Take a stand

       As I listen to the news, I am made aware of an interesting duality in our society.  As multiple riots rage throughout the Islamic world as a result of a video insulting the Islamic prophet Mohammed, the world jumps forward to point out that the is not representative of all Muslims.  I agree that this is not representative of all Muslims and that is not what this post is about.  What it is about is the idea that hundreds of riots large and small do not represent a majority, yet individual protests do.  That's right, I am talking about how a small group of "Christians" seem to be the accepted representation of all Christianity, yet if we apply the same standards of representation to other religions or sections of society we are bigoted at best, racist and intolerant at worst.
             Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating categorizing anyone based on a sample of any size.  I believe each person is an individual and is accountable only for his/her own actions as it pertains to the group they are a part of.  What I am saying is that, if we apply the standards equally, Westboro Baptist does not represent all Baptists, a few select Catholic priests do not represent all clergy, and a small group of rioters do not represent the entire Muslim world.
            I think a friend of mine put it best when he said, just because I stand for my beliefs, doesn't make me an idiot, fool, or intolerant.  In today's society, to take a stand is to be intolerant and to continually shift your morals and beliefs to adhere with the ever changing tides of society is considered progressive.  Another way to look at this is an analogy to ships.  A destination is reached by trimming sails, adjusting the rudder, and continually checking your course.  If you simply go where the wind takes you, you may very well find yourself somewhere you don't want to be, a hostile land at best or sunk by the rocks.  This is what today's society tells you is best, to go where the wind blows you. 
             I want you to notice one thing in the previous statement.  I mentioned three things in regard to reaching a destination, trimming the sails, adjusting the rudder, and checking your course.  All three of those things require effort, knowledge, and practice.  In other words, if you aren't willing to put the effort into where you want to be, you will never get there.  The weirdest thing is that everyone seems to ignore this.  One other thing that needs to be noted is the practice part.  If you don't continually practice navigating and trimming your sails, you tend to lose some of the skill you gained.  Think of it like reaching the top of any skilled profession, if you stop practicing, your skills will wane.  A professional pianist once admