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.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Time to Grow Up. I'll Miss You Ultima Online!
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.
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.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
I won't soon forget Eight Bells...
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.
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.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
God's Greatest Gift...
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.
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.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Miley Cyrus' problems...
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.
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.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Ron Paul was right...
...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.
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.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Barack is Out of Touch
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?
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...
...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.
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.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
A Culture Warrior In-Training
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. :)
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. :)
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Regrets...
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Just Words Part II...
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Economics 100...
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.
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...
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?
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?
Friday, February 15, 2008
*Sigh* Voting Games...
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.
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.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Straight Talk Express on the Economy...
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Sitting Home ISN'T the Answer!!
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.
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.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Resolutions...
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.
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.
Friday, January 25, 2008
The A Daily Show - 01/24
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.
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.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Something Else I Don't Understand...
...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.
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.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Party Politics at it's worst...
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
American in Economic Trouble
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.
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.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
NUMB3RS...
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Ellsworth for Re-election
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Target Sucks...
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.
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.
Monday, January 07, 2008
*sigh* Big Government Democrats...
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.
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.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
For Shame, Congress
Alright folks, we're coming up on an election year...it's time to begin thinking about the issues. I'm not saying you have to be passionate about politics or be consumed by every issue, but you need to be informed.
Just before the Christmas break, a $555-BILLION spending bill was passed. A bulk of that was for unrestricted billions in the war on terror...unrestricted meaning that no one is accountable for how those funds are spent.
The war is a whole other topic for another day, but staying on the spending bill...also included in the spending bill are the so-called earmarks for congress' pet projects. Do you realize that within this spending bill are things like a $700,000 bike trail in Minnesota, $10,000,000 for attorney's fees for illegal immigrants, money for studying some insect in France, and to include my own hometown, $3.6 million for sewer repairs in Indiana.
Just to spell it out a little more, the spending bills are the obvious part...the things that the government spends money on. But remember, the money they are spending is ours...our tax money that is.
I don't know about you, but I sure as heck don't want my tax dollars being spent on a bike trail, or to pay for lawyers for illegal immigrants....and I'm sure you don't want your tax dollars being spent on sewer repairs in Indiana.
This could be an important issue. While the Democratic candidates are finding ways to spend more taxpayer money, there are at least two Republican hopefuls that would like to do away with the IRS altogether. To be fair, some of the Democratic issues are noble, but I have to be honest, I don't want the federal government running any kind of healthcare.
The two Republican hopefuls I am speaking of are Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. I believe Mitt Romney would like to do the same kind of things as Mike Huckabee, but I wouldn't swear to it. Huckabee wants to replace income tax with a national flat consumption tax on certain items. These items are not yet spelled out, and Huckabee believes that he could run the flat tax in the range of 20 - 25 percent.
Ron Paul wants to merely demolish the IRS, period. He doesn't think that there needs to be any consumption tax to make up for the loss of federal revenue.
I like both ideas for different reasons. Ron Paul's idea would go back to the Founding Fathers, whom didn't mandate any kind of income tax, and would count on tarrifs to raise money for federal needs. This would clearly eliminate the pork spending of congress, and allow for states to institute higher taxes to pay for state-specific projects. Then each state can decide and vote on what to build with tax payer funds. The questions that arise for me is how much income would we actually get through tarriffs? I could see getting enough to pay for national defense...but would there be enough for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade? Eventually those institutions would need to be overhauled anyway, but we can't just leave a generation of retirees without income they were promised.
On the Huckabee side, I think that a consumption tax would reach a class of people that have skirted paying taxes for years. I also think it would increase personal savings, as people would see 20 or 25 percent taxes on things and try to be more thrifty.
I don't necessarily see a negative side to Huckabee's proposal, other than it's not Ron Paul's idea...keep the federal government out of our money. At the end of the day, while Huckabee's proposal would decrease spending, it may not stop the ear-marking altogether, whereas Ron Paul's idea would. I'm a big fan of giving more control to the states, particularly on issues such as spending. Let Minnesota's governor try to convince tax payers that $700,000 would make them happier or heathier or increase tourism or whatever a $700,000 bike trail would do...just don't make me pay for it...I live in Indiana for crying out loud and never plan on moving to Minnesota.
So to me, it seems like an easy enough issue to get behind. Keep everyone's tax dollars within the state they live. Perhaps there will need to be some tweaking done, but wouldn't everyone like to pay less taxes and at least get to see what their tax dollars is going for?
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?
Friday, December 21, 2007
Happy Holidays from The Mad Hoosier...
I did a post a couple years back when the "war on Christmas" was at it's height. It was worded a little more strongly, but I think the overall theme I was trying to convey is still appropriate.
I've always preferred Happy Holidays over Merry Christmas. I used to work at Toys R Us and said "Happy Holidays" before some retail stores mandated the greeting. Even before I worked retail...for me, it was merely the best way to greet or wish someone well that encompassed the weeks worth of holidays. It wasn't a conscious effort to be politically correct or anything; I still used Merry Christmas on occasion, but more often than not after someone wished me Merry Christmas first.
As I wish you all Happy Holidays, my hope for everyone is that, even if you aren't Christian, you take a second and look at the intention behind someone wishing who may wish you "Merry Christmas". The overwhelming majority of the time, it is merely a well-intentioned, kind-hearted greeting during this time of year, and not an indoctrination attempt.
I truly wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season and hope that everyone gets to enjoy their time with their family and celebrate the season in their own way.
Happy Holidays!
From,
The Mad Hoosier
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
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Book Recommendation
I've heard that if you read three books on a topic, you can be considered an expert on the subject. That is one of the most powerful things I've ever heard, and it's what caused me to start my way to becoming a reader. I never used to read...I used to hate reading...probably because I was a slow reader. As a matter of fact, up until two years ago, I've only read two books cover to cover. One was a Sylvia Browne book, and the other was an economics book for a grad school class.
I still read rather slowly, but I no longer let it me stop me from reading. I still don't read as much as I'd like to, and I didn't reach my goal/New Year's resolution this year of a book a month, but I've read three cover to cover, and half of about three other books. One I'm in the middle of currently, and I'll return to the others eventually.
It's the one that I'm currently in the middle of that I can already recommend. It's called Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters by Meg Meeker, M.D. It's a guide as to how to raise your daughter in this world to keep her from being harmed by society. I'd say it's a must read for any father, particularly new fathers.
It had me, as I'm sure it would have many other fathers, hooked in the first three pages. The most profound is that this doctor, through years of study in her own practice and research, states how the father is the most important person in any girls life...whether that be for the better or worse.
It's definitely a book that I'll want to keep handy throughout the years.
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.
Monday, December 10, 2007
What's Your Favorite Christmas Song/Artist/Music?
Time to take a break from politics again...that stuff can get pretty dreary...so what kind of Christmas Music do you like? Or what's your favorite song or type of music?
Me, I'm more of a traditionalist. I like more traditional, old-school songs, and I prefer the deep baritone voices. My favorite artist is Robert Goulet, and his album, which may be his only Christmas album, Wonderful World of Christmas is my favorite. My favorite song on that album is On This Noel, which isn't exactly some well-known traditional song, but you'd think it was the way he sings it.
I do like some of Johnny Mathis' work, despite his higher voice. I also like Burl Ives...the Home Alone soundtrack...and despite my resistance to pop artists singing Christmas songs, I like Martina McBride's Christmas songs.
My favorite Christmas song is Carol of Bells. I prefer the vocal versions to the instrumentals, but David Foster does a pretty good instrumental version of it. So what about you? Surely you have same favorite songs/artists/music?
Me, I'm more of a traditionalist. I like more traditional, old-school songs, and I prefer the deep baritone voices. My favorite artist is Robert Goulet, and his album, which may be his only Christmas album, Wonderful World of Christmas is my favorite. My favorite song on that album is On This Noel, which isn't exactly some well-known traditional song, but you'd think it was the way he sings it.
I do like some of Johnny Mathis' work, despite his higher voice. I also like Burl Ives...the Home Alone soundtrack...and despite my resistance to pop artists singing Christmas songs, I like Martina McBride's Christmas songs.
My favorite Christmas song is Carol of Bells. I prefer the vocal versions to the instrumentals, but David Foster does a pretty good instrumental version of it. So what about you? Surely you have same favorite songs/artists/music?
I just don't understand hate...
Sure, I'm mostly non-confrontational, aside from the blip in bravery that the anonymity of the internet provides. I'm trying to minimize that effect, however, as I want this blog to represent how I really am.
So I've been off for a week now, and I've had a chance to watch some shows on the History channel, news stories, 20/20's, etc, all the way up to the events that happened this weekend at Colorado churches. I just can't comprehend the kind of hate and vileness that must be in some people to do the things they do and say the things they say.
It reached a boiling when I visited a website of a program that I don't believe dabbles in hate. I've spoke on here about the show before, the Glenn Beck show. Only I went to his own homepage and was dabbling around his merchandise section, when something caught my eye. Hate U (as in Hate University).
My first reaction was shock...then I took it as sarcasm...then I went back to why. Why on earth would he even put something like that on his website, even in sarcasm?
I did a little more research and found out that it was created out of sarcasm. Geraldo Rivera referred to Glenn as a breeder of hate, which prompted him to create the Hate U line. As I did a little more research, on his own homepage, there is a link showing all of the bad emails he gets. And by bad, I do mean Hate Mail.
I could only read a few at the top of the page and a few at the bottom of the page. How anyone can send letters such as this is beyond me, and how anyone can stand to receive letters like this without becoming jaded quickly...well, I'm not sure it's possible.
