GAS PRICES!

You want to know why gas prices are so high? Take the time to read this article! Where is it most expensive? Anywhere that has ridiculous environmental policies, and anywhere that charges even more extraneous taxes than elsewhere in the country. I have highlighted a couple of the most important concepts.

Most Expensive Places to Buy Gas in the U.S.
by Matt WoolseySaturday, December 1, 2007provided by
YAHOO.Shortcuts.hasSensitiveText = false;

Drivers in San Francisco enjoy views of the Golden Gate Bridge, with scenic stretches of the Pacific Coast Highway to the south and the rural shoreline to the north. And they pay for it at the pump. There, the average cost of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline reached $3.546 Wednesday, up from $2.524 a year ago.
Things don't look much better in other parts of the state. San Jose, San Diego, Sacramento and Los Angeles posted the country's next-highest per-gallon prices, respectively, according to Gasbuddy.com, a Web site that tracks gas prices nationwide.
More From Forbes.com: • In Pictures: Most Expensive Places to Buy Gas • In Pictures: Greediest Cities in the U.S. • In Pictures: Ten Priciest U.S. Home Sales Of 2007
Such high prices are not confined to California. Among the country's 40 largest metros, New York City, Buffalo, Seattle, Miami and Chicago rounded out the top 10 priciest places to buy gas.
The surge at the pump is the result of rising crude oil prices, which have grown significantly since 2004, when a barrel sold for $26. On Wednesday, a barrel went for $93.
Golden State GuzzlersStill, west coast drivers are hit hardest. Those in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles pay more at the pump than those in Houston or Dallas, where the average price per gallon Wednesday was $2.90 and $2.923, respectively, due to such factors as fuel taxes, environmental standards and costs of business like regulatory burdens and taxes.
Ten Most Expensive Places to Buy Gas
Rank; City
1 San Francisco
2 San Jose
3 San Diego
4 Sacramento
5 Los Angeles
6 New York City
7 Buffalo
8 Seattle
9 Miami
10 Chicago
What's more, the difference between, say, San Francisco and Houston is more pronounced this time of year since California requires cleaner fuel year round. Texas, like many Southern and Midwestern states, eases up on such requirements during the winter months when consumption slows. California's higher environmental standard increases refining costs, which get passed along to the consumer.
Why So Steep?Crude oil's output is heavily influenced by the 12-member Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, each of whose yield makes oil such a volatile commodity. For example, earlier this month crude oil approached $100 per barrel due in large part to Mexico cutting a fifth of its crude-oil production. Also affecting prices? The weak U.S. dollar. Because oil is traded internationally in dollars, much of the per barrel price increase over the last few years also has to do with the slipping greenback.
Last week crude hovered around $93 a barrel, and crude futures are starting to dip below $90, as OPEC is expected to increase output, which in turn will lower prices. OPEC restricts output to keep prices high, but it isn't in its interest for prices to skyrocket because this would dent consumption.
Some hope rising oil prices might increase acceptance of corn-based ethanol as an alternative, green energy source, but the ethanol market has its own problems.
This year, $7 billion was spend in federal biofuel subsidies, resulting in a 20% increase in acres of corn planted. Investors, looking for a fast buck, have in turn produced far more corn for ethanol production than there is blending capacity or consumer demand.
A flooded market has made it more cost effective for ethanol producers to hold on to their supply than to sell it. Some factories in North America and Australia have shut down completely as a result. It's a market in disarray.
"Initially, [the subsidies] looked like a pure handout, but now it looks like its suckered investors into losing a lot of money," says Michael Liebreich, CEO of New Energy Finance, a London-based analyst firm. "Right now oil could be at $120 [per barrel] and it wouldn't make any difference...the speed that the private equity industry poured money into the industry is beyond its profitability."
The national price average for for E-85 -- an ethanol gasoline mix -- is $2.478 a gallon, according to the American Automotive Association, but when that figure is adjusted for energy generated by volume, E-85 costs $3.261 per gallon. Based on figures from the Energy Information Administration, E-85 generates about 25% fewer BTUs (energy unit) than does gasoline and, at its adjusted price, costs about 16 cents more per gallon.
There are, at present, about 4.4 million flex-fuel cars on American roadways and less than 1% of American service stations offer E-85.
A Better BetUnless huge oil fields are discovered in America, the solution to lower gas costs, experts say, lies in efficiency of consumption. From a city planning perspective, step one is reducing congestion. In its 2007 "Urban Mobility Study," the Texas Transportation Institute estimates that drivers in the nation's 437 urban areas wasted 2.9 billion gallons of fuel last year due to traffic delays.
Expanding roadways and building better transit systems relieves congestion, but both are costly. Some say improving traffic efficiency can be a much cheaper way to lessen congestion. Two ways to do this: systems such as service patrols, which comb heavily trafficked areas and help stranded motorists and ramp monitoring systems, which involves the installation of traffic lights on entrance ramps that regulate the frequency with which cars enter a freeway or highway.
"There's room for us to expand upon our management of the system," says David Schrank, co-author of the TTI study. "We can make our operations much more efficient through things like service patrols or ramp metering...very few areas that are managing 100% of their system, and there's room to improve on their management by going beyond the freeway to the arterial streets."
Copyrighted, Forbes.com. All rights reserved.

