p00frog

With the presidential election looming, bipartisan voter registration groups are hoping for a last minute surge in registered voters, but an increasing percentage of the population plans on exercising their right NOT to vote.

When voters go to the polls in November, experts predict a record turnout for what many perceive as the most decisive election in decades. Still, it is the election’s significance that Tarrant County resident Greg Duncare says makes his non-vote count the most.

“In most elections, my vote doesn’t matter anyway,” he said. “But when you get into these big, bad important elections, well, the world looks at me for an answer, and I say, ‘nope, not here.’”

Duncare has not always taken this apathetic approach to voting. He was an avid voter until the 2004 Presidential election when he calculated the results and determined votes were actually being cancelled out.

“In Iowa for example, 746,600 people voted for Bush, 733,102 voted for Kerry – when you do the math, only 13,498 votes really mattered,” he said. “I say we find those same people and just count their vote in 2008!”

It isn’t just Duncare who is catching on to the cancelled-vote effect. The movement is sweeping across the nation with people actively taking part in not voting. Some are even going so far as to dawn bumper stickers that say “don’t blame me, I didn’t vote.”

Not all non-voters are absolutely apathetic. Texas Christian University graduate George Plansitout does favor a particular candidate, but instead of driving to the polls, he calls up a buddy he knows is supporting the opposite candidate and they agree not to vote.

“It’s better for the environment this way. Neither of us is on the road polluting the atmosphere – but the results are exactly the same as if we had gone,” he said.

Many are concerned the approach is open to abuse and deceit. Last election, Plansitout said there was a rumor circulating that a Republican called five known Democrats and made individual agreements with each not to vote. But in November, the Republican went to vote, and the five Democrats stayed home.

“That’s disgusting,” Plansitout said. “Absolutely disgusting. He’s taking advantage of the system and giving us non-voters a bad name.”

The cancelled-vote-effect has brought attention to more than just not-voting. The movement has many rights activists wondering if non-voters are exercising any rights at all. If not, who or what determines when rights are used?

“The definition of exercising your rights is to actually do something ...,” said community organizer Allen Greensboro. “So if we were to go off that definition, I would say no, people who do not vote aren’t actually exercising any right whatsoever.”

Community activist Lucas Handstand disagrees.

“I think rights are defined by the government,” he said. “The government guarantees freedom of expression. By not voting, these citizens are expressing themselves, thereby exercising that right.”

With such a broad definition of rights, though, parents are concerned the non-voting movement will eventually take root in public schools.

“Just yesterday, my son Charlie declared he wasn’t going to do his homework,” an Arlington parent said anonymously. “When I got onto him, he said he was expressing himself and threatened to contact the ACLU if I encroached on them.”

Not all hope is lost – the same parent said if nobody else votes, she will, and her elected officials appoint judges, who have recently taken on a legislative role. Although a legislative role is not outlined for judges in the constitution, the parent said her elected officials will change the constitution, too.

“If they don’t want to vote,” she said. “I’ll do it. It would even be better if the government gave their non-votes to me so mine would count more.”

Her local officials are considering it.

Between advocates trying to lower the legal drinking age by three years, and those in favor of raising the driving age by two -- there are some questions that remain unanswered -- namely, what are we thinking?

Should both of these initiatives pass, the big 1-8 would be the most anticipated birth date in of all time. Before, teenagers had "checkpoints" to aspire to. And depending what they coveted most (driving, beer, smokes, or porn) determined which birthday would be the most celebrated.

Personally, I never lusted over a drivers license. Probably because the vehicle I was inheriting was a big, brown turd. And by turd I mean 1980s Diesel Suburban. The speed limit on the highway was about as fast as it could go anyway, but it was getting up to that speed that proved most time consuming.

Then I got a relatively new pickup.

And along came the tickets. The most severe being an 89 in a 60 ... I was 18.

It wasn't until I was 20 that my foot became a little bit lighter. Gas prices were on the rise, and I simply did not want to dole out cash for traffic citations.

Driving is undoubtedly a big responsibility to give to anyone of any age (there are some 30-somethings I think we should get off the road), but how much of a difference will two years make, really?

If we change anything, perhaps instead we should enact stiffer punishments for minors caught violating traffic laws. Most people have money they can throw at a ticket, and even more teens have time they can waste in a defensive driving course -- but the thought of a drivers license suspension lingering in the back of my mind at 16 would have proven more effective in keeping me operating within the law.

But if our legislative pundits have it their way, don't be surprised if we have more 18-year-old drunken drivers getting in wrecks because they were smoking a cigarette to calm their nerves after driving alone for the first time, while also trying to keep their eyes off the newly purchased porn tempting them from the passenger seat.

