The true gridiron classic, the crossword puzzle simply outclasses its numerical counterpart.

The crossword puzzle (in its modern form) dates to its 1913 invention by Arthur Wynne, but word squares have been found even under the ruins of Pompeii, a testament to their timeless popularity. Shortly after Wynne’s initial “Word-Cross,” the crossword puzzle again took the world by storm, easily becoming its most popular word game. Crosswords require finesse, creativity, logic, a firm grasp on language, and a sense of humor.

Sudoku, on the other hand (if that’s how it’s spelled), is a newcomer to the puzzle world, invented in 1974 by Howard Garns. Unlike the crossword, which requires creativity, logic, and knowledge, Sideko is solved by logic (or luck) alone.

And speaking of alone, Saduka is usually solved alone, a testament to the poor social and hygiene skills of its practitioners. The crossword is truly a democratic puzzle — the game of the everyman. Think back to the last time you saw someone hunched over a newspaper, pen (or for cowards, pencil) in hand. A crossworder may look up, make eye contact, and speak directly to you. “Hello, friend,” they might ask, “What’s a four letter word for ‘killer whale’?” It’s more than solitaire, it’s an interpersonal event… it’s proper socialization! It’s community!

Replay that scene in your mind, but substitute the lesser puzzle of Suck-doku. Instead of eye contact, your feral co-worker will likely make indiscriminate marks on the page, muttering to himself, never quite acknowledging your presence or humanity. Years later, after failing to complete even one square, he is, frankly, quite likely to snap and firebomb your company warehouse.

Oh yeah, and size does matter, baby. From the standard 15×15 grids of your weekday puzzle all the way up to the Weekly World News’s 35×35 Bigfoot puzzles, crosswords trounce Sakodu’s petty 9×9 grids. Aesthetically pleasing, the crossword contains radial symmetry, contrasting white and black squares in interesting designs. Suducu’s only claim to fame is that every puzzle is as boringly plain as the last.

What’s it going to be? The logic, beauty, and cruciverbial wonder of the crossword, or the irritatingly confining multiplication table that is Sydyky?

P.S. If anyone could help me with 26-Across — “Wish to a traveler,” eight letters? Yeah, thanks.

Crosswords and Sudoku are very similar, really.

Both combine the excitement of painstakingly filling out small grids in a strictly regimented way with the fun of sitting quietly. Both are presumed by many reliable sources as activities that build the intellect. And both are best enjoyed responsibly.

However, if one of the two had to be sacrificed from our nation’s coffee shops, subway trains, and lecture halls, the choice would be simple:

We would have to ditch the crossword.

Sudoku is, by its very nature, inclusive. Speaking the universal language of numbers, a Sudoku puzzle spreads its grid wide enough to encompass people from any culture, any walk of life.

Crosswords trend toward the opposite extreme of exclusion, taking on themes so obscure as to alienate the vast majority of those initially drawn to their checkerboard good-looks and witty tete-a-clue-tete. Glamour without warmth is not what I look for in a woman, and absolutely not what I want in a pastime.

Sudoku’s simple, yet elegant rules can be learned in minutes. Place each digit, 1-9, one time in each row, in each column, and in each 3-by-3 square.

Compare that to the nuances of a typical crossword puzzle. If there’s an abbreviation in the clue, does that mean the answer is abbreviated as well? In what tense do they want this word?

And what’s with all the Latin?

I’ll admit — Sudoku is a relatively new addition to the flashy world of the comic-page. But even considering the Jumble, word-search, and the behemoth that is the New York Times crossword, Sudoku remains one enigmatic David who can take up nine smooth digits and get the amusement done.

I am driving and I pull into the tiny parking lot of a Sunoco gas station. There are only three or four spots, but I am seriously lost, and on top of that, I have to go to the bathroom. Badly. So I park my car, grab my purse, get out, and run inside.

Although there are several other people at the gas station, the first thing I notice is that I am the only Anglo, and the only woman, in the building. As I search for the likely dingy and dark bathroom, the only thought that stands out to me is: I hope I locked my car…

What just happened there? Because I was the ‘white’ woman in the situation, I assumed there was automatically a higher probability that the men around me would commit a crime? Yes. Exactly.

I didn’t even tell you what race any of the men were — but how many of you had a picture in your head? Lebanese? African-American? Ukrainian? In the past year, I have met people of all three backgrounds at gas stations, and never have I been robbed, never have I been assaulted, never has anything gone the least bit illegal.

So how is it even possible that racial profiling — the practice by law enforcement officers of taking into account racial or ethnic background when taking action — could seem right?

The ACLU defines racial profiling as the practice of investigating, stopping, frisking, searching, or using force against a person based on his or her race or ethnicity, and not criminal behavior. Pedestrian stops, “gang” databases, suspicion at stores and malls, and immigration worksite raids can be included in the definition as well.

So please tell me, what gives our law enforcement officers the right to do such a thing? To arrest someone based on the way that they look instead of their behavior? To detain, search, or harass someone because they can??

The answer is: nothing gives them the right. It is systemized racism, and should not be tolerated.

If racial profiling were called by almost any other name, or used almost any criteria other than race, I doubt many would be averse to it. Trying to prevent crimes or attacks on US citizens using statistics about which person is more likely to be a terrorist or criminal sounds pretty reasonable.

So what if race is one of the factors involved? Does a good idea suddenly become ludicrous? I’m going to talk mostly about international terrorism — it’s the situation in which racial profiling is most clearly justifiable (and therefore not wrong in every situation, or in principle).

There are some questions about the efficacy of racial profiling, but that’s not at issue here; the question is whether questioning or detaining someone comparatively more based on their race infringes that person’s right to privacy. Racial profiling, when done correctly, does not imply that anyone is guilty of a crime; rather, it is more comparable to what happens when the police are trying to track a felon.

If a white male of average build has brutalized someone while walking down the street, does it infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights if, in the course of finding the one who committed the crime, a few white males of average build are taken aside and questioned? We are at war with certain parts of the world whose inhabitants happen to look a certain way, and we need to react to that fact with smart policies designed to prevent attacks rather than kowtowing to PC sensibilities.

I would happily be detained for longer at an airport, even for hours, if it meant there was a slightly smaller chance that my plane would be taken over by hijackers or terrorists. This type of racial profiling may be a little insulting and quite inconvenient, but it would be difficult to find a credible constitutional lawyer who considered it a true infringement on constitutional rights.

Of course, engaging in racial profiling requires us to maintain rigorous standards and keep a watchful eye out for possible abuses of the system; it should never provide an excuse for racist actions. Additionally, racial profiling for strictly domestic crimes is a bit more complicated, and should be far more limited than racial profiling at airports or borders.

However, saying that all racial profiling is wrong regardless of the context sacrifices security, safety, and reality to political correctness — a very dangerous sacrifice to make.

Misplaced compassion is a dangerous force. On this earth, we must all reconcile justice and mercy, because an excess of either produces similar harm. This is why I tell you that if you care about the people of Mexico — if you really care about them — you should support stricter enforcement of our immigration laws.

First, my opponent’s opening argument, carried to a logical conclusion, would entirely eliminate the right to own real property and the sovereignty of nations. None of us deserve anything before we’re born, do we? And our country, bordered as it is by those pesky “invisible lines” drawn before any of our births, apparently has no right or claim to its territory, and should have no ability to enforce the laws its people make. Really?

Fortunately, that’s not the way things work. Governments derive their powers — as Don Shula and Peyton Manning reminded us so wonderfully before the Super Bowl — from the consent of the governed, and owe no duty to provide for those they do not govern. National boundaries mean something, and always will. I’m on the north side of that “invisible line” because my ancestors worked hard and made choices that benefit me. I dang well do have a right to be here, because those folks built “here” — meaning my country, which has passed laws to control who gets to enter it and live. That is our right. Period.

I can’t believe someone could actually believe a country has no right to control entry through its borders. The well-known tragedy of the commons should be enough to dispel this argument; bringing in hordes of people with no connection to this country, simply because they might find a better life here than at home, is a recipe for utter disaster. Our government is not responsible to give the whole world jobs. The church has the largest role to play in helping the less fortunate, not the state.

All that is to say that the choice is not between (a) opening our borders to all and (b) allowing children to starve. That’s emotional blackmail with little basis in fact. And I’m not complaining that “them durn forners” are “taking all our jobs,” either — I like free trade and outsourcing, which make up the other half of my opponent’s argument, with which I totally agree. Moving factories to Mexico does much more to help its people than immigration ever will.

Cultural issues, although they matter, do not compel me to make this argument. There are clearly differences among the peoples of the world, but no race or nation is uniquely blessed. After all, our country is the richest and most advanced for many reasons — most due to ingenuity, technology and hard work, but some due to our shameful exploitation of this continent’s natives and the African slaves.

And that’s my main point. Illegal immigration continues that pattern of shameful exploitation, success on the backs of the poor and powerless. We rightly deplore it when we read about it in our history books, but ignore it when it hides in the guise of mercy. The farm lobby lies through its greedy, manure-specked teeth when it says enforcement of our laws would drive lettuce to $35 a head. What big business truly wants is a permanent underclass of simple-minded drones, human machines who can be replaced at will, paid a pittance, and discarded when necessary. Modern-day slaves, battling not only the scourge of poverty, but also the greed and deceit of those who pretend to help them escape it.

Tough love is the answer when your teenage son crashes your car, or when your underage daughter comes home drunk. As a nation, we must reject a sloppy sentimentality that misdirects our admirable compassion for the needy by both encouraging a culture of lawlessness and creating a new slave class for modern-day robber barons to rape and pillage afresh. They come here illegally, so they will not turn to the law for help. Their own nation shamefully casts them off on us, and so they sacrifice in search of a better life — one that ends with them literally worked to death.

I really don’t care what some poem says on a French statue — our founding document is the Declaration of Independence. It recognizes that all men and women were created equal, and all were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That sure as heck doesn’t mean they all get to live here — we can do what we like with our borders, and frankly, I’m all for drastically limiting immigration of unskilled workers who aren’t fleeing torture or persecution. Go to the mall — we’ve got plenty of dumb folks already.

But if and when we do let anyone in, the Declaration compels us to treat them like we would our brother. That includes both a responsibility to obey ALL our laws, and the right to be treated like a human being. The current policy treats both of those as optional.

“Thou shalt not oppress the stranger that is among you.”
Exodus 22:21

One of the funniest shows I can remember watching in the 70s was All in the Family with Archie Bunker. He was the hero of a generation of white men who sat in their easy chairs complaining about the encroachment of foreigners and minorities, who were ruining our way of life.

It was great comedy, but I’m a Christian now, and I resent the fact that the residual effects of that humor still color our conception of what it means to be an American. We think that somehow, because we were born north of some invisible line, we deserve to be here, while those born south of that line do not. I can’t accept that. It’s one thing to be born on third base and another thing entirely to have hit a triple. You did nothing to deserve to be here.

“But these people are criminals! They broke the rules to get here. Let them go through the proper steps to become citizens like my ancestors did.” That would be nice, I agree, but it’s never been that way. We have always taken in a large number of illegal immigrants. Could you really tell a man whose child is starving, “Fill out this form and leave it at the desk, we’ll call you if something comes up”? I couldn’t.

I wonder what you would do if your family was living in poverty, while 50 miles to the north, there was enough money to lift them out of despair and sickness — all you had to do was get there and work for it. Would you not do everything in your power to help them, regardless of the rules?

“But they’re taking our jobs!” Yeah, they are. What do you want to do — send them home? Let Americans pick produce working for some union that gets them health benefits, decent wages and a good pension plan, while we end up paying $35 for a head of lettuce? Does that fit into your budget?

I get so tired of people whining about losing jobs to foreigners. Our last large textile mill here closed down in 2006; two guys from my church worked there. One ended up as a supervisor at the new Wal-Mart distribution Center, and the other collected unemployment for a few months while working construction under the table.

When a plant closes here, it’s an inconvenience — somebody’s daughter has to settle for a less expensive dress than she wanted for the prom; some guy has to buy his son a used Mustang for graduation instead of a brand new model. Cry me a river.

When the plant opens up in some Third World nation, suddenly people who would have died live! Kids who were begging on the street, or being exploited by perverts for sexual gratification can earn money and change their living conditions. And some poor woman raising her kids alone in the good old USA can afford to buy them new jeans.

The truth is, when we think we’ve hit bottom here, there are still another seven layers of hell we’ll never experience — because we live in the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth, with the most extensive welfare network on the planet.

If you starve here, it’s because you want to. You have to work hard to fall through the cracks. And yet we begrudge help to those who have come here in response to this invitation:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Maybe we need to rework that old poem:

Send your wealthy to our scheming shore,
the ones with jobs from across the sea,
the rich investor who can help us more,
the learned man with the Ph.D.,
we’ll leave the light on for you.

I know many people chafe against America’s stint as the world’s police, but if that role were ever necessary, the situation in Darfur is the time. This is not the global equivalent of assault, grand theft auto, or arson. It is, my friends, murder one.

I’m an isolationist at heart, but not spurious in my desire to see American intervention in areas of political or religious upheaval. I think, at times, intervention is necessary, and I support our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan currently, and Haiti and Somalia in the past. But the sheer scope of the tragedy in Darfur — the injustice, the lawlessness, the bloodshed, and the fact that there are no cool heads to be put towards prevailing — gives this situation a sense of urgency on steroids.

Whatever compassionate, protective, empathetic part of the brain that responded to the great tsunami should also respond to this senseless loss of life. There are not sides to be delicately understood, or diplomatic measures to be massaged here. What is necessary is for the only nation with the willpower, the means, the expertise, and the track record — the United States of America — to send not only our soldiers and sailors to Sudan, but also our Marines.

This can’t be misconstrued as a search for oil or hegemonic dominance. This is an instance where the darkness of the world is winning, while we do nothing about it. I don’t speak of darkness in the Biblical sense — although I could focus this argument entirely on our need as a believing nation to alleviate the suffering there — but rather a darkness of ideology that continues to dim the value of life and the vigor of freedom all over the world. Our indifference — perhaps too strong a term for 2008, but which will most certainly be applied (perhaps accurately) years from now — to the plight sickens me on a personal level and frustrates me on a policy level.

What an opportunity — to reshape an image, reinvigorate our “brand,” and mold an emerging Africa in a better shape — while ending the slaughter (and that is not hyperbole) that should be casting a shadow over our nation’s collective conscience.

It’s a human rights crime. 200,000 to 400,000 dead, over two million displaced. Why the discrepancy in numbers? The chaos makes it impossible to carry out a proper count, but one thing is for sure — the situation is dire. So how could anyone say that the U.S. shouldn’t send troops to Darfur?

It’s simple — sustainability. History has taught us that the only way improvements can occur is through sustainable development. What does that mean? Consider intervention like a drug. Morphine is meant to alleviate pain. Unfortunately, if it’s administered without prudence and discretion, the recipient will become addicted, and the drug will destroy his life.

