A persistent demand to be met is bound

In Level 7 by Mordecai Roshwald, a fiction book with a political point that I do not necessarily recommend, there is a quote in appendix B that I found interesting.  Appendix B is two chapters from a novel the author wrote that was never published.  In this section there is said to be a proverb.  The proverb is, "A persistent demand to be met is bound,".  I found this interesting because that is all there is to the quote.  My mind completed the thought and added ...to be met, but then the quote is saying that I would do so.  But, then the quote would not have made sense if I had not completed the thought, but then it wouldn't have said I would have if I hadn't...

What kind of blogger am I?

Typealyzer defines my blogging style as follows:

The organizing and efficient type. They are especially attuned to setting goals and managing available resources to get the job done. Once they´ve made up their mind on something, it can be quite difficult to convince otherwise. They listen to hard facts and can have a hard time accepting new or innovative ways of doing things.

The Guardians are often happy working in highly structured work environments where everyone knows the rules of the job. They respect authority and are loyal team players.

Ark Replica

Johan Huibers in the Netherlands has built a scale replica of the Ark. I received an email forward that said it used the "exact scale given in Bible". It is neat to see someone who takes Genesis literally and wants to promote knowledge of the gospel through this means, but there is a few statement on his website that could cause confusion even before the media comes in and enhances the confusion with their own misconceptions.

The builders website says "The original Ark was 140 cubits long, and 23 cubits wide and 14 cubits high, This Ark is 70 cubits long, 9,5 cubits wide and nearly 13 cubits high". Breaking this down we have the following:

140 x 23 x 14 = 45,080 cubic cubits - Actual?
70 x 9.5 x 13 = 8,645 cubic cubits - Replica

By these dimensions the replica is 19.18% as large as the original or about 1/5 as large. Of course the dimensions are distorted. The replica is about 5/10 as long, 4/10 as wide and 9/10 as high. This certainly could lead to some misconceptions. It seems like it could have at least been made 1/2 as large for all dimensions, not just the length. That would have made for a vessel 70 x 11.5 x 7. Perhaps these dimensions weren't as usable for his purposes.

Of course if you look at the builder's blog about the full size replica they are working on, that one will be 153.2 yards long x 27.35 yards wide x 19.7 yards high using an 18.4 inch per cubit relationship (18 inches is typically used). Reversing those dimensions using their size for a cubit we get the following dimensions for the original ark:

300 x 54 x 39 = 631,800 cubic cubits

But wait a minute, did the original ark really have those dimensions? We don't have to guess or suppose about the cubits. The scripture says in Genesis 6:14-16 that "...The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits and its height thirty cubits." Those dimensions yield the following:

300 x 50 x 30 = 450,000 cubic cubits

Perhaps the differences between the actual and this second reconstruction are due to the limitations of the barges being used to construct the second replica, but that still doesn't explain the first. Here is a side by side comparison of the first replica and the actual ark:

300 x 50.0 x 30 = 450,000 cubic cubits - biblical dimensions
70 x 9.5 x 13 = 8,645 cubic cubits - Replica

So the replica is 23/100 as long, 19/100 as wide, 43/100 as tall and only has 2% of the volume of the original. I don't see any way the replica could be considered 1/2 as large as the original, but 1/5 doesn't seem quite right either. Averaging the ratios to the originals gives an average ratio of 28/100, which is 7/25 somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 the size of the original. Perhaps I'm too much of a stickler for accuracy, and perhaps the good being done by this project is not hindered by these discrepancies. I certainly hope that this is the case. In any case at least the full size replica has closer to the correct proportions.

Because He Lives

The combination of having a new baby and the election of Barack Obama as President makes the second verse of Because He Lives all the more applicable.

How sweet to hold a newborn baby,

And feel the pride and joy he gives;

But greater still the calm assurance:

This child can face uncertain days because He Lives!

The American's Creed

I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

–Written 1917 by William Tyler Page, accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918 as the official creed of America.

Praying for President Elect Obama

I will be praying for president elect Obama not just because we are commanded to pray for him in I Timothy 2.

I exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

In addition I will be praying for him because I care about my future, my kids future, and the future of my country.  My prayer however, will be different than my prayer is for President Bush.  For Bush I prayed that he would strengthen legal immigration by stopping illegal, that he would treat Chinese Communists the same way he treats North Korean Communists, and that he would would not support socialism through welfare, deficit spending, and bailouts of failing companies. 

For Obama I will pray for a 180 degree turn in everything he stands for and plans to do.  If and until that happens I will pray that his purposes will be confounded, that his term will only be four years, and that Americans will see the mistake we made.

Don't Just Vote, Vote Responsibly

As I said in my last post, our responsibility is to vote responsibly not just vote. Here are several things I meant by that.

1. Vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning otherwise you are not voting. By chance I mean the following:
a. They meet the technical qualifications.
b. They are on the ballot in sufficient places to be able to win.
c. They have a chance of winning. By chance I don't mean the media's definition in which they have to be polling within 10% more like 20%.
2. Make an informed vote, one that understands the record of the individual not just what they say.

