Super Bowl Haiku Prediction 1

01/30/2009, 2:07 pm -- by | No Comments

Mediocre game
Very good food, however
Chicken wings galore!

Further Election News

11/18/2008, 10:03 pm -- by | No Comments

The major media outlets appear to be calling the Stevens-Begich Senate race for Begich, the Democratic challenger. This puts the Democrats one seat closer (58 total) to a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority, pending the results of the December 2nd Chambliss-Martin runoff and the Coleman-Franken recount which begins tomorrow. We’ll keep you posted.

Presidential Haiku Prediction 8

11/3/2008, 6:04 pm -- by | No Comments

Barack Obama
will win PA and CO:
John McCain loses

Call J.G. Wentworth

10/3/2008, 2:57 pm -- by | No Comments

Does anyone remember this poll?

Well, if California (tied for #2) doesn’t get some cash soon, they might sink into the mighty Pacific.

We’re still working on Massachusetts. Stay tuned.

Clash of the Titans LXI: China

10/3/2008, 2:00 pm -- by | No Comments

Originally published in November 2007.

In this corner, arguing that China is an enemy, is David!

And in this corner, arguing that China is our friend, is MC-B!

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.

Which side are you on?
View Results

Live-Blogging the VP Debate!

10/2/2008, 7:34 pm -- by | No Comments

Join us right here at 9:00 EDT for as-it-happens discussion of the vice-presidential debate!

Previous live blogs: Westboro Baptist Church

One Hundred Words (32)

09/10/2008, 10:16 am -- by | No Comments

I have two classes on a given day. One professor seems self-absorbed and condescending when answering questions. He requires that we turn our cell phones off — completely off — because vibrations, even shielded by knapsacks, are too disruptive. I wouldn’t want to be disruptive, so I comply. In a few weeks, some phones have already gone off at full volume.

The same day, I have another, much larger, class with an engaging, funny, interesting professor. He respects our work. I don’t think he said anything about phones. I haven’t heard a single phone go off during his class since day one.

–MCB

Clash of the Titans LXXXV: Where to Park?

07/1/2008, 12:00 pm -- by | No Comments

In this corner, parking close by, is Connie!

And in this corner, parking far away, is MC-B!

I’m writing the no-brainer side of this Clash — parking near. I have no idea why someone would choose to park far away ON PURPOSE, but defend my choice I must, so here we go:

Time: My time is at a premium and I must protect it at all cost. I simply cannot afford to park rows away when a spot is available closer. Plus, with the time I\’ve saved, I will be more prepared for my appointment. I will be seated sooner, remembering points or questions I plan to raise or cover. And I will not be sweaty, or worse: late, from walking long distances across foreign parking wastelands.

I might also spend my extra time planning something like, perhaps, dinner, thereby avoiding mistakes like serving pine nuts to someone with an allergy who may be eating with us that night. Haste causes many problems.

Efficiency: Having my vehicle nearby lets me keep my eye on it, in case of Tomfoolery. One never knows when one might be the subject of a prank, or worse yet, a felony! But being close by and ever diligent, I can either prevent the damage, or at least give a good description of the miscreant(s) involved.

Or, if I\’ve forgotten something in my vehicle, a few quick steps back to retrieve a photo or lab test won\’t hold up my friend/doctor. Oh, let\’s just face it, most of my doctors are my friends! And they all want to see pictures of Tom!

Attitude: When I find a spot near to where I need to be, I feel blessed (some others would say lucky, but I know better). This gives me a calm, happy, peaceful spirit as I enter my appointment or errand. This might lend itself to a more positive interaction later in my appointment. Never underestimate that.

I pray before I go somewhere, and (almost) always God provides a spot for me. In return, I try not to waste the wonderful time He has given me here. Someone asked if we should waste His time asking for parking spots, and I say if He gives them, how is it wasteful? He blesses our time when we give it to Him.

First of all, I\’m not going to suggest that I would surrender a close spot to look for one farther away from a store; instead, I argue only that hunting for spots close to a store is not a very good use of time or other resources. Of course, whether or not a person prefers to park close to their destination is generally dependent on their station in life and how they experience shopping and other errands. As a youngish man, I simply cannot see a reason to drive around the parking lot looking for a good space and wasting time when I could park at a moderate, or even far distance, and get there almost as quickly.

Additionally, there are a number of benefits to parking far. Exercise is probably the most obvious; while a small minority of people need to park close to ensure that they can transport their purchases back to their vehicle, it is undeniable that Americans as a whole could use more exercise, and that the vast majority could benefit from fitting small exercises into their day — taking the stairs, riding a bike, or parking a little farther from their destinations and carrying what they buy a little bit longer.

Fuel savings are another small benefit of parking farther away, due less to the small extra distance that one drives to the storefront than to the incessant circling that often results from trying to find that one good spot. Admittedly, this is a very small savings, but they do add up over time.

Parking far away, as long as there are still a few other cars near yours, is also a good way to avoid the hazards more often found at the front of the parking lot close to the store: most notably shopping carts, but also small children and other circling cars. As a result, it often allows you to leave more readily when you want to go.

Finally, someone else may need a closer spot far more than I do. Again, as a young man, it\’s not particularly important for me to get a close spot, but someone older or injured may need it. I’m sure it rarely works out this way, but certainly more often than it would if I actively sought out better spaces. For all of these reasons, going out of one’s way to park close to a storefront generally isn\’t worth the effort.

Which side are you on?
View Results

Bible Discussion — Luke 12

03/20/2008, 12:00 pm -- by | No Comments

This week, Bweinh.com looks at the next chapter of Luke, Luke 12.

Genesis: 1-4 | 5-9 | 10-14 | 15-18 | 19-22 | 23-26
27-29 | 30-32 | 33-36 | 37-39 | 40-43 | 44-46 | 47-50
Exodus: 1-4 | 5-8 | 9-11 | 12-14 | 15-18
19-22 | 23-26 | 27-30 | 31-34 | 35-40
Romans: Ch. 1 | Ch. 2 | Ch. 3 | Ch. 4 | Ch. 5 | Ch. 6 | Ch. 7 | Ch. 8 (I)
Ch. 8 (II) | Ch. 9 | Ch. 10 | Ch. 11 | Ch. 12 | Ch. 13 | Ch. 14 | Ch. 15-16
Luke: 1:1-38 | 1:39-2:40 | 2:41-3:38 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

 
INTRODUCTION:
Connie:
Luke 12 is a somewhat long discourse covering many of the pitfalls that we face as we walk out the journey of our faith as Christians. It provides encouragement — some of it from common sense, some from warnings of what’s to come.

David:
Luke uses the majority of this chapter to present some of Jesus’ teachings on priorities in a disciple’s life. Who should you fear? The one that can kill you and send you to hell. What should you be thinking about? His Kingdom, because He can take care of our business for us, if we are about his business for Him, and when He returns, He\’s going to be very interested in what we were doing for Him.

Erin:
This chapter is narrow in narration — it is mostly just Jesus talking — but broad in content. Warnings to be watchful, to be frugal, to share, to be peaceable, and not to worry, all vie for the readers attention.

It can be easy to get bogged down in all of these instructions in just the way that Jesus did not intend. The people to whom he spoke were familiar with Jewish legalism, and so this itemizing of ways to “live out the new Covenant” would have made sense to them. What is easy to ignore, however, is that these are simply outward expressions of a life lived with every thought captive to the large purpose of devotion and service to the Kingdom of God.

 
SOMETHING YOU’D NEVER NOTICED BEFORE:
MC-B:
These people are trampling on each other to hear what Jesus has to say. Devotion, selfishness, or both?

Steve:
In the parable about watchfulness, Jesus refers to “one who does not know and does things deserving punishment,” and says that such people will be “beaten with few blows.” What does this mean concerning those who die without hearing the Gospel?

Erin:
Peter asks whether or not the parable Jesus is telling was intended for more than just the 12. Seriously, Peter?

(Herein I show my own Christianese background — I already know Jesus\’ answer, and struggle to put myself in Peter\’s clueless, and very familiar, shoes).

Connie:
One of my favorite scriptures, Matthew 6:33, is also here as 12:31 — “But seek the kingdom of God, and all of these things shall be added to you.”

 
BEST BAND NAME FROM THE PASSAGE:
Josh: Rich Fool
David: Girded Loins
Erin: This Very Night
MC-B: Many Sparrows
Steve: The Ravens; Last Penny

Continued here!

Clash of the Titans LXXIV: The United Nations

03/18/2008, 10:00 am -- by | 1 Comment

In this corner, opposing the UN, is Djere!

And in this corner, defending the UN, is MC-B!

There comes a time in every superpower’s life when it looks at the steaming, writhing squalor that once could have been greatness and think: “Enough is enough.” There are as many reasons for the US to remain in the UN as there are for a battered husband to remain married — two. Ridiculously stubborn masculine pride and oh-so-foolish feminine hope.

After rescuing the world from its second global conflict in as many decades, the United States scooped up what was left of her allies, dumped the equivalent of trillions of dollars into their stagnant, welfare-state supporting economies, and created the United Nations. As with all wars to end all wars, most folks were pretty eager to make peace. So 51 nations signed on, creating a group dedicated to end war, safeguard human rights, promote social and economic progress, improve living conditions, and achieve other worthwhile, lofty goals.

Now 60 years, countless wars, at least a dozen genocides, and epidemic after epidemic later, the UN is still cautiously optimistic about the possibility of forming a subsidiary body of a specialized agency’s functional commission (under the direct control of no fewer than two regional commissions), with oversight from the secretariat, charged with maybe getting around to fixing that world peace thing some day. But for now, they’re all pretty focused on hating America.

The crux of UN stupidity is giving two-bit, third-world dictatorships equal footing with the United States, United Kingdom, and other reasonable, civilized, developed countries. For Heaven’s sake! The UN still can’t decide whether the crisis in Darfur is regional unrest, civil unrest, or just plain, old, run-of-the-mill GENOCIDE! Oh, sorry, the UN-sanctioned term is “gross violation.” So, sorry, 200,000-400,000 dead Sudanese, you haven’t been genocided, you’ve been “grossly violated.”

What I propose is simple: relegate the UN to the minor leagues and start our own global organization devoted to awesomeness and peace through strength. Let the socialists and dictatorships have the UN. Until countries grow up, institute democracy and capitalism, and reach a certain level of development, the UN is all they get. I say that the US, UK, Japan, Germany, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Israel, and Taiwan all leave the UN (and leave the French there as well) and form our own permanent multi-national coalition.

Just like the EU won’t let just anybody in until they’re sufficiently developed, neither will we. It’ll be like a members-only club that demonstrates to the world that you’ve made it.

And while the UN is busy mailing letters requesting the cessation of hostilities against civilians in Sudan, we’ll send our letter too. Taped to the front of a cruise missile.

The political side of the UN won’t win a whole lot of points with me or any thinking person. It’s slow, bloated, and controlled by either a handful of elites who can singlehandedly stop it from taking any meaningful action (i.e., the Security Council) or a large number of countries from the developing world with no particular qualms about abusing their citizens (i.e., the General Assembly).

That said, though, the UN has had a positive humanitarian influence on the world. The greatest example is probably smallpox; with cooperation from many of the world’s governments, the World Health Organization took on one of the greatest killers in history, successfully making the world a whole lot safer for those born in developing countries.

The World Bank (chartered separately, but technically under UN jurisdiction) offers inexpensive loans to not only help countries escape poverty (their weaker suit), but also to reconstruct after major crises (their stronger suit). They provided some of the funding that helped Germany and Japan become the economic powerhouses and strong Western allies that they are today. Finally, other arms of the ECOSOC have made significant strides in providing vaccines, education, and food to children in impoverished countries.

Of course, most arguments about the United Nations aren’t about what it has done; instead, they are about what it could do differently, or how much better everyone would be if these crises had been handled by the free market and private donations. There is obviously no factual data on a hypothetical UN-less world, but given the intransigence of the private sector and individual governments to today’s humanitarian crises (even with UN help), it’s very difficult to believe that we could have defeated smallpox or rebuilt Western Europe so quickly, without UN resources and organizational tools.

It’s true that the UN will probably never give the United States as much as it asks us to give to them. This is the case with governments at any level; the ones who need their services are never those who are able to pay for them, so someone else has to pick up the bill. The UN was created partially to fill a perceived need for world government, but it is not particularly effective politically. As a result, it instead finds its strength in coordinating and administering humanitarian responses, and it has performed these types of missions very successfully.

Whether or not the UN could be 1000 times better than it is, its existence has helped the world.

Which side are you on?
View Results

The Most Important Thing

03/17/2008, 5:22 pm -- by | 1 Comment

I was looking for some guidance recently, but couldn’t find my Bible. Luckily for me and for the rest of you who are lost and seeking answers, there’s Google. Having successfully completed a comprehensive search of what the internet considers “the most important thing to remember,” I am prepared to release my findings to the world.

Here are ten of the things that the Internet thinks are the most important thing to remember, each nugget blossoming with wisdom in its own right, as nuggets are wont to do:

–You simply cannot go wrong with flowers.

–You do not need to learn to throw the Frisbee very far.

–You must be able to carry your own luggage.

–Anyone who has accomplished more than you has no life, and anyone who has accomplished less than you is a noob.

–Swim only when and where guards are on duty.

–Never grab a lizard by its tail!

–Buy a collection of toys that will suit a variety of purposes.

–Wine was made to be enjoyed.

–Empty your bladder completely and regularly.

–You’re here to tell the jurors your story.

 

I’m thinking of basing a personal philosophy or small startup cult around these teachings, or at least cobbling together an email chain letter. Please forward this to ten people that you care about and also back to the person who sent it to you, for you are loved. If you do that, your crush will ask you out TODAY!

Also, I’ll show you how to throw a Frisbee really far.

Best of MC-B — Can I Interest You in Some Fine Real Estate?

03/6/2008, 10:30 am -- by | No Comments

Originally published April 26, 2007.

Come right in. Please, sit down. What can I do for you folks today? Interested in buying some property, huh? Well, okay, we have a lovely house down on Park Street: oh, you wanted something a bit more unique? Hmm.

Well, maybe I can interest you in one of the most recent arrivals on the real estate scene. We’ve got a few plots that we’re practically giving away on Planet 581 c.

What is Planet 581 c? Well, according to CNN.com, it’s the most Earth-like planet that scientists have ever discovered. Well, yes, I suppose that technically Earth is more Earthlike than 581 c, but I thought that was implied. Okay, okay, I’m sorry, no need to get testy. Anyway, this planet is filled to overflowing with that sweet, sweet substance that we call liquid water. Do you have children? I’ll bet they’d love to jump off a swinging rope into some of 581 c’s cool, clear rivers and lakes. You don’t? That’s a shame. You look like great people.

Did I mention the fact that, on this planet, it’s your birthday every 13 days? By the time you’ve been there for twenty years, you’ll be about 561 years older on this planet, have 561 more years worth of birthday presents, and be able to absolutely destroy Jeanne Calment’s record. Think of that, folks: a place for your name in the Guinness Book of World Records, and all for the low price of this fine piece of property. I have to tell you, though, that buying anniversary presents could get a bit pricey (the 1000th Anniversary is the Bohrium Anniversary, by the way). Probably no problem for wealthy folks like you anyway, right?

This beauty of a planet is also just a quick flight from Earth at only 120 trillion miles away. That’s still more than far enough to keep the mother-in-law at bay, right sir? Oh, okay, that’s fine, no need to get offended.

Aliens? Well, we haven’t checked it out completely yet, but I can guarantee that 581 c is in one of the safest neighborhoods in the known universe; no known signs of life anywhere nearby means no crime, no vandalism, and no pollution. Well, yes, I suppose it might get a bit lonely, but who needs other people when you have each other, right?

Okay, well, you folks take some time to think about it. I can’t guarantee that we’ll have these plots when you make your decision; they’re going pretty quickly. If you decide you want to buy, you have my number.

Best of Bweinh! — Romans 8 Discussion

03/5/2008, 12:00 pm -- by | No Comments

Read Part One here, and Part Two here!

Clash of the Titans LXVIII: Racial Profiling

02/8/2008, 12:00 pm -- by | 5 Comments

In this corner, arguing against racial profiling, is Erin!

And in this corner, defending it, is MC-B!

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.

Which side are you on?
View Results

Best of Bweinh: The Dinosaur Clash

01/25/2008, 12:00 pm -- by | No Comments

Originally ran on July 3!

In this corner, claiming the superiority of the tyrannosaurus rex, is Djere!

And in this corner, backing the apatosaurus (nee brontosarus), is MC-B!

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.

Which side are you on?
View Results

Next Page »