The following is attributed to columnist Joseph Sobran. While I normally reserve this blog for my own thoughts, this was too poignant to not share.
"Today, wanting someone else's money is called 'need.' Wanting to keep your own money is called 'greed.' 'Compassion' is the sentiment of the politicians who arrange the transfer."
Friday, July 24, 2009
Obama - Foot in Mouth Disease
It seems that Obama's latest trend is to insult some of our nation's most respected professionals - those in law enforcement and doctors - on his quest to create the "Great Divide" in America.
Admittedly not knowing all of the facts, Obama claimed that the Cambridge police officers acted "stupidly" in their arrest of Professor Gates. In other words, Obama was willing to throw the law enforcement profession under the bus to take a "black activist" position. I would expect this from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. In fact I would even be concerned as to their health if they didn't come out of the woodwork on this one. But this was from the President of the United States of America - the great "uniter." My foot!
This is exactly the kind of "judgement" people have concerns about with the appointment of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Frankly, activism has its place, after all this is a free country. But our leaders are supposed to serve us all!
In the same day, trying to charm his socialized healthcare plan down America's throat, Obama accused doctors of performing unnecessary procedures on children to make a buck. I guess we know what kind of doctor Obama would have been, had he chosen medical school instead of law school.
The end result is that Obama's running off at the mouth is dividing our country. His remarks pit minorities against police and support class warfare in pitting patients against doctors. And recall that he has already villanized bankers and investment banks.
Is it not enough that Obama destroys our economy, but that he will destroy our social system as well?
Admittedly not knowing all of the facts, Obama claimed that the Cambridge police officers acted "stupidly" in their arrest of Professor Gates. In other words, Obama was willing to throw the law enforcement profession under the bus to take a "black activist" position. I would expect this from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. In fact I would even be concerned as to their health if they didn't come out of the woodwork on this one. But this was from the President of the United States of America - the great "uniter." My foot!
This is exactly the kind of "judgement" people have concerns about with the appointment of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Frankly, activism has its place, after all this is a free country. But our leaders are supposed to serve us all!
In the same day, trying to charm his socialized healthcare plan down America's throat, Obama accused doctors of performing unnecessary procedures on children to make a buck. I guess we know what kind of doctor Obama would have been, had he chosen medical school instead of law school.
The end result is that Obama's running off at the mouth is dividing our country. His remarks pit minorities against police and support class warfare in pitting patients against doctors. And recall that he has already villanized bankers and investment banks.
Is it not enough that Obama destroys our economy, but that he will destroy our social system as well?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tribute to John and Joel Rechlitz
America needs more heroes like brothers John and Joel Rechlitz of Milwaukee, WI who rescued a mother and her two children from a burning SUV turned on its side. The harrowing scene was captured on video and can be watched all over the internet. As I watched the video I felt my eyes tear up a little as I thought about the situation - the desperation of it - and I daydreamed about my own children, my own wife, my own SUV turned over on its side out in New Jersey, burning, while I sat here at my desk in New York City. Would there be another man, another husband, another father, to risk it all to save my family?
According to dictionary.com, the relevant definitions of a hero are:
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities, or
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal.
I think these definitions clearly describe the Rechlitz brothers. As a man, I can't help but imagine what I would have done in the same situation. Would I have had the courage, the mettle, to save that last child? They say that in situations like this, one can never know what he is capable of - or for that matter incapable of - until the situation presents itself. I would only hope that I would be such a man, like the Rechlitz men, capable of such heroism.
There is an intangible side to stories like this, something beyond the boundaries of the flames and smoke of that street yesterday, and beyond the finite group of people who witnessed the event. A story like this highlights the simple goodness that is inherent in us, if one allows it to show. It forces you to look inward and examine yourself, and it reminds you how precious your own family is to you. I like to think that there is a camaraderie among men, a secret pact, to look after each other. For the mother and her two children, the Rechlitz men saved their lives - that is the tangible effect of the event. What they did for the husband and father is something different - they "had his back" - something men generally understand, and this is the essence of what I mean when I refer to a "camaraderie of men."
I think we can all thank John and Joel Rechlitz for serving as such fine examples of what it means to be a hero - brave, selfless, capable, and good. If we lived like there was a hero in each of us, think of what we could be capable of, and what America could become.
Say a prayer for DJ, the rescued little boy, and pray that he has a speedy recovery.
According to dictionary.com, the relevant definitions of a hero are:
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities, or
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal.
I think these definitions clearly describe the Rechlitz brothers. As a man, I can't help but imagine what I would have done in the same situation. Would I have had the courage, the mettle, to save that last child? They say that in situations like this, one can never know what he is capable of - or for that matter incapable of - until the situation presents itself. I would only hope that I would be such a man, like the Rechlitz men, capable of such heroism.
There is an intangible side to stories like this, something beyond the boundaries of the flames and smoke of that street yesterday, and beyond the finite group of people who witnessed the event. A story like this highlights the simple goodness that is inherent in us, if one allows it to show. It forces you to look inward and examine yourself, and it reminds you how precious your own family is to you. I like to think that there is a camaraderie among men, a secret pact, to look after each other. For the mother and her two children, the Rechlitz men saved their lives - that is the tangible effect of the event. What they did for the husband and father is something different - they "had his back" - something men generally understand, and this is the essence of what I mean when I refer to a "camaraderie of men."
I think we can all thank John and Joel Rechlitz for serving as such fine examples of what it means to be a hero - brave, selfless, capable, and good. If we lived like there was a hero in each of us, think of what we could be capable of, and what America could become.
Say a prayer for DJ, the rescued little boy, and pray that he has a speedy recovery.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Harvard Professor Playing the Race Card
A prominent university professor has Al Sharpton on the way! When Henry Louis Gates, Jr. returned from a trip a neighbor who did not recognize him thought he was breaking into the home. Apparently the door was jammed and required a heavy shoulder. Like a good neighbor, Lucia Whalen called the police to report her suspicions.
When police arrived they found Gates in his home and asked him for ID. They explained that they were responding to a report of possible break-in. Gates reportedly refused to come outside or initially provide ID, and said "Why, because I am a black man in America?" After eventually clearing up the issue upon confirmation of ID, the police were leaving; but that wasn't enough for Gates, who came outside to further berate the officers with his ranting and raving until he was finally arrested.
Allen Counter, a fellow professor stated, "We do not believe that this arrest would have happened if professor Gates was white."
To this I whole-heartedly agree. If Gates had been white, he would have shown his ID from the beginning, explaining that it was all a big mistake, that his door had been stuck. He would have thanked officers for their response and noted that it was good that neighbors stepped up to look out for one another. He would have laughed it off.
This reminds me of some Eddie Murphy material from years ago about Murphy being warned by friends about travelling to Texas - that they were racist down there! He relays his growing paranoia with the comedic story of a white airport attendent offering to take his bag and Murphy screams "what's the matter, can't a black man own a briefcase in Texas!"
Back in Cambridge, MA you just had police doing their jobs. This wasn't an episode of "driving while black" like you hear of in profiling cases. These policemen were responding to an actual call and did what they had to do to clear the matter up.
I think a certain professor has a really large chip on his shoulder. Maybe he thought about that down at the jail.
When police arrived they found Gates in his home and asked him for ID. They explained that they were responding to a report of possible break-in. Gates reportedly refused to come outside or initially provide ID, and said "Why, because I am a black man in America?" After eventually clearing up the issue upon confirmation of ID, the police were leaving; but that wasn't enough for Gates, who came outside to further berate the officers with his ranting and raving until he was finally arrested.
Allen Counter, a fellow professor stated, "We do not believe that this arrest would have happened if professor Gates was white."
To this I whole-heartedly agree. If Gates had been white, he would have shown his ID from the beginning, explaining that it was all a big mistake, that his door had been stuck. He would have thanked officers for their response and noted that it was good that neighbors stepped up to look out for one another. He would have laughed it off.
This reminds me of some Eddie Murphy material from years ago about Murphy being warned by friends about travelling to Texas - that they were racist down there! He relays his growing paranoia with the comedic story of a white airport attendent offering to take his bag and Murphy screams "what's the matter, can't a black man own a briefcase in Texas!"
Back in Cambridge, MA you just had police doing their jobs. This wasn't an episode of "driving while black" like you hear of in profiling cases. These policemen were responding to an actual call and did what they had to do to clear the matter up.
I think a certain professor has a really large chip on his shoulder. Maybe he thought about that down at the jail.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Obama - The Date-Rape of the Economy
Barrack Obama has gone on the offensive in trying to ram his health care system overhaul through the collective throat of the American public. According to a Washington Post - ABC News poll, less than 50% of Americans approve of the plan, and 44% disctinctly disapprove. Many of us, including many who serve in government, have resisted Obama's attempt to charm us into submission, resisting his advances and "all-hands" approach. But he is determined to have his way with us, at all costs, and he is getting angry. "We will reform health care," he emphatically states, and "It will happen this year." Like many men, when I was raised I was taught that "no" means "no" - so why can't Obama just back-off and behave like a gentleman?
If he would put his hands back in his own pockets instead of ours, he might take some time to take a longer and harder look at our healthcare system. I understand that roughly 12% of Americans do not have health insurance. Well, that means 88% do... not too shabby in my opinion. And those that don't have insurance still can get medical care. Many people are simply averse to purchasing insurance of any sort, and fail to purchase automobile insurace or other forms of hazard insurance. Just like there is a natural rate of unemployment, I believe there is likewise a natural rate for the uninsured.
I hear the word "reform" so often in this debate. I am not quite sure what that word means - after all, perhaps the finest medical care in the world is offered right here in the good old US of A. I think most people think that medical insurance is just too expensive, because the underlying costs of medical care are skyrocketing. Perhaps "reform" really should mean trying to lower the underlying costs of health care and consequently, health care insurance.
One of the largest expenses for any physician is his own medical malpractice insurance coverage. For many types of physicians, such as OB/GYN's, a quick Google search can tell anyone that this coverage can run as high as $200,000-$250,000 per year. (Obama could even do this late at night when he is seeking a cigarette.) This equates to roughly $1,000 per work day! With an office visit of $100 a pop, that could mean a physician's first 10 patients a day only cover this one cost - of many - that physicians must endure to be in business.
Medical malpractice insurance is so high because malpractice awards are so high. Individuals who have been hurt by a negligent physician often are awarded million upon millions of dollars - far exceeding what they might ever earn in their lifetimes. So perhaps the first place to start in lowering the cost of medical care is with tort reform. There is no price one can put on the heads of my loved ones, so why even bother? God forbid I lose someone I love, but should I get $50 million for it?
I don't claim to have all of the anwers, but I know that a rushed, thrown-together massive government healthcare overhaul that runs roughshod over our economy and picks the pockets of a small slice of America's citizens, when we are screaming "no!" is no better than date-rape. Obama needs to be a gentleman and be patient. If he is patient he may get his way, and it may feel much much better.
If he would put his hands back in his own pockets instead of ours, he might take some time to take a longer and harder look at our healthcare system. I understand that roughly 12% of Americans do not have health insurance. Well, that means 88% do... not too shabby in my opinion. And those that don't have insurance still can get medical care. Many people are simply averse to purchasing insurance of any sort, and fail to purchase automobile insurace or other forms of hazard insurance. Just like there is a natural rate of unemployment, I believe there is likewise a natural rate for the uninsured.
I hear the word "reform" so often in this debate. I am not quite sure what that word means - after all, perhaps the finest medical care in the world is offered right here in the good old US of A. I think most people think that medical insurance is just too expensive, because the underlying costs of medical care are skyrocketing. Perhaps "reform" really should mean trying to lower the underlying costs of health care and consequently, health care insurance.
One of the largest expenses for any physician is his own medical malpractice insurance coverage. For many types of physicians, such as OB/GYN's, a quick Google search can tell anyone that this coverage can run as high as $200,000-$250,000 per year. (Obama could even do this late at night when he is seeking a cigarette.) This equates to roughly $1,000 per work day! With an office visit of $100 a pop, that could mean a physician's first 10 patients a day only cover this one cost - of many - that physicians must endure to be in business.
Medical malpractice insurance is so high because malpractice awards are so high. Individuals who have been hurt by a negligent physician often are awarded million upon millions of dollars - far exceeding what they might ever earn in their lifetimes. So perhaps the first place to start in lowering the cost of medical care is with tort reform. There is no price one can put on the heads of my loved ones, so why even bother? God forbid I lose someone I love, but should I get $50 million for it?
I don't claim to have all of the anwers, but I know that a rushed, thrown-together massive government healthcare overhaul that runs roughshod over our economy and picks the pockets of a small slice of America's citizens, when we are screaming "no!" is no better than date-rape. Obama needs to be a gentleman and be patient. If he is patient he may get his way, and it may feel much much better.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Dr. Manning's Warning: "White Folk Not Gonna Take it No More!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hFiab7fjak
I invite you to watch this outrageous Youtube video from Dr. James Manning, the chief pastor at a church in Harlem. I first heard about him sometime during the presidential campaign last year, in a YouTube rant blasting Obama. Well it would appear he is fed up, and warns that God-fearing and God-loving working Americans have about had enough - that "white folk not gonna take it no more!"
I do not agree with everything he says, but his message is so compelling, especially coming from an African-American. Sometimes one must exaggerate a point to make that point understood, and this he does well. I will let the video speak for itself, so please watch and enjoy.
I invite you to watch this outrageous Youtube video from Dr. James Manning, the chief pastor at a church in Harlem. I first heard about him sometime during the presidential campaign last year, in a YouTube rant blasting Obama. Well it would appear he is fed up, and warns that God-fearing and God-loving working Americans have about had enough - that "white folk not gonna take it no more!"
I do not agree with everything he says, but his message is so compelling, especially coming from an African-American. Sometimes one must exaggerate a point to make that point understood, and this he does well. I will let the video speak for itself, so please watch and enjoy.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Obamacare and Insanity - Cancer to Small Business
Let me begin today's post by challenging the seemingly inexorable norm that bonds health care to employers. Of all goods and services, health care and accompanying medical insurance are very important to the well-being of an individual or family. After all, we desire medical care for ourselves and dependents, and we also wish to contain its cost. For similar reasons we insure our homes from fire and insure our automobiles to protect us from the financial impact of accidents - all to contain cost. And just as we wish to keep our bodies working and need access to preventative health care, we also need to fix our cars and houses, and often purchase automobile warranties and even warranties for our home and important appliances.
I have to assume that at some point in history, medical insurance was first offered by an employer to its employees - as a benefit to make working there attractive. Imagine what a novelty this was at the time! This practice soon caught on as the demand for labor competed for its supply. And nowadays, this benefit from an employer has come to be viewed as an obligation from them, and is about to be codified into law as an obligation during one of the worst recessions in history.
So ask yourself, why should your employer provide you access to medical insurance and coverage? Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing if your employer offers this, but why should they be required to do so by law? And if so, why should they pay for any of it? Should your employer provide you an extended warranty on your car? Should property and casualty insurance be arranged through and paid for by your employer? That sounds ridiculous, of course. But I have to imagine that if employers started offering it as a benefit, one day this novel benefit would become law. From another perspective, why isn't medical coverage offered through your cable TV provider? After all, probably more people actually have cable TV in this country than actually have jobs. Your utility provider? Churches? My point is that what seems so customary is actually also quite arbitrary.
One part of the current proposal calls for business with payrolls in excess of $250,000 either provide coverage or pay employees 8% of their wages. Now that is a hefty tax! And this comes at a time when federal minimum wages are up 40% in just two years! How would a small business handle that? If they are on the margins they will likely resort to a policy of avoidance - either laying off employees to get just underneath the threshold, using temp workers instead, or even more complicated things like splitting their business into smaller segments - for instance, a small grocery store splits into a "produce business" and a "dry goods business," assigning $249,000 worth of employees to one and $249,000 to the other. People WILL get creative.
There is also to be tax surcharges on top-line income of Americans to pay for the "government-funded" option. Many small business owners aren't incorporated, so their business' financial operations just pass-through to their personal tax returns. Thus the tax surcharge will be essentially applied to their revenue, not their income, after which business expense deductions would have been applied.
At best, the United States is acting like a sub-prime borrower. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama administration's proposed budget will mean our federal debt will rise from 41% to 82% of GDP by 2019! THAT IS INSANE! Who will ever repay this debt? How much can the "wealthy" afford? This year alone, theTax Policy Center estimates that an astounding 47% of tax-filing households will have NO federal tax liability. The continued shifting of the tax burden to a certain segment of society destroys the very incentives of these citizens who actually create the jobs America so desperately needs, or who purchase goods and services from others who create the jobs we need.
STOP THE INSANITY!
I have to assume that at some point in history, medical insurance was first offered by an employer to its employees - as a benefit to make working there attractive. Imagine what a novelty this was at the time! This practice soon caught on as the demand for labor competed for its supply. And nowadays, this benefit from an employer has come to be viewed as an obligation from them, and is about to be codified into law as an obligation during one of the worst recessions in history.
So ask yourself, why should your employer provide you access to medical insurance and coverage? Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing if your employer offers this, but why should they be required to do so by law? And if so, why should they pay for any of it? Should your employer provide you an extended warranty on your car? Should property and casualty insurance be arranged through and paid for by your employer? That sounds ridiculous, of course. But I have to imagine that if employers started offering it as a benefit, one day this novel benefit would become law. From another perspective, why isn't medical coverage offered through your cable TV provider? After all, probably more people actually have cable TV in this country than actually have jobs. Your utility provider? Churches? My point is that what seems so customary is actually also quite arbitrary.
One part of the current proposal calls for business with payrolls in excess of $250,000 either provide coverage or pay employees 8% of their wages. Now that is a hefty tax! And this comes at a time when federal minimum wages are up 40% in just two years! How would a small business handle that? If they are on the margins they will likely resort to a policy of avoidance - either laying off employees to get just underneath the threshold, using temp workers instead, or even more complicated things like splitting their business into smaller segments - for instance, a small grocery store splits into a "produce business" and a "dry goods business," assigning $249,000 worth of employees to one and $249,000 to the other. People WILL get creative.
There is also to be tax surcharges on top-line income of Americans to pay for the "government-funded" option. Many small business owners aren't incorporated, so their business' financial operations just pass-through to their personal tax returns. Thus the tax surcharge will be essentially applied to their revenue, not their income, after which business expense deductions would have been applied.
At best, the United States is acting like a sub-prime borrower. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama administration's proposed budget will mean our federal debt will rise from 41% to 82% of GDP by 2019! THAT IS INSANE! Who will ever repay this debt? How much can the "wealthy" afford? This year alone, theTax Policy Center estimates that an astounding 47% of tax-filing households will have NO federal tax liability. The continued shifting of the tax burden to a certain segment of society destroys the very incentives of these citizens who actually create the jobs America so desperately needs, or who purchase goods and services from others who create the jobs we need.
STOP THE INSANITY!
Monday, July 13, 2009
Louisiana Governor Jindal Gets it Right!
The Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, used the power of veto on Friday to quash a piece of assinine gun legislation typical of what we often see put forth by "well meaning" legislative feel-gooders. As is typical, legislative proposals of this type really have no basis of need, and appear to be arbitrary affronts to law-abiding gun owners.
This bill called for the prohibition of carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of a parade or demonstration. There were a few exemptions, but not exempted were those with lawful concealed-carry permits (the bill's sponsor refused the addition of this exemption), and penalties for a violation were severe - felonies to be exact.
There was a shooting this year at Mardi Gras and the perpetrators were arrested straightaway. Luckily no one was killed. I wonder, if this law were in place at the time, would this crime not have been committed by this criminal? Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald would NOT have killed our president if there had been a law such as this in place in Dallas? I bet we agree on the answer.
The flipside to laws like this are they trip up law-abiding gun owners. Instead of preventing crime, they create criminal acts for the otherwise unthreatening, law-abiding citizen. Perhaps a minor traffic stop occurs several blocks away, and the occupant reveals he is carrying, as many concealed-carry permitholders do as a courtsey to police officers. Unaware of his crime, this citizen would wind up in jail. It is for this reason that Jindal used common sense in exercising his veto power - citing the bill posed an unacceptable risk to lawful gun owners.
Like most gun control efforts, this one lacked common sense. Anti-gun proposals are almost always either about just feeling good or part of a true agenda to disarm the American public, and rarely is there any emperical basis to them. It is refreshing to know that there are still some politicians who "get it right" and respect our constitution.
I expect to see Piyush "Bobby" Jindal at some point on the national political stage, and this will be welcomed by many.
This bill called for the prohibition of carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of a parade or demonstration. There were a few exemptions, but not exempted were those with lawful concealed-carry permits (the bill's sponsor refused the addition of this exemption), and penalties for a violation were severe - felonies to be exact.
There was a shooting this year at Mardi Gras and the perpetrators were arrested straightaway. Luckily no one was killed. I wonder, if this law were in place at the time, would this crime not have been committed by this criminal? Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald would NOT have killed our president if there had been a law such as this in place in Dallas? I bet we agree on the answer.
The flipside to laws like this are they trip up law-abiding gun owners. Instead of preventing crime, they create criminal acts for the otherwise unthreatening, law-abiding citizen. Perhaps a minor traffic stop occurs several blocks away, and the occupant reveals he is carrying, as many concealed-carry permitholders do as a courtsey to police officers. Unaware of his crime, this citizen would wind up in jail. It is for this reason that Jindal used common sense in exercising his veto power - citing the bill posed an unacceptable risk to lawful gun owners.
Like most gun control efforts, this one lacked common sense. Anti-gun proposals are almost always either about just feeling good or part of a true agenda to disarm the American public, and rarely is there any emperical basis to them. It is refreshing to know that there are still some politicians who "get it right" and respect our constitution.
I expect to see Piyush "Bobby" Jindal at some point on the national political stage, and this will be welcomed by many.
Holy Wars - At Home and Abroad
Over the weekend I received one of those emails... you know, the ones that tell the story of an honorable yet humble teacher, veteran, radio or tv personality who "tells it like it is" about what is ailing America. This one had a high school principal from Kingston, TN addressing the crowd at a high school football game about how he can no longer say a prayer before games, yet schools may dispense condoms and teach abortion as birth control among other things. I always enjoy these emails, which are normally only fictional portrayals or anecdotes at best. However, they serve an important role in that they highlight the crying out of a significant portion of American society, a humble class of folk which is often silenced by the mainstream media. These people aren't the loudest bunch, and they aren't always visible either, so these emails seem to give them a much needed voice.
As I usually do, I do a quick Snopes.com search of the content of these emails to confirm my suspicions, that they are indeed fictional works. It is typically with mild disappointment, yet coming as no surprise, that this in indeed the case. Today I was delighted that Snopes revealed that this was in fact a true story, and I hoped that the stadium was crowded when this school principal highlighted the hypocracy of our politically correct society.
On the other side of the globe in Iraq, at a time when US troops have been pulling out, there has been a rash of church bombings - seven in just three days. It's as if the insurgents are quickly trying to get our attention, saying, "hey, we aren't done yet - let's play this out!"
We used to hear more talk of "holy wars;" in fact, many believe they have been prophesized. There is a holy war going on right here at home just as there is abroad. But this war is more subtle, and bombs used are movies like "Religulous" or court decisions born of overinterpretation of First Amendment rights. But whether or not we pull out of the Middle East, or our courts try to silence Tennessee high school principals, I firmly believe "this ain't over yet."
As I usually do, I do a quick Snopes.com search of the content of these emails to confirm my suspicions, that they are indeed fictional works. It is typically with mild disappointment, yet coming as no surprise, that this in indeed the case. Today I was delighted that Snopes revealed that this was in fact a true story, and I hoped that the stadium was crowded when this school principal highlighted the hypocracy of our politically correct society.
On the other side of the globe in Iraq, at a time when US troops have been pulling out, there has been a rash of church bombings - seven in just three days. It's as if the insurgents are quickly trying to get our attention, saying, "hey, we aren't done yet - let's play this out!"
We used to hear more talk of "holy wars;" in fact, many believe they have been prophesized. There is a holy war going on right here at home just as there is abroad. But this war is more subtle, and bombs used are movies like "Religulous" or court decisions born of overinterpretation of First Amendment rights. But whether or not we pull out of the Middle East, or our courts try to silence Tennessee high school principals, I firmly believe "this ain't over yet."
Friday, July 10, 2009
Minimum Wage Increase - There isn't a WORSE Time
I was reminded by today's news that on July 24th the federal minimum wage will be raised to $7.25 per hour. This is happening at a time when unemployment continues to go up, banks and Wall Street firms have tanked, and everyone from major corporates to small businesses are struggling. These step-ups were mandated, if I recall, two years ago when things were only starting to look so grim.
Just two years ago the minimum wage level was $5.15 per hour. This new level represents a staggering 40% increase across two of the worst years in decades. It frankly constitutes a tax, at a time when corporate earnings have plummeted. But this tax is optional, in that employers who cannot absorb this "tax" can instead choose to lay off even more workers or cut their hours - just what America needs.
I am no fan of anyone but the market mandating what workers get paid, whether on the high-end or the low-end. However, I have accepted that these laws are well-entrenched in our economy. But congress should enact emergency legislation to postpone this increase indefinitely.
This will especially hurt retailers, who have already been hammered hard and are expecting poor back-to-school sales to begin with. Unfortunately this increase won't ultimately help the economic class of people it is designed to benefit, and it is salt on the gaping wounds of employers. But what what do you expect, from a government running wild.
Just two years ago the minimum wage level was $5.15 per hour. This new level represents a staggering 40% increase across two of the worst years in decades. It frankly constitutes a tax, at a time when corporate earnings have plummeted. But this tax is optional, in that employers who cannot absorb this "tax" can instead choose to lay off even more workers or cut their hours - just what America needs.
I am no fan of anyone but the market mandating what workers get paid, whether on the high-end or the low-end. However, I have accepted that these laws are well-entrenched in our economy. But congress should enact emergency legislation to postpone this increase indefinitely.
This will especially hurt retailers, who have already been hammered hard and are expecting poor back-to-school sales to begin with. Unfortunately this increase won't ultimately help the economic class of people it is designed to benefit, and it is salt on the gaping wounds of employers. But what what do you expect, from a government running wild.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The Beheading of Liberty
Last month, an 8 foot replica of the Statue of Liberty that stood outside a coffee shop in Brooklyn disappeared. I had thought this was an ironic metaphor to the disappearance of real liberty we see day in and day out, as we drift away from our constitutional mooring. A video has now surfaced which shows the beheading of said statue, islamic extremist style, with flashes of "Death to America" on the screen. You can watch the video here:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07092009/news/regionalnews/brooklyn/liberty_beheaded_in_video_178348.htm
The video just seems too deadpan and creepy to be a hoax. It almost comes across as some kind of warning. This video serves as a stark reminder that there are real enemies of America, just as the metaphor I cited above highlights that there are real enemies within, enemies of freedom.
At a time when North Korea has threatened us, and is test-firing missiles, Obama is putting sheets, pillows and a comfortor on a bed to lay down in with Russia, who objects to our missile defense initiatives. Obama's Homeland Secretary doesn't used the word "terrorist" anymore, rejecting what she refers to as the "politics of fear." I think that Obama believes that by just being a nice guy and making everyone feel good, the world's evil will be no threat.
Surprisingly, and inconsistent with his other dealings, Obama has chosen to beef up our presence in Afghanistan. That is his "token" conflict, I believe because he secretly wants to get bin Laden, so that he can wear a badge of toughness on his lapel. But back on the homefront he continues to increase the role of federal government in our lives, and further a culture of dependency.
There is no stronger America than one with a strong military, and there is no stronger America than one with a truly free people. Weakened individual rights will serve as an accomplice to a weakened military in beheading liberty. Perhaps the enemy within is the one we should fear more.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07092009/news/regionalnews/brooklyn/liberty_beheaded_in_video_178348.htm
The video just seems too deadpan and creepy to be a hoax. It almost comes across as some kind of warning. This video serves as a stark reminder that there are real enemies of America, just as the metaphor I cited above highlights that there are real enemies within, enemies of freedom.
At a time when North Korea has threatened us, and is test-firing missiles, Obama is putting sheets, pillows and a comfortor on a bed to lay down in with Russia, who objects to our missile defense initiatives. Obama's Homeland Secretary doesn't used the word "terrorist" anymore, rejecting what she refers to as the "politics of fear." I think that Obama believes that by just being a nice guy and making everyone feel good, the world's evil will be no threat.
Surprisingly, and inconsistent with his other dealings, Obama has chosen to beef up our presence in Afghanistan. That is his "token" conflict, I believe because he secretly wants to get bin Laden, so that he can wear a badge of toughness on his lapel. But back on the homefront he continues to increase the role of federal government in our lives, and further a culture of dependency.
There is no stronger America than one with a strong military, and there is no stronger America than one with a truly free people. Weakened individual rights will serve as an accomplice to a weakened military in beheading liberty. Perhaps the enemy within is the one we should fear more.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Taxed to Death
Certain Senate Democrats have been holed up this week brainstorming on ways to tax Americans to pay for the proposed government-provided healthcare program. They seem to like this “tax surcharge” on higher income earners the best, but have also considered taxes on employer provided healthcare (meaning employers subsidize healthcare insurance for people that DON’T work for them) and even taxes on “sugary” drinks!
Many have referred to the Obama administration as a “Tax and Spend” government. I think the order is wrong - really I see it as more of a “Spend and Tax” administration. That is – spend, spend, spend, and then figure out how we are going to pay for it. Well, we all know who is going to pay for it – those who are already taxed to death. The administration just cannot decide which of these folks' pockets it is going to pick.
Here are some staggering statistics, based upon the 2006 tax year. The bottom half – yes half - of earners in this country only paid 2.99% of the taxes. The bottom 75% of earners footed only a paltry 13.73% of total taxes. During the AIG bonus debacle, I always got a kick out of the protestors claiming “that’s my money – those are my tax dollars.” Well, not really… most of them don’t really pay taxes; little if any. The top 1% of earners pay a staggering 40% of all taxes, and the top 5% pay a whopping 60% of all taxes! So whose money is it really anyway?
Could you imagine dining at a restaurant serving 100 customers, eating the same pasta, the same salad, and drinking the same ice tea, and when the bill comes 5 individuals over at a small table in the corner had to pay 60% of EVERYONE'S bill? Then, to a round of cheers, the restaurant decides that going forward everyone should have appetizers, dessert, and wine too?
It is time to cut spending in our government and for this administration to quit acting like a college student with his first credit card. Unless we want this recession to worsen, or for recovery to be prolonged a decade or more, it is time for the nonsense to stop.
Many have referred to the Obama administration as a “Tax and Spend” government. I think the order is wrong - really I see it as more of a “Spend and Tax” administration. That is – spend, spend, spend, and then figure out how we are going to pay for it. Well, we all know who is going to pay for it – those who are already taxed to death. The administration just cannot decide which of these folks' pockets it is going to pick.
Here are some staggering statistics, based upon the 2006 tax year. The bottom half – yes half - of earners in this country only paid 2.99% of the taxes. The bottom 75% of earners footed only a paltry 13.73% of total taxes. During the AIG bonus debacle, I always got a kick out of the protestors claiming “that’s my money – those are my tax dollars.” Well, not really… most of them don’t really pay taxes; little if any. The top 1% of earners pay a staggering 40% of all taxes, and the top 5% pay a whopping 60% of all taxes! So whose money is it really anyway?
Could you imagine dining at a restaurant serving 100 customers, eating the same pasta, the same salad, and drinking the same ice tea, and when the bill comes 5 individuals over at a small table in the corner had to pay 60% of EVERYONE'S bill? Then, to a round of cheers, the restaurant decides that going forward everyone should have appetizers, dessert, and wine too?
It is time to cut spending in our government and for this administration to quit acting like a college student with his first credit card. Unless we want this recession to worsen, or for recovery to be prolonged a decade or more, it is time for the nonsense to stop.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
King on the King of Pop
FINALLY! I had been waiting for someone to say something - anything - at least a feeble hand to be raised amidst the colossal worship of Michael Jackson followed by, "wait a minute... isn't this the guy accused of pedophilia, who paid hush money to his victims?" Obama didn't raise his hand when asked. Colin Powell didn't either.
Well, Peter King, a US congressman from New York did more than raise his hand. He published a video on YouTube, calling Jackson a pervert, lowlife, and pedophile. He asked why the media wasn't talking about real heroes - soldiers, firemen, policemen. This finally got the media talking, and there was a panel on CNN to discuss the video. They talked about Michael Jackson's accomplishments, what he did for African Americans - yet each admitted they would not allow their own children to be with Jackson. They clearly were willing to separate the art from the man, something I am having some difficulty doing.
King, knowingly or not, is really addressing something bigger than the here-and-now of the Michael Jackson story. He is really addressing something fundamentally wrong with American culture - how we have lost sight of goodness, honor, integrity - now only a mirage in the media. Instead we celebrate excess, infidelity, and hold no one to any moral standards. In fact to try to do so, as King has done, is to draw attack. Already there is a website soliciting donations to build a campaign war chest for whoever may run against King in whatever election in the future.
The media has put together what they think we want - America's own "Lady Di" funeral. What America really needs is a kick in its moral ass. Peter King has his boots on and is ready to deliver.
Well, Peter King, a US congressman from New York did more than raise his hand. He published a video on YouTube, calling Jackson a pervert, lowlife, and pedophile. He asked why the media wasn't talking about real heroes - soldiers, firemen, policemen. This finally got the media talking, and there was a panel on CNN to discuss the video. They talked about Michael Jackson's accomplishments, what he did for African Americans - yet each admitted they would not allow their own children to be with Jackson. They clearly were willing to separate the art from the man, something I am having some difficulty doing.
King, knowingly or not, is really addressing something bigger than the here-and-now of the Michael Jackson story. He is really addressing something fundamentally wrong with American culture - how we have lost sight of goodness, honor, integrity - now only a mirage in the media. Instead we celebrate excess, infidelity, and hold no one to any moral standards. In fact to try to do so, as King has done, is to draw attack. Already there is a website soliciting donations to build a campaign war chest for whoever may run against King in whatever election in the future.
The media has put together what they think we want - America's own "Lady Di" funeral. What America really needs is a kick in its moral ass. Peter King has his boots on and is ready to deliver.
McNair Update - Vilification of the Weapon
The focus of this story has now shifted to the gun used to facilitate this tragedy, not what led up to it. Various headlines relate to when the gun was purchased, and by whom. Do you think that if the weapon used had been a kitchen knife, there would be a headline such as "Knife Purchased on the Home Shopping Network - Part of Cutlery Set"?
Guns are inanimate objects. Guns don't get involved in love triangles or fly into jeaolous rages. Really, they just kind of sit there until picked up and used by humans, for good or for bad. The type of gun used and when and where it was purchased is largely irrelevant to this story, certainly not befitting the headlines.
Steve McNair did not deserve the death penalty. But our Second Amendment freedom doesn't either. It is time for this story to subside, so that the families can mourn and have their privacy.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Blaming our "Gun Culture" - McNair
Well it didn't take long for something to set me off this morning. As I was waiting for my train this morning I noticed a guy nearby reading the New York Daily News, and the following headline took up nearly a third of the page: "Famous face just another victim of our gun culture." The story was about the apparent murder-suicide of Steve McNair, the famous former NFL quarterback who was believed to be killed by his 20 year-old girlfriend in her condo, before she took her own life.
I have to take a moment to examine what our gun culture had to do with this tragedy. Hmmm... one Mississippi, two Mississippi... Done. NOTHING! If McNair had been at home asleep in bed with his wife, and wasn't having an extramarital affair this likely would have never happened. And had there been no gun available, a kitchen knife or some poison would have been suitable for this diabolic task.
If I were the journalist at the Daily News, my headline might have reflected that our culture of celebrity was to blame. Yes, a culture that suggests that you can have it all - that enough is never enough. That if you are a celebrity, the public will turn a blind's eye to your transgressions and cheer you on in any direction your moral compass points, even if it is always pointing in the same direction as one's "johnson." The hero worship of celebrities fosters young girls throwing themselves at actors, rock stars, and sports figures, and was the backdrop for parents, who allowed their young boys to sleep in the same bed as a highly-suspected pedophile. Perhaps if the media gave celebrities the same lashing that they give Republicans who transgress, celebrity worship would subside. Maybe as a culture, we would then hold people accountable for their actions and behavior.
I obviously don't know Steve McNair, or his family situation; but this is not a tragedy of the gun, but a family tragedy, one of infidelity that led to the impasse of conflicted romantic intentions among three people. It is a shame and even pathetic, while not surprising of course, that the Daily News would use this tragedy to further its gun control agenda.
I have to take a moment to examine what our gun culture had to do with this tragedy. Hmmm... one Mississippi, two Mississippi... Done. NOTHING! If McNair had been at home asleep in bed with his wife, and wasn't having an extramarital affair this likely would have never happened. And had there been no gun available, a kitchen knife or some poison would have been suitable for this diabolic task.
If I were the journalist at the Daily News, my headline might have reflected that our culture of celebrity was to blame. Yes, a culture that suggests that you can have it all - that enough is never enough. That if you are a celebrity, the public will turn a blind's eye to your transgressions and cheer you on in any direction your moral compass points, even if it is always pointing in the same direction as one's "johnson." The hero worship of celebrities fosters young girls throwing themselves at actors, rock stars, and sports figures, and was the backdrop for parents, who allowed their young boys to sleep in the same bed as a highly-suspected pedophile. Perhaps if the media gave celebrities the same lashing that they give Republicans who transgress, celebrity worship would subside. Maybe as a culture, we would then hold people accountable for their actions and behavior.
I obviously don't know Steve McNair, or his family situation; but this is not a tragedy of the gun, but a family tragedy, one of infidelity that led to the impasse of conflicted romantic intentions among three people. It is a shame and even pathetic, while not surprising of course, that the Daily News would use this tragedy to further its gun control agenda.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Independence Day
Today is Independence Day! Really I feel like I celebrated it yesterday, Friday, as I was off work and my family and I journied to Philadelphia for cheesesteaks, strolled through New Hope on the way back, and attended a neighborhood party in the evening, followed by our town's fireworks display.
Sometimes I wonder what we are celebrating anymore on this holiday: what America was? is? or is going to be? July 4th probably means different things to different people. I took a ribbing from a neighbor when he noticed I had brought Mexican beer to a July 4th party, as he unloaded his Miller product into a large cooler. I informed him that to the best of my knowledge, Miller was owned by South Africans so he wasn't any better. Perhaps his beer choice was more suited for celebrating what America was and my beer choice reflected its future - an America with a confused immigration policy, or lack thereof... mostly from South of the border.
Today the National Park Service re-opened the crown at the Statue of Liberty and some military veterans who are non-citizens will be sworn in as citizens there. Serving in our military isn't a bad way to earn citizenship! At least they probably need to learn English to serve. Anyway, I wonder how much room we have left for more "huddled masses" of immigrants when we are moving to a tax policy that makes them more of a burden as our government taxes away the opportunity they came here for.
Also in the news today we learn that Sarah Palin is resigning as Governor of Alaska. I like what she represented - a fresh, young, attractive face to conservative America. Unfortunately she was a real threat to the liberal agenda, so the media destroyed her. They prefer the face of conservative America to be grumpy old white guys - much easier targets to ridicule or demonize - just watch any TV show or commercial. I hope Palin takes to the airwaves and continues to fight the good fight - I think big things are in store for her, but likely more on the fringes of politics, where it might be a little safer.
Last night I laid on a blanket in a bank parking lot to view the fireworks, my little daughter snuggled up next to me, drowsy as it was well past her bedtime. The fireworks were astonishing, well beyond what one would expect from such a rinky-dink town in the NJ suburbs. Maybe people would feel patriotic for a day or two, as the media might allow, before putting America back on Michael Jackson to numb our minds. After all, they give us the anesthesia we need so the surgery of removing our liberties by Dr. O and his team feels less painful.
Happy Fourth!
Sometimes I wonder what we are celebrating anymore on this holiday: what America was? is? or is going to be? July 4th probably means different things to different people. I took a ribbing from a neighbor when he noticed I had brought Mexican beer to a July 4th party, as he unloaded his Miller product into a large cooler. I informed him that to the best of my knowledge, Miller was owned by South Africans so he wasn't any better. Perhaps his beer choice was more suited for celebrating what America was and my beer choice reflected its future - an America with a confused immigration policy, or lack thereof... mostly from South of the border.
Today the National Park Service re-opened the crown at the Statue of Liberty and some military veterans who are non-citizens will be sworn in as citizens there. Serving in our military isn't a bad way to earn citizenship! At least they probably need to learn English to serve. Anyway, I wonder how much room we have left for more "huddled masses" of immigrants when we are moving to a tax policy that makes them more of a burden as our government taxes away the opportunity they came here for.
Also in the news today we learn that Sarah Palin is resigning as Governor of Alaska. I like what she represented - a fresh, young, attractive face to conservative America. Unfortunately she was a real threat to the liberal agenda, so the media destroyed her. They prefer the face of conservative America to be grumpy old white guys - much easier targets to ridicule or demonize - just watch any TV show or commercial. I hope Palin takes to the airwaves and continues to fight the good fight - I think big things are in store for her, but likely more on the fringes of politics, where it might be a little safer.
Last night I laid on a blanket in a bank parking lot to view the fireworks, my little daughter snuggled up next to me, drowsy as it was well past her bedtime. The fireworks were astonishing, well beyond what one would expect from such a rinky-dink town in the NJ suburbs. Maybe people would feel patriotic for a day or two, as the media might allow, before putting America back on Michael Jackson to numb our minds. After all, they give us the anesthesia we need so the surgery of removing our liberties by Dr. O and his team feels less painful.
Happy Fourth!
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Janet Napolitano - Politically Cunning Linguist
Something hit me on the train to the city this morning. It involves two pieces of news during the last quarter that I thought about together for the first time this morning. As part of the Obama administration's American apology tour, while in Germany our Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, avoided referring to terrorists or acts of terror. Instead she referred absurdly to "man-caused disasters." When questioned about this, she said they were trying to avoid the "politics of fear."
A few weeks later the Department of Homeland Security released its report warning law enforcement on the home-front of American "right-wing extremists," radicals, and domestic terrorists. The report further insulted our military by suggesting returning veterans were ripe for recruitment into these terrorist groups.
Taken together, these two events suggest the "politics of fear" is best used at home. That we should fear conservative Americans, people who believe in and protect the constitution, those who exercise their rights under the second amendment - that we should fear our military patriots as well. Forgive me, but I would feel 100% safer at an NRA convention in a state that allows concealed carry than I did in Manhattan on 9/11, when I watched those buildings come down.
So why this "bilingual" attitude about terrorism? Well, the Obama administration supports the utopian one-world concept and is an enabler of the power-grab sought by the UN. These transnationalists believe we should harmonize our rights with what everybody else is doing. They need to set the cultural stage - our collective mood - and soften our views about nations that do not support freedom and commit acts of terror, while hardening our views about America's rich culture of freedom. Then our rights and liberties can be much more easily eroded - watered-down to the point we don't even recognize them anymore.
Well, I am somewhat of a cunning linguist myself, so I will refer to this administration as an "election-caused disaster!"
A few weeks later the Department of Homeland Security released its report warning law enforcement on the home-front of American "right-wing extremists," radicals, and domestic terrorists. The report further insulted our military by suggesting returning veterans were ripe for recruitment into these terrorist groups.
Taken together, these two events suggest the "politics of fear" is best used at home. That we should fear conservative Americans, people who believe in and protect the constitution, those who exercise their rights under the second amendment - that we should fear our military patriots as well. Forgive me, but I would feel 100% safer at an NRA convention in a state that allows concealed carry than I did in Manhattan on 9/11, when I watched those buildings come down.
So why this "bilingual" attitude about terrorism? Well, the Obama administration supports the utopian one-world concept and is an enabler of the power-grab sought by the UN. These transnationalists believe we should harmonize our rights with what everybody else is doing. They need to set the cultural stage - our collective mood - and soften our views about nations that do not support freedom and commit acts of terror, while hardening our views about America's rich culture of freedom. Then our rights and liberties can be much more easily eroded - watered-down to the point we don't even recognize them anymore.
Well, I am somewhat of a cunning linguist myself, so I will refer to this administration as an "election-caused disaster!"
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
"Obama is My Homeboy" - What??
Today I was dining for lunch out on the patio at Naples near Grand Central Station. I was talking to my colleagues and enjoying a chicken sausage pizza when I noticed an individual walk by wearing a t-shirt with "Obama is My Homeboy" across the front. The guy appeared to be a bike messenger - sans bike - but he was grooving along listening to his ipod. I wondered why this guy thinks Obama is his "homeboy." It made me think about what qualities I want in my own "homeboys" and likewise what qualities I want in my president. Not surprisingly, these requirements are starkly different.
For me, a homeboy should know some good jokes to tell while drinking beer at a barbecue. If he's a hockey buddy he talks a little trash on the ice and contributes good BS for locker room banter. He may be someone I'd enjoy hitting the woods with, shotgun in tow, dog on point 40 yards ahead. My accountant should decidedly not be a homeboy. He should be unemotional and have attention to detail to the point of annoyance. Likewise, I'd just as soon not have my cardiologist (who I am sure I will need in the next 4 years) be a homeboy either... especially should I need bypass surgery. I certainly don't want or need my president to be my homeboy.
Maybe the bike messenger feels he has something in common with Obama. Perhaps he too was a community organizer - after all, maybe he passed out fliers promoting an outdoor concert over in Brooklyn, or he volunteered one Saturday at a "green" rally.
I will tell you what I want from my president. I don't think it is too much to ask. I want my president to be a lover of freedom, of free markets; a man of faith who is humbled by something much bigger and grander than himself. He should be tough, yet diplomatic. He shouldn't be an apologist for America or our way of life. He should protect the constitution, in its purest and simplest form, and recognize the limits it imposes on government.
People refer to Obama as the hippest president EVER! The elite think he is urbane and fashionable. Our youth - well OMG he is so kewl LOL! I don't care about any of that to be honest. I don't need him to be cool (or "kewl" for that matter), I don't need him to be my skin color either. If he sneaks a Marlboro on the lawn of the White House after midnight, that is no concern of mine.
Anyway, while I am not sure someone like me is even allowed to have homeboys, I still wouldn't want one in the Oval Office!
For me, a homeboy should know some good jokes to tell while drinking beer at a barbecue. If he's a hockey buddy he talks a little trash on the ice and contributes good BS for locker room banter. He may be someone I'd enjoy hitting the woods with, shotgun in tow, dog on point 40 yards ahead. My accountant should decidedly not be a homeboy. He should be unemotional and have attention to detail to the point of annoyance. Likewise, I'd just as soon not have my cardiologist (who I am sure I will need in the next 4 years) be a homeboy either... especially should I need bypass surgery. I certainly don't want or need my president to be my homeboy.
Maybe the bike messenger feels he has something in common with Obama. Perhaps he too was a community organizer - after all, maybe he passed out fliers promoting an outdoor concert over in Brooklyn, or he volunteered one Saturday at a "green" rally.
I will tell you what I want from my president. I don't think it is too much to ask. I want my president to be a lover of freedom, of free markets; a man of faith who is humbled by something much bigger and grander than himself. He should be tough, yet diplomatic. He shouldn't be an apologist for America or our way of life. He should protect the constitution, in its purest and simplest form, and recognize the limits it imposes on government.
People refer to Obama as the hippest president EVER! The elite think he is urbane and fashionable. Our youth - well OMG he is so kewl LOL! I don't care about any of that to be honest. I don't need him to be cool (or "kewl" for that matter), I don't need him to be my skin color either. If he sneaks a Marlboro on the lawn of the White House after midnight, that is no concern of mine.
Anyway, while I am not sure someone like me is even allowed to have homeboys, I still wouldn't want one in the Oval Office!
Enabling Bullies and Outlawing Aggression
There are so many implications in this story that there are a number of titles I could have chosen. Another could have been "Zero Tolerance vs. Common Sense." The scene is outside a middle school in New Jersey, where a bully meets one of his regular quarry, trying to hit him with a lacrosse stick. The victim, who has been studying karate and has finally had enough, puts the bully in a head-lock to restrain him until the tussle is broken up. So what did the school do? Suspend them both. Yes, both. The message is, if you are engaged in fighting for any reason, you are to be punished.
Why is engaging in self defense something to be punished for? Why is it that the good guy goes down too, becoming the bad guy? (Notice how George Bush became the bad guy in Iraq, not Sadaam Hussein.) Oh why oh why can't the world be made of cotton candy and no one ever needs to fight? Well, too much cotton candy causes tooth decay. And there are always the likes of North Korea's KIM Jong-II out there who can't keep to himself on the playground.
Young American boys used to live out their warrior fantasies on the schoolyards and sports fields across the country. A found stick became a Colt .45 and "bang bang" was the shot heard 'round the world! Holding a stick and saying "bang" at a public school today will earn a child a few day's off from school. So where do our boys learn to become young capable men... men who may one day have to be strong and fight for what they believe in or engage in self defense?
The answer is certainly not in the public school systems in the United States. The schools these days punish any form of aggression. This fits in nicely with the notion that all violence is bad, even in self defense. One need only look at some of the gun control advocates' wishes and look inside some of the UN policy endeavors to see that this view is held by many.
So let's replace all of our M-16s with candy canes and share them with the world! Well, one day that may be all we know how to do.
Why is engaging in self defense something to be punished for? Why is it that the good guy goes down too, becoming the bad guy? (Notice how George Bush became the bad guy in Iraq, not Sadaam Hussein.) Oh why oh why can't the world be made of cotton candy and no one ever needs to fight? Well, too much cotton candy causes tooth decay. And there are always the likes of North Korea's KIM Jong-II out there who can't keep to himself on the playground.
Young American boys used to live out their warrior fantasies on the schoolyards and sports fields across the country. A found stick became a Colt .45 and "bang bang" was the shot heard 'round the world! Holding a stick and saying "bang" at a public school today will earn a child a few day's off from school. So where do our boys learn to become young capable men... men who may one day have to be strong and fight for what they believe in or engage in self defense?
The answer is certainly not in the public school systems in the United States. The schools these days punish any form of aggression. This fits in nicely with the notion that all violence is bad, even in self defense. One need only look at some of the gun control advocates' wishes and look inside some of the UN policy endeavors to see that this view is held by many.
So let's replace all of our M-16s with candy canes and share them with the world! Well, one day that may be all we know how to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