I still like Glenn...I don't find him a breeder of hate at all. He's harsh at times, and like anyone on radio/tv these days he can get overly descriptive when speaking about those that have vastly opposing views from him, but I don't think he crosses the line, and I don't hear that venomous tone from him that I hear from others when he speaks of those on "the other side".
Even in my own Adsense down to the side...Barack Obama Exposed...what is that? There's even a website out there called Michelle Malkin is an Idiot. Michelle Malkin is a right wing commentator/blogger, and definitely venomous in her own right, but how does reciprocating that hate by creating a blog aimed at defaming her help?
Like I said, I just don't comprehend it. Perhaps it's just age and having kids that has changed me some, but I still can't recall, even in my youth, ever truly hating someone. I hope it can change...I pray that it does change, but I fear that the hate will only spread and get worse. I will continue to do my part...keep praying, speak out and teach my kids about the ugliness of hate, and always try to remain positive, both in person and under the veil of anonymity that is the web.
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.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Senators stalling the Clean Energy Act of 2007?
Recently a bill passed in the House of Representatives that would begin working on the environment. It didn't pass by a huge margin, but it passed. It was the Clean Energy Act of 2007. I don't understand why it didn't pass by more, since it seems overwhelming that Americans want to improve the environment, but at least it passed.
I don't fully understand the intricacies of this bill, but it seems to be about removing subsidies for oil/energy companies, requiring a 15% investment in renewable energy, and raising the efficiency of automobiles. Again, I'm sure that's not all encompassing, but that's some of the major points of the legislation.
I don't know why the bill isn't making it through the Senate, but an article in the local newspaper stated that opponents believe that somehow it could raise energy prices in areas where...get this...solar and wind technologies aren't feasible.
I won't even begin to preach my opinion on global warming...but at the very least I don't think anyone wants the earth to be worse off...but if you want see how your representative voted, and find ways to contact your Senators demand action one way or the other, make sure to check out Vote-Smart.org.
I don't fully understand the intricacies of this bill, but it seems to be about removing subsidies for oil/energy companies, requiring a 15% investment in renewable energy, and raising the efficiency of automobiles. Again, I'm sure that's not all encompassing, but that's some of the major points of the legislation.
I don't know why the bill isn't making it through the Senate, but an article in the local newspaper stated that opponents believe that somehow it could raise energy prices in areas where...get this...solar and wind technologies aren't feasible.
I won't even begin to preach my opinion on global warming...but at the very least I don't think anyone wants the earth to be worse off...but if you want see how your representative voted, and find ways to contact your Senators demand action one way or the other, make sure to check out Vote-Smart.org.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Calling all Atheists...
I don't understand you. I don't disrespect you, though the quite oversimplified version, that I'm about ready to post about, of what I understand an Atheist to be may seem disrespectful, but I just don't understand what you're about.
I don't pity you, or pray for you to find God, as that would demean your existence...something I don't wish to do...I just don't get it. I just went over to atheists.org to try to get an understanding of your point of view, and none of it made much sense. That is to say, I didn't get a clear picture of what an atheist is. There was a huge biography on the founder of this particular group of atheists, and there was a lot of describing themselves through what they aren't.
But defining yourselves, or summing up your belief, by saying what you aren't doesn't really help me understand you. I understand that your beliefs have been attacked by believers for a long time, but does it really help to use terms like never-never land, or theology being limited thinking? Now I don't mean to offend if this particular website doesn't represent all views of atheists, and I don't mean to lump everyone together by saying "you" when referencing the points this website makes. Perhaps atheists don't care if it helps by using those terms and wording...but I would think that a basic desire of a human is to be understood on some level, with life-style/belief-system being on the forefront of things you'd like others to understand about them.
So here's my oversimplified view of what atheists are...they believe solely in evolution, from the beginning. Now I believe that all living things evolve and adapt, but my belief is that a God initially created the solar-systems and all life in them.
My question is, do atheists seek to test their belief-system from time to time, or do they take their belief-system on faith? Do they even believe in the concept of faith? If they do, do they believe that something like having faith that their favorite sports team will win the big game can be equated to a larger form of faith?
My question is, yes I have a few, if atheists do believe in evolution, how do they believe that life began? I can only assume something like the big bang theory since they don't believe in any kind of universal creator. And if you do believe in the big bang theory, can you explain what happened after the big bang? How did life in it's simplist form decide that it needed to procreate if someone or something didn't ingrain that into their structure?
Again, perhaps Atheists don't care about such things. Perhaps they have their belief, they think it's right, and they never question why they think that. I know that I've questioned my beliefs often, but I keep coming back to the Lord. I see to many little miracles that can't all be explained as coincidences...and I keep coming back to the notion that someone, something, somewhere had to program organisms with the desire to reproduce...something a big bang couldn't thrust upon any organism.
So if you don't care what others think of your belief system, please don't take my search for knowledge as any kind of mockery. If you do wish to let others know about the belief of atheism, by all means, share. I vow that I won't allow bashing...just sharing of beliefs and explaining of why one believes that way.
I don't pity you, or pray for you to find God, as that would demean your existence...something I don't wish to do...I just don't get it. I just went over to atheists.org to try to get an understanding of your point of view, and none of it made much sense. That is to say, I didn't get a clear picture of what an atheist is. There was a huge biography on the founder of this particular group of atheists, and there was a lot of describing themselves through what they aren't.
But defining yourselves, or summing up your belief, by saying what you aren't doesn't really help me understand you. I understand that your beliefs have been attacked by believers for a long time, but does it really help to use terms like never-never land, or theology being limited thinking? Now I don't mean to offend if this particular website doesn't represent all views of atheists, and I don't mean to lump everyone together by saying "you" when referencing the points this website makes. Perhaps atheists don't care if it helps by using those terms and wording...but I would think that a basic desire of a human is to be understood on some level, with life-style/belief-system being on the forefront of things you'd like others to understand about them.
So here's my oversimplified view of what atheists are...they believe solely in evolution, from the beginning. Now I believe that all living things evolve and adapt, but my belief is that a God initially created the solar-systems and all life in them.
My question is, do atheists seek to test their belief-system from time to time, or do they take their belief-system on faith? Do they even believe in the concept of faith? If they do, do they believe that something like having faith that their favorite sports team will win the big game can be equated to a larger form of faith?
My question is, yes I have a few, if atheists do believe in evolution, how do they believe that life began? I can only assume something like the big bang theory since they don't believe in any kind of universal creator. And if you do believe in the big bang theory, can you explain what happened after the big bang? How did life in it's simplist form decide that it needed to procreate if someone or something didn't ingrain that into their structure?
Again, perhaps Atheists don't care about such things. Perhaps they have their belief, they think it's right, and they never question why they think that. I know that I've questioned my beliefs often, but I keep coming back to the Lord. I see to many little miracles that can't all be explained as coincidences...and I keep coming back to the notion that someone, something, somewhere had to program organisms with the desire to reproduce...something a big bang couldn't thrust upon any organism.
So if you don't care what others think of your belief system, please don't take my search for knowledge as any kind of mockery. If you do wish to let others know about the belief of atheism, by all means, share. I vow that I won't allow bashing...just sharing of beliefs and explaining of why one believes that way.
Back to politics (Ron Paul)
I watched 20/20 last night, primarily because of the part about the Missouri girl that committed suicide after the parents of a classmate created a fake MySpace account to entice her. But at the end of the program, as I did end up watching it all, there was John Stossel talking about an interview he did with Ron Paul. He directed everyone to abcnews.com to see the interview. Yearning to see if there was more I could find out about the Ron Paul enigma, I checked it out...watched some of the clips, since the hour long interview will conveniently be played out over the span of a week, and then began to look over the 169 comments that had landed there since airing last night.
I only made it through a few of them when I had enough. Enough of the Ron Paul supporters bashing the naysayers...enough of the naysayers...enough of the obliviousness. Oblivious to the fact that Ron Paul, himself, can not fix this nation even if he were elected. And on a quick side note, George Stephanopoulos' comment directly to Ron Paul that he had "No Chance" of winning the Republican's nomination was pretentious, rude, and disrespectful. His place is supposed to be as a reporter, not as an opinionater.
But I digress...back to the obliviousness. It's not completely true that if Ron Paul were elected that he could do nothing by himself. The president does oversee all foreign affairs and can typically act without approval from Congress in that capacity. So his idea to pull troops not only out of Iraq but out of the Middle East would certainly have an effect on the nation. Whether that would be good or not, I haven't formulated an opinion yet.
But the other things he speaks of...smaller government, less spending, more freedom's...almost none of that can be done without the approval of Congress. Sure, he can veto spending bills and speak out on drugs, prostitution, and abortion not being federal issues. But it's Congress that makes the laws...not the president. So we can't look solely to the president to fix this country, if you are one of the ones that believes it's broken.
Unfortunately, it seems evident that Congress can't, or won't, act unless WE MAKE THEM. We The People. Yes, it does take work on our part. Our representatives do just that, represent us. We should not give our power to them blindly and not expect many of them to eventually act in their own self-interest.
At our own work, we are expected to give our best performance every day. We need to actively, not passively, demand that from those that represent us in this great country. There is a website that I have found tremendous...vote-smart.org. It is non-partisian, provides you with voting records of our Congressmen and Congresswomen, provides you with commentary that may be helpful in undersanding your representative, and even provides websites for the representatives where you may be able to email your representatives. You should definitely check it out...drop your representative a line, and let him or her know you are now actively keeping track of how well you are being represented.
