Favorite Teddy Roosevelt Quotes (poached from brainyquote.com)

A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education. Theodore Roosevelt 

A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues. Theodore Roosevelt 

A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. Theodore Roosevelt 

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. Theodore Roosevelt 

Big jobs usually go to the men who prove their ability to outgrow small ones. Theodore Roosevelt 

Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike. Theodore Roosevelt 

Do what you can, with what you have, where you are. Theodore Roosevelt 

Speak softly, and carry a big stick. Theodore Roosevelt 

Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft. Theodore Roosevelt 

Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing. Theodore Roosevelt 

Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat. Theodore Roosevelt 

Freedom from effort in the present merely means that there has been effort stored up in the past. Theodore Roosevelt 

I am only an average man but, by George, I work harder at it than the average man. Theodore Roosevelt 

I care not what others think of what I do, but I care very much about what I think of what I do! That is character! Theodore Roosevelt 

I don't pity any man who does hard work worth doing. I admire him. I pity the creature who does not work, at whichever end of the social scale he may regard himself as being. Theodore Roosevelt 

If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month. Theodore Roosevelt 

It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things. Theodore Roosevelt 

It is difficult to make our material condition better by the best law, but it is easy enough to ruin it by bad laws. Theodore Roosevelt 

Never throughout history has a man who lived a life of ease left a name worth remembering. Theodore Roosevelt 

No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Theodore Roosevelt 

No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expedience. Theodore Roosevelt 

Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures. Theodore Roosevelt 

Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big. Theodore Roosevelt 

The best executive is one who has sense enough to pick good people to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it. Theodore Roosevelt 

The boy who is going to make a great man must not make up his mind merely to overcome a thousand obstacles, but to win in spite of a thousand repulses and defeats. Theodore Roosevelt 

The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight. Theodore Roosevelt 

The government is us; we are the government, you and I. Theodore Roosevelt 

The human body has two ends on it: one to create with and one to sit on. Sometimes people get their ends reversed. When this happens they need a kick in the seat of the pants. Theodore Roosevelt 

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. Theodore Roosevelt 

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally treasonable to the American public. Theodore Roosevelt 

La Pays Sauvage

Literally, "The Wild Country" or "The Wilderness" in French.  Being in France does make me long for the openness of the American West I love so much.  France cannot be thought of as Paris or Marseilles all over, for there is much countryside, but it is tamed, settled in so many ways.  Yet, I have seen online, with the help of French friends at work, that there are adventurous places to visit and hike.  I am trying to hook up with some of these hiking clubs in the area (les clubs de randonee) to get to know the countryside.

The American West still has places that are unspoiled, and a wild history as part of its adventurous story.  That, I think, is what I find missing here.  Everything has been settled for so long, and one is never far from a village or town.  All the roads are paved, as are most bicycle trails.  Certainly, such conveniences enables access to such areas (did you know there are volcanoes in France?), and therefore I have no excuse not to explore this country and its rural regions, but I can only picture me there, in that place, at that time.  This is good for my own memory of the visit, but it is not like walking up the Hole in the Wall Pass, either.

From what I have seen on the web, there is indeed more to France than Paris, and most Frenchmen (not Parisiens) will be quick to inform you, nay, insist to you, the same sentiment.  I think I will ride with the Frenchmen-not-Parisiens on this one...

Mark

Thieves, beggars, "democratic" pillaging

I grow very concerned when I hear of Americans talking about how "the government" should do this or that for them. They seem to forget that the government has nothing outside of the people. Somehow, we've reached a point in our society where we want the government to steal from other Americans so that they might have benefits. Or at least, more benefits. Where is the attitude of personal responsibility? We find every exception in a person's life to excuse their underachieving; about socioeconomic conditions, about how a person was raised, about education quality, or worse yet, how much money was spent on education. Let's face it, education requires little money to teach a person how to read, how to write, and how to do mathematics. With these tools they can accomplish anything. Yet, we act as if these are new social reasons to head down a path of stealing from one group of people to buy the votes of others. None of these things are new, they have been with mankind from the beginning. Even in the earliest days of our own government, of our own nation, these issues existed. Living in liberty was about giving us the opportunity to make our own destiny, without excuse, and without blame.

As a person who grew up in very much a middle-class family, perhaps even slightly lower than middle-class family, I knew that we would have to work hard to change our state. I have been working since I was 15 years of age, when I was putting in 60 hours a week at my father's service station during the summer. Believe me, I got all the dirty jobs. I could see different people come and go to that station and realize a cold hard fact: those that work hard, and got educated, were better off than those who did neither. My life is in my hands even then, as to what I was going to be like, what kind of life I wanted a chance to have. I knew I would never be wealthy, but I also knew I had a shot at moving to slightly above middle-class. But it would require education, and a degree in demand enough to get above-average pay. To tell you the truth, I almost blew it. I got distracted by, well let's say, the distractions one often finds in college. My performance was not as good as it should have been, much to the dismay of my parents. At one time, I thought about dropping out. I did not. I kept going, slowly correcting my bad habits, although there were a lot of successes and failures in that area. Eventually, I graduated with a degree in engineering, and achieved gainful employment. I completely understood my under-performance in college. It was my own fault. No one else's. I determined to not make the same mistake in my work life. Some might suggest I've overdone it in some areas. But I have a responsibility to my family to work as hard as I can to provide for them and to ensure a future for them. I've been with the same company for 30 years, not many people can say that. I know if they let me go tomorrow, it would be up to me to decide my fate, my future, my family's future.

America is a great country, because it encourages freedom, because it encourages liberty, because it encourages personal responsibility as a part of its fabric. There is little wonder that such great achievements in technology and economics are achieved in this country. Such an environment brings out the very best in us. But there are those who do not want to take responsibility, who want to live off the achievements of others, to demand their share of the American dream at the expense of others. This is patently against everything liberty and freedom are about. I would rather those people simply leave the United States and go to a country where the government is distinctly separate from the people and they can live as its wards, as its slaves, and take no responsibility for their lives, and not be a burden to those who do.

Those who demand that the government provide them benefits at the expense of others are nothing more than thieves, nothing more than beggars, who simply ask their elected officials to do the dirty works of pillaging and panhandling for them. People who receive any government assistance, outside of Social Security for which an individual contributes, should not be allowed to vote and perpetuate their burden on working men and women and families.  And we as individuals should take care of our own and not forsake our responsibility to family members in need, as opposed to thrusting them upon every other family in the nation via "government assistance".

Yes, I believe in minimal government, as did our Founding Fathers; yes, I believe in personal responsibility, as did our Founding Fathers; yes, I believe the Constitution was written to protect the individual from the necessary evil that is government, as did our Founding Fathers when they wrote it; yes, I believe thieves and beggars have overcome our government and through power-hungry and therefore corrupt elected officials are pillaging the very type of people who made America great.

Liberty is gasping

Marxism has its first real stranglehold in America. More freedoms will fall and more state control will arise as a result of this legislation (listen to how often the word 'force' is used in describing the bill's 'provisions' -- nothing American about that word); the government has now taken control of the American people, not vice versa as was the Founding Fathers' intent.

Republicanism's future is bleak. The Jeffersonian dream of freedom from government has all but died with the passage of this Marxist bill. The American dream is now on life-support. One's reward for hard work and income growth is to be forced to give the fruits of their labor with those who have no such drive. We have four groups to thank for these severe illnesses and demise: Democrats, White House, GOP, and the ignorant Americans who for 70+ years have considered the government part of the solution. Even conservatives such as Christians are to blame, who long ago abdicated their responsibilities toward those in need to the government, in the name of "our Christian heritage".

Nothing can be done about the past. What remains is the present and its influence on the future. The GOP gave up on Reagan's revolution as soon as he left office. They have become just another self-serving pro-big government party. They are not the answer. In truth, the last bastion of hope are the States of America. It is time to pressure our state governments to reject this attack on freedom as a breeching of the 10th Amendment. It is up to the States to fight the constitutionality of this bill. It is time for we the people to use our vote to oust the traitors in both parties, at local, state, and federal levels. It is time for us to ready ourselves for peaceful secession. Liberty is gasping, and only those who love Her and dare live with Her tempestuous behavior can save Her.

Those that defer their own responsibilities for the sake of a nanny state deserve no freedom. Those who are being forced to pay for this beast are being punished for realizing the American dream. Let the revolution begin.

Why did America become?

Have we forgotten the answer to this question? Has the lame excuse of "industrialization" become the means by which the answer slipped from our memories?

Over 1/3 of Americans favor socialism, or at least do not think it a bad thing? How can this be, especially in America? Experiments in socialism have failed around the world and throughout time, yet, some think it can be successful?

The European model is simple: The government is the nation, and therefore owns everything, even your wages. The government decides how much it needs, and how much you can keep. The government knows what is best for all. You are a subject of the government. The garnishment of your wages for re-distribution to others with less is mandated. You are safe, because the government will provide everyone with a minimal level of provision, whether we are talking healthcare, wages, housing -- whatever. The government will take care of you, and in effect, owns you.

The American (in its original form) model is more complex: The people are citizens, own their property and wages, and pay taxes based on mutual agreement. The people are the government. It is the government which is the subject to its people. The people know best, and each are given the opportunity to provide for themselves, to whatever degree of provision their aspirations and ambitions take them. Charity toward others is an option. The government is constrained to provide liberty for all, a tempestuous way of life for certain (too much for some), and realizes unequal outcomes as a consequence. Each person is free to live and die according to their own choices and decisions in life.

Today, however, there are at least a third of Americans who no longer have the stomach for living in liberty, for living in the American system. They want a hybrid system, where they can elect government officials who will write laws and policies such that the government provides for them, under the guise that the "government" should provide for all. They are nothing more that lazy beggars, asking the "government" to do their panhandling for them. They do not deserve the life of liberty, and should move elsewhere where being a subject or ward of the state is a part of the system (you can not work a day in your life and receive $3000/month in unemployment in Norway). When Benjamin Franklin stated "Those who are willing to surrender freedom for security deserve neither", he was not merely mentioning security from flying musket balls, for his statement is applicable in many areas of life (we have become slaves to insurance-based systems -- auto, health, whatever -- and typically pay more in premiums than the benefits we receive).

Eventually, however, socialism fails for one major reason: those who provide its financial resources are eventually crushed under socialism's burdens. People who think someone else should be responsible for their lives, responsible for their decisions in life, and responsible for leveling the economic playing field for them have lost sight of the glory that is liberty and being American. They prefer to be enslaved to a lessor, but "safer" system, and are willing to steal from those who work and pay taxes to get it. They vilify the industrious, and exalt the irresponsible. For such people I can say but one thing: regardless of where you were born, if you do not have the fortitude to be an American, go somewhere else because this land is not for you.

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.