The Envirostatists yell very loudly that we are wrong. Who's on their side? Marx, Lenin, Trotzky, Nero, Hitler, Mousollini, Putin, Castro, etc?
31 March 2009
We're In Good Company
The Envirostatists yell very loudly that we are wrong. Who's on their side? Marx, Lenin, Trotzky, Nero, Hitler, Mousollini, Putin, Castro, etc?
30 March 2009
Truth in the Darkness
Like it or not, if we want to fix this country, it must begin in the home of every good American. Years ago in a radio address, a great American, President Ronald Reagan, said this:
All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.
This image is proprietary, but the theme is copyright of IKEA Corp.
29 March 2009
Dangers of Climate Change Legislation
Their encouragement took the form of cursing and cadjolling. Instead of giving people a positive reason to participate, advocates of this event will as these girls result to personal attacks and profanity against those who choose not to participate.
27 March 2009
They Say They Want Balance...
This bill did not replace evolution with intelligent design. They still teach both in LA schools. We do not overwrite their views in favor of our own matrix, but that's what Envirostatists want to do. They cannot abide alternative viewpoints. Conservatives don't care if both views are presented; there's nothing wrong with that, but the Envirostatist must have his propaganda proselytized exclusively or it's not "fair".
Quite frankly, many things that we have permitted in the educational bastions of statism don't belong. Crap science like global warming doesn't belong. We need to stop teaching Ebonics and Spanish versions of classes to encourage people to assimilate since the common language is English and the common currency is the Dollar.
For socialists in America, there is no real choice. It's a lot like Disney's version of Peter Pan where Hook's crew tells Wendy to join the crew. "You'll love the life of a thief, you'll cherish the life of a crook. There isn't a boy who won't enjoy working for Captain Hook..." In that story, there was a "choice": join the crew, or walk the plank. That's how the Statist operates. Choose to join us or die. Henry Ford first phrased this ironic state of affairs well when he told automobile purchaseers: "You can have a Model T in any color as long as it's black." But color is another story entirely...
26 March 2009
Hail! Seizer!
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Rome as part of my reading of Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws. I think it's Part 3 where he talks about the Roman Republic, and of course as a result I think about gladiators, baths, and Ceasar. The president was saying something yesterday, and I found myself saying, "Hail Ceasar" when I lighted upon another thought. Obama is the Great Seizer- he will take anything and everything from anyone and everyone.
Despite his massive wealth, he donates less than 1% to charity. His brothers still live in poverty, and I heard his aunt is about to get deported. He has great health care, school choice, and a black limosine. He just doesn't want YOU to have those things. We should give them our treasure, pay reparations, because we suck and need to apologize for what we have done to the rest of the world. If only government had more of our money, they could use it far better that we could (unless you're Tom Daschle). Obama wants to cut back on emissions which has and will continue to result in layoffs at automobile plants, steel factories, and coal mines, even though those people voted for them.
I saw the old version of the Manchurian Candidate the other day, and one scene really hit home. The Chinese guy, while plotting the overthrow of Western society, talks about how he's headed to Macy's to shop for his wife. Once he gets his way and America goes socialist, such a notion would no longer be possible. They despise our society in the midst of profitting therefrom.
25 March 2009
Inspired by Watson and Crick
Many people don't like Watson. I had a few students who didn't, and I know that a while back when he claimed that blacks were intellectually inferior they took away his Nobel Prize. Obviously, they have never read his book. Hardly a single coherant sentence escapes their mouths before they begin assaulting the character of the man instead of arguing against his substantive scientific argument.
Aside from the science for which I recommend this work I also encourage it because it taught me the following lesson that I underscored to my students:
Don't let anyone dissuade you from what you know to be right.
Stand fast in your values. Stop listening to uneducated yapping dogs who don't know much about History, don't know much Trigonometry, don't know much about Science book, don't know much about the French they took... As you grow in knowledge and experience, you will find the strength to weather the tide and do great things. I was inspired, and I know you will be too.
24 March 2009
All For One and More For Me
King Obama I, this idiot, thinks that just because he defeated McCain in 2008 that he now has power and brains to run everything everywhere better than anyone anywhere despite lacking any evidence in support thereof. He has never run anything successfully, not even a presidential campaign. He won because McCain was lousy, not because he was good. Obama doesn't have a degree or any practical experience in any field except for his law degree, but all of that changed last November when he suddenly became clairevoyant upon election to the presidency. All he does well is party and nationalize industry. Shoot, even I can bowl higher than 129.
The NEvada Highway Patrol turned me away because I lacked a degree in criminal justice. Yet the president, bereft of any experience or education in business, wants us to think he can do anything we can do better. That about sums up the argument of what Mark Levin refers to as Envirostatists. He believes in government.
Obviously, Obama has never read Montesquieu. Montesquieu, from whom the Founding Fathers took much of the framework for our Federal Republic reminds us that the created is never greater than the creator. Perhaps that's why Envirostatists are also generally atheists, agnostics, and environmentalists- in those religions, THEY are gods unto themselves, but I digress.
Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men, than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad; if it be ill, they will cure it. But, if men be bad, let the government be never so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn.
Government is spoiled. Obama will ruin your life. People in industries who voted for Obama will suffer under spread misery of a concerted effort to control men and make them poorer. You are not real to Envirostatists. You are a disease. If you succeed, you are a cancer to communism. They will march on listening to what they want to hear regardless of its truth. They will put coal miners, steel workers, automobile assemblymen, ad infinitum out of work, in the middle of a recession and take that as license to nationalize everything they can.
Obama and his ilk are wrong. They are idiots. Their lust for power cannot be slaked. God save us.
23 March 2009
Bonusgate Scandal
My last employer gave bonuses for performance. Although we earned a competitive and fair wage for our hourly employ, certain work benchmarks were designed to allow us opportunity to share in the profits of our labor. However, due to mismanagement, it inevitably ended that we, the hourly workers, rarely if ever received tuppence for our work. Rest assured management pocketed their bonuses. That’s probably partly why they refused to promote me (because they’d have to replace their #1 hourly worker and take a lower bonus) and refused to fire me when I spoke up to bad leadership. However, their neglect of my concerns, which were shared among the general working body, kept us inexorably in a position where due to accidents, training, damages, and the like we never qualified for a bonus.
Relatively soon after I left, but not necessarily due to my official letter of resignation, the home office terminated the general manager, who had been with the company for seven years. The organization had languished with problems in turnover and productivity, and although I had nothing against D.P., since he bears ultimate responsibility, they replaced him. I hope things are looking up, but I doubt it. The 600 of us they hired were the top 1% of applicants, and many of those they hired were no prize. If they don’t do something to reward the people who get the job done, ultimately this locale if not the corporation entire will fold under the weight of incompetence in high echelons.
In a privately run organization dependent on customers who purchase products to furnish monies to the operating costs of a company, the manipulation of a bonus system can only go so far before the assets of the company fold and it collapses like a house of cards. The reason why I worry more about government is that its revenue stream depends not on the quality of the goods and services it produces but upon the size of its population and the industry of each individual therein. Under a government that awards bonuses and pelf on false pretenses, it can collapse only when the people are so wasted that there remains no product of labor to bequeath to each feudal vassal or that the people rebel there against and overthrow the government. Business poorly run eventually collapses under the weight of mismanagement. Governments poorly run can only be overthrown in exchange for the lifeblood of their people. When that sad moment comes, the most vibrant and productive members of society will be spent in heaps upon the ground, their potential gone, their lifeblood useful for nothing more than fertilizer upon ground in which to hopefully plant a successful subsequent attempt.
When my employer cited me for “insubordination”, I told my manager that the only recourse remaining to me was to leave the organization. When I left, the general manager asked me what he could do to change my mind and keep me. I told him, “You should have been doing it for the last year.” I have never been easily replaceable. Not many people will give 130% as a RULE for 100% of the pay, and Americans sure as shooting will not invest 200% the effort to keep society working for the drones and losers who constantly gripe about apparent slights and wouldn’t lift a finger to get the job done. They “deserve” nothing. They drag down our entire society. I don’t know what the people at AIG did to get bonuses, but I know that sometimes deserving people receive them and that also sometimes deserving people get shafted.
In Tolkien’s novel, Gandalf responds to Frodo’s objection that life isn’t fair with this statement, “Many that live deserve death. Many that die deserve life. Will you give it to them?” IT is not for us to be fair and equal. It is for us to be JUST. Justice in the end demands that the laws be followed. Obama would do well to remember that.
God’s justice will be done.
21 March 2009
Searching for Truth in Science
That particular week, I had handed them back the workbooks and pointed out a particularly poignant way in which a student, novice that he is in science, worded his conclusion. At the end, he noted, "We accept it for now", a concession that given the small sample size and limited means of measure it could hardly be extrapolated to be the rule in every case on every scale under every condition, and I wanted them to see it done correctly.
Much of science is ego. Everyone wants to publish this or that and win fame and fortune and accolades. In the process however this very attitude makes of us all enemies and discourages cooperation and collaboration since we basically descend to the state at which we pursue cutthroat competition in a hasty effort to beat others to the punch. Such is the sentiment expressed by James Watson, Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the Structure of DNA, in this statement from his own account of the aforementioned endeavor:
A goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull but also just stupid.
This man recently lost his Nobel Prize for a "racially insensitive remark". What he actually said was this about the African race:
"All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"
We have built a societal norm on sameness because that's what we want it to be. We don't want pain or differences or struggle. We want to be the same, regardless of the truth. In her novel "The Giver", Lois Lowry addresses that this choice to ablate the obvious fact of the matter is to do the greatest injustice intelligent beings can do to one another- lie. All the claims are lies, and scientists, who themselves excel thereat, complicit in that campaign ignore the truth in order to avoid pain.
Fact of the matter is that the truth is sometimes painful. Just because a man has a PhD or an MD doesn't make him smarter than you. Just because he's published papers doesn't mean he's right. After all, Francis and Pauling thought genes were made of proteins and not DNA.
Scientists have an agenda- they want to be right, even if they're dead wrong. Do you want that kind of a physician caring for you- one who'd rather think he's right because we awarded him high marks or one who really is right because he paid the price for greatness? Dr. Watson is a brave man. In this way at least, he is to us a Giver.
20 March 2009
Homebuying 201
I found two homes I particularly like and took my parents back to see them. One is basically a plug and play with very room left for change and the other will need a lot of work on the yard but has much more in the way of possibilities. Neither home was as nice as the one my parents own now, but both seemed better to me than ones we've owned previously.
19 March 2009
Healthcare and the Military
18 March 2009
Legitimate Government Expenditure
17 March 2009
Governor Gibbons' Street Cred
I read with some irritation that despite having asked all other state workers to swallow a 6% pay cut, the governor’s staff will merit net pay increases in our budget crisis. He makes two arguments for this.
The governor's staff has taken on additional responsibility with the elimination of seven positions
My department has been working below minimal staffing almost since I started working here, and I was hired just before a hiring freeze. Our university has 10% higher enrollment over two years ago, so we’re already doing more with less. My boss has made the Chair and Dean aware of my cost-cutting measures and stood up to faculty who insisted on cost-prohibitive measures in the classroom.
He has not exceeded his office’s budget for wages
I suppose that makes sense, not. We're supposed to present to the governor proposed cuts up to 45% depending on the budget cut, and he's allowed to spend up to the limit for his office's budget. We're not allowed to hire new people, get merit/longevity bonuses, or hire up to full staffing, but he can give someone a pay raise that is half my annual salary. In my department, when I manage to buy $5000 worth of goods for $3000, someone else just spends the $2000 I saved on something else. I guess that's what this really boils down to in his mind- reallocation of assets.
I disagree with the governor's justification. Good leadership and staunch conservativism on which he campaigned (I felt it was a ruse, but what do I know?) depend on clear principles. His taking an inconsistent stance in pay leaves him with zero street credability. Those of us who defended his cuts to education and in other areas, basically across the board, did not support that so that he could reallocate resources into his office. A secretary in his office is getting a $20K pay raise next year, a secretary for crying out loud!
You don't ask people to cut expenditures and then use those funds to bankroll your own pet projects. The governor showed that he's just a demagogue like most politicians, telling us what we want to hear while using largess to purchase votes and loyalty.
Enjoy your single term as governor sir. You shall never have my vote again.
16 March 2009
Geitner Gabbs and Gloats
Sunday, I overheard part of Geitner’s comments to the G20 summit on the economy. Truth be told, it was very hard for me to listen to him. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy “Tax Cheat” Geitner claims that the US Economy depends on a strong global economy. He bespeaks ignorance, willful or otherwise. Facts of the matter clearly demonstrate that the global economy rises and falls in response to our own and not vice versa.
15 March 2009
Slave Trade
Last week, as student of mine came to class wearing a t-shirt that proclaimed her as an ex-slave. Aghast, I asked her at what time she’d been enslaved, to whit she admitted it referenced her ancestors. Quite frankly, this incessant racism inherent in reminiscence of a bygone vexation irritates me, because I know for a fact of the matter that none of my ancestors ever owned a slave and that none of my students and few if any of my fellow citizens were ever in slavery, least of all those born and bred in these United States.
Fact of the matter is that the principle ancestors of most Americans didn’t start the slave trade and weren’t behind bringing it to the Americas. Any idiot with half a brain can Google “West African Slave Trade” and find that out. I quote from Wikipedia…
When slaves first came to America, it wasn’t on account of the British, and they were peppered throughout the Hispanic world. To quote Wikipedia,
The first Europeans to use African slaves in the New World were the Spaniards who sought auxiliaries for their conquest expeditions and laborers on islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola…The first African slaves arrived in Hispaniola in 1501.[53]
Slavery came to replace a different practice among the peoples of sub-saharan Africa. Like the Aztec in the New World, they previously sacrificed war captives to their gods, but the European imperialism created a commercial outlet instead. Again I quote Wikipedia,
The kings of Dahomey sold their war captives into transatlantic slavery, who otherwise would have been killed in a ceremony known as the Annual Customs. As one of West Africa's principal slave states, Dahomey became extremely unpopular with neighbouring peoples.[58][59][60]
Most slaves enslaved by African blacks, regardless of who bought them in the end. According to Wikipedia,
They would actively favor one African group against another to deliberately ignite chaos and continue their slaving activities.[3].”
Ergo, despite accusations of racism, it was blacks who first enslaved other blacks, and not Europeans. Liberals, however, obsessed with race, continue to make mountains out of molehills and perpetuate an offense we did not give against people not alive to be offended. Now, I can’t blame this girl. She only knows what she was taught. Now you know there’s more to it if you only take five minutes to search the internet.
One more thing I want to note: America was the first nation, despite its relatively young age, to abolish slavery, and hundreds of thousands of men died to bring that to pass, and don't you ever forget that the sin of slavery was redeemed in blood, and it's time we let the stain be washed from the nation.
14 March 2009
Liken the Lichens
13 March 2009
Finding the Founding Fathers’ Fathers
Like George, I found it fascinating that so few of the Founders left descendents, let alone of their own namesake. Many of them had no children or outlived theirs due to war, disease, and the like brought on by George III and the revolution. Even if George and I are relatives, I do not sadly descend from his loins.
Just today I wondered suddenly why we never hear about their parents. I wonder what Washington’s and Jefferson’s fathers thought about the path they undertook. At the time of the revolution, they were men of middle age, in their 50s or 30s respectively, so their fathers might very well have been around. How did they react to what their sons undertook? I wonder this because I have been thinking about how my parents react to my political inclinations, how in our area the Hafens support each other for political office due to family ties, and what that means for the future.
Resolved: in my copious free time, research the Founding Fathers’ Fathers, which should give me some idea of from whence they came so that I can recognize the next generation thereof when it of necessity arises.
12 March 2009
Why I Love Being a Teacher
My students have paid me several compliments over the course of this semester. At the end of class the first week, one of my students told me that he’d worried it would be another boring class from a lame professor but that I was actually pretty cool. Another student who came in for extra help once told me that she could tell that I was passionate about what I do; that it showed that I was not just there for the money.
At the end of every semester, I take memories with me. Back in graduate school, it annoyed my Principle Investigator that I devoted so much time to the students. Fact of the matter was, I devoted time to the things I enjoyed, and as much as I love learning, I loved teaching more than the research rigmarole. My students get nicknames, they’ve brought me cookies, we know about each other’s personal lives, and we acknowledge each other outside of class. One of them even asked me for a letter of recommendation, and one asked me in November what class I was teaching so she could take my class again (it didn’t work out, but it was flattering).
Unfortunately, some of them turn to me for advice and extra help too late. Many of them wait until the last possible minute to get my help, and ten weeks into class, there’s little I can do. Even if they just learn how to do better when they retake this course next semester, I feel like my students actually learn something, and science, and what it teaches us, becomes real to them.
Besides that, I have made myself an asset by being willing to teach these lab courses. Some of the full time faculty hate teaching the classes I teach, and since most have families, they don’t want to teach early morning or late at night, almost vouchsafing for me courses to teach in perpetuity.
I feel like I’m making a difference, and I’m meeting a whole slew of people who learn not only the subject matter but also from my personality. My best friend in High School made a comment recently:
I can only imagine the impact you are having on the students as a professor Doug! Perhaps that is what the Lord had in mind for you... not that your personal agency was ever negated, but that he knew that was where you could do the most good and be happiest. :)
11 March 2009
Tort Reform
People often sue because they have much to gain and little to lose. As such, one good deterrent to people like King of the Hill character Lucky would be to impose rules that dictate that the loser pays all court costs. A man bereft of employ or tangible goods would learn very quickly the folly of frivolity in lawsuits if compelled to pay $50000 for which he could not pay.
My main plan for tort reform works on a tit for tat idea. I propose to limit the amount for which you can sue based on the amount of personal liability for which you pay over the immediately previous time period. For example, if you carry $100,000 in personal liability on your house, that would be the maximum damages for which you could sue. The total liability would be the average carried for the immediately proceeding twelve months, preventing people from taking out large policies immediately precedent to the incident and allow insurance companies to flag risky behavior. For instance, if I upped my coverage from $100K to $10 million, it might indicate I intended to sue. My credit card company does this with charge amounts. Stands to reason insurance companies should do in kind.
This would force people who sue to pay, and give them a stake in the game. It would keep people from suing who held no insurance whatsoever and put more money in the pot for legitimate lawsuits or damage claims and strengthen holdings of insurance companies. It’s not a pariah, but it’s better than wanton frivolity.
Get insurance. Take responsibility.
10 March 2009
Home Ownership is Still a Good Idea
Privacy: I don’t have to share a wall, a yard, or a front door with anyone
Garage space: rental units that come with a garage go first and at a premium
Yard space: since I have dogs and want a garden, this is a must
Equity: since I can buy a home for less per month than I could rent comparable space, I might as well be earning equity so that I can get some of that money back when I sell
Tax leverage: I would love to get back into the 15% tax bracket, so if I’m going to be spending the same amount of money as a rental, at least I can use a home to get some of my own money back from the federal government
A place of my own: if you are working towards owning a home, some day it may be yours. In an apartment, you can be evicted for any reason any time, but kicking you out of your house if you’re paying on time is more difficult.
So, I really hate articles like this one I
On to address the author’s claims:
Houses produce lousy returns compared to stocks.
If you buy a home intending to use it to make money, he’s right. Houses are extremely illiquid, and they tie up money. However, as I said before, I can own a home for the price I’d pay in rent, so why pay rent and get a negative return?
House prices will continue to fall
House prices will rise some day. Everyone needs a place to live, and those who can stay where they’re at until the market recovers will be just fine. This is only a problem if you’re looking for ROI from buying a home.
Houses today are built to waste money
This isn’t so much a function of the homes as much as it is a function of pop culture. Keeping up with the Jones’ may be your thing, but I’m looking at a home in which I can raise my kids (assuming I ever have any) to adulthood. I don’t own much stuff (everything I own fits into a 10x10 storage unit), and I’m intending on initially at least getting a roommate to help offset costs. This way, my home becomes an income generator, even if it just compensates for the increased costs. Also, HVAC units in all the apartments I’ve rented were poorly maintained and cheap models. I do not need a castle, but I don’t need the antiquated systems put in by rental landlords either.
Big houses=higher taxes
You can mitigate this by buying what you need and not what you want. Since I live by a conservative fiscal mantra, I’m buying for future expansion but also way within my means. Also, taxes will go up no matter what you do, especially under the current administration, and you’ll pay more whether you rent or buy, because, as the author points out, renters pay as part of their rent some portion of the landlord’s total tax. As taxes rise, so do rents.
Neighborhoods change
Yes, they do, and they can change just as much whether comprised of homes or comprised of apartments. This is a nonsequitor. My dad works with people who have stayed in the neighborhoods and seen the demographics cycle. If you buy long term and lock in low prices and low rates, then a home makes more sense than renting. Most people do live vehement lives full of upheaval, and so renting may make more sense, but don’t let these people talk you out of buying homes.
That’s just going to prolong the housing crisis.
