Aggiemundo's Xanga

Monday, March 10, 2008

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 03:47:48 GMT

Roxy

When Candace and I got married, I knew that one new fact of my life was going to be that I was going to eventually be a dog owner. I'd never been a dog owner. I wasn't a huge animal lover. Dogs are cute and cuddly and all, but they make houses stink, they make leaving town hard, and they're a constant responsibility. I'd pet my friends' dogs when I visit their house and that gave me my fill of dogs. Alas, in June of 2001 I found myself owning a Boston Terrier puppy.

She tore up my carpet, she pooped and peed indoors, and we constantly had to come home to let her out instead of doing what we wanted to do. I fell head over heels in love with her. She laid by me in bed as I slept with my hand on soft warm fur. She sat by me as I sat on the couch, staring at me wondering if I'd play with her. The word frisbee would set her into an insane butt wiggling fit and she'd play for hours until she couldn't stand up anymore. I got so mad at her when she'd try to lick my face, even though I knew she just wanted to tell me she loved me. I know she probably hasn't been a favorite part of visits to the Baker house by our friends over the years, but she was a member of the family whom I loved like a child.

Saturday, as we had family in town to celebrate E's homecoming and B's birthday, we were all doing yard work to get my house ready to put on the market. As we moved brush we'd cut down from the front yard to the backyard we left the gate open, and Roxy got out to explore as she's done hundreds of times. She always stays in the area exploring through our neighbor's yards, and we've gotten to the point where we don't worry too much about it because she never goes far while we're around.

My mom was walking my son down the sidewalk on the other side of the street. Roxy was so excited to see them as they turned the block towards her that she didn't see the white Tahoe that was coming down the road. My mother screamed and my son watched not understanding. Roxy was killed instantly, and my father-in-law ran into the street to carry her poor body to my yard.

Hearing the screams I ran to the front yard, falling over my dog and truly weeping for the first time in my life. God forgive me for my carelessness, and God bless that wonderful creature You created. She brought so much joy into our family's life and I don't know if we'll ever fill the hole. She deserved better than this, and I don't know if I'll ever forgive myself for my irresponsibility.

If you have a pet, hug him or her today for the Baker's. Sometimes we take them for granted, and sometimes we humanize them and think they're smarter than to make mistakes they shouldn't. We weren't immune to this happening to our beloved pet, and as a word of caution I hope you'll realize that you aren't either.

If praying is your thing, say a prayer for us. We've been on an emotional roller coaster the past two weeks. Pray also that my 2 year old son will forget what he saw, and that no innocence has been lost.

God, I loved that dog. Thank you Roxy for loving us, and I'm so sorry.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:42:54 GMT

Xanga Sucks Now...But I will CHANGE it!!!

Seriously, how am I supposed to enjoy Xanga when everyone now only posts in protected mode!?!? Whats the point of a blog if you're not spilling your guts for the whole world to gawk over and pass judgment on you? That's as much of a rant as you get from me right now.

In other news, my beautiful daughter was born last Thursday, February 28th at 2:09PM! She weighed 7lbs9oz, but unfortunately came down with pneumonia and had to be admitted into the NICU. Its been a hard couple of days, but she is doing wonderfully and it appears she'll be coming home on Thursday of this week. Thanks for your thoughts and prayers!

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:31:26 GMT

That's just funny, I don't care who you are

Sorry...all I can bring myself to right now is posting funny pictures I find on TexAgs.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:13:02 GMT

Wow its been well over a year...
And this really sums up why I had to stop long ago...

I don't know how much longer I can hold back the floodgates though...

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:24:46 GMT

I'm sorry Ronnie...I have failed you...

Only 80%??? I'm going to slit my wrists now...

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal

Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

In other news, what a stupid moronic oversimplified list of questions. It was obviously created by the mainstream media, George Soros, and Al Qaeda to convince average American's that they're really Democrats just before the election.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:40:05 GMT

There is no Todd...only Zuuuuuuuuuul...

Sorry guys, I've spent every available finger push of the past month on my Master's Report...and its still only half as long as my homosexual debate in the last post...which incidentally was written in order to procrastinate working on the report. Now I guess I'll have to work on winning back my vast audience...all three of you, plus my wife who never visits unless I guilt her into it.

Its almost done though, and I hope to have it completed by the end of the week. Don't you worry, I'll put up a pdf version for you to marvel over when its complete! In the meantime look forward to my thoughts on baby poop, Brian McLaren and the emergent church, and why I'd be a great dictator.

For now I'll leave with a picture from my March Montreal trip...

Popeye-the-Spiderman says, "Boo-ya-shaka, creepy evil Frenchman le Whitey!"

Snarf, Snarf...

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:45:43 GMT

This wasn't what my last post was about...

But if you insist...my opinion is that the primary usefulness of a gay marriage amendment is to suppress judicial activism on this issue. The fact is that the VAST majority of American's oppose gay marriage (close to 75% in recent Zogby polls). Hardcore blue states such as California put the issue of allowing gay marriage on their ballot in the last election and it failed miserably...IN HOMOSEXUAL CENTRAL!! Judges (and mayors) in many districts however have thrown their own personal opinions on the issue and allowed gay marriage in areas that don't support it against the constitution and the law. This is not a judge's right and it must be stopped. Sadly a Constitutional amendment (which I honestly would prefer not to see) seems to be the only way to stop them.

Quite frankly I find that the arguments are tired...on both sides. Its been played out a gazillion times, so rather than rehashing it amongst ourselves, let me save all of our time and play both sides of the debate. I'll keep the religious issues out for the most part, as in my opinion there is no legitimate Christian debate on this issue with the exception of what the government's role is. Lets begin the mundanity:

Allowing gays to marry is a tremendous danger to the moral fabric of our country and our culture. Marriage is an incredibly important part of our society, and if it fails the family will begin to become damaged, and once families cease to function in a caring and nurturing way society as a whole will see the negative effects. The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable and nurturing relationship for children, which gay people are incapable of having independently.

Oh please! How on earth is letting two guys get married going to hurt marriage in this country? I mean look at what a joke heterosexuals have made of marriage with the divorce rates as high as they are! My marriage would be in no jeopardy just because homosexual couples were also allowed to be married. And if marriage is only for child rearing then perhaps we should also ban sterile people from marrying. Besides, you conservatives always claim you want to see less government until it suits your needs! Having this type of regulation and enforcement of a set of moral values on the populace just gives the government more power

Perhaps your marriage would not be jeopardized but the institution as a whole would be weakened as God never intended marriage to be between people of the same sex. Of course, you will then argue that the government has no right to interject "God" into this legal issue.

Fine, lets look at biological facts. Homosexuals tends to be more promiscuous (especially in males) than heterosexual couples. This is a biological issue in that men have higher sex drives than women. Heteros are slowed in their sexual activity due to the slower drive of women, but two men would have no such inhibition. Take the admitedly extreme example of the NY man with the new strain of AIDS who claimed over 100 partners in the past three months alone!!! Find me a straight non-celebrity (hell even an honest celebrity) that can match that. Hookers don't count as this man was not selling himself.

I think we can all agree that monogamy is a must for a marital relationship that is going to be healthy, stable, and will last. Please tell me thats still something even secularists can agree on...
Given that:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115806/posts

quote:

· A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."[16]

· The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."[17]

· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]

These are cited in an article from FreeRepublic. I KNOW, I KNOW...its a horribly biased source, but consider the sources they're using. Most are unbiased, and even pro-homosexual (the third source was a homosexual couple who are professors at USC!). Ignore the opinions in the article and look only at the facts they cite and the sources.

Homosexuality simply doesn't lend itself well to committed relationships. I think that will result in a huge uptick of divorces in an institution that has already become little more than a "romantic guesture" in society, even for heterosexuals.

Lets examine Scandanavia, which was one of the first countries to legalize homosexual unions in the early 90s. Their marriage rates have declined considerably according to studies performed by Kurtz and others, and their birth out of wedlock rate has gone through the roof!

Ahhhh Kurtz. Yeah, there's an unbiased source! Please, he's just a shill for the Catholic church. I can show you other research that completely debunks his theories. That information is totally inconclusive and not worthy of bringing into the debate! The fact of the matter is that marriage rates in Europe are shrinking even in countries that don't allow homosexual marriage. And what does that matter if marriage rates DO go down amongst heterosexuals? If marriage is not a religious issue for you then what harm is it not to marry! Also, if you're going to argue about sex drives, then women's sex drive's being less should promote the idea of lesbian marriage!

Isn't it possible that the rate of marriage in those countries is dwindling due to the increasing acceptance of homosexuality and co-dwelling between non-married people? Marriage is necessary for childrearing, as kids need a mother and father to raise them in a healthy nurturing environment in order for them to best develop. Society must do everything in its power to increase those numbers!

Well that may be, but plenty of heterosexual people are raising kids in single parent homes after they (a man and a woman) get divorced. Your argument here bears no weight unless you can prove that homosexual marriage will in fact increase the number of out of wedlock children.

Okay, I'll give you that its difficult to prove absolutely what the effect will be on marriage at this point. Logic in my mind says it will be a negative affect for a complicated set of reasons (and since I'm arguing for both sides, I'm too tired to get into them). How about this argument though: if we allow gays to marry then what is stopping us from allowing polygamy, or a man to marry a horse, or pedophiles from marrying children? Why does the government have a right to regulate those things?

I cannot believe you brought pedophilia into this. That is just a shameful scare tactic to arouse emotion in the audience to come to your side! Besides, pedophilia is generally considered to be detrimental to a child's health, thus the government has every right to intervene! And beastiality is the same! An animal cannot be consenting, and any sexual activity with an animal by a human could do doubt be considered harmful to it. There are plenty of legal protections in place that would never allow for such a thing to come to fruition.

Fine, but what happens when the psycologists change their tune in 20 years and say sex with children is really okay, and even beneficial for their development? Keep in mind, homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder 40 years ago, and is now "healthy"...NAMBLA will trot out a whole chorus of psychologists who are already making this statement about "child sex". See Hollywood's glorification of deceased influential psycologist "Kinsey" who made just this claim and actually performed sexual tests on children with pedophiles. Where do we draw that line as a country and say "this can be marriage, but this can't." Allowing homosexuals to marry starts us on a slippery slope to moral relativism.

You're such a bigot for comparing homosexuals to pedophiles over and over again! Your example is far too extreme, and there's absolutely no way that psychologists would ever say that. Even if they did, children still legally would not have the right to consent. The government cannot legislate morality over people who are able to consent.

What if parents were allowed to consent for their children just as they are today with alcohol, underage marriage (where both parties are), and surgery? This does happen in many polygamist sects.

This is a complete and total tangent. You're changing the subject! (Sorry I really don't know what the argument on this side would be here. I find pro-gay marriage people always sidestep this argument as a whole, and liberals in general resort to namecalling when confused to put the opposition on defense. While this argument is a tangent, and an extreme case that seems out of reach today, it should be addressed as gay marriage laws could eventually lead to our children fighting this political argument later in the century just as we are fighting over gay marriage now. Psycology can be a very fickle field and is terrifyingly affected my social pressures. Prescedent on gay marriage could stave off this issue...perhaps that's the argument, that "no gay marriage" would not set a prescedent for this even if it were to pass.) One of the biggest reasons that conservatives are against this whole gay marriage issue is money for big business. Big business just doesn't want to have to shell out the extra money to pay for gay spouses.

What? That argument doesn't make any sense. By that logic, a straight married candidate for employment would be less desirable a candidate than an unmarried one. That is certainly not the case. Besides, I know of very few companies that give out free benefits for employees families. In almost every situation the employee pays the full amount for their spouse's premium through the companies insurance program. The company loses no money (because it pays nothing for the employees spouse to be covered), and in most cases the insurance company makes more money because they are charging for yet another insured customer (who unlikely will take out as much money in medical benefits as they pay for the insurance...thats how they stay in business). Besides, we'd be talking about an incredibly small percentage of the population that would even fall into this situation (gay -- 5% of pop, married -- 10% of gays using numbers from Europe's gay marriage countries, uninsured with a spouse who has an insurance plan -- 40%?...those liberal estimates give us 0.002% of the population!), hence no insurance lobbyist group is going to spend significant time on it.

No, insurance companies are afraid of insuring homosexuals because they have a lower life expectancy due to depression, number of sexual parners, increased risk of disease...oh wait...who's argument am I making here?

And round and round she goes. I know I sometimes was a little tongue-in-cheek with the pro-gay marriage argument, but I hope in general I represented their side fairly. They do have legitimate points, and because of that I won't scream to high-heaven if "unions" of some sort come to fruition, although I do think they are a bad idea. I WILL scream to high-heaven if my church starts performing the ceremonies, and would likely form an armed resistance if we are forced to do so.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Tue, 06 Jun 2006 02:19:35 GMT

And the Person Doing the Most to Support Gay Marriage isssssss.............

George W. Bush. Yup. The latest move by this administration is absolutely positively baffling. I'll explain.

First, let me address his poll numbers. When asked "Do you approve of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?" only 32% of Americans say "yes". Consider me NOT one of them. Does that mean I think Democrats could do a better job in power right now...HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Hi, my name's Todd, have we met? No, I don't think that, and my disapproval (and that of probably 20% of those who say they disapproave) is for completely different reasons that the majority of people who bask in the glory of his low poll numbers.

So what does the Bush administration decide to do to get me and other conservatives to come back to his side? He pushes a gay marriage amendment...and quite frankly, it insults the hell out of me. Everyone and their dog knows the GOP push on this is nothing more than a political shell game to try to refocus the attention of the conservative troops away from the mistakes of this administration. All of America, ESPECIALLY conservatives, will see this move for what it is and it will become nothing more than a national punchline.

What will happen? Bush's poll numbers will drop even further as even those most loyal to him will be insulted, and those conservatives already frustrated with this administration will turn up their noses. Apparently even the Republican leadership has bought into the media driven myth that we conservatives are just brain-dead "yes" men who will buy whatever is spoon-fed to them. This administration will learn the hard way that they and the liberal media are sorely mistaken. President Bush you are failing to live up to your pledge to this country, and trying to show strength on a divisive social issue will not hide this fact from us. In the end this act becoming a national punchline will forever weaken the conservative side of the gay marriage debate. Thanks for playing right into their hands.

There should be legal protections defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, however it should not be brought to the halls of our Congress for the purposes distracting the electorate's attention away from more pressing issues that our leadership does not seem to want to face. Its an absolute shame.

Edit (06/08/06): Note that Bush's poll numbers will rise 5 to 7% this week and next. This is due to Zarqawi's death and not the gay marriage thing. I didn't want to get into the gay marriage debate, but since the people have demanded it...its coming...

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Sat, 27 May 2006 19:04:19 GMT

Happy Memorial Day

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith, and belief; it was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

-- Ronald Reagan, Point Du Hoc D-Day Speech (1984)

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Tue, 09 May 2006 03:14:49 GMT

Alright you Post-Modern Punks...

I'm giving one of your gurus a shot to try to understand you, as you can see above. I'm ready to understand this whole emergent church thing, but if I find it not to my liking prepare to feel the deadly wrath of TODDDDDDD!!!! Of course, thats not too frightening as my wrath generally consists of little more than pointless whining and less than witty retorts.

First single-eyebrow-raising quote of the book:

For instance, the biblical witness to Jesus Christ as the unique Savior and hope of the world does not demand a restrictive posture concerning salvation for those who have never heard the gospel or those in other religious traditions. Brian addresses the question in this area . . . and suggests that these need not be finally closed, but may remain open to hopeful engagement without undermining or compromising the importance of Christian witness and responsibility.

I'm anxious to hear how he comes to the conclusion of salvation to those in other religious traditions while still holding to the idea of Christ being the unique savior. I'm only a few pages into the book and while the book purports to break down the walls between liberal and conservative theology, I've only seen pot shots taken at the conservatives and evangelicals.

Obviously my bias shows in the above statements. However, I really am weighing my interpretations against my obvious theologically conservative bias and trying to look at things from a new vantage point. I'm anxious to understand Brian McLaren's point of view, but as with everyone I do bring my own preconceived notions that I am trying to be keenly aware of not leaning on too much as I read. I'll keep you posted on my thoughts.

In closing...mama's, don't let your babies do pot...it makes the baby Jesus cry.

"I must break you..."