority

Who does President Obama listen to?

2009-02-11T17:52:00.001-08:00

There has been no mistaking President Obama's words the last few weeks. He has continually pushed Congress to act on his "stimulus" bill despite seemingly contradictory reports coming out of his own government. "Crisis" and "catastrophe" have been choice words in Obama's rhetoric, emulating a very familiar kind of 'fearmongering' from a certain president that the Democrats had much to complain about last November. However, it seems that the new President has chosen to act on the words of Paul Volcker and his Keynes-adamant economic team instead of the CBO.

Throughout the last month and a half, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has issued two documents that explicitly contradict President Obama's rhetoric surrounding the issue of the economic recession. The CBO, a nonpartisan committee, essentially ensures transparency with government spending and fiscal policy coming out of Congress. On January 8th, the CBO released their Budget and Economic Outlook report to the Senate budget committee, which explicitly states within the first four pages that GDP output will cease to recede by mid-2009 and that recovery will start in the second half of the year going into 2010. As a trailing economic cyclical indicator, there's no surprise that unemployment will still rise to a high of 9.2% by early 2010, but will still be shadowed by the 10.8% of the early 80s recession.

The second report was in response to a request by fiscal conservative Senator Judd Gregg which asked the CBO to research the economic impact the stimulus would have. The findings have been disturbing, albeit ignored, and state that while there will be a short term boost, the long term outlook will be negative. By the fiscal year 2019, when the short term effects have phased out, the stimulus would reduce GDP output at this time due to the domino effect of the grossly imbalanced debt. With the necessity to issue more bonds to private citizens to pay off the massive debt, there is less incentive for private investment in stocks, mutual funds, etc., leading to a decrease in productive output from the private sector.

Despite these dire warnings coming from the government's leading macroeconomists, President Obama has chosen instead to listen to his own empty promises and hypocritical rhetoric, a folly we cannot afford in our time.

A Christian's Role in Politics

2008-11-24T18:46:00.001-08:00

Before I begin to write this, I ask that all readers be respectful of the views represented. This post is primarily for Christians and I will destroy offensive and counterproductive comments.

POLITICS AND CHRISTIANITY - PART ONE

The practicality of reconciling politics with Christianity is enormously difficult in application. Even amidst the confidence that each wing has of how 'Christian' their beliefs are, there are tremendous cleavages among Christians today. In my time, I have encountered Christians who've embraced social liberal theologies as well as those who've adhered to strict right-wing traditionalism (I one of them). There are those who float in the middle, which almost certainly shows that Christians are just as politically diverse as any other faction. The question we must answer then is: Which one is the right way? At best, the answer is 'none of them'. Which then begs the question: What are Christians to do regarding their involvement in politics? The answer is not a simple one. However, the Bible does tell us much of how we should purport our attitudes in society. Clearly, there are many extremes that we should avoid taking. Yet, finding middle ground is seemingly almost a compromise point, induced by a fear to take no side.

There are various passages in the Bible which account for much of God's attitude of the world. Particularly the New Testament has much to say of God's hate towards the world and His warning to us for indulging in it. Does this principle apply to politics? The question is both yes and no. A clear deep danger that ensnared me was my own indulgence in the world of politics. When examined, politics defines a struggle between factions for power over a state. Such factions are embodied by their definition of a set of values and principles. In examining this, we come to a conclusion: that political ideologies hold to enhance the world of humans and pander to their needs. Is God left out of the picture? Most times, we do exactly that. Christian conservatives hold the view that conforming the government, and ultimately the people, to our values best enhances God's will in turning people towards Him. However, these seemingly well-intentioned principles are more out of close-mindedness towards people of the world rather than the values of God. To this, we forget that God gives these people free will, and that it is their sin He hates. What's most certainly plausible is that conforming policy to the right-wing will only exacerbate God's perception among atheists. For example, a federal ban on gay marriage will certainly not make homosexuals change their sexual orientation. If anything, there would likely be a significant backlash, as we've seen in California. If one word were chosen for right-wing conservatives to epitomize their beliefs, it would most likely be 'traditionalism'. Yet, we know that God is a timeless God who does not conform to any specific time period that humans are subject to.

On the other hand, left-wingers reflect far too much on the world's needs, as opposed to God's needs. The interesting revelation is drawing where we should apportion our acknowledgment of authority to. While Christians on the left may be attempting to emulate God's gift of free-will, there is a lack of regard to who God is. At best, it seems that a key principle is lost-- evangelism. Contrary to a popular misconception, evangelism embodies much more than a simple sharing of the gospel and salvation. It also entails the idea that the sharer should present the image of Christ. Complete tolerance as conveyed in 'live and let live' does not help a Christian attain the goal of the Great Commission.

All this begs the question to what a Christian should believe in. The biggest distinction that should be drawn is that there is no one point in the political wing a Christian should point to and say "that is it". Neither conservatism or liberalism makes people "more" Christian. If that alone is obvious, then it's easy to conclude that unilateral politics has no obligation to satisfy a Christian's purpose of glorifying God. Ultimately, we have to consider being variably applicable to ourselves and then to others. In other words, we must treat politics from a different angle when regarding our own beliefs as opposed to a broader worldview. There is a strong obligation for Christians to remain morally adept in upholding their own conscious values. By initially adopting Biblical principles, we are sufficing our abilities to bring others to Christ (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The more difficult question to answer is at which standard we should treat everything external of ourselves. Are we morally obligated to ensure that around us take insight into our values? Or must we not provoke others into a wordy and ignorant debacle? The Bible repeatedly proclaims recurring themes almost to the point of redundancy-- that we must three things: Present, Pray, and Pass. I will continue this entry into more explanation of these three 'P's and what they mean in aligning faith with politics. Most important is the convention of parallel-- bringing a Christian's political worldview directly to the realm of evangelism.

--Part 2 to be continued: Alignment; and does God care?--

John McCain for President

2008-10-31T11:30:00.001-07:00

In this era of unprecedented movement, the United States has witnessed a spectacle beyond it's knowledge-- a fractured government and an election on the verge of historical significance. For this, many Americans see the clear case for one man, the cosmetic display of change to replace the ostensible failure of the incumbent government. For others, a lingering sense of empirical conviction trumps opportune hope. The latter is, however, in the eyes of Americans, synonymous with the continuation of civil disappointment in our government. Yet for the former, people see someone they hope can bring change, bent on quick words and rhetoric, and ignorance of the past. Hope only constitutes so much objectivity. In America, objective politics tells us much. Teddy Roosevelt and the Russo-Japanese War. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. Jimmy Carter and the Iranian hostage crisis. Ronald Reagan and the Berlin Wall. What will the next president have to show for besides having an intangible hope behind his name?

John McCain is a severely underestimated politician in our generation. These words are to not simply to combat the outrageous superficial accusations against him, but to reveal the man who means to do so much for this country in a perfectly rational light.

In October of 1967, then-Lieutenant John McCain came close to a point where most human beings will never traverse. Facing death in the eye, with an arm and leg broken from the plane ejection, and a shoulder crushed by a North Vietnamese soldier, McCain was beaten, interrogated, and denied any medical care. Should his captors had never learned of his father's high rank, John McCain's life would have ended in a dirty prison cell in fall of 1967, 8000 miles from home. Over the next two years, McCain was ravaged, tortured, and driven to the point of near suicide. In June of 1968, Major Nguyen Bai of the North Vietnamese gave the American prisoner-of-war a chance for release to "propagate the mercies of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam". In bitter defiance, John McCain refused until all his other fellow captives were released. In a moment of adversity, resolve found its way to the surface, and McCain reconciled with new found honor. However, this was not your typical fairy tale of hardship and perseverance. Such adversity nearly ruined McCain. He said things he would have never dreamed of. He was pushed to shame and degradation. He became almost apart from humanity.

Some say that being a prisoner-of-war has no qualification to merit one completely to the presidency. But neither does being a mere Senator. Or a lawyer. Or even an actor. Yet strikingly grand qualities have arisen in light of the great who rose from simple origins. The question is where we learn our place from our past. True humility does not reveal itself to a man until his mind is shattered.

It's time to set the record straight. Through and through, John McCain has been painted a corporate advocate, an agent for the wealthy, and an out-of-touch Washington politician. When McCain entered Congress for AZ-01, there is little doubt that he intended to represent as an American, much less a Republican. His lengthy bipartisan record came at the quarrel of party liners and the cross-aisle welcome of Democrats, whether it be campaign finance with Russ Feingold, immigration with Ted Kennedy, or climate change with Joe Lieberman, and more. Having had introduced bills with more Democrat cosponsors than Republicans, John McCain has been the cornerstone of bipartisan camaraderie. History tells enough that we can trust in the Senator to work even with Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid if elected President. Despite Lieberman's redundancy at the GOP convention, there is little doubt that his message was clear: 'McCain will bring both sides together. Not by hope, but by action, as he has shown us in the past'. The importance of such supersedes so much in this cleavage of political divide.

Senator McCain's lifetime rating of 88% from the Council of Citizens Against Government Waste shows us enough about the Senator's fierce bitterness against spending waste and budget inefficiency. What is John McCain's philosophy? Liberals argue that he cares for none but the corporate wealthy. But would a man who donated near 2 million dollars to charitable causes over the last decade really care for the sole wealthy? Would a man who invested a quarter of his own income to those less fortunate have no regard for the poor? McCain deeply values the private sector's ability to philanthropic capital. Why let another pay when you yourself hold the bill? There is trust in empowering the people with this principle-- that we ourselves are responsible in caring for one another.

Senator McCain understands the bureaucracy of the government; and it has no desire for responsibility or care.

Liberals say that McCain is a warmonger who would invade any and all nations if possible. But would a man who experienced firsthand the evil horrors of warfare contemplate the same stricken consequent upon those who tread his path? John McCain hates war. Any rational citizen of the free world hates war. But too often are we reminded that the resistant evils in our society do not go into the night quietly. When the blood of the countless innocent are spilled in our own homeland, these evils forfeit their acknowledgment of diplomacy and their own rights to life. Yet as that may be, Senator McCain is not propelled by subjective emotion or mere anti-extremist sentiment. In his advocacy of transition of power to Nouri al-Maliki's regime, McCain has supported investing in a democratic structure to rebuild infrastructure, restore municipal systems, and compose a fiscally and morally working government. Coupled with the adequate resources to combat sectarian violence, these accomplishments will reflect a victory that the United States has longed for. Left-wingers have often been quick to label this 'imperialism', yet what word should be chosen to describe our inaction for the citizens of the oppressed world while rising evils come to power?

The allegations that run amuck today serve to discredit John McCain's legitimacy in his past record or in his future proposals. Yet so much has been aimed at the superficial cosmetic layer, where bias can easily twist the truth. Critics often ignore his record of experience and service, and they pick and choose his policies that can be grossly distorted to represent anything but the truth.

