I came across a great blog this week talking about how the democratic party can't be a "godless" party because part of its "base" includes African American Evangelicals and Latino Catholics. You can read the article here. In addition to that, Barak Obama wrote a great editorial in the USA Today about his philosophy on how religion and politics should co-exist.

Before I get into this. I have expressed many times on my post and on the radio show that Jesus was not a Republican. I have a strong distaste for what James Dobson and the Christian Colliation have done in the political arena, not because I necessarily disagree with their political stances on some issues, but because I don't like the idea that largley due to them, "Jesus' political party is the Republican party." But I digress.

Jesus' values are represented in both political parties. Republicans have it right on abortion, where as Democrats have it right on civil rights, helping the poor, etc...I have yet to find a political candidate that was a true emobdiement of Jesus, and that's ok, because I probably wouldn't be either.

But here is why the Democrats will never develop the "Religious Left." Just like the blog posted above, I will acknowledge that Democrats have a strong religious base. But the difference between the Republicans and Democrats is the candidates, not their bases. Bush/Kerry was a prime example of this in '04. When asked what role religion played in their lives, Bush confidently (although he could have been lying) said that religion was a very important part of his personal life and his political decisions. Kerry on the other hand bumbled around the question, trying not to offend, which in the end basically sent the message that yeah I go to church from time to time (like most Americans), but my faith essentially stays at the door (like most Americans). It didn't matter if his voting populous was religious (which it was), he portrayed his candidacy and his party as being fairly "non-religious."

Now this is far from the truth, as many democrats have some of the strongest faith in Jesus Christ I know. However, as as long as the Democratic party keeps putting up PC, namby-pamby candidates that won't admit faith is an active part of their life, then it will be hard for the "religious" voting populous to get behind them. Now many out there might say, fine, we don't want to be a religious political party, and I totally understand that sentiment. But if that is the case, then don't complain about all the religious voters not joining the "Religious Left."

In amidst of all the biblical sites visited on my October 2003 journey through the Galilee, we stopped at a bunker location in the Northern border shared between Lebanon and Israel. Everyone on the bus flung themselves off as fast as we could to go play “army” in the bunkers (even the girls, which was kind of surprising). We roamed around in the tight (I mean tight) passageways of the bunker, pretending to shoot enemies and ducking like we were being shot at. I didn’t realize it then, but with the increasing focus on the looming battle between Israel & Lebanon, I think those bunkers must have been heaven.

I will say the one thing I did leave there thinking was, "man it would suck to be in those bunkers during a war." All I remember was how tight they were, with nails sticking out, and thinking to myself, “if I had these nails sticking out and bombs coming towards me I think I would definitely puncture something forgetting nails were there.” But I digress.

Back to heaven. You see...those bunkers meant nothing to us. We were just having a good time. There was no fighting going on. I honestly don’t even remember what was said during the pseudo-attempt of our professor to give us a historical lesson. It wasn’t until I looked up in my journals this week if we were even at the Lebanon border (or was it Syria).

But that’s my point...do you get it? Probably not because I haven’t done a good job explaining it. I often reflect (as I have shared on this blog) when I land in Frankfurt, Germany, the first thing that always comes to my mind is how 50 years ago it was a war torn area. Now look at it. Amazing what time fixes. So as I look at the picture of myself, Keleigh, Rachel, and Sarah, I hope that one day Lebanon and Israel can be like Germany and France.

But then my thoughts go further and say, man, wouldn’t it be awesome if one day everywhere was like Germany and France, or the US and England. But then reality sits in and I realize that day will never come. It isn’t that we shouldn’t strive for it – as it is quite noble to be peacemakers. But we just know it will never come...until heaven. On that day, all the bunker’s of the world will be used to “play” army just like I did at the Israel/Lebanon border.

I came across the most profound sketch on Saturday Night Live the other day. The context: Tina Fey is interviewing Donovan McNabb's Mother (Charline) about the upcoming SuperBowl game between her son's Philadelphia Eagles and the favorite-to-win New England Patriots.

