It has been over one year since my last blog entry. It was knuckle head of the day Richard Langlois who acted as the catalyst that inspired me to write again. Langlois is the Superintendant of Schools in Saugus, Massachusetts, who unilaterally decided to cancel a 50 year town tradition the day before it occurred. Luckily he reconsidered his ridiculous decision and allowed Santa to hitch a ride on a fire truck to school. Since the 1960's Santa has been coming to the elementary schools around Christmas time to hand out coloring books to the kids. Langlois objects to this tradition because he claims Santa violates the separation of church and state. He did not consult the school committee to discuss this and figured it would be best to call the fire department the day before the event and cancel it. Even though this year the tradition stayed alive, Langlois believes it isn't right and intends to revisit this topic in future committee meetings so that next year he can ensure the event will be canceled. If you happen to disagree you can always leave Richard Langlois a message at (781) 231-5000 ext 117 to let him know how you feel.
I guess this is what Michelle Obama was talking about when she said,
"We're gunna have to change our traditions, our history, we're gunna have to move into a different place as a nation to provide the kind of future that we all want desperately for our children"
Everyone is talking about these newly installed naked body scanners found in air ports across the United States. I have heard some arguments that I believe are lacking in thought and are driven by a combination of fear and expediency. I figured it was time for me to share my opinion. Before I do I'll start with two arguments I have heard recently, "better safe than sorry" and my favorite "let's have one plane with naked scanners and one plane without any security and lets see what plane people decide to fly on, and good luck finding pilots". It's clear that most people form an opinion without thinking about what they are saying. Our opinions tend to be a conglomerate of cliche sayings and ideas found in the common vernacular that have been so far removed from independent thinking we can come up with them quickly yet completely absent of original thought. Both of these arguments assume that there is no other option on the table. Good thing "We the people" can think outside the box and use some common sense here. What are we giving up? What are we gaining? Is there a better proven way to achieve the same result?
Here is how I see it. We have .0001% of the population that tries to strap explosives to their crotch and get on a plane (that was a rough estimate). And we also have 99.999% of the population that has no interest in becoming a martyr through the suicide bombing of innocent people (another estimate). Yet the leaders of the TSA have devised a fool proof plan - Lets assume everyone is a terrorist and treat them equally so we can maintain our political correctness and keep the ACLU off our backs, Brilliant! Not really.
When people form opinions similar to the ones I mentioned in the first paragraph they could possibly be thinking. If so they would be thinking as a pragmatist. The pragmatist takes the path of least resistance, the easiest way out, the fastest way to yield results. Quality of the results and long term effects, however, is not taken into account. Is it too much to ask our government to come up with thoughtful solutions to these types of problems? No. It is not too much to ask, but it does require the government to do a good and thorough job and that is not pragmatic. It takes a lot of hard work and due diligence to achieve high quality results. It can't be done by people in empty suites who have been appointed to positions they are not qualified to fill by their political buddies.
So who's in charge of the TSA? John S. Pistole. And who is above him running the Department of Homeland Security? Janet Napolitano. And who's in charge of the company OSI Systems that made millions of dollars selling naked body scanners to the TSA? Deepak Chopra. I don't have enough info right now to draw any concrete conclusions, but someone made a quick buck out of this deal.
This week Katie Couric said, " last year 136 dangerous weapons were confiscated by the TSA, and that's worth a little discomfort." I wonder if 136 law abiding citizens are missing their swiss army knives? How many of those 136 were linked to potential terrorists threats with connections to radical groups? How many were average citizens who forgot to take their pocket knife out of their pack back?
Conclusion
There is a better way to handle airport security that does not involve naked pictures or invasive groping of law abiding citizens. For example the Israeli method. It just happens to be more politically correct and easier to treat EVERYONE as a terrorist. Government is being lazy. The side effects of government laziness, in this case are citizens losing some of their freedoms. Not to mention the radiation exposure to frequent fliers. That's why I'm ticked off.
