The Mad Hoosier

Liberals, Where Are You???

2009-09-08T01:47:00.001-07:00

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...

2009-04-30T09:59:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-04-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-04-15T12:26:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-03-30T10:00:00.000-07:00

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?!?

2009-03-25T09:10:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-03-25T06:50:00.000-07:00

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)...

2009-03-17T05:03:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-12T10:13:00.000-07:00

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??

2009-03-10T12:17:00.001-07:00

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...

2009-02-25T09:36:00.001-08:00

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.

2009-02-21T06:24:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-02-15T06:17:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-02-03T05:32:00.000-08:00

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)

2009-01-31T13:02:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-27T07:28:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-27T06:31:00.000-08:00

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)

2009-01-25T13:17:00.000-08:00

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...

2009-01-24T00:53:00.000-08:00

"...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...

2009-01-20T10:17:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-01-19T01:09:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-13T07:59:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-07T09:22:00.000-08:00

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.

We Still Have Hope...

2008-12-29T19:57:00.000-08:00

This is a story that I heard the other day on Glenn Beck's show. It is a story written by Dr. John Rossi.

"Once upon a time there was a very happy couple. Their names were Freedom and Capitalism. They married and had many wonderful children. Their names were Independence, Self-worth, Hard work, Dignity, Charity, Faith and Hope.

They all lived happily for many years and the children respected their parents and loved them both very much. But Freedom and Capitalism, later, had several naughty children, very naughty. They weren't so respectful and never appreciated their parents. Their names were Wealth envy, Environmentalism, Animal rights activism, Racism, Feminism, and Ultra liberalism.

These evil children blamed their parents for everything and hated their parents', Freedom and Capitalism. In fact, these unappreciative children began to hate their parents since they didn't realize their parents gave them everything they had and didn't realize that they wouldn't even exist without their parents. They hated their parents so much, they began to plot with their neighbors to kill their parents and to keep their home.

Their neighbors' names were Socialism and Communism, who on the outside were a very lovely couple; but inside they were very, very ugly. They and their children, whose names were Despair, Poverty, Hopelessness, Suffering, and Repression had been welcomed into every neighborhood they had lived in, but then thrown out after years of suffering and the loss of many lives.

So late one night in total darkness, because Socialism and Communism did everything in darkness and the way from the light of the truth, while everyone was asleep, Wealth envy, Environmentalism, Feminism, Animal rights, egged on by their younger obnoxious brother, Hollywood, disguised Socialism and Communism and let them into the house of Freedom and Capitalism. It wasn't hard, for the two parents, Freedom and Capitalism, always left their gates and their door open for everyone.

Wealth envy led the way because he knew the house oh, so well. The evil children led Socialism and Communism throughout the house, one room at a time. And one at a time they killed Hard work, then Dignity, then Independence, Self-worth, Charity and Faith.

They finally found the room of Freedom and Capitalism and killed them as well. It wasn't hard to do, since freedom and capitalism always left their door unlocked and open for everyone. Only Hope survived. Hope survived hiding in the closet. She ran out during the ensuing celebration.

After Socialism and Communism moved in, things went well for a while but then they decided they didn't like Freedom and Capitalism's evil children either. They wanted their own children to have the rooms in their new house. So late one night in total darkness, because socialism and communism did everything in darkness and away from the light of the truth, they sent their children to kill Freedom and Capitalism's remaining evil children.

Poverty and Suffering killed Environmentalism and Animal rights first, for they were so hungry, they had to kill all the animals for food and the trees for their wood. And besides, why should animals have rights if people don't? Hopelessness killed Liberalism, the retarded brother of Communism. Then Poverty, Suffering, and Repression killed Feminism, the retarded sister of Liberalism. And Hollywood, the young obnoxious son of Freedom and Capitalism, was also killed. Finally, Wealth envy, who led the attack on his parents, died at the hands of Poverty since there was nothing left to envy.

So Socialism and Communism and their children, Poverty, Despair, Hopelessness, Suffering, and Repression lived in the once beautiful home of Freedom and Capitalism, which was now in great disrepair and they all lived sadly ever after.

All that was left of the family of Freedom and Capitalism was Hope, who was quietly hiding in the woods."

Not a bad little sorry from a doctor who woke up in the middle of the night to write this. I think Dr. Rossi plans on making some sort of children's book out of this story. I hope he cleans up some of the verbiage and story incongruencies around the "retarded brother and sister" parts. I understand wanting to link them together, but it doesn't make sense in the story at all, and the word retarded is really unnecessary...a better word could be found.

But for me, the overarching plot hits home. Unfortunately Freedom and Capitalism, as we have known them, are taking their last breaths. Unwarranted wire taps, nanny state issues, bailouts, nationalized industries and the like is seeing to that.

Socialism is setting in...unless Barack Obama can stop it. Unfortunately he ran on socialistic ideas, such as nationalized health care and government sponsored energy, on his way to being elected. I worry that if worse comes to worse, Communism will take hold, unless America falls before then, before Hope will take over and restore Freedom and Capitalism to their rightful place in this country.

What economic talking heads aren't seeing...or just not saying.

2008-12-27T05:30:00.001-08:00

Coming out of this weekend, you may hear some news reports saying that retail sales increased to save the year for many retailers. The people that will be telling you this are either ignorant, or they are hiding the truth...that we are in a deflationary period. What follows deflationary periods?? Typically hyper-inflation. Yikes.

Sorry to be a downer over this holiday weekend, but I think our economy is hanging on by a thread...and no one is saying a darn thing about it. Of course, I'm not an ecnomist myself, but I am a common sense guy, and my common sense alarms have been going off for a while now.

So what is deflation, and why aren't people talking about it? Deflation is when prices decline in relation to wages. This may sound like a good thing, and perhaps sporadically, or in cases when prices were artificially inflated, it is. But when prices are dropping in bulk or across a spectrum, it isn't.

Think about it. We want the value of our house, e.g. house prices, to rise...wage earnings rise...the inflation that is built into our economy rises. Everything in our economy rises, except during corrections such as a recession, or when idiots mismanage/over-manage a recession, a depression.

These after Christmas sales aren't about retailers being kind and wanting to give shoppers a deal out of the kindness of their hearts. They need to sell product. They can't sell it at regular price...so they have to reduce the price, via a sale. When sales of regular, non-holiday items are in the area of half off, that's beyond your typical sale. That's a price reduction without calling it that. Retailers are having to reduce the prices just to get shoppers to come out to buy things. They call it a sale for marketing purposes...but if items were only 10 - 15% off, most people wouldn't waste their times this time of year in this economy.

How do you get out of a deflationary period before retailers just start closing their stores because they can't make a profit on such deep mark-downs? Well, the federal reserve typically increases the money supply, creating inflation, to get prices to rise again. Well, unless you've been in a stupor for the past year, you know that the federal reserve has already pumped a couple trillion dollars into the economy, with guarantees of up to 7.6 trillion in the future. Uhhh...that's some massive money supply there already. They are printing money like it's going out of style with these promises...because I assure you, the federal reserve doesn't have trillions of dollars sitting around in a vault somewhere.

So if the federal reserve realizes that they are in a deflationary period and tries to introduce more money into they supply...that could create hyperinflation. Hyperinflation, by definition, is out of control. That leads to those $10 candy bar prices I was talking about over Thanksgiving because hyperinflation begins to greatly devalue money.

If you think back 10 years ago...what was the general cost? The two examples I have on the top of my head is McDonald's hotcakes and gas. The age range I'm thinking of is roughly 14 years ago, but both of those things cost at least half of what they cost now. That's inflation. That's roughly 7% inflation, which is solidly more than what the government tells the public the inflation rate is...but I digress. Think of what "out of control" inflation will do? It could double prices in the range of a couple of years, rather than 7 years or more. Wages can't and won't keep up with that kind of inflation...hence a horrible economic situation occurs. Depression.

I hope to God that it won't come to that. But I think that's the path we're headed. Don't let the economic talking heads tell you that everything is rosy without specifically saying how we will or have gotten there. Some economist on NBC today said that the recession will be officially over in 3-6 months because Barack Obama is coming in and will change economic policy...that the market will reach bottom in the next month or two because it's been so fluctuating recently.

Hogwash! Tell me some specific, logical indications of how these are going to happen?? They can't...hence, they don't. They just paint a rosy picture. Whether they believe it or not, I have no idea. I hope they don't actually believe what they are saying, or we're in worse trouble than I thought we'd be in. If our economic "experts" believe that the fed throwing money at the situation isn't like throwing gas on a raging inferno, we may have lost not just the battle, but the war.

So what can you do if an economic apocalypse is coming? Well, nothing if that's the case, but let's just say what you can do if a depression is coming? Pay off debt...save money...stock up on essentials. If this economic tsunami doesn't happen, you're in a sweet position.

Don't do what I did and go out and buy a new flat screen TV before paying debt. That was a battle I wasn't going to win, though. It was from mostly Christmas money(as hard as I try, I can't win an argument to use Christmas money to pay debt)...and it was replacing a television that was over 15 years old. Our other television is 5 years old and still chugging along fine. So it wasn't like we were buying something that we have a track history of replacing every couple of years. Besides, I'm winning the war...we've got a good game plan to be completely debt free except for our crummy little living-within-our-means house(and my stupid student loan) in a year.

Hopefully my oh so simplistic way of looking at problems is just too hayseed for those fancy Washington economist types, and hopefully I'm way off my rocker. In any event, it's time to live like our grandparents taught us...well within our means. Good luck! I'll be hoping and praying that a horrible scenario doesn't happen so we're all living on easy street in a couple years.

Resolutions revisited...and commited...

2008-12-26T19:24:00.000-08:00

It's been one of the better Christmas' I've had in a long time. Believe it or not, I attribute part of that to one of my New Year's Resolutions...to simplify my life. Part of simplifying was to organize, and thanks to good organization in putting away things last Christmas, we wrapped every present for our kids and most of the rest of the family on Christmas Eve...in 4 hours.

Not bad...and I had fun doing it. I decided to be Marvin Stewart and learn how to wrap presents well. The verdict? Well, it was no Martha Stewart, but it was much better than I've ever done in the past.

I took some time off work around before Christmas, and I think it helped get me into the "Christmas Spirit" more this year than in recent years. Ever since I worked retail back in college, Christmas just wasn't the same for me. I think I finally snapped out of the retail induced Christmas funk.

I did fairly well with the reading Resolution I made at the beginning of the year. I didn't read just non-fiction books, but I averaged a little over one a month...very good for me.

I think I succeeded with the get-in-shape Resolution. I didn't really lose much weight at all, but jogging 12 miles a week for the past 4 months has helped out quite a bit. I even did a couple 5Ks in the past month and a half, and am scheduled for a half marathon in April.

The father thing didn't seem to take. I don't know why...probably I didn't put enough effort in, though I feel like I did. I did give it a good honest try though, so I'm not calling it an utter defeat.

So for the first time in a long time, I finished the year in fairly good shape in regards to the beginning of the year Resolutions. There was definitely some neglect throughout the year, but it was definitely not a last minute scurry to try to get back on the path of the Resolutions.

Going forward for next year, aside from continuing to read at least a book a month and keep in shape(did I mention I've got a half marathon scheduled in 4 months? I'm already dreading it), and of course continue to keep my life simple and organized....my main Resolution for this up coming year is to live a life of meekness.

I've always liked the word meek. I learned it a long time ago in church. It just seems to encompass many of the things I'm doing now...keeping myself strong physically and mentally...but instill restraint from displaying this training unless necessary. I used to be much more laid back...not get so worked up about stuff, so impatient so quickly, etc. I want to get back that way. Yet I want to know that when there's a "fight" to fight, I can go to "battle" when needed. I'm fairly good at picking my fights at work...I just need to do that throughout my whole life now.

We'll see how it goes.

Merry Christmas from The Mad Hoosier...

2008-12-23T08:16:00.001-08:00

If you're offended by the usage of "Merry Christmas", please don't be. Saying Merry Christmas is merely a greeting of the Christmas Season, in which we are currently in. I use it when I know I'll be seeing someone before the New Year's holiday, or as a good-bye when in close proximity to the holiday...wishing they have a Merry Christmas. Otherwise I will say Happy Holidays to incorporate the full holiday season. If for some reason you are offended by "Merry Christmas", please allow me to explain further why you shouldn't be.

Here in the United States, Christmas was declared a national holiday in 1870 and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant. At that time, the country was still torn apart by the effects of the Civil War, and the holiday was used as a way to help unite our country.

Christians use this day to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. While not believed to be the actual birth date of Jesus Christ, the date was chosen to coincide with other winter festivals, such as the Winter Solstice or Roman festivals at the time.

As such, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the federally recognized holiday of Christmas Day is secular, meaning not specificially religious, as are most symbols generally attributed to Christianity, such as a Christmas Tree, a wreath, lights, etc. Of course, the Nativity scene is clearly a symbol of Christianity's tribute to the holiday. Christians are, of course, entitled to that symbol, just as Jews are to the Menorah, for example.

Christians do celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday(with Santa Claus throw in). So what? Get over it and let them celebrate the holiday in their own way. But for the record, the phrase Merry Christmas is not some secret code word used by Christians to suggest that they wish you to denounce your faith or non-faith and immediately swear allegiance to God or Jesus Christ.

So if you are offended by Merry Christmas, I suggest you lighten up, and take it as it is mostly intended, a greeting with seasonal pizazz added. If you do have a supernatural ability to read the true intentions of a greeting, turn the other cheek and treat this holiday as it was intended...a unifying celebration for the nation...and internalize the greeting as the most personal and kind greeting someone could offer during this holiday season.

So have a Merry Christmas everyone. I say that because Christmas Day is two days away, and while I may not post again before the holiday, I'll likely post again before the next holiday, at which time I will personalize that holiday as well.

I sincerely hope everyone has a great, happy, and safe holiday spent with family, friends, and whomever makes you feel good inside.

The Mad Hoosier

Santa's Prayer Is Answered...

2008-12-18T12:31:00.000-08:00

I had this story sent to me some time ago. I don't know of it's veracity, but I do know it's a story that tugs at my heartstrings, so I thought I'd share it.

Three years ago, a little boy and his grandmother came to see Santa at Mayfair Mall in Wisconsin . The child climbed up on his lap, holding a picture of a little girl.

"Who is this?" asked Santa, smiling."Your friend? Your sister?"

"Yes, Santa," he replied. "My sister, Sarah , who is very sick," he said sadly.

Santa glanced over at the grandmother who was waiting nearby, and saw her dabbing her eyes with a tissue.

"She wanted to come with me to see you, oh, so very much, Santa!" the boy exclaimed. "She misses you," he added softly.

Santa tried to be cheerful and encouraged a smile to the boy's face, asking him what he wanted Santa to bring him for Christmas. When they finished their visit, the Grandmother came over to help the child off his lap, and started to say something to Santa, but halted.

"What is it?" Santa asked warmly.

"Well, I know it's really too much to ask you, Santa, but ..." the old woman began, shooing her grandson over to one of Santa's elves to collect the little gift which Santa gave all his young visitors.

"The girl in the photograph...my granddaughter...well, you see...she has leukemia and isn't expected to make it even through the holidays," she said through tear-filled eyes. "Is there any way, Santa...any possible way that you could come see Sarah ? That's all she's asked for, for Christmas, is to see Santa."

Santa blinked and swallowed hard and told the woman to leave information with his elves as to where Sarah was, and he would see what he could do. Santa thought of little else the rest of that afternoon. He knew what he had to do.

"What if it were MY child lying in that hospital bed, dying," he thought with a sinking heart, "this is the least I can do."

When Santa finished visiting with all the boys and girls that evening, he retrieved from his helper the name of the hospital where Sarah was staying. He asked the assistant location manager how to get to Children's Hospital.

"Why?" Rick asked, with a puzzled look on his face.

Santa relayed to him the conversation with Sarah 's grandmother earlier that day.

"C'mon .... I'll take you there," Rick said softly.

Rick drove them to the hospital and came inside with Santa. They found out which room Sarah was in. A pale Rick said he would wait out in the hall. Santa quietly peeked into the room through the half-closed door and saw little Sarah on the bed. The room was full of what appeared to be her family; there was the Grandmother and the girl's brother he had met earlier that day. A woman whom he guessed was Sarah 's mother stood by the bed, gently pushing Sarah 's thin hair off her forehead. And another woman who he discovered later was Sarah 's aunt, sat in a chair near the bed with weary, sad look on her face. They were talking quietly, and Santa could sense the warmth and closeness of the family, and their love and concern for Sarah.

Taking a deepbreath, and forcing a smile on his face, Santa entered the room, bellowing a hearty, "Ho, ho, ho!"

"Santa!" shrieked little Sarah weakly, as she tried to escape her bed to run to him, IV tubes in tact.

Santa rushed to her side and gave her a warm hug. A child the tender age of his own son -- 9 years old -- gazed up at him with wonder and excitement. Her skin was pale and her short tresses bore telltale bald patches from the effects of chemotherapy. But all he saw when he looked at her was a pair of huge, blue eyes. His heart melted, and he had to force himself to choke back tears.

Though his eyes were riveted upon Sarah 's face, he could hear the gasps and quiet sobbing of the women in the room. As he and Sarah began talking, the family crept quietly to the bedside one by one, squeezing Santa's shoulder or his hand gratefully, whispering "thank you" as they gazed sincerely at him with shining eyes.

Santa and Sarah talked and talked, and she told him excitedly all the toys she wanted for Christmas, assuring him she'd been a very good girl that year.

As their time together dwindled, Santa felt led in his spirit to pray for Sarah, and asked for permission from the girl's mother. She nodded in agreement and the entire family circled around Sarah 's bed, holding hands. Santa looked intensely at Sarah and asked her if she believed in angels.

"Oh, yes, Santa ... I do!" she exclaimed.

"Well, I'm going to ask that angels watch over you, "he said.

Laying one hand on the child's head, Santa closed his eyes and prayed. He asked that God touch little Sarah, and heal her body from this disease. He asked that angels minister to her, watch and keep her. And when he finished praying, still with eyes closed, he started singing softly, "Silent Night, Holy Night - all is calm, all is bright."

The family joined in, still holding hands, smiling at Sarah , and crying tears of hope, tears of joy for this moment, as Sarah beamed at them all. When the song ended, Santa sat on the side of the bed again and held Sarah 's frail, small hands in his own.

"Now, Sarah ," he said authoritatively, "you have a job to do...and that is to concentrate on getting well. I want you to have fun playing with your friends this summer, and I expect to see you at my house at Mayfair Mall this time next year!"

He knew it was risky proclaiming that, to this little girl who had terminal cancer, but he had to. He had to give her the greatest gift he could – not dolls or games or toys -- but the gift of HOPE.

"Yes, Santa!" Sarah exclaimed, her eyes bright. He leaned down and kissed her on the forehead and left the room. Out in the hall, the minute Santa's eyes met Rick 's, a look passed between them and they wept unashamed. Sarah 's mother and grandmother slipped out of theroom quickly and rushed to Santa's side to thank him.

"My only child is the same age as Sarah ," he explained quietly. "This is the least I could do."

They nodded with understanding and hugged him.

One year later, Santa Mark was again back on the set in Milwaukee for his six-week, seasonal job which he so loves to do. Several weeks went by and then one day a child came up to sit on his lap. "Hi, Santa! Remember me?!"

"Of course, I do," Santa proclaimed (as he always does), smiling down at her. After all, the secret to being a good Santa is to always make each child feel as if they are the only child in the world at that moment.

"You came to see me in the hospital last year!"

Santa's jaw dropped. Tears immediately sprang in his eyes, and he grabbed this little miracle and held her to his chest. "Sarah!" he exclaimed.

He scarcely recognized her, for her hair was long and silky and her cheeks were rosy -- much different from the little girl he had visited just a year before. He looked over and saw Sarah 's mother and grandmother in the sidelines smiling and waving and wiping their eyes.

That was the best Christmas ever for Santa Claus. He had witnessed --and been blessed to be instrumental in bringing about -- this miracle of hope. This precious little child was healed. Cancer-free. Alive and well.

He silently looked up to Heaven and humbly whispered, "Thank you, Father. ' Tis a very, Merry Christmas!"

LIFE IS GOD'S GIFT TO YOU...HOW YOU LIVE IT IS YOUR GIFT TO GOD, YOURSELF AND LOVED ONES.

Just as touching as the story itself, to me, is the end "moral" that someone added on along the way. I've struggled lately, and still do, with the particulars of my faith. I have no doubt in God...it's just the rest that I am still trying to figure out. :) The main thing I know, as I continue along my journey, is that the way I live my life is my homage to God.