Tina Fey: W- wait, you- you’re betting on the Patriots?

Charline McNabb: That’s right! I like my son, but I love my money.

This post is not meant to advocate (or not-advocate) gambling. I take a neutral stance on gambling because honestly, I can't really figure out what Jesus says about gambling. But I digress.

The more I come in contact with American Christians, the more I realize that a modified version of this statement rings all too true. While I think when asked, most Christians would proclaim that their faith is more important than money, but their actions would proclaim something far different. Their actions would essentially say, "That's right! I like my Jesus, but I love my money."

This is why Jesus spoke more about money than any other topic (yes including sex, which is way down the list). Jesus knew the heart of people was their money and it is why He said it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get in the kingdom of heaven. This isn't because money is wrong, but because money is so alluring. It isn't obvious that often times our faith and our money conflict with each other. It's far more subtle than that.

I don't honestly know if I am "safe" on this one. I have to live by faith and ultimatley trust God. I'd like to say that I love my Jesus more than I love my money, but I don't know. By American standards I am hardly wealthy (although I do alright). However, in a world where making more than $25,400 puts you in the richest 10%, I have to say I am quite rich. And that is what scares me. I make sure I tithe, I give beyond tithing to other charities and needs, and I have devoted all that I know how to do to serving Jesus Christ. But all this doesn't make me any less a slave to money (in fact, it may make me more of a slave). In the end, I hope I can say, "That's right! I like my money, but I love my Jesus" (as cheasey as that may sound).

I love Corona commercials. But I have to tell you, they don't make me want to drink a beer. They make me want to travel to a beach, sit in a hammock, with my smoking-hot girlfriend/wife (which I don't have), and forget about all of the worlds problems.

I should state for the record that I am not anti-drinking. I see nothing wrong with adults using alcohol in moderation as long as they don't become addicted to it, and as long as it isn't a coping mechanism to escape the realities of life. Other than that, go to down. But I digress.

I love Brad Paisley's song Alcohol. Part of the chorus includes, "You've had some of the best times, you'll never remember with me...Alcohol." This is one of the most profound statements in all of country music (I know, that's not really saying much).

It is this statement that ultimately brings me to the reason why Corona doesn't make me want to drink but to go sit on a beach. Living life to the fullest takes remembering what you have done and enjoying every second of it in complete enrapture of the moment.

I have sat on many beaches like those in the Corona commercials: Antigua, Honduras, Hawaii, Australia just to name a few. I can still feel the warmth of the setting sun over Honduras. I can still see the blue-ness of the water in Antigua. And it wasn't just nature that makes these memories fond in my heart. It was the state of my being in these memories. I wasn't stressed. I wasn't worried. I was at peace with me in the world. And no buzz or alcohol can create a beach moment better than that.

About a month ago, I received something I have always wanted to receive: a traffic citation through the mail because of a traffic camera. Now I know you think I am nuts. But I'll explain why in a second. The problem was in this instance, this particular traffic citation was from Australia, for speeding, and there was no cheap way to fight it. However, there also was no way for them to enforce it either, so I didn't pay it. One of my friends even suggested that I "take a picture" of the $200 they were requesting in fines and send them the photo. I thought that was humorous, but passed.

I should note that this brings my speeding ticket count up to eight, in five states, and now two countries. That's pretty impressive, right? But I digress.

Ok...so even though this wasn't quite what I have always wanted, it is a good premise to talk about traffic citations with the use of cameras. Most Americans don't realize that we all have the right to cross examine our excuser when being accused of a criminal offense. Now, the problem is, if the only "accuser" in the situation is a traffic camera, you have no ability to cross examine said traffic camera.

Now according to Scottsdale, AZ mayor, public opinion poll reveals that 65% of people are ok with red light traffic cameras (he call's this "widespread opinion," I hardly called 65% widespread, but, ok "I'll bite.") Now you say, Andy, that's cool. Why not enforce people who run red lights. Just like the seatbelt law, again, I have to ask the question, where does it stop? There are already some in Arizona considering traffic cameras for speeding (like Australia). But does it stop there? Or does the camera, alas George Orwell's 1984 prophecy come true, become the here all, end all, in law enforcement. Lets just put cameras up everywhere and we'll all be a lot safer. Thus yielding the power to anyone in power to take creative liberties to any photo with a $299 purchase of Photoshop.

