UPDATE: My friend's nephew has been found!

I just wanted to let everyone know that! Thanks to anyone who may have seen my first post about it a few days ago and helped to find Shane! :)

ALERT: MISSING CHILD

PLEASE help if you can! My friend Shannon's "step-nephew" has been missing for two weeks now. His name is Shane, and he's from the Washington, DC/Alexandria, VA/Arlington, VA area. He's 17 years old and is apparently in need of immediate medical attention. While he may still be in the DC/Northern Virginia area, speculation is that he may be headed toward either the NYC area or the Northern Indiana (South Bend/Elkhart) area. Below is a link to a Facebook page that's been set up to help find him. You do NOT have to have a FB account to view the page! PLEASE look at the pictures of Shane and the contact information under the "info" tab on the page. If you happen to see Shane or know anyone who could help, please call the police or one of the numbers listed under the "info" tab. Thank you!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Finding-Shane/325204517699?ref=nf#!/pages/Finding-Shane/325204517699?v=info&ref=nf 

Bad poem which expresses my thoughts

What is the deal with that stuttering book?

Why did it fly in a tornado chinook?

I don't understand the lamentable binding

With satin glue and incessant reminding

Of the rocketing slam it was supposed to be

Is it hollow and why did no one tell me?

 

 

Republicrats suck!

Perhaps I'll soon post my rant from the other day about CPAC and how it seemed to me that so many of the attendees seemed to put loyalty to the Republican party over loyalty to the country, as evidenced by their booing over Ron Paul winning an informal straw poll about who should be the GOP nominee in 2012. I also find fault with the media, who are still clueless.

The real purpose of this post, though, is to talk about "republicrats." I didn't make up the word (I think Larry Elder did). As you may have guessed, a "republicrat" is your average Congressional member of the Democratic, or the Republican, party. Truly, there is LITTLE DIFFERENCE between them at the moment, except for the fact that they're all so damn partisan that they refuse to do what's right for the country, even if it means possibly losing an election. 

While I tend to be more conservative than liberal in most things, I'm really more libertarian, or perhaps independent, than anything. Those with a libertarian or independent outlook seem to be much more on the side of freedom for all than the Democrats or the Republicans. I could go into many reasons why (ex: initially I had a rant about the idiocy of both of the major parties' positions on the health care issue contained within this post), but I won't for the sake of semi-brevity and your eyes. ;) However, I will post this link to a 2009 blog post from a friend of mine that should provide food for thought (sorry...couldn't resist saying SOMETHING, even if it's by way of a friend! LOL!).

I was gratified to see this column on the Huffington Post today from radio talk show host Michael Smerconish. He's not as well known as Limbaugh, Hannity, Maddow, or Olbermann, but he makes a lot more sense than any of those people most of the time. Smerconish says that after 30 years, he's leaving the Republican party, largely because he sees what I and many others see...the Republicans, like the Democrats, are unwilling to work out their differences and do what's good for the country, lest they lose their cushy little Congressional seats that you and I pay for. 

Sanctimonious assholes piss me off

Why the hell can't people just mind their own business?

My friend Hope just got married on Sunday. It was a complete shock to me, as she and I haven't talked in a while. I knew that she was dating someone and that she would probably marry the guy, but the surprise nature of it really caught me off guard. I am really happy for her and her husband Paul, as they're both great people who deserve many blessings and happiness.

Hope and Paul happen to be pretty devout Catholics, and it's obvious to anyone who knows them that they credit God for bringing them together. The thing is that while both of them are divorced from previous marriages, Paul's first marriage hasn't been officially annulled yet, which is generally a requirement in order to get married in the Catholic church, complete with a church wedding and all that jazz. Honestly, annulments are incredibly easy to get in the United States (maybe too easy...Grace calls them "McNulments" and she's right). Members of my own family have received them, and while the process takes a little time, it's pretty much a given that the annulment will be granted. If a couple chooses to have a ceremony outside of the church (as Hope and Paul did), they always have the option of getting their marriage convalidated by the Catholic church once the annulment is finalized (granted, not always the case, but the overwhelming majority of the time it is the case). Once the marriage is convalidated, it's as if they had a church wedding from the very beginning, "endorsed" and "blessed" by the church. This is much more common than people realize, and it does not in any way make a couple "less Catholic" if they choose this route.

Anyway, some uber-Catholic bozo posted a status update on her Facebook page which was clearly a not-so-veiled attack on Hope and Paul (although this woman claims ignorance, I know she's full of shit because Hope is on both her and my friends list, which means she saw Hope's news). The bozo's status update said something like this (paraphrasing): "I will never understand why two practicing Catholics choose to forego a church wedding in front of a priest for a civil ceremony, rather than waiting for the annulments to be finalized. Couldn't they have waited to have a real wedding/marriage in the eyes of God?"

Um, excuse me?

First of all, I know that Hope and Paul are going to have their marriage convalidated as soon as possible, so it's really not a huge deal with regard to their marriage eventually being "endorsed" by the church.

Second, even if they weren't going to have it convalidated, does that mean that God hasn't blessed their marriage? If one believes what God/Jesus said about always being with us, then doesn't it stand to reason that God/Jesus would bless all the events of our lives (with the possible exception of committing very heinous crimes such as murder)?

I understand that the Catholic religion requires annulments and, eventually, convalidation of the marriage. I have no problem with that, because that's the way the religion is set up (I also have no problem with those religions that do not require annulments or convalidation, as it's the way those religions are set up). Even though I haven't got a problem with the way that the Catholic church handles this matter as an institutional policy, the fact remains that the majority of people in this world are not Catholic. Does that mean that their marriages haven't been blessed by God? I don't think so. Similarly, let's say that you had a Catholic wedding in the United States and then moved to Iran. Does the fact that the Muslim religion would not "bless" your marriage mean that it's any less blessed or holy in the eyes of God? Again, I don't think so.

Third, the fact is that Hope and Paul's wedding is legal in the eyes of society. Because we in the United States do not live in a theocracy (thank God), their marriage is just as legal as if it had been "witnessed" by a priest, minister, rabbi, or any other member of the clergy. To imply that their marriage is somehow "not real" is hypocritical and a slap in the face.

As an aside, I know that a legal marriage in the United States doesn't automatically include any religious aspect. But knowing that two people feel that God brought them together and that these two people are pretty devout in practicing their religion seems to say that God is right there in the middle.

Finally...and this is the big one for me...who the hell are we to say what God can or cannot do? I don't believe that God has an "anything goes" mentality, but I do believe that God is very loving, and that he would be utterly thrilled for Hope and Paul or any other couple in the same situation. The fact is that we don't understand God very well, and we probably won't until it's all explained to us at the end of time (my personal belief). How do we know why God does the things he does? How do we know that God doesn't bless two lovely and decent people who decide to make a lifetime commitment to one another? Another fact is that we simply have no control over what God does, feels, or thinks. Unless I see clear evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that God will bless any marriage that is undertaken for the right reasons and with the right aims. He may also want the official requirements of a couple's particular religion to be fulfilled (no problem there), but that doesn't mean that the marriage isn't blessed.

As far as I'm concerned, I want God's blessing if I ever get married...hell, I'll need God's blessing! Marriage is tough enough as it is, so having a little divine guidance should definitely help matters.

I'm not knocking religion here. In fact, I think that religion, practiced and used in the spirit of God's love and kindness and forgiveness, is a great thing. I think it's important to have a belief in something greater than ourselves, and religion is often an excellent way to help manifest that belief. I also believe that people who have some sort of religious affiliation are generally happier and more fulfilled in life...studies and my own personal observations have shown this. The same goes for couples who have a religious affiliation (even if they're from different religious traditions, although that can admittedly become thorny at times). Couples with a religious affiliation tend to be happier and last longer than those without one. I'm not pulling that out of my ass to endorse religious affiliation, but just simply stating what many studies have shown. None of this is to say that a couple without a strong religious belief or affiliation can't last...many can and do, even if they have no religion. I just believe that it's easier with a religious affiliation, and studies back me up on this.

Although I'm not knocking religion, I am knocking the "holier than thou" types who automatically condemn something that is outside their perception of their religious tradition. It's fine for these people to have the beliefs they do (as fucked up as I can sometimes think they are). However, it's not fine to start publicly exclaiming that a marriage is somehow "not real" or not blessed by God when it's not our call to make.

That's Life!

I really needed this today. This is a really good student video set to that old Sinatra standard called "That's Life." It's songs like these that can help keep me going. Gotta make sure this one's on the iPod. :)

 

 

Global warming my ass! Record snow in Dallas, Texas!

 

The picture above (which I did not take) was taken in The Colony, Texas, which is about 30 miles or so north of downtown Dallas. As you may have heard, the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex had record snowfall amounts on Thursday and Friday (and possibly a little into Saturday in some places, too). The "official" total at DFW Airport was 12.5 inches! I live in a suburb of Dallas, and we got at least 10 inches by me. I'm not sure exactly how much The Colony got, but by the looks of that picture it seems to be a fair amount. Most, if not all, of the snow was gone by Saturday night. The average snowfall for the DFW area is 2.5 inches per year. We obviously shattered that with just this one storm, and it's not including snow that we received earlier this winter.This is all very pretty to look at, and it also reminds me why I'm glad I don't live up north any more!

No more snow is forecast in my area for the week, but the temperatures are going to be well below normal. The average high this time of year in the DFW area is 60 degrees F. The temperature forecast for the upcoming week has our highs in the 40s and 50s most days, with the slim possibility that we might hit that normal high of 60 on Thursday. This is actually a warmup compared to the last 10 days or so.

On another note...the global warming folks are framing this latest snow event (where 49 out of 50 states had snow on the ground on Friday...even Florida!) as a sign that moisture in the atmosphere is increasing due to global warming, and therefore, there will be increased chances for precipitation in the form of rain or snow. Perhaps that's true to a point. But doesn't global warming also suppose that the temperatures of the earth are getting warmer? That sure doesn't seem to be the case at the moment, nor has it seemed to be the case for quite a while. From things I've read and seen, it seems like these fluctuations in temperature have been going on for millenia, well before humans ever got here (and obviously well before fossil fuels were burned). Some of this happens to be the "cycle" that the earth is in at the moment...maybe some warming in certain areas, but generally little to no change in the earth's temperatures. Some areas may even be cooling a little bit. That would explain this massive snow event that took place in Dallas and throughout the United States this past weekend.

Back in January of this year, I posted an entry with a neat little video from the founder of the Weather Channel where he goes into much greater detail about why global warming is not going to kill us all, even if it is occurring on a small scale (and he even questions that to an extent). Check out the video. It'll open your eyes and put the lie to the prevailing alarmist thinking out there.