They’re Coming For You

Share

We hear in the news a lot of allegation that Obama wants to tax the rich and make greedy executives pay. While he spends trillions, he wants to incite you against a million dollar party, a $300K office renovation, or the use of a private jet. The president talks of fiscal restraint, while his budget includes for one year alone as much of a deficit as the previous five years combined. The executives, the parties, the nationalization of industry, all of that constitutes a pretext for government to take over your life.

Government wants to dictate your life, and Obama is a would-be dictator. They want us to sign onto a UN resolution for children that would give people in Geneva permission to dictate how you govern your own home. It’s bad enough that our own nation has forbade us from disciplining our own brood, why would we want to give individuals distal to us politically and geographically the power to tell us what to do?

When Obama won the election, he made many promises he didn't mean. He told us that his administration wouldn't be governed by lobbyists, yet his cabinet brims with former lobbyists and tax cheats. This is just a show. He will listen to lobbyists who agree with him. He’s the most partisan president we’ve ever had. He wants this nation to be socialist. He is a tyrant in embryo. Obama will take over your life.

He wants to fight the deficit he created. That’s one way to get acclaim- create the problem and then clean it up. I’m not buying it. We fought a war in 1776 against taxation without our consent. The President won 52.6% of the popular vote. That is not a mandate to rewrite entirely our society simply because a majority of people voted for hope and change. Remember that the French fought a revolution over hope and change that ended in chop and hang. Death to the aristos; long live the Republic!

One if by land... The British are coming; the British are coming. They’re coming for you.

Triteness of Phrase

Share

I used to really like the color green. I am a plant scientist. I love growing things, unless of course the thing growing is government. No matter how much I love the planet, I am not tied to it, and if I hear the phrase "green jobs" one more time without a candid discussion of "net change in jobs" I'm going to wring someone's neck.

My friend Thom Truelove and I have discussed back and forth a list of phrases we'd like to see banned and some ways of speaking that really bother us. As putative political candidates ourselves, we believe in being honest and true, not in masking things in language of the marxist demagogue. I present the lists for your amusement and enlightenment.

Phrases that are far too often used and are almost always empty.
1. the fact of the matter is
2. a perfect storm
3. are you kidding me
4. that's what I'm talking about
5. I have to say...
6. a slippery slope
7. we're forced to
8. green jobs
9. comprehensive
10. now is the time

Honorable mention:
• grow the economy
• war on...
• this story has everything...

Warning flags:
A. Nearly all sentences that begin with any of the following words:
Well, Listen, Look, See,...
B. Anyway
C. Literally
D. Fine
E. Incentivize
F. Actually

I don't stutter. I don't use these tricks. I may not be charismatic, but I won't change to please the jury.

Outline the optimal dating/courtship form

Share

I’m old-fashioned, so bear with me.

I believe that it is right and proper for the parents to give consent to the association of a young man with their daughter, as such, I do not date without permission of her parents. Some people disagree, but Capulets like them make blood in the marketplace.

When people date, I believe it is good and proper that they do a myriad of different things together and in groups of associated individuals that allow them to see how they interact with each other and with other people. I believe that for the sake of appearances and to preclude certain proclivities to mischief that people should avoid situations and locations that would lead them into temptation towards the lusts of the flesh. As such, activities should finish and the parties should return home before midnight, and they should not for any reason really involve entry into the bedchamber of either party. Group activities with friends and other couples (married and as yet unmarried) help them get ideas and grow to trust one another.

Unmarried people need to do the kinds of things in courtship that will become the norm in married life, first to determine compatibility and second to introduce a dose of reality. Once the romance wears off and people settle down to making a home and a life together, if they cannot share in or do not enjoy the common purposes of cohabitation, they will not long endure. Not to the exclusion of fun are these things endorsed but to establish patterns of behavior, dispositions of character, and methods of operation where conflict may arise before they forge a contractual relationship beyond the verbal. Everyone comes from a different place, and so conflicts are inevitable, even if they need not be boisterous or belligerent. Also, married life and adult life entire constitute so much that is routine, that logic and reason dictate that as they are inclined to in younger years “dress up” as adults, they also “dress up” as if they were a married couple already as a gauge of future goodness of fit.

When they do things for enjoyment, the activities should foster a spirit of togetherness and communication. As such, movies and dinner are less desirable no matter how ensconced they may be into the standard dating rigmarole. People should share in matters of culture such as museums, art galleries, musical productions and the like to expand their minds. They should also likewise expose one another to the proclivities of pastimes that they enjoy, so that their putative partner may at least understand them even if they do not share the same valuations. Couples need to learn to communicate openly and honestly before they marry so as to prevent misunderstandings and hurt feelings after marriage. They should discuss personal things during courtship (though not necessarily at the beginning of the dating process) relevant to their eventual wedding. Activities should be chosen in which they can continue to participate together, whether they marry or not, and which lend towards cherished and treasured memories they are not embarrassed to share with others, because those things enriched their lives and helped them grow.

Courting couples should openly and honestly discuss their values and valuations, including fiscal policy. If they share nothing beyond the romance/physical aspects of a relationship, it will not endure, and if they disagree on matters of money, it is almost certain that they will not endure. However, they should not discuss too much their feelings for each other except as related to their shared vision for the future (i.e. do you see this person as a potential mate/parent of your children and can you support their vocational/educational endeavors?).

Seeing as how you also marry a family, some portion of their mutual interaction should involve time with each other’s family. However, beware spending an inordinate amount of time preferentially with one set of parents lest you establish an expectation for future events. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and they twain shall become one flesh. After marriage, the family into which you were born ceases to be as important as the one which you voluntarily forge with your spouse, seeing as the latter was actively created at your discretion while the former remains a matter of more circumstance.

I believe that many young people spend too much time on the physical aspects of dating/courtship. Physical attraction is always a depreciating asset; everyone gets older. Character remains. As such, I am disinclined to too much physical interaction and must usually be prevailed upon to show affection. It’s not that I don’t care for the person, but it is to avoid too frequent repetition of trite phraseology/activity that I believe cheapens the display and meaning of those symbols.

So, much as I hate to use these terms, I propose the following regimen:

“Just” Friends: marked by innocent, congenial, and nonspecific interactions with people for common interests rather than special romantic interest

“Just” Dating: pairing off for the duration of activities with one person exclusively for the purposes of finding out about the person, building a relationship of trust and preparation for the next phase, but with limited physical interaction as the parties desire. This would be a classic “date”, where a guy plans, pairs off, and pays for (if applicable) an activity of limited duration and scope. Multiple subsequent exclusive pairings off lead to-

“Just” Courting: exclusive dating of a specific partner intended to lead to or prepare for marriage, with focused activities meant to build on common beliefs, engrain positive common habits, and explore deeper issues of intimacy albeit void of physical intimacy in the classical sense. At this stage, terms of endearment, expressions of affection (verbal and physical) and physical interaction will and should escalate, but still within the bounds of chastity and propriety.

“Just Married”: putting into practice the lessons learned in courtship. Ideally the only difference between this and the previous stage is the introduction of physical intimacy, all other things having been previously established except for those possible only through mutual cohabitation, which should not occur until this point.

Proper dating and courtship should serve to establish what a potential partner brings to the table in a relationship. It should help determine how well the individuals involved can forge families and care for their mutual responsibilities as husband and wife, in particular once children come into the union, to establish patterns of behavior and activity that will best provide for the general welfare of offspring and preclude any need for intervention by civic authority.

Null Sum Game

Share

Unlike many other Americans, I will not be drooling this evening in anticipation of the president's speech. While he touts the "stimulus bill" for its tax cuts, the real effect of the tax cuts will be minimal, for a myriad of reasons.

If you qualify for the Making Work Pay credit of $400 a year, don't get too excited. It won't come until May, and divided equally will amount to an extra $25/month, if you qualify for it of course. I happen to not qualify, so I won't even get that much money.

If you're counting on the home incentive, remember that if you buy the home this year, you can't claim the credit until you file your taxes in 2010, meaning that it's at least a year away before you get that money.

Even more amazing, is this admission by Yahoo Finance which says:

Of course what filers' save on their federal taxes under stimulus may be muted by the fact that their cities and states -- facing steep budget shortfalls that will be lessened but not eliminated by stimulus funding -- may end up raising taxes and fees.

Exactly. In order to pay for these credits, they have to make up the difference somewhere else, meaning that states and municipalities will be raising taxes. My state legislature, under Barbara Buckley (D) is already talking about higher taxes to alleviate the budget shortfall, while Governor Gibbons (R) is asking the state employees to cut expenditures, take pay cuts, and go on voluntary furlough.

Government, like all entropic entities, always increases. So, don't be in too big of a hurry to spend that windfall refund- some other government official will soon exact it of you.

Bush's Third Term

Share

During the last election, Americans faced a choice between bigger government and massive government. Liberals worried McCain would lead us to a third Bush term, but it looks like we got that anyway. Everything fans of Obama criticized about Bush have been magnified by the current administration.

• Liberals criticized Bush for his massive spending and deficits. In his first 45 days in office, Obama has spent more money than any other political leader in history and expanded the deficit by over a trillion dollars, which is about 10% more onto the total deficit in one year.
• During the election, we heard endless rants about the "quagmire" in Iraq and the money being wasted there. Obama tells us now that he won't finish the withdrawal for 18 months, by which time most of his accolytes will have forgotten and not mind if he hopes and changes his mind.

• Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Bill Frist, and George Allen among others faced indictment and scrutiny as part of liberal outcry against corrupt bureaucrats. At least four of Obama's cabinet nominees were tax cheats and had to withdraw. I have never seen so many criminals nominated to high office, and yet the media and law enforcement seem not to care. Tom Daschle only paid the IRS for the two of five years for which he didn't pay taxes since they didn't catch him on the other three.

• At the end of Bush's presidency, people moaned over economic problems. At that point, the Dow had lost 2000 points off it's all-time high, but since Obama took the oath of office, the Dow has lost 2000 MORE points, and it loses about 100 points every day he gives a speech (which is every damn day). To top it off, in the State of the Union, Obama prophecied that it would get worse; I thought the Messiah would heal the land. Where is the economic holy grail he promised us? Where is the hope and change? I see doom and gloom, which is the modus opporendi of the Democrat party today.

That's just a few things, but Obama has not fixed anything. Don't count on him doing it. Believe it or not, the President is pretty impotent to effect change. Machiavelli wrote in The Prince about this kind of deception. President Obama is already walking a fine line for making promises he cannot or will not keep. If a prince is overly generous to his subjects, Machiavelli asserts he will lose appreciation and will only cause greed for more because most people do not spend other people’s money as carefully as they spend their own. Once you establish precedent and expectation, if you remove the incentives, you can anger the people against you who have grown dependent on those subsidies. Additionally, being over-generous is not economical, because eventually all resources will be exhausted. Even if you took all the money from everyone who earns $500K+ this year, it would not cover Obama’s proposed budget.

Higher taxes are inevitable if the prince is too generous. However, Obama will be praised for the illusion of being reliable in keeping his word, even if he doesn’t actually do it and pushes it off to other people to actuate. Presidents often propose programs that do not come to fruition until after their term of office so that they can appear gracious without intention of ever keeping their word and then let history blame their successors for inability to keep promises they did not make.

Cicero Comments on Bailout Bill

Share

Thought you might be interested in seeing what Cicero, a Roman Statesman, had to say about largess, pork, and earmarks. Keep in mind that he lived around the time of Julius Ceasar, just before the Roman Republic finally collapsed.

When politicians, enthusiastic to pose as the people’s friends, bring forward bills providing for the distribution of property, they intend that the existing owners shall be driven from their homes. Or they propose to excuse borrowers from paying back their debts.

Men with those views undermine the very foundations on which our commonwealth depends. In the first place, they are shattering the harmony between one element in the State and another, a relationship which cannot possibly survive if debtors are excused from paying their creditor back the sums of money he is entitled to. Furthermore, all politicians who harbour such intentions are aiming a fatal blow at the whole principle of justice; for once rights of property are infringed, this principle is totally undermined.

The real answer to the problem is that we must make absolutely certain that private debts do not ever reach proportions which will constitute a national peril. There are various ways of ensuring this. But just to take the money away from the rich creditors and give the debtors something that does not belong to them is no solution at all. For the firmest possible guarantee of a country’s security is sound credit…

So the men in charge of our national interests will do well to steer clear of the kind of liberality which involves robbing one man to give to another.

Obama isn't a good guy. Either he's a complete idiot, or he's an evil genious.

In Brief...

Share

What are you willing to trade for your freedom? Quite frankly, I feel we've traded enough already. So if see what I see, if you feel what I feel, then I invite you to join me in November 2010 and we will give them an election that shall never ever be forgot.

I propose an immediate boost in Defense budget by 10% including a 10% pay raise for our fighting men. As one of the few legitimate activities of government, those people tasked with the awful responsibility of bleeding for our liberty need more men and materials with which to do so. We need more men, more weapons, better men, and better weapons. I don't care if we outgun an enemy by far. Give them a broadside. As for the men who do the bleeding, we owe them their health care and their retirement. They were willing to do things most of us would not.

I propose an end to all legislation that attacks the accumulation of wealth. Tired of the assault on private property, I propose we defend it like in the Declaration of Independence. Put an end to Emminent Domain. Drop the corporate income tax to 10% since it's actually a secondary tax passed on to consumers. If we tax the "rich" let's tax the rich, not just those trying to become rich. To that end, I propose a consumption tax like the Boortz Amendment.

As such, it's time to get rid of the progressive income tax which is one of Marx's ten planks. It will make us more prosperous if we abandon this system. It will give the people power because they can refrain from consumption and cripple government largess.

Sunset all departments and agencies. Each must justify your existence and your expenditures every year or suffer elimination. It's high time we stop propping up bureaucracies that can be better administered by the private sector like Amtrack or things which simply ensconce civil servants into a pay scale driven by longevity rather than productivity.


Move federal tax day to election day. This way politicians will have to explain how their policies will affect taxes. Put your money where your mouth is, and campaign on reality, not projection.

I support the Milton Friedman amendment: limit government to a certain % of GDP unless there is a national emergency. Government cannot spend more than that regardless of how much they might otherwise be able to print or borrow.

We will end special legal and tax status for environmental groups that advance an agenda that will destroy us and do not represent the people. They are political movements and do not qualify for these special incentives.

No more tenure for professors and teachers. Let them compete with everyone else. Right to work states should become the norm. We have too many "teachers" who lecture and do not educate. Who tell people what to think but do not equip their students to think. Get the best people to teach our children, not those who've been doing in longest or who are connected to the NEA.

Open campaign financing. Donate whatever you want whenever as long as there's full disclosure instead of loopholes via internet like when Obama received contributions from foreign nationals at home and overseas.

No immigration without assimilation. No chain migration. No anchor babies. Get in line like everyone else. That which we obtain too easily we esteem too lightly. In America the Law is King.

I propose term limits for everyone. The longer politicians and judges sit on their thrones the further their inclinations and actions are from the people whom they ostensibly represent. Legislators should be limited to a total of 20 years in whatever house and judges to the same, no matter what level of court on which they serve.

I support legislative vetos on judges for a check by the people. Otherwise, how do we combat an unelected and unanswerable branch of the government, originally intended to be the weakest according to Jefferson but which has now become final arbiter and deity.

End cap and trade. Safer cars are smart cars. My sister and mother survived a rollover in a Chevy Malibu. I doubt Segue/GM will ever be able to say that. Who cares about gas mileage when you're flying through the air or crushed by an Excursion? The savings in gas is not offset by the risk to human life.

I believe that life is sacred, liberty is precious and property is sacrosanct. People cannot be happy unless they have all three, and I promise to defend them all against all enemies foreign and domestic, so help me God.

Future Perfect

Share

Today, I thought about a few things that have been weighing heavily on my mind but shouldn't be. While pondering and trying to listen to God, two movie lines came to mind by way of answer to my quandary:

Always in motion is the future.
--Yoda (Empire Strikes Back)

You're future hasn't been written yet. Noone's has, so
make it a good one. -- Doc Brown (Back to the Future III)

Tuesday I came to work to discover that someone has complained about me straight to the Dean. This particular person is probably insatiable- one of those people who can find something wrong wherever she goes. What bothered me most is that with me on the putative layoff list, if the Dean decides to defer to her critique of me, the dean may not defend me when it comes to decide with whom to dispense.

Today I had a political argument with an adjunct professor. Afterwards I realized that if I continued to do this, I would alienate myself among the rest of the faculty and find myself bereft of champions if ever I stood in need of advocacy.

Last Thursday, one of my students told me that I shouldn't be dating at all because my ex wife left me with some major problems. She, like so many other of my acquaintences, fears that I am fixated on a particular type of woman to date, a type which will only end in disappointment.

The fact of the matter is that nobody knows what will be. I could sit here and worry tonight about some amorphic future eventuality or I could do what I decided to do and take the advice of the Almighty. He told me to do two particular and specific things tonight, and I'm going to do them, no matter what the end result may be or how other people feel about it. I've done tons of things since my mission because I felt like I should, regardless of the outcome. Don't get me wrong; I fully expected certain outcomes, but sometimes it's not about the outcome at all. It's about having made the attempt.

If we only do things because we "know" they will be useful to us, nobody would do much of anything. Everything carries with it a risk, even dying and taxes. Too many people delude themselves into the "sure bet" only to find out they evaluated it wrong and it's neither sure nor a good bet. I told my students last week that we do not know all ends and we cannot see all variables and we cannot measure all data. The human mind cannot conceive every eventuality; we try to do the best we can with what we have.

The salient point is that most people make decisions based on expected or desired outcomes. I make decisions to do things that are right. Do what is right; let the consequence follow.

Seeing as I seek to serve God and please him, it stands to reason that I would act in such a way that would fulfill that valuation. In order to please Him, I must seek His will. That being the case, I make prayerfully deliberate decisions and seek His endorsement. I do not do that because I expect it to bring me unending bliss; I do it because He commanded/suggested that I so do. His ways and thoughts are higher than my own. I trust Him even if I don’t understand.

As such, although I thank you all for your trust and concern, I solicit your prayers and faith that what I do will be what is best, not because of what I want to happen but because of what ought to happen as a result. You might say I follow the philosophy of the stoics who said that they prefer what is, because they choose to believe that what comes to pass is the will of God and therefore it is what is desirable. Maybe it sounds strange of me to be grateful for how Kim wrecked my psyche, but I am today where I am because of her in part, and I’m better of in general today than ever before in my adult life.

My future will be perfect. Not everything that happens from here on out will be what I want to happen, but I know that sometimes what I wanted would have turned out to be an abject disaster. God knows best. In God I trust. In the end, what should be will be when the time is right, and that will be just fine by me. God has never let me down, even if he sometimes forces me to wait longer than I want for what I know I deserve.

Family Political Policy

Share

During my morning jog, I noticed an inordinate amount of signage in the neighborhood regarding a particular candidate who happens to be related to a large number of people in the city. My mom and I talked about this phenomenon and I decided that it might be a good idea to decide on a political policy for the family before anyone ran for office.

Just because you're related, you might feel obligated to put up a sign, even if you don't agree with me. Don't worry about that. I think you should follow the admonition of Mr. Applegate in Damn Yankees:

Never put signs up for anybody

Political choice is a personal matter. That few people, if any, agree with me on matters of import does not dissuade me from my determined stance. During the 2004 election, I hated the bumper sticker my wife made me put on the car, but I dutifully drove around with it to keep the peace. Since then, I have not put anything political on my lawn, my car, etc., except on this blog which is where it belongs.

During the primaries, people slashed tires at rallies. I do not need to invite violently vicious violations of volition on my family or property. Inappropriate though it may be, how do you combat that except by an appeal to the mind? Trouble is that these people cannot be persuaded by argument; they are demagogues.

So, vote for me or don't. Agree with me or don't. I don't take it personally. I claim the privilege of exercising my franchise according to the dictates of my own conscience and allow all men the same. Afterwards we will see who is happy and who is dead.

Tax Credits

Share

One of my biggest problems with the economic "stimulus" bill before the Congress is the term tax credit. I have long been a proponent of the Jeffersonian argument that it is not right to take from the hand of labor and give to him who has not earned it.


Many people will, according to the bill recently addressed in a Boston Globe article, receive money from the treasury who didn't pay anything into it. When you don't have much invested into something, you don't have much to lose if the idea doesn't work out, but the sad fact of the matter is that so many people operate under the mistaken notion that they have nothing vested into the system even as they suck the marrow out of their future life.


While many of you and indeed some 95% of Americans do not consider themselves or aren't considered to be rich, I venture to say that most of you would like some day so to be. As you continue to heap onto those who currently are "rich" a series of abuses and usurpations pursuing the same object, you forstall your own entrance into the throngs of people with whom you one day hope to be identified, and you indemnify yourself in perpetuity an obligation thereunto to be obligated to pay for that which you once legally plundered if and when you arrive at that juncture yourself.


If I wish in and of myself to bequeath of my excess and bounty upon others, that is my right. It is not however my right to either assume a right to something simply as a matter of whim or fancy nor to require that some government agent so do on my behalf. Governments came after society, and as such they remain subject unto us. Governments only have the rights we give them, and it never has been a right to take something that is not originally ours. Our own Bill of Rights speaks of fair compensation, whatever that means, but the very asinine claim that trading it for your life, which was already yours by right before government, does not fly with me.


Notice how so many of the do-gooders want to be generous with your money and not their own. I remember during the campaign noting that Senators Biden and Obama had, in all their public service, donated less to charity than I do in a single year, the great disparity in our incomes notwithstanding. The government likes to sound charitable because it will make them popular, and so they dole out money to every demographic except the rich, so as to buy up as many votes as possible.


For my own part, I demand the Daschle Deduction. He knew full well that he could do more for himself and his family with his own money than the government ever could/would. So, he abstained from payment of taxes until Obama nominated him to a cabinet post. General Eisenhower linked the faith and future of America in this observation: “There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, the love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.” Let us alone, and we will feed the hungry, visit the sick, free the captive and right any other injustice which lies in our power.

Government needs to let us alone. We cannot be free or lastingly happy so long as they control our life, liberty and property. This small-town mentality that government knows best has virtually vouchsafed the eventual bankruptcy, not only of the specie circular, but also of the nation's soul. The proper function of government is safety and the vouchsafing of those liberties guaranteed from our creator. Anything further is tyranny.

A Choice

Share

Someone recently asked me if I was crazy when I told her about my moral code of ethics. I wanted you to know what teachings inspired me to live the way I've chosen to live.

At some point, I came into possession of the World War II edition of "Gospel Principles" issued to my grandfather in the Pacific Theater. One day after work when I had nothing better to do, I flipped it open randomly and found these words:

How glorious is he who lives the chaste life. He walks unfearful in the full glare of the noonday sun, for he is without moral infirmity. He can be reached by no shafts of base calumny, for his armor is without flaw. His virtue cannot be challenged by any just accuser, for he lives above reproach. His cheek is never blotched with shame, for he is without hidden sin. He is honored and respected by all mankind, for he is beyond their censure. He is loved by the lord, for he stands without blemish. The exaltations of eternities await his coming. Heber J Grant, J Reuben Clark and David O McKay October 1942

I felt like they were talking to me. Although already a man of high moral character, I resolved as never before to keep to that way of life, which I have done. I do not fear All my accusers do so unjustly. All my friends respect me even if they disagree. I value virtue more than any advantage the alternative affords.

Thought you ought to know.

Proper Education

Share

This semester I am fortunate to be teaching three laboratory sections for the university. In truth, many of the sections I teach are mine by virtue of the fact that many other people prefer not to teach at 19:30. I'm also working on a book, inspired by a trip I took last November, called Educating the Free, and I'm taking the opportunity this semester to put my theory into practice.

My theory, plain and simply stated, consists of the following:

Teachers set the example and students get inspired.

Granted, not all of the students get inspired. Many of my students are not biology majors, and so they echo the cliches about "what is this good for- absolutely nothing". Already thus far however, I have changed the lives of a few.

