Christmas, and other politically incorrect stuff...

America was founded on the idea of protecting the individual FROM THE GOVERNMENT, hence the Constitution's Bill of Rights, but not from each other. The individual is protected from the mob rule of a "pure democracy", yet between one another, we must agree to certain laws, none of which can violate the Bill of Rights.

We have, however, allowed such nonsense as "Political Correctness" to not only stymie our freedom of speech (1st Amendment), but it has paved they way for us to be judged by our thoughts, a la "Hate Crime" legislation. Now we are not only judged criminal by our actions, but our opinions of the victim. The Bill of Rights protects my freedom to be a jerk, a bigot, or whatever. It also protects the rights of those around me to have nothing to do with me for having such attitudes. Just as PC is an attack on free speech (just because you do not like it does not mean the other person is denied their right to say whatever they wish), so "Hate Crime" legislation is an attack on equality under the law. It is saying some people are inherently worth more because of both innate and chosen attributes, and it moves us further toward a "1984" Thought Crime justice system, or even a "Minority Report" world of "crime" prevention. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. How quickly it is to slip from the seemingly kindergarten world of PC speech to a complete dishevelness of the Bill of Rights.

Christmas -- CHRISTmas -- even has the Name of the One to be celebrated in its name, yet, we are called upon to ignore this fact, and many do, for the government or mobs to demand it is a violation of freedom of religion. In this case, it is the government and mobs crossing the line and attacking those of us who celebrate the Christ of Christmas. Should the "government" allow religious displays on "their" grounds? Hmmm, whatever happened to the Lincolnesque "...government OF the People, BY the People, FOR the People..."? And sorry, there is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, only that the government cannot ESTABLISH a religion or church (like the state churches of Europe, but please, go look up the word "establish" in your Funk & Wagnell's). As a matter of fact, any religion should be able to display on government grounds, IMHO.

Underlying the issues of PC is the desire for "the government" to be wrangled from The People and established (aren't you glad you looked that word up?) as a ruling entity apart from the people, where a few will rule the many. PC is an instrument of oppression of liberty. None of us SHOULD behave badly toward one another, but we all have the right to do so. Case in point, the far left response to Christians and conservatives -- their ideological and personal attacks at both go unabated under the 1st Amendment, but to attack them in the same fashion can invoke criminal sanction due to the PC ideology (see where "Hate Crime" comes back into play?).

Why desire smaller government, significantly smaller (cut by more than half) than we have now? Because larger government, regardless of the party flag, is always oppressive, and the Founding Fathers knew this fact...

Formalized Marxism is at the brink

Once the government has control of our health program, they also have control over our personal activities. Guns are unhealthy; tax gun ownership until few can own one. Cars are unhealthy; cram everybody into buses for long germy commutes. Suburbs are unhealthy; consolidate everyone into collective city apartments. Only government-issued foods are healthy; wait in long lines to received staple foods. Being Christian is not healthy (they are the reason we are an unhealthy nation); additional taxes must be paid if you chose to be Christian.

You see, these things sound absurd and have no basis in fact, but an over-arching government can say and impose what it wishes, even marginalizing the Bill of Rights under the pretense of guarding our health -- because we cannot care for ourselves! Give people in power an inch, and they will take the Interstate System. Abortion was passed to make it legal for the 2% of pregnancies where rape, incest, or the life of the mother was at risk. One in four pregnancies have been terminated because it has been deemed that pregnancy itself represents a substantial risk to the life of the mother. Why would ANY person capable of critical thought not realize the same will happen with government controlled health care?

Pillars of Marxism: media control (volunteered), health control (Medicare and this current push), gun control (coming oppressive taxation), thought control (hate crime legislation), property control (taxation of people and eminent domain) -- the State must become life and death to every member of the State.

Personally, I do not wish to live in such a nation. I prefer the tempests of Liberty to the comfort of being a ward of the State.

Chasing the Wild Sky

As twilight's full and yet beginning to fade, I look back to a cold fire and the bed I had made;
It's too much to carry onward, too big for my pack, so I leave it all behind to follow the trail with no track.

Deep in the morning now I lie, watching quietly nocturnal creatures scurry by;
I stretch my body in the cool air, face the sunrise as though by dare.

I walk the land though my feet feel bogs, climb the hills tripping over logs;
the sparse cold air my nostrils burns, chasing the wild sky no roads no turns.

I drink in full the air nature blends, walls and creeks sprawling unto no ends;
Sun cloudless my steps do slow, at once I am here and have miles to go.

The sun sinks into the grasses sweet, its warm palette repaints all its rays do meet;
Wild lonesome songs on evening's breezes fly, while I muse chasing the wild sky.

Chasing the wild sky.

HR 833

Representative Culberson: (and Senators Cornyn and Hutchinson, should the Senate see this bill) Intellectual honesty dictates an end to the Federal Reserve. In its 96 year history, it has failed to achieve its promised goals. Inflation and economic instability, two key promises of the Fed to control, have been more volatile during its existence than before it came into being. The argument "Oh, it would have been much worse without the Federal Reserve in place" is an insult. It has failed. Only the banks of the Federal Reserve have done well (follow the money on the bailout and stimulus spend -- only the banks of the Fed win) Our Founding Fathers warned against such a plan, and their warnings have achieved the level pf prophetic utterances. The dollar has reached historic lows in terms of value, all under the Federal Reserve system. The only thing for which the Fed is good is to continue to send us down the path to socialism and Marxism. Liberty cannot prevail in the presence of its centralized power."

BHO Health Care Speech of 09/09/09

What he said well (from a Constitutionist's view):

Tort reform is necessary.

Expansion of competition is necessary.

What needs work and clarification:

"...against the law to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions...": As one transfers from one insurance platform to another (due to age, such as rolling off the parent's healthcare, or changing jobs due to opportunity or RIF), I agree. To those who refused the opportunity to buy health insurance available from their employer, and only sought the same when something serious came up, they well should be on more tenuous grounds (if they do not invest in the system, why should they reap from it?)

What I oppose on principle:

Any public option: BHO claimed health care costs rose 3x faster than incomes; Medicare has grown 4.5x faster (after 10 years, Medicare costs 50% more per year than the private option). The public option as Canada operates it was promised to be a modest 7% increase in taxation. It now averages 25% for all Canadians (and those that can come to the USA for on-demand care). Why? People abuse what they perceive to be "free"; and certainly desire volume for that which they are already paying. As long as there is a public option, more and more people will find they cannot afford to provide their own insurance -- this is human nature (welfare has worked this way; it did not become the "bootstrap solution" as advertised, it became a means of enslaving people in poverty by taking away personal responsibility).

Forcing employers to offer healthcare, and forcing individuals to buy healthcare insurance is wrong, just un-American. Likewise, let them live with the outcomes.

Forcing one group of Americans to pay for the healthcare of another group of Americans is morally wrong and un-American, too. Americans freely donating to healthcare entities so they might provide care for the less fortunate is quite American (most hospitals in America and the world began as the result of charitable organizations).

Those in this country without legal immigration process should not receive the "government/public option" (which is another reason to not have it, since it will become a political tool).

What is naive:

"The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud..." Medicare/Medicaid are poster children for such, just as Fannie and Freddie are poster children for the mortgage debacle -- both government run and sponsored. There is just too much opportunity for "sideline wealth" and too little accountability, and the necessary accountability only drives up the costs without offering more/better services. Remember, by the government's own admission, it costs them $1.50 to $2.00 to deliver $1.00 in goods/services.

Medicare, left unchanged, will break this country financially, or it will default and most boomers will not see it. There are no good outcomes for government run healthcare at any level. All government bureaucracies become political pawns and self-perpetuating in short order (What was the last expensive government program YOU saw terminated by our Congress? There will be no government cuts to pay for this thing.). And who will pay for it? It will not be the savings he indicated...

The CBO is non-partisan, and says any public option is more expensive; the math and accounting do not agree with BHO's words.

Possible Outcomes:

Insurance companies will be forced to compete across state lines, I hope. This will bring down prices somewhat, especially for individuals.

The fact that businesses will be required to provide insurance will create a captive audience for insurance companies and fuel inflation of goods in general.

Companies may find it more profitable to not offer health insurance at all, paying the fines, and therefore putting more people on the "public/government option" (if it comes to pass, and another reason to not have it). After all, the fines will not be high enough to sink the company and should not be. And the companies and its employees pay lots of taxes, so their continuance is more important than whether or not they offer health care insurance.

My View:

(it would be best if the following came from the states with the endorsement of Congress)

Let's try tort reform, clarification (with fairness for all parties) of the "pre-existing condition" coverage, and expansion of competition, first, and see what affect that has on health care costs. Also, recognize that there are those who do not take advantage of their employer's offered healthcare -- it is not that they cannot afford it, it is a matter of priority. We all make lifestyle adjustments for the price of goods and services, and those of us who take responsibility for providing our families healthcare should not be penalized by paying for those who choose otherwise.

The next step (after two to four years), should costs not come down nor coverage grow, is more draconian, and I do not like it, but there is a reality about the matter: put it to the states to pass legislation for individual minimum health care insurance requirements (just like auto insurance), whether privately purchased or obtained through their employer. Again, it is another boom opportunity for insurance companies, and the opportunity for employers for rolling back what they offer, and this is why it should not be pushed too early.

We do not have to rush into a perceived "grand solution" (which are usually fraught with unforeseen errors in analysis and judgement, driving up costs and reducing service, and the path of all government programming I have known), but we should take it in steps, and small steps are best. In no way should the government ever, ever provide health care insurance -- Medicare/Medicaid should scare us away from that option.

Random thoughts on serious issues

Lots of things going on out there, so I am just collecting my thoughts.

Military:

I attended the 30 year retirement of a very dear friend (we grew up together, beginning in first grade, families always close), and I can tell you, our military has great love for their own, their families, and their country. The ideals of our country, freedom and liberty, are very much alive in our military community.

That being said, I want to see our military brought home -- from everywhere. Western Europe neither needs us nor wants us, or even likes us -- why do we even bother with them? Let them take care of their own countries. We are done in Iraq; my fear is the the Iraqi government will play us and prolong our presence, and if that is not the case, I also fear that like we have done in Europe, we are beyond helping and have moved to enabling, which is disastrous. Afghanistan is a place where the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are the enemies. We should train the Afghans to protect themselves, and create a plan to destroy these elements with extreme aggression, then turn it over to the Afghans to decide what nation they want. Perhaps such a plan exists, but shifting 100,000 troops there would be such a sign.

Altogether, I want our military home, protecting our own borders (North and South), and that we sever military alliances with those outside our own hemisphere.

Health Care:

Health care is not a right guaranteed by anything or anyone. Those of socialist/Marxist ideological leanings say that it is, but that is because of what it represents (though they may not have realized it): it makes the State responsible for the person from the cradle to the grave, an incredible power entrusted to government (Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. George Washington).

Health care is a responsibility. Period. I have lifted some comments I wrote concerning health care from a recent Facebook discussion and mixed them below, without citation, as they are my own thoughts. Let me say I am no fan of insurance companies, who are in the risk management business, and IMHO, tend to drive up the price of goods and services such that everyone needs them, wherever they are present. Regulation for those run amok is not a bad thing, and I think insurance companies in general drive prices of anything up rather than down, encourage massive lawsuits, etc. They are in the risk mitigation business, and both parties need to understand that.

Further, I bust my butt to take care of my immediate and extended family, paying out 45% of my wages in taxes to various governments in my life (local, state, federal), and I am not interested in paying more to cover those who will not take care of themselves (I do that through higher premiums already). I know for a fact that many of the uninsured are so by choice. My daughter's company offers to pay 90% of the medical insurance for its employees, who are asked to pay $30/month, but they opt to save the $360/year and get free (to them) care at the local ER, but when something major hits, they are uncovered. Whose fault is that? My dad forked out 25% of his meager monthly pay to make sure we had Blue Cross/Blue Shield, because it was his responsibility to look after us; it was his PRIORITY. More than 85% of people are covered in this land, most would consider that a working system -- oh yeah, our cancer survivor rates hare higher than Canada's and the UK's, and nevermind that there are no medical innovations in those places, they rely on our system.

