Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/29/2002 10:16:00 PM (Archive Link)
I’m back from my honeymoon in Hawaii and I just can’t say enough good things about that place. We spent two nights in Honolulu on the island of Oahu and the rest of the week on Kauai. Honolulu is pretty crowded and developed and not exactly my idea of fun. There’s shopping and an active nightlife, but you can do that anywhere. Only go there once if you want to see Pearl Harbor and such and then go to another island.

Kauai is positively beautiful. Not nearly so crowded and you’re surrounded by 360 degrees of natural beauty no matter where you are. There’s plenty of amazing scenery, good hiking, and plenty of stuff to do.

After you get to Hawaii, you quickly realize that you need a couple of years to fully experience everything there is to do. My wife had a good observation… there are two types of people: those who never go to Hawaii and those who go back repeatedly. In other words, you can’t go just once. We’re already talking about the next trip. Anyway, between those two groups of people, be in the latter category if at all possible. I highly recommend it.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/29/2002 10:14:00 PM (Archive Link)
On the flight home from Hawaii, one of the in-flight entertainment offerings was an episode of Touched By An Angel. This has to be the cheesiest television series since The Flying Nun. I had watched parts of it here and there, enough to get the gist of the show, but this was my first whole episode. Here are some observations:

The angels can never seem to just go and help only one person. They have to help three or four at once. In this episode, they helped a girl with OCD, her father who couldn’t read, an epileptic friend of the girl’s and the girl’s mother. It’s as if there’s an angel shortage in Heaven, so unless you can be efficient and cover several people at once, it’s not worth the trouble.

There are always at least two angels working each case… usually more. The episode I saw had four on duty putting in time for this one situation. The angels must be part of a union. If you look in the Bible, there’s never more than two angels who are active at a given time.

The angels get surprised. In this episode (again), they return to the girl’s hospital room to discover she has fled with her father… and they’re surprised. It’s unfortunate they’re not supposed to be in contact with an omnipotent deity who could have informed them of the people’s departure before they got there. Oh wait… they actually are supposed to. Can they not at least do walkie-talkies?

The angels are utterly unable to get through a mission without revealing that they are in fact angels. They’ll be going along, throwing their marks’ lives into chaos until something wholly unexpected (to them) happens and they can’t think of any way to repair the situation without appearing to the people and playing the trump card. I think God’s mysterious nature would start being dispelled when alien visitations start being outnumbered by revealed angel touchings. I think a good drinking game would involve how long it takes before an angel actually tells a human who they are.


These angels really aren’t much like the Biblical variety. In the Bible, angels had two primary functions… relaying messages and destroying things. They’re a class of creation and beings that is wholly separate from humans and what we’re familiar with. There’s not much mention of them whispering encouragement in people’s ears and they certainly didn’t have some big learning curve like in the show. On TV, the angels are learning life lessons every week. In the Bible, the angels already knew what was going on. And when they did reveal themselves, people typically were filled with awe and bowed down before the angel thinking the angel himself was God. Well, I could go on but don’t mistake a giant supernatural warrior with Roma Downey.

One thing I noticed is that if you were an actor on the show, you would quickly develop lines on your forehead due to the raised-eyebrow, concerned look you must always have. The only emotion the angels are allowed to have is that of worried concern.

In short, Touched By An Angel is big-time cheese and this is coming from a Christian. While some people would say the show is good since it shows the softer side of God, so to speak, I think it completely white-washes spiritual transformation in real life and makes it seem like it can’t happen without some meddling angel spilling some beans.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/20/2002 02:10:00 AM (Archive Link)
I'm gettin' hitched tomorrow, so don't expect much posting for a couple of weeks!

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/20/2002 02:09:00 AM (Archive Link)
If I had the time, I'd love to comment on this article further. Let me just say, though, that I find Clinton's comments awfully ironic considering they come from the king liar and hypocrite of modern politicians.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:25:00 AM (Archive Link)
As some of you may know, I occasionally like to take a peek at TheNation.com to see how the liberal side sees life. Something I’ve noticed is that they have a real thing against Wal-Mart. By thing, I mean a vehement dislike bordering on visceral hate… probably somewhere in between. Here are a few examples:

This article discusses the attempts in a Long Island community to unionize the local Wal-Mart’s work force. They complain that the hours are bad, the pay is bad, and the health care is lousy. Oppressing the working man is one of the main ways Wally World keeps their prices famously low, they claim, therefore we must unionize! Attica, Attica! When I read this, I must ask myself… yeah, so what? They apparently don’t realize that they’re unskilled labor at a discount retailer. Just because Wal-Mart is the largest, most profitable, richest entity in the world and it’s also the planet’s biggest private employer doesn’t change the fact that the base level of its operations and profits is discount retail outlets with largely unskilled labor. Just because there’s a lot of workers and just because the company makes heaps of cash doesn’t mean that the employees are entitled to big salaries and the Mayo Clinic. I’m sure the Marxists out there will disagree but they can feel free to bask in the heady glow of the USSR… wait, I mean Yugoslavia… no, well they still have North Korea. Anyway, what you’re paid is commiserate with your skills and duties. About five years ago, I worked at an Office Depot as a summer job. I was a typical employee who stocked shelves, helped customers and peddled computers. I made a big $6 an hour and that’s what I deserved. While I may have had the skills for more, my position certainly didn’t demand it. Similarly, you can’t expect to get paid handsomely for jobs in which a large pool of talent can do the work. Salaries are a supply and demand situation. The fewer people there are who are qualified to do a particular job, the more they will be paid. The greater the number of qualified individuals, the lower the salary because the supply outpaces the demand. That’s economics for ya.

This next article concerns sexual discrimination at some Wal-Marts. There could very well be some truth to the accusations. The problem I have with this, though, is that Wal-Mart is a gigantic corporation. According to their website, the company’s numbers stack up thus, “As of August 31, 2002, the Company had 1,603 Wal-Mart stores, 1,179 Supercenters, 517 SAM'S CLUBS and 36 Neighborhood Markets in the United States. Internationally, the Company operated units in Argentina (11), Brazil (22), Canada (199), China (20), Germany (96), Korea (12), Mexico (578), Puerto Rico (18) and United Kingdom (256).” Let me do the math for you… that’s a total of 4,547 different stores and they employ over 1.3 million people. I’m absolutely certain there’s some sexual discrimination mixed in there. There’s probably also racial or other types. With that many stores and that many people, you’re going to have some dark spots. It’s positively irresponsible, though, to take those spots and say they reflect on the entire company. It’s like saying a brown dog is black because of three small spots on his back. Frankly, it’s absurd. Unless you can prove that such discrimination is endemic and fostered across the enterprise, you shouldn’t go flinging around wild accusations.

The same piece goes on to delve into the unionization issue again. I found one passage particularly amusing. It draws a connection between the poor folks who love Wal-Mart and the people who work there, saying the former should support the latter. Here it is, “In fact, Wal-Mart customers and workers have much in common: They are increasingly likely to be anybody in America. The working poor are even more likely than other Americans to shop at Wal-Mart, not necessarily because they find it a shopper's paradise--though of course some do--but because they need the discounts, or live in a remote area with few other options. (Many Wal-Mart workers say they began working at their local Wal-Mart because they shopped there; when they needed a job, they filled out its application, because Wal-Mart was already such a familiar part of their lives.) Through shoppers and "associates" alike, Wal-Mart is making billions from female poverty.” Here the author agrees that the poor like Wal-Mart because of its low prices. She then asserts that the poor should like unionization because they’re of the same salt of the earth as the employees. What she fails to mention is that unionization would drive salaries up to undeserved levels which would then drive up prices (not to mention price spikes from potential new inefficiencies) and those affordable goods that the poor love so much would become too expensive for them. So why should they support unionization? Sympathy is one thing, actual dollars is another.

And finally (although, not at all the last on the site) this article by Jim Hightower (the self-avowed grand master populist) talks about the valiant, self-sacrificing efforts by the common man to resist Wal-Marts moving into their communities. Grass roots campaigns run by local shop owners and sympathetic residents lobby against the big box in their neighborhood, county, and global hemisphere. Personally, I would never participate in such a campaign. I like Wal-Mart. It has almost everything I need in one store covering so much ground they should measure it in hectares and you can’t beat the prices. Why should I support a small business that is going to charge me more for less and has a smaller selection? Sure, there’s the quaint aspect, but if the store is so quaint and niche, then it should survive. If it doesn’t offer something Wal-Mart can’t, whether it be merchandise or ambience, then it should naturally go down the tubes. Additionally, a Wal-Mart can increase your tax base and draw surrounding customers to an area, increasing the economy. So I hardly have a problem with that. What I find odd, though, is the dichotomy between Wal-Mart being good or bad for the common man. On the one hand, the chain’s cheap prices are good for Joe Blow, as was noted above. On the other hand, it’s bad because it crushes local businesses. Make up your mind. One would think a business that appeals to the disadvantaged and destroys the overcharging bourgeoisie would be something The Nation would like, but I suppose not.

What it finally comes down is that Wal-Mart is huge, very rich, and employs a whole lot of unskilled lower to middle class people who don’t get paid in cougarans. For liberals, this is a sure sign of evil. No more information is needed to know it is a bad, bad company. As such, they will trip all over themselves to demonstrate why it is evil. In so doing, they will typically contradict themselves, exaggerate, and prevaricate. The usual.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:21:00 AM (Archive Link)
Concerning this article I talked about, I noticed an interesting quote: “Grace Cathedral's bishop, R.W. Harris, whose congregation includes many Wal-Mart workers, told the crowd: ‘If Jesus were here today, he'd be at 886 Jerusalem Avenue with you,’ protesting Wal-Mart.” I’m of the opinion that if you’re arrogant enough to make such an assertion, then you’re likely wrong. The whole WWJD? concept is supposed to be that if given a particular set of circumstances, what sort of action would Jesus take. The incorrect way to apply it, as exampled above, is that you’re already doing something you believe to be ok and you stop a moment to consider whether or not Jesus would approve of it. You’re looking for acceptance after the fact and it’s a lot easier (and more necessary) to come up with good excuses for actions already in progress than if you evaluate your course of action before it’s commenced.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:20:00 AM (Archive Link)
Speaking of Jesus and, earlier, Marxists, it made me think of something I saw on TV once. It was an interview with a Chinese official who was defending his country’s crackdown on some folks on the basis that they were theists. It was something like, “They were theists promoting an evil theist ideology and that is unacceptable.” It was just funny to hear “theist” in that context. It’s rather foreign to the American ear. Or at least it is for now.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:20:00 AM (Archive Link)
Also, one of the earlier Wal-Mart articles I brought up was written by a gentleman named Jim Hightower. Jim is a Texan who is a great populist. At least that’s what he says. Really, Hightower himself seems to trumpet it more than anybody else. I suppose if you call yourself something long enough and loud enough, it becomes true. So following that theory… I AM RICH! I AM FILTHY RICH!! I AM ONE STINKING FILTHY RICH MAN!!! With any luck, within one year I’ll be sleeping on a bed of crumpled hundred dollar bills. Anyway, the man thinks highly of himself. Just look at his website. He also spouts out more colloquialisms than Dan Rather and Dr. Phil at a swap meet. This, of course, is just seasoning for his populist flavor. He goes on and on about how he’s representing the underrepresented little guy. What’s obvious, though, is that this is just a guise for a clearly Democratic and liberal ideology that’s very well represented in the country. Just because he couches it in little-man rhetoric doesn’t make it any less so.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:18:00 AM (Archive Link)
Another Nation article which I’ll get into later has this line referring to North Korea and G.W. Bush, “Now a country with a patent on grandiose braggadocio meets a foolish President just getting his toes wet in world affairs.” Just getting his toes wet?! Where has this writer been for the last year and a half?! Bush has been doing the 100 meter freestyle in world affairs!

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:17:00 AM (Archive Link)
One final note… has anybody noticed the tendency for liberals and Democrats to refer to themselves as “progressives?” They like to think of themselves as the sole folks who are moving anything forward while everybody else, like the Republicans, are holding us back. The Repubs, of course, are the “conservatives.” I just know there’s a bland idiot out there quoting Webster’s definitions for liberal and conservative like some insipid opening paragraph to a high school essay (“Webster’s defines symbolism as….”). Save it. Republicans are just as interested as anybody in helping the country progress, they just have a far different vision in how to do so and in where it should go. If Democrats want claim to the term, “progressive,” very well. Republicans should start referring to themselves as “intelligently progressive.”

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/16/2002 02:03:00 AM (Archive Link)
So you’ve probably heard about how Trent Lott is in big trouble because of the racist comments he made. Problem is, he didn’t make any racist comments. He merely made an offhand remark that the country would be better off if Senator Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1048... oh excuse me… 1948. He said this at a little soirée in Thurmond’s honor. It was essentially a little suck-up, honor the guest-of-honor quip. Suddenly, it gets morphed into Lott being a racist segregationist who accidentally let slip the Republican party’s true intentions (thankfully, Bush‘s laser beam equipped sharks are still a secret). This is, of course, utterly absurd and it represents political opportunism at its finest. The liberals have descended upon Lott’s unknowing non sequitur like a plague of locusts and have turned him into a demon. This isn’t surprising since Lott was one of the Republican leaders who helped spank the Democrats in the last election. The bleeding party would like nothing more than to get a little revenge on one of the architects of their defeat.

What I find unsurprising but somewhat embarrassing is how many fellow Republicans have been rushing to distance themselves from Lott and to condemn him. They could have framed the comment for what it was… an innocent flattering remark not to be taken seriously. In so doing, they could have exposed Democratic foolishness. Instead, they have given credence to the false beliefs and turned a great Republican leader into a persona non grata hot potato. They’ve also managed to throw themselves and the party leadership into turmoil at a time when they can least afford it. Granted, such a firestorm is certainly best right after the election so it can have time to die down before the next, but election planning happens far in advance and the Republicans can’t be distracted now.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/16/2002 02:01:00 AM (Archive Link)
Al Gore has made it official… he’s not running for president in 2004. I find this a good thing if only because it would have driven me up the wall to constantly listen to him and see him during the campaign. However, for some reason, I just don’t quite believe him. Gore seems like the type who will come roaring back into the picture when you least expect it.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/16/2002 02:01:00 AM (Archive Link)
Speaking of Gore, did anybody see him on Saturday Night Live a couple of nights ago? Great heavens, even on SNL, the man is stiff as a board. It was painful to watch.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/16/2002 02:00:00 AM (Archive Link)
If you haven’t come across it yet, FoxNews.com’s Tongue Tied column now has its own website. It’s www.TongueTied.us. Check it out to see the latest on all sorts of political correctness gone awry. They’re the sort of stories that would make you roll your eyes if only they weren’t so outrageous and disturbing.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/16/2002 01:58:00 AM (Archive Link)
My beloved Chiefs aren’t doing well in the playoff picture.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/05/2002 11:29:00 PM (Archive Link)
Been wondering if I still exist? I do, but I've been extremely busy lately. I just moved and I'm getting hitched in a couple of weeks so the old blog has taken a back seat. I should be able to rattle off something soon, but expect sparse posting at best for another month.