Will's Blog

Warning: Declaration of categories_plugin::SkinTag($params) should be compatible with Plugin::SkinTag(&$params) in /home/scher3/public_html/blogs/plugins/_categories.plugin.php on line 0

Good news. We are about a month away from Rebekah's due date with our third child. We had a sonogram done and found out that we are expecting our second son. Bad news is we are still looking for a baby name. Now I open it up as a contest, to you. Select the winning baby name and go home with a nice warm feeling and an autographed picture of the little guy.

Here are the rules:

1. Name can not be a nick name. "Kurt" is an example. We like to make nick names from their birth name.
2. Can not be "most" popular in the US. Social Security records the most popular names in the US at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames/ . It changes every year. Wouldn't you hate to sit in class and be the third "John" their?
3. Can not be satire, funny, or weird. I have tried them all. I have lobbied hard for "Danger" for a middle name. Famous people such as "John Madden", "Kurt Warner", and "Austin Powers" . Funny names vetoed included "Warren Peace" and "Robin Banks".
4. Can not be Oliver.

Optional:
1. Name meaning. We liked the name "Arabella" for a girl, because it means "gift from God". "William" is a family names. Etc.

With the recent presidential campaign and my personal dealings in life, I have observed that people whom claim that they are "tolerant" of others' views and that we should "respect" other people's views are the most intolerant and disrespectful people. I have a deep seeded morale and ethical belief set from my own personal faith in Christianity. These set of beliefs color how I see and react to all of the world. Every instance of the day, my choices are based upon what I have been taught and believe to be true of the bible and Christ as well as the sum of life experiences. I realize that some do not see life or the bible the way I do. I acknowledge those difference and see where they come from.

What ever your philosophy, beliefs, and morale outlook on life is, it affects the way you react and respond to EVERY situation. Even if one does not think they have a "belief system" and "set views" on the world, they do. It goes beyond heaven and hell, but also how you react to a every day situations like a bad day. Is a bad day just a case of the "Mondays", random chance, the affect of "evil" forces, or God trying to shape & grow you? The first responses sees things as cyclical, the second responses chalks up things to chance, while the third response is always blaming external (to the person) items, and the fourth is reflective in order to grow from the situation.

People whom USUALLY view themselves as "tolerant" have the flawed reasoning that everything and each belief should have equal weight. It is based on a hypothesis that has gained large acceptance in the last few decades that no one is wrong. If Jack believes that bears are dangerous and "tolerant" Joe believes that bears are harmless, than Joe will think that Jack is intolerant if he does not acknowledge that the two contradictory beliefs (in Jack's eyes) are not equal. Jack is "tolerant" of Joe by acknowledging the differences and agreeing to disagree. Joe may someday find out the error of his ways when he is mauled by a bear while feeding it picnic scraps.

My example is a little simplistic (and brutal?), but it none the less illustrates my point. "Tolerance" and other PC terms are usually in the eye of the beholder. Webster does not fully define all of the English language terms as they are in each individual's mind. Terms are "re-invented" and additional definitions added to word meanings throughout time. Meaning of words are colored by one's life experience, culture, social, and religious upbringing. A quick example is the word "pissed". In the states one whom is pissed is terribly angry and may best be left alone. In the UK, it is one whom is drunk and may need assistance. Be careful how you react to one whom is "pissed". Rushing in to help out one whom is "pissed" up the stairs my have dire consequences.

The philosophy that everyone's beliefs have equal weight is rooted in a culture of inclusion. By acknowledging equal weight to all beliefs, you are validating that person. The thought is that to disagree or differ in an opinion with someone is to challenge the person themselves and invalidate their belief. We may all be created equal, but we are not right 100% of the time. If this were true, one would never make a mistake. Disagreements are not personal attacks, but difference in view point.

The next time that someone professes to be "tolerant" be wary of voicing opinions that differ from their own. Their definition may be different than your own and in extreme cases it may just be code word for "I am right, don't challenge me!" Flock to conversations with the "intolerant" people, at least you know where you stand.

Any thoughts?

I recently stumbled upon an article from the NY Times entitled "Why is America so Religious?" I found it interesting, because it describes what we have seen so far in Europe, a loss of religion. Religion, specifically Christianity, here in the UK is more of a cultural phenomenon than it is religious. People wish you a "Merry Christmas" and do not care about Christian signs, like happens in the US. It is more akin to someone who is a "Jew" by birth that makes the same choices as the culture around them and does not go to synagogue.

I found the NY Times article particular funny on its bent on publishing it and analysis. The article stated,

"The chart shows that the wealthier a country is, the less important religion is to that country. The one exception: The United States."

I always find the use of statistics and studies in the news to be particularly interesting, because it usually is only presented to shape an opinion. A flashy graph or tally is usually lifted from a study and then the media gives you an analysis that is flawed, due to being only partial story or one way to look at a data set. Mark Twain was made famous by saying, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Take this study for instance. The graph shows two axis, wealth and a "religious %". Wealth is pretty easy to quantify, but religious percentage is harder. Do you take in anyone whom fills in a box or is it another quantifier? For arguments sake, lets say we believe the "religious %" and the nice little resulting chart. It seems to me that the point of the NY Times article is to lead you to the conclusion that the US is an anomaly, where we should be less religious. Why, America should follow what Europe is doing! (And not those stupid 3rd world countries.)

Now here is the kicker is statistics and studies that is never presented in articles that try to lead the reader to a conclusion, interpretation. Leaving out information can lead to readers making "conclusions" (which the writer intends), that do not take in all of the facts. First, the countries that are listed at the bottom of the slope are also monarchies or feudal systems at some point in time (or still are). Two, most are socialist systems. Third, a case can be made that "religion" has been replaced by a non-deity entity (like government, monarchy, etc). Fourth, There are plenty of more arguments to make (or study) to find out a cause. One could also draw the conclusion or headline "Socialism leads to loss of religion."

Next time you hear a poll that tauts a point of view or conclusion, assume that the writer WANTS you to make that conclusion. Throw it out the window, re-look at the facts, and try to determine if there are other equally valid conclusions to make. Chances are the writer is trying to shape you opinion in some way:) Think of any type of media as "propaganda."

Full study is on our server for download.

If you have not noticed, I tried to make a new banner to adorn our blog page. I am no professional web developer, but it seems to work. I like to stick to designing hardware, because if something breaks, you can kick it. Sometimes we will even do "experiments" on the hardware to alleviate our stress. (Trust me, electronics in the microwave do not smell pretty.)

Above on the page is one of my favorite shots of the kids walking. Little Aine is usually the pickle when it comes to taking pictures. Even with the camera on rapid picture taking, she still manages to fit in the perfect smile in-between frames. For now, I will try to keep on taking candid shots for the "money shot." Of course, Football and video games have supplanted most picture taking for the moment...

Gallery:
After a short summer off from the website, we are back at it:) New Pictures are up for those whom are clamoring to see my beautiful mug. For everyone else who like seeing the kids grow, there might be a picture of them too:) For the observant people out there, I have recently become lazy about shaving my head and now show my disguised hairline better. I posted about 500 pictures from the last few months. Do not fret, It is only a sample of all the pictures we have been taking.

BLOG :

We are also getting back in the habit of blogging, so you can start checking back regularly for our wisdom, humor, and thoughts. Or to just marvel how someone can be such a bad writer. We will try to blog weekly to keep everyone in touch. Feel free to leave us comment or register and put up posts. I can give you your own blog space if you desire. Its only a few clicks away.

WALL PICTURES:

With the weather starting to turn a little worse, we are again spending more time at home. In the next few weeks we will be having a small photo shoot with the purpose of getting some good shots to hang on the wall (or just throw darts at). Email me if you would like some shots and what sizes. If you have some suggestions for posses or framing of the shots, let me know. I am always open to ideas and suggestions (constructive of course Dad).