When I arrived at my destination this week, the Avis agent had a paniced expression when I approached the counter. She informed me that they'd run out of cars. If I would be a bit patient and wait an hour or so, more cars were on their way from another city.
Fortunately I didn't have to be anywhere immediately, and actually wasn't too upset about having to wait in the airport for a car. Now that airports have finally put in free wi-fi, I was able to find a seat and fire up the laptop to get some work done while I waited.
The bonus for being the inconvenienced high-volume "Preferred" customer was getting an unusual vehicle - a new red Camaro.
OK, I must admit to those who are true car aficionados that the significance of lucking into a new Camaro might be a bit wasted on me. Certainly I thought it was a sporty-looking car and noticed it has a bit more power than the run of the mill Avis rental. But in general, as long as it gets me from point A to point B in reasonable comfort, I don't care too much what sort of car I am given.
But the significance of driving around in this car has become clear over the past few days. People at my client were buzzing about the red Camaro in the parking lot. When the folks I'm working with there figured out it was mine, I found myself needing to explain that, no, it's not my car, and no, they're not getting charged for a premium rental vehicle when I send my expense bill.
When I go to lunch, the server can't resist asking me about the car. When I walk to the parking lot in the client lot, the hotel lot, a restaurant lot, etc., I sometimes find some folks lingering by the Camaro, looking it over. I even got a bold question from somebody who just wanted to know what I paid for the car (I had to disappoint her with the fact it isn't mine).
So I don't think I would seek to own a Camaro, which has a pretty significant blind spot that makes me nervous whenever I get on the interstate. But all the attention it draws is certainly turning into an interesting experience, as I have the car for another week.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Did I Miss Something?
On the road this week I was doing a bit of channel surfing in the hotel room. At home with the satellite television service I generally just scan the channel guide and pick something, but in the hotel there is no channel guide. So I found myself flipping from channel to channel in search of something distracting.
Whether I've missed it, my perceptions are different, or I'm just getting older, I was actually shocked at the state of television in general. See, I mostly watch sports, news, a lot of History Channel, and a few selected ongoing television shows. I don't ever stop on channels like MTV or VH1, and generally only catch movie channels like HBO when I'm in hotels - and then only if they're playing a movie that interests me.
But my surfing resulted in this discovery about those channels that admittedly shocked me. Many channels have "Reality" programming that seemingly sets up ordinary people in situations that provide a sort of voyeuristic interest for viewers. My first shock is at the astounding ignorance, narcissism, amorality, and general lack of any identifiable standards exhibited by the people in those programs. I'm not sure whether that's the point of the programs themselves, or if these people exemplify the typical 21st century American. I sincerely hope it's not the latter.
But it's not just the "Reality" genre that I found shocking. Spending a few minutes on current versions of what I'd generally consider Situation Comedies, I discovered that fictional situations presented on those programs portray even more shallow, ignorant, narcissistic, and amoral protagonists. As far as I can tell, these programs have no point other than trying to figure out new and (they think) funny ways to get the characters "hooked up".
Fortunately I'd discovered the King of the Narcissists, Bill Maher, on HBO some time ago and learned to avoid his inane program. Just the idea that he gets enough viewers to keep his insulting political show on the air for more than a month is enough to lose respect for the American public.
It occurred to me that Maher's program is the very political show that would draw the same people who find the "Reality" show characters and shallow actors in the other programs relevant.
Everything's beginning to make sense, but in a demoralizing way that tells me the ills of our country are absolutely traceable to the behavior, attitudes, and ignorance of the bulk of the population.
If TV truly reflects the mainstream of America, then it's already too late to save her.
Whether I've missed it, my perceptions are different, or I'm just getting older, I was actually shocked at the state of television in general. See, I mostly watch sports, news, a lot of History Channel, and a few selected ongoing television shows. I don't ever stop on channels like MTV or VH1, and generally only catch movie channels like HBO when I'm in hotels - and then only if they're playing a movie that interests me.
But my surfing resulted in this discovery about those channels that admittedly shocked me. Many channels have "Reality" programming that seemingly sets up ordinary people in situations that provide a sort of voyeuristic interest for viewers. My first shock is at the astounding ignorance, narcissism, amorality, and general lack of any identifiable standards exhibited by the people in those programs. I'm not sure whether that's the point of the programs themselves, or if these people exemplify the typical 21st century American. I sincerely hope it's not the latter.
But it's not just the "Reality" genre that I found shocking. Spending a few minutes on current versions of what I'd generally consider Situation Comedies, I discovered that fictional situations presented on those programs portray even more shallow, ignorant, narcissistic, and amoral protagonists. As far as I can tell, these programs have no point other than trying to figure out new and (they think) funny ways to get the characters "hooked up".
Fortunately I'd discovered the King of the Narcissists, Bill Maher, on HBO some time ago and learned to avoid his inane program. Just the idea that he gets enough viewers to keep his insulting political show on the air for more than a month is enough to lose respect for the American public.
It occurred to me that Maher's program is the very political show that would draw the same people who find the "Reality" show characters and shallow actors in the other programs relevant.
Everything's beginning to make sense, but in a demoralizing way that tells me the ills of our country are absolutely traceable to the behavior, attitudes, and ignorance of the bulk of the population.
If TV truly reflects the mainstream of America, then it's already too late to save her.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Somebody Please Explain
This entry is my personal appeal to a big-L Liberal to please explain your thought process. Once upon a time I felt like I was a pretty (small-l) liberal-minded person. I thought I was compassionate and tolerant and so forth. Actually, I still believe that, although I've learned to define and differentiate between compassion and practicality, and between tolerance and permissiveness.
So in the off chance you are a (big-L) Liberal and happen to be reading this blog, please explain some things to me.
1. If you're poor or concerned about the poor, what outcome do you prefer for helping them out of poverty? Helping them find a decent job, or confiscating money from me to give them? Since the policies of your leaders seem to favor the latter, please explain why this is a reasonable or desirable outcome, and how you expect it to solve the problem of poverty?
2. I know you believe mankind is the cause of global warming, so rather than argue that point, let me ask the questions about what you seem to believe is the best solution to the problem. Your leaders say that burning fossil fuels is the main contributor to the environmental problems related to global warming, so those fuels need to be replaced by clean, renewable sources of energy. But the only truly clean and renewable sources of energy are wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. Maybe hydrogen will become a viable option someday, but so far nobody's really solved that one to the point where we will see it in this generation.
But you've ruled out nuclear and hydro. Given this, my question: Do you really believe that we can furnish all the energy needs of the nation with only windmills and solar panels? Please explain how that's going to happen.
Your leaders are working to pass a bill called "Cap and Trade", which is designed to add huge costs to energy producers and users who exceed a defined level of CO2 emissions. The idea is that driving costs up will force them to seek cleaner alternatives, because the punitive taxes imposed will make the cost of alternative energy more attractive.
My question is, does the idea that this bill is also designed to enrich and empower a cabal of government bureaucrats and well-connected individuals (like Al Gore) at the expense of every person in the country give you pause?
3. Your leaders believe that if we are more friendly, less threatening, and willing to negotiate with our enemies that we'll be safer in the long run. Here my question is simple.
How exactly does it make us safer to pretend there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism?
If Bush was evil for pursuing and killing terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, then why is it fine with you that Obama so far continues both campaigns?
I know we'll never agree on the definition of torture. But allow me to present a simple scenario for your consideration: Suppose a criminal gang has kidnapped your daughter, and one of the leaders of the gang has been captured. If you don't find your daughter very soon, she will certainly be killed, and most likely she's already being subjected to unspeakable abuse.
If you were permitted 20 minutes alone with the gang leader, what would you be willing to do to extract the information from him that will give you a chance to save her?
4. Your leaders have given no indication that massive national debt levels climbing toward 10 Trillion dollars give them little or no cause for concern. Do you have any conception of how much a trillion is? Have you calculated how much debt that is per citizen? How exactly do you think that debt can be paid? Do you think it's possible or fair to pay all of it through huge tax increases? How much tax, as a percentage of your own annual income, are you willing to pay to help fund the programs your leaders plan to create?
5. Are you indeed comfortable with giving a Federal bureaucracy of political appointees power to dictate what medical treatments you may receive? How much in increased taxes are you willing to pay to support a national health insurance program? How exactly do you think adding a layer of government bureaucracy without any attempt to address root causes of high healthcare costs is going to save money or improve quality, as promised by the president?
6. One more topic. Your leaders are moving rapidly to assume control over the private sector. Banking, Automotive, Energy and Healthcare industries are already substantially government owned and operated or the president is moving rapidly to acquire control.
If that is not de-facto socialist/communist, then how would you define them?
In what way do you believe government has either the right or the ability to run these industries?
The larger question that encompasses all of the above is this: How do you define freedom? Would you say that you're willing to give up your personal freedoms in exchange for a government that promises to meet your needs?
I look forward to answers to my questions. Although it's highly unlikely those answers will change my attitudes toward government in general or Liberal government in particular, I hope at least to understand.
So in the off chance you are a (big-L) Liberal and happen to be reading this blog, please explain some things to me.
1. If you're poor or concerned about the poor, what outcome do you prefer for helping them out of poverty? Helping them find a decent job, or confiscating money from me to give them? Since the policies of your leaders seem to favor the latter, please explain why this is a reasonable or desirable outcome, and how you expect it to solve the problem of poverty?
2. I know you believe mankind is the cause of global warming, so rather than argue that point, let me ask the questions about what you seem to believe is the best solution to the problem. Your leaders say that burning fossil fuels is the main contributor to the environmental problems related to global warming, so those fuels need to be replaced by clean, renewable sources of energy. But the only truly clean and renewable sources of energy are wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. Maybe hydrogen will become a viable option someday, but so far nobody's really solved that one to the point where we will see it in this generation.
