It's been a while since I've posted on here but an event has recently occured that was so shocking that the full weight of it has yet to sink in. What is Troy, you ask. Well it's baseball of course.
The Phillies have brought cheer and warmth to the winter by coming out of NOWHERE to sign Cliff Lee. If you don't know who he is - he's an awesome pitcher, perhaps the best. Lee pitched for the Phils from July - October 2009 before being traded away for the 2010 season so that money could be freed up to sign Roy Halladay (the Phillies OTHER pitcher who just may be the best in baseball). It's a relief to see that the Phillies recognized their error in letting him go by going out and finding a way to bring him back. Then there's Cole Hamels and Roy Oswalt who are also very, very, very good. Put simply, the Phillies pitching rotation is stacked. It's great. I know they haven't played a game of the 2011 season yet but on paper this rotation has the chance to be historically great. Two Cy Young winners, 3 guys who have had 20-win seasons, All 4 have strike-out/walk ratios that are near the top in baseball (and that happens to be my favorite stat, the one that I think is the most indicative of success). The 2011 Phillies are now the prohibitive favorite to go to the World Series next year.
But what pleases me the most is the fact that Cliff Lee didn't follow the dollar signs. Don't get me wrong he'll be getting a HUGE paycheck next year but he took $30 million LESS than his highest offer because he wanted to play in Philly, not in New York. Take it, Yankees! Additionally, the Phils signed him for 5 years out of free agency. The Phillies told Halladay that they wouldn't sign him (Halladay) for more than 3 because that was a trade deal and contract extension and the Phillies don't extend contracts for more than 3 years. Halladay, then could have been put off by the fact that Lee was offered 5 years. The Phillies were up front with Halladay and even consulted him before signing Lee to the longer contract to gauge his feelings. Halladay supported the Phillies move and didn't feel slighted. Halladay and Lee are two of the best ever but they are showing no sign of ego here. Lee taking less money to play for a team that he loves and Halladay being cool with Lee getting the longer contract. The success of the Phillies over the last 4 years has been team chemistry and a desire to win, AS A TEAM, at whatever cost to personal gain. It's on display again. Look out National League.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Some Random Thoughts
Apparently St. Jude is not politically influential enough because it isn't one of the 111 (so far) companies/union groups that are exempted from having to obey the new federal healthcare law for their employees. I thought we believed in the rule of law in America. Apparently not because the federal government has taken upon itself the task of deciding who WILL and who WILL NOT be subject to federal law. If this health care law was supposed to be so great why is the federal government allowing over 100 companies to not abide by it? I see this as an acknowledgement that the law is detrimental to business and to our economy and I recall being told the opposite by this president earlier this year. But what do you expect from a bill that freakin' nobody reads and even our then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted "We have to pass this bill so you can find out what's in it"?
In the meantime, as of January 1, my out-of-pocket maximum increases, my ER co-pay increases and my monthly premium increases by 20%. I'd be surprised if the same doesn't happen for you.
Random thought 2 - Sarah Palin makes me want to throw up. Really, it's gotten to where I can't even look at her anymore without having a nauseating physical reaction. The thing about Bristol Palin being on Dancing With the Stars can be explained by the fact that she's young and dumb and she sees an opportunity to cash in on her infamous recognition factor. That's fine, that's what young and dumb people do. But Sarah Palin on a reality TV show? I really wish she would dissociate herself from the conservative movement because she's a huge liability to getting qualified, credible, competent candidates elected who espouse good old-fashioned conservative values. I think she's been corrupted by fame, fortune, and popularity. I think she had potential waaaaaay back in the beginning but as soon as the machine got ahold of her and she tasted one sweet morsel of fame, as soon as she stood in front of applauding and cheering audiences she started saying obnoxious things and speaking in Republican soundbites. She's a quitter. She quit on the people of Alaska and became nothing more than a political cheerleader for anybody who calls themself a conservative. So she tours the country talking about "mama grizzlies" and saying "you betcha" and "by golly" and basically reveling in her own shallow influence. Now she sees an opportunity to make more money and be more famous and loved (by mindless kool-aid drinkers) by having a camera in her face while she fishes and hunts and cooks dinner and whatever else she wants us to see her doing. I'm sure she'll do plenty of talking about God and Bibles on her show. Well I don't have cable so, no, I didn't watch Sarah Palin's Alaska on TLC. I wouldn't have watched it regardless but alot of people did and that's frightening. Why do we continue to validate this type of person in America?
In the meantime, as of January 1, my out-of-pocket maximum increases, my ER co-pay increases and my monthly premium increases by 20%. I'd be surprised if the same doesn't happen for you.
Random thought 2 - Sarah Palin makes me want to throw up. Really, it's gotten to where I can't even look at her anymore without having a nauseating physical reaction. The thing about Bristol Palin being on Dancing With the Stars can be explained by the fact that she's young and dumb and she sees an opportunity to cash in on her infamous recognition factor. That's fine, that's what young and dumb people do. But Sarah Palin on a reality TV show? I really wish she would dissociate herself from the conservative movement because she's a huge liability to getting qualified, credible, competent candidates elected who espouse good old-fashioned conservative values. I think she's been corrupted by fame, fortune, and popularity. I think she had potential waaaaaay back in the beginning but as soon as the machine got ahold of her and she tasted one sweet morsel of fame, as soon as she stood in front of applauding and cheering audiences she started saying obnoxious things and speaking in Republican soundbites. She's a quitter. She quit on the people of Alaska and became nothing more than a political cheerleader for anybody who calls themself a conservative. So she tours the country talking about "mama grizzlies" and saying "you betcha" and "by golly" and basically reveling in her own shallow influence. Now she sees an opportunity to make more money and be more famous and loved (by mindless kool-aid drinkers) by having a camera in her face while she fishes and hunts and cooks dinner and whatever else she wants us to see her doing. I'm sure she'll do plenty of talking about God and Bibles on her show. Well I don't have cable so, no, I didn't watch Sarah Palin's Alaska on TLC. I wouldn't have watched it regardless but alot of people did and that's frightening. Why do we continue to validate this type of person in America?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Vaclav Klaus 2012
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech republic. I've heard things about this guy before and I like what I've heard. He's spot on about this economic thing in my opinion. Can we grant him US citizenship and coax him into running for president in 2012. If he's not interested maybe he's got a brother or a cousin that could run?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN259750420100925
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN259750420100925
Friday, September 24, 2010
Shameful
I was proud of the unbias that I demonstrated by criticizing the recent vote by Republicans. I should have known that it wouldn't take long for democrats to trump them.
You should know that inside my blood is boiling and I'm doing a whole lot of self-editing on this one. The words I would like to say would get me in big trouble at home. I'm angry because what I'm about to tell you about highlights just how big of a joke we've become - literally. I've often felt that Congress doesn't take any of our problems all that seriously, that they somehow thing this is all some kind of game and now I know that this is how they feel. Regrettably, we're led by a bunch of - see I can't say what we're led by because there's no way to describe it without using obscenities, lots of them.
Today there's a dog and pony show congressional hearing on immigration reform and who has the subcommittee called to testify? None other than the highly qualified, widely respected for his experience in immigration law - Steven Freaking Colbert!!!!
And what's better he's going to be testifying in character!!! Did you get that? STEVEN COLBERT IS TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF CONGRESS IN CHARACTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I don't know what to say. The dems are in control of congress which means that they chair these committees which means that they are responsible for this joke only it's not a joke, they're completely serious. They're turning to a political comedian/satirist to testify under oath in front of congress. If I was a republican (or anybody with common sense) on that committee I would stand my butt up as soon as Colbert starts to take the oath and walk the heck out of there. The hallowed halls of congress are no place, NO PLACE, for that kind of circus.
This country is a freaking mess. It's a pathetic joke. We need immigration reform and we need our immigration laws enforced and THIS is their answer? Now look, when we had cable I watched The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is hilarious. Colbert is hilarious but these guys aren't journalists. They're comedians that make satirical political commentary. They're characters. And they're very, very good at that. I was well aware of the fact that there are alot of liberals who can't seem to separate fact from satire and they follow these shows as if they are legitimate news sources (trust me I know some) but I didn't know that even our congress people view these tv shows this way. I mean this would be like congress calling Carroll O'Connor to testify, in his Archie Bunker character, on the state of race relations in the
1970s. It's exactly the same and it's pathetic. Now I'm going to find out who runs this subcommittee and I'm going to send some emails. I may not self-edit as much in my email to whoever that pathetic piece of crap is.
You should know that inside my blood is boiling and I'm doing a whole lot of self-editing on this one. The words I would like to say would get me in big trouble at home. I'm angry because what I'm about to tell you about highlights just how big of a joke we've become - literally. I've often felt that Congress doesn't take any of our problems all that seriously, that they somehow thing this is all some kind of game and now I know that this is how they feel. Regrettably, we're led by a bunch of - see I can't say what we're led by because there's no way to describe it without using obscenities, lots of them.
Today there's a dog and pony show congressional hearing on immigration reform and who has the subcommittee called to testify? None other than the highly qualified, widely respected for his experience in immigration law - Steven Freaking Colbert!!!!
And what's better he's going to be testifying in character!!! Did you get that? STEVEN COLBERT IS TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF CONGRESS IN CHARACTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I don't know what to say. The dems are in control of congress which means that they chair these committees which means that they are responsible for this joke only it's not a joke, they're completely serious. They're turning to a political comedian/satirist to testify under oath in front of congress. If I was a republican (or anybody with common sense) on that committee I would stand my butt up as soon as Colbert starts to take the oath and walk the heck out of there. The hallowed halls of congress are no place, NO PLACE, for that kind of circus.
This country is a freaking mess. It's a pathetic joke. We need immigration reform and we need our immigration laws enforced and THIS is their answer? Now look, when we had cable I watched The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is hilarious. Colbert is hilarious but these guys aren't journalists. They're comedians that make satirical political commentary. They're characters. And they're very, very good at that. I was well aware of the fact that there are alot of liberals who can't seem to separate fact from satire and they follow these shows as if they are legitimate news sources (trust me I know some) but I didn't know that even our congress people view these tv shows this way. I mean this would be like congress calling Carroll O'Connor to testify, in his Archie Bunker character, on the state of race relations in the
1970s. It's exactly the same and it's pathetic. Now I'm going to find out who runs this subcommittee and I'm going to send some emails. I may not self-edit as much in my email to whoever that pathetic piece of crap is.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
This week the democrats brought to the senate floor a bill which included a repeal of the antiquated, Clinton-era Don't Ask/Don't Tell (DADT) policy. We all know what that policy is so I won't go into it here. The measure failed to pass with a few democrats joining all (I think) republicans in voting against the bill. In the spirit of fairness I should mention that a number of the republicans who voted against the measure expressed a desire to overturn DADT but felt that other provisions in this bill precluded them from being able to support it. Now this is a common thing, to throw an amendment into a bill (such as a defense spending bill) which you know the opposing party would not support thus causing them to vote against a bill so that you can come out and say 'hey, these guys voted against increasing funding for our troops' when the reality is much more complex than that. So I took a breath and thought 'okay, let's see what is so awful about this bill that the republicans had to vote against it even if it meant that DADT doesn't get repealed.' I must be missing something. If anybody knows more about this bill than I do please enlighten me. I hear republicans complaints about how Harry Reid was greatly limiting the ability to introduce amendments to this bill and how the period of time in which the bill would be debated was being limited as well. I'm not sure how big those issues should really be. It doesn't appear to me that there are such awful things in this bill that you would vote against it. DADT wasn't even going to be repealed until a thorough poll of military commanders was taken in order to assess any potential negative effects of repealing that policy.
I think the republicans lose on this one. How is repealing DADT a bad thing? This is the height of hypocrisy in government. It was in 1990-whatever when Clinton installed it and it is today. If I'm a business owner and I fire or don't hire somebody based on their sexual preference I'm getting taken to the cleaners. We're talking lawsuits coming from every direction. Yet if you're the government/military you can exclude somebody based on whether they want to hold a girl's hand or a boy's?? This is just one of thousands of examples where government insists that they are above their own laws. We all have to include everybody regardless of race, religion, blah, blah, blah. And rightly so. But government doesn't have to. I'm very disappointed in the republican party. This is not what conservatives believe in. And it's not what Americans believe in. It's 2010, nobody is losing morale by having a gay guy working with them. It doesn't affect morale in my workplace, why do we think it would affect morale in the military? And even if it did would that work as an excuse for discrimination in MY business? Why not judge people based on the content of their character (or in this case their commitment to protecting the USA) and not on the gender of their romantic partners? We're fighting endless wars for heaven's sake, shouldn't we welcome absolutely anybody who is physically and mentally competent and passionate about defending the country? It's mind-blowing! In 50 years our society (if it exists) will assuredly look back to the early 21st century and wonder what in the world we were thinking.
Conservative ideas are good for this country. I think that conservative ideas are, in most cases, BEST for this country. Republicans used to espouse conservative ideas. They no longer do and I'm not convinced that Republicans have learned the lessons of 2006 and 2008 well enough that they will be able to govern this country any better than the democrats have been. I look forward to a Republican takeover of the House in November because we've got to slow down this train wreck that Obama has us on. But that alone is not the answer because although we're more likely to get conservative ideas from the Republican party, it's not a guarantee. If I have the option to vote for a conservative-leaning democrat I'll gladly do it.
I think the republicans lose on this one. How is repealing DADT a bad thing? This is the height of hypocrisy in government. It was in 1990-whatever when Clinton installed it and it is today. If I'm a business owner and I fire or don't hire somebody based on their sexual preference I'm getting taken to the cleaners. We're talking lawsuits coming from every direction. Yet if you're the government/military you can exclude somebody based on whether they want to hold a girl's hand or a boy's?? This is just one of thousands of examples where government insists that they are above their own laws. We all have to include everybody regardless of race, religion, blah, blah, blah. And rightly so. But government doesn't have to. I'm very disappointed in the republican party. This is not what conservatives believe in. And it's not what Americans believe in. It's 2010, nobody is losing morale by having a gay guy working with them. It doesn't affect morale in my workplace, why do we think it would affect morale in the military? And even if it did would that work as an excuse for discrimination in MY business? Why not judge people based on the content of their character (or in this case their commitment to protecting the USA) and not on the gender of their romantic partners? We're fighting endless wars for heaven's sake, shouldn't we welcome absolutely anybody who is physically and mentally competent and passionate about defending the country? It's mind-blowing! In 50 years our society (if it exists) will assuredly look back to the early 21st century and wonder what in the world we were thinking.
Conservative ideas are good for this country. I think that conservative ideas are, in most cases, BEST for this country. Republicans used to espouse conservative ideas. They no longer do and I'm not convinced that Republicans have learned the lessons of 2006 and 2008 well enough that they will be able to govern this country any better than the democrats have been. I look forward to a Republican takeover of the House in November because we've got to slow down this train wreck that Obama has us on. But that alone is not the answer because although we're more likely to get conservative ideas from the Republican party, it's not a guarantee. If I have the option to vote for a conservative-leaning democrat I'll gladly do it.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Didn't We Already Know This?
