Snowdays...What's it Like?

Today was a snowday for many people.  Many students around the world don't know what a snow day is like.  This got me thinking:

What is it like for the people that have never seen snow?  And the people that never will, in Africa for instance?

What is it like to not have a Super Bowl and everything that comes with it in your culture?  Or Christmas and Thanksgiving and all the tidings?

What is it really like for the three billion people that live on less than two dollars a day?  For the child born with AIDS?  For the refugee?  What is it really like for the woman in a Muslim country that is raped and can't recover her reputation?

What is it really like to grow up in a radical Muslim family?  Or a radical Christian family?  

What is it like for the orphan or the adopted kid?

What is it like to live alone and unloved?  To be homeless?

What does it feel like to get a life sentence?  What does it feel like after you've spent thirty years in prison?

What does it feel like to attain your life's goal?

What does the fear feel like for the soldier in his (or her) first gunfight on the battlefield? What is the feeling after a pilot drops their first bomb?

How is life as a president's child?  Or to know you're the most powerful man in the world?  To not have the right to vote every November?

Americans have a hard time identifying with others in other countries.  They have a difficult time putting themselves in another's shoes.  When everyone has such a different background and a different personality, it is easy to say why people don't get along.  But I believe that if people stopped and listened to each other for awhile alot of problems could be avoided.

Tolerance and Love

I'm not against the movement to improve the quality of life for those of the homosexual persuasion.  This movement encompasses many streams who are fighting for many different things.  The most easily definable things are homosexual marriage (and/or civil unions), laws that protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, church membership, and the right to adopt.  I am not necessarily against these things.  I'm a strong supporter of civil unions and am somewhat undecided about marriage.  (More on that in a blog soon.)  I strongly support the movement to help gays live a more equal life and hope a more comfortable environment is being created for them.  While one may disagree with the lifestyle, it is certain that they should not placed in an awkward position.  The high rate of mental problems and suicides of those in this community is a sad manifestation of the discrimination, whether it be overt or hard to see, that befalls these individuals.  

However, I am deeply distraught and disturbed by what I see as the radical stream of the homosexual rights movement.  The movement has become very aggressive and very angry. They have stormed into churches and made scenes.  They have, on several occasions, gone into churches, run up front, and thrown literally thousands of sexually explicit pages of material in the air (to be cleaned up by those at the church) and run out.  They have made a circus, literally, dressing up as animals and clowns to disturb others, out of communion at a few churches. Recently, an elderly woman kneeling and praying by a church during a discussion for those with concerns about same-sex marriage was hit and had a crucifix knocked out of her hands.  They are taking kindergarteners to same-sex weddings for school field trips.  They are insidiously angry at those who don't agree with them.  

When Rick Warren was chosen by Barack Obama to give the invocation at his inauguration, there was a culmination of this anger.  He's been compared to a Nazi, a KKK member, been called "evil", "hateful and ignorant", "gluttonous", "homophobic", and many have criticized his supposed "bigotry".  There was a large demonstration in Washington against him the day of the inauguration, as well as many others across the country.  A website, called "dumprickwarren.com" was also created.  

I like Rick Warren a great deal.  I certainly disagree with a good amount of his theology, but the way he has transformed the Evangelical community, to be not just relevant, but to be a force for social justice, should be greatly admired.  He should be thanked and honored for his work on AIDS, abstinence education, third-world education and literacy, the climate, and poverty.

It baffles me to no end why people would be upset with his choice for the invocation.  If he was the only speaker I could understand somewhat.  However, Gene Robinson, the first openly-gay man (or woman) to be ordained as an Episcopal bishop also offered a prayer during inauguration festivities.  The Gay Mans' Choir also performed.  

Rick Warren is NOT a bigot.  He is NOT homophobic.  He is CERTAINLY NOT hateful.  I have never heard him say anything hateful about gays, nor anything slanderous.  What I have heard him say is that we should love gays and support them.  In fact, when Bishop Robinson, who has been extremely controversial and divisive in his comments, was invited, Warren applauded the decision to invite Robinson.  

It doesn't make sense to get so excited over Rick Warren.  He is one of the best-selling authors in the world and stands as a sort of bridge between liberals and conservatives, both religiously and politically.  There is no doubt he is one of the most influential men in America.  He is also clearly an affable, jolly fellow.   Barack Obama choose him because he is popular and because he wants to represent everyone as president.  So why would it make people so upset?

The radical gay community is so naive, confused, and arrogant that it now sees anyone who disagrees with them as bigoted and homophobic.  Aren't gays trying to spread tolerance and love?  Or do they just want whatever helps them the most?  By the standard definition of the word they, the radical homosexual rights movement, is filled with bigotry.  They are certainly hateful.  They are the ones who are truly being intolerant and unloving.  They are the hypocrites.  They know nothing of true evil and true hatred.  Their struggle is not the same of blacks in the 60s.      

What they don't seem to understand is that you're not going to change the minds of religious people.  A belief that homosexuality is a sin is not just an opinion, it is a sacred belief.  It is something that, according to those who do believe it is a sin, God doesn't like.  One's belief about homosexuality is a deeply personal conviction.  Nobody is going to be able to change someone's mind that believes homosexuality is wrong on religious grounds.  And, in fact, it is wrong to make them forget about it.  In fact, it is just plain dumb to criticize someone's belief when you don't understand their faith.  How can you criticize somebody who is trying to do what their faith tells them?

What can a Christian who believes homosexual relations are wrong do?  They can love the gay. They can pray for them.  They can be friendly and not judgmental while still believing it is wrong.  What more could a gay person ask for from a person who believes their lifestyle is wrong?  It is certainly more tolerant and better than their reaction.  But the radical gay movement doesn't see this.  Tom Hanks recently said that those who supported the California ban on same-sex marriages (Proposition 8) in California are "un-American".  Thankful, he apologized.  What is un-American, is when people deem anyone who disagrees with them hateful and evil.

Fulfilled?

Yesterday was Martin Luther King, jr, day.  Over forty-five years ago, he delivered his famous "I have a Dream" speech.  The question I have heard tossed around, and have thought about, is whether his dream has been fulfilled.

I believe MLK jr's dream hasn't been fulfilled.  

We have taken HUGE steps to attain his dream.  Segregation no longer exists, at least legal segregation.  That, of course, means everything.  They don't have to use separate facilities, they can go to white hospitals, schools, eateries, etc.   Blacks are now going to college and pursuing careers they want.  Now a black man is going to be the president of the United States.  We have come So, so, So far to a place where blacks can live equally.

However, the dream is not fulfilled.  Though it may sound strange, this election is proof that the dream has not been fulfilled.  MLK jr's dream was to have people judge on the content of someone's character, not their skin color.  To translate this into political terms, this mean voting on issues not race.  However, this election was partially decided because people voted for Obama because of his race.  The mere fact that his race was an issue shows this has not been fulfilled.  In a society that is truly harmonious racially, this would not even be talked about.  

There is still a higher level of drug use among blacks.  Still much lower income levels.  Out of wedlock births and divorce rates among blacks are substantially higher.  The imprisonment/incarceration rate of blacks is still higher.  Finally, almost fifty-five years after the Brown vs. Board of education, the academic achievement gap between blacks and other races remains largely unchanged, and black, urban schools are largely failing.

It is another discussion why the dream hasn't been fulfilled.  I believe a large part of it is because blacks have not taken responsibility.  they have largely not taken hold of what they've been given.  Honestly, I believe this is the biggest problem.  In some ways, the government has not fulfilled its duty either and has ignored the problems.  In some ways, whites have not gone far enough to create an equal environment.  But the fact is, the dream hasn't been lived.  The color of people's skin is still noteworthy and noticeable.  People of other races can still feel out of place at times.  It is important, however, to focus on the great progress that has been made, so we can look at the potential of the future.

NOTE: I refer to black people as that, not African-American.  I believe that term, and defining people primarily by their regional ancestry is a product and manifestation of race problems and I believe it furthers the problem.  It shouldn't be noted what region people are from. People are Americans, and they all come from different places.

Excited about Obama?

Millions of conservatives are scared silly of Barack Obama and his policies.  They are offshoring bank accounts, setting up medical services outside the U.S., and purchasing guns at an increased rate. (So at least gun retailers have a little business in this economy.)  While it may be inappropriate to call me a conservative, (I haven't found anything to call myself and don't really care to, but it would probably be best to call myself a "liberal conservative",  as the term goes) the fact is that I did vote for John McCain.  I disagree with many tenets of Barack Obama's governmental philosophy, most basically his opinion on the role of government.  There are, however, many notable things I do agree with him with, while disagreeing with John McCain. (And there are even more disagreements I have with Bush administration policy than I do with McCain.)  But as I see the events of inauguration week unfold, I ask myself, should I excited for this?

One of the things that scared me the most about Obama's election was that one party would have control of the government.  The level of control the Democrats have will be unprecedented in recent history.  It is not the fact that it is the Democrats who will hold the power, but the fact that any party will.  I believe power corrupts, and I believe that both parties abuse their power.  I think it is better when there are two parties in Washington that both have legitimate power.  I believe in the importance of checks and balances.  During the campaign, I was distraught because Obama was preaching bipartisanship while his record showed virtually none.  That fact could really not be debated, but his words could magically make people believe. So, his record coupled with a Democratic Congress and likely Supreme Court, didn't make me feel too secure.  Not to mention his oft-talked about actions that seemed arrogant.  (Like his presidential seal and stage set at his DNC speech.)

However, Obama has THOROUGHLY IMPRESSED me with his humility and his pragmatism during his transition.  I have been stunned In his choices for his cabinet, to what he has said, to the polices he wants to work toward.  He has even started disagreeing with Nancy Pelosi before he is in office, which is a positive development.  I now have faith, which I don't think is blind faith, that Obama will be more in his policies and will be more moderate.  

I would like to think that Obama will lead to a new era of politics.  To a fresh start.  Not a messianic era where everything will be solved, as some would like to think.  But a fresh start for a tired and troubled country.  Politics is cyclical.  In the U.S., there have been easy to recognize periods like the Era of Good Feelings, the Gilded Age, and the era of laizze-faire Republicans in the early 20th century.  In the words of Obama, I'm not naive enough to think one election will change everything.  Racial politics will still be there, though hopefully to lesser extent.  I hope his presidency means a lessening of the power of racial politics.  I am also not naive enough to think one election will totally change people from their uncivil political discourse.  I don't think that is possible.  I believe race problems, and to a much larger extent corrosive political discussion, are human nature.  Seemingly, anyone with a brain could realize that our left vs. right, them vs. us politics, with our hateful talk and mindless, ignorant thinking is immature, stupid, wrong, and very unproductive.  Apparently, though, most Americans don't have a brain because they haven't learned this lesson.  And I don't think they ever fully will.  I wish people would transform the language these use to talk about politics and thoughts on "the other side", but that is unlikely they will give up the grip of this type of politics  So, even though I think there will always be unkind political debate, I do hope this election changes the tone a little bit.

Also, I am happy the inauguration is finally here after what has seemed like years since the election.

Lastly, of course, is the fact that he is a black man (or half black) being elected.  (Of course historically he would have been considered just "black" because he has one drop of black blood in him.)  I am ELATED, THRILLED, ECSTATIC that a black man is being sworn in as president.  I can't even put into words what this means.  

So, today, I am excited that Barack Obama is being sworn in.  I would have loved for it to be John McCain.  I would have liked for it to be Hilary Clinton.  I've always thought she would make a very fine president.  However, I am tempted to almost say that I could would rather have Obama than anyone else being elected.  To me, right now, I am almost more concerned that there is a change than the specific policies.  In some ways, right now I almost have a philosophy of realpolitik in regards to some policies.  I think to get this country running again, we need a total different direction, a shock.  Because it is not really how the government will operate, but the people response.  Economically, this is the big determinant.  So, today, I can really say I am excited about Barack Obama's inauguration and can enjoy it.  

Favorite Sports Teams

I've never organized my favorite sports teams by sport.  So here goes, listed in order:

College Football 

OHIO STATE

Hawa'ii

Colorado State

Clemson

Oregon 

Baseball

CINCINNATI REDS

Texas Rangers

Boston Red Sox

NFL

GREEN BAY PACKERS

Cleveland Browns

Arizona Cardinals

San Diego Chargers

College Basketball

OHIO STATE

UD

Pepperdine

Hawa'ii

Arizona

Wright State

NBA

I don't really have a favorite NBA team, because I'm not as active a fan, but I've always kind of liked the Cleveland Cavaliers, Orlando Magic, and Phoenix Suns.

NHL

I'm not really an NHL fan, but I've always kind of rooted for the Detroit Red Wings casually if I'm paying attention.

I'd be interested in anybody else's favorite teams as well.

 

How the World Runs

Last week, I saw a girl (or young woman I guess) who was carrying a purse with several buttons. Most were aimed at Republicans and Christians.  One said "Stop using Jesus as an excuse for being a narrow-minded asshole."  Another read, "Yeah, that's right Jim Bob, I'm a lesbian.  Now get back in your trailer".  Obviously, both of these were painting Republicans and Christians (or the noisy Evangelicals) as narrow-minded and dumb.  Now, both of these things can be true.  But they are overstated and Evangelicals are also given a bad name.  They are not the terrible people they are made out to be.  Possibly misguided -depending on your opinion- but not evil.  The larger point, however, is what this shows about most people.  

By the way, this girl is training to be a teacher.  Sad that someone so biased and obviously uneducated about Christians will have the access to young minds and the ability to shape them. Of course, many teachers are biased.  Sadly, they often express their bias(es) in the classroom.

The larger point though is how this girl is dealing with what she feels is oppression and stupidity.  What does she do when she thinks people hate her?  She hates them back.  Sadly, this is typical.  It's easy to hate people that hate you.  We're not taught differently.  Of course hate doesn't foster any growth, it just makes the problem worse and hurts the person who hates.

Of course, this is not Jesus' message.  He has a message of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation. He demonstrated this both during His life and on the cross.  Sadly, it's a message few understand or practice, because it's so easy to hate.  Even many of his followers don't understand.  On September 11th, terrorists hated Americans.  So what did they do?  They went and killed Americans.  After the attacks, Americans were outraged.  Which was appropriate. What did you hear?  Hate.  Hate for arabs and Muslims.  Distortions of Islam.  What else did you hear?  A called to avenge these killings through war.  

The terrorists used hate and killing.  What did American Christians want to fight back with? Hate and killing. (Some of the heaviest and strongest calls for war and support for war came from American Evangelicals.)  They stood for a recipe that will lead to years and generations more of hate and killing.  Shame on them for not accepting the message of Jesus.  Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called God's children."

Sadly, this is how the world runs.  As I've shown, even Christians use hate.  Obviously, there is alot of love in the world.  But we usually only love who we want to.  Who is easy to love.  And our hate always seems to be stronger than our love.  Few attempts at peacemaking or attempts by aid groups are successful, because only a small amount of people love their enemies, as Jesus said to do.  Not only in such global affairs, but in our personal lives.  And few problems receive lasting solutions.  Because the world runs on hate.

(NOTE: I will discuss the issue of Christian/Jew-Muslim relations in a blog soon.)

I've posted a short, related video under comments.

Malcolm X

I've always been a big fan and admirer of Malcolm X.  Years ago it was because he was a radical -something I'm always drawn to- and because he told it how it was, without fear.  I wasn't too fond of Martin Luther King, jr. because I found him to be "wimpy".  That was a very long time ago.  And even though I now believe in non-violent civil disobedience and ahimsa (and believe it is the only true, lasting solution to most conflicts) I still have a great deal of respect for Malcolm X and consider him a hero.

Firstly, because he decided to make something of himself and serve a greater purpose.  In Boston and Harlem in his young adult years he lived well.  But he was troubled, becoming a gambler and drug dealer, while also working at clubs, in prostitution rings, and and racketeering.  Ultimately he ended up in prison.

Then he did something I admire.  He decided to turn his life over to God (or what he thought was God) and serve not just himself, but others.  After he became a member of the Nation of Islam he quickly became popular and powerful in the black community.  However, he was extremely controversial.  But he didn't care.  He was constantly in danger physically, along with his wife and children.  Moreover, he was constantly insulted and jailed.  He faced the scorn of the nation.  But I have a great deal of admiration - a GREAT deal- for his courage and willingness to do whatever he thought it took to achieve equality for the black race.

After allegations of rape and misconduct against the Nation of Islam's leader, who was also his mentor and father figure, he left.  That must take a great deal of strength to leave one the most important people in your life.  (Probably the most important person in his life, maybe moreso than his wife because of what Elijah Muhammad had done for him.)

Then he did something that I find truly unique and rare.  For years he preached a gospel of hate and condoned violence against whites.  He didn't even want the help of any whites. (At the core of the Nation of Islam's teaching is that the white race not fully evolved or enlightened and is evil, because they evolved from blacks and is genetically inferior.  Also, on a side note, they believe the universe is over 76 trillion years old and the sun and moon were once one.)  After taking his Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) and other travels, he came out and said he was all wrong. He said that all races were equal and had done both good and bad things.  He now believed they could live peacefully together.  Imagine how much courage, strength, humility and commitment it took for him to admit everything he was known for, everything he had preached, everything he believed, was wrong.  The end goal and mission of ending racial hatred was so important to him that he put his pride and reputation on the line.

Needless to say, of course, this didn't go over well with the Nation of Islam.  He was now in constant threat of assassination -his family's home was also burnt down and phone threats were constant- yet he still spoke his mind and what he thought (and was) was the truth.  In the end he knew he would die soon, even arming himself and bodyguards with shotguns at all times.  Of course, he was assassinated while speaking, shot 16 times.  He ultimately gave his life for the cause he had been fighting for.    

Matthew 10:35-37 reads: He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.  And he that taketh not his cross, and follow after me, is not worthy of me.  He that finds his life shall lose it, he that taketh his life for my (and the world's) sake shall find it.  

I believe complete salvation is found when one is totally submissive and at peace with the will of God and the truth.  Malcolm X exemplified this.  He put the truth and all humanity before his mentor, his family, his ego, and even himself.  He was so dedicated to the truth and to doing what was right that he was willing to give his life for it.  Because giving his life meant the saving and enrichment of the lives of countless others.  Of course God doesn't usually call us to literally give our life.  But what He does call us to do is to everyday do the right thing, no matter what it takes or how hard it is.  To forgive, to put others first, and to not take the easy way out -continuing to be hateful or greedy or selfish.  Malcolm X did this.  And that is why I admire him so much.  

Respect

The other day I came across a website where people were discussing the possibility that King Juan Carlos of Spain will be the AntiChrist.  (Who is, by the way, Roman Catholic.)   Of course, names for the Antichrist are always being thrown out there.  Ten years ago it was Clinton.  The past few years some have said Bush.  During the campaign for the White House this year talk that Obama would become the AntiChrist reached a fever pitch.  My question is, is this really appropriate?  Should Christians be looking at others like this?  Are we not supposed to focus on the good in people instead of making people out to be evil?  Are we supposed to look at the bad in people and supposed to magnify the differences they have?  Keep in mind nobody saying this has even met King Juan Carlos.  I wonder if people really understand what they are saying.  They are saying that someone MAY BE THE ANTICHRIST. Who gave anybody the right to think about somebody in that way?  That is not our decision to judge.  To speculate about this is simply an abomination.  It is hurtful, wrong, and not at all Christian.

The Silent Epidemic

This is a subject that is very important to me personally.  

The number of deaths caused by drunk drivers each year.

2006-15,829

2005-16,885 (about 39% of all traffic deaths)

2004-16,694 (about 39%)

2003-17,013 (about 40%)

2002-17,524 (about 41%)

In 2006, 45 children (age 14 or younger) who were walking or riding a bicycle were killed by alcohol-impaired drivers.

In 2005, 856, celebrating the holidays, were killed on Christmas or New Year's Eve.

Every half an hour someone is killed by a drunk driver.

Over half of those convicted of drunk-driving are repeat offenders. 

September 11,2001: 2,974 total deaths

Since September 11, not even including the last two years, there have been 83,945 deaths caused by drunk-driving.  Which means that more than TWENTY-EIGHT times the people killed by drunk drivers than killed by terrorists that day.  Likewise, drunk driving has taken more American  lives than the War on Terror has taken.  (in terms of soldiers.)  More than twenty times more.  Yet how often do you hear about drunk-driving deaths in comparison to war deaths or terrorism-related deaths?  Perhaps they are not news because they happen so often.

The cost of the "War on Terror" to the U.S. government (and taxpayers): over $700 billion. Estimates say this number will likely grow to over $4 million.

 The U.S. government spent over $26 million on foreign aid last year (this number has grown greatly since George W. Bush took office because he has increased funding for anti-poverty and AIDS programs in Africa substantially), including about $3 billion to Israel.

Last year, the U.S.  Department of Transportation launched a "massive" new anti-drunk driving campaign.  The cost?  Seven million dollars.  How much has been spent on the "War on  Terror" so far?  Seven-hundred million dollars.  Something is backward here.  What is even more amazing, however, is that most drunk-driving advertising is done by private groups, most notably MADD, every37.com, and the American Beverage Institute.    

Drunk-driving accidents cause about $276 billion in the United States annually.

There were over 1.4 million people arrested for drunk driving last year.  However, there are an estimated 159 million episodes of drunk driving not reported each year.  Only about .05% of episodes are acted on by police.

The sad part of the equation is that this problem is totally avoidable.  If the government decided to be serious about drunk driving and crack down, the problem could be nearly eliminated within a decade.

There are several ways the government could get the situation under control.  

1.) Enact Tougher Laws.  In most states, it is a misdemeanor to drive drunk, meaning you likely won't get any jail time or suspension of license.  Drunk driving should be an automatic felony with mandatory license suspension and/or jail time.  This is one reason people drink and drive repeatedly, some over a dozen times, until they hurt someone.  They aren't scared of the consequences.  This may seem a little extreme, but this is life and death.  you are willingly putting others in grave danger.  These drivers are unfit and cannot make wise choices are be responsible. It doesn't make any sense that if you drive drunk and don't happen to hurt anybody it is a misdemeanor, but if by chance you hurt or kill someone it is a felony.  There is no difference in intent.  It is pure luck.  There is, however, a a difference in deterrence when drivers consider consequences.

2.) Don't Publicize Checkpoints.  Twenty-three major studies have that, when executed properly sobriety checkpoints are an effective means of slowing down drunk-driving.  However, that caveat "when executed properly", is a big if.  Police totally ruin the idea by releasing where they are going to be.  They broadcast it on the news before it is happening and while it is happening.  How idiotic is that?  Basically you're telling people, shouting at them, "If you drink, we'll tell you exactly where we are so don't come here and you'll be fune".  Why on earth would you announce where checkpoints were going to occur?  it makes absolutely no sense and is totally absurd.

3.) Hold alcohol-serving eateries and bars reasonably accountable.  All establishments with alcohol licenses should have a protocol for dealing with intoxicated customers who are attempting to drive.  They should also be required to notify law enforcement in such situations. Research has show that server intervention programs are effective.

4.) Require all new cars to have alcohol-resistant technology.  There are many variants of technology that easily test the blood-alcohol limit of the driver and can prevent someone intoxicated from driving.  The two most popular are a guage which requires the driver to blow into it before they are allowed to drive and a more simple device in the steering wheel that tests the perspiration on the driver's hand, as well as odor.  It may seem extreme but most states require drivers and passengers to wear seatbelts to protect themselves.  This requirement would be for the protection of others.  Moreover, why does a person have a right to drive a car if they are drunk?  Legally and morally, they don't.

5.) Lower the BAC from .08 to .05 nationwide.  Legally, drivers must blow a .08 to be arrested for driving under the influence.  However, many drivers with lower BACs cause accidents that result in deaths or injuries.  When the national BAC limit for DUIs was lowered from .10 to .08 fatalities were reduced by 7%.  .08, I believe, is still too high and unreasonable.  Four-six beers in a night will make you blow a .08 (depending on body weight on other variables).  Nobody should be driving after drinking that much.  A significant   

6.) More Consistency Nationally.  It is not a good thing that state by state it varies how likely you are to get hurt or killed by a drunk driver.  There really should be no likelihood.  Some states, however, have a 60% greater rate of alcohol-related accidents than others.  States are now graded on an A-F scale.  There needs to be more work done at the national level to organize laws from state to state.