Kerry crashed in flyover country: "Just so you understand the terms when you read about them or hear them debated on National Public Radio: When a Republican says he is pro-life, that is divisive, but when a Democrat says he is for abortion rights, that is not at all divisive. When Rush Limbaugh rips into John Kerry, that is an exercise in divisiveness and hate, but when Michael Moore produces a documentary attacking President Bush with every sort of libel, that's merely a filmmaker doing his job."

This is a very good point. The table is very slanted in the traditional media. How wide and deep would be the cries for "unity" if Kerry had won? Did any liberal speak out against Michael Moore? We live in a biased society. While politics should definitely be limited as he notes at the end of the article, we should not ignore politics either.

Just to make sure I completely offend everyone, lets talk about the age of the earth & universe.

I can completely understand why non-Christians believe everything is trillions of years old, they have nothing on which to establish anything more recent. (Even though a great deal of the physical evidence really does point to a younger earth.)

We claim to now be scientific and driven only by facts, yet our creation myths are just as elaborate and made up as any used in ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome. I read a recent article in Scientific American that claimed there had to be multiple paralell universes, they were a fact. How this fact was ascertained was not elaborated, merely stated.

But for Christians, the Bible is pretty clear about how old things are, something around 6,000 years. Of course you can dispute this with some very fancy, misleading, and inconsistent footwork, but the clear reading of the text is that the universe was made about 6,000 years ago, with many a mere 6 days later.

At one time I bought into the Gap Theory, the idea that there is a huge gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This is the only logical out, allowing for millions/billions/trillions of years that still keeping a consistent and trustworthy Biblical text. In reevaluating the Scriptures that seem to support/allow for a gap, I have concluded that they do no such thing. Thus I must believe what is written, not make up my own stories, no matter what other Christians or non-Christians say about it.

Ironically, I felt the idea of a Gap made so much sense because I had bought into the idea of millions of years through my years in government education. But why go for something that is not needed, and that conflicts with the text?

I can understand the world worshipping the creature (creation) rather than the Creator, but why do so many Christians insist upon doing so?

We no longer live in a civil society, at least not in one where civility is important. Think about how easily people resort to serious insults and slams quickly when they are bothered in the slightest.

Our current political contest is a good example. People on all sides almost demonize those they oppose. While the charges made may have an element of truth, doing such continually leads to a situation where it takes more and more to shock people into action. Where a mild charge would once have been sufficient to provoke extreme outrage, outrageous charges are now necessary to provoke any response at all. Even then, people are so numb to such things that they frequently just mentally "change the channel" in their brains when they hear such.

It is like a drug user: Each time, more and more is required to reach the same high, until the user finally reaches a point where a high is impossible, but a high level of consumption of the drug is necessary to just survive and avoid extremely painful withdrawal symptoms.

While I see this as a problem across the political landscape, I see it especially clearly in those who are socially liberal. They steer from reasoned argument and make villains out of those who disagree.

What is the answer? I don't see one, short of a Godly revival sweeping the land. Without God's intervention, we are headed for a crash. Though some people I greatly respect see that coming, I am not convinced. I have a sense we are headed for some mighty rough times, ones that will require a full reliance on God to survive. However, I do not believe these will be the "end of all time," as many speak of, but rather I see a rough period of reaping for all the horrible sowing modern man has been doing. History has examples of this. Life goes on, but it can be more difficult at times.

How does this relate to incivility? I believe you cannot establish a stable society without some ability to coexist without letting everything be very personal. Without that, even minor battles become major skirmishes, and they will end up with only one winner and one bastion loser. Even the winner in this case doesn't get what was expected, since the cost will have been paid in human lives.

Are Democratic parents really better than Republican ones?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108556/

Interesting article. Are conservative parents really that unsuccessful, at least in the short run, or are these just not conservatives? It would be interesting to see something comparing politicians "governed" and how their children did. Are only Democratic presidents stricter, or is it really an overall trend?

I have a hard time believing that the liberal philosophy is stricter. Perhaps they are just
hypocrites to their own beliefs in this one area.

I would like to comment a bit more about the amoral, and even anti-moral
nature of many libertarians. While I completely agree with the idea that
the government should do very little in the way of enforcing morality,
having a "whatever goes attitude" seems very dangerous to me. God made
some pretty firm laws to govern the universe, and flaunting some of those,
legal or not, puts us in a lot of danger.

It is kind of like the idea that we can legislate to make the speed of
light different, or outlaw gravity. While legislation will not change
them (putting them outside the government's authority and control),
ignoring them or pretending they don't matter.

If we violate God's laws consistently, can we count on not reaping the
"natural" consequences?

Where to start? Clearly this hasn't come too fast, but part of the problem is that I have too much to say. Deciding where to start is the hardest. I am going to just start typing things and see where it goes.

I have gone through an interesting transformation over the past few decades. I began as a normal teen, but quickly found an affinity with strong conservatism. I wholeheartedly participated in Reagan's reelection and maintained the idea that if only the tide could turn, everything could be alright.

Many years and experiences, including the failure of the right to really change much of anything through politics have left me a lot more pessimistic.

The book Blinded by Might by Dobson & Thomas had some great points on the failure of politics to accomplish the means of righteousness. We cannot look to any political party as our salvation. Only by changing hearts can we have lasting change, and that is a much more difficult process.

I have come to lean more libertarian in recent years, though I can't stand a lot of the loose values of the national Libertarian Party. A key issue for me is abortion - I am staunchly pro-life and I cannot see how anyone justifies killing a human life, especially one that is clearly human in looks. How can a party claim to fight for "individual rights" and not champion the most defenseless? I have also found that they tend to favor laws granted special rights in some cases. A recent voters guide showed many/most of the Libertarian candidates as in favor of Hate Crimes legislation (where a crime is worse if the motive was "wrong.") and laws that prohibit descrimination against specific classes of people, both race and sexual preference were listed. A true libertarian would leave that up to individual choice, not government mandate!

I plan on commenting on a variety of many different issues here. My interests go into a wide range of areas and getting my thoughts out should be worthwhile.

Brad