Speak softly and carry a big stick

Church v. State

2009-04-02T11:10:00.000-07:00

The separation of church and state is a delicate subject. The argument has gone on for some time. The basic history of the debate is this:

Founding Father support separation of church and state, meaning the state does not form its own church which everyone is required to attend, and nothing more.

Supreme Court is formed.

Supreme Court oversteps its bounds.

John Kerry is born.

Bill Clinton outlaws prayer in public school. Prayer may help children to live better lives. Nobody wants that.

Mitt Romney runs for President. Despite being the best candidate, he does not win because he is Mormon.

And there you have it. Now, I want to focus on two sides to the argument - the misconceptions about it, and the needs for it.

The misconceptions:

1: Some people think separation of church and state means the state must have nothing to do with God. Wrong. The founding fathers said the Bill of Rights was written after the 10 commandments. They repeatedly said, over and over, and the union would only succeed as long as we kept our trust in God. America has always been a Christian country.

If I were to go to Israel, or Iran, or any country in that region, and were to attend a soccer game, I would be expected to listen respectfully as they started the game with a prayer after their manner. Would this offend me to listen to their prayer? No. I would sit and listen respectfully. If I were disrespectful, I would use that time to get my refreshments. If I felt too lazy, I may even just sit there and work at that particularly stubborn bugger than had plagued me for some time. But there would be no reason to be offended that they were praying.

If I were going into a government building, and they had a stone plaque out front with an inspiring quote from the Koran, would I be offended? No. If it teaches good principles, then why should I care? It is not forcing me to all the sudden become Muslim. The fact that somebody else prays does not brainwash me into believing what they believe. In fact, reading inspiring things from religions other than my own may even force me to see the good in ways of life different than my own, and may lead me to live a better life.

2: Separation of church and state is not even in the constitution.

Surprise. It is the Supreme Court becoming legislative instead of judicial.

The Need

1: Separation of church and state, however, is necessary in the fact that you can not legislate religion. Religious principles are guiding principles, they are deeply personal to everyone. I do think they should stay that way.

The delicate balance is this: You can't use religion to argue politics. I cringe when I hear people say that if you don't support a certain policy, or if you don't vote a certain way, than God is going to destroy you and the nation. In the scriptures God said that a nation is ready for destruction if the majority of the people choose wickedness over righteousness. That's it.

The other delicate balance is that you can't legislate religion, but you have to let it guide you. If you believe something is important to the nation, but don't do anything about it, it's not only wrong, but weak. I actually applaud the democratic party for changing the official stance of the party on abortion - they now say that the goal is to educate people about the dangers, emotional and physical, of abortion, and to reduce the number of abortions. I think that is awesome. Most democrats are not the crazy feminists that think women should do what they want, when they want. Most think abortion is wrong, but that you can't legislate against people's choices. So what do you do? You teach against it, discourage it, and make it extremely difficult to do. I think the Democratic party needs to do more to discourage abortion, but it's a step in the right direction.

I am strongly against gay marriage. It originates religiously, but I also think it hurts countries where it is implemented (Denmark, Norway and Sweden, for example. It was instituted there in the early 1990's - now the vast majority of children are born out of wedlock. They are finding similar tendencies towards crime and low self-esteem in those children. Marriage rates have dropped and divorce has skyrocketed. But that's a discussion for another day). I do not think that same-sex marriage should be legal. Do I think they should have rights? Absolutely. They should visit each other in the hospital, be legal heirs, etc. We should tolerate their decisions, but draw the line at support. Vocal does not necessarily mean right.

You can't legislate that something is sin. But you can legislate things to protect the nation. Those things may also be religious. That is where most people get their values and ideals, and it will always be that way. And it will be to our advantage if we will always remain a nation "under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It has Begun

2009-03-11T20:32:00.000-07:00

People have finally opened their eyes. It's been a long time that Barack Obama has been able to do what he wants. All he has to do afterwards is give a speech about hope and love and change, and everyone suddenly agrees with trillions of dollars of aimless spending. Well, a reporter - an actual reporter from the real live news media - called him on it. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle, posted below, said Obama's administration is embarrassing America. Some highlights:

- The article highlights President Obama's recent trip to Britian, where the British Prime Minister gave Obama a pen holder made out of wood from the ship that helped stamp out the slave trade. Obama gave him 25 music videos. Luckily, one of them was OK Go.

- I think it mentions in there somewhere that Obama likes to kill furry woodland animals.

- Hillary Clinton told European Union leaders that she agreed to stay married to Bill because of a pact they had made... something to do with goat's blood and Satan.

- President Obama walked an old woman halfway across the street.

- The woodland animals organized the masses and marched on the White House, revolting against President Obama's senseless killings. In a strange twist of fate, Nancy Pelosi was sighted at the head of the march. She is fourth in line to the President... if something were to happen... mad chipmunk feeding frenzy... the possibilities are endless.

- Barack Obama both lost and found his mojo.

- Harry Reid tried to force Democratic senators to sign the stimulus bill in their blood.

- Rahm Emanuel placed a bulk order for dead fish.

- Obama sat down to meet with the woodland coalition to negotiate peace. The ending results are still unclear, but sources close to the President say it involved his life in exchange for North Dakota. Both sides consider themselves the winners in that deal.

Those are the basic highlights. You can read the whole article here. (This link is to a reprint in the Examiner, the original appeared in the Chronicle.) Details, per se, are not so important. The most important thing is the honesty of the press. And also, the safety of the woodland animals. I'm a big supporter of Bambi.

Say What??

2009-03-11T19:45:00.000-07:00

Good news everyone:

President Obama announced today that, as part of the "most transparent Presidency", he is going to come down hard on earmarks. (For those of you who don't know what earmarks are, it is money given to special interest groups that has no Congressional oversight after it is given to see how it is spent. Basically, 80% of Obama's stimulus package.)

This is good news for America. Luckily for Obama, his time for cutting down on earmarks came after he signed $700 billion of them into stimulus law, not to mention the $410 billion budget that he needed to last him until December. (For further information on the "stimulus bill", go here. It is in parentheses because it is not stimulating the economy... only stimulating the Democrats.)

So, well done Barack. You've managed to pull the wool over America's eyes, recklessly spend money like it's going out of style, and then you have the gall to come out and say that it's time to crack down. This is almost as bad as Bill Clinton speaking on personal morality. Way worse than the Pharisees praying in the streets and stealing in private.

Incredible.

Frustrated

2009-02-16T16:37:00.001-08:00

Yesterday Barack Obama signed his stimulus package into law. It will likely be one of the characterizing decisions of his Presidency, which means he risked a lot on it.
I'm going to be frank for a minute. Watching the inauguration, I was glad it wasn't John McCain up there. I realized how much our country needed somebody else, and Barack Obama really seemed like he wanted to make a good difference in the country. I believed he would. I even think that, for the most part, he has made good decisions so far as our President.

This stimulus bill, however, is ridiculous. My brother-in-law, who campaigned heavily for Obama and still strongly supports him, characterized the stimulus bill as follows: "Let's be honest, this stimulus bill is just a wish list of the things the Democrats have been wanting to do for a long time." That's exactly what it is - it is Barack Obama paying off all the corporate sponsors, the lobbyists, the special interest groups, environmentalists, etc. for all their support in getting him elected. The part that really disappoints me is that Barack Obama has promised the American people, on multiple occasions, that there are no earmarks (spending that is outside congressional control once approved), pet projects, or unnecessary spending in his bill. $187 billion of that bill is necessary - the rest of it is just that, pet projects, earmarks, and unnecessary spending. I am disappointed that Obama could lie so blatantly to the American public.

I have to admit, I'm frustrated. That is one of my frustrations. My other frustrations:

1: What is wrong with our media?

I have two issues with the media:
Last week there were elections in Iraq. Surprisingly, the news gave very little time to covering the elections. The reason why - the elections went perfectly. Iraq had an 85% turnout for the elections. There were no big security problems, and the U.S. wasn't involved in keeping or enforcing peace for the elections hardly at all. Democracy is working in Iraq. The people are getting involved and making decisions about their country.

Where is the media on this?

This is another classic example of the failure of our news sources today. Besides the fact that they have been biased, they are not being honest. You can bet if the elections went bad, or if there was a suicide bomber at a voting location, or anything like that - the media would have been all over it. But since it went well, since it tends to vindicate rather than invalidate the war in Iraq - and maybe because it hints at some foresight on George W. Bush's part - there was no mention of it. CNN didn't even put a story about it on their website. All across the world people read about it, and the only places I could find information on it was the BBC - apparently CNN thought it was more prudent to report how the lady that got a face transplant can smell now.

I guess even the media knew they couldn't try to give Obama credit for democracy in Iraq already, so instead of pointing out that things are already going well when he got in, they'll wait a year to point out how good everything is, and then credit Barack Obama for it. President Barack Obama's reaction to these remarkable elections was a statement noting that they "should continue the process of Iraqis taking responsibility for their future." As one reporter put it, it "was shockingly detached and ungenerous." (For a great article on the failure of the news media to report on this, go here. It is a fantastic read.)

My other frustration is the lack of scrutiny of Barack Obama. It almost happened this time - they almost called Obama for what the stimulus really is. Once it got close to that point, however, the news switched from reporting on the gross spending to reporting on how the Republicans refuse to work with both sides. So close, media, yet still so far.

2: How does Barack Obama get off claiming to be bipartisan?

I know that conservatives are not bipartisan - but at least they don't claim to be. Barack Obama is as biased and critical of his political opposites as anyone else - yet he is hailed as a change to the current political system, above the bickering of old politics. Wrong. He is not only guilty of the crime, but of the hypocrisy of speaking out against it.

In his book The Audacity of Hope, for example, Obama says (and I paraphrase), "We liberals need to realize that conservatives cling to their guns like we liberals cling to our library books."

Excuse me?

So, basically, Mr. Obama, you are saying that all conservatives are a bunch of old town hicks in overalls who chew on wheat and carry the dead 'possums they just shot, while the liberals are a group of elite intellectuals, all of whom pass their time in their studies, perusing the finer points of Aristotle. This would be like Sean Hannity (who I do not agree with) saying, "We conservatives cling to our happy family values like you liberals cling to your baby killing." A fair and balanced representation, right?

3: In regards to bipartisanship, the media has jumped on board with Harry Reid in criticizing the Republicans for not being bipartisan and working with the Democrats on the bill.

For those of you who don't know the process of this bill, it was something like this:
Republicans were not allowed to contribute to the writing of the bill - Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their cronies got together and drafted the bill. Then they asked the Republicans to look it over and give suggestions to changes. Those suggestions were then ignored. Then Barack Obama got up at a Democratic retreat and gave a rousing speech ripping on the Republicans and ridiculing their ideas.

Everyone got back from the retreat and told the Republicans to vote for the bill. Really? They weren't told to work with both sides - they were told not to think, to get on board and just agree.

That's not bipartisanship. That's the same line the gay activists try to use: Either agree or you are close minded. The Democrats showed how willing they are to work across the aisle, yet the media praised them for their "efforts" to work with the "close-minded" Republicans.

On that same note, Harry Reid criticized House Republicans because not a single one voted for the stimulus bill. My question is: How is that any different than not a single Democrat voting against it? If Republicans are dumb for all voting against it, what does that say about the Democrats who all blindly voted in favor of it?

4: Obama's transparency on the bill.

I don't even know what to say about this. Obama wanted to have the most transparent Presidency. They put up their website, recovery.gov, to show how the money was spent. The problem is, the American public was promised that we would have 48 hours to look over the bill. Then, it was finished 11 hours before it was voted on. Worse than not letting the American public read it - there is not a single Senate member or House member who read that bill. Not a single one. It is over a thousand pages long. Nobody that voted for that bill even knew what was in it. They voted along party lines, doing exactly what they were told, and who knows now how much ridiculous spending was just laid on the American public's back 10 years from now. The worst part is, by then Barack Obama will be out of office, and the next President, most likely Republican, will be blamed for the failure. It is the housing crisis all over again. Democrats are making stupid decisions that are momentary fixes that cause worse problems a decade later, at which point Republicans are then blamed for it.

I do not think that Republicans are perfect in this situation or any. I find myself disagreeing with their methods often. But I don't think it profitable to the country or to any of its citizens that one party have so much control, and no media scrutiny. It is almost getting to the point when anyone that speaks out against Obama is characterized as a foolish extremist, listened to only to laugh at their "crazy ideas" and then dismissed just as easily.

So I'm frustrated, and a little disappointed. I just hope this does not set the tone for the next 4 (8) years.

A Voice of Warning

2009-02-09T07:37:00.000-08:00

As is characteristic, Dick Cheney warned last week of certain attacks that would result from Obama’s naivete in international relations. He said that if Obama didn’t start taking things seriously, we could expect nuclear or chemical attacks on Americans soon. Naturally, Cheney meant attacks from Middle Eastern terrorist organizations.

There is a much more immediate threat.

In the frozen wastelands to the North, Canada lies quiet… a little too quiet. They have lulled us into a sense of security with their peacefulness and their cheap prescription drugs. There are no fences to keep out the Canadians… they’re everywhere. And the worst part is they look just like us. There could be one next to you right now. They have infiltrated society at high levels. The only way to find them is for them to say “About” or “Out”. Then you know what they are. Our best option as a country right now is to seduce anyone you think may be Canadian - when they ask you "oot", they are caught. Then you know… they are either Canadian, or Sarah Palin.

You can’t say you weren’t warned.

Stimulus This

2009-02-06T11:05:00.000-08:00

For a long time, Democrats accused Republicans of using scare tactics to win votes. In looking back at some things that were said during the campaigns, I can agree with that. There were Republicans who hinted that if Obama were elected, we could expect to have a terrorist attack soon thereafter. I don't agree with those tactics at all - in fact, I think using fear to garner support is characteristic of the support you will get - those stupid enough to be scared by it.

Oh, how the tables have turned.

Nancy Pelosi is the Democrat's scare tactic. Besides the fact that she has fangs, and eats little children, she has commented on President Obama's stimulus package multiple times, saying - and I quote:
"If we do not pass this economic recovery package, 500 million Americans will lose their jobs each month. I don't think we can go fast enough."

In case you didn't catch the irony there - according to the US government, there are about 306 million Americans total.

What we are saying here, people, is that if you do not support the President's stimulus package, and pass it right now, EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN will lose multiple jobs every month. Every man, woman and child, from the baby born last week to the Alzheimer's patient of 98 will lose multiple jobs - every month. Now quick, ACT! Without thinking! The jobs of every American plus one are on the line!

Now there could be benefits to this massive job loss. I could soon be in the NBA... I figure by July they'll have gone through enough people to get to me. Or don't be surprised if you go in for dental work, and you see me smiling through the blue face mask. Just because my hands shake doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

And to all you out there who don't think that the media is biased - imagine what would have happened if Sarah Palin had said this. It would be an uproar.

The thing that kills me is it wasn't just once. She said it once in a Mike Wallace interview - and he corrected her. Since then she's said it twice more on the Senate floor. Mongering the fear.

If we're to push through legislation, Nanci, let's do so honestly. And let's try to follow your own advice - no scare tactics. If I hadn't already banned Stephanie Meyer this week, it would be you. You live to see another day, Senator.

Banned

2009-02-02T15:20:00.000-08:00

This is straying a little ways off from my usual political discussion, but common decency moved me to write.

Now, in high school, I wrote for our school newspaper, the Bingham Prospector. In each of my articles I would try to write something provocative to incite people to think and, if I was lucky, to write angry letters to the teacher in charge of the newspaper.
Our paper had a few features that appeared in every issue, two of which were "Band of the Month" (which highlighted a new band that people should listen to), and "Banned of the Month" (which highlighted an untalented and unskilled band, usually whining about how they hate their fathers, and somehow get people to listen to them). I wrote "Banned of the Month" each month. Prime examples of bands that were banned: Simple Plan, Linkin Park, Dashboard Confessional, Marilyn Manson, Snoop Dogg, Lil' Bow Wow, Good Charlotte, etc. (Listening to these bands is still a bad idea, and many times may cause severe bleeding from the ears. I know this because I experimented with headphones on my sister's cat... don't tell PETA.)
Anyway, recent events on the world scene have compelled me to reach forth my quill once more to ban untalented and unskilled artists - so this Millenium's Ultimate and Eternal Banned of Forever - Stephanie Meyer and the Twilight series.

Now, I know that many of you may have been tricked into reading these books. Repentance is always available to you.

To be fair in my assessment of the books, I have not read them all. I tried to read through the first book. I am somewhat of a nerd, I love Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, so I figured that a novel of this sort, that was that popular, might be worth a read.

It made me cry. Nightmares of talented writers of the past stabbing me to death with feather quills for having betrayed my literary integrity haunted me for several weeks. There were very few pages in that book I could finish without laughing at loud at either a) the terrible writing b) the complete absence of any hint of a plot besides Edward's beauty and nasty Bella's lust for him, or c) the total void of any writing talent whatsoever. The book is ridiculous.

So now, I don't understand the fascination with the books. I don't understand what is driving people to start waiting at 11a.m. for the movie that night. I don't know why this lady is making money off her writing. It is basically just a romance novel that doesn't get quite as nasty as most do, until Book 4.

On her website, Stephanie Meyers talks about her publishing process, and all the rejections she got from publishers who missed out on the money but kept their souls. She also says some things about the story that I found particularly enjoyable:
1) She said Bella is modeled after her life, and that is why all the boys in the High School are in love with her even though she is only average looking. I quote, "[In college] I was... like, an eight. I had dates every weekend with lots of really pretty and intelligent boys." The humility is stunning. I smell pulitzer.
2) Stephanie Meyers listens to Linkin Park, Weezer and All American Rejects while she writes. Of course she does.
3) In talking about her family, Meyers said,
"I filled the "Jan Brady" spot in my family—the second of three girls. Unlike the Brady's, none of my three brothers are steps, and all of them are younger than all the girls. My big sister was, however, very similar to Marcia (only instead of being self-absorbed and vain, she was sweet and shy, which made her all the more perfect—Emily, Emily, Emily!!), and we did have a dog named after a non-canine animal (Eagle, in this case). We never had a maid, so my mom is clearly superior to Florence Henderson's character, and also has a better singing voice."
So... really the only similarities you have with the Brady Bunch is that you both have male and female members of the family? Following this logic, your family is eerily similar to the Ozbournes... fitting.
4) She actually used the word "fantabulous". 7th grade girls everywhere are wondering what is wrong with that.
5) She admits she is in love with the vampire. Everyone pretty much knew this anyway. The actor who played Edward said, "When I read it, it seemed like (grimace) I was convinced that ... Stephenie was ... convinced that she was Bella, and uh, and you, it wasn't, it was like it was a book that wasn't supposed to be published, like reading her ... her sort of sexual fantasy about some -- especially when she says that it was based on a dream, and it's like, "Oh, then I had a dream about this really sexy guy" and she just writes this book about it, and there's some things about Edward that are just so specific that it's like, I was just convinced that, that this woman is mad, she's completely mad, and she's in love with her own fictional creation and I -- sometimes you, like, feel uncomfortable reading this thing, and I think a lot of people feel the same way, that it's kind of voyeuristic, ah, and it creates this sick pleasure in a lot of ways."
Thank you.
6) There is a character named Marcus. Edward's explanation of him: "Marcus sees relationships. He's surprised by the intensity of ours." What? That's his power?? That's the worst X-Men/Heroes/Superhero power ever. On my list of superpowers I would like to have, it is dead last, right behind the power to see someone's Scrabble-playing ability, the power to sprout 2-inch butterfly wings at will, and the power of extended bladder control. It's like Stephanie Meyers realized halfway through the series that she hadn't established any reason for a relationship between Bella and Edward besides hormones - no confidence or companionship - so to legitimize it, she gave some random person the power to see relationships. Predictably, theirs was intense. I think the true scope of their relationship and the series as a whole would be measured by the vampire with the power to see IQ's below "vegetable" level.
7) She actually dedicated her last book to the band Muse. The music industry still won't let them hear the end of it. Good Charlotte breathed a collective sigh of relief.

