http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533157015082889.html
Interesting perspective on the crowds turning out for Obama, and the great hope that so many people have for him to be able to make a difference. The author I think is from Egypt, and has seen this sort of phenomenon with rulers in the Middle East who have then let down their supporters, disenfranchising them as well as disaffecting them.
We shall see...
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Economy squeeze hits high end stores...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081030/news_1n30luxury.html
Maybe this article will help all my liberal friends understand trickle down economics. When the rich get pinched, either by high taxes or by their investments blowing up, they stop spending money. When the stop spending money, the people that sell things to them, goods and services,(who are not rich) lose their jobs. When they lose their jobs, they don't generate any production for the economy, then have to get unemployment potentially welfare, etc. Just one example of why taxing the rich to support bigger government is a bad idea, but one that generates more government.
Maybe this article will help all my liberal friends understand trickle down economics. When the rich get pinched, either by high taxes or by their investments blowing up, they stop spending money. When the stop spending money, the people that sell things to them, goods and services,(who are not rich) lose their jobs. When they lose their jobs, they don't generate any production for the economy, then have to get unemployment potentially welfare, etc. Just one example of why taxing the rich to support bigger government is a bad idea, but one that generates more government.
Bailout for you?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081030/news_1n30bailout.html
So here is the end result of another entitlement scheme. Obama, ACORN, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, all complicit in spending your tax dollars to get people with poor credit and no capability of paying for it a new home. I bet if you make more than $250K (or is it $150K as Biden said the other day, but then he thinks the word jobs is three letters and that Roosevelt went on TV to talk about the Depression, so he might be wrong about the $150K) you won't be able to get bailed out.
So here is the end result of another entitlement scheme. Obama, ACORN, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, all complicit in spending your tax dollars to get people with poor credit and no capability of paying for it a new home. I bet if you make more than $250K (or is it $150K as Biden said the other day, but then he thinks the word jobs is three letters and that Roosevelt went on TV to talk about the Depression, so he might be wrong about the $150K) you won't be able to get bailed out.
The Brief
If you are interested in learning more about The Pentagon's New Map or Thomas PM Barnett's views on the world, here is a link to his brief...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg7pZi6peD4
Oh and it is an hour and 22 minutes so you might want to pop some popcorn...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg7pZi6peD4
Oh and it is an hour and 22 minutes so you might want to pop some popcorn...
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Technolgy vs. Boots
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122531935101081929.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
For those who went to the Naval War College or have read the Pentagon's New Map and A Blueprint for a Future Worth Creating.
Of course I am all about technology and boots, I just think there are other countries out there who have capability to help with policing and nation building, while we maintain our Leviathan capabilities through SOF and overpowering technology.
Notice Hon. Mr. Abercrombie's comments on doing away with the technology side of things. What will this mean for CEROS and the other pork programs to bring defense money to Hawaii for technology development?
For those who went to the Naval War College or have read the Pentagon's New Map and A Blueprint for a Future Worth Creating.
Of course I am all about technology and boots, I just think there are other countries out there who have capability to help with policing and nation building, while we maintain our Leviathan capabilities through SOF and overpowering technology.
Notice Hon. Mr. Abercrombie's comments on doing away with the technology side of things. What will this mean for CEROS and the other pork programs to bring defense money to Hawaii for technology development?
Obama and Judges
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html
I haven't really thought too much about the courts, but there are some statements by Obama that go to show he has no concern for the Constitution. He just wants judges who can empathize...Nice sentiment, but so are fairies, leperchauns, and unicorns. This doesn't work in the real world.
I haven't really thought too much about the courts, but there are some statements by Obama that go to show he has no concern for the Constitution. He just wants judges who can empathize...Nice sentiment, but so are fairies, leperchauns, and unicorns. This doesn't work in the real world.
Ads...
I signed up for ads for my blog...I got one on there for Vote Yes on Prop 8...
How about that? Not that I object, but I didn't think I ever said how I was voting. Has the vast Right Wing Conspiracy led by the Religious Right infiltrated google too?
I hope you said your prayers tonight!
How about that? Not that I object, but I didn't think I ever said how I was voting. Has the vast Right Wing Conspiracy led by the Religious Right infiltrated google too?
I hope you said your prayers tonight!
My new book
I just bought the book The Devil We Know by Robert Baer. Have you read it? Scary stuff about Iran's involvement in Iraq. Could this be the test of the new president Biden has warned about...
Why Obama is Scary...
Today, liberal talking points indicated that conservatives are using scare tactics to get people not to vote for Obama. I heard it first on FB in response to a post about Obama not being qualified to run for president (see obamacrimes.org). It was thrown out, but I thought it was a funny lawsuit, brought by the former AG of PA. But then I heard almost the same comments from a caller into a radio talk show this afternoon when I was driving home. I don't get to watch the Today show anymore, because it competes with the Wiggles, Curious George, and Little Einsteins, but I just wasn't prepared for this today...Below is what I posted to a friend on FB in response to my use of scare tactics...
"Here is what initially scared me about Obama:In his book Dreams of my Father, Obama talks about how in college, he gravitated toward the black power and communist movements. That was where he found people he could relate to and where he felt comforted. Then in his political career, as much as he wants to distance himself, and throw these guys under the bus so he is not too closely associated with them, he has been working with Bill Ayers (who aside from being a terrorist still to this day calls himself a communist with a small c) and people like Jeremiah Wright, who preaches hate and anger and black power. These and his association with ACORN and his suing of banks who would not lend to subprime/bad credit low income applicants, which most people admit is a leading cause of the financial crisis we find ourselves in, make it really hard for me to think that he has changed into something that will be good for America. Racism is bad, no matter what the color of your skin, Communism has failed, and the idealistic desire to have everyone own their own home whether they can afford it or not is not economically feasible. I think Obama has vision of a socialist utopia, a la many who have gone before him and failed, whether communist, or many of the European countries that he is so enamored with, which are rapidly becoming welfare states. Why do you think the French elected Sarkozy, who ran as an arch-conservative. Same in Sweden... Its a nice idea and it appeals to the populace, because most people don't take time to look at the more strategic picture. They are too rapped up in what does it do for me today, not worrying about what will happen in the future...see subprime lending..."
On the way home today, I also heard that Gov. Linda Lingle (Republican) of Hawaii has sealed Obama's birth records, and somehow he got all of his applications to colleges and transcripts and other stuff sealed from public review. i am all for personal privacy, but when his campaign is allegedly sending out operatives to trash Joe the Plumber, some news anchor in Florida, and Sarah Palin's email, where is the fairness there? Can some one please tell me how to get in touch with my governor's representative who has the authority to seal all my records? Is this how that guy on the radio can give out his SSN and guarantee that you won't have your identity stolen? I heard one Democrat call in and say he couldn't vote for McCain, but if Obama can't be forthcoming with information about his past, then he may just sit this one out.
"Here is what initially scared me about Obama:In his book Dreams of my Father, Obama talks about how in college, he gravitated toward the black power and communist movements. That was where he found people he could relate to and where he felt comforted. Then in his political career, as much as he wants to distance himself, and throw these guys under the bus so he is not too closely associated with them, he has been working with Bill Ayers (who aside from being a terrorist still to this day calls himself a communist with a small c) and people like Jeremiah Wright, who preaches hate and anger and black power. These and his association with ACORN and his suing of banks who would not lend to subprime/bad credit low income applicants, which most people admit is a leading cause of the financial crisis we find ourselves in, make it really hard for me to think that he has changed into something that will be good for America. Racism is bad, no matter what the color of your skin, Communism has failed, and the idealistic desire to have everyone own their own home whether they can afford it or not is not economically feasible. I think Obama has vision of a socialist utopia, a la many who have gone before him and failed, whether communist, or many of the European countries that he is so enamored with, which are rapidly becoming welfare states. Why do you think the French elected Sarkozy, who ran as an arch-conservative. Same in Sweden... Its a nice idea and it appeals to the populace, because most people don't take time to look at the more strategic picture. They are too rapped up in what does it do for me today, not worrying about what will happen in the future...see subprime lending..."
On the way home today, I also heard that Gov. Linda Lingle (Republican) of Hawaii has sealed Obama's birth records, and somehow he got all of his applications to colleges and transcripts and other stuff sealed from public review. i am all for personal privacy, but when his campaign is allegedly sending out operatives to trash Joe the Plumber, some news anchor in Florida, and Sarah Palin's email, where is the fairness there? Can some one please tell me how to get in touch with my governor's representative who has the authority to seal all my records? Is this how that guy on the radio can give out his SSN and guarantee that you won't have your identity stolen? I heard one Democrat call in and say he couldn't vote for McCain, but if Obama can't be forthcoming with information about his past, then he may just sit this one out.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Comments to comments...
I am posting comments to comments, rather than make new blog entries. I try to respond to comments, so please check back if you aren't otherwise notified. If it is better that I post another blog entry, please leave me a comment on this one!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Campaign Money
Obama is supposed to get the lobbyists out of Washington. McCain says he hates the pork. With all this money being raised, what will either of them owe to the financial institutions, real estate industry, trial lawyers, big oil? Was the first $700B only a down payment?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081021/news_1n21money.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081021/news_1n21money.html
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Proposition 8
Proposition 8 is pretty complex to me. (It simply adds the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the California State Constitution)
In 2000 Proposition 22 passed, defining marriage as above, by 61% of the vote. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the proposition was unconstitutional. California has a domestic partnership roll which provides for equal rights for gay couples to those of married couples.
On the surface, I think pretty much everyone wants everyone else to be treated equally under the law. Prior to the supreme court decision, homosexuals had the right to marry, just not marry the person that they want if that person happens to be of the same sex. I can understand this argument. I also understand that technically there are no legal differences between marriage and a domestic partnership in California, although the voter guide argument for voting no on 8 seems to say that if a homosexual's partner is injured, they might not be able to get into an ambulance because they are not married.
One interesting point is that both marriage and domestic partnerships appear to be discriminatory as a recent article in the San Diego Union Tribune pointed out. Marriage is not available for homosexuals, but not any two adults can enter into a domestic partnership. It must be for a homosexual relationship, or for the elderly 62 and over. See UT article here:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081013/news_1n13partners.html
From a secular, legal/civil definition of marriage, I can see that people would find this discriminatory. One friend told me long ago that the problem with marriage was that it was taken out of religion and made into a civil institution. He may be right, but then here we are today. The other thing I guess would be to dissolve marriage as a civil institution, and make everyone have domestic partnerships, of course then those need to be opened up to everyone...
On top of this issue is the courts legislating morality on the people of California, something liberals are always demonizing conservatives for wanting to do to them. I don't think it is a good thing for the courts to be in the business of dictating morality to the people. Gay marriage is a moral argument, based on the values of tradition vs. the values of the increasingly comfortable homosexual community and their demands for equality in name as well as rights. Proposition 22 put it up to a democratic vote, the traditional definition won, and then judges on the California Supreme Court decide they know what is better for California than the people. To me this is an important point for voting for Proposition 8. If we are a democracy, we need to stand up for our democracy. We cannot let the very few dictate the law and dictate morality to us. If the definition needs to be changed, then it should be decided by the people, not the courts. The new definition side needs to mobilize voters, get them out there and convince the traditional marriage people that they need to take change their votes. That would be the correct way for this issue to be decided, and I guess it is the way that it will be decided in California.
If the US Supreme Court is becoming too conservative as Collin Powell would have us believe, then you could see a similar issue arrising with completely liberal executive and legislative branches coming to power in January. What if a law is passed to remove all religious symbology and words from public monuments, buildings, and currency, but then the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional? Would liberals take it or would they fight, because it is "morally right under separation of Church and State"? An extreme example, but can be considered similarly.
From a spiritual/religious/historical perspective, marriage is an institutional building block of the family. In no tradition or religion (that I am aware of) is marriage between anything but a man and a woman, and only recently has it been more so, in a very few states, and a very few countries. Like it or not, the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and morals. These morals are woven into our laws, our values, and our principles, i.e. "Thou shalt not murder" may be the ultimate foundation from which our murder laws come from, and Our "inalienable rights" are granted by God.
Even though people have tried to keep the church out of the government (some would have us believe that the separation of church and state is in the Constitution, which it is not), the Western Christian culture is the basis of what is considered good and right in our country. To redefine marriage outside of the traditional meaning on a spiritual or religious level seems wrong, and I think that is why most people (as indicated by the voters) have no problem with granting the same civil rights to homosexual couples, but prefer not to call such a relationship a marriage. Even Barack Obama believes in this position from a personal point of view.
In 2000 Proposition 22 passed, defining marriage as above, by 61% of the vote. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the proposition was unconstitutional. California has a domestic partnership roll which provides for equal rights for gay couples to those of married couples.
On the surface, I think pretty much everyone wants everyone else to be treated equally under the law. Prior to the supreme court decision, homosexuals had the right to marry, just not marry the person that they want if that person happens to be of the same sex. I can understand this argument. I also understand that technically there are no legal differences between marriage and a domestic partnership in California, although the voter guide argument for voting no on 8 seems to say that if a homosexual's partner is injured, they might not be able to get into an ambulance because they are not married.
One interesting point is that both marriage and domestic partnerships appear to be discriminatory as a recent article in the San Diego Union Tribune pointed out. Marriage is not available for homosexuals, but not any two adults can enter into a domestic partnership. It must be for a homosexual relationship, or for the elderly 62 and over. See UT article here:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081013/news_1n13partners.html
From a secular, legal/civil definition of marriage, I can see that people would find this discriminatory. One friend told me long ago that the problem with marriage was that it was taken out of religion and made into a civil institution. He may be right, but then here we are today. The other thing I guess would be to dissolve marriage as a civil institution, and make everyone have domestic partnerships, of course then those need to be opened up to everyone...
On top of this issue is the courts legislating morality on the people of California, something liberals are always demonizing conservatives for wanting to do to them. I don't think it is a good thing for the courts to be in the business of dictating morality to the people. Gay marriage is a moral argument, based on the values of tradition vs. the values of the increasingly comfortable homosexual community and their demands for equality in name as well as rights. Proposition 22 put it up to a democratic vote, the traditional definition won, and then judges on the California Supreme Court decide they know what is better for California than the people. To me this is an important point for voting for Proposition 8. If we are a democracy, we need to stand up for our democracy. We cannot let the very few dictate the law and dictate morality to us. If the definition needs to be changed, then it should be decided by the people, not the courts. The new definition side needs to mobilize voters, get them out there and convince the traditional marriage people that they need to take change their votes. That would be the correct way for this issue to be decided, and I guess it is the way that it will be decided in California.
If the US Supreme Court is becoming too conservative as Collin Powell would have us believe, then you could see a similar issue arrising with completely liberal executive and legislative branches coming to power in January. What if a law is passed to remove all religious symbology and words from public monuments, buildings, and currency, but then the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional? Would liberals take it or would they fight, because it is "morally right under separation of Church and State"? An extreme example, but can be considered similarly.
From a spiritual/religious/historical perspective, marriage is an institutional building block of the family. In no tradition or religion (that I am aware of) is marriage between anything but a man and a woman, and only recently has it been more so, in a very few states, and a very few countries. Like it or not, the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and morals. These morals are woven into our laws, our values, and our principles, i.e. "Thou shalt not murder" may be the ultimate foundation from which our murder laws come from, and Our "inalienable rights" are granted by God.
Even though people have tried to keep the church out of the government (some would have us believe that the separation of church and state is in the Constitution, which it is not), the Western Christian culture is the basis of what is considered good and right in our country. To redefine marriage outside of the traditional meaning on a spiritual or religious level seems wrong, and I think that is why most people (as indicated by the voters) have no problem with granting the same civil rights to homosexual couples, but prefer not to call such a relationship a marriage. Even Barack Obama believes in this position from a personal point of view.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Powell to have roll in Obama Administration...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/20/obama-powell-will-have-role-admin/
Oh gee, who would have guessed?
The other little tidbit in this article is that Obama has raised $150M last month shattering the record of $66M in August ...and remember he is going to get the special interest out of Washington...maybe invite some new ones, or bring back some who haven't been around for awhile?
Are all of the libs really giving money to Barack instead of paying for gas?
Conspiracy Theories...
Maybe you have heard the conspiracy theory that George W. Bush was somehow behind 9-11, most likely orchestrated by the evil Dick Cheney...
Will we see similar conspiracy theories now that Joe Biden has "guaranteed" at least one of 5 or six different scenarios which will cause international crisis to "test" Obama? Even Colin Powell predicted a crisis on 21 or 22 January...
Watch out for the black helicopters.....
Colin Powell
Following up on my race postings, Colin Powell started all the talk up again with his endorsement of Obama.
The liberals are of course bashing Rush Limbaugh, because he is a staunch conservative and therefore sexist, racist, and generally evil.
Personally, I haven't heard anything from Powell in a long time. I am sure there are lots of things that play into his decision, including his past job as Sec State under Bush. He was not well supported by the administration, and it is up to the man in the White House how to use their people. For Bush Condi is the power broker, and Cheney and Rumsfield had the ear of the President. But Bush is not the first President to marginalize his Sec State for another cabinet post. Nixon and JFK for example relied heavily on their AGs for advice (John Mitchell and Robert Kennedy).
The timing of this endorsement and the criticism of the McCain camp is also suspect. Sort of reminds me of a Hollywood celebrity who we haven't heard from in a while getting back into the spotlight after they have been out of it for awhile. Does Powell have a new record, show, or film coming out? Is there a base motive here of who was going to provide the better job?
As for content, the comment about two more conservative justices on the Supreme Court being troubling. Is that because he thinks there needs to be balance on the court? What about in the rest of the government? Will it be okay for the Dems to do whatever they want with a supermajority in the House, in the Senate, and control of the White House?
And what specifically has he seen of Palin in the past 7 weeks that show her not ready to lead, but Obama is? Because he is so inclusive (except of the people who make money in this country)?
I don't know... I still think we are getting ready for Powell in the Obama administration...
Sunday, October 19, 2008
If it were up to me...
Last one for tonight....
As a Californian whose vote for President likely won't matter, I am reminded of the 2000 election when in the aftermath I had this idea. It especially hits home when you look at the Red/Blue counties maps from the 2000 election. (I think there were actually some people in CA who were trying to do this for our state...)
Because electoral votes are for the most part based on the overall winner of a given state, there are potentially a lot of disenfranchised voters. My idea is that each congressional district in the US tallies up its votes for President, then submits an electoral vote. That takes care of 435 of the votes. For the remaining 100, each state should have two electoral votes which are based on the total state tally and go to the particular candidate who wins the state.
Personally, I don't think the political establishment would go for it. Can you imagine if they actually had to develop strategy for 535 specific votes? There would be swing districts vice swing states...
Maybe now with the internet, this could be possible.
As a Californian whose vote for President likely won't matter, I am reminded of the 2000 election when in the aftermath I had this idea. It especially hits home when you look at the Red/Blue counties maps from the 2000 election. (I think there were actually some people in CA who were trying to do this for our state...)
Because electoral votes are for the most part based on the overall winner of a given state, there are potentially a lot of disenfranchised voters. My idea is that each congressional district in the US tallies up its votes for President, then submits an electoral vote. That takes care of 435 of the votes. For the remaining 100, each state should have two electoral votes which are based on the total state tally and go to the particular candidate who wins the state.
Personally, I don't think the political establishment would go for it. Can you imagine if they actually had to develop strategy for 535 specific votes? There would be swing districts vice swing states...
Maybe now with the internet, this could be possible.
Charlotte to New Orleans
A couple months ago, I was flying from Charlotte to New Orleans. On the plane, I sat next to a black man who was flying down to his boyhood home, to spend a weekend fishing with his brothers. He had recently taken a beating in the real estate market, where he had previously been working on buying, renovating, and selling houses. He said he had been pretty successful until the past year or so, now he was getting killed with properties he couldn't sell and mortgages he couldn't pay.
We got to talking about Barack Obama and his run for president, as alot of this guys views were pretty conservative, and I wondered what his view would be, as another black woman I had recently talked to in Tampa, who was working a parking lot where Barack had just held a rally, said that she could not stand him at all, wanted nothing to do with him, and had such vehement hatred of him.
Anyway, the guy on the plane told me that he is a huge Obama supporter. I asked him why, and he said that when he was a small boy, if anyone would have said that a black man could be president, he never would have believed it. The fact that there was now a chance for a black man to become president meant that he had to do all he could to see it come to pass. I told him, I understand that point of view, but I don't think Barack Obama is qualified to run the government, has no foreign policy experience, and is not respected at all by the military. (I will have to continue on about my time in Tampa with Obama on another post....)
He then said to me, that it didn't matter what his experience in any other aspect of the job, the most important thing for Black America was that a black man would be president. That alone would be worth any cost as it would inspire more people to achieve their goals and excel beyond what they currently believed. As I heard Hugh Hewitt say the other day on the radio, I can respect a man for voting for Obama for that reason. I can understand the value that one can place on inspiration, and if that can make a difference, then I get it. However, I still had another question for him.
A woman who works with me is white and married to a black man. She heard about Jeremiah Wright, and wanted to see just what all the fuss was about, so she logged onto the church website. There she saw the philosophy of the church, the anti-white, anti-American sentiments, and she was sickened. This was just a Jeremiah Wright as an issue for Obama was coming up, and within an hour after having read this inflamatory and racist remarks, the site was changed and all of the mission and vision for the church had been removed. I asked my new associate on the plane, how can Obama get away with this? I don't understand why he gets a pass, when anyone else, especially a Republican would never have a shot, never be seriously considered, and probably be removed from the public eye altogether...
His reply was enlightening and I appreciate the candor. He said to me, "Obama is a black man in America. There are things that a black man can get away with that a white man will never get away with, and vice versa. Just like there are things that you can do that I cannot, and thing that I can do that you cannot. It is just the way America is." This conversation occurred in June, and I think he was probably correct in his statement, but his statement is so wrong. This really should not be the case, there should be a standard that we all live up to as Americans. I don't think that Martin Luther King, Jr. would like it, I don't think Jesus would like it, and I hope to see this go away. Maybe Obama being elected will help it, and at this point, that may be the only positive thing about him getting elected that I can see.
Because the other thing that we didn't get around to talking about was what happens when a minority demographic is elected President, but then does not perform well, or makes the country worse off than it was? Does that then set the whole demographic back? Will people be less inclined to vote for a person of that demographic in the future? I would hope not, because in the world I envision, and the way I vote, is who is best suited to do the job from the available candidates? Just as when I hire someone, it doesn't matter their sex, the color of their skin, their religion, it matters if they can do the job.
We got to talking about Barack Obama and his run for president, as alot of this guys views were pretty conservative, and I wondered what his view would be, as another black woman I had recently talked to in Tampa, who was working a parking lot where Barack had just held a rally, said that she could not stand him at all, wanted nothing to do with him, and had such vehement hatred of him.
Anyway, the guy on the plane told me that he is a huge Obama supporter. I asked him why, and he said that when he was a small boy, if anyone would have said that a black man could be president, he never would have believed it. The fact that there was now a chance for a black man to become president meant that he had to do all he could to see it come to pass. I told him, I understand that point of view, but I don't think Barack Obama is qualified to run the government, has no foreign policy experience, and is not respected at all by the military. (I will have to continue on about my time in Tampa with Obama on another post....)
He then said to me, that it didn't matter what his experience in any other aspect of the job, the most important thing for Black America was that a black man would be president. That alone would be worth any cost as it would inspire more people to achieve their goals and excel beyond what they currently believed. As I heard Hugh Hewitt say the other day on the radio, I can respect a man for voting for Obama for that reason. I can understand the value that one can place on inspiration, and if that can make a difference, then I get it. However, I still had another question for him.
A woman who works with me is white and married to a black man. She heard about Jeremiah Wright, and wanted to see just what all the fuss was about, so she logged onto the church website. There she saw the philosophy of the church, the anti-white, anti-American sentiments, and she was sickened. This was just a Jeremiah Wright as an issue for Obama was coming up, and within an hour after having read this inflamatory and racist remarks, the site was changed and all of the mission and vision for the church had been removed. I asked my new associate on the plane, how can Obama get away with this? I don't understand why he gets a pass, when anyone else, especially a Republican would never have a shot, never be seriously considered, and probably be removed from the public eye altogether...
His reply was enlightening and I appreciate the candor. He said to me, "Obama is a black man in America. There are things that a black man can get away with that a white man will never get away with, and vice versa. Just like there are things that you can do that I cannot, and thing that I can do that you cannot. It is just the way America is." This conversation occurred in June, and I think he was probably correct in his statement, but his statement is so wrong. This really should not be the case, there should be a standard that we all live up to as Americans. I don't think that Martin Luther King, Jr. would like it, I don't think Jesus would like it, and I hope to see this go away. Maybe Obama being elected will help it, and at this point, that may be the only positive thing about him getting elected that I can see.
Because the other thing that we didn't get around to talking about was what happens when a minority demographic is elected President, but then does not perform well, or makes the country worse off than it was? Does that then set the whole demographic back? Will people be less inclined to vote for a person of that demographic in the future? I would hope not, because in the world I envision, and the way I vote, is who is best suited to do the job from the available candidates? Just as when I hire someone, it doesn't matter their sex, the color of their skin, their religion, it matters if they can do the job.
Race in the Presidential Election
I will say that I believe most people in America are not really racist, in the 1960's segregationist sort of way.
Most people that I know believe that a person's acts, who they associate with, and the general perception that they present is what determines how people are treated. I won't go so far as to say racism is dead in America, because I think there are plenty of stereotypes that go into perceptions that we have of others, but for the most part, I think that most people will judged based on the perceived quality of a person more than their stereotypes or underlying predjudices. And I think this is a general American feeling, not one that is only Republican or Democrat.
In this election, and in a recent discussion I had about a comment on Facebook, it is apparent that although, people are excited that a black man is running for President, there are a lot of people who think that if you are against Obama, you must be a racist. For some strange reason, my wife has started receiving Rolling Stone magazine. No we don't pay for it, but I was leafing through an issue tonight that was gushing over Obama. There were supporting articles in there about how some district in Colorado is getting over its racism and potentially going to elect a candidate who is not a Republican. This is such propaganda and so shameful, that I can't hardly stand it. Do Americans not remember Abraham Lincoln? Do they not know that the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln? I know that Rolling Stone would like to keep its teen bopper and twenty-something readers from ever knowing that George W. Bush had more minority cabinet members that Bill Clinton. Personally I find this blind stereotype about Republicans that the Democrats and their outlets perpetuate as truly insulting, and highly divisive. But I suppose it is a propaganda ploy to keep people from looking at other issues, such as the economy, and the fact that socialism is imminent with Obama and a Democrat controlled congress.
Most people that I know believe that a person's acts, who they associate with, and the general perception that they present is what determines how people are treated. I won't go so far as to say racism is dead in America, because I think there are plenty of stereotypes that go into perceptions that we have of others, but for the most part, I think that most people will judged based on the perceived quality of a person more than their stereotypes or underlying predjudices. And I think this is a general American feeling, not one that is only Republican or Democrat.
In this election, and in a recent discussion I had about a comment on Facebook, it is apparent that although, people are excited that a black man is running for President, there are a lot of people who think that if you are against Obama, you must be a racist. For some strange reason, my wife has started receiving Rolling Stone magazine. No we don't pay for it, but I was leafing through an issue tonight that was gushing over Obama. There were supporting articles in there about how some district in Colorado is getting over its racism and potentially going to elect a candidate who is not a Republican. This is such propaganda and so shameful, that I can't hardly stand it. Do Americans not remember Abraham Lincoln? Do they not know that the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln? I know that Rolling Stone would like to keep its teen bopper and twenty-something readers from ever knowing that George W. Bush had more minority cabinet members that Bill Clinton. Personally I find this blind stereotype about Republicans that the Democrats and their outlets perpetuate as truly insulting, and highly divisive. But I suppose it is a propaganda ploy to keep people from looking at other issues, such as the economy, and the fact that socialism is imminent with Obama and a Democrat controlled congress.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Charitable Donation Tax Credit
I am not a fan of the inefficient, and ineffective way that the US Government's bloated bureaucracy has turned social services into a mess, and in a discussion with my leftist amigo, Ken, we finally found something to agree on.
If the government would provide citizens with a tax credit for their charitable donations, the presumption is that more people would give to charities, and we could cut out much of the middleman when it comes to public grants to charities, i.e. deflate the bloat.
This would also allow the non-profits to compete in a pseudo-market, not usually a bad thing.
If a citizen decides they do not want to provide any money to charity, or if they think that other government programs are valuable (the military in my estimation), then those will be paid for by paying more to tax and less to charity.
Take one of my favorite charities, Families Forward (www.families-forward.org) which provides temporary housing and job skills training to people who are down on their luck. They have an 80% success rate, and don't have enough room or funds to help all the people they need to in this market. That is a private, non-profit doing the job that welfare has tried to do for along time. Sure they may get federal money, but I say cut out the middleman. Everyone who has worked with the government knows that every place a dollar stops, someone is taking their cut!
If the government would provide citizens with a tax credit for their charitable donations, the presumption is that more people would give to charities, and we could cut out much of the middleman when it comes to public grants to charities, i.e. deflate the bloat.
This would also allow the non-profits to compete in a pseudo-market, not usually a bad thing.
If a citizen decides they do not want to provide any money to charity, or if they think that other government programs are valuable (the military in my estimation), then those will be paid for by paying more to tax and less to charity.
Take one of my favorite charities, Families Forward (www.families-forward.org) which provides temporary housing and job skills training to people who are down on their luck. They have an 80% success rate, and don't have enough room or funds to help all the people they need to in this market. That is a private, non-profit doing the job that welfare has tried to do for along time. Sure they may get federal money, but I say cut out the middleman. Everyone who has worked with the government knows that every place a dollar stops, someone is taking their cut!
Solzhenitsyn's Speech at Harvard
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html
My friend Tim sent me this link. I find this to be a pretty amazing speech that resonates today, 30 years later. Please let me know what you think!
I heard an add for the Dennis Prager show on the radio the other day and he was saying something to the effect that the more rules a society makes, the less they religious they are becoming. I think this is right in line with Solzhenitsyn's idea that the rule of law becomes arbitrary and is not enough without a higher moral, principle driven faith to drive a society beyond the rule of law. Now my question is, can any religion provide these morals? Obviously the Taliban rule in Afghanistan seemed pretty arbitrary, cruel, and evil, but can moderate Islam become the basis for society in Iraq and Afghanistan as Christianity did in the US? What will become of China and Russia where religion was brutaly crushed, now that they are emerging from communism?
My friend Tim sent me this link. I find this to be a pretty amazing speech that resonates today, 30 years later. Please let me know what you think!
I heard an add for the Dennis Prager show on the radio the other day and he was saying something to the effect that the more rules a society makes, the less they religious they are becoming. I think this is right in line with Solzhenitsyn's idea that the rule of law becomes arbitrary and is not enough without a higher moral, principle driven faith to drive a society beyond the rule of law. Now my question is, can any religion provide these morals? Obviously the Taliban rule in Afghanistan seemed pretty arbitrary, cruel, and evil, but can moderate Islam become the basis for society in Iraq and Afghanistan as Christianity did in the US? What will become of China and Russia where religion was brutaly crushed, now that they are emerging from communism?
What I like about the Declaration of Independence (part 1)
America is a place of individual freedom in tension with laws that are there to protect the greater good.
Rights endowed by the Creator - I don't think that the separation of religion from America will ever happen, more so because without a moral basis, laws are arbitrary and dangerous.
Even if the founding fathers did not mean "All men" when they wrote the DOI, they did write it. And today that includes "All men and women" in the eyes of the state. However I am the first to admit that men and women are not equal in all things, but as individuals, they definitely are and should be treated as such.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is where we come from and what Americans believe in, from the time of the writing of the DOI. I like this because there is no guarantee. The only guarantees are Life - from respect for human life - Liberty - the true root of Liberalism, not the entitlement driven fiasco it has become today - and the Pursuit - the attainment is not guaranteed, it is acheivable, but not guaranteed.
Rights endowed by the Creator - I don't think that the separation of religion from America will ever happen, more so because without a moral basis, laws are arbitrary and dangerous.
Even if the founding fathers did not mean "All men" when they wrote the DOI, they did write it. And today that includes "All men and women" in the eyes of the state. However I am the first to admit that men and women are not equal in all things, but as individuals, they definitely are and should be treated as such.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is where we come from and what Americans believe in, from the time of the writing of the DOI. I like this because there is no guarantee. The only guarantees are Life - from respect for human life - Liberty - the true root of Liberalism, not the entitlement driven fiasco it has become today - and the Pursuit - the attainment is not guaranteed, it is acheivable, but not guaranteed.
First Post...
And so it all began...
I have been trying to pesuade people that a vote for Obama is not necessarily a good thing for the country. Mostly I have been doing this on Facebook, and I just can't seem to shut up. But then there were too many people to post similar things to their comments, videos, etc...
And now it begins...
In order to conserve my energy, I am brining my efforts at persuasion, or whatever else I want to talk about to my very own blog.
For those who don't know me well, I am way too verbose, have a hard time being quiet, and am probably too honest and open, especially for my wife's taste.
I try to keep an open mind. I try to concede points well made, but I have my opinions, and I am looking for an outlet to share.
I love interaction and dialog, so I am going to invite those who seem to care, and I would love to hear thoughts from anyone, as Brother Love says: "Young and old. Rich and poor. Gay or straight. God's children all!"
Anyway, thanks for checking in, I look forward to interacting with you all!
I have been trying to pesuade people that a vote for Obama is not necessarily a good thing for the country. Mostly I have been doing this on Facebook, and I just can't seem to shut up. But then there were too many people to post similar things to their comments, videos, etc...
And now it begins...
In order to conserve my energy, I am brining my efforts at persuasion, or whatever else I want to talk about to my very own blog.
For those who don't know me well, I am way too verbose, have a hard time being quiet, and am probably too honest and open, especially for my wife's taste.
I try to keep an open mind. I try to concede points well made, but I have my opinions, and I am looking for an outlet to share.
I love interaction and dialog, so I am going to invite those who seem to care, and I would love to hear thoughts from anyone, as Brother Love says: "Young and old. Rich and poor. Gay or straight. God's children all!"
Anyway, thanks for checking in, I look forward to interacting with you all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)