Forum

Just in case you missed it.
I typed in most of the comments from the forum on tuesday night. Here are the links.

http://www.arkcity.net/stories/103008/com_0005.shtml

http://www.arkcity.net/stories/102908/com_0001.shtml

I didn't go to the one yesterday. From what I heard it was much of the same.
Trimmer did get rather defensive about some of the accusations floating his way. Cant blame him, but I guess his opponent is just desperate. Im not sure Trimmer could lose this one if he tried.
There have been a lot of negative mailers going out. Many of them are sent by private organizations that don't have to disclose who is paying for them. Not sure it matters that much, but it does allow for people to be really negative.
Its just dirty politics.
If I was undecided, that dirty politics would affect my vote .... against the one throwing mud.

Abortion debate

This issue gets people stirred up, and that's why politicians use it at times. Both sides also use it during political campaigns to help or hurt candidates.
There are some fundamental issues though.
Pro choice has a nice sound to it. Of course as an adult you want the right to choose what is best for you. Only problem is, at some point, it is another life.
Pro-life also has a nice sound to it. But how much is propaganda?

If you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with two counts of murder, but if you help her dispose of her unborn baby, you can charge her a couple hundred bucks and say it is a choice.
That is the real issue I think. When does life begin?
Neither side seems willing to deal with that issue, because it would essentially solve the issue.

The scriptures really don't say when life begins. Some point to the verse that says God knew you when you were in your mothers womb. That is poetry. Poetry is meant to convey images, not give detailed instruction. Also, God knows all things, so he knew you at creation, even before that.
Another place talks about the penalty for someone causing a woman to lose her unborn baby. The penalty is not death, which is the normal penalty for killing. Also, at creation, God formed man and then "breathed" life into him and he became a living being. It doesn't say, and that is why it is controversial even in christian circles.
We can go with biblical principles, and that gets into interpretation, but it should be part of the equation. But there is no clear-cut statement you can point to one way or the other.

Here is my solution.
Get the two sides together, and some doctors and scientists and theologians who are hopefully unbiased, or have them from both sides. Stick them in a room with only bread and water and keep them there until they hammer out a deal. That's too easy but it would work. Money is the reason neither side is interested in actually solving the problem.
Solving the problem would entail defining when life begins, defining exceptions, and regulating the industry.

Just from a common sense perspective, there should be some exceptions. Rape being the major one, but, if that crime is reported and you go to the emergency room immediately, that can "fix" the problem before it starts.
Still, it should be an exception. It could be abused, but so can anything else.
But there should be a limit on it. A person 8 months pregnant shouldn't be able to say, "oh yea, i got raped ... "

What if it were totally legal the first trimester. legal only under certain conditions in the second, and not legal in the third? Wouldn't that be a reasonable compromise? If you have a legitimate reason, you will know about that before the third trimester. You have to admit that third trimester abortions are just murder. Babies can live at that point.
Also if the mother's life is at stake should also be considered. That is very rare though.

I just think it could be solved. There are some complicated issues. Why is it that neither side is interested in any sort of compromise?
Saying life begins at conception creates problems, practical and philosophical. The other extreme, of no restrictions at all, creates the same thing.

An aside, I no longer buy it that the republican party is pro-life. They said they were, but they had the power and didn't do anything, so their claiming to be pro-life is just a lie. They need to at least explain why they made no effort when they controlled the government - the presidency, the house and the senate. Im not going to let people forget that.

So .... what do we do now? Maybe we refuse to buy into either extreme and advocate a solution that we can all live with?

forum winners and losers

The Forum for the candidates at Cowley College lasted about 3 hours lats night.
It was a good "debate."
It was sponsored and held by KSOK and newscow. Nearly all the candidates were there.
Ill have a report in the paper today about what they said. They didn't say anything different than what they normally say.

It was interesting that Greta Goodwin thinks the state economy will be good when the reports come in, and that there may not be a great deficit. All the other state candidates, rep and dem, all say they think there will be a shortfall and there will be some slashing of budgets or more taxes.

Anyways, I thought I would just comment briefly on the presentations themselves.
Here are my winners of the debate: This is based solely on performance, not on the issues themselves.

Sheriff Don Reed and Prosecutor Chris Smith are unopposed. Both gave good, short, presentations.

County Commission
District 2, Carmelita Clarkson vs. Alan Groom. I would give the edge to Groom. He is just a bit smoother in his delivery. He also was willing to say "i don't know." He seemed more relaxed than the incumbent.

District 3, Gary Wilson vs. Bob Vogele. Both handled themselves very well. Wilson is a bit more knowledgeable on the issues and seems to have confidence in himself and his views. Both did well. Slight edge to Wilson because of experience. There also appeared to be a mutual respect between them that was not apparent in most other candidates.

Statehouse, State Rep. District 78.
Ed Trimmer vs. John Whittington.
Trimmer in a blowout. Trimmer was a debate coach for many years and it shows. He is smooth, articulate, knows the issues. Thinks on his feet well, has definite opinions but is not abrasive. Whittington was nervous, did not articulate himself well, and did not seem as well-prepared. When questions were read Trimmer was ready with an answer. Whittington had to think, and had trouble giving answers.

State Rep District 79
Kasha Kelley vs. Gene Burr. Its a shame someone has to lose this one. Both were articulate, personable, connected with the audience. Kelley is just a little smoother and just a little more experienced at public speaking.
Id give her the edge because of that.
Burr is a good candidate though. If he loses hopefully he will run for something else. He would be good in public office.

State Senate District 32. Greta Goodwin vs. Steve Abrams.
Goodwin has served many years and does very well at public speaking. Abrams has years on the state board of ed and is also a very good speaker.
Abrams defended himself well against the mail-smear campaign that claims he is anti-science, anti-education and for book banning. As he said, if you tell a big enough lie long enough, people will believe it.
Goodwin seemed more political of the two. She is a scrapper.
Slight edge to Abrams as he was able to turn even pointed questions to the direction he wanted to go in.

State board of ed.
Paul Casanova vs. David Dennis.
They are vying for the spot Steve Abrams is leaving to run for the senate.
Edge to Casanova. He was more personable, connected better with the audience. He was just talking to the audience, while Dennis was giving answers. Dennis' military background showed, but it came off as just a bit too "official."

U.S. Congress
Don Betts also showed up near the end and gave a presentation. He made must of the fact that incumbent Todd Tiahrt was not there and has refused to debate.
Betts makes a very good presentation. Speaks very well and has passion.
Tiahrt wasn't there, so Betts probably made some points with people who are undecided.

That's my take on the long evening.

Pro-life con game

I really wasn't expecting a debate on abortion. I should have seen in coming though.
It is an important issue, but my problem is, the Republicans claim to be pro-life, but they don't do anything.
Which is worse? A candidate who says he is pro-choice? Or one that says he is pro-life but does nothing once in office?
Bush had the golden opportunity. He had the presidency, control of the house and senate, and control of the supreme court. Soooooo can anyone explain to me why abortion is still legal? Or at least why there was not even any kind of effort?
Far as I know it wasn't even brought up before the house or the senate, and certainly not before the supreme court. At the very least he could have brought it up for debate. Eight years, ... nothing.

It's like sending someone to Wichita to buy something that cost's $100. They come back without your item (they lost your money at the casino) and want another $100 to go get it the next time they go. Sorry, Not buying it.
The "vote pro-life" mantra has a hollow ring to it.
Are we going to be taken again?

Don't take that to mean I support the Dems. Neither party is "christian" as far as i can tell. Both use religion when it is convenient to get elected. Im really tired of the republicans though.
Some people argue that the republicans are "more" biblically oriented. Maybe, but ... isn't that like saying rape isn't as bad as murder so lets support the rapist instead of the killer? Where's the sense in that?

Remember the Who song?
"won't get fooled again."

Not toting the party note

A week from tomorrow is the election.
Have you decided who you will vote for?
Does all the political advertising influence you?
Do you vote along party lines?

I guess you know by now, i am not loyal to either party. Generally i distrust both parties and would like to see other parties emerge. I know, we've always had a two-party system, but its time to change it.
Just because something has always been done doesnt mean its best.
For centuries people went outside to go to the bathroom. That doesn't mean I need to go without indoor plumbing.

I dont even understand being loyal to a political party.
We need to think for ourselves about every issue and not just tote the party note.
It comes down to conservative or liberal. And lets be honest. "Moderate" republicans are just democrats disguising themselves. Its just a "kansas" thing.

We are very polarized along conservative and liberal lines in our country.
A lot of people on both sides will label you the other side if you dont toe the line of their side.
I get called both because I don't go along with either side.
But the thing is, neither side is "right."
Both have strengths and weaknesses. Both are right in some areas and wrong in others.

Isn't it better to think about issues themselves than to just drink red or blue koolaid? :)
The answer is not for one side or the other to win, the answer is for some other parties to emerge. That can only happen if viable candidates emerge and people are brave enough to say "NO" to both the dems and the pubs.

If you had 4-5-6 parties, it would force all the parties to work together.
Liberals and Conservatives would have to work together and neither would be able to gain ultimate power. They would have to come to compromises on issues. They would have to hammer out agreements.
We might even see progress.

Most important election"

Ive heard people on both sides say this election is the most important election ever, or that a lot of things are riding on this election, so it is crucial that (their candidate) wins. I guess its to stave off global warming, save the economy, and make football the national religion , er sport.

Im glad to see im not the only one who has not purchased the koolaid. I found this link that gives a top-10 list of things that are more important than the outcome of ths election. For president at least.

Here is the link

http://3oclockam.blogspot.com/2008/10/10-things-that-are-more-important-than.html

I thought maybe the readers of this blog could also come up with some ideas.
What are some things that are more important than the outcome of the presidential election?
We can make our own top-10 list

Evolution, creation and floods.

Someone asked what I thought about what effect the great flood would have had on evolution.
Thought id type a bit about that.
This post isnt about religion. Its about thinking. History, theology, philosophy and that kind of thing.

One thing about the ancient bible stories. Creation, floods, the exodus, and all ... they all have spiritual meanings, or spiritual lessons. I really think those are more important. To me, to argue over whether they are literally true, misses the point.

I do think "something" happened to result in these stories. They are all "true" to some degree. However, the bible is not a history book, nor is it a biology book.
In this way of thinking you do have to draw the line somewhere though.
Because as Paul writes, if Jesus Christ is not risen, then our religion is in vain and you are still in your sins.

So I believe the stories are true. They are events that happened. But whether specific details are accurate doesn't matter to me.
The stories were written by people with a limited amount of information.
The creation was told as 6-day events, and the 7th day as a day of rest.
Was that a literal thing? or was that just a way of telling the story and communicating the spiritual nature of God and man? What if it had told the story without the days ... just this happened, then that happened ... would it matter?

I say it doesn't matter.
Most people would not agree with that, and that's ok.
But they were not telling the story as if it were an eye witness account of creation. The point of the writing was not to make a historical record.

There is no real conflict between evolution and creation, except when evolution tries to explain the origin. There is no conflict in the development.
The order of the creation story is the same as the order of the evolution story.
The only real difference that matters is ...
In the beginning God created .. versus some random spark set in motion a meaningless series of events that have resulted in the world we see today. The rest is commentary, as they say.
The spiritual implications of that are incredible. I could write many pages on that issue alone.

On the flood.
Again, huge spiritual truth there. Don't miss the message :)
But, nearly every ancient culture has a flood story.
To me that backs up the bible story. Its not possible to say who had the story first.
Many possibilities and theories.
One being that all of the land was in one place, no continents yet - both science and the bible agree on that. continental drift theory ?
And if only a few survived the flood, they eventually spread out as the continents drifted. So all would have that story.
(This could have been 5,000 years ago, or 500,000 years ago ... i say it doesnt matter.)

Its not that far fetched to think all the animals could be on the boat. All the canines with many variations - could have all been in one canine. All the felines - in one feline...
From there the canines and felines developed into the many species of them that we have today. Same with any other group. So thousands of species could have "been in" only a couple hundred animals.
The boat described in the bible would have been huge.
The flood could have caused some animals to become extinct . dinasaurs .. but isn't tha alligator a type of dinosaur ? Maybe they are not extinct, but have just developed differently?

Evolution does happen, things do change. We even "create" new species of dogs and cats and such.
The only problem is when you try to extrapolate that into explaining the origin of life. That isnt even good science really.

So the great flood might have knocked out some species, but in general, it would not have had that great of an impact. This was very early in the development of the world..

An interesting aside. Mt St. Helens is a volcano that erupted in washington state in the early 80's . It caused incredible devastation and changed to the environment. Ash from it was seen and felt all around the world, literally.
Imagine if there were 100 of these, or 1000 of these going on at the same time, would cause many great changes. That could cause a world wide flood. and continental drift.
But another intersting thing is ...
that just 20 years later, or 30 i guess now, there have been changes in the lava and rock in the area. There has been immediate fossilization, petrification and so forth.
The thing is, these are the same things that scientist say are millions of years old in other places. The same type changes to material happens. It really screws up carbon dating.

So these are just some random thoughts on the question.
Ive taken a lot of words to say that the flood would not have changed evolution very much, and vice versa.

There is also the theory out there that the ancient greek mythology is not mythology at all. But it is instead an account of the world that existed before the flood.
Its an interesting theory and not many people believe it, but ... i found the web site and i think the guy makes an interesting case.
The Genesis account does mention that spiritual beings took the form of flesh and took women of the earth, and mated with them, and the result was great spirit-flesh beings. It is just mentioned once and not explained at all.
But .. this guy takes that into greek mythology.

Ok, off to arkalalah