Okay, so that's a stretch -- but so is thinking an 18 year old will be that much more of a responsible driver.

As an aspiring journalist, I often feel obligated to harp on what is going wrong in the world. “Why can’t we put a positive spin on things, why does it always have to be so negative?” I often find myself wondering. “Why can’t we shed light on what good is in the world?” 

Alas, this is that spin.

Gov. Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is in the news for being unwed and 5 months pregnant. The media thinks this will some how tarnish her image. Ironically, that very same media, just a few short months ago, praised Jamie Lynn Spears for being in the same predicament. This is the quickest I have ever seen the media develop righteous balls. Now it’s suddenly taboo to give birth outside of wedlock. The scandal!

Anyway, I’m sure you’re wondering what good can come of this? The baby, of course! Everyone likes babies. On a scale of 1 – 10 (10 being most positive), babies are an automatic 7. Ugly babies only register 3 points.

Gustav evacuees returning home this week are forgetting one thing – the family pets they left their homes with and brought to Dallas. Where’s the logic in that? In their haste to evacuate their homes, they accidentally saved the life of the family dog that they hated anyway? This sounds like a story full of terrible Louisianans who don’t care for their pets, which is mostly true. But the good news is Dallas residents absolutely adore pets, especially cute ones. On a scale of 1 – 10, cute animals are an automatic 6. They would receive a higher grade if they were able to respond to cooing and gaga noises, but they can’t. They do, however, respond to “hey there buuuuddyyyy (the “y” dragged out for emphasis),” and, “who’s mommy’s little angel? That’s right! (“that’s right!” is to be repeated 6 times in succession, or until the animals head explodes from an overload of sheer joy). If the animal's head explodes, all points accrued are to be deducted ... and the story loses it's positive spin value.

At least I tried.

I was eager to watch Palin's speech this evening.

But that doesn't make me unique. The rest of the nation, I'm sure, was just as anxious to see it.

Still, waiting for Giuliani to leave the stage to make room for this politically unknown  was ... refreshing, to say the least.

Her eyes smiled, and her appeal captivated many. But it wasn't merely her charm, it was also her sincerity.

During her speech, she talked a lot of her family. But she wasn't doing it for showmanship. She was proud of them, and they of her. Later in her speech, she spoke matter of factly about energy independence and taking an honest and humbling approach to politics -- and then, what makes a good leader.

But of the qualities she listed -- one of them, though probably overlooked by many, might very well be the most important testament to her character.

Servant hood is an idea devoid of meaning in our culture. It's not a sexy term, and especially not one glorified in television or the movies. But a "servants heart," as Palin called it, has been lacking for far too long in our leadership.

As for her inexperience ... must Texans forget about another refreshing, unknown who came to Dallas from the North, Tony Romo? Sure, he botched some plays -- but he also revalitized and energized a bland and boring franchise.

Am I really comparing politics with football? Yes, and unapologetically.

Politics needs a face lift. And who better to give it than a woman.

18-year-olds are responsible enough to vote, to enlist in the military and to marry without parental consent … but not old enough to drink?

It sounds like a righteous argument – but is it really?

First, we must consider that these comparisons don’t even play ball in the same field. 18-year-olds don’t poison their bodies by voting too many times (as I understand it, your vote only counts once, doesn’t it? In some states, even if you’re dead)

Enlisting in the military is a serious commitment sometimes requiring weeks of counsel.

A game of beer pong may last 15 minutes.

And marriage, though it can also be jumped into without much thought (does “we were drunk” sound familiar?), is at least a commitment arranged by two, hopefully consenting, parties. And if alcohol does turn out to be a contributing factor in a shotgun wedding, the marriage can always be annulled (see: Britney weds in Las Vegas).

I could go dig up some research that spouts how many people have died as a result of underage drunken drivers – but such arguments have never appealed to me. Last time I used statistics as a foundational argument I was called names and banished from the playground by the other third graders. They didn’t like my presentation on how, statistically speaking, 24 cats probably did their business in the sandbox the night before.

“The very sand you currently have your hands in,” I told the young, naïve ears perking up at me, “has been, at some point or another, pooped in, on or around; if not by the neighborhood cats, then by Jill Macintosh.” (Jill was known around the playground to be portentously overblown.)

They then proceeded to throw some mysteriously-held-together clumps of sand at me. To this day I have not fully recovered.

But if I don’t use statistics, what then? Consider that myself, and my associates, were all at one time 18 years of age. Then consider the foolish things we did at 18 (too many to list here), and you are essentially left with a lopsided argument in favor of the current law.

Unless 18-year-olds have grown incredibly more mature in the few years since I was 18 – it is in our country’s best interest to keep the [legal] drinking age at 21.

I will, however, grant one exception. That exception being if an 18-year-old can stand in line at the DMV by themselves without any parental supervision, successfully pass a field sobriety test administered by the office clerk while sober (that’s you, not the clerk); the aforementioned, upon successful completion, will thereby be granted a 3 year stipulation in excess of his or her current age at the time of testing, thus rendering any law void and obsolete.

We all know those dagum field sobriety tests are impossible to pass anyway. Let’s utilize them to their fullest potential, fool the 18-year-olds into thinking there is hope for their cause, and we can go on being the responsible, over-the-legal-age citizens that we are.

Now pass me a beer – I have election coverage I need to catch up on.

McCain's recent VP nomination has strategy written all over it. But there again, in the history of presidential elections, has there ever been a successful campaign not wrought with decisive strategery? (I'm trying to get that word voted into the English language, feel free to use it.)

In the year 2008, I'm trying to be progressive. Which I guess means not basing my initial reactions to political news on shallow things ... such as race, gender, or the color of ones hair. But in the days since the black man has been regenerated into mainstream society, and women's roles have changed from, frankly, making dinner rolls -- I can't help but notice the very recognition of such things proves one thing: we aren't as advanced, nay, progressive, as we think.

Looking back on my high school days, the class clowns never talked about how clownish they were, the jocks never talked about how jocky they were, the geeks never talked about how geeky they were, and the beauties, okay, there is an exception to every rule. But for the majority, the aforementioned people never talked about who they were. They just ... were.

Now let me introduce you to politics, or any other philosophical field for that matter, where the motto seems to be: lets talk.

No, seriously. Talking is what these people live for. They talk, someone responds (talking),  they then try to trump the response (more talking), and then other people try to analyze and convey what is being said (even more talking). Which makes me wonder -- how does anything get done?

In my feature writing course I have been in for all of one week, I have learned one important attribute of writing isn't so much to tell the reader "Jane is a hard worker," but rather to show the reader Jane's hard working character as evidenced through her actions. The reader is capable of coming to their own conclusion about how hard working Jane is -- they don't need me to tell them.

This is why 2008 won't be the year of change. This is why 2008 won't be the year of the big man working for and relating to the common folk. Real change and revolution will occur when we least expect it. Real change flies under the radar, unsuspecting, because real change isn't chatty or noisy: it just is.

Okay, maybe someone can help me out ...

Last night around 9 pm I was driving northbound on 360 from I-20 when I came up on a car in the left and middle lane driving 40 mph.

Thought it was a case of road rage, based on the swerving by the vehicle in the left lane, or possibly a drunk driver?  I called the police, but since the cars were going so slow I didn't feel comfortable sticking around.

I pulled up on the shoulder and waited for them to get closer, and when they finally did I noticed there were now 3 cars blocking all three lanes of traffic at 20 mph. it was the most bizarre thing I have seen in my 8 years of driving. Traffic behind the three cars were bumper to bumper, and it looked like a slow-moving parking lot.

Can anybody tell me what was going on?

Okay, so I missed the story about the new elective being offered in public schools: the Bible. But then I stopped by to check up on the blogs, and I saw one by Dr. Moore. So, I commented it and went on my way.

Then I scrolled through some more blogs, and more than half on the first page were related to this story.

But why all the fuss? Some are saying that if we offer the Bible course, we also have to offer the Koran. But I call shenanigan's. A simple perusal of my historical American literature lends me to believe the Bible, not the Koran, played a large part in the building of our nation's foundations. That's not bias, it's straight up fact.

Religious discussion, particularly when it is centered around the government and public schools, tugs at the heart of all those involved, religious or otherwise. It obviously strikes a nerve, and I won't pretend otherwise. But don't let our passions cloud our good judgement.

There is only one good reason people should be afraid of this course, and it is the abuse of it via attempted indoctrination. But there are many worse things to worry about than whether a teacher, to kids who chose the course in the first place, is making claims about the Bible which are not testable nor verifiable.

And until I see as many Mosque's on street corners in Texas as I do Baptist churches, no other relgious text needs to be taught in our classrooms.

Ask me what my favorite movie of all time is, and the answer is, hands down, anything Indiana Jones. And in just a short few days, I, along with many other young men and women across the United States, am going to make my way out to the nearest movie theater to see the "adventure continue," as the movie's marketing suggests.

