Below is a link to an article explaining how the company GMAC is receiving $3.8 billion more in 'bailout' money. This is a company that has already received $12.5 billion. People who say this is a good thing argue that without the money the company would go under and people would not be able to get loans for cars and the effect of that would be disastrous for the auto industry. And all of that is true. But what the government is doing is not fixing the problem.
The government is enabling GMAC to lend to people who can't afford to pay the loans back. If GMAC only loaned to people who could afford the loan we wouldn't be having this problem in the first place. GMAC (like many others) got into a lot of problems with housing loans. The message that the government sends when they give companies like this money is that it is okay what they did, and we've got your back in the future. They have much less incentive to correct the real problem and so we see that bailouts like these will continue far into the future. The incentive for companies to change and become better and more profitable is the THREAT of BANKRUPTCY and FAILURE. When you take those things out of the equation (which the government does in the form of bailouts with our tax money) you get companies that don't change and will continue to leach off the American taxpayer for years to come, i.e. socialism.
Bailouts are short-term fixes that only cover up the underlying problems of our current economy.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=833090
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Detroit In Ruins
A great visual of what we are headed for if we continue down this road of socialism, as Detroit has already done.
Friday, December 11, 2009
The Real Cost of Public Schools
This article is from 2008, but I just read it and I'm sure the figures are worse than presented in this article. But the article illustrates how much is spent on each child in public schools versus private. Most people think that more money equals better results, this isn't true with government. More money usually means bigger and stronger bureaucracies which means more inefficiency and waste. Children deserve better, and parents deserve options.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Happy Thanksgiving
In almost every sentence President Washington mentions God, he was so not politically correct. Take the time to read it, it is inspiring. I am so grateful for our country's heritage.
George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.
George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Brother Harry Reid
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/13/reid-criticizes-mormon-church-proposition-support/?test=latestnews
Draw your own conclusions, but I'm pretty sure people have been excommunicated for less than this.
Draw your own conclusions, but I'm pretty sure people have been excommunicated for less than this.
Friday, October 2, 2009
"Let them eat cake"
How out of touch is Congress? Every local government across the United States has had to make huge cuts in their budgets. People across our country have either lost jobs or taken pay cuts. Hundreds of thousands are unemployed or underemployed. Many are overqualified for the job they have because they can't find jobs in their niche anymore. Everyone is hurting in one way or another. And what does Congress do?...
They vote to give themselves a RAISE!!! OUT. OF. TOUCH.
They vote to give themselves a RAISE!!! OUT. OF. TOUCH.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
California...oh California
California ranks as the 48th most business friendly state! Oh wait, there are only 50 states. Dang, that means it is the third worst state to do business in. Only New York and New Jersey are less business friendly.
California is in bad shape financially. I don't think they have balanced a budget in decades. They run out of money and ask voters to bail them out every election in the form of bonds. They aren't changing anything and so it keeps getting worse. They have a very liberal legislature who doesn't know how to stop all the spending. So the legislature organized a commission to figure something out. The commission is proposing something close to a flat tax...OH THE IRONY!!!! A flat tax is about as conservative a policy as you can get. They are abandoning every liberal fiber in them by even mentioning a flat tax.
For those of you who don't know, a flat tax means everyone pays the same tax rate regardless of how much you make. It doesn't really exist anywhere anymore. Opponents say the rich should pay more because they can afford to. Proponents say you shouldn't punish success. Regardless of the arguments, I do think deep down everyone knows that a flat tax is very business friendly...and that is what California is going for.
This is something to watch because if they go forward with this and it helps them, Obama and the liberal legislature are in trouble. This would put a conservative policy to the test, kind of. There are a lot of other factors in Cali that make it very business unfriendly, but still...pretty interesting. If you are into this kind of thing, and if you are still reading you must be a little.
Who said it?
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …"
Me now...what this says is that the civil rights movement wasn't successful in the sense that it didn't spread the wealth. This person believes that it is the RIGHT of one person to take another person's money via government taxation. Well, who dunnit? I'm not telling, seriously...guess.
"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …"
Me now...what this says is that the civil rights movement wasn't successful in the sense that it didn't spread the wealth. This person believes that it is the RIGHT of one person to take another person's money via government taxation. Well, who dunnit? I'm not telling, seriously...guess.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Benji Boy
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?" --Benjamin Franklin, to Colleagues at the Constitutional Convention
Sure, that may be true...but no praying in schools!!!
Sure, that may be true...but no praying in schools!!!
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Michael Moore
Michael Moore was on the new Jay Leno show that is now on at 10pm and he introduced his new film entitle "Capitalism: A Love Story". Now much to your surprise, I actually try not to close my mind when it comes to politics. So I listened to what Michael Moore had to say. And I agreed with him, IN PART, regarding what he had to say about capitalism. He says in his movie that capitalism is evil. I think a part of what he does and says is for controversy and show. Anyway, here is how I kind of agree with him.
For those of us who are Mormon, we all know that the highest law of community living is the law of consecration. In this type of community everyone willingly gives up everything to the Bishop who then divvies up the goods based on need (Cliff Notes version). An important point to understand: no force or coercion take place. No one goes to jail if they don't give up everything. They may be asked to leave Zion, but no force is involved.
So capitalism? Capitalism is an economic system that is driven by the want of money. And the love of money, according to 1 Timothy 6:10, is the root of all evil. Hmmmmm... Let's face it, if no one wants money or cares about money, capitalism is not so great. There has to be a drive for money for capitalism to work. So capitalism has the potential to foster this love for money. It is a system so focused on money that many become infatuated with it, so much that no amount of money is ever enough. They obsess over it, every living thought is focused on how to get more money. It is a system with no check on that love for money that lies within us all. This is how I agree with Mr. Moore, but here are a few of my disagreements...
