MySpace


MySpace.com | rss | sign in
Knight of the Living Dad



Last Updated: 11/22/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Divorced
Age: 41
Sign: Aquarius

City: OKLAHOMA CITY
State: Oklahoma
Country: US
Signup Date: 6/2/2006

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Thursday, December 18, 2008 

Current mood:  anxious
Category: News and Politics
Due to recent reactions, I am trying to choose my words more carefully about this touchy subject. I feel that I have been moderate and objective about it, but the evidence indicates that I have offended some people by indicating there could be problems with the current Climate Change theory.

So...flashback over the past year: Global warming was found on Mars; another study showed the sun has been emitting more energy during the last 60 years; more arctic ice formed this year than in the past 20 years; a study confirms sea-level rise has not accelerated in 500 years; and an April report from the United Nations indicated there is no evidence of global warming since 1998.



This leads us to the UN Global Warming conference last week. There are now 650 international scientists, many of whom are current or former IPCC scientists, who have voiced dissension about Climate Change theory. In subsequent report to the U.S. Senate there are quotes from Nobel Prize Winner, Ivar Giaever, claiming Global warming is more religion than science. Other dissenting opinions come from Dr. Kiminori Itoh and Dr. Arun Ahluwalia, members of the IPCC, suggesting scandal and bad science.

Let's flashback again. This time to the 1940's: there was a small movement touting global-warming fears following accelerated industrialization. Some experts at the time claimed that all sea-life would be extinct by 1979 and England would be underwater by the year 2000. However, there was crest in temperatures and then they fell, giving way to one of the coldest winters in measured history in 1977. This promoted the Global-Cooling fear - or as we called it back then, "The Coming of a New Ice Age."

Again, let me be perfectly clear: I am not promoting pollution or irresponsible energy-use. I like breathing clean air as much as anyone else. However, I also want to be wary of those who exclaim "Shun the Non-Believer" every time I question something - only to find out that I'm being duped into having my kidney stolen by traveling to Candy Mountain. In other words, I'll pay for needed improvements, but I don't want to pay for a sky-is-falling reaction that isn't true.

But this is my fear. I don't want to be taxed for something that may not even exist. And if the Kyoto treaty is signed, which is a current expected given for the President-Elect, then this will undeniably increase energy costs. Depending on which economist you trust that expense would be somewhere between $100 and $2500 per family per year. Also, this energy-cost increase will impact other markets, including agriculture. An ACCF report indicates that food prices could rise as much as 15% as a direct result of this signing. This doesn't impact just America, but especially third-world countries filled with starving people. More expense equals less aid.

So, I am questioning whether higher energy costs equal to my alleged tax-cut is a fair trade-off for something that two-thirds of the scientists at the IPCC are now saying isn't real. This is a real issue with serious concerns; not something to be treated lightly. As our current economy is already bludgeoned and millions of Americans in dire financial straits, I am not certain whether another economic crisis is merited for an issue new studies are showing to be a non-issue at best and media-hyped scandal at worst.

But as with anything: Don't trust my words. Look into it; find the facts. Then prepare or get involved. Don't let yourself be a victim, even if the results are something with which you disagree.
5:00 AM 
2 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Monday, December 15, 2008 

Current mood:  cold
Category: Life
It has turned bitterly cold this morning. And I am thankful to have a home with plenty of heat to keep me warm. However, as part of my "Fight The Establishment" concept for this Christmas season, I am considering those who do not have shelter from the cold.

I cannot imagine what the conditions must be like for the homeless during this horrific weather. I don't know about all my readers, but where I am it is in the twenties with wind chills dropping the "feels like" into the shallow negatives. That's simply intolerable.

So - for today, if you see someone on the corner, panhandling, begging, asking for hand-outs, then you can feel relatively safe they are not a con-artist. I mention this because I know many people, myself included, often don't help people on the corners because we wonder about that angle. And yes, it does happen. But this paranoia of the individual scam should not keep us from helping with our homeless problem. And most of us use that as our excuse to not help or be involved.

I won't announce the amount, because it is embarrassingly not nearly enough, but I do ear-mark some funds every month to go to charities that work with the homeless. It is one way that I can feel confident the money is working to assist rather than be squandered. But the point is to find a way, some way and be comfortable with it, to help rather than ignore or "scrape off" those in need.

In addition to many worthy charities, here are a few ideas that you may wish to incorporate. Some cities and shelters offer bus coupons to give a free ride to a shelter. If you are uncomfortable with giving money, you can give these and feel more confident that the recipient will indeed receive help. Another idea I've considered is to purchase a small stack of $5 McDonald's Arch-Cards and hand these out. At least, whoever ends up using it will use it for food. Be creative with your giving, but give - because the need is real.

Lastly, something I remind myself as I question whether that dirty, jobless homeless person begging deserves to get a hand-out is whether I deserve everything that I have. Sure, I bought most of it and worked for the funds to do so; however, I have not been in control of every circumstance that led to my current success. Many "lucky" breaks came from someone else or forces outside myself. So, "unlucky" breaks can happen to someone in much the same way. I'll let God judge them; I will find a way to help. Please join me in the effort.
9:00 PM 
3 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, December 11, 2008 

Current mood:  pensive
Category: News and Politics
I believe that Climate Change is a man-made crisis, but I don't believe there is a real threat to our planet.

That opening statement will likely get some interesting responses. However, what I mean is I believe much of the information, and even science, of Climate Change is propaganda to encourage people to believe there is a crisis, but this evangelism has an ulterior motive.

I'm not going to go deeply into the evidence that suggests Climate Change does not exist in any real threatening way, but a few small points: satellite imagery showed more arctic ice developed this year than any year in the past 20 years; the same "warming" evidence has been found on the technologically-void planet of Mars; bombers abandoned in a dry air field in Iceland during WWII are under 40 feet of "new ice" from the past 60 years of so-called Global Warming; and over 30,000 American scientists have declared Global Warming a hoax.

Now, I don't really want to debate whether Climate Change does or does not exist. The likelihood of anyone convincing anyone else from their current belief as a result of this blog or anticipated comments to follow is slim. However, I'd like to point out the behavior of leaders in the Climate Change campaign.

Over a year ago, Senator Inhofe asked Al Gore and others to take a public "energy pledge" which basically states that they declare Climate Change as an ethical and moral obligation, and as a result they pledge to use no more fossil-fuel energy than the average American. Interestingly, Al Gore has refused to do this seemingly reasonable request.

US Senate Committee's Webpage on Environment and Public Works

Now – pros and cons. First, let's be a little fair to Al; he owns more stuff than the average American, so fueling all that stuff with this "average American" limit would be difficult and does set himself up for failure. I can somewhat understand his reasons for refusing. However, this is not a law; he won't be arrested for not complying. It is just a public declaration to try to stay within "reasonable means" of energy consumption – and he and other "green" celebrities have refused to do this.

I mentioned "ulterior motive" above. Let me explain. Al Gore sells carbon credits. This is a financial method to encourage people to comply with "reasonable means" of energy consumption. However, who makes money from these sales? Al Gore does. Also, celebs who are "all about the environment" have public relations people constantly looking for ways to make them "look better" in the public eye because no one will watch a film or TV Show starring someone not liked. And although I believe some celebs earnestly believe in this environmental cause, I also believe that there are many who "play someone who cares" on TV.

Final comment: Great icons of the past did not say "this is a problem; we need to change, but I can't curb my own behavior until that solution is found – and after all I have so much more, I can't comply with what I am telling you to do." Great icons of the past refused to partake in a rich lifestyle and suffered with others through the problem. Prince Siddhartha (Buddha) refused his privileged life to search for a way to combat poverty and disease. Jesus denied the Jewish belief that he should be an earthly king and walked among them, serving them rather than being served. When Gandhi died, everything he owned fit into a shoebox. These great icons made themselves the example of their principles, not the exception to them.


9:00 PM 
8 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, December 09, 2008 

Current mood:  disappointed
Category: News and Politics


Well, the enormous popularity of President-Elect Obama has given way to temptation for lesser political officials to 'sell' democracy. This is a bit complicated as most Governors are empowered to appoint vacated Congressional seats; however, it is clearly illegal to sell them. Below is the article from the Chicago Tribune about this case of corrupt Chicago politics in action:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris were arrested today by FBI agents on federal corruption charges.

Blagojevich and Harris were accused of a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy that included Blagojevich conspiring to sell or trade the Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama in exchange for financial benefits for the governor and his wife. The governor was also accused of obtaining campaign contributions in exchange for other official actions.

Blagojevich was taken into federal custody at his North Side home this morning.

A Blagojevich spokesman said he was unaware of the development. 'Haven't heard anything -- you are first to call,' Lucio Guerrero said in an e-mail.

The stunning, early morning visit by authorities to the governor's North Side home came amid revelations that federal investigators had recorded the governor with the cooperation of a longtime confidant and had begun to focus on the possibility that the process of choosing a Senate successor to President-elect Barack Obama could be tainted by pay-to-play politics.

Link To The Chicago Tribune For The Whole Story and Updates


4:00 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Sunday, December 07, 2008 

Current mood:  thankful
Category: Life
I have recently discovered some staggering statistics about the Holiday Season and Christmas spending. On average, Americans spend 450 billion dollars on gifts for the Advent Season. Even with this year's recession, that amount is likely to still exceed 300 billion.

For an estimated 10 billion dollars, the world's worst killer could be stopped: Lack of Clean Water. Yes, that kills more people worldwide than ANYTHING! When you compare what it would cost to save people's lives versus giving someone a sweater they will never wear, then the choice of where to put your money is easy.

This year, I am fighting the establishment of modern Christmas. Although I will still buy some gifts for my children, I am asking to receive nothing. Instead, anyone who would buy me a Christmas gift or send a Christmas card, even if it is only $5, I am asking them to donate that money to the Rwanda Clean Water Mission.

For every $3000 received, this charity can dig a well, which will provide 750 people a lifetime of safe and clean water. Moreover, all projects initiated by this charity are built and operated by Rwandan locals; thus furthering their own local economy.

I hope that you will join me in fighting the consumerism-establishment of Christmas and find ways to bring true meaning back to the Holiday Season. This does not mean becoming a Scrooge, but rather find ways to spend your Christmas budget for those who really need it; also, join me in refusing to accept gifts and ask others to donate to worthy charities. Tell your friends and family this is what you really want for Christmas.

Anyone who wishes to learn more about the Rwandan Clean Water Mission or donate to the cause, feel free to contact me or go to www.rwandacleanwater.com/project.

3:30 PM 
7 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, December 05, 2008 

Current mood:  contemplative
Category: News and Politics
So, now it has gone all the way to the Supreme Court. Finding facts on this is difficult as such a monumental item as this has been treated with absolute silence. Plus there is so much hype vs anti-hype on the internet, that it is difficult to find credible sources.

I am curious what will happen, despite my own beliefs. This is quite historic in itself. However, let me be very clear about my political agenda - or lack thereof. This is now a matter for the due process to handle; the checks and balances of the Constitution were put in place to deal with just such questions. It will be interesting to watch.

So - on the Obama side, the arguments are: "He was born in Hawaii - end of story." On the opposing eligibility side, it is much more interesting, and most don't understand it. It mainly focuses around the idea he was NOT born in Hawaii. Why would anyone think this - after all his Registry of Live Birth is on his web site.

Well - not true; in fact that document actually implies he was not born in Hawaii as it is a document used for those not born in a Hawaiian hospital. The State statute reads: "Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."

You see - a certificate declaring a child was born in Hawaii is a different document than the one shown on his website. Keep in mind, there is no doctor's signature on the Certificate of Live Birth. Moreover, there are several witnesses of his birth in Kenya: his biological father, brother and paternal grandmother have all made statements that he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. Also, there are legal affidavits which seem to confirm this. Further, according to several investigators, each hospital in Hawaii has denied that he was born in their hospital, and Hawaiian officials refuse to confirm his birth in their state.

So, I do see why it is reasonable to question his eligibility. Further, I believe it is entirely possible that Obama truly believes he was born in Hawaii, even should the facts come out otherwise. Honestly, if I were to be told I was not born in Oklahoma, I'd scoff and walk away. If my parents had told me a lie about my residency, I would likely believe them over anything as well.

And whether I was born where I thought would not change who I am any less than a non-Hawaiian birth would change Barack Obama. However, the rules of the Constitution are clear; and regardless of how I feel about it, if he were not born in Hawaii, then he does not meet the requirements to be President.

"Who cares" many will say. But once we start picking which parts of the law we want to observe, then we are headed towards political manipulation and chaos. Free Speech...who cares? Not being forced to quarter soldiers....who cares?

So, all this said, what I really hope for is real proof that he is a natural-born citizen. Because then, doubting Thomas like myself can just shut-up and this issue can be put to bed. However, if it turns out there is a problem, then it will be very ugly times in the United States, and a serious question as to what the electors will do with their votes.

Keep in mind, this is a republic, not a democracy. Your vote went to someone you trusted to vote on your behalf...what happens if the President-Elect is inelegible or unavailable to take office before electoral college convenes? This should be rather curious to see. It is on the docket for this Friday...that's tomorrow!
12:00 AM 
21 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Monday, December 01, 2008 

Current mood:  curious
Category: News and Politics
Ok, everyone knows my conservative stance and political disagreements with our President Elect. Everyone also knows that I question his legitimacy to have run for President as I am not fully convinced he is a natural born citizen. All that being said, my opinions are moot at this point; he won the election and whether there is a Constitutional technicality or not, he will officially take the Presidency and these issues will no longer have any bearing. Even if I were100% accurate in my belief, at some point - the truth becomes irrelevant and must give way to progress. I call such cases "Liberty Valance" scenarios.

That being said, I still have a right to talk about it. And though the first amendment protects me from retribution from the government, it does not mean anyone has to listen. It further does not mean anyone has to promote or carry on my speech. However, there are still political manipulations that do occur in our modern world of information and free exchange of ideas. The article below is not the first time that I've heard about the powerful information gate-keeper of the internet, manipulating or suppressing political stories. Whatever you may choose to research, consider this as you "Google" for information, believing you will get all the possible information on a subject:

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs claims the Google has banned her groundbreaking articles about Obama – a technique many people refer to as "sandboxing."

"Sandboxing" happens when Google strips a website's rankings from its search engine results. According to some theories, this happens to new websites when Google puts them into a holding area known as a "sandbox" until the site gains credibility.

However, Atlas Shrugs is not new, and Gellar believes her stories have been intentionally suppressed by the Internet giant – especially ones about President-elect Obama. She said her exclusive stories about Obama's birth certificate that once received thousands of hits every day will not come up in Google word searches.

"I was in the top five search results before the story got legs," she said. "These stories drove 12,000 to 15,000 people to my site every day."

But now a November earnings report shows her Google clicks and revenue flat lining since November 20. Daily page impressions dropped from an average of 45,000 to single digits – overnight. Also, her Google images hits are slowed to only 4,720 since that day, while Yahoo and other search engines list them in the hundreds of thousands.

"The media gives blogs the silent treatment," she said. "The only thing we have is these searches. The Google word search is gone – all gone. When you are in my business, that's how you build readership."

On July 4, Gellar featured a story about a board-certified forensic expert who declared Obama's online birth certificate a "forgery" and an "obvious fake." She attributes most of her problems with Google to that report.

"I think that it's the birth certificate story," Geller said. "All of the sudden, my numbers were down by 10,000. It's a freedom of speech issue. Who are they to decide what should be searched? They don't like what I'm running so they ban me?"

Geller said she has contacted Google three times, and the company said it has filed "requests for consideration" to put her stories back on Google's search pages.

"They want me to sit this out for six months," she said. "Are they kidding? Based on what?"

Geller said the top Google word searches used to be about Obama's birth certificate. But now she said the searches only return "a bunch of speculating and hearsay" to make the stories appear to be unfounded conspiracy theories.

She believes the censorship could have something to do with Google CEO Eric Schmidt's relationship with the president-elect. According to recent reports, Schmidt will soon be holding a position in the Obama administration.

Geller said she has hired a cyber-crime consulting firm to remove her articles from the search engine's "sandbox" and has asked her readership to help fight censorship with donations.

"Google cannot arbitrarily silence voices of freedom," she said. "Blogs are the last vestige of free speech."

Google has not responded to requests for comment.

9:00 PM 
4 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Saturday, November 15, 2008 

Current mood:  happy
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities
Ok, so the last couple of blogs have been politically themed. So, since the world hasn't ended and the sun seems to continue to rise each morning, I thought I'd take a break from pissing off my friends with my difference of opinions.

Instead, because of a couple of quotes I used in those previous blogs, I thought I'd share more H. L. Mencken's quotes. This is purely for the purpose of fun, levity and humor. So, please, no name-calling on this post; save it for a latter one.

Without further ado, here is the list:

A celebrity is one who is known to many persons he is glad he doesn't know.

A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.

A home is not a mere transient shelter: its essence lies in the personalities of the people who live in it.

A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers.

A poet more than thirty years old is simply an overgrown child.

All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.

All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else.

All [zoos] actually offer to the public in return for the taxes spent upon them is a form of idle and witless amusement, compared to which a visit to a penitentiary, or even to a State legislature in session, is informing, stimulating and ennobling.

An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.

Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood.

Conscience is a mother-in-law whose visit never ends.

Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking.

Criticism is prejudice made plausible.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.

For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing.

For it is mutual trust, even more than mutual interest that holds human associations together. Our friends seldom profit us but they make us feel safe... Marriage is a scheme to accomplish exactly that same end.

Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.

I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.

I never lecture, not because I am shy or a bad speaker, but simply because I detest the sort of people who go to lectures and don't want to meet them.

In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell.

Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.

It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man.

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.

It is impossible to imagine Goethe or Beethoven being good at billiards or golf.

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.

It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry.

It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull.

10:00 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, November 14, 2008 

Current mood:  curious
Category: News and Politics
View Video

I know I'm gonna get flack for what I'm saying here...but there has been a bit of interesting buzz about this idea of a "civilian army" and requiring those 18 to 25 to serve 3 months in it. Now, I have a variety of emotions about this, but since I'm often accused of being alarmist and dramatic, let me run with the wildest of speculation. Then you judge how far off the mark I am.

When you consider enlisting young men (or persons) into a civilian army that doesn't report to the normal chain of military command, and you follow this up with the plan to ban the conceal and carry laws and other weapon confiscation methods, this reminds me a lot of something that happened in history about 75 years ago. The place: Germany. The result...well, you already know. Could it happen again? Could it happen here? I don't know; I just know most Germans never saw it coming and it happened in less than a decade.

Ok, comments - call me all the dirty names; I'm ready.



8:00 AM 
16 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, November 07, 2008 

Current mood:  cynical
Category: News and Politics
The NYT and Zogby polls had it at 85% while the ABC and Gallup rated the approval at over 90%. Yes - that was the Presidential Approval Rating...no, I'm not talking about the President-Elect; I am talking about George W Bush.

Immediately after the 9/11 attack, President Bush was loved and revered by nearly everyone, according to the polls. This was before any evidence, false or true, was mentioned about Iraq - and before he was vilified for Hurricane Katrina. This was his rating in the weeks following the crisis. And those who HATE him now, LOVED him then - although they would admit to it and will justify their feelings in some deception-based excuse.

The point I am trying to make is when Americans see a crisis, they look to a leader with "hope" that the leader can "change" the situation. The believe flawlessly and fervently. But when the problem does become solved quickly, they lose "hope" and become despondent about "change."

The stock market fell over 800 points in the last two days since the election. Whether that is a response to the election or not is far too complicated to answer with any certainty. And as our President-Elect has already stated in his acceptance speech, these problems will not be solved within a year nor four years - and then he began campaigning for his second term before he even has yet to be sworn in.

So, as my grandmother used to say, "Hide and watch." I will imagine (and time will tell whether it's true) that many excited Americas will become frustrated and upset, and that they will drop from evangelical supporters to neutral or even haters.

This brings up my final point about where we are going. I chose the word "haters" on purpose - as I am concerned about how those who do become disappointed and criticize will be viewed (or even currently are) by the continued supporters.

This has been an historic moment, as a man from a non-white ethnic group has been elected to the office of the President. And I truly to believe in Rev. King's words that we should judge a man by his character and not by the color of his skin; however, I have already been accused of racism and hatred, just because I disagree with some of the President-Elect's voting record and past political decisions.

Even though I have judged based on character and based on decisions, I have been labeled by some as a person who promotes hate. The era of political correctness is about to become even more dangerous. The day after the election, Jay Leno stated it will be difficult to make jokes about our new President. It was implied because everyone liked him and he would not make mistakes, but since no man is perfect, I find it hard to believe that is the real reason Jay is concerned.

I am far less concerned with the politics than I am of the thought-policing that I fear will come of it. We have the freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution; however, our words can be twisted and we may become "smeared" by selective-listening of those with whom we disagree.

I hope we can be as openly critical of the next President as we have of the one who once had over 90% approval rating. As many of my friends, with whom I differ on political opinion, have told me - one can still love the country and all its great benefits while still being disappointed and lodging complaints.

Please keep that in mind when in future blogs, I make critical statements - as I will. And keep it in mind when you look down your nose at those of us you deem just not smart enough to understand your philosophy. Those who didn't vote Democrat in this past election are not necessarily hate mongers...nor even stupid. Beware of stereotyping and discrimination on ALL sides.      


 
9:30 PM 
16 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate