Video Response to Dan Carlin's Common Sense "Second Guessing the Navigator" podcast

To listen to the podcast I'm discussing you can download the mp3 here.

My thoughts on Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast on the faith our leaders have in their ideologies.  Dan discusses how the US isn't a true democracy but a republic (and that's a good thing). He also discusses how we need to find a way to balance between equality and freedom. Often the more freedom the less equality but the more equality the lesser the freedom.

I struggle to determine what camp but end up deciding I don't belong in any camp? There will always be an unintended consequences to our laws and policies so maybe we should just err on the side of freedom. I conclude there are no bad systems, just bad people. So then how do we change people? Some say education but what happens when education is absent of absolute truth or is based on relativistic morals? 

Fun fact, we had the highest top marginal tax rate (90%) under a Republican president (Eisenhower). Often it seems Capitalism results in exploitation of the workers whereas Socialism results in exploitation of the masses to get the "freebies". This is the great battle between the Reds and Blues. But the question I often wonder about is do our government programs harden peoples hearts?

I like the fair tax or Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan due to its simplicity and "fairness" but struggle with the effective tax rate it creates on the lower income.

 

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation." -Adam Smith (Father of Capitalism)

Where's the pragmatic party calling for the best of the ideologies? And more importantly, how do we get to it? My answer; lets talk more and expose ourselves to alternatives. 

Propaganda or Truth?

"The more things change the more they stay the same."

-Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr

I had such high hopes at the beginning of reading Ray Comfort's article entitled "How would Paul vote?" on AFA. I should have known those hopes would quickly be dashed since AFA is just another Republican arm. I had a conversation with my wife today regarding how I feel so many people speak what they believe as truth but it really is just propaganda. What I mean by that is they repeat the clichés they hear from the talking heads on the radio, Fox News, and what their friends say (who are often just repeating the same sources). So, why is what the talking heads say propaganda and not what I speak or write? Well, an easy way to point out propaganda is when you don't hear any counter arguments. The opposing view is often suppressed or intentionally crippled on the common right wing media. The right isn't the only one who utilizes this tactic but since I live in the South I'm surrounded by people of common beliefs. I realize this and choose this life and location to raise my family. It's a great place to raise a family. It has a lot of charming and appealing things and the people are certainly one of them but group think is a common issue.  

I digress. So, what is my problem with Ray Comfort's article? He seems to start off with a non-biased approach and acknowledges that he doesn't know how Paul would vote. He goes even further and states that Paul had no desire to create a Theocracy (which is amazing because that seems as if it is AFA's mission). Comfort goes on and steers the conversation towards the gospel. I was ready to post a big AMEN at the bottom in the comments section but then the article seems to derail when abortion is brought into the argument. The conclusion is Romney should be the next President. I'm completely sympathetic to the pro-life cause and many would consider me a strong pro-lifer with some unexpected exceptions. I call the Republican message propaganda because they use emotionally driven issues that they do nothing on to influence voters. (Read my previous link for details). 

The stroking of the heart strings is in poor taste but what angers me more is the double speak. The inconsistency of Republican logic on abortion is understandable (I didn't say forgivable). Many people don't really think through all their beliefs and can easily change their minds if challenged. Republicans cast a big net in order to try to catch as many voters so they say they are against abortion but then make exceptions that contradict the very reasons why they say they are against it in the first place. Most people won't find any fault in their logic. But the double speak that infuriates me the most is the expansion of war in the name of "freedom", "democracy", and "protection". Our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost over 100,000 lives and we have more soldiers who kill themselves by their own hands from the horrors of war than from the wars themselves. What's even worse than the loss of all these lives is the motivations for war. As misdirected and weak the arguments are for "freedom" and "protection" the unspoken motivation for profit has to be the most devastating. The idea that our best solution to end our "great recession" is for another great war is deeply sickening. This is the evil we shall not speak of but many (including myself) were espoused in our early years regarding the great rewards of wars and how it was World War 2 that got us out of the great depression.

In the next Presidential debate on foreign policy both candidates will try to win the hearts of many by promising "protection". Both sides are in an agreement that the best defense is a good offense so we won't be hearing "how to win a war on terrorism" but we will get much on who will be "tougher" on it. The war drums are already beating. The blood lust for "jobs" blinds us of the means in which we are willing to get them. We force ourselves to play by the rules and say "we must elect the lesser of two evils". I wonder though, at what point do we realize the lesser of two evils is still evil?

Video Response to Freakonomics podcast on "Misadventures in Baby Making"

To listen to the podcast I'm discussing you can download the mp3 here.

Part 1 - Podcast Discussion                                                               Part 2 - Clarification on Roe v. Wade on follow-up to previous post

  

Part 3 - These are sensitive topics so forgive me if I don't handle them with the care they deserve.

 

Part 1

Did the ultrasound machine result in higher rates of abortion? If so, does that mean we should ban it? What about if we knew people were selectively aborting certain children e.g. children with disabilities or based solely on their sex? What if we had a test that could tell you more such as hair or eye color, intelligence, or physical capabilities? Should we ban certain abortions based on motives? Who then defines which "motives" are appropriate or inappropriate? As we move further into the future with advancement in technology these questions are becoming much more important.

In the show they discuss how Steven Quick created a blood test to determine several genetic factors. His purpose for creating the test was to reduce the stress of not knowing, reduce the chances of harming the baby, and allow parents who choose to not abort their children to begin preparations in the event they find out the child will have disabilities. These arguments are good reason to not blame the technology for peoples actions. 

Another difficult question to answer is "When is it ok to kill a child in the womb?". In my opinion the only two reasons would be 1. If it jeopardized the life of my wife 2. If the child would face short term terminal death and only live a short life of suffering. Although, in my context I'm suggesting taking the child early rather than doing a D&C. I share a personal account regarding this very question. 

What if we had the ability to modify or engineer children at conception? Could one of the consequences of eliminating handicaps be the reduction of the drive or human spirit to over come adversity? Even so, who are we to not allow parents to make the tough choices which they see as best for their children? Life is difficult enough, removing any other obstacles seems a given.

Part 2

In part 2 I try to explain my understanding of Roe v. Wade. That it was more about the right to doctor/patient confidentiality or privacy rather than the "reproductive rights of women" (do men have any rights?)  or a women's "right to her body" (does the child have no rights to theirs?). They deferred to common law to avoid dealing with the question "when is a child a person". The Republicans use this hot button issue to keep a strong voter base realizing they really don't have to do anything about it. Roe v. Wade could have been overturned at Planned Parenthood v. Casey but nothing changed even with a strong Republican majority. Ironically, the question of "when is an unborn child a person" is defined and coded into law under 18 U.S.C. § 1841: US Code- Section 1841

I also attempt to clarify my thoughts on the scenario of the terminally ill suffering child or adult. 

Part 3

 I felt the need to add a Public Service Announcement regarding the difficult topics of abortion, euthanasia, and suicide. 

So here it is: Don't give up. Don't take the "easy" way out. Don't insult the Creator by destroying his creation. Instead, turn to Him and reflect on the suffering of His Son Jesus to assist you through it and may He carry you to the end and welcome you into His presence. May your suffering not go in vain. 

Video Response to Intelligence Squared's debate on "Should Airports Use Racial and Religious Profiling?"

To view the podcast I'm discussing you can view the debate here.

My thoughts on Intelligence Squared's debate on the motion "Should We Use Racial Profiling?" More specifically, should we profile based on religion and/or race when screening people at airports or other security checkpoints. Would doing so just force those we are trying to catch to change their approach? This seems like a weak argument since criminals are always trying to be two steps ahead of those they are trying to victimize.

 

This emotionally driven argument stems from the concern of obtrusive and/or abuse on those innocent of any crimes which is a legitimate concern but obtrusions and abuses will result regardless of the policy. The issue of "profiling" or "stereotyping" always arises from this concern but we fail to balance this with asking "why do profiles or stereotypes exist?" More often than not, it is not an issue of bias but statistics. We are statistical machines (albeit, poor ones) but we subconsciously make biases based on experiences and over time develop a statistical probability and associate a corelation. In this case, we are discussing Muslims. The perpetrators of most of the terrorist attacks have been Muslims with a distinctive "look" i.e. All male between ages 18-40 with an Eastern dissent. It seems foolish to limit ourselves from this "intuition" of further examination of these suspects.

 

We must however balance this with rationale and not extend our security policies to abuse everyone equally nor overly inhibit the freedoms of those not accused of any crime.  This however is for another debate how on effective our security policies even are. 

Video Response to Common Sense with Dan Carlin's "Stirring the Pot"

To listen to the podcast I'm discussing you can download the mp3 here.

My thoughts on Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast on joining the tea party and occupy wall street forces and overcoming the plutocrats. Could they join together on the issue of government corruption? Is the Tea Party too far gone right and too in bed with the Republican party to work with anyone else? Is there any hope reconciling two polar ideologies? On the right we have the Tea Party arguing we have enough taxes and we should not increase taxes even on the rich to pay down our debt or despite the fact they have been MUCH higher in the past. On the Left we have union groups who don't want to cut anything  even if it means keeping deadbeat employees who not only don't contribute but are harmful and a drain financially and on the morale of the others. See Waiting for "Superman" and the impact of the Teacher's Union on schools.

 

So what can be done?! Well, vote for me for president in the 2020 election. I've got to start really early to build my voter base! 

Video Response to Common Sense with Dan Carlin's "Savior Corp LLC" podcast

To listen to the podcast I'm discussing you can download the mp3 here.

My thoughts on Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast on letting the rich and powerful just take control. It almost seems like Dan's just giving up if he thinks the best thing we can do is just let the super rich just take control. One could argue that we are already doing that. He's not the first person apparently to think this though. Ralph Nadar had a book called Only the Super Rich Can Save Us. Not all rich people are bad. Not all government is corrupt, incompetent or inefficient. Not all corporations are exploitative, greedy or environment destroyers like the Reds and Blues would have us believe. Not sure if I can agree with Dan on this but it does make us ask: "Who do you trust and what else can we do?"

Video Response to Stuff You Should Know on "The Future of the Internet"

To listen to the podcast I'm discussing you can download the mp3 here.

Part 1                                                                                                 Part 2

 

My thoughts on Stuff You Should Know's podcast on The Future of the Internet. My predictions: faster wireless internet, the slow death of apps and emergence of "web apps" in their place, cloud computing is nothing new but it will become more common. But all this could end if Net neutrality isn't taken seriously. My solution: turn the infrastructure over to a public utility and require ISPs to share their networks. The internet can makes us dumb by adding another useless distraction leading us further towards a "Brave New World" or we can harness its potential and use it for sharing knowledge or wisdom. It all depends on how we use it. I'm trying to use it to try to capture my scattered temporal thoughts. In summary: why I do this. Had to break this one down into 2 parts due to time constraints. I tried using Windows Movie Maker to split the video but it messed up the audio.

Video Response to Common Sense with Dan Carlin's "Looking for a Left Hook" podcast

To listen to the podcast I'm discussing you can download the mp3 here.

My thoughts on Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast on bringing back jobs to the US. Why is it we allow American corporations to off shore labor under conditions we would never allow here in the US? Because we don't like "those" jobs and we like cheap stuff. Ending trade agreements would certainly bring back jobs but would "cheaper" jobs raise income in the middle class? Where have all the "good" jobs gone?

Pit Happens

This is why we can't have affordable health coverage and why malpratice lawsuits are often rediculous and in need of reform. Dennis Kucinich is suing House cafeteria for $150k because a pit in an olive in a sandwich caused him injury. Sorry Dennis, but pit happens.

How does a non-tangible asset bubble burst?

The ERI Economic Research Institute, Inc. released this past years largest salary increases by profession. We all know that health care is expensive and is continuing to be more so but is it any wonder why when of the top 20 largest increases 70% of them (14) relate to the medical profession? Not so surprising 3 others relate to academics (fortunately 1 was a non-magement role). I can understand these increases in the medical field to a degree since they are concerned the new health care bill will eventually cap their salaries at some point (much like how insurance companies are franticlly trying to raise premiums). If the caps do hold (which they never do) then I guess it wouldn't be so bad but its unfortunate that we narrowly focus only on the money instead of the reasons why costs are so high. Sure doctors are highly educated and are worthy of their wages but many regulations exist that force up healthcare costs. Release the AMA and other governing bodies abality to control how many doctors are allowed into the field, end the war on drugs and drasticlly drop the price of drugs and peoples need to get a perscription are just two examples of how the government could restore freedom and lower costs and flip side is people will then have to be resposible of their new found freedom(s).

The Story of Stuff

There is a movie that is making headlines on the interwebs on a topic that is becoming more popular. If you haven't seen it yet it's called "The Story of Stuff." Here it is in case you are interested:

In my opinion the author makes a good presentation on a very important topic but the video would be more effective if not politicized and was backed by sources. While although it never references a political ideology specifically the resulting conclusion is capitalism via corporatism is evil and socialism by means of equitable distribution of resources (including labor) is the answer.

I fully agree though that we must develop a sustainable framework but we must do so while limiting infringement on personal liberties. What would such a framework look like? The author suggests community farming, zero waste initiatives, and overall environmentalism and consumer reduction but this neglects a glaring problem, our need for jobs. The real question is what can we do to replace the jobs?  That is where you will find that we already live under a socialized society. You need only look to our monetary system to see it. My question then is "was this planned and if so why does it suck so bad?". My answer I'm willing to bet is through conflict of interests and greed by political leaders and wealthy individuals we got a half baked system that is unsustainable and unchangeable. 

The System

So banks are back to their old ways again but I have to wonder, is this really a surprise to anyone? It always irks me when news report headlines like "results were more or less than analysts expected" or something along the lines about how "results weren't as expected." Why it irks me is I do believe we have a bunch of really intelligent people in charge of things but the media dumbs things down to a few talking points which results in a horde of ill-informed strongly opinionated drones to do the bidding of the leaders they appointed. How backwards is that!

If you'll step back with me and take a view from 30,000 ft you'll see things much different in regards to our current economic mess.  Many easily jump to short term solutions but lets look at our economic system. People often wonder "why are we having a recession?" The talking points (depending on your source) are: greedy bankers, incompetent government forcing bad policies on banks, and greedy individuals buying more than they can afford. All these may be true but is their an underlying system that supports such activities?

I feel there is. Our economic system is designed to be a risk-taking environment that encourages greed. Many cry this is why socialism is necessary but I'll save that for another topic. I want to focus on the US economic system. The US has to keep growing or else it collapses. There can be no stagnation. Since we are a debt economy if we stagnate just for a little, loans start to default. It doesn't matter if the loans will get a return or not in the long run. The point is to get the money circulating again as quickly as possible which is why the FED pump so much money into banks and then expects them to loan it out. The FED criticizes banks for making "bad" loans but in order for the economy to grow, loans have to be made, period. So the FED also criticizes banks for not making loans because the FED gets heat from the politicians because everyone is losing jobs and income. In order to succeed in this system you take "risks" by getting a loan and doing something with it. It doesn't really matter what because if there is enough money in the economy someone is going to buy whatever it is you are selling for whatever price they can afford.

What we are experiencing in our generation is an adjustment in the markets due to the limitations of natural resources. We have an unlimited supply of money and an unlimited supply of labor, and the last ingredient for a market to work is resources which unfortunately we can't artificially create. What has been good for a time has now set us on a course of unsustainable growth. Fiat currency enables rapid growth and corporations provide for a more efficient means of collecting money for wide spread market penetration and possible research and development. All good things but the consequences are amoral entities that damage our environment and treat humans as if they are pieces in a machine. For deeper thoughts: going back to the gold standard and the idea of ending corporations would certainly set us on a sustainable growth path and reduce moral hazard since someone is forced to be held accountable for the actions of a private business. Unfortunately, such a dramatic shift in the economy would wipe out a vast majority of those currently employed resulting ultimately in the collapse of society. There has to be some way to transition from our current system to another slowly or else we will experience an ever greater deterioration of living standards or greater imbalance of living standards (depending on which country you live in).

We need much more thought into our global economic direction to avoid further wars which will ultimately result as resources dwindle or as economic disparity increases and resentment builds. The likely outcome as the world "flattens" is everyone becomes more "equal" unfortunately that means equally poor. You see, everything is tied together in a way. I hope you see it too. I wonder how many of our leaders see it? I have a feeling many do and those that do can (and probably do) exploit it to their benefit while maybe a few are simply pawns used by those who do understand the system. Now, the only real question left is can you change the system without becoming a part of it?

