Thursday, June 30, 2011

A modest proposal, Texing while Driving: Scourge of our day

I know I spend a lot of time in this blog talking about things like truth, faith and the future of our nation's politics, but today's blog is about something much more important -- TEXTING WHILE DRIVING.

In 2009, (according to distraction.gov where I got most of this info*) there were 30,797 fatal crashes in the United States, which involved 45,230 drivers. In those crashes 33,808 people died.

(*Also utilized textingwhiledriving.org)

In 11 percent of those accidents, the drivers were distracted. While solid data on what distracted each one was not available, it's more than likely that some percent of that 11 percent were texting.

Because of all the untold death and destruction caused by this activity, many state governments have taken the first steps toward ending this menace to society.

My state of birth, Ohio, just Tuesday passed House Bill 99 that, according to the bill, “prohibits drivers from using an electronic communications device to write, send or read a text-based communication while the vehicle is in use.”

Ohio's law is a nice first step, but it is too weak. A one time offender will only need pay $150 and will be on their way.

In fact, even Utah, allegedly the state with the strongest law isn't doing enough. Offenders there who are found to have been texting while driving will face a misdemeanor charge and up to three months in jail and a fine of up to $750. If a text messaging driver causes a Utah car accident, the consequences are much worse: up to 15 years in prison and a felony on their record.

These feeble attempts by state governments are a blight on our nation. Think of the children.

So I offer a modest proposal on how to curb this scourge of distracted driving.

Since texting is the worst offense, I believe that it, like murder, should be chargeable in degrees.

For example:
First degree texting: Reading a text while driving or sending a reply of one word or less.
This would be a crime punishable by a $500 fine the first time, and a $1,000 fine the second time.

Second degree texting: Sending a text longer than one word while driving. First time offense, $5,000 and 180 day suspension of driver's license. The guilty would also have to attend a class where the mothers of children who died in car accidents describe the dangers of texting while driving.

Third degree texting: Engaging in an exchange of more than two text messages while driving. Because of how unbelievably distracted someone is in this situation, it is only fair to apply the same types of charge associated with the attempted murder of however many people are on the same road in a one mile proximity to the guilty party. It is a felony with significant jail time. Upon release, the guilty would be given an ankle bracelet, and specialized license plates showing their offense. On top of that, they would have to go door to door and tell all their neighbors that "I tried to kill everyone on the road because I thought texting while driving was more important than safety."

Now obviously this would be just the beginning. An outright ban on cell phones being turned on in a vehicle, under pane of death, might be a better idea.

We also need punishments for the following offenses which are still legal while driving:
1. Shaving
2. Applying makeup
3. Listening to music
4. Speaking with other passengers in the car
5. Thinking about things in one's head

You see, until we as a nation ban all these things, there can be no safety on our roadways. If just one person can be saved by applying outright bans to everything, it will be well worth it.

God bless America. Land of the safe.

Monday, June 27, 2011

Don't say him, say friend: The re-wiring of humanity

I have a shocking revelation to make...

Boys and girls have differences.

Let's start where it counts shall we? For the promulgation of the species of humanity, a man and woman must have sex. In the right circumstance, that produces a child...which is, even before it is born, a male or female.

The sexes, with only nature considered, are different. Men, in general, lift more, run faster and jump higher. Don't believe me? Check the Olympic results for track and field.

Women have different skills such as flexibility and I think I've read somewhere that women usually have better collaborative ability than men.

By God's design or by nature, whichever you choose to believe, there ARE differences between the sexes. Period.

Part 2
That in mind, we don't live in the days of chasing down cheetahs to eat. With modern technology in a modern world, we are not bound to the skill sets of our genders, nor should we be.

Almost any job in the world nowadays can be done by a man or a woman, and that is a good thing in most people's books.

I have two sisters who work in retail management, my dad did most of the family laundry growing up while mom installed ceiling fans. Sometimes traditional gender roles don't fit and that's ok.

But here's the thing see....sex (as in gender in this case) matters. It's how a society functions. If we all walked around without different clothing styles, different personalities and different ways of being ourselves, well let's be honest, things would get confusing. We've all seen that poor soul that everyone looks at and can't tell if it's a man or a woman. No one wants a world full of that. Do they?

But there is a school in (Sweden), pre-school, that is trying to get gender ideas of what boys do and what girls do out of kids heads.

Girls don't play with dolls and boys play in a kitchen. They don't say him or her, they call everyone friend. They play house with two mommies, sometimes three.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110627/ap_on_re_eu/eu_fea_sweden_gender_neutral_tots

And all of that isn't wrong per se, but we shouldn't be teaching it as the norm.

Norms are important to a society and they form over a long time. Sometimes they need to be changed, but sometimes they work.

The norm is that boys like playing with sticks as swords and playing sports and hitting each other and getting hurt riding bikes.

Likewise girls like dolls, and house, and other games.

All kids love to play in someway or another.

I understand the idea of this gender neutrality movement, they think young girls and boys that don't fit get pigeon-holed into stereotypes they don't want. The movement is probably being led by someone who got picked on a little too much as a kid.

They mean well but they're wrong. Give the world's kids more credit than that.

My wife wasn't raised in a gender neutral world, but guess who assembles any furniture we buy? She does. Guess who does the laundry? Me.

We're full grown adults, but let's look at kids.

In seventh grade I didn't know who Wilt Chamberlin was, I didn't follow sports. I hated gross things like worms. I wanted to be a chef and I spent time in a kitchen and I caught hell for all of that at school. I still don't like gross things, I finally know about sports and I have developed a working knowledge of most of what men are "supposed" to know so that when it comes up, I don't look like an idiot.

Likewise, my older sister Karyn wasn't huge into dolls but was a big pro wrestling fan. Now, she knits, sews, cooks and has a working knowledge of traditionally woman;y things etc... but she's also the biggest Reds fan I know.

Kids will find their way to who they are supposed to be. Exposing them to the way the world works doesn't hinder that. The poor kids at Egalia pre-school will end up in a real world one day where men will laugh at them for not fitting in and women will mock the girls too.

No one should be forced to be something they aren't, but schools like Egalia and the whole gender neutrality movement are an overreaction and a bad idea.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Faith and Freedom: Incompatible?

This entry isn't so much a "here's what I think" blog as much as a "here's what I'm struggling with" post.

I am beginning to believe that true Catholic faith, and probably many other religious traditions, are incompatible with the western idea of a free society.

I know I'm not the first person in the world to think this, nor will I be the last but here is my dilemma.

Section 1


Church teaching says we cannot vote for someone that is actively working for something that is intrinsically evil, whether that evil is our reason for voting for him/her or not. That makes sense.

That does however generally rule out anyone seeking to do the following:

(List not all inclusive)
Strengthen or maintain abortion rights
Promotes the equality of gay and straight unions, family units.
Wants to bring back/strengthen the death penalty.
Is opposed to a person's natural right to emigrate.
A preemptive strike based foreign policy.
Either financially irresponsible (Dems) or morally insensitive (Reps) style of health care.
The removal of God from the public sphere.
Etc.


And the list can go on and on. Those are things the Church considers evil.

However, the Church also teaches personal freedom. This doesn't mean all things are permissible and acceptable, but that people must be allowed to freely choose right, which means they must then be equally free to choose wrong.

We also believe in religious freedom, including a person's right to not have a religion. Or to have a jacked up version of Christianity etc.

Section 2



The way I've approached things for the last 7-10 years though is this.

I believe that Christ will for earth, his vision if you will, is attainable without legislation. If all Christians were better Christians, if we lived on the principles of obedience to God, charity and love etc., I think the whole world would eventually come around, even if it took millenia.

I believe that the best way to reach sinners isn't to admonish them and warn them about hell, but to befriend them and tell them about God's love and what he did for us, etc.

I believe that God's grace and active presence in the world can achieve this if we get out of our own way sometimes.

