Joel Aaron

The War on Poverty is on the Wrong Battlefield!

2009-02-01T09:52:00.001-05:00

The history of Medicaid and Peach Care for Kids and how to shore up funding discrepancies has been an annual theme over the last few legislative sessions in Georgia. In 2007, in the wake of a $131 million government funding shortfall, Georgia’s Peach Care for Kids program slammed the door shut on new enrollments. The State House responded by restricting the terms for enrollment in the program while still avoiding the retroactive application of the new terms. Unwilling to see children of working poor denied medical care, Governor Perdue robbed from Peter to pay Paul and dipped into Medicaid funding to cover the difference temporarily.

In the malaise of the 2008 Legislative Session, where the urgency of drought and transportation issues reduced much of the healthcare funding debate to a waterlogged hit-and-run victim, Governor Perdue called for funding that would not hurt taxpayers while the State continued to wish upon the Federal SCHIP star. At the time, the Administration had already handed down a rule requiring 95 percent of SCHIP eligible children – including those with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty limit or a little over $40 grand for a family four – to be enrolled. After all, good medical care is an entitlement.

In the dramatic shake up and exchange of management power in the much beleaguered Grady Hospital debacle, Georgians became acutely aware of funding shortages. Everything from grabbing funding from the Feds to funding through percentages of collections from traffic violators was proposed.

The main issue in providing healthcare for the working poor is whether Georgia taxpayers should be obligated to supplement the medical care of others. Ultimately, this care should be carried out by a myriad of non profit organizations, employer programs, church and other religious institutions and not be a government imposed obligation. The SCHIP program, Peach Care, and yes, even Medicaid, create a permanent dependency through assured availability. Too often there is poor oversight of the funds going out and allocation of those funds can very quickly become a political, rather than a needs-based franchise. It becomes too easy to game the system, witness ever-rising healthcare costs.

The other factor is the obsessive focus on trauma care over preventive care. According to the Georgia Department of Community Health, Georgia ranks 14th in the United States in adult obesity. No wonder we also rank 15th for the highest obesity rates for children ages 10 to 17. Governor Perdue addressed much of the need for change in focus when he signed HB 977 last year, encouraging insurance companies to offer high deductible insurance products to individuals and families.

A fundamental misconception that drives arguments for taxpayer funded healthcare programs for the working poor is the belief that this group occupies a “permanent poor” status. Consequently, the focus shifts from providing incentives to climb to another class level to maintaining status quo healthcare. It is fatalism in both principle and practice. It has existed ever since Lyndon Johnson declared his “War on Poverty” and enlisted the March of the Great Society by tinkering with the mechanics of New Deal programs like “Aid to Families with Dependent Children”.

In reality, statistical snapshots rarely distinguish between people with low current incomes and those with permanently low incomes. Three-fourths of Americans with incomes in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent at some point in the next 20 years. The vast majority of Americans in any income bracket are transient in those brackets. This economic truth should inspire us to fit policy with economic reality rather than a romanticized perception of the way things are.

Defining Conservatism in a Brave New World

2009-02-01T09:49:00.001-05:00

Conservatism as a philosophy has vacillated between political parties throughout our history. The political framework of the 1870s held Democrats as the party of smaller government, lower taxes, civil rights and the like. Reconstruction Republicans would have done away with such principles. JFK championed tax cuts before the Carter Administration worked to put the traditional Conservative platform issues in the hands of Republicans and paved the way for the rise of Reaganomics. In light of the TARP funding that saw bipartisan support last Fall, many are now drawing delineations between Conservatives and the current Republican Party. In such a climate, it is important to define one’s self as a Conservative first and by their party affiliation second in order to steer a Conservative column as a true Conservative. As a Conservative, I build on what Abraham Lincoln articulated, that it involves “…adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried.” More specifically, F.J.C. Hearnshaw identified several canons of Conservative thought, honed by Russell Kirk, with which I agree. Conservatism posits a 1) Belief in a transcendent order where it follows that all political problems are ultimately peripheral representations of moral issues. Politics are the stage act on which the theatre of ideas performs. No one was more illogical than Senator John Kerry when he said during the 2003 campaign frenzy that he “does not allow [his] personal values to influence his policy decisions.” What are policy decisions if not personal values embodied in legislative form?! Conservatism also shows 2) An appreciation for diversity of thought over a homogenized cultural system of utilitarianism and egalitarianism. 3) A belief that civilized society requires order and classes as both an irrepressible reality and a necessary social mechanism. 4) A belief that freedom and property are closely linked and that while policy should aim for equality of opportunity, it cannot insure nor should it try to insure equality of outcome. 5) Custom, convention and tradition are indispensable guides that provide a hedge against anarchy, impulsive change and the innovator’s lust for power. And finally, 6) society must adapt prudently in order to preserve itself. Conservatives stand against failed systems of government such as collectivism (socialism), romanticism (feelings without critical logic analysis), utilitarianism (which has led too often to political expediency) along with moral relativism, secular humanism and other Leftist philosophies. As Burke writes, “vainglorious man in the role of guide, equipped with a map compiled from his own abstractions, would lead society to destruction.” I am a Conservative because I stand against these distractions and hold to a belief that it is our role to manage the systems of government and society but it is beyond our ability to redeem those systems to perfection. Our role is Manager, not Savior, the mistaken notion that drives so many Leftist ideologues to waste resources in an effort to supplant Heaven on Earth.

Why the Disenfranchised Conservative Should Still Vote for Saxby

2009-01-31T11:50:00.002-05:00

Originally published on ControlCongress.com
Nov 21, 2008

The fight for balance in the United States Senate has reached its zenith in Georgia. For many Conservatives, Saxby Chambliss is a hard pill to swallow. The feelings of betrayal run deep. Saxby engineered a farm bill that President Bush called “bloated and expensive” and then led the assault against the Executive veto to push through subsidies that many voters still see as unnecessary. The Senator’s support of the $700 billion dollar bailout plan ran against the will of the majority of taxpayers. At the time, Rasmussen reported 45% of the country siding against the “recovery” plan while 30% cautiously lent their support. Those opposed to the plan included the overwhelming majority of Saxby’s Georgia constituents.

In the weeks after the Senate vote that closed the gap further between Wall Street and K Street, Saxby watched his 20-percentage point lead in the Georgia polls narrow to a dead heat. In the current runoff, his lead is down to 4-percentage points. The original intent of the bailout feels more and more like a bait and switch as companies like The Big Three automakers line up for corporate welfare from what was sold as a resource strictly relegated to the purchase of bad mortgages and liquidity for the financial sector.

I agree that Senator Chambliss has vacillated on several key issues that raised the ire of Georgia voters. Puritanical zeal aside, a lot of politics, for better or worse, is political safeguarding of the most crucial issues. True, there are no guarantees that Saxby will say no to additional bailouts for a future Democrat "recovery" package (a “Stimulus Sequel” that feels a lot like a Freudian fight after the Chinese gave us one bigger with $600 million dollars of their own). There’s no way to say that he will stand against credit default swaps or provide taxpayer-funded liquidity for entrenched Washington interests. Sure, the popular Fair Tax mantra may just be a turn-out-the-vote ruse for true believers, essentially irrelevant as a practical platform issue because it won't see the light of day under a Democratically-controlled Congress. And what of Congressional Democrats that are teeing up efforts to institute the Fairness Doctrine to reduce talk radio to schizophrenic programmers and frustrated talent? What of the rising tide of Democratic support for the elimination of secret ballots; an effort to put the screws to employees until they vote for union interests in virtually every industry in the country? If that were to happen the current headline - "UAW-Holds-Big-3-Auto-by-the-Gonads - starts to look like a mere requiem to a nightmare. A unionized labor sector would soon follow and touch countless industries. Democrats would be handed a fundraising machine that would make Tony Rezko wet himself! And the American entrepreneurial dreamers would be applying for business licenses on the Emerald Isle (not a bad idea). Sure, Saxby has said he would vote it down. And sure, he could change his mind. But the rules of the Senate can be funny things.

The filibuster is a little gem of a rule that allows a Senator to bloviate for hours on end until he runs out of things to talk about and essentially stall a vote from ever making it out of the Chamber. It gained a lot of legitimacy as a tool of the Senate when C-SPAN first brought cameras into the room and it lost a lot of clout when Senator Byrd relinquished his role as Chair of the Appropriations Committee to Hawaii-Five O War Hero Daniel Inouye earlier this month. Despite the awe-inspiring power of the filibuster, it is neutralized by the power of the Cloture Rule where a 2/3 supermajority of 60 seats in the Senate may halt the rhetorical stalemating and force a vote.

When it comes to the technical power of the Senate, Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss may well be the last man standing against a Leftist Democratic Blitzkrieg Agenda in the First 100 Days. He may prove disagreeable to many Conservative tastes. But in the hardscrabble world of D.C. political expediency, there's one way to guarantee the Leftist Agenda gets its full and final nod of approval (replete with a powdered bottom on the way out of the nursery and into the light of public policy). In light of Mark Begich the Brave and Comedian Al Franken (who may find his first success since leaving SNL in the recount of the Minnesota election), the only way for Conservatives to insure their losses would be a ballot cast for Jim Martin. Faced with this reality, Conservatives have two choices. Join my Facebook group, “Coalition to Unearth More Franken Back Taxes” just in case we need dirt for that run-off race. Or vote Saxby Chambliss for United States Senate on December 2nd.