Yet ANOTHER scientific study refuting the (non-existent) "evidence", aka paranoia, concerning vaccination and autism. Yet, somehow, I doubt this will do anything to change the minds of those who are hellbent on convincing the world that vaccinations are a scourge on humanity. The hardcore anti-vaccine crowd (not the concerned parent, the hardcore wackos) has done so much damage to public health measures in this country. They're as ill-informed and agenda driven as those PETA nuts who protest the use of animals at medical research institutions and make physical threats against those who perform the research. The larger question is - why does there continue to be such a vocal minority in this country that REFUSES to understand science?
http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/hsn/moreevidencethatvaccinesdontcauseautism
http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/hsn/moreevidencethatvaccinesdontcauseautism
Friday, August 27, 2010
The Great Debate
Several years ago I posted on this issue on Sarah's blog and now I'm bringing it to my own blog. It really doesn't have to do with politics but I haven't had politics on my mind lately. I've been thinking more about baseball and my work (in that order).
EVOLUTION!!
Here's what I mean by evolution - the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms caused by naturally occuring alterations in the genetic component of the organism.
As a scientist I think about these things a great deal. Very little in the biological sciences makes sense outside of the context of evolution especially in my field of immunology and infectious diseases. As a Christian scientist I think about these things even more than most scientists I imagine. Why? I've been a serious student of biology for 12 years now. I have seen astounding evidence in support of organic evolution. I also have been taught, and sincerely believe, that God is the creator. I suppose I should feel some kind of conflict within my heart as these two ideas are presented as mutually exclusive explanations for the variation among species, but I just don't. I think the theories of evolution are not necessarily at odds with revealed truth. Many church leaders in the early 20th century (when this topic became hotly discussed) thought so as well.
One thing is simply not debatable. Evolution occurs. That is not open to question. Why else do we need flu shots each year? Where do drug-resistant bacteria come from? That's evolution. Evolution is a fact. I suppose alot of people have a hard time going from micro-evolution to macro-evolution, that the physical body of man evolved from a less complex species. I don't have a problem going from one to the other because the basic principles are the same. I'm not married to the idea but the evidence leans very strongly in that direction and I'm not offended by the idea because I know that this body of mine wasn't actually created by God in the literal sense anyway. And I know that this body doesn't represent who I really am. Plus, my body is going to undergo some pretty fantastic changes (yes, Sarah it will get even better) after its resurrection so why should I be insulted by the notion that my body represents a step in the evolutionary process?
Some people I know have used scripture verses as a basis for their opposition to evolutionary theory. That's foolish. The scriptures aren't a science text. God's purpose in showing the creation to Moses was NOT to demonstrate how he did it. Moses would NEVER have understood that. God's purpose was to let Moses know 1) God's omnipotence, and 2) mankind's relation to God. I don't like when people use scriptures to make a point that the scriptures aren't meant to make. Scripture is for answering the questions of 1) who are we?, 2) why are we here?, 3) how do we need to live to have a glorious resurrection. I love this quote from an official explanation of the church's view of evolution:
"Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, none of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research."
The church is saying 'look, ultimately it doesn't matter whether evolution is right or wrong. As a church we're only concerned with what happens AFTER all of that.'
Now a little about the earth's creation. We know that the earth, as it appears today, does not resemble the earth that was formed "in the beginning." One thing that baffles me is that many religious folk have no beef with the idea that the Grand Canyon was carved out by a river and that the islands of Hawaii sprang out of the ocean originally as volcanoes. No, most people don't have a problem recognizing that natural processes account for the geology of the earth while continuing to believe that God created it. Yet, suggest that a natural occurrence, a "Big Bang", explains the origins of planet earth and suddenly you've blasphemed. Do these people believe that God waved His arms and the earth simply was? We know that's false. God does not create de novo, rather He created the earth out of matter that already existed. So if God leaves the earth to be shaped by natural occurrences now, why wouldn't he create it using natural occurrences? After all, isn't God the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? See? I think evolutionary theory and the Big Bang theory are not only the best explanation for the origins of earth and life on earth given our current understanding but actually perfectly in accordance with what we know about God's characteristics and how He works. Besides, if you understand biology and find those things interesting then evolution is actually very beautiful and majestic. A God who can weave an intricate creation such that mankind is the end result of a process put into place billions of years previously is truly a God that is deserving of our reverence and obedience.
I find it interesting that the church maintains a position of neutrality on the issue of organic evolution. They are, on the other hand, adamant that we are literally spirit sons and daughters of God, a premise that I have no qualms with whatsoever. In fact, that supports my earlier point. My spirit was literally created by God in it's present form. My body? A completely different story. I don't imagine that during the course of earth's mortal existence God will see fit to reveal the method by which the human body came into being. I'm sure it will surpass even current evolutionary theory in its intricacy and grandeur but I won't be surprised to see that we humans had at least a few things correct.
A popular opposing view is intelligent design. Intelligent design has lots of flaws, the most prominent in my mind being that they use scientific examples of complexity (such as the eye or bacterial flagellae)to make the point that these systems couldn't have evolved independently. Well, science has successfully refuted both of those examples. The components of the eye and the bacterial flagellae have been demonstrated to have a role outside of their primary functions. The point here is that we do Christianity and God a disservice if we explain away very complex things by saying 'well, God did it.' That's true, but science advances very rapidly and will soon have a better explanation than 'God did it.' Does the scientific explanation mean that God didn't do it? No, but it does mean that God works with the laws of nature to accomplish His creative efforts.
Well, I've got alot more to say on this topic but I've got to save something for the comments.
EVOLUTION!!
Here's what I mean by evolution - the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms caused by naturally occuring alterations in the genetic component of the organism.
As a scientist I think about these things a great deal. Very little in the biological sciences makes sense outside of the context of evolution especially in my field of immunology and infectious diseases. As a Christian scientist I think about these things even more than most scientists I imagine. Why? I've been a serious student of biology for 12 years now. I have seen astounding evidence in support of organic evolution. I also have been taught, and sincerely believe, that God is the creator. I suppose I should feel some kind of conflict within my heart as these two ideas are presented as mutually exclusive explanations for the variation among species, but I just don't. I think the theories of evolution are not necessarily at odds with revealed truth. Many church leaders in the early 20th century (when this topic became hotly discussed) thought so as well.
One thing is simply not debatable. Evolution occurs. That is not open to question. Why else do we need flu shots each year? Where do drug-resistant bacteria come from? That's evolution. Evolution is a fact. I suppose alot of people have a hard time going from micro-evolution to macro-evolution, that the physical body of man evolved from a less complex species. I don't have a problem going from one to the other because the basic principles are the same. I'm not married to the idea but the evidence leans very strongly in that direction and I'm not offended by the idea because I know that this body of mine wasn't actually created by God in the literal sense anyway. And I know that this body doesn't represent who I really am. Plus, my body is going to undergo some pretty fantastic changes (yes, Sarah it will get even better) after its resurrection so why should I be insulted by the notion that my body represents a step in the evolutionary process?
Some people I know have used scripture verses as a basis for their opposition to evolutionary theory. That's foolish. The scriptures aren't a science text. God's purpose in showing the creation to Moses was NOT to demonstrate how he did it. Moses would NEVER have understood that. God's purpose was to let Moses know 1) God's omnipotence, and 2) mankind's relation to God. I don't like when people use scriptures to make a point that the scriptures aren't meant to make. Scripture is for answering the questions of 1) who are we?, 2) why are we here?, 3) how do we need to live to have a glorious resurrection. I love this quote from an official explanation of the church's view of evolution:
"Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, none of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research."
The church is saying 'look, ultimately it doesn't matter whether evolution is right or wrong. As a church we're only concerned with what happens AFTER all of that.'
Now a little about the earth's creation. We know that the earth, as it appears today, does not resemble the earth that was formed "in the beginning." One thing that baffles me is that many religious folk have no beef with the idea that the Grand Canyon was carved out by a river and that the islands of Hawaii sprang out of the ocean originally as volcanoes. No, most people don't have a problem recognizing that natural processes account for the geology of the earth while continuing to believe that God created it. Yet, suggest that a natural occurrence, a "Big Bang", explains the origins of planet earth and suddenly you've blasphemed. Do these people believe that God waved His arms and the earth simply was? We know that's false. God does not create de novo, rather He created the earth out of matter that already existed. So if God leaves the earth to be shaped by natural occurrences now, why wouldn't he create it using natural occurrences? After all, isn't God the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? See? I think evolutionary theory and the Big Bang theory are not only the best explanation for the origins of earth and life on earth given our current understanding but actually perfectly in accordance with what we know about God's characteristics and how He works. Besides, if you understand biology and find those things interesting then evolution is actually very beautiful and majestic. A God who can weave an intricate creation such that mankind is the end result of a process put into place billions of years previously is truly a God that is deserving of our reverence and obedience.
I find it interesting that the church maintains a position of neutrality on the issue of organic evolution. They are, on the other hand, adamant that we are literally spirit sons and daughters of God, a premise that I have no qualms with whatsoever. In fact, that supports my earlier point. My spirit was literally created by God in it's present form. My body? A completely different story. I don't imagine that during the course of earth's mortal existence God will see fit to reveal the method by which the human body came into being. I'm sure it will surpass even current evolutionary theory in its intricacy and grandeur but I won't be surprised to see that we humans had at least a few things correct.
A popular opposing view is intelligent design. Intelligent design has lots of flaws, the most prominent in my mind being that they use scientific examples of complexity (such as the eye or bacterial flagellae)to make the point that these systems couldn't have evolved independently. Well, science has successfully refuted both of those examples. The components of the eye and the bacterial flagellae have been demonstrated to have a role outside of their primary functions. The point here is that we do Christianity and God a disservice if we explain away very complex things by saying 'well, God did it.' That's true, but science advances very rapidly and will soon have a better explanation than 'God did it.' Does the scientific explanation mean that God didn't do it? No, but it does mean that God works with the laws of nature to accomplish His creative efforts.
Well, I've got alot more to say on this topic but I've got to save something for the comments.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Local Memphis Racism, ur, I Mean Politics
Memphis and Shelby County comprise Tennessee's 9th Congressional District. It's a heavily democratic district. Our current representative is Steve Cohen. He's the dummy who compared Obama to Christ because Christ was a "community organizer" (I wasn't aware of that) and he compared Palin to Pilate because they were both governors. Oh that Steve Cohen is so funny.
But his opponent in the district's democratic primary this month was loooooooong time Memphis mayor Willie Herenton. His nickname is King Willie because he was the mayor for so long. Willie is black man and Cohen is a white man. Those kinds of things are relevant in Memphis because the race card is really popular here. The former mayor Herenton is a scathing racist, he has made ridiculous remarks about whites and despite supporting Steve Cohen's first bid for Congress, he ran against Cohen on the premise that "only a black man can represent Tennessee's 9th district" given the demographics of the area. His campaign theme was "Just One", referring to the need for just one black man from TN in DC.
For the record Steve Cohen walloped Herenton in the primary, winning with nearly 80% of the vote. I was happy about that although I don't really like Steve Cohen at all. In November his Republican opponent will be Charlotte Bergmann, a Memphis native and strong business leader who has been named TN Business Woman of the Year both nationally and by the state of TN. Oh, yes, I should mention Miss Bergmann is black. Enter the race card. Steve Cohen who called out Herenton's use of the race card in the democratic primary has suddenly decided to try to use it to his advantage. Herenton refused to debate Cohen during the primary. A strategy which Cohen decried and no doubt led to his landslide victory. But suddenly Cohen has decided that HIS opponent is not worthy of a debate. Why would Cohen suddenly not want a debate? Remember, this is Memphis. The answer is race of course.
Here is Cohen's reason for not wanting to debate Bergmann:
"Neither she nor Sidney Chism understand the African-American voter. If she understood (them), she wouldn’t be running on an extreme platform that works totally against the interests of the African-American community.”
This is basically the same tactic of race-based politics that Herenton tried to use against Cohen. Now he's using it against his opponent. Only he's trying to get Memphis to believe that an African-American native Memphian knows less about the district that him - a white guy from New York.
So Cohen hate debate-dodgers and race-baiters when it worked for him and now has BECOME a debate-dodger and a race-baiter. I can't WAIT to vote against this guy.
But his opponent in the district's democratic primary this month was loooooooong time Memphis mayor Willie Herenton. His nickname is King Willie because he was the mayor for so long. Willie is black man and Cohen is a white man. Those kinds of things are relevant in Memphis because the race card is really popular here. The former mayor Herenton is a scathing racist, he has made ridiculous remarks about whites and despite supporting Steve Cohen's first bid for Congress, he ran against Cohen on the premise that "only a black man can represent Tennessee's 9th district" given the demographics of the area. His campaign theme was "Just One", referring to the need for just one black man from TN in DC.
For the record Steve Cohen walloped Herenton in the primary, winning with nearly 80% of the vote. I was happy about that although I don't really like Steve Cohen at all. In November his Republican opponent will be Charlotte Bergmann, a Memphis native and strong business leader who has been named TN Business Woman of the Year both nationally and by the state of TN. Oh, yes, I should mention Miss Bergmann is black. Enter the race card. Steve Cohen who called out Herenton's use of the race card in the democratic primary has suddenly decided to try to use it to his advantage. Herenton refused to debate Cohen during the primary. A strategy which Cohen decried and no doubt led to his landslide victory. But suddenly Cohen has decided that HIS opponent is not worthy of a debate. Why would Cohen suddenly not want a debate? Remember, this is Memphis. The answer is race of course.
Here is Cohen's reason for not wanting to debate Bergmann:
"Neither she nor Sidney Chism understand the African-American voter. If she understood (them), she wouldn’t be running on an extreme platform that works totally against the interests of the African-American community.”
This is basically the same tactic of race-based politics that Herenton tried to use against Cohen. Now he's using it against his opponent. Only he's trying to get Memphis to believe that an African-American native Memphian knows less about the district that him - a white guy from New York.
So Cohen hate debate-dodgers and race-baiters when it worked for him and now has BECOME a debate-dodger and a race-baiter. I can't WAIT to vote against this guy.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
I'm Feeling Old Today
In the late-80s to mid-90s I had three sports heroes. 1st baseman for the Phillies, Von Hayes, 3rd baseman for the Phillies (an incredibly classy guy and probably the greatest 3rd baseman EVER), Mike Schmidt, and catcher for the Phillies Darren Daulton. Mike Schmidt is probably my favorite baseball player of all time despite my current man-crush (and inspiration for my youngest son's name) second baseman Chase Utley.
The peak of Daulton's career was 1990-1994 and he was pivotal to the Phillies' run to the World Series in 1993. I can still name most of the players from that team that lost the Series in dramatic fashion to the Blue Jays. I can still see in my head the homerun blast to left field hit by Toronto great Joe Carter that ended the game and the Series. Mitch Williams was the inconsistent Phils' pitch who threw the fateful pitch. I was devastated. I was only 16.