Last Thursday night, I started the introductory lab on statistics and data by sharing photographic enlargements chronicling my activities over the past few years. After class, one of the students confided in me that prior to class he feared it would be a boring class with a lame professor and admitted that I was actually pretty cool. I told them that we would share some fun times, some personal memories, and learn together, and in his case I've been able to align his mind to an open orientation.

In class last night, one of my students pointed out that because I care about what I teach, they can feel the passion and interest. She told me that they can't help but pay attention because my experiences, stories, and insights made the subject real. I even managed to use the visual demonstration of a guitar solo to discuss sound waves and measurable phenomena.

When I started teaching at this institution, I knew it provided an opportunity for me to change lives and revolutionize learning for these students. Most of my students are retooling their lives for a career change, and as such they are motivated by different things than my college classmates. I am trying to inspire them and guide them so that they know how to think, so that when scientists make sweeping claims they know how to evaluate the data and can take things with a grain of salt.

Someone once asked me what gift I would ask of God. Truthfully, I side with Solomon- I would like better discernment. It is that gift with which I wish to imbue my students this semester and always. May they always know how to find light and truth, no matter how well the dark may obfuscate it.

What's Biochemistry Good For?

Share

Some of my students ask me if I ever use my degree at work, and the fact of the matter is that not only do I regularly but also the university allows me more opportunities so to do, budget permitting, despite not being a regular researcher (faculty). Last night, I found something else Biochemistry is good for.

I was looking in my closet for a copy of The Princess Bride when something on the wall caught my eye. I'm glad I took time to pay attention to it, because it was a scorpion. Exactly below it against the wall on top of a stack of books was my Stryer Biochemistry book from college. Our professors had arranged the courses so that we bought that one book for three different classes, thus saving us money. What it also meant is that there was no market to buy them back, and by the time you finished three semesters there was a new version available. So, I have it still, although I didn't really know why.

Without thinking twice last night, I smashed the scorpion with 1120 pages of Biochemistry text. The Scorpion didn't stand a chance. This marks the fifth scorpion inside in the last year, but the first one ever upstairs. We've had quite a bit of rain this season, which might explain them coming inside, although I'm not sure what they're hunting (they eat insects and the like).

Normally, I take pests outside and turn them loose in their own environment. I don't do this to save the planet or any of that mumbo jumbo. I want them to do what they're supposed to do, just not inside my home. If, however, it's something that can hurt me (any biting/poisonous arachnid or reptile or a rodent), I will kill it before it kills me.

I remember a lecture on nuclear weapons and a series on biological weapons, but now I found something else Biochemistry is good for and something Stryer never envisioned: his textbook cannot be stopped by a scorpion, no matter how poisonous or well-hidden it may be.

Begging for Permission

Share

For some time now, my cousin has had a quote posted that I cannot get out of my mind. It says that people are desperately seeking someone to give them permission to do that which they want to do anyway.

A few weeks ago, an old URL acquaintance of mine came to me seeking my opinion on something. What it basically boiled down to is that she wanted me to tell her it was okay for her to smoke marijuana. She knew how I felt, but I think she figured that if I gave her license by minimizing the repercussions of what she proposed she wouldn't have to feel as bad. In the end however I disappointed her by staying true to form and putting the burden right back on her shoulders to choose her own way.

My ex wife came to me often for my "opinion" on matters of common interest. At length I discerned that what I actually thought mattered very little to her; she wanted me to validate her thoughts so that she could do what she wanted and then cast the blame on me later when it inevitably went belly up. Nobody likes to be wrong, but an independent confirmation helps us feel better about a choice when we're not sure.

From von Mises in Human Action and Smith's Moral Sentiments, I learned this past year that choices reflect valuations. People always find time and reason to do things they truly want to do. It's not necessarily like in these particular instances that the person intends something that will harm them or just not turn out to be useful; sometimes they choose something that's good, but it's just not the thing I would choose in that circumstance. Not that there way is wrong, but it's wrong for me.

Some things are wrong, but people like to do them anyway. In Politics, Aristotle teaches us that people trade the lower pleasures as a semblence of the higher, and in that exchange they trade away something of true value for one of apparent value. I try very hard to place my value in things that really matter- not that I don't want the niceties of life, but that aesthetics and perception mean less to me than substance and character.

Pandering to people who want license to do things that will ultimately undermine them hurts everyone. If there is law, follow it; if there is truth, stick to it; if there is value, treasure it. Otherwise, simply let it go.

Paying for Obama's Budget

Share

Every time Obama nominates someone for a Cabinet post, they have to withdraw over tax problems. With the back taxes, fees, interest, and penalties that could be collected by the IRS, we could probably afford to pay for much of that upon which Obama wants to spend money.

Unfortunately, like most liberals, he's out there advocating reductions in CEO salary and benefit packages. The dirty little secret is that if you limit compensation, the people who are best for the jobs will not apply, meaning the businesses will fail anyway. Notice that liberals always advocate reduction in salary for people who generate money for regular people but not for other categories of "rich".

I admonish Obama, if he's genuine about taxing the rich and spreading the wealth to people who "need" it (which he's not), to extend equal opportunity to other demographics. There are people around him who have gobbs and gobbs of money but nobody ever talks about them paying their fair share. From athletes to actors to Al Gore, there are BILLIONS in tax revenue waiting to be collected or wealth to spread around to regular folks who need cars, lodging, food and gas. Does ARod really deserve millions or Ben Affleck or Al Gore? Aren't they able to shoulder individually a lot more than we can collectively?

The problem is that people always cut from the bottom up, which undermines the longevity of their endeavors. I'm the newbie at work, and they put my name on the list for layoffs. The people who do the work take it in the pants. Meanwhile we have people protected by tenure and people under indictment by the District Attorney who draw paychecks without any work being done. Likewise, LIberals expect poorer people to shoulder the burden while Kennedy, Gore, Daschle, Obama, ad infinitum enjoy life in the lap of luxury. Go figure.

To pay for Obama's budget, we need to limit liberal pay and continue to nominate them to the bureaucracy, whereupon we'll discover what they're worth and what they owe. After all, you have to pay your "fair share", why not they?

The Daschle Deduction

Share

I demand the Daschle Deduction for my taxes. Tom Daschle withdrew his name from a post in Obama’s cabinet because he chose not to pay his taxes because he felt he could do better things for himself with his money than the government can. Apparently he agrees with Harry Reid that taxes are elective and not compulsory. Trouble is that’s exactly how I feel about it- I can spend the money I pay in taxes better than they ever could.

In the name of the children, the poor, and the oppressed, liberals try to take your money claiming they can do more with it to help people than you can. However, you see that Daschle, Kennedy-Schlossberg, Richardson, ad infinitum, believe themselves to be above paying any taxes. See, the dirty little secret is that they can do more things with their own money than bureaucracy can, and SO CAN YOU. If you kept more of your own money, you’d do a much better job of using it to fix your own situation. This bailout will “create” jobs at a cost of $200,000 each…why not just give $200,000 to the 2 million people it would employ? Because the bureaucracy will siphon off its share on the way down until the people get hired for 40% of the money it costs to hire them.

I don't want to hear that liberals love people. They look for every excuse to deny people of their right to life- abortion, birth control, rationing of national health care, euthanasia laws. We know where they stand when it comes to life. They do not care whether you live or die, only how much they can wring from you while you live. Why confer more authority on people who would suck the marrow from our bones and leave us bereft? People like to glamourize the vampire world, but liberal policies, when they don't make life-sucking drones out of our children who further spread that insatiable lust for the lifeblood of others, leave a wake of death and destruction that should scare us silly like Transylvanians.

Demand the Daschle Deduction and do more with your money.

Pitting State Agencies at Odds

Share

An acquaintance of mine notified me this morning that she'd been laid off at her old job. It didn't bother her too much because the Nevada Department of the Interior had scheduled her for an interview this week for a job in Elko. At first, I was happy for her; then reality set in.

The governor has said much about cutting higher education. We're already short handed in my department at the university, and we've been under a hiring freeze since all but since I was hired on. If they cut our pay but other agencies are allowed to bring on new employees, what kind of a message does that send?

When I sent the governor my letter volunteering to lose my job, I did so under the assumption that it might reduce in reductions in the state workforce. With this new information it appears that the true story might be an issue of reallocating funds from higher education to other departments, which I oppose. It doesn't reduce the burden on the taxpayer to change for what agency a man works; we need to reduce the state payroll and keep it at that level that is the maximum necessary for efficiency. If I take a pay cut or receive a pink slip and this woman gets hired, it's as if I'm paying for her wages out of my pocket.

I guess that when the chips are down, the liberals play the same card- rob from the "rich" and give to the "poor", except that they never bother to really define who the rich and poor are, and even when they try they can't keep their story straight.

If You Have a Better Plan...

Share

This morning, I started the day with two irritating communiqués from well-meaning individuals trying to reign in my zeal. Both of them objected to my ideas and proposals, and while their reasons may be legitimate, recognizing that I don’t know everything about anything, alternatives are the price of admission to the arena of ideas.

Most naysayers in my life shoot down my notions without offering options. In the first of the two cases, the individual claimed to have a venue of alternatives, but when I investigated it for myself I found no mention of anything of that sort where they pointed me. Moreover, even if I’d found evidence thereof, the argument was based on faulty reasoning, because I am familiar with that locale and know it to be of a different character than they allege (presumably they have not actually been there). For the second case, the person just shot me down completely, claiming that it would irritate some and cause a ruckus.

No matter what you do, you can’t please everyone. No matter how hard you try, I learned from Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, you cannot understand exactly from whence another person comes. Like it or not, nobody can prescribe a remedy for your life that will work as well as the one you can design for yourself because nobody else thinks like you do, acts like you do, responds as you do, and values/prioritizes as you do. While the alternative suggested might work for them, they are not you, and even if they have all the information (which is unlikely), being a different person means projected results will not go as people assume.

If you don’t like my idea, I’m open to a better one. Sometimes, however, I need to do something, and I will do the best thing I can. Trust me to make a deliberate, prayerful choice in the matter. I do not fly by the seat of my pants.

Rebuttal to Governor Gibbons

Share

The governor’s office sent me a form letter back in response to my argument that layoffs are both inevitable and necessary to cure the state’s budget woes. When 50% of the state budget pays for wages and benefits, we are clearly spending too much on manpower alone in the state. I even volunteered to lose my own job if necessary, because I know firsthand several individuals without whom higher education could function just fine.

Recently, Clark County workers voluntarily took unpaid leave as part of a pilot program to determine new ways to save money. Over a 30 day period, this program demonstrated that we could dispense with thousands of man-hours in the county without adverse effects to county operations and services. This program clearly supports my original argument. The time has come to dispense with government workers- they voluntarily took leave, and obviously we don't need them, despite what the governor says.

The NSHE (Nevada System of Higher Education) employs people we do not need. When I came to this institution, a high official was on paid administrative leave pending an indictment for fraud, waste, and abuse. During my tenure here, he has drawn full pay, a six-figure sum, without doing any work. We’ve done without him for over a year; it’s time to cut him loose. Other employees chronically arrive late, leave early, conduct exclusively personal business on company time, or defraud the taxpayer in other ways. Some jobs don’t warrant a full time position; some jobs don’t need to be done at all.

Government never contracts without force. While the economy shrank 3.3% last quarter, another acquaintance of mine informed me that she’d been selected for a position with the state of Nevada. I thought we were in a hiring freeze. I thought we had to tighten our budgets. Why am I to take a 6% pay cut so that another department can hire this person? I am willing to lose my job if they deem it’s best for the organization. They’ll have to deal with the consequences of that. I’ll survive. It’s what Americans do.

Speaking Style

Share

On Sunday afternoon, I got to hear two general authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints speak. Aside from the message they brought, I noticed an overarching difference in tone between these men and political/national leaders in how they perceived the exact same events.

Elder Anderson spoke first of the two, leaving us with an uplifting message of hope. He told us that these are great days, days of untold progress, prosperity, and potential with technology at our fingertips and options to vocations, vacations, and volitions unheard of in any prior era. He told us that these are our days, the days we have to live in and make our own, that we own what happens to us in the days of our probation. He told us that these are THE days, foretold by prophets ancient and modern in which the greatest power of God would be manifest on earth to counter affect the counter indications of the adversary.

Contrast his message with that of President Obama, who painted a picture of doom and gloom. He tells us that these days suck, that we’re in a recession not seen since the 1930s and that things are going to get worse and we’ll have to buckle down. Ignoring every great thing America ever did, only now that he’s president has America overcome the motes in her eye. Gone is his mantra of hope and change, from his cabinet appointees to press coverage to rhetoric, the gap is coming even more quickly than anyone predicted. The bloom is already off the rose.

Elder Anderson and Perry are men of God. Whatever messianic aura Obama’s supporters think he has, they should remember that No man taketh this honor unto himself save he shall be called of God as was Aaron. Moreover, Obama’s going to make things worse. I felt affirmation and confirmation from the general authorities; from Obama, I feel consternation and frustration. By their fruits ye shall know them indeed.

Unpatriotic Americans

Share

During the campaign, Senator Joe Biden now Vice President alleged that it was patriotic to pay taxes. In keeping with the spirit of his sentiments, I just wanted to post a few pictures of some of my favorite non-patriots, part of that troublesome third either openly or secretly loyal to the enemies of freedom.

Tim Geitner (Treasury Secretary), Tom Daschle (HHS Secretary Nominee, deposed Senate Majority Leader), Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg (nominee to Clinton’s senate seat), Congressman Chuck Rangle (who writes tax bills)

According to the party in power, of which I am a card-carrying member, alleges we're not paying enough taxes. What about these rich people, some of whom are better than I am, who lecture me in demogoguery while they don't pay what they're legally obligated to pay? Al Capone went to prison for that; why aren't these people in jail? Someone proposed the Daschle Act, allowing people to not pay taxes if they don’t want to. Even better, does this mean I may wait to pay taxes until Obama nominates me to the cabinet? What Daschle’s example shows us is absolutely true- you can do more to better your life and the lives of those around you with your money than government can.

I christen Obama’s first and only term as the Great Tax Cheat Administration. Although he claims the mantle of Lincoln for the mix of minds, he hasn’t posted a single real opponent to a position of responsibility, someone like Romney in the Treasury or Bolton/Bork at the State Department or Limbaugh as chief of staff. Obama’s administration resembles Grant's Cabinet, not Lincoln's, and the people in it will, like they did for Grant vouchsafe his position in the annals of American history as one of her poorest presidents.