Old McDonald Had a Farm (of Fat People)

I saw a prime example of American obesity and laziness today while in McDonald's. Now, let me just say first that the only reason I was even in McDonald's was because I won a coupon for a free burger at a Braves game. Other than that, I never set foot in the place, as the food generally makes me sick, and thinking about how unhealthy the food is generally makes me sicker. Sometimes, however, a poor college student caves in order to save some money. Anyway, while I was sitting there trying to enjoy the glob of fat they call a cheeseburger, I couldn't help but notice the actions of the only other person seated in the same section as I. She was a pretty hefty beast, overweight by about 70 or 80 pounds I'd say, and she was stuffing her face with fries while reading her book. When she finished, she stood up and walked over to the trash can, where it was removed from the box that fast food trash cans normally sit inside. The Latino man who was cleaning the place had removed it to change the bag (meaning there was no bag currently in the can). I watched this woman walk over, look at the empty trash can and, after noticing its emptiness, turn and look around for another one. As I knew what she was doing, I looked as well; the closest can was literally about 10 feet from her. Evidently this is too far out of their way for fat Americans to walk, because she looked at the "distant" trash can for a few seconds, turned around and set her tray full of trash on the eating table next to her and walked off. Now, the fun part is where she walked to. She walked over to the soda fountain to refill her large drink...the soda fountain was literally RIGHT NEXT to the garbage can she decided took too much effort to walk to in order to dump her trash. After she refilled her drink she walked back, right past her tray of trash, and left. I just sat there and chuckled as she waddled out the door, embarrassed by the American culture of fatness I live in.

Conflict of Disinterest

After watching the YouTube debate between the Democratic presidential candidates that took place last night, I feel compelled to address one of the issues that was raised. It is an issue that I have generally kept quiet about in the past, as I have had an ongoing personal struggle with how I should stand. The issue about which I am talking is that of gay marriage in this country. Obviously I have religious beliefs and convictions that dictate the fact that gay marriage is absolutely wrong and not how God designed the establishment of marriage to function. See verses like Genesis 2:24 and especially Romans 1:26-27 for reference. Battling with those religious beliefs, though, are my political views, which dictate that, basically, everyone should be free to do as they choose so long as they are not directly harming anyone or anyone else's property.

I might regret saying this, but John Edwards actually made some very good points in his answer to a question addressing this issue last night. What he said largely agrees with what I said above. Paraphrasing his response, he stated that he has personal religious beliefs that tell him gay marriage is wrong; however, he said he can not and will not let those personal convictions deny anyone their rights as a human being based on their sexual orientation. If he is elected, he said, his personal religious views will not get in the way of providing each person equal rights and privileges based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. As you can see, his struggle is very similar to mine; however, he decides to let the political side of this battle win out over the religious side.

That, I think, is where I differ with him. As a devout follower of Christ, I cannot let anything outweigh the morals and convictions instilled in me by my allegiance to Him, and I don't think it's right for any Christian to do so. That would be going against what Christ commands of us, and that is for our relationship with Him to be first and foremost. I also think, however, that Edwards was correct in saying that whoever is in the Oval Office should give political considerations more clout than religious convictions. The conclusion I am nearing, then, is that perhaps followers of Christ, or anyone who adheres closely to any code of religious conduct, is not ideal for the office of president. I have always been a big supporter of separation of church and state, and the conflict described above is one of the biggest reasons for that. Trying to wholly combine religious and political views, especially for me, results in a stalemate, and indecision is definitely not a trait we want in someone running the country. Jesus even touched on this when He said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matthew 2:21). In order to have a country that provides equal opportunity and individual freedom to everyone, we can't impose the morals of any one religion (true as it may be) upon everyone. That is not true freedom for every individual. Therefore, the ideal candidate for president, odd as it may sound, is a person who does not adhere to any religion, but also has a high level of moral fiber as well as a sense of true freedom for every person. Again, by true freedom I mean any person has the right to do whatever he desires as long as he is not directly harming anyone else or anyone else's property. It seems that gay marriage would be included in this.

Adding all this up, therefore, the logical conclusion on my part would be that gay marriage is definitely wrong, as it is condemned by the Bible. My religious views also dictate, however, that "marriage" by definition is a man and a woman "leaving his father and mother" and joining together in union (Genesis 2:24). For that reason I believe the church should have the right to refuse recognition of gay marriage, therefore making it impossible for a homosexual couple to literally "marry." Politically, however, people should not be denied any rights or benefits based on their sexual orientation (again, that would not be true freedom for all). By benefits I mean things such as the tax breaks that come with marriage, etc... Therefore, in order to provide the same treatment to each individual, some sort of "civil union" should be allowed and recognized by the government. This would not be a literal marriage (from the church's point of view), but would still be treated as such politically speaking. In conclusion, you can see how these two points of view clash and create a deadlock. That is why, as above, it seems to me that a true Christian would not work as president of this country; rather, the ideal president would be an unbeliever (who therefore could not go against his Christian duty to uphold the Lord's commands above all else) who desires to run the country based on the principle of allowing each individual the freedom to do anything he wants providing he doesn't harm anyone else or their property, and also giving each individual equal rights and privileges regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Gore Busted

Al Gore III, son of the former vice president of this country, was arrested yesterday for possession of marijuana and prescription drugs. Not that this is necessarily a reflection on the validity of his father's political standing, as the media would be sure to suggest if the parties involved were of the conservative variety, but I thought I should point it out, because you will probably not see any coverage of this in the popular media. Imagine what a huge deal would be made if this was George Bush or Dick Cheney's kid.

Invasion from the Inside, and Other Bloglings

So I'm stealing a couple stories from Neal Boortz today, but...he's a smart guy, so who can blame me? Here's the link to his site.

• In case you haven't heard the developing story, three members of the National Guard were arrested this week for illegally smuggling Mexicans across the border. This obviously doesn't help the already-dismal status of our border security, but what I thought was really interesting were the names of 2 of the 3 officers arrested: Rodrigo Torres and Julio Cesar Pacheco. Ain't that great? Not only are we being invaded by illegal Mexicans, but now they're on the inside as well.
  
• Maybe my reaction to this should have been more so one of repulsion, but I thought this was just hilarious. Basically the story is this: In Islamic culture, it is forbidden for men and women that are not related or married to each other to be together in public. It's obviously hard to adhere to this custom in workplaces in which men and women work together. Well, an Islamic mufti (a person with the authority to issue judgments on Islamic law) has issued a ruling that states that, in order for an unrelated man and women to establish "family ties," all that has to be done is for the woman to breast feed her co-worker five times. What a simple solution...I wonder why no one thought of this before!
  
• This story didn't come from Boortz, but something I read on his page reminded me of this. I saw a commercial on TV last night for a new reality show that will be aired this summer. Normally I'm not a fan of reality shows (I guess I find reality boring), but this one actually looks interesting, as it will actually serve a useful purpose. According to the commercial, the premise of the show involves NBA superstar Shaquille O'Neal working with a group of overly obese children. The point of the show is for him to train this kids, put them through rigorous workout routines, and ultimately to get them back into decent shape. From the looks of the kids in the commercial, it looks like quite a task. Like I said, I'm not a fan of reality shows (or Shaquille O'Neal for that matter), but I'm actually looking forward to checking this one out.
  

Hayden

Some brand spankin new pictures of the awesomest nephew in the world!

American Amnesty

I'm still not quite sure what to think about this Senate amnesty bill that's impending passage would grant legal status to about 12 million illegal aliens in this country. They're calling it the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, but what it really is is amnesty. The bill proposes to grant legal status (amnesty) to illegals by means of something called a "Z" visa. What I don't understand is how it escapes so many people that these people are criminals; they have broken our laws by sneaking into this country without obtaining legal visas and legal status. By granting them legal status, the government would show a great lack of respect for it's own laws, for one, and also for those immigrants that took the time and made the effort to come to this country legally. Yes, these people come to this country for jobs in order to provide for themselves and their families, and they are welcome to those jobs as long as they go about everything in a legal manner. I don't have anything at all against immigration or people of Latino descent (who make up the majority of the illegal immigrants in this country). In fact, I have often admired the work ethic of the Latino peoples I have come in contact with. Those, however, who choose to bypass our laws and enter illegally are criminals and should be treated as such. Breaking other laws isn't popularly accepted in this country; why should this be?

Along with receiving no consequences for breaking the laws of our country, these illegal immigrants also benefit (illegally) from things such as education, health care, and social services. These things are paid for by the tax dollars of legal citizens of this country; many illegals pay no taxes, as they are often paid in cash under the table. Those that do pay taxes have low income jobs, thus not paying nearly as much in taxes as the average American. Therefore, they are contributing almost nothing to government (a.k.a. citizen) funded services such as these, while reaping all the benefits we do. John Wahala of the Center for Immigration Studies says, "They are stuck in jobs that do not pay very well so they do not pay a lot in taxes and therefore, just as anyone else would use government services, their contribution is not enough to compensate for what they use." See also Robert Rector and The Heritage Foundation's more recent study on the same topic. So, along with breaking the law, these criminals cost tax paying citizens more money than they would be paying without the problem of illegal aliens.

So, with all this being the case, why do I still have mixed feelings about this bill? Well, because I wonder, if all these people were (in an ideal world) deported back to the countries from whence they came, what effects would it have on our economy? Take, for example, the stereotypical example of a construction site. No longer is it merely the manual labor force that is almost completely comprised of Latinos, but now the majority of the higher trades such as carpenters, electricians, and plumbers are held by them as well. Playing the odds, one would figure that a large number of these people are in the country illegally. So, if they are sent back, what happens to all those jobs, and, in turn, the efficiency of things like the ongoing expansion and construction in this country? Some might suggest that those jobs would be filled by lower income people like the welfare population, but 1) if that were the case it would take time and wouldn't happen immediately, therefore harming the economy at least temporarily; or (the more likely scenario), 2) that wouldn't happen because most people on welfare are on welfare due to laziness and the expectation of the government to provide for their well-being. So, while I am all for the principle of punishing those who have broken our laws, we see that there may be very negative consequences in doing this.

So, are there any other positive effects brought about by the massive amounts of illegal immigrants in the country? There may be, and this leads me to what, I believe, may be one of the real primary reasons for the government wanting to reward these criminals for their actions rather than punish them. If our leaders were to get serious about this issue and start imposing consequences for violators, it would obviously discourage people from attempting to continue to break the law in the future and, in turn, reduce the number of illegal immigrants flooding into the country. Now here's the catcher: Perhaps the government doesn't necessarily want that flood to cease, as it views illegals as the savior of our greatly flawed social security system. How so, you might ask? Well, those illegals that pay taxes are obviously paying into the social security system while they're working here. Then, because they're illegal, they cannot collect their share later on in life, thus leaving the system with a surplus. As it stands now, the social security system has an escrow fund into which all the contributions of illegal immigrants flow. It may very well be that, by awarding legal status to all these illegals and therefore encouraging a continuation of illegal immigration rather than discouraging it, the government hopes to keep providing for the future of social security in our country. Although the bill does call for the tightening of security on the border, we all know how committed our government has been to that every time they've come up with some resolution in the past (see, for example, the bill that authorized the construction of an 800 mile wall along the border last year...currently, 2 miles of that wall has been built). Perhaps that is not the case, but what else could be the reason for such a desire to acquit so many criminals, other than pure laziness? Discuss.

Matthias Replaces Judas

It is so that my transgressions have borne a withered fruit;

the sun has scorched the rising plants, alas they have no root.
The bleached bones of animals bound by leather strips
dance through the air with laughter as I wield this wicked whip.
As you did warn me carpenter, this world has weakened my heart;
so easily I disparage, self-seeking the work of my art.
And there you have come to me at the moment I bathe in my sorrow,
so in love with myself, sought after avoiding tomorrow.
Where do you find the love to offer he who betrays you,
and offer to wash my feet as I offer to disobey you?
Your beauty does bereave me, and how my words do fail;
so faithfully and dutifully I award you with betrayal.
The weak and the downtrodden fall on broken legs,
and as I walk past I smile I cast, fervor in my stead.
But my bones, like plastic, do buckle backward now;
I lay in this field by Judas and anticipate the plow.
I can not be forgiven, my wages will be paid,
for those more lovely and admirable is least among the saved.
And where would I fit Jesus?
What place is left for me?
The price of atonement is more than I've found to offer up as my plea.
Jesus, my heart is all I have to give to you;
so weak and so unworthy, this simply will not do.
No alabaster jar, no diamond in the rough,
for your body that was broken how can this be enough?
By me you were abandoned, by me you were betrayed,
yet in your arms and in your heart forever I have stayed.
Your glory illuminates my life and no darkness will descend,
for you have loved me forever, and your love will never end.

-Showbread-