Ridiculous Liberals and Bush Haters

2008-12-16T17:30:00.000-08:00

This past weekend, the President of the United States visited Iraq to mark a recent agreement for the United States military to begin pulling out of Iraq beginning next year.

The United States has worked hard, spilled blood, and lost lives all for the cause of liberating Iraq from a despicable dictatorship rule. It matters not why we went there initially, those are the marching orders now...to help a nation live free and under democracy, if that is their wish.

It's a noble cause, as we are a noble country.

Yet somehow, when the leader of this noble and great country, the President of the United States of America, comes under attack in foreign lands, all some people can do is laugh and praise the dissenter.

Why? Because the President of the United States happens to be President George W. Bush, and many Americans' hatred of President Bush and self-importance run much deeper than the respect of their own country and demand that honor be shown for the office of President.

Many have already forgotten September 11, 2001...for an attack on the President of this country is the same as an attack on this country. It's quite sad that this country has run amuck, and that many take their freedoms that this great country provides for granted.

Trivialize it as merely a shoe if you want, but know this truth: Conservatives would have been outraged if anyone would have attacked President Clinton in a similar manner. Likewise, conservatives will be outraged if anyone attacks President Obama in a similar manner. There has already been outrage over Al Queda's comments regarding President-elect Obama...from conservatives and liberals alike.

It's a shame that liberals are blinded by hate, so much so that they can't even put the Office of President into proper perspective.

Lesson Learned : If you're going into a snake pit, bring backup.

2008-12-10T08:20:00.001-08:00

Or at least some snake repellent.

So, I've visited my last forum for a while. I posted something as my first post in this "community" and was quickly swarmed by the self-described "vets". I had the audacity to post something critical, and because of that, I was subject to my rightful "hazing".

Now, as a first post, it may not have been wise to post something critical of the owner of this forum board, but that's what happens when you let something fester in your mind for a while...until it just has to come out. And perhaps I shouldn't have been so negative, though being critical by definition tends to have a negative tone to it. But I certainly could have rephrased it, to take away the bite of my sarcastic tone in the message.

The thing that may surprise you is that this was a conservative forum board. In fact, it was the forum board for whom I've stated in the past that I'm a fan of. It was the forum board of Glenn Beck's web site.

Since we don't get Glenn's his radio show around here, I subscribe to his service so I can download his radio show to the iPod. I've watched Glenn for a little over a year now, and there is something that's always bothered me about him...or more specifically about his website.

He sells merchandise on his website with the insignia "Hate U" and "H8U" branded on it. I was shocked when I first came upon this. I knew there'd have to be an explaination, but also suspected that any explaination likely wouldn't justify the insignia...at least to me.

As it turns out, the Hate U, as in Hate University, merchandise came about when Glenn was on Good Morning America one day with Geraldo Rivera. I am not positive if Glenn was saying that he wanted a closed border, or if he was merely in favor of a border fence, but in any event, he was labeled a hatemonger by Geraldo Rivera, and told that he teaches people to hate. So Glenn decided to embrace the label, albeit sarcastically, and create a line of merchandise that would sarcastically display the hatemonger label. Thus, Hate U was born.

To me, that's not justifiable reasoning to create t-shirts in which any person that doesn't know Glenn Beck(an overwhelming majority in this world) wouldn't understand the meaning behind Hate U. A t-shirt can not explain the sarcastic meaning behind Hate U, and any passerby reading a Hate U shirt would, in all likelihood, automatically be offended by the shirt. I'm not saying we have to walk on eggshells not to offend people, but "Hate U" ignores the eggs and the shells, it stomps all over the chicken.

I should clarify that I don't believe Glenn to be a hatemonger. I find him to be upstanding, inciteful, reasoned, and very much caring of the future of this country. As such, I felt that I needed to send an email to him, which is to say his staff, that I though he should drop the Hate U merchandise. Of course I had no expectations that this would happen, but I felt compelled to try to plead my case.

I hadn't really thought of it much sense, until he recently started saying on his radio show that we had to let go of the hate. That message was within the larger context of each individual person needing to find out who they are and what they believe in. I could get into a big rant on this larger message he spoke of, but suffice to say this larger message he was preaching about already had me in a negative frame of mind. So when he came to the bullet point of letting go of the hate, it was the first time I thought the man a hypocrite. Lecture about letting go of hate, but sell shirts with Hate boldly emblazened on it?! Outrageous!

So, after the second day of him speaking about letting go of hate, I felt compelled again to point out this incongruency, only this time to his "Insider" forum. To be honest, I figured his forum would be filled with conservative, reasoned individuals such as myself, and quite frankly like Glenn.

Boy was I wrong. The tongue lashing I took...the personal attacks that were flung my way...the unreasonable spin in which a few, very few, tried to justify the incongruency...well it shocked me.

It shouldn't have. I knew going in how gang-like other forum communities are. But this sealed the deal...if you've seen one forum board, you've seen them all. I was trying to confirm Glenn's message of letting go of hate, which should include not brandishing Hate on t-shirts, and all I got was hatred for even daring to question the glaringly obvious double standard.

The mere way the forum board is set up was creepy, to say the least. New posters(based on post count) are labeled Corky. I quickly recognized that to be a slam on the intelligence level based on the main character from the TV show, Life Goes On. Their forum rules openly promoted hazing on the new posters.

Many posters, at least the ones that replied to my thread, had over 15000 posts. I can only assume that the vast majority of those had to be emoticon filled replies that had nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

To be honest, all of this made me question the very integrity of Glenn Beck. Even if the man is a huge proponent of free speech, this seemed to be well beyond political incorrectness run amuk or promoting rational discussions on his board. But I had to try to not hold him responsible for what others said on his board. Then I soon realized that many of the people on his forums either didn't listen to Glenn anymore, or didn't like him anymore, or both. The very next broadcast that I listented to of Glenn's made me realize that he has left those in him forum boards behind. He has evolved his thinking, grown as a person, whereas these others had not.

So that was my first personal experience with hatred on the on the right. It was good though, because it reinforced me to think critically of everyone, even those I listen to and agree with a lot...for no one can be right 100% of the time. Except for God, that is...right Rocket? :)

Just Can't Relate to Book or other like statements...

2008-12-02T18:56:00.000-08:00

I'm a big Glenn Beck fan. I credit him and Bill O'Reilly for opening my eyes, getting me to think more critically, and giving me the confidence to speak up for my beliefs. However, in regards to his recent book, The Christmas Sweater, and his recent statements on his show about the recent internet suicide that was watched online, I just can't relate.

I'll try not to spoil the book for anyone as I explain myself. I won't give a book review, persay, as there were some things about the book itself I didn't like as well, but that's neither here nor there in regards to not being able to relate to Glenn in this instance. Much of what he has said himself about his book in broad strokes I can use anyway, so I won't be giving away any details that he has spoken about himself.

This book of his, The Christmas Sweater, was written as a fiction work, but he has said that it's based on his life story. In it, the character that's based off himself, is really a jerk to his family. It starts with not getting the Christmas present he wanted, and ends with blaming his grandfather for his mother's death, screaming and yelling hateful things to him before running away.

Now, while I come from a divorced family, I have no reference point for the death of a parent as a youth. In an attempt to be empathetic, I'm not even sure I could do that justice. I can assume what I'd be like if I lost a parent when I was 10, and it's even easier for me with the hindsight of age experience...but I don't think I could accurately put myself into a 10-year-old's shoes who has just lost their parent and confidently say that I wouldn't be a jerk.

Other than yelling at my mother daily as she simply tried to wake me up so that I could make it to school on time (she's such a saint for doing it day after day despite my morning grouchiness), I didn't have many fierce words with my mom. And I certainly never once believed that I hated my mom. I never even thought that of my Dad. In fact, I sought his love more than I sought my mother's since we only saw him twice a year...my mother's love I always knew was true and lasting. But Glenn has read some letters on air and said that he has received countless letters similar to them about how so many people say they relate to the message in the book and how they saw themselves in the title character.

I have no reference point and can't possibly understand the numerous times when the book's character was mean or hateful just for the sake of being mean or hateful...even when there was a clear chance to not be mean and hateful.

Beyond the book, Glenn recently made some statements about the young kid who killed himself online while hundreds of others watched as he posted it from his webcam. The kid left a suicide letter which, in part, says "I hate myself, and I hate living...I've let everyone down, and I feel as though I'll never change, or I'll never improve." Glenn goes on to ask his audience if they see themselves in that letter at all, before saying that this note rings true for him(in the past tense). He said that he believed lots of people could relate to the suicide note left by the kid, and I'm just bewildered by that.

I've never gone more than a few hours of actually hating myself for some previous stupid action I did, and I've never once hated living. And I've never once believed that I'll never improve on things or that I'll never change. It's sad, of course, but I just can't empathize with the train of thought that would leave me to believe that I'd never get better at things throughout my life.

Is it just me? Am I the only one, or even someone in the clear minority, that has never experienced true disdain for someone in their family? If many people can relate, as Glenn hypothizes, then it's no wonder that this country has begun to fall from grace.

Be Careful of Annuities

2008-12-01T16:45:00.000-08:00

I met a respected friend over the holiday who is testing out selling Annuities. He seemed quite gung ho about this new opportunity, so I kept my beliefs about the product to myself. The part that made me cringe was when he talked about how easy it was because of the turbulent market.

It is this kind of thinking that allows people to take advantage of people's fears...predominantly older people. So if you have some money to invest, or have someone that's trying to talk to you about moving money into an Annuity, let's quickly explore some "gray areas" that may not be given much detail during the selling pitch. I used to be a stock broker, and while I didn't sell Annuities, I was licensed to sell them if I wanted.

First and foremost, an Annuity is an Insurance Product. It is not a wealth building tool, but something people use because they are scared of losing the value of their money/investments. If you have no stomach for the market, and let's face it...who does these days, then perhaps an Insurance policy protecting your money(which is what an Annuity is) is for you. I could have made an argument(will explain past tense later) that you could do just as well with a conservative investment elsewhere, but an Annuity does accomplish the preservation of money.

Secondly, the avoidance of probate. Seemingly one of the big pitches is that an Annuity avoids probate when you die. There are two things misleading about this. Firstly, I believe that some allow the people who are buying the Annuity to believe that probate is the taxes that are charged to the estate after death, aka the death tax. This is misleading, probate is not the avoidance of the death tax. Uncle Sam will get his money, regardless of your belief about taxing money that has already been taxed once.

What probate is, is the state appointing someone to oversee a deceased persons estate in the event that no one has been selected to do this by the deceased. The state winds up charging a fee for this service, sometimes up to 5% of the estate...then you get taxed.

So the other thing is that I think salesmen are leading people to think that an Annuity is the only unique product that avoids probate. This is, of course, untrue. Aside from setting up a Trust, any IRA and even some brokerage accounts with a Designated Beneficiary avoid probate. Because all probate does is divvy up assets, so if you have a beneficiary, there are no assets to divvy up. Of course, taxes are still due on the estate.

Another main thing that salesmen try to do is brush over the fees of the Annuity and the other terms that could be unflattering, such as a termination fee, should you want to cash out or need access to the bulk of your assets early.

It's these fees that are the main reason I don't like Annuities. Because some annuities sell you on the fact that your annuity is invested in the market and you can actually grow the value of your annuity, the large fees are overlooked or underrepresented. If you want to invest in the market, get a brokerage account and pay little to no fees. The fees you pay are, again, for the security of being in an Insurance product. It's like you're paying a premium as you would for your car or home, only it is coming out of your nest egg. You may as well find a good bank and put your money into the money market fund there and not pay premiums.

Now, to even more worrisome thoughts. The reason I stated earlier that I would have made the argument that you would have had just as safe an investment as an Annuity, was because of US Treasuries and Mortgage Backed Securities. Of course the Mortgate Backed Securities are in the toilet, and there are worries with the exponentially increasing debt that the US Government is taking on, that US Treasuries may not be as safe an investment as they once were....they may even be at risk of losing their AAA Credit rating. Yes, it is conceivable that the US Government could lose it's credit rating.

And finally...what if insurance companies continue to fail like AIG? Will the Government guarantee all those annuities? Well, insurance companies aren't FDIC insured, so they aren't obligated to.

Let's simply look at the Annuities from the Insurance Company perspective. You sell people market insurance, with the hope of investing in the market yourself and then just keeping the profits you make in the market. But if the market continues to be in the crapper, how do you make money on Annuities if your an Insurance Company? You continue to increase fees until the market suffocates you and your Annuities are worth less and less. Neither of those options bode well for the annuity holder.

So while I'm no longer an investment consultant and won't recommend that you don't buy an annuity. I do recommend that you do all your homework before getting into an Insurance Product that's sold as a complicated investment vehicle.

Week of Thanks. Day 4 - Thankful for God, Country and Family

2008-11-26T18:59:00.000-08:00

Ok...so a slightly different tone from days 1-3...not that I didn't fully and literally mean every word of the other posts in the week of Thanks. *shifty eyes*

But Thanksgiving is meant to remind us to be thankful to those things near and dear to our hearts, rather than be focused on parades, football, and glutany.

I've been off the beaten path lately when it comes to God as I try to find out what it is that I really believe. But I've never once waivered in my belief in the Almighty. I know He's there, and I know He adores me, just as he does all His children. I'm thankful that He's there, and I'm thankful that He loves me enough to be patient with me as explore the details of my faith.

I've said before that I believe it's His inspiration that launched this nation. I know things didn't just fit together like a puzzle, but I'm often astounded at the great gathering and collaberation of all the great minds that make up our Founding Fathers. While I often rail on how I believe this nation has turned away from what the Founding Fathers intended, and I wonder if, when I'm old, I'll even recognize this as the same nation I grew up in; but I'm so very thankful that I live here and get to make out of this life what I put into it. Freedom is a wonderful gift that I all to often take for granted, but I'm thankful to everyone who made freedom and this great country possible.

And it would be a shame if I didn't get to share our gift of freedom with people I cherish greatly. I'm thankful to my Mom for raising a man whose wife consistently says she's lucky to have for a variety of reasons. Most of those reasons seem quite ordinary to me, but apparently stacked up against her friends, they are more than ordinary...and my mother is to thank. I'm thankful to my wife for being my best friend and for being so patient with me as I become more outspoken in regards to my conservative beliefs. She still hates it when I argue with the television, but it's certainly understandable and can easily be overlooked for all the rest that she does for me. And of course, I'm thankful for my kids. They are my pride and joy, and while I sometimes feel like a failure in life because I'm merely a night auditor at a local hotel, I have but to look at them once and realize how lucky I am to be able to raise them myself rather than being stuck at work while a sitter raises them.

Luckily, I do give thanks for all these things more often than once a year, and while Thanksgiving's prayer may not be any more important than all the others in which I give thanks, it is a great occasion to share with everyone else the blessings that I'm thankful for.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone. Enjoy the day, enjoy the family, enjoy the fun...stay safe and take care.

The Mad Hoosier

Week of Thanks. Day 3 - Thankful for Super Majorities

2008-11-26T08:35:00.001-08:00

With all the hope and change coming, how could you not be thankful for the trifecta of Democratic leadership that will usher in the next great movement. Now technically the Super Majority refers to there being enough members in one party of government to prevent a filibuster. With two races still to be decided in the Senate, that's still a possibility, given that the two Independents vote with the Democrats. However, today, we're just referring to the watered down version of Super Majority, referring to a Democratic President AND Democratic majority in the House of Representatives AND a Democratic majority in the Senate.

This trifecta has only happened twice in our history, and each time it was with the Democrats being in charge. The first time was when the majority crafted and ~~pushed through~~ The New Deal, and the second time was when the Democratic majority crafted The Great Society. There has already been talks of a New New Deal, and a New Great Society. Hopefully they will come up with a better moniker to describe the blissfulness that will follow the skewed legislation.

Now I know what you're thinking: Each of those brought about change that changed our country, left millions enslaved to the Government, and will eventually cripple our great nation. I say, lighten up Sally Sourpuss...let's not think about the future, let's live in the here and now.

The New Deal gave us the wondrous gift of Social Security. A way to not have to work after the age of 65 and still get paid as though you were working...at a percentage of what your once were...for the next two years of your life because life expectancy when the New Deal was created was 67. That's outstanding. Anyone who can look at that and point out that the mere fact that life expectancy has went up 20 years yet the age at which benefits kick has remained the same is looking at the glass as half-empty. Our government loves us...they aren't trying to buy votes of the aged or anything by keeping things as is. AND, the unemployment benefits that were enacted during the New Deal were such a great idea, that the current congress just extended the coverage of unemployment benefits by nearly 2 months.

So on to the Great Society, as I'm sure there are some naysayers out there that aren't a fan of Medicare and Medicaid. To be honest I'm not sure what's not to love about making the elderly and destitute rely on the government for their basic life needs. The all inclusive brand of healthcare works so well in other countries for those that still maintain their own private health insurance. So there may be an instance or two where a government run healthcare provider has had a decision between two people in the exact same situation and the decision came down to age. I'm sure the elderly person realized that they had lived a full life, it was time to let someone else have a chance at a full life. It's the right perspective to have, when you're sharing the ~~wealth~~ benefits of all inclusive health care. I'm sure they were all thankful to be in the position they were in.

Just like I'm thankful that I'll be able to partake in the next New Deal and/or next Great Society. Thank you Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, and Barack Obama...thank you for loving me so much.

Week of Thanks. Day 2 - Thankful for conqurring man made Global Warming

2008-11-25T11:36:00.000-08:00

Today I'm thankful that we have finally defeated Global Warming. And not just your run of the mill global warming, this is the global warming that was clearly man made. If you can't accept that fact, you may want to leave now. Holocaust deniers are not welcome here.

And if you're among those that are in the crowd of crazy right wing speculators that believe studies that suggest Global Warming may be due to the temperature of the universe, sun spots, or any other studies that suggest that all planets near the Earth have suspiciously gone through similar warming and cooling periods as this planet, again, call up your friend President Ahmadinejad and have fun.

Less than 10 years ago, there was snow on Halloween in Southern Illinois. If that's not enough proof of man made global warming, maybe you've heard of a little documentary called The Inconvenient Truth. And before you right wing nuts bring up the fact that Al Gore advisor James Hansen fudged historical numbers for temperature, let me just say that there's no proof that he did that.

The fact that when you Google October's temperature and you find hundreds of websites "citing Hansen's data", saying that it was the second warmest October in history, just shows that those websites don't know what they are talking about. I mean, Canada supposedly found the mistake, who's to say that someone in Canada isn't making this all up. Clearly all someone had to do was walk outside in North America during October, and they knew it was colder than normal. A full 3 degrees cooler than last October, in fact.

And there's where part of the victory over Global Warming comes in. All it's taken is our friend Al Gore to win the Nobel Peace Prize, a few green weeks from NBC Universal, who's parent company GE definitely had nothing to gain from those innovative Green Week themes, and that was half the battle. The only other thing to do was drive the price of oil so high that everyone stopped driving, and wallah...cooler temperatures.

In fact, The Inconvenient Truth is the hero of the day. We, meaning the planet of Earth, have lost 1/3 of a degree since the release of The Inconvenient Truth. And thanks to that, we are now cooler than when enemy to the environment, George Bush, took office.

So it is clear that the chapter is closed on Global Warming. All the science is in, and these facts are irrefutable. If you refuse to admit that the war against Global Warming is over, then you're akin to those who refused to believe that Global Warming was man made, which was akin to being a holocaust denier.

So to the end of Global Warming, I am so very thankful.

Week of Thanks. Day 1 - Thankful for reaping what others sow

2008-11-24T14:43:00.000-08:00

It's good to pause and give Thanks from time to time. The Bible teaches us to be more enthusiastic with our Thanks than with our desires. There are so many things I'm thankful for; clearly I won't be able to name them all here, but I figured I'd list a few this week, in no particular of importance.

You've heard of reaping what you sow, but that's more of a capitalist way of looking at things. In light of upcoming events, let's go the socialist route and speak about reaping what others sow.

There are things such as reaping the benefits of soldiers hard work to keep our nation free, but that seems like such a downer for a Thankful week such as this. Besides, that's old hat. Sowing the oats of freedom...being thankful for that is so the past 8 years.

So let's look to the future...to hope and change. Boy I'm glad that this change is something worthy of being Thankful for.

So here's to you, sowers of the change I'm about to reap. Thank you lenders, for sowing the labor of faulty home loans. Thank you Congress and Presidents, for pushing home ownership to those that can't afford it. Thank you Treasury Secretary and banks for freezing foreclosures on said owners that couldn't afford the house that you sold them. Thank you all for refusing to let companies fail. Thank you Government for taking ownership in America's banks. Thank you auto unions for your 2200 page union contracts with auto makers and double employee salary compared to foreign competitors. Thank you Congress, again, for bailout after bailout after bailout. Thank you for the wonderous gift of so much tax burden that my grandchildren will be able to hear stories of how candy bars only cost their grandpa ten bucks. I am so thankful for being able to reap the benefits of all these wonderful gifts you all have sown for us lately.

Time = Money...

2008-11-10T16:57:00.000-08:00

So if Time = Money...and Money is necessary to "spread the wealth", let's do a little experiment and take out the middle component to determine if "spreading the wealth" is fair, or even a good idea.

Let's say, for this argument's sake, that your job is one that you thoroughly love doing. So in the time component, we've got your time filled passion in the form of a job, sleeping time, and family time, and personal/leisure time, which would also be comprised of doing something you enjoyed.

So, for instance, your typical day is filled with your passion (work) which presumably provides a service or product for people, playing with the kids, spending time with the spouse, reading a good book, and then getting rest to do it all over again the next day.

Now, it's determined that "spreading the wealth" is good and is now government mandated. Since time = money, we're taking money away and using time as our wealth component.

Now a lady down the street, we'll call her Suzie, has applied and been approved for the "spread the wealth" government sharing program. Suzie is a drug addict, she has a life in boyfriend, and other than a part time job at the local fast food joint that Suzie has, her day is spent getting wasted. Still, the government has decided that she needs a fair shot and says that you need to help her out so that she can stay in her home and have the opportunity to get treatment for her addiction.

So at 4:00 every Tuesday, you have been assigned to mow Suzie's lawn and take her trash to the local dump, and any other odds and ends she needs you to do until 5:30. You have no option at this point. It's a government mandated program, and if you don't do your share, you're in violation of the law.

Of course, 4:00 to 5:30 is when you have to take your daughters to piano lessons, but don't worry about that. Someone else has been chosen by the government to "spread the wealth", and they will be taking your kids to piano lessons and then out to eat afterwords. They will have a good time...and who knows, maybe they will teach your daughters something.

After a couple of months, Suzie has relapsed. In all honesty, she never went to the treatment facility...she was out getting high. But she's at home all the time now, wasted, and you're still mandated to mow her lawn and help her out for an hour and a half weekly.

But all is right with the world...it's time for your daughter's recital. You go to your daughter's recital and are blown away by how good she is at playing the piano. Then you realize that you've missed an integral part of your daughter growing up. But at least you were "spreading the wealth", right?

After the recital, you all pile into the car and head to the local fast food joint to celebrate. Upon getting in the car, you learn that your daughter has added a few 4-letter words to her vocabulary, thanks the the other person that's been taking her to piano lessons. Nice. So you decide to get the food to go, because you're going to have to have a talk with your daughter and try to de-program her new vocabulary out of her.

You pull up to the fast food joint, and there's Suzie...ready to take and fill your order. She looks halfway strung out, so you're in that much more of a hurry to get out of there, and when you get home, you realize that Suzie completely jacked up your order. Now you're daughter's bawling because she didn't get her chicken nuggets...and now your de-programming time is put off for another day.

That sounds ludicrous, right? Well, it's no more ludicrous than "spreading the wealth" through the government mandated program of taxes. You're still giving away your heard earned "wealth" (time or money) to someone that is totally unwilling to help themselves. Why is everyone so eager to let our government spit in the face of our Constitution, which never called for any "spreading of the wealth" whatsoever?

A Bold Prediction About Communism??

2008-11-06T12:04:00.000-08:00

Nikita Kruschev, a Russian leader in the Communist party back in the 1950's, visited the United States under the Eisenhower administration and spoke with the Secretary of Agriculture at the time, Ezra Benson. Later, Benson recounted the meeting as follows:

"I have personally witnessed the heart-rending results of the loss of freedom. I have talked face to face with the godless communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Kruschev for a half day when he visited the United States, not that I’m proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But, according to President Eisenhower, Kruschev had expressed a desire to learn something of American Agriculture — and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why. As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom he arrogantly declaired in substance:

‘You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.’"

I've seen and heard quite a few intelligent people speak about what we can "learn from France" or "Canada" or the like...in other words...what we can learn from socialism. Could Kruschev's prophecy be coming true? There's no doubt that we have little doses of socialism already. Is it enough to say we will live under communism shortly, or are there many more doses of socialism still to come before things get so bad that someone steps out and says, 'I will take care of you. I will lead you and this country into a new direction." and everyone follows?

The 10 Cannots

2008-11-06T11:04:00.000-08:00

This is a quote by William J. H. Boetcker. If things go as promised, the truth of this quote will be tested.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

This Day...

2008-11-04T21:10:00.000-08:00

History was made. America's voice was heard, and our nation forges ahead with renewed passion. Congratulations to Barack Obama. You are the beacon to which countless minorities and all Americans in general will look to in their search for the American Dream. All things are possible. If you can dream it and you work hard enough, you can make it happen.

I Love Fall...

2008-11-01T16:17:00.000-07:00

It's easily my favorite time of year. Recently plowed fields...colorful trees distant in the background. It's my idea of heaven.

Sure, many people look at fall as the ending of a life cycle. While factual, I think those may be the glass half empty type of people. I see fall as the beginning. Preparation. It is what is necessary for future growth.

If you're wise enough, you take in the beauty of "fall", and let it fuel you through the hard times until you can sense the rebirth and gain additional inspiration. For we may not know exactly how long the hard times will last, but there will always be growth in the future.

The Constitution is full of negative liberties?!?!?!

2008-10-29T10:47:00.000-07:00

The man doesn't understand...that, or he's a complete idealogue. In an interview in 2001, when Barack Obama was a Illionis State Senator, he said this:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that now I would have the right to vote...I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and, as long as I could pay for it, I’d be OK.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in the society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

Let's put aside any underlying arguements about Barack Obama's stance on repairations, and just focus on his sentiment of the founding documents of this country.

If this doesn't convince you that at minimum he believes in Socialism, then I hear Joy Behar has some great Kool-Aid for you.

I believe the Constitution of the United States was divinely influenced. I know some will disagree, and I'm not saying that the Constitution is the word of God by any means. What I'm saying is that it was divine influence that gathered these Founding Fathers together...brilliant minds from many walks of life...and they created this document that is...well...Awesome. Who can look at that great document and see negativity?!

Barack Obama is exactly right. The Constitution doesn't say what the Government must do for us. Because the Founding Fathers believed that too much Government was a problem. That the role of government must be small...but not tyranical. THAT is why it says what the Government CAN'T do. It CAN'T take away our freedoms...right now.

And it is absolutely NOT the role of courts to say what Government can do. There's a reason that Lady Justice is blindfolded. She's supposed to follow the letter of the law as it's written, not change it on a whim based on one judge's interpretation of the law.

Personal Crusade for Empathy...

2008-10-25T03:48:00.000-07:00

I think I've always been very good at "feeling someone else's pain". I think I have a good ability of putting myself in someone else's shoes and, that the extent to which I possibly can, see where the other person is coming from...no...feel what the other person feels.

This, I have always thought was Empathy. I was shocked to find out recently that this is more accurately the description of sympathy. How can this be? I don't understand. Empathy sounds so much more involved...so much more personal.

Eh...I can sympathize with that. I have empathy for what you're going through. Which sounds better? Which would you prefer...that someone merely sympathized with your feelings, or that someone had great empathy for your situation.

The choice is clear. Empathy wins....hands down.

What's that? You're not so sure? Well, mark my words...and no, that's not a Joe Biden pot shot...mark my words, by the end of my lifetime, people will come to know Empathy to be the more deeper sentiment of the Empathy vs. sympathy battle.

Economy Turn Around in 2009?? Don't Believe It...

2008-10-25T01:39:00.000-07:00

...or at the very least, don't take it at face value. Stratfor.com, whoever that is, is predicting that the recession will subside in early 2009. Other analysts say it will be mid-2009. Remember these are the idiots who never saw this coming...they are now making predictions that it will turn around in 3 to 6 months.

Hello Mr. Greenspan...Mr. Best-Economist-Ever...what did you have to say on the situation before Congress the other day? Oh yeah...he said things like he was shocked...he never saw it coming...it was a once-in-a-century tsunami...and that the housing situation must correct first before the economy can turn around which won't be for many months. Former Federal Reserve Chairman is saying the recession will last more than 6 months.

So ask yourself this...why are "experts" saying that the economy will turn around in less than a year? Because oil prices are falling? Because the dollar is strengthening? Those are the only two bright spots at the moment. Unemployment is rising, foreclosures are still happening, and credit is still tight.

I'm not sure why oil prices are falling. OPEC just cut back on supply. Why? So we can keep $3.00 gas???

I'm not sure why the dollar is strengthening. We just did over 1.3 Trillion dollars in bailouts (some say nearer to 2.0 Trillion). We are printing money like crazy. So what? The rest of the world is hurting and their pain is strengthening our dollar??

I'm no economist...but the only people that saw this coming were the ones that aren't "experts", and something doesn't make sense here. If our dollar is strengthening just because the rest of the world is faltering, it's really a false strengthening. Whenever the rest of the world rebounds, we're still going to have more than $10 Trillion in National Debt and we'll still be running a yearly budget deficit, thus adding to the National Debt.

No one really knows when this will turn around, so all I'm trying to say is be careful folks. Pay your personal debts off. Change your lifestyle...live debt free. Get an emergency fund. Then whatever happens with everything mentioned above will have a minimal effect on your lives. For the ones out there saying don't panic. They're right. Don't Panic. Just get serious, life thrifty, pay off debts, and you'll be fine.

Regrets...The Mad Hoosier changing his stance??

2008-10-23T11:28:00.000-07:00

In the past, I've said that I don't have any regrets in life, and I stood by that when I did this post. At the time, I had read Rocketstar's blog when he questioned why it was so bad to have regret, based on the general definition of feeling sorry or remorseful for a previous action.

I tried to argue that it was the definition that people may take issue with when determining if they had regrets or not. I stated that people took regrets to mean that they'd change something in the past...which they know would change their current lot in life. I even argued that if I made a different decision (returning home to finish college instead of finishing in Toledo, Ohio) that I would have never met my wife, had three wonderful kids, etc. So I don't "regret" that decision. It was just an example I used, but I felt it could be translated into any decision/action (as many percieved regrets are negative, while my example of returning home to finish school wasn't necessarily an example of a negative experience).

I think I'm starting to change my stance. I still look at regrets in the larger issue sense...more in the life-altering sense. But now, I think of regret as going to the heart of a different issue...doing the right thing.

Unlike my wise friend, Rocket, what I didn't see then what I see now, which is that it's ok to regret and be remorseful of bad decisions without betraying your current place in life. I even think it's ok to say you'd do that something differently. Because you're acknowledging that you did something wrong, you're learning from a previous mistake.

In the end, you simply can't go back and change that previous decision, and merely wishing you made a different decision, then, isn't betraying what would have possibly changed in the present.

There's one specific issue in my past that changed the way I think of this, and it definitely comes down to doing the right thing. It was a life-changing event that I regret, and I wish I would have done it differently. What I did was wrong.

Maybe it's because it was a life-changing event, but I've actually found it to be somewhat liberating to admit regretting the decision I made. I've taken more accountability for the decision I made, and learned from the situation. I don't feel as though I've betrayed my current lot in life, even though it probably would have turned out differently, because I can use the wisdom, or lack thereof, in that decision to possibly help my family or others in the future.

I still adore my family and wouldn't change where I am in life. But what I did was still wrong, and if I can admit and regret doing the wrong thing, what kind of example am I setting?

The big thing is learning from the decisions you regret, request forgiveness if necessary, and don't dwell on the decision or how things may have been different.

Who are YOU voting for?

2008-10-23T09:41:00.000-07:00

Ok, I'm not really looking for an answer, but I am looking to make sure you know why you are voting who you are voting for.

I think some of us, and I may include myself in this group as I'm not positive whom I've voting for yet, may be voting for the lesser of two evils. That's fine if you're voting that way, that would generally mean you understand the issues and while there's no good candidate you'd vote for, you're voting for the person you think would mess the country up less than the other.

The more I think about it, if you're voting for McCain, you're likely in the above group...OR, you're voting for Sarah Palin. Though she has governed the state of Alaska more from the center than anything, she's the only true conservative in the race. So some may be voting for her, hoping that she will pull McCain to the right a bit.

McCain hasn't really given us a reason to vote for him, other than he plans on cutting Government spending and keep taxes low. Now those are good ideas, but he hasn't really articulated why they are good ideas, or how and why they differ from Obama. Some of us know why those are good ideas without him having to spell it out for us, but I'm not sure that many people do.

To be fair, he is strong on foreign issues as well, and will keep the military strong, but I just haven't heard a strong enough case from him on those issues. He should have mopped the floor with Obama on the foreign policy debate, and he didn't.

Obama is for change and hope and....spreading the wealth?? He plans to grow government so that it can take care of you. He plans on talking with nations that refer to the United States as The Great Satan. He was for this bailout with lots of regulation, so he's for Government run Banks. He wants to take oil's profits and create millions of jobs in renewable energy. In short, he wants Government run Energy. He wants universal health care...he thinks it's your right...that it's the right of Joe Schmoe who refuses to get a job to be able to have health care. In short, he wants Government run Health Care. That's three industries that he's plainly for Government control in. Do you really think that automobiles and airlines are far behind. He'll snatch that up as quickly as they ask for it.

He's not hiding his agenda, he's quite forthcoming with it. The only thing that came out recently that he didn't articulate the way he'd like is "when you spread the wealth around, I think it's good for everybody." It's clear that is what his tax plan is, but it's never been stated in that fashion. So you tell me, with the three and probably four Government run industries along with spreading the wealth around...how is that not socialism?? It very clearly is socialism.

That's not what this country is about, that's not how it was founded. The Federal Government's primary obligation is to protect us from foreign threats, and then minimally regulate the rest of the country.

The Supreme Court is there to determine if State laws intercede with Federal Laws & to determine if Federal Laws are constitutional...as in, not restricting or overstepping the founding documents of this country, period. It's purpose is not to create laws from the bench.

I can't say that John McCain will not be a continuation of the past 8 years. He says he won't, but the Government also said that $700 Billion would likely be enough to help us through this financial crisis. The additional $490 Billion on Tuesday was just another example that proved otherwise.

What I can say is that an Obama administration WILL increase government. He has plainly said that is his intention. Is he smart? Of course. Does he think he knows best how to fix this country? I think he does. Is he wrong to think that? Yep. Because, again, politicians can't fix the country, Americans can and often do.

If someone wants to vote for Obama because they agree with Government run Banks, Government run Healthcare, Government run Energy, spreading the wealth, and probably Government run Transportation...fine. But don't vote for Obama because "he can't be any worse than Bush". If someone's going to embrace Socialism, embrace it because you believe in it...not because you hate Bush, and by default McCain.

Blue...

2008-10-20T02:10:00.000-07:00

You ever just had one of those blue days? You can't quite put your finger on it...but you feel kinda depressed or down in the dumps?

For some reason, that's the way I feel this morning. I don't know if it was a book I read recently, old memories, future uncertainty, a rough weekend at work, some combination of it all, or something else entirely...but I know I don't like these kind of days.

Hopefully a few miles on the treadmill when I get home will help.

The Tax Issue

2008-10-10T08:14:00.000-07:00

With all the talk about raising and lowering taxes, I figured I'd explain taxes...at least from the conservative standpoint.

I know it can be rather boring stuff, but as I try to tell my wife, to no avail, it's important to understand because it's one of the primary differences between liberals and conservatives....and heading into this election, could be the difference between socialism and capitalism.

I'll go into detail below, but basically it boils down to believing in capitalism. Capitalism is a force into itself. Everyone contributes. If you honestly believe that 95% of the population can live on wealth of 5% of the people, you're living in a dream world. Those 5% will eventually leave because they refuse to carry 100% the burden.

In capitalism, you have the right to fail. In fact, if you aren't prepared, or if you're too greedy, the system will make you fail. If you become a success, then you are rewarded for your hard work. Conservatives believe in not punishing success by keeping taxes low. By keeping taxes low, business can expand, invest, and grow, whereby creating more jobs and contributing to a fully functioning society. The sky is the limit, and anything short of cheating(such as creating monopolies) will be rewarded. Liberals, however, believe that once you've obtained success, you're obligated to give back...so they force you to give back via taxes. It's borderline socialism because the successful are the rich, and the taxes on the rich go to the less fortunate aka the poor. In capitalism, when you punish success via taxes, businesses don't grow, they contract. They stop expanding and investing....and they lay off workers. OR, they move their companies to India who will gladly take the business and contribution to society in exchange for low taxes. In short, and quite possibly a slanted view, conservatives believe in rewarding the successful....liberals believe in punishing success.

How do you figure, you say? Well, if you're really interested, read on, as I expand a bit on what I just stated.

This is a nation founded on personal freedoms and freedom in business...free market forces, ie. capitalism. Just as with personal freedoms you can do as little or as much as you want, likewise as a business you can work as little or as hard as you want. To those who put hard work into their business, the rewards can be limitless.

The reason I have quickly turned to business owners is because, as you can imagine, those that work hardest, become the wealthiest. Unless you're a child of a billionaire, nothing comes for free in this country...at least that's how things were designed to work. You want something, you have to work hard for it.

Now, there's only so much a single person can accomplish. There's only so many hours in a day, so many appointments that can be kept, so many jobs that can be done. So eventually, if one wants to make more money, they need to hire people to help. This is, of course, good. To provide a good or service is one thing, but to hire someone...to contribute to creating a productive society, creating jobs is very good.

Of course, you can't be an idiot and be a boss in charge of a workforce, so you have to add a new skill set, which falls under the working hard category. So if you're successful enough, you make more money.

So if you're with me so far, and I mean this with no amount of condescension, you work hard, you make money. You become successful, you create jobs, you add to society, you make more money.

Now in the early days, you got to keep all the money you earned from working so hard and being successful. But then along came the 16th amendment, which allowed for income taxes so that the United States could pay for the Civil War. Before that, Government raised money by tariffs on imports. They[the government] didn't need much money, because they designed their role as being minimal. But the military was one of their roles, and much money was needed to fight in the Civil War, so a tax was decided upon. Initially, it was meant to be temporary.

So these days...you work hard, you make money, you become successful, you are forced to give a portion of that money to the government. Everyone accepts this as a given these days, so they must account for taxes as they work hard to make money. No one likes to give their money away, of course, but business owners particularly. They are the ones sacrificing, risking capital, creating jobs. But as long as taxes are low, since taxes are a given anyway, business owners are willing to take on a little extra risk, work even a little harder, and keep creating jobs in order to make money.

But what happens as taxes begin to raise, as you are forced to give away more money for your hard money and success? You become less willing to sacrifice for that money. You are willing to risk less for that money. After all...you've lived the American dream. You're successful...you've had to work hard, though. Had to sacrifice, take risks...only to give away half of your earnings?? Initially, you will likely simply pass those tax increases along to your customers. So in essence, the tax isn't just happening to the rich...the new taxes are making it all the way down to the consumer.

But eventually, particularly for the small business owner, you'll begin to curtail your business. It no longer becomes worth it to pay that much for Social Security taxes on each employee...so you start to lay off employees to keep your profit margin up. Laid off employees means less contribution to society.

Plus, now, since you're making less money, you're spending less money. That means less job creation elsewhere. You're not paying for housing renovations or upkeep, so painters, contractors, roofers, construction workers, they all are less apt to find work. Less work, means less employment, less employment means less investment (in savings, capital, investments, etc), less investments means recession.

Now this is the part I'm confused by. It's the whole...those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. You'd think that there should only be a few recessions in history for people to realize that high taxes are bad. How is it confirmed that high taxes are bad? Well...to get out of a recession, aside from tinkering with interest rates, it usually takes tax cuts to fix the recession.

That's the primary fix...lower taxes. Democrats agree...during a recession anyway...otherwise they wouldn't have voted countless times to lower tax rates during rough times. Barack Obama himself said that he wouldn't raise taxes if the economy was bad. So why is it, once times aren't so rough, Democrats are eager to raise taxes again. It leads to the same cycle people!

Actually, I know why. It goes back to the fundamental idea of taxing success. Democrats believe that once someone is successful, they are fundamentally obligated to give up those earnings and pass them on to the less fortunate. That's not the way capitalism works folks.

Truth be told, many wealthy people give plenty of their money to charities, organizations, foundations, etc. Their belief is that they know how to maximize their money and they want to be certain that their money is getting the best return. They also know, that the government rarely gets a fair return for the money spent. They also generally believe that money shouldn't be a handout, rather going to help people help themselves.

So if many people are giving money to worthy causes, and to boot they are helping people help themselves, ie contributing more to society than a mere handout, why not let capitalism run the way it's supposed to run. Do we need some oversight? Sure. But minimal oversight. Trust me...capitalism always punishes those that deserve it in the end.

The Credit Crisis Is A Myth??

2008-10-01T12:23:00.000-07:00

It seems, during this bailout, that all you hear about is the credit crisis...that people and small buisnesses can't get business loans, car loans, student loans. I alluded to it in my most recent post, and this will just be an extension of that.

You see, the "crisis" is true, in the sense that most people that have gotten car and house loans for the past 10 years won't be able to get these loans. But folks...those are the people who SHOULD NOT be getting loans in the first place!

I'm sorry, but you are not entitled to new cars every 2-3 years...you aren't entitled to cars, period. Be happy if you can afford an older car. Keep it fixed up, and be happy. I'm driving around in a 10 year old Neon. I plan on keeping it until we can pay off the rest of our credit cards and then I'll save up to pay cash for a different USED car. What a novel idea.

And yes, if you aren't entitled to a car, then you aren't entitled to home ownership. Sorry. It's true. There's an unsaid expectation that everyone should be afforded reasonable housing...and I can concede that. But that's different than home ownership. Home ownership is a responsibility, one that you must work hard to attain, like much else in life.

BUT...to the people that can afford it...to responsible stewards with money, loans are still attainable. Banks want to loan money...to people they reasonably know will pay it back. That means, living an appropriate lifestyle, less credit card debt, etc.

If we're talking about a "credit crisis"...you'll see a real crisis down the road if this $700 Billion "investment" is made, but nothing has changed with regard who whom loans are given to. No one has shown us that they are ready to change the "business as usual" in regards to this bailout bill. Until they do, it is necessary that we continue to vote NO to bailouts. And the whole, "there will be time for the blame game later" is code for "we need money, but we aren't going to change anything."

And it's sad to say...but I think the make-up of Student Loans need to change too. I remember college...but I can't say for certain the things I learned there. But I know I still have $20,000 left to go to pay it off...and I've been out of college for 10 years. I'm willing to say, that in that regard, I'm just like millions of Americans. My sister has huge student loans...and she's now a stay at home mother. It's her right to be a stay at home mother, but if millions of students go to college only to fail to use that education, it only aids in running up the cost of college.

This points to some fundamental changes. We either need to go back to the principles of "America's Greatest Generation" or we need to move on to Socialism with the realization that it will render the United States an afterthought in regards to world power. In any event, our current monetary policy (and that includes essentially the same policy that we've had for at least two decades) isn't working. As Dr. Phil, or financial guru Dave Ramsey, would say, "how's that working for ya?" It's not. So it needs to change. To what, will determine the kind of nation our kids grow up in. Is anyone willing to stand up and hold our government accountable for how it, and we, leave this country for the next generation??

The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling! Isn't it???

2008-09-30T13:38:00.000-07:00

We need help quick...the DOW (stock market) lost 777 points yesterday. We're all doomed!

Oops...wait a second...what's that? The DOW (stock market) was up 485 points today? How can that be? I thought the world was coming to an end?!

The point is, folks, that no one knows. And we DEFINITELY shouldn't be basing any decisions on how the stock market reacts. I was a stock broker for 5 years, so I'm not a dolt here. Since the tech boom in the late 90's, how the market does day to day is largely based on emotion, speculation, and hope.

LONG gone are the days of your grandparents where companies were evaluated primarily on the fundamentals and past performance.

Are the fundamentals still looked at? Of course. But use just the past two days as proof that no one knows for sure what $700 Billion will do. By the way, did you know that the $700 Billion figure was pulled out of thin air? Seriously. That is what a Treasury Spokesperson was quoted as saying regarding how they decided upon $700 Billion. They just knew that it had to be a high number. Nice.

Now, when I was a stock broker, I wasn't a banking expert or anything, so I can't speak specifically regarding the so-called "credit crisis". All I can say is whether it's a loan, a bailout, an investment...whatever...it's unprecedented. To push it through in a week or less is utterly ridiculous!

Fundamentally, I was against the bailout from the get go. Selfishly, I wanted the bailout so that I'd have a little bit of time to make sure to get debt free before the next foot dropped. Now, I'm back to leaning towards being against the bailout.

Do companies really need to take loans to make payroll??? If that's the case, those companies are in trouble anyway, and a fix to the "credit crisis" won't put a hurt on them to start using their heads. HELLO! I understand that loans are needed to expand business, but loans shouldn't be used to fulfill basic needs of a companies operation...like paying their employees. Come on.

Fix the problems, hold people accountable, and get a grip, period. If you made bad investments and want a bailout...I know several European countries where that kind of thing is right up their alley. Can't hack it in a capitalistic society, don't as me to pay for your mistakes. Suck it up, accept failure, and do better next time. THAT's the American Way!

Multi-tasking Obama vs. Crisis-mode McCain

2008-09-25T09:32:00.000-07:00

"if this isn't fixed, Heaven help us" "This is the financial equivalent of 9/11" "the worst crisis since the Great Depression" "We're facing another Great Depression if we don't act". All of these are quotes from various "economic experts" describing the current situation.

Warren Buffett, who is a Barack Obama supporter, said this is an economic Pearl Harbor. Barack Obama himself said that this was the most serious financial crisis in generations.

Folks, the reality is, things are dire. Do you really want someone that subscribes to the notion that multi-tasking is a necessity over prioritizing? Isn't prioritizing a serious component of multi-tasking??

Now, ask yourself...of all the things going on right now...we can do a debate on foreign policy or we can face the "most serious financial crisis in generations", which would you prefer that someone who gets paid to be a Senator would do??

My answer is get their ass back to Washington and work in the issues that they get paid to work on. Guess what...that's what John McCain's answer was too. Barack Obama's answer...if you need me, call me.

It's no big surprise that I'm not an Obama supporter. The above is merely one reason for it. His judgement is severely lacking. I don't want someone digging their heels in, pouting, playing chicken, or whatever about some stupid foreign policy debate. Get to Washington and fix the serious problem, damnit!

If President Bush was "multi-tasking" on 9/11, rather than focused on the one major issue facing America, he wold have been ran out of Washington. So why are we settling for "multi-tasking" during the financial equivalent??

Well...I'm not...I just don't know why others are settling for it.

Back on track...kinda...

2008-09-23T08:19:00.000-07:00

Remember almost 10 months ago when you made those New Year's Resolutions? Are you anywhere near those goals/commitments? I did a post about mine, and I'm too lazy now to go back and read what my commitments were for certain, but I think there were 4 of them. I'm currently back on track with 2 and 1/2 of them.

My problem was...the summer. Things get hectic during the summer, because my wife's work slows down, so we need to travel during the week so that she can work, then we come back home and I work on the weekends. When you're traveling and staying in a hotel, and taking care of 2 kids and an infant, it's hard to keep up with your exercising and reading.

But now that school has started back, I have been back to walking about 3 miles a day and back to reading much more, hopefully still to get back to my goal of averaging one a month. I've had to throw in some fiction books in order for me to get back to that goal, but that's ok. Now I figure I'll try alternating books, one fiction then one non-fiction, and see how that goes. The fiction always reads faster, at least for me.

The other two goals...I'm not doing quite as well at. One was simplifying my life, which is where the 1/2 comes in. My computer desk is a mess and we are dangerously close to being behind on bills, so the simplifying hasn't done so well...but I'm working at it. There's still lots less clutter around the house than there used to be, and we've got a plan going to work in the bills.

The one I've stopped completely is talking to my father once a week. I can't really explain why. I'm a little embarrassed about it, a little ashamed, and a lot puzzled. There was little reciprocation of the desire to speak to each other weekly, so it slowly just stopped. It's hard when there seems to be so little that there is to talk about or are willing to talk about. There's only so many ways that a person can say, I need your wisdom and/or guidance. Even being blatant didn't seem to work, so rather than dread the conversation, I just stopped it.

Oh well...maybe someday. It would be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

But getting health and wealth on track, and making sure my own family never gets to the point that me and my father are at...that's about all a guy can ask for, right?

Closing a chapter?

2008-09-18T10:04:00.000-07:00

Please forgive me in advance for this highly self-serving ~~post~~...which has now turned into more of a novel. I am sure you ~~If you~~ have no desire to hear about a nostalgic look back at an online game I was part of for the better part of 10 years, ~~I completely understand~~I don't blame you. Don't worry, I will return to my normal cheerful posts about economic doom, socialistic turns, and all the other wonderfully brightening things that run through my mind. I'll even have a post soon about how my (and probably your's too) representatives in congress are clueless. See the fun you'll get to return to after this ulogy is finished.

So I've officially closed my account with Ultima Online. It is a massive multiplayer online role playing game, or mmorpg. I mentioned a bit ago how I was going to be making this move and how I'd miss it. I just closed the account last night, and I do miss it some already, but it's more of what it used to be than what it has become. Even if I weren't so busy with kids in school, work, and my committments to other self-improvement ideals such as keeping in shape, learning to play an instrument and making myself more well read, I'd still doubtfully be playing too much. It's fun periodically, and when you get into one of "those moods", you can immerse yourself into the game for hours and it feels like minutes; but ultimately it has changed enough that it's not as much fun anymore for me. So below will chroicle my introduction to Ultima Online and highlight my journey through it in my feeble attempt to purge myself of any desires to make a futile attempt to return to the game in the future.

I started playing the game shortly after I met my wife. We were working at the local Toy Store and going to college. Actually, by this time, she had quit since I was her boss and she wanted to focus more strongly on her studies. We had just moved in together, and Everquest had just came out. I remember all the awesome looking signage(that's what those in the biz call posters and cardboard cutouts and such) and just thought the game looked like it would be fun.

I had just delved into the realm of role playing games with Final Fantasy Tactics...to this day it is probably still my favorite game of all time. My good friend had grown up on Dungeons and Dragons and told me how great role playing games were. I had already shown interest in the medieval time period when I loved the renaissance faire we went to. So, I decided to look more into this Everquest game.

I went into Electronics Botique, the fancy video game store that was all the rage when I was a young adult, and looked at the game. The problem was...they were advertising this fancy VooDoo graphics card that would be great for playing Everquest. This was back when I barely understood these kinds of things, so I was leary about buying a game that I may not be able to play. By a stroke of luck, Ultima Online was merchandised near Everquest, as they were the same type of game, and they had just came out with their second version of their game, called The Second Age, or T2A. As a young adult in my early to mid 20's, it was the Mature rating that Ultima Online had, along with it's assurance that it would work on my computer, that reeled me in. Murders, blood, and violence...how could I go wrong? So...Ultima Online it was.

I got it home, and loaded it up. Barely realizing what I was doing, and quickly dove into the game. I was original and named my character after myself, and set out to figure out what to do in this game. My home town was Minoc, and what a splendid home town it was. It was a mining town, and I recalled briefly reading that mining was a good way to start to make money, so that's where I started, and ultimately where I finished. I love you Minoc!

As I recall, I didn't really die immediately. I got to go around and ask some people some things, even the NPCs. I didn't realize at the time what NPCs were...non player characters. So I am sure people were laughing at me as they watched me try to have a conversation with someone that was just an game character not controlled by anyone. Rather quickly, though, I found myself magically in a dungeon (ok, I walked through someone I didn't know's travel gate). Moments later, before I even realized I was in a dungeon, I was dead at the hands...errr breath...of a dragon.

So now, as I ghost, I'm running around this dungeon aimlessly, not sure what in the world to do. What seemed like hours later, I got out of the dungeon, still dead mind you, and promptly declared the game stupid and quit. It was at least a week before I thought about the game again, so I decided to get back on and give it another try.

Still a ghost, I wandered around the forest for a while until I was magically ressurrected, or so I thought. I really have no idea how, but I eventually made it back to Minoc and ran into the lone helpful guy that would provide me the foundation to desire to continue on in the game. I don't remember the man's name, but I remember the name of his home. In fact, I later on named my home The Holy Grail after his, in his honor.

So armed with the wisdom imparted by this unnamed hero, I began to stock pile money by mining and selling the ingots to blacksmiths. Ah...it was a simple time, when you could make an honest living by being a miner.

Now armed with a good sum of money, I believe it was 20K, I set out to purchase myself a home. There were no places that I could find, so I couldn't build a home myself, I had to purchase one from someone else. This lead me to a man named Mucs fo Duts. Leave it to me to not realise that someone that named himself Stud of Scum, backwards, wasn't completely trustworthy. The kindly Mucs fo Duts *read sarcasm* introduced me to the only man in the game I've ever hated, Ramuah. I know I've said before that I don't understand hate, but even recalling this man, Ramuah, envokes rageful feelings inside my soul.

"I'll sell you a house for 20K," the loatheful Ramuah said gleefully. And so I follow this man to a medium sided house that I should have known wasn't available for 20K...but me, the Happy Idiot, followed him into his house, ready to become a homeowner in this new adventure called Ultima Online.

"You've got the check, on ya, right?" he prodded.

"Yep," I replied blissfully.

"Great. Go ahead and have a seat in what will be your new home," he said, hoping I'd take the bait.

Of course, me being the Happy Idiot, I took the bait and sat down. At which point he set a crate down in front of me and locked it down, making it impossible for me to move out of the chair. Then, ever so calmly, Ramuah began to kill me with Energy Bolts. My heart sank as I watched my healthbar go down, realizing that all the work I had done for the past few weeks was going to be lost. Before I knew it, I was dead and my ghost was banished from his house so that he could pull the check from my carcass. The only solace I was able to take was the fact that he seemed shocked that it took me more than 2 Energy Bolts to die. He had to meditate so that he could come back for a 3rd.

That was on of my many low points in my Ultima Online career...my first PK, or Player Killing.

Eventually, I met a nice man named Southern. He sold me 3 very small houses over the next few months. He even tolerated me as I prodded him to let me pay half up front and then the second half after the house was transferred to me. Can you blame me after my first housing debackle?

During this time, I also met my best friend on the game, Amroth. He was an awesome young kid...and even helped my wife, then girlfriend, "refresh" my houses when I was in the hospital getting my appendix taken out. He quit rather early. I missed playing with him in the Lost Lands, where I foolishly thought I could easily take on a Ophidian Knight-Errant.

Yes, it was fun, but never quite the same after Amroth left. I largely became a loner, intent on becoming entirely self-sufficient in the game.

I joined a guild, stuck through all the PKs that I fell victim too, battled through the introduction of Trammel, and even held out through the beginning of Ileshnar. I quit for a while, sold my account, and then bought it back and started playing again. That was fun too, but as you may be able to tell from the abrupt change in pace of my story, it just wasn't quite the same after Trammel was introduced.

It was seem by many "hardcore gamers" as the sellout to expand the game for the newbies. Shortly after Trammel was introduced, many items were "duped" and the economy was never the same. You can easily build a home in half the time it took when I first started...which seems to take the fun and challenge out of it.

And now, as I wind down my trip down Ultima Online memory lane, I feel better in my decision to leave the game and have little doubt that I will refrain from making a return attempt. It's hard sometimes, but also can be for the best to leave with those memories still fond and intact. You're a great game Ultima Online...you provided lots of great memories. I'll miss you.

McCain is another 4 years of Bush? Prove it.

2008-09-15T02:45:00.000-07:00

It's an easy statement to make, particularly since President Bush has the lowest approval rating of any President in recent history. But why not say, McCain is going to be the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. He was a Republican...beloved by many, including many Democrats. Why not merely say that McCain will bring in the same usual Republican policies as they always do? Maybe it's because Ronald Reagan had one of the highest approval rating of Presidents in recent history.

It would be just as easy to say, and some have, that Barack Obama will just bring back Jimmy Carter policies. And for those not in the know...Jimmy Carter's approval rating was nearly as low as President Bush's.

The truth is, Republican or Democrat, their basic beliefs are typically very different, and typically universal throughout the party. So just as John McCain holds some of the same values that President Bush holds, he also holds some of the same values as Ronald Reagan holds. Likewise, Barack Obama holds some of the same values that Jimmy Carter holds, just as he holds some of the same values as Bill Clinton(who had the highest approval rating of any President at the time they left office).

So then, how do we know if McCain will be another Bush or maybe a Reagan? Other than a crystal ball, we can only know by proving it, i.e. asking the right questions.

In this case, what is making our current situation so dire in the US? The economy and Iraq. It's not enough to say, McCain wants to lower taxes just like Bush does, so he's going to be another Bush. Ronald Reagan, and all Republicans, believe in lower taxes. In most cases, it proves to work. It has been proven to actually increase revenue for the government. It encourages investing (different concept from spending) from corporations all the way down to individuals, which typically leads to lower unemployment. So let's see...less taxes equals more money for the government, more money in individuals pockets, and unemployment goes down?? Yeah, those are all horrible things.

But what's different this time, under President Bush? The housing bubble and subsequent credit crunch, that's what. But who controls that? Well, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, that's who. Now it can certainly be argued that the President appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, so he is still responsible. And I'd say that was partially accurate. The choice for Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is crucial to the economy, so it is a key decision for a President to make.

So simply ask McCain if he believes Ben Bernake (the current Fed Chairman and disgrace to the job) has done a good job. Ask him what he would look for in appointing the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. As McCain has stated, he's not the best on the economy, but it's a surefire way to tell if he'll be more like President Bush or Ronald Reagan. I'd also suggest that the same question be asked of Barack Obama, of course, to see if he understands the concept of how integral the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is.

Then there's the war. Everyone should know how critical John McCain was of President Bush after the Iraq war began. Everyone should know that he was the biggest supporter of the surge. Everyone should know that the surge has worked. Everyone should know that he didn't literally mean that this was going to be a 100-year war, that he meant that he'd like to see us maintain a base in Iraq for the unforeseeable future. Everyone should know that it isn't a big deal to have bases in a country...except that it should be clearer that it is a base and not an "occupation" as many in the middle east try to portray it as. Everyone should know that we have many bases in other countries...many of which we have fought wars in. If you don't know these things, you are uninformed...which is your right, to be uninformed. But it's not smart or dutiful to be making decisions about someone that wants to be President based on uninformed thoughts or theories.

Of course, we do deserve more information about John McCain's thoughts on Iraq, as well. It isn't enough to say, "I hate war". Nearly everyone does. And it definitely isn't enough to say "as long as it takes". Not now anyway. When he made that statement, maybe it was, as the surge had not yet, or maybe just, begun. I don't agree with no timetables. I don't agree that it emboldens our enemy. Not if they know we will come back if we have to and kick ass again...that "shock and awe" will be a drop in the bucket. If not specific timetables, like Barack has done, then we deserve rough guidelines with a list of things that would lengthen those guidelines. That's at the very least.

We deserve those answers, and he deserves the opportunity to provide them. Then, and only then, should a comparison to President Bush be made. Until then, if one was to be fair and/or a "New Age Politician", the most that should be "another Republican with more Republican values" and leave Bush out of it. If one was to be fair, that is.

The Roe v. Wade misconception...

2008-09-13T09:51:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I'm watching the interview of Sarah Palin with Charlie Gibson and abortion came up. I don't think many people really understand what Roe v. Wade would mean, if it were overturned. Sarah Palin hinted to it in her answer, but it should be up to Charlie Gibson to do his research and explain fully what it would mean to overturn Roe v. Wade, rather than make the question so divisive.

Myth: Overturning Roe v. Wade would make abortions illegal.

Truth: Overturning Roe v. Wade would return the medical issue to each individual state to decide.

Wherever you stand on the issue, this is something we should all want.

As I discovered when reading Laura Ingraham's, Power to the People, even the most liberal legal analysts state that the decision was one of judicial activism and has no constitutional basis. All it did was take an issue that belonged at the state level and brought it to the federal level based on no constitutional interpretation whatsoever.

Keep in mind, that is all the Supreme Court is supposed to do, decide which state laws overstep federal laws. They are not supposed to create federal laws in the process, which is what happened in Roe v. Wade.

So I'm ok if you disagree with pro-life stances. If you're read this blog, you know that I was once strongly pro-choice. I'm beginning to question my own reasoning for that stance, but still lean pro-choice at the moment.

Regardless, it would not be a disaster of Roe v. Wade was overturned. In fact, in keeping with the preservation of the legal system, it probably should be overturned and allow it to return to a states rights issue...which is exactly what Sarah Palin said when she answered Charlie Gibson's question. She stated that her personal belief was pro-life, even extremely so according to some, but she answered the question correctly, even according to the most liberal legal analysts.

Never Forget

2008-09-10T21:11:00.000-07:00

None of my usual stuff today....just Remembrance. I often watch this video to help me remember what's important in life. It always draws great emotion from me, and I ache for any child that has to live without their parent(s).

I was working, that Tuesday morning of September 11, 2001, at the Charles Schwab call center in Indianapolis. I was already on the phones, because the clients we typically served were on the East Coast. There was a television in front of me (they hung from the ceiling) just across the aisle. When the news broke on CNBC, the investment world's channel of choice, there was already a cloud of smoke billowing from the first tower hit.

They weren't sure what happened at first...was it an accident? Was it a plane, or maybe a some kind of explosion from within the building? Maria Bartiromo was normally on for the Opening Bell, but it wasn't 9:30 yet and she had gone outside to see if she could find out what was going on at the World Trade Center.

They were showing a live shot of Tower 1 and the black smoke still billowing out. That's when it happened...the second plane hit on live television. I was in shock.

I was within my team, and I just remember no one saying anything....except for me. To me, it seemed as though they were ignoring it. I just wanted someone to feel close to...to feel my pain with...yet they all sat silent. Ignoring me and/or talking on the phone.

I remember being so angry...not at the act itself...it still hadn't sank in yet. But I was angry at the clients that continued to call in. Here we were, in the middle of a national tragedy, the markets were closed, and people were still calling in wondering about their accounts or why the market never opened.

I remember one of the bosses of the entire call center came walking around, not believing it was terrorism. "Why wouldn't they attack the Statue of Liberty?" she wondered.

It was a hard day...and I was thousands of miles away. I couldn't even imagine how the people of New York were feeling. Part of me wanted to just drive there and help out. In retrospect, I wish I would have...even with the knowledge that I'd likely currently be very ill from the toxic smoke...I still wish I would. But I had a family...and I was needed here too.

One of the more unforgivable acts committed by Charles Schwab happened the following Friday...during the national moment of silence. "We encourage you to take time out and pray and remember those who lost their lives," the email said, "during a break or at your lunch. But at this time of great need, we ask that you make sure to be on the phones to be there for our clients." Way to be a typical business that day, Charles Schwab, rather than an industry leader.

I wasn't scheduled to be on the phones during the national moment of silence that Friday. But you can assure that if I was scheduled to be, I wouldn't have been. Several friends not only didn't take any calls during that time, they logged off their computer entirely. I don't know anyone that did take a call, but I am certain there were some. For shame on those people that called on during the national moment of silence...for shame.

So now, I shall say a silent prayer for those that lost their lives on September 11, 2001. I love you, I know you are in a better place, and I hope your families are doing as well as could be expected.

If you feel so inclined, feel free to post your memory of 9-11. You can include a link to your blog if you already told the story there, or feel free to write it in response here. I think I'd enjoy seeing how others remember that day.

We Will Never Forget.

sigh Dogpile on Sarah Palin...

2008-09-10T20:30:00.000-07:00

You know...the more people create rumors, lies, and report falsities about the Republican VP, the more convicted I am in voting for her.

But I know that not everyone shares my sentiment.

So before everyone goes believing all the rumors/lies about Governor Palin, head on over to FactCheck.org, an independent site meant to dispel rumor and lies about various political-types.

Other than the lies debunked at FactCheck.org, many people also aren't a fan of her pro-life stance, and really get up in arms about the fact that she's even against abortion options even for rape victims. There is truth to that claim, so I'd just offer the explanation that she's a pro-life candidate. Pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception and that innocent life must be protected, even in the case of rape. In all likelihood, she probably also believes that even in cases of rape, this is meant to be...that it's part of God's plan...and if a child is created from this act, that there is a reason for it. That's not to say rapists shouldn't be punished, clearly...but she probably doesn't view a created life as a punishment of any kind, even if it was created in that manner. I'm not speaking for her, just guessing on what she believes based on her religious and pro-life background.

I personally think it's ridiculous, all the personal attacks on Sarah Palin. If she was around and campaigning for, oh, say 19 months and we didn't know anything about her, that's one thing, but she's been on the national stage for 2 weeks now...come on people.

On the positive side for Republicans, not that I'm a hardcore Republican, even the Obama campaign is attacking Governor Palin, which is unfortunate for them. Barack Obama isn't running against Sarah Palin, at least not directly, he's running against John McCain. Every second they spend on Sarah Palin is an opportunity lost to make their case against John McCain.

On the other hand, it's understandable. McCain came up with a brilliant move when he needed to. He found someone that could potentially be the future of the Republican party and certainly someone that can bring conservatives to the voting booths. I'd be willing to bet that the Obama campaign were counting on many conservatives either staying home on election day or voting for a 3rd party. I know...I was strongly considering it...voting for a 3rd party, that is. So the Obama campaign is caught off guard...stunned...and not sure what to do.

One thing's for sure...McCain is not a 3rd term of George Bush. Conservatives know it...and in all likelihood, the Obama Campaign knows it. The Obama Campaign was just pushing it so that all the new voters for this election would buy into it...but they knew that Conservatives weren't buying it...they just weren't buying John McCain at all, and many were in fact planning on staying home. Now, we'll see what happens. The Obama camp is reeling, John McCain gets to go back to being a Maverick, and Sarah Palin just has to withstand the attacks and keep assuring conservatives that she's for real...it's a long way still, but things are looking up for McCain.

Obama Agrees That Taxing The Rich Doesn't Work...

2008-09-10T16:45:00.000-07:00

...otherwise why would he say that he wouldn't tax the rich if the economy is in bad shape? It just doesn't make sense. If taxing the rich is ok, or if it works, why only when the economy is good?? It makes you think...or it should.

I've promised a look at the tax issue, from a common sense perspective, and hope to bring it soon...the jist of it is easy enough, but to spell it out in detail for those that want to understand takes some time. I'll work on it more and get it out when I can.

Here Comes Socialism, America.

2008-09-09T04:08:00.001-07:00

Bye, Bye Capitalism...we loved you, you helped make us the greatest country in the history of the world, if I may borrow that from Sean Hannity. But you know Capitalism, you just don't cut it anymore. We can't be bothered with allowing people to fail, allowing the weak and poorly run industries to be replaced with bigger and better...it just wouldn't be right. It's every single person's God-given right, or if you don't believe in God, just their right, to succeed regardless of how little they do or contribute.

Folks, people have been accusing the Republican's VP nominee selection Sarah Palin of being a part of a movement in Alaska that wanted to see them succeed from the Union. While this is a false accusation, I'd almost applaud her for wanting there. And there was an actual possibility of Montana succeeding from the Union if the Supreme Court had allowed the Second Amendment to be essentially null and void. That's because Montana's "contract" with the United States when they joined the Union was that the United States would not restrict the laws that Montana had on the books when they joined. One of those laws was that they specifically believed that the Second Amendment, and the term of the disputable word militia, meant every citizen. So if the Supreme Court would have came down on the other side of that Second Amendment case this summer, Montana would have been allowed to consider their contract with the United States, to be part of the Union, null and void.

Here, Here, for people not wanting the fundamentals of this country changed. And that's exactly what's going to happen if we continue to stand idly by.

In case you didn't know, the United States Government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac this weekend. Anyone with common sense would have seen this coming. They have always been, while not explicitly, backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. So whey they stood up and said, "Sure, we'll buy all those failing loans from banks and mortgage companies", it was inevitable that those bad loans would remain bad and would eventually cause the collapse of the two companies. Folks, were talking TRILLIONS of dollars of bad debt that the US Government just took under it's wing. But where's that TRILLIONS of dollars going to come from? The tax payers, of course. Enjoy that home that I just bought you John Doe...sure you can't pay for it, but the Government is going to make sure that you get to stay in it.

So, Mad Hoosier, you may say, it's just the home loans. Sure the Trillions of dollars is going to hurt, but we can't kick people out of their homes and into the street. While that last part is true enough, it certainly didn't have to come to this, and if you think that this "Nationalization" movement starts and ends with home loans/banking, you're mistaken.

Just today, the "big three" automakers came out and said that they are looking at very difficult times. You should read that to mean, "We want a bailout too". And airlines...you think the Government is going to let them fail?? And the Democrats already have a growing movement to "Nationalize" oil companies. Let us not forget Health Care that WILL BE NATIONALIZED if/when Barack Obama and the Democratic majority House AND Senate take office next year.

So let's take a step back. Government is on the verge of running housing loans (can the banking industry in general be far behind). Bailouts for Transportation (auto and airline) are very real possibilities...so they will want to run those industries, to some extent at least. If no majority is around to oppose it, government will run Oil(and you can assure that all this new Clean Technology that everyone speaks of when talking about energy, will be run by the Government under Obama).

So if Government is running or has their hands all over, Banking, Transportation, Energy, and Health Care...how is that not Socialism?????

This is not all crazy speculation by a crazy Indiana boy. This is all very real possibilities. And the current Do-Nothing-Congress, will continue to do nothing, by design, until after the elections...because they know that having control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives...they can shove through any kind of legislation they want.

It is a dire time, and America as we know it could very well change dramatically very soon. What I do know, is that the Founding Fathers created a document that was meant to stand the test of time, and they DID NOT want the Government running everything.

Wow. Just wow.

2008-09-08T00:59:00.001-07:00

Go Bears!

2008-09-07T22:50:00.000-07:00

Wow...the football season is already here. I didn't even pay attention to preseason, and completely forgot this was opening weekend until like 20 minutes after the game started. So I flipped on the NBC, expecting my Bears to be getting trounced already by Peyton Manning and company, but to my surprise...0-0. A strong defense in the redzone later, and the Bears were only down 3-0. Then, Matt Forte took over.

And can I just say that I'm sooooooo glad that Kyle Orton is back in rather than Rex Grossman! No turnovers...who would have thought??

Anyway...sure it was a rusty Peyton Manning, and sure it's a looooong season, but great start for the Bears. Way to go fellas!

Great Job, Sarah Palin!

2008-09-04T05:51:00.000-07:00

Congratulations Sarah. You gave a great speech last night.

I know I'm looking at the situation through clouded lenses, but I saw someone who was very poised, spectactularly so if you were one of the detractors that said she wasn't ready for this position. She came off strong, but not overbearing. One commentator on The Today Show this morning said that she teetered past confidence and came off too cocky because she had the nerve to question Barack Obama. I'll admit, she did take him on more than I expected her too...and a time of two there was a little venom in her tongue, but folks, after the completely ridiculous frenzy of the media in the past week, and even comments by Barack Obama himself, she is entitled to quip back. I think it was tactful, and dead on.

Now the media, and certainly the Democrats will try to blow smoke, saying that there weren't any specifics in her speech. And there weren't many specifics. That wasn't the purpose. The Democrats know that full well, because there damn sure wasn't any specifics in any of their speeches last week.

What I would like to see, and I'm hopeful that what we will see, is not only specifics, but some plain talk on the how's and why's of those specifics. I will likely post in a while, my own plain talk on what I think about the how's and why's...but for now, this post is to congratulate Sarah Palin. Congratulations on bringing the party together(even though I'm opposed to the party system). You've brought excitement to the McCain campaign and the conservative movement, and made this conservative believe that he may actually be able to pull the lever for McCain in two months. We've still got a ways to go...but for now...relish your accomplishment governor. Well Done!

Bad Dreams

2008-09-04T05:42:00.000-07:00

Why do we have bad dreams? And why do they seem to attack that which is most vulnerable about us? Are they meant to warn us? Bring us back to earth, so to speak? Keep us in check?

Some people believe that good dreams are a sign of good fortune. Are bad dreams an omen of things to come too?? And how come the bad dreams stick with us much longer than the good ones? Or seem so much more real? Maybe it's because we dream all the way through good dreams, but bad dreams we wake up in the middle of, when they finally become unbearable. I'll tell you, that answer doesn't help the sting of the bad dream fade any faster.

All I know is I don't like a bad dream. I wish I had the skill of changing a dream while dreaming. But I don't. So here I lay...prone to the horribleness that is bad dreams. I shall pray that you don't have many bad dreams...because they aren't fun.

Incomprehensible Party Politics...

2008-09-01T19:04:00.000-07:00

I'll try to limit any personal attacks here...well, the only personal attacks I would have would be name calling and questioning the intellect, but I'll try to refrain. I'll keep it merely as pointing out what's SOOOO wrong with party politics.

A few months ago, in March I believe, Geraldine Ferraro worked for Hilliary Clinton's campaign. She made a comment about Barack Obama..."If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

The comment drew swift calls of Ms. Ferraro being racist and called them outrageous. Ms. Ferraro staunchly insisted that the comments were twisted and taken out of context when being reported by the Obama campaign. In the end, she was forced to resign her position as a finance committee member for the Clinton campaign...even though she still strongly defended her comments.

Recently, Ms. Ferraro was on The O'Reilly Factor via telephone in which it seemed clear by her comments that she was backing Barack Obama. She backpeddled a little bit, not confirming that she was supporting Obama.

Only within the past day or two is she making comments where it can be read that she's left the door open to voting for McCain/Palin.

That just doesn't make sense to me. If someone accused me of racism...on a national and public level...causing me to resign from a campaign that I believed in, there's no way in hell I'd be voting for that person, period. The mere fact that party lines would cause someone to vote like this is shameful.

Idiots wanting to lower the drinking age...

2008-08-30T03:05:00.000-07:00

I heard, recently, about a band of college presidents wanted to lobby to get the national drinking age lowered from 21 to 18, citing that it would hinder binge drinking. It got a little national coverage, but largely was dismissed as colleges wanting to get out of lawsuits.

I dismissed it as well...until I read an article by Evansville Courier and Press staff writer, John Lucas. Lucas, whose article Discourse On Lowering Drinking Age Not Bad Idea, stacks several arguements together...finishing with the ages old, but still severely lacking, arguement of, "I did it, and I'm alive".

I'm trying like the dickens to restrain myself from personal attacks, as they never advance an arguement, so let's take a look into the issue. First at hand...who's leading the charge and what do they stand to gain by lowering the drinking age?

College Presidents are leading the charge. What do they stand to gain? Less responsibility of their students...aka less lawsuits. Let's be clear...Colleges are run like businesses...they are seeking a maximum profit and school ranking. By in large, they don't really care about the students at all. If they did, they wouldn't stack their staffs with mostly liberal leaning professors and allow students to have a wide range of knowledge and resources available to them. When I say a staff of mostly liberal professors, we aren't talking like 55-60% of the staff...we are talking 75-80% or more. There are your few exceptions, sure, but in most colleges, more than three-quarters of what they learn will be from one perspective. Does that sound like an institution invested in providing the best, most well-rounded education possible?? Ummm...no.

Is there anyone else leading the charge? Not that I know of. If they are, ironically enough, they are liberal minded. No limitations on personal freedom...so when we raise a country of alcoholics, the government can pay for their healthcare to rehab them.

So back to Mr. John Lucas. The man is clearly a liberal, for in his article he states...in a fascistic manner...that "And although teetotalers - and those of like mind who would prohibit consumption of fats, carbohydrates, nicotine, caffeine, animal pelts and pornography - are loathe to admit it, there's a certain logic to what the professors are saying."

If you don't agree with the professors...you're automatically a "teetotaler". And to link lowering the drinking age to being anti-pornography???

But the part that hit me the most is when Mr. Lucas said, "In our society, drinking alcohol is a rite of passage. It ranks right up there with getting a driver's license, smoking and having sex. Guys, especially, prove how big they are by bragging about how much they can drink..."

Well, Mr. John Lucas of Evansville's Courier and Press, none of the people I hung out with felt that way about alcohol. And IF drinking is a rite of passage, as you say, it's because you and your generation didn't stand up and condemn it. You were too weak to notice something that hindered young adults more than it helped them, and if you did, you were do weak to do something about it.

To the other "experts" that say it would prevent excess drinking in college age kids. To what cost?? At the cost of creating excess drinking to 14 year-olds who will just get the 18 year-old senior in high school to throw a kegger party. That's nice...pass the problem on to a younger generation.

Trying to work through my faith (Part 1)

2008-08-28T23:16:00.000-07:00

I have no false illusion that people are hanging on my every word, waiting to find out how I feel about faith(or anything else for that matter)...but bear with me. Much of this blog is for me, as it is for anyone else that may stumble upon it. And indeed, I think it will help me to put it all out in writing. So while this may or may not help you in your faith, whether it be to help you figure out what you think or further entrench you in your own belief, please indulge me slash ignore me.

My faith is....unconventional. It even makes my wife angry when I start to talk about anything that deviates from strict bible teachings. I haven't read the bible, at least not cover to cover, so that may automatically discount my beliefs in many people's eyes. And that's ok...it certainly makes sense. But it makes just as much sense to me (at the present time) that I don't strictly follow the bible even having not read it cover to cover. This first part, of who knows how many a part-series, will talk about my growing up in faith and my current ground works for my current beliefs...up until my first "snag" as it were.

I should start off by declaring that I unequivocally and unabashedly believe in God, though you may already know that from previous posts. I grew up in a small town in Illinois. I went to church regularly when I was little, to the First Christian Church, which I'm guessing is almost like Baptist. It was mostly at the insistence of my Mother, but I still went and learned. When I was in High School, and perhaps at the end of Junior High, I stopped going...my Mother stopped making me. I wouldn't stay I stopped believing, in fact, I think I still prayed regularly at night, but I just stopped going to Church.

The thing is...it was sorta like a passive belief. I believed, but partly because I was told to. I listened, however, every time my Mom would say, "Thank God for (this)" or "God did (this activity) for us" or "What if God wouldn't have put me here to help these people".

And then...I was shot in the face with a pellet gun at close range when I was in high school...by a good friend's younger brother. The pellet tore through my cheek and slammed into one of my rear teeth. That was it. I had a hole in my cheek, but other than an aching tooth for a few weeks, I was fine.

That's when it hit me, even before my Mom ran through the scenarios over and over, God was with me that day. I could have lost an eye, shattered a cheekbone, or even been shot in the temple and died...but all I had was a hole in my cheek. Now any atheist will jump right on pure randomness and luck...and that's fine if that's how they want to explain it. To me...on that day...God, or maybe more accurately, Angels, were with me to protect me and ensure that I endured the minimum amount of pain is what could have been much, much worse. And I still believe it to this day.

THAT'S when I truly started believing. I didn't go back to church...not for years...but I could honestly say, without a shadow of doubt, that I was a Believer as of that day. The Baptists would say that was the day I was Saved, but that's something I'll touch in a bit.

So over the years, my belief has never wavered. I didn't start going to church again until my first daughter was born. And to be honest, I don't go very much now, but that's because of my work schedule.

I should disclose, before I start with my belief system, that I draw quite a bit of influence in my train of thought from Sylvia Browne. She's a psychic who gives all the praise for her gift to God. She is/was on the Montel Williams show many, many times. To watch her do her work is to watch God's glory shining brightly through earthly deeds. She is the one who started me thinking about sin, or the lack thereof, in God's eyes. Some, and perhaps even much, of my belief comes from her. But even as she always says, and the Bible does too, search for and ask questions for yourself...don't just go on blind faith of someone else's thoughts/beliefs. So while I haven't fully researched things on my own, I have certainly thought things through on my own...and here's what I'm coming up with...

So my big starter is...I don't believe in the notion of sin. I've talked about that before, but I wanted to reiterate it here and explain why I don't believe in sin, and then move on to my subsequent train of thought.

I should take a quick step back, and say why, even though the bible speaks of Sin, do I not believe in it. I am taking this from Sylvia Browne in her book, The Mystical Life of Jesus, that the Bible has been changed throughout the centuries to meet the needs of those in power. Sylvia cites examples from specific texts that I may or may not agree with (it doesn't matter), but it just makes sense to me that throughout the centuries people who want to rule and/or scare others, can easily do it through the bible, and will have it changed to fit their needs...even if not in dramatic fashion. I can't explain it...I certainly have no proof...it just makes sense to me. To me, Sin is a notion that creates fear that world leaders centuries ago could use to get people to do what they want. It may have been added, it may have been changed in translation, or it may have been in the Bible from the beginning, but the following explains why I discount the notion of Sin...

So...we are God's childern...he's our Father. He created us in His image. As a father, who has had multiple kids, who would never deny them my love for anything, who didn't create them with the sense that they owe me something (be it their love or anything else)...I find it impossible to believe that our Father, God, would create us with the first breath we take, owing him our love and devotion, otherwise he would deny us his love (allowing us into Heaven). I just can't fathom it. It's something no one will be able to convince me of. I would actually hope that any parent would feel this way...if they dig down deep and ponder it. If he made us like him...and it's not in our, as a parent, realm of possibility to deny our kids our love...they why is it hard to believe he would do the opposite?

Now that's from the Baptist point of view...who believe that you're a sinner from the moment you are born. Even from the Catholic point of view, who believe that you earn your way into Heaven through good deeds...Do parents believe that their kids EARN their love?? No. We give our love to our kids regardless of what they do. They may make us more or less proud, based on their actions, but the love remains the same. So why would our good deeds be what gets us into Heaven? Of course God is proud of us providing good deeds, but he loves us just as much if we don't perform as many good deeds as he'd like.

SO...now the snag.

If there is no Sin...they why was Jesus sent to earth, if not to ultimately die for our sins?? That's the current million dollar question that I'm pondering and I'll hopefully discuss in Part 2. If Jesus didn't come to bear our Sins, what was he here for?

Feel free to comment on that, or your thoughts on anything in this post so far. Dissertations are welcome. :)

Congrats Michael Phelps!

2008-08-17T03:34:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to Michael Phelps, eight time gold medal winner in the Beijing Olympic Games. I followed his journey, these games, with great amazement and wonder. I watched all his races, or will have after I catch the DVR from Friday. What an astonishing accomplishment. Congrats, Michael, on the record of 8 Gold Medals in one Olympic Games, and 7 World Record times to go along with it!

We Are Failing Democracy...

2008-08-14T06:26:00.000-07:00

Democracy is under attack...and we are able/willing to do NOTHING. Here we are, fighting for Deomcracy in Iraq...at least the third different reason for the war...a country that is, at the very best, hesitant to embrace democracy; all the while, a friend and ally, whom have already fully embraced and allowed Democracy to thrive, sits...waiting...under attack...hoping for help.

You may not know much about the current Russian invasion of Georgia, but you will want to pay attention. Russia is sending a message...it is loud and clear...We Are A Superpower...and We Aren't Afraid of the United States.

While President Bush has been gazing into Vladamir Putin's eyes, seeing a friend, former President Putin has been creating a superpower of energy out of Russia. Now Prime Minister, Vladamir Putin despises Deomcracy...he always has...and is picking on former USSR Republic, Georgia.

The current situation is, according to Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili, that Russian tanks began rolling into Georgia territory, unprovoked. Once they were 100 miles into Georgia, Georgia opened fire against the hostile action. Then, by some miracle, hundreds more Russian tanks quickly appeared and began their attack on Georgia. They have taken over Georgia's ports, bombed their towns, taken over airport(s)...all in less than a week.

Folks, it doesn't take a genius to realize that this was a planned attack, weeks, if not months, in the making. Hundreds of tanks don't just suddenly show up at the first sign of fire, without them being ready to do so.

Why is Russia doing this? Because Georgia is a thriving democracy, and because they allowed a oil pipeline to be built through their country, connecting the Caspian See and the Black Sea. This is a non-Russian controlled pipeline, which Russia opposes, because as I mentioned before, they want to control all the energy in Europe.

So Russia Invaded Georgia.

Georgian citizens have been quoted as saying, "Where's help from the United States?" "Why aren't they coming to help us?" "Why are we helping them in Iraq if they won't help us when we need it?"

So why aren't we helping out Georgia? We can't. It's that simple. Our troops are already overextended, thanks to simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even if we did have troops to lend, I'm not sure we could. You see, Russia and China are closer allies than China and the US are. If China sided with Russia, China could merely threaten us economically, and we'd HAVE to back down. They could more than cripple our economy...they'd devidtate it. All they would have to do is cash in all their US Treasury Bonds they own.

For those not fully aware, US Treasury Bonds are Debt owed by the US Government. China owns LOTS of our outstanding US Treasury Bonds. If they decided to cash them in/sell them...someone would have to buy them. That someone would likely be the US treasury, because no investor would likely buy them. Of course, the US Treasury doesn't have enough money to buy them all, so they'd have to print money to buy them, which would further devalue our Dollar. Devaluation of our dollar would lead to further inflation...probably massive inflation...which this economy can't handle.

So while the US has been pandering and keeping a short-sighted view by bailing out Bear Stearns and reckless home buyers, China and Russia have kept their eye on the horizion...knowing that they could one day use their fiscal standing to control the US's actions by threatening to crush our economy.

They know that the US is not suited for this World Economy that we preach about. We owe too much, and we run deficits year after year, putting us further into debt.

If we decided not to heed China's threats...it would be World War III. A true War for Oil/energy.

I don't know what we can do...all I know is that we, as Citizens, need to demand better from our Government. We need to demand that they take a long-term view. Would it be nice to insure everyone in the United States? Absolutely. Would it be the best thing for the country? Definitely not! We can't afford it!! And "taxing the rich" isn't going to cut it, folks. It's only going to prompt "the rich" to work less. Why would all kinds of small business owners work hard on their own business, only to get half of it, or more, taken away?? Would you??

Struggling with the Abortion issue...

2008-08-13T12:25:00.000-07:00

Well, let's see, we've got the Olympics, Brett Farve, first day of kindergarten...but nah, let's bypass the light-hearted stuff and jump right to one of the most controversial issues today. Way to go Mad Hoosier.

Anyway...so I used to be hardcore pro-choice. Not that I'm not now, but I'm wavering. Let me explain.

I think I've said in previous posts about believing that the Lord doesn't want me to tell other people what they should get to do with their bodies. While I still believe that, I'm finding Abortion more wrong than I used to, and I am torn with the Lord wanting me to be a advocate for those that don't have a voice.

So how have I suddenly found Abortion to be "more wrong" than I used to? Well...I've read a couple of books recently that have touched on partial-birth abortions. I guess in my desire not to upset people who I believe should have their own choice to do with their bodies that they wish, I haven't really paid attention to what exactly partial-birth abortions are. Shame on me...and shame on anyone else who believes abortions are ok and don't know what partial-birth abortions are.

If you do happen to know what partial-birth abortions are, and you are still fully ok with the notion of abortion in general...well, that's between you, your conscious, and God. At least you've done your homework, and I will try to not stand in judgement of that notion and however you justify it. But if you believe that abortions are ok, then it is incumbent upon yourself to fully educate yourself with all matters of abortion.

I guess there are a couple different ways to perform partial-birth abortions. I apologize, but I feel like I must very briefly explain two of them, so if you don't wish to read, stop now, or skip to the next paragraph. One involves suffocating the baby...depriving it from oxygen during the birthing process, and another is actually delivering the baby part of the way, but driving some kind of rod/tube into the baby's head after the partial-birth, to kill it.

I don't know why I read those books and thought, "that's murder of an innocent life" when I hadn't thought of it that way before...perhaps because of the graphic nature of it...but I did.

You may or may not know, I have three kids, so I know the various stages of progression in a pregnancy. For instance, as early as the 5th week (that's before many people know they're pregnant) the brain and heart begins to form. So the natural progression of thought is...if partial-birth abortion is wrong, then 3rd-term abortion is just as wrong.

Then you, or at least I, begin to wonder..."if partial-birth and late term abortion is wrong, isn't all abortion wrong"?

So then I ponder...and meditate on...and wonder..."Maybe abortion is ok if the soul isn't in the body yet." Which of course leads to more pondering and meditating over just when does the soul enter the body? Any parent knows, the first time they feel the baby, that baby is alive as sure as you are.

And since I believe strongly in Sylvia Brown-type issues, such as past lives and life on the other side, I even asked my kids if they can remember when they were in Mommy's belly. I got many cute answers, but nothing specific that could help me on my journey.

So I just went back to feeling the baby moving. Once I felt the baby moving, I knew they were alive and well...which to me says their soul has already arrived. So did my child's souls arrive the first time I could feel them? Of course, the mother can feel the baby before the father...maybe the soul just magically arrives the first time they feel that flutter in their belly??

Well, it just doesn't make sense to me, that the soul just magically arrives at any one point. Even in the first two weeks, when they are cells, dividing and creating life, would it be week 5 that the soul magically arrives, when the brain and heart begin forming...and indeed the heart begins beating in week five. Even if that is the case, which I'm not convinced, that's still having the soul arrive before most people know they are pregnant.

Henseforth, along those lines, any abortion after week five, is murder of a soul...which can only be murder of a life, even if it can't sustain itself yet...and is therefore wrong.

BUT...after all that...I still have this part inside of me saying, "God doesn't want you to tell other people how to live their life and what to do with their bodies."

So I'm still torn...completely lost for what to think. So...anyone that has any other input out there, please feel free to add your thoughts.

I promise to keep this topic, at least in this thread, out of the political realm...if you promise not to cite how hard the decision for abortion is. I have no doubt that many people struggle with it....but we all know that the majority of women who have abortions are teens and young 20-somethings that weren't responsible in the first place and are making the decision for selfish reasons.

"Affording" the GOP...

2008-08-07T11:06:00.000-07:00

Ok Ray Anderson of Newburgh, Indiana...you're the first person I'll speak to regarding your opinion in the Viewpoint section of the Evansville Courier and Press on August 1st, 2008.

Ray called out Republicans as the supposed fiscally sound bunch and supposedly good business managers, citing large deficits and supposedly inept agencies like FEMA and the EPA. He even went so far as to say, "...we don't know if our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, or our air safe to breathe."

Trust me, in Southwest Indiana, we have no issues with poor air quality, unless you count humidity so thick you could cut it with a knife as poor air quality, or unsafe water. Of course in Evansville, IN, if it storms bad enough, there is a section bad enough that will cause the sewers to overflow, leaving raw sewege strewn about yards. But that's a city infrastructure issue that the Democratic mayor finally addressed. Of course, that was due in large part to the 8th District Democratic Congressman writing the bill for it into the overbloated Spending Bill forced through by the Democratic-led congress late last year. What? You don't live in Southwest Indiana? That's ok...you are now the proud financier of a new updated sewege system in Evansville, Indiana. Congratulations!

Thank you notes can be sent to Representative Brad Ellsworth, 513 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. If you want, you may also send Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel a note and thank him for allowing the issue to be passed on to the nation's taxpayers, rather than keeping it at the state or local level.

Anyway, back to Ray Anderson of Newburgh, IN and the broad brush he painted "republicans" with. He has, clasically, used a few isolated issues to blame one party(remember that I despise the party system) for the nation's woes. Now certainly, in the case of Katrina, some of the downfalls have been collassal in nature, FEMA has done lots of good too. Even here in Southwest Indiana when a Category F5 tornado ripped through Evansville, Indiana in November (yes November!) of 2006, FEMA was on the scene and helped MANY families locally.

What Ray forgets, or fails to realize, is that doubling the size of FEMA or the EPA, as the Big Government Democrats want to do, will only add to the woes exponentially. Factually, large organizations do not and can not adapt quickly. They are slow to recognize, and even slower move through the red tape, much less act.

Sure, there are bad apples in every bunch. I make no apologizes for any Republicans who spent poorly in the past 8 years. Of course, much of the deficit is due to the war(s). Sure, we don't like the war in Iraq...but it is what it is. But there would have been deficits regardless, even if Gore would have won 8 years ago...unless he would have done as I suspect, and not have a strong reaction to 9-11.

So if you have people in your community like Ray Anderson, who are quick to blame Republicans, take heed. The grass only looks greener. Big government and Socialism(Obama's plan to tax the rich and give to the poor is indeed socialism) won't fix the country...it will send it reeling.

Calling Out local...misguided individuals.

2008-08-07T08:34:00.000-07:00

Perhaps I'm becoming more jaded. I used to have a code on my blog that stipulated that I wouldn't typically name names. But there seems to be a plethora(I love that word) of liberal-leaning forces out there these days. So if some one's going to publish an article, or write in to an opinion section, where names are already used, I've decided that there's nothing wrong with referencing the person specifically. That's what good journalists do, right? Does it not add credibility to an article?

OK, so I'm not really a "journalist", and my reasoning may not be solely to add credibility to my "article". But if people are going to be journalists, or they are going to opine, they should know that their opinions aren't unchallengeable.

Now there is something to be said that "calling people out" actually stifles conversation, but I assure you, that's not my intention. I've just had enough of sending in rebuttals to my local paper and not having them published. So I'll self publish them.

I'll try to always be respectful, and not bloviate. Yah, I got that(bloviate) from Papa Bear, O'Reilly. And I got that(Papa Bear) from Steven Colbert.

So...to remind everyone. I'm a conservative. A conservative does not equal a racist. A conservative does not equal hate. And it does not equal closed-mindedness. But conservatism is where my perspective comes from. So if you believe that the United States should be a citizen of the world first, or you think anyone that is skeptical of mainstream ideas is crazy, then this blog may not be for you (not that there's any people out there reading this to begin with).

I do welcome respectful conversation...just do a search for "atheists" and you'll see how two opposing views can have a respectful conversation here. Just know that I mean no ill will, or mean-spiritedness, to those that I mention here. I don't wish to "shut you up". But I do wish you to know that your opinion may not be the final word on the topic.

So I guess that's my "warning". Now I just have to search through my work bag to find a good article from the Evansville Courier and Press that I've saved.

Time to Grow Up. I'll Miss You Ultima Online!

2008-08-07T08:01:00.000-07:00

No, my hiatus wasn't due to playing Ultima Online 24/7 this summer. But how I do enjoy the game...or used to. I played it for 5 years straight at one point. Then I sold the account because we couldn't afford our rent, much less shell out $15 bucks a month for an online game. I traded it for the much less expensive, and more creative, Wrassle[dot]Net. But after a while, I missed it, and wanted to play again. So once we could "afford it", I bought my old account back, and began playing again. It was fun, of course, I wish I could play it forever.

But this year, my oldest starts kindergarten. For a plethora of reasons, I'm terrified.

You see, over the years, since I've been married, I've caught glimpses of "adulthood" in myself. I'd catch myself in the middle of mowing the yard, or cleaning the measly easy set pool we have and think, "wow, I feel like my Dad"..."I feel like a grown-up."

Now, I've got to move beyond those glimpses, and live it full time. I've taught my kids, of course, in between playing and having fun. But now I've got to teach my kids. No, they aren't going to be home schooled, though sometimes I'm sure I'd just as soon they were.

I can already tell, that I don't fully trust schools to teach my kids what they need to know. Secularism, political correctness, and liberalism that infiltrate and encompass the school system pretty much dictate that I'll have to give my kids "perspective" on a daily basis.

So while I've slowly been trying to make myself "more responsible" by setting reading goals for myself, ridding my life of clutter, and generally trying to break away from frivolous time consuming activities, it hasn't been enough. Time to put responsibility into hyper-drive.

Now I've probably been a little hard on myself. I rarely play Ultima Online these days...though the bill for $15 mysteriously has not adjusted to reflect less usage of Origins servers. And, in reality, I'm quite a responsible parent. But I think the overwhelming nature of my daughter starting school...you forget until times like these how resilient kids are...along with the symbolism of still playing an online game that I played when I was a "kid" is what has me rattled.

But for some reason, I feel like the symbolic gesture of quitting Ultima Online officially...though my pocketbook will realize that it's more than symbolic to the tune of $180 per year...will make a difference. So, by the end of this month, Ultima Online will be removed from my computer.

Welcome to adulthood, Mad Hoosier.

I won't soon forget Eight Bells...

2008-05-17T12:32:00.000-07:00

On the day of the Preakness Stakes, the second race of Triple Crown fame, many may still be thinking of fillie Eight Belles, whom raced hard at the end of the Kentucky Derby to finish second. The tragedy that happened afterwards, most know.

I shed tears for Eight Belles, just as I had for Michael Vick's dogs. And the more I think about it, the more I lean towards horse racing, in it's current form, being cruelty to animals.

Arguments as tremendously feeble as "it's part of the sport" or "we treat these animals like royalty, but sometimes these things happen" are flatly unacceptable.

I was disgusted by the news stories and interviews with industry insiders, and I think everyone else should be too. These majestic animals don't deserve this treatment, and when one interviewee suggests that horses are meant to be raced because if you see they in a meadow, they are running about playfully, it makes me sick.

Do these people have no conscious? Like dog owners who fight their dogs, these people who think like this don't deserve to be pet owners.

Associated Press sports columnist Tim Dahlberg wrote, "The people who cried for Eight Belles got it out of the way on the track. They had no choice, because the business of racing goes on."

What a nice compassionate observation there. Tim goes on to say, "Racing is a brutal business because it has to be. If we mourned every horse that lost its life early on the track or in the barn, we'd have no time left to cheer those who can still run." Is this guy serious? When he explains that "...these 1,000-pound beasts are bred and raised for maximum speed, not maximum life span", does not a little of him die inside? Maybe he's made these matter of fact statements so callously in the past that he is completely dead inside. The evidence may be in Tim's final statement where he quotes Big Brown trainer saying how this is part of the game and you have to go through it, before ending his article with "said Big Brown trainer Rick Dutrow Jr., who should have been spending the day celebrating his horse's big win."

Now folks, I don't typically call people out here...I like to keep things civil. But this kind of unparalleled lack of empathy has my blood boiling. And this is just a reporter. Imagine what the people in the business say and think.

So for me, this is right along the lines of dog fighting. These beautiful animals can't tell us what they want...they can't tell us that they are hurting...they can't opt not to race. They do what they are told/trained to do. They are loving animals, like many pets, and mostly want to please us....and we thank them with ultimate betrayal.

I don't know what the answer is...maintaining over 100 years of tradition vs. banning the sport entirely...you don't get more polarized than that. All I know is that a young female horse, who like all animals should be bred for maximum lifespan, is no longer with us. She did nothing more than love her owners and tried to please them. It's sad. It's cruel. And it needs to stop.

God's Greatest Gift...

2008-05-11T02:54:00.001-07:00

It is often said that God's greatest gift to us is his Son, whom he sent to deliver us from sin. But what if you aren't in the vast majority that believes the notion of original sin, or sin in general for that matter? If you don't believe in the notion of sin, then you are left with love. It is love, that I believe is God's greatest gift, but first I should explain why I am in the minority of dismissing the concept of sin. Before I start, I should make it clear that I don't begrudge or believe myself better than anyone that believes in the notion of sin...it's just not a concept that I embrace within my relationship with God.

Original sin. While we are all born human, and therefore destined to free-will flaws such as greed or lust, I can't accept that merely being born with free-will, and the inevitability of being imperfect, renders us doomed to hell from the start. My God would not bring an infant into this world, and with an unfortunate early death, deem that original sin prevents that precious child from rejoining Him.

Now in my branch of Christianity, Baptist, it is said that a child is exempt from damnation until the day they are capable of realizing they are sinners. This goes back to the concept of original sin, that somehow a child has lived 5, 6, 7+ years...the only way a child knows how...only to find out that he or she has been a sinner their entire life. Is this some massive guilt trip that God would lay on a child's shoulders? Haha, you've lived your life happy-go-lucky, or so you thought, but you are actually a sinner and need to repent your happy-go-lucky years. That doesn't make sense to me.

And how can God who supposedly loves us dearly, which I know he does, bring us into this world and become so angry with us that if for a flash in time, which is our life compared to eternity, we don't acknowledge him that we are doomed? That too, perplexes me.

Does He not make us in His image? Would you make a decision to bring a child into this world and if he or she doesn't do exactly as you say, you would harm that child? Of course not.

And THAT is where God's greatest gift lies. Unconditional Love. God's love is unconditional. He wants us to live the best life possible...to treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. If we stray, His love doesn't wain. If we falter, He may be disappointed, but His love remains...just as the love we have for our children.

His gifts are infinite, but so is His love for us. And that's His greatest gift to us...to allow us to love someone, our child, just as much as He loves us, His children.

Miley Cyrus' problems...

2008-05-04T16:03:00.000-07:00

As everyone knows by now, Miley Cyrus posed for pictures in the Vanity Fair magazine, which includes no one remotely close to her fan base. The pictures were distasteful to say the least, leaving people to blame Vanity Fair as well as photographer Annie Leibovitz. But I say the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of her parents, and specifically Billy Ray Cyrus...who was at the photo session.

Regardless of the claims of many stars of "whatever Annie says, you do", a father's judgement should trump everything else. We live in a culture that's rapidly becoming desensitized, but a parent's first priority should be to protect their childern.

I've been critical of Billy Ray's approach to parenting for some time now...ever since I saw him on Glenn Beck. His approach is really hands off, and he values friendship far more than the father/daughter relationship.

He speaks of Miley having a good head on her shoulders and trusting her judgement, suggesting that he allows her to make many of her own decisions. While it's happened to work well so far, it's a dangerous and slippery slope, and a sloppy approach to parenting.

Any father who hasn't done so yet, please read Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters by Meg Meeker. Her research indicates that while people believe that kids are growing up faster and becoming adults quicker, there minds still don't become fully developed with the ability to foresee some of the consequences of their choices until into their mid-20s.

This, do a degree, negates the notion of trusting your child to make their own choices. It's unfair and puts an undue burden on the kids, even if they don't realize it.

I urge and plead fathers to stay connected...push through the draining feeling and urge to just give in. You're doing your daughters justice by staying in the fight...even if it makes her unhappy for a time.

The key to our future in deeply entrenched in family values...please let our children learn the family values from you, rather than the culture at large. Resist the notion of wanting to be your daughter's friend first...later on in life, it will make all the difference in your relationship...when your daughter is truly ready to run her own life. And when that time comes, not only will you have been put up on a pedestal as the man she most respects in her life...which will far out weight the notion of being a friend or the coolest parent when she's younger.

Ron Paul was right...

2008-05-02T01:35:00.000-07:00

...and so was George Bush, 8 years ago. Yes, when President Bush was just a former governor running for president, he was asked in a debate about his views on the role of the military. He stated, in no uncertain terms, that the military was not to be used for nation building.

Now for some reason, President Bush has revised that belief he stated 8 years ago, but this is exactly the stance that Ron Paul took, which many people scoffed at during recent debates.

Granted, Ron Paul took an even more extremist view in that he believed that our military should shut down all it's bases abroad and come back home. To be honest, I don't know why more people didn't love that viewpoint...but it made Republicans leery.

But the overall premise stays the same. The military is designed to fight wars...or more accurately, protect America. It should not be and isn't designed to rebuild nations. So we should have been looking to withdraw our military in a quick and orderly fashion long ago...once we discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

That's not to dismiss the "we broke it, we fix it" crowd. But our military doesn't do that...we have the Peace Corps, and hundreds of other government and private humanitarian aid organizations for that.

Had we followed that plan, it would have likely feed the conspiracy crowds with all kinds of outrageous accusations, but our country wouldn't be as broke as it is. And as much as I'd love to help others, if we aren't in the position to help ourselves, it makes it hard to help others.

I know that the parties are nearly set...but it makes you realize that neither John "another 100 years" McCain, nor Barack "I'm pulling out for the sake of pulling out and because I was right before the war started about no war except that I was a state senator not a US senator who would privy to more detailed information" Obama have it right.

Barack is Out of Touch

2008-04-28T08:13:00.000-07:00

In a quick follow-up to my previous post, here are two quick examples of how Barack Obama is indeed Out of Touch. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain jumped on Barack's statement about bitter Pennsylvanians and middle-Americans, calling him out of touch. In each instance, he fired back, saying that he wasn't out of touch. Unfortunately for him, he gave horrid examples of how he "wasn't out of touch".

The one refuting John McCain's out of touch claims showed him to be eager to give money to Americans who very clearly bought more house than they could afford. He mocked John McCain's answers to the foreclosure crisis.

I'll be honest, I have no clue what McCain's plan on the "foreclosure crisis" is...but odds are, I'm against it. Folks, I'm living in a dinky little home, because that's all I can afford at the moment. Do I like it? Do I want to raise my three kids in this small little home in a hole-in-the-wall town? No! But that's what I've got to do for the moment. So you can be absolutely sure that I don't think someone that bought a $300,000 home on a salary of 60K per year deserves to keep that home that they clearly can't afford. That's Barack's plan...keep people in the houses they have...reward them for stupid judgements. If you actually thought you could afford a $300,000 home on 60K per year, I'm sorry, but you deserve to lose your home. You don't even have to ask me if I feel sorry for you as I live in my $50,000 home making 70K a year, struggling to make ends meet...you should know the answer.

And this one is, to me, far worse...the "slam" he gave Hillary Clinton for her saying he was out of touch. He said, "Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I'm out of touch?"

Do you understand what he's saying here? He's saying that bankruptcy is a get out of debt plan!!!! Can we say, "personal responsibility"? And do you think that all those bankruptcies won't cost us in taxes somehow?

Hey, I don't like Credit Card companies as much as the next guy, but of course they want to make it harder for people to walk away from their responsibilities. If you loaned your best friend every penny you have in savings with they promise that they'd repay you ASAP, only to have them not pay you at all, you'd be upset too, right???

These are the things that Obama needs to be explaining. Does he really think that bankruptcy is a get out of debt plan??? If so, is that someone you'd want as your president? Would you let him talk you into saying that it's the big bad Credit Card companies' fault for their lending practices? Or would you hold his feet to the fire and demand that people that run up thousands of dollars in credit card bills on a part-time job need to take responsibility for their actions?

Barack, this is where we part ways...

2008-04-28T07:41:00.000-07:00

...and by we, I mean the country and yourself. Forgive me for being late to the party regarding the "clinging" statement, but times have been busy around the Mad Hoosier's household.

But indeed, the "clinging" statement is what completely turned me off from Barack Obama. I wasn't going to vote for him, but I didn't have any reason not to trust him, I just didn't agree with his vision for the country.

First, his non-explanation for staying in Trinity United for 20 years wasn't enough. And the mere statement about middle Americans being bitter and clinging to a variety of things to explain their frustrations away was bad enough...but the man never rephrased his quote, or even tried to give it full context from his point of view. Instead, he repeatedly defended his statement, either by saying it himself or quoting someone else who came up to him and saying he "was right".

In my estimation, this statement didn't get enough publicity, and what publicity it did get, solely focused on religion and guns. So I won't even cover those two, as they've been covered to death. But I'm a middle-American...that he claims to understand...and whether or not I'm bitter isn't even the issue. I mean, I'm Mad...but not necessarily bitter...but I digress.

What angers me...errr Maddens me...is saying that middle-Americans have antipathy for people who aren't like them...that they are anti-immigrant, or anti-trade. Folks, he's basically calling middle-Americans bigots!

A typical middle-American like myself are not only accepting but welcome diversity. Heck, we want immigration...we just want it legal. And let's be serious...anti-trade? Anti-Trade???? 70% of our economy is based on consumer spending...spending on foreign made products...thus our enormous trade deficit. We aren't anti-trade...we just want a balanced trade...which means someone in Washington needs to do something to get America producing products...not only services (which is also what the majority of our economy consists of).

America...I believe that this single statement, and his insistence that it was an accurate approximation of middle-Americans, proves that Barack Obama doesn't understand the majority of America and thusly has no idea how to put America on the right track.

He may understand hope, and be intelligent and a brilliant lawyer, but he has zero business sense. You CAN'T tax the rich and big businesses and expect them to want to keep employing more and more people. They will cut their businesses and continue to move those jobs out of America where they can make some money.

Folks, if you support Obama, you have to hold his feet to the fire. Don't get so caught up in the message of hope, that you fail to demand substance. You've got a responsibility to find out what kind of leader he wants to be, and you can't find that out if he avoids answering tough questions.

A Culture Warrior In-Training

2008-04-20T02:23:00.000-07:00

Yes, I'm a conservative...yes, watch The O'Reilly Factor nightly, and yes, the Glenn Beck show too. I've read Culture Warrior, and am almost done with Power To The People. I have An Inconvenient book ready in waiting, but will likely pick up Real Change, by Newt Gingrich or Thou Shall Prosper to read before it. I listen to O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingrahm on the radio when I get the chance, but for some reason I can't go Shawn Hannity....and I can't stand Limbaugh.

What I've come to realize during this political and social awakening in me, is that the saying "knowledge is power" is true. I'm not as much of a cultural debator as I am political, though I now am quick to recognize issues that belong in the "culture war".

And really, I don't debate...I just discuss. But it was a recent discussion with a liberal colleague at work, in which I knew exactly how to rebut the points....errrr...suggest a different point of view based on their viewpoints.

The topics ranged from taxes to healthcare to the economy, and each time I had an answer that seemed to stump the other person. Granted, this person wasn't James Carville or anything, but had they been better equiped to answer back, I think I could have still held my own. And what's better, I think it is starting to get this person thinking about their beliefs. I could be wrong, and the person could have just been tired of hearing me talk, but that's a glass half-empty approach. :)

But whether you're a conservative or not, there's great satisifaction in understanding processes and nuiances of politics/culture and believing that you're beliefs are right. Sure, your satisifaction is deflated rather quickly when you realize that "the government" still thinks their way is best...but hey, at least you felt like you had all the answers to the country's problems for a few seconds. :)

Regrets...

2008-03-20T12:06:00.000-07:00

Well, I was surfing blogs today, and checked Rocketstar's blog today. I hadn't checked blogs in a while, so I was going back a bit and found a post he did on regrets. His take is that people shouldn't be so ashamed to be regretful, being that the definition of regret is just to be very sorry for something. I started to post a reply, and it started to become too long, so I decided to just make it a post on my blog rather than a post-long reply on his blog.

A couple of people had already replied, and I started to chime in saying, I (too) don't think it's a matter of being shameful of admitting that you've made mistakes. What I think it is a matter of, is that most people associate regret with is wishing that they hadn't done, or moreover could change, some bad act or decision they did or made.

Right or wrong, based on definition, that's what I and I think most people associate regret with. And I don't know about other people, but I think of "regret" as a large-scale type of thing whey I use the word.

I wouldn't say, "I regret saying that to my sister." I'd say, "I shouldn't have said that to my sister," or "I wish I hadn't said that to my sister."

In the large-scale use of "regret" I think it makes it sound as if I wish I could actually change what I did. In that sense, I really only have two real "regrets" in my life. However, (much like Colette said) if I would made a different decision or could change those two "regrets", my life would have turned out much different.

My life isn't peaches and creme, but I wouldn't change what I have right now, at this very moment, for anything in the world. I think most people, at least the ones that say "I don't have any regrets" feel the same way.

In the scope of the definition of regret, they may not be using the right word when saying "I have no regrets", but I don't think they mean, I've never made bad decisions...or I'm not sorry for the things I've said/done. I think they mean they wouldn't change anything that would affect their lives differently to lead them on a different path than would lead them to right where they are today.

Just Words Part II...

2008-03-18T14:10:00.000-07:00

Sorry I haven't been around as much folks...for any of those that follow my blog *chirp* *chirp*...but I haven't forgotten about or given up on the blog. Just been busy, spending time with the family, playing internet games, and the like. There are lots of things I love to discuss, but the topic on my mind at the moment that I have to get off my chest is the recent controversy with Barack Obama's preacher, Jeremiah Wright.

In the past, Barack has spoke about, and I whole-heartedly agree, that words can be inspirational. They can call people to act, they can cause people to change their ways, they can envoke emotions in people that they didn't realize existed inside them, they can change lives.

What he has recently failed to acknowledge, via his weak decrying of Jeremiah Wright's sermons, that words can also discourage. They can create hate, they can cause people to lash out, they can tear people, family, and/or friends apart, and they can equally envoke emotions in people that would scare others.

On one hand, I can understand that he must be in a hard position. He has to balance his loyalty to his spiritual advisor with his desire to be president. On the other hand, it's worrisome that someone who would want to be president of the United States would be loyal to someone like that to begin with.

It's not cherry-picking. The clips are there for the world to see, unedited. They show a man speaking passionately and confidently. They indicate that this man, a pastor, firmly believes everything he is saying, and it's hard to believe that this is just one side of a man's personna that is able to be switched off after the sermon is over.

They are hateful words. They come from a place that I don't know about, can't fathom or even barely empathize with. Jeremiah Wright is entitled to those opinions and is allowed to speak them freely. Barack Obama is allowed to believe what Jeremiah Wright says, or believe that this is only a small slice of who the man is.

The President of the United States, however, is not allowed to believe that.

Jeremiah Wright believes that the United States is a bad place...that it's government purposefully harms people and that it intends to harm people. By default, the President of the United States can not believe in these things.

If Barack Obama hopes to be the next president of our country, we should accept nothing less than a full denouncement of Jeremiah Wright and a full explaination of how his beliefs differ from Jeremiah Wright and why he differs from those views yet still attended his church for the past 20 years. I hope he does, for his own sake.

Economics 100...

2008-02-19T17:10:00.000-08:00

Yes...the class before Econ 101. It's basic really. People apply it to their personal lives daily. Don't spend more than you make. Sure, there's the use of credit cards...but credit only lasts so long. Eventually, you WILL be bankrupt. And not the kind of bankrupt where you write everything off but get to keep your house, cars, etc. The kind where you're thrown onto the streets with little more than the clothes on your back.

In your personal lives, you're expected to live realistically, lawfully, and dutifully. You can't print more money to suddenly make more than you spend. You can't insist that your friends or family give you the money so that you make more than you spend. And you can't rob someone so that you make more than you spend. You spend less, or your in the aforementioned homeless predicament.

So let's extrapolate that out to the national level. How on earth do we plan to function as a nation by spending way more than we make?? In the national scene, the government doesn't exactly act realistically, lawfully, or dutifully...at least not at the moment. And it will catch up to us. The printing money, borrowing money, stealing money...the government does that too...but it's just a temporary fix. The answer lies in less spending, and we as citizens must demand it.

Let's talk realistically for a minute. We can't afford to add all the new programs that Hillary or Barack will propose once they get into office. We can't. The war spending...yeah, that sucks. And it will create less spending once one of them end the war. But they plan on running deficits right back up with Universal Health Care, National Education programs, and a plethora of other programs.

Now, they could continue printing more money. But as I've talked about before, that temporary fix leads to low valuation of the dollar and high inflation.

They could borrow money from other governments. Yeah, let's let China, Saudia Arabia, Japan, and others practically own our government. They will surely look out for our best interests.

Or...let's look at what they will do...tax. First they will tax the rich. Besides, everyone says that the rich can afford it...that they don't need the money. But make no mistake, when that money dries up, they will come after everyone else. Basically, we will become Denmark. And Denmark's fine...for Denmark. They're no super power...they certainly aren't a wealthy nation...and they don't help other countries out because they have enough to worry about theirselves. You know how much taxes they charge? Upwards of 60%. Sure, that sounds fine to rich people and people who aren't you. But imagine your income cut in half. Then add 10% for good measure.

It's a temporary fix...raising taxes, and particuarly taxing the rich. Who do you think employs you, if you aren't self employed? Someone wealthy. Who comes up with and sees through to fruition all great inventions and ideas. Someone wealthy....or they eventually become wealthy. Why else would they see their ideas through to the end if there wasn't a payoff for all their hard work? Did I mention that wealthy people who aren't named Warren Buffett already pay almost 50% taxes? How much higher do Barack and Hillary want to go? 55%, 60%, 75%?? Do you think someone's going to come up with a cure for Cancer, or create the next great renewable fuel, if they don't get rewarded monetarily for their vision and hard work? In the words of the great John Wayne...Not hardly.

So are you satisified becoming Denmark? Again, it's a nice enough place, I'm sure. I've got nothing against them. But they aren't the leader of the world...they don't have everyone clamoring to become migrate there to become citizens. If you are, maybe you should check it out first. They don't have as many freedom's as we do. And if that still sounds good to you...you're in the minority. Do us all a favor and move there instead of making everyone else convert to your idea of happiness is. Let this country do what it was founded on...let the free market decide. Oh, and I forgot...you may not be welcome there....because diversity isn't exactly embraced there...since 90% of their residents were born and raised there. Good Luck with that.

Like all parents know...you have to let your kid fail so that he or she will learn. It's an unfortunate and heartwrenching fact of life. That's what we have to do here...some times things have to fail. Recessions have to happen. And as all teachers know...you can't save everyone. So let's say we stop before the government tried to do just that....spend the money we work for to save everyone...even those that may not deserve it...which is also unfortunate but a fact of life...some people don't deserve to be coddled.

Hope is great...I like hope. But hope in one hand and...well, you probably know how the rest of that goes. Just don't blindly buy into Barack's hope, or Hillary's rhetoric. Make sure to look beyond it and make sure it makes sense and isn't just a quick fix that could change the composition of our country...to be like a Denmark.

Just Words...

2008-02-19T11:56:00.000-08:00

Recently there has been a controversy about a speech that Barack Obama gave that was "plagiarized". There was a clamor about his speech being lifted from a speech that was given by the Governor of Massachusetts. The coverage on this issue has ranged from non-existent to calling the Illinois senator lazy.

To be honest, I think it's all getting blown out of proportion. The speech in question contains about 30 seconds of material that Barack Obama borrows from friend Deval Patrick. The two more or less collaberoted over the material, according to Deval Patrick, and seems as though it could have easily have been Deval Patrick being made as the scapegoat had Barack given his speech first. Or more likely, it would have been a non-issue.

The coverage that I saw on the news last night did the two speeches more injustice than justice. From the two mini-clips, it appeared to me as though Barack Obama was mocking Deval Patrick. Obama delivered his speech with more passion than Patrick, if you ask me, and since both programs I watched last night played Deval Patrick's speech first, it gave it that appearance.

In reality, Barack Obama was answering Hillary Clinton's criticism that he was all words and rhetoric, implying that he had no substance.

It's just another example of how news organizations aren't careful on how they report their stores, and an example of people trying to bring others down.

So if I, a conservative, whom is supposed to be one of the ones that would leap on a story such as this, can write it off as a complete non-issue, do you think we can get the media to do the same and focus on important things such as issues, hmmm?

Sigh Voting Games...

2008-02-15T00:57:00.000-08:00

In much the same respect that I don't understand people who will choose to stay home and not vote, I don't understand people who say they are Republican's but during the primary they go out to vote for the democrat that they think will have the least chance of winning.

Ignorant games like that is why those people deserve not to have their candidate win. I couldn't stand there and say, "Yeah, I voted for someone that I have the exact opposite views of." Maybe it's a self-repsect thing...I don't know.

All I know is that I don't feel justified in griping about anyone if I didn't stand up and vote for the guy, or girl, I thought best suited to represent me. If you're playing these games, you clearly don't take your duty of voting seriously, and I don't even want to hear your opinion if you can't take our democracy seriously.

Straight Talk Express on the Economy...

2008-02-03T12:35:00.000-08:00

A while back, McCain talked in Michigan and gave them some 'Straight Talk' stating that they needed to face reality that their auto jobs weren't coming back to America. Like many other economists and experts, McCain is happy with manufacturing jobs leaving America. He thinks that we are now a service-oriented economy and that we don't have to have manufacturing jobs here because of that.

The truth is, the loss of manufacturing jobs, of blue collar jobs...that's what's killing the middle class. It used to be that a worker could put in a 40 hour work week of honest, hard work, and make a descent living at it. No longer. Those jobs have all but left...to China, Indonesia, India, Hong King, Taiwan, etc.

Why? Because it's cheaper. Think about that for a second. It's cheaper for a company to build a manufacturing plant in another country, pay for cheap labor, pay for global shipping, and pay low import taxes/tariffs than it is to keep a plant in the United States. Does anyone else see anything wrong with that?

Sure many people make companies out to be the bad guy...to be all about the almighty dollar...and in many cases they are true. But wouldn't you rather have those companies here, keeping solid jobs in the United States rather than sending them abroad?

We charge WAY too high taxes on companies. So much so that they would rather leave than keep the American dream, of merely making a descent living, alive for fellow Americans.

In one way, this may be the perfect time to reduce corporate taxes and make it easier on companies to produce things here. So many manufacturing jobs have left...there are so few here now...that we can create a new set of rules with wish to reward companies to come back. Make it beneficial to have them bring jobs back and make the plants and buildings environmentally friendly. Or not. But what I think is a mistake is to depend on the rest of the world to provide us with all of our "stuff" that we buy. We must demand that government make it easier for Americans to provide ourselves with "stuff". Perhaps then can we create the honest, hard-working middle class again.

Sitting Home ISN'T the Answer!!

2008-01-30T12:50:00.000-08:00

Ok folks...conservatives...we have a problem. The problem is only partially that John McCain is now the leading candidate for the Republican nomination despite being a liberal-minded person in a party that is typically considered to be full of conservatives. The bulk of the problem is that people are talking about sitting out from voting this year if McCain does go ahead and get the nomination. Are you kidding me?!?!?!? Cry me a river!

Now while I consider myself a conservative, I also mostly consider the fact that I'll be voting Republican, as they'll typically be the more conservative person to vote for. But I don't consider myself a Republican, as I can see myself voting for other people besides a Republican nominee. It also helps not to consider myself a Republican, because I strongly oppose our two-party system.

Anyway, like many conservatives, I will not vote for McCain...even if he's going against Hilliary whom I will also never vote for. But I WILL NOT sit home and refuse to vote.

I believe it's our basic responsibility as Americans to vote. If your a "Republican" and you can't vote for McCain...research a third party candidate and vote for them. Sure, at this point, they'd have little to no chance of winning, but you must stand up and do your duty and vote. There will come a day, in this ever increasing digitalized world, that a third party candidate will have a viable shot...look at what Ron Paul did this year via the Internet.

Besides, the Presidential vote is only part of what makes this country run. Hilliary, or McCain, or Ron Paul, or whoever...none of them can change the country by themselves. The "checks and balances" is required to forward their proposed agenda. So, if for whatever reason, you can't get excited about the presidential race, find a senator or representative that you can get behind and make sure to vote for them. Don't forget about the local politics either...as local politics can effect your daily lives just as much as a national politician can.

So folks, do your duty...get involved. Don't just sit home and make yourself a pouter. Vote! Then you will be able to feel better about voicing your complaints...or at least you should. For those that don't engage themselves in the process, but have no problem criticizing after merely sitting on the sidelines...those are the people we should fear. Those are the ones that feel like they are owed everything for doing nothing...and that, my friends, is unAmerican.

Resolutions...

2008-01-28T02:02:00.000-08:00

Although it's not quite a month into the new year, my resolutions are going well so far, knock on wood. I'm typically not one for adamantly making New Year's Resolutions, but I decided to commit to changing/creating four habits to better my life.

There's the always popular, lose weight. I'm more focused on being healthy than losing a specific amount of weight, though I could certainly use to trim the solar-plexis some. I'm eating better and jogging two and a half miles four days a week. The fifth day, I've only been doing a mile and a half, and take two days off. At least it's a start, and I'm thinkinf of adding a caveat...prepare to run in a marathon (at least a small one).

Then there's, simplify my life. Who couldn't go for a streamlined lifestyle? Well, when you have three kids, you quickly decide that much of what you've been keeping around is junk. So I did some spring cleaning in January, and I can already tell a difference.

The next one's more personal in nature, but since I've already written a post on it before I may as well spell it out. I just decided to put my foot down (with myself) and am forcing myself to get to know my father better. We used to rarely talk, even though we weren't really at odds, we just never made the effort. I've complained in the past how I need effort from him, which is partly true, but if I want this so badly, I've got to be the one putting in 170%. So far, calling him once a week is working out well. I'm trying to "teach him", and really teach myself too, that our conversations don't have to be so loaded like our previous conversations were. When you talk only one to three times a year, the conversations are all about catching up. I want him, as well as myself, to know that a 3-minute call just to say hi and find out about his day is perfectly acceptable.

And finally, there's reading. This is the one resolution I can remember making last year (I could have made more, but I don't think so). As I've said before, I've heard somewhere that reading three different books on a particular subject makes you an expert. Additionally, I've heard that millionaires, on average, read at least one non-fiction book a month. So my resolution last year was to do just that, read one book a month. I failed. This year's resolution is the same, and so far I'm doing better. I've decided not to restrict it to non-fiction, and that seems to help. I will make sure to read some non-fiction books...but the only ones I have now are related to politics, and can get boring at times. Sure the two books I've read so far have been fiction and rather small, but if for no other reason that getting myself in the habit of reading regularly it has helped tremendously.

So, so-far-so-good. With any luck I can keep up the trends.

The A Daily Show - 01/24

2008-01-25T10:23:00.000-08:00

Last night on ~~The~~ A Daily Show with Jon Stewart, he had a guest on, Jerri Willis from CNN, speaking about the state of the economy. I know a lot people watch Jon Stewart and even rely on his show for their news, so I need to clear some things up that this guest was either misleading about or was ill-equipped to speak about.

One of the first things that Jon did was have Jerri comment on two video clips, both of which made the people seem like they didn't know what they were talking about. What was missed was...well...everything in the clips was easily explained, but Jerri Willis either chose not to or didn't know anything about what she was talking about.

The first clip was a lady, whom I've seen before but I don't know her name off hand, who's comment was something to the effect of "this is the market that everyone's been dreaming about". While the second guy was quoted as saying, "that was a great moment to cover those shorts and take a shot on the long side", referring to the stock market's 500 point drop early in the trading day the other day.

Now, if you've followed my blog at all, you may know that I'm worried about the economy...very worried. It's almost scary to me. There's a culmination of events that have come, or are coming, together to potentially send our economy seriously out of wack. HOWEVER, both of the comments by these people are perfectly legitmate statements, when taken in context without extrapolating them out to be general comments about the overall economy.

The first lady is a big real estate investment proponent. If you take a second to think about it, this is a great time to be a big real estate investor. Individuals are losing their houses at alarming rates, so now is the perfect time to drive real estate prices further down, and buy at a cheap price. Also, keep in mind I still don't think the individuals should be bailed out...they have a responsibility to know if they can afford a home or not.

The guy's statement was textbook from an investing standpoint. It is a little complicated, but what he was essentially saying is pay back your loans, take the profits from that loan and invest at a cheap price. Who in their right mind wouldn't want to do that? Now, as I said, it's a little complicated to explain, and I'd be glad to do so if any one wants me to, but Jerri Willis completely misinterpreted that gentleman's comments. In my opinion, if you don't understand the market, you have no business making a comment on the gentleman's statement. If you do supposedly understand the stock market, and you're not on board with what the gentleman said, you should really go back and re-learn the stock market.

Again, folks, it's crazy out there. The economy could be in trouble, and I don't have the opinion that this "stimulus package" will help much...though I'll gladly take the money. But do the smart thing...pay off debt with that money. The government isn't running the economy well at all. If the government was a company, they'd be out of business. So if our economy turns out bad, your best bet is to have little to no debt.

I like Jon Stewart...I watch his show all the time...and I do learn things about current events from there. But don't fall into the trap of believing everything on there and take it as gospel. Yesterday's guest and the above explaination are prefect examples how someone that doesn't know exactly what they are talking about can give people a misrepresentation of things.

Something Else I Don't Understand...

2008-01-17T14:13:00.000-08:00

...is parents that swear. I just don't get it. I don't. It's clearly undesirable and unnecessary, not to mention teaching bad habits.

I'll admit it...I used to swear like a sailor...excessively so. I've never smoked, done drugs, never been drunk in my life, so I used to say that I'm entitled to let the language fly. If that's the worst thing I do, there's millions of people that I'm already a leg up on.

All it took was once. The first time my daughter repeated a swear word, as children often repeat any words they hear...a swear word is inevitable, and I quit. Cold turkey...I stopped swearing. There was no way I was going to have my daughter repeating the nasty things I was saying.

To this day, I almost never swear. On the rare occasion I do, it's usually to myself and never when my children are around.

Aside from the occasional "crap" which they get from my wife, the worst thing they say is "stupid". I still don't like them saying that. One day they will be old enough to understand that it's ok to call things stupid, but not people. Now, it just always promotes a 30-second conversation on how they shouldn't say stupid. Admittedly, they mostly hear that during the holidays when they are watching a Charlie Brown show.

I think that the American culture is continually getting worse than the generation before it, and it will continue to do so until either the end of our country or the world. But I don't understand why we can't preserve our culture as much as possible, to delay the inevitable, by at the very least using good language in front of our own children. It's sad that it doesn't happen, and for the life of me, I don't understand why.

Party Politics at it's worst...

2008-01-16T13:59:00.000-08:00

This issue is a little late, but still lingering with me from late last year. In many areas, including the Mayoral election of the city I live near, Evansville, Indiana, Democrats won their elections.

This, in and of itself I have little problem with. I try to adopt the mentality that what's done is done, there's no need to dwell and be nasty about it. If someone I didn't vote for wins, ultimately they still have to answer to me, as a voter, even if I don't agree with their stances.

What I can't stand is the braggard's mentality. The same mentality that boasts of having control during the redrawing of congressional districts. Republicans are certainly guilty of this as well. The problem is, this does nothing to help. It is divisive and hurts the people...the very voters that put them in power.

Many have stated, this is a clear statement that Americans want change. Duh! Many elections are about change...there's nothing new there. Regardless of how you were elected, show us how your going to bring about change...don't yap about it, for crying out loud!

Folks, we need people to bring things together, not keep them apart. The mayor of Evansville, in which the city councel is not all Democrats and one Republican...and he ran uncontested, bragged "What a win for the Democrats, huh?" Later on, he continued, that a his win was a win for Evansville.

I'm all for being proud and confident of yourself...but come on. In a city of 150,000 there was 15,000 voters in that election!!! Is that really something to brag about?

I'll say this much...Barack Obama at least brings people together rather than push people away. I can even see myself voting for him over some so-called conservatives that may wind up with the nomination. And that's what we should demand from elected officials at all levels. If someone is satisified with a victory in which there could only been as much as 20% voter turnout, that's someone who doesn't have lofty enough goals.

American in Economic Trouble

2008-01-15T12:53:00.000-08:00

Ok...we need to face some facts, as Americans. Our country is great...there's no other country like it. It's also facing some potentially horrible times. Recent polls say that the number one concern of people is the economy. I know that it is my number one fear. There are obviously many concerns, but the economy is at the forefront of many people's minds.

Now I don't want this blog to become about doom and gloom, but I also can't turn away and pretend everything is rosy when it isn't. The economy is something that is complicated, but something that I think is made out to be too complicated...so much so that not many people truly understand what is going on. I won't stand here and pretend that I do understand everything that's going on, but I do believe that things are headed in the wrong direction.

What I plan on doing is taking on small segments so it won't be overwhelming. If we talk about the falling dollar, housing crisis, interest rates, productivity, deficits, etc. in one post, it will be too much. But my hope is that after several segments, people will get a better feel for how those things affect the economy.

So for this post, I just want to talk about the falling dollar and how the Federal Reserve affects it. Now, the Federal Reserve, quoting from it's website "is the central bank of the United States and provides the nation with a safe, flexible, and stable monetary and financial system". The important thing to know is that there is currently little oversight to the Federal Reserve. They are run almost like a corporation, aside from monthly meetings that they have with congress to tell them what they are going to do, but they don't have to take instructions from congress on how to run the national bank.

Among other things, the Federal Reserve has the ability to create/print money, and it is precisely this ability that is creating the falling dollar. This can be explained simply by the law of supply and demand. The more supply there is, the less demand there is for it, and thusly the more the price must lower to create sufficient demand to meet the supply.

Think of it in terms of...oh say...cars. Let's say someone made a car that many people would want...one that very safe, roomy, runs on water, and gives out no pollution. So the manufacturer says that the cars will be selling for $10,000. Initially, everyone wants one, so the price quickly rises to $30,000 based on high demand. Soon, the manufacturer is able to multiply his production of these new cars by ten fold. Before too long, the price on the exact same car would drop down...and let's say that the manufacturer begins producing so many throughout the world, that to sell one, he now has to lower the prict to say $5000, because there is a greater supply of them out there.

That's what's happening to the US Dollar. The Federal Reserve has the ability to, and does, print new money often enough, causing our dollar to fall in value. But in value to what? In value to other country's currency. A country doesn't have to spend as much of their money to exchange it for the US Dollar if the US Dollar is vastly overcirculated. Conversely, we have to spend more of our money in exchange for a currency that isn't being overcirculated.

Why is that a problem? Because now we have to spend more money to buy the same goods produced in other countries. Oh, by the way, most items that you buy on a daily basis is produced in another country. Not good. Has anyone noticed the price we pay for a barrel of oil recently, despite the production of oil having not changed at all?

This is something that the front-runners of the presidential race should be, but aren't, discussing. It's up to us to let them know that they need to develop an economic plan if they want to be elected.

NUMB3RS...

2008-01-13T00:30:00.000-08:00

Ok...so I watch a lot of TV...cutting back will be a resolution for another year, provided I can keep the ones I made this year. Anyway, regardless of how much television I do or don't watch, this show has got to be one of my favorite shows of all time.

There's two main reasons for this. Aside from being entertaining, it is fascinating how much Math they can come up with to put in this show. Now, if you are planning on hopping on to say that there is no way the math used in the show would work in real life, save it. I don't want to hear it. I don't KNOW how realistic this show is...for those not familiar, this show is about a mathematician genius helping out the FBI to solve crimes...but it seems like it's realistic, so for me, it is. I didn't do poorly in Math, but if this show was around when I was in high school, I am sure I would have looked at Math differently. A show like this should give Math teachers hope in finding ways to make Math entertaining enough to teach it to people.

And the second reason this is one of my favorite shows, is that every show ends highlighting the importance of family. For the life of me, I don't know how successful I'll be at raising my kids, but I'll consider my life a success if, at the end of the day, my kids and their family will realize the importance of family unity.

If you haven't seen the show, I highly recommend it. I don't know how many different ways they can have Charlie, the mathematician, help the FBI out, but I know I'll watch every episode I can of this show...and at the end, when the family sits around the table for dinner, laughing, I'll be hoping that, in the future, my family can stay close enough to resemble that unity.

Ellsworth for Re-election

2008-01-09T15:01:00.000-08:00

I live near Evansville, Indiana. My representative is Brad Ellsworth(D). I may not agree with everything he does, but believe it or not, I do agree with much of it. I believe he represents me well...aside from voting for the crazy spending bills that this government has put forth. So he will be getting my vote for re-election this November.

I'll admit, when I didn't vote in the last election, I didn't want him to win. Why? Sadly, mostly because of a negative attack add that centered around the claim that Brad Ellsworth, a former Sheriff, had his daughter's speeding ticket fixed. I don't know if that claim is true or not, but I've come not to care. Only recently did I admit to myself that if I had the opportunity to "take care" of a speeding ticket of one of my kids, I'd likely do it. It would be passing up an opportunity to teach them a valuable lesson, certainly, but given the hassle that comes along with getting a ticket, I'd probably "take care" of the ticket for them.

I can also tell you two people that DO NOT have my support...both Indiana Senators, Richard Lugar(R) and Evan Bayh(D). Neither of them return my emails. Brad has returned nearly every one. Most recently I let him know how disappointed I was with his vote on the Budget Bill, outlining the reasons I've spoke of here before. It was a perfect opportunity, and to be honest I expected it, to ignore the email altogether because it called into question his voting record. To my surprise, he did reply. He outlined reasons why he thought it was good that he voted for it...he even mentioned things that he wish would have received more money for, but he also showed concern for cutting spending on other wasteful programs.

While he didn't detail what he would have liked to spend more on, or what he deemed wasteful, he earned my respect for merely replying to a topic that he could have easily ignored. I call on everyone in Indiana's 8th district to research Brad's voting record and see that he's clearly doing his best not to represent himself, but to represent us.

He needs to be mindful in the future, to stay in touch, stay along this same path, and keep representing the Indiana residents, but I see no reason why he shouldn't be re-elected...not one. And again...he will be recieving my vote.

Target Sucks...

2008-01-08T13:30:00.000-08:00

I vow...now...this very minute (well technically I vowed this last night, but it sounds better if my epiphany is happening real time) that I shall never buy another item from Target again, ever. Not even an aspirin, a soda, a stick of gum.

For the longest time, I've not liked Target. They NEVER have anything in stock that I'm shopping for. There's a slot for the item, but I guess their Just-In-Time stocking is severely lacking. That or it's just a cruel hoax to make you think they plan on stocking items that you need, when they have no intention of ever doing so. And it's been that way for several years. For example...for several years in a row, the week that the newest Madden Playstation game came out I'd go buy it. For those not in the know, a new Madden game comes out each year because it's a football game and each year the creators over at EA Sports like to delete useful options such as using a customized playbook in Franchise mode and add useless options such as SuperStar mode. Also they like to update the roster each year, but I'd prefer to dwell on the negative right now, thank you.

Anyway, for three years running, I'd go to Target the week the new Madden came out and sure enough...out of stock. Folks, it's the most popular sports title around, and a bankable seller in August each year. EA, I'm sure, makes plenty of games to go around. Why can't Target have them in stock??

Because they suck.

But I've tolerated them for those three years, mostly because my wife loves the store, and partially because I get a kick out of making the same old tired joke to her that we are getting ready to waste a half hour of our lives by going there because they won't have one item we are shopping for. Then I love to gloat how after we are done shopping at Target, we now get to go fight the crowds and uncomprendable long lines at Wal-Mart to shop for the other half of our shopping list that...you guessed it...wasn't stocked at Target. Luckily, she puts up with my obnoxiousness as it pertains to Target, and I love her for that.

So...here's the straw that broke this camel's back. I headed over to good ole Target to return a few Christmas items that I couldn't use...PC Games...each still wrapped...each with the large Target magnetic, security sticker on it. No, I didn't have the receipt...they're gifts people. Believe it or not, some people still don't like putting receipts with Christmas gifts they are giving out. I know, I know, the nerve of some people wanting their presents to be used by the person they give the gift to. That's heavy sarcasm for the dense retailers out there.

I should also add that I was returning a movie that my well-intentioned, mother purchased for my 5-year-old daughter. It was inappropriate, but that's beside the point.

Low and behold, Target only allows a total of 2 items returned with out a receipt...PER YEAR. Hello?!?! Anyone paying attention over at Target? Per YEAR?? Wait...there's more. On top of that, one of Target's rules is that they won't return any item without a receipt that costs more than $20. *sigh* Twenty Bucks??!! Target is supposed to be the Wal-Mart for affluent customers. Not including food, is the average price per item in their store even less than $20??

So I did get to return my daughter's video and one game that was *gasp* $19.99. Then I went on the nerve-wracking event to find an item that one, I wanted, and two, was in stock, to spend my new handy-dandy $30 gift card on. It was not a fun journey...nor was it a quick one...did I mention that Target doesn't have many items that normal customers want in stock?

And so, no less than a half hour later, I walked to the register...which unlike Wal-Mart didn't have long lines - because every patron in the store is just trying to find something in-stock to buy...and purchased Glenn Beck's new book and a roll of auto-glass wipes for my wife. As I exited the store, I vowed never to spend another red-cent in the establishment in my entire life.

But now that I think about it, it's not as if I'd ban my wife from shopping there, so here's my new vow...I'll never step foot in target again as long as I live. Not even to go to the bathroom. See...I did get to have my real-time epiphany after all.

Of course if we move back near a Super Target while my kids are still young and there's a Photoshop there, all bets are off. They take great pictures at a great price. Sometimes I miss Indianapolis.

sigh Big Government Democrats...

2008-01-07T00:10:00.000-08:00

Sorry for taking some time off...the family took turns at being sick for the new year. So I'll just try to make a quick note about how I think big government is not a good idea. In the Democrat's bid to take the moral high ground on major issues, they will ultimately drive the economy into further duress, tax the heck out of everyone, and build a federal government so big that the gaps in nearly all government offices will be much worse than the gaps in intelligence agencies leading up to 9/11.

Let me just say that I like education reform, health care reform, and the like, if not in whole at least in part. But have those socialized, that is to say run by federal government is apalling. Many agree that No Child Left Behind has been largely a disaster. So how is adding more government involvement to education reform going to help?? I agree that there must be some national standards, but the states need to decide how best to meet those standards.

And Barack...you're going to cut health care spending and expenses as a means to nationalized health care?? Please. Are you going to make it impossible for someone to sue a doctor that acts with malpractice? That's one of the main reasons that health care prices are so high...malpractice insurance is outrageous.

Does anyone see shady doctors charging the government $4000 for an office visit and some antibiotics? Because I can...and the federal government will be so innundated that it will take forever to investigate phony charges, if ever.

So folks...you have to realize that, while definitely worthy causes, nationalized health care, education reform...none of these will be solved by a bloated federal government. It must be taken care of at the state level. Don't let candidates talking of high moral issues cause you to be blinded by what would inevitablly happen if a over-sized government took over operations of those worthy causes.

For Shame, Congress

2007-12-27T02:39:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Holidays from The Mad Hoosier...

2007-12-21T01:35:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

Happy Holidays!

From,
The Mad Hoosier

Book Recommendation

2007-12-16T12:59:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-12-10T12:49:00.001-08:00

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

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

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

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

I just don't understand hate...

2007-12-10T07:01:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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