But you've ruled out nuclear and hydro. Given this, my question: Do you really believe that we can furnish all the energy needs of the nation with only windmills and solar panels? Please explain how that's going to happen.
Your leaders are working to pass a bill called "Cap and Trade", which is designed to add huge costs to energy producers and users who exceed a defined level of CO2 emissions. The idea is that driving costs up will force them to seek cleaner alternatives, because the punitive taxes imposed will make the cost of alternative energy more attractive.
My question is, does the idea that this bill is also designed to enrich and empower a cabal of government bureaucrats and well-connected individuals (like Al Gore) at the expense of every person in the country give you pause?
3. Your leaders believe that if we are more friendly, less threatening, and willing to negotiate with our enemies that we'll be safer in the long run. Here my question is simple.
How exactly does it make us safer to pretend there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism?
If Bush was evil for pursuing and killing terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, then why is it fine with you that Obama so far continues both campaigns?
I know we'll never agree on the definition of torture. But allow me to present a simple scenario for your consideration: Suppose a criminal gang has kidnapped your daughter, and one of the leaders of the gang has been captured. If you don't find your daughter very soon, she will certainly be killed, and most likely she's already being subjected to unspeakable abuse.
If you were permitted 20 minutes alone with the gang leader, what would you be willing to do to extract the information from him that will give you a chance to save her?
4. Your leaders have given no indication that massive national debt levels climbing toward 10 Trillion dollars give them little or no cause for concern. Do you have any conception of how much a trillion is? Have you calculated how much debt that is per citizen? How exactly do you think that debt can be paid? Do you think it's possible or fair to pay all of it through huge tax increases? How much tax, as a percentage of your own annual income, are you willing to pay to help fund the programs your leaders plan to create?
5. Are you indeed comfortable with giving a Federal bureaucracy of political appointees power to dictate what medical treatments you may receive? How much in increased taxes are you willing to pay to support a national health insurance program? How exactly do you think adding a layer of government bureaucracy without any attempt to address root causes of high healthcare costs is going to save money or improve quality, as promised by the president?
6. One more topic. Your leaders are moving rapidly to assume control over the private sector. Banking, Automotive, Energy and Healthcare industries are already substantially government owned and operated or the president is moving rapidly to acquire control.
If that is not de-facto socialist/communist, then how would you define them?
In what way do you believe government has either the right or the ability to run these industries?
The larger question that encompasses all of the above is this: How do you define freedom? Would you say that you're willing to give up your personal freedoms in exchange for a government that promises to meet your needs?
I look forward to answers to my questions. Although it's highly unlikely those answers will change my attitudes toward government in general or Liberal government in particular, I hope at least to understand.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Spin or Denial?
The only way to know for sure is to get into the minds of the Democrat power base.
Is it merely desperate spin or simple denial for Obama and his minions to dismiss the massive 9/12 march in Washington as of little consequence?
Do they actually believe it's some sort of white racist movement that's more about personal animus toward Obama than serious opposition to his socialist policy?
One piece of evidence that seems to support the denial theory is the fact that Obama seems to believe if he talks up his healthcare programs enough, getting on TV every single day to push the healthcare "reform" legislation and trash those who oppose it, somehow he can change people's minds.
There seems to be a mindset at work among the Left that no rational person will oppose their socialist healthcare agenda if they can just be made to understand that their motives are compassion for people who can't afford insurance. Obama can't imagine that anyone might oppose socialism because of its inevitable effect of draining a society of its wealth and benefiting nobody outside the government bureaucratic monster it creates and feeds.
The historic march on Washington this weekend wasn't about ignorant mobs of people who were ginned up by insurance companies with misinformation about the intent of Democrat "reforms". Instead, they see an accelerated effort to change America into something resembling socialist Europe. Where government intrudes into the daily lives of the people, dictating limits on what they can earn, taxing them into poverty, and taking away their freedom to choose what they do with their property, what sort of car they can drive, what doctor they can see and what treatments and prescription drugs they are permitted.
The president thinks those millions of people who oppose him just oppose him on his healthcare reform. But it's much more than that - they oppose the extreme and irresponsible spending that is creating a national debt that may never be repaid. They oppose policies designed to favor poor minorities other other poor folks. They oppose policies that favor illegal immigrants over citizens. They oppose policies that force businesses to accept union labor. The oppose policies that weaken our national security and seek to appease our enemies. They oppose government theft from the productive to line the pockets of bureaucrats, then distribute what's left to the non-productive.
President Obama thinks these Americans don't get it. These Americans wonder whether the president gets it.
I think he does, but believes his elevation to benevolent dictator is what's best for America. That the ends justify the means. Therefore, the answer leans heavily toward spin, although there's also a healthy dose of denial.
Is it merely desperate spin or simple denial for Obama and his minions to dismiss the massive 9/12 march in Washington as of little consequence?
Do they actually believe it's some sort of white racist movement that's more about personal animus toward Obama than serious opposition to his socialist policy?
One piece of evidence that seems to support the denial theory is the fact that Obama seems to believe if he talks up his healthcare programs enough, getting on TV every single day to push the healthcare "reform" legislation and trash those who oppose it, somehow he can change people's minds.
There seems to be a mindset at work among the Left that no rational person will oppose their socialist healthcare agenda if they can just be made to understand that their motives are compassion for people who can't afford insurance. Obama can't imagine that anyone might oppose socialism because of its inevitable effect of draining a society of its wealth and benefiting nobody outside the government bureaucratic monster it creates and feeds.
The historic march on Washington this weekend wasn't about ignorant mobs of people who were ginned up by insurance companies with misinformation about the intent of Democrat "reforms". Instead, they see an accelerated effort to change America into something resembling socialist Europe. Where government intrudes into the daily lives of the people, dictating limits on what they can earn, taxing them into poverty, and taking away their freedom to choose what they do with their property, what sort of car they can drive, what doctor they can see and what treatments and prescription drugs they are permitted.
The president thinks those millions of people who oppose him just oppose him on his healthcare reform. But it's much more than that - they oppose the extreme and irresponsible spending that is creating a national debt that may never be repaid. They oppose policies designed to favor poor minorities other other poor folks. They oppose policies that favor illegal immigrants over citizens. They oppose policies that force businesses to accept union labor. The oppose policies that weaken our national security and seek to appease our enemies. They oppose government theft from the productive to line the pockets of bureaucrats, then distribute what's left to the non-productive.
President Obama thinks these Americans don't get it. These Americans wonder whether the president gets it.
I think he does, but believes his elevation to benevolent dictator is what's best for America. That the ends justify the means. Therefore, the answer leans heavily toward spin, although there's also a healthy dose of denial.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Best Review of Obama's Healthcare Speech
Saving time over writing something of my own, I found an article at Powerlineblog that pretty much sums it up.
I don't think you'll find a better or more reasoned analysis.
I don't think you'll find a better or more reasoned analysis.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Taking Virginia's Temperature
Apparently the leading candidate in Virginia's governor race is a conservative named Bob McDonnell. Polling has had him way ahead of his Democrat opponent, so the Washington Post jumped in to do their best to destroy him.
So disregarding the more obvious problem of one of the most celebrated newspapers in America showing an unvarnished partisanship and abandoning even the appearance of balanced reporting, what is it exactly that they are finding so reprehensible about Bob?
He's a conservative and a Christian. At WaPo, that's pretty much like being Satan's right hand demon.
He actually wrote a graduate thesis 20 years ago suggesting extremist radical ideas, such as committed lifelong marriages between a man and a woman are best for society. (Gasp!)
That "fornicators" break down society mores, harm children, and therefore damage society. (Blasphemy!)
That men and women are best raising family in their natural roles. (Crucify Him!)
As if that wasn't enough to lock the crazy guy in prison for life, they found out he strongly supported the firing of a judge who happened to be incompetent and homosexual. Although WaPo conveniently left out the incompetent part and the part about her sexual harrassment (or was it assault?) of a female staffer as the objective reasons for her dismissal, apparently this story just proved for them that Bob McDonnell should be imprisoned for the sin of gross intolerance, not elected Governor.
The core question comes down to this: If WaPo's efforts pay off and help catapult Terry McAuliffe (an old Clinton crony) into office, the message to all of us about the sort of country America has become will be crystal clear.
And I for one will grieve for the America that was.
So disregarding the more obvious problem of one of the most celebrated newspapers in America showing an unvarnished partisanship and abandoning even the appearance of balanced reporting, what is it exactly that they are finding so reprehensible about Bob?
He's a conservative and a Christian. At WaPo, that's pretty much like being Satan's right hand demon.
He actually wrote a graduate thesis 20 years ago suggesting extremist radical ideas, such as committed lifelong marriages between a man and a woman are best for society. (Gasp!)
That "fornicators" break down society mores, harm children, and therefore damage society. (Blasphemy!)
That men and women are best raising family in their natural roles. (Crucify Him!)
As if that wasn't enough to lock the crazy guy in prison for life, they found out he strongly supported the firing of a judge who happened to be incompetent and homosexual. Although WaPo conveniently left out the incompetent part and the part about her sexual harrassment (or was it assault?) of a female staffer as the objective reasons for her dismissal, apparently this story just proved for them that Bob McDonnell should be imprisoned for the sin of gross intolerance, not elected Governor.
The core question comes down to this: If WaPo's efforts pay off and help catapult Terry McAuliffe (an old Clinton crony) into office, the message to all of us about the sort of country America has become will be crystal clear.
And I for one will grieve for the America that was.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Heaven & Hell
I've noticed a lot of discussion floating around recently about Hell, basically arguing whether it's an actual place of torment for the damned or just a story made up to scare people who might be tempted to depart from the faith.