I only made it through a few of them when I had enough. Enough of the Ron Paul supporters bashing the naysayers...enough of the naysayers...enough of the obliviousness. Oblivious to the fact that Ron Paul, himself, can not fix this nation even if he were elected. And on a quick side note, George Stephanopoulos' comment directly to Ron Paul that he had "No Chance" of winning the Republican's nomination was pretentious, rude, and disrespectful. His place is supposed to be as a reporter, not as an opinionater.
But I digress...back to the obliviousness. It's not completely true that if Ron Paul were elected that he could do nothing by himself. The president does oversee all foreign affairs and can typically act without approval from Congress in that capacity. So his idea to pull troops not only out of Iraq but out of the Middle East would certainly have an effect on the nation. Whether that would be good or not, I haven't formulated an opinion yet.
But the other things he speaks of...smaller government, less spending, more freedom's...almost none of that can be done without the approval of Congress. Sure, he can veto spending bills and speak out on drugs, prostitution, and abortion not being federal issues. But it's Congress that makes the laws...not the president. So we can't look solely to the president to fix this country, if you are one of the ones that believes it's broken.
Unfortunately, it seems evident that Congress can't, or won't, act unless WE MAKE THEM. We The People. Yes, it does take work on our part. Our representatives do just that, represent us. We should not give our power to them blindly and not expect many of them to eventually act in their own self-interest.
At our own work, we are expected to give our best performance every day. We need to actively, not passively, demand that from those that represent us in this great country. There is a website that I have found tremendous...vote-smart.org. It is non-partisian, provides you with voting records of our Congressmen and Congresswomen, provides you with commentary that may be helpful in undersanding your representative, and even provides websites for the representatives where you may be able to email your representatives. You should definitely check it out...drop your representative a line, and let him or her know you are now actively keeping track of how well you are being represented.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Leaving a Legacy...
I typically don't get this personal, but this, too, is really bothering me, and I need some way of relieving the inner turmoil that it causes me. I feel that I have a good grasp on trying to be the best person I can be, not only for myself, but for my kids too. Even if all I amount to is second rate jobs for the rest of my life, I want it to be obvious to my kids that I love them and I have some qualities that they can look up to.
Extrapolating from that notion, I want to do the best I possibly can to teach my kids everything I can. Not just tell them, but to teach them and to show them the circumstances, events, and thoughts that made me the man they know.
I've never been particularly close to my father. My parents were divorced when I was going into third grade. I saw my dad twice a year growing up. I adored him. I always cried and cried the night after he dropped us off...particularly in the summer when I spent an entire month with him. I'm sure, in one sense, it tore my mother apart to see me miss him so.
Even then, he had to work when I would visit, so much of the time I'd either stay home alone or be dropped off at the YMCA for the afternoon. We'd have fun too, of course, but never in the sense where I really got to know him.
It was a few years ago, shortly after my grandfather passed away(his father) and shortly after my first daughter was born, that I realized that I didn't know my grandfather or my father very well, and I really wanted to. I started out first trying to have conversations about what my grandfather's thoughts were on things such as Muhammad Ali or other prominent, if not controversial, sports figures. But that quickly waned for a variety of reasons.
Then, for a New Years' resolution, I vowed to call my father weekly to learn something new about him. That lasted for about two weeks...again for a variety of reasons. I see him far less often now than I used to, and speak to him rarely. He seems to open up more when I speak to him on the phone...a fact that I used as an excuse to further let our "relationship" erode.
Then, I was given Hope. My newfound interest in politics(just the knowledge of at this point - not entering the arena) had sparked my desire to ask my father for his views on voting over the Thanksgiving holiday. It was the best conversation in years...even if all I did was mostly listen. It's all I wanted to do really...just soak up my father's viewpoints, whether I agreed or not.
Then, Hope was knocked down again. I know he's busy with work and taken care of his ailing mother that lives with him, but I called him at work to announce the birth of his grandson, and his secretary treated me like another client. He still hasn't called back to issue congratulations, or find out about his grandson, or how the family is doing.
I just currently feel at a loss...like something's missing...like some part of me is missing. I feel guilty saying that, because I have a great wife, two great daughters, and a new son...all who love me dearly. My mom adores me just as much as I adore her, but still...something's missing. How does a thirty-something year old man tell his father that he needs him, needs his advice, his companionship, needs him to pass his legacy on to his son? How??
Extrapolating from that notion, I want to do the best I possibly can to teach my kids everything I can. Not just tell them, but to teach them and to show them the circumstances, events, and thoughts that made me the man they know.
I've never been particularly close to my father. My parents were divorced when I was going into third grade. I saw my dad twice a year growing up. I adored him. I always cried and cried the night after he dropped us off...particularly in the summer when I spent an entire month with him. I'm sure, in one sense, it tore my mother apart to see me miss him so.