Likewise for international aid. For example, look at the 2007 report of the Millennium Development Goals. In most cases, there has been improvement, but it is, unfortunately, nominal. NGOs, much like foreign aid, can sometimes facilitate dependency and make it difficult for a country or group to overcome circumstances on their own. Or worse, they will fund the corrupt government, or opposition groups, while civilians continue to be slaughtered.

This is what I fear for Darfur. But aid is exactly what the displaced people are expecting. In a stunning article written in 2007, Amber Henshaw interviewed six people within the camps, asking them questions like, “What do you think is needed to reduce, and hopefully stop, the fighting and killing completely?,” and “What do you think could most change your situation right now?” The answer was always, “Protection from the international community.” The six Sudanese interviewees were convinced that nothing would change until troops, whether from the U.S. or another country, were deployed to shield them from the Janjaweed.

Millions of dollars have been poured into developing countries; yet, as the MDG report testifies, the change is negligible in relation to the resources. Perhaps it’s heartless to say that the Sudanese people have to do it themselves. But the fact of the matter is that history tells us they do.

June 2, 2007 — Kelsey Smith, 18, was abducted and strangled by Edwin Roy “Jack” Hall, outside a store where she had purchased a present for her boyfriend. Hall’s identity and apprehension was aided by the store’s use of security cameras. On his MySpace page, “Jack” called himself a “Sweet Troubled Soul,” interested in “eating small children and harming small animals.” Prosecutors are considering the death penalty.

February 1, 2004 — Carlie Jane Brucia, 11, was returning from a sleepover when she cut through a car wash. There she was led away by a man, never to be seen alive again. The camera at the car wash showed a man in a uniform shirt approaching Carlie, talking to her, and then leading her away. NASA assisted by enhancing the image, and the FBI helped find Brucia and her abductor. Police arrested Joseph P. Smith, who had been arrested at least 13 times in 11 years, and had been previously charged with kidnapping. Carlie’s family described her as a beautiful young girl who loved her cat named Charlie and enjoyed time with her friends.

February 12, 1993 — Jamie Bulger, 2, was kidnapped from a mall in Liverpool, England, by two 10-year-old boys, who then took him for a long walk which ended with them senselessly beating him to death and tying him to train tracks. The boys, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, had been stealing things all day at the mall. Caught on CCTV with James, the boys were convicted of his abduction and murder.

May 30, 2005 — Natalee Holloway, 18, disappeared while on a post-graduation senior trip in Aruba. She was last seen leaving a popular nightclub with three young men — Joran van der Sloot, Deepak Kalpoe, and Satish Kalpoe. All three men were arrested but released, and there was no security tape available of her on the island. Her family and friends hold out hope for a miracle, and her mother travels to churches, sharing her testimony of God’s strength and presence in her life, despite these devastating circumstances.

I could have listed numerous cases of missing kids where cameras could have provided some needed answers and valuable closure. I personally believe that when you are in public, you and your actions are public property.

The argument in favor of surveillance cameras is a touching one. How many crimes against innocents — especially children — could be prevented? Isn’t saving a life — just one life — worth any qualms we might have over privacy issues?

Of course, exactly the same argument could be raised for banning McDonald’s. Many more people die from the results of overeating than are murdered each year. Shouldn’t our government be concerned with this? Isn’t saving lives the point?

While people who feel this way (including my worthy adversary) are to be commended for their humanitarian spirit, I don’t understand the role of government in this way. Government doesn’t exist to save the lives of its citizens, it exists to preserve the rights of its citizens without which freedom is a hollow word.

The genius of the seminal documents of our nation is that they recognize the dangers of totalitarianism: give all the power to the state and watch the state misuse it. The right to privacy implied in the Constitution provides an important safeguard against this.

I may occasionally choose to give up my right to privacy. With a club card, I allow the grocery store to know what I purchase in return for discounts. I allow cookies on my computer in order to use internet services I enjoy.

I am willing to compromise my right to privacy in extraordinary circumstances, or simply for something special I enjoy. But I am unwilling to compromise my right to privacy simply to walk around town or use the subway.

Does that mean that occasionally people will violate the rights of others, even the sacred right to life? Yes, of course, and those people should be punished appropriately. But violating the basic rights of all to protect against a few predators is simply unacceptable.

It’s good to be the king.

The Tyrant King of the Lizards, that is.

T. rex is the epitome of dinosaur. Weighing four to six tons, 40 feet long, 20 feet tall, and with a four-foot jaw filled with razor-sharp teeth upwards of 12 inches, T. rex was not built for play dates. He was a killing machine that ate meat.

The image of dinosaur conjured up in every mind is of an enormous Tyrannosaurus, standing over the body of a lame dinosaur like a Triceratops, Stegosaurus, or an Apatosaurus, roaring in delight. Oh, I’m sorry, did I say Apatosaurus? Perhaps I meant Brontosaurus.

While the incorrectly named Brontosaurus would passively graze, staring around with its vacant, cow-like eyes and walnut-sized brain, Tyrannosaurus stalked the primordial jungles of Laurasia, with a brain over twice the size of herbivorous dinos. That’s right, Laurasia, or present-day America. If America were a dinosaur, it would totally be T. rex.

Broadly speaking, the only lame thing about the T. rex is the disproportionate size of its teeny forearms. But recent discoveries show that the arms, while small, were incredibly muscular, designed to hold its prey in place while it was devoured.

So who’s it going to be? The Tyrant Lizard King, with his gigantic brain, or the dim-witted, hopelessly lame, salad-eating “thunder lizard”?

Today is “July 4th Eve,” the day before we celebrate the birth of our wonderful nation. The story involves a small group of poorly-armed militiamen successfully fighting off the forces of a terrible king and rising to become a mighty colossus. It would be nigh on sacrilegious if, on today of all days, the readers of Bweinh! selected a tyrant as their favorite dinosaur.

Once you get past the hype surrounding the T-Rex, what is it? For what does it use its kingship over the other dinosaurs? According to Calvin and Hobbes (a reliable source if there ever was one), T-Rex was either a fearsome predator or a loathsome scavenger. Regardless of Calvin’s answer, we should be unwilling, as Americans or Christians, to accept a dinosaur fitting either description as our favorite. There are better paths than predator or scavenger.

Enter the brontosaurus. Simple- minded and simple-living? Probably. Defenseless? Hardly. Strength has always been a prerequisite to peace and the brontosaurus is built to last. No teeth or claws to speak of: just pure size and a willingness to group together with others when necessary. Its name means “thunder lizard,” and it is indeed mighty, a force of nature — at least 23 metric tons to the T-Rex’s 6.8.

With this in mind, the brontosaurus now seems more like the mighty United States (its fossils have also been found here). And the T-Rex is placed squarely with the North Koreas and Irans of the world: noisy and fussed over for weaponry, but in the end unable to match the sheer size and power of its mighty adversary in a fair fight.

Do not reject America’s proud heritage of reluctant heroism and unmatched power in exchange for tyranny and a set of shiny teeth.

To the uneducated eye — otherwise known as people who think fans of any “Star” franchise are just a bunch of dorks — there’s not a lot of difference between Star Trek and Star Wars. But I’m here to tell you, despite the Trek’s mountainous advantage in total number of TV shows and movies, I’ll take quality over quantity. Allow me to take you to a galaxy far, far away…

I guess I should start by admitting that I am far from an expert in Trek matters. But as near as I can tell, Star Trek’s contributions to our world consist of little more than “Beam me up, Scotty,” and the worst fight scene ever.

