For Shame, Congress

Alright folks, we're coming up on an election year...it's time to begin thinking about the issues. I'm not saying you have to be passionate about politics or be consumed by every issue, but you need to be informed.

Just before the Christmas break, a $555-BILLION spending bill was passed. A bulk of that was for unrestricted billions in the war on terror...unrestricted meaning that no one is accountable for how those funds are spent.

The war is a whole other topic for another day, but staying on the spending bill...also included in the spending bill are the so-called earmarks for congress' pet projects. Do you realize that within this spending bill are things like a $700,000 bike trail in Minnesota, $10,000,000 for attorney's fees for illegal immigrants, money for studying some insect in France, and to include my own hometown, $3.6 million for sewer repairs in Indiana.

Just to spell it out a little more, the spending bills are the obvious part...the things that the government spends money on. But remember, the money they are spending is ours...our tax money that is.

I don't know about you, but I sure as heck don't want my tax dollars being spent on a bike trail, or to pay for lawyers for illegal immigrants....and I'm sure you don't want your tax dollars being spent on sewer repairs in Indiana.

This could be an important issue. While the Democratic candidates are finding ways to spend more taxpayer money, there are at least two Republican hopefuls that would like to do away with the IRS altogether. To be fair, some of the Democratic issues are noble, but I have to be honest, I don't want the federal government running any kind of healthcare.

The two Republican hopefuls I am speaking of are Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. I believe Mitt Romney would like to do the same kind of things as Mike Huckabee, but I wouldn't swear to it. Huckabee wants to replace income tax with a national flat consumption tax on certain items. These items are not yet spelled out, and Huckabee believes that he could run the flat tax in the range of 20 - 25 percent.

Ron Paul wants to merely demolish the IRS, period. He doesn't think that there needs to be any consumption tax to make up for the loss of federal revenue.

I like both ideas for different reasons. Ron Paul's idea would go back to the Founding Fathers, whom didn't mandate any kind of income tax, and would count on tarrifs to raise money for federal needs. This would clearly eliminate the pork spending of congress, and allow for states to institute higher taxes to pay for state-specific projects. Then each state can decide and vote on what to build with tax payer funds. The questions that arise for me is how much income would we actually get through tarriffs? I could see getting enough to pay for national defense...but would there be enough for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade? Eventually those institutions would need to be overhauled anyway, but we can't just leave a generation of retirees without income they were promised.

On the Huckabee side, I think that a consumption tax would reach a class of people that have skirted paying taxes for years. I also think it would increase personal savings, as people would see 20 or 25 percent taxes on things and try to be more thrifty.

I don't necessarily see a negative side to Huckabee's proposal, other than it's not Ron Paul's idea...keep the federal government out of our money. At the end of the day, while Huckabee's proposal would decrease spending, it may not stop the ear-marking altogether, whereas Ron Paul's idea would. I'm a big fan of giving more control to the states, particularly on issues such as spending. Let Minnesota's governor try to convince tax payers that $700,000 would make them happier or heathier or increase tourism or whatever a $700,000 bike trail would do...just don't make me pay for it...I live in Indiana for crying out loud and never plan on moving to Minnesota.

So to me, it seems like an easy enough issue to get behind. Keep everyone's tax dollars within the state they live. Perhaps there will need to be some tweaking done, but wouldn't everyone like to pay less taxes and at least get to see what their tax dollars is going for?

Happy Holidays from The Mad Hoosier...

I did a post a couple years back when the "war on Christmas" was at it's height. It was worded a little more strongly, but I think the overall theme I was trying to convey is still appropriate.

I've always preferred Happy Holidays over Merry Christmas. I used to work at Toys R Us and said "Happy Holidays" before some retail stores mandated the greeting. Even before I worked retail...for me, it was merely the best way to greet or wish someone well that encompassed the weeks worth of holidays. It wasn't a conscious effort to be politically correct or anything; I still used Merry Christmas on occasion, but more often than not after someone wished me Merry Christmas first.

As I wish you all Happy Holidays, my hope for everyone is that, even if you aren't Christian, you take a second and look at the intention behind someone wishing who may wish you "Merry Christmas". The overwhelming majority of the time, it is merely a well-intentioned, kind-hearted greeting during this time of year, and not an indoctrination attempt.

I truly wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season and hope that everyone gets to enjoy their time with their family and celebrate the season in their own way.

Happy Holidays!

From,
The Mad Hoosier

Book Recommendation

I've heard that if you read three books on a topic, you can be considered an expert on the subject. That is one of the most powerful things I've ever heard, and it's what caused me to start my way to becoming a reader. I never used to read...I used to hate reading...probably because I was a slow reader. As a matter of fact, up until two years ago, I've only read two books cover to cover. One was a Sylvia Browne book, and the other was an economics book for a grad school class.

I still read rather slowly, but I no longer let it me stop me from reading. I still don't read as much as I'd like to, and I didn't reach my goal/New Year's resolution this year of a book a month, but I've read three cover to cover, and half of about three other books. One I'm in the middle of currently, and I'll return to the others eventually.

It's the one that I'm currently in the middle of that I can already recommend. It's called Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters by Meg Meeker, M.D. It's a guide as to how to raise your daughter in this world to keep her from being harmed by society. I'd say it's a must read for any father, particularly new fathers.

It had me, as I'm sure it would have many other fathers, hooked in the first three pages. The most profound is that this doctor, through years of study in her own practice and research, states how the father is the most important person in any girls life...whether that be for the better or worse.

It's definitely a book that I'll want to keep handy throughout the years.

What's Your Favorite Christmas Song/Artist/Music?

Time to take a break from politics again...that stuff can get pretty dreary...so what kind of Christmas Music do you like? Or what's your favorite song or type of music?

Me, I'm more of a traditionalist. I like more traditional, old-school songs, and I prefer the deep baritone voices. My favorite artist is Robert Goulet, and his album, which may be his only Christmas album, Wonderful World of Christmas is my favorite. My favorite song on that album is On This Noel, which isn't exactly some well-known traditional song, but you'd think it was the way he sings it.

I do like some of Johnny Mathis' work, despite his higher voice. I also like Burl Ives...the Home Alone soundtrack...and despite my resistance to pop artists singing Christmas songs, I like Martina McBride's Christmas songs.

My favorite Christmas song is Carol of Bells. I prefer the vocal versions to the instrumentals, but David Foster does a pretty good instrumental version of it. So what about you? Surely you have same favorite songs/artists/music?

I just don't understand hate...

Sure, I'm mostly non-confrontational, aside from the blip in bravery that the anonymity of the internet provides. I'm trying to minimize that effect, however, as I want this blog to represent how I really am.

So I've been off for a week now, and I've had a chance to watch some shows on the History channel, news stories, 20/20's, etc, all the way up to the events that happened this weekend at Colorado churches. I just can't comprehend the kind of hate and vileness that must be in some people to do the things they do and say the things they say.

It reached a boiling when I visited a website of a program that I don't believe dabbles in hate. I've spoke on here about the show before, the Glenn Beck show. Only I went to his own homepage and was dabbling around his merchandise section, when something caught my eye. Hate U (as in Hate University).

My first reaction was shock...then I took it as sarcasm...then I went back to why. Why on earth would he even put something like that on his website, even in sarcasm?

I did a little more research and found out that it was created out of sarcasm. Geraldo Rivera referred to Glenn as a breeder of hate, which prompted him to create the Hate U line. As I did a little more research, on his own homepage, there is a link showing all of the bad emails he gets. And by bad, I do mean Hate Mail.

I could only read a few at the top of the page and a few at the bottom of the page. How anyone can send letters such as this is beyond me, and how anyone can stand to receive letters like this without becoming jaded quickly...well, I'm not sure it's possible.

I still like Glenn...I don't find him a breeder of hate at all. He's harsh at times, and like anyone on radio/tv these days he can get overly descriptive when speaking about those that have vastly opposing views from him, but I don't think he crosses the line, and I don't hear that venomous tone from him that I hear from others when he speaks of those on "the other side".

Even in my own Adsense down to the side...Barack Obama Exposed...what is that? There's even a website out there called Michelle Malkin is an Idiot. Michelle Malkin is a right wing commentator/blogger, and definitely venomous in her own right, but how does reciprocating that hate by creating a blog aimed at defaming her help?

Like I said, I just don't comprehend it. Perhaps it's just age and having kids that has changed me some, but I still can't recall, even in my youth, ever truly hating someone. I hope it can change...I pray that it does change, but I fear that the hate will only spread and get worse. I will continue to do my part...keep praying, speak out and teach my kids about the ugliness of hate, and always try to remain positive, both in person and under the veil of anonymity that is the web.

Senators stalling the Clean Energy Act of 2007?

Recently a bill passed in the House of Representatives that would begin working on the environment. It didn't pass by a huge margin, but it passed. It was the Clean Energy Act of 2007. I don't understand why it didn't pass by more, since it seems overwhelming that Americans want to improve the environment, but at least it passed.

I don't fully understand the intricacies of this bill, but it seems to be about removing subsidies for oil/energy companies, requiring a 15% investment in renewable energy, and raising the efficiency of automobiles. Again, I'm sure that's not all encompassing, but that's some of the major points of the legislation.

I don't know why the bill isn't making it through the Senate, but an article in the local newspaper stated that opponents believe that somehow it could raise energy prices in areas where...get this...solar and wind technologies aren't feasible.

I won't even begin to preach my opinion on global warming...but at the very least I don't think anyone wants the earth to be worse off...but if you want see how your representative voted, and find ways to contact your Senators demand action one way or the other, make sure to check out Vote-Smart.org.

Calling all Atheists...

I don't understand you. I don't disrespect you, though the quite oversimplified version, that I'm about ready to post about, of what I understand an Atheist to be may seem disrespectful, but I just don't understand what you're about.

I don't pity you, or pray for you to find God, as that would demean your existence...something I don't wish to do...I just don't get it. I just went over to atheists.org to try to get an understanding of your point of view, and none of it made much sense. That is to say, I didn't get a clear picture of what an atheist is. There was a huge biography on the founder of this particular group of atheists, and there was a lot of describing themselves through what they aren't.

But defining yourselves, or summing up your belief, by saying what you aren't doesn't really help me understand you. I understand that your beliefs have been attacked by believers for a long time, but does it really help to use terms like never-never land, or theology being limited thinking? Now I don't mean to offend if this particular website doesn't represent all views of atheists, and I don't mean to lump everyone together by saying "you" when referencing the points this website makes. Perhaps atheists don't care if it helps by using those terms and wording...but I would think that a basic desire of a human is to be understood on some level, with life-style/belief-system being on the forefront of things you'd like others to understand about them.

So here's my oversimplified view of what atheists are...they believe solely in evolution, from the beginning. Now I believe that all living things evolve and adapt, but my belief is that a God initially created the solar-systems and all life in them.

My question is, do atheists seek to test their belief-system from time to time, or do they take their belief-system on faith? Do they even believe in the concept of faith? If they do, do they believe that something like having faith that their favorite sports team will win the big game can be equated to a larger form of faith?

My question is, yes I have a few, if atheists do believe in evolution, how do they believe that life began? I can only assume something like the big bang theory since they don't believe in any kind of universal creator. And if you do believe in the big bang theory, can you explain what happened after the big bang? How did life in it's simplist form decide that it needed to procreate if someone or something didn't ingrain that into their structure?

Again, perhaps Atheists don't care about such things. Perhaps they have their belief, they think it's right, and they never question why they think that. I know that I've questioned my beliefs often, but I keep coming back to the Lord. I see to many little miracles that can't all be explained as coincidences...and I keep coming back to the notion that someone, something, somewhere had to program organisms with the desire to reproduce...something a big bang couldn't thrust upon any organism.