Capitalism and the law of consecration may appear to be polar opposites, and in many regards they are. But one thing they do have in common is that no one ever forces you to give your money away to someone else. Freedom, or free agency, are both a key element in both systems. A system that forces you to give your money to someone else takes away your freedom. Even if they do with your money exactly what you would have done anyway (which rarely happens), it still steals your freedom. So in that regard capitalism is more like the law of consecration than, say, socialism. So while some may argue or think that socialism is more closely related to the law of consecration than capitalism, what socialism lacks is so vital to the plan of salvation that it's absence throws the whole system to the opposite end of the spectrum of economic systems...and what it lacks is freedom.
Capitalism is not perfect. But it may be as good as it gets as far as preparing us to live a higher law such as consecration. If we can avoid that love of money immersed in capitalism, the law of consecration may be a breeze.
NYC Subway
New York was awesome, everything I expected and more. My family and I had an experience on 9/11 in a New York subway that I don't think any of us will ever forget.
We had just gotten on the subway when a doo-wop group was singing and selling a CD in our portion of the subway. They finished singing and because it was 9/11 in NYC they expressed their condolences to anyone who may had lost someone 8 years ago. They then went on to say it was their personal belief that it was our ex-president's fault and they hold him directly responsible. The last part kind of ruined what could have been a beautiful moment for me. They made their expression political when that wasn't what I wanted to be feeling that day.
After they left I heard a man a few feet away telling another person that they were "idiots". A few moments later my sister expressed her feelings of how she thought his last comment ruined the moment (and rightfully so). A man sitting next to us overheard my sister's comment and interrupted our conversation stating that the man meant well. I was taken back at first but he went on saying "I reacted the same way you did, but he meant well". He then went on to tell us that he had lost someone that day eight years ago. He told us that he went to work today but couldn't finish and asked to be excused. It was his father that he lost; he said he was done crying, but the pain was still there and seemed to surface every time 9/11 comes around.
He wasn't a man that you would notice walking down the streets of New York. He wasn't even a man I would have noticed sitting right beside me on the subway had he not said something to us. He wasn't eloquent in his speech, he wasn't well dressed, he wasn't even clean shaven. But he taught me a lesson that no well groomed, rich politician ever could. 9/11 isn't about right or wrong, it isn't about conspiracy theories, it isn't about conservatives or liberals...it is about lives lost. It is about living in a world where evil things can happen, and do. And the consequences of this evil, is pain. It's also about people, real people. People who have died, and their surviving family and kin. This man, I don't even know his name, doesn't let the politics get to him, because for him, 9/11 is about his father...a father lost.
That man I met on a New York subway will forever have changed the way I feel about 9/11. He made it real for me in a way I never felt before. I shook his hand as I exited the subway, but what I really wanted was a hug. What I think he knows better than any of us, is that he has a country standing behind him who also, in a much smaller way, feels his pain.
We had just gotten on the subway when a doo-wop group was singing and selling a CD in our portion of the subway. They finished singing and because it was 9/11 in NYC they expressed their condolences to anyone who may had lost someone 8 years ago. They then went on to say it was their personal belief that it was our ex-president's fault and they hold him directly responsible. The last part kind of ruined what could have been a beautiful moment for me. They made their expression political when that wasn't what I wanted to be feeling that day.
After they left I heard a man a few feet away telling another person that they were "idiots". A few moments later my sister expressed her feelings of how she thought his last comment ruined the moment (and rightfully so). A man sitting next to us overheard my sister's comment and interrupted our conversation stating that the man meant well. I was taken back at first but he went on saying "I reacted the same way you did, but he meant well". He then went on to tell us that he had lost someone that day eight years ago. He told us that he went to work today but couldn't finish and asked to be excused. It was his father that he lost; he said he was done crying, but the pain was still there and seemed to surface every time 9/11 comes around.
He wasn't a man that you would notice walking down the streets of New York. He wasn't even a man I would have noticed sitting right beside me on the subway had he not said something to us. He wasn't eloquent in his speech, he wasn't well dressed, he wasn't even clean shaven. But he taught me a lesson that no well groomed, rich politician ever could. 9/11 isn't about right or wrong, it isn't about conspiracy theories, it isn't about conservatives or liberals...it is about lives lost. It is about living in a world where evil things can happen, and do. And the consequences of this evil, is pain. It's also about people, real people. People who have died, and their surviving family and kin. This man, I don't even know his name, doesn't let the politics get to him, because for him, 9/11 is about his father...a father lost.
That man I met on a New York subway will forever have changed the way I feel about 9/11. He made it real for me in a way I never felt before. I shook his hand as I exited the subway, but what I really wanted was a hug. What I think he knows better than any of us, is that he has a country standing behind him who also, in a much smaller way, feels his pain.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
English Democrats (Thanks Justin)
The "Democrat" party in England has greatly impressed me. Two aims of this party are to fight political correctness and increase country pride. Here is a link to an article where a mayor who belongs to this party cut public funding for a gay pride day in Doncaster, England.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/south_yorkshire/8086919.stm
This may not seem like a big deal, but it is. It's little things like this that give me hope in our world. Someone willing to stand up for what is right when it seems the whole universe is against you (especially in Europe). My hero of the week:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/south_yorkshire/8086919.stm
This may not seem like a big deal, but it is. It's little things like this that give me hope in our world. Someone willing to stand up for what is right when it seems the whole universe is against you (especially in Europe). My hero of the week:
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Get Rid of Welfare? Pt. 2
I have much more to say concerning this topic, but here is just one more idea.
The world did exist before government sponsored welfare. The poor were taken care of before welfare. And the lower class was much smaller than it is today before welfare. Before welfare private charities and churches took care of the needy. These organizations offered to the poor(and still do to a much smaller extent) not only the necessities of life, but opportunity.
