What In The World Is Going On...?

This is a link to the IMPOSSIBLE!

No WAY!  I can't believe it!  Not under THIS administration!  Not under the "most ethical congress in history"!

I'm confused at how those corrupt bastard Republicans and Tea Partiers got in and got their corrupt bastard contractor cronies jobs under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Let's see, the Democrat party controlled the House of Representatives, the Democrat party controlled the Senate, the Democrat party controlled the Presidency, and Organized Labor both supports and controls the Democrat party.

And because it is an undisputed fact that Organized Labor has neither associations with corrupt contractors, nor a conflict of interest in government contracts, it is impossible that Organized Labor could have steered any of the "Stimulus" money to corrupt contractors.

Further, it is a well-known fact that supporters of Democrat candidates and regimes are in favor of high taxation and that they, on principle, would never dodge or avoid timely payment of their "fair share".  It's patriotic, after all, to pay more taxes.

I just don't get it.  Maybe Hillary Clinton was right in 1994; there must be a "vast right wing conspiracy" at work.

Kumbaya...

Tolerance and peaceful coexistence do not appear to be options in London...

I'm always curious when I see professionally printed signs at spontaneous rallies.  It makes me understand that this isn't a "reaction" to anything.  Rather, it's the outpouring of long-held beliefs and objectives.

Here's An Issue...

Here you go.  Follow this link to the Wall Street Journal

While so many are distracted by news from the Middle East, we see that food stamp recipients remained unchanged in February.  About 44 million Americans are getting assistance.  That's about 12%.

Those food stamp recipients can be converted almost directly to Democrat votes.  Consider the appeal of the Democrat platform and policies.  Higher taxes support more programs for the poor.  And because the poor do not pay income taxes (liberals say that they actually do pay a "negative income tax"), then higher income taxes do not affect them adversely.  Support for that sort of government spend-and-tax is almost universal among the poor.

Include the element of class warfare that is incessantly infused in every discussion of wealth or poverty by liberal politicians and their accomplices in the press.  "To each according to his needs; from each according to his ability!"

Add to that the 20% of Americans who are true-blue liberals and you only need to pick up 18% of the vote to win an election.

In light of this, it's easy to understand why policies and programs that fail to raise people out of poverty are so adamantly defended by Democrats.

The true purpose of the welfare state is to secure a block of voters, and not to eliminate poverty.  The true purpose of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare is to secure a block of voters, and not to preserve the dignity of the elderly.  The true purpose of expanding bureaucracy is to increase the number of voters who depend on big government spending, and not to better serve citizens.

If the Democrat candidate can count on 32% or more of the vote, and if true conservatives can count on their 20% "true believers", then the swing vote is not at all 60%.  It's more like 48%.  And getting 3/8ths of that group is simple.

So what is the real solution to the poverty question in America?

You May Notice...

You may notice that I have not commented on the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

Nor will I.

I refer you to my post of 28 April 2011.  Do not let yourself get distracted.

Government to Default If Debt Ceiling Not Raised...?

THIS IS A LIE! 

 Follow the link in that phrase to read an AP article that is just LYING to you.  (Unless, of course, we're borrowing money just to make our debt payments.  In that case, we can all just put our heads between our knees and....)

I've heard it for months now.  If the Congress does not raise the debt ceiling the United States will default on its loans outstanding.  In other words, people in the Obama administration, the US Congress, and the press are saying that if we can't borrow more money, we'll stop paying on the debts we ALREADY have.

I'm not sure how responsible people can continue to parrot this alarmism.

Here's the deal:  The United States has a debt.  That is the total amount of money borrowed from others and used to fund our government operations.

The United States also has a deficit.  That is the annual amount of money our government budgets to spend in excess of its "income" from taxation of its people and its corporations.

Those two terms are often used interchangeably, but in truth they are VERY different.

The issue at hand is whether or not Congress should raise the DEBT ceiling.  In other words, the Obama administration and the Democrat members of Congress are asking that they be legally allowed to borrow more money.  Essentially, they want to take out another mortgage and promise to repay it later.

Our current debt ceiling is just over $14 trillion.  And ... we have almost that amount of debt on the books right now.  If Congress doesn't change the law, we won't be able to issue more bonds and borrow more money.

Our current GDP is somewhere around $15 trillion.  In other words, we owe almost as much as our entire country PRODUCES in one year.  If every person and every company in America were to pay 100% tax - no food, no mortgage, no energy; just taxes - for one year, we would be able to pay off the principal on our loans.  Of course, at the end of the year, there wouldn't be much left of the country, either.

So, the president is asking for more.  If our government is not allowed to borrow more money, then it cannot expand programs.  It will be forced to "live within its means" just like its citizens!

But failing to raise the debt ceiling will have no effect on the country's ability to repay its existing debt. That money is provided for each year in the annual budget which, by law, must be completed by October of the year previous.  Unfortunately, the outgoing Congress failed to pass a budget in 2010 which would have provided for 2011.  Many blame Republicans for this, while ignoring the fact that the Democrat party controlled (by HUGE majorities) the House and Senate since 2007 and the Presidency since 2009.

So, it feels like I keep almost making my point.  For a government official or a "journalist" to allow anyone to believe that failure to raise the amount of money the government can legally borrow will result in a government shut-down or a government default on our debt is ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLE!

It will not happen.  We will continue to pay our debts.  We may be forced, however, to examine our on-going government programs and operations and make some reductions.

I personally think those reductions should be very targeted and begin with redundant bureaucracy, such as BATF&E and FBI.  After all, they both have inter-state powers to pursue violent criminals.  Or non-productive departments such as the Department of Education.  After all, there are no Federal Elementary Schools, or Federal Universities.  Who is the Department educating, exactly?  The National Endowment for the Arts and the Department of Energy are other easy targets.

The list can go on for pages.

Before we allow ourselves to get worked up over the "news", we HAVE to engage our brains when we hear claims that are "too bad (or good) to be true".

Distractions and Diversions…

When I was a boy we had a dog that was so smart and so fast she could catch a tennis ball that was thrown almost before it hit the ground. She always caught it on the first bounce.

We started to try to distract her by faking a throw one way, waiting for her to run as far as she would, and then tossing the ball the opposite direction. Then she’d have to hunt the ball down, taking much longer than she usually did to find it.

After falling for our fake throws a couple of times, she’d stand at our feet, watching our hands until she was sure the ball had been thrown and then she’d take off after it. She was still quick, but because she stood waiting for us to set the direction, it took her a relatively long time to bring the ball back. She couldn’t catch it on the first bounce, and often it stopped rolling before she caught up with it.

I think that conservatives are a lot like my dog. They’re quick and smart. They’re eager to get things right. They’re also easily “faked out” and, once they figure out they’re being “faked out” they are slow to move. And when they do finally move, it is often too late for their action to be effective.

I am struck by the volume of news reports (and the incessant fixation of “conservative” talk show hosts) about Donald Trump, his possible run for president, his childish insistence that President Obama needs to show his birth certificate – which he did just this week, after 6 ½ years – and Trump’s general obnoxious behavior.

We see news stories and hear radio conversations about the high price of gasoline, the restrictions placed on businesses by government, taxes for the wealthy, taxes for the poor, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and on and on.

We continue our war in Afghanistan, our support of the fledgling government of Iraq, our non-war in Libya, our support of both rebels and established governments in a handful of other countries around the world.

We worry about trade with China and immigrants from Mexico, about racism and radicalism, about Big Oil and small business, about Wall Street and Main Street, about worker rights and student rights.

In the midst of this, we’ve lost sight of something. These issues have always been, and will always be, central to our national discussion. But while the national discourse has focused on the issues, other forces have been working to make fundamental changes to our nation’s power structure.

For more than 200 years America has been the safest place to do business in the world. There are a number of reasons for this. We have had a small and historically weak central government. We have had relatively low tax rates in the past. Our infrastructure is world-class. We have direct sea access to the Pacific Rim, Europe and Africa. We have virtually every raw material an industry would consume in abundance. Energy has historically been cheap. Labor has historically been skilled, industrious and dependable.

And above all, we have had The Rule of Law that ensures contracts will stand, justice and penalties will be applied even-handedly, and arrangements made in good faith can be counted on. Americans may take the Rule of Law for granted, but in much of the world and throughout much of history, the Rule of Law did not govern men or nations.

Even today we hear talk of the business risk associated with off-shoring work to China or Viet Nam. We see the recent moves of Hugo Chavez when he nationalized (stole in the name of the State) all foreign petroleum production sites and equipment. We see white farmers who have been in Africa for generations driven off their land or killed in black repatriation campaigns. We see wholesale murder in the name of Islam when elections are lost in Egypt and Nigeria. We see attacks on police and infrastructure stations in attempts to intimidate others and drive behavior.

But in America we see a signed contract and a good faith effort. If the parties are satisfied, money is exchanged and the contract ends. If the parties are not satisfied, they seek mediation or judgment and when the mediator or judge issues a ruling we see both parties comply.

THAT has made the United States of America the world’s preferred place to do business.

And THAT is what the Obama administration is working feverishly to subvert. While “good conservatives” are chasing imaginary tennis balls, the ideologues working in the executive branch of our government and supported by the chorus of yes-men in congress and the liberal media, who fear above all falling out of favor with the administration, are steadily hammering away at the foundation of America’s greatness in the world. They are working to tear down the Rule of Law and replace it with the Rule of The People.

Most of these workers are true believers. They believe that what they are doing is right. After all, it makes them feel good to know that “justice” is being done in “society”. It only makes sense to them that everyone in America – and the world, for that matter – should have according to their needs. And it further makes sense to them that everyone in America should give (or have taken from them) according to their abilities. Indeed, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have more money than they could possibly spend in a hundred lifetimes. What is wrong with asking them to share it with people who don’t even have enough money to buy a new television set? The Rich are more ABLE to provide for the NEEDS of the people.

So, we see pressure from the Office of the President placed directly on individuals to “give back” their Wall Street bonuses. Never mind the fact that those bonuses were paid pursuant to a legally binding contract.

So, we see the president of General Motors fired at the personal request of the President of The United States. Never mind the fact that the president of GM worked for a publicly held company and served at the pleasure of the board of trustees.

So, we see the Department of Treasury force investors who had loaned money to Chrysler to accept an arbitrary revision of the terms of their bonds so that they lost repayment priority during Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings. Never mind the fact that those bond holders had every legal right to expect their money to be repaid immediately after Chrysler’s employees and suppliers.

So, we see the US Government refuse to allow oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and other areas. Never mind the fact that the government itself leased portions of the area to oil companies specifically for the purpose of oil exploration and production and received billions of dollars from them for that right.

So, we see the Department of Health and Human Services debar a pharmaceutical company from doing business with any federal agency – effectively eliminating 82% of its market – because the Secretary of HHS did not feel that the company’s payment of a $313 million fine was sufficient punishment for an inadvertent mistake. Never mind that the Department of Justice felt quite satisfied and that no harm had resulted from the mistake.

You see, what is happening is the destruction of America as an economic powerhouse.

There are many in the world and in the country who believe it is wrong for America to have so much power and to influence so much of world events. They equate what we are doing with what was done by European powers in the 500 years previous to today. Just as the Belgians enslaved and exploited Central Africans 300 years ago, so are Americans enslaving and exploiting Chinese today by forcing them to make t-shirts in sweatshops so that we can buy them for $3 each at Wal-Mart.

And so, to “even the playing field”, America must come down. America must suffer just a little so that others may suffer less.

There is a serious problem with the reasoning, though. The only suffering that ever was able to reduce others’ suffering was that of Jesus Christ. But a liberal, leftist or statist is unlikely to allow even that one instance. The truth is that increasing suffering only increases suffering.

The path to relief of the world’s economic problems is to allow EVERYONE to succeed as they are able and to allow EVERYONE to help others as they are moved by their moral compass.

Inconsistencies and Hypocrisies...

This weekend I enjoyed a man-cation in the Nevada desert learning how better to shoot my "practical rifle". It was outstanding.

On my drive home I was passed by an SUV with a sticker in the rear window reading, "GAS SUCKS; ride a bike". And, although it was a small SUV, I was struck by the stark irony.

I will speak only for myself, and if you see things that resonate with you, I'm happy to have company.

I have a moral compass that guides and informs my behaviors. That compass points me in a good, healthy, happy direction.

I also have free will that allows me to make choices to follow my moral compass or not. And, in certain situations, I have chosen to ignore my compass. When I make those choices I learn again that my compass really is pointing me toward goodness; and I didn't find that in the wrong choice.

I see this as an inconsistency. I'm not out telling others what to do. And I'm not condemning them when they don't follow my advice. And I'm not turning around and ignoring my own advice. That would constitute an hypocrisy.

In my inconsistencies I am losing my own private battles in the war I am fighting within myself.

I have had friends who have become jaded toward organized religion because of what they call "hypocrisy" among the adherents. And I will grant that there certainly are cases of blatant hypocrisy in churches of all colors. Leaders who preach one thing and live in an entirely different way, or members who make a show of devotion in worship services yet are cruel at home or at work are examples that come to mind.

But I choose to believe that the vast majority of what my friends have called "hypocrisy" is really inconsistency. They're really watching a person a lot like myself winning and losing private battles in an invisible war that can last a lifetime.

Instead of watching and getting some Roman sense of pleasure when our fellow creatures are battered and bruised in the Arena, we would be better to have compassion and, with the wise man, remind ourselves that "there, but for the grace of God, go I."

On Marriage...

In the last few years America has seen quite a debate about marriage, its value to society, and its place in the future of our country. I'd just like to address one dimension of the debate.

I've heard it postulated that traditional or historical definitions of "marriage" and "family" are valuable and worth preserving. That is to say that a marriage is the legally sanctioned union of one man and one woman and that their family consists of children either naturally born to them or legally adopted by them. Further, just as society recognizes the definition of the number "two" to be a specific and exact value, society recognizes the definition of "marriage" in similarly narrow terms. These definitions preclude homosexual unions and hetero-specie unions from being recognized as "marriages" and deny "family" status to any beings affiliated with or deriving from such unions.

I happen to agree with this view and I support it completely. My views stem from my observation of society, my moral and religious beliefs, and the inner sense I have of right and wrong.

The single dimension of the debate I would like to address is the false choice put forward by opponents of marriage as follows. They point out the unhappiness of women they know who are married. They point out the emotional and physical abuse that is perpetrated by cruel spouses. They point out the infidelity that is rampant in American society as if it were a uniquely "married" problem. Therefore, they conclude, that because marriage has been desecrated by some of its participants, the concept of marriage should not be held sacred by society.

In fact, they continue, society would be better off without the institution all together. As if to say that absent marriage, women would be happy, partners would cease to be emotionally and physically abusive, and fidelity would reign in relationships.

Following that logic, I would like to suggest this analogy.

In the desert of the American Southwest there are what we call "slot canyons", narrow cuts in solid sandstone where water has carved out deep holes and steep cliffs. They are spectacular. In the depths of these canyons, even in the driest parts of the summer, one can find pools of cool water.

However, one would not want to drink it. In fact, the smell of this water is extremely offensive. The pools are tainted with manure, algae, bacteria, insect larvae, and frequently the bodies of dead animals. Drinking this water can cause fatal diseases.

The problem is not that all water is bad, though. The problem is the pollution that has gotten into it. The water component of the toxic soup is one of life's essential nutrients. Eliminating water from one's diet is not an option. One would be well to find a clear source of water and steer clear of the pollution altogether. Water is key to human survival.

In the case of marriage in America, the problem is not the institution; rather it is the pollution of cruelty, abuse, infidelity and deception that have crept into it. The choice, then, is not whether or not to continue upholding marriage as a valued tradition of our society.

The question may also be answered with a "Third Way". Society can re-examine marriage and re-commit to making it a central part of American life because of the real benefits we as a people gain from its place in our culture. Pure marriage, after its original intent, is not only good; it is essential to the survival of civil society.

A Different Take...

So, I thought the Snoop Dogg - Mormonism story was hilarious.

I've read responses to it that range from derision to indignation. Some are convinced that the writer is a rabid anti-Mormon; others scorn those offended as typical hyper-sensitive zealots.

I though that a woman in my office, who constantly gives her daughter grief about joining the LDS Church, would be the perfect person to share this with. After all, she should get a kick out of the idea.

Her response surprised me. She read the story and, without so much as a laugh, said thoughtfully, "Yeah, well, I suppose anyone can change, right? Why not him?"

And that made me think a little more.

I believe she's right.

The atonement of Christ IS infinite AND eternal. It's available to all. In fact, Paul was taught that in a dream where he saw all sorts of unclean animals in a giant sheet and the Lord commanded him to eat them. Paul refused and the Lord gently taught him not to call what He called "clean" anything but clean. Of course, that is interpreted to mean that the Gospel is to be preached freely to all, regardless of their heritage or race or nationality.

So, why not Snoop Dogg? Isn't Christ's power sufficient for even him?

And if we believe that, then why not sufficient for you or me?

I believe it is.

My Very Favorite April Fool's Joke EVER....

I first saw this about 2 years ago. It was posted on a web page that was mocked up to look exactly like CNN's page. It's a classic.

Rapper Snoop Dogg converts to Mormonism

By Aaron Nichols
CNN

DIAMOND BAR, California (AP) — In what some may consider an unexpected move, rap artist “Snoop Dogg” has reportedly converted to Mormonism after nearly a year of study with the fast-growing, Utah-based faith.

Snoop Dogg says he “can’t get enough of the Book of Mormon.”

In a statement, a spokeswoman for Snoop Dogg — whose real name is Calvin Broadus — said he considers himself extremely fortunate to have discovered such a deep sense of spiritual fulfillment at this stage in his life.

“Mr. Broadus is also very pleased to find that his family is as enthusiastic about attending church services as he is,” the spokeswoman said.

However, Snoop Dogg has not been enthusiastic about publicly sharing his experience and declined to be interviewed by CNN for this article. In fact, he reportedly informed producers of his E! reality show “Snoop Dogg’s Father Hood” that this particular aspect of his family’s life was off-limits to the cameras. Still, he left open the possibility of addressing the subject in future episodes.

According to the Associated Press, Snoop Dogg was first introduced to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormon Church is officially known, after attending a Gladys Knight concert in an LDS meeting house in Los Angeles.

Knight, who very publicly discusses her conversion to Mormonism several years ago, invited Snoop Dogg to what is known to the Mormon faithful as “Family Home Evening,” a church program that encourages families to set aside Monday evenings for gospel-centered lessons and family togetherness.

Though Snoop Dogg has been hesitant to publicly discuss his recent spiritual journey, he commented on the experience of attending his first “Family Home Evening” in a recent interview with People Magazine.

“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”

In what Snoop Dogg now thinks was anything but a coincidence, Mormon missionaries had knocked on his door just one week before the Knight concert. He said he had initially turned them away because of what he knew about the strict Mormon health code, which prohibits members from smoking, drinking alcohol, and using drugs.

“Y’all know me,” he said grinning broadly. “There were just certain things the old me — the “natural man” — needed to do. And these young guys are telling me that God’s not down with disrespecting ourselves. But it’s cool now.”

Snoop Dogg said his conversion marks the end of his old life, one that included frequent run-ins with the law. Snoop Dogg was convicted in 1990 of cocaine possession and charged with gun possession after a 1993 traffic stop. In 1997, he pleaded guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence.

In 1996, Snoop Dogg was acquitted of murder after a purported gangbanger was killed by gunfire from the vehicle in which Snoop Dogg was traveling.

Snoop Dogg dismisses critics who claim his conversion is intended to placate a Salt Lake County judge, before whom he is appealing an alleged probation violation.

“Listen, the haters will say what they will,” Snoop Dogg said. “I can only do what I feel is right.”

Has Anyone Else Noticed...?

Yesterday I was sure I was mistaken, or that the Fox News reporter had made a one-off commentary error.

In discussing President Obama's statements on the US involvement in strikes against Libya, she said that the president was speaking from Brazil where he was on a "diplomatic mission".

For more than a week before his departure the president's trip to Brazil with his family was being portrayed as a "vacation" to Rio.

And then I heard another Fox reporter today talk about the president's "good will" mission to Brazil today.

Doublespeak, anyone?

Just Missing My Dad....

Dance With My Father
by Luther Vandross

Back when I was a child
Before life removed all the innocence
My father would lift me high
And dance with my mother and me and then

Spin me around till I fell asleep
Then up the stairs he would carry me
And I knew for sure
I was loved

If I could get another chance
Another walk, another dance with him
I’d play a song that would never, ever end
How I’d love, love, love to dance with my father again

When I and my mother would disagree
To get my way I would run from her to him
He’d make me laugh just to comfort me,
Then finally make me do just what my mama said

Later that night when I was asleep
He left a dollar under my sheet
Never dreamed that he
Would be gone from me

If I could steal one final glance
One final step, one final dance with him
I’d play a song that would never, ever end
‘Cause I’d love, love, love to dance with my father
again

Sometimes I’d listen outside her door
And I’d hear her, mama cryin’ for him
I pray for her even more than me
I pray for her even more than me

I know I’m prayin’ for much too much
But could You send back the only man she loved
I know You don’t do it usually
But Lord, she’s dyin’ to dance with my father again
Every night I fall asleep
And this is all I ever dream

On US Inaction in Libya...

Worth reading (the link at the bottom, not my ramblings)...

And, for what it's worth, anything we do now may well be viewed by Libyans as too little, too late. Their resentment and mistrust of us will have only grown as President Obama has waffled, sent ambiguous messages, and planned his vacation while "waiting for the UN" to act.

Understand, I am not a proponent of acting to help Libyan rebels. I frankly think that any people who want freedoms need to be willing to, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, pledge to each other and to the cause their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. So far, in our history, the people we have "liberated" seem to have lacked that personal investment. Yes, France came to our aid in the late 18th century. But they did not jump into the fray with money or troops until they were confident of two things: 1) We really wanted it, and 2) we were going to win. Our efforts to co-opt foreign support for our cause began long before Lexington and Concord; long before the Declaration of Independence.

And if you're really going to try to overthrow your government, you should not begin the revolution by throwing rocks and hoping the US will join in by dropping bombs. You should come to the US Embassy, Consulate, or that of one of our allies. Present your plan. Outline your leadership structure. Explain how your revolution will be better for us and the rest of the world than the last one was. Wait to throw that first rock until you have credible evidence of all the support you will need.

Libya debate still could benefit from more rigor (updated) - By Peter Feaver | Shadow Government

A Man of Character...

“Character is higher than intellect. A great soul will be strong to live as well as think.” said Emerson.