To answer these critiques, I recommend The Two Income Trap, which I thoroughly enjoyed and for which endorsement I have received zero compensation (yet).
09 March 2009
GOByN
Unlike them, however, I know you. I have more than likely been to your town. I have taught or learned with your children. Perhaps I even dated one of them once. I've lived alongside, worked, and chowed with your sons and husbands. I attended your schools, traveled your roads, shopped in your stores. Shoot, I've even eaten at the Nugget in Searchlight.
Unlike Reid or anyone who might be promoted by the party apparati, I am a real person. I drive my own car, change my own oil, drive the same roads, shop in the same stores, pay the same bills, and attend the same churches. We are despite my moral and religious and political code of morays more alike than you think. We should focus on where we are the same and not on where we differ.
As for the GOByN. I will meet you anytime anywhere for a debate in the arena of ideas. Bring your intellectual seconds.
08 March 2009
Everyone is attracted to everyone else
If you think of the forces of magnetism and other attractive forces, everyone is really attracted to everyone else. These electromagnetic forces are the forces that keep the moon close to the earth while centripetal forces would hurl it out into the solar system. These forces account for the astronomical theories of moon capture by planets like Jupiter which can capture passing comets or planetoids and incorporate them into their orbits on account of their mass.
When two people tell me they’re attracted, I’m not surprised. What surprises me is that some people can avoid attraction, since it’s purely a mathematical relationship of quantum origin. Everyone is attracted to everyone else, and everyone is repulsed by the same when the mass of another comes to close to our solar plexis, because we cannot possibly occupy the same place.
06 March 2009
First Year Deliverables
So, what would I promise if elected to office? I’ve given that question some thought, because the people expect politicians to do things FOR them, and they judge success of government by what government gets done instead of by what prudence advises government should do.
Obama’s government promises to take care of you. They never promise to take good care of you, but you’ll have some food, some shelter, and something to do, even if it’s rice in a shack sewing shoes. I don’t know why he’s hung up on creating jobs. What do we need jobs for if the government gives us everything already?
I will not promise to do myriad things for you. I promise only to free you to act for yourselves as best you see fit. Good civilization starts in the home and not at the highest echelons of the bureaucracy, despite what sweeping promises the president makes. Society after all is created from the bottom up; tyranny comes from the top down.
05 March 2009
Important in His Own Mind
When he did answer, his answers resembled that of Elizabeth Swan in Pirates of the Caribbean. I head a ton of words but no meaning whatsoever…them’s a lot of long words, and we’re not but ‘umble pirates… Using a lot of big words and complicated phraseology is a tactic undertaken by intellectuals with MDs and PhDs who want others to know how insufferably smart they are. Many of these people grow very frustrated when I understand the nothing they spout and follow up on their mealy-mouthed montage. Circles around the issue to make people think like he has a plan and is making a difference, but he still neither gives ideas nor substantive contributions. Mark kept having to lower the volume on him because he wouldn’t shut up, and even when the volume came back up you could tell he had not ceased to pontificate despite having lost access to the audience.
David’s incessant talking in circles demonstrated his true purpose in coming on Mark’s show. He’s not interested in a discussion, he used his appearance on Mark’s show as a platform to protract his ill-advised and poorly grounded assaults on Limbaugh’s character. At every attempt, he tried hijacking the discussion and attempting to hijack the party not on principles but on perception.
Finally, David went down the talking points list, as if reading from Moveon.org or Media Matters for America. Like Obama, he says absolutely nothing but uses large words that make an impression on people who say, “big words, this guy must be smart. We should listen to him.” In the end, he resulted to personal attacks on Mark and on Rush. Unable to attack the ideas, he attacked the person, calling them losers, dragging skeletons out of the closet of which I was not aware and which bear no relevance whatsoever on the topic.
Self-proclaimed conservative thinkers like this tell us that we have to stop being what we are, that the only thing wrong with us is us. They are entitled to their opinion, but indemnification and slander of character is a crime, not a debate, and it just went to show how inconsequential this man really is except in his own mind.
04 March 2009
March Forth
You hear a lot of people talking about what "we" can do. I have some close friends who are enamored with Glen Beck and want me to watch his program and get involved with the 9-12 project. However, Glen Beck is a talker. He won't "do" anything. If he motivates them to act, then great, but if they just talk or feel, then in my opinion it's nothing more than a collossal waste of time.
The Founding Fathers didn't wait for other people to get to work. My bishop, Steve Walton, told us in a priesthood meeting once that "If God had other people, he would ask them to do these important things, but he doesn't have other people. He has us." It is our job. Those with the capability have the responsibility.
Don't tell me "We've got to." You have to.
Don't tell me you can't do it. Of course you can.
Remember the well quoted but misattributed Edmund Burke line "All that is necessary for the success of evil in this world is for good men to do nothing."
So what can you do? Get out and talk to people. Educate your children around the dinner table. Run for office or at least support someone for office you actually like, but in the general election, get behind the party nominee. If you don't like that, you can make calls, write email, and mail fliers.
Voting is no longer enough.
03 March 2009
Why Obama Won in 2008
Until we learn to stand together, we will die alone.
02 March 2009
No Representation Without Taxation
However, our current government operates by a different agenda. Over 40% of the population doesn’t pay any taxes…they will never not vote for things that transfer wealth to them. Therefore, much as others will find this posture offensive, I maintain that it’s not only appropriate, but advisable.
If you don’t have anything vested in the game, losing doesn’t hurt very much. Yet, millions of Americans regularly vote to take things away from other people. Current political theory endorses a system of legalized plunder. James R. Evans, in his inspiring book, "The Glorious Quest" gives this simple illustration of legalized plunder:
"Assume, for example, that we were farmers, and that we received a letter from the government telling us that we were going to get a thousand dollars this year for plowed up acreage. But rather than the normal method of collection, we were to take this letter and collect $69.71 from Bill Brown, at such and such an address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80 from a Bill Smith, and so on down the line; that these men would make up our farm subsidy. "Neither you nor I, nor would 99 percent of the farmers, walk up and ring a man's doorbell, hold out a hand and say, 'Give me what you've earned even though I have not.' We simply wouldn't do it because we would be facing directly the violation of a moral law, 'Thou shalt not steal.' In short, we would be held accountable for our actions."
Any American who does not own property, a bank account of some size, or who receives all of their income tax refunded should not have the right to vote. Unless the right to vote costs them something, they will not value it. Said Thomas Paine, “That which we obtain too easily, we esteem too lightly” or in our day, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney said, “It is easy to take Liberty for granted when it has never been taken from you.”
"A democracy ... can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship" ~ Sir Alex Fraser Tytler
The majority will vote for whomever promises them the most pork. That’s why I have probably already lost the election by stating this belief of mine, but it is criminal for us to take from the mouth of labor and give to him to which it does not belong. In Paine’s Common Sense, we learn that men “surrender a portion of his property to furnish protection for the rest, and this he is induced to do by the same prudence that in every other case advises that of two evils he choose the lesser.” If someone needs a helping hand, I don’t have a problem with that. I oppose the tyranny of those who have nothing vested in the game.
In class last night, a student of mine claimed that her life was hard, that I was jinxing her fortunes by holding her accountable for information in the biology laboratory I teach. I object. I have been through much by way of privation and opposition and overcome in spite of: a vengeful ex-wife, a bitter coworker, a handful of pompous professors, a patronizing supervisor, a self-righteous detective, a labor union, the Nevada Highway Patrol, the Department of Homeland Security, several USAF recruiters, and dozens of other individuals who conspired and combined against me to hold me back. Every man is the sole author of his condition, and he who cannot govern himself or who contributes nothing should have no say in the disposition of my soul.
Obama says everyone should have something vested in the success of America. He should put his money where his mouth is.
01 March 2009
I'm Rich Enough for a Tax Hike
- I have no children, so even though I earn less thatn $50K, I will not get all of my money back (the IRS gets to keep $3600 for 2008). AND IT IS MY MONEY! They stole it from me.
- His stimulus package gives "most working people" a tax credit. I don't qualify. So, I won't even get my $8/week extra on my check because I don't qualify for that program. Don't spend it all in one place if you do qualify for it.
- Since I lack children and don't attend college, I don't get child tax credits or increases in the deductable tuition expense.
- Furthermore, next year when I file, now that I finally will have mortgage insurance to deduct which brings me over the standard deduction, I can itemize only at 28% instead of 39.6%, meaning that it might not be enough to bring me over the standard deduction after all. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
Single filers with no children would be hit with even bigger tax increases.