Support adoption

The adoption option is coming up more and more lately. Check out this great website. It was started by a woman who found herself pregnant as a teenager and she shares her journey and offers support to girls, women, and supporters.

If you're pregnant, scared, and alone -- I know... I've been there. The last thing you want is people talking at you. Take a breather, a time out, and check out my page. It was info like this that really helped me. DearBecky@standupgirl.com

http://www.standupgirl.org

Good for you, Becky!

Safe Haven Laws Revisited

I'm a pretty big fan of Safe Haven laws. Even though some moms can't seem to understand that they don't mean they can't leave their newborn on a church steps in near freezing temperatures with no one around, I want to commend any mother who makes the tough decision to help their child have a better life than they can provide.

It appears that they may be a problem with Safe Haven laws though. There's no age limit, at least not in Nebraska.


Here is a link to the story.
Nebraska Lawmakers Consider Age Limit on Safe-Haven Law

Monday, November 17, 2008

LINCOLN, Neb. — A Nebraska legislative committee was scheduled to hold a public hearing on bills that would limit the age of children who could be dropped off under the state's safe-haven law.

The law has no age limit, which has led to the drop-off of 34 children at hospitals, most of them preteens and teenagers.

One bill up for hearing on Monday would limit to 3 days the age of children who could be dropped off.

Another would set two age limits, 1 year and 15 years.

The 15-year age cap isn't expected to be considered by the full Legislature because the bill also calls for those older children to receive new crisis services. Attorney General Jon Bruning says that is outside the limited scope of the special legislative session.

11/18 Letter from Mr. DeFazio

A number of weeks ago, I heard an interview with Peter DeFazio, US Representative for Oregon's Fourth District. He outlined a five step alternative to the $700bn bailout that now appears to be a free-for-all spiraling into a strange assortment of loans, public ownership of private entities, regulations, and mission creep. I wrote to Mr. DeFazio expressing support for his bipartisan program. Today, I received the following response.

I disagree with Mr. DeFazio on a number of issues, but this is an exception. Although I support government intrusion in this situation, I do not agree the program passed by Congress and signed by the President. Unfortunately, history seems to be supporting the skeptic.

Provided in its entirety:



Thank you for contacting me about the Bush Administration bailout. This bailout put the taxpayer at risk and didn't address the fundamental underlying economic problems. I voted against it both times it came to the House floor for a vote. Unfortunately, the bill passed the House of Representatives 263 to 171.

I was the first Member of Congress to take to the House floor and stand up in opposition to this $700 billion bailout. I authored three letters to my Democratic Colleagues urging them to vote against this bailout. You can see them on my website. I also was a key member of the "Skeptics Caucus" a group of Democratic Members who vigorously fought against this bailout. And I spoke numerous times against the bailout to the Democratic Caucus, all 235 House Democrats. The financial crisis we face today does not need to be resolved by forking over $700 billion from the taxpayer to the "Masters of the Universe" on Wall Street.

I was appalled that the legislation was loophole ridden allowing Wall Street executives to continue to receive golden parachutes, bonuses, and stock options. The media accounts of AIG executives attending a high priced resort after the government's bailout is unforgivable.

The fundamental premise of the $700 billion Bush Administration bailout is flawed, reckless, and foolish. It is flawed because it is not clear it will achieve its stated objective of injecting commercial banks with liquidity and it ignores the needs of main street America, it is reckless because there are better alternatives, and it is foolish because giving away $700 billion will limit our ability to deal with the myriad of other problems we face such as healthcare, energy independence, and job creation.

To put the sheer audacity of this bailout plan in perspective, a compromise has been talked about that reduces the initial payments to "only $250 billion". $250 billion would more than double our investment in bridges, highways, transit, and rail in the United States for five years. Investing in infrastructure creates jobs and stimulates the economy. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, for every $1.25 billion we invest in infrastructure, we will create over 30,000 jobs and $6 billion in additional economic activity. In President Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration, we invested in building roads, bridges, dams, hydroelectric systems and other public works projects to mend our nation's broken economy. That money trickled up to Wall Street from Main Street and rebuilt our economy. We did not just throw money at Wall Street with the hopes that the taxpayer might some day be paid back.

I think Congress should respond, but the basic premise of the Bush Administration bailout is flawed. Almost 200 economists wrote to Congress stating "As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson"[1]. The letter went on to raise the issues of fairness, ambiguity, and the long-term effects. The former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp in the Reagan Administration wrote, "I have doubts that the $700 billion bailout, if enacted, would work. Would banks really be willing to part with the loans, and would the government be able to sell them in the marketplace on terms that the taxpayers would find acceptable?"[2] And James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas, has asked "Now that all five big investment banks -- Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- have disappeared or morphed into regular banks, a question arises. Is this bailout still necessary?"[3] I believe the answer is No. I have called on my colleagues to slow down this debate and seriously debate the alternative proposals.
Many economists have argued that unfair and abusive mortgage loans should be renegotiated to help distressed home owners save their homes. This would be astronomically cheaper and more effective in resolving this crisis without burdening the taxpayer. Helping working Americans stay in their homes would ultimately increase the value of Wall Street's depreciated mortgage backed assets. This plan would let the benefits of any bailout, paid for by taxpayers, trickle up to the banks and Wall Street, rather than hope the benefits trickle down. As the New York Times opined recently:

"We could make a strong moral argument that the government has a greater responsibility to help homeowners than it does to bail out Wall Street. But we don't have to. Basic economics argues for a robust plan to stanch foreclosures and thereby protect the taxpayers ."[4]

Another serious consequence is the $700 billion hole in the budget deficit this bailout will create. The next administration, Democratic or Republican, will be unable to initiate new proposals as it charts a new course for our nation. The Bush tax cuts blew the surplus created by the last Democratic Administration and the Bush Administration bailout will prevent the next administration from implementing its mandate.

My biggest concern of this bailout is who pays the $700 billion tab. The $700 billion is to protect Wall Street investors, therefore the same Wall Street investors should pay for this infusion of taxpayer money. I have proposed a minimal securities transfer tax of ? of one percent. A securities transfer tax would have a negligible impact on the average investor and provide a disincentive to high volume, speculative short-term traders. Similar tax proposals have been supported by many esteemed economists such as Larry Summers, John Maynard Keynes and Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and James Tobin.

There is considerable precedent for this. The United States had a similar tax from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 levied a 0.2% tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled the tax to help finance economic reconstruction programs during the Great Depression. In 1987, Speaker of the House Jim Wright offered his support for a financial transaction tax. And today the UK has a modest financial transaction tax of 0.5 percent. This is a reasonable approach to protecting taxpayers and ensuring the federal budget doesn't fall further into the fiscal hole.

I have authored the Bringing Accounting, Increased Liquidity, Oversight and Upholding Taxpayer Security (No BAILOUTS) Act of 2008, that would through a series of regulatory fixes resolve much of the liquidity crisis we face at no cost to the taxpayer. I believe this is a far more rational approach.

I also authored an amendment to the bailout bill that sought to protect taxpayers by requiring the Treasury Secretary to implement a low-cost FDIC program to restore liquidity before spending the $700 billion. I believe it is common sense to try the cheaper program first. My amendment also made sure Wall Street paid for the bailout with a minute transfer tax on securities spread over ten years. Wall Street should ultimately pay the taxpayer back for this bailout.

Again, thanks for reaching out to me. Please keep in touch.


________________________________________
[1]
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm
[2]
Washington Post. A Better Way to Aid Banks. William M. Isaac. Sept 27, 2008. A19.
[3]
Washington Post. A Bailout We Don't Need. James K. Galbraith. Sept. 25, 2008. A19
[4]
New York Times. Editorial. What About the Rest of Us? Sept., 26, 2008. A26.

Sincerely,
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON

The Secret to Happiness

It’s officially Christmas.

Christmas has been sneaking its way in through the backdoor since the back-to-school shopping season but now there’s an unapologetic full-court press to ring up and swipe in the next big shopping holiday. Retailers have even brought back the layaway as a convenience for all us consumers who don’t have enough cash to buy Christmas all at once. (By the way, if you can’t cash-and-carry the presents you’re buying to give as Christmas presents, you may have missed the point.)

As is tradition, my wife and I have set a dollar limit for the gifts we will give each other. I think we may even start a new tradition and keep to that dollar limit.

I know people who’ve already decorated their homes for Christmas. I don’t mean the confused people who leave their lights up all year. I mean, they’ve actually set up trees with ornaments and decorations and presents. If I didn’t know better, I’d say it was Christmas Eve in their living rooms.

Christmas’ arrival wasn’t really real for me until I was walking through our local mall and saw… Santa Spot. I couldn’t believe it, but there it was in all its redness. All it was missing was a drunk, smelly pervert in a bad costume pandering to the parents of thousands of whiny, snobby brats. (NOTE: The real Santa at the Downtown Macy’s is excluded from this description. Macy’s is where Santa hangs out when he’s in Portland. The best parents get to take their wonderfully well-behaved children to spend time with the real Santa. And since Macy’s took over Meier & Frank, they even remodeled Pottersville in to a real nice Santa Land with elves and reindeer and stuff.)

