kevinw

What he said! Jon, you are definitely on my Christmas card list! What a great statement.! kevinw

"The Guttmacher Institute has played a leading role in the movement for sexual and reproductive health and rights since the Institute's inception in 1968. Guttmacher's nearly four decades of experience demonstrates that scientific evidence-when reliably collected and analyzed, compellingly presented and systematically disseminated-can make a difference in policies, programs and medical practice. The Institute is named after an Ob/Gyn and former president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Alan Guttmacher. The Institute has offices in both New York City and Washington, D.C.. As of 2005, it has an annual revenue of $7.9 million and expenses of $9.1 million, with an asset reserve of $15.6 million dollars. [1]" What would you expect them to say?

You need to check your sources again. It's pretty simple to see interesting statistics and jump to conclusions. Similar to the statistics you posted regarding states that pay above minimum wage. The statistics are interesting, but you can't necessarily take them at face value. In this instance, check the organization whose statistics you are quoting. Check what they represent, and what point they are trying to validate. Then, go a step further and check who is funding them. The numbers you've quoted indicate that the abortion issue is benign. It's not. You've qualified Guttmacher as a "leading source for information relating to abortion demographics". Expand your research a little. Your source is a little dubious.

Ken, Organizational structure for this biz is pretty simple, similar to and contractor related biz. The basics of org structures are important to keep in mind...flat structures result in being more responsive and better internal communications. Take a look at using the project mgr. concept. It works in the operations side, and sales side. Several crews work under one project manager, several sales reps work under one sales mgr. Project mgr and sales mgr. manage process, manage quality, communicate with customers, etc. Important thing is to make sure your comp plan for all positions provides incentives for profitability, customer satisfaction, etc. You'll need to work out the ratios/metrics that make sense for your company and biz plan. Kevin

These stats are a good example of making a conclusion based on partial facts. I could say that out of 100 children whose allowance was doubled at age 10, 60% were millionaires by 45. Based on the conclusion you've reached from your statistics, you should double your child's allowance at age 10. You should have asked who the fathers of the 60% were...they may have been millionaires to start with! There's a lot more to achieving these results than raising minimum wage. What were the business that grew twice as quickly? What were the states that grew 1.5% more quickly? What were the states with faster payroll growth? If the answer is North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska...that could be interesting. If the answer is states with thriving economies, the businesses in question were in hot markets...it skews the numbers significantly. Would you expect a new pizza chain in Lincoln, Nebraska to fare as well as a new pizza chain in Beverly Hills, CA? Would you expect a new cellular telephone retailer to fare as well in Fargo as LA? It's the old statistics game...you can make them say whatever you want them to say. You can also pick and choose which numbers you want to accept, and which ones you want to throw sticks at. You're not the only that has hoe'd the row. It's not being smug to say that raising minimum wage isn't the answer. As an employer, I offer any potential employee a salary that considers what they bring to the job. If it's only a strong back and a willingness to learn, they start at the bottom (above minimum wage) and are given the opportunity to prove themselves and move up the ladder. If they don't, then they are given a courteous, professional dismissal...with a reference in most cases. I've hired, and fired, my share of starters that only wanted to make gas/beer money. I've hired, and kept, and promoted, and given raises to those that want to make the investment to do something with their lives. I think most employers realize that hiring is an investment, and try to keep good employees. We take an interest in their personal lives, we offer assistance when we can. I just dismissed a minimum wage mentality employee. His attendance was sporadic, his work was hit or miss, he required constant supervision, he had a very negative attitude...but he was always there on payday. He was very good at making sure he was paid for every minute he worked...even those when he was sleeping in the truck while his co-worker was working. Every Monday was a hard luck story...don't feel well today, car broke down, alarm didn't go off. I gave him one chance after another. Big generality there! Many economists would qualify that statement a little...and many others would disagree. In thriving economies, minimum wage is replaced by supply and demand. I've seen $500 hiring bonuses at Wendy's in my area...minimum wage isn't even considered. In the total economy, starting wage (minimum acceptable wage) is driven by the economy and labor pool. Those studies show that starting wage employees have the highest turnover rate, regardless of job growth opportunity. Great studies to read, but they don't support your position.

Larry, I posted regarding the number of births...and you referred to me as "uneducated electorate" that needs to take some sort of test. When I post a few links that I was able to grab before I left the office, you tell me I'm making up numbers and claim that it's BS. Have we met? Have I done something to offend you...other than offering a different opinion? My impression is that you're taking the path of "shoot the messenger since he has a different opinion than mine". At the least, I'm due an apology. At this point, I don't really care whether you find the information credible. You decide how many is too many. But to your point...these number are real...you find them if you're interested...or not. Starr County, TX - 25 births/month in 1 hospital...that's 300 in a small hospital in Harlingen, Tx Let's get to some metro hospitals. Parkland Hospital - 11, 500 last year in 1 hospital Houston, TX - 2 hospitals with over nearly 8,500 last year. That's 4 hospitals totalling 20,300 illegal immigrant births. How many hospitals are in TX? I'm through with this...I don't mind different opinions...intolerance is irritating. Try replacing the rhetoric and anecdote in YOUR next post...a little less opinion and little more meat. kevinw

It seems that you view of reality doesn't go past the surface. Minimum wage is the starting point for unskilled, inexperienced labor...the starting point. Raising the minimum wage doesn't increase skill levels or give experience. It does increase the cost of doing business, which means lowered gross margins OR increased prices OR decreased expenditures on things like benefits, advertising, etc. Keep in mind that it impacts a major part of our economy, retailers, more than anyone and those guys live or die on 1/2 of a percent. They won't absorb it, they will pass it along as price increases or cut expenses..like benefits...remember WalMart? Which do you prefer? Increased prices or more people needing government funded healthcare? Those are two of your choices...the most likely two. My view of reality goes a long way past the obvious. kevinw

Facts? It's fairly obvious that you don't like the current administration...but throwing out generalities and rhetoric like this is just name calling. Okay, you don't like them...what are you doing about it? Voting Democratic in the next election? Do you know what they stand for? Your talking about the last 6 years...do you really believe that we're where we are today because of the last 6 years? If you're telling me that you've made your mind up, and don't want to be confused with the facts...then your vote means it will just keep going in this direction. The issues that I'm concerned with include: 1. Iraq 2. Iran/Korea 3. The economy 4. Education 5. Social Security 6. Eroding moral values 7. Tax system Not necessarily in that order. Of those issues, only one...Iraq...sits completely in this administration's lap. The rest have been building for decades. When are we going to address them? Your statements make it sound like you believe that the Democrats offer a better solution...but the past 30 years say that isn't the case. Let's go down the list. Iraq - On one hand, you can argue that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. Bin Laden and Afghanistan were. The truth is that there were a lot more countries involved to varying degrees. Do we attack them all? Can't do that. Do we go after them through the UN? I'm not optimistic about positive results there. So, should we have just left Iraq alone? I believe that 500,000 murdered men, women, and children (documented fact) would say we should have done something about it a long time ago. You can say it's not our responsibility? If not us, then who? Let the UN deal with it? That program lasted for over 8 years without any results while more people died. You say we've lost credibility in the world community, we've lost our allies...the whole world hates us. I think you need to tune into another news network, you're buying their news. But, let's take a look at some of those allies you're talking about. France...got caught with their hand in the cookie jar in Iraq. Violating UN sanctions, selling arms and technology under the guise of food programs. Russia...same thing. Do you really believe we should just go along with them? We should emulate France and Russia? We should criticize Britain for sticking with us...and sticking to their guns? Those allies that you want us to line up with were talking out of both sides of their mouth...voting for UN sanctions while undermining any possible chance of success by violating the very sanctions they voted for! I want to be on their team, don't you? Iran/Korea. This has been in the works for 40 - 50 years. Surely you watched M*A*S*H*? Remember...Korean War? We bailed early, and left N. Korea to keep chugging along. Now, 40 - 50 years later what are we looking at? It worked great then, let's do the same thing in Iraq now? Iran? I was in college when the Ayatollah took over...I remember the hostages and the attack on the embassy. Guess which party was in office at the time? We pulled out...and here we are today? So...let's use that successful strategy again in Iraq. To say that Iraq kept Iran in check is a gross mis-statement of fact. They did a pretty good job of shooting each other's troops, but do you really believe that Saddam could have stopped Iran from developing nuclear technology? The Economy. All things considered, it's not too bad. Fuel prices, future of some of the big companies are making folks nervous This goes back to the discussion about minimum wage too. You cannot slice out pieces of the economy without considering the impact to the entire economy. I'd like to see the economy stabilize but it's going to take a correction in the housing market (which will have a negative impact to the overall economy), a correction in the big manufacturers (GM/Ford, airlines, etc.) The problem is that it has taken decades of accumulating expenses to hit this point, and they can't just start dumping the expenses. We're talking about retirement plans, healthcare plans, union wages...all of that adds up to expenses that cannot be accrued or deferred anymore. It's time to pay the piper. Do they raise prices? They can't, you will stop buying their products and buy competitive prices...imports, low fare carriers, etc. The problem with all of that is we're talking about big companies that employ thousands of people, representing millions of dollars in payroll, that pays for our goods and services. When they get nervous about their future, they stop spending money...and the economy slows down. So...did GWB do this? The Republicans? Raise minimum wages, those $$$ have to be absorbed somewhere...gross margin, price increases, decreased expenses...it's got to come from somewhere. Minimum wage increases are historically counterproductive. Raising minimum wage is a raise for nothing. No increased performance or capability...we just think you should have more money. Historically, increased wages based on incentives...more productivity, more capability, better training...always improve the economy. "If you do a better job, you'll make more money." vs. "You're going to get a raise if you show up." Did GWB create this? The Republicans? Nope...Democratic success story. Education. Our public education is a mess, and we are now provide one of the poorest educations of any modern country...and my wife is a school teacher. Teacher unions have a strangle hold on our schools...you can't fire a teacher that doesn't do their job...they get raises without merit...they're paid to get more and more degrees, but aren't better teachers. The government has responded with "programs". As a result, we now have an education system that specializes in creating scoring processes that make themselves look good...and our kids can't make change at the cash register, much less read. Did GWB do this? The Republicans? This started back in the 60's with the NEA...who strongly back the Democratic party! Social Security It's a mess, and bankrupt. Go back and take a look at who has repeatedly robbed the bank here...which party has gone back, time and time again...and pulled the funding out from Social Security. You guessed it...Democrats. By the way...GWB at least took a swing at fixing it, but got shut down by both parties. Eroding Moral Values I'm not talking about making everybody go to church here. We are slouching down the hill, becoming more permissive everyday. When will wrong become wrong again? Lies are okay, profanity...fine, sexual promiscuity is the norm. I've been to Europe, I've seen graphic pornography posted on the billboards, I've seen family entertainment there...live strippers at the skating rink on family night! Making it legal doesn't make it right...it just makes it taxable. It makes it easier to police...you don't have to police it anymore. Without morality, we are exactly what the terrorists say we are...infidels. Did GWB do that? The Republicans? Nope...the Democratic party says it's their right to express themselves anyway they want to. I don't believe having the right is the same as having license. You might want to pull out your dictionary to check the meaning of license. Tax System How do you feel about being taxed for being self employed? How about paying taxes when you inherit from someone...it's already been taxed once, but now it's being taxed again. The tax system favors the rich only in the fact that the rich can afford the tax accountants/lawyers that have deciphered the system and found the loopholes. The average Joe can't afford that. It's broken and needs to be fixed. Did GWB break it? The Republicans? Keep in mind that the Republicans are historically the party that lower taxes...the Democratic party historically raises taxes. GWB took a swing at this one too...got shut down by both parties. Go back and look at the last 4 Democratic presidents, and what happened to taxes while they were in office. Jeff, I sympathize with your frustration of the status quo...but emotional responses don't fix things. You threw stones at GWB for substance abuse in his past...what about Bill C.? You threw stones at GWB as a business owner...take a look at the state of Arkansas when Bill C. left there as governor. The whole world hates us...if you believe CBS. Terrorists are growing in numbers...what makes you think they wouldn't grow in numbers regardless. They attacked us on 9/11 before we went to Afghanistan or Iraq...are you saying that it's our fault they attacked us...they wouldn't grow in numbers if we weren't in Iraq? How about the attacks in Europe...our fault too? If we weren't in Iraq they wouldn't attack anywhere? Is all of that GWB and the Republican's fault too? kevinw

I thought I'd respond as an uninformed electorate...please check the following links. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4209908.html http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/09/24/1924636.htm http://news.pajamasmedia.com/business/2006/09/24/11002247_Border_baby_boom.shtml http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/071806HB.shtml http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back805.html http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=1420 http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf1/158747.pdf http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=27182 Just a few you might want to take a look at...of course, being uneducated, I did have to have someone help me with the big words. Don't like any of these? There are plenty more. On the other hand, you have to ask "How many is too many?" I'm not a hate-monger, but I'm not naieve enough to think that nobody is footing the bill for all these births...that would be the taxpayers. Of course, we can't just give them free healthcare...we also have to educate them, so they can become productive members of society. Off to school, kiddos. Get on the buses (that are already overcrowded) and go to classes (that are already over crowded). But wait...we can't have that many kids on the buses or in class...it's too many to teach with just one teacher. So, let's buy more buses, build more classes, hire more bus drivers and teachers. Oh...the schools can't afford that? No problem, we'll just raise taxes. They don't speak English, you say? No problem...we'll hire another teacher and teach them English...or even better, let's buy books that are printed in Spanish and teach them in their native language. Back to the original statement...which you didn't like...how did this happen? Let's see...which party says the government should provide for everyone? That would be the Democrats. Which party fosters the myth that the rich aren't paying taxes? That would be the Democrats. Which party consistently rolls out more and more programs to make sure that the folks that don't work won't ever have a reason to go to work? That would be the Democrats. Need more money? No problem...just have another baby! That would be the Democrats. Which party is responsible for "not torturing" hostages in interviews. You said John McCain was responsible...but you forgot to mention a couple of dozen Democrats that were standing beside him...and I like John McCain...still do! Republicans are pedophiles and perverts...well, we know one that is and he resigned. Now let's look back at a previous president that DIDN'T resign...denied it even when it was undeniable....a Democrat. Yes...they did spend a ton of money on hearings...but old Bill and Hill made it easier by denying, losing documents, hiding witnesses. But, of course, that was the Republicans fault. How 'bout old Barney Frank?...a Democrat. Jack Murtha, he's a great guy...former Marine and all. Oh yeah, he did escape being indicted for taking bribes by the skin of his teeth...went to the meeting and got himself video taped...but at least he was savvy enough to realize he was about to get caught and got cold feet. But he is the bastion of what America is all about, isn't he?..a Democrat. Best of all, don't forget old Teddy K. Wanna take a Saturday night ride with him? Think he's going to start paying more taxes? How about Kerry? He's work a couple mil...think he's going to get behind paying more taxes? If it will get them elected, I guarantee they'll say they will. They are all politicians. I look at what the party stands for...and which candidate most closely reflects my values, then I vote for him/her...and hope he does what he says he's going to do! If he doesn't, I don't re-elect him. If you want to know what the Republican and Democratic parties stand for, your responsibility is to take a little longer look back...and peek under the covers to see past the politics. Look back 20 - 30 years...see which party tried to take us in what direction. You state that Bill Clinton signed off to provide free healthcare to all vets...yes he did. He also vetoed the bill to fund that healthcare. Kinda sad that the immigrants get free healthcare easier than our vets. If you want to vote Libertarian...acknowledge that it is a symbolic, and futile, effort. Your vote will count for nothing more than taking a vote away from a Republican or Democrat. You are, in essence, voting against the most popular candidate...period. Why not get active? Make your voice heard. Make phone calls, write letters. We need a change and we need it now. Not change for change's sake, but real change. My wife is a school teacher and she's completely frustrated that public education isn't about teaching...it's about complying with requirements to avoid losing funding. My son is in the military...going into harm's way soon...and it scares me to death to see people jumping to conclusions based on what they heard on the news or heard from their buddy because that kind of decision making process means more people get hurt. Don't listen to what they say...dig in and see what they've done, how they voted. Their record tells you who they really are. kevinw

You're right on regarding the need for change...we need to get some new blood in there, and tell them to quit playing politics...get their heads together and get things done. Couldn't disagree with you more about needing to get Democrats in office...suggest you check your facts! - 1/2 of of Iraqis want us dead...incorrect. Over 1/2 of Iraqis want us to finish up and leave as soon as possible, but they want us to finish up first. - No plan after a couple of months...incorrect. Thanks to Democrats the plan got squashed. The Dems have successfully put us right back into a Vietnam situation with the rules of engagement being established by politicians. - Bogged down in Iraq...correct. Thanks to Democrats. Thanks to the Dems we can no longer raid houses holding terrorist during the 5 prayer times every day. Thanks to the Dems we can no longer return fire unless we've fired a warning shot first. Thanks to the Dems we can no longer blindfold hostages during interrogation, we can no longer make men remove their clothing to be interrogated, we can no longer turn the AC down to make them uncomfortable during interrogation because it's an invasion of their rights. - Iran & Korea laughing at us... Incorrect, however they know we're stretched thin right now since our military has been downsized...thanks to Democrats...remember Bill Clinton? - Crooks and pedophiles? Maybe. The Republicans didn't elect them...their states elected them. Is that the Republican parties fault? Take a look at some of the stars of the Democratic party. Jack Murtha, escaped being charged for taking bribes by the skin of his teeth...it's on video! Hillary...she "lost" the records of her land deals in Arkansas, nobody could "remember" the details. Bill Clinton-just charged that Bush ignored the terrorists for 6 months...the next day it was documented that there were 4 meetings about terrorists when Clinton said they never discussed it. Jimmy Carter-He says we need to abandon Israel and bond with the Palestinians. Let's look at a few more facts. Thanks to the Dems, the military budget was not passed for nearly 3 months because the Dems turned it into a political football. As a result, equipment is sitting waiting for repairs...but no money to buy the parts. Thanks to Dems, the equip being used in Iraq is poorly maintained...no money for parts, salvaged parts are being used. Thanks to Dems, we have a huge problem with illegal immigrants. We couldn't enforce immigration laws because it violated their rights, and budgets for INS were slashed. We couldn't ship them back home because it invaded their rights. Now, we have a huge problem and the Dems are pointing the finger at the Republicans. Thanks to Dems, over 1/2 of the children being born in TX are born to illegal immigrants and their healthcare is being paid by taxpayers. Dems say we can't refuse healthcare to anyone. As as result, those newborns are citizens of the U.S., but their parents aren't! Thanks to Dems, our schools are flooded with illegal immigrants that are receiving a free education at the expense of the taxpayer. Their parents don't pay taxes. U.S. citizens are being educated in portable buildings, more teachers have to be hired and paid...to teach illegal immigrants. Thanks to Dems, veteran benefits are lower than the free healthcare benefits provided to illegal immigrants. Thanks to Dems, taxpayer dollars are being used to fund endowments for the arts that pay for pornography. Thanks to Dems, military downsizing has resulted in using incompetent contractors to provide key services to our troops...they do a substandard job, but can't be fired. Thanks to Dems we have liberal judges on the bench that are using their position to establish policy...no more 10 commandments in the courthouse, no more crosses in the courthouse. Thanks to Dems, we have legalized abortions for any reason whatsoever. Over 60% of abortions are provided as a means of birth control to middle class, and upper middle class women between 25 and 40, tens of thousands every year...and the taxpayers are paying for it. Thanks to Dems, our education is spending more and doing less than ever before. You may dislike the Prez and you may disagree with what he's done, but before you start throwing rocks...take a look at what he was given to work with.