Star Wars has so much more to offer. They have better characters and better actors (not that it’s that hard to overcome the ongoing intentionally unintentional joke that is William Shatner). There’s the charisma of Han Solo, ably played by Harrison Ford, easily the most successful actor from either franchise. There’s the mystery and wisdom of Obi Wan Kenobi, originally thanks to the legendary Sir Alec Guinness. There’s spunky old Yoda and his beloved verbal patterns, part of a genius partnership with Jim Henson. And of course, there’s the terrifying Darth Vader, with the booming voice of James Earl Jones — consensus choice for the greatest screen villain of all time.

And there’s more to love. Light sabers, for instance. If you try to tell me you’ve never wanted a light saber, you’re lying through your teeth. That goes double for Jedi powers. The entire Star Wars universe is just a more intriguing place to be, which accounts for the massive popularity of the entire line of Star Wars video games that put you right there (Incidentally, I highly recommend Lego Star Wars, Battlefront II, or Knights of the Old Republic, depending on your genre of choice).

The creative genius of George Lucas brings all this to life, with an attention to detail that makes everything more authentic and a superior sound track that makes everything seem more important. So if you’re ready to vote for Star Wars, may the force be with you.

And if you’re not, then this isn’t the clash you’re looking for. Move along.

Space. The final frontier.

If you’re anything like me, when you read those words, you began to hear the haunting strains of a string orchestra begin to swell. In your mind’s ear, each phrase was delivered with the firm, yet understanding tones of a Royal Shakespearean Company-trained actor. And in your heart was awakened a yearning — a yearning to be entertained.

Those four words (for those of you who may not know) are the opening to Star Trek: The Next Generation, the second well-known television series in a series that to date has numbered seven incarnations. Ten films have been spun from the original concept, with an eleventh currently in production. Compare that with a measly three good Star Wars movies, with another few that even die-hard fans loathed. But commercial success can’t be our only basis for comparison. With that in mind, how do Wars and Trek really compare in a number of key areas?

Robots
Star Wars gets points for sheer numbers, but let’s face it: their robots are annoying. Neurotic gold-plated three-dollar C3PO flutters around uselessly, his talents for “interpreting” rendered useless by a voice that engenders a burning hatred in the end-user. Data, on the other hand, is a positronic-brained android of the classic Asimov model, neither annoying nor metallic-looking. Sure, he may not look human, but he wants to be, which is more than you can say for the whirring, beeping R2D2.

Muscle
Chewbacca may be hundreds of years old, but it’s pretty obvious he didn’t spend any of them at the speech therapist. His voice is even worse than C3PO’s, and can only be understood by his “partner” Han Solo. Klingon Worf, son of Mogh, on the other hand, has any number of memorable lines. From “Sir I protest! I am not a merry man!” to “If you were any other man, I would kill you where you stand!,” Worf worked hard, played hard, and enjoyed nothing more than a tall, frosty glass of prune juice. And I’ll wager his conditioner bills were much lower as well.

Character With Big Ears
Leonard Nimoy brought his quiet dignity so obvious in his recording of “The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins” to the role of the ever-logical half-Vulcan Mr. Spock. Who does Star Wars have? Oh, only those three little words every Star Wars fan loves to hear:

Jar Jar Binks.

As a people, Americans have always paid our collective independence more than its share of lip service. We claim to be a land of freedom, say we have thrown off the bonds of tyranny that yoked our nation in her infancy, and present ourselves to the world as a paragon of liberty. Yet we persist in using a system of weights and measures based not on any semblance of sense, but on the whims and physical characteristics of the despotic few who governed the monarchies of antiquity.

The standard system ruled the roost of world business for centuries, growing comfortably fat off the toil of our brows and calculating machines. Wide rolls of strange numerical conversions began to hang from its jowls as it glutted itself at the table of commerce. Was this monster decimal? Octal? Dodecahedral? Who could afford to question? Time was better spent trying to determine the number of ounces in a hogshead, or inches in a furlong. But a new wind was about to blow.

Amid the tumult of the last time the French showed any collective semblance of bravery, a few daring souls decided to forge a universal system of measure. Rather than the length of a king’s thumb, or the volume of your average sheep bladder, they selected a length they would use for a base, a length of the people. The world was changing! The king was dead; he could no longer force the people to memorize numbers like 12, 16, 1160, or 5280! Instead, they counted their fingers, counted their toes, averaged the result and arrived at the number 10. That’s right, the same number upon which our entire system of numbers is based.

Not only can you convert between a nanometer and a kilometer just by moving a decimal place, you can even move between two and three dimensions without straining. Without measuring someone’s anatomy. Without consulting a council of bearded elders, table of ciphers or magician’s grimoire. When was the last time a child was able to proudly tell his teacher the number of cubic inches in a gallon? But any precocious tot can be instructed that a thousand independent little cubic centimeters together become a proud, powerful liter.

In a time of increasing foreign tension, should we really be raising the next generation to measure the world in a way foreign to the others who call it home? Is it worth enduring the confusion and inconsistency of the standard system, just so our grandchildren will measure their ice cream in the manner of our fathers? Just look into your heart, and count your toes.

I think you’ll find they hold the answer.

I pastor a church in a threatened part of the world. Chester County, Pennsylvania, just east of Lancaster, is a county of rolling hills and mushroom farms, and is a traditional home to horse trainers. You can still pass an idyllic Saturday in the southern part of the county watching the county as it used to be.

But the town where I pastor, Exton, has long been under threat. Every chain restaurant in the world, it seems, has moved in. I live about twenty minutes away, in Coatesville; a mere ten-minute drive from our church or home could take you to five McDonald’s, three Wendy’s, two Friendly’s, three Applebee’s, and countless other familiar restaurants that have conspired to all but destroy local cuisine.

We don’t need more themed chain restaurants beating the individuality out of us, and we sure don’t need a metric system forcing us all into a mold, even if it is a perfectly square, perfectly sensible, extremely user-friendly mold.

Do you really prefer the meter to the yard? We know how the meter came into being: it was a product of the “pure reason” so popular (and so stunningly bloody) in the French Revolution. Indeed, in 1799, the French stored away the originals of the meter and the other metric units, adorning the metric system with the motto, “For all men, for all time.”

On the contrary, we don’t know precisely where the yard comes from, only that its origin lies in charmed tradition. The girth of a person’s waist? The distance from Henry VIII’s nose to the tip of his outstretched thumb? No one knows for sure–all we know is that it’s a much better story than a bunch of progress-minded revolutionaries laying off the bloodshed long enough to standardize something random, then attempting to force the rest of the world to use it.

And they have tried to force the metric system. Don’t believe me? Ask the “Metric Martyrs,” a group of five English grocers who were fined for failing to measure their produce in metric units. Ask any Canadian you want. Their government went to the trouble of creating a logo to demonstrate their allegiance to metric’s new world order, pushing imperial users into underground quietness. Like Narnians, they must patiently await their chance to again enjoy their nation as it used to be.

So, go ahead, vote for the metric system. And while you’re homogenizing the world, would you also cast a ballot for eradicating local accents, closing the family-owned hardware store, and creating a list of state-approved songs for worship?

Thanks so much.

Steve wants me to make the argument that Huckabee is a conservative. While I think this is as easy as arguing that the oceans are wet, Steve seems to think it will require a verbal kung fu of fantastic flips and acrobatic maneuvering to prove. Steve thinks this because he has his own vision of a conservative, and being a consistent Republican gives him some degree of clout in that theatre.

However, Steve is not the mold from which all conservatives are born, and it is ridiculous for him to state, unequivocally, that issues such as the pro-life movement (and Governor Huckabee’s lifelong support of it) don’t even begin to align the man from Hope with others who also call themselves “conservative.”

There is not a soul on the planet that I agree with on everything. I could probably even make a creepy, Freudian argument that I don’t even agree with myself on everything. From W to Huckabee to my own father, I don’t completely agree politically with anyone, although I support all those three with thorough veracity. This is because the greater cause of a person with a conservative worldview is the achievement of a more conservative world — and it is obscene and politically motivated to try to say that Mike Huckabee is not a bona fide conservative, with some of the best traits of that station.

First, Mike Huckabee is the most serious outspoken and unmuddied pro-life candidate in the history of the party. He never engages in double-speak, and harbors true disgust for the attitude towards the unborn in the country. He also is aggressively against homosexual unions and for pulling out of Iraq prematurely. He is against universal health care, which is fast becoming a pan-liberal stance, and he wants to get rid of the income tax — the great golden chalice of American fiscal conservatism.

The governor also makes his support for Israel, Taiwan and South Korea a central part of his campaign, and he makes his intention of further pressure on the Cuban dictatorship an integral part as well. Huckabee was the first governor in the country to have a license for a concealed weapon, and his lifetime membership in the NRA is just the beginning of his support for Second Amendment rights — arguably the most authentic and robust of all the candidates. Mr. Huckabee is also a supporter of capital punishment (a point I personally disagree on, but a traditionally conservative one) and is the only candidate who has ordered the execution of inmates.

Really though, Steve just wants to rail against Huckabee’s history on taxes and immigration. I throw out immigration immediately. The issue of illegals in this country is too new, too organic, to immediately find its issues falling into political categories. I, with my President, support the guest-worker program. Many conservatives do not. But the supporting of the integration of Mexican people and culture into our country does not yet have a political home.

True, Mike Huckabee did aggressively lobby to allow the children of illegals born in this country to qualify for state scholarships — but I think it’s sad I have to teach a civics class to explain that if you’re born here, no matter the circumstances that brought your fetus over the border, you are a United States citizen. And it’s perverse to punish those children for their parents’ crime.

On taxes it’s true that the Governor had to raise taxes at times during his term, in response to the demands of his liberal legislature, but the Governor also lowered taxes with every chance he got. I doubt anyone would make the argument that George H. W. Bush is not a conservative, although he himself raised taxes as President. Sometimes, regrettably, tax-raising is a fact of federal life. And frankly, it can require a certain brand of bravery to do it.

But, as Steve asks us to do with Romney’s newfound social conservatism, we should dismiss the past and accept the candidate on what he currently runs on, and Huckabee runs on a tax-cutting platform. By every spoken and stated stance he takes, Governor Mike Huckabee is a true blue social and fiscal conservative and it’s painfully laughable that anyone should think otherwise.

This is not a political website; it is a website about everything, from the perspective of writers and thinkers who seek to follow the example of Jesus Christ. Several of us, and many more of you, don’t care much about politics, and so I try to ensure you won’t be overwhelmed by a flood of political coverage here. But some of the most interesting issues to me (and maybe you) are those bearing on faith. When Mike Huckabee began to take off, largely on an appeal to evangelical Christians, I watched closely. I did a lot of research on the man, what he believes, what he’s done, what he stands for. And I am left to conclude one thing.

Mike Huckabee is not a full-spectrum conservative.

Maybe you aren’t either! If not, this debate isn’t really that relevant. You might find that the governor’s beliefs match up well with your own, and if so, great! For Mike, those include a desire to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and bring al-Qaeda prisoners into the United States, granting them full constitutional rights and access to our courts — oh, and a promise to sign a federal ban on smoking in all public places, Constitution be darned! And I almost forgot how he freed thousands of prisoners and took hundreds of thousands of dollars in questionable gifts!

Ahh, post-modern conservatism.

I need to make an admission, though. On social issues, to his great credit, Mike Huckabee is a consistent conservative. He is a friend of life and I will not minimize that for one second. But there are three legs to the conservative coalition, three parts to its whole. Gov. Huckabee possesses only one of those legs, the one, in fact, that the president affects the least. And if you’ve ever had the misfortune to sit on a one-legged stool, you know it won’t hold you up for long — even if it has a winning wooden smile and proudly boasts its status as a “Christian stool.”

One of those legs is foreign policy. Gov. Huckabee wrote, in an article he submitted as part of a series in Foreign Affairs, that our nation has been a cocky high school student that “dominates others” around the world. Willfully ignoring the actual history of attempts to gain UN cooperation that predated the Iraq invasion, he went on: “The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad.”

When asked about the biggest foreign policy news during the campaign season — the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran — Huckabee was ignorant and clueless. Later, his excuse for cluelessness pointed the finger, again, at our sitting commander-in-chief: “President Bush didn’t read it for four years; I don’t know why I should read it in four hours.” Condoleeza Rice finally had to smack him down with the truth.

Which party are you in again, Huck? In these dangerous times, I don’t want a candidate who doesn’t know what he’s talking about in Iran or Pakistan, and can’t figure out who his foreign policy advisors are, probably because he doesn’t have any to speak of.

The third leg is fiscal conservatism. Job doesn’t mention that the results of Huck lowering taxes “every chance he got” was a net tax INCREASE of $505.1 million. And he wasn’t always “forced” to do it either — that link recounts his requests for tax increases. But now he misrepresents his record. Fiscal conservativism relies on cutting taxes whenever appropriate, and lowering spending whenever possible. That’s not Mike; under him, state spending increased 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation.

It is not BRAVE to raise taxes, as Job improbably argues to my left (in so many ways). It is liberal — just like Huckabee’s endless rhetoric bloviating against CEOs and businesses. I sense a pattern. And his hopeless plan to replace the income tax with a national sales tax is not conservative. It’s just crazy.

Conservatives share a certain mindset — the underlying principles that have served the movement for years, including respect for life, belief in smaller government and a proper understanding of the Constitution and liberty. Mike Huckabee has the first principle in spades. But in place of the other two, he has something else entirely — a desire to have government solve our problems. This is the antithesis of conservatism. And it’s not at all “obscene” to point that out.

While tea lovers revel in tea’s health benefits, naysayers worry that anything as deliciously stimulating as java must be unhealthful. Most recently, coffee has shed its dangerous reputation, as researchers uncover evidence showing that coffee is safe in moderate amounts and might have some surprising benefits!

For instance, drinking more than four daily cups of coffee lowers the risk of diabetes. Tea has no similar effect. Coffee protects seniors against Parkinson’s disease, and is linked to lower rates of liver and colon cancer, while the FDA says more research is needed to support tea’s anti-cancer claims. Coffee is also chock-full of disease-busting antioxidants, the number one source of such chemicals in the American diet.

Butsowhat? We don’t really drink it because it has health benefits — that’s just a bonus. We suck it down at a rate of 400,000,000,000 (yes that’s 4 HUNDRED BILLION) cups a year because it tastes so good!

Lines at the local Starbucks any weekday morning are far longer than the voting lines in November. To say that coffee is a habit, bordering on a national obsession, would not understate the case. Coffee has become such a staple in the West that no event, public gathering or meal for large masses can be held without taking the “coffee factor” into account.

Quick Facts:
–Coffee is the number two beverage in the world, second only to water in total volume consumed.
–Coffee is nearly four times as popular as tea, the third most consumed beverage, and five times as popular as soda, which ranks fourth.
–In 2006 alone, the specialty coffee market racked up an estimated $12.2 billion in sales, up from $8.3 billion in 2001 (according to the Specialty Coffee Association of America).
–The number of coffee retailers has risen from only 1,650 in 1991 to 23,900 in 2006.
–Worldwide coffee consumption in 2003 was estimated at over 1.4 billion cups every single day — with more than 400 million of them consumed in the US!
–The average American consumes about 10.5 pounds of coffee per year, about half of what they consume in Scandinavia.

But what’s the true source of coffee’s momentum? Perhaps it’s the blanket of aromas (ahhhhhhh), the taste (love it!), the hot nutty-sweet bite of flavor teasing our tongue (Vanilla Biscotti from Folgers is hea-venly), or the lush, familiar warmth of our kitchen hearth and bouquet of mother’s cooking. It takes us home again and starts new traditions with our own families. Coffee is a win/win/win.

Coffee or tea?

It’s a question that’s haunted mankind for the ages. It will be answered here, today.

From time immemorial, mankind has been drinking medicinal teas for just about every ailment under the sun. Can’t sleep? Have some tea. Nausea? Have some tea. Heartburn? Indigestion? Upset stomach?

Diarrhea?

For most gastrointestinal ailments, there’s an appropriate herbal tea that, let’s face it, tastes better than the pink stuff. Coffee, on the other hand, can cause insomnia, heartburn, constipation, upset stomach, and the like.

Coffee 0, Tea 1.

Coffee is one of those foods. You know, the ones that always smell better than they taste? It’s true and you know it. The aroma of coffee is strong and inviting. But the taste just lets you down time and time and time again. One sip and you remember why people have to add flavor, sugar, cream or milk to make coffee bearable.

Tea, on the other hand, is as versatile as it is delicious. Feeling Christmassy? Have a nice peppermint tea. Feeling groggy first thing in the morning? Perhaps a nice English Breakfast Tea is in order. Feeling like commanding a starship? “Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.” is right up your alley. Equally aromatic, quintessentially delicious… tea is the way to go.

Coffee 0, Tea 2.

Ever since Ahmed Al-Starbucki first opened up shop, pushing his harmful wares on Christendom, the price has been ridiculous for coffee, and it’s just getting worse. The only way I’ll touch the stuff is with a healthy dose of milk, chocolate, and sugar, but six bucks for a stupid drink that’s just going to bind me up? Heck no! Tea’s a commodity. You can buy boxes of the stuff for cheap, and all you need is hot water.

Coffee 0, Tea 3.

From tummyaches to mistletoe to Jean-Luc, tea’s just the better choice. And so many choices! Hot or iced, tea has it all!

If the question is “Should we view China as an enemy?,” my answer is yes. Should we be marching in the streets burning Chinese flags, boycotting Chinese restaurants and dry cleaners? No. But make no mistake: the Chinese government views the US as its chief rival for military and economic dominance in Asia, and ultimately throughout the world, and that makes us enemies.

China is experiencing an economic boom that has pushed it into the top 6 in both GNP and GDP, and it’s using that windfall to increase military spending, even though it already possesses the largest standing army in the world and the 5th-largest military budget. It’s also using that money to upgrade its technical capabilities, acquiring sophisticated guidance systems and other improvements (legally or illegally), with a stated purpose of developing capabilities to interdict US expeditionary forces and US carrier battle groups in the Western Pacific.

China boasts 20% of the world’s population and aspires to be the dominant force in Asia, which contains 61% of the world’s population and 3 top economic powerhouses, including Japan and South Korea. Anyone remember why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? America was flexing its economic and military muscles in Asia, and Japan felt they had one choice — expand or die. They gambled on confronting the dominant power in Asia rather than settling for playing second fiddle for the next few hundred years, and they lost. China has the sense to know they will face that same choice one day. It is no secret that they are preparing for it, and so are we.

But where is the danger zone? Aside from general tensions arising from our projection of power across the ocean to remain the dominant force in Asia, there are two major flashpoints:

North Korea — we fought the Chinese face to face in North Korea at the Chosin Reservoir, and by proxy all over Asia from the 1950s through the 1970’s. Has North Korea been in the news lately? Is Afghanistan part of Asia? Think they feel threatened by the only superpower fighting in their backyard and threatening to start another war in their side yard?

How about their front yard? Taiwan. They currently have 790 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan, and are not at all secretive about the fact that invading the island is the primary focus of their short-term military planning. We are pledged to defend Taiwan in case of invasion, and in fact have already intervened twice when China has amassed amphibious assault groups across the strait.

Don’t get me wrong; I do not mean to say that we as Christians are their enemy — but as I said before, they know that our country is ultimately their enemy, and our military planners know the same thing.

Knowing the feelings of many Bweinh!tributors on this issue, I am under no delusion that I will win this Clash. I also do not take issue with my opponent’s claim that China might see the USA as a potential military threat. However, I would like to point out that defining our enemies to include all nations that would consider taking up arms against us if their regional interests were threatened could characterize almost every nation in the world as a potential enemy.

Remember the stink that certain Europeans raised when the US intervened through a legitimate organization (NATO) in the Balkan region? Even our closest allies, those with whom we have a history of cooperation, were highly mistrustful of our intentions. Since our history with China has been considerably more spotty, it is quite likely that the present situation is simply the same phenomenon exacerbated by past interactions.

In other words, in the military arena China and the USA certainly have differences, but the differences aren’t large or deep-seated enough to net China a special “enemy” status.

In any case, friendliness among nations isn’t measured by alliances and military agreements as much as it used to be. Rather, it is measured in dollars, and in economic terms we have seen over and over again that in the era of globalization, ostracizing any one large nation hurts everyone involved far more than cooperation does.

An example: our dollar is currently in a free fall (thanks, Ben Bernanke!). Even though we’ve sunk past the pound, the Euro, and now even the Canadian dollar, the Chinese government and other “unfriendly” governments around the world continue to hold reserves in US dollars, which helps to stave off the inflation of our dollar — even though switching to a different reserve currency could provide far more stability and credibility to foreign investment than staying with a weakening currency.

Being friendly with China also provides more opportunities for trade, which could open one of the largest single markets in the world (aside from India, I suppose) and lead to further harmony between our two nations. True, the Kantian peace thesis of democracies not warring does not hold when one nation involved is not democratic. However, in China’s case, the other two legs of the Kantian Triangle (involvement in international institutions and involvement in trade) are increasing by the day.

China cannot afford to treat us as an enemy because its economy would slow to a crawl, and we cannot afford to treat China as an enemy, due to the vast potential of its economy to shape the way the world operates. We must continue to engage China with the wariness that we would afford to an engagement with any nation, but the end goal should be to bring China into a closer, friendlier relationship with the United States.

Telling other Christians you don’t like youth ministry is like slipping up and implying to a woman that she should lose some weight; shocked disbelief melts quickly into scorn. Fortunately, my disregard for such is an orbital blessing of having zero tact — you just get used to people’s disgust.

I’ll preface this harangue by saying souls have been won via youth ministry and that is, truly, the end of the argument. We count such as joy. People have been called to it, some are genuinely and admirably good at it, and much of the unbelieving or disbelieving world is moved by it. And the people I know who do youth ministry are the some of the best believers in my Rolodex. Should any of those souls read this — you know who you are — I trust you won’t see it as a personal attack. I would test your food for you or check under your beds for intruders; I would gladly relinquish any pulpit to your greater gifts. And though I’ve been known to mock youth pastors, I regret that our subculture has lampooned them to a point where their enthusiasm and uniqueness are treated like the Kool-Aid pitcher crashing through your wall.

But I come at youth ministry from a comprehensive viewpoint. I see it as a huge financial expense that produces very little return, treated with special honor though it’s relatively new. In a country as morally orphaned as ours, the desire to tag in for parents incapable of teaching their kids about the gospel and moral living is intoxicating, I know. But this is impossible in the broad sense, a hacking at the leaves, not the root — especially when most youth pastors are emerging from their early twenties themselves. Still the Church throws millions of dollars at the institution because it seems so relevant, obvious and even sexy?

A major problem with youth ministry is that young people develop close personal relationships with their youth pastors, not with Christ. And by definition, this relationship ends, kicking the crutch out from under the teen. I’d be more comfortable with the ministry if pastors acted like shepherds, not buddies filling the hole of good influence for a time.

When I think of what we could do with the funds spent on youth ministry, I get excited. Churches could hire a prison pastor, a pastor for the elderly, a director for service projects. I’m uncomfortable with the fevered sense of inadequacy some bodies feel without a youth pastor, and the depth of our love for this template for success in the face of such a morass of spiritual needs. The preoccupation with youth ministry baffles me.

But in short, I’m a Christian fanboy; I love this faith to death and I’m already in line for the sequel. And youth ministry is my Jar Jar Binks. I don’t like seeing so much money and talent spent on a guild and culture that doesn’t produce the lasting belief or believers to account for all we pour into it.

I know, I know; I’m a pig. But that was a pretty big lunch she ordered.

Full disclosure — I’m what you might call a “professional Christian,” having made the entirety of my adult living working for the church, much of that with youth. But I also grew up exclusively in churches without a professional youth worker, and I believe very strongly in a full-Body approach to ministry.

In many ways, I agree with Job that the efficiency and effectiveness of youth ministry should be frequently evaluated, even scrutinized, just like every other effort of the church, to ensure we are doing what is right. But the idea that a church should not make a significant and concentrated investment in youth fails to measure up logically, Biblically, or even from Job’s preferred viewpoint, the “business model.”

Taking the coarsest argument first, from a business standpoint, it’s pretty much a given that developing product loyalty at an early age is sound business. Even if it involves an exorbitant present expense, hooking a customer early brings a payoff for the rest of his life. Just ask our friends at the tobacco companies (Oh, I forgot, they don’t advertise to minors anymore! *wink wink*). And if you don’t hook him early, someone else probably will, and you’ll have a much tougher time selling him later in life.

If Job wants to know where the urgency and insecurity comes from in churches without an intentional youth ministry, I have a theory — they don’t want their church to die off. Which is exactly what would happen to a group that failed to bring in new, young blood, and is, in fact, exactly what has happened or come close to happening in many churches.

“Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.”

In a world where more and more parents will not or cannot do this, the church must. Certainly every effort should be made to reach the whole family, but for those adults who choose to go their own way, yet send their young off to church, we must step into the gap. The church must stand up and give our youth the best possible opportunity to choose the Way, the Truth, and the Life. I know that I am the man I am today because of the lessons I learned when I was young. I was blessed to learn them in my home, and I take that blessing seriously enough to fight the uphill battle to teach them to kids whose homes contradict them daily.

Do we need to make sure we’re giving our kids the real thing? Absolutely. Do we need to be careful not to segregate the Body? Without a doubt.

But where there are failings in these or other areas, it’s an area for that church to improve, not an indictment of focusing on such a bountiful harvest.

During my time on the camp ministry team this summer, I learned a few valuable lessons. One was never to buy flip flops that you don’t think can take some serious wear ‘n tear. Another is that, not infrequently, teens’ misbehavior is an expression of much deeper psychological issues, not just rebellion.

The third is — I can’t stand the Simpsons.

There, I said it. Bring on the criticism of my sense of humor, my taste, my ability to see a classic. Of course, the Simpsons has endured for almost 20 years — so why on Earth can I not see that it’s what the people want? If you want, bring on how much I actually laugh at the Simpsons’ rendition of Hamlet. Yes, I do find it funny.

So why can’t I get into the concept, appeal, and vast majority of this apparent masterpiece?

When the team arrived at Jumonville — the Laurel Highlands quite near Pittsburgh, PA — it was four days before the Simpsons movie premiered. I had seen a few commercials (especially during David Beckham’s first game in the USA) and thought only that it looked like something I’d probably eventually see, most likely in a situation where I was extremely sleep-deprived, sugar high, and coerced by my dearest (and most insane) friends.

During the four subsequent days, I honestly can say, I don’t think I heard a certain refrain less than forty times —

“Spider pig, spider pig, does whatever a spider pig does…”

And this didn’t stop on July 27th when the movie came out, as I had hoped. If anything, it intensified. We moved onto our next camp in Maryland, a family camp. Certainly, a family camp in the practically-seaside town of Denton wouldn’t have such a great population of Simpsons devotees, would it? I stand corrected. Vast numbers of kids and teens (and a few adults) seemed to have only one thing on their mind: The Simpsons Movie. Or perhaps two things: the Simpsons movie, and its relation to the grand overarching metanarrative of the Simpsons. You’d think that after a point, they’d realize its sheer inanity, that they’d stop being enthralled by a cartoon whose beer belly and doughnut fetish borders on disgusting. That they’d get it.

But no, unfortunately, that was not, and most likely never shall be, the case. So I’ll just mind my own business (unless, of course, I’m writing Clashes) and not criticize other people’s preference in humor or movies or whatever. I’ll ignore the fact that “d’oh” (or, phonetically, doh) has been rather ridiculously added to Webster’s Dictionary (roll over all you want, Noah). And I’ll still giggle at “Nobody out-crazies Ophelia.”

But for heaven’s sake, people, can you stop singing about Spider-Pig?

I, Hoss, personally love the Simpsons, because it provides high-quality entertainment for the masses — just like Djere (who failed to write this Clash, so his 15-year-old brother had to do so).

The Simpsons may be an old cartoon (19 seasons), but I still need my daily fix. The Simpson family is made up of:

Homer — a mean, abusive drunk who never ceases to make you laugh, whether he is creating art for Eurotrash or sneaking into Canada to buy drugs to bring back home.

Marge — a loving mother of three and an enabler, who picks Homer off the cold laminate floor and still loves him just the way he is.

Bart — a little “heck raiser” and the class clown, who does whatever is needed to get a laugh, or else he’ll beat you up and ride off on his skateboard.

Lisa — the gifted child, a book-smart Buddhist who never backs out of an evolutionary debate.

And finally, Maggie — our gunslinging baby.

Then they add a slew of townsfolk to make the thirty minutes so very magical. New this past summer was The Simpsons movie, which — in my opinion — was one of the greatest movies of all time. Homer saved a pig and started singing:

Spider Pig, Spider Pig,
Does whatever a Spider Pig does,
Can he swing from a web?
No, he can’t, ’cause he’s a pig!
Watch out — here is a Spider Pig.

Meanwhile, he was holding the pig to the ceiling and there were hoof prints everywhere…

Another great part was when Maggie went through a sinkhole and escaped outside a fence. When we were watching it, a woman in the audience yelled, “Oooooh!!! That’s how she got out there!,” and everyone else started laughing. Clearly, the Simpsons movie is best watched on a big screen.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that the Simpsons reign supreme over all animated cartoons, and will live forever in the hearts of many.

Let me be clear. The LDS organization is not an orthodox Christian church. Although they teach the Bible and worship Christ, they also believe God was once a man, men can become gods, Joseph Smith used a mystical device to translate buried plates from an unknown language into an English text that happens to include even the errors of the KJV, that a vast civilization of diasporan Israelites moved to America, yet left no corroborating evidence, and — most importantly — good works are necessary to give effect to Christ’s death.

So why are we here? My opponent demanded I defend my support of Mitt Romney. I told him that Romney’s religion would not keep me from giving him my vote, and that, given the right contest, candidate and circumstances, I could — and would — vote for a Muslim.