For me, I'll stick with the founders of this country and demand the ability to cross examine my excuser. It might create a slightly more "volatile" country, but I'll take that risk to live in freedom from Big Brother and Photoshop. After all, who’s going to believe me when I call Photoshop to the stand as my accuser?

If you haven't heard about what is going on in Lebanon now, I am not sure what cave you are living in. The basic summary of the story. The Hezbollah, who is a "political group" (Some call Terrorists, and they certainly reflect terrorists, but it gets tricky because they are also an elected political group in Lebanon. So to make sure I am clearly describing the situation, I will call them a political group.), that is funded by Iran (to the tune of $100 million dollars), kidnapped some Israeli soldiers, so Israel has declared an attack on Lebanon in general, and it has just escalated from there.

This article is not meant to debate whether or not Israel's actions were justified, but rather discuss what the "West's" response to this should be. Israel & its neighbors is a tough situation that few of us can understand with out spending extensive amounts of time there. So what may look like an unnecessary escalation of force to us, is a necessary escalation of force to protect a country the size of New Jersey surrounded by people who want them wiped off the face of the planet. Although, it may not be reasonable either. But I digress.

As I was riding down to the show last night, we (there are 3 of us) were talking about whether or not we should discuss this topic on the air. To my surprise, the other person in the car (not Allen) decided that 1.) this "new" conflict in Lebanon is something "big," and 2.) the answer is to wipe Iran off the face of the planet and that will solve everything. To point #1, I have to say, this isn't any "new big development." Israel has had a war like this in 1948, 1967, 1973, & 1982 - and that doesn't even count the Intifada I or the Intifada II. So to say this is something new, is a bit dramatic.

But it was point #2 that I wanted to punch her in the face for. Keep in mind, as I have posted before, I am for the Iraq war - so I am not "anti-war" per se. However, bombing the "hell" out of Iran isn't going to solve anything - and that's assuming we can actually do this - which we can't. First of all, as I learned while in Israel, West Bank & Jordan, Middle Easterners are people. I know that sounds simplistic, but we need to remember that in the West. I might not of shared the same political beliefs (or religious beliefs) with the guy I had lunch with in the West Bank, but ultimately all he wanted to do was to provide for his family and be able to live "relatively" free. Bombing Iran to smithereens would be wiping out millions of people that are just like our middle class. It would be like wiping out the major US cities for something the "Oklahoma City Bombers Militia Group" did - it just doesn't make sense.

In addition to that, our reputation is already one of "crusadism" in the Middle East, and anymore more war will only surge the hatred and recruit more people into terrorism. I know this is a shock, but the Middle East doesn't trust us. Now I am not going to debate on whether or not they should, but lets just recognize that they don't and start from there. We aren't going to build any trust by wiping out Iran. We will build trust by finishing the job in Iraq, improving the countries conditions, and then the rest of the region will recognize they like the "new-Iraq" more than what Iran offers. That's it!

It sounds a bit ridiculous at this point I know, but I truly believe the Iraq war will be looked back historically as a graceful act. Like Germany & Europe in 1940s, our actions there will bring about an incredible economic and societal change that I believe most Middle Easterners will desire. This change, has the ability to grow through out the region, but not if our answer to everything will be to just bomb the heck out everyone.

An element of my previous job in Los Angeles included picking up speakers that would come to APU from the airport (this usually was when people had to get the airport fast, someday when we have more time I'll tell the story of Christine Caine). It so happened that speakers that I picked up I usually become closer with than those that I didn't (except for Fred Stoeker, who even though I picked up, we never became close). One of my favorites was Brennan Manning.

Some of you have probably noticed that I took the last week "off" from writing blogs. Sorry. We all need a break sometime. I was not planning on writing anything, except Jury Duty was too much of an event so I couldn't stay away. But I digress.

As so it happened, I found myself with Brennan before chapel one day. Everything was in order, so we just had a talk on the leather couch up in UTCC. One of the most profound things Brennan Manning shared with me during this conversation was that you can't be good at everything, but that which you are good at, you better be proud of it. I am not even really sure how this got brought up, but I was glad it did.

I think (no one tells me this directly, but I can just "feel" it) that many people I come in contact with think I am conceited & arrogant. I am a very opinionated individual and that which I know I do well, I make sure this is made known in the right context so people can take advantage of what I can offer. Most of the time this is relation to technology, but other things as well. Because ultimately I know that God created all of us uniquely special and if we choose not to make available that which He gave us, we will one day have to answer as to why we chose to do this.

Christians suck at this, and arguably they are probably the most blessed. We think as soon as we start discussing that which we are good at, we are instantly conceited, self-centered, and prideful. We throw in statements like "ohh not me, but God" sometimes to cover for it, but ultimately our entire lives should be dedicated to God, so that statement should be a given. I used to care a lot about whether or not people thought I was conceited and self-centered. In doing so, I would fight the urge to share what I thought. But ever since my conversation with Brennan Manning sophomore year, I decided that I would always be honest about what I am not good about, but I am not going to sit idly by and let my gifts & talents go to waste - and neither should you.

I finally got to do something that I have always wanted to do: be summoned for Jury Duty. Now I know, most of you are thinking, that's crazy (especially Bryan Taylor who gets summoned shockingly often). I know, I am weird. But I have always grown up with a great appreciate for our justice system, and a great appreciate for being an American, so for me it is an honor to be apart of Jury Duty.

I will say that what I didn't appreciate about my jury summons yesterday was the fact it took 12 hours! I was there from 8:15 am to 8:45 pm and they only gave us one meal break! Nuts, I know. But I digress.

I found out at 2pm that the trial I was being considered for was a murder trial. Apparently on October 31, 2004, the alleged (and I do mean alleged) murderer shot and killed one woman and shot another man. If I wasn't excited before, I sure was now.

But my enthusiasm was not shared. In fact, out of the 58 potential jurors, I would say at least half made vocal objection to having to be there, and I would imagine there were many more. But after working in a courthouse for four years, and being apart of quite an extensive "legal family" (I can count 7 attorney's in my immediate family, cousins, and grandparents), I have to say I was a little disappointed in the experience.

Now you could say it is because I didn't get picked and my feelings are hurt, but those who know me, know I have no feelings so that isn't the case. What disappointed me was seeing who these lawyers did pick. It was clear about half of the jurors pretty much fit the defense, and half of them fit the prosecution. Even odder, one of the women selected was one of the most vocal objectors in having to be there (she was pissed to be selected). And this is where I just don't get it. Instead of picking a well-rounded, fair-minded jury, they picked people who hated being there (which I am sure clouds judgment), and a polarized pool. It’s like our Jury selection has succumb to the Hannity/Combs effect where we just divide up sides, get in an argument, and the ratings sky rocket. This man deserves a fair trial, and the State deserves a fair process of the evidence against this man, but with a polarized jury, I don't think either one of them is capable (especially since the burden of proof lies on the State).

I don't really have any great insight about this. The selection process is probably the "best it can be." I just wanted to share observations from jury duty.

About three months ago, Sister Hazel magically re-appeared as a dominant force on my music playlist. It's good to have them back. What I have always loved about Sister Hazel is what I typically hate about most bands: they sing about the same thing in all their songs. It seem that, with Sister Hazel, either someone in the band has gone through an incredibly hard break-up in life, which they have never recovered from, or their song writer has. I own 16 songs of theirs; out of the 16 at least 7 of them I interpret to be about this break up (in case you are wondering they are Best I’ll Ever Be, Champaign High, Life Got in the Way, Your Mistake, Killing Me Too, Your Winter, and Hopeless.)