Even then, he had to work when I would visit, so much of the time I'd either stay home alone or be dropped off at the YMCA for the afternoon. We'd have fun too, of course, but never in the sense where I really got to know him.
It was a few years ago, shortly after my grandfather passed away(his father) and shortly after my first daughter was born, that I realized that I didn't know my grandfather or my father very well, and I really wanted to. I started out first trying to have conversations about what my grandfather's thoughts were on things such as Muhammad Ali or other prominent, if not controversial, sports figures. But that quickly waned for a variety of reasons.
Then, for a New Years' resolution, I vowed to call my father weekly to learn something new about him. That lasted for about two weeks...again for a variety of reasons. I see him far less often now than I used to, and speak to him rarely. He seems to open up more when I speak to him on the phone...a fact that I used as an excuse to further let our "relationship" erode.
Then, I was given Hope. My newfound interest in politics(just the knowledge of at this point - not entering the arena) had sparked my desire to ask my father for his views on voting over the Thanksgiving holiday. It was the best conversation in years...even if all I did was mostly listen. It's all I wanted to do really...just soak up my father's viewpoints, whether I agreed or not.
Then, Hope was knocked down again. I know he's busy with work and taken care of his ailing mother that lives with him, but I called him at work to announce the birth of his grandson, and his secretary treated me like another client. He still hasn't called back to issue congratulations, or find out about his grandson, or how the family is doing.
I just currently feel at a loss...like something's missing...like some part of me is missing. I feel guilty saying that, because I have a great wife, two great daughters, and a new son...all who love me dearly. My mom adores me just as much as I adore her, but still...something's missing. How does a thirty-something year old man tell his father that he needs him, needs his advice, his companionship, needs him to pass his legacy on to his son? How??
Wrong Numbers
Taking a break from politics and encouraging people to vote, I had something happen today that is still making my blood boil. It's been a while since I've let something get to me this much, and I don't know why this is bothering me so much. Perhaps it's the underlying circumstance that brought me to this situation.
What situation? The obsession that people have with knowing who called them. Some may remember that I work in a hotel, so on any given weekend I have a half dozen calls from people saying, "Yeah...someone just called me from this number." I won't go into the semantics of even the depth of conversations I have with these people while explaining on why I can't help them, but I just don't understand why people are so hung up on finding out who called them. Before all of this technology with Caller ID, Voice Mail, and Cell Phones, no one was obsessed with who called them. In fact, it was an irritation to have been called accidentally...especially if you were expecting someone elses call.
You'd think, with everyone supposedly so busy as they are, they'd have better things to do than to obsess with every single call they get and/or miss. Any time I get a call from a number I don't recognize, I simply don't answer it. If it is someone I know, or if it was important enough, they will leave a voice mail. If not, I assume they have called a wrong number and will recognize that quickly enough once they get to my voice mail.
So the specific incident that has me all worked up today is I called an old friend today...or tried to. No one answered, and the call went over to voice mail...kinda(I actually got a recording saying that this person hasn't set up their voice mail yet). But before I hung up, I got an incoming call from the person I was calling. My initial thought was that maybe he got a new phone or something, thus the reason for me getting that voice mail message, and that he was just calling back. When I answered the phone, a voice on the other end was saying "I've got to figure out who this f*@#er is."
Slightly taken aback, because I quickly had a thought that my friend, who does cuss, may have been joking around with me since I hadn't talked to him in a long time, I again repeated, "Hello." I hadn't recognized the voice, as it was faint, but I thought it could have been him. But when I was met with a "Who's this?" I realized that it wasn't my friend, so I asked for him by his full name. The fellow on the other end of the line said I must have had the wrong number. I promptly apologized and then told him that there is no need to cuss at someone who merely accidentally called the wrong number. I didn't wait around for a response, as by this point I was rather mad.
I still don't know if I was more mad at the interaction with this gentleman, or at myself for not knowing that this friend of mine no longer had this phone number. I understand that he could have been having a bad day or something, and I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but I think I still would have posted this man's name if I had been able to find it. There's no reason to treat people like that simply because they made the mistake of staying out of touch with his friend long enough that he didn't have the most recent cell phone number for him.
What situation? The obsession that people have with knowing who called them. Some may remember that I work in a hotel, so on any given weekend I have a half dozen calls from people saying, "Yeah...someone just called me from this number." I won't go into the semantics of even the depth of conversations I have with these people while explaining on why I can't help them, but I just don't understand why people are so hung up on finding out who called them. Before all of this technology with Caller ID, Voice Mail, and Cell Phones, no one was obsessed with who called them. In fact, it was an irritation to have been called accidentally...especially if you were expecting someone elses call.
You'd think, with everyone supposedly so busy as they are, they'd have better things to do than to obsess with every single call they get and/or miss. Any time I get a call from a number I don't recognize, I simply don't answer it. If it is someone I know, or if it was important enough, they will leave a voice mail. If not, I assume they have called a wrong number and will recognize that quickly enough once they get to my voice mail.
So the specific incident that has me all worked up today is I called an old friend today...or tried to. No one answered, and the call went over to voice mail...kinda(I actually got a recording saying that this person hasn't set up their voice mail yet). But before I hung up, I got an incoming call from the person I was calling. My initial thought was that maybe he got a new phone or something, thus the reason for me getting that voice mail message, and that he was just calling back. When I answered the phone, a voice on the other end was saying "I've got to figure out who this f*@#er is."
Slightly taken aback, because I quickly had a thought that my friend, who does cuss, may have been joking around with me since I hadn't talked to him in a long time, I again repeated, "Hello." I hadn't recognized the voice, as it was faint, but I thought it could have been him. But when I was met with a "Who's this?" I realized that it wasn't my friend, so I asked for him by his full name. The fellow on the other end of the line said I must have had the wrong number. I promptly apologized and then told him that there is no need to cuss at someone who merely accidentally called the wrong number. I didn't wait around for a response, as by this point I was rather mad.
I still don't know if I was more mad at the interaction with this gentleman, or at myself for not knowing that this friend of mine no longer had this phone number. I understand that he could have been having a bad day or something, and I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but I think I still would have posted this man's name if I had been able to find it. There's no reason to treat people like that simply because they made the mistake of staying out of touch with his friend long enough that he didn't have the most recent cell phone number for him.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Huckabee's Leading??
According to recent polls, which I just recently denounced and still hold that stance, Mike Huckabee has a lead in the race for the Iowa primary, spending over $6,000,000 less than Mitt Romney. That's over Six MILLION dollars less, folks. That's maximizing resources.
I like Mike Huckabee, so this is good news, to the extent that I trust Polls, that is...which I don't. I kinda like Romney too...and Ron Paul's beginning to grow on me, now that I've heard other stories about the $4,500,000 that he raised on a single day.
In other words, my mind's still open. But I'm excited to see that someone that supposedly had no chance, according to many in the media, could now have a lead in the first primary vote.
I still urge everyone not to be complacent. If you like Huckabee, get out there and continue to support him. If you like Romney, don't let the possible sway in contention change your mind on whether or not to vote...or who to vote for. If you happen to like someone else, such as Ron Paul, don't give up. Get out there, become informed and inform others, and vote in your heart. If whom you vote for in the primary doesn't make it, that's ok. You did your part...your responsibility...to further the political process and to keep it pure.
I'll have more ideas for people once some candidates begin to drop out of the race, regardless of who they are. Stay strong...it's up to We The People.
I like Mike Huckabee, so this is good news, to the extent that I trust Polls, that is...which I don't. I kinda like Romney too...and Ron Paul's beginning to grow on me, now that I've heard other stories about the $4,500,000 that he raised on a single day.
In other words, my mind's still open. But I'm excited to see that someone that supposedly had no chance, according to many in the media, could now have a lead in the first primary vote.
I still urge everyone not to be complacent. If you like Huckabee, get out there and continue to support him. If you like Romney, don't let the possible sway in contention change your mind on whether or not to vote...or who to vote for. If you happen to like someone else, such as Ron Paul, don't give up. Get out there, become informed and inform others, and vote in your heart. If whom you vote for in the primary doesn't make it, that's ok. You did your part...your responsibility...to further the political process and to keep it pure.
I'll have more ideas for people once some candidates begin to drop out of the race, regardless of who they are. Stay strong...it's up to We The People.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Torn between candidates (Ron Paul)
I find myself in the position that I think most people find themselves in. It's the position that typically keeps people from voting altogether...I don't like everything about one candidate yet, but I like certain things about most of the candidates.
The part I'm torn about currently is what most people believe that Ron Paul stands for, isolationism. Many thinks that he wants to withdraw troops from every country in the world, cut off ties to all other countries, and basically curl up into a little ball within ourselves and only focus on our country. I don't think that's what he really believes, if fact, I'm certain that's not exactly what he believes, but he never gets a chance to fully explain his point of view on why he thinks we should withdraw troops from the war as well as military bases around the world.
I think this is a topic we need more discussion on, rather than scoffing at Ron Paul and dismissing the idea altogether. I'll admit, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue right now...I can see both sides of the issue.
On one hand, we believe that Democracy should be the way throughout all the world. Our freedom is so special that we believe it is our responsibility to spread it to other countries. We take the view point of it is our responsibility as the world's superpower to stand up for those that can't stand up for themselves, and when a people are being oppressed, we take it upon ourselves, at times, to go in and "free" the people.
I can certainly see that...this country is so blessed with our freedoms, and we merely want others to experience the same blessings that we enjoy.
But if we look at it from the other point of view...people think America stands up on it's moral high horse, trying to make everyone like them, like they think they know what's best for us.
It's not that they don't think democracy is good, it's that they don't want to be forced into it. And when they see our military bases in foreign countries, they look at it as being occupied, not completely free to live their life the way they want to.
If I think about it...would we want China, or Russia, or Japan, or anyone to open up a military base in the United States? Hell no! I'd be pissed if China decided that they wanted to protect their monetary investment they have in the United States (which is significant) by having a military base here.
So why are we surprised that people don't like it when we "occupy" their country? Oh I understand that we don't view it as "occupying", but would we consider it a form of "occupying" if it was the former scenario where China had a military base in the United States to protect their monetary investment??
So where do you stand? Pull out the troops from other countries, as well as Iraq, so that the rest of the world likes us? Pull out the troops because as the moral leaders in the world, we know we wouldn't want other countries having military bases in our country? Or, leave the troops, because we have to protect ourselves by not allowing other countries that hate us, via the previously described, self-fulfilling prophecy, to arm themselves and potentially come to attack us? Or, take a different view on morality, believe that we owe it to the rest of the world to spread our democracy throughout, and that "occupying" a country is merely a by-product of helping a country get on it's feet?
It's not quite as easy as all that, of course, but if you think that much of the rest of the world hates the United States merely because we are a wealthy nation, you don't have much reflective prowess. At a first glance, many people love the United States. We give monetary aid throughout the world. Citizens see what we have, they want what we have, and I don't think they covet what we have (meaning that they want us not to have it, for clarification).
Such is the deliemma that I struggle with. If the scenario about China "occupying" us were true, and then they decided to just close their base and withdraw their troops...would we immediately trust them? Would it make things easier, knowing that we have control of our own country again?
These are things we need to think about, that we need to demand that our Representatives, Senators, and President, think about and give answers on. And then we need to VOTE for whom we believe will lead us safely into the future, with our dignity, morality, and conscious in tact.
The part I'm torn about currently is what most people believe that Ron Paul stands for, isolationism. Many thinks that he wants to withdraw troops from every country in the world, cut off ties to all other countries, and basically curl up into a little ball within ourselves and only focus on our country. I don't think that's what he really believes, if fact, I'm certain that's not exactly what he believes, but he never gets a chance to fully explain his point of view on why he thinks we should withdraw troops from the war as well as military bases around the world.
I think this is a topic we need more discussion on, rather than scoffing at Ron Paul and dismissing the idea altogether. I'll admit, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue right now...I can see both sides of the issue.
On one hand, we believe that Democracy should be the way throughout all the world. Our freedom is so special that we believe it is our responsibility to spread it to other countries. We take the view point of it is our responsibility as the world's superpower to stand up for those that can't stand up for themselves, and when a people are being oppressed, we take it upon ourselves, at times, to go in and "free" the people.
I can certainly see that...this country is so blessed with our freedoms, and we merely want others to experience the same blessings that we enjoy.
But if we look at it from the other point of view...people think America stands up on it's moral high horse, trying to make everyone like them, like they think they know what's best for us.
It's not that they don't think democracy is good, it's that they don't want to be forced into it. And when they see our military bases in foreign countries, they look at it as being occupied, not completely free to live their life the way they want to.
If I think about it...would we want China, or Russia, or Japan, or anyone to open up a military base in the United States? Hell no! I'd be pissed if China decided that they wanted to protect their monetary investment they have in the United States (which is significant) by having a military base here.
So why are we surprised that people don't like it when we "occupy" their country? Oh I understand that we don't view it as "occupying", but would we consider it a form of "occupying" if it was the former scenario where China had a military base in the United States to protect their monetary investment??
So where do you stand? Pull out the troops from other countries, as well as Iraq, so that the rest of the world likes us? Pull out the troops because as the moral leaders in the world, we know we wouldn't want other countries having military bases in our country? Or, leave the troops, because we have to protect ourselves by not allowing other countries that hate us, via the previously described, self-fulfilling prophecy, to arm themselves and potentially come to attack us? Or, take a different view on morality, believe that we owe it to the rest of the world to spread our democracy throughout, and that "occupying" a country is merely a by-product of helping a country get on it's feet?
It's not quite as easy as all that, of course, but if you think that much of the rest of the world hates the United States merely because we are a wealthy nation, you don't have much reflective prowess. At a first glance, many people love the United States. We give monetary aid throughout the world. Citizens see what we have, they want what we have, and I don't think they covet what we have (meaning that they want us not to have it, for clarification).
Such is the deliemma that I struggle with. If the scenario about China "occupying" us were true, and then they decided to just close their base and withdraw their troops...would we immediately trust them? Would it make things easier, knowing that we have control of our own country again?
These are things we need to think about, that we need to demand that our Representatives, Senators, and President, think about and give answers on. And then we need to VOTE for whom we believe will lead us safely into the future, with our dignity, morality, and conscious in tact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