The Prince of Peace and the Holiday Formerly Known as Christmas

2006-12-01T13:08:00.000-05:00

I shall bear a column and it's name shall be called "The Prince of Peace and the Holiday Formerly Known as Christmas". Every year since The John Birch Society got the snowball rolling in 1959 with a pamphlet entitled "There Goes Christmas?!", someone in the ever-protesting world of quick-shake-up ultra-Conservatism has been whispering warnings about the demise of the Christmas season, issuing clarion calls to save Christmas from the tentacles of secular humanists and trial lawyers. [This will seem counterintuitive at this point in the column but go to local News-Talk 920am WGKA to send a Christmas Greeting Card to the ACLU, then read on.] This year, despite Wal-Mart's re-infusion of the Merry Christmas message along with other major department stores around the country, the Mayor's Office of Chicago made the "fateful" mistake of not accepting New Line Cinemas' "The Nativity Story" film to be shown at the German Christkindlmarket festival. (Cue the ultra-zealous Christian Conservative Right!) Few stopped to realize that the Mayor himself professes Christian faith. Few read deeply into the perfectly legitimate logic of the office's Executive Director, Jim Law, when he reasoned that "It would be contrary to acceptable advertising standards suggested to the many festivals holding events on Daley Plaza [to accept the story from New Line]". Despite many of the surrounding circumstances, some in the religious community are still marching out on cue with their "don't step on our baby Jesus" chorus.

What if we were to turn the tables? The ultra-Conservatives say, "You can't outlaw something just to avoid offending someone because some people are always in a desperate hurry to be offended." The glaringly obvious response in cases like the "War on Christmas" is, yeah, like you! Why do ultra-Conservative Devil-Behind-Every-Curtain types so often react rather than respond? Reaction happens as a defensive maneuver and comes off to many as a brand of fear and, in some cases, hatred. Responding usually brings a more reasoned solution. Instead of losing your Christmas spirit in defense of the Christmas spirit, have a little fun with it. Send the ACLU a Christmas Card rather than railing against their every move. After all, believe it or not, on occasion they have silently supported the public expression of Christmas. Don't believe me? Look up the "Rita Warren against Fairfax, Virginia" case where the ACLU championed her right to erect a nativity scene on government property because of earlier precedents set by the City of Fairfax. The point is, the ultra-Conservatives are often guilty of the same hypersensitivity they accuse the Left of having (and I say this as a Conservative). Richard Hofstadter wrote in "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," "The typical procedure of the higher paranoid scholarship is to start with such defensible assumptions and with a careful accumulation of facts, or at least of what appear to be facts, and to marshal these facts toward an overwhelming `proof' of the particular conspiracy that is to be established." Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, comments, "You have a dynamic here, where you have the Christian right hysterically overrepresenting the problem, and then anecdotally you have some towns where lawyers restrict any kind of display or representation of religion, which is equally absurd." Before long, you have the jingle bell rocks! Every misguided school that bans Christmas displays becomes a slippery slope that lobbyists and trial lawyers will use to push through in every classroom of every school district in North America until X-masness is the rule of the land. Sure, the ACLU will turn around and do the two-step with another case like outlawing Christmas carols in a Nashville, Tennesee school, but do you really think it will lead to a triumph of secularism over a holiday like Christmas that thrives on an indwelling belief that cannot be legislated against? And furthermore, what do Christians often do once we have achieved our objective of having "Merry Christmas" hanging over our favorite Simon Shopping Mall? Do we actively engage culture with a modeled faith throughout the year or simply say we've won the war of faith because it is now prominently displayed in public? Do we consistently share Christ or transfer our evangelical responsibility onto a "Merry Christmas" banner or some other religious display? Perhaps the war is not over eradicating Christmas from the public sphere, the public sphere has resoundingly said they want and in fact need it as a reminder of peace. The Season of a Saviour that represents that internal peace is not going anywhere within a public sphere that continues to express renewed fervor overall for the message. The question for the ultra-Conservative Christian Right, Are we serving that baby or using Him as our battering ram? What is the benchmark of His success? Is it simply keeping His presence in the public sphere, or His having a relevant presence there? If the latter is more true, then we better behave ourselves.

Richard Dawkins Has God on the Ropes in Science verses Religion Debate - Final Round - FIGHT!

2006-11-15T20:15:00.000-05:00

The New Atheists still hold onto the hope that God may be tapping out of the fight. In recent months, they have hit the campaign trail in a fury. Dawkins has shown up on O'Reilly and The Colbert Report, Sam Harris has covered cable talk shows and talk radio segments, and even the late great Carl Sagan is making a comeback post-mortem with a new release due out in the coming months with or without the help of George Noory. Despite all the valiant efforts, New Atheists still find themselves running into some marketing setbacks. For one, they never seem to propose realistic solutions to the damage religion can cause. Atheism and fatalism start to sound synanomous after awhile. New Atheism fancies itself a straightforward appeal to our intellect, no emotion involved. The problem is, this approach proves dangerous if the religious community comes back and supports their belief with (shock and awe) Reason.

If truth is merely an idea with no Figurehead, you’re going to have a hard time getting a movement off the ground, right? Maybe the movement needs an Ascension into Heaven. Perhaps look into making a god to follow out of someone with star power – a galvanizing character of their own to follow. Oprah and Keanu Reeves come to mind. Sam Harris might do, but no offense against Sam, they need a little more sex appeal, a haggard beard, the Hippie-look, someone like Jesus Christ. Someone that people see like they did back with the Guy from Galilee and say, now there’s a guy that has that Shepherd Smith swoon appeal. I’ll follow him to the ends of the earth. Where do I put my nets?

The Urgency Conundrum

In addition to the lack of a Mobilizing Force, New Atheism wrestles with what I call the Urgency Conundrum. Warren Allen Smith, author of the year 2000 encyclopedia “Who’s Who In Hell?”, spent six decades up to age 85 sending letters asking people if they believe in God. He is a committed atheist. He is currently working on his magnum opus: a Web site called Philosopedia. He’s working hard. Why the urgency, you ask? He fears he doesn’t have many years before the memory drain. And he worries about the threat of fundamentalism in the East AND the West. It's a bit paradoxical. Why be so worried about saving a world with no intrinsic value, anyway? We don’t bend over backwards to save a cockroach. All they do is freak out the kids. We kill it, then we flush it, and we still sleep well at night.

The March of Morality

Another big question the movement can't seem to market its way out of is the "Origins of Morality" quest. A recent U.S. News article finds Jay Tolson planting these questions in the scientific fields of Consciousness Research. French mathematician Rene' Descartes gave us Cartesian Dualism where bodily organs send perceptions and other information via the brain to the mind. The mind would ponder, then makes decisions and direct the bodies' responses in word and deed. Cognitive theorists, over time, scoffed at this as the “Ghost in the Machine” argument but it worked well for awhile.

Recently neuroscientists like Francis Crick have picked up the trail with works such as "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul". He argues that "You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett backs him up with his `Fame in the Brain' analogy. At any one moment there are many potential conscious states in the body, many contending neuronal "assemblies", vying for "celebrity", for their moment in the spotlight. But only one can win the competition and it all depends on who is the Alpha-Neuronal assembly.

This begs the question, Where do the rules come from for the game? The conscious mind comes up with orderly representations of meaning, but it doesn’t create meaning. Where do we get the meaning from? Why do we want to give something meaning? Why does a kiss mean more to us than just, “Hmm, my brain just registered pressure from an outside force against my face. (Maybe that’s why man invented the French Kiss, just to take the pressure off the situation, but I digress).

All of this brings up the question posed by Jay Tolson. Am I just a survival machine? Is "meaning" nothing more than the sum of appropriate responses to information in ultimate service to life. If this is true, then life purpose, freedom and individuality are just reassuring illusions of possible survival value. (And great fodder for making the NY Times Bestseller list for a lot of psychobabblers involved in Life Coaching). But if our personality and very beliefs are simply the end result of some physiological Great Race to the service of our ultimate survival, then why do we have heroes willing to die for others rather than survive? Somebody should tell firefighters that they’re really screwed up in the head!

As recent as this summer, Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, himself a professed convert to Christianity, faced off in a scientific smackdown on the invitation of Time Magazine. Evolution, the complexity of life, miracles, stem cell research, the problem of good and evil and other heady topics were discussed. My impression after reading the transcripts is what follows.

Every decade or so a new group of people rise up to take God to the mat over His existence. They do this because they are enlightened. They have seen ALL the variables and have measured God and found Him wanting. Their omniscience allows them to do this. They explain to us that our faith has held us back from exploring and they show us gently how we have explained God into existence. They can do this because they have explained Him out of existence. They pity us. We should pity ourselves. If we were only willing to try something new, we would discover things we would never have known otherwise. Think about it, someone had to be the first to look at a cow and say, "I think I'll squeeze these dangly things, here, and drink whatever comes out", right? If it wasn't for someone's faith...er...enlightenment, we'd still be eating our cereal dry. And if it wasn't for these enlightened individuals, we'd all still be running around amazed by the size of the universe and acting like we don't yet understand its farthest reaches. When all is said and done, I say, thank GOD for atheists!

Richard Dawkins Has God on the Ropes in Science verses Religion Debate - Round 1 - FIGHT!

2006-11-14T16:37:00.000-05:00

Friedrich Nietzche is getting new support from Big Wig Atheists in the `God Is Dead Campaign’. Fortunately God is being leant support from morticians in the `Nietzsche Is Dead Campaign’”. According to a recent study, 85% of America has a faith in God ("What We Believe" Time Magazine, Oct 30th, 2006). However, we part ways into one of several categories when we drill down to Who or What God actually is. Undeterred by our obstinance, the New Atheists of the world hold onto their faith (no, that's not a Freudian Slip though maybe it should be) that God may yet be on the verge of tapping out of the ring. A slew of recent works have flown off the shelves by the likes of Oxford University prof Richard Dawkins, neuroscience Know-it-All Sam Harris, and Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett. We now have the Multiverse Hypothesis in cosmology saying we may have upwards of 300 billion universes, and if we’re one in a billion, why not spring up accidentally without divine intervention? Annoyingly enough, that also increases the chances that nature is even more outside the scope of our understanding, but, I digress.

