About Me

Name: fiddler
Email: fiddler927@hotmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Stop The Madness: Fiscal Insanity Will Destroy The U.S.

One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist, or even an economist to figure out that if you spend more money that you make with no plan for repaying it, you are going to be bankrupt before long. On the other hand, our society has been inundated with messages encouraging conspicous consumption for so long, pushing the idea that we can have it all on easy credit, that far too many people don't even question the wisdom of running up high balances on credit cards and consumer loans. Instant gratification is what it's all about. If you get into trouble, file for chapter 7 bankruptcy and wipe the slate clean. Yes, your credit rating will take a hit for several years, but you'll still be able to get credit. Some people declare bankruptcy two or three times and don't even blink. 
Once upon a time our society believed in thrift; now we are mired in profligacy and debt, and it's not just our people but our government. The current fiscal crisis in which the federal government is entangled is one that has been long coming, and while politicians at both ends of the political spectrum have been busily pointing their fingers at one another in order to cast blame, there is plenty of blame to go around. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of spending federal money on credit and running up huge deficits; however, the current state of affairs can rightly be laid at the feet of the sitting president, who has spent more money than all 43 previous  presidents combined (<a href="http://island-adv.com/2011/07/by-the-end-of-his-term-obama-will-have-spent-more-than-all-other-43-presidents-combined-%e2%80%94-congratulations/"><img src="http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/debtstar-1-300x227.jpg" alt="By the End of His Term, Obama Will Have Spent More Than All Other 43 Presidents Combined — Congratulations!"></a><br /><font size="1"><a href="http://island-adv.com/2011/07/by-the-end-of-his-term-obama-will-have-spent-more-than-all-other-43-presidents-combined-%e2%80%94-congratulations/">By the End of His Term, Obama Will Have Spent More Than All Other 43 Presidents Combined — Congratulations!</a> Hosted by <a href="http://island-adv.com/">Back to Basics</a></font>), promising that the spending on "stimulus packages" and a massive and expensive national health care program would get the economy moving again while all it has done is to create market uncertainty and cause corporations to sit on their cash reserves and not hire new personnel. Once again, one does not have to be an economist to understand that large sums of money spent by the federal government and subsumed by it in the form of high taxes removes that capital from the private sector, which is where the jobs and the wealth creation come from. 
Changing the behavior of an entire people necessarily involves changing cultural attitudes and mores. Self gratification, which has been at the forefront of American individualism for 50 years, will have to be pushed back again and be replaced by an ethic of self denial, which necessarily must flow from a cultural zeitgeist which places high value on virtue and family, for only in these things is any reason found for the self-sacrifice and self-denial that make honesty, thrift, and hard work worthwhile; and ultimately the foundation for these virtues is laid in a firm belief in the God of the Bible, who put us here to work, and to share with one another, and in so doing to bring glory to Him.
If our country is to survive, it can do so only if we stop this madness now. For all the dire warnings issued by politicians about cutting entitlement benefits, and threats of checks not going out after August 2 if the Republican Congressional leaders don't accede to the President's demands to raise taxes, the frightening truth is that if our fiscal house is not placed in order immediately through deep spending cuts, whether taxes are raised or not, all those entitlements may well be meaningless anyway. Raising the debt ceiling is at best a short-term - and short-sighted - fix, since it will last only as long as the spending stays below the ceiling. As soon as spending nears the ceiling again, and the current president will want to continue his free-spending ways, we'll be faced with the same crisis all over again. 
The only viable solution to this problem is to cut spending permanently. My suggestion is to freeze spending at current levels, pay the interest on loans owed, and get down to serious work on where the budget can be cut to make it fiscally responsible. No tax increase. No more spending. No more programs. Just decide what programs can be cut, starting with Obamacare. And let's plan on doing away with budget bills and a tax code that run into the thousands of pages. No one reads those, including the legislators who vote on them. They should be brought back to a manageable size so that they are accessible to the average citizen, just as was intended by our founding fathers. Let's stop Congress and the Executive, and let's stop this insanity before it destroys us.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Physician, Heal Thyself

   According to an item posted on TCM (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/rep-paul-ryans-pricey-pinot-noir.php) Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) was dining this past week at the trendy - and pricey - Capitol Hill restaurant Bistro Bis with friends when he was confronted by a fellow diner who was outraged that his group had ordered two bottles of very expensive Pinot-Noir. She demanded to know if his companions were lobbyists, and whether they were paying for the meal, since that would be an ethics violation, although she had no reason to suspect that this was the case, and she asked Ryan "how he could live with himself" since he was "advocating cuts in programs for seniors and the poor." According to the article she also pointed out that the cost of the two bottles of wine was more than a two-income, minimum-wage family brings home in a week.
   I was struck by the irony of the fact that Bistro Bis where this woman and her husband were having dinner is a decidedly upscale restaurant, and a two-income, minimum-wage family of four is lucky if they can afford to stop at McDonald's at today's prices, never mind a place like the Bistro. The lady who became so incensed at the price of the wine drunk by Representative Ryan and his companions said she was there to celebrate her birthday, and she had drunk "half a bottle of great wine" - no mention of the price. Checking out the prices on the wine list at Bistro Bis, one finds that the least expensive wine there is a half bottle of Sauvignon Blanc Pouilly Fume at $26. Appetizers start at $10.75;  dinner entrees start at about $25. Everything is a la carte; sides are $8.50 each. Obviously anyone who has dinner there with a companion can expect to spend at least $100 for an evening by the time dessert is ordered and a gratuity is figured into the tab. But this woman and her husband could afford to eat there; the fact that they may have spent less than the Congressman and his companions (and we don't know what their meal cost, aside from the wine) doesn't make any difference if one wants to engage in class warfare. The meer fact that she and her husband have the means to eat in such an establishment puts them at the same economic level as others who eat there; her outrage was more than a little hypocritical, and it begs the question: what is she, and others like her on the left, who are so quick to declare their moral superiority to those of us on the right, doing to help seniors and the poor? What concrete steps have they taken? Are they doing all they can? Or are they content to let the government, inefficient and wasteful as it is, administer these programs? As I said in this space the other day, if they spent less time worrying about what others have and do, and more time giving of their time and treasure, we'd have fewer problems with poverty. Then they might have the moral high ground they crave to lecture the rest of us.
   I was also struck by the irony of her outrage over Ryan's consideration of the privatization of Medicare, given that the Obama adiministration has cut $500 billion from the Medicare budget in order to fund the Affordable Care Act, which doesn't even go into effect for another 3 years. But of course, the Annointed One can do no wrong in the eyes of his adoring minions, even as he leads us down the path to ruin. In the meantime, all those who point accusing fingers at conservatives ought to remember that three fingers are pointing back at themselves.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Loving Best What We Should Love First

   President Obama and his Democrat colleagues constantly sound the litany: the rich should pay their fair share, the rich should pay more taxes; we would have plenty of money to do all the things we want/need if the rich paid more and had less. The flip side of that coin is that if we took all the wealth possessed by the wealthy, it would still not be enough to solve the problems of poverty, and the wealthy would have no incentive to continue to produce more wealth, nor would they any longer possess the means. What, you say? They wouldn't do it for purely altruistic reasons? They wouldn't produce wealth and use that wealth to create jobs purely out of the goodness of their hearts?
   In the real world people earn money to live. Some people, through extraordinarily hard work, ingenuity, and granted, sometimes ruthless behavior, earn vast sums of money and become wealthy. Most of them do so honestly and have no need to apologize for it. A great many of them give large sums to charity, because they feel a sense of obligation to help those who have not enjoyed the success they have. So for those who demand that anyone do more, give more, pay more: what are you doing? How much do you give? I'm not talking about the five dollars you drop in the Salvation Army bucket at Christmas; I want to know what concrete thing you do to alleviate poverty that gives you the moral authority to lecture anyone about doing more to help those in need. You say the wealthy should give more because they have more? Who are you to say? Unless  you are giving all you can, doing all you can, you have no right to chide anyone for doing or giving less. Even if you do, you do not have the right to demand that anyone give anything to anyone else; you didn't give them what they have. What you have is yours to do with as you see fit. If you give it to the poor that is a good thing. If another never gives anything to the poor, that is a bad thing, but no one has the right to demand that he do so, save God alone. Instead we should all focus on what we should be doing; then we won't have time to worry about what anyone else isn't doing.
   Ultimately what it all boils down to is the question of what we really love; is it material wealth? Power? Fame? Attention? None of those things is what we should love of course. Our first love should be God. If we will love God first, and best, this world will be a much better place in which to live. When the love of God fills us, it flows outwardly to those who need it the most, including those who are the least lovable. We love what we love best when we love most what we should love first.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Observable, Repeatable, Falsifiable: Why Climategate Matters.

Philosophy is wonderful discipline. It teaches one to think clearly, to reason, and to weigh evidence dispassionately. More scientists should study philosophy. It was there that I learned that the basis of sound theory is that for a theory to be valid, it must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable;  if  an hypothesis did not meet those criteria, it could not be found to be a theory - which brings us to anthropogenic global warming.

For some years now we have been told, by Al Gore, by the news media, by the environmental left, by just about anyone with an agenda, that "the science is settled" - "the earth has a fever." There was a "scientific consensus" - as if science was ever conducted by consensus.  We have been urged to support legislation that would impose harsh penalties on carbon emissions, drastically increase the cost of fuel such as gasoline and home heating oil and electricity, thereby punishing those who can least afford it (the poor), and attenuate the progress of developing countries which rely on fossil fuels to power their economic engines. The earth, we have been told, was on a collision course with rising seas due to melting polar ice caps, increasingly devastating hurricanes and monsoons, desertification of once lush forests, extinction of species - you get the picture. Drastic action had to be taken. Those of us who were skeptical due to the fact that the last ten years have failed to produce any warming at all have been compared to Holocaust deniers, and scientists who have dared to question whether there was indeed a "consensus" have had their motives questioned and their integrity impugned. They have been accused of being on the payroll of Big Oil, without their legitimate objections to AGW alarmism being addressed. In fact, each time an objection has been raised, the response has been an ad hominem attack against the person raising the objection, usually a sure sign that the objection is worth another look.

Enter a collection of emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, which were recently hacked, or leaked (depending on whom you believe). They indicate a pattern of obfuscation and manipulation, of subverting the peer review process, and of destroying original data, thereby making it impossible for any reputable scientist to a) observe the phenomenon in question; b) repeat the results obtained by the testers; and c) falsify the data. At least one professor, Professor Watson of the University of East Anglia, has said that there's nothing wrong with the science, but there is no way to verify that without the original data; in other words, it can't be falsified. They want the rest of the scientific community merely to accept their word that their methods were solid, their data were solid, and their conclusions were valid. Any objective observer should be capable of seeing how damaging this is to the scientific community in particular, and to mankind as a whole..

We live in an age when many people distrust science, whether it is global warming, evolution, vaccinations - the list could go on. The politicization and manipulation of science, which has gone on for hundreds of years, I'll grant (note poor Galileo), is always detrimental to mankind, since it invariably leads to a justification for a political power-play on the basis that it's "for the good of the mankind." Early twentieth century progressives tried to implement eugenics programs based on "science". The Vatican tried to enforce a geocentric view of the universe in the 17th century via "science". Due to Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," the use of DDT was banned, and many have died in Africa of malaria who might have been saved, due to the proliferation of mosquitoes; due to the distrust of science, many children go unvaccinated against diseases such as whooping cough because of fears about autism; due to environmental alarmism over the possible extinction of a species supposedly based on "science," farmers in California have been denied access to needed water for their crops, turning their land into dry waste (and harming the impoverished immigrants the left purportedly champions). If science is truly to benefit mankind, then it must be kept free of political agendas that so warp and skew its results. But maybe that's just wishful thinking.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

House Divided

I will never learn, I guess. I just can't seem to learn to keep my mouth shut (or my keyboard from typing).
I went to my cousin's Facebook page, where she had posted her opinion supporting the President's health care plan. I responded on her page disagreeing with her. That started a round of debate that ended with her "unfriending" me. I should have known better. First of all, it was her wall, not mine. Second, she is an academic, teaching at a university, holding two doctoral degrees. She is as liberal as the day is long.
After she "unfriended" me, I realized that I had offended her and I apologized, explaining that I had thought we were engaged in honest debate, but that I was sorry I had posted on her Facebook page. She responded by saying that my views were "so far to the right of hers" that she didn't know what to say, and that I had "embarassed" (sic) her. I apologized again for embarrassing her, and we are agreed that we will not discuss religion or politics in the future, which is probably just as well for the sake of family peace. In truth, I doubt we will be discussing much of anything in the future.
Now I am well aware that most of the people on my mother's side of the family are well-educated liberal Democrats, and that their religious affiliations, if any, are mainline liberal denominations, while I am but a lowly conservative with a mere associate's degree obtained late in life, and an orthodox Missouri Synod Lutheran to boot - a mere member of the hoi polloi, the great unwashed, so anything I say or think can't be taken seriously, and must be a source of great embarrassment to those in their ivory towers. But while a part of me is angry with myself for even going there in the first place - I shouldn't have posted my views on her wall - her patronizing tone ("I feel qualified since I'm a lawyer and my husband is a political scientist") were clearly intended to let me know that she didn't consider my views to be of any consequence - I'm angry that I've allowed myself to be embarrassed as a right-wing yahoo Nazi oaf, which is undoubtedly how I came off to my cousin and her liberal friends. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
This is typical of the disdain displayed by the government and the liberal media this past weekend toward those who participated in the 9/12 march on Washington DC. It did not matter that vast throngs (and anyone who really thinks it was only 65,000 people is just living in denial) descended upon the capital last Saturday, or that they were orderly and that the message they carried was very clear. The President made sure he was out of town, and the mainstream media just ignored it or tried to downplay it. So on the one side were a lot of people - and I do mean a lot of people - from all walks of life who are just sick and tired of business as usual from our elected representatives, and who really want things to change, really change, and on the other side were those elected representatives hiding, no, cowering, not even having the courage to face the people who had put them in office, because after all, those tea-bagging red-necks couldn't possibly have points of view that have any validity, now could they, and they might be dangerous right? They might have guns, right?
Is it any wonder that our elected representatives have no respect for us? In an age when credentialism has eroded the value of even a baccalaureate degree, what hope have we, the ordinary, hard working citizens of this country, most of whom will never graduate from an Ivy League school, much less with an advanced degree, of being heard? Why is it that we have no right to be taken seriously? why is it that we are considered no more than peasants, to whom the rulers (our elected leaders) can throw a few favors in return for our loyalty? Perhaps in the past those favors have bought our loyalty. I hope those days are gone. I hope that we are better informed and better educated now. Perhaps in the past our house was divided more by class and education than it is today. It's just too bad that political elitism has to divide families as well.  
So will the house of the United States be divided

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Astroturf, Grassroots, and Respect

Tonight I'd like to talk about astroturf, and about genuine respect.
I attended a townhall meeting in Kokomo, Indiana. It was hosted by Democratic Representative Joe Donnelly, and attended by a crowd of probably 300 - 400 people. I didn't see any media types in attendance, although one local talk radio host was present with his wife, but no camera crews and no radio crews that I could see were there. Prior to the meeting there were some tables set up with professionally printed signs supporting the President's plan. But the only ones I saw in suits were Representative Donnelly and a couple of local politicians. It being a warm August evening, just about everyone else was dressed very casually, one could even say sloppily compared to the standards of a bygone era. So much for being "too well dressed." There were a couple of printed signs exhorting people to stop Obama's Nazi health care plan, and a few other hand made signs, but nothing vulgar or rude, and no swastikas. The crowd was, by and large peaceful and respectful. No violence of any kind occurred during this townhall meeting, and while there were a fair number of jeers and boos at comments made by Donnelly, the crowd generally was pretty tame. This is Kokomo, Indiana. That's just how we are.
That being said, it was clear that in spite of the fact that that some supporters of Obamacare were present, the crowd was overwhelmingly opposed to it, even in this heavily union town. Speaker after speaker voiced concern over various aspects of the President's policies, starting with his desire to "spread the wealth" around. Saying that he worked hard for what he had, and that he didn't feel that he should have to give it to everyone else, the first speaker asked Donnelly what Congress was going to do about government spending. What he got was the first of many non-answers of the evening. "Do you think Medicare and the VA hospitals are good programs?" Donnelly asked. Right. And just what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China, Joe?
Another member of the crowd asked about "death panels," and got another evasion: that would be an opportunity for the patient and his or her doctor to cover those sensitive end of life issues when the "time was right."
Someone asked about European single payer health care systems, and Donnelly answered that he thought they were working okay. I never did get to ask my question which was more direct: I am a 51 year old woman with multiple sclerosis. The therapy I take, a weekly interferon shot which I administer myself, is very expensive at more than $1400 a month, and I am thankful that I have unsurance to pay for it. I have a friend in Belgium whose mother also has MS. Under their single payer system, because of rationing to control costs, she cannot receive this therapy. She is now in a wheelchair, where she might have been spared that fate if she'd had access to the interferon drugs available here. What guarantees can you make, Mr. Congressman, that I, as a middle-aged woman, with a chronic, incurable disease, would not be denied this therapy because it is deemed too expensive?
But then again, he probably wouldn't have answered that one either.
The most intelligent question of the evening came from a man I know because I happen to go to church with him. His comments drew strong applause from the audience. He asked the congressman that given the fact that the government had taken over banking, taken over GM, was trying to run the coal industry and the economy in general into the ground with cap and trade, and is trying to take over health care, what aspect of our lives will be left untouched? What more before we start down the road to slavery? Aaron phrased the question much more eloquently than that, but you get the idea.
Donnelly didn't even try to answer that one. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Political Hopelessness, Or Just Facing Reality?

Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age, jaded by too many years of too many broken promises of "change," tired of the same-old, same-old from the same-old faces with the same-old mouths. Maybe it's just a mid-life crisis. I dunno. But even with the apparent success recent tax-day tea parties, I just can't get that excited. It's not that I don't think they have an ice cube's chance in Hades of actually bringing about "change" in the way government does business (I don't). I just that I've seen too many movements fall by the wayside over the 40 years I've been watching the political scene, movements that started out with all the vigor of fresh-faced innocence and enthusiasm, only to fade away after the initial thrill wore off and the reality of human nature became apparent. The youth movement of the 1960's? Aside from some aging radicals (some of whom are now at the highest levels of governmental power), most of them are mainstream, "establishment" cogs in the machine. The women's movement? Yeah, they accomplished some good, but most people I know don't take them very seriously anymore, since they've expended so much of their political capital on extreme positions regarding abortion and gay rights. Speaking of abortion, what about the prolife movement? The prolife movement still seems to have some steam, but even its most ardent supporters recognize that we probably are not going to see the end of 1,000,000 abortions a year any time soon.
I wonder whether conservatives recognize that, despite the clear truth of the conservative point of view, the ideas and assumptions fostered by the progressives of 100 years ago have become so deeply entrenched in our cutural zeitgeist that they will be reflected in the way people vote for a long time to come? I desperately want to believe that the recent tea parties will make a difference, that public discontent with the way business is done in Washington will result in real change, not the kind of Hope-N-Change that we've seen from the Obama administration so far, but genuine change that honestly reflects the will of the people rather than the agenda of a bunch of politicians. But in order for that to happen, the voting public will actually have to become knowledgeable about political philosophies and their consequences, and about human nature. And people will have to stop voting for the politicians who have been in office since the birth of Jesus. I don't know if one can realistically look for such an awakening, or whether it's even possible. It's not that I don't have faith in human nature. It's that I have plenty.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Moral Standing and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

In an era when moral standing is granted to opine on political matters to those who suffer from problems related to the issue in question, I hereby assert my moral standing with regard to Embryonic Stem Cell Research as a person with multiple sclerosis.
I was diagnosed 7 years ago, although I have had the illness for probably 30+ years. I desperately want to see a cure, as do all those who suffer from chronic illnesses. The good news is that research has shown that one's own adult stem cells may provide a cure, or at least an effective treatment for MS; the bad news is that so far, only a small study has taken place at Northwestern University, and it will likely take years, and many large-scale clinical studies, before any conclusive evidence is found, one way or the other. The point is that this was done on adult stem cells from the bone marrow of the patient being treated, and so far he is doing well and showing no signs of the disease. Maybe it will pan out; maybe it won't. But it wasn't done using ESR. If ESR were really as promising as its proponents keep saying, government funding wouldn't be an issue, since private funding would flow freely (imagine the money to be made by the company that successfully used embryonic stem cells to cure diseases such as Parkinson's, diabetes, MS, and a host of other chronic illnesses). The fact that it apparently hasn't should at least raise some questions about the real agenda of ESR proponents.
 
Regardless, even ESR were to provide the only cure for my illness, I would not - could not - use it in good conscience. The deliberate destruction of human life to serve my own selfish ends is unconscionable. I would have to live with the knowledge that my cure (in a body that is going to die anyway) came at the expense of another human life, one who never had a choice as to whether to give his or her life for mine or anyone else's.
 
That raises another issue. I know "slippery-slope" arguments are supposed to be weak, But in the time since then, as we have gone down the path of deciding that some humans (unborn babies) are not human enough to merit the right to life apart from the mother's decision, we have begun to tread the dangerous terrain of deciding that some already-born people should be "helped" to die.When the abortion debate was heating up in the late sixties and early seventies, the slippery-slope argument was put forward, and immediately dispensed with by those who wanted legalized abortion. Sounds compassionate - give someone in great physical or emotional pain lethal drugs at his request - but who can really say that a suffering human being is in the best position to make that decision? And who's to say that the suffering patient hasn't been pressured by his family, who is also suffering emotionally? Even as the slippery-slope argument is considered to be a logical fallacy, we have been sliding down that slope.
 
All of those arguments aside, the willful destruction of human life, without recourse to justice, is a grave sin. As a nation, we should not be in the business of infanticide. We should commit ourselves to doing what is right, period.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Late New Year Musings

   I know, I know. I have got to write more often. It's that old use-it-or-lose-it thing: if I don't write more, I won't build my skills, nor develop any ideas worth sharing.
On the other hand someone who used his gift-of-gab to great effect, all the way to the White House, is continuing to develop his skills, although he may be finding that now that he's the head honcho, not everyone falls at his feet to drool over his shoes.
I am, of course, referring to President Obama.
He won by a respectable margin, with 52% of the popular vote to McCain's 48%. No long, drawn-out, and painful recount process this time, nor charges of voter fraud (at least not in the Presidential race; the Minnesota Senatorial race is at this late date still undecided). But where most newly inaugurated presidents enjoy a honeymoon period, however brief, of accomplishing a great deal of their legislative agenda, President Obama has yet to get his biggest legislative items through. And the biggest item, though he didn't campaign on it, has been bogged down in the Senate. Yes, it will probably pass tonight. But the fact of the matter is that an awful lot of people are upset that he allowed certain Democrats in Congress to hijack the proposed stimulus package and lard it up with obscene amounts of pork, all in the name of "stimulating the economy" and "job creation."
I have long heard that this is how business gets done in Washington. Propose legislation, seek to build a coalition of legislative allies who will vote for the bill if there's something in it for their congressional districts, and get it passed. But I for one am sick of business as usual. I want it to stop. I want our Congressman to pass legislation that's good for the whole country, without figuring out a way to soak taxpayers for any more money than is necessary.
Maybe it's a pipedream. Maybe expecting our Congress to act for purely altruistic reasons is unrealistic. But my $2000 tax bill this spring is infuriating me. I'm tired of this old, old, "pay to play" scam: give the government your money so that the government can dole out goodies as it sees fit. I want the government out of my pocket, and I want it out yesterday! But now our President has said that the Senate must authorize this outrageously huge spending bill, or we will have an economic catastrophe, a bill for which my great-grandchildren will still be paying in fifty or sixty years. And he says "only government can do this." Never once does he mention that this economic mess is largely the fault of (drum-roll please)... government! Government interfering in markets; government pressuring businesses to make bad business decisions; government failing to perform the watch-dog functions mandated by federal law; government more interested in political correctness than in common sense.
My Patriot ancestors must be rolling in their graves at the mockery made of the constitution by our government in the last 80 to 100 years. Maybe it's time for a new American Revolution.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary for Veep?

My first thought when I heard Joe Biden's remarks that Hillary would have been a better choice for the VP nomination was that he had committed another of his famous gaffes. But then it occurred to me that he was laying the foundation for his withdrawal from the Democratic ticket, to allow Hillary to become the nominee. I thought about what happened to Tom Eagleton in 1972, and although this isn't quite the same - no one has run a report exposing a major weakness in Biden, as happened with Eagleton - it serves as a precedent for allowing the withdrawal of one candidate to allow for another to replace him.
Then I heard on the news that Obama had met in Manhattan with Bill Clinton. Yes, yes, I know. Both Obama and McCain were in New York for the 9/11 observances, and for the forum at Columbia University. It just seemed odd that this meeting occurred at roughly the same time as Biden was making his comments. And that was when I realized that this could very well be the scenario: Biden will announce that on reflection, the Democratic ticket would have a better chance of winning the election if he withdraws and a stronger running-mate is selected (Hillary?).
I really could see this happening, especially as Obama continues to slip in the polls. Is it too late for Obama/Clinton? Hard to say. But a lot of women who say right now that they will support McCain because of Sarah Palin would probably switch back with Hillary on the Dem ticket. Just as Palin as energized the Republican base, Hillary would do the same for the Democrats.
This election cycle gets more interesting all the time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Can't We All Just Get Along?

I just finished reading the "debate" over Matt Barber's column regarding Planned Parenthood. I am astounded at the rancor displayed by so many posters, particularly those on the left. I'm not suggesting that posters on the right are innocent. I've seen plenty of nasty comments from conservatives, but the ones from the left are particularly egregious. But what bothers me the most is that anyone would bother to engage these internet trolls.
I haven't visited sites such as the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos, although I've heard plenty about the nastiness to be found there, particularly on the Kos (I understand the Huffington Post has toned things down some). I don't have to see it myself if what's there is on the same level as the puerile comments made by the left-wingers who post here. I don't know how many conservatives go to those sites and spew the same kind of venom. They should stop. As for the left-wing chain-yankers who come here just to roil the waters, we shouldn't bother to engage them at all. They're just here to cause trouble and nothing more. No one is persuaded by these so-called debates. I suspect opinions are merely hardened and stereotypes reinforced, and that is the worst thing of all.
I can understand that someone on the left has a very different world-view from mine. Please don't demonize me for it. I won't demonize you, although I may try to call your attention to the logical fallacies and just downright poor reasoning of your positions. Having said that, I want to point out to my fellow conservatives that if we stoop to the same level and start name-calling and character assassination, we are no better. I've always believed that one big difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals get too caught up in emotions and don't think things through very clearly; they see the world as they would like it to be, rather than as it really is. But if we allow ourselves to be influenced by the passions of the moment, then how are we different? If we can't persuade them through reason, do we really think we can persuade them using the same tactics they try on us, which fail?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Things are NOT that bad!!!!!!!!!

   Yes, I know that a lot of people have had their mortgages foreclosed (because they bought houses they couldn't afford). And I know that more people are unemployed now than one year ago (because the price of oil has hit the economy hard). But if I hear one more person whine that this country is in dire straits, or that the American Dream is dead because of 8 years of Republican control, I will scream!
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in the US currently stands a 5.7% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), not a great figure, but lower than the 6.6 figure cited by ABC in 2000 (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s221296.htm) while Bill Clinton was still in the Oval Office. As other commentators have noted, a number of speakers at the Democratic Convention spoke about their tough climbs out of humble circumstances into prosperity and success, and the inference we were left to make is that the rest of us need government help (why? because we're not smart/lucky/hard-working enough?). But they did it. So now they want to help the rest of us poor slobs. Give me a break!
Another complaint I hear is about "stagnant" wages. But the NY Times in an article published just three days ago (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s221296.htm) reported that while wages fell in 2001 and 2002 by nearly 10%. Now maybe my memory is a little sketchy, but I seem to remember that Bill Clinton was President until January 2001, and there was a recession underway at the time that George Bush took office. And don't forget the 9/11 attacks, which wreaked havoc with our economy in 2002. Since then, real income, according to the article, was up "significantly" in 2004 and 2005, and still rose in 2006, albeit more slowly. The point is that the jobless rate is still low, wages have not stagnated and tax rates are down.
Yes, we have some problems: a number of businesses are in trouble and unemployment has risen; the housing market is in bad shape. and prices are up. But you have to look at what is behind all of this. The housing market is hurting because of irresponsible lending practices that began, believe it or not, during the Clinton administration. Businesses are in trouble, and unemployment is up because of the cost of oil, and this is a crisis because of our government's failure over the past 35 years to come up with a sound energy policy, and because of Congress' failure to act now to increase supply while boosting efforts to develop alternative sources of energy (remember the promise of newly minted Speaker Pelosi just last year to produce a "comprehensive energy policy")?
Look, things could be better, but they could be a lot worse, and the worst thing voters could do this fall is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Change for Its Own Sake Could Be Very Bad

Sometimes I find myself wondering if I'm the only one in this country to question the pronouncements of leftists who pontificate on everything under the sun, brooking no disagreement, no matter how well founded. I hear so many comments from people while out and about. For example someone recently said to me "Anyone has to be better than what we have now!" Oh really? Anyone, say, a Pol Pot? A Josef Stalin? A Baby-Doc Duvalier? Or an Adolf Hitler? I could think of a lot of leaders who would be far worse than our current president, and I don't agree with everything he has done, particularly on immigration. But come on, people!
Then there's that canard, "Bush lied, people died." Ok, it's catchy. But nothing will ever convince me that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. The mere fact that WMD weren't found in Iraq does not prove that he lied. It could be that he was wrong, which I doubt, considering that he wasn't the only one to think Saddam had such weapons. Or it could be (and this is my belief) that he sent his weapons to Syria during the run-up to the war. Either way, no one has produced any credible evidence that he lied.
More recently, we've been hearing a lot about how Barack Obama represents "change." But change for change's sake could be a Very Bad Thing Man, and I wonder if all the people clamoring for "change" have considered that. What would "change" look like? Change in what? The biggest change I would like to see is in the way things are done in Washington. I'd like to see our government more concerned with the good of the nation than they are with the lining of their pockets. I'd like to see judges on the bench who will do the job of interpreting the law rather than legislating from the bench, so that the American people will be free from judicial tyranny. I'd like to see a fiscally responsible president and congress rein in spending on every little "gimme" package, so that the American people will be free from confiscatory taxation. But in the more than 35 years that I have been watching politics I've heard one candidate after another promise change, and very few of them have delivered. Of the few that have, some of the change has been good (e.g. Ronald Reagan), and some of it has been devastating to the country (e.g. Jimmy Carter).
So I ask again, just what would the change promised by Obama look like? He's short on details, but he promises universal health care, a "comprehensive" energy policy, and a "fairer" tax code. But he doesn't exactly explain where the money will come from to pay for universal health care; he doesn't explain why a "comprehensive" energy policy doesn't include opening up known oil reserves in the US; and he doesn't explain how raising taxes on the "rich" will help the economy. He promises more Supreme Court justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and none like Roberts or Thomas or Scalia.
Sorry, Senator Obama. From where I'm sitting, things could be better, but they could also be a lot worse. I've heard too many politicians over the last three decades make vague promises they didn't have the slightest hope (or intention) of fulfilling once they got into office. I need to know just how and why you think your proposals will work, and I need some evidence that they will. Before I could consider voting for you, I have to know why you think your proposals would be good for this country, and I need some supporting evidence.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will Pelosi Really Allow a Vote?

I heard on the news the other day that Nancy Pelosi, speaking on CNN, said she would not oppose a vote in the House on off-shore drilling. On the face of it, this appears to be good news. The Republican protest on the floor of the (adjourned) House appears to have borne some fruit. But I'm suspicious.
In the past few months, each time the Republicans in the House have attempted to bring a vote on off-shore drilling, the Democrats have insisted on adding amendments and placing severe restrictions on just where drilling can take place. That's not a straight up-or-down vote. The Democrats are still pandering to the environmentalist wing of the party that seemingly wants drive the United States into an economic graveyard. No matter how high the price of gasoline goes, the environmentalist whackos won't be satisfied until we are all walking everywhere or using public transportation (which is nice, if you can get it; we can't here in Kokomo). And the Democrats, who claim to be all about helping "the ordinary working family" don't seem to care one whit what $4 gas is doing to those working families. They have their agenda, and consequences be damned, they're going to do their best to force that agenda down everyone's throats.
The Democrats - and some Republicans - say they want to develop alternative energy sources, and that's what we've been hearing for over 30 years. Now I'm all for developing alternative energy sources, especially if they are cleaner, more efficient, and cheaper than petroleum based products. But if such energy is truly feasible, why has it not been developed? Some will say that the reason is that the oil companies don't want to give up the gold mine they presently have. Maybe that's true, but I've never known of any corporation that was against diversification if there was money to be made, and certainly any company that develops a truly viable alternative energy source would be making a lot of money. So I don't think that's the reason. Technology? Technology has been advancing by leaps and bounds, especially over the last fifteen or twenty years. I truly believe that if such an energy source can be developed, it will be, and sooner rather than later.
Now, I don't pretend to know why alternative energy sources have not been developed and used. But I have to ask, could it be that what they've come up with so far (ethanol, windmills, solar power), is expensive and inefficient? We have to produce more energy now. We can't wait until something else comes along. People are hurting, and the economy is hurting because of high oil prices. But Democrats have their agenda, and that's why I'm suspicious of Pelosi when she says that she isn't opposed to a vote in the House on off-shore drilling. A vote? On a bill that would authorize off-shore drilling wherever the oil fields are the most promising? And in ANWR? Without burdensome restrictions? I'm very dubious.
Mrs. Pelosi, we need more energy now, not 10, 20, 30 years from now when they finally find/develop a viable, efficient, cheap source. As to the price of oil, futures trading drives the price of a commodity as much as supply and demand. If traders know that supply will be increasing in the future (and whether it's ten years or three or four is debatable), they will act accordingly, and the price of oil is bound to drop.
Mrs. Pelosi, allow a vote on drilling now, without amendments or restrictions.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islamophobia?

The Arab-American Outreach Coordinator for Barack Obama's presidential campaign has resigned after a previous link with a radical Muslim cleric was revealed (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_liaison_asbahi/2008/08/07/119889.html?s=al&promo_code=677E-1). A member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations chalked it up to "Islamophobia." 
These days, one can't make an unfavorable or dissenting comment about any political group or point of view without being accused of having a "phobia." If one disapproves of homosexual behavior (even on religious grounds) one is a "homophobe. If one worries that radical Muslims in the US are planning another 9/11-type attack, one is an Islamophobe. Now the dictionary definition of a phobia is "a fear or anxiety that exceeds normal proportions or that has no basis in reality, as obsessive or irrational dread,"  (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language; dilithium Press, Ltd, 1989, New York). Given that radical Muslim clerics have preached jihad, even at mosques here in the US, and given the 9/11 attacks, and the fact that many young American Muslims see nothing wrong with suicide bombings done to defend Islam (http://200milesup.new.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05/23/735044-poll-one-in-four-us-muslims-ok-with-homicide-bombings-against-innocent-civilians-) is concern about an Obama associate's connections with radical Islam really irrational? Or is it prudent? Let's see: is fear that if I put my hand into a flame it will be burned irrational or prudent? Hmmm. I'll have to think about that.
But of course, all this goes back to questions about Obama's judgment and allegiances. Questions about his associations with Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright to allegations that he is a closet Muslim himself, as well as questions about what he means by "change," have received no answers. All we hear about is "phobias" (remember how Obama warned that the Republicans were trying to make us afraid of him), racism and hate speech; in short, the only answers proffered by the Obama campaign have been ad hominem attacks.
The ad hominem attack is the last hope of a desperate man who knows he doesn't have an argument. I can only hope that the American electorate will see through this flimsy reasoning and insist on real answers to legitimate questions.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »