TOP

St. Baldrick’s 2012 Fundraiser

Jan 26
Posted by kevintracy in Cancer, Disease, Health, KTracy.com Stuff, St. Baldrick's Foundation Charity

Last year in March, I put myself out there and shaved my head to raise money for a really awesome charity: The St. Baldrick’s Foundation. If you weren’t following me then, or if you just need a reminder; St. Baldrick’s Foundation is devoted to finding a cure for Childhood Cancers and helping the thousands of children who are currently inflicted with cancer.

Thanks to your incredible support and donations in 2011, I managed to raise $500 in less than a month. My biggest regret wasn’t the flat tire I got on the way to the event; nor was it how really, really cold my scalp was. To be honest, my biggest regret was that I didn’t start raising money sooner.

After participating last year, I decided I would make it a tradition; and every year, I would shave my head (including my beard) at a one of the many inspiring St. Baldrick’s Foundation events to raise money for this awesome cause.

So this year, I’m giving myself two months to raise more than $500, and I would be truly honored and humbled by your support. Seriously, ask my fiancee, it takes a lot to humble me. This will do it.

Even small donations of $5, $10, or $25 will make a BIG impact on the lives of the thousands of children enduring and yet to endure the pain and suffering caused by cancer and its treatment.

CLICK HERE TO MAKE YOUR DONATION! (Pssssst. It’s tax deductible!)

Here are pictures and video from the 2011 St. Baldrick’s Fundraiser at B & G Barbershop in Valparaiso, Indiana.

[Gallery not found]

Read More
Comments (0)
TOP

Does human equality stop at the water’s edge?

Jan 25
Posted by kevintracy in International, Intolerance, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Politics, Racism, Religious Intolerance, Syria, Tibet

20120125-171921.jpgHere in the United States, we are all familiar with the phrase that “all men are created equal.” Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in our Declaration of Independence and it’s been repeated countless times and across the world. Unfortunately, it seems like few people actually think about the implications this would have for global policy making. Not surprisingly, the blind fools following Ron Paul; who evoke the Founders at every turn as though they just had lunch with them; are the most oblivious.

A while ago, a handful of good people from here in Northwest Indiana asked me, “Can a Christian be a libertarian?”

The short version of my answer was, “There are too many denominations to say anything about all Christians, but from my perspective – no.” My primary argument was rooted in the equal creation of men.

One of the most important stories in the Bible is when Kane kills his brother Abel.

Genesis 4:9
And the Lord said to Cain: Where is thy brother Abel? And he answered, I know not: am I my brother’s keeper?

What better introduction to the Bible can there be than Genesis? It establishes that man is fallen so that everything that follows can tell us how to find salvation. And then Kane asking the question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” – and God doesn’t answer him directly, almost like it would be spoiling what is to come next. The answer to Kane’s question, of course, is YES! YOU ABSOLUTELY ARE YOUR BROTHER’S KEEPER!

Matthew 25:40
And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

Generally speaking, I think most American Christians at least try to live up to this incredibly challenging standard set for them when it comes to other Americans. The question at the core of this post is whether or not this standard applies to our international brethren as well.

It’s important because the issue keeps manifesting itself in many different ways in our increasingly globalized world.

Should Christians leave water, food, and maps around our southern border for illegal immigrants to ensure their SAFE crossing or let them suffer and very possibly die a grueling death?

Should the United States aggressively promote human rights and popular uprisings against dictatorships where our help is desired, such as Libya and Syria? Are Americans the only people who have a right to choose their government or do all people deserve that freedom? (The American Revolution would have failed if it wasn’t for French assistance, so don’t give me that nonsense about doing it by themselves – especially in an era of flying gunships, smart bombs, automatic firearms, and digital warfare)

Should we aggressively fight any government attempting genocide to save millions of innocent lives?

Should we urge Israel to give millions of Christians and Muslims in the West Bank the right to vote for representation in Israel’s government or grant statehood to the Palestinians?

Should we make our petitions for the respect and independence of Tibet and her people and culture more forceful?

After all, if Americans were experiencing religious, ethnic, or cultural, or civic oppression, the government would step in and defend the rights we believed were given to us by our universal Creator.

If you believe Christianity tells you that strangers, even those from foreign lands, are your brothers; if you believe all men are created equal and not just all Americans; we have some evaluating to do of our foreign policy.

Read More
Comments (2)
TOP

Contrasting Gingrich and Santorum

Jan 20
Posted by kevintracy in 2012 Elections, Bachmann, Barack Obama, Cain, Democrat, Gingrich, Huckabee, Obama, Palin, Pawlenty, Perry, Politicians, Politics, Presidential Race, Republican, Romney, Santorum, Scandals, South Carolina, States

Last night’s Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina was kind of low key, as we discussed. However, I think it may have been one of the most important of the entire primary season. Up until now, conservative Republicans have wanted to know who their alternative to Mitt Romney was. It was very hard for a while because there were so many choices. Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann, and Perry have all dropped out of the race; and people (I hope) are finally convinced that Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, or any other brainless celebrity isn’t going to jump in and save the day.

That leaves us with two conservative alternatives to Romney, former-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former-United States Senator Rick Santorum. And finally, with only two conservatives fighting against Mitt Romney, we were able to see the shockingly stark contrast between our choices.

Let me start off by saying that both alternatives to Romney are equally acceptable; neither is 100% perfect; and I personally don’t have a preference between them.

Rick Santorum obviously felt it necessary to draw the major contrast between Newt and himself during the debate. Specifically, that while Newt Gingrich is a great thinker with some enormous ideas, he is also undisciplined and unable to focus. Newt Gingrich pretty much conceded this, arguing that he accomplished a lot but not actually denying that he is unable to focus and lacks discipline.

And that’s the trade off. As one of the commentators on CNN after the debate said, “Newt Gingrich swings for the fences every time and you see some really spectacular hits, but you also see some really spectacular whiffs.”

This can be applied far more broadly. Newt Gingrich has the potential to really clobber Obama good or really get his ass handed to him if he wins the nomination. And as President, he can either really do an incredible job rebuilding America and preparing us for a 21st Century of greatness… or he’ll whiff and completely undo all the conservative gains of the last three years.

Rick Santorum, in my opinion, is a conservative conservative. What do I mean by that? Well, Rick Santorum isn’t going to have any transformational ideas or even have the desire to implement them if someone else provided the ideas to him. Rick Santorum probably isn’t going to clobber President Barack Obama, either. The flip side of this is that Rick Santorum is predictable and we know his ideas are tried and true because they have already been approved by decades of Republican governing at the state and federal level. Rick Santorum may not prepare us for a 21st Century of Greatness, but he WILL stop the bleeding. He may not clobber Obama, but he is a lot more likely to win (just without the landslide). Newt Gingrich is full of risk, Rick Santorum isn’t… but with higher risks comes with the chance of greater things.

The question each conservative who votes in the upcoming primaries needs to ask is, “How much am I willing to gamble?” “Do I do the safe thing and vote for the conservative that will win or do I take a risk and vote for a brilliant conservative with enormous potential who might lose and is unlikely to deliver on most of his great ideas?”

At face value, it seems like a no brainer. Go with the safe bet and get rid of Obama. The problem is that the United States has already lost a lot of its position in the world because of China and other emerging economies, political alliances like the European Union (despite their troubles), and continuing dependence on oil from many of the world’s authoritarian dictatorships. Having been THE leader of the world for so long, we as conservatives really want to reclaim that title, and we’re willing to take some risks in our domestic politics to attain it. Newt Gingrich, at least in my approximation, is worth the risk his conservative voters take on him.

On the other hand, rebuilding our greatness isn’t going to happen overnight and the traditional line of conservative thought tells us that the first thing we have to do is stop the bleeding. Rick Santorum’s platform and his plan for bringing jobs back from overseas in particular is going to stop the bleeding and get us started on the right path. Unfortunately, he’s not going to be President long enough to completely restore our position in the world. It will take decades… how many depends on how many setbacks the Democrats and our international competitors create for us.

There is one thing that really concerns me about each candidate, too.

Newt Gingrich’s marriage history and the poor relationship (at best) with his ex-wife is going to make it very difficult for him to win over moderate women voters. Adding Sarah Palin to the ticket isn’t going to solve the problem, either. Moderate women hate her as much as everyone else with an ounce of common sense. Entering this general election with such a large and broad demographic already decidedly against you is very bad for your chances at winning the election.

Rick Santorum bothers me in another way, though. I mentioned it durring the live debate commentary last night. When Rick Santorum attacks someone, he doesn’t look at them. When they respond, he doesn’t look at them. More often than not, that’s the behavior of a coward. Now, granted, when you know you’re the most powerful man in the world, it makes being a coward a lot easier. Still, it’s troublesome because we naturally want strong, courageous leaders; and, from what I’ve seen, I don’t know how well Rick Santorum fits that role.

Both of these candidates have their pluses and minuses, but they do equal out. The most important thing to keep in mind is that both are better than Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. During last night’s debate, things started getting dirty between Newt and Santorum; which is very unhealthy considering what needs to be done.

Read More
Comments (5)
TOP

Live blogging the CNN Debate

Jan 19
Posted by kevintracy in 2012 Elections, Barack Obama, Gingrich, Iowa, Paul, Politicians, Presidential Race, Republican, Romney, Santorum, Scandals, South Carolina, States

Read More
Comments (0)
TOP

Thank you, Rick Perry

Jan 19
Posted by kevintracy in 2012 Elections, Gingrich, International, Perry, Politics, Presidential Race, Republican, Romney, Santorum, Scandals, South Carolina, Texas

20120119-170804.jpg I never would have voted for Rick Perry in the first place, but that’s besides the point. I said the other day that whoever loves their country the most will be the one who drops out of the race first and endorses another conservative BEFORE South Carolina (justifying it with a King Solomon’s Judgment analogy). But then I forgot to publish that post… Oops.

Rick Perry endorsed Newt Gingrich, who is currently leading in recent South Carolina polls (polls taken almost on the eve of his 2nd ex-wife’s brütal interview on ABC).

Rick Perry’s endorsement isn’t as big as Rick Santorum’s would have been, but it may indicate the beginning of the anti-Romney crowd coalescing around Newt Gingrich. It’s an important endorsement, even if it’s not a king-making move.

Of course, this interview with Newt’s ex-wife may dampen the celebratory mood in the Gingrich camp very quickly. If Newt Gingrich is lucky, this was being blown WAY out of proportion in order to generate ratings for the ever-struggling ABC news. If he’s not lucky, 100 Rick Perrys aren’t going to be able to get him out of this mess.

Rick Perry was very nearly the Fred Thompson of 2012. Even if he is a homophobic bigot with as much foreign policy sense as Mike Huckabee (none), he earned some respect from me today by stepping out of this race before a crucial contests or conservatives and having the balls to back somebody other than Mitt Romney.

Kudos to Rick Perry for doing the right thing at the most important time for the Republican Party and the United States of America.

Read More
Comments (1)
TOP

Stop SOPA/PIPA Legislation

Jan 18
Posted by kevintracy in Internet, Politics

On January 24th, Congress will be voting on two very controversial bills, SOPA and PIPA. Well, perhaps “controversial” isn’t the right word. You see, there aren’t that many people who are actually in favor of this legislation. The exceptions are in the music industry; which has funded this entire effort. The coalition that opposes this legislation is as diverse as the global population.

The goal of the legislation is to give the executive branch the power to shut down all Internet sites suspected of sharing copyrighted information with a targeted American audience. While aimed at curbing music and film piracy, the legislation could mean the end of YouTube, the Washington Post, Wikipedia, and even Google Images and other similar services.

There are other major implications of this legislation besides just protecting our freedom of speech. As CNET explains very well, there would be enormous personal and national security ramifications if this legislation somehow becomes law.

What are the security-related implications of SOPA?

One big one is how it interacts with the domain name system and a set of security improvements to it known as DNSSEC.

The idea of DNSSEC is to promote end-to-end encryption of domain names, meaning there’s no break in the chain between, say, Wellsfargo.com and its customer. Requiring Internet providers to redirect allegedly piratical domain names to, say, the FBI’s servers isn’t compatible with DNSSEC.

Rep. Dan Lungren, who heads the Homeland Security subcommittee on cybersecurity, has said that an “unintended consequence” of SOPA would be to “undercut” the effort his panel has been making to promote DNSSEC.

The Sandia National Laboratories, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, has also raised concerns about SOPA, saying it is “unlikely to be effective” and will “negatively impact U.S. and global cybersecurity and Internet functionality.” And Stewart Baker, the former policy chief at the Department of Homeland Security who’s now in private practice, warned in an op-ed that SOPA “runs directly counter” to the House’s own cybersecurity efforts.

Today, many popular sites like Wikipedia and Reddit are protesting by blacking out, a first of its kind protest at this level. Other websites are protesting in their own ways. Just take a look at Google’s image for the day.

20120118-081043.jpg

Critics are saying that Google, Wikipedia, Reddit, and similar sites are for information and search purposes. They argue that issue advocacy isn’t something they should be involved with. That’s utter nonsense. SOPA/PIPA directly impacts their industry. In fact, it impacts them a heck of a lot more than it impacts the music industry and the unknown Texas Representative (Rep. Lamar Smith) from an aging, agriculturally dominated Congressional district with no technology market to speak of who wrote this legislation in the House. Wikipedia and the others are doing something few corporations take the time to do: be active citizens to protect the citizens, or in this case, Internet users.

As one of the websites protesting by shutting down for the day wrote: “When your kids ask you what our generation was doing when the Internet became lame, you can tell them, “I was raising Hell.”

If you petition your Congressman and Senators just once in your entire life, make it now. We cannot allow the Internet to be censored and endangered this radically without protest.

Read More
Comments (2)
TOP

Huntsman is out, endorsing Romney

Jan 16
Posted by kevintracy in 2012 Elections, Huntsman, Politics, Romney

20120116-073724.jpgWord broke last night that the Huntsman family decided to throw in the towel. The campaign; which brought in less than 20% of the vote in New Hampshire; has reportedly run out of money and can’t buy basic television or radio ads in South Carolina.

To be honest, I’m surprised they went to South Carolina at all. After spending all of your time in a state, earning the majority of your votes from non-Republicans because of your moderate-to-progressive policies, and coming in behind a lunatic like Ron Paul; your campaign is pretty much dead in the water.

I don’t know if Huntsman can even attract a crowd in South Carolina, so instead of leaving the race surrounded by supporters, he’s going to leave the race surrounded by apathetic journalists.

Unless he does it with Mitt Romney standing behind him.

Jon Huntsman’s campaign manager is already pushing Mitt Romney as the only guy who can win. This before Huntsman officially terminated his campaign. It’s a good bet that Huntsman will be backing Romney, too.

Huntsman was by far the most progressive of the Republican candidates. With him out of the race, it is a role that will now pass on to Mitt Romney. Plus, Huntsman needs a job.

While it was stupid to go to South Carolina, he sets a good example for Rick Perry, who should have dropped out after Iowa.

After South Carolina, Perry and whoever doesn’t come in 2nd are going to need to come together to fight Romney if they have any chance at stopping him. The Huntsman endorsement isn’t that important, but it should guarantee Mitt Romney’s victory in South Carolina.

Read More
Comments (2)
TOP

Failure to Make a Consensus Conservative Candidate Will Result in Romney’s Nomination

Jan 14
Posted by kevintracy in 2012 Elections, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Politics, Presidential Race, Republican, Romney, Santorum, Uncategorized

The South Carolina Primary is now precious few days away and Mitt Romney’s lead is still holding as Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry are dividing the conservative anti-Romney vote. According to the latest Real Clear Politics average of polls, Romney has a 4.7% lead in South Carolina.

Romney – 26.7%
Gingrich – 22%
Santorum – 14.7%
Paul – 14.7%
Perry – 5.7%
Huntsman – 5.7%

However, considering that Mitt Romney has won the first two contests of this race and is ahead in South Carolina but hasn’t knocked out any of his competition, it’s safe to assume the core of the Republican Party is not satisfied with Mitt Romney. Therefore, here’s another way to look at the polling.

Mitt Romney – 26.7%
Anti-Romney – 42.4%
Other – 20.4%
Undecided – 10.5%

(According to a very recent Reuters poll, Romney has a 21% lead over Gingrich. I have severe doubts about the accuracy of those results.)

This data reflects polling done before the Santorum endorsement given by a large group of normally spineless evangelical leaders, including James Dobson and Tony Perkins. The fact that this endorsement came so late probably means it won’t mean anything in the decisions voters are making. If it does anything, it’s going to hurt Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich.

The reason these evangelicals even made an endorsement is because their fan base was pissed after 2008, blaming them for not backing Huckabee sooner before Fred Thompson could do all the damage he did to that campaign. In a lot of ways, their inaction was to blame for McCain’s nomination.

Since then, the importance of these “leaders” has waned significantly. Not only because their followers discovered they were more concerned with money and power than morality, but also because social issues like abortion and gay marriage have taken a back seat to federal and state budget and economic issues. But at least now, they will argue, you can’t blame them for not backing a candidate.

If they had made their endorsement sooner, it might have mattered. This late however, I agree with most of the other analyst bloggers out there, it won’t matter.

The real failure this year isn’t on them, however. The Republican Party is overwhelmingly decided that they do NOT want Mitt Romney to represent them in the General Election. The problem is that there are three guys who are absolutely convinced that they should be the candidate instead. It’s the fault of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry that Mitt Romney will become the nominee. If any one of these candidates would drop out and immediately endorse one of their rivals (except Perry), they would be the kingmaker of 2012. If two would drop out and endorse someone, it would be a landslide against Mitt Romney.

Now, whether Gingrich and Perry endorse Santorum or Santorum and Perry endorse Gingrich, it doesn’t matter. The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party would be thrilled and greatly represented by either one of these guys, especially when compared to Mitt Romney.

When Mitt Romney becomes our nominee, it will be the egos of these other candidates that are to blame.

Read More
Comments (3)
TOP

Obama Justice Department Gets Punched in the Face: Man-Nuns Denied

Jan 12
Posted by kevintracy in Barack Obama, Christianity, Politicians, Politics, Theology, Uncategorized

In a unanimous ruling, the US Supreme Court has punched President Obama’s Justice Department in the face for trying to apply non-discrimination hiring laws to churches and other religious institutions. You can read about it in detail at OpenMarket.org.

This is a VERY important victory for organized religion in the United States. As Hans Bader mentioned in the Open Market article, it protects the Catholic Church’s male-only priesthood. Okay, that’s something that’s a bit controversial even among Catholics.

20120112-081408.jpgHow about this for something everybody that doesn’t live in or around San Francisco can agree with: this Supreme Court ruling protects the Catholic Church’s tradition of female-only nuns! Seriously, you and I both know there are militant-gay individuals who would jump at the opportunity to make a mockery of the millions of nuns who have devoted their entire lives to God.

Note: Not all gays are militant. I’m talking about a very small minority of people when I say that.