Well Darren Daulton was inducted into the Philadelphia Phillies hall-of-fame over the weekend and I realize how strange it is to see the baseball greats from my youth getting inducted into halls-of-fame or go on to become coaches/managers. For the record, Daulton wasn't great enough to be enshrined in Cooperstown but he meant a whole lot to the Phillies. By the late 90s, his knees had begun to crap out (as they do most catchers) and he moved on to play for the Florida Marlins. He even won a World Series with them in 1997. I'm getting older I suppose and seeing Darren Daulton honored in Philly brings back memories of 1993. 1993 was a gem of a year for a young Phillies fan. Kids today are growing up at a time when the Phillies are a very successful organization. When their lineup is peppered with superstars. They've been to two consecutive World Series, having won one of them. It's exciting. But when I was a kid the Phillies were a joke. Their stadium was the laughing stock of the league, their fans were awful, and the team was very poor. So 1993 was one moment of glory for me. Then came 2008. The Phillies had been improving year-by-year between 2005 and 2007 so that by 2008 expectations were huge. And they delivered with a World Series championship. It felt like 1993 all over again to me and I remembered those old days. Yes, baseball is inextricably connected to memories of my youth and it's got a way of making me feel how quickly the years fly. Long live the great game of baseball! And long live the memory of Darren Daulton even if he is a freak who can't "remember" to pay speeding tickets and he believes that he has "skipped through time" and that he will someday "blast into space."
The peak of Daulton's career was 1990-1994 and he was pivotal to the Phillies' run to the World Series in 1993. I can still name most of the players from that team that lost the Series in dramatic fashion to the Blue Jays. I can still see in my head the homerun blast to left field hit by Toronto great Joe Carter that ended the game and the Series. Mitch Williams was the inconsistent Phils' pitch who threw the fateful pitch. I was devastated. I was only 16.
Well Darren Daulton was inducted into the Philadelphia Phillies hall-of-fame over the weekend and I realize how strange it is to see the baseball greats from my youth getting inducted into halls-of-fame or go on to become coaches/managers. For the record, Daulton wasn't great enough to be enshrined in Cooperstown but he meant a whole lot to the Phillies. By the late 90s, his knees had begun to crap out (as they do most catchers) and he moved on to play for the Florida Marlins. He even won a World Series with them in 1997. I'm getting older I suppose and seeing Darren Daulton honored in Philly brings back memories of 1993. 1993 was a gem of a year for a young Phillies fan. Kids today are growing up at a time when the Phillies are a very successful organization. When their lineup is peppered with superstars. They've been to two consecutive World Series, having won one of them. It's exciting. But when I was a kid the Phillies were a joke. Their stadium was the laughing stock of the league, their fans were awful, and the team was very poor. So 1993 was one moment of glory for me. Then came 2008. The Phillies had been improving year-by-year between 2005 and 2007 so that by 2008 expectations were huge. And they delivered with a World Series championship. It felt like 1993 all over again to me and I remembered those old days. Yes, baseball is inextricably connected to memories of my youth and it's got a way of making me feel how quickly the years fly. Long live the great game of baseball! And long live the memory of Darren Daulton even if he is a freak who can't "remember" to pay speeding tickets and he believes that he has "skipped through time" and that he will someday "blast into space."
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
When Fascism Came To America
Let's first define fascism as it rose out of Italy in the early 1900s and spread across Europe and even into the US. Before Mussolini was a hated tyrant he was quite popular even here. Fascism was an ideology that was sweeping the world; it was all the rage. Before I define it I will be clear in my denunciation of fascism as extreme evil. Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists believe that a nation requires authoritarian leadership and a collective identity. Cultural ideals are what give individuals identity and thus they reject individualism. They justify totalitarianism as a means of representing the collective will of the nation. They believe that the ability and will to commit violence and wage war is what keeps a nation strong. War regenerates the national spirit and vitality. Fascist movements have often held social Darwinist views, believing that nations must be purged of socially and biologically weak individuals in order for the nation to advance. Eugenics, euthanasia, and abortion are all used by fascist states to mold society. Fascist nations have pursued policies of social indoctrination through propaganda machines. Education is designed to glorify the state and purge ideas that are not consistent with the fascist movement and to teach students to obey the state. Therefore, fascism is anti-intellectual. Facists implemented price controls, wage controls, and other economic interventionist policies. FDR, himself, implemented price and wage controls before the Supreme Court thankfully saw that for what it truly was. Fascism has been implemented all across the world and the specifics have varied from place to place but those are some of the common traits.
So did fascism ever get a footing here? Oh, you know it did! Our fascist dictator's name was Woodrow Wilson. You've probably heard alot of good about Wilson. He is often ranked as one of our 10 best presidents. Hardly. Never has a man sat in the Oval Office who had such disdain for the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. History has been conveniently omitted.
Let's read some of Wilson's own words. These date from the 1890s through his presidency:
"I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive."
"No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle."
"The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit."
"The competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much–everything–for the external uses to which they may be put…. He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates…. It is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader."
Do you hear the fascism in those words? Oh there's more. Wilson created the nation's first propaganda machine, the Committee on Public Information. But Troy, you say, public information is good. Sure it is. However, the mission of the CPI was the "engineering of consent" and "conscious manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.” Do you hear the fascism there?
Remember Liberty Bonds? Propaganda. A popular liberty bond poster declared "If you have money to buy and do not buy I will make this No Man's Land for you!" Hear the fascism?
Wilson pushed for the passing of a Sedition Act that forbade Americans from criticizing their government or military. Citizens could not "utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language.” The Postmaster General was given the power to revoke mailing privileges for those who disobeyed. Seventy-five periodicals were shut down by the government. The Department of Justice arrested an estimated 175,000 individuals for speaking against Wilson or WWI (even within their own homes). A letter to federal attorney declared that citizens have nothing to fear if they "Obey the law; keep your mouth shut." Do you see the fascism there?
The 1913 Federal Reserve Act created our good friend "The Fed." The federal reserve is an unconstitutional authority of monetary policy in the US. The federal reserve has unrestricted power to print and release money as it wills. Thus, the federal reserve floods the world with US dollars, creating a false sense of the dollar's value as well as a misallocation of resources. The constitution grants to the US House of Representatives the authority to coin money and regulate the value of currency. It does now authorize them to turn that authority over to an independent agency. This manipulation of our economy has eroded our standard of living, placed monetary poicy in the hands of a private organization, devalued the dollar, and enriched well-connected elites who have been able to take advantage of the artificial monetary cycles created by the Federal Reserve Bank. The recent financial reform bill has actually expanded the scope of the Fed's power, which only expands the power of a handful of large banks which own most of the federal reserve notes.
President Kennedy, our last truly good democratic president, with one stroke of his pen attempted to end the Federal Reserve by ordering the government to return to its constitutional mandate to control monetary policy. Three weeks later he was dead. Fascists will not so easily relinquish their control.
Wilson was a leader of the progressive era. Progressive was the American term for fascist. So when Hillary Clinton, during her presidential campaign, defines herself as a progressive in the early 20th century meaning of the term either she is ignorant as to what that really means or she thinks that we don't know what that really means. Well, I know what it means. And now you do too. You're welcome.
So did fascism ever get a footing here? Oh, you know it did! Our fascist dictator's name was Woodrow Wilson. You've probably heard alot of good about Wilson. He is often ranked as one of our 10 best presidents. Hardly. Never has a man sat in the Oval Office who had such disdain for the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. History has been conveniently omitted.
Let's read some of Wilson's own words. These date from the 1890s through his presidency:
"I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive."
"No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle."
"The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit."
"The competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much–everything–for the external uses to which they may be put…. He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates…. It is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader."
Do you hear the fascism in those words? Oh there's more. Wilson created the nation's first propaganda machine, the Committee on Public Information. But Troy, you say, public information is good. Sure it is. However, the mission of the CPI was the "engineering of consent" and "conscious manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.” Do you hear the fascism there?
Remember Liberty Bonds? Propaganda. A popular liberty bond poster declared "If you have money to buy and do not buy I will make this No Man's Land for you!" Hear the fascism?
Wilson pushed for the passing of a Sedition Act that forbade Americans from criticizing their government or military. Citizens could not "utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language.” The Postmaster General was given the power to revoke mailing privileges for those who disobeyed. Seventy-five periodicals were shut down by the government. The Department of Justice arrested an estimated 175,000 individuals for speaking against Wilson or WWI (even within their own homes). A letter to federal attorney declared that citizens have nothing to fear if they "Obey the law; keep your mouth shut." Do you see the fascism there?
The 1913 Federal Reserve Act created our good friend "The Fed." The federal reserve is an unconstitutional authority of monetary policy in the US. The federal reserve has unrestricted power to print and release money as it wills. Thus, the federal reserve floods the world with US dollars, creating a false sense of the dollar's value as well as a misallocation of resources. The constitution grants to the US House of Representatives the authority to coin money and regulate the value of currency. It does now authorize them to turn that authority over to an independent agency. This manipulation of our economy has eroded our standard of living, placed monetary poicy in the hands of a private organization, devalued the dollar, and enriched well-connected elites who have been able to take advantage of the artificial monetary cycles created by the Federal Reserve Bank. The recent financial reform bill has actually expanded the scope of the Fed's power, which only expands the power of a handful of large banks which own most of the federal reserve notes.
President Kennedy, our last truly good democratic president, with one stroke of his pen attempted to end the Federal Reserve by ordering the government to return to its constitutional mandate to control monetary policy. Three weeks later he was dead. Fascists will not so easily relinquish their control.
Wilson was a leader of the progressive era. Progressive was the American term for fascist. So when Hillary Clinton, during her presidential campaign, defines herself as a progressive in the early 20th century meaning of the term either she is ignorant as to what that really means or she thinks that we don't know what that really means. Well, I know what it means. And now you do too. You're welcome.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Columbus vs. Memphis
At 3:00 in the afternoon of August 2, 2010 the temperature in Cordova, TN (where I live) is 101 degrees. The heat index (that is what the air temp actually feels like based on humidity levels) is 121 degrees. This reminds me that I've been planning a post on how life in Memphis stacks up to life in Columbus (where I lived previously).
Let's get right to the point, the summer weather here alone is enough to make me want to finish this postdoc and move somewhere else. In Columbus we would get 5-10 ninety degree days/year. Here in Memphis I lost count a long time ago. We had two days below ninety in July. June was probably the same. Most of those days the heat index is above 100 and it shows no signs of slowing down. Every day this week the temp is supposed to flirt with 100 with heat indices near 120. It's terrible. You go outside and, no kidding, stand completely still for 3 minutes and you can wipe sweat from your brow. There have been 8-10 heat-related deaths this summer. Just the norm for Memphis.
Winter weather is a different story though. This past winter was a "rough" winter by Memphis standards. We had a two week period in February with temps in the low 30s. So do mild winters neutralize the oppressive summer heat? No. Weather advantage goes to Columbus despite the bitter winds and ice storms of the midwest winter. Then again, the variety of trees and blooming plant life is fantastic down here. There's always something in blossom even this late into summer. But that's different. Weather advantage still goes to Columbus.
Traffic. Traffic isn't terrible in Memphis but it's heavier than in Columbus. The interstate system worked better in Columbus and Memphis drivers are the worst I've ever experienced. Traffic advantage goes to Columbus.
Dining and entertainment. I haven't yet eaten at any of Memphis's Korean restaurants so I can't compare them to Columbus's amazing Restaurant Silla. However, Memphis has BBQ. Real BBQ and lots of it and it's really good. I'm almost more impressed with the diversity of dining establishments here. Columbus has the Blue Jackets (at least for now) and Memphis has the NBA's Grizzlies so professional sports is a wash. Columbus had great Broadway shows, Memphis has great Broadway shows at the historic Orpheum Theater. Memphis is the home of Elvis and blues. Columbus doesn't have the music heritage that Memphis has (Memphis is chock full of great music sites and live music venues). Memphis has a minor league baseball team. Columbus has a minor league baseball team. I'll give the advantage to Memphis there because their team is consistently better and they are the farm team for a much better major league team. Memphis has more and better museums. Dining and entertainment advantage goes to Memphis.
Cost of living. Advantage Memphis.
People. Besides being horrible drivers most people here are pretty friendly. Granted, I've never been in those neighborhoods where I am likely to get shot just for showing up but we'll get to that later. Friendliness advantage goes to Memphis. This category doesn't matter much to me as I like to be a hermit. I try to avoid talking to other people.
Radio. Big advantage to Columbus here. The local shows on ESPNRadio here are awful. The local issues/local politics show on AM600 is really good though. I don't remember hearing as much about local issues in Columbus on the radio. But that ESPN thing really scores the points for Columbus.
Recreation. I'm talking here about libraries, rec centers/YMCA, parks. Big, big, big advantage to Columbus. The Memphis libraries aren't horrible but it's hard to compare to Columbus, whose library system is among the best in the nation according to magazines that rank those sorts of things. As far as I can tell so far Memphis doesn't appear to have rec centers that offer a great variety of free courses for kids the way the Columbus rec centers did. YMCA's are few and far between and nothing here even comes close to the awesome Metro Parks system in Columbus. Sorry Shelby Farms but you're a wannabe, the sheer size of your boundaries does very little to make up for your lack of quality.
Farmer's Market. Advantage Memphis. We've only been once and it was early in the season but it looks great. Besides, we bought a 3-lb. tri-tip. Shelby Farms does have the Farmer's Market going for it. Have yet to make it to the downtown farmer's market.
Let's see, so far the score is 4-4. I think overall I liked Columbus better. The categories that Columbus scored well in are more important to me than the ones that Memphis scored well in. I'll leave it at that for now and maybe you guys can suggest some other categories for me to score.
Let's get right to the point, the summer weather here alone is enough to make me want to finish this postdoc and move somewhere else. In Columbus we would get 5-10 ninety degree days/year. Here in Memphis I lost count a long time ago. We had two days below ninety in July. June was probably the same. Most of those days the heat index is above 100 and it shows no signs of slowing down. Every day this week the temp is supposed to flirt with 100 with heat indices near 120. It's terrible. You go outside and, no kidding, stand completely still for 3 minutes and you can wipe sweat from your brow. There have been 8-10 heat-related deaths this summer. Just the norm for Memphis.
Winter weather is a different story though. This past winter was a "rough" winter by Memphis standards. We had a two week period in February with temps in the low 30s. So do mild winters neutralize the oppressive summer heat? No. Weather advantage goes to Columbus despite the bitter winds and ice storms of the midwest winter. Then again, the variety of trees and blooming plant life is fantastic down here. There's always something in blossom even this late into summer. But that's different. Weather advantage still goes to Columbus.
Traffic. Traffic isn't terrible in Memphis but it's heavier than in Columbus. The interstate system worked better in Columbus and Memphis drivers are the worst I've ever experienced. Traffic advantage goes to Columbus.
Dining and entertainment. I haven't yet eaten at any of Memphis's Korean restaurants so I can't compare them to Columbus's amazing Restaurant Silla. However, Memphis has BBQ. Real BBQ and lots of it and it's really good. I'm almost more impressed with the diversity of dining establishments here. Columbus has the Blue Jackets (at least for now) and Memphis has the NBA's Grizzlies so professional sports is a wash. Columbus had great Broadway shows, Memphis has great Broadway shows at the historic Orpheum Theater. Memphis is the home of Elvis and blues. Columbus doesn't have the music heritage that Memphis has (Memphis is chock full of great music sites and live music venues). Memphis has a minor league baseball team. Columbus has a minor league baseball team. I'll give the advantage to Memphis there because their team is consistently better and they are the farm team for a much better major league team. Memphis has more and better museums. Dining and entertainment advantage goes to Memphis.
Cost of living. Advantage Memphis.
People. Besides being horrible drivers most people here are pretty friendly. Granted, I've never been in those neighborhoods where I am likely to get shot just for showing up but we'll get to that later. Friendliness advantage goes to Memphis. This category doesn't matter much to me as I like to be a hermit. I try to avoid talking to other people.
Radio. Big advantage to Columbus here. The local shows on ESPNRadio here are awful. The local issues/local politics show on AM600 is really good though. I don't remember hearing as much about local issues in Columbus on the radio. But that ESPN thing really scores the points for Columbus.
Recreation. I'm talking here about libraries, rec centers/YMCA, parks. Big, big, big advantage to Columbus. The Memphis libraries aren't horrible but it's hard to compare to Columbus, whose library system is among the best in the nation according to magazines that rank those sorts of things. As far as I can tell so far Memphis doesn't appear to have rec centers that offer a great variety of free courses for kids the way the Columbus rec centers did. YMCA's are few and far between and nothing here even comes close to the awesome Metro Parks system in Columbus. Sorry Shelby Farms but you're a wannabe, the sheer size of your boundaries does very little to make up for your lack of quality.
Farmer's Market. Advantage Memphis. We've only been once and it was early in the season but it looks great. Besides, we bought a 3-lb. tri-tip. Shelby Farms does have the Farmer's Market going for it. Have yet to make it to the downtown farmer's market.
Let's see, so far the score is 4-4. I think overall I liked Columbus better. The categories that Columbus scored well in are more important to me than the ones that Memphis scored well in. I'll leave it at that for now and maybe you guys can suggest some other categories for me to score.
Friday, July 30, 2010
You Can't Say I Didn't Try to Warn You
Sarah was just talking to a friend of ours who currently lives in the great state of New York. Our friend was lamenting the outrageous taxes up there. Wherever you go they want to take more of your money. I feel bad for our struggling friends but states like New York and California are perfect case studies in how big government actually accomplishes very little for its citizens. I was reminded of this quote from Winston Churchill:
"If you're young and not a liberal,you have no heart; if you're old and not a conservative, you have no brain."
It's so true. When you're young you are filled with all kinds of idealism and if only liberal ideas could be implemented more fully then all would be peachy. However, once you've experienced the real world...
Big government = oppression and inefficiency
Limited government = opportunity and liberty
It's an important lesson that many refuse to learn until they're forced to live under big government. Oh, it helps to know that democrats hold a 109-41 supermajority in the state house.
Disclaimer - Sarah did not approve of my writing this. Not because she disagrees but because she doesn't want to appear to be gloating. Which I'm not doing, by the way. I really do wish those people hadn't moved to New York. And they should know that they are always welcome back to a red state.
"If you're young and not a liberal,you have no heart; if you're old and not a conservative, you have no brain."
It's so true. When you're young you are filled with all kinds of idealism and if only liberal ideas could be implemented more fully then all would be peachy. However, once you've experienced the real world...
Big government = oppression and inefficiency
Limited government = opportunity and liberty
It's an important lesson that many refuse to learn until they're forced to live under big government. Oh, it helps to know that democrats hold a 109-41 supermajority in the state house.
Disclaimer - Sarah did not approve of my writing this. Not because she disagrees but because she doesn't want to appear to be gloating. Which I'm not doing, by the way. I really do wish those people hadn't moved to New York. And they should know that they are always welcome back to a red state.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Financial Reform
The president is expected to sign the 2,300 page financial reform bill in a few days. Why do I feel like we're continuously being clubbed over the heads with a billy club despite the public's repeated shouts of outrage.
Admittedly, I know very little about this bill. However, I'm not ashamed to say that because I would be my life that the congressmen voting for this bill know anything about it either. After all it is 2300 pages long and very clearly not written by congress. It CAN'T have been written by them. Most of those people have NO experience in business or investing. It was written by lobbyists and 80% of Americans do not trust that this bill will solve anything. How can you blame them when the CEO of Goldman Sachs supports this bill?! Think about that, the CEO of Goldman Sachs (a company that is supposedly going to be reined in by government by this bill) supports this bill. Sounds great.
And then there's the fact that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (the nitwits who helped create this crisis with their oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) chaired the committee that is bringing us this monstrous legislation. Congress isn't passing a budget this year and we're supposed to trust them to remake the US economy. No thanks brother.
Here's why the economy isn't improving - there's too much uncertainty. Legislation like this and the rhetoric that has proceeded it causes nervousness in the markets. Businesses aren't going to hire when they've got no idea of what kind of "reforms" are coming down the pipe and how those changes are going to affect their bottom line.
This bill will not help because it creates all kinds of new agencies whose rules and regulations aren't even laid out in the bill. No, it's the agencies' newly appointed administrators who get to set the rules. How's that for a representative republic? Individual administrators, not congress, gets to rewrite the rules of business. Until those agencies are firmly established and the rules clearly written businesses will be tentative and anxious which means little hiring and little growth.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, set up by the government to investigate the causes of the financial crisis, hasn't finished their analysis yet but we've already got the fix? How can you fix something BEFORE an official understanding of what's broken?
It's all political. Rahm Emmanuel's words keep coming back to me - "Never let a crisis go to waste." The economic crisis is being used by this bunch to remake the system in their progressive mold.
Ask yourself this question - do you have faith is this congress to fix the nation's problems? If your answer is yes I would love an explanation because you can't have been paying attention to what they're doing and, more importantly, HOW they're doing it.
Admittedly, I know very little about this bill. However, I'm not ashamed to say that because I would be my life that the congressmen voting for this bill know anything about it either. After all it is 2300 pages long and very clearly not written by congress. It CAN'T have been written by them. Most of those people have NO experience in business or investing. It was written by lobbyists and 80% of Americans do not trust that this bill will solve anything. How can you blame them when the CEO of Goldman Sachs supports this bill?! Think about that, the CEO of Goldman Sachs (a company that is supposedly going to be reined in by government by this bill) supports this bill. Sounds great.
And then there's the fact that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (the nitwits who helped create this crisis with their oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) chaired the committee that is bringing us this monstrous legislation. Congress isn't passing a budget this year and we're supposed to trust them to remake the US economy. No thanks brother.
Here's why the economy isn't improving - there's too much uncertainty. Legislation like this and the rhetoric that has proceeded it causes nervousness in the markets. Businesses aren't going to hire when they've got no idea of what kind of "reforms" are coming down the pipe and how those changes are going to affect their bottom line.
This bill will not help because it creates all kinds of new agencies whose rules and regulations aren't even laid out in the bill. No, it's the agencies' newly appointed administrators who get to set the rules. How's that for a representative republic? Individual administrators, not congress, gets to rewrite the rules of business. Until those agencies are firmly established and the rules clearly written businesses will be tentative and anxious which means little hiring and little growth.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, set up by the government to investigate the causes of the financial crisis, hasn't finished their analysis yet but we've already got the fix? How can you fix something BEFORE an official understanding of what's broken?
It's all political. Rahm Emmanuel's words keep coming back to me - "Never let a crisis go to waste." The economic crisis is being used by this bunch to remake the system in their progressive mold.
Ask yourself this question - do you have faith is this congress to fix the nation's problems? If your answer is yes I would love an explanation because you can't have been paying attention to what they're doing and, more importantly, HOW they're doing it.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The Liberal Media
Still think that all of network television and many newspapers and magazines aren't in the sack for Obama? After all, they've made his agenda their agenda. Last night Mort Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of US News and World Report and publisher of The New York Daily News, admitted during an interviews at Fox News that he helped write one of Obama's campaign speeches.
So which is worse that an "independent journalist" (I use quotes there because Zuckerman can no longer be viewed as a legitimate journalist) is writing speeches for a presidential candidate or that a presidential candidate is recruiting the assistance of the press (which is supposed to be biased) to help him campaign?
So which is worse that an "independent journalist" (I use quotes there because Zuckerman can no longer be viewed as a legitimate journalist) is writing speeches for a presidential candidate or that a presidential candidate is recruiting the assistance of the press (which is supposed to be biased) to help him campaign?
Friday, July 9, 2010
The Proof is in the Pudding
"The proof is in the pudding."
I have no idea where that phrase originates from but I do know in what context it can be used.
Let's talk Arizona immigration law. The Dept. of Justice, at President Obama's behest, filed a law suit against the state of Arizona. You might imagine that a critical component of the lawsuit would be the potential for discrimination. The DOJ, you might think, would enter the lawsuit because the law is a potential civil rights violation. That's what Obama has been telling us anyway. Remember his tear-jerking anecodte about how, now, a man and his son could be walking down the street to buy an ice cream cone and a law enforcement officer would come up and harass them about their citizenship status. Yeah, I shed a few tears over that one. Obama even stood in the White House beside Mexican president Calderon and blasted Arizona over this discriminatory law. So with all of that talk you would imagine that the DOJ is basing its lawsuit on that.
You would be wrong.
The lawsuit is based on the premise that a state hasn't the authority to enact a law that contradicts federal law in an area where the feds have jurisdiction. Well, whether or not Arizona's law DOES that is a worthy discussion. But if the issue is state and other localities enacting laws that contradict federal law then I'm sure the DOJ will soon be filing lawsuits against the following cities:
Anchorage, AK, Fairbanks, AK, Chandler, AZ, Phoenix, AZ,Fresno, CA, Los Angeles, CA
National City, CA, San Diego, CA, San Francisco, CA, Sonoma County, CA, Evanston, IL
Chicago, IL, Cicero, IL, Cambridge, MA, Orleans, MA, Portland, ME, Baltimore, MD
Takoma Park, MD, Ann Arbor, MI, Detroit, MI, Minneapolis, MN, Newark, NJ, Trenton, NJ
Durham, NC, Albuquerque, NM, Aztec, NM, Rio Arriba County, NM, Sante Fe, NM, New York, NY, Ashland, OR, Gaston, OR, Marion County, OR, Austin, TX, Houston, TX, Katy, TX, Virginia Beach, VA, Seattle, WA, Madison, WI
This is a list of America's sancturary cities. Cities that have enacted policies that override federal law. Thirty-eight cities and counties that deserve to have a lawsuit brought against them based on the DOJ's reasoning for bringing the lawsuit against Arizona. Certainly the DOJ is working on lawsuits in these cases as well.
A very astute and bold WH reporter (who will almost certainly lose his/her press credentials now) asked WH spokesman Gibbs about this inconsistency the other day:
"Now there are dozens of so‑called sanctuary cities that have their own policies that might potentially conflict with federal law supplements like Governor Brewer. To say that if Arizona's in violation of federal law, then so are these localities. So my question is why did the president then ask DOJ to look at Arizona and not everywhere?"
Gibbs's response was jibberish: "Let me — I don't know the answer to that but I will try to seek some answer on — some answer on that."
Don't bother Gibbs. You've been exposed. Your boss and his administration want to play politics with this issue instead of doing what's right for the country. This is about protecting the democrats' hold on the Hispanic vote going into an important mid-term election.
The proof is in the pudding. Or lawsuit.
I have no idea where that phrase originates from but I do know in what context it can be used.
Let's talk Arizona immigration law. The Dept. of Justice, at President Obama's behest, filed a law suit against the state of Arizona. You might imagine that a critical component of the lawsuit would be the potential for discrimination. The DOJ, you might think, would enter the lawsuit because the law is a potential civil rights violation. That's what Obama has been telling us anyway. Remember his tear-jerking anecodte about how, now, a man and his son could be walking down the street to buy an ice cream cone and a law enforcement officer would come up and harass them about their citizenship status. Yeah, I shed a few tears over that one. Obama even stood in the White House beside Mexican president Calderon and blasted Arizona over this discriminatory law. So with all of that talk you would imagine that the DOJ is basing its lawsuit on that.
You would be wrong.
The lawsuit is based on the premise that a state hasn't the authority to enact a law that contradicts federal law in an area where the feds have jurisdiction. Well, whether or not Arizona's law DOES that is a worthy discussion. But if the issue is state and other localities enacting laws that contradict federal law then I'm sure the DOJ will soon be filing lawsuits against the following cities:
Anchorage, AK, Fairbanks, AK, Chandler, AZ, Phoenix, AZ,Fresno, CA, Los Angeles, CA
National City, CA, San Diego, CA, San Francisco, CA, Sonoma County, CA, Evanston, IL
Chicago, IL, Cicero, IL, Cambridge, MA, Orleans, MA, Portland, ME, Baltimore, MD
Takoma Park, MD, Ann Arbor, MI, Detroit, MI, Minneapolis, MN, Newark, NJ, Trenton, NJ
Durham, NC, Albuquerque, NM, Aztec, NM, Rio Arriba County, NM, Sante Fe, NM, New York, NY, Ashland, OR, Gaston, OR, Marion County, OR, Austin, TX, Houston, TX, Katy, TX, Virginia Beach, VA, Seattle, WA, Madison, WI
This is a list of America's sancturary cities. Cities that have enacted policies that override federal law. Thirty-eight cities and counties that deserve to have a lawsuit brought against them based on the DOJ's reasoning for bringing the lawsuit against Arizona. Certainly the DOJ is working on lawsuits in these cases as well.
A very astute and bold WH reporter (who will almost certainly lose his/her press credentials now) asked WH spokesman Gibbs about this inconsistency the other day:
"Now there are dozens of so‑called sanctuary cities that have their own policies that might potentially conflict with federal law supplements like Governor Brewer. To say that if Arizona's in violation of federal law, then so are these localities. So my question is why did the president then ask DOJ to look at Arizona and not everywhere?"
Gibbs's response was jibberish: "Let me — I don't know the answer to that but I will try to seek some answer on — some answer on that."
Don't bother Gibbs. You've been exposed. Your boss and his administration want to play politics with this issue instead of doing what's right for the country. This is about protecting the democrats' hold on the Hispanic vote going into an important mid-term election.
The proof is in the pudding. Or lawsuit.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
The (Nanny) State of California
Read this as a perfect example of why California is stupid and I'll never live there. It is king of government intrusion into every stupid little decision you make.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/MN9L1EAT90.DTL
This stupid bill will never pass but only in California (paradise for animal rights and environmental extremist wackos) could such a law even be considered. This is the state that shuts off water to the central valley for the sake of a tiny fish, remember. To even consider this bill is a waste of taxpayer dollars (which California is really good at) and an affront to liberty. I'm not a pet owner, nor do I really have a strong desire to own a pet but this bill would make me WANT to get one if I lived in San Francisco. If this bill passes does anybody really believe that pet ownership will drop that significantly? Will the problems that San Francisco cites really go away? Of course not. Government thinks that regulating human behavior will change human behavior. They couldn't be more mistaken and history tells us as much. Anybody remember prohibition? Yeah, that was a real success. Another example of government trying to regulate human behavior. It doesn't work. Governments' so-called "solutions" are often a bigger problem than the problem they are meant to solve.
Make it illegal to sell pets in S.F. in order to cut down on the crowded conditions and euthanasia at area shelters? Who in their right mind thinks that the result of this bill will be the intended results? Only a fool would believe that. All you have to do is drive across the bay to Berkeley or Oakland or San Jose to buy your pet. Idiots! Sometimes I'm ashamed to consider California (and especially San Francisco) part of America. It's really not any fair that such a beautiful city is inhabited by a collection of the world's stupidest people. This is perfect evidence that it is only God's grace that spares America from the fate she would suffer if left to her own wisdom. Lord have mercy on us for we are growing stupider and stupider by the minute. You know things are getting bad when you have to double-check to make sure that what you're reading is from an actual newspaper and not from The Onion.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/MN9L1EAT90.DTL
This stupid bill will never pass but only in California (paradise for animal rights and environmental extremist wackos) could such a law even be considered. This is the state that shuts off water to the central valley for the sake of a tiny fish, remember. To even consider this bill is a waste of taxpayer dollars (which California is really good at) and an affront to liberty. I'm not a pet owner, nor do I really have a strong desire to own a pet but this bill would make me WANT to get one if I lived in San Francisco. If this bill passes does anybody really believe that pet ownership will drop that significantly? Will the problems that San Francisco cites really go away? Of course not. Government thinks that regulating human behavior will change human behavior. They couldn't be more mistaken and history tells us as much. Anybody remember prohibition? Yeah, that was a real success. Another example of government trying to regulate human behavior. It doesn't work. Governments' so-called "solutions" are often a bigger problem than the problem they are meant to solve.
Make it illegal to sell pets in S.F. in order to cut down on the crowded conditions and euthanasia at area shelters? Who in their right mind thinks that the result of this bill will be the intended results? Only a fool would believe that. All you have to do is drive across the bay to Berkeley or Oakland or San Jose to buy your pet. Idiots! Sometimes I'm ashamed to consider California (and especially San Francisco) part of America. It's really not any fair that such a beautiful city is inhabited by a collection of the world's stupidest people. This is perfect evidence that it is only God's grace that spares America from the fate she would suffer if left to her own wisdom. Lord have mercy on us for we are growing stupider and stupider by the minute. You know things are getting bad when you have to double-check to make sure that what you're reading is from an actual newspaper and not from The Onion.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Spooky
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20009642-10391695.html
Check out this freaky article. I'm not surprised. These are the things I believe are coming for all of us in the near future. In a way it's nice to see that I'm RIGHT and not crazy. But on the other hand, oh how wrong I wish I was.
I guess the question is, what exactly constitutes a "controversial opinion?" And who gets to decide? The fact that some government bureaucracy gets to make that decision for a group of other individuals is evil. This is just the beginning. At some point in the future, mark my words, the government will be restricting access for all of us to subjects that they deem controversial. Call me crazy now but don't come crying to me when they start gathering up all of your "controversial" books for a grand bonfire. You've been warned.
Check out this freaky article. I'm not surprised. These are the things I believe are coming for all of us in the near future. In a way it's nice to see that I'm RIGHT and not crazy. But on the other hand, oh how wrong I wish I was.
I guess the question is, what exactly constitutes a "controversial opinion?" And who gets to decide? The fact that some government bureaucracy gets to make that decision for a group of other individuals is evil. This is just the beginning. At some point in the future, mark my words, the government will be restricting access for all of us to subjects that they deem controversial. Call me crazy now but don't come crying to me when they start gathering up all of your "controversial" books for a grand bonfire. You've been warned.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
On this 4th of July
Putting aside my disdain for the president and our congressional leaders just for one weekend I'm going to take a moment to boast about my great country. Because it is a great country and we are so self-critical in America that it has almost become so rare to state unabashedly that America is great and that one is proud to be called an American. Progressives and liberals are so quick to point out America's flaws and mistakes. There's a disease in the progressive establishment that seeks to always villify America. You won't have to go far on the internet to find YouTube videos and websites dedicated to all of America's "atrocities". You can even find videos describing what the world might look like without America. Of course it's always a eutopia. But I, and the truth, beg to differ. The world would be a horrific place without the influence of the United States.
From America has come, if not the concept of the vaccination itself (that belongs to France), the vaccines that we use today. From America has come countless technological advances that have allowed science to discover the workings of life on earth. From America has come the Space Shuttle. From America has come fetal surgery. Voicemail. Spreadsheets. The laser. Medical advancements too many to number but which, I argue, would never have come about under a system other than a free and capitalist society. The camera. The automobile. The airplane. The internet. The computer. The optical fiber. The circular saw. The suspension bridge. Dental floss for pity's sake! It's all American. That a whole lot more. Look on wikipedia for American inventions. The list is staggering.
But as important as these things are for the advancement of humanity the most important thing that America brought to the planet was individual liberty. In the 1700s the world was most likely headed in the direction of increased freedom. But for this divine plan to be realized a new land was required. A virgin land where God could establish anew the principles of liberty and freedom to their fullest extent. He needed to gather to this land a people who were specially set aside for the very act of establishing a new freedom. These great men acted under the inspiration of God to put down in words the simple fact that individual liberty comes from God and that, as such, it CANNOT be restricted by government without that government become oppressive and removing from itself any authority that it once claimed over its citizens. When a government takes upon itself powers that do not belong to it, the people are no longer under obligation to be obedient to that government. That is the idea of the revolution. That was the spirit of '76. That is the heritage of America.
America has done more for the advancement of the human race, more for the good of humankind, and more to promote freedom and liberty than any other nation in history. We have had the help of good allies along the way but America has always been at the forefront. It is to America that the world turns in time of crisis. We are a great nation because we have been a good people. We fear God. We love liberty. And so far as we continue to fear God and love liberty we will always be a great nation. America has a unique role to play in the world. I don't think God is done with America yet. I hope that America isn't done with God. And I hope that America hasn't forgotten how tenuous our liberties are. Freedom doesn't survive a people who don't also feel a deep sense of great responsbility to keep that freedom safeguarded.
So on the fourth I'm glad to be living in the USA. I'm proud to be American and I'm very proud of our rich history. For the amazing things that God has used America for in such a short period of time.
From America has come, if not the concept of the vaccination itself (that belongs to France), the vaccines that we use today. From America has come countless technological advances that have allowed science to discover the workings of life on earth. From America has come the Space Shuttle. From America has come fetal surgery. Voicemail. Spreadsheets. The laser. Medical advancements too many to number but which, I argue, would never have come about under a system other than a free and capitalist society. The camera. The automobile. The airplane. The internet. The computer. The optical fiber. The circular saw. The suspension bridge. Dental floss for pity's sake! It's all American. That a whole lot more. Look on wikipedia for American inventions. The list is staggering.
But as important as these things are for the advancement of humanity the most important thing that America brought to the planet was individual liberty. In the 1700s the world was most likely headed in the direction of increased freedom. But for this divine plan to be realized a new land was required. A virgin land where God could establish anew the principles of liberty and freedom to their fullest extent. He needed to gather to this land a people who were specially set aside for the very act of establishing a new freedom. These great men acted under the inspiration of God to put down in words the simple fact that individual liberty comes from God and that, as such, it CANNOT be restricted by government without that government become oppressive and removing from itself any authority that it once claimed over its citizens. When a government takes upon itself powers that do not belong to it, the people are no longer under obligation to be obedient to that government. That is the idea of the revolution. That was the spirit of '76. That is the heritage of America.
America has done more for the advancement of the human race, more for the good of humankind, and more to promote freedom and liberty than any other nation in history. We have had the help of good allies along the way but America has always been at the forefront. It is to America that the world turns in time of crisis. We are a great nation because we have been a good people. We fear God. We love liberty. And so far as we continue to fear God and love liberty we will always be a great nation. America has a unique role to play in the world. I don't think God is done with America yet. I hope that America isn't done with God. And I hope that America hasn't forgotten how tenuous our liberties are. Freedom doesn't survive a people who don't also feel a deep sense of great responsbility to keep that freedom safeguarded.
So on the fourth I'm glad to be living in the USA. I'm proud to be American and I'm very proud of our rich history. For the amazing things that God has used America for in such a short period of time.
Friday, July 2, 2010
The Stupidest Woman on Earth
Sound harsh? Well I'm actually being kind because there are no words to describe how big an idiot Nancy Pelosi is. If you thought her suggestion to quit your job in order to focus on your dream and let the government take care of you was stupid wait until you hear the most recent display of her stupidity.
In addressing yet another month of dismal employment numbers Nancy had this to say about unemployment checks:
"This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy.. economists will tell you this money is spent quickly it injects demand into the economy and is job creating.. it creates jobs faster than almost any other inititative that you can name."
Uh.....How is an intelligent person supposed to respond to that? Unemployment checks are a stimulus to the economy because the patriotic recipients of those paltry benefits are out there pumping the money into the economy? Nancy Pelosi you are stupid and that is such a desperate attempt to try and make unemployment numbers look good. Now she was also saying this in an attempt to defend an extension of federal unemployment benefits from the current level of 2 years to I think about 3 years. This is the best she's got? This is her best argument FOR extending benefits? That more unemployment checks for longer periods of time are a recession-fighter? That's your best argument? Wow. This is American leadership in the 21st century folks. Stupid is the new brilliant I guess.
In addressing yet another month of dismal employment numbers Nancy had this to say about unemployment checks:
"This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy.. economists will tell you this money is spent quickly it injects demand into the economy and is job creating.. it creates jobs faster than almost any other inititative that you can name."
Uh.....How is an intelligent person supposed to respond to that? Unemployment checks are a stimulus to the economy because the patriotic recipients of those paltry benefits are out there pumping the money into the economy? Nancy Pelosi you are stupid and that is such a desperate attempt to try and make unemployment numbers look good. Now she was also saying this in an attempt to defend an extension of federal unemployment benefits from the current level of 2 years to I think about 3 years. This is the best she's got? This is her best argument FOR extending benefits? That more unemployment checks for longer periods of time are a recession-fighter? That's your best argument? Wow. This is American leadership in the 21st century folks. Stupid is the new brilliant I guess.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Term Limits for Congress
If you believe as I do, and as our founding fathers did, that our congressmen and woemn were meant to be citizen legislators rather than career politicians take the time to sign the petition at the website below (you need not supply all of the personal contact information in order for your signature to be counted):
http://www.termlimits.org/content.asp?admin=Y&contentid=28
I don't believe that congressmen and senators were meant to be individuals who hold onto the job for 20, 30, sometimes 40 years. In that time they become detached from their local constituents and act for national lobbyists and interest groups rather than the citizens they were elected to represent. They forget where they came from and become corrupted by power and influence. A 2-term (12-year) limit for Senators would go a long way in blocking some of that. Term limits are a HUGE part of the answer to our problems. Please sign the petition.
http://www.termlimits.org/content.asp?admin=Y&contentid=28
I don't believe that congressmen and senators were meant to be individuals who hold onto the job for 20, 30, sometimes 40 years. In that time they become detached from their local constituents and act for national lobbyists and interest groups rather than the citizens they were elected to represent. They forget where they came from and become corrupted by power and influence. A 2-term (12-year) limit for Senators would go a long way in blocking some of that. Term limits are a HUGE part of the answer to our problems. Please sign the petition.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Connect the Dots
I'm going to lay out what's happening with this oil spill. Remember, Rahm Emmanuel said a long time ago that you "can't let a crisis go to waste." He explained what he meant by that is that during a crisis you "can do things that you otherwise wouldn't be able to." So what does the administration want to do on the backdrop of this oil spill that otherwise would be politically impossible? Comprehensive energy policy. Well, that's what they're going to call it. It's really cap and trade or in layman's terms cut off oil even in the absence of a viable alternative. You'll remember Obama saying during the campaign that he wants to "drive [the coal industry] out of business." Do you think he's any friendlier towards oil? So they've got their crisis, now to take advantage to push through their destructive agenda.
He's already put a 6-month moratorium on US drilling in the gulf. Do you honestly believe that in 6 months the rigs will be drilling again? Absolutely they will NOT be. This moratorium is going to be dragged on and on for years. At least until 2012 when that rat is out of the White House. See you can't just shut down those rigs and expect them to sit there waiting for us to give them the green light again. They will be sent to Nigeria or Brazil or to some other place that does lots of deep sea drilling. It's been reported by the Wall Street Journal that the Brazilian oil company Petrobras stands to really cash in on this oil spill because they're going to get a lot of the equipment that we've stopped using shipped down there. Who is one of the leading investors in Petrobras? George Soros. If you don't know who he is then you haven't been paying attention and shame on you. Briefly, and among other things, George Soros is a founding member of Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP has been guiding Obama on his response to the oil spill. Get a load of this:
May 4 - CAP calls on the president to name an independent commission to investigate the causes of the disaster. One week later Obama does exactly that.
May 21 - CAP president John Podesta encourages the white house to name a point person for the spill response. A week later Obama does exactly that.
May 26 - CAP tells the White House they should force BP to set up an escrow account which Gulf residents can claim. Surprise, surprise the White House does it.
Connect the dots.
Now to the part about how the White House is going to try to use this oil spill to alter public opinion on his domestic agenda. We already heard his Oval Office speech wherein he spent half of it massaging us with the idea that we really, really, really need to get off of oil. That oil is the cause of all the world's troubles. Now look at the people who he has named to his independent commission. Of the 7 commission members only one has a background in engineering. Remember the purpose here is to discover the cause of the spill. Just one person with an engineering background. And that guy specializes in physics and optics so even his engineering background isn't related to oil rigs. Sounds reasonable right? I mean, why would you want engineers to find out what went wrong? There is one environmental scientist who specializes in coastal areas and the effects of oil, so that's a good one. But the rest of them are --- wait for it --- wait for it ----......
POLICY EXPERTS!!!! HOORAY!!!
5 of the 7 are policy people. It makes perfect sense doesn't it. Since this is really all about climate change, anti-oil policy that you would fill your committee with policy people. Man, I love this Obama clown more and more everyday. He's so post-partisan.
But Troy, you say, this is an INDEPENDENT commission. It's completely non-partisan. Oh, is it? Sounds like most of them have already made up their minds (even before they've ever met) about the cause of the spill and in a strange coincidence it goes right along with Obama's own domestic agenda. How convenient.
- "We can blame BP for the disaster and we should. We can blame lack of adequate government oversight for the disaster and we should. But in the end, we also must place the blame where it originated: America's addiction to oil."