Prosperity

When are people going to stop resenting the rich, and realize that the richer they get, the more opportunities everyone else will have to make money. Once again, sports provide a wonderful example: athletes actually complain about being 'used' by the owners to make money. Hmm, let us think about this one. Without the owners, athletes would have zero opportunity to make the multi-millions they rake in every year. The great thing about capitalism, is that the owners benefit too! Everybody wins, except when people start resenting the rich, believing instead that they should have to be taxed higher. All this will do is cause them to have to pay their employees less - this hurts everyone! Stop resenting rich people! Be thankful that we live in a country that (so far) provides opportunities for people to get rich!

Expertise

The following is a list of fields of study, and the person(s) who is considered the expert.

Aquatic life: Marine biologists
Architecture: Architects
Animals: Zoologist, Veteranarians
History: Historians
Taxes: Accountants
Law: Judges, Lawyers
Computers: Technicians
Automobiles: Mechanics
Business: CEOs
Bible: Theologians
Space Travel: Astronauts
Plane Flying: Airplane Captains
Plumbing: Plumbers
Wars: Generals
Medicine: Doctors

Church Music: THE CONGREGATION

Capitalism - Evil?

When did people ever get the idea that it is wrong for someone to make a ton of money? The answer seems quite obvious to me: the person who is opposed either has little money in comparison, or has arbitrarily decided that he or she is more deserving of their money.

One of the most important and founding principles of our country is the right to private property. The wonderful thing about capitalism, is that it has an inherent system of checks and balances. Let me give an example I once heard:

A man owned a landscaping business in Texas. One of his rules was that he would never perform his services for a homosexual. OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!! Perhaps. As would be expected, there was in fact an outrage over this issue. Many wanted to sue him, put him in jail, take away his business license - you get the idea. Here is where capitalism enters the picture. There is absolutely no need for the government to stick its fat face into the situation, because supply and demand takes care of everything on its own.

A petition was started in order to convince customers to go elsewhere with their business from then on. This is perfectly within the limits of the law. I do not actually know what happened to the business after that; whether he changed his policy, went out of business, or just kept on going because he had enough other business is outside my scope of information.

Honestly, I think it is silly to deny business to someone because of sexual orientation. First of all, you are losing customers. Secondly, if he was coming from a religious perspective, he seems to be destroying his witness by not showing this person true love and compassion. Therefore, I see no benefit in doing what this man did. However, it is perfectly within his rights to act foolishly. As it is within the scope of the law, he is punished accordingly - he will make less money. An attempt to make some sort of law forcing a business to extend services to someone against his will is extraneous and a corruption of power. If the society as a whole believes what he is doing is wrong, he will be NATURALLY forced to either serve the individual or give up his business as he will no longer have customers.