Admittedly, if you sit me down with all three movies, a bucket of popcorn in one hand, a Dr. Pepper in another, and a girl wrapped up somewhere in between--that, in my mind--is probably the ultimate example of the best date ever. Now show me the woman that would enjoy sitting down with me to watch all 6-odd hours of Indy, and I'll show you the ring I would use to ask her to be my wife.

But what is it about Indiana Jones that is so fascinating? His bull-whip? His hat? His brown leather jacket? For the women, his rugged good looks? Or maybe it's not Indiana Jones at all ... maybe it's merely the allure of the adventure. But try inserting any other fictional character into the scene and it doesn't quite work as well without him. To take it even further, try inserting any other actor as the role of Indy and anyone other than Harrison Ford doesn't quite work, either. Can you imagine George Clooney fighting Nazi's or falling into a pit of snakes? Or Mel Gibson attempting the dry humor in Jone's often sarcastic dialogue?

Perhaps our capitvation is forever entombed in the adventure and mystery of the unknown. For those short couple of hours Indiana spends getting chased and shot at while looking for rare artifacts, those aren't just his adventures, we share in them also.

In our cyber-world of Google and Wikipedia, the answers to all life's problems are literally at our finger-tips. Just like a good girlfriend gone bad, life seems to have lost its "chase." What little mystery is left in the universe awaits discovery by scientists or astronauts with years of credentials under their belts. Sure, Jone's is a doctor and experienced archaelogist, but he needs little more than a few simple tools, a bit of tenacity, and a passion for discovery.

While the Web site says the adventure continues; I ask, does it have to end at all?

The weather radar only showed green over my location in Hurst, but the red was getting closer, and pretty soon the purple would be on top of us. "Good," I thought to myself, "I can get out to my car before the heavy stuff hits."

I saved all my unfinished Word documents and shutdown the computer, rounded up Gary, my managing editor, and headed outside. Soon, we were able to confirm what the radar had reported a few moments ago--a light drizzle.

We parted ways--Gary was going West toward the storm (lucky!) and I was going Southeast. I tried to outrun it. It didn't work.

The lightning was crazy. Crazier than I had seen in quite some time. But it's difficult to watch when driving. So I pulled off the highway, hopped into a Subway for a turkey sandwich, and watched the electric storm from the comfort of my Jeep. Hey, when you're a college kid, all forms of entertainment which are free are a GO.

It was in this moment that I felt the weight of something. My turkey sandwich being digested, perhaps? Bad mayo? I knew those black olives didn't look right ...

I'm a skeptic by nature. I'm also one of the most positive people you will ever meet. Don't ask me how those two mix, because I'm not quite sure--all I know is that I am one jacked up hybrid. I question everything--that's probably why journalism and I get along so well--from people's motives, to the very existence of God at times (I know, I know ... how in the world is a Christian able to say such things?)

But tonight I had no questions, only awe. The sweet, refreshing smell of the air from the spring rains; the coolness of the wind against my face; the lights in the atmosphere being orchestrated to the beat of a heavenly drum--it all testifies to the glory of a God powerful enough to speak it into existence.

Sure, we can debate semantics. We can look up the cause of lightning: how it is created, and how the static charge in the atmosphere is producing the show illuminated before me.

But that's only part of the answer. We might as well try to explain love by trying to understand the chemical reactions in our brain. While it might sustain the "how," it inexplicably fails to answer the "why." And the "why" is by far the most important question of them all.

Science can answer the who, what, when and where ... but the why?

For some, that has yet to be discovered. But in my mind, in this moment, there is no question.

Lets talk about sex. Everybody else is.

Last week it was reported that a 13-year-old teenage girl pimp/prostitute was dancing nude in a club and luring other young girls to do the same. Many, myself included, were shocked upon reading this story.

Another headline in recent weeks read that one in four 14- to 19-year-old girls have contracted at least one form of a sexually transmitted disease. Again, our reaction was one of disgust.

But ... why?

For years, many abstinence-only programs have been put on the back burner in favor of the more educational and socially tolerant sex-ed programs. Kids are learning, in graphic detail, about sex before they can even fully grasp the concepts of algebra or calculus.

I'm not here to argue one program over the other, because neither one will "solve" the problem. If anything, the fact that the programs exist testifies to an underlying issue more pressing than how the government talks to our children about the birds and the bees.

We've gotten lazy in how we address brokeness in America. An overwhelming number of marriages are ending in divorce--but instead of trying to fix it, we want to throw homosexuals into the same miserable mix.