In order to further examine this topic and properly answer the question, "What political view ought a Christian have? conservative or liberal?" Here is a chart I have put together that covers the basic core elements of both perspectives. Again this is just a starting point and it is an over simplification of the two belief systems. There are many variations and combinations of the two. My hope is that this will spark some good debate. And cause some authentic thinking.
conservative
liberal
God given rights
state given rights
pro life
pro abortion
traditional marriage
same sex marriage
tax less
tax more
spend less
spend more
fewer programs
more programs
These are some of the polarizing issues that tend to draw a clear line in the sand. From a Christian perspective I attempted to rank them in order of importance. The value of an unborn child's life is a big game changer that trumps most other issues in order of magnitude. While I hear "love thy neighbor" used as an argument to justify giving well fare to the poor by way of taxing the rich, isn't advocating for your neighbors right to be born an even greater act of love?
Have you ever assumed all Christians would be politically conservative? Recently I have discovered this is not true. To be clear I am not talking about being Republican or Democrat. When you hone in on specific parties or people within parties it is easy to become distracted from the topic at hand. I'm talking about ideology. What political view ought a Christian have? conservative or liberal? Even if they are realistically unattainable on this earth, what is the best ideology to take on as a Christian? Allow me to define "Christian". I'm not speaking of cultural Christians or non-practicing Christians. I am talking specifically about devout followers of Jesus Christ who have a biblical perspective and are motivated to "go and make disciples" as well as read their Bible and pray each day. I have recently encountered two examples of liberal voting Christians and it has truly fascinated me. I'm not sure if everyone else in the pew just appears to go with the conservative flow. Are these two examples flukes of nature?
Example 1
Back in 2008 I had a conversation with a Christian friend who supported a presidential candidate with very liberal views. He explained that his candidate supports lots of government, lots of charity to the poor, inner city and third world countries. And as a Christian with a missionary perspective, these are good things to achieve. Therefore he would be supporting a liberal presidential candidate. I was blown away. I could not believe my ears. I had never known such a devout Christian to lean so far to the left politically. And the guy he voted for wasn't just slightly left of center. To me this was puzzling. (Side note: even the opposing candidate was on the liberal side of many issues, but wouldn't it be rational to go with the lesser of two evils?)
Example 2
Recently a friend posted on facebook "you can be a Christian and a Liberal..... it's allowed". Even though every bone in my body told me "leave it alone Nate, your about to open a can of worms" I couldn't resist. I posted back, "So as long as your giving to people it doesn't matter how much debt you accumulate in the process? Is that what your saying? Is that a tenant of the Christian faith? Help me understand that from a biblical perspective." Needless to say my questions were viewed as combative at first. And in hind site I admit I didn't express my curiosity in any sort of tactful way. My friend defended his stance and a couple other people chimed in to defend him as well. And to their credit some good thoughts and interesting arguments to support the liberal voting Christian were made. I however am not convinced or persuaded that it is righteous or pious to take on a liberal perspective as a Christian.
Arguments For The Liberal Voting Christian
XYZ Republican is corrupt and greedy
Taxes are biblical and we should submit to that
Republican XYZ cut taxes and spent more, Democrats raise taxes and spend more which is a better model and I'd rather spend money we have than money we don't
The national debt is not Democrat XYZ's fault
The national debt is previous Republican XYZ's fault
Republicans are fiscally irresponsible, except for this one guy XYZ who I like
Christians can't even agree on theology or denomination, how can they agree on politics
You can be Christian and conservative, moderate or liberal
Political views have nothing to do with salvation
Jesus isn't a politician
Republican & Democrat labels will not exist in heaven
God judges the heart, motives and actions directly taken by the individual
As long as you voted according to your conscience, that's what matters
As long as you have reasons to back up your decision, that's what matters
You have no place questioning differing political views of other Christians
You can't win with politics, you get criticized for voting liberal and for voting conservative
I vote for who can help the most people, Democrat or Republican
Democrats care more about the people and where the money is going
Republican's decided to go to war
I vote the way I feel is best
I have underlined in red what I believe are the most notable points. However I still do not think they are good arguments to support a liberal voting Christian. Notice that "conservatism" was never directly attacked only republicans in general. I am seeking a well thought out answer to the following question. What political view ought a Christian have? Please explain and give real life examples as well as examples from scripture. For the sake of the argument, simply opting out and not voting is not an option. Imagine someone has a gun to your head and your forced to pick conservative or liberal what do you pick and why? Maybe a good place to start would be outlining the liberal agenda and comparing that with the conservative agenda and see how both line up with Biblical truths.
I am still recovering from discovering the election results in Massachusetts. I hope to share my thoughts on the midterm elections in MA compared to the rest of the country and what it all means in the future. In the mean time I have been heavily researching the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I am fascinated with middle eastern culture and learning about the complexities of the conflict. From what I have gathered so far each person tends to have a bias one way or the other (including myself). After all lets not forget we happen to be caught in the middle of the longest war in American history that is currently taking place in Afghanistan. I plan on learning as much as I can about the arguments of both sides and come to a logical opinion concerning the matter. So far I have read "Son of Hamas" by Mosab Hassan Yousef, and I have watched "Islam: What the West Needs to Know". Next I plan on reading "Zionism: The Real Enemy of The Jews" by Alan Hart, "What is A Jew" by Rabbi Morris Kertzer, "The Koran" translated by HM. A. S. Abdel Haleem. Here is a clip I stumbled across about how Islam is spreading to other westernized parts of the world. Is tolerance America's Trojan horse?
Over the past week I have endorsed specific candidates running for office in Massachusetts. I would like to explain my thinking process. Judging from my choices it may seem as though I am a republican. This is not true. I have always been an un-enrolled voter. I don't get excited about the word "Republican". I get excited about the idea of preserving the constitution, interpreting the words of the constitution accurately and being responsible with tax dollars. While the ideals of the "Democratic" party sound warm and fuzzy and seem like a good thing to stand for, when I look deeper I see that their liberal methods are not fair or logical and actually serve to take away freedom from the people, stifle economic growth and give way too much power and control to the government. In politics I have learned it is better to vote for the lesser of 2 evils than to ignore both sides of a wounded system. The bottom line is that government is spending more money than ever before and taking over private businesses. The worst result of the past 2 years has been Obama Care. We need to de-fund and repeal the health care bill as priority number 1. Next we need to stop wasteful government spending and let the free market handle the economy. The candidates I have picked are certainly the best choice to get our country back on track. No matter what your opinion may be please remember to vote.
Due to long lines at polling places it has been decided that republicans will be voting on Tuesday and Democrats will be voting on Wednesday.
Vote Yes, Yes, Yes and here is why. Basically voting yes on all 3 questions will get Massachusetts headed in the right direction to downsize government spending, government waste and government inefficiency. The opposition will tell you that local aid will be cut, and that our cities and towns will loose policemen, firemen and teachers. This is doesn't have to be the case. Here's how it works, check it out. We vote Yes, Yes, Yes to reduce taxes. Essentially the budget will go from $28B to $24B. Our leaders on Beacon Hill then have a choice. They can cut the waste or cut the good stuff. Waste is the bloated pension system, waste is housing and assistance to illegal criminals, waste is "you name it" lets get creative. Every household in the State is cutting back on their budget yet the government keeps expanding. WeCan reform the Massachusetts budget and keep all the good stuff that is vital to our communities. I refuse to buy into these scare tactics from the teachers union and the far left. I also refuse to be held hostage by Beacon Hill. If we vote Yes, Yes, Yes and Beacon Hill cuts funding for our police, fire and teachers, in the next election cycle we vote them all Out, Out, Out.
Vote Yes on Question #1 - Official Web Site This ballot question repeals the 6.25% sales tax on beer, wine, and liquor imposed last year. Massachusetts' consumers have always paid a substantial excise tax on alcohol purchases. However, before last year, Massachusetts had no sales tax on the purchase of alcohol. The new sales tax should be repealed because it is an unfair "double tax;" a sales tax on top of an excise tax. The new sales tax has hurt small business owners who sell beer, wine, and liquor, particularly near New Hampshire, which has no sales tax on alcohol. Business has declined substantially for many of those stores. A 'yes' vote eliminates an unfair "double tax" on consumers and helps Massachusetts small businesses.
Ballot initiative 2 is a grass roots effort started by citizens to repeal the so-called affordable housing law “40B” which was first adopted in 1969. Although affordable housing is a good concept,40Bs implementation is so flawed that the Massachusetts Inspector General called it “the biggest financial scandal in state history,” a “pig fest” and “developer welfare.” You can watch the inspector general’s testimony on YouTube.
Vote Yes on Question #3 - See the Opposition - Official Web Site Voting Yes will roll back the Massachusetts sales tax from 6.25% to 3%. This will create 33,000 new private sector jobs, give back an average of $688 every year to each tax payer (over $900 per family), force state politicians to cut government waste, keep shoppers in Massachusetts- instead of driving them to New Hampshire's 0% sale tax, attract shoppers from Rhode island, Connecticut, Vermont, and New York- another boost for Massachusetts retailers.