That's from one of the "independent" commission members. This gal has called for a ban on offshore and Alaskan drilling 5 times since May alone. She sounds pretty open-minded and like she's really seeking the truth.
- "Even as questions persist, there is one thing I know for certain: the Gulf oil spill isn't just an accident. It's the result of a failed energy policy."
That's from another one of them. Boy, these guys don't sound biased at all. Maybe I'm all wrong and this truly is a non-political, independent committee. Silly me.
Here's the truth. This commission isn't really charged with the job of finding out what happened. Their job will be to supply the president with ammunition in his fight against oil so he can further his jobs-destroying energy policies. Never let a good crisis go to waste, indeed.
Obama is bum. The only joy I receive in association with his shameful name is that of knowing that his approval rating is dropping almost daily these days.
He's already put a 6-month moratorium on US drilling in the gulf. Do you honestly believe that in 6 months the rigs will be drilling again? Absolutely they will NOT be. This moratorium is going to be dragged on and on for years. At least until 2012 when that rat is out of the White House. See you can't just shut down those rigs and expect them to sit there waiting for us to give them the green light again. They will be sent to Nigeria or Brazil or to some other place that does lots of deep sea drilling. It's been reported by the Wall Street Journal that the Brazilian oil company Petrobras stands to really cash in on this oil spill because they're going to get a lot of the equipment that we've stopped using shipped down there. Who is one of the leading investors in Petrobras? George Soros. If you don't know who he is then you haven't been paying attention and shame on you. Briefly, and among other things, George Soros is a founding member of Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP has been guiding Obama on his response to the oil spill. Get a load of this:
May 4 - CAP calls on the president to name an independent commission to investigate the causes of the disaster. One week later Obama does exactly that.
May 21 - CAP president John Podesta encourages the white house to name a point person for the spill response. A week later Obama does exactly that.
May 26 - CAP tells the White House they should force BP to set up an escrow account which Gulf residents can claim. Surprise, surprise the White House does it.
Connect the dots.
Now to the part about how the White House is going to try to use this oil spill to alter public opinion on his domestic agenda. We already heard his Oval Office speech wherein he spent half of it massaging us with the idea that we really, really, really need to get off of oil. That oil is the cause of all the world's troubles. Now look at the people who he has named to his independent commission. Of the 7 commission members only one has a background in engineering. Remember the purpose here is to discover the cause of the spill. Just one person with an engineering background. And that guy specializes in physics and optics so even his engineering background isn't related to oil rigs. Sounds reasonable right? I mean, why would you want engineers to find out what went wrong? There is one environmental scientist who specializes in coastal areas and the effects of oil, so that's a good one. But the rest of them are --- wait for it --- wait for it ----......
POLICY EXPERTS!!!! HOORAY!!!
5 of the 7 are policy people. It makes perfect sense doesn't it. Since this is really all about climate change, anti-oil policy that you would fill your committee with policy people. Man, I love this Obama clown more and more everyday. He's so post-partisan.
But Troy, you say, this is an INDEPENDENT commission. It's completely non-partisan. Oh, is it? Sounds like most of them have already made up their minds (even before they've ever met) about the cause of the spill and in a strange coincidence it goes right along with Obama's own domestic agenda. How convenient.
- "We can blame BP for the disaster and we should. We can blame lack of adequate government oversight for the disaster and we should. But in the end, we also must place the blame where it originated: America's addiction to oil."
That's from one of the "independent" commission members. This gal has called for a ban on offshore and Alaskan drilling 5 times since May alone. She sounds pretty open-minded and like she's really seeking the truth.
- "Even as questions persist, there is one thing I know for certain: the Gulf oil spill isn't just an accident. It's the result of a failed energy policy."
That's from another one of them. Boy, these guys don't sound biased at all. Maybe I'm all wrong and this truly is a non-political, independent committee. Silly me.
Here's the truth. This commission isn't really charged with the job of finding out what happened. Their job will be to supply the president with ammunition in his fight against oil so he can further his jobs-destroying energy policies. Never let a good crisis go to waste, indeed.
Obama is bum. The only joy I receive in association with his shameful name is that of knowing that his approval rating is dropping almost daily these days.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Oh the Irony
Mr. Obama is visiting my own stomping grounds of Nationwide Children's Hospital today. He speaks from the corner of E. Livingston and Parsons actually to tout federal dollars that are going to 16 street resurfacing projects in Columbus. The dollars are creating an astounding 300 jobs! Wow! But are those jobs really being created? Am I to believe that without these federally-funded projects the city wouldn't be putting those guys to work at other places in the city? I lived in Columbus for 6 years. I'm well aware of the constant barrage of construction. Feel free to also comment on the appropriateness of federal government funding simple local projects such as street resurfacing. Isn't this the responsibility of state and city government?
But in a hilarious turn of irony, the presiden't visit has shut down a construction project across the street at the hospital and cost all of those construction workers a day's pay.
But in a hilarious turn of irony, the presiden't visit has shut down a construction project across the street at the hospital and cost all of those construction workers a day's pay.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Obama Continues to Fail
Obama finally got around to talking to us about the oil spill tonight. Predictably, he spent a large portion of his address pushing "comprehensive energy legislation." That's what they're calling cap and trade now that everybody knows what cap and trade really is. Nice Obama, way to take a disaster and use it to further your political agenda. Real presidential of you. But hey it was your own chief of staff (that piece of crap Rahm Emmanuel) who said you "can't let a crisis go to waste." Gosh, I'm so glad we've elected another ideologue who can't think beyond next month's monumental legislative efforts.
Oh and then there was this line, I loved this one:
"But make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes."
First of all, Obama uses these dramatic phrases all the time like "make no mistake" and "let me be clear." This is code talk for 'what I'm about to say is absolute BS but it's gonna sound like I mean business.'
Is there anybody in this country besides the 20% of Americans who are ObamaZombies who believes that Obama is really fighting this spill with everything we've got? Explain Mr. President why, in the days right after the spill your administration turned down help from the Norwegians, the Belgians, and the Dutch. These countries have some of the most advanced oil skimming ships on the planet and you told them to take a hike. There's this stupid law called the Jones Act, signed into law by our former progressive president Woodrow Wilson (a total dweeb) that requires all ships operating in the gulf waters to be American-made and American-manned. Presidents have often temporarily reversed that act during times of crisis. Bush did so immediately following Katrina. Obama refuses to do so. Why? Because the law is really popular with the unions. Who is Obama in bed with? The unions. SEIU, Andy Stern, that whole crowd.
Here's the bottom line. Obama is a monumental failure if he's required to do anything. He doesn't think about anything but politics. Anything except the interests of his inner circle. Why else would he use this opportunity to further drive a wedge into our dividing nation by pushing terribly unpopular legislation. After watching how he has handled this situation how do I manage to conclude anything other than Obama is content to let this oil spill linger for awhile in order to try and gain some public support for his cap and trade agenda? Yes, I said it. I've changed my stance. I think Obama is perfectly fine with this oil spill because it offers him an opportunity.
Think about it. Give me evidence to the contrary. He's refused foreign help, he refused to approve regulatory measures recommended by the state of Louisiana immediately following the spill which would have allowed that state to take steps to protect its waters and its coast, his emotion to this has been entirely scripted and contrived, and now tonight he spends half of his speech pushing a climate change bill? Truly, Obama is taking advantage of this crisis. It is unethical, it is immoral, and our pathetic president is a disgrace. I am ashamed to call him the president of the United States.
Oh and then there was this line, I loved this one:
"But make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes."
First of all, Obama uses these dramatic phrases all the time like "make no mistake" and "let me be clear." This is code talk for 'what I'm about to say is absolute BS but it's gonna sound like I mean business.'
Is there anybody in this country besides the 20% of Americans who are ObamaZombies who believes that Obama is really fighting this spill with everything we've got? Explain Mr. President why, in the days right after the spill your administration turned down help from the Norwegians, the Belgians, and the Dutch. These countries have some of the most advanced oil skimming ships on the planet and you told them to take a hike. There's this stupid law called the Jones Act, signed into law by our former progressive president Woodrow Wilson (a total dweeb) that requires all ships operating in the gulf waters to be American-made and American-manned. Presidents have often temporarily reversed that act during times of crisis. Bush did so immediately following Katrina. Obama refuses to do so. Why? Because the law is really popular with the unions. Who is Obama in bed with? The unions. SEIU, Andy Stern, that whole crowd.
Here's the bottom line. Obama is a monumental failure if he's required to do anything. He doesn't think about anything but politics. Anything except the interests of his inner circle. Why else would he use this opportunity to further drive a wedge into our dividing nation by pushing terribly unpopular legislation. After watching how he has handled this situation how do I manage to conclude anything other than Obama is content to let this oil spill linger for awhile in order to try and gain some public support for his cap and trade agenda? Yes, I said it. I've changed my stance. I think Obama is perfectly fine with this oil spill because it offers him an opportunity.
Think about it. Give me evidence to the contrary. He's refused foreign help, he refused to approve regulatory measures recommended by the state of Louisiana immediately following the spill which would have allowed that state to take steps to protect its waters and its coast, his emotion to this has been entirely scripted and contrived, and now tonight he spends half of his speech pushing a climate change bill? Truly, Obama is taking advantage of this crisis. It is unethical, it is immoral, and our pathetic president is a disgrace. I am ashamed to call him the president of the United States.
Reason to Hope
Here's a good sign that America is waking up and rediscovering who we are. I checked the list of the top 100 sellers on Amazon.com and found these titles among their bestsellers:
- The Road to Serfdom; this is actually number 1 right now it's a 60-year old book by an Austrian-born economist on the errors of centralizing economic power in government.
- George Washington's Sacred Fire
- The Federalist Papers
- The 5000 Year Leap
- Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
- The Real George Washington
- Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion
- Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White
- Atlas Shrugged
- The Coming Insurrection; this one is a book about insurrectionary anarchism and hypothesized the collapse of capitalism. It describes how anti-captialism movements can gain power. It's good that Americans are reading this and becoming aware of the forces that threaten our way of life.
- Free to Choose: A personal statement; this book advocates for a free market system
- Samuel Adams: A life
- The Road to Serfdom; this is actually number 1 right now it's a 60-year old book by an Austrian-born economist on the errors of centralizing economic power in government.
- George Washington's Sacred Fire
- The Federalist Papers
- The 5000 Year Leap
- Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
- The Real George Washington
- Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion
- Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White
- Atlas Shrugged
- The Coming Insurrection; this one is a book about insurrectionary anarchism and hypothesized the collapse of capitalism. It describes how anti-captialism movements can gain power. It's good that Americans are reading this and becoming aware of the forces that threaten our way of life.
- Free to Choose: A personal statement; this book advocates for a free market system
- Samuel Adams: A life
Friday, June 11, 2010
60 Days Later
**Disclaimer - I'm not forgiving BP of any responsibility for this spill. I'm completely cool with BP paying every penny required to clean this thing up. But with that being said:
Oil has been gushing for about 60 days now. Jobs in the oil, seafood, and tourism industries have been devastated in the gulf. For most of those 60 days the administration has been trying to convince us (or themselves) that they have been on top of things "since day 1." But Obama doesn't lead. He reacts. That's why he didn't even visit the gulf coast until 45 days after the spill began; after the public uproar demanded he at least pay the place a visit. Now he's not yet met with either the CEO or the chairman of the board of BP since this whole thing started. Does that sound like a leader? In fact he recently said this about the CEO of BP when attempting to explain his reasons or having not spoken to him yet:
"When you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he's going to say all the right things to me. I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions."
Now Obama is the guy who is all about sitting down and speaking to folks like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Seriously? You don't think those guys are also going to "say all the right things?" What's the difference?
Well now that people are clamoring for some kind of action, ANY kind of action, Obama has decided to summon the chairman of BP to a meeting. 60 days later we're finally going to have a direct talk with BP executives. 60 DAYS LATER!! Again, Obama is not a leader. He has no idea how to handle this besides just reacting to criticisms laid against him.
"I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions." The irony of THAT statement coming from the mouth of THIS president, who has gotten to where he is based solely on empty words, is mind-blowing.
Oil has been gushing for about 60 days now. Jobs in the oil, seafood, and tourism industries have been devastated in the gulf. For most of those 60 days the administration has been trying to convince us (or themselves) that they have been on top of things "since day 1." But Obama doesn't lead. He reacts. That's why he didn't even visit the gulf coast until 45 days after the spill began; after the public uproar demanded he at least pay the place a visit. Now he's not yet met with either the CEO or the chairman of the board of BP since this whole thing started. Does that sound like a leader? In fact he recently said this about the CEO of BP when attempting to explain his reasons or having not spoken to him yet:
"When you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he's going to say all the right things to me. I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions."
Now Obama is the guy who is all about sitting down and speaking to folks like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Seriously? You don't think those guys are also going to "say all the right things?" What's the difference?
Well now that people are clamoring for some kind of action, ANY kind of action, Obama has decided to summon the chairman of BP to a meeting. 60 days later we're finally going to have a direct talk with BP executives. 60 DAYS LATER!! Again, Obama is not a leader. He has no idea how to handle this besides just reacting to criticisms laid against him.
"I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions." The irony of THAT statement coming from the mouth of THIS president, who has gotten to where he is based solely on empty words, is mind-blowing.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Where Are the Guys Saying This? I'll Vote for This Guy!
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth, I traveled much. I observed different countries that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves and, of course, became poorer. And on the contrary, the less that was done for them, the more they did for themselves and became richer."
That's from Ben Franklin. Oh, Ben where are you today when we are in dire need of your common sense. Most people who read this will cringe because we've been brainwashed to believe that generosity lies in expanding government, expanding welfare, and raising the minimum wage. We've come a long way from common sense and over time truth has been perverted. The more you do for most people the less they'll do for themselves. Franklin's statement is spot on. After decades of liberals trying to fight poverty by expanding our welfare state are we any better off? Is poverty in America on the decline? Is the middle-class growing?
Government will NEVER lift a man out of poverty. It will not happen. On the contrary, government largesse creates generations of slaves, ever dependent on Uncle Sam for their next check. Only the individual can raise an individual out of poverty. If you think about it in religious terms whose plan was the best - the guy who wanted to make sure that we all end with the same result or the guy who knew that the only to make it was to let us work it out for ourselves.
That's from Ben Franklin. Oh, Ben where are you today when we are in dire need of your common sense. Most people who read this will cringe because we've been brainwashed to believe that generosity lies in expanding government, expanding welfare, and raising the minimum wage. We've come a long way from common sense and over time truth has been perverted. The more you do for most people the less they'll do for themselves. Franklin's statement is spot on. After decades of liberals trying to fight poverty by expanding our welfare state are we any better off? Is poverty in America on the decline? Is the middle-class growing?
Government will NEVER lift a man out of poverty. It will not happen. On the contrary, government largesse creates generations of slaves, ever dependent on Uncle Sam for their next check. Only the individual can raise an individual out of poverty. If you think about it in religious terms whose plan was the best - the guy who wanted to make sure that we all end with the same result or the guy who knew that the only to make it was to let us work it out for ourselves.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
June 6, 1944
Today marks 66 years since the allied naval invasion of the Normandy beaches. Equally important to the overall offensive assault was the air landing of 24,000 allied troops behind the German lines. American troops suffered the highest number of casualties during the campaign with estimates in the range of 6500 killed, wounded, or MIA. The British suffered about 3000 casualties. It's also worth noting that there were between 4000-9000 German casualties. Sad that so many young German boys, with mothers who loved them, had to die for such a worthless cause.
160,000 troops landed on those French beaches on June 6, 1944, the largest naval invasion of all time. That day was a turning point in WWII with the fall of the Third Reich becoming essentially inevitable with an Allied victory. I don't think the importance of that day on the history of civilization can be overstated. There are always tipping points during a war - Gettysburg during the Civil War, Washington's famed crossing of the Delaware during our Revolution, and D-day during WWII. An allied victory may have meant the difference between continued hope for liberty in Europe and beyond and victory for tyranny and fascism.
I can't comprehend the fear that must have consumed every thought of every soldier on those boats that were destined for battle. What bravery they must have possessed as they willfully stepped into the water and began to be peppered by much higher caliber German gunners! What an awful scene must have developed as they advanced up the beach. But what a legacy they left for us and for future generations of Americans. And what an example of bravery and loyalty to freedom and right. Here's a quote from General Eisenhower when he issued the D-day orders.
"You will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world. Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped, and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely....The free men of the world are marching together to victory. I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory. Good luck, and let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking."
Today I honor and remember the brave American, British, Canadian, and French boys who did the unthinkable and, in the process, saved the world from the unadulterated evil of Hitler and Mussolini. May we never forget what they died defending, for if we do their deaths are in vain.
160,000 troops landed on those French beaches on June 6, 1944, the largest naval invasion of all time. That day was a turning point in WWII with the fall of the Third Reich becoming essentially inevitable with an Allied victory. I don't think the importance of that day on the history of civilization can be overstated. There are always tipping points during a war - Gettysburg during the Civil War, Washington's famed crossing of the Delaware during our Revolution, and D-day during WWII. An allied victory may have meant the difference between continued hope for liberty in Europe and beyond and victory for tyranny and fascism.
I can't comprehend the fear that must have consumed every thought of every soldier on those boats that were destined for battle. What bravery they must have possessed as they willfully stepped into the water and began to be peppered by much higher caliber German gunners! What an awful scene must have developed as they advanced up the beach. But what a legacy they left for us and for future generations of Americans. And what an example of bravery and loyalty to freedom and right. Here's a quote from General Eisenhower when he issued the D-day orders.
"You will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world. Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped, and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely....The free men of the world are marching together to victory. I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory. Good luck, and let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking."
Today I honor and remember the brave American, British, Canadian, and French boys who did the unthinkable and, in the process, saved the world from the unadulterated evil of Hitler and Mussolini. May we never forget what they died defending, for if we do their deaths are in vain.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Hillary Doesn't Know History...or Economics
A few days ago Hillary Clinton sat at the Brookings Institute and spoke on our new National [In]Security Policy. While doing so, she branched into domestic politics and said the following:
"The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] — whether it's individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms."
Now this is a very populist statement. It wins votes for your political party because most people don't consider themselves wealthy and they hear a statement like this and they think 'yeah, that's right! Government is on my side! It's those wealthy people hoarding all their money and not helping out us poor folk.' Most people will avoid the inconvenient fact that 50% of Americans pay no tax or that the wealthiest 1% of pay 39% of all taxes (the wealthiest 25% pay 84% of taxes). Hillary thinks that's not their fair share. If Hillary would read history she would discover what happens when you continue to increase tax rates on the wealthy.
Turn back the clock to the early 1920s. Do you want to know why the roaring '20s became the roaring '20s. Prior to 1920 Woodrow Wilson was president and his administration hit the wealthy with tax rate increase after tax rate increase with the result that with each rate increase the government actually collected fewer tax dollars from the wealthy. So when Warren Harding was elected he ordered his treasury secretary to commission a study looking into why that was happening. The findings aren't surprising. With each tax rate increase the wealthy sent their money into investments overseas where it wasn't taxed as highly. So between 1921 and 1926 Harding dropped the tax rate on the wealthy from 73% to 25% while lowering the rate on the poorest taxpayers from 4% to 1.5%. The result? The tax take from the wealthy TRIPLED! And the poorest taxpayers paid less. And the national debt fell by 33% and America saw unprecedented economic growth during the 1920s. Hmm. That's interesting isn't it? So, you're saying that lowering tax rates on the wealthy actually brings in MORE tax dollars from the wealthy? Yes. Because they'll start investing in America again.
Not a popular thing, though, for a politician to stand up and say 'hey, we need to lower taxes on the wealthy.' Actually, lowering taxes on everybody (yes, *gasp* even the wealthy) makes perfect sense. The wealthy are the ones running business. They are the job creators. Government talks about tax penalties for companies that take their jobs overseas. Well, what needs to happen is the government needs to realize that they have created a tax environment where it is much cheaper for business to do business in China or the Phillipines. Why doesn't government realize that lowering tax rates here, in America, would be an incentive for businesses to stay here. Well, that would require common sense and government has none of that. And it would also require our leaders to know American history and we see in Hillary's example that this is simply not the case.
"The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] — whether it's individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms."
Now this is a very populist statement. It wins votes for your political party because most people don't consider themselves wealthy and they hear a statement like this and they think 'yeah, that's right! Government is on my side! It's those wealthy people hoarding all their money and not helping out us poor folk.' Most people will avoid the inconvenient fact that 50% of Americans pay no tax or that the wealthiest 1% of pay 39% of all taxes (the wealthiest 25% pay 84% of taxes). Hillary thinks that's not their fair share. If Hillary would read history she would discover what happens when you continue to increase tax rates on the wealthy.
Turn back the clock to the early 1920s. Do you want to know why the roaring '20s became the roaring '20s. Prior to 1920 Woodrow Wilson was president and his administration hit the wealthy with tax rate increase after tax rate increase with the result that with each rate increase the government actually collected fewer tax dollars from the wealthy. So when Warren Harding was elected he ordered his treasury secretary to commission a study looking into why that was happening. The findings aren't surprising. With each tax rate increase the wealthy sent their money into investments overseas where it wasn't taxed as highly. So between 1921 and 1926 Harding dropped the tax rate on the wealthy from 73% to 25% while lowering the rate on the poorest taxpayers from 4% to 1.5%. The result? The tax take from the wealthy TRIPLED! And the poorest taxpayers paid less. And the national debt fell by 33% and America saw unprecedented economic growth during the 1920s. Hmm. That's interesting isn't it? So, you're saying that lowering tax rates on the wealthy actually brings in MORE tax dollars from the wealthy? Yes. Because they'll start investing in America again.
Not a popular thing, though, for a politician to stand up and say 'hey, we need to lower taxes on the wealthy.' Actually, lowering taxes on everybody (yes, *gasp* even the wealthy) makes perfect sense. The wealthy are the ones running business. They are the job creators. Government talks about tax penalties for companies that take their jobs overseas. Well, what needs to happen is the government needs to realize that they have created a tax environment where it is much cheaper for business to do business in China or the Phillipines. Why doesn't government realize that lowering tax rates here, in America, would be an incentive for businesses to stay here. Well, that would require common sense and government has none of that. And it would also require our leaders to know American history and we see in Hillary's example that this is simply not the case.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Making Good on Promises of Transparency
Remember how we all cheered when, during the presidential campaign, Senator Obama promised to lead the most transparent administration ever? Well, I knew it was a lie but more naive and gullible people believed it and got all teary-eyed that, at long last, a true American leader had arrived. Suckers!
How's this for transparency - Obama has not held a White House press conference since July 22, 2009 as reported both by the Huffington Post (a liberal-leaning news source) and ABC News. He held 5 full conferences in the first six months of his term. That's right, it's been nearly a YEAR since he stood in the press room and took questions from the press. Now, if all transparency means to you is that the White House keep putting out well-crafted and scripted statements then I guess you would be okay with it. After all, Obama has been making lots of statements but, in the weirdest interpretation of the word "transparency" he has not actually shown the nerve to go off his teleprompter that's always attched to his hip to take questions from the press which is supposed to represent the people. I can imagine that the press have lots and lots of questions on the things that have been happening since last July. The Arizona law, the oil spill, the decision to put 1200 US troops on the Mexican border, the wars that we're fighting. The list of things that we're wondering about goes on and on and no, Mr. President, a tailored-to-your-agenda statement or speech will not suffice. Is this what you call presidential? Is this the mark of a good leader? A man who won't face the press and take questions? Several weeks ago Obama signed the Freedom of the Press Act and then promptly refused to take questions on anything. The irony there is too sweet and very telling.
I can understand why the president would want to stay on a very focused message without having that nagging press asking him hard questions. See, in a startling coincidence July 22, 2009 was just two days before Obama's approval rating sank below 50%. He started with an approval rating of 65% at the time of his inauguration. By late July he was below 50%. He now sits between 42-45%. Currently, only 23% strongly approve while 43% strongly disapprove. It seems this president is afraid of having to go off-prompter in front of the press. He might actually say what he's really thinking instead of what his speech writers tell him to say. And then, the man behind the curtain would finally be reavealed for all to see.
How's this for transparency - Obama has not held a White House press conference since July 22, 2009 as reported both by the Huffington Post (a liberal-leaning news source) and ABC News. He held 5 full conferences in the first six months of his term. That's right, it's been nearly a YEAR since he stood in the press room and took questions from the press. Now, if all transparency means to you is that the White House keep putting out well-crafted and scripted statements then I guess you would be okay with it. After all, Obama has been making lots of statements but, in the weirdest interpretation of the word "transparency" he has not actually shown the nerve to go off his teleprompter that's always attched to his hip to take questions from the press which is supposed to represent the people. I can imagine that the press have lots and lots of questions on the things that have been happening since last July. The Arizona law, the oil spill, the decision to put 1200 US troops on the Mexican border, the wars that we're fighting. The list of things that we're wondering about goes on and on and no, Mr. President, a tailored-to-your-agenda statement or speech will not suffice. Is this what you call presidential? Is this the mark of a good leader? A man who won't face the press and take questions? Several weeks ago Obama signed the Freedom of the Press Act and then promptly refused to take questions on anything. The irony there is too sweet and very telling.
I can understand why the president would want to stay on a very focused message without having that nagging press asking him hard questions. See, in a startling coincidence July 22, 2009 was just two days before Obama's approval rating sank below 50%. He started with an approval rating of 65% at the time of his inauguration. By late July he was below 50%. He now sits between 42-45%. Currently, only 23% strongly approve while 43% strongly disapprove. It seems this president is afraid of having to go off-prompter in front of the press. He might actually say what he's really thinking instead of what his speech writers tell him to say. And then, the man behind the curtain would finally be reavealed for all to see.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
A Culture of Dependence and Entitlement
America is sick. Our government is sick. Our people are sick. Did I mention that our government is sick? Our disease is a sense of entitlement and the notion that we can (and should) depend on the government for our basic needs. I like Mitt Romney. I'm not sure he's going to have an easy job playing the part of a true conservative in 2012 given his history with mandating health insurance as governor of Massachusetts, but I like him well enough to consider voting for him. He didn't give great speeches as a candidate in 2008. They always came off too polished, too manufactured. His one moment of greatness unfortunately came too late. In his withdrawal address he spoke from the heart and said things that a candidate would not be able to get away with. He summed up America's cultural sickness this way:
"The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960’s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug—we have got to fight it like the poison it is!"
Dependecy is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. I love that line. I think the social welfare programs that are currently in place in this country were most likely initiated with pure intentions - help the poor. But what was intended as a hand-UP has become a hand-OUT. As government found that it can control votes and voters by promising more and more freebies the programs ballooned into the out of control state that they are currently in. This is not a good thing. These programs are addictive to too many people. They are drugs. They destroy self-respect, they destroy the will to work and provide for yourself and they destroy the culture of a once-great nation. A nation that valued work. A nation that permitted failure because we understand that failure made you stronger. A nation that understood personal responsibility. Now I'm not opposed to the idea of welfare and WIC and medicaid and food stamps. I'm really not. I don't want congress to completely deep six these programs. I think there is a role for government in seeing to the basic needs of our poorest citizens. But it's out of control people. The systems are abused. There are food stamp recruiters for heaven's sake encouraging people to apply who, although not wealthy by any means, are getting by on their own. And now we've got Nancy Pelosi saying this in speaking about the recently passed health care bill:
"We see it as an entrepeneurial bill. A bill that says to someone if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care."
This is Nancy Pelosi!! This is the leader of the United States House of Representatives?! This woman, God help us, is third in succession to take over the presidency if something awful happened to President Obama and VP Biden! This is one of the most politically powerful women in the world and she's telling you to quit your job and focus on your creative passion, it's okay, we'll take care of you. (Ammon, you might want in on this. Nancy Pelosi is willing to pay your way while you write your novel.) I'm disgusted at where our country is. Her words disgrace the men and women who worked their tails off to make this country great. The men who came home from WWII and worked to make this country soar out of miserable debt are dishonored by what Pelosi is saying here. In fact, what Pelosi is saying here is about as un-American a thing as I have ever heard. Quit your job and focus on what you really love and we'll take care of you! Quit producing for this country and let us shoulder the weight! These are our leaders? I don't know which emotion this makes me feel more: sadness or anger.
And this is why we have a generation of Americans who feel they are entitled to everything from the government. It's because we have a government that has been telling Americans for an entire generation that we should be able to have everything that we need and that they will provide it.
I love working. I love my job. I love contributing. I love producing. I love paying my own bills with my own money. I love paying my private health insurance premium with my own money. I love paying for my own food with my own money. I love taking my car to the mechanic and paying for the repair. I love paying my own energy bills. I love paying my own phone bills. I love it. I love it. I love it. Herein lies true liberty. This is true freedom. I know that there are people who can't do all of that on their own. I might be right back in that position again someday who knows. For those people I'm glad there's a fail-safe in the government if necessary and I don't mind contributing to it. I think government programs should always be the last resort. Always the last resort, but I'm glad they are there. But America had better wake up and realize that we are degenerating into a culture that doesn't value work. A culture that doesn't see a need to put forth the effort because there's a government telling you they will take care of you.
Now if you'll excuse me I've got to go tell St. Jude that I'm quitting to focus on my lifelong dream of being a big league baseball player. I hope you don't mind picking up the bill for my family's health care. Thanks. I appreciate it.
"The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960’s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug—we have got to fight it like the poison it is!"
Dependecy is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. I love that line. I think the social welfare programs that are currently in place in this country were most likely initiated with pure intentions - help the poor. But what was intended as a hand-UP has become a hand-OUT. As government found that it can control votes and voters by promising more and more freebies the programs ballooned into the out of control state that they are currently in. This is not a good thing. These programs are addictive to too many people. They are drugs. They destroy self-respect, they destroy the will to work and provide for yourself and they destroy the culture of a once-great nation. A nation that valued work. A nation that permitted failure because we understand that failure made you stronger. A nation that understood personal responsibility. Now I'm not opposed to the idea of welfare and WIC and medicaid and food stamps. I'm really not. I don't want congress to completely deep six these programs. I think there is a role for government in seeing to the basic needs of our poorest citizens. But it's out of control people. The systems are abused. There are food stamp recruiters for heaven's sake encouraging people to apply who, although not wealthy by any means, are getting by on their own. And now we've got Nancy Pelosi saying this in speaking about the recently passed health care bill:
"We see it as an entrepeneurial bill. A bill that says to someone if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care."
This is Nancy Pelosi!! This is the leader of the United States House of Representatives?! This woman, God help us, is third in succession to take over the presidency if something awful happened to President Obama and VP Biden! This is one of the most politically powerful women in the world and she's telling you to quit your job and focus on your creative passion, it's okay, we'll take care of you. (Ammon, you might want in on this. Nancy Pelosi is willing to pay your way while you write your novel.) I'm disgusted at where our country is. Her words disgrace the men and women who worked their tails off to make this country great. The men who came home from WWII and worked to make this country soar out of miserable debt are dishonored by what Pelosi is saying here. In fact, what Pelosi is saying here is about as un-American a thing as I have ever heard. Quit your job and focus on what you really love and we'll take care of you! Quit producing for this country and let us shoulder the weight! These are our leaders? I don't know which emotion this makes me feel more: sadness or anger.
And this is why we have a generation of Americans who feel they are entitled to everything from the government. It's because we have a government that has been telling Americans for an entire generation that we should be able to have everything that we need and that they will provide it.
I love working. I love my job. I love contributing. I love producing. I love paying my own bills with my own money. I love paying my private health insurance premium with my own money. I love paying for my own food with my own money. I love taking my car to the mechanic and paying for the repair. I love paying my own energy bills. I love paying my own phone bills. I love it. I love it. I love it. Herein lies true liberty. This is true freedom. I know that there are people who can't do all of that on their own. I might be right back in that position again someday who knows. For those people I'm glad there's a fail-safe in the government if necessary and I don't mind contributing to it. I think government programs should always be the last resort. Always the last resort, but I'm glad they are there. But America had better wake up and realize that we are degenerating into a culture that doesn't value work. A culture that doesn't see a need to put forth the effort because there's a government telling you they will take care of you.
Now if you'll excuse me I've got to go tell St. Jude that I'm quitting to focus on my lifelong dream of being a big league baseball player. I hope you don't mind picking up the bill for my family's health care. Thanks. I appreciate it.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Supreme Drama
President Obama announced his choice for the individual who he would like to see in the vacant seat on the US Supreme Court. It's 50-year old Elena Kagan. Here's my early take on it. I'm sure she'll be confirmed after a proper and politicized confirmation process. The Republicans don't have enough senate votes to block the nomination even if they wanted to. They do have enough votes to filibuster an up or down vote but I doubt they will find it wise or necessary to do so. Really though this nomination won't change the make-up of the court at all. Kagan is likely a liberal individual with a political ideology that sits well with the president. Supreme court justices shouldn't be political but we all know that in high profile cases you can always predict how the individual justices will rule. Barack in the president so I do not begrudge him the opportunity of choosing a nominee with a liberal bent. We actually don't know if Kagan has a strong liberal bent but we will know in the coming days. Further, she replaces a liberal justice so if she does turn out to be liberal (99% chance that will be the case) it's not like she's turning the court further left. The court will remain quite moderate. Thankfully.
My one concern with Kagan so far is that she has never been a judge. She's never judged a single case. Thus, she has virtually no paper trail by which the senators can determine how she would come down on potentially hot issues. They've got nothing by which to judge how she would interpret the constitution. That will be a hurdle in her confirmation process but she should end up being nominated fairly quickly. After all, what other choice would you expect from a president who really did all he could to leave as small a voting record as possible during his time in the senate. Just looking at Kagan's resume she appears to be an intelligent, successful individual who knows law. What sort of a judge will she be? It makes me a little nervous to think that the first case ever judged in the career of a Supreme Court Justice will be a Supreme Court case. To put it in terms of baseball - as a manager, would you send somebody that's never swung a bat to the plate in the bottom of the ninth with your team down?
Surely there will be more to come on this topic in the next few weeks as we learn who Elena Kagan is.
My one concern with Kagan so far is that she has never been a judge. She's never judged a single case. Thus, she has virtually no paper trail by which the senators can determine how she would come down on potentially hot issues. They've got nothing by which to judge how she would interpret the constitution. That will be a hurdle in her confirmation process but she should end up being nominated fairly quickly. After all, what other choice would you expect from a president who really did all he could to leave as small a voting record as possible during his time in the senate. Just looking at Kagan's resume she appears to be an intelligent, successful individual who knows law. What sort of a judge will she be? It makes me a little nervous to think that the first case ever judged in the career of a Supreme Court Justice will be a Supreme Court case. To put it in terms of baseball - as a manager, would you send somebody that's never swung a bat to the plate in the bottom of the ninth with your team down?
Surely there will be more to come on this topic in the next few weeks as we learn who Elena Kagan is.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Can We Keep It?
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1789, as Benjamin Franklin was emerging from the modest structure we now call Independence Hall, a man apparently approached Franklin and asked him ‘Well, Dr. Franklin, what have you given us, a republic or a tyranny?’ Franklin, supposedly responded ‘a republic – if you can keep it.’ The implication is clear – a representative republic is much easier to squander than it is to establish. If you look at The Federalist Papers you will become aware that the founding fathers were keenly aware of the failed republics of the past. I think I’ve come up with a major reason why America is in the state that it is currently in, guided by an overly large, inefficient, even corrupt federal government. I want to connect two statements to illustrate my point, one made over 200 years ago by our 2nd president, John Adams, and the other made not even a year ago by a high-ranking authority in my church, Elder D. Todd Christofferson. One disclaimer though, I don’t want anybody to believe, or think that I believe, that Elder Christofferson’s remark is aimed at the current administration. I think he was making a broad statement about human society in general, but the comment is especially relevant to America’s current direction. So here are the quotes:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
“…self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to main-
tain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control
by individuals breeds external control by governments."
"Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions, and moral
values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police
and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense
for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate
behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we have become."
"More and stronger regulations may dissuade some from unprincipled
conduct, but others will simply get more creative in their circum-
vention. Their could never be enough rules so finely crafted to
anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, en-
forcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This
approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone. We would not
accept the yoke of Christ so we must now tremble under the yoke
of Caesar." - D. Todd Christofferson
Is there any better explanation for where we are right now in this country? What did John Adams mean when he said that our Constitution is only good for a religious/moral people? Well, take a look at the US Constitution, at just over 4000 words long it is only 2.5% the length of the EU constitution. It was purposely devised to greatly limit the power and scope of federal government. There is great wisdom there. I think our system of government (as it was intended, not as it has been administered over the last 15 years)is the greatest form of government to ensure individual success and liberty. However, the founders took a great risk because a nation whose government has only minimal influence over its citizens depends almost entirely upon its people to govern themselves. Unless we will be governed internally by the age-old principles of loyalty, honesty, charity, kindness, obedience, trustworthiness, and reverence we will be compelled by external forces.
Whereas a limited government, with all its accompanying personal liberties, is the natural result of a society which is restrained by these principles, a bloated, inefficient government and one that threatens the free exercise of agency is the natural result of a people who refuse to control themselves.
I’m not advocating that we strip the government of any semblance of strength. The authors of The Federalist Papers were also clear on the need for a strong central government. Strong, but limited. After all, from efficiency comes strength and efficiency does not stem from an overly large and complex governmental structure. The health care law alone will establish over 100 new federal boards and commissions. Do you really think this is going to make health care more efficient (ie - cost-effective) than what we have now? I guarantee it won’t. But I digress.
Government does not like to give up its newly acquired powers. While the vocal protests against the Patriot Act have quieted down, those who opposed it have now risen to power in government and rather than rolling it back or repealing it entirely, it has been expanded. You see, they grow fond of the control now that it is in THEIR hands. No, government will rarely relinquish the sweet morsels of liberty that it manages to extract from its citizens. We must be careful not to forfeit our powers into the hands of government for we will never have them returned. A society that is too comfortable giving up its liberties is ripe for the picking because it takes just one overly ambitious leader to use those powers for evil. We must be ever vigilant. Vigilant against a government that craves influence and vigilant against our own tendencies away from the principles I listed above. If not, we end up being governed by compulsion because that is all we are fit for.
So can we keep it? This republic that is so fragile? Of course we can because, at its core, America is a good country. A just country. A merciful country, civil and decent; aware of the need for self-control and self-responsibility. We were founded on thrift, humility, modesty (if we could just recapture those last two I think we would be okay). These are the principles that lead a people to liberty and they are the principles that will help us recapture our country. The answer is us.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
“…self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to main-
tain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control
by individuals breeds external control by governments."
"Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions, and moral
values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police
and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense
for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate
behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we have become."
"More and stronger regulations may dissuade some from unprincipled
conduct, but others will simply get more creative in their circum-
vention. Their could never be enough rules so finely crafted to
anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, en-
forcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This
approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone. We would not
accept the yoke of Christ so we must now tremble under the yoke
of Caesar." - D. Todd Christofferson
Is there any better explanation for where we are right now in this country? What did John Adams mean when he said that our Constitution is only good for a religious/moral people? Well, take a look at the US Constitution, at just over 4000 words long it is only 2.5% the length of the EU constitution. It was purposely devised to greatly limit the power and scope of federal government. There is great wisdom there. I think our system of government (as it was intended, not as it has been administered over the last 15 years)is the greatest form of government to ensure individual success and liberty. However, the founders took a great risk because a nation whose government has only minimal influence over its citizens depends almost entirely upon its people to govern themselves. Unless we will be governed internally by the age-old principles of loyalty, honesty, charity, kindness, obedience, trustworthiness, and reverence we will be compelled by external forces.
Whereas a limited government, with all its accompanying personal liberties, is the natural result of a society which is restrained by these principles, a bloated, inefficient government and one that threatens the free exercise of agency is the natural result of a people who refuse to control themselves.
I’m not advocating that we strip the government of any semblance of strength. The authors of The Federalist Papers were also clear on the need for a strong central government. Strong, but limited. After all, from efficiency comes strength and efficiency does not stem from an overly large and complex governmental structure. The health care law alone will establish over 100 new federal boards and commissions. Do you really think this is going to make health care more efficient (ie - cost-effective) than what we have now? I guarantee it won’t. But I digress.
Government does not like to give up its newly acquired powers. While the vocal protests against the Patriot Act have quieted down, those who opposed it have now risen to power in government and rather than rolling it back or repealing it entirely, it has been expanded. You see, they grow fond of the control now that it is in THEIR hands. No, government will rarely relinquish the sweet morsels of liberty that it manages to extract from its citizens. We must be careful not to forfeit our powers into the hands of government for we will never have them returned. A society that is too comfortable giving up its liberties is ripe for the picking because it takes just one overly ambitious leader to use those powers for evil. We must be ever vigilant. Vigilant against a government that craves influence and vigilant against our own tendencies away from the principles I listed above. If not, we end up being governed by compulsion because that is all we are fit for.
So can we keep it? This republic that is so fragile? Of course we can because, at its core, America is a good country. A just country. A merciful country, civil and decent; aware of the need for self-control and self-responsibility. We were founded on thrift, humility, modesty (if we could just recapture those last two I think we would be okay). These are the principles that lead a people to liberty and they are the principles that will help us recapture our country. The answer is us.
Friday, April 23, 2010
I've Finally Done It
I've been tossing the idea around of starting this blog for months. A good friend of mine has been on me about doing this and I guess I've finally given in. I'm passionate about my country so, because I have a real job and a great family, it will be a feat of extraordinary self-control to not spend an excessive amount of time researching things that I'm interested in and feel need to be discussed on here.
In this forum I want to take advantage of blogging technology to discuss the issues that are facing our nation. Let me just briefly explain the viewpoint that I'm coming from. I love the men who founded the United States. I believe they were inspired by God to establish the form of government which they instituted. I believe that the system which they established is the form of earthly government most conducive to the exercise of free will, the system most conducive to prosperity and enlightenment. And I believe that we have strayed far from the wise principles espoused by the likes of Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Samuel Adams, John Adams, etc. I believe that the primary cause for our apostasy, if you will, is a lack of character in our elected officials which stems from a lack of character and a corruption of the American people as a whole. So I guess the way back is by returning to the character traits that guided our founders during the birth of the nation.
I'm not starting this blog because I want to be the go-to guy. I don't know half of what I should about the founding of America. Nor do I have anywhere close to the time that it takes to do in-depth research on the events that are currently on-going in our government. However, what I do know is that our government currently is not guided by principle. At least, not the AMERICAN principles of personal responsibility, hard work, liberty anchored by a sense of duty, and capitalism. These ideals helped to make America great and they will restore her to her greatness when practiced again. So share this blog with your friends and invited them to join the discussion. I welcome all viewpoints because what good is it for me to share opinions with a bunch of people who agree with me. All I ask is that the discussion is civil, taking each point as it comes and no painting with broad strokes.
But leading into the next post I'd like to ask one question: Does it matter to you who our elected leaders' have gained their world-view from? Or does it only matter what they are saying now?
In this forum I want to take advantage of blogging technology to discuss the issues that are facing our nation. Let me just briefly explain the viewpoint that I'm coming from. I love the men who founded the United States. I believe they were inspired by God to establish the form of government which they instituted. I believe that the system which they established is the form of earthly government most conducive to the exercise of free will, the system most conducive to prosperity and enlightenment. And I believe that we have strayed far from the wise principles espoused by the likes of Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Samuel Adams, John Adams, etc. I believe that the primary cause for our apostasy, if you will, is a lack of character in our elected officials which stems from a lack of character and a corruption of the American people as a whole. So I guess the way back is by returning to the character traits that guided our founders during the birth of the nation.
I'm not starting this blog because I want to be the go-to guy. I don't know half of what I should about the founding of America. Nor do I have anywhere close to the time that it takes to do in-depth research on the events that are currently on-going in our government. However, what I do know is that our government currently is not guided by principle. At least, not the AMERICAN principles of personal responsibility, hard work, liberty anchored by a sense of duty, and capitalism. These ideals helped to make America great and they will restore her to her greatness when practiced again. So share this blog with your friends and invited them to join the discussion. I welcome all viewpoints because what good is it for me to share opinions with a bunch of people who agree with me. All I ask is that the discussion is civil, taking each point as it comes and no painting with broad strokes.
But leading into the next post I'd like to ask one question: Does it matter to you who our elected leaders' have gained their world-view from? Or does it only matter what they are saying now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)