I know several independent business people who offer employees coverage (because it is cheaper for their own families if it is part of a group plan) and their employees turn it down for the sake of a few extra bucks a month, failing to grasp what a good opportunity they have. The key verbage is "will not take care".

Insurance is a risk mitigation industry, and has become a necessary evil. No government should force any enterprise, no matter how much we dislike it, to take a bad business deal. Look at Medicare. Medicare is a debacle, and by itself will break America, growing at a rate of 4.5X inflation while giving poorer service than private insurance companies (I know this, because my mom has suffered under its "care"). But I do know we don't screw up the whole system for a relatively small number, and if Medicare and its poor service, high cost (I have more taken out for Medicare than I pay in my company's co-pay program) AND corruption is an example of government health care (and it is), then we should run away from it and look for alternative solutions.

Some say tort reform is needed to bring down the cost of health care, first and foremost, but the rights of the patient to hold negligent doctors accountable must be held intact. While those who argue against tort reform say "there is no price you can put on a human life", the self-contradiction is apparent: this is exactly what such lawsuits attempt to do, often many times above the patient's lifetime earning potential. This is wrong and unfair, too.

Begin with tort reform, and correct the prejudicial concept of "pre-existing condition". After all, insurance companies, by definition, are in the risk management business. But I add this in their defense: the insurance company should not be forced to take a client who has no continuity of coverage, i.e., they had no previous coverage and only sought such when a problem arose (of course, therein lies a financial opportunity for someone else). In the case of a person coming of age or transference of jobs, the insurance industry should buck up and cover (since they have driven prices up to force their own necessity), though this will likely result in slightly higher premiums for us all. Open competition by allowing those seeking insurance to buy across state lines to insure healthier competition for premiums, as other industries do.

I'd rather try the above on health care than let the government touch any of it.

Taxation:

Odd to me how people who pay no taxes (Federal) feel so self-righteous as to demand of those who pay the bulk of such taxes to pay more, or receive no tax cuts. Such people are little more than pan-handlers, letting the government do their dirty work of begging, and of such petty self-righteous freeloaders I have no use.

The other aspects of the taxation include the size of governments, the brutal robbery of progressive tax scales, and the participation of citizens.

I used to carry a briefcase in my early years. Briefcases wear out, and the first two or three replacements were larger than the previous. I felt the need to carry more stuff. The last in this series was, at times, painful to carry. It was replaced with a smaller one, and I carried less stuff. I did fine. Its replacement was smaller yet, and I still did fine. Now, most of the "stuff" is in my smartphone, and I cannot remember when I last carried a briefcase. The point is this: I thought I needed much more than I did, which I discovered only after forcing myself to do with less. Our governments, local-state-federal, need to learn to do with less, and they will only do this if we shrink the "briefcase of cash" we are sending them. As soon as the end of next year, the tax haul at all levels will reach 45% of GDP, affecting ALL Americans. When does their spending growth stop? The governments in our lives need to live on significantly less, and this will only happen if we dramatically reduce the haul they are making on our wages, properties, and purchases.

Progressive tax scales are only called "fair" by those who do not pay taxes or are at the lowest end. They are also called "fair" by those who never learned complicated math concepts like 'percentages'. But I repeat myself. The higher wage earner pays more in taxes than the lower wage earner even when the percentage of tax is the same. A person making $20,000 per year pays $2,000/year on a flat 10% tax system. A person making $2,000,000/year pays $200,000/year on the same flat tax. The person making 100x as much pays 100x as much. That's fair. A progressive system says the person making $20,000/year pays 10% or $2,000/year in taxes, but the person making $2,000,000/year should pay 30% or $600,000/year in taxes. How is that fair? It is disproportionate. You say, "Well, they can afford it". Who are YOU to judge? What is fair about YOU deciding who makes "enough"? It is the freeloader mentality that says those who make more should pay DISPROPORTIONATELY more, because it is driven by their desire to get more for nothing.

Excusing people from the tax roles is wrong, because it does create freeloaders. They want more and more in services from the government, and thinks everyone else should pay for such services. A flat tax for everyone would make our government more efficient, since everyone would hold the governments accountable for expensive programming that would raise everyone's tax rate. Or, we say that only those who pay federal taxes may vote in a federal election, and the same down through the local level elections. That would be "fair", too.

Czars in our Federal Government:

I am against it. I have felt it was not a good since the first presidentially-appointed czar I remember -- Bill Bennett, Drug Czar ("War on Drugs"; we have lost some civil rights over that one). I think the first was William Simon, Nixon's "energy czar". The subsequent use of such positions, positions bred of cronies and unvetted, bypassing Congressional review, pose a real threat to the Constitutional Cabinet system. BO has appointed more czars than Cabinet positions and threaten our "government of the people" system. BO has only taken it to the extreme; his predecessors are guilty, too, and I think this whole "czar thing" needs to be abolished, however expedient it may seem and regardless of who is in the White House.

Chasing the Wild Sky...

"Chasing the Wild Sky" is the pursuit of places in this country, especially the West, that remains untouched by the passing of time, places remote then, and remote a 100+ years later. I stand in the midst of these great lands and reflect on the Creator Who made them, the men who lived among them, the Bill of Rights that protected their opportunity to live in Liberty in these same lands, and the rarity for most people of drinking in such sights.

No cities nearby, no sounds of man, only the wind, the sound of insects, a coyote seranade, late afternoon light play on a great red sandstone wall, Milky Way like few have seen with the naked eye -- these are the rewards of the chasing the wild sky.

Just got back from one such trip; my heart and mind are still there, but I know I have to come back here and get to work, looking forward to the next time I go in pursuit...

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

No guarantees. No promises. Only opportunities. Failure is possible. Risks must be taken. Success is yours. Life is what YOU make it. Independent. Free. Self-reliant.

A life lived in Liberty is risky business. One cannot live in Liberty and be safe from life's inevitable shortfalls. One cannot live in Liberty without PERSONAL responsibility. One cannot live in Liberty and depend on the State. One cannot live in Liberty and demand of others to make their lives comfortable.

Liberty is freedom to succeed, fail, live, die; without which the Pursuit of Happiness is impossible.

"They" know

LBJ's biography had a very revealing statement in it, reagarding his Great Society.  Basically, in refering to it prior to its establishment, he told a colleague that he had a way to insure blacks and poor people would be voting Democrat for 200 years.  MLK was a Republican.  Republicans had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, after Democrat JFK vetoed it in 1963.

All this griping about Democrats buying votes through entitlements dates back to FDR, but was brought into art form by LBJ.  It contunues through BO.  All this is done on the guise of "helping people", but, in fact, they know they are building their own base for their own power, and truly robbing the people of the vote -- ironically, with the tax dollars collected from those who oppose them, a shrinking minority of those who are unwilling to surrender their liberty to suckle the government sow.

Simplicity and its folly

It seems that the "super rich" are villified because, well, they make more money than us, and they ship $50/hr jobs overseas to places where people make $50/month.  Therefore, it is reasoned by some, we should punish them by taxing the bejeebers out of them.  Hmmm.  Be successful, make good decisions that help people in the 3rd world (who would otherwise be making $20/month), compete in a global economy, have your corporation taxed at 38%, then be forced to give 45% of your income to FEDERAL taxes; the state and locale in which you live wants to tack on another 15% in taxes (licenses, fees, duties, etc.), ringing up a staggering 60% of all you earn going to one form of government or another -- working the first 3 days of every week for the government and reaping only 2 days worth of effor for your self...

I do not care what income you make, the above scenario is simply wrong.  It is oppression through taxation.  It is punishing success.  AND the rest of us are not far behind!  The aggregate totals for the average Americans show that the governments in our lives take 45% of all we earn!  One quarter of this tax haul is earmarked for wealth redistribution -- taken from YOUR family and given to others!

Why do jobs go overseas?  Is it so the rich can become the super rich?  How about a corporate tax rate that is twice as high as competing nations?  How about the value of a company's stock, which affects the retirement income of the great and small alike?  How about unions that elevate wages of unskilled laborers to levels that exceed college graduates -- even some of whom have very technical degrees!  In doing so, they themselves help drive companies to other borders.  How about the fact that the reduction in costs mean lower consumer prices for everyone, which allows the consumer to either keep more money in their pocket or buy more goods?

