As we see fuel prices reaching all time highs and milk, meat, corn, and even rice now reaching new records in price, when will we start seeing the truth about how dangerous ethanol is? Ben Lieberman’s article at the Heritage Foundation titled Time for Second Thoughts on the Ethanol Mandate should be required reading for Congress. Lieberman outlines recent research finding the ethanol mandates implemented by Congress in 2005 to be responsible for high costs of living because of increased food and fuel costs and to be an increased danger to the environment rather than a reduction as original promised. New policy in Washington is needed.
April 2008 Archives
It’s too early to be picking candidates. The primaries this year have been just irritatingly early in starting and irritatingly long to end. However, I can tell you, as I intend to in this post, how I will make the decision of which candidate to choose.
I base my voting decisions upon three primary factors: Qualification, Character, and Policy. These three factors are not exclusive and do not override one another, but I would place them in that order from most important to least important.
Qualification. The first factor I must consider when choosing a candidate for any office is how qualified that person is for office. Does that person have a history that indicates that he or she can handle the rigors of the appointment? Does he or she have a series of positions that lead up to or provide a history that helps to validate the abilities of the candidate? Has the person ever committed so heinous a mistake that his or her qualification is in question? A candidate that has little or no background in running a business or politics has little or no basis for qualification as far as I’m concerned. While I consider this to be the first point to consider, it’s not the only one. The point here is to determine whether or not the person I am voting for can even do the job.
Character. The second fact I must consider is the candidate’s character. Unfortunately, this is not a very popular way to judge a candidate these days, so finding issues that define character require careful examination of the facts that are known. Everyone is trying to spin the candidate they like one way and they despise the other. This is also a fuzzy and subjective measurement. Does a divorce 20 years ago or the fact that a candidate is a dry alcoholic reflect badly on that person today? Or does the fact that he’s remained dry and married since reflect well? A certain amount of discernment here is required. The people with whom the candidate associates with, offers support for, and gathers support from are also indicators in this area. The point is to evaluate how well I can trust the man or woman for which I am voting.
Policy. The final important fact I consider is policy. Does the candidates policy mesh with issues that are important to me? Will he or she keep taxes low? Will he or she avoid classist/racist/sexist/etc. politics? Will he or she keep our borders secure and manage the war on terrorism appropriately? Does he or she see creating laws based upon the inalienable human rights and God’s moral law? I’m being very generic here, but these are the policy issues that come to mind as important when making this kind of decision in the generic case. The main issue I want to know is if this candidate will try to move politics in the direction I think will benefit the United States best.
Finally, I must state one factor I avoid entirely. I do not pay attention to identity politics (at least when I don’t get sucked in to them because I’ve failed to be vigilant). It doesn’t matter what label the person picks for him or herself. I don’t vote for someone because he’s an “evangelical” or not for him because he’s a “mormon.” I will not vote for someone because she’s a woman or he’s a man. I will not vote for someone because his or her skin color is a certain hue. These are irrelevant. To base your voting decisions on such is simply racist, classist, sexist, or any other form of bigotry you are choosing to make your decision by.
Anyway, that’s the key factors for me. I am chiefly interested in a candidate’s qualifications, character, and policy. I may consider other things as well, but not his or her race, sex, or creed.
Cheers.
In seventh grade, I still lived in Lawrence, Kansas. I know. Poor me. However, my English teacher’s name was, strangely enough, Mrs. Lawrence. Mrs. Lawrence was an interesting person. I remember that she once bragged that she had been committed to an institution and was literally certifiable. She also once told a story about how the US government was experimenting with monkeys and robots and had actually grafted a monkey’s head onto a robot’s body and the monkey was able to control the robot for several minutes before the head died. I actually believed that one for quite awhile.
However, despite the fact that she was so very strange, I really liked her. She was definitely my favorite teacher. Other than those facts and that I had a crush on a girl named Ashley in the class, I only remember one other thing about Mrs. Lawrence. She gave me one life lesson I will never forget: “You are only given five exclamation points to use in your entire lifetime. Once you use up those five you don’t get anymore. God will pop your head off like a pimple when you get to heaven if you do.” Okay, so I added the last words to her originally statement, but I do remember her saying that she wanted to pop the heads of students like a pimple when they annoyed her… Did I mention she was really strange?
Anyway, I most certainly agree with her assessment regarding exclamation points. Perhaps the limit to five per lifetime is a little extreme, but it makes the point.
Don’t use so many exclamation points people! It’s really annoying! You don’t have to be so excited about it!!!!!
Okay. So, to make the point, I’ve now used seven. Crap!!!!! I hope having my head popped off won’t hurt too much!
Cheers.
Okay, so just about every time I start to get to know someone new this question inevitably comes up. The basic confusion is that I like to use my full name on things, Andrew Sterling Hanenkamp, and sometimes I use Andrew and sometimes I use Sterling and things get really confusing. I'm writing this blog post to try and explain the history of my name and the basic issues involved with its multiple uses.
I was born, Andrew Sterling Hanenkamp. I'm not exactly sure where "Andrew" came from other than my parents liked the named. I like it because it means "manly" and "strong," which I hope reflects on my character some, since it doesn't at all reflect my physique. My middle name, "Sterling," comes from my dad's dad, Delmont Sterling Hanenkamp. His response to having me named after him was basically, "Why'd you give him that name? I hate it." Grandpa Del didn't much care for his name, though I can't say I blame him with Delmont as his first name.
When I was a wee short person, I went by the name "Andy" and my surviving grandparents, who are in their 80's, still call me that to this day. About third grade, I got tired of Andy and started demanding that everyone call me a serious name, "Andrew." (No offense to the Andy's out there, I was a third grader and didn't know any better.) The name "Andrew" lasted through the end of high school and into the first week or two of college.
Problem. I lived in an all guy's dorm on Manhattan Christian College's campus. Not only that, but women weren't allowed up the stairs to our hall. In general, this meant that folks, especially girls, were yelling up the stairs whenever they wanted someone. There were three Andrew's on my floor. One was a sophomore, he got to keep his name. One decided to go by his last name, Medlen. The last, me, decided to go by his middle name. I'd halfway considered doing it anyway, so this was the last bit of motivation that carried it through.
Now, fast forward about 10-12 months and I started chatting with this girl online named Terri. We exchanged emails. We chatted. We talked on the phone. We met up in person. This was in 1997, when Internet dating was still one of those naughty no-nos for creeps, but we only lived a couple hours apart and somehow managed to keep our relationship after she moved up to Manhattan. Most of you probably know that we got married had a kid, etc. But I digress. When she asked me what to call her, I decided that it would be "cool" for her to have a special name for me that happened to line up with what my parents called me, "Andrew." So, know I have two names. One familiar and one for my colleagues.
This became further confused when she moved up to Manhattan. She wanted me to be known as Andrew in the contexts we shared, which mostly included church. Therefore, many of my friends here know me as Andrew. Some know me as both and pick whichever they prefer. Thus, I pretty much always signed email and such as "Sterling" and that lasted up until about 2 years ago.
At that time, I switched jobs and started working for Boomer Consulting. When that happened, one of my new coworkers new me from church and insisted that I be called "Andrew" at work. This was against my preference, but since it's only a minor preference I gave in. Had I to do over again, I would have said, "Nope. I'm Sterling." It would have led to less confusion. Now, I sign emails as Sterling and Andrew and sometimes forget which context I'm in as I'm typing so sometimes I sign it as one or the other in either context. Argh!
Therefore, if you have any doubt, just call me "Sterling." That's my preference. The only folks that should be calling me "Andrew" are those that already do (don't change what you call me just because you read that I prefer "Sterling," it's not that important), my neighbors, those that go to my church, and family. Everyone else should go with "Sterling."
Anyway, I hope that clears everything up. :-p
Cheers.
I was born, Andrew Sterling Hanenkamp. I'm not exactly sure where "Andrew" came from other than my parents liked the named. I like it because it means "manly" and "strong," which I hope reflects on my character some, since it doesn't at all reflect my physique. My middle name, "Sterling," comes from my dad's dad, Delmont Sterling Hanenkamp. His response to having me named after him was basically, "Why'd you give him that name? I hate it." Grandpa Del didn't much care for his name, though I can't say I blame him with Delmont as his first name.
When I was a wee short person, I went by the name "Andy" and my surviving grandparents, who are in their 80's, still call me that to this day. About third grade, I got tired of Andy and started demanding that everyone call me a serious name, "Andrew." (No offense to the Andy's out there, I was a third grader and didn't know any better.) The name "Andrew" lasted through the end of high school and into the first week or two of college.
Problem. I lived in an all guy's dorm on Manhattan Christian College's campus. Not only that, but women weren't allowed up the stairs to our hall. In general, this meant that folks, especially girls, were yelling up the stairs whenever they wanted someone. There were three Andrew's on my floor. One was a sophomore, he got to keep his name. One decided to go by his last name, Medlen. The last, me, decided to go by his middle name. I'd halfway considered doing it anyway, so this was the last bit of motivation that carried it through.
Now, fast forward about 10-12 months and I started chatting with this girl online named Terri. We exchanged emails. We chatted. We talked on the phone. We met up in person. This was in 1997, when Internet dating was still one of those naughty no-nos for creeps, but we only lived a couple hours apart and somehow managed to keep our relationship after she moved up to Manhattan. Most of you probably know that we got married had a kid, etc. But I digress. When she asked me what to call her, I decided that it would be "cool" for her to have a special name for me that happened to line up with what my parents called me, "Andrew." So, know I have two names. One familiar and one for my colleagues.
This became further confused when she moved up to Manhattan. She wanted me to be known as Andrew in the contexts we shared, which mostly included church. Therefore, many of my friends here know me as Andrew. Some know me as both and pick whichever they prefer. Thus, I pretty much always signed email and such as "Sterling" and that lasted up until about 2 years ago.
At that time, I switched jobs and started working for Boomer Consulting. When that happened, one of my new coworkers new me from church and insisted that I be called "Andrew" at work. This was against my preference, but since it's only a minor preference I gave in. Had I to do over again, I would have said, "Nope. I'm Sterling." It would have led to less confusion. Now, I sign emails as Sterling and Andrew and sometimes forget which context I'm in as I'm typing so sometimes I sign it as one or the other in either context. Argh!
Therefore, if you have any doubt, just call me "Sterling." That's my preference. The only folks that should be calling me "Andrew" are those that already do (don't change what you call me just because you read that I prefer "Sterling," it's not that important), my neighbors, those that go to my church, and family. Everyone else should go with "Sterling."
Anyway, I hope that clears everything up. :-p
Cheers.