I believe that what consenting adults do, so long as it doesn't effect society or other individuals negatively, should be LEGAL, that doesn't mean its acceptable.

I believe burning a bible or koran should be legal, that doesn't make it good. And I believe that all points of view, no matter how extreme and evil, may be held and expressed by a free citizen, but that doesn't condone those views.

Section 3


So you see my dilemma here.

Should we attempt to balance freedom with what is right? Or rather should we only seek what's right, and freedom be damned? Or should we just roll with freedom because right and wrong are morally subjective terms, regardless of their objective existence?

I tend toward wanting a balance, but I'm not sure such a balance is compatible with a faith that I know to be true.

Is this just a case of me wishing something that is not acceptable were acceptable? I need to look into this more, pray on it some and bring myself to the correct view once I find it.
---

Anywho, I got a hunch that my two usual readers may have a thing or two to say on this. I welcome that of course as always, but I linked this blog to facebook because I want to know what others think.

Leave a comment below and I'll respond when I can.

___
About PETA:
PETA recently wrote to the Pope telling him to not have leather seats in the new Pope-mobile because leather is "hell for cows."

Thursday, June 23, 2011

A short thought on this issue in journalism

Today's blog is about this news story.

Gay guy mad newspaper doesn't put his name in FREE obit

Terrence James' gay partner died, he had the funeral home submit a FREE obituary to his local paper. His name was omitted because of a policy that doesn't list unmarried partners in free obits, whether they be the boyfriend of a girl or the boyfriend of a boy.

Now he's claiming discrimination and another newspaper is getting calls from a bunch of "tolerance" groups.

The Batesville Daily Guard is a family owned paper with less than 9,000 subscribers and if they're anything like every other smalltown USA paper, they're Obit policy was set before the invention of the Gay Rights Lobby.

Now that doesn't excuse them from being behind the times, but it does excuse them from discrimination and here's why.

This policy is applied to all people regardless of orientation. It is not the paper's fault that gays cannot be marries in Arkansas.

And my second point is this guy can shut up, and so can everyone else who uses free obituaries. They are FREE. Most newspapers that still have free obits are trying to do you a favor.

They're using ink and space on each edition during a time when they're struggling to keep profitable.

In a paid obit, you can have whatever you want. You can put your boyfriend's second cousin's goldfish in there if you want. You can have a list of all your jobs. You buy it, it's yours.

But when a newspaper gives you a freebie and you local funeral home doesn't explain the policy to you, that's not discrimination. It's a failure to communicate.

Maybe the paper should consider updating it's policy, but a newspaper isn't a government service, it's a private company. It can do what it wants.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

A personal update, Chewing the fat, or rather the opposite.

So I decided not long ago that if I am to ever get in shape I needed a goal. In my mind, working out just to "be healthy" is tedious, but a purpose is motivating.

So I came up with a couple things.

First, in the unlikely event you're a new reader to this site, I'm the title character/author of this blog. I'm 27, married, work in an office and when I started my workout program, I was 5-foot-7, 336 pounds. My wife Kelli is also working out and dieting with me.

For the record 10ish days into it I'm still 5-7, but now 325 pounds. That 11 pound loss has apparently improved my ping pong skills too, but I digress.

So here stated for public record are my two goals.
1. I want to be able to run a 5k from start to finish, running the whole time. I want to do this within 12 months of today. Probably less time than that if possible.

2. I want to get my weight down to 275 pounds, as soon as freakin possible. My long term goal weight is 200 pounds. Yeah...that's 125 pounds to lose. Good Lord. I figure to reach 200 pounds is going to be an epic feat but a journey of a thousand miles bla bla bla.

I do have a third and more ambitious goal, but we'll start realistically.

So what's the plan?

Long story short I'm trying to hit the gym 3-4 days a week and watch the calories. I'm off to a great head start thanks to some extra shakes an opti-fast patient (Thanks Dad) gave me but I'm under no illusions that this is a fast process.