Gun violence is up, but instead of addressing the hearts who are commiting the crimes, we want to take away their weapons.

And the list goes on.

It isn't about whether we have safe sex, or even whether we have sex at all--it's about a fractured generation who's only remedy, it seems, is to do what feels right.

And when relativism is your guide ... well, frankly, that's no guide at all.

Good viewers voice tonight. I hadn't heard anything about the media "whining" when the word didn't go out about a search and rescue.

But, would 4 hours have helped? In a rushing, surging creek ... you never know.

Could this possibly be related to the ill feelings heald towards new helicopters earlier last week regarding the hostage situation?

There seems to be a lot of bad blood there. I suggest counseling.

I don't know what the big deal is ... who in their right mind would want bear arms? It would make it difficult to open the pickle jar, as well as scare away any potential dates.

But they might come in handy should you ever come across a bear in the wild--the odds of survival are more favorable this way.

I wandered into the office the morning after the Texas presidential primaries ready to talk about what I considered a stunning upset.

Though I wasn't necessarily championing Obama as my own candidate of choice--I was sure he was going to win the Democratic bid in Texas. And that would be OK with me. Right now, I would favor any one of the candidates over Hillary--save for Nader. But is he even still around? I think his name is forever blazoned on the ballot.

Anyway, I was ready to talk about it. What happened? Did everyone vote? How come an overwhelming number of Democrats showed up at the polls? Did Republicans vote for Hillary in order to give McCain a fighting chance? Did I put on deodorant this morning? All of these questions were going through my mind--and I wanted to find out what everyone in the office was thinking as well.

But then, while sifting through all of my thoughts, someone asked me what my party affiliation was. I was tempted to say Independent, just because that seems to be what all the cool kids are answering these days, but I managed to blurt out Republican--almost bashfully, as if it was something to hide. "Me, too!" the girl doing the questioning responded. "But I always had you pegged as a Democrat."

At first I didn't know how to respond. That was the ultimate putdown. It's like calling a Boston Red Sox fan a Yankee ... you just don't do it. But after finally getting over the original shock, I asked her why she would think such a thing. "Because you're so nice. Republicans are typically so 'mweh'," she said. At that point, she did what I assume was her best crypt impersonation.

What's funny, though, is that she herself is a Republican.

What's even funnier is the Republican party is often considered the more "moral" and upstanding, and is herald as the party most closely aligned with Christianity. If that's the case, if Jesus were walking the earth today, would he hop on the band wagon and sponsor the Republicans?

Well, the answer is probably not. And it's not because he would be too busy endorsing Obama--it's because Jesus didn't tred on political ground. He said give to Caesar that which is Caesar's. Ultimately, Jesus never came to start a political movement, nor did he come to overthrow the government. He came to promote another Kingdom ... but not an earthly one. This one was the Kingdom of Heaven.


Jesus walked among the people, he washed their feet, he fed the hungry and he chastised anyone who didn't do the same.

So, if Jesus loved people and was never about legislating morality--how could such a beautiful message become twisted and distorted by what many see as old, rich, stinky white men who are likened to caveman?

Conservatives, by their religious affiliation alone, should be the party of the people. Instead, it's methods have become largely outdated and unattractive to a generation that exhaults individual expression above a collective moral guideline.

At least it can be said of Democrats that they seem to care about people, even if they do go about it the wrong way.

For years the Republicans have touted Jesus along, proudly boasting that if God is for us, who can be against us? But as the conservative right strays further and further away from Jesus' message of redemption--it has to be said: God is bigger than politics, and if he is merely being used as the almighty trump card, than perhaps we have missed it entirely.

Dallas ISD isn't scoring very well in standardized tests. As a result, the state mandates a reconstitution of schools which, after a period of two consecutive years or more, do not meet academically acceptable ratings.

In other words--elementary school teachers with the worst scoring students are going to get the boot.

Now, I'm sure there is some systematic formula in deciding which teachers will get fired. But what might happen as a result? Teachers, fearing for their jobs, begin teaching just the test?

I'm all about giving students the best education, but maybe the poor test results aren't really an ultimate reflection of a teachers ability to impart knowledge to their classrooms.

And who says standardized tests have to be the standard gauge used to measure our children's smarts and abilities? Standardized tests have their place ... but maybe we're placing too many of our eggs in that one basket.

Which reminds me of a math problem I had in elementary school: Jimmy has 12 eggs. Jimmy puts 12 eggs in one basket. Jimmy drops basket and all of the eggs in it are broken.

How many eggs does Jimmy have left?