Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Reflections on Christmas - and a couple notes

Putting the notes first so no one who doesn't want to has to read through the below reflections on the holiday.

I've dropped another 1.5 pounds to 306.5 Down from a high of 320-something. If I recall, we're 19.5 pounds down from May. Not going to hit 300 by Christmas, but maybe New Years. Also, I benched more weight yesterday than I have in years...but I'm not saying how much because it's still a sad number.

What else, I'll be in Cincinnati for a solid week so I hope to see everyone who lives out that way.

I might do one more blog, a top 5 of blog posts or something, before Christmas but this is probably the last one before the holiday.
-------
To my regulars:

The bit below is all religious and such and I don't blame you guys for skipping it if you do. But I do want to give a public shout out to Dungy and Matt for their blogs and their interaction with this one.

I believe every word I write below, but three of my best friends — you guys and Jeff — are atheists and I'm grateful for you guys as much as anything.

A faith improperly formed is a dangerous weapon wielded by a fool, and a faith that cannot withstand assault is no faith at all. I am better formed in mine and I think intellectually a better person because of your challenges. So thank you. And Merry Christmas.

------
So Christmas is here and Kelli and I are excited to spend time with our families.

My excitement though is  tempered by the usual holiday stress, but I'm trying to let it go. All our families can be nuts but I'm glad to have them just the same.

Time for a little hyperbole and religion.

I'm trying harder than ever to remember that no matter what is going on in our regular lives this holiday season, no matter how bad things are (or how good), there is cause to rejoice. For on that day so long ago a savior was born.
 It's bigger than us. Eternity, salvation, God. We're but a small part of a grand plan and we know how it ends — with victory over sin and death.

I think as people of faith we Christians sometimes sit in the pews so often we forget that something spectacular has happened. More than 2,000 years ago, the one true and almighty God became man. To use more accurate words, the one true and almighty God became a little fugitive baby born in a backwoods town to a carpenter and a virgin of no particular standing.

For Catholics, every Sunday (every day really) that miracle is echoed in the Eucharist as the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus.

But for all Christians, many of our friends and families don't go to church except on Christmas and Easter only (hence the term CEO Catholic/Christian). They'll be there this coming Sunday. For all the poinsettias, carols and pageantry, remind them if you get the chance, that this isn't just a tradition we celebrate. It's bigger than us.

It's not the gifts, or the snow. It's not the songs, or the food. Yes, it's the time with loved ones and remembering those who've gone on. Yes, it's the peace on earth and charity to the poor.

But it's even more than that. Christmas marks the beginning of the fullness of God's plan of salvation. He humbled himself and became one of us in all ways but sin.

His folks would forget him at church, he didn't go into the career field his step-dad probably wanted him too and his life would bring his mother untold sorrow, and the world, untold grace.

But it all started on a normal night where most of the world went about their business. A star appeared, shepherds were told, wise men came, angels sang.

And alternately sleeping, crying, eating and doing all else that babies do, the savior of the world rested as the weakest of creatures in the arms of his mother and under the watchful gaze of the man the world knew as his father. When he grew up, everything would change.

 So if Uncle Jimbo drinks one eggnog too many or if grandma Sue fees like a martyr over spilt milk, rejoice anyway. We're celebrating the incarnation of God as a man — as a baby — to save us all.

 If that's not a recipe for a Merry Christmas, then nothing is.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Are you there world? It's me God

Blog event topic: God tells you to take over for a minute, do whatever you want but it must effect everyone. So short of following what I think God would want us to do which is bringing about something like peace and faith for all, I'd have some fun with it. I think I would 'immediacize' the consequences of sin, but for a short period, maybe 24 hours. When one sins, they lose grace and damage their relationship with God. As it says, the wages of sin is death, but each sin of course is not a mortal one. So Jimbob slaps his wife. The wages of sin is death, so proportionally, he is immediately punished by God(Us?) with whatever corresponding level of spiritual damage on a physical level. Maybe metaphysically kicked in the nuts. Fr. Mike checks out some internet porn, immediately loses ability to get boner. Little Jimmy hits his sister, little Jimmmy can't taste candy. I dunno something like that. At the end of the 24 hour period, I perform some miracle the whole world can see, (a la The Miracle of the Sun) but I put a message in everyone's head as it happens. Something about hi, I'm God, I'm real. This has been a taste of what happens when you sin. Remember that. That was my real-ish scenario, here's a fun one. I appear as a cosmic game show host in the sky with a big old wheel and host a one hour reality show program (I have cameras everywhere) that has eliminations (death, damnation), immunity (accession to heaven), and special challenges (tests of faith). At the end, I have a giant wheel of religions and I spin it. The world waits with baited breath to see what faith is correct. It lands (of course) on Catholics. 1 billion people are happy, the rest weep. Then God says but as a special bonus to those of you that lost, we're gonna fix the church up to make room in the pews for the rest of you. He then kills in hilarious ways all the pedo-priest and those who covered things up. If this involved the current pope, he appoints a new one, thanks you for watching, and returns us to regularly scheduled life.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

My Fitness Pal

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter



Been using MyFitnessPal for a while now, well not really. I used it to drop five pounds then forgot about it for a few weeks. But I must have learned some lessons about calorie counting.

Calorie counting of course isn't the end all of being healthy (white bread for instance has less calories than wheat) but when you're up over 300 pounds like me, I think anything that gets that number down is more bad than good.

So if that graphic above works, you'll see I've lost 11 pounds. Now that's since I got the app. A quick look through this blog's archive and you'll see back in May I was 325. That means I've lost 17 pounds in eight months. And you might remember I lost a big chunk of that hella fast, and then put it back a little.

Nevertheless, while the drop has been slow, it's been steady and short of one bounce back, I'm keeping it off.

So anyway I know neither of my two regulars are in dire need of diets, I still want to suggest others to get the app or sign up for their service online. It's a nice touch to have other people I know doing it to keep me accountable.

But I guess posting here has the same impact. I'm currently at 308 pounds. I want to lose 8 in the next 12 days....I know that's a lot in a short time, but I've been half assing it lately. I think I can do that.

It I step on a scale at or below 300 pounds, it will be a very merry Christmas present from me to me.

For the record, the last time I was at that weight I think I was living on Matt's couch.

Anywhoo, that's the infomercial for now. Now let's end with a new set of "fat stats."

Weight at Start of Tracking: 325 (May 2011)
Current Weight: 308
Loss/Gain: -17 pounds
Current Mile Time: 20:27
Most Recent Ping Pong Result: Lost to Todd 4 games to none in best of 7. Beat him in two consolation matches played after. Then I beat some 12 year old 21-2....yeah, I did that.


Tonight's ping pong contest with Todd has been postponed to Thursday.

Friday, December 9, 2011

Hey other Christians....you know you want to comment

So I know that I don't have many (if any) regular Catholic readers, but I know there are a large group of readers that "troll" this page but never comment.

That's fine, but this blog entry is designed with the express intent of getting you to change that.

As a Catholic, I have endure some crap, and I don't really mind. I, and my one billion brethren worldwide, often have to hear these questions/statements.

Why do Catholics worship Mary?

Why do Catholics worship saints?

Why do Catholics believe the pope is incapable of sin?

The Church is anti-science?

And the list goes on. It's really standardized by now. But I have no intention with this entry of answering those poorly informed questions. Rather, I will pose my own.

It seems only fair.

So here is my (only somewhat intentionally) uninformed questions to non-Catholic Christians:

Why do you hate Mary?

Of course I don't really think any believer hates Mary, but there is a disdain, or fear perhaps, of anything associated with her.

Contrary to what many might think, I read various non-Catholic blogs/articles on theology from time to time and outside of Christmas, I very rarely see a reference to Mary.

The Bible tells us a virgin would conceive a son (Isaiah) and we learn that that is what happened with the spirit of the Lord came upon her (Luke). We know she saw his first public preaching of sorts (Luke) was at his first miracle (John) and that she was there til the end (John).

Mary is called by an angel "full of grace" and is chosen to give birth to GOD. There are many holy people in the Bible who said yes to God. Many who saw and did amazing things.

But I submit that no mere mortal was privy to the experience equal of Mary. To be worthy of carrying God in her womb.....just thinking about that should mess with all our minds, to believe a vessel tainted by sin could do that....but I'm getting off topic.

God (Father, Son, and Spirit) are and should always be the source of the Christian belief and devotion.

But we all honor great Christian men and women of the past. Catholics have saints, but we all have memories of those we hold up. Billy Graham will be remembered as such when he passes. Martin Luther is that to some.

But for the honor and praise these men get, I argue that Mary deserves much more.

So I ask again, admittedly tongue in cheek, why do you hate Mary?

------

For the record, I really know you don't hate Mary....I'm just baiting you into registering and commenting.....please fall for it.

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Stop it

First off, I didn't write this story, just the headline. Click it.

Pissed off French Catholics act like assholes

My fellow Catholics in France, knock it the hell off.

I'm at work and busy so I'll make this bullet points and quick.

* Stop pelting people attending this blasphemous play with eggs or anything else. Just stop that, right now.

* Protest if you like, and pray. But recognize that if you aren't standing outside most movie theaters doing the same thing, you're being pretty inconsistent. I am NOT saying you need to be outside most movie theaters, but if you start that shit, keep it civil.

* You lose this battle of ideology just by showing up. The artists behind this work are probably just trying to provoke a reaction. You're giving it too them. Good work.

* You're intentions are good, but you're still making the rest of us look like idiots, and we have enough bad press without attacking non-believers. How many of them will convert with eggwhite on their face?

* And my last complaint is against the author of this article. If they worst thing the protesters did is throw eggs, then it is probably not fair to call it a sometimes violent campaign. This is France….they have riots in protests like four times a year….this is nothing. I'm not excusing idiot protesters throwing the first egg, but violent is the wrong word.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Reflections on NaNoWriMo



So it occurs to me I never told everyone about my NaNoWriMo 2011 experience.

To the few who might not know, that funky word is an acronym of sorts for National Novel Writing Month, which occurs every November. It's more than a decade old now (I think) and 256,618 people around the globe took part this year.

To "win" NaNoWriMo, one must write 50,000 words in the month. You may start midnight Nov. 1, and you end 11:59 Nov. 30.

Of all the people that did it this year, 36,774 were winners. That's 14 percent of participants. For the record, I am part of that glorious 14 percent. The Lexington participants alone wrote 7,794,287 words in the month.

In total, 3,074,068,446 words were written.

I wrote a shade of 50,000 of them in a novel tentatively called "Faith in the Age of Reason."

The book was intended to be the story of estranged friends/activists in the fields of atheist and Christian thought who during a national tragedy of unseen proportions find their friendship, challenge their beliefs and come to a deeper understanding of each others positions, or something like that.

It does that for while, or tries to. But when you are writing 50,000 words in 30 days, you don't have time to story board properly, and you need to keep going.

I believe it was NaNoWriMo founder Chris Baty who said "Whenever you get stuck, just add ninjas."

Well there are no ninjas in my book but there are random side stories, countless deaths, action scenes, cable news punditry, assassinations and even a damn near sex scene.

I didn't set out to write a book with poop jokes and party scenes, I set out to write one about Paschal's Wager or Humanism or something like that....but as I said, you have to keep writing.

And at 4 a.m. on a Saturday when you haven't talked to your wife much in days and you have a couple drinks and the keys are all kinda blurry and you don't know whether the character should make yet another theological reference or not, sometimes, shit breaks down.

But it is a novel by minimum standards. And I wrote it.

I wrote a novel.

It has a name. It has a beginning, middle(ish) and end. It has more than 50,000 words. I failed at Nano once before in earnest though I started it twice. So to finally win after all that effort was great.

It takes self discipline and in my case mass support to get done. My mom and my sister Karyn (also winners this year at NaNo) were major factors in me winning as watching their word counts increase was motivation. Karyn got me into a chat with some friends on AIM Instant Messenger (I know I was surprised it was around still too) and they were all a help. Word battles every night.

Among non-nanoers, my wife Kelli was a huge support not just in congratulating every little milestone I mentioned, but also in tolerating my going into a shell for 30 straight days.

Also, my facebook community of friends was also a help. Bre and others provided support and chat distractions when needed.

Let me wrap it up with my assessment of the month.

NaNoWriMo is great for many things. When you really buy in, it's a motivating tool to help you really write a novel. You are in trouble if you go into this thinking you'll write an epic tale that's ready for publish on Dec. 1, you won't. You really really must turn off the inner editor and keep pushing.

When it's over, if you're like me this year, you won't have the Great American Novel. You might not even have a good novel. But you'll have a novel.

I want to write a great novel one day. Maybe with a LOT of work, this one could be it's foundation, but I'm not holding out hope. But the first step to writing The Great American Novel, is writing a novel.

I can now say with pride that I have done that, if nothing else.

And when it was over I got to see this little ditty.
http://www.viddler.com/NaNoWinner/videos/3/



Final note:
Somehow despite a month of sitting firmly on my arse, I lost 3-4 pounds. Woot.

Monday, December 5, 2011

A note on my old career, and a couple other things

Blogging old skool today....
(I spelled school wrong on purpose to show I'm hip, just to be clear.)

So there is this website.

http://wearejournalists.tumblr.com/ (Copy and past it, I'm feeling lazy)

Some have debated whether this is narcissistic, self indulgence by journalists or a place for journalists to help bridge the disconnect between the notion of them as minor parts of "The Media" and the reality that they are people with faces and lives and whatever.

I read through the site for a bit. Then I read one article for the site, and another against.

I like it. But I like it because I'm a somewhat self-indulged narcissist. That's what made me a mediocre to acceptable journalist. But just because I like it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

There are good, well-adjusted, reasonable people doing journalism, most of them are probably ok at their jobs. Solid copy editing skills, decent form. Nothing impressive.

There are egotistical maniacs out there doing journalism poorly. They write every column about their wife, their faith, their dog. They may be concentrated in southern Ohio....but I digress.

Then there are egotistical maniacs who are at the heart of every big story. They feel like the world would stop turning if they stopped reporting. And because they think that, they're awesome at their job.

What I'm not doing a good job of getting around too is coming up soon, stay with me.

The above website has people saying "I interview people others wouldn't talk too" and "If I don't tell the story of how that kid died, maybe no one will."

And they're right. We....no, not anymore....they are important. Good journalists ask the hard questions. They write the good fight, as it were. And to be among the best of them, you probably need to be a little narcissistic.

You need to think that only

you

can get that story. Only YOU can do it right etc. It's not a bad thing. A little narcissism fused with journalistic integrity = Bob Wooduff/Lois Lane. (Don't think about how that baby would look).

And in this era of dying newspapers and reader venom, I understand the desire to show your readers that you are a person, and not, "The Media." It would certainly make your jobs easier.

But you're job isn't easy. And you knew that going in.

Even the Cincinnati Enquirer is in on the act.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/154893/cincinnati-enquirer-launches-ad-campaign-featuring-reporters-in-their-own-words/

And you also knew that if you did your job right, not until you win a Pulitzer or retire or die, should you be the story. We...you...are all a little narcisitic, I get it. Embrace it. But keep it in check. We might want a website aimed at the public that tries to make us look good, but we don't need it.

Thanks for trying, wearejournalists.tumblr.com, but it's a bit much. Be the byline, not the story.

As I finish this thought, it strike me that maybe this tumblr and the Enquirer things are a good idea, or at least a necessary one. Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe I'm just liking the idea more because my brain is doing that rationalization thing it does. Really I'm not even sure at this point.

Feel cheated? Welcome to life inside my mind.

----------

So I read something today about stealing from hotels. Apparently some people think it's ok to take EVERYTHING in their room.

Just to be clear, stealing from hotels is bad. Stealing is bad. Unless you're Aladdin and you're just buying time until the Genie shows up, stealing is bad.

So let me help you draw the line if anyone out there is confused with a handy list of what is ok to take, and what is not ok. This list was compiled with the help of facebookers like you (well like most of you).

Toiletries: Ok to steal.
I mean of course that it's ok to take soap, shampoo, shaving cream, the complimentary razor, lotion and plastic showercaps. This doesn't include towels or reusable items. Specifically, the soap dish with the hotel logo is not for you, even if you have the same initials as the hotel.

Food/Drink: Probably ok to steal, pay attention.
Was it a two-bed room and you were alone? Yes you can eat the extra pillow mint. Did you not make coffee or tea? Ok, take the packets home with you.
If there's a mini-bar though, or a fridge that is stocked, they're probably charging you for whatever you take. So take it all if you want, but you'll pay for it in the final bill.

Anything Not mentioned: Not ok to steal.
Robes, towels, slippers, tv trays, tv remotes, TVs, chairs, sheets, pillows etc. are NOT ok to take. Also, cups, trays, ice buckets, mugs and the coffee maker are NOT ok to take.
The dirty laundry bag is yours if you want it.

My friend Jenny said it best on Facebook:
"If it's an item meant to be taken, no (it's not stealing). However, I think many people cross the line of that which is fair and expected. So if you walk by the maid's cart and take a handful of soaps, I think that's a form of theft. I think this of that show Extreme Couponing.I think it of the people who clear out continental breakfasts. Same with abuse of coupon codes/free gifts with purchase. There's a point where it's like this: yes, it's free/allowed but you KNOW you're bending the rules and taking advantage."

Was any of that a revelation? No, but according to the internet, some people needed to hear it.

------

I'm actually about to defend royalty.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/queen-england-faces-pay-freeze-171306178.html

I don't have a real beef with the existence of an allegedly noble class in an otherwise egalitarian society, but I do have a beef with doing it wrong.

The British royalty has been irrelevant for a long, long time. Decades if we're being generous, centuries if we're not.

But it exists, and I bet it bring in big tourism money for the UK.

Before I say this part, don't think I think the royals are going to starve, they're all rich as hell, at least the ones that half-matter to the paparazzi and tourists are rich.

But these rich people aren't paying out of pocket to take care of these estates that bring in tourism. And the Brits are cutting their funding.

I get it, I do, tough times and what not. But as far as I can tell, the English don't have celebrities outside of Patrick Stewart and Ricky Gervais and I bet if you had a GPS on them right now, you'd find them over here in the New World.

(My God today's blog is rambling and incoherent, stop reading now, or if your nostalgic for that sort of thing, finish this and hit the archives.)

But as it stands, the Brits pretend to have a monarchy in name. If that's what it is, then it needs obscene amounts of money for tea. And for repairs. Hell they repair things so rarely anymore that earlier this year they found a body decomposed no terribly far from some royal residence.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be decomposed bodies on the grounds, I'm just saying the crown should have enough funding to know where the bodies are, and to hide them if need be.

Long live the queen.

Friday, November 18, 2011

Ethics of voting

In Question:
What are the ethics of voting? Are they different in a primary rather than a general election? Must a person always be sincere in casting his vote? Or should the process just be seen as a way of getting a point across? Is it ever permissible to vote against something, by way of voting for it's opponent?

John's take:
To boil that down to it's simplest level, I'd phrase it is what is the purpose of a citizen's vote in a representative democracy. I think the simple answer is that the purpose if for the citizen to lend his support to a candidate he wants to see in office.

But in the real word, sometimes it's a giant douche vs. a turd sandwich running for a position. Sometimes it's an asshole with a brain vs. a nice guy without one. Or hypothetically, it's Robot Hitler vs. Mutant Pol Pot, and the responsible citizen wants to have a say.

If you vote for Hitler, and he wins, you're responsible in part for his atrocities. Same with Pot. If you don't vote, then you failed to do your civic duty.

I first thought that the correct course of action when voting, regardless of who is running, is to choose the candidate you can support, or to accept irresponsibility and don't vote. But my reasoning for that was just to make things consistent. It involved making yourself Ok with Pol Pot's plans, so you support him, then if Hitler wins, you don't feel bad, and it Pot wins, you've accepted it.

But the point of democracy isn't conscience gymnastics, but to govern.

On the issues we can vote yay or nay, so why not on the candidates? A vote for one person is by nature your way of voting against everyone else. If I supported George Bush in 2004, when I voted for him, even if it was for all the "right" reasons, that could still be seen as a vote against Kerry and the independents could it not?

By that reasoning, a vote for someone, just to be against someone else, doesn't sound so bad.

I'll try to address the rest of the question after work.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Update on my NaNoWriMo, life & death, websites and a special thanks

I should be writing my novel right now. But I don't have a good idea to move it along right now, so I'll update the world about it.

So the working title is/was "Faith in the Age of Reason," which sounds if not high-brow, at least mainstream and decent.

But alas the perils of writing a novel in 30 days means that sometimes you have to keep writing, whether you have an idea or not. So in this novel that was supposed to be an exposition of some kind of the dichotomy of friendships between people with different views etc. has recently included dialogue about poop.

...

I know.

Anyways, I'm at 16,175 words so far, whereas I should be at 25,000 to be on pace to finish on time. As you can see we've got a long way to go.

I did want to share something with you I found amusing.

WARNING, SPOILERS BELOW (Just in case you might want to be surprised about a possible twist in the novel, stop reading here.)

If I get into the last five days and I'm completely stuck, I'm casting off the entire story to that point as the two main characters working undercover when in reality they are superhumans with powers. They will then proceed to take out terrorism with their heat ray vision, possibly with the help of some boat cops they know (You're welcome).

Why would I do that? Because the goal of NaNoWriMo isn't to produce high literature or low. It's not about getting published. It's about taking that thought of "One day I'll write a novel" and making it a reality through imperfect means. If you force yourself to have a deadline, you can succeed.

Come Dec. 1, I will be able to say (If I "win") that I have written a 50,000 word novel. Even if it blows.

For the record, I think there might be enough decent material in there to salvage into a novel of the intended purpose, but that's what December is for.

For now, it's full steam ahead.

-------

On a side note, I wish it didn't take tragedies or celebrations to get us to see some of our family members we don't see often. The way our culture is set up the relation of cousin gets pushed further away as we age, and I guess that's just how it is.

Nevertheless, may God accept the soul of my great uncle Carl Horst. He was well-loved by many. I wish I could have been visiting the members of the Horst family on better circumstances but it was at least good to see them. I'm praying for you guys.

-------

I updated my website recently, www.johnstegeman.weebly.com. It now includes in the page design section, a complete project I worked on through some pdf viewer called Issu. I'm not crazy about how it looks but it's better I guess than uploading things as jpgs. Someone please take a look and tell me what you think.


------

Last, I've recently learned that this blog has more readers than I thought. Even though I used to be published in the real world, I still have a hard time believing people care this much about what I have to say, but, thanks nonetheless.

So to my regulars (Matt and Dungy), the occasional reader (Kelli, Mom, others), the "What's a blog reader," (Dad) and the apparent great silent majority of you who read this blog, thanks for stopping in.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Blog Event

By generations of civil, religious and de facto recognition, we know that society can and does regulate the institution of marriage. Sticking with the civil side of things, by what right does the government have authority to regulate such unions? And if they do have the right, why, and how far does their authority extend? If they do not, why.

The question of government authority to regulate marriage and the point to which it extends are likely to be a key debate in our society over the next few years and I find it unlikely that I will solve it in 1,500 words but the idea was to keep it concise…and I'm already rambling.

Back on point.

Part 1


1. By what right does the government have authority to regulate such unions?
Through history to this point, marriage has been the smallest normal foundation of every society. It's had differing levels of importance but the family unit was the primary formative experience for humans for most of our existence, and the family unit was brought about by the institution of marriage.

A government has the right to pass laws that will protect the liberty of it's people and the interest of it's nation. At first glance, I want to say the government does not have the right to regulate marriage. But on further look I realize that marriage's end, both from death and divorce. In that case, if there are no rules governing property, chaos could ensue as the assets are fought over.

There is also the matter of children and custody, we can't just go around with orphans running around stealing extra bowls of soup, someone should raise them.

This constitutes the need for involvement of impartial mediators, and is a role that the courts can provide.

So I submit that only by the virtue of the property and custody is it necessary for the government to be involved in marriage. But because of those things, the government has a right to regulate marriage insofar as it's responsibility to protect the property rights of it's citizens and the interest of involved children.

Part 2


Since they do have the right and we've discussed why, how far does their authority extend?
Who can get married? When? In what forms? Etc.
Here is gets tricky. Why, if the government's role in this is protecting children in custody disputes and properly allocating property that is being fought over by adults, then any adult should be able to enter into this contract with any other consenting adult so long I suppose as they're both citizens.

What about two men? No issue there based on our argument. Two women? Same. But what about three people? Four? 42?

My point here isn't to indicate a slippery slope argument, I don't see that here. Rather, why on earth from a purely non-theological standpoint is polygamy illegal? A government does not, based on our descriptions so far, have the right to exclude any from this scenario because the purpose of their involvement is only the kids and the stuff. Surely a court can distribute all these things among 3 as easy as 2.

It's less convenient if 116 people are involved so an extreme upper limit might be justified, but surely seven people is ok. Right? The courts can handle these disputes.

The government's authority in this matter does not give it the right to determine who can get married, regardless of any factor save age is there is an "age of majority" like needing to be 18 to enter a contract.

From a purely civil standpoint, the government's role is one of allocation and custody. There is no civil reason why any person or persons should be excluded from making their own arrangements on this.

Unless………


Part 3


Unless I'm wrong about my premise. If the government's role is more than kids and stuff, then they should have more authority.

But what more can it be?

No surprise where I'm going with this.

They can regulate marriage if marriage is more than a contract. If in fact it is an institution of importance by itself. I know I believe it's a sacrament instituted by God, but I'll play ball here. Maybe it's not.

Maybe, through evolution and adaptation, trial and error, we learned that lifetime monogamy between a man and a woman is the best way to raise kids and build a society.

If that's the case, the process can clearly be seen as one that's still ongoing. It's still within recorded history that a man could have many wives. We see the development of the one man one woman marriage as a thing of permanence based on the fact that religions helped bring it on, and no doubt faith has played a role.

But if the atheistic view is correct, then it means this happening was either an incorrect way of doing things forced on society, one of many if not infinite options for forming unions of people or the result of a world that's tried it other ways and found them wanting.

I like to think that it's option three.

And if it is option three, then parts one and two of this blog and null and void. If it is option three, the government has an obligation to protect and maybe even promote what is correct way of things.

However, in a free society the rights of those who would believe it to be option one or two must be protected as well.

So, to sum up.

Yes, the government has the authority to regulate such matters. How far that extends, as far as it pertains to custody and property is almost infinite really, I suppose governed by what the people find apropos. Unless any restrictions levied are in relation to those matters, I would consider them to be unwarranted government intervention.

----

I know I'm under the word limit here, but a bad bout of food poisoning this weekend cut into my time.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

The Blog Event....and a note on NaNoWriMo

Dungy and Matt, skip down a paragraph. For the rest of you reading this, unless you are interested in the blog crossover event between me, Matt and Dungy, skip down to the NaNoWriMo section.
------------

First, ok, let's drop steps 4 and 5 and just do like we do on the comments.

For our first topic, if I may be so bold as to go first, will have to do with the legal recognition of marriage, but my aim here has little to do with the gay marriage issue but rather some poly-amorous scenario I read about in an advice column. Nevertheless...

Here's the prompt:
By generations of civil, religious and de facto recognition, we know that society can and does regulate the institution of marriage. Sticking with the civil side of things, by what right does the government have authority to regulate such unions? And if they do have the right, why, and how far does their authority extend? If they do not, why.

I suppose a 1,500 word count is a good number for a concise argument, but I'm open to feedback on that.

I say we make the deadline Monday at 1 p.m. One can post early if need be, but we just need to go on the honor code and say no peeking.