Another example (this one from John Stossel's Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity): An individual bought an ATM machine and set it up on a tropical island. She charged her customers $4 to extract their money from this ATM. RIDICULOUS!!!! Right?

Let's analyze the situation. The ATM - and therefore the service - did not exist prior to the individual making it available. Now, she has given tourists much more convenient access to their money than they ever had before. She then charges $4 per transaction to supply this service which would otherwise be of no interest to her.

Guess what happened! Tourists were outraged by the ridiculous cost of the machine and actually convinced the government to step in and bring the price down. Hmmmm..... Can you think of what happened next? The individual began to lose money just by running the machine, and had to close it down altogether. Yippee! Victory for the little guy! Oh wait, now tourists no longer have that convenient access to their money. Oops.

Another example, and my personal favorite: Sports. I hear people complain about the prices of food at stadiums all the time. I have actually heard people call the price 'extortion' because you are not allowed to bring food into the stadium, and you MUST purchase their food. How ridiculous is that! If fans were better with their money and did not buy the food in the first place, prices would go down. No one is forced to buy stadium food (this goes for movie theaters as well). Supply and demand people!

The other thing is the price of tickets. I heard on a sports talk station someone complaining about the price of postseason baseball tickets. This person pointed out the difference between salaries for athletes as opposed to public school teachers. Their main complaint was that a poor teacher who truly likes baseball cannot go to a postseason game after enjoying them for the whole year. Awwwwwwww. Let me explain something to you, Mr. Complainer: Your salary is paid by people who have absolutely no choice in paying for it. Anyone who goes to a sporting event has made the choice to attend out of his or her own volition. Furthermore, if it were not for high salary Americans - like these athletes - who are forced to pay your salary, your beloved public school position would be defunct. No one forced you to become a teacher - you could have done something else.

Is this cold-hearted and uncompassionate? Most people on the left would say so. However, most people were given a public school education as well - no coincidence here. I went to public school from kindergarten through 12th grade, and all I ever heard from everyone was how underpaid teachers are - I even went along with it. Now that I am nine years removed from my systematic brainwashing, I am able to think for myself and have realized what propaganda this was.

If parents were given a choice as to which public school their children could attend, schools that did not produce would eventually fold up. Good teachers would actually be paid more because of their importance to the school. Bad teachers would be paid less and even fired - as they should be. And what do we call this? CAPITALISM! What a concept. Supply and demand boosts efficiency and quality. Stop complaining about your low salary teachers, and do something else. How about leaving the union which actually causes these aforementioned negative consequences; how about voting for politicians who will be in favor of individual choice instead of forcing the hand of parents.

Alas! I know this will never happen. Why? Because most public school teachers - and yes I do say 'most' - just want to be fat and happy. Too harsh? Maybe for the teachers who are not part of the 'most' group, but not for the others. Being fat and happy is all about having tenure and a union that will support you no matter how pathetic a 'teacher' you are. The sad thing is that there are many teachers who are actually quite good, but have been brainwashed into thinking that the union is good for them.

Now for the issue as to why unions want what they want. The union as a whole has no desire to have teachers who support thought and good education, except in the rare cases when it somwhow propogates their agenda for power and money. Their chief desire is to have power and control over the fragile little minds that are public school students (and teachers for that matter). More people believing in their 'economy' means more votes, means staying in power. If people were taught to think for themselves and therefore realized the evil that is the Teacher's Union, the Union's politicians would be voted out of office in the very next election.

Now liberals actually want preschool to become a necessary part of public education! What does this mean, but more pliable minds to be brainwashed earlier and more excuses for higher taxes from the "need for teachers, space and resources"? What do higher taxes mean except for more control? What does all this mean except worse education and dumber Americans?

The unfortunate thing is that so many Americans are voting for Socialism without even realizing it. Many politicians believe that it is the government's job to hold each citizen's hand from childbirth to the grave. This is elitism: the idea that only a few people have a clue as to how to run their own lives, and they must therefore run everyone else's as well. These ideas are masked with lies that describe Capitalism - though they would never use the term - as evil because it steps on the little guy. There probably are rare occasions when 'little guys' are stepped on. However, even 'little guys' have a much better chance in a society that forces you to fend for yourself than in a society that punishes you for producing.

All this entails one of the biggest occurances of irony I have ever encountered. Policitians' jobs are paid for by the very people they teach middle and lower income citizens to hate. The fact of the matter is, when individuals make gobs of money, it is good for the economy. They pay more taxes, create more jobs that would otherwise not exist, and buy high priced things that pay other Americans' incomes - the positive cycle continues from there. I have to ask then, Is it evil to make gobs of money, or to take from them and give to those who claim to deserve it?

I therefore plead with the citizens of the country in which I was born to think about the truth about Capitalism and what the real effects of a society based on Socialism would be.

Advertisement

I have decided that from now on, the Canadian pronunciation of this word is better. So if you hear me pronounce it, "ad-VER-tiz-ment," do not be alarmed. It just works.

Innocent Until...Well, You Never Really Know, Right?

There are lots of great movies based around the theme of an individual who has been accused of a crime he or she has not committed: Shawshank Redemption, In the Name of the Father, The Fugitive, The Negotiator just to name a few. The fact of the matter is, when done well, this theme makes for a really good, entertaining movie.

For one thing, the character is someone for whom the audience immediately and inherently has deep and sympathetic feelings. In each of the movies I named, there is someone whose whole life is in the balance, as the accused may never see the outside of a prison again. All freedom (another foundational theme for many great movies) for that individual may be lost.

A few months ago, as Lauren and I were watching Daniel Day-Lewis give a stellar performance in In the Name of the Father, it occurred to me that there is an exorbitant amount of movies with this familiar theme. As I considered this fact further, I suddenly felt as though I understood America's obsession with NOT convicting people of crimes. Sure, we always scream for justice, but that only really refers to justice for the accused.

The truth of the matter is, I agree that it is worse for an innocent person to be found guilty than for a guilty person to be found innocent. After giving this much thought however, I have to wonder if I, too, have been brainwashed by our overly sensitive society - namely Hollywood.

Here though, I must give Hollywood a pass. I do not blame them. As I have already said, this theme both sells well and just plain makes a good movie. Unfortunately, I believe it is quite possible that Hollywood has inadvertantly brainwashed itself and its audience into thinking that virtually no one is guilty unless caught on tape (even then, they may have been forced to commit the crime by their childhood or something else equally ridiculous).

I have heard that our prisons are overfull. Who then is affected by this societal worldview? People in the spotlight. Sure, many people are convicted of and sentenced for crimes everyday. Once an incident is captured by the media however, the mob tries to and far too often succeeds in taking over. Just take a look at how many professional athletes and actors are allegedly caught with DUIs, doing or selling drugs, assaulting people in bars and, well, you get the idea. How many of these individuals end up in prison for more than just an overnight stay?

I admit that I do not have the numbers, but I have observed how excited everyone seems to be when Robert Downey Jr. gets his 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th......... chance; or how quick the media is to point out that the steroid allegations in Major League Baseball have rarely been proven as of yet. If I was caught taking steroids or driving under the influence, a police officer and then court of law would be more than happy to put me in jail for the time allotted for such offenses. I must here make it clear though, that my complaint is not that the authorities are willing to convict me, but that they are so reluctant elsewhere.

I have had arguments with people about the effect of movies, sitcoms, advertisements, etc. on the everyday viewer. I will stick to my beliefs on this one: Rarely does a person come away saying, "Hmm, I have decided to think this now instead of my previous opinion," but the viewer's mindset is always affected by the message unless a conscious thought is made that the show was entertaining, but probably should not be the norm - just watch Everybody Loves Raymond. I completely understand that many households have come to accept life as seen on such sitcoms as normal, but I firmly believe that these disfunctional situations have become more readily accepted as OK by society because of these types of Media. This is why I view Reality TV and sitcoms as evil when taken in by the non-discerning mind.

Should we abandon the outlet movies allow us? Perhaps - though I probably never fully will, and this is not realistic for most of us. What I think EVERYONE needs to do, is to view a movie with the understanding that this is quite possibly a very skewed perspective on the real world - EVEN IF THE MOVIE IS BASED ON A TRUE STORY! Furthermore, even if the movie portrays a given topic in a fair and reasonable manner, the reality for the two or three main characters is the reality for two or three people out of six billion that exist on earth. Just because Dr. Kimball in The Fugitive did not kill his wife, does not mean that even twenty percent of accused murderers are innocent. Again, I do not know the numbers, but it is no coincidence that neither you nor I have ever been accused of such a crime.

All I ask, is that while enjoying your next entertainment venue, that you keep a discerning mind; that you filter out the slants and accidental propaganda (and of course the purposeful propaganda); that if you encounter the same situation Raymond Barone-Romano encounters in a given episode, remember that you have your own conscience and do not have to act similarly; that you appreciate movies for what they are - one individual's viewpoint on a singular situation out of billions, perhaps trillions over the duration of life here on earth.

Happy Birthday!

As I was just looking over the brief blog I wrote a moment ago, I saw the date written at the top, and it read, "May 24th." What do you know? That is the day of Kirk Nathaniel Shockey's 24th birthday! Shows how well prepared I am for every given situation.

Nathaniel, I hope you have a wonderful day. Please know that Lauren and I are always thinking of and praying for you. More than a wonderful day, I hope you have a satisfying and even enjoyable week. Talk to you soon...

Bumper Sticker

I doubt that I will ever stick a piece of adhesive with a message on any part of my car.

However, there is one message that would almost make it worth it:

"Work hard...millions on welfare depend on you."

That pretty much says it all.

The Productivity of the Individual Versus Government

As has become fairly clear in the two blogs I have written to date, I deeply resent the government's arrogance in thinking it can manage my money better than I can. Other than the few necessities - national security, interstates and defending its citizen's rights (which I will not attempt to name here, though I know this is also a point of controversy) among very few others - the government does little (nothing?) good with the money it has taken from its citizens by force. I am no scholar on the matter, but I do understand enough to know that the following excerpt from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged has profound insights which would do anyone good to hear; especially if the listener believes in our current tax system, or something worse: taking more money yet.
I am amazed at how much sense Rand makes to me. Atlas Shrugged has become something of a 'blankie' to me. I feel as though I want to take it with me everywhere I go, to ward off those who believe that we should leave all responsibility of saving money, healthcare, education, etc. to the wiles of the government. (Incidentally, Howard Roark, who I mentioned in my 20th point in my first blog is from her other book, The Fountainhead.) But enough out of me. I am now going to let Ayn Rand do the talking. The following is taken from chapter 3 of part 2 of Atlas Shrugged:

"When you felt proud of the rail of the John Galt Line," said Francisco, the measured rhythm of his voice giving a ruthless clarity to his words, "what sort of men did you think of? Did you want to see that Line used by your equals - by giants of productive energy, such as Ellis Wyatt, whom it would help to reach higher and still higher achievements of their own?"
"Yes," said Rearden eagerly.
"Did you want to see it used by men who could not equal the power of your mind, but who would equal your moral integrity - men such as Eddie Willers - who could never invent your Metal, but who would do their best, work as hard as you did, live by their own effort, and - riding on your rail - give a moment's silent thanks to the man who gave them more than they could give him?"
"Yes," Reardon said gently.
"Did you want to see it used by whining rotters who never rouse themselves to any effort, who do not possess the ability of a filing clerk, but demand the income of a company president, who drift from failure to failure and expect you to pay their bills, who hold their wishing as an equivalent of your work and their need as a higher claim to reward than your effort, who demand that you serve them, who demand that it be the aim of your life to serve them, unrewarded slave of their impotence, who proclaim that you are born to serfdom by reason of your genius, while they are born to rule by the grace of incompetence, that yours is only to give, but theirs only to take, that yours is to produce, but theirs to consume, that you are not to be paid, neither in matter nor in spirit, neither by wealth nor by recognition nor by respect nor by gratitude - so that they would ride on your rail and sneer at you and curse you, since they owe you nothing, not even the effort of taking off their hats which you paid for? Would this be what you wanted? Would you feel proud of it?"
"I'd blast that rail first," said Rearden, his lips white.
"Then why don't you do it Mr. Reardon? Of the three kinds of men I described - which men are being destroyed and which are using your Line today?"
They heard the distant metal heartbeats of the mills through the long thread of silence.
"What I described last," said Franscisco, "is any man who proclaims his right to a single penny of another man's effort."

I might be a libertarian!

It might seem crazy, but many of my views are more in line with the Libertarian ideal than the Republican ideal. Basically, what I agree with, is the idea that the FEDERAL government needs to "STAY THE HECK OUT OF MY LIFE!!!!!!"
As I have aged in my viewpoints, hopefully like a good wine (yes, I realize the irony of this comment), I realize more and more how much we are affected by our surroundings. I always thought that I was an out and out republican - I am glad it was that side of things with which I was surrounded - but now I see that this was in large part because of what I always heard. Now, I realize that the very existence of the 'Republican and Democrat only' government creates a situation where we as civilians become subservient to the politicians' every whim - this almost always leads to higher taxes and policies that generally pander to emotionalism as per 'the mob'. The way to give power back to 'the people' would be to destroy this two-party system. Then we could actually choose whom we would prefer for political office.
The important thing is that we as Americans think for ourselves, and do not let anyone in any position brainwash us. This can happen via the media, teachers, parents, the pastorate, and many other positions, some of which are often trustworthy otherwise (personally, I think that the media and public school English and Social Studies teachers can rarely be considered trustworthy, but you get the idea).
Lauren and I have been loaned a book called Myths, Lies, and Dowright Stupidity, by John Stossel (former anchor on ABC's 20/20), and it is a wonderful resource for many things ridiculous and commonly misconceived. There are a few passages in which I believe the author has been misinformed, but by and large, it is a fascinating insight into the gullibility of our fellow Americans. The following is one excerpt, which will be succeeded by a few more of my favorites in the near future.

MYTH: 'Road rage' is an epidemic!
TRUTH: It's not.

The inventor of the term 'road rage' is unknown, but he or she has a lot to answer for. Not as much as the media does, though. In 1997, the Amercian Automobile Association Traffic Safety foundation issued a report on aggressive driving. Newsweek said we were being "driven to destruction," Stone Phillips on NBC said it was "a bigger problem than ever," and on ABC my colleague Barbara Walters said "the trend is frightening."

Others were scratching their heads. They didn't see what the media did. Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which studies media coverage, told me: "If road rage is something that's increasing, we should have more fatalities on the road. There should be more reports of reckless driving. But these things are going down."

So what was the evidence for all these stories? I went to the AAA Foundation, and confronted their chief spokeswoman about their claim that road rage had increased by 51%.

STEPHANIE FAUL: That's what is appeared to look like from our report. That's all I can tell you. We saw an increase in reported cases.

STOSSEL: Reported in the press?

FAUL: Yes, reported in the press.

STOSSEL: It might be that reporters just started liking the alliteration, road rage?

FAUL: Well, also they like the idea of violent death by strangers! It's a very common topic in the news reports.

STOSSEL: [quoting from her press release] "Reached epidemic proportions. A bigger problem than ever." Does the study justify that?

FAUL: Well, yes and no.

STOSSEL: 'A neglected epidemic.'

FAUL: Yeah, that's a-that's a bit strong.

STOSSEL: The impression from the reporting is that there's greater danger out there.

FAUL: Yes. Because that's what seels papers, of course. I mean, you're in the media. You know that if you get people excited about an issue, that's what makes it appealing as a topic.

Get out the shovel! (Stossel often uses this phrase to refer to digging up myths, lies and downright stupidity) This is circular logic: The report was based on MEDIA mentions of aggressive driving. We in the media loved the catchy phrase 'road rage' so much, we kept doing stories on it.

Robert Lichter suggested it all got started this way: "People were telling at each other in their cars and making obscene gestures and even getting out of the car for years. Journalists just found a term for it. So last year, you went home and said, 'Somebody yelled at me from his car.' This year, you go home and say, 'I was a victim of road rage.' "

Then the AAA writes a report based on the spurt of stories - and new headlines are born. Media incest!

Once the media had a catchy phrase for it, road rage became an 'epidemic.'

An Introduction To My Soapbox

Despite what many of my previous and perhaps current acquaintances may think, I am well aware of the fact that my opinions conjure up bad feelings that cause many to mentally write me off. If this is the case for you, I suggest you save yourself some aggravation and leave me to my own devices (assuming that is how you see it). However, if you wish to know more about me, like me or not, reading my rantings will provide some key insight.

Today, first things first: a list of my thoughts that will help to outline my future blogs...
1. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. God is Sovereign.

2. I will love Lauren (more and more, yes, but mainly better and better I hope) until death separates us.

3. Though I am not really a Calvinist, I firmly adhere to the 5-points of Calvin.

4. A few things are relative, but absolutes are the norm - "All things are relative" is wrong.

5. Two of the silliest phrases I have ever heard: "I do not believe in philosphy" and "I do not believe in Doctrine." Not believing in philosophy IS your philosphy. Not believing in Doctrine IS your doctrine. Think about it.

5. Johann Sebastian Bach's music is the greatest music ever conceived. My island CD would definitely be his St. Matthew Passion, B minor Mass, The Goldberg Variations - oh it is too hard to decide!

6. I have always considered myself to be a republican, but I now realize that no matter who is in office (be it legislative or executive), taxes never seem to decrease. Not only that, but the complete lack of control concerning unbelievably irresponsible government spending (example: 'pork barrell' legislation) has me losing all hope for longterm, continued freedom (using my definition of freedom of course; you can ask me about it if you like; maybe I'll write about that sometime).

7. "Throwing out the baby with the bath water" might be the error most often committed by our society today.

8. If you slug a hippy at a peace rally enough times, he will eventually realize that fighting back is occasionally necessary (I cannot take credit for this thought, but I certainly agree!).

9. You should not "Beware of aggressive drivers." You should "Beware of inconsiderate and thoughtless drivers." For example, USE YOUR TURN SIGNAL! and DO NOT BRAKE ON THE HIGHWAY UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! and THE LEFT LANE IS FOR PASSING, NOT CRUISING AT 58 MPH WHILE DAYDREAMING ABOUT BELLY-BUTTON LINT!

10. The east coast is better than the west coast. Why...? There are actually regions in California that are trying to make spanking children a crime! (Among other things)

11. Reality TV is evil. It is not real. (For some reason though, Comcast defines Mythbusters as reality TV. I guess technically it is, but it is certainly different than "The Bachelor.")

12. Sitcoms, when taken in by the unfiltering mind, are evil. Just because something works for comedy, does not make it OK for real life. For example, "Everybody Loves Raymond"; while humorous, it teaches everything that is wrong with American family relationships.

13. If Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand, Bette Midler, George Clooney, Michael Moore, etc. all become unable to communicate past the speaking capacity of a mule, I swear I did not do it; I may have wished it, but I did not do it. If I knew how, I certainly would.

14. I am competitive. Some of you may view this as an understatement.

15. I was glad to see both Bobby Abreu and Allen Iverson leave Philadelphia. What do you know?!? Both teams got better immediately! Try and call that one a coincidence!

16. Excellence is something I admire in people. If you have dedicated your life to honing a skill that God has given you, you have done well.

17. Pictures are not more important than the vacation itself. Enjoy your vacation, but do not go for the sake of coming back and showing your pictures and don't pretend you enjoyed yourself more than you did.

18. Live for what you are doing, not for what you think you might be doing 20 years from now.

19. Complain if you like. If you do not do something about it however, don't ever complain again.

20. Objectivism, via author Ayn Rand, is the closest secular philosophy to my world view I have ever seen. Howard Roark is my hero.

In summary, I have strong opinions.