San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Maybe A UFO Took It

Let me state up front and without equivocation that this blog post is not intended to demean, mock or ignore the emotional pain being felt by those who have loved ones on the Malaysian airliner that has disappeared.  I merely present this post as an alternative theory as to what might have happened to the plane that has apparently vanished into thin air.
I believe in the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects.  My belief in the existence of UFOs stems from the fact that I have witnessed two of them in my lifetime.  It is important to be precise when it comes to discussing UFOs.  My belief in the existence of UFOs does not mean I believe we are about to be invaded by Martians or that every abduction claim is valid.  I do, however, believe that some of the abduction claims might be legitimate.  Let me go back to the start.
My first sighting of a UFO took place about 25 years ago.  I was backpacking in the San Juan mountains of southwestern Colorado at the time.  My brother and I were sitting out one night, without a fire and just below timberline in a huge open basin, when we both saw a strangely shaped bank of lights on the southern horizon.  The bank of lights was moving in a northeasterly direction.  It was impossible to come to grips with what we were looking at due to the lack of a frame of reference.  The night was dark with no moon.  We could not tell how large the object was due to having nothing to compare it to.  We could tell that it had to be fairly close to us given the relative size of the lights.  The lights were much larger than what you see when a jet passes high overhead.  There were also many more of them.  What made the situation eerie and caused us to conclude we had just witnessed a UFO was the fact that we heard absolutely no sound coming from the light source.  It was a quiet night and we could hear the sound of airplanes passing far overhead.  This bank of lights made no sound whatsoever.
Fast forward a couple of decades and I find myself sitting on a beach in Maui.  More accurately, I was stretched out on a lounge chair looking into the night sky while enjoying the sound of the waves and the gentle caressing of the night breezes.  Quite suddenly I noticed a bright light in the sky.  It was larger and brighter than the lights on the airplanes that had been passing over with regularity.  Due to the noise of the ocean I could not tell if this light source was making any sound.  I quickly pointed it out to my wife, who was lounging on a chair beside me, and we proceeded to see one of the strangest things we have ever seen in our lives.  The light would make sudden darting moves in one direction, then just as suddenly reverse direction.  Sometimes it would accelerate and other times it would just stop and appear to hover in the air.  There was no way to explain the rapid accelerations and changes in direction according to any principles of aeronautics we were aware of.  Then, as quickly as it had appeared, it moved away and vanished.
As I said at the beginning, I believe in UFOs.  Now, what follows from that belief?  How can a professing Christian account for their existence in the universe?  Allow me to posit a theory that would explain their existence.  I am assuming a lot here and not going into very much detail but I hope the three or four of you who read this will get the drift.
If the big bang theory of creation is correct, and I assume that it is, then some very interesting time dynamics follow from that theory.  If we agree that the event horizon for the big bang is near our solar system and that all of the matter that spewed forth from that event horizon accelerated away at nearly the speed of light then it necessarily follows that the first matter that came forth would be very old from the frame of reference of the event horizon.  Given the assumptions of the principle of time dilation it could be the case that the earliest matter in the universe could be millions of years old while, at the same time, from the perspective of the distant matter itself be less than 7000 years old.  Now, here is a question that I think needs an answer....if God decided to create sentient beings on other planets that were not subject to the Fall of Man, could those beings, given millions of years, create technologies that would allow them to travel through space and visit the earth?
I recognize the theological issues involved in this view.  To posit that God created sentient beings that were not subject to the Fall is to posit that some part of this universe is not subject to the Fall of Man and there is no biblical reason to assert that position.  Conversely, I can't think of any biblical reason why God could not have created some beings that were not subject to the Fall of Man.  Think about the angels here.  Some fell and some did not.  It is possible that some men could have been created that did not fall.  If so, what would happen if those creatures were millions of years ahead of us in technological ability?  Could they fashion a craft and use that to visit earth? In fact, I do not even have to posit long periods of time.  Imagine what a race of sentient beings could create if they were not hindered by sin.  Even if those beings were only 7,000 years old what would they have been able to accomplish if they had not spent most of their history killing each other and stealing each other's property as we have on earth?
Abduction theories are things to be treated with great care.  Most of them seem to be told by people who are certified lunatics.  But there are a small number of them that have the ring of truth associated with them.  In some instances the theory of abduction by alien beings makes the most sense of the facts presented.  Some Christians have tried to deal with these highly credible tales and most that I have read acknowledge their reality and then proceed chalk them up to demonic and Satanic activity.  I don't buy that theory.  I see no reason why my alternative theory of non-sinful beings does not fit the facts as well or better.  There is no reason why things we do not understand always need to be blamed on demons.  Still, those who believe in the bad angel theory of UFO operators would question why God would decide to send non-sinful beings to earth to engage in abductions.  The generally Pelagian (Arminian for most modern readers) theology of most Christians makes it impossible for them to conceive of God doing something to mankind that is anything other than benevolent.  Being Reformed in my theology, I am released from those theological burdens and restrictions.  God could easily use sin-free created beings in any way He sees fit to do so.  He could use them to judge us, bless us, or just downright confuse us.  It is His call, not mine.  So, as everyone in the universe is coming up with a theory as to what happened to the missing airliners, I offer my theory that maybe it was taken by an alien spaceship. Maybe a UFO took it.

Friday, March 14, 2014

There Is No War On Women

The popular media has chosen its next King for the Socialist Democracy of Amerika and it is Hillary Clinton.  I guess I need to amend that first sentence.  The next Queen of the SDA will be Hillary Clinton.  In fact, she will be the first Queen of the SDA.  Good for her.  I can't imagine that she will be any worse or any better than the two previous Kings we have had to suffer under, King Barak and King George. 
Barak Obama was elected largely due to the fact that white people labor under a false guilt about their alleged racism.  Who can deny that Obama is currently acting as our King because millions of white folks believed that they would be acting as racists if they did not cast their vote for him?  Who can deny that Obama was reelected primarily because those same white folks had to convince themselves once again that they were not racists.  Voting for Obama the second time proved beyond any doubt that the white men of this land are not racists.  Good for them.  Using guilt as a means of forcing people to vote one way or another is a time tested technique.  With soon-to-be Queen Hillary we see the technique once again being used, but this time it is in regards to sexism.
There was very little in the media about the "war on women" until recently.  Oh sure, there was the occasional discredited article about how the "glass ceiling" was preventing qualified women from rising up the corporate ladder.  There was also the occasional article about how women are paid less than men.  But, for the most part, those were just articles from aging, gray-haired and wrinkly-faced feminists desperately trying to recapture some of their old glory by rehashing old stories.  However, now that we are getting close to the process of selecting our next supreme ruler, the time has come to resurrect the fallacious doctrine of the war against women.
I have read three separate articles and watched two additional news reports about the war on women just this week.  There is only one reason for these articles and that is to get Hillary elected.  The media already successfully eliminated the main Republican challenger for the Kingdom when they slammed Chris Christie.  Now they have to promote their anointed one.  They are on a roll.  They got a member of a racial minority elected for two consecutive terms, now it is time to get a woman elected as well.  The best way to get Hillary back into the White House, and good-old-boy Bill along with her (lock up the interns!), is to play the sexist card.  It is being played now and it will be played incessantly in coming months.  Expect it.
I don't care who wins any election.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.  Nothing ever changes. All career politicians have long since sold out to the religious doctrines of Statism and they all believe in the ever expanding Leviathan.  The petty squabbles they have over whether to expand the Welfare-State or the Warfare-State more quickly are totally irrelevant.  All that matters is that they steal money from me and give it to people who are immoral to use for immoral purposes.  If I don't like that I can go to jail.  That is life in the SDA.  Of more importance to me is the belief about the alleged war on women.  Let's consider it for a moment.
In Colorado "women working full-time earned a median weekly salary of $750 in 2012, which is 78.3 percent of the $958 median weekly wage earned by men."  That report was from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In that same report it is asserted that, "nationally, women working full-time make 80.9 cents for every dollar that men make."  I will not disagree with the statistics.  Women who work full-time make less money than men who work full-time.  But that one simple observation does not even begin to tell the entire story about female employment.
Digging a little deeper into the information contained on the BLS website I found out several fascinating things.  First, "women account for 95% of child care workers, 89% of home health aides, 88% of housekeepers, 72% of cashiers and 70% of wait staff."  Now what do you think?  Could it possibly be the case that the primary reason women who work full-time make less money than men who work full-time is due to the fact that they work in careers that are infamous for paying very low wages?  Of course I can hear the shrill cries of the feminists already...they are squealing that women are forced to work in those careers because of the glass ceiling and the war on women.  Hogwash, ladies.  That is simply not true and you know it.  Go and interview the ladies working in these careers and ask them if they were forced off the Board of Directors at GM prior to taking their jobs as diaper changers.  I don't think many of them will answer that question in the affirmative.
Here is another interesting tidbit.  Women are disproportionately represented in government jobs.  How about that?  Women gravitate to government jobs.  I wonder why?  Maybe women, desiring security above all else, naturally want to have a job that will at least promise them eternal job security.  However, in the Great Recession the rate of job loss in the government sector was even greater than the business sector.  As a result lots of women lost their jobs in the government sector.  Could it be that once they lost their jobs with government, in which they were most certainly grossly over-paid for their services, they were unable to find an equally high paying job in the real world?  I wonder.....
There is no war on women.  For example, women get free things all the time.  People do not get free stuff when a war is being waged against them.  For reasons that I do not understand, men like to be around drunken women who dress like prostitutes.  For that reason many businesses that serve copious amounts of alcoholic drinks offer free drinks and "no cover" propositions to any female who will darken the entrance to the building.  When I attempt to order a free drink or enter the building without paying the cover charge I am thrown out on my ear.  When I dress up in women's clothes and try to get the freebies in a clandestine fashion I am arrested by vice and taken off to jail.  I see no evidence of a war on women here.
Furthermore, if there is a war on women why are women encouraged to go to war?  Huh?  Answer that one for me, will you?  Women have the right, duty and privilege to die in some vermin infested desert advancing the dream of SDA imperialism just as much as any man ever does.  If there really was a war on women we would do ridiculous things like believe women are sacrosanct and deserving of our protection rather than sending them off to the front lines as cannon fodder for some jihadist.  When it comes time to die for their country, women are clearly on equal footing with men.
I see no evidence anywhere that there is a war on women in the SDA.   No matter.  Propaganda has nothing to do with logical analysis or truth.  Propaganda is disbursed to change the opinions of the voters who will elect our next Queen.  Spreading the untruth that women are being persecuted is a fantastic way to get men to vote for Hillary in droves.  Mark my words, it will happen.  Men, desperately trying to cast off the unwanted mantle of "sexist pig" will vote for Hillary en masse and Hillary will be our next Queen.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Ukraine In Black And White

The situation in Ukraine is not hard to understand.  By that I mean that it is not hard to understand for the average citizen in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  No doubt there are hundreds of cultural and societal issues involved in that country that we do not understand but, fortunately, none of that matters to citizens of the SDA.  We need to know very little to understand what the response of our rulers should be to the situation in Ukraine.  Doug Anderson of Littleton summed up the situation wonderfully in a letter to the editor of the Denver Post.  Here is what he wrote, in its entirety:
"It is the moral obligation of every red-blooded American to demand military intervention in Ukraine to stop the Russians now, before we find ourselves in a world where our every communication is monitored, where our travel is subject to blacklists, where we can be routinely stopped and questioned, where prisons hold huge numbers, and where an elite class controls it all.  The only way to preserve our freedoms here is to fight a war over there." 
Do you think the war-hawks get the joke?  I doubt it.  I suspect they would read what he wrote and find themselves swelling with national pride as they chant "USA", "USA", USA." The mere thought of nuking some nasty foreigners makes their eyes fill with tears.  The idea of bullying some third world country makes them proud.  The opportunity to instill fear of the USA in some foreign land is an opportunity that should not be passed by.  Meanwhile, our every communication is monitored, our travel is subject to blacklisting, our 4th amendment rights have been permanently suspended, our prisons are filled with people who have committed no immoral deeds and the governing class of career politicians rules us all.
I remember using the argument that we either must fight the Russians or accept life under a communist dictatorship.  I was a very young man, just a boy actually, when I made those ridiculous arguments.  I have grown up a bit since then.  Now I realize that we are all living under conditions that I used to equate with those we would expect to live under if we were indeed under a communist dictator.  Somehow, over the past 40 years, we have gone from being a free country populated with generally free people to a land eerily similar to what it was previously like in Soviet Russia.  My how things have changed.
Doug makes a very good point.  His point is that the response of the SDA to the events in Ukraine is extremely simple.  Just like I asserted at first, we do not need to know everything about the history of Ukraine to know what to do.  We only have to make up our minds about one issue.  Do the events presently taking place in Ukraine constitute an attack on the SDA?  If they do, and Doug says they do, then we must immediately declare war on Russia.  The government of the SDA and the SDA military have a sworn moral obligation to protect the citizens of this land.  If we find ourselves, as a result of the current events in Ukraine, to be under attack, then we must defend ourselves.  We must declare war on Russia and we must do everything we can to subjugate them as quickly and efficiently as possible.  No expense should be spared.  Bombs must be built, soldiers must be recruited, new military technologies must be deployed and Russia must be wiped off the map.  It is the only reasonable thing to do if we are under attack.
On the other hand, if the current events in Ukraine do not constitute an attack on the lives, freedom and property of the citizens of the SDA, we need to mind our business and do absolutely nothing.  You read that right.  We should do nothing.  No saber rattling.  No threatening.  No imposition of "sanctions," which is really just a fancy term for another form of warfare against the citizens of an opposing sovereign nation.  If we are not under attack then what happens in the world is none of our business.  There is no logical, moral or constitutional basis for the belief found in our rulers today that the SDA military is to function as the world's police force.  Every incursion of SDA forces into the affairs of another sovereign nation that is not justified as a defensive act of war against that nation is immoral.  There are no exceptions to this rule.  Expect in the mind of the imperialists.  And that is where the trouble starts.
Hal Lindesy is a Christian Imperialist.  He believes we should be involved in the affairs of everyone in the world that can remotely be connected to Israel.  In his theology Russia will team up with Iran to attack Israel in the very near future.  Here are a couple of comments he made in a recent newsletter to his supporters, "Sadly, though, Mr. Putin is still not a happy man. You see, deep down what he really wants is for Russia to rule as the world's only superpower -- while he rules Russia. In fact, he seems to have made it his life's goal to see Russia restored to its past glory. The former KGB colonel longs for the days when the Soviet Union was feared throughout the world."  What I find sad is not the present mental state of Putin.  What I find sad is that when the SDA wants to rule the world and be universally feared that is considered to be a good thing but when Putin allegedly wants the exact same thing that is a bad thing. There is a word for that sort of behavior.  It is "hypocrisy."
Hal continues by saying, "Of course, President Obama has made a few veiled, obscure threats on Ukraine's behalf. He's basically said that we're going to get together with some of our friends in the West and do something, maybe. But we didn't do anything when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008; we didn't do anything about Syria; we've not done anything to stop Iran; North Korea takes delight in yanking our chain regularly; Egypt and Saudi Arabia have concluded we can't be trusted; al-Qaeda ridicules us in their magazine and online; and Palestinian Authority officials openly mock us while cashing our welfare checks."  So what, exactly, does Hal want us to do?  It seems as if he agrees with Doug....we must declare war on Russia immediately.  In fact, Hal seems to want the SDA to declare war on North Korea, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority.  Hey, if we are going to war, why not go all in?
Imperialists are an interesting sort.  These people always have a serious superiority complex.  They are the types of people who believe in "American exceptionalism."  You know that doctrine, don't you?   American exceptionalism is the idea that whatever the government of the SDA does is morally proper because we are better than everyone else in the world.  Nobody else in the world agrees with this belief but we have the biggest military and the willingness to use it so we win the debate.
Imperialists are men and women who believe in the political principles first elucidated by Machiavelli.  In his book, The Prince, Machiavelli describes how it is extremely important that every other nation in the world live in mortal terror of your nation.  We should be feared around the world.  Fear is a great motivator.  We can use fear to force everyone to bend to our will and give us what we want, when we want it.  Isn't it grand to be the only bully on the block?
Imperialists believe it is their moral duty to subjugate every nation in the world.  Those nations that agree with us are granted the right to govern themselves.  Those nations and governments that do not agree with us are undermined, all in the name of installing democracy you know, and replaced with puppet rulers who parrot the SDA line.  Ukraine is just another nation in a long line of nations the SDA government decided to undermine.  The SDA operatives responsible for doing so did a great job. But, as usual, there was blow-back that none of the geniuses in the various branches of government involved in imperial expansion expected.  None of them anticipated that Putin would actually stand up for his rights and the rights of Russia.  Because he did we now have an international standoff. 
Foreign policy is simple.  You do not need a degree in political science to know how to treat other nations.   You don't have to know everything about the history of a foreign nation to know how to treat it today.   All foreign policy could and should be summed up in one easy lesson:
  1. Are they attacking us?  If "Yes", go to number 2.  If "No", go to number 3.
  2. Declare war on that country and do your best to ensure the country you are fighting will never attack you again.
  3. Mind your own business and conduct free market activities with them.  Nobody ever profits when he shoots his customers.  The best way to bring peace is to bring commerce.  
What the SDA should do in Ukraine is black or white.  Invade Russia or keep our mouths shut and mind our own business.   I vote for minding our own business.

Update:  March 16, 2014

Guess what?  Crimea voted to align with Russia today.  And it is still none of our business.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Government Is The Biggest Pusher

I am tired of being made fun of.  You know what I mean.  The voting residents of Colorado passed a law decriminalizing the use of marijuana last year.  As of today the citizens of this state, as well as anyone who wishes to visit us, are free to pay exorbitant amounts of money for tiny amounts of marijuana to smoke.  Those who sell the marijuana and those who purchase it are subject to myriad rules and regulations regarding their respective behaviors and practices.  We have anything but freedom in regards to the decision to grow, sell and use marijuana.  Nevertheless, the members of the media in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika consider what is going on in Colorado to be some sort of anarchist revolt and we are routinely portrayed as freedom loving pot heads.  I am posting to this blog today to set the record straight.
I mince no words about freedom.  People should be free to do anything they want provided it does not violate the life, freedom and property of their neighbors.  In addition, the behavior of free people must not violate the law of God, a position known as theonomy and expounded many times in this blog in the past.  After that, do what you want to do.  Since using chemicals that alter the state of our physical bodies does not do harm to my neighbor's life, freedom or property and since the use of mind altering chemicals is actually required by the law of God, I come to the conclusion that government should have no rules in regards to drugs of any sort.
Any Christians among the three or four people who read this blog are probably very upset that I did not chant the standard pietistic evangelical mantra that all drugs are evil and should be outlawed by the government.  If that is true I have one question they need to answer.  Why would God require the use of wine in the sacrament of Communion?  Wine is a drug.  God commands us to use it.  How can that be if God believes all drug use to be immoral?  To be precise, God never forbids the use of drugs.  God's law forbids the excessive use of drugs.  God's law prohibits His people from using drugs to the point of addiction and behavior modifying intoxication.  God never says we cannot use drugs in moderation.  So why don't we all grow up and agree that we are free to do what we want and we are also responsible for our behavior when we do use drugs?
The government and the bureaucrats and career politicians who populate it would have us all believe that they know what is best for us.  They have researched the issues in great detail and have prepared a list of all drugs in the known world along with having placed a check-mark next to those that they believe are good for us.  Those that they have determined are not good for us are declared to be illegal.  It does not matter that the drugs on the respective lists have changed over the years.  One year a drug was considered evil and the next year it was considered to be good.  One year a drug had government approval and the next year it was anathema.  Logical or medical consistency is not a characteristic of government.  We most certainly should not expect logical or medical consistency about drugs when more important political agendas need to be advanced.
Anyone caught using the government approved drugs is called a good person and a patient.  Anyone caught using the government disapproved drugs is called a bad person and an addict.  Those who sell government approved drugs are called pharmacists and they make a lot of money because their career is protected by a government monopoly.  Those who sell drugs that the government does not approve of are called pushers and they also make a lot of money because the government rules against drugs drives up the prices for the drugs they sell.  Unlike government approved pharmacists however, the non-government approved pushers tend to have a short life span.  The only real difference between a pharmacist and a pusher is that one is selling drugs the government approves of and the other is not.  Come to think of it, there is one more real difference between the two groups.  The pharmacist thinks you are stupid and does not believe in your right to be free to buy what you want whereas the pusher gives you credit for knowing what you want to buy while also believing in your right to have the freedom to purchase it.  That should surprise no one.  Government agents never advocate freedom.  Businessmen always advocate freedom.
My thesis today is simple.  The federal government of the SDA is the biggest pusher in the world and should be thrown into prison forever.  Here are the facts.  You can check these facts here and here
  • In a June 2010 report in the Journal of General Internal Medicine it was reported that from 1978 to 2006 an examination of 62 million death certificates revealed that 250,000 of those deaths were the direct result of doctors administering legal drugs to patients in a hospital setting that directly resulted in their demise.  In other words, almost one quarter million people were killed as a direct result of the actions of government approved pushers.
  • 450,000 negative events that are the direct result of government approved and administered medications happen ever year in the SDA.
  • For those who like to talk about how the government has the right to regulate health care because we, the taxpayers, always end up paying for the free care that is given to SDA citizens, consider this fact:  the costs related to adverse drug reactions to government approved drugs comes to more than $136 billion annually.  That is more than the total cost of all cardiovascular or diabetic care in the SDA.
  • 20% of all people admitted to the hospital suffer unnecessary injury or death as the direct result of the drugs that are administered to them while hospitalized.
  • One of the primary reasons there are so many adverse reactions to government approved drugs has to do with the simple fact that so many patients are taking multiple medications, sometimes running to a dozen or more medications at the same time.  The practice of multiple drug administrations that takes place in SDA hospitals makes the behavior of heroin and cocaine addicts appear conservative by comparison.
For those of you who believe that there is a "war on women" in this land, consider the following:
  • More women die from prescription painkillers than die from the abuse of cocaine and heroin combined.  In 2010, 6600 women died from painkillers prescribed for them by their government approved pushers.  That is four times the number of women who died from using drugs disapproved by the government.
  •  42 women die every day from an overdose of a legally obtained prescription drug.  Since 2007 more women have died in these overdoses than have died in all motor vehicle crashes.  
  • In 2010 alone, 940,000 women were treated in hospital emergency rooms for overdoses of government approved and administered drugs.
The data drive me to one conclusion....government is a vicious pusher intent upon destroying the lives of millions of citizens of the SDA.  Doctors and pharmacists are granted monopoly power by the government to operate their cartel of drug pushing upon the defenseless citizens of the SDA.  I have not even mentioned the relentless war being waged in the government schools upon the hapless children enrolled there by state-protected pushers administering mind altering drugs designed to keep the children in line and make the teacher's jobs easier.  Everywhere you look you see government pushers selling their wares, all the while telling us that any free market decision we make to voluntarily use drugs in a responsible fashion is illegal and immoral.  I am not going to take it anymore.  Raise a glass of wine with me, won't you, and curse the evil drug pushers in the federal government.

Update:  March 13, 2014

I was watching the local television news last night when the female talking head informed me that the number of women taking Ritalin has doubled in the past four years.  She also told me that 9% of all boys enrolled in government schools are now taking Ritalin.  Imagine that.  One out of every ten boys in the government schools has been turned into a drug addict by the government licensed pushers and all for the purpose of making them easy to control and manipulate.  Tell me again why you want to send your kids to the government schools?
I find it absolutely fascinating that between the ages of 5 and 20 it is almost exclusively boys who are diagnosed with ADD but between the ages of 20 and 35 it is almost exclusively women who garner that diagnosis.  Does that seem strange to anyone besides me?  How odd it is for an allegedly organic "disease" of the brain to behave that way.
 

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

PED Addiction Creates Zombies

I saw a picture of Barry Bonds in the newspaper today.  I did not recognize the man.  The Barry Bonds I remember had shoulders at least four feet wide.  Sitting atop those shoulders was an enormous head.  It looked like he suffered from a serious case of "elephant man's disease."  He never smiled.  He looked like he would prefer to crush anyone who got in his way.  The picture in the paper showed a man who was laughing.  He had a normal sized head and a normal sized body.  The caption said it was Barry Bonds.  Wow, I said out loud, look at what happens to a body when a person stops taking performance enhancing drugs, better known as PEDs.  Barry Bonds actually looks like a human being again.  And it also appears as if he is acting like he is a member of the human race once again.  Good for him.  Welcome back Barry. 
I want to write about PEDs today.  The PEDs I am going to write about, however, are not performance enhancing drugs.  The PEDs I am very worried about are personal electronic devices.  I believe that personal electronic devices, or PEDs, are creating a nation of zombies.  I further believe that if Congress does not immediately enact legislation prohibiting, or at least severely restricting, the use of PEDs we are invariably going to usher in the zombie apocalypse.  Do you want a nation of zombies?  Then do nothing.  Do you want a nation of free men?  Then write your congressperson and tell him to craft legislation today that will outlaw PEDs.
This is not the first time I have thought about the problems created by PEDs.  The Colorado legislature is worried about them as well.  Bills are going to be introduced this legislative session that will make the operation of PEDs illegal for anyone who is also simultaneously operating a moving vehicle.  Apparently there is statistical evidence that proves that human beings using PEDs while driving end up in accidents at the same rate that drunken drivers experience.  The only reasonable and caring thing to do in a situation like this is for those who rule over us to make it illegal to use PEDs and drive at the same time.  Good for them.  But I don't think the new laws will go far enough.  PEDs are doing far more damage than that which results from a couple of traffic accidents.  PEDs must be banned outright.
I went to Disney World a couple of weeks ago.  In particular, I went to the Epcot Center.  Still more precisely I went to the World Showcase section of the Epcot Center.  My wife and I, along with a friend, spent an entire day enjoying the World Showcase.  I have been to the World Showcase many times in the past and I still enjoy walking around the large lake while experiencing little bits of culture from a dozen countries from around the world.  But this visit was different than previous visits.  I saw things on this trip that I have never seen before.  What I saw scared me.  I am forced to express my concerns to you, my fellow citizens, so you to can be made aware of this terrible curse that is coming upon our land.  It is the curse of PED usage and it is turning us into a nation of zombies.
Epcot Center is generally a pretty crowded place.  Lots of people go there.  Lots of people have little kids so there are lots of strollers being rolled about.  Many more people are physically incapable, generally because they are morbidly obese, of making the complete circuit of the lake so the good folks at Disney provide these people with wheelchairs.  The result is serious people congestion.  Amazingly, despite the high degree of human congestion, everyone always seemed to be able to negotiate the walkways without crashing into one another and without getting on one another's nerves.  This truth only added to the mystique of Disney World being the "happiest place on earth."
This time was different.  There were many close calls where people had to suddenly jump out of the way of others in order to avoid a direct crash.  The cause of the near-conflicts was easy to see.  Roving bands of younger generation members were walking about the pathway with their eyes firmly affixed to their PEDs.  Sometimes they would punch the keypad on their PEDs.  Other times they would simply walk along staring at it.  They never looked up.  They never noticed anything around them.  They would occasionally say something to each other but their eyes never left the object being held in their hands.  Quite literally, the Epcot Center had become infested with PED addicted zombies.
On previous visits to the World Showcase I would relax and allow my eyes to move all around the "country" that I was visiting.  This time was different.  One eye was on the country I was visiting and the other eye was scanning the horizon for roving gangs of zombies.  This created a significant amount of eye-strain on my part and seriously detracted from the enjoyment of the park.  When a gang of zombies would appear I would focus my attention upon them.  I needed to anticipate their pathway in order to avoid a direct physical conflict with them.  I would jump to one side and then to the other as the gang ambled along.  Like most zombies, these groups had no clearly defined goal.  As a result it was impossible to guess which direction they might take.  It was all most disconcerting. 
It is important to note that zombies, being zombies, are not generally going to create an atmosphere of violence.  When they would hit something they would simply bounce off the object and continue in the new direction they were facing.  They were far too engrossed in their PEDs to have any interaction with the outside world.  They never got angry.  Likewise, those whom them bounced off of seemed to realize that they were zombies and not responsible for their actions.  When a human would experience a zombie bouncing off of him he would simply nod his head in acknowledgement of the event and continue on his way.  The human beings all seemed to recognize that there is no point in talking to a zombie.  "They can't hear us so don't bother wasting our breath" seemed to be the operational principle for all the park visitors.
At first I felt sorry for the poor zombies.  The younger generation has grown up surrounded by PEDs.  Can they really be held personally responsible for their addiction to the devices?  Even if I can posit that they are not responsible for their addiction, it is still sad to see human beings turned into zombies.  Here these poor young folks were, in the middle of enchanting World Showcase, and all they could do was play Angry Birds or post pictures of themselves to their Facebook pages.  I hear there are several new "aps" (did I spell that right?) that allow zombies to negotiate beautiful mountain trails without ever having to actually look up and see anything more than their PED screen.  People call this progress.  It seems to me that the zombies are missing out on a lot of life.
Still, they seem to be content.  Like people with full frontal lobotomies, they are happy to walk around with dazed visages of contentment on their faces.  Also like people who have had a lobotomy, they seem incapable of realizing how much of life they are missing.  Are zombies happy?  I guess so.  Not being one I can't say for sure.  But as an outsider I must confess that it sure looks like a terrible life to me.

Update:  March 15, 2014

I just witnessed a father/son combination of PED zombies.  It was a strange sight.  They were exiting a movie theater where, as we all know, they had been forbidden to use their PEDs.   Telling a PED addict he can't use his PED for an hour or two is like telling a junkie he can't have another fix.  As they exited the theater they wobbled around unsteadily as they fumbled through their pockets looking for their PEDs.  They were quickly found and activated. Then, in typical zombie fashion, father and son wandered through a parking lot filled with exiting moviegoers with their eyes firmly fixed on their PEDs.  The drivers all graciously drove around them, although they did bounce off a couple of parked cars.  I hope they got home OK.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Why Is Homosexual Behavior Moral?

Very few people understand the concept of the burden of proof.  It is a relatively simple idea to grasp for anyone with an objective view of the universe.  That, of course, is the problem.  It is practically impossible to ever find a fellow human being with an objective view of the universe.  Everyone has a vast reservoir of presuppositions all of which are designed to protect the ideas they believe in and help them to continue to feel good about themselves.  Still, burden of proof is an important principle to practice if we are going to actually communicate with one another.
Burden of proof states that one party in a debate has the primary responsibility of proving its point while the other party does not need to do so.  Burden of proof can be established by precedent, consensus or facts that are so basic they are considered to be first principles.  For example, if I say that the sky is green the burden of proof is upon me to prove it to be so.  You have no burden of proof to show that the sky is blue because the generally accepted opinion on the matter agrees with your position.  If I declare that the US dollar is not legal tender in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika the burden of proof is upon me to make my case.  You are not required to prove me wrong.  I must prove myself to be correct.  If you tell me that the moon consists of yellow cheese with a little cream cheese mixed in the burden of proof is upon you.  I have no moral, legal or logical obligation to prove your position wrong.  I think most of us can understand this principle.  At least until more closely held personal presuppositions cloud the understanding of people with political agendas.  Then all discussion comes to a crashing halt.
Any objective observer of human history is forced to admit that most people for most of time have agreed that homosexual behavior is immoral.  Although there are a few pockets of people who did not hold that position, the overwhelming opinion of human history about homosexual behavior is that it is immoral.  The situation is perhaps even more clear in the countries of the world which were at one time at least nominally Christian.    All Christian countries had laws on their books which criminalized the practice of sodomy.  Even in the present day there are many places with anti-sodomy laws that are still on the law books but not enforced.  I do not believe it is unfair to assert that the history of precedent and the consensus of human opinion about the practice of homosexuality is that it is an immoral activity.  It therefore necessarily follows that any person who wants to argue for the moral propriety of homosexual behavior has the burden of proof to make his case.  It is not sufficient for an advocate of homosexual behavior to simply assert that homosexual behavior is moral any more than it is logically sufficient for me to simply assert that the moon is a combination of yellow and cream cheese.  The burden of proof is upon the advocate of homosexual behavior to prove it is moral.
I have written several posts to this blog in the last six months about the topic of homosexuality.  I am not doing so because I consider those who practice homosexuality to be any worse than those who practice adultery or witchcraft.  They are all equally wrong in the eyes of a theonomist, which is what I happen to be.  I continue to harp on the topic of homosexuality because advocates for the practice of homosexuality keep telling me that I am behaving sinfully for not acknowledging and confessing that homosexual behavior is moral.  They keep telling me that I am guilty of the sin of hate for the simple fact that I disagree with their view that homosexual behavior is moral.  What these homosexual advocates miss is the fact that the burden of proof is upon them, not me.  They cannot simply keep restating their position that homosexual behavior is moral without presenting an argument in support of that position.  My frustration stems from the fact that, to date, I have not seen one single argument advancing the position of the moral prorpiety of homosexual behavior.
Mike Brewer of Morrison, Colorado, wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post last week which is a perfect example of my point.  Mike is angry with Christians who supported the now vetoed legislation in Arizona that would have allowed Christian businessmen the right to refuse service to anyone on the basis of their religious beliefs.  I commented on that action in this post.   Mike's letter carried this headline:  "No Monopoly on Morality."  I think you can see where this is going.  Of course there is a monopoly on morality.  To deny that obvious truth is utterly ridiculous.  If something is moral the opposite is not.  It is impossible for both A and Anti-A to be moral.  If it is immoral to murder, it is moral to not murder.  If it is moral to be faithful to your wife, it is immoral to be an adulterer.  This is simple logic.  Sadly, simple logic is lost on those who have a political axe to grind.  Simple logic, as well as an understanding of the burden of proof, is lost on Mike.
Here is what Mike says, in part, in his letter, "The actual intent of the bill was clear:  Arizona would have allowed zealots to use their religion as a shield to practice bigotry in the public square.  Its behavior like that that's truly objectionable, both morally and ethically."  We can see that Mike is attempting to make an argument about the moral propriety of homosexual behavior.  The burden or proof is upon him to make his case.  How does he make his case?  By authoritatively declaring that Christians are bigots and religious zealots deserving of the prosecution of the state if they attempt to practice the religious belief about homosexuality that they share with two thousand years of Church history.   Where is the argument in favor of the morality of homosexual behavior?  Nowhere to be seen.
We get it.  Mike hates Christians.  That is fine.  I expect him to hate me.  But where is the argument in favor of his position?  Mike goes on to say this, "What Herzfeld (a previous letter to the editor, ed) fails to understand is that he and his religious ilk don't have a monopoly on morality, nor do they have the final say on what's morally objectionable."  Well, Mike is right on one thing.  This Herzfeld fellow does not have the final say on what is sinful.  But neither does Mike.  In fact, only God has the final say on what is sinful and He has quite clearly said that the practice of homosexuality is sinful.  Mike needs to deal with that argument with more than insults and then he needs to present an alternative argument in which he proves why the practice of homosexuality is morally proper.  He does neither.
Mike is just like every other advocate for homosexual behavior in the SDA.  He hates the God of the Bible.  He hates Christians who believe in the God of the Bible.  He wants the all powerful government to force Christians to violate their consciences and then be forced to serve people they would prefer not to enter into a voluntary contract to serve.  He believes homosexual behavior is moral and he has no idea why his position on homosexual behavior is correct or logical.  He has no argument to support his position.  Mike, like the rest of his "ilk" is doing nothing more than emoting.  Please Mike, stop wasting my time.  Meanwhile, I am still waiting for a gregarious gay or a liberated lesbian to explain to me why his/her behavior is moral.  The burden of proof is upon them.  Now get with it.  The logical monkey is on your back, not mine.

Update:  March 14, 2014

I read a story today that illustrates the shockingly brazen hypocrisy of those who advocate for the practice of homosexuality.  The entire story can be seen here. Here is an excerpt to whet your appetite:
"New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez was a regular customer of Santa Fe hair stylist Antonio Darden. About two years ago, Darden decided that he would no longer accept the Governor as a client because of her public support for the conventional definition of marriage as a monogamous, heterosexual arrangement. This was a perfectly legitimate exercise of Daren’s absolute property right as the owner of his business.  Six years earlier, New Mexico resident Elaine Huguenin, who runs a photography business, declined a request to photograph a commitment ceremony between two women. In doing so, Mrs. Huguenin broke no contract, violated no promise, and didn’t defraud anybody.  Like Darden, Mrs. Huguenin exercised her absolute property right as a business owner, which includes the unqualified freedom to accept or reject clients at her sole discretion. Darden was publicly praised for his decision. Huguenin was prosecuted."