The grand joys of outsourcing....
Friday, December 12, 2008
The grand joys of outsourcing....
Thursday, December 4, 2008
PokerStars.com is doing their freeroll for blogs again, and I've applied yet again. Here's the proof they ask us to post:
I have registered to play in the PokerStars World Blogger Championship of Online Poker!
The WBCOOP is an online Poker tournament open to all Bloggers.
Registration code: 751230
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
You should definitely add Carpe Diem to your RSS reader.
(I won't link to whiterabbitcult.com because they aren't family-friendly, and I don't want to contribute to that. Also, this is certainly the funniest thing that I saw on their site.)
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
I had no doubt that many would get sold out by Mr. Obama, because you had too many groups getting too many implied (or explicit) promises. Since there's no way the hard left fringe will turn Republican in 2012, they're going to get tokens, just like the small-government Republicans under Bush. At least as a rightist libertarian, Mr. Obama will tend to sell out in my direction... :)
If Mr. Obama manages 8 years, the hard-core left will have the Battered Voter syndrome feeling that the libertarian/small government wings of the Republican party has felt since Reagan's second term (and some would argue first term).
Friday, November 21, 2008
If it weren't already past the closing bell, I would have sold this rally. There is NO way Mr. Geithner (or for that matter, Mr. Obama) has a magic wand to make things better.
My magic market prediction: the Dow Jones Industrial Average at 5000 at least, and possibly as low as 1 "share" of the DJIA equaling the cost of 1 ounce of gold on the physical delivery market (not the polite fiction of the spot commodities markets). Since I've now made a prediction, it's important to understand that I am best at saying what the market should do and what it might do eventually, and usually 100% wrong about what it'll do in the short term.
Even so, we were still paying over $160 a month on TV, Internet, and phone. Our biggest problem was phone and TV. Windstream started charging us $6 for an equipment maintenance charge, and our plan was $55 a month. We looked really close at our usages, and we were paying almost $25 a month for effectively 4 channels - Boomerang, BBC America, Toon Disney, and History International. We agreed to compensate with Netflix, so it wasn't too bad a trade. Now TV is $40 (before a $5 package discount)
The big savings was in the phone part. We got suckered into switching to a plan with Caller ID and 100 minutes of long distance. That ran our phone and Internet up to $85 a month plus taxes. Then I discovered Greenstreak . "Naked" DSL is DSL that doesn't include a regular phone line. Windstream coudn't do naked DSL, but they can go "topless": the phone line can do incoming calls, 911, and 800 numbers, but no long distance at all and outgoing local calls are $0.10 per minute (i.e. don't do them). We will have 3M download speed, which is effectively equivalent to a 10M cable link (the cable bandwidth is shared in the neighborhood). Total costs: around $35.
Since we all already have cell phones, we don't need the home phone for calling, just for the Dish, security system, and the occasional incoming call.
Even picking up Netflix, we've saved $50 from the entertainment budget, and given ourselves a lot more options.
Friday, November 7, 2008
My voting record still holds: Milady and I have voted differently in every election I have been eligible to vote in. She voted for Obama, while I voted for Bob Barr. Ben Chandler won (1-2 for me), and so did Mitch McConnell (oops, 1 for 3). Most of the rest in my precinct were unopposed, so there weren't many choices. I did write Milady in for State Senator, but Kentucky doesn't count write-in votes unless you pre-register, so no one will know it but you.
Now, here's my new self portrait:
Why is that? Simple. I am a SUCKER! Milady and Little Miss walked up after I went to Wal-Mart and showed me this:
We now have an 8 week old Boston Terrier pup named "Queen Padme Amadala Packrat". Given my ever-growing dislike of the prequel trilogy, I tried lobbying for a change in name, but again, I'm a sucker. Padme it is.
Around 5AM this morning, I felt a little tongue licking my back. Milady had gotten suckered into getting her out of her cage and putting her in bed. At least she seems to be pad-training well, so she didn't wet the bed.
It's a good thing I don't think I'm in control of my family.... ;)
Saturday, October 25, 2008
I am so glad that that song is mostly gone....
Thursday, October 23, 2008
I have decided how I'm going to vote in all of the races open to me: the incumbent must go. All except one: Ben Chandler's race for the House. In general, I am not a Chandler fan. He is a "light socialist", and he votes with Pelosi and crew way too much for my tastes. Nonetheless, he voted against the bailout both times, and I have to reward that. I have no confidence his opponent is a small-government Republican, mainly because I haven't heard one word out of his opponent....
I am going to cover my reasoning for the other major candidates, including Obama/McCain, in future posts.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Furrfu, people! The Great Depression isn't a how-to guide! Let's see, prop up banks: check. Talk about protectionism, check.
What scares me is that it's the Republicans doing all this socialism, not the Democrats.
The whole world is turned upside down. It's a good thing I trust the Lord, because I sure don't trust my leaders.
I'd want one, but work lets me use a year-old MacBook Pro, and that's as much as I need. The family and I might squeeze enough out to buy a MacBook for Christmas next year for homeschool.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
As best I can tell, Palin's brother-in-law is a dangerous, somewhat unstable fellow. Mr. Palin likes her family, and saw an opportunity to try to help them out. The Public Service Commissioner was from another branch of the Republican party, didn't like Mrs. Palin, and saw an opportunity to tweak her "for free". That put him on her bad list. Then, \ she and the Public Service Commissioner butted heads again over hiring troopers. Maybe he thought too much of himself, maybe he just couldn't hire more troopers no matter what. Either way, he's on the list so it's time to go.
Sounds like office politics, not "high crimes and misdemeanors". To quote Carville, this dog doesn't hunt.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
A couple of weeks ago, we went over the budget, to see what we could cut. We're going to start looking at fluorescent PAR-30 lights for the downstairs, and we thought about turning off the phone and DSL to switch to cable. The one problem with this was that I had all my mail, this blog, etc. going to a server plugged in under my desk. A server that desperately needed both software and hardware upgrades (it is 4+ years old and was running a beta version of NetBSD). As best I could tell, I was spending almost $20 a month just powering the big rack-mount server.
That's when The Plan™ came together. I would move all of the home services to Google Apps. This blog moved to Blogger, mail went over to Gmail, and the web sites moved to Google Sites. Why should I spend valuable home time maintaining web pages when Google is happy to do so for free, or for $50 a year per mailbox if I end up needing more space.
We ended up keeping the phone line because the Cable Modem + Dish
Now, I just have to get off Yahoo Domains. They've raised my domain costs to $35/year. Anyone know a decent cheap domain registrar (and no, I won't use GoDaddy. They're notorious for kidnapping domains for the flimsiest of excuses).
Friday, October 3, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The bill adds provisions to the House version - including temporarily raising the FDIC insurance cap to $250,000 from $100,000. It says the FDIC may not charge member banks more to cover the increase.... Instead, the bill allows the FDIC to borrow from the Treasury to cover any losses that might occur as a result of the higher insurance limit.
The Fed's already going to print 700B to cover the bailout, why not print a few billion more....
I think Congress has lost their minds.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
One thing that just hit me at lunchtime: Where is the government going to get this magical $700 billion? The Treasury doesn't have it laying around in a sack under Mr. Paulson's office. The government only has 2 ways to get that $700b:
- Sell Treasury paper on the open market (or more likely straight to sovereign funds and central banks). M2 right now is around 7.7 trillion dollars (US style). 700B is around 9% of that. If you believe Shadow Stats, M3 is around 14 trillion. $700b is 5% of that. How are the money markets supposed to react to 5% of the total supply of dollars suddenly being pulled into Treasuries?
- Have the Fed "buy" the Treasury paper with new money. How exactly is inflation supposed to react if we magically increase M2 by 9%? Fed-printed money is supposedly M3 (i.e. doesn't really count), so the whole justification in inflating the crap out of M3 was that it didn't leak into M2. Making M2 jump 10% in a matter of days just can't be healthy. Sounds a lot like Weimar Germany to this Packrat.
Neither option makes a lot of sense to me, and the latter sounds downright painful. I'm almost suspecting that a natural deflationary recession would be better for us all.
The money system is a zero-sum game. If you spend $50, you had to get it from somewhere. If you try to get it from nowhere (fiat money creation), you end up taking it from everyone.
If I'm supposed to part with my part of $700b, what will it do to keep this from happening again?
This was the moment for Obama to shine. President Bush threw out a plan that was little more than "Give Paulson $700b and stand back". Everyone in the country hated the plan because it threw money at the problem, not solutions. This was a moment that was ripe for a leader. All the Democrats had to do was compose a Democratic version of the bill that appealed to their base and the moderates, and stick Obama out in front of it. There are really smart Democratic economists; Robert Reich could come up with a better bailout than this. (N.B. After looking a bit, Robert Reich appears to have a blog, and he DID come up with a bailout plan that makes a lot of sense, even if he does like the more noxious idea of bankrupcy judges rewriting mortgages.) Then stick Obama in front of a
But no, Mr. Obama is AWOL. Neither Pelosi nor Reed will even mention his name, or get him involved in the action. I don't know if this is payback for defeating Clinton, or a strong measure of personal dislike, but they don't want him on that podium.
I don't have to post much about the Republican's inherent dislike of McCain. To quote the SNL skit (hat tip: Vox Day):
I have never supported President Bush. I have undermined President Bush, just ask any Republican! I have always been disloyal to this president, a disloyal, untrustworthy, unreliable renegade who has abandoned my party when it most needed me. The fact is, you simply can't count on John McCain. That's why on November 4th, the American people will elect me their next president.The best satire is 99.9% true. The House Republicans KNOW that McCain would sell them down the river in a moment, and are completely unwilling to put one ounce of trust in him.
If either major party had a candidate with one ounce of leadership, he would have taken over that debate and stepped in on this bill and taken over. Instead we have an old warrior politician who's burned too many bridges and a younger man who's never taken the time to make any.
Monday, September 29, 2008
How can interbank lending be frozen while other types of lending are ok?
Here's my opinion:
It's a sign of the CDS meltdown. The banks trust their customers to repay their debts more than they trust each other to stay solvent.
I think this credit crisis will spread some, especially if more banks closed. However, we don't need to patch over that debt; we need to burn it.
UPDATE: A Fox News talking head said "we're too much in debt. Let's give them more." Yeah, right....
On one side we have Japan: a 10+ year depression caused by the government bailing out every Tom, Dick, and Harry that got burned by lending money before a real estate market collapse.
On the other side, Nancy Pelosi and George Bush are telling us that there will be Hell On Earth (tm) if we don't bail out every Tom, Dick, and Harry who got burned by lending money before a real estate market collapse. Excuse me if I think we're going down the wrong road.
You don't cure a hangover by handing out vodka, and you don't cure too much bad loans by handing out more loans. You close the loans, and start over. The credit markets don't need quantity, they need quality.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
I could tell their ages and generations. McCain was all "Senator Obama" this and "Senator Obama" that, while it was "John" this and "John" that. My mother, Miss Manners that she is, would have had my hide for talking to an older man that way. I know it's more casual in life now, but I just can't help thinking that things didn't improve.
So, did you actually change your mind because of this debate? I didn't. I'm still voting for Bob Barr. Even if those square glasses of his look like old women's glasses....
Friday, September 26, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
Yesterday, ZEITmagazin announced that that was wrong. A copy of almost the entire movie was found in Argentina. It's a second or third-generation copy, and damaged, but it can be viewed, and we can see the story. Even better, the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau Foundation is dedicated to bring ing the new footage out to the public!
Time to break out my Kino copy of the last restoration, to tide me over until 2010 or whenever they get this version restored.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Last Thursday, Milady gets a phone call that the door is in, and will be ready to install Tuesday. OK, no problem. We spent all Saturday rearranging the garage, and pulling my old rustbucket (i.e. the Ford 1950 F-1) out onto the patio.
Tuesday rolls around, and Milady gets a call: not only is the garage door not there, it was never there. It seems that the garage door was backordered because the garage door opener was backordered. The lady who called said she'd get estimate on when the garage door open er would be available, and call us back.
Today, I had to call in and leave a message for their expeditor to see why we didn't have the promised door. I also mentioned my concerns about the lack of professionalism and a lack of confidence that they could deliver contractual obligations. Unfortunately, the expeditor didn't mention anything about those concerns when she called me back, and just said that they'd try to have the doors in by next Thursday.
This is where I need prayer for patience. :( I put a call into their manager, but of course they're in a meeting. (They're ALWAYS in a meeting.) If the manager can't assure me that they'll actually deliver the door in a reasonable amount of time, and possibly offer a discount for the month's delay, then I'm stuck going to another vendor.
Now I just need to plan fixing the eaves. Looks like I'm taking a week off in late October for that....
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Am I to understand that you are claiming that there is insufficient evidence for free will, but that you accept its existence only because the truth was divinely revealed?
No. I reject the concept that free will separate from a creator God is axiomatic. Stephan's whole idea is that human beings are rational entities with free will, and who don't need the concept of a creator God to define "universal morality".
I believe that either there is "something else" (a soul, if you wish) involved with the mechanism of the mind, or there isn't. If there isn't a soul, then the mind is the biological computer.
I don't think you have a computer science background, because you don't understand how computer programs work. If I am the programmer, yes I can work around a bug in an old Pentium chip, but I am an independent agent from the program. A computer program can do no more and no less than what it was originally programmed to d o. Even current Artificial Intelligence study requires that the original program be written by someone. It then is given learning tools that allow them to "grow". Some people use deterministic tools (i.e. no randomness), and some use some non-deterministic approaches (i.e. some random "yes/no" factors are included).
If the mind is just a really sophisticated biological computer, then it either is deterministic or non-deterministic as well. Either there is something within our brains that sparks just a bit of randomness in our decisions ("I think I'll have mustard instead of mayo"), or there isn't. The only way we could know this at our current understanding of the mind is with a time machine which would let us "replay" someone's decisions multiple times.
From a moral point of view, this isn't a useless question. If we might make decisions based on randomness (even if just a little randomness), then we aren't rational, just rationalizing. There was an interesting study se veral years back that claimed that people are much more random than first thought, going back later to rationalize an essentially random decision.
On the other hand, if there is no randomness, then the entire mind is just one big steady state machine. If you go back to my birth, and somehow replay my life with no changes, I'll make the exact same choices. You don't accuse a Coke machine of moral failing when it doesn't give you a Sprite. You just call the bottler and ask them to fix their stupid machine. If you or I are just a biological machine, there's nothing interesting in our moral choices; they're just a result in our programming. Again with the technical CS terms: Garbage in, garbage out. Perhaps "better" programming is better for our neighbors, but that's just preferences again.
To go back to your point, I reject Stephan's axiom because it's not an axiom. I believe in Christianity's version of free will, because it fits with, and is derived from, the rest of the system. It's not axiomatic there; it's a consequence of my view the system. (Some Christians reject free will, and their system still works too.) Since the rest of Christianity conflicts with Stephan's system, he can't use it to "prove" his axioms.
Stephan can't say "You're a Christian, so you believe X too" as a proof; that's philosophical freeloading. If Stephan wants me to believe in UPB as why we don't need God to be moral, he has to have a system that doesn't use Christianity to "prove" his axioms first. Like Dawkins et. al., Stephan doesn't know the "big battles" of philosophy, and as such thinks things are "inherently self-evident" that the philosophers have been rightly arguing over for centuries.
One aside: from what I've read so far about UPB, it's just retelling the first part of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, with a different conclusion.
Monday, July 28, 2008
I was so surprised about how calming shooting was. I always imagined guns to be weapons of furious anger. Itâs how theyâre portrayed in all the shoot em up movies, anyway. Someone pisses you off, you get your gun and you give them what for. But the real life thing is just the opposite. Youâve got to be perfectly still, your eye trained on your single spot in the distance, and youâve somehow got to squeeze the trigger without moving an inch. Anger could never shoot straight.
One time, New York cops shot into a small truck 50+ times after a "bad guy", and never hit him. Since car doors are like tissue paper for the 9mm and/or .40 calibre pistols NY's finest carry (I forget which), this is telling. Most "hot-rage" killings occur with knives, because knives are close-up weapons.
I am a mediocre shot. Most guns don't fit these big hand s well, so I shoot erratically with them. I expect to get worse with age, and not better. That's why I've already switched from the 9mm as the home defense gun to the short-barreled Winchester 12 gauge.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
For the most part, I was acting as "devil's advocate" on my "axiom busting" in the last post. I do want to make a second pass on two items.
If good just means preferable, then you're open to "you may prefer truth, but I prefer not to tell the truth sometimes".
untrue. All things being equal, you always prefer to tell the truth. So do I. So does everybody. It's when things aren't otherwise equal that our preferences diverge. This is observedly true. Pathological liars are acting irrationally. That's why it's a pathology and not a preference.
This is very close to a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. "Everyone prefers to tell the truth." "Liars don't." "They don't count, they're pathological." If morals are universal, then they have to apply to people who would be "pathological". If they're based on universal preferences, then why not include their preferences too?
Is a bacterium inanimate because it is composed of inanimate chemichals? Of course not. Is free will nonexistant because your mind might be a biological computer program, faced with an input set that drives it through a super-complex steady state tree? Of course not. UPB doesn't "assume" free will. It acknowledges free will, free will that is observed the same way the animation of of a bacterium is observed. You are the one confusing the Pentium with the program it processes, a program that to some small but vitally important degree, writes (or at least alters) itself. I disagree that free will is self-evident. Even Wikipedia has a decent summary of the philosophical debate on free will. It is not axiomatic that people act rationally or that they act via free will. Even Calvinists reject the concept of free will as it's commonly defined. One more thought experiment: (axiom) humans are simply the result of undirected biological evolution. (axiom) The "mind" is nothing more than the results of the biological actions of the brain (i.e. no spirit). If there is a source of randomness within the brain, then the decision you make may be the result of randomness, not "rationality". If there is no randomness, then the brain is just a biological steady state machine of incredible complexity and there's no free will. An aside: I believe most of Stephan's axioms, but I reject that they're axioms. Instead, I believe then as a consequence of my Christian theology. That's why I'll reject the concept of free will separate from Christian theology, since I think the only way free will can occur is if there is more to us humans than just this bag of salty water.
Is a bacterium inanimate because it is composed of inanimate chemichals? Of course not. Is free will nonexistant because your mind might be a biological computer program, faced with an input set that drives it through a super-complex steady state tree? Of course not. UPB doesn't "assume" free will. It acknowledges free will, free will that is observed the same way the animation of of a bacterium is observed.
You are the one confusing the Pentium with the program it processes, a program that to some small but vitally important degree, writes (or at least alters) itself.
I disagree that free will is self-evident. Even Wikipedia has a decent summary of the philosophical debate on free will. It is not axiomatic that people act rationally or that they act via free will. Even Calvinists reject the concept of free will as it's commonly defined.
One more thought experiment: (axiom) humans are simply the result of undirected biological evolution. (axiom) The "mind" is nothing more than the results of the biological actions of the brain (i.e. no spirit). If there is a source of randomness within the brain, then the decision you make may be the result of randomness, not "rationality". If there is no randomness, then the brain is just a biological steady state machine of incredible complexity and there's no free will.
An aside: I believe most of Stephan's axioms, but I reject that they're axioms. Instead, I believe then as a consequence of my Christian theology. That's why I'll reject the concept of free will separate from Christian theology, since I think the only way free will can occur is if there is more to us humans than just this bag of salty water.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Most of his 8 axioms ("Premises") are fallacies, or at very least are parasitic off of the very religious moral systems the author claims to reject. Let's go through them.
- Axiom 1: WE BOTH EXIST.
- Axiom 2: THE SENSES HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR ACCURACY. All he forgot was "I think, therefore I am". A Platonic philosopher would reject 2 out-of-hand, as would a Hindu. The concept of a rational universe fought over in pre-Christian philosophy, and became axiomatic only because of Christianity. Post-Christian philosophy is still lacking a good examination of this axiom.
- Axiom 3: LANGUAGE HAS THE CAPACITY FOR MEANING. If the author could quit using "better" in his axioms, I might be tempted to agree here. Seriously, this is an open problem in philosophy, but one I'll concede for expediency as well.
- Axiom 4: CORRECTION REQUIRES UNIVERSAL PREFERENCES "If you correct me on an error that I have made, you are implicitly accepting the fact that it would be better for me to correct my error. Your preference for me to correct my error is not subjective, but objective, and universal." Essentially, the author is appealing to the reader for agreement. This is dangerous, since all an opponent has to do to reject your entire argument is say "In my belief system, I don't care if you're in error." Also, what is "better"? (I'll raise that again in a second.)
- Axion 5: AN OBJECTIVE METHODOLOGY EXISTS FOR SEPARATING TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD In the end, th is is just a restatement of axiom 2, with an addition of the concept of "Truth". To quote Pilate, "Quid est veritas?" Again, I have to accept axiom 5, but much philosophical debate of the last 5 millennia has been about trying to prove 5, and it's still up for debate.
- Axion 6: TRUTH IS BETTER THAN FALSEHOOD.
- Axiom 7: PEACEFUL DEBATING IS THE BEST WAY TO RESOLVE DISPUTES There is a subtle fallacy of definition here. Better and best are just degrees of "good". What does the author mean by good/better/best? If it's moral, then you've begged the question again. If it's useful, then UPB is just another utilitarian system. If good just means preferable, then you're open to "you may prefer truth, but I prefer not to tell the truth sometimes".
- Axiom 8: INDIVIDUALS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. This is a fallacy of definition, with two different meanings of "responsible" mashed together. First, it assumes free will. It is entirely possible for me to posit this argument without free will. My biological computer program, faced with an input set that drives it through a super-complex steady state tree, drives my hands to type out this post. I am no more "responsible" than the first Intel Pentium was "responsible" for rounding errors in the floating point unit.
The second meaning is "morally liable". Again, why? I thought that this was what was to be proven...
The author is unconsciously talking to Christian moralists. Christians or atheists who have consciously or unconsciously accepted Judeo-Christian morals will accept all 8 axioms because they believe them already. People who reject Judeo-Christian morals will reject many, if not most, of these axioms. Fundamentally, axiom 0 is "there are morals", and that's what he's trying to prove.
And no, I'm not being a hypocrite at stopping at the axioms. Without the axioms, the rest of the argument can't hold, and I can s top now.
I am NOT impressed.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
During this thread over at Little Green Footballs, I took exception to the way Charles has been presenting Intellegent Design and Creationism during several of the last posts. While I will stand by the principle that Charles was being unnecessarily bitter, it was not appropriate for me to use the language I did, and especially not in a public forum. If I didn't have a nice way of saying my thoughts, I should not have said so at all.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
I am a non-Republican conservative libertarian. While I am too young to be a Reagan Republican, I have grown attracted to Reaganâs philosophy that the government doesnât hold the solutions to our problem, the government IS our problem.
I have a simple (open) request: tell me how your Republican of choice believes in smaller government.
Mitt Romney wants to spend Federal dollars to revitalize Michiganâs economy. McCain wrote the biggest and most useless infringement on free speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts. Huckabee has a spending list longer than his arm, and wants to dip the governmentâs hand even deeper into health care. Even if you can get past the fact that Guiliani is a serial adulterer, he is in no way a âconservativeâ (the Federal government has little business in the health care industry or school choice).
The comptroller of the US currently estimates that, if the goverment worked under business accounting rules, the federal deficit wouldnât be $9 trillion (the official number), but $58 trillion. By failing to put back cash to pay for Social Security and Medicareâs expected outflow, by 2040 the current government will be bankrupt. My children will have to spend the entire Gross National Product of the US paying for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade.
I want a Supreme Court that includes strict constructionists. I am strictly anti-abortion. However, a strict constructionist SCOTUS doesnât help if weâre broke. At most, we have the next 10-15 years to fix the problems, yet none of this crew has any desire to think that there is a problem. We are past the âcutting 50 million in taxesâ stage. Our government is functionally bankrupt, and we need REAL fixes, not âportable health careâ or small tax cuts that wonâ t be backed by spending cuts.
This crew of Republicans differs from the Democrats at most by degrees. Where is the real difference?
Friday, January 18, 2008
to check out a heart arythmia. Last night (Thursday night/Friday morning), he quit breating and his heart stopped for at least 13 minutes (I didn't find out it was that long or this severe until my mom called a few minutes ago). The doctors are pretty sure he has serious to severe brain damage, but they can't test to find out the extent of the damage until Monday.
I'd appreciate it if you and the class could pray for him, my grandmother, and my father. If you could also pray for our family, I'd appreciate it. As the saying goes, I trust God to not give us more than we can bear, but I just wish God didn't trust me quite so much....
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
I grew up Democrat, but I haven't ever voted for a Democrat for President. My first vote was for Bob Dole against Bill Clinton, solely on moral grounds. I voted independant versus Gore and W, but then voted for Bush versus Kerry because I thought the latter was a slimeball. In return, we almost got Harriett Miers. Government hasn't shrunk a bit, and we have a Federal Reserve and Congress Hell-bent on trashing the dollar and leaving us with a Social Security & Medicare bill that in 2040 will be bigger than the country's GDP. All of the good talk towards conservative Christians evaporated before W raised his hand the second time. And let's not even talk about No Child Left Behind.
Now we have a "compassionate conservative" (Huckabee) telling us how to spend even more money. We have a serial adulterer (Rudy) who's more Democrat than Republican. To paraphrase JibJab, Romney has more waffles than a House of Pancakes. I'd like McCain if he hadn't supported the biggest infringement on the First Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts. I might be convinced for Thompson, if he wasn't a big supporter of McCain-Feingold the first time around (and if he acted like he really cared). Hunter might do, but he's got less support than Ron Paul.
Why should I care about these Republicans at all? At least Clinton or Obama can sell out to me. This generation of Republicans have talked abortion and marriage, but have been too busy spending money and growing the Federal government to care. And please don't mention the Supreme Court. Let's play name association: Reagan, Kennedy. Bush 1: Souter. Bush 2: Miers. The Republican presidents don't have a good track record here .
I'm done with "trust me". I want to see results. How will the Republicans handle the bankrupcy of Social Security and Medicare? How will the Republicans deal with a government that owes $58 Trillion in current and future liabilities? What are the Republicans going to do to reduce the Federal government? "I'm not Hillary Clinton" isn't good enough any more. I expect a Democrat to differ in degrees from HRC, not a Republican.
Until this Republican crew can come up with someone other than Ron Paul who acts something like a real Reagan Republican, then we deserve HRC or Mr. Obama.