LGBTQLMNOP - Really?

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Recently President Trump repealed the Obama administration’s school bathroom mandate, and that caused quite a stir on social media.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

Thank You Obama?

To be completely honest, I've only given a passing interest to the goings on of both political party primaries. As a registered Independent living in Ohio, voting for one or the other puts me in that party's affiliation. I'm too independent of thought for that.

Some of what I've grasped so far is that we need to build a wall of some kind, have Mexico pay for it, and provide free college tuition for those using the gender-specific bathroom stated on their birth certificate. Okay, as Lou Costello famously said, "I grasp it, but it keeps slippin' outta my hands!"

One thing that I haven't heard was something that was a main topic a number of years ago. It was more important than any other topic, and that includes man-made climate change. What topic? The thing that was going to destroy this nation. The thing that was going to bankrupt our children's children's children. And that thing was the NATIONAL DEBT!!

Remember that $17+ TRILLION behemoth? Remember when every cable talking head, every politician, and your so-right-wing-that-he-flies-in-circles Uncle Ernie, cried that if we didn't stop spending we'd death spiral out of control financially? Yeah, I remember it too. Whatever happened to that debt?

The Republicans don't seem to be talking about it anymore. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen one Tweet from Donald Trump about it. (Okay, for the record: I don't follow any of these yahoos on Twitter. Sometimes people I follow may reTweet something, but that's about it. And don't get me started on Facebook!) So what happened?

I'll tell you what happened: Obama happened! That's right! Barack Hussein (sometimes known as "Barry") Obama. He became President and not only did the oceans stop rising, but so did the national debt. He must have done it with that famous "Obama money".

And that's why the Republicans aren't talking about it anymore.

I guess it's okay for Congress to keep spending. Thanks, Obama!

(On a less funny note: You can still find the national debt clock here. And I was blown away when I looked at it. That $17 trillion has now reached just over $19 trillion as of this writing.) 

©Emittravel 2016

The Science is Settled

No, the title of this blog is not intended as "click bait". In January of 2014, our own President Obama declared that the debate over climate change was settled: "Climate change is a fact."

The purpose of this particular post is not to argue for or against man-made climate change. I've done that before. What I'm hoping to convey is how important mankind may or may not be, and the impact - or lack thereof - mankind has upon the world around him.

(I follow the old-school grammar of using "he" and "him" when referencing humankind in general. I don't mean to come off as sexist. Women fit in the generalizations I will be addressing just as much.)

I was reading an article recently that was discussing man-made earthquakes. What? Really? Yes. Really. The article referenced such things as the Hoover Dam (the water pressure), years of oil and natural gas extraction, and the recent hot topic of fracking, as being influential if not directly the cause of earthquakes. Various studies have taken place over decades, with mounds and mounds of data collected concerning seismic activity. And you know what? With all of the data, with all of the experts, the decision was made: Actually, there has been no decision. There are those on both sides using the same data to make their argument. The science is NOT settled.

Of course, with climate change, with much more data from many more sources, the science is settled. At least that is what Climatologist Barack Obama said. And he's not alone. In the recent Paris Climate Summit, a bunch of climatologists (a.k.a. "politicians") got together and said that man-made climate change was settled science, and made an agreement that hopes to aggressively curb the hotbed that the earth has become (sarcasm font).

What do earthquakes and climate have in common? Man's impact - or lack thereof.

On one hand Friedrich Nietzsche stated that "God is Dead". On the other Shirley MacLaine stated that "I am God." Right there is the rub: we want a world without God, so we can sit on the throne AS God. But is that possible?

My fear is not necessarily that we create earthquakes or climate change by our actions. My fear is that our actions to fix things cause more harm because unlike God, our vision is very short-sighted and we miss the long-term impact of the things we do.

I could talk about windmills and their impact upon birds, or solar panels and the amount of reflected light/heat that may be warming the atmosphere, but I'm not. I'm going to give you a little story from my home state of Ohio:

We have a lot of deer here. A lot. I've heard that it is because of all the housing and business development that the deer have been driven from their areas and now are all over the place. That may have something to do with it, but not entirely. The other reason for the deer population growth is deer population growth. For example: for two years in a row we had two fawns in either our yard or our next-door neighbor's yard. Below are pictures of three of them:

That's four additional deer in two years. My neighbor, who (along with one of his kids) is a hunter, has bagged around one a year. That means there are two more deer running around here than originally (not including the parents still running around). I know there are other hunters, but with the limits on where you can hunt (my neighborhood is off-limits, and the deer apparently KNOW that!) and the number you can actually kill, the population is exploding.

So what did the wise leaders in Ohio do? They changed the hunting laws? Nope! Not humane enough. They brought in a natural predator: coyotes.

Let's see how well that worked out.

The coyotes have NO natural predator in Ohio thinning them out. So, we are now overrun with coyotes (see my blog). But at least the deer have been thinned out, right? Nope! The coyotes would rather go after cats and small dogs than after big deer that run too fast. So now we have both: deer AND coyotes.

When it comes to man-made climate change, the thing that scares me more than the loss of oceanfront property is the damage that man MAY do by trying to fix it.

Well, at least one thing removes my fear: the science is settled.

© Emittravel 2015

It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #7

It's broke . . .

There is a real lack of accountability when it comes to government spending.

If you ask the average person (by that I mean those with a job, and not self-employed) what they make, they will most likely give you the net amount. If you ask them what their gross is, they wouldn't have a clue.

I too, am an average person by that criteria. But, to be honest, without actually looking it up, I couldn't tell you what I made in gross OR net. That kind of info never seems to stick in my Etch A Sketch brain.

The difference between the gross and the net on your paystub is shown as a list of deductions: (where applicable) 401(k), medical insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, AND (always applicable) a multitude of taxes: local, state, and federal.

Once upon a time, we working stiffs would get a paper paycheck, along with a paystub attached that gave you all those deductions. Then one day the paychecks went direct-deposit to your bank and the paystubs became a thing you could only see if you logged into an account online and brought them up.

So, what does this have to do with the lack of accountability when it comes to government spending? Plenty.

Most folks have no idea how much they are sending to the government each pay period. Out of sight, out of mind. Because of this, the HOW money is spent by our government becomes less impactful. Don't think so? Remember back in 2009, when President Obama's stimulus spending was kicking into gear? When asked, some people thought it was "Obama's money". They had little-to-no idea that the money being shuffled around was coming from their paychecks, or of someone close to them.

Because of this lack of connectivity, people have very little understanding of WHY the government shouldn't be spending money on whatever sounds good. Your grandma was right: money DOESN'T grow on trees!

Like I say in the bio of my blog, I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. What does that mean? I'm okay with the government providing social services to better society, but they had better be financially sound (a.k.a. "in the black") when they do it. And we are NOT financially sound. How much is the deficit? Remember when the multi-trillion dollar deficit was trumpeted on the news? Do you have any idea what it is now? Take a look. And WHY isn't it cried about anymore?

Because it is gone! No more debt! It was completely wiped away with "Obama's money".

(Okay, I kid, I kid!!)

So, what's the solution? You are not going to like this (but the self-employed people already know what I'm going to say): Eliminate automatic deductions of payroll taxes. Make people write the checks.

Do it for one year. Each payday make people have to pull out their checkbooks and write a check to EACH of their governments (federal, state, AND local). And, since it is normally taken off the top, make them write the checks FIRST! BEFORE they put gas in their car, or food on their table, or pay for the roof over their heads. Write it first.

Only then will people feel the impact of what they send to their governments, and only then will they force their representatives to be a little more responsible with "YOUR NAME's money".

. . . time to fix it!

© Emittravel 2015

Finally! Both Parties Agree!

My wife, who works as a teacher in the public school system, was reading to me an article concerning Toledo, OH teachers rallying for a moratorium on holding teachers accountable for the results of this year's PARCC exams (the state has already enacted one for the students). In the article it mentions how conservatives believe the testing is an encroachment of federal power.
 
This is funny to me. Think about this. Teachers, and teacher unions, have overwhelmingly supported liberal (a.k.a. "Democrat") politicians. Yet, they are standing WITH CONSERVATIVES - maybe not for the exact same reasons - on this issue. Wouldn't you think that liberal politicians would be paying attention to one of their largest and most supportive voting blocks?

Many conservatives and liberals have stood up against things like Common Core and Standardized Testing, and feel that the federal government has been spinning its wheels over improving public education. George Bush had his "No Child Left Behind", and Barack Obama has his "Race to the Top" initiative. Both are not only utter failures, but both emphasize testing children as a means of improving schools (or to be honest, the coffers of their lobbyists - tests, curriculum, and textbooks; a one-stop shop for all your student's educational "needs"). You can almost hear the engine screaming as the whole vehicle sinks deeper and deeper in the muck.

I guess it goes to show that both conservatives and liberals can truly be bipartisan about something: f***ing your children's education.

Teachers should make their political cry as follows: Stop this madness or you will lose our support. And more to the point, stop hurting our students!

© Emittravel 2015

Stuff My Brain Says #62

In recent news, a non-profit organization held a fundraiser where people paid $50k to spend the evening with President Obama. First off, why would ANYBODY pay $50k to spend the evening with ANY president? After all, isn't he a public servant? Isn't he on the payroll? Doesn't that make him an employee of the people? Should you have to pay $50k to meet with your mayor? I know it was a "donation", but try to attend without paying it. See how far you get. And another thing, if you are paying to spend "quality" time with someone, doesn't that make that person a prostitute? Of course, when it comes to politics, those two professions ARE pretty close in comparison . . .

© Emittravel 2013

The President's Novel Idea

President Obama has a unique plan to handle the financial crisis, but it will only work if Republicans will get off of their high horses and embrace it. For every $1 in tax revenue (a.k.a. "increases"), there will be $2 in spending cuts. Novel! And it will work! The solution to the growing debt has been found. President Obama has shown his incredible, breathtaking intellect at work.

Not so quite. Here is what I want to tell Republicans (and fiscally-minded Democrats - and I know you are out there!):

Ronald Reagan was offered the same plan. He found that the only way to get significant spending cuts would be to accept this and raise taxes.

George H.W. Bush was offered the same plan. Mr. "read my lips: no new taxes" embraced this plan as the only way to get significant spending cuts.

How did that work out? They both accepted tax increases (hurting Reagan's reputation of limited government and literally eliminating Bush's chances for re-election). The promised spending cuts? NEVER HAPPENED. And what did you get? The Democrats trumpeting how the non-tax-increase Republicans LIED and increased taxes when election time came around. They don't care about the debt: they only care about getting votes (and unfortunately, so do you Republicans.) The ruse? "Compromise." In order for the media to show that you are willing to compromise, you need to accept what the Democrats are dishing out. If you don't, you are obstructionists to progress.

If I were you, I would demand to see those cuts put into action FIRST, and THEN allow the tax increase. You know, "show me the cuts, and then I'll show you the money".

Hurt me once, shame on you. Hurt me twice, shame on me. Hurt me three times??

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #44

I would like to ask President Bush how it feels to be a three-term President. Since everything has been his fault over the last four years, he must still be sitting in the Oval Office. I guess that means the Democrat campaign slogan should be "Give Obama a Chance!"

© Emittravel 2012

Why You Don't Choose The President

It's official: GOP candidate Mitt Romney has chosen Paul Ryan for his VP. Will this turn out to be a good choice? We don't know. There is the impact on the election and, more important, the impact on the potential administration. 

We understand why the election impact: a candidate is trying to capture a voting block that he may otherwise be not as likely to win over on his own. (Note: I'm using "he" throughout, since when the gender of the person is unknown, "he" is grammatically correct usage. Using "he/she", or alternating "he" and "she" makes reading clumsy for the audience.) What I want to address is the impact on the administration. Mainly, why do we let candidates pick their own running mates?

According to Federalist #68: "The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter." The 12th Amendment gives instructions on choosing the President and Vice President. In neither document does it state that the Vice President is chosen by the President - neither as President, nor as a "running mate". 

Shouldn't the Vice President be elected in the same manner as the President, as described by our founding documents? I understand that choosing one's own running mate allows the balance of the ticket, but one of the main responsibilities of the Vice President is to take over in case of the loss of the President. If something happens to the President, wouldn't we want the SAME things in a Vice President? Isn't the point to have a seamless "change of command" in such a loss? Why would we want someone who would take us in a completely different direction? 

Think back on all of the President/Vice President combinations we've had. Would you honestly have voted FOR the Vice President chosen?

Barack Obama / Joe Biden
George W. Bush / Dick Cheney
Bill Clinton / Al Gore
George Bush / Dan Quayle
Ronald Reagan / George Bush
Jimmy Carter / Walter Mondale
Gerald Ford / Nelson Rockefeller
Richard Nixon / Spiro Agnew / Gerald Ford
Lyndon Johnson / Hubert Humphrey
John F. Kennedy / Lyndon Johnson

The above list goes back to just before my birth. Just think about the combinations. Why would anyone willingly choose these combinations? Sure, some of those aren't so bad, but if given the opportunity to choose, would you have done the same? I don't think I would have.

But again, when the game is to get elected, what is best for the country slips in importance.

So remember when going to the polls: Since the Vice President is selected as a running mate, you don't, ultimately, get to choose who is President. If something were to happen to this person if elected President, would you REALLY want their chosen Vice President to take over? Brrrr - is there a chill in the room, or is it just me?

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #35

Currently, President Obama is pushing for his "Buffet Rule" - a minimum tax rate upon the wealthy. He said that they were not paying their fair share. That's right, with about a $5 Billion/year estimated influx of cash to our oh-so-financially-trustworthy government, the concept is nothing but a gimmick. In other words, just a little class (envy) warfare in an election year. He says it's all in the name of fairness. I say that is a LIE. Mr. President, if you really want to spew such rhetoric with a straight face, how about, in the name of fairness, make the 47% of Americans who pay NO income tax pay their share? That would validate your (faux) sincerity and bring in much more to the coffers than the "Buffet Rule".

Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I forgot: this is an election year. You don't want to piss off all of those folks living off the government (in other words, receiving the benefits of this nation without the same sacrifice as the rest of us) now would you?

© Emittravel 2012

"Leader" of the Free World

I, like everyone else, tend to hang around with like-minded people. It's easier on the blood pressure. These people seem to be really disgusted with President Obama, and for good reason. Yet, I don't think it is necessarily the man they dislike - most would not mind sitting in on that "beer summit" if given the chance. And I don't think it is necessarily his politics they dislike, though for most of us non-Chicago dwellers, politics-as-usual reminds us of scenes from "The Untouchables". I think that people are disgusted because President Obama has shown that he is indeed mortal. He is one of us. "Just a slob like one of us" (with a bow to Joan Osbourne).

How did that happen? I don't think it started with President Obama. You could go back to President Clinton and his MTV interview ("Boxers or briefs?"), or President Kennedy and "Camelot". I'm not sure when it started, or with whom the honor was bestowed, but it did happen: We, as a people, have elevated the position of President of the United States from a co-equal branch of government to Leader of the Free World. We have made the President into more than he is. We have flooded him with praise, and the secret service to go along with it.

The reason the Republicans are having such a tough time at picking a candidate is that we the people are not looking for a competent person to fill the role of the Executive Branch, but god. We want someone who will stop the oceans from rising and (finally) bring peace (whatever THAT is) to the Middle East. 

What we need is someone who will bring balance back to our government: three co-equal branches of government - remember civics class? They each hold the same amount of weight. If the President is the "leader", than so are the other branches. Think of it this way: If President Obama is leader of the free world, then so is Dennis Kucinich (yeah, that feels REALLY good, doesn't it?)

I don't really blame President Obama for being "The One" - he was knighted that by the people. Secretly we WANT someone to take care of us, to provide with cradle-to-grave care (which makes me wonder: if government is to provide everything we need, WHY do we need jobs??)

We can't have it both ways, folks. You can't be mad when "god" and "goddess" spend millions of dollars on themselves: every deity, in every religion, demands sacrifices and gifts be showered on them. Don't they deserve it?

Recently the National Guard was pulled from protecting the borders. The "argument" was that there were too few to make that much of a difference. I think that it's so the illegal immigrants can make it to the voting booths easier. Here is an idea: if we are not guarding the borders, let's remove that fence from around the White House, and the guards who protect it. After all, "god" should be able to protect himself . . .

Maybe it's time we stop bowing. Remember: he takes his pants down to poop like the rest of us.

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #26

If you vote for or against a candidate because of race, sex, or whatever, you have PROVEN that we have not progressed as a people. I just heard commentary where the Republicans are alienating the Hispanic base. You know what? I'd LOVE to hear a candidate say that they don't give a FLIP about race, sex, or whatever, and that we are ONE American family, and they want what is best for America. THAT candidate will get my attention.

If you voted AGAINST President Obama because he is black you are a RACIST. If you voted FOR President Obama because he is black you are a RACIST.

We will not have progressed as a people until we look past race, sex, or whatever, and have actually listened to what comes out of a person's mouth. In other words, and I'm dating myself here, the ideal candidate will be the Unknown Comic!

© Emittravel 2011