Let's Get Serious About Stopping Gun Violence

Are we serious about reducing gun violence, or do we just want to ban guns?

Gun control doesn't work.  Since we started to enact these laws, 80 years ago, gun crime has actually increased.  Gun rights advocates say gun control is contributing to the increase.  Gun control advocates say we need more laws.  Both are wrong.  No one has ever scientifically shown a causal correlation between gun restrictions and gun crime.  Gun control does not reduce crime.  It also does not increase it.

Gun control does absolutely nothing.

Isn't it time we stopped passing useless laws in a feel-good effort to “do something”?  Isn't it time we enacted measures that really work?  Isn't it time we asked the experts what to do rather than the politicians?

Active Shooters in Schools: The Enemy is Denial

Active Shooters in Schools: Should Teachers be Trained by Police Firearms Instructors?

In the above articles, Doug Wyllie addresses the issue of stopping an active shooter in a school setting.  He talks about designing schools to provide safe zones, holding drills, training teachers in how to safeguard their students, etc.  He compares it to our initiatives to avoid injury and death from school fires, and follows a similar model.  Wyllie also discusses the idea of training and arming certain individuals in the school, so they will be able to respond immediately with force-on-force, in much the same way a police officer would in a similar circumstance.  This is much like the Israeli model for defending against terrorism.

And let’s call this what it is.  It isn’t a gun problem.  It isn’t a mental health issue.  It’s not about video games, movies, or a lack of God in our schools.   These issues may contribute to the cause of these events, and it’s great that people want to study them, but we need to focus on our response first.  Dealing with the triggers can come later.  We are responding to terrorism.  Period.

Israel has dealt with terrorism almost since the nation was re-established.  We need to look at their model.  We need to consider adopting some of their policies.

Israeli teachers can and do sometimes carry firearms to protect their students.  Armed military personnel patrol public areas, ready to respond to terror threats.  Private citizens are observant and report suspicious activity which is immediately investigated.

I believe we should adopt some or all of the following policies:

• Teach firearm safety in the schools.  The Eddie Eagle program is one of the best models out there.  Let’s use it.

• Provide funding for community education programs teaching home firearm safety to adults and older minors.  The NRA’s “Home Firearms Safety” program is an excellent training model.  (The NRA and its instructors would probably offer this program for free if asked.) 

• Create a new Civil Defense Corps (CDC) made up of private citizens who have passed a background check and mental health screening.  Members of the corps will be overseen by Homeland Security, which will provide funding and supervise training.  Members will voluntarily provide security to local public areas and schools.

• Use the National Guard and reserve military personnel to supplement the CDC in providing security in areas under federal jurisdiction such as Post Offices, airports, train stations, etc.  National Guard units could also be used in State areas at the request of the Governor.

• Start a national program teaching the general public how to watch for and identify unusual activity and report it to the authorities.

• Ask the media to voluntarily stop providing names, images of, and statements from criminals who engage in terrorist acts such as public shootings or other forms of mass murder.

• Allow Concealed Pistol License (CPL) holders to carry in currently restricted areas in which other official forms of armed security are not provided (i.e. Schools, hospitals, sports arenas, stadiums, etc.).

• Amend current laws to protect lawful armed citizens from prosecution and litigation should they use their firearms in a justifiable manner, especially in the protection of the general public.

• Eliminate “gun free zones”.  Police, military personnel, CPL holders, etc. should be allowed to carry freely in these areas.  (Criminals already do.)

• Allow all public employees with CPLs to carry while on duty, not in a law enforcement capacity, but as first responders in a terrorist event.  Provide any necessary training to interested employees.

• Offer free training, litigation protection, and tax incentives to private companies who allow their employees to carry firearms while at work.

• Equip every police car with a high powered rifle and provide appropriate training to all police personnel.

• Allow CPL holders with rifle training to keep secured rifles in their vehicles.

• Finally, let’s start enforcing the laws we already have.  Let’s get serious about violent crime.  Let’s stop offering parole, plea bargains, and suspended sentences for violent crimes.  Jail sentencing should not be seen as a punishment for violent criminals, but as a means of protecting the public through sequestration. 

Angry About Guns

I’m angry.

Another wacko has entered a “gun free” zone, this one filled with innocent children, and shot the place up, killing at least 26 people, including 20 kids.

To protect the kids, one teacher moved her students into a bathroom, bolted the door, and prayed.  I’m a huge advocate for prayer, but honestly, in this circumstance, I’d rather pray with a shotgun in my hand.

“Gun free zones” are inane.  Criminals don’t rules, so the only people who are “gun free” are the victims.  Will a gun always stop a nut from killing people?  No.  But it can offer a victim the means to defend his or herself, possibly deterring the criminal.

The knee jerk reaction to these types of tragedies is to blame the guns, gun owners, or the gun culture.  This hurts.  I’m part of the gun culture, but I certainly don’t kill kids.  My heart breaks when I hear about any killing, especially when kids are the victims.  Imagine how much harder it is to hear of such a tragedy, realizing you will be blamed.

The US has some of the least restrictive gun control laws in the world.  Many people blame these laws for the gun related violence in the US.  Truth is, there has never been a persuasive study showing a correlation between US gun violence and US gun laws or the proliferation of gun ownership.  In fact, there is a strong suggestion that such a correlation doesn’t exist.  States and cities with strong gun laws often see higher rates of gun crime than states and cities with less restrictive laws.  Foreign nations almost all have more restrictive laws, yet their rates of gun violence run the gambit from virtually none in countries such as Japan, Switzerland, and New Zealand, to extremely high rates in countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Russia.  The US does have a high rate of gun related violence, but, for a developed nation, we also have a high rate of incarceration and overall violence.

Some will claim that the US has seen more high profile shootings than other countries.  What they fail to observe, however, is that the US is not really comparable to Great Britain or Germany.  In the US, these countries would be states.  The US is best compared with Europe as a whole.  When considered this way, The US rate of mass shootings is about the same, even though Europe’s laws are much more restrictive.  Gross data is rarely relevant.  It has to be adjusted for contributing factors, then assessed for a correlation.  Without analysis using proper research technique, data is simply a political tool used to manipulate perception.  Most studies I’ve read on gun violence and the effects of gun control use “cherry picked” data to support a political agenda either for or against gun restriction.  John Lott, a highly regarded economist and former Yale professor, is the most reliable researcher I have found.  His analysis is precise, scientific, and unbiased.  In fact, he is a former gun control supporter who was converted through the analysis of his own research.  I strongly recommend reading his work.  (Note: Critics often try to discredit Lott because of his work with gun rights advocates, but this relationship started after his first publication on firearms statistics.)

I’m not necessarily opposed to gun laws.  I support an age requirement for gun ownership.  I believe violent felons should lose their rights to possess guns (not because they’ll comply, but because it provides a reason for arrest if they return to their violent ways).  If, however, we wish to add more restrictions to what is already the most regulated product in the US market, I believe these restrictions should be based on science rather than emotion.  Gun control advocates need to provide good data to support their proposals.  They’re the ones asking for freedom to be restricted.  They should provide the rationale.  So called “common sense” and emotional knee jerk reaction just doesn’t cut it.

Some References:

Gun Control and Mass Murders : http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229929/gun-control-and-mass-murders/john-r-lott-jr#

Gun control isn't the answer: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilson20apr20,0,7286389.story

Multiple Victim Public Shootings: http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf

Artificial Trees Are Best

I grew up with an artificial tree.

When I got married, my new wife insisted on a real tree.  We did that for a couple of years, but I finally convinced her that the repeated costs of a tree that would shed needles, present a fire hazard, and finally be thrown in the trash a few days after Christmas was inferior to a beautiful and perfect artificial tree that could be reused for years.  It was the cost saving that finally convinced her.

We are on our second tree in 15 years.  It’s still beautiful and perfect.

My parent's tree is aluminum... 

Halloween is a CHRISTIAN Tradition.

Read article here: Surprise: Halloween's Not a Pagan Festival After All


Dr. Garry E. Milley says "People do not become Christians by putting up a Christmas tree, giving presents, and singing carols.  Your kids will not become pagans by collecting candy door-to-door..."

He's right.  Celebrating the American tradition of Halloween does not put our children's souls at risk through participation in a pagan ritual.  Not only are our kids protected by a lifetime of family values, parental example, and the influence of a generally Christian American culture, but the celebration of Halloween isn't actually a pagan holiday at all.

The word "Halloween" is derived from the Irish observance of "All Hallows Eve'n".  All Hallows Day is one of the names for All Saints Day, a Catholic tradition of prayer for deceased Christians observed on November 1st.  The costumes and begging for treats were added in the Americas as French, English, and Irish settlers combined various fall traditions derived from Christian historical events.  Paganism didn't contribute anything until a couple of centuries later when jack-o-lanterns and witches were added to the tradition.  By that time, this decidedly American tradition was already well established.  The holiday was never pagan and is certainly not recruitment strategy for the Devil.

Associating Halloween with demonic worship and witchcraft has no basis in history or traditional participation in the event.  Calling this an evil holiday borders on religious extremism.  Halloween is simply about dressing up, having fun, and collecting candy.

Let the kids have their fun.

Attention Students. We're watching you...

See article here: Texas Schools Punish Students...


A school in Texas is piloting a program to track kids.  New student ID cards have implanted RFID chips that can be tracked by sensors placed throughout the school.  Computers track who accesses the building and where they go throughout the day.

I don't really have a problem with this system.  The cards are not implanted, but simply carried.  They allow the kids to access the building and help parents and teachers monitor student activities.  This should help reduce truancy and may help identify at-risk kids.

School is provided without cost to the students.  To access this education, they are required to follow certain rules.  If they don't like these rules, they have an option to attend another school or homeschool, or, if this is not an option, they can drop out once they reach the legal age of choice (I believe this is 18 in Texas).  These students are minor children.  They do not have the same privacy rights enjoyed by adults.  If the state wants to monitor students in this manner while these kids are in the school's care, I believe it is within its authority.  I am unable to think of a legitimate activity a student could be involved in that would require privacy from location tracking.

Should I continue this site?

Please vote to the right.

I'm not sure if folks really care about this site.  I hate to go through all the trouble of writing essays if no one is going to read them.  I don't get a lot of comments, so I don't really know how much impact I'm having.  Is it worth it?

Please comment below.

Thanks.

--Rich

Heroes are Exceptional, not Typical

Article: Too Many Heroes

I believe there are certain professions in our society that are essential, but often unsung and taken for granted.  Sometimes these professions are dangerous.  Some of them have poor salaries.  Some require strange or long hours.  All of them are dedicated to providing for the well being of our society.  Professions that come immediately to mind are Fire Fighter, Doctor, Nurse, Paramedic, Law Enforcement Officer, and Soldier.  All these professions are noble.  All require sacrifices, often with little reward.

But that doesn’t make these folks heroes.

A hero is someone who exhibits unusual character and behavior that is considered inherently admirable and atypically self-sacrificing.  Simply entering a vocation and donning a uniform does not make one a hero.  Heroes must go above and beyond the norm.  A hero is not typical, but exceptional.

The author in the above article writes:

If it looks like an altruistic act, then it IS an altruistic act. And so, we take the actions of a few and impose that quality on everyone that looks like them. So all soldiers, police officers, and fireman become heroes because of what a few of their brethren did and this denigrates and diminishes the actions of those few brave souls when their individual behaviors are extrapolated out to anyone who looks like them or wears the same uniform.

The firefighters, police officers, and volunteers at the World Trade Center on 9/11 were all heroes.  As others were running away, these extraordinary men and women ran toward danger, risking their lives, to help save others.

Mother Theresa risked violence, disease, starvation, persecution, and personal hardship to care for the poor.

Jason Dunham, an American Marine in Iraq threw himself on a grenade to save the lives of his two fellow Marines.

Deborah Johnson, RN, was knocked down and injured when shots were fired into a crowded street.  Despite her wounds, she ignored the danger to herself, crawled to the four shooting victims, and administered first aid, saving three of them.

These people are heroes.  At great personal risk, they placed the needs of others ahead of their own.  Where others ran from danger and hardship, they ran to the people in need.  Some came out unharmed.  Some were injured.  Some lost their lives.

Calling someone a hero simply because of their chosen career lessens the value of the title.  It takes honor away from true heroes.  Heroism requires exceptional behavior.  Like respect, the title of “hero” is earned, never given. 

God Bless America

On Tuesday, September 11th, 2001, at 8:46am, America woke up to fund ourselves at war.

Since that infamous moment, our lives have changed.  The US went on the attack against terrorism.  Up until that moment, we thought terrorism was someone else's problem.  It was something that happened in Greece, Israel, or France.  It occasionally touched us, but never with any real teeth.  The events of 9/11 made us finally take our heads from the sand.  We began to realize that we, like the rest of the world, were vulnerable.

Following 9/11, we have initiated many changes in culture and policy.  We have adopted the Patriot Act, strict TSA guidelines, new security measures, and a greater acceptance of CPLs.  We have invaded two countries and toppled their governments.  We have chased terrorists in half a dozen other countries, clipping their wings and greatly reducing their ability to harm us.

Our reaction to 9/11 has been somewhat controversial.  I personally don't support the Patriot Act or the new TSA guidelines.  I don't believe the Iraqi war was intended to fight terrorism.  I don't believe our efforts in Afghanistan are currently related to terror.

I believe there is one thing I think we will all agree on, however.  9/11 reminded us that, our differences aside, we are all Americans.  We can fight among ourselves, but we will not allow anyone to harm our American brothers and sisters.  We may be divided along political and social ideals, but we are united in this.

We Are America.

Wink at the Moon

Video: Conspiracy Theory : Did We Land on the Moon ?

Scientific Response to the video: Conspiracy Theory: Did We Go to the Moon?



Neil Armstrong died last week.  Armstrong was a real American hero.  He risked his life to advance American exceptionalism.  He dedicated his career to acquiring specialized skills and knowledge, and to maintaining excellent health so that he could serve us by advancing technology and by starting the incredible task of exploring the final frontier.  It was a sad day when Armstrong died.  To honor and salute him, and in compliance with the Armstrong family's request, my kids and I went outside during the Blue Moon and gave it a wink.

There are people who claim the Lunar Mission was a hoax.  They point to certain points they claim prove the landing occurred on a Hollywood set, rather than the giant planetoid we see in our sky most nights.  They have a list of things they expect to see in Lunar photos and video, then cry conspiracy when their expectations are not met, regardless of the logical, scientific explanations for the supposed "discrepancies".

Our world is not filled with conspiracies.  It's nearly impossible to get enough people to cooperate and keep quiet enough to make a conspiracy succeed.  Even a small leak or mistake will be jumped on by legitimate news media looking for the "kill" of a major news scoop.  Credible sources will come forward, opening the door to countless others who will seek their moment of fame by coming clean.  Think Watergate...

There is no Moon conspiracy.  Armstrong was a hero.  An American hero who walked on the moon.

Dogs are Better than Cats

It's been said that dogs have masters, cats have staff.  Dogs are loyal, obedient, and reliable.  They are easy to train, desire to please, and can help protect your family.  They love to work and play, and can earn their keep.  Cats are the ultimate narcissists.  Yes, they are soft and furry, when they allow you the privileged of stroking, scratching, and massaging them, but they are also aloof, lazy, and labile.

Please don't take this wrong.  We have a cat.  I like our cat.  When she is in a joyful mood, I enjoy playing with her.  Stroking her fur is relaxing.  Watching her chase toys and bugs makes me laugh.  But the cats we've had in my lifetime have never captured my heart like my dogs.  I don't have a dog right now, but I still have fond memories of Misty, Tipper, and, dearest of all, Kirstie.  I miss my Kirstie...

Dogs really are man's best friend.

Disarm the Police?

Read article here: NYPD: 9 shooting bystander victims hit by police



Last Friday, a disgruntled employee, in a city that has all but made guns illegal, used a gun (illegally) to kill a former colleague.  When police engaged the criminal, he pointed his gun at them, so they shot him... along with NINE INNOCENT BYSTANDERS!

NYC already has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country.  The criminal in this incident violated several of them.  As a result, one person was killed.  Police responded legally, and not only was one more person killed, but several others were injured.  Who's guns were more dangerous?  The criminal's?  Or those of the police?

I used to compete in PPC, a shooting sport developed by police to encourage the development of shooting skills.  Competitions were generally organized by police and held on police ranges.  Private citizens competed directly against police officers.  And we were better.  Every department had skilled shooters who would score with our best, but the average officer's shooting skills were far inferior to those of the average shooting enthusiast.

If gun control advocates believe the presence of a firearm is inherently dangerous, why do we arm police?  How is a gun in the hands of a police officer somehow safer and more beneficial than one in the hands of a private citizen?  Are police officers more responsible?  More ethical?  More rational?  In my experience, they're certainly not better trained.  Friday's incident supports that observation.

I'm not suggesting we disarm police officers.  What I am suggesting is that gun control advocates consider the possibility that their position on firearms is based more on emotion than fact.  To consider the very real possibility that their solutions to gun violence are ineffective.  To admit that they may be wrong.  

Wisdom Through Failure

"Develop success from failures. Discouragement and failure are two of the surest stepping stones to success." -- Dale Carnegie

"Before success comes in any man's life he is sure to meet with much temporary defeat and, perhaps, some failures. When defeat overtakes a man, the easiest and most logical thing to do is to quit. That is exactly what the majority of men do." -- Napoleon Hill

"Don't be afraid to fail. Don't waste energy trying to cover up failure. Learn from your failures and go on to the next challenge. It's OK to fail. If you're not failing, you're not growing." -- H. Stanley Judd

We have all heard that success comes from refusing to submit to, and be defeated by failure.  We are told to strive on when we experience setbacks.  We are to ask those who have succeeded for their wisdom of success.  We should look at the failures of others to discover and avoid their mistakes.

All of these things are true, but, perhaps, a bit cumbersome.  There are certain people in the world who are able to help us avoid learning all these lessons for ourselves.

To truly avoid mistakes and achieve success, we should not only look at mistakes that led to failure or choices that led to success.  We should look for people who have achieved both the wisdom of failure and the thrill of success from the same source.

We can learn about how to avoid divorce by asking a divorced spouse about what he or she did wrong, but the answer will be jaded by the person's desire to protect his or herself from the pain of true introspection, even if they have gone on to a successful second marriage.  We can look at a successful marriage, but the couple will be unable to advise on challenges they have never experienced.  If we want to have a successful marriage, we should look for a couple who has experienced failure, then rebounded to success.  A couple who has divorced, or come close, then reconciled and restored their marriage will have an intimate understanding of how to avoid marriage pitfalls and promote success.

The same is true in business.  Some wisdom can be gained by talking to someone who has experienced bankruptcy, then succeeded in the next company.  But imagine the wisdom gained from going bankrupt, then digging your company out of financial failure and leading it into real success.

Failing, then trying again is not the same as success achieved from refusing to accept failure.  We can learn tremendous insight from the rare individual who has turned failure into success.

Stop Living Life Through a Camera

Go to a school, music, or dance performance.  A sporting event or a kids' karate belt test.  A birthday party, 1st communion, or a graduation.  Look at the parents.  How many are watching and experiencing the event?  How many are instead watching their cameras, more interested in recording the event than experiencing it.

I admit, I've been guilty of this too.  But then I've put down the camera and watched.  There is no comparison.  Experiencing life first hand and creating real memories is so much better than recording life for later viewing.

Setting up a video camera and forgetting it is fine.  Taking a few stills to trigger memories is great.  But for the most part, we should put down the cameras and experience our lives.

Christianity is not a Hostile Takeover

As a Christian, I am charged with spreading the "Good News" of Christ's redemption and a better way of life offered through faith in Him.  I should tell others so they can enjoy the blessings of a life lived for God rather than worldly values and empty pursuit.

I have to remember, however, that Christianity is a choice.  Following the ways of the world is also a choice.  People are free to choose Christ or to choose the world at their own discretion.  Regardless of my wish to see everyone experience the joy of everlasting life with God, I have to respect the right of others to choose death instead.

This means that I cannot support laws based in Biblical values rather than secular argument.  Christians surrender to the will of God, so we follow His laws as we understand them.  We are bound by His commands.  The world, however, is not.

If we create law forcing non-Christians to follow God's will, they can never choose God.  The choice is taken away.  God's first law is to revere Him as God.  It would be wrong to make that a national law.  The Bible is often interpreted by Christians to prohibit things not mentioned specifically, like cigarettes, multi-partner marriage, abortion, unmarried sex, wealth, etc.  It would be wrong to outlaw these things as well, unless we, as a society, could provide sound secular argument to support these laws.

As Christians, it is our job to persuade others to choose God and to follow His will.  It is never our job to force our perception of His will on secular society. 

HBO's The Newsroom Goes Anti-Gun

Read Article Here:  HBO’s “The Newsroom” Shows Anti-gun Bias

I've watched a few episodes of HBO's The Newsroom, and I like it.  The characters are engaging and real.  The newsroom action is authentic and interesting.  The entire show is captivating.

But Hollywood reared its ugly anti-gun head in last weeks show.  Citing flawed statistics from a poorly modeled twenty year old study, they claimed that guns are useless for self defense.  Ignoring pre-presidential-run positioning on gun control and 2008 campaign comments, they claimed that President Obama is not unfriendly toward gun ownership and that all gun owner distrust toward the president is the result of a smear campaign by the NRA and conservative activists in an effort to raise revenue. 

I like this show.  The premise is great.  But to ignore data, distort facts, and present an agenda as reality in an effort to sway the opinions of ignorant viewers is irresponsible and unnecessary.  It added nothing to the show.  All they have succeeded in doing is alienating 40 million gun owners like me.

How sad.

Gymnastics isn't a Sport

I love the Summer Olympics.  I especially love watching gymnastics and the shooting sports.

But many of the Olympic events are simply not sports, including gymnastics.

Sports don’t require judges to assign points.  It’s really that simple.  Gymnastics, synchronized swimming, ballroom dancing, diving… All of these events are athletic.  All require skill and talent.  They are certainly contests and fun to watch.  But they are not sports.

A sport requires only that an objective be achieved.  Style doesn’t count.  Get the ball in the basket.  Put an arrow in the 10-ring.  Pin an opponent.  Finish the race first.  These are requirements of sports.  No one judges the technique, only whether the objective was met.  Did the ball go in?  Yes?  Point awarded.  There are no subjective scores, no artistic value.  Just yes or no.  Did you do it.  Period.

I love the artistic athletic events.  I just can’t call them sports.  And since they are not sports, I question whether they should be part of the Olympics.

USDA Did Right

Read Article Here:  USDA Meatless Monday Posting Retracted After Beef Industry Calls Foul





The USDA last week gave its support for "Meatless Monday".  A least for a few moments.  The department retracted its support following outcry from American livestock farmers, and rightly so.

Meatless Mondays are an international initiative by environmental extremists looking to force their religion on the general public.  They claim it will help the environment my reducing grain consumption and by limiting methane in the atmosphere from "cow farts"

For the USDA to take a position on such an obviously controversial issue was irresponsible.  There is no peer reviewed data to support this type of initiative to improve our environment.  It's a feel-good measure designed to push an agenda.  The government should never participate in this type of debate.  It should certainly never take sides.

As for "cow farts"...

Methane in cow flatulence is caused by the breakdown of vegetable material.  If the grass and grain fed to cows breaks down in the cow digestive tract, or on the ground through the normal process of biodegradation, the same amount of gas is formed.  Cows may concentrate greenhouse gasses into a smaller area, but they do not cause a higher volume of gasses to be formed.

Cow farts do not affect the ozone and do not contribute to global warming, or climate change, or whatever the green wackos want to call it.

I Blame the Media

In the wake of the recent Colorado massacre in a crowded movie theater, we are again hearing the clamor of the uninformed.

A criminally insane young man used gas bombs and firearms to kill and injure over a hundred people.  He chose his venue well.  He carefully timed the crime to delay police intervention.  News reports aside, he appears to have had an accomplice.

Immediately, the "disarm America" crowd, both foreign and domestic, started calling for more gun control.  We have heard the term "semi-automatic" bandied about as if the reporters understand the term.  We see pictures of military style firearms posted with every report of the incident.  We are carefully led to believe that guns are the cause of this crime, not the atrocious acts of one, or possibly two young men.

Personally, I blame the media.

These types of public killings are not about killing people.  They're about getting attention.  When a deranged individual, or group of individuals, kills in public, they become famous.  Their names and faces are plastered across every newspaper and TV screen.  Their family, friends, and neighbors are interviewed.  Their manifestos are read to the public.  They get a message out.  They get attention.  They get notoriety.  That's why terrorist groups will claim responsibility for crimes they didn't commit.

I say take the fame away.  When these events occur, report the news.  Cover the story.  But keep the killer's name and identity a secret.  Never report on what was found at his apartment, on his computer, or written in a diary.  Don't tell how the crime was carried out, how many guns or explosives were in the criminal's possession, or what organizations he was associated with.  Leave relatives and associates alone.

When referring to the killer, use derogatory language.  Call him a coward, a lunatic, a fool.  Use the media for a campaign to destroy his image.  Never use his name, but make sure that anyone who does discover his identity will have for him only a feeling of disdain.

Let's stop making heroes of murderers.

Eddie Van Halen is the Greatest Guitar Player of all Time

How the solid-body guitar came to be is of some dispute.  Most will agree, though, that Les Paul helped to make it successful.  Chuck Berry and Buddy Guy both influenced Rock n Roll.  The Beatles changed the perception of guitar music forever.  Jimmy Hendrix found new and interesting sounds.  Eric Clapton and Carlos Santana both demonstrate some of the greatest technical skill in the industry.  Laurence Juber has a unique style that is simply amazing.  But as talented and important as these guitarists are, none have contributed more than Eddie Van Halen.

Eddie took the skills, talents, and discoveries of his predecessors and raised them to new heights.  He helped develop the "Super Strat" to create new sounds that would have made Hendrix smile.  His speed, skill and precision compare with the guitar greats, both then and now.  He plays Rock, Blues, Classical, and Finger Style with incredible skill and his own unique flavor.  He made "tapping" and "shredding" mainstream guitar concepts, influencing the next two generations of guitar players.  Today, he continues to astound guitar fans with his skill and innovation.

2007 Eddie Van Halen solo

God Doesn't Use Scales

Egyptian mythology talked about the judgement of Osiris, who would weigh a dead person's heart against a feather to determine its final fate.  The Muslim faith teaches that human souls are punished or rewarded according to the shape of the soul as determined by how they lived their lives.  Hindu and Buddhism teach of a path for approaching perfection through enlightenment.

God doesn't do any of these things.

God is perfect.  The incarnation of absolute good.  God defines good and is entirely devoid of evil.  Being mostly good is not good enough for God.  Even a minute trace of evil will alienate us from God.  Weighing our souls will not determine if we're good enough to go to heaven.  It will simply tell us how far we are separated from God.

Imagine a glass of filtered water.  It's pure, clean, cool, and clear, completely without contaminant.

Would you drink it?  Of course.  It's pure.

Now take a drop of blood from a person with a disease.  Mix the drop of blood into the water until it's completely dissolved.

Will you drink it now?

Why not?  It's still clear and cool.  The contaminant is so small it can't be seen.  The water is almost completely clean.  Isn't it clean enough?

Of course not.

And neither are we.

Christianity is unique in that it teaches that we are all unclean.  Some more than others, but all of us fall short of God's requirement of purity.  If we were to join with Him, we would contaminate Him and he would no longer be pure.

There are no scales.  There is no need to judge.  We are simply not good enough for Him.

Except we are.

God loves us, so He gave us a way.  Christ is the bridge to God.  He assumes our imperfections, cleansing us, and allowing us to approach God.

Because of Christ, we can all be good enough.  But we do have to choose Christ.

The choice is ours.

There are no scales.

Sunday is National Ice Cream Day

Article: Top 10 places to get ice cream in the US



Sunday is National Ice Cream Day.  It's our patriotic duty to eat ice cream this weekend!

In 1984, Ronald Regan declared July to be National Ice Cream Month, with the 3rd Sunday (Sundae?) of the month being National Ice Cream Day.

To celebrate, there are special offers available at ice cream stores across the country.

Carvel Ice Cream is offering kids free cones on Sunday.

Dippin Dots has free dots with a coupon on July 14th.

Sonic is offering half priced ice cream shakes all summer long.

Lots of other ice cream freebies and deals are out there if you look.  Be American.  Celebrate Sunday with a scoop or two!

This is NOT a Bible study

Read article here:  Phoenix preacher jailed in zoning dispute

See Michael Salman's vidoe here: Pastor Goes To Jail For Home Worship




Michael Salman would have us believe a lie.

On July 9th, Salman was sentenced to 60 days in jail and a $12,000 fine for holding Bible studies in his home.  At first this sounds outrageous, especially in America, but there's more to the story.

Salman wants us to believe he is simply having friends and family over for a private study.  This is far from the truth.  On his property, Salman has erected a 2000 square foot structure in which he holds regular scheduled services complete with seating for as many as 40 people at a time.  Frequently, attendees are not known to the Salmans.  There is signage in the front yard designating the property as a church.  Services are held routinely, with additional meetings for prayer and baptisms.  In 2008, Salman applied for, and received tax exempt status for the property, designating it as church property.

This is not a simple Bible study being held in a private residence.  This is an established church attempting to misrepresent itself for the purpose of avoiding state and local building ordinances.

Salman should be held accountable by his government.  And by his fellow Christians.  Deception is the Devil's tool, not God's.

Does God Exist?

Does God exist?

I've always believed He does.  As a young child, I realized there was an intelligent presence too great for me to understand.  He was good and I could talk to him whenever I wanted.  He cared about me.  I liked having Him around.

I wasn't raised in a religious home.  I attended church occasionally, but more as a novelty than a habit.  My father is agnostic and my mother ambivalent.  The choice of whether to believe in God was completely mine.  Except it wasn't.  God chose me.  How could I not believe?

René Descartes used a priori reasoning to prove the existence of God.  His argument said that God has to exist because we conceive imperfection, implying perfection.  God is that perfection.  It's like our concept of light.  We would not have a word for darkness if there was no such thing as light.  A blind person doesn't perceive darkness.  They have no word for it, just as we have no word for what we see when we look out the back of our heads.  Without the contrast, there is no reason to create a label.  We label imperfection because we perceive perfection, which is God.

Science tends to avoid the question of God's existence.  Discovery science is a method of disproving theory.  You create a rational theory, then try to prove it's wrong.  If you can't disprove it, you assume it's true (until someone else disproves it later...).  God, as a theory, doesn't seem rational to many scientists, and He can't be disproved using available tools. 

Maybe scientists just haven't found their way to God yet.  Maybe someday they will find the mathematical equation that rationalizes a God theory.

Until then, I will continue to believe on faith.

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

This should alarm you...

Read the Forbes Magazine article here: 
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms



The United Nations, as a body, is not fond of gun ownership.  They have been trying for years to restrict or eliminate the ownership of firearms by private citizens.  This month, UN representatives are meeting to discuss small-arms treaties to combat terrorism and international crime.  There is not much new about the proposed treaties.  They seem to be discussing the same gun ownership restrictions proposed in the past: gun registration and the criminalization of certain types of guns.

For this treaty to be ratified by the US, it would have to be negotiated by the White House, then passed by a 2/3 majority of the Senate.  Senators are generally opposed to the bill because of its threat to the US Constitution and our national sovereignty.  As a result, it is unlikely that the US will enter into this kind of treaty.

We currently have a law on the books preventing the federal government from spending tax dollars to promote a UN gun treaty.  Apparently, George Soros has decided to front the money for advertising to promote whatever treaty the UN comes up with.

If this treaty were to ratified, it would do two things.  First, it would relinquish a piece of US sovereignty to a foreign government.  This is a dangerous precedent, but not nearly as dangerous as the second point.  Ratifying this treaty would challenge the authority of the US Constitution.  If the President and the Senate can bypass the constitutional amendment process through a simple treaty ratification, the document will become far less effective.  Since modification of the Constitution is supposed to require consent of the states, this would be a serious blow to state rights and the 10th Amendment.

This treaty must be opposed, regardless of anyone's opinions on gun ownership.

Best Amusement Park

Cedar Point is the best amusement park in the US, possibly the world.

I've been to Edgewater and Boblo Island back in the day.  I've visited the Disney parks, Busch Gardens, Universal Studios, Adventure Land, and a variety of others, both permanent and temporary while growing up.

Cedar Point beats them all.

For me, it's all about the roller coasters.  Nothing beats the thrill of a speeding train barreling down a curvy track while passengers scream in delight.  The sun in your eyes, the wind in your hair, the hint of primal fear in the pit of your gut as a small part of your brain becomes convinced you are about to die.  There's nothing like it.

Cedar Point has the most and the best roller coasters around.  Occasionally, another park will come out with a better coaster, but none of them can challenge Cedar Point's claim for the greatest number of quality roller coasters on the planet.

Win.

Say 'No' to Sin-Tax

Article:   Roll-your-own cigarette stores going up in smoke


Sin-taxes place a tax penalty on vices.  Vices are easy targets.  They tend to be uniformly accepted as unnecessary and, sometimes, destructive.  Not everyone participates in a particular vice.  Of those who do participate, many will lie about the extent of their participation, even to themselves.  There is often guilt accosiated with participation.

The most common vices include smoking tobacco, consuming alcohol, patronizing the sex industry, and gambling.

All of the common vices are subject to special taxes.  The public accepts this, since most people don't consider themselves to be subject to those taxes, or don't wish to admit that they are.  They see it as a tax-on-others.  They also see the tax as a deterrent to what is commonly seen as deviant behavior.

In the above article, the government has teamed up with big-tobacco to penalize smokers while eliminating a competitor.  Government gets to manipulate behavior while increasing the corporate profits of major campaign contributors.  It's a win-win... Unless you're a smoker or a small business owner.

Sin-taxes are are a form of bad government.  They fail the role-of-government test in several ways.  They threaten personal liberty by allowing the government to penalize legal, but socially unacceptable behavior.  They discriminate by selecting a segment of society for higher taxation, the revenue of which benefits another segment, or society at large.  They distort the market, affecting businesses and jobs.  They often increase crime by creating black markets, or by driving the activity underground where it is likely to be less regulated.

The recent Supreme Court decision on healthcare has allowed for a sin-tax on healthcare -- or, more precisely, the failure to purchase healthcare.  There have been proposals for sin-taxes on sweets, salt, and fast foods by the self-appointed food police.

Taxation should always be fair and blind.  It should not be used to target a segment of society.  It should never be used to control societal behavior.  Taxes that promote criminal activity should be quickly eliminated.

Sin-taxes are an absolute fail.

Strip Searching Children

Read article here: Assistant Principal Strip-Searches Third Grader Over Missing $20


This above article is about poor judgement and the abuse of authority.

A 10 year old boy was falsely accused of stealing $20 from a fellow student.  After he was strip-searched by the assistant principal, the money was discovered by another teacher.

The boy's mother was never called.  The administrator considered $20 to be a valid excuse to humiliate this child.  Reasonable doubt and the cost of liberty were never considered.  The school board is supporting the search.

I can understand this kind of action if there is a potential for injury to a student or a teacher.  If there is a reasonable suspicion that a student possesses a weapon or drugs, a search may be necessary, possibly before a parent can be found.

But for $20?  Are our children's rights worth so little?

Another reason to homeschool our kids next year.

It's Time for Another Revolution

Text of the Declaration of Independence


Thomas Jefferson was a legal and historical scholar with an ideal.  He, along with the founding fathers, believed that history could be used as a predictor of the future.  His dream was to break away from history's cycles of oppression by creating a system of government that would limit government power.

Government is important.  Our original system, under the Articles of Confederation, showed us that a strong central government is essential for a nation to succeed.  To help keep the strength of the central government from leading to oppression of the people, the framers studied history and political philosophy to discover a method of checks and balances to limit the power of government.

In 1788, the US Constitution was ratified, going into effect in 1789.  Since then, the members of government have tried to break from the original intent of limiting government power.

Today, we are failing our history test.  History clearly tells us not to trust government.  It tells us not to become dependent on government to provide for us.  It warns against deficit spending, except during times of war.  It informs us of the danger of generational debt.  History clearly shows us the pain and suffering caused by government oppression and the subjugation of the people.

We are warned, but we are ignoring the warning.  Most Americans are remarkably ignorant of history and political philosophy.  As a result, we are making the exact mistakes history warns us against.  We cherry-pick history to support our pet ideologies.  We quote fools to push selfish agendas.  We give up personal liberty to promote our own laziness and irresponsibility in the name of compassion and generosity.

Pure capitalism works best in an environment of anarchy.  Non-government allows the greed of capitalism to flourish in a Darwinistic manner.  Pure communism also works best in anarchy, but only when practiced by non-humans, since it requires the complete absence of greed and laziness.  Government is necessary, in part, to regulate the economic system.  It's a necessary evil used to counter the evil of an unregulated economy.

Government and economic systems are like the balance of microbes in the the human body.  Bacteria and yeast, for instance, both live in the human host.  They both serve their individual purposes, keeping the host healthy.  They keep each other in balance by constantly competing.  If one microbe gains an advantage over the other, the host will become ill.  It's only through balance that health is maintained.

In the 19th century, our government was a bit too weak, allowing capitalism to cause economic oppression of certain segments of society.  As government increased in strength, the resulting balance made our nation healthier, eventually resulting in the greatest nation the world had ever seen.  In the latter half of the 20th century, however, we allowed the government to become too strong.  By the mid 1970's, we started to see that imbalance affect the health of the host.  Now our nation is beginning to suffer the oppression of a government that has become too strong.

As it gains strength, our government will continue to grab more power for itself.  The recent Supreme Court decision has opened the door to remarkable oppression.  To get a real feel for the slow change occurring in our country, imagine bringing someone from 1920 forward in time.  Think of their likely reaction to airport security, smoking laws, DUI checkpoints, modern social security, gun regulation, drug regulation, modern tax laws, the Patriot Act, etc.  Yes there are changes that have improved society (i.e. racism and child abuse), but the changes in government power are alarming.

It may not be too late.  It's time for another revolution.  A bloodless one this time, working within the system, but a revolution none the less.

Is Global Warming So Bad?

It's still open to debate whether the Earth is really increasing in average temperature.  To trend average temperatures, we need to accurately track them for a pretty long period of time.  Some of the records we have a suspect.  Of those deemed reliable, the trend may not suggest a real change.

Most people do believe there has been an increase in average temperature, however.  The Northern ice caps have receded somewhat.  The Antarctic Peninsula has retreated significantly, even if the continents other glaciers are increasing in size.  The Earth's oceans have been increasing their levels since 1950, with an increase in the rate since the late 1990s.

Some believe this is caused by CO2.  Others claim it's a natural cycle due, in part, to the Earth's current orbit around the sun, which is less elliptical than in the past.

But does it matter?

What does global warming really mean for us?

It means longer growing seasons, more farm land, more room for expansion, and, possibly, more beach front.  It will cost less to heat our houses and less to feed our people.  Summers will be longer.  Winters will be shorter.

Will the land change?  Sure.  Death Valley could become a sea again.  Northern Africa and the Middle East could see rain again, allowing for cultivation of the land.  Deserts may move.  beaches may recede.  Loss of glaciers could reduce available fresh water.

But we'll adjust.

Winter is hard on humans.  We have to take some extreme measures to live in cold climates.  Global warming could allow us to spend less time fighting to survive and more time advancing civilization.

Global warming could be a really good thing.  Until the next ice age...

Salaries Are Not Too High

See White House salaries here: 2012 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff

The White House staffing budget has increased this year.  Every time this happens, critics complain that our fiscal reform should start with the White House and Congressional salaries.  I disagree.

The above link lists the salaries for the various positions in the White House.  The President makes $400K per year, significantly less than LBJ made in the 1960's when adjusted for inflation.  Members of Congress make $174K (leaders get a bit more).  This is about the same as the 1960's compensation when adjusted.  Members are eligible for pensions after 5 years, but can't receive those pensions until age 55-62 (depending on years served) unless they serve a total of 25 years at which point they can start receiving their pension immediately.

I don't have a problem with these compensations plans.  They are all completely in line with industry standards.  The entire congressional and presidential budgets combined total around $6 billion.  That seems like a lot, but it's extremely insignificant when we consider the nation's total budget is over $6 Trillion.  To put it in perspective, if our family makes $60,000/year, the cost of running the household would be about $60.  I frequently have that much in my wallet...

Our money problems in this country are not a result of operations spending.  Our problems are a direct result of entitlement spending.  As a nation, we seem to be "Penny wise and pound foolish".  We need to take on some much bigger cuts than Congressional and White House salaries.

Thoughts on SCOTUS and the Healthcare Bill

Washington Post article: Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health-care law


Thursday's ruling on the Healthcare bill was strange.

The court is predominately conservative right now, with the majority being Republican appointees.  Recent rulings have tended to support Republican positions with a bit of a "strict Constitutionalist" theme.

Justice Kennedy tends to vote according to his perception of personal liberty.  Justice Thomas usually votes according to a strict interpretation of the letter of the law.  The other 5 conservatives seem to fall somewhere in between, and seem to be more influenced by politics than these two.  The four liberal jurists seem to trend the same, but from a Democrat/liberal perspective.

Justice Roberts deviated greatly from the court's typical trends with his decision.  He basically rewrote the bill's debate and language in order to shoe-horn it into a very tenuous interpretation of Constitutionality.  He is being applauded by the more liberal politicians, lawyers, and judges, but the more intellectually honest folks are left scratching their heads.  The majority opinion seems to have been written, not to discover the answer, but to support the preconception; to push an agenda.

The problem is, we're left with no idea what that agenda is.  Roberts made a real effort to avoid expanding the commerce authority of Congress.  He criticized the legislation in general.  He seemed to criticized the general public for electing people who would frame this kind of legislation.  It almost seems like he upheld the bill against his better judgement.

I can't help but wonder if Roberts has been subjected to some kind of extreme political pressure, bribed, or blackmailed.  He hasn't been in office long enough to judge him decisively, but the ruling seems to be out of character.  Justice Kennedy is reported to have appeared outwardly angry with Roberts during the reading of the decision.

I also can't figure out who benefits from this decision.  Obama has certainly won a political victory.   The fallout from this victory, however, may benefit Republicans in the fall's elections.  The TEA party movement gained popularity as a direct result of the healthcare bill.  The SCOTUS decision has already begun to rally TEA party supporters and to fill Republican and conservative candidate coffers.

On the other hand, Obama and Democrat senators can point to this piece of signature legislation as a significant victory.  They can claim to have kept promises and to have benefited a large segment of society (a controversial claim, but one that many voters will respond to).

I guess we'll just have to watch it all unfold. 

SCOTUS Got it Right

Read the Supreme Court's decision here:  ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law is right on.  The original law included several parts that usurped or superseded Federal law.  These had to be eliminated.  I have never supported the part of the bill that allowed police profiling for the investigation of immigration status.  This kind of activity would be fine if it only affected illegals, but it’s probable that such a policy would also affect legal residents and citizens.

The Supreme Court did not strike down the portion of the bill allowing for the verification of immigration status secondary to detainment or arrest for another infraction.  This is completely in line with accepted practice.  Currently, an officer running an ID during a traffic stop, for instance, will check for warrants.  Adding immigration status to this check is completely appropriate.  Will it be abused?  Yes.  Authority is always subject to some abuse.  But it won’t see a greater level of abuse than warrant checks.

Unfortunately, some of the news media sources are misreporting this decision.  The Supreme Court has not upheld the secondary immigration check in the bill, it has simply chosen not to strike it down.  It has sent this portion back to the lower court to monitor for abuse.  If abuse occurs, this portion of the law can still be struck.  Also, they have not allowed for profiling as reported yesterday by the BBC.  This portion of the bill was struck down.

As for the Federal Government’s failure to uphold our nation’s immigration laws…  I’ll have to address that in another post.

BTW: For the record:  Illegal aliens are “illegal aliens” or “illegals”.  They are in this country in violation of the law, regardless of age or circumstance.  They are not “undocumented workers”, or “undocumented immigrants”.  They are non-citizens engaged in illegal behavior.  We can offer amnesty, we can change our laws, but we cannot change the fact that these individuals are violating our current law.

Censoring Google

US News and World Report article:  Should Google Comply With Government Censorship Requests?

Google's Government Transparency Report

Comment from Dorothy Chou, Google's Senior Policy Analyst

Our First Amendment to the US Constitution severely hinders the US government's ability to censor the exchange of information and ideas.  Unfortunately, this limitation is somewhat unique to the US, and even here, those limitations can be challenged.

Google is the most successful corporate presence in the internet.  It's basically the glue that holds it all together.  This results in gross attempts by the world's governments, including the US, to limit and control the information and content Google makes available to its users.  Sometimes, government requests for the elimination of content or data makes sense.  Sites engaged in illegal activity can and should be shut down.  Unfortunately, governments don't tend to stop there, often requesting the elimination of sites that criticize or challenge political entities or public figures.  These kinds of attempts to protect the government from the people should never be tolerated.

I applaud Google for the stand they have made.  Government requests are considered and, where appropriate, complied with.  Inappropriate requests, however, are ignored, even when submitted in the guise of court orders.  I consider this policy to be responsible and ethical.

Global Warming

Article: Green ‘drivel’ exposed

Michael Creighton Speech


The global climate is changing, just as it has for the last four or five billion years.  Thank God.

Our earth didn't have an atmosphere capable of sustaining life until about 500 million years ago.  If not for global climate change, we wouldn't be here!

Our world is an evolving planet.  The atmosphere, magnetic fields, temperatures, orbital path, etc. all change continuously.  In just the short period of time humans have been recording our history, we have seen evidence of fantastic changes.

In recent history, we humans have added some additional greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.  We know this is true because we can measure it.  What we absolutely do not know is what effect this has on the environment.  There is simply not enough data to predict whether human contribution will help, hurt, or fail to effect the environment.

Fortunately, the Global Climate Change religion is fast losing ground.  The zealots are losing support as more and more people come to realize they have been duped by the pseudo-science political machine.  Objective scientists are finally taking an unbiased look at this field of study.

Is mankind hurting the environment in a way that will cause it to affect our ability to live here?  No one knows.  Should we study the issue and make appropriate changes?  Absolutely.  Should we make unwise, reactive decisions in response to emotional hysteria and junk science?  Absolutely not!

MSNBC: Yellow Journalism at its worst.

Video: NBC edits Romney rally speech to portray candidate as out of touch

yellow journalism

n.

Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers.

 

 

Yellow journalism is not necessarily media bias.  Media usually is somewhat biased.  A bit of bias allows the reader or viewer to seek news sources that are less challenging to his or her own views, making the coverage more comfortable.  This is common across the news spectrum.

Yellow journalism is the distortion of news for a defined purpose.

In the above link, MSNBC uses creative editing to remove the context of a Mitt Romney speech.  This causes the video to have a completely new meaning that is presented as news.  The result is a clear attempt to sway public opinion about the credibility of a political candidate.  The sensational nature of the distorted story appeals to Romney detractors, helping MSNBC to maintain viewership.  This is a clear violation of news media integrity.

 

Of the major players, CNN and FOX are consistently the least biased.  CNN leans slightly left in the news coverage, FOX, slightly right.  Editorial content is somewhat left at CNN, and decidedly right at FOX.  Other news agencies tend to lean left with MSNBC being the most liberal.  I'm actually OK with this.  Anyone wanting a real balance of news can switch between channels for different perspectives to create a clearer picture.  I personally toggle between CNN and FOX with a bit of BBC thrown in for a better global perspective.

What MSNBC has done here, however, is not simple bias.  This is grossly irresponsible reporting.  They should be ashamed.

Respect the Vets

Video: Thank You For Your Service (A Moment of Truth)



I love the fact that we Americans are showing respect for our active service men and women.  I like the way they are given special attention while in uniform.  I'm glad they can return from overseas deployment to a thankful nation that values their efforts and sacrifices.

But I feel for the veterans.  Former service men and women who left their families to fight in wars sometimes came home to a hostile nation that held the uniform in disdain.  As we celebrate the active military, we often forget the unsung sacrifices of a whole generation of heroes.

Thank a vet.

Stylish Pooches

See article here: The dog that's just dyeing to be a tiger


My first reaction was a bit of disgust.  But then I thought about it.

The recent up-scale trend in China is to take your dog to a hair stylist.  Dogs are transformed into panda bears (real pandas are illegal to own in China), tigers, lions, camels, or whatever the owner and stylist can dream up.

It seem incredibly indulgent, and maybe a bit weird, but I'm guessing the dogs like it.  Aside from the occasional costume prop, they probably don't notice their new style.  But I'm sure they notice the attention they get.  Dogs are social creatures.  I'm guessing these pooches aren't filing any complaints.

Style on, Fido.  You look marvelous.  And remember, as Fernando said, "It's better to look good than to feel good, darlin'".

Ford Rocks.

Ford is the best car company these days.

My dad retired from GM Truck & Bus, and I've owned more GM products than all other brands combined, but Ford wins.

Yes.  I have owned Japanese and German.  Nice cars, but no better than American.  It's more hype than anything else.  American cars easily compete with foreign these days.

My last few cars have been a Chrysler, a Toyota, a Ford, a Buick, and four Chevy's.  I love GM products.  Driving a Chevy is like coming home.  But my Ford Five Hundred was perhaps the best car I've ever owned.  Reliable, comfortable, loaded with amenities, just an all around great car.  I love the Suburban I'm driving now, but that Ford had it all together.

I recently rented a Chrysler 300.  Overall, I liked it, but the fit and finish was just not up to modern standards.  That's entirely inexcusable.

I travel a lot, so I've driven Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Mercedes, BMW...

In the end, I'm still a loyal GM guy.  But if I have to make an objective decision, and choose the best over-all brand, it's Ford.

2012 Graduates

See video here: Speech

In David McCullough's 2012 commencement speech to Wellesley High School graduates, he tells the outgoing students that they are not special.

I agree.

The world tends to be a very tough place.  Unfortunately, we don't seem to do a very good job, anymore, of preparing our kids for this reality.  We often protect and pamper them, never letting them see the unfairness, ugliness, and selfishness that is so often present in the life of an adult.

Most people graduate from high school.  Virtually everyone holds a job at some point in their life.  Most people register to vote.  Most get married and have kids.  None of these things is special.

What makes us special, what makes us stand out in the world, is our ability to do what others cannot.

A soldier, fire fighter, or police officer who has the courage to place another's life above his or her own is special.  A doctor or nurse who forgoes food and sleep to care for victims of a tragedy is special.  A teacher, pastor, or counselor who makes the time and effort to get through to a troubled teen, the entrepreneur who risk financial security to chase a dream the politician who goes against his or her party to stand up for what's right, these people are special. These are the people deserve our regard, respect, and appreciation.

Specialness is earned; it's not inherent.  You can't be born special.  So one else can make you special.

Anyone who wants to be special must take the risk, make the sacrifices, and do the work.  You will get help along the way, but you will also find obstacles.  You will experience failure.  You will be rejected, betrayed, and ridiculed.  It's the courage and tenacity to strive on, regardless of the cost that leads to specialness.

Be special.  And God bless.