tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-86004509282201746322024-03-13T05:29:11.942-06:00Mush SpeaksBe ye Kind . . .mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-928963101938080352010-12-05T15:01:00.005-07:002010-12-05T15:19:09.081-07:00Before and After Medifast<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xNzEIqrjVQU/TPwMi_wYl1I/AAAAAAAAAB8/-Xf79QG352w/s1600/2.JPG"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 400px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xNzEIqrjVQU/TPwMi_wYl1I/AAAAAAAAAB8/-Xf79QG352w/s400/2.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5547322636383065938" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xNzEIqrjVQU/TPwNfcGAstI/AAAAAAAAACE/wNlnCZZMEX8/s1600/004.JPG"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 400px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xNzEIqrjVQU/TPwNfcGAstI/AAAAAAAAACE/wNlnCZZMEX8/s400/004.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5547323674782118610" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xNzEIqrjVQU/TPwOnMVI0tI/AAAAAAAAACM/78v51-42jCo/s1600/002.JPG"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 400px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xNzEIqrjVQU/TPwOnMVI0tI/AAAAAAAAACM/78v51-42jCo/s400/002.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5547324907501179602" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br />I put these here so as to give people the choice of seeing them or not. Eye bleach may be necessary after viewing. The program I used was Medifast. It was hard to stick to, but there is no arguing with the results . . . it works! One can't exercise while on the program, however, so I'm really excited to exercise now, not for the purpose of losing weight anymore but to be healthy and happy!<br /><br />If any of you are interested in doing the same program, send me a message on Facebook or email me. Like I said, it works!mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-80000324712548060492010-04-08T12:56:00.003-06:002010-04-08T13:40:34.540-06:00Thomas Sowell's, "The Fallacy of Fairness"If you'd like to read this on a site with a white background and black font, <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/fair-233570-europe-groups.html">click here.</a><br /><br />If there is ever a contest to pick which word has done the most damage to people's thinking, and to actions to carry out that thinking, my nomination would be the word "fair." It is a word thrown around by far more people than have ever bothered to even try to define it.<br /><br />This mushy vagueness may be a big handicap in logic but it is a big advantage in politics. All sorts of people, with very different notions about what is or is not fair, can be mobilized behind this nice-sounding word, in utter disregard of the fact that they mean very different things when they use that word.<br /><br />Some years ago, for example, there was a big outcry that various mental tests used for college admissions or for employment were biased and "unfair" to many individuals or groups. Fortunately there was one voice of sanity – David Riesman, I believe – who said: "The tests are not unfair. LIFE is unfair and the tests measure the results."<br /><br />If by "fair" you mean everyone having the same odds for achieving success, then life has never been anywhere close to being fair, anywhere or at any time. If you stop and think about it (however old-fashioned that may seem), it is hard even to conceive of how life could possibly be fair in that sense.<br /><br />Even within the same family, among children born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, the firstborns on average have higher IQs than their brothers and sisters, and usually achieve more in life.<br /><br />Unfairness is often blamed on somebody, even if only on "society." But whose fault is it if you were not the firstborn? Since some groups have more children than others, a higher percentage of the next generation will be firstborns in groups that have smaller families, so such groups have an advantage over other groups.<br /><br />Despite all the sound and fury generated in controversies over whether different groups have different genetic potential, even if they all have identical genetic potential the outcomes can still differ if they have different birth rates.<br /><br />Twins have average IQs several points lower than children born singly. Whether that is due to having to share resources in the womb or having to share parents' attention after birth, the fact is what it is – and, it certainly is not fair.<br /><br />Many people fail to see the fundamental difference between saying that a particular thing – whether a mental test or an institution – is conveying a difference that already exists or is creating a difference that would not exist otherwise.<br /><br />Creating a difference that would not exist otherwise is discrimination, and something can be done about that. But, in recent times, virtually any disparity in outcomes is almost automatically blamed on discrimination, despite the incredible range of other reasons for disparities between individuals and groups.<br /><br />Nature's discrimination completely dwarfs man's discrimination. Geography alone makes equal chances virtually impossible. The geographic advantages of Western Europe over Eastern Europe – in climate and navigable waterways, among other things – have led to centuries of differences in income levels that were greater than income differences between blacks and whites in America today.<br /><br />Just the fact that the lay of the land is different in different parts of Europe meant that it was easier for the Roman legions to invade Western Europe. This meant that Western Europeans had the advantages of the most advanced civilization in Europe at that time. Moreover, because Roman letters were used in Western Europe, the languages of that region had written versions centuries before the Slavic languages of Eastern Europe did.<br /><br />The difference between literacy and illiteracy is a huge difference, and it remained huge for centuries. Was it the Slavs' fault that the Romans did not want to climb over so many mountains to get to them?<br /><br />To those living in Western Europe in the days of the Roman Empire, the idea of being conquered, and many slaughtered, by the Romans probably had no great appeal. But their descendants would benefit from their bad luck. And that doesn't seem fair either.<br /><br />A recent flap in a Berkeley high school reveals what a farce "fairness" can be. Because this is ultra-liberal Berkeley, perhaps we should not be surprised that a proposal has been made to eliminate four jobs as science teachers and use the money saved for programs to help low achievers.<br /><br />In Berkeley, as in many other communities across the country, black and Latino students are not performing as well as Asian and white students. In fact, the racial gap in academic achievement at Berkeley High School is the highest in California – no doubt a special source of embarrassment in politically correct Berkeley.<br /><br />According to the principal, "Our community at Berkeley High School has failed the African-Americans." Therefore "We need to bring everybody up – that's what this plan is about."<br /><br />Surely no one, not even in Berkeley, seriously believes that you will "bring everybody up" by eliminating science teachers. This is a proposal to redistribute money from science to social work, by providing every student with advisors on note-taking, time management and other learning skills.<br /><br />The point is to close educational gaps among groups, or at least go on record as trying. As with most equalization crusades, whether in education or in the economy, it is about equalizing downward, by lowering those at the top. "Fairness" strikes again!<br /><br />This is not just a crazy idea by one principal in Berkeley. It is a crazy idea taught in schools of education across the country. A professor of education at the University of San Francisco has weighed in on the controversy at Berkeley, supporting the idea of "projects designed to narrow the achievement gap."<br /><br />In keeping with the rhetoric of the prevailing ideology, our education professor refers to "privileged" parents and "privileged" children who want to "forestall any progress toward equity."<br /><br />In the language of the politically correct, achievement is equated with privilege. Such verbal sleight of hand evades the question whether individuals' own priorities and efforts affect outcomes, whether in education or in other endeavors. No need to look at empirical evidence when a clever phrase can take that whole question off the table.<br /><br />This verbal sleight of hand is not confined to education. A study of incomes of various groups in Toronto concluded that Canadians of Japanese ancestry were the most "privileged" group in that city. That is, people of Japanese ancestry there had higher incomes than members of other minorities and higher than that of the white majority in Toronto.<br /><br />What makes the "privileged" label a particularly bad joke in this case is a history of blatant discrimination against the Japanese in Canada in years past, including a longer internment during World War II than that of Japanese Americans. But, to some on the left, the very concept of achievement must be banished by all means necessary, regardless of the facts.<br /><br />Achievement by overcoming obstacles is a special threat to the left's vision of the world, and so must be magically transformed into privilege through rhetoric.<br /><br />Those with that vision do not want to even discuss evidence that students from different groups spend different amounts of time on homework and different amounts of time on social activities. To admit that inputs affect outputs, whether in education, in the economy or in other areas, would be to undermine the vision and agenda of the left, and deprive those who believe in that vision of a moral melodrama, starring themselves as defenders of the oppressed and crusaders against the forces of evil.<br /><br />Redistribution of material resources has a very poor track record when it comes to actually helping those who are lagging, whether in education, in the economy or elsewhere. What they need are the attitudes, priorities and behavior which produce the outcomes desired.<br /><br />But changing anyone's attitudes, priorities and behavior is a lot harder than taking a stance as defenders of the oppressed and crusaders against the forces of evil.<br /><br />To the extent that doing the latter misdiagnoses the problem, it makes solving the problem even harder. That does no good for those who are lagging, however much it exalts those who pose as their defenders. "Fairness" indeed!<br /><br />Most of us want to be fair, in the sense of treating everyone equally. We want laws to be applied the same to everyone. We want educational, economic or other criteria for rewards to be the same as well. But this concept of fairness is not only different from prevailing ideas of fairness among many of the intelligentsia, it contradicts their idea of fairness.<br /><br />People like philosopher John Rawls call treating everyone alike merely "formal" fairness. Professor Rawls advocated "a conception of justice that nullifies the accidents of natural endowment and the contingencies of social circumstances." He called for a society which "arranges" end-results, rather than simply treating everyone the same and letting the chips fall where they may.<br /><br />This more hands-on concept of fairness gives third parties a much bigger role to play. But whether any human being has ever had the omniscience to determine and undo the many differences among people born into different families and cultures – with different priorities, attitudes and behavior – is a very big question. And to concentrate the vast amount of power needed to carry out that sweeping agenda is a dangerous gamble, whose actual consequences have too often been written on the pages of history in blood.<br /><br />There is no question that the accident of birth is a huge factor in the fate of people. What is a very serious question is how much anyone can do about that without creating other, and often worse, problems. Providing free public education, scholarships to colleges and other opportunities for achievement are fine as far as they go, but there should be no illusion that they can undo all the differences in priorities, attitudes and efforts among different individuals and groups.<br /><br />Trying to change whole cultures and subcultures in which different individuals are raised would be a staggering task. But the ideology of multiculturalism, which pronounces all cultures to be equally valid, puts that task off limits. This paints people into whatever corner the accident of birth has put them.<br /><br />Under these severe constraints, all that is left is to blame others when the outcomes are different for different individuals and groups. Apparently those who are lagging are to continue to think and act as they have in the past – and yet somehow have better outcomes in the future. And, if they don't get the same outcomes as others, then according to this way of seeing the world, it is society's fault!<br /><br />Society may lavish thousands of dollars per year on schooling for a youngster who does not bother to study, and yet when he or she emerges as a semi-literate adult, it is considered to be society's fault if such youngsters cannot get the same kinds of jobs and incomes as other youngsters who studied conscientiously during their years in school.<br /><br />It is certainly a great misfortune to be born into families or communities whose values make educational or economic success less likely. But to have intellectuals and others come along and misstate the problem does not help to produce better results, even if it produces a better image.<br /><br />Political correctness may make it hard for anyone to challenge the image of helpless victims of an evil society. But those who are lagging do not need a better public relations image. They need the ability to produce better results for themselves – and a romantic image is an obstacle to directing their efforts toward developing that ability.<br /><br />Tests and other criteria which convey the realities of their existing capabilities, compared to that of others, can have what is called a "disparate impact," and are condemned not only in editorial offices but also in courts of law.<br /><br />But criteria exist precisely to have a disparate impact on those who do not have what these criteria exist to measure. Track meets discriminate against those who are slow afoot. Tests in school discriminate against students who did not study.<br /><br />Disregarding criteria in the interest of "fairness" – in the sense of outcomes independent of inputs – adds to the handicaps of those who already have other handicaps, by lying to them about the reasons for their situation and the things they need to do to make their situation better.<br /><br />Mixed up with the question of fairness to individuals and groups has been the explosive question of whether individuals and groups have the innate ability to perform at the same levels, if they are all treated alike or even given the same objective opportunities.<br /><br />Intellectuals have swung from one side of this question at the beginning of the 20th century to the opposite side at the end. Both those who said that achievement differences among races and classes were due to genes, in the early years of the 20th century, and those who said that these differences were due to discrimination, in the later years, ignored the old statisticians' warnings that correlation is not causation.<br /><br />The idea that some people are innately superior (usually one's own group) goes back for centuries, but various new facts that came out in the 19th and early 20th centuries gave the appearance of "science" to such beliefs during the Progressive era.<br /><br />Sir Francis Galton's research turned up the fact of remarkable achievements among members of the same family, which he regarded as evidence of genetic superiority. The rise of IQ testing, and especially the massive mental testing of soldiers in the U.S. Army during the First World War, showed great differences in test scores among various racial and ethnic groups.<br /><br />In the public schools, there were similarly large differences in which ethnic group's children failed to get promoted. In both the Army mental tests and in the schools, Polish Jews did poorly at that time. Carl Brigham – a leading authority on mental tests and the author of the SAT – said that the Army tests tended to "disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent."<br /><br />It should be noted that all of these conclusions were based on hard data, not mere "perceptions" or "stereotypes," as so many inconvenient facts are dismissed today. What was wrong were not the data but the inferences.<br /><br />Polish Jews were among the many immigrants from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe who were relatively recent arrivals in the United States. Many of these immigrants grew up in homes where English was not spoken, as Carl Brigham acknowledged in later years, when he recanted his earlier statements. In later years, Jews scored above average on mental tests.<br /><br />It is also a hard fact of history that some races had far more advanced technological, economic and other achievements than others at particular times and places. But those who were ahead in some centuries were often behind in other centuries – the Chinese and the Europeans having changed positions dramatically after Europe eventually caught up with China and then surpassed it within recent centuries. But there was no evidence of any dramatic changes in genetics among either the Chinese or the Europeans.<br /><br />While striking changes in the relative positions of different races at different periods of history undermine genetic explanations, the fact that there has been no period when their achievements have been the same undermines today's presumption that different economic or other outcomes are due to discrimination.<br /><br />Whatever the innate capacity of any race, class or other group, what pays off in the real world are developed capabilities, and these have never been the same – or even close to being the same – for individuals or groups.<br /><br />All the leading brands of beer in the United States were created by people of German ancestry and so is the leading beer in China, not to mention breweries created by Germans in Australia, Argentina and elsewhere. Germans were producing beer in the days of the Roman Empire.<br /><br />This does not mean that beer brewing skill is genetic but it also does not mean that this skill – or any other skill – is randomly distributed among peoples, so that a failure to have equal "representation" of groups in a given institutions can be presumed to be due to discrimination by that institution.<br /><br />Fairness as equal treatment does not produce fairness as equal outcomes. The confusion between the two meanings of the same word has created enormous mischief, much of it at the expense of lagging groups, who have been distracted from the things that would enable them to catch up. And whole societies have been kept in a turmoil pursing a will o' the wisp in the name of "fairness."mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-48668025469480699522010-03-25T10:55:00.003-06:002010-03-26T12:59:43.923-06:00I am not Emmanuel Goldstein.In George Orwell's 1984, Emmanuel Goldstein is public enemy number one. He's a terrorist, the biggest threat to the government, and the subject of the famed two-minutes hate. However, the reader discovers toward the end of the book that Goldstein most likely doesn't even exist. So why all the attention and vitriol toward a fictitious entity? This alleged threat to the ruling party was more likely than not an elaborate orchestration bent on keeping the people psychologically dependent on Big Brother. In other words, if the ruling class can marginalize its enemies while keeping them close to the stream of social consciousness as ever present threats, then the easier it is for the ruling class to gain and keep the favor of the masses. <br /><br />This is what I see happening to me and the entire Tea Party, 9/12 groups in this nation. Because I espouse conservative/libertarian/Constitutional principles, I am diametrically opposed to the direction our government is taking the country. All the legislative compromises throughout the history of this country have inched us closer and closer to increased government control. I mean we certainly aren't moving away from it. We started out right of center, but bill after bill, executive order after order, and Supreme Court ruling and another has landed us squarely on the left. I mean, we can barely see the center anymore. <br /><br />Therefore, the current powers that be and many of their supporters have created an Emmanuel Goldstein of sorts out of this movement. This straw man they've created hates the poor and wishes the speedy demise of those without health insurance, all in the name of greed. They've bolstered the Goldstein image by taking the theatrical manner in which Glenn Beck conveys his message and negatively linking it to those who agree with his political ideology. Never mind the message! Just LOOK at THAT CHALKBOARD and those cascading TEARS! <br /><br />Many at the town hall meetings across the country last summer voiced their discontent to their elected officials, but due to the impassioned way in which they did it, all of a sudden everyone associated with this movement is a rabid, racist, fear-monger. This is why we see a push to associate the alleged death threats against our elected officials to conservative talkers and the Tea Party movement. They're trying to marginalize us! That's why Pelosi exultantly walked to the Capital last Sunday afternoon with gavel in hand to pass Obamacare and did so directly through the crowds of opposition. She was trying to incite the opposition to violence so that she and others in power could further demonize them and everyone associated with them. <br /><br />Now, if your view of this movement on the right is or has been clouded by this straw-man, Emmanuel Goldstein type propaganda, then I urge you to cut through the hype and fallacy and look for the merits of the principled argument. We're not as divided as you may think.mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-58990660174868146172010-03-22T09:07:00.002-06:002010-03-22T14:30:33.124-06:00Questions regarding ObamacareFor those of you who received yesterday’s news from the House of Representatives with celebration and rejoicing, I sure would love some accountability and serious responses to the following questions. Please, no pathos or obfuscations.<br /><br />I hereby candidly but respectfully call you out! Your silence may speak volumes about your position.<br /><br />1. Based on principle, how can you justify infringing on the inalienable rights of many in order to enhance what <span style="font-style:italic;">you</span> consider to be the rights of others?<br /><br />2. Defend the premise that free access or government mandated lower costs to health care are inalienable rights.<br /><br />3. Given our current economic situation combined with our debt obligations to other countries and our total national debt, how do we pay for this? How will we pay for a single payer system, which is the president's desire and the desire of many others in power?<br /><br />4. How is it not selfish and unconstitutional to require by law that everyone else satisfy your individual wants and needs regarding health care? <br /><br />5. Just because advancements in medicine extend the average human life span longer than ever before, why should you or anyone else get free access to the benefits of those advancements when they were innovated and developed by the hard work of others?<br /><br />6. How is it an infringement on someone's rights when those who provide medical care require compensation proportionate to their skill, experience, and expertise? <br /><br />7. How is it not an infringement on someone's rights when the government requires you to purchase a service or product at the threat of penalties, fines, etc?<br /><br />If you were bent on the passage of this bill, then I don't think some well thought out answers to these questions are too much to ask.mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-63210533419816009082010-03-09T10:19:00.004-07:002010-03-09T10:22:20.398-07:00The State Religion of IrreligionLiving in a Time of Ironies <br /><br /><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QaBDxkAprjo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QaBDxkAprjo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-13669164630885882232010-02-21T22:56:00.000-07:002010-02-21T22:58:28.705-07:00Glenn Beck CPAC 2010The following is Glenn Beck's key note address at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) this last weekend. I invite everybody to watch it. If you're not a fan of Glenn Beck, I still encourage you to watch it but to do so non-objectively. <br /><br />Withhold your opinion of Beck, and see what you make out of the substantive presentation. I completely affirm his position in this speech.<br /><br />PART ONE<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DHDuHZVhIgM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DHDuHZVhIgM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />PART TWO<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d9-QtQislRk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d9-QtQislRk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />PART THREE<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DdfU3y0ZYYs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DdfU3y0ZYYs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />PART FOUR<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WNH6o2s1p-w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WNH6o2s1p-w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />PART FIVE<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9lrNdQP9zWQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9lrNdQP9zWQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />PART SIX<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1k9UqsPXE9g&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1k9UqsPXE9g&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-18621299469364120652010-02-10T12:18:00.002-07:002010-02-10T12:59:04.511-07:00Power Struggle?Some pundits have recently explained that the overall distaste the majority of Americans feel toward the federal government is because it just seems that both parties are only interested in power. I agree.<br /><br />However, the movement seen within the Republican Party, the tea party or the 9/12ers, differs from both parties in how it is devoid of power lust. Candidates born of this movement only seek positions in DC to see that the power in America stays where it belongs, with the people. They know that Washington is broken because the majority who serve there have usurped and continue to usurp power from the people in efforts to further their own reelections and to satisfy the wishes of lobbyists and big business. It's pretty simple, really. The incumbent receives huge campaign donations from the lobbyists who want to keep him or her there, and with those huge campaign contributions they crush the competition. It's classic win-win. The politicians keep their seats, and the lobbyists ensure that legislation passes to further the interests of the companies they represent. <br /><br />Unlike conflict management as seen in "The Office," however, this is not a win-win-win situation. The politicians win, and the lobbyists win, but the people lose, and here's why. First of all, money is not a zero sum game in this country, but power is. The politicians and lobbyists don't create power out of nothing; they can only get it from the people. This power theft is exemplified by the unbridled spending of both parties. They have enslaved us and future generations with unprecedented amounts of debt, and all of you with personal debt know what's like to be a slave to your monthly payments, right? Well the government maxed out our nation's credit cards long ago, and they continue to grant themselves greater limits. But they keep maxing them out with each extension. <br /><br />This problem will ruin this nation, and as far as I can see, none in either party will have a solution so long as they remain corrupted. <br /><br />This new grassroots movement, however . . .mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-31647035861321109052010-01-21T13:45:00.004-07:002010-01-22T13:27:10.126-07:00WrongSorry, Mr. President, but the majority of voters in Massachusetts didn't vote for Scott Brown for the same reason that the rest of the country voted for you. They're not sending Brown to Washington as a knee-jerk reaction to the Bush era. Scott Brown will fill the seat democrats have long since designed to support the buttocks of one of their own, and he will do so because his electorate is upset with you and your progressive style of huge government. Thankfully, enough people in this country are sufficiently versed in constitutional government and the history of this nation's founding that they see right through your policies that unfortunately have no historical merit and are founded in Utopian, marshmallow wonder. And no, the problem isn't that you got too busy and forgot to truly explain things to the American people. Not even my parents remember a president who released more statements, gave more interviews, and was on television more than you were. Not even close. We get what you're saying, but luckily we have not descended too far as a society that you can treat us like an Orwellian proletariat and further your agenda without a fight.<br /><br />This country is right of center, always has been and always will be (hopefully). So by all means, continue to perambulate toward your own and your party's ruin with your progressive, leftist, and radical ideology. Or you could try to channel 1995 Clinton and move to the center, but even if you do, it's too late. We already know what you really want.mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-40133697803184277862010-01-13T08:11:00.003-07:002010-01-13T17:58:41.775-07:00The Liberal/Progressive PoliticianI'm an easy going, cheerful kind of guy, and there are few things in this world for which I have serious contempt. One of those things is the liberal/progressive politician. This rare, pretentious, and haughty "civil servant" operates on the premise and assumption that the American people don't know and can't do what's best for themselves without the intercessory guidance and aid of a strong, centralized government. Nancy Pelosi is one such and perhaps the very personification of the sort. In her most recent op-ed piece she describes the task ahead of the current congress and declares it the mission of congress to build a new economy. Huh?<br /><br />Call me stupid, but I don't know how our government goes about the work of building an economy unless it has assumed more power and authority than otherwise permitted in the constitution. And I don't know of any government that produced a very successful economy anyway. However, Pelosi and the like are deluded into thinking that somehow they know better, and if we morons would just get out of their way, then we'd all be fine. <br /><br />Would someone try and sell me on this?<br /><br />The only thing the American people need from Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is for them to get out of the way and let us take care of ourselves.mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-82290514160402946172010-01-06T15:46:00.006-07:002010-01-07T08:23:33.192-07:00At least they're trying to fix things!A common theme I hear from those who support Obama and his agenda is the paltry, "well at least he's trying to fix things!" This defense seems almost automatic as I and countless others continue to criticize the president and congress. Our logic is sound, and our arguments valid, but <i>at least they're doing something!</i> What this argument does is emphasizes a core distinction between liberals and conservatives. Liberals are somehow deluded into believing that the majority of our nation's elected officials are altruistically motivated and that they really want what's best for us and can get it done. And it's this kind of delusion and ignorance that has elected this circus of a congress with some of the lowest approval ratings ever and a dithering White House whose approval ratings have plummeted with historic speed (Again, bare in mind that I am no Republican Party homer but an espouser of conservative ideals). And granted, some bureaucrats may desire to use the government for good, but consider the following example of government impotence even with good intentions. The percentage of poor people in this country is STILL the same as it was when the government declared war on poverty some forty years ago. Say what?<br /><br />Conservatives simply understand that governments don't fix things; the people do. What government officials do is get elected and reelected on the promissory illusion of fixing things. <br /><br />Obviously there are the necessaries like departments of transportation, the police, the military and the like, but outside providing for the "general welfare" of the people, the government just does not fix things. It makes things worse via its own expansion. In this time of economic decline and recession, the only sector that has grown is the public sector. Unfortunately their isn't one solitary government outfit or position that turns a profit, and you know what that means? We the people have to pay those salaries. Again, yes, it is absolutely necessary that tax dollars go to provide for the necessaries, but this nation will collapse on itself as the sector that doesn't produce continues to squeeze money out of the one that does. <i>While I'm on that note, I'm increasingly enraged when I hear politicians say they're going to focus on creating jobs. THEY DON'T CREATE JOBS! The greatest impact they ever had on the job market was to lower taxes so that actual profit turning companies can grow their companies. That is it!</i> (Note my astute use of italics to convey emotion.)<br /><br />To sum up, conservatives send candidates to office to do less, to legislate as dictated in the constitution. Liberals send them to fix stuff. Fixing things is not a government forte but rather that of a free people. Even with all the corresponding ups and downs, successes and failures, it is a free, responsible, and accountable people that is the most successful.mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-55726350121985903642009-12-15T09:22:00.004-07:002009-12-15T11:47:23.375-07:00Copenhagen CollapseLet me be brief. The world leaders that have converged on Denmark for the Copenhagen Climate Summit have done so with <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell">1,200 limos and 140 private planes</a>. Oh the irony!<br />So what is supposedly worse for the environment, the abundance of hot CO2 emitted from the mouths of all these leaders or their modes of transportation?<br /><br />The truth is that these leaders aren't as concerned with the environment as they are with money, power, and control. The redistributive responsibility of trillions of dollars is possibly at stake, and there's not a self-important politician in the world who doesn't want a piece of that action. <br /><br />Trust in and deference to the government is foolhardy I tell you . . . FOOLHARDY!mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-81901044070104045132009-11-05T17:58:00.009-07:002009-11-11T12:16:12.637-07:00The Big Tent PhilosophyI conceptualized something about conservatism over the past few days that highlights a profound distinction it has from other forms of political thought. Many of the supposed elite in the Republican Party want the GOP to incorporate a “big tent” philosophy which requires no adherence to any ideology and accepts a vast array of viewpoints. However, the big tent party philosophy is in most respects antithetical to conservatism, and here's why. Conservatives espouse the idea that certain principles and values, when followed by individuals and governments, lead to peace and success. In order for these principles to yield future achievement, however, they require prospective adherents to manipulate their thoughts, words, and actions so as to coincide with those principle and values. It requires huge efforts from the individual and huge restraint from the government. Be it understood, though, that conservatism does not necessarily discourage varying perspectives and diverse thought. It simply admonishes that these perspectives not contradict the aforementioned values and principles. For a succinct list of these principles and values, click <a href="http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">here<span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span></a>.<br /><br />However, liberal ideology promotes the idea of a big tent, all inclusive kind of political party. On a side note, however, all viewpoints are welcome inside the tent provided they are not conservative. Those in the tent seek to marginalize others with a conservative point of view by using ad hominem attacks and labels such as right-wing-extremist or terrorist, tea bagger, nazi, and hatemonger, just to mention a few. However, this big tent philosophy seems to be so wildly popular among liberals and progressives because <i>more is expected from the majority in securing the individual's success rather than more being expected from the individual.</i><br /><br />Inside this big tent, minority groups are neither required nor encouraged to forgive the culture and the individuals who systematically oppressed their ancestors, and they are also not required to forgive those who continue to mistreat them. This has gotten so out of hand that even language from a white person in this big tent is to be straight way censored and the white person swiftly punished in the event his or her language honestly criticizes individual members of other races. The responses to Rush Limbaugh’s involvement in a group interested in purchasing the St. Louis Rams exemplify this reality. They branded him a racist for bigoted things he never said, and they also hammered him for other things he said which weren’t actually racist. <b>Therefore, this philosophy is more focused on promoting a culture where the extreme and superfluous censorship of many is preferred over teaching and expecting others to forgive and to be humble</b>. <br /><br />The all inclusive, all loving big tent of liberal thought also discourages the belief in a supreme being from whom all human rights originate. This view point is repellent in the big tent because it also teaches that the right to marriage extends only to one man and one woman. They hate and disparage this point of view, and they label those who have it as hate-mongers, homophobes, and religious extremists (among other things). As a conservative maintaining this belittled belief, I neither hate nor am fearful of anyone who participates in a homosexual relationship, and I am not deluded into regarding myself as superior. However, I reserve my constitutionally protected right to vote according to my conservative value system, and I respect the right of others to vote contrarily. Though some may be fear-mongers and hateful, the vast majority votes according to the peaceful dictates of its individual consciences. But according to the big tent philosophy, <b>these many are expected to abandon their principles and values in order to accommodate the desires of a few</b>, thus again requiring much from the majority while requiring nothing from the minority.<br /><br />The big tent philosophy will ultimately fail those who desire cozy residence therein, and it will fail the nation it now seeks to fundamentally change. This illusion of this all accepting, all inclusive, and all loving philosophy will fail because it ventures away from the simple mandates of the constitution; big tent<i>ism</i> ventures away from the security and anchor of sound principle. The Declaration of Independence refers to this idea as <i> the laws of nature and of nature's God</i>. Accordingly, the constitution has provided the freedom that produced the most exceptional, successful, and flourishing nation ever designed (Like it or not, conservatism is the only ideology left that champions the constitution and <a href="http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">intentions <span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span></a>of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, etc). No other nation's story in the annals of history compares to the greatness of this one, and its success can only be renewed and replicated by quickly abandoning "big tent" thinking and by strictly adhering to constitutional principle. Unfortunately, our current administration refers to it as a charter of negative liberties and laments that it limits the government's power and doesn't enhance it. Go back over the last few years, and you will see that our government has acted contrary to the constitution, and we are and will be the worse off for it if we allow them to continue.mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-11435320132151512212009-02-11T20:48:00.004-07:002009-02-12T13:17:48.009-07:00Obama supporters, you got some 'splaining to doPlease know before you read this that I am a proponent of neither political party, but my ideology is founded in the principles of conservatism and libertarianism. I understand how it is easy to confuse conservatism with the previous Republican administration and dominated houses of congress. Historically the Republican party based its roots in conservative values; however, the past eight years represent a departure there from, so don’t confuse conservatism with republicanism. The following is a challenge to all those who voted President Obama into office.<br /><br />Would somebody please make a case for this spending bill? Would somebody explain how incurring more and more debt by spending our grandchildren’s money is fiscally responsible and how it salvages hurting economies? Would someone please substantiate! I understand how allotting money to our infrastructure can be a boon, but only a small fraction of this bill is dedicated to that. The reasons presented by the president and other congressional leaders are that something has to be done. We can’t just stand by and do nothing! We have to act! Only the government can fix this current crisis! My high school English teachers would have failed my papers if my arguments had been as vague and lacking in evidence.<br /><br />Just remember this—the president’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, recently declared one of his political philosophies and values by saying, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste,” and it looks like they’re milking the fear associated with the current economic crisis for all it’s worth. By all accounts, this bill isn’t even a stimulus package. It is a partisan spending agenda; that’s all.<br /><br />Sure, something has to be done. Yes, we have to act, but can you or anyone else defend this spending? Can anyone tout the merits of government spending as they relate to economies? Can you convince me that the biggest governmental power grab in history will restore or create the kind of economic prosperity that has been achieved otherwise? When has a government of man ever been known to create prosperity? Historically, a free market system has proven most effective; it hasn’t been proven perfect, but given the failings of big tax and spend governments worldwide, a free market, capitalistic economy has far surpassed the rest.<br /><br />Consider the following parenting philosophy where any time children fall, make mistakes, or get hurt, the parents rush to their aid and rescue them. These are referred to as helicopter parents. Unfortunately, children born under this kind of nurturing fail to competently problem solve and make appropriate decisions for themselves as they become adults. When mother and father are nowhere to be seen, these kids are crippled. How then are the actions of our government toward these recently failing companies any different? Go ahead, little one, engage in sub-prime lending. Mummy and Daddy are here for you should anything go wrong. After all, you’re too important to fail.<br /><br />If we had stayed true to our free market, capitalistic system, then these companies would have either pulled through on their own steam, or they would have failed and closed their doors. Allowing them leeway to succeed and fail has its consequences; nevertheless, it would be according to the free market system that allowed them to succeed in the first place. The system is cyclical; where one falls, another rises in its stead. Unfortunately, it appears that too many have lost the bravery necessary to weather the storm, and Mr. Obama seems to be pandering to that fear.<br /><br />Go back and study the effects of governmental intervention and you will see that Roosevelt’s New Deal not only did nothing to fix the Great Depression, but his efforts prolonged it. It was the need created by World War II that set things straight, but Mr. Obama thinks the New Deal was ineffective because Roosevelt didn’t spend enough. Then how much more do we need to spend? The government has already spent trillions! They can’t even account for the 700 billion they all too recently spent nor the stimulus package of last summer nor the efficacy of recent bailouts. And you want them to spend more of your money? We the people can’t afford to pay for leaders, Democrats or Republicans who can’t balance their own budget. We simply can’t foot the bill anymore.<br /><br />You may rebut and say that “of course we can pay for it. The rich of this nation make too much as it is, and they should be the ones to pay for this and that, and such and such.” Don’t you get it? The more they are taxed, the less they will be able to make, and the less they make, the fewer tax dollars they have pay for the socialist state that system would create. Furthermore, what incentive do they have to increase productivity when the government puts a cap on their success and earnings anyway? Answer me that! Eventually that well runs dry too!<br /><br />So please, defend the social spending initiatives as they relate to restoring our economy. Help me see the hope that encouraged your support for our president. Defend your rational that would freely send more money to a system that is already up to its eye balls in debt, a system that has proven to be irresponsible in the dissemination of the people’s money. Is there a foundation to your logic, or is it just hope?<br /><br />And another thing . . .<br /><br />Every citizen of this nation should expect success in life to come of their own efforts. However, that isn’t to say that some people don’t experience great hardship and difficulty as they pursue happiness and success. Many are in need and do suffer. They most certainly do, but perhaps if we juxtaposed the sufferings of those in this nation with the sufferings of the poor in Honduras or Haiti, maybe we would cease to bemoan and condemn the free market system whereby we have come to enjoy our prosperity. When we talk about the hungry, suffering, uneducated masses of this country, do we refer to the naked two-year-old scavenging for food, the little boy whose own excrement remains pasted to his inner thighs, whose stomach is overly bloated from malnourishment? Do we refer to the woman making cakes to eat whose main ingredient is clay? Are we talking about moms and dads trying to provide for their families on less than two dollars a day? I doubt it. And tell me—do these people have access to food stamps? Can they get Medicaid? Will they receive unemployment benefits when they lose their jobs? Do their children have state funded public education and facilities where they can safely gather to learn? Do their children have more to eat besides a scant portion of rice and a meager gathering of beans? Do they even have uncontaminated water to drink? I’ve seen poverty there, and I’ve seen it here. There is no comparison, only a stark contrast between one land filled with opportunity and another starving for any opportunity. So to all public officials, please stop politicizing the plight of the poor in our country. It’s embarrassing.mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-17980644747995562002009-01-10T20:52:00.003-07:002009-01-11T23:27:29.751-07:00Glenn Beck's Jesus not the Jesus of the Bible?Recently, Focus on the Family, a self proclaimed Christian organization, decided to retract an interview they published that featured Glenn Beck, an interview centered around his recent book, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Christmas Sweater</span>. Throughout the book and during the interview, Glenn discusses in some measure a few basic tenets of his faith which are founded in the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The withholding of the interview seems to be born of simple ambivalence, ambivalence on the part of Focus on the Family. While they hold Glenn Beck in high esteem, they also deny his Christianity. According to them, because he is "Mormon," he is therefore not Christian. I assume it is Glenn's goodness that the organization highly regards; however, if that goodness is not founded in Christianity, rhetorically speaking, then where is it founded? They don't accept Glenn for his faith, but they believe he embodies, at least in some regard, characteristics of goodness. But if all goodness doesn't find its origin in Christ, then from whence does a Mormon's come if a Mormon be not Christian? Do those espousing the teachings of the Nicene Creed believe that goodness can also find its origins elsewhere? I don't know.<br /><br /> What is most unfortunate about this situation is that the Christian leaders associated with Focus on the Family chose to focus on that which divides instead of unites. They chose a doctrine of exclusion over the more Christian doctrine of inclusion. However, their Mormon, "non-Christian" counterparts believe that all religions, though their names for God and manners of worship are different, believe in the same Supreme power that rules the universe. Ask their leaders, and that's what they'll tell you. However, if you find intriguing the doctrines unique to their manner of worship, Mormon leaders would invite your honest and sincere investigation. If you don't care for those doctrines, then those same leaders hope to nonetheless share in the unity and brotherhood that exists according to the things we hold in common.<br /><br /> Therefore, Focus on the Family forewent a great opportunity to further spread the peace and joy that faith holds for all mankind by not supporting Glenn Beck and subsequently not supporting members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They may assert that Beck's Jesus is not the same Jesus of the New Testament, but you will never hear Beck or any other faithful member of the same church reciprocate such a divisive doctrine.<br /><br /> So thank you, Focus on the Family. Thank you and all others who disdain Mormon theology. Thank you for taking yet another opportunity to divide us, to make Mormons the pariah of the Christian world and for withholding the Savior's merciful olive branch of peace and unity. While you may be ready and willing to condemn Mormons and other "non-Christians," I hope you know that you have another choice. You can assume that God's plan for us all is one of salvation, not condemnation, one where most of us return to him. And You can mete out your judgments of mankind mercifully because in the end, don't you hope that mercy is the sole criterion by which God judges you?<br /><br />For more info see <b>http://tinyurl.com/94w97b</b>mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-56727515470688783072008-12-26T20:37:00.000-07:002008-12-26T20:47:38.881-07:00BCS DelusionsThey say that the first step to personal healing is to admit that I have a problem, and so to coax the healing, I hereby admit the existence of my own mired situation. Do I have a drinking problem? No. Am I addicted to nicotine? No. My problem may not be as serious as the aforementioned, but perhaps I am just as if not more deluded as he or she who smokes like a Californian wildfire and spits in the face of future consequence. Explicitly stated, my problem is as follows: every year when the summers ebbs and the calendar flips to August, I truly believe that the college football teams about whom I most passionate, will end their respective seasons in national respect, prominence, and glory. As Fall approaches, I am convinced that the teams Boise State and Brigham Young University suit up and send out each year will hold their own against the nation’s best.<br /><br />Granted, BSU ended an amazing run during the ’06 season by beating a very good Oklahoma team in the Fiesta Bowl, which they did with some of the most flashy and memorable late game heroics ever displayed in any football game. However, it was evident that had BSU merely answered Adrian Peterson’s touchdown score with one of their own, they would not have been able to do so a second time, hence the two-point, quasi-statue of liberty play from Zabranski to Johnson that sealed victory for the Broncos.<br /><br />This year however, an undefeated BSU squad couldn’t even beat one of the best from the non-BCS affiliated Mountain West Conference. Which brings me to my other favorite team that coincidentally dukes it out every year in the same Mountain West Conference, BYU. My delusion of their grandeur was poignantly dashed by a much better Texas Christian University team, a team with superior talent, speed, and game planning. One BYU coach allegedly said that the weaknesses exploited by the Horned Frogs were clearly evident to the Cougar staff from the season’s get go; the Cougars simply fooled previous opponents with their branded bend-not-break defense. Once teams figured out how to take advantage of the gracious 10 yard cushion the nearly lead-footed BYU secondary consistently offered, the result was the shellacking smacked down by the University of Utah at season’s end. Brian Johnson completely nearly 400% of his passes and did so with the kind of ease that reminded me of playing video games with all the cheats. Want to complete another 8 or 10 yard pass? Just press any button.<br /><br />My beloved BYU Cougars and Boise State Broncos don’t have the talent and will never be able to recruit the kind of talent that can compete with the Florida Gators, USC Trojans, and Texas Longhorns or any other of the BCS best. When a five star high school recruit has those schools to choose from, why would he settle for BSU or BYU?<br /><br />We’ll talk again when BYU and BSU join one of the BSC conferences. Until then and until pigs fly, here’s hoping for a little Cinderella magic!mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-58216427681649978592008-12-14T21:24:00.001-07:002008-12-14T21:24:06.214-07:00Lamm guys<div style='background-color:#e9e9e9; width: 425px;'><object id='A323988' quality='high' data='http://aka.zero.jibjab.com/client/zero/ClientZero_EmbedViewer.swf?external_make_id=iP3urRjGdg8XrtZO&service=sendables.jibjab.com&partnerID=ElfYourself' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='transparent' height='319' width='425'><param name='wmode' value='transparent'></param><param name='movie' value='http://aka.zero.jibjab.com/client/zero/ClientZero_EmbedViewer.swf?external_make_id=iP3urRjGdg8XrtZO&service=sendables.jibjab.com&partnerID=ElfYourself'></param><param name='scaleMode' value='showAll'></param><param name='quality' value='high'></param><param name='allowNetworking' value='all'></param><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true' /><param name='FlashVars' value='external_make_id=iP3urRjGdg8XrtZO&service=sendables.jibjab.com&partnerID=ElfYourself'></param><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='always'></param></object><div style='text-align:center; width:435px; margin-top:6px;'>Send your own <a href='http://www.elfyourself.com'>ElfYourself</a> <a href='http://sendables.jibjab.com/ecards'>eCards</a></div></div><img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bHQ9MTIyOTMxNDk5MTcwMSZwdD*xMjI5MzE1MDM1Mjg2JnA9NDE4ODEzJmQ9MjAyNjY1Jm49YmxvZ2dlciZnPTImdD*mbz*wNTFlMGEwMzQ1YTQ*MzI1YWM*NDU1YjhlYWM5NjAyNQ==.gif" />mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-90567804359399815272008-12-09T22:45:00.001-07:002008-12-09T22:45:47.152-07:00ELF BABY!<div style='background-color:#e9e9e9; width: 425px;'><object id='A874755' quality='high' data='http://aka.zero.jibjab.com/client/zero/ClientZero_EmbedViewer.swf?external_make_id=FHCiPtWZc4n1jFMa&service=sendables.jibjab.com&partnerID=ElfYourself' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='transparent' height='319' width='425'><param name='wmode' value='transparent'></param><param name='movie' value='http://aka.zero.jibjab.com/client/zero/ClientZero_EmbedViewer.swf?external_make_id=FHCiPtWZc4n1jFMa&service=sendables.jibjab.com&partnerID=ElfYourself'></param><param name='scaleMode' value='showAll'></param><param name='quality' value='high'></param><param name='allowNetworking' value='all'></param><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true' /><param name='FlashVars' value='external_make_id=FHCiPtWZc4n1jFMa&service=sendables.jibjab.com&partnerID=ElfYourself'></param><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='always'></param></object><div style='text-align:center; width:435px; margin-top:6px;'>Send your own <a href='http://www.elfyourself.com'>ElfYourself</a> <a href='http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables'>eCards</a></div></div><img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bHQ9MTIyODg4Nzc5ODU4OCZwdD*xMjI4ODg3OTMxOTQxJnA9NDE4ODEzJmQ9MjAyNjY4Jm49YmxvZ2dlciZnPTImdD*mbz*2MmU3NmQyYTFjMWQ*ZjU2ODNiOGY3YmEzZDVmZGMyMQ==.gif" />mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-58939530722146454412008-11-08T17:58:00.000-07:002008-11-08T18:09:00.500-07:00THE REAL CHANGE WE NEED AND CAN BELIEVE INWhen I was a senior in high school, my Honor’s English teacher, Ms. Ford, told us a story about a priest in Seattle who took it upon himself to wake up early every morning to make sandwiches. Each day he would take his sandwiches to the city and would give them to the homeless and hungry. Word of his goodness and generosity soon spread, and people so moved by his actions began to send him letters with checks to aid him in his ministry. But he returned every check to its sender with the following response:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: right;">“Make your own damn sandwiches.”<br /></div><br /> This story is analogous to the current push for redistribution of wealth and bigger government, and here’s why. First, if a heart beats red in your chest, then you sympathize with those who struggle in life. However, a significant divergence arises in discussions centered around the alleviation of struggle and suffering. The current prevailing ideology is symbolized in this story by the people who sent checks to the sandwich-making priest. But my worry is that too many today seem more eager to write checks from the books of the wealthy and prosperous than to either write their own checks or to make and distribute their own proverbial sandwiches.<br /><br /> With our own checks and with many more from the rich, we have created many and varied government programs designed to aid the lowly and down trodden. And now we are mandating that the rich pay more into these same programs. If their 36% taxed income hasn’t already done the trick to “save” the middle class, to give the lower class a “fighting chance,” then it is foolhardy to suggest that a further 3% or even more is going to do the trick.<br /><br /> The real change this country needs, the real change we can believe in will never be realized this way, by a government directive or program. It doesn’t happen when we reach into the pockets of the rich to further fund existing social programs or to create new ones. It never happens when you and I stand idly by and let others do the kind of work that lifts the hands that hang down. The change we need and can believe doesn’t come from Barack Obama, and it certainly wasn’t going to come from John McCain.<br /><br /> Perennial change is created by you, and it’s created by me. When we pull over to assist those with broken down cars and broken down spirits, we engender lasting change. When we feed the hungry and clothe the naked in our own neighborhoods and cities, we further the change we need. When those with more cease to oppress those with less, they both change. When those who have little in the world stop hating those who have much, and when they stop begrudging them the right to reap the harvest of their own sowing, they change.<br /><br /> When I place an indefinite moratorium on my own mediocrity and stop making excuses for my own failings, I change. When the privileged white man appreciates the struggles of those who weren’t born into a world of innate privilege, he changes. When the black man forgives those responsible for slavery, those responsible for social inequity, he enhances his own freedom, and he changes. It no longer is news worthy when he accomplishes greatness because he will no longer associate such greatness with his skin color but rather with the content of his own character. His victory won’t be one for black people; it will be one for us all.<br /><br /> The priest had it right. His ability to enact change and good in the world may have been small, but it was he and he alone who took full responsibility for it and did the most with it. Therefore, when we no longer seek to change those around us, when we stoke the fires of change that would burn in our own hearts, then we bate our addiction to government fabricated hope and change, and we freely create our own.mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600450928220174632.post-40118398914067520662008-10-27T22:42:00.000-06:002008-10-27T22:44:36.806-06:00My Case for Conservatism<span style="font-family: times new roman;">To those of you who will indulge in the following, please know that I am not an advocate of John McCain, but you will soon see that I am conservative and have written this in an effort to further the merits of conservatism. I recognize that somehow conservatism has become an unpopular message, and I’d like to do my part to revitalize it. The following thoughts were retrieved from the deep, dark recesses of the pink matter between my own two ears, so if you disagree, please feel free to discuss your point of view with me. I will listen and be respectful as long as you assert your opinions without any of the trite rhetoric from the campaign trail. Let me know what </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: times new roman;">you</span> believe is right or wrong.<br /><br /><span style="font-family: times new roman;">If anyone out there can convince me that Obama is not purveying a socialistic agenda, then I will gladly vote for him. If you cannot convince me otherwise, and you still support his proposals that are designed to empower the government to redistribute wealth, then please give me three specific examples of successful socialist governments, and I will easily rebut with three embarrassingly clear examples of such states that failed: Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Third Reich, and Castro's communist Cuba (the list goes on). Would any of you who proudly wave the flag of support for Obama trade your current life style for a domicile in one of those nations? Would you trade the current health care system for a socialized one where patients are forced to wait patiently for necessary medical procedures with wait times that can surpass a year? I proudly declare that it is the very capitalist, small government system, decried and besmirched by left leaning ideologues, that has given the citizens of this nation the freedoms they currently enjoy but are, in some measure, in danger of losing. Please, show me one example of any other government entity that can take responsibility and credit for lifting its citizens to the heights of individual fiscal prosperity and happiness. Show me one that at least permits its people the hope and possibility of true financial independence. Show me one that created numerous, prosperous jobs for its people.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: times new roman;">The time has indeed come for the poor and lower classes of this nation to be reclaimed from the crutches and clutches of the big government advocates currently and previously in power. But the problem is that leftist politicians need the poor to stay poor, for a significant portion of their voting base is comprised of such. It is the system of big government and bleeding heart liberalism that engenders and furthers the dependence of the lower classes of this nation on the government. Their message does more, in the name of equality and fairness, to cripple the human spirit than it does to elicit its best. Their message of “tax credits” and stimulus packages is designed to deceive and buy those lower income votes. What would these politicians, Democratic or otherwise, do in the absence of those currently waiting on their hollow assistance? With their craft destroyed and their dependent base depleted, they would have nothing to do. They would lose the power they crave, the power for which they lust, and certainly they are loath to permit such an outcome. The framers of our nation designed its constitution to empower the people, not the government, but it is Obama’s explicitly stated desire to switch things around.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: times new roman;">However, it is conservatism that invites everyone everywhere to shed the shackles of financial and moral poverty. It pushes the poor to be poor no more by extolling the virtues and merits of personal accountability and responsibility. It would not spare us from the consequences of personal failure and mishap nor would it deny us the crucial life lessons to be learned thereby. It urges us to look inward and to each other for the help we need to surmount life’s hardships, not to a government program. Conservatism still champions the American dream, the same dream by which Barack Obama went from humble beginnings to a successful life autonomous of any government organization. Unfortunately it is not Barack Obama but rather the principles of conservatism and capitalism that guarantee the possibility of a similar outcome for you and me. Sure, he can do it on his own, but his message is that you and I need him in order to have a “fighting chance.”</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: times new roman;">And it is conservatism that pushes us to rid ourselves of the chains associated with victimization. It inspires us to let go of circumstances beyond our control and to exercise dominion over the things we can control. It does not seek to pin the blame of personal failure on anyone else but the person who has failed; however, it still offers the promise of future triumphs that are independent of past follies.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: times new roman;">When it comes to the sharing of wealth, conservatism abhors a system where charity is coerced by legislatively mandated taxation, but it inspires, encourages, and entices the individual to give selflessly. It wouldn’t rob us of the benefits of freely choosing to be charitable. It counsels those who have profited from charitable assistance to in turn give charitably to those still in need.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: times new roman;">Furthermore, it is conservatism that begs us to live within our means and to stay out of debt, thus avoiding the pitfalls that produce nationwide recession and depression. It discourages the kind of pride that teaches us to hate those with more than us. Is it right to take points from the valedictorian’s hard earned 4.0 and give those points to the student who chose not to work as hard? No. But it is right to lift this nation’s lower wage earners by encouraging them to work and to strive for more, to aspire to improve their own situations, to help lift those around them. I do not deny the fact that many in this nation have enjoyed greater privilege than many others; however, the choice is equally shared by everyone to work hard, and the promise and opportunity of success are also equally shared by all. Conservatism asks us not to pray for rescue from difficulty but for the courage and strength to overcome it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: times new roman;">Conservatism would allow us all opportunities to make more on our own; it would not coerce parity through the exorbitant taxation of the corporations and higher bracket earners who already shoulder the vast majority of this nation’s tax burden.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: times new roman;">This election cycle, though I will vote for John McCain, my vote is more <span style="font-style: italic;">against </span>Barack Obama than it is <span style="font-style: italic;">for</span> John McCain. I am voting to at least keep the opportunity for these conservative principles to stay alive. I only wish I had a candidate that truly espoused them.</span>mushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14071906505306550676noreply@blogger.com4