Wednesday, November 30, 2005

I feel sorry for the editorial staff of the Peoria Journal Star.  Like little children, they seem to think that if they rant and rave often enough and loud enough they will eventually convince others of the rightness of their arguments.  When their arguments are immoral and when they fly in the face of experience, that is difficult to do.  Keep ranting, keep raving.  Prayerfully we are in the process of ending the immoral direction this country has taken over the last thirty five years.  It is well past time to demand an end to immorality as our guiding principle. We must return to making decisions on the basis of GOD given morality and ethics.

This is the third, fourth, fifth, actually I’m not sure I don’t count each time, editorial bemoaning the decision of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) not to allow an abortion pill to be sold over the counter like aspirin. (11/30/05, page A4)  The emphasis of the editorial is again to follow “science” and to not be influenced by ethics and morality.  One quote from the editorial declares “The supposedly objective FDA is treading a fine line if it caves to religious lobbyists and sets itself up as the nation’s morality cop, which is well beyond its charge.”  The concept is, of course, that ethics and morality should not be considered nor should any political influence be involved.

If they actually believe that garbage, they are really naive.  If they think we believe that garbage, they believe we are really naïve.  Let’s go back to the original Supreme Court decision that permits the murder of unborn babies by the mother.  That was neither a scientific nor a medical decision.  It was pure and simply a political decision.  A political decision by nine unelected men.  I don’t think they complained about that decision being political.  I don’t think they complained about that decision being unscientific or about it being contrary to accepted medical practice.  They certainly didn’t complain about it being ethical and moral since it was neither.  But, the medical system is permeated with ethical and moral issues.            

In fact, ethics, morals, science, medicine, laws, and administrative rules and decisions can not be separated into neat little boxes that are separate and distinct from each other.  They are all intertwined permanently and indelibly.  Every state has rules, regulations, and laws starting with who will be permitted to practice medicine, what training requirements must be met, and continuing throughout the whole practice of medicine.  Ask any doctor.  Our governor has by administrative decree demanded that pharmacists distribute abortion pills if they distribute contraceptives.  That has moral and ethical ramifications just was almost all decisions of a medical and scientific nature do.  

Does not the entire editorial demonstrate the ethical and moral values of the editorial writers?  What are their ethical and moral values?  Why don’t they believe there is a problem with 11 year old girls using an abortion pill?  Would they readily give their own 11 year old girl an abortion pill?  If they would not, why should the 11 girls of other parents have access to such pills against the wishes of the parents?  If they would, >>>>>>>>?  Think about that!!!    

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

I don’t usually watch the local noon news on TV.  Today, I was in the kitchen and so I flicked it on.  I saw an interesting story but I was also doing something else so although the basic information being repeated should be accurate; the exact facts, as reported, may not be 100%.  

A woman and her husband won a state lottery worth $65,000,000.  She has just died at the age of 51.  They have not yet determined the cause of death.  After winning the lottery about five years ago, if I remember correctly, she and her husband divorced.  He died two years ago.  If they gave his age, I didn’t hear it.  Her home was shown in the story.  It looked like a very expensive home and I believe the report said it was 5,000 square feet but that may not be correct.  The report also said that about one third of lottery winners who had won sizeable jackpots (the definition of a sizeable jackpot was not given) have since gone into bankruptcy.  The report did not give details of that statement and I may not be reporting it totally accurately.  I do remember the one third figure and bankruptcy.

It got me to thinking though.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to have an accurate investigation on what has happened to major jackpot winners ten years after they had won the lottery?  My guess is that all that money did not come close to bettering (that would have to be defined, of course) the life of most of the winners.  Our society, in my opinion, tends to over emphasize the importance of wealth.  It is not just today’s society.  

Of course, The Bible has some things to say about being rich.  Here are four of them.  “People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.  For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.  Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” (I Timothy 6: 9-10)

“Jesus answered, ‘If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.  Then come, follow me.’

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matthew 19: 21-23)

“’No one can serve two masters.  Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve both God and Money.’” (Matthew 6: 24)

“’What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?  Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?’” (Matthew 16: 26)

Are you willing to surrender your soul for material riches?  Wait!  I forgot.  Man evolved from a single cell creature that just happened to pop up one day billions of years ago.  We don’t have a soul.  Consequently, we don’t have to make that choice?


Monday, November 28, 2005

I found out about this last weekend.  An organization known as Protect Marriage Illinois is conducting an advisory referendum petition drive to place a Constitutional change on the ballot in Illinois.  The petition drive asks this question.  “Shall the Illinois General Assembly submit an amendment to Article IX of the Illinois State Constitution to the voters of the State of Illinois at large at the next General Election stating as follows:

‘To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, a marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State’?”

I can’t put this petition on the blog because of the legal requirements for such a petition.  You, however, can download the petition at   It is two pages.  The first page is the actual petition page.  The second page is a Do’s and Don’ts page.  Download both pages.  The petition by law has certain legal requirements that must be met.  Follow the directions.  If you can gather more signatures than your own, that would be great.  The petition must be signed in your presence and it must be notarized with you signing as the petition gatherer.    But, you can sign it yourself and then have it notarized with you as the petition gatherer and all it needs it your signature and information as a petition signer.  

I urge you to get involved to protect the institution of marriage!  The final deadline is April 20, 2006.  However, having done petition drives before in Arizona, the earlier you can collect signatures or just do your own and send them in, the better.  The organization will have a better idea of the progress they are making to reach the required number of signatures.



Wednesday, November 23, 2005

What do Christians have to be thankful for?

“But thanks be to GOD!  He gives us the victory through our LORD JESUS CHRIST.” (I Corinthians 15: 57)

“Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and worship GOD acceptably with reverence and awe, for our ‘GOD is a consuming fire.’” (Hebrews 12: 28-29)

“Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is GOD’S will for you in CHRIST JESUS.” (1 Thessalonians 5: 16-18)

What do Christians have to be thankful for?  Everything that matters—victory, the kingdom, JESUS—the CHRIST, GOD—the FATHER, the HOLY SPIRIT.  Wonderfully, everyone has the opportunity to also accept GOD’S gift bought by the death of JESUS on the cross and HIS resurrection.  Why would anyone reject it?    

Be thankful tomorrow; the designated day of thanksgiving by our government.  Be thankful always; the designated attitude directed by GOD.    

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

I was not planning on writing on this but I just have to.  This letter is so indicative of the mind set of the libertines in this country.  Actually, there were two letters that were asininely ridiculous but I’m only going to quote the shorter of the two.

This letter was in Time (November 28, 2005) which I received today.  In my defense, I do not personally subscript to Time.  Someone in the 1990’s anonymously subscripted for me.  The subscription runs out next year and I’m certainly not going to renew it.  Time is one of the many libertine, biased publications of the mass media.    

Here is the letter in its entirety.  The writer is from California.  “Libby’s indictment points to the arrogant and ruthless behavior of the people the President values as loyal public servants.  It makes little difference whether Libby is found guilty.  He is emblematic of a culture of deceit.  Americans deserve better.”

Libby, of course, was an advisor for Vice President Cheney.  He was investigated along with others of possibly illegally identifying a CIA agent.  Here are the facts at the present time.  He has been the only one indicted so far from the administration in relation to that supposed leak of identity.  He was not indicted for leaking the identity.  (He was indicted for lying to the grand jury and obstruction of justice, if I remember correctly.  I didn’t actually go back and check and, of course, I have not read the actual indictment.)

This is how the letter writer has interpreted the situation.  He categorically knows (How; he doesn’t say.) that the people (not just Libby—his alleged actions are symbolic for the entire administration) of the President’s administration are arrogant and ruthless.  He knows this because of the indictment.  He doesn’t need the silly, little requirement of Libby actually being found guilty of any illegal act.  An indictment of one individual is sufficient to prove the corruption of the entire Administration.  Why?  Because he knows the Administration is ruthless and arrogant.  He knows the Administration is a “culture of deceit.”  How?  Because Libby was indicted.  Indicted although not yet found guilty.  Being found guilty doesn’t matter!  In his thinking (or lack thereof), an indictment of one individual is sufficient to prove the corruption of a whole administration.  Please!!!  

While I was a member of a school board, one of our male teachers was accused of inappropriate sexual behavior with a couple of male students.  By the reasoning of the letter writer, the entire school board is therefore corrupt and guilty of inappropriate sexual misconduct with students.  How utterly preposterous!!!  

This is not guilty by association with a criminal.  This is mass guilt by one indictment.  It would almost be funny if it wasn’t so irrational and if he wasn’t serious about what he wrote.      

Sunday in the Peoria Journal Star the following headline was at the top of page A10, “Pennsylvania teens’ relationship was closely guarded secret.”  The article dealt with the tragic circumstances that resulted in the death of the parents of a 14 year old girl.  The supposed secret, 18 year old boyfriend of the 14 year old girl has been accused of murdering her parents.

As I have said, I vehemently believe in the concept of an individual being innocent until proven guilty.  This is true for this accused 18 year old as well as anyone else.  Also, I do not know if what is reported in the article is true or not.  I am using what is reported but, of course, I can not verify that what was reported is true.

Here is some of the information given in the story.  The 14 year old girl and the 18 year old adult male met in August and were secretly getting together contrary to the wishes of the girl’s parents.  According to a friend of the male, according to the story, it was a sexual relationship.  The parents were shot by the 18 year old male according to the police.  The male then kidnapped the 14 year old girl and was captured the next day.  The male’s lawyer is arguing that there was no kidnapping which, if true, would seem to indicate that the 14 year old female left willingly after her parents were murdered.  It seems apparent that murder was involved.  One parent killed may have been accidental or, at least, not premeditated.  Both parents killed would seem to indicate that at least one of the killings was a premeditated murder.

Here is a quote from the story from a friend of the girl’s family who also knows the male’s mother.  “They were good kids and they were brought up very well.  What I see is; they just made some bad choices.”  Repeat that please, “… they just made some bad choices.”  If the information in the article is true that may be the understatement of the century.  If true, those “bad choices” include disobeying the parents of the 14 year old girl, having sexual relations when one person is a 14 year old minor and one is an adult—in most states that is a felony.  The “bad choices” continue with at least one murder and quite possibly two murders.  The other “bad choices” are followed by either a kidnapping or running away together.  “Bad choices,” indeed!

Could this be a whole series of selfish, self centered choices?  I’m 14; I know better than my parents what’s right for me.  I can’t wait four years, I’m in love!  I’m old enough at 14 to have intercourse with whomever I want!  I don’t care if she’s 14, I can have intercourse with whomever I want.  If I don’t get what I want, I’ll just remove the obstacles—that will solve the problem!  I want this!  I should have this!  I deserve this!  Isn’t that the new add slogan?  “You deserve ___________ (whatever it is that you want—fill in the blank).”  The “I” world almost inevitably leads to the sin world!                  

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Another Petition.  Another attack on Christianity by the libertines.  In this instance, it is an attack on military chaplains and their ability to pray according to their faith by invoking the name of JESUS in their prayers.  It would be ludicrous if it wasn’t so serious.  That’s like saying you can pray, but you can’t mention GOD or any Supreme Being.  Or, the only allowed way to mention Christmas is as Xmas.  It seems, prejudice is acceptable if it is aimed at Christians.  Mail the following petition to:

President George W. Bush    
%The White House
1600Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Or, I will mail them as a group if mailed to me at:

Christian Gunslinger
P.O. Box 481
Morton, Illinois 61550

Thank you.


To the Honorable President George W. Bush

We are disappointed and gravely concerned to learn that the right of military chaplains to pray according to their faith is in jeopardy.

It has come to our attention that in all branches of the military, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Christian chaplains to use the name of JESUS when praying.  We believe this suppression of religious freedom is a pervasive problem that must be dealt with and eliminated immediately.

Throughout our nation’s history, chaplains not only have remained an integral part of our military, but they also have always prayed according to their faith’s tradition.  We believe that if chaplains are chosen to pray before a professional setting, they have a constitutional right to adhere to the religious expressions of their faith.  Furthermore, such censorship of Christian beliefs is a disservice to Christian chaplains as well as the hundreds of thousands of Christian soldiers in the military who look to their chaplains for comfort, inspiration, and support, just as our military soldiers of other faiths look to their chaplains.

We respectfully request that you, as Commander in Chief, protect by Executive Order the constitutional right of military chaplains to pray according to their faith.  Thank you Mr. President.

Name:  __________________________________

Address: ________________________________



Signature:  _____________________________

Friday, November 18, 2005

Recently, the Illinois House of Representatives voted to eliminate legalized gambling in Illinois.  Of course, they did not expect legalized gambling to be ended in Illinois.  They realized that the state Senate would not approve the bill.  It was supposedly passed in the House to send a message to the gambling industry.

The real question though is this: should gambling be ended in Illinois?  About three weeks ago, the former mayor of Pekin was convicted in a court of law of illegally using a city credit card for private purposes at an area gambling establishment.  In the Peoria Journal Star today (11/18/05, front page) was a story that a former treasurer of a local town has been accused of stealing money that was reportedly spent gambling at the area establishment.  

Two former government officials.  Two instances of possible criminal behavior related to gambling.  The probability is that these are not the only two instances that have occurred recently.  Could there be more?  It seems to be likely.  Plus, these are two instances of public officials within a month of each other.  How many individuals are stealing from private companies or committing other crimes to support a gambling habit?  How many have not yet been discovered?

Gambling does not create any new goods for the consumption of the public.  It is one of the oldest vices used to redistribute income.  We know for a fact that over time there are always more losers in total dollars lost than there are winners in total dollars won.  That extra lost money is now being redistributed to governments and to the owners and employees of the gambling establishments.  Is this the way income should be redistributed?  Is this the way government should collect money—preying on a vice?  Is this not encouraging the indulgence of that vice and the illegal activities that occur because of that vice?  Could the State of Illinois be indirectly encouraging illegal behavior to increase governmental revenues?

Early in our country’s history gambling was a major source of government revenue.  Overwhelmingly, the states ended legalized gambling to discourage the negative aspects of that vice.  Do we really think that we are now too sophisticated to not be negatively affected by the negative aspects of legalized gambling?  Or have we just decided that the additional income is too important to lose.  Isn’t this another instance of self overriding common sense?        

Thursday, November 17, 2005

An article in Saturday’s Peoria Journal Star (11/12/05, page E5 and 6) intrigued me.  One of the churches within the United Church of Christ voted overwhelmingly to leave that denomination.  Among other issues, the local church could not accept the denomination’s practice in relation to accepting homosexuality.  If you have been following this blog, you know that I believe that living a homosexual life style is condemned as sin by GOD through both the Old and the New Testament.

However, that is not what was so intriguing.  You may know that the United Church of Christ has run an advertising campaign declaring “God is still speaking.”  And, indeed, HE still is.  In fact, He has never stopped and never will.  HE has spoken to us from the very beginning through HIS wondrous and marvelous creation of all things.  “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1: 20)  (This one verse, in itself, disproves evolution theory but then that is another post at another time.)  HE God-breathed the writing of the Old Testament and the New Testament.  “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (II Timothy 3: 16)  [This passage was probably specifically written in reference to the Old Testament since the New Testament had not yet been gathered together.  However, unless GOD has sudden lost HIS omnipotence it must also be true for the New Testament if it is true for the Old Testament.]  Finally, and most importantly, He gave us the perfect example of GOD through HIS one and only SON—JESUS.      

However, that is not what was so intriguing.  A leader in the denomination is quoted as saying “that the UCC (United Church of Christ—my addition) values a ‘diversity of voices.’”  That is intriguing!  What exactly does he mean by that?  God speaks in a diversity of voices?  God speaks in one voice but men can translate that one voice in a diversity of ways?  God speaks in one voice but we don’t care.  We listen to a diversity of voices from men?  Does it not seem that to, on the one hand, proclaim that “God is still speaking” and, on the other hand, proclaim that we value a “diversity of voices” is just a little bit contradictory?  Is it God’s voice they are listening to and obeying or is it a “diversity of voices?”  Or do they obey anything?

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

The Case for a Creator

When I know I am going to have waiting time, I bring along a book to read.  Today during that waiting time, I began reading Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator, one of the books recommended on the post last Saturday, the 12th.  I read the first two chapters.  One of my foibles is that, when I’m reading a book for knowledge, I have this compulsion to underline.  Since this is a borrowed book I think I’ll stop reading it until I get my own book when I can underline to my heart’s content.  (By the way, in chapter one he makes reference to another book mentioned in the earlier post—Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, second edition, 1993.)

The author states that his parents took him to church services when he was young but he had many questions that weren’t answered.  He became an atheist in high school convinced that Darwin’s theory as taught in his biology class was true and made any concept of GOD obsolete.  He is convinced that the teaching of Darwin’s theory has turned others to atheism and that that teaching is a form of religion—the religion of atheists.

What I want to discuss briefly tonight though is a quote from chapter 2.  This is the author characterizing his acceptance of atheism as a high school student.  “Rather than facing this ‘unyielding despair’ (in the preceding paragraph he quoted atheist Bertrand Russell) that’s implicit in a world without God, I reveled in my newly achieved freedom from God’s moral strictures.  For me, living without God meant living one hundred percent for myself (my underline).  Freed from someday being held accountable for my actions, I felt unleashed to pursue personal happiness and pleasure at all costs.” (page 25)

I think this view may be the crux of the conflict between evolution theory and the belief that GOD created the universe and all that is within.  Of course, I don’t think most evolutionists will actually admit it, unless pressed.  However, if GOD is removed from the equation, if life happened by chance, if life evolved through survival of the fittest; then the most important being in that chance universe is oneself.  And the ultimate conclusion of that individual life and every individual life is death and nothing thereafter for the rest of eternity.  If that is true, then the philosophy of “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you die” may well be the most rational philosophy of all.  Or as they started to declare in the 1960’s and continue to practice today—“drugs, sex, and rock and roll.”  Why not?  All that we can expect from life is the pleasure we participate in today and ultimately the death we face on some tomorrow.

What are the results of a world where the enduring philosophy is me first, me second, me third, and me all ways?  No hope, no faith, no trust, no truth, and little love except for love of self.  The “what’s in it for me question” is the first question thought.  Even ultraistic works are seen as actions that make “me” feel good.  Situation ethics becomes the standard of the day.  The end justifies the means is obvious if the ends means my survival and pleasure.  We each set our own standard of conduct as it best suits our ends.  

Murdering our own unborn is a right because we are the most important entity in the world.  Unity through marriage is acceptable as long as it satisfies me.  If it doesn’t, discard it.  Homosexuality is natural and acceptable.  Tolerance is the rule of the day unless it’s tolerating individuals who disagree with you; then they are not tolerant because they are judging your behavior.  Rules are tolerated only if they do not interfere with your desires or you fear you might suffer a consequence.  You are the most important person in your world.  And then you die.

As could be expected, the Bible also deals with the philosophy of “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you die.”  “The Lord, the Lord Almighty, called you on that day to weep and to wail, to tear out your hair and put on sackcloth.  (To repent—my addition.)  

But see, there is joy and revelry, slaughtering of cattle and killing of sheep, eating of meat and drinking of wine!  ‘Let us eat and drink,’ you say, ‘for tomorrow we die!’

The Lord Almighty has revealed this in my hearing: ‘Till your dying day this sin (my underline) will not be atoned for,’ says the Lord, the Lord Almighty.” (Isaiah 22: 12-14)

“And he (JESUS—my addition) told them this parable: ‘The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop.  He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do?  I have no place to store my crops.’

Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do.  I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods.  And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years.  Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

But God said to him, ‘You fool!  This very night your life will be demanded from you.  Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself (my underline) but is not rich toward God.’”  (Luke 12: 16-21)

“If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained?  If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’  Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character.’  Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning (my underline); for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.” (This is a portion of a longer discourse on the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead at the end of time as we now know it.) [I Corinthians 15: 32-34]

The decision you make in relation to evolution theory or the existence of GOD is an eternal decision.  Evolution means death.  GOD means the promise of everlasting life.  But, that is only the first step.  The second step is repentance, accepting JESUS as LORD and SAVIOR, and being obedient to HIS will.  That leads to everlasting life with HIM and GOD and the HOLY SPIRIT and other Christians.  And of course, your choice does not determine what is.  (Evolution theory is true or it is not true.  GOD created the universe is true or it is not true.  We can not change the truth by our choice.  We don’t have that power.)  But, your choice does help to determine how you live your life on this earth—for self or for GOD, it can’t be both.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Remember my October 17, 2005 post?  An individual I knew was in a car accident.  She was not at fault.  The other driver’s insurance company refused to reimburse her for her out of pocket expenses in relation to a rental car until I wrote letters to the company on her behalf.  The insurance company paid in October and I posted the letters I had written and a thank you to the company for paying the amount she was owed.

I just received a copy of a letter written to her by her insurance company.  Here are portions of that letter.  

“November 9, 2005”

“Date of Loss: June 14, 2005”    

“Your claim has been referred to >>>>> >>>>>> Subrogation Services.  We will attempt to promptly recover payments made by >>>>> >>>> from the parties or parties responsible for your loss.  The time needed for recovery varies with each claim, and could take up to one year or longer.” (The underlining is my addition.)

“As a courtesy to you, there is an additional service we offer:

If you incurred additional expenses which were not covered   under your policy, at your request, we will forward them for you to the responsible party or their insurance carrier.  However, please be advised that >>>>> >>>> has no legal interest in the expenses not covered under your policy.  If these expenses are disputed or denied by the other insurance carrier or responsible party, >>>>> >>>> cannot pursue them.”

This is in reference, of course, to the rental car expenses that she has already received payment for from the other insurance company.  Note the following, the accident occurred in the middle of June and this letter was dated on November 9th.  This was one relatively minor accident and yet the letter warns that it may take a year or longer before any money owed might be collected.  Even with the help of her insurance company, there is no guarantee that she will receive her out of pocket expenses.

My point is this.  Everyone who knows anything about bureaucracies including governors, mayors, reporters, and Congressmen knows or should know that bureaucracies, be they private or public, run slowly.  Anyone who has tried to deal with either a private or public bureaucracy knows they run slow.  They run slow for a variety of reasons.  Three of these reasons include set procedures that in the case of public bureaucracies are established by law, limited personnel and resources that can not possibly handle an extraordinary event immediately, and by the very nature of bureaucracies they are not risk takers.

The obvious conclusion is that anyone who actually believed that FEMA or any other bureaucracy could realistically, magically rush forward and save the day is delusional.  The vast majority of those public officials and private individuals who criticized FEMA did so for political reasons or because of their own personal agenda.  The others just didn’t know any better.  I can almost guarantee that for the most part none of them could have done any better.  It’s a lot easier to criticize someone than to actually perform the way you are demanding others perform.  The best laid plans often go astray and no one, no administration be they Republican or Democrat, had plans to react under the circumstances that FEMA faced.  Irrational criticism at the time served no useful purpose and was done primarily for political reasons.        

Could things have been done better?  Probably.  However, this is not a perfect world and we are not perfect people.  This was a crisis situation.  The best hitters in baseball fail more often than they succeed and yet they are paid millions of dollars a year.  Try to be realistic and learn from the mistakes so that they won’t happen again.  (At least not as likely to happen again.)  However, it is unrealistic to expect any bureaucracy to be a “knight in shining armor” in an imperfect world.  

Monday, November 14, 2005

I received the information below from friends in Tucson Saturday by e-mail.  I am posting it tonight as a public service announcement.  I can not verify the correctness of the information.  However, the wife is a nurse and I don’t think she would be involved with passing it along to friends unless she recognized the importance of the information.  Therefore, for your consideration.

“Subject: excellent information to know, you could save a life

Good information—in fact, I learned these steps as well during a recent CPR recertification training course….

During a BBQ a friend stumbled and took a little fall—she assured everyone that she was fine (they offered to call paramedics) and just tripped over a brick because of her new shoes.  They got her cleaned up and got her a new plate of food—while she appeared a bit shaken up, Ingrid went about enjoying herself the rest of the evening.  Ingrid’s husband called later telling everyone that his wife had been taken to the hospital—(at 6:00pm, Ingrid passed away.)  She had suffered a stroke at the BBQ—had they known how to identify the signs of a stroke perhaps Ingrid would be with us today.

A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke … totally.  He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed and getting to the patient within 3 hours which is tough.


Remember the “3” steps.  Read and Learn!

Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify.  Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster.  The stroke victim may suffer brain damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke.

Now doctors say a bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple questions:

  1. Ask the individual to SMILE

  1. Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS.

  1. Ask the person to SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently) (i.e. .. It is sunny out today.)  If he or she has trouble with any of these tasks, call 9-1-1 immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher.

After discovering that a group of non-medical volunteers could identify facial weakness, arm weakness and speech problems, researchers urged the general public to learn the three questions.  They presented their conclusions to the American Stroke Association’s annual meeting last February.  Widespread use of this test could result in prompt diagnosis and treatment of the stroke and prevent brain damage.

A cardiologist says if everyone who gets this e-mail sends it to 10 people; you can bet that at least one life will be saved.



Sunday, November 13, 2005

On my October 31, 2005 post entitled Evolution and God (part 2) I was asked, “Where can I find more information?”  After making inquires, I have the following suggested list.  I have not been able to check all these out personally but I have confidence in the people who suggested these references.  (I checked this briefly.  I started at “decisive designs” which presents numerous articles with each covering just one part of GOD’S design.  I checked out the one on human skin.  I am amazed at how HE has designed us!)  (I heard John Clayton, the main force behind this, speak at the University of Arizona.  He was an atheist who after studying science became a Christian.)    

The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel  (This was recommended in the comment section by Lee Keele.  I intended to check this out but circumstances prevented it.)

Darwin on Trial by Intervarsity Press, 1991

Evolution and Faith by J.D. Thomas

The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved by William A. Williams

(If this is not sufficient, I can always send out more requests for sources.)

This Peoria Journal Star headline is not misleading.  It is an untrue headline!  This is the headline: “Dark day for GOP.” (10/10/05, page A3)  The elections covered in the article included all of the following.  The Democratic governor candidates in both New Jersey and Virginia won.  The State of Maine, it seems in an initiative vote—the article didn’t say, “… voted to preserve the state’s new gay-rights law.”  That is, the law had previously been approved by the legislature.  The mayor of Detroit was reelected.  The article did not give the political affiliation of the candidates in the Detroit election.  However, in some city elections one can not run under a party label—I don’t know if that is true or not for Detroit.  Given that Detroit is a large, urban Michigan city; the mayor is probably a Democrat whether or not he is listed as such.

In contrast, the GOP mayor of New York City easily won reelection in a predominately Democratic city.  “Texas voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.”  This becomes a new amendment to the Texas Constitution and the vote is not surprising given the conservative nature of Texas
voters.  Finally, a Republican won the election for mayor of San Diego.  (I am guessing it was for the mayor’s office but the article doesn’t actually say what office it was for.  Isn’t that a strange way to report the news—not identify the office involved in the election?)      

According to the same article, the Governor’s office in both New Jersey and Virginia were won by the Democrats in
2001.  Therefore, they did not win a new office but maintained control of the offices that they controlled after the 2001 election.  The article did not say which candidates would win the election according to the mass media’s vaulted public opinion polls.  My guess is that the polls had predicted the Democratic victories or the article would have mentioned that the win was contrary to the polls.  (That’s my guess.  Since the article does not say, one can’t actually know unless they were following the campaign.)

Here then are the actual facts as actually given in the article.  The Democrats controlled the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia after the 2001 election.  The Democrats continued their control of the governorships after this election.  They did not gain any additional offices as far as the head of state government is concerned.  The mayor of Detroit won reelection.  His party affiliation is not given but he is probably a Democrat.  The voters of Maine confirmed an existing law.  

The Republican mayor of New York City was reelected and a Republican won in San Diego—the article did not say which party controlled the mayor’s office before the election.  Texas banned the marriage of homosexuals.

So, to any rational thinking individual, where is the “Dark day for GOP???”  The logical conclusion to be drawn from the results of the elections covered in the story is that the status quo was maintained.  How in the world can the maintaining of the status quo be defined as a “Dark day for the GOP?”  Who writes these headlines?”  Kindergarten students!  Either that, or they are  people who don’t think we are bright enough to actually read a news story and draw our own conclusions.  

The mangers of the Peoria Journal Star should be ashamed of themselves for such a biased, lying headline!  The owner of the newspaper should be ashamed of himself for having such biased people on staff!        


Thursday, November 10, 2005

Tomorrow is Veteran’s Day.  Started originally as Armistice Day to commemorate the end of World War I, it is a day to honor veterans of all of America’s wars.  Wars, that for the most part, were not by our choice.  Millions of men and women have given their lives or a portion of their lives to protect our freedoms.  Let us pray daily for those now serving our country.  Pray that GOD will continue to bless and watch over our nation.  One nation under GOD.              

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

If true, there was a disturbing column in the Peoria Journal Star Monday, November 7, 2005 page A4 by national columnist Kathleen Parker.  According to the article, a California school district gave a survey to elementary age (age 7-10 according to the column) school children asking certain sexually oriented questions that some parents objected to after the fact.  The parents had said they did not realize such questions were part of the survey.  According to the article these 7-10 year olds “were asked, for example, to rate the following activities according to how often they experienced the thought or emotion:”

“Thinking about having sex.”

“Thinking about sex when I don’t want to.”

“Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside.”

“Not trusting people because they might want sex.”

“Getting upset when people talk about sex.”

Some parents took the school district to court.  The article did not say how the district court ruled.  It did say that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the questionnaire did not violate the rights of the parents and the school district could legally administer the questionnaire to its students.  (The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals takes in the States of California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, and Montana.  It is generally considered one of the most libertine of the Appellate Courts.—my addition)  

Having been a school board member, I can categorically state those questions are not appropriate for a school to be asking its students of any age let alone 7-10 year olds.  However, this case demonstrates the extent to which governments can go according to court rulings to interfere with parents raising their children.

Senator Hillary “We are the President.” Clinton wrote a book (At least her name is on it.) entitled It Takes a Village.  If I remember correctly, the entire phrase is “It takes a village to raise a child.”  The Encarta reference states this: “In 1996 she (Hillary “We are the President.” Clinton—my addition) published a book, It Takes a Village, that focuses on the responsibilities that society has toward children.” (Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2004, 1993-2003, Microsoft Corporation.)    

Of course, in the United States today, that village is the government be it the school district, city government, county government, state government, or federal government.  

As a Christian, I do not want the village raising my child.  

I do not want my child being taught that GOD did not create the universe.  

I do not want the village teaching my child that intercourse outside of marriage is okay as long as protection is used.  

I do not want the village teaching my child that homosexuality is natural and normal and not a sin.  

I do not want the village teaching my child that the greatest virtue is tolerance rather than integrity, honesty, and spirituality.  

I do not want the village teaching my child that GOD and the State must be separate.  

I do not want the village teaching my child that there are many truths and each of us can pick and choose our own truths.  

I do not want the village teaching my child that the most important character trait for growth into adulthood is self-esteem.  

I do not want the village teaching my child that he is the center of the universe.  

I do not want the village teaching my child that the use of vulgarities is freedom of speech.  

I do not want the village teaching my child that a woman has the right to murder her unborn child.  

I do not want the village taking my place as a parent.  

I do not want the village to raise my child!        

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

The headline for an article in the Peoria Journal Star on 11/05/05 page C2 reads “Jobs rebound falls short.”  The subheading declares “U.S. economy struggles to regain footing after Hurricane Katrina.”  My conclusion after reading the article: another misleading headline.  The U.S. mass media in general and the Peoria Journal Star in particular seem to enjoy misleading, pessimistic headlines.

The number of additional jobs fell short.  Fell short of what?  Why, “falling well short of the roughly 100,000 jobs gains many economists were forecasting.”  What did they fall short of?  They fell short of a prediction!  Please tell me how many in percentage terms “many” is?  Please tell me why one would base a conclusion on a prediction?  

Being an economist does not automatically mean you can accurately determine how many jobs will be created in a given month.  They aren’t all that accurate over a span of time let alone month to month.  Do the readers of this garbage realize how often these people are wrong?  Maybe, just maybe, it was not the job growth that was falling short.  Maybe, just maybe, it was the prediction that fell short.  The story assumes the predictors have some unknown capacity to predict with unfailing accuracy.

In the 1990’s, I was the church treasurer for our local congregation.  One of our elders, before he retired, was the manager for the General Motors owned Hughes plant in Tucson.  One day we were talking in the church office.  He said what I had been saying for years.  In this case we were talking about stock brokers, but I believe the same holds true for economists who try to predict how the economy is going to do in advance of the actual facts.  He said that if stock brokers could predict with a high degree of accuracy how a group of stocks would perform in the future, they would not waste their time being stock brokers.  They would make all the income they would ever need by just following their own predictions.

Think about that.  If they were as good as they think they are; they don’t need your investment money.  The same holds true for those who predict how the economy will do.  To base a conclusion on a prediction is economically speaking absurdly ignorant!    

Monday, November 07, 2005

I am flabbergasted.  The Peoria Journal Star (11/05/05, page E5) actually had an article that was critical of the murder of unborn babies.  Of course, the article was in the Saturday Faith & Values section of the paper.  Still, the editorial writers must
be furious.

The article makes reference to three Internet sites.  Girls Inc. is a national organization that started as Girls Clubs of America.  American Girl LLC is a business company which is associated with Mattel—the toy company—according to the article.  Let Girls Be Girls is an organization established to influence American Girl LLC to end its association with Girls Inc.

As is normal with me, I had to check out the three sites which I did Saturday night.  Here are quotes from each of the three sites and the petition that Let Girls Be Girls is encouraging people to sign and send to the listed P.O. Box.  They are asking that they be sent by Wednesday, November 30, 2005.  I know I will and urge everyone to do so.  Because of the time factor, please don’t mail them to my P.O. Box this time.  Thank you.

The mailing address for the petition is:

Let Girls Be Girls
P.O. Box 3713
Peoria, Illinois 61612-3713

Remember: the deadline is Wednesday, November 30, 2005.  So, print the petition, sign it, and send it in.  Or go on line and print the petition from

“Grounded in research and tested in the field, Girls Inc. programs address the whole girl.  They build her athletic skills and competitive spirit, nurture her ability and interest in science, math and technology, equip her with critical health and sexuality information, provide her with leadership experience, teach her media literacy and money management skills, and foster her self-respect and self-determination.”

(Conspicuously absent from this list of the whole girl is any mention of her spirituality.  They are concerned with her sexuality as a young girl but not her spirituality!  Also, it seems there is an emphasis on self.  In an early post I stated that we need more GOD esteem and less of an emphasis on self-esteem.—my addition)

“Recently, our mission to help girls develop their self-esteem and self-reliance has become the target of false, inflammatory statements from people who are pursuing a narrow political agenda.”

(The site does not give further details of the false statements or define narrow political interests that I could find.  The article in the Journal Star claims that this statement is in response to organizations concerned about the next two quotes which occur under their “Advocacy Statements.”—my addition)

“To make responsible decisions about sexuality, pregnancy and parenthood, girls need and have a right to sensitive, truthful sexuality education; convenient access to safe, effective methods of contraception and protection from disease; and referral to comprehensive information, counseling, clinical and other services that support their responsible decisions.  We recognize that any sizable group of girls includes those who face issues related to their sexual orientation or that of a family member and who face discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Girls have a right to positive, supportive environments and linkages to community resources for dealing with issues of sexual orientation.”

(This reads like something that could have been written directly by Planned Murderhood.  While trying to sound somewhat neutral, it seems to me that they are promoting the use of contraceptives for minors without parental involvement and homosexuality including encouraging linkages with homosexual advocacy groups.—my addition)      

“Restrictions of reproductive choice are especially burdensome for young women and poor women.  Girls Incorporated supports a woman’s freedom of choice, a constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade.”

(You know my translation of this.  Girls Incorporated promotes the murder of unborn babies and believes that women including young girls have the right to become a murderer by murdering their unborn.—my addition)

“American Girl will give 70 cents for every dollar of “I CAN” band sales plus a $50,000 donation, to Girls Inc. a national organization dedicated to inspiring all girls to be strong, smart, and bold.”

(You have read the four quotes from Girls Inc.  Is that the type of organization that a national company that sells dolls to young girls should be donating money to?—my addition)

“Everyone can make mistakes, and we think many, many families will agree that American Girl has made a mistake in its current initiative to support the work of Girls, Inc. …”

“This (the Advocacy Statements of Girls Inc.—my addition) is definitely not meant for the 3-12 year-old set, American Girl’s target audience!”
(You know my policy.  Check out these sites for yourself.—my addition)

The petition:

To American Girl LLC:

  1. Thank you, American Girl, for your excellent products, dolls and books that help “let girls be girls” in age-appropriate ways.
  2. Please stay true to your mission by not supporting a
controversial group like Girls, Inc., or any other like it in the future.  Let girls be girls!

Our Family:

City, State:

Any other comments:

We will detach the above section for delivery to American Girl.  Fill out this part below if you would like to be kept up-to-date about this effort, and if you would like to be made aware of other “positive efforts” to help let girls be girls.  Examples might include thanking clothing manufacturers for making age-appropriate clothes, praising family-friendly movies, etc.

Mailing Address:





Saturday, November 05, 2005

According to the Peoria Journal Star today on page B6, the President of Western Illinois University was just given a new contract for three years retroactive to July 1, 2005 at a salary of $232,875 per year.  How much did the editorial by the Star staff say Congressman receive per year?  Oh yes, $165,200.  The President of Western Illinois University receives $67,675 more per year than a Congressman.

How many students are on his campus?  How many employees does he have?  How many of his decisions have ramifications for every single person in the nation?  I wonder if the editorial staff will have an editorial decrying how much he makes each year.  Don’t hold your breath.  

Friday, November 04, 2005

October 22, 2005 I wrote a post about the inadequate reporting that occurred in relation to a proposed minimum wage law.  I did not take a position on the desirability of raising the minimum wage law on that night and although I’m going to write more about it tonight, I still will not take a position.  My concern is an irrational argument being used to try to push it through.

The original article was published October 20, 2005 in the Peoria Journal Star page A8.  Senator Kennedy, who was the sponsor of the bill according to the article, is quoted as saying “… it was ‘absolutely unconscionable’ that in the same period that Congress has denied a minimum wage increase, lawmakers have voted themselves seven pay raises worth $28,000.”  According to an editorial written on October 30, 2005 by the Peoria Journal Star editorial staff which echoed the same sentiment; the present salary of members of Congress is $165,200.  

The fallacy of the argument by both the Senator and the editorial staff should be obvious to everyone who knows anything about economics and supply and demand.  It is impossible to realistically compare the work done by elected Congressmen and the work done by individuals who earn minimum wage.  In the whole of the United States, there are only 535 Congressmen who make decisions daily that enormously influence the life and wellbeing of ever person in the country.  Even if you doubled their salary tomorrow they would only be making $330,400 a year.  How many executives make more than $330,400 a year?  Executives whose decisions don’t have nearly the impact that decisions made by Congress do on the nation.  

The Peoria Journal Star is owned by The Copley Press, Inc. which is based in California.  Realistically, do you believe that the CEO of that company earns more or less money each year than is paid in salary to each member of our Congress?  I’ve got an idea.  Why don’t we write a letter to the CEO and ask him how much he earns each year in salary, stock options, and all the other perks executives receive.  My guess is he earns much more than a Congressman does in salary.        

We have school superintendents in Illinois who earn well over $100,000 a year.  The head of the University of Arizona earned more than $300,000 a year when I moved from Arizona in 2004.  Arizona’s basketball coach earns more than a million dollars a year although not all of it is paid directly by the University.  This one I think is interesting.  The day after the editorial appeared in the Peoria Journal Star the following information was printed in the Star on page D7—the average professional basketball player’s salary in 1995-1996 was $2 million.  The average professional basketball player’s salary in 2005-2006 is $4.5 million.  My point is, for the job we ask Congressmen to do, for the tremendous influence their decisions have on our lives, and for the results that occur (whether or not we agree with them); we, as a people, get their efforts dirt cheap in comparison to the salary received by others in our society.  We get them dirt cheap!  

From what I have heard, Senator Kennedy is a millionaire several times over.  I’ve got another idea.  Why doesn’t he follow the old adage to put his money where is mouth is.  I want to emphasis that he put his money, not our money, where his mouth is.  If he really believes that it is “absolutely unconscionable” that so many people are paid so little.  I suggest that he donate all his wealth to the poor and live only on the $165,200 in salary he receives each year.  Do you think he will do it?  

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Two high school baseball teams are playing for the division championship.  They both have only one loss and that to the other team.  Early in the game, the best player for the home team hits a towering home run.  But, it’s foul by two inches.  The home plate umpire calls it a foul ball.  The home team loses in a close game.

Kenny Lofton, major league baseball player, is playing in a college NCAA basketball game for the chance to advance in the Elite Eight round.  His team leads by two points with seconds to go in the game.  He darts in front of the opposition ball handler taking a charging foul.  No whistle.  With Lofton now out of position, the ball handler shoots and drains a three pointer.  UNLV wins by one point.

Morton girls’ basketball team is playing a Sectional game against Galesburg.  With seconds remaining in the first half and Morton trailing by five points, the coach calls for the team to take the last shot of the half.  A Morton player is called for traveling.
Galesburg takes the ball out of bounds, rushes down the court, one of their players takes a difficult three point shot, scores, and Galesburg ends the half leading by eight points.  Galesburg scores first in the second half and easily wins the game.          

“Factor in a controversial call that ended the match and you can understand the Potters’ lack of enthusiasm.

In a close game 2, the Potters led 27-26 and, after a back-and-forth rally, Dunlap appeared to have won the point to tie the game.  But an Eagles player was called in the net, giving Morton the point and the match.

A disappointed Eagles coach … said she was surprised by the call.

‘It’s a tough way to end the season,’ she said.  ‘The players should decide the match.’” (Peoria Journal Star, 10/30/05, page D7)

Excuse me.  I read nothing saying the player was not in the net.  The players did decide the match.  The rules state that a player should not touch the net in the course of play.  If the player was indeed in the net then the referee absolutely should call the infraction.  That is why there are rules of the game.

The idea of not following the rules during certain portions of a game or match leads to chaos.  How does one know when the rules are enforced if they are not enforced all the time?

The apparent home run was not because it was foul according to the rules.  Morton forfeited the basketball because a player traveled.  Kenny Lofton should have been called for a foul or the ball handler should have been called for a foul because a foul occurred.  If Lofton would have knocked the player over, stolen the ball, and scored should that stand because they were letting the players play?  Not according to the rules and the rules are there for a purpose—to insure that everyone plays by the rules so that the outcome is fair to everyone according to the rules.  

If the rules are not enforced, it is then that the players don’t decide the match.  Stay out of the net, don’t violate the rules, and the results determine the victors.  Violate the rules and the results, according to the rules, determine the victors.  The comment by the Dunlap coach was simply wrong and, if in fact, the player was in the net no controversy existed nor should one exist.
Of course, we have the same attitude in many instances in today’s society.  If the Supreme Court doesn’t like the rules as established by the Constitution, they simply ignore the rules and make their own.  If we don’t agree with a speeding law, we simply ignore the law and make our own.  

Some people even try to either rewrite or ignore GOD’S rules.  They do so at their peril and they will lose a lot more than a high school game.  Rules exist for a reason.  GOD’S rules exist for a reason.  No one has the right to violate GOD’S rules.  They do so at their peril.

“Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say: ‘YOU are just in these judgments, YOU who are and who were, the HOLY ONE, because YOU have so judged; for they have shed the blood of YOUR saints and prophets, and YOU have given them blood to drink as they deserve.’

And I heard the alter respond: ‘Yes, LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, true and just are your judgments.’” (Revelation 16: 5-7)  “Do not be deceived: GOD cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the SPIRIT, from the SPIRIT will reap eternal life.” (Galatians 6: 7-8)