Character is, at its root, what a man is. It is beneath the “who” – that is simply a symptom of the “what”. It underlies the “how” and “why” for the same reason.

A man of character sees the world as he sees himself, and true virtuous character guides a man to see himself in the bare light of truth.

He will no more abhor the flaws he sees than he will adore the strengths.

In his honesty, a man of character will understand that he, as all things in nature, is a composite character – a melding of strength and weakness, wisdom and folly, disinterest and passion, patience and temper, tolerance and prejudice, and on and on.

A man of true and virtuous character seeks to understand his purpose, to know his place and to do his duty, regardless of the outcome.

A man of character is not swayed or discouraged – he does not lose heart in the face of adversity or setbacks. I believe that William Shakespeare masterfully portrayed this in his dramatization of the Battle of Agincourt. In 1415 Henry V, king of England, led a small expeditionary force into France to reclaim English territory. As they sought to retreat to England via Calais, they were opposed by a vastly superior French force. The French outnumbered the English by more than 4 to 1 – and by some counts the numbers were 36,000 French to 6,000 English with English knights outnumbered 10 to 1. The English were also suffering greatly with fatigue and disease.

As the English surveyed the battlefield-to-be on the morning of 25 October 1415, the king’s cousin, Westmoreland, is portrayed to have said wistfully, “O that we now had here but one ten thousand of those men in England that do no work to-day!”

Not an entirely irrational desire, under the circumstances.

Henry was not only a leader; he was a realist. He knew that wishing for more men would do nothing but focus the mind of his army on their desperate situation. Instead, he declared his personal belief, exposing his moral compass to his army. Honor, at all costs. Here is what Shakespeare envisioned Henry’s bold and resoundingly final reply to have been.

“What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.

“God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.

“By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.

“No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!

“Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.

“This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.

“He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'

“Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.

“This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.”

But virtue goes beyond outward courage, and character lies deeper than marrow. A man of character indeed seeks to find his virtue, his divine purpose, the end for which he was designed.

When he does, he defines a course to achieve it. Nothing will dissuade him in his relentless pursuit. And at the same time, he will not forget the injunction of the Savior, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” A man of character seeks to have a Godly love for his fellow creatures.

The weak, the infirm, the simple, children, women, elders are not objects of contempt, nor are they objects of his condescension. The man of character views these with compassion. He treats these with kindness. He does not mock or take advantage. He does not ignore or avoid. He embraces them as his life path crosses theirs. He revels in the richness of their perspective and experience. All mankind are his “friends”.

As “Dear Abby” is said to have advised, “The best index to a person's character is how he treats people who can't do him any good, and how he treats people who can't fight back.”

The much-maligned Sarah Palin once said that, “we should pray that our soldiers are on God’s task” in the wars we are fighting in the Middle East. I think she is right; after all, whose task should they be on instead? In fact, I think that we should not only pray as she said, but even more, we should pray that we are on God’s task in our actions of every day. A man of character knows that he is on “God’s task”.

The man of character has done more than lived a life of self-denial. Hermits, ascetics, mystics all live that way, yet what do they contribute to the world? An absence of evil is not the same as an abundance of goodness. The man of character has simultaneously put off his natural tendencies and desires, while nurturing the divine seed that is in him. He has replaced lust with love and pride with contentment in every dimension of his life.

As the man of character goes through the world, all people who meet him are lifted to a higher plane – one from which they will go on, never being the same again. He sees the world as good because he plants the seeds of good in it.

Clinton Frustrated....

Please visit the URL below.

It's strangely comforting to know that Hillary Clinton is as tired of President Obama's ambiguity and lack of leadership as I am.

She should really read D'Souza's book to understand her boss a little better.

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/03/17/031711-news-hillary-2-2/

What...?

Okay, I know that there is really nothing any president could do about the disaster in Japan. Earthquakes, tidal waves, and nuclear meltdowns are out of anyone's control.

But there is an element of decorum and human decency that requires the most powerful man in the free world to stop what he's doing and address a real human crisis. Why can't President Obama focus some of his attention on Japan?

And he really could do a lot to mobilize relief efforts in the wake of the disaster. He is supposed to be a leader in the world; a man among men. Surely he could use the influence of the Presidency to get other countries in the region to help out.

Perhaps, you say, he's tied up in talks with the Saudis about their sending 1,000 soldiers into Bahrain. Or is he in a secret strategy session with President Sarkozy planning to gain air superiority in Libya? Maybe he is talking with General Petraeus, who is in Washington for the first time in 9 months, about our progress in Afghanistan. He could be meeting with governors of states bordering Mexico to plan how the federal government can provide better security against increasingly brazen drug gangs. What about finally sitting down to make a plan to deal with the ongoing catastrophe of Haiti? Hell, he could even be reviewing a report on the current ecological state of the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon disaster last year!

The absolutely pathetic thing is that he is concerned with none of this. He is working with ESPN today. He's taping his picks for the NCAA basketball championship series. They'll be broadcast tomorrow.

Once again, President Obama and his administration succeed in demonstrating how completely inept they are and how out of tune with the demands of leadership this president is. How can they wonder why people don't feel confident or comfortable with his abilities?

But think about it further. His action - or inaction - is not so nonsensical.

A few months ago I talked about a book written by Dinesh D'Souza called "The Roots of Obama's Rage". In it D'Souza concludes that Barack Obama is motivated - even animated - by his father's anti-colonial views. Look at the president's level of concern with Japan's well being.

Zero.

But this makes sense if you look at Japan. They have an Emperor. They were a military imperial force in the early and mid-20th century. In fact, Japan dominated Indonesia - Barack Obama's childhood home - for most of the Second World War. He would naturally harbor some deep-seated anti-Japanese sentiment.

In his mind, Japan may just be getting their comeuppance. Just as he tacitly agreed with Jeremiah Wright, that 9/11 was "America's chickens coming home to roost", he may feel the same; Nature, offended by Japan's audacity in seeking to commit imperial rape on its neighbors nearly a century ago, is now wreaking vengeance.

Someone, Please Help Me...

I cannot understand President Obama's fixation on what he calls "high-speed rail". He has mentioned it several times including during at least one State of the Union Address.

The other day I heard him bring it up again.

If you understand something about the United States of America or the world or economics-in-general that I'm missing, please clue me in.

I'm searching to understand how a bullet train is going to:make us more competitive relative to China, or how it will make us safer from terrorists, or how it will free us from dependence on foreign oil, or how it will get nearly 10% of our working population back to work, or how it will defeat the menace of anthropogenic global warming, or how it will make our children perform better in math and science, or how it will close the wage gap between men and women or blacks and whites, or how it will make government more responsible and accountable to the tax payer, or how it will make Muslims feel better about their contribution to the world of mathematics, or how it will put more teachers in the classroom and more police on our streets, or how it will protect social security recipients and other pensioners, or how it will help us make healthier choices when we shop or eat in restaurants, or how it will reform immigration, or how it will make housing affordable for every American, or how it will help reign in Wall Street bonuses, or how it will curb CEO compensation, or how it will stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, or how it will make deep water oil exploration safer, or how it will ensure democracy in Egypt, or how it will get our soldiers out of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Those are ALL things that President Obama has said are his priorities.

In light of that, I think high-speed rail is a distraction. Keep it simple, Mr. President.

Taylor Swift...

My nine-year old daughter thinks that Taylor Swift is just about the best thing that's ever happened to music. (I happen to think that not much good has happened to music in 20-or-so years.)

And today, her best friend gave her a Taylor Swift CD. Now it's playing over and over and over and over in my kitchen CD player while the girls make Valentine's Day crafts. At least I think it is playing over and over and over and over, but maybe it's just that the songs all kind of sound alike to me.

But as I think about Taylor Swift's songs I think, She's pretty open, brave, vulnerable. I think she's being pretty honest - dressed up with artistic license, to be sure - about how she's felt and how she feels.

Not that I think that she's overly profound or that I have any overly profound thoughts on her music.

I do think, though, that if we were more honest and more open and maybe even a little bit more vulnerable when we talk with each other, we might have more meaningful relationships.

If we really wanted to know how the people we meet are when we ask, "How's it going?"; if we really meant we were doing well when we said, "Good!", what do you think would happen?

Just Some Thoughts...

I just have to get two things off my chest. This won't be pretty or too well-crafted, but I need to get this out.

1. Egypt is headed for an Islamist government. Just as the Iranians in 1979 thought that they were simply overthrowing a tyrant, so the Egyptians think today.

Just as the Iranians thought that they would enjoy greater freedoms under another leader, so the Egyptians think today. Just as the Iranians found their revolution hijacked by Islamists, so the Egyptians will very soon.

And just as the Iranians live under the terrible tyranny of shariah law administered at the ungodly hands of corrupt clerics, so will the Egyptians.

2. John Boehner has been accused of having at least two affairs with lobbyists and staffers. The accusation does not surprise me, and if this turns out to be true, it will surprise me even less.

When he forced the congressman (whose name escapes me now) who shouted "You lie!" during President Obama's State of the Union address to apologize, I knew that he was a person void of integrity and full of cowardice - a perfect example of the corruption that has infected the Republican Party from the inside out.

Can there be any wonder at the reasons "Tea Partiers" are angry, disillusioned, and just plain fed-up?

Tax Reform in The United States....

I just completed my taxes. After all my deductions, adjustments, credits, etc. I ended up paying about 7.5% of my income to the federal government in the form of income tax. Medicare and Social Security are not included.

The process was long, painful, and despite Turbo Tax, it was quite confusing.

Interestingly, about the same time I was finishing my taxes, President Obama mentioned the federal government's need to live within its means and gave Congress the mandate to simplify the tax code.

So, I can't say that I was completely uninspired by the State of the Union Address this year. It spurred me to develop this idea: The IRS Form 1040 CS (Common Sense). This form not only actually complies with the intent of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1987 (or whatever), but makes congress' job of allocating spending very easy. The taxpayer does it for them!

This way, each person knows exactly how invested they are - and how they are invested - in their "democratic" government. They have a voice in how their tax dollars are spent.

And budgeting is taken out of the hands of Congress and lobbyists. If an environmentalist feels strongly about National Parks, he can allocate more of his taxes to that budget line. If a truck driver feels strongly about the state of our highway system, she can voice that with her allocation.

Taxation with FULL representation.

Everyone pays 10%. Maybe there's a mandatory 1% point buy-in to each of the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness functions of government. That leaves the taxpayer 7% points to steer toward their interests.

Here's my form (click on it to see a larger image). It's a rough draft, but you get the idea.

:

Deficits, Debt, and Unfunded Liabilities....

I think we have a problem.

I see that the estimated deficit for 2011 is projected at $1,500,000,000,000 (one point five trillion dollars). That’s just for the federal government.

The deficit is not the same thing as the debt. If we were talking about personal finance, we would equate the deficit with the amount of money we borrow, over and above our personal income, in order to subsidize our standard of living each month or year.

The debt would be the outstanding balance on our credit cards, student and car loans, and mortgage obligations. The national debt is somewhere around $14 trillion. This year Congress and the president want to increase our debt by the amount of our deficit - just put it on the card, so to speak.

In addition to debt, the federal government has a number of what financial regulators would call “unfunded obligations”. That is, financial commitments the government has made for which there is no money set aside. Among those unfunded obligations are social security payments for generations of Americans, pension payments for retiring federal employees, and other perpetual entitlement programs. Some estimates of the amount of unfunded obligations are around $100 trillion.

But if you take the current population of the US estimated at 300,000,000 and put that against the current true debt of roughly $100,000,000,000,000 then we see that each American living today must be responsible for providing more than $300,000 toward the debt. Bear in mind that this $300,000 individual liability does not account for funding the current operating budget of the federal government of an additional $3.5 trillion in 2011. That annual subscription price comes to almost $12,000 per person.

So, my little family (of 7) must make a one-time payment today of $2.3 million, and an ongoing payment of $81,000 per year.

And that doesn’t even START to pay for my state, county and local government.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If every person in America got a bill for the cost of their government benefits, I am confident that we would be at least figuratively “up in arms” about the spending.

A Thought On "The Last Mountain Top"....

While I was eating my grilled buffalo chicken spinach wrap for lunch today, CNN was running its characteristically insipid fare of what someone thinks is "news".

The leading story - the one they spent my entire 8-minute lunch telling me about - was that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. had helped make a film that was being shown at the Sundance Film Festival. The film is called "The Last Mountain Top" (or something like that) and documents a waitress in a small community and her struggle to stop open-pit coal mining in West Virginia.

One thing that RFK Jr. said stood out. In the same breath, he said that West Virginia is a poor state because the influence of organized labor decreased over time; and that his father, RFK, always said that West Virginia should be one of the wealthiest states because of its natural resources. If I'm not wrong, RFK was killed in early June of 1968. Union influence in American labor was near its all-time peak.

I wonder why West Virginia wasn't "one of the wealthiest" states in 1968. If RFK Jr. is right, and strong union presence in coal mining leads to prosperity for coal miners, then Loretta Lynn's song "Coal Miner's Daughter" should have sounded more like Madonna's "Material Girl" than a memoir of growing up poor, but happy.

If his dad is right, and having a vast wealth of natural resources properly extracted leads to prosperity, we have to ask what is pulling cash out of the hands of the good people of West Virginia.

Could it be that organized labor actually puts a drain on the wealth of its constituents? Could it be that organized labor actually puts an inordinate amount of financial strain on corporations?

I don't hate mountain tops or clean water. I don't hate coal miners or their daughters. I don't hate waitresses who get involved in their community. And I don't hate filmmakers who go to Sundance.

I really like clarity and intellectual honesty, though. And I really like seeing hard-working people keep the money they earn by an honest day's work.

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.

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!

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