Dang, I'm goooood!

Shhh! Sorry, I have to whisper. I am in the middle of class, but thought you might be interested. Just finished up another successful smoke! I found a great deal on some meat, $5 per package. Some packages were worth $8-$11 each. Got some country style ribs, and some pork roast. Smoked those and a couple of fatties. OH MY GOSH! Yes, they were good. I've never tasted such tender roast. Ohhhhhhhh, mmmmmm. Now, I'm sitting in class and dreaming of another smoke. Is that addiction? If it is, then I like addiction. If anyone is interested in getting some good advice on smoking, check out the link to the left.

Oh, oh. I'm about to get called on.

SaMokinnnn!

I did it! MmmmMmmmMmm. My first smoke was a bit of a disappointment. I coughed and sputtered from the beginning. It was hard to get the temp up in the cooking chamber. My built-in factory supplied thermomememeter never got over 100 degrees. I kept making adjustments and burning more coal, and still nothing. I solicited help from the guys at smoking meats website (see my favorite links), made some modifications, then found a meat thermomememeter which I laid on the grill and discovered that I had the proper heat all along. So I smoked a fatty and ribs. The fatty was awesome, and the ribs were the best I've made so far (but still not great).

I then made several significant modifications to my smoker, and tried again a few days later. This time, I was able to keep more heat in the cooking chamber, direct it toward the center, and smoked a very, very, very delicious pork tenderloin. The wife and kids loved it. And now I'm hooked.

We are supposed to have some ice coming thru here this weekend, but all we got was some cold rain. This would have been a great weekend for smoking, but no, alas, and dang the weather. All I get to do now is sit here and dream about it.

More on mushrooms

Okay, I was just Googling thru some articles about Romney, and read thru the comments posted on one of the articles. As I was reading, I found a number of people complaining about some of the Mormons they knew, while others were griping about some obscure, misrepresented point of doctrine. Because of these tangential contacts with the Church, there was no way they would ever like the Church. And once decided, then there is nothing good about the Church. And then it is nothing to believe whatever oddball accusations come up regarding it.

Now read that post again, and see what you think. (If you've ever made green bean casserole according to the recipe on the can of Campbell's Cream of Mushroom soup, it will make even more sense.)

Abstract first

Bato,

The notion that the founders did not intend for organized religion to be completely separated from government can be supported by the fact that for many years after the implementation of the Constitution, and even after the First Amendment, several states, including Virginia, I believe, continued to have a state sponsored religion. This can be attributed in part to the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment was not even a suggestion at the time. The Fourteenth Amendment had the effect of extending the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to then, those protections applied solely to actions of the federal government. Therefore, individual states could continue to apply local laws and actions as their citizens would tolerate. (Unfortunately, this got out of hand, i.e. Jim Crow laws, which led to the Civil War and Reconstruction, etc., etc.)

Further evidence of the intent of the founders is still witnessed in the halls of Congress prior to every assembly, where a prayer is offered, as well as the traditional swearing in on the Bible, the official motto, etc.

They did not fear the effect of religion in general on the government. Rather, they respected the wishes of the citizenry to choose the society in which they wished to live.

Sadly, that has become less and less. Public schools had traditionally been governed by local communities. Unfortunately, racial bigotry and hatred forced the federal government to act. While smaller infringements had occurred prior to this, the civil rights movement exploded all traditional notions of the role of the federal government. The benefits of a more educated citizenry began to manifest itself, chipping more and more away at the arguments for state and local control.

At the same time, activists became less and less "religious," and having discovered the power of the courts in creating more immediate social change, it was only natural that the bastion of established religion would be the next area to come under attack. The tool of choice, of course, was the only branch of government that was not immediately responsible to the people. By taking it to the courts, those citizens who would be affected by the decisions would have no immediate recourse, effectively preventing them from voting on those issues.

Even though this thought is not a complete one, it will have to do for now. School has started back up again, which means life gets pretty hectic now. As much as I love this conversation, I will only be able to contribute to it every now and then.

One more thing, though... the definition of religion was the point of my original post on this topic. To discuss it is not a side trip, but sort of the whole purpose. Feel free to comment.

Stem Cell Research

I don't know where I stand on embryonic stem cell research. I respect the sanctity of life. But there is an overwhelming number of Americans who are morally and philosophically opposed to the practice. I don't know what the promise is. I am listening to the House debate on the HR3 attempt to publicly, federally fund it. Embryonic stem cell research has been going on now for over 20 years. I have yet to hear a single example of any sickness, illness, or ailment which has been cured or reversed from the study of embryonic stem cells. There have been admittedly at least nine from adult stem cells, while others are claiming as many as 72. There is also more promise showing from amnionic cells.

It was easy to be drawn in by those supporting this bill that we are at a critical point here, for if we don't pass this bill, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and other diseases will continue with no hope for a cure. I guess that means that if Congress does not pay for it, it will not continue. While this opens itself to all kinds of directions of discussion, I will stick to the legislation.

HR3 proposes that taxpayers fund embryonic research. It does not propose to make the research legal or even possible. The research is already legal, and is being done as I type this. So, if my neighbor, who adamantly believes the practice to be morally repugnant, does not pay for this research, the research will continue. If it is so promising, why does it require public funding. I would think that if it is the only way to cure Michael J Fox, it would most certainly receive unlimited philanthropic funding.

Again, I do not have a definite stand on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. I do, however, strongly oppose requiring a society in which a significant number of members morally oppose the practice to pay for the research.

The gentlelady from Colorado correctly pointed out that a significant number of Americans morally oppose the war in Iraq (I think that "morally" is probably more accurately interchanged with "politically" in this instance, but that is for another discussion.) We still required these individuals to help fund this war. I guess her point is that if we can require people to fund a war to which they are morally opposed, then we should be able to require them to fund scientific research to which they are morally opposed. What she does not address, however, is that there is no other way to fund the war, while there are plenty of other avenues available for stem cell researchers to find some money. I would also suggest that funding a war is well within the purpose of the establishment of government, and not simply as an enhancement to public welfare.

To Bato

Thank you, Bato, for your comments regarding my thoughts regarding religion. While I may agree with your first point, regarding "knowing sinners", it does not change the analysis. One would be hard pressed to find someone who lives the tenets of their life philosophy to exactness. However, what one perceives to be truth influences the way one approaches life. For example, one who believes that the atonement of Christ covers him regardless of his sins, so long as he has "accepted Christ into his heart" at some point prior to dying might approach life more haplessly than one who believes that the atonement applies only so far as he is making a conscious effort to model his life after Christ. It does not mean that he will not sin, which is to say that he will consciously do something he knows to be against the will of God. But he will be less likely to follow thru with many conscious sins that the former might. (Please do not take this as a blanket assumption for either case.) To go a little farther, the former might be more willing to compromise his values in the political arena, where the latter might be more cautious.

You can see, then, if you were to broaden to this to the differences between those who believe in God and those who do not, how one's perception of truth influences his actions. It does not dictate his actions, but merely influences them.

As to your second point, the trouble that the founding fathers had with "the Church" regarding its role in government, was its tendency to exclude all others, which leads to persecution and restriction of others' liberties. While they might have had their personal problems with religion, they generally accepted that a man's religion is his own business, and were not generally adverse to its existence. Their intent with the first amendment was to prevent this exclusion of religion by other religions. Which brings me back to the original intent of my post to which you responded. The religion of "non-religionists" finds itself to be beyond the reach of the first amendment in its attempt to exclude other religions from the public sector.

I will address your third point when I have some time to think about what I was thinking about at the time I wrote that. It was probably in response to something I had read recently, but I don't know. I just don't remember the context right now.

I am glad to have gotten a response regarding this, and to have some challenge to my thinking. It helps me to better formulate my thoughts.

On Bias Against Mormons

I tried mushrooms once, and I don't like them. Yuck! They are a fungus, grey, and slimy. And they smell funny. I can't imagine that anyone would eat them. Besides, I heard they contain some magic stuff that makes a person get all loopy. So, I can't imagine voting for anyone who would choose to eat mushrooms. They might get all loopy and make some boneheaded decision.

I'll tell you what is good, though. Green bean casserole! Mmmmmm. My wife makes a really good one, using french cut beans and fried onions. She won't tell me what sauce she uses, but boy is it good. Whatever is in it must be some pretty good tasting stuff.

Oh, but this is about Mormons. Sorry.

I saw a John Wayne movie once, and he ran across some Mormons, and asked them if they wore those hats to hide their horns. People who have horns on their heads so that they have to wear hats shouldn't be president. You just can't trust them to get all their facts correct.

Two Paths

Two paths diverged in a wood...

And Harry "majority leader" Reed took whichever one the President didn't (or won't, or might not). Once again, with no thought or consideration for reality, mr. reed jumped all over the cut'n'run bandwagon, which left the stage before the race was even begun. President Bush has not announced his strategy for Iraq yet, but Harry "the Moron" Reed, allowing his vile hatred and contempt for the duly elected leader of the free world to prevail over common sense or reason, is already lambasting it. I got the opportunity to listen to Lieberman and the eternal presidential candidate, McCain, speak to the need for more troops. There was actually a little common sense in their comments, especially as it relates to the need for more troops.

I will admit that I am one who felt like we should have left as soon as Saddam was gone, told the Iraqis to throw something together, with the threat that we'll be back if what they come up with is in any way a threat to our national security. But, we didn't. We attempted a more respectable approach. If you tear someone's house down, it is generally accepted practice to give them another one. So, we pursued that approach. How successfully we have done that is anyone's guess, since the only people who have any actual first hand knowledge of the situation are only seeing what will promote their point of view.

McCain, however, pointed out that the reason we cannot simply pull out now is that to do so would be perceived as a defeat by our men and women in uniform. He further pointed out that it is much more difficult to rebuild and manage a defeated military than a victorious one (re: post Vietnam). He feels that it is still possible to be victorious, but to do so would require more uniformed heroes on the ground. Although such a build up would be more expensive, the long term effects would far outweigh the costs. Additionally, once committed, commanders should not have to make decisions based on what's available, but on what is the best way to succeed. It is therefore imperative, per McCain, that we provide them with whatever resources they feel will bring success, without fear of the bill. I found this to be an interesting, and somewhat persuasive approach.

mr. reed, however, offered no explanation for his desire to cut'n'run except that our military men and women deserve to come home. Come home to what, mr. reed? To people like you giving them a sympathetic arm around the shoulders, saying, 'oh, it's ok that you lost. It isn't your fault, it's your commander in chief's fault.' Or to your co-leftists who will only give them the cold shoulder, as they can't stand that these men and women dutifully followed the orders of their leaders, and had the gaul to follow thru with their military sworn oaths and commitments? Yeah, that's a sure fire way to maintain morale in the military. It's also a wonderful strategy for guaranteeing our security here at home. Oh, and what a wonderful way to win the trust of the rest of world. ("Oh, there now, see, we told you those stupid Americans couldn't handle it.")

Once again, mr. reed, you have clearly showed your love of power and politics above honor, duty, commitment, loyalty, respect, and reality. This is further evidence that you have simply duped the electorate into voting on emotion rather than logic and common sense.

Odds N Ends

Wow! Christmas is past, the New Year has come and gone, the Hogs beat themselves in the Citrus (okay, okay "Capital One") Bowl, and I have been taking it easy. Obviously, with no blogs to show for my month long vacation, I haven't been paying much attention to the world. Just enjoying my family and exploring some of the things I hadn't much time for during the past six months. I tell you, it is nice to do that every and then. I kind of feel retired.

But, life's fixing to start up again.

I haven't gotten any responses to my last post, so I assume I must be on the right track.

Democrats have taken over again. Big woop. Take a look at this link. I think it about sums up what we can expect. Someone at work (not a liberal, he says, because that is a label and not very accurate) was talking about when the Republicans controlled Congress. I just had to laugh. I really don't remember that they ever really "controlled." Sure, they might have had the majority in both houses, but they never really knew how to control. Maybe they tried, I'll give them that, but come on... think "filibuster". Now the Dems are swearing that they will extend the invitation to "work together." I wonder if they each sat in front of the mirror in the bathroom and practiced saying those two words over and over again until they could maintain a straight face.

My interests right now are actually more towards smoking. I like it. I am hoping to get to do it more often. Ohhh, the flavor, the relaxing on the porch. Yep. I wanna be a smoker. So, after a couple of failed attempts, I have decided to get help. Now, I think I can do it. My wife is pretty supportive of it, too. She likes the flavor. Of course, I need to get some better stuff. I've been upgrading some, working on a homemade lighter, figuring out how to best maintain the perfect smoke. I have found a support group, and expect to soon be smoking with the best of them.

Thanks for tuning in. I'll keep in touch.