Pointless Encouragement to Vote

Today I received an email from the Facebook administrator for the cause "Keep God In Schools!".  Here is the email

I don't like to be one to mix the pulpit with politics so I'm going to
get straight to the point. The creator of the Causes application of
facebook has emailed all the creators of the largest causes on facebook
and has asked them to post announcements reminding their members of the
election coming up this tuesday.


So, I'm going to do just that. The election is coming up and
everyone who has not voted is encouraged to do so for who ever they
choose to support.


Thats all I'm going to say and this message was not meant to
endorse any political candidate, figure, affiliation at all. It was
simply a reminded to exercise your God given right to vote.

What struck me about this was that given a perfect opportunity for him to promote the better candidates for supporting his cause, he doesn't support anyone and yet still encourages them to vote.  It seems we need a greater appeal to vote for candidates that best represent our beliefs.  I would also add that if you don't know where a candidate stands then you ought not vote for them at all.  Our responsibility is to vote responsibly not just vote.

What is the difference between Obama and a Marxist?

On pages 100 to 101 of Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" he says,

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.

Today I found this great article by Benjamin Shapiro here is an excerpt.

---

He cites as his economic guru Warren Buffett and quotes him as
stating, "[Billionaires] have this idea that it's 'their money' and
they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don't factor in is
all the public investment that lets us live the way we do." (191) This
is Marxist trash. "Capital is therefore not a personal, it is a social
power," Marx wrote in "The Communist Manifesto." Viewing private
property as social property is a mandate to tyranny. Yet that's
precisely how Obama views private property: "I simply believe that
those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best
afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has
a chance for that same success." (193)

These are not the words of a moderate. They are the words of a
man who fits right in with his radical base. The hatred for Reagan,
Bush and, in particular, the revulsion he feels at traditional
religion, is palpable. Those who endorse Obama must look beyond his
fraudulent rhetoric before signing off on his agenda.

---

What went wrong with the 2008 Republican primary?

The basic problem in the 2008 Republican primary was the number of more conservative candidates compared to the number of more liberal candidates.  Paul, Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson were basically competing for the conservative vote while McCain was competing for the liberal Republican vote.  Giuliani was for the social liberal vote as well, but not until the Florida primary which we all saw was too late to get in the game.

McCain talks about the clear choice he is over Obama.  While that is true, he is hardly the clear choice that any of the more conservative candidates were.  If Republicans would have paid more attention during the primary this all could have been prevented and we could have had a better choice in the Republican candidate.  A choice that would have excited the base like Sarah Palin did.

Failure Highlights

1. Romney out spent Huckabee in Iowa 20 to 1 spending around $85,000 a day some of which was negative campaigning against Huckabee.  Message trumps money and the people of Iowa saw that.  Huckabee took 30 delegates while Romney only took 7.  This should have been a clear indication to conservatives that Romney was not the best candidate.  They should have seen it before, but prominent conservatives such as Dobson, Hannity, and Limbaugh should have seen this, realized their mistake and changed their message.  Instead they each held out against Huckabee, if not directly at least indirectly.

2. After Iowa there were two victories for McCain and one small victory for Romney, so that before the 1/19/2008 primaries McCain had 31 delegates, Romney had 19, Huckabee had 35 and the remainder had zero.  Despite these facts even the conservative media spent most of their time talking about McCain, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and even Ron Paul.

3. The South Carolina primary saw the broadest competition in the primary.  By the end of the day the spread went McCain-33.2, Romney 15.1, Huckabee-29.9, Thompson-15.7, Paul-3.7, and Giuliani-2.1.  Eliminating the not so conservative McCain and Giuliani there was still 64.4% conservative vote in the state.  OK, we can probably eliminate half of Paul's votes because they are voting for making all drugs legal or side with the Democrats in wanting to abandon our troops in harms way.  Still that leaves more than 62%.  Of course Huckabee wouldn't have needed any of Paul's votes.  If either Romney or Thompson had realized that they didn't have the chance and only half of their votes went to Huckabee he would have won by 4.2 with Romney out or 4.8 with Thompson out.  Even if Paul who was polling at 5% in South Carolina and had only garnered 9.9% in Iowa, 7.7% in New Hampshire, and 6.3% in Michigan had pulled out and put his full support behind Huckabee, it might have been just enough for him to beat McCain by .4%.  Not exactly an astounding victory, but a victory none the less.

As an aside, there are times when polling is off.  For example, in the instance just listed Ron Paul polled at 5% in South Carolina but only garnered 3.7% of the vote.  On super Tuesday in Georgia Huckabee was polling at 26%, but when the dust had settled he drew 34% of the vote an 8% difference.  This race was another one in which Paul's polls were higher than the actual votes.  McCain's polls on the other hand were only 0.2% off of his final draw for Georgia showing that he wasn't really in the contest for the conservative vote accounting for the excitement of the Palin addition.  Can you imagine the excitement in the base if a true conservative were the choice from the start.