If welfare was to be eradicated tomorrow, do you not think that the good people of America would step forward and feed the poor, clothe the naked, and give shelter to the homeless? Charity would be given with honor, and the charity would be received by a grateful and humble people. This charity would inspire and motivate the needy, when possible, to reform themselves and to become better people. This process would inspire us all to become better people, but especially those that received help.
Government welfare breeds ingratitude and feelings of entitlement. The lower class, and all of us, are better off without government sponsored welfare. It robs all of us of the opportunity to CHOOSE to give, and robs the poor of opportunity.
Why do I waste time talking about something that will never happen? Because it's easy to forget how far our country has gone in the wrong direction. It is easy to accept how BIG our government is because it is all we know. Our federal government was never intended to be so large, and our state governments were never intended to be so small and insignificant. Welfare will never be eradicated, but it is worth talking about to remind us all that BIG government is not the answer.
The world did exist before government sponsored welfare. The poor were taken care of before welfare. And the lower class was much smaller than it is today before welfare. Before welfare private charities and churches took care of the needy. These organizations offered to the poor(and still do to a much smaller extent) not only the necessities of life, but opportunity.
If welfare was to be eradicated tomorrow, do you not think that the good people of America would step forward and feed the poor, clothe the naked, and give shelter to the homeless? Charity would be given with honor, and the charity would be received by a grateful and humble people. This charity would inspire and motivate the needy, when possible, to reform themselves and to become better people. This process would inspire us all to become better people, but especially those that received help.
Government welfare breeds ingratitude and feelings of entitlement. The lower class, and all of us, are better off without government sponsored welfare. It robs all of us of the opportunity to CHOOSE to give, and robs the poor of opportunity.
Why do I waste time talking about something that will never happen? Because it's easy to forget how far our country has gone in the wrong direction. It is easy to accept how BIG our government is because it is all we know. Our federal government was never intended to be so large, and our state governments were never intended to be so small and insignificant. Welfare will never be eradicated, but it is worth talking about to remind us all that BIG government is not the answer.
ObamaCare
Obama's health care plan will:
* Be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it.
* Be passed by a Congress that hasn't read it (but exempts themselves from it).
* Be signed by a president who smokes (and also hasn't read it).
* Have funding administered by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes.
* Be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese.
* Be financed by a country that is nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
I am not the author of this, but it made me smile and almost chuckle.
* Be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it.
* Be passed by a Congress that hasn't read it (but exempts themselves from it).
* Be signed by a president who smokes (and also hasn't read it).
* Have funding administered by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes.
* Be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese.
* Be financed by a country that is nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
I am not the author of this, but it made me smile and almost chuckle.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Get Rid of Welfare?
"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them."
--Benjamin Franklin, letter to Collinson, 1753
Welfare enslaves the lower class. Welfare offers no escape, no light at the end of the tunnel...only more of the same. So much for CHANGE.
--Benjamin Franklin, letter to Collinson, 1753
Welfare enslaves the lower class. Welfare offers no escape, no light at the end of the tunnel...only more of the same. So much for CHANGE.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
My Response to a Stranger
I have no idea who this is that wrote this and he doesn't know me, but I had to respond to him...but don't know him well enough to do it to him directly. So here it is.
His quote (speaking about the economic crisis and Obama's stimulus package):
"Inaction would be much worse than Action. Do you not see that? Many economists have blatantly stated that we needed "more" stimulus money; they blamed Obama for not putting enough into the system. These are economists speaking..the ones that deal with numbers, not politicians."
Okay, first...there are such things as liberal economists. The majority of economists saw right through the stimulus package and predicted it would do nothing to 'stimulate' the economy, and that it would actually do more harm than good.
The way you phrase 'they blamed Obama for not putting enough into the system' makes me shiver with disgust. First of all, let's be clear. The government has NOTHING to 'put' into the system. The government can TAKE and then give back what was ours to begin with. The government creates no income, the government has no money except what they take out of the economy in the form of taxes. What the government has is OURS. They cannot create wealth and then 'put' it into the economy. They can take wealth out, dilute it, then put it back into our country as they see fit. Got it?
So no, inaction would not be worse than action. You are wrong. So there. (I am now sticking my tongue out at the computer screen) I really do feel better, this was very therapeutic.
His quote (speaking about the economic crisis and Obama's stimulus package):
"Inaction would be much worse than Action. Do you not see that? Many economists have blatantly stated that we needed "more" stimulus money; they blamed Obama for not putting enough into the system. These are economists speaking..the ones that deal with numbers, not politicians."
Okay, first...there are such things as liberal economists. The majority of economists saw right through the stimulus package and predicted it would do nothing to 'stimulate' the economy, and that it would actually do more harm than good.
The way you phrase 'they blamed Obama for not putting enough into the system' makes me shiver with disgust. First of all, let's be clear. The government has NOTHING to 'put' into the system. The government can TAKE and then give back what was ours to begin with. The government creates no income, the government has no money except what they take out of the economy in the form of taxes. What the government has is OURS. They cannot create wealth and then 'put' it into the economy. They can take wealth out, dilute it, then put it back into our country as they see fit. Got it?
So no, inaction would not be worse than action. You are wrong. So there. (I am now sticking my tongue out at the computer screen) I really do feel better, this was very therapeutic.
Iraq Who?
Just because more people will read if I have a picture:
Just an interesting thought.
Do you remember how much the Iraq War was talked about from 2002 to 2008. Isn't it interesting that we haven't hardly heard one thing about it since Obama became president? It was even a hot topic in the election. In Obama's run for president he made huge promises about bringing the troops home by specific dates even. Obama hasn't brought anymore home than Bush would have.