I tell you now — it is indisputably true that the Mormon religion is more similar to Christianity than is Islam. I don’t claim the LDS faith is correct, so this debate might be about who is “more wrong.” So who cares, right? Well, in a world where some wrong people are trying to kill you, while others want you to give up Diet Coke, a little exposition of the fine lines might be necessary.

The fact that Job argues this point shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the world. Civilized culture and Judeo-Christian values are under attack by a terrorist enemy whose goal is universal forced conversion to Islam. Clearly not all Muslims are terrorists. But how many Mormons are? How much of their scripture is devoted to beheading those who reject it? Here’s a hint — none. Islam claims to be a religion of peace, but Mormons are much better at it. Would you feel safer as a Christian in Beirut or Salt Lake City?

I know Mormons teach some strange and unbiblical things, and I believe Joseph Smith was a con man who lied about, well, pretty much everything. Their conception of the nature of Christ is wrong; their proprietary sacred texts are frauds. But though Mormon doctrine is far more uniquely American than Christian (with its extreme focus on self-improvement and ‘progress’) it still contains significantly more of the truth than Islam does. And culturally, Mormons are indistinguishable from American Christians, except that people are more likely to see them as “different” and “kind.”

It’s true that Muslims make distinct claims on truth, just like us. So does Scientology. So do morons who deny the Holocaust or claim 9/11 was an inside job. Subjective, hermit-like logic like Job’s lumps a group in with its strongest opponents, because, hey, we all get real wound up, right? The logical extension of his argument, given his own theology, would be that he’d rather go to a potluck in Addis Ababa than Atlanta. Or the Vatican. Or my church.

If you are a Mormon, I pray you’ll come to know the whole Truth. If you’re searching for a religion, I urge you to avoid the incorrect LDS faith. But there are two things I will not do.

One is deny Christ’s ability to work salvation in the hearts of any who call on His name, regardless of the doctrinal error of their congregation.

The other is honor a faith that requires total submission to the rule and custom of man in the name of a dour and vengeful God, by pretending it is somehow similar to our abiding and singular faith in Christ and His atoning work on the cross.

This debate was born out of an oft-argued topic this election season — Mitt Romney’s campaign and whether evangelical Christians should support it. I, of course, say they should not, while Steve has been supporting the Governor since the first shots were fired.

In the middle of one of our many skirmishes, I informed Steve that I think Islam is more kin to Christianity than Mormonism is. A sophist strike, perhaps, but one I do fully believe. And here, my friends (and any FBI monitors who may be perusing this) is why I think Islam is closer to our Faith than the one in Utah you taw a puddy-tat…

It is most kin to our Faith because it is so unkin.

Bear an analogy? The Rolexes sold in Times Square are, regrettably, not actual Rolexes. They do not have the precision, dependability, craftsmanship — and most importantly — the warranty of an actual Rolex.

They are not the same animal, but their entire existence is the pursuit of appearing as though they were. Those that sell them will tell you they are from Switzerland, and perhaps share a fantastic tale of how they fell into their possession at such a obscenely low price. There are those who buy the counterfeits as fools, and those who know they are counterfeits, but wish to fool others: the fact remains, they are not now, and never will be, Rolexes.

They are damned to be knock-off versions. Just like Mormonism.

Meanwhile, Islam is Casio or Fossil or some such thing…peddling an immensely inferior product, I assure you, but a product that does not aspire to appear as something it’s not. It is its own brand, desiring at every step to point out its differences from other brands, rather than trying to align and assimilate. It is not trying to blur.

As such is Christianity, preferring the role of lightning rod.

I would prefer to debate, and would frankly prefer the company of a Muslim, because I would not feel as if I were being cajoled or subtly ambushed. They have their beliefs, distinct and wrong, which endeavor always to point out the flaws of Christianity wholesale; whereas the LDS appears to be in an almost constant state of apologetic deception — a role Christ would cringe at. He brought division; not compromise. He brought a demand for complete change in life, thought and heart.

Christ demanded that His followers stand in stark relief from their surroundings — not a sad pliability and arc. And any type of Faith that attempts otherwise finds itself playing a whole other game entirely. Spectators, really.

Islam is wrong, but they tell us with equal vim that we are just as wrong. We are not arm in arm, tiring our fingers out counting our comparisons.

And so I see Muslims as more like us, the same way I’d see an Iranian sailor as more like me than the fellow dressed as one selling cell phones at the mall on Halloween.

I am in no way in favor of children viewing adult material. I’m not even in favor of the vast majority of adult material. But I am against an adult using the Internet and having it censored.

Censorship’s main problem is the inelegance that defines its operation. To function properly, a censor’s parameters must be defined by a person, and enforced by a machine. This is a less than ideal situation. The first problem is mostly that of scope. There are many ideas on the Internet with which a given librarian may not agree. What’s to stop that crusading librarian from blocking that subject from all patrons, for their “own good”? Restricting access to one arena opens the door wide to restriction for any other, and I fervently believe that the power to restrict people’s access to ideas could and would be misused.

The other problem with censorship is enforcement. A computer is a machine, and as such would make mistakes in enforcing almost any type of censor that could be installed.

A violence filter could block images of religious icons, news articles exposing the savagery of which humans are capable, and even reviews and previews of sweet Lady Hollywood’s newest blockbuster.

A sexuality filter could block access to this article (it does contain the word pornography), websites devoted to the health and safety of young people, and even reviews and previews of sweet Lady Hollywood’s newest blockbuster!

And a profanity filter might decide that your 56-year-old eyes cannot be trusted reading the velvety prose of my erstwhile opponent’s last clash, written back when she still extolled the virtues of free speech.

Friends, a better solution exists. In every public library I’ve ever entered, the computers were fitted with polarizing screen filters. This inexpensive device renders it impossible to see what the screen contained unless you were sitting in a chair directly in front of it. This way, when I’m triumphantly reading my newest clash against sex trafficking, or my latest public service announcement lauding the HPV vaccine, no child will be harmed by the foul language and ideas. To be doubly sure of their safety, a NetNanny-style censor could be activated should a child need to use a computer, as I have no problem restricting the freedom of those little monsters.

Because, remember — they are our future.

I had a librarian in high school named Mr. W. He was old, at least 75, and perhaps the most ill-tempered librarian I’ve ever come across — and I’ve seen some vicious librarians. He commonly yelled at students for talking, and was known for his tendency to throw students out while they were studying or doing research. We were all quite thrilled when he was fired, and we were absolutely triumphant when we found out why. Pornography had been discovered on his work computer. We were right! He was the devil!

But he was a teacher, exempt from the Internet restrictions imposed on students. It was just assumed that, as an adult, he would have the self-control and moral standing to refrain from such behavior.

Clearly, this assumption was wrong.

Library computers exist to assist in research and provide those without access to a computer the opportunity to use the Internet. They are not there to enable people to look at pornography or read about methods of violence. If a person wants to expose himself to such filth, he should get his own computer and do so in his own home. But when a free service is provided by public funds, we have the right to impose restrictions.

Yes, it’s true that at times, censoring can be annoying. There have been occasions when I was doing research, and for some odd reason, Houghton’s filter refused to grant me access to pages due to “adult content,” which was absurd. It’s irksome when you’re doing research on, say, breast cancer or victims of human trafficking, and you’re barred access because of explicit content. It’s inconvenient, but easily remedied. In a library setting, it’s not that hard to either find another website or ask the proctor to lift the restriction for the moment.

Internet censorship in libraries isn’t an impediment on your rights. It’s not a ridiculous attempt by the nanny state to turn you into a moral human being. It’s common sense, because there are people who would use those computers for the sole purpose of viewing explicit or malicious content — and that doesn’t belong on a publicly-run service.