Learn the lesson of 1984: give society a singular enemy on which to focus, and they will do anything and let you do anything to achieve victory.  This is how "sound-bite, one issue" politics work...oh yeah, lest you forget, only wage-earners and consumers pay taxes, everyone else coordinates the collection...

Liberty protects all individuals

The current Marxist/Facist trends so popular with the current administration is a threat to personal freedom.  Making people wards of the state through entitlements robs them of personal liberty.  I saw that impact when I went into Romania shortly after the fall of Communism.  People were wondering who was going to take care of them rather than create opportunities for themselves.  their whole lives wre built on dependency upon the state.

Recipients of entitlements will seldom, if ever, vote away what they are receiving at the expense of others -- no matter what strings are attached.  This is human nature.  Give a person something to help them, but do it a second longer than needed, and all they want is more, and more, and more.  They are wards, owned by the state, at that point.  No longer in charge of their lives.

Liberty makes people dependent on themselves, self-reliant.  You might not like the manner in which others enjoy their liberties, if you are morally left or right, but all are free and personally responsible.  Many want to be free to do as they please, but do not want the responsibility of liberty.  Think of Brave New World.  Free to pursue any pleasure, but ordered and controlled by the state in every area, even in pleasure.  

Give me liberty, free of the shackles of burdensome government.  I will live my life, be responsible for my life, and share the Gospel of Christ and His freedom...

All the means of being heard

Anonimity is the by-product of a large collection of people.  It is impossible to hide in small groupings of people.  Small towns are being left for the opportunities large city afford.  People leave those small communities not only for opportunity, but also anonmity (how many times have heard the following said about small towns: "everybody knows everbody else's business"?).  Anonimity provides the opportunity to avoid accountability, to adapt a new persona, and to be ignored.  Enter the world of FaceBook, MySpace, SMS, Twitter, etc.  Now, anonimity's values and opportunities are betrayed, cashed-in, for the sake of being noticed and heard.

Twitter is good because i can see what my duly elected officials are doing as often as they update.  But I have people following me, and I have no idea why.  I do not know them, yet their profile shows that they follow hundreds and hundreds follow them.  I don't get it, I guess.  Is there a Twitter reward program of which I am unaware?

I use blogging and FaceBook to express my views, views which, by the way, I also share with my duly elected officials in Austin and DC.  We have great discussion, there is a greater sense of connection to the multi-faceted American mosaic of people.  Grassroots mobilization and debate has seldom been more fluid.  I want to be heard, rather than feel I am the only frustrated soul in the country (I live in the city because that is where my job is, and I feel an obligation to provide for my family with as little government interference as possible).  I have met many wonderful people and had many good debates with my FB community of friends. 

I am member of several forums and boards on which I post.  I discuss matters of interest with people all over the world.  This has been very helpful in two of my hobbies: music and playing guitar.  The knowledge I have gained in the last 5 years in these areas far exceeds what I had learned in the 40+ years previous.  These are a good things.

One thing is lacking in all of these "instruments of connection": actual human contact.  I mean, where do people meet to have these rich conversations?  The fact is we cannot.  Workdays and commutes are too long, our families need our presence (and we need to be with them, too), our global friends are still too far away, and we don't really have good front porches anymore...

Budget cuts

Using a breaking down of government spending from www,usgovernmentspending.com, the spend for the federal government is almost $4T, and $2.5T for state and local governments. Oddly enough, the state and local governments will take in enough to pay their bills, whereas the federal government is in a free-fall of nearly $1.8T deficit spending for 2009 alone, spending 190% of its income.

It is easy enough to trim $1.5T from the federal spend by program elimination, which basically pushes the federal government back to its Constitutional boundaries as declared by the 10th Amendment. That only pushes the federal government size back to 2005 levels. Cutting the federal government spending in half is really not that difficult when you drill down and see programs that provide mere oversight and do not contribute to the GDP in anyway, or the activities of which belong in the hands of the states and the people.

Beware, as in 2009 and going forward, state and local taxation will exceed federal taxation. Already the total tax bill is reaching 45% of GDP, and the morons of the Hill want to add national health care????

ONLY two people pay taxes: wage-earners and consumers. There is no escape.

There she goes...

I saw her standing there, dressed in black.  Black short-shorts, black hat, black top, her long blonde hair flowing down.  Her back was to me as I approached the intersection, her creamy yellow-white legs long and ...WHAT!?!?!?  That is the most unusual skin color I have ever seen!  I wonder if my wife will notice if I look to my left again, to study the subject who had caught my attention.  I wonder if she noticed this girl as well...

A second look explained the odd-colored skin.  A mannequin.  Perhaps a prank, perhaps advertising something, maybe someone got punk'd; I don't know.  I know what "she" looked like at first glance, which was kind of odd for that neighborhood.  My wife and I laughed, whoever left her standing there, we appreciated the humor.

Fabricating Reality

BO's recent speech on the economy cites "the recession was years in the making, it will be months or even years in the recovery".   "Years in the making", just after his party took over the halls of Congress (about four or five months, actually), and until then it was a roaring economy.  Yes, the FM twins were a problem, which silly ol' W tried to get Congress to regulate at least twice in his administration to avoid the coming meltdown, but neither a GOP nor a Democratic Congress could come to grips with financial realities.  

Partisonship yet reigns, as though ideology overcomes the laws of function.  When SS bankrupts, it will fall on the Democrat's shoulders, the same with Medicare/cade.  They used partisan politics to prevent any correction of that mess, ignoring the simple laws of finance.  The GOP ignored the need to provide regulation of "funny money" schemes, and the need to protect non-union employees from predatory practices (such as those who lost their retirements at Enron; something was done, but after the horse was out of the barn).

BO ignores his own and his party's responsibilities in crippling an expanding economy.  Check the facts, do not embrace the sound bites.  "Years in the making" was predominately the years of the 110th Congress...

Disclaimer:  I am no GOP apologist, will likely never vote GOP again, and certainly have disliked the Democrats since Carter.  I am  a Jeffersonian republican, a Constitutionalist, perhaps even a libertarian.

Quips of Wisdom

The journey is part of the destination.

Physics is not just a good idea, it's the law.

Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration (T. Edison)

No matter where you go, there you are. (B. Banzai)

Do first things first, don't do second things.

Eat the elephant one bite at a time.

Decisions are judgments made among dissenting opinions.

People do what you inspect, not what you expect. (H. Brandt)

No one rises above the enthusiasm and confidence of the leader.

If you are leading, and no one is following, you are just taking a walk. (J. Maxwell)

Vision with no action is dreaming; vision coupled with action is a new future

Mother's Day 2009

Happy Mother's Day!

Moms do many things:

1) They love us, anyway

2) They never stop being moms

3) When the world is nasty, they have the most comforting solutions

4) When the world attacks, even when we deserve it, they defend like a powerful tigress

5) They teach us how to get along with others

6) Most of all, they teach us to love...

Wonders of Technology

Here is a list of things I find kind of amazing, overall:

I can publish online through a new thing called a 'blog'

My Android G1 phone, which easily navigated me through  East Texas by using GPS and creating a link, on the fly, of a street address from an e-mail

My LiveScribe pen...

The great strides made in speech-to-text recognition -- it is about 99% accurate nowadays!

The cool utility of text-to-speech...

The ease at which my G1  finds movies in my area, in a few seconds!

MP3 music files...

Online communities of many varieties

Repository of reference material at our fingertips

There are more, I know, but one has to stop somewhere!

Enough Older Posts

The first three posts were from some time ago, and I have used them to check my settings both here and on FB.  All will be new from here on out...

Thomas Jefferson Quotes

Not necessarily my favorite founding father, but often wise despite being inconsistent personally:

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. (any 2nd amendment doubts about the citizens, not just a militia, being armed)
Thomas Jefferson

Every generation needs a new revolution. (Timely, and not just in a fashionable or rhetorical sense)
Thomas Jefferson

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. (Trust our leaders for...?)
Thomas Jefferson

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.(Johnson County War???)
Thomas Jefferson 

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson 

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
Thomas Jefferson 

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson 

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
Thomas Jefferson

Wise Sayings: Government

1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one
useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more
is a Congress. -- John Adams

2. If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if
you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. -- Mark
Twain

3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member
of Congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain

4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to
lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill

5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul. -- George Bernard Shaw

6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow
man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. --
G. Gordon Liddy

7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a
sheep voting on what to have for dinner. -- James Bovard

8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from
poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor
countries. -- Douglas Casey

9. Giving money and power to government is like giving
whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. -- P.J. O'Rourke

10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody
endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. --
Frederic Bastiat

11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a
few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,
regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -- Ronald
Reagan

12. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and
report the facts. -- Will Rogers

13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until
you see what it costs when it's free. -- P.J. O'Rourke

14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as
much money as possible from one party of the citizens to
give to the other. -- Voltaire

15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics
doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you. --
Pericles (430 B.C.)

16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the
legislature is in session. -- Mark Twain

17. Talk is cheap... except when Congress does it. --
Anonymous

18. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a
happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the
other. -- Ronald Reagan

19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing
of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the
equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill

20. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist
is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. -- Mark Twain

21. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of
folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer

22. There is no distinctly native American criminal class...
save Congress. -- Mark Twain

23. A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have. -- Gerald Ford

Opression and Enslavement

As many of you already know, there is a very fine line between helping someone and enabling their bad behavior. If you go too far in your helping, you do the person more harm than good. Moreover, if you take responsibility away from someone and replace it with benefit, they will give you the responsibility from that point forward.

The United States government is setting the stage for an economic class conflict. Already, nearly 50% of Americans pay no federal taxes, yet receive benefits. For them, these benefits are free. In reality, they receive these benefits because a disproportionate amount is taken from others, who often receive significantly fewer benefits. With every new tax that is being proposed, there is a desire to subsidize the responsibility of the lower income classes to pay. In doing so, the burden of paying for all government services falls to those who work hard to advance themselves in terms of education and economic status, yet who themselves see little or no benefit from the additional taxation. It is unlikely that those who are receiving benefits at no cost will ever vote to pay more in taxes, to pay more to receive more benefits. Their responsibilities for those benefits have been abdicated to the federal government, and in doing so these same people have become wards of the state. They are enslaved. Their own economic models include government helps without which they are not able to care for themselves. The things the government provides for them, they have removed from their equation of responsibility. Moreover, they will never vote for anyone who desires to reduce the size of government by either taking away such benefits or asking them to pay taxes in order to continue to receive them. This is the enslavement factor that is being put upon the lower income classes in America.

The oppression comes from excessive taxation of those who have sought to better themselves through education, thus elevating their economic status, and at the same time subjecting them to an onerous progressive tax system. It is easy to focus on the federal income tax, but we must also keep in mind that every American pays state and local taxes as well. Everywhere the wage earner and the consumer turn, the purchasing power of their dollar is being diminished by taxation. The combination of these three levels of government take from 30% to 50% of every dollar earned. This is oppressive. There is nothing fair nor right about such aggressive taxation. The government refuses to downsize. It continues to add entitlement programs. It continues to demand more tax revenues. Our own government has turned against us and is robbing us at the gunpoint of taxation.

I do not know what can be done to restore the sense of personal responsibility by every American regardless of their socioeconomic class. A flat common user tax would affect everyone by the same fractional amount. Moreover, it would encourage saving, by not devaluing the dollars that are not spent. Of course it will be difficult for those who are used to getting something for nothing to adjust to being personally responsible for their own well-being and their own welfare. They would never vote for such system; their votes have already been purchased, and therefore their condition is a threat to our democracy.

Living with liberty and freedom is risky business, I understand that. It requires checks and balances to ensure a constant and fair playing field. It does not guarantee equal outcomes. What it does not require is enslavement of certain members of our society to the government handout. I have traveled the world and I have seen very, very poor people. The poor people in America are not counted among them. Everyone in America has one unique opportunity that the poor in other countries do not have: access to a free public education. It is therefore the responsibility of each individual to take advantage of this great gift, this great opportunity, to pick themselves up and advance themselves, and live as free people in the land of liberty. Likewise, the government needs to lift the oppressive yoke of taxation from the necks of those who are working, risking, and striving to make this country great.