BLOGGER TEMPLATES AND TWITTER BACKGROUNDS »

31 December 2010

To A Happy New Year!

Even after reading this, I have no clue as to its meaning - except that it's definitely a drinking song. Come to think of it, maybe that's why I don't get it.

But what I do get is the feeling of nostalgia and hope and sadness and excitement that come when I hear the tune.

I hope that you and all you love have a wonderful, happy, peaceful and joyful new year. May this coming year be all you hope it will be.

Auld Lang Syne
By Robert Burns

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And auld lang syne?

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

And surely ye'll be your pint-stowp,
And surely I'll be mine!
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae run about the braes,
And pu'd the gowans fine;
But we've wandered mony a weary fit
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidled i' the burn,
Frae morning sun till dine;
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

And there's a hand, my trusty fiere,
And gie's a hand o' thine!
And we'll tak a right guid-willie waught
For auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

24 December 2010

Christmas Physics...

This is a physical analysis of Santa Claus. You may have seen it before, but I enjoy it so completely that I thought I'd put it here.

I disagree with the author's original conclusion, so I have put my own at the end of this piece.

1) No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle most Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house.

Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles [between each] household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding...etc.

This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second [and] a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison, this is four times the weight of the cruise ship Queen Elizabeth II.

5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as a spacecraft reentering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to acceleration forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.
My conclusion: Santa is MAGICAL!

Merry Christmas!

23 December 2010

President Bush's Christmas Address - 2003

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
Luke 2:14

As families and friends gather to celebrate Christmas, we remember all the blessings that fill our lives, beginning with the great blessing that came on a holy night in Bethlehem. For Christians around the world, the birth of Jesus is a central religious event; an example of God's profound love for humanity; and the pathway to hope and to new life. Today, the Christmas story still speaks to every generation.

This holiday season, as we share in the spirit of giving and enjoy familiar Christmas traditions, we give thanks for the wonder of God's love and rededicate ourselves to helping those in need. We also pray for our brave men and women in uniform, many of whom will spend the holidays far from home. Their courage and dedication is helping keep us safe and extending freedom and peace. We are grateful for their service to our country, and for the support and sacrifice of their families.

Laura joins me in wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. May the peace and goodwill of the season fill every heart and warm every home.

GEORGE W. BUSH

22 December 2010

Miracle on 34th Street...

Remember Mr. Shellhammer's line from "Miracle on 34th Street"?

He doesn't want to believe that Kris Kringle is Santa Claus, but doesn't want to believe he's a pure fraud, either.

"But... but maybe he's only a little crazy like painters or composers or... or some of those men in Washington."

21 December 2010

From "Mr. Krueger's Christmas"....

This is a scene from my favorite Christmas movie, starring Jimmy Stewart.

Please enjoy it as much as I do, and feel free to find the whole movie on YouTube.

20 December 2010

President Reagan's First Christmas Address....

16 December 2010

"Breath of Heaven"...

15 December 2010

For Unto Us A Son Is Born....

14 December 2010

From the New York Sun, 1897....

13 December 2010

As Only James Taylor Can...

10 December 2010

Linus Tells Us What Christmas Is About...

08 December 2010

Christ's Nativity...

Christ's Nativity
By Henry Vaughan

Awake, glad heart! get up and sing!
It is the birth-day of thy King.
Awake! awake!
The Sun doth shake
Light from his locks, and all the way
Breathing perfumes, doth spice the day.

Awake, awake! hark how th' wood rings;
Winds whisper, and the busy springs
A concert make;
Awake! awake!
Man is their high-priest, and should rise
To offer up the sacrifice.

I would I were some bird, or star,
Flutt'ring in woods, or lifted far
Above this inn
And road of sin!
Then either star or bird should be
Shining or singing still to thee.

I would I had in my best part
Fit rooms for thee! or that my heart
Were so clean as
Thy manger was!
But I am all filth, and obscene;
Yet, if thou wilt, thou canst make clean.

Sweet Jesu! will then. Let no more
This leper haunt and soil thy door!
Cure him, ease him,
O release him!
And let once more, by mystic birth,
The Lord of life be born in earth.

07 December 2010

Christmas 1941 - David McCullough

06 December 2010

Il est né le Divin Enfant...

03 December 2010

Ave Maria...

02 December 2010

An Old Ukranian Christmas Carol...

01 December 2010

Christmas Eve 1914 - Part II

29 November 2010

Christmas Eve 1914 - Part I

08 November 2010

Recommended Reading...

If you have been wondering what it might be that drives President Obama's focus, attention, and decisions I recommend the unfortunately-titled "The Roots of Obama's Rage" by Dinesh D'Souza, president of King's College in New York.

It explores the President's own writings in "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" searching for his psychological drivers.

Far from an anti-Obama rant, I found the book to be a quick read that succinctly examines the President's personal history and his policy decisions, as well as some of the previously inexplicable behaviors such as returning the bust of Winston Churchill that was in the Oval Office.

As Ayn Rand repeatedly asserted in "Atlas Shrugged", when we see a contradiction we need to re-examine our assumptions because there are no contradictions. 

This book was an interesting and enlightening read that will help conservatives and liberals alike understand the roots of their frustrations with President Obama. 

05 November 2010

Sexism or Ideology....

Okay, anyone who voted for a candidate other than Barack Obama in November of 2008 had to at least hear the broad accusation of racism. 

In my case, the accusation came directly from members of my own family.  They would not accept that my sole reason for opposing then-candidate Obama's bid for the presidencey of the United States was my diametrically opposed political and economic views. 

Mr. Obama was also virtually beyond criticism in the press.  Any mention of his middle name was taboo.  And on, and on, and on.

But did anyone notice the fact that the high-profile women who were closely aligned with the Tea Party movement were treated very differently?

It was alright to caricature them as bimbos; to point at their quirkiness; to mock their appearance; to question their intelligence, integrity, or intellect.

Did anyone fear being called a sexist?  No.

What is that all about? 

It seems that, just as it was in junior high school, the loudest, most assertive ones - regardless of the validity of their view or the level of their ignorance - are heard and not questioned.  Some people, just as they did then, put their heads down, look away, and pretend not to hear what they are hearing.  Other people, the weak-minded or insecure, allow their opinion to be swayed by the brash bully and quietly repress any urge to think critically or to consider the "universe of information" regarding that person.

How is it that people of integrity and sincerity are defamed, while double-speakers and deviants are excused and glorified?

To Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, Meg Whitman and all the others who were denied the full support of the Republican Party while being subjected to the crudest and most degrading treatment by the Democrat Party and its minions, I say, "Do not give up the fight! 

"Your voices were heard because they were the voices of the quiet, hardworking, traditional and conservative majority of Americans.  Your loss in this election was only a battle.  It came because the process of unveiling the eyes and enlightening the minds of Americans dulled by generations of teachers who preached the gospel of mediocrity is a slow and laborious process. 

"Do not give up the fight!  Your voices, carrying our voices, were the first note of a chorus that can, will, must swell to fill the continent.  We say with you and through you, 'Leave us alone!  Let us try, succeed, fail or excel on our own!  We are Americans; our tradition is one of exceptionalism!  Allow it to be so and step out of our way!' 

"With you, we reject mediocrity.  With you, we reject dependency.  With you, we reject oppression.  With you, we reject the iron hand of soft tyranny.

"And with you, we embrace liberty in all its senses, with all of its individual responsibility and accountability, with all of its risks and rewards.  It is a heavy burden, but one we eagerly and willingly seek to bear."

You see, it is the ideology of that sacred and powerful principle of personal liberty that we seek, we Americans. 

This election of 2010 was more a cry for liberty than it was a rejection of Democrat ideas or an embracing of Republican promises.  It was a cry.  A deep, angry, primal cry.  One uttered by mankind since stone ages.  It is determined, demanding, and dangerous to any who will openly oppose it. 

29 October 2010

My Dad...

On Sunday, 17 October 2010, my father passed away.

This has been a hard month!

Here's the talk I gave at his funeral.  The tone and content are different from my brother's funeral.  I wanted to explain to people why my dad was so hopeful and cheerful right up to the end.

First, on behalf of my family, I want to thank each of you for being here today. And I want you to know that my dad would remember and recognize each of you and be able to tell you exactly what impact you had on his life. He was a person who loved readily and who enjoyed so much about the people who came into his life. Thank you for taking this time to remember him.

Shortly after my dad was diagnosed with cancer for the third time, a writer with the local newspaper contacted my mom and dad. She was writing a feature on couples who were dealing with terminal illness, and wondered if Jim and Mary would be willing to tell their story. They were, and the article was published. I remember seeing the article and being struck by the photos of the couples who participated. Some were obviously torn with pain and anticipatory grief; Jim and Mary were smiling and obviously in love. The comments of the couples were also interesting. While some were despondent, Jim and Mary’s comments were cheerful. They were not deluded. They were hopeful. But their hope was not that somehow Jim would escape cancer’s devastating grasp. It was something else.

And that brought to mind Peter’s advice to Christ’s early church as he wrote in the New Testament book of 1 Peter, chapter 3, verse 15: “…and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you….”

Jim was a person whose “hope” was firmly rooted in his faith in Jesus Christ.

That faith began with the idea that God was his Heavenly Father and that, as such, God had a plan for Jim’s life – just as he has a plan for the lives of all his children. As Jim understood it, God’s plan involved three things: 1) gain experience; 2) gain knowledge; and, 3) prepare to return to God when this mortal life is over.

Jim also believed firmly that happiness was the main goal of God’s plan for his children. In fact, one of his favorite quotes came from Joseph Smith, who taught that, “happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof if we pursue the path that leads to it.”

That happiness is peace, and it comes in right living. It does not equate to life without troubles or worries. Rather it is an assurance and a reassurance.

Those who knew Jim would certainly say that he was a cheerful, happy person. He was the kind of person who always met you with a smile and when he asked you how you were doing, you knew he really wanted to know. He tried to live the “Golden Rule” and to treat others as he would want to be treated.

Jim was eternally curious. He wanted to know about everything and wanted to experience as much as he could. There is so much to experience and to learn that is wonderful and pleasurable and enjoyable and, as long as it didn’t cost very much money, my dad was up for the experience. From raising sheep to flying gliders, Jim was ready to try.

Of course, mortality has a down side, too. As part of God’s plan, our mortal existence has pain, struggles, disappointments and sorrow. Jim knew his share of these with mortal frailties, professional disappointments, physical sickness and pain, and the loss of a child. So, why and how did he have the “hope” Peter talked of?

Sometimes the burdens of this life can seem too great to bear by ourselves.

As prophets have taught through the ages, Jesus Christ came to take upon himself our sorrows, our sufferings, the pain of our mistakes and lapses in judgment, as well as to suffer the consequences for our sins. IF WE WILL LET HIM, he will take our pain from us. IF WE WILL LET HIM, he will replace the weight of our burden with his peace.

Perhaps the most generous and loving invitation in all scripture is found in Matthew, chapter 11, verses 28 through 30, where the Savior pleads with us, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

When life gave Jim something that was just too heavy for him to carry, he often turned to the Savior, Jesus Christ, and traded his burden for “light”.

Another thing that is part of this life, and a part that separates us from God’s presence, is the death of our physical bodies. That’s really the reason we’re here today, isn’t it? We want to celebrate the life of someone we loved and to comfort each other in our loss. But what is the outcome of this death?

Paul taught the Corinthians, in his first letter to them, the 15th chapter and 22nd verse, that, “as in Adam all shall die, even so, in Christ shall all be made alive.” In other words, while none of us will make it out of this life alive, all of us will enjoy the free gift of resurrection because of Jesus Christ. That means that regardless of what we have done or not done; what we believed or disbelieved; all of us will have our spirit reunited with our perfected bodies and that we will live forever.

Amulek, an ancient prophet taught that, “There is a death which is called temporal death, and the death of Christ shall loose the bands of this … death, that all shall be raised from … death. The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame … and we shall be brought to stand before God …. Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame …. This mortal body is raised to an immortal body … that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided….”

And so, the short answer to the question that came to my mind after reading the newspaper article years ago is, “My mom and dad enjoyed peace of mind because of the hope that they had – and have – in the power of Jesus Christ to reclaim them from death, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to redeem them from sin.”

I have that same hope. I feel it deeply and know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world; and that he has power to take our burdens and make them light. And I say this in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

14 October 2010

Election Law Violation...?

Many of us have heard about the US Department of Justice's decision not to prosecute voter intimidation cases when the victims are white.

That is a sad fact, but a fact just the same.

Now we have another instance of election law violation.  It was probably inadvertent and almost certainly (greater than 85% probability) did not change the voter's preference.  However, it was wrong.  And the fact of who violated the law makes it that much more concerning. 

According to the Drudge Report, Mrs. Obama engaged in a brief political discussion inside a polling place while voting early in Illinois.

I would normally link to an article, but in this case, I have just copied it from http://www.drudgereport.com/.

FIRST LADY CAMPAIGNS INSIDE POLLING PLACE

Thu Oct 14 2010 16:19:25 ET

First lady Michelle Obama appears to have violated Illinois law -- when she engaged in political discussion at a polling place!

The drama began after Mrs. Obama stopped off at the Martin Luther King Center on the south side of Chicago to cast an early vote.

After finishing at the machine, Obama went back to the desk and handed in her voting key.

She let voters including electrician Dennis Campbell, 56, take some photos.

"She was telling me how important it was to vote to keep her husband's agenda going," Campbell said.

According to a pool reporter from the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES at the scene, the conversation took place INSIDE the voting center, not far from the booths.

Illinois state law -- Sec. 17-29 (a) -- states: "No judge of election, pollwatcher, or other person shall, at any primary or election, do any electioneering or soliciting of votes or engage in any political discussion within any polling place [or] within 100 feet of any polling place."

A top Ilinois State Board of Elections official tells the DRUDGE REPORT that Mrs. Obama -- a Harvard-educated lawyer -- may have simply been ignorant of the law and thus violated it unintentionally.

"You kind of have to drop the standard for the first lady, right?" the official explained late Thursday. "I mean, she's pretty well liked and probably doesn't know what she's doing."

WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS ELECTIONEERING

When questioned about the brazen nature of Mrs. Obama's campaigning, press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the action.

"I don't think it would be much to imagine, the First Lady might support her husband's agenda," Gibbs smiled.

Developing...











11 October 2010

Paul...

On Friday, September 24th, my youngest brother, Paul killed himself.

I'm going to miss him for the rest of my life.

Paul was 12 years old when I joined the Army.  After that, we didn't see much of each other until about 4 years ago, when he met his wife, Justine.  Since then, Paul and I had become close friends.

Justine asked me to speak at his funeral.  Here's what I said.

Years ago I called my mom. One of my brothers and I had gotten into a discussion about which of us four boys was her “favorite” and I was going to settle the issue.


I asked, “Mom, who was your favorite child?”

Without hesitating, her response was quick and frank, “Oh! Paul.”

I think that we all here knew Paul in some pretty diverse ways and circumstances. Some of us played hard with him. Some of us worked hard with him. Some of us grew up with him. Some of us raised him.

All of us loved him.

And all of us knew some common things about Paul.

Paul was a person who did everything with enthusiasm. He put everything he had into whatever was at hand. Enthusiasm was his trademark.

Paul looked like the kind of guy you never wanted to meet in a dark alley, and he was the kind of guy you wanted to have with you in a fight. He was big, powerful, alert and loyal.

