jump to navigation

Orphans and Gays Adopting December 4, 2008

Posted by earthking in Conservatives, Liberals, Life, Philosophy, Politics.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

A few days ago I was listening to a talk radio show while driving.  The topic of the debate was whether or not gays should be able to adopt children.  By no means am I one claiming it is an easy issue to resolve as we do not live in a perfect world and there are many children who are in need of a home.  I have known a few gay couples who have successfully adopted children and they will most likely raise responsible citizens. 

However, in a world with about 1 billion Christians, I don’t think there should be any orphans at all.  In fact, the Bible is very clear about the mandate for Christians (and Jews) to take care of the widows and orphans.  I understand that not every Christian can financially take on another child.  But there are many that could easily take in an orphan or two.  If even half of Christians could take in an orphan, I bet there wouldn’t be such a problem in this world.  If there weren’t such a problem, then perhaps the entire debate about gays adopting children wouldn’t exist. 

Moreover, Christians believe that the soul is of more importance than the body.  So, when analyzing the debate about gays adopting children, this must be in the mind of Christians.  I have no doubt that the gays who live in a stable relationship can provide a better home than many straight couples.  I have known several very hard working gay couples who are very kind and great citizens of the United Staes.  When it comes to providing materially for children, many gay couples can do a fantastic job.  However, what good would it be for the child to gain the world, but lose his soul?


Stupid People September 19, 2007

Posted by earthking in Uncategorized.
add a comment

I was emailed this a few days ago and thought it was not only funny, but also very true.  You don’t have to be the brightest person in the world to get far in this life; you just have to be able to bullshit a lot. 

This is a strictly mathematical viewpoint…
it goes like this:

What Makes 100%? What does it mean to give MORE than 100%? Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life?

Here’s a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:


is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.


8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%


1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%

2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%

AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.

1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%

So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that While Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, it’s the Bullshit and Ass kissing that will put you over the top.

Be Progressive September 19, 2007

Posted by earthking in Conservatives, Liberals, Life, Philosophy, Politics.
add a comment

Many liberals try to propose these new “progressive” ideas as something that is really new.  In fact, when you look at one of their main arguments against traditional values, you will find that they are opposed to being “close-minded.”  One of my family members who is in a homosexual lifestyle constantly tells me how he is uncomfortable with traditional forms of religion because they tend to be close-minded and make everything out to be so black and white.  He was a member of a Unitarian Universalist church for a few years before dropping out.  Yet, these liberals fail to look into the history of ideas.  Homosexuality has been around for millenia and the same with abortion.  The entire idea of breaking free of traditional religious beliefs is also found in the ancient Greek culture, too.  Look at the dialogues of Plato and you will find that very easily.  The notion that there is no moral truth is not a new idea either; many philosophers thought the very same thing, and I’m not talking about modern philosophers only.  My point is that the “progressive” ideas are actually very old; there has always been a battle of ideas.  However, can one really find truth without also having a good will- one that constantly seeks the good?  I will touch on this in the next blog. 

Main political differences: am I wrong? September 18, 2007

Posted by earthking in Conservatives, Liberals, Philosophy, Politics.
add a comment

My family was not very political when I was growing up, so I am sort of new to the whole politics thing.  But, it seems to me that the Republicans and Democrats fundamentally are different when it comes to solving problems.  Please correct me if I’m wrong so I can learn. 

 The Republicans nowadays stress free enterprise and less government to solve problems.  They see the free markets as solving most problems since supply will meet demand.  If people want better cars, then the car companies will have to make better cars or else their sales will drop.  If people want healthcare, then the government needs to step away from the game and let the markets provide better medicine.  If the markets provide better medicine, people will buy it.  Essentially, everything is driven by money when it comes to Republicans…or so it seems.

 Democrats, on the other hand, seem to view big corporations and the free market as stomping out the rights of the people.  Government needs to protect people from the greedy corporations who just want to make tons of money without respite.  The view it as the job of government to protect especially those who are most vulnerable, since the wealthy can pretty much take care of themselves.  Just look into history and you will see what happens to workers if their rights are not protected. 

Is this a fair view of both parties…in a nutshell? 

Universal Healthcare September 15, 2007

Posted by earthking in Conservatives, Liberals, Life, Politics.
add a comment

The whole idea of universal healthcare in this country is becoming a very popular topic.  My dad likes the idea, however, I am still deciding.  If you go to wikipedia and look up “universal healthcare”, they have a pretty good expose on the different arguments for and against it, as well as links to websites with further arguments.  The people who are fighting for it have some pretty good arguments.  I do believe people have a right to healthcare, but I don’t think this necessarily implies that the government must supply the care.  We all have the right to eat, but the government doesn’t supply us all with food.  We have the right to raise a family, but the government doesn’t arrange marriages.  So, I think the idea that people do NOT have the right to healthcare under the US Constitution is a buch of bullshit.  Taking care of your health is a basic human right.  But, I cringe at the idea of the government controlling our healthcare simply because they screw up most of their undertakings.  At the end of the day, I am leaning towards the idea that people need to take responsibility for taking care of themselves and not lean on the government.  We have Medicaid for those who are in dire needs of help.  Please comment, I am still open-minded on this topic.

Stats R Us September 14, 2007

Posted by earthking in Conservatives, Liberals, Life, Philosophy, Politics, Religion.
add a comment

Everywhere we turn we find people in the media quoting statistics to support their viewpoint.  The problem is that we don’t even know if those stats are correct.  Take the latest polls on the presidential campaigns.  All that those say is that out of the people who responded to a request for their opinion, here is who is winning or losing.  Or, is it possible that the media distorts the polls to get people to think that their candidate of choice is a loser, so they should just vote for the one who will probably win?  How about the stats of uninsured Americans- I was never asked whether or not I was insured.  I don’t even know anybody who knew somebody who was asked.  Do you?  Certainly not all insured Americans have coverage through employer-sponsored plans, so the stats couldn’t have come from all employers.  Watch what information you believe.  And watch who uses information to promote a cause when the quoted stats could be wrong.  This rule goes for anything coming from any side of the political spectrum. 


Posted by earthking in Life, Philosophy, Politics, Religion.

Today I talked with the liberal queen in my office who said that the concept of a lifetime commitment in marriage is wrong- it just creates frustration for people and that probably wasn’t the way it was meant to be.  This is a complete perversion of what it means to be a man.  Doing what is right as opposed to what you want to do is the true measure of a man.  The aversion of man’s loyalty to commitment brings him to the level of a beast or animal.  Marriage, and for that matter, all commitment, takes work.  There will be times when men will want to throw in the towel.  But for the man who thinks of wavering from the path of commitment due to temptation must rise to the test to prove his commitment.  Our culture is perverse and what appears to be mainstream is demeaning to real manhood.  BEWARE OF WIMPS!

Open-Mindedness and Bi-Partisanship September 12, 2007

Posted by earthking in Life, Philosophy, Politics, Religion.
add a comment

I have a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, and I studied some of the greates minds of all time:  Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bacon, DesCartes, Kant, and others.  One thing that I noticed about the truly great minds, those who were bent on finding and living out the truth about themselves and the universe, is that they not only knew about ideas they personally held, but studied ideas of people they thought were wrong.  Even more interesting, St. Thomas Aquinas could think of better objections to his arguments than his adversaries.  He debated quite frequently and wrote many treatises, and you always find it puzzling how he unravelled ideas that seemed insurmountable. 

 Currently our country is undergoing major rifts on different issues.  I honestly believe that people need to be much more open-minded.  Why?  Because these rifts will never mend until people begin to discuss ideas.  There can be no discussion if there is no willingness to listen.  This does not mean that the other side must be accepted, but at least understand what the other side is about.  

 My father is very liberal, which sometimes makes it difficult for me to visit him.  However, I have found that some of his ideas are actually good.  Yes!  I find some liberal ideas good!  I have learned over the years that no political group has a monopoly on good ideas.  Wouldn’t you agree?  And I also find that more often than not, I can even learn about people through bad ideas.  For example, communism arose primarily because the working class was oppressed.  Whether or not you believe in communism, you can learn from history.  Anybody who is oppressed, or any group that does not feel like it is heard, is vulnerable.  That group feels like there are very few solutions for their situation, so when someone comes along with a BIG solution, they grab onto it. 

 My point is this:  be open-minded, and learn from everybody.  Do not accept all ideas, yet, be open to what others have to say.  Adios for now.   

What do pro-choicers think? Comments strongly encouraged (especially by pro-choicers) September 11, 2007

Posted by earthking in Uncategorized.
add a comment

Today at work, a fellow woman co-worker and I were talking about politics, which you should never do at work anyway, ha ha.  And, she brought up how she would never vote for Mit Romney simply because he was against abortion.  I piped up and said that because of his pro-life stance, he would be a favorable candidate for my vote, although that is not the only issue I like him for.  Then we went on about abortion and women’s rights, which I think is just a euphemism for murder.  However, I would like to bring up the fact that a very important point was brought up that pro-lifers really need to think about:  the social consequences of abolishing Roe vs. Wade. 

Let’s suppose that in the next few year Roe vs. Wade is abolished or tamed somehow.  You now have thousands, if not millions of teenage girls that are pregnant and scared.  The chances of a teenage boy sticking around to help with the baby is probably not very good.  After all, manhood has been mostly stripped from boys nowadays.  Men are no longer committed as they used to be.  Gay rights fly in the faces of young boys when they are as young as 6 years old in “sex education” classes.  With the increase of fatherless homes, how could a boy grow up into a man?  Classic role models in sports are now few and far between.  Am I wrong?  So, the chances of a young girl who is pregnant getting help from the child’s father is slim. 

 In some cases, the girl’s family might disown her for being a whore if abortion is abolished.  I think this is definitely one reason why many young women get abortions.  The social pressures can easily disappear with a visit to the abortion clinic.  I am rusty on the legal aspects of this, but I’m sure there are states that allow for a girl under 18 to get an abortion without her parents even knowing about it.  (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

 Poverty would most likely increase with the surge in teenage pregnancies and women who give birth out of wedlock.  The American Enterprise Institute has figures on the income levels of single households vs households with married people.  There is a difference in income.  Check them out, they have some good bi-partisan stuff on their website.  So, poverty would increase. 

 Another consequence- the population would increase, especially in urban areas.  An increase in population might also put stress on the economics of cities and towns.  This might not be guaranteed, but I think it is possible.  It would most likely take time for cities and towns to react, and obviously the surge in population would not occur overnight.  But, it would happen.  (I am very skeptical of the overpopulation myth, but there would undoubtedly be an increase in population.)

And on and on and on…..The fact is people is that there would be social consequences.  The moral of the story is that the abortion issue is not so cut and dry.  People who are against abortion need to realize this and step up to the plate to assist with these social problems.  I would go so far as to argue that one of the causes of abortion could be poverty….extreme poverty.  I could be wrong, but couldn’t this be true?  Wouldn’t you feel frustrated if right now you are barely paying the bills, and then BAM, you are pregnant?  Heck, I’d feel frustrated! 

All said and done, pro-lifers need to expand their minds and think about the entire abortion problem, not just the murdering of innocent babies.  Please comment.  I will try to write more often. 

The Evolution Circle- I just don’t understand the Liberals!!! August 7, 2007

Posted by earthking in Uncategorized.
add a comment

I was listening to a talk radio show yesterday and heard a man who was a staunch supporter of evolution make absolutely no sense at all.  He claimed that we all came from micro-organisms and are all essentially just evolved particles.  Yet, he cried out against the war and said how evil it was for us to be in Iraq.  He also went on about how slavery was so morally wrong, etc., etc.  For the record, I don’t care what people believe about evolution, as long as they don’t sound illogical and atheistic.  Deriving atheism from the theory of evolution is like saying that the earth goes around the sun because I ate ice cream.  Why is it that absurd?  Because science is not theology.  It deals with the physical world according to the scientific method.  All that science can say is that a material deity probably does not exist, since they have not seen one. 

Anyway, you will notice many liberals support the idea of evolution, yet they cry out for peace and for pulling the troops out of Iraq, and they even bemoan the extinction of species of animals.  I’ve even heard how they hate America because the white man destroyed the “Native Americans.”  (Yes, I will be a little politically correct and not call them Indians.)  Hold on now, am I missing something?  If evolution occurs, then why should we call anything evil?  It is the survival of the fittest!  We shouldn’t let humans screw with nature, right?!  Yet, they try to change the course of evolution with their own action. 

If the liberals are trying to screw with evolution, I wonder why they believe in the theory anyway…..

Earthking is back in action.  Visit frequently…