So if you don't care what others think of your belief system, please don't take my search for knowledge as any kind of mockery. If you do wish to let others know about the belief of atheism, by all means, share. I vow that I won't allow bashing...just sharing of beliefs and explaining of why one believes that way.

Back to politics (Ron Paul)

I watched 20/20 last night, primarily because of the part about the Missouri girl that committed suicide after the parents of a classmate created a fake MySpace account to entice her. But at the end of the program, as I did end up watching it all, there was John Stossel talking about an interview he did with Ron Paul. He directed everyone to abcnews.com to see the interview. Yearning to see if there was more I could find out about the Ron Paul enigma, I checked it out...watched some of the clips, since the hour long interview will conveniently be played out over the span of a week, and then began to look over the 169 comments that had landed there since airing last night.

I only made it through a few of them when I had enough. Enough of the Ron Paul supporters bashing the naysayers...enough of the naysayers...enough of the obliviousness. Oblivious to the fact that Ron Paul, himself, can not fix this nation even if he were elected. And on a quick side note, George Stephanopoulos' comment directly to Ron Paul that he had "No Chance" of winning the Republican's nomination was pretentious, rude, and disrespectful. His place is supposed to be as a reporter, not as an opinionater.

But I digress...back to the obliviousness. It's not completely true that if Ron Paul were elected that he could do nothing by himself. The president does oversee all foreign affairs and can typically act without approval from Congress in that capacity. So his idea to pull troops not only out of Iraq but out of the Middle East would certainly have an effect on the nation. Whether that would be good or not, I haven't formulated an opinion yet.

But the other things he speaks of...smaller government, less spending, more freedom's...almost none of that can be done without the approval of Congress. Sure, he can veto spending bills and speak out on drugs, prostitution, and abortion not being federal issues. But it's Congress that makes the laws...not the president. So we can't look solely to the president to fix this country, if you are one of the ones that believes it's broken.

Unfortunately, it seems evident that Congress can't, or won't, act unless WE MAKE THEM. We The People. Yes, it does take work on our part. Our representatives do just that, represent us. We should not give our power to them blindly and not expect many of them to eventually act in their own self-interest.

At our own work, we are expected to give our best performance every day. We need to actively, not passively, demand that from those that represent us in this great country. There is a website that I have found tremendous...vote-smart.org. It is non-partisian, provides you with voting records of our Congressmen and Congresswomen, provides you with commentary that may be helpful in undersanding your representative, and even provides websites for the representatives where you may be able to email your representatives. You should definitely check it out...drop your representative a line, and let him or her know you are now actively keeping track of how well you are being represented.

Leaving a Legacy...

I typically don't get this personal, but this, too, is really bothering me, and I need some way of relieving the inner turmoil that it causes me. I feel that I have a good grasp on trying to be the best person I can be, not only for myself, but for my kids too. Even if all I amount to is second rate jobs for the rest of my life, I want it to be obvious to my kids that I love them and I have some qualities that they can look up to.

Extrapolating from that notion, I want to do the best I possibly can to teach my kids everything I can. Not just tell them, but to teach them and to show them the circumstances, events, and thoughts that made me the man they know.

I've never been particularly close to my father. My parents were divorced when I was going into third grade. I saw my dad twice a year growing up. I adored him. I always cried and cried the night after he dropped us off...particularly in the summer when I spent an entire month with him. I'm sure, in one sense, it tore my mother apart to see me miss him so.

Even then, he had to work when I would visit, so much of the time I'd either stay home alone or be dropped off at the YMCA for the afternoon. We'd have fun too, of course, but never in the sense where I really got to know him.

It was a few years ago, shortly after my grandfather passed away(his father) and shortly after my first daughter was born, that I realized that I didn't know my grandfather or my father very well, and I really wanted to. I started out first trying to have conversations about what my grandfather's thoughts were on things such as Muhammad Ali or other prominent, if not controversial, sports figures. But that quickly waned for a variety of reasons.

Then, for a New Years' resolution, I vowed to call my father weekly to learn something new about him. That lasted for about two weeks...again for a variety of reasons. I see him far less often now than I used to, and speak to him rarely. He seems to open up more when I speak to him on the phone...a fact that I used as an excuse to further let our "relationship" erode.

Then, I was given Hope. My newfound interest in politics(just the knowledge of at this point - not entering the arena) had sparked my desire to ask my father for his views on voting over the Thanksgiving holiday. It was the best conversation in years...even if all I did was mostly listen. It's all I wanted to do really...just soak up my father's viewpoints, whether I agreed or not.

Then, Hope was knocked down again. I know he's busy with work and taken care of his ailing mother that lives with him, but I called him at work to announce the birth of his grandson, and his secretary treated me like another client. He still hasn't called back to issue congratulations, or find out about his grandson, or how the family is doing.

I just currently feel at a loss...like something's missing...like some part of me is missing. I feel guilty saying that, because I have a great wife, two great daughters, and a new son...all who love me dearly. My mom adores me just as much as I adore her, but still...something's missing. How does a thirty-something year old man tell his father that he needs him, needs his advice, his companionship, needs him to pass his legacy on to his son? How??

Wrong Numbers

Taking a break from politics and encouraging people to vote, I had something happen today that is still making my blood boil. It's been a while since I've let something get to me this much, and I don't know why this is bothering me so much. Perhaps it's the underlying circumstance that brought me to this situation.

What situation? The obsession that people have with knowing who called them. Some may remember that I work in a hotel, so on any given weekend I have a half dozen calls from people saying, "Yeah...someone just called me from this number." I won't go into the semantics of even the depth of conversations I have with these people while explaining on why I can't help them, but I just don't understand why people are so hung up on finding out who called them. Before all of this technology with Caller ID, Voice Mail, and Cell Phones, no one was obsessed with who called them. In fact, it was an irritation to have been called accidentally...especially if you were expecting someone elses call.

You'd think, with everyone supposedly so busy as they are, they'd have better things to do than to obsess with every single call they get and/or miss. Any time I get a call from a number I don't recognize, I simply don't answer it. If it is someone I know, or if it was important enough, they will leave a voice mail. If not, I assume they have called a wrong number and will recognize that quickly enough once they get to my voice mail.

So the specific incident that has me all worked up today is I called an old friend today...or tried to. No one answered, and the call went over to voice mail...kinda(I actually got a recording saying that this person hasn't set up their voice mail yet). But before I hung up, I got an incoming call from the person I was calling. My initial thought was that maybe he got a new phone or something, thus the reason for me getting that voice mail message, and that he was just calling back. When I answered the phone, a voice on the other end was saying "I've got to figure out who this f*@#er is."

Slightly taken aback, because I quickly had a thought that my friend, who does cuss, may have been joking around with me since I hadn't talked to him in a long time, I again repeated, "Hello." I hadn't recognized the voice, as it was faint, but I thought it could have been him. But when I was met with a "Who's this?" I realized that it wasn't my friend, so I asked for him by his full name. The fellow on the other end of the line said I must have had the wrong number. I promptly apologized and then told him that there is no need to cuss at someone who merely accidentally called the wrong number. I didn't wait around for a response, as by this point I was rather mad.

I still don't know if I was more mad at the interaction with this gentleman, or at myself for not knowing that this friend of mine no longer had this phone number. I understand that he could have been having a bad day or something, and I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but I think I still would have posted this man's name if I had been able to find it. There's no reason to treat people like that simply because they made the mistake of staying out of touch with his friend long enough that he didn't have the most recent cell phone number for him.

Huckabee's Leading??

According to recent polls, which I just recently denounced and still hold that stance, Mike Huckabee has a lead in the race for the Iowa primary, spending over $6,000,000 less than Mitt Romney. That's over Six MILLION dollars less, folks. That's maximizing resources.

I like Mike Huckabee, so this is good news, to the extent that I trust Polls, that is...which I don't. I kinda like Romney too...and Ron Paul's beginning to grow on me, now that I've heard other stories about the $4,500,000 that he raised on a single day.

In other words, my mind's still open. But I'm excited to see that someone that supposedly had no chance, according to many in the media, could now have a lead in the first primary vote.

I still urge everyone not to be complacent. If you like Huckabee, get out there and continue to support him. If you like Romney, don't let the possible sway in contention change your mind on whether or not to vote...or who to vote for. If you happen to like someone else, such as Ron Paul, don't give up. Get out there, become informed and inform others, and vote in your heart. If whom you vote for in the primary doesn't make it, that's ok. You did your part...your responsibility...to further the political process and to keep it pure.

I'll have more ideas for people once some candidates begin to drop out of the race, regardless of who they are. Stay strong...it's up to We The People.

Torn between candidates (Ron Paul)

I find myself in the position that I think most people find themselves in. It's the position that typically keeps people from voting altogether...I don't like everything about one candidate yet, but I like certain things about most of the candidates.

The part I'm torn about currently is what most people believe that Ron Paul stands for, isolationism. Many thinks that he wants to withdraw troops from every country in the world, cut off ties to all other countries, and basically curl up into a little ball within ourselves and only focus on our country. I don't think that's what he really believes, if fact, I'm certain that's not exactly what he believes, but he never gets a chance to fully explain his point of view on why he thinks we should withdraw troops from the war as well as military bases around the world.

I think this is a topic we need more discussion on, rather than scoffing at Ron Paul and dismissing the idea altogether. I'll admit, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue right now...I can see both sides of the issue.

On one hand, we believe that Democracy should be the way throughout all the world. Our freedom is so special that we believe it is our responsibility to spread it to other countries. We take the view point of it is our responsibility as the world's superpower to stand up for those that can't stand up for themselves, and when a people are being oppressed, we take it upon ourselves, at times, to go in and "free" the people.

I can certainly see that...this country is so blessed with our freedoms, and we merely want others to experience the same blessings that we enjoy.

But if we look at it from the other point of view...people think America stands up on it's moral high horse, trying to make everyone like them, like they think they know what's best for us.

It's not that they don't think democracy is good, it's that they don't want to be forced into it. And when they see our military bases in foreign countries, they look at it as being occupied, not completely free to live their life the way they want to.

If I think about it...would we want China, or Russia, or Japan, or anyone to open up a military base in the United States? Hell no! I'd be pissed if China decided that they wanted to protect their monetary investment they have in the United States (which is significant) by having a military base here.

So why are we surprised that people don't like it when we "occupy" their country? Oh I understand that we don't view it as "occupying", but would we consider it a form of "occupying" if it was the former scenario where China had a military base in the United States to protect their monetary investment??

So where do you stand? Pull out the troops from other countries, as well as Iraq, so that the rest of the world likes us? Pull out the troops because as the moral leaders in the world, we know we wouldn't want other countries having military bases in our country? Or, leave the troops, because we have to protect ourselves by not allowing other countries that hate us, via the previously described, self-fulfilling prophecy, to arm themselves and potentially come to attack us? Or, take a different view on morality, believe that we owe it to the rest of the world to spread our democracy throughout, and that "occupying" a country is merely a by-product of helping a country get on it's feet?

It's not quite as easy as all that, of course, but if you think that much of the rest of the world hates the United States merely because we are a wealthy nation, you don't have much reflective prowess. At a first glance, many people love the United States. We give monetary aid throughout the world. Citizens see what we have, they want what we have, and I don't think they covet what we have (meaning that they want us not to have it, for clarification).

Such is the deliemma that I struggle with. If the scenario about China "occupying" us were true, and then they decided to just close their base and withdraw their troops...would we immediately trust them? Would it make things easier, knowing that we have control of our own country again?

These are things we need to think about, that we need to demand that our Representatives, Senators, and President, think about and give answers on. And then we need to VOTE for whom we believe will lead us safely into the future, with our dignity, morality, and conscious in tact.