Dan's Thoughts

State of the Union: Why I won't be watching

2012-01-23T19:25:00.001-05:00

Tomorrow night is the State of the Union address by President Obama. As the title of this post states, I will not be watching.

It isn't because I can't find the time or because I believe that what he says will have no impact upon me.

I won't be watching because I can't stand to watch one more speech reminding me how President Obama's motivations are nearly the opposite of my own.

One item I expect him to take credit for is an agreement between some states and the 5 largest mortgage lenders (outside of the Fannie and Freddie) that gives $20,000,000,000 to people who over-purchased.

"$17 billion would go toward reducing the principal that struggling homeowners owe on their mortgages."

"About $3 billion would to help homeowners refinance at 5.25 percent."

Let me cut to the chase. The money does not magically come from thin air. It also doesn't come from those "horrible" CEOs who have contracts per-arranged with golden parachutes. It comes from 401k plans. (In other words, it comes from those of us who are trying to invest for our future retirement like good citizens.) (Please see previous blog posts if this leap here is too much for you.)

So, the President will most likely get on national TV to talk to me (and a whole bunch of other responsible Americans) and tell us that he is taking from us to give to irresponsible people who over-purchased on their houses.

Or, stated differently, we're going to take the allowance of the good kid who saved and give it to the kid who blew his money on the cheap toy that broke. And the reason is that the kid whose toy broke is sad.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter whether or not the President specifically announces this specific "great" agreement or 15 other ones. He has announced so many initiatives with the same consequences (punish the good/responsible and reward the bad/irresponsible) that I am simply tired of hearing how doing the right thing is going to cost me and other responsible people even more money.

Aloha.

I sense much fear in you.

2011-11-25T23:17:00.001-05:00

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you."

There are many sources of fear. However, it usually boils down to the fear of being able to influence a situation is such a way as to make it turn out favorably for ones self. This could be true of losing a job (how am I going to support myself), being chased by a tiger (how am I going to survive), wetting pants in school (how am I going to live with the embarrassment) or failing a test (how am I going to explain the failure to my parents, how am I going to get into college, how will I live with the negative perceptions of my teacher and friends).

If you really believed you could turn the situation around for yourself favorably, you wouldn't be afraid. To use the above examples, if you had a new job lined up that paid more, if there was a cage around the tiger, if no one saw you, you were in the bathroom alone and you had a spare pair of pants to change into, or if you knew that the test wasn't going to be graded, or that you knew the questions ahead of time and knew the answers would you be afraid?

Fear comes from the belief that you don't have the ability to act in such a way as to make the situation acceptable.

There is plenty in this world to be afraid of. Unemployment is 9% nationally. Underemployment is around 18.5%. The national debt just surpassed 15 trillion dollars. The price of gas is high. Hole in the ozone layer/global cooling/global warming/global climate change is going to irradiate, melt or freeze the earth. Big banks/oil/retailers/anyone are making a lot of money (which must mean they are big, powerful, evil people). The costs of healthcare are increasing dramatically. Nuclear waste might pollute something. The plastic water bottle you used today won't ever decompose. Racism didn't end with the election of the first African-American president. Muslim extremists are going to blow up something else. Iran is going to nuke anyone they can. China is going to own the rest of the world. Europe's debt crisis is going to make the rest of the world implode. The zombie apocalypse is just around the corner. The Mayans predicted the world's end in 2012. Playgrounds don't have 5" of shredded rubber tires under the swings. Our kids aren't wrapped in bubble wrap. Guns might shoot me. Knives might cut me. And on and on and on.

However, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. I'll pick one example from the list above and illustrate.

If I am afraid that I might get shot by a gun, I would want to do everything I could to limit the number of guns around me. So, I would be opposed to a "shall issue" concealed carry law. I would view anyone who was for a "shall issue" concealed carry law as someone who was personally contributing to my potential danger. I would view the "extreme" groups who supported the law as a group of people that cared more about their desire to have what they wanted, in spite of the danger posed to me. If I thought a group of people were actively trying to expose me to more danger, I would hate them. I would view their actions as a personal attack on my health and well-being. That would cause me to actively seek to stop them. If I had a strong belief that I would die as a result of their support of the law, I might even perform some extra-legal actions to try to stop them, with the reasoning that to save my life (and who knows how many other lives) extra-legal actions would be justified.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

The biggest problem with my example is that, statistically, it has been proven that, in that situation, people are safer with a "shall issue" concealed carry law. And there lies the biggest problem.

Fear doesn't have to be based upon fact.

And now we get to the reason I wanted to talk about this quote and fear. If you look at many of the important issues of our day, you typically get at least one side that is based upon fear. Unfortunately, many of these issues are being clouded by fear.

In the 70's it was environmental damage. In the 80's it was the hole in the ozone layer. In the 90's it was global warming. In the 00's it was global climate change. I can't wait to see what it morphs into in the 10's. However, the major focus is on the fear that man's progress is somehow ruining the world.

The cost of healthcare is increasing dramatically. It was easy to see this coming. There was a clear imbalance between power and responsibility. Companies began offering health insurance as a perk. Insurance companies covered most services. Government, over the years, mandated that even more things be covered (wellness, birth control, etc.) The consumer had no financial incentive to make fiscally responsible choices regarding his healthcare. Costs increased. Eventually, a crisis point is reached. The fear is that I will get sick (truly ill) and not be able to be made well.

When you view situations in the future, examine whether one or many sides of the debate are acting out of fear. Then, try to discern whether or not their fear is justified. If it is not, run the other direction from their views.

For example, I have taken a look at the CCW, global warming, fear of the "rich", fear of losing a job/giving children a bad education and evil big oil arguments.

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/07/global-warming.html

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/07/true-answer-in-battle-of-ideas.html

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/08/tax-rich.html

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/07/school-funding-in-michigan.html

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/07/evil-big-oil.html

In retrospect, it is amazing how many of the issues of our day are shaped by fear.

Be good critical thinkers...and check your fear at the door.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

Aloha.

Tax us!

2011-11-20T14:17:00.001-05:00

Tax us!

I have heard this from two different sources recently, so I wanted to talk about it.

What does it mean when someone says "Tax us!"? And why don't they say "Tax me!"?

I believe words have significance and are very important. This case is no exception.

If I were to go out and say "Tax me!" I should be laughed at. If I want to give more money to the government, I could. Now, I know that there was some discussion (and even a bill) about making sure it was law that wealthy people could give as much as they wanted to the federal government. However, based upon the research I have done, (and this website from the federal government http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html ) anyone can give to the federal government anytime they want (and has been able to since 1843).

If I want to give money to the government, I can. There is no reason to say "Tax me!" as that is like saying "Please force me to give you money, when I already want to give you money and you have specifically already set up a way for me to give you money if I want to." Again, a laughable proposition.

So, why the "us" instead of the "me"?

There can be a couple of reasons why someone would use us instead of me. One reason is that the person speaking is representing the group. This is clearly as laughable as tax me. If everyone in the group of "us" wanted to be taxed more, then everyone in the group could simply act as "me"s and donate more to the government. So, clearly that is not the reason.

In this case, the reason they say "us" is because they are trying to group a bunch of people together. What they are trying to say is "Tax all of my group". What they are implying is "Tax all of my group...some of whom don't want to be taxed." And, since desire to be taxed is implied in the request, it could be restated as "Tax all of those in my group who don't want to be taxed."

And that is the dirty little lie of "Tax us!" It is not really a request to tax us. It is a request to tax those in my group who don't want to be taxed.

Or, stated differently, "Please use the force of the government (aka the gun) to take money from some other people."

So, whenever I hear someone say "Tax us!" I view that person as a thief who is not brave enough to perform the act of theft himself...or perhaps as an accessory to theft. Overall, however, I realize that the person speaking is not trying to give of himself (which is what he wants you to think), but is trying to take from others.

The first time I heard this recently was when I heard of some millionaire in Washington D.C. to try to convince Congress to "Tax us!" (with the us being millionaires).

The second time I heard this was when FoxNews broke a story talking about a proposed "tax on Christmas trees". I then heard the "local reaction" on WOOD-TV. The idea was to tax Christmas tree sellers $0.15 per Christmas tree. This money would go to Washington D.C. and then be used to generically promote Christmas trees.

Now, I don't remember where exactly in the Constitution the clause was for "promoting fresh cut Christmas trees", but when you find it, please let me know. Besides that obvious problem, isn't a "Christmas" tree specific to a certain religion? By promoting "Christmas" trees, isn't the government specifically promoting a religion? I remember reading something somewhere about that not being a good thing.

The initial national story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/merry-christmas-agriculture-department-imposes-christmas-tree-tax/

The initial WOOD-TV story: http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/sw_mich/christmas-tree-fee-delay-upsets-growers

The important thing about the local story is that it makes the same argument as the "Tax us!" people. In the local story you have a local tree grower upset because the government isn't going to tax everyone to pay for a marketing campaign.

So, I have to ask a question. What would keep all those who wanted to (including the local tree grower in the story) from getting together, paying $0.15 per tree, hiring a marketing firm, and promoting fresh cut Christmas trees from doing so? The answer is "absolutely nothing at all, except selfishness and a desire to control money/productivity they did not produce". So, why don't they do it? Because one grower doesn't want to pay for marketing that may benefit a competitor without the competitor also paying for it? Or because some tree farms have as much business as they can handle and don't want to do marketing? Or because some are small enough that they don't want to spend money on marketing?

Who knows exactly. But what it comes down to is that one part of an industry wants to use the government (aka the gun) to impose a marketing campaign on the rest of the industry who doesn't want it.

Or, stated differently, "Please use the force of the government (aka the gun) to take money from some other people."

So, whenever you hear someone say "Tax us!", make sure you remember that the person speaking is at heart a thief, not an altruist.

Aloha.

Unemployment Payments and Economic Growth

2011-11-06T00:46:00.004-05:00

I read this quote and had to respond:

"The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that each $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates up to $1.90 in economic growth."

First, let me take away any possible suspense on where I stand on this by saying that, while this may be true, it is misleading at best, most likely intentionally misleading, and a blatant lie at worst.

Unemployment benefits are paid out of taxes collected (depending upon how the states choose to do it) by the federal and/or state governments. Those taxes are paid by businesses. Whenever taxes are paid by businesses they are passed along to consumers in the form of increased prices for products. This leaves the business with what it deems a reasonable profit.

What this means is that the average consumer, instead of paying $1.00 for a widget, pays $1.05 for a widget. This also means that the consumer now has $.05 less to buy anything else. So, while we see the consumer buy the widget for $1.05, we don't see the consumer fail to buy the piece of candy for his daughter for $.05. So, the tax has a negative impact upon the economy at least equal to the tax itself.

I say "at least" because the candy maker decides not to produce as much candy. Not only is the one consumer not buying the $.05 candy, but hundreds of other consumers (also impacted by a loss of buying power due to the tax) also don't buy the candy. So, the candy maker decides to not employ one worker for 1 hour. This costs the worker minimum wage of $7.50. That worker doesn't buy $7.50 worth of product and the whole process repeats itself.

As you can imagine, the exact impact upon the economy of a simple $.05 tax is difficult to quantify. However, it is clear that the $.05 tax has a greater impact on the economy than $.05.

This is how the CBO gets to the idea that $1 given to someone for them to spend can have a greater than $1 impact on the economy. They put this process into reverse and try to come up with an estimate (using tons of math) on the positive impact on the economy.

So, you ask, why did I sound so negative in the first place? It sounds like the CBO just did a reasonable thing...right?

No. Whenever a tax is collected, there is a net economic loss. This is always true.

Why? Because whenever the government takes money, runs it through "the system" and then gives it to someone else (or even back to the original payer) there is some cost to "the system". You might start with $1 going in, but when you run it through "the system", you end up with only $.50.

So, the government takes in $1, but only ends up with $.50 to spend, plus they have caused more than $1 harm to the economy.

So, to give away that $1 in unemployment, they have collected $2 and have caused more than $2 worth of harm to the economy.

That is how this statement is misleading. The $1 in unemployment already did more than $2 worth of harm, but now is going to do $1.90 worth of good to the economy.

The CBO should know this and should use even more math to figure out the initial negative impact upon the economy before calculating the positive impact of unemployment payments, and then tell us the whole story.

For example, let's say they determine the $2 in taxes that they collected cost the economy a total of $3.80. Then, they determine that the $1 in unemployment payments will generate $1.90 in economic growth. So, they should report that for every $1 in unemployment payments the economy lost $1.90 overall.

This is why I said earlier that this might be a blatant lie at worst. Most who have studied economics would understand this. Everyone at the CBO should understand this.

The ease of being able to detect the lie is easy, when you take the CBO statement to the (very logical) extreme. If $1 in unemployment payments generates $1.90 in economic growth, why not tax at 100%, pay everyone unemployment, and generate 190% of the economy?

The implication in the CBO statement is that the government (somehow) by taking money from someone and giving it to someone else has helped the economy without actually producing a single thing. Clearly, this belief is a load of crap.

"But that $.50 cost for 'the system' didn't just disappear. When the government takes in $1 it has $1, not $.50. It may use that money to pay salaries or other things. Doesn't that generate economic growth?"

Yes and no. When a government employee is paid, a certain amount is taxed and the rest can be spent. However, no actual economic productivity or growth has happened as a result of the salary paid to the government employee. So while, yes, the government employee is buying things like food, clothes and other items, thereby growing the economy, every penny of that salary came from a tax that was paid (ultimately) by the consumer. So, we run into the same problem with a government employee salary as we do with unemployment payments.

Additionally, every government employee is one that is unavailable for the private sector to employ. "But that doesn't matter in an economy with such high unemployment!" you might say. However, that would be missing the fact that many government employees could be highly skilled individuals who could contribute to actual production, even more so than some other people who are employed. The additional productivity of the otherwise employed government employees would reduce the costs of goods and services.

So, to wrap this up...

Whenever the government unnecessarily (not necessary to improve productivity (and I have never known the government to improve the productivity of anything)) puts its hands into something (or any other person/group unnecessarily puts his/her/their hands into something) there is a net harm to the overall economy. Once the money goes through government hands, there will always be a net loss to the overall economy, even if the government were to turn all money back to the original payers of the tax.

If you would like to learn more, please read Economics in One Lesson:

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320563107&sr=1-1

Aloha.

Tax the Rich

2011-08-15T21:06:00.003-05:00

I saw a sticker on a very nice truck today. It said "Tax the Rich". It started me thinking about what Warren Buffett said. Basically, he said that the rich should be taxed more. I have some thoughts on Mr. Buffett and the concept of Tax the Rich.

First, if Mr. Buffett would like to contribute more to the American Government, he is clearly free to do so. I doubt the American Government would turn away a check from Mr Buffett in whatever amount he would care to give. He does not need to wait for "taxation" if he wishes to give away his money.

If Mr. Buffett believes anyone else should pay more taxes, that is his right, under our Constitution, to voice his opinion. However, just because Mr. Buffett wants to take other peoples' money and donate it to the American Government does not make it a good idea. Just as Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie deciding how to run our military does not make it a good idea. Just as Al Gore wanting global warming to be true does not make it so.

This brings me to the "Tax the Rich" sticker I saw.

Who are "the Rich". When you think that there are 925 million hungry people in the world (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_world), there is a lot of need. Currently, the United States gives out more than $58 billion in foreign aid to countries. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianwingfield/2011/01/29/making-sense-of-u-s-foreign-aid-to-egypt-and-elsewhere/) Why can't we give more and take care of hunger, shelter, and other "standard of living" issues for the rest of the world. Again, we already give $58 billion.

So, again, who are "the Rich". If we look at the global level, "the Rich" would be anyone in the United States who works more than 18 hours a week at minimum wage. The Boston Globe puts the average world wage at around $7,000 per year in 2007 (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/10/07/average_earnings_worldwide/ ).

Clearly, anyone who could afford a car and gas in today's United States economy is "the Rich". So, it is ironic to see a bumper sticker on a car saying "Tax the Rich".

Frankly, if you make $2 / year, someone who makes $3 / year is "the Rich". Anyone who makes more than you is "the Rich".

And in this reasoning lies the problem with "Tax the Rich". What it means is "Tax someone else who is making more than me."

It boils down to selfishness. Whenever someone wants someone else to pay their way, you have greed and selfishness. When someone suggests the government take more from "the Rich" you are suggesting socially sanctioned theft.

Warren: If you read my blog (insert laugh here), feel free to donate whatever amount you want whenever you want.

Truck driver: Be careful. To one of the 925 million hungry people in the world, you are "the Rich".

Aloha.

The true answer in the battle of ideas

2011-07-31T14:14:00.003-05:00

The true answer in the battle of ideas is history.

Ten years ago, the state of Michigan was debating whether or not to ease restrictions on concealed carry permits. Previously, you pretty much had to be a judge, police officer, or know someone to get a concealed carry permit in the state. If you were "just a citizen" your chance of getting a CCW permit were nearly non-existent.

The argument for "right to carry" was that you didn't have to worry about the law-abiding citizens who would take a training course, have a background check, fill out the paperwork and legally purchase a gun. They were the law-abiding citizens.

The argument against "right to carry" was that, with the drastic increase in weapons on the street, crime rates would soar and Michigan would return to a state resembling the wild west with a vigilante on every street corner and body counts rivaling a war zone. The average citizen could not be trusted with the responsibility.

After ten years with the less-restrictive law, history has spoken:

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/central_mich/10-years-later-gun-opposition-fades

http://www.freep.com/article/20110731/NEWS06/107310482/10-years-after-concealed-weapons-law-unclear-why-many-state-were-gun-shy?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

The fear mongers who wanted to deprive law-abiding citizens of their freedom have been proven wrong.

Data at the time of the original debate showed that other states who had relaxed their CCW requirements experienced no problems.

This should be a lesson to us today. As I write this, we are being blasted from the media about the great horror that will occur if/when we "default" on the debt by not expanding our credit limit. We are also told that failure to increase our credit limit will result in our bond rating downgrade.

Some have recently admitted (and Rush Limbaugh has pointed out for weeks) that the federal government takes in enough revenue to pay the interest on the debt. The chance for a default rests only in the possibility that the President would order the Treasury Secretary to not pay the interest on the debt and instead spend on other programs.

The linkage between raising our credit limit and a bond rating downgrade are specious.

How many of you have gone to a bank to ask for a loan? If you have, you may know that they check your credit rating. That rating is based upon how much money you make, your current debt, and other factors.

Have you ever had to pay a higher interest rate because you had a bad credit rating? Many people starting out (who have not established a credit history) have to pay higher rates, because they have not built a credit history worthy of a higher credit rating. In other words, they are a greater risk, because no one knows if they know how to manage their money and pay back a loan.

Let's take a look at this example:

A couple goes to a bank for a mortgage loan. Everything is good with the collateral and they are approved (barely) for a loan. But, instead of paying 5% interest, they have to pay 6.5%, because they have borrowed a lot of money for things like furniture, clothes and daily expenses. There is some concern that they may not be able to pay off the loan, so they have to pay more interest.

Now, let's say the couple goes out and opens three new credit cards and expands their credit limit.

Why would this make a bank say "this couple is more likely to pay us, now that they have a higher credit limit"?

The short and obvious answer is that they wouldn't. In fact, without a plan for the couple to pay off their existing debt and not borrow as much in the future, a credit limit increase may cause them to pay even more in interest because they become more of a risk.

It is exactly the same with the federal government.

What will assure the ratings agencies is getting a balanced budget in place, cutting long-term spending, and reducing our debt.

Don't just take my word for it, listen to what Moody's (one of the ratings agencies) says:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/moodys-releases-statement-potential-outomes-us-aaa-review-now-says-virtually-any-deal-would-not

"If the debt limit is not raised before August 2, we believe that the Treasury would give priority to debt service payments and could thus postpone a potential debt default for a number of days. Revenues would be more than adequate for some period of time to meet those payments, although other outlays would be severely reduced as a result.

As to the longer-term outlook on the rating, the limited magnitude of current deficit reduction proposals suggest that even a timely increase in the debt ceiling will lead to the assignment of a negative outlook on the rating. The direction of the US government's debt rating will largely be determined over time by our projections of its deficits and stock of debt, but the focus of our current review for downgrade is the more narrow and more immediate "event risk" associated with a possible debt-ceiling-induced default and the precedent that such a default would carry. We will make an assessment of the government's efforts to stabilize the future path of its debt ratios when the review is concluded."

I am tired of fear mongering in the name of pushing bad ideas. History always shows the results of our ideas.

What will negatively impact our credit rating the most is continuing to spend spend spend without any attempt at balancing our budget.

What will positively impact our credit rating the most is fiscal responsibility.

Raising our credit limit without significant cuts leads us down the path of spend spend spend, which will negatively impact our credit rating.

Enough fear. Let's have a discussion of fact. Once we move into the arena of fact, the choices facing our nation are clear and simple. Cut spending, stop promising things we can't deliver to try to buy votes and start behaving like adults.

Aloha.

School Funding in Michigan

2011-07-08T22:54:00.004-05:00

I have heard great wailing and gnashing of teeth over expected cuts to education for next year.

"House Republicans approved a $13.8 billion education budget that slices a minimum of $430 per student in K-12 districts..."

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/michigan_house_approves_massiv.html

That sounds like a lot. So, I did some research.

I live in a small town. Here are the per student funding levels I could find for my school:

Year Per pupil funding
93-94 $4,323.29
94-95 $4,566
95-96 $4,834
96-97 $5,101
97-98 $5,363
98-99 $5,363
99-00 $5,700
00-01 $6,000
01-02 $6,500
02-03 $6,700
03-04 $6,700
04-05 $6,700
05-06 $6,875
06-07 $7,085
07-08
08-09 $7,316
09-10 $7,162
10-11 $7,162

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Departments/DepartmentPublications/FoundationHistory94to07.pdf

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2010/07/modest_hike_in_school_aid_fund.html

I also see some conflicting data from the first story from mlive: "Snyder's original budget called for a $470-per-pupil cut. The current minimum foundation grant is currently $7,316. The Senate reduced the cut to $340. The impact on districts losing students will be greater as the House bill also eliminates a $20 million fund to compensate for declining enrollment."

If that last quote is accurate, the $7,162 never made it to finality. This seems to indicate the current funding level remained at $7,316.

Anyway, let's assume worst case scenario of $7,162 and a $430 cut. That takes us down to $6,732.

Dear God NO!!!! Say it isn't so!!

Many people I know have taken a 10% pay cut. That would have been $6,585 per pupil.

In 2009 I took an 18% hit in compensation from the company I worked for. If schools had done the same thing, they would have been brought back to funding at $6,000 per pupil.

In addition to the 18% compensation cut I experienced, employees had been subjected to pay freezes for 3-4 years before that. If school pay had been frozen 4 years before and had an 18% decrease as well, funding would be at almost $5,500 per pupil.

At the $6,732 per pupil funding levels, let's assume a better (although I can't say optimal, due to my lack of research on optimal class sizes) class size of 20 students. That is $134,640 worth of funding per class per year.

Given an average total cost of teacher total compensation (salary/benefits) of $83,415 (FY 2008 estimate), that should leave $51,225 for all other school costs for those students.

That doesn't include extra money the school receives for meal programs, millages, students with special needs, and any grants.

If you would really like to convince me that there is a funding issue, could you help me understand where that $51,000+ per class of 20 students per year goes and why it is insufficient. And, better yet, since most classes are 25 students, explain where the $84,885 goes and why it is insufficient.

Aloha.

Evil "Big Oil"

2011-07-08T22:20:00.002-05:00

I have heard a lot about taxing billionaires and millionaires. I have heard a lot about "outrageous profits" of big oil companies. I have heard a lot about "those rich people who own Exxon" and their "outrageous profits." I have heard everyone complain about gas and oil prices.

Frankly, I am tired of it.

If you would like to make "outrageous profits", why don't you go into the oil business?

Is there too much capital required to start up?

Is there too much risk? (Like Shell who just lost $4 billion because of "a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits.")

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25/energy-america-oil-drilling-denial/

Do you lack the knowledge to drill one oil well, or to refine one barrel of oil into gasoline?

Well, great news! You probably are earning some of those outrageous profits in spite of your lack of capital, aversion to risk and lack of knowledge. If you want to talk about outrageous profits, Exxon is the place to start and stay a while. They are setting records.

I direct you to the list of owners of XOM (otherwise known as Exxon Mobil):

http://moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?symbol=XOM&Holding=Institutional+Ownership

When I worked at a university, we had a retirement plan called TIAA-CREF. They own 35.6 million shares. That puts them in the top 10 institutional owners.

There are other names that you would recognize, like Vanguard, Fidelity, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, T Rowe Price, and State Farm.

The top 10 institutional owners own 18.5% of the company. So, if you have a 401k or own part of a mutual fund, you are a partial owner of Exxon.

So, as an owner, take personal responsibility to fix the problem.

Stop whining and realize that, while you whine about how much your 401k has lost in the last 5 years and yell and scream at your investor, you are also whining and complaining about how well one of your investments is doing.

Most of you are not only consumers, but you are business owners as well.

It is the same argument made by those who want to be able to buy cheap toys for their kids, and wonder why all the jobs go over to China.

Most people don't realize they are part of a system. Decisions as a consumer have an impact on you as a business owner and as a worker.

To summarize: Those people making big profits are you. Stop complaining to me or anyone else about you.

Aloha.

Global Warming

2011-07-08T21:56:00.004-05:00

You probably haven't been told by the Global Warming crowd, but there hasn't been any global warming between 1998-2008.

With all of the publicity surrounding Global Warming, a movie (An Inconvenient Truth) in 2006, substantial funding of alternative energy, and discussion of drastic increases in minimum MPG ratings for vehicles, the one thing traditional media and Global Warming Fanatics forgot to mention is that there wasn't any warming from 1998-2008.

However, for all of the fanatics out there, there is good news. There is a scapegoat to explain away just why Global Warming is still happening:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704

To summarize: China burned so much dirty coal with sulfur in it, "Sulphur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space" and kept the Earth from warming. However, soon, Global Warming will start up again. And then, we are all doomed...really.

It took them 2 1/2 years for them to "explain" why a decade of warming didn't happen.

It is amazing and unbelievable. Not once did I hear from the media that no warming had happened since 1998. Not once. Did you?

And that's using data that has been shown to be faulty.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Global Warming is a scam to scare people into slowing development, which is the goal of people who believe free market economies are "unfair".

Aloha.

Bin Laden dead

2011-05-02T09:16:00.001-05:00

Bin Laden is dead.

Aloha.

Memorial Day

2010-05-31T18:26:00.001-05:00

I can't say it any better:

http://op-for.com/2010/01/a_memorial_day_speech_from_195.html

Let us never forget the sacrifice of those who gave all.

Aloha.

Our borders

2010-05-27T07:57:00.002-05:00

Why our President and Congress should do their jobs:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/26/terror-alert-mexican-border/

Aloha.

FAIL: Congress tried to intimidate businesses, but it FAILED!

2010-04-14T17:59:00.002-05:00

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/14/canceled-hearing-that-would-have-grilled-ceos-on-health-care/

So, the summary is that

1. Congress passes a massive tax and spend bill.
2. Companies tell everyone that they are going to have to pay the tax.
3. Congressman Waxman gets offended and tries to grill/intimidate businesses that told everyone that.
4. Someone educates Waxman (the Chair of the Energy and COMMERCE committee).
5. Waxman realizes that the company were following the law by notifying people how and when they did.
6. Waxman quietly cancels attempt to grill/intimidate businesses.

He is the FREAKING CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE!!!! And he doesn't know about FASB and GAAP???? I don't even have my MBA yet and I know about them.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!!

It shows that he didn't do any research or know what the **** he was talking about. He was simply offended and reacted emotionally by trying to bully people.

Yet another sign of socialism and socialist tactics.

Aloha.

What are we proud of?

2010-03-25T22:17:00.002-05:00

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/25/bidens-bleeping-internet-sensation/

It used to be that our leaders would be proud for inspiring kids not to use drugs, or to stand up for what was right, or for serving their country.

This is what our leaders are proud of now. Dropping the F-bomb.

Scratch that. That is what the clowns who are pretending to lead are proud of.

Aloha.

We are going to make history!

2010-03-19T14:15:00.002-05:00

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/HealthCare/health-care-obama-makes-push-fire-democratic-lawmakers/story?id=10147283

To quote President Obama, "We are going to make history."

I have no doubt that, if this travesty passes, he will indeed have made history. Now, let's reflect on other world leaders who have made history:

Lenin
Marx
Stalin
Hitler
Emperor Hirohito
Genghis Khan
Pol Pot

Aloha.

Just too out of place

2010-01-08T15:46:00.003-05:00

I was playing the impressively violent and bloody computer game "Left for Dead 2". In it, you play as one of 4 survivors trying to get to a rescue point to escape hordes of zombies. On the way, you have to shoot, blow up or hack to pieces the zombies in your way. Tons of blood.

Anyway, near the end of the game, I noticed something completely out of place. In a guard shack I noticed a "His Kids radio". His Kids Radio is a children's radio broadcast that uses a special radio to pick up the signal. They had taken the radio, removed the big words "Faith & Fun" from the label, flipped it side-to-side and stuck it in the game.

Pictures follow:

The top one is a picture of the radio at my house. The bottom one is from the game after I unflipped the image:

Here is a progression of shots from close to far away to show you that, yes, in fact it is in the game:

So, a Christian children's radio was an object in the game Left for Dead 2. Most people would not recognize it, but since I work for the same organization that runs HKR, I noticed.

How weird is that?

Aloha.

Further thought on silencing critics

2009-10-19T20:12:00.002-05:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/19/white-house-official-says-obama-team-controlled-media-coverage-campaign/

Watch this video and then see if you believe these are the words one would associate with a group looking for freedom and bipartisanship. See if you believe that this administration is trying to control everything that gets out, everything that the American people see, everything that the media covers.

This administration has no desire to lead. They want to bully. The only way you could say this administration wants to lead is if you add the prefix mis- to the front.

That the mainstream media allowed itself to be lead around by the nose like a prize bull is despicable.

I urge you all to not just assume that everyone has your best interests at heart and start doing your own research on what people tell you (me included). People are lying to you without any hesitation whatsoever and most of you don't even try to care.

Aloha.

Silencing critics

2009-10-18T15:31:00.004-05:00

When Democrats try to silence opponents, they live down to all of the charges of socialism/fascism that are leveled against them.

They try to stifle discussion by passing legislation quickly, without discussion.

When they fail to ram legislation through, and are forced to actually listen to the people, they call the people "a mob" and write off the many voices of the many people as "only political".

They try to mute insurance companies by "investigating" them when they communicate with their policy holders.

When AARP comes out as neutral on the new health insurance legislation, the administration buys them off by including provisions in that new legislation to remove AARP's biggest competitor health insurance supplement (the most popular one, as AARP is #2). Suddenly, AARP is in favor of health care reform.

They say that they are going to cut budgets and provide transparency, but then fail to report on what they actually did.

When one of the major networks doesn't agree with them, "They're not really a news organization."

The same people that spent 7 years (and counting) criticizing President Bush about "his war" and "not listening to the American people or his critics" are doing everything they can to ignore their critics and the American people.

In fact, it is so bad that the extreme left Saturday Night Live actually made fun of the Democratic "bipartisanship" when Senator Snowe voted for a bill to come out of committee. The joke was "So, 1 vote is bipartisan?"

A healthy democracy allows and even encourages discussion. Socialism/fascism tries to silence critics through marginalization and intimidation. The Obama administration is doing everything it can to avoid actually listening to the American people. And this from an administration that was preaching about unity and bipartisanship in its campaign.

On top of that, the Obama administration is doing what it can to buy people, raising the national debt to amazingly bad new heights.

This is a dangerous warning sign.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependency back again into bondage." - Alexander Tyler

Aloha.

Government managed health care

2009-08-14T13:02:00.001-05:00

It worked for Canada, right?

20 minutes, but worth it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

Aloha.

Fairness

2009-08-14T12:12:00.002-05:00

Fairness is a word often used but seldom defined. Usually, when someone says "that's not fair" they could mean two different things.

They could mean that the rules set the advantage to someone else so that even if the competitors were evenly matched, one would be more likely to lose and one would be more likely to win.

Or, they could mean that there was an unequal outcome, that somehow the rules should have been set up so that no one could win or lose.

To keep this short, expecting fairness in line with the first one is fine. Expecting fairness in line with the second one is not.

Here is a case where where the concept of "that's not fair" has been abused:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/editorials/article/ED-VMIS13_20090812-180402/285566/

Jackson must be rolling in his grave.

Aloha.

This + Socialist President = Scary

2009-08-05T22:27:00.002-05:00

Here's the story:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/07/24/paper-bush-considered-sending-troops-new-york/

The President considered deploying troops on American soil. This truly blurs the line that many thought had been clear.

"Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, told the Times that a U.S. president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War."

Wow. We came that close.

Now, with a Socialist President and this background and the talk coming from the White House ("The controversy is part of a larger debate on health care reform that has led Democrats to portray town hall audiences protesting a Democratic-sponsored bill as angry mobs duped into hostile actions by special interest groups.") and we have a situation where those who don't agree with the White House are categorized as angry mobs/terrorists and troops used against them.

If you had asked me 12 months ago if something like this was possible, I would have given a hearty "no." Now, I have to say, I see the possibility.

Aloha.

Please report on your neighbor

2009-08-05T22:14:00.002-05:00

From the White House blog:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Big Brother says we are right and if anyone disagrees with us, you need to report them to us.

Again, another symptom of socialism. Anyone who disagrees with us is providing "disinformation".

Aloha.

Drink your problems away!

2009-08-01T17:21:00.002-05:00

I am certain that nearly all of you have heard of the so called "Beer Summit". President Obama put his foot in his mouth without knowing what the...heck...he was talking about and insulted a cop. It created such a national uproar, he invited his friend (who he was sticking up for with his original stupid comment) and the cop involved to the White House for a beer. Hence, the Beer Summit was born.

So, what did you learn today, boys and girls? Whenever you screw something up, that's OK...just go have a beer. Drinking will solve your problems.

I am still waiting for the Alcoholics Anonymous press release.

Aloha.

Global Warming

2009-07-26T08:59:00.001-05:00

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

Global warming is a lie. The people who believe it are full of crap.

I know...sometimes I'm not direct enough.

Aloha.

Hi, I'm a good advertising campaign

2009-07-26T08:54:00.000-05:00

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10288022-37.html?tag=mncol%3Btxt

Apparently, the Microsoft commercials are having an impact. Good!

I had a lot more here, but in deference to some people I know who like them, I deleted it and will leave it at that.

Aloha.

Abortion

2009-07-14T08:00:00.002-05:00

First, read two articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html

then

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg14-2009jul14,1,7388484.column

The most important part from the New York Times:

"Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

Again, "there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

Does anyone need a clearer statement than that? If you think abortion is about the right to choose, you're wrong. It is about getting rid of the "populations that we don't want to have too many of." Lucky for us, the government doesn't have to kill those babies. The government can put out a propaganda campaign and convince the mothers that their lives will be better if the get rid of the "problem." Then it is their "choice." See...the government isn't killing all of the minority babies...their mothers are making choices about their reproductive health.

How disgusting!

Another interesting bigoted quote: "JUSTICE GINSBURG: The Legislature can make the change, can facilitate the change, as laws like the Family Medical Leave Act do. But it’s not something a court can decree. A court can’t tell the man, You’ve got to do more than carry out the garbage."

So, what if a male justice had said "A court can't tell the woman, You've got to get up off the couch and stop watching soaps and do some housework." Do you think he would have gotten a pass on that? So, why should she?

These people make me ill.

Aloha.

Respect for a General

2009-06-19T12:40:00.003-05:00

Most of you have heard about the General that was reprimanded by a Senator for not addressing her as Senator. Well, here is a compilation. Please watch this video and let me know if you think her comments to the General were appropriate. Please leave comments. Was a General way off base to call a Senator "ma'am" or "sir"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpU_BYI9d24&feature=response_watch

Also, please note this from the Fox News story:

"Tuesday's hearing was hardly the first time a military officer used those terms during sworn testimony.

The same day at a Senate Armed Services subcommittee hearing, two Navy officials repeatedly referred to Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., with the title, "sir."

"Yes, sir," Navy Vice Adm. Bernard McCullough said when answering questions.

Wicker raised no objections."

Aloha.

Supreme Court Nominee

2009-05-26T22:04:00.004-05:00

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/26/sotomayors-judicial-record-battlefield-critics-advocates/

Before the selection of nominee, I heard that President Obama was looking for a female, Hispanic judge to nominate.

Now, judge Sotomayor may very well be the best candidate for the position. (I doubt it, but for reasons of judgment, not skin color.) However, simply making the statement that one is choosing a Justice for the Supreme Court based on race or gender (or worse both) diminishes her perceived value. I must ask the question: Was she the best nominee, or was she the best female Hispanic nominee?

For the Supreme Court, I want the best nominee. I don't care about gender or race or religion. I care that the person will provide justice for this nation.

Which one of us (President Obama or me) do you think is living up to Rev. Dr. King's dream?

Also, let's review a critical case involving racism:

To quote from the article on one of Sotomayor's appeals court decisions:

"Perhaps Sotomayor's most controversial decision was in Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she was part of a panel ruling against a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. -- they objected after the city threw out the results of a promotion test because too many white firefighters, and not enough minority firefighters, scored high."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517074,00.html

Judge Sotomayor decided that it was OK to throw out a test because not enough black test takers would be promoted.

To refute that argument, I quote from the article:

"All were afforded the same notice, the same study period, the same exam syllabi, etc.," said Torre, who would only answer questions by e-mail. "The rest was up to the individual."

And again I quote:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The color of anyone's skin should not be used to make decisions. If you think otherwise, reread the last sentence until you change your mind.

Our President has just nominated a racist for the Supreme Court most likely because he himself was being racist. Stellar.

To test this theory, what if a white President came out and said he was looking for a white male to put on the Supreme Court. And he chose someone who had ruled in favor of separate but equal education for minorities. In this day and age, would that ever be allowed? Would anyone believe that was acceptable? The obvious answer is "Of course not." As well it shouldn't be allowed or be believed to be acceptable.

Aloha.

Memorial Day

2009-05-23T18:59:00.000-05:00

First, go read the article and look at the picture, then come back. It is worth it.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47507

http://www.blackfive.net/.a/6a00d8341bfadb53ef01156fa97022970c-pi

The picture is a card Gen. Pace left at the Vietnam Memorial on his last day as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Quoting from the article:

The lesson for Pace was immediate. “Regardless what you do in your life, hold on to your moral compass,” he said. “When you are emotionally least capable of defending yourself is when the biggest challenge will come. If you don’t have an idea of what you will let yourself do and what you will not let yourself do, you may find that you have done something that you would never believe yourself capable of doing.”

He said his epiphany came in combat, but it doesn’t have to. “I learned that day, to think through what was going to be happening each day thereafter, and to think through what I would allow myself to do and not do,” he said.

It could come in a meeting, a test, a temptation, whatever. “If you have thought through who you want to be at the end of each day, you will see that person,” he said. “But, if you have not, you may not like the person you end up being.”

This Memorial Day, remember the reason for the 3-day weekend and thank someone who risked everything to defend you, your nation and your freedom. Or, better yet, thank the family of someone who gave everything to defend you, your nation and your freedom.

Aloha.

An example of socialism

2009-05-23T17:54:00.004-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/23/china.suicide/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Quoting from the article: "A passerby pushed a would-be suicide jumper off a bridge in southern China because he was angry at the jumper's "selfish activity," Chinese media reported Saturday."

How selfish could the individual be to hold up traffic for 5 hours?

So what if that individual was contemplating suicide?

So what if the person PUSHED HIM OFF OF THE BRIDGE?

Wasn't that the best for society collectively?

Welcome to the logic of socialism.

Aloha.

Abortion and Obama

2009-05-18T11:11:00.002-05:00

Watch the video, then come back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI67MuPwsX0

I've said it before and I'll say it again: When government views itself as caretaker of the populace, when abortion gets rid of economically disadvantaged people, when abortion limits the number of mouths for the government to feed, they view abortion as a good thing.

People who believe liberals are standing up for the individual right to do anything are wrong. Abortion isn't the right of a person to terminate a pregnancy, it is the way for liberals to reduce government spending (perhaps, the only way they know).

Now, reconcile these two statements:

"I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable," Obama said.

vs.

But Obama called for "open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words" in the midst of such persistent debates.

So, one side thinks the other side is murdering millions. And, Obama realizes that this could cause a problem with trying to come to an agreement. But, with the belief that millions of lives are on the line, he is urging "open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words"???

If Obama were president during WWII, we would still be trying to convince Hitler that he should "understand our view".

Aloha.

Social Security, Medicare and Socialism

2009-05-12T20:53:00.001-05:00

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Social Security:

In 1937, the amount contributed out of your paycheck was 1%.

By 1960, 23 years later, that rate was up to 3%.

Medicare was added in 1966.

By 1970, 10 years later, the total amount was up to 4.8%.

By 1980, another 10 years later, the total was up to 6.13%.

By 1990, we reached our current rate of 7.65%

Please note that this is the rate for employees AND employers each. So, for every 7.65% you are paying, your employers are paying 7.65% for you as well. That is another 7.65% that the employer could be paying you if there was not this tax. Combined, that's 15.3% of your pay that the government is getting for Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/12/social-security-medicare-seen-failing-faster/

I am 35 and began working in jobs outside the home/farm around 1991. That means that my entire adult working life, the government is getting over 15% of my pay with the implied promise that Social Security and Medicare will be available to me. That promise is an empty lie.

According to the above article, as it stands now, Social Security will be broke 2 years before I turn 65 (current full retirement age). Please note that this is 4 years earlier than anticipated just last year. So, who knows how long it will really last, but the estimates keep getting worse.

Medicare will be broke 20 years sooner, in 2017, or 22 years before I retire. This estimate too is getting worse.

Other than my personal interest in the fact that I am getting the shaft on this program, why does this matter?

Great question.

Here's why it matters:

FDR, the man who "Beginning with his inauguration address, ...began blaming the economic crisis on bankers and financiers, the quest for profit, and the self-interest basis of capitalism", the man who tried to drastically change the Supreme Court when it didn't agree with his New Deal, and the man who sent 120,000 Americans to interment camps and deprived them of liberty and property, is the man who started the Social Security system.

This man started the biggest American experiment in Socialism that has ever been conducted...and that experiment is failing.

Let us all remember that as we think about "universal health care" and "fairness".

It cannot succeed. I'm not saying that it cannot be allowed to succeed, I am saying that the math says it is incapable of success.

Socialism doesn't work. All of the best intentions will simply lead us down the road to hell.

Aloha.

FDR References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-packing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Here's what institutional discrimination will do

2009-05-11T21:43:00.002-05:00

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7561561&page=1

So, they hire a minority who has driving violations to drive a trolley. They make this hire to discriminate for this person's minority status. Then, this person decides to text his girlfriend instead of drive while driving. This causes a 9.6 MILLION DOLLAR accident. And, this person is only a minority by choice, being "transgendered".

Overall, this person should not have been behind the wheel. There should have been a competent person driving. Instead, let's make sure that everyone has a job.

This form of discrimination is simply occupational socialism in action. We shouldn't hire someone based on ability, we should hire based on need or "fairness".

If you want to know what a socialist future looks like, look at this incident and know.

Aloha.

Greatness

2009-05-11T16:33:00.002-05:00

Recently, our media and politicians have been proclaiming the need for equity. Everyone should have access to "basic" health care. Everyone should have access to "basic" education. Everyone should have access to "basic" home ownership.

In the 80's we didn't talk about "basic" anything. We talked about being the greatest nation on the face of the planet. We did that not through lowering our standards and making sure we were all equal at the lowest standard possible. We did that by striving for greatness and working our collective tails off.

When I get ill, I don't want basic health care, I want great health care.

When my children receive an education, I want them to have a great education, not a "basic" education.

When my children want to purchase a home, I want them to be able to buy a great home because they work for it and save their pennies. I don't want them to have to settle for a "basic" home because that is as high as the lowest member of our nation can reach.

We, as a nation, should not focus on providing the "basics" for all. We should focus on on providing the best for all who can afford it. This drive will reduce the cost of the same service for all of us in the long run.

We talk about the current cost of health care in this nation, yet forget to mention the advances we have made in this arena.

The average life expectancy of someone born in 1900 was 49.2. In 2008, that average life expectancy reached 78. We have increased our life spans by about 60% in the last century.

Do you think that happened because we aimed for providing "basic" health care in America? We achieved this by striving for greatness in health care.

Do you think that adding nearly 30 years onto everyone's life is free and inexpensive? Someone has to pay for all of that medication and all of that health care, all of the machines, all of the lawsuits, all of the hospital beds, all of the wheel chairs and "hover-rounds", all of the home nurses, all of it.

It is not free, in spite of what some might believe.

We expect to live 60% longer and do it for free. We spit in the face of reality.

We forget that we achieved these great things by striving for greatness, not by striving for mediocrity.

Aloha.

Did you hear the good news?

2009-05-09T21:53:00.002-05:00

The President is looking to cut the budget. The video explains why I am underwhelmed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wretchedradio.com%2Fdaily_update_archives.cfm%3Fid%3D111&feature=player_embedded

This video says it all.

Aloha.

Theft

2009-05-08T14:05:00.002-05:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519515,00.html

Theft.

Pure and simple theft.

One group of people decided to steal what other people owned.

Welcome to a very simple explanation of socialism.

Those in power, I'm sure, had a "good reason" why stealing was acceptable.

Let me be clear: Whatever "reason" they came up with is irrelevant. Stealing is stealing.

This is what the U.S. taxpayer, business person, property owner is experiencing to a lesser level now and will experience to a greater level soon.

Aloha.

What am I paying for?

2009-05-08T13:57:00.003-05:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/government-funds-study-gay-sex-argentina-bars/

That's right. To quote from the article, "The National Institutes of Health are paying researchers to cruise six bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk -- and just what can be done about it."

Why does anyone think that this is acceptable?

This is what happens when government begins believing that it exists to solve all problems.

Aloha.

How much did we just spend again?

2009-05-07T22:26:00.002-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/07/seniors.stimulus/index.html

So, looks like we just spent another $13,750,000,000.

I hope everyone who receives this money enjoys the fruits of my labor.

I was going to say you're welcome, but you're not. You didn't earn it, you didn't work for it, you shouldn't be getting it. Any plan at redistributing wealth is bad.

Let's all sing a song as we take another step down the road to socialism.

Aloha.

Lest we forget - Updated

2009-04-20T19:25:00.006-05:00

The caliber of Democratic military analysis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niPmXym7u3g&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_igpyewuzQ

The war is lost, the surge has failed, we should run away.

No apologies to our great military who has won not only the war but the peace in Iraq without the same level of commitment from their counterparts in the State Department and with a complete lack of support from the Democrats.

These people disgust me.

Never forget the facts. The Democrats betrayed this nation and the great men and women serving in the military.

Aloha.

Wall St. vs. Main St.

2009-04-15T18:37:00.002-05:00

How much did our new President make last year?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30234253/

You read correctly... $2.7 million!!!!!

There are about 525,949 minutes in a year. So, stated differently, he made a little over $5.13 every minute or $308 dollars every hour or $1,298 per work hour (figuring a 40 hour work week). I don't know about you, but I made a little less than that per hour for my work.

Does anyone remember Obama criticizing McCain for not being in touch with main street because he owned 7 houses?

How in touch is Obama with an income of $2.7 million?

How many houses can you buy with just one million dollars? You can buy about 7 houses just like mine.

Obama couldn't locate main street unless he asked his chauffeur to drive him there.

Aloha.

I need one!

2009-04-07T21:06:00.003-05:00

This has got to be the best infantry weapon ever!!!:

http://www.gizmag.com/aa-12-combat-shotgun-frag-12-automatic/11393/

Again, I NEED one!!!! (And a few hundred rounds of that ammo!)

Aloha.

Save the Turtles!!!

2009-03-21T11:47:00.001-05:00

Here is the story:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/21/feinstein-dont-spoil-desert-solar-panels/

Some entrepreneurial companies want to turn a barren wasteland into a space that will produce renewable energy, and, according to Sen. Feinstein and David Myers, the turtles are more important.

Let me be clear. I have nothing against turtles. I like turtles. My girls watch Franklin.

However, does anyone remember the energy crisis? Does anyone remember the Liberals charging that oil, coal and nuclear were bad choices and things like wind and solar (what these companies want to do) are the way to go? The short of it is that Liberals think people are bad, especially the masses. We don't deserve power or really even life. We might bother the turtles or the birds or the grass or the wind in the process of living.

Here's my proposal: Instead of building solar and wind in the desert and killing off some turtles, let's build a few dozen nuclear power plants there and provide for the whole nation. That way, the turtles get to live and we get power. Even France does this. How stupid are we when the French are ahead of us?

Aloha.

Let's make Vets pay for service-related injuries

2009-03-10T17:49:00.002-05:00

Well, that's one way to pay for socialism:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/03/obama-wants-vet.html

Sarcasm alert!:

This is a great idea. Let's pay the military low pay for risking their lives, then let's discharge them and make them pay for their medical care with private insurance. I mean, why should they get any special treatment for defending us?

End Sarcasm.

Wow. First he tries to lose the war that we've already won. Then, he says that he's going to cut military spending during a time of war. Now, he wants to screw our vets. I expect the next story will include firing squads for those doing their duty.

Aloha.

News Flash

2009-03-09T11:15:00.002-05:00

Who would have thought? Barbie a prostitute? This quote from a CNN story:

'"Who would have thought," Gerber said. Barbie was thought up by a woman and modeled on a cartoon character "who was essentially a prostitute."'

Who would have thought? Let me think...anyone who has ever seen the doll.

It really took decades for someone to figure this out?

Aloha.

The Economy

2009-03-05T16:15:00.002-05:00

I'll keep this brief.

Since Nov 4 (election day) the Dow has lost over 29% of its total value in 4 months.

Most would say the goal of socialism is to bring everyone up to the same level. I would disagree. The goal of socialism is to bring everyone down to the same level.

Looks like socialism is working.

Aloha.

An Historic Day

2009-01-20T20:28:00.003-05:00

Tomorrow will be an historic day in our nation's history. It will be the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. The last abortion statistic available from National Right to Life (which appears to be from 1973 to 2007) is 49,551,703 dead in the United States.

Based upon the average of over 1 million abortions each year, it would be safe to estimate that over 50 million human beings have been killed.

In perspective, 9/11 death toll is around 2,750.

The Iraq war death toll is just over 4,200.

World War II U.S. death toll was over 400,000.

The Civil War death toll (both sides) was around 625,000

Estimated Holocaust death toll: 5.9 million Jews and about 6 million others for a total of 12 million.

To say that this is the greatest tragedy of this century or the last would be accurate.

When the history of this time is written many years in the future, those authors will fail to understand us as much as we fail to understand the Germans in the 30's and 40's.

How can we let this happen? How can over 50 million be killed and it is "legal"?

What baffles me is that more poor minorities have abortions than any other group, and yet no one picks this up as a class warfare issue or a racial issue.

Our nation, with its fresh new minority leader who promises economic equality, should be ashamed. We have killed 50 million of our own.

How can God bless our nation while be allow such an atrocity to continue unchecked?

Aloha.

Goodbye Dave Brondsema

2009-01-10T11:00:00.003-05:00

A former employee (as of Friday) is making news online. Dave Brondsema, who has worked at Cornerstone University for over 3 years and for me over 2 years, is moving on to SourceForge. These are the people who do sourceforge.net and thinkgeek.com among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinkgeek

If you're a techie, you've probably heard of them.

Anyway, I found this story out there:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=128359&t=01005232244381733972

And this:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_comes_after_sourceforge_a.php

Looks like Dave is having an impact on his new company even before his first day on the job. Impressive.

Dave is a quality individual and a good friend. Cornerstone University will miss him and, more importantly, I will miss him.

I wish you well Dave. Don't forget to keep in touch.

Aloha.

President-Elect Obama Visits Troops!

2008-12-26T12:17:00.003-05:00

So, what's the catch? Why the sudden interest in our troops? Was Dan wrong about Obama not really caring about our troops?

Here's the catch: He is visiting our troops in...

wait for it...

you can't wait, can you...

HAWAII!!! (Where he is already on vacation.)

That's right. Our President-Elect is so concerned with our troops during war time, he is taking time out of his busy VACATION to visit the troops in HAWAII!!! How much time? ONE HOUR!!! He spent one whole hour "connecting with" and "supporting" our troops.

That's like saying "I care about the environment because I walked by a tree." or "I care about fiscal responsibility because I went to a bank today."

A real President-Elect would visit troops on the front lines, or at least in the same time zone as war operations were happening.

Sarcasm alert: I am truly moved by the extreme effort President-Elect Obama is putting forth to embrace his role as the future Commander in Chief.

I am under-bleeping-whelmed.

Link to the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/26/obama.holiday/index.html

Aloha.

Global Warming

2008-12-16T19:37:00.002-05:00

Read this, then come back:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html

My favorite part:

"The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980."

Yet another example of how the media is being used as "propaganda" for the leftists/elitists/socialists. We are entering an era where the media is using its power to press its own agenda. The press has lost its status as impartial and objective. How unfortunate for the world and future journalists who won't be trusted to be impartial and objective.

Aloha.

We have a "perfect 10" on the loser scale.

2008-12-12T09:12:00.002-05:00

This guy is the biggest loser in the world:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465844,00.html

If you are even thinking about doing this, here is my advice: Go out and find a real one!!!

Aloha

More on the Economy

2008-11-20T19:05:00.002-05:00

The Dow is now down 21.5 % since President-elect Obama was elected.

The Dow has lost more than 1/5th of its total value in the 12 days since the election!

Is anyone hearing anything about any tie-in between election and the Dow from anywhere (especially the main stream media)? If so, please post a link. I have heard absolutely nothing.

Aloha.

The Economy

2008-11-19T16:18:00.002-05:00

Has anyone else noticed that in the last 11 days since the Presidential election the Dow has dropped 17%?

I am telling you as strongly as I can that if a Republican had won the election, there would be an outcry like you wouldn't believe about how the newly elected Republican was already negatively impacting the economy and the markets.

Have you heard or seen one story on this?

I haven't.

Gotta love the journalistic effort being put forth on this.

Aloha.

First Negative Obama MSM story I've Seen

2008-11-13T22:40:00.002-05:00

Eight days since the election, this is the first negative story I've seen. Here it is:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/obamas-change-administration-leans-clinton-officials-transition/

My favorite quote:

""The last thing he wants is a headline that says, 'Obama Administration: Clinton Administration, Part Three,'" said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics."

Should have seen this coming with the selection of Biden. The good news is that it looks like Obama will continue to be someone's puppet. The alternative is extreme socialism.

Aloha.

Obama offends those of mixed heritage

2008-11-08T09:18:00.002-05:00

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=6211371

I, like many Americans, am of mixed ancestry. I have some Scottish, Irish, German/Dutch, and Native American (American Indian) just to name those I am sure of. In the sense of ancestral purity, I am a mutt. By choosing to so casually throw out a term like "Mutt like me," he has chosen to casually offend all of us of mixed ancestry.

Please look at the wiktionary definition: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutt. Please note the word pejorative. Please note the wikipedia entry on pejorative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative

Please note the media spun it a little differently:

"The message seemed clear — here is a president who will be quite at ease discussing race, a complex issue as unresolved as it is uncomfortable for many to talk about openly. And at a time when whites in the country are not many years from becoming the minority."

The President-elect has been so for 3 days and has already offended me racially.

Aloha

Is racism resolved now that we have elected an African American President?

2008-11-06T18:44:00.002-05:00

One of the statements I have heard about the election of President-elect Obama is that this is finally a concrete demonstration of the fact that the United States has moved beyond racism. Please note that the only people I have heard this from are white. I have not heard this from any minority.

Here is the problem with that view in the form of a question: Was gender discrimination eliminated when someone hired the first female CEO? The answer is simply "no". It was clear that there were opportunities for women. However, people concerned with gender issues pointed out that ratios did not accurately reflect what they believed to demonstrate gender equality. They also sited disparity in pay rates and the expectation of not just one CEO, but multiple CEOs at every type of organization. Another point was that, while there was a female CEO, there was a lack of representation at the VP level.

So, let's apply this same criteria to government. Our House and Senate are predominantly white. Our Supreme Court is predominantly white. I would suspect that our new President's Cabinet will be primarily white.

Simply put, the election of an African American President does not put an end to racism. It will not be long until we hear of the need to reach racial and gender parity in all other aspects of government and within our corporations. The choice of an African American President will be heralded as a "good start."

For those of you wishing to put the specter of racism behind this country, I have to say that I don't believe this will happen.

The question of whether or not this nation is really beyond racism is a much broader topic that I will not attempt to cover here. My short answer is we are still racist. Just look at Jeremiah Wright as a great example that racism is alive and well within the United States.

Aloha.

Obama and the economy

2008-11-06T16:18:00.002-05:00

Stock market close on Tuesday, Nov 4 = 9625
Stock market close on Thursday, Nov 6 = 8695

Obama is elected President and the Dow tanks 930 points. In two days we have lost just shy of 10%.

Why is the media not reporting on the substantial negative impact President-elect Obama is having on our economy, even before being sworn in?

Aloha.

Obama wins Maine

2008-11-04T20:23:00.002-05:00

I just saw this on Fox News. With 3 votes in, Obama wins Maine. Note that I didn't say 3%, 30% or 30,000 votes. I said 3 votes. One, two, three.

Wow. The media is off its rocker.

Aloha.

Ringing endorsement for Obama

2008-11-02T20:50:00.001-05:00

Homer Simpson wanted to vote for Obama. Don't you want to be as smart as Homer Simpson?

Aloha.

What does an Obama Presidency mean?

2008-10-21T21:25:00.003-05:00

Two good posts on Obama and what his election would mean to the nation:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78576

Rather long, but worth it.

Let's pray (literally) that this nation understands the consequences of its voting choices before voting day and that we never have to live the consequences of a bad decision.

Aloha

Heard about THIS hijacked ship?

2008-10-13T21:05:00.002-05:00

Anyone heard about this?:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,430681,00.html

I hadn't. That concerns me.

Another take on this:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/10/did-iran-attemp.html

The times are getting interesting.

Aloha.

Good Video

2008-10-13T20:13:00.003-05:00

Do you recognize the song?

http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2008/10/13/all-hail/

You heard it whenever a Soviet won the gold medal at the Olympics.

Aloha.

News coverage: Palin vs. Obama

2008-10-01T22:51:00.002-05:00

Four students hang an effigy of Obama on a college campus and it makes the MSM:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5927324&page=1

An actress makes a comment about Sarah Palin being gang-raped and it barely makes the AP: http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20081002/ten-people-bernhard-palin-5e343d7.html

Glad to know you can get away with anything as long as you're not liked by the media.

Aloha.

Stop the Presses Again!!! - Palin is Evil

2008-09-28T21:24:00.003-05:00

I couldn't believe it:

"She gladly accepted gifts from merchants: A free "awesome facial" she raved about in a thank-you note to a spa. The "absolutely gorgeous flowers" she received from a welding supply
store. Even fresh salmon to take home.

She also stepped in to help friends or neighbors with City Hall dealings. She asked the City Council to add a friend to the list of speakers at a 2002 meeting -- and then the friend got up and asked them to give his radio station advertising business."

OH MY GOD!!!!

Can you believe how EVIL this woman is?

She accepted a facial, some flowers and some fish as gifts!!! And, she helped a citizen speak at a City Council meeting and HE SPOKE!

I am OUTRAGED!!!

In other news, Obama purchased his home with the help of a man currently under felony indictment. And, Obama hangs out with a terrorist that wishes he could have blown up more things. And, he sat in a church for years with a Pastor who thinks white people are evil. But let's not bother researching that.

The Media disgusts me.

Aloha.

Main Street vs. Wall Street

2008-09-28T21:05:00.002-05:00

If I hear this expression one more time, I am going to vomit.

Look at your main street. Even in Lake Odessa, I see a number of companies that are listed on wall street. Looking at my neighbors, I see a lot of people that have stock investments.

This is a BS phrase!

This is an attempt to further class warfare and class strife in an attempt to lead us further toward socialism.

The implication of the phrase is that Wall Street and making money is bad. Anyone who has more money than me is bad.

Main Street. Who could be against that? Evil Wall Street, that's who.

Everyone better start brushing off the phrase "comrade". We're going to be using it soon and often.

Aloha.

This is beyond my belief

2008-09-24T15:54:00.002-05:00

CNN posted a commentary by Campbell Brown. It was titled "Commentary: Sexist treatment of Palin must end". I refuse to drive any traffic to CNN so will not be posting the link. I recommend you don't read it, unless you have already taken an extra dose of your blood-pressure medicine. In fact, I don't recommend continuing reading my blog unless you are current on your meds.

My initial reaction was one of excitement. I was excited that a relatively big name, main-stream media person was finally calling for an end to the sexist treatment of Palin.

Then I read the article. Here are some quotes:

"I call upon the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower who will wilt at any moment."

"By treating Sarah Palin differently from other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves.

Free Sarah Palin.

Free her from the chauvinistic chains you are binding her with."

I am beyond words. Whatever hope I had that journalistic professionalism existed in the main-stream media is gone.

I don't know what an appropriate response is. Right now all suggestions I have would be inappropriate.

I am truly shocked. I was expecting a call to the MSM to stop asking questions like "what will she do with the kids while she's working." Instead, I get a partisan attack.

Time for the people to take back the media. The elite idiots who have it now have lost the privilege.

Aloha.

Stop the Presses!!! - Clay Aiken is gay!!!

2008-09-23T20:29:00.002-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/23/clay.aiken.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

This shouldn't be a headline even on a slow news day.

In other breaking news...

Adam is dead.

The big ball of glowing yellow that appears in the sky each morning is called the...Sun.

The sky is blue.

The Village People are gay.

Rush Limbaugh is a conservative and Al Gore is a liberal.

And finally...Dan knows sarcasm.

Aloha

11-year old girl field strips and reassembles an AR-15 in under 1 minute

2008-09-20T23:10:00.002-05:00

You need to watch this video:

http://www.geekologie.com/2008/09/11year_old_girl_field_strips_a_1.php

Now, technically, she didn't take off the hand-guards...but I'm being picky. I have field stripped an M-16 and I can tell you that she is performing all of the steps (except for the aforementioned hard-guards). I am very impressed. I believe my record was 1 minute 23 seconds. She is fast.

Aloha.

AIG Bailout

2008-09-17T08:28:00.002-05:00

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/16/news/companies/AIG/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories

We just loaned $278.52 per person in the United States to prop up a private company. So, out of my family's pocket, we just spent $1,114.08 for the next two years because someone else was stupid/greedy. To be fair, we will get 8% interest after two years. So, $91.8 billion dollars will be coming back to us in 2 years.

Nice.

Glad we didn't use that money to drill for oil or invest in alternative energy or educate our children or defend our nation.

I believe, on principle, bailing out corporations with Federal funds is wrong.

Aloha.

Perspective on Iraq

2008-09-04T11:27:00.002-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHsCKsk8Oyo

Perspective on Georgia

2008-08-18T11:26:00.000-05:00

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/08/perspective-a-d.html

Aloha.

A letter you must read

2008-08-17T21:15:00.001-05:00

Take the 5 minutes to read...and reflect.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/08/yesterday-in-a.html

Aloha.

Iran

2008-08-08T21:40:00.001-05:00

Based upon world events and timing of conventions, I predict that Israel will take out Iran's nuclear capabilities in late August or early September. Specifically, between Aug 29 and Sept 2. Should be interesting.

Aloha.

Media Bias? Duh!

2008-07-25T21:38:00.002-05:00

Is there a media bias? Of course there is.

How would one go about proving that? See answer below:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

The American people are being betrayed by "the Fourth Estate." It is time for The People to take back their country from the liberal media.

Again, that's why I'm running for President. The American People deserve better. The American People deserve respect and integrity.

Aloha.

Disrespect - Updated

2008-07-25T11:17:00.007-05:00

Update at bottom.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disrespect

Disrespect

Main Entry:
1dis·re·spect :
\ˌdis-ri-ˈspekt\
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
1614

1 : to have disrespect for 2 : to show or express disrespect or contempt for : insult, dis

The below story is from this link: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/24/obama-cancels-visit-to-us-troops-in-germany/

Barack Obama’s campaign said Thursday that the Illinois senator opted not to visit U.S. troops at military facilities in Germany because it would be “inappropriate” to make such a stop on the campaign-funded leg of his trip.

The German magazine Der Spiegel reported earlier that Obama canceled a visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a military hospital in Germany, and the Ramstein Air Base.

The report came as Obama prepared to speak to thousands at a high-profile address in Berlin.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs released a statement saying Obama originally wanted to visit troops at Landstuhl to “express his gratitude for their service and sacrifice,” and noted that he already visited troops in Iraq while he was part of an official congressional delegation.

But he said the second leg of Obama’s trip was different.

“The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign,” Gibbs said.

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, “Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military.”

McCain’s Senate colleague Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also took a shot at Obama.

“I noticed that Obama had plenty of time to shoot hoops … but he didn’t have the time to stop by (the Ramstein base),” he told FOX News.

He has time to make speeches to the world and "shoot hoops", but he doesn't have time to stop by and say "thank you" to men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend him (and everyone else in the nation). Disrespect.

Here's another take, from someone who was at an air base in Iraq when Sen. Obama visited: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/07/more-witness-em.html. Again, disrespect.

UPDATE: New story released by ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5449455&page=1. Now it is the military's fault he didn't visit? Complete disrespect.

Aloha.

New Video

2008-07-16T14:03:00.001-05:00

This is why I think my Presidential campaign for 2012 has a real chance:

http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/if47MpmmhEth8v7m

People are fed up with all professional politicians.

Aloha.

Iran - again

2008-07-11T05:06:00.002-05:00

Example of economic/information warfare through proxy:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380324,00.html

Example of information warfare:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp

Saddam did the same thing. Neither country has/had the military to back it up.

As I believe I have blogged before, thank goodness Israel will take their nuke potential out soon. Then the shooting war starts. However, the shooting part should be over quickly.

Aloha.

Presidential Movement

2008-07-07T08:46:00.003-05:00

First, let me state, this is not accurate/real.

Second, this is so cool. Check this out:

Finally, thanks to Topher for the info.

Aloha.

Presidential Issue - Budget

2008-07-05T14:05:00.002-05:00

Just like any other organization or person, the United States of America collects and spends money. The United States budget is prepared by the Office of Management and Budget and submitted to Congress. Congress then makes changes to the budget. If you would like more detail on the process, please follow the below link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

When the government takes in more than it spends, we call that a "balanced budget". When the government spends more than it takes in, we call that "operating at a deficit". Not too complex.

To be fiscally responsible, the government should have a balanced budget. Just like a family, the government can borrow money. However, also just like a family, the government has to pay interest on the money borrowed. So, the government wants to avoid debt. However, the United States government is currently (according to my best numbers) approximately $9 trillion ($9,000,000,000,000) in debt. Wow. A lot of zeros. In 2003, $318,000,000,000 was spent on interest payments alone. Still, a lot of zeros.

On top of the explicit debt, there are other financial problems that need to be dealt with. The ones that concern me most are Medicare and Social Security. Some have described Social Security as a "pyramid scheme". I believe that description is close. Here's how it works: The government collects money from workers. It then promises to return money to those workers when they reach the age of retirement. Sounds simple. If it is so simple, why do we keep hearing debate about "when Social Security will run out of money"? Why are the best current estimates that Social Security will run out of money in 2041? Unfortunately, Medicare will also run out of money in 2019. This can be chalked up to the fact that the government takes the money it gets from you and sticks it in the general fund. Then, it pays out benefits from the general fund. So, they talk about "having money" when they are taking in more money than they are paying out. However, there is no saved money. The money you paid in was used to pay out to others that were then collecting Social Security, or to prop up the general fund. So, the money you put in is gone.

So, we have an even larger problem than the current deficit would indicate, because in the relatively near future (11 - 33 years) we have other obligations that will add to the federal debt.

Basically, we are in a very bad financial situation. We need to begin solving it soon, before it gets more out of control than it already is. While we can't cut enough or generate enough new revenue to change this situation overnight, we need to start turning the ship.

I don't have details on the federal budget. I don't know how long it will take to get the federal government a balanced budget. I don't know how long it will take to develop alternatives to Social Security and Medicare (whether those alternatives are alternative funding or alternative plans, I don't know). However, I do know that the longer we operate with poor financial planning (the kind that would make the average citizen eventually file bankruptcy) , the more difficult it will be to correct and the more likely we are to run into a financial crisis.

End.

Presidential Issue - Abortion

2008-07-04T14:59:00.002-05:00

The issue of abortion has divided this nation for well over 3 decades. While one can site the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, the debate over abortion preceded this ruling.

We can argue, as the Court did, over a "right to privacy". I will not. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a specific "right to privacy" outlined. When it comes down to it, any right to privacy that one can conjure up in the Constitution would never prevent a state from enacting drug laws, abuse laws, or any other laws due to a "right to privacy." There are a number of laws that restrict what citizens can do, even in their own home. For example, I cannot purchase a machine gun and keep it in my home. The "right to privacy" argument would just as logically apply to this example as to abortion.

However, I want to discuss the key issue: Who is a person? The Supreme Court reviews various beliefs and historical laws regarding abortion. What they fail to notice is that, as the understanding of what the thing growing inside the mother is changes, the laws change. The more those making the laws believe the thing inside the mother is alive, the more forcefully the laws are written. Some laws call it a capital crime to perform an abortion. (Murder). So, the question of life and personhood is critical. Nowhere in the history is there a discussion of privacy. This make complete sense if you look at the act of abortion as one that could be murder (depending upon your definition of person).

To quote from the Roe v. Wade decision:

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Translation: "No one knows, so we're not going to try to figure it out either." This thing inside the mother is, even by their arguments, POSSIBLY life. Estimates are that over 44 million abortions have happened in the United States since Roe v. Wade. Isn't it worth the effort to try to figure it out?

To see a graphical representation of the scale of abortions in this country, follow the following link: http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm

We enact laws to restrict freedom with the view to ensure safety. We restrict freedom of those we acknowledge to be people to help "protect" them from bad decisions. Our police can stop someone for not wearing a seat belt. We enact laws to protect animals, things that we acknowledge clearly are NOT people. A woman cannot legally kill a robin in the state of Michigan, but a woman can abort the thing inside of her that is possibly alive. I fail to see the logic in arguing that the government has more interest in a bird than in a possible human life.

We even have laws that speak to the "personhood" of the thing inside a woman. If a pregnant woman is murdered, and the thing inside her dies, the person charged with murdering the mother will also be charged with murdering the child. How can you murder a non-human "thing"? Answer: You can't. You can only murder a person. These laws, when analyzed, seem to offer a contradiction. When the mother wants it, it is a person. When the mother doesn't, it is a thing that can be disposed of more easily than a state bird. The actual thing inside the mother did not change one bit. The concept that the wishes of the mother somehow make the thing inside her a person is ridiculous.

So, is the "fetus" a person? We know "at this point in the development of man's knowledge" that a fetus has all of the necessary genetics to be a human being. We know that one clear differentiator between us and animals is genetic. One can clearly see genetically that the thing inside a mother will be a person, and not something else, such as a dog or rabbit. Unless someone unnaturally or something naturally terminates the pregnancy before delivery, the fetus will be born and be recognized by everyone as a person. While there may have been a question in the past on what that thing inside a mother is, that question can easily be answered today: That "thing" is a pre-born human being (person). Any other answer is a lie.

As I have said, I will not lie to you. That "thing" inside a woman is alive. It is a human being. Therefore, that "thing" is a person, entitled to any and all protection under the law. Any other philosophy exists simply to remove natural consequences for actions. At the cost of a human life, a tragically high cost to free one from responsibility.

Abortion should be as illegal as murder, as a person's life is ending against its will.

End.

Presidential Issues

2008-07-04T12:11:00.003-05:00

Below is a list of issues I plan on discussing in more depth:

Abortion
Budget and Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy and Oil
Environment
Families and Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure and Technology
Jobs
Military
Principles and Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War and Peace
War on Terror
Welfare and Poverty

Please let me know if there are other issues you would like me to discuss.

Aloha.

Quote

2008-07-03T13:55:00.002-05:00

"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful." - C.S. Lewis

I would add that we question the nature of truth and are shocked to find that we have been lied to.

Aloha.

Presidential Question

2008-07-02T19:17:00.003-05:00

Here is a question I received from a supporter:

"Okay, I've got a question for you.

How much sense does it really make to base your presidential vote on whether or not the candidate supports abortion?

It seems to me that the president doesn't have a whole lot of effect on the issue since he can't really change the laws and that the vote might be better spent on issues for which the president is directly responsible.

I know that the president can certainly affect legislation, encourage or discourage it, and veto it, but apart from nominating Supreme Court justices, there doesn't seem much that the president can do with regard to moral issues."

I do not recommend being a one issue voter. While I feel very passionately about the issue of abortion, there are many other life and death issues a President will face besides abortion. With that said, this is life and death of babies on an enormous scale. I will be the first candidate who could have been legally killed before I was ever born. Again, I feel very passionately about this issue. But, again, the President faces many life and death issues.

The official role of the President is clearly outlined in the Constitution. In the negative, the President does not propose laws and the President does not rule on the Constitutionality of those laws. The President does have command of the military, signs or vetoes bills, appoints Cabinet members, grants pardons, plays a role in treaties, and appoints judges among other duties.

The most important function of the President at this time is his/her role as leader of the United States of America. While one may look at the official list of functions outlined by the Constitution and question the importance of the position, the true importance and power of the position is in its role as this nation's leader. Leaders set vision, set the agenda and set the tone of the discussions that happen over the issues.

Our government is designed to divide powers between the branches. Very few powers are reserved for one branch exclusively. The President appoints judges, the Legislative branch confirms them. The President signs or vetoes bills, but the Legislative branch sends the bills in the first place and can override a veto.

What this means is that, to effect change in our nation, there needs to be a certain amount of agreement between the three branches of government. So, what does this mean to the voter?

Voters are farthest away from the selection of Supreme Court Justices. Voters select a President, who nominates Justices and Congress confirms the Justices.

Due to the numbers of Senators and Representatives, an individual voter selects only 2 out of 100 Senators and only 1 out of 435 Representatives. That equals about 1/2 of 1% of the Legislative branch.

However, each voter gets to cast a vote for the President of the United States (I won't go into detail on the whole elector deal).

So, in direct response to the question, the President gets to set vision and lead the nation, would have the power to sign or veto legislation if a pro-life Congress passed such legislation, and nominates Justices who could rule on the issue of abortion. In essence, this is very similar to what was stated in the question. However, the importance of these powers/responsibilities of the President are such that no other person can execute them. I typically will not vote for a candidate that is pro-abortion. That candidate has, so far, always shared many other views which I do not agree with. This has made my decision simpler.

In general, you should vote for someone who you believe will make the best decisions for the nation. That's where my candidacy gains momentum. Most politicians today are concerned about their political career, their pay, their friends. I am running for President not because I feel that I am special and deserve power. I am running for President because the role of President (and any leadership role) should be filled by someone who understands and tries to live out the concept of selfless service. The President needs to make decisions on what is best for the nation, not what is best for himself/herself, for the party, for my "rich friends" (republicans), or for "those stupid poor people" (democrats).

As I run my campaign, I will not lie to you. I will state my positions as clearly as I can, and stick to them, unless I come to believe differently. If that happens, I will explain why that has happened clearly. I won't simply go "middle of the road" with my positions so that I can waffle on them later. My goal isn't to make myself look good or woo you to vote for me. I will tell you what I believe and I expect you to vote for me because you believe I will make the best President out of the available candidates. I think the most fundamental questions you must ask of any candidate is "Do I trust him/her? Can I believe what he/she says?" Without trust, all else is meaningless.

Aloha.

Nerd Test

2008-06-30T11:53:00.002-05:00

I think one of the prerequisites for President of the United States should be that he/she should be a nerd. Here is my score:

I took this test after one of my friends did. For the record, I did not lie on this test. I beat this nerdy person soundly, which makes me wonder.

Aloha.

Presidential Election 2012

2008-06-18T22:05:00.004-05:00

The Presidential Election in 2012 happens on Nov 6. That means there are only 1601 days left until the election and there is a lot of work to do.

Here is a link to a countdown clock:

Presidential Election 2012 Countdown Clock

Aloha.

The Reason Why Good People Should Carry

2008-06-17T20:19:00.002-05:00

The situation described is horrible. I had heard about it before, but this is a good tie-in.

http://op-for.com/2008/06/the_reason_why_good_people_sho.html

This is one of the reasons why I support citizens, with proper training and character assessment (background check and mental health check), carrying weapons.

I am going to make it a priority to get my CCW (or CPL) permit very soon.

Citizens should not rely on the government for all protection. Police cannot be everywhere. People need to take personal responsibility for their own protection. Then, the legal system needs to ensure that people are not persecuted for protecting themselves. The legal system needs to reasonably examine every shooting, and possibly prosecute, but not persecute.

Aloha.

More Responses

2008-06-15T14:35:00.003-05:00

At 6:57 AM, Blogger Cherith said...

I have been silently watching this dialogue develop and I was wondering . . . isn't running for president something you should discuss with your wife before announcing it to the world?

Typically, it would be. However, I am a long shot, to say the least. If it all ends up working out, I know my wife will support me. If not, no big deal. I don't plan on "quitting my day job" to campaign or anything.

Also, I did have a couple of questions about your platform . . . what is your view on all the money NASA spends on space? Please address the distinctions between value of exploring vs. the panic to find a way to make Mars habitable in case the world faces imminent destruction. How does this fit in with your world view?

I think when it comes to the destruction of the Earth it will be at the hand of God. It doesn't matter what planet anyone is on when that happens. If God wants humanity destroyed, it is gone. We can't "run from God".

I think there could be value in exploring. There are mineral resources on other celestial bodies and, of course, there is the necessity to militarize space. If we don't militarize, someone else will. (If they haven't already.) So, space is important to me, but not at the "this is the only hope long-term human survival has" kind of level. More at the "this is how we keep the Chinese and Russians from militarizing space and mining Mars first" level.

. . . Could you expand a little on your immigration policy? We are a nation founded by immigrants . . . not that we just let them flow in illegally and wreak havoc on our economy, but what about reviewing the laws and policies to see if they are fair about who they let in or do they naturally weed out the most desperate just because of the "hoops" they have to jump through?

Well, we didn't really immigrate...really we invaded. And, it depends on who "we" is, because some of my ancestors were the invaders and some were the invaded. Anyway, however we put it, this land was conquered. The United States of America currently controls it. I think it is important to review who we let in and in what numbers. One important thing to do, however, is to bring back our national identity. People would immigrate to the United States, and then be United States citizens. I, for instance, think of myself as a citizen of the United States. I don't think of myself as a German-American, Dutch-American, Native American, European-American or Scottish-American. I am an American. Part of the transition to this country was to build a stronger affiliation with the present country than the previous one.

Also, who do you give preferential treatment to? Most would agree to start with those being persecuted in foreign countries for fundamental American beliefs, such as freedom of religion. Beyond that, it gets complex. We cannot fix the world. That is also not any government's role.

. . . Could you also be more detailed about your views on oil and the spotted owl?

The point of the comment about oil and the spotted owl is that we need to realize that man is more important than any animal. I will not sacrifice a child for a dog and I will not sacrifice people (through conflict with oil rich nations) for the sake of a few spotted owls (or any other species). While we should never unnecessarily sacrifice any of the things God has given us to steward, we should not sacrifice people to only protect things.

At 9:09 AM, Blogger Joshua said...

You didn't talk to your wife about this campaign.

I hope you are not going to try and run with "Family Values" as a part of your platform.

The second line: Family Values are those values that support a family. I fully intend to support Family Values. I also believe that my concern over the value of my wife's opinion is more significant than any other candidate since Reagan. (Note the cheap political way I tied myself to a great conservative?)

Aloha.

Must Watch Video

2008-06-12T13:03:00.001-05:00

Go watch. Now. 13 minutes, but worth every minute.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?rsrcid=2036

Props to my friend Greg who found this.

Aloha.

Dan's Campaign Continues

2008-06-11T19:42:00.004-05:00

This video was sent by a friend who thought this might help my campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU&

Please read my response along side watching the video. They parallel each other. My response follows:

I'm voting democrat because I believe a free market economy is evil. Successful corporations and successful people are evil. Only "the people" are good. Communism is the only way to go.

I'm voting democrat because I believe there is some magic cure that can be found immediately if only the federal government taxes me more and gives that money to any crackpot who has a crazy idea.

I'm voting democrat because, again, I believe a free market economy is evil. Communism is the only way to go. Drug companies are evil too. They don't gain anything if people live.

I'm voting democrat because I believe the federal government can do a better job educating my child than I can. I am also against charter schools, where class sizes can be reduced dramatically. (By the way, the teacher's unions who thrive on 35-to-1 classroom rations and no accountability are voting democrat too.)

I'm voting democrat because I believe that, even though that thing in a woman could be nothing else other than a person, it is inconvenient to me. So let's kill it. Then do it again. It is fun.

I'm voting democrat because I believe that drastically limiting supply we can use domestically is somehow saving the environment. And democrats hate nuclear energy, the cleanest form of energy on the planet today.

I'm voting democrat because I believe judges should make laws. To Hell with the Constitution and separation of powers. (By the way, Republicans hate black people and are racist...right?)

I'm voting democrat because I believe homosexuals are better than heterosexuals. Morals...who needs those? A hetero couple shacks up...no benefits. A homo couple shacks up and pretends its serious and...poof...benefits.

I'm voting democrat because I believe whatever the government touches gets better, not worse. The world has gotten cleaner since the EPA began. (Please forget that in the 70's when the EPA began, we were worried about global cooling and not global warming.) FYI, birthday of EPA is Dec 2, 1970. See, the world is much better environmentally than in the 70's.

I'm voting democrat because I believe again, big corporations are inherently evil. It doesn't matter if new technology is safe or not. I'm afraid and I need the perfect government to protect me. The government can fix everything.

I'm voting democrat because I believe (did I mention big corporations are inherently evil?) Ignore the fact that the government makes more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do. Republicans put minorities in prison, not the entitlement mentality that democrats provide. Hybrids have more CO2 footprint than that used SUV (check Wired Mag latest issue). The perfect government can give health care to all (just look at the success of the Soviet Union and the long lines in Canada). Again, big corporations and successful people are evil. And I don't understand the Constitution. I believe the whole world should be run by one big government. Because we should do anything for the sake of peace, even facilitate genocide. Ditto. Ditto.

I'm voting democrat because they say they can do all of these things and only increase taxes a little. So what if "a little" is 98%.

Aloha

Responses

2008-06-10T10:10:00.002-05:00

Comment 1:

Close minded
Right winged
Gun tooting
Militaristic
Disillusioned realist (You think you are a realist but you really aren't.)
B---tard

I agree with all of that, except disillusioned. Delusional realist perhaps, but not disillusioned. I take the final comment in the spirit intended. :-)

I am glad to see that a former colleague is keeping up with my blog.

Comment 2:

I think a cabinet should heavily influence a President. One person cannot be an expert on every topic necessary to lead this nation. Indeed, one person cannot even devote the necessary time to be personally adequately informed about every topic. Therefore, the President needs to rely on people he/she trusts to filter out information and present the important decision factors to the President. Top CEOs function the same way. However, the problem that usually occurs for the President is that he/she puts people in place, not because of their critical thinking skills, but because of personal relationships. Both are critical to advising a President. The President has to trust the cabinet and the cabinet needs to be able to filter and report on information to the President after using some of that critical thinking.

Are there some situations where the President should be the primary filter and "decider"? Absolutely. However, due to time limitations, these items need to be chosen carefully. War and disaster relief would be two examples.

Aloha.

Interested?

2008-06-06T22:50:00.001-05:00

I asked for questions about my political stance previously. Do you already know what I think or are you simply not interested? If not interested, what are you interested in?

Aloha.

Obama Update #2

2008-05-31T18:39:00.003-05:00

Obama has decided that his church is causing him political problems, so he resigned his membership.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/

I am under-freaking-whelmed.

The point is he has been a member of a radical church for 20 years. It is so radical, even he knows that the future President of the United States shouldn't belong to that church.

Only problem...the future President of the United States should never have been a member of that church for 20 years.

Hello. Get a clue. WAY TOO LATE.

First he was a member. Then someone thought that pastor was crazy. So, Obama defended his past pastor. Then a bunch of people thought that pastor was crazy. So, Obama said he didn't share his pastor's views. Then everyone thought his pastor was crazy. So, Obama distanced himself from his former pastor. Then everyone thought his whole church was crazy. So, Obama decided to leave the church.

Get a backbone and do what is right in the first place, not just because you got caught. If my kids do that they get punished...as should Obama. To be clear, punish him by not electing him.

Aloha.

Obama update

2008-05-30T08:48:00.003-05:00

This picture gets me:

The white priest holding the "ban assault weapons" placard, standing next to Rev. Jesse Jackson, is the priest who spoke in Obama's church last weekend. His name is Rev. Michael Pfleger. According to CNN, Obama has known him for 20 years.

Obama, the self-billed "unifier".

Let's play a little Karnak.

Answer: Assault weapons bans, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and the speach (note, I didn't say sermon) Rev. Pfleger gave in Obama's church on Sunday.

Question: Name three things that are divisive.

Wow.

Aloha.

Big Announcement

2008-05-29T21:40:00.002-05:00

I am very pleased to announce that I will be running for President of the United States in 2012.

My motivation is simple: I have reached my limit with today's politicians. There is no limit to the immoral, selfish, and dishonest ends politicians will go to in order to win an election. I will not take any more.

Here is my platform: I will always tell the truth, even if it hurts my campaign. Is the reporter that looks like she hit every branch on the ugly tree on her fall out of it asking me if she is ugly? My response: Your face makes small children run away in fear.

What do I think about abortion? It kills a human being and is evil.

What about the war in Iraq? Our intel was screwed up and we went in when we probably didn't need to. With that said, I think we should continue to kick a** and take names. In 5-10 years, Iraq can stand on its own two feet.

What about Iran? Not to worry. Israel will take their nukes out before we have a chance to. One Israeli has more juevos than every politician in the U.S. Why would they? They understand what we don't: Five minutes after Iran has nukes, they will use them on Israel, then smuggle them into U.S. and use them here.

What about gas prices? Big oil is making too much money on it, oil futures people are making too much, OPEC is making too much. Let's cut them all out of the loop by finally making it a national priority to get rid of the internal combustion engine. Let's get this done in the next 10 years (2018). Once out of the loop, let's ensure we never help them with anything ever again, unless we "help them" like they are helping us now.

What about the economy? Vocabulary word for the day...tariff. Tax crap coming into the country. This will encourage things to start in this country. Once we have stuff made here, we have jobs. Too easy.

What about taxes? Flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. Deductions are only used to encourage good behavior, like giving to charitable organizations and raising children.

Illegal immigration? Again, too easy. First word is illegal. Anyone here illegally gets a 1-way ticket back home. They come back, they go to jail. Not nice jail, but Gitmo or crazy Arizona sheriff kind of jail. Hard labor. Oh yeah, and instead of breaking rocks, they pick crops.

2nd Amendment? Someone wants a gun, allow its expense to be deducted from taxes. CCW? Follow Michigan's lead and do the same thing nation wide. Guess what, no more Virginia Techs. One crazy person with gun gets shot by 20 sane people with guns. Woo Hoo.

Environment? We are put on this earth by God and expected to be good stewards. We should live up to that expectation. Does that mean the spotted owl overrules the needs of the nation. Not a chance.

Gay marriage? If gays want something like heterosexual marriage, that's fine with me. They just need to call it something else, like "Gay hooking up." It will come with no privileges, without the ability to adopt children, and with no special standing in society. The word marriage is already taken by heteros. You don't like it, too bad.

Mass media? They are protected, but we will federally subsidize any mass media outlet that drops opinion and starts reporting facts. On day one the cost of this program will be $0.

Military? Double its size now. Also, you don't win wars by defense. Department of Defense goes back to War Department. When we determine someone is a threat, we attack and destroy. As I read earlier today "a dead tango is significantly less trouble than a live one." Also, bypass the whole "augment a person" technology and go straight to having 18 year olds sit at home and "play X-box" with non-AI T-100s. Total casualties = 0. Plus, how bad does it have to suck to go up against a killing machine operated by someone half a world away.

I will post later on cabinet appointees and other topics.

Please post questions for me to answer regarding policy. Also, please start spreading the word. 2012 is coming sooner than you would expect.

Aloha.

Obama = racist

2008-05-29T18:52:00.001-05:00

Is anyone surprised by this title? If so, where have you been? He's also anti-American.

New story:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/29/at-obamas-church-chicago-minister-says-clinton-felt-white-entitlement/

This goes on top of Rev. Wright, comments about Pennsylvanians "clinging to their guns and religion", his wife never being proud of America, he associates with terrorists (Bill Ayers) and the list goes on.

If he was white and associating with people saying correspondingly horrible things about African Americans or any other minority, he wouldn't last 5 minutes in the public eye. He would be shunned by all who ever heard his name. But, since he is racist against white people, it is OK with MSM (main stream media).

Aloha.

Making Renewable, Carbon-Neutral Oil - From Algae

2008-05-29T18:22:00.003-05:00

This ROCKS!

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/making-renewabl.html

I can't wait for this. Then we can forget the acronym OPEC and stop funding terrorism.

Aloha.

Good National Guard video

2008-05-19T13:22:00.001-05:00

If you ever wondered what a typical RSP/RSB weekend is like, check out this video. The reporter did a good job with this story.

http://op-for.com/2008/05/pretty_good_national_guard_vid.html

Aloha.

Iron Man

2008-05-17T16:07:00.002-05:00

Last Wednesday, my wife and I had my dad watch the girls while we went out to the movies, some light shopping and supper. It was a wonderful time. As is probably typical of a couple with small children, we don't get out often. So this was (again) wonderful.

We went to see Iron Man. I have nothing bad to say about the movie and plenty of good things.

First, they did a good job of modernizing the movie without rewriting the basics of the character. In fact, the story became more believable because of the modernization.

Second, Robert Downey Jr. is the perfect actor to portray Tony Stark. He is very intelligent but troubled. He definitely lived the "playboy" lifestyle. It is like Woody Allen playing a crazy person, OJ Simpson playing a murderer or Rev. Wright playing a racist.

Third, the supporting cast was spectacular. They played their roles well and it seemed natural.

Finally, the evolution of the story and character were superb. It was believable. You could really see this happening today.

I would highly recommend this film.

Aloha.

No, I have a better plan

2008-04-28T18:55:00.002-05:00

You're probably expecting some kind of post on government or politics. Not tonight.

Tonight, when I got home from work, the girls had not rested well and were very at the end of themselves. It took a lot of energy to keep tonight from turning into one big "time out", but we did it. Not one time out. We had a fun, yet exhausting, evening.

However, at the end of the evening, it was bed time. Mommy and I have been taking turns and tonight was Mommy's turn.

This, I was looking forward to.

A lot.

The girls picked out different stories to read and I was giving them final hugs and kisses in the bedroom. That's the setting. Here's the dialogue:

Mommy: Tonight is Mommy's turn for bed time. Daddy's turn is tomorrow night.

Mara (going directly to the best possible delay source, Daddy, since it wasn't Daddy's night): I have a better plan Daddy. How about you sit on my bed and read this book to me.

At that point I looked at Cherith and commented that I was amazed by something. I said, "How many times does God hear that a day? People saying, 'no, God, I don't want your plan. I have a better one.' It was at that point that I got the briefest glimpse into the grace that God offers and another reminder of how fortunate everyone is that I was not designated God.

Knowing that Mara was asking out of a desire for connection and not out of anything negative, I gave he a hug and kiss, told her I loved her and went out as Mommy was getting ready to start reading.

God, the perfect being, is constantly hearing fallen man cry out "Not your plan, God. I know better." Man cries out due to his sinful nature. And yet, somehow (my somehow, not His), God continues to exhibit his unlimited patience.

If it were me...well, let's just say I would not be so patient.

However, I am also reminded that someday the activity described in the book of Revelation will come to pass. Someday, God patience will end perfectly. Typically, when our patience ends, it ends in anger (not mine tonight, btw). God's patience will end with Justice as only He can deliver.

I take this as a reminder of "Not my will, but Yours."

Aloha.

Iran

2008-04-19T07:59:00.003-05:00

Back in September of 07 (last September) I posted this:

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2007/09/pot-vs-kettle.html

Let's follow that post with these current quotes from Iran's President:

"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted Saturday as saying crude oil prices at $115 a barrel are too low, and that oil must "discover its real value."

"The oil price of $115 a barrel in today's global markets is a deceiving figure. Oil is a strategic commodity that needs to discover its real value," the Web site of Iran's state-run television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying."

Full story here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351789,00.html

Again, economic warfare.

Aloha.

Good trombone videos

2008-04-15T21:34:00.003-05:00

Make sure you watch this all the way through. Note the blindfolds and the change up at the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH4I_1F5Ehk&feature=related

Another version, a little faster with more bones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1KHl-s5nfE&feature=related

Mediocre trombone player, great dancer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVUlLe6Elog

Aloha.