"It's called Gold Case. It's a cross between Deal or No Deal and Millionare with a charming celebrity host, to be determined!"

I really hope that the Hollywood writer's strike can be resolved soon. If it doesn't, the television that I love so much could die. In a worst-case scenario, Hollywood will tell the writers to screw off replacing the quality programming they produce with reality television that doesn't require people with brains to run. We could see an all-reality television line-up.

If that ever happens, watch for my obituary.

"Let's not get bogged down in semantics. I think what Lisa was trying to say is..."

Two years ago, I heard a lot of hubbub about the "War on Christmas." Apparently, this "war" is a concerted effort by secularists and anti-Christians who want to make our country less Christian or something like that. They argue that by not referencing Christmas in advertising material or being asked to not put up public displays of the religious roots of the season that Christmas and by extension, Christianity, is being driven from public dialogue.

I don't buy it. While there are no doubt some people who really would like Christianity wiped off the face of the Earth, I do not believe that they are going to win this war by simply taking the word "Christmas" out of the weekly junk mail. Rather, if there is a war on Christmas, it began a long time ago and hasn't made much ground.

I'm referring to the advent of Santa Claus as part of Christmas culture. If there is any more secular figure, I can't think of it. Santa Claus lives on the North Pole, dresses in commie red, and has nothing at all to do with the birth of the Savior. Among other things, he supplants the role of the wise men in the Christmas story by bringing gifts not to the Baby Jesus, but only to children that obeyed their parents. This is a damaging lie that gives kids one more thing to think about other than religion. In fact, I feel that the perpetuation of this lie has done more to distract from the true meaning of Christmas than any other single idea or movement in the last 2,000 years.

St. Nicholas might have been acting in the "true spirit of Christmas" but his many incarnations since then have separated themselves from it (i.e. Annual Gift Man who lives on the moon). I say it is time to put an end to all this Santa Claus business. I will not teach my child that Santa Claus is real, but rather that he is just a story told by parents who have no way of controlling their children.

Along with Santa Claus is perpetuated the most unchristian aspect of Christmas: consumer spending. Focusing not on the message of love and forgiveness taught by Christ, we focus on spending boatloads of money so that we can get the earthly things that we want. I'm not sure that He would be very happy about this, having taught, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor..." I am not arguing with the spirit of giving on Christmas. It is the overindulgence that has so pervaded the holiday that bothers me.

I hope that we can take the time in our own lives to focus on the true meaning of Christmas: the gift of eternal life. If we focused on that in our own lives and those of our families, this holiday season will be far more meaningful than any greeter at Wal-Mart can make it.

So, in the spirit of the season, let me say: What you talkin' 'bout, everyone!

"Obama? What is he, Hispanic?" "No, he's black." "And he's running for President? Good luck."

In case you haven't noticed, I'm a political junkie. I get riled up about every election, I try to goad my friends and acquaintances into talking politics. I'm optimistic and idealistic. I believe that voting does matter and that things can change for the better.

Over the last few elections, I've tried to get behind candidates but have been disappointed. This year I'm starting down that same path. The candidate that I've started to get behind is Barack Obama. Man, I love that guy.

To prove that I like him not just with puppy love but as a candidate, here are a few highlights from his platform:

1. Foreign Policy. Obama is the first candidate I've heard take a progressive foreign policy position. He abandons the antiquated notion of pulling back from hostile foreign powers and argues that we should actually increase our ties and dialogue with our enemies. It was ties and dialogue that prevented the Cold War from becoming a hot war.

I believe in democracy (and the republicanism that we practice as Americans) and capitalism. They are good doctrines that generally work. I also believe that they are infectious. As people begin to taste freedom, they become addicted to it and will ultimately fight to the death to attain it. If we increase ties with our enemies, democratic and capitalist ideas will inevitably infiltrate their culture and real change will begin. I also believe that countries with intertwined economies will be less likely to go to war with each other. If we really want to protect our troops, let's do what we can to prevent wars from happening. The best way to do that is to open up dialogue with our enemies.

2. Poverty. Unlike all the other candidates (except Edwards, whom I also really like), Obama is a champion of the poor, not the middle class. Our society will be judged not on how we treated the privileged, but how we treated the poor. This is a running thread throughout Christianity (which many claim as the foundation of our nation) as well as every other religion. We should work to create a society where there is no poverty, not a society where the rich can ignore the impoverished. Our country is suffering from a spreading gap between the rich and poor and unless we work to reverse that trend, we will all be left poor.

I am however cautious. I liked Bush in 2000. He talked about humble foreign policy, centrist politics and uniting the country. Every promise he made, every reason I voted for him was reversed within the first year he was in office - mostly before 9/11. I hope that my faith here is not misplaced. But he seems like a man of values - someone with vision and integrity. Someone who believes in something and is willing to make a stand for what's right. I've lived through too many years of subterfuge of the principles of the Constitution and it's time for a change.

I'll provide more detailed analysis of his other positions in future posts.

Check out his website for yourself. I hope that you'll take the two minutes to watch this video. It's really good.

And yes, I am aware that he purportedly doesn't salute the flag. I'll address that as well.

"And that's why I'm voting for Osama in '08. What no comeback? Ya burnt!"

"What are you doing? You better not hurt that little bat." "Animals can't feel pain."

Two nights ago, we discovered that we have mice in our apartment. We had just moved out of a place that had a huge mouse problem, and we were hoping never to face it again. However, after only a few weeks in our place, we had our hopes crushed.

Yesterday, Mrs. Debator set some sticky traps around the house. We used traps designed for mice, as well as some designed for rats. (The rat ones are bigger and stickier.) After a night of listening to the pitter-patter of disease-ridden feet, I woke up to check the traps and lo and behold, we had caught a mouse on one of the rat traps. Its tail and back feet were stuck to the trap and it had been using its front feet to try to free itself. Apparently it had been at this quite awhile because the mouse had successfully moved the trap several inches. Despite his efforts, he had been unable to free himself.

I was now faced with the task of disposing of it. Being the humane person that I like to hide from people, I wanted to put it out of its misery so it wouldn't spend the last hours or days of its life stuck to a plastic trap, alone in the dark, and starving until it finally died surrounded by the stench of human waste. In our last apartment when we had caught a mouse on a sticky trap, I wanted to put it out of its misery in a human way so I trapped it under a tupperware and put cotton balls doused with various chemicals inside. I tried ammonia, ammonia mixed with bleach cleaner, and rubbing alcohol with no success. So, I just turned the tupperware upside down with the mouse still in it, put it in a bag, and dropped it down the trash chute that went directly to mouse hell. Once something goes down that chute, it's gone. (This was very nice for poopy diapers.) Unfortunately, living in a house with a garbage can that I have to take out once a week, I don't have that luxury.

Not seeing any other options, I decided to shoot the poor guy with my pellet gun. I picked up the trap and took it outside where I set it on the lawn. It was a chilly morning and the sun had not yet come up over the mountains. That's right, I was going to shoot this mouse at dawn. I retrieved my gun from inside and loaded it. I saw that the mouse was still desperately trying to get off the trap and had in the process gotten his front two feet and left side stuck as well. I could see his chest rapidly heaving up and down as he struggled to get free. He was obviously scared. I said, "It will all be over soon, little guy." I pumped my gun 10 times and aimed. I couldn't see him very clearly through the scope because I was so close, but I could see his brown shape in the sight. I centered the crosshair on his head, hesitated and fired.

I lowered the gun and looked. He was still there, wiggling and trying to get free. I had missed. Crap. I loaded again, took aim and fired. Miss. Again. Miss. So I went and inspected the trap. There were several holes immediately beneath the mouse. I was missing, but not by much. I knew that if I aimed just a little higher, I would kill him. I reloaded, pumped up the gun and aimed. I still couldn't see clearly through the scope, but I could clearly see his outline. I found his thrashing head in the scope and took aim just above the head. I hesitated. Before, when I was missing, it was easy to keep taking shots because each time I fired I felt that there was less and less of a chance of me hitting him. But now, I knew that I would hit him - I had done it hundreds of times before on inanimate targets. I looked at his dim outline through my scope, held my breath and fired.

It was a hit. And it was gruesome. I saw the mouse on the trap, bewildered and struggling to get free - to just run away from this torment and hide where no predator could find him. I saw him there, bleeding from his neck. At first it was just a drop, then more and more. It was forming a dark red puddle on the trap. I was sick. I had set out to give this animal a humane end to his life, but instead I forced him to spend his last moments trapped, confused, and bleeding to death. I couldn't bear it. I reloaded, took careful aim and fired. When I lowered the gun, he was still. There was no visible wound from the second shot but I didn't want to inspect further. I had chills going down my back and I was weak with sickness from what I had seen. I had killed a living thing whose only crime was to seek refuge and food in my warm home.

I found a grocery bag and placed the trap inside. Blood stained the grass as I moved the trap into the bag. I quickly placed the bag in the garbage can hoping that my feelings could go with it. But I don't have an emotional trash shoot where I can send my anguish. I can only deal with it as best I can and that's by playing Rainbow Six Vegas. Rainbow Six, you ease the pain.

"Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!"

I hate Rudy Giuliani. I think that he is the worst candidate for president from either party. I would rather live in Ron Paul's magical America that doesn't exist than live under the oppressive hand of that self-important prick. To prove that my feelings about him are justified, I will post a series of posts concerning various aspects of his platform. While I do not disagree with him on everything (gun control and federal spending are possible areas of agreement), I differ with him so much on the other points that can't say his name without giving away my great contempt for him.

I will begin by addressing the most idiotic of his policies - those regarding immigration. Like the rest of his platform, he attempts to tie the immigration issue to the War on Terror (and by extension, 9/11 - an event for which if any good credit is deserved, he feels it should be directed at him). Giuliani opens the immigration section of his website with the bold claim that:

I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.

I was skeptical. I went on to read his explanation:

Real immigration reform must put security first because border security and homeland security are inseparable in the Terrorists' War on Us.

Aside from the bad grammar and confusing syntax ("the Terrorists' War on Us"? What happened to the "War on Terror"?), his claim is not surprising - he has always tried to link every issue to the War on Terror. However, I do find his plan to be a bit surprising - surprisingly naive!

He proposes a four prong solution. The first prong is to "Bring order to the border" by building a high-tech security fence along the US-Mexico border. No doubt this will end terrorism because no terrorists will come into the country through Canada or legally.

The second prong of his plan is to "Identify all non-citizens entering and exiting America." This includes issuing "biometric ID cards" or SAFE cards to all non-citizen workers and students. This program leaves the gaping hole of recreational visitors and ignores the fact that we already do this using the passport/visa program. Aside from being almost impossibly difficult to administer, issuing a second form of ID will do no more to help track those who are still in the country and it will be impossible to issue SAFE cards to illegal immigrants. In addition to the SAFE card, he wants to create a national database of foreigners because all foreigners are likely terrorists. I'm sure this is because he doesn't think that our country's xenophobic mob mentality has yet risen to a healthy level of violence. We need to get back to the good old days of beating the Irish and locking up the Japanese. Besides, it's clear that no American would ever resort to terrorism to promote their agenda.

The third prong of his plan is to deport all illegal aliens who commit a felony. I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that this is already the stated policy and existing law of every government in the United States, both state and federal. If he proposes enforcing the law with more vigor, that's fine, but he leaves a glaring omission in his policy: what to do with the illegal immigrants that are already here. Nowhere on his website does he state what should be done about them. Maybe he's thinking that if he turns America into a police state, they'll hate living here and move back to Mexico or wherever they are from.

The final prong of his plan is to "Americanize immigrants" by expecting them to learn English to gain citizenship. Again, this is already policy (they have to pass the test in English) and it ignores what's to be done with the millions of illegal immigrants who already live like shadows in our society.

At the end of the day, Rudy Giuliani provides no real solutions to the immigration problem facing our nation. At best, he proposes greater enforcement of already existing laws and shows no leadership or insight into how to deal with the far greater problems that our laws seem incapable of handling. Maybe he believes that if you don't do anything about a problem, it will just go away. After all, millions of people praise him for his handling of 9/11 even though he didn't do anything.

Maybe he'll get the answer during a spontaneous phone call while giving a speech to the politicians and celebrities that have endorsed him:

"Hi honey, I'm giving a speech to a convention of people who don't have a clue. Want to say hi?"

The Constipation Party, Part II - "Only if you acknowledge the irony."

This is the second post on one of my favorite topics: why the Constitution Party has it wrong. Please understand, I'm glad that they've formed a party and are engaging the country in a dialogue about how the government should operate. I just think that the way they want it to work is. . . stupid.

The Constitution Party includes in its platform the following statements under the heading, "Sanctity of Life":

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born....

Aside from the lack of scientific evidence to support the presumption that, "life begins at fertilization", my own religious beliefs do not support this claim. Assuming, however that their claim is true, the position they take based on that claim is inconsistent. They go on to state:

We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

This language states that there are no circumstances under which an abortion may be legally performed. In a case where the life of the mother is at risk, the CP has already made the decision that the mother must die and the child must live - that the innocent blood of the mother must be shed to allow the innocent child to be born. This position ignores the inherent conflict in choosing which of two innocent people will live, thereby depriving mothers and fathers of the right to make the most personal decision they will ever be faced with. It is an example of the worst kind of state intrusion and is inconsistent with CP principles of keeping government out of people's lives.

Furthermore, their original statement regarding the protection of life states that:

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born;

They implicitly make the argument that no justification can be provided for abortion. This position is not only far out of the mainstream, but denies the legitimate arguments to be made for commonly followed exceptions. Is it not 'unconscionable' to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist, or a teenager to bear the inbred child of her father? The CP provides no answer to these arguments.

The CP position of valuing the life of the unborn child above all also invites another level of government intrusion: what to do in the case of miscarriage? If a mother miscarries due to her own poor choices (like poor nutrition, excess physical activity, etc.), does the government have the right to prosecute the 'shedding of innocent blood'? Would the CP support prosecuting the mother for negligent homicide or manslaughter? I would hope not.

The CP lays out its practical application of their sanctity of life doctrine by stating:

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body. . . .We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2. (emphasis added)

Ironically, the CP wants to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases involving abortion, which would essentially deprive the Federal Government of any real power to prevent states from decriminalizing abortion - completely frustrating their purpose. (In a second level of irony, the CP says that the right to life should not depend on a majority vote, but they support the death penalty, which is enacted by legislatures casting a majority vote.)

Personally, I follow a more nuanced position (read under the "Additional Information" link) and believe that we should let the experiment of democracy work on this difficult issue by leaving it up to the states to decide how best to deal with abortion.

"Who is the biggest loser in this room?" "Raise your hand, Ed!"

I am not an attractive person. I think the celebrity I look most like is Rimmer from "Red Dwarf":
Nevertheless, through the use of guile and flattery, I convinced an attractive woman to marry me. I assume that the reason we're still married is because she hasn't figured out how ugly I really am.

Whenever anyone meets my wife or sees a picture of her, their first comment is, "She's very beautiful" or something to that effect. Normally, I would appreciate such a comment because in my opinion, she is very beautiful. However, when most people say that, they say it with an air of surprise. It's as if they were saying, "Wow, she's a lot more beautiful than I expected for someone as hideously ugly as you." Well, you may be right, but for the love of pete don't tell her! I don't have a job yet, so at least wait until I can buy her love. Then tell her whatever you want.

"I know I shouldn't judge, but..."

Today in GD, I was sitting in an overly cramped room listening to a very boring lesson delivered by an at best average teacher. I was making a mental list of mistakes that she was making, both in teaching style and doctrine (like hurrying through the material, asking rhetorical questions, failing to ask class members to read, etc.). My opinion of her was only further trashed when she gave as an introduction to an anecdote the quote titling this post. I tried to help with comments, but was only faced by comments from other class members that demonstrated their own ignorance and bigotry. And then I realized something: I am really hard on GD teachers that aren't me. For someone who touts the importance of non-judgment, I felt pretty hypocritical.

I began to think of why I was being so hard on her. I think that it's probably because in a church that gives its members so much help in learning how to teach, there is no excuse for shoddy teaching. We have many resources available ("Teaching - no greater call", suggestions at the beginning of each lesson in the manual, good examples, training meetings, etc.) and as such, members who don't take advantage of these resources are, "lazy and slothful servants."

However, after a bit of soul-searching, I realized that I should not judge them so harshly. I don't know her background, I don't know if she's shown improvement from the first lesson she ever taught and I don't know if she's nervous or intimidated by the class. So, I should just be understanding and do my best to get what I can out of the lesson. If I don't, karma (or whatever you want to call it) will come and get me and I'll be a crappy teacher.

Then I came to and the lesson was over. Crap.

"This is the part of the job I hate."

I hate Ronald Reagan. I hate his politics, I hate his personality, I hate his memory and I hate that Republicans won't rest until everything in the entire world is named after him. (I know it's a Wikipedia site, but it's the best list I could find so only count 50% of it as accurate.)

In case you don't remember, Ronald Reagan was either directly or indirectly responsible for one of the most atrocious violations of the law committed by the executive branch - the Iran-Contra affair. In 1985, President Reagan authorized members of the CIA to continue to support rebels in the Central American nation of Nicaragua in direct violation of the law. To fund their evil plan, the CIA sold weapons to sworn enemy of the US and current 'Axis of Evil' member, Iran. (It's worth noting that at the time Iran was at war with sworn enemy and 'Axis of Evil' member, Iraq, to whom we also sold weapons, many of which were later used against US troops and Iraq's own citizens.)

President Reagan was also at the helm when the nation went through a series of economic crises, at least one of which was brought on by his "Reaganomics", immortalized by Ben Stein (who was quoting someone else) who called them, "Something -doo economics. Voo-doo economics."

President Reagan broke the law, sold weapons to our enemies and hurt the economy, but our leaders want to rename the entire world after him. Now I know what to do to fulfill my goal of having Congress rename the Florida the "Daniel National Memorial Wang."

It's worth noting that I am also sick that we built a memorial to FDR without a single mention of his order to round up American citizens based on their race, take their property and forcibly remove them to internment camps.

"It's hard not to listen to TV. It's spent so much more time raising us than you."

I have occasionally imagined a world in which forced sterilization is commonplace. Where the powers that be tell certain people that they are entirely unfit to have and raise children. I imagine this world with fewer social ills, fewer mullets, and fewer little girls named "McCambren" (meaning son of Cambren). Of course, in my fantasy the process by which people are chosen for sterilization is perfectly just and perfectly administered - by me. Unfortunately, as ruler of the world, my busy schedule of smacking morons upside the head and watching the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa perform the hit song, "Na na na na na na na na Leader!" will preclude me from evaluating the fitness of every single person on the planet. Alas, it must remain a dream.

However, that doesn't mean that I can't do my best to help the current stock of should-be-steriles to not totally screw up the rising generation (after all, they will be responsible for paying my Social Security). So turn off "Junior" and pay attention for 2 minutes.

Parents should not abdicate their responsibility for raising their children. They should not expect grandparents, schools, prisons, the state, the Feds, or anyone else to adequately teach their children what they need to know to be functioning members of society. Since you had sex without taking the necessary precautions, you have the responsibility to ensure that your kid doesn't grow up to be the next Hitler, or worse, the SOB that abuses their power in a low-level customer service position.

This abdication is becoming widespread. The latest example that I've seen was a hot topic this Halloween: risque costumes. Pundits and blowhards everywhere were making a big deal of so-called "prosti-tot" costumes, or slutty costumes for young girls. I'm guessing that the logic of their complaint is that because stores sell these costumes, they have to buy them. They want the stores or the government or somebody to tell Target, Wal-Mart, et al. to pull the costumes from their shelves. I have a much better solution that will also help you to be a better parent: Don't buy those costumes! Nowhere does it say that you have to buy something simply because it is offered to you. If you don't want your child wearing those awful costumes, don't buy them. This will have a two-pronged effect. First, the costume will not be available for your child to wear, so they can wear something better. Second, as consumers (you) stop buying products, retailers (stores) stop selling them. This is an example of supply and demand - the first law of economics. (K - correct me if I am wrong.)

Parents, please, please, please don't expect other people to raise your children. Other people are dumber than you. You are the big person and big people are in charge. If you don't want your child doing something, if all else fails, you can physically pick them up and prevent them from doing it. Remember that. You don't need to abuse them, but you are in charge. Not the government, not your parents, not the teacher at school - you. Parenting is the most important thing you can do in your life and you are robbing yourself and your child if you don't do it.

Just to reiterate: Other people are stupid, don't expect them to raise your children. You do it.

(If you're having trouble understanding this concept, please follow this helpful link.)

"Thanks for playing, Jerkface!"

Victory! Choke on that, you rich whores!

"All hail President Kang!"

This is just a friendly reminder to vote tomorrow! Please vote your conscience (but only if your conscience tells you to vote against Referendum 1 and the entire Kaysville City council).