It certainly is painful to have to spend about $3.50 a gallon to keep my vehicles running. The only upside is our recent purchase of a used Volvo wagon that seems to get about twice the mileage of the Dodge Grand Caravan it replaced.
In the meantime, it is rather interesting to hear all the angry conspiracy folks, most of whom think the gas prices are simply a result of George Bush and Dick Cheney making it so for their own greedy and rapacious reasons.
Being the sort of person that prefers to do my own studying on such issues, I find the causes of our collective misery to be multifaceted, but not all that difficult to understand.
The fundamentals governing gas prices are simple macroeconomics. I hated the courses in graduate school, and suspected much of the drivel we studied existed only to keep that professorial class of people called Economists employed.
The supply of oil, or the raw material that goes into the gasoline we need to make our cars run, is controlled by a small group of people. That group is controlled by sheiks and mullahs, with a few communist and totalitarian dictators thrown in. Their paradox is a shared hatred for America coupled with the fact that America is their biggest customer. Through a cartel they formed in the 70's called OPEC, they can and do restrict the amount of oil that is made available to the world market. Over the last 40 years, this has made them among the richest individuals on the planet.
Contrary to popular belief, the price of crude oil is not set by Dick Cheney. Nor is it set by OPEC. It is set by the worldwide market. The world comes to the OPEC producers with cash in hand to bid against each other for the oil they must have to fuel their economies. Places like China and India have become major players in this bidding process, helping drive up the prices.
Then the big, bad oil companies come into the picture. They're the guys daily portrayed by the mediademocrats (who have now become permanently attached) as evil profiteers who take billions in obscene profits from the poor American consumer.
The oil companies take the crude oil to their refineries, where they produce the various kinds of gasolines that power our vehicles. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the United States in over 40 years, so those existing refineries run at 100% of capacity in an attempt to keep up with demand. If a refinery has an accident, fire, or breakdown and fall behind in their production schedule, shortages ensue. Shortages mean higher prices, of course.
So let's get to the root causes of high prices at the pump.
Supply is controlled by a small number of people, most of whom don't much like America.
America has vast untapped oilfields in places like Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico that could alleviate the crude oil supply problem. But environmental regulations refuse to permit anyone (certainly not American oil companies) to drill for that oil. The ANWR preserve in Alaska is a vast oilfield that cannot be tapped because of specious arguments from environmentalists that somehow extracting the oil will harm animal habitats. The Gulf of Mexico also has vast reserves, but the same environmental interests shut down drilling there out of a fear of accidental leaks. In the meantime, Mexico is actively exploiting those very oil fields as we watch helplessly.
America has lost most of its manufacturing base to China and other developing countries, where demand for oil to fuel their growing economies is expanding exponentially.
Taxes are stiff on each gallon of gasoline. These taxes are collected by both the Federal and State governments, averaging 42 cents per gallon. In some states, the total tax per gallon is well over 50 cents per gallon. These taxes were sold to the American people as a means to fund road construction and maintenance. However, in most states and the Federal Government, they just get thrown into the General Fund to be spent in whatever way lawmakers deem best to keep their seats.
Refinery capacity is certainly a contributing factor. Environmental regulation makes it all but impossible to build a new refinery in the US. The cost of building a new refinery, including the costs of satisfying environmental requirements, is deemed by the industry to be a bad investment. Besides, given the unprecedented profit margins in the industry today, they have no incentive to aggressively pursue permits for new refineries.
It is arguable that the current administration has no desire to enforce anti-trust law. The oil companies have consolidated into a very small number of gargantuan global megacorporations. So if a crusading government decided to pursue those companies based on anti-trust violations, what is the most likely outcome? Those oil companies still headquartered in the United States will simply pack up and move to a country that promises to be more friendly to their interests.
So what's the answer? Most politicians say it's alternative fuels. Ethanol plants are springing up all over the place, and car manufacturers are now building new vehicles that can run on Ethanol. But most other alternative fuels, such as hydrogen cells and electric batteries, are nowhere near ready to become viable competitors.
The basic problem with alternative fuels is this: Let's say that an alternative fuel can be produced at the cost of, say, $1 a gallon. By the time it's gone through the distrubution process, the retail price becomes about $2.50 a gallon. Add in the government's tax burden, and you're selling this alternate fuel for between $2.90 and $3.10.
So the OPEC guys and the Oil companies see this happening, and don't want to lose their market share. So they boost production and get the price of gasoline at the pump down under $2.50, including taxes. They can do this easily, because gas prices are based on market demand, not on production costs.
They have now succeeded in substantially undercutting the competition, which does not have the luxury of matching the competitor's prices. The producers of alternative fuels go out of business. Shortly thereafter, OPEC and the oil companies restrict supply and get the gas prices back up, maybe to $4 or $5 this time.
No, the problem can't be solved by government. It can only be marginally ameliorated through encouraging competition in terms of oil company start-ups, opening up ANWR and the Gulf and other promising sources of crude oil, and giving tax incentives to producers and researchers developing alternative fuel sources.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Income Tax Analogy
This story has been repeated and published many times and places, and I'm not certain where it originated. The closest attributions I've seen are to a Don Dodson from Ft. Worth, Texas or Professor Davies of South Dakota Business School.
Regardless of the source, it's a great analogy about our current Federal Income Tax system.
10 men decided to have a business lunch once a week. They always met in the same restaurant and the bill was always, $100.00, for all 10 men. If each man was responsible for his share of the bill, each would pay $10.00.
The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay, inspired by the government's progressive approach to collecting income taxes. The formula they eventually agreed upon included the following payment arrangement.
Man #1, #2, #3, and #4 paid nothing.
Man #5 paid $1.
Man #6 paid $3.
Man #7 paid $7.
Man #8 paid $12.
Man #9 paid $18.
Man #10 paid $59.
After a number of weeks of the 10 men reliably frequenting his establishment, the owner of the restaurant decided they deserved a discount. He offered to reduce the total cost of the men's lunch by $20.
This created a bit of a problem among the gentlemen, because the four men who paid nothing felt cheated that they were not sharing in the windfall. The others complained that if the $20 were to be distributed proportionally based upon the amount each paid each week, Man #10 would receive over half of the total discount amount.
So the restaurant owner proposed this solution:
Man #1, #2, #3, and #4 still paid nothing. They were unhappy at being excluded from the benefits of the reduction, but a discount from zero is still, in fact, zero.
Man #5 now also paid nothing. His contribution went from $1 to $0, so he received a 100% discount.
Man #6 now paid $2, receiving a 33% discount.
Man #7 now paid $5, receiving a 28% discount.
Man #8 now paid $9, receiving a 25% discount.
Man #9 now paid $14, receiving a 22% discount.
Man #10 now paid $50, receiving a 15% discount.
So they completed their meal and left the restaurant. Once outside, an argument ensued.
Men #1 through #4 were displeased that everyone else received a benefit except them. Man #5 was upset that he only got $1, while Man #10 got $9. Likewise Man #6. So these men beat up Man #10, took his money and left him bleeding on the sidewalk.
The men returned to the restaurant the following week for lunch, but of course Man #10 was a no-show. So when the bill arrived, the remaining men discovered they couldn't afford to pay even half the bill.
The analogy is a great illustration of today's "Progressive" tax system. Current statistics show that 80% of the tax burden is borne by the wealthiest 20% of the population. When Bush cut income tax rates, he substantially cut them in a similar manner to the restaurant owner in the above story.
Do you think the distribution of the cut was fair? If you think it was unfair, to whom do you believe it was unfair? The Bottom 4, the guys between 5 and 9, or #10? How would you split the bill if the decision were left to your wisdom?
Based on the rhetoric employed on the tax issue today, the Democrats are represented in the story as Man #1 through #6. Man #10 didn't want to get beaten again, so his decision not to show up the next week is analogous to him moving his companies offshore, presumably where he would not be beaten to a pulp.
So those first 5 or 6 are now in charge of the country. As far as I can tell, they already have their clubs, bats, and brass knuckles out and have started swinging. Care to guess what will happen next?
Regardless of the source, it's a great analogy about our current Federal Income Tax system.
10 men decided to have a business lunch once a week. They always met in the same restaurant and the bill was always, $100.00, for all 10 men. If each man was responsible for his share of the bill, each would pay $10.00.
The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay, inspired by the government's progressive approach to collecting income taxes. The formula they eventually agreed upon included the following payment arrangement.
Man #1, #2, #3, and #4 paid nothing.
Man #5 paid $1.
Man #6 paid $3.
Man #7 paid $7.
Man #8 paid $12.
Man #9 paid $18.
Man #10 paid $59.
After a number of weeks of the 10 men reliably frequenting his establishment, the owner of the restaurant decided they deserved a discount. He offered to reduce the total cost of the men's lunch by $20.
This created a bit of a problem among the gentlemen, because the four men who paid nothing felt cheated that they were not sharing in the windfall. The others complained that if the $20 were to be distributed proportionally based upon the amount each paid each week, Man #10 would receive over half of the total discount amount.
So the restaurant owner proposed this solution:
Man #1, #2, #3, and #4 still paid nothing. They were unhappy at being excluded from the benefits of the reduction, but a discount from zero is still, in fact, zero.
Man #5 now also paid nothing. His contribution went from $1 to $0, so he received a 100% discount.
Man #6 now paid $2, receiving a 33% discount.
Man #7 now paid $5, receiving a 28% discount.
Man #8 now paid $9, receiving a 25% discount.
Man #9 now paid $14, receiving a 22% discount.
Man #10 now paid $50, receiving a 15% discount.
So they completed their meal and left the restaurant. Once outside, an argument ensued.
Men #1 through #4 were displeased that everyone else received a benefit except them. Man #5 was upset that he only got $1, while Man #10 got $9. Likewise Man #6. So these men beat up Man #10, took his money and left him bleeding on the sidewalk.
The men returned to the restaurant the following week for lunch, but of course Man #10 was a no-show. So when the bill arrived, the remaining men discovered they couldn't afford to pay even half the bill.
The analogy is a great illustration of today's "Progressive" tax system. Current statistics show that 80% of the tax burden is borne by the wealthiest 20% of the population. When Bush cut income tax rates, he substantially cut them in a similar manner to the restaurant owner in the above story.
Do you think the distribution of the cut was fair? If you think it was unfair, to whom do you believe it was unfair? The Bottom 4, the guys between 5 and 9, or #10? How would you split the bill if the decision were left to your wisdom?
Based on the rhetoric employed on the tax issue today, the Democrats are represented in the story as Man #1 through #6. Man #10 didn't want to get beaten again, so his decision not to show up the next week is analogous to him moving his companies offshore, presumably where he would not be beaten to a pulp.
So those first 5 or 6 are now in charge of the country. As far as I can tell, they already have their clubs, bats, and brass knuckles out and have started swinging. Care to guess what will happen next?
Monday, May 28, 2007
Narcissism as Religion
It seems as if the narcissists have taken power. A brief look around the public square these days would seem to confirm this theory.
Abortion and Gay "Rights" is all about proponents of those particular lifestyles mounting campaigns aimed at silencing those who dare to suggest their choices are immoral. After defeating any laws that made such behavior illegal, they now seek to pass new laws designed to silence and criminalize those who would still dare to hold such outdated morality. It seems that demands for "gay marriage" are less about homosexuals desiring to make lifetime commitments to their partners than they are about silencing, marginalizing, and even criminalizing those who continue to consider such behavior immoral. Those who characterize people who find the practice of partial-birth abortions as religious extremists are covering their ears and screaming to avoid hearing any facts that such procedures are, in fact, infanticide.
The politicization of the global warming issue is not really about solving any actual environmental problems. Instead, the politics are aimed at new and creative methods of extracting more taxes from the rich. It's interesting to note that the largest proponents of these massive new taxes (read Carbon Credits) almost universally exempt themselves from the very sanctions they propose to impose on others (Al Gore, anyone?).
It's fasinating that rich folks like Corporate CEO's and Investment Bankers and especially Oil Barons deserve to be punished with huge taxes, supposedly to benefit the poor folks. But rich Democrats that inherited their wealth and entertainers and athletes would seem to be exempt. When I listen to the openly socialist folks talk about punishing the rich, it's fascinating to note how selective they are in defining rich.
Healthcare is even a narcissistic issue, in the sense that those who stridently argue for a government-run system seem to believe that access to free medical care is some sort of fundamental human right. Therefore, the argument must have the corollary that it is the right of people who can't afford (or don't want to pay for) their own medical care to use the power of government to confiscate that money from those who have it. Pure socialism exemplified.
It seems that the Democrat party has recognized the shift of the society into a populace of self-involved narcissists. They are playing to that constituency with amazing success. What the narcissists aren't smart enough to figure out is that Democrats aren't about making that constituency the center of the universe. Good old fashioned power and wealth drive politics as they always have. Their ignorant narcissistic worshippers will never see a better life by putting them in power. The only beneficiaries of this movement are those politicians themselves, who will pocket most of the resources they extort from the rich in gigantic new bureaucracies and under-the-table graft.
The payback for our naieve narcissists is a lower standard of living. Sure, they might get the new right to stand in long lines for free substandard medical care. But their jobs will dry up as formerly "rich" corporate types move their operations out of the country to more favorable places. They will have to sell their illegal polluting cars and ride a bicycle or a bus to work, because only a rich Democrat party member can afford an actual hybrid car.
At least they can revel in the knowledge that those evil rich people got what was coming to them.
Abortion and Gay "Rights" is all about proponents of those particular lifestyles mounting campaigns aimed at silencing those who dare to suggest their choices are immoral. After defeating any laws that made such behavior illegal, they now seek to pass new laws designed to silence and criminalize those who would still dare to hold such outdated morality. It seems that demands for "gay marriage" are less about homosexuals desiring to make lifetime commitments to their partners than they are about silencing, marginalizing, and even criminalizing those who continue to consider such behavior immoral. Those who characterize people who find the practice of partial-birth abortions as religious extremists are covering their ears and screaming to avoid hearing any facts that such procedures are, in fact, infanticide.
The politicization of the global warming issue is not really about solving any actual environmental problems. Instead, the politics are aimed at new and creative methods of extracting more taxes from the rich. It's interesting to note that the largest proponents of these massive new taxes (read Carbon Credits) almost universally exempt themselves from the very sanctions they propose to impose on others (Al Gore, anyone?).
It's fasinating that rich folks like Corporate CEO's and Investment Bankers and especially Oil Barons deserve to be punished with huge taxes, supposedly to benefit the poor folks. But rich Democrats that inherited their wealth and entertainers and athletes would seem to be exempt. When I listen to the openly socialist folks talk about punishing the rich, it's fascinating to note how selective they are in defining rich.
Healthcare is even a narcissistic issue, in the sense that those who stridently argue for a government-run system seem to believe that access to free medical care is some sort of fundamental human right. Therefore, the argument must have the corollary that it is the right of people who can't afford (or don't want to pay for) their own medical care to use the power of government to confiscate that money from those who have it. Pure socialism exemplified.
It seems that the Democrat party has recognized the shift of the society into a populace of self-involved narcissists. They are playing to that constituency with amazing success. What the narcissists aren't smart enough to figure out is that Democrats aren't about making that constituency the center of the universe. Good old fashioned power and wealth drive politics as they always have. Their ignorant narcissistic worshippers will never see a better life by putting them in power. The only beneficiaries of this movement are those politicians themselves, who will pocket most of the resources they extort from the rich in gigantic new bureaucracies and under-the-table graft.
The payback for our naieve narcissists is a lower standard of living. Sure, they might get the new right to stand in long lines for free substandard medical care. But their jobs will dry up as formerly "rich" corporate types move their operations out of the country to more favorable places. They will have to sell their illegal polluting cars and ride a bicycle or a bus to work, because only a rich Democrat party member can afford an actual hybrid car.
At least they can revel in the knowledge that those evil rich people got what was coming to them.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Transitions
Watching the next generation enter adulthood makes me recall my own entry into independence. As college degrees are earned, that interim stage between dependent childhood and independent adulthood is breached with an entire world of possibilities ahead.
This post started out as a recap of my own experience and lessons learned from the perspective of so many years later (I won't say how many). But I decided there was some rather personal and possibly sensitive information there, so I've changed tack to focus on general pearls of wisdom for this time of life.
Around the time of my college graduation, I participated in some sort of study involving a survey designed to measure mental and emotional stress. I laughed about it, because in my case I had so many stressors piled up in one year that I should have been a drooling nutcase in a straightjacket and padded room.
On to those pearls -
On careers: One of the most critical decisions we make is our career path. Some new graduates feel they deserve a great job right out of college, but are being completely unrealistic. Others jump at the first job offer out of fear there won't be any others.
There's a fine line between managing your own destiny and allowing it to manage you. It is certainly much easier to walk through an open door than to try beating down a locked door. That dream job is almost never there for a newly minted graduate, and even those who think they've landed it are often disappointed soon after they sign on. It's better to look carefully at the open doors and knock on the closed and locked doors until you find the one that best fits your goals.
From the perspective of my life stage, I've discovered that a career is important, but well down the list of the important things in life. A great career does not equal a great life; in fact, the two are more often incompatible. A career is a means to an end, not the main focus of life. The best anyone can hope for is a career that supports a reasonably decent lifestyle with enough free time to focus on what's really important - God, family, friends.
On Marriage: It's interesting that so many people choose college graduation as also the time to marry. It seems natural to do so, because school is over and a paying job is finally here. And for many, I'm sure it is the appropriate time to make that commitment.
But here's another thought: Life up to this point has been a preparation for independent adulthood. You haven't really been on your own yet - even with the independence of the college years, you've still had to depend on Mom and Dad and the University to help you through.
The end of college means that from here on, you will be responsible for paying your own bills. You have to make decisions about what things you can and cannot afford, where you will live, what you will eat, your faith affiliations, and everything else. Mom and Dad aren't going to be there to bail you out if you're short on cash and the rent or electric bill are due. Given this fairly big adjustment, is it wise or fair to throw a spouse into the mix?
As you adjust to your life as an independent adult and begin to establish yourself in a career, you will change. Not in terms of your basic personality and temperment, but in your goals and outlook. In the three to five years after entering the workforce, you will find yourself taking those last steps toward the adult individual you will become.
Is it better to ask your new spouse, who will also be experiencing the same transitions for him or herself, to ride that bumpy road with you? Or is it better to remain single for awhile and settle into your life's path before you ask another to join you?
These times can be both exciting and frightening. Let the fear temper the excitement and make sure you make your decisions with a clear and informed purpose. Don't let your dreams die, but keep them alive by doing something every day that gets you one step closer to realizing them.
And I know you'll be just fine.
This post started out as a recap of my own experience and lessons learned from the perspective of so many years later (I won't say how many). But I decided there was some rather personal and possibly sensitive information there, so I've changed tack to focus on general pearls of wisdom for this time of life.
Around the time of my college graduation, I participated in some sort of study involving a survey designed to measure mental and emotional stress. I laughed about it, because in my case I had so many stressors piled up in one year that I should have been a drooling nutcase in a straightjacket and padded room.
On to those pearls -
On careers: One of the most critical decisions we make is our career path. Some new graduates feel they deserve a great job right out of college, but are being completely unrealistic. Others jump at the first job offer out of fear there won't be any others.
There's a fine line between managing your own destiny and allowing it to manage you. It is certainly much easier to walk through an open door than to try beating down a locked door. That dream job is almost never there for a newly minted graduate, and even those who think they've landed it are often disappointed soon after they sign on. It's better to look carefully at the open doors and knock on the closed and locked doors until you find the one that best fits your goals.
From the perspective of my life stage, I've discovered that a career is important, but well down the list of the important things in life. A great career does not equal a great life; in fact, the two are more often incompatible. A career is a means to an end, not the main focus of life. The best anyone can hope for is a career that supports a reasonably decent lifestyle with enough free time to focus on what's really important - God, family, friends.
On Marriage: It's interesting that so many people choose college graduation as also the time to marry. It seems natural to do so, because school is over and a paying job is finally here. And for many, I'm sure it is the appropriate time to make that commitment.
But here's another thought: Life up to this point has been a preparation for independent adulthood. You haven't really been on your own yet - even with the independence of the college years, you've still had to depend on Mom and Dad and the University to help you through.
The end of college means that from here on, you will be responsible for paying your own bills. You have to make decisions about what things you can and cannot afford, where you will live, what you will eat, your faith affiliations, and everything else. Mom and Dad aren't going to be there to bail you out if you're short on cash and the rent or electric bill are due. Given this fairly big adjustment, is it wise or fair to throw a spouse into the mix?
As you adjust to your life as an independent adult and begin to establish yourself in a career, you will change. Not in terms of your basic personality and temperment, but in your goals and outlook. In the three to five years after entering the workforce, you will find yourself taking those last steps toward the adult individual you will become.
Is it better to ask your new spouse, who will also be experiencing the same transitions for him or herself, to ride that bumpy road with you? Or is it better to remain single for awhile and settle into your life's path before you ask another to join you?
These times can be both exciting and frightening. Let the fear temper the excitement and make sure you make your decisions with a clear and informed purpose. Don't let your dreams die, but keep them alive by doing something every day that gets you one step closer to realizing them.
And I know you'll be just fine.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Interesting Paradox
It occurs to me that the most interesting paradox right now is the idea that the government might be ignoring the will of the people for their own reasons.
There are two very interesting cases of this right now. One is Iraq and the other is Illegal Immigration.
As Democrats are so fond of pointing out in the case of Iraq, polls seem to indicate that the majority of Americans no longer think the Iraq war was worthwhile. I'd say that doesn't mean th majority of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops, which is the argument by extension the Dems want to make. But it could be argued that the government is continuing the expensive efforts in Iraq despite the fact that Americans in general are weary of it and want it to just go away.
In contrast, I find it interesting that the party claiming to represent the interests of the majority of Americans is ignoring the fact that the same majority overwhelmingly objects to what the Dems are pushing (with the help of some Republicans) on amnesty for illegals. Based on the left side news outlets, I gather that Dems are ignoring the majority by dismissing them as xenophobic bigoted anti-immigrant boobs.
So when is it appropriate for a government to override the desires of their electorate? When national security is at stake, i.e. Iraq? Or when the national economy and balance of political power (read liberal vs. conservative) is at stake, i.e. illegal immigration?
Hey, it's just little ol' me with my opinion, but I sort of think if politicians are willing to risk their re-election chances to protect the population, even when they don't seem to want that protection, that's a positive thing. But if politicians are willing to risk their re-election chances to keep their biggest donors happy regardless of the welfare of their constituents, that's not such a positive thing.
But I still think the hypocrisy in the comparison of Democrat rhetoric on Iraq versus Illegal immigration is striking. Even though nobody else seems to notice.
Another sign of the apocalypse, perhaps?
There are two very interesting cases of this right now. One is Iraq and the other is Illegal Immigration.
As Democrats are so fond of pointing out in the case of Iraq, polls seem to indicate that the majority of Americans no longer think the Iraq war was worthwhile. I'd say that doesn't mean th majority of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops, which is the argument by extension the Dems want to make. But it could be argued that the government is continuing the expensive efforts in Iraq despite the fact that Americans in general are weary of it and want it to just go away.
In contrast, I find it interesting that the party claiming to represent the interests of the majority of Americans is ignoring the fact that the same majority overwhelmingly objects to what the Dems are pushing (with the help of some Republicans) on amnesty for illegals. Based on the left side news outlets, I gather that Dems are ignoring the majority by dismissing them as xenophobic bigoted anti-immigrant boobs.
So when is it appropriate for a government to override the desires of their electorate? When national security is at stake, i.e. Iraq? Or when the national economy and balance of political power (read liberal vs. conservative) is at stake, i.e. illegal immigration?
Hey, it's just little ol' me with my opinion, but I sort of think if politicians are willing to risk their re-election chances to protect the population, even when they don't seem to want that protection, that's a positive thing. But if politicians are willing to risk their re-election chances to keep their biggest donors happy regardless of the welfare of their constituents, that's not such a positive thing.
But I still think the hypocrisy in the comparison of Democrat rhetoric on Iraq versus Illegal immigration is striking. Even though nobody else seems to notice.
Another sign of the apocalypse, perhaps?
Friday, May 18, 2007
Anger and Frustration
Maybe I should skip the news. Tonight's news makes my blood boil.
First the so-called "deal" on illegal immigration. Supported by the President and the Democrat leadership, it's the most outrageous failure of government in the history of our country.
If they pass this travesty, they deserve not only to be voted out of office, but they deserve prosecution for failure to uphold their duties to preserve and protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I'm partly angry at the stupid and corrupt politicians in Washington, but I'm even more angry at my fellow citizens for electing the rotten bunch.
Did I mention I'm angry?
Then the non-news on Iraq, also making me angry. The fight is between Republicans who want to continue to wage a sensitive PC war, pretending that if we just let the enemy keep blowing us up they'll eventually figure out what nice people we are; and Democrats who just want to give up and invite the same enemies over to blow us up here at home.
What will it take to kick all the bums out?!
First the so-called "deal" on illegal immigration. Supported by the President and the Democrat leadership, it's the most outrageous failure of government in the history of our country.
If they pass this travesty, they deserve not only to be voted out of office, but they deserve prosecution for failure to uphold their duties to preserve and protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I'm partly angry at the stupid and corrupt politicians in Washington, but I'm even more angry at my fellow citizens for electing the rotten bunch.
Did I mention I'm angry?
Then the non-news on Iraq, also making me angry. The fight is between Republicans who want to continue to wage a sensitive PC war, pretending that if we just let the enemy keep blowing us up they'll eventually figure out what nice people we are; and Democrats who just want to give up and invite the same enemies over to blow us up here at home.
What will it take to kick all the bums out?!
Thursday, May 17, 2007
First Night Off
For the first time this week, I'm taking the night off from work.
Having so much outstanding work this week meant that every night after finishing teaching during business hours, I had to go back to the hotel and work. It's OK once in awhile, but night after night gets very old.
So tonight I'm taking a break. Checking email, writing a little post here, and getting out of the hotel.
There's nothing much going on lately giving me fodder for comment.
I'm tired of the Iraq argument. By allowing the idiocy happening in DC, I guess we deserve what we will most likely get out of that mess. Enjoy the calm before the storm.
People running for President. It's way too early. And they're boring. And nobody appeals.
I need a vacation.
Having so much outstanding work this week meant that every night after finishing teaching during business hours, I had to go back to the hotel and work. It's OK once in awhile, but night after night gets very old.
So tonight I'm taking a break. Checking email, writing a little post here, and getting out of the hotel.
There's nothing much going on lately giving me fodder for comment.
I'm tired of the Iraq argument. By allowing the idiocy happening in DC, I guess we deserve what we will most likely get out of that mess. Enjoy the calm before the storm.
People running for President. It's way too early. And they're boring. And nobody appeals.
I need a vacation.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Good is Evil and Evil is Good
There's so much trashing of Christianity going on these days, one would think that Christians are the source of all evil in the world.
The most wild-eyed of the atheists, Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher to name a couple, would have us believe that Christianity is more dangerous than Al Quaeda or the Taliban.
Variously called "fundamentalists", "evangelicals", "Christian Right", and other labels meant to dismiss people of faith as intolerant radicals, the truth is that Christianity is not monolithic. There is no single spokesperson for Christianity.
Pope Benedict speaks for Roman Catholics, or does he? American Catholics are generally more liberal than conservative, and there is almost an epidemic of renegade priests across the country who openly defy the church's laws and guidelines.
Who speaks for "evangelicals" or "fundamentalists"? Jerry Falwell? Some other Televangelist? In contrast with the Roman Catholics, Protestants offer a full spectrum from the most liberal churches who barely acknowledge Jesus Christ and dismiss any hint of a moral foundation, to the most conservative congregations most starkly represented by the Amish and conservative Mennonites, who shun all things modern and worldly to live in insular communities.
The mythology being perpetrated by anti-Christian activists can be positively refuted by simply clarifying the tenets of the Christian faith.
Christianity does not desire to force religion on anyone. Becoming a Christian is a personal choice. Jesus did not send evangelists into the world to enslave and forcibly convert everyone to the faith; instead, he sent evangelists to preach the good news to all people so they can share in the joy of a life spent in communion with a loving God.
Christian morality is not some arbitrary rule book designed to deny people of any fun, but instead is a very practical set of commandments designed for strong families and peaceful, loving societies.
Christians do not oppose Gay Marriage out of a desire to persecute homosexuals. They oppose it because it represents government endorsement and special protections to people based on aberrant and immoral sexual behavior. I know a lot of conservative Christians, but don't know a single one who supports an active persecution of a homosexual. Although many, me included, have a fairly serious problem with sending elementary school children to a classroom with an openly gay teacher. Or allowing a young child to join a team or scout troop with a leader or coach who is openly gay.
Which right should trump the other? The right of a gay teacher to flaunt their sexual preference and teach that it's a desirable lifestyle to 10-year-old children, or the right of a parent to protect their young children from messages about sex that are age-inappropriate and openly contradict their dearly held beliefs?
The other myth that must be debunked is the idea that Evangelicals somehow want to impose their religion on others. The truth is that Evangelicals take very seriously the direction given by Jesus as he left, to go into all the world and preach the gospel. Evangelicals feel an obligation to share their faith with others, but ultimately hope to influence those others to share their faith. They have no desire to impose that faith by force.
Christians who are politically active are primarily concerned that political forces in this country are bent on destroying the Church in America. Atheist and Communist activists have openly stated this as their goal. It's not an attempt to "take over" the government, but simply to protect the precious freedoms of speech and religion as encoded in the US Constitution.
The assault on "Organized Religion" is actually an assault on the people who believe, not in some vague concept of "Organized Religion", but in the teachings and promises of a two thousand year old Jewish preacher.
The most wild-eyed of the atheists, Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher to name a couple, would have us believe that Christianity is more dangerous than Al Quaeda or the Taliban.
Variously called "fundamentalists", "evangelicals", "Christian Right", and other labels meant to dismiss people of faith as intolerant radicals, the truth is that Christianity is not monolithic. There is no single spokesperson for Christianity.
Pope Benedict speaks for Roman Catholics, or does he? American Catholics are generally more liberal than conservative, and there is almost an epidemic of renegade priests across the country who openly defy the church's laws and guidelines.
Who speaks for "evangelicals" or "fundamentalists"? Jerry Falwell? Some other Televangelist? In contrast with the Roman Catholics, Protestants offer a full spectrum from the most liberal churches who barely acknowledge Jesus Christ and dismiss any hint of a moral foundation, to the most conservative congregations most starkly represented by the Amish and conservative Mennonites, who shun all things modern and worldly to live in insular communities.
The mythology being perpetrated by anti-Christian activists can be positively refuted by simply clarifying the tenets of the Christian faith.
Christianity does not desire to force religion on anyone. Becoming a Christian is a personal choice. Jesus did not send evangelists into the world to enslave and forcibly convert everyone to the faith; instead, he sent evangelists to preach the good news to all people so they can share in the joy of a life spent in communion with a loving God.
Christian morality is not some arbitrary rule book designed to deny people of any fun, but instead is a very practical set of commandments designed for strong families and peaceful, loving societies.
Christians do not oppose Gay Marriage out of a desire to persecute homosexuals. They oppose it because it represents government endorsement and special protections to people based on aberrant and immoral sexual behavior. I know a lot of conservative Christians, but don't know a single one who supports an active persecution of a homosexual. Although many, me included, have a fairly serious problem with sending elementary school children to a classroom with an openly gay teacher. Or allowing a young child to join a team or scout troop with a leader or coach who is openly gay.
Which right should trump the other? The right of a gay teacher to flaunt their sexual preference and teach that it's a desirable lifestyle to 10-year-old children, or the right of a parent to protect their young children from messages about sex that are age-inappropriate and openly contradict their dearly held beliefs?
The other myth that must be debunked is the idea that Evangelicals somehow want to impose their religion on others. The truth is that Evangelicals take very seriously the direction given by Jesus as he left, to go into all the world and preach the gospel. Evangelicals feel an obligation to share their faith with others, but ultimately hope to influence those others to share their faith. They have no desire to impose that faith by force.
Christians who are politically active are primarily concerned that political forces in this country are bent on destroying the Church in America. Atheist and Communist activists have openly stated this as their goal. It's not an attempt to "take over" the government, but simply to protect the precious freedoms of speech and religion as encoded in the US Constitution.
The assault on "Organized Religion" is actually an assault on the people who believe, not in some vague concept of "Organized Religion", but in the teachings and promises of a two thousand year old Jewish preacher.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
What Changed?
Over 30 years ago, I picked Ball State from among the state colleges and universities. I never seriously considered private colleges because I felt my family couldn't afford to send me, and I certainly couldn't afford them either. Ball State was familiar, as I had been to a summer music camp and dated a girl from Muncie. Ball State seemed to really want me; professors reached out to recruit me in person, and the school offered me a full tuition scholarship.
I looked at Indiana (too big) and Indiana State (didn't like it or Terre Haute). I never considered Purdue, because I didn't think Engineering was in my future.
So I went to BSU. In the Spring of my Freshman year, I ran out of money. I was embarrassed to have to ask my parents for help to finish out the Spring Quarter. I resolved not to have to ask again.
I succeeded, at least from the standpoint that I never asked for help after my Freshman year, except for when I asked for a co-sign on a used car loan. Parental assistance was given freely at different times through the rest of my college career and was sincerely appreciated. But I took care of all my scholarship and financial aid paperwork, budgeted my hard-earned money from summer and on-campus jobs, and when absolutely necessary took out one small temporary student loan.
Now it seems college kids go where they want whether they or their parents can afford it or not. They mortgage their futures by borrowing the money to fill the gap. Stories abound of college graduates entering the workforce saddled with debt in 5 and even 6 figures.
I worked construction and factory jobs in the summer and hated nearly every minute. But those were the best paying jobs available to me, and I felt an obligation to work hard to prove I could pay my own way.
Now college students take unpaid internships or below-minimum-wage camp counselor summer jobs. They don't even earn enough to keep their car maintained, gassed, and insured, let alone have cash to meet expenses through the school year.
What changed in 30 years? Or am I the anomaly?
I looked at Indiana (too big) and Indiana State (didn't like it or Terre Haute). I never considered Purdue, because I didn't think Engineering was in my future.
So I went to BSU. In the Spring of my Freshman year, I ran out of money. I was embarrassed to have to ask my parents for help to finish out the Spring Quarter. I resolved not to have to ask again.
I succeeded, at least from the standpoint that I never asked for help after my Freshman year, except for when I asked for a co-sign on a used car loan. Parental assistance was given freely at different times through the rest of my college career and was sincerely appreciated. But I took care of all my scholarship and financial aid paperwork, budgeted my hard-earned money from summer and on-campus jobs, and when absolutely necessary took out one small temporary student loan.
Now it seems college kids go where they want whether they or their parents can afford it or not. They mortgage their futures by borrowing the money to fill the gap. Stories abound of college graduates entering the workforce saddled with debt in 5 and even 6 figures.
I worked construction and factory jobs in the summer and hated nearly every minute. But those were the best paying jobs available to me, and I felt an obligation to work hard to prove I could pay my own way.
Now college students take unpaid internships or below-minimum-wage camp counselor summer jobs. They don't even earn enough to keep their car maintained, gassed, and insured, let alone have cash to meet expenses through the school year.
What changed in 30 years? Or am I the anomaly?
Monday, May 07, 2007
Quick Posts
Here's an idea for when there's no real time to post. I'm calling it Quick Posts.
Today's Quick Posts.
A very interesting irony. The Democrats refused to participate in the presidential candidates debate that was set to be hosted by Fox News. Because, well, it was Fox News.
Then the Republicans had their presidential debate on MSNBC, hosted by rabid partisans Chris Matthews and covered by rabid and demented partisan Keith Olbermann. (Both democrat leftists, by the way)
Don't even try to tell me Britt Hume isn't fair and balanced while Mathews and Olbermann are.
Overcommitted. When will I learn not to do that to myself?
How did we get to the point where thousands of illegal aliens can take to the streets in protest marches and not one of them gets deported? If you think I'm somehow cruel or intolerant, then just give me one example of another country in the entire world that not only looks the other way when foreigners sneak across their border, but then allows them to protest the government that tacitly permitted them to remain?
Not a single one.
We live in the age of insanity. Or ignorance. Or maybe both.
Today's Quick Posts.
A very interesting irony. The Democrats refused to participate in the presidential candidates debate that was set to be hosted by Fox News. Because, well, it was Fox News.
Then the Republicans had their presidential debate on MSNBC, hosted by rabid partisans Chris Matthews and covered by rabid and demented partisan Keith Olbermann. (Both democrat leftists, by the way)
Don't even try to tell me Britt Hume isn't fair and balanced while Mathews and Olbermann are.
Overcommitted. When will I learn not to do that to myself?
How did we get to the point where thousands of illegal aliens can take to the streets in protest marches and not one of them gets deported? If you think I'm somehow cruel or intolerant, then just give me one example of another country in the entire world that not only looks the other way when foreigners sneak across their border, but then allows them to protest the government that tacitly permitted them to remain?
Not a single one.
We live in the age of insanity. Or ignorance. Or maybe both.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
This I can Respect
The cross-section of high profile entertainers that have become political activists has for the most part disgusted me. Singers and actors who probably couldn't find Iraq on a world map seem to think it's en vogue to run around the country comparing Bush to Hitler do nothing productive besides offending half of their past and potential future fans. I think it was Laura Ingraham who put it best when she said, "Shut up and sing". My sentiments exactly.
There is a notable exception, and I'm surprised to hear myself admitting it. Brad and Angelina. I had always figured Brad for a sort of airhead shallow Hollywood type, and Angelina seemed like a frightening woman who seems more than a little bit crazy.
Where their politics lie isn't important to me. It's the fact that their advocacy is focused on helping children in the third world. They've been to those countries and spent a lot of their own time and money trying to help. They've even adopted a gaggle of orphans from different poor countries. You can't adopt every orphan on the planet, even if you are a multi-millionaire. But I have to respect the fact that they are motivated by a real care and concern for children.
For the rest of the entertainment crowd, I sort of hope they take the cue from Brad and Angelina. Instead of playing destructive and partisan politics in the comfort of your opulent American homes, how about doing something positive that actually helps somebody? I have no respect for a performer who trashes Republicans on stage in front of a few thousand fans who paid a hundred bucks each to hear them sing and were surprised to find a political rally instead.
Dixie Chicks, adopted any orphans lately? Tim and Susan, have you helped feed, clothe, or house any refugees? Michael Moore, have you helped anybody escape totalitarian oppression?
Here's a new idea: Let's modify "Shut up and sing" to "Shut up and help".
There is a notable exception, and I'm surprised to hear myself admitting it. Brad and Angelina. I had always figured Brad for a sort of airhead shallow Hollywood type, and Angelina seemed like a frightening woman who seems more than a little bit crazy.
Where their politics lie isn't important to me. It's the fact that their advocacy is focused on helping children in the third world. They've been to those countries and spent a lot of their own time and money trying to help. They've even adopted a gaggle of orphans from different poor countries. You can't adopt every orphan on the planet, even if you are a multi-millionaire. But I have to respect the fact that they are motivated by a real care and concern for children.
For the rest of the entertainment crowd, I sort of hope they take the cue from Brad and Angelina. Instead of playing destructive and partisan politics in the comfort of your opulent American homes, how about doing something positive that actually helps somebody? I have no respect for a performer who trashes Republicans on stage in front of a few thousand fans who paid a hundred bucks each to hear them sing and were surprised to find a political rally instead.
Dixie Chicks, adopted any orphans lately? Tim and Susan, have you helped feed, clothe, or house any refugees? Michael Moore, have you helped anybody escape totalitarian oppression?
Here's a new idea: Let's modify "Shut up and sing" to "Shut up and help".
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
What is the Difference?
Spending two weeks in Jamaica helped me learn a great deal, and also wonder about a great deal.
I read up, asked lots of questions of the folks I worked with over the two weeks. Jamaica's generally very poor, with what I'm told is about 70% unemployment. One person wondered out loud whether it was good for Jamaica to get their independence from the Brits 50 years ago. They've struggled terribly economically, but still know they're light years ahead of their neighbors in Haiti. Hatians float their leaky boats to Jamaica in search of a better life, even though there are few prospects for them.
Why can't Jamaica be a prosperous island nation instead of a poor, crime-ridden place?
I was on the road two Sundays in a row, covering a large chunk of the island. On both Sundays I saw many people dressed very nicely walking to and from their churches. On the other hand, I couldn't help but notice that most of those people were women and children - I saw lots of young men just hanging out.
I learned that the lush island can grow just about anything, and is a great place for growing tropical fruits and vegetables of all kinds. Once upon a time, Jamaica had a fantastically lucrative banana trade. It dried up when other countries began shipping bananas around the world for lower prices. Jamaica historically has been a major producer of sugar from their productive sugar cane fields. Now they can't sell much sugar abroad, because places like Malaysia sell sugar for nearly half the price.
Even tourism is not the greatest these days. Hurting tourism these days is the crime rate, which makes many foreign tourists hesitant to make the trip. Plus, from my perspective from my visit to Montego Bay, the island isn't a great bargain. There are some very expensive all-inclusive resorts that probably do fairly well, but the resort areas remain fairly poor. I wasn't ready to wander around in the Montego Bay area alone, partly because of being approached while just crossing the street to the beach, first by a dude wanting to sell me some giggle weed, and later by a prostitute.
Jamaica has huge bauxite fields, being mined by a couple of companies now. But they can't make aluminum, they just create the alumina raw material and ship it out of the country to other aluminum plants.
The bottom line is that Jamaica has huge potential, with a great climate, world-class beaches, and tremendous natural resources. So why is the place so poor?
One could ask a similar question of Mexico, or for that matter, all the poor third-world countries in the western hemisphere. Why are they so poor while the United States is so prosperous? They have the resources and the opportunity to be prosperous, but can't seem to grap those opportunities.
I believe I know the answer.
I read up, asked lots of questions of the folks I worked with over the two weeks. Jamaica's generally very poor, with what I'm told is about 70% unemployment. One person wondered out loud whether it was good for Jamaica to get their independence from the Brits 50 years ago. They've struggled terribly economically, but still know they're light years ahead of their neighbors in Haiti. Hatians float their leaky boats to Jamaica in search of a better life, even though there are few prospects for them.
Why can't Jamaica be a prosperous island nation instead of a poor, crime-ridden place?
I was on the road two Sundays in a row, covering a large chunk of the island. On both Sundays I saw many people dressed very nicely walking to and from their churches. On the other hand, I couldn't help but notice that most of those people were women and children - I saw lots of young men just hanging out.
I learned that the lush island can grow just about anything, and is a great place for growing tropical fruits and vegetables of all kinds. Once upon a time, Jamaica had a fantastically lucrative banana trade. It dried up when other countries began shipping bananas around the world for lower prices. Jamaica historically has been a major producer of sugar from their productive sugar cane fields. Now they can't sell much sugar abroad, because places like Malaysia sell sugar for nearly half the price.
Even tourism is not the greatest these days. Hurting tourism these days is the crime rate, which makes many foreign tourists hesitant to make the trip. Plus, from my perspective from my visit to Montego Bay, the island isn't a great bargain. There are some very expensive all-inclusive resorts that probably do fairly well, but the resort areas remain fairly poor. I wasn't ready to wander around in the Montego Bay area alone, partly because of being approached while just crossing the street to the beach, first by a dude wanting to sell me some giggle weed, and later by a prostitute.
Jamaica has huge bauxite fields, being mined by a couple of companies now. But they can't make aluminum, they just create the alumina raw material and ship it out of the country to other aluminum plants.
The bottom line is that Jamaica has huge potential, with a great climate, world-class beaches, and tremendous natural resources. So why is the place so poor?
One could ask a similar question of Mexico, or for that matter, all the poor third-world countries in the western hemisphere. Why are they so poor while the United States is so prosperous? They have the resources and the opportunity to be prosperous, but can't seem to grap those opportunities.
I believe I know the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)