Sunday, February 26, 2017


Over the years of writing this blog, I’ve spent my fair share of time being critical of Christianity. As a Christian, this type of introspection is usually kept for those closest in relationship, or just in the quiet of prayer. It is usually not voiced out into the air for those not of the same belief structure to hear. After all, Christians want non-Christians to become Christians. It’s part of the credo. Anything that even remotely smells like hypocrisy is supposed to be hidden or ignored.

What I want to know is how do those on the opposite end of the belief spectrum deal with apparent hypocrisy. What am I talking about? Let me explain.

Recently President Trump repealed the Obama administration’s school bathroom mandate, and that caused quite a stir on social media. Many people who claim to care for transgender folks were either blasting the “hatred” of President Trump and his administration, or pouring out words of overwhelming support for those affected by this mandate. Most of these folks do not claim to be Christians. Because, you know, Christians are hateful, narrow minded anti-truthers (a.k.a. “anti-science”).

As far as whether or not a person is non-heterosexual (by the way, it is just easier to use “non-heterosexual” than to have to remember ALL of the other terms used for those who claim to not be heterosexual), I really don’t care one way or the other. I will neither praise you for your “bravery”, nor condemn you for being a “bane” upon society. So I’m not coming at this with bias for or against. I am coming at this rather confused.

What I’m finding is that the same people who are so pro-non-heterosexual lifestyles, are the same people who claim to be very pro-science. Remember the age old war of religion versus science? Should a Christian school be forced to teach evolution? Should a non-religious school be forced to teach creationism? You know, evolution is the truth because it is supposed to be based in science, whereas creationism (and the idea of a God) is mythological whimsy.

What I want to know is, how do those who fully believe that evolution (and science) is truth can embrace non-heterosexual lifestyles?

Recently, Tucker Carlson had an interview with DNC advisor Zac Petkanas, where he asked if gender identity was really all someone needs to determine gender? In other words, what a person SAYS they are, they are. This is a common viewpoint: if Tommy says he is really Tammy, than to say Tommy isn’t is discriminatory. Tommy’s personal viewpoint of Tommy’s gender is all that really matters. Tucker Carlson argued that SCIENCE (biology), and not psychology should determine gender. According to science humans reproduce sexually with two genders: male and female.

How does someone who is a Darwinist, believing in biological evolution and disregarding anything that does not fit that viewpoint (creationism), accept that gender identity trumps science?

If you believe in evolution, you HAVE to accept the survival of the species premise. Non-heterosexuals do NOT fit in that premise.

If you took heterosexuals and isolated them on an island, they would reproduce and the species would survive. If you took non-heterosexuals and isolated them on an island (an island of homosexual men or an island of homosexual women), what would happen? And if you answer that honestly and scientifically, you HAVE to come to the realization that non-heterosexual lifestyles are NOT in line with evolution.

Non-heterosexuality does NOT benefit society, as it does not follow the basic, biological premise of evolution.

So, I ask those of you who claim that science is the ultimate truth, how do you reconcile this?

I’m not hating. I’m questioning. I’d really like to know.

©Emittravel 2017

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Consolation Prize

The 2016 Presidential Election has produced many a discussion on whether or not we should be using the Electoral College (E.C.) to determine who becomes President. There are many reasons why we should do away with the E.C., including the fact that those voting have the ability to change their vote from the will of the states they represent (which defeats the purpose of having a “republican” form of government in the first place).

The big cry, of course, has been the issue of the Popular Vote, where Hillary Clinton, though losing in the E.C., had a larger number of votes than Donald Trump. One shed tear of the cry has been that if you removed the popular votes received in the State of California alone, Donald Trump would have won that as well.

Regardless, Donald Trump is now the President of the United States, and Hillary Clinton is sitting on the sidelines - probably giving a sigh of relief!

She is, as Donald Trump would say, “A big, fat LOSAH!”

And since politics is an obvious game show (Betsy DeVos became Secretary of Education by playing “The Price is Right” with the G.O.P.), Hillary Clinton should leave the stage, not empty handed, but with a consolation prize.

The Governor of California is Democrat Jerry Brown. Brown is currently serving his fourth life sentence . . . er . . . term as governor. I think it would be such a great gesture of Democrat Party unity for Jerry Brown to hand over his baton of power to Hillary Clinton. Since California proved how much they supported Hillary Clinton by providing enough votes to swing the election to her from Donald Trump (if the E.C. went away), it should be a no-brainer to give her the Governorship.

If you DO need a little brainer, let’s look at the numbers:

Jerry Brown won his last term with a total of 4,388,368 votes. Hillary Clinton received 7,362,490 votes. That’s a difference of 2,974,122 votes MORE for Clinton than Brown. Even the people of California have spoken!

Hillary Clinton, as a consolation prize, you are now the Governor of California.

And don’t worry Jerry Brown, you get a consolation prize as well: a year’s supply of Turtle Wax (™) - which, by the way, is one can.

Thank you, and good night!

(I miss Richard Dawson!)

© Emittravel 2017

Sunday, February 5, 2017

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #11

It's broke . . .

President Donald Trump came under a lot of pressure to separate himself from his businesses once he became President. The concern was that having control of his businesses would impact his decisions and the way he worked with foreign governments. You know, he would not make a decision that would negatively impact his businesses.

And separating himself is a good thing. But is it enough?

If having “civilian” enterprises are a negative for the President, shouldn’t the same be said for those in Congress? What about the Supreme Court? How about for anyone in public service? Why just the President?

In March of 2004, Martha Stewart was found guilty of what is commonly referred to as “insider trading”. (She was actually convicted of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators as per Was she in the wrong? The courts surely thought so.

But why is “insider trading” considered illegal? According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security (stock), in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include 'tipping' such information, securities trading by the person 'tipped,' and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.” It is considered illegal because “insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets”. (See for more info)

When you own stock, you own a part of a company. The more stock you own, the more of the company you own. If you own a certain amount, you have “voting rights” of a company in their decision process.

If a member of Congress owns stock in a company, wouldn’t that be on a certain level the same as President Trump owning a company? And wouldn’t owning that company impact the laws that Congress writes? And furthermore, wouldn’t having access to lobbyists from these companies provide insider trading information to these members of Congress, which would not only impact the way they write laws, but also how they buy/trade their stock?

In other words, if a member of Congress owns stock, couldn’t they be charged the same as Martha Stewart?

The solution is simple: EVERYONE in public office must give FULL DISCLOSURE of their financial investments to the public (you know, their BOSS) and be accountable for any decisions they make that impact the value of their investments. You know, like everyone screamed that President Trump needed to release his tax forms.

Either that, or like everyone is screaming about over President Trump, they should remove themselves from their “businesses” (a.k.a. “the companies they own - even if it is via stock”). And the simple way to do that is divest themselves of all of their investments prior to taking office.

. . . time to fix it!
©Emittravel 2017