I have been waiting since the time I started blogging to write this entry. Tonight is the time change thereby moving many of the clocks in the United States forward one hour. This means that the sun will rise and set one hour later than before the time change.

This time change does not happen all over the world at the same time, nor does it happen everywhere in the world. If you live near the equator, day and night are nearly the same length (12 hours). But elsewhere on Earth, there is much more daylight in the summer than in the winter. The closer you live to the North or South Pole, the longer the period of daylight in the Summer. Thus, Daylight Saving Time (Summer Time) is usually not helpful in the tropics, and countries near the equator generally do not change their clocks. In the U.S., Arizona, part of Indiana and Hawaii do not change they clocks.

Why do we do this? It all started with the idea from Benjamin Franklin. His purpose was to have people work during daylight hours and cut down on the amount of candles used. Every morning as soon as the sun shall rise, church bells and, if necessary, cannon shall inform the citizenry of the advent of light and "awaken the sluggards effectually and make them open their eyes to see their true interests ... All the difficulty will be in the first two or three days; after which the reformation will be as natural and easy as the present irregularity. ... Oblige a man to rise at four in the morning, and it is probable he will go willingly to bed at eight in the evening."

But in order to have daily savings time work correctly, everyone also needed to begin using a standard time. Introducing time zones (the other evil of transportation). It is the time zone that adds to the frustration of time changes. For instance, during one part of the year, Arizona falls into the Pacific time zone and during the other, the Mountain time zone. With the introduction of air travel, this can often confuse flyers.

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). Why make it harder than it is. We are capable of synchronizing all of the clocks of the world within a hundredth of a millisecond. Everyone has a clear understanding as to how daylight works. We have a Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) previously Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).

So here is what I propose... Eliminate time zones and eliminate daylight savings time. The costs involved in moving clocks back and forth, lost human productivity due to clock changes, perfectly good smoke alarm batteries wasted just so people can continue to think inside the box bewilders me. Come out of the box. Why can't we all use the Universal Time?

I don't care if I am leaving for work at 11:00 AM to be there at 12:00 Noon as long as the sun is rising at 11:00 AM (which it is). My office opens at Noon. My company does business across multiple time zones and all of our systems run off of Universal Time. It doesn't make sense to run a business on any other clock when you are working across multiple time zones. The military has been using this time for YEARS for it's operations!

Write your Congressman and inform them that it is TIME to change TIME. Also, I have started a petition to eliminate the time change and time zones all together.

Did you know...

The time spent deleting SPAM costs United States businesses $21.6 billion annually.

I noticed something today as I was looking at a ten dollar bill. It is ugly. I mean, really ugly. The government has taken the greenback and brought color to it. But not usefully, like making the face look like a real face and and eagle to have the splendid color of an eagle, no, they added what looks like a dirt color to the entire bill and splashed some blood red in places. When I first looked at it, I tried to clean it. It doesn't come off.

For my off-shore readers, this is the new bill link:

$10 front
$10 back

The other bills are really no better. The twenty looks like it was sitting out in the sun too long and has one of the tan lines:

$20 front
$20 back

You know when you were a kid and you would draw a picture and you hand would smudge the section where the ink wasn't quite dry...the fifty:

$50 front
$50 back

Is the government in such a bad way that in order to make the money harder to counterfeit, we had to make it ugly? I compared the old ten and the new ten and I have to say, the old bill didn't look bad. It appeared crisp and clean, especially the 2001 version of the $10 bill.

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). If you are going to change something, make it better. On April 23, 1985, Coca-Cola company decided that the old Coca-Cola that had made them millions of dollars and quenched the thirst of millions of drinkers, need to be "improved."

New Coke was released to the public. The New Coke had this sickening sweet flavor and the carbonation was lower to prevent that embarassing BURB after downing a can. It taste like...well, Pepsi. I always choose Coke on those taste tests. The New Coke sales tanked. In a scurry to repair the lost sales, they released Coca-Cola Classic.

Why is it when we find something that works, instead of adding to the selection, we would rather throw out the old and bring on the new?

We as Americans do this all of the time. We tear down our history. We tear down the courthouse that Abraham Lincoln actually performed law in because it required maintenance and the new courthouse is around the corner.

This is happening with the Magill House. The Magill House is an old hotel in my home town of Clinton, Illinois. In its day, this hotel was the premier location to stay in central Illinois. Now, it is repaired just to keep it from falling down. There is talk of tearing down this historical gem to avoid the costs. What really needs to happen is a hotel chain such as Intercontinental needs to come into town and recondition it into a spa/hotel. I can bet that if Intercontinental were to offer to do this, they would end up with a FREE building. The city currently owns the structure.

Did you know...

Every day more money is printed for Monopoly than for the US Treasury.

I hate my job.

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). Why is it I can look at everything else going on around me and find the magic fix, the resolution, the point. But when it comes to dealing with my own crap, I am hard pressed to see the solution. I guess it is like trying to see the forest from the trees.

I actually have contingency plans in place if I happen to lose / quit my job. I say quit because it costs less than going postal. The contingency plans aren't great and would require a large amount of belt tightening, but there are options. I am just more willing to deal with the bull than to take that step (although today was really pushing my limits).

Did you know...

An employee of the Alabama Department of Transportation installed spyware on his boss's computer and proved that the boss spent 10% of his time working (20% of time checking stocks and 70% of the time playing solitaire). The employee was fired, the boss kept his job.

My wife has purchased a scale. I have never had a scale in my house, let alone my master bathroom. I hate it already. It is a weight watcher scale that measures in tenths of a pound confirming to me information I already knew.

My major problem with the scale is now I want to weigh myself every time I enter or exit the bathroom. For example:

Yesterday I woke up and headed toward the toilet for my usual morning pee. Oh, wait...let's see how much weight I lose by going pee! So I perform the ritual necessary to make the scale work and I weigh myself. After doing my business in the toilet, I again step on the scale to discover I lost .6 pounds just by going pee. That is so cool!

Later that morning, I was about to take my shower when I though "OK, what is my true weight?" I again perform the procedure to discover that all of my clothes add up to about 4.3 pounds. So, now as I stand there naked looking at the scale digits I determine how much weight I really need to lose.

I weighed myself two other times before dinner just for tracking purposes. I like to see my progress.

That evening, after dinner, I went upstairs to the master bathroom to perform my business. I again questioned how much weight is lost this time. I performed the scalactic ritual and stepped aboard. After relieving what I thought was about two large cheeseburgers in weight, I again climbed aboard. I gained 1.4 pounds in a single day! This scale is terrible! Who in the world would bring this awful thing into the house?!

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). When you are considering buying a scale to bring into a house that has NEVER had one, you may want to check with your spouse before doing so. You may find that he/she is a real number cruncher and can't stand to see the numbers roll in the wrong direction.

Why do they sell scales in the first place? Are we all so self-conscious that we need to step on it every time we "feel" like we are beginning to bloat? Pick up your scale, place it carefully in a box or insulated bag and carry it outside. Then, go get the sledgehammer (or mull) out of the garage, and begin pounding it profusely until it show the numbers you want it to show continuously or dies, whichever comes first.

Did you know...

Most of the deck chairs on the Queen Mary 2 have had to be replaced because overweight Americans were breaking them.

Martain Anthropologist wrote an excellent blog entry today about the San Antonio police arresting people in bars. This is the article being referenced:

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said on Wednesday.

The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission's Carolyn Beck.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkeness, Beck said.

The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

"We feel that the only way we're going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this," she said.

"There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they're intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car," Beck said. "People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss."

She said the sting operations would continue throughout the state.

OK, in a bar? What else would you be doing in a bar, cross-stitch? People do stupid things without being drunk as well. Should we all just set up the fortune tellers and decide WHO is going to be arrested?

Come on people, at what point will the police departments start running into to your house because you are nude in your own bedroom? Some of these laws are taken way out of context.

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). Many laws should just be dropped all together. Look up your laws and tell someone to take them off the books. For instance, here are three laws in the state of Illinois:

• You may be arrested for vagrancy if you do not have at least one dollar bill on your person.
• You must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile.
• The English language is not to be spoken.

Are you from Arkansas?

• The Arkansas River can rise no higher than to the Main Street bridge in Little Rock.
• A law provides that school teachers who bob their hair will not get a raise.
• A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month.

Write your state governor, senators, congress and have them pulled!

Did you know...

In Elko, Nevada, city law states that everyone walking the streets is required to wear a mask.

Today is my oldest daughter's 18th birthday (no comments about how old that makes me...I was 11 when she was born). She has moved on with her life and moved out so I really don't know exactly where she is. I miss her. She has not been communicating with us very much.

Jami is a child who has and does live by trial and error. If someone explains to her there is another easier way to do something or avoid hardship and heartbreak, she should do this...she would rather do it her way and face the music.

Please do not misunderstand me, she is extremely smart. When we lived in Virginia, she tested the top of the state for mathematics and in the upper 5% for science. She plays tennis and bowls very well and if she followed up, she could be playing in tournaments. She is extremely funny and normally carries a good sense of humor about everything.

But she is a rebel and a klutz. She has made some decisions that are harder to rebound from than she realizes. She also for some reason can fall down and fracture her wrist while riding her bike...at 16.

When Jami was around 10 years old, there was one incident that makes Warrior history. The Queen had made this wonderful homemade chicken kiev dinner. The dinner was on our new plates on our new table, with a tablepiece and a tablecloth and everything. We all sat down to the table and with the first cut of the chicken, Jami managed to turn her entire plate upside down in her lap. She was covered in chicken and rice and standing there looking terrified. The entire family broke out in laughter. It was then that Jami figured out that it really WAS funny and also laughed. This incident would live through family history as the "looking at the underside of the plate."

This brings me to my points (as I have two today). One, you have to let children live their own life paths even if you feel it may be down a rough and rocky road. It is those people who define the rough and rocky road. I have been down that road many times and I have learned some invaluable lessons I NEVER wish to learn again. With my lessons I try to teach people how to aviod them.

I would have rather not had Jami have to live those lessons as well but she IS her own person. So, if she decides that taking a ride with the aliens might be a good idea because then you can see Earth from space without all of that astronaut training stuff, more power to her. I just have to say "you know they expect something back from that ride."

Two, go wish my daughter a very happy birthday. Eighteen is magical most of the time. The first step into adulthood.

I miss you and love you Jami! Happy Birthday!

Did you know...

When Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen turned 18 in mid-2004, they took official control of a company worth more than the gross national product of Mongolia. Their earnings in 2003 topped $1 billion.

Today I am home sick. The bug I have been frantically fending off at work has finally beat me into submission. It is not fun. It involves lots of bathroom runs and praying to the porceline gods. I have asked the gods repeatedly to make it stop, but for some reason my toilet must not be transmitting well.

I am sore all over. My muscles hurt when I move so I am saying "ow, ow, ow" all of the way to the cool water cleansing circular waste recepticle. My head hurts because of the dehydration I would imagine, and I wish that the exorcist in my stomach would just get out.

Me being sick really makes me miss my Mother, may she rest in peace. I was born in Long Beach, California, moved to Anchorage, Alaska, and ended up in my home town; a little town named Clinton, Illinois. My family moved there when I was four. When my Mom and Dad first moved to Clinton, their purpose was to build a bakery. Little did they know how it would change their lives.

BRB...

My Dad committed suicide when I was six. The reason is another blog entirely. My family found a conderable amount of support for our loss and the entire community seemed to circle around us. My mother was in some of the larger social circles to include ABWA, DeWitt County Geneological Society, and DeWitt County Historical Society to name a few. She took jobs to supplement the Social Security Checks at Eisner's (grocery store), The DeWitt County Observer, and the Clinton Daily Journal.

I guess newspaper was in the blood (even though I am adopted) because my sister is also big into journalism (fact is, she is a journalist) and I too was part of the newpaper scene in high school. Those were the days.

I miss Clinton. I miss the town square. I miss the old stores that have since closed. Mostly, I miss the community. The town keeps the memories close to the heart.

For instance, in high school, I was in a play called Oliver. I played the Artful Dodger. When I returned about 12 years later, I went to the bowling alley. This was really the first time I had returned to Clinton after moving away. While bowling what I consider the worst game I ever bowled, a woman came up to me after looking at me for a few minutes and said "Did you play in Oliver?"

Surprised that ANYONE would remember that play, I stated I was the Artful Dodger. She informed me that Oliver was the best play she had ever seen and she still remembers it like it was yesterday. "Wow, thank you." We talked a little longer and then I went back to my game.

Another instance was with my wife, the Queen. The Queen went to one of the cute antique shops in Clinton looking for anything to bring home. This was her first trip to Clinton and she found all of the antique shops a treasure. She walked in and was looking around and the shopkeeper started making small talk with my wife. Well, while my wife had accumulated about $100 worth of items the shopkeeper asked why she was visiting Clinton, my wife responded with "we are visiting my mother-in-law."

"Who is your mother-in-law?"

"BarbWarrior"

"Really?! You are little Johnny's wife?!" I'll tell ya what honey, you can take whatever you like, give me $20 and we will call it a day."

The Queen was truly shocked. She tried to pay more, but the shopkeeper insisted that it only be $20. Even my wife reaped the benefits of my growing up in a small town.

A good portion of the people who have left there, have moved back. Another portion never left Clinton. Some of my old friends have opened bars, are working for the newspaper, or took over the family business.

I miss Clinton. I moved away from Clinton to get out into the world and see and experience life. I couldn't wait to leave town. I have lived everywhere from Caribou, Maine to Ocean City, Maryland; Washington, DC to a suburb of Chicago, IL. I have experienced so much and now I am ready to experience the interaction of a small town. I am ready to slow down. I feel that my experiences can help a small town like Clinton. My problem is, now that I have done so well with my life, my cost of living exceeds the incomes from the small town jobs.

This finally brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). Never give up on your dreams. I have lived most of my dreams and I am still moving in the right direction. Granted my goals have changed slightly as I have aged, but I still try to make every dream come true. I now dream of moving home. I understand that it may take another 22 years to get back to where I started, but I truly think it will happen.

Where is your home town?

Did you know...

John Kerry's hometown newspaper, the Lowell Sun, endorsed George W. Bush for president. Bush's hometown newspaper, the Lone Star Iconoclast, endorsed John Kerry for president.

For the past few weeks, I have been doing my best to dodge the never ending bullets of "the cold" or flu. I had done fairly well up until today. I fear I have taken a hit and am starting to wallow in pain and misery.

People at work, on the train and my family at home have ALL had this bug and I had managed to survive the onslaught fairly well.

I am always the last to get sick. When we first moved here, we had temporary residence in my bosses house. One of the children caught the sickness. This was a very BAD sickness and the kids were throwing up like some sort of "Exorcist" kid. My boss and I managed to make it through the entire time without being touched by the illness.

Until that day...that day when our defenses finally fell and we both took a hit. He was the first one down. At this point I knew the inevitably was rapidly approaching like a F5 tornado. I knew that even IF I managed to fend it off a couple more days, it would only be long enough for me to have the building survive the tornado, and then...the building would fall on me.

The next day, I was slammed. Now my wife HATES it when I get sick. I am whiney...er and miserable to be around. Now that my MIL is in town, it should be especially fun. The sore throat feels like I am eating course sandpaper (and the sand is falling off). My muscles are all sore and stiff making it hard for me to even walk, and for some reason, everywhere I go is COLD.

So I am going home. I am going to try to come to work tomorrow after all, they started it!

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). If you are sick, STAY HOME! Workforce productivity is dramatically decreased by people spreading illnesses around the workplace. Additionally, keep your kids at home. The schools are breeding grounds for colds and flus. If I die from this thing, turn me into ash.

Did you know...

There is a company that will (for $14,000) take your ashes, compress them into a synthetic diamond to be set in jewelry for a loved one.

I am driving the Ford Ranger pickup the Queen's Mom gave to us from Virginia this weekend so this post is short and sweet. It drives well and has a few noises I will have to investigate when I finally get home.

I flew in today from Midway to Washington National on ATA. I have always been a devoted United flyer and have accumulated many miles and free flights in the process. My last flight on ATA was dismal at best. However, I must admit that this flight very well could be the best flight I have EVER had.

When I booked the flight the reservation system placed me behind the wing in the middle seat. To understand a little better, the are 3 seats on each side of the isle. Those 3 seats are: window, isle, and middle. Everyone HATES the middle. On top of this, I knew ATA was in bankruptcy and trying to emerge thus making my anticipation even less. So, when I was forced to take an ATA flight because the closest I could come to the price was $169.00 compared to ATA at $67.00, I relunctantly booked it.

I arrived to find the self check kiosk (United has these as well) which was a relief. Last time, they did not have that. I managed through security rather easily considering I am booked one-way and meandered to my gate.

When I arrived, there she stood. A ticket lady. Now, I am a seasoned traveller and I have learned a few things. Go ASK for a better seat at the ticket lady at the gate. I did...and ended up in the exit row window seat. SCORE! THE best seat on the plane and I just won!

Boarding begins and when I walk onto the plane, I see leather...everywhere. The entire plane is leather seating. ROCK ON!

My entire view on ATA has officially changed. Well done ATA. You have made a new customer.

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). Companies really can pull themselves out. I hope ATA succeeds fiscally as well.

Tonight I am at the Holiday Inn Express in Newton Falls, Ohio (no, I don't know where that is). I have to say, it is also exemplary and free internet. Bonus! I love it when companies actually listen to their customers.

Did you know...

In 2004, Virgin Atlantic Airlines introduced a double bed for first class passengers who fly together.

At some point in time, I realized that I was seperated from other generations. It dawned on me that I was now part of an older generation looking at the younger generation and trying to understand what is wrong with them. I KNOW we didn't act that way. OK, we did act that way.

I remember thinking that when my favorite songs are all place on a album called something like "awesome 80s," I was officially old. I remember thinking that when you start wanting to watch the news, you are old. I remember. Little.

I guess this is a good thing because if I remembered everything that defined me as old, I would probably want to drive around wearing my parachute pants and OP t-shirt with a Mr. Microphone in my Pontiac Fiero yelling "Hey good lookin! We'll be back to pick you up later!"

What is it about nostalgia that makes people miss things or events? I have to admit there are some things I don't miss (mostly because I didn't like them back then) like night time soap operas such as Dallas, Falcon Crest, Dynasty and the like. The only "soap" I liked was SOAP. For all of you youngins reading this, that was a satirical soap opera with Richard Mulligan and Billy Crystal to name just two. I loved that show. I found out today that all four seasons are on DVD. Guess I am adding THAT to my wish list.

It probably doesn't help that I grew up in front of the TV attached to my Atari and Commodore 64.

My parents frowned on me watching Star Trek. It was too "stupid." I thought I learned a lot from that show about transporter psychosis and how to get turned on by green chicks. Among my favorites was MacGuyver (the true duct tape king), the A-Team and Dr. Who followed closely by Monte Python and Benny Hill. I made SURE that my Mom was not home those nights. I remember coming home from school and plopping my but down with my case of Oreos and Gallon of milk to watch Gilligan's Island...OK...stop here a sec.

Why is it two things happened while I watched this show? First, MaryAnn was hot. Err...I mean first, how was it they were able to created one way radios, pedal cars and pedal generators, but they could fix the BOAT!? Second, how come I never thought of that during all of those years of WATCHING?!

Back to my point (as I almost always have one). When your kids start to mention how old you are and that you still "act" young. Inform them that 3-2-1 Contact was once a TV show that taught adults how to BEAT their children for telling them they were old. Inform them that you can always call Mr. T and he will fly....I mean drive over here and pity the fool who calls me old! Because as the great MC Hammer stated "Can't touch this!"

Did you know...

A private elementary school in Alexandria, Virginia, accidentally served margaritas to its schoolchildren, thinking it was limeade.

Well, we the public (because we voted these people into office) have agreed to raise the national debt to (Dr.Evil grin with the finger on the edge of the mouth) nine trillion dollars with no intention of paying it back.

How much is this really? I love numbers so here we go.

Nine trillion dollar looks like this: $9,000,000,000,000.00

Just to give you a landmark, Wal-Mart in 2004 had a revenue of $287,989,000,000.00 or close to 288 billion.

Now let's assume you live to be 100 years old. You can pay for a lot of healthcare with 9 trillion bucks. 100 years equals 36,525 days, or 876,600 hours, or 52,596,000 minutes or 3,155,760,000 seconds in your entire 100 years of living.

So if you wanted to SPEND the 9 trillion dollars in your lifetime, you would have to spend $2,851.92 plus per second since your birth to your 100th birthday (this doesn't count the extra second we get every 18 months or so).

Now if you wanted to MAKE the money on a regular work week assuming you are going to start working on your 16th birthday, work 40 hour weeks and have vacations, sicknesses and retire at 70 (after all we can't be bored), you would make an hourly wage of $83,333,333.33.

How about splitting the money up...I can share. If every man, woman, and child in the U.S. was given an equal share: 298,320,780 people would receive $30,168.86. I will take mine in cash please.

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). My household has agreed to increase our debt to (again a Dr.Evil grin with the finger on the edge of the mouth) only ONE billion dollars with no intention of ever paying it back. Yes, yes, my new master plan is to use my "laser beam" to heat up the "magma" and create new greenbacks...err green and yellow backs that always look dirty.

Who is with me on this?

Did you know...

Michael Jordan makes more money from Nike each year than all the Nike factory workers in Malaysia combined.

I had to work late.

I tried to catch my 6:15 train only to see it driving away. Hmmph.

So, I walked to the LaSalle station to catch THAT train. Only to walk up about 5 minutes after the train left. Hmmph Hmmph.

So, I sit here in LaSalle station until the train leaves at 7:40 to arrive in Joliet at 9:05.

I normally like mass transit. However, tonight, I think mass transit could use some fine tuning. Chicago's mass transit system is enormous and yet, not big enough.

My wife has offered to come pick me up. I said to her "Really, by the time you get here the train will be leaving. I will see you in Joliet. This will not be nearly as much of an issue when we have the truck. God bless your Mom. She has no idea how greatful I am."

What do I mean? Well, my mother-in-law is gifting us her Ford Ranger pickup. How cool is that?! This means I don't have to leave the Queen at home without a vehicle. My MIL and I have not always seen eye to eye. Fact is, I really didn't give her as much credit as I should.

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). First impressions are not always the right impressions. Also, people CAN change. The Queen's Mom used to be very critical of my Queen and would not give her the respect I felt she deserved as an adult. After a rather heated disagreement which included name calling, silent treatments, nuclear arms races and moving to Illinois, she came to the realization that she actually DOES know how to be a responsible adult.

Then after moving to Illinois, the MIL would criticize how the Queen was raising (parenting) Avery. After spending a week in my wifes shoes, that opinion changed as well.

Growing up is so hard on the parents. It is hard on my Mother-in-Law, and it is hard on me. It is hard for me to see Jami living the hard life and learning the lessons I know are important for her to know. It is hard to see her trying to figure out her purpose without the want or need of my guidance and experience. I think of her and miss her.

Did you know...

Nearly one third of the teachers in New York City send their children to private school.

Tonight I had an adventure with the kids to White Castle for dinner. The Queen is ill so she stayed home. After leaving, I found out all of the kids were also sick. I am not sick...yet.

So I walked into the mini fast food restaurant and place my order to the tall geeky looking kid behind the counter. While placing my order I was greeted with the question "Dude, would you like fries with that?" OK, maybe I too am sick...did he address me as "dude?" I then scanned the back area for the adult amongst the group. Nope...the sign clearly states Ashley is the crew manager on duty. Ashley is the high schooler behind the counter with the leather choker around her neck. As we were leaving, I half expected her to say "Oh my gawd, was your food OK or what?"

Have we butchered customer service and quality so much that we need to butcher the English language as well?

My next call to the bank:

Bank teller 1(In a male teenage thug voice): "Yo, Wassup, this is tha bank"
Me: "Hi, My name is N8ivWarrior. I would like to transfer my funds from my savings account to my checking account."
Bank teller 1: "Um, OK. Can ya hold on just a sec? I need to have another teller help you."

Meanwhile, I am thinking, why did you answer the phone if you were too busy?

Bank Teller 2(in the cutesy teenage girl voice): "hellllloooo? Is someone helping you?"
Me: "Hi, My name is N8ivWarrior. I would like to transfer my funds from my savings account to my checking account."
Bank Teller 2: "Oh, I am so sorry. I meant to pick up the other line. (with hand over phone) Dude, which line was my girl on?"
Bank Teller 1: "Line uno"

I get hung up on.

What happens when these people start working in our government offices, corporations and fast food chains? Oh wait...they are already in the fast food chains. Is our youth so tied up with their own lives that they cannot think about the customers? When did we lose the "customer is always right" mentality?

When the youth walk into a fast food restaurant themselves, do they think the customer service is acceptable? or do they feel that the people behind the counter need to pay a little more attention and have some more respect?

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). Let's give them the same customer service they give us! The next time you see that same kid walk into the auto repair center give them a taste of their own medicine.

You: "Sup?"
Teenage Cashier at White Castle: "Dude, I need my car fixed."
You: "Sweet! Chill a sec. Be right back."
Teenage Cashier at White Castle: "That's cool."

You leave for about 20 minutes.

You: "Sup?"
Teenage Cashier at White Castle: "My car?"
You: "Oh yeah, right. Um, you need to talk to the guy over there. He actually works here."

Well, you could do that if you are vengeful or feel the need to teach someone a very necessary lesson.

Did you know...

Ivory bar soap floating was a mistake. They had been overmixing the soap formula causing excess air bubbles that made it float. Customers wrote and told how much they loved that it floated, and it has floated ever since.

I am an avid reader of Reuter's Oddly Enough. Every so often I come across an article that make me smile. Well, today is one of those days.

OSLO (Reuters) - A woman thought she was in heaven when beer instead of water flowed from the taps in her apartment in west Norway.

"I turned on the tap to clean some knives and forks and beer came out," Haldis Gundersen told Reuters from her home in Kristiansund, west Norway. "We thought we were in heaven."
Beer in Norway is among the most expensive in the world with a 0.4 liter (0.7 pint) costing about 50 crowns ($7.48) in a bar.

Gundersen said she tried the beer but that it tasted a bit odd and was not fizzy.

It turned out that a worker in a bar two floors below had mixed up the pipes on Saturday evening, wrongly connecting a new barrel to a water pipe leading to Gundersen's flat. The bar got water in its beer taps.

"If it happens again I'm going to order Baileys (coffee liqueur)," she said.

Why is it, I don't have beer running through MY faucets? My wife has asked me recently to give her suggestions for the other bathroom in the house...ahem...HINT HINT!

To be perfectly honest, I am not a big beer drinker. The only time I really drink beer is Foster's draft at a hockey game with a pretzel. I am not sure why I have to be at a hockey game, but I do.

I would rather drink a long island iced tea. Just think of how much that would increase the resale value in my house.

Realtor: This house features a jacuzzi tub in the master bathroom and dual vanity. One vanity has water, the other has cold long island iced tea and hot irish coffee.

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). How come houses aren't made with these features already included? I want the kitchen sink to have Hot and Cold water and another faucet for the chilled Dr. Loosen Erdener Pralat Auslese (again the long island iced tea is in the master bathroom).

Did you know...

Costco is the largest wine retailer in the United States. Annual wine sales are about $700 million.

I should change my name. I know I am nearly 40 and that this would be a very odd time to change my name, but why not? Anyone can change their name at any time in their life. If you named your child Moonbeam and she is really more of a Muffy, change it.

One would think with such a long history of John's in the world that it would be held in high regard. John the Apostle, John the Baptist, Saint John, 23 Pope Johns, and 12 rulers named John. So, why change it?

Through most of my childhood, I have learned that my name has other meanings than just identifying the most wonderful person in the world, me.

Take for instance:

Prostitution. The term John is used for the person requesting or paying the prostitute for sexual favors.

Abusing a cat. In Southwest Texas, if you shake a cat violently you will John a cat.