Wow, Phil! You kinda jumped to some conclusions, didn't you? How do you know I haven't already done all of that? How do you know what I've done at all? I think you've unintentionally made my point. My faith, my relationship with God, is between Him and me. I make a pretty big effort to see myself as he sees me...and you're right...I can always do more. I try to every day...somedays I'm successful...somedays I'm not so successful. I also try to make sure that my relationship with God is where it's supposed to be every day. But here's the kicker...it's my relationship with God...not yours. If I look at what you could be doing, and aren't doing...I could say, "Phil, you should be selling your home and filling your warehouses with tracts!" But, then I've got the beam in my eye...right? My post clearly said we work toward doing a better job every day. But, is it giving out tracts...knocking on doors...selling everything and going to that desert island? Again, the Bible gives the guideline. It says we are each gifted with talents in different areas. If my gift is a great singing voice (which it isn't), and I decided to sell everything and go to the desert island...what about all of those people God intended for me to touch with my singing voice? I have a good friend, a brigadier general in the Army (true story). He feels he needs to do something for God...and is considering resigning his commission and going into some ministry. My advice to him was to be sure, because God put him where he is to have influence in that area...he has considerable influence, and an impressive ministry. If he resigns, he loses that influence. You could say he should be travelling the country preaching the gospel, standing in the square preaching the gospel. How do you know he's not doing exactly what God planned for him to do? When you start looking at service, which is what you're describing, the Bible gives specific instructions...1)make sure it is directed by God, not man, 2) make sure it is scriptural, 3)confirm your decision with other godly men/women, and 4)go where God sends you. God has not called me to fill my warehouse with tracts...however, he has called me in other areas. I'd be interested in knowing how you are serving? We've been here before, believing the part you like and ignoring the part you don't like. I think you'll agree that you've selected some pretty extreme examples. Please keep the context thing in mind. Bin Laden...not a Christian, and according to most Muslims, not following their beliefs. David Koresh, Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate...all great examples of cults. They took a little bit of scripture, molded it into what they wanted it to say. On the other hand, that is what you are doing isn't it? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I think you have to admit that you've done the same thing...just less radically. You forgot to mention Benny Hinn, living a very extravagant lifestyle. You also forgot to mention the thousands and thousands of men and women that have given God everything, and he has given more back to them...just like he promised he would! I'm no fan of the Benny Hinn's of the world, but I don't think you can castigate everyone who has been blessed by God because you don't like Benny Hinns Bob Buford, Dallas businessman who built a cable communication empire. Resigned from the board and started a ministry helping people find what they're supposed to be doing for God. Very wealthy guy. He used his wealth to help prepare people to go into the field. Why didn't he go into the field? He sought God's wisdom, and God told him that he had been prepared for a differenty ministry. Phil, I gotta tell you that you're swinging away but you're missing it. kevin

Phillip, We find ourselves on the opposites sides of another discussion! Which is good. You're comments sound like you're coming at this from a number of different angles...legalism and context. Let's start with the basics...is believing in God enough? The answer is clearly no. Jesus' statement regarding believing make it very clear that we have to do something besides simply accepting the fact that there is a God. Romans 10:9 states that we must confess Jesus Christ as our Lord...that's a big difference from just acknowledging God exists. The next point to consider is will we ever get it right? Even if we confess Jesus as our Lord, does that mean we've done everything and we can now coast through life? The answer is clearly no, again. Paul rights that he will never be perfected...he will never achieve perfection. The reason for this is that even if we accept Jesus as Lord, we still have a sinful nature and we will still sin. Our job is to be constantly aware of sin in our lives, confess those sins, and move on. If it's something we can do without God, then it becomes "works" and the Bible clearly says we can't do it by our own works. If we could work our way into heaven, why did Christ need to hang on the cross? Now to the legalism aspect. Keeping the Sabbath, seeking healthcare when we're sick, giving everything to save the lost...and on. Jesus made it very clear that his death replaced the law with grace. He did say that we should continue to observe the law, but the emphasis was placed on loving our neighbor as ourselves. A couple of examples...Matt. 23:23. Jesus was challenged about the tithe. The pharisees set him up. They asked him if the tithe was still important. Jesus answered by calling them hypocrites, that they tithed meticulously all the way down to giving a tithe of seeds of spice and cumin...but they neglected the more important matters of judgement, mercy and faith. In another instance, Jesus and the disciples were travelling and the disciples walked through a field and grabbed some grains of wheat from the field and ate it...on the Sabbath. The law said that was harvesting, working on the Sabbath. The pharisees attacked again. Jesus reminded them of when David and his men went into the temple and ate the showbread...reserved only for the priests. The point is that the law, and legalism, do not apply in the context they did in Old Testament times. The New Testament teaches that we no longer live under the law, we now live under grace. To your point, is it important that we observe the Sabbath on the official day? No, that is legalism. It is important that we observe "a" Sabbath, but the day of the week we choose to observe is a personal choice. We are instructed to not forsake the gathering for worship. In other words, we don't have the license to decide if we'll attend worship, the when (day of the week) is our decision. Rolling forward. All Christians pick and choose. I disagree, however I'm sure there are a lot that do...you seem to be one of them. Realizing that our job is to be Christlike, and that we will never be able to be Christlike (or perfected), we continue to try to be more like Him every day. We fail daily, we ask for forgiveness, and try again. The Bible addresses all of this, so it's important that we know what we believe. Otherwise, we'll come with opinions such as the ones you stated. They're based on parts and pieces of the Bible, either the ones we know about because we haven't studied enough to understand what we believe...or we choose the parts we like, and disregard the parts we don't like. The Bible clearly tells us that we are accountable for our actions. If I have all of my stuff, and consider it to be mine... "give" God a little bit...then I didn't read the Bible very well. It tells us that it is all God's, and we are responsible for managing it according to His word...and He's going to hold us accountable for how well we manage it. That includes time, material possessions, and skills. Realistically, can I find every one of those guys that are dying every day...no. But I can make sure my neighbor knows...I can sponsor the efforts of those people that are trying to get to the thousands that die every day. I can make what I have available. Our challenge is to look at ourselves in the mirror every day and ask "How does God see me?" Which leads to my question. If you choose to pick and choose (and admit it because you're honest enough to do that), are you confident that your going to give a good accounting? Not from your perspective, but from God's perspective as we know it from the Bible? There are a lot of folks that do the same thing as you've stated. They like the loving, kind, and forgiving God...but that accountability thing is uncomfortable, so they disregard it. How are they going to explain that to God, who sent His Son to die for their sins. What possible justification can they offer? I use my relationship with my father as a guideline for how I see God. I've got a great father, and a great relationship with him. I do things for him to show him that I love him, and I will do anything to avoid disappointing him. God loves me more than my father...and has done more for me than my father. What can I do to show him I love him? By obeying him and doing my best for him. Phillip, I think this is a pretty important personal issue...it is for me, anyway. I encourage you to become as fluent the the Bible as you are in the evolution discussion. I think fluency in God's word will serve you better. Kevin

