A Small Smackerel of Extremism

I just read an article with the headline, "In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS," to which the link was shared on Facebook by a friend of the far left.  I agree that most Muslims worldwide are against ISIS, and I decided to read the article (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/).  Does anything here stick out to you as problematic?  A bit scary perhaps?  Yes, most people in these nations are against ISIS.  Great.  No surprise there.  Lebanon, 100% unfavorable view of ISIS.  Israel, 97%, with 1 % favorable and 2% who don't know.  OK.  Jordan, 94% unfavorable, 3% unfavorable.  Hmmm... Those are small percentages, but the overall numbers are starting to add up...

Palestine, we're up to 6% unfavorable.  Indonesia is at 4%, Turkey and Burkina Faso 8%.  Holy cow, Nigeria 14%?!?  Malaysia and Senegal 11%?  And what in the world is going on in Pakistan?  We have 28% there with an unfavorable view, 9% favorable, and 62% who don't know?  Are we letting anyone in here from Pakistan?  I can't believe I'm saying this, but Donald Trump is sounding less crazy suddenly (but still crazy).

Well, if we can take anything away from this one, it's that while most sane people agree that most Muslims are actually against ISIS, those small percentages sure add up pretty quickly.  And while not all the people in the nations listed here are Muslim, of course, with a billion plus Muslims in the world, we're talking about a small percentage of them who are in favor of or don't know whether or not they are in favor of ISIS, and that small percentage adds up to tens of millions of people, at least.  And there are also non-Muslims who are in favor to ISIS, as you will find out if you read the article (from which the graphic I used here is from).  Yikes...

But seriously...  Pakistan...  What is happening there?  I mean, once you get below the top three on the graphic, it's very disturbing, but 28% unfavorable is just insane...  Be careful out there folks.  Despite what you may have been told, we don't seem to have this thing under control quite yet.

A Brief Word About Global Warming

It has been an unseasonably warm December in New England.  I can get used to this.  It's been so nice that a lot of folks are saying absurd things that point to this unusual warmth as proof that global warming is, in fact, happening.  Meanwhile there was a day last week where Arizona was the coldest state in the nation.  I imagine folks there were saying something equally absurd, much like what was being said in New England last February when the thermometer was below twenty degrees for the entirety of the month.  The unusual cold disproves global warming!  That triggers comments by the global warming folks who then decide to simply call it "climate change" instead and blame the cold on that.  Meanwhile, you have people being paid to publish questionable studies, people saying that global warming is the biggest threat we are facing, and holy cow, is that ManBearPig?  (Watch the South Park episode of the same name if you don't follow...)

I have decided that I don't care whether or not global warming is happening, but I don't mean that in the way you might think.  Let me first state that global warming is clearly not the biggest threat we are facing right now.  There are people being murdered and raped, starving people, homeless people, and terrorists running wild, and some politicians have decided that all of these things are not nearly as important as global warming.  Yeah, I'm not buying that one.  That's embarrassing.  But, and this is a big but (that's but with ONE t), that does not mean that we should decide to ignore environmental issues.  I'm not a scientist, so let's consult the scientists on this one.  The real ones anyway.  But whether or not you believe that global warming is happening, what would be the problem with actually taking steps that are environmentally friendly?

Let's take care of the earth that God gave us.  Why not be better stewards?  This is why I don't care whether or not global warming is happening.  Whether or not it is, we should strive to be environmentally friendly and pollute less.  But at the same time, this should not fundamentally change how we live in an inconvenient way.  When the politicians who are so concerned about global warming decide to reduce their own carbon footprints and go around less in their own private jets, maybe we'll take them seriously.  Just like we'll be more apt to listen to how guns make us less safe when they and their families are not surrounded at all times by people with guns who are protecting them.

That's really about all I have to say on the issue.  Great, let's treat the environment better, but I don't want to hear about how climate change is the biggest threat to humanity every minute of the day.

Only I didn't say fudge...

Two Fox News contributors just got suspended for using words on air that the FCC likes to bleep out, at least on arbitrary channels at arbitrary times.  One of them called the President a pussy, and the other one said that Obama didn't give a shit about terrorism.  There, I told you what they said.  Was that so hard?  Most of the news articles on the subject bleeped it out in print in one way or another.  Many of them kept the key letters in the offending words, with other letters replaced with dashes, such that any discerning reader above the age of three could understand what was said.  Heck, even the article I read from the Huffington Post had some censorship in it, but they decided that it was alright to print the word shit but not the word pussy, probably because they liked the latter word less since so many people have probably called them that.  When I was the editor-in-chief of my college's newspaper and I had to quote someone in an article, I printed exactly what they said.  I didn't bleep it out because someone might be offended by a word that is often bleeped out on television.  That is how you report news when you're not a pussy.

Let me state here that I actually agree with the decision to suspend the contributors.  They knew they weren't supposed to do that, and whether or not you believe what they said was accurate, it was highly disrespectful.  But they were called on the show to give their opinions, so suspension makes more sense than outright firing.  They gave their opinions, and they had the right to say what they said, but Fox also had the right to suspend them.  So why even bring this up?  It's a great excuse to talk about the issues I have with the existence of "banned" words, both in secular society (FCC) and in many conservative churches.

The FCC regulates television and radio for many things, including decency.  They have the power to fine offending broadcasters.  Because who better than a government agency to regulate what is or isn't decent?  Torture, discrimination, abortion, lying, bribery, trillions in debt, extramarital affairs... These things are acceptable from a government standpoint, in certain forms.  But saying "shit" on network television during the day?  They have to draw the line somewhere.  And showing a nipple during halftime of the Super Bowl?  That's what ruined America.  How can you expose young children to a body part that they probably sucked on regularly a few years prior?  Really, it's absurd that we rely on the FCC to determine decency.  Repeatedly showing drug use, promiscuity, and violence?  Decent.  Using one of the magical "four-letter" words?  Indecent.  Taking God's name in vain?  Decent.

We can't regulate decency based on religion, because people within this country have many different beliefs, even within the same religion.  There are some words that a majority can agree should not be said, but then there's a grey area.  Is damn a swear word?  Bitch?  Bastard?  Ass?  What about hell?  Preachers talk about hell.  They talk about damnation.  A female dog is a bitch.  An child born out of wedlock is a bastard.  Ass is another word for donkey.  See, we have no problem with these grey area words when they are used in context, because there is nothing inherently wrong with the words themselves.  Why then do we believe that there is something inherently wrong with any word?  The worst and most offensive word I can think of is the word "nigger" and even that word is generally allowed to be uttered on television and radio, because it often reflects real life incidents and is used to teach a lesson about racism.  What's the worst thing you can call a woman?  How about "Jezebel"?  Look up who she was in the Bible if you're unfamiliar with it, but to me, calling someone that is even more offensive than calling someone a bitch or anything else, yet no one flinches when that word is uttered.  I am not advocating that we all start swearing, but I am questioning societal standards and the existence of words that are somehow assumed to be inherently vulgar or indecent.

I think the reason that certain words got a bad rap is because when they are used, they are usually used in vulgar, indecent, disrespectful, or derogatory ways.  And boy are they overused.  But no one thinks you're cursing when you say you stepped in dog poop.  What's the difference if you call it poop or dung or crap or shit?  There is none.  It means the same thing.  It's not a "curse" word in that context.  I know what you're thinking now, and to borrow from A Christmas Story, you're wondering about "THE word, the big one, the queen mother of dirty words, the F-dash-dash-dash word."  How can THAT ever possibly be alright to utter?  Well, the best example I can think of comes from none other than David Ortiz.  As a Yankees fan, I used to hate Big Papi, being the face of the Red Sox and having likely done steroids, I had little respect for him.  But then, when his career continued long past when we all thought it was over, and he spoke at Fenway Park following the Boston Marathon terrorist attack in 2013, going on to hit .688 in the 2013 World Series that year, I decided that while I do not root for him, I respect and admire David Ortiz, and he would have my vote for the Hall of Fame.  One of the things he said to the crowd at Fenway after the bombings was, "This is our fucking city, and nobody's going to dictate our freedom.  Stay strong."  In this case, even the FCC agreed that this was not vulgarity or indecency, and it should not be censored or punished.  Well said, Big Papi.

