Liberals, Where Are You???

If you are a liberal, or liberal-leaning person and you haven't publicaly condemned President Obama for the address he is going to make to school kids in a few hours...go ahead and push yourself away from the computer, get into your car, drive to the nearest tattoo parlor, and brand yourself with the word "Hypocrite" somewhere on your body. I prefer the forehead, or at least some place visible.

Why? You know why.

Because if you can sit there and say that you wouldn't be up in arms if President Bush, or if McCain had won Vice-President Palin, were going to address school lids, you're lying and you're fooling yourself into believing that you have some modicum of fairness in your body.

So...if you are a liberal and have concerns about a politician giving a speech to elementary school kids, or if you have taken a step back and realized that you'd be mortified if George Bush or Sarah Palin were going to address elementary school kids...then kudos...you're consistent.

Let's say we leave politics out of the hands of 8-year-olds, hmmm? Any address to school kids is over the line, even the seemingly large scaled back version the President plans to deliver. Let parents be responsible for teaching their kids the importance of a good education. And for goodness sake, let's NOT tell them that their education will dictate the future of our country. Aren't they under enough pressure and stress as it is? Let's let kids be kids. Let them learn...and worry about duty to country when the mature.

Arrogance...

Arrogance is the reason given by people throughout the world for their disdain of the United States. Nevermind our kindness in rushing aid to war torn countries, aid to earthquake ravaged nations, aid to diseased continents, aid to the very countries that hate us. It's our arrogance that people focus on.

It's our "Arrogance" that our President is trying to change in the eyes of the rest of the world.

The greatest country in the history of the world, the shimmering city on the hill, the country that all others look to emulate......there's reason for a certain amount of "arrogance" as long as we remain true to our humble origins as displayed in our overwhelming generosity throughout this country.

Yet it's our Arrogance that remains, despite extreme measures taken to change outward appearances, that will be our downfall.

For we believe that because we are the United States, things that fail miserably fail elsewhere will easily succeed here. Universal Health Care is a travesty in Canada and England. High court justices in those countries agree that while there is universal coverage, there is NOT access. Canadians have to wait 4 months the even see a specialist doctor!! The British stack patients in Emergency Rooms so much so that Ambulances sometimes wait for hours just to offload a patient!!!

But noooo....we'll be able to do it, no problem, right? Nevermind that those countries function partially because they have the United States to be the one innovate in the health care field. There's no innovation in Universal Health Care countries. Are we planning on farming out medical innovation to India now too???

Government run transportation...or more specifically the automotive industry. Has anyone seen a Russian made car? Everyone in that country must have someone in the family who is a mechanic to even keep their cars on the road. Their cars are like something out of the 1970's. There's no technology. There's no safety standards. It's the government that's making the cars, they don't need safety standards the safety is implied, right?

Cap and Trade?? Seriously?? It's a joke in Europe. They've used it for years. The system is corrupt and it has done nothing to affect global warming...even temperatures throughout Europe. But someone our Cap and Trade is going to work? Somehow this tax, which is what it really is...it's a tax on companies who create energy who will then pass that tax on to their consumers...isn't going to filter it's way down to us and raise our expenses???

Does our government really think that these proven and time tested systems...proven to fail...are suddenly going to start working just because it's the United States?????

The answer is...Yes...yes they do. Because they are too out of touch with reality...too Arrogant...to think otherwise.

Taxed Enough Already parties...

I'm not sure if anyone heard about the Tea Parties held throughout the country yesterday or not, but it's interesting to see how some covered the events.

In our local area, we got two very different perspectives on the Tea Party that happened in Evansville. One local affiliate referred to them specifically as Taxed Enough Already parties, as if the TEA was an acronym. They even referred to one demonstration as being specifically about local taxes being raised in Owensboro to pay for a downtown revitalization project.

I can't speak about the Owensboro demonstration specifically, nor any other Tea Parties throughout the USA specifically, but the real overarching complaint is about big government and limitless spending. Certainly those will lead to much greater taxes down the road, but that's not the overall complaint of yesterday's movement was about. Most understood that, just like a doctor needs to stop bleeding before he can operate, our country needs to stop the spending before worring about growing taxes.

The fact that they were called Tea Parties simply refers to a large demonstration protesting a grievance, just as the original Tea Party was protesting the grievance of Taxation without representation. Referring to the Tea Parties as Taxed Enough Parties is about like saying that I'm going to Kansas City to watch the game on the Nothing But Chiefs affiliate channel.

Sure, it's neat to make a sign with a message using the letters of another word or phrase, but it's not actually the name of the event.

So I'm not sure if this local affiliate is clueless, didn't do their homework, or is misleading the people with their reporting.

Another network affiliate was more on the mark, interviewing people that referred to the out of control spending and noting that this isn't about one party, reminding people that the spending craze started with President Bush and continues to this day.

It even went to the office of our Congressman, Brad Ellsworth, who displayed similar cluelessness as that of the other affiliate when asked about his view on the matter.

He suggested that the people at these parties needed to be more specific, and that not all spending could be cut. He did, admit that there is some wasteful spending in Washington...of course he forgot to mention that he voted in favor of EVERY ONE of those spending measures. And of course, his gem of, "I'm not a fan of tea. I'm more of a Diet Mt. Dew drinker, so if they want to bring those to my office, I'd be more appreciative of it."

Brilliant. A politician who thinks that massive amounts of tea bags delivered to his office is to quench his thirst.

Who are these alien life forms working in Washington????!!!!

Does the Law of Biogenesis prove Creationism?

That's a great question, but I'm not pondering that deeply at this point. What I'm interested in is if the Law of Biogenesis aids in proving that abortion is murder. Believe it or not, I heard this from Kathy Ireland, of all people, and it is a rock solid arguement.

At the moment of conception, DNA, the genetic blueprint of human life, is there. The sex of the unborn child is determined at conception. Blood type is determined at conception.

People arguing against life beginning at conception will say it's just a clump of cells...that it's not really a baby yet. But as Mrs. Ireland asked, aren't we all just clumps of cells?

You and I are clumps of cells. We look like what adult humans are supposed to look like. At conception, that "clump of cells" looks like what humans are supposed to look like after conception. We know it is life because it continually grows and changes.

But why do we scientifically know it's human? Because of the Law of Biogenesis, which states that all life comes from preexisting life and that each species reproduces only its own kind or type.

Now some argue that if, scientifically, all life comes from preexisting life, then there must have been a Creator to create the first life. But again, I've not explored my thoughts on that enough here.

My concern is as it relates to abortion. If, according to the scientific Law of Biogenesis, all life comes from preexisting life, and each species only produces its own kind, and things such as DNA, Blood type, and sex are determined at conception...then it sounds absolutely reasonable that aborting anything after conception, which by scientific law is human, is murder of a human.

Again, the argument that if it is done early enough it's ok because it is just a "clump of cells" that doesn't even look like a human just doesn't hold water. Just as a fetus doesn't look like an infant and an infant doesn't look like a teenager and a teenager doesn't look like a senior...they all look exactly how they are supposed to look at that particular stage of development.

Neither does the argument that it can't live and breathe on it's own hold water. A newborn can't take care of itself either, aside from breathing. It can't feed itself, bathe itself, etc. It's dependent...just as all humans are from the moment of conception, scientifically speaking of course, until they can venture out into the world on their own. Even then humans are largely dependent on others for much of their life, and indeed even into death.

A Better Understanding Of Our Founding...

As I study more and more on the Founding Fathers and the founding of our country, it becomes increasingly obvious that we are woefully and almost neglectfully mistaught/undertaught about this great country.

It's blatantly clear, by merely reading our Founding Father's words, that they firmly believed that this experiment called democracy would only work if we were a moral and virtuous people based on religious values. They believed that our unalienable rights came from God, not from men.

They believed, and I now see how true this is, that we would begin to wain once we began electing immoral leaders.

But what I currently find fascinating, is their vision of far right versus far left. It's no where near our current vision of conservative versus liberals. Their far right was Anarchy (No Law) and their far left was Tyranny (Ruler's Law). And in the middle, was how we were founded...on People's Law.

Interestingly enough, our first national constitution, The Articles of Confederation was too far right. It was clear, in 1787, that things were beginning to come apart quickly for this country. Each state was vastly different from the next, and the too thinly composed national government was borderline no government at all....aka near Anarchy.

So the Constitutional Convention of 1787, convened, and new laws were debated. When the convention was over, our new historical document was created.

But what the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 knew, is that they couldn't go too far left...they couldn't approach Tyranny's Ruler's Law.

So the brilliant part of our new Constitution, and what most people currently misunderstand about the rights given to govern us in this great nation, is the Bill or Rights, our first 10 Amendments, were promises given to the States, by our newly forming national government foundation.

The States were the first consideration of our new government, not the individual peoples....because our nation is a respecter of laws, not a respecter of people. The newly proposed federal government, which had to be ratified by each of the States, were making a promise to the States that they wouldn't restrict speech, or tell a State what it's recognized religion must be. It was promising the States that once tried of a crime, that the national government wouldn't terrorize the citizens of the States by trying them again and again.

This was the brilliance of our founding. Our founders realized that the minimal role a government played in our lives, the better. They understood that the national government should play the most minimal role in citizens lives, and that only small doses of increasing influence and power should be given to the States, then slightly more to municipals, and slightly more to townships, leaving the vast majority of power and freedom at the Family and then Individual's hands.

It seems rather clear, that this country is now far left, based on our founding perspective. The power ladder described above is nearly flipped upside down...with less power and influence in our own hands, and the national government running our lives. No, we're not living in completely Tyrannical times, obviously. But ask yourself if our Founding Fathers, who created a document with promises to the States that it wouldn't infringe on it's rights to govern it's peoples, would even remotely recognize the government structure we have today.

Who Are You, Congressman Ellsworth?!?

I wonder if you remember who you are, Congressman Ellsworth. Former Vanderburgh County Sherrif. One who upholds laws. One who looks out for people. One who protects people. Not certain people...all people.

Yet, with a vote of Yea, you have either gone against all that you once stood for, or shown what you really stand for.

With one action, you supported the decision that it was ok for the government to single out a group of people for retribution.

With one action, you stood by idly, thereby condoning the fact that it is ok to threaten not just the lives of a single group of people, but their husbands, their wives, their children....and not just with the threat of monetary harm, but physical harm.

For if you try to argue that it couldn't be foreseen that physical harm would come to the families of AIG members who received bonuses, whom Congressman Frank and Attorney General Andrew Quomo demanded be made known, then you are not mentally fit to hold the office you current hold.

Anyone who has the ability to look one mere step into the future can easily and reasonably predict that harm would befall those AIG bonus recipients once their names are made public.

And anyone...ANYONE...who participates in the active or benign actions of allowing that to happen is a complete and utter shame....and completely unworthy of representing the people of this great nation.

Shame on you, Congressman Ellsworth, for your yes vote last week, allowing for 90% taxes on past money earned! Shame on you for not being a leader that one expects from a former Vanderburgh County Sherrif and begging, nay admonishing your colleagues for propagating enough anger to want to cause harm to these innocent citizens! Shame on you for not upholding your previous swarn duty to protect the people....regardless of creed of affluency! Shame on you, Congressman Ellsworth!!!

Then again, perhaps you have no shame.

Timothy Geithner...

I'm rather torn about this man. I think there's lots of things he could be doing better. And it certainly says something about him, the administration, and the job he faces, that he can't get a single secretary hired to work for him in over 2 months...five people have bowed out after initially being interested in working with Treasury Secretary Geithner.

But let's be clear: Timothy Geithner should NOT be fired or resign, based on two months of work. Calls for or speculation to the contrary are misguided, at best.

Remember, this was "the best man for the job". Who else is there????

Ok, some may say their 5th grader can give better speeches than the man, with less of a deer-in-the-headlights look than the "best man" in the nation to be Treasury Secretary. Some may say that he's a tax cheat. Some may say he's a gambler and that we can't afford to gamble with taxpayer money.

Well those are the exact same reasons that I felt he shouldn't be Treasure Secretary in the first place. But since not enough other people cared to call their Senators back then and demand that he not be confirmed, we are stuck with him. And let's be serious, it's not like he's going to go out and pursue policies that are opposite President Obama. This is the exact kind of change we called for, right? Right???

No? Are you sure you didn't mandate a complete 180 degree shift in our country's future when you voted for Barack Obama??? Didn't you get the memo? Cause that's how he and the rest of the liberals in Washington took it in November.

I digress.

Whether or not I agree with Timothy Geithner or his mere presence in the office of the Treasury, he must be allowed to have a reasonable amount of time, in this large of an undertaking, to perform. Can that exact amount of time be all it takes to send this country onto a course it will never recover from? Possibly. But that's the risk we took with President Obama.

If we're concerned, the first line of questions we need to be asking is why the administration can't get the man some help! Why are all those people bowing out before even being offered a job??? Are they all tax cheats? Do none of them want to be part of a strategy that could bankrupt the country?? What? What is the problem up there folks? Does the need to be on Jay Leno supersede the need to get the most important, and unelected, department in the country fully staffed during this "country's greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression"? Not my words...President Obama's words.

So if your thinking Timothy Geithner should get the ax...just stop. Instead, first stand up and demand the man get some help for crying out loud. Then demand for more transparency from the most powerful and unelected department in government. And then...then if there are things that frighten you...then you can call for change...but first call for change in policy...before a change in leadership.

A Serious Conversation About AIG (and others)...

All I've heard recently is how outraged everyone is about AIG paying bonuses or Northern Trust having big parties featuring Sheryl Crow and such. Let's understand something here; I'm no fan of AIG, but are we really asking a business to stop acting like a business here? Is anyone asking Government to stop acting like government during this crisis??

The argument here is that it is taxpayer money that is being used, so the companies should be restricted on how they use the money. Wait a second. You mean you want a company that "acted irresponsibly" to the point of bankruptcy to suddenly begin to act responsibly?? Would that be like asking a government that looked the other way leading up to the biggest financial crisis in a generation to suddenly make sure that everything is on the up-and-up? Meanwhile appointee after appointee has tax issues, the finance and banking committees have no idea what happened with the first half of the first bailout, otherwise known as TARP, and the President is saying exactly what he excoriated John McCain for saying 6 months ago, when the economy was much better than it is now. Outrageous!

So let's be clear about AIG, and how it got to where it is today, or at least where it was, before the taxpayers gave them $180 Billion and 80% ownership in the failing company. It was making risky investments. Highly risky investments. But so was the entire lineup of Wall Street. If your competitors are making money and profits hand over fist in the derivative market, and you don't get into that market, your company is going to suffer in the eyes of investors and Wall Street. That doesn't make it right, it makes it a business...which the main purpose of is to make profits.

It's almost like the reverse of a gas pricing war. I'm sure you've experienced that in your town at one point or another. One gas station wants to own the market. To do that, they must put other gas stations out of business...which is to say, lower their prices so much that all the customers come to them instead of competitors. Well, the competitors, at least one of them, doesn't want to go out of business, so they lower their prices to match...and the war is on. They keep lowering their prices against each other, trying to get more customers and put the other company out of business, so that when they are the only gas station in the area, they can recoup the losses by raising their prices back, and then some.

So if AIG's competitors are making insane profits by investing in some exotic derivative market, they'd be in trouble if they didn't do the same thing because no one would want to invest in a company who isn't making money.

The problem is, just as with a gas pricing war, eventually you reach the point of no return. All the companies need to come to their senses at the same time, or face bankruptcy. That, or someone has to be willing to lose customers(investors) and profits in the short term hoping that the other company that acted irresponsibly will have to go out of business due to incompetence and they can eventually get the customers and profits back.

Unfortunately, that takes a long term vision, and by design, many companies don't think in the long term, particularly when they don't fully see the riskiness of the short term profits or when they are getting pounded by competition.

So if you give companies that are acting irresponsibly and haven't felt the pain of consequences of lack of vision free money, do you really think they are going to change their ways? If you give an alcoholic, who hasn't said they will stop drinking or hit rock bottom, a thousand dollars, are they suddenly not going to go buy alcohol??

The correct answer is, NO. So you don't give companies free money....you don't give an alcoholic a thousand dollars...you let them fail...for their own good. That's just common sense!

Will it hurt? Of course. Will it possibly hurt innocent people? Quite possibly. But at least you aren't flushing money down the toilet. At least you have something to work with if and when the lessons of failure are learned.

So please...spare me the feigned outrage over AIG paying bonuses to executives. That's what companies do. And if you aren't competent enough to restrict those kind of actions as a contingency to giving out free money...well, then your the United States Government...an incompetent body who has no understanding of how business is run and has very little common sense.

Did you know that the US Taxpayer isn't even 1st in line to recoup money if one of these bailout companies still fails?????? Congress didn't even put the taxpayer at the front of the line when giving companies bailout money! That's outrageous!!

The Lies of an Atheist's Agruement : A Hypothesis

This hypothesis is something I'm still working on...I've admittedly got more reading to do on this, but I've got to start somewhere, so why not start by writing down my beginning hypothesis.

This isn't about whether or not you believe in God...your personal belief or lack thereof isn't my business, or it certainly isn't my place to critize that stance. This is about many Atheist's arguement of why religion is bad or wrong. It really comes down to one thing, personal responsibility, but we'll get to that in a moment.

What we first need to realize is that the United States of America is the first nation in the history of the world to live under freedom. All other nations before ours were ruled...they may have been benevolent rule for a time, but ruled nonetheless. It's true that the Romans dabbled in the idea of a republic at times and also had a branch of their government that was quite democratic as well, but the existance and influence of an emperor made their freedoms much less than our own. There were also the American Indians and other tribes throughout history, but they were never really a nations but really a collection of various tribes.

Next we need to realize how we arrived at our nation being free. What kept the foundation of our country from being yet another monarchy? The answer to that, of course, is God. Our founders made it blatently clear that our freedoms are given to us by our Creator. No man or group of men gives us these rights of freedom....if men were capable of such power, wouldn't they have discovered freedom before the creation of this country?

Our Founding Father, George Washington, said in his fairwell address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Did you get that? Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that morality can prevail without religion.

So why is that? Why would morailty erode without religion? Why would morality fade without time tested principles, etched into our souls, unyielding or wavering to the whims of a changing massive collective to decide??

Because men(and women) are flawed. Men are weak. Men are corrupt....because men seek power. And that is the huge hole in an Atheist's arguement. Not the arguement for being an Atheist...but the arguement that religion is bad...or the cause for all bad things in our world.

I don't know if it's a recruiting tool, or a talking point, or just an arguement used to make people less grounded in their convictions feel guilty...but it's a lie to say that religion is the cause for wars and mass casualties...or it may be just naivety or even the inability to apply reason to arguements beyond the absolute proof of the existance of God. Maybe they are being used by liberal professors and don't even realize it. In any case, it's just plain wrong to blame religion for the world's woes.

Unfortunately too many are beginning to buy into it, if you happen to believe recent polls, and the truth needs to be aired.

The truth is, that just like the adage that guns don't kill people, people kill people; religion doesn't wage wars...religion doesn't kill people...people wage wars...people kill people. Religion just is. There may be different opinions within religion...Christians believe that Christ died for our sins, Muslims believe Muhammad is the prophet of Allah, but neither religion tells it's followers to kill others in the name of their god.

We aren't talking about extremists here, we're talking about the basic teachings of religion...which boils down to: do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. You'll not find a religion that doesn't beleive that tennent.

When that universal law isn't followed, it's not religion's fault, it's the fault of the individual. Just as universally and undeniably true: when wars are waged, it's not religions fault, it's the fault of the leader of the nation and/of movement. Those leaders may try to use religion as their basis for war...but again...religion does not teach such things.

Religion is coming under fire. There's a law that was nearly proposed in Connecticut this week that would strip the Catholic Church of control over it's operations and forced it to reorganize. It's nowhere in the mainstream media, otherwise I would have linked the story here.

The rights to practice religion must be preserved. Hold fast...and don't let those who would blame religion for the world's woes go unchallenged. They are filled with nothing but lies and feeble arguements. Don't Believe, if that's what you want. That's fine...but don't trash religion in the process.

