Closing out 2014

It's the last day of 2014. A chance to look back at what I have done and what I have become, and a chance to look forward to a future enriched by all that I've learned from what happened in the past.

It's been a difficult year in many ways. A year of learning to let go and say goodbye. A year of fighting to get from one day to the next.A year of fighting to keep my light shining when the darkness was at its deepest.

I have said goodbye to the business that we did have. I have said goodbye to my space in the art gallery. I have said goodbye to my grandmother, who left this world to enter the next. I have said goodbye to my son twice, the first time when he left for bootcamp and the second time when he left for Texas. I have felt crushed by these things, and they have led me to struggle with finding my way in the darkness.

It's been a good year in many ways. I have seen my son graduate high school, and take on responsibilities of caring for himself. I have been blessed by family and friends who surrounded and lifted us up when things got hardest. I have been blessed to know that in spite of everything, I am loved.

I have seen the fruit of our struggles to get my son through school. I have seen the fruit of our struggles to parent him in spite of our own faults and failings. I have seen the fruits of surrounding myself with community and serving others. I have seen the fruits of prayers and of cultivating a close relationship with God.

It's been a year of preparing the ground. I didn't achieve many of my goals. I didn't accomplish the things I had in mind. Instead, as I look back, I realize that the work I have done this year has all gone toward teaching me the things I needed to know to achieve the work that needs to be done in the new year. The ground is now ready, the seeds are beginning to grow, and I have great hopes for 2015.

The business that passed away spurred me on to grow in my understanding of why I failed, and what I could do to succeed. That education was crucial, and the seeds that were planted as I struggled to master what I needed to know are almost ready to begin showing themselves. The poverty that crippled us inspired me to write a book, and to develop a plan for helping others. Those plans are nearly ready.

The struggles to rise up out of poverty inspired me to write other books, and those books are in process, too. I know that these things have been prepared for a purpose and with a reason, as part of God's plan for a future in which I will serve him in a much bigger way than I ever thought possible.

2014 has been a year in which God got me ready for 2015. Everything that happened during it taught me, inspired me, motivated me, and pushed me into doing things I might never have done otherwise. I am grateful for their role, and I am looking forward to seeing the fruits that come of the work that's been done.

Brandy's Guide to Creating Racial and Class Divides

Step 1. Take a story about two teenage boys of roughly the same age, but of different race or different economic status. Bonus: Get them to be different both racially AND economically.

Step 2. Despite the many differences in their case histories and details, be sure that they are both being tried for similar crimes.  Double Bonus: Make sure the white kid's crime outcome is of greater severity than the black kid's, even if his crime didn't happen because he intended to hurt someone but as a result of a severe lapse of judgement.

Step 3.  Be careful to omit important details in your reporting of the story so that it appears that the white, rich teen was treated better than the poor, black kid.  Triple Bonus: Be sure to emphasize the wealth of the father of the white kid and the stupidity of the defense used for the white kid, thereby implying that the kid got the leniency he did because of a better attorney and not because the judge was a generally lenient judge.

Step 4.  Flavor your article with emotional language that creates a psychological bias against the judge and the rich kid. Quadruple Bonus: Submit this article as NEWS to places like the Huffington Post.

Step 5. Post a link about this "news" story to sites you know aren't likely to do any fact checking, but are likely to have a knee-jerk reaction and will help the story go "viral".

Step 6. Sit back and watch as the media helps millions of Americans everywhere eye one another with suspicion and hatred, absolutely convinced that our justice system is a complete failure and that race and class are the biggest problems we face.

Congratulations!  You have created racial and class divides in 6 easy steps.  You can now roll up your sleeves and get to work on conquering these divided people, since they are too suspicious of one another to trust each other and too demoralized to believe in the system they created. Repeat this process a few more times and you won't have to worry about collapsing America.  She'll fall in on herself like a house of cards.

Two of the most meaningless phrases used in journalism

Today, I'm going to spend a little time ranting about bad journalism. I have read many a newspaper article which uses the phrase, “Scholars agree” or “Scientists agree”. Allow me to tell you why those are two of the most meaningless phrases in the English language and why you should NEVER use them in any kind of article which you want taken seriously.

1) It is not provable.

Unless you and your army of reporters are prepared to visit every single scholar and every single scientist in the course of history and question them to verify the fact that they agree with a certain statement, you have just submitted a statement that is so completely full of bologna that any editor who publishes it should be fired on the spot for allowing you to submit such meaningless garbage as if it were fact.

2) It is not likely.

Think of how hard it is to get two people who were eyewitnesses to an event to agree on exactly what happened and you’ll begin to see my point. For every additional person you add to that mix, the likelihood of getting a consensus goes down. Now consider how many scholars and scientists there are on any given subject matter, and you begin to get the picture of just how unlikely it is that all “scholars agree” or all “scientists agree”.

3) It relies upon anonymity

Just because someone has studied something in an academic setting or gotten their degree in chemistry does not guarantee that they are any good at what they do or even that they actually know anything useful. Without knowing the specific scientist or scholar, you can’t know the quality of their studies, the depth of their research, or the reliability of their interpretations of the data. In other words, without knowing who they are, it is impossible to judge whether their opinion or belief about a subject should be something we allow to guide our own.

4) It is manipulative.

Most people don’t like standing out from a crowd. They like to believe they are “normal” or whatever passes for normal at the moment. When they read a phrase that states that “scholars agree” or “scientists agree” they are being told that if they don’t agree, they are alone. It conditions them to accept whatever follows that phrase without question.

It is also designed to disarm the scientist or scholar who questions the statement, calling into question their own qualifications. The implied challenge is that if you were a “real” scientist or scholar, you would agree with all of the rest of them.
 

Conclusion: Stop Being Lazy

Stop being lazy. If you want to use consensus of opinion as part of your writing, that's fine, but make sure you cite your sources. Tell me what study was done, what the questions were that were asked, and let me be the judge of whether I trust those sources or not. The job of a journalist isn't to dictate opinion, it's to inform me of the facts so I can develop my own opinions based on facts.

What's Wrong With Our Country?

Do you want to know what's wrong with America today? In a word: laziness.  We allow other people to do our thinking for us, we allow other people to do our homework for us, and we want other people to take responsibility for our mistakes.  That's what's wrong with our country today. It's not a partisan issue, it's not a race issue, it's not even a religion/lack of religion issue.  It's a laziness issue.

The George Zimmerman case is a perfect example of laziness in action.  People let the media do their homework for them, and their homework was so badly off the mark it was laughable. In fact, a lot of what the media did was out and out make up stuff or alter stuff so that it sounded like something it wasn't. While what the media did was wrong, I don't put the blame on them.  I put the blame for the violence and the riots that are going on right now because of the verdict on the heads of the people who were too lazy to do their own homework.  Ask any one of them whether they believe the media is trustworthy and 90% of them will tell you they DO NOT trust the media, but that same 90% won't go out and do their own research on the matter.  They allow themselves to be shovel fed whatever concocted B.S. the media dreams up and then blame the media for the wrong answers they receive.  It's not the media's fault - it's the fault of all those who didn't bother to research, to read, to examine the facts, to understand the stakes, and instead allowed themselves to be duped, manipulated, and used by those who use the media as a wedge.

Another great example of laziness in action is abortion.  An overwhelming majority (72%) believe abortion should be illegal in most cases, yet we continue to allow it to go on just as our ancestors felt overwhelmingly uncomfortable with slavery but looked the other way rather than be inconvenienced by having to get up and DO SOMETHING about the situation.  We don't want to deal with the consequences and the aftermath, so we continue to allow millions of innocent babies to die because we are too lazy to take a stand.  Our future is slowly being wiped out, our nation being destroyed, because we won't get off our duffs and speak out.   If those of us who believe it is wrong were to stand together there is NO WAY the other side could continue to succeed, but we won't stand together because that would take work.  May God forgive the nation that has to tell Him that they did not defend the innocent because it was too much effort, as assuredly we someday will.

A third example of sheer laziness in action is the consistent blaming of the "government" for every conceivable problem with our nation.  It's a good cover, and maybe it makes you feel better to be able to point a finger at congress or the Supreme Court or the White House or the Senate and say, "They are the problem, they need to fix it".  However, that's not how our government works, and blaming the government won't fix the problems.  It's our government, WE are the government. WE need to rise up and FIX the problems by holding our elected leaders accountable, by evicting those who refuse to act on our behalf, and by stopping the senseless and ridiculous blaming of parties for problems that exist because we were so lazy we left it up to other people to run our country and now we see that they didn't know how to do it any better than we did.

How do we solve America's problems? We start by taking responsibility.  If we see a problem, WE take responsibility for fixing it. We don't leave it up to our elected leaders or our political parties or our local governments or our federal government. We roll up our sleeves and we get to work to solve the problem we see.  Real leaders do that.  They don't wait to be told what to do - they spot the problems and then they figure out a solution to the problems.  We need to do that, too.  Is it going to be easy? No. Is it going to happen overnight? No. Will we meet resistance? Yes.  That happens anytime someone introduces something new, anytime someone sets out to do something worth doing.  However, if you and I and everyone we know starts to do this, our nation will start to change.  Slowly but surely we will restore our nation to the greatness it once had and will once again stand as a free people.  It's up to us.

The Most Important Right of All

Enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, but largely ignored by government, judges, and the public at large, is a right to life.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson was a well-educated man, and the order in which he names the rights is neither accidental nor incidental.  That the right to life must come before all other rights is, if one thinks about it, a self-evident truth.  Of what use is freedom or rights to those who are dead?  They are beyond caring about the issues we find so absorbing.  They are also beyond the reach of earthly government laws, and are subject to laws of a much higher order if one believes in life after death. 

The reason the 2nd amendment, the right of the people to bear arms, was crafted was to protect that life from those who would seek to steal it by force.  Yet, in 1974, the government neatly ignored the logic and intention of the Constitution to create a "right" to abortion for women.  Sadly, almost 40 years later, the ignorance continues even and perhaps especially among the highly educated. Women such as Dana Kusnir who trumpet abortion as "one of the most important rights that a woman can have". Evidently, Ms. Kusnir does not understand what she is saying.  The most important right for any woman, whether born or unborn, is the right to life. The "right" to abortion deprives an unborn woman of that right.  It is an act of tyranny, an act so contrary to the intention and the logic of the Constitution that it begins to unravel the very fibers which hold the constitution together.

Abortion's legalization makes the right to life a right granted by the state, and thus an alienable right - one that can be given or removed at whim by the granter.  If the state can choose to give or to remove the right to life for the unborn, it can give or remove the right to life for anyone.  That's a dangerous power for any government, or any human being to have.  If the government can decide based on an arbitrary factor - whether a child is wanted or not - to permit an execution, what is there to stop that government from applying those same arbitrary factors to a born child or to a grown adult? When a born child or a grown adult is no longer wanted by parents or family or by the government themselves, what is there to stop the government from ordering its execution?

It's already happening all over the world. Switzerland allows "euthanasia" for mentally ill patients, who - if they are truly mentally ill could not be said to be of sound mind to make the necessary agreement to their death.  The Belgian parliament allows children to "choose for themselves" whether or not to be euthanized - as if children can be considered free of undue influence by caregivers or physicians themselves. The UK has authorized the euthanizing of autistic children and those with Alzheimer's disease, without the need for consent by the person being killed. The state giveth and the state taketh away.

The Words They Don't Want You To Use, and Why

If you really want to understand your enemy, know what they fear. I saw a post on the internet today describing the words that our government's computers are searching to find when they scan all those internet messages through the NSA filters.  Some of the words were completely unfamiliar to me, so it made me curious as to why the NSA is concerned about these particular words.  Let's go through just a few of the items on the list of 746 words that will catch the interest of the Federal Government, and more importantly try to figure out WHY those words are of interest:

ARTICHOKE: No, not a reference to the vegetable. This is a reference to Project Artichoke, a CIA project that researched interrogation methods and arose from Project BLUEBIRD on August 20, 1951, run by the CIA's Office of Scientific Intelligence.[1]
BADGER: A secret army task force created during the Desert Shield buildup to surge the production of anthrax and botulinum vaccines; introduced a vaccine adjuvant (toxic substance that boosts a vaccine's efficiency). The adjuvants, in this case squaleene, were tied to thousands of cases of Gulf War Syndrome

CIA: The Central Intelligence Agency doesn't want you watching what they're doing. So stop already.

COCAINE: Just the mention of the drug is apparently enough to get you on their watch list. (Here's an interesting party trick: Google CIA + Cocaine. Truly eye-opening stuff.)

CORNFLOWER: Think you know all about Jonestown? Think again. Jonestown was a CIA run mind-control experiment, and Cornflower was a book used to condition children up to the age of 20 to become programmed government assassins. But don't talk about Cornflower. The government doesn't want you to ask too many questions.

DEFCON: Started in 1992 by the Dark Tangent, DEFCON is the world's longest running and largest underground hacking conference. Given their concern about information terrorism and infosec, it's no surprise that this would make the list.

DOMESTIC DISRUPTION: Very little information or explanation to be found about what this means. I suspect it is a reference to civil war or civil uprising, especially as when searching domestic disruption + civil war or civil unrest, I found references to the military creating a new division to handle civil disruption

ECHELON: A worldwide network of spy stations.

FBI: Don't talk about them, and they promise not to watch you.

FREEDOM: Your discussion about freedom is cause for the government to flag you as a potential terrorist? Really? So much for the land of the free and the home of the brave.

GEODSS: The Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS) system, which can track objects as small as a basketball more than 20,000 miles in space, plays a vital role in tracking space objects, particularly those in deep space.  This seems rather benign, so why is it a trigger for being put in the watchlist?

INFOWAR: Possible reference to Alex Jones' popular radio program known as the info wars http://www.infowars.com/

INGRAM MAC-10: Fully automatic sub-machine gun

INTERNET UNDERGROUND: What sounded like the name of a report or a website turned out to be one of the rare items that might be worth watching. Essentially, only about 20% of the internet is visible to the search engines.  The other 80% is where the real stuff happens - assassinations ordered, child trafficking, sex trafficking, drug orders

MI5: British version of the CIA

MI6: British version of the FBI

SOROS: George Soros, specifically. Another protected citizen. Apparently, any mention of Soros is enough to wind you on their special list.

GSG-9: An elite German counter-terrorism unit formed in 1976. To quote a former member, "We move in as a team of five, we take care of it, and everything is basically over before they even know what happened."

HACKERS: Programmers who specialize in exploring the programming code created by other programmers, usually with the intention of exploiting software or hardware vulnerabilities

ILLUMINATI: A secret society founded in 1776. This group has as its primary objective the creation of a new world order - a single, unified government under the control of elite members where the rest of civilization is enslaved. Many do not believe the Illuminati exists, but if the government is using it as a flag word to mark you as a terrorist, one has to think they take it seriously.

INFOSEC:  Stands for Information Security. Refers to the techniques used to protect information from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, perusal, inspection, recording or destruction. It is a general term that can be used regardless of the form the data may take

INFORMATION SECURITY: See Infosec.

INFORMATION TERRORISM: the use of a combination of false and true information combined in such a way as to destroy the reputation, assassinate the character, or undermine the perceived trustworthiness of an individual, corporation, or entity.  

Important note on this: These may be flagged because they are the words used by a group whose business is tracking the activities of the Illuminati and reporting the evidence they have compiled against them.

INFORMATION WARFARE:  "activities undertaken by government, groups, or individuals to gain electronic access to information systems in other countries ... as well as activities undertaken to protect against it." (defined by The Brown Commission)

IW: the use of information or information technology during a time of crisis or conflict to achieve or promote specific objectives over a specific adversary.

MAYFLY: A reference to Project Mayfly, in which the transnational tobacco companies of British American Tobacco (BAT), Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans Tobacco, Gallaher, R.J. Reynolds,Philip Morris and the German tobacco company Reentsma in 1980 to "influence, modify or change public opinion to the industry, smokers and smoking, to create a more favourable climate [for smoking and the industry], however directly or indirectly." [1]

MSNBC: These 5 letters stand for Microsoft National Broadcasting Company. Or, as some of us like to call them, the lapdog of the liberal elite.  Apparently you shouldn't be talking about them, just listening to their every word. Don't worry. They'll tell you what to think.

NORAD: North American Aerospace Defense Command. Conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning in the defense of North America. Why is someone talking about this agency a concern to the NSA?

NSA: National Security Association. Wow.  Just talking about the NSA is enough to get you watched by the NSA. 

Pink Noise: May be a reference to website www.pinknoize.com/cia which hosts documents on convert CIA operations

PLAYBOY: I am just as concerned about pornography as the next person, but I think it a far stretch for the government to be putting people talking about Playboy on a list of potential terrorists. Makes you think they know something we don't, and makes me curious to find out more.

PRESIDENT: Anytime you mention the president, you clearly must be doing something worth watching.

PRIVACY: Apparently, concern for your privacy is a reason for the government to be concerned about you.

RAND CORPORATION: It boggles the mind to think that talking about a corporation that is "a nonprofit institution that helps to improve policy and decision making through research and analysis" is enough to land you on the terrorist list.  Maybe this article will help you understand why the government doesn't want you discussing them. 

RENO: Don't know if this is for the city or for an undisclosed project, but apparently all citizens of Reno had better watch themselves when speaking or posting online using their city in the title. 

S/KEY: a one-time password system developed for authentication to Unix-like operating systems, especially from dumb terminals or untrusted public computers on which one does not want to type a long-term password.

WACKENHUT: America's largest (and the world's second-largest) private security company. Founded in Miami by four ex-FBI agents in 1954 (one of whom was George Wackenhut, now deceased), under the name Special Agent Investigators Inc. Acquired by a Danish corporation in 2002.

WAIHOPAI: This secretive location is referred to by the New Zealand Government as a "satellite communications monitoring facility" and is officially called GCSB Waihopai. Part of ECHELON.

WILLIAM GATES: You might be interested to know that discussing Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is enough to land you on the terrorist watch list.

From just this small sample, the real concern of the government seems to be less about preventing terrorism and more about ferreting out those who might find ways to prevent them from spying on us, those who might find ways to find out what they are hiding from us, and anyone who actively pays attention to their activities.  It appears to have virtually nothing to do with real terrorism and everything to do with keeping the citizens in our nice, safe little boxes so they can do whatever it is they want to do without having to worry that we'll try to stop them. Another question is why US funds are being spent surveying for information relating to British agencies.

The 20 Craziest Pro-Gun Arguments you'll ever read

Take each of these statements and substitute the word {guns} every time you see {x}.

1. Taking away {x} violates my Constitutional rights.
2. Nobody should have to register {x}. It's a private matter.
3. Allowing access to {x} is necessary to save lives.
4. If someone can't afford {x}, tax payers should help them pay for it, even if they don't agree.
5. The right to {x} is only a problem for religious people. It's nobody's business who buys or sells {x}.
6. Teenagers are old enough to make their own decisions about whether or not they want {x}.
7. Teenagers should be able to get [x}without parental consent or notification.
8. The world would be a better place with less people in it. That's why we need {x} - to help reduce the population.
9. The mentally ill should be given {x} whether they want them or not. After all, if they don't need them, nobody does.
10. People should be able to get {x} whenever they want and as often as they want for any reason or no reason at all. It's a right, and nobody should be able to stop you from exercising your rights.
11. Women need {x} to protect themselves.
12. Women are empowered by the ability to have {x}, and that's why it's important to keep them legal.
13. The government shouldn't have a say in who gets {x}.
14. People who are opposed to {x} are just trying to force their beliefs on other people.
15. Nobody should have to be educated about {x} before being allowed to get one.
16. Anyone who wants {x} should be able to just walk in and get them.
17. So what if {x} do kill people? The world would be better off with fewer people in it, anyway.
18. Making {x} illegal will only result in more deaths.
19. Giving poor people {x} helps them to reduce the number of children they have, and saves the government money.  Poor people need {x}.
20. If you don't like {x}, you just shouldn't get one.

Sounds totally insane to you, doesn't it? I know. It is.  It would be absolutely insane to pass out guns to people with mental conditions, or to encourage poor people to reduce their family sizes using guns. It would be insane to say that we should use guns to help reduce the world's population, or to say that nobody should have to be educated about guns before buying one.

Yet, these are the 20 most common arguments used to justify abortion - an act that kills a living human being without just cause or provocation and without benefit of a trial by jury solely for the crime of being "unwanted".  If it sounds insane to you to advocate guns because guns kill people, imagine how I feel when you spend your time arguing for abortion.  Abortion kills people. Get it?

Abortion kills more people than guns do every single day. It's not even a close race. almost 55 million deaths in the last 40 years.  It doesn't just kill the babies. It kills the mothers, too. How many more deaths are going to have to take place before you realize that banning guns without teaching people respect for life is a futile exercise?

Obama's Database and You

I read a statement this morning that disturbed me greatly from a conservative newsfeed.  The words were quoted as being from Maxine Waters, the U.S. Representative for California's 43rd District. This is the exact quote I read

"The President has put in place an  organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life," Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin on Monday.  "That's going to be very, very powerful," Waters said. "That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that  it's never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They're going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can't get around it. And he's [President Obama] been very smart. It's very powerful what he's leaving in place."

What is the name of the organization she was referring to? Organizing for America, which has now become the nonprofit organization Organizing for Action.   The video on the front page of Organizing for Action has a video of Michelle Obama in which she states Organizing for Action is "the next phase in our movement for change".  What kind of plans do they have that require a massive database of information "about everything on every individual" in America?  Why is it that this database is being held in the hands of a private organization? What right do they have to assemble and keep this information?

Lest this post be mistaken for just unsubstantiated hype, here is the interview Roland Martin conducted with Maxine Waters. You can listen and decide for yourself whether to be concerned.



What kind of information does this database contain? According to a report by NBC News:

"it contains the names of at least 4 million Obama donors – as well as millions of others (the campaign has consistently refused to say how many) compiled from voter registration rolls and other public databases. In addition, the campaign used sophisticated computer programs — with code names like “Narwhal” — to collect information through social media: Anybody who contacted the campaign through Facebook had their friends and “likes” downloaded. If they contacted the campaign website through mobile apps, cellphone numbers and address books were downloaded. Computer “cookies” captured Web browsing and online spending habits."

That's a whole lot of information in the hands of an organization whose intentions aren't all that clear. It isn't just Obama supporters who are in this database, either, and since the database was compiled from public records and voter registrations it could be every adult in America.  Since it's in the hands of a private organization, there's no requirement for them to inform anyone and no way to monitor what they do with this information. It's a fairly effective way to shut down the Freedom of Information Act and ensure that nosy reporters and bloggers can't peek under the hood to see just what's going on.

The Dangers of Underestimating the Opposition

In politics, there is a temptation to apply labels to your opposition.  So strongly held are your own beliefs, and so clear to you is the infallibility of your logic and reason, that you cannot understand how anyone else could possibly see it any other way but yours.  That is, unless the other person were less intelligent than you were, or less educated, or less capable, or totally insane.  It's easier, but incredibly lazy, to apply these labels to those who oppose your political stance and dismiss them out of hand. Then, you don't have to do the work it takes to engage in real dialogue because dialogue is pointless.

However, there is a very real danger when doing this.  The danger is that you could be wrong. They could have a valid argument.  They could have spotted a flaw in your logic, one that needs to be corrected.  They could be the key that you've been missing to unlock some previously hidden truth that might very well change your life.  It's happened to me on more than one occasion that the person I was so sure was wrong proved to be right about something important, some belief that I was holding on to as absolutely true but hadn't examined nearly as closely as I'd thought.

The other danger in underestimating your opposition is that it just makes you look stubborn, unreasonable, and unwilling to listen.  It makes you look like you have a closed mind.  The reality is most people consider themselves open minded individuals, and given the right environment and the right opportunities they are willing to correct their course and change their minds - but first, they have to be given the benefit of the doubt.  They have to be allowed the room they need to make those changes, because a lot of their life's decisions have been made based on their belief and they're pretty heavily invested in it.  The older they are, the more they've invested into this idea, so it isn't easy to change.  It isn't going to happen all at once. It's going to take time.

I have seen both sides of the political spectrum make this mistake. It's damaging, and counter-productive.  Belittling the other side may have the temporary benefit of making you feel superior, but has the overall effect of preventing any real change from happening.  No one gets converted by telling them how horrible or stupid they are.  In fact, these things only serve to raise their defenses and block the possibility of any meaningful dialogue and thus destroys the hopes of ever changing the minds of anyone.

Begin with the assumption of good will.  Begin by assuming your opponent is just as intelligent, just as educated, just as capable of applying logic and reason, and just as eager to do what is right as you are. They just don't share your perspective.  That's why you're engaging in dialogue.  You want to see things from their perspective, so that you can be sure you haven't overlooked anything, and you want to help them see things from your perspective by sharing experiences, knowledge, insights, and evidence.

Democrats, Gays, Minorities, and Women

I want to start this post by letting you know I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I don't vote for parties, I vote for people.  I agree with George Washington who warned this country at its very inception that party politics were an evil to be avoided for it would tear the nation in two, causing people to defend their party rather than put the interests of the nation at the forefront. I have witnessed this first hand, with people throwing support behind a party even when that part is clearly and demonstrably in the wrong on an issue.  

Having said all of that, I have watched and listened to both sides and what I find is that Democrats really don't seem to hold a very high opinion of most of the groups that they claim to support.  While claiming to champion the cause of minorities, women, and those who profess to be homosexual, the underlying messages are actually very condescending and outlandishly insulting to the intelligence, integrity, and worth of those individuals.  I'm picking out three messages I hear consistently from the Democratic party and explain to you why I think these are absolutely appalling:

1. Homosexual marriage should be supported because gays can't help themselves.

This one is by far the most insulting of the arguments used because it implies that it is impossible for people with same sex attraction to exercise self-control.  It seriously reduces them to the level of animals, since this is the reason we do not hold animals accountable to the law.  Is that really the message that homosexuals want people to believe about them? That they are animals incapable of controlling their urges and impulses?

The more dangerous part of this argument is that decades ago it was arguments like these that were used to support the eugenics movement, classifying some people as unable to improve their lot in life because they were simply born that way. Human behavior is not hard wired into our genetic code, although we may have a predisposition toward certain behaviors, we are still free to choose them.  That, more than anything else, is what separates man from animals.

2. Blacks, women, and gays can't compete with white men for jobs without government intervention.

Speaking as a woman, I find this statement to be beyond the pale. I don't need government help to compete in the workplace.  I want to be hired for my qualifications, not for my skin color or my gender or my sexual preferences. If I am qualified, I can prove it. If I am not able to get hired by someone else, I am capable of starting my own business and finding clients who will purchase what I have to offer without the assistance of the government. All I ask is that the government not be an obstacle or an impediment to my efforts to prove myself.

3. Women need birth control because it helps free them to be more like men.

First, why would women need to be more like men in the first place? This implies that there is something inherently wrong with being a woman, that we need to be "fixed" somehow.  There is nothing wrong with being a woman. It's a glorious thing, and no woman should ever feel like she needs to stop being feminine in order to be able to get ahead in life. Yet this is the exact message she receives from the Democratic party.

Second of all I want to ask how, exactly, does birth control help women? By reducing us to sex objects for the pleasure of men? By messing with our hormones so that we are more likely to become depressed, less likely to seek out healthy partners, are more likely to contract diseases because it throws off our immune systems? By pitting us against our children, telling us that we must choose between them and a decent life? By decreasing our sex drives? By encouraging us to be careless in the bedroom so that we end up contracting STD's or facing a pregnancy without a partner to help us?

I just can't see how birth control helps women at all.  It seems to me like the plight of women has gotten worse, not better, since birth control was legalized in the early 1970's.  Rates of divorce are higher, rates of cheating, the numbers of single parents, incidents of domestic violence - and violence specifically targeted to pregnant women - has increased, even child abuse has gone up over the last 40 years.  How is any of this helping women?  

Furthermore, doctors used to actually try to solve women's reproductive health issues.  Now, when a woman complains about some problem with her reproductive system, the first and often only response she gets is a prescription for birth control.  This is INSANE! Birth control doesn't solve any problems. It only masks them, and the real problems get bigger and bigger.  Girls as young as 11 are being prescribed these hormone altering drugs - hormones that impact their growth and development - as a way to "help" solve their menstrual problems or keep their menstrual cycles regular.

What really helps women is to teach them to value themselves enough not to give in to the pressure to sleep with a guy in the hopes that he'll love you. What really helps women is to encourage them to develop self-control and take responsibility for their lives. What really helps women is to teach men not to treat women as objects of pleasure and to help men realize that there is no such thing as consequence-free sex.  If you really want to help women, help them to take control of their lives so they don't have to be the victim all the time.

Homeless in Elko: Andrew Hockenberry

This guy is Andrew Hockenberry.  He is homeless. He lives here in Elko, and his home is his van.  He works a full-time job as a dishwasher at Red Lion. He's 42 years old.  He was born and raised in Salt Lake City, UT.  He came to Elko because his kids needed help.  The housing market is tough here and, between his child support payments and his minimum wage job, he doesn't have enough money to be able to afford a place of his own.

When it gets below freezing, he buys a propane tank and fires up his camp stove so that there is enough heat to catch at least a few hours of sleep. When he isn't working at the Red Lion, he spends time holding a sign at one of Wal-Mart's exits, hoping for a few dollars here and there.

 This isn't his first bout with homelessness, in fact he's spent about 15 to 16 years total being homeless.  He says the hardest thing about being homeless is staying clean - mentally, physically, and with the police. It's easy to get discouraged, to feel like giving up on life.  He says what homeless people need more than anything else is love - to know that someone cares, to know that they matter to someone. His advice to other homeless people is not to give up.  Even if you have to spend a week asking for help, and you get nothing, keep trying.  It will come eventually.

To get a bath, he often slips in to a restroom.  Sometimes, if he can't do that, he buys a jug of water and finds a deserted spot in the woods.  When he gets enough change, he does his laundry at the laundry mat. Food isn't a problem.  He is on food stamps, and there are plenty of places in town that offer food to people in his situation.

He doesn't have a post office box.  He has people send his mail to the Elko post office attention: General Post. He has a cheap, pre-paid cell phone that he uses to make phone calls. Before he had one of those he was able to use the phone at the JOIN office (Job search aid office here in Elko) to make calls to and receive calls from employers. He doesn't belong to a specific church. He says he is non-denominational, although he was raised in the Mormon faith. He doesn't make it to church all that often.

This is Andrew, and this is only part of his story. Like most people, he has way more story than can fit in an hour or two long interview. Like most homeless people, he doesn't fit the stereotype.  He's not a drunkard looking for his next bottle of booze, or a junkie looking for the next score. He's a person who has made his fair share of mistakes along the way but is struggling to make up for those the best way that he knows how. The real difference between those who are homeless and those who aren't isn't the number of mistakes they have made in life, it's the size of the community they have around them who can help pull them back to their feet when they fall.

News that isn't news

Recently, I read an article reported by CBS5AZ about a woman who jumped off the Hoover Dam bridge and died. This article reminded me of things that I find frustrating about our media outlets. They are constantly reporting things as news that ARE NOT NEWS!

Anything that is expected is NOT NEWS.  For example, if the KKK and the Black Panthers say hateful things about one another, or kill one another - that's NOT NEWS. It's the expected result. If someone jumps off a really tall building or structure and dies - that's NOT NEWS. It's the expected result. If a Democratic candidate or party member says something negative about a Republican candidate or party member - that is NOT NEWS.  It's the expected result.

Things that ARE NEWS:
1) KKK and Black Panthers co-host a community picnic and a good time is had by all with no bloodshed.
2) Someone jumps off an extraordinarily tall building or structure and LIVES.
3) Democrat party member of candidate says something positive about, or otherwise agrees with, Republican candidate or party member.
4) Middle Eastern country declares PEACE with Israel.
5) UN does something useful.

These things would be news. Why? Because they are things you DO NOT EVER EXPECT TO SEE!! Truthfully, I feel like I should be given a refund of my money every time I have to read some story about news that isn't news. Come on, media, you have over 7 billion people on this planet. You can find some things to talk about that are real, genuine news.

Fair taxes and balanced budgets

Taxes are necessary for the maintenance of infrastructures, our military, and for the pay of government employees. Our tax code, however, requires a virtual Ph.D. to understand and apply correctly and there is plenty of discussion about how to both simplify the tax code and ensure that everyone pays their fair share for the welfare of our nation.  There is also the matter of an ever-growing 14 trillion dollar debt we owe as a nation, primarily to China, and how to get out from underneath such a load while maintaining a balanced budget.  Here are my suggestions.

1) Implement a flat tax rate based strictly on income.

A flat tax rate of 15% for all persons of legal voting age is fair and reasonable. It ensures that no one bears too great an economic burden but that all participate to the best of their ability. 

2) Eliminate all deductions and tax credits.

Deductions and tax credits complicate the tax code unnecessarily and create special protections for special interest groups. 

3) Eliminate all welfare and entitlement programs.

Tax money should never be used to fund charity programs of any kind. Using tax money to fund charities is like forcing a man at gun point to give his money to someone else. Not only does it breed resentment, but it also lends to distrust.  People are more likely to give when they are not forced to do so, and to give more generously when they give voluntarily. Let those who are concerned about those in need roll up their sleeves and do something about it personally or get together with other like-minded individuals and  work together to do something about the problem. 

All those who have paid into Social Security should be given a lump-sum refund along with 1% interest for each year the money was kept from them, and no more than that. Retiring for reasons other than your physical or mental incapability of working is something that should be discouraged, not endorsed. For those seniors who have reached a state where they are no longer capable physically or mentally of working, let them be cared for first by their families, then by their Church or other organization they belonged to, and then by those in the community.  

4) Where possible, replace paid government employees with volunteers.

If Americans are committed to these things, if they believe they are worth keeping, let them demonstrate their care and commitment by service and not by forcible taxation.

5) Establish a national language, and only print documents in that language.

Printing costs money, and printing in multiple languages is a huge waste of time and resources. Establish a national language (I do not care if you pick Spanish, English, Latin, or some derivative thereof, but pick one) and then only print things in that language.  Catering to those who refuse to learn the national language does not help anyone and creates an atmosphere of distrust and disunity.

Executive Order: National Defense Resources Preparedness

On March 16, 2012 President Barack Obama published a new executive order with the rather benign sounding title of National Defense Resources Preparedness.  Many worried that this order was paving the road for Obama to declare martial law.  Martial law means that all voting privileges are suspended and the rule of the people is done by police or military force.  This power is usually reserved for times of war, or times of extreme emergency when normal government operations are simply not possible.

There were some in the media who assured readers that this executive order was nothing to concern the average citizen.  Several similar executive orders have been signed in the past, and at least one media outlet claimed that there were virtually no changes between those executive orders and this one.  That media outlet either jumped the gun in reporting the facts, did not clearly understand what they read, or is in league with the President.  A close reading of the contents of this particular executive order should be enough to chill the bones of any freedom loving American.

The first point of concern comes in Part II - Priorities and Allocations under Sec. 201 (6) (b) where it states that "The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. This is a concern because, if read correctly, this seems to mean that the authorities being granted by the president to the various agencies under control of the executive branch have the president's permission to apply every rule in this executive order not only during times of emergency but also during times of peace.

In previous similar Executive Orders, there were provisions made to limit the scope of the powers that the order granted. There is no such provision in this executive order, if anything it seems to be a broadening of the reach of the powers granted.

The second major point of concern is in Sec. 201 (6) (e) Where it grants the Secretary of the resource department the authority to "control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market".  This means that not only can the government come in and tell any business owner what to provide and to whom, but it isn't just limited to material goods.  It includes services, which means that this gives the government permission to dictate what labor someone must perform and for whom they must perform it.

The third major point of concern reinforces concerns raised in Sec. 201 (6) (e) and is found in Sec. 502 under the title Consultants.  The wording that is particularly troublesome is this, "The head of each agency....is delegated the authority of the President...to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation..."  In other words, the President has just signed an order that allows him to not only confiscate goods belonging to ordinary citizens but to enslave them, and there does not need to be an emergency for him to do this.

Welcome to the United Slave States of America.

Separating Church and State is Impossible

First, let me define the terms I am using.  Church is any body of people who share a common faith and practice a common religion.  Faith is any system of belief about how the universe came into being, how it operates, and the purpose of humanity within that universe.  Religion is the framework in which you live out your faith.  For example, Catholics believe that the universe was created by God, operates according to laws which are understandable and discoverable by humanity through scientific investigation and divine revelation, and that human beings were created by God for the purpose of loving and being loved by God.  We believe that human life begins at conception and has value because God values it and not because of anything we might or might not do. We believe that all human beings are endowed by their creator with free will. Our religion is that because our lives have the purpose of loving and being loved by God, we are happiest and healthiest when we live our lives in accordance with His will as handed down to us through Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Pope.  We defend life from conception through natural death. Even though we understand that genetics and environment may play a role in making it more difficult for someone to choose the right behaviors, we still hold people accountable for bad behavior because to do otherwise would be to treat them like animals, as animals cannot rise above these things but human beings can.

Every true Catholic brings our religion into the public square, and we cannot help but do so. It is our measuring stick by which we determine for whom to vote; what causes to support with our time, talent, and treasure; what subjects ought – or ought not – to be taught in a public school; and where our tax money should be spent.  A politician or judge who is truly Catholic will act and judge accordingly.  Those who do not act in accordance with the Catholic faith and religion do not belong to the Catholic Church.

Atheism is also a Church, although very different from the Catholic Church. Atheists believe that the universe came into being spontaneously, operates according to laws which are understandable and discoverable by humanity only through scientific investigation, and that human beings are a byproduct of the universe’s operations and therefore have no purpose at all. Most, though not all, atheists believe that human life begins outside of the womb and only gains value when it can prove itself valuable to others.  Their religion, as such, is that since their lives have no purpose it is up to each individual to determine what to do with their lives and that each individual is entitled to live as the individual sees fit provided that the individual does not substantially interfere in the right of everyone else to live the same way.   

Every atheist brings their religion into the public square.  They cannot help but do so.  It is the measuring stick by which they determine for whom to vote; what causes to support with their time, talent, and treasure; what subjects ought – or ought not – to be taught in a public school; and where their tax money should be spent. A politician or judge who is an atheist will act accordingly and judge accordingly. Any politician or person who says that their beliefs will not influence their judgment, the way they vote, or the laws they attempt to enact is a liar and should not be trusted.

An Open Letter to Representative Gwen Moore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-q0EP8HjA0

Dear Ms. Moore,

How sad I was to hear your remarks about the tragedy of kids having to eat Raman noodles and mayonnaise sandwiches and going without fresh fruit as a justification for providing funding to Planned Parenthood.  While your remarks might sound compassionate to some ears, they sounded cold and hard-hearted to mine.  What you said to a woman like me is that it is better that I were never born, better that my mother should have aborted me.

You see, my mother gave birth to four little unplanned blessings.  We did grow up eating Raman noodles. We never ate mayonnaise sandwiches but we did eat a whole lot of peanut butter and jelly.  That's not a tragedy. Things were hard, it's true, and sometimes we didn't get as full as we'd like.  We wore hand-me-downs from other kids, and sometimes we got made fun of because we didn't have the money for a haircut.  What we learned growing up, though, was important.  We learned how to make the best of what we did have, and we learned that life doesn't owe you anything. We learned to be creative and innovative, to see potential in things that other people think are junk.

I was 19 years old when I found myself pregnant with my own unexpected blessing.  I wasn't sure how I was going to make it. I didn't have a college degree, or a decent job. I didn't know how the future would go.  I simply decided to put my trust in God and I gave birth to a happy, healthy baby boy two weeks before my 20th birthday.

I wasn't the perfect mother, and we didn't have the perfect life. He's eaten his fair share of Raman noodles and peanut-butter jelly sandwiches. Nothing turned out the way I planned it, but that's the truth about parenthood - there is no planned parenthood, it's not a script or a formula, and it never turns out the way you thought it would.  I have an associates degree, but not a bachelor's like I planned.  I never did climb the corporate ladder and I have never made more than $70,000 in one year.  That unplanned blessing, though, saved my life.  I am a better person because he was born. So is the world.

Don't you dare tell me my life has no meaning because I had to eat a few bowls of Raman noodles, or I had to eat a few peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.  Don't you dare tell me my son's life is worthless because he had to do the same.  If you really want to help those kids, stop giving money to Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood never once did anything that helped a kid in poverty to get out of it.  You can't eradicate poverty by exterminating the poor as if they were insects, Ms. Moore, and you can't end child abuse by destroying children.  If you really want to help the poor, Ms. Moore, and give those children something better to eat, then fight the HHS mandate so that people who actually value all life can continue to do the work they already do helping poor kids eat and live better.  Stop giving to Planned Parenthood and start giving to charities who actually value life.
Sincerely,

Brandy M. Miller

P.S. Growing up in poverty isn't a real tragedy.  Never being allowed to grow up at all because you were killed before you were born is.

Civil Disobedience and Freedom

As it becomes increasingly clear that Obama's administration intends to strip American business owners of their right to refrain from providing their employees with health insurance that includes birth control, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs, I am forced to make a decision.  I am forced to decide whether I will stand with Christ, and defend the sanctity of all human life by refusing to participate even though I know what the cost will be to me personally, or whether I will seek to save my life and my comfort and thus lose my place in eternity.  You might not be surprised to hear me say this, but I've already decided.  I am choosing to disobey Obama's mandate so that I might obey the more important mandates given to me by Christ. This means that I will not only  not be providing my employees with health insurance, but I will not be purchasing it for myself or my family either.  We will trust in God's providence for our health care, and we will deal with the consequences.

Since it is still a year before Obama's administration intends to force the issue, I will take the time now to remind people of the reason that freedom is spoken of as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence written and published by our forefathers in the late 1700's.  Freedom cannot ever be taken from you, and guns do not change that fact.  Someone wielding a gun does have the power to limit your choices - they can reduce the choices you have to "obey and live as a slave" or "disobey and die free".

Some might say it is crazy to trade your life for a principle or belief, but I will point out to  you that it is crazy to place your faith in someone who is so morally corrupted that they view threatening your life as an appropriate motivational tool.  If you obey the person who has the gun, you are placing your faith in their willingness to honor their promises and to do as they have told you they will do, a highly questionable thing to do given their demonstrated lack of morality. The truth is, you have no reason to believe them when they say they will let you live if you do what they tell you to do.  It is better to die doing what you believe is right than to compromise your own values in the vain hope that such a person will honor their word.

I leave you with the lyrics of a song I wrote almost two years ago, entitled Freedom. I hope that you keep these words in your heart and in your mind, and remind yourself of them no matter how dark the days may grow.

Refrain

Your freedom doesn’t end

Where the barrel of a gun begins

It’s still up to you

What are you going to do?

====================

Don’t believe the words they say

Don’t let them take your freedom away

Hold your head up high

Don’t give in to the lie

===================

They can limit your choices

They can silence your voices

But in spite of all the pain

The Truth still remains

==================

If you do what they say

They might kill you anyway

Better to choose what’s right

Than to go down without a fight

====================

Freedom takes courage

And courage takes heart

Love is the fountain

Gives courage its’ start

==============

Restoring Economic Freedom

It all started with the passing of the abomination of a bill known as Obamacare.  This law was supposed to care for the poor, making sure that no one went without health care services.  In reality, all it did was take away the freedom of Americans to decide when, where, and whether to purchase health insurance.  Next, the Obama Administration approved a mandate by the Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services which would require all employers, including religious organizations who served or employed people outside of their own faith, to purchase health insurance that would include free birth control, free abortion-inducing drugs, and free sterilizations to their employees. In response to the immediate and fervent uproar that arose from religious leaders of all faiths, the Obama Administration said that they would no longer require employers to provide the free birth control, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilizations to their employees.  The caveat, of course, was that the Administration has now mandated that all insurance carriers provide these things to those they insure.

This is not merely an issue of religious freedom, as many are calling it, but an issue of economic freedom. Will we allow this administration to tell us what we have to buy? Are we going to stand by while business owners are forced to provide services or carry products that they have no desire to provide?  Will we let the government dictate to retailers what items they must stock on their shelves? If they can force insurance carriers to provide these things, will they then force companies that carry pharmaceuticals to carry condoms, birth control pills, and abortion-inducing drugs?  Will they force doctors to write prescriptions for birth control pills and abortion-inducing drugs? Force them to perform sterilizations?  Does the government have the right to dictate to a business what products to carry or to tell an individual what services they must purchase?

When the government can dictate to you what products you must carry and what services you must offer, it stops being your business and starts being an arm of the government.  I am a small business owner.  I am firmly against birth control, sterilization, and abortion.  I do not wish to purchase health insurance that pays for those things as I know that any money I give to such a company is contributing to the problem.  I will not give my money to those companies.  I will go to jail first. I would rather lose ever possession I own than be responsible for the death of an innocent human being.  This isn't just an issue of religious freedom.  It's an issue of economic freedom, too, the right to dictate where and when and if I spend the money that I earn - and I'm not going to stand by and allow the government to take that freedom from me.  

The Insanity of Safe Sex

In classrooms everywhere around the United States, there are talks given on the topic of "safe sex" and "sex education".  The subject is usually presented, in the beginning, as strictly anatomical and goes something like this: Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina, and when the boy inserts his penis into the vagina, his body becomes excited and releases a substance known as semen.  The semen contains sperm which, when united with the egg or eggs that a girl releases each month during ovulation, causes a pregnancy to occur.  That boys and girls will naturally want to have sex is also made clear, and that sex is good and nothing to be ashamed of is stated. All of this, of course, is true - but it isn't the whole picture.

Never covered in the sex education talk is the bio-chemistry behind attraction and human attachment.  You see, human beings are not built for multiple partners.  Bio-chemically, our brains are built to be monogamous.  Every time we have sex with someone, there are chemicals released into our brains that cause us to bond with them.   The more partners we have, the more confused the brain becomes and the weaker the bonds are that we form.   In the short of it, the more partners we have the more difficult it becomes for us to attach to one partner, and the harder time we will have in being faithful for a lifetime to a single partner. In addition, when we are rejected by someone to whom our brains have bonded, the effect is devastating.  Teenagers who are sexually active are far more likely to become depressed and even suicidal.

The safe sex part comes in next.  Here they tell the boys and girls that if they decide to have sex with someone they should take steps to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, either by using a condom or by taking birth control pills or by having some device such as an IUD implanted in them in order to prevent such a tragedy as a baby born out of wedlock or born before the sexually active are ready to be parents. They also tell the boys and girls that there are diseases which can only be passed on to someone during sexual activities when bodily fluids like blood, saliva, and semen are exchanged and so in order to prevent that outcome from happening to them they need to be sure and use some kind of barrier such as a condom when having sex.

Our current administration has defunded programs which teach children that the only kind of safe sex is no sex at all, stating that it is not "scientifically proven" to work.  I know of only one example in the entirety of human history in which a virgin was known to become pregnant, and since I seriously doubt that any of the children in that classroom are likely to be the Virgin Mary, I do not see how they can possibly say that abstinence is not scientifically proven to work.

Furthermore, this same administration which is so thoroughly unconvinced that children can be taught to say no and mean it, spends millions of dollars teaching children to "Just say no" to drugs.  I find this to be insane. If a child has the will power to say no to drugs, why can they not be expected to say no to sex?  Going even further on the insanity list are parents who, on the one hand, take their young daughters to clinics to get them birth control before they have even gotten out of a training bra because "kids are going to do what kids are going to do" but do not hesitate to tell those same children that they are to say no to cigarettes, alcohol, or drugs.

For those who support safe sex, I offer this food for thought: Imagine that a person walked into your child's classroom purporting to offer a "safe drug" talk.  This person explained that while it's best for them to "just say no", it wasn't realistic to actually EXPECT them to say no and so proceeded to teach your children how to correctly insert a needle in their veins to insure that they don't blow a vein, distributed clean needles so they wouldn't feel the need to share them, gave them a pamphlet listing all of the "reputable" drug dealers - the ones who won't cut their goods with rat poison or other guaranteed-to-kill fillers, and gave them a list of crack houses where they could be sure of finding welcome and refuge while they were tripping out of their minds.  All in the interest, of course, in a child's safety and best interest.

If you're any kind of parent at all, you would be outraged if a school allowed this kind of thing to go on, and rightly so. You understand that although there are appropriate times and circumstances in which drug use is okay and even good, every drug has side effects and should not ever be used in a recreational fashion. You also know that the consequences of recreational drug use can be life-long and devastating to the future of those who use them incorrectly.  Sex is no different.  Under the right circumstances, sex is not only okay but it is a very good thing, but it is never something that should be used in a recreational fashion.  The consequences of recreational sex can be life-long and devastating to the future of those who in engage in it irresponsibly.  Teaching about safe sex is insane.  The only truly safe sex is either no sex at all, or sex with a spouse who is monogamous.  Anything else is just dangerous.

Language Matters

This topic doesn't come up very often anymore in politics. After all, the economy and other issues that are important are taking up the stage right now.  So why do I feel that language is important enough a subject to bring up? Because, as the title says, language matters.

The greatest crisis the United States faces right now is one of identity.  We can't agree on who we are, what we believe, or even what direction we think the country should go.  We are divided, and because we are divided we are vulnerable to anyone who wants to use our divisions to pick us off.  If you want an illustration of how effective this tactic is, think of a wolf pack and how it hunts down the giant caribou.  It does not take on the entire herd at once. The wolf pack knows that to do so would end up in defeat, if not death.  No, the wolves scope out the weak ones first and then work to separate the weak from the strong.  It's worked since the dawn of time for them, and believe me when I tell you that it will work on us as well.

Language may seem like a small thing, but it's huge.  Ideas and information can only flow freely when all parties understand one another.  An illustration of the kind of damage that can be done just by blocking the flow of communication can be found in the Bible in Genesis, where it talks about the Tower of Babel.  Here we had a group of human beings working together, communicating in the same language, and doing great - if dangerous - things.  All God had to do to destroy their unity and dismantle their ability to accomplish much of anything was to change their languages.  If America is to survive, she must adopt a single language and make it law that all men, women, and children who are citizens of this country learn that language.

It doesn't have to be English. It would be easier on me if it were, but maybe English isn't the best route to go.  Maybe we need to come up with a language completely our own - representative of our people and our heritage - a conglomeration, if you will, of the best of each.  I don't know what this new language would be like, but I do know one thing: America cannot continue to stand divided, and she will not be united until all can speak together as one.