Sure the economy is the main topic of discussion, but surely some mention of the war would be consistent with the coverage it's gotten in the past. Somehow, health care reform has been pushed forward as the new hot topic behind the economic crisis. Which is interesting given that our current 'depression' (as it was termed so quickly during the election, but not so much anymore) makes it so we have NO money for any of the health care reform that Obama is pushing (literally pushing). Bringing the troops home and ending the war would do more to help our economy than reforming health care. It just doesn't make sense.
There has been no push to bring the troops home during 2009 and no talk of the war in the media. Interesting how it's easy to talk the talk.
Just an interesting thought.
Do you remember how much the Iraq War was talked about from 2002 to 2008. Isn't it interesting that we haven't hardly heard one thing about it since Obama became president? It was even a hot topic in the election. In Obama's run for president he made huge promises about bringing the troops home by specific dates even. Obama hasn't brought anymore home than Bush would have.
Sure the economy is the main topic of discussion, but surely some mention of the war would be consistent with the coverage it's gotten in the past. Somehow, health care reform has been pushed forward as the new hot topic behind the economic crisis. Which is interesting given that our current 'depression' (as it was termed so quickly during the election, but not so much anymore) makes it so we have NO money for any of the health care reform that Obama is pushing (literally pushing). Bringing the troops home and ending the war would do more to help our economy than reforming health care. It just doesn't make sense.
There has been no push to bring the troops home during 2009 and no talk of the war in the media. Interesting how it's easy to talk the talk.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
A Conservative in Politics.....Noooo
Rep. Tom Price of Georgia on Obamacare.
Open and say Obamaaaaaaaah.
Open and say Obamaaaaaaaah.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Painefully Right
"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791 (italics added)
The Founding Fathers considered socialism, and rejected it.
The Founding Fathers considered socialism, and rejected it.
Socialized Medicine
Socialism is not a new idea; it is as old as freedom. It is its opposition and has existed since the beginning of government. This is not something that the prophets of our church have ignored or not taken a position on. Prophets and apostles including J. Reuben Clark, Heber J. Grant, David O. McKay, Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball, and Ezra Taft Benson have all fervently warned against socialism. I am not sure how we can ignore these warnings. They are specific and consequences are laid out if we do not heed their warnings. I highly recommend listening to the following clips, they are a bit dry in spots but well worth the 12 or so minutes (notice the mention to socialized medicine at the end of the first clip):
Quotes from audio:
"There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: “I said I did not believe the doctrine” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33)."
"Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today’s socialists–who call themselves egalitarians–are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right."
"Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program–a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government–precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency." (italics added)
"Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced–that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest."
Me again: Today's recent discussion on socialized medicine motivated this post. We have been warned against all socialism. Today's proponents of socialized medicine think they are helping the poor by making health care more accessible. And it sounds pretty good, but it's not the way it is supposed to be. Charities and church's are supposed to care for the needy, it was never intended that government should take care of the poor. Government sponsored welfare enslaves the recipients and robs others of opportunities to reach out and help those in need.
Socialized medicine is not the answer to our health care mess.
Quotes from audio:
"There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: “I said I did not believe the doctrine” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33)."
"Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today’s socialists–who call themselves egalitarians–are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right."
"Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program–a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government–precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency." (italics added)
"Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced–that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest."
Me again: Today's recent discussion on socialized medicine motivated this post. We have been warned against all socialism. Today's proponents of socialized medicine think they are helping the poor by making health care more accessible. And it sounds pretty good, but it's not the way it is supposed to be. Charities and church's are supposed to care for the needy, it was never intended that government should take care of the poor. Government sponsored welfare enslaves the recipients and robs others of opportunities to reach out and help those in need.
Socialized medicine is not the answer to our health care mess.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Health Care and Mansfield, Ohio
http://www.newsweek.com/id/195673
Interesting article on health care reform (by Mitt Romney by the way). For me, still too much government involvement...but definitely heading in the right direction. Government run health care is not the answer. I just spent two weeks at a government subsidized dental clinic in Mansfield and saw some really shady stuff going on there. Granted, the comparison between that Mansfield dental clinic is not completely applicable to health care reform, but it does show how government involvement breeds inefficiency and unethical treatment. For example...
The Mansfield clinic does not get paid by procedure, but by appointment. For each appointment they get paid $120 for people who don't have Medicaid but qualify for assistance. So the clinic does one procedure per appointment (even if it only takes ten minutes) and schedules multiple appointments for every patient regardless of their need. Someone who needs full mouth extractions could theoretically have 32 appointments to get it done. Sometimes, if they are feeling generous, they will take out two teeth per appointment.
If a patient walks in with swelling from a tooth borne infection they do an emergency exam and prescribe antibiotics and pain meds. This is true no matter how simple the extraction would be, after all, two appointments is better than one in Mansfield. At any private practice in America, the tooth would immediately be taken out. It is unethical and wrong to send the patient away without removing the source of infection.
When treatment planning for a new patient, not all options are explained to patients. Why? Because some procedures are not profitable to the clinic. Fillings and extractions are the most profitable. Everything else, including crowns (which Medicaid sometimes covers) are hardly discussed or recognized as a possibility.
The result of government subsidizing the Mansfield clinic: everyone, including people with means to pay or insured, gets inefficient and lower quality care. When government takes over health care, we ALL will go to a Mansfield-like clinic for procedures far more critical than fillings.
Interesting article on health care reform (by Mitt Romney by the way). For me, still too much government involvement...but definitely heading in the right direction. Government run health care is not the answer. I just spent two weeks at a government subsidized dental clinic in Mansfield and saw some really shady stuff going on there. Granted, the comparison between that Mansfield dental clinic is not completely applicable to health care reform, but it does show how government involvement breeds inefficiency and unethical treatment. For example...
The Mansfield clinic does not get paid by procedure, but by appointment. For each appointment they get paid $120 for people who don't have Medicaid but qualify for assistance. So the clinic does one procedure per appointment (even if it only takes ten minutes) and schedules multiple appointments for every patient regardless of their need. Someone who needs full mouth extractions could theoretically have 32 appointments to get it done. Sometimes, if they are feeling generous, they will take out two teeth per appointment.
If a patient walks in with swelling from a tooth borne infection they do an emergency exam and prescribe antibiotics and pain meds. This is true no matter how simple the extraction would be, after all, two appointments is better than one in Mansfield. At any private practice in America, the tooth would immediately be taken out. It is unethical and wrong to send the patient away without removing the source of infection.
When treatment planning for a new patient, not all options are explained to patients. Why? Because some procedures are not profitable to the clinic. Fillings and extractions are the most profitable. Everything else, including crowns (which Medicaid sometimes covers) are hardly discussed or recognized as a possibility.
The result of government subsidizing the Mansfield clinic: everyone, including people with means to pay or insured, gets inefficient and lower quality care. When government takes over health care, we ALL will go to a Mansfield-like clinic for procedures far more critical than fillings.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Everybody is at Risk
"For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him." (italics and bold added)
Doctrine & Covenants 3:4
This applies even to powerful seminary teachers. When someone testifies of true principles, the Spirit bears witness of those principles. The Spirit teaches us of true doctrine, not of other people's worthiness. Unrighteous people can bear strong testimony of true principles, and the Spirit can testify of the truth of those principles. Great men can fall, the church is still true.
Doctrine & Covenants 3:4
This applies even to powerful seminary teachers. When someone testifies of true principles, the Spirit bears witness of those principles. The Spirit teaches us of true doctrine, not of other people's worthiness. Unrighteous people can bear strong testimony of true principles, and the Spirit can testify of the truth of those principles. Great men can fall, the church is still true.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month
Did you know that we are in the middle of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month? On June 1 of this year our President Barack Obama declared the month of June LGBT Pride Month. Here is the link to official transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-LGBT-Pride-Month/
Here are just a couple of paragraphs in case you don't want to read the whole thing.
"My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security.
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third."
BARACK OBAMA
One of the reasons this topic is so heated in our country is because there is no gray area. It is black and white. There is a right, and there is a wrong. There is not very much, if any, common ground. Either homosexuality is a sin, or it isn't. Either protecting traditional marriage is the right thing to do, or it's not. Either allowing gay couples to adopt is good, or it's bad. Black...or white. No middle ground.
As of right now the majority of Americans are for protecting marriage. Also, the majority of Americans voted for Barack. Why the disparity? Most people I talked to that are for traditional marriage but voted for Barack justified the vote saying that the president has little to do with that topic. Still, why would you vote for someone that does not share your same morals and core beliefs? As we are seeing, the President can meddle in any topic at any time because he is the president. Do the majority of Americans want and LGBT pride month? I'm pretty sure they don't. But we voted for him...serves us right.
It seems as though the voice of the righteous is fading, and the voice of immoral and wicked is rising. It seems as though the righteous are shrinking and the wicked are strengthening. The righteous are becoming more ashamed and embarrassed, and the wicked more bold. The righteous are trying to be more politically correct, while the wicked are defining politically correct.
As The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stays constant and true, it will continue to be the brunt of persecution. That's okay, I'm okay with persecution as long as we are standing for what is good and true. We live in a day where good is called evil and evil good. Those who stand for right are called bigots and haters. Those who stand for that which is wrong are heroed as loving and compassionate. Call me what you will, I will never 'celebrate' LGBT pride month.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-LGBT-Pride-Month/
Here are just a couple of paragraphs in case you don't want to read the whole thing.
"My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security.
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third."
BARACK OBAMA
One of the reasons this topic is so heated in our country is because there is no gray area. It is black and white. There is a right, and there is a wrong. There is not very much, if any, common ground. Either homosexuality is a sin, or it isn't. Either protecting traditional marriage is the right thing to do, or it's not. Either allowing gay couples to adopt is good, or it's bad. Black...or white. No middle ground.
As of right now the majority of Americans are for protecting marriage. Also, the majority of Americans voted for Barack. Why the disparity? Most people I talked to that are for traditional marriage but voted for Barack justified the vote saying that the president has little to do with that topic. Still, why would you vote for someone that does not share your same morals and core beliefs? As we are seeing, the President can meddle in any topic at any time because he is the president. Do the majority of Americans want and LGBT pride month? I'm pretty sure they don't. But we voted for him...serves us right.
It seems as though the voice of the righteous is fading, and the voice of immoral and wicked is rising. It seems as though the righteous are shrinking and the wicked are strengthening. The righteous are becoming more ashamed and embarrassed, and the wicked more bold. The righteous are trying to be more politically correct, while the wicked are defining politically correct.
As The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stays constant and true, it will continue to be the brunt of persecution. That's okay, I'm okay with persecution as long as we are standing for what is good and true. We live in a day where good is called evil and evil good. Those who stand for right are called bigots and haters. Those who stand for that which is wrong are heroed as loving and compassionate. Call me what you will, I will never 'celebrate' LGBT pride month.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Government
"It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect."
--James Madison, to an unidentified correspondent, 1833
This is definitely a different attitude towards government than what our nation seems to have now. If we stub a toe, we want the government to put a band-aid on it. We should become more self-reliant as a nation and then our need for bigger government would diminish. Health care, welfare, government bailouts, FEMA, and even public schools (and many more) were never intended to be a part of our federal government. It is and always has been human nature to want a big government. We even see that in the Book of Mormon. When Lehi died, the people wanted Nephi to be their king. Nephi warned the people against this but they insisted. Americans continue to insist on bigger and bigger government. The problem with this is it is very easy to go bigger, but almost impossible to go smaller.
--James Madison, to an unidentified correspondent, 1833
This is definitely a different attitude towards government than what our nation seems to have now. If we stub a toe, we want the government to put a band-aid on it. We should become more self-reliant as a nation and then our need for bigger government would diminish. Health care, welfare, government bailouts, FEMA, and even public schools (and many more) were never intended to be a part of our federal government. It is and always has been human nature to want a big government. We even see that in the Book of Mormon. When Lehi died, the people wanted Nephi to be their king. Nephi warned the people against this but they insisted. Americans continue to insist on bigger and bigger government. The problem with this is it is very easy to go bigger, but almost impossible to go smaller.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
BIG GOVERNMENT
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
President Ronald Reagan
I would say that was accurate for 1980s politics, but for 21st century politics I would say this would be more accurate:
"If it thinks about moving, tax it. If it actually moves, tax and regulate it. If it is and has been moving for a while, suffocate it. If it slows down, 'stimulate' it. If it stops moving, socialize it."
President Ronald Reagan
I would say that was accurate for 1980s politics, but for 21st century politics I would say this would be more accurate:
"If it thinks about moving, tax it. If it actually moves, tax and regulate it. If it is and has been moving for a while, suffocate it. If it slows down, 'stimulate' it. If it stops moving, socialize it."
Monday, April 27, 2009
Unstoppable
I haven't LOVED an album this much since Hootie and the Blowfish. :) Every song is great. Uplifting, clean music...just wonderful. My only complaint is that 2/3rds of the songs are about a break up-but isn't that true about all country music? 9.5/10 for the album. You won't be dissapointed.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Destruction
"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to DESTROY; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation."
--John Marshall, McCullough v. Maryland, 1819 (caps added)
During this economic crisis, Obama pushes a budget that repeals Bush's tax cuts. So that right when the economy regains any life at all, that life will be speedily sucked back out of the economy and into the government.
--John Marshall, McCullough v. Maryland, 1819 (caps added)
During this economic crisis, Obama pushes a budget that repeals Bush's tax cuts. So that right when the economy regains any life at all, that life will be speedily sucked back out of the economy and into the government.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Amen Tommy Boy!
"Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new hands."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1784
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1784
Thursday, April 9, 2009
New Hero
I have a new hero. His name is Daniel Hannan and he is the conservative MEP (member of the European Parliament) for South East England. He is very conservative and I now read his blog pretty regularly. I read this article today and thought it to be quite interesting. Enjoy.
Americans! Don't copy the British healthcare system!
Posted By: Daniel Hannan at Apr 6, 2009 at 20:44:17
It's difficult not to warm to John Prescott. As part of a Labour Government that lived from headline to headline, he added a dash of authenticity. He may have been oafish, but he was reassuringly human.
Prescott is trying to fabricate a row out of my interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, in which I warned Americans against adopting a socialist healthcare system along British lines. You can watch the old bruiser here. (If you're an American who likes to imagine that the British are eloquent, please ignore that last hyperlink.)
I wonder whether anyone still falls for this sort of stuff. For a long time, Labour politicians had two slogans which they would trot out whenever healthcare came up: "Envy Of The World" and "Free At The Point Of Use". These phrases were not intended to be arguments. Rather, they were ways of playing your trump, of closing down the debate.
Prezza uses both (or, rather, a mangled version of each). The NHS, he says, is Britain's "greatest creation". Really? Greater than parliamentary democracy? Greater than penicillin? Greater than the discovery of DNA, or the abolition of slavery, or the common law? John, the NHS produces some of the worst health outcomes in the industrialised world. Britain is the Western state where you'd least want to have cancer or a stroke or heart disease. Ours is now a country where thousands of people are killed in hospitals for reasons unrelated to their original condition. If this is our "greatest creation", Heaven help us.
As for the second slogan, which Prezza renders as "need and not ability to pay", there is no health system in Europe or North America that leaves the indigent untended. What is at issue is not whether we force poor people to pay, but whether we prevent wealthier people from doing so. The British system treats everyone equally, it's true: we queue equally, we wait weeks for operations equally, we are expected to be equally grateful for any attention we get.
Outside Westminster, the old incantations are losing their magic. Envy Of The World is no longer a charm to ward off criticism. People can see for themselves that Britain has become a place where foreigners fear to fall ill. Yes, all three parties are committed to the NHS: I am a humble backbencher, and speak only for myself. But I wonder whether, as on tax and borrowing, public opinion hasn't overtaken the Westminster consensus.
Let me put it like this. Imagine that, in 1945, we had created a National Food Service. Suppose that, in the name of "fairness" and "need and not ability to pay", sustenance had been rationed by the state. Conjecture that every citizen had been allocated one butcher, one baker, one café and so on. We all know where that would have led: to bureaucracy, to duplication, to surpluses in one field and scarcity in another, to racketeering, to hunger. No one, not even Prescott, is suggesting that we socialise food distribution - even though food is at least as basic human need as healthcare. As those Americans of whom you seem so contemptuous might put it, John, go figure.
Americans! Don't copy the British healthcare system!
Posted By: Daniel Hannan at Apr 6, 2009 at 20:44:17
It's difficult not to warm to John Prescott. As part of a Labour Government that lived from headline to headline, he added a dash of authenticity. He may have been oafish, but he was reassuringly human.
Prescott is trying to fabricate a row out of my interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, in which I warned Americans against adopting a socialist healthcare system along British lines. You can watch the old bruiser here. (If you're an American who likes to imagine that the British are eloquent, please ignore that last hyperlink.)
I wonder whether anyone still falls for this sort of stuff. For a long time, Labour politicians had two slogans which they would trot out whenever healthcare came up: "Envy Of The World" and "Free At The Point Of Use". These phrases were not intended to be arguments. Rather, they were ways of playing your trump, of closing down the debate.
Prezza uses both (or, rather, a mangled version of each). The NHS, he says, is Britain's "greatest creation". Really? Greater than parliamentary democracy? Greater than penicillin? Greater than the discovery of DNA, or the abolition of slavery, or the common law? John, the NHS produces some of the worst health outcomes in the industrialised world. Britain is the Western state where you'd least want to have cancer or a stroke or heart disease. Ours is now a country where thousands of people are killed in hospitals for reasons unrelated to their original condition. If this is our "greatest creation", Heaven help us.
As for the second slogan, which Prezza renders as "need and not ability to pay", there is no health system in Europe or North America that leaves the indigent untended. What is at issue is not whether we force poor people to pay, but whether we prevent wealthier people from doing so. The British system treats everyone equally, it's true: we queue equally, we wait weeks for operations equally, we are expected to be equally grateful for any attention we get.
Outside Westminster, the old incantations are losing their magic. Envy Of The World is no longer a charm to ward off criticism. People can see for themselves that Britain has become a place where foreigners fear to fall ill. Yes, all three parties are committed to the NHS: I am a humble backbencher, and speak only for myself. But I wonder whether, as on tax and borrowing, public opinion hasn't overtaken the Westminster consensus.
Let me put it like this. Imagine that, in 1945, we had created a National Food Service. Suppose that, in the name of "fairness" and "need and not ability to pay", sustenance had been rationed by the state. Conjecture that every citizen had been allocated one butcher, one baker, one café and so on. We all know where that would have led: to bureaucracy, to duplication, to surpluses in one field and scarcity in another, to racketeering, to hunger. No one, not even Prescott, is suggesting that we socialise food distribution - even though food is at least as basic human need as healthcare. As those Americans of whom you seem so contemptuous might put it, John, go figure.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Thought of the Day
"Determine never to be idle. No person will have occasion to complain of the want of time, who never loses any. It is wonderful how much may be done, if we are always doing."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Martha Jefferson, 5 May 1787
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Martha Jefferson, 5 May 1787
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Is your marriage Fireproof?
I would recommend this movie to EVERYONE. Jessica Nye told Monica about it and we rented it at Redbox. It has horrible acting and cliche lines, but the message and goodness of the movie overrides all of that and then some. Great movie! Here is a music video from a song that was in the movie (great song by the way), and yes the movie is as cheesy as this video is.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Conservatism in England?
This guy sounds more conservative than any elected politician we have here in the United States...very impressed.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Vision
"It has ever been my hobby-horse to see rising in America an empire of liberty, and a prospect of two or three hundred millions of freemen, without one noble or one king among them. You say it is impossible. If I should agree with you in this, I would still say, let us try the experiment, and preserve our equality as long as we can."
--John Adams, letter to Count Sarsfield, 3 February 1786
The founding fathers truly had the vision necessary to make this country what it is today. They were God inspired men.
--John Adams, letter to Count Sarsfield, 3 February 1786
The founding fathers truly had the vision necessary to make this country what it is today. They were God inspired men.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
President Obama
For the first time since the debates I watched President Obama speak on television a couple nights ago. It was 60 minutes and he spoke mostly about the economy. I won't speak about how he is leading our country into socialism, or how he is undoing everything the makes our economy resilient, or how he is socializing the auto industry...The only thing that I will say about those things is that I believe that the government should have MINIMAL involvement in 'fixing' the economy. If the economy is left alone, companies that have made mistakes will be replaced by better more efficient companies. If we save every failing company, we take away the incentive for future companies to avoid risk because they know the government has their back. This 'free market' approach is more painful in the short term, but far better for our country in the long run.
Now, back to Obamamama. The only thing that I wanted to say in regards to his interview is the contrast of pre-election Obama to post-election Obama. Two completely different people!!! Because I have the perspective of someone who hasn't seen him speak since the debates I was able to contrast these two Obama's very easily. The pre-election Obama was very critical of the Bush administration down to very small details. He criticized his staff and administration RELENTLESSLY. He appeared messianic because he gave us the 'hope' that everything would be perfect under his rule. Reality has arrived and he now finds himself defending things and people that he would have been critical of if it wasn't his administration. He is now singing a tune of 'let's look at the big picture and stop being critical of every detail'-far different message than we were getting from him last October.
Last October he REAMED McCain for saying that the fundamentals of the economy are strong preceding our economic recession. But now he finds himself trying restore faith and convince Americans that the fundamentals of the economy are strong (the fundamentals of the economy haven't changed since October). It is just interesting to me to see the contrast, it is easy to look messianic when you are being critical from the outside looking in. Good luck on the inside President Obamamama.
The Crisis of Credit Visualized
The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.
I thought this was very helpful in understanding what the heck happened to our economy. (thanks Mom!) Although it didn't mention that President Bill Clinton was the one who loosened regulations and encouraged banks to lend to lower income people in an effort to allow more minorities to own homes. Normally the market forces would encourage banks not to do this because of the risk, but the video explains why it was not as big of a risk as it should have been for the banks.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Wisdom vs. Intellectualism
Monica and I had a conversation today where she brought up the difference between wisdom and intellectualism. She seemed to have the difference clear in her mind and explained it to me very insightfully. Then she asked me what I thought the difference was and I didn’t have a convincing answer, so I decided to do some research.
Intellectualism= “involving intelligence rather than emotions or instinct” (online Princeton dictionary)
Wisdom= “accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment” or “having gained understanding, experience, discretion, and intuitive understanding, along with the capacity to apply these”
It is interesting to see the definitions of these terms. The world’s dictionaries tell us that the difference between intellectualism and wisdom is feeling. The definitions for intellectualism include words like ‘intellect’, ‘analytical’, and ‘cerebral’. While the definitions for wisdom include ‘enlightenment’, ‘experience’, ‘intuition’, and ‘sensible’. Wisdom seems to encompass intellectualism, but not the other way around. Wisdom seems to go a step beyond intellectualism by allowing feeling and emotion to help us in our quest for truth. One who is strictly intellectual goes by reason alone, only what the brain can comprehend is accepted. Whereas one who is wise uses reason, but balances it with truths he has come to accept by feeling, or enlightenment. These truths he may not be able to prove, but he knows they are true just as certainly (if not more) as the intellectual.
2 Nephi 2:28-29 says:
“O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
“But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.”
I would say that ‘learned’ in this scripture is equivalent to our word ‘intellectual’. Let us start with verse 29. It clearly states here that it is not in itself a bad thing to be intellectual, as long as you hearken unto the counsels of God. Or in other words, if you are wise first and intellectual second. Intellectualism without wisdom is dangerous. In verse 28 it says that those who are intellectual often think they are wise and those people hearken not unto the counsel of God. Why? Why is it natural for an intellectual to hearken not unto the counsel of God? I think this is so because an intellectual is so masterful at reasoning and logic, that he can rationalize any behavior away if he thinks about it long enough. His reasoning and logic, without the balance of feeling and emotion leads him astray.
I found an interesting talk by Bishop Glenn L. Pace from the May Conference in 1989. He said (italics added) :
“One activity which often leads a member to be critical is engaging in inappropriate intellectualism. While it would seem the search for and discovery of truth should be the goal of all Latter-day Saints, it appears some get more satisfaction from trying to discover new uncertainties. I have friends who have literally spent their lives, thus far, trying to nail down every single intellectual loose end rather than accepting the witness of the Spirit and getting on with it. In so doing, they are depriving themselves of a gold mine of beautiful truths which cannot be tapped by the mind alone.
"Elder Faust describes this type of intellectual as “a person who continues to chase after a bus even after he has caught it.” We invite everyone to get on the bus before it’s out of sight and you are left forever trying to figure out the infinite with a finite mind. In the words of Elijah, “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him.” (1 Kgs. 18:21.)”
I love that quote. He said we should accept the witness of the Spirit and get on with it! That is awesome. And I love the scripture from 1 Kings: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him.” I think Bishop Pace summed it up nicely with this quote: “In so doing, they are depriving themselves of a gold mine of beautiful truths which cannot be tapped by the mind alone.” In our search for knowledge, let us not rely on our reason alone, but let us feel and experience truth through our emotions being led by the Spirit of God. Only then will the truth set us free.
Intellectualism= “involving intelligence rather than emotions or instinct” (online Princeton dictionary)
Wisdom= “accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment” or “having gained understanding, experience, discretion, and intuitive understanding, along with the capacity to apply these”
It is interesting to see the definitions of these terms. The world’s dictionaries tell us that the difference between intellectualism and wisdom is feeling. The definitions for intellectualism include words like ‘intellect’, ‘analytical’, and ‘cerebral’. While the definitions for wisdom include ‘enlightenment’, ‘experience’, ‘intuition’, and ‘sensible’. Wisdom seems to encompass intellectualism, but not the other way around. Wisdom seems to go a step beyond intellectualism by allowing feeling and emotion to help us in our quest for truth. One who is strictly intellectual goes by reason alone, only what the brain can comprehend is accepted. Whereas one who is wise uses reason, but balances it with truths he has come to accept by feeling, or enlightenment. These truths he may not be able to prove, but he knows they are true just as certainly (if not more) as the intellectual.
2 Nephi 2:28-29 says:
“O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
“But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.”
I would say that ‘learned’ in this scripture is equivalent to our word ‘intellectual’. Let us start with verse 29. It clearly states here that it is not in itself a bad thing to be intellectual, as long as you hearken unto the counsels of God. Or in other words, if you are wise first and intellectual second. Intellectualism without wisdom is dangerous. In verse 28 it says that those who are intellectual often think they are wise and those people hearken not unto the counsel of God. Why? Why is it natural for an intellectual to hearken not unto the counsel of God? I think this is so because an intellectual is so masterful at reasoning and logic, that he can rationalize any behavior away if he thinks about it long enough. His reasoning and logic, without the balance of feeling and emotion leads him astray.
I found an interesting talk by Bishop Glenn L. Pace from the May Conference in 1989. He said (italics added) :
“One activity which often leads a member to be critical is engaging in inappropriate intellectualism. While it would seem the search for and discovery of truth should be the goal of all Latter-day Saints, it appears some get more satisfaction from trying to discover new uncertainties. I have friends who have literally spent their lives, thus far, trying to nail down every single intellectual loose end rather than accepting the witness of the Spirit and getting on with it. In so doing, they are depriving themselves of a gold mine of beautiful truths which cannot be tapped by the mind alone.
"Elder Faust describes this type of intellectual as “a person who continues to chase after a bus even after he has caught it.” We invite everyone to get on the bus before it’s out of sight and you are left forever trying to figure out the infinite with a finite mind. In the words of Elijah, “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him.” (1 Kgs. 18:21.)”
I love that quote. He said we should accept the witness of the Spirit and get on with it! That is awesome. And I love the scripture from 1 Kings: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him.” I think Bishop Pace summed it up nicely with this quote: “In so doing, they are depriving themselves of a gold mine of beautiful truths which cannot be tapped by the mind alone.” In our search for knowledge, let us not rely on our reason alone, but let us feel and experience truth through our emotions being led by the Spirit of God. Only then will the truth set us free.
Welcome
This blog is meant to be more of a journal for me than anything else. I don't expect a lot of viewers, but if you are reading this welcome welcome. I need an outlet for thoughts and emotions that I have and this seems like a good place to do it. You will get a bit of everything on this blog....welcome to Kyle's Korner!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
