what I learned from Scrooge today

So beginith the Rant:

If you know me you know I have a distaste for hippies, dislike for liberal minds, and absolutely loathe "progressive" anything (I am referring to the modern use of progressive, verbs need not feel my ire). I have, until recently left my opinions and views to only be shared in the company of a select people. I understand that I can easily overrun a conversation, like a road grater, which can leave weaker conversationalist pushed to the side, or the feelings of folks who don't know me as a kindhearted person bruised by my blunt speaking and matter of fact delivery. Alas, recently I have decided to share my views outside the cabal of like minded people in hopes to educate them on the evils of progressive,liberal thinking.

My beef today is with welfare or entitlement programs in general (low income housing, food stamps, universal health care) These ideas are often pitched as a way to help those who are "in need" by giving them the means to survive when they are without a way to obtain these means on their own. A noble cause. One I can buy into. And possibly understand, if it were ran properly.
The old adage, "Give a man a fish he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish he'll eat for the rest of his life." Tells us that if we just give someone something without equipping them to provide for themselves we are in fact dooming them.
A few more examples.
"Never letting your child read, instead only reading to them." you will have an illiterate child.
"Never letting a person make a decision on their own, and that person will never be able to make a decision without help." you will have a person who cannot lead a life because they are ill equipped.
One more.
"Give free money away with no strings attached, with no cut off date, or expectation of repayment" and you will have people who will never learn to work.
Where am I going with this? People are in need, and have been since the dawn of time, and will continue until God stops the record from spinning.
But handouts, with no limit or requirements or ends) will just make needy people. A class of needy people who are not needy from a disability, mental problems, age, or job loss; rather a group of people who are needy because they have become dependent on a system to feed, house, clothe, and take care of them. A system they both blame for their ills yet completely rely on for sustenance. Crazy huh. What kind of dumb people would ever put into place a program that would handicap an entire demographic of people? Oh... yeah... Our government. Let me boil it down so I'm not misunderstood I hate welfare, I hate entitlement programs, and I think they cause more harm than good.

Having said... er. typed that people will compare me with a hateful, close minded curmudgeon, like the pre-enlightened Mr. Scrooge. Where you would think I would be offended I am completely flattered.
Let me set the scene from the story we all know:
"Mr. Scrooge is at the local trading house, where he shows he is a ruthless business man, who knows how to make a profit. He is approached by two gentlemen who are attempting to raise money from the wealthy to help the poor in the area. Mr. Scrooge then remarks are the workhouses, poorhouses, and jails still open?
The men remark with a yes, unfortunately.
Good then let the poor go there, says Scrooge.
The men remark, but most would rather die than go to one of those places.
Scrooge replies, Well I am taxed, largely, to keep them open. Why are they not used?
The men then ask if scrooge has ever set foot into one of those establishments to which he replies never. The men tell him on how dreadful they are. Scrooge then walks away show disinterest in putting more of his hard earned money into helping the poor.
People see this and hate Scrooge. But why? Because he has the audacity to want to keep his money? Because he does not want to help feed hungry people? Because he feels that his taxes, which are raised with promises to help the poor, are not used properly by the government, and he is expected to pick up the slack? Really?
We should hate the government who fails to help the poor. They take money, large quantities of it, and the best they can do is hell holes that split families up and spread disease and sorrow (see also the conversation had by the homeless in the tunnel during the visit of the third spirit).
The same applies today. Look at your paycheck. Look at how much comes out. Are there fewer poor people because of it? Are there being taken off the streets to live a life of milk an honey? Have you ever heard a person who said I once was on welfare, but thanks to the government I am now on top of the world? Nope.
But, are there people abusing the system? Living a life of imprisonment of class because of lack of education? A people who cannot survive on their own unless someone feeds, houses, and takes care of them? Generation upon generations of people completely dependent on a system with no motivation to remove themselves? Yup.

Am I, as a minister, in a church still providing help to those who fall through the cracks and cannot work the system? Yes.
I wonder what would happen if it were completely left up to not for profits to deal with the problem of benevolence? What if the money wasted by the government was still in our pockets and we were allowed to chose where and who to spend our moneys on? Would we help? Would more people, even the evil rich, feel more apt to lend a hand by choice rather than by force? I know that's a crazy idea. Evil rich people will never give to the needy unless they are forced by law. Right?

Well according to every frigg'n article I have ever read on the subject (just google it) rich conservatives give at least twice that of their liberal counterparts to not for profits. Yup. the evil rich are responsible for funding more humanitarian outreach than the screaming liberal masses (put that in you pipe and smoke it hippie).
To wrap this up. I learned from Scrooge today that people are generous by nature. And when the whole Spirit of God (Christmas Spirit) gets a hold of us we can be down right benevolent. Nothing gives our souls better nourishment than giving to those in need, feeding His sheep. Why? Because we are choosing to, we are answering a calling, we are acting out of faith, and that feels good.
Do you feel happy when you donate to a worthy cause? Do you get that same feeling when you pay your taxes?

So Endith the Rant:

When is it Christmas?

So beginith the Rant:

When is it Christmas? This is a question I am very opinionated about. For starters the answer to this questions helps to take some of the fire out of the "Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays" debate.
You see some will say Christmas starts around September when walmart and every other center for commerce start hanging up Christmas decorations to prepare for the upcoming "boom time". If you buy into this idea then yes you should be saying "Merry Christmas" to people right after Labor Day.
Others think that it starts early November, right after Halloween. Some say Black Friday is the official start to Christmas. Let's not forget Advent (winter lent) as the official start of the Church year and the Christmas Season. So, when does "Christmas Start" when should you wish someone a Merry Christmas?

I say Christmas is two days long. Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Those two days it is completely acceptable to say Merry Christmas. Any time before that it is completely acceptable to wish folks a Happy Holiday, Seeing as it is a holiday season Thanksgiving, Hanuka, Christmas, New Years, and such. Now as of right now I end my conversations with people by saying, "If I don't see you before then, Merry Christmas."
Really, we should be saying Happy Advent, not Happy Holidays. But that just doesn't sound right. During Easter do you start saying Happy Easter at Ash Wednesday?
A good argument can be, "But Marshall, It's the 'Christmas Season', and that is the point we are trying to get across with the Merry Christmas. We are not diluted enough to think that we are able to stretch out the birth of Christ to more than an Eve and a Day. We understand that the focus of this time of year should be Christmas and therefore we will do our best to remind everyone of that fact." I say, "Good Call". But it still brings to question when does the Christmas Season start? Black Friday? Advent? September?
It's different for every person. As I work in the Church my preparation for Christmas begins with Advent. I pray, I do service, I try to tell everyone close to me how much I love them. But my personal Christmas Spirit doesn't kick in until about a week or so before C-day. And that Spirit doesn't really leave the gates until it hears this song.



So now, for me, it's Christmas.


So endith the Rant:
And if I don't see you before then, Merry Christmas.

And for good measure here is the King, because a little Elvis makes everything better.

yup.

No Rant.
Just thought this made sense.
Enjoy.

Climate Gate... I WAS RIGHT!!

So beginith the rant:

SUCK IT HIPPIES!!! I was right. If you don't know what the heck I'm talking about just GOOGLE "climategate".

I will now just post a past rant for fun. Just to show that I was on the "global warming is a crock of crap" wagon from the get go.

Jan 6th, 2006.

Global warming is a lie.

Why I think global warming is a lie cooked up by hippies to support giant environmental agencies. My proof can be found in science that Mr. Wizard would teach so anyone can follow it. Enjoy, as I single handedly destroy hippie propaganda with third grade science.

Liberal lie:

Our industry, cars, and general burning of fossil fuels is producing an excess of greenhouse gasses that cause the uh, greenhouse effect which works much like a greenhouse

Third grade science truth:

In mere minutes Mt. St. Helen belched into the atmosphere more greenhouse gasses than the United States produced in the last 50 years. What does that mean? It means that volcanoes are erupting all over the earth and have for thousands of years producing more greenhouse gases than we, and by we I mean humans, could ever dream of producing. But wait there is more! Cow burp does produce greenhouse gasses. In the state of Idaho cows out number people 4 to one. One cow produces the same amount of pollution as a car produces in a month. So, in Idaho cows produce more pollution than the people. Take that hippie

Liberal lie:

If the ice caps melt the coastal areas will flood because the ocean will rise up to 10 feet.

Third grade science truth:

This one you can try at home. Take a glass of ice water. Make sure the glass is filled to the top with ice and water. Now wait. As the ice melts notice how much water flows over the edge. Ill give you a hint, none. That's right water displaces the same amount in both solid and liquid forms. Thus, if the ice caps melt the oceans will do what?

Liberal lie:

As the ice caps melt and break apart the ocean will get warmer.

Third grade science truth:

You can try this one at home too. Take two large tubs of water. In one take a plastic bag of ice and drop it in. Test the temp of the water over as the ice bag floats around. In the next tub take the same amount of ice and dump it directly into the water (out of the bag), and measure the temp of that tub. Ill give you a hint there too. The tub with the ice floating around outside of the bag is cooler than the one with the ice in the bag. Eat it hippie

Liberal lie:

We are altering the earths climate making it unnaturally warm.

Third grade science truth:

When dinosaurs walked the earth the average worldly temperature was estimated at 10 to 20 degrees above what we are experiencing today. Seeing how most of the world was covered by a lush rain forest producing enough vegetation for millions of giant creatures to eat. Also this vegetation was prevalent enough that over time it turned into oil. These temperatures were common on the earth until the ice age. Which most speculate was caused by the asteroid that killed out the dinosaurs. This Ice age resulted in the ice caps we have now. So, naturally the world would try to return to the pre-ice age temperature.

Thats all Ive got for now.

a youth's project

So Beginith the Rant:

Yesterday I was sitting in my office preparing some last minute odds and ends killing a little time before youth group actually started. One of the youth came in and asked a two part question. One part I honestly couldn't answer, which saddens me. Before I tell you a question, I want to inform you that he young man is a 15 year old high school student and the question is the topic of an assignment for a class.
No this isn't one of those, "Are you smarter than a 15 year old situations". Because the question was, "What is one recent example of someone in government making good policy, and one example of someone in government making bad policy?"

One half of that question I can answer a lot, and I did. I ran down the list of boobs from local government all the way up to professional boobs in Washington, capped with our Commander and Chief. (both present and recently past, I have to say that so people don't think I'm a racist)
Which brings me to the sad part. I couldn't think of one single person who actually made a good policy in recent memory...
Surely someone had made a good political policy recently, but how could I not nail it down? Maybe because each news station only tears down the choices of the leadership because its what sells, and that's why we only hear about the flaws. Surely it can't be that our government has so lost touch with we the people (its constituency) and it only passes policies to pander to the smallest of interest and groups that keep them in office, not giving a flying rats arse about what's the best for the country, the majority of its people, and its future.
So I will end with this. Can you answer the question? I hope you can, and I hope you share it with me. I need some hope that good people are actually in office.

So endith the rant:

1963

So beginith the rant:

As I drove to work today I was listening to a local talk radio show out of Panama City. This show has a local conservative guy who rants about limited government and often gets local officials to do interviews and allow people to ask them candid questions.
If you have met me more than 5 min you will know that I detest socialized anything (from welfare to political correctness) I see any form of it as a direct violation of my rights. And much like anyone else with a functioning frontal lobe I dislike and distrust the idea of "universal health care".
Back on task this morning as I turned on the car the normal guy wasn't speaking, no it was a voice recorded talking about the passing of a bill for a government funded medical program and how it is a foot in the door tactic of socialism. The voice took me a minute to recognize (because of my age) but I quickly gathered it was Ronald Reagan. The facts and observations he was making about the path of socialism that would be opened with even the slightest addition to the medicare program were spot on.
As this short speech was trickling through my speakers I was shocked that during his presidency that our congress tried to pull the same stunt, and that it took someone with logic to speak in front of the nation to explain how we as a country are not, by our founders design, destined to be ruled by our government.
This speech was dead on. The names of the bills were different but the facts were still the same. The flaws and questions still the same: How do we pay? How do we avoid abuse? What would stop it from expanding? Where does the government get the right?
I sat and listened to the last of the speech in the parking lot actually amazed at how history repeats itself. But then the real shock came. At the of the recorded speech the host of the show said that was Mr. Reagan in a speech delivered in 1963.
Kind of puts a whole new perspective on the people who have been ranting about how people in government have been trying to socialize our country for years, and will not stop. They are just waiting for we the people to get dumb enough to let it happen.

So endith the rant:

moo juice

So beginith the rant:

Let's take a trip down memory lane. You're in elementary school it's lunch time. You're waiting in line with your friends making dumb jokes picking teams for kickball or laying claim to the tether ball pole you plan to dominate for the next 30min. You start to inspect the trays of the kids walking out the exit door to the cafeteria line. You either smile knowing there will be french fries or fight back bile knowing its "bbq frank day". You get to the front of the line and there are milk cartons filled with moo juice in its two God given flavors regular and chocolate. You pick your poison and proceed down the line... Did you pick chocolate? I know I always did. Now before you leave this memory vacation. I want you to look around the lunch room... Really take it all in. Look at the children from your past sitting around you. How many chose chocolate? How many of them were obese?
In fact, can you even remember an obese kid when you were growing up? Not a "fat kid" who was pudgy and hadn't hit his or her growth spurt. An actual leading to type two diabetes obese kid. I can't think of any, but I was from a small town so maybe I'm jaded.
But according to this story chocolate milk is a leading cause of childhood obesity.

Funny, I drank chocolate milk all through my childhood, and I wasn't obese. In fact I ate candy during class parties, extra cookies every day at lunch, every day after school I tried to consume at least one soda and a pile of junk food before my parents got home (oh, and yes as a child I walked home from school and hung out at least an hour before my mom or dad got home, the humanity, the horror). This was also the trend with most of my friends. None of us were obese.
So, what was different so many years ago?
-Could it be that unlike my parents the house was only stocked with a limited supply of junk food?
-Could it be that after lunch that by my best estimates was at least 2,500 calories we played for 35-45min on a playground. Doing actual physical activities.
-Could it be that even at home with the lure of the NES and the TV we were still "forced" to play outside, with other kids?
-Could it be that on top of recesses we had PE which was an hour of actual physical activity.
Man I'm glad that parents and hippies have removed those demeaning and dangerous activities like dodge ball, kick ball, wall ball, tether ball, or any competitive sport from the curriculum. And I'm also glad that today kids are not expected to preform any physical activity they don't want to so as not to bruise their delicate psycis.
I mean really, being obese and unhealthy, pasty white an unable to run, do a pushup, or throw a ball is so good for confidence. But hey, fat peopel fall under the protective umbrella of "Political Correctness" and we don't want the thought police coming after us for thinking bad of the fatties... Cause you know its not their fault.


SO ENDITH THE RANT:
(yes i'm taking into consideration the rare, Less that %5 of the population who are born with a glandular defect which causes weight gain. Those people cannot help it, but most are medically working hard to maintain their weight)

fault

So beginith the rant:

So there was a shooting at a military fort in Texas. And unless you live under a rock and don't actually read any of the news blurbs from any of the popular web home pages (yahoo, msn, google) you'd know that it was perpetrated by a man who is of the Islamic faith.
Now, here's my problem. This man, who is of the Islamic faith, went bat @#($ and killed unarmed enlisted men and women. That is a fact. That is what happened. Turns out as well that he may have had ties to terrorist organizations as well, or became radicalized by teachings from a loon he heard preach.
But here's the problem all I'm hearing is how he was stressed and snapped. That he was under extreme stress and mental fatigue from hearing about other solders experiences over seas. This man's job was to help diagnose and council men and women dealing with combat stress. And the experts in the media are tying to play this off as the reason he went nuts and shot up a bunch of innocent people...
Does anyone else think this doesn't jive? If I were to just snap one day and start punching people while calling them hippies left and right would the media go, well he was always hearing other people's problems and that made him snap? No, they would say that this minister of a Christian church had gone nuts and starting beating people because his beliefs led him to that stage. Why would they say this about me? Because I'm white and Christian not protected under the umbrella of political correctness.
What's my point. Because someone is Islamic, with ties to radical teachings, does not mean that we should go out of the way to come up with excuses for them to do crazy crap. If a nut job Klan member beats a gay person its because they are a member of the Klan. If a nut job eco-koolaid-PETA person beats up a guy driving a hummer wearing a leather jacket its because they are a eco-koolaid-PETA hippie. And no one would have a problem with that. We would not try and humanize their problems as just a stress thing. So FOR CRAP'S SAKE call a spade a freaking spade. This nut job was into radical Islam, about to be shipped off to actually do some real fighting, and would have to probably kill radical Islamic people, at which point he killed people who were about to be shipped off to kill radical Islamic people.
He was not the victim here, the people he maimed and the families he destroyed they are victims. He's a Domer, a Manson, a McVay. He is to be loathed for his actions. No amount of psychobable can explain it. He passed up the chance to be considered a human when he became a monster, and should be punished accordingly.
"But Marshall, you're a Christian and you should know that Christians believe in forgiveness." And I do. I know vengeance is for the Lord which is why I don't believe his family should be gunned down as an example. But as for him. He should be forgiven, but punished. Forgiveness is in the heart. Stupidity would assume that a person who commits this kind of deed should not have to pay for his actions. I would assume no less for me if I were to commit a crime such as this.
So endith the Rant.

And a little follow up.
Just read the wording of this reporter a Samantha Gross From the Associated Press;
"The action against the Shiite Muslim mosques is sure to inflame relations between the U.S. government and American Muslims, many of whom are fearful of a backlash after last week's Fort Hood shooting rampage, blamed on a Muslim American major."
Re-read the last line... LEt it sink in. If you walk into a room and see a broken lamp and there is only one guy in the room you blame that guy. Sure, he may not have broken it but it looks like it, and a little invetigating could clear or convict him. Or you walk in a room with two guys and a broken lamp you can blame the one closest to the lamp, or the one who looks guilty. With a little investigation you can find out who is the real lamp killer.
But if you walk in and see a guy in a room smashing a lamp and you watch him do it and stop him from stomping it into dust. That is not blaming a man for breaking a lamp. See the difference.
This nut job is not being blamed, accused, or speculated about no, he was seen shooting people and was shot while shooting people to stop him. We are not blaming it on him HE FRIGG'N DID IT!!!

I'm a fan

So beginith the rant:

It was brought to my attention Saturday that I may have a "man crush" on Fedor Emelianenko. I would like to start by addressing the term "man crush" if that phrase were a people I would embrace its genocide. I cannot imagine how that term came about or how it has stayed in circulation. And to be used around a poker table with other men while watching a fight. The person who threw that gym out in conversation is a friend of mine, and only because of his friendship did I not strip him of his man card and make him wear a skirt.
In fact before we move on here is a list of words never to be uttered around a poker table while watching a fight:
-mary K
-vw bug
-going green
-"man date"
-light beer
-opera
-dietary fiber
-super nanny
In fact, this list could dominate this entire post so I'll stop there.
The point is this I am a fan of Fedor, a huge fan. I have been watching him since Pride and can count on one hand the professional fights of his I haven't watched. Pound for pound he is the greatest fighter I have ever seen, he is skilled and intelligent and constantly improves.
His demeanor at a fight is one of quiet calm and respect. He is never flashy or bombastic. He is extremely famous around the world and gets paid large amounts for his fight yet he chooses to live in the same small town he grew up in where he focuses on his faith, his family, and his training. Nothing would make me happier than to be able to hang out with Fedor on his own turf. (so, if anyone wants to arrange that, go ahead and jump on it. doing so would result in my screaming like a school girl and probably fainting... in the manliest way possible).
So to wrap up Fedor is on my list of people who I think is awesome.
The list (in no particular order, and as I can remember today)
-Mr. Rogers
-Johnny Cash
-Adam Baldwin
-Fedor Emelianenko
-Ben Stein
-John Wesley
-Bud Lauen

So endith the Rant:
Here is Fedor breaking the head of his opponent (Brett Rodgers) in his most recent fight.

i got mine from a cracker jack box

So beginith the rant:

I come to work today, already stressed because the bank had made some errors that I knew I was going to have to spend an exorbitant amount of time on the phone to rectify. And when I start up the ole innernets to get this banking party started I see a news story up on Yahoo. “President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize”. I was a little shocked, and thought it was a spoof on words or maybe even a lead in to another story about him being nominated.
Upon some further searching, it was true he did in fact win the Nobel Peace Prize. So, I went about trying to figure out what exactly for. His political career is relatively short lived, so I assumed his winning was based on peace supporting activities before he was in public office. I searched and searched and found none. Mr. Obama never stopped any civil unrest, thwarted a civil war, halted a genocide, ended a war, mended ties between two races of people, freed a group from slavery, lead a movement of peace through example, or any such activity that resulted in the winning of a Peace Prize.
My point, and also supported by TIME, is Mr. Obama has been given an award on a promise, not on results. I used to aspire to winning the Nobel Prize, but didn’t figure I would have the honor of completing the type of tasks needed to show the kind of world changing results, to get noticed by the committee.
Now that I know you just have to talk and promise the idea of something, with no concrete plan to carry it out and get rewarded for it I will be definitely winning a Nobel Prize soon.
“I don’t like cancer, and think it should be cured.”
“I like the idea of cold fusion and sustainable energy to take the influence away from terrorist countries funded by oil profits.”
“I’m not a big fan of aids I think we should knock that bad boy out of the running with some medicine or a vaccine.”
There I have in essence accomplished the same thing as Mr. Obama. I have made suggestions to ideas that would change the world. I am willing to be flown around the world and make these statements to dignitaries and leaders showing that I really mean business, and to get them on board with my ideas.
Who needs things like a plan or results?
So to close, In true hippie fashion some guy said a whole lot of stuff about what’s wrong and what would be better if it were done, but didn’t lay out the how or the when or the who and is lauded as a freaking hero. So, here’s your medal for stating the obvious Mr. President.

Thus endith the rant:

don't want it

So betinith the rant:

Been trying to watch a few videos about ps3 games that will be released soon. I now have one of these video gaming systems, and it rocks, but I am looking for multiplayer games to play with my brother and family back home.
Most of the sites whose sole purpose is to post videos of upcoming game trailers and info have a lot of add space, and I understand they are trying to make a buck. I'll even allow a commercial to play before the video I want to watch plays on their player. Again I under stand the concept of trying to make a buck.
Where I draw the line is this. After each 2min video another commercial, not a different commercial the same frigg'n commercial you watched before. A commercial that cannot be muted or skipped. This does not make me want your product it makes me hate your product.
Here are a quick list of the sites that are responsible for this raping with product placement.
-gamefly.com (yes, the site you pay to rent games from)
-foxnews.com (every time you start up their live video feed prepare for an un-mute-able Viagra add)
-every other news site
-youtube trailer park
-g4tv.com
This is just the list of sites I have visited in the last hour... To wrap up this rant. I don't think making a buck is bad. But come on. How can you go back to your site, and see the annoyance and think. Yeah, that makes people want to keep coming to us. It would be the same as walking into a book store and every two minutes have an employee come up and say, "Wanna buy these shoes?.... How about now?... How about now?... Wanna buy these shoes?.... Wanna buy these?... How about now?.... Wanna buy these?... How about now?"
Oh, come to think of it... yes even though I entered a store to buy a book, your constant interruption has swayed me and I would love to purchase your shoes... do you sell bibs? cause after the lobotomy I find I drool a lot.

so endith the rant:

no handle bars

So beginith the rant:

Yesterday I was driving home and pulled through a stoplight heading up the two lane that I branch off of to drive home. I was in no hurry and had no one behind me so I was slowly accelerating to speed. When I noticed on the right shoulder riding toward me was a woman on a bike pedaling without her hand on the handle bars, because they were occupied. The task that was drawing her full attention and focusing her motor skills was a mystery to me until she was within a hundred feet of me. I could take notice of her actions as I was crawling down the center of the road trying not to clip the cyclist. What task was she accomplishing? Rolling a joint. How do I know this was what she was doing rather than just rolling a cigarette? Well one she was not wearing a belt with a six gun on it nor was she 70 years old. Two, she managed to light the thing and my widows were down and at the slow speeds the smell was obvious.
So, what is my rant about?
Drug use?
Bicycle safety?
No, my rant is this. As a kid, and as an adult today, I have yet to master the skill to ride my bike with no handle bars. As a kid I practiced this skill but could never break that minute or two wall, before the dreaded lean of death took over. But yesterday my failures were brought to the surface and rubbed in my face when a crusty, old, bare footed, pot headed chick was able to accomplish the no hand ride while focused on manufacturing a hog leg. This is an example of how the universe is not fair and we are not all created equal.

So endith the rant: