Dare 2B Smarter

Thoughts on the Election, Politics, and a Little on the World in General

2008-11-16T19:37:00.002-05:00

As most of those who know me have discovered, I’m a person of rather conservative values. In light of the election of a very liberal president, I’ve taken time to reflect on this campaign and its potential effect on the world around us.

It is an interesting time in our world. One of the most exciting and historic presidential elections in our nation’s history was decided with the election of the Democratic nominee, Barack Hussein Obama, soon to be the 44th president of the United States. The election of Obama and the campaign in general, have made history and, in the process both united and divided a country.

On one side of this campaign was the Republican candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain, a Vietnam War veteran, an all-American hero with a history of bipartisan politics, working with not only people from within his own party, but also with Democrats across the aisle. Seemingly, Senator McCain would be an ideal candidate for president.

On the other side, the Democratic candidate, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a former community organizer who rose through the ranks of the Chicago political machine. Obama served less than one term in the Illinois state senate, then four years of his first term as a United States senator before running a successful campaign to become president of the United States. During his time in the Senate, NationalJournal.com listed Obama as the number one most liberal senator. Number 4 on the list is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a socialist.

This campaign has brought to the surface a number of different emotions in the people of this country. For some, this election was just like any other – not worth voting in because neither candidate was worth the effort. After all, they’re just like everyone else in Washington – full of crap and carrying plenty of big shovels to spread it around. For others, it was very emotional and energizing, with people choosing to fiercely support either conservative or liberal ideologies. What sorts of ideologies were there to create such polarization in our country? Why are so many people on both sides up in arms over this election?

From a conservative’s point of view, Barack Obama left much to be desired as a presidential candidate. First of all, we have a man who got to where he was with the help of the highly corrupt Chicago political machine. This fact alone made some people nervous because the Chicago political machine is known for promoting some rather seriously shady characters. Regardless of Obama’s intentions, merely being associated with some of the Chicago politicians within the machine was an issue.

During his time in the Illinois state senate, Obama’s voting record on issues was questionable and cause for concern. It wasn’t so much what he voted for. On the other hand, it wasn’t really what he voted against, either. The concern came from the 130 (no, you didn’t read that wrong – that's one hundred thirty) times that Obama voted “Present”. A vote of “Present” is neither a vote for or against the issue at hand. It’s merely a designation that one showed up for the vote. This raises the all-important question why refuse to take a stand on issues 130 times? Was it because Obama was afraid that his voting record might come back to haunt him some day? In a sense, it did. For me, a representative of the people who is afraid to make a decision because he has his eye on his own political future rather than the future and well-being of the people he represents is a major issue. When I’m considering who I would want to represent me, my family, and my nation, I’m certainly worried about electing someone who might be afraid to commit to a decision because it might come back to bite him in the end. From where I’m sitting, isn’t that the job you’re signing up for? As president, you have to make the best decision you can, based on your own education, experiences and the help of trusted and hopefully knowledgeable advisors. Is it the right decision? Who knows? You may not have the luxury of worrying about whether or not it will make you look good to the historians. Only time will tell how truly smart or foolish your decisions as president were. What a president needs to be concerned with is how to best serve the people of this nation. THAT’S the job. Based on all of those “Present” votes, it didn’t exactly look like Barack Obama was looking toward the best interests and needs of the people.

Going hand-in-hand with Barack Obama’s questionable voting record is his questionable associations with people who worked against the best interests of this country. For example, William Ayers, member of the Weather Underground, an anti-Vietnam War organization which protested the war through explosions at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, and several other government buildings in the 1970’s. If someone is seeking to be entrusted with the well-being of this nation, why should we look to a man who is, in any way, associated with someone who is best remembered for violently attacking government? In all reality, that doesn’t say much for the Weather Underground that if they had the resources to set off these explosions, couldn’t they have put those resources to better, more constructive use? Don’t get me wrong. I think the fact that our government lied to many of our soldiers, as well as to the nation as a whole, is terrible. We sent more and more soldiers into Vietnam to fight a war we knew we couldn’t possibly win. I don’t, on the other hand, condone violent means of protesting those actions.

Ayers aside, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright ranks as another disturbing piece of Barack Obama’s past. I have a hard time accepting the idea that Barack Obama was in the church of a man who was so outspoken against our nation and yet never really knew it and didn’t really agree with it either. If he didn’t believe the notions being put forth from Reverend Wright’s pulpit, why stay in his church for so many years?

So, let’s assume Barack Obama is being labeled guilty solely on the basis of being associated with these people. Why sidestep the questions about these associations and several others? Barack Obama had the media in the palm of his hand throughout his campaign. He had plenty of opportunities to properly address the questions about why he would be connected with Ayers, Wright, and others. For me, his quick, dismissive answers really weren’t very convincing. I wanted him to convince me that he really didn’t agree with the ideas of these men. Reverend Wright’s pulpit tirades were simply too much to explain away.

What about the real issues of the campaign? Did any of them matter in my decision not to support the election of Barack Obama? Absolutely! Consider these three words – Joe the Plumber. One of the most referenced moments in the latter days of the campaign came from Barack Obama himself, when Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher asked how Obama’s economic policies would affect him and his desire to buy his boss’s business for himself. Joe was concerned because Obama had been talking about how he was going to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, about how only that 5% making over $250,000 per year would see a tax increase. It seems that if Wurzelbacher bought his boss’s plumbing business, he would become part of that 5%, and would see his tax burden rise. Obama told Joe that the 5% seeing a tax increase needed to pay more to pay for the tax cuts that everyone would get. “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” That issue alone is troubling to me in more ways than one.

First of all, I absolutely despise the idea of wealth redistribution. Last time I checked, Robin Hood was a fictional character, not a form of government. We shouldn’t rob from the rich to give to the poor. One of the founding principles of this country is that if we work hard, we should profit from the fruits of our labors. Obama’s tax policy seems to work against that. His policy would discourage people from working hard for fear that the government would come it and take it away, in the form of higher taxes. If I work hard, I should be able to decide what to do with my money, not the government. If I work hard and sacrifice to make a better life for my family, I shouldn’t be told that I don’t need the money, that there are others who need my money more and I’m going help them regardless of what I might think about it. I’m not an idiot. I do know there are others who aren’t as well off as I am, but shouldn’t it be MY decision who I help and how? I don’t need politicians to pass laws that decide for me. I can tithe to the church or churches of my choice. There are also plenty of charitable organizations in this world that I believe do good work for needy people – St Jude’s Children’s Hospital, the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and Habitat for Humanity, just to name a few. You may have noticed that “supporting people too lazy to work for what they have” didn’t quite make that list. Before I’m dragged out into the streets understand two very important things – 1) I don’t oppose welfare programs that help people get back on their feet and teach them how to support themselves, and 2) I know that a lot of people who are on welfare are actually hard working people who are just having problems making ends meet or finding a decent paying job.

Along with the problem of wealth redistribution, I also loathe the idea of promoting wealth envy -- that hatred people have for people make more money than they do and have more things than they do. To me, wealth envy is completely pointless and non-productive. From time to time, we all see someone who has something we would like to have. Strangely enough, people, we have a great solution for that – work for it! That might mean working more hours at work; it might mean doing without a few of the extras so many of us have in our budgets – cable TV, internet service, cell phones, movies, whatever. Most of us have the capacity to find the money in our budgets that can be saved, possibly invested if needed, to allow us to get that which we want. The problem with wealth envy is that it teaches you to hate people for having more or that they owe you something. I’ve got news for you. No one owes you anything. You owe it to yourself to do the best that you can do for yourself and your family.

Aside from the social issues surrounding it, Obama’s economic plan is fundamentally flawed. One of the basic principles of his plan involves raising taxes on large corporations and individuals making more that $250,000 per year. He says those tax increases will allow lower taxes on 95% of families in this country. Wrong! Raising taxes on corporations is just a fancy name for raising taxes on families. The only way for families to avoid these tax increases is for them not to buy anything from any company that will be subject to these higher taxes, or from any company that buys any thing from a company that will have its taxes raised. Okay, I know what you’re thinking at this point – “What in the world are you babbling about”? Well, I’ll tell you.

Pick a corporation, any corporation. How much in taxes did they pay last year? Any guess? $1000? $50,000? $1,000,000? How about ZERO? Economics lesson – businesses DON’T PAY TAXES! People pay taxes. You pay taxes. Businesses don’t pay taxes. Of course, you’re thinking that I’m crazy. Businesses pay taxes. You can go online and look up how much they paid in taxes. We have laws governing how much in taxes businesses must pay and by when. All of that is absolutely true. However, in essence, businesses still don’t pay taxes. You, the consumer, pay taxes for them. Let’s look at an example.

We have a company we’ll call Cool Cases Company. Cool Cases makes those refrigerated cases you see in your neighborhood grocery store. Cool Cases, being a large company, will be subject to a tax increase under Barack Obama’s plan. Well, Cool Cases has its overhead costs – utilities, equipment maintenance, rent, payroll, etc. These costs aren’t going to go away just because their taxes have gone up, so Cool Cases is going to have to make sure they make enough to cover them, plus pay their taxes, and still come out with an acceptable profit margin for their shareholders. Because of the fact that they will owe more in taxes, CCC raises their price for their products. Now, let’s say Walmart is a customer of CCC and they’re in the process of building yet another Super Center. Their rep from CCC tells Walmart the price on their cases went up. Walmart, needing the case to furnish their new store, pays the new, higher price. A few months down the road, Walmart opens the new Super Center to its customers. Because Walmart had to pay more for the equipment to go in this store, they have to set their prices on the products a little higher. After all, that money has to come from somewhere, along with the money that Walmart has to pay because they, too, are subject to higher taxes. So now, instead of $3.99 for a gallon of milk, maybe it’s $4.19. A loaf of bread that would have been $1.79 is now $1.89. And who pays those higher costs? You do – you, the consumer. And where is that money going? To the corporations, to pay their bills, including their taxes. It’s called “trickle down economics”. A tax increase on corporations ultimately trickles down to the little guy.

Another issue I had in this campaign didn’t involve Senator Obama directly, but more indirectly. It was the issue of racism. It disturbed me to see so many people who were voting for Obama solely because of his race. It disturbed me even more to hear some of those people declaring that anyone who didn’t vote for him was simply racist. We’ve already been through several of the reasons I wasn’t interested in voting for him. You’ll notice not one of them was because of his racial heritage. I, for one, don’t have a problem with race in politics. Years ago, Alan Keyes was a very promising presidential candidate. Had Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice run for president this year, I likely would have wholeheartedly supported their candidacy. For me, race wasn’t an issue and it never was.

That’s enough about why I didn’t want to vote for Barack Obama. Why did I vote for John McCain? Several reasons, actually. One is experience. I believe that John McCain’s experiences both in war and in public service were assets which would have served him well as president. When I’m considering a presidential candidate, I want to know that the person I’m voting for is going to have the fortitude to stand up to the threats which might present themselves. I also respected that Senator McCain has a history of bipartisan politics, working with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. I see that as a step toward getting things done in Washington. Personally, I’m tired of these whizzing contests politicians have with each other where regardless of how good an idea you have, they’re not listening because you don’t have the right letter in parentheses after their name. Furthermore, I was impressed with McCain’s history as a maverick. He was more interested in doing what was right, regardless of whether or not he personally got the credit, regardless of whether or not it the “popular” thing to do. Sometimes you have to do things to help people, even if it turns out you’re helping to protect them from themselves.

In the end, I suppose none of this truly matters – why I wanted McCain elected, why I didn’t want Obama elected. The fact of the matter is Obama was elected. Almost certainly, he’ll be inaugurated on January 20, 2009. I don’t necessarily like the fact that he was elected, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect that he will be the President of the United States. Believe it or not, I also understand why he was elected.

First of all, over the past decade, the Republican Party has drifted away from their core values. These days, they’re more like the Democrats than not. For many conservatives, that’s a real downer. In some ways, I can see how McCain may not have been able to win the election. His principles seemed to have kept him from directly addressing issues that he could have. For example, he refused to attack Obama over his involvement with Reverend Wright. Also, McCain, as the Republican candidate, was viewed as merely a continuation of the George W. Bush years. While it’s not been all bad, some parts, especially the past six months, have been horrendous.

Another reason Barack Obama was elected was because of what he claimed to represent – change, or more importantly, hope. The idea of hope is very important to people. It’s what gets us out of bed in the morning. It’s was keeps us pushing on. Over the past several months, Americans have watched as the economy has been steadily declining. The stock market took a nose dive, costing investors hundreds of billions of dollars. When families are already struggling to make ends meet, the last thing they need is to watch the economy collapsing. In the darkness of these troubling circumstances, Barack Obama offered people hope – hope of a better life, where they don’t have to struggle as much to keep food on the table, gas in the car, and have a few of the extras that make life a little nicer. Hope, however, can’t be spent. Neither can promises.

Over the next two years, we will see if Barack Obama can really deliver on his promises. If he does, we will then see if we’re the better for it or if we’ve merely succeeded in making people happy by giving them things the government isn’t really responsible to provide. If he doesn’t deliver sufficiently on these lofty promises, will we as a nation swing once again from center-left back to center-right? Even though President Obama would still have two more years left at that point, the fault would fall upon both him and his party, in control of both Congressional houses. While he wouldn’t feel the brunt of backlash, their control of Congress would be in serious jeopardy. He would then find himself in the same, unenviable position that George W. Bush has been in, fighting to get his agenda done in the face of opposing party control of Congress.

To those who did not vote for Barack Obama, I hope you did so for meaningful reasons. I hope you didn’t vote against him simply because he was “the black guy”. For those who supported Obama in his pursuit of the presidency, I hope you didn’t vote for him simply because he was “the black guy”. I hope you cast your vote for real, meaningful reasons. I also hope you were right in voting for him. If you were wrong, we could all pay the price. That price may be more of a bitter pill than any of us are prepared to swallow.

In a world...

2008-09-02T21:21:00.005-04:00

A Hollywood legend passed away yesterday. If you passed him on the street, you’d probably never know it. If you heard his name, you’d probably say “Oh, yeah – umm, who?” But if you’ve been to a movie in the last thirty years or so, you know who I’m talking about.

Don LaFontaine died yesterday at the age of 68, as a result of complications from treatment for a lung-related illness. He started in the business as an audio engineer until 1965, when he got what turned out to be his big break. By the time he died, he was possibly the most prolific actor in Screen Actor Guild history, based on the number of signed contracts he had. Still haven’t got a clue, do you?

How can a guy have over 5000 appearances to his credit and yet be generally unrecognized in public? LaFontaine’s 5000 plus appearances aren’t in movies, per se, but in movie trailers. He’s the voice you’ve heard in so many movie trailers such as “Batman Begins”, “Terminator 2: Judgment Day”, “Dr. Strangelove”, and “Cast Away”. He was also heard on television, doing voiceover work for shows such as “Entertainment Tonight” and “The Insiders”, as well as the Academy Awards. His voice was used by every major network, as well as several cable stations. In 2006, he even parodied himself in a Geico Insurance commercial.

Don LaFontaine is survived by his wife and their three children.

Check on this video on YouTube about the life of Don LaFontaine.

If you liked that one, check out this comedian's take on LaFontaine's work.

Introducing Governor Sarah Palin and Child...and Child

2008-09-02T20:45:00.004-04:00

On Friday, Republican presidential nominee John McCain surprised the political world when he announced his Vice Presidential nominee, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. In the few days since his announcement, Governor Palin’s life has been the target of great media scrutiny. As of now, we know a few things about her past – she’s married with four children, athletic, and a member of the National Rifle Association. She’s even a former first runner-up in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant. Much to the envy of politicians all across the country and all across the aisle, she currently enjoys an approval rating in the 80-90+ percent range. How many politicians would love to have that? On top of everything else, she’s tough, not afraid to make the hard decisions.

Much to the contrary of what you’ve heard in the news lately, Governor Palin is not just an “out of the blue” choice for a running mate. In fact, even to my surprise, there was scuttlebutt floating around many months ago that Palin would make an excellent choice. In spite of the fact that the Alaska governor’s name has been on the radar for some time, many in the media would seem to suggest that she’s “an unknown”.

One of the “surprise” topics the media seems to have latched onto today revolves around Governor Palin’s 17 year-old daughter, Bristol, who is herself five months pregnant. As the picture is being painted, the presidential race might just as well be conceded by the Republicans next week for being foolish and ignorant enough to believe that a running mate with a pregnant teenage daughter would be a good choice. They’re probably right.

Think about it. Isn’t it obvious how patently unqualified Governor Palin is? As governor of Alaska, when she’s considering whether or not to support a tax increase, wouldn’t the obvious tipping point in that debate revolve around whether or not Bristol Palin is an unwed pregnant teenager? When pondering her position on legislation which would impact the citizens of her state, wouldn’t the citizens expect her decision to revolve around the fact that her daughter is pregnant? If another oil tanker spill occurs off the coast of Alaska, wouldn’t the cleanup effort have to be coordinated with Bristol’s appointment for an ultrasound at her OB/GYN’s office? If you answered “Yes” to any of these questions, please follow these simple instructions:

1. Remove your voter’s registration card from your wallet/purse.
-- If you don’t have a voter’s registration card or a wallet/purse, skip to Step #3
2. Burn the aforementioned voter’s registration card
3. Contact your employer and quit your job
-- If you don’t have a job, you probably should be doing something more important than reading this blog, like LOOKING FOR A J-O-B!!
4. Set out in search of your village. You know the one I’m referring to – the one that’s missing their idiot!
5. (And this one's the most important...) Never, EVER vote for anyone or anything.

Let’s be realistic. Governor Palin is doing what any mother should do in this situation. She’s standing by and supporting her daughter. Being that Governor Palin is strongly anti-abortion, she’s demonstrating that she can walk the walk.

Consider a few things.
-- Who among us has children that have never, EVER made a terrible mistake without first considering the potential results of their actions?
-- Who among us have, ourselves, never, EVER made a terrible mistake without first considering the results of our own actions?
-- For those who raised their hands to both of the previous questions, the final question is what color is the sky in the imaginary world in which you live?

For those who argue that this girl is too young to have to deal with this much pressure, she’s about to have a child. Parenting and all of the responsibilities that come with it can be the greatest pressures anyone can have to deal with. As Sarah Palin has explained to her daughter, it’s time for her to grow up and face her impending adulthood. A further thought -- which would be more pressure for her to deal with: having to deal with a pregnancy in the public spotlight, or having to deal with the fact that her mother had to give up a chance at being Vice President of the United States, all because of her?

It’s interesting that so many are focused on the age of this “child”. What makes it interesting is that we live in a society where children younger than her make their way through our judicial system every day – the ADULT judicial system, charged with crimes like armed robbery and murder. This 17 year-old, is just a kid, though. Yeah - that makes sense.

Ultimately, this is a non-issue. It’s certainly not a concern of the political campaigns. Bristol’s pregnancy has no bearing on whether or not her mother will make an effective Vice President, or potential President. Even Senator Obama’s campaign has denounced the story, stating that candidate’s families are off limits to such reporting. When both presidential candidates are saying it’s not a problem, why is anyone else whining about it? Maybe the media needs to cover something far more newsworthy -- like whether or not someone remember to change the toilet tissue rolls aboard Air Force One.

November is fast approaching

2008-08-20T20:38:00.005-04:00

Hey, folks, November will be on us before we know it, and we all know what that means. Time to vote! Time to select the people who will represent us in our government. Are you registered?

After years of sitting on the sidelines, I was finally motivated to register to vote. This won’t be the first time I’ve voted, but admittedly it has been a while since I did. With the possibility that Barack Obama might actually be elected to run this country, and in a sense, the rest of the world, I felt the need to register, so Marsha and I went down to the county courthouse last week and did our civic duty.

I’ve come to realize that there’s a price to pay before one can truly be allowed to complain about what’s happening in government. The price for that is voting for our representatives. You have to speak your mind. If you don’t, you shouldn’t complain. After all, you had the opportunity to change the situation. If you didn’t take that opportunity, then you get to shut your pie hole when our representatives don’t do what we expect them to do.

It’s amazing, really. You hear after every election about low voter turnouts. It always seems to surprise us, because during the campaigns, we’re told over and over about how many people in the area are registered to vote. Yet, when the votes are tallied, the figures seem to reflect how few people got out to the polls. Now, we know that the number of “registered voters” isn’t really an exact figure. Some of those people have moved out of the area. Some have been incarcerated. Others have simply died. When you account for all of those demographics, you still have a sizable group of people, most of whom ultimately didn’t go vote. Why do you suppose that is?

One of the most prevalent excuses appears to be “My one vote doesn’t count”. I used to believe that myself. Over the past few years, I’ve come to eat those words. In the local elections, Angela Tuttle, 32, was elected constable in Hancock County, TN. Her father, a former constable himself, encouraged Angela to write her name in as candidate for the open position. Angela won the election by one vote – her own, which turned out to be the ONLY vote cast. Turns out no one else ran for the position.

On a more serious note, too many people think their vote doesn’t count. When you picture your one vote compared to the thousands or millions voting in any given election, it can seem that one vote wouldn’t matter one way or another. But, if enough people stay home with that kind of thinking we end up with what we’ve always had – a “good ole boy” network of people who continue on in office term after term. Take for example, former Knoxville, TN, mayor Victor Ashe. When he was first elected, Ashe seemed to be a true man of the people, a man ready to answer the call when the constituents needed him. By the time the third of his unprecedented four terms came about, he had become a very large cog in a system that listened to few and worked for even fewer. He and several members of the city council pretty well worked to benefit themselves and a few of their more financially fortunate contributors. It was only the passage of term limits which finally freed Knoxville from the grip of Ashe and his cronies on the city council, since so many of those who complained never actually showed up at the polls to voice their dissatisfaction in the form of a vote for the other guy.

Another excuse is “I don’t like anyone who’s running”. Often times, we’re forced to pick the lesser of two evils in an election. Such seems to be the situation in this year’s presidential election.

One the one hand, Barack Obama isn’t exactly well liked, due to his lack of experience in federal government. The fact is it wasn’t too long ago Obama was a small time politician in Chicago who no one had ever heard of on the national level. The fact of the matter is, 2008 was supposed to be Obama’s “Coming Out” party, of sorts – get his name out there, so when 2012 rolls around, he wouldn’t be a complete unknown. It was assumed that Hillary Clinton would actually be the Democrats nominee this year. Instead, they’ve got Obama.

On the other hand, we have John McCain. A seasoned, experienced politician to be certain, but not really the one the Republicans were hoping for either. It seems that many Republicans would have been far happier with Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney as a candidate. McCain is viewed by some as merely a continuation of Bush’s policies – effectively, George W. Bush’s “third term”.

In the end, it’s still the responsibility of each registered voter to make a decision on who they want, even if the one they’re voting for isn’t exactly their first choice. Not only do they have to make a decision, they need to make an INFORMED decision, which brings us to our third excuse, “I don’t know who to vote for because I don’t know where the candidates stand on the issues”. Be informed, people! Don’t just sit around watching the latest installment of “American Idol” or “The Bachelor”. Some of these people who are running for office will actually be elected. Do you want to be the one who just picked someone for the sake of saying you voted? Just your luck, you’ll have ended up helping to elect the guy who stands for everything you’re against. If you’re not going to pay attention to who you’re voting for, you might as well not vote at all. At least, then you don’t run the risk of electing the guy who’s a complete idiot, as opposed to the one who may be just a partial idiot.

And remember the difference between an ignoramus and a gross ignoramus. A gross ignoramus is 144 times worse!

Okay, folks, enough from the Great Soapbox. Those of you who aren’t registered to vote – get registered – NOW! Time is running out to be registered in time to be eligible to vote in the November elections. Those of you already registered – get to the polls. And don’t try the fourth excuse – “I couldn’t get off from work”. The law REQUIRES your employer to make reasonable accommodations to allow you sufficient time off to vote in your home precinct. Now, for some, that will mean you will, in fact, have to leave work, go vote, and then return to work. Sorry, folks. Do what you have to do. And, in the process, if you can find anyone to vote for who supports the Fair Tax Initiative, VOTE FOR THEM – they are your friends!!

Barack -- ON TOUR!! Get your tickets now!!

2008-07-25T20:30:00.003-04:00

In the news today, apparent Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama is touring around Europe. Touring – that’s a good word for it. Yesterday, he gave a speech in Berlin. What did he have to say? Was it insightful? Will it have a great impact on the world? Was it well-received by the German citizens? Does any of that matter? Absolutely – NOT!

Let’s ask the real relevant question – what was Barack Obama doing in Berlin giving a speech in the first place? Many have criticized Obama as being a highly inexperienced candidate; that he lacks foreign policy experience. Ok, so he hops a plane to Europe to talk to the various world leaders. That doesn’t involve making speeches covered by global media, nor having the nightly news anchors from the three major networks in tow. That simply involves sitting down and talking to the foreign leaders. Instead, Obama makes the news giving a speech in Berlin. Now, let’s look at why that’s a problem.

First of all, Barack is touring around Europe. Yes, back to that “touring” word again. As I said earlier, that’s a good word for what he does. He travels around from state to state, nation to nation, like a rock-star on a world tour. There’s a good analogy. See, like a rock-star, Barack is glad to take money from his screaming (and in some cases, fainting) fans and give them what they want to hear. In the end, it’s all just the same fluff to a slightly different tune.

Secondly, why is he giving a speech to the Germans, the French, or anyone else outside of America for that matter? Last time I checked, the citizens of Europe don’t actually get to vote for the AMERICAN president. It doesn’t matter one teeny, tiny, little bit what they think. The entire European community can back Obama for president and bring the Asians and Africans along with them for the ride. All put together, they still get exactly zero votes in OUR election. Essentially, it’s nothing more than propaganda. It’s just an opportunity to get Barack Obama in the news yet again, without actually doing or saying anything particularly important. It’s a good thing that the media in this country isn’t liberally biased or anything, because then it might look like they were playing favorites instead of being the fair, unbiased purveyors of information that we all know them to be.

Finally, aren’t Obama and/or the Democratic Party putting the cart before the horse? At this point, Barack Obama hasn’t even been officially selected as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, let alone actually elected to the office. Isn’t that part kind of important? Before one goes gallivanting around the world like he’s the president, shouldn’t he actually have the job first? Oh, right, sorry – that’s just another “distraction” from the Obama campaign. In other words, it’s not important because Obama doesn’t want to have to answer questions about it, as the answers might lead his followers to believe that he isn’t the “messiah” that some have proclaimed him to be.

“The Messiah”. Many have called Barack Obama by that name. In Aramaic, the word messiah literally means “the anointed one”. The Hebrew use of the word refers to Jesus Christ. I would hardly compare Barack Obama to Jesus Christ. While I’ve never personally been privileged and honored to be standing face to face with the corporeal form of the Lord, I truly believe that if I were to experience that, I wouldn’t have an irresistible compulsion to check my back pocket to see if my wallet was still there when I was done. Let’s get something straight, people. Barack Obama is not the Messiah. There is exactly one Messiah in the world. That’s Jesus Christ. None came before him; none shall come after. Exactly one. No more, no less. To use that word to describe any mortal man is disrespectful, in my opinion. Now, let’s stop for a minute, take a breath. Where does all of this talk to Barack Obama being the new messiah come from in the first place? Well, I have an idea on that. If you’ve been reading my blogs, you knew I would.

In his book, “The Third Reich, A Revolution of Ideological Inhumanity, Volume I: The Power of Perception”, Everette O Lemons talks about the plan of the Nazis to use propaganda to capture the hearts and minds of the German youth. In much the same way, Barack Obama has been targeting the youth of America. He’s focusing on young, college-age, first-time voters. These are young folks who have, for years, listened as their parents have said that we need “a change” in America. In most cases, their parents have never really defined what “change” was needed. Obama is capitalizing on that oversight. He runs about using the magic word “change” and the youth of America are flocking to him like moths to a flame. Here is their messiah, their anointed one, their savior. He'll help them. He’ll change everything that’s wrong with the world. They think by electing Barack Obama in November, they will finally bring about the “change” their parents have been pleading for, and won't their parents be so very proud of them? When they think about voting for Obama, they might want to remember that old saying…be careful what you wish for – you may get it!

Let’s take a minute to educate the youth of America. Here’s their first opportunity to make their voices heard. Before they step into that voting booth, they need to know who and what they are voting for. If someone is promising change, what exactly does that mean? What kind of change? Who benefits from that change, other than Barack and his followers, that is? Who is going to be harmed by that change? Be smart, people. Think. THINK! Use your head. Doesn't Barack seem a little too good to be true? When things seem like they're too good to be true, they usually are.

Parents, don't worry...

2008-07-11T20:36:00.003-04:00

Parents, don't worry about your kids when the go to college. Rest assured that your children will be getting the best education your money or their student loans & scholarships can buy. The best part is, after four (OK, maybe five or six) years, the hard work, discipline, and dedication will all be rewarded with a degree, backed up by the knowledge that everything they've learned in their classes is the most recent, up-to-date, factual information that the professors could find. To quote the great comedian and storyteller Bill Cosby, "Right!"

Like the rest of the educational system in America, even our colleges and universities are directed by their share of internal politics. Often, these politics are not originating in the offices of university presidents and deans. Instead, at times, the system appears to be essentially run by the professors, while the administrators sit idly by, cowering in the corner. Is that how you think your hard-earned tuition dollars are being spent?

One of the problems in the system involves instructors who teach classes not to educate and inform, but to indoctrinate and push their own personal or political agendas. One example of this is demonstrated by professors who twist and, in cases, revise history in an attempt to convey their own agendas. Facts take a back seat to that end. Their ultimately irrelevant to some. Is this how you want your children to spend their time and your money (or theirs)?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all college professors are full of crap. In fact, I believe the majority of them to be staying on topic and within the historical facts. Like everyone else on this planet, these instructors have their own beliefs on politics, religion, economics, etc. Also, like most of us, they can easily do our jobs without letting those personal beliefs interfere with their jobs. But what happens when an instructor dismisses accepted historical facts in an effort to promote an ideology all their own?

A link in "Nealz Nuze", on the website of nationally syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz, led me to this article by George Leef on the website for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. I found it very interesting. As a short-term college student at the University of Tennessee over fifteen years ago, I had heard this sort of thing went on in some classes, although I was fortunate enough not to be subjected to such indoctrination disguised as education. Read the article and see what happened when a professor at Wellesley College tries to take a fellow professor to task for relating factually unsound information to students in his classes.

Thank you to Mr. Leef for giving me permission to repost this well written and eye-opening article.

Clarion Call
How Truth Lost Out to Political Correctness at Wellesley

A professor describes her bitter experience defending historical fact over mythical Afrocentrism claims.

By George Leef
June 11, 2008

Are professors in American colleges and universities interested in the truth? That sounds like a strange question, but in an extremely revealing new book, Mary Lefkowitz shows that there are some who won’t let the truth get in the way of their efforts at indoctrinating students. Worse yet, administrators often cave in to these academic bullies rather than standing up for faculty members with the nerve to question them.

Lefkowitz is an emeritus professor at Wellesley College, where she taught courses on classical culture for many years. Ancient Greece is her specialty. It is hard to imagine that such a quiet scholar would become the center of a vehement controversy that would rock the campus and descend (on one side) to the level of vicious personal attacks. History Lesson (Yale University Press, 202 pages) is the story of her bitter experience after challenging the accuracy of material a professor in Wellesley’s Africana Studies Department used in his classes.

In her introduction Lefkowitz writes, “Telling the truth, instead of being our first responsibility, has suddenly become less important than achieving social goals. These goals were to be reached not by means of the usual scholarly tools of reflection and reasoned persuasion. They were to be imposed by assertion and fiat.”

One of those “social goals” that now dominate in American education is that of making various minority groups (those designated as victims of our oppressive culture) feel good about themselves. Toward that end, some professors have taken to the creation of myths. The particular myth that plays the central role in this drama is that of the “Stolen Legacy.”

Here is the way that myth goes. The culture and philosophy of the ancient Greeks was not truly their creation, but was “stolen” from Egypt. Since Egypt is in Africa and all the people in Africa are “black” this means that white Europeans were victimizing blacks more than 2400 years ago. In one particularly ludicrous aspect of this myth, it is asserted that Aristotle journeyed to the Library at Alexandria and stole books that he later claimed as his own works.

When Professor Lefkowitz learned that this and other intellectually indefensible ideas were being taught by a professor (Tony Martin) in the Africana Studies Department, she publicly challenged their historical accuracy. Among other problems with the “stolen legacy” idea is that Aristotle died years before the Library at Alexandria was built. But when she pointed this fact out to Professor Martin, he took umbrage. Who was she, a white Jew, to question his interpretation of black history?! At that point, it began to occur to her that Martin, a tenured faculty member, was one of those people who won’t let the truth get in the way of achieving their objectives.

More disturbing yet, she discovered that the dean of the college would not intervene. Quoth the dean, “He has his view of ancient history and you have yours.” Throughout the confrontation between Martin and Lefkowitz, the Wellesley administrators were cowering, spineless creatures—much like the Duke administration during the infamous lacrosse case in 2006.

Looking further into the curriculum in Martin’s department, Lefkowitz discovered that students were assigned a book entitled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, an anonymous book published by the Nation of Islam. While masquerading as a work of scholarship, complete with 1,275 footnotes, it is a screed that seeks to promote the idea that Jews were mainly responsible for slavery. The book is hate literature with a thin veneer of sophistication. Using it in a college course is deeply troubling. The Wellesley administration, however, ducked behind the curtain of professors’ “academic freedom” when it was brought to their attention.

Lefkowitz’s purely academic criticisms of the materials being used to teach Wellesley students elicited an outrageous counter-attack by Martin, a book entitled The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley Battlefront. In it, Martin depicted himself as a hero standing strong for “black progress” against the evil oppressor class (the Jews) and craven blacks who didn’t go along with his racial harangues (such as Wellesley economics professor Marcellus Andrews and Harvard historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr.).

Martin wasn’t done yet. Next he filed a lawsuit against Lefkowitz claiming that an article she had written slandered him. The article was about an incident in 1991 where Martin had verbally abused a female student. His suit alleged that the article contained erroneous material that had damaged him professionally. Naturally, Wellesley’s administration refused to defend Lefkowitz. She was able to find expert legal help, however, through the Anti-Defamation League. The case dragged on until 1999, when it was finally dismissed.

One of the hot topics in higher education these days is whether there is a significant problem of professors turning their classes into indoctrination camps. We often hear from defenders of the status quo that instances of this are mostly made up or exaggerated, and that in any event, American students are “critical thinkers” who are too bright accept any propaganda that might happen to make its way to their ears. History Lesson refutes both parts of that defense. Martin clearly meant to indoctrinate his students with historical falsehoods, and from the letters and comments of his students about the controversy, it’s evident that many of them had swallowed his line completely. To them, Lefkowitz was an enemy just as to Mao’s Red Brigades any intellectual was an enemy. If you’ve heard that American college students are impervious to propaganda because they can see right through it, this book demonstrates otherwise.

In a fascinating aside, Lefkowitz explains that she tracked down the origin of the “Stolen Legacy” myth. It comes from a novel published in France in 1731. The American writer George G. M. James based his ostensibly factual 1954 book Stolen Legacy on this work of fiction.

Sadly, it isn’t just in the area of Africana Studies that we encounter the double standards and anti-intellectualism on display throughout the book. Professors who question global warming, the benefits of “diversity,” and other articles of faith on the left risk intimidation or reprisals for saying what they believe to be true. American colleges and universities are far from being havens for objective, dispassionate inquiry. .

History Lesson is an extremely important, gutsy book. I’m afraid, however, that the people who most need to read and reflect on it—college administrators—will avert their eyes.

Once again, thank you to Mr. Leef for giving me permission to repost this well written and eye-opening article.

Remember, this may not be the rule in modern higher education, but this DOES happen. The best defense against such so-called "educators" is to start early by teaching your children how to think for themselves. Teach them that if they hear something they don't understand or that doesn't make sense, check it out. Question what they are told. Educate your kids to realize that just because a person is in a position of authority doesn't mean they are never wrong. Our children are not born with the inherent ability to simply know who's educating them and who's just trying to further their own ends. It falls to the parents to help them learn that. Don't raise another generation of automatons. As a society, we've done that. Let's try something new (and actually something tried and true, as well) -- let's raise a generation of kids who know how to think for themselves, who have useful problem solving skills, who know how to stand on their own two feet, instead of simply following wherever they are unsuspectingly led.

I must be a bad American

2008-07-08T20:20:00.002-04:00

Thought you might all like this one. It's been attributed to the late George Carlin, but I understand he disavowed writing this.

{ YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW MY NAME }
YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN
I Am the Liberal-Progressives Worst Nightmare.

I am an American.

I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some Liberal governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican!

I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!

I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it makes you a smart American.

I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything.

I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, do it in English.

I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.

My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and whoever canceled Jerry Springer.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.

I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing about it.

I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So, shut up already.

I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country! This is AMERICA!

If you were born here and don't like it you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you.

I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. (Can I get an AMEN on that one?)

I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are.

And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my drivers license. I think it's good..... And I'm proud that 'God' is written on my money.

I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.

I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making 'donations' to their cause.

I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents.

I believe 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers think.

I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed inAMERICA!

If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American.

If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know.
We want our country back!

We NEED GOD BACK IN OUR COUNTRY!

WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE, ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE

The "New" Rights of Obama Supporters

2008-07-08T19:34:00.013-04:00

While I like to blog on topics of interest, from time to time, I find other writers whose writings deserve to be reposted here for my readers. When I bring you these posts, you can rest assured that I'll be providing all of the relevent source information. After all, I'm not interested in plagerising someone else's work. I'm interested in educating my readers.

From: http://www.townhall.com/ a post by writer Mike S. Adams.
This post was brought to my attention during today's broadcast by nationally syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz.

Here's the post:

Not long ago, I was having a gathering of about eight people at my house. The last guy to show up walked right into my kitchen and then protested because he couldn’t find any bottled water in the refrigerator. Next, he complained that we ate all the snacks before he showed up thirty-five minutes late. When he finally came into the living room to sit down, he asked what we were talking about. I told him we were talking about economics, which involves not just demand but supply. I joked that he wouldn’t have to demand any bottled water and snacks if he’d remembered to supply some, too. That drew a laugh from one of our mutual friends.

This trait of being more in love with consumption than production is one shared by most of my socialist colleagues in academia. They base their lives on the idea of taking “from each according to his ability” and giving “to each according to his need.” The problem is that they do a better job of articulating their needs than promoting their abilities. This is, of course, because socialists are generally short on abilities. They seek socialism because they think being guaranteed an average outcome is safer than trying to beat the average in a system based on merit, which is otherwise known as ability.

Anyone watching the 2008 presidential race has doubtless seen a similar dynamic among supporters of Barack H. Obama. Most of his supporters have been talking about rights without any mention of the notion of responsibilities. Like supply and demand, and need and ability, the terms rights and responsibilities are best understood in relation to one another. For example, I have a 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms that the government cannot simply take away from me on a whim. But I also have a responsibility for everything that occurs between the time I discharge a bullet and the time the bullet comes to its final stopping point.

But consider the following list of “rights” that supporters of Obama have recently told me that we all have:
Everyone has the right to a college education. I can’t imagine what it will be like as a college professor once Obama implements this one. I’ve been teaching to the occasional unqualified black and the occasional unqualified athlete for years. But now that everyone, including, presumably, the mentally retarded, has a right to a college degree, I might just retire and become a firearms instructor. Hopefully, Obama will not grant a Right to Firearms Education to both idiots and the insane. (Author’s Note: This one came from Obama himself).

Everyone has a right to breathe clean air.
This is a really bad idea for the Obama campaign. If everyone starts to enforce his right to breathe clean air in the presence of swarthy young Muslims, Obama might lose an important part of his electoral base.

Everyone has a right to free health care.
I recently learned this from an incoming Drexel law student appearing on The O’Reilly Factor. Bill did a great job by asking her whether this right is in the constitution or whether it just comes from the fact that she is a really nice person. She was forced to admit that it was not in the constitution. She should do really well in law school because she’s a really nice person.

Everyone has a right to demand that the rich pay taxes in proportion to their ability to pay taxes.
I recently learned this from an incoming Yale law student on the same segment of The Factor. Everyone agrees that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor. What is controversial is the notion that they should also pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. But that was not the issue in this segment. The issue was whether the existing gap in the proportion of taxes paid by the poor and the rich should be widened and, if so, by how much. When someone says we have a right to tax the rich “in proportion to their ability to pay” they mean “tax them until they can no longer pay” or “tax them until they are bankrupt.” Many people who hold this view were not actually alive during the Carter Administration. But they have taken history classes from people who assure us that he was really not such a bad president.

Every gay man has a right to feel comfortable.
I heard this one from a first-year law student at Yale. He actually informed me thrice that his right to be comfortable as a gay man trumps the First Amendment. I guess they don’t teach constitutional law until the second year of the Yale law program. But the question is: How did this sissy get into Yale Law School?

After spending only a little time listening to followers of the Dali Bama I have concluded that, in Obama’s America, everyone gets to declare at least one new fundamental right regardless of whether it is written into the constitution. And so, naturally, I am going to declare first that I have a right to unlimited rights. (This is sort of like making one’s only wish a request for unlimited wishes).

My second declaration of a new right is a little more complicated. First, I believe that I have a right to demand that you show me a copy of the U.S. Constitution every time you demand a new right. And if you cannot identify the constitutional basis of your proposed right, you forfeit that right as well as your right to vote in 2008. And, of course, I get to cast the vote you forfeited.

So, those of you prone to simply announce fundamental rights without any constitutional basis should beware that this could soon deprive you of the right to vote. Until now, it’s only deprived of you the right to sound intelligent.

OK, folks, there you have it. If you'd like to read the full article along with readers' commentary, click here.

The Federal Minimum Wage

2008-07-02T20:55:00.002-04:00

Here in just a few weeks, on July 24, 2008, our country’s minimum wage will be going up again from $5.85/hr to $6.55/hr. That will be great for our economy. Employees who are struggling to support themselves and their families at jobs that only pay them minimum wage will have a little more money in their pockets at the end of the week. That money will enable them to better pay their bills and make a more comfortable lifestyle for themselves. Also, that money can be used to take care of the various needs and wants that have been, up till now, sitting on the back burner. And this doesn’t just apply to the people making minimum wage. A number of workers stand to benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. That’s not true for everyone, mind you, just those who work for employers who see the minimum wage increase as a reason to increase their wages, so those other employees maintain a higher pay rate over those making minimum. So, from the looks of everything, an increase in the federal minimum wage looks like it’s going to do a lot of good for a lot of people. NOT!! Wake up, people. This is just another outrageous act by the United States Congress that makes you think they’re doing something useful for you other than wasting your tax dollars on “pork barrel” projects. What are they truly doing for you or the economy at large? Literally NOTHING!

Of course, one has to wonder how increasing the minimum wage can do absolutely nothing for the economy. More money will be going in to the pockets of employees all across the nation. They’ll have more money to spend. They’ll be able to pay their bills, purchase new goods and services in our economy. So how does all of this add up to doing nothing for the people?

Let’s take a retail grocery store owner. Right now, with the current minimum wage, he can maintain his payroll of 5 minimum full time wage employees his current 10% gross profit margin on the products he sells. We will assume there are other employees at the store, but we’ll just deal with the 5 minimum wage employees for the purpose of keeping our example simple.

5 employees x 40 hours per week x $5.85/hr = $1,170.00 per week (or $234.00 each)

For purposes of this example, an item with a 10% profit margin means that 10% of what it is sold for is profit. On a $1.00 item, 10¢ would be profit, while the other 90¢ would go to whoever supplied the merchandise. So, for every $1.00 rung in at the register, 10¢ would go to payroll expenses. So right now, the owner needs to sell $11,700.00 per week in merchandise just for these employees.

Milk 2000 units x $4.50/unit = $9000.00
Bread 1000 units x $1.50/unit = $1500.00
Ground Beef 700 pounds x $2.00/lb = $1400.00
TOTAL REVENUE=$11,900.00

So right now, the owner sells sufficient merchandise to cover a payroll up to $1,190.00 per week. We will also note that at the current rate of pay and the current retails, a given employee can afford to buy 3 gallons of milk ($13.50), 5 loaves of bread ($7.50), and 6 pounds of ground beef ($12.00) out of their check and still have $200.00 left over for other expenses.

Now, in July, the minimum wage will go up 70¢ per hour to $6.55/hr. For a full time employee, that’s an increase of $28.00 per week that has to be added to the weekly payroll budget.

5 employees x 40 hours per week x $6.55/hr = $1,310.00 per week (up $140.00)

So where does that $140.00 come from? Well, the owner needs to keep his payroll budget at 10% or less of his gross sales. This will require an increase in sales at the register or someone will have to be laid off from their job. In order to keep all of these employees, sales will need to increase $1400.00 to $13,100.00 per week. In order to do that, the owner raises his prices to cover the gap between his current revenue and his payroll budget. So, now he has to sell his product to his customers at a higher price.

Milk 2000 units x $4.85/unit = $9700.00
Bread 1000 units x $1.75/unit = $1750.00
Ground Beef 700 pounds x $2.45/lb = $1715.00
TOTAL REVENUE=$13,165.00

In order to be able to afford this store owner’s increased prices, his customers will now have to either buy less or have more income. The customers go to their employers (assuming they haven’t received pay raises as a result of the minimum wage increase) for raises. To afford to pay these raises, the employers of the customers must also increase their revenues (if they haven’t already done so), most likely by raising their prices charged to their customers. This cycle will continue to repeat. Now, everyone has raised their costs to be able to pay their employees increased wages.

The employees of the grocery store are also spending more of their income ($262.00 each) as a result of these higher prices. At the new retail prices, each employee spends the same $33 per week to buy their groceries. Now, however, while they can still afford 3 gallons of milk ($14.55), now they can only afford 4 loaves of bread ($7.00) and 5 pounds of ground beef ($12.25) for a total of $33.80. To buy the groceries they had in the past would have cost them $38.00. Even though the employees are making more money, they have to spend more money on their basic needs. Also with the prices of these items, we can also understand that many of their other basic expenses have gone up as well.

The increase in the federal minimum wage is ultimately a washout. While employees are getting more money in their checks, they inevitably end up spending that money on their expenses. It doesn’t really improve their standing in life; their ability to do substantially more for their families is little more than smoke and mirrors.

Furthermore, let’s look at who’s generally benefitting from the minimum wage increase. Most of your minimum wage employees are teenagers working their first jobs. After that, we’re looking at young adults who may be new to a specific company, but who will eventually work their way up after they have demonstrated their value to their employers. Another group of minimum wage employees are those who work basic jobs in fast food and retail due to issues in the job histories which make them higher risks to hire (short times at previous jobs, quitting for weak or questionable reasons, etc.). Since the second group will likely remain at minimum wage for only a short period of time, that leaves the first group (new, inexperienced employees) and the third group (employees who have trouble staying employed). The new, inexperienced employees don’t really need the increase in pay. Part of their compensation in the big picture is experience. An employer is taking the time and expense of teaching this employee things which will benefit them down the road throughout their life. The employees who can’t hold a job don’t deserve to see an increase in their bottom line either. These employees haven’t put forth the effort to work a job with the diligence required. They have instead put their priorities on calling in sick when they’re not, quitting jobs over petty things like their bosses expecting them to do their job properly and arriving on time or because they moved a mile and a half further away from their jobs (as though driving that extra two or three minutes would do real harm to them), or getting fired for being insubordinate or unreliable or because they’re rather “par-tay” on Friday night and show up late on Saturday morning.

In the grand scheme of things, very few of the truly hard working people out there will actually see an increase in their paychecks, as most are not working for employers who will simply raise their wages to maintain the certain gap between long-term employees and minimum wage employees. What these employees will see instead, a more coming out of their budgets for necessities and less flexible (“disposable”) income. In the end, whatever benefit the minimum wage workers see will be negated by the negative impact on the workers who won’t be getting raises to deal with the higher expenses ultimately created by the increase.

All that increasing the minimum wage has done for anyone is make some Congressmen look like they’re really trying to do something. They know that what they’re doing is merely a hollow gesture on their part, just a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. If you want people to do that for you, go to Vegas and catch a show with Sigfreid and Roy. You won’t get any richer there than you would with the minimum wage increase, but at least you get to see some cool looking white tigers for your money.

OK, now back to the readers. What do you think about it? Is the increase in the minimum wage a benefit for our nation or an illusion of benefit? Be honest -- let's talk about it.

U.S. Supreme Court rules on 2nd Amendment

2008-06-26T20:56:00.001-04:00

In an historical landmark ruling today, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that individuals do have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The case involved a 60 year-old security officer in Washington, D.C., who attempted to register a handgun for home security. When his request was denied, the security officer sued the city on the grounds that he believed Washington's ban on firearms to be unconstitutional. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court found that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right granted by the 2nd Amendment.

The point has been debated over the years, with opponents arguing the 2nd Amendment applies to applications of a militia or other government-managed groups. Proponents of the 2nd Amendment have countered that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of all citizens. The Court agreed in that respect, ruling that states and municipalities do not have the ability to completely ban the ownership of handguns. A the same time, they also declared that the 2nd Amendment is not without limits; that laws restricting felons or the mentally ill from owning firearms are still constitutional.

This ruling from the Supreme Court is significant in many respects. For one, it is the first time in U.S. history that the Supreme Court has addressed the 2nd Amendment. But far more important is the fact that this ruling was dissented by FOUR U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. If just one more had ruled against the security officer in this case, it could very well had led to the 2nd Amendment being declared irrelevant in modern society.

If anyone has any doubts as to whether or not they should vote, if anyone thinks they're going to just stay home in November and not vote for anyone in protest of either or both political parties, THINK AGAIN!! It is a function of the President of the United States to nominate successors to the Supreme Court, should a vacancy present itself during his/her term in office. It is the President who helps to shape the ideology of the Court through his nominees. With this in mind, we must also consider that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has the most liberal voting record of anyone in Congress today, including Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. If we, as a nation, elect Barack Obama to the presidency in November, we will also be allowing him the privilege and opportunity to shape the Supreme Court in a more liberal mindset. In history, a liberal Supreme Court is often a tool for creating new laws through the interpretation of the Constitution.

It is not now, nor was it ever, the intention of the founding fathers of this nation that the Supreme Court should create laws. It is the function of the Court to interpret the laws created by Congress and by the States relative to the Constitution. We must not allow a president into office who might see fit to use the Supreme Court in a way other than it was intended. Therefore, everyone who is eligible must register to vote, and in November, cast your vote.

In Memoriam

2008-06-26T20:53:00.001-04:00

FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008:
George Carlin, who died Sunday at 71, leaves behind not only a series of memorable routines, but a legal legacy: His most celebrated monologue, a frantic, informed riff on those infamous seven words, led to a Supreme Court decision on broadcasting offensive language.

The counterculture hero's jokes also targeted things such as misplaced shame, religious hypocrisy and linguistic quirks — why, he once asked, do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?

Carlin, who had a history of heart trouble, went into St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica on Sunday afternoon complaining of chest pain and died of heart failure later that evening, said his publicist, Jeff Abraham. He had performed as recently as last weekend at the Orleans Casino and Hotel in Las Vegas.

"He was a genius and I will miss him dearly," Jack Burns, who was the other half of a comedy duo with Carlin in the early 1960s, told The Associated Press.

The actor Ben Stiller called Carlin "a hugely influential force in stand-up comedy. He had an amazing mind, and his humor was brave, and always challenging us to look at ourselves and question our belief systems, while being incredibly entertaining. He was one of the greats."
Carlin constantly breached the accepted boundaries of comedy and language, particularly with his routine on the "Seven Words" — all of which are taboo on broadcast TV to this day.
When he uttered all seven at a show in Milwaukee in 1972, he was arrested on charges of disturbing the peace, freed on $150 bail and exonerated when a Wisconsin judge dismissed the case, saying it was indecent but citing free speech and the lack of any disturbance.

The words were later played on a New York radio station, resulting in a 1978 Supreme Court ruling upholding the government's authority to sanction stations for broadcasting offensive language during hours when children might be listening.

"So my name is a footnote in American legal history, which I'm perversely kind of proud of," he told The Associated Press earlier this year.

Despite his reputation as unapologetically irreverent, Carlin was a television staple through the decades, serving as host of the "Saturday Night Live" debut in 1975 — noting on his Web site that he was "loaded on cocaine all week long" — and appearing some 130 times on "The Tonight Show."

He produced 23 comedy albums, 14 HBO specials, three books, a few TV shows and appeared in several movies, from his own comedy specials to "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" in 1989 — a testament to his range from cerebral satire and cultural commentary to downright silliness (sometimes hitting all points in one stroke).

"Why do they lock gas station bathrooms?" he once mused. "Are they afraid someone will clean them?"

In one of his most famous routines, Carlin railed against euphemisms he said have become so widespread that no one can simply "die."

"'Older' sounds a little better than 'old,' doesn't it?," he said. "Sounds like it might even last a little longer. ... I'm getting old. And it's OK. Because thanks to our fear of death in this country I won't have to die — I'll 'pass away.' Or I'll 'expire,' like a magazine subscription. If it happens in the hospital they'll call it a 'terminal episode.' The insurance company will refer to it as 'negative patient care outcome.' And if it's the result of malpractice they'll say it was a 'therapeutic misadventure.'"

Carlin won four Grammy Awards for best spoken comedy album and was nominated for five Emmys. On Tuesday, it was announced that Carlin was being awarded the 11th annual Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, which will be presented Nov. 10 in Washington and broadcast on PBS.

"Nobody was funnier than George Carlin," said Judd Apatow, director of recent hit comedies such as "Knocked Up" and "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." "I spent half my childhood in my room listening to his records experiencing pure joy. And he was as kind as he was funny."
Carlin started his career on the traditional nightclub circuit in a coat and tie, pairing with Burns to spoof TV game shows, news and movies. Perhaps in spite of the outlaw soul, "George was fairly conservative when I met him," said Burns, describing himself as the more left-leaning of the two. It was a degree of separation that would reverse when they came upon Lenny Bruce, the original shock comic, in the 1960s.

"We were working in Chicago, and we went to see Lenny, and we were both blown away," Burns said, recalling the moment as the beginning of the end for their collaboration (though not their close friendship). "It was an epiphany for George. The comedy we were doing at the time wasn't exactly groundbreaking, and George knew then that he wanted to go in a different direction."
That direction would make Carlin as much a social commentator and philosopher as comedian, a position he would relish through the years.

"The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things — bad language and whatever — it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition," Carlin told the AP in a 2004 interview. "There's an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have."

Carlin was born on May 12, 1937, and grew up in the Morningside Heights section of Manhattan, raised by a single mother. After dropping out of school in the ninth grade, he joined the Air Force in 1954. According to his official Web site, which is often tongue-in-cheek, he received three court-martials and numerous disciplinary punishments.

While in the Air Force he started working as an off-base disc jockey at a radio station in Shreveport, La., and after receiving a general discharge in 1957, took an announcing job at WEZE in Boston.

"Fired after three months for driving mobile news van to New York to buy pot," his Web site says.

From there he went on to a job on the night shift as a deejay at a radio station in Fort Worth, Texas. Carlin also worked variety of temporary jobs, including carnival organist and marketing director for a peanut brittle.

In 1960, he left with $300 and Burns, a Texas radio buddy, for Hollywood to pursue a nightclub career as comedy team Burns & Carlin. His first break came just months later when the duo appeared on Jack Paar's "Tonight Show."

Carlin said he hoped to emulate his childhood hero, Danny Kaye, the kindly, rubber-faced comedian who ruled over the decade Carlin grew up in — the 1950s — with a clever but gentle humor reflective of the times.

It didn't work for him, and the pair broke up by 1962.

"I was doing superficial comedy entertaining people who didn't really care: Businessmen, people in nightclubs, conservative people. And I had been doing that for the better part of 10 years when it finally dawned on me that I was in the wrong place doing the wrong things for the wrong people," Carlin reflected recently as he prepared for his 14th HBO special, "It's Bad For Ya."
Eventually Carlin ditched the buttoned-up look for his trademark beard, ponytail and all-black attire.

But even with his decidedly adult-comedy bent, Carlin never lost his childlike sense of mischief, even voicing kid-friendly projects like episodes of the TV show "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends" and the spacey Volkswagen bus Fillmore in the 2006 Pixar hit "Cars."

Carlin's first wife, Brenda, died in 1997. Survivors include his wife Sally Wade, his daughter, Kelly Carlin McCall, and his brother, Patrick Carlin

We will miss you, George.

High Gas Prices

2008-06-26T20:52:00.002-04:00

With gas prices approaching $4.00 per gallon, where will it all end? And where, for that matter, does it begin? Who is responsible for these high prices?

A lot of people are convinced that the oil companies are the ones responsible, padding their pockets at the expense of drivers all across the nation. Enough people are convinced of this that Congress recently called for hearings with executives from the five biggest oil companies in the country: BP America, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. One topic the hearings focused on was the $123 billion (that's $123,000,000,000.00 for perspective) in gross profits earned by those companies in the past year, while at the same time consumers are paying record prices for gas at the pump. The executives denied responsibility for the high prices, citing that part of the problem is that approximately 85% of America's coastal waters have been made off limits of drilling. The fact of the matter is the nine major oil companies in this country only control about five percent of the world's oil, hardly enough to significantly affect the cost of crude oil on the open market.

In addition to off-shore waters, the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) is also off limits to exploration. Opponents of drilling in ANWR cite environmental concerns for wanting to keep the lands off limits to exploration. Advocates counter that only 1.5 million acres would potentially be affected by exploration, while the remaining 17.5 million acres (or 92% of ANWR) would remain permanently off limits. If oil were to be discovered, only about 2000 acres of that 1.5 million would be affected by drilling. In the end, less than one-half of one percent would be affected by drilling. In exchange for opening this small portion of ANWR to exploration and drilling, it's projected that 1.5 million barrels of oil could be recovered every day, accounting for 25% of domestic production. From a conservative estimate of 9 billion barrels available under ANWAR, that's over 16 years supply. Some estimates project there could be as much as 16 billion barrels under ANWR. That's over 29 years' supply. While neither estimate can amount to a long-term solution to our fuel problems, it would go a long way to make the situation manageable for consumers while other alternative energy sources are explored.

So is that it? Just a supply/demand issue, or is there more to it? Over the past year, we've watched the price of oil skyrocketing. In June, 2007, oil was trading for about $65 a barrel. One year later, it's trading for about $135 a barrel, an increase of 108%. Why? Well, for one thing, we need to look at the fact that the value of the American dollar has plummeted in value over the past year, due in part to the problems in sub-prime mortgage market. So, it's the sub-prime mortgage market that has caused high gas prices, right? Well, not as such. The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of confusion as to just how many subprime mortgages are in foreclosure. This has led to a great deal of insecurity in the banking industry, as banks, both large and small, are facing losing billion of dollars as a result of these foreclosures. This turmoil in the banking industry has, in turn, led to insecurity in the American dollar and a nosedive in its value. When the dollar falls in value, it buys less, thereby taking more dollars to buy. Add to this, speculators in the market betting on the price of crude going up and up. When it does, you can bet that they're making money off of this whole deal.

So now, we have several concepts being blamed for the high pump prices – executives padding their pockets at the expense of the consumers; simple supply/demand economics; a weakened American dollar; stock market speculation. Are any of these the true, underlying problem? What's the solution?

One proposed solution involves nationalization of the gas companies. Essentially, let's put the federal government in charge of the recovery, processing, and delivery of oil to fuel stations. Personally, I'm not big on this solution. The federal government does a few things well. Allocation of resources to the people who need them in a timely matter isn't one of them. With all of the bureaucracy already running rampant through the federal government, it's obvious all the average consumer would get from nationalization of the oil companies would be higher prices, brought on by additional costs and taxes rolled into the price of a gallon of gas, and longer lines, as gas stations run low on supplies while they wait for trucks to get around to replenishing their tanks.

So what will it take to change the course of fuel prices? Time, for one thing. It will take time for the banking markets to recover from the issues in the subprime mortgage market, allowing the value of the dollar to increase. Conservation of resources is another piece to this puzzle. As prices have risen, people have altered their driving habits: combining errands to save gas, accelerating from stops more steadily, driving more slowly as most cars run most efficiently at around 55 mph. While we're doing these things, the fuel companies are already researching new technologies to make cars that run on alternative fuels or different types of engines. Some of these include hydrogen power, fuel cell engines which emit exhausts consisting only of water vapor, and even a compressed air engine technology which pushes the pistons with bursts of compressed air rather than exploding fuel.

While there has been much talk about using ethanol mixed into gasoline or pure ethanol as fuel, this idea has recently fallen into disfavor as it's being discovered that the ethanol isn't particularly more efficient than gasoline to begin with. Additionally, it takes even more energy to produce the ethanol. In the end, ethanol actually brings a significant inefficiency to the equation.

One idea getting a lot of talk these days involves a "Manhattan Project"-style effort in the area of alternative fuels research. Using the same efforts that were used to develop the atomic weapons of World War II, scientists could research different ideas, possibly even one day developing the successor to the internal combustion engine.

So what do you think? What do you see as the cause or the solution? Give us your comments and ideas.

Physics of Hell

2008-06-26T20:45:00.001-04:00

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa, (Cheerleader Captain and Class Valedictorian) during my Freshman year that, 'it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you', and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night and again this morning, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.

The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct, leaving only Heaven, and thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God!!!'

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY 'A.'

Who said that science is boring? This will dispel that idea for all time.

Iowa Floods

2008-06-26T20:41:00.001-04:00

I'm sure several of you having be watching and reading in the news about the Iowa floods. Or then again, maybe you haven't.

While listening to WNOX's "The Phil Show", a caller made an interesting observation. Interestingly enough, it doesn't seem like the Iowa floods are getting near the media attention that the floods as a result of Hurricane Katrina did several years ago. The question is why?
We're not seeing pictures of people stranded all over town. No videos of people being rescued from their rooftops. No calls to blame President George W. Bush for failure to respond to these poor forgotten souls. Why do you suppose that is?

Is it because these people don't make good fodder for the liberal media to exploit? Is it because instead of sitting on their lazy rear-ends expecting the government to provide everything for them, including a ride out of town to the destination of their choice?

So what are we seeing? We're seeing towns being devestated by 25-30 foot floods and townspeople working their butts off to protect what's theirs on their own. Filling literally hundreds of thousands of sandbags to protect their libraries, city hall, businesses, and homes. In spite of all of this, we still don't really see the pleas for prayers and assistance and donations that came with Katrina in New Orleans. Personally speaking, I think these people in Iowa are far more deserving of assistance than the Katrina "victims". I don't have a problem helping people who are willing to help themselves.

So, now, it's your turn. What do you think of the floods in Iowa? Why don't you think the media is covering this story in the same way as Katrina was?