And I get it. Retailers need to generate excitement and pump up the shopping season to increase quarterly earnings. (Actually, our economy could use some good news from retail this quarter!) And my friends really like Christmas. It’s fun. The decorations are better than any other holiday’s. They get to feel that Christmas spirit for a month-and-a-half instead of three weeks. It’s something to look forward to. I think y’all are nuts, but I get it. Christmas allows us to be dreamy-eyed kids who believe in magic and run wishing to good and make a difference.

But for all the good and magic of Christmas, I love Thanksgiving. If for no other reason than, when else can we eat our body weight in carbohydrates and fats without guilt or shame? It’s a good day. I’ll start my Thanksgiving off watching the Macy’s Day Parade with the girls. Once we eat breakfast and get bored of giant balloons, we’ll get ready for the annual Turkey Bowl. Hopefully the field’s muddy. After pounding my friends and family in the ground with my superior athletic ability and knowledge of football strategy, we’ll have a light “lunch” of cheese, crackers, and meat, chips and salsa, veggies, including of course, black olives. The only thing better than watching a kid run around with black olives on their fingers is if they can flip their eye lids up and run around laughing so hard they nearly pass out from asphyxiation. Someone’ll have too much cheer and either get nostalgic or belligerent.

Right about the time we’re ready to pick straws to figure our who we’re gonna eat first, Grandpa will decide the turkey’s done. The fixins’ll be set in place. Someone, probably me, will say grace, and a sense of fulfillment will settle over the crowd. Grandpa will begin his, “I’m thankful for…” monologue that makes everyone a little uncomfortable wondering if he’s gonna start kissing or crying. And the day moves to a nice slow auto pilot of games, movies, food, naps, and Tums. What a day!

Not everyone’s Thanksgiving will be like mine. Some will be spent away from loved ones. They’ll be spent standing watch atop a tower in South Korea or clearing a mine field in Afghanistan. They’ll be spent in a hospital ER because someone had too much cheer and plowed into a family on their way home. They’ll be spent wishing they’d call or stop by. They’ll be spent wondering if anyone remembers when. They’ll be spent in a soup kitchen wondering where the next meal will come from. And for most people, the fourth Thursday in November will pass as any other day, not really caring that some legislative body decided that that was the day when the US remembered to give thanks that an Indian with an over inflated sense of charity sealed the death warrant of his people by showing some lost white guys how to raise corn.

It’s not the day I look forward to. Sure, we have a good time, and there are things we do that I enjoy, but my appreciation for Thanksgiving has nothing to do with the holiday. Thanksgiving is a reminder to be grateful for the blessings we enjoy. And they are many, far more than we can count or realize. Thanksgiving is the fist step to living a life of gratitude. Gratitude increases love. Gratitude increases appreciation. It helps us develop perspective. I cried and cried because I had no shoes until I saw the man who had no feet, a proverb goes. Gratitude is contagious. Showing gratitude is a law of the universe for true happiness, and it is something that truly people exude. Thankfulness and the act of expressing gratitude are the secret to happiness.

There is a real danger in forgetting to be thankful or choosing to not show gratitude. Have you ever done a favor for someone who took your action for granted? A lack of thankfulness shows a cavalier attitude towards that which we have received. We all owe everything to the God who created us and grants us our daily breath, and everything that has ever happened in our lives can be attributed to His granting it or doing it. For that reason alone, we should start off every day on our knees in thanksgiving, determined to make the world a little better.

Gratitude and thanksgiving engender a greater desire to serve. From service we receive blessings, and you don’t have to believe in a god to believe in that. Service is a drug, every bit as powerful as heroine, and once it has you, it is very difficult to pull away from. Blessings increases our feeling of thankfulness and desire to show gratitude and the vicious cycle of happiness keeps turning. It doesn’t matter where you get on. All that matters is that you stay on. And, to me, Thanksgiving is just another opportunity to remember all that has happened, all those that can be helped, and all that will happen because of simple ordinary efforts.

I don’t mean to offend or suggest that retailers have evil and people who decorate early are selfish and ungrateful. Decorate all you want. Sell as much as you can. Enjoy your Christmas as much as you can in whatever way you can. We all show our thankfulness in our own ways, and celebration and fashion are not my concern. Apathy is my concern and not even from you. Apathy is never achieved purposefully or all at once, and, on a personal level, it only serves to destroy the possessor. Many retailers and early decorates are very grateful and generous people just celebrating in their own way. But I’m concerned that, on a much larger scale, our community has become complacent and entrenched in entitlement. On a much larger scale, the darkness of apathy that will consume a soul, will consume a nation.

Americans are incredibly generous people. We’re also incredibly selfish. And unless we remember to be thankful, how can we really appreciate Christmas for what it is? So, don’t be in too big of a hurry to get to Christmas or maybe you’ll just be thankful when it’s over.

Duck blood needed

If you bleed green and yellow, the American Red Cross needs you. Join us this year for the Civil War Blood Drive.

Click on the title of this post or copy and past to http://civilwarblooddrive.com/

No stinky beavers, please.

Violent reaction to Prop 8

Note to radicals: if you want to change a population’s perception of you, acts of violence and terrorism emboldens those who support that which you oppose. It weakens your cause. Moreover, if you’re arrested and convicted of a felony, you probably won’t be able to vote the next time the question is put before the people. Therefore, violence is a self-defeating reaction.

Personally, I’m a big fan of Roosevelt’s, speak softly and carry a big stick, but I believe it must be tempered with Gandhi’s passive resistance. Somewhere in there is a reasonable medium.

I hope those who are disappointed with the outcome of Prop 8 can find a way to express themselves in a proactive manner. Vandalism and terrorism by the minority will not sway public opinion in the direction of the majority. If you want to change the world, you must change its perception.

Hanky-panky at the Treasury

Ever wake up and start to wonder if everything you’ve ever believed is a lie? Wednesday, I made a presentation on our current economic situation. It was filled with history and trends and comparisons and the economic values I’ve trusted since I was old enough to know better. This is part of the normal business cycle, I assured them. Our economy has a correction/economic slowdown about every five years. It lasts about 15 months and then we begin got recover. Look at the buying opportunity! In the context of history, blah, blah, blah. It was the longest presentation I’ve ever given, and I was relieved when my time was over. How do you tell someone everything’s fine when what you want to say is that we’re in the middle of a global mini-depression and the guy with the wallet can’t decide whether he’s coming or going?

This too shall pass, keeps reverberating between my ears, but our “leaders” are doing nothing to inspire confidence. On October 9, 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) hit its all time high of 14,164.53. Thursday, it closed at 8,835.25 or 62% of its high just 13 short months ago! Although both nominal and real gross domestic product are higher than ever, both the DJIA and S&P 500 are at 1997/1998 levels.

Over the last 40 years or so, our country’s economy has experienced phenomenal growth. In spite of the volatile environment of the last 40 years, we’ve continued growing and growing and growing. But, is it sustainable? Are we growing too big, too fast? In our effort for more, has greed gotten the better of us? Are we paying the piper? If we continue to artificially hold up our economy with ever increasing mountains of debt, will we ever have a strong, sustainable economy? If not, what will the crash be like?

Perhaps one of the least settling things about this is that many of the same people who helped create this mess are trying to fix it. Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced that he was planning to use $350 Billion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to help relieve pressure on consumer credit instead of buying “toxic” mortgages. Originally TARP was sold as a way for the Federal government to purchase nonperforming assets from a bank, removing it from their balance sheet, raising its credit rating and ability to borrow, and making it a healthier institution able to better perform its function of loaning money and investing in the market place. But now it appears more than ever that this is just a big slush fund so the tax payers can make up for the poor business decisions of which ever company or industry Hank likes.

Paulson has committed $290 Billion to purchase stakes in banks and AIG. Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership wants as much as $50 Billion invested in the auto industry (which comes with additional perk of an “oversight czar” telling the industry what to make and how to make it). If they don’t get it, America could be out of the car business early next year. Cities are not approaching the Treasury for bailout funds. And the assistant secretary in charge of the bailout funds has already said that we’ll need more than the $700bn, maybe twice as much.

Consumers aren’t spending any money because we’re up to our eyes in debt and worried about our jobs. Businesses aren’t investing because consumers aren’t spending. Exports aren’t much help because the entire world is feeling the squeeze (Equador will miss a $30 Million interest payment tomorrow because of dropping oil prices). That leaves the government as the last spender in the equation, and the policy of the moment is public ownership of private companies and loans to help industries and companies bridge through this cycle. But where is the end of the bridge? Should the public own private companies? And have we made up our minds now?

In this case, I do support government spending, even deficit spending. Both of which are acceptable practices in this situation, but I would like to see it controlled and directed mostly to infrastructure. Extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps, and other welfare benefits will help a little but a bigger benefit will be gained by government spending on programs that will help Americans get back to work and invest in the infrastructure. I’d like to see $700bn spent on roads and bridges, energy generation and distribution, levies, and the like. Of course, the rub is in the fair distribution of the stimulus to ensure that influential districts do not receive a disproportionate allocation of the funds. Stimulus could also be directed at health care, education/job training, and national security especially in seaports and airports. But just loaning it to companies that can’t pay the bills they have? Where are they supposed to get their revenue from? The consumer still doesn’t have any money? We’re still in debt? And we’re still worried about employer cutbacks.

I can just imagine the Paulson strategy meetings… Phase one, pay full price for mortgage that aren’t worth anything and hope they’re worth something someday. No. Wait. Let’s borrower tax payer money to invest in private companies, especially the companies we regulate, making unprecedented public ownership in private companies. It doesn’t matter if they can’t pay their bills. We won’t worry about that right now. Then, we’ll go back to Congress, get the rest of our money, and see about the other thing we told them we’d do. And if that ain’t enough, we’ll just tell them we need more. Blackmail’s fun. Can you believe people rob banks?

More important than actually doing anything worthwhile, Washington needs to portray a sense that they actually know what they’re doing and are acting purposefully. Honestly, I don’t think most of us recognize when they screw up anyways. People are pretty forgiving and unless they do something foolish like draw attention to themselves, we generally assume they just meant to do it that way.

Finally, I appreciate a person who recognizes when they could have made a better decision, but the Secretary of the Treasury is one of the most powerful people in the world. He has the world’s resources at his disposal. Far too much is riding on his decisions for him to be wishy-washy. Come on, Hank. Get it together!

Where Were We When Life Needed Defended?

I’ve received a lot of feedback (both here and offline) on yesterday’s marriage vs abortion post. I drafted the following in an effort to address the majority of them at one time. It’s a bit long, but it builds to a heck of a punchline!

Politics is the art of community building. The making of laws is the art of community defining. There are two ways a community will define itself, empirically and subjectively. The first involves natural laws that can be tested, proven or refuted, and are until new evidence proves otherwise. The second is based on values, our own moral compass. It works only as long as a majority of people agree. It works well only if an overwhelming majority agrees and abides by it. Unfortunately, the subjective rule of law is inherently exclusive and will change as the population’s morals change. I certainly feel that we must develop laws that are based on broad, overarching values that most of us can agree on and will pass the test of time. This country was founded by a God who preserved it and directed its formation. Moving away from moral values will have damaging consequences, which is why we must identify the most generally shared values in our community and base our governance on those.

Once values enter the picture, we are faced with the questions, who’s values? Why? What makes their values more right than someone else’s? Subject governance based on might makes right is polarizing. It’s divisive. Instead of finding common ground and working together, we focus on our differences. We deplete our resources on the things that tear us down rather than build us up and ignore the larger issues we face. Certainly our decisions should be based on our values, however, when defining our community, we must support our beliefs with fact.

If you’ve ever bought something you didn’t really need, you’ve seen this principle in action. Think of the last time you bought a car with more features than you needed, a pair of jeans that was more expensive than another, or had desert after a good dinner. Our buying decisions are based on emotions (I want it. I want it. I want it.), and we defend the decision with logic (I need it. I need it. I need it.). Buyer’s remorse is the lack of sound logic to support the emotion that led to the decision. Community defining works the same way. Since our values change in both the short and long term, subjective governance is a volatile way to define our community.

The people of United States define our community in an interesting way. All of our rights are stated in the negative. We have a right until the people use the government to take it away, and our laws are designed to prevent government from usurping our most precious rights. The act of granting rights by a government because of some special status moves us to a strange realm where we are dependent on another to tell us what we can and cannot do, which is decisively un-American. Certainly we restrict rights (e.g., voting, drinking, driving, etc.), however, in each of those cases either there is empirical data to support the values-based decision or our values were shaped by the evidence.

A majority of Americans seem to believe that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Why? What does “marriage” mean? Is it a legal status used to define that sharing of rights? Is it a moral commitment to another person? Is it a tradition? And why is a priority? Love? Companionship? Convenience? Security? Chemistry? No one person can answer these questions for all of us. These are personal questions. There is no empirical data that shows that homosexual couples benefit less from the marriage than heterosexual couples. And the overwhelming majority of homosexuals choose not to get married. We ought to be amazed that any two people can meet, decide to be in love, commit to supporting each other as helpmeets, and actually stick with it!

If marriage is a civil agreement between two consenting adults, then religion may not set policy. If marriage is a moral commitment between two adults who vow to love, honor, and cherish one another, then the state has no involvement except to record rights and responsibilities. But if you believe that marriage is a religious ceremony, you must also believe that everyone has the right to practice their religion according to their own dictates. If marriage is a religious ceremony, then you may believe that God has set agency as a fundamental principle of His gospel, perhaps it is the most important principle. You may further believe that “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the [God], only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.”

As for my own beliefs, I agree with The Family: A Proclamation to the World issued by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. My religious beliefs lead me to support the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Never-the-less, that is a religious distinction, and all attempts to support this definition empirically don’t hold water. I supported the ban in Oregon out of a sense of obligation to the people I sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, and the President of the Church who I believe is God’s representative her on the Earth today. (Comparable to an Abraham, Noah, or Elijah.) But for that, I can think of no reason to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

My objection to the grossly disproportionate attention given to 18,000 married homosexual couples in California over the nearly 100,000 babies that will be aborted this year is completely independent on my views of marriage. The Coalition on Marriage took up the easy victory. Ironically enough, if it hadn’t been for the black and Latino vote that came to support Mr. Obama, Prop 8 may have well failed.

Active supporters of Proposition 8 addressed the lower hanging fruit and may have been motivated by revenge against a “liberal” court overturning their 2000 victory. This wasn’t about reaffirming the will of the people. 9% fewer California’s voted for Prop 8 then voted for Proposition 22 in 2000, in spite of the . This was about a religious crusade against a politically weak minority pushed forward on fear of a condemning, angry God, images of little old boys holding hands on the playground, and grown men kissing. This was a campaign of propaganda and when the moral winds shift, it will be repealed.

The amazing amount or resources committed to this one issue will prove to have been misappropriated. If you’re afraid of being condemned for not standing up for the “traditional definition of marriage” and telling two consenting adults that you will not acknowledge their behavior, I ask you to consider the implications of ignoring Proposition 4 and every other piece of legislation like it. Tens of millions of babies have been killed in the United States before they had the chance to take a breath. Tens of thousands of babies will be killed this year in California because we have failed to move the pro-life cause forward in any meaningful way. Minors can’t drive without their parent’s permission. If their outside past curfew, they can be detained. Parents and responsible adults protect children from harm and are involved, especially in their times of dire need. Failing to pass Prop 4 failed to protect our children. It failed by nearly the exact margin by which Prop 8 passed. $2.7 million was spent advocating for parental notification. $6.3 million was spent opposing it. Our grossly negligent absence in this issue puts the blood of those babies partially on our hands.

Marriage and the family are worthwhile causes and worth defending. I do not agree with how our resources were allocated and believe that we sacrificed parental notification for control over homosexuals.

"What we observe"

A friend of mine who honorably served in the US Army, including a tour in the first Gulf War, sent me this e-mail today. He poses an interesting question.

"I am, by no means, the most patriotic person in the world. Some of my views could be considered down-right anarchistic.

But, I had an interesting observation about Veteran’s Day

Some schools observe it, and some don’t. Some stay open (as Marylhurst does), and some close. This is odd to me because it is a Federal Holiday, and almost all primary and secondary schools close on Veterans day(as far as I can tell).

Conversely, MLK Day appears to be uniformly observed in colleges and universities, but not always in primary and secondary education.

Now, I don’t know if that means anything. And I really don’t know what it means to me, but as a white (not by choice) veteran (by choice), it certainly makes me think."

Thank you, Veterans

One of the lessons I learned from my dad was that fences make good neighbors. The caveat I add is that fences are only as good as the people guarding them.

On this special day, I want to thank the veterans of the United States Armed Forces who serve and have served at the call of their country. I thank you for your sacrifice and the sacrifice of your families. I wish I could do it in person, but hopefully enough people like me are out there to let you know we haven't forgotten.

Thank you.

His Majesty, Barack Obama I

I guess no one told Presiedent-elect Obama, the constitutional law teacher from Harvard, to remind his staff that we don't have kings in this country.

Valerie Jarrett is the co-chair of Mr. Obama's transition team. This clip is from this past weekend's Meet the Press. In this segment, she said that its very important that Mr. Obama be ready to rule on day one.

What?

P.S. I haven't figured out how to post external clips, but if you click on the title of the post, it will take you to the video.

A Crusade Against Same-sex Marriage

Desertenews.com reprinted a press release from Bishop William Weigand of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento and former bishop of Salt Lake City. In his press release, he condemned protests of the passage of California’s Proposition 8, a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

In his press release, Wigand decried “bigoted attacks” against supporters as being “shameful and ignorant” and directed towards a “small part of the” population. He criticized the bigotry exhibited by opponents to Prop 8 in calling supporters of “traditional marriage intolerant.”

He called upon “supporters of same-sex marriage to live by their own words – and refrain from discrimination… and to exercise tolerance of those who differ from them.”

What?

I encourage the bishop to take a dose of his own medicine. Is he the pot or the kettle? Does the commandment to “love one another” only apply to those he agrees with? Christ was a masterful grass roots political activist who chose to spend time with the sinners rather than the pious because He understood that changing people came through love unfeigned and patience and kindness, not through bigoted, intolerant attacks.

I supported the ban on gay marriage in Oregon, but only out of a feeling of obligation to be obedient, however, I didn’t go out of my way to sway others to agree with me. The state has no business in marriage. Their presence in the institution is driven by revenue, control, and tracking financial agreements between two people. The church may now have a different role in the institution of marriage, but true religion has as its fundamental principle morale agency, and morale agency allows a person to make a decision based on their own value system as they understand the gospel they subscribe to, if any. Who are we to tell them they are wrong? Even when we believe we are right, we must appreciate that they feel as convicted in their beliefs as we do in ours. We may think we are right, but everybody can’t be right, and only God knows for sure who’s right. Religion is big enough to allow everyone to practice their religion how, when, and where they choose. Government should only intervene in matters of criminal matters and health and safety issues.

The church I attend attracts the likes of Orin Hatch as well as Harry Reid. Considering the spectrum, it’s clear that God has made room for each of us to follow the dictates of our understanding as directed by the Holy Spirit. Removing the freedom of another person to choose for themselves is bigoted, intolerant, and is closer to the plan of Devil than the plan of God. True Christianity loves the sinner and employs charity, love unfeigned, faith, patience, and long suffering to encourage them to align themselves with the desires of a loving God. God causes the sun and rain to fall on the sinner and saint alike. Using the political process to advance our values and morals may be the status quo, and our values and morals may be shaped by our religious views, but making the ban on same-sex marriage about religion is inappropriate.

Condemning the actions those we first condemned is hypocritical and we need to use this opportunity to examine our beliefs and morals and ask if our actions are consistent with the desires of a loving God and if it is appropriate to use religion to wage a crusade against difference.

I call upon supporters of traditional “marriage to live by their own words – and refrain from discrimination… and to exercise tolerance of those who differ from them.”

Abortions without parental notification

Presidential politics has dominated so much of the public attention lately, it’s almost hard to believe anything else has been happening. But while the world was focused on America’s historical, albeit, racist presidential campaign, Washington wasn’t the only place where hypocrisy reared its cruel head.

After all the votes were counted, it appeared that the country was still relatively conservative, especially on social issues. Nebraska voted to end affirmative action in state hiring practices. Arkansas voted to ban unmarried couples from adopting. California, Florida, and Arizona voters chose to ban same-sex marriage, making 30 states that ban same-sex marriage. Only two states allow same-sex marriage and a handful recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The hottest race of the season was on this very question of same-sex marriage. Earlier this year, a court in California overturned an initiative from 2000 that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Immediately, a campaign was organized, a Constitutional amendment was written, signatures were gathered, volunteers made calls, sent letters, blogged, and went door to door to gather support for Proposition 8, Prop 8 would succeed where its predecessor had failed.

Followthemoney.org reported that $73 Million was spent on this one campaign, making it the single largest race after the presidential campaign, and more than twice what was spent on Prop 8 than in the 24 states that voted on the issue in 2004. As of 10:08 p.m., November 9th, California’s Secretary of State wrote that the measure to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry was passing with 52.3% of the vote. There are still about 2.7 million votes to be counted, but observers are confident that the measure will pass.

Preventing gays from marrying and adopting may be a great success. The gays were stopped cold before they could erode the social fabric that holds Western civilization together. But wait, efforts to restrict abortion failed in South Dakota, Colorado, and California, and to say that Mr. Obama is pro-choice is kind of like saying the Pope is a kinda religious. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are no friends of the fetus either.

So, how can we celebrate the victory of stopping 18,000 consenting, adult couples from entering into a private, social contract with one another, when 94,602 unborn babies were aborted in California in 2005?


Another social issue was placed on the California ballot this year. Proposition 4 would have prevented physicians from performing abortions on girls under 18 until 48 hours after the parents had been notified. Most states require some sort of parental involvement before an abortion on a minor can be performed. California is not one of them. Prop 4 was the third time in four years that Californians were asked if parents should be involved when a minor gets an abortion. The measure was defeated 52.1 to 47.9.

Almost 90% of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks. Roughly 19% are done for minors. In the first 56 days, RU-486 can be used. RU-486 is a drug that blocks progesterone and the embryo starves as the nutrient lining disintegrates. When drugs will not work, surgery is used and involves taking a long piece of metal with a knife-sharp loop, inserting it in to the woman’s uterus, and “dismembering the fetus.” The remains of the fetus, placenta, and uterine lining are then vacuumed out.

Supporters of Prop 8 included a “broad based coalition of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and individuals from all walks of life.” Their web site states that, “Passing Proposition 8 protects our children…”

And to protect our children, an amazing $2.6 million was raised in support of Proposition 4; almost half of what those in opposition raised and less than 1/10 of what was raised for Prop 8. One of the flyers for Prop 8 says, “Secures parental rights to teach children about relationships according to their own values and beliefs.” It talks about a “stable, flourishing, and loving society.” “The sanctity of marriage is worth defending and protecting.” “Proposition 8 protects our children.”

The NY Times wrote that,

The Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical pastor in Florida, said many religious conservatives felt more urgency about stopping same-sex marriage than about abortion, another hotly contested issue long locked in a stalemate.

“There is enough of the population that is alarmed at the general breakdown of the family, that has been so inundated with images of homosexual relationships in all of the media,” said Mr. Hunter, who gave the benediction at the Democratic National Convention this year, yet supported the same-sex marriage ban in his state. “It’s almost like it’s obligatory these days to have a homosexual couple in every TV show or every movie.”

Are they serious? What is more fundamental to protecting the family than protecting life? How can we protect our children if we don’t know that they’re having sex, let alone an abortion? How can we be appalled that at tiny-tiny minority wants to have the same rights, obligations, and recognition as the rest of us and then idly sit by as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the rest of the pro-abortion crowd promote abortion as fancy birth control and a abuse a woman’s right to choose. What happened to a person’s right to choose – not to have sex?

According to a January 2008 report from the Guttmacher Institute,

At current rates, about one in three American women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age 45. Moreover, a broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions. 57% of women having abortions are in their 20s; 60% have one or more children; 86% are unmarried; 57% are economically disadvantaged; 88% live in a metropolitan area; and 78% report a religious affiliation [emphasis added]. No racial or ethnic group makes up a majority: 41% of women obtaining abortions are white non-Hispanic, 32% are black non-Hispanic, 20% are Hispanic and 7% are of other racial backgrounds.

In 2005, California experienced an abortion rate nearly 40% higher than the national average. And yet, people went door-to-door, raised tons of money, and acted in a bigoted and ignorant way towards others who simply wanted to be acknowledged.

Whether you agree with same-sex marriage or not, we have to prioritize our efforts. Gay marriage is an issue our culture is addressing right now, but we fired an entire political party over the deaths of several thousand soldiers in a conflict to bring stability to a volatile corner of the planet. How can we not rise up in revolution over the main stream acceptance of allowing a minor to abort her baby without parental involvement? How can we not scream from the tops of the roofs at the hypocrisy of protecting our children by teaching them bigotry and then not being there when they have surgery or take drugs? Prop 4 neither accepted nor rejected abortion. It said, young lady, this is a big decision, and your doctor must give your parents notification before performing this serious medical procedure.

Prop 8 is an empty victory.

Supporters of Proposition 8 did not defend the family or strengthen the social fabric of the nation. They chose the easy victory and failed to take adequate steps to try to defend life. And one of the most culpable groups for the failure of Prop 4 was the religious organizations that gave so generously to keep their definition of marriage sacred while being dramatically absent on Prop 4. Where were the letters from the pulpit urging their congregations to give generously of their time, their money, and their efforts? Where were their efforts to secures parental rights to teach children according to their own values and beliefs, to promote stable, flourishing, and loving society, and to protect our children?

Onion reports Obama win causes obessive behavior

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive

Mr. Obama's black?!?

Did you know Mr. Obama is black? Did you know we can start having a serious conversation about color now? And I thought this was 2008. I didn’t realize it was 1968.

Mr. Obama was elected for three reasons. One: he talks gooder than John McCain. Two: main stream media gets tingles up their legs whenever he speaks. Three: even though America thinks the President is doing a better job than Congress, we still despise Mr. Bush and don’t make the connection between the two. There’s a tangential reason that I have a hard time accepting. Three people have mentioned to me how exciting it is to finally have a black man in the White House. Bull.

If this were about skin color, why not vote for Sharpton or Jackson or Rice? If this is about skin color, ask yourself if you’d vote OJ Simpson. A segment of the population are about electing a black man, no matter what, but most of us are about electing the best person running for the job.

Can we move on to real issues now? Black, Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, or Indian we’re people. We have different backgrounds, genealogies, accents, and styles, but we’re all still people aren’t we? I don’t imagine I’m much different than a dad in Baghdad, Bangkok, Dublin, Lima, or Sydney. We all worry about our family, try to be the best men we can be, and work to build a better future. So, don’t give me this BS about having a serious conversation about race or how amazing that a black man could become President. Until neither of those questions don’t enter our minds, we’ll remain slaves to our pasts. Does his skin color in some way make him more qualified to run the country and represent us to the world? I can think of a bunch of requirements and desires for the person we hire for this job. Skin color ain’t on the list.

History in the making

Now we know what outspending your opponent 3:1 and having the media in your pocket buys. If you’re Barack Obama, the answer is only about six million more voters than the other one. And now we get to listen to weeks bragging, talk of payback and mandates, and pundits theorizing about the whys and the hows and what nexts, and the pendulum continues to swing. I’m pretty sure I’ll make out like a bandit for the next four years. I looked at my four-year-old to thank for her financing the welfare we’d be receiving, and she shot me a perfect ‘no, wait, what?’-look.

A friend sent me a text celebrating a good day for Democrats and a good day for America. I told her she was half right. Change in inevitable. Growth is option. And as the renowned economist John Maynard Keyes said, in the long run, we’re all dead. Time will tell just how far left the country will head under an Obama White House and a Pelosi/Reid Congress. I really hope he’s better than I think he is and half as good some people think he is, but I stand by everything I’ve said and written. The extreme left wing of the Democratic Party now has unfettered control of the direction of the country. And they’ve made their agenda pretty clear; from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Yes, we can… but should we? Should government provide all the needs the community has? How much welfare can a person receive before their self esteem is diminished? How many entitlements can we afford before we run out of money? How much regulation and taxation can our economy stand before it just doesn’t make any sense to do business? How much appeasement can we extend before we appear weak and someone takes a shot at us? How much greater good is worth our personal freedoms?

Make no mistake about it. America needs a change, but the change isn’t in Washington. It isn’t in the White House or the halls of Congress. It’s not in Wall Street or the universities or the court rooms. The change we need lies in the hearts of every person who loves the principles that founded the United States of America. We take for granted the liberties we enjoy. Apathy creeps in and promises of an easier, wider path tantalize our tastes and our passions. America requires advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad! Because there will always be someone working to take it away. There will always be someone leading you to believe that if you just help them out, they will help you out. You’ll never have to worry about putting gas in your car again. You’ll never have to worry about paying your mortgage again. But damn it, you should worry about those things! As Oprah has espoused, fear can keep you alive. Fear keeps you from stepping out in front of a bus! Responsibilities are what keeps us getting up in the morning, pullin’ up our pants and going out to kill something and drag it back to the cave. Contributing is not optional.

The change America needs starts with you and me and everyone else. We need to move away from greed and selfishness. We need to take our hands out of each other’s pockets. We need to care again and appreciate what we have and fight for it. We own house needs to be in order first before we can start helping others. Our answers are not external. We must value industry and work for what we have and what we want. We have no further but the ends of our noses if we want to find the source of our situation.

Barack Obama can’t provide the type of change we need. He represents a political machine with an agenda that worked very successfully to put him there to advance that agenda. That lobby now has a very modest check on its power.

Obama has timing on his side. The economic benefits we’ll receive in the next three years will be part of the normal business cycle, not his executive brilliance. The results we see in Iraq will be the results of a hard decision to stay the course and help the country find itself, and now we have turned over 13 of 17 provinces and set a complete pull out date. No thanks to Obama or Biden. Health care, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will not be solved by more government health care. Immigration will not be benefited by amnesty or by looking the other way. Homeland security will not be helped by being nice to the rest of the rest of the world. The middle class will not be strengthened by Obama/Biden. They will continue to disappear as the habits are repeated.

I can only think of one other time in my life when I’ve wanted to be wrong more than I do right now. Change is coming. I hope we don’t regret it.

Barstool economics

Thanks for the forward, Desha.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this:

a.. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
b.. The fifth would pay $1.
c.. The sixth would pay $3.
d.. The seventh would pay $7.
e.. The eighth would pay $12.
f.. The ninth would pay $18.
g.. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day
and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw
them a curve. Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to
reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.

a.. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that
$20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's
share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to
drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce
each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay. And so:

a.. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%savings).
b.. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
c.. The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
d.. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
e.. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
f.. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.

I only got a dollar out of the $20, declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man, but he got $10! Yeah, that's right, exclaimed the fifth man.
I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!
That's true! shouted the seventh man. Why should he get $10 back when I got
only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!

Wait a minute, yelled the first four men in unison. We didn't get anything
at all. The system exploits the poor! The nine men surrounded the tenth and
beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discov ered something important. They didn't have enough money between all
of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas
where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Character counts

The Obama/Biden Blueprint for America sounds nice. I’d enjoy all the welfare they’re offering, but the fact is that it’s not the job of the government to ensure that I have everything I want. There’s a lady who was interviewed after an Obama event and she said she’d never have to worry about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage. She said that if she took care of him, he’d take care of her. It’s a nice idea but America isn’t about getting something because of which power is in office. America is about freedom and opportunity. It’s about self determination and independence. The more guarantees a person gives you, the less opportunity they allow you.

Obama is an empty suit. He is a backbencher who talks good and has the right friends. He doesn’t seem to have an original thought and only offers solutions that already exist or that he got from someone else. He talks a good game but when I look at his Blueprint for America, each page is another step towards socialism. Obama is many thing, but above all else, he is the beneficiary of good timing.

We the people seem to be willing to look past his record and rhetoric, look past our disapproval of the job he and co-workers have been doing, and only see an alternative to George Bush. We can do better. We must do better. We need to look to the candidate with character, and for all this flaws, John McCain is a man of character.

Obama surrounds himself with political extremists. Whether he agrees with their ideology or is using them for political gain doesn’t matter. Either speaks to his character. A person who attracts supporters like Wright, Dorn, Ayers, Khalidi, Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, and refuses to protect survivors of botched abortions has a character I don’t trust.

No way. No how. NObama.

Today, vote John McCain for America.

Obama's civilian national security force

I’m not sure what to make of this. On July 2, 2008, it appears that Barack Obama was at the University of Colorado delivering a speech, issuing a call to service. Rocky Mountain News carried the story and transcript, and the video of the speech ended up on at this location on youtube. About 16 minutes and 50 seconds into the speech, Obama says:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

These comments don’t appear on the transcripts and a finding a record of the speech is hit and miss, although I did find it on a Wall Street Journal posting. It’s like he was there, then he wasn’t, then he said it, then he didn’t. Something just doesn’t smell right. I have no reason to believe it didn’t happen. I just wish I could find wide spread reporting on the event.

In any case, the question is, what does he mean? In context, I could take it to mean that a strong, well funded force of volunteers in agencies like AmeriCorp, Peace Corp, and diplomatic corp will move to strengthen our reputation in the world. But that’s a stretch.

What if he means exactly what he said? What if he wants a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the strongest military force in the world? What would this group do? Who would they be responsible to? How would they perform their duties? What about the FBI, DEA, ICE, IRS, Secret Service, National Guard, state police, and local policing agencies? Do those not count? My mind instantly thinks of Hitler’s brown shirts. Obama needs to either refute this incident or explain himself in more detail because the connotation suggested by this is disturbing.

Obama and health care

Americans are very proud of our rights. We have the right to do this. We have the right to do this. We assume we have the right to do pretty much anything we want to. An interesting thing about the rights contemplated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed through the Bill of Rights, all of our rights are stated in the negative. Our philosophy is that we are born endowed with certain rights and no one has the right to take those rights away from us. We establish laws and administrative rules to manage the bureaucracy and keep our communities running, but still the pattern is the same. Government shall not… You have rights because you are born. No one gave them to you. You don’t have to do anything to earn them. You simply have them.

What would happen if we suspended that pattern to define a right as something given to you by another person? We’d be dependent on another person to tell us what and when we have the right to do something. Imagine having to ask permission to voice your opinion. Imagine being a non-Caucasian male needing to ask permission to vote. Imagine a government sensor in the news rooms of America and surfing the blogosphere to approve news and opinions. Imagine police having the right to enter your home without probable cause of a crime, search your property and seize it without telling you why or for how long? Imagine being detained for an indeterminate amount of time for a reason you have no right to know. That’s the difference between inalienable rights and bestowed rights. Your rights are dependent on the whims of another person.

Barack Obama wants to make health care a right. He wants to insure every single person in the country. My family has been on private, employer-paid health care, uninsured, and recipients of public health insurance. We understand what it means to be uninsurable. A common theme is that you get what you pay for.

Our health care system has its problems. John Q spoke to me. Western medicine does not practice healing. It prescribes drugs to cover up symptoms and then more drugs to address the symptoms caused by the other drugs, and you can have access to the system if you can afford it or work for someone who can. We have traded a connection with our bodies and nature for a sterile, detached institutional model directed by drug companies, hospitals, doctors associations, medical schools, unions, and government agencies.

For what it is, our current system has been the most effective health care system in the world. It’s produced more drugs, therapies, technology, procedures, and detailed understanding of the mechanics of the human body than any other model. The medical advances achieved through the competitive model are astounding, but there is a difference between health care/management and healing and living healthy. There are many disadvantages to our current model, and until the holistic revolution restores our connection to the wisdom of the ages, it’s what we have.

Given that context, single-payer health care will bankrupt this country, slow the advance of modern medicine, frustrate the opportunity to receive the health care we want, and put our lives in the hands of actuaries calculating the cost of providing continued care.

The Government Accounting Office published a report in April of 2008 that examined the long-term challenges faced by our economy and the trends in health care costs and demographics. They founded a funding gap in the amount of $54 Trillion (that on top of the $10 Trillion national debt) to cover the lifetime benefits of those eligible to for Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs. $54 Trillion is roughly $500,000 for every household in the nation.

The reason is because our society is getting older, living longer, living less healthy, and getting sicker more often and in more ways. Obama and most other democrats want to increase this liability to cover everyone for longer! We just can’t afford it.

Just a few weeks ago, Hawaii announced that budget shortfalls led them to discontinue the nation’s only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched. One of the many problems with single-payer plans like the one in Hawaii and the one that Obama proposes is that people and businesses that can afford health care choose to let the state for it. Why pay for something if you can get it for free?

Obama’s plan reduces the incentive for innovation in our health care system by removing patent protections and allowing for importing of drugs from other countries. His plan makes the Federal government the single largest buyer (if not the only buyer) of prescription drugs in the nation. He will drive down the profit, drive down the incentive and slow the growth of medicine. We’ll see long lines, doctor shortages, and limited care. Don’t forget that people also come to this country for health care they can’t receive at home.

In spite of all the problems that come with universal health care, the most important may be the fundamental difference between an inalienable right and a bestowed right. There has to be a better way to preserve life without turning over our agency to another person.

The more guarantees a person gives you, the less opportunity they’ll allow you.

Obama: the candidate for the same old thing

My favorite thing about Barack Obama is that he says he’s gonna bring change to Washington. In his Blueprint for America, he claims to “have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists – and won. They have not funded my campaign…” He says he’s a leader for reform and reaches across the aisle. He claims that he intends to make government work more efficiently and says he will cut wasteful programs and ineffective programs.

The only change America will find from an Obama administration will be the change left in our pockets. Obama may or may not have deserved the distinction or most liberal senator and Joe Biden may or may not have actually deserved the rating at third most liberal senator in 2007, but a few things are certain. When Obama bothers to show up for work, he votes the party line 97% of the time. Biden has been in Washington since 1972 and has voted party lines 96.7% of the time.

Just what has he done to take on the lobbyists? The only steps I can find evidence of him taking on lobbyists He’s taken millions and millions of dollars from lobbyists and PACs. To say that they have not funded his campaigns is a flat out lie. Among his contributors are NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Chesapeake Energy Corporation Federal PAC, Sierra Club, MoveOn.org, Human Rights PAC, National Right to Life PAC, and unions, unions, and more unions.

He’s going to go through the Federal budget with a red pen to strike ineffective and wasteful programs. There’s only one problem – this isn’t constitutional! President Clinton was granted this power by Congress very briefly in 1996, but a US District Court ruled this was unconstitutional and this determination was upheld by the US Supreme Court.

The rest of his plan to change Washington is full of duplications and undeliverable promises. The only thing Obama would change is the political affiliation in the Oval Office. What’s scary is that the legislative and executive branches would have a rubber stamp to push forward their agenda. The country's just not ready for the extreme liberalism they would push forward.

"Some fuel for your fire!"

Thanks for the forward, Desha.



*The Ant & the Grasshopper

*
Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!

*OLD VERSION:
*
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays
the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be responsible for yourself!

-------------------------------------------

**MODERN VERSION:
*
*The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays
the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and
demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed
while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering
grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a
table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper
is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody
cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'

Al Sharpton stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the
news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then
has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & Barack Obama exclaim in an interview with Larry King that
the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call
for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act
retroactive to the beginning of the summer..

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green
bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is
confiscated by the government.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last* *bits of
the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens
to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't
maintain it..

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house,
now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders
who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be careful how you vote in 2008!!

I'm a fascist

I have reached a new milestone in my development. I am not a "fascist f"*** by a person who believes that abortion is okay because it means one less life that will have to suffer the radioactive cancer that will one day soon be raining down on our heads.

You may be curious why I'm a fascist. Well... the rant was inspired by the following:

"I asked why [you voted that way] because, regardless of how we vote, the fundamental question is whether or not our votes honestly reflect our values and desires for our communities. Being a member of our communities is something that is easily taken for granted, and participating in this most pure and amazing process is a sacred right we each should appreciate and protect. That we have a right to vote is nothing short of a miracle. Anyone can cast a ballot but doing so without due diligence is lazy, irresponsible, and insulting to those that value this freedom, those who have fought and lived and died for all our freedoms, and the God who protected this land and inspired people to establish it for His purposes.

If our opinions reflect the honest intents of our hearts and our decisions are based on sober research, then it doesn’t matter how we vote. I respect that another person can have an opinion, whether or not I agree with it. What I don’t respect is a person who takes an institution as amazing as voting in our representative republic in a haphazard and cavalier way. A person who votes a certain way out of blind obedience or apathy has devalued themselves and detracts from the strength of our community."

Politics and football

Politics and sports have more than their fair share of superstitions and urban legends. One of my favorites involves the Washington Redskins. The Redskins are a national football team based in Washington, D.C. that has been a reliable indicator of the outcome of the presidential election for almost every election since 1936. If the Redskins win their last home game before election night, history shows that the incumbent party will retain control of the White House. The pattern was broken in 2004 when the incumbent party defeated the challenger in spite of Washington’s loss to Green Bay.

FoxSports and ESPN do a head-to-head analysis at teams scheduled to compete as well as in depth analysis and commentary on the individual teams. To summarize, the Redskins are a far stronger offensive team but the Steelers are a better defensive team. There’s no doubt it’s going to be a great game Monday night. Kickoff is at 8:30 ET.

In case you’re curious, the bookmakers are predicting the Steelers to win by as many as 2.5 points, or less than a field goal.

Obama and the economy

The more financial guarantees a person gives you, the lower the opportunity for independence that will be offered.

Presidents are the fortunate (or unfortunate) benefactors of timing. Economies have a business cycle somewhat independent of who’s in the White House or how long they’ve been there. Economists work to smooth out the volatility of the business cycle, but clearly managing an economy is more of an art than a science. Obama may be the fortunate benefactor of this business cycle. We're headed up. It just so happens that an incredibly unpopular Congress may have the opportunity to work with a controversial White House to appear the hero for bringing our nation back to prosperity. The truth is, every transaction leads us make bring us closer to a balanced economy, in large part, regardless of which party is in power. Barack Obama just doesn't have anything to add.

Our economy can be fixed by a combination of four simultaneous movements. First, government will need to spend money on goods and services that are necessary and will address real needs (not just spending for the sake of spending). Second, those with a propensity to save and invest need to not be punished and discouraged from to saving and investing. Third, those with real welfare needs should be assisted, not just by more government handouts but by balancing government handouts with incentives and opportunities to get off welfare. Finally, we need to reduce our national debt. Deficit spending has it's place, but borrowing our way to prosperity is the same as trying to lift ourselves up by our boot straps. Eventually we’ll lose our balance and fall on our face.

(There is a fifth option, and that's to enforce our tax laws, removing incentives for employers to hire illegal aliens, but that's a topic for another post.)

Unless we raise taxes (contradicting the second point) or cut benefits (contradicting the first and third points) we must raise our level of production. Naturally, we do that by figuring out what we’re better at than the rest of the world and selling it to them or identifying what import we can compete with and replace it with a US product. Either way, we need to make more than we spend. Sound easy? Of course not!

Obama’s answer is to raise taxes and raise welfare. Certain segments of the population will have a few more dollars to spend, but those will be at the expense of others. The number one way rich people got rich was by keeping more of what they earned than Uncle Sam could take. Accountants and bankers make tons of money protecting the wealth of the affluent. Why do I bring this up? Because I don’t know a lot of people who work for broke people. In fact, most of the people I know work for rich people. Don’t we want them spending and investing their money. Punishing them for being better at capitalism will only hurt us. We'll see an increase in black markets and tax shelters decrease in taxes.

For all the schooling that Obama has done, he seems to have missed these fundamental economic theories. Since I like to form my own opinion rather than trusting strangers, I went to the Obama/Bidden “Blueprint for America” on the economy.

$1000 energy rebate for “windfall profits on excessive oil company profits.” The obvious question should be, since when do we tell people/companies in this country they make too much money. Better question, who’s to say what too much is? I’m not talking about price gouging. I’m talking about a someone being punished for making too much money. How does that work? When we talk about energy, our minds go to gas prices, but when you buy a gallon of gas, do you know who gets paid? In ascending order, you’re paying for the crude oil (which is set by the global market), Federal, state, and city fuel taxes, and refining capacity (which is a constraint caused by lobbyists for environmentalists). That’s not to say that the oil company doesn’t make profit. ExxonMobil made a profit margin of 7.6% in 2007, just slightly above the profit margin of 5.8% for all U.S. manufacturing. Wow! Look out for the wind.

“Making Work Pay” to provide tax relief for 95% of American workers. This puts a greater burden on the other five-percent of American workers, the five-percent that pay the most. For some perspective, the top 10% of tax payers pay 70% of the bill, the bottom 40% don’t pay Federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% only pay 10% of the tax bill. Under this plan, the US Treasury starts cutting checks to all those who pay little or nothing in taxes and collect more and more from the few people who do pay the bill.

Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: an additional $4000 annual credit for college education. Marylhurst University, a private university just outside of Portland, charges $349 per credit hour. Portland State University charges $109 per credit hour. Why does Marylhurst charge three times as much as PSU? Is it because it’s just that much better? Are the instructors that much better? Are the programs unique? Are the facilities more expensive? What makes the cost of one credit hour at MU three times as much as PSU? PSU (and the rest of our education system) is already heavily subsidized by the tax payers. Obama’s additional tax credit would cover the cost of another 36 credit hours per year at PSU. That’s great for me but why should the rest of the country pay more for my education? It's great for the individual receipinat but not so great for the people who would other wise use that money to stimulate the economy.

He wants to create a universal mortgage credit so home buyers can deduct the interest from their home loan in addition to taking the standard deduction and adjust bankruptcy laws to allow home buyers to forceably renegotiate the terms of their mortgage which will cause serious problems in the secondary market. He thinks he can prevent future mortgage crises through investigating mortgage fraud and creating another form the borrower’s have to sign and pretend to care about. The Truth-in-Lending Disclosure already does what his HOME score proposes. Creating a Federal crime for mortgage fraud is a nice idea but its already a crime at the state level and most associated crimes are already illegal that the state and Federal level. Again, more nothing.

The list goes on and on, and basically the Obama/Bidden plan is just rhetoric. It's pages of programs that showcse his lack of innovative and disregard for our budgets. I’m not saying that they’re nice ideas. I like the idea of you paying for my college, incentives for green jobs, strengthening infrastructure, and fair trade, but at the end of the day, this will be a repeat of the 2006 Democratic revolution in the Congress where we were promised the world and they only managed to raise the Federal minimum wage from $5.15/hour.

Regardless of who inherits our economic woes, they’ll be looking at a 2009 budget deficit in excess of $500 billion! They’ll be forced to renege on campaign promises. So, even though I certainly would enjoy having college paid for, the interest on my mortgage paid for, and all the other wonderful giveaways Obama’s trying to buy our votes with, it’s not government's job to cater to my every whim. We already receive hundreds of billions of dollars in welfare and it’s bought us a $10 Trillion debt and $45 Trillion unfunded liabilities. We have to prioritze our spending more carefully. Trickle-down economics works. The problem is that 95% of people don't know how to manage money so will always end up with more month at the end of the money no matter how much free stuff they get.

You have to ask yourself, if you don't stand up when government wants to take away what others have earned, who's going to stand up for you when they come knocking on your door?

Append: Three rules for life

By the way, I believe that it's every generations responsibility to be better than the one before it. I just wish the bar hadn't been set so low.

Three rules of life

My dad is a big John Wayne fan. I grew up with The Duke and 007 as role models. (Fortunately, I turned out okay in spite of that.) One scene I remember in particular is from The Sons of Katie Elder. John Elder and his sons are on a mission to save a little boy from desperados. His oldest son is antagonizing him with disrespectful quips and referring to his father as “Daddy”. Before the big showdown, John decides enough is enough. After another “Daddy”, he gets down off his horse, walks over to his son, and calmly says, since you haven’t learned to respect your elders, its time you learned to respect your betters. He pulls his son off his horse and knocks him on his ass. That’s the last of the attitude.

I don’t know why that scene has always stuck out to me but it helped form one of my fundamental values. Age is no indicator of wisdom or maturity. Youth is no indicator of a lack of wisdom or maturity. There are some basic life lessons we have forgotten. Here’s the first three on my list.

Number one: This should go without saying but if you participate in making a baby, stand up and take care of the family you created, and be the best mom or dad you can be. Don’t whine about it. If you’re not ready to be a parent, don’t have sex! If you and your partner are too barbaric to control yourselves and she gets pregnant, don’t kill the zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby just to make your life easier. Consider adoption so the child has the best chance at life.

Number two: Take care of your family, for better or worse, in life and death. My wife and I are the last married couple in America so I get that divorce is en vogue, but if you walk away from your vows, make you child support and/or spousal support payments on time. It may be necessary to adjust your lifestyle to meet your new obligations but if you agreed to it, even begrudgingly, stick to it.

Number three: Taking risks with your person and endangering those around you. I’ll almost never deny someone the right to do with their body what they feel is right, but when others are depending on you, when others look up to you as a role model, or when your actions can affect those around you, your choices become limited, not by me but as a consequence of having responsibilities. Excessive gambling, driving drunk (yes, I mean after having a couple beers as well as when you’re too drunk to unlock the deadbolt), smoking in the car with a child, not safeguarding your house against those who would come in and cause harm are all examples of unacceptable risk taking.

Failure to observe the first of my three life lessons are worth of a smack on the back of the head and a “dumbass.” The fundamental element of my argument is bringing back personal accountability as a priority. Egocentrism has its place. Self esteem is a healthy attitude. But a major part of justified self esteem and having something to be egocentric about is honor – having a value system that respects yourself and those around you and not compromising, especially not out of convenience or laziness. I don’t believe we’re defined by our actions, but habitual actions are indicative of attitudes, and decisions made as a result of our attitudes do contribute to how we are defined.

In many ways, no person is better than another, but that doesn’t make us equals. Respect is earned not guaranteed. I respect those with honor. Let’s make honor and person accountability more of a priority in our lives and in our community.

I voted!

I dropped off my ballot at county elections, and sadly my vote was more a vote against Obama rather than a vote for McCain. (One of these days I want to feel compelled to vote for a candidate!) At the end of the day, I’ve accepted that the country may be headed for Jimmy Carter’s second term, but right now isn’t the right time to go silently into the night. Let me make one thing crystal clear, if Obama wins I will make out like a bandit! I’m a married 30 year old unemployed student who receives socialized health care. I expect to pocket thousands of dollars in cash and additional benefits from the Feds under a democrat controlled White House and Congress. My problem with that is that I haven’t earned it or paid into it for years. I paid under $1000 in Federal income taxes in the last two years. How is it fair for me to receive all these benefits from Uncle Sam when I’m not paying anything in to the system? Thanks, by the way, for all the hard work you do on my behalf.

I’ll still do okay with John McCain in the White House. I just won’t have as much of a windfall. With that said, I’ve been spending a lot of time researching Obama’s “Blueprint for America”. I’ll be posting a series of responses to his remaking of America. Many have already compared the two candidates ad nausea, but for some reason undecided voters are still in the double digits and voter turnout is lower in Oregon than one would expect for such a hyped vote. Could that be because we’re hoping for one of these two to really hit it out of the park?

The simple fact is that John McCain is a Democrat masquerading as a Republican and Barack Obama is a socialist masquerading as a Democrat. So I ask myself, just how far left do I want the country to swing? Should we correct to the center compared to the hard right of the current administration or should we swing to the opposite extreme of the political spectrum? Obama represents a hard left swing. The answer for the United States is not another extremist in the White House. What we need is a relative moderate. On Tuesday, I hope you’ll join me in voting for John McCain because our country doesn’t need another extremist in the White House.

Great Links: 100% healthy and natural baby food

This is a great story. Two of the nicest people in the world were blessed with a beautiful baby girl, in spite of the odds. And in today's nutritional renaissance, developed the ideas and products to provide a natural alternative to the mass produced, nutritionally questionable baby food available in today's grocery stores.

Check them out at www.maternalspirit.com or click the link off to the left of the screen.

Great Links: Awesome Adoption Story!

Through my wife’s work with pregnant women, I was exposed to two amazing women this year, both of whom lost their babies. One of them is healing thorough sharing. She developed the youtube.com video linked under “Awesome Adoption Story!” Check it out and share it.

In 2003, there were nearly 1.3 million abortions in the US. In 2004, there were nearly 1.5 million live births to unmarried women. Almost all of the women were between 15 and 29. Of the 72.3 million children living in the US in 2004, 1.6 million had been adopted. Adoption is a wonderful, loving, underused option. It’s an option that must be seriously considered as part of family planning and when reacting to the special circumstances the result from unplanned pregnancy.

Finding the right words just got easier

Medical News Today is reporting on a new service coming to a town near you.

"In Portland, there's an easy way to tell your sex partners you have an STD. Send them a free inSPOT e-card, ANONYMOUSLY or from your email address, right here."

Go to www.inspot.org for a good laugh!

In all seriousness, is this too much? Think about everything you have to do to have sex. For most of us, it takes effort (usually, the more effort it takes, the better it is). By the time we get around to getting it, shouldn't we past the gooeyness. Are we really not big enough to make the "hey, I'm pregnant and it's yours" call or the "did you post pictures of me on the Internet" call or the "so, I have a STD, you should go get checked" call?

The gas is falling! The gas is falling!

Chicken little got in trouble for over reacting to what eventually turned out to be a real problem. I guess we have a chicken little complex when it comes to energy. Now that regular unleaded can be purchased for under $3/gallon, we seem to care less about conserving energy and finding alternative energy sources.

At least one voice is still screaming from the roof tops though. Oil tycoon, T. Boone Pickens is still promoting his answer to the energy crisis.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27052462/
http://www.pickensplan.com

I love my a/c, heater, electric lights, and especially, my car. I always have and I always will. Raise the prices a BTU, a therm, or a gallon and my habits will be focused on wise use of my resources. I support increaed domestic drilliing and refining capacity, but only as a moderate-term bridge to other alternatives, including nuclear and natural gas. It's always been about conservationism and stewardship for me, well, at least until I was told that I was told the sky was falling -- and it was all my fault.

Beware the stripper!

This is hillarious! Man attacked by stripper's shoe.

MSNBC has a link to this story and I found more on it at
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272623263.shtml

politcs as usual

I know a lot of you don’t live in the Portland-Metro area (or even Oregon) but even if you’re not an Oregon voter or care about politics, we have a lot of sexy stuff going on here (and some stuff that’ll put cha to sleep).

We get to choose from a man who’s company apparently hires illegal aliens and a one who supports big tax increases and ridiculously nice furniture at the public’s expense to be our next US Senator. Our congressional delegation will probably all return to Washington, D.C. in spite of all they’ve done. The woman who will probably become Oregon’s next Secretary of State single handedly blocked the passage of Jessica’s Law until it was obvious that if they didn’t pass it, the people would. And on. And on. It’s good times.

Here are my quick thoughts on the measures.

Measure 54 – Standardizes voting eligibility for school board elections with other state and local elections. If you’re confused about why anyone would have a problem with this, you’re in good company.

Measure 55 – Changes operative date of redistricting plans; allows affected legislators to finish term in original district. You bet. If a district elects someone to represent them, they should finish the job they were hired to do.

Measure 56 – Provides that May and November property tax elections are decided by majority of voters voting. Eliminates voter turnout requirement. In spite of generally agreeing with the Arguments in Opposition, yes. Every vote counts every time. SO VOTE! It’s more patriotic than paying taxes.

Measure 57 – Increases sentences for drug trafficking, theft against elderly and specified repeat property and identity theft crimes; requires addiction treatment for certain offenders. I want to, but it just doesn’t go far enough and there’s a better option on this ballot.

Measure 58 – Prohibits teaching public school student in language other than English for more than two years. Full immersion? Absolutely! It’s worked for everyone I know who speaks English.

Measure 59 – Creates an unlimited deduction for federal income taxes on individual taxpayers’ Oregon income-tax returns. Yes!!! I hate to vote my pocket book, but right now, I can use every dime I can keep. More than that though, Oregon stewards need to exercise better control of the assets we entrust them with.

Measure 60 – Teacher “classroom performance,” not seniority, determines pay raises; “most qualified” teachers retained, regardless of seniority. I grew up in a union family and held a union job. Unions have their place and have added a great deal to the quality of our working environments, however, the most qualified person for the job should do the job. Yes.

Measure 61 – Creates mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain theft, identity theft, forgery, drug, and burglary crimes. Yes. It’s time we people remembered that if they violated a cultural virtue (ya know, breaks the law), there would be a consequence. M61 is a good step in that direction. In the immortal words of Jim Carey, “STOP BREAKIN’ THE LAW, ASSHOLE!”

Measure 62 – Allocates 15% of lottery proceeds to public safety for crime prevention, investigation, prosecution. I support crime prevention, investigation, and prosecution, but this is not the way to get it done. Oregon’s all-funds budget is upwards of $40bn. These programs should be fully funded by the general fund, not lottery.

Measure 63 – Exempts specified property owners from building permit requirements for improvements valued at/under 35,000 dollars. No.

Measure 64 – Penalized person, entity for using funds collected with “public resources” (defined) for “political purpose” (defined). Yes. Don’t use my money to collect yours!

Measure 65 – Changes general election nomination processes for major/minor party, independent candidates for most partisan offices. No. Our primary system is an important part of our election process. And so is our general election. Put the winners of the primary’s on the ballot next to any other-party candidates who qualify.

Now you know what I think. What do you think? For those who live outside Oregon, what’s going on in your area? Most of all though, remember, whether we agree or not, get your ballot turned in by November 4th!

Something concrete?

Alright, somehow McCain got the nod from his party and selected an unknown governor from the least populated (albeit, largest) state, as his running mate. I didn’t get it either but that’s the way it is. Regardless who they put up, there are a couple of real problems I have with Obama/Biden I’m having a hard time getting past.

My number one sticking point is that, as a state senator, he didn’t support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and blocked a number of votes on this bill to protect children who survive failed abortions. When a similar bill was presented to the U.S. Congress, even NARAL supported its passage, and only 15 representatives voted against it. I have a real hard time supporting someone who wouldn't act to protect those children. Obama attempted to address this during the third debate, but ‘there was a bill already in place’ doesn’t fly with me. We do repeat ourselves a lot in this country.

Second, the candidate for change doesn't seem to be very representative of change. I haven't been able to find any track record of changing anything. He hasn't sponsored or written any meaningful bills in either Illinois or the US Senate. I interpret his actions as quite the opposite. What’s worse is that in the US Senate, he didn’t even vote. (See www.obama.senate.gov/votes.) His lack of involvement bothers me, but when he does vote, he votes with his party 97% of the time. Finally, he surrounds himself by the establishment. His running mate has been in the Congress since 1972. What change?

I’ve taken a couple of “tests” to see where I stand on issues in comparison to the candidates. According to the results of a poll I took on www.barackobamatest.com, I disagree with Obama on 92% of the issues. www.myspace.com/mydebates suggested that I would agree with Obama on two of 14 issues.

I like the idea of balance. No party should ever control both the legislative and executive branches of government. The conversation becomes too one sided and our nation swings in that direction of the pendulum. Never-the-less, I still don’t like McCain but need a smoking gun to eliminate McCain as the option. Anyone?

If not him, who?

I don't like John McCain. I'm sure he's a fine man, and I certainly appreciate his sacrifice in the name of our country, but his politics in the last few years have really rubbed me the right way. Here are a few examples just off the top of my head. I'm uncomfortable with his record on illegal aliens. I really don't like that he wants to close the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and bring the enemy combatants into the U.S. where they'll receive Constitutional rights. I think his opinion on human's contribution to Global Warming is politically motivated. I also think he's a little gruff and his administration leaves something to be desired.

But I think I have no choice but to vote for him. I've asked a number of people why I should for Obama and to paraphrase the two recurring answers I get, he's not George Bush and he makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I really need to know that answer to my question because there are a number of things about Barack Obama I just can't get past.

What do Honda's and butts have in common?

Opinions are like Honda's and butts. Everyone has one and they all stink except your own. In spite of that, I'm gonna add my voice to the conversation. I want this to be a forum for us to engage in serious discussions about ideas that matter and have some fun. I only have three requests...

1. Respect contributors. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Challenge opinions. Check "facts". But I'm sick of all the name calling and abuse that's so easily becomes part of the dialogue. I'm just tired of the negativity. Can't we all just get along?!? (Now I must go start a riot.)
2. Try to use specifics. This month is full of generalities and sound bites. Let's get to some substance, some truth, and know where its coming from.
3. Take it easy on the "talking points".

No topic is too big. No topic is too small. Let's have some fun. Enjoy the anonymity of this world and let us know what you really think!