Thoughts?

-----------

NANOWRIMO 2011


I still don't have a plot in mind, just a million ideas and probably a theme of religion.

So submitted for your consideration are a couple plot synopses I might go with.

1. Upon this TV
Two friends from college have taken different faith journeys that have led them to become very different. One is an atheist, the other a protestant-leaning Catholic. The way it goes, the two have gone on to become prominent writers/lecturers for their respective causes. When the book starts, they're getting ready for a national TV appearance on an O'Reilly Factor type of show that will pit them against each other. At this point, they haven't spoken in a few years. Story will be told in flashbacks most likely and will not be about who is right, as much as it will be about the concept of civil discourse.


2. Hell's Angel
A fantastical tale of an demon with the worst job of all demons. He can be called/commanded by guardian angels to appear to Christians who are wavering on the faith to witness to them about the reality of hell. It won't end well for him I don't think. If I do this one, it might end up being a series of related theological leaning short stories that total up to novel size. It will most likely seem very preachy because I lack subtlety.

3. Stereotypical coming of age tale
My loose idea for a story here will be about a girl who grows up in the present and is Catholic. No one she knows is Catholic the usual COA novel shit ensues. I decided if I do this one it will be a girl to keep me from trying to make the main character be me.

4. Got an idea? Let me know in the comments here or on facebook. Thanks.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

So what should we write on...

Not so important right now.

I figure we'll do this at least three times. Dungy will go first (by virtue of his emperorship) followed by myself and then Matt. Or you can flip that, all the same to me.

My idea with this is to streamline our process for interacting and it will only work if we all buy into it. Here is my suggestion, what are your thoughts on it?

The format

1. Primary guy picks a topic and a publication date/time and word limit.
2. All three of us post our blog at the appointed date and time, no cheating to see what the others wrote.
3. The aforementioned blogs are read by each of us.
4. There is a two-day window for each of us to pose questions to the others in their respective comment sections.
5. At a specified date and time, with no word limit, we all post our responses to the other two as new blog posts.
6. Comment chaos may ensue.

I feel like this would keep things more focused and by responding on our own blogs we'd be less constricted.

Let me know what you think.

Monday, October 24, 2011

More depressing: Being fat or getting thin?

Working on the weight still. Whatever the last update was is probably the same. We were in a holding pattern, then I gained a few and now I've lost them back. Still got a ways to go.

My company is sending us to Las Vegas in Feb., (same conference they sent us to Texas for in May) which is cool, but another plane ride, and a longer one, doesn't sound fun. I hope to be below 300 by February 1. Last I checked I was at 315.5. I doubt 15 pounds create much seat room, but it's something.

So the title of this blog is an interesting question I think. Sure being obese sucks. I get out of breath easy, I'm sore all the time, I'm at higher risk for every illness that's ever existed etc.

But it also sucks to be trying not to be fat. And while trying, you still have to be fat for a while. So it sucks much worse to be trying to get thin.

Working out leaves me sore for 2 days and the worst part, the WORST part, is just knowing that eating enough to satisfy, or even eating something that tastes good, is impossibly incompatible with the goal of losing weight.

We let the wheels come off the diet for a halloween party at Kelli's brother's house last weekend and it was nice to enjoy a little food, but lord knows how many calories it was.

The diet/meal plan concept thinngy I'm on now has me aiming to eat 1,980 calories a day which in theory could lose me up to two pounds a week.

I eat a tiny breakfast (which is fine with me) and then a truly depressing lunch. Two pieces of bread, 1 slice salami, 1 slice cheese. I also eat 20 unsalted peanuts and a coke zero.

Breakfast and lunch today came out to 655 calories which is on the high side (thicker slice of cheese today) so I have 1,325 calories left for the day and if I exercise, I can gain more. It's like weight watchers but with calories instead of points.

1,325 calories is more than enough for dinner, but if I went out for lunch, or had a decent breakfast, or God forbid had a snack at any point, I overshoot.

So it sucks, but I deem it fair. I got to enjoy way too much food for a decade and if I don't want to feel the consequences, this is the price I pay.

Just felt like venting that.

PREVIEW

Also, I'm kicking around a couple blog ideas, hoping I can pick up the slack in Dungy's absence.

I also think it'd be neat to have some kind of blog crossover event, where we all three choose a similar topic to write about and blog on it, as opposed to just giving bits of our opinion on the original bloggers comments.

Anyway, it's a thought. Time to read a comic book.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Reading the Death of Superman

Just finished reading the above.

Spoilers below.

In 1992, DC Comics killed Superman. He fought Doomsday across the nation, but Doomsday fucked up the entire JLA (or some version of it) and eventually he and Superman killed each other with their last blows.

First, good story. Clunky, clumsy dialogue though, it was the early 1990s. The art isn't bad, but it's not mind blowing with the exception of a few full page panels that are quite powerful.

Here are my main drawbacks, and keep in mind I was 9 when this came out and not yet a comic fan.

Where the hell was Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash or even Aquaman. Why was Maxima and Booster Gold and the Blue Beetle the ones trying to help Superman? Why was the super hero world's junior varsity team battling the only thing in the world that can kill superman?

I don't get it. Maybe there is a really good answer for this but none of it is addressed in the story.

Positives, this book does Superman well. Yes, he's really better than you. He cares about humanity too much. He can't afford to retreat and think things over because more people will die. When Lois and Jimmy get in the way of things, he steps up to a level even he probably didn't know he had.

Superman is disliked because he's rarely challenged and he's hard to kill, but this story shows a man who, regardless of how hard he is to kill, is willing to die for his adopted planet. He fights hard and wins with his last breath.

I give it 2.8 of 5 stars. Give it a read when you start to run out of other comics to read.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

John attempt to do something or other

Ok weight update, I downloaded an app that helps count calories. Weight back to 316.

Beat Todd 4-3 in epic best of 7 ping pong series on Tuesday but at the cost of a slightly injured forearm/wrist.

Now on to more interesting pursuits.

My company, IMG College, just gave all of us in publishing Mac G5 computers. They were out work computers until we got new ones. We get these older models free and clear for personal use.

This means I now have the technology at home to essentially produce my own publications.

I've had an idea in my head for a while that I've been meant to merge my skills with my heart and work in Catholic media. It seems impossible to break into this tiny niche industry, so I might start my own publication. I'll need to do a few issues at a loss, make it free, but maybe then I could develop some ad support and grow the thing from there.

I've got a lot to consider on this before getting started but here's my vision.

I don't have a title yet, but it's focus would be on theology and evangelization, not just the usual stuff I've seen (Catholic news, inspirational stories, fellowship etc.)

I want this to be two-fold. First, I want it to be addressed to Catholics, we have a lot of educating to do of our own kind. Second, once educated, I want it to instruct Catholics on how to go out and defend the faith.

If possible, I'd like it to be written in such a way that it could just be left in a laundry room or somewhere and anyone can read it.

I'll probably have to narrow down the focus a lot before getting this off the ground. I'll also need to get more involved and network with Catholics in Lexington. I been down here a while but all my connections are still in Cincinnati.

Anyway, I've got the tools and I've got the talent. I also don't have anything else interesting to say, so, goodbye.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Dungy's right: Punish them

A republican senator, Lindsey Graham has now said we should consider military action against nuclear-armed, super-populated Pakistan.

Republican representative in the house Michelle Bachman said on TV that a vaccine that does not have harmful effects is "potentially dangerous" then said "I didn't make that claim nor did I make that statement...."

Except that she did....I watched it. It's still on the internet.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry declared in the latest Republican presidential debate that he had never advocated turning Social Security over to the states.

"Let the states do it," he said last year.


My fellow republicans, you cannot sweep this shit under the bridge by saying all politicians are liars. You cannot ignore this crap anymore.

You are allowing BLATANT LIARS to distort easily checkable facts and yet they still have supporters.

With all this considered, I am currently of the opinion that barring major changes in the way republicans do business, I will not vote for a single, solitary one in the 2012 elections.

I'll vote third party, or I'll vote democrat, or I'll abstain. But I'm not letting them get away with this anymore.

Supporting one of them supports them all, and the ones not speaking out about these lies are complicit in them.

Now the the obvious response I'm going to get from my conservative brethren is going to be two-fold.

1. A vote not for the republicans is one less vote against the democrat's agenda.
Yup. That's the case alright, but too bad. My conscience is clear here. I cast my vote for candidates, not against others. If an issue of any kind is on my ballot, I'll vote for or against based on what's right, even if the republicans like it. I just won't vote for them.

2. But the pro-life movement...bla bla bla
Yes I am still vehemently pro-life and I don't want to vote for a pro-choice candidate but here's a situation to consider, albeit a crazy one.

Candidate Bill is pro-choice. He went to Yale, ran a successful company, has been a senator for 10 years and is a democrat who supports inadequate economy fixes involving raising taxes on everyone.

Candidate Bob is pro-life. He went to Sacramento State and narrowly escaped connection with a cheating scandal. Failed as a talk radio host, was a CEO at a company with some ethical concerns and often makes inaccurate statements about the economy.

Given a choice between the two, the correct decision is to abstain or vote for Bill. But I imagine most of my fellow conservatives would stop reading after the first sentence.

Abortion is an unimaginable horror, but we have a nation to run. The hard truth is, a dumb ass, even one with the noble goal of ending abortion, is not going to be a better leader than a smart person who wants to keep it legal.

And right now folks, I gotta say the brains of the national candidates are working better on the left. I don't like most of their policies, but they're not out there just making shit up left and right and lying about it.

They're trying to govern as best they can. All I see republicans doing is arguing, lying and holding things up.

I'm not rewarding them for their bad behavior.

Friday, September 23, 2011

An ode to Fall

So a weird thing happened this morning. I got to work really early, (6 something, had to be in at 7) and I was struck with the inspiration to write a poem.

In high school and early in college I fancied myself a poet but I've only written two or three in the last few years. The medium isn't my strong suit as a writer.

Nevertheless, fall is my favorite time of year, and inspiration made me write. My ego makes me share.

Enjoy.

Winter, fall, summer, spring
There's a time for everything
Though if I dare have the gall
I'll make my case alone for fall

The leaves fall down as spirits rise
A sight so pleasing to the eyes
A jacket's worn but not a coat
And that is why fall gets my vote

Winter's snow looks nice as well
Although it makes the roadways hell
Christmas lights are great I guess
But snow-soaked boots make such as mess

Summer, how cherished was it once
Days of freedom, sun, and fruit punch
But as we age, we also sweat
So summer gets our sweet regret

Spring is lovely and so damn close
At times it feels just like fall's ghost
It smells of hope and things to gain
But for my taste, there's too much rain

So back again we come to fall
The greatest season of them all
Of football games and camping trips
Election time and fire pits
Halloween and candy coma
Turkey day's sweet aroma
Christmas deals at every store
All of this and so much more

Winter, fall, summer, spring
There's a time for everything
If it were mine to make the call
Again my friends, I speak for fall

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

The Fix is in. My plan for fixing college football

There is a new story almost everyday published somewhere about an NCAA football playing school being sanctioned or facing some other problem.

Almost exclusively of late, these problems relate to the archaic amateurism rules the NCAA insists on enforcing despite the multi-million dollar industry that is college football.

At the crux of it all is this: (skip to ******* if you already understand the situation)

The NCAA says that it's purpose is to foster the academic success of it's "student-athletes." They say that to do this, the players must be students first, and athletes second.
To allow players to receive benefits because of their status (free tatoos, discount cars or outright pay for play), according to the NCAA would be a detriment to them in some way.
Football programs make money on ticket sales, stadium adverting, tv and radio deals, national exposure and more based off the performances of the players on the field. The NCAA says that 85 players per football team can be awarded scholarships for their trouble. Walk-ons get nothing but the experience of playing/practicing college football.
The players likenesses can be used indefinitely at no cost and the player cannot make any money on their own image while in college. In exchange, they may get a quality and often expensive education.


There are others who argue that the players are being exploited. They say the that schools, conference admins, bowl people and others (Nike, Gatorade etc.) are making tons of money while at best a player gets a free education.
At worst, coaches like Nick Saban and Mack Brown make more than $5 million a year while a player has to struggle to balance the demands of school and playing essentially minor league football. If the player isn't well off and traveled a long way for school, sure he gets housing and a meal plan, maybe a few travel dollars, but not money for clothes or personal travel.
Some say players should be paid, some say the NCAA should relax rules about player benefits etc.

***********

The Reality:

NCAA football is minor league football. Call it an extra-curricular activity all you want but the NFL doesn't hold a draft for the top players in the CFL or Arena league, they grab from the NCAA.

Most players playing at the FBS level will never play in the NFL. In 2009, 67 percent of Division I football players got degree.

In 2008 the graduation rates for the BCS conferences broke down in essentially reverse order of athletic success.
1. ACC........72.3
2. Big East...67.4
3. Big Ten....66
4. Big 12.....63.2
5. Pac-10.....61.3
6. SEC........60.5

------------

The Fix:

All NCAA universities with football programs get a choice. Adapt a more stringent, version of the NCAA to govern your college football, or become a club team.

This eliminates, if nothing else, the hypocrisy.

-----------
The Club Team
In this example, Stegeman University has the opportunity to cut loose it's football program. The school and football program would remain affiliated in name and branding and whatever financial deal the two sides agree too.

For example, the school, in exchange for the use of it's facilities and existing infrastructure, could lease the stadium, practice facilities etc. They could keep parking revenue. However they want to do it.

Under the club system, totally divorced from the NCAA, the teams would essentially be professional minor league football teams. All the schools that opt-in to this club model would agree on rules just as the NFL has done. With the NCAA out of the picture, the choice of how to compensate players falls to the teams.
They can offer scholarships, straight pay or a combination —within the limits the teams jointly agree upon.

I would suggest a system that offers a relatively low salary and a long term salary cap on the straight-pay side. Even with the lack of rules and new flow of booster money, the cost of straight pay would be high, prompting most teams to likely continue to offer scholarships as the primary way of player compensation.

Under this model, the player's are not student-athletes any more than a student working at Kroger is a student-cashier. They are, if they choose to be, students who play football.

In this world, if a booster gives a kid a $100 handshake or a kid gets a free tattoo for his play, it's not a problem. In fact, it's totally irrelevant.

Yes, this does mean there will be people playing for Stegeman University's football team that do not go to school there. It also means that kids that really don't want to go to college, and who really aren't cut out for it, don't have to lie about their SATs and fudge numbers on GPA to go to a school they're not smart enough to go to anyway. They can still play football there, but honestly, and be compensated for it with pay instead of education.
In recruiting, a kid can still choose where he wants to go based on what is offered.

Why is this plan great?

I'll tell you.

First, college sports makes it's money off fans who love to watch it and buy stuff. They will still do that under this plan. Fans will not care if the left tackle isn't actually a student. He's still wearing Stegeman U colors and battling for the team.

The teams names, stadiums, jerseys etc. remain the same. The traditions remain the same. The product on the field will not be adversely affected in any way.

What are the drawbacks?
It's untested. The current system is a mess of lies and crap but it functions in some way. Under the current system fans are happy, coaches and ADs are rich and there aren't all that many players bitching too loudly.

-----------
The other way
Remaining in something like the NCAA
The first plan will only be viable to your major programs. Ohio State's, Oklahoma's, Texas. Schools like that and others with the donor base willing to take the risk.

For the rest, it's time to end the bullshit.

Set a scholarship limit that doesn't change based on exceptions. The schools have to choose wisely. Make it a four year deal. If a player is cut, let him transfer immediately and play.

Make it so use of a player's image to make money is only allowed during their college years, after that only with compensation.

Make it so at Crisler University, a player who comes for a year and gets a career ended injury WHILE PLAYING FOR THE SCHOOL IN A GAME THE SCHOOL MADE MONEY OFF OF will be compensated with either his remaining four years, or the equivalent financially.

There are a million things to change in the NCAA but in this level, the non-club teams, you enforce with an iron fist. Too many infractions=death penalty (season suspended, program cut for X amount of time) on a regular basis.

Be real about it.

But if a school doesn't want to deal with that, let them become a club team and do it another way.

----------------

Ray Dennison died of a head injury playing college football back in the 1950s and his widow wanted worker's comp.

This is from "The Atlantic"
"Did his football scholarship make the fatal collision a “work-related” accident? Was he a school employee, like his peers who worked part-time as teaching assistants and bookstore cashiers? Or was he a fluke victim of extracurricular pursuits? Given the hundreds of incapacitating injuries to college athletes each year, the answers to these questions had enormous consequences. The Colorado Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the school’s contention that he was not eligible for benefits, since the college was “not in the football business.”

Think about that now. Is Ohio State "not in the football business?"

Of course they are. Let's stop pretending.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Monday's update on a Tuesday (replacing what would have been John's Attempt To Get Less Fat, update 9)

ED NOTE: Post restored. No edits made.

--
So instead of just the fat updates I'm going to call my hiatus over.

I will blog on Monday, except when I don't. I will blog more than that when I feel like it.

I will include weight loss info in the Monday posts at least.

Anyways here's some random personal stuff.

Went to Lincolshire/Buffalo Grove/Palmetto (aka Chicago area) this weekend for a wedding of two great people I have a lot of respect for. They were Kelli's friends first but I think I can say they're my friends too now and I couldn't be happier for them.

Congratulations on your marriage, Brando and Lulu Hall.

Now for the downer. As much as I loved being a part of their wedding, I hated leaving Chicago at 11 (eastern) and driving through the night and rain and literally handing Kelli the truck keys in the parking lot of my job, where I proceeded to put in a full day.

Was it worth it? Yes. Will I ever make a drive like that again? No.

Last, an interesting thing.

Everyone knows exposure to different ideas and beliefs is a way to better understand them. Some argue that book learning on certain things is insufficient and you need to see it firsthand to understand etc. In the Christian world, this shows up in the argument that usually goes "I believed in (item a) for the most part of the experience at (church b) was more spiritual etc."

I had a similar experience this weekend that should be noted.

Brando and Lulu are for lack of a better word non-traditional, non-denominational Christians. They don't worship like your average Joe but they're truly devout. Their friends and families as far as I can tell are also believers.

The night before the wedding I hung out with Brando and his buddies who looked like they walked out of Hot Topic/Vans shoes commercial. They all have product in hair, piercings, tats etc.

Also, they're all Christians.We drank and talked God all night.

At the wedding the officiant, Charlie, a married father who shares my love of deep dish pizza and whose ordination was never fully explained to me, presided very ably and delivered a solid message for both the bride and groom and those in attendance.

Being surrounded by non-Catholic Christians for an entire weekend had three effects on me.

First, I was happily reminded that the word non-denominational doesn't mean lazy, bad Christian. While I'm sure that categorization includes that type, I met a large portion of non-denoms that were to use hyperbole, on fire for the Lord.

I was also reminded that the non-Catholic Christians are in many ways brothers and sisters in arms with the Church, even if they've disowned their parents, metaphorically.

I knew these things already of course, but it's easy for me to get lost in the fray and forget that though they lack the fullness of truth, they are based firmly in it's foundations.

Second, I think now more than ever the Church has a chance to reach them. As readers know, I believe that anyone genuinely seeking the truth of God that tries hard enough and has the chance will be led to the Catholic Church, and these people are desperately seeking.

They're not lost souls, but they haven't found it all yet. They have the Bible, but in many ways it's like having a treasure map without the treasure. They need someone that knows cartography to help them find their way.

And they are not unwilling to hear. We just can't come at them the way we come at Lutherans or Baptists etc. Pure theology won't work. Their central belief seems to be that no one can know everything God knows, and they see Catholics a making that claim.

If we can illustrate the difference between saying we have the fullness of truth, and the fact that we still don't scratch the surface of understanding all that is God, we as a Church can add millions of young Christians to our parishes, saving who knows how many souls.

Third, I've never appreciated the Church so much. It was so great to see so many people under the age of 30 that are madly in love with God, but I saw it in it's context.

They saw God as a hottie. Rocking great looks, seems to be smart and saying all the right things at the club. They're three dates in, and they proposed. They're really willing and serious about making a lifelong commitment.

They know God's eye color and favorite TV show but they don't know God's mom's birthday or how God really feels about the ending of the TV show "Lost."

This is oversimplification of course.

I have to get back to work so I'll cut it off here.

To sum up, glad to see the spirit of God working in so many. Glad to have seen the wedding of two good people. Sad to have driven forever and not slept.

------------
No weight update because I really don't know.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Something isn't right here.....conservative presidential candidates

So my good friend Dungy has written at some length of the republican presidential field and I just want to add a little bit.

I don't remember if the democratic primaries a few years back included this problem to the same extent, but it seems that the Tea Party style candidates are getting by with a complete disregard of facts.

Fact check websites often call out Bachman, Palin and even Perry for the crazy things they say, but the media seems to only dutifully report what they say. To it's credit, the Associated Press is also doing fact check articles but they're not weaving that information into say their regular debate coverage story.

I know politicians lie and stretch facts. That's normal, if sad. But it seems like these tea party types saw that people liked President Bush's "I'm not a smart man but I know what love is" persona and took it to the next level.

Take this exchange from last night's debate.

PERRY: "Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt."
ROMNEY: "Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, governor."
PERRY: "That's not correct."
ROMNEY: "Yes, that is correct."

Courtesy of the San Francisco Examiner
THE FACTS: Romney was correct.
Romney accurately stated that George W. Bush — even without his predecessor — saw jobs grow at a faster rate during his 1994-2000 years as governor than Perry has during his 11 years governing Texas. Employment grew by about 1.32 million during Bush's six years in office. Employment during Perry's years has grown about 1.2 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As for Perry's claim about Romney's record and that of Dukakis, he was at least in the ballpark.
Democratic Gov. Dukakis saw Massachusetts employment grow by 500,000 jobs during his two divided terms, 1975 to 1979, and 1983 to 1991, a rate of more than 41,000 jobs a year.
Romney, governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, saw employment grow from 3.23 million to 3.29 million, growth of about 60,000 jobs, or a rate of 15,000 a year. That means Dukakis' job growth rate was nearly three times Romney's.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/news/health/2011/09/fact-check-perry-romney-twist-records-debate#ixzz1XMIsTNmW

---------------

Romney has his share of exaggerations as well to be sure, but at least he seems to be ok with using his brain, not just his don't mess with Texas mojo.

So am I just frustrated, or is there really a dearth of even attempted facts in this group of candidates?

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Finding a better way: Is it possible? Is it worth it?

So I make my return to normal blogging with this post, but it's not super well thought out (surprise right?)

Lately I've been examining a lot of issues from a lot of perspectives but yesterday my buddy/boss Jason said something that has kind of stuck with me.

I really don't recall the words but essentially his point was that:

A, some things are in fact, impossible, and not just as it relates to physics. For example, he pointed out that realistically, assuming that gay marriage is wrong, it is impossible to convince the whole world (or even a substantial majority) of this.

And B, that in the absence of such goals being possible, the next best solution is to create rules. His example, make it illegal, to keep people in line.

While I don't disagree that in the interim between society's agreements on matters, there should be rules and laws and such, I've been beginning to think that we're putting our effort in the wrong place.

Here is how I view the way our country/society does things now:
Bob invents/discovers a drug that makes people in unhappy marriages happy, regardless of any circumstantial changes.
About half the people herald this as great, while about half find it reprehensible.

Lawmakers take a look at their constituents, weigh the options against their future political life, take a stand and become an advocate one way or the other. Because of the populations feelings on this, it breaks down by about half one way and half the other.

Religious leaders (I'm really talking about the usual Christian subjects here) take a quick glance at their established orthodoxy, put the round pegs in the round holes etc. and decide if it's evil or good (nothing seems to be indifferent).

Just like that, we've got a national debate that includes all the goodies. Laws will eventually be passed to the least objectionable solution and so on.
-----

But it doesn't have to work this way, I don't think. Maybe it does.

I believe it's possible -- note unlikely and astronomically difficult -- to avoid this mess.

The question is, is it possible to breed the idea of knee jerk judgements out of us? Instead of hearing the basics and putting something into a category, can we judge it's merits fairly and in due time?

Long story short, I guess what I am saying is that I'd like to see a fundamental change in human behavior on a lot of fronts. One's religion can still be the basis of their belief, but they need to dig a little deeper than "soundbite Jesus" to get to the root of something. One can be a liberal, but just because something might be good for a pro-conservative group doesn't mean it's bad etc.

----

Let's go back to that magic little marriage pill. Is supporting it's legalization likely to be liberals or conservatives?

Both side are afflicted by unhappy marriages I'm sure.
Both want to be happy.
But would liberals be mad that it allows women in abusive relationships to stay in them without punishing the men? Or would they be mad that a gay man could be made to believe he was happy married to a woman?
Would the religious right be upset that it has the ability to make husbands happy even if their wife is leading a side life as a lesbian?

The questions are hypothetical as the pill is but you know as well as I do that somehow the issue will end up splitting along those lines.

---

This blog is disjointed as hell...sorry, I'm out of practice.

---

As a society we've decided that everything fits into a box, which is not untrue on some levels. But there are more than two boxes.

Our effort shouldn't be put to making laws and rules to restrict and control BEFORE we've examined an issue thoroughly. By doing this, we make the rules quick, it gets entrenched on one side or the other, and little more real thought goes into it.

INSTEAD, we should examine the issues thoroughly, then pass a law if one is needed.

Moreover, there is some old Indian (I think) proverb/story about a nation that abolished laws. I don't really remember the story, but I think there is a truth in the idea that laws are needed because we don't want to try very hard to know what is right.

People shouldn't need a law to know not to steal, or to take it farther, they shouldn't need a law that tells them who can and cannot marry.

Somewhere out there the truth of the matter exists, and we should search for that, not just the least objectionable law.

Even in the lives of people like me, who believe the truth of say the Catholic Church, there is not a catechisical argument for or against our hypothetical pill. It requires digging deeper than what we think we know.

Is it possible or worth it to try and change human behavior this way? I dunno. But it was a thought.

Monday, August 29, 2011

John's Attempt To Get Less Fat, update 8

Ok, sorry for the brevity lately of these but there just isn't much news.

Weighed in Saturday morning at 320, which is exactly where we were two weeks ago. I think I gained five pounds and then lost it with the shake diet so we stand pat.

I am serious about getting back to the gym but it just hasn't happened yet. Not going today but weather permitting I might go for a walk in the park.

Did hit the gym Saturday. Did a weight lifting session to see how far my muscles regressed being ignored while I did cardio. Not too bad.

So today's workout: Walk maybe, who knows.
Current weight: Remains at 320.

Also, I'm setting a couple of goals.

First goal, weigh in at 299.
It will be a nice moment to step on a scale at less than 300 pounds.

Second goal, weigh in at 275.
It will also be nice to weigh in under the heaviest weight class for high school wrestling (at least what it was back when I did it.)

Realistic final goal, weigh in and stay at 250.
While 250 is a good chunk about a healthy weight for someone my height, I don't know how realistic it is to shoot for what I really want. Nonetheless...

Unrealistic final goal, weight in at 199 or below and stay there.
Hey, a man can dream can't he? A man can dream.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

John's Attempt To Get Less Fat, update 7

Really don't have an update.

Did a little walking last week, a little swimming. Going for a walk today.

Haven't got on a scale but I did get some more weight loss shakes from my dad who by the way gets a kudos for having lost 88 pounds now.

Anywho, had a good weekend. Here's to a good rest of the week.

Weight update: ???
Today's workout: Walk in the park with the wife.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Delay

Fat update will come tomorrow.

Went to concert in Cincinnati and got back to Lexington at 2 a.m.

I'm using lunch to go take a nap in the car.

Good day.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

John's Attempt To Get Less Fat, update 6

Ok folks, sorry I didn't post this yesterday, I'd say I got busy but really I was just reading the sequel to A Game of Thrones, called A Clash of Kings by George R.R. Martin. Good stuff.

So we're back on the workout wagon.

Last Friday I went for a ping pong session with Todd (I won 4 games to 3) and I was pretty sore after but a weekend of recovery helped. We played Friday since I was out sick Tuesday.

The best part of the last few weeks Kelli and I took off to heal is that when I got on the scale Friday, expecting the worst, I'd still lost two pounds. Score one for better food choices, even though there were some diet busters in there.

So for you keeping score at home, I started at 336, now I weigh 320.

We're easing back into 5k prep so yesterday we went for a mile walk outside with hills and such. No pain today, so that's good.

Tomorrow's plan is to walk 1.5 miles minimum and 2 miles if possible. I'm going to work up to walking a 5k before I can run one. I got too ambitious, greedy if you will, last time out.

I think though that I COULD walk a 5k now, it would just take a long while. But a week or two of walking is the plan before getting back to the Couch to 5k running program. Slow and steady finishes the race eh?

As for now, there is no schedule 5k for us but I hold out hope that if we build up well, we could do that Cyclones thing in October. I'd really like to do one before the year is out and weather becomes a concern eventually.

Kelli though may have tossed in the running towel. My lovely wife is in better condition than I but her body seems to be a little less forgiving at times. She's still training to at least improve walk time.

Alright. Looking forward to the weekend btw. Heading to Cincinnati for Kelli's mom's 60th bday party and Sunday's Blink 182 concert. Kudos to my youngest sister Mary for scoring tickets.

That's all for today. Come on back now ya'hear?

Today's Workout: Ping pong with Todd (and maybe a couple others) at the YMCA
Last Weigh in: 320 lbs

Monday, August 8, 2011

John's Attempt To Get Less Fat, update 5

So the bad times continue on this front.

The overtraining injuries Kelli and I sustained kept us away from the YMCA all week with the exception of my Tuesday ping pong battle with my co-worker Todd.

For the record, we're getting scary good at the game and that's a helluva workout to play at an intense high level for more than an hour.

Otherwise, we took to the pool at the apartment on Monday and twice this weekend just to keep working out in some regard.

Everytime I think my legs feel better (for example on Friday I choose to walk up stairs instead of taking the elevator) they just start to hurt again.

Best case scenario, we hit the treadmills again on Friday and we're going to push back to the week one workout. It should be easier this time around since I still think we're in better shape than we were in when we started.

Rough food choices last week too. Being away from the Y, I dunno what that did to the weight but I've got a plan.

Kelli made my grandma's recipe vegetable soup and that's all I'm eating for lunch this week, along with some celery sticks for snacks (well with the exception of the fact that another co-worker owes me applebees one day this week). Whenever I get to Cincinnati next, my dad might have more of those diet shakes for me so I plan on doing another week of that too.

I don't mind doing a different diet each week, so long as the downward weight trend continues.

So with the crushing delay in our training schedule, I'm throwing in the towel on running the Harvest Home 5k. I might still walk it, but that's up in the air too. There is some 5K in October that is related to the Cincinnati Cyclones and that one may be what we shoot for. November is probably the last shot to do this before winter and I'd really really like to pull that off.

The reason I'm blogging at 7:39 a.m. today is that I don't feel so hot (woke up like 10 times last night) and I'm hoping if it's not to busy to go home around lunch time and take a half day.

That's all I got. Good day folks.

Monday, August 1, 2011

John's Attempt To Get Less Fat, update 4

Well, thing's don't always go as planned and despite a conservative running schedule, it seems both Kelli and I have sustained some over training injuries.

I don't know if it's shin splints, muscle fatigue or what but we called off our last two training runs last week and we're not going to the gym today. Just sitting or lying down seems to be causing leg pain for both of us, but I think it's healing slowly.

With running/walking off the table, we're hitting the pool at our apartment today. I figure swimming til I can't swim any more will at least keep up our cardio and will still help with the weight loss.

With no Friday at the gym I don't have a weight update but a Skyline Chilli day and two days off working out probably didn't help.

It really is a shame we've had to stop. Today's training run was supposed to be the toughest yet, two five minute runs. I had it circled on my calender. The key now, if possible, is to get back on track in a little more than two weeks. The first mile run was scheduled for Aug. 17.

Speaking of that, if we're not close to back on track by then, we may not do the Harvest Home 5k. I don't want to make excuses, but I don't want to embarrass myself. I'm on pace to finish in more than 1 hour as it is, if I can't heal my legs and cut that time down to less than 60 minutes, I'll look for a late Sept. maybe October 5K.

I joined Runner's World online forums and have found good advice and support there.

Next up is to get through this week, swim as hard as I could have run, buy some running shoes and either Friday or next Monday attempt to get back into the training.

Today's workout: Swim as many laps as possible in the apartment pool.


Mahalo

Monday, July 25, 2011

John's Attempt To Get Less Fat, update 3

Editor's note: I will continue to post these Monday updates throughout the hiatus of my regular blogging.

Alright so facebook users saw the photo I posted on Friday of a sweat-soaked me after finally breaking a 20-minute mile (19:41 to be exact) and I continued walking until I hit somewhere around half of a 5k distance.

That was quite the accomplishment for me, but the sad reality is that if I could double that at the same speed, I'd be looking at a time of more than one hour for my 5k, which would have me in hella dead last. Last year's slowest walker finished in 47 minutes or so. So again, lots of work to be done.

Also, prior to this past weekend of poor dietary decisions, I had lost another pound for a total of 14 pounds lost since beginning the process. I've read on some running forums that somehow running doesn't help you lose weight...which is odd, but whatever.

The legs were really burning Friday so I stayed off them this weekend save a brief walk around my apartment complex Sunday just to keep them loose.

Need to buy some running shoes soon, maybe also some better shorts for running than the ones I have.

I think we're at a crucial point here. Though I had some success Friday, I didn't follow the workout plan to the letter because my legs hurt too bad. I've seen some progress, but I don't think I'm developing as fast as the program is moving. What's weird is that cardio wise, I feel plenty of the improvement, it's the bones and muscles that aren't cooperating.

Today I'll try the program workout, but if I can't keep up, I'll back up to last week and do that workout again to give my body more time to acclimate. I don't want to overdue it and get hurt or I know I'll quit, so that sounds like the safe bet.

Also, I joined the Runner's World forum, which is pretty cool. People there are very supportive.

Today's workout: 5 minute warmup, Run 90 seconds, walk 90 seconds. Run 3 minutes, walk 3 minutes. Repeat twice (I think).

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Hiatus

As you know, the promised blog did not appear sorry.

Here's a link on the topic: http://www.askacatholic.com/_webpostings/answers/2011_01JAN/2011JanRespondingToPlatosDilemma.cfm

It's so so.

Anyway I'm taking some time off. Dungy's arguments, while I believe them to be incorrect on many counts, are well crafted and brutal and I don't want to endure the brow beating for a few days at least, maybe longer.

Dungy has done nothing wrong here, he simply defeated me in debate so soundly it should be applauded. I've been wrong before and won an argument, I'm chalking this up to the same. He's more talented, and maybe on some things he's right.

Either way I lack the energy to continue so consider me on hiatus from serious blogging for the time being.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Captain America vs. Everyone.

So the Captain America movie is out this weekend and I hope to see it at some point. The reviews are good and anti-Nazi action films are usually fun. Toss in a superhero and I'm sold.

But here's the one thing about good ol' Cap that bothers me. He's barely a superhero. I mean compared to what he was before the super solider serum, yes it's a big change, but he is the Ubermensch. The peak of human perfection. That's pretty bad ass, but that's it.

Now I know Batman also lacks superpowers, we'll get to that.

So today's blog is essentially an episode of World's Deadliest Warrior: Superhero Edition. I'm going to put Cap USA against 3 other superheros and how he would do. I tried to pick heroes that wouldn't destroy him in three seconds (See Superman, Flash, Green Lantern (Hal), Martian Manhunter and many others from the DCU (except Aquaman).

We'll discuss short range fighting, long range fighting, and what I'll call the X-factor.


FIGHT 1
Batman vs. Captain America
First, I think we can all agree that this would be the greatest battle among mortal non-powered men of all time.

Short range: Draw
In hand to hand combat, Captain America is considered the best in the Marvel U. In DCU, I'm guessing Batman is the same. Both are expert tacticians and strategist. Captain America is physically more gifted but Batman is more of a bad ass.

Mid Range: Advantage Captain America
Cap can throw that indestructible shield at anything with great accuracy and make it bounce back. Batman has batarangs, those balls on a string that tie up your feet, stun grenades etc. When compared side by side Batman has more, but the shield is also a defensive weapon and can stop whatever the Bat throws his way.

X-Factor: Batman
Cap has heart. He's smart and strong but his guile and bravery are huge. He injured some kind of Godlike being that once pwned the other Avengers. That god thing did defeat him, but his attack helped the team win.
Batman's brain is his greatest asset. He is brave and strong and all that jazz but smart is No. 1. He can and has knocked out many powerful entities, and he's done it by outsmarting them.

Verdict: Batman doesn't lose many fights. He beat Superman, and he was old when he did. He wins.


FIGHT 2:
Spider-man vs. Captain America

Short range: Draw
Cap is strong, Spidy is stronger. Cap is fast, Spidy is faster. You see how this goes right? Captain America's hand to hand skills would likely make this fight more competitive though, and in really close quarters, say a small room or an alley, Cap could corner the acrobatic spider and do some hurting.

Mid-Range: Spider-Man
Shield is cool, but unless it's been sprayed with a non-stick spray (Pam maybe) Spidy can sling it away. He can also, at least temporarily, tie Cap up without getting to close.

X-Factor: Captain America
I guess the Spidy sense would be Spider-man's x-factor. He can sense danger. How much that helps during a fight though, I don't know. Cap though, has brains. More brains than Peter Parker even. He could outthink and outstrategize the young man.
Also of note, this fight happened in Marvel's Civil War. I don't know who won because I haven't read it but consider that additional reading if you're interested.

Verdict: For the same reason Cap loses to the Bat, he beats the Spider.

FIGHT 3:
Wolverine vs. Captain America

Short Range: Draw
Wow that would be fun to watch. Adamantium blades vs. Vibranium alloy shield. Both men have military pasts, both are great fighters. Wolverine might be stronger and quicker, Cap probably fights calmer and more sensibly. Even Steven.

Mid Range: Captain America
Wolverine's got nothin. Cap can throw the shield.

X-Factor:
Bravery vs. tenacity? Tenacity wins. Wolverine also heals crazy fast. Also, Cap has the moral standards of Superman without the invincibility. Wolverine can and will fight dirty if he has too. They're comparable in so many ways, I think it comes down to who wants it more. Wolverine would probably kick Cap in the red, white and blue balls if he had to.

Verdict: Wolverine walks away the winner.




I know my readers are nerdy types like me. What do you guys think?

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Not much goin..

So Kelli will be in Chicago next weekend which will give me time to really do justice to the heresy/nature of right and wrong blog that I've promised. I don't want to crap that out in my lunch hour.

What else, if any of you like the University of Texas, their football program is looking good and heading to print tomorrow.

I'm thinking about buying running shoes.

Um what else...I've recently been reminded that I am exceptionally skilled at rewriting the lyrics of popular songs to be about other topics. What a fun but useless skill.

Anyway, come back tomorrow, maybe I'll have something to say.

Go Reds.

Monday, July 18, 2011

John's Attempt To Get Less Fat, update 2.

I know we've got more important things to get to such as my previous heresy, the nature of God and truth and my opinions on things, but it's Monday so instead it's the fitness update.

So my total weight loss since beginning the workout process is now about 13 pounds. For those keeping score at home, that's 11 pounds the week I borrowed my Dad's shakes and about two pounds in the three weeks since. Taking my Dad's mantra though, any time the scale says you've lost weight it's a good day.

I can't really see a difference in my appearance yet but I am wearing a tighter fitting shirt I usually don't bother with and it feels pretty OK, so that's something.

Kelli and I completed the first week of Couch to 5k training, actually taking the training outside on Friday, and here's what we learned.

*This is a really ambitious goal for us....like really really ambitious. But we're not giving up.

*Running outside on concrete during our first week was probably a really bad idea. We we're both practically unable to stand up sore after that while we survived the same distances on the treadmill no sweat.

*I can run. Not long, not fast and not far, yet. But last week marked the first time since high school I can say I went for a run. It hurt, but for the few moments before the pain really kicked in, I felt a twinge of my body remembering what it used to be able to do. It will be interesting to see how much of it comes back.

We also learned the course layout.


Anyway I don't know if I'll really be able to run a whole 5k at this point but I plan to run until I can't and walk, roll or crawl the rest. Finishing a 3.1 mile trek on foot is no easy thing for me.

What else.... Ping pong resumes tomorrow after a week off. Me vs. Todd as usual but the boss (Jason C.) is coming to play as well and another co-worker (Richard) is probably coming to watch.

Todd annihilated me last time out, getting revenge for the whooping I gave him the week before.

Also, I've decided to kill weight training for now. All cardio until the 5k is over.

Weighing in on the scale at the Y today after a weekend that included bar food, steak, ribs and pizza isn't likely to go well. Must eat better on the weekends.

That is all. Enjoy.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Brief

In one of my next few blogs I will address that I have been guilty of pushing a heretical belief on this blog. While listening to the great radio show, Catholic Answers Live, I found that my belief in right and wrong as things that are made that way simply by God saying so is a heretical view.

I will research this better, explain what I had believed, and post the correct teachings as soon as I collect them. I will then go back and add a header to the archived affected blogs, pointing out the error.

It was my honest opinion at the time and I didn't know it conflicted with Church teaching. I apologize.

Matt and Dungy, in cases where I was discussing Church beliefs on this matter I may have erred and I apologize for giving bad info. I'll do better research in the future.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

What no one is talking about...

So in my recent reading up on various Catholicy things, I've learned some things.

First, According to the John Jay study, only 3% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences.

But the interesting thing is that 52 percent of alleged sexual abuses by priests involved children between the age of 14-17.

Yet in the media, it's often referred to as the pedophilia priest scandal or something with that word associated.

I don't disagree that 48 percent is a scandal, it certainly is. And 88 percent of the victims were male, and the majority of those victims were post pubescent. That indicates to me, and to several other blogger types, that the greater issue here is that there are a lot of predatory gay males serving as priests.

It's still a problem, still horribly wrong that any minor be subject to anything like this. It doesn't change what the scandal really is.

But why is this fact completely under the rug unless you read the John Jay report? I've never read a word on this in an AP or Reuters story and I read lots of them.

Would public perception be any different if it were known? I dunno.

What do you guys think?

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Explanation of my position on gay marriage

For the purposes of this blog I want it known that I do not know if my thoughts line up with Church teaching or any other teaching. I simply wanted to flesh out my opinion for my own sake and that of my readers. It's not set in stone. I guess the best way to put it is that this is how I see things right now.

Dungy, Matt, tell me why I'm wrong.


---
I believe true marriage to be something only possible between a man and a women. I believe it is a sacrament, but I acknowledge that the world has reduced it in legal terms to little more than a government acknowledged contract.

Legally speaking, I have almost no way of arguing against gay marriage. Morally, I find it wrong.

The problems I do have with legalizing it tend to come from the fact that I believe doing so will have a negative effect on society in the long term by totally legitimizing what until recently was a subculture, and that it's legalization, if done without stipulation, can lead to the infringement of religious freedom of others. (Say the a church with a reception hall being legally forced to rent a wedding reception hall to a gay couple).

I wrote on the comments of my last blog that I was generally opposed to gay marriage. This is true morally speaking, but in a non-theocratic nation, too damn bad for me. While I don't like it, I don't get to say it can't happen.

I maintain that true marriage, in the true sense of what the word means, cannot occur between same sex couples. Nevertheless, again, to the government, marriage is little more than a contract. Why should I care who the government allows to enter into these contracts?

That said let me throw this out there.
My opposition is not an attack on gay people and it is not hate speech or any other crap like that. (Cue personal recounting of gay friends) I have had plenty of gay friends, both men and women, and I am proud to say that for the most part we were always able to discuss our differences on this matter without things getting heated.

Discrimination is wrong. Gays shouldn't be denied any rights.

But true marriage isn't supposed to be a right (speaking outside the legal sense), it's a vocation, a calling. Our government said otherwise though when it adopted the concept of marriage being civily recognized. Once that happened, I guess it was only a matter of time until we got to here.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Catholic Charities and tricky stuff

As more and more states pass gay marriage/civil union laws, Church organizations are coming under fire.

The group that stands to lose the most in this case, are orphans and the Catholic Adoption agencies that try to find them homes.

In Illinois, where a civil union law passed, there is a good example.

These Catholic adoption services existed on their own for a while, and then eventually, like many other religious-based charities, starting getting government funds to some degree. The reason for this is because the agencies provided a service and the state liked the cost/situation so they gave them contracts.

But with the new law passed and the Church groups saying they will not place children with civil unioned or other non-married couples, the state is not going to renew it's contract.

And here's the thing. The state is 100 percent in the right to non-renew. They cannot in good conscience make a contract with a group that has stated it will not obey the law. Sending taxpayer money to a group like that would be wrong because the tax payers representatives passed this law.

But here's the downside. Some 2,000 children will be affected. Sure other agencies will be able to pick up some of the caseload but it will still be a problem.

And what it comes down to is these organizations should never have accepted government money in the first place. Now, without it, many won't be able to exist.

But then there is another legal problem. Some of these agencies elsewhere either don't take government money or will be able to continue without it. Their faith teaches them not to support gay marriage and that it is not an ideal environment for raising children. They don't get taxpayer money but they will still be forced, if legally challenged, to place children in those homes.

This is wrong, I think. While we don't know how each child will grow up to feel about such things, these agencies aren't out to screw with people. They exist to get kids homes. But mark my words they will shut down rather than put kids in what they deem unsuitable homes. That's a debate for another time, but it's still a shame.

New York seemed to do a decent job of protecting it's religious groups from being forced to go against their consciences when they passed a gay marriage bill, Illinois and other states that pass these bills are right to without government money, but they should do the same as New York to ensure the freedom of conscience for their Christian constituents.