Yes, the official final draft of the Bill was released 96hrs after the votes were tallied...but who really expects our "Representatives" to know what they are voting on.  The original bill was just over 1000 pages, a 300+ addition was released the morning of the vote.

I downloaded the full 1428 pages and poured through some of the sections - areas of interest that I doubt get much publicity. 

Other than the Nanny State regulations that will be put in place to reduce the Carbon Output in America - which is based on unproven "pseudo-science", half-truths, model manipulations, and semi-fact (at best)  Other than this there is a system of allowances that will be dolled out by the government to industry and consumers.  These allowances are the new currency by which the government will exert its power over our "free" market system.  The government can essentially reward or punish sectors of it choosing.  Some parts of this allowance system extend beyond 2050.
There is also an auction system for these allowances that will take place each year.  Remember they are "auctioning" off an intangible commodity with an artificial value.  No barrels, bullion, or bails will be exchanged - just hot air.  (Hot air that is needed by all organic life on Earth)

Now to the good part of the plan:

“Electricity rates would likely skyrocket,” Pres. Obama said. “Whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That would cost money; they would pass that money on to consumers.”

Atleast He is honest about it...are YOU listening...not just go up, or increase....SKYROCKET!!!!!

But like any entitlement driven liberal Bill, they take care of the lower income (well they mandate the rest of us to take care of them)  Gotta take care of your key voting block - even though they take much more than they give.

Another scary bit is the section which deals with the havoc that this Bill will reign down on our economy: PART 2—CLIMATE CHANGE WORKER ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

They know that jobs will be lost (great news given the tight job market and high unemployment rates)  So the Bill gives allowances for workers who will lose their jobs due to this Bill.  The wording is very vague...easily taken advantage of: (Sec425)
A group of workers shall be certified by the Secretary as eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under this part pursuant to a petition filed under subsection (a) if—
12 (A) the group of workers is employed in—
13 (i) energy producing and transforming
14 industries;
15 (ii) industries dependent upon energy
16 industries;
17 (iii) energy-intensive manufacturing
18 industries;
19 (iv) consumer goods manufacturing;
20 or
21 (v) other industries whose employment
22 the Secretary determines has been ad23
versely affected by any requirement of title
24 VII of the Clean Air Act;

More power for the government to exert.  Buying those votes!  And the best part is that the new entitlement system created in this Bill will dole out 70% of income for up to...wait for it...156 weeks (sounds shorter than 3 years maybe?  but that is the verbiage used")  Can you say CORRUPTION!!!  This little piece of the puzzle probably netted them a few votes in poor urban areas where a Rep can pressure the issuance of this "assistance" to their loyal entitlement crowd.

It is unreal at how many sectors of the economy the Big Government finger will be dipped into.  Increased reliance on the government - a move away from free market capitalism and a step towards socialism.  Please don't be fooled into thinking that socialism and democracy can't exist simultaneously.  The movement away from a free market capitalism towards a system of government control is happening.  We've seen the take over of huge industries.  We are taught to believe that things can be "too big to fail" and that the government has to bail it out.  If we are reeducated in this way we will believe that that government itself is "too big to fail" and not question the transition, not think of revolution.  "Too big to fail" is also "too big to succeed", without the threat of failure there is no motivation for success - real success, not government mandated and funded success. 

Today's society is dependent on Energy more than any other commodity.  When government controls energy it will control the life blood of our society.  the Clean Air Act will go farther in telling us what products we can buy, cars we can drive, and which industries will survive.  A coup that takes over without ever firing a shot. 

“It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” President Obama  3/9/2009

The President and the Demoocrat controlled Congress would never, NEVER, distort or conceal scientific data on the environment to fit their political agenda!  NEVER!!  And believe me, the environmental crystal ball is never wrong - just ask your local weather man.  I mean lets look back a few decades to what the Climate Prophets KNEW would happen - it is definitely an inspiration for basing socio-economic altering legislation on:

Try not to laugh too hard!

In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950" (The New York Times, May 21, 1975).  Although some disputed that the "cooling trend" could result in result in "a return to another ice age" (the Times, Sept 14, 1975), others anticipated "a full blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine Dec. 10, 1976, respectively).  The "continued rapid cooling of the Earth " (Global Ecology, 1971) meant "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery" (International Wildlife, July 1975).  "The world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, Feb. 1973).  Because of "ominous signs" that "Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," meteorologists were "almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century," perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, "The Cooling World," April 28, 1975).  The North Atlantic was "cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool," glaciers had "begun to advance," and "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" (christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974)

 Gotta love those decisions based on "facts"!


A bit of more data:  "As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming.  Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979 when satellite record keeping began.  According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979"  (Townhall Magazine, April 2009)

Maybe our "representatives" should make sure “[i]t is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology" when it comes to laws concerning the environment.  President Obama - heed your own advice!!  Keep the religion of Environmentalism separate from Legistlation

Before anyone misses the point here: I am not advocating that our nation split in two, yet.  I don't know what the tipping point would be, but I don't know how much government takeover of free enterprise can be tolerated.  I don't know if we have to wait for them to actually deem us a socialist nation for us to say "whoa whoa whoa..."  But I digress.

As you read through this, please give it actual thought.  This is meant to illustrate a point, I think that the illustration is rather clear.

Imagine, if you will (or can), our nation divided along the lines of political belief.  I know you are thinking that it already is and has been.  Take the current division a few steps further and imagine it as a physical division.  Two separate nations.  You could divide the US in half East West, or save on moving expenses and have the Liberal populations located on either coast.  Two separate nations - with separate governments, economies, beliefs, populations, and futures.  Liberalia and Conservatonia.

Conservatonia will do away with hand-outs and bailouts.  The free market and consumer purchase power will reign.  The framers intent of the constitution will be restored, marked by a return to traditional values.  Personal responsibility will be a must.  Productivity will be high, taxation kept low - letting those who work towards success reap the benefits.  Failure will be allowed so that success can be celebrated.  Citizens of Conservatonia will have to make their own way, their successes will be their own.

National security will be a priority.  Crime will not be tolerated, no more hug-a-thug mentality.  A citizen will have the right and ability to protect their own home and way of life.


Liberalia will have its Socialism.  The government will run most aspects of life.  It will take from those who do and give to those who don't.  The government will protect each minority group and will encounter a point where it will be forced to choose which group to protect when minority groups collide.  Liberalia will provide "free" health care, welfare, and will play a parenting role in everyone's life.  Taxation will be high to care for those who live off of the government and increase as the welfare roles increase.  The boarders will be open and no set of guiding morals will be forced upon the citizenry.  "Freedom" will abound.  Guns ownership will be illegal and the nation will depend on other countries for their national security.

Without the  Conservatonians to tax, Liberalia will be forced to run on a constant deficit.  The standard of living will be much lower in Liberlia (as is evident when comparing socialist countries to capitalist countries) and the productivity will suffer without incentive for success.  Citizens will take the risk for business while government reaps the reward.

Which would survive?  Which would have a higher standard of living?  Which would have more freedom?  Which would have success?  Honestly.

Not everyone "deserves" a comfortable standard of living.  Hard work and discipline should be a perquisite.  I pay my mortgage, you pay yours.  Cable television and internet are not necessities.  Eating out is a luxury.  Saving is important.  If you accumulate a debt - you pay it back.  Take responsibility for your personal decisions.  Why can't you understand these principles President Obama?  Nothing is "too big to fail."  Failure is a natural part of the success cycle.

I am admittedly (and proudly) slanted towards the conservative point of view.  I am not saying that a Conservatonia would be without negatives or Liberalia would be without positives.  I cannot, however, see how a Liberlia would be as or more successful than a Conservatonia.  People need motivation to succeed - not government manadate. 

A person must decide if they believe that a judge should create laws or policy from the bench.  They are often termed as "activist judges", those who shape or create legislation rather than make a determination or interpretation of the law with regards to the case they are presented.  Should a single person or a small group of people wield greater power than the elected representatives of congress or greater power than the citizenry? 

Once a person decides this for themselves they can then determine if a judge who has openly stated that they "create policy" from the bench should be a member of our nations highest court.  The Supreme Court is after all the highest court charged with making interpretations with regard to the constitutionality of a law - a dangerous place for an activist judge who wield their opinion in place of a constitutional understanding.

Frame the selection with this quote from President Obama:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.  And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." 

Understanding of the constitution seems to have not found its way into the Presidents selection process.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor:

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is, court of appeals is where policy is made"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXBAgh7qtdc

"Like other liberal activists who assert the importance of empathy, Sotomayor remarkably finds the need to reach into her “heart” only when the litigant’s cause aligns with her own. In fact, as Clinton appointee Judge José Cabranes noted with some frustration, Sotomayor’s “empathy” with New Haven’s position was so relentless that she took unprecedented procedural steps to bury the claims of the firefighters.

In an attempt to prevent effective review, Sotomayor’s three-judge panel originally issued a one paragraph summary order affirming the district court’s ruling, then withdrew it and issued an unsigned opinion.

Neither the order nor the opinion made any attempt to seriously consider the firefighters’ arguments. According to Cabranes, they did not even address the core issues in the case. Thanks to judges like Cabranes, this attempt at evasion failed, and the case is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court."

Taxation without Representation:
When a government (ours) decides to run on a deficit (under any administration), is this taxation without representation?  We are setting up a program which will tax the future generations - unborn and unrepresented.  Running a government on a deficit is exactly what what Americans fought against in the 18th century: Taxation without Representation.

The Blind leading the Blind:
So our government, the same government who plans to operate on a deficit (in the "red") of over a trillion dollars (see: huge warehouse full of $100 bills) for the foreseeable future, believes that is can run our banking system better than the bankers.  Thinks that it can build and sell cars better then the auto industry.  Believes that it can manage health care more efficiently.  If you can't balance your own budget stay the hell out of mine.  You don't go to a chronic welfare recipient for financial success strategies. 

Good Investments
It turns out that our banks did make a few good investments -

Citigroup
Total TARP: $50,000,000,000
Total Campaign Contributions (2008): $4,799,679
Lobbying Expense (2008): $7,660,000
Return on "Investment": 401,194%

AIG
Total TARP: $40,000,000,000
Total Campaign Contributions (2008): $929,774
Lobbying Expense (2008): $9,690,000
Return on "Investment": 376,556%

JPMorgan/Chase
Total TARP: $25,000,000,000
Total Campaign Contributions (2008): $4,788,638
Lobbying Expense (2008): $5,390,000
Return on "Investment": 254,754%

Carbon Foot-Prints:  Tread lightly or get hit with a big tax stick
"Get your Carbon Credits, Carbon Credits here!!!"   So, its ok to "pollute", as long as you fund government expanse?  The government wants to create a new Carbon Credit Market by which companies can buy and sell their carbon output credits...and the big winner is: The government - and the big loser is....big business?....NO!!!  The consumer, who will see increase prices!!!  YEAH!!!  Oh and I can't wait for that 30% increase in energy costs!  SWEET!  (see: sarcasm)
An effective, "carbon friendly" energy source that is actually viable and efficient: Nuclear
Bonus:  We can give the depleted fuels rods to N Korea so that they can have better anti-armor weaponry that they will not use against anyone since they got to have a nice sit down with our President.  (see again: Sarcasm)

On the Carbon topic- Flips-Flops made from recycled, environmentally friendly, whatever:
So, leaders of the left rail against the automotive industry for polluting - yet they want to bail them out as a prelude to the government owning 50-70% of the company.  (Can't wait to see ranchers pulling goose-neck cattle trailers behind their government mandated Prius.)  So which is it?  Hate car makers, save carmakers, become car makers?  (See: blind leading blind) 

Failure is the key to Success
Anyone who has succeeded has experienced failure, failure is the classroom in which we learn life lessons.  Failure is an essential element of the free market economy.  If you cease to be a viable entity you fail - you learn from it and take a different approach and/or others leanr from you and avoid your course.  When the government removes the element of failure from the free market it hinders the effectiveness of free market (and I doubt that I am the only one who has realized this. (ahem, cough - increase reliance on the government - cough) 
I would love to think that this is the government admitting they were wrong and taking some blame for the problem (see: ACORN, forced loans to those who cannot repay them)  But they have never admitted any wrong doing...so no claims to responsibility. 
Let them fail!!!  Let GM fail, if there is a market for the American built car (which there is) they will be bought by another entity other than the government.  With the Chevy Silverado and the Ford F150 continually ranking #1 and #2  on top selling lists they are viable companies...heck just build and sell your trucks.  Let Toyota and Honda make the small cars (they do a better job)
Banks make bad loans?  Let them FAIL!!!  Learn a lesson from it....don't "reward" stupidity, and don't mandate it either.
Ronald Reagan summed it up perfectly"
"[G]overnment's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Why do those on the left, who advocate more government, and those on the right (or atleast carry an R next to their name) allow it to happen - not trust the American people.  They do not trust us to live our own lives.  They feel that they know better than we do how to spend our money.  They want to madate charity, they want to regulate every aspect of our lives.  There are some who would choose to let the government be their parents, to choose to revert back to adolescence and have decisions made for them - so long as they get thier tax payer funded allowance. 
*We have the power to regulate ourselves - don't like the way a compnay operated stop buying their products or services.  We the consumer can self-regulate.
*Believe in a charity - donate time and/or money (Which conservatives do at a much greater rate than liberals, there is an entire book on the topic)
*Bought a house you can't afford:  Suck it up, deal with it and learn....what logic lends to 50K a year being able to afforf 500K of house?  Why should I pay your mortgage and mine?
*Are the big bad credit card companies tweeting you wrong?  I guess I missed the gun to the head that makes you use them.  Say no to debt.  If you play with snakes don't be suprised when you get bit.
Bu no worries the government is here to bail you out...all that is required is no questions asked (but we kow that is what got us in trouble in the first place) - nevermind all the strings.  Personal responsibility be damned.

Would love to get your reply (all ;) ) and know what you think...have a great weekend.  With each dollar (the green stuff that our grandparents used) we spend - think about your convictions and whether or not your purchases are in keeping.  The free market gives consumers power, use it.

--Brad Burleson
Right Wing Extremist
(Caucasian, Christian, Conservative, Anti-Abortion, Anti-ILLEGAL Immigration, Gun Owner, Iraq-War Veteran)
http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf

I haven't written anything in a while - even with the plethora of ongoing events.  I especially enjoy our new government stopping just short of literally branding me with "Right Wing Extremist."  With my being an Iraq War Veteran, Gun-owner, Outspoken, Conservative Christian and all. 

The snippet of a radio interview I heard today was about a topic that I do hold strong opinion on (surprise surprise), but is not particularly moving - especially compared to other topics that have moved in and out of the forefront recently.  However, I began to think of the disparity that the topic hold compared to the partisan norm.

The topic was School Vouchers: essentially giving people (especially School Tax payers) a choice of a public or private school through a voucher system.  The voucher system has shown promising in places like Washington DC, where lower income families are able to send their children to private school instead of their lower income (Title 1) public schools.  Testing data has shown a huge advantage for those who make the change to private education.  The fact that I support vouchers and school choice is not necessarily the aim of my commentary. 
What I find so puzzling is that the Republican wing is the one who pushes for school choice.  For a "Free Market" school system if you will.  A system that would allow lower income families (typically championed as the constituency of the Democratic Party) and the middle class to have a choice - send your children to public or private schools without the expense of private tuition.   Republicans wanting to help the low income, Republicans wanting equality and/or improvement in the education system for everyone.  And "everyone" not being limited to rich white people.  (cartoon-esque double take)  And the Democrats oppose the system that would improve the life of the lower income family...how can it be?

After pondering the oddity I believe I have come across a few reasons behind the disparity:

The number one reason is Government Control.  With the 7% majority they exhibited last fall, the Democratic party has expanded Government Control with a fury.  The strings tied to bank bailouts, the government finger now in state government through stimulus dollars, and an apparent plan to take a 50% stake in Government...errr...General Motors. 
Given this, why would that same party want to surrender control over the education system.  The power to influence curriculum, the power to remove religion.  If education is power (as the slogan goes) then that power must remain in the firm grasp of the Federal Government.

A second reason, as I have long held, is that the Democratic party fears losing its voter base.  The Left's political establishment is firmly built on the perpetuation of poverty.  An amazing amount of people who venture out of the lower income classes on their own by taking responsibility for themselves tend to also grow more conservative.  Or, if you wish, a higher percentage of lower income voters are Democrats.  (Taking into account only the votes of the lower income third, President Obama would have won all but 2 states in the 2008 election and only 18 states if only the top income voters were considered) 
If the lower income have access to a better education and actually start believing in a brighter future they might become more successful and would statistically have a good chance of holding a more conservative viewpoint.  Talk about losing your voter base - a better education would be a strong erosive force.

The education system as it now stands is a bright and shining example of how the private sector can better handle a task or service than can the government.  If you let people experience this first hand you might lose support for things such as Universal Health Care - which would follow along the same lines.  Private school students showed higher scores in reading and math than their public school peers at both the 4th and 8th grade levels.  Private school have to compete with other private schools as well as public schools.  They are not guaranteed government funding an must produce the service that they promise and are paid to produce: quality education.  As any government department or service - the quality of service is less important than the fact that the service is continually offered.  If vouchers were offered, people would begin to see that the government is less efficient/effective at operating services than the private sector and would have negative implications (in the eyes of the Left) in terms of a large Federal Health Care system.

 

It may be hard to believe, but Personal Responsibility does exist in the 21^st century. It has been forced into another form and must be doubly undertaken by those who still believe in its original form. For those of us who take personal responsibility for our own futures, for paying our own way, for our own successes and failures – we must now take it personal that we have to accept responsibility for those who will not. 

It’s no longer just the lifelong welfare monger that we must pay for – it has spread like wild fire. We must now pay for those who never pay for anything: believing credit is the only answer. Those who never save for a rainy day, have no concept of an emergency fund, and whose definition of afford is based around monthly payments.  Poor decisions used to carry negative consequence – those consequences motivated us to choose wisely. 

While removing the negative consequences for poor judgment and bad decisions, the government is shifting the punishment to those who chose more wisely, who have found individual success (or are working towards it.) I must now pay my mortgage as well as someone else’s. I do not believe in nor use credit cards, but it is I who will pay for the avalanche of defaulting users. 

Why do I sacrifice the short term in order to improve my long term, only to have it redistributed to those who have no concept of planning? 

One thing that we must understand, we must hold as truth, is that debt (and the inability to repay it) is not the problem. IT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. Debt is the symptom, the symptom of a lacking budget (or the absence of). It is the symptom of an unrealistic expectation, a habit of levying ones future for short term status or gain. I don’t want to hear how it isn’t possible, or that we must have an increase in credit flow to save this country. Debt got us here, debt won’t save us. You don’t dig your way out of a hole.

Let me share a story. A young couple decided to take control of their future – to make their money work for them. To do this they knew it would take sacrifice. They didn’t accept that they “would always be in debt” or “always have a car payment.” These two - neither having a college education, averaging about 70K a year – took personal responsibility, buckled down and paid off 120K in debt in 4 years. There were set backs and sacrifice, but they had resolve. They weathered 2 years of being separated by an ocean, but never lost sight of the big picture. 

These two now have to face the fact that they will be paying to “save” others from foreclosure, paying for the band-aids to cover up a problem that so many will not sacrifice to solve. Having to hear how impossible it is – knowing how ridiculous that statement is.

It’s not only the individual. The banks making stupid loans for houses that they know could not be afforded deserve to go under as well. Credit card companies are snakes, play with them (use them) and you are asking to get bit – be it an interest rate hike, late fees, etc. The best way to punish them is to not give them your money.  

Better choices are needed. Consequences, be it positive or negative, need to be left in place. We cannot let the government create consequences that are in opposition to a natural, classical conditioning and expect people to do well. I choose to take personal responsibility, and I will take it personal when someone does not and I am punished while they get a bailout. 

My original reading of the Budget proposal by President Obama had me irritated as well as humorously annoyed at the gross misrepresentation of the current and historic breakdown of who pays what in regards to taxes.  During the election I sent out a detailed breakdown and comparison of the most recent Republican and Democrat taxation laws (levels, total federal income, %age of American's paying taxes, %age of total tax paid by income level, etc)

After reading the following quotes just now, I cannot let the misrepresentation continue.

Geithner said the budget reflects what Obama views as "a deep moral imperative to make our society more just. But it's very good economic policy, too. It will mean there is again a fairer, more equitably shared tax burden on the vast majority of Americans.

"It is making the tax code more fair," Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., told Geithner.

Fair...hmmm....lets take a look and see how "unfair" the current system is:

The top 1% of wage earners in the Us pays just under 40% of the total tax revenue collected by the IRS.  Seems like a rather large slice of the tax pie.  Expanding the scope to the top 5% of earners we now account for just over 60% of the total tax revenues.  The top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the revenues, the top 25% pay just over 86%, and the top 50% of American tax payers fund just over 97% of the Government. 

So what do you think is fair Mr Geithner? (obviously not that you should pay your "fair" share)  And if the "I forgot to pay my taxes - honest mistake" comments are a cheap shot, so be it.  The same group that wants to increase taxes out of fairness fails to pay their own share.

I will save the rant about making billions of dollars worth of budget plans for a universal health care system that does not (and hopefully will not) exist, the redistribution of wealth in the form of enviromental taxes on coorporations that will be reformed into tax rebates.

I am sick of hearing how "unfair" the tax system is.  I am nowhere near that $250,000 mark that Obama will seek to punish for being sucessful - but I do not feel that they pay an unfairly low amount.  $250,000 and up pays somewhere in the neighborhood fo 50% of the tax revenue while only accounting for approx 3% of the tax payers. 

I hope that everyone noticed that, in the new tax proposal, the government will also collect 7cents of every dollar that the top 3% donate to charity.  Because its not fair that they get a 35cent deduction while others only get a 10-28cent deduction....nevermind the fact that no one else pays 35% tax to begin with.  Ah well, I guess when charities begin to suffer and dwindle away the government will be the only one with the power to take over that as well. 

Today I read a blog that discussed the Left’s overlooking truth in a search to further their agenda.  I find it true, however it didn’t delve into a practice that they often use to get around the “lie” word and deceive the masses who take the “news” at face value and swallow the information whole – not taking time to chew it and discern fiction from reality.  The Left has a tendency to (and dare I say a gift) manufacture truth by generalizing specifics and visa versa.  I recently phrased is as "making Macro-facts into Micro-truths and Micro-facts into Macro-truths" - half-truth and semi-fact exploitation.

I made this assertion as I was researching a popular feminist argument that “females make 3/4 what males do.”  This stat is a fact, but that does not tell the whole story.  It is applied as if it is job for job comparison. (i.e. a female manager at Best Buy makes $.75 for every $1.00 the same male manager makes.)  This is a misrepresentation.  The truth behind the study is that females often are less driven by salary when it comes to a career and more likely to take into account whole life factors.  A female is less likely to take a transfer, a night shift, or an extreme location.  A female is more likely to take a job as a librarian due to the overall life it provides - comfort, stability, and order - vs. a male that will take a job as a trash man making more money but providing less desirable conditions. 

I could not find if the study took into account women who leave the workplace to have children and then return. 

Most of the statistics are for an amount accumulated over a period that encompasses a workers lifetime.  This is run through the liberal “truth maker” which takes a generalized statistic and based on that creates a specific fact that goes beyond the original scope of the data.  The fact that men make approx 25% more over their career than women due to a myriad of factors becomes women make 75% of what men do due to sexist discrimination.  They never could believe that women make less due to their own choices - choices being the ultimate symbol of freedom and equality. 

 

Recently, the military celebrated Women’s Equality Day.  I must have missed the Men’s Equality Day.  Along with that non-existent holiday,  I never did see females marching so that they could have the same PT or uniform requirements (short hair, etc) as men.  Equal as I understand it means two or more things being the same.  Is it about equality or superiority, and what is the stick by which we measure such things? 

It seems that feminist totally discount the superior qualities that women have in their search for (as I begin to use air quotes) “equality” on a totally abstract playing field.  Women make (in most cases) much better nurturers.  They often have more patience, sympathy, empathy, and offer a less pragmatic/logical way of thinking that help to balance out relationships with men.  Nature provides differences for good reason.  Men are given greater strength and aggression as to serve as providers – even this has taken on a less “hunter/gatherer” sense in recent history.  If feminist seek to remove this responsibility from men and take on that role themselves, does that not leave a void in the general order of things. 

Why should we try and buck nature in order to find some abstract equality - sacrificing so much along the way.  What will become if an entire generation of men is ever stripped of their masculinity and forced to go against nature.  What will become of a generation of women who are pressured to leave their roles as mothers and shirk the admiration of their male counterparts in a quest to be treated wholly equal.  It is a give and take.  What are we as a society required to give up as a sacrifice on the altar of equality?  What will this “god of equality” give us in return?  Will we be able to return to our natural roles is things begin to fall apart at the most primal of levels?  Me, I don’t want my life partner to be my equal – I would hate to drag her down to my level and my children deserve better than my equal.  My children deserve a provider, protector, and a teacher – in other words a mother.  Providing a bond and a love that no man can quite equal.  Providing protection that no fist or club can rival.  Providing life lessons on a plane difficult for a father to reach.  I have this hope for my children, my grandchildren and beyond – given that we are not all driven to become equals.

 

Are we as a society abandoning politeness for politically correctness? Is there anything wrong with that? What is the difference? Is there a difference?

First let’s explore the definitions of each word:

po·lite /p?'la?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[puh-lahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective, -lit·er, -lit·est.

1.	showing good manners toward others, as in behavior, speech, etc.; courteous; civil: a polite reply.

2.	refined or cultured: polite society.

3.	of a refined or elegant kind: polite learning.

[Origin: 1400–50; late ME < L politus, ptp. of polire to polish ]

—Related forms

po·lite·ly, adverb

po·lite·ness, noun

—Synonyms 1. well-bred, gracious. See civil. 2. urbane, polished, poised, courtly, cultivated.

—Antonyms 1, 2. rude.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source

politically correct adj. Abbr. PC Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. Being or perceived as being over concerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters. political correctness n

Well being polite seems to be a little more of a broad stroke, while PC generally deals with prior injustices. This brings up another thought...is giving special attention to a subject such as race, class, gender, etc not discrimination. Discrimination is often given a negative implication, however if you give particular attention based on one category you would be discriminatory. This is another issue that I find ironic. The Affirmative Action, NAACP, GLAD, etc seem to keep the divisions emplace through special programs and agendas. Do these organizations truly want unity? With unity the very organization would be unnecessary and those in power would not longer have power....but that is another subject for another day.

Back to the Blog at hand. There was a time when things were done or avoided to help others. You didn't call names or slander because you knew it was not right to do that and it would hurt the other person. Now we hold our tongues to avoid being labeled an -ist (racist, sexist, etc) and being protested against. We have lost the care for others and now focus on ourselves. Instead of trying to help others maintain respect we try and protect ourselves from misinterpretations, lawsuits, and brandings.

This may seem well and good, the means as important as the end. Being polite is opening a door for a lady, PC would have you walk in and try as hard as you can to not give nay special regard so that you don’t seem like a sexist that believes a woman cannot open her own door.

It was polite to not stare at a person form another culture who dresses different. Now you are trying to avoid being labeled as a profiler.

A polite person would not use slurs in public, would not discriminate, and would treat each person as they should be because it was the right thing to do and their mother had taught them better.

A Politically Correct person would avoid those things as well and either resent having to do it or be smug about it. Can you really boast about being politically correct? I mean if you go on about how you didn’t call that black guy a so and so, or that you treated that elderly woman just as you would another person....isn’t the fact that you recognize the discriminatory factors discriminatory?

Also politeness is extended to anyone. Politically correct ness seems to only apply to anyone in a minority. You can talk all you want about WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) especially if they are male and conservatives in general. You can blame all your problems on them, call them names, stereotype...that’s acceptable under the close watch of political correctness.

I don't guess being polite is secular progressive enough. Where will our society end up if we do not strive to be right, but merely try to avoid being wrong. Avoid using statistics - numbers stereotype. Avoid logic - logic often creates profiles. Avoid common sense - you might offend those without it. Avoid equality - That’s not the true end goal.

 

Under God
Current mood: aggravated
Category: News and Politics

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Lets get one thing straight.  As noted above in the Declaration of Indepedence that the basics right of a person is given to them by God.  So our Bill of Rights (and yes that does include freedom of speech and press which seem to be a hot topic, escpecially as of late) is only garateed with the assumption that these Rights are in place to protect our unalienable Rights endowed by God.  So fine, protest, complain...take God out of the pledge, God off of our money, God off of any government building, book, etc....but realize that if you do, you are also removing your rights.  You have to accept and admit to your basic right being protected by our constitution solely because our Founders believed that God inteded for you to have them.

I am pissed that the Pledge of Allegiance was taken from the schools.  I am mad that poeple would have "In God we Trust" taken from our currency.  I am alatmed that the citizens of California would have a cross removed from San Diego, a cross that is a war memorial and has stood since the 1950s.

I recently heard of a school in Nevada that pulled the plug on a Valedictorian who thanked God and Jesus Christ in her graduaiton speech.  They spouted the first amendment and had no authority under school board precedence to do so.  The first amendement does call for a spearation between church and state, well actually it states that the government cannot make laws respecting one religion.  It doesn;t say that there can be no church in state or no state in church.  Jus tthat the governement cannot sponsor or endorse one religion so much that they make laws which are solely to benefit that religion.  The first amendment doesn't garantee a freedom of hearing either.  Its being used that way. especially when dealing with the majority speaking.  The sad thing is the rules in place at that school, set by7 the board, handle this situation, there is no need to turn to the highest law in the land for a ruling.

Another example of this foolishness.  Right here in Texas, DFW area, Liberty Elementary school.  New school, they tought it would be clever to put the new nickel ont he cover of the year book.  But to avert criuticism they too the "In God We Trust" off of the coin on the cover.  The also issued "In God We Trust" stickers so that anyone wanting that phrase on the cover could put a sticker on there.  WHAT!!!  The majority of the population here in the bible belt is Christian, and or have no problem with the phrase.  And I would bet that 100% of the population spend our money with that phrase on it.  So why would a school have to tip toe around this.  Because the liberal minority might have a hayday protesting that a public school has "In God We Trust" on the yearbook.  A violation of the first amendment?  NO!  You use that same nickle to pay for milk at school right?  And why not, if you must, give out blank stickers to cover up the phrase.

The answer to that why is that the conservative majority who would not be offended by the presence of the phrase "In God We Trust" is also the same majority that would not protest the absence...because we are rational and although it ticks us off...we have lives to lead.  Why do we pander to the minority, is that what democracy means (checking dicitonary) (demand....demeanor...democracy...)

democracy    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. democracies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Wow!  Majority rule...hmmm...thought that was right. 

Fact: The majority of Americans believe in God.  God may be the God of Abraham, Jesus Christ, Allah...etc....but we belive in the Creator who gave us these rights

Why is it that the minority of those who are offended seem to have their voice heard loudest.  If the liberals want to separate church and state and take God out of all governement...they lose their rights to speak out, to assemble (protest) 

Oh and those of you that protest God being in the pledge and on the currency, in graduation speeches and on yearbooks...start at Arlington National Cemetery, lots of crosses....just please have a press conference before hand so that all of us veterans can meet you there.

 

The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

 

That's CITGO, the petroleum company.  It WAS a US company until 1990 when it was purchased, basically, by the government of Venezuela.  As you may of may not know Venezuela is a socialist country that is very anti-American.  Right now the Pres. of Iran is in Venezuela in talks with Pres Chavez.  The bond between Venezuela and Iran has some history.  Recently Venezuela was one of the only nations to vote to protect Iran from the security council of the UN regarding it nuclear program.

 

I encourage you to go to the CITGO site.( www.citgo.com) and to the right in news at a glance take a look at the "CITGO responds to misinformation" link.  This call is not a new one, but seeing the increased support Venezuela offers Iran I think it must be brought back up.  Even if you too are against Bush you cannot honestly support a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran.

 

You will see the CITGO's setting the record straight is merely pointing out that other companies also use Venezuelan oil,  that Venezuela in the past has been a steady supplier of Oil, and among other things the donations that CITGO has made.  It is a rhetoric shield to the fact that the government that owns CITGO is run by an America hating president that supports a country that each day send money, weapons, and insurgents into Iraq to kill Americans.  A country that would love nothing more than the down fall of America.  Is that where we want our money to go.

That is the free market system CITGO.  The fact that we as consumers have the power to wield our money as we see fit.  we do not have to sponsor the government through the governments ownership of an industry...that's socialism not capitalism.  Our dollars can speak for our political and/or moral beliefs.

 

Please consider this the next time you fill up.  Know that a dollar for CITGO will end up down the chain funding an anti-American government that is a supporter of those who wish to kill Americans.    

 

Put your money where your importance is
Current mood: determined
Category: Life

Now as a preface to this I am not moving to the FAR LEFT as it may appear.  I am not advocating welfare in any form and am actually a huge opponent of welfare.  I'm not a socialist or communist - great theories and ideas....but it will never work as intended.  I am a conservative and by definition I want the least amount of government possible and still maintain freedom, liberty, and order.

The really nice thing about capitalism and free market is the ease in which you can trace a given societies values.  Its easy, money has value so logically you can assert that where the money goes so do people values.  And I know your thinking the money is the root of all evil and that you cant put a dollar amount to certain values.  This may be true but there are certain products, services and the like that are the manifestation of values.

The sad part is that what people say they value and prove they value are all too often different.  Examples and explanation will follow.  Some of the facets of our country's economy which receive a large flow of the money are somewhat justifiable and contribute a real benefit to society; others do not and tell a different story about our society. 

First let us examine the means by which I will make my cases.  I will look at salary as a means to determine what professions are the most important to Americans.  I will look at the rise in price of certain goods, signifying a rise in demand.  Along the line I am sure that other ideas and references will become relevant and will be explored.

First let us look at salary, who we pay the most and how important they are.  I am going to state a fact.  One of the highest paid industries in America, if not the highest paid, is the entertainment industry.  Movies stars, TV stars, Pro Athletes, singers, bands etc.  They make some of the highest wages in America.  Do they provide one of the most important products...no.  In the listing of a persons value I doubt entertainment is at the forefront.   If it is you have too much time and money and will soon grow up and realize that the world holds greater values than a good time.  Is this to say that there is no place for the arts and crappy entertainment that is passed of as art...no.  Is this to say that there is something wrong with going to a ballgame or having a Super Bowl party...no.  But why do we pay so much for the privilege to see a person with nothing more than God given talent and/or good looks. 

I am a huge baseball fan, but when a person signs a contract for an amount of money that is greater than the Gross National Product of his home country...thats too much damn money.  When a player gets a signing bonus equal to over 100 teachers salaries...thats too damn much.  Baseball is a great love of mine; I tear up at special moments, I Love the Game.  I would play 162 games of baseball every year for free.  Give me food and shelter and a 401K and I would play my heart out.  Why the hell should a pro athlete make that much damn money?  Do they provide such an essential service that we cannot do without them?  Why should a baseball team be values at 1 billion dollars?  Why?  And its not just the players, why should the owners?  Do I really need to pay $65 dollars for a decent seat at a ball game, 10 for parking, 7 for a beer, 5 for a hotdog....do I?  Hell no!  Why do you have to be middle class to enjoy the sport?  Rich to enjoy it the whole season?  Why?  I wont even get started on endorsements....wait yes I will!

If Nike didnt pay Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, and who ever else is hot at the moment MILLIONS of dollars a year for adds do you think a pair of shoes would cost over 100 bucks?  HELL NO.  Do I really care what deodorant or toothpaste or jock itch cream a particular athlete uses...NO 

Damn I am getting pissed....woosaaaah....ok.  So how is it that a Movie Star can make over 1000 times as much for a single movie as a soldier does in a year.  How the hell can that happen?  How is it that a Singer could fund the payroll for an entire police and/or fire department?  Is entertainment really that important?  We must think it is...thats where our money goes.  The NFL, MLB, NBA, production companies and record labels dont just poop dollars...they get it from us...the consumer.  They get their money to overpay the entertainers and line their own pockets from all of us that view entertainment as one of the most valuable things in America!  

Oh but what about the art?  Whah!  If its that friggin important a person would make a movie and play a game for 40.8K a year...thats what the average American family makes.  They would "do what they love" for as much as most people work a job that they have to.

And Education....thats important right?  Well not really.  We pay huge scholarship for students to get a good education at good schools.  Yeah just so happens the majority of those scholarships are athletic scholarships and the people who take them enjoy the free ride until they can get drafted early and not finish school.  If education is that important why do teachers make so little in the grand scheme of things.  Why do they make so much less than entertainers....I will tell you why.  Because we dont; actually value education.  We dont put our money to it.  Oh yes we pay taxes and we thing that the government should fix the problem.  But we dont want to pay more taxes and we dont volunteer money and or time to education.  I wish that there was an option to donate an extra percentage of your pay solely to fund education.  To give teachers a raise.  We wonder why we are becoming one of the dumbest nations...education is not important.  How many great teachers pass up the job because of too low of pay...why would a talented person settle for being a teacher when they could make millions as a lawyer to the stars or agent that gets to bail out some sports star?  Why dont we tax the overly paid and fund better education?  Why not...does a person need to make million of dollars a year?  No.

And our military.  We spend a lot of money on military each year...I give you that.  There are some good benefits, monetary hat is, to being the in the military.  But as compared to other industries its pretty low paying.  I will put police and fire in this category too, protective services.  So security is down below entertainment on the value list too.  Because given the capitalist system an actor portraying a soldier is more valuable than the soldier who actually puts his life on the line.  A normal job will get a raise as demand for that position increases....well demand is pretty damn high for protection and security right now...but the military still gets its 5% raise.  Would you rather have protection or 60 homers?  Disaster relief or another blockbuster performance?

Our values in America are screwed up.  Next time you want to do a gut check look at where your money goes.  Think about why that CD that costs under a dollar to create costs 19.99 or why you have to pay 50 bucks to go see people play a game.  Why it is that you will spend more to buy a DVD box set that you spend on a college Chemistry book.  Why a signed helmet is worth more than the Kevlar a soldier wears.  Why it is more important for the star quarterback to get a free education that the high school teacher or the next policeman. 

Does any one need to make million a year...no.  Does anyone need a 250,000 car...no.  How many people choose a career path based on pay?  Do you really want a doctor whose main drive to practice was pay?  Should a person running a company make 100s of times more than his employees?  Should the employees of a given business be able to afford the products they make or sell?  Should the lower to middle class be able to afford to run for political office?  These are important questions.

Is socialism right...no its not, its flawed.  But we cannot honestly say that capitalism is perfect.  Lesser of two evils I guess.  One of the nicest things about capitalism is that you can see where a society's values lie....but after that the true value of a society can be found in what they do to correct it.  Its not welfare, its not free.  Teachers, police, soldiers, firefighters...they deserve more...they are the building blocks, the true foundation of this and any civilization.  Take away all things and I would choose freedom over fun....   

(Sorry I did leave out a lot of what was buzzing through my mind.  Technology makes a lot of money too, but there is greater benefit.  Some others as well, but entertainment has the most notable references and is by far the most out of whack.  Please post comments...this is near and dear to me and I want to make a difference) 

 

Cartoons and society
Current mood: Go Joe!
Category: Go Joe! Movies, TV, Celebrities

I was reading a friend of mines blog on movies of the 80s. (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=87347461&blogID=144084207&MyToken=8f76b4ff-6a6b-44c6-acdb-ecd26111912b)  He was contending that the most remembered movies or the biggest blockbusters fo that decade were teen angsty pseudo true to life (ie John Hughes films..)

Well in a way to long comment I went on the examine the Star Wars duo of the 80s, Inianda Jones Trio, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket...etc

Driving around today I began to ponder the cartoons of the 80s and how they are different from today.  Emtpy V had made apoint showing how the writeers and directors of the decade had experience Vietnam (all be it on TV) and that they had had their fill of violence and thus made these movies.  And today we are so far removed (or have been up until the last 3-4 years) from violence that our movies are more so.

But look at the cartoons...some of which he mentions.  We had our GI Joe and He Man, Transformers, and even Looney Tunes that were based all but solely on violence...as latent as it may have been.

Today however a quick flip over to Nick Jr will reveal the Tela-tubbies, Barney still, some efeminite guys in make up prancing around, some British pop group for kids...all that crap.  So have we shifted from masculine psuedo violence for kids and puppies and flowers for adult in the 80s to guns and nudity for adults and gender confusion for kids?  well thats what cmments to the blog are for...answers...so have we.

Also with more moms and dads than ever in the work place and the inivitable lack of a clear and conscise gender model at home and none (even confusion) on TV...where will our kids learn to be Men and Women.  Will we become a society of little gender difference, purely physical difference.  No fitting roles.  What will that do to society?  I have a thought or two...what are yours...

 

patriot    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (ptr-t, -t)
n.

One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.

You know, given that most of the far left liberals (the flag burners, the protestors, the pride parade marchers, the anti-war, anti-bush, anti- american shehanites, those who oppose the majority (regardless of issue)) have the most to lose from the loss of America - the left wingers should be the biggests patriots around.  If our country were to fall to another government (God forbid) the liberal population would most likely be erradicated within days....because the type of BS they pull in our country isn't allowed inside of most governements. 

Given this assumption, I can only acertain that the liberal community has no doubt in their mind that we will prevail.  We will prevent the spead of islamic facism, fend off terrorist, and protect against any other outside force which would change our way of life.  If they, the liberal community, actually thought that we would lose....they would have to sing a different tune...be more conservative, more supportive.  Because a liberal has the most to lose.  We conservatives are often the ones that quitly work outside of the spot light...getting things done...not bitching and not having the unexplicable free time to protest for days on end.  We don;t walk out and stage a "Day without tax-paying legal citizens of the US"  We don't camp out on the lawn of the Ketchup Empire (John Kerry reference) and protest anti-Bushism.  The conservatives of the country don't throw camoflage or paint on those who wear anti-american clothing or walk our street bearing other nations flags. 

I do enjoy my freedoms, but I also understand the responsiblity that comes with those freedoms.  I have made the sacrifice to defend our freedoms.  One of the freedoms which I feel is most important and one that is at the top of the list that I fight to protect is the freedom to disagree.  While this may seem contradictory to my blog, I feelthat it is important to have debate, and discussion....but I think that most protests take advantage of the rights and do not take responsiblity.  I think a responsible person would give credit where credit is due....would say that the soldier, not the lawyer gives us freedoms....and that soldier not that lawyer protects those freedoms.  And I do not think it should be only the soldier who takes responsibility for those freedoms which everyone, especially those who push the envelope of freedom, enjoy.