I have often thought that the creators of South Park were geniuses of their ability to take your average, most mundane issues and morph them into humorous parodies that always make a point. Now, their resume has been strengthen by their impressive timing on today's issues.

If you haven't heard, Vice President Joe Biden has been running his mouth saying:

"I remember President Bush saying to me one time in the Oval Office," Biden began, "'Well, Joe,' he said, 'I'm a leader.' And I said: 'Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.'"

Karl Rove has since refuted this assertion, but that is not the point of this post. This is: (The whole clip is good, but start at about 2:35 for the main course.)

Bah, wordpress.com doesn't support southparkstudios.com videos. I'll upload a youtube video once I put it together.

I found this site through a contact on Twitter. Regardless of your political pursuation, you should agree that this amount of spending is out of control. Sure Bush did it too, but I didn't support his deficits anymore than a Democrat. Enjoy.

http://www.stopspendingourfuture.org/

Okay, I'm getting a little sick of this story. Everyone who follows politics knows about this story: Sarah Palin bought a bunch of clothes. My thoughts on it at the time? "Well whoopty-fickin doo. Who cares? She is campaigning for Vice President. How much did Obama spend? Biden? Michelle Obama?" This is the most unpartisan response a person could have. Honestly, why care? Where are the stories about money spent on clothes for women going to the Oscar's? They are just going to an award ceremony. Palin was running for the second highest office in the land.

But, of course, put a pile of crap in front of the media, and they will step in it:

Closing a loop on the campaign finance side of the Sarah Palin clothes saga, the Republican National Committee late last month filed an amended report detailing exactly which disbursements were clothing purchases for the Republican vice presidential candidate and her family.

The amended report shows that the committee paid about $23,000 for clothing in the three weeks before and after Election Day — which is actually $7,000 less than previously reported.

Why is this still an issue? "Closing a loop"? The Republicans are amending reports for financial reasons, and the media is acting like this is news! And besides this, where is the balance? Where are the stories on Michelle's wardrobe now that she is first lady? Hillary's? Pelosi's? McCain's? ANYONE BESIDES PALIN?????

This is the best example of the absolute, blatant bias of the very institution that is supposed to protect us from the oppressive hand of government.

Oh but it gets better. Remember when Palin said she would donate the clothes to charity after the campaign? Well, it seems that the media believes that Palin can't even do that right. Here's an idea. How about newspaper and the media get back to reporting on some of the stuff that matters, like the economic crisis, if the stimulus bill is actually working, or one of the many foreign policy crises out there, instead of going through an ex-vice presidential candidate's trash bags.

My wife and I are huge House fans. Every Monday night, we have our "House date" were one of us makes dinner, and we sit on the couch together and watch House. The build up to last Monday's episode left our breaths' bated in anticipation. And we were not let down. Kutner committed suicide.

I thought it was an odd "twist". Like the show said, he never seemed like he was suicidal. It didn't make sense. It was obvious that the spontanious death was triggered by something other than the need for a plot device. Our first thought was that he (the actor Kal Penn who played Kutner) died in real life. So, I hit the internet and found this:

"House" star Kal Penn -- whose character was killed off on Monday's episode -- is taking a sabbatical from acting to work for President Obama. The 31-year-old actor, first launched to fame as a stoner student in the "Harold and Kumar" movies, is coming to Washington to be associate director in the White House Office of Public Liaison, Entertainment Weekly first reported yesterday.

My wife and I rolled our eyes (we are not Obama supporters in case you can't tell) and shrugged it off. What was done is done. But then I was reading one of my more favorite blogs and found the blogger, Ed Morrissey, thought this:

Actually, I found the suicide to be the most objectionable part of the story, and I’m not sure why.  Maybe it’s because the series treated suicide as an easy way out of a staffing jam rather than a serious subject.  It seems almost grotesque to concoct a character’s suicide just to get the actor a gig in politics.  Why not just give the character a job somewhere else?

I thought this was profound. Why did they have him commit suicide? There were better ways to do this. He could have taken another job. That job could have been at the White House, actually putting the truth in the plot instead of killing him off. They could have used Kutner's death as a good plot device. House thought he was murdered at one point. They could have ran with that. I even came up with the theory that Taub killed him because of jealous over the last case (let's face it, Taub is a train wreck). Instead, they are letting it be. No more investigation into his death. Just, "he's dead, oh well, except it."

So why the suicide? Could it be a statement? Could it be a metaphor for Kal Penn's future with the Fox network or acting in general? Could it be as simple as the writers lashing out over the bomb shell Penn dropped in their storyline? I mean, he is dead. Now there is no way he can come back.

Whatever the reason, I wish Penn the best, and he will be missed as Kutner.

I was surfing through the net, and I saw an interesting question that someone had asked to disprove the existence of God. I can't find the exact link to the question, but needless to say, there were not good answers used to help this logical-thinking atheist along.

I went something like this:

God is all-powerful. Can God create a rock that even He can not move? If He can make the rock and He actually can't move it, He is not all-powerful. If He can due to the fact that He can move any rock He wants, then again He is not all-powerful because He failed to create an unmovable rock.

I'll spare you the answers used and just dive right in with my own explanation. This question, on its face, is logically flawed. Let me start by giving you an analogy:

Humans can create triangles, yes? Sure they can, do it now. Go ahead; get some paper and make a triangle. Good. Now, make a 2-sided triangle. Can't do it? Well, by using the same logic the original questioner afforded above, you do not exist.

The idea of an unmovable rock is logically flawed. Every rock in the universe can be moved. As a matter of fact, there isn't any material object in the universe that can not be moved one way or the other. Planet sized asteroids drift through space and no one thinks twice if that piece of matter can be moved or not.

The "Logic Bomb" ends up being a Bomb lacking in Logic. Asking if God can create an immovable rock is like asking if God can create a circle with 3-sides. It can not be done. Besides, there are many things that God can not do. God can not lie (Hebrews 6:18), He can not be tempted (James 1:13), and there are others. In order for God to exist, He, Himself, must exist within a certain set of parameters in which we can define Him. If we were unable to define God, then we would have a real crisis of His existence. Likewise, we could name anything God (including a Flying Spaghetti Monster). We have to have something to point to when describing God, else we could define Him as anything! If He is everything to everyone, how do we know He is anything at all?

The bottom line is this: Christians need to stop accepting the questions of non-believers as if they are correct on their face. Many non-believers do not want nor care to believe in our God, so if an illogical question will make a Christian go "wide-eyed" than, rest assured, they will throw it around any chance they get. Just remember:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26: 4-5

Let me finish up by saying that this "skepticism" I am advocating towards a question like this should be used for many questions and objections atheists have for Christianity. Consider the questions about Christianities roots in pagan religions. And that is just one example.

For those few who actually follow my blogging, your probably asking yourself, "Didn't you just create a new blog?" Well, yes. And though I can't guarantee that I won't move in the near future, I can tell you that I feel certain that I won't be moving again.

There are several reasons for the move. None that matter to anyone but myself, but then again, who else matters? First of all, I didn't like the name of my last blog. Intellectual Solider? Admittedly, I just kind of thought that one up on a whim and ran with it. Free-Hand Thinking is a much better description of me and my blogging techniques. My blog posts tend to be long runs on a single thought I have on a particular issue (be it economic, political, theological, or whatever).

Another reason is that one of the blogs I read on a daily basis (HotAir.com) requires you to have a wordpress account in order to comment. So, after creating the account and looking around at some of the blogging tools and templates they have available, I decided to make this my new home.

So! Change your bookmarks folks! I will be here for a while.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!