My mother used to tell me every time I wouldn't feet the cat or when I would throw stones at the geese in our yard that "it has been proven that those who torture animals become serial killers." I knew from a young age that logic was wrong. Classic example of if A implies B, B doesn't necessarily imply A.

Just because serial killers probably tortured animals, doesn't mean those who torture animals become serial killers. Thank you post secret for reaffirming my thoughts on this topic.

Although.....on a side note, I do wonder more than I should if I could kill someone and get away with it. I am pretty sure I could. But I think that thought is more of a challenge to our legal system than it is a true desire to end someone's life. But then again, maybe mom was right all along.

Be sure to visit Post Secret for more interesting looks into the human condition.

Allen and I got into a heated email debate this past week. This time it wasn't about Nancy Grace, but rather abortion. With 4 days left until Election Day, I want to clarify something for all the Christians. Despite a long winded diatribe by the likes of Randy Alcorn and others out there, you can vote for a candidate that is pro-choice, even if you are pro-life.

This might get long. I apologize. But I promise to keep it shorter than Randy's article.

I should explain from the beginning that I am pro-life. The following argument isn't a pro-choice argument, but rather an argument that those who are pro-life can still vote for pro-choice candidates.

The President Doesn't Matter
Ever since Roe v. Wade, the abortion issue is no longer a legislative or executive decision. It is a Judicial decision - meaning it is up to the Supreme Court, not the President to change. Now it is true that the President can appoint pro-life justices, but even if they do overturn it, the situation only returns back to the states. There is no way California or New York or others will ever reliquish this. So if someone in a "pro-life" state wants an abortion, they just drive to a "pro-choice" state. So we aren't any better off.

God's Not That Pro-Life
My atheist friends always say that God is only pro-life if you don't read the Bible. I have to admit, they are sort of right. On numerous occasions in the Bible, God commands his people to kill people - including women and children. Not to mention God killed his own son Jesus as part of His plan of salvation.

Not only biblically speaking, but historically speaking. Think of all the people - including children - who were martyred because of their faith.

Why? Because God isn't afraid of death. If death is just a transition to eternity, why are we so afraid of it - God isn't.

God Himself Makes A Distinction Between A Fetus And Birth
Have you ever read Exodus 21?

Exodus: 21:22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Why does God make the distinction between a fetus and the rest of us? Becuase he isn't as pro-life as we have presented Him to be all these years.

Ridiculous Double Standard
But I am not the only one who can take scripture out of context. So can Alcorn and the like. For example, Alcorn uses Proverbs 6:16-19

There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood...

Ohh wait, but that isn't the whole scripture now is it? The whole thing goes like this:

16 There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

If we voted under that premise we couldn't elect anyone, including ourselves. The problem is we hold the innocent blood clause as more important than the others, but we shouldn't, because God doesn't.

And take for example the death penalty. Allen for one holds that the death penalty is morally wrong (which I am starting to agree). So if being pro-life is the trump card, how can you vote for someone who supports the death penalty (i.e. John McCain and George W. Bush).

Simple, because pro-life isn't the trump card.

Born and Unborn
At the Allen Hunt Show we have a cheesily worded, but extremely important cornerstone. The Allen Hunt Show will "care for all God' s children, born and unborn." But here is the dilemma. What if you believe that McCain is better for the unborn and Obama is better for the born?

I am not saying Obama is better for the born, but if you believe he is, you shouldn't feel less of a Christian just because you choose the plethora of issues wrapped in the "born" category versus the one issue of the unborn.

Conclusion
Abortion isn't the trump card. It is an important issue, but not the important issue. It is an issue among many. So feel free to vote for a pro-choice candidate for President if you desire. Alcorn may judge you, but God probably won't.



P.S. Check back soon for who I decided to vote for. I'll give you two hints: he's black and I finally figured out who it was because of two Europeans. Think you know. Don't count on it.

Nathan and I went swimming yesterday. Came home. Decided we were hungry. I realized I had no hamburger in the house, so we had to go to the store. I walk out to back my car out of the garage and bam! The picture to the left is what I saw. My neighbor had parked his truck in front of my driveway so I couldn't get out.

And scene:

Andy: (walk over to neighbor's and spots him) "Is this your truck"

Neighbor: "I figured that would get your attention"

Andy: "Can you please move your truck"

Neighbor: "Nope"

Andy: "Can I ask why not?"

Neighbor: "Because your friend is parked in front of my house"¹

Andy: "It's a public street and she is breaking no rules parking there"

Neighbor: "That's not true. It is our space in front of the house"

Andy: "I have reviewed the neighborhood association rules and it states this is a public street and anyone can park anywhere"

Neighbor: "Well, I am an owner of a dealership, maybe I'll just bring a bunch of cars from the dealership and park all over the place"

Andy: "You would be free to do that, like I said, it is a public street. Now can you please move your truck"

Neighbor: "No, it is our space. I'll move my truck when she moves her car."

Andy: "First of all, she isn't here, she left with my roomatte. Second of all, no it isn't your space. I talked with my attorney² and it is not your space"

Neighbor: "Ohh you talked to your attorney, well, sue me!" (neighbor begins to walk inside and makes no indication he is going to move his truck from blocking my driveway)

Andy: (dials 911)

911: "911 Emergency what is the situation..."

So, I explain to the 911 operator what is going and she says a police officer will be right there.

In the middle of the conversation with the operator I realized that I hadn't taken a picture of the offense and I see the neighbor coming back out with a key. The 911 Operator was still not ready to hang up, but I couldn't take a picture with out getting off the phone.

So to buy some time I say to the neighbor, who is now walking towards the truck:

Andy: "ohh so now you are going to move your truck. Now that I have called the police."

Neighbor: "I didn't say I was going to move my truck."

Andy: "then why is your key in your hand?"

All the while the 911 Operator: "Sir! Sir! Do NOT escalate the situation. Do not escalate the situation. Wait for the police officers."

But the plan worked as the neighbor didn't move his car until after I got off the phone and took the above picture.

The Police came (3 actually). I explained the situation and apologized for having to bring them out for such a petty thing, but he refused to move his truck so I had no option.

My favorite part was when the police officers started to walk towards him, he acts like he is waxing his car, and responds "We don't have a problem here. Everything is resolved."

I explained to the Police Officers that not everything is resolved and I would like a Law Enforcement Officer to remind the guy that this is a public street and they have no ownership of the space in front.

The Police Officer then shared with me that what the neighbor was doing wasn't just against Homeowner Policy, but that it was against Roswell City Law as a car cannot park anywhere for more than 10 hours in one spot.

Anyways...they explained the law and situation and hopefully we won't have anymore problems.³

But here's my question: was I wrong in doing this? Should I have turned the other cheek? There is a bit more of a back story to this, as people don't just park cars in front of driveways and other people just don't call the cops. But you get the basics.

Gotta love living in the burbs!



P.S. If you don't get the title reference, I have attached a video of Klondike Bar's most recent ad campaign. This blog title actually came out of the fact I went to the grocery story after this whole deal and I saw Klondike bar's in the freezer and said to my friends who were with me, "Hey Andy, you just called the cops on your neighbor, you deserve a Klondike bar..." We laughed.

Two years ago, I called it. Two years ago, everyone called me insane. Two years ago, everyone just told me to shut up. But I called it! And it ain't stopping anytime soon.

I have made it no secret on this blog and on air that I vehemently appose the seat belt law. I will even go as far as saying that I think it is the largest domestic affront that I am concerned about in this country. More than wiretapping. More than drug use. More than abortion. More than anything.

And the reason this simple, "well-meaning" law is such an afront is that it is the first example of the government saying "we are here to protect you from yourself."

It's a fundamental shift in our understanding of the role of Government in our life. It transcends into every other issue this country faces because we have conceded by silence that we agree the government is better at taking care of us than ourselves.

Every other law on our books is designed to protect us from others, not ourselves. And while the Soccer-moms and AAA-organizations and the Police-organizations of this world cheered the governments attempt to make our society safer, I lamented.

And my reason for this was because it doesn't stop with the seat belt law.

I said back in 2006 one of the next steps was legislating our health, and then today I get a Press Release from a publicist in my inbox confirming it has begun. The basic gist: the US¹ government is starting to take obese kids away from parents.

They justify that it is unhealthy for the child and costing the public billions of dollars.² Seat belt laws started off this way too. Only kids had to be buckled up. Now it is everyone.³

So again I ask, where does it stop? What's next? Why do we applaud this kind of action by an increasingly too-powerful government? The seat belt was just the beginning...

Thankfully the USA is not a democracy, we are a republic. This means we democratically elect people to represent us. And because of this, our rights go beyond the majority and apply to all of our citizens - including the minority. The heart of our republic is protected by the Supreme Court, and I was all the more grateful to God for that this week when I realized that Americans are stupid...

This past weekend we discussed the case of Alton Logan. A man who was sentenced to jail in the same year I was born (1982) for a crime he did not commit. But here is the kicker: two attorneys representing the actual murderer, knew of the truth, but because of attorney-client privilege could not share the information.

Allen thinks these attorneys should have come forth and broke their oath. Most of our listeners shared this sentiment. I, on the other hand, think this it the type of thing that would erode our entire judicial system, which protects every single right we have. Take a listen to a 3-minute edit of what was said.



No it is not just how it is Allen (and America). And now that I can speak uninterrupted, I am going to tell you why.

What he fails to recognize is that by eroding the attorney-client privilege, you erode the 6th amendment, and when you erode the 6th amendment, you essentially erode our entire Constitution and the rights that are established within.

Do you like freedom of speech? Great! Thank the 6th amendment.

Do you like freedom of religion? Great! Thank the 6th amendment.

Do you like freedom of the press? Great! Thank the 6th amendment.

Do you like the fact you have the right to a fair trial? Great! Thank the 6th amendment.

The only thing that separates America from Iran or China or North Korea is the 6th amendment. And to erode attorney-client privilege is to beg Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to bring us his sense of justice.

The 6th amendment grants us the the right to a fair trial, which, among other things, assumes the requirement of Assistance of Counsel (an attorney). Who is going to go to an attorney and be honest if he can't trust that his attorney will keep his information private and provide him the best possible defense.

No one. And here's the thing. It doesn't even take a rebuttal of the 6th amendment to erode the system. It only takes 4 or 5 renegade attorneys taking their ethics into their own hands and having the Nancy Graces and the Allen Hunts of the world congratulating them for doing it, and before we know it, we have lost what makes America great.

Which brings me back to the Supreme Court. Americans can try all they want to apply situational ethics to the 6th amendment, but there will never be 5 Supreme Court justices that do not understand what is riding on attorney-client privilege. So sleep easy America, your rights are protected, even from yourself.

Jadyn turns 2 on Monday. So after the Colts party Rachel threw at my apartment on Thursday, I packed up my bag and headed out to Indiana for my annual September trip. As I crossed over the Ohio River and into the great state that is Indiana, I noticed something different than when I lived here: Everybody is a Christian!

How did I know this? Simple. Because more people have these licenses plates that say "In God We Trust" than the "normal / plain / ugly" Indiana license plates, and I am pretty sure it says somewhere in the Bible that if you have an "In God We Trust" licenses plate than you are a Christian.

Now, it is good to know everyone in Indiana is a Christian and I think we learned an important lesson: when Andy leaves, everyone becomes a Christian. Therefore, I think the best ministry I can do for any area is to leave. Next step: move to Iran and then leave - it will solve all the world's problems.

But seriously, it got me thinking. First off, I know if I still lived in Indiana I would not get one of these plates. Why? Because, well, lets just say my driving style isn't exactly a good "witness for Christ." This isn't that I am dangerous (quite the opposite), I just like to move if you know what I mean! <sidenote>Why do we associate driving style with religious integrity when religious symbols are on cars? We never look at somebody who cut us off with an environmental plate and say, "all those environmentalists are such jerks, I would never be an environmentalist."</sidenote> But in addition to that, I am not real sure I agree with these plates in principle.

I still don't get stuff like this. We don't live in a Christian nation. We might have been at our foundation, but lets call a duck, a duck, and acknowledge that we do not currently live in a Christian nation. So why do we continue to identify ourselves as such from the governmental/national/state level? As Christians, don't we think this does more harm than good. How do you have a serious, religious/theological conversation with a society who thinks they are Christian because they are American?

I will say I am proud of Indiana though. Unlike Georgia and their pathetic environment plates, Indiana actually has plates that care about important things like child abuse, habitat for humanity, etc... UPDATE: It looks like Georgia has finally started to care about stuff that is actually important and the comment I just made was wrong. They have added, what appears to be 30 new plates that actually care about stuff that is important (like child abuse, cancer, and of course NASCAR, etc...). Alright, I guess I'll see all you Christians on the road ;) Please refrain from giving me the finger when I pass you going 90 ;)

Recently, three very large instances of hypocrisy were brought to the attention of the citizens of America.

First you have Al Gore winning an Oscar for his movie about Global Warming, but then reports come out that say his pool house uses $500 in natural gas a month (which is more than I spend all year), and his main house uses more electricity in a year than most people do in a month. In addition to that, he flies around in a private jet, and since we all know I am an aviation expert, let me tell you that his private jet uses more fuel in one round trip than most people do all year in their cars (example: one-way from Washington D.C. to San Francisco would burn 3,260 gallons of fuel).

Then you have John Edwards crying, in LBJ fashion, "war on poverty." Yet, this guy lives in the biggest house in his entire county.

And thirdly, you have Ted Haggard. A Christian evangelical leader who on many occasions has spoken out on the immorality of sexual impurity, especially homosexuality, but then it was found out that he himself visited homosexual prostitutes.

Now here is what I am thankful for out of all this: we can finally have a discussion on the lack of value hypocrisy has in relation to an issue.

Lets start with global warming. Now my verdict is still out on global warming. But regarding my global warming doubts, I sort of take a Pascal's Wager approach to the issue (which I will discuss more another day). But here's the issue for today: regardless of Al Gore's personal hypocrisy, it doesn't change the issue at all. Global warming is either true or it isn't. Al Gore's hypocrisy might show a lack of virtue in his character, but it doesn't change the argument. The same is true for John Edwards. The war on poverty is either a good cause or it isn't (it is). But John Edwards living in the biggest house, all while crying we should help the poor, really doesn't change the argument. Same goes for Ted Haggard (and this is what is really going to set people off). Sexual sin is either wrong or it isn't (it is). Ted Haggard's actions show he isn't a man of integrity, but it shouldn't hurt the moral stance.

I often use a financial planner as an example when talking about hypocrisy. Now lets say I visit one and she tells me I need to stay out of debt (except for a mortgage), save 8% a year for retirement starting at age 22, and save another 4% a year in general savings. I later find out through the grapevine that she herself has $80,000 of consumer debt, and doesn't save for retirement. Now, I could react and say, what an idiot, I am not listening to anything she said. But the only person this would be hurting is me because while she is a hypocrite, her advice is still valid.

I fully admit I am a hypocrite. Just reading this blog will tell you that (particularly the porn blogs). But this doesn't mean that my moral stance on this issue is wrong, it just means that I lack integrity. And while I strive and try so freaking hard sometimes to live up to it, sometimes, I fall short.

What I am thankful for is God. He has established a moral law that is absolute. He (not us) has determined what is and isn't morally correct. And our actions do not change what is and is not true. But yet He tells those who believe in Him to strive to their very best to live up to this. But He, in His infinite love and wisdom, knows full well we aren't going to live up to it. So He chooses to forgive us when we ask Him to. This doesn't excuse our actions. And it sure as heck doesn't give us an excuse to be a hypocrite. But I am definitely grateful for that grace; and so should Gore, Edwards and Haggard.

(P.S. I am really not trying to rip on the democratic party with this post. As I have posted before, I definitely don't think being a Christian means you are by default a republican).

Today was a first: I spoke at a career day at a local private academy on what it was like being a radio producer on arguably one of the top five secular talk radio stations in the world. The morning was interesting, the kids seemed intrigued, and of course, it got me thinking. It got me thinking about how we get where we are.

Oddly, my thoughts drift to an ex-girlfriend named Emily. Emily was a very smart girl. I don't have a shadow of a doubt that she won't be a success. I haven't talked to Emily since graduation so it has been six years, and she is about the only ex-girlfriend of mine I haven't stayed in touch with. But I hear from time to time that she is still pursuing the law thing and she is at the University of Virginia Law School.

What cracks me up about Emily's choice of career is its genesis. We had to put on a mock trial in a 9th grade English/Social Studies class for, if I remember correctly, the Nuremberg trials. Emily's tactic in cross examining my witness was what would be classified as "badgering the witness," and in a real court wouldn't have been allowed past the third question. But needless to say, this wasn't a real court, and she "stuck with it enough" to impress our English teacher - who definitely wasn't a lawyer (and frankly a little crazy). But Mrs. Walker complimented Emily and told her she did a great job, and well...the rest is history.

But here's what is funny, even though I kind of chuckle at the genesis of all this, I can't help but think that there are few people that would make a better attorney than Emily (and if there is something I know it's attorneys as I can count at least 8 attorneys in my family and another dozen or so friends in law school and as my friend Lissa says, "I just need to accept the fact that I am an attorney and go to law school already" because of blogs like these).

It's funny how very very small life events (like a compliment from an unqualified person) can lead us to such a huge life decision; especially when that "lead" is exactly where we are suppose to go, doing exactly what God created us to do.

I think about my own start and how I almost missed it. We switched youth group formats my sophomore year in high school, which really pissed me off because it sort of alienated a friend of mine I was bringing to church and trying my hardest to accept Jesus. The format switch though caused for a huge increase in the use of technology, and I was asked if I would do it. For the first week I protested the change and refused to be involved. I later reconsidered after I realized I had little choice in persuading him, and well, the rest was history...at 24 I now am a radio producer for something truly innovative.

Well that's about it, nothing too profound. I told the kids that grades aren't as important as everyone makes it (yeah I know, you think I am kidding but I am not), and that there is a difference in being successful in your career and being a successful person. We should all strive to be people of balance, keep faith first, trust God, and work as hard as we can at what we feel He created us to be.

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?

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.