Male genetalia. Why? For some reason the most often form of describing male genetalia is the John.

Ending a relationship. Were there really enough males being dumped that they have to term every letter a Dear John letter?

The Toilet. I am constantly harassed about this one. Why oh why did the toilet have to have the John nickname? For anyone who reads this regularly (which there are few), you know I tend to research things.

It appears the toilet form of John is due to Sir John Harrington inventor of the toilet in 1596. A common misconception is that the toilet was invented by Thomas Crapper (also known as the crapper and not the Thomas). Thomas Crapper just made improvements to the toilet.

To add to this punishment, someone decided that the outhouse or portable outhouse should be called a porta-John. Unfortunately I have been in a few porta-pottys. I have even duct taped people into a porta-potty and gone to lunch (he called it a John). Doesn't anyone think that naming items after a name is disparaging?

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). Since it so hard to change society's name for item or actions, change your own name. This makes it much more complicated for the government to follow up behind you and creditors have a fit! If you change it weekly, imagine the mayhem! For all of you doubting Thomases, Uncle Toms, Peeping Toms, Dons, Don Juans, and Micks, have a cup of Joe made by any Joe Blow, Average Joe, or any other Tom, Dick and Harry, go to the name-change office fill out the form to have your name changed to Oscar. I am sure they will name an award after you.

If you need me I will be in the John taking a G.W. Oh, the picture is an outdoor urinal at Charing Cross in London. I know, you are thinking "Jesus Christ! Who is going to whip it out and pee in the middle of the mall?"

Did you know...

The California Department of Motor Vehicles has issued six driver's licenses to six different people named Jesus Christ.

Today is Avery's birthday. She has truned three and this is a very exciting day for her. She has opened most of her gifts this morning. Now she is playing with Mr. Potatohead, markers and her doctors kit.

With the older kids, I always thought they would like the more expensive items so much more than the everyday items. Well, as I continue to learn, I firmly beleive that the crayons and paper are as good if not better than almost any other gift.

Last Christmas Avery received this talking book. She has played with it maybe twice. It just doesn't keep her attention. However the door painted with chalkboard paint and a stick of chalk keeps her attention for hours.

I am moving to Blogger (blogspot). I am going to stop copying items to Xanga, because there are some features built into Blogger that I just like better. Some of the things I like are the Audioblog capability, the email blog capability, the blogshare tracking, and the audience is mostly adult. The customizations are better and the entire blog can be written in HTML. For the novice blog writer and computer user, this makes life harder. But I feel that I am ready to move on.

For all of you on Xanga reading this, thank you for reading. If you want to continue to track me, I will be posting at http://n8ivwarrior.blogspot.com. Please continue to track my wife, QueenSuchandSuch as she will continue to post here.

There are certain mornings that I will have the priviledge of having my wife drive me to the train stations in the spacepod. Besides her driving the oversized roller skate like a Formula 1 car, she tends to talk to me.



Normally, my day starts in the following way: I get out of bed and walk to the bathroom in the dark using my blackberry light to prevent stepping on the cat or alien spaceship. I attempt to drain the hot water heater before my daughter does, dry off, brush teeth, and then begin clothing myself. After I have fully clothed (checking to make sure I have the train ticket, bus ticket, wallet, company badge, blackberry, laptop, and keys) and give the wife a kiss on the cheek before I head downstairs. I check the news for weather (you have to check the weather here...of course the forecast will change an hour later) and head out the door.

As I drive my van to the station myself and plan out my day from the parking at the train station to how many appointments I have and oh, when I can manage to fit in enough time to go to the bathroom. I think and if I have it all scheduled out in my head, I will listen to the radio.

However, when my wife escort me to the station, my drive to the station is interrupted with (get this) talk. She wants to talk. She also wants my feedback. Now, is it me or does anyone else have a certain amount of preparation and procedure that you go through before the day starts? What happens when that preparation is disrupted? For me, it tends to throw off my entire day.

Back in the van, I seat myself with one hand firmly clasped to the "Oh Shit" bar. That is the handle above the doorway to help prevent you from flying over to the other side of the vehicle when someone take a pinhair turn at 150MPH. And we are off....

This is where she wants to talk about the kids school work or deep discussions about her Mom's group issues and how she should approach them. The problem is, I have already started focusing on my day. So at this point, there is a direct correlation with Charlie Brown's teacher and I hear "Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah." I am not trying to disrespect her in any way. The fact is, if I don't plan out my day, I will NOT be on my game at work. When she asks for a response, I often feel like the deer in the headlights.

I love my wife. She looks at me, realizes I am in work mode, and continues to talk just as if I actually answered her knowing what she was saying.

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). Write down your dreams. You are thinking...WOW, that was a stretch. Actually, my wife talks to me about her dreams so I can help her interpret them. Lately, she has attempted several times to discuss her dreams while driving me to work. If she writes down her dream (and as many of the details as possible) she can ask me to help her interpret them later. Although, if she writes them down, she will probably figure it out for herself by the time she wants to talk to me about it.

Did you know...

The average person has 1,460 dreams per year.

Why can’t women ever put the seat back up? I know, the women reading all just thought “What?!” But really, why can’t women put the seat up? Is their arm broken? Do they not understand how much easier it makes it for us men to not have to bend over and lift it to the proper saluting position?

Men only sit on the toilet every sixth or seventh time so it only makes sense to have it up all of the time (especially if your house is mainly male). I remember living in the dorms and having a woman use our toilet. She left it down. Think of all of the confusion when the next guy went in there and HAD to put it back up.

The Queen once asked me why can’t men ever leave the toilet seat down. It is actually a courtesy that we lift the seat. Why would we care if we pee all over the seat? Women are the ones that have to sit on it. You should appreciate the fact that we actually lift the darn thing. I would suspect in runningslow’s house, the seat would remain up with the husband and son both using it. However, when the daughter starts making use of the facilities, mathematically, it makes sense to have it down.

What is with women and those fuzzy seat covers? Who wants to pee in front of a guillotine, much less a pink fuzzy one? All the extra fuzz makes it impossible for the toilet seat to stay up properly. You either have to be talented enough to hold it up with one hand while peeing, or you have to really test your aiming and control skills.

This is how most men have to deal with the dreaded fuzzy toilet seat cover. One foot is firmly planted on the floor while the other is placed squarely on the toilet seat holding it firmly against the tank (this explains the shoeprint). Depending on which handed the person is, one hand is firmly gripping something like the empty toilet paper dispenser to prevent falling while the other is aiming for the target.

Why don’t we change the toilet paper while we are in there? Well, we can’t grip the dispenser as easily if the toilet paper is on it. Besides, we only need the TP every sixth or seventh time. It is the women that use it every time.

While MOST women need fuzzy toilet seat covers to avoid having to sit on a cold toilet seat, men are fortunate enough to have built-in cushioning on their bums (a.k.a. hair).

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). Why is it women can’t live by the majority rules? If you live in a household or even if you are stopping by someone elses house and they have a majority of males, put the seat back up. If you live there, quit whining about the seat being up in the middle of the night and turn on the bloody light! You should expect the seat to be up. Hasn’t anyone ever heard the term “When in Rome?”

As for my house, I learned a long time ago…just sit down. I am the ONLY male in a house of six (now five). The seat remains down.

Did you know…

One of pitcher Nolan Ryan’s jockstraps recently sold at auction for $25,000.

I have mentioned many times before of my need and readiness for a career change. Well, I have all kinds of business ideas, but I am having a hard time putting them onto paper. Sometimes I think it would just be easier if I just built it first and then convinced people to move toward it. Some of my ideas I am more than willing to give away. After all, this would help everyone, not just me.

Take for instance: Reverse E-Bay. Is it me, or does anyone else realize that E-Bay works kinda backwards? If I want to buy an item, I have to bid on the item, and then if someone else bids higher, I bid higher, until the bell dings and the winner pees their pants with joy. Isn't the objective to get the item for the lowest possible price? What makes you think that the seller isn't telling his friend next to him to bid higher so he can get more money?

My idea is to create an auction where you place the item you want to buy. You know what you want to buy, the 2006 Aston Martin Vanquish S. You also know how much is your top end for buying the vehicle ($149,000). So, you enter the vehicle into the reverse auction and place a timer on the item. Low bid wins. So, now the car you were going to pay $149,000 for, you got at $132,000. Doesn't this make sense?

How hard is this to make? Not hard at all. There is reverse auction software already out there. Someone just needs to put it together with a strong database backend and have some capital for marketing. This is not terribly complicated to set up and run. I just can't afford it.

Another idea is the Single Store Card. Back in the day, stores (grocery, department and other) used to accept and hand out green stamps. This stopped for multiple reasons. The stores were not getting much out of it. Stamp books were cumbersome. People often did not actually use the stamps to purchase. This is somewhat like those catalog points on the Betty Crocker boxes.

Let's bring back the Green Stamp in the form of the store card. Right now, stores each hand out a store card. This provides them with purchasing data so they can trend what you purchase and how often. In return, they will offer you the occasional discount or rebate. But to be honest, those same stores would really like more information like how often you get gas (Green Stamps were handed out at the gas stations as well). This is to help stores like Costco determine whether it makes sense to build a gas station by their new store as well.

As for the advantage to the customer, you can get rid of the grocery store, pet store, sports store, clothing store cards and consolidate it into a single card. Just think of how much simpler life would be if you didn't have to shuffle through your cards on keychains and could just use one. Green Stamps have not gone away completely. They are now called S&H Greenpoints. They are doing the same basic thing that MyPoints.com does. They do not appear to provide the purchasing cards services. I should email them this blog. This idea requires a lot of contacts in the retail market that I will never have. Oh, and capital.

Another fabulous idea was my Tea Store. Well, "my" is not totally correct. I don't have one yet. But I want one. In 1971, a little store open in Seattle's Pike Place Market. The intention was to introduce people and sell coffee. Today, Starbucks has become a brand name and we now expect everyone to know what a tall caramel macchiato with no foam is. People have been educated on the different types and regions of coffee and now Folger's or Maxwell House are outside the norm.

Well, tea is the same way. It is currently untouched in the retail market and there are about 500 different types of tea. Tea is healthy and more people drink it. That's right. More people drink tea than coffee. Half of the United States drinks tea (hot or iced) on a daily basis. Around the world, tea is the preferred drink over any other. So why in the world doesn't someone do what Starbucks did with coffee, with tea? That is exactly one of the things I want to do.

The most recent idea is in the travel business. We had a fellow blogger come visit us here in Chicagoland and it was our job to show her around. I had a blast. I knew all of the best places, sites and have a membership to the Shedd Aquarium, thus making it so I could get her a discount ticket. That is when I came up with this idea, All-Inclusive Chicago. It could really be any city, but I figured I would start in Chicago (since I live closest to it).

How would this work? Well, with arrangements and with restaurants, theaters, sporting events ticketers and so forth, the company would put together packages that include the flight, hotel, transportation, restaurant, tips, theater tickets (or golf, football, baseball, tour, amusement park) depending on the package. The customer pays the package price and that's it. The restaurant is reserved and paid prior to you even walking through the door. If you want a different restaurant, no problem. The car will drive you wherever you wish to go. You should worry about absolutely nothing.

This is like project management for travel. Who is the market? Well, everyone. Especially convention attendees and their families. Think of how big of a market is involved in conventions.

But here I sit. I really need to do something with these. I have so many ideas, and no means. Whoa is me...I am pitiful. Wallow, wallow, wallow...

First, I would like to thank those subscribers I have left (I lost two) from yesterday’s blogs. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one (I love Star Trek). I appreciate everybody’s opinion and your thoughts and expressions help me and hopefully others, grow. I believe that through knowledge, we can make the world a better place.

Howdidigetsoold wrote a blog today about…oh hell I forget…go read her. Included in her blog was a comment about how health food was so darned expensive. This reminded me of a blog I had on my list that I lost. Yes, I have a lost list of latent literary legends yet to be logged.

So, why is it organic and health foods are more expensive than the chemical laden non-health foods? Of course, since I am big on researching answers to the ever popular questions, I had to do look into it. Logic would dictate that products missing the added chemical and extra stuff would costs less.

What would you say if the car salesman told you that you can buy the 2006 Aston-Martin Vanquish S for $149,000 but if you want it without the tires and windows, it will cost you $180,000. You would probably look at him thinking he has 4 heads.

After minutes of searching through this wonderful tool known as the World Wide Web, here is what I discovered. In the real scheme of things, organic or health foods are not more expensive. I know, now you think I have 4 heads.

I know that you are in just as much amazement as I. You definitely SEE a price difference between the Kraft Macaroni and Cheese box ($1.05 per box) and the Annie’s Macaroni and Cheese box ($2.29 per box). This part is true. You see a difference between brands. But you also see a difference within a brand name of the same type of item. For example, the Kraft Macaroni and Cheese box is $1.05 and the Kraft White Cheddar Macaroni and Cheese box is $1.25. The same follows suit in the Annie’s (Organic) world.

The fact is, it is volume. Kraft and Annie’s do not have the same work processes and sales volume. Kraft is a public company with plentiful funds for research massive farming groups and imports, while Annie’s is a private company using internal ideas and real, family farms.

Sure there are SOME costs associated with organic foods over non-organics such as a lower volume of return for seed. What in the world is he talking about? You see, organic food has no chemical treatments. This means, the raw product (grain, fruit, vegetable) is more likely to die, rot, or just not grow as big and as many per plant.

There are some price differences that do bewilder me. Why is it whole grain white bread is more expensive than white bread? There is a process to turn whole grain into flour. With whole grain white, part of that process has been removed, so shouldn’t it cost less? Apparently not. This must tie into that whole volume thing.

There are movements toward all products becoming healthier. Let’s take for instance the removal of trans-fats. You are now seeing on the box labels the additional field for trans-fats. Fact is, the FDA requires all food labels to list this as of January 1.

What is a trans fat? Trans fatty acids (or “trans fat”) are fats found in foods such as vegetable shortening, some margarines, crackers, candies, baked goods, cookies, snack foods, fried foods, salad dressings, and many processed foods. It’s important to know about trans fat because there is a direct, proven relationship between diets high in trans fat content and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol levels and, therefore, an increased risk of coronary heart disease – a leading cause of death in the US. It is also good to know that restaurants do not have to list their trans-fat in their nutritional information. McDonald’s fries are cooked in trans fatty oil.

How many grams of trans fats can we have? Zero is a good number. Avoid it if at all possible. Certain companies started making the move a while back in order to avoid using trans-fatty ingredients like Pepperidge Farms. When the Goldfish crackers made the move back from trans fats, I was thrilled. I also thought they tasted like they did back when I was a kid.

What should I look for with trans fats? Very simply, the word “hydrogenated,” partially or otherwise is bad. Look through your cupboards for that Bisquick box and see if those “homemade” biscuits are increasing your risk of coronary heart disease.

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). I should stop blogging. I feel like I am always on my Bisquick box. I know I will continue on, just as much as I can’t resist Red Lobster biscuits (160 calories per biscuits).

Did you know…

41% of Chinese people eat at least once a week at a fast food restaurant. 35% of Americans do.

Two posts in one day. I do feel this is important enough that it deserves a new post. I have decided it is time to address this issue of homosexuality and the Bible since it was brought up by OkieDokieThen. I am not saying he cannot believe in his faith. But making the broad statement that homosexuality is against everything held in the Bible in my OPINION, is incorrect. Again this is a VERY long post, so hold on. Just an FYI, I am using someone else's research.

I am really going out on a limb here because I promised myself not to talk about religion in the blog.

Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did one hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance and find ourselves mired in interpretive quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?

The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.

Some passages that have been advanced as pertinant to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19: 1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting persons of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise, Deuteronomy 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a "sodomite."

Putting these texts to the side, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 states the principle: "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: "If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

Such an act was considered as an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any procreative purpose -- in coitus interruptus (Gen 38:1-11), male homosexual acts or male masturbation -- was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts and masturbation were consequently not so seriously regarded.) One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing total annihilation through overpopulation.

In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered un Jewish, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures.)

Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of scripture.

Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of scripture. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. (That may seem extreme, but there are actually some "Christians" urging this very thing today.) It is unlikely that any American court will ever again condemn a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.

Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Roman 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemns are heterosexual, and are acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which is foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychological understanding of homosexuals as person whose orientation is fixed early in life, persons for whom having heterosexual relations would be contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.

In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was "straight." He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. there are people who are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.

Likewise the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships of consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS around the world are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since non-promiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.

And Paul believes that homosexuality is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case.

Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity. In those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices, and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:

† Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:18-24), and anyone who engaged in it was to be "extirpated," or "cut off from their people (kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Are they sinners?

† Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (II Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he ws cursed (Gen 9:20-27). To a great extent, this taboo probably even inhibited the sexual intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). We may not be prepared for nude beaches, but are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old swimming hole or in the privacy of one's home as an accursed sin? The Bible does.

So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?

† Polygamy (many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of I Timothy 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception, since he quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority (the man and the woman will become "one flesh"), and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man could become "one flesh" with more than one woman, through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?

† A form of polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27 par.) I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?

† The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the ability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to "biblical" practice, while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Which is right?

† The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or "thigh" for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such as "he knew her." Today most of us regard such language as "puritanical" and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don't follow Biblical practice.

† Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Levee. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."

† Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males' property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Even Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (I Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9). Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a high but necessary cost toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the Bible?

† Jews were supposed to practice endogamy -- that is, marriage within the 12 tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American south, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation). We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes towards interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.

† The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt, 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?

† The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal and I Timothy 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. Are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single? Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In I Cor. 7:7, Paul goes so far as to call marriage a "charisma," or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was - unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!

† In many other ways we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible: "If men get into a fight with one another and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand" (Deut 25:11 f). We, on the contrary, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband's life!

† The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which II Samuel 5:13, Judges 19-21, and Numbers 31:17-20 permitted -- and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification.

These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. they are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they fall among the moral commandments of the Scripture. Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?

For example; virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:

• incest
• rape
• adultery
• intercourse with animals

But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:

• intercourse during menstruation
• celibacy
• exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)
• naming sexual organs
• nudity (under certain conditions)
• masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)
• birth control (some Christians still forbid this)
• And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not

Likewise, the bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn:

• prostitution
• polygamy
• levirate marriage
• sex with slaves
• concubinage
• treatment of women as property
• very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13)

And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!

Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture, even though no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.
If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these Old Testament sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul says as a new law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which laws they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that.

And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.

Judge for Yourselves

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no biblical sex ethic. Instead it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand-year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible only knows a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, culture, or period.

The very notion of a "sex ethic" reflects the materialism and splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest of life. No sex act is "ethical" in and of itself, without reference to the rest of a person's life, the patterns of the culture, the special circumstances faced, and the will of God. What we have are simply sexual mores, which change, sometimes with startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one lifetime we have witness the shift from the ideal of preserving one's virginity until marriage, to couples living together for several years before getting married. The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.

I agree that rules and norms are necessary: that is what sexual mores are. But rules and norms also tend to be impressed into the service of the Domination System, and to serve as a form of crowd control rather than to enhance the fullness of human potential. So we must critique the sexual mores of any given time and clime by the love ethic exemplified by Jesus. Such a love ethic is non-exploitive (hence, no sexual exploitation of children, no using of another to their loss), it does not dominate (hence, no patriarchal treatment of women as chattel), it is responsible, mutual, caring, and loving. Augustine already dealt with this is his inspired phrase, "Love God, and do as you please."

Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn't mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus' love commandment. We might address younger teens, not with laws and commandments whose violation is a sin, but rather with the sad experiences of so many of our own children who find too much early sexual intimacy overwhelming, and who react by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal to date. We can offer reasons, not empty and unenforceable orders. We can challenge both gays and straights to question their behaviors in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society as a whole.

Christian morality, after all, is not an iron chastity belt for repressing urges, but a way of expressing the integrity of our relationship with God. It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent with who God created us to be. For those of same-sex orientation, as for heterosexuals, being moral means rejecting sexual mores that violate their own integrity and that of others, and attempting to discover what it would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus.
Morton Kelsey goes so far as to argue that homosexual orientation has nothing to do with morality, any more than left-handedness does. it is simply the way some people's sexuality is configured. Morality enters the picture when that predisposition is enacted. If we saw it as a God-given-gift to those for whom it is normal, we could get beyond the acrimony and brutality that have so often characterized the unchristian behavior of Christians toward gays.

Approached from the point of view of love, rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not "What is permitted?" but rather "What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?" Approached from the point of view of faith rather than of works, the question ceases to be "What constitutes a brach of divine law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What constitutes obedience to the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?" Approached from the point of view of the Spirit of the rather than of the letter, the question ceases to be "What does Scripture command?" and becomes "What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?" We can't continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science.

In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment immediately preceding one of his possible references to homosexuality: "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (I Cor. 6:3). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated -- no, free -- to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all available data and decide, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience which the gospel establishes?

Where the bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant all that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacks it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue that slavery today is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago when the debate over slavery was raging, the bible seemed to be clearly on the slave holders' side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift?

What happened is that the churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture to an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus and the prophets and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus' identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. It is that God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all things. Therefore, Jesus went out of his way to declare forgiven, and to reintegrate into society in all details, those who were identified as "sinners" by virtue of the accidents of birth, or biology, or economic desperation. In the light of that supernal compassion, whatever our position on gays, the gospel's imperative to love, care for, and be identified with their sufferings is unmistakably clear.

In the same way, women are pressing us to acknowledge the sexism and patriarchalism that pervades Scripture and has alienated so many women from the church. The way out, however, is not to deny the sexism in Scripture, but to develop and interpretive theory that judges even Scripture in the light of the revelation in Jesus. What Jesus gives us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a critique that can be can be turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus contains the principles of its own correction. We are freed from bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible. It is restored to its proper place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a Person, not a book.

"With the interpretive grid provided by a critique of domination, we are able to filter out the sexism, patriarchalism, violence, and homophobia that are very much a part of the Bible, thus liberating it to reveal to us in fresh ways the inbreaking, in our time of God's domination-free order.

An Appeal for Tolerance

What saddens me in this whole raucous debate in the churches is how sub-Christian most of it has been. It is characteristic of our time that the issues most difficult to assess, and which have generated the greatest degree of animosity, are issues on which the Bible can be interpreted as supporting either side. I am referring to abortion and homosexuality.

We need to take a few steps back, and be honest with ourselves. I am deeply convinced of the rightness of what I have said in this essay. But I must acknowledge that it is not an airtight case. You can find weaknesses in it, just as I can in others'. The truth is, we are not given unequivocal guidance in either area, abortion or homosexuality. Rather than tearing at each others' throats, therefore, we should humbly admit our limitations. How do I know I am correctly interpreting God's word for us today? How do you? Wouldn't it be wiser to lower the decibels by 95 percent and quietly present our beliefs, knowing full well that we might be wrong.

I know a couple, both well known Christian authors in their own right, who have both spoken out on the issue of homosexuality. She supports gays, passionately; he opposes their behavior, strenuously. So far as I can tell, this couple still enjoy each other's company, eat at the same table, and, for all I know, sleep in the same bed. [He is speaking of the Campolos. See http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm for a debate between Peggy and Tony Campolo.]

We in the church need to get our priorities straight. We have not reached a consensus about who is right on the issue of homosexuality. But what is clear, utterly clear, is that we are commanded to love one another. Love not just our gay sisters and brothers, who are often sitting besides us, unacknowledged, in church, but all of us who are involved in this debate. These are issues about which we should amiable agree to disagree. We don't have to tear whole denominations to shreds in order to air our differences on this point. If that couple I mentioned can continue to embrace across this divide, surely we can do so as well.

This bring me to my point (as I almost always have one). The Bible was created by man. For those who believe it is the word of God, this was still interpretted and translated by man to meet the needs of society during the time it was written. I believe the Bible is an excellent reference as to how to live your life just as the Quran, Torah, Tao Te Ching and other scriptures. Live your life as you wish, preferrably for good. This is an experience and we are just here to learn it.

Sorry this was so long, but I thought all points needed to be touched.

Eiprhylle posted the other day about her friend’s marriage falling apart. It is at this point everyone who does not have an open mind can leave. If you wanted to read a short, funny post, this is also not the post for you. I need to post this because, when someone makes me think, I have to talk about it. Eiprylle made me think and for this, I thank her.

She posed the question “What reason will there be, if given circumstances, for them to remain as husband and wife?”

My quick answer was “It sounds like a marriage of convenience. I have seen more than one of those…and some last forever.” Granted, I could have expounded on this in the comments section, but to be honest, another person’s relationship is really none of my business.

I married for convenience. My first wife (Teri) and I married for convenience. Before judging me, let me explain. I was a 19 year old male living in Limestone, Maine under the auspice of serving in the Air Force. The male to female ratio for that area at the time was about 6 men to every 1 female. So, as a male in my sexual prime, any female was a target for my flashing good looks…well, at least my sense of humor.

Teri came to the Air Force base as my subordinate. She was in another relationship with a girlfriend back in her home town (a totally different blog) and as the week moved on, we became fast friends. We were both living in the dormitory so, dorm life was not great for…well…sex.

We devised a plan. You see, military married to military actually receive more money than military married to civilian. Additionally, as I mentioned, I was in my sexual prime. We married, moved off base, and brought in more money. These are MY reasons for marrying Teri. Her reasons were pretty much the same with the addition of the fact she had a previous girlfriend prior to the Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell policy taking affect. Thus, three weeks after meeting, a marriage of convenience. We were married from 1986 until her death in 1999. Yes, I loved her.

Eiprhylle responded to my comment with “I don't know if it's going to be a marriage for convenience, they're both American Citizens.” As you can see, there is more than one type of marriage for convenience.

People marry for convenience all of the time. Couples marry to hide from their friends, family, company the fact that they are homosexual. The discrimination still exists against homosexuality and as long as there are bible thumping purists, it will continue. Society is attempting to lighten the chains holding down homosexuality being accepted in business and community life, but the prejudice is still very strong right now.

People marry to keep from being alone. This occurs most often in insecure people who are afraid they will not have someone around to bury them when they die. Even if the person they are marrying is not really a person they like, they marry them with the hope that the person will either change, or they will learn to live them just as they are.

People are married to please their families. This is also called arranged marriages and YES, this still takes place. Actually, I have known several people who have married in an arranged marriage. The parents line everything up and more often than not, the bride and groom are not introduced until either the day before or during the wedding. Sometimes, the bride does not join her husband for a few months after the wedding (I know someone doing that now).

Some of these weddings do not work out. Most do though. I would bet if a survey was completed on marriages of convenience versus marriages of love, you would find the marriage of convenience have a higher percentage of continuing. Granted, they may not be in a happy, sexual, loving relationship, but they are lasting because the fundamental reasons for marrying have not changed.

What I do know, is that most of these marriages of convenience find love. I believe that most of the problems in marriages are because there is not an agreement in the fundamental circumstances. Love can only carry you so far if your spouse spends money like it grows on trees and you are killing yourself trying to stay out of debt (another set of friends I know who have since divorced).

I am lucky. Teri helped me find the Queen. The Queen and I agree on the fundamentals and also have love. I feel I have the best of both worlds.

This brings me to my point (as I almost always have one). Who are we to judge? Who are we to interfere in another person’s life? My belief is that we are all in a life journey to better ourselves in the Great Spirit as a whole. If this includes living a life of homosexuality, or marrying for convenience, that is fine.

As long as we are not causing harm to others, what does it matter if people have arranged marriage? By trying to guide another person’s life path, we can do tremendous harm.

We as a society need to show a lot more understanding and a little less judgment. Society has made some tremendous changes in the past as far as Women’s rights, racism, sexual preference, religious persecution, but we have a long way to go. But that is another blog.

Did you know…

The second Saturday in September is usually a popular time for weddings. Not in 2004, as most couples did not want their anniversaries on September 11.