Now, exactly what role Obama personally had in the Justice Department’s decision to even go after religious institutions isn’t known to me. I personally doubt he had much of a say at all. It’s not something a politician would try to do before an election.

HOWEVER, that doesn’t remove him from responsibility. This is Obama’s Justice Department. President Obama is responsible for hiring the people who implemented this totalitarian progressive mindset in the Justice Department.

In a sense, I’m glad they brought this case up. I was always curious to know if churches could get away with these kinds of hiring practices that would be completely illegal and unfair in the private sector. Not so much for positions like priests, but for positions like receptionists and accountants. Now we know.

Also, the US Supreme Court has gotten a lot of crap lately for some controversial rulings. Kudos are in order for this one. Not only did they do the right thing, they did it unanimously; which sets a stronger precedence for the future than a split vote.

Read More
Comments (0)
TOP

Ego or Revenge: Why is Newt Gingrich Still Running?

Jan 11
Posted by kevintracy in 2008 Elections, 2012 Elections, Bachmann, Gingrich, Iowa, New Hampshire, Paul, Perry, Politicians, Politics, Presidential Race, Republican, Romney, Santorum, South Carolina

20120111-081347.jpgLet me start off this post by saying how much I admire former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Yes, he has proven to be a shrewd politician in the past, but the value of his service to the cause of conservatism is immeasurable.

With that said, he’s been in this race for two different contests now and he’s repeatedly placed in the bottom half of the pack. And it’s not due to a lack of variety, as Iowa and New Hampshire conservatives and voting methods are stark contrasts from one another.

What’s worse, I think it could easily be argued that Newt’s presence in the race prevented Rick Santorum from firmly establishing himself as the anti-Romney candidate by winning Iowa in a convincing manner. Bachmann played a role in that, too. Rick Santorum’s inability to get a major victory over Mitt Romney is probably why Rick Perry is still in this race. I’ve long compared Rick Perry to Fred Thompson in 2008, and his botched Iowa campaign and direct flight from there to South Carolina to attack everybody (including Santorum) seems to only reaffirm the legitimacy of that comparison.

All Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum are going to do in South Carolina is divide anti-Romney conservatives three ways and ensure the nomination of Mitt Romney.

Unless… No.

Well, maybe. Maybe that’s not going to be what happens. Maybe, Newt Gingrich is staying in this race just long enough to travel to South Carolina, shake some hands, and then shock the political world by getting out and endorsing Rick Santorum in his concession speech.

I missed Newt Gingrich’s post-New Hampshire primary speech because I was on the phone with a snake-oil salesman from India working for Dell (he tried telling me $200 software with a 3-year license would magically make my fiancée’s computer work – her motherboard is defective… They’ll do anything to avoid standing behind their warranty).

However, I did see Newt’s Iowa speech and that made it pretty clear he has a lot of respect for Rick Santorum. Given that Santorum has come closest to beating Romney in either of these contests (8 votes in Iowa), I think he should probably be the consensus candidate to take on Romney the rest of the way forward.

If Newt Gingrich forcefully endorses Santorum in South Carolina, it’s hard to imagine Romney winning that state. It would be icing on the cake if Perry would get on board with the plan, too. That latter part is extremely unlikely, however.

The question for Newt Gingrich is, “Why are you running?” If this is about his ego, he’ll stay in until after South Carolina and then endorse Mitt Romney as though everything that happened between them was just a joke. If this is about getting revenge on Mitt Romney, he’ll endorse Santorum sometime soon in South Carolina and then work at further discrediting Mitt Romney.

For what it’s worth, that’s what he would do if he was sincere about his desire to elect a conservative to the White House.

I don’t know what Newt’s motives are and I won’t venture a guess at this point. We’ll see if Newt puts his cause before himself in South Carolina and discuss it further when we know for sure.

For the first time in this race, someone other than Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin has the weight to be a king-maker in the GOP; that person being Newt Gingrich.

Read More
Comments (2)