Is Hell eternal torture for unrepentant sinners? Is it just a state of separation from God for those who choose rebellion, and the torture is emotional rather than physical because of that separation? Or is it nothing but a myth created by men?
Rather than get involved in a theological discussion on the nature of Hell, I thought instead I'd ruminate on some of my thoughts about Heaven.
I've heard comments before from folks that heaven must be a rather tedious and boring place, if all everyone does is sit around on clouds praising God and learning to play the harp. It's a rather funny image, but is the root of my own thoughts about heaven.
If heaven is a place where we can eternally experience peace and love and happiness, I naturally would relate that to human experience on earth. What are the greatest, most heavenly experiences we can have on earth?
Of course, most would list things like love and friendship, fun, great food, sex, beauty, wealth and achievement. I suppose those things are more important to us in our worldly experiences, but perhaps not so important in the afterlife.
But even though those experiences may seem to us to be the most heavenly, none of them are all that terrific without some struggle, pain or conflict.
Isn't friendship rather shallow without shared experiences? It seems to me that the best friends come from people who go through great challenges or difficulties together, which is what bonds their friendship for life.
Love is very much like friendship, but these days people seem to confuse it with sex. In addition to shared trials, isn't the most heavenly bond of love found by a young newlywed couple who both begin their first night together as virgins?
The best gourmet food is nothing compared to a simple meal of rice and beans for someone who is starving. The best wine can't hold a candle to a drink of water for someone who is extremely thirsty.
Achievement isn't fully appreciated unless it came at great cost. Think of a sports team that wins a championship; when their victory comes against all odds and with extraordinary sacrifice and practice and physical conditioning, it means much more than if it were achieved against inferior competition.
Wealth doesn't mean much without loved ones to share it with, which seems to be a truth discovered by many who sacrifice love and friendship to achieve it.
So the paradox of heaven for me is, how is it that heaven can be such a wonderful place if it removes the pain, suffering, and hard labor we must experience on earth in order to find our glimpses of heaven?
Is Hell eternal torture for unrepentant sinners? Is it just a state of separation from God for those who choose rebellion, and the torture is emotional rather than physical because of that separation? Or is it nothing but a myth created by men?
Rather than get involved in a theological discussion on the nature of Hell, I thought instead I'd ruminate on some of my thoughts about Heaven.
I've heard comments before from folks that heaven must be a rather tedious and boring place, if all everyone does is sit around on clouds praising God and learning to play the harp. It's a rather funny image, but is the root of my own thoughts about heaven.
If heaven is a place where we can eternally experience peace and love and happiness, I naturally would relate that to human experience on earth. What are the greatest, most heavenly experiences we can have on earth?
Of course, most would list things like love and friendship, fun, great food, sex, beauty, wealth and achievement. I suppose those things are more important to us in our worldly experiences, but perhaps not so important in the afterlife.
But even though those experiences may seem to us to be the most heavenly, none of them are all that terrific without some struggle, pain or conflict.
Isn't friendship rather shallow without shared experiences? It seems to me that the best friends come from people who go through great challenges or difficulties together, which is what bonds their friendship for life.
Love is very much like friendship, but these days people seem to confuse it with sex. In addition to shared trials, isn't the most heavenly bond of love found by a young newlywed couple who both begin their first night together as virgins?
The best gourmet food is nothing compared to a simple meal of rice and beans for someone who is starving. The best wine can't hold a candle to a drink of water for someone who is extremely thirsty.
Achievement isn't fully appreciated unless it came at great cost. Think of a sports team that wins a championship; when their victory comes against all odds and with extraordinary sacrifice and practice and physical conditioning, it means much more than if it were achieved against inferior competition.
Wealth doesn't mean much without loved ones to share it with, which seems to be a truth discovered by many who sacrifice love and friendship to achieve it.
So the paradox of heaven for me is, how is it that heaven can be such a wonderful place if it removes the pain, suffering, and hard labor we must experience on earth in order to find our glimpses of heaven?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Pravda Recognizes the US Government's True Objective
I think I'll reproduce the Pravda post here in its entirety:
Sobering perspective
SNOPES confirms the article as Legit....
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pravda.asp
The irony of this article appearing in the English edition of Pravda (Russian State Newspaper) defies description. American capitalism gone with a whimper It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists. Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights.
Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America .
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America 's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison.
Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them? These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too.
Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK 's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper. So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses?
Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.. The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Stanislav Mishin© 1999-2009.. «PRAVDA.Ru».
When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
What a fascinating article, containing an awful lot of truth. Truth that people who oppose this "hope and change" do not seem to have the courage to voice.
The conclusion I'm beginning to reach is that this is a pivotal time in our young republic. The main question today is whether there are enough people in the voting population with enough wisdom and understanding about the choices we must make; will we permit our national leaders to complete their fundamental change of our government into a Marxist/Socialist model, or will we stop them before it is too late?
Supporters of the direction Obama is rushing us toward are either committed socialists themselves or want to believe they will get better wages, "free" healthcare, and an easier life because somehow Obama and the Democrats will force the greedy corporations to be more just, and the selfish rich to share more of their wealth.
The only way to stop this Obama-led juggernaut is a transformation of the Congress next year. That transformation cannot happen without public education. Somehow a strong, consistent message must be presented in a new way that doesn't appear partisan, but uses common sense to awaken those with enough critical thinking ability to understand to the destruction that is and will be wreaked on our country if we don't replace every congressman and senator that's part of the problem with citizen representatives committed to what's best for the country and upholding the Consititution.
I'm concerned about the apparent lack of strong leadership to create a narrative that translates conservative alternatives into easily understood, common sense ideas. People need to be informed about what life was like in the old Soviet Union, what life is like today in places like Cuba, Venezuela, and China. And why allowing the Obama Democrats to continue down their current path will result in suffering, oppression and loss of freedom, not a better life.
Sobering perspective
SNOPES confirms the article as Legit....
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pravda.asp
The irony of this article appearing in the English edition of Pravda (Russian State Newspaper) defies description. American capitalism gone with a whimper It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists. Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights.
Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America .
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America 's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison.
Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them? These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too.
Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK 's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper. So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses?
Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.. The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Stanislav Mishin© 1999-2009.. «PRAVDA.Ru».
When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
What a fascinating article, containing an awful lot of truth. Truth that people who oppose this "hope and change" do not seem to have the courage to voice.
The conclusion I'm beginning to reach is that this is a pivotal time in our young republic. The main question today is whether there are enough people in the voting population with enough wisdom and understanding about the choices we must make; will we permit our national leaders to complete their fundamental change of our government into a Marxist/Socialist model, or will we stop them before it is too late?
Supporters of the direction Obama is rushing us toward are either committed socialists themselves or want to believe they will get better wages, "free" healthcare, and an easier life because somehow Obama and the Democrats will force the greedy corporations to be more just, and the selfish rich to share more of their wealth.
The only way to stop this Obama-led juggernaut is a transformation of the Congress next year. That transformation cannot happen without public education. Somehow a strong, consistent message must be presented in a new way that doesn't appear partisan, but uses common sense to awaken those with enough critical thinking ability to understand to the destruction that is and will be wreaked on our country if we don't replace every congressman and senator that's part of the problem with citizen representatives committed to what's best for the country and upholding the Consititution.
I'm concerned about the apparent lack of strong leadership to create a narrative that translates conservative alternatives into easily understood, common sense ideas. People need to be informed about what life was like in the old Soviet Union, what life is like today in places like Cuba, Venezuela, and China. And why allowing the Obama Democrats to continue down their current path will result in suffering, oppression and loss of freedom, not a better life.
Monday, August 24, 2009
We Deserve This
Since I've been outrageously busy, I haven't really had time for posts. Truth be told, I don't have time to do this post either, but I'm taking a few minutes anyway that I'll have to make up.
The big revelation that's hit me in the past couple of weeks is that we deserve everything that's happening. It turns out that most folks who pay the slightest attention to government and politics are blind partisans. They're not interested so much in what the government's actually doing to them, but just that their side is in charge.
That's why those who screamed bloody murder every day when Bush was in office suddenly don't really care that Obama's continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and doubling down on domestic surveillance programs.
The healthcare issue represents the most stark illustration of the diametrically opposed points of view between conservatives and liberals. Liberals trust the government as long as their comrades are running it, therefore the Big Brother details of the actuall health "reform" bills give them no pause. What I can't tell for certain is whether they know about the centralized control over everyone's treatment decisions, or if they simply choose to ignore that man behind the curtain simply because the Wizard of Ob tells them.
I caught Howard Dean decrying the ignorance of the opposition to the current healthcare legislation. Why, it's nothing more than offering the ability for people to buy into Medicare if they can't get acceptable coverage elsewhere. Wow, if that's all the bill is about, even I might be tempted to support it.
Problem is, the bill isn't even close to his characterization. Is that because he was putting forth his own idea as what the bill should do? Or is it that he's simply lying? I suppose you'd have to ask him; something his obsequious interviewer didn't have the temerity to do.
If you're a Democrat, you have no problem with a national healthcare panel deciding your fate if you get sick, presumably because you trust the person appointing the members of the panel. If you're not a Democrat, the very idea of some politically appointed panel of hacks deciding whether you deserve a surgery or cancer treatment or even a prescription drug sounds exactly like, well, a "death panel".
If Americans allow Healthcare and Cap & Trade to pass, then fail to remove everyone who voted for them from office, then without question, we deserve everything that happens to us as a consequence. If we lose our freedoms to a tyrannical socialist/communist government, we have noone to blame but our stupid selves.
The big revelation that's hit me in the past couple of weeks is that we deserve everything that's happening. It turns out that most folks who pay the slightest attention to government and politics are blind partisans. They're not interested so much in what the government's actually doing to them, but just that their side is in charge.
That's why those who screamed bloody murder every day when Bush was in office suddenly don't really care that Obama's continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and doubling down on domestic surveillance programs.
The healthcare issue represents the most stark illustration of the diametrically opposed points of view between conservatives and liberals. Liberals trust the government as long as their comrades are running it, therefore the Big Brother details of the actuall health "reform" bills give them no pause. What I can't tell for certain is whether they know about the centralized control over everyone's treatment decisions, or if they simply choose to ignore that man behind the curtain simply because the Wizard of Ob tells them.
I caught Howard Dean decrying the ignorance of the opposition to the current healthcare legislation. Why, it's nothing more than offering the ability for people to buy into Medicare if they can't get acceptable coverage elsewhere. Wow, if that's all the bill is about, even I might be tempted to support it.
Problem is, the bill isn't even close to his characterization. Is that because he was putting forth his own idea as what the bill should do? Or is it that he's simply lying? I suppose you'd have to ask him; something his obsequious interviewer didn't have the temerity to do.
If you're a Democrat, you have no problem with a national healthcare panel deciding your fate if you get sick, presumably because you trust the person appointing the members of the panel. If you're not a Democrat, the very idea of some politically appointed panel of hacks deciding whether you deserve a surgery or cancer treatment or even a prescription drug sounds exactly like, well, a "death panel".
If Americans allow Healthcare and Cap & Trade to pass, then fail to remove everyone who voted for them from office, then without question, we deserve everything that happens to us as a consequence. If we lose our freedoms to a tyrannical socialist/communist government, we have noone to blame but our stupid selves.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Birthers
There's an internet-generated controversy over Obama's birthplace that has mostly come from Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily. Lou Dobbs at CNN did some stories on the controversy and the people behind it, and even though he's been very clear that he believes there's nothing to it, there's an outraged group of CNN'ers and other "journalists" calling for his head for simply airing the story.
There's so much obfuscation surrounding the story itself and Lou's audacious decision to give it airtime that I had to satisfy my curiosity and try to find out what all the fuss is about.
Obama of course hails from Hawaii, with a Kenyan father and hippie mother from Kansas. What the so-called "birthers" suggest is that he may indeed have been born in Kenya instead. There are apparently lots of folks in Kenya and relatives on his father's side who are saying that yes, indeed, Barry was born in Kenya.
So the question put forth by the "birthers" is simply this: If Obama was indeed born in Hawaii as he claims, why not produce the official birth certificate, hospital records, the name of the Obstetrician who delivered him, etc.? Instead, all that he has allowed to make public is an unofficial souvenier birth certificate.
The "birthers" have filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests for his college transcripts, copies of his writings while in college, and other related documents, which for some reason have been blocked by Obama's administration from public release. The "birthers" think that he may have obtained admission as un undergraduate under a foreign student policy, which they think may support their theory that he may at least hold dual citizenship.
From my perspective, it doesn't matter much whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya. It might result in some political advantage for Obama's opponents to find a lie over his place of birth, but I'm not sure there's any particular constitutional issue. He's a citizen simply by virtue of being the son of an American citizen, and it would seem unlikely that his election would be overturned based on whether or not he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.
On the other hand, I find it curious that he has so steadfastly refused to release the official birth certificate and other details of his birth. Why not put the whole thing to rest by simply authorizing the Hawaiian officials to release whatever the press wants to see? Fighting so hard to keep such records private does seem to suggest he has something to hide. Others have suggested it's simple arrogance - he just won't let his detractors have even the small victory of forcing him to release records if he doesn't want to.
Fighting the release of his College records makes more sense to me. It doesn't take much imagination to think of the mountains of ammunition such a release would give his opponents. There very easily could be information in those records that would reflect negatively on him, from grades to radical writings.
Why attack Lou Dobbs for simply airing the debate that many Americans are at least curious to hear? If the mission of the "birthers" is indeed a fool's errand, why does the story so enrage the monolithic journalist fraternity?
Might it be that they fear there may be a flame underneath all that smoke, and have made it their mission to snuff it out before the country catches a whiff?
How is this different than Dan Rather's reporting on the fake National Guard story about George W Bush? Even when the letter was proven to be produced on a word processor, Rather stuck with the story and claimed even though the actual letter might be a fake, that he believed the essence of the story was true in spite of absence of supporting evidence. Lou isn't even supporting the "birthers" claims, but merely airing them along with refuting claims from the other side.
Is this freedom of the press?
There's so much obfuscation surrounding the story itself and Lou's audacious decision to give it airtime that I had to satisfy my curiosity and try to find out what all the fuss is about.
Obama of course hails from Hawaii, with a Kenyan father and hippie mother from Kansas. What the so-called "birthers" suggest is that he may indeed have been born in Kenya instead. There are apparently lots of folks in Kenya and relatives on his father's side who are saying that yes, indeed, Barry was born in Kenya.
So the question put forth by the "birthers" is simply this: If Obama was indeed born in Hawaii as he claims, why not produce the official birth certificate, hospital records, the name of the Obstetrician who delivered him, etc.? Instead, all that he has allowed to make public is an unofficial souvenier birth certificate.
The "birthers" have filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests for his college transcripts, copies of his writings while in college, and other related documents, which for some reason have been blocked by Obama's administration from public release. The "birthers" think that he may have obtained admission as un undergraduate under a foreign student policy, which they think may support their theory that he may at least hold dual citizenship.
From my perspective, it doesn't matter much whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya. It might result in some political advantage for Obama's opponents to find a lie over his place of birth, but I'm not sure there's any particular constitutional issue. He's a citizen simply by virtue of being the son of an American citizen, and it would seem unlikely that his election would be overturned based on whether or not he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.
On the other hand, I find it curious that he has so steadfastly refused to release the official birth certificate and other details of his birth. Why not put the whole thing to rest by simply authorizing the Hawaiian officials to release whatever the press wants to see? Fighting so hard to keep such records private does seem to suggest he has something to hide. Others have suggested it's simple arrogance - he just won't let his detractors have even the small victory of forcing him to release records if he doesn't want to.
Fighting the release of his College records makes more sense to me. It doesn't take much imagination to think of the mountains of ammunition such a release would give his opponents. There very easily could be information in those records that would reflect negatively on him, from grades to radical writings.
Why attack Lou Dobbs for simply airing the debate that many Americans are at least curious to hear? If the mission of the "birthers" is indeed a fool's errand, why does the story so enrage the monolithic journalist fraternity?
Might it be that they fear there may be a flame underneath all that smoke, and have made it their mission to snuff it out before the country catches a whiff?
How is this different than Dan Rather's reporting on the fake National Guard story about George W Bush? Even when the letter was proven to be produced on a word processor, Rather stuck with the story and claimed even though the actual letter might be a fake, that he believed the essence of the story was true in spite of absence of supporting evidence. Lou isn't even supporting the "birthers" claims, but merely airing them along with refuting claims from the other side.
Is this freedom of the press?
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Environmentalism
The innocuous-sounding "Cap and Trade" bill wending its way through congress presents a timely opportunity for a discussion of the larger topic of environmentalism.
Cap and Trade is designed to inflict so much pain on consumers that, according to the liberal theology, they will respond with energy conservation and demand their power companies provide cheaper energy from government-endorsed "clean and renewable" sources.
The party in power, led by the recently crowned President, have declared a global crisis, which was first trumpeted by their former Vice-President and environmental activist Al Gore, as "Global Warming". Due to recent inconvenient climate cooling trends, the crisis has been re-labeled "Global Climate Change".
The message to all of is goes something like this: We Americans are living too high on the hog. We use too much energy, in fact way more than our share. We live in houses that are too big, drive vehicles that guzzle too much petroleum, buy too much unnecessary stuff from industries that spew pollution into the atmosphere. Our spoiled behavior is wrecking the planet, and it's far past time for the government to step in and force us to be good stewards of the environment.
Shrinking polar ice caps will raise the sea level and cause whole coastal states to slip beneath the waves. Catastrophic storms, failed crops, mass extinctions of flora and fauna, and other unspoken consequences will make the planet uninhabitable.
Anyone with the temerity to argue with these self-righteous "greens" is a member of the flat-earth society. They're called "ignorant", "oil company toadies", and "Climate Change Deniers". The science on this subject is "settled", and no competent climate scientist would dare challenge the tenets of the Church of Global Climate Change.
The topic holds some interest for me, so I've tried to learn whatever I can. I'm certainly no climate scientist, and am willing to approach the whole environmental topic with an open mind. I certainly think it's a good idea to do what we can to protect our natural resources, keep our water and air clean, and protect wildlife.
But the more I delve into the "science" behind the whole climate change question, the more I question the true motives of its proponents. Since a main conclusion I've reached is that those pushing hardest on the Cap and Trade bill are doing so based on a fervor that more resembles a cultish religion than science, I will refer to their crusade as part of the Church of Global Climate Change.
The High Priest of this movement is Al Gore, the former liberal Vice-President who has long carried the environmentalist banner, writing a couple of decades ago something about the most evil invention ever created by the human race being the internal combustion engine.
Now Gore has positioned himself to make billions of dollars when congress passes the Cap and Trade bill, which will make him one of the most powerful individuals in the world. Which seems to be his alternative strategy for achieving such power after losing the Presidency to George W Bush in 2000. While he jets around the world on his private plane and lives it up on his country estate, dwarfing the so-called "carbon footprint" created by about 99.9% of the rest of us, I can't help but suspect he may be more of a false prophet than a High Priest of Global Climate Change.
The other way I evaluate this whole topic is by simply listen to its most ardent disciples. They are appalled at American prosperity, believing it's somehow unfair to the rest of the world. They think it's wrong that Americans can live in nice houses with manicured lawns and raise children in suburbia, ferrying them to soccer matches in the family Suburban.
My conclusion is that while many of these folks may indeed be true believers in the Church of Global Climate Change, they have a larger agenda in mind. They think there are too many people crowding the planet, and want to force the rest of us to limit our families to 1 child. It seems to fit nicely with their equally ardent support of abortion, and many (like Hillary, for example) have admitted an admiration for China's government-enforced one child policy.
They think we all should live in small apartments in the city and ride the train and/or ride a bicycle to and from work every day. They think everyone should make about the same salary, except for their leaders, who somehow deserve special perks and priviledges like those enjoyed by their High Priest because they're such awesome protectors of the environment.
They want the government to provide cradle-to-grave matermalistic oversight in every aspect of our lives, from where we live to where we work to what we eat to what we drive (if we must drive) to what medical care we may or may not receive.
I visited the Soviet Union in the 70's, and interestingly the above describes that society pretty accurately. Rather than go into the human misery and hopelessness I witnessed there, I'll summarize the trip in this manner: It made me appreciate my American way of life in a way I'd never considered before making that trip.
So it's becoming obvious to me that Cap and Trade, along with Healthcare Reform, are not working their way through congress to improve the environment or increase access of Americans to medical care. They are about transforming America from the Land of the Free to the Socialist States of America.
Cap and Trade is designed to inflict so much pain on consumers that, according to the liberal theology, they will respond with energy conservation and demand their power companies provide cheaper energy from government-endorsed "clean and renewable" sources.
The party in power, led by the recently crowned President, have declared a global crisis, which was first trumpeted by their former Vice-President and environmental activist Al Gore, as "Global Warming". Due to recent inconvenient climate cooling trends, the crisis has been re-labeled "Global Climate Change".
The message to all of is goes something like this: We Americans are living too high on the hog. We use too much energy, in fact way more than our share. We live in houses that are too big, drive vehicles that guzzle too much petroleum, buy too much unnecessary stuff from industries that spew pollution into the atmosphere. Our spoiled behavior is wrecking the planet, and it's far past time for the government to step in and force us to be good stewards of the environment.
Shrinking polar ice caps will raise the sea level and cause whole coastal states to slip beneath the waves. Catastrophic storms, failed crops, mass extinctions of flora and fauna, and other unspoken consequences will make the planet uninhabitable.
Anyone with the temerity to argue with these self-righteous "greens" is a member of the flat-earth society. They're called "ignorant", "oil company toadies", and "Climate Change Deniers". The science on this subject is "settled", and no competent climate scientist would dare challenge the tenets of the Church of Global Climate Change.
The topic holds some interest for me, so I've tried to learn whatever I can. I'm certainly no climate scientist, and am willing to approach the whole environmental topic with an open mind. I certainly think it's a good idea to do what we can to protect our natural resources, keep our water and air clean, and protect wildlife.
But the more I delve into the "science" behind the whole climate change question, the more I question the true motives of its proponents. Since a main conclusion I've reached is that those pushing hardest on the Cap and Trade bill are doing so based on a fervor that more resembles a cultish religion than science, I will refer to their crusade as part of the Church of Global Climate Change.
The High Priest of this movement is Al Gore, the former liberal Vice-President who has long carried the environmentalist banner, writing a couple of decades ago something about the most evil invention ever created by the human race being the internal combustion engine.
Now Gore has positioned himself to make billions of dollars when congress passes the Cap and Trade bill, which will make him one of the most powerful individuals in the world. Which seems to be his alternative strategy for achieving such power after losing the Presidency to George W Bush in 2000. While he jets around the world on his private plane and lives it up on his country estate, dwarfing the so-called "carbon footprint" created by about 99.9% of the rest of us, I can't help but suspect he may be more of a false prophet than a High Priest of Global Climate Change.
The other way I evaluate this whole topic is by simply listen to its most ardent disciples. They are appalled at American prosperity, believing it's somehow unfair to the rest of the world. They think it's wrong that Americans can live in nice houses with manicured lawns and raise children in suburbia, ferrying them to soccer matches in the family Suburban.
My conclusion is that while many of these folks may indeed be true believers in the Church of Global Climate Change, they have a larger agenda in mind. They think there are too many people crowding the planet, and want to force the rest of us to limit our families to 1 child. It seems to fit nicely with their equally ardent support of abortion, and many (like Hillary, for example) have admitted an admiration for China's government-enforced one child policy.
They think we all should live in small apartments in the city and ride the train and/or ride a bicycle to and from work every day. They think everyone should make about the same salary, except for their leaders, who somehow deserve special perks and priviledges like those enjoyed by their High Priest because they're such awesome protectors of the environment.
They want the government to provide cradle-to-grave matermalistic oversight in every aspect of our lives, from where we live to where we work to what we eat to what we drive (if we must drive) to what medical care we may or may not receive.
I visited the Soviet Union in the 70's, and interestingly the above describes that society pretty accurately. Rather than go into the human misery and hopelessness I witnessed there, I'll summarize the trip in this manner: It made me appreciate my American way of life in a way I'd never considered before making that trip.
So it's becoming obvious to me that Cap and Trade, along with Healthcare Reform, are not working their way through congress to improve the environment or increase access of Americans to medical care. They are about transforming America from the Land of the Free to the Socialist States of America.
Friday, July 24, 2009
My Most Popular Postings
If you've stumbled across the blog recently, I got the idea to create this post with the most popular articles to date.
Far and away my most popular post is the progressive income tax metaphor.
Number 2 seems close, but I'll go with my post on Conflict.
Next, at #3 would be a series of posts about the saga of Barry Huckeby and his brief but interesting stint at Columbus North High School. The series includes the following:
Mystery
The Story Unfolds
Interesting Stuff from the Weekend
The Story Gets Stranger
The Controversy Continues
Some Interesting Information on Huckeby
The Huckeby Saga Draws to a Close
Number 4 is a post about Fighting Cynicism in today's crazy world.
Number 5 is a football post entitled Friday Night Lights - even though it's rather old, it still gets visited.
The best of the rest go something like this:
Musings on Fiddler on the Roof
A post on our proud and growing group of narcissists who exhibit their narcissism in a quasi-religious fervor.
My own little account of what happened to the characters after the events portrayed in the musical/movie Grease.
Finally, a recent post about the supreme court decision on the Connecticut firefighters and reverse discrimination.
Take a browse through these favorites, or at least any that catch your interest.
Thanks for reading!
Far and away my most popular post is the progressive income tax metaphor.
Number 2 seems close, but I'll go with my post on Conflict.
Next, at #3 would be a series of posts about the saga of Barry Huckeby and his brief but interesting stint at Columbus North High School. The series includes the following:
Mystery
The Story Unfolds
Interesting Stuff from the Weekend
The Story Gets Stranger
The Controversy Continues
Some Interesting Information on Huckeby
The Huckeby Saga Draws to a Close
Number 4 is a post about Fighting Cynicism in today's crazy world.
Number 5 is a football post entitled Friday Night Lights - even though it's rather old, it still gets visited.
The best of the rest go something like this:
Musings on Fiddler on the Roof
A post on our proud and growing group of narcissists who exhibit their narcissism in a quasi-religious fervor.
My own little account of what happened to the characters after the events portrayed in the musical/movie Grease.
Finally, a recent post about the supreme court decision on the Connecticut firefighters and reverse discrimination.
Take a browse through these favorites, or at least any that catch your interest.
Thanks for reading!
Prisms
The story of the Massachusetts cop who arrested the black professor gave us an interesting example of the different prisms people use to look out on the world. What should have been a routine check on a homeowner to make sure his home had not been burglarized became an ugly incident because of the distortion of a predisposed racial prism.
For the professor, who is perhaps an extreme example of the racial agitator, the incident was all about "racial profiling". For President Obama, who admitted knowing little of the facts of the incident, a knee-jerk reaction caused him to assume the officer acted inappropriately and "stuplidly".
What I gleaned from the underlying facts reported of the event was simply this: The white officer had the misfortune of responding to a suspected burglary call in the wrong residence. A racial activist who harbors an intense hatred for a society and law enforcement community he believes is racist jumped to the conclusion that the officer arrived at his home for no reason other than to harass him because he's black.
Without the racist prism distorting the professor's interpretation of the police officer's motives, he would have simply provided identification, thanked the officer for his concern, and there would have been no incident. Instead, he became enraged and abusive, refusing to provide any identification to the officer and accusing him, loudly and profanely, of racial profiling in assuming he was a burgler in his own home.
The hypersensitivity exhibited in this case by both Professor Gates and President Obama is an unfortunate illustration of what I think may be the biggest problem remaining in race relations. I've observed similar hypersensitivity firsthand, with black folks who immediately assume race is behind any conflict or negative experience when in fact, race played absolutely no role.
I remember years ago some black folks in Washington DC sued Denny's restaurant. Their charge was that Denny's refused to serve them because they were black. When I read about the circumstances surrounding the event, I had to laugh. Because they experienced something I've experienced at least one out of every three times I've ever gone to a Denny's restaurant: bad service. I wasn't laughing at anything related to racism; I was laughing because they simply experienced the same bad service we all get to experience from time to time at Denny's.
Now it may be that Denny's has cleaned up their act and now have consistently great service. I don't know. But back at the time of that incident, it hadn't been a month since I had visited a Denny's, got seated at a table, placed my order with the waitress, and never saw her again. Which is pretty much what those folks used as grounds for suing the restaurant chain.
What will it take to get to a point where we all deal with each other as individuals? Things that happen to us don't necessarily happen because of our outward appearance. I wish everyone could stop using such things as a crutch or an excuse; "I didn't get the job because of age/race/weight/smoking/religious/gender discimination!".
Hate to break it to you, but most of the time you didn't get the job because they hired somebody more qualified. OK, or maybe they hired the boss' nephew. But your age/race/weight/smoking habit/religion/gender had nothing to do with it.
For the professor, who is perhaps an extreme example of the racial agitator, the incident was all about "racial profiling". For President Obama, who admitted knowing little of the facts of the incident, a knee-jerk reaction caused him to assume the officer acted inappropriately and "stuplidly".
What I gleaned from the underlying facts reported of the event was simply this: The white officer had the misfortune of responding to a suspected burglary call in the wrong residence. A racial activist who harbors an intense hatred for a society and law enforcement community he believes is racist jumped to the conclusion that the officer arrived at his home for no reason other than to harass him because he's black.
Without the racist prism distorting the professor's interpretation of the police officer's motives, he would have simply provided identification, thanked the officer for his concern, and there would have been no incident. Instead, he became enraged and abusive, refusing to provide any identification to the officer and accusing him, loudly and profanely, of racial profiling in assuming he was a burgler in his own home.
The hypersensitivity exhibited in this case by both Professor Gates and President Obama is an unfortunate illustration of what I think may be the biggest problem remaining in race relations. I've observed similar hypersensitivity firsthand, with black folks who immediately assume race is behind any conflict or negative experience when in fact, race played absolutely no role.
I remember years ago some black folks in Washington DC sued Denny's restaurant. Their charge was that Denny's refused to serve them because they were black. When I read about the circumstances surrounding the event, I had to laugh. Because they experienced something I've experienced at least one out of every three times I've ever gone to a Denny's restaurant: bad service. I wasn't laughing at anything related to racism; I was laughing because they simply experienced the same bad service we all get to experience from time to time at Denny's.
Now it may be that Denny's has cleaned up their act and now have consistently great service. I don't know. But back at the time of that incident, it hadn't been a month since I had visited a Denny's, got seated at a table, placed my order with the waitress, and never saw her again. Which is pretty much what those folks used as grounds for suing the restaurant chain.
What will it take to get to a point where we all deal with each other as individuals? Things that happen to us don't necessarily happen because of our outward appearance. I wish everyone could stop using such things as a crutch or an excuse; "I didn't get the job because of age/race/weight/smoking/religious/gender discimination!".
Hate to break it to you, but most of the time you didn't get the job because they hired somebody more qualified. OK, or maybe they hired the boss' nephew. But your age/race/weight/smoking habit/religion/gender had nothing to do with it.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Core Values and Healthcare
So the big fuss is about the push led by Obama and his minions to impose a massive government bureaucracy on us all in the name of providing everyone with healthcare.
If you listen closely and know how to translate the populist rhetoric into real-world objectives, what I've gleaned from the current proposals is discouraging. The Big 3 of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have a government healthcare plan that:
Will cost a trillion dollars minimum.
Has the goal of covering everybody for everything. That includes things some of us don't want our taxes paying for, like illegal alien care, gender reassignment surgeries, abortions, perhaps even those sexual performance enhancer drugs.
Purposely sets up a government program run by Washington bureaucrats that will "compete" with private health insurers. That would seem to mean the program is designed to put private insurers out of business.
Will raise taxes on businesses and the "wealthy" to cover part of the cost.
Won't do anything to reform the system. Real healthcare cost problems like Tort Reform with its related Defensive Medicine practices, inefficient and slow claims processing, even unhealthy behaviors linked to medical problems have no solution in this program.
From my perspective, all this really does is replace private healthcare with a government system. The government taxes us to pay for a new layer of bureucracy that adds to the cost rather than reduces it, transfers all the private profits in the system into the pockets of the political and bureaucrat class, and rations care.
Obama himself suggested that if you're old and sick, rather than saving you with the needed treatment or surgery, his new heathcare czar will issue you some pain medicine and a pat on the head.
May I offer some simple fundamental principles that should drive any so-called "healthcare reform"?
1. I am responsible for my and my family's medical care.
2. To protect myself from financial ruin from a possible major illness or injury, I should be able to buy into a risk pool of my choosing that would cover costs should such a major problem occur for me or my family.
3. I should pay for routine doctor visits, prescriptions, etc., out of my pocket.
4. The government should have no right to even ask whether I have health insurance. If I choose not to carry insurance, the financial risk of that decision is mine alone. Even so, should such a disaster happen to someone in my family, bankruptcy would be the last resort - I would first try everything I can to pay the bills for such care.
5. Non-citizens may pay for their own medical care while in the United States. Not a penny of tax money should be used to care for those who cross the border illegally. Not that they should not receive critical care when needed; but they should be fully liable for the cost. Not me. Not any other citizen of this country.
6. Healthcare providers first and foremost are in the business of treating sick and injured people. It's an individual moral responsibility for every provider to treat such people at reasonable rates.
7. Tort lawyers are responsible for obtaining justice for patients who were victims of real malpractice. The surgeon was drunk, the hospital failed to keep the facility sanitary and caused a massive patient infection, the nurse decided to kill a patient with a lethal dose of some drug. Those are incidents of malpractice that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not every time a common complication happens with a surgery, or someone was misdiagnosed by an otherwise competent doctor.
When did it become OK for people to demand others take care of them? I seem to remember there was a time in this country when taking charity or welfare was a cause for shame and embarrassment; now it's expected - no, demanded!
These days values are sneered at. Politicians risk their position if they speak the truth.
There is no solution to the healthcare "crisis" as long as nobody cares to take responsibility. We're about to see the "crisis" turn into a meltdown, simply because our narcissistic generation led by our narcissistic President don't even know what the word "values" means.
If you listen closely and know how to translate the populist rhetoric into real-world objectives, what I've gleaned from the current proposals is discouraging. The Big 3 of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have a government healthcare plan that:
Will cost a trillion dollars minimum.
Has the goal of covering everybody for everything. That includes things some of us don't want our taxes paying for, like illegal alien care, gender reassignment surgeries, abortions, perhaps even those sexual performance enhancer drugs.
Purposely sets up a government program run by Washington bureaucrats that will "compete" with private health insurers. That would seem to mean the program is designed to put private insurers out of business.
Will raise taxes on businesses and the "wealthy" to cover part of the cost.
Won't do anything to reform the system. Real healthcare cost problems like Tort Reform with its related Defensive Medicine practices, inefficient and slow claims processing, even unhealthy behaviors linked to medical problems have no solution in this program.
From my perspective, all this really does is replace private healthcare with a government system. The government taxes us to pay for a new layer of bureucracy that adds to the cost rather than reduces it, transfers all the private profits in the system into the pockets of the political and bureaucrat class, and rations care.
Obama himself suggested that if you're old and sick, rather than saving you with the needed treatment or surgery, his new heathcare czar will issue you some pain medicine and a pat on the head.
May I offer some simple fundamental principles that should drive any so-called "healthcare reform"?
1. I am responsible for my and my family's medical care.
2. To protect myself from financial ruin from a possible major illness or injury, I should be able to buy into a risk pool of my choosing that would cover costs should such a major problem occur for me or my family.
3. I should pay for routine doctor visits, prescriptions, etc., out of my pocket.
4. The government should have no right to even ask whether I have health insurance. If I choose not to carry insurance, the financial risk of that decision is mine alone. Even so, should such a disaster happen to someone in my family, bankruptcy would be the last resort - I would first try everything I can to pay the bills for such care.
5. Non-citizens may pay for their own medical care while in the United States. Not a penny of tax money should be used to care for those who cross the border illegally. Not that they should not receive critical care when needed; but they should be fully liable for the cost. Not me. Not any other citizen of this country.
6. Healthcare providers first and foremost are in the business of treating sick and injured people. It's an individual moral responsibility for every provider to treat such people at reasonable rates.
7. Tort lawyers are responsible for obtaining justice for patients who were victims of real malpractice. The surgeon was drunk, the hospital failed to keep the facility sanitary and caused a massive patient infection, the nurse decided to kill a patient with a lethal dose of some drug. Those are incidents of malpractice that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not every time a common complication happens with a surgery, or someone was misdiagnosed by an otherwise competent doctor.
When did it become OK for people to demand others take care of them? I seem to remember there was a time in this country when taking charity or welfare was a cause for shame and embarrassment; now it's expected - no, demanded!
These days values are sneered at. Politicians risk their position if they speak the truth.
There is no solution to the healthcare "crisis" as long as nobody cares to take responsibility. We're about to see the "crisis" turn into a meltdown, simply because our narcissistic generation led by our narcissistic President don't even know what the word "values" means.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Questioning Motives
I just saw this article about Jimmy Carter, who has left his Southern Baptist church. For me, it just adds fuel to my increasing speculation about the motives of the broader group of Leftist America in which he values his membership over that of the Baptists.
Sure, the article praises him from the liberal feminist perspective. Without any knowledge of the underlying theology in question, I suppose any ignorant reader would presume that Southern Baptists hold the belief that women must be enslaved, subservient to men, and certainly treated as second-class citizens. The article goes so far as to equate the Baptists with Iran, suggesting they're no better than those Muslims who justify all manner of abuse of the fairer sex as a tenet of their religion.
So Jimmy finds this appalling, thus has used it to justify his departure from the denomination. I notice the article fails to mention whether Jimmy is moving to another congregation more in tune with his liberal sensibilities. Does that suggest he's left the faith altogether?
It would seem so. If he's so profoundly ignorant about the truth of Christian theology, which I can reasonably assume has been adopted by the Southern Baptists because of their tradition on Biblical teaching, then I'm guessing he hasn't been in the pew for a very long time.
The larger question for me parallels nicely with today's healthcare debate. Are these people really so naieve and ignorant that they're willing to destroy the country with a government takeover of the entire healthcare industry? Or do they know exactly what they're doing, and the objective is complete and total domination over all American lives?
The characterizations of the fast-track healthcare overhaul made by the President are so far removed from the obvious ramifications of the actual bill that the same question must be posed even more simply: Is Obama really that naieve about what Congress is trying to foist on all of us, or is he simply an unabashed liar?
It has to be one or the other. If the first, then he's far from qualified to hold such an important office. If the second, then he cannot be trusted with any office.
Sure, the article praises him from the liberal feminist perspective. Without any knowledge of the underlying theology in question, I suppose any ignorant reader would presume that Southern Baptists hold the belief that women must be enslaved, subservient to men, and certainly treated as second-class citizens. The article goes so far as to equate the Baptists with Iran, suggesting they're no better than those Muslims who justify all manner of abuse of the fairer sex as a tenet of their religion.
So Jimmy finds this appalling, thus has used it to justify his departure from the denomination. I notice the article fails to mention whether Jimmy is moving to another congregation more in tune with his liberal sensibilities. Does that suggest he's left the faith altogether?
It would seem so. If he's so profoundly ignorant about the truth of Christian theology, which I can reasonably assume has been adopted by the Southern Baptists because of their tradition on Biblical teaching, then I'm guessing he hasn't been in the pew for a very long time.
The larger question for me parallels nicely with today's healthcare debate. Are these people really so naieve and ignorant that they're willing to destroy the country with a government takeover of the entire healthcare industry? Or do they know exactly what they're doing, and the objective is complete and total domination over all American lives?
The characterizations of the fast-track healthcare overhaul made by the President are so far removed from the obvious ramifications of the actual bill that the same question must be posed even more simply: Is Obama really that naieve about what Congress is trying to foist on all of us, or is he simply an unabashed liar?
It has to be one or the other. If the first, then he's far from qualified to hold such an important office. If the second, then he cannot be trusted with any office.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Simple Solutions
The proposition: Nearly every major issue in America would be solved if only a plurality of the population found a basic moral code.
Healthcare could be solved if
Providers were focused on treating people above getting rich
Insurers were focused on covering everyone for major medical needs rather than the healthy who have no medical needs.
People saw their healthcare as a personal responsibility rather than some sort of government-bestowed "right".
Lawyers focused on justice for patients who were actually harmed by incompetent or irresponsible providers, rather than using the courts to extort massive fees for themselves.
The economy wouldn't be in a shambles if
People learned to live within their means and didn't routinely buy more than they can afford.
Merchants and Dealers focused on selling their products to those who truly need them.
The government learned to live within their means and stopped trying to buy power with taxpayer handouts.
Irresponsible players in both the public and private sectors stopped creating schemes like those that led to the current meltdown.
Crime and Child Abuse wouldn't be such big problems if
People learned to take responsibility for themselves and their families.
Government focused social programs on helping people get on their feet instead of incenting them permanent dependents.
People adopted simple monogamy and respected the institution of marriage and the nuclear family.
Employers provided reasonable living wages and family-friendly work environments.
Employers stopped importing foreign workers for the sole purpose of driving down payroll expenses.
Government stopped taxing middle-class families into poverty.
The pattern emergine here is simple and obvious. A moral society is the simplest solution to all of today's problems.
But we're no longer a moral society. Obviously, nearly everyone with power and wealth are focused on maintaining such regardless of how that focus impacts the lives of others.
So these problems will not be solved by the Left's strategy, which is to accumulate power into their hands through a huge, expensive, and oppressive government.
Nor will they be solved by the Right's purported strategy, which is to globalize and consolidate mega-corporate industry for maximization of profit for the captains of industry.
What I understand is this: fixing the excesses of the big-business Right by massive government takeovers merely shifts the same unhealthy power into different hands. Giving big business unfettered license to consolidate their megalopolies destroys competition and living standards for the working class.
The only model that works is a free market with moral players. Government can't enforce morality, but they can enforce antitrust and immigration laws. Small businesses that value employees and focus on providing products and services that benefit people I strongly believe are truly the most successful.
Unfortunately, the unmeasured morality factor is the most important of all the economic indicators. And that measure, by all appearances, may be reaching an all-time low for this great country that has forgotten its founding principles.
Healthcare could be solved if
Providers were focused on treating people above getting rich
Insurers were focused on covering everyone for major medical needs rather than the healthy who have no medical needs.
People saw their healthcare as a personal responsibility rather than some sort of government-bestowed "right".
Lawyers focused on justice for patients who were actually harmed by incompetent or irresponsible providers, rather than using the courts to extort massive fees for themselves.
The economy wouldn't be in a shambles if
People learned to live within their means and didn't routinely buy more than they can afford.
Merchants and Dealers focused on selling their products to those who truly need them.
The government learned to live within their means and stopped trying to buy power with taxpayer handouts.
Irresponsible players in both the public and private sectors stopped creating schemes like those that led to the current meltdown.
Crime and Child Abuse wouldn't be such big problems if
People learned to take responsibility for themselves and their families.
Government focused social programs on helping people get on their feet instead of incenting them permanent dependents.
People adopted simple monogamy and respected the institution of marriage and the nuclear family.
Employers provided reasonable living wages and family-friendly work environments.
Employers stopped importing foreign workers for the sole purpose of driving down payroll expenses.
Government stopped taxing middle-class families into poverty.
The pattern emergine here is simple and obvious. A moral society is the simplest solution to all of today's problems.
But we're no longer a moral society. Obviously, nearly everyone with power and wealth are focused on maintaining such regardless of how that focus impacts the lives of others.
So these problems will not be solved by the Left's strategy, which is to accumulate power into their hands through a huge, expensive, and oppressive government.
Nor will they be solved by the Right's purported strategy, which is to globalize and consolidate mega-corporate industry for maximization of profit for the captains of industry.
What I understand is this: fixing the excesses of the big-business Right by massive government takeovers merely shifts the same unhealthy power into different hands. Giving big business unfettered license to consolidate their megalopolies destroys competition and living standards for the working class.
The only model that works is a free market with moral players. Government can't enforce morality, but they can enforce antitrust and immigration laws. Small businesses that value employees and focus on providing products and services that benefit people I strongly believe are truly the most successful.
Unfortunately, the unmeasured morality factor is the most important of all the economic indicators. And that measure, by all appearances, may be reaching an all-time low for this great country that has forgotten its founding principles.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
How to Solve the Gay Marriage Problem
This is my brilliant plan for solving the Gay Marriage problem in a way that may not please anybody, but at the same should stop the public argument about the subject.
It's simply this: Take the institution of Marriage away from the government.
The idea is to eliminate all the government benefits extended to married couples, thus putting the whole institution back where it belongs; as a sacramental commitment.
Suppose you could file a joint tax return with any other adult, where there's no reference to "Married filing jointly", just merely "Filing jointly". You could file jointly with a parent, sibling, spouse, or roommate - the government doesn't care.
You buy your insurance for yourself only or yourself plus one other adult. The other adult could be anybody, as long as he or she lives in your household. Even more importantly, whether or not you and the other adult are having sex is irrelevant to the relationship. Employers would provide health insurance options for Employee Only, Employee Plus One Adult, or Employee Plus Family (including one adult).
You can name anybody you want in your will, partner with anybody you want for all financial transactions, even name anybody you want as a surviving beneficiary for your Social Security death benefits.
If you have children, you will always be financially responsible for them. Whether you are married to the other parent or not. That goes for adopted as well as natural children.
If you live with someone under a spousal-type arrangement, a civil contract must be in place that defines what happens if the two of you split up. Then instead of divorce court, the only legal activity would be suits brought by one party or the other to enforce the civil contract - whatever it says.
So churches remain free to decide for themselves whether or not to bless same-sex "marriages". Everyone else is free to decide for themselves whether to enter into the civil and sacramental marriage contract.
I do think adoption agencies should be free to decide their own screening process for adoptive parents. If an agency discriminates against single adoptive parents or same-sex partners or wierd people, that's their right.
It won't make the gay activists happy, because for some of them the agenda is less about an actual "marriage right" and more about getting government to force those who think it's aberrant to shut up and give them preferencial treatment.
It may not make religious conservatives happy, who believe traditional marriage and the nuclear family is the foundation of a moral and harmonious society. But they can't argue that this plan forces them to support gay marriage in any specific way.
Wouldn't this make for an interesting debate? I know, dream on.
It's simply this: Take the institution of Marriage away from the government.
The idea is to eliminate all the government benefits extended to married couples, thus putting the whole institution back where it belongs; as a sacramental commitment.
Suppose you could file a joint tax return with any other adult, where there's no reference to "Married filing jointly", just merely "Filing jointly". You could file jointly with a parent, sibling, spouse, or roommate - the government doesn't care.
You buy your insurance for yourself only or yourself plus one other adult. The other adult could be anybody, as long as he or she lives in your household. Even more importantly, whether or not you and the other adult are having sex is irrelevant to the relationship. Employers would provide health insurance options for Employee Only, Employee Plus One Adult, or Employee Plus Family (including one adult).
You can name anybody you want in your will, partner with anybody you want for all financial transactions, even name anybody you want as a surviving beneficiary for your Social Security death benefits.
If you have children, you will always be financially responsible for them. Whether you are married to the other parent or not. That goes for adopted as well as natural children.
If you live with someone under a spousal-type arrangement, a civil contract must be in place that defines what happens if the two of you split up. Then instead of divorce court, the only legal activity would be suits brought by one party or the other to enforce the civil contract - whatever it says.
So churches remain free to decide for themselves whether or not to bless same-sex "marriages". Everyone else is free to decide for themselves whether to enter into the civil and sacramental marriage contract.
I do think adoption agencies should be free to decide their own screening process for adoptive parents. If an agency discriminates against single adoptive parents or same-sex partners or wierd people, that's their right.
It won't make the gay activists happy, because for some of them the agenda is less about an actual "marriage right" and more about getting government to force those who think it's aberrant to shut up and give them preferencial treatment.
It may not make religious conservatives happy, who believe traditional marriage and the nuclear family is the foundation of a moral and harmonious society. But they can't argue that this plan forces them to support gay marriage in any specific way.
Wouldn't this make for an interesting debate? I know, dream on.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Irrational Hatred
I had an interesting conversation with someone this week about the divisiveness and hatred apparent in the political system. We agreed that each side of the political divide strive to paint their opponents as evil personified.
Naturally, the first case in point was President Bush, who was demonized by the Left even when he did things they would otherwise support. Also noted is the hypocrisy, as we recalled, the Left was apoplectic with the terrorist surveillance program, which they were absolutely certain was designed to listen in on their Bush-hating telephone rants with like-minded irrationals. But now that their messianic president has Homeland Security openly surveilling "potential terrorists" like pro-lifers, NRA members, and, well, conservatives, they agree wholeheartedly.
The latest example is Sarah Palin. We agreed that leftist hatred for her and its accompanying meanness is baffling. What is it about the soon-to-be-former governor of Alaska that sends left-wingers and especially radical feminists off the cliff?
Interestingly, when she abruptly announced her resignation from the governorship of Alaska, the usual kooky lefts in the blogs and MSNBC automatically dreamed up all sorts of nasty fantasies in explanation. Which of course are all patently false, but when has that ever stopped folks like the straightjacket-needing Olberman.
Even David Letterman famously got in the act, trashing Palin at every turn with unfunny "jokes" and crossing the line with a particularly crude one about her daughter. What exactly is it about Sarah that drives even Dave running down the road to the funny farm?
Does the hatred come from her looks? That she's demonstrated solid pro-life values? That she's attractive? Could it be it's just because she's conservative?
From Katie Couric to Dave Letterman to the entire lineup on MSNBC to even some Republican pundits, the mere mention of Sarah makes veins pop out on their foreheads and vile words pour out of their mouths.
Maybe it's a female thing we men (at least conservative or moderate men) will never understand. I sure don't.
Naturally, the first case in point was President Bush, who was demonized by the Left even when he did things they would otherwise support. Also noted is the hypocrisy, as we recalled, the Left was apoplectic with the terrorist surveillance program, which they were absolutely certain was designed to listen in on their Bush-hating telephone rants with like-minded irrationals. But now that their messianic president has Homeland Security openly surveilling "potential terrorists" like pro-lifers, NRA members, and, well, conservatives, they agree wholeheartedly.
The latest example is Sarah Palin. We agreed that leftist hatred for her and its accompanying meanness is baffling. What is it about the soon-to-be-former governor of Alaska that sends left-wingers and especially radical feminists off the cliff?
Interestingly, when she abruptly announced her resignation from the governorship of Alaska, the usual kooky lefts in the blogs and MSNBC automatically dreamed up all sorts of nasty fantasies in explanation. Which of course are all patently false, but when has that ever stopped folks like the straightjacket-needing Olberman.
Even David Letterman famously got in the act, trashing Palin at every turn with unfunny "jokes" and crossing the line with a particularly crude one about her daughter. What exactly is it about Sarah that drives even Dave running down the road to the funny farm?
Does the hatred come from her looks? That she's demonstrated solid pro-life values? That she's attractive? Could it be it's just because she's conservative?
From Katie Couric to Dave Letterman to the entire lineup on MSNBC to even some Republican pundits, the mere mention of Sarah makes veins pop out on their foreheads and vile words pour out of their mouths.
Maybe it's a female thing we men (at least conservative or moderate men) will never understand. I sure don't.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Hill Responds
So I got an answer from congressman Hill on my letter pleading with him to vote against the Cap & Trade bill. If anybody happens to read this and got the same letter, I'd appreciate it if you leave a comment and let me know. I really want to know whether this was a response to my letter or a form letter he sent to everybody.
Draw your own conclusions on the main question; is he a "true believer", had his head turned by The Great and Powerful OB, been threatened by Boss Pelosi, or all of the above?
Dear Mr. S******,
Thank you for writing to express your concerns about the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important matter.
We cannot continue to push the issue of addressing climate change onto future generations. It would be a complete shirking of my responsibilities as your Member of Congress to do that. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently moving forward to regulate green house gases as a pollutant, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA.
It is important that Congress set up a reasonable system to regulate emissions from all sectors of our economy, and ensure that targets and timetables included are feasible. Yes, this is a complex issue, and with something of this magnitude the details are absolutely critical. In fact, the original proposal was simply not achievable for Indiana. But, I worked with the Committee to significantly change the bill into a more realistic plan, and that process will continue as the bill moves through Congress. I believe that, although it is not currently a perfect product, the issue is too important to stop the legislative process.
I believe we made several important improvements to the draft. First, in order to cushion our transition to a clean energy economy, the majority of allowances were given to affected industries. These allowances, given to regulated entities, will ensure that prices do not spike and that companies do not receive windfall profits. Second, manufacturing industries will be compensated for their cost of compliance, and countries that do not adopt green house gas standards will face trade consequences from the United States to ensure the continued competitiveness of American manufacturing. Third, the original renewable energy standard was not practicable for Indiana, but it was moderated to a level at which Indiana can achieve results.
Regarding the details, I have worked diligently to safeguard the taxpayers' of Southern Indiana from being unfairly penalized by the bill. For example, I secured language in the legislation that will allow waste-to-energy to count as a source of renewable energy, thus making the overall Renewable Electricity Standard more attainable for Indiana. In addition, I was able to get a provision in the bill that develops a rebate program to make the purchase of energy-efficient manufactured homes more affordable and accessible.
Southern Indiana possesses the tools to play a key role in this process, and I believe our manufacturing base will attract clean energy jobs. Technological advances in clean energy, such as carbon capture and storage technology, can and will be exported all over the world. Our agriculture community will play a vital role in offsetting green house gases, and will also play a crucial role in cost containment. Finally, our universities, such as Indiana University, are well poised to be at the leading edge of our technological future.
I have been in touch with stakeholders in Southern Indiana, working to ensure that our goals and aspirations in this bill are both well intentioned and achievable. I am happy to report that a major power supplier in Indiana is supportive of the bill continuing to make its way through the legislative process. Again, this bill is at the start of a long process. I look forward to making additional improvements to this bill that will strengthen protections for Hoosier families, our agriculture community and local industries.
Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. Please feel free to call me at 202.225.5315 if you have any further questions or comments. If you would like to receive periodic email updates on my Congressional activities, please visit http://baronhill.house.gov.
Draw your own conclusions on the main question; is he a "true believer", had his head turned by The Great and Powerful OB, been threatened by Boss Pelosi, or all of the above?
Dear Mr. S******,
Thank you for writing to express your concerns about the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important matter.
We cannot continue to push the issue of addressing climate change onto future generations. It would be a complete shirking of my responsibilities as your Member of Congress to do that. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently moving forward to regulate green house gases as a pollutant, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA.
It is important that Congress set up a reasonable system to regulate emissions from all sectors of our economy, and ensure that targets and timetables included are feasible. Yes, this is a complex issue, and with something of this magnitude the details are absolutely critical. In fact, the original proposal was simply not achievable for Indiana. But, I worked with the Committee to significantly change the bill into a more realistic plan, and that process will continue as the bill moves through Congress. I believe that, although it is not currently a perfect product, the issue is too important to stop the legislative process.
I believe we made several important improvements to the draft. First, in order to cushion our transition to a clean energy economy, the majority of allowances were given to affected industries. These allowances, given to regulated entities, will ensure that prices do not spike and that companies do not receive windfall profits. Second, manufacturing industries will be compensated for their cost of compliance, and countries that do not adopt green house gas standards will face trade consequences from the United States to ensure the continued competitiveness of American manufacturing. Third, the original renewable energy standard was not practicable for Indiana, but it was moderated to a level at which Indiana can achieve results.
Regarding the details, I have worked diligently to safeguard the taxpayers' of Southern Indiana from being unfairly penalized by the bill. For example, I secured language in the legislation that will allow waste-to-energy to count as a source of renewable energy, thus making the overall Renewable Electricity Standard more attainable for Indiana. In addition, I was able to get a provision in the bill that develops a rebate program to make the purchase of energy-efficient manufactured homes more affordable and accessible.
Southern Indiana possesses the tools to play a key role in this process, and I believe our manufacturing base will attract clean energy jobs. Technological advances in clean energy, such as carbon capture and storage technology, can and will be exported all over the world. Our agriculture community will play a vital role in offsetting green house gases, and will also play a crucial role in cost containment. Finally, our universities, such as Indiana University, are well poised to be at the leading edge of our technological future.
I have been in touch with stakeholders in Southern Indiana, working to ensure that our goals and aspirations in this bill are both well intentioned and achievable. I am happy to report that a major power supplier in Indiana is supportive of the bill continuing to make its way through the legislative process. Again, this bill is at the start of a long process. I look forward to making additional improvements to this bill that will strengthen protections for Hoosier families, our agriculture community and local industries.
Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. Please feel free to call me at 202.225.5315 if you have any further questions or comments. If you would like to receive periodic email updates on my Congressional activities, please visit http://baronhill.house.gov.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)