Hey Phillip, Thanks for the response...could you do me a favor...I know that breaking down the quotes into groupings may help you respond...but it gets a little tedious on my side when I respond? Not sure that made sense. Anyway...yes...you're kinda right again...but kinda wrong too. The amino acid synthesis you described assumes 2 points...1st, that was they type of amino acid that started it all...and 2nd, ammonia gas was present. If they were, you've got a starting point. Where did the ammonia gas come from in that time and place? Might have been there...but I'd be interested in how that happened. The quantum theory response. Please give me an example...physics isn't my strong suit, chemistry and biology are my areas. What matter has occurred from nothing? I guess I'm more familiar with this explanation for the existence of matter when there are no other explanations. It gets confusing, bouncing back and forth like this...doesn't it. The environment and it's conducive/non-conducive nature...I think. We know that different compounds, or molecular structures, are more stable in some environments than others. The popular assumption, at least that I'm familiar with, was that the environment during this time period was going through some dramatic changes. It would have to be going through these changes...heat extremes, pH changes, electrical discharge, radiation, etc. to support the philosophy. In other words, these changes are necessary to force the migration from simple compounds to increasingly complex amino acids. However, these dramatic changes also increase the likelihood that the amino acids would be exposed to unfavorable conditions, which would cause them to break down. The argument seems to be saying "we want it both ways...it did, but it didn't". But here's the challenge, and the jump, that it seems you've made. You've pointed toward some examples of what we have today without acknowledging the context of those examples...colloids that metabolize w/out growth and self replicating molecules...and no example of non-living matter that does both. So, let's start with examples of non-living matter that does either and the context of that process. Then let's pin it down to the likelihood of that occurring in the primordial ooze. To be honest, my biochemical days are far behind me...but I think I still have enough of the basics to follow up on your response. The challenge is to tie any examples to a context that could possibly relate to the genesis of life, and still fall within the simple rules that all chemicak processes must follow. The conducive environment...your response feels a little like you're playing it both ways. If I understand correctly, the assumption is that there was a huge swing in the environment during this process...one day, condtions are good...shortly thereafter, conditions are bad. These amino acids we're discussing don't have adaptability yet, they're just chemical compounds. How do they survive these changes...yet these changes must occur to drive the process. That seems contradictory. Your response to the lottery analogy has been used before...and it doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. You're assumption is that as time goes by, the odds get better because this amino acid has developed. But it doesn't address the fact that the larger structure is less stable, which actually makes the odds worse. And now, we have multiple lotteries going on in parallel around the world. I believe the reality would have been that the lotteries going on around the world only drives the likelihood farther away...the variables increase dramatically. If I played in every lottery in the world, would my chances of winning increase? No, they would be the same chances of winning each lottery for that particular lottery. Every primordial puddle has it's own odds...every puddle has it's own set of circumstances, unique to itself. The mathematical challenge is a tough one to over come. If you're saying the time period involved changes that...you're correct. The time period means that every day brings a new set of circumstances...more/less moisture, higher/lower pH, higher/lower temp, more/less radiation, more/less static discharge...the list goes on. So the odds are constantly on the move...some days more favorable for a particular puddle, some days less. But it doesn't seem logical to assume that even on the most favorable day, the odds are very good. Molecular replication...you're going to need to explain that one to me. Can you give me an example of what your referring to? I'm afraid that we're talking about different things here, that response got a big "HUH" from me. It's not that I don't want to look at the gory details...but I'm careful to make sure that those details are relevant and contextually accurate. Although it's been a while, I had the opportunity to study under some pretty well accredited teachers in college, both in biology and chemistry...even got to do some assistant work with them. I've had this discussion with all of them. The interesting thing was that the majority of them were very fluent in the discussion, taught it in class...but didn't buy it personally. Even had one PhD that had changed sides in the discussion. The lesson that I picked up from that was that there is a lot of the shell game going on in the discussion. Too much of the validation came from examples that had little, or no, contextual accuracy. To make the case for colloidal metabolism as provenance for the generation of life is a huge stretch. There are too many instances of referring to some process that occurs somewhere, and say, "see...just like that." However, you've got to take that instance and tie back to the primordial puddle with some kind of realistic connection. Let me ask your opinion on something...is this going anywhere? I'll be happy to sit here and bounce this stuff back and forth, but it's like my son just told me while discussing with me a few minutes ago..."it's mental gymnatistics. kinda fun for a while, but you're' just spinning your wheels." I went through this discussion with my older son recently. Masters in Biology. He doesn't support the theory, coincidentally. But he made me re-think the arguments. So...do we keep playing ping pong? Or agree to disagree? Kevin

"Thank God , God doesnt mind me being somewhere in the middle , I think he would want all this to be a personal thing" Jeff, I believe you're partially right in your response. Your relationship to God is very personal. Too many people believe their role is to evaluate everybody else's relationship with God, and never look in the mirror to ask themselves hard questions about their relationship with God. The hard part is realizing who God is and what he requires of us as his children. It's easy to fall in love with the cuddly, loving side of God...but that doesn't mean the other realities of God go away...they don't. In a previous post, I mentioned the importance of making sure the god you worship is the God of the Bible. That God is described beginning in Genesis, and ending in Revelation. If the god we're discussing isn't the same God of the Bible...we've taken the parts we like, rejected the parts we don't like...and created our own god. One that likes us just the way we are. Make sure that lines up with what the Bible says about God, and what it says you're supposed to do about your belief. Is believing Him enough? The Bible says that even the demons believe in him, and tremble. Apparently we're supposed to do something besides just believe. Let me encourage you to add something to your prayers. Find a Bible with some study guides, and start reading about God. I think you'll be amazed at what you discover there. Let God show you who he is. I'll be happy to make some recommendations on what types of Bible might be easiest for you to use. There are some particular passages that are good starting points. If you'd prefer, find someone you know better and ask them for some recommendations. It sounds like he has your attention, why don't you get to know him better? Kevin

Hey Phillip... Sorry for jumping into the middle of the discussion...but thought I might have something to contribute. It's a backward look at science and the Bible...actually, it's more like the Bible proving science is wrong. Let me give you some examples...in 1861, the science commmunity stated there were 51 incontrovertible instances where the Bible was wrong. Today, each one of those "wrong" instances have been confirmed as accurate by science. Be happy to provide reference if you would like...but you'll have to read some Christian literature to find it. Keep in mind that science is a moving target...facts that later are proved or disproved. I think we can both name instances where a scientific "fact" was cited, then later retracted as being inaccurate. But, here are a few notables. Centuries ago, the science of the day (yes, this was a long time ago...but it was cutting edge technology at the time) had interesting explanations for how the earth was held where it was. Greeks said the earth was on Atlas' shoulders...Hindus said it was on the back of an elephant...and the elephant was on the back of a turtle. Sounds very childish today, but it was the conventional thought to that time. Let's go back further the oldest piece of literature known to man...the book of Job. Chapter 26:7...the oldest literature known to man..."He stretches out the north over the empty space, he hangs the earth on nothing." Job described space...over 1,000 years earlier. Okay, let's move forward....in the 15th century, science stated that the earth was flat. Remember, Christopher Columbus was going to sail off of the edge of the earth? Isaiah wrote...over a thousand years earlier..."It is He who sits above the globe of the earth." (Isa. 40:22) When you look this one up, be sure to go back to original translations. 150 years before Christ, the leading astronomist of the time (Hipparchus) proclaimed there were 1,022 stars. 150 years later, Ptolemy said no, there are 1,056 stars. 13 years later, Galileo discovered there were millions of stars...more than could be counted. Over a thousand years earlier, Jeremiah said, The host of heaven cannot be counted." Jer. 33:22 Move forward again...in William Harvey discovered that blood circulated through the body. As late as the 19th century it was believed that illness could be cured by "bleeding", letting out the bad blood. Geo. Washinton was bled to death to cure him...an interesting aside. Thousands of years earlier, Leviticus 17:14 said, "For it (blood) is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life." The black plague was finally controlled by using Lev. 14:46. The plague is the sore, and the treatment for the unclean is quarantine. Now let's move to some historical contradictions. In the late 1800s, Dr.S.R. Driver ridiculed the Penteteuch saying Moses couldn't have written it because people didn't know how to write at that time. We now know that people were writing at that time, and even had a postal system. Historians said the book of Daniel was inaccurate because Belshazzar was not the last king of Babylon...the last king of Babylon was Nabonitus. Then, it was discovered that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonitus, the last king. Nabonitus is known to to have travelled a great deal during his rein and made Belshazzar king while he was gone. Asking a person to defend the Bible, or Christianity, with science is actually an oxymoron...I think by definition it's an oxymoron, I'll check. The only response that I can provide is that the Louvre is filled with volumes of man's accumulated science...going back centuries. If you take every book and stack it side by side, it will supposedly stretch nearly 3.5 miles. Lotta books...and nearly 100% of them are now accepted as obsolete. On the other hand, the Bible was written over 1,600 years by 40 different authors, in 3 different languages, by men from all walks of life. And it stands today as God's truth. I guess my point is that science hasn't been able to chip the foundation away, but it's distracted a lot of people. The Bible's message hasn't changed. Can you say that of science? Kevin

You've actually touched on most of the areas that are the greatest challenges for me. The struggle I have with evolution as the genesis of life fall into one of two categories. First category, where did it come from? Second category, how did it work? Let me explain the first category, and I realize that this is the old, old challenge to the evolutionary theory. In order for the evolutionary process to occur...keep in mind that I'm referring to genesis of life, not evolution of species...there had to be somethings (raw materials) and someplace for it to happen. It had to start somewhere. Drilling back, my question is where did the environment that became the laboratory come from. Where did the inorganic materials come from...the energy...etc? I know the answer is going to come down to "it was here". My question is where did it come from? This gets into real "Carl Sagan" stuff...and I know the answer it that billions and billions of years ago (my best Carl Sagan via e-mail impersonation) something happened that led to the universe. From my scientific days...waaay back in college...that doesn't respond to the question. It's speculation. The responses I've heard can't answer the question, only offer possibilities that lead to further questions. The old argument on this point is that this is where the "evolutionist" will have to acknowledge that some external force must have started things. The "creationist" will say that they've just acknowledged God...I don't think they did, they simply acknowledged that the theory starts getting stretched pretty thin at this point without much support. Back to the process, the next challenge for me is the "jump start". I'm not saying that something happened and...abracadabra...we have a single cell organism. You are correct regarding the synthesis of simple amino acids, I think I did that experiment about 30 years ago. I also know what I had to do to synthesize that amino acid. It was a very simple amino acid, and required heat, catalysts, and the right recipe. Was it possible for a simple amino acid to generate in natural, environmental conditions? That's a little bit of leap, but it's possible. If it occured, we have a simple amino acid...nothing more. The challenge of the theory is moving this simple amino acid toward a form that will ultimately become a single cell organism. Back to the primordial puddle. From a basic chemistry perspective, in order for the amino acid to sustain in that molecular structure, the environment must help it out little. It has to be in the right pH at the right temperature, if either of those factors change (according to laws of physics) it will break down. The natural progression is from a state of order to a state of disorder without external influences (my light bulb discussion). We don't know the environment, but speculation is that it was very wild. High heat, lots of fluctuation in pH, etc. All of that would break down the amino acid, not push further development. But if we acknowledge the external influence, energy, there is a possibility that the amino acid would actually become more complex...leading to the next big leap. That external influence could possibly result in the amino acid growing, or becoming more complex. How complex is a subject of lots of speculation, but logic says it wouldn't become very complex. We're talking about another chemical process...electrons are exchanged and the result is a larger molecule. Depending on what is in the ooze, the molecular growth is going to grow by adding those compounds or elements with the greatest electron affinity...the strongest valence values. However, we don't know what was in the ooze and have to acknowledge that there is a wide range of valence values depending on what compounds are already there. In other words, the likelihood of moving toward that unique combination that would ultimately become life if very small. The likelihood of going in other directions is much greater. We're talking exponential values in both directions. The "evolutionist" will argue that, given the length of time, this is exactly what happened. They will say that in the billions and billions of years it happened. The logic is that if you play the lotto long enough, you'll win. The mathematician will tell you that no matter how many times you play, the odds are always the same. When you roll in the fact that we're talking about billions and billions of years, and the environmental conditions were all over the board, the likelihood that all the factors lined up on that one moment are a huge mathematical challenge. It could happen, but I like my chances in the lotto better...and I don't play the lotto. But if we say that it happened, we're to the next big jump. From molecular structure to some pre-life...thing...can't call it an organism, it's not. This thing has to have some basic properties of life, it can grow. In order to grow, it requires energy. At some point, it will have to duplicate...it has to become more than one. Back to basic chemistry. In order to grow, basic chemical processes have to occur which require energy, pH, catalysts...whatever. Without knowing what it was, hard to speculate on what it takes. When a molecule grows, it only gets bigger...it doesn't get "live-er". Molecular growth only means a bigger molecule. The reproduction topic is a big challenge. When molecular chains split, they just break up. If it's a repeating chain, it could possibly break at the point of repetition if that's the point of weakest valence. It will break at the point of weakest valence, unless something occurs to make it break at another point. We can manipulate this process in a lab, pick where we want it to break...but we're not in the lab. So, we now have large molecules that are breaking up...and maybe breaking into two identical molecules. We can take it further and assume that the molecules start combining into new, larger molecules...but we still talking about molecules. We need an electron microscope to see them. At the end of the day, all we have is inorganic material. It seems like the jump from inorganic materials, to pre-life organism, to a single cell organism starts to sound like something from a comic book. Spider man got bit by a spider while exposed to radiation! This isn't sarcasm, nor an attack. To make all of these jumps just push me beyond realism...too many huge jumps. You are right, they have synthesized some amazing compounds in the labs and insulin is a good example. They're doing it today. But I don't think you can use that to validate evolution as the genesis of life. In those instances, they have used some amazing technology to manipulate and synthesize. Those materials did not occur naturally, and would not occur in any other setting. Think about the technology they use, the manipulation of energy, synthetic catalysts...that stuff wasn't around when this evolutionary party was scheduled. As I said before, just too many huge jumps for me. If you can get past all of that, then you start the jumps over how that single cell became what we see today. As I said before, I have no problem with evolution. I don't think you can argue against it...but it doesn't demonstrate where life began. Kevin

I guess I've been sucked into the discussion. IMHO, this is a no win conversation. It seems like there are some assumptions going on that don't necessarily line up with the discussion. As I said in my previous post, there's no arguing with ongoing evolution, it's happening everywhere. The example of the height of the average male is a good example of what Darwin found...species that were adapting to their environment. The ht. of the average male in the U.S. is increasing. Factors that contribute include better nutrition and healthcare in the U.S. than in other places. Additionally, our society places a unique value on taller males resulting in taller males being more desirable as a mate. Being 6'2", that's a good thing. On the other hand, males are not getting taller in other parts of the world...poorer nutrition, poorer healthcare, and different societal values. Darwinism at it's best! So, here's the jump. The fact that males are getting taller in the U.S. means life began by evolution. That doesn't work. I have a truck that needed a tune up, my mechanic put in new spark plugs and it ran better. One of my other trucks needed a tune up, so it must need new spark plugs. But it's a diesel. That doesn't work. Hope that made sense? My point is that you can't draw a conclusion based on evidence and facts from a totally separate and different set of circumstances. Objectively, putting my faith aside, the challenge that evolution, as the genesis of life, holds for me is the huge jump that must be made to come to the conclusion converting hypothesis to fact. At the end of the day, in order for evolution to be the genesis of life a series of chemical compounds in some form of primordial sludge must come together and start consuming and producing energy. That's the most basic form of life. The theory says that through some manner, these compounds probably became amino acids, then some external energy source "jump started" them, and they became life. For me, that is saying that if I drop a light bulb on a concrete floor enough times, add some form of energy (electricity or gamma rays or something), and hit just the right temperature, a single cell organism of some kind will develop. I know, I'm over simplifying and excercising unauthorized sarcasm. But that seems to be what I'm supposed to swallow if I'm gonna bite on this theory. The next question is, "if this did happen, that organism must consume something to create energy to replace the energy it is using...how did that happen?" Life burns energy, energy must be replaced to continue life. How did this first organism feed itself, did the "spark" also create the ability to feed itself...and if so, what did it eat? Did it eat other amino acids, how many were there, and how did it find them? I accept that it could have "absorbed" them in some manner, but if it took millions of years for the right chain of elements to form...did so many of them form that there were enough to sustain the first? Now it gets more convoluted. The theories on the sustainment of life don't support consumption of energy sources as we know them...they argue energy through heat...or light, and consumption as we know it today occurred through evolution. What I hear, personal interpretation, is "evolution" becoming the standard answer for unanswerable questions. Yeah...that's the ticket...it's evolution! (sorry, more sarcasm) Okay...so we're fairly technololgically sophisticated. We can do some pretty amazing things in our laboratories. Why can't we even come close to duplicating this process? We know the assumed circumstances, the assumed chain of events, and the assumed variables. I'm not trying to to attack here. My personal aptitude is that I need to see something to support the idea. Speculation doesn't get my interest. For me to get excited about evolution as the genesis of life, I'd like to hear something credible.

I've been reading this thread for some time, started to respond, changed my mind, back and forth...then decided to add a slightly different perspective. Let me give some credentials...I've very well educated, heavy college background in chemistry, biology...and a smattering of physics. VP of Sales and Marketing for large corporations. Most importantly, I am a Christian and I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Gives you an idea where this is going, doesn't it. I don't see God's work as a magic show. In other words, when I see a magician do a trick, I wonder "how did he do that?" I know it isn't real, and am curious how it was done. My perspective on God is simple, He's God and I'm not...He doesn't owe me an explanation. I have no doubt that He's done what He's done, and if He wanted me to know how...or if it was important for me to know how...He would explain it to me. I believe that is part of Faith, believing without understanding. Does that make me stupid or dull? I don't believe so, I believe that God intends me to spend my time focusing on the things I'm supposed to be doing...not wondering what He's up to. I attended a seminar many years ago by a nuclear physicist, astro-physicist...or something. Incredible credentials. He wrote a book on how God can be omniscient and omnipresent...know everthing and be in all places at all times. He explained physic's theories that went into bending time and space...very impressive. I had no idea of what he was talking about. As I left, a friend of mine asked me if I understood it. I answered, "Nope." He asked me if it bothered me that I didn't understand it. I answered, "Nope." He stopped me and asked me why it didn't bother me. My answer, "It doesn't matter if I understand." Whether I understand, or don't understand, doesn't change anything...and the fact that I don't understand and can't understand is the reason...He's God, and I'm not. If He's truly God and truly spun this universe into existence with the power of His thought...am I really ever going to understand how He did it, or how long it took, or whether 7 days and nights were really 7 days and nights as I know it? We can't argue evolution...it's going on everywhere. Life on this planet is evolving as we speak. The example that comes to mind is common bacteria...it has evolved to be more resistant to the antibiotics used against it...that is evolution. Not a theory, a fact. On the other hand, evolution as the generation of life or evolution of man from more primitive species...not so apparent. Just as many arguments for as against. Life started by evolution vs. creationism? I don't believe scientific fact supports life started by evolution...too many huge, gaping holes. Could God have started life through evolution? Yes. Could God have started life by simple creation? Yes. Which was it? I don't know, I'll ask Him some day...but probably not...when I get to that point, I don't think I'll care how He did it anymore. Does it really matter which way it happened? If you're asking "does it matter how God started life?" My answer is no. If you're asking whether God did it...or it just sprouted up on day...the facts all point toward God. Now, I know that's going to launch a whole long debate about whether they do or don't...and that's going to fall back into that unproducting conversation thing. It doesn't really matter, does it? We're here...we're life. You either believe, or you don't. If you don't believe, I can't make you..can I? I know God can...how's He going to do it? I don't know, He's God and I'm not He's done it before, He can do it again...if that is what He wants to do. I believe the challenge for us is to avoid being distracted by unproductive, unfruitul discussions and arguments. They cause us to get de-railed from what we're supposed to be doing. Lastly, the last discussion about miracles and false prophets. Miracles truly do surround us every day. My son is alive today because of a miracle. He wasn't supposed to live. However, before taking a few verses from the Bible to make a point, it's important to know what the whole thing says. God can use the influence of the Benny Hinn's of the world for His purposes. He said he could even make the rocks sing His praises if He wanted to hear praises...if he can use a rock, I believe He can even use Benny Hinn. The careful part for all of us is picking and choosing what we believe and don't. God clearly says you believe, or you don't...no "kinda" believing. If we start re-defining who God is based on the part we believe, we are accepting some and rejecting the other. Then, we have successfully created God...in our image. He's the god we want him to be, not the God He is. That is called a false god. The Old Testament refers to that god as "Ashteroth", a personal god we make for ourselves when none of the other gods are what we want. Then, when we meet the real God...we have a problem. The debate is healthy. We're never asked to just be blind and dumb and never ask questions. "Search Me and try Me says the Lord of Hosts." I've done that for nearly 50 years. So far, He's God and I'm not. kevin w

John I posted on this thread earlier...but felt compelled to tell you THANK YOU!! Thank you for your response...and more importantly, thank you for your service! I know that what you are doing, you are doing for me...and everyone in the U.S. God Bless You! As I mentioned in my earlier post, my son is a brand new 2nd LT. and will be deploying to Iraq next Summer. When he tells me about the men he is serving with, their commitment and service, it is incredibly humbling. He also tells me that is is the men and women, like you, that are making this work and doing the work. Thanks for you input, it means a lot. Please take the advice that I've given my son...take care of yourself. If you don't take care of yourself, you can't take care of your team. God Bless...and when you're finished there, come back home to us! kevinw

Jon, Thanks...I do pray...every day! And I couldn't be prouder. His decision to join the Army came out of the blue. He walked in one night and told us he was going to join the Army. After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I asked what his thoughts were. He said, "Dad, no matter what the kids at school say I believe we live in the greatest country in the world...and it's worth fighting for." I did the only thing I could do, I hugged him and kissed him. He's awesome! It is encouraging to see how many realize the media coverage for what it is. It's more encouraging to see my son, and his friends, and their commitment to being prepared (squared away), their concern for their men, and their passion to do the right thing. The previous post about the SEAL was on target. I hear those reports everyday...the majority of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan are glad we're there...and their greatest fear is what will happen if we leave too soon. That would be an incredible tragedy. Kevinw

My son just commissioned as a 2Lt in the Army in December. He's about to be deployed over there...and I'm not crazy about it. The bottom line is that this country doesn't have the stomach for war...we're good for about 6 weeks, but then we lose interest. Then the media starts their game...their job is to report the news, and if it isn't sensational enough...they'll start making news. Report one side of the story, omit facts, change the context...whatever it takes to get people to watch. Remember Dan Rather? Do we need a draft? I don't think so...but we do need our politicians to quit using the military, and military funding, as a political football. Right now, there are thousands and thousands of vehicles, airplanes...you name it...sitting at military bases because Congress won't release funding to make the repairs. The vehicles in use in Iraq/Afghanistan are basically being salvaged from other vehicles to keep them running. God bless those guys, they're doing amazing work with what they're being given to work with...but they can't keep patching together equipment. We've got the manpower, expertise, and training to do the job...but the politicians can't keep their hands out of the pie! Sound familiar? kevinw

What an interesting thread. I was surprised to find it here, and encouraged by the responses. I am a Christian, and my faith in God sustains me from day to day. Much of what I see here are the responses to Christians everywhere. I'd like to share a story from my experience, and then a response to some of the postings on this thread. My first son was born on Jan 3, 1983. We'd lost several children to miscarriages prior to this and had been holding our breath, day to day, until the morning he was born. Shortly after his birth, the dr. called us and told us that there was something wrong with our son...his temperature had spiked. He asked permission to do a spinal tap to see if our son had meningitis. Then he came back and told us it was meningitis, they'd put him in isolation and on antibiotics while they tried to determine what bacteria was causing the meningitis. He told us our son had less than a 50% chance of survival and, if he survived, he would have brain damage resulting in loss of sight, hearing, or motor skills...or any combination of those to the point of being in a complete vegetative state. I was a Christian then, but didn't know what to pray...I didn't want to ask God to let my son live a miserable life, and wasn't sure I was capable of being a father to a child with those types of problems...and I couldn't ask God to take him. So, I asked God to do His will and help me accept it. If one of you had stood next to me at that time, and hugged me, and told me it was going to be alright...it would have been no less real than what God did at that moment. I felt Him there, I heard His voice...and I was instantly at peace. I went back to my wife's room and found that she was no longer crying. I told here everything was going to be okay, and she told me she had felt the same thing. The doctor told us that if our son recovered, he would experience respiratory failure, heart failure, and convulsions. None of that happened. As we left the hospital with our son, 17 days later, the doctor followed us out of the hospital and told us the following...when our son was born, he had no reason to think anything was wrong but he knew something was wrong and told the nurses to take his temperature every hour. When the temperature spiked, he had no reason to believe it was meningitis, but he knew it was meningitis and performed a spinal tap. The bacteria that caused the meningitis rarely causes that disease infants, and requires a specific test to diagnose...he ordered that test. The normal course of antibiotics would have been a broad spectrum antibiotic, which the bacteria would not have responded to...he ordered the specific antibiotic for this bacteria. Our son should have had respiratory failure, cardiac failure, and convulsions...but he didn't. His last words to us were, "God has plans for your son." He also told us to monitor him for brain damage which would show up later in life. I had no health insurance at that time, and 17 days of neo-natal intensive care was very expensive. When I called the hospital to arrange payments, they told me the bill had been paid. My son is 23 now. He played on his high school varsity soccer team, he's a talented guitar player...and a newly commissioned 2 LT in the Army. No sign of brain damage! The Bible describes Faith as the Hope in things unseen...I have Faith. God allows each of us to make our decisions, and be accountable for them. He doesn't order our lives, he doesn't operate us as puppets. We have the gift of choice. He wants what is best for us, but He doesn't force us to accept it. The things we do in our lives have consequences that affect others, which isn't "fair". But the fact that we did something isn't God's fault...it's ours, we made the decision. The effects on others aren't "fair", but that isn't God's fault either...we made the decision and took the action. It isn't fair that a baby is abused by his father...it's the father's fault...not God's. God allowed the father to make his own decision. God offered the father the same thing He offers each of us, the father chose his path and the consequences began...and consequences almost always affect the innocent. The Bible refers this as the sins of the fathers being visited on their children. However, He is God. He makes the rules, we don't. One of those rules involves consequences and accountability. We can decide He doesn't exist, we can decide we don't like the way He does things, we can even decide to re-make Him into the kind of god we want Him to be...but it doesn't change Him. He is God whether we believe in Him or not, whether we accept Him or not. He doesn't change to please us, we were created to please Him. His desire is to have a personal relationship with each of us...He provided the Way for that to happen. We get to decide whether we accept Him. When someone comes to my door at an inconvenient time to share their Faith...I admire them! They have the courage to do what many of us don't have the courage to do...talk to a total stranger about "things unseen". Think of it this way...if I knew the bridge was out down the road, and saw you driving toward it at 70 mph, wouldn't you want me to let you know what was ahead? Wouldn't that be my responsibility? That's what they're doing, trying to let those that are barrelling down the road at 70 mph know that there's something ahead they need to know about it. What courage! They don't even know you, and they're concerned about your future. Sometimes people just don't want to know the bridge is out, they'd rather believe that everything ahead is the way they want it to be. There are things down the road that we are all going to have to face. We get to decide whether we believe there's something up there to prepare for...or we can decide that the road is what we want it to be.

Try checking your pressure switch...probably coming off the bottom of the unloader valve. Little buggers have a tendency to crap out on you. Should be able to put a multi-meter across the contacts and check for continuity.

For me, it depends on what service you use. Some companies only mail to the top homes in a particular mailing. These are the ones I like to use, I've had good luck with them. If you go with a mailing company, they have a database that can sort the mailer according to the demographics you want to use. Be a little careful of these databases, they have a tendency to be out of date since the company has to buy updated lists frequently and most of them don't keep the lists updated. I've had better luck with a high quality, fully color, glossy card. I use large 8.5 X 5.5 cards and regular sized index cards...can't really tell the difference on either of them. The real difference was using a high quality card. Kevin Whitley

There weren't any set up costs with the broker I used. Many of the companies will waive the set up costs to get you going. I work with a merchant services company, they process the transactions on the cards. The agreement you sign states you won't charge more for credit card transactions. The average fee is less than 1.5% for me, so I just build it into the pricing. Kevin Whitley