For those of you who are Christians, you may be wondering how, as a Christian, I could possibly hold that view.  Well, let me tell you, the garbage that using certain words "is against the Bible" or "ruins your witness" simply is not true.  Repeatedly saying things that actually fall under the category of cursing is, of course, problematic, but that is not what we're talking about here.  If you've ever said something like, "Well, I thought he was a Christian, but then I heard him say the S Word," you are part of the problem.  Let's look at what the scriptures really say.  Ephesians 4:29, no "corrupt communication."  Colossians 3:8, no "filthy communication."  James 3:9-10, Romans 12:14, and Psalms 10:7, no "cursing."  2 Timothy 2:16, nothing "profane" and no "vain babblings."  I Peter 3:10, nothing "evil" and no "guile."  If what you say is not corrupt, filthy, profane, evil, cursing, filled with guile, or vain babblings, I have difficulty finding fault with it from a Biblical standpoint.  What I do find fault with and take offense to is taking the name of the Lord in vain (see Exodus 20:7).  Saying "Oh my God" or "Jesus Christ" or "God damn" in vain, while more accepted in Christian circles (at least the first one on that list) than those magical intrinsically bad words, is clearly a problem in the eyes of God.

The Bible does not sugarcoat things, and just because something is recorded in the Bible doesn't mean that it's acceptable to do.  The Bible speaks clearly of rape and murder, and it records the curses of others (see I Samuel 20:30, when Saul calls Jonathan a "son of the perverse rebellious woman," which you can figure out for yourself what the best term for it is in the modern English language).  Jesus didn't sugarcoat things either.  He was pretty blunt.  He never sinned, but he overturned tables in the temple, and even called Herod a fox in Luke 13:32, which was considered very insulting in that culture.  Paul provides some other good examples of this sort of thing, as he suggests in Galatians 5:12 that there are those who, rather than merely circumcision, should just cut off the whole thing (he's making a penis pun here to make a point), and the way he uses the word "dung" in Phillipians 3:8 is believed by many experts to be equivalent to using the term crap or shit today.

So, a few lessons to take away here...  Words are not bad by themselves.  It's how you use them.  Don't take the name of the Lord in vain, and don't say things that are meant to be vulgar or hurtful to people.  Instead, say things that edify, and build each other up, but by all means, call things what they are.  If something is bullshit, call it bullshit, or at least don't take issue with it if someone else does, just because you don't like that word.

...I am going to get so much shit for this post on Sunday.

Suicide and the Hidden Hurt

As a few of you may know, a good friend of mine recently took his own life.  The shock of it still hasn't worn of, and it probably never fully will.  This is a very difficult subject to write about, and one that is bound to trigger emotions from those who have had a friend or family member die in this way.  But I feel the need to share my thoughts on it anyway, because it is a very important subject that is ignored far too often, both in society in general and in church settings.  So, whether wrong or right, I will share my opinions pertaining to suicide.

In the church that I grew up in, the Pastor used to use a particular phrase every now and then that pertained to those who struggled with depression, anxiety, etc.  If the body can break, the mind can break too.  That is to say that God made all of you.  He made your legs, your arms, your organs, your mind...  everything.  We all accept that someone can break a leg or an arm.  It happens all the time.  We all accept that people can become sick, get cancer, have heart disease, etc.  That happens all the time.  And we have no problem acknowledging that God made these parts of you, yet they can break.  Why then are there some who do not carry over this observation to the mind?  Yes, God made your mind.  But your mind can break too.  You can become depressed.  You can become anxious.  You can have a chemical imbalance.  You can become suicidal.  It happens all the time.  It happens to both Christians and non-Christians.  This does not mean that God is at fault, and it does not mean that the person who is struggling with mental issues is at fault.  If the worst happens and someone chooses suicide, it is important to remember that God gave us free will.  Could He intervene and stop death from happening?  Of course.  There are testimonies of that happening.  But a lot of the time, God allows it to happen.  I don't understand it, but that's how it is.  It is not ever, ever, ever God's will for someone to kill himself or herself (I'm not referring to the falling on the grenade to save everyone else type of suicide here, of course, but the one that comes out of despair), but because God is all-knowing, it is also not a surprise to Him when it happens, and it is something that He is able to fit into His plan.

Now that I have had the unfortunate experience of a friend taking his own life, I've seen firsthand what happens in the aftermath of a suicide.  Family and friends grieving, crying, gathering together, unable to understand, asking why, and sometimes out loud but sometimes just thinking those two words...  What if?  What if I had called him?  What if I had done this differently?  What if I had done better at this or that?  I could have made a difference.  It was my fault that this happened.  What if I had been a better friend?  While this seems to be part of the normal grieving process for some, myself included, it also doesn't actually help anything to obsess over this.  No one is perfect.  We've all screwed things up.  Repeatedly.  But we don't know what would have happened if we had done things differently, and it's not our fault when suicide happens.  The decision ultimately resided with only one person, and it's often not likely that we could have altered that decision, but blaming ourselves or blaming the person who made that decision does not get to the heart of the issue.

I've heard people who have said that suicide is selfish, and I don't believe that to be true.  Yes, the people who suffer are the friends and family of the deceased, and for those who are Christians, if the deceased was a Christian, we know that he or she is in paradise, but that still doesn't take away the pain and sadness for those of us left here.  Yet, I think most people who kill themselves think that they are actually doing a favor for their loved ones.  They're not thinking that they get to go on to a better place and screw everyone else.  They're not thinking that by doing this, they get to punish everyone who let them down and not have to deal with it themselves.  Their minds are usually broken to a point where they are thinking that they just can't deal with life anymore, that they have failed, that everyone is better off without them.  This is a deception from the very pit of hell.  But sadly, like other things of that same origin, we often succumb to it.  Satan wins battles, but he knows that he will ultimately lose the war.

So, with the past being gone, what can we do to help people who are struggling now or will struggle in the future?  A lot.  We can be there for them.  We can tell people we love them more.  We can hug them a little tighter.  But sometimes we can tell who's hurting, and sometimes it's the ones we least expect.  Sometimes the downfall is stark and swift, and other times it is gradual.  When Robin Williams, my favorite actor, killed himself, I was in shock, as was most of the world.  It was the only time in my entire life that I have ever cried when a celebrity--someone I did not personally know--died.  This couldn't be right.  Robin Williams was the funniest guy in the world.  He made me laugh.  He made me feel better.  He did that for millions of people.  He was Robin Williams, live on Broadway.  He was John Keating.  He was Patch Adams.  He was Mrs. Doubtfire.  He was Sean Maguire.  He was Mork.  You mean to tell me that that man killed himself?  But he always made everyone around him smile, and he gave so much of himself to other people.  People didn't even know a lot of his charitable works until stories surfaced after his death.  How could someone like that, who had so much, had brought so much joy to others, and had so many things going for him, have thought that life was no longer worth living?

And then it becomes clear.  Much like the (pictured) hidden rot in the house that was not discovered until the walls were taken down, he hid the hurt.  And he did one hell of a job with that.  I know because I do the same thing.  No, I haven't been suicidal in my adult life, but I've been hurt.  We all have.  And I use the same weapon against it as Robin Williams did.  Humor.  I like to make people laugh.  I like to make other people feel good.  It's part of who I am.  It makes me feel better when I make other people feel better, especially when I'm hurting or not feeling very good myself.  My buddy who recently killed himself was similar to Robin Williams in several ways.  He was funny, he was full of energy, and he was always doing things for other people.  He had a lot going for him, and people didn't even know many of the things he quietly did for others until stories were shared after his death.  Also, much like Robin Williams, he had a lot of body hair.

So what do we do going forward?  We can talk about suicide, depression, anxiety, and mental illness.  We can talk about this candidly in secular society and in church.  We can talk about it and how to take away the stigma from these people.  Yes, we need to do better with diagnosing and treating these people, but we should never look down on them.  Yes, anti-depressant and anti-anxiety drugs are over-prescribed in this country, and they can often cause harm, but sometimes they are necessary, and sometimes they are helpful.  But there are other things that can help too, depending on the situation.  Let's acknowledge this.  And let's talk about all of those uncomfortable subjects, both in society in general, and in church.  These subjects aren't often talked about in certain settings, but they should be.  Yes, let's talk openly about sex and all things sexual.  Let's talk about eating disorders.  Let's talk about rape.  Let's talk about cutting.  Let's talk about depression and anxiety.  Let's talk about suicide.

Whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ as Savior is going to impact a lot of your views, including on suicide.  So, to those of you who have not accepted Jesus as Savior (which I highly recommend considering and making an informed decision), I say that things are never so bad that you should decide to end it all.  Your friends and family will be worse off, not better off, without you around.  And if you and I are friends and you ever need someone to talk to about anything, I am here.  And to those of you who are Christians, I would say the same thing, but also add this: Give over your burdens to God, and watch for Satan's attacks.  He will try to get you to think that you are useless.  That you are a failure.  That you are a sorry excuse for a Christian.  Satan will attack you when you are most vulnerable.  God always provides a way out of making a wrong decision, but we fail God daily.  We need to put on the full armor of God each and every day.

None of us are immune to anything.  Humans are capable of terrible things, individually and collectively.  A few years ago, I was talking with my Pastor about someone we both knew who had committed a crime against a child, and Pastor used the words, "There but for the grace of God go I."  I immediately blurted out, "Well, not that."  But it really made me think later on.  No, not that, but only because of God's grace.  There are other temptations that I struggle with, but I can fall into any temptation, even those actions that can impact people more than other actions.  I was reminded of this conversation about a month ago, when I saw a video of Chris Christie discussing a successful friend of his who ending up getting addicted to drugs and ultimately died from an overdose.  "There but for the grace of God go I."  I looked up the origin of this phrase, because I didn't recall it from scriptures, and it's attributed to John Bradford, an English Reformer who lived (and was martyred) in the 1500s.  Quite apt.  Finally, I was reminded of this phrase once more, less than two weeks ago, when my friend, my Pastor's son, took his own life.  We are all in the same boat.  And I'll quote Christie's version of Bradford here, which includes a second pertinent sentence.  "There but for the grace of God go I.  It can happen to anyone."

Be the light in a dark world.

The Immigration Dilemma and the Emotional Argument

Both Conservatives and Liberals are often guilty of arguing things that are based more on emotion than facts.  We've seen it on both sides of the gun control argument, and now we're seeing it on both sides of the raging debate on whether or not the United States should take in Syrian refugees.  In reality, there is no simple answer.  But there are a lot of very wrong answers.  And in the current landscape of powerful social media sites like Facebook serving the purpose of News, bullshit runs absolutely rampant.

I've seen some pretty offensive posts from both ends of the spectrum.  Some of the Liberal emotional responses?  Well, the best one I've seen really is the one about how the Bible says that we need to help those in need.  That's true.  That's in there.  Several times.  Great argument.  But some of the other arguments I've seen are absurd.  One of them is so emotional over the perceived attack on Muslims that it decides to attack Christians.  I've seen several variations on this.  There's the argument that Christians are more likely to be terrorists than Muslims.  This is a real argument being used, and the folks using it will back it up by pointing to various people who committed atrocities and were Christians or said they were Christians.  There was the guy who shot a bunch of folks in a black church earlier this year (he didn't do that in the name of Jesus--he did that because he was a racist--and he actually killed Christians when he did that).  There was the unabomber (that was done for political reasons and because of mental problems).  Oh, and Hitler.  Yeah, nothing screams Christianity like Hitler, the man who wanted to kill all the Jews.  Has anyone actually read the Bible?  That belief is in direct opposition to the entire book!

Perhaps the argument that takes the cake though is the one that states that we should all change our profile pictures to show the flags of all of the countries that the United States terrorizes.  That one churned my stomach.  Again, I am not making this up.  At least one of the people I am friends with on Facebook posted that.  And that really gets to the heart of the issue, because it exposes two problems.  One is that some people need to check the definition of terrorism.  And the other is that a lot of Liberals, quite possibly including the President, believe that America is what is wrong with the world.  This belief is a grave problem.  No country is perfect, but the United States is not terrorizing the world.  Although we haven't really done a whole lot to stop Islamic extremists from doing so lately either.  The other Liberal tidbit being put out there is that ISIS was created during the Bush administration.  OK.  But no one had really heard of them until recently.  They became powerful during the Obama administration.  Obama has largely ignored them, made Putin look good by comparison on some fronts, made a series of bad deals, released terrorists in exchange for a traitor, and declared that ISIS was contained hours before the attacks on Paris.  Now is not the time to try to figure out who's fault it is that ISIS exists.  It's the time to eliminate them.  Hard.

And now let's talk about the Conservative arguments.  The one that makes the most sense is the one questioning if letting these refugees in is a security risk.  It sounds like at least one of the attackers in Paris came into the country as a refugee.  This seems like a legitimate concern.  Then there's the argument that we shouldn't let more people in our country because we need to take care of our homeless and veterans instead.  Valid point in the second half there, but why are we suddenly concerned about the homeless and veterans now?  Where was that concern before?  Maybe if everyone had that concern, this would not be a problem.  But it is.  And it's a disgraceful problem that we need to do something about.  But that doesn't make refugee lives matter any less.

The argument that does not make sense and is terrible in every sense of the word is the one that all Muslims are terrorists and we shouldn't help them or let them in.  This is a very dangerous statement to make.  The terrorists want non-Muslims to be pitted against Muslims.  That is one of their goals.  Let's not let them win here.  The truth is that there are a lot of peaceful Muslims.  I know some personally.  But yes, there are also those who are not peaceful, and at this particular point in History, there are more jihadists or radical Islamists or whatever you want to call them who are terrorists than there are terrorists of any other religion.  Thousands of terror attacks have been carried out by Muslim extremists since 9/11.  This terrorism is done in the name of Allah.  Massive numbers of terrorists are not killing people in the name of Jesus, Moses, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Joseph Smith, the Spaghetti Monster, or any other religious leader.  I don't care if the terrorists are true Muslims or not true Muslims.  It needs to be dealt with and condemned by all peaceful Muslims.  It's been great to see the Muslims who have been speaking out against the recent attacks.  And if any speak out in favor of them?  Well, frankly, then those particular people SHOULD be counted as terrorists.  Saying that the attacks in Paris were carried out by a handful of crazy people misses the point.  That is only one example of the many, many terrorist attacks carried out by Muslim extremists since 2001.  Don't forget about the attacks in all those countries where people largely ignored the news stories on, even right before what happened in France!  And, as a side note here, whether or not the left wants to be childish and avoid using that wording for politically-correct don't-offend-anyone reasons, while the right wants to be childish and try to get them to use that wording much like me trying to get my high school youth group leader to say the word "fart" does not matter.  It's a fact, and the argument is beyond stupid, because the word Islam is part of the ISIS/ISIL acronym anyway.

With all that being said, I really don't have a clear cut answer here.  On one hand, I feel terrible for the refugees and think that we absolutely need to help feed, clothe, and shelter them.  On the other hand, there's a real possibility that one or more terrorists are disguised as refugees in an attempt to infiltrate the Western countries that they hate.  There must be some way to make sure our country stays secure.  It's 2015, right?  I mean, really, get it together.  Come up with a solution.  But then, we shouldn't be surprised.  Look at what happens when government tries to do anything.  Trillions in debt.  So much red tape.  The IRS.  The DMV.  I bought a car in August and I still have dealer plates on that thing...

Republican Rundown: Top Ten Update

Post Third Debate Edition: Things have changed significantly since my 9/20 Quick Picks post.  Perhaps the biggest development is that Scott Walker dropped out (Hooray!  Is Bush next?).  Jindal, Graham, Santorum, and Pataki remain irrelevant and out of the top ten.  Here are my current thoughts.  Brief two-sentence notes (with ranking I gave them last time noted).  Note: The graphic I've used is once again the 15-day polling average from 2016.republican-candidates.org.

10th (previously 10th), Jeb Bush:  Turns out, it's not just that his last name makes him toxic.  He's actually a terrible candidate who has performed poorly at all three debates and looks completely lost, though he apparently is not lost in the world of Fantasy Football (maybe he should focus on that instead--he needs a better QB anyway).

9th (previously 5th), John Kasich: Bush may have made him look good by comparison, but Kasich had a disastrous (though loud) debate performance.  Also, this is probably an insensitive thing to say, but did anyone else notice that he has some of the mannerisms of Michael J. Fox?

8th (previously 4th), Rand Paul: Paul has continually looked less and less appealing as a candidate and has not performed well in the debates, though he has spouted some memorably questionable lines.  He seems more likely to try to shut down the government that Ted Cruz, and is, at this point, less likeable.

7th (previously 9th), Mike Huckabee: Huckabee has been about average in the debates, and hasn't done anything wildly ridiculous since the Kim Davis incident. But I still don't think he is electable.

6th (previously 6th), Carly Fiorina: I would rate Carly as average in the last debate, though I do agree that seeing her debate Clinton would be spectacular.  But can we do that without having her get the nomination, because our country is already in more trouble than HP under her leadership?

5th (previously 11th), Donald Trump: The prospect of a Trump presidency has become more palatable as many of the other candidates have shown their ineptitude (if you're not top six on my list here, you are one of the remaining eight who needs to drop out of the damn race already).  Trump is still polarizing, questionable morally (though not nearly as much as any of the candidates on the other side) and a loose cannon, but he speaks a lot of truth and conveys his views very clearly.

4th (previously 7th), Ted Cruz: I still think that he sounds like a holier-than-thou preacher much of the time when he talks, but he did well at the last debate.  And for his spectacular smackdown of the CNBC moderator ineptitude alone, I've allowed him a spot in my top four.

3rd (previously 3rd), Chris Christie: Either Cruz or Christie had the moment-of-the-night from the third debate.  Christie did well overall, but saying that the moderator's behavior was considered rude, even in New Jersey, was golden, as was his epic shutdown of the ridiculous Fantasy Football controversy (echoing Cruz's pleas to talk about the real issues!).

2nd (previously 2nd), Marco Rubio: Rubio has looked increasingly seasoned and eloquent as time has gone on.  He's given steadily good performances in the debates and on news programs, while running a positive campaign but still making Jeb Bush look like a complete fool.

1st (previously 1st), Ben Carson: After a less-than-stellar showing in the third debate, I think Rubio has closed the gap a bit in my mind, though having both on the ticket in either position would be fine by me.  The main knock on Carson from Republicans seems to be that he's just too nice, but I still think he could see a lot of success as president, and perhaps help to truly bring the country together again.

When Fantasy Becomes Reality

For those of you who are unaware, Fantasy Sports is when someone drafts a hypothetical team with real players on it and competes against others who do the same thing.  The person whose collection of players performs best in real life wins the Fantasy League they are in with the other competitors.  Prior to the easy-to-manage Fantasy sites online (Yahoo, ESPN, etc), people in Fantasy Leagues actually tracked the statistics using box scores in the newspaper each day.  This was a bit before my time, but I enjoy hearing stories about those good old days.  With the technological advances of the Internet, Fantasy Sports really started to rise to prominence just after the turn of the century, and for many years, groups of friends would create Fantasy Leagues online in which to play against each other.  Sometimes it was just for fun, but usually there would be some amount of money involved.  Congress even passed an exemption for Fantasy Sports to make sure that this sort of thing would not be considered illegal betting.

Fast forward about a decade and suddenly whenever we are watching a sporting event, we are inundated with advertisements for these one-day Fantasy team sites, such as FanDuel and DraftKings.  Huge amounts of money are involved.  New millionaires are made every week.  Hundreds of millions are spent on advertising and endorsements.  And, predictably, there are those who are now calling for the whole operation to be shut down and classified as illegal gambling.  Welcome to America.

Who's trying to shut this down?  It looks to me like the people who aren't getting a slice of the pie.  Government, owners of gambling establishments that view this as competition, people who lost money trying it and are pissed off, and probably some number of people on the far right who believe the Fantasy Sports is immoral, against their religion, and thus should be illegal.

Several states have disallowed these one-day Fantasy Sports sites from operating there.  Not surprisingly, Nevada is one of them.  When people think of Nevada, they think of Las Vegas, and when people think of Vegas, they think of gambling.  I'm sure the gambling lobby is strong there, so why not snuff out any competition they can?  The Nevada Gaming Commission ruled that Daily Fantasy Sports is a form of gambling and would need a license to operate, though these sites have continued to insist that it is not gambling.  It seems to me that this is just the start of a long, large fight on a National level, because it won't surprise me if special interest lobby groups in Washington, D.C. line the pockets of Congressmen in order to get them to outlaw these sites.  Business as usual in the U.S.A.

Here are my problems with this.  Making Daily Fantasy Sports sites illegal would be both hypocritical and government overreaching.  The government is cool with state run lotteries, because they get a ton of money from that, and that is a crystal clear means of pure gambling, where no skill or knowledge is needed whatsoever.  Gambling in casinos is legal in some states if you get a license, and others if you're on an Indian Reservation.  In those cases, some number of influential and already-rich people are continuing to make even more money.  But DraftKings and FanDuel?  It's the startup owners of those sites making moneys, along with some number of regular sports fans every week, and it's become a wildly-popular multi-billion dollar industry.  So clearly, some number of influential and already-rich people want to put a stop to this.

The one thing I agree with in this whole thing is that there needs to be some sort of regulation on it, which would prevent employees of any of these sites from using information not available to the public to their advantage, increasing the chances that they will be able to make money that way.  This is akin to insider trading on the stock market and must not be allowed.  And while I think gambling in general should be legal, and Daily Fantasy Sports is a form of gambling, I DO NOT believe it should be classified as such.  The stock market is gambling too, and it's the closest comparison for Daily Fantasy Sports.  People aren't screaming that, because insider trading can happen, the stock market ought to be shut down.  That's no reason to shut down this industry either.  And the similarities go much deeper than that.  In stocks and Daily Fantasy Sports, you need some specific knowledge to do consistently well.  And that doesn't guarantee that you'll always do well either.  Sometimes someone with little to no knowledge will do better than you, but usually those with more knowledge will do better than those with less knowledge.

If I had my mom pick my Fantasy Football team for me, it probably wouldn't go too well.  If I had my friend's two-year-old pick stocks for me, that probably wouldn't go too well either.  But it might.  You never know.  In the Daily Fantasy Sports world, players ARE the stocks.  And the government needs to leave us, the lay-people, the fans alone.  Seriously, just stay out of it, unless it's to make a law that Daily Fantasy Sports can operate anywhere in this nation.  Because, you know, it's a free country.  At least it used to be.

In the mean time, maybe I'll get lucky and set an amazing lineup, or maybe I'll make some poor choices and lose the entirety of my small deposits, but I'll probably be roughly even.  I started playing several weeks ago and I'm up $13 on FanDuel and down $13 on DraftKings.  That's a difference of $0 to my net worth.  But it's fun.  Play responsibly.

Quick Picks: Democratic Candidates

Well, we've had our first debate for the Democratic candidates, and I actually sat through a solid portion of it (do I get a cookie for that?).  In an effort to fill up the stage rather than just having Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton debate each other, CNN found three random white guys to participate in the debate.  A small percentage of Americans have heard of these other three men before tonight, and they will undoubtedly withdraw from the race soon, leaving the Liberals to choose between Larry David and Doctor Blight.  I mean Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.  My bad there.  But if you fell asleep during the debate and had visions of Curb Your Enthusiasm combined with Captain Planet, that would have been perfectly normal.  As I did with the Republicans earlier, I will rank the candidates, from worst to best, in how good of a choice they would be to represent their party in the general election.  Since there are fewer candidates, I will allow myself a few more sentences for each candidate this time.

6th, Lincoln Chafee: The only thing I can see that qualifies this man to be president, apart from his first name, is that he actually kind of stood up against Hillary at one point during the debate.  He's got to be pretty close to pulling out.  I think the only reason he was in in the first place was because someone asked, "Is anyone here named Washington or Lincoln who wants to be a candidate for President?"

5th, Martin O'Malley: O'Malley actually made some strong statements and had stood up to Hillary at times.  He's also a distant third in the polls, a virtual unknown, and has no chance of getting his party's nomination, let alone beating the Republican nominee.  He also appears to be pretty far to the left and unwilling to compromise.

4th, Jim Webb: Webb sounded intelligent and thoughtful during the debate, and he's not afraid to stray from the mainstream Democratic views on several issues.  On some issues, I agree with Webb, and he appears strong and willing to speak out against what he believes is wrong.  He sounds like the only moderate Democratic candidate, which is why I have him ranked ahead of Chafee and O'Malley, since that may get him some Independent votes in the general election if he had any shot whatsoever of getting there, which he does not.

3rd, Hillary Clinton: Those who are offended that Donald Trump is the leading candidate for Republicans should be offended tenfold that Hillary Clinton is the leading candidate for Democrats.  Hillary is an embarrassment, a criminal, and a nasty person.  I'm not sure which of her many scandals is worse, but she belongs in prison, not in the White House.  Virtually any woman picked at random in America would do a better job than her as Commander-in-Chief, and I would feel more secure too.  The absurd funding from super PACs is sickening, the idea that the type of "change" she would bring would be any better than what Obama has brought does not make sense, and she simply modifies all her views to whatever is best for her politically.  An uneventful moment in the debate perfectly proved that point for me, as she was asked if she was ready to take a stance on whether or not marijuana should be legally nationally, and her response was that she was not yet ready to take a stance and that we need to do more research.  Of course, five minutes of research will paint a pretty clear picture of why marijuana should be legal, if not the results of weed having been legal for well over a year in several states already.  The real reason that Hillary won't take a stand here is the same reason that she opposed gay marriage for so long, and it's not because her views "evolved" like everyone's views evolve on something (heck, even mine have changed over the years on gay marriage).  Once public opinion clearly shows that the issue is trending further toward legalization and that it is no longer a divisive issue for the Left, Hillary's opinion will go the same way.  Oh, and the other candidates all missed a really easy point of attack here when she agreed with Bernie Sanders that people shouldn't be imprisoned for marijuana violations: An obvious solution to that problem is legalization.  I really strongly dislike Hillary, as you may have realized by now, but I also don't think she would do well in the general election, because she is a polarizing figure and a terrible, scandal-ridden candidate.

2nd, Bernie Sanders: I want to like Bernie.  I really do.  Bernie is the one candidate for the Democrats that truly would bring change.  His views on marijuana and super PACs are spot-on, and even a handful of his other economic views make sense.  But the problem is that he is, very literally, a Socialist.  The changes he would bring are Socialist changes.  Many of his views have been consistent though, even when they were unpopular.  Sanders supported gay marriage before I was born, and he's been speaking the same on economic issues for decades.  But there is one important exception here, and that's gun control.  Sanders, once endorsed by the NRA as a candidate for the Senate, pointed out in the debate several times that he now has a D- grade from them.  As he's gained popularity on the far left, Sanders has predictably become less gun-friendly, because pro-gun does not sit well with his far-left base.  But while other candidates are further to the left than Sanders on gun control, nominating him would be a giant lurch to the left, even for the Democratic party.  It would, however, energize the base.  Sanders is likable, and will garner some Independent votes, but he is a Socialist.

1st, Joe Biden: Biden would basically just continue to Obama administration, and is not a particularly strong candidate, or even a candidate at all at this point.  But if he declares his candidacy, it would not be difficult for him to get the nomination and compete in the general election, because, for some reason, people like him.  I don't like him, but I suspect that the reason people do is because he's not Hillary and he's not a Socialist.  The real winner of the debate wasn't even on the stage tonight.  Was it Joe Biden, or was it the Republicans?

Financial Reform Makes Cents

I don't have all the answers on economic policy, and I don't pretend to.  Thus, this is my first post on the subject, and the title even has a lazy pun in it.  But the truth is that something needs to be done about the absurd financial disparity in this country.  And I say that with a stark record of not being a socialist.

Under the Obama administration, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer, to the point of epic and disturbing proportions.  The very rich are richer than ever, while a large portion of Americans struggle to get by paycheck to paycheck.  There's no easy solution, but let's take a look at some of the ideas that are being floated around and think about whether or not they would have positive impact on the nation as a whole.

It doesn't seem right that folks making tens of millions of dollars per year pay less of a percentage to the government than folks making tens of thousands of dollars per year.  I can see a flat tax having positive impact.  We just need to figure out what that percentage number should be.  But I also believe that those below the poverty line should not have to pay this same tax percentage.  If a single mother of two is trying to make ends meet with two low-paying part-time jobs, she needs that little bit of money a lot more than the government does.  And while we're at it, there's a lot of talk about how social security is in trouble.  I know that a pretty high percentage of my check goes toward social security.  I also know that a very low percentage of the checks of the very rich go toward social security.  Take a higher percentage from them and put it in the social security pool.  If this sounds like a socialist idea, I don't care.  It makes sense.

A flat tax would simplify taxes and, quite honestly, I would be perfectly fine if the power of the IRS was diminished or the IRS was abolished altogether.  I don't trust the IRS, and the IRS has proven to be untrustworthy and partisan.  And most government organizations are really just terrible and inefficient anyway, and the thing they are best at is wasting taxpayer money.

The idea of raising minimum wage to $15 per hour across the board though is not a good one.  Perhaps that is an appropriate rate in New York City and San Francisco--that can be left up to local governments--but it is not an appropriate rate in most towns in America.  It would actually cause the number of jobs to decrease, or even more small businesses to close because they can't afford to pay that much.  And most of the folks in minimum wage jobs are young people, unskilled labor, etc.  A minimum wage job should not be a long-term life funding solution.  Not everyone deserves to be making $15 per hour.  Sorry.  And if the push for that sort of dramatic hike in minimum wage continues, I would expect to see even more jobs disappear.  Self checkout has been bad enough.  But when your job can be replaced by a computer, you shouldn't be making $15 per hour.

How does one get out of the rut of a minimum wage job?  College is one way, and there are cheaper college options, though the cost of tuition has continued to go up at obscene rates.  Interest rates are very low.  So should they be on student loans.  Student loans should not be predatory.  But they also should not be simply forgiven by the government in a redistribution of wealth.  If you've had a higher education, you should eventually be able to pay off those loans.  Subsidization programs are also often helpful and appropriate.

Finally, what do we do to help the poor?  The correct answer here is not nothing, or that it's their own fault that they are poor.  Do you honestly think that Jesus would have said that?  Obviously not.  We need to do what we can as a society to help feed, shelter, and clothe the poor.  The very rich have an obligation to help the very poor, from a moral standpoint anyway.  If you are a billionaire, and you give no money to charities, you need to do some real soul-searching...

I guess when it comes to Economics, I don't fall neatly into either end of the conservative versus liberal spectrum, but I realize that something needs to change in this country.  The income disparity in this country is truly not a good thing.  I mean, really, some of these very rich celebrities spend more money on pampering their pets in a week than some families have to spend on food for the whole year.  Something is wrong with that picture.  I am in favor of Capitalism and not in favor of Socialism, but what we are doing now isn't fully working.  The middle class is suffering.  The policies under the Obama administration (as well as the Bush administration) have made this problem worse.  Many people believed that Bush was for the rich, but Obama was touted as a champion of the middle class, and he has proven to be very much the opposite of that.  That's part of the reason why Bernie Sanders, who is literally a Socialist, looks like a legitimate candidate for President of the United States.  Of course, the other part is how terrible of a candidate Hillary Clinton is and the apparent disarray of the Republican Party.  But that's an entirely different kind of flying altogether (it was time for an Airplane! reference).

To end, I realize that statistics can be manipulated to appear to show whatever you want them to show, but these graphs look pretty scary.  Partisan?  Perhaps.  But worthy of thought and discussion nonetheless: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-16/obamas-recovery-just-9-charts

Dissenting Opinions Matter

I couldn't help but comment on the most recent freedom of speech controversy at my alma mater and the newspaper I used to be editor-in-chief of.  So I had to submit my humble opinion, which is here: http://wesleyanargus.com/2015/09/23/dissenting-opinions-matter/

I've also pasted it below, as the Argus website appeared to have a few minor spacing glitches.  Also, the picture I put here is one that was taken during a party in the Argus office back in the day.  I found it in my archives.  And yes, I'm wearing an Argus headband.  Ballin.

SUBMITTED ARGUS "WESPEAK" FOLLOWS:

It was Fall 2003 and I was a freshman at Wesleyan. Having grown tired of seeing pro-choice posters plastered all over the place, I decided to put a pro-life sign on the door of my dorm room. I checked with my roommate first, of course, and he was pro-life and didn't really care what I put on the door. So I put it up. Later that night, I was sitting in the bathroom stall and I heard yelling from across the hall.
“Make him take it down!” said the girl who lived in the dorm room next to me. I immediately knew what the discussion was about.
“I can't make him take it down!” my RA responded back, trying to keep his composure. “I don't agree with it either, but he's entitled to his opinion.”
The girl was crying and screaming now, and neither person involved in the conversation had any idea that I heard the whole thing. Her reasoning became more and more absurd, at one point suggesting, I kid you not, that I didn't have a right to that opinion because I was a man. At that point, my RA was starting to raise his voice too, and soon the girl left his room and the conversation was over.
The sign didn't stay on my door for very long. I found it torn into pieces later that week. I don't know who did it, nor do I care. But it's a sad day when people try to silence the opinions of others because they disagree with them.
There are folks on the opposite side of the political spectrum who are guilty of doing this same thing. For example, I know of so-called Christian Universities where students are not allowed to publicly speak out against and question the administration. One of these universities didn't allow interracial dating until the year 2000. It's amazing what can happen if we stifle free speech and impede discourse.
I was the editor-in-chief at the Argus for a semester, and in other editorial positions during other semesters, and we came across a similar problem then. The Argus published some Wespeaks that contained unpopular views, and was called Islamophobic, among other things. We published it because our policy then was not to publish personal attacks or hate speech (i.e. Let's do this violent act to this particular group of people), but anything else was open to discuss. People outside of the Argus office didn't know that a copy editor, who happened to be a Muslim, had read through one of the more controversial pieces before we published it, and while neither she nor most people in that room agreed with what was said, no one in that room seriously considered the idea that we shouldn't publish it.
So, flash forward to 2015, and there is now a petition signed by around 150 people at Wesleyan at the time I'm writing this, to defund the Argus because someone wrote a controversial opinion piece about Black Lives Matter. And one student who signed the petition was quoted in the Argus as saying that “publication of this opinion is a silent agreement with its content, and a silent agreement to the all too prevalent belief that black [and] brown people do not deserve a voice, and that we are not worthy of respect.” Does this person understand what the opinion section of a newspaper is for? How could anything published in it, outside of a call to violence against a group of people, possibly be indicative of an entire staff having such terrible beliefs (in this case, I don't even think the person who wrote that piece has the beliefs assumed in that quote)? When I, a political moderate, was editor-in-chief of one of the most Liberal newspapers in the country, I published many things that I did not agree with. Do you know that I even penned some of them myself? A useful but rare exercise is to write something in favor of an opinion that you disagree with. And in a tradition that I hope continues to this day, which sometimes resulted in that exercise, an Argus Staff editorial was written by one member of the Staff for each issue, and it had to be reflective of the Staff discussion about the issue that preceded it.
Let's take a look at the list of demands for the Argus in that petition, fit to be published in the joke issue (which I hope still exists). Include a work study/course credit position? The Argus used to do that, and it was great (I took the course), but they would presumably need funding for that restored in order to have it again. A monthly report on allocation of funds and leadership structure? Yeah, it's pretty much on a volunteer basis. The only semester I got paid was when I was editor-in-chief, and that was $500 total, which worked out to about $1 per hour. A Social Justice/Diversity training for all student publications? Yes, Wesleyan students getting more of that, in a required setting no less, is going to somehow make the Argus better. Excuse me while I go preach the Gospel to my Pastor. Active recruitment and advertisement? I'm pretty sure they do that. That's how you get on the Argus staff. The makeup of that staff is entirely dependent on who volunteers for it. And open space on the front page dedicated to marginalized groups/voice? I think they're probably still trying to run a legitimate newspaper there. You know, one where top news stories are on the front page and the opinions section is somewhere inside, though marginalized groups and voices are more than welcome to participate.
Or perhaps you can find a paragraph like this one in that section, where I can state some of my personal beliefs, which are bound to offend people. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision on Gay Marriage, and I disagree with the refusal of Kim Davis to step down from her position, despite the fact that I am a Christian who believes that Gay Marriage is against the Bible. We need separation of church and state, but we also need to allow those who dissent to voice their opinions, whether they are on the opposite side of the divisive (outside the Wesleyan bubble) issue of gay marriage, or against something, such as interracial marriage, that nearly everyone agrees with, as they should. We've come a long way as a nation, but we have a long way to go. I understand and agree with what many participants of Black Lives Matter are trying to accomplish, and I see why it upsets some folks when someone suggests replacing “Black” with “All” but I stand with Ben Carson, who instead suggests adding “All” in front of “Black” to include black lives snuffed out by abortion, as well as violence of any kind. And while we're defending marginalized groups, why not defend one group that is utterly voiceless and stand with “Roe” from Roe v. Wade, who now wants that landmark decision overturned? Instead of fighting to defund the Argus, let's fight to defund Planned Parenthood!
Let discourse ensue.

Quick Picks: Republican Candidates

The Top 11 candidates in the race for the Republican nomination and, in order from worst to best, how good of a choice each candidate would be to take on whoever the Democrats nominate (I'll do this for the Democrats after they have a debate, though that field is much less crowded and will make for a shorter post).  Brief two-sentence notes (with 15-day polling average from 2016.republican-candidates.org)...

11th (polling 1st), Donald Trump: To understate it, this would be a nightmare for Republicans.  He's a straight talker, and a lot of intelligent things come out of his mouth, but so do many, many terrible things that make most folks cringe.

10th (polling 3rd), Jeb Bush: His last name is Bush.  That is all.

9th (polling 7th), Mike Huckabee: Standing next to Kim Davis is not a good political move.  Or a good move in general, for any reason really.

8th (polling 8th), Scott Walker: A lot of people in Wisconsin don't like him very much, which is why he nearly got recalled.  It's hard to see a reason why he would do a better job in Washington, D.C.

7th (polling 6th), Ted Cruz: Conservative for sure, but to the point of extreme absurdity.  Polarizing and kind of creepy.

6th (polling 5th), Carly Fiorina: An intelligent and strong woman with strong views for sure, some of which I agree with, and others which I definitely do not.  She has little political experience, which would be fine if not for her checkered past in the careers she has chosen to pursue instead.

5th (polling 11th), John Kasich: I don't mind Kasich so much, and I like that he's not afraid to disagree with fellow Republicans on some issues, but I have a hard time seeing him having any chance of getting the nomination.  And his chances in the general election would be poor.

4th (polling 9th), Rand Paul: Paul is another one who's not afraid to disagree with others in his party on some issues, and he often seems to lean Libertarian.  Unfortunately, he has the feel of a failed Independent candidate.

3rd (polling 10th), Chris Christie: He's running despite a scandal that nearly derailed his campaign before in started.  But he's saying the right things, he's likable, and being a successful Republican in New Jersey has to count for something.

2nd (polling 4th), Marco Rubio: He's intelligent, he's done well in the debates, and many of his views make a great deal of sense.  But he's a bit awkward.

1st (polling 2nd), Ben Carson: Frankly, finding the best candidate for this job is not even close.  Ben Carson projects wisdom as well as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (see what I did there?).

Because of the voter laws in Connecticut, as a registered Independent, I can't vote in the primaries, and I'm actually considering registering as a Republican just so I can vote for Ben Carson.

Off-fence-ive Walls

Liberals seem to hate walls.  When I was a student at Wesleyan, there was one area of campus in which the majority of laptop thefts occurred.  This area happened to be student housing that bordered low-income housing projects.  That's not to suggest that the residents in that area were responsible for all (or any) of the thefts (there was poor lighting there and easy escape routes), but when someone suggested building a wall between the two areas, all hell broke loose.  You see, the wall would represent something that was more than a wall.  It would represent class separation or a "stay out of OUR area" mentality.  It didn't matter that there were students at the University tutoring children in that bordering community.  All that mattered was that wall and its perceived symbolism.  And the thefts?  Those were an afterthought.  Surely a wall couldn't fix that problem.  Logical arguments have little value to people whose arguments are based almost entirely in emotion.

Roughly ten years later, here we are on a National scale trying to fix our illegal immigration problem, and Donald Trump's idea of immigration reform is building a wall along the entire southern border and deporting all of the illegal immigrants.  So in this case, the wall would not be merely be symbolic, but would be an actual way to keep "those people" out of "our area."  Really, it's not the wall part that's such a bad idea.  It's the part about deporting everyone who is here illegally.  That is an expensive and sometimes heartbreaking task, but it is also an unfruitful one because, as Ben Carson pointed out, unless we secure our borders first, it accomplishes nothing.

Carson's views on immigration may not be popular, inside or outside of the Republican party, but they make an awful lot of sense.  I would expect that coming from an intelligent, thoughtful, and humble candidate like himself.  We're not ignoring the fact that these illegal immigrants are breaking the law by being here, or by not paying taxes.  And we are not ignoring the fact that some (though not a majority, Mr. Trump) of them break other laws by acting violently and selling drugs (and those people need to be prosecuted and not allowed to live free in our land).  But we need to find some way to deal with those people who are here to work and make better lives for them and their families.  While I don't believe full amnesty is the answer, certainly finding ways for those who are here for the right reasons to be here legally is a good way to go.  Work visas, pathways to citizenship... These are some good ideas that need to be considered.  After all, we are a nation of immigrants.  But immigrants needs to come here legally and be subject to the same laws and taxes (and, once legal, benefits) as everyone else, just like my grandmother, when she came here from Italy in 1947, as well as now.

A related topic is that of refugees.  The United States is a nation that accepts refugees, but it is also a nation that needs to be sure that we are not letting murderous Islamic extremists into our borders.  That's the age we live in today.  That's how our greatest enemy operates.  This is not a discriminatory statement, but a fact.  Folks on the left and right need to sit down with each other and have a sensible discussion about immigration reform and stop pointing accusatory fingers at each other.  We need to come up with some real solutions.  The walls we've built between ourselves need to come down.  After all, Conservatives don't like all walls.  It was the greatest President of my lifetime who famously told Mr. Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall!"  And paraphrasing thoughts from Darrell Hammond's autobiography, when Ronald Reagan spoke those words, he spoke them from his balls.

Thought Bubbles

In honor of the second Republican Debate, here is an attempt to get inside the minds of the candidates in this photo from the first debate.

Christie: “I hope no one smells that.”

Rubio: “Did Chris just fart?  Holy cow, what did he eat?”

Carson: “I wonder if I’m the only person on this stage with a three-digit IQ."

Walker: “Is that security guard in a union? Why is he in here?”

Trump: “I am so awesome.  No one is more of a man than me."

Bush: “Is that Katherine Harris over there? I think it is. She must be here to support me!”

Huckabee: “Hmmm… If the stock market collapses, how can I blame it on the homosexuals?”

Cruz: “Golly, I’m so happy to be here. I’m the most conservative, so I’m clearly the best choice.”

Paul: “Does standing next to Ted Cruz make me look better by contrast or worse because I’m even associated with him?”

Kasich: “Not many people have heard of me before today.  Maybe that's why I'm polling so low."

Nip It

If you haven't figured it out yet, I've been oscillating between posts that are "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints.  And while this post is one of the less important subjects I've written on, it's probably going to rub some people the wrong way, perhaps more than most of my previous posts.  So feel free to stop reading now if you have a problem with a frank discussion regarding nipples.

If you're on any sort of social media, you've probably come across something about the "Free the Nipple" movement that's currently taking place.  In a nutshell, there are many women (and men) who are protesting and making stands in various ways the fact that, in many places in the United States, it is legal for a man to be topless but not a woman.  A lot of the women fighting for "nipple equality" or whatever you want to call it are indeed feminists.  And believe it or not, yes, they are aware that there is an anatomical difference between men and women in the chest area.  Many traditional folks are disgusted by this sort of protest, especially when it is garnering support from the likes of Miley Cyrus.  Some think that nipples are lewd, that women going topless is shameful and disgusting, or that it is not modest and therefore against their religion, whether that be Christianity or something else.  But let's consider something here.  Miley Cyrus gets so much attention for showing her nipple for no reason other than that it's not really something you're supposed to do in this country.  If it were commonplace, no one would really pay attention.  I am not a nudist, and I see many reasons why both male and females should not expose their genitals in public (outside of nude beaches, etc.), but I am in favor of the "Free the Nipple" thing.  There are several reasons why that is, in addition to the fact that it would actually diminish the power that Miley Cyrus has.

First of all, because I am a Christian, I need to say that this belief does not go against the Bible from my point of view.  Does it go against traditional Conservative Christianity in the United States?  Absolutely.  But is it a sin?  I certainly can't find any scriptures that say so.  Is it a good idea to go topless in most places?  Probably not. The Biblical argument that can be used against it is that women should not do it if it can cause a man to stumble or lust after her.  And if going topless is going to cause a man to stumble or lust, while wearing a bikini or just regular clothes would not, then don't do it, but I don't buy that this is always the case.  Because it's not.  And because pretty much every man has lusted after women who are fully dressed in layers of winter clothes as well.  Should a woman go over a married man's house and hang out topless in his backyard?  I don't think so.  That's probably not wise thing to do, for many reasons.  But should a woman have the option to take off her top in the same places that men have that option?  Even though women are different anatomically, I will actually agree with the feminists here and state that I believe the answer is yes, for the sake of equality.

The Bible says that women should dress modestly.  But many churches today take that notion vastly out of context.  I Timothy 2:9-10 states that women should "adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh woman professing godliness) with good works."  Modesty appears to refer to not wearing expensive things or drawing special attention to yourself.  Note that this verse does not say, "not with the showing of shoulders or any part of the breasts (for God despises cleavage of any sort), nor showing too much leg (or back), and certainly none of the belly, but with fashions to the knee and loose fitting garments."  I've been in churches where I would swear that's what they thought it said.  Let me state that I do not believe that it is appropriate for men or women to attend a church service topless.  In our culture, this would seem to be disrespectful to God.  And I understand to some extent why there are dress codes in churches.  After all, there are workplace dress codes.  Men and women can't go topless at work either (in most 9-5 professions anyway).  But telling people what they should or should not wear in their life outside of church (or that males and females should not swim together unless both are fully clothed--I was in a church that said this, no kidding) crosses a line.

Let's take a look at some examples of nudity in the Bible.  We all know that Adam and Eve were naked, and in Genesis 3:7, after eating the fruit, they realize this, and the King James Version says that they then made aprons out of fig leaves.  Other versions say loincloths, but I don't believe there are any versions that note that the woman covered her breasts but the man did not.  It makes no distinction here.  What is clear is that both Adam and Eve covered their genitals, the organs which God made for reproduction and sex.

We all know the story of King David's sin with Bathsheba.  In 2 Samuel 11:2, David was walking on his roof and he saw Bathsheba washing herself (naked, presumably), and as we see in the verses that follow, he decided to commit adultery with her and murder her husband.  Surely this story is here to point out that women should always be fully clothed, right?  Look what happens when they're not!  They cause men to sin!  NO.  The Bible indicts David here.  Yes, 2 Samuel 11:2b notes that she was "very beautiful to look upon."  That's how God created her.  Women are works of God's art.  And yes, men enjoy seeing breasts, but this is no excuse to sin!  The problem here was what David did next.  The Bible makes it clear that David's lust, adultery, and murder were terribly wrong and sinful.  It does not say that Bathsheba should not have been washing herself where anyone could see her.

The culture in our society is different.  We typically don't see people bathing from our rooftops.  But we typically don't baptize people naked anymore either.  That's right.  Early Christians were baptized by immersion naked.  We don't do that now, and that's a good call culturally, but it takes down any arguments where Christians try to say something should be done exactly as the early church did it, regardless of a different culture.  And arguments stating that the Bible tells women to cover everything up at all times hold no water.  People who take the stance that "you're not born gay" in the gay marriage debate, but fail to mention the irrefutable fact that "you're born naked" are laughable as well.

Breastfeeding or just relaxing topless are not disgusting or lewd things.  They are perfectly normal behaviors.  Jumping into a pool with a shirt on is abnormal behavior.  I did this once at a Christian camp where the rule was that all guys and girls had to be wearing a shirt when they went into the pool together.  It was unnatural and uncomfortable.  I am not meant to wear a shirt in the pool.  Few people are.  It actually felt wrong.  As for women, hey, maybe bathing suits or bikinis are more comfortable than a shirt, but if you're in a spot where men can go without a shirt, you should have that option as well.  If it's a hundred degrees outside and you want to take off your shirt, you should have that option.

We all have nipples.  Yes, men are wired differently and more stimulated visually, but women can lust after shirtless men too.  It's not up to a woman to control a man.  A man must have self-control.  There is no excuse for bad behavior or sin.  MAN UP!  A woman doesn't make you do anything by the way she dresses.  That notion needs to disappear from Christianity in the United States.  Sadly, and certainly without intending it, many churches foster cultures where women are blamed for things that they should not be blamed for, and where sexual assault can be borne out of sexual repression, fear, and a lack of frank and open conversations about sexuality.

Finally, to break down the psychology of various stats of undress, I will point out that on beaches where topless women are common, it is not a big deal, because it is normal.  Bikinis are often more seductive anyway, and quite honestly, there are a lot of women who look better in bathing suits than without them, and there are also those who are not exactly pleasant to look upon while in a bathing suit or topless, but that does not mean that they should not be allowed to go around topless.  Think of how many men you have seen without a shirt in your life that you wish you had not...

Whether or not a woman is "beautiful to look upon," a woman should not be shamed because of her body, and to some extent, that's what this double standard does.  Plus, allowing men but not women to go topless adds to the idea that a topless woman is always a sexual thing.  That in itself is dangerous.  Plus it's ridiculous.  How much hypocrisy is present when a woman is allowed to wear a thong and show nearly the entirety of both breasts in public or on television, and that is considered acceptable, but the moment the nipple makes an appearance, it's not?  We are a strange people.

"I have nipples, Greg.  Could you milk me?"

Gunning for a Real Solution

Why is it that every single time there's a tragic shooting in the news, it sets into motion a ridiculous debate that neither solves the problem nor honors the victims?  Suddenly, a bunch of folks on the far left are calling to ban guns, and a bunch of folks on the far right are saying that the answer is to arm everyone.  Neither of these things gets to the heart of the problem.  The real problem we have here in the United States is a psychological problem.  As a nation, we need to focus on coming up with ways to identify people who are threats to commit violent crimes, make sure these particular people do not have access to weapons, and get them the help they need.  We also need to take a look at our culture and figure out why shootings have become such a common occurrence.  I don't have all of the answers on this, but these are the questions we should be asking, rather than which additional restrictions we should place on firearms (to make it look to the general public like we're doing something to address the problem) and whether or not we should decide to have the government come and confiscate guns from everyone (yeah, that would go smoothly).

I offer my own thoughts.  Guns have been legal in our nation since the beginning.  We have the right to bear arms.  But mass shootings seem to be happening more often lately.  So, what has changed?  I would argue that it is our national attitude in general, where our kids are raised to believe lies.  There was a time when people carried guns in their vehicles to school because they would go hunting after school. This was normal.  I'm still in my 20s, and while I'm far too young to have been a part of that, I have always carried a pocketknife with me since I was a young boy.  I had one in my pocket at school every day.  This was a normal thing.  The thought of stabbing someone with the knife never once came to my mind.  A pocketknife is a tool.  I had it on me because you never know when you're going to need to cut something, or whittle a stick.  Sure, it can be used in self-defense as well, but if the person attacking you has a gun, you're out of luck.  But that's not my point at the moment.  My point is that if I was in elementary school today and a teacher saw me with a pocketknife, I would be in serious trouble.  You can't carry that tool to school anymore.  It's apparently a weapon now.  That's how we're being trained to view it.

You can't play dodgeball at school anymore either.  You get suspended for fighting instead of reprimanded.  Touching a fellow student in a non-sexual way is sexual harassment.  Anything you say can be construed as sexual harassment.  You can't say anything that's not politically correct either.  You can't hurt anyone's feelings.  If a teacher touches you, he or she could be fired.  Remember how teachers would pat you on the shoulder when you were a kid or even hug you on occasion?  That can't happen anymore.   But instead of physically showing that they care for students, they teach lies instead.  You can do anything you want.  You can be anything you want.  If you try hard enough, you will reach your goal, whatever it is.  Nothing is impossible.  Bullshit.

Meanwhile, no one plays outside anymore.  Your parents could be arrested if you walk a few blocks away to the local park unsupervised.  Besides, why would they allow that anyway?  You might get kidnapped or worse.  We all interact less in-person.  Even phone calls have declined.  We text instead.  We communicate through Facebook.  Sometimes we video chat.  You want to ask a girl out?  Text her.  Want to break up with her?  Text her.  Want to know what an old friend is doing?  Look at their online profile.  We are losing our ability to interact.

A teenage boy a few towns over from where I live asked a girl to prom a few years ago and got rejected.  He couldn't just move on to the next girl.  Yes, there was something psychologically wrong with him, but he grew up being taught that he would have whatever he wanted in life if he really wanted it.  He was shielded from anything that could possibly hurt his feelings.  He was never taught how to deal with the inevitable problems that will happen in life.  He stabbed her to death in the stairwell at the school.  A boy barely older than him stole his mother's gun, killed her, and shot and killed more than 20 people in an elementary school less than an hour away, before killing himself.  Connecticut responded to this by enacted gun control legislation that effectively did nothing, nor would it have prevented such a tragedy had it been on the books when it occurred.

Our President talks about how he is in favor of more gun control, because if new legislation saves the life of one child, it's worth it.  Well, unless it saves the life of an unborn child.  It's perfectly alright to kill them and sell their organs.  Our President talks about how armed guard at schools is a bad idea, yet there are armed guards present when his daughters go to school.  They're more important than other children.  Our President talks about how gun allowances are excessive for self-defense, yet everywhere he goes, he is surrounded by secret service agents with high-powered firearms.  When he spoke at Wesleyan's commencement in 2008, six months before he was elected president, there were snipers on the roof of the library, just in case.  His self-defense is more important than yours.

I have never shot a gun in my life.  I don't own a gun.  I plan to get one soon, to keep in my house in case I ever need it.  I live in a relatively safe area, and it's on my list of things to do, but it's not a huge priority for me.  My dad hated guns.  He was a Chief in the Navy.  He had to pass a shooting test, which he did, although he wasn't a particularly good shot.  In the latter part of his life, he did not own a gun.  His father was in the military as well, and once had his gun stolen in Bridgeport, Connecticut.  My dad never fought in a war, and he never had to shoot anyone, but he simply did not like guns.  Yet he was a proud member of the NRA.

Chicago has strict gun control laws, and a sad and disturbing rate of gun deaths.  Pretty much everyone in Switzerland owns a gun, and the number of people killed by gunfire is very low.  Violent crimes (and shootings) have gone up in the UK since guns were banned.  More gun control usually means less safety.  If you want more facts on the issue, here's one place to check them out: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Increasing gun control means that law-abiding citizens will have decreased access to guns.  Criminals will still get guns.  This is a problem.  If I wanted to get a gun illegally, I can head to downtown New Haven and get one quicker and cheaper than doing it legally.  Do we really think that's going to suddenly change if new gun control laws are passed?  Yeah, there have been a lot of shootings, whether suicide, gang or drug-related, hate crimes, mass murders, or whatever, but there have also been a lot of lives saved by citizens or police officers using or simply having guns.  And speaking of police officers, based on recent events in this country, a lot of the same people pushing for more gun control are very skeptical and distrusting when it comes to police officers.  Do you really want them to be the only people with guns?  And even if the vast majority are trustworthy people, certainly some percentage are not.

Ultimately, every citizen has the right to bear arms, and can decide whether or not to exercise that right, but except in cases where someone is a violent threat, that right itself must always remain.

The Great Reefer Barrier

Within the next decade, maybe sooner, I believe that marijuana will be legal throughout the United States, for both medicinal and recreational use.  At least I hope it will be.  It's time.

I say this as someone who has never been high, and as someone who does not plan to use marijuana unless there is a medical reason to do so.  I am not encouraging getting high, but I am encouraging common sense.  And in my view, common sense includes the legalization of pot.

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit here.  It baffles me that there are places where marijuana is not legal for medical use.  Morphine is legal, but not marijuana?  Really?  It can help cancer patients, those who struggle with pain, those who need to increase their appetite, and a slew of others.  Used properly, marijuana is a drug that can help a lot of people.  At the very least, I see no valid argument against the legalization of medical marijuana.

And the case for legal recreational use is pretty strong too.  Where I went to college, marijuana may as well have been legal.  It was prevalent, to say the least.  For the most part, people who got stoned were pretty chill, but every now and then you would come across someone who became paranoid or mixed other drugs with marijuana and had a not-so-good reaction.  But it was during college that I realized something.  By itself, marijuana is less harmful than most legal drugs.  People get very sick from drinking too much alcohol.  Many people die every year from overdosing on alcohol.  Cigarettes kill in many ways too, although more slowly.  And how many people overdose on marijuana every year?  None.  You don't die from smoking too much weed.  If you smoke too much weed, your performance in life will probably be greatly hindered, but you're not going to end up sick or dead from it.  You'll be unemployed and hungry maybe, but alive.  Alcohol, while legal (as it should remain, and if you think otherwise, please read the history of prohibition), is far more dangerous than weed.

Keeping marijuana illegal because it's a "gateway drug" falls flat, because what the heck does that even mean?  Yeah maybe people who experiment with it are more likely to experiment with other drugs, including harder drugs that are very dangerous and can kill you the first time you try them, but reefer is not exactly the cause of that, is it?  And do we really think that if it becomes legal, suddenly a lot more people are going to start using it?  Let's be honest, if you want weed now, even though it's illegal in all but a few states, it is extremely easy to procure.  Making it legal isn't going to make a whole bunch of people suddenly decide that they now want to start smoking it, or vaping it, or eating delicious baked goods with pot as an ingredient.

But there would be some impact on society if it were legal, right?  Let's see...  A lot less arrests every year, leaving the police free to focus on REAL crimes.  Oh, and prisons would be less crowded.  That means less of our tax dollars going to pay for non-violent criminals to be put in prison.  Hmm, and I guess government regulation of it would mean less bad batches.  Oh, and taxes.  Huge taxes.  Our government probably can't be trusted to spend it, but maybe it will be a step in the right direction of actually balancing a budget, because that creates a whole lot of money going to the government.  And it takes a whole lot of money out of the hands of drug dealers.  If someone wants to deal it, it could be done legally and become a legitimate above ground business.  I guess that means that a bunch of legitimate jobs would have to be created.  And that means the government can tax those earnings as well...

Those are all positive things.  Let's think of some negative ones.  Well, I guess even though it would only be legal for adults, maybe kids could end up getting access to it. But that already happens.  Maybe more of them will get it somehow?  Or no?  I don't know.  Um... Oh, yeah, well, it's addictive to a lot a people.  So, yeah, there's that.  That's definitely bad.  And if we legalize it, then, well, I guess it's still just as addictive to just as many people.  Hmm... Never mind.  I give up.  What were our elected officials smoking when they made this stuff illegal anyway?