Get Ready for the Big Dance!

In just a few more days all the political garbage on TV will end and a new President will be elected. I have not held back my beliefs but during the last few months I have been ridiculed for them. I have defended Barack Obama on many occasions as I despise slander or spin and I have been questioned by my friends why I would do such a thing. Many concede that John McCain wouldn't be their first pick but he is better than Obama. My belief is either party brings essentially the same results and we need to really debate the issues rather than repeat what the talking heads on TV tell us. Below is an email chain I had with one of my friends. We thought it humous so I asked if I could post it and he agreed. His name has been changed for his sake.

--Oct 1, 2008--
Hey friend, here are a couple of videos explaining my thinking:
Why I won't vote for McCain: click here
Why I won't vote for Obama (despite the many obvious reasons): click here
Why I don't agree with either party: click here
Why I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin: click here
I have many other reasons but these explain my concerns and thoughts.
Regards,Jim
--Oct 5, 2008--
Jim, Jim, Jim,…. What am I going to do with you??!! The people who made these videos took 2-5 second clips of parts of sentences (and gaffes) and pieced them together in effort to sway the viewer by smearing McCain or Obama. BTW, I do not see anything wrong with those clips in the McCain video anyway.

Question: You take a test and one of the questions is “What is your favorite ice cream? Write down “A” for Strawberry or “B” for Vanilla.” The answer (either A or B) is worth 75% of the test. You actually PREFER orange flavor ice cream so you write  down “Neither, I want Orange”. Teacher gives you a F.

The lesson here is that although you may prefer Orange, that choice is not available! I probably prefer Orange as well. BUT, if you could do it all over again, it would be best to say to yourself, “Self, I really like Orange BUT strawberry is close to a fruit type of ice cream. Although I am not 100% on board with strawberry, I do believe that by choosing strawberry at least 65% of my taste bud’s goals will be accomplished. Not to mention that Vanilla is not a fruit ice cream flavor at all. So, self, the choice is easy, I don’t want an F so I will choose Strawberry.” Teacher gives you an A. Your friend
--Oct 5, 2008--
friend, friend, friend, that type of thinking is why America is no longer free and is on the path to a socialist nation. Congratulations. You've sold your soul and your freedom for convenience and "security." -Jim

'Personhood' Amendment On Colorado Ballot

NPR ran a broadcast about a new item on the Colorado ballots about defining 'personhood'. I'm surprised this amendment hasn't been proposed already. According to the broadcast it said that Colorado was the first state to get enough signatures. Are you serious? How did this of all amendments not get first created (and passed) in the Bible belt?

Regardless, the arguments brought against such an amendment (in my humble opinion) are lame. The many arguments are this would make us rethink all of our laws. Well duh. We've lived with Roe v. Wade for how many years now? I'm sure its bound to have impacted the writing of MANY laws. Regardless of this change the arguments brought against this amendment seem weak. For example, one person said: "what about HOV lanes?" Simple, if the person is occupying a seat then you qualify. Since the baby occupies the same seat as the mother, you don't.

But that was a weak argument. What about something like: "what if you drink without knowing you were pregnant or did something to kill the baby accidentally?" First, it would be hard to prove that drinking or some other action was the direct cause of the death so the case would likely be dismissed but even if it could, is the child not entitled to rights? The argument is the same as "what if I drive at night and hit a pedestrian I didn't see on the road?" It's called manslaughter. Oh no! we can't take responsibility for our actions because remember the baby is a parasite that invaded us first! /sarcasm    

The other argument brought forth is about frozen fertilized eggs. This one would obviously require some more legal work but lets think about this another way. Babies can't think or act for themselves but neither can mentally handicapped people. How do we treat them? We can spin circles around this argument all day but it would take some good work to convince me otherwise.

Lastly, one guy pointed out that it was unconstitutional! What does that even mean? Of coarse it would contradict existing law, that is the whole point! People act like once a law is written it can't be changed (at least not if the law plays to their interest).

Those Who Don't Learn History Are Doomed to Repeat It

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." -Thomas Jefferson (see full quote and context here). See modern context here.

Through My Eyes

A tragic story came to a close recently about a woman who was convicted of microwaving her 1 month old child to death. The woman was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Around the country I’m sure people rejoiced over this woman’s just sentence. What saddens me is the absurdity with our culture today. I cannot see how “pro-choice” is ever a choice. Take this case for example, would this be such a heinous crime if it were committed 1 month earlier when this child was still in its mother’s womb? Perhaps if the child wasn’t microwaved but rather scrambled, suctioned, injected, or had it’s skull crushed, would that make it less heinous? Of course not.

The argument over privacy is ludicrous. Are any crimes ever attempted out in the open? If I murder someone in my house is it just because it’s on private property? No. The only argument then is on a woman’s “right” to her body. This argument too is crazy. How is it we live in a country that says we can’t put drugs in our body or take our own life but we can take the life of another who grows in us? The argument is often presented as the child is an unwanted “parasite.” The woman thus has a right to remove it. How is it we’ve come to think of humans as parasites? I guess the homeless could be thought of as parasites to society, maybe we should free ourselves of them as well?

A problem I have with the Democratic Party in general is that they tend to embrace “pro-choice” as the idea, “we know what is best for others.” (I hope you see the irony in this stance and the Democratic Party's many others). The argument goes that it would be better to not be born at all than be born unloved or unwanted… Tell that to my adopted friends.

Lastly, what about the rare but terrible circumstances of rape or incest? If we follow logic rather than our emotions the answer is obvious. Again, tell that to some of my adopted friends. I don’t know which ones may have such a horrible story but I’m sure they wouldn’t want to know either. What about the woman? Will taking the life of this unwanted child take away her memories of the horrible event? This argument is just a cop-out.

Perhaps only in the event of medical necessity should such a difficult decision ever be made but even many doctors will tell you this is an extremely rare circumstance. To me the choice is obvious. I'm saddened in knowing most abortions are due to people who have no desire to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. I see this through a moral lens instilled in me by my religious beliefs. Others may see it through their own philosophical moral view. The question now is, can we come to agree as a society if we don’t have an absolute moral reference?

Political Rant #1: Obama says America is "No Longer a Christian Nation"

So I got an email the other day about Obama's statement about how the US is no longer a Christian Nation. We have indeed lost our nation’s identity. I also agree with Obama’s statement. I don’t believe our founding fathers wanted a theocracy, that is to say, a nation governed by one religion (and more specifically one denomination). I do believe they would have desired for this nation to be a nation of Christians (those who strive to follow Jesus’ teachings). The wording is subtle but the implications are great.

The problem I have with Obama political e-mails these days is they spin fear of Obama for his secular beliefs (I agree he calls himself “Christian” but his beliefs align with secular society rather than traditional Christian viewpoints) but our “safe” alternative is a “Christian” (McCain) who wants to continue an ill-gotten war that will continue to bankrupt our economy. I believe our best way to uphold our honor (what little we have left) is in rebuilding Iraq rather than policing the Arab nations and picking fights for more wars (e.g. Iran).

Indeed, it’s a “choose your poison” situation but I would rather go down fighting than be forced to drink the Kool-aid. That’s why I’m not voting for either. Although a vote not for McCain is a vote for Obama I personally feel any real meaningful change will come when we quit buying into the system and start demanding real leaders. This attitude is why I’m so bold in my e-mails and it will only encourage me more in my civil duties… and I’m not alone.

Why Blog?

Wow. My first entry on my blog. I've been keeping a personal hand written journal for years but have never gotten around to posting stuff on a blog. The reason being, I could not see the use but now that I've embraced web 2.0 I understand why this means of communication is so great. Over my years of surfing the web I've come to find myself reading other people's blogs more than the main stream websites. Mainly because people post stuff that you won't find on the big websites. Microsoft is a good example. As great of a software company as they are everyone will agree that their understanding of users is pretty pathetic. When I upgraded to Office 2007 I wanted to keep 2003 but despite Microsoft's attempt to make it easy there was/is several bugs that users have had to suffer through. Luckily a guy who worked at Microsoft had a personal blog devoted to helping users make the switch.

As an IT guy, political enthusiast (thanks to Ron Paul), economic theorist (thanks to Adam Smith), and religious/philosophical/theologian fan (thanks to many but mostly to John Piper & Ravi Zacharias) I hope to share my thoughts and findings with the rest of the world.