Logic Attacks Religion

Dawkins sees it as a closet movement “I believe we’re in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people had the courage to come out. I think that’s the case with atheists.” He goes on to goad in a November Wired Magazine article that “Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists. Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. Either they’re stupid, or they’re lying. And have they got a motive for lying?…Everybody knows that an atheist can’t get elected.”

Yeah, and your point? Most people, on occasion, grant legislators both stupidity and dishonesty. But what do you do with the other 85% of "stupid" God-fearing Americans when you figure that many of them are doctors, lawyers, and the like. New Atheist Glen Slade, the organizer of the monthly atheists “Brights” group in London offers more hope that the War on Terror is setting the stage for a No-Faith Takeover by raising awareness about the existence of more than one world religion. Well, so do specials on The History Channel but no matter how high-priced basic cable gets, it’s still cheaper than a war on terror – I think we had knowledge of multiple world religions before the war stepped in. Glen Slade continues, "A lot of moderates give a power base to extremists. A lot of Catholics use condoms and get divorced and even listen to punk rock like Bad Religion (Greg Graffin’s an atheist). They still stay Catholic. But when the Pope speaks, he still gets credit for speaking for a billion people." Hmm, I actually like Slade. He’s more religious than most religious people I know. He wants to call BS on religious apathy. It's all or nothing, baby! Dawkins, however, gives a tired argument. "As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers.” Sure it is, if you believe that all religions are fundamentally the same.

So if logic can't win the day for the New Atheist, you can always drag out the Apocalytic Threat.
Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation, believes we are going to kill ourselves off over religion. But he’s not worried that time won’t change us and we will eventually see the error of our ways. He points to slavery and rests his case. “At some point it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God." But won’t that only work for those people who succumb to the very thing you’re asking them to lay aside, namely, groupthink and a culture of religious belief? When asked about the look and feel of a world without God, Sam offers a Religion of Reason, the 21st Century equivalent of Robespierre's Culture of the Supreme Being. He offers the Atheist Prayer – “That our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith.”

All of this double-speak makes my head hurt. It works on the tired premise that religion is not rational. Well, riddle me this, Batman? Where does your motivation for disproving faith come from? A desire to have cognitive resonance? Where is your dissonance coming from? These incovenient questions pose a marketing hurdle for the New Atheist movement. (That and the supremely depressing end result of their logical arguments). As it turns out, so does new scientific discovery in the field of consciousness research. And that is where we will turn in Round 2...

The American Theatre of the Absurd Marches On While 9 out of 10 Terrorists Vote Democrat

2006-11-02T14:32:00.000-05:00

When in doubt, look at Hollywood. Why have cinema ticket sales been on a downturn overall for some years now? Because they have a new competitor in the entertainment media..."hard news" media! MSNBC's Brian Williams spouted off earlier this week, lamenting the increasingly held public perception of his friend and comedic pundit John Stewart on Comedy Central's The Daily Show as a hard news source. Former CNN Headline News Anchor David Goodnow calls much of it a "theatre of the absurd" in an interview on The Hub Radio Show this week. Can you blame him? In the scope of three weeks the world has wrestled with the "Pocket Commie" in North Korea and his nuclear tests, the terrorist vote has come in with resounding and giddy support for Democrats on November 7th (www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747), and Iran's Devolutionary Guards are busy firing off test missiles in Tehran. All the while what are we being peppered with at home? Tales of a Mark "Foley-Artist" and his online chit chats with of-age Pages, calls for the House Speaker to bow out in shame and incessant bloviating over a has-been wacko politician with no stake in the upcoming election other than as a galvanizing factor for the base and a reminder that his blood might as well be housed in a cryonics lab. Hello Alphabet-Soup-Media, we're sick of the politics for the sake of politics. We don't care about their egos! The theatre of the absurd only gets worse on the local level. (Investigative news teams are the creme' de la creme'). "Killer Gas Pumps" in Cleveland, Ohio and UFO sightings in Syracuse. Hell, re-runs of FRIENDS just trounced Katie Couric's CBS Nightly Skews in L.A.'s prestigious infotainment audience!

Gate-keeper news moguls are constantly asking themselves the question, How do we make news that's relevant and therefore, marketable and revenue generating? Here's an answer. How about focusing on the issues that matter! A National Retail Sales Tax Plan that overhauls a doomsday-date for Social Security, a support for our troops on the ground that doesn't put them at further risk due to a half-hearted commitment to their on-going efforts, and an Administration that acknowleges the similarities between "National Security" and "Border Security" without talking out of both sides of their mouth and giving us a "pass-off" bill.

On November 7th, vote and exercise your freedom of choice. But investigate for yourself and leave the sleight-of-hand media out of the process. Let THE issues be the issue, not their issues.

Education's War Games

2006-10-24T19:35:00.000-04:00

October in an election season is tailor-made for a war of the words. Competition runs high for shelf space with booksellers and a seat with O’Reilly. Add the terror component and you have a boiler room. But there is a war room where we are in a losing trend and the long-term effects directly impact our ability to engage every enemy at home and abroad. America’s boys are dying before they leave the classroom. And our obsession with the sacred grail of feelings-based education and ramped up social conditioning is killing the very feelings they are meant to preserve. Nothing kills like apathy!

In 2003, 65 percent of boys earned high school diplomas compared to 72 percent of girls (Garibaldi, 2006). The number is only becoming more disparate over time. College bound females outnumber boys to an extent that many schools are now employing affirmative action for boys in admissions.

How have we reached this point and why should we be concerned? First off, in a time of war and a nation grappling with international issues, strong, male leaders are needed to employ principles arrived at by exercising their nature. As author Gerry Garibaldi puts it, “boys’ aggressive and rationalist nature—redefined by educators as a behavioral disorder—[is]…getting many of them in trouble in the feminized schools.” Why is socialized education afraid of the aggressive and rational nature of boys? Is it an ethical persuasion that says nothing good can come of it, the “rational” and “aggressive” inherently lead to the challenge of social mores? We like our world the way it is. Or is it more about pragmatism? Crowd control is necessary when dealing with adolescent boys in large numbers. Where does that leave the boy that learns by asking questions, not simply completing assignments obediently as girls are more prone to do?

Move them outside, and boys’ natural inclinations are being assaulted on the playground. Willett Elementary in Attleboro, Massachussetts, has now ousted tag, touch football and other “chasing games” out of concern for injury risks and liabilities (LaHoud, The Sun Chronicle, Oct 21st 2006). Dodgeball has taken a beating. As have many sports where winners and losers must be identified. Does this really make the playground safer? God forbid we tilt the sacred level playing field. If the playground is an early education to prepare for life and human interaction, how is this preparing boys (and girls for that matter) for the meritocracies within corporate America, and the competitive world of outsourcing to places like Bangalore where boys will not only compete against others but against new digital platforms and applied innovation?
Boys are having an identity crisis. Some applaud their feminization as a culturalization in the diversity of human interaction. But what about the danger? Could a danger come when growing adolescent boys, discouraged from exploration into their intellectual nature, feel trapped between a choice of apathy and compliance or engagement in the lesser reaches of male aggression and rationale? Where does this choice leave them? And if our future is currently in basic training, a loss on the war of the playground is a loss for the soul of a nation.

Pandora's War In the Sandbox!

2006-10-18T20:44:00.000-04:00

We've heard it all from every side staring cockeyed at the boob tube night after night. America has a record of imperialism that marches on in Iraq. America is spreading freedom. America is spreading tyranny. There were no WMDs. They FedExed the WMDs. We should draw down troop numbers and leave. We should ramp up troop numbers and get the job done. America is in an unwinnable war! Since when does winning have to be an objective to justify going to war? What if the first step is realizing there are no winners and losers this time, only necessitating circumstances? And on and on it goes, where it will stop, we must all at some point agree, nobody knows. One thing we do know is that we've opened up a Pandora's Box in the Middle East, or rather, a Pandora's Box was opened upon us. No one not suffering from amnesia questions the bi-partisan support (at the time) for war with Afghanistan, the less limited but still majority support for war with Iraq (after months of U.N. weapons inspectors were given the cold shoulder) and the crimes against humanity propogated by The Butcher of Baghdad. But in the current Middle Eastern front of the War on Terror, it's time we blew the whistle. The bill of goods is being sold by the Left and the Right. Given the centuries old scorn of Western society by Jihadists in the Middle East, a major attack on our homeland was inevitable. A response of some sort was necessary to discourage or, at a minimum, delay the sitting powers at the time in Afghanistan AND Iraq from further indirect or direct support of attacks on the United States. And any politician currently using "a total withdrawal" or any similar language is either A) taking advantage of your emotions and selling a dishonest optimism as a November 7th platform, or B) not being serious or educated in their understanding of the religious nature of the war as seen by Islamic Fundamentalists.

The Middle-Eastern view of history is not the American lunch-in-a-sack, fast food sound byte culture that allows us to declare success or failure after one, two or even five years. They know how to chew their food, digest and be PATIENT. Simply put, the Jihadist conflict with the West predates attacks on 911, attacks on the USS Cole, American Embassies in Africa, military barracks in Saudi Arabia, Marine barracks in Lebanon, the World Trade Center in `93 or even the song-and-dance of a Playboy Bunny Presidential Happy Birthday Wish! The conflict actually pre-dates the War of 1812 when in 1802 President Jefferson decided to challenge the "barbarism" of Arab warships preying on American merchant ships off the Barbary Coast. Jefferson asked the Arab diplomat "where's the shame?" and was given an answer that their right to attack was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, written in the Koran, that all nations not answering to their authority were sinners, worthy of subjugation. Adams, his predecessor, had warned that "We ought not to fight at all unless we determine to fight them forever". Jefferson, bucking the trend, launched his response against the twenty year record of kidnapping and ransoming of American merchantmen in North Africa. After the Bashaw of Tripoli took the crew of the USS Philadelphia captive at the Tripoli Coast, William Eaton rounded up his Marines and broke out to march 500 miles across Libya and take the coastal town of Derna, simultaneously ending the conflict (for a time) and giving the Marines a new line to their Marine hymn along with a great accessory for their uniforms - a sword shaped like an Arab scimitar (America, Bennett 182-183).

The time for the debate over how to close Pandora's Box is over. If America is a victim, many of its greatest wounds may be self-inflicted by those who would like to get this pesky little war over with so as to get back to internal politics and power-brokering. NEWSFLASH FROM THE COMMON MAN: There will never be a safe and total disengagement date for American interests in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East. Why? Because it's not about the oil stupid! It's not about the land. It's not about the prestige and it's not about a seat at the United Nations. It's only what these things represent. Quit thinking like a Westerner and getting distracted by claims to political motivations as they are given in diplomatic talks with Islamic Fundamentalist politicos. Does this mean we are destined to be an occupying force? Yes and no. We will not occupy but we will always be a support from a shorter distance. With any luck, we will never again push the likes of John O'Neill and Ahmed Shah Massoud to the back of the line. Everything changed for America after 9-11. For the Jihadist, it was simply a boldfaced chapter in an on-going religious conflict between Allah and The Great Satan. And no number of proposed Nancy Pelosi changes can dress up the House enough to make them feel at home.

The American Fib Factor - Easy Steps to Being a Damn Good Liar - Honestly!

2006-10-14T20:01:00.000-04:00

In the beginning there was Adam the first man, Eve the first woman and the Serpent the first consultant. If there’s one thing you can’t be in life it’s honest when you’re trying to get ahead. If 95% of statistics are made up on the spot, then your goal should be to work even harder at fabricating the other 5% to where they’re more truthfully false than the 95% sounded. And when you’re really good, when you’ve done it long enough, you can graduate to the level where you actually believe your own lies and can convince those around you that not only are you the bringer of truth, but that the truth is worth the cost you charge. You are ripe for a successful career in many respected industries…politics, legal counsel, sales, media, being an older sibling on Christmas Eve. Aaah, this is where life begins. You may wonder, what is it about lies that makes them so believable? Are there levels of lying? What would you consider to be a liar at the grade school level? High school? Undergraduate? Grad School level? How do you reach PhD status? What are some of the obstacles to reaching the loftiest levels? What compromises a good lie?

First, what are good times to withhold information from those you love or those you hate for that matter? Try this one on for size. You have just been told that the girl your best friend is dating is really using him to get to his Porsche Carrera, the swank condo, and the realtor that sold him both. At this point one must ask, is "appropriate lying" a question of circumstance?

For those of you in the Bible-thumper crowd, here's a moral conundrum. How do you explain Rahab, the whore who saved the nation of Israel (Joshua 2:1-14) when she ball faced lied her way into protecting the Israeli spies she'd been smuggling in order to get them out of the city of Jericho alive? Or Jacob, engaging the classic family feud to garner his brother's first-born inheritance (Genesis 25:27-34). Flip to Malachi and you see God Almighty applauding the totality of Jacob's life over his older brother (Malachi 1:1-5). Which is more important from these stories? The tenacity and level of value that we place on what we value, or how we acquire what we value? What is God saying about His nature in honoring those who honor what He honors? Does the end justify the means?

In recent days, you look across the political landscape, scratch your head and say, how do you arrive at a Daniel Crane sexscapade, a Jack Abramoff/Ralph Reed liaison, a Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid for Realtor, or any political campaign or lobby scandal where the players doggedly stand by their actions as acceptable. Are they lying to themselves? Why might that be a dangerous habit? What happens when we believe our own lies? What happens to the Coservative Right, often self-described as synonomous with Christian values, when they use God as a rubber stamp for policies such as the Faith Based Initiative Non-profit Gold Rush. What about a Left that rushes in to blindly and indiscrimanately elevate a woman's choice above that of her unborn infant, er, fetus, then cries that lawmakers need to legalize immigrant workers to make up for a smaller working class that does not have numbers enough to financially support failing social institutions? It all smacks of a passage in Genesis 1:24 of the NIV (Nihilist International Version).

“Man spoke: Let us make God in our own image, make Him reflecting our nature…So man created God in his own image, in the image of Man he created Him. Male and female, they created Him.”

We chuckle at youthful ignorance.

A little boy asks his father, "Daddy, how much does it cost to get married?". His Father replies, "I don't know, son, I'm still paying."

But when the rubber meets the proverbial space between the white lines, we must marvel at his honesty. Why do enlightened and mature adults cower from directly and honestly addressing many of the issues they face in today’s world? Are the stakes that much higher? Or is it simply an issue of respect. Is it easier to lie when someone doesn’t have respect for the other person, group, or themselves? In an ironic twist of fate, our sophisticated culture still wrestles with a Gospel play on words that is more than 2,000 years old. For four consecutive books it sets up the premise that the Truth is a Person, not a concept.

“You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free?”—John 8:32

Ever wonder why? How would believing this, that Truth is a Person and not a concept, affect one’s concept of truth? Of lying? How might it simplify the political process? Truth would then become less negotiable. Where it's easy to negotiate philosophical pros and cons, ethics wars and the like, it's difficult to do the same with a person’s identity and reputation. Lying held against the truth of the Person would then become an argument based on clearly established precedent (if the person were consistent), not revisionism to fit the current wind pattern of popular belief. But why would we want that! It's too simple. We're sophisticated. We're postmodern. So we send the kids back out in the yard. Someday they'll understand. We have a media monster with a healthy appetite that needs a steady diet of scandels to stay energized. It keeps the monster focused externally. We're never left alone with our own thoughts.

The Hub Radio Prep Vault - Humans Right? Nuking Your Inner Narciss, Nark or Nihilist!

2006-10-09T00:34:00.000-04:00

Originally discussed on April 20th, 2006

When you think of human rights, what is it that makes people feel like they’re rights are being trampled on?

How do those rights change based on the group of people? Is it right to even put people into groups? Does that immediately make someone a bigot, if they identify “groups of people” or schools of thought?

Are there such things as universal human rights or is that utopian? What are some of those? What makes them universal? What should make them universal?

Is it possible for everyone to get universal human rights without someone losing out or being hurt at some level? In other words, is it always possible to be fair?

Cynthia McKinney Gets Her Hair Pulled And Calls for A Timeout

Who was in the wrong here? What would have been a way to avoid the scuffle? How much of avoiding a scuffle depends on both sides wanting to avoid it? How much of it depends on one side acting like an a%$-hole?

TomKAT’s Placenta Poppin’ Cult
How much of human disrespect is related to misunderstanding or miscommunication?

What’s at the core of racism? Bigotry?

Mexican Immigration Romp – SB 529 and Sen. Zamarippa with a “Chip” On His Shoulder

If they won’t take insight, give insight to incite.

How do people control others by hate? How does hate affect logic? How does fear affect logic? How does groupthink affect logic? Why have logic…why not have love?

Where does the rule of law become discrimination? Is it racist to have national pride or identity? Is nationalism insensitive? Does it have to hurt someone to be maintained?

Racism 101: How to Be A Racist and Not Lose Sleep At Night
Consider. In order to live with yourself as a bona-fide racist, you need to master one, if not all three of the following; narcissism, nihilism or just be a narc.

What is your definition of a narcissist? What about a Narc? A Nihilist?

The Basics: A narcissist doesn’t care about others, only himself, a true narc doesn’t know he needs to care because he’s numb to the needs of others and a nihilist sees no reason to care. It’s every man for him self in a world with no intrinsic value. Suffering has no meaning. Survival is your chief goal. A narcissist might know he needs to care but not give a crap while a nihilist may be firing on all 8 cylinders and just see no rational reason to give. And a narc….whaaat?

How do we do these things (disrespect, basically) in our day to day life, even if not intentionally?

How do you arrive at a perfect state of narc, narcis or nihilist? How do you, God forbid, avoid it? Why would you want to? You’d be so much more successful, right? You could do away with caution altogether. After all, that’s what’s holding you back, eh? (Hint of sarcasm in case you missed it and want to key my car right now).

... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
-Quote by Noam Chomsky

What’s he saying? Do you agree?

Hu Done-It – Chinese President Hu Jintao Gets Heckled for Banning the `Falun Gong’ Religion— Thu Apr 20 2006 12:10:16

Chew On This
Do you see this cycle? Democracy makes world safe, corporations make democracy unsafe (special interests with a goal of what’s profitable over what’s right get in on the game), corporate spin-artists make corporate power safe from democracy (by demonizing and thus silencing democratic government and officials that dare to challenge corporate interests), democracy sleeps with the enemy and makes world unsafe (congratulations democracy, you have a baby! Let’s call him “Economic Totalitarianism” and dang if he don’t wet his pants every 5 minutes). Finally, civil freedom fighters come along and demand democratic government over special interests and equal representation in the law. The fight strong-arms democracy back into spanking the “little brat” before he grows into a bully and takes over the playground.

So how do you maintain or restore civility and human rights?

Racial Tension Since the Dawn of Time—Arab/Israeli Family Feud
Genesis 21:8-10
Have It Both Ways—Matthew 22:15-22
Color Blind—Somewhere in Acts 10

The Hub Radio Prep Vault - Assumptions and Limitations: Self-Mutilation Is Good For Your Health

2006-10-08T23:59:00.000-04:00

Originally discussed on May 25, 2005

What if everything you held dear were just a creature comfort construct with no reality behind it? What if multiple hit-and-run sexual liaisons DO make you more aware of your compatibility and set you up for more success in love? What if working the company for extra hours with casual web surfdom is a good way to stay relaxed and does translate into a more productive long-term associate? What if alcohol is the best social lubricant, smoking actually helps you live longer because stress reduction outweighs any negative effects and kicking the dog actually improves your punting game? Everyone assumes something. "They" always seem to know. But against "common sense", Rupert Murdoch had a ratings hunch, Martin Luther had a laundry list of thesis and DaVinci had a code...or Brown did. Hell, one of'em did! What if the truth lies on the other side of the beating and we're only fooling ourselves by watching it from the safety of Pay-Per-View? What if it falls somewhere between the sacred and the secular?

Do you believe we’re in love with cynicism today or is the exact opposite true?

Do we believe in things and/or people too easily? Do we trust too easily? Why or why not?

Case Study 101:
Intelligent Design Gets A Reverse Monkey Trial—Return to 1925
The Day Judge Jones III Became A Scientist
Wired Magazine – June 2006

Who do you trust the most? The least? Why?

How much do we trust ourselves?

Do you think we are really independent thinkers or are we playing more follow the leader than we even understand or acknowledge?

The Choose Your Own Adventure Series Makes A Comeback – Remember those old stories back in the 70’s that let you choose alternate endings? Publishers are looking to pattern several series of new books after those originals and they don’t even require ecstasy to garner reader appreciation.

Do you think these series will succeed or fail today?

What are some of the things we’re made to believe or are convinced to believe about ourselves? In the world of relationships? Religion? Reality?

Case Study 101
Donald Powell – Czar of the Bayou
U.S. News and World Report – May 22nd, pp. 12
How much of our belief comes from close friends? Culture at large?

Do you feel like your beliefs are constantly being manipulated without you knowing it? Does that bother you? Is it unavoidable?

SOUND OFF—Part 1– Healthy Approach (H) Unhealthy Approach (U) To Relationships

1. I need someone that understands me? H or U
2. You just gotta understand, he’s just not that into you. H or U
3. I need someone who can keep up in order to be compatible with them. H or U

Now Boarding. And They’re Off!
Wired, June 2006, pp. 32
How much of life is about balance and seeing both sides of the coin?

When does…

Caring become Obsession
Honesty become Hurtful
New Precedent become Revisionist History—a la Bill Bennett, America: The Last, Best Hope
Love become Ownership
Disagreement become Hatred
Free Speech become Hate Speech

SOUND OFF—Part 2 True or False

Reality is what you make it. Build your world.

The St. Francis Dam Massacre—Shouldn’t Have Slept Through Geology Class
The Story of the dam that broke and killed dozens destroying entire towns after architects ignored some warning signs.

You can do anything you set your mind to.

Good educations are the building blocks of success.

How often do we examine the motives behind the messenger? What might we find there?

Case Study 101:
“The Court Gets It Right”—NY Times article
(But if you turn this page over and read it @ a 95 degree angle, “NY Times Says Bravo to Reduced Sentences for Violent Criminals”)—Ann Coulter, pp. 266-267

Why don’t we examine the messenger? Is it because we want something to believe in, we WANT rest? How often do we then exercise bad judgement and rest on something/someone that betrays us? What’s our typical response when that happens?

Join the Conversation—Sony Pictures has upped a film discussion forum at davincidialogue.com SoCal megachurches are jumping in too.

daVinci’s Code Takes Home More @ Box Office Than Mona Lisa at Silent Auction—What Can Dan Brown Do For You?

Movie Premise: Religion is responsible for much of the violence and intolerance in the world. It’s a human construct to maintain control of others, especially women. It’s economic. Blind faith has led to many of the world’s worst genocides. Beg to differ? Buy a ticket.

Begging the Question: The movie does make one wonder, “Can one author hit on something that 3,000 years and some of the greatest minds in human history, some of whom dedicated their entire life to it, had just flat out missed?” Maybe.

1. The Enviroment Where the Whole Movement Started—Professor Craig Blomberg
The 5 Year Trace back and political incentives
2. Council of Nicaea, 325AD—The Cover-up Council or the Real Reason for the Get-Together
3. The Bible is the Errant Word of God—So Give Me Some Back-up—pp. 260
Flavius Josephus, pp. 77-78 Tacitus, pp. 81-82 Pliny the Younger, pp. 83 Phlegon, pp. 85
All excerpts from The Case for Christ—By Lee Strobel

CHEW ON THIS:
How many of our beliefs in life are based on fact? How many are based on our unwillingness to “self-mutilate” and ask tough questions from both sides? The truth sets free because it cuts deep. Some mysteries never seem to die out and just keep drawing the rebel searcher back with a call to “break the code”! Some codes would never fit on any canvas. Some would never fit in Google. Some are too big for the search engine. Some require a little more…

The Hub Radio Prep Vault - Opportunity Rocks! How To Be A Capitalist and Whether I'm A Greedy Bastard

2006-10-08T23:37:00.000-04:00

Originally discussed on June 5th, 2006

Case Studies 101
DC Comical Old-Timing – Losing at the Future? – Wired, May 2006, pp. 36
Googlevision – Wired, pp. 136, June 2006

What causes a company to say no to change?

Case Studies 101
Southeast Asians Get Drug Tested – Wired, May 2006, pp. 27

When you think of capitalism, what comes to mind?

What have been some of your own personal experiences with capitalism? How did you feel about being a part? How much of it depends on your upbringing? What are the adjectives you would associate with it?

Who benefits from capitalism? Who stands to lose?

Wal-Mart Plays Nice – Giving Floor Ads to Mom and Pop
Wal-Mart has been put through the meat grinder by many for their corporate interests that make a clean sweep of small businesses when they transplant themselves into a community. As a compromise, some Wally Worlds are allowing floor space to Mom and Pop inside the new Wal-Mart stores in order to help Gramps move the jarred preserves and candied yams of yesteryear that they have peddled for years. Is this a fair compensation?

Betting on the Stars – New website for gambling on the future of celebrities – Wagerweb.com lets you gamble on whether Britney will reach for the baby or the coffee on her next Grande Mishap.

Capitalism - Always a gamble at a certain level?

What must one believe and/or do in order to get ahead in a brave new world of capitalism? What do you use to get ahead?

Be More Creative – Don’t Let Al Gorge On the Environment Issue. Support the Cause by Busting Your Ass – Just ask Peter Bethune (Florida Man Who Powers His Speedboat with biodiesels generated from the fat in his rear end).

SOUND OFF

Agree or disagree?

“Let us make our mistakes just as we let you make yours.” – Sup. Court Justice Antonin Scalia to Congress

We should share culture, not capitalize over others. Ours is a culture of everyone.

Do you think capitalism is just an economic issue? Where does it come into play with our entertainment? Romance? Friendships? Politics? Sports? Work?

Social Scene Capitalism: How do you recognize the alpha male? Is the ‘Alpha Male’ always the biggest capitalist in the room?

When you’re at a social, what ‘type’ of person is set apart in everybody’s mind as the
go-getter/rising star? What are your clues? How do you interact with them differently?

Romantic Capitalism: Charlie Sheen/Denise Richards Break-up – Denise Goes After Bon Jovi Guitarist and former best friend Heather Locklear’s Husband Richie Sambora and Hollywood Launches A New Clothing Line for the Feud – Star Magazine, pp. 40, 42-43, June 12th

What do you think of that? What’s going on there? What’s the difference between capitalism and outright exploitation? What are ways that we exploit people emotionally?

Have you ever seen someone leverage their status to change a system they didn’t like? Is that selfish? How do you feel about it?

Baby Brangelina Forces Namibia Government Lockdown on the Papparazzi

What are ways that we exploit people’s privacy/trust? With camera phones and small digital cameras strangers are showing up all over the place online. How do you feel about the Stalker/Shutterbug debate? Should people be able to capitalize on the moment and share it with the world as long as it’s in public and not illegal?

Da Vinci Code Makes Mona Lisa Smile
Does religion thrive by capitalizing on people’s emotional needs? Is that wrong? How is it different from the corporation?

What about in sports? Barry Bonds verses Hank Aaron? The great performance-enhancing drug debate. Was it capitalism or was it exploiting the system?

CHEW ON THIS:
Exploitation is something we allow to be done to ourselves because we don’t recognize it or we make a judgement call and say “the good feeling is worth the risk”. Are we not partially to blame when the “crap hits the fan” in our little playpen? A lot of the reason the play pen is still fun even though we’re locked in is because we’re infants with no freedom to compare and contrast against our cooped up existence. We’re happy because we don’t know what we’re missing. Do you agree?

HEADLINE of the WEEK
Duke Lacrossed Her
The Trial of the Duke Lacrosse Team vs. the Stripper Who Says They Gang-Raped Her

Who’s capitalizing on this situation? Who’s exploiting it?

Case Study 101: A young couple with a husband catching red eye flights to his sweet by and bys with his Sweet 16 “Piece of American Pie”. He is capitalizing on Sweet 16, her intrigue with him and her innocence and his wife feels betrayed. What does his wife feel – loneliness, guilt, confusion, frustration, eventually anger. He leaves her vulnerable. The single guy next door is a really good listener and he’s there when she needs a friend. Before it’s over he’s getting his own “piece of the pie”. What’s your take on this love quadrangle?

What allows people to be exploited emotionally?

Political Gaming with Immigration – How are both sides trying to capitalize on the issue?

Is there really any way to “do” capitalism without it being at the expense of someone? Is it a system that can only survive when one group loses out to another?

CHEW ON THIS
Democracy Inaction

What about streamlining it so everyone is kept on an equal footing? Is that possible?

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” – Winston Churchill

Sound off on Church Sign Propaganda

2006-08-22T00:30:00.000-04:00

From a series of rants to a friend writing a college paper

I think a lot of this [the church road sign messages] stem from a sincere desire by the religious community to appeal to the sound byte culture or give a memorable slogan that can be read quickly. Unfortunately, it is a poor medium for communicating truth, in my opinion, and complex theological/spiritual questions and usually comes off as patronizing or re-inforces a stereotype of religion as not understanding or being dishonest to the complex issues that exists in people’s spiritual lives today. They don’t bother me much personally because, unfortunately, I have come to expect it from the religious community in many cases. I’ve grown indifferent.

Analysis of Several Actual Church Signs:

The wages of sin is death…Repent before payday.

This is truth that comes across as judgemental. Unless you have time to have an honest conversation and qualify those statements, it does more harm than good. A lot of the bad with religion has been caused by the religious community not taking the time to invest in communicating their sincere concern for people’s needs before launching headlong into a sermonette. "The wages of sin is death". How do you say that from a road sign without being immediately offensive to a postmodern culture conditioned to respond to relativism? You don’t get two feet with that approach.

What’s missing in ch_ _ch? UR!

This message makes most people roll their eyes. The better question is “Why R They missing in the church?” Is the church missing you or are many churches missing relevance to you? The days of the "build it and they will come mentality" died with Laura Ingles Wilder. Jesus Christ is alive and well, but He would feel about as at home in most churches these days as He did back when He walked the earth! The tag might read, “Who’s missing in C_urch? Him.”

How will you spend eternity: smoking or non-smoking?

To which a lot of people would say, "sure, non-smoking, why not, I’m a good person". But if heaven is anything like First Whatever the City down the street, the only way I’ll go is if I get a smoke break on occasion.

Prevent truth decay: Brush up on your Bible!

I hate it when the horse is running over the cart. Last time I checked, we weren’t in need of fighting truth decay in this country. We’ve already got bleeding gums and we’re wearing false teeth! It’s more of a “Hello, America, meet truth. Truth, meet America. Here’s an exclusive! And sorry if that offends you.

“Tsunami---Aids---War---Do you hear me now???” —God

Alert! Alert! Theologic Doozy-of-the-Day Award. So God causes pain and suffering? God might use it, but cause it? Let’s perpetuate bad theology to a world that already has enough excuses not to believe. Newsflash to the foolhearty sadist…we cause pain and suffering by our choices, not God’s imposition. He’s almighty, sure, He could impose His rule all day long. And then, we get no choice in choosing Him. Now there’s an authentic option. So we want God Almighty to violate the natural laws He has put in place. About how long would we truly respect or TRUST a God who couldn’t even honor His own laws? If He’s God, then He’s constant. We aren’t talking about Greek mythology here where Helios wakes up, sticks his wet thumb up in the air to see which way the wind blows and then decides whether he wants to put out a sunrise today.

A free thinker is Satan’s slave.

Smacks of fear to me. If there’s one phrase that would turn off the Wikipedia, Info-at-My-Fingertips culture, that would have to be it. If Christianity is the Truth then what does it have to be afraid of from the free-thinking world? The truth should be able to stand on its own two feet without a crutch. If not, what is it trying to hide? Religion that is afraid of the free thinker raises suspicions in the community of free thinkers. It's a severe disservice to the free-thinker who might otherwise have given it a serious look.

Seven days without prayer makes one weak.

Agreed.

Read the Bible—it will scare the hell out of you.

Oh now there's reason enough. If a good scare is my criterion for a good read, I can read the NY Times for that, or watch an Al Gore film...or a Stephen Hawking slideshow presentation. And all three of those have pictures! Not to mention we live in a society that thinks we know hell already because it's what we're familiar with. We’re Americans. We come from broken homes. No offense, but "broken homes" in the US means single parent. Try broken homes in North Korea or pre-liberated Iraq as a Kurdish man, woman or child…(i.e. "I lost my parents to a chemical weapons blast when I was five." "My sister was taken to a rape room and I never saw her again." "My brother was burned alive in front of me by a car bomb.") In light of current global conflicts and the reality of the hell that the media brings us every day, a phrase like that seems to cheapen the work done worldwide by Christians who have seen the Christian faith triumph over the hell around them. And for the love of Allah-Akbar when are you "Christians" going to start getting hacked about the smear campaigns being mounted against you? Quit with this humility schtic and try violently reacting to a cartoon or something. Don't you know the media PR machine has the power to release you or have you crucified?!

Trading Spaces - Andrew Young Plays the Gibson Race Card

2006-08-20T01:38:00.000-04:00

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! The only thing overrunning our precious national security faster than undocumented workers (and that is the only PC statement you’ll get in this piece) is media coverage hypocrisy. Let me see if I can drum up some race-bating like my fellow media brethren. Trying to get these guys to connect the dots is like trying to draw a perfect circle on an Etch-A-Sketch. In a statement earlier in the week, former U.N. ambassador and Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young responded to questions about Wal-Mart running mom and pop out of town with this little gem, “But you see, those are the people [talking `bout Mama] who have been overcharging us – selling stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables…First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it’s Arabs; very few black people own these stores.” Let me paraphrase for Brother Young. “The Jews, Koreans and Arabs are responsible for a lot of the world’s worst capitalistic greed at the expense of the poor working man”. How about this one. “The Jews are responsible for all of the world’s worst wars”. Sound familiar? It should since we as a people have spent the last few weeks running to pell Mel Gibson into oblivion. The difference is, Young retracts his statements and it’s hardly mentioned in the news until after he’s made penitence. When it is, it shows up buried on the bottom of Section G under a specialty story in the AJC Business section. Apparently Gibson was important enough for general issues coverage. What’s more, whether Gibson was sincere in his comments or not, the world does not turn on the words of a filmmaker. But a former U.N. ambassador? Should not anti-Semitism have higher stakes for those charged with representing the U.S. to the world community? Instead, Young gets to pawn off anti-Semitism in the name of propping up the race card. Sounds like a double-whammy to me. And no, I won’t mention the Muslim terrorist on a shooting rampage in Seattle christening the day of Gibson’s comment. Nor will I draw attention to the Iranian-sponsored exhibit of over 200 anti-Semitic art pieces that premiered in Tehran the next week. Why should I? My fellow gate-keeper media types didn’t see the newsworthiness. Why run from the fray? Still, that nagging question surfaces, “When did racist comments trump physical aggression in the name of anti-Semitism (a la Hezbollah)?” “When did the opinions of former politicians with a real direct impact on national security fall under less scrutiny than a Hollywood entertainer?” And perhaps the most sinister and incriminating, “Whether Mel Gibson felt sincere remorse or not, would PC America ever allow itself to lay its head to rest without hearing an apology from him? Is this an earnest thirst for justice or a ploy to resolve our own discomfort with the world around us? A desire for truth to prevail or a result of social conditioning? Give the pundits a rest. You be the judge for a change.

Trading Systems - Religion Gets A Makeover

2006-08-14T23:47:00.000-04:00

In Response to an article on Monday, February 14, 2005 in Neal's Nuze
Regarding An Author's Views of Religion

Hi Carol,

I agree with Walsh to a certain point, though he may have gone a little too far and made it a bit confusing. Religion, as he would agree, is an ORGANIZED SYSTEM, it's a SET OF RULES, and if one develops their relationship with the system, instead of the SOURCE of life and Truth, which is Christ, and cannot differentiate the System from the Source, then it becomes a barrier to reaching, developing relationship and submitting to the Source of all Truth. Religion should never be confused with tradition, though, and that's where I think the danger lies when we talk like this. A lot of people immediately assume, because it's fast becoming the "in" thing to bitch about organized religion, that religion and tradition are synonomous and our ultimate Christian duty is to get as far away from tradition as possible if we are truly to be free and discover God. This kind of thinking sets people on a war path toward what we commonly call secular humanism, or self-actualization, or any one of a number of New Age, "Answer-Lies-Within" philosophies on life. We become our own God, we write our own rules, we follower whatever feels right and good, we drift away from the Source due to our natural inclination toward pride that causes us to trust self above all others. There is something to be said for TRADITION. John Wesley thought so. R.E.S.T. or Reason , Emotion, Scripture, Tradition were some of his fundamentals. You could not and cannot have authentic faith without all of these working together. They maintain balance. Why Tradition? (And when I say tradition I don't mean sacraments, symbols, etc). Tradition is the testimony of the ages. It is the witness of the validity of Truth and the Christian Belief System that hundreds of thousands of searching, serious, and committed men and women of history have arrived at. It is the belief system that has been tested by time and serious questioning and proven itself to be fundamental to a righteous and effective and full life. Tradition only becomes tradition when it is proven over time. It must pass the litmus test of history and, therefore, it is one of the ultimate and most powerful testimonies to the Truth of Scripture. Anyhoo, your articles always get me going. I just had to think this one through. I think I'll save a draft. Hope y'all are doing well. Stay Focused,Joel Foster

Australia Declares War on Islamo-Terror

2006-07-27T22:57:00.000-04:00

Mark my prophetic words: Australia just picked a fight and they are no longer a neutral nation. They will not be allowed to exist peacefully. In a move that shows a complete understanding of Islamic Sharia law, the current Australian Prime Minister John Howard said in June that Muslims not wanting to recognize the singular secular Democratic government of Australia and instead remain adherents to Islamic Sharia law must leave the country...like, NOW, okay?! That's not very PC. Hello, brainiac, neither is Sharia Law! Already theocrats from the Aussie-housed Muslim world are singing, "My Sharia" (not the cowboy version) and getting in a hissy fit. And Howard's stern rebukes didn't stop there. He went for the one-two punch with a thumbs up to government endorsement of spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. (For those of you counting that would be more than one). So the question now is, how long will it be before Sharia Muslims get their game face on and yell jihad? Gentlemen, place your bets. Let's do a little Islamic history, shall we? Back to where it all began. When you comb back through Muslim faith you find Mohammed, a very idealistic man. The heyday for Mohammed's family history started at the Battle of Badr near his hometown of Quraysh. This battle helped him first formulate the idea that he was Allah's prophet on a mission of submission (the meaning of the word Islam). Mohammed required submission to what's called his Sharia Law and prophet-status. His family couldn't seem to comply with his newfound self-awareness so he left in a fury, and ever the hometown hero returned with a warring party to wipe them off the map. Hence your warrior-prophet and to borrow from an old radio icon, now you know the rest of the story. Jesus Christ, in contrast, submits to His Father's will ("which by the way was "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself" for those of you who've been out of Sunday School for a few years). So where does this leave the kangaroo nation? Needing to join a military alliance that's where! To go back over what blowhard Conservatives are always touting as universal truths, their unholy Christian alliance is built around a founder who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the earth." Now, my fellow institutionalized, victims of revisionist history, any ideas as to why he said peacemakers, not peacekeepers? Aha, you say, now we've got him! Jesus was an activist judge! He's an Arabic version of Clarence Thomas! See, he was no less an activist leader than Mohammed! Not quite. On the contrary, he dared to recognize that evil is active and would not allow good to go unchallenged. The notion of neutrality in relation to opposing worlviews is impossible because...attention pluralist, they are OPPOSING WORLDVIEWS! Do opposing baseball teams just sit in the dugout and wave at each other across the diamond to win a pennent? Only the Yankees can even afford to do that. Of course, they could buy the whole league and generally do and that's a whole other story. No, worldviews can't exist unchallenged without all others ceasing to exist. And worldviews are inherrently selfish, in so far as they want your house (land) and your heart (allegiance). They've got to have both to sustain themselves. Well, I take that back, the oft smeared Christian worldview in its truest sense only needs your heart. Land rights were something its founder didn't need or care for. Hell, he wouldn't have even lost sleep over imminent domain laws! Arguably, he felt he already had some priceless "real estate" and he didn't need to worry about "border security". After all, if you're God almighty, why do you care for earth's land rights anyway? Do you really need to have what's yours deeded back to you? Unless of course you're a pseudo-sovereign. And who wants a God like that? We've already got enough problems without manufacturing a fear of being betrayed by an Almighty we're afraid might not be content with just being Almighty. What else is there? Who would he be jealous of? Riddle me that and I'll give you the wheel of fortune. I'm fool enough to think he ain't staring over the fence jealous of my backyard. And if you still happen to be paranoid, then go out and grow a bigger God! Australia apparently did and dares to recognize his sovereignty over and above Islamic Sharia theocrats that still believe he needs us to fight for land rights in a world he already owns.

My UK Trip - Day 3 Thur, March 1

2006-03-12T16:57:00.000-05:00

The day started out with a walk with Laura in the countryside to check out the centuries' old White Horse, a chalk drawing on a hillside outside of Ferringdon overlooking the famed flat on which St. George fought the dragon to save the castle and the countryside. The highly stylized horse was believed to have been a creation of the Celts.

From the White Horse we met up with Steven, a youth worker from Northern Ireland working with a youth program in a Ferringdon area church to talk about hub night. He also referred me to talk with his sister and her fiancee', on the ground near Bristol University in northern Ireland as a possible location. He spoke about their upcoming work with the Alpha program and then we parted ways for me to catch the 66 bus to Oxford.

When I arrived in the home of the prestigious Oxford University, snow was blowing cross-ways down the street. A rendezvous with our tour guide, Joe, and we headed out to see the sights. As it turns out the tour was to be shortlived for myself and 3 others who were caught staring at a photograph the guide had pointed to when we looked up to a street remiss of our entire group of 20 people! We looked all around us and could not find the group so we doubled back to get a refund. The town of Oxford is home to over 18,000 students and 8,500 faculty, an amazing ration of students to faculty of almost 1 faculty member for every two students! 39 private colleges and universities fill the town touting the #3 college in the world. All buildings, though most centuries old, are in active use. Coffee houses are on every corner and Air 1 Radio is the Top 40 US equivalent. On my own, I darted in to check out the Ashmolean Musuem, then hit the street to enter St. Mary's Cathedral and check out the tower view up a long, winding staircase. The church was home to the likes of John Wesley and John Knox.

I snapped a few pictures and re-entered a cobblestone street to see bricklayers laying pebbles in the road. A local pointed out that pebbles in the road were used so women's dresses could stay clean and water would not puddle up in the roadway.

The evening coming on, I met two strangers, David (Frenchman) and Petra (Germany) in town for a two-week course on English. We chose King's Pub for the evening and down a couple Stella while we sat and talked politics and cultural differences between our three homelands. On the way out, I spoke with Ali, a manager, about a possible hub location and sat at The Swan pub reading more Ravi while I waited on my ride back to Rob and Laura's place.

My UK Trip - Day 2 Wed, Feb 28

2006-03-12T16:31:00.000-05:00

At an early morning breakfast, I had a chance meeting with Clare (Susan, my friend Laura's friend) about some contacts she might have for the hub night concept. We finished our gruel (dry oatmeal with milk) and I took off for the underground tubes to meet up with other tourists for our first full-day London Walks tour led by Helena. We met across the street from Big Ben, the clock inside a towering clock tower near the River Thames. I met several others on the walk including Sylvia (a woman from Ontario), Elena (South Africa), a Norwegian couple who lamented their countries' poor Olympic performance this year, two US women and a man from California.

We started with Big Ben, the clock controlled by a bell named Big Ben after a man whose wife thought the bell looked like him--he was rather large. The 13 ton bell is timed in the Fall and Winter with the seasonal change by dropping pence on a scale in the tower--adding 3 pence is equal to adding a 1/4 of a second to the clock. We moved on to see the Houses of Parliament across from a large statue of Winston Churchill, instrumental for his role as Prime Minister in World War II. An Oliver Cromwell statue also stood in front of the House of Lords along with a statue of King Richard the Lionhearted on horseback, the man responsible for the military activity of the crown during the Second Crusade. We paused to view Westminster Abbey and learned stories of the many royal weddings and coronations conducted there. Crossing through St. James Park we stalled to watch the procession of the guards, Scots from one end of the park, English from the other to meet in the middle in front of Buckingham Palace. We then entered Green Park, touted as the most romantic park on earth. Queen Victoria became so red with envy at the antics of her cheating spouse when he would pick flowers from the park to woo his many mistresses that she had all the flowers in the park uprooted. Some of the trees in the park are 400 years old. We paused to watch the changing of the guard outside St. James' Palace and then headed to Picadilly Square and the subsequent theatre district, home of the famous Odeon Cinema. After a quick lunch in the crypt beneath St. Mark's Cathedral, we passed into Trafalgar Square under the gaze of a Lord Admiral Nelson statue and the friendly lions, named so after their sculptor couldn't get the paws right and stopped short leaving a resemblance to the paws of domestic house pets. A walk away from Trafalgar led us past monuments to fallen WWII soldiers, a monument to the women of WWII (who consequently built one of the famous bridges across the River Thames), the National Defense building, and arrived at a river ride. The day finished off with the great Tower of London, home of the now musuem castle that has been built on the land since the early part of the twelfth century. We toured the Traitor's Gate where men were sent before their heads were lopped off, heard stories of the pigeons that were required by royal law to always be on the premises (avian bird flu or no bird flu), the center tower itself with royal weapon displays, knights' armour, and other displays. We finished with the Crown Jewels of London. Noticing the time, I hurried back to the depot to catch a train and a late departure from London to my next destination, Swindon, an hour south of London central and friend's Laura, husband Rob (member of the Royal Air Force) and their two dogs Rhett and Biggles.

My UK Trip - Day 1 Tue, Feb 27

2006-03-12T11:21:00.000-05:00

Coming off of jet lag and adjusting to the array of Peugot's driving on the wrong side of the road, I made my way to the Northwood tube station exit in the north-west area of London to check in for my first night in England with Val, the student affairs director at London Theological College. After grabbing a quick nap, I jumped back on the tube for my first night in London. Once in the tunnel, riding the Metropolitan line into town, I met a student from Ghana name Kassia along with 3 other London Theological College (LST) students on their way home. They suggested I speak with Deborah, a woman with a background in media, who was taking classes at the school and wants to become involved in a venture like the Hub Nights concept some of you are familiar with.

I exited the train at Tower station and walked out to face the Tower of London, lit brightly against a London skyline. I had a bit of time to kill so I traversed a side street to a local pub and ordered a sandwich from a Bracilian bartender. A quick bite and a chapter from a Ravi Zaccharias book and I was off to meet up with my first London Walks tour, Jack the Ripper Haunts. I met a man and woman from Belgium, a girl from Australia and a guy (Ben) from Philly. We covered the seedy parts of town, narrow cobblestone walkways with rows of pubs centuries old, lit only by gaslight as we tracked the Ripper's roots through his playground. We learned of the gruesome deaths of Anne, Katie and many other of the prostitutes that had worked these corners and met their untimely deaths at the hands of the Ripper. Our guide gave us a few conspiracy theories, largely discredited, and we finished back at a tube station. I chatted with an English girl for a bit on the train ride home who immediately recognized my Americanese from her travels in the States and exited back at Northwood to sleep off the jet lag from the days travels. Day one, in the books. More to come.

Seriously Speaking

2005-06-21T23:29:00.000-04:00

Staring at the seriously absurd antics of those in the Sour Limelight of late, I've got to think we are suffering from a serious maleigh of super-sensitivity to our own opinions. Think about it. Who takes celebrities more seriously than, you guessed it, celebreties! Tom Cruise trots around Europe with fiance' Katie Holmes shooting for free press, then gets sprayed down by a pseudo-journalist with a water pistol microphone and shoots off at the mouth. (All after taking it upon himself to convert his War of the Worlds producers and a freaked out Scarlett Johansen to his fringe religion of choice, Scientology). The invinsible gladiator Russell Crowe comes in from a night out on the town and hurls his dagger (wireless phone) at the enemy warrior (hotel staffer) of the Coliseum (front desk lobby of the Ritz--perhaps similar in scope but still, no Rome glory). And what about the foreign policy experts like Cher and Alec Baldwin?

By now celebrities counting themselves as equipped for more than entertainment is common-place. What's new seems to be the larger middle-American thrust toward discrediting their opinion. Our fascination is having a falling out. Is it hurting the arts to sound off on everything other than? At least, Hollywood, if you're going to do it, stay true to form and do it with creative expression, no more shallow Michael Moore-bid talking point analysis! Dick Dunbar doesn't need your help to sell the Leftist reputation to the lowest bidder. He's got Howard DeanNC to help him with that.

Gay Right?

2004-11-11T23:38:00.000-05:00

I think we are all born with natural tendencies to experiment. I also think we are all born with natural abilities (although highly undeveloped) to control our tendencies. I believe the gay lifestyle is a moral issue because the God of the universe who writes the rules is a God of an objective reality. (Kinda implied in the title "GOD", don't you think)? Many of us don't like that idea because that requires that God not condone everything. We call that narrow-minded and unloving. God is all about unconditional love, right? The answer is yes by God's definition and, possibly, no by ours. God understands a truth that a lot of us tend to overlook (possibly because it's...eh...uncomfortable). Unconditional love requires that you reprimand and discipline and lay down a system of absolutes as a means of protection. The height of insensitivity and selfishness toward another person is to value your own good feelings so much that you're not willing to suspend those feelings in order to correct another person and allow that person to get hurt in the long run. We don't want God to be that way, anyway. If He's going to exist and be a part of our lives, we want Him to be consistent and reliable, not given to all of our whims, right? And He clearly points out(at least if you have a respect for the Christian Bible) that having "unnatural relations between a man and another man" is one of the "7 things that are detestable to Him". Having said all that, He also believes in giving someone free choice in moral issues because He knows that true love cannot be forced upon someone. The problem with a lot of us is that we don't even want to concede that there IS a need for a choice to choose the moral side because that implies that there is a right and a wrong and that we might be in the wrong. Why do we have a problem with that? Because it's uncomfortable to be confronted with that idea. And most of our generation, when it all boils down to it, prays at the altar of personal comfort and satisfaction. Tolerance is what we call it but it really has a lot more to do with our feelings than the feelings of the other person. It's more selfish than selfless. Nevertheless, on the basis that God--the Author of Truth and therefore, absolutes--has the nature to give people freedom of choice, I agree with extending that same freedom of choice when it comes to choosing a life of homosexuality. I still love a homosexual independant of their choice and can develop a friendship regardless of their sexual preference. But that very love is precisely why I don't agree with the lifestyle...why I can't afford to. Because I recognize a Higher Authority that makes the rules and countless reasons why He chose the rules as well as some only He is aware of. I support people's God-ordained right to make choices based on their own values instead of his own, to the point of even convincing themselves that these values are correct. I, however, do not support those who would confuse the God-ordained right to believe and choose with a moral endorsement by God of their choice.

MTV Whipping Post

2004-11-04T09:36:00.000-05:00

I wrote this response to an MTV agent on Nov. 2nd, the day of the 2004 Presidential election. I decided to put this letter on the blog. Be forewarned: A different tone from much of the posts.

Dear MTV:
I am a 24 year old recent college grad raised in the progressive MTV culture and now working in the entertainment industry in the southeast. Thank you for the reminder to vote. I appreciate your efforts to encourage the young voter but I am deeply concerned about the underhanded partisan leanings in your campaign. Using scare tactics concerning a "back door draft" which have been denied by both candidates during repeated debates and campaign rallies and incenuating that the draft will be more readily supported by the Republican incumbent is misleading. Your representation of the facts on the MTV Rock the Vote "Why Should I Rock the Vote" section are very partisan in their support of Kerry and misleading in that they present only one side of the equation. The scare tactics used by your "awareness" campaign do not promote a bi-partisan education of the young voter near as much as a mobilization of the young voter and many young adults such as myself, hopefully, see through this. The repeated use of celebrity endorsements by artists such as Eminem and Samuel L. Jackson on drafts and the war, Cher, Bruce Springsteen and Brad Pitt on stem cell research and countless others such as Usher and the band members of R.E.M. and Green Day to promote a definite partisan appeal is very irresponsible. The agendas of these artists is never discussed. The continual challenges by the FCC to encourage art that is more socially responsible is seen by many of these artists as an effort to undermine their creative energies. They decry much of this Administration as a suppressor of free speech. In reality, free speech is not freeing to a sociey when it irresponsibly and unabashedly promotes a one-sided leftist view of reality that never concedes the possibility of an absolute and objective code of ethics by which one may live. I know that doesn't sell as well as the whole "free yourself" and "do what feels good with no realistic thought to the implications of your actions" ideal that the MTV network and culture promotes to young America who is psychologically looking for that free license to live without restraint. These are entertainers (not individuals with a career or a lifetime of following socio- political issues and the many complexities of foreign policy and other foreign engagements) who are held in high esteem by many in a young audience of impressionable youth. Choose or Die might just as readily be used as a slogan for the moral fallout in young America. I doubt many of us would even recognize that fallout.
Sincerely yours,
Joel A. Foster

Two for One

2004-08-27T10:24:00.000-04:00

Days are running together now as we near the home stretch of the 2004 games. The night shift finally broke down to get a taste of Atheni nightlife in the Plaka district downtown. This was last night. But, as these things go, last night became this morning and this morning turned into a long 48 hour day. No regrets, though.

Whereas Americans will have their fun in a night club or a bar or a venue of some sort, the venues here cover city blocks. We maneuvered our way through a mingling crowd of thousands filling the cobblestone and paved streets of Plaka, Manistiraki and Syntagma Square in the heart of Athens. The nightlife was almost surreal as this truly international olympic crowd boasted colorfully-costumed Bracilians, raucous Greek chanters and tables of revelers lining the walkways and streetways outside kiosks, open-air restaurants, bars and shops. Where there weren't people, there were cars, bikes and the occasional Smart Car--a vehicle that derives its name from, where else, common sense. Fuel efficient to the tune of 50+ miles to the gallon, comfortable to ride in, and if you can't find a spot small enough to park it in, you can probably zip it up in a gym bag when you get where you're going. (I'm contemplating bringing one back in my carry-on luggage). We, did, however, find out that one must convert everything here...including gas prices...to the metric system! Our little American posse had reached near euphoria when we first read an .84 cent fuel price at an Eko service station. Turns out they sell gas by the litre. Suddenly mass transit makes for great math!

Back to Greek nightlife. So anyway, it was good. We arrived home with enough time to take a shower and see the sunrise before heading back out to elimination rounds of men's wrestling at Anno Liossia Olympic Complex this morning. Sixty-six kilo US wrestler Jamill Kelly of Atwater, California, held his head high for 3 victorious matches. We thrilled to the freestyle segments and caught 5 minute powernaps through the Greco-Roman bouts. (Greco-Roman is a wrestling style akin to watching bread mould).

The rest of the day was spent at the IBC, logging info into a database and regaling the triumph of the U.S. men's 200 meter triple-medal triumph the night before. The trio of Shawn Crawford, Bernard Williams and Justin Gatlin crossed the finish line like an arrowhead for the Gold, Silver and Bronze.

When the day was finally blogged and accounted for, we were more than ready to take more than a Greco-Roman powernap.

Tourist Alert

2004-08-25T13:22:00.000-04:00

If misery loves company, we figured we'd join the crowd after the dismal show of athletic faux pas in yesterday's less than stellar Canadian finish. With tickets in hand, my friend and I jumped a media bus to rided out to the Bronze medal baseball game between Canada and Japan. The actual venue was the highlight. Our media bus shouldered up to the Meditteranian coast for several miles of the venture before crossing off the main road. Upon the recent completion of Athens International Airport the abandoned airport has been utilised for many of the games' venues. The Helliniko Olympic Complex comprises the fencing, basketball, softball, field hockey and other sites along with the baseball stadium. Unfortunately, the game was never really a game. When all is said and done, though, who cares! It's all about atmosphere. We spent a large chunk of the game talking with an architect from London named Rob and people watching-- turns out Japanese athletic fans love to make, excuse me, "be" a spectacle. These guys were in competition for a replacement Olympic mascot. And they danced from the 1st inning on! Olympic baseball in a foreign country, excuse me, international destination, provides culturally relevant music such as Yiorgos Dalaras, Dimitra Galani and, of course, Outkast and Britney Spears. (I guess she loves rock n' roll no matter where you go).

Unfortunately, the game never really became a game. The Japs ousted Canada 11-2. But fun was had by all. We spent the rest of the day working away in the IBC. Sorry to cut this abrupt. The US women's soccer is getting geared up to take on Brasil. Check back for game summary.