For those still interested, here is the Twilight series, summed up for the casual reader (This was originally written by someone else, and embellished by me):

"Okay, so. Emoteen Bella Swan moves to a tiny little depressing rainy town and won't shut up about it. There she meets a mysterious boy who turns out to be a 100+ year-old vampire who literally sparkles "like diamonds" in direct sunlight and reads minds (but not hers), and after three hundred pages of Bella wondering why he's so mean to her and why he's so weird and why he's not being mean to her anymore and what his deal is and if he likes her and if he actually loves her and how much he loves her and how he could possibly love as someone as plain and boring and clumsy as she is and if his vampire family will like her - a plot almost shows up, but it doesn't last very long. And then they go to prom. In the second book, Edward the sparkling vampire leaves Bella for her own good, and she spends most of the book trying to kill herself with motorcycles and cliff-diving. Sort of. And then her best friend falls in love with her and turns out to be a werewolf, but Bella runs away to save Edward from committing suicide by public sparkling in Italy. In the third book, Jacob the best friend/boyfriend wannabe/werewolf turns into a total [choose-your-own-4-letter-word] trying to force himself on Bella, and a vampire with a grudge from the first book is trying to kill her, but most importantly, Bella and Edward argue about whether they should have sex, get married, and/or vampirize Bella, and in what order. In the last book they do all of these, in this order: Married, Sex, Pregnant, Demon baby has to eat its way out of Bella to be born, vampirized to save her from the demon-baby-eating, and at long last, in chapter 28 of the last book - a real plot finally arrives. It's not a good one."
The best part is - none of that is made up.

So, congratulations, Stephanie Meyers - in addition to being "USA Today's Most Promising Author to be Stabbed to Death by Quills of 2008", and the prestigious "J.K. Rowling has more talent in her toenail clippings than I have mustered in all 4 500-page books Award", you are now officially: Banned.

Get Involved Indeed

2009-01-28T15:01:00.001-08:00

I had an interesting line of thought the other day. It started out pondering our current education system. I could probably act like this is something I do often, holed up in a quiet corner of the house, studiously watching the stars, flipping pages, and pondering how to better our world. It would make me seem quite intellectual. I don't though. In fact, for a long time I considered politicians that declare their focus to be on education to be only pandering to voters, specifically the Teachers' Union, and women. After all, I had turned out fine, so what was there to reform? The education system worked fine for me, it can work fine for everyone else. But this time, I realized the real importance of the education system. And I realized it wasn't the same for everyone.

The government's job is not to offer equal opportunities to everyone. The government's job is to offer equal preparation for opportunities to everyone. Those that can take advantage of the preparation are ready for the opportunities when they come.

The only way to prepare people for success in the future is by educating them. And the preparation that takes place in elementary, and secondary education in the United States is not equal on all fronts. Who’s to say the doctor who could discover the cure for cancer isn’t in the slums right now, playing basketball and thinking that his only way out is the NBA? Who’s to say the future President of the United States doesn’t now live in an area where he’s isn’t being taught correct English? The education system is the way to provide those motivated and intelligent young youth a way to access their full potential.

The problem now is that there just isn’t enough money to fund the education system the way it needs to be funded. Who aspires to be a teacher? To have minimal pay and little honor? Anyone can teach, a high school degree is all it really takes. The shaping of our country now rests on the teachers, and we pay them less than we pay those that collect our garbage. We need to make teachers a prestigious career. We need to require that they prove themselves ready to teach, and able to inspire, and we should pay them what they are worth. In order to do that, we need funding.

Education already takes the majority of the budget here in Utah, and in many states it is the same. What can we cut to finance the massive amount needed to accomplish the reform of teaching and education? We can’t fund children at the expense of the elderly. We can’t cut welfare benefits or other investments into our future, such as alternate forms of energy. So where do we get the money?

The government has long been trying to solve this dilemma about money, as demonstrated by our massive national debt. There have been no new ways to get money for the country, so they have resorted to simply borrowing from others. American minds and American government has limited its vision of how to make money to taxes. It happens over and over, as legislators try to force citizens to pay more and more of their money to support others and fund projects, which in turn embitters the populace and they force the leader out of office in favor of another who will lower their financial burden. And the cycle goes on, and may the circle by unbroken.

I think it’s time to think outside the box, and I think there is a better way.

I was thinking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, not as a church but as an organization. They ask a 10 percent tithing of their members, which most pay willingly. The Church, however, makes a lot of money. A lot. And the members don't pay much of it. It comes from businesses and investments. The Church has invested, they have dairy farms, they own Bonneville Communications, the parent company for KSL, among other ventures. Their members contribute and feel like they are a part of everything, but the church is able to pursue far more ventures than what their member contributions allow.

It's time for the government to follow suit. It's time for the government to be part of the deal. It's time for the government to follow Obama's own advice, and get involved.

My plan (Remember, Schreiner for President, 2024) is for the government to get involved in the economy. Not regulations, or communism, but with businesses. The government needs to start businesses, with themselves as the functional CEO entity, and put the revenues or the CEO's earnings, into government ventures, specifically into reforming the education system, starting with paying teachers what they are worth.

I understand the first objection to this. Everyone’s first reaction to this idea is pretty similar – “That’s socialism”. I have heard it from almost everyone I have shared the idea with. Maybe it’s because I haven’t adequately articulated what I think should happen. I think the government should start businesses – communications companies, construction agencies, etc., with a CEO, and a board of trustees appointed by the President. The CEO would be incentivized well, comparable to how CEO’s of large corporations are incentivized, to ensure that the company gets up and running correctly. The kick-back bonuses to the board would kick back to the American people, into the tax revenue system and back to the education system.

The idea is that the government competes with everyone else in the economy – in order for it to work they can’t have any special benefits given them. They pay their taxes, they abide by all the same rules, they compete, and the country benefits. For example, if they were to start a construction company, they would compete for contracts like any other construction company, by making offers and such, and there would be no benefit in working with them over another company besides what they can offer in a competitive market.

In addition to the additional funding, these additional companies would be hiring, both on the scale of managerial college grads, and working class per-hour employees.

Now, obviously, there would need to be regulations drawn to it. For example, a government construction company could not compete for government contracts, to avoid suspicion of insider dealings or anything crooked in the system. They would need to be limited in their ability to buy other companies, because there always need to be lines drawn to limit the government from growing too big or too powerful. But with the right regulations, competitive government companies could succeed. Just imagine if a successful company now, Walmart for example, had been formed by the government, and Sam Walton’s salary given to the education system. We would not just be succeeding; we would be schooling the Asian nations in their math and science, and leading the world once again.

Once that revenue is coming in, you could even take it a step further, as many countries do now. They are called “Sovereign Wealth Funds”. China has a big one. It basically means that the country is investing in foreign ventures. China has bought American T-bills, which means that they are financing our debt and getting rich off it. We could do the same thing. We can take some profits (those that don’t go to education) from the government competitive companies and invest it abroad, and get returns off it.

This is a work in progress. I have a few years still before I run for President and need it perfected. But I think it could work. And I think that by so doing, we would be able to invest more than just money in our future. We could invest into the leaders, inventors, revolutionary thinkers and innovators that are now grinding their way through the education system, doing their best with what they have. We can offer them more, which in turn offers all of us a brighter future; a brighter future as individuals, and a brighter future as Americans.

2009-01-04T21:34:00.000-08:00

Back during campaign season, I wrote a blog in which I criticized Barack Obama somewhat sharply for his proposed tax plans. In that plan Barack Obama said he would lower taxes for the poor, and raise taxes on the richest Americans - most of which would be small business owners, according to economists. I said that if he were to riase taxes on business owners it would hurt the economy, because jobs would be lost, and prices would go up, among other things.

Turns out Barack Obama reads my blog! I just hope he gives me credit... even if he could just pencil my name into the bill or something. Maybe a shout out during his next music video.

Barack Obama is proposing tax cuts, but far different from his original cuts. He is proposing to lower taxes for the poor, and for businesses. He is following the example of Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush - who have already shown that lower taxes produce more tax revenues. According to Politico, "officials say the tax cuts will be based on historical and empirical evidence of what works, not ideology." I know this might be hard for many Obama supporters to swallow - that he is working based of historical facts rather than rousing rhetoric. It is Obama breaking one campaign promise (of raising taxes), but luckily for the nation, honoring one far more important. He should have a relatively united House and Senate on his proposal.

The aim of his tax cuts - to create jobs. He has even offered a "new jobs credit" to small business owners. My advice exactly.

So, cheers to Barack Obama, for doing the right thing. I sincerely hope this becomes a habit.

Something Crooked This Way Comes

2008-12-27T13:29:00.000-08:00

It's pretty obvious to everyone that Rod Blagojevich is a dirtbag. You could have guessed that way before recent events started unfolding. If you lined up 20 men, 19 of which were either pedophiles or convicted murderers, and Rod Blagojevich, and had young children pick who they would be most scared of - it would be Blagojevich. If you had the 20 men pick who they were most scared of - it would also be Rod Blagojevich.

Most have already heard about the Blagojevich scandal. For those not familiar with the scandal, Blagojevich is the current governor of Illinois, where Barack Obama served as junior Senator. Since Obama's senate seat is now vacated, the law dictates that the governor may appoint Obama's replacement. The scandal arose when investigators recorded conversations where Blagojevich was allegedly trying to sell Obama's senate seat for money and favors.

Then he decides, despite the fact that he was already arrested, disgraced, and the public asked him to resign - he decided to appoint somebody as Senator anyway. He called Danny K. Davis, a political leader in Illinois, and offered him the seat. He said no. Then he called Roland Burriss and offered him the seat instead (obviously, without telling him about the previous offer). Things have gone crazy since then - The senate Dems have declared they won't seat him, the Secretary of State of Illinois said he won't cosign on the appointment, and then Burriss' friend came out and said that if they don't seat Buress, they're racist.
This story offers so many promising leads:

Lead #1 - Many right-wing supporters, politicians, and idiots have offered compelling evidence on the case. Point #1: Rod Blagojevich is from Illinois. Point #2: Barack Obama is also from Illinois. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the connections here. I think it's pretty obvious that if Obama wasn't involved in the scandal directly, he at least was the driving force behind the incident. I heard he offered to streak across the White House lawn in exchange for the Senate seat for himself - to be both President and junior senator. That's change I can believe in. The rumors are still yet to be confirmed. Details at ten.
We all know Obama had nothing to do with it. Even Blagojevich, in one taped phone conversation, called Obama a vulgar term, saying that even if Blagojevich did choose someone favored by Obama, "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. [Expletive] them." Imagine that.

Lead #2 - A month before the scandal hit the fan, Obama's top advisor David Axelrod said, "I know he [Obama]'s talked to the governor, and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he [Obama] has a fondness for a lot of them." I think it is fair for us to assume, from this statement, that Barack Obama's top advisor is saying that Barack Obama did have a conversation with Rod Blagojevich about the senate seat. Nothing illegal, obviously, but a conversation nonetheless.

Then when the facts all came out - Obama told the media that he had not spoken to Blagojevich at all. "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so we were not — I was not aware of what was happening,” Mr. Obama said. “And as I said, it’s a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don’t think it’s appropriate to comment.”

Axelrod immediately followed rule #1 (advisors take the heat for the candidate), and said that he was mistaken. "Look," he said, "the night before I made that statement, I ate this crazy burrito... right? And I had all these crazy dreams about floating pumpkins and blood-thirsty fairies, and in one I was trapped in Neverland - and then in another of those crazy, definitely not real dreams I saw my boss, Barack Obama, talking to Rod Blagojevich about the senate seat. It's so crazy I should have known it was just a dream... so... yeah."

After all, telling made up stories about conversations your boss has is commonplace - I'm sure many of you do it daily as well. It's a nice way to liven up the dinner conversation:

"Yeah honey, I heard my boss talking today... it sounds like he might give me a raise!"
"Oh my goodness honey! That's fantastic! We can finally get Timmy some shoes, and pay the electric bill, and maybe even a cellular telephone!! I'll go now and start comparing prices..."
"Yeah, well... uh... Nothing's official yet, so... you know. We'll see."

Making up conversations about your boss's conversations is also a good way to increase team spirit in the office:
"Hey man, look I'm really sorry."
"Huh? What do you mean...?"
"Well... look, I didn't want to be the one to tell you this, but I heard the suits upstairs talking, and... well I guess they're all having an affair with your wife... yeah, I know, it's crazy. So anyway have a great weekend buddy... wait, wait... just calm down. I may have heard wrong, you know? Wait - where did you get that gun??"

Even telling pointless lies about who your boss talks to is fun. It is especially hilarious in the break room with all the guys around.
"Wait, wait, guys - get this..." (Bursts into laughter) "I heard Mr. Smith upstairs talking to... his cousin! Ha ha!" This one really gets people to come alive.

Rule #1 indeed...

Lead #3 - The race card - Everyone who doesn't support Burris is racist. This accusation came from one of Burris' senior consultants, Prince Riley. He said, “It’s interesting that all those who are viable are white women and the ones who are unacceptable are black men.” I tend to agree with Harry Reid, who said that these accusations were stupid. He called it a “regrettable and reprehensible” attempt by Blagojevich to take the attention off his “daunting legal problems and damaged credibility.”

This seems the general trend when the race card is pulled. The interesting thing is, it more shows the accuser to be racist than the accused. It's the same reverse racial discrimination that happens in affirmative action. More on that topic at a later date.

The whole Blagojevich situation is... interesting to say the least. There are many uncertainties. Will Burris be seated in the Senate? If not, will he take legal action? Who would, in their right mind, name their child "Prince"? Is Blagojevich, biologically, a woman? So many uncertainties. One thing we can be sure of, however - Blagojevich is undeniably a dirtbag.

Case in Point

2008-12-26T10:57:00.000-08:00

It's hard sometimes to see people blindly herald the rantings and jabs of Al Franken and Wolf Blitzer. The only intelligible arguments about President Bush that come from the liberal left seem to deal with the fact that he doesn't speak perfectly, or, overall, that he is stupid. This characterization that MSNBC and CNN have concocted together has penetrated some people so fully that they honestly can not see past that. They use it to shape and determine their analysis of every political act of President Bush, and conservatives in general.

Other liberals try to use facts to argue their case. This is a new trend amongst them, and let us pray that it be used a little more often.

My well-meaning brother in law wrote a well-meaning rebuttal to my post on the finer points of President Bush's last 8 years. In that I argue that President Bush will be remembered favorably in history. (I worry that many liberals do not understand that meaning of "history".) In his blog, he attempted to rebut this, and his arguments are outlined as follows:

I. You should "base your primary assessment of a president on his most important work."
a. President's Bush's most important work was after September 11th, when he rightfully declared that we would hold people responsible for the attacks, but then wrongly carried that over into the war in Iraq.
II. President Bush "is weak". My brother-in-law implies that it was basically Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz that were making the decisions. According to him, this is also evident in:
- the defiance of the UN
-"strong arming" countries into the coalition that fought in Iraq.
III. Past presidents had weaknesses, but overall their contribution to the country was for the greater good, so they are remembered favorably, whereas Bush polarized the nation too much.
IV. The Classic - Bush can't speak well, so we can't be proud for him to be our President.
V. Bush's ideology and behavior in the war has "obliterated diplomatic relations on several fronts." He cites:
-We have given fodder to terrorist organizations for decades.
-Our behavior in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
-"complete disregard for the Geneva Convention"
VI. In 10 or even 100 years, people will not look back favorably on George W. Bush.

Now to deal with these points one by one:

1 - It sounds good to say that you can judge a President based on his most important work, but that definition is so relative that it cannot be operational. Who determines what is most important? And most important to whom? It is also evident from history that the feeling in the nation about the President when he leaves office does not determine how he is remembered. It appears that what most determines a President's legacy is how his actions shape the country in the future - something that many Presidents do not live to see. There are many former Presidents that left office in disgrace, and now are remembered as heroes.

John Adams - Surely you know what happened during his Presidency. Right? If not, it was what is known as the XYZ Affair. American diplomats were sent to negotiate peace with France, and were told they had to pay to do so. They left, outraged. It was a huge affair at that time, but who remembers it now? What is remembered is what came out of it - and in that case, although the immediate effects were somewhat questionable (A hatred between the U.S. and France, and a polarized nation, as Thomas Jefferson attempted to blame Adams for the incident) history has shown that it characterized our nation as a strong, independent one. And Adams is remembered as a great hero.

Thomas Jefferson - He basically flouted the Constitution to make the Louisiana purchase. There was an uproar at that time, not only because it was unconstitutional, but because it was considered extremely brash and foolish. It was all anyone talked about when he left office, but now history has a different perspective. He is viewed as a genius, because his decision, which, at that time, was thought of as too much money for useless land, difficult to defend and viewed as a threat to Spain, turned out to be a quarter of our current country, and a brilliant move. Extremely unpopular at that time, unconstitutional, foolish - and now, brilliant.

James Madison - the "Father of the Constitution", lost the National Bank, tried to invade Canada, got involved in "Mr. Madison's War" (which many argue he was bullied into by his advisors) and then, to top it off, Washington D.C. was invaded by the British. During his time, almost all Americans considered him foolish for entering an unpopular war (During which he reversed many of his political views, which would now be political suicide), but now he is rightly remembered as a great man - the "Father of the Constitution."

Andrew Jackson - hailed as a great President, stalwart in his ideas - was also the most racist President, lashing out at people he hated, destroying the Second Bank of the United States, causing an economic depression, and forced Native Americans to move out of Georgia. Most remembered during his time for his hot-headed opposition to the National Bank. Many of us have absolutely no idea - which is history's perspective at work. If you asked someone during his time what his "most important work" was, they would have said his abolition of the National Bank (which was a polarizing issue at the time), or his expulsion of the Indians. If you ask someone in our day what his "most important work" was, they would stare blankly at the wall, and then ask, "Didn't he write the Constitution or something?" He is remembered well because his actions benefitted the country hundreds of years later.

Ronald Reagan - Most remembered for starting the arms race against the USSR, which he called an "evil empire", ending the Cold War, "Reaganomics", which included lowering taxes to stimulate the economy, and the Iran-Contra scandal. During the conclusion of his time as President, he experienced the largest decline in presidential approval in history, losing over 20 points in less than a week, and left office amid scandal and a polarized nation. He is now considered one of the great American presidents, in a relatively short amount of time.

The point is, history is not 10 or even 100 years - it is however long it takes to determine the outcome of the President's actions. For some it was hundreds of years. For Reagan, it was only 20. But it is foolish to say that because we don't like President Bush right now, nobody will in the future either. It is equally foolish to say that because we don't like his "most important work" now, it will bear nothing good in the future either.

2 - "[President Bush] is weak." This is the guy that overcame his drinking habits and completely reversed his lawless lifestyle to become the President. This is the guy that held the country together and improved the economy following the largest terrorist attack on American soil in history. This is the guy that stood by his ideas despite the fact that everyone turned against him - even those that once supported him. He did not waver, he did not falter, and he did what he thought was right, no matter the consequences. As Peter Feaver, a White House advisor, put it, “He’s had a once-in-a-century natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina, a once in a history-of-the-Republic terrorist attack and he’s had a once-in-a-century financial crisis. Any one of those would be a pivotal moment. To have three is extraordinary.” He has arguably faced down as much, if not more than any other President in history, and he has done an admirable job. He held the country together after the devastating attacks, terrorist and natural. He shot down Dick Cheney's desire to bomb Iran. He has held his head high during criticism, finger-pointing, and even open mockery. Considering all that has happened during his Presidency, and his ability to hold it together for so long, it is foolish and extremely short-sighted for anyone to judge him as stupid or weak. Weak, indeed.

To deal with the foolish statement that we can't be proud of a President who doesn't speak well, I suggest we remember that Moses stuttered and so does Obama. The only characteristic of a skilled leader is not his ability to speak. I offer the following:

Peter Wehner, a Senior Fellow at the Washington Ethics and Public Policy Centre, said that Bush is brighter than most people give him credit for. “Contrary to the mythology, he is extremely widely read. He reads up to 100 books a year — very serious history books, for the most part.

“In private, he is one of the most impressive people you could deal with. He is engaged and commanding in a meeting, intellectually curious and has a real capacity to go to the heart of an issue and ask questions to clarify options.”

Wehner organised lunches for Bush with historians, many of whom did not support him. “[These historians, that did not support Bush,] told me if the public saw what they saw in the Oval Office, he’d have a 70 per cent approval rating.”

“In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he was strong and decisive and that was critical for both the country and for the Western world,” said John Bolton, a former UN ambassador. “In 100 years people aren’t going to remember Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib, they’re going to remember 9/11 and Bush’s reaction to it.” History will remember a strong, decisive leader that the country needed. And, one day, I think it will be seen as something benificial to America that we went into Iraq.

3 - Defiance of the UN - I only want to say here that the founding fathers argued that we should never get involved in multi-national organizations that put our security in the hands of others. The UN has been wrong many times, and will be in the future. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but we didn't elect the UN to run our country.

4 - We "Strong-armed" other countries into joining the coalition forces. If other countries are weak enough to make decisions like that because they are having their arms twisted, they do need somebody to tell them what to do. I don't think that's how it was. Countries joined either because a) they had hidden intentions of gaining favors from the U.S., or b) they felt it was right as well.

The frustrating thing is when people use, as evidence, the fact that countries pulled troops out of the war. They didn't pull them out because they didn't agree - they pulled them out based on fear. Spain, for example, did exactly what the terrorists wanted. I'm sorry if we don't surrender due to terrorist attacks, but that's not America. Brian himself said, "I am tired of making major world decisions out of fear. I am tired of Karl Rovian politics where we vote out of fear." I am, too. That's why I believe it was foolish for other countries to pull out.

5 - Brian ackowledged that other presidents had follies, but since they made a greater contribution to the country, they are remembered well despite the follies. My point exactly! But what I am trying to point out is that it is foolish to say that because people don't like him now, he will be remembered poorly. Those presidents that made greater contributions - were they considered greater during their time? For the most part, no. Jefferson was considered foolish in his time. He and Adams were more divisive, arguably, than any two politicians in history. They began political parties and the tradition of hating the other party. They divided the nation entirely. Madison left as an unpopular president. Abraham Lincoln polarized the nation more than any President. For someone to say now that because Bush is unpopular, made mistakes, and polarized the nation, he will be remembered poorly shows a lack of understanding of what "history" means.
6 - To make this short:
- Terrorist organizations don't need us to give them fodder. The fact that we exist is enough.
- 90% of Americans don't even know what Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are now - what makes you think they will remember in 100 years (XYZ Affair...)? I don't think that's a good thing, but I don't see how anyone could argue that those incidents will contribute to history's view on him.

Yes, President Bush has made mistakes. He hasn't been the best President in the history of the country. But he has done a good job. He has been a strong leader. He has made the tough decisions and stood by them. As Brian himself said, presidents are allowed to have weaknesses and make mistakes if the greater contribution to the country is good. President Bush's will be.

So, despite using the short-term consequences to mount the praises of Barack Obama, who is "candidly" quoted as saying it was a bad idea, history will vindicate President George W. Bush. No doubt there will be changes in the new presidency, but being completely honest, the only real change will be the face.

“Foreign policy will be rebranded, for sure, and it probably is going to be better received because the Obama honeymoon and euphoria in Europe is going to make the same song sound so much better,” says Peter Feaver.

“But people will realize that a lot of the Bush strategy was either the right thing because Obama did it and now they like it, or else was the best of a bad set of options because Obama picked it and it didn’t work for him either."

After all is said and done, I will never argue that Bush never made mistakes. Of course he did - everyone does, every President has, and every President will. But to follow the liberal characterization of a stupid, foolish President that has ruined our country for eight years is not only unfair and shortsighted, but stupid and foolish in and of itself. However, if you are still allowing photoshopped images and youtube videos to determine your political opinions then you will probably still disagree.

"After all, it’s much easier being a pigeon than a sculptor. It’s much easier to poop on the statue than to create it.”

A Salute

2008-12-18T21:12:00.000-08:00

"I have found it advisable not to give too much heed to what people say when
I am trying to accomplish something of consequence.
Invariably they proclaim it can't be done.

I deem that the very best time to make the effort."

-Calvin Coolidge

Our perceptions of those in the public eye is seldom accurate in the lifetime of that person. The actions of each of us has greater impact on the world and our country that what we could possibly conceive. History looks back with a much more gifted perception, and with the elevated perspective can make an accurate judgment.

President Bush's time in office is drawing to a close. For some Americans, the close is greeted with rejoicing and excitement, and for others with grateful wariness for the future. But in hardly any is President Bush's exit deemed as something undesired. To be honest, it's getting a little depressing. President Bush has next to no support in America, and even abroad. The recent shoe incident in Iraq illustrates this perfectly. Then another; at the G20 Summit Meeting, a meeting of leaders from around the world, President Bush was basically snubbed as he walked down a row of world leaders, none of which would shake his hand. A political leader in Japan told the Japanese Prime minister, "President Bush has no support from the American people. You don't have to show regard for him." (Incidentally, Japan, of all people, should know what happens when you mess with America.)

I'm going to come out and say it - I think history will look kindly on President Bush and the decisions he's made. I can't say he's been perfect, and I don't think he would say that. He has made mistakes. So does everyone. Benjamin Franklin was an adulterer, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and Abraham Lincoln lost half the country for a while in an extremely unpopular and far more deadly war than the Iraq war. Now they are heroes. We honor them for their amazing accomplishments, and we (rightfully) push aside their faults.

Now I can't say that I agree with every decision that President Bush has made in office. But I can say that we have had a President for 8 years who is a moral person. We've had a Reagan-like President, who isn't afraid to say "faith" or talk about God outside his closet. And despite the pessimistic CNN obsession with pointing out his faults and mistakes, President Bush has done a lot to help out our country.

During the last eight years, he helped ban partial birth abortions. He cut taxes, which in turn helped raise tax revenues following the cuts. He caught Saddam Hussein (I can hear the liberal uproar). He helped bring about nuclear disarmament in Libya without bloodshed, and on that same note, advanced the long-promised disarmament of Russia more than has been done in history. He restructured the federal government, condensing 20 separate organizations into the Department of Homeland Security, and ordered all other organizations to form a 5 year plan to restructure with fewer managers, leading to a more efficient federal government. This restructuring has also kept the country safe. From 1979 to September 11th, 2001, there were 12 terrorist attacks, an average of about one every two years. We haven't had a terrorist attack in over 7 years. Estimates are there have been 19 thwarted terrorist attempts since 2001. And even despite the shock to the economy from September 11th, the economy improved throughout his entire first term, where the bad decisions of past Democratic governing (market deregulation) led to the current housing and economic crisis.

The point of it all is, President Bush is getting an unfair reputation. He is being characterized as a stupid, dishonest person who tried his best to ruin America. Many Americans are buying into it. The media loves to perpetuate that image. Sure, he says "nukelar". But the man has a Bachelor's degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard... and last I checked they don't just hand those out. He isn't the most polished speaker. But he's a real person, he has values, and he stuck with them despite pressures not to do so. And yes, he involved America in an unpopular war. But war should be unpopular. WWII was unpopular until the media spun it as something patriotic (They did Bush no such favor). But he freed a nation, ended a reign of genocide and militarism and gave liberty to the people of a country. People died along the way, so of course there are critics. Emotions are a thing of the present, and that is precisely why history has a more accurate perspective. And someday in the future, America will look back favorably on George W. Bush. So instead of buying into the Bush-bashing that is everywhere, let's remember the good times.

Remember after September 11th - he was a true leader. That Friday, September 14th, 2001, he visited Ground Zero. Amidst the rubble and destruction, he started to speak. Rescue workers shouted that they couldn't hear him, so someone handed him a small American flag and a bullhorn. The President then shouted: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." The crowd roared with cheers and chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Then he raised that American flag and rallied a nation. Charleston Heston stood in the background, arm in arm with Mel Gibson (dressed as the Patriot), saluting.

We supported him when he went to find those responsible. He had the highest Presidential approval rating in history. He faced tougher choices than almost any President before him. He did his best with the information that he had, and that is exactly what we elected him for. The situation kind of reminds me of middle school. It's like when everyone was daring and telling you what a good idea it was to do something or try something, but as soon as something went wrong - your friends are gone, pointing the finger, their faces in a state of innocent shock.

Remember when our President finally stood up to the UN and stated that "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people." If we had wanted a French-style weak leader, we would have elected John Kerry.

When all is said and done, it's definitely been an interesting 8 years for America. They have been years that will shape our history and our country's future. I believe it will be for the better.

So let me be the first, and perhaps the only, to say,

"Congratulations, and thank you, Mr. President, for a job well done."

The Liberal Take on Things:

2008-12-01T11:01:00.001-08:00

That day has come

2008-12-01T10:05:00.000-08:00

When I am President (2024), my first presidential act will be to correlate timing a little better. The end of the semester this year has struck in all its glory (glory meaning hours and hours of mind-numbing homework), and at the same time, Barack Obama is doing so many things that deserve so much attention. To cover a lot in a little space, here are the most important occurences as of late:

1) The mainstream media finally fell under the scrutiny of the public eye. Over 80% of Americans believe that the media was biased in its election coverage, favoring Barack Obama. Both Republican newspapers printed this story. Their readers were outraged, and all three of them marched with signs for several days. Surely you heard about this in the newspapers...

2) Barack Obama gave me change I can believe in. On November 16, in a 60 Minutes interview, President-elect Obama voiced his opinion that there should be a college football playoff system to replace the current BCS garbage. His idea is actually really good - the top 8 teams would have a 3 week playoff at the end of the season, which would only extend the season for 3 weeks, and the rankings would still matter (since the top 8 teams get in).

There are many benefits to such a system. This year, for example, there are three teams from the same conference in the top 5 - Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma. According to BCS rules, only two teams from any one conference can go to a BCS bowl game. This means that a top 5 team is not going to go to a good bowl game... ??
By having a playoff, there is a clear champion each year. The conferences and even the BCS would benefit as well - imagine the television ratings and the amount of viewers those games would have. It would be like 3 more Super Bowls every year.

With hope in my heart, I believed Barack Obama would improve our country. I almost downloaded his music video.

3) Barack Obama quickly dashed any hope I once had of change I could believe in, when he started appointing members of his cabinet. His most frequent campaign promise during the election was to "govern from the middle", to have a bi-partisan cabinet that would be fair to all. His "bi-partisan" cabinet so far consists of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (an extremely uniting figure, especially to Republicans), Chief of Staff Rahm "I f-ing kill Republicans with steak knives" Emanuel, Eric Holder as Attorney General (who orchestrated taking Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint, pardoned members of a terrorist group under Clinton, and reportedly has tea with Rahm as they discuss bi-partisan politics using mostly f-words. Giggling and pushing each other in the bushes, they mail off the dead fish to their Congressional "bi-partisan" partners.), and the list goes on. Technically, he has kept his promise - he has one republican, Robert Gates, who will stay on as Secretary of Defense. This is at least for a year, when, according to the NY Times, he will step down to make way for Richard Danzig, Obama's advisor, also democrat, and golf caddy for Osama bin Laden.

So the future is beaming with the long touted "change" which is already taking place.

4) In what was termed "a messy breakup", Alan Colmes left "Hannity and Colmes" after 12 years of suffering. All I can say is, finally. What was keeping him around? It can't be that appealing for anyone to be the token show of bipartisanship on a Fox News rant-show against liberalism, in which your co-host barely lets you talk every other episode.
Friends of Colmes report he spent several days in tears, then joined Jennifer Aniston in a day spa to lament their love woes.

4) Bill Clinton said (and I am not making this up), "The country is groaning and moaning and screaming for change." This quote makes me smile. Thank you Bill. You said that as surely only you can.

5) Somebody deluded Sarah Palin into thinking she still matters.

And that's our world at the present time. Groaning, moaning, screaming, Palining, and yes, changing.

BREAKING NEWS

2008-11-14T10:39:00.000-08:00

So a few days ago, this was breaking news: The Obama family, soon to be the President Obama family, has officially chosen their Secret Service codenames. The codenames come from a long and prestigious line of presidential codenames. Some of the most memorable have been:

- John F. “Lancer” Kennedy
- Richard “Searchlight” Nixon
- Bill “Slept on the Oval Office Couch” Clinton
- Ronald “Rawhide” Reagan
- Al “Al Gore” Gore
- Dick “Yep, Dick” Cheney
- George W. “Trailblazer” Bush

Due to encoded transmissions amongst the secret service, the names are completely unnecessary, but it has now become an honored tradition to appoint names. The names seem to connotate something special about that President’s tenure. “Trailblazer” blazed trails all across Iraq. Blazed ‘em with guns and explosions. “Searchlight” was found… guilty. It seems to be almost a forethought of what is yet to come. So Barack Obama’s choice in codename should be taken as an indication, if not a prophecy, of what is yet to come.

In line with tradition, family members have code names beginning with the same letters. Michelle Obama is “Renaissance”. Their daughters, Malia and Sasha, are “Radiance” and “Rosebud”, respectively. And President-elect Obama is… drum roll, please… “Renegade”.

Now, using the history-established pattern, I am going to predict the future. I know I do this at the risk of people beginning to ask me what job to take, what to name their child, who to vote for on American Idol, etc. - but I feel my country needs me. And you have to admit... Renegade... It’s an interesting choice of words. I looked up several definitions of the word “renegade” to get a better look at what is in store for our great country.

Renegade \Ren"e*gade\ n.
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary:
(1) One faithless to principle or party. (2) One who deserts and betrays an organization, country, or set of principles (3) A person who abandons religion: an apostate. (4) a worthless or wicked fellow.

Telling, indeed. Other definitions:

“One faithless to principle or party”
-Dictionary.com

“A 1979 hit song recorded by the American rock band Styx. It was on their album Pieces of Eight.”
-Wikipedia

“Also the eleventh studio album by the Irish band Thin Lizzy, released in 1981.”
-Wikipedia

“Deserter: a disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause, religion, political party or friend.”
-google.com

In French, it means:

“;Cinéma* Renegade est un film italien sorti en 1987.* Renegade est le nom américain du film français Blueberry, l'expérience secrète.”
-fr.wikipedia.org/

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: “Renegade est our foreign policy – when attacked, we be “rennin’ gay”

People I would consider to be “renegades”:

Captain Jack Sparrow

Tupac Shakur

Clay Aiken

Ned Schneebly

Now to be fair, there is one definition that Obama probably liked when he chose his name. “Renegade: A break with established customs.” So he continues with his unchanging theme - “change”. Whatever the reason may be, however, “Renegade” does have a pretty cool sound to it.

Just picture Captain Jack Sparrow with an electric guitar... Renegade. Tupac tearing down injustice and archaic political customs, with a chainsaw... Renegade. Barack Obama tearing out the bowling alley installed in the White House by Richard Nixon to put in a basketball court, and inviting NBA stars to "shoot hoops" with him (which he is actually doing)... Renegade.

So, as far as secret code names go, it's pretty cool. And Thin Lizzy is wetting themselves with joy.

I will not tolerate intolerance!

2008-11-10T10:42:00.000-08:00

I am beginning to cringe at the word "intolerance". I hear it everywhere. Most especially, I cringe when I hear about people's "intolerance" of same-sex couples because they voted against gay marriage.

First of all, for those of you who haven't read Orson Scott Card's article on prop 8, the word tolerance implies that we disagree. It means, I do not agree with you, but I can live with you. It means that I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I allow others their right to choose to do it or not. This is not what the same-sex movement demands, however. They don't care if people are tolerant - they are demanding that everyone agree with them. Anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle is quickly branded as close-minded, intolerant bigots. It's been shouted at Temples here and in Los Angeles, it's been put on TV and it's been blasted across the internet. And it's incorrect. Voting for Proposition 8 is not intolerant. It just means that Californians do not agree with their lifestyle - if they voted to make being gay illegal, that would be intolerant. But the fact that they do not agree with letting them marry is not intolerance.

There are several important points to the Proposition 8 debate:
1) Marriage is not a right. It is nowhere guaranteed to anyone, and it is certainly not a constitutional right.
2) This is NOT a civil rights issue. The main reason why - It is a choice. Being African-American is not a choice, or even a biological tendency. Let's assume gay people are born with those tendencies (which there is no evidence to support, as of yet), but for the sake of the argument, let's assume being gay is biological. Regardless, they can choose to act on it. As an example, some people are born inherently violent - they are biologically inclined towards violence - yet society doesn't support them in that violence. We tolerate them, try to help them, but we do not promote it.
3) The vote has been cast. Don't let the vocal minority overshadow the silent majority. The people have chosen, and in a democracy, that is law. It is not up to the minority to now sue to change the law that the people put in place.

It is definitely a charged topic, and with such intense feelings involved on both sides of the issue, it is imperative that people be sensitive, but it is also important that people don't sacrifice right and wrong to cater to feelings and it is especially scary to see people sacrifice values and principle for popular opinion. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it will always be that way. So let us be tolerant, yes. We need to be tolerant. But nothing should drive a person to sacrifice values or character. Not even if those values are unpopular, protested, or so-called "intolerant".

A Little Uneasy

2008-11-10T08:44:00.000-08:00

I insist on being fair to the new President. I want to judge his presidency only on policies he advocates or implements, not on his party. His first choice as President-elect, however, has me a little worried.

The new White House chief of staff - Rahm Emanuel.

Most of you have probably never heard of this guy before. I hadn't either, so I decided to do some research. I soon found out - Rahm Emanuel is insane. I'm surprised it's not clinically diagnosed yet.

Some examples of why (and I swear I am not making any of these up):
- He once mailed a dead fish to a co-worker he didn't like. For most people, this is not a normal reaction to a dislike for co-workers.
- He advocates mandatory 3-month military service for all Americans age 18 to 25.
- He has a 100% pro-choice voting record.
- After Clinton won the 1996 election, Emanuel was attending a celebratory dinner in the President's honor. He was upset with the enemies of the President, so he stood up, grabbed a steak knife, and began listing off names. After each name, he stabbed the knife into the table and shouted, "Dead!" This is the guy that is going to be advising our President.
- According to politico.com, his tenure as "boss" of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was filled with "all those f-bombs" and "threats to pulverize GOP incumbents." That's crossing the aisle.
- He regularly has tea with Osama bin Laden.
- That last one I may have made up.

To be fair, nobody is all bad, and neither is he. He has done good things. Some things to look forward to with the new President's advisor:
- Mandatory military service. I do look good in camouflage...
- He has played a good role in promoting peace in the Middle East.
- He is great at raising money
- I always wanted a dead fish mailed to me from the White House.
- He is a political strategy genius - when he was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, they gained 30 seats in the house. Even Illinois Republican Rep. Ray Lahood commented "He legitimately can be called the golden boy of the Democratic Party today. He recruited the right candidates, found the money and funded them, and provided issues for them. Rahm did what no one else could do in seven cycles."
- I bet if there were a dead fish in my mailbox, those punk kids would stop putting dog poop in there.

So things are getting interesting. A lot of people are complaining about Emanuel's appointment as chief of staff. They claim that Obama promised to be bipartisan and work with both sides, and then appointed someone insanely liberal to his cabinet. Once again, I reserve judgment until we see what he does. Some input from others:

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said, ""This is an ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil and govern from the center."

Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant, "Barack Obama's first decision as president-elect undermines his promise to 'heal the divides'."

Lindsay Graham, republican Senator from South Carolina, "This is a wise choice by President-elect Obama. He's tough but fair -- honest, direct and candid."

Ken Duberstein, White House chief of staff under Reagan, said, "[Emanuel's] challenge will be, with the president, reaching out and building coalitions on the Hill, saying no to some of the president-elect’s most important constituencies... As partisan as Rahm may have been on the Hill, he’s all about governing.”

So it's only fair to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I'm still keeping an eye on him. And on my mailbox.

Wise Words

2008-11-05T19:53:00.001-08:00

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong." -Abraham Lincoln

President Obama

2008-11-05T08:03:00.001-08:00

Heaven is crying today. And hell froze over. I know this because I had to scrape the frozen tears off my car this morning.

Barack Obama is our President. I must admit, I never really thought Barack Obama was what our country needed, but I do think that what our country needs is a President that we all support. Luckily, that part depends on us. Regardless of who is President, America will still be the greatest country in the world. And it is our part as citizens to make sure that stays true. That means that we can't resort to mocking the President because he says "nucular." We can't be looking for reasons to criticize and tear him down. We definitely don't need to agree with him all the time - but that's the best part about a democracy. We can all feel as we feel, and allow everyone else to do the same, and together, the right things will happen. So in all seriousness and with good-hearted sincerity unfeigned, I wish good luck and the blessings of heaven to Barack Obama in his presidency.

The other thing I would like to say is that I hope, or maybe wish, that nobody was out there waiting for our President to trip up so they can point the finger and shout "I told you so!", a look of triumph on their face. That applies to anyone in public office. It inhibits the effectiveness of legislators to fear attacks on every word they say from people that know "everything". I can say that I will not be one of those people. Maybe I'm not quite ready for change I can believe in, but maybe change that I hope some of which might actually happen.

And there are some good things that will happen because Obama is president. Some examples:
(1) Proposition 8 passed. (This actually has nothing to do with Obama. He probably would have even voted against it. But it's still a good thing.) And I do think that this was a very good thing for the country. I don't think it is denying rights to anyone. In a democracy, the majority have rights that the minority does not have. That is the definition of democracy. For example, the minority of Americans last night did not have the right to choose who is President. The majority chose. And the minority conforms. The majority has spoken in California, and I hope that it rests there.
(2) When I was a young kid, I thought I would never be famous or influential. All the famous, influential people had names like "Kennedy", "Kimball", "Bush", etc. My last name didn't seem to fit in. But if Barack Hussein Obama can be President and Dieter Uchtdorf can be an apostle, I now have nothing holding me back.
(3) Now that African-Americans are finally equal, I'm sure President Obama's first act will be to abolish Affirmative Action. The emancipation of white males.
(4) Everyone can now stop talking about the election!

So in conclusion, I would like to be the first to welcome our new Obama overlords, and wish them a pleasant stay here on Earth. I would also like to request that, under the new regime, I be allowed to keep my car, my ipod and my wife. That is all.

When will they learn?

2008-10-30T15:03:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama has made himself into the candidate of change.

Barack Obama, when speaking in a rally today, laid the blame for our current economic crisis squarely on the shoulders of President Bush. He said,
"George Bush has dug a deep hole for us. And now he wants to pass the shovel to John McCain."

Let's face the facts, Barack, since no one else in the media likes to hold you to the truth.

In the 1990's Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae wanted to give loans to people that were considered "risky". The democratic party campaigned in favor of this. They argued that everyone deserved equal opportunities. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae even contributed to the campaigns of people that supported this (Barack Obama being the number one recipient of money from them. "No!" screams the left, "He would never do that! Barack Obama is different! Barack Obama will fight crime as he saves schoolbuses full of children from driving off cliffs while simultaneously helping old women cross the street!" Sorry kids... the facts are in).

So Barack Obama, showing his true colors and awesome understanding of the economy, voted and encouraged others to approve that loans be given to risky recipients. This was encouraged by the Democratic party until the companies went under and the government had to bail them out. And the guy with this judgement is the guy you want to make decisions for our country?

Guess who warned them and argued against this? The Republicans. Bush. McCain. Bush's secretary of the treasury.

Yet Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have repeatedly blamed them for the crisis that they warned against. And everyone is somehow buying it.

So - to all of you who believe that Barack Obama is different, that he is above dirty politics, that he is better than that - he's not. And if anyone looked at his record instead of only his music video, America would make a wiser decision.

Dear Media,

2008-10-27T17:44:00.000-07:00

What an amazing way to lay it on the line. I wish people from newspapers and news stations across America would read this and be honest about what they're telling people. Too many people believe only what they see on the 6 o'clock news, CNN, or politico.com. We need integrity back in our media.

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

by Orson Scott Card
October 20, 2008
An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" (http://snipurl.com/457to): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Fred Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards' own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women (NOW) threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe -- and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

http://www.linearpublishing.com/orsonscottcard.html

Dear Kathy

2008-10-27T10:12:00.000-07:00

Kathy said,
"Several of my friends have expressed why they're NOT voting Obama, but rarely why they ARE voting McCain. Yeah, it's a "lesser of the two evils" thing. But why exactly do you think McCain is such a good choice? I'm just curious."

Fair question. So to temporarily interrupt the Why-not-Obama train, here is why you should vote for McCain.

1: So that Obama will not win.
2: To stick it to Oprah.
3: I have found a general law for life decisions: When in doubt, do whatever CNN tells you not to do.
4: The next president will most likely appoint several Supreme Court justices. The opinions of the President are usually manifest in the judges he chooses. I don't want any more liberal judges in the Supreme Court. I want Supreme court justices that interpret the law, not make it.
5: I want a President that would veto bills supporting same-sex marriage, etc if they were to come up to his desk. I don't think Obama will. I think McCain would, even if it were just to please his party. I think moral issues are some of the crucial issues in this election, since they draw some of the largest differences between the candidates. I don't want my kids to grow up in an immoral world (more than it already is, anyway), where abortions are done freely and same-sex marriage is portrayed as normal. Truth be told, everything that I like about Obama, McCain agrees with (free trade, immigration, etc.). The only thing that would sway me towards Obama is the health plan that he "borrowed" from Mitt Romney, and I don't think now is the time to pursue that due to the economic situation we are in. So the moral issues make a huge difference.
6: Although I don't think that McCain's financial plan is perfect, it is better than Obama's.
7: So that Saturday Night Live can stay funny.
8: I support McCain because he doesn't support huge federal government - "spread the wealth" type things. It teaches the irresponsibility that got us into the financial crisis that we are now in. Teach people that they are responsible for themselves, and give them the opportunities to succeed. Wendell Berry talks about this - by telling people they need government help because they are "underprivileged", they begin to assume they are underprivileged, and they act as such. We do need to help those in need - but there are different ways of helping.
9: There is no way McCain could win again in 4 years, which means Mitt Romney can. (Prediction: In four years, when no change (even change we can believe in) has happened, Obama will run on his new platform: "These things take time. At least 4 years more of it." And because he will say it nicely, people will sing his praises once more.)

Why not Barack Obama? Part 1

2008-10-27T09:22:00.000-07:00

The next few posts will be part of a series which you have all been waiting for. Why would I not vote for Barack Obama? After all, he speaks really well and has a music video. Here's one of the main reasons:

Barack Obama's tax policies.

Repeatedly, and often repetitively, Obama has stressed that he will cut taxes for 95% of the families in America. Only those making over $250,000 a year would have raised taxes. When Joe Biden was asked about this, his response was,

"You got it, it's time to be patriotic... Time to jump in. Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut."

(ABC News interview with Kate Snow, Sept. 18)

First of all, to debunk the myth, 40% of Americans don't pay taxes. Generously, Obama included them in his numbers of those who will receive tax breaks. So of the actual 55% that would supposedly receive tax breaks, they pay, collectively about 40% of the taxes in America. So those facing the tax hikes, the top 10%, are already paying 60 percent of the taxes. Here are the problems with that:

1: Take a look at history. Every time someone raises taxes on the rich, tax revenues go down, and every time there are tax cuts (Reagan, Clinton, Bush) tax revenues go up. Why is this? Simple - if you punish the rich with too much taxes, they go elsewhere. They are willing to spend the money to evade taxes if they feel those taxes are unfair. So by raising their taxes, tax revenue will drop.

2: You can't tax corporations. One of two things happens - either 1) they raise their prices to consumers to cover those raised taxes, which means the people who are supposedly receiving tax breaks are still actually being taxed, or 2) they lose revenue to taxes, and cut jobs to make up for it. Which hurts those lower 90% who, luckily, got tax breaks, but unluckily, lost their jobs. McCain's plan includes tax cuts to businesses (No! screams the left, They favor the rich and they stomp the poor under their feet!) The truth is by decreasing corporate taxes, jobs are created and prices drop.

Obama has a hard time with money issues. He has proposed over 293 billion dollars in increased spending, on top of the 290 billion dollars in tax cuts. Most of the increased spending is towards special interest groups. (Interestingly, he was the senator who received the most money from Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae.) My question is, where does he intend to get this money? From his proposed tax hikes, he projects to make about 93 billion dollars more. That leaves us around 580 billion dollars short.

I hope that those enthralled with the "change" that is "sure" to happen with "Barack" Obama will realize soon after he's elected (we all know he's going to win) that he won't "really" change "anything". Except changing the huge number representing the national deficit to a gigantic number, representing his new national deficit.

I think there was a candidate that was good with money... can't quite put my finger on his name right away... Oh yeah, Mitt Romney. Let it be heard once more - It should have been Mitt. Mitt "Ready, when you all come crawling back" Romney.

Why not Barack Obama? Part 1 (cont.)

2008-10-27T09:21:00.000-07:00

Another way to look at the US tax system, and why we don't tax the rich:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I"m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got."

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works!!

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

(I didn't write this, but I don't know who did.)

Proposition 8, argued better than I could have

2008-10-24T16:04:00.001-07:00

A great article on LDS view of Prop 8

http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=4740

Disagree but don't be unkind
By Orson Scott Card
Thursday, Oct. 23, 2008

Some people have misunderstood the LDS Church's position on Proposition 8 in California, and its opposition to gay marriage. They think that we are "against homosexuals" -- that we think of "them" as our enemies, and that individuals who have entered into "gay marriages" pose a direct personal threat to us.

The unfortunate thing is that some of those who have this false impression are Mormons.

So let's set the record straight.

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a long and successful history of rejecting social customs in the surrounding culture. We Mormons are pretty good at going our own way. We are as likely to be able to keep our children from embracing gay marriage as we are to keep them from smoking, drinking or taking drugs.

It's easier, of course, when the surrounding culture is not propagandizing against our values, but we tend to get more stubborn in defense of our faith when we are up against opposition. So our concern in this legal struggle is not for the church, but for the health and well-being of society at large, of which we are only a part.

2. We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a "marriage," are personally hurting anybody. Where the law makes such a thing available, even temporarily, those who "marry" are not our enemies. We believe the law is wrong and the marriage is not, in any meaningful way, what we mean by marriage.

But my family and I are perfectly able to deal with such couples socially and keep them as friends, as long as they show the same respect and understanding for our customs and beliefs as we show for theirs.

I speak from experience: My family and I have close friends who are gay, some of whom have entered into lawful marriages. They know we don't agree that their relationship is the same thing or should have the same legal status as our marriage, but we all accept that strong and clear difference of opinion and move on, continuing to respect and love each other for the values we share.

Only when a gay friend demanded that I agree with his or her point of view or cease to be friends has the friendship ended. What is odd is that in every case they called me intolerant. They misunderstood the meaning of "tolerance."

Tolerance implies disagreement -- it means that even though we don't agree with or approve of each others beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably. When we agree, we aren't being tolerant, we're being uniform.

It's uniformity or submission these former friends wanted, not tolerance at all.

It makes me sad when people are so intolerant that they cannot bear to be friends with anyone who disapproves of some action or opinion of theirs. But I believe that if we could only be friends with people who never disapprove of something we do, we will end up with "friends" who either don't know us very well, or don't care about us very much.

3. Even if we fail to overturn the current legal movement toward gay marriage, we can treat our opponents politely and kindly, even when they do not extend the same courtesy to us.

4. Only those who try to use the force of law to promote homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage to our children, and who would forbid us to publicly teach and express our belief that marriage is only meaningful between heterosexual couples, move into the category of enemies of freedom. And that will be because of their attempt to suppress religious freedom, freedom of speech and press, and the right of parents to control their children's moral education.

Supporting Proposition 8 in California is a political action, which we undertake as citizens.

Preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ -- including our beliefs about marriage and the proper conditions for acts of procreation -- is quite separate.

We do not think that any belief system, whether it calls itself a religion or not, should be imposed on other people by law -- we won't impose ours on them, and we won't let them impose theirs on us or our families.

Instead, we believe that as long as we are citizens of a free country, changes in the laws and institutions of our society should be made only by common consent, after a free and candid discussion.

There is no place for any Latter-day Saint to be unkind to, or speak slightingly of, those who disagree with us. Just because someone else is engaging in conduct that we believe is wrong does not give us the right to hate them or mistreat them. We preach the gospel of Christ to any who are willing to listen, but we will force our beliefs on no one.

However, we do have the right, as citizens, not as Mormons, to try to persuade our fellow citizens to vote for good laws based on sound principles. We have a right to advocate laws that we believe will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

We would never try to force our beliefs on an unwilling majority, and we hope that our opponents on this issue will have the same respect for democracy and the Constitution.

In fact, I believe that even those who absolutely believe in gay marriage should join us in opposing any law that is forced on an unwilling majority by the dictates of judges. For those that are wise will recognize that once judges are given such power, that power has as much chance of being used against them as for them.

What are the reasons that we, as citizens, oppose gay marriage?

Legalizing gay marriage has huge legal implications far beyond letting same-sex couples enter into marriage contracts. Once "marriage" has been so radically redefined, it will become unlawful and discriminatory for schools or any other public facility to favor, for instance, heterosexual dating or dancing.

Since our culture (like all human cultures throughout all of history) is oriented toward promoting the maximum opportunity for reproductive success for all members of the community, but channeled in a way that will best promote the survival of the community, such a radical change should not be entered into lightly.

Yet serious examination of scientific, historical, and legal issues has been all but drowned out by name-calling and demands for "rights."

Why do we oppose legalizing gay marriage?

1. Homosexuality itself is simply not understood. The available evidence suggests that bisexuality is far more common than exclusive homosexuality, that same-sex attraction may be a phase in some individuals and is merely an option for others.

2. Even where individuals feel they have no option except same-sex attraction, we do not understand the cause. The available evidence argues for at most a genetic contribution, with other -- probably environmental -- causes involved. The best evidence is that children are most likely to be reproductively viable -- i.e., able to mate successfully in circumstances likely to produce children who grow up to be reproductively viable -- when they have two parents, one of the same sex, and one of the opposite sex.

3. Growing up with opposite-sex parents, but in a society that has normalized and actively promotes one-sex marriages, will certainly affect the children of opposite-sex parents, potentially tipping the balance for children whose sexual identity is still formable.

4. Those who promote gay marriage have already shown a disposition to insist on uniformity of thought on the topic, and will certainly attempt to use the power of the state to suppress any attempt to publicly express a preference for heterosexuality, even (or especially) when such a preference has a religious basis, making this a potential religious-freedom and freedom-of-speech-and-press issue as well.

5. Gay marriage has been instituted in three states (so far) only by judicial decree, and without even the pretext that the constitutions involved were ever written with the intention of promoting or allowing gay marriage. This has happened even in a state (California) where a large majority of the people had already rejected gay marriage at the ballot box.

No serious attempt has been made to consider anything more than a general feeling that "tolerance is good" and "discrimination is bad." Yet we are proceeding headlong into a vast social experiment whose consequences, as far as we can see, risk serious damage to many in order to create only the most marginal benefit for a few.

What's the hurry? Why the hostility toward even the slightest opposition? Can't our opponents wait to get their way until they have persuaded a clear majority? Can't they listen to people with ideas that are different from theirs?

Patriots, Cleverly Disguised as Politicians

2008-10-24T10:12:00.000-07:00

Soon to come is the list of reasons why I will not vote for Barack Obama. To kick off the blog though, I am posting something I wrote a while ago.

Patriots, Cleverly Disguised as Politicians

Politics has changed from what was imagined by the founding fathers into something far from the original notion. Now it is something considered dirty, seen as pointless, and rather childish and petty. What was originally "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" is now just the opposite. “Indivisible” has come to mean “sitting democrats on one side of the room and republicans on the other, so as to avoid fraternizing with the enemy.” I thought we tried segregation once… and as I recall, it didn’t work. And yet even the people of the nation are more concerned about taking out “under God” than taking out politicians who thrive on the game of back scratching and political favors.

I do not believe that this is what George Washington had in mind when he prayed for the future of the country. I do not believe that when John Hancock signed his name in giant letters, he pictured this. Maybe their future visions of the new country were not even the same – but they all shared one thing: They wanted a better America for everyone. They did not agree – in fact, during the writing of the Constitution, their disagreements were equally fierce and equally opposing as ours are today. But in the end, they all wanted the same thing. They wanted a better America.

Now, I do think that our country’s leaders, for the most part, want the same thing today. I believe that the majority of the politicians of our day want a better America, and just see different ways of getting there. But I also think that too often in Washington, the “better America” is sacrificed for the sake of the moment. Too much is done for the back scratching. Too much is changed and modified to come off better to the party. Too much is pretended in order to get a nomination, or a promotion, or to rack up favors.

First of all, I say kudos to those in the government who refuse to play by those rules. Cheers to those who stick by their true beliefs, regardless of which side they are on. We need different viewpoints - America thrives on opposing opinions, and always has. But I say that it is time to put the petty differences aside. It is time to let go of the grudges, the name calling, the favors and the blindsides, and work together. It won’t be easy, but neither was the writing of the Constitution. But for all their fights and disagreements, true patriots were willing to compromise and work together for something that benefited America in the end. True patriots were willing to sacrifice their lives for their country – if not in death, than in a lifetime of service. We need patriots like that now. We need politicians like that now. We need patriots, cleverly disguised as politicians.

More to come soon.