When laws are passed to solve a problem, people think that is great. But we don't think about the additional problems that did not exist before but now do due to the new law. This is because the elected officials often don't understand or care about the results of the law. They just want the political benefit of passing a law to solve a problem. Here is an article showing how a law passed to stop people from getting tax benefits from real estate deals set up just for tax benefits had the unintended consequence of cutting off tax benefits from legitimate deals that help build the economy.
Dennis Prager writes about the unintended consequences of our modern legal climate. By the way whenever you want to complain about the legal system, remember that most of the really stupid cases you hear about are decided by juries. We can blame the lawyers, judges, and plaintiffs all we want. But 12 (normal?) Americans made the decision. Maybe we need to educate people of the benefits of businesses instead of denigrating business every time we get the chance.
Freedom means the right to make bad decisions.
28 September, 2004
27 September, 2004
Freedom
A Friend told me I hadn't posted enough recently. I said I didn't know anyone was reading. If you are reading, at least comment occasionally. I love the feedback.
The Bible compares people to sheep, and when you watch American citizens you really see the profound truth of that comparison. After the Sept 11 attacks, we gladly accepted airline security that strip searches grandmothers, war heros, even Al Gore. While at the same time, we don't demand that our elected leaders close off our borders. We are at war, but millions of people enter the U.S. illegally across our border with Mexico every day. How many of those millions are terrorists? Who knows. If we are seriously going to fight a war on terror, the first step must be to close our borders. Do whatever it takes. If we aren't willing to do this we WILL lose the war on terror.
After we close the borders, we can debate wars on foreign countries and other things. We have to wake up to the size of this problem and do something about it. And then get the Government out of the airline security business. The government can't do anything well. Let the airlines do their own security and let them advertise the differences. Would you rather fly the most secure, or the one that gets you on the airplane the quickest. Give people the freedom to choose and watch what happens.
Freedom means the right to make wrong decisions.
The Bible compares people to sheep, and when you watch American citizens you really see the profound truth of that comparison. After the Sept 11 attacks, we gladly accepted airline security that strip searches grandmothers, war heros, even Al Gore. While at the same time, we don't demand that our elected leaders close off our borders. We are at war, but millions of people enter the U.S. illegally across our border with Mexico every day. How many of those millions are terrorists? Who knows. If we are seriously going to fight a war on terror, the first step must be to close our borders. Do whatever it takes. If we aren't willing to do this we WILL lose the war on terror.
After we close the borders, we can debate wars on foreign countries and other things. We have to wake up to the size of this problem and do something about it. And then get the Government out of the airline security business. The government can't do anything well. Let the airlines do their own security and let them advertise the differences. Would you rather fly the most secure, or the one that gets you on the airplane the quickest. Give people the freedom to choose and watch what happens.
Freedom means the right to make wrong decisions.
Democracy
Here is another opinion on our "Democracy" I agree that limiting voters is more important that increasing possible voters. Limit it to those who pay taxes, or at least don't allow anyone to vote who gets "Government"(it's is really ours, stolen under threat of force) money.
"I am now and have been for years a firm advocate of developing a system to limit the people who can vote in this country. We need to find a way to restrict the number of people who can vote. If we don't weed out the chaff soon it may well be too late. Don't give me that 'democracy' nonsense. In spite of what you hear from your government school teacher, your leftist college professor, or that smiling talking head on television, we are not a democracy. Never were. Weren't supposed to be. You won't find the word 'democracy' in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States or in any constitution of any of the 50 States. There's a reason for that. Our Founding Fathers hated the idea of democracy. They knew that a government of majority rule would dissolve into a tyranny of plunder and chaos. In anticipation of yet another knee-jerk response to my proposal that we limit voting, let me remind you that there is absolutely no constitutional guarantee of your right to vote in any federal election. Do some reading. It isn't there. A latte to the person who can find anything in our Constitution that sounds remotely like 'each citizen shall have the right to vote in a federal election.' Happy hunting." --Neal Boortz
"I am now and have been for years a firm advocate of developing a system to limit the people who can vote in this country. We need to find a way to restrict the number of people who can vote. If we don't weed out the chaff soon it may well be too late. Don't give me that 'democracy' nonsense. In spite of what you hear from your government school teacher, your leftist college professor, or that smiling talking head on television, we are not a democracy. Never were. Weren't supposed to be. You won't find the word 'democracy' in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States or in any constitution of any of the 50 States. There's a reason for that. Our Founding Fathers hated the idea of democracy. They knew that a government of majority rule would dissolve into a tyranny of plunder and chaos. In anticipation of yet another knee-jerk response to my proposal that we limit voting, let me remind you that there is absolutely no constitutional guarantee of your right to vote in any federal election. Do some reading. It isn't there. A latte to the person who can find anything in our Constitution that sounds remotely like 'each citizen shall have the right to vote in a federal election.' Happy hunting." --Neal Boortz
19 September, 2004
Republic vs Democracy
It amazes me how few people even know what type of government we have in the United States of America. We are NOT a democracy. We are(were) a Representative Constitutional Republic. Representative means that we elect representatives instead of all of us voting on whatever the issues of the day are. Constitutional means that the federal government is (supposed to be) limited by the Constitution in what areas it can control. Republic means that the rule of law is more important that majority vote so that the rights of minorities are protected.
This months Readers Digest has an article titled "Democracy Undone" about how our voting systems are not true democracy. Amazingly enough the author quotes Benjamin Franklin being asked what form of government the founders had given us. He reportedly said "A republic if you can keep it". This author quotes a founding father saying we have a republic in an article about how are democracy is being undone by the rules of how we elect our President and Congress. How can you write an article in a major magazine and not even understand the difference between the words you use.
Republican and Democratic systems of government have in common that the people have a voice in the government. But they are very different in practice and form. Learn the difference and be a part of moving us back to a republic as we were intended to be. Not a democracy no matter what the president or his opponent in the current election say.
This months Readers Digest has an article titled "Democracy Undone" about how our voting systems are not true democracy. Amazingly enough the author quotes Benjamin Franklin being asked what form of government the founders had given us. He reportedly said "A republic if you can keep it". This author quotes a founding father saying we have a republic in an article about how are democracy is being undone by the rules of how we elect our President and Congress. How can you write an article in a major magazine and not even understand the difference between the words you use.
Republican and Democratic systems of government have in common that the people have a voice in the government. But they are very different in practice and form. Learn the difference and be a part of moving us back to a republic as we were intended to be. Not a democracy no matter what the president or his opponent in the current election say.
A&M 27 Clemson 6
Wow, for the first time in almost two years I think the hype about Dennis Franchione might have a basis in truth. For the second week in a row we looked like a good football team, and this time we were playing a much better opponent. A&M dominated Clemson we were better than them offensively, defensively, and on special teams. We forced 5 turnovers while giving up none. It is amazing to see this after watching our team get worse every game for 13 games.
Reggie McNeal is the real deal. He made Clemson's defense look silly at times. If we needed a pass he threw a stike, if we needed an option he provided, and if we needed a run he did that too. The whole package. Pray for his health to stay good, and his ego to not grow. He could be incredible.
Reggie McNeal is the real deal. He made Clemson's defense look silly at times. If we needed a pass he threw a stike, if we needed an option he provided, and if we needed a run he did that too. The whole package. Pray for his health to stay good, and his ego to not grow. He could be incredible.
12 September, 2004
Election
I am not a great writer, but I can recognize logical arguments. Read this article by Chuck Baldwin where he lists similarities between Kerry and Bush. I still say a vote for Bush is a vote for the wrong direction. He and Kerry are more alike than they are different. Although, there are a few real differences between them.
A&M 31 Wyoming 0
A&M had it's first shutout in several years yesterday. We looked like a good football team all the way around. We ran the ball well, we threw the ball well, and we played defense well. I know the level of competition was different than at Utah, but we still didn't look like the same football team.
Remember the name Reggie McNeal. He is A&M's junior quarterback. If he can avoid injury this young man will be playing on Sundays in two years. He has all the skills you want in a QB: he can throw, he can run, he is intelligent, he is football smart, he can read defenses, and he can win. Get ready, if our offensive line can give him some time he can beat many good football teams.
Remember the name Reggie McNeal. He is A&M's junior quarterback. If he can avoid injury this young man will be playing on Sundays in two years. He has all the skills you want in a QB: he can throw, he can run, he is intelligent, he is football smart, he can read defenses, and he can win. Get ready, if our offensive line can give him some time he can beat many good football teams.
10 September, 2004
Worldview
I have been busy flying for several days so I haven't posted so here goes.
I talked earlier about all education being indoctrination. Young people come up with their view of the world from the people they grow up around. It is learned from parents, grandparents, siblings, babysitters, teachers, church workers, friends, classmates, etc. If a child is spending time with someone, they are learning from them. So, it follows that if a child is homeschooled they are learning their worldview from their parents. If they are sent to daycare and then government schools then they are still learning some from their parents, but much comes from other people.
This idea of worldview is even more important that the actual education the child receives. There are basically two worldviews. One is that GOD exists, and the second is that HE doesn't exist. Now in the US, most people would say that GOD exists. But, when you look at the way they view the world you can see a disconnect between their values and GOD's way of thinking. They know there is a GOD, but think abortion should be legal, evolution created man, it is okay for two men to get married, and the government should help the poor. So their every day decisions are based on a secular (non GOD) worldview.
If you believe GOD exists and that he told us how to look at the world then you will have concrete beliefs about many decisions of life. But if your worldview is non GOD, then your ideas can vary from day to day and will mostly result in making decision based on what will give you short term pleasure or benefit. There can be almost no rational discussion between people from these two groups because their foundation is so different. They can't even agree on the rules of the debate without a common foundation.
You can see this so clearly in politics today. Al Gore's recent statments about President Bush's religion being as dangerous as extreme Muslim views is a good example. I am not so sure that we can continue to exist as a country with so much diffence in our world views. What made this country free and great was a common foundational worldview. We could argue policies, but that argument began and ended with a common worldview. That is no longer the case. Those of us with a GOD worldview must work to show others GOD through our lives, because if we don't bring them to our worldview, then our nation will continue down the same path and that is somewhere most of us don't want to go. So spread the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST, he is the only answer to most of our problems.
I talked earlier about all education being indoctrination. Young people come up with their view of the world from the people they grow up around. It is learned from parents, grandparents, siblings, babysitters, teachers, church workers, friends, classmates, etc. If a child is spending time with someone, they are learning from them. So, it follows that if a child is homeschooled they are learning their worldview from their parents. If they are sent to daycare and then government schools then they are still learning some from their parents, but much comes from other people.
This idea of worldview is even more important that the actual education the child receives. There are basically two worldviews. One is that GOD exists, and the second is that HE doesn't exist. Now in the US, most people would say that GOD exists. But, when you look at the way they view the world you can see a disconnect between their values and GOD's way of thinking. They know there is a GOD, but think abortion should be legal, evolution created man, it is okay for two men to get married, and the government should help the poor. So their every day decisions are based on a secular (non GOD) worldview.
If you believe GOD exists and that he told us how to look at the world then you will have concrete beliefs about many decisions of life. But if your worldview is non GOD, then your ideas can vary from day to day and will mostly result in making decision based on what will give you short term pleasure or benefit. There can be almost no rational discussion between people from these two groups because their foundation is so different. They can't even agree on the rules of the debate without a common foundation.
You can see this so clearly in politics today. Al Gore's recent statments about President Bush's religion being as dangerous as extreme Muslim views is a good example. I am not so sure that we can continue to exist as a country with so much diffence in our world views. What made this country free and great was a common foundational worldview. We could argue policies, but that argument began and ended with a common worldview. That is no longer the case. Those of us with a GOD worldview must work to show others GOD through our lives, because if we don't bring them to our worldview, then our nation will continue down the same path and that is somewhere most of us don't want to go. So spread the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST, he is the only answer to most of our problems.
05 September, 2004
Are teachers bad?
I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea from my last post. I don't think all teachers are bad. In fact I know a lot of caring people who are teachers. But they are good cogs on a broken wheel. Some teachers are teaching because they couldn't get a better job and they want 2 months of vacation. Some teachers are there because they want to help children, these are the ones we want but the system has a tendency to frustrate them so many of them leave. But in general, the teachers are not the problem
With money comes power, and the federal government's funding of education has increased so they have to power to mandate programs that don't work and end ones that do. The National Education Association is a teachers union that is teamed up with the Department of Education to keep effective programs and accountability out of the schools.
Just like any bureaucracy, government education is made up of some good and some not so good people working under rules that prevent them from succeeding. And for that reason it can never work, like any bureaucracy, it is doomed to collapse of it's own weight.
With money comes power, and the federal government's funding of education has increased so they have to power to mandate programs that don't work and end ones that do. The National Education Association is a teachers union that is teamed up with the Department of Education to keep effective programs and accountability out of the schools.
Just like any bureaucracy, government education is made up of some good and some not so good people working under rules that prevent them from succeeding. And for that reason it can never work, like any bureaucracy, it is doomed to collapse of it's own weight.
04 September, 2004
Education?
Fred (whoever he is) has some very interesting solutions to the our government indoctrination program(some call it public education). While some of his thought are good, they are not the American freedom solution. The problem is clear: our government funded schools have had huge increases in per student funding, huge decreases in teacher/student ratios, so what has happened? Our schools continue to be abject failures. All moral rules have been removed from them so we can't tell the children it is wrong to steal or cheat. Children graduate without learing how to read, write, or do arithmetic; but they are well versed in sex, drugs, and welfare dependency. We must all realize that ALL schools are for indoctrination. The leaders teach the children how to think the way they do, while hopefully teaching the tasks of reading, writing, and arithmetic. The problem with government schools is not that they are indoctrinating children, but that they are indoctrination children with their beliefs instead of the parents beliefs.
The solution is simple: for two parent families- homeschooling, for single parent families-private schooling. Get government totally out of the education. If you take the dollars spend on education at the local, state, and federal levels and don't steal it from the people then parents can afford these options. Companies would probably willingly donate some of the tax savings to private schools. This would give us schools that would teach what the parents want taught for much less money. Homeschooling puts the responsiblity for education where God put it; on the parents. Check out HSLDA and THSC for ideas on how you can get started.
If you aren't willing to take the responsiblity for your children's education, then keep sending them to government schools, but don't be surprised when they come home thinking government can solve any problem and God doesn't exist. For more info on totally eliminating government schools and how it would work, check out this site.
The solution is simple: for two parent families- homeschooling, for single parent families-private schooling. Get government totally out of the education. If you take the dollars spend on education at the local, state, and federal levels and don't steal it from the people then parents can afford these options. Companies would probably willingly donate some of the tax savings to private schools. This would give us schools that would teach what the parents want taught for much less money. Homeschooling puts the responsiblity for education where God put it; on the parents. Check out HSLDA and THSC for ideas on how you can get started.
If you aren't willing to take the responsiblity for your children's education, then keep sending them to government schools, but don't be surprised when they come home thinking government can solve any problem and God doesn't exist. For more info on totally eliminating government schools and how it would work, check out this site.
02 September, 2004
Football
College Football starts tonite. Texas A&M vs Utah 6:30 pm. I don't know if it is 6:30 Mountain or Central time. Apparently the A&M sports information department has never heard of time zones because the press release just says 6:30.
This should be an interesting year. For those who don't know, after the 2002 season the Aggies fired the winningest coach in school history. RC Slocum was there 14 years and had a .721 winning percentage. He never had a season below .500. But because he didn't win a National Title in those years the powers that be thought they could do better. So they fired him and hired Dennis Franchione Now Fran does have a good history, but not in the Big 12. He went 4-8 last year. So he managed to do in one year what RC couldn't do in 14, go below 500. He also set lots of records for turnovers lost, points scored against us, those types of things. But you have to remember that the Big 12 is the toughtest conference around.
So was firing RC and hiring Fran the wrong thing to do. Time will tell. You are really taking a chance when you fire a coach of the caliber and character of RC Slocum. But, although he had done fabulous in the old SWC he hadn't done great in the Big 12. So, if Fran can recruit better than RC and get them ready to play maybe it was the right decision. I respected RC both on and off the field, but IF Fran can out-coach him and keep the respect of people outside of football, it was the right decision. But last year was sure a disappointment.
So tune in to ESPN at 6:30 tonight and see the beginning of Fran 2004. The Utes have a pretty good team and are playing at home. Let's kick it off and get started, I am tired of waiting.
This should be an interesting year. For those who don't know, after the 2002 season the Aggies fired the winningest coach in school history. RC Slocum was there 14 years and had a .721 winning percentage. He never had a season below .500. But because he didn't win a National Title in those years the powers that be thought they could do better. So they fired him and hired Dennis Franchione Now Fran does have a good history, but not in the Big 12. He went 4-8 last year. So he managed to do in one year what RC couldn't do in 14, go below 500. He also set lots of records for turnovers lost, points scored against us, those types of things. But you have to remember that the Big 12 is the toughtest conference around.