Again, our founding fathers believed that religion was supremely important for our country to survive in it's free state. They even wanted it to be taught in school, at least on a basic level. Benjamin Franklin wrote to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, when trying to determine what should be taught about religion, saying:
"Here is my creed.
I believe in one God, the creator of the universe.
That he governs by his providence.
That he ought to be worshipped.
That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children.
That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.
These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them."

Global Warming Hits A Speed Bump??

Yes folks, the vast right-wing conspiracy group, The Discovery Channel, has an article that is yet another sign that man-made Global Warming is a farce.

"...according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades."

The article goes on to say that the earth's climate quote, "continues to confound scientists." Furthermore, it goes on to say that this us hasn't been seen since the 1950s. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one."

Of course, not to alieniate global warming alarmists, the article finishes with a nice doomday scenario, stating that after the current cooling trendm which could possibly last another 30 years, we will then certainly "have explosive warming." The articled hypothesized that, "thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."

Nice. They have no explaination for the current cooling...that it could last for 3 decades...then boom, it's the second coming of Atlantis.

And then there's the Japanese Energy Commission, who issued a report last month where one of the authors compared the current climate modeling procedeures to Ancient Astrology. Three of this commission's scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.

One of the commissioner's argued that, "We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis." He continued with this train fo thought, stating that "before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth. The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."

Cap and Trade?? Based on a hypothesis that is yet to be proven, driven by politicians who refuse to listen to open dissent?!

Cap and Trade will effect each and every one of us...unless you are off the grid and run your home's electricity off solar and wind. Energy companies WILL raise our prices. That, or the government will take them over and our taxes WILL be raised...in which case, on of off the grid, you'll be affected.

Me, a regluar joe, was able to do a little research on the internet, find out about the life cycle of CO2, look up a chart comparing CO2 and temperature fluctuations, and based upon common sense was able to deduce that it's, at minimum, very plausable that CO2 is a lagging indicator, rather than any kind of leading indicator of temerature changes. If I can do that and write about it in an hour or two, the debate can't be settled.

Again, folks, we should be cognizant of how we treat our planet. But we have to be weary of politicians who use scare tactics to seize power to control aspects of our lives.

Corporate Taxes...

Let's be serious about corporate taxes. America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. The world! That's outrageous. But even more outrageous is the argument that, "Well, it's not really that high, because companies exploit the loopholes, so it's really much lower than that."

Really?

With 17,000 pages of tax code, do you really think there are loads of loopholes being exploited each year? At best, those loopholes are the "gray areas" that aren't perfectly explained. Some are willing to gamble on those gray areas...probably those such as Wal-Mart, General Electric, Exxon Mobile...the kind that can pay an attorney to handle their affairs if they are audited.

But the majority of businesses in this country are small businesses. In fact, Small Businesses represent over 95% of our economy. Most of these people are good, hardworking, honest people. They don't have the time or inclination to play fast and loose with the "gray areas". There are some selfish and greedy businesses, for certain, that will gamble, take risks, and press their luck with the "gray areas" of the tax code. But those people don't represent the majority of businesses, by far.

So when you hear someone say that America's extremely high corporate tax rate isn't real, that it's much lower due to exploits...don't be afraid to punch holes in their argument. They will eventually fall back to the GEs and Wal-Marts as the example...and if they think that it's ok for the majority of small businesses to be taxed higher because Wal-Mart can afford to skirt the rules, then your talking to someone that likely doesn't believe in capitalism, which as my previous post explained, is not failing.

Lower taxes are the key, and enforcement for those who skirt the laws. Or we could just do the simple, and probably smartest, thing and move to the Fair Tax or a flat tax.

Don't Believe it, and Don't Let Them Wear You Down. Be A Guardian of Liberty.

The Government, meaning the President all the way down to the Representatives, is trying to wear you down...trying to make you submit...to give up and let them make all the decisions without our input. Don't Let Them.

When they speak of Capitalism being the problem, or the economy being too complicated for you to understand, or there being no problem with deficit spending. Don't believe it. Lies. Dirty rotten lies!

Capitalism is not the problem...it is not at fault...at least the truest form of capitalism. We haven't run on true capitalism for some time now, but for the bulk of the past century it has been close enough to the truest form of capitalism. Capitalism is not a belief, it's not an ideology...it just is. It's a system. A system proven to work over the bulk of the past 200 years. Yet some would try to make you believe it's suddenly broken. Hogwash!

The problem is not capitalism...it's people. Think of capitalism as the vehicle of the economy. Vehicles don't kill people...people driving the vehicle do. Likewise Capitalism isn't the problem, the natural emotion of humans known as greed is the problem. We can't prevent greed, we can only monitor it to keep it in check.

Another statement used to blunt your complaints is that the economy is way too difficult for you to understand. Those who say that are trying to dull your senses...trying to make you feel dumb. Certainly the US economy is multi-faceted, multi-layered, and even complicated...but not too complicated for you to follow. The same principles that you use to govern your own personal monetary policy still hold true in the larger picture of the US economy. Those principles are even the driving force of the economy, with the multi-faceted, multi-layered, complicated additions figuring in, to a lesser degree.

The economy still needs to earn more than it spends. It needs to save for an emergency, it needs to maintain only a reasonable amount of debt, and it needs to prevent one specific aspect of the budget from representing too large of a percentage of the overall obligations. When it doesn't, things go bad....just like if you spend more than you make, or if your debt is more than the value of your assets, or if your house payment is 40% of your income. Murphy's law is universal...it just takes more time to reach some than others.

You know in your heart, that deficit spending doesn't work. You're always chasing the unattainable. You can't spend your way out of things without changing your habits, right? You know those people who were on the verge of bankruptcy. They though, "If I can just make more money." Then they get a higher paying job, begin to get caught up, only to buy a house boat 6 months later and put themselves in the exact same predicament of being on the verge of bankruptcy.

IT DOESN'T WORK!!! You have to change your habits that got you there in the first place, not keep doing what you've been doing, only to the nth degree.

They'll tell you that all the economists agree, ignoring the hundreds that take out newspaper ads saying they disagree. They'll tell you that they had to do something, ignoring the fact that it didn't work in the Great Depression. Did you know that FDR's Treasury Secretary(I believe that's who it was...someone very close to him) admitted that all their spending didn't work???

You know we're this close to another depression. Nationalizing the banks isn't the answer. A huge government database of our health records isn't the answer.

Don't let them tell you otherwise. Don't let them wear you down. Don't let them force you to submit. Be a Guardian of Liberty. Our country, and the founding fathers who left this legacy to us, are counting on you to be strong. We all don't serve in the military...but we all must serve our country. Be determined in your correspondence with your representatives. That is your service to your country.

And the Praise is GONE...Ellsworth changes vote.

The respect is waining, as this man can't seem to take a stance and stick to it. "Pay as you go" is his mantra. Yet there's votes to raise the debt ceiling, votes for TARP, and now a vote for this new Bailout package disguised under the moniker of Stimulus Package. That's not even counting the man voting to shirk his own responsibility and give unlimited powers to the Treasury Secretary Paulson. Under the constitution, it is the responsibility of Congress to direct taxpayer funds...not one unelected official. This reason is simple...it's the same reason that's it's ridiculous that President Obama moved the census under the White House rather than in congress where it was. That reason is the reporting....the transparency that President Obama so eloquently speaks of, yet acts in odds with. Congress is required to disclose the reporting of how taxpayer funds are directed. However, Treasury Secretary as well as the White House, has no obligation to report everything to the public as Congress does. This is self-evident in the fact that no one knows where the first half of the TARP funds went, including Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, or so he says...again he's under no legal obligation to report these things.

Yet I was holding out hope...and I need to make it my responsibility not only to call my representatives when they do something I don't like, but also when they do something I do like.

Unfortunately, in this case, all it took was a lunch with the President and a few phone calls from some retirees to sway his decision.

So where does this leave us? Where will we get this money that we are throwing down the crapper?

Most will tell you that we are going to borrow it. Borrow it from whom??? Not China...who said, "We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion-$2 trillion [$1,000bn-$2,000bn] . . .we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys but there is nothing much we can do."

Not Russia...Putin is calling for a different global monetary policy and buying gold bars as quick as possible.

So that leaves Perhaps Japan and the Saudis. By the way...aren't we trying to get off their oil? Why would we go into debt to them??

OR...are we going to print it? Print trillions of dollars that can do absolutely nothing but devalue our dollar.

Has anyone of Capitol Hill thought this far in advance? Or is everyone too busy trying to "do something" to look past the next 20 minutes?

Who knows what the answer is. All I know is that our representatives in Washington know nothing of history and are completely shortsighted.

We Get What We Deserve...Honorless Government.

It was supposed to be a dawning of a new age...a new way to do things. Transparent. No conflicts. No lobbyists. A change.

And yet...it's all the same.

A Secretary of State who has legitimate questions of conflict of interest. Countries who many not have our best interests at heart made, and may continue to make, donations to her husband's foundation with the expectation of special favors of some sort. A potential conflict of interest that may put our country in unnecessary danger.

A Treasury Secretary who doesn't pay his taxes...not once, or twice, or thrice, but four times. A man who is supposed to be a brilliant economist. A man who worked for an agency that not only paid for his taxes, but sent him a check specifically describing what the check was for....that required the man to sign a ledger saying that he understood they were for taxes. A man whom after getting caught not paying taxes once, continued to not pay taxes. A man who only paid his taxes, with no interest or penalties, AFTER he realized that he would be a nominee for Treasury Secretary. Did we mention that this man will be in charge of the IRS...the agency responsible for collecting taxes?

A Health and Human Services Secretary who doesn't pay his taxes. A guy who didn't pay his medicare taxes. This is a man who is going to run Medicare!

A Secretary of Labor who was a member of a prominent pro-labor group who is pushing the Employee Free of Choice Act, which is legislation which will ban an employee's right to secret ballots. When questioned about her stance on this legisiation, the Secretary of Labor elect stated that she wasn't prepared to answer that question in public, but would answer it privately. How ironic.

And in a final kicker, thus far, the aforementioned Treasury Secretary promptly named as his Chief of Staff, a Goldman Sachs lobbyist.

Is this what we were promised? Is it ok to look the other way if "these are the best people for the job"?? When will the government be accountable to say what they mean and mean what they say???

The answer, of course, is never. They will never be held to the same standard that normal Americans are. Unless normal Americans stand up and demand that they are held to the same standard, our Government will continue to take advantage, go back on their word, and further disenfranchise our nation.

Praise for my Congressman: Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)

The current topic on every lawmaker's mind these days is the "stimulus" package. And why not? We're heading into a deepening recession and by God we have to do something, right? I mean, Government is the answer, isn't it? Government intervention worked to a "T" in the late 1920's and early 1930's, didn't it?

OR...

Maybe there's a reason that the Great Depression is only known as the Great Depression in the United States and merely the Depression throughout the rest of the world. Why is that, you may wonder? The answer is...yep, Government intervention. They Depression may very well have been Very Great, had it not been for World War II.

So why is it that no one seems to study history and see that during the Great Depression we did exactly what we are doing now? Then they threw everything and it's brother against the wall to see if it will stick...and that's what we are doing now. Then we had a crazy Republican President who seemed to abandon free market principles only to be followed by a progressive President who took that notion to a new level...and that's what we have now. Then, we were stuck with entitlement programs that changed the country and affect it to this day, and that's what we are going to get now.

Unless we make sure that doesn't happen.

The problem is, Nancy Pelosi has every congressman and congresswoman in lock-step with her agenda. Those who aren't in lock step have been warned. They will lose their monthly weekend trip home to fund raise, thereby risk losing their power. So every congress man and woman have succumb to the pressure to stay partisan.

Nearly every congressman, that is. But this week, despite my not voting for him, I am more proud of my congressman than one could imagine. For he, Congressman Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) was merely 1 of 11 Democratic congressmen that did not vote for this week's "stimulus" package that passed through Congress.

I'm not positive as to why just yet...but my suspicion is that he gets it. This is clearly not a stimulus bill, rather it was merely a spending bill.

$815 Billion...hoping to "create or retain" at best 4,000,000 jobs. Wee! Government is the answer! Only $203,000 to create or retain one single job. Truly money well spent.

Just some of the breakdown:

$90 Billion for Infrastructure that will take two years to begin construction and produce $0 in revenue.
$41 Billion to Local School District grants...money that will not be repaid...and will likely go to retain legal counsel because everyone and their brother tries to sue school districts for one reason or another.
$21 Billion to increase dependency on the Government....errr....I mean increase Pell Grants.
$6 Billion to modernize higher education. Excuse me?? If higher education is increasing in price twice as fast as any other increasing cost in this country, can't they take it upon themselves to modernize themselves??
$228 Billion to further increase dependency on Goverment....errrr...provide states with Medicaid and various unemployment benefits.

I'm sure you've all heard a few of the outrageous specifics, like millions for global warming research(isn't "the science already settled" there??), millions of STD research, and on and on.

Did you know at a quarter of the bill will go directly to state and local government to decide more specifically how to spend?? Great, more bureaucracy to wade through to get money spent.

But one man stood up and said NO (technically more than one man, but roll with me here). One man, only newly re-elected to his second term, stood against the newly elected, highly popular President. One man stood against the iron fist rule of the Speaker of the House. One man stood against his own party...looked past the pretty words and warm fuzzy feeling of Government intervention...and said NO(technically "nay"...again, roll with me). No to what is clearly a spending bill. No to a strategy that won't work for the individual, much less Government. No to a bill that clearly goes against the campaign promise of so many Democrats of PAYGO(Pay As You GO).

Thank you Congressman Ellsworth! I'm sure it wasn't easy to cast that vote. I'm sure you're on the outs with the party as I speak. It only makes me respect you more for voting your heart and what was best for the people of your district.

Fundamental Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

That difference is personal responsibility. Liberals believe that government has the right to take money from you and that Government gets to decide who needs the money more than you. Conservatives believe that the individual has the right to keep their own money and make their own decisions on how to help those less fortunate. There are studies to prove that conservatives give signivicantly more all across all income levels without a Government mandate.

A study by University of Indiana found that across all income levels, those defined as very conservative give 4.5% of their income to charity, while those defined as very liberal give 1.2% of their income to charity.

Recently, during an important speech, our President said that Americans have duties to ourselves, the nation, and the world. While not specific, we can see what kind of personal responsibility to others our President believes in via his own charitable activities.

According to his tax returns, our President only gave as much as 1.4% of his income to charity before he was in the United States Senate. In 2002, he gave only 0.4% to charity. Only when he reached the United States Senate did his charitable donations begin to climb. In 2006, he gave 6.1% of his income. While certainly noble, one could contend that it was merely political posturing.

Our Vice President, who said giving more to the Government is a Patriotic Duty, fares much worse when his own personal responsibility is measured by giving without a Government Mandate. His percentage of charity versus income never reached more tha 0.3%, which is where it peaked in 2007 despite making a six-figure income for decades.

I'm not here to tell you what to do with your money. If you want to give some, great...if not, that's fine too. But don't you think that people who call for us to have more personal responsibility to the nation and the world would practice what they preach in their own personal lives?

The Framework for Socialist America: Healthcare

There are many different things that we have allowed and will allow to happen in our country that will lead to it's downfall. Many simply don't think Socialism will come to America. My question is: Why? Why are you so dismissive of that possibility? No one thought our economy could collapse. It is...and in brilliant fashion. If this planet survives long enough, today's America will be used as the example of the downfall of an empire, just as Rome is our example. We refuse to listen to history, or we are simply too arrogant to think that history can happen to us.

Know this...no generation that has let it's nation succumb to socialism has lived to see socialism defeated in it's nation. This is because a government that is given power never relinquishes the power given. If we allow Socialism to take hold here, our grandkids will be lucky to live as freely as we did as children.

Today's example of this slippery slope is healthcare. Universal Healthcare...what a great concept. Of course it would be great to provide healthcare to everyone in the nation. I mean, there are lots of nations that do it, right? France, Britain, Canada, etc. Ask some of the people in those nations what they think of their healthcare, and they'll even tell you that they like their system of healthcare. I know this, because a friend of mine had a job in England surveying people on this very subject.

Of course, all of these people are completely healthy or living with some sort of ailment. Most of these countries provide quite adequate, but not outstanding, healthcare for preventative and normal type of medical issues. But if someone needs some kind of surgery, most also have to wait months, possibly more than a year, to get the surgery done. And so, they are forced to cope with the pain until they are allowed the surgery. And the emergency rooms are nightmares in most of these nations. I'm sure you've heard of areas in England where there is sometimes a 24 hour wait just to be seen in an emergency room.

And then there's the philosophy behind nationalized healthcare. If someone is paying for your health care, they hold the power to tell you what qualifies you to receive health care. In England, people are being told they need to lose weight before they qualify for the national health care...but their options in the free market are limited because nationalized healthcare has squashed any desire for people to participate in the free market. In California, businesses can not sell anything with Trans Fat because it will affect it's citizens on it's state run health care. These businesses have little option aside from closing down altogether. Instead they pay more to produce products with zero Trans Fat and pass the increased cost onto consumers...throughout the nation, as opposed to just California where the regulation caused the increased cost to begin with. This is the anthesis of freedom and capitalism, and it feeds upon itself creating more and more bloating of the socialistic structure.

Do you think that a government paying for healthcare will stay out of a family's personal decision regarding birth control? No, they won't. They will mandate that any person on this Universal Healthcare, which will continue to grow while free market options shrink, will have to have birth control starting at an age they determine, which will almost certainly be even younger than 16. Do you really think that the government peeking into our lives and making family decisions is a good thing?? This is my family, damnit, I'll decide if and when I want my kids on birth control!

Will this create equality in health care?? Nope. Even in these countries where they currently use some form of socialistic health care, those with private health care take precedent over the government sponsered health care. Of course, as I previously stated, private health care will only increase in cost because the government run health care will squeeze out private companies, and the only people that can afford private health care will be the rich and powerful, such as politicians. Interesting how politicians won't have to live under the same rule they are creating...of course they don't now, so not much will change in that aspect.

Right now it's being sold as they will have the same health care as government officials. Do you really think that some schlub who hasn't had a job in 5 years will have access to the same health care as Nancy Pelosi???

Come on people...these progressives...they can't justify things logically...they prey on feelings of fear and insecurity and perceived equality. Before you let them fundamentally change our country, at least make them explain why $600 million dollars worth of Universal Healthcare programs are being snuck into a proposed stimulus bill! Why hide it and try to sneak it in if it's really the best thing for our country?? Pass Universal Healthcare on it's own merits, where logical people can stand up and make you logically explain why a government that runs the DMV or has 30% fraud in Medicare is better than the private system. Because that's the real kind of Universal Health care we will get...one laced with fraud and as much compentency as the Department of Motor Vehicles. Is that what this country deserves? Quite simply: No.

Trying To Work Through My Faith (Part 2)

It's been some time since I did part one of this walk to faith, so it's time I updated my thoughts. I left part one, in which I explained that I don't believe in sin, with the major question of why, then, did Jesus come to earth if it wasn't for our salvation.

I've had my answer for a while in my mind, but wanted the time to think it through a little more and possibly research my reasoning.

It's interesting...that word reasoning. One typically doesn't think of reason in the same thought as religion and/or faith. But reasoning and intellect is exactly how Gnostic Christians practice their worship of God. In fact, Jesus followed Gnostic teaching dating back to when he studied with the Essenes.

I've only scratched the surface on Gnostic Christianity, but so far I'm in agreeance with most of their teachings. Most of what I've learned so far comes from, Sylvia Browne, an author and psychic that I read regularly, as much as "regularly" is for me. I've also checked the Gnostic Christianity website to verify some of what I've read.

The major disagreement that I find so far is that they believe Jesus was not the son of God, any more than we are are the sons and daughters of God. Gnostics tend to believe that Jesus merely was born more in tune with God. Sylvia Browne refers to Jesus as a Direct Report that thus far was the only person to have direct contact with God and could plainly hear the voice of God.

Without researching and validating my hypothesis, something Gnostics strongly follow, I believe that Jesus was God in the form of man. I'm certainly willing to amend my belief on that as I research more(which admittedly may be a long time...I do have to work and raise a family after all). This belief that Jesus was God could come from Bible teachings, though I only recently discovered that some Christians believe this, but possibly just because I can't conceptualize that Jesus was basically the same as you or I...just with more "powers". Also, there is a quote on the Gnostic website, "As we are, God once was. As God is, we will become." I don't know if this is scripture, but it seems to say that God was once a human, and likewise we will return to spirit form after our human life here on earth. It stands to reason that God would want to experience what it like for us while we are on Earth...to feel the pain, anger, joy, pain, and the plethora of other human obstacles that we must deal with here.

What I do believe, just as Gnostics teach, is that the reason for Jesus coming to earth was to teach us of an all-loving God, very different than the God of the Old Testament. This was His main message to the masses throughout and His life work, so to speak. Using some of the same reasoning that I used for disbelieving in the very concept of sin, it doesn't make sense to me that someone would need to die to protect a Father's children from Himself. A Father that loves us all unconditionally...an unconditional love that we can't even really conceptualize. How does it stand to reason that he'd deny us from His kingdom? Quite simply...it doesn't.

Some believe that Jesus didn't even die on the cross. Wouldn't that shatter everyone's world if it were true? Not if you don't believe that Jesus' purpose was to die for our "sins", but instead believe that He came to enlighten us to the omnipotent, unconditional love of God. If you believe His life's work was to teach us of God, then how and when he died is rather irrelevant.

So...to summarize thus far: Since God made us like Him, He provided us with the perfect knowledge that we will be with Him again. Unconditional love. The unconditional love we have for our own kids gives us the exact insight we need to understand that God could and would never deny us access to Him...that sin is a silly concept derived by people who wanted to use fear to control others. Yet Jesus was clearly important to His plan. But if it stands to reason that there is no "sin" they why did Jesus come to earth? Jesus didn't come to "wash us of our sins", His purpose had to have been what He taught: that we are loved unconditionally. In fact, love is His vision for how the world is to live. Unfortunately this message was lost in the hoopla that we needed to be "saved".

So now what? I could say that the next step was to study the apocolypse and Judgement Day. But I don't think that's in God's "Plan". In fact, I don't think God has a "plan" in the sense that He has things He wants to do. He knows what will happen, but it's not His job to control what will happen. Think about it...how cruel would it be to have a puppet master as our God? Someone that sits in Heaven deciding whose life to affect for the better or worse. That's cruelty. The unconditional love is that He is there for us...waiting when we arrive Home to tell him of what we "learned that day at school".

I'm just now realizing that there's so much more that I need to learn. It's clearly not enough that my Father loves me unconditionally and will welcome me with open arms when I'm done with this human body. Complacency is insulting...which is the last thing we'd want from anyone else, so why be complacent in my learning here on earth.

Let Us Speak Plainly...

"...for I would lay rest the grace in my tongue and speak plainly. Days like these are far too rare to cheapen with heavy handed words."

I love this quote from A Knight's Tale. I know that "heavy handed words" are good sometimes, but far too often, people use them to make themselves look better, smarter, more of an expert. Sometimes they use "heavy handed words" to make you look less intelligent or to confuse you. And sometimes they use them to divert attention from the fact that what they are saying just makes no common sense.

I'm intelligent, yet somehow, at times, slow. That's when I have absolutely no patience for heavy handed words. I feel a full mix of reactions from the above list. I get frustrated because I feel less intelligent for not being able to follow what the other person is saying. Then I get put off when I think the person is trying to make themselves sound more intelligent than perhaps they are. And sometimes I realize that the person is using all this "fancy speak" to divert attention from the fact that what they are saying really doesn't make sense.

I ran the gambit recently, when trying to read Peggy Noonan's recent book, Patriotic Grace. I only got about a third of the way through this rather smallish book before I put it down. I was about to throw it across the room. I may pick it up again in the future, but I doubt it...and I will almost assuredly never crack another Peggy Noonan book again.

The final straw, for me, was a five-line, single-sentence paragraph with more commas in the sentence than "you knows" in a Caroline Kennedy interview.

I know that I never was much of a reader in my life, until recently. So I shouldn't expect to be able to pick up a book and speed read through complicated theories without missing a beat, but come on. Give a guy a break. I'm intelligent to grasp complicated issues...just speak plainly and use common sense.

I know I'm not perfect when I write. I have a vast tendency to overuse the "...". But I at least try to have my audience in mind when I write, and I try not to write the way I speak.

This is something Peggy Noonan clearly doesn't do in the book. She writes this book as I assume she speaks...you know, with qualifier thoughts, as though to add detail, unnecessary detail at that, in the middle of the broader context of the conversation she would be having, with say a colleague, of the political persuasion, at a fancy dinner.

That's the kicker, I think. When it's merely heavy handed words thrown in sentences, I can handle it. But when it additionally becomes excruciatingly detailed, or plagued with unnecessary descriptions, that's when I lose it.

If I can take your five line sentence and boil the exact same message down to two sentence, using your exact same words but merely taking out all the junk, that's when you're clearly overdoing it. You've automatically putting up a barrier to those whom you wish to receive your message.

This is a time of fear, toil, and perceived urgency. Beware those with heavy handed words and claims that things are much more complicated than they seem. They may very well be deceivers, and they mean to do no good.

Proud of George Bush and country...

I must admit that yesterday, I was questioning if all the pomp and circumstance surrounding Barack Obama was warranted. It was starting to feel, to me, as though the nation was annointing something more than the next President.

But that all melted away today. We witnessed a truly historic event that can only have happened in this great nation. Though I didn't vote for Barack Obama, I'm proud to say that he's our President. I hope and pray that he leads our country into continued greatness. And I'm proud to be part of this country which has come so far is a relatively short time.

Whether you liked President Bush or not, whether you agreed with him or not, he never used the office of President as a partisan platform. He endured more hatred than any other President in our nation's history, yet he never waivered from his personal convictions, whether the public agreed with them or not. One such conviction was to not be partisan and another was to conduct a transfer of power that was much smoother and kinder than the one he received.

Again, whether you liked him or not, for the sake of President Barack Obama, you should be thankful that in this time of potential great peril, we had a outgoing President who refused to be partisan and conducted a transfer of power with grace and gratitude. There's a lot on President Obama's plate. I hope that he's ready and that the smooth transition helps him hit the ground running.

Thank you for your service President Bush. President Obama, I may disagree with your policies in the future, but I'll always be hoping for your success. May you continue to do your country proud, as you very clearly have up to this point.

Will There Be A MLK Bruhaha?

There's bound to be, right? I mean, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a reverend. He was driven by faith, and spoke of it often in public. And yet, there's a National Holiday in tribute to him. There are pictures, monuments, posters alike displayed at state capitol buildings across the nation.

I'm certain that Atheists will be out in mass today, protesting the government sponsership of organized religion as displayed through Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., signage brandishing his name and image, and the Federal Holiday in his name. Aren't you?

No?

Hmmm. How interesting. How ironic. How transparent.

Hockey Dads - Wake Up

Before I share my observation and subsequent advice, please know that contrary to what some would believe, the term Hockey Moms, or in this case Hockey Dads, is not some subliminal code language indicating racism. Hockey anything, Moms-Dads-Uncles-Brothers, you name it, is just that. Hockey Moms. The more important of the two words is, of course, Mom, or Dad, or Sister, or whatever. The sport is only relevant to a specific point of reference and should be assumed to be reasonably substituted for whatever sport is more relateable to you. For instance, if you don't have a kid that plays hockey, but instead plays soccer, in the broadest scope that most people speak in terms of, a Soccer Dad is the same as a Hockey Dad, which would be the same as a Baseball Dad or a Volleyball Dad...and so on and so forth.

Of course if you feel the need to typecast, label, characterize and/or brand said terms in specific categories of race, class, and geography, by all means go ahead. Don't let me stop you from further breaking down any and all common links between fellow man.

I digress.

Back to Hockey Dads. Hockey...because the Dads that I observed last week were parents of kids participating in the sport of Hockey, however all sports are inclusive in this discussion. It is the "Dad" part that's mostly important here.

Dads, if you find yourself conversing with a group of fellow dads into the wee hours of the morning about how the coach should put which kid in what position, particularly when the conversation is aided with the use of alcohol, please know this doesn't reflect well upon yourself, your child, or the rest of the kids in the group.

It's sad really. Not only are you pathetically living your life through that of your child, but you're commiserating with a bunch of guys that are doing the same, thereby multiplying the sadness factor exponentially.

Add to that, the usage of alcohol, and it only highlights the fact that you are incapable of bonding with the fellow dads through normal means and are only comfortable expressing your feelings, thoughts, or ideas, with the help of a veil of a drink that will eventually lead to feelings of resentment from the child that you are proudly boasting of to a bunch of fellow drunk Hockey Dads.

So instead of contributing to breakdown of society, how about this Hockey Dads...how about you go bed early, forgo forcing the fuming night auditor to clean up all your beer cans and bottles, and just wake up early with your kid and bond...teach...learn. Practice with them some in the morning, if that's what the child wants...go over strategies...teach them to win and lose gracefully. For the love of God, teach them to be a proud, respectful, and gracious human being...through example. What say you, Hockey Dads??

In the interest of full disclosure, if you hadn't made the connection yet, I am the said fuming night auditor, forced to sit and listen to the drivel that spews from drunk "Hockey" Dad's mouths, cleaning up piles of beer cans and bottles from inconsiderate people at four o'clock in the morning.

Additionally, my Dad would have likely been one of these dads...though my sport would have been baseball. But had I lived with my Dad after the divorce, I would have likely been forced to be one of the kids with one of those Dads. Actually, there's very little doubt in my mind that would have been the case...but I'll leave a wee bit of an opening, just in case.

Aside from the fact that I don't drink alcohol at all, I vow not to be one of "those dads" as my kids grow up. I doubt I'll be the kind of parent that lives vicariously through my kids anyway, but if any of my kids choose sports, you can bet I'll be in the room with them, bonding, strategizing, and teaching my kids...or even taking their mind off the big game. Whatever it is my kids need, they shall have...and I can assure you...they don't need their father up until three or four in the morning...drinking...proverbially pounding his chest as he tries to show up the other parents with his knowledge of all thing sports.

So wake up Hockey Dads...try to be the family leader...not the leader of the drunk Hockey Dads.

Let's Be Serious About Global Warming

It's time we started asking questions, using common sense, and researched for ourselves for a bit, rather go solely on the word of a man who has a stake in the viability of global warming.

I stated, quite sarcastically, just before Thanksgiving that the war on man-made global warming was over. What made it sarcastic, at least in my own mind, is that I was thanking Al Gore for all his efforts to help us evade this disaster. What was and is quite honest, however, is that the globe has cooled in 2008. In fact, as noted in this article in IBD, we haven't been in a warming period since 1998. Unfortunately for the liberals, they won't be able to put their global warming at the feet of President Bush, for the earth is cooler now than when he took office.

So why is this? Why, in this age of supercharged human CO2 emissions, has the earth been cooling? The referenced article explains why, which coincides with many accounts from astrophysicists such as Dr. Willie Soon, Nir Shaiv, Henrik Svensmark, just to name a few. But let's get to that part in a minute, and let's speak about the so-called major culprit in Al Gore's version of global warming.

So if carbon dioxide, emitted by humans, is responsible for global warming currently, what is responsible for the earth coming out of an ice age eons ago? As far as I know, there wasn't a vast industrial empire back then that was responsible for creating SUVs, burning coal to heat homes, and the like, thus sending an ice age into retreat.

But there was...oceans! You know...those silly things that cover 70% of the earth's surface? Did you know that oceans emit water vapor to the equivalent of over 180 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? How much CO2 tonnage is attributed to human activity? 6 billion tons. For those counting at home, that's roughly 3.3% of oceanic contribution. Water vapor far and away dwarfs CO2 emissions in regards of greenhouse gasses to the tune of anywhere from 70% - 95% (depending on which source you believe) of all greenhouse gasses.

On top of that, see this article to see how the oceans consume CO2 in part of natures life cycle of CO2. As CO2 emissions increase, oceans work harder, i.e. they get colder and CO2 consuming plankton increase, to offset the increase of CO2 emissions.

So if the oceans produce the vast majority of greenhouse gasses as well as work hard to take care of CO2 emissions...then what other explaination(s) are there for ice ages retreating, or overall warming and cooling of the planet (and ironically other planets in the same percentage as Earth)? Why that big bright yellow ball that lights and warms our world daily, of course.

I know...you're resisting that nagging voice in the back of your head that's telling you, "it can't be that simple." It's ok, let common sense come out and play with the rest of the thoughts. But you're right...it may not be that simple...but my goodness, can't it explain the majority of the earth's warming and cooling? Or does the sun, emitting vast amounts of heat and energy by which we probably can't fathom, have no effect at all? It's ok to admit it...the meekly common sense can play witht he big boys any day of the week.

Of course none of this means we have no responsibility to live a clean life and polute this beautiful gift of Earth as little as possible. But as a free people...our government doesn't have the right to force us to act in this manner. That's what they want to, and will, do with things like carbon taxes, mandatory mecury-filled(read bad for the environment) florescent lightbulbs, and a host of other ideas in the pipeline.

The bottom line is, we need to all do our due diligence, or all of our due rights and liberties given to us by our forefathers and the Constitution will be snatched away from us by those that want power.

I'll leave you with this model. I have no idea if this is what Al Gore used or not...but from my perspective...temperature is a leading indicator here, not CO2. That makes perfect sense in the context of oceans and the sun explaination of global warming. The sun gives off more energy and heats up...the global temperature rises and oceans warm...thus consuming less CO2 and raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere.