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.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
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?
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.
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.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, January 19, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
