wafflesatnoon.com

This is a college paper written in February 1990. It is a summary of President George Bush’s foreign policy in his first year in office.

When he ran for president in 1988, George Bush ran on his resume.  The experience which he cited included the ambassadorship to the United Nations, ambassador to China, CIA director, and vice-president.  Those jobs all prepared him for a career in foreign policy.  In his first year in office, President Bush did emphasize foreign policy, while primarily entrusting domestic affairs to Chief of Staff John Sununu, Budget Director Richard Darman, and Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady.

(more…)

I wrote this paper during my Senior year in college for an English course. I received an A in the class, so this paper must have earned a decent grade. It is dated July 25, 1990.

Justice and equality are two ideals which Americans claim as of the foundations of the United States.  It is ironic when looking back through American history to see how those who fought for such rights have been treated by mainstream America at the time.  Three men who were dedicated to justice and equality in America were Thomas Jefferson, Henry David Thoreau, and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Each of these lived to promote equality, and left behind documents for generations to study.

(more…)

This is a paper I wrote during a summer session in my last few months in college at Cal Poly Pomona. I still needed one lower level English course, so I took Eng 105 during the Summer. I received an A in this class, so this paper must have earned a decent grade. It is dated August 22, 1990.

A human feels the need to give to the less fortunate in the same way he may feel greed - both are instincts.  Some devote their entire lives to helping needy people and some devote their lives to selfishness.  It is interesting to note the way in which each are viewed when successful.  A successful philanthropist is thought of as generous and kind, though not prosperous in an economic way.  A “successful” miser is seen as practical or wise in a business sense.  The object of this discussion is not about the perception of these two opposites, but rather their views about giving.

(more…)

This was my final term paper for Political Science 325 at Cal Poly Pomona, dated March 6, 1989.

The Immigration Reform Act of 1986 was a five-year effort to make sweeping changes in United States immigration policy - the first since the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. For the first time, U.S. employers were seen as much of the problem with immigration, and could be fined, or even face jail terms, for knowingly hiring illegal aliens. (Congress and the Nation, Vol.I, p.222)

President Reagan, though not a key player in the bill, was the catalyst for action by making several proposals to Congress in 1981 on ways to fight the rising number of illegal aliens coming to the United States. Congress responded to his recommendations by sending the matter to their Judiciary Committees. Extensive hearings were held by immigration subcommittees from both houses, and it was determined some action should be taken to curb the tide of illegal aliens crossing the border. The problem was many illegal aliens were coming to the U.S. and gaining employment from large agricultural businesses. The hiring of these foreigners was seen by Congress as encouraging more immigration by people in other countries expecting to come to the U.S. to find employment. The matter was placed in the hands of Alan K. Simpson (R-WY) who chaired the Senate Immigration and Refugee Policy Subcommittee, and Ramano L. Mazzoli (D-KY) who chaired the House Immigration, Refugees, and International Law Subcommittee.

(more…)

I recently discussed an incident where a Mormon couple accidentally left their child to die in a hot car for 17 hours.

Did you notice that I mentioned their religion?

Why do writers of such stories feel the need to attach a person’s religion to a tragedy in order to somehow make it seem more poignant? We hear it all the time.

“So-and-so was an active member of his church before he was gunned down.” Awww, he must have been a good guy then, right?

Why does this happen? Why are people who attend church automatically hailed as the good guys?

Does being religious make a person’s death - or their life - more meaningful? And does it have to be a Christian here in America in order to get maximum impact? How would the response be if it were a Muslim couple that left their child in a car? Oh that’s a little better because those Muslims are so weird anyway, right? Or what about an atheist couple? That’s OK too because they have no morals.

I’m every bit the father Ward Cleaver was. Perhaps even better because I had no June Cleaver by my side to assist me. My kids are my life and I teach them what’s right and wrong. They’re good kids, and I’m all they’ve had for most of their lives. I spend quality time with them, I talk to them, and I’m raising them to be good, honest, respectful, and productive members of society.

And I’m an atheist. I have always told them that it is their choice to believe or not to believe in God. In no way to I ever try to persuade them to believe anything. How many religious parents do that?

If I were gunned down, the media story wouldn’t read, “An atheist father was murdered.” If they did say that, it would somehow present my death as less of a loss than a “Christian father” being murdered.

This is offensive on a level of epic proportions.

Sure, many churches are filled with good, honest people. But so is every other segment of society. And as with every segment of society, churches are also filled with phonies, wife beaters, pedophiles, and murderers.

Not convinced? Let’s take religion out of it.

Let’s say there’s a serial killer in the news and he’s killed 6 people in the last 6 days, right around your neighborhood. You’d be scared as hell. Then you find out those 6 people were all prostitutes. Not only would you breathe a sigh of relief (unless you were a prostitute), but you’d also somehow feel relieved that it was “only” hookers being killed.

When you hear that a prostitute is killed, more than likely you don’t feel as bad as if you hear a “Christian mother” is killed. Prostitutes sometimes have children, too. And yes, some prostitutes are even Christian mothers as well. And of course it’s not a safe or wise career, but these are humans with feelings as real as the rest of us.

Race is also a factor. Perhaps you’ve heard of Missing White Woman Syndrome, an obvious media bias toward sensationalizing missing white females who are cute, and virtually ignoring similar cases of missing non-white females.

If you are missing and you’re Elizabeth Smart, you have everything going for you: white, religious, wealthy, cute, and female.

If you’re a non-Christian non-white male and you’re missing, good luck ever getting any interest.

There’s a stereotype of those who practice Western religions as being holy, righteous, and good. Living in a religious society, it’s not surprising that these stereotypes are inserted at every opportunity by the media.

But when you get people who do nutty things in the name of religion (Jim Jones, Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate), or hide behind the veil of it (Dennis Rader, the BTK killer), the media brushes over the fact that these are not isolated anomalies.

How is it that religion, and especially Christianity in America, can have its cake and eat it too? They present themselves as persecuted victims, yet they are the ones holding all the cards. It’s impossible to hold a political office without belonging to a major religion. Atheists and those belonging to minor or fringe religions are the truly persecuted and ignored.

Religion doesn’t affect the value of a human life and should not be reported as part of a news story unless it’s directly relevant to the case.

In a country where people won’t even protest gasoline well over $4 a gallon and rising daily, it’s hard to imagine anyone ever protesting something as “trivial” as media manipulation of religion.

OK so I’ve been quite critical of the far right of the political spectrum, particularly the religious right. Just to be fair, I’m equally offended by the far left, and particularly many of the “elders” of the left, who have roots in the 1960’s young cultural movement… Hippies, flower children, beatniks, et al, were responsible for the explosion of teen sex and drug use in our country. But why don’t they own up to it? Here’s a rant I wrote back in 1999 that I still stand by today…

Many of the problems in America today can be traced back to the so-called peace movement of the 1960’s. The hippies of the 1960’s were a bunch of stoned whacked-out youth who happened to have some great music. And like to complain about “the establishment.”

The Woodstock concert is remembered as an event of historical significance. It was significant for the talent that played, not for the people who attended. There were half a million stoned hippies rolling around in the mud for a “greater cause.” But that cause for most people wasn’t the war - it was drugs and sex. If they were so peaceful, then why did they tear down the fence and barge in, forcing the promoters to lose so much money? I guess freedom at someone else’s expense was OK for them.

Look at the problems in our country. So many of them have roots in drug use, which goes back to the hippies who in many cases introduced or popularized them.

Then the hippies grew up and became parents. But instead of growing up, many became permissive and wanted to be “cool” parents. Their children grew up to mock authority, to take drug abuse lightly, and to devalue morals. And now these hippies are becoming grandparents, they see the problems their grandkids are facing, and now they say “it wasn’t like this when I was a kid.” It probably wasn’t, but they planted the seeds themselves.

But these hippies will insist that they came from a great era where peace and love ruled. They will find a way to blame Republicans or minorities or the schools - or anyone but themselves.

Vietnam was their cause, and a good one. It was a war that should have never been fought. But that war has nothing to do with drugs, permissiveness, and defiance.

Bottom line…
The hippies of the 1960’s have forever stained this country, and they don’t have the courage to admit it. Hippies were the first to ever use drugs or even bring them into this country, but they were on the front lines of the explosion in popularity which did not exist before that era.

A quick Google News search shows Obama and Clinton have about 50,000 more news listings than John McCain. Today’s main pages for Fox News, CNN, ABC News, and MSNBC have McCain completely off the radar. Only Fox had a single McCain story (barely) visible on their main page’s initial loading screen. The others required scrolling down to see anything McCain-related.

The Obama/Clinton horse race has the media riveted, while McCain continues to vanish from the radar. While in some ways it’s good that McCain is able to concentrate on raising funds for the general election, and focus his attacks on the Democrats, the lack of media coverage negates those benefits, particularly the latter.

It remains to be seen if the ultimate nominee on the Democratic side will emerge stronger as a result of the drawn-out race, or if that person will be able to reach out successfully to the loser’s base. There is surely talk of a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket, which would perhaps be able to use the constant media coverage of late as fuel for their general election campaign. A splintered party full of disenfranchised voters could be the death knell for Democrats. And McCain appeals to independents and disenfranchised party voters. A splintered party could be a real possibility if both of the current candidates don’t end up on the Democratic ticket.

McCain knows this and he is watching carefully. In fact a successful White House bid may depend on it.

John McCain is essentially off the media radar and will continue to be so for nearly 6 months. He can’t hope to catch up in the couple months between the Republican convention and the general election. He needs a splintered Democratic party, and for the electorate to follow recent historical trends, which slightly lean in his favor.

The conservative wing of the party, as reluctant as they are to support John McCain, are actually the ones keeping his name from disappearing completely off the map. They are the ones discussing his conservative or liberal voting record. They are the ones discussing his faith. They are the ones who are discussing his Washington network.  In other words, as disappointed as they are, the conservatives are keeping McCain’s name out there.

Recent mini-scandals including his flare up at a NY Times reporter and his alleged affair with a lobbyist years ago are the best things to happen to McCain since Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race.

In other words, McCain needs all the controversy he can get… just to stay above the radar.

One has to wonder if Howard Dean has pulled any strings to keep the Obama/Clinton race as tight as possible. It makes for riveting political talk and speculation. And keeps McCain conveniently forgotten.

Good thing we have Rush and the angry conservatives to keep McCain’s name alive.

“The Revelation of the Method” is one of those “granddaddies of all conspiracy theories.” This is your standard elitist conspiracy theory in which an elite few are secretly pulling the strings on humanity and that they are slowly revealing this to us. We are becoming conditioned to learn and accept this control. Currently we are secret slaves to them, but over time we will become knowing slaves to them. This revelation is done in many ways, such as the “sacrifice” of Princess Diana, the events of 911, and hidden subliminal messages in the media.

It makes for great reading. Unfortunately some people actually believe it.

People like Art Bell and Michael A. Hoffman are among the leading conspiracy theorists in the country. If there is a conspiracy to be created or promoted, these guys are on the front lines. They aren’t objective parties because their livelihood banks on the promotion of these ideas. If they were to find indefensible evidence that one of their biggest conspiracy theories were false, how likely would they be to release this information, and essentially ruin their careers?

It’s easy to claim these secret societies exist – with no proof, or better to make wild inferences based on existing facts – and formulate all kinds of menacing correlations between leaders, world events, and these phantom societies. Anyone could do it. You could do it. Without rebuttal, they can be quite convincing.

Arguing that a secret society exists is much the same as arguing that God exists. It’s hard to prove that something doesn’t exist, especially if those promoting it claim it is being hidden on purpose. God doesn’t simply prove himself because following him blindly is far more virtuous, right?

This “hidden” element is the basis of all conspiracies, including religion - which itself could be called a conspiracy theory.

I recently watched a documentary debunking the theories claiming man never walked on the moon, and that it was all done on a sound stage on earth. They were able to easily re-create and explain the “inconsistencies” the conspiracy theorists promote. Independent thinkers would certainly nod in agreement that those explanations in the documentary were quite logical and satisfactory. But Art Bell and Michael Hoffman wannabes would never accept these explanations because their minds are already made up.

“Don’t confuse me with the truth!”

These guys have an agenda, and it’s not what they’re saying that they really care about… it’s the money they’re making peddling this misinformation. Conspiracy theorists are made from the same fabric as self help gurus, evangelists, and spiritual mediums. They all make fantastic claims and promises impossible to disprove, all while emptying the pockets of those that believe in them. Their careers rely on people believing what they say.

People believe what they want to believe.

I am somewhat OCD in my ability to link unrelated things in my mind, especially numbers and dates. People looking to link things together can always find something. With Princess Diana’s, we see an attempt at linking the events of her death to the numbers 3 and 13, which somehow “proves” the Revelation of the Method was behind her death. Three people died in the car… her unborn child was three months old… she died on the 31st, which is the mirror of 13… she died at the 13th pillar… and on and on. I wonder if anyone has figured out that she used the same brand of toilet paper as Saddam Hussein yet. Or that on her 13th birthday she had 13 candles on her cake? It must be related to a sinister plot!

There is even a website that links Diana’s death with coincidences surrounding Smith’s lead singer Morrisey. The site claims that these coincidences must be more than just coincidence!

Why?