Oddly enough, an 8th song of theirs I own is called Thank You, and it appears to be about a break-up, but the guy is actually glad the relationship has ended. Maybe this is a different girl. However, my theory is that this song was written in the all too common anger stage of the break-up where instead of admitting you want someone back, you get nasty mean. Anyways, I digress.

In college, my roommate had a name for this particular ex-girlfriend in my life. He called her “The One Who Got Away,” and I think the name is accurate. I find this is a common story amongst those who are single and in their 20s. I imagine it gets all the more common in our 30s. This is not to say that we sit around, longing for the day that person will return (although we may not mind that if it works out). No, it has a profoundly different stigma in our life. One I think Sister Hazel and Chuck Klosterman can relate to.

In his book “Killing Yourself to Live” Chuck writes:

“The first girl I loved was someone I knew in sixth grade. Her name was Missy; we talked about horses. The last girl I love will be someone I haven’t even met yet, probably. They all count. But there are certain people you love who do something else; they define how you classify what love is suppose to feel like. These are the most important people in your life, and you’ll meet maybe four or five of these people over the span of 80 years. But there’s still one more tier to all this; there is always one person you love who becomes that definition. It usually happens retrospectively, but it always happens eventually. This is the person who unknowingly sets the template for what you will always love about other people… But that person still wins. They win, and you lose. Because for the rest of your life, they will control how you feel about everyone else.”
-Killing Yourself to Live (Page 232)

I love how Chuck says this “usually happens retrospectively.” I find this ironic in my own life. As the one girl in life that I have told that I loved, I certainly did not love. Since then, I haven’t told anyone I loved them, including the one girl I most certainly did.

But as Sister’s Hazel says, life gets in the way. We can’t control that. We move along with our lives. Pursue different things. Live in different areas. And ultimately, that template of love is all we have left. But it is still worth it. Every second of the relationship was worth it, and every second with out the relationship has since been worth it. We all need that template. Because when life gets in the way, we at least know what we are longing for and the way life should be. And that gives me hope that one day I will find this love again, and this time, she won’t get away.

Paris Hilton, if you're out there, I warn you, you aren't going to like this post. Why? Because I have decided that I think a simple life is the key to a fulfilling life. And how did I come to this brilliant revelation? By watching Jadyn Mills this week.

I should comment at this point that I am not claiming The Simple Life is the key to a fulfilling life, but rather a simple life. The difference is this. The Simple Life (now featured on E!) are socialites who come down to the likes of the rest of us for a momentary amount of time in order to be "slumming it." Rather a simple life is a state of being in which we constantly are choosing to live a simpler life than we can, to which the byproduct is more fulfillment due to less possessions to be controlled by. But I digress.

I was sitting with Jadyn this week on the floor and she was playing with these two color toy rings. As I am sitting there I think to myself, "man, it must be nice to be entertained by such a simple thing." And then it hits me, I am thoroughly entertained by just sitting there and watching her - which is arguably simpler than what she is doing. Not only am I thoroughly entertained, I can honestly say there is nothing that I would rather be doing.

I currently live in an apartment that costs $545 a month (which is on average about $150 below other 1-bedroom apartments in my area). I drive a car that has 179,000 miles on it. Over the past five years I have averaged only $145 per year spent on a cloths. Why? Because all of this meets my needs - nothing more, nothing less. And I think I have to say that in the event that I came into a lot of money, I don't think much would change (with the exception of the fact I would buy a condo instead of rent an apartment and I would probably start picking up the bill when going out to eat with friends more). It is often said that people have a tendency to live up to (or beyond) their means. Meaning when we get a raise, we change our lifestyle to reflect what we are paid. But why? Why don't we just figure out what we need and save/donate the rest? Why do we let our possessions and wealth control us? Why is it always about more or bigger or faster?

Most Americans don't understand this. It is why our debt rate is climbing radically, and our savings is decreasing, all to keep up with the Jones'. Sure there are those struggling to get by and this post doesn't really apply to them. But for the rest of us, our lives would be far better if we moved simplicity back into the 9-letter category instead of a 4-letter.