Ron Paul is said to be a longshot because he believes in the Constitution.

What's interesting to me is that suddenly, he's awakened and enormous part of the population who have realized that it really IS important to follow our own laws (or act to change them). This election, from the perspective of Ron Paulites around this country, is really a test to see if the American People believe that it's important to stick to what we've made law, or ignore our own regulations.

Here's the really interesting part: Our for-fathers gave us a legitimate way to change our Constitution. They knew that we would need some updates every once in a while and put into place an amendment process. In fact, they used the amendment process soon afterward to give us the Bill of Rights.

But all too often, our government has taken shortcuts, ignoring our Constitutional processes and just jumping into a particular position because it's needed.

For example: Did you know that since WW2, we haven't actually had a legal war? In order for the United States to go to war, Congress must make a declaration of war and offer it up to the President. The President may ASK for the declaration, but Congress must give it. So, our War in Iraq is Illegal! We're not supposed to be there according to the Constitution.

If America thinks that we need more mobility and need to have a faster reaction time to world events, that's fine- but the way to do it isn't by ignoring the law and the procedures. It's to work toward changing the law and the procedures (although, I DON'T believe that changing the law in this case is a good thing- the President shouldn't have that much power, that's what creates dictatorships).

Another example: There have been a number of campaign reforms that have limited the amount of money a person can contribute to politicians. There's also been a number of proposals to make burning the American Flag a federal crime. These two don't sound like they have anything to do with each other, but they actually do: both are examples of limitations of our 1st amendment right to free speech. NO one dreams of openly saying that this right should be taken from the American People- yet slowly but surely legislation is infringing on that right. This sounds like nay-saying, but when you draw out correlations the truth is that the 1st right of Americans is under attack- the right that gives us the most freedom is being whittled away. And instead of coming out and changing the Constitution, we merely accept these laws because they seem like "good things." And one day, we'll have that freedom in name only.

Final example: Organizations such as NAFTA, the UN, and the WTO are beginning to have more and more influence over the United States. We go to war and adapt our trade agreements and national policy based on what these other entities are suggesting rather than what our own people have decided. Slowly but surely, there's a globalization happening. That's ok if it's what we want, but our Constitution is firm that we should avoid foreign entanglements and stay out of the affairs of other nations. If we think that our country should move toward globalization and toward a world government rather than keeping our national sovereignty, we need to amend out Constitution instead of simply agreeing with the rest of the world.

The only Presidential Candidate who has made efforts to do things the Constitutional way is Ron Paul. He's proposed Bills to amend the Constitution and has voted NO on every bill and every proposal that subverts the Constitution. That's the kind of principals that a good leader needs. One who has the vision and resolve to vote for what's RIGHT even when it sounds wrong. The voice of reason who says, WE NEED TO DO RIGHT and we need to DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.

When people say that Ron Paul supporters are Anti-government and Anti-institution, they are mistaken. Within the ranks there's risen up a Leader who people actually believe in. They know that he knows how the country is supposed to work and he's been working at it for his entire political career.

That's why this election is about the Constitution. And that's why Ron Paul has my vote.

Biggest surprise so far since moving to Seattle: It gets dark REALLY early.

Today, it was pretty much dark by 4:25. That's just shocking to me. In Florida it never really got dark (even at the dead of winter) until 5:30 or later. It's just really strange that we have such little light during the day. I mean, the sun didn't rise until 7 or 8 this morning either. I guess I should take it too badly, cause in the summer it stays light out until practically 10pm and the sun rises around 5 or 6 am.

But, to make it all better- we spent today putting up Christmas Decorations around the office. It took us all afternoon, but I think we did a really nice job. We used at least 30 or 40 stings of lights and there's garland all over the awnings and wreaths and beads and lace. It's pretty spectacular. Jim piped in Christmas Music all over the office, too. It'll be non-stop until New Years, I suppose!

It's not fair to leave a place decimated- especially when we weren't invited in the first place. But at what point do we say, "I know it's not fair, but we can't keep doing this?"

How many US troops and Iraqis need to die before we decide that perhaps fair isn't the only issue? (more US troops and Iraqis have died this year than the other 5-6 years we've been fighting over there)

How much more debt do we need to tack on to the government before we decide that we really can't afford to pay for it? (The new estimates are in and the war is going to end up costing like 3 trillion additional dollars (that the government doesn't even have). Ultimately, it's Beth and I and the rest of the people in the country that are paying for it. So even though I know that peace is important, at what point is it OK to say to the the Iraqis - "I'm sorry that we're leaving your country in shambles, but we shouldn't have gotten into this in the first place and we're in over our heads, too. We can't actually pay for it because we're in major debt and we own China (and other countries) more money than we'll ever be able to pay back."?)

We can't pull out lock, stock, and barrel- but I've been watching the Republican Candidates (sans Ron Paul) and they're all pretty much on GW Bush's side, saying, "Not only will we continue to fight in Iraq as long as it takes, but let's think about attacking Iran, too." What? We can't even straighten out the middle eastern country we're occupying and now we're going to attack another one?

Even on the Democrat's side- Hillary wants to keep us over there until at least 2013 and thinks that attacking Iran is a good idea (if they really do get nuclear weapon capabilities). Really, no matter what president gets into office- they aren't really going to be able to pull out of Iraq or anywhere else without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. So, I guess I want to have someone in office that sees us getting out of there as the priority rather than someone who wants to finish what we started and keep plans to attack other countries in their back pocket.

The only candidates who I've found to really think this way about the issue are Ron Paul and Barack Obama.

The other day I was telling Jim (my boss) about Rob Bell's Noomas. I wanted to do something similar with our diversity film. When I say similar, I mean the sort of subversive story that unfolds during Rob's "lecture" on whichever topic he's talking about. I love how many of them help tell the bigger story that he's presenting.

Well, Jim really liked the idea and he also must have liked the Nooma previews cause he ordered ALL 18 of them. He says that we can watch them together when they come in. This is good. I love Noomas and I haven't seen all 18 of them yet.

But something else really cool happened, too. I got really excited about Rob Bell and started looking around the internet and found that Rob was on Tour! He just started "The Gods Aren't Angry Tour" which happened to be in Seattle last night. So, of course Beth and I went.

It was amazing.

I'm not going to ruin the event by giving a play by play of the thing (he's going to be in Orlando soon, too), but suffice to say, it was an incredible anthropology and history of how people created religions and deities to make sense of the world around them (and feel less guilty about human behaviors). Then he contrasts those stories with the biblical stories of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus to show just how revolutionary the ideas presented in the Jewish and Christian texts really are.

I think the best part about Rob Bell is his ability to take these histories and then flip them around and apply them to what's going on in our lives right now. It was a stunning contrast to the sermon we heard that morning.

We checked out a new church yesterday- Antioch has been pretty good, but it's far away and it's really big and I'm having a hard time wanting to get connected into it even though it's pretty cool. So, we went someplace new, just in case. I was excited when we got there. It was painted really cool and they were singing some songs that I knew. But the sermon was the most boring thing I've ever heard. And not only was it boring- it wasn't really informative either. The guy simply paraphrased the passage and then told us it was revolutionary. Now, he didn't bother telling us why it was revolutionary. He just stated that it was, hoping that we'd believe him and consider him wise.

Contrast that with Rob Bell, who spends the first half of his evening setting the stage of the historical and cultural context of where the stories of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus are set. Instead of telling us that it was revolutionary- he shows us through story that it was. And then he connects it with present day and shows us that we really haven't progressed very far and that there's a story that's calling us out of the old rituals and traditions into something bigger...

I wish that I could find a community here in Seattle that's passionate about each other and allows God to shape their worldview in a way that really exalts Christ but doesn't shun people. Sigh.

Abstract:
- Crisis: Marriage doesn't mean the same thing to all people.
- Solution: Create two distinct definitions for union/marriage; one social/civil that any couple (Heterosexual or LGBT) can enter. Another belonging only to religion- a spiritual/religious union that invites religious symbolism but does not have any additional "State Rights" associated with it. The first will be called a Civil Union and be the benefactor of State/Civil/Legal Rights. The other will be called Marriage and will be an optional "addition" to Civil Union with only religious symbolism and no State/Civil/Legal benefits in addition to those given by the Civil Union.

Please read the "long version" before commenting on these ideas. I am writing this because I care deeply about protecting the idea of marriage that I hold and also giving equality and freedom to those who do not.

The long version:
Marriage has been a hot topic in the world of politics and social concern over the past few years. There are some who feel that the very foundation of marriage is being attacked by LGBTs while there are those on the other side of the issue who feel marginalized and oppressed because they perceive that injustice and inequality exist due to their denial of marriage opportunities and the benefits that go along with it.

This is a difficult issue to address because most options seem like a win-lose to both sides of the debate. If those who seek to define Marriage as a union between man and woman ONLY prevail, it seems to devalue the interests of LGBT and if those who seek a broader sense of marriage prevail, then the "defenders of marriage" feel that marriage itself has been devalued and therefore not as important as they view it (not to mention religious and moral feelings of right and wrong that go along with most of the folks in this camp). This makes the topic a very sticky situation, one where feelings are on the line as well as politics and rights. So in order to wade through the topic, I believe that it's important to define what's actually on the line instead of assuming that everyone agrees on the terms.

The main misunderstanding I believe comes from two places. The first is an unfortunate definition of marriage. The second comes from the civil benefits that have been given to this definition. I think that after exploring the idea of marriage and what the expectations on each side are, we'll quickly see that most of us are actually in agreement.

Marriage is most often considered a social contract between two people who agree to legally share life together. More many, this includes mutual living space, child rearing, shared household responsibility, financial interdependence, physical intimacy, and a number of other things. Ask the majority of people in the world if that's what marriage is, you may get some additional items tacked on, but most would be satisfied with this definition. So, for LGBT, there's a no reason that they cannot partake in this agreement. They can live together, rear children, share household responsibilities, be financially interdependent, be physically intimate, etc. There's nothing that separated them from a heterosexual couple in this regard.

The problem is that while this definition satisfies many- it doesn't satisfy all. For those who have religious beliefs, marriage is generally a central practice of the religion. I cannot speak to the meaning marriage has in all religions since I haven't been raised as a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, etc, but in regards to a Christian's perspective- marriage is a symbol. It's the symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church. For a Christian, a man and a women uniting together symbolize the diversity and unity of God's presence and the yearning of Jesus for His church and the Church for Jesus. It creates anticipation for something to come. And since the there are clear definitions of marriage as the union of man and women to complete this symbol- allowing men and men or women and women to enter into this symbol is taboo. It essentially desecrates one of the tenants of faith they hold onto.

Here's some questions to consider: Do LGBT really want to enter into this symbol? For that matter do non-Christians and non-religious people who desire a heterosexual union really want to create this symbol either? Do those with religious views really anyone outside of their faith as a clear picture of this symbol? I think the answer to all these questions is NO!

What we're dealing with is two definitions of the same word. It's almost impossible to reach consensus when we don't have a good understanding of the terms, so here's my proposal:

Eliminate any legal/state/country benefits to marriage. Completely.

In its place, create a civil union of two or more individuals who agree to do life together. Make it a binding legal contract much like marriage is today without any religious meaning. For anyone who enters this agreement, legal/state/country benefits may be given regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability, etc. This will be constitutional since we have agreed in this country to a separation of Church and State- the country should not be giving preference to religious symbols, no matter how important they might be to the individual.

For those who want this union to mean "more" they can go to a church or synagogue or mosque or ward or wherever and submit themselves to the religious rituals they so wish. As a religious organization, the rules as to who gets to participate can be instated and protected by religious freedom. And this way, the idea of marriage and union will be separate from the average civil union and mean something more. Possibly even more than it does currently since it will cease to be a secular practice and become simply a religious symbol. It may create intrigue in those who don't participate actually creating an opportunity for conversations about spiritual symbolism. But the only way this will work is if the State guarantees that it will not force religious organizations to recognize or perform "Marriages" for those they do not wish. This would be an intrusion on their symbol and a violation of their religious freedom.

At the same time, equality will prevail in the realm of civil rights. The individual who does not subscribe to religious beliefs will not be punished for different choices and the State can give benefit to anyone who helps create a stable union structure to the country.

As a Christian and friend to LGBTs, I feel that this is a mutually acceptable solution, protecting the interests and beliefs of all.

I spent the weekend registering for baby stuff at Babies R Us and Target. Honestly, it was pretty cool. Now that we know we're having a boy it's a lot easier to get excited about clothes and toys and all that other baby stuff that was a little less compelling a few weeks ago when this human-like blob was all that we could see on the ultrasound. But, now that we know that our human-like blob has fingers and toes and arms and legs and a gender it makes the baby seem a lot more real. I'm beginning to get really excited and I've been thinking about him a lot more over the past week.

I've always known that people with kids tend to get wrapped up in the idea of being a parent (and I never really understood it). Even now, since Ethan's not born yet, the whole idea of fatherhood and having kids is a little foreign. But all the same, I find that each day I'm thinking more and more about being a dad and less and less about silly things that occupy my mind (like getting an XBOX 360 so I can play Halo 3 or trying to get a bigger music collection or what have you). Instead, I'm thinking about what stocks to buy so that I can pay for his college education sometime. And where I should invest so that we can get a down payment on a house going... It's crazy how this idea of protecting and rearing a child just suddenly clicks in your head.

It's hard to believe that I'm "growing up" and becoming more "responsible."

It's funny what sort of thoughts can cross a person's mind when they're puking their guts out.

Juliet glanced at her reflection in the toilet water, stained by half digested Cheetos. She wished that she could find reprieve from the guilt she felt over her secret indulgences.

In a parking lot in Brooklyn, Jamal spit blood from his mouth and wrestled a switchblade from his pocket, wondering if he'd have a chance to use it before another blow came.

Ashley looked at the Greek Letters hovering above the sink and hoped that she still had a chance with the boy who chugged the last three beers with her.

At Abbott Northwestern Hospital, James threw his bedpan on the floor and paged a nurse. He begged her to help him call his father one last time.

Eve felt her stomach as her lips curled into a quiet smile. It was the third morning in a row she had been sick. There were many reasons for illness, but there was only one possibility she could think of.

Louis grimaced at the chunks of meatballs in the trashcan and plotted revenge on the waiter who served them.

Brett wiped his mouth and headed for the scale, hoping he'd weigh in at a lower class this week.

Samantha fought back tears, hoping that the poison was from someone other than her beloved, Greg.

Jessica looked at her mother in disgust and said, "I hate you. And I hate eating broccoli."

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

I love this guy. I haven't seen a candidate who I really believed for a long time. Finally, here's one that's voted for the same things for his entire political life. Whether you agree with him on every issue or not, he's proven that he's trustworthy:

- He votes against the government spending federal money no matter how "nice" a cause.
- He votes to eliminate the IRS and get the government out of debt so that it can actually help its citizens rather than see them as potential revenue.
- He votes to keep other countries from making decision for us by ending our involvement in any world organization (such as WTO, NAFTA, and the United Nations).
- He votes for anything that increases personal liberty and for anything that protects the life, liberty, and property of the people who make up this country.
- He votes for less government involvement in everyday life so that individuals are free to make choices for themselves when it comes to schooling and medicine and money.

He's a republican, but he ran as a libertarian a number of years back. I like Ron Paul. I think he accomplishes more good with his minimilization of of government than other candidates do with their claims that government should "force" good on its people...

Beth and I went to go see 'Across the Universe' last night. My initial thought was that it was going to be really fun- a story set to the Beatles can't go wrong, right? Well, you actually CAN go wrong when you force music that wasn't meant for "narrative" to be narrative.

The Pros:
- The entire cast were pretty good singers.
- The arrangements played good tribute to the Beatles without trying to sound like a cover band.
- The film was visually very pleasing.

The Cons:
- There wasn't enough of a story to warrant a 2 hour movie (which made it very slow paced).
- Sometimes the songs fit perfectly with the setting and other times it was a little contrived.
- "Prudence" was in the film simply because there was a clever way to add a song into the mix- but she added nothing to the storyline.
- There wasn't enough dialogue to move the plot along (other musicals like Les Mis and Phantom of the opera put the dialogue into song- which is ok- but the Beatles were never writing a musical so there should have been more transitional talking to let us know what was going on... I felt lost a few times).

So, basically- buy the soundtrack and skip the movie.

Another insight into the movie experience- Beth and I payed $17.50 to go to the movies together. Now, the movie industry keeps wondering why no one's going to the movie theater any longer. Perhaps it's because I could OWN the same movie and watch it as many times as I'd like for less than what it costs for the two of us to go to the theater. I was at Best Buy the other day and most of the movies there are between 10-20 dollars. Same at Target and Walmart and most other video distribution points. Is it just me or do you think that perhaps there's some problem with that. Either movies or videos are priced wrong (please Best Buy, Target, & Walmart, don't raise your prices after reading this...).

Tonight, my little dog Piper had her first kill.

Every evening, the two of us go for a little walk around our section of town. She usually leads the way down the stairs, bounding against the leash, eager to get to the grass for a little pee. But tonight, something different happened. She bounded around the corner as normal, but suddenly there was another animal in the mix. Somehow, a wild squirrel had climbed up the stairs and was sitting a few steps down from our door.

It didn't have a chance.

Before I had a chance to react, Piper had the squirrel's tail in her mouth, pinned the poor thing to the ground, flipped the body around until she had a good grasp on the neck and began shaking and shaking and shaking the squirrel until its neck was broken and it was fully dead. This all happened within the span of about 5 seconds.

Needless to say, I didn't really know what to do. I knew the thing was either dead or well on it's way to being dead, so I just let her walk with it for a little while. I didn't want her to eat it or leave it on the sidewalk where it would be decomposing and probably infected with bacteria (thus becoming a deathtrap for one of the other local dogs). So I finally made her spit the thing on the ground outside our apartment's garbage room and gingerly picked the squirrel up by the hairs on its tail and tossed it into the trash compactor.

I'm not saying that I have it in for squirrels or anything, but I was sort of proud of my little dog. I've never seen Piper so pleased with herself- or so angry as when she figured out that she would not be able to enjoy the kill as she had planned.

Of course, when I told Beth about it, she was sad for the squirrel. It's strange that since squirrels are fuzzy and "cute" looking, we often forget that they are no better than rats. They carry diseases, they steal food, and the destroy things. But, since they are rather "adorable" I suppose I'm a little sad, too. It's hard to believe that our little sweet dog could so quickly end the life of another living animal- but it goes to show that instinct is a strong thing.

I suppose this means that we won't be adding any little furry animals to our home collection...

Something strange happened this morning:

I walk outside this morning to take Piper for her bathroom break and sitting on a ledge, just outside the security gate, there are two glasses of half drunk wine. It was rather strange that wine would be sitting in the middle of a pedestrian area- but even more odd that they would be just in front of the security gate. You see, it's not the most romantic place in the world. Our trash and recycling center happens to be situated right next to the entrance and so there's always flies buzzing around and it sometimes has the distinct oder of garbage (and donuts, our apartment complex is situated on top of a Supermarket and the bakery is just below the entrance, too).

I told Beth about it and she thought that perhaps some homeless people were on a date last night. I couldn't quite fathom that in my head, because there was still some wine left in each glass- all the homeless people I've ever encountered would never let good wine go to waste (or bad wine for that matter).

So, I'm left with this bothering me for the rest of the day... what events transpired on the steps of our apartment complex last night? Why would anyone abandon their wine? And why would they pick such a spot to drink it?

This morning on the way to work I saw one of the most amazing sights. The clouds had gathered on the surface of Elliot Bay and poured over the city so that only the tops and bottoms of the buildings in the city could be seen. As I drove into the city on 99 the clouds were floating just above the highway like cotton candy (only gray cotton candy instead of pink or blue).

I think water and clouds are simply amazing. The way the water cycle works reminds me of the way life works, too. You have ice which could be considered the solid form, sort of like our bodies. You've got water that is still tangible, yet fluid, sort of like our minds. You've got steam/clouds that are not solid, and often not seem, sort of like our spirit. All three are the same as each other because they're all made from the same essence (H2O), but they are also different and separate from each other. It's kind of cool to think about.

This workplace is great for people who are scavengers like me. Food scavengers to be specific. The cupboard is full of food for the taking, anytime we're hungry. So, if perhaps I'd like to have golden grahams with raspberries & strawberries on top, some lite nachos with cheese, and a Hostess Chocolate Cupcake for lunch, I can do just that- And I did, today.

Seriously, this is going to spoil me for the rest of the workforce. I'll probably never be able to work anywhere like this again, nor will I want to!