Wednesday, November 17, 2004

The Roe Effect

A theory has recently come to my attention which is worth noting. Whether or not this theory is true remains to be seen, but it makes sence and is quite interesting. It's called the Roe Effect. Basically the idea is America is becoming more conservative over time because Liberals are more likely to have an abortion than Conservatives. Conservatives are more likely to birth thier babies and since a child's views usually match closely those of the parents, Conservatives are breeding faster. A very interesting concept! In fighting for the right to kill their own children were they also fighting for the right to kill future voters who would vote their way? Were they fighting to become extinct or endangered? It's certainly concept worth thinking about.

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Comparing the fight to for a gay marriage ban against racism.

Being racists is stupid because there is no way a person of any race can ever become anything else. That's what they are down to their DNA. And there's nothing wrong with it to begin with. Objecting to the lifestyle of a homosexual is a little different because a homosexual can become not homosexual. Homosexuality describes their actions, not their color or other physical characteristic. It's something they do that is unacceptable. They aren't a new race of people or a new gender. They are normal people of common race or gender who engage in a socially unacceptable behavior. That being said, hating them and thinking less of them and doing harm to them is also unacceptable behavior. This would be bigotry. Disagreeing with them and finding their behavior unacceptable is not. This could be said for any behavior. Disagreeing with someone's behavior does not make you a bigot. I disagree with heterosexuals having mindless, meaningless sex with multiple partners with not even a second thought of the consequences. Am I a bigot against them? No I'm not. But I'm not going to support their actions by giving them special legal treatment either. What happens when these heterosexuals want to marry everyone they've ever slept with? Will they go try to make it legal? Marriage is the foundation of our society. Not just marriage but the family. Mother, father, children. If we start adding Father, Father, children, or Mother, Mother children or even Mother, Mother, Father, Children to it we will be tampering with the foundation of our society. Just as you can't tear up the concrete foundation of your house and put down brick without your house falling in. Redefining marriage as anything, not just for homosexuals, but anything but one man and one woman is asking for problems. We're not even so concerned that it's the homosexuals who want to change it. If it were heterosexuals wanting polygamous marriages we'd still have a problem because it would be an attempt to redefine the foundation of our society. That is the family. I find the attitude of marriage in general to be rather deteriorating anyway. Not just from gays but everyone. The 50% divorce rate was mentioned before. I agree that's a problem. Marriage is a serious thing. It should be one man, One woman and there should be no, "well we'll just try it and if it doesn't work out we can divorce" attitude when it comes to it. It’s one man, one woman for life except in cases of abuse and cheating spouses. It's the attitude of marriage from everyone, not just those who want to let gays married, that has us up in arms. We want to return marriage to the serious, strong, life long, Man/Woman commitment that it should be. We aren't bigoted against homosexuals, we aren't bigoted against polygamists, we're not even bigoted against the man who wants to marry his sheep. We simply hold the institution of marriage in a high regard and consider it a serious and important part of society. The foundation of a family which is the foundation of society.

Friday, November 05, 2004

Moral Issues...

I believe our founding fathers based our country on Christianity. I think if they could look forward in time and see the effect of putting into the constitution that the USA would not respect any religion would actually have on the country they would have been more clear about how they worded it. I think basically what they were trying to say was, America will not create a "Church of America" like England created a "Church of England" because such a church is easily corrupted by politicians. I don't believe they ever ment to restrict our rights as Christians or for moral values to be in dispute because of "seperation of church and state". I believe if you took any one of our founding fathers, brought him forward and time, and told him that gay marriage was in dispute and that it was legal for a mother to kill her baby before it is born he would either faint in shock or get so angry he couldn't speak clearly. This isn't the America they had in mind when they founded our nation.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

The future energy source for automobiles.

As an owner and lover of old cars I am not going to be quick to replace my internal combustion engine any time soon. I don't believe I'm alone in this. There are many who depend on them and who can't afford to replace them. There are also many who have fairly new vehicles they've invested a lot of money in. So while technologies like hydrogen fuel cells sound great, I just don't think they'll catch on fast enough. My solution? I think we need to shift towards a synthetic gasoline that will burn in an existing, unaltered gas engine. This is not impossible. The technology already exists. We just need to make it better. If we could make gasoline by synthetic means and make it cheaper, the price at the pump would go down and it would catch on quickly. I even see the potential for cheap high-octane fuel from this. I know I'm a conservative but you can't deny that some day the oil is going to run out and terrorists are going to make it hard to get it from them. Environmentalists are making it difficult to drill in Alaska, which would relieve the burden of foreign oil. This is a way people can keep their cars, for whatever reason they prefer and we can still make gasoline cheaper right here in America.

By the way, here's my old car :

Click Here

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

It's over

I want to thank John Kerry for conceding to President Bush. While your past comments and actions have invoked alot of anger and personal offence on my part, I am relieved that at the last moment he chose to show an unusual glimmer of character in preventing another 2000 style recount. America is better off for it. Mr. Kerry you ran a tough race and were a worthy opponent. I appreciate your bowing out of this race in such a timely manner when it was clear you were not the winner.

President Bush. I am thrilled that you have been re-elected as President. I'm thankful that your strong leadership and Character will remain standing strong for our nation. Continue the fantastic job you are doing with holding the weight of the world on your shoulders. Hopefully this election will encourage you to know that the majority of us are still behind you. I can't think of anyone else's shoulders I'd rather have my world rest on. Even though I showed Kerry some respect in the last comment (he earned it by conceding) I'm glad it doesn't have to rest on his shoulders. I don't think he could handle the weight. Thank you for being a good president, and a good man. Welcome back to the whitehouse Mr. President. My prayers are with you!