My usual gym workout goes something like this:

Arrive, change, hit treadmill for 30-min or 1 mile walk. Usually a mile takes me 30 min and they have a 30 min time limit anyway. I plan to increase my walk speed within that 30 minute window to increase cardio. I recently ran for the first time in a few years on the running track, which may become how I start the workout.

My biggest issue with walking/running is the utter and complete boredom. Playing a sport or something is fun, walking/running is not. So...

Some days the whole workout is replaced with ping pong. I know that doesn't sound like a workout but a co-worker of mine and I play for an hour to two hours at a time and we're both intense about it. It's much more of a workout than walking, even for him and he's in shape.

Next I go lift. I know lifting isn't aerobic and I know it won't help me run, but it gives me trackable progress (I lifted x lbs. the other day, today I lifted more, etc.) and I enjoy it. If lifting gets me motivated, I'll keep it up. So far it's been mostly upper body stuff because my legs get a beating from the walking but I plan to expand on that.

If it's a long day of working out, sometimes Kelli and I will also go swim laps in the pool and I like to wrap it up in the steam room before showering and heading out.

As you can see there is no formal plan, but when you're a fat couch potato like me, anything is a good start.

So there is a 5K in August I have my eye on to walk in. As for running, it would be cool to go back to Shawnee State and do the Bear Run but I don't think I'll be ready by the Sept. race, but maybe next April for spring. Kelli and I are checking out races and will choose one soon to give us a hard deadline. I don't actually know if she plans to run or walk.

Since the year 2002 (9 years ago) when I was a 189-pound high school wrestler, I have gained 147 pounds. That's 16.3 a year. If I can lose 20 a year, I can drop 100 in five years. I think if I put a real effort into it, I can lose 50 this year and then settle in to a more reasonable loss plan.

Anyway, that's out there now. Wish me luck, offer advice/critique etc. and if you see me at a buffet for God's sake keep me in check.

Peace

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Sometimes I'm so right it scares me...

So the title of this blog is really more of an attention grabber than anything but I figured it does go with my first point.

Why is everyone so stupid/naive/ignorant?

More importantly perhaps, if I perceive almost everyone as being one of those three things it means there are two possibilities, neither of which do I like.

Possibility 1: The world at large is not populated primarily with morons, but my perception is off, meaning I am stupid, naive or ignorant.

Possibility 2: The world at large IS populated primarily with morons, making me one of the smarter people on the planet.

Obviously I don't like option 1 cause I don't want to be a moron. I don't like option 2 because I'm really not all that smart, which means the human race is doomed if I am among it's best and brightest.

So with that in mind, here is a relatively shallow blog on the stupid things I've seen in the media that last few days in reverse order of stupidity.

5. The Weiner Saga


Link: Just go to yahoo, I'm sure it's on there.
Rep. Anthony Weiner did him some sexting. He's not a particularly good husband. He's not particularly tech savvy either if he thought it would stay secret. So it's been in the news for weeks, but WHY?
Enough already ok? Our politicians are among the ditiest scumbags in world politics as far as I can tell and yet we pretend it is new when one of them cheats on their wife. gets a DUI or does something else that offends what used to be our national morality.
Guess what people, we live in a world with lots of bad people, Wiener may or may not be one of them but it's not looking great for him now. Can he still cast a vote to represent his constituents? YES!!!! And because he's weird they can vote him out next election. Until then, the one benefit of this story is the funny headlines like "Weiner exposed: Congressman caught sending lewd photos" and such.

4. The Battle of the Bluegrass


Link: McConnell says Kentucky could face attack if terror suspects are held here
Long story short, Senator McConnell seems to think terrorists are concerned with the state penal system. Does anyone really think that if, in theory, terrorists wanted retaliation for these arrests, that they would blow up something in Frankfort, Ky.?
I mean sure they might, but c'mon. Kentucky arrested them, why not retaliate even if they were sent to Gitmo?

3. No snips


Link: San Francisco: Circumcision Ban and Religious Freedom
They want to ban circumcision. Now I know members of society with both types of members and as far as I can tell, both prefer what they end up with. That, plus science, tells me it's not a big deal either way. This isn't the same as genital mutilation and for many it's a sacred and required thing. This is up to a child's parents, not the state.

2. Why can't the Catholic Church be just like everyone else?


Link: Liberal U.S. Catholics say Church not listening
I picture some liberal Catholic asking that question only to get hit in the stomach by my good friend Alex Sullo while he screams "Because we're not everyone else!"
Summary of this one is that liberals think their demands for women, married and gay priests are not being heard. They don't like the hierarchy either or that the Vatican pressures dissenting theologians.
The liberals of this story are the ones not listening. The Church has answered time and time again most of these concerns but just for fun let's do it again. (Speaking for myself of course, not the Church)
We can't ordain women, not a question of if we want to. The priesthood is based on apostolic succession and choosing candidates as Christ did. He chose no women. That doesn't mean women aren't integral to the faith, they are.
We can ordain married and gay priests, but as a matter of policy right now, we don't. The marriage restriction is more likely to end one day than the gay one. I don't imagine you can find a lot of gays willing to teach that homosexual activity is a sin, therefore it's tough to find one to make a priest.
The Church has it's structure and puts pressure on dissenters to preserve the truth, any church that just changes with the whims of time isn't that concerned with truth.

1. Two-year old tramps?


Link: Pole dancing... for toddlers?
Yeah, some studio in England is offering these classes. It's actually for kids as young as three, but two sounded better in the headline.
Here's the best part: "The class' instructor, Carly Wilford,... says she's "trying to remove the stigma from pole dancing..."
COME ON! It might be very healthy and good for you to dance on a pole but the stigma is the only reason it exists. The pole is a surrogate penis. Pole dancing is a stripper thing. We've got to stop pretending things aren't what they are.
If I teach a class called basic tackling for three year olds, and I base it on football tackling technique, people will say I'm teaching them football. I can try to say I'm trying to remove the stigma from tackling and that really it's just healthy, but IT IS STILL TACKLING.
---------------

Anyway, I know the "You know what grinds my gears" style of blog is usually boring and this is probably no exception but what the hell. I had very little else to say.

Random fact about PETA: It's stupid and could easily be the only thing that pisses me off in a given week if I let it.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Let loose the dogs of ranting

So I wrote a preview of this blog just for myself last night and after reading it decided I'm not quite as tolerant as I could be. I tried reasoning with myself a bit and climbed down off a few crazy positions but some stuck.

Here's some things I want to rant about.

To the parents of Storm, the gender-unknown celebrity baby, you're either bad or foolish people. I'm sure you mean well and you have every right to believe and teach your kids to believe that gender is some kind of invented social construct if you want to. But A) Don't pretend your leaving a choice open to Storm by doing this, rather you're taking away their choice to live a "Normal" (by which I mean averagish) childhood. And B) Using your child as a catalyst for social change also takes away his/her choice on whether they want to grow up as a curiosity or just another kid.

To the Navy, a 5-5 120-pound woman should not be a Navy Seal any more than a scrawny guy should not be one. For special forces there should be one, crazy hard to pass fitness test and anyone who meets that (and all the other qualifications for the job) should be allowed in regardless of gender or orientation.

Where Martin Luther King's daughter goes to Church is none of my business.

The world didn't end a few days ago, which is cool because I want to do more with my life but not so cool because now I don't have an excuse for not doing so.

I know this isn't new but I'm upset about the ending of the shuttle program. They're the best space vessels the world has seen and we're voluntarily regressing and relying on the Russians and the Chinese for space things... Tell your grandpa that and see if he survives.

I saw video recently of some Mickey Mouse knockoff in a Muslim nation....the mouse is martyred... That's screwed up.

I'm Brian Fellows.

That goat has devil eyes.

The end.

_____
Fun true PETA fact
I just enjoyed the way this one sounds.
"Elephant babies, ripped from their mothers’ sides, perform under threat of punishment night after night, eyes always riveted on the person with the metal hook or the whip."