Make an informed decision when you Vote on November 2, 2010
If you pray to God, to whom — or what — are you praying? When you sing God Bless America, whose blessing are you seeking?
In the USA, God — or the idea of a God — permeates daily life. Our views of God have been fundamental to the nation's past, help explain many of the conflicts in our society and worldwide, and could offer a hint of what the future holds. Is God by our side, or beyond the stars? Wrathful or forgiving? Judging us every moment, someday or never?
"You can't really ask people directly about their moral and philosophical worldview. But if you know their image of God, it could give you insight into why they get upset when you break the rules, or you stand up for a certain politician. Or, how they will react when bad things happen or whether they see personal morality or foreign policy in stark right-or-wrong terms." Read more at USA Today. Is God at the center of this discussion, or the idea of God?
Author and columnist Virginia Ironside appeared on a BBC show recently and explained that it would be better for a mother to kill a disabled child than to allow it to live in suffering. When questioned by the host to clarify the statement, she unabashedly doubles down on the conviction, asserting that many other mothers would agree. She suggests her “horror at suffering is much greater than getting rid of a couple of cells.” Read more: The Daily Caller.
CHICAGO (AP) — White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is set to give up his influential national post Friday to begin a run for Chicago mayor, a job he has long coveted but won’t win unless he persuades voters he’s still one of them. Read more: The Daily Caller. Emanuel step down: CNN.
Raytheon’s second-generation exoskeleton (XOS 2), essentially a wearable robotics suit, was unveiled for the first time recently during an event at the company’s Salt Lake City research facility. XOS 2 is lighter, stronger and faster than its predecessor, yet it uses 50 percent less power, and its new design makes it more resistant to the environment.
The Power Assist Suit is a Japanese version of the same concept as the XOS-2. However this is more of a consumer design to assist elderly people rather than for military purposes.
The movie Iron Man 2 was also released this week on Blu-Ray and DVD. Good timing for the power suit industry.
Chris Christie is the Governor of New Jersey who was elected in November of 2009. If you believe in fiscal responsibility and small government this guy will really light your fire. Check out his top 12 greatest clips as reported by The Blaze. Do you think having more people in government like Christie would benefit our country?
Who would have thought that six weeks before a cliffhanger election, President Obama would have to reach down to the D list to fill a room to listen to him? Most of us low rollers arrived early to see President Obama up close and personal. Our tickets for the general reception at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York were only $100. Some thought the email invitation was a joke. Some bought tickets for $50 from their desperate Democratic committeeman. Some bought the same day. Read more at The Daily Beast.
That same week on Wednesday September 22nd hecklers were so boisterous his speech had to be interrupted.
Read the text of the bill via open congress (see info below). Read more about this topic in article written by the Associated Press. It would appear from Obama's words that this bill is a no brainier and that the republican's are clearly evil for opposing it. Why did the supreme court rule against this in the first place? What is actually in the bill? At first glance it looks like there are some good things mixed in with some bad things. For example this bill would prohibit foreign companies from spending money on "electioneering communications". Generally that sounds like a good idea however, in the end the government would gain more control over freedom of speech on "internet communications". So far this document appears to be thoroughly confusing to the average citizen, much like all the other legislation coming out of Washington these days. Back in 2007 it was Obama who refused to limit his private campaign contributions, as John McCain proposed they both do. Yet, now, just before the 2010 November 2nd midterm elections Obama realizes how important it is to make sure foreign (private) money doesn't effect the elections. What's really going on here?
Will Barney Frank get his 16th term in Congress after all? Observe the numbers listed above. This means roughly 11% of the population make the decisions about who to elect for the other 89% in Massachusetts Congressional District 4. This is not a new trend. On average 10-15% of the population vote in a primary election and 25-35% vote in a major election. Why don't more people vote? If American's are largely unhappy with government and the way the country is going wouldn't they take some initiative? It's easy to compare the bluest of the blue democrats and the redest of the red republicans. Dem's out number the GOP by 30,000 votes in D-4. Based on voter turn out alone, is the TEA party dead in district 4?
3.bmp)
.JPG)
was als
o released this week on Blu-Ray and DVD. Good timing for the power suit industry. 