Today, John McCain has brought about an ambitious agenda to preserve American dignity, reform government, adhere to the Constitution, and establish the true Democracy by directly empowering the people. By capping the capital gains, dividends, and top income taxes at 15% and 35% respectively, McCain commits the value of investors and hard-working Americans to a true progressive direction. The "progressive" label has long been a standing misnomer to the liberal cause, ignoring where progress leads the people to establish their own market. In their claims of "McCain's rich-pandering", liberals will often exclude the very fact that no American is at fiscal detriment under the Senator's plan. Keeping the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts in place for every tax bracket has shown willingness to be fair and equitable for all Americans. At every level, John McCain has been willing to give the incentive for productivity and growth. He understands that our system works not by giving handouts to the masses, but by empowering incentive for these masses to restart the economic engine. If the grocer has raised costs on goods, are we to quantify a limited amount of capital for those to spend? Or are we going to seek long term solutions for the producer to lower his costs, so that all may be given reason to spend? Senator McCain believes in the ideology that an incentive is far more capable of inducing the most authentically efficient outputs than a direct input is. By maintaining a tax code which strives for accountability and rewarding the fruitful, McCain will preserve the dignity of hard work and prosperity.

John McCain also understands an ailing system in America's health care. With some 40 million uninsured and failing employer based coverage, the Senator understands some parts of the system should be, in some respects, "flanked at an angle". In reforming Medicare, working with the states for a Guaranteed Access Plan, and providing choice and accountability, McCain's plan will provide nearly 30 million Americans coverage. While doing so, a $5000 ($2500 for individuals) refundable tax credit will alleviate rising premiums, benefit taxes, and limited choices. In providing individuals with the option of purchasing insurance through an interstate network, the plan will not limit Americans to default to preexisting plans in their state or through employer coverage. Senator McCain will also move to preserve employer-based insurance while maintaining this expansion of choice through keeping the employer tax deduction in place to subsidize the costs of coverage. What entails is a consequential rippling impact that boosts competition to the lowering of prices in the free market, where incentive is provided for all to provide and receive the best health care.

Many accuse Senator McCain that his policies are reminiscent of Bush policies that led to this country to failure. Yet this only argues a fallacious superficial lie. While there is much to be said about President Bush's alleged "failure", there is no evidence that a McCain presidency should further exacerbate any of these problems. The logic is simple. The tax code is not to blame for whatever mess Wall Street sticks itself in. NAFTA is not responsible for trade inequity. Rather, supply-side economics are what charged an era of prosperity, from the time Reagan's tax cuts combated the 80s recession. Senator McCain advocates nothing more than restoring economic liberalism, minimal government intervention and protectionism, and preserving our tax code.

Even with a recessing economy, shouldering the blame for much of the financial meltdown has presented an uneasy paradox for Republicans, which is laughably ironic. Nancy Pelosi's partisan spiel slammed the GOP on 'deregulation' despite critical reforms sought out by both the Bush Administration and Senate Republicans in 2003 and 2005 respectively. Yet often overlooked has been Senator McCain's own wariness of the impending failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In an address to the Senate in May of 2006, McCain warned of "the enormous risk that [the GSEs] pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole". 22 months later, the failure of Bear Stearns triggered a collapse of investment, banking, and holding companies throughout Wall Street. Through the worst of our crisis, McCain has been vehemently criticized as 'erratic' and 'irresponsible'. However, even as he has not been the media darling of this election, the Arizona Senator was one of the few who saw imminent danger. What if they had listened to him?

The message that John McCain is spurring is more than mere 'change'. It is a message of preservation and reform to the ultimate goodwill of America. Even so, Senator McCain will not make a perfect president and it is doubtful that he will sweep the world in epic revolution, as Senator Obama has claimed he would do. Yet in humility, McCain understands the irrevocable consequences of turning away and compromising ourselves.

America is teetering on the edge of the blade of a knife. Do we hope to the ambiguity of change? Or do we look to the security of proven preservation and reform?

Gay Bashers

2008-10-21T09:17:00.001-07:00

One of the most despicable misrepresentations of Christianity is irrational right-wing extremism that plays our faith down to the level of a cult. While it's true that there are passages in the Bible that lament and condemn homosexuality, some groups of "Christians" have used this as license to arrogance, ignorance, bigotry, and hate. One particular group that has stirred vast controversy is the Westboro Baptist Church. It's clear enough on the outside that this is a hate group. Their domain name? godhatesfags.com It doesn't take a genius to figure a cult from a church, when the said body is so immersed in gay and solider bashing, that they seem to ignore the various other commissions and principles clearly laid out in the Bible. Clearly, the group advocates God as a hating, wrathful, avenging god. Taking scripture meant to convey God as just and righteous, and propagating it as hate is nothing short of sheer ignorance and bigotry. Not only does this misrepresent God, but it is an act of blasphemy, using God's very own holy word to distort Him. Does Westboro forget the near innumerable amount of verses that propagate God's love? Do they forget Leviticus 19:18, Numbers 14:18, Psalm 13:5, and nearly the entire New Testament which accounts for the salvation story because of God's love?

While it seems that Westboro operates off the pick-and-choose standard of ignorance, I constantly feel embarrassed and appalled when any "Christian" group claims to be doing right by gay-bashing. Combating tolerance does not entail demeaning those that need conciliation. Gay bashing certainly does not get the point across and only perpetuates the stereotype that conservative Christians are bigots.

A major fault on the behalf of "Christian" gay-bashers is their failure to acknowledge homosexuality as no greater a sin than murder, adultery, theft, among others. They perpetuate the idea that since homosexuality is more visible, it is somehow more of a dangerous sin and should be curbed on behalf of a righteous sinless community. No, that is wrong. Under this logic, there should be swear-bashing, lust-bashing, mean-bashing, lie-bashing groups and bashing groups for every sin. It is hypocritical to protest any sin of another person. Do they forget John 8:7? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? When Shirley Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church was invited onto Hannity and Colmes, Sean Hannity asked her, "What are your sins?" She could not answer the question. Hypocrisy founded on the basis of irony.

"You're going to hell if you don't believe in Jesus"

2008-10-21T00:09:00.000-07:00

"What a turn off! Why would a loving God send anyone to hell?"

It's almost sad to reflect upon the backlash that occurs when you misrepresent a very true argument. Upon my ten years now as a Christian, I have felt embittered at why people reject Christ and God and how my faith has been treated. But it's even more frustrating when it occurs on the unfortunate basis that words are skewed in such a haphazard way. Many atheists are constantly deterred from Christianity when they are told that nonbelief is a one-way ticket to hell and especially when it is blasted in a crude way fashioned much on the very syntax itself-- "or else you're going to hell". I've always been a little skeptical (okay, very skeptical) of how efficient this argument really is. Don't get me wrong. While harsh, I believe that 18th century preacher Jonathan Edwards had a real idea on his hands. 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' was a very real, very practical sermon but a philosophy to be embraced by saved Christians alone. Over the past summer, I've taken a hard-line approach to Christians taking a very serious consideration of living out their faith. However that may be, evangelism takes a very different approach; it does not compromise the values of God, yet brings light to the real love story.

Non-believers constantly wonder why Christians use the 'hell' argument. It's paradoxical of God's purported love and it certainly has no endearing rhetoric to it. Yet, if rephrased, the argument could have a much more beautiful (and endearing) meaning. Either way, no matter how it is said, there is very real truth on why the argument is used. Why? It certainly seems irrational that a Christian would bring about a non-believer to his faith by scaring him into it. Obviously, the expected backlash should come as no surprise. I myself would take great offense at being condemned to hell if I was forced to believe in a "fantasy god". Yet, here I am saying that the argument holds water. In getting to the point, Christians are (or at least should be) burdened by a cause. This cause is known as The Great Commission.

"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." ~ Matthew 28:16-20

At the center of all of intent and reasoning behind Christian evangelism is this premise, that Christians are called to "make disciples of all nations". In this, it is relating the tale of God's love for us, so that others may be blessed with salvation and grace. Yet centered at this promise should not be the disincentive of hell, but rather the incentive of serving a God who blesses and has saved.

Still, non-believers are constantly puzzled at why hell is even a necessary concept for a so-called loving God. Yet hell has absolutely nothing to do with God or His love. And hell most certainly does not entail the connotation that God has any hate. The reason behind it all lies in God's being as perfection. It's a very logical concept. A perfect, sinless, and holy Being cannot reside with any impure or imperfect entities. It is this sin that separates you from God, not anything God does or feel. God does compromise His principles to save His people. He cannot bring sinners into His midst as they are. So instead of resorting to compromise, God offers the only solution He can.

He sacrifices Himself for His children.

Is that not endearment that can satisfy the most temperamental of hearts? Is that not love?

Jimmy Carter's Ironic Hypocrisy

2008-10-11T00:11:00.000-07:00

One of the most ironic things to come about in these final weeks of the election season is hearing Jimmy Carter's voice piping out above all the turmoil to say that the financial crisis is due to "the atrocious policies of the Bush administration". As if people shouldn't be laughing out loud at the irony. Carter himself brought about the early '80s recession when the Fed uncharacteristically misused monetary policy. If Americans think the present situation is bad, they were obviously not around to see the near 11% unemployment rate during Carter's tenure as president. But the Democratic ex-president's ineptitude in that context is not what makes this irony so striking.

What is so permeating about Carter's hypocrisy is the fact that he is partly to blame for the very crisis that he accuses George Bush for bringing about. Perhaps he is attempting to hoist the blame off himself and onto the incumbent Republican, so that Barack Obama may be aggrandized, win the White House, and re-enact Carter's "presidency". He may point fingers, but what he cannot avoid is the Wall Street Journal's finger pointing at him. The subprime mortgage mess traces its roots back to the Community Reinvestment Act, which Carter pushed so hard to get passed. Thanks more leeway access to mortgage credit for low-income folk, you can bet dollars to dimes that this whole "risky lending" came about from this very incentive.

Did Carter know that his CRA was a recipe for disaster? Most likely not. But if he's going to toss blame around like a hot potato, he'd better take a good look at where his fingers are pointing before blaming the Dems' favorite scapegoat. After all, he wouldn't want the MSM to get a hold of the real source of this financial mess. But with the way they've been reporting things, he's already been let off the hook. And so has every other Democrat.

The Syntactical Connotations of the 'Bailout'

2008-09-28T17:57:00.000-07:00

Among all the attention surrounding the $700 billion bailout rescue, it appears that even the naysayers are not using a key argument to their advantage. Opponents and proponents alike have all collectively agreed that one word suits this deal befittingly-- "bailout". Whatever the preceding adjectives may be to describe the rescue, the subsequent "b-word" always seems to roll of the tongues of politicians, the media, and citizens. But the very syntactical connotations of the word can very literally entail a disreputable outlook.

In considering the uses of this word 'bailout', we conclude that the commonality of it rests in our criminal justice system. When a judicial court sets bail for a criminal, the accused has an option of posting that bail to be spared from spending days and weeks in prison. If the criminal does not carry sufficient capital to pay off this bail, then a relative may post bail on his or her behalf. The criminal is then "rescued" from awaiting trial behind bars, but will still not be able to escape prosecution and ultimately conviction.

With Congress and the Bush Administration having sealed the deal, the darkest days on Wall Street lie ahead. Corporate America may be hiding out from the cell for now, but justice will be coming around in future generations to give a good hard kick up the rear. The only thing that separates this from the courts is who pays up. In this case, the taxpayers and shareholders will be punished for the incompetent actions of investors and the criminal ignorance of the Fed.

Congress doesn't learn from its mistakes...

2008-09-20T00:59:00.000-07:00

Nancy Pelosi's gang is at it again. It appears that Democratic legislators are hard at work preparing what may be the "economic blunder" of the century. Congress is pushing for billions of dollars in funding that will help alleviate the market strain put on by this week's financial roller coaster. Not only that, but the Dems are also drafting up another stimulus package deal, aimed at Detroit's auto industry. Great. Real smart. As if the problem with the financial meltdown weren't obvious enough, Pelosi is now pushing for more government control and regulation.

The Fed's bailout of AIG showed us three things: the Fed can't think on its feet, Greenspan was lazy and incompetent, and Wall Street was playing dirty. Congress is only trying to reignite the spark that created this mess. By providing government relief for failing financial corporations, the Democrats are straining the liquidity of private and free capital, and destroying the transparency that the markets need. In a few decades, once the shareholders and taxpayers cry foul, the "American dream" just may have never existed.

So the constitution doesn't matter anymore...

2008-09-09T12:33:00.000-07:00

Rasmussen is reporting that only 29% of Senator Obama's supporters believe that the Constitution matters in Supreme Court rulings, whereas 82% of Senator McCain's supporters affirm that justices should rule based on the constitution. 49% of the rest of Obama's supporters believe that justices should use their own personal and moral sense of fairness to guide their rulings. How little do Americans forget how it is the Constitution that defines the Courts.

This poll only goes to show the massive discrepancy not just between Senators McCain and Obama themselves, but among their supporters. While 60% of registered voters still believe in the importance of the Constitution, the fact remains that Senator Obama's platform is deviating from the once good and faithful principles of this country. This alienation of the constitution is a prime example of how the Democratic Party is further incorporating tolerance and politically "correct" rhetoric.

Interestingly enough, Americans don't seem to put much high regard for the Constitution and the Supreme Court anymore. In fact, many Americans seem to have trouble differentiating between the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. President Bush's promotion of justices Alito and Roberts is a strong reminder of how much the Republican Party values constitutionalist conservatives. Even with the tide of promised Democratic "change", it seems that more people are infatuated with charisma than they are with the importance of the Courts.

Obama's Volcker Problem

2008-09-01T16:24:00.000-07:00

So little has the media decided to report on Paul Volcker's endorsement of Barack Obama in January, I had to surf through WSJ's Capital Bureau blogs just to find anything on it. It's no small wonder why the mainstream media has chosen to ignore what seems to be Obama's biggest economic-driven endorsement. But whether the positives on Volcker include how he broke the back of double-digit inflation or that he was an adviser for Reagan following the '82 recession, it's all seemingly irrelevant to the money mess created under the former Fed chairman. Strong is the suspicion that Volcker left a nasty smell lingering in the area after the early 80's, that even the major news outlets today don't quite want to disclose that Volcker is now serving as an economic adviser to the Democratic Party nominee.

Economist John Tamny readily identifies Volcker's failure through first the interest-rate targeting, and then the monetarist policy. It's the same kind of sorry policy expected with Obama's economic platform high aimed at ending the Bush tax cuts and increasing capital gains, income, and payroll taxes. But the thing that Americans don't know is Volcker's failed experiment, which led to the worst recession since the Depression and the highest unemployment rates seen in decades. Spiking interest rates to 14% added tremendous instability to the dollar, which resolutely crashed in February of 1980 when Volcker started looking into monetarism. Unfortunately, two disastrous consequences led to an enormous monetary shortfall in the States, as well as a jumpy Fed funds rate of which capital investors were well afraid of.

Not only until 1983 did the economy make a rather shuddering recovery with Reagan's marginal tax cuts. The one lesson that Volcker finally learned was the danger of the monetarist policy coupled with a fairly consequential experimentation of interest rates. However, the rather shifty character he left only serves to be reminiscent of what he might bring to Obama's so-called 'change' platform, something completely backward of Reagan's redefinition of the American markets.

Showdown

2008-08-31T20:10:00.001-07:00

So finally we come to it. Joe Biden becomes Barack Obama's running mate, and John McCain surprises Republicans, Democrats, and Independents everywhere with his pick of Governor Sarah Palin (R) of Alaska. The board is finally set for the November showdown as we are to witness a historic election.

Michael Shear provides an in-depth analysis at the new campaign; a face that could quickly re-energize the evangelical base that was not so convinced with Mac alone. The Bible belt states that were so pro-Huckabee are now returning back to the GOP in hopes that Palin will be able to reinvigorate the social values important to the country. But more importantly, the Alaskan governor is most essentially reaffirming and defining the pro-life platform, particularly following McCain's firm showing at Warren's Saddleback forum. And it's not just members of the right that are showing signs of excitement. Independents have begun to talk about this new Palin, and what she can bring as someone who is not a Washington insider, an identity Joe Biden has been plagued by.

The problem that Democrats have now is that they're scrambling to uncover any dirt possible on the mother of five. With the high assumptions of either Pawlenty or Romney as the pick, left-wingers were undoubtedly preparing stacks of arguments against a traditional choice. However, with the surprise Palin pick, Democrats jumped out of their chairs and went into a strategic-deficient frenzy.

All the Huffington Post has been able to come up with is a mad-plastering of their frontpage filled with headlines of 'Palin's inexperience' and her governance of one of the smallest states in the country. Whether it is regarding Palin's experience, her firing of an Alaskan state trooper, or the rumor that her daughter may really be her granddaughter, liberals cannot seem to diversify their argument base. It seems that they really were caught off guard.

There's never enough time...

2008-08-20T14:04:00.000-07:00

Time will always fly with our closest of friends. At the end, we'll be saying, "Where did the time go?" You wish you could spend all those wasted seconds with them, but even if that was the case, it would still feel like there was never enough time.

Moraliberalism

2008-08-16T23:27:00.000-07:00

Conduct is a word I use synonymously with carriage, and in essence, appearance. When I slap the adjectival 'moral' as the predecessor of 'conduct', then I have a term which essentially means the external carriage of one's moral ideologies.

Moral conduct is not so easily flaunted by today's standards. It is pretty difficult to grasp a universal mutuality on it's meaning. But with the precedence of what has been, most anyone would take it to be properly exhibiting values of nothing that would deem one a "bad" person.

Our youth is not quite as lucky as grasping this truth. Moral dissolution and what I have come to call 'moraliberalism' seems to be exercised in free thought nowadays. The practice of freely exhibiting one's liberties to an extent which bends the precedence of established moral ideologies. That is moraliberalism. In a sense, I could also use ethicaliberalism. Ethics is merely the exercise of morals. What was once considered immoral has been liberalized to the extent of now somehow fitting into 'moral tolerance'.

In practicality, this kind of dissolution is evident anywhere and everywhere. Today, it is okay for kids to be under the influence of alcohol when they've still not reached age 21. Today, the trade of narcotics and other illegal substances is tolerated by most any youth you ask. Today, it is okay to slander one another. Today, it is okay for lust and sex to drive our endeavors. It has all become commonplace. Once great academic institutions have become the breeding ground of drunken youths and lecherous jezebels, all deceived by the worldy doctrines of social tolerance.

Humans have also undoubtedly been an unwholesomely immoral race, but now we've reached a crossroads. The world is developing exponentially, at a rate which increases the splendor and glory of the material and immoral. Such indulgence comes at a price... one which none can afford to pay.

We killed God

2008-08-04T23:15:00.001-07:00

Pontius Pilate didn't hand down the death sentence for Jesus Christ. We did. This is love beyond human endearment. Oh, and evolution didn't create love.

Should my King die for me, then I too should die for my King.

Raging Warfare

2008-07-29T13:17:00.000-07:00

Over the past year, I've come to value humility so much. It is a sense of being humble that unblinds me. The problem that so many Atheists have with coming to terms with God is that they just can't accept being told that the life they live is not okay. They don't want to give up their worldly endeavors and are indignant of any sense of submission to a higher authority figure.

Well this sense of individualism is the whole death of man. I have determined that no one can fully turn to God until he gives up and denies himself. See, the reason why atheists can't seem to accept God is not because He is physically and corporally invisible from the world, but because they think that they own their own lives and are in charge of it. Some atheists cannot possibly claim to atheists at all, because they 'hate' God. Atheism is defined as the unbelief in God or the belief that God does not exist. You cannot possibly hate an entity that you do not believe exists.

Thus, I've come to discover that a certain branch of atheism is not really atheism at all but actually a philosophy that drives to kill Christianity in all its forms. True atheists are completely indifferent and essentially advocate a 'live and let live' policy. If I am a Christian, a true atheist would not care in the slightest. But someone who consistently shows distress and anguish at the mention of God obviously is not indifferent. Why would someone who does not believe in the existence of God care if I talk about God?

A certain Youtube v-logger by the name of Shawn has an online apologetics ministry which seeks to explain his conversion from an atheist/judeo-background, and essentially to answer questions regarding the attempted rebuttal of God.

What Shawn really has done is opened up the revealing of another door to this spiritual warfare by extending the battlefield to one thing that has encapsulated societal culture today.

The Internet.

What's most fascinating is that not only is Shawn able to respond accordingly to questions regarding the apologetics and existence of God, but he has fended off thousands of online persecutors, and even shown love toward those who hate him. Romans 12:14 illustrates Shawn's purpose in doing so. One Youtuber even wished death and terrible suffering to him, which I believe included cancer, aids, leprosy, blindness, mental anguish, and much much more.

Well, luckily, Shawn and many others like him have not been deterred by this. It would not be a spiritual battle without people like the aforementioned Youtuber. In the books of Job, Psalms, Jeremiah, and throughout the entire New Testament (and frankly, the whole Bible), it is consistently stated that one must hated in some way or form if they are to follow God. Now, there's a billion verses like this, but I'll choose one from 2 Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:12

Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

Shawn opens up a whole new perspective also to why God exists and the purpose that we serve, and how things came to be. There is much both non-believers and believers can learn.

Everything I couldn't explain.

2008-07-21T11:11:00.000-07:00

My words are limited, so I leave it to the pros.

www.godandscience.org

I recently stumbled across this site. It is probably the best I've seen in terms of assuring the faith of a Christian, yet also addressing almost every criticism an atheist would have of God.

Something I will never understand...

2008-07-21T01:59:00.000-07:00

I can't explain what I'm about to say nor can I pretend that I can empirically defend my beliefs. I am not here to put a superficial costume and make the excuse that I am not attempting to sound preachy. I don't know how to put it in words. And I guess that's it, what I feel really can't be conveyed in simple diction. Even at this point, I'm not so sure what I'm going to talk about.

But here goes...

I have felt and seen the cruelty that this world has to offer. Every corner of the earth can offer a taste of the hell that continues to brew in our world. It's not explained as an objective phenomenon, but then what is it? And it seems that it's not just the God-fearing people who have been so observant. Moral ineptitude. A concept that seems to ring out, even among the hardest of atheist scholars. Where do ethics play their part now?

I have found, by simple observation, how corrupt I can be. I can't really express how easy it is to commit an iniquity, how easy it is to just fall from good. I had the opportunity to share with a fellow sister recently and one of the major philosophies that was continually brought up was how evil mankind is. It just awed me how much selfishness dawns upon each individual. The world sees it differently. A humanitarian would be selfless, and while there is no denying the reputability of such an admirable pursuit, there is no doubt there selfishness continues to reign supreme. I can't say if humility is in complete absence in our world, but I can observe that it is a hidden virtue.

Everything humans have ever done; for each other or for ourselves have been out of the selfishness of our hearts. We have never truly loved man, animal, and certainly not God. And it is this selfishness that drives our transgressions. Why have we such unspeakable acts today? Humanity thrust upon the precipice of falling forever into hell, yet we still live according to our own self-pleasures.

Me, me, me, me, me. I want to do this. And I'll do it.

This is the philosophy that has forever entrapped us, and while it could seem to be the farthest thing evident, it is the governance of all the crap we do. Man, oh man, are we in trouble. What on earth could possible revert this pervasive greed?

---
Two nights ago, I had an opportunity to talk to God. I couldn't feel Him or see Him. I couldn't touch Him or hear Him, but I spoke nonetheless. I didn't know where to start. Was I to apologize for being such a wretch? Was I to begin by confessing my complete ineptitude in all things good? Or was I to simply say, "God, I need you".

That was it. I knew I couldn't explain it. God knew it too. He knew my words weren't powerful enough, so I let my heart do it. But then where? Where was I to go after seeing such pity? All I could see in the world was hopelessness, despair, greed, pride, arrogance, ignorance, sin, hostility, hate... Where are you, God? God was right there. He was sitting next to me. He was in my heart. He was in my mind. It's not like the physical circumstances had changed. My skin still felt cold. And still, I couldn't see God.

I have experienced the world's hatred toward God firsthand. I have been confronted with such hostility, just because I believe in a God who still doesn't quite give up in us. I have had even friends who mock God because to them, He is just a fantasy. Why should something not exist just because of our own physical and corporal limitations?

---
I will NEVER fully understand God. I have been defeated by my own flesh countless times, and even if I stood blameless, I would still be dust.

---
Look outside. See a simple beetle. Or the wind whistling in the leaves. A deep azure blue as the sun fades. The backdrop of a perfect mountain. Water crisping over rocks.

Was it all just an accident? How did such beauty become pervaded by such evil?

Where intelligence loses its credibility...

2008-06-15T18:46:00.001-07:00

I am finally going to recount a tale that occurred to me roughly three months ago in March, when I was in the People's Republic of China for the BCC jazz band spring tour. I can point out almost immediately that this summed up adversity in every non-tragic notion of the word. The event was regrettable, but taught me a great deal of trust, awareness, and self-reliance.

My story begins on March 21, 2008.

Our Air Canada flight from Vancouver to Beijing was delayed a remarkable four hours, thanks much to two problems. Initially, one of the plane's engines malfunctioned and the flight crew called in maintenance to remedy the problem. Now, here's what I didn't know. A flight crew's work hours aboard an airplane may not surpass a set limit. Therefore, if we didn't take off before that limit was reached, then that flight crew was obligated (by company protocol) to leave and call in another crew. And that's exactly what happened when we were waiting for maintenance. Approximately 20 minutes following the first announcement of engine failure came what he hoped was assurance that we would be in the air soon, but what was really another regrettable announcement that the flight crews had to be changed.

Three hours later, much to my dismay, we were on our way across the Pacific. The eleven hour flight had put little damper on my already poor spirits, due to my love of flying. We arrived in Beijing on the evening of the 22nd local time. The first thing we saw coming into the main terminal was a very dense layer of what I assumed was heavy smog. The next day, however, proved that the low visibility the night before was only thanks to a cold weather system. The rest of that week brought relatively clear skies, even for a city known for its environmental disregard.

Much of the trip went by without major incident until the very last night before our departure. We had flown back from XiAn two days before after a visit to the Terra-Cotta warriors. Our remaining 3 days in Beijing was free to our leisure, with the exception of an optional tour through Beijing's old town district, the Hutong. The morning of our last day, I had no plans to do anything until midmorning, when my friends came back after visiting Mao's Mausoleum. Obviously, seeing an old commie's (presumably fake) body was of great interest to me, so I roused up some friends to accompany me to see him that afternoon. We took the subway down to Tiananmen Square and joined throngs of crowds into the actual Square. However, as we approached the Mausoleum, the thin crowd of visitors indicated to me that the exhibit had closed. I examined the sign outside of the memorial, (which I may say was translated so poorly, that it had the ability to change entire tourism time patterns) which said that the hours of operation were from '8-12am'. I used what Chinese I knew to decipher the Mandarin, which told me no more what I already knew. I assumed that it was implied that they were only open from 8 to 12 in the morning. At the dismay of this, I became upset and chanced to hope that they would possibly re-open again. After about 20 minutes, I gave in and resolved to visit the memorial the following morning.

As we headed out of the square, we passed four Chinese students, who exclaimed, "Students!" as we walked pass them. We smiled and laughed appreciatively, nodding indeed that we were students. Having been warned against speaking with strangers in a foreign country, I had hoped it was a mere passerby comment, but it didn't turn out that way. The four stopped and decided to introduce themselves to us. We mulled over basic greetings, when they made a dangerous offer. Now, this entire time I was cautious, even resorting to thinking of possible escape plans should we be physically attacked. However, I deduced that there was no physical harm in the matter (I would later figure that I had spent so much time concerned over physical danger, that I ruled out everything else). The students asked us to visit the old town district, the Hutong, with them (which my friend had visited earlier in the morning with the tour). I was prepared to decline, but one of my friends was prepared to accept. I reluctantly gave in, being somewhat assured by the Chinese students that it would "only take 20 minutes".

We wandered through the tunnels and streets of Beijing until we reached the old alleys of ancient Beijing. The entire time walking was spent in conversation with the students. We learned a great deal about them, and they carefully worked up our trust through casual talk about simple hobbies and interests. One of the girls had mentioned her interest in the American TV show 'Prison Break'. The leader of their group, who introduced himself as Li Lian, told us that he was studying Spanish. The more we walked, the more we talked, and the more we trusted. At last, we finally passed an old one-room tea shop in the Hutong, where Li peeked inside and inadvertently decided that we should stop for a "quick drink". By that time, we felt so amiable towards the group that we did not even think of declining their offer.

The next hour was marked by casual conversation as the shop hostess performed a traditional Chinese tea ceremony for us. Li seemed very intrigued by the ornaments on the walls and told us that where he came from, they were too poor for any such treasures. Following the ceremony, the hostess asked each person which tea we liked the best. Each person named his or her favorite, and suddenly Li exclaimed that as a mark of ambassadorial friendship, he would buy our favorite tea for us to bring home. It was such a remarkable offer that my friends and I could not stop sputtering our thanks. I, in deep, felt bad for receiving a gift without giving one in return. However, a number of things happened in the following few minutes.

When the hostess came out with the check, I heard Li exclaim at the enormity of the price. Looking embarrassed, Li informed us that his credit reserves were short and asked us to chip in a little. Well, that was exactly what we wanted to do, so we told him that we had no problem in offering to pay part of the bill. During that time, I had made a very conceited effort to see exactly what price we were to pay, but the ambiguity of it, not only from the bill, but from the hostess as well, was remarkable. I can recall at least three times where I asked the hostess what the final bill was, but the answer was seemingly avoided. On the bill was a clearly illegible four digit figure which contained a three at the head. Now, we had to deduce whether it read '3,000', '300' or '30'. My friends reassured me and told me that it said '30', but they altogether were not convinced. The whole time, Li looked very embarrassed and told us that he never paid this much for tea before. To prove that he would pay for part of it, he showed us his credit card. The hostess then came back out, asking us for a card to pay with. We were a little confused and asked if we could pay in cash. Again, an ambiguous response. On the second try, we were informed that every small business was accepting credit cards only to reap banking rewards for the following month. Aha. But, we were ingrained in trust of the students, that one by one, we turned over our cards, and one by one, they each failed. The first did not allow transactions. My second friend's card only yielded a portion due to a transaction limit. Mine, unfortunately, completed the bill. Now, as we were looking at our receipts to sign, we were confused as to what the prices were. There was a price on my friend's, that said '1,000RMB'. Mine read '3,300RMB'. We assumed that it was the remaining balance in our accounts and signed. But there was an inexplicable twinge of concern in me the whole time. What if those numbers were really the amounts we paid?

After about 10 more minutes, we were on our way out of the teashop, where the students led us back to the train station. The whole journey back, they were offering to buy us more and more gifts, in an attempt to eliminate any distrust incurred in the teahouse. Finally, we bade them farewell and quickly rushed back to the hotel to discover that we were conned out of a total of $500 some American dollars. I was shocked to learn that there were remarkably similar stories to mine as I searched for what was called the 'Beijing Tea Scam'. I read at least a dozen other accounts of tourists who were scammed in near exact ways.

The rest of what happened in insignificant. As I looked back, I pinpointed numerous times when I could have prevented or seen foul play. The trick was very carefully planned out. Even as we were led to the Hutong, part of the students seemed to be unaware of where they were going, in an attempt to place innocence upon themselves. Li seemed very intrigued with everything we passed; too intrigued at that. When he stopped so suddenly in front of the teahouse, I should have noticed that he didn't seem to examine any other shops. His interest in the ornaments on the tables on walls was an act; only to seem as if he had never been there. My suspicion should have been piqued when we were asked for our credit cards. I have heard of business which have only accepted cash, but one that only accepted cards? I think not. Furthermore, when pondering the matter, I realized that Li was never given a receipt to sign. Had he really chipped in, they would have also given him a receipt. Lastly, we were unable to retain the customer copy of the receipt before both copies were whisked away. I should have noticed how strange it was that the hostess was answering my questions ambiguously. And also how happy she looked when the transaction was complete. I should have noticed it all. But I didn't.

I know that I should have never spoken with the students; should have never accepted their offer; should have never gone into the teahouse; and should have never given over our cards. But the important thing is that I did. I can say that were things I could have done to prevent it (and there were), but fact of the matter is, I didn't do any of those things. Through one of the biggest adversities, I faced the challenge of rebuilding and learning. Ultimately, I came to accept that a few hundred dollars was merely a few hundred dollars. I was glad to be alive and well. So while there was no material reward to reap, I gained an important lesson. Through the experience, I bonded closer toward my friends, and learned to depend on my own common sense. When asked, "Do I wish I could redo that moment so it never happened?" At first, I would have said 'yes'. How could I not pass up the opportunity to prevent my own stupidity? But now, I can firmly say that there would be no need to relive the moment. What happened happened. I have moved forward with great humility, now knowing that it is our hearts that rule our common sense, not our minds.

The Problem with the Modern Church

2008-05-09T18:57:00.000-07:00

As a fundamentalist Christian, I've noticed intriguing and dangerous qualities that the modern Christian church has today. I've made a point to discover something that I've long overlooked; and I've come to notice that this is a crucial flaw in the Christian body. Allow me to begin by relating to you a non-fictional anecdote of my own experiences.

Through middle school, I attained an intriguing interest in the megachurch. Being an urbanist, its commercial quality appealed to me, the modern environment seemed intriguing, and overall it gave a sense of density to Christian fellowship. My appeal was almost similar to that of the average megachurch attendee. The bigger, the better. A philosophy unfortunately rooted in the adversarial and superficial qualities of moral standard. One particular church stood out. Lakewood Church of Houston, TX, became engrained in my eye as the leader of the megachurch movement. With the opening of its new facility, stadium-like seating, rock-concert style music, and modern amenities, my appeal drew me towards it. I became immersed in the megachurch despite its flaws and criticisms. I longed for my own community church to attain similar qualities-- a larger facility, more modern music, etc. I admit that I would often listen to Pastor Joel Osteen's message only after seeing 'Lakewood Church' in the TV Guide.

My fascinated even compelled me to apply to Houston-area schools, namely Rice University. I contemplated the possibility of one day becoming a Lakewood Church member. The commercial spoils, the luxury of it all, drew me in.

Something happened over a period of time as I spiritually matured. I noticed distinctive qualities that did not please me so much. There was something wrong with the modern megachurch. As I listened more closely to Pastor Osteen's messages, a stark sense of superficiality began to settle in. I spoke and read about the matter; questioning criticisms and forming my own. There was one thing that Pastor Osteen strayed dangerously away from.

He did not preach sin, nor repentance, nor redemption. Nearly every word that came out of his message always praised God for the joy and abundance that we should have. Self-help became almost a trademark of Joel's. Every message was seemingly titled "Make Joy a Part of You" or "Let Optimism Rule Your Day". Pastor Osteen had created a dangerously superficial of disillusionment-- that Christians should live their days happily, joyfully, and without acknowledgement of their sin. In this I spotted a crucial flaw. Osteen was almost incorporating a touchy, feel-good, aura into his very sermon. No wonder everyone always went out of Lakewood with a wide smile across his/her face.

Now, don't misinterpret me. Joy is a virtue that we all should have. However, Osteen preached it to attain the prevailing spot in our lives. He even wrote several books, most well known was "Your Best Life Now", which made it to the New York Times Bestseller. However, little did I see anything like "Spiritual Warfare" or "Combating Sin" or "Repentance and Redemption: Going back to the Father". All he did was merely extract the most appealing bit of the Bible and seemed to ignore the rest. To him and his listeners, the process included finding Jesus, believing in Him, accepting Him, and living happily ever after.

However, Osteen failed to maintain the integral responsibilities of a Christian. That we live in sin; we fell from God; by God's grace are we saved; that we must repent; that we must prepare for judgment; we are all judged; and we all must stop the onslaught of Satan's earthly regime.

I am saddened to say that this constitutes the majority of Christians today. We pick and choose the church based on its music, based on its size and modernity, but rarely do we ever choose a church for its gospel. One of the elders at my church is infamous for delivering long, soporific messages, yet they maintain the key important of Christian integrity and responsibility.

Today, the Christian church is more immersed in commercial wealth than it is in spiritual wealth. Monetary value has replaced the core fundamental beliefs of God's love story. We often forget that we are called on to serve, not to serve ourselves. It is severely regrettable how much money controls our churches. While some have fallen due to weakness, overs have only taken advantage of God and exploited His people. Mahatma Gandhi was write to say his dislike of Christians, yet his approval of Christianity. We have not revered the sanctity of God as we should have. Today, churches only meet to collect donations, propagate their own fame, or achieve some other kind of earthly success.

It is time we make sure we stop using God is merely cover-up for something more sinister. God cannot count on us if we cannot even serve Him properly.

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." -Matthew 6:19-21

Time for a REAL update

2008-04-27T19:26:00.001-07:00

Okay, so I actually saved a draft a few days ago about a post regarding the moral ineptitude of societal youth, but I decided against it, due to not only recent events, but I've become a little more humbled in what's happened.

Let me begin by saying that this past week has been regrettable, lamentable, and painful. I can't merely attribute this to myself because my whole school community was starkly affected. Over a week ago, on Friday the 18th, we lost a fellow senior in a highway crash near Pullman, WA. It was unwittingly surreal for me. I hadn't recalled this kind of emotional confusion since my mother's passing in '99.

I first heard on Saturday afternoon; I was not told the identity of the student, which obviously led to more distress. Initially, I was concerned that it might have been a close friend of mine. An hour or two later, I heard the identities of the injured and killed. But where was my pain? I was certainly shocked, yet there was no comprehension in my mind yet. If I were honest, I felt slightly relieved that it wasn't someone I knew better. But was it relief? I came to know Monday that there would be no relief in grief.

Around 500 students gathered at the flagpole in memoriam that following Monday morning. I came in untouched and came out affected more than I'd ever think I would be. Seeing my friends, peers, and fellow schoolmates in an incomprehensible state of mourning imparted sorrow to my own bones. I spent the rest of the day in anger, sorrow, and confusion. I questioned the fairness of the situation and what significance could this possibly have? Taryn Gillies did represent the epitome of compassion and wit at Newport High School. Why was her future cut so short?

A lot of the rest of the week was spent praying to God. I didn't question Him because I knew every purpose of His would serve for good. I told God to watch over Taryn and to comfort those who were aggravated by the pain of it all. Over the next few days, I saw a kind of unprecedented bonding in the school community. Even beyond, others reached out to us. Everyone knew we lost an angel. Until the following Thursday, there was still a sickening pang inside of me. As a child of God, did I lose a sister as I had hoped? Or was God's word absent from Taryn?

Thursday, April 24th

Taryn's memorial service was the Thursday following the crash. Throughout the whole ordeal, I had explored some of my own faults and judgments. Originally, I had not intended to go. If I were so shaken up that Monday, how could I face Thursday?

Alas, there were no regrets. For I was blessed with the gift of knowing. They said that she loved her Bible, was active in her youth group, and served God willingly. I shed tears, but much more were they about celebration than they were about grief. Taryn was my sister in Christ. Although I did not know it, she spent her days doing all she could to know her Master. Everytime the thought of loss entered my mind, a greater thought of joy countered it. It told me that when Taryn's door of earthy life closed, one of Heavenly life opened for her, and she went through it. She had
completed her journey and there was no doubt that she had went to be with the Lord. I was able to feel true relief this time. Taryn had found refuge in the Lord.

My afterthoughts examined my own life. I was reminded that I am not here because of my own will, but because of God's. Taryn did not die in vain. I would want to make sure that in all that I do, I bring honor to the Almighty, so that I would also leave this world without regret.

Time for an update

2008-04-11T23:18:00.000-07:00

It has been monumentally long since my last update. Particularly obvious since Governor Huckabee is no longer in the race. I don't have much to say as his move was not unexpected, but I commend him on running a valiant campaign. Our country looks to land in the hands of Barack-socialist-Obama, and perchance conservatives shall look to 2012 for rekindlement.

My recent trip to China was a true bittersweet experience, but as it's late, there's time to recount those tales later on.

Sorry to disappoint my 0 person reader-base. :)

Why Mike Huckabee's FairTax makes sense

2008-02-23T11:41:00.000-08:00

A lot of blind bandwagoners have tendencies to believe that Republicans only feel compelled to tax the poor and middle class. Well, guess what? Mike Huckabee's plan for the FairTax does exactly the opposite. And all around, the new system would eventually restore the American economy into what it should have been.

The current tax system as devised by the IRS inhibits legal employment, fair labor, and domestic economization. The burden falls heaviest on small business owners who are essentially in a crunch between capital investment and heavy tax burdens. These small businesses don't have a tax filing division. They're struggling under the current tax system, giving more money the government than they should be investing in helping their own customers.

The IRS currently finds any way possible to slap a tax on any income gained, through whatever process. The dividends are taxed when invested; capital gains are taxed; estate taxes are implemented; any where that money goes, part of that money will end up in the hands of the IRS. The part that doesn't make sense is where our taxes end up going. I'll tell you right now that a portion of that goes to government subsidies which helps fund welfare for people who DON'T deserve it. Citizens who are perfectly capable to work, but not willing, are siphoning off each cent that we make and have to fill out the paperwork for. Under the democrat's plans, not only will they continue to allow this to happen, but they are even eliminating tax cuts, and imposing taxes. This money then goes to government mandated programs liked 'universal' health care, which essentially would socialize Americans, provide unfair incentives for greedy idiots, and diminish the quality of health care. Every cent you would then pay by the taxes under the Democrats would go to funding someone else's doctor trips. Worse, is that under Clinton free health care system, certain buffoons would end up going to the doctor several times a year for trivial matters. And every cent is subsidized by money that came out of your wallet.

The solution, albeit controversial, has merits would supersede the idiotic and impractical plans of the democrats.

Under the FairTax system, a 23% sales tax is charged on all goods and services flowing through the economy. Every income tax is eliminated and provides incentives for labor. With the eradication of the IRS, citizens are no longer categorized into tax brackets depending on their income, but every cent earned is a cent made. People who are working two jobs no longer have to be concerned about being placed in the same tax bracket as the wealthier. This system then cracks down the unemployed who choose not to work not because they can't, but because they don't want to.

Some people think, "Oh no! 23% sales tax! How ever will I buy my groceries?" Relax. The new sales tax system does a variety of things. It first implements a flat rate in the entire country; this tax then helps increase purchasing power, stimulating the economy which should already be bolstered by the incentives for fair labor. Two things happen: employment goes up, the market goes up. Now, here is the part where everyone will like. With the sales tax, every household gets a tax rebate depending on the purchases made up to the poverty level. That means, some people don't have send a cent of money to the government. With such a strongly diminished tax burden, not only will employment levels rise, but the economy will be stimulated through more people willing to put their money back into the economy. Purchasing power goes up even more; and the economy is made stronger.

Another problem with the IRS is that the current income tax system imposes such a hard burden on families, that many jobs are flying off to other countries that can provide cheaper labor and either little to no tax burden. Namely China would benefit; with such a large workforce, the money we spend in the States then goes into importing more crap from China. Then who's economy is bolstered? The elimination of the IRS will allow multinational corporations to consolidate their interests in the States alone, where citizens would be motivated to work by the incentives provided by the prospect of having to pay no income tax.

So think about it, before you decide to vote for the democrats, think about their plans and how their tax systems will not only leave millions of workers troubled, but will also dig the economy into a deeper hole.

My Homecoming and some other Political Thoughts

2008-02-18T18:29:00.000-08:00

So about 1am in the morning, I returned from the 'Palm Springs of Washington'-- Yakima. I was there for the Washington Music Educator's Association (WMEA) 2008 Conference as a participant in the All-State Honor Jazz band. I have finally been able to accumulate a long list of thoughts regarding the weekend: some sentimental, some a little stoic.

I will admit that I felt strongly against attending this year. A few days before the conference, I had even stated that I had 'hated' All-State. Consequentially, it would have no doubt entailed missing regrettable amounts of schoolwork and other obligations that I have dutifully been committed to over this past year. The memories are vivid. The day I arrived in Yakima, I remember telling myself that the way I felt at that moment would not nearly reflect how I would feel after the conference. At least, I was truthful to myself. I knew that my feelings would have changed starkly.

It is indeed regrettable that I felt this way. There were two feasible options: one rather unfavorable, the other optimal. Both entailed both poles of the consequences. I was apprehensive of the first option: to alienate myself with the rest of jazz band, to spend my tenure there in solitude, and to leave with the ability to depart from my peers without a single tear shed.

The second option was much more appealing. I would arrive, adopt gregarious levels of conduct, intermingle with the others in a sociable manner, and leave with a heavy heart knowing that many of them I would not see again.

Thank God I took the latter. The first night I can say was experimental. I gambled dangerously with my ability to commit to both options and decided to exhibit with the former first. The great misfortune of it was that some of it did not occur at my discretion, but rather at that of nature's arbitrary will. The first dinner, I was left to dine with the director and group managers rather than with the the majority of the band. Feel sorry for me if you must, but it was I who should have been flogged for my lack of decisiveness. I then decided to continue in exhibiting with this less favorable option. After our evening rehearsals, a large group of the band came into my room to play Apples to Apples. Everyone in the room sans myself joined. While I feigned sleep and tried to give off the appearance of a weary individual who needed rest, I wasn't fooling myself. I hated every minute of it. Plan A was aborted.

The following morning allowed to commit myself more strongly to the second option. I was able to sit with the other students, converse with them, and enjoy breakfast with them. Meals were most strongly indicative of the only time I could adhere to the plan. We had no real breaks during the rehearsals.

The plan went through well. I was able to find a laugh with my roommates that evening as we watched classic wresting from the 90's, which I must say exhibited some very questionable stunts. The rest of the weekend passed under this operation. I found time to get out of my room and even enjoy a poolside sing-a-long whipped up by our pianist. I found favor in two other fellows when we got to talk before the US Army Brass Quintet concert.

Following our own concert, my only regret was not being able to say the goodbyes I wanted to say. I made friends, and I know it was harder to leave, but it would have been so much easier on myself in the following years. I know that I may never see some of my All-State friends again. Some I will come to meet in the future. But at least I know the weekend was not in vain.

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

After I came back, I had decided again to test my political wits having been against exposed to more liberal thoughts and ideas. I am still conservative but I have begun to acknowledge the democrats, in both good ways and bad. I have found that I disagree with Barack Obama the most out of all the candidates. I reminisce at what my other friends have felt, and I do admit I am not happy with the amount of superficial loyalty there is. Someone told me that they would support Obama over Clinton being that Obama is the superior speaker, the more charismatic, and the more personal. All is agreed. I had claimed the same, and chose Obama over Clinton. This came from one of my more conservative friends.

Two months pass and my mind has changed. I've done my research and I realize that I agree more with Hilary Clinton's ideologies than her democratic rival. They say Hilary is more conservative and I agree (Of course, in the same relative plane as each other, but are incomparable to Huckabee). I now a slightly less troubled perspective of Hilary Clinton and question why many others even hate her. I regret jabbing at my own conservative peers, but they have only looked at Hilary Clinton as a woman and subservient to Obama. There is a lot to reminisce on the issue, but why bother? American politics will almost never be genuine.

In the aftermath of all this, I have clear up that I remain still a staunch conservative. I remain the most conservative person of anyone I know personally who was taken Political Compass. And I have decided to make due of showing this in a statistical manner. Here is how I rack up with the candidates:

I agree with:
95% of what Mike Huckabee says and believes.
90% of what Mitt Romney says and believes.
70% of what John McCain says and believes.
12% of what Hilary Clinton says and believes.
5% of what Barack Obama says and believes.

Informing you- Sherwin on the Issues: Common Misconceptions

2008-02-01T16:47:00.000-08:00

Now that I'm back from California and have found a hole in my schedule, I've decided to occupy this void with more politics. I would write about something else, but I'm fresh out of ideas. There has been a lot going on with me as a student personally, and that should be my next topic of choice. As of now, I'm in the process of writing The Social Conservative's Manifesto. I intend for it to be a few hundred pages long, but as I've failed at equally regal ambitions in the past, I won't count on it being done for quite a while.

I admit I've failed as an informed student. I will say upfront that I am socially conservative first and when it comes to economic/fiscal issues, I'm more moderate. Yes, I'm copping out. The markets are more complex; monetary matters aren't nearly as straightforward. So I figured I'd be simply a stronger proponent of social conservatism.

This is just to address misconceptions of conservative ideas, informing you where I stand on the issues, and to explain the controversy behind it.

Gun Control: Our Second Amendment Rights

"The right to bear arms..."

This has obviously been a very sensitive issue ever since Columbine and VA Tech. Proponents of gun control have often pointed to the easy access of guns for dangerous criminals. They lay the issue as the blame of diminutive gun control. I do quite enjoy the phrase: "Guns don't kill people; people do". It's very true. The very cause of this debacle rests at a human problem, not a mechanical one. Am I saying that there should be phr33 guns for everyone? Absolutely not. Anyone who has shown responsibility should be eligible to purchase a gun. The same goes for issuing drivers and pilots licenses. Every citizen should have the prerogative of staying safe. For those who breach the intent with malice; then the issue must be traced back further so the decimation of the mind may be stayed.

Abortion

"The right to live..."

I'm easily strong against abortion. To be very straightforward, I believe that the right to live trumps any other inalienable liberties. To say that a woman should have the right to choose at the expense of destroying another life is almost sickening to me. I have a tremendous respect for women; I really do. But every human should entail a sense of responsibility. A woman should never even be in the situation of debating whether or not to have an abortion if she maintains responsible character and regards her priorities dutifully. If she has made the choice to engage in sexual intercourse, then she has automatically consented to conceive. Pregnancy is a serious issue that shouldn't be taken lightly, and women should not gamble with it unless they are seriously considering having children. The only exception is if the woman never consented to be impregnated in the first place (i.e. rape). It's important to remember that our freedoms are not impeding those of others.

The same goes for embryonic stem cell research. We should not be looking to advance at the expense of human life. If there are diseases sans cures, then it is not meant for us to find one through unnatural means, especially when it comes to the destruction of the vessels of life.

The Environment

Prioritize, Prioritize, Prioritize...

There is a huge misconception that conservatives want to flush the world down the toilet. Rather, it is not as objective and direct as that, but a lot of reasoning comes through cause and effect. People must remember that the world is a network; massive and expansive, of ideas, cultures, peoples, and much more. Conservatives don't believe in killing the earth, but they do believe in prioritizing issues that are at great stake concerning humanity. Saving trees should not have to incur human adversity. Commonly, should one small adverse effect infringe upon this orderly network of human behavior, our entire existence spirals. We live in a highly institutionalized society, which must be maintained by order and human prosperity. That is not to say to disregard the environment completely. If there are things that can be done without human expense, then it is strongly encouraged they be carried out. Recycle your paper. Ride your bike to work when you can. Don't litter. Don't bloody smoke. Invest in composting if feasible. There are many things we can do to ensure the environment is maintained, as long as the very existence of humans are not at stake.

Homosexuality

Preserving the family...

I actually have a lot to say about why I think homosexuality is wrong, but instead of touching on that, I will address on the misconceptions of what conservatives think. People believe that conservatives hate gays. They think that we like to infringe upon the freedoms of others. (Okay, I lied, I will talk about why homosexuality is wrong, IMO) However, it is often overlooked that natural and inalienable rights are given as a natural privileges. Such privileges should not be handled at the discretion of men. In my hopefully humble opinion, homosexuality is unnatural. The evidence is prevalent in what we see in nature. The physical forms of every creature exists in such a way that a male and a female may interact physically. Yes, this is called sex. Animals execute this act usually to procreate. In this way, reproduction is only possible in nature by a heterosexual interaction between a male and a female. It is impossible by homosexual acts. Thus, the unnaturalness of homosexuality renders it ineligible to serve as an inalieble right. The misconception? Conservatives hate gays. That's untrue in every form of the statement. As a Christian, I love (or at least try to) everyone, including homosexuals. A common Christian phrase is "Love sinners, hate sin". The same is true of homosexuality. I will embrace and try to reach out the gays, but I will disagree with their way of life. People just have to remember that we despise actions, not people.

The Death Penalty

"What goes around comes around..."

I have seen the arguments of liberals on this issue, and do acknowledge their merits. Life is precious, but only when we've regarded the same is true for other human beings. I admit that I did read the arguments of another conservative, but found the content so intriguing that I would relay the information on. The idea is that those who commit murder have forfeited their regard of human life, including not only the victim, but him/herself as well. If you decide to violate the rights of another human being, then those very rights should be exempt from your ability to use them as well. Justice is an important virtue.

Immigration

"The Law is law..."

This is an issue where I am more moderate. I have heard the arguments of candidates like Mike Huckabee and John McCain on this issue, and I have to agree, but only to a certain extent. Immigrants are important people. They help shape diversity in our land. They are an asset to the economy by providing labor. They also help provide their own selves with opportunities nonexistent in their home land. When they come legally, they are heralded. Immigrants who go through the painstaking process of legalities for the sake our our national defense should be commended. However, there are often those who bypass the legalities. They often don't realize that they are testing our security and encouraging crime. They overlook the idea that the only expense of legal application is time. However, their intents are what make me moderate. Illegal immigrants are indeed people and often wish to provide dreams for their families without the hassle. While it's important to protect the border, it's also important to evaluate how well illegal immigrants have done in our society. If they have shown that they have not used our security flaws to their advantage, and have proved themselves hardworking in our economy, then they should be rewarded with amnesty. For those who have only come to make trouble should be punished. But while this is the case for those already in the country, I do believe that our borders should tightened to try and eradicate any possibility of a security breach. Mike Huckabee also talked about rewarding illegal immigrant children with college/tuition benefits. He made a very profound statement, which went something like: "We shouldn't be punishing children for something their parents did". Children are not smart enough to try and cross the borders of their own accord. If they have entered our country without consent and are willing to go on as dutiful and responsible citizens, then they should benefit. It's always good to remember that the law only governs those who commit wrongs.

Okay, so finally I'm through. There are plenty more issues of where I stand, but this is just a glimpse to see why I believe what I believe. Perhaps this will more liberals understand that I'm not simply a heartless and cruel Republican.

Disney Part II continued

2008-01-16T18:53:00.000-08:00

After a long recess of procrastination and a preoccupied mind, I have decided to return to that magical world of Disney. I felt that a chance to diverge from the serious subjects was in order. Yes, if you have read my earlier post, my Disney vacation still sticks to my mind rather unwittingly. After returning to my habitual and institutionalized life at home, I felt a strong old urge to maintain focus upon building what was important and vocational ventures. Fortunately, I believe it is important to seek recreation and slip in leisure at times when the mind is most prone to falter. While I have still avoided the professional world, I still feel that strong desire to return to adolescent virtues.

I still will not address the purported superficiality and corporate image that some believe that Disney has adopted. It is not the right time to talk about that. In fact, I don't have a clear distinctive topic at hand. Simply, I feel the need to expand on my quickly dying Disney delights.

Like I have already hinted, I don't feel any particular sentiment in the tangible amenities of the resort itself. The rides can be thrilling albeit long lines. The visual attractions and displays are appealing. Yes, the veracity of these claims are quite legitimate. However, despite the recreational and leisurely validity of such, I have found them to be diminutive in comparison to the sentimental environment of the place. Even the pretty face of an attractive girl still does not help the aforementioned outweigh the intangible sentiments of the park(s).

It must be the feel of the place. You know it because despite overcrowding and other less favorable factors, you are simply detached from viva la institucion. Here, you can feel free from vocational obligations, family duties, and such, and simply enjoy yourself. And the characters play their part too, reinforcing that Disney theme. The rides spring memories from your childhood when you watched Peter Pan. This is partially why I enjoy theme parks so much more than amusement parks. In my opinion, there are two significant factors in making a ride appealing to ride.

Number one is the essential; the structural engineering of the ride, the void you feel in your stomach when going through a corkscrew, stuff like that. This is something all thrill rides will have. You get on, ride, and get off.

Number two is the icing on the cake. Actually, it's more like frosting. The question remains: Is the ride themed? And can it be an experience? At Disney, every ride is themed in such a way as to evoke memories and sentiment that supersede simply the physical thrills of the ride. You aren't simply riding on metal tracks; you are in an adventure which has you as the participant. They remind you of movies you seen, sights and sounds you've heard; the cornucopia of memoirs from your adolescence. You set out on an excursion, have an adventure, and come back.

In this particular aspect, I may not be ready to grow up yet. I still want to relive the memories of strolling under the torches of Adventureland, navigating through the crowded sidewalks during a parade down Main Street USA. Really, there's no such thing as life sans superficiality. If this is superficial, then so be it. At least, it's a heck of a lot easier to breathe there than back in the muggy confines of your office cubicle.

I feel the need to explain myself

2008-01-15T17:52:00.000-08:00

I don't mean to be critical of anyone or impose my views on others, but I feel the need to explain myself. As you can already tell, this post will be largely centered around my faith, so in essence, it is bound to be controversial. While no one I know personally has directly attacked my faith, I still feel there should be rationale behind my beliefs. Of course, I've had strangers severely verbally abuse me across the internet, and naturally it's easy to cuss out someone you've never met and someone you'll never see again. Personally, I think it's a cowardly way to express your opinions.

Ah...I'm going off on a tangent. Okay. This post is intended to address the issue between God, man, science, logic, and faith. As the large majority of society knows, the quintessential debate of this issue surrounds the battle between creationism and evolution. Obviously, I don't believe in evolution.

To begin, I'd like to address faith as a character. Being religious is very subjective. There's no way you can say this is this and that is that. Having faith involves sacrificing the convenience of objective rhetoric. In essence, God is a very subjective God. He does not need certain proofs or evidences to get His point across. On the other hand, the mental evolution of humans have essentially determined logic as a necessity. It's very simple and something which little blame can come out of. Because of the ambiance, environment, and the simple physical properties of the Earth as we know it, humans are dependent on the need to explain everything. I find great misfortune to be asked questions like, "How did God create Himself?" or "Is God so powerful that He can create a rock so large that even He Himself cannot life?" To be faithful in Christ is challenging because you have the premise of endearing notions sans the humanly critical objective rationale. Unfortunately, I've made it sound like Christians are stupid. On the other hand, knowledge can be very different for those of faith. It's not integrated and dependent on logic; rather, it is flexible to accommodate not only blind faith but subtle nuances in the surrounds which might indicate the presence of God.

This leads me to my next point. I would like to apologize beforehand, because this will seem a little more critical of contradicting viewpoints. Many atheists often say that they choose not to believe in God because they feel the need to defeat fate and be entirely in control of their own direction, purpose, and life. But what is rather interesting about this statement is that this is a paradox. Quite on the contrary, such people would be less in control of their lives. Let me explain. To say that God is absent from existence would essentially mean that everything as it is occurred as a result of an accident. Me being here and typing this, or you here reading this is merely what happened by chance, a gamble. Thus, by a slim proportional margin are we all here functioning in this way and that. So going back to my first point: A nonexistent God signifies your existence by chance, which means, your life was determined by a possibility, weighing against the probability that you may have never existed in the first place. My point? How would you find the need to discover a purpose that supersedes you if you may have never existed?

Expanding on this concept, saying that we evolved from the non-existent workings of a non-existent creator also means that we are here as humans, somehow evolved by chance from a common ancestor, managed to be plopped down here on a once stunningly beautiful planet, and are here reminiscing these thoughts. I, on the other hand, can look out a window and see a vast sunrise, or look down the road and take in a gorgeous wintry mountain, or absorb the sparkle of an expansive sea, and I can tell myself: "There's no way that by the slim margin of chance can I be viewing this and appreciating this." I admit that I've always been quite the freak of our great urban centers. Skyscrapers thrill me, and I can sigh at a magnificent skyline; however, nothing will ever sway me from being appreciated at what came from nature. I think man can all argue that the best things are natural and free.

[Okay, I just had dinner, which means that my perception of reality has been irrevocably altered. In essence, I won't write as fervently any more.]

One of the things that have had me attached me to belief in creationism is the concept of human superiority. How can it possibly be that humans are inherently superior to all other animals? Did evolution suddenly make an exception and decide that this homo sapiens species will have greater intelligence than others? Or did natural selection decide to weed out all of the "stupidity" evident in animals? In my mind, there's no doubt that an accident of chance was not the cause of a higher level of intellect. I believe that humans are superior because we were made to be, not because we were chanced to be. I believe we have a purpose, and whether you believe it or not, I think it's there, very real.

So the next time someone asks me if I believe in evolution, I'll just say, "Nature doesn't roll dice; and neither does God."

Enough of the Intellectual Crap

2008-01-10T16:48:00.000-08:00

So I'm actually going to write about something not as insightful today. Today, you, the reader, will learn a little more about my personal life.

At school today, much of the social discourse centered around food. It ended up to the point where we were all discussing Instant Noodles; in particular, Nong Shim's Shin Ramyun.

It's very simple. The brand is extremely popular among Eastern Orientals. Chances are, the majority of Asian households in the United States either consistently buy the product or at least have tried it. I myself have tasted a variety of Asian Instant Noodle brands, varying from beef to chicken to kimchi to seaweed and whatnot. No brand can come close to Shin Ramyun.

Anyway, that's not the point of this blog, to talk about ramen.

In a little over a week, my wind ensemble is traveling across the state to an invitational, where we are going to attend clinics, meet other skilled wind ensembles, and be directed under Eugene Migliaro Corporon. Mr. Corporon is a well known conductor at the University of North Texas, and has been purported to be an icon of honor. Anyway, this particular band trip requires that we stay in some kind of hotel for lodging. This always gets me excited.

Around my freshman year, I decided to start a little tradition. Every band trip that was blessed with the amenity of a hotel, we would always buy and eat lots of ramen. There are an awful lot of things you can do in a hotel that you cannot in a school gym. Well, I distinctively recall our first trip; we purchased a good amount of ramen at a grocery market we stopped by. After checking in at the hotel, we realized that we made the terrible mistake of forgetting to consider preparations on how to cook the bloody noodles. Well that was just unacceptable. I was determined to ensure that noodles would be the staple of all band trips.

Just my luck; I had noticed that the coffee pot was a usable and handy accessory to our "cause". It was simple enough; I used the coffee pot to boil water and thus, we initiated the rite of 'Band ramen'. I often said, "It's not a band trip without ramen!" Interestingly enough, there have been times where we had to stay in gyms. What were to do then?

You see, I enjoy food. Enough so that I tend to disregard food safety warnings. Microwaveable soups and pastas are supposed to microwaved. I eat them cold. I've had a funny habit of eating food that others would abhor. In my opinion, cold canned pasta has a kind of special sentiment that hot foods cannot evoke. I haven't gotten food poisoning once yet so I think it's safe to say that I'm safe so far. I see food as a right, not a privilege. Eat when you can and enjoy it!

Why did I write this? Because I'm hungry.

The Church is a Nerd

2008-01-07T20:31:00.000-08:00

This will be my first major controversial post, but I will guarantee it won't be the last.
--------

The Christian church is a nerd. A geek. A loser. It's true. When you generically stereotype popularity cliques, the hierarchy bounces from the jocks and preps down to the emos, geeks and nerds. This structure is clearly evident in middle and high school. Why can't it be evident in society as well? I'll tell you that there is clear evidence of a social hierarchy. And I'm not talking about class, wealth, and reputation. I'm talking about the things that society covets and the bandwagons created for people to jump on.

In order to be cautious in overstepping what exactly I know and am aware of, let's only focus on Western culture. The West is by far the most radical, liberal, inconsistent, and unorthodox. Long gone are the days of fundamentalism and conservative culture.

In essence, ever since the 60s counterculture evolved into the modern-day counterculture, only three major 'classes' have formed. (I'm stereotyping here, so here you can only accept the fact that most of stereotypes are indeed true). At the top of the hierarchy sits the most unorthodox and liberal group. These consist the God-haters, satanists, anti-Christians, and hedonists. This group's will is bent upon challenging every bit of fundamentalism solidified by not only the early church fathers, but the moral integrities established long since.

In the middle, we have the Indifferents. For the most part, this group is moderate in the majority of aspects. There is the combination of sympathetic atheists, agnostics, the apathetic religious, and others in this all-encompassing sense of "we just don't care". Or rather, it's not that no one cares, but that everyone is tolerant. Here, the atheists love their Christian bretheren but just are indifferent to religious ideals. The agnostics feel the supersession of the divine while still maintaining ambiguity in opinion. The apathetic religious attend church or temple on Sundays, but hold diminuitive regard over it during the week. Everyone tolerates one another; some accept the orthodoxy of fundamentalism, others merely acknowledge it.

Lastly, at the bottom, we have the fundamentalists. This is the Church. These are the religious few who stick to the conservative ideals. (Just in the context of my example, I am going to use specifically Christians). This group consists of the people who attend church services weekly and perhaps bible studies; the people who try to pray and attempt to give God their best. While some succeed and most fail, it is the Christian sense of purpose that drives them. They maintain their loyalty to a Creator albeit the flak taken from the rest of society. These folks stick strong to moralistic values, fundamentalist ideals, and conservative rhetoric.

It all boils down to the three stereotypes. I can essentially equate the situation to a high school social hierarchy:

The top: the Unorthodox (AKA the jocks, preps, and more likable characters)
The middle: the Indifferents (I can't think of an appropriate counterpart)
The bottom: the Fundamentalists/Faithful (AKA the losers and geeks)

This is what it is. Everyone wants to feel free. Everyone wants to be a jock. They don't want to be bounded by divine government or moral codes. They feel that by challenging conservative culture, they are cool.

To them, being religious and faithful is uncool. It's stupid to read the Bible; stupid to go to church; idiotic to pray. To be a Christian in their eyes is almost a mockery. Christians are absolutely pathetic in the way they trust their lives to a God they cannot see. They pray to nothing. They believe in the crackpot theory that their Savior died and came back to life. Christians are geeks and near no one wants to be them.

Looking back on what I've been writing for the past half hour, I get a kind of melancholy. It's certainly sad for me, but it's the truth. I've never spoken out too much about this kind of situation or where it lies for me on a personal scale.

I obviously can't hide it because it would do me no good; only shame to what I believe in. If I am right and this is how society brands everything, then I am a geek. I lose in society's perspective and I'm stupid for believing in the intangible, the unseen. I do believe in God. I do believe that He created every human being and that mankind was a fault unto himself. I also believe that a Savior was given to man albeit the denial and the controversy. I love God and I try to love humans. Writing this, it's almost ironic because I can see this through the eyes of the other 'classes'. It does sound stupid. Yes, maybe to them.

But to me, they're wrong.

Where do you draw the line?

2008-01-04T17:35:00.000-08:00

At last, today I was challenged for my political views. This led me to this train of thought: Where does one draw the line between being opinionated and close-minded?

While working, I, along with three students, began discussing yesterday's Iowa caucus. It should have been engaging since it was between me (far-right), a friend (far-left), and two fairly center female classmates. Since we all naturally love each other, there was no (need for) animosity.

Shortly after returning to my work, one of the female classmates asked me who I would support if I had to pick a Democratic candidate at that very moment. I pondered the idea for a moment (or at least pretended to). My reply was going to be, "Barack Obama". But then I realized that I would be a complete fool, because in God's honest truth, I had not really carefully researched the Democrats' agendas.

I responded, "I haven't really looked at the Democrats."

"Then how can you support Huckabee if you don't know anything about the other candidates? Aren't you being close-minded?"

"Close-minded? No, no no, I'm very open-minded."

Okay. I admit I was caught off guard. Someone had finally found a flaw in my haughtiness and decided to exploit it. I continued to answer ambiguously as if I were a very open-minded fellow. Luckily, the classmate's attention was diverted away by some other happening.

After a few minutes pondering I had realized my answer. I was more opinionated rather than close-minded. A few more ponders led me to question where one even draws the line between the two. I would say that my opinions are conservative, that I believe that a GOP candidate holds the agenda that I believe will change this country. In essence, I decided there was no need to pore over the democrats. Democrats are liberal and Republicans (or at least, most of them are) are conservative; it is simply black and white like that.

The counterargument takes an approach from a differing perspective. The idea is that if you do not hear, acknowledge, and at least attempt to absorb the rhetoric being propagated from all sides, then you are close-minded.

Now that's harsh. And while I can see why some may maintain this view, I disagree with it. In my opinion, being close-minded is not knowing the facts and completely disregarding opposing viewpoints without even acknowledging the credentials, legitimacy, and more importantly, the actual ideal.

I can break it down into something as simple as this:
I don't agree with the democrats, so I'm not going to vote for them.

See? It's opinion.

I tend to stand out

2008-01-02T14:06:00.000-08:00

Living as a conservative in a liberal-principled yet conservativesque setting is intriguing. Even more so when I journey over the lake into Seattle, where the people not only think liberally, but live liberally as well. I don't consider myself extremely sheltered but enough so that I will cringe when a frizzly-bearded man missing two front teeth comes up to me and rants about the ineptitude of youth.

I hate to stereotype but as it is already a major constituent of American fabric, I haven't a choice but to act inclusively of common stereotypes. Here are some as already set by our culture: a deep Southern conservative will speak in a heavy accent, live as a rural agriculturist, wear overalls, and will be considerably illiterate. A northern liberal, on the other hand, will be a homosexual artist working in the city, struggling financially and smoking pot every weekend. To sum things up, the two are generalized in this way: the urban poor tend to be liberal, the rural poor conservative. Complete bull, of course. Then it reminded me of how stereotypes fluctuate. For example, while aforementioned a conservative is described as a poor, illiterate farmer, other aspects of society have branded conservatives as rich, white, haughty men basking in corporate wealth.

Of course, stereotypes according to political principles are hardest to categorize. But let me not go off onto a different tangent.

I often find my presence as a minority conservative very engaging. My school, while purported "liberal", resides in an area where the majority of students are labeled upper middle class. Going back to the being liberal principled, but not living liberally. Anyway, I won't openly advocate conservative rhetoric unless it is called for. My social networking profiles show clear evidence that I favor conservative ideals, but no one has ever challenged me for it. I have many very liberal friends, none of whom have ever questioned me.

One would think that I must be apprehensive of the given situation. Fearful even, of being constantly struck down for favoring money-grubbing, fascist, dictators. Quite on the contrary, my charisma is welcomed. Not to seem immodest, but my advocacy for candidates like Mike Huckabee is often laughed at appreciatively; maybe not taken seriously, but well immersed in good humor.

I often hear groups like the Gay-Straight Alliance and other liberal organizations propagate their beliefs. I may not agree with certain principles, but I certainly don't go charging down doors demanding that all homosexuals be banned. I am also principled: love homosexuals, hate homosexuality.

Essentially, I guess I am tolerant. Or at least outwardly so. I have heard things which would make Southern blood boil. I know there will always be opposition; there's simply no point fighting it. I, on the other hand, make it humorous and engaging. A stiff political debate can always be turned into laughs. It doesn't mean I don't take politics seriously. It just means I'm either open-minded (hopefully) or a complete pansy.

The Disney Infatuation

2008-01-01T21:35:00.001-08:00

I've always been well swayed by adorable things. Whether it be a plush and cuddly teddy bear or a one-month old puppy. Everyone else around me grew egos which refused anything un-masculine. The evolutionary process went something like this: Mr. Roger's Neighborhood... Tomagachis... Pokemon... and eventually something along the lines of the NCAA Bowl Championship Series. Not to be mistaken, though. I do love football. I've just always been fond of things that would appeal more to adolescents.

On a recent trip to the Walt Disney World Resort, I expected the following: long lines, thrilling rides, mediocre rides, attractive girls, pleasantly seasonable weather, expensive food, prolonged sessions of walking, and altered sleeping habits. Overall, that amounts an essentially mediocre vacation. That is, until you leave.

At the end of the weeklong retreat, I was ready to retire back to the cloudy Pacific Northwest and brave its magnificent chill. But as soon as I did that, my heart yearned to be back in Central Florida. I missed the sun and shine of Orlando, but most of all, the magic of Disney. (I know, the superficiality of Disney's so-called magic is disputed. But at this moment, this had no regard for me.)

After several days, I was able to deduce the issue. I did not miss the singular constituents that made places like the Magic Kingdom mediocre. The lines and rides were only a small part of it. Rather, it was the overarching environment that emitted this 'magical' sense. Whether it was the 'Holiday Wishes' fireworks spectacular, or strolling through Main Street USA at night, or seeing a fair-looking lady whose gregariousness would have far surpassed mine, I felt the place could live up to its slogan: "The Happiest Place on Earth".

Subjectivity can lead to practical action. Even one week later, I still ponder on how to fill the void which Disney vacated after I left Florida. I came up with the answer a few days later. One of the things that stood out to me was the privileges shared by many who worked at the Disney World Resort. The Parks and Resorts division of the Disney corporation calls these employees 'cast members'. Whatever it was, it appealed to me. Of course, there were natural counterarguments against working there. It was impractical. Moving to either Anaheim or Orlando to slave eight hours a day just to earn a mere several bucks? Still, I felt like even this couldn't stop me.

I then discovered the Walt Disney World College Program. I won't go into vast detail, but it's very simple. A 'paid' internship where college students flock to Orlando. The philosophy? Live, learn, and earn. Live near the resort. Take classes for college credit. And earn money for working as a cast member. The idea appealed to me greatly. However, the strongest counterargument relied on my being so institutionalized. I knew that should I leave even one semester behind, everything would fall apart. But the appeal rested in the financial perks. Instead of paying tuition, I would make a little bit of money. Not only that, but I would be able to retain the 'magic' I so long yearned for.

My resolve? I haven't one yet. I have still two years in which to make my decision.

Naturally, my friends have grown skeptical and a little wary of the "lunacy" I've began to show.

"Magic? Seriously."

"Ok, dude, there is no magic."

But as I've already said, I grew up and remain different than most other males my age. Or is that because of a Disney Infatuation? I still maintain that the imagination is a very powerful device... Walt Disney's own philosophy.

Even still, I have more to relate regarding Disney and my minority principles.