Thursday, March 6, 2014
Integrity First
Integrity is defined in the Webster's dictionary on my desk as "Firm adherence to a code or standard of values." Google's definition popped up as "The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness." Some people think of it as doing the right thing even when nobody is watching. Whatever the definition, there seems to be a general wonderment about the loss of integrity in parts of the military. How could these things happen? Why are the people in charge of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors cheating on tests? How could Recruits be subjected to various illegalities? How could criminal activity and unprofessionalism creep into Basic Training and go undetected for years on-end? Leaders at all levels have been scrambling to produce policy letters and newspaper articles to address the subject in order to show they are holding their people accountable.
The military is, of course, a product of the society it comes from whether you have an all-volunteer force or a conscripted force (I'm not addressing mercenaries). If a society loses its general sense of integrity and the importance of it, then so will the military. So let's look at society in America.
We had a President who was allowed to lie under oath and get away with it in the form of keeping his job and his celebrity. He was disbarred for life as a lawyer, but he doesn't need to practice law anymore. The sheer shame of being caught committing adultery wasn't enough to motivate him out of office, which is also pathetic. He and his people have destroyed several women, but the "National Organization for [liberal] Women" is ok with it because of his politics.
Since then, we've had leaders who selectively enforce laws on illegal immigration, drugs, the Defense of Marriage Act, The Voting Rights Act, etc. States actually think they can legalize marijuana and same-sex marriage? What happened to federal law trumping state law?
Global Warming, the formerly indisputable science, was debunked many times over and exposed for the fraud it is, so the name was changed to "Climate Change" and the lemmings all took it in stride. Al Gore burns more carbon than just about any set of 100 of us yet we aren't living right. This is all acceptable of course.
A certain Senator likes to make false claims about people very publicly on the Senate floor, knowing he can't be prosecuted for the libelous things he defecates out of his mouth. He is allowed to get away with these things because every Senate seat is crucial to keeping/getting the majority; anything to stay in power. He is a coward and a poster child for term limits.
Some lawyers have changed our legal system into a joke. They convince people to flood the system with frivolous lawsuits that may or may not have a chance of winning. Either way, the lawyer gets paid. Simple, God-given, no-brainer rights like the ability to defend yourself, your family, and your property are actually questioned and often ruled against. Supreme Court rulings on private property and the basics of what is and IS NOT in the Constitution show a deep lack of understanding for the law and simple right vs. wrong. Judges at all levels legislate from the bench and completely ignore laws and State Constitutions. They just inject their own jacked-up views of the world. Either way, the lawyers get paid.
God has been kicked out of classrooms, high school football games and graduations, court rooms, public grounds, the Boy Scouts and just about everywhere else by the "legal system" (NOT "justice system") mentioned above.
The sanctity of life has been destroyed. Between the general apathy about daily killings in the liberal paradises of Chicago, DC, etc. and the over 50 Million abortions that have occurred here since 1973, video games, movies, and the 24-hour news cycle showing general mayhem in the world, we've become numb to death; like a third-world country where death is just a part of daily life.
Many (or most) of those we call "celebrities" are nothing more than trash. Their lifestyles, up to and including their drug habits, sex-tapes and illegitimate children are put on display for all to see and worhsip. Whoa to those who dare to put a cross up in public view, but "twerking" and smoking pot on-stage are applauded. It's all about shock value. Any publicity is good publicity I guess... as long as you stay in the news. They make tons of money off of horribly violent films full of guns and explosions while they run around espousing the evils of gun ownership for the common person. Oh ya, did I mention they have armed bodyguards around them? Will Bloomberg take their guns too? Will he ever have unarmed bodyguards? I think not. Meanwhile, many of today's youth get their news from Comedy Central shows.
All this is acceptable "Progress" in society today. People aren't held accountable for their actions. People are cheating on tests? What the hell else do you expect?
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Indian Mascots
A few years ago, the NCAA demanded that schools with Indian mascots (American Indian)change their mascots, with the exception being Florida State. Florida State has what they call a "special" relationship with the "Seminole Nation." The penalty for all those who did not succumb to the power of the NCAA was going to be no post-season games (tournaments, bowl games, etc.). In other words, WE, the almighty NCAA don't care what you, your student body, or your local population think. WE know better than you (sounds like the overly assertive Federal Gov't in some cases). I don't know if this penalty was ever enforced.
This was a movement started in 1969 with Dartmouth (originally founded to educate Indians ironically) and lots of colleges and high schools followed their lead.
The 27 Indians who claim to be offended by the mascots should probably look around the reservation once or twice. Indians wear the stuff! In fact, it gives them a sense of identity. They are proud of their heritage, and should be.
Today's mascots aren't the comic-like, stereo-typed mascots of the 1920s and 30s (see the Cleveland Indians or Stanford Redmen historical mascots). They are proud, noble characters and most schools (and most Indians) are rightly proud to have them. In fact, I'd argue the Cleveland Indian, the Washington Redskin, and the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux are among the coolest mascots around.
The NCAA ruling is beyond stupid since they simply don't have the power to dictate what a university decides its mascot should be. Let the schools decide and deal with the public on their own.
This was a movement started in 1969 with Dartmouth (originally founded to educate Indians ironically) and lots of colleges and high schools followed their lead.
The 27 Indians who claim to be offended by the mascots should probably look around the reservation once or twice. Indians wear the stuff! In fact, it gives them a sense of identity. They are proud of their heritage, and should be.
Today's mascots aren't the comic-like, stereo-typed mascots of the 1920s and 30s (see the Cleveland Indians or Stanford Redmen historical mascots). They are proud, noble characters and most schools (and most Indians) are rightly proud to have them. In fact, I'd argue the Cleveland Indian, the Washington Redskin, and the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux are among the coolest mascots around.
The NCAA ruling is beyond stupid since they simply don't have the power to dictate what a university decides its mascot should be. Let the schools decide and deal with the public on their own.
Buying Votes -- Here They Go Again
This being an election year, it's time once again to revisit old ideas for vote-buying with taxpayer money. A certain Representative X (D - MI) introduced "The Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012" (H.R. 4170) on March 8th. Here's what X said, "It's time for Congress to stand up for the rights of student loan borrowers. It's time to forgive these student loan debts."
RIGHTS? WHAT RIGHTS? I think they have the right to re-pay what they signed up to borrow. Isn't anybody responsible for their own actions anymore?
Since the Federal Government took over the entire student loan industry as part of the Healthcare takeover (a.k.a. "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010"), the Federal Government owns all that debt and is in a position to forgive it. That, of course, would be utterly stupid... unless it's an election year and you need to buy votes.
Yes, that's what welfare, social security, and food stamps really are. They started off as noble causes, but turned into abominations used to scare the public and to buy votes. Do you think they really care about the poor? They'd just as soon stomp on the necks of the poor for power.
Rights. I guess people have the right to become slaves to the state... or maybe we'll just mandate that.
RIGHTS? WHAT RIGHTS? I think they have the right to re-pay what they signed up to borrow. Isn't anybody responsible for their own actions anymore?
Since the Federal Government took over the entire student loan industry as part of the Healthcare takeover (a.k.a. "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010"), the Federal Government owns all that debt and is in a position to forgive it. That, of course, would be utterly stupid... unless it's an election year and you need to buy votes.
Yes, that's what welfare, social security, and food stamps really are. They started off as noble causes, but turned into abominations used to scare the public and to buy votes. Do you think they really care about the poor? They'd just as soon stomp on the necks of the poor for power.
Rights. I guess people have the right to become slaves to the state... or maybe we'll just mandate that.
One State Is Too Big To Lose
This being an election year, it dawned on me (once again) that one certain state is too big for its britches (and budgetary brain power!). California has 55 electoral votes out of 538. That's 10.22% of the total and 20.3% of the total needed to win (271). This means 1/5 of the work necessary to be elected President is done if California is won.
That is too much power and too much political pandering in one state. The brilliance of the Constitutional compromise that gave us equal representation in the Senate and per capita representation in the House remains brilliant to this day; however, it is skewed when it comes to the electoral college--all per capita.
By the way, Texas is second with 34 votes and New York is third with 31.
Here's my solution; another Constitutional amendment. This one would split a state if it gets too many votes in the electoral college. A line must be drawn somewhere and I'll call it 15% of the total needed to win. If a state gets more than 15%, it should be split as the people of the state find fit (into two or three, etc) The one rule to the split would be that no remnant would end up with more than 10% of the electoral total needed to win.
The two big conundrums for the People's Republik of Kalifornia would be... How do we split all that debt from living beyond our means for the last 40 years? The other would be: Do we put liberal whack-jobs in one half and the normal people (a.k.a. extremists) in the other half, or try to make both winable.
That is too much power and too much political pandering in one state. The brilliance of the Constitutional compromise that gave us equal representation in the Senate and per capita representation in the House remains brilliant to this day; however, it is skewed when it comes to the electoral college--all per capita.
By the way, Texas is second with 34 votes and New York is third with 31.
Here's my solution; another Constitutional amendment. This one would split a state if it gets too many votes in the electoral college. A line must be drawn somewhere and I'll call it 15% of the total needed to win. If a state gets more than 15%, it should be split as the people of the state find fit (into two or three, etc) The one rule to the split would be that no remnant would end up with more than 10% of the electoral total needed to win.
The two big conundrums for the People's Republik of Kalifornia would be... How do we split all that debt from living beyond our means for the last 40 years? The other would be: Do we put liberal whack-jobs in one half and the normal people (a.k.a. extremists) in the other half, or try to make both winable.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Don't Mess with the Union!
Finally, I have come back to blog! Last summer (2010), I had a couple blog topics floating around my head. Then, kid #2 was born. Life has been going too fast since then to worry about my blog. I'm currently sitting on a bed in a hotel room on a trip by myself... so I have some time to kill.
This post will address unions. This is NOT in response to the public sector union fights going on in several states over collective bargaining and "right to work" movements. I also won't touch on what I think is illegal use of non-voluntary union dues to support political candidates an individual union member may or may not agree with. To me, these are outrages better addressed by themselves.
Unions have a place. They were necessary to fight the "robber barons" of old. Today's workplace standards (e.g. 8-hour workdays, child labor laws, etc.) owe much to the courage of union movements over the years. Unions have a place today. However, as with anything, movements can go too far (see the French Revolution).
When my sister started working at age 16 in a grocery store, she had to join a union. She did not have a choice in the matter (other than not working there). She couldn't decline and say she didn't want the union to represent her. She didn't have a choice to try to bargain for her own salary and benefits. I distinctly remember my father being disgusted with union dues being pulled out of her paychecks as she tried to save for college. I was 11 or 12 at the time and that situation has stuck in my head ever since.
I hear great stories from time to time about people who worked in union workplaces. My favorite is one guy who "worked too hard" one summer while working his way through college. He was making the union workers look bad as they did the minimum. They told him to cool it. The union had worked it out with the company so the workers only had to work so hard. A person can't show motivation or personal pride and work harder. Oh the horror!
This post will address the power of private sector unions that span industries. As of last summer, when this blog entry entered my mind, the federal government owned majority stakes in Chrysler and General Motors because those companies had been run into the ground. The executive branch of the government completely side-stepped bankruptcy law, which is set up to resolve issues like this. Then, they gave parts of the companies to the United Auto Workers (UAW), rather than follow the law and give bondholders the first rights to the company. I don't know where that authority came from and I don't know why court challenges didn't happen (or win if they did happen).
Unions that span industries destroyed the US Steel, Airline, Railroad, and Auto industries, among others. The Unions had no incentive to keep the companies going (By the way, the company provides the jobs and paychecks... not the Union). The Unions only wanted to bleed the companies dry. I will pick on the UAW as an example of union power, greed, and stupidity... and what I think is illegality.
When I was young, at least before the age of 13, I can recall my father thinking out loud and asking "I wonder who the UAW will pick to strike against this year? Last year it was..." Apparently, it was like asking "rabbit season or duck season?" The UAW used the Big Three (Ford, GM, Chrysler) against each other, knowing the other two would pick up sales while production stopped at the targeted company. As one gave in and provided a perk or benefit, the UAW would hit up the other two for the same thing and hold the company hostage until the Union got what it wanted. This went on year after year until the profitability of making an automobile finally ran out and the government stepped in to "save" GM and Chrysler (2nd time for Chrysler). Union greed, combined with poor management, lack of innovation, and superior foreign competition doomed these two companies and almost the whole US auto industry.
Ford saved itself from a similar fate by mortgaging everything it had in a desperate gamble to save the company. It looks like it worked. Good for the company and good for their workers.
A former class-mate of mine from the Army sparked my mind by asking "Why is there one Auto Worker's Union? Why isn't there a union for Ford workers, one for GM workers, and one for Chrysler workers? AND, why would they be allowed to talk to each other?" I instantly concluded that the UAW (and similar unions) is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Law meant to break up monopolies. Think about it. The UAW has complete control of a good or service (labor in this case). This is a monopoly (or cartel) which attempts to squash the competition (read individual's rights). I really thought I was onto something new and I was about to do a great thing.
After doing a little bit of research into the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 to see if it could be applied, I found my theory fit exactly. I also found out that someone beat me to it... over 100 years ago! The Act was applied in 1894 against the Pullman Strike (railroads). As a result, Eugene V. Debs (very big in organized labor history and also a five-time Socialist Party candidate for President) went to jail. The Clayton Act of 1914 amended the US Code to protect Unions from antitrust law enforcement. This protection from the law isn't right. It allows Union bosses to destroy a company (or an industry). The result is harm to the workers.
Also, by accepting "capital stock" in 2009, I believe the UAW no longer fits the definition of an organization exempt from antitrust laws (US Code Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 17).
Here's my partial solution (partial because I don't know how this would affect suppliers who also have to deal with the UAW): There should be a Ford Worker's Union, a Chrysler Worker's Union, and a GM Worker's Union. Just as Ford, Chrysler, and GM (or any set of companies) can't get together and set prices (colluding against the customer), these three unions would not be able to get together to set prices for labor. These new unions would be concerned about the rights of their workers AND the health of the companies. The better the company does, the better the workers do. Who knows... pride may develop! Management and Labor may get along. Innovation may occur and product quality may increase. This solution creates a symbiotic relationship rather than the parasitic relationship that has brought down industry after industry.
Thoughts?
This post will address unions. This is NOT in response to the public sector union fights going on in several states over collective bargaining and "right to work" movements. I also won't touch on what I think is illegal use of non-voluntary union dues to support political candidates an individual union member may or may not agree with. To me, these are outrages better addressed by themselves.
Unions have a place. They were necessary to fight the "robber barons" of old. Today's workplace standards (e.g. 8-hour workdays, child labor laws, etc.) owe much to the courage of union movements over the years. Unions have a place today. However, as with anything, movements can go too far (see the French Revolution).
When my sister started working at age 16 in a grocery store, she had to join a union. She did not have a choice in the matter (other than not working there). She couldn't decline and say she didn't want the union to represent her. She didn't have a choice to try to bargain for her own salary and benefits. I distinctly remember my father being disgusted with union dues being pulled out of her paychecks as she tried to save for college. I was 11 or 12 at the time and that situation has stuck in my head ever since.
I hear great stories from time to time about people who worked in union workplaces. My favorite is one guy who "worked too hard" one summer while working his way through college. He was making the union workers look bad as they did the minimum. They told him to cool it. The union had worked it out with the company so the workers only had to work so hard. A person can't show motivation or personal pride and work harder. Oh the horror!
This post will address the power of private sector unions that span industries. As of last summer, when this blog entry entered my mind, the federal government owned majority stakes in Chrysler and General Motors because those companies had been run into the ground. The executive branch of the government completely side-stepped bankruptcy law, which is set up to resolve issues like this. Then, they gave parts of the companies to the United Auto Workers (UAW), rather than follow the law and give bondholders the first rights to the company. I don't know where that authority came from and I don't know why court challenges didn't happen (or win if they did happen).
Unions that span industries destroyed the US Steel, Airline, Railroad, and Auto industries, among others. The Unions had no incentive to keep the companies going (By the way, the company provides the jobs and paychecks... not the Union). The Unions only wanted to bleed the companies dry. I will pick on the UAW as an example of union power, greed, and stupidity... and what I think is illegality.
When I was young, at least before the age of 13, I can recall my father thinking out loud and asking "I wonder who the UAW will pick to strike against this year? Last year it was..." Apparently, it was like asking "rabbit season or duck season?" The UAW used the Big Three (Ford, GM, Chrysler) against each other, knowing the other two would pick up sales while production stopped at the targeted company. As one gave in and provided a perk or benefit, the UAW would hit up the other two for the same thing and hold the company hostage until the Union got what it wanted. This went on year after year until the profitability of making an automobile finally ran out and the government stepped in to "save" GM and Chrysler (2nd time for Chrysler). Union greed, combined with poor management, lack of innovation, and superior foreign competition doomed these two companies and almost the whole US auto industry.
Ford saved itself from a similar fate by mortgaging everything it had in a desperate gamble to save the company. It looks like it worked. Good for the company and good for their workers.
A former class-mate of mine from the Army sparked my mind by asking "Why is there one Auto Worker's Union? Why isn't there a union for Ford workers, one for GM workers, and one for Chrysler workers? AND, why would they be allowed to talk to each other?" I instantly concluded that the UAW (and similar unions) is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Law meant to break up monopolies. Think about it. The UAW has complete control of a good or service (labor in this case). This is a monopoly (or cartel) which attempts to squash the competition (read individual's rights). I really thought I was onto something new and I was about to do a great thing.
After doing a little bit of research into the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 to see if it could be applied, I found my theory fit exactly. I also found out that someone beat me to it... over 100 years ago! The Act was applied in 1894 against the Pullman Strike (railroads). As a result, Eugene V. Debs (very big in organized labor history and also a five-time Socialist Party candidate for President) went to jail. The Clayton Act of 1914 amended the US Code to protect Unions from antitrust law enforcement. This protection from the law isn't right. It allows Union bosses to destroy a company (or an industry). The result is harm to the workers.
Also, by accepting "capital stock" in 2009, I believe the UAW no longer fits the definition of an organization exempt from antitrust laws (US Code Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 17).
Here's my partial solution (partial because I don't know how this would affect suppliers who also have to deal with the UAW): There should be a Ford Worker's Union, a Chrysler Worker's Union, and a GM Worker's Union. Just as Ford, Chrysler, and GM (or any set of companies) can't get together and set prices (colluding against the customer), these three unions would not be able to get together to set prices for labor. These new unions would be concerned about the rights of their workers AND the health of the companies. The better the company does, the better the workers do. Who knows... pride may develop! Management and Labor may get along. Innovation may occur and product quality may increase. This solution creates a symbiotic relationship rather than the parasitic relationship that has brought down industry after industry.
Thoughts?
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Free DC! -- Taxation without Representation
We moved to the DC area in 2009. If you see a DC license plate, you often see the phrase "Taxation without Representation" on the bottom. Many DC natives want to convert DC to a state, or amend the Constitution so they have a Senator and some Representatives. I don't blame them.
However, given the evils of politics, everyone knows how heavily slanted this voting block would be. This new state would give one party an instant advantage, so neither effort would be able to pass and we'd be stuck with part of our population having a legitimate gripe about taxation without representation.
If you're worred about how weird a 51-state flag would look, type "DC statehood" into Google and click on the Wikipedia site. There is a pretty good one on this site and it doesn't look too bad.
Here's my solution: Make DC a city in Maryland. The existing city was carved out of Maryland to begin with (and Virginia originally). Further, Maryland is already heavily slanted toward one party, so no harm would be done in the Senate. You would; however, add at least a few Representatives in the House (my guess).
The transfer would require an Act of Congress and Maryland would have to accept the land back, much like Virginia accepted it's part of DC back in 1847.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Consitution mentions a seat of Government under federal control, but doesn't mandate it. It merely allows one. I don't think this effort will have a problem Constitutionally (not that anyone pays attention to that document anymore).
I think this is the way to go, with one caveat: The National Mall area (Capitol, White House, Supreme Court, etc.) probably needs to become a National Park or something (if it's not already). I wouldn't trust the state of Maryland or the city to take care of the land itself even though these would be high revenue generating areas due to tourism.
Thoughts?
However, given the evils of politics, everyone knows how heavily slanted this voting block would be. This new state would give one party an instant advantage, so neither effort would be able to pass and we'd be stuck with part of our population having a legitimate gripe about taxation without representation.
If you're worred about how weird a 51-state flag would look, type "DC statehood" into Google and click on the Wikipedia site. There is a pretty good one on this site and it doesn't look too bad.
Here's my solution: Make DC a city in Maryland. The existing city was carved out of Maryland to begin with (and Virginia originally). Further, Maryland is already heavily slanted toward one party, so no harm would be done in the Senate. You would; however, add at least a few Representatives in the House (my guess).
The transfer would require an Act of Congress and Maryland would have to accept the land back, much like Virginia accepted it's part of DC back in 1847.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Consitution mentions a seat of Government under federal control, but doesn't mandate it. It merely allows one. I don't think this effort will have a problem Constitutionally (not that anyone pays attention to that document anymore).
I think this is the way to go, with one caveat: The National Mall area (Capitol, White House, Supreme Court, etc.) probably needs to become a National Park or something (if it's not already). I wouldn't trust the state of Maryland or the city to take care of the land itself even though these would be high revenue generating areas due to tourism.
Thoughts?
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Term Limits -- Proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution
It's well past time to pass the term limit amendment that gets submitted to Congress every term. Congress is an abomination full of self-serving interests and people making laws to benefit themselves and their heirs at the cost of the rest of us. We need citizens who go to Congress to serve, then return to being a normal citizen, living under the laws they create!
I think the current bill says six years for Representatives and twelve years for Senators. My idea is a little different.
The problem isn't just people in Congress serving too long. Congressional staffers become just as entrenched and corrupt. For example, they were the first to exempt themselves from the Health Care (and Education) bill of 2010. My idea applies to them too. One reason the long-term, power-hungry congressmen give for not implementing term limits is the "parliamentarians" would be able to take advantage of the high turnover rate of new Representatives and Senators.
"No person shall serve as a Representative or Senator longer than twelve years in a lifetime. A person may serve twelve years in one house and then twelve years in the other. All persons employed by the legislative branch shall be limited to twelve years. This amendment shall apply to the term immediately following the ratification of this amendment."
I made that text up myself, so I'm sure some lawyer would have to work on it.
I think the current bill says six years for Representatives and twelve years for Senators. My idea is a little different.
The problem isn't just people in Congress serving too long. Congressional staffers become just as entrenched and corrupt. For example, they were the first to exempt themselves from the Health Care (and Education) bill of 2010. My idea applies to them too. One reason the long-term, power-hungry congressmen give for not implementing term limits is the "parliamentarians" would be able to take advantage of the high turnover rate of new Representatives and Senators.
"No person shall serve as a Representative or Senator longer than twelve years in a lifetime. A person may serve twelve years in one house and then twelve years in the other. All persons employed by the legislative branch shall be limited to twelve years. This amendment shall apply to the term immediately following the ratification of this amendment."
I made that text up myself, so I'm sure some lawyer would have to work on it.
Citizen Lawmakers -- Proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution
Proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ." -- Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
This came in an email I received: "For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as healthcare, sexual harassment, social security) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered...in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come."
On the contrary; I don't think it's an idea whose time has come. It's an idea James Madison missed. This should have been in the large batch of amendments he proposed. Then again, nobody in Congress should have ever thought to exclude themselves from any law... just another example of power corrupting people -- happens every time.
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ." -- Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
This came in an email I received: "For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as healthcare, sexual harassment, social security) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered...in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come."
On the contrary; I don't think it's an idea whose time has come. It's an idea James Madison missed. This should have been in the large batch of amendments he proposed. Then again, nobody in Congress should have ever thought to exclude themselves from any law... just another example of power corrupting people -- happens every time.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
My Legal Philosophy
Allow me to provide my legal philosophy: The Constitution is the law of the land. It details the rights WE give the Federal Government, NOT the other way around. If it's not in the Constitution, the Federal Government can't do it (whether you think it's right or not). If you don't like that, get enough people to agree with you and change the Constitution.
Until then, whatever the Federal Government tries to do outside the Constitution isn't legal and is; therefore, unconstitutional. The powers not delineated in the Constitution are reserved for the States and the People. If you don't believe me, try reading the Constitution some time (Amendment Ten).
You don't have a right to education, health care, a car, a house, an ipod, or any handout. It doesn't exist. Niceties are not rights. If you want a nanny-state, go to Europe. This is the USA.
Until then, whatever the Federal Government tries to do outside the Constitution isn't legal and is; therefore, unconstitutional. The powers not delineated in the Constitution are reserved for the States and the People. If you don't believe me, try reading the Constitution some time (Amendment Ten).
You don't have a right to education, health care, a car, a house, an ipod, or any handout. It doesn't exist. Niceties are not rights. If you want a nanny-state, go to Europe. This is the USA.
Poetry from a Long Meeting
As I sat and watched the NCAA Basketball Tournament and flipped back and forth to the decline of our Republic (Health Care Bill vote), I remembered my blog. It's been a few months, and I have a few things saved up to post. I'm no poet, but I was so bored and so tired during a meeting recently, that I decided to write a poem rather than allow my head to bob through the meeting. Enjoy.
“Sleepy” by Brian Farlow
Sleep is good,
Sleep is nice,
I feel like sleeping,
‘Til they put me on ice.
Meetings make me sleepy,
Meetings make me tired,
If only I liked coffee,
Well then, I’d be wired.
Caffeine is what I want,
Caffeine is what I need,
Sleep…is…pulling…me…in,
If…only…
“Sleepy” by Brian Farlow
Sleep is good,
Sleep is nice,
I feel like sleeping,
‘Til they put me on ice.
Meetings make me sleepy,
Meetings make me tired,
If only I liked coffee,
Well then, I’d be wired.
Caffeine is what I want,
Caffeine is what I need,
Sleep…is…pulling…me…in,
If…only…
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Veterans
I got this in an email and did a bunch of editing.
The average age of the military man is 19 years. He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country. He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's, but he has never collected unemployment either. He's a recent High School graduate; he was probably an average student, pursued some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy, and has a steady girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left, or swears to be waiting when he returns from half a world away. He listens to rock and roll or hip-hop or rap or jazz or swing and a 155mm howitzer. He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he is working or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk. He has trouble spelling, thus letter writing is a pain for him, but he can field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less time in the dark. He can recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either one effectively if he must. He digs foxholes and latrines and can apply first aid like a professional. He can march until he is told to stop, or stop until he is told to march. He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but he is not without spirit or individual dignity. He is self-sufficient. He has two sets of uniforms; he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry. He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes, and fix his own hurts. If you're thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food. He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run low. He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands. He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job. He will often do twice the work of a civilian, draw half the pay, and still find ironic humor in it all. He has seen more suffering and death than he should have in his short lifetime. He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and is unashamed. He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body while at rigid attention, while tempering the burning desire to 'square-away ' those around him who haven't bothered to stand, remove their hat, or even stop talking. In an odd twist, day in and day out, far from home, he defends their right to be disrespectful. Just as did his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather, he is paying the price for our freedom. Beardless or not, he is not a boy. He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200 years. He has asked nothing in return, except our friendship and understanding. Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood. And now we have women over there in danger too, doing their part when our nation calls them to do so. God bless them. Happy Veteran's Day!
The average age of the military man is 19 years. He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country. He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's, but he has never collected unemployment either. He's a recent High School graduate; he was probably an average student, pursued some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy, and has a steady girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left, or swears to be waiting when he returns from half a world away. He listens to rock and roll or hip-hop or rap or jazz or swing and a 155mm howitzer. He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he is working or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk. He has trouble spelling, thus letter writing is a pain for him, but he can field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less time in the dark. He can recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either one effectively if he must. He digs foxholes and latrines and can apply first aid like a professional. He can march until he is told to stop, or stop until he is told to march. He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but he is not without spirit or individual dignity. He is self-sufficient. He has two sets of uniforms; he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry. He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes, and fix his own hurts. If you're thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food. He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run low. He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands. He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job. He will often do twice the work of a civilian, draw half the pay, and still find ironic humor in it all. He has seen more suffering and death than he should have in his short lifetime. He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and is unashamed. He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body while at rigid attention, while tempering the burning desire to 'square-away ' those around him who haven't bothered to stand, remove their hat, or even stop talking. In an odd twist, day in and day out, far from home, he defends their right to be disrespectful. Just as did his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather, he is paying the price for our freedom. Beardless or not, he is not a boy. He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200 years. He has asked nothing in return, except our friendship and understanding. Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood. And now we have women over there in danger too, doing their part when our nation calls them to do so. God bless them. Happy Veteran's Day!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
URINE OR YOU'RE OUT
I wish I had come up with this one. Although I cannot take credit for this idea, I'm all for it and I think these drug tests would be a good use of my tax money. I too must pass random drug tests.
"Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass - doing drugs, while I work... Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'."
Personal Responsibility? Government Responsibility? Pure Craziness. It obviously won't buy enough votes.
"Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass - doing drugs, while I work... Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'."
Personal Responsibility? Government Responsibility? Pure Craziness. It obviously won't buy enough votes.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
The Supreme Court -- Do You Care?
A smart person once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." The speech in its entirety can be found here: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
Take away the man who spoke those words. Take away his amazing oratory skill. Take away the man's color and the fact that he's a man. Take away the fact that he was a Baptist minister. Take away the backdrop of the speech. Take away the times in which he spoke. Is the text any more or less true and timeless? Shouldn't this be everyone's dream?
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was sworn in today. Congratulations go out to her. She attained the second highest office her career offers, the highest being Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court is made up of 9 people. There are now 7 men and 2 women. I don't care. There are 7 "whites", 1 "black", and 1 "hispanic." I don't care. There are 6 Roman Catholics, 2 Jews, and 1 Protestant in a majority Protestant country. I don't care. http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html. Some major US religious groups have never been represented on the Supreme Court. I don't care. There are 3 justices in their 50s, 1 in his 60s, 4 in their 70s, and 1 in his 80s. I don't care and none of this should matter.
Justice is supposed to be blind. The statue of Lady Justice holding the scale and a sword is blindfolded for a reason.
Here are the oaths taken by Supreme Court Justices: (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.pdf)
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
I hope our new Supreme Court Justice lives up to these oaths and administers the law as written, not what she thinks the law should be. I have a dream that all our courts act that way.
Take away the man who spoke those words. Take away his amazing oratory skill. Take away the man's color and the fact that he's a man. Take away the fact that he was a Baptist minister. Take away the backdrop of the speech. Take away the times in which he spoke. Is the text any more or less true and timeless? Shouldn't this be everyone's dream?
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was sworn in today. Congratulations go out to her. She attained the second highest office her career offers, the highest being Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court is made up of 9 people. There are now 7 men and 2 women. I don't care. There are 7 "whites", 1 "black", and 1 "hispanic." I don't care. There are 6 Roman Catholics, 2 Jews, and 1 Protestant in a majority Protestant country. I don't care. http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html. Some major US religious groups have never been represented on the Supreme Court. I don't care. There are 3 justices in their 50s, 1 in his 60s, 4 in their 70s, and 1 in his 80s. I don't care and none of this should matter.
Justice is supposed to be blind. The statue of Lady Justice holding the scale and a sword is blindfolded for a reason.
Here are the oaths taken by Supreme Court Justices: (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.pdf)
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
I hope our new Supreme Court Justice lives up to these oaths and administers the law as written, not what she thinks the law should be. I have a dream that all our courts act that way.
Cash for Clunkers... Are You Kidding Me?
I'll give you $4,500 I don't really have for your paid-for asset. Then, you can take out a loan you may or may not be able to afford for something to replace it. Didn't we do this with houses just a few years ago?
What's worse is the genius government is destroying these vehicles. Most of them work just fine. What does the destruction & dumping cost? Is the government really shelling out $6000 per vehicle?
Why aren't we taking these vehicles to the third world and dumping them on the market for $1500 each? We'd at least pay for the shipping and make a little money back. Those places would benefit by having more affordable transportation... for a while anyhow. Transportation would be more available too. Our car parts makers would get more orders for years, making us more money. The European mob figured this one out. Read this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090807/wl_time/08599191525000
The other problem is inventory. Dealers and car makers have a high inventory right now. This program will, no doubt, ease that burden and save some jobs right now. What happens in two or three years when many of the Cash for Clunkers people were going to replace their cars anyhow? They won't need a new car and we'll be back in the same boat.
Cash for Clunkers will slightly upgrade the fuel efficiency of the cars on our roads, and I'm all for keeping the environment a little cleaner, but there must be a better way.
I don't blame people for taking advantage. If I were in the market for a new car, I'd take advantage of the government "acting stupidly" too.
What's worse is the genius government is destroying these vehicles. Most of them work just fine. What does the destruction & dumping cost? Is the government really shelling out $6000 per vehicle?
Why aren't we taking these vehicles to the third world and dumping them on the market for $1500 each? We'd at least pay for the shipping and make a little money back. Those places would benefit by having more affordable transportation... for a while anyhow. Transportation would be more available too. Our car parts makers would get more orders for years, making us more money. The European mob figured this one out. Read this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090807/wl_time/08599191525000
The other problem is inventory. Dealers and car makers have a high inventory right now. This program will, no doubt, ease that burden and save some jobs right now. What happens in two or three years when many of the Cash for Clunkers people were going to replace their cars anyhow? They won't need a new car and we'll be back in the same boat.
Cash for Clunkers will slightly upgrade the fuel efficiency of the cars on our roads, and I'm all for keeping the environment a little cleaner, but there must be a better way.
I don't blame people for taking advantage. If I were in the market for a new car, I'd take advantage of the government "acting stupidly" too.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Change the Name of the Capital
If we are going to keep DC as our Capital, I propose a name change to honor George Washington. I think we should rename the Capital "District of Columbia" and drop the "Washington" part. Personally, I try to use the name "Washington" as little as possible when referring to the city. I just call it DC.
If he were able to see the city and know what goes on there (locally and federally), the man would be embarrassed by the city and horrified by the evil that comes out of it.
If he were able to see the city and know what goes on there (locally and federally), the man would be embarrassed by the city and horrified by the evil that comes out of it.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Free Puerto Rico!
For those unaware, Puerto Rico is an island in the Carribean about 1000 miles from Miami, FL. We acquired it as a colony from Spain after the Spanish-American War in 1898. It is slightly smaller than Connecticut and has about 4 million inhabitants. All Puerto Ricans became US Citizens in 1917 and can freely travel back and forth to the US mainland. Many Puerto Ricans have bravely fought and died in the US military since 1898.
From WWII until the 1970s, Puerto Rico did quite well for itself. With some tax incentives, the economy grew at an admirable rate as did the islanders' education levels. Then, the handouts started. The US and Puerto Rican governments ruined the territory. Please read this article called "Trouble on Welfare Island" (The Economist, May 27, 2006): http://www.puertorico.com/forums/politics/20539-trouble-welfare-island-article.html
That article sums up how we once encouraged the inhabitants to prosper, then ruined them. It is horrible that more Puerto Ricans live on the US mainland than in Puerto Rico itself. That should tell you about conditions and opportunities there. Nothing short of a complete overhaul will turn that island around. This needs to be done by the Puerto Ricans themselves, without our meddling. The feds have done enough.
I fully support the Puerto Ricans who want to vote for independence. If they ever vote for independence, I say "God speed and good luck to you." Other than the Puerto Ricans who live on the mainland, I don't see what that island gives us. The "Welfare Island" is a sucking chest wound. I do NOT support statehood. Of course, I don't think Hawaii should be a state either (geography).
One foreseeable problem with independence will be the US citizenship of the Puerto Ricans. They'll just have to cut it off after a certain date (i.e. nobody born after the independence vote, or similar). You may also see mass immigration to the US mainland before they get cut off from federal programs. That's their right and there's no stopping it.
Here are some other useful links for Puerto Rico information: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/RQ.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico
Thoughts on setting Puerto Rico free?
From WWII until the 1970s, Puerto Rico did quite well for itself. With some tax incentives, the economy grew at an admirable rate as did the islanders' education levels. Then, the handouts started. The US and Puerto Rican governments ruined the territory. Please read this article called "Trouble on Welfare Island" (The Economist, May 27, 2006): http://www.puertorico.com/forums/politics/20539-trouble-welfare-island-article.html
That article sums up how we once encouraged the inhabitants to prosper, then ruined them. It is horrible that more Puerto Ricans live on the US mainland than in Puerto Rico itself. That should tell you about conditions and opportunities there. Nothing short of a complete overhaul will turn that island around. This needs to be done by the Puerto Ricans themselves, without our meddling. The feds have done enough.
I fully support the Puerto Ricans who want to vote for independence. If they ever vote for independence, I say "God speed and good luck to you." Other than the Puerto Ricans who live on the mainland, I don't see what that island gives us. The "Welfare Island" is a sucking chest wound. I do NOT support statehood. Of course, I don't think Hawaii should be a state either (geography).
One foreseeable problem with independence will be the US citizenship of the Puerto Ricans. They'll just have to cut it off after a certain date (i.e. nobody born after the independence vote, or similar). You may also see mass immigration to the US mainland before they get cut off from federal programs. That's their right and there's no stopping it.
Here are some other useful links for Puerto Rico information: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/RQ.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico
Thoughts on setting Puerto Rico free?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Flag Burning and Free Speech
I firmly believe that a person has a right to burn the US or any flag as part of a protest as long as they are safe about it. People have a Constitutional right to free speech and I think this is a form of it.
I also believe I have the right and possibly the duty to kick the living crap out of you if I see you do it.
Thoughts?
I also believe I have the right and possibly the duty to kick the living crap out of you if I see you do it.
Thoughts?
Monday, May 11, 2009
Ben Stein's Final Column -- Celebrity Worship
People who fawn over how beautiful Angelina Jolie & Brad Pitt's latest bastard child is need to have their head screwed back on straight. Ben Stein put it much better than I can below:
"How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury Be a Star in Today's World?
As I begin to write this, I 'slug' it, as we writers say, which means I put a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is 'eonline FINAL,' and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing this column for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writing this column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end.
It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and the world's change have overtaken it On a small scale, Morton's, while better than ever, no longer attracts as many stars as it used to. It still brings in the rich people in droves and definitely some stars. I saw Samuel L. Jackson there a few days ago, and we had a nice visit, and right before that, I saw and had a splendid talk with Warren Beatty in an elevator, in which we agreed that Splendor in the Grass was a super movie. But Morton's is not the star galaxy it once was, though it probably will be again.
Beyond that, a bigger change has happened..? I no longer think Hollywood stars are terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to.
How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a 'star' we mean someone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model? Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails..
They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer. A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.
A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him..
A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girl alive in Baghdad.
The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.
We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.
I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who is eating at Morton's is a big subject.
There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament..the policemen and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they will return alive; the orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who have been in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery; the teachers and nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for autistic children; the kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards.
Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a real hero.
I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters This is my highest and best use as a human. I can put it another way. Years ago, I realized I could never be as great an actor as Olivier or as good a comic as Steve Martin or Martin Mull or Fred Willard--or as good an economist as Samuelson or Friedman or as good a writer as Fitzgerald. Or even remotely close to any of them.
But, I could be a devoted father to my son, husband to my wife and, above all, a good son to the parents who had done so much for me. This came to be my main task in life. I did it moderately well with my son, pretty well with my wife and well indeed with my parents (with my sister's help). I cared for and paid attention to them in their declining years. I stayed with my father as he got sick, went into extremis and then into a coma and then entered immortality with my sister and me reading him the Psalms.
This was the only point at which my life touched the lives of the soldiers in Iraq or the firefighters in New York. I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters and that it is my duty, in return for the lavish life God has devolved upon me, to help others He has placed in my path. This is my highest and best use as a human
Faith is not believing that God can. It is knowing that God will.
By Ben Stein"
"How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury Be a Star in Today's World?
As I begin to write this, I 'slug' it, as we writers say, which means I put a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is 'eonline FINAL,' and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing this column for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writing this column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end.
It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and the world's change have overtaken it On a small scale, Morton's, while better than ever, no longer attracts as many stars as it used to. It still brings in the rich people in droves and definitely some stars. I saw Samuel L. Jackson there a few days ago, and we had a nice visit, and right before that, I saw and had a splendid talk with Warren Beatty in an elevator, in which we agreed that Splendor in the Grass was a super movie. But Morton's is not the star galaxy it once was, though it probably will be again.
Beyond that, a bigger change has happened..? I no longer think Hollywood stars are terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to.
How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a 'star' we mean someone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model? Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails..
They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer. A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.
A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him..
A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girl alive in Baghdad.
The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.
We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.
I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who is eating at Morton's is a big subject.
There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament..the policemen and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they will return alive; the orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who have been in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery; the teachers and nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for autistic children; the kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards.
Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a real hero.
I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters This is my highest and best use as a human. I can put it another way. Years ago, I realized I could never be as great an actor as Olivier or as good a comic as Steve Martin or Martin Mull or Fred Willard--or as good an economist as Samuelson or Friedman or as good a writer as Fitzgerald. Or even remotely close to any of them.
But, I could be a devoted father to my son, husband to my wife and, above all, a good son to the parents who had done so much for me. This came to be my main task in life. I did it moderately well with my son, pretty well with my wife and well indeed with my parents (with my sister's help). I cared for and paid attention to them in their declining years. I stayed with my father as he got sick, went into extremis and then into a coma and then entered immortality with my sister and me reading him the Psalms.
This was the only point at which my life touched the lives of the soldiers in Iraq or the firefighters in New York. I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters and that it is my duty, in return for the lavish life God has devolved upon me, to help others He has placed in my path. This is my highest and best use as a human
Faith is not believing that God can. It is knowing that God will.
By Ben Stein"
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Illegal Aliens
Illegal Aliens are called Illegal Aliens because they are criminals who aren't from here. If you don't like that, change the law so they aren't criminals (please don't).
People who call Illegal Aliens "Undocumented Workers" or "Undocumented Immigrants" are politically spineless. Call them what they are until the law is changed.
Question: Are elected leaders who don't enforce the law and/or prevent others from doing so criminals themselves?
People who call Illegal Aliens "Undocumented Workers" or "Undocumented Immigrants" are politically spineless. Call them what they are until the law is changed.
Question: Are elected leaders who don't enforce the law and/or prevent others from doing so criminals themselves?
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Make English the Official Language of the USA
The US doesn't have an official language because there were so many German speakers in the country at the time of our founding. The Founders deliberately chose not to address the subject. Our hatred of the British lasted through the 1800s. In fact, there was considerable debate during the early part of World War One about which side we'd enter... English or German. We should have stayed out of that one for a variety of reasons. I believe that event was the start of our downfall, not our ascendence.
Back to the subject! Immigrants to the US through the 1800s and well into the 1900s spoke a variety of languages and settled in neighborhoods with their own countrymen. They continued to speak their various languages, but most learned English and forced it on their kids. They were smart enough to know their kids would need it to succeed here as Americans. They were also proud of their kids as they picked up the language. Total immersion works!
I am all for various people keeping their religions, customs, and languages. My ancestors came here before 1776 and the Germanic ones kept their religion and their language. They still speak German today. They also speak English better than most people they'd call "English." I highly encourage foreign language speakers to keep speaking their language, but you have to learn English too.
Luckily, at the time of this posting, 30 states have passed English-only laws, often by popular referendum. There is some sanity out there. Oklahoma will probably vote this way in 2010. It looks like popular referendums are the only way to get this done since our elected representatives are usually too spineless or too stupid.
Bi-lingual education is a joke. Many believe bi-lingual education is the best way to assimilate people. The trouble is, many don't want to or think they don't need to assimilate. Bi-lingual education does nothing but hold kids back because there is no incentive to learn English. There are kids who grow up in several areas who might go their whole lives without being fluent in English because they aren't forced to learn it. That is borderline criminal negligence. Those kids will be disadvantaged for life. Those parents might as well cut off one of their kid's hands. It would have the same effect.
I fully support H.R. 997 - The English Language Unity Act of 2009(http://www.usenglish.org/view/575). If the present US Congress has any guts, they'll pass this bill into law. It'll be challenged by some ACLU commie lawyer who needs a real job and some commie judge will overturn it. The law will make it to the Supreme Court and we'll see what those people are made of.
FYI to everyone who is born here. You are an American, nothing more. You're American, same as me. Deal with it. The only hyphenated Americans who have a right to be hyphenated have dual citizenship.
FYI #2: There is nothing rascist here. I'm looking out for the non-English speakers, no matter what country they came from (preferably legally).
Thoughts?
Back to the subject! Immigrants to the US through the 1800s and well into the 1900s spoke a variety of languages and settled in neighborhoods with their own countrymen. They continued to speak their various languages, but most learned English and forced it on their kids. They were smart enough to know their kids would need it to succeed here as Americans. They were also proud of their kids as they picked up the language. Total immersion works!
I am all for various people keeping their religions, customs, and languages. My ancestors came here before 1776 and the Germanic ones kept their religion and their language. They still speak German today. They also speak English better than most people they'd call "English." I highly encourage foreign language speakers to keep speaking their language, but you have to learn English too.
Luckily, at the time of this posting, 30 states have passed English-only laws, often by popular referendum. There is some sanity out there. Oklahoma will probably vote this way in 2010. It looks like popular referendums are the only way to get this done since our elected representatives are usually too spineless or too stupid.
Bi-lingual education is a joke. Many believe bi-lingual education is the best way to assimilate people. The trouble is, many don't want to or think they don't need to assimilate. Bi-lingual education does nothing but hold kids back because there is no incentive to learn English. There are kids who grow up in several areas who might go their whole lives without being fluent in English because they aren't forced to learn it. That is borderline criminal negligence. Those kids will be disadvantaged for life. Those parents might as well cut off one of their kid's hands. It would have the same effect.
I fully support H.R. 997 - The English Language Unity Act of 2009(http://www.usenglish.org/view/575). If the present US Congress has any guts, they'll pass this bill into law. It'll be challenged by some ACLU commie lawyer who needs a real job and some commie judge will overturn it. The law will make it to the Supreme Court and we'll see what those people are made of.
FYI to everyone who is born here. You are an American, nothing more. You're American, same as me. Deal with it. The only hyphenated Americans who have a right to be hyphenated have dual citizenship.
FYI #2: There is nothing rascist here. I'm looking out for the non-English speakers, no matter what country they came from (preferably legally).
Thoughts?
Friday, April 3, 2009
Poetry
THE FINAL INSPECTION
The soldier stood and faced God,
Which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining,
Just as brightly as his brass.
'Step forward now, you soldier,
How shall I deal with you ?
Have you always turned the other cheek ?
To My Church have you been true?'
The soldier squared his shoulders and said,
'No, Lord, I guess I ain't.
Because those of us who carry guns,
Can't always be a saint.
I've had to work most Sundays,
And at times my talk was tough.
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny,
That wasn't mine to keep...
Though I worked a lot of overtime,
When the bills got just too steep.
And I never passed a cry for help,
Though at times I shook with fear.
And sometimes, God, forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place,
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around,
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here, Lord,
It needn't be so grand.
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand.
There was a silence all around the throne,
Where the saints had often trod.
As the soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
'Step forward now, you soldier,
You've borne your burdens well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell.'
Author Unknown~
-------------------------------------------------------------
It's the Military, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the Press. It's the Military, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of Speech. It's the Military, not the politicians that ensures our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's the Military who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by The flag.
-- Father Dennis Edward O'Brian
The soldier stood and faced God,
Which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining,
Just as brightly as his brass.
'Step forward now, you soldier,
How shall I deal with you ?
Have you always turned the other cheek ?
To My Church have you been true?'
The soldier squared his shoulders and said,
'No, Lord, I guess I ain't.
Because those of us who carry guns,
Can't always be a saint.
I've had to work most Sundays,
And at times my talk was tough.
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny,
That wasn't mine to keep...
Though I worked a lot of overtime,
When the bills got just too steep.
And I never passed a cry for help,
Though at times I shook with fear.
And sometimes, God, forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place,
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around,
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here, Lord,
It needn't be so grand.
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand.
There was a silence all around the throne,
Where the saints had often trod.
As the soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
'Step forward now, you soldier,
You've borne your burdens well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell.'
Author Unknown~
-------------------------------------------------------------
It's the Military, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the Press. It's the Military, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of Speech. It's the Military, not the politicians that ensures our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's the Military who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by The flag.
-- Father Dennis Edward O'Brian
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Goldwater-Nichols Act Part II is Needed
This post probably won't make sense unless you're a veteran or have dealt with the Armed Forces.
The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 reorganized the armed forces in an attempt to quell inter-service rivalry. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater-Nichols_Act . Basically, the result is that you had a General Schwarzkopf in charge of all forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Foreign) in his area to free Kuwait. He had command & control and could assign the right force to do the right task. The buck stopped with him.
This act solved many severe operational problems. The four services now play well together when doing operations, BUT what a pain it can be when a person in a joint operation (or school) still needs administrative actions from each service. We all wear different uniforms (with uniform buying needs), we all have different paperwork for the same stuff (i.e. leave)... some is web-based and some is still on paper. We all have different computer systems with different email needs. And, of course, we all have different comm systems. We've made great strides in the comm world, but there is still room for improvement. All of this can create unnecessary chaos when setting up and executing an operation.
Here's a solution proposed to me from an Army friend. A Goldwater-Nichols Act Part II would create the United States Defense Forces. We would still have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. We could still have our annual fights over budget items. Here's the change: We would all wear the same utility uniform (I prefer the Army's Multi-cam), while keeping our specialized ones. All our admin troops would go to the same school and learn the same systems. A form is a form is a form, no matter what service, the same form would do the same thing and any admin person from any service could process the needs of somebody in a different service. All our systems would talk to one another (you can't even get that within the Army). Joint operations would truly be joint.
There are a million things that could be standardized while still keeping service identity and tradition. I believe that once the painful part is ironed out, this standardization would complete the work started by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 and joint life would be much easier for all of us in the military.
Thoughts?
The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 reorganized the armed forces in an attempt to quell inter-service rivalry. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater-Nichols_Act . Basically, the result is that you had a General Schwarzkopf in charge of all forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Foreign) in his area to free Kuwait. He had command & control and could assign the right force to do the right task. The buck stopped with him.
This act solved many severe operational problems. The four services now play well together when doing operations, BUT what a pain it can be when a person in a joint operation (or school) still needs administrative actions from each service. We all wear different uniforms (with uniform buying needs), we all have different paperwork for the same stuff (i.e. leave)... some is web-based and some is still on paper. We all have different computer systems with different email needs. And, of course, we all have different comm systems. We've made great strides in the comm world, but there is still room for improvement. All of this can create unnecessary chaos when setting up and executing an operation.
Here's a solution proposed to me from an Army friend. A Goldwater-Nichols Act Part II would create the United States Defense Forces. We would still have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. We could still have our annual fights over budget items. Here's the change: We would all wear the same utility uniform (I prefer the Army's Multi-cam), while keeping our specialized ones. All our admin troops would go to the same school and learn the same systems. A form is a form is a form, no matter what service, the same form would do the same thing and any admin person from any service could process the needs of somebody in a different service. All our systems would talk to one another (you can't even get that within the Army). Joint operations would truly be joint.
There are a million things that could be standardized while still keeping service identity and tradition. I believe that once the painful part is ironed out, this standardization would complete the work started by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 and joint life would be much easier for all of us in the military.
Thoughts?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Change or Make Two National Anthems
Our National Anthem is "The Star-Spangled Banner." It was written by Francis Scott Key (a lawyer) after his experience on a British warship overnight as the British pounded Fort McHenry outside Baltimore during the War of 1812 (September 13-14, 1814 A.D.). The bombardment went on for 25 hours. In the morning, Mr. Key was relieved to see our flag was still flying, meaning we hadn't surrendered. The poem, now our National Anthem, is four verses long, but we usually only get to hear the first verse before football games, etc. The poem was originally called "The Defense of Fort McHenry." It was widely published in the US and someone decided it fit the tune of the British drinking song, "To Anacreon in Heaven." The poem was later renamed "The Star-Spangled Banner" and became our national anthem in 1931. I highly encourage everyone to read the full poem. It's a great work.
Like most other Americans, I well up with pride when I hear the national anthem and see a flag waving, in particular if I'm in uniform outside and saluting. It's a great feeling.
What is my problem with this song? I have four. First, it was never meant to be a song. Second, the part we always hear (first verse) is just about the flag, not the country. Third, the tune it's put to is a British drinking song with march music. It sounds far too imperial, especially when compared to others I hear at the olympics. Fourth, it was written by a lawyer.
Other countrys' anthems are about how great the country and its people are. What kind of songs do we have that compare? Well, three great alternatives are out there, "God Bless America," "My Country 'Tis of Thee," and "America the Beautiful."
These are all ideal, but "God Bless America" couldn't pass muster these days since we're not allowed to mention God anymore (Commies and their lawyers) and He's right up-front in this song. Those who oppose such a thing should read the fourth verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner." It's all about Heaven and God.
"My Country 'Tis of Thee" is a great song, BUT it's tune is "God Save the Queen [or King]." That is the anthem of the British Empire... no good, especially when done instrumentally on an international stage.
"America the Beautiful" is perfect. The tune is soft, the words are easy to remember, and it talks about the country, not just the flag. It mentions God in the words, but so does "The Star-Spangled Banner" (fourth verse). Therefore, I propose we change the national anthem to "America the Beautiful."
There have been a number of movements over the past 50 years to get the song classified as the National Hymm or as A national anthem equal to "The Star-Spangled Banner." It's time to make it happen.
Thoughts?
Like most other Americans, I well up with pride when I hear the national anthem and see a flag waving, in particular if I'm in uniform outside and saluting. It's a great feeling.
What is my problem with this song? I have four. First, it was never meant to be a song. Second, the part we always hear (first verse) is just about the flag, not the country. Third, the tune it's put to is a British drinking song with march music. It sounds far too imperial, especially when compared to others I hear at the olympics. Fourth, it was written by a lawyer.
Other countrys' anthems are about how great the country and its people are. What kind of songs do we have that compare? Well, three great alternatives are out there, "God Bless America," "My Country 'Tis of Thee," and "America the Beautiful."
These are all ideal, but "God Bless America" couldn't pass muster these days since we're not allowed to mention God anymore (Commies and their lawyers) and He's right up-front in this song. Those who oppose such a thing should read the fourth verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner." It's all about Heaven and God.
"My Country 'Tis of Thee" is a great song, BUT it's tune is "God Save the Queen [or King]." That is the anthem of the British Empire... no good, especially when done instrumentally on an international stage.
"America the Beautiful" is perfect. The tune is soft, the words are easy to remember, and it talks about the country, not just the flag. It mentions God in the words, but so does "The Star-Spangled Banner" (fourth verse). Therefore, I propose we change the national anthem to "America the Beautiful."
There have been a number of movements over the past 50 years to get the song classified as the National Hymm or as A national anthem equal to "The Star-Spangled Banner." It's time to make it happen.
Thoughts?
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Welfare Through Tax Returns
No tax return/refund should be higher than the taxes paid in any given year. Any return higher than what is paid in is a welfare check. What's worse is the redistribution of wealth in question has to be done through the inefficient bureaucracy of the state, costing us even more. I don't blame people for taking the money since they are taxed in lots of other ways too. I blame the Government for being stupid.
Another thing that baffles me is the fact that I work for the Government, which taxes what it pays me, then makes me file a tax return so the Government can pay me some money back. Why not just lower my salary a little, make it "tax-free" and save us both some time?
Thoughts on either?
Another thing that baffles me is the fact that I work for the Government, which taxes what it pays me, then makes me file a tax return so the Government can pay me some money back. Why not just lower my salary a little, make it "tax-free" and save us both some time?
Thoughts on either?
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"... Sounds Great!
I read a story about a school teacher who gave a quiz near the beginning of the school year. As expected, the grades were varied, from high A's to whatever was at the bottom. When he returned the quizzes, the correct grades were all there, then crossed out and the average of everyone's grades was put on each quiz. When the teacher explained why to the class, he said that the class would perform together and that everyone in the class was going to receive the average of everyone's grades. Naturally, in the spirit of togetherness, individuals in the class would improve their grades for the good of everyone.
This went on for a few weeks. More quizzes were given out and the class's grades changed... for the worse. The average continually dropped as students figured out they didn't have to work hard and they'd be carried by the smarter and/or harder working kids in class. Parents began calling the school asking what was going on. The teacher continued and some parents became irate. Something had to be done about this teacher who was obviously off his rocker.
The school decided to call the parents in to class with all the students there. The teacher came in and spoke about the benefits of ensuring equality and how he was doing a great thing. The horrified parents of the better students lit in to the teacher. When they calmed down a bit, he explained that this was a long lesson in the evils of Communism.
Brilliant! The teacher showed the kids (and the parents) what happens when the reward for hard work and natural ability is taken away. What better way to teach these kids than to have them experience it first-hand? There is no incentive to succeed and the situation for everyone deteriorates because the people at the top don't feel the need and the people at the bottom do worse because they can depend on others. I don't know what happened to their actual grades. I like to think they all got an "A".
As we continue to vote ourselves more and more money from the public treasury with every wacko interest group getting its share, we follow a path the Europeans have been on for quite a while. Soon, if we keep stealing from our kids and grand-kids, we'll also be a second-rate country like all of them.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" -- Dr. Karl Marx. Ol' Karl and his modern-day acolytes could excite the masses with populist rhetoric, but he left out human nature... or nature altogether. For all his studies of economics and the plight of the common worker, you'd think he would have realized the needs to compete, succeed, and have some personal pride. Unfortunately for hundreds of millions of people, there had to be a few experiments with Communism and its Socialist off-shoots to prove him wrong.
What's the point of this blog posting? I just wanted you to read the story about the teacher. I thought it was great... and very relevant considering today's financial environment, universal healthcare, etc.
This went on for a few weeks. More quizzes were given out and the class's grades changed... for the worse. The average continually dropped as students figured out they didn't have to work hard and they'd be carried by the smarter and/or harder working kids in class. Parents began calling the school asking what was going on. The teacher continued and some parents became irate. Something had to be done about this teacher who was obviously off his rocker.
The school decided to call the parents in to class with all the students there. The teacher came in and spoke about the benefits of ensuring equality and how he was doing a great thing. The horrified parents of the better students lit in to the teacher. When they calmed down a bit, he explained that this was a long lesson in the evils of Communism.
Brilliant! The teacher showed the kids (and the parents) what happens when the reward for hard work and natural ability is taken away. What better way to teach these kids than to have them experience it first-hand? There is no incentive to succeed and the situation for everyone deteriorates because the people at the top don't feel the need and the people at the bottom do worse because they can depend on others. I don't know what happened to their actual grades. I like to think they all got an "A".
As we continue to vote ourselves more and more money from the public treasury with every wacko interest group getting its share, we follow a path the Europeans have been on for quite a while. Soon, if we keep stealing from our kids and grand-kids, we'll also be a second-rate country like all of them.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" -- Dr. Karl Marx. Ol' Karl and his modern-day acolytes could excite the masses with populist rhetoric, but he left out human nature... or nature altogether. For all his studies of economics and the plight of the common worker, you'd think he would have realized the needs to compete, succeed, and have some personal pride. Unfortunately for hundreds of millions of people, there had to be a few experiments with Communism and its Socialist off-shoots to prove him wrong.
What's the point of this blog posting? I just wanted you to read the story about the teacher. I thought it was great... and very relevant considering today's financial environment, universal healthcare, etc.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Free the Cubans!!! Lift All Economic Sanctions Against Cuba
I would love it if the Cuban people rose up and turned on their oppressors in order to rule themselves. The government there is evil and there's no looking past that. However, I don't see the Cubans rising up from within. So...
Let the Castro brothers claim victory. Our tourists will create a market economy and sow the seeds of outside ideas. European and Canadian tourists already go there in small numbers. Let them (and us) flock there. There are miles of pristine beaches, good weather, plentiful sugar cane, and lots of cigars to go around.
Democracy and a little Capitalism will follow someday after the Castros are gone. Democracy won’t if the Cuban people are continually taught to hate and fear us. They'll be content to be as they are... a backward, isolated nation. Cubans can enact laws to ensure partial Cuban ownership of everything so they don't get overrun by commercial interests again. Mexico does it.
If I were elected President, my first foreign trip would be to Cuba, not Canada as tradition holds (Bush II went to Mexico first). I would speak to the "Congress" and announce the intention to drop sanctions immediately on live TV. I'd also blast the sitting government and let them know there's something better out there. Cuba can be a land of opportunity. Then I'd leave and watch the beanstalk grow.
Please share your thoughts.
Let the Castro brothers claim victory. Our tourists will create a market economy and sow the seeds of outside ideas. European and Canadian tourists already go there in small numbers. Let them (and us) flock there. There are miles of pristine beaches, good weather, plentiful sugar cane, and lots of cigars to go around.
Democracy and a little Capitalism will follow someday after the Castros are gone. Democracy won’t if the Cuban people are continually taught to hate and fear us. They'll be content to be as they are... a backward, isolated nation. Cubans can enact laws to ensure partial Cuban ownership of everything so they don't get overrun by commercial interests again. Mexico does it.
If I were elected President, my first foreign trip would be to Cuba, not Canada as tradition holds (Bush II went to Mexico first). I would speak to the "Congress" and announce the intention to drop sanctions immediately on live TV. I'd also blast the sitting government and let them know there's something better out there. Cuba can be a land of opportunity. Then I'd leave and watch the beanstalk grow.
Please share your thoughts.
Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) -- Everyone on Zulu
My friend Mike submitted this idea. I’m not sold on it yet, but I'll put it in here to illicit comments.
Abolish time zones. Everyone should be on a universal time with a 24-hour clock. One time for the world. This would not change how anyone conducts business, it would only change the man-made time they do it. For example, instead of being open from 0900 – 1600 (24-hour clock), the New York Stock Exchange would be open from 1500 – 2200. No change in business and no change to the fact that the sun is up while they are open.
Implementing this would be hard. I don't think you could get many countries outside the zulu timezone to go along with it, but it may be a good idea.
People are used to it being 12:00pm when the sun is directly overhead. It would be hard for people to get used to 1200 as the middle of the night. Having said that, the military does its worldwide operations on zulu time (GMT) and gets along fine. It can be done. It's only a matter of should it be done?
Please share your thoughts.
Abolish time zones. Everyone should be on a universal time with a 24-hour clock. One time for the world. This would not change how anyone conducts business, it would only change the man-made time they do it. For example, instead of being open from 0900 – 1600 (24-hour clock), the New York Stock Exchange would be open from 1500 – 2200. No change in business and no change to the fact that the sun is up while they are open.
Implementing this would be hard. I don't think you could get many countries outside the zulu timezone to go along with it, but it may be a good idea.
People are used to it being 12:00pm when the sun is directly overhead. It would be hard for people to get used to 1200 as the middle of the night. Having said that, the military does its worldwide operations on zulu time (GMT) and gets along fine. It can be done. It's only a matter of should it be done?
Please share your thoughts.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Free the Indians!
The Indian Reservation system is a disgrace and should be phased out as soon as possible. While there are a handful of advantages to growing up on the reservation (some offer to send their kids to college), most Indian reservations are dead-end quagmires of hopelessness. Alcoholism and now methamphetamine drugs plague these places. Many have become distribution sources for meth. Reservations are exempt from state law, so only the Feds can do anything there. The Feds do very little, so the problems fester. The Indians continue to suffer. Further, casino money is fueling the alcohol, crime, and meth problems. The Reservation system is a failure.
The horrible thing to me is if an Indian youth aspires for more, he's put down by the other Indians as becoming "Washisha" (white). He just wants to succeed.
The Reservation lands should be given to those tribes to do with as they please. If they want to make a commune, ok. If they want to sell it, ok. BUT, that land will become part of whatever state it’s in and subject to its laws and taxes. Individual states can handle the details. The turnover date should be five years out from passage of the law with all state laws and regulations followed by the ten-year mark (i.e. If the state doesn’t allow gambling, a casino will close.).
American Indians have been held in stasis for the last 100+ years by the reservation system. It is time they catch up to the society around them. Indians can and should remain as Indian as they want to be. My ancestors (Pennsylvania Dutch) came here well over 200 years ago and have retained their customs, language, and religion. There is no reason the Indians can't do the same. They should.
Related subject: Casinos, while bringing jobs and cash, destroy a society from within. They are great for the owners and horrible for the patrons. Casinos are NOT an honorable way to support yourself.
Please share your thoughts.
--UPDATE, September 2009--
I just read an article on CNN.com detailing the plight of Indians on a Lakota Reservation (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/13/king.sotu.economy/index.html).
The article says unemployment is 80%. I have a hint, a clue, a proposal or a suggestion... GET OFF THE RESERVATION!!!!! It's killing you.
--UPDATE, March 2010--
Here's an article talking about the modern-day mismanagemnt of Indian Affairs by the Feds. The Federal Gov't needs to give up and let the Tribes run their own show as discussed above. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/08/indian.land/index.html
-- UPDATE, July 2010 --
Oh this is great. The Iroquois "National" team is trying to travel to the Lacrosse World Championships in jolly ol' England. They insist on traveling using their Iroquois passports and not American passports, insisting on the sovereignty of their nation. Wrong answer! The ignorance gets better. In this story, "Iroquois passport dispute raises sovereignty issue" (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100717/D9H10RB81.html), one of them says, "You know that as a young person that you are sovereign, that you are not part of the United States," he said. "We were the first people here." That is about the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. He is a US citizen, like it or not. If he doesn't, he can leave.
Further, the Indians who the European settlers found in North America were at least the third wave of immigrants. They killed, maimed, and assimilated their way into the lands the Europeans found them on. If he knew anything about "his people", he ought to know that. Again, it's time to end the charade. Disband the reservations, give the land to the Indians, make the former reservations part of the states they are in, and move on.
The horrible thing to me is if an Indian youth aspires for more, he's put down by the other Indians as becoming "Washisha" (white). He just wants to succeed.
The Reservation lands should be given to those tribes to do with as they please. If they want to make a commune, ok. If they want to sell it, ok. BUT, that land will become part of whatever state it’s in and subject to its laws and taxes. Individual states can handle the details. The turnover date should be five years out from passage of the law with all state laws and regulations followed by the ten-year mark (i.e. If the state doesn’t allow gambling, a casino will close.).
American Indians have been held in stasis for the last 100+ years by the reservation system. It is time they catch up to the society around them. Indians can and should remain as Indian as they want to be. My ancestors (Pennsylvania Dutch) came here well over 200 years ago and have retained their customs, language, and religion. There is no reason the Indians can't do the same. They should.
Related subject: Casinos, while bringing jobs and cash, destroy a society from within. They are great for the owners and horrible for the patrons. Casinos are NOT an honorable way to support yourself.
Please share your thoughts.
--UPDATE, September 2009--
I just read an article on CNN.com detailing the plight of Indians on a Lakota Reservation (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/13/king.sotu.economy/index.html).
The article says unemployment is 80%. I have a hint, a clue, a proposal or a suggestion... GET OFF THE RESERVATION!!!!! It's killing you.
--UPDATE, March 2010--
Here's an article talking about the modern-day mismanagemnt of Indian Affairs by the Feds. The Federal Gov't needs to give up and let the Tribes run their own show as discussed above. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/08/indian.land/index.html
-- UPDATE, July 2010 --
Oh this is great. The Iroquois "National" team is trying to travel to the Lacrosse World Championships in jolly ol' England. They insist on traveling using their Iroquois passports and not American passports, insisting on the sovereignty of their nation. Wrong answer! The ignorance gets better. In this story, "Iroquois passport dispute raises sovereignty issue" (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100717/D9H10RB81.html), one of them says, "You know that as a young person that you are sovereign, that you are not part of the United States," he said. "We were the first people here." That is about the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. He is a US citizen, like it or not. If he doesn't, he can leave.
Further, the Indians who the European settlers found in North America were at least the third wave of immigrants. They killed, maimed, and assimilated their way into the lands the Europeans found them on. If he knew anything about "his people", he ought to know that. Again, it's time to end the charade. Disband the reservations, give the land to the Indians, make the former reservations part of the states they are in, and move on.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Convert to the Metric System
America's use of the old English measurement system is an embarrassment. The rest of the world converted to metric-only long ago. The US, and pockets of Britain, are the last vestiges of people who use the English system.
We already use the system in some ways. For instance, my car has a 3.1 Liter engine and I drink Coke from a 2-liter bottle. These are metric measurements. We need to fully convert in order to make it easier to interact with the rest of the world. The system is easy once learned and kids won't grow up trying to figure out how to convert from quarts to gallons, etc.
When I went through high school and college, all classes were done in metric. So, I know there is at least some familiarity with the system at least among those who are 35 and younger.
Converting would be fairly easy as far as who starts it. The Federal Government will have to set a timetable for when all of its dealings will be done in the metric system. Eventually, street signs and mapquest.com will convert (80 kilometers to Cleveland). Cars will have 40-liter gas tanks and the "mph" will be the small numbers on the speedometer and opposed to "kph", which will be the bigger numbers.
Eventually, everything down to grandma's recipes will be done in liters and centiliters vs. quarts and cups. This may take a generation to take full effect, so the grandmas I'm referring to here are today's kids.
Unfortunately, this is one area where we'll have to suck it up and meet the world's standards as opposed to the other way around.
Please share your thoughts.
We already use the system in some ways. For instance, my car has a 3.1 Liter engine and I drink Coke from a 2-liter bottle. These are metric measurements. We need to fully convert in order to make it easier to interact with the rest of the world. The system is easy once learned and kids won't grow up trying to figure out how to convert from quarts to gallons, etc.
When I went through high school and college, all classes were done in metric. So, I know there is at least some familiarity with the system at least among those who are 35 and younger.
Converting would be fairly easy as far as who starts it. The Federal Government will have to set a timetable for when all of its dealings will be done in the metric system. Eventually, street signs and mapquest.com will convert (80 kilometers to Cleveland). Cars will have 40-liter gas tanks and the "mph" will be the small numbers on the speedometer and opposed to "kph", which will be the bigger numbers.
Eventually, everything down to grandma's recipes will be done in liters and centiliters vs. quarts and cups. This may take a generation to take full effect, so the grandmas I'm referring to here are today's kids.
Unfortunately, this is one area where we'll have to suck it up and meet the world's standards as opposed to the other way around.
Please share your thoughts.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Humans Don't "Change"
I began reading "The Federalist Papers" yesterday. The series of articles was written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in 1788 as they were trying to convince New York voters to elect representatives favorable to adopting the new Constitution. These words appear in Federalist #1, written by Alexander Hamilton:
"A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people, than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people."
Wow! Was he studying the past or the future? It is amazing to me that in the 220 years since Federalist #1 was written, history continues to repeat itself and those words apply today. You can see what happens today when you stand up to those who wish to destroy majority rule (with minority rights) and replace it with minority rule (with mandated majority silence)...
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, 1887). We'll see what the present holds for America...
Oddly enough, Alexander Hamilton was accused of being power hungry and ambitious in his own time.
Thoughts?
"A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people, than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people."
Wow! Was he studying the past or the future? It is amazing to me that in the 220 years since Federalist #1 was written, history continues to repeat itself and those words apply today. You can see what happens today when you stand up to those who wish to destroy majority rule (with minority rights) and replace it with minority rule (with mandated majority silence)...
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, 1887). We'll see what the present holds for America...
Oddly enough, Alexander Hamilton was accused of being power hungry and ambitious in his own time.
Thoughts?
Saturday, November 8, 2008
We Need a New Tax Code
Our federal tax code is broken. We pay a variety of stupid taxes and subsidize a whole industry (read H&R Block) just to figure it out. The federal tax code needs to be simplified so we can do as Gov. Mike Huckabee says: "Fire the IRS." A few examples of stupid taxes are below, followed by a few possible fixes.
We are paying a tax on our phone bills for the Spanish-American War from 1898! That war was paid off within a decade or two, yet we are still paying the tax because taxes are like crack to Congress... just one hit and they're hooked.
Taxes don't stop when you die. We pay an inheritance tax on estates over $1 million. This tax was instituted to help pay for World War One. WORLD WAR ONE! (See www.deathtax.com) It has stayed in the tax code ever since and has destroyed many small-to-medium family businesses. By the way, the people who write the laws also write exemptions into it for themselves with non-profits, etc. This is how the Kennedys keep their fortune from one generation to the next.
Married couples pay more in tax than two single people living together. This discourages people from getting married. With tax rates on the rise, this situation will get worse. Don't we have enough illegitimate children in the world (Be a man and get married LeBron.)?
How do we fix this stupidity? First, throw the entire tax code in the fire and start from scratch.
What do we implement in its place? Some, like Alan Keyes, prefer to go back to import duties and tariffs. This would get rid of individual and corporate income tax completely. In effect, we'd pay a sales tax on imported goods and services. I disagree with this approach because other countries will do the same to us and our goods and services will suffer abroad.
Others, like Steve Forbes, suggest a flat income tax. The flat tax would be around 15% with no exemptions (or maybe one for a first home mortgage). Apparently, the flat tax is working wonders in Russia because its harder to dodge taxes. The flat tax is an equal burden by all in terms of percentage, but not in terms of impact on lives. The poor wouldn't have a larger burden, but the flat tax would have a disproportionate impact on their lives.
Finally, some people (like me) advocate a consumption tax. It rewards those who save/invest their money and tax those who spend lavishly. This can be done in one of two ways. One way would be to add a tax at the checkout counter, say 15%. This would be the easiest way to ensure everyone pays the tax. I wouldn't tax food or some standard household goods like toilet paper, etc. It would be up to corporations to keep track of and pay the tax to the government. This may mean we have to end the relatively tax-free nature of the internet.
The other way to implement a consumption tax is to have a form where you report your income, take off a standard deduction for your family size (takes care of food, etc.), report what you saved/invested, and the rest is what you consumed. This could be done progressively so the people adding a new wing on their mansions to house their car collection will be taxed at a higher rate than those of us just trying to get by. A decent explanation can be found here: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/robert-frank-we.html
Of the two ways to implement a consumption tax, the first seems to be the easiest to implement... at least for individuals.
Please share your thoughts.
We are paying a tax on our phone bills for the Spanish-American War from 1898! That war was paid off within a decade or two, yet we are still paying the tax because taxes are like crack to Congress... just one hit and they're hooked.
Taxes don't stop when you die. We pay an inheritance tax on estates over $1 million. This tax was instituted to help pay for World War One. WORLD WAR ONE! (See www.deathtax.com) It has stayed in the tax code ever since and has destroyed many small-to-medium family businesses. By the way, the people who write the laws also write exemptions into it for themselves with non-profits, etc. This is how the Kennedys keep their fortune from one generation to the next.
Married couples pay more in tax than two single people living together. This discourages people from getting married. With tax rates on the rise, this situation will get worse. Don't we have enough illegitimate children in the world (Be a man and get married LeBron.)?
How do we fix this stupidity? First, throw the entire tax code in the fire and start from scratch.
What do we implement in its place? Some, like Alan Keyes, prefer to go back to import duties and tariffs. This would get rid of individual and corporate income tax completely. In effect, we'd pay a sales tax on imported goods and services. I disagree with this approach because other countries will do the same to us and our goods and services will suffer abroad.
Others, like Steve Forbes, suggest a flat income tax. The flat tax would be around 15% with no exemptions (or maybe one for a first home mortgage). Apparently, the flat tax is working wonders in Russia because its harder to dodge taxes. The flat tax is an equal burden by all in terms of percentage, but not in terms of impact on lives. The poor wouldn't have a larger burden, but the flat tax would have a disproportionate impact on their lives.
Finally, some people (like me) advocate a consumption tax. It rewards those who save/invest their money and tax those who spend lavishly. This can be done in one of two ways. One way would be to add a tax at the checkout counter, say 15%. This would be the easiest way to ensure everyone pays the tax. I wouldn't tax food or some standard household goods like toilet paper, etc. It would be up to corporations to keep track of and pay the tax to the government. This may mean we have to end the relatively tax-free nature of the internet.
The other way to implement a consumption tax is to have a form where you report your income, take off a standard deduction for your family size (takes care of food, etc.), report what you saved/invested, and the rest is what you consumed. This could be done progressively so the people adding a new wing on their mansions to house their car collection will be taxed at a higher rate than those of us just trying to get by. A decent explanation can be found here: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/robert-frank-we.html
Of the two ways to implement a consumption tax, the first seems to be the easiest to implement... at least for individuals.
Please share your thoughts.
The Responsible Electorate -- Earned Right to Vote
We have a problem in the US with an irresponsible electorate. The way to fix it is to have people earn the right to vote by having an interest in the success of the USA.
When the Roman Republic was rising, only landowners could serve in the Legion. Those who fought were fighting for their homes and families. They were vested in the enterprise. As Rome grew, they did away with this requirement, became an Empire, became corrupt, and collapsed from within... with the help of some Barbarians.
The right to vote in the US used to come with a property (land) requirement. Those who voted did so knowing it would affect them directly. Early Americans were vested in the enterprise and made responsible decisions. The two political parties weren't too far from each other in day-to-day economic and foreign policy although they differed in things like the gold standard and a national bank.
Today, we have an irresponsible electorate and are in danger of collapsing from within. People vote without thought to the consequences. We are easily swayed by the non-stop media saturation of our lives. I propose that the right to vote should have requirements.
One requirement could be property ownership. That requirement would solve the problem, but would obviously be a non-starter because it would favor the "rich" and it would be demonized from the start.
Another possible requirement could be earning the right to vote through public service for at least 2 years (or four years). Such service could be on the local, state, or national level. Service at any level gets you the right to vote at all levels. The service could be as a forest ranger, Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, military, fireman, police, public school teacher, etc. Other possibilities for qualified service could be a small range of private professions like doctor, nurse, dentist, etc.
This service requirement would not only get people interested in bettering the country, but it would create an electorate with a background bigger than their city block and a vested interest in the enterprise... the USA.
Please post your thoughts.
When the Roman Republic was rising, only landowners could serve in the Legion. Those who fought were fighting for their homes and families. They were vested in the enterprise. As Rome grew, they did away with this requirement, became an Empire, became corrupt, and collapsed from within... with the help of some Barbarians.
The right to vote in the US used to come with a property (land) requirement. Those who voted did so knowing it would affect them directly. Early Americans were vested in the enterprise and made responsible decisions. The two political parties weren't too far from each other in day-to-day economic and foreign policy although they differed in things like the gold standard and a national bank.
Today, we have an irresponsible electorate and are in danger of collapsing from within. People vote without thought to the consequences. We are easily swayed by the non-stop media saturation of our lives. I propose that the right to vote should have requirements.
One requirement could be property ownership. That requirement would solve the problem, but would obviously be a non-starter because it would favor the "rich" and it would be demonized from the start.
Another possible requirement could be earning the right to vote through public service for at least 2 years (or four years). Such service could be on the local, state, or national level. Service at any level gets you the right to vote at all levels. The service could be as a forest ranger, Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, military, fireman, police, public school teacher, etc. Other possibilities for qualified service could be a small range of private professions like doctor, nurse, dentist, etc.
This service requirement would not only get people interested in bettering the country, but it would create an electorate with a background bigger than their city block and a vested interest in the enterprise... the USA.
Please post your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)