It’s not unlike the coincidences surrounding Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon which syncs up nicely with the Wizard of Oz. Why it is so hard to believe that coincidences exist in this world? Why must everything be more than that?

How many times have you heard how two people met, and they mention how that there was a coincidence that they discovered about themselves… such as sharing the same birthday, or meeting in an unlikely scenario? Couples often see these as “signs” that this relationship must be different. People love to read meaning into coincidence that simply isn’t there.

Such is the nature of the Internet. A lot of people with a lot of time on their hands find correlations or coincidences and believe the most sinister explanation is appropriate. It also doesn’t hurt when they have a profit to make from it. Give me any two things and with enough time I could find sufficient coincidences to write a book. But coincidences alone are not enough, so I would have to make wild claims of hidden agendas, secret meanings, and governmental cover ups.

What is most ironic is that I believe a huge worldwide conspiracy actually exists. In fact, several conspiracy-based societies are elbowing for the same stage.

Alas, the biggest conspiracy in the world now is not advanced by some secret society, but by “societies” who place themselves on a public stage as often as they can: the conspiracy theorists themselves. Evangelists, spiritual mediums, conspiracy theorists, UFO groups, astrologers, et al… Every one of these groups jostles for position to enlist as many lemmings in society as they can. And, yes, racial leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton fall into this category, too. They promote racism far more than racists do. They fuel their followers to gain control over them, convincing them that they are victims of society. If they can sprinkle a few facts onto their claims, that makes them all the more convincing.

Take the Masons, for example. They are a “secret” society that conspiracy theorists claim are pulling the strings on our government, and only the highest level Masons know their “real” agenda. It’s ironic that the wool is not being pulled over the Mason’s eyes, but the very people who believe the accusations against them. The “highest levels” of these conspiracy circles know that these theories are fabricated in order to gain control over those who are apt to fall for this line of reasoning. And you can’t prove them wrong since no evidence exists. Any refutation by the Masons themselves is shot down as a conspiracy itself.

It’s like arguing religion. You can’t prove or disprove God. Similarly, any attempts to refute these claims about the Masons will yield the immediate rebuttals of a cover up. You can’t reason with someone who believes in something they can’t actually prove.

There’s little money to be made for a lack of belief in something. Atheists rarely congregate. Conspiracy debunkers don’t have huge followings. People rarely get fired up about not believing in something. Religious zealots and conspiracy believers, however, are driven and fueled by their leaders. They buy books and videos, and attend rallies. They are the real puppets in this game. The “secret society” fraud is the wool pulled over their eyes to line them up and relieve them of their hard-earned money, control them, and urge them to get involved in the political process.

Conspiracy leaders manufacture these scenarios and then urge their followers to rise up and fight. They often lend credibility to their accusations by weaving real facts into their fabrications.

Ingenious.

So getting back to the Revelation of the Method, it’s really just a consensus of all the other conspiracy theories. Hoffman throws in the kitchen sink. Everything, he claims, is part of a conspiracy to manipulate and control people. For example, I love how in his writings he talks about how World Trade Center building 7 “mysteriously fell” after the September 11 attacks because there was “no discernible attack” on it. It seems that falling debris from the twin towers, and the ensuing fires were not “plausible” explanations for him. When the public didn’t get out and protest the exposure of this supposed government cover up of 9/11, he cites that lack of protest as an indication of successful mind control over the masses… that somehow people accepted that the government did this and did nothing to protest.

Could it be that people just don’t buy your conspiracy-for-profit-theories, Mr. Hoffman?

What gets me is that you have Christians who also believe in the Revelation of the Method. Who do they believe is stronger, God or the secret Elite? They are so afraid of being controlled, that they have actually allowed themselves to be controlled twice, by two groups who have fueled that fear in them most.

Doubly ingenious.

When there are two explanations for something, most often the simplest explanation is more accurate.

People just don’t want to believe that events are random. They don’t want to think that terrible things happen by chance, or that a small group of people can bring chaos to large numbers of innocent victims.

So when they look for answers, they feel they must attribute this control to someone or something. Some feel that everything happens as part of “God’s Plan.” (You hear that a lot, but you won’t find that phrase in the Bible, will you?). When a loved one dies, well it must have been God’s Plan. It couldn’t have just been some random senseless death, right? A person doesn’t want to think that their 10-year old son just fell off his bike, for example, and cracked his head open and died. Nah… God must have wanted to bring him home to heaven instead. Sounds better at least…

When the September 11 attacks occurred, it was hard for people to accept that 20 young foreigners could outsmart the system and impose such havoc in the strongest country in the world. So it had to be a government plot. They’d prefer to think the powerful government would destroy buildings and kill thousands, and not a few dumb terrorists with box cutters.

Evangelists say we all must follow God’s will or burn in hell. Makes sense. It’s convenient that these evangelists happen to understand the Bible better than us poor uninformed masses. They also claim that Christians are being persecuted…everyone is against them, and they must stick together and be strong in the face of this.

Racial leaders look for racism anywhere they can find it, whether real or not. Everyone is against them, and they must stick together and be strong in the face of this.

Revelation of the Method theorists (and others like them) claim that the world around us is not real, that we are being controlled by the elite and this is slowly being revealed to us so we will come to accept it over time. In other words… Everyone is against us, and we must stick together and be strong in the face of this.

For UFO theorists, it’s the government and the aliens who are against us. For self-help gurus, its our own shortcomings and “they” have the “secrets” to save us.

Do you see a pattern here?

You’re too stupid to see the real world around you, and thankfully these people are there to show us the light, to inspire us, and to make us stronger. Oh, and to take our money.

Problem is… they’re lying.
They’re weakening you.
They’re controlling you.
They have an agenda.
They actually have the power over you they claim others have.
They are profiting from all of this.

If you scoff at religion, but believe the September 11 theories… or if you dismiss racial leaders but buy into Princess Diana conspiracies… you might want to look at your own beliefs again with an objective eye.

Before you laugh at those with the wool over their eyes, you might want to remove the wool from yours first.

What do you get when you cross a political science college minor with someone who has spent over a decade crunching numbers for sports handicappers… and apply that to this year’s electoral college in the general election for President?

5 McCain Victories
5 with no winner but a McCain edge
1 with no winner but an Obama/Clinton edge
1 Tie

These are not predictions, but instead numbers generated based on historical analysis of each state. Let’s break down each of the 12 scenarios. Click on each link to see the data used for each scenario.

Scenario 1a – 269-269 Electoral Tie
This merely takes each state’s voting history for the past 5 elections and awards the party with the most victories the electoral votes this year. For example, Alaska has voted Republican in the past 5 elections, so McCain is awarded Alaska’s 3 electoral votes in 2008. This scenario does include borderline states, such as Arkansas, which voted Republican 3 times and Democrat 2 times.

Scenario 1b – 199 McCain – 255 Obama/Clinton
This uses the same data as Scenario 1a, but removes borderline states.

Scenario 2a – 278 McCain – 260 Obama/Clinton
Again, we’re using the same data as Scenario 1a, but this time we’re going back the past 7 elections, which includes the Reagan 1980 and 1984 victories in the averages. Borderline states are included.

Scenario 2b – 269 McCain – 102 Obama/Clinton
This is the same data as Scenario 2a, but excluding borderline states.

Scenario 3a – 414 McCain – 124 Obama/Clinton
Scenario #3 takes a look at how likely a state is to vote for the incumbent party versus the non-incumbent party, going back to 1988. In this situation, we are calling Republicans the incumbent party and Democrats the non-incumbent party. Most states are borderline in this category.

Scenario 3b – 42 McCain – 0 Obama/Clinton
This is the same data as Scenario 3a, but removing borderline states. As you can see, most electoral votes are not counted with this method.

Scenario 4a – 438 McCain – 100 Obama/Clinton
This is the same data as Scenario 3a, but going back to 1980. McCain is given a bigger boost with this method.

Scenario 4b – 56 McCain – 0 Obama/Clinton
Scenario 4a data is used, but omitting borderline states.

Scenario 5a – 274 McCain – 264 Obama/Clinton
Scenarios 5 and 6 are perhaps the most interesting, as they combine states voting history by party with their likelihood to vote for the incumbent or non-incumbent party. The race tightens up here, but the edge goes to McCain. Again borderline states are included and this data goes back to 1988.

Scenario 5b – 172 McCain – 88 Obama/Clinton
The same data as Scenario 5a, but with borderline states omitted.

Scenario 6a – 274 McCain – 88 Obama/Clinton
Again, the same as Scenario 5a, but using a data pool going back to 1980, and includes borderline states.

Scenario 6b – 172 McCain – 13 Obama/Clinton
Scenario 6a data but with borderline states omitted.

As obvious as the information below is, I couldn’t seem to find some of it easily online. So if you’re looking for the ages of presidents when they left office, here is a good chart for you. For a discussion about how recent presidents have aged, take a look at this recent blog post.

You can find the chart presidents here.