Paul had a sense of justice that guided him in almost everything he did.

When Paul was a teenager he was driving across the Bay Bridge in my dad’s Jeep. He accidentally cut a man off at the toll plaza and the man got upset. Paul gestured an apology, but the other driver would not let it go. Finally, after extended verbal abuse, Paul agreed to get through the toll booth and settle the matter on the side of the road. When the other driver got out of his sports car Paul saw that he was no less than six feet, five inches tall and easily fifty pounds heavier than Paul was. Not one to run, but also not foolish, Paul picked an old axe handle out of the back of the Jeep. The fight was short and settled decisively.

Paul never wanted trouble in anything he did, but when it came he faced it head-on and used every resource available to own and resolve the problem.

Paul had his leg amputated and returned to work within two weeks of the operation. He walked on a temporary prosthesis while the swelling went down. Those who know Paul’s work will know that he never had a comfortable office job. At the time he was working on a concrete crew. One afternoon shortly after the operation, dusty, scratched, scraped and bloody, he was driving home and saw a cardboard sign that read “Hungry. God Bless!” His sense of justice was severely offended and he pulled his truck to the side of the road. He got out, walked around the front of the truck, and removed his right leg. Shaking it at the comfortable-looking young man who held the sign he shouted, “Get a job, you bum!” Then, feeling a little better, he got back into his truck and continued home.

Paul was intolerant of laziness, but eternally willing to help the weak and truly needy. I’ve seen that side of him as he has played and interacted with my children. I’ve seen that side of him as he has guided amateurs and tourists through piles of whitewater.

On one trip Paul was leading, a boat guided by another person and belonging to another company than the one Paul was with turned over. The boat, loaded with a group of middle-aged women friends from the Midwest, was ahead of Paul’s boat as it attempted to negotiate an eight-foot waterfall. Despite the guide’s best efforts, the boat capsized and its occupants were thrown into the cold, roiling water. The women panicked. Several of them started having anxiety attacks. Paul steered his boat over the falls, then rowed back up the river to where the women were all floating on their backs in an eddy. He spoke calmly, firmly and reassuringly to them and, despite the fact that every one of them outweighed him he pulled them into his already full boat one at a time and took them to the shore.

I’ve seen that side of him as he has cared continually for my dad in his last and hardest years of cancer. He’s done simple things like making sure my dad gets to watch enough Military Chanel to remember he’s a man, and taking him with him to the hardware store, and sneaking him away to have a steak instead of one more chicken breast for dinner.

Paul had an intensely pure heart. He only wanted good. Good fun. Good work. Good friends. A good life.

And he found that with Justine. In the four or so years that Justine has been in his life, I got to know Paul better than in the twelve years we lived together growing up. Thanks to Justine, Paul became my brother and not just a sibling.

When I heard that Paul was dead, one of my first thoughts was that there was no one there to meet his spirit. No parent, no close grandparent, no one. And then in my mind’s eye I saw Paul. He was walking in a big open space toward another person.

I thought it was weird and wondered who he was walking to. Then I saw that Paul was walking toward Jesus. And Jesus had his arms stretched out to welcome him. They hugged and Jesus started showing Paul around, making sure he was comfortable, and explaining the next steps; what he could expect and what to look out for – a lot like Paul used to give people his river safety briefings before a trip.

And my heart was comforted.

I am certain that all the pain that Paul lived with will be healed through Jesus Christ’s atonement. And I am certain that the pain we feel at the loss of Paul can also be healed through Jesus if we will let it be.

Paul, we say “thank you” for being part of our lives and for letting us be part of yours. We miss you and we love you.

29 September 2010

A Personal Epiphany...

I have been aided in experiencing a personal epiphany and understanding my anxiety regarding "radical Islam" by the Center for Security Policy.  I'd like to thank them.

You see, for years I have sought to understand at least two things about Islam.

1.  Where are the "mainstream" Muslims who do not support jihad? 

Islam is not a "centralized" religion like Roman Catholicism or Mormonism.  Therefore, there are many "mainstreams".  A radical (root-ical) dividing line is their adherence or deference to shariah law.  Indonesia, a virtually all-Muslim state, does not adhere to shariah law.  It is a secular republic of Muslim citizens.  Iran does adhere to shariah law and is a "caliphate" of sorts.  It's laws and social norms are based almost entirely on the teachings of the Kuran.

As with many groups, the more violent and vocal members steer at least the behavior, if not the beliefs, of other less enthusiastic members.

2.  How can one oppose the spread of Islam without contradicting the Natural right of freedom of conscience? 

Shariah law is the true threat to civilization as we know it.  It seeks to impose Kuranic rules on every person and to govern all aspects of personal, political, military, economic, industrial, financial, marital, vocational, etc. life in accordance with the teachings of Allah as revealed to Mohammed and as interpreted by clerics of Islam both living and dead.  IT IS TOTALITARIANISM.

So the answer is not to prohibit Islam.  Islam is a legitimate religion and philosophy.  The answer is to prohibit shariah because it violates virtually all of the Natural rights valued by Western civilization and protected by the US Constitution.

Here is a link to a wonderful study done by the
Center for Security Policy
It is not anti-Islamic or hateful or inflamatory.  It is well-written and well-considered.

I recommend it for your reading.  Because it is more than 300 pages long, please feel free to save the electronic version and read it at your leisure or to purchase the paperback version from Amazon.com. 

This Is Tragic - and Revealing...

Malian White Slavery

The link above takes you to a BBC article on slavery within Africa. 

Nigerian girls are kidnapped and moved to Mali where they are forced into white slavery.  The current estimated number of girls taken and held is about 30,000.

It makes me sick to think of the kind of abuse these children endure for the sake of a slaver's profit and a man's pleasure.  There is no punishment sufficient on this earth for those who victimize children like this.

Demographics are interesting.

Until 20 years ago, Nigeria was primarily a Christian country.  Of course there was a healthy dose of aboriginal tradition mixed in there.

A civil war, based on religion, has raged in the country for years and now less than 50% of the population adheres to a Christian faith. 

If you'd like to hear horror stories, find a Nigerian refugee who has come to North America.  Odds are he or she is a Christian.  And odds are that he or she is the only surviving member of their family.

Mali, the destination country, is currently 90-95% Muslim. 

What makes Americans so naive as to believe that we can negotiate with people who hold the belief that this behavior is acceptable?  What makes Americans so naive as to believe that we can begin to understand people like this?  What makes Americans so naive as to believe that words have the same meaning to us as they do to them?

23 September 2010

I Like an Income Tax...

Is taxation fair? Is it a good idea?

How about an income tax?

Government, federal government, HAS to run at some level, right? In fact, the exact level at which it was designed to run is laid out in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. You can read it at the end of this thought.

So, government needs funding. No one disputes that. There are universal benefits from government. Almost no one disputes that.

It is clear, reading Section 8, that Congress has power to impose taxes on Americans. (What is not granted is power to redistribute tax revenue to poorer Americans.)

In America today income is taxed under a “progressive” scheme wherein wealthier people pay the largest share of their income, and poorer people actually receive a portion of the tax revenue and pay no income tax.

Some call this scheme “fair” because those who “can afford it” pay to help the “underprivileged” among us. In my opinion this progressive income tax actually serves to further disenfranchise the poor. Those who pay no taxes have no vested interest in their government. They have no OWNERSHIP stake in what government does, and hence are less prone to be concerned by its actions. In fact, it is only the exception to human nature that would reject an increased hand-out from a benevolent and tyrannical government.

Picture the state in which we now live. A very small minority of the American population, what is called by the media “top earners”, pay a disproportionately large part of the US’ income tax revenue. In fact, the Associated Press reported that the top 50% of earners in America pay more than 96% of the taxes!

So what portion of the population is apathetic when higher taxes on the “rich” are suggested? I most Americans are not apathetic, some of them certainly feel a degree of animosity toward the “rich” and want to see taxes increased on them. After all, a tax increase has no negative effect (some could argue that it has a net positive effect) on the “poor” and almost no detriment to the “middle-class”.

Now, imagine a society in which every wage earner was invested by virtue of the fact that he or she paid an absolute tax of 10% of every dollar earned. Currently, a worker who earns the national minimum wage would make slightly more than $14,000 per year. That worker would be responsible to pay $1,400 in taxes to support the government programs that are designed ostensibly to benefit all Americans. Of course, the “wealthy” person who earned $150,000 per year would pay somewhere upwards of $21,000 in taxes.

What do you think the national reaction would be if a politician suggested that it was necessary to increase taxes? I think it’s safe to say that objection to the new taxes would be almost universal.

So, I think that an income tax could actually be a GOOD thing for our country if it were applied fairly and equally.

Here’s the text of Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. These are the ONLY powers enumerated and allowed to the Congress by the Constitution. By virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendments, all other powers are reserved to individuals or to the states as their citizens allow.

One note about the portion of the first paragraph below: “provide for the … general welfare” means that an act of congress must be designed and intended to benefit the populace in general and not to benefit or harm individuals specifically.

Anyway, Section 8 reads:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

11 September 2010

Remember...

It was about 7:30am on 11 Sep 2001.  It was the second full week of my MBA program and I was opening my locker, getting my text books out for the day.

Janie was walking by and asked if I'd heard that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City.  We walked into the student lounge and joined a small group of our classmates watching a small TV that showed smoke pouring from the "Twin Towers".

The rest is history.

It was eerie, the feeling I had while watching the fires and collapses.  I was sick to my stomach.  My body didn't want to move, while my mind screamed at me that I should get back to studying. 

I remember the absolute quiet of the skies as no aircraft were allowed to fly in the country.  It was strangely peaceful to be outside in the crisp fall air.  The sky was blue and void of the contrails that had cluttered it longer than I'd been alive.  I remember thinking how incongruous it was that it was so beautiful on such a horrific day.

Since that day when nearly 3,000 Americans were killed, thousands more have followed them fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Tens of thousands have suffered life-shattering injuries and will never be their "old" selves again....

...

09 September 2010

Is The 4th Amendment Dead?...

I walked through airport security in Phoenix, Arizona a few days ago.

As I gathered my belt and my shoes I thought, as I always do, “It would be easier if we shipped our belongings via UPS and just fly naked.”

Then I saw an elderly Asian woman hunched in a wheelchair. She was being patted down by a female TSA employee. Another TSA worker was going through every pocket and pouch in her designer carry-on bag.

This isn't the first time the disparity between the profile of the alleged 9/11 hijackers and the people I've seen shaken down by TSA has struck me.

Years ago I saw a young couple with a baby in a stroller penned in a glass enclosure while TSA workers rummaged through their diaper bag. Across the security area, in a similar glass cage, an elderly woman looked bewildered and frightened as a TSA employee shouted at her, asking if "this" was her bag.

I was incensed by the outrageous treatment of these two parties and, as I gathered my belongings at the end of the roller line, I said to the TSA worker watching me, "You people need to update your profile."

"What?" was his reply.

"I said you need to update your profile."

"Why?"

"Because I'm telling you that the old lady over there is not the one today. And neither is that couple."

The TSA worker was stunned. His confused but indignant response was, "We don't profile!"

I replied, "Maybe you should start," and walked to my gate.

If young male Islamic extremists who were nationals of Middle Eastern countries really did execute the 9/11 attacks, why are we not looking for people like them? Why are we looking "equally" at US citizens, who are Caucasian, Christian, elderly, married and female? Truthfully, I have never seen anyone remotely matching the description of the 9/11 hijackers scrutinized by airport security.

This leads me to considering the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution which reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The 4th Amendment was intended, in at least one dimension, to protect Americans - and those with vested interests in and relationships with America - against the use of “general warrants” by the government. A general warrant was issued to give local law enforcement and agents of the king authority to search broadly for subversive materials or goods suspected of having evaded taxation. General warrants or “writs of assistance” were commonly used by the King of England to ferret out political dissidents.

Over time, US Courts have relaxed the protections of the Amendment with justifications of expediency or the public interest and have expanded an even less stringent interpretation of the 4th Amendment to give administrative branches of government more search power than law enforcement agencies have.

I researched the history of the 4th Amendment at FindLaw.com. It’s a very interesting site for that type of stuff.

A person's right to privacy guaranteed under the 4th Amendment is seriously abridged in an airport facility. TSA is not a law enforcement agency. Courts have historically (since the 1990s) ruled that this type of agency is under no obligation to demonstrate reasonable cause before searching any aspect of a person or their belongings as long as the agency feels that its interests outweigh the interests of the individual. (Who sees the problem with that reasoning?)

Ironically, there is nationwide outrage about the idea that Arizona's new "anti-illegal immigration" law might violate a person's right to privacy. How much more invasive is a pat-down or a strip search in an airport facility than a police officer asking me my immigration status while arresting me for committing a crime?

So, we have a tyrannical monarchy that used general warrants to justify searches for subversive materials among its subjects in the 17th and 18th centuries. This is one of the tools the crown had to maintain its power and control over the people. We have a revolution that establishes a new nation based on the premise of Natural and inalienable rights. Over time, we have a people who grow complacent and a government that grows hungry for power and control over the people.

Is it a conspiracy? It’s certainly the natural progression of things.

The net effect of the increased "security" measures is to habituate me to submitting to search by any government agency. This extends to me being "okay" with the government having access to my bank records, my internet history, my library books, my use of toll roads, and virtually all other things that I do.

After all, I have nothing to hide!

This makes it possible for the collective sheriff’s departments of the state of North Carolina, as they recently did, to request access to a data base of medical and psychiatric patients’ names and the prescription medications they are taking – under the auspices that this access will make it easier for them to enforce federal drug laws and stop thousands of deaths due to accidental overdoses – and Americans collectively don’t bat an eye. Isn’t that one of the most sacrosanct of relationships, the doctor-patient privilege?

Again, I have nothing to hide. But if I’m running for mayor, I may not want members of the local law enforcement community to know that three years ago I took heavy psychotic medication to treat severe depression and thoughts of suicide following some traumatic incident in my life. (I didn’t, by the way. And I’m not running for mayor, either.)

This shift away from the protections of the 4th Amendment has happened gradually. If the US Government had suddenly implemented all these changes in one day, I would like to think that there would have been such vehement opposition that the restrictions would have been repealed immediately.

But little by little civil liberties have been taken from the people and the power of government has grown beyond any bounds intended by the founders.

How will we reclaim our Natural rights? How will our government remember that its proper role is one of protector, and not parent or oppressor?

The answer is more complex than “no incumbents” or “get rid of Obama”. This is a puzzle that should inspire the true liberal and the true traditionalist alike. Let’s work together on it.

I Missed This News From July - And March 2010...

Thinking about this rather whacky pastor in Florida who wants (or wanted) to set aside a day to burn copies of the Kuran-Koran-Quran has led me to think.

Many people are upset about his plan.  People on the political right and left have found a cause even more unifying than their support of the "Ground Zero Mosque".  They rush to anyone who will listen to warn of sending the "wrong message" to Muslims around the world.

We don't want to offend them!  This will just add fuel to the fire!  We must show our tolerance!  And on, and on, and on....

Comments and "reasoning" like those I hear on the news and in commentary blogs only show a lack of connectivity with the realities of the world we live in. 

First, if you believe the official report, we did NOT start this fight.  Only a 9/11 "Truther" would believe otherwise.

Second, if the continuing presence of 50,000 American troops in Iraq and 135,000 more in Afghanistan has not already upset the Muslim world, not much else will.  Conversely, if the Muslim world is already offended by our occupation of so much of their "turf", they won't be pacified until we have left - even if no one burns a copy of the Koran.

Third, regardless of who started the fight between the USA and "Radical Islam", Muslims all over the world have been slaughtering non-Americans for a long time.  Years.  Decades.  Centuries.  This is their way of life.  This is their primary method, historically speaking, of proselyting.  They will kill you until you confess Allah and become a Muslim.  If you think I am exaggerating, please follow this link for a Religion Of Peace Update.  It's a short news article from Australia about some killings in Africa. 

Our news outlets don't report this kind of stuff because African lives are worth less than  Arab or American lives.  They must be hanging on to that old "Three Fifths Compromise" idea that was so publicly popular with Democrats until the late 1960s. 

Right about here I want to launch into an unreasoned rant and tell everyone to just pull their heads out of their fourth point of contact and look around!  You'll see that the world today doesn't match the things you've been taught by teachers, parents, news reporters or politicians.  It's a mean, nasty, politically incorrect reality we live in - even if we're unaware of it!  And our enemy (we really do have one) is exploiting our weak-mindednesss to our detriment.

But I won't rant.  I'll continue making my observation and wrap up my comments, leaving them open-ended.

I'm not a big fan of burning books.  It smacks of Nazism and reminds me of stories from the Bible and other scriptures about burning people and things because of philosophical disagreements.  But if you want to have a fire, heck, the US Congress is okay with you burning the US flag; why not someone's holy text, too?

30 August 2010

An Open Letter to John McCain

Senator McCain:

You have won the primary election in Arizona and you will be the Republican candidate from Arizona for the US Senate.

Your tried and proven tactic of moving radically away from left-center and toward the right in an election year, combined with an unusually negative ad campaign against JD Hayworth, was successful.

I want you to know that, just as I promised in February, I joined the Republican Party so that I could easily vote in the primary against you and for JD. I voted for JD because I believe he is more of a true constitutionalist than you are. I believe he is more dedicated to preserving the personal liberties that the founders called "Natural rights".

I encourage you to be true to your recent tack to the "right" and to recommit yourself and submit your personal agenda to the preservation and restoration of the liberties our country was born to protect.

Please, Sir, do not sell us out. Do not return to your "maverick" and unpredictable ways. Please, Sir, stay true to the Constitution and to "we, the people".

Respectfully,

John N. Ellis

26 August 2010

Memories Of A Powerful Lesson...

I was just 18 years old. I'd skated through high school, studying only when it was measured and recorded. I was sharp enough to be able to sit in class, listen to the lecture and discussion, and glean enough good answers to pass tests with As or Bs.

And now I was in US Army Basic Training, surrounded by young men who struggled with remembering that the right hand and right foot are on the same side of the body. Some of them had never brushed their teeth or taken a shower in their lives. It was winter in Missouri, and the longer it took them to catch on to simple tasks like putting the fuze into a land mine ("righty tighty, lefty loosy") or disassembling an assault rifle, the more miserably cold I was - and the less patient I felt.

You see, I was one of the smartest people in the company. And for all I knew, I was probably one of the smartest people in the Army, if some of my drill instructors were a representative sample.

We'd spent the morning on the rifle range, firing at green plastic silhouettes holding painted AK-47s, the infantry weapon of choice of our enemy - Ivan the Communist. Now, it was time to march back to base for lunch. But before we left, true to form, our drill instructors decided it was time for a little physical training, just to whet the appetite.

PT, as we called it, was torturous. The drill instructors seemed to derive some sick pleasure from seeing us sweating, muscles shaking, faces and bodies covered with dirt, grass and twigs. And so they marched us into a large clear field. We placed our steel helmets and our rifles atop our rucksacks. Then we marched off into an extended formation for an hour of sheer agony.

It was a warm day, relatively speaking, and I knew it was only going to get hotter as soon as the PT Pain Train hit us. So I took my gloves off and tossed them under my helmet.

Marching out to the field I heard Staff Sergeant Mathis call me, "Ellis! Come on over here!" His tone was kind and disarming. "What's wrong with your hands?" he asked with concern.

"Nothing, Sergeant", I replied.

"Look at your hands and then look at the rest of the company. What do you notice?"

I gave him a blank look.

"Where are your gloves?" Still kind and concerned.

"Under my helmet, Sergeant. I knew it was going to get hot." I reasoned with him.

"Why don't you go get them." A statement, and I trotted off to retrieve my gloves. I'd gone about 5 yards when "YOU'D BETTER RUN!" boomed after me and I sprinted there and back.

"Ellis, have you ever done the 'Locomotion'?" Sergeant Mathis asked.

"No, Sergeant," was my watery reply.

Sergeant Mathis then demonstrated a method of walking in which hands are clasped behind the head and, neck and back straight and erect, the victim walks - or runs - touching knees to elbows. He ordered me to run around the extended formation, a circuit of about 100 yards, 3 times and report to him behind the formation of my peers.

I was out of breath when I finished the assignment, but my anguish was not sufficient for Sergeant Mathis. For the next 15 minutes he proceeded to "grass drill" me, running me through a rapidly changing series of push-ups, sit-ups, and running in place. By the time he yelled "Stop!" I had been reduced to tears.

As I sobbed, down in my 3-point stance, Sergeant Mathis quietly asked, "Ellis, do you know why I did that?"

"N-n-no, Sergeant-t", came my reply.

"I did that because you need to understand that you are part of this unit, and part of this Army. You may be smarter than some, and you may catch on quicker than others, but you are not better than any other member of this team."

That experience in humiliation was intensely focusing. I learned a lesson that should have come from Sunday School, or from my parents. In all honesty, it probably had come from those places, but, as the saying goes, when the student is ready, the teacher appears.

I was ready. The teacher appeared. And my life, the way I see and treat others from all walks of life and all levels of society, was changed forever. I suddenly and deeply understood that we are all pilgrims and we are all strangers and we all have things to give and things to learrn. I was not a higher quality human being because I had better hygiene practices. I was not a better person because I was a brighter student.

All of us have an obligation to use the gifts God has given us to improve the world we live in. All of us have an obligation to treat each other well.

As a post script, three soldiers in the rear of the formation, closest to the site of my destruction, looked and laughed as I was being torn down one piece at a time. Their behavior didn't escape Sergeant Mathis' attention and, when he'd sent me back into formation he called the three gigglers out.

What I'd just gone through suddenly looked like a warm-up!

The post script taught me that there can be compassion in discipline, and that there is justice in the world.

12 August 2010

Thoughts On My Own Self-Betrayal...

In my personal culture quick conformity and prompt obedience have always been valued traits. My father was a mechanical engineer and my mother was an English teacher, so structure and order and rules and laws were always paramount. Form followed function and whimsy was almost never acceptable.


Even in play, we were taught the principles of "success". One of my mother's favorite games was "Scrabble". If you want a more rule-bound game, I don't know if you will find it. Points are clearly defined, words are perfectly spelled, and placement on the board is governed by a rigid grid.

My father is a terrible speller who did not enjoy "Scrabble", but who, when he did play, liked rule-bound games as well. "Hide-and-Seek" became an exercise in reducing noise and movement, avoiding silhouettes and shadow casting, precise movement and patient waiting.

Creativity was not forbidden. It was simply never a consideration.

In religious practice, I had two examples, as well. My father was almost obsessively committed to the physical rituals of the church. He was determined to attend every meeting and to fill each assignment as if it were the only thing he had to do.

My mother was never moved by the faith, but she doggedly followed the culture, attending women's meetings, teaching Sunday School when asked, and trying to keep up with expectations. She always had a smiling face and a cheerful answer when anyone asked about anything. Even when it wasn't true.

Discipline was strict and physical from both of my parents, and its enforcement was far from capricious. In fact, it seemed to me that every chance to correct behavior was taken. Failure to comply with a firm set of rules resulted in pain.

So, when I graduated high school and enlisted in the Army, following direction and obeying rules was the least of my concerns. I did that almost automatically.

My level of compliance was convenient. It required almost no thought and did not allow for introspection. In retrospect I can see that self-betrayal was the price of that convenience.

The first time I am aware of betraying myself in favor of compliance, I was a junior in high school. My ambition then was to be an architect and to design homes and mixed-use spaces. Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo, California had a fine architecture program and ran a summer architecture experience for young people like me. I was excited to attend and to launch my education and begin my career.

On the first day of the three-week work shop we were given an assignment to design a living space much like a condominium. I was completely engaged until the instructor told us that we should not consider whether or not our design was buildable, but only think about the form of the thing. Alarm bells went off inside my head. The engineer-father scoffed at the notion; the grammarian-mother couldn't even consider the possibilities of working outside the world of the expected.

And in that moment, even before I realized it, I betrayed myself. I submitted my dreams to the authority of my parents. I decided that architecture was not for me.

I don't say that submission to authority is always wrong. In fact, sometimes it is exactly the thing to do. I do say, however, that questioning authority with the purpose of understanding; and questioning self for the same ends, is not only good, but right for each of us to do.

Since that moment - and probably long before - self-betrayal has been a way of life for me. I did not want to let others (read: parents, peers, teachers, employers, spouse, etc.) down, and I never learned to consider myself. Only recently have I begun questioning the institutions that have been most sacrosanct in my life - my work, my country, my religion and my family.

What began as a scary proposition - this questionning - one that was completely foreign and virtually forbidden, has become a painful and pleasurable, exhilerating and confusing, dark and enlightening journey. I have found more faith and less blindness, more love and less fear, than I ever imagined in the world.

I am determined to learn how to help my children avoid the self-betrayal and faithless following that has taken me so long to even recognize.

And I am still waiting to find the self that I began betraying before I knew I was doing it.

11 August 2010

Caveat Emptor...

Buyer, beware!

The recent decision in California of a single judge to negate the voice of the majority of the state's voting population - and a large majority, at that - should ring alarm bells inside the head of every person who hears of it!

What? you say.  Even those homosexuals who are longing to enter into the "holy order of matrimony" should worry?

Absolutely.  And Joe Biden said it best in a speech on the floor of the US Senate years ago, when Republicans controlled both houses of congress.  He warned that, while the Republicans were in the majority then, they would not be always and they should watch what they do and how they do it.

You see, today it was a "progressive" judge whose personal bias informed his decision to invalidate due process and constitutionality.  It was a big "win" for progressive people and for those who are sympathetic to the cause of homosexual marriage.

But tomorrow it may be a "conservative" judge, a "biggoted" judge, or a "Christian" judge on the bench.  And the issue may be the environment or immigration or some other cause that fires the imagination and stirs the secular-progressive heart.  He - it will certainly be a late-middle-aged white man - may decide that he has seen enough of those Jesus-haters who, like ancient pagans, worship Mother Earth and make a daily sacrifice to her of the prosperous life and hard work of Americans. 

And just as easily, that judge might rule that to restrict commerce and to confiscate the wealth of hard workers is a flagrant violation of the Constitutional principles on which this great - if flawed - nation was founded.  He may feel that reducing the standard of living in America to the equivalent of that of Cambodia is wrong.  He may strike down environmental laws.

The fact that our children have learned the religion of Earth for three generations will be irrelevant.  The fact that most of the people in America believe in the sanctity of Earth will be ignored.  Even if the people vote to make a law or to amend the Constitution to define goodness toward Earth, they will be powerless to protect Her.

Always, always, always remember that a sword will cut both ways. 

Much along the line of a popular anti-gun talking point that claims you should not carry a gun for self-defense because you are more likely to have it taken from you and used against you than you are to stop an attack, secular-progressives and ultra-traditionalists alike should be very concerned with this ruling.

05 August 2010

Jobs Bill Passes Senate...

Yesterday, the US Senate voted to approve a House bill appropriating $26,000,000,000 (billion) to fund state and municipal employment for 1 year.  Note that this bill is not intended to add any jobs to the economy.  It is designed ONLY to preserve state and municipal jobs that are already filled!  NO ONE WILL COME OFF UNEMPLOYMENT because of this spending.

What in the world are senators and representatives doing pooling personal and corporate tax money collected at a federal level and redistributing it to state and municipal workers? 

It seems that this is a problem for the 10th and 14th Amendments to resolve.  Shouldn't the US Supreme Court strike this act down? 

In Iowa the president of the AFSME (government employees union) has declared that this bill is essential because the families of government workers cannot afford to lose jobs right now.  That statement raises some questions in my mind.

First, when is a good time for a worker to lose his or her job?  And what makes this union president think that now is a good time for me and my family to pay for someone else to keep their job?

Second, why is this not funded by an increase in taxes so that this year every American pays an extra $80 in income tax this year?  Just add a line to the Form 1040, 1040 A and 1040 EZ that assesses each person on the tax return - including dependents - $80 to pay for a 1-year support fund for state and municipal employees.

Third, why is it alright for all Americans who earn enough money to pay income taxes to pay for someone else's livelihood for generations in the form of interminable debt payments?

And then we could fund the stimulus packages the same way.  Each trillion dollar unit would be directly assessed at a rate of $3,000 per person per year.  So, we don't incur anymore debt, right?

I'll bet we wouldn't see anymore stimulus, too!  My family alone would be on the hook for more than $20,000 per trillion.  I'd fight that.

31 July 2010

Most Curious...

I am, again, working out of state.  This weekend, however, is different.

When I checked into the Marriott I've virtually lived at since March, the hostess offered to move me from the 5th floor to the 8th floor on Friday morning (yesterday).  I told her I did not want to move, but she repeated her offer adding that the hotel was hosting an anime convention from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning and the young people might be noisy.  She said, in a low voice, "Um, Mr. Ellis, things get kind of weird around here."

Anime is that really terrible Japanese animation that brought us cartoons like "Speed Racer" in the 1980s.

I assured her that I had enough kids at home that a little noisy fun would not bother me.  That was Tuesday night. 

On Thursday afternoon, coming back in from work, I noticed a group of youths sitting in the lobby.  One girl was wearing a plush headdress that made her look like the Pokemon character Pik-a-chu.

By 10pm Thursday the hotel seemed full of young people who appeared to be what we used to call "mods" or "goths" or "emo's".  They were all nice enough, and seemed to be having a good time.  Things in the hall outside my room were pretty loud until after midnight, but I'm pretty easy going.

When I came in from work last night (Friday) just before 8pm the hotel was crawling with youths - and some people who were just too old to be dressing up - in costumes ranging from monsters to mutants to ninjas to nurses.  I stopped at the front desk and the hostess, Kari, said, "Mr. Ellis, I told you!  Things get weird around here!"  I agreed with her.

It's Saturday afternoon and more than 200 costumed anime fans are on the hotel patio watching 2 of their ninja brethren in a mock sword fight, played out to the beat of a kibuki drummer girl, interrupted periodically for a line or two of stand-up comedy from the black ninja.  (The red ninja appears to be the "straight man".)  And the crowd is clapping and laughing enthusiastically.  Blue wigs and huge furry ears are nodding with understanding. 

The black ninja is saying something they can relate to!

Walking below my window is a very large black woman in a Thumbelina-esque costume and a stick thin young white man wearing nothing but a criss-crossed belt for a shirt, black trousers, and a black military hat.  Quite a pair. 

For all the freakishness, though, I have to make a few observations.
1.  No one is walking around texting or even talking on a cell phone.  All of their interactions are really in person!
2.  No one has been obviously intoxicated, smoking cigarettes is very rare, and they are not cursing.
3.  No one is fighting.  In fact there appears to be total love and acceptance of all by all.  They seem to be having a lot of good clean weird fun!

That's nice to see.

27 July 2010

The New Bill of Rights - And The Old One...

I got a kick out of this picture.  The resolution isn't what I'd like it to be, but it's clear enough to get the idea.

The bottom line is that we have to watch our representatives in Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court verrrry closely to ensure that they are not giving us a "New" Bill of Rights.


Just in case you've forgotten what all those Amendments were, here's a list of the first Ten.  It's a quick read, and one that is well worth your time.  Remember that what you read in a few short minutes is the fruit of literally thousands of years of human thought and countless attempts at self-government.

Do you remember anyone talking about Amendments 9 and 10 in your lifetime?  I know that I've never heard a word about Amendment 9, and the last time anyone mentioned Amendment 10 (who was not Governor Perry of Texas) was in 8th grade when we studied the Civil War.

Here you go.  Learn it.  Live it.  Love it.

The 1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


The 2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The 3rd Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


The 4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The 5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The 6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


The 7th Amendment
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


The 8th Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


The 9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


The 10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

13 July 2010

Which Is More Offensive...?

Here's a photo of an Iowa billboard.  Look at it and consider it along with the Democrat Congressman's statement in the post below.

Think deeply and decide which you find more offensive.  Why is that?


I frankly find it more offensive to be expected to believe a bald-faced lie told by an arrogant and condescending politician than to be invited to consider an opinion expressed by a passionate person, be they ever so rude or ignorant.

This Is UNBELIEVABLE!

How, in today's technological and political environment, can this California Democrat expect anyone - even a staunch ally - to believe his statement?

Despicable contempt shown for the intelligence of his constituents.

Breitbart.tv » Democrat Congressman ‘Unaware’ of the New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case

A Lot Can Happen In 20 Months...

Okay. Not too many of us "US Americans" are happy with the radical (meaning "having to do with the root") changes we've seen in our country in the past 20 months.

We've seen the debt skyrocket. When we consider the real cost of paying down the debt and funding all of the other entitlement obligations the United States has incurred, we realize that it is quite impossible. Literally, impossible.

We've seen cronyism at its best in the selective bailouts of banks and other businesses. Why did Lehman Brothers get help while Bear Stearns was allowed to fail? Why is GM still a going concern, while Chrysler is bankrupt and its assets are owned by a minor Italian car company? Why did congressmen and senators advocate in behalf of some GM dealerships, but not others, reversing the closings of the chosen few? Why were investors - private, legitimate investors - forced by the government to accept less than they were legally entitled to during the bankruptcy proceedings of some businesses?

We've seen stagnation in a war that the current administration said was not only necessary, but ultimately winnable. The military in Afghanistan has been given a mere fraction of the resources needed to accomplish their goals, while the president and his advisors are distracted by other matters.

We saw healthcare reform rammed through congress and down our throats inspite of the overwhelming resistance to a bill that no person in congress had read or understood, the full effects of which have yet to be felt because of the strategic timing of its effectiveness. The bill will not be fully enacted until after the president's reelection campaign in 2012.

We have seen the complete and utter mismanagement of an environmental disaster the likes of which the United States has never seen. From absolute corruption in the administration's oversight agency to apparent appathy on the part of the president, it has been an absolute goat rope.

We see the federal government suing the sovereign State of Arizona over a law enacted by the state legislature that simply - and almost completely - quotes and cites federal immigration law and requires peace officers in Arizona to also enforce those federal statutes during the routine course of responding to violations of other laws. (Contrary to what is commonly reported by liberal "journalists", this is not a license for policemen to stop a person who is not violating any other statute and ask for "their papers.")

We see congress seriously considering rewriting hundreds of years of case law regarding business and finance in a move to further fetter the freedom of economic markets that have brought the world its greatest wealth and prosperity in the history of the human race.

We can say that we're going to change things in November. We can say that we might even take away the statist control of the Congress. (NB: I did not say "Democrat control" because there are statists in the Republican party, too.)

So we take control of the Congress back for The People in November. The change won't take place until late January of 2011.  What legislation do you think is going to get passed in the intervening "lame duck" period? Look at what the statists have passed while purportedly worried about the chances of reelection! I really can't imagine what is coming down the proverbial pike.

I think we're in for quite an adventure. I'd like to see serious talk about repealing 100% of the legislation passed between 2007 and 2010! Consider each act on its own merits, and keep the ones that are good for the whole. Lose the rest!

09 July 2010

If You Own One, You Know It's True...

06 July 2010

Compensation And Newton's Third Law....

Newton's Third Law states roughly that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is interesting to consider in light of the discussion on compensation we had earlier.

If I put energy into a good or service, that energy must be taken out of the universe at large - or very often, out of my own body.

If I receive monetary compensation, that money must be taken out of someone else's bank account.

If I pour a glass of orange juice, the glass becomes full only at the expense of the pitcher.

If I throw a ball into the air, the earth pulls it back to itself with exactly the same amount of energy I put into the ball in the first place - and not one bit more.

So, why does it not follow that when I do good, when I am kind, when I love somewhere else in the world I have caused a bad, and unkindness, or a hatred? Because Nature, the Universe - God - is an infinite source of virtue and goodness. When we act with virtuous intentions and do things that cause good in our lives, the lives of others, and the world at large, Natural virtue compensates Newton's Third Law and goodness and virtue are actually multiplied, and not negated.

This is not theory. Simply look around. Simply search your memory. When you let someone pull in front of you in traffic, how much delayed were you in getting to your destination? When someone smiled at you in the store, how much more suffering do you think they endured later in the day? When we stop to cheer a friend, do we find more sadness in our lives?

There are laws that seem to govern the world we see, such as Newton's Laws and the Laws of Thermodynamics. But there are other, higher laws that govern the universe of the soul. And the soul has so much to do with the world we see.

When, however, we act with malice, with selfish intent, in spite or hate, we cannot reap goodness in the long term. Certainly, we may experience a momentary and temporal increase. But the bad we have sown in the world will surely come back to us. When we profit at another's expense, when we advance by forcing another to revert, when we gratify ourselves while humiliating another, we will reap the whirlwind we have sown. The pleasure is compensated for by an equal amount of pain; the gain is compensated for by an equal amount of loss.

And in the end - and perhaps sooner than that - we will see the costs we've inflicted on others return to us multiplied.

In the Old Testament story of Samuel the prophet, Samuel is instructed to choose the next king of Israel from Jesse's sons. When he sees how strong and handsome Eliab is, Samuel says in his heart that he has found the man. The Lord reproaches him and reminds Samuel that "man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."

Thus we see that God, Nature, the Universe, perceives our intentions, knows our struggles and our sorrows, understands our deepest desires, and passes perfect judgment. The law of compensation is based on this perfect insight and infinite discernment.

Thoughts On Compensation....

Compensation. It is a word with multiple meanings. Compensation can be pay, or a just reward for an action. Compensation can be a making up for a lack or weakness. Compensation can be a neutralization, such as an equal and opposite reaction to every action.

I think that the principle of Compensation is alive in the universe, in the world around us, and in our own individual lives. And I think that all three senses of the word mentioned above apply.

"Mythbusters" is a favorite television show in our house. In a recently screened episode the scientists worked to determine if two bodies (automobiles, in this case) colliding with eachother head-on, each traveling 50 mph resulted in a force equal to one car hitting a solid object (wall) at 100 mph. The initial thought was, yes, the forces would be cumulative. My intuition said the same thing.

However a small body of viewers asserted that the "equal and opposite" clause would result in a compensating force that would make the collision similar to a single car hitting a solid object at 50 mph.

They were correct. Nature compensated for the additional speed of impact and yielded a force that was equivalent to the second car, speeding at 50 mph into a head-on collision, simply standing still.

Our bodies compensate for weaknesses by developing dominant eyes, hands, feet, and brain hemispheres. We can compensate for an injury by using different muscles or body parts to perform routine tasks while we heal. Over the long term our bodies can alter their skeletal and muscular structure to compensate for and overcome permanent damage. I know a pilot who was shot down over North Viet Nam. While ejecting from his aircraft his back was broken in several places. Over years in a prison camp, without medical attention, the muscles along his spine grew stronger, providing support for the broken bones, until his bones fused back together.

In free market economies we see the price of labor, goods, and services rise or fall to their natural levels, with the producers of such resources compensated justly, or fairly for their added value. This happens without intervention by governments or other outside forces.

I think that there is also a metaphysical or spiritual law of compensation at work in the universe. The Preacher in Ecclesiastes said, "Cast thy bread upon the waters; for thou shalt find it after many days." In other words, we will reap what we sow in this world. The compensation may not be immediate; note the Preacher's use of the words "after many days." But it is sure.

And I don't think that needs to be a scary thing. In fact, it ought to be a hopeful and a happy thing for us. To know that Nature and the Universe are aware of the things we do, the thoughts we have, the hopes we carry in our hearts; and that They will compensate us for them, help us see them to fruition, give us the end product of them should give us great encouragement.

As Saint James taught, as surely as a fig tree bears figs, or an olive tree bears olives, we can be assured that our thoughts and hopes and wishes for good in the world will lead to good in the world and to our compensation with good in our lives.

And just as a tree cannot bear fruit without first producing a blossom, so we must produce that first blossom of goodness if we wish to see goodness return to us. Yet the fruit tree does not bloom of its own accord. The tree blossoms because Nature made it possible and Nature endowed it with the power to bloom. So with us; we cannot do good of our own power, but Nature has given us Its power to do good, and when we use the power for good that Nature bestowed on us we can hope for the eventual return of goodness' fruit to us in our lives.

Even the thought, or the desire is sufficient for us to begin to reap the benefit of goodness. And as we reap that benefit and feel its influence in our lives we come to know that the law of compensation is working for us. And we often come to desire more good, hence we do more good, hence we reap more good.

The cycle of virtue and goodness in the universe is an encouraging one. It is a hopeful one. It is one that shows a pattern to follow that has the ultimate potential of curing all the world's ills. As we think and act in goodness toward others, it tempers them and leads them to think and act in goodness toward yet others. And so on, and so on, until neighborhoods are changed, then communities are changed, then cities, then states, then entire nations are affected by goodness to act in goodness and virtue one with another.

You may say I'm a dreamer; but I'm not the only one. I hope one day you will join us, and the world will live as one.

20 June 2010

A Link From My Liberal Aunt and Some Thoughts...

Here's a link to an article my aunt sent to me today.  You all (left and right) should find this disturbing and very educational.  It's long, but not boring.

http://daviddegraw.org/2010/06/af-pak-war-racket-the-obama-illusion-comes-crashing-down/

This is what the right wing kooks like Glenn Beck and the others who were derided as "haters" have been saying since the campaign. President Obama is disingenuous at best, and an out and out liar at worst. He is not the man he wants us to believe he is.

He is nothing that he and the cooperative "mainstream" media portrayed him to be - an anti-war proletariat, a common man, a poor kid from a single-parent home who pulled himself up by the bootstraps - a sort of snapshot of America. He's none of those things. It can't even be argued effectively that he is an environmentalist.

He is changing the future of the country, setting it on a more left-leaning track with his appointments of judges and sponsorship of legislation that stifles the (illusion of) free markets in America. His antagonistic attitude toward business and contracts (bonuses on Wall Street and General Motors) has made America a less stable (more like Venezuela or China) place to do business because contracts may or may not be upheld by the state.

George Bush's bailout of Wall Street was a travesty that some may still argue was necessary, but it was a gigantic lurch to the left. The debt alone from that one act was enough to mortgage the future of the next two generations of Americans. Now we face litterally TRILLIONS MORE in debt that economists agree will NEVER be paid off because it is impossible to do so without completely dismantling the country.

Obama is a pawn to the same people that George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Bush Sr. were pawns to - the military-industrial complex and its masters. He's just not smart enough to know that, 18 months late, we've figured it out. Or he's too arrogant in his power to care.

I take no satisfaction in seeing this. I had hoped that he would be a leader. A real leader. Who would guide us through the last struggles of racial animosity and who would be diplomatic enough to maintain our friendships in the world, and heal the rough relationships we've developed in the past 20 years. I had hoped that he would be good for our country on both domestic and foreign fronts.

He's been disappointing to me most of the time, and scarry to me other times.

And the fact that our CONGRESS and SUPREME COURT allow this sort of behavior to continue makes me really worried. What happened to the checks and balances? It seems we've given away so many of them because it seemed like a good idea at the time, that we don't have many left. When congress gave George Bush (the presidency) war powers, it was a clear violation of the Constitution. But it seemed like a good idea to everyone (including Hillary Clinton) at the time. Now we see that a new president lacks the self control to give those powers back to the congress, and the congress lacks the spine to take them.

But still, the press gives this president a pass. Look at the BP disaster! This happened under an administration that actually had control of the industry!

George Bush was crucified for his bungling of Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. No federal agency had control over hurricanes or what path they were allowed to take. That disaster was almost entirely an act of God, as the insurance agency puts it. The only part government had was to neglect the dikes around the city and to give misinformation and incorrect instructions regarding evacuation. Nature started the disaster and government compounded the effects. (Why do we trust these people with our retirement savings and our healthcare?)

No one even dares to suggest that the Obama administration was so cozy with Big Oil that they turned a blind eye to the built-in problems that led to this mess. The Obama Minerals Management Service was asleep at the wheel. Some would argue that they were literally in bed with the companies they were supposed to be regulating. And his personal response time and obvious lack of engagement are pathetic. But he's discussed as "cool" and "reflective" and he's given the excuse that the presidency really doesn't have the skill or the tools to actually go and stop the leak. Few will point out that the Dutch oil skimming ships that could have saved billions of dollars and millions of sea creatures were kept out of US waters by the Obama EPA because they might not have captured 100% of the oil they skimmed out of the Gulf of Mexico. (Isn't any amount better than nothing?!)

Escalating the wars to points beyond those of President Bush, without any end in sight and, in fact, no visible progress in a year and a half has to be disappointing to many who elected President Obama. Although, in his defense, the president is consistent as he continues to show the contempt for the American fighting man that he did during the campaign. However, increasing the use of military contractors is an interesting inconsistency, as he was so adamantly opposed to their presence in war theaters during the campaign.

My bottom line is this: I hope that President Obama can pull his head out, get his act together, find the nerve to govern the country for the good of the country, and start to show some real leadership. I believe this will be difficult for him to do, as he has subjected himself to high doses of revolutionary rhetoric, low doses of reality, and has no moral compass. By that, I mean that he is a person who does not have a strong internal sense of what he believes is right and wrong. He is not guided by any principle that comes from a source higher than his own mind. Most of us have a moral compass that is informed by our belief systems, be they environmental, theological, or cosmic. President Obama is a firm believer in man, and man alone. That means that as man's society evolves, so does the value set that guides man's behavior. In other words, his belief system is laid on shifting sands.

The Tea Party movement is an interesting thing. In most cases, I believe that the people who participated in those rallies in 2009 were not saying that we needed a "third party". They were saying that today's Republicans and today's Democrats are essentially the same party, beholden to the same powers - the military-industrial complex, if you will. They were saying that we need a real SECOND party!

I agree. If the Republicans want to step up and be the ones who say "enough is enough", then they'll have my vote. If the Democrats are the first ones to do it, they'll have the same.  And if no existing party does, I'll be tempted to give - and will seriously consider giving - my vote to a third party.  After all, if the two traditional parties are esentially the same, then the "throwing away your vote" argument doesn't hold much sway.