So was firing RC and hiring Fran the wrong thing to do. Time will tell. You are really taking a chance when you fire a coach of the caliber and character of RC Slocum. But, although he had done fabulous in the old SWC he hadn't done great in the Big 12. So, if Fran can recruit better than RC and get them ready to play maybe it was the right decision. I respected RC both on and off the field, but IF Fran can out-coach him and keep the respect of people outside of football, it was the right decision. But last year was sure a disappointment.
So tune in to ESPN at 6:30 tonight and see the beginning of Fran 2004. The Utes have a pretty good team and are playing at home. Let's kick it off and get started, I am tired of waiting.
01 September, 2004
Republican Drift
It is amazing and sad to see the current Republican party. I am from Texas and have seen my state change form 80% Democrat to 70% Republican. The amazing part is I don't think the views of the people have moved rightward(they have probably moved left), but the parties have both moved so far left that old Democrats find themselves comfortable in the Republican party. The only problem is where do the old Republicans go?
There are a couple of choices. Though they don't have much chance in the 2004 election, third parties such as the Libertarian and Constitution parties(links to their website are to the left) are attracting people who still believe in Freedom and the Constitution, unlike the Republicans. Check out their positions and see what you think. But remember, the official platform of the Republican party is pretty good, but their actions when elected are not even close.
Some peopel have argued that if they can't win you shouldn't vote for them because it hurts Bush. But if you don't agree with Bush and the Republican party and their actions(not their talk) then you can't in good conscience vote for him. Look at Bush's good things: Tax Cuts, and maybe the handling of the terrorist attacks, what else good is there? Then compare his bad things: increased spending, Every Child Left Behind act(with Ted Kennedy), Patroit Act, Campaign finance act, the undeclared(and therefore unconstitutional) war in Iraq, failure to close our borders or enforce immigration laws while we are at war. He has nominated some decent judges, but has been unwilling to really fight for their confirmation. Here is a President that after 3.5 years in office has NEVER vetoed a single bill passed by Congress. That has never happened in our almost 230 year history.
As for me, I figure I am in agreement with Bush about 30% of the time(Kerry Never). I don't have a problem with compromising and voting for someone I don't totally agree with. But 30% means he is on the other side. I would like to vote for Michael Peroutka with the Constitution Party, but they won't be on the ballot in Texas(see their website for how hard the two major parties make it to get on the ballot). So I will vote for Badnarik with the Libertarian party. I don't totally agree with some of their postions but it is about 70% agreement.
Of course, we each have to decide for ourselves who will we vote for. I just wanted everyone to know where I stand and why.
There are a couple of choices. Though they don't have much chance in the 2004 election, third parties such as the Libertarian and Constitution parties(links to their website are to the left) are attracting people who still believe in Freedom and the Constitution, unlike the Republicans. Check out their positions and see what you think. But remember, the official platform of the Republican party is pretty good, but their actions when elected are not even close.
Some peopel have argued that if they can't win you shouldn't vote for them because it hurts Bush. But if you don't agree with Bush and the Republican party and their actions(not their talk) then you can't in good conscience vote for him. Look at Bush's good things: Tax Cuts, and maybe the handling of the terrorist attacks, what else good is there? Then compare his bad things: increased spending, Every Child Left Behind act(with Ted Kennedy), Patroit Act, Campaign finance act, the undeclared(and therefore unconstitutional) war in Iraq, failure to close our borders or enforce immigration laws while we are at war. He has nominated some decent judges, but has been unwilling to really fight for their confirmation. Here is a President that after 3.5 years in office has NEVER vetoed a single bill passed by Congress. That has never happened in our almost 230 year history.
As for me, I figure I am in agreement with Bush about 30% of the time(Kerry Never). I don't have a problem with compromising and voting for someone I don't totally agree with. But 30% means he is on the other side. I would like to vote for Michael Peroutka with the Constitution Party, but they won't be on the ballot in Texas(see their website for how hard the two major parties make it to get on the ballot). So I will vote for Badnarik with the Libertarian party. I don't totally agree with some of their postions but it is about 70% agreement.
Of course, we each have to decide for ourselves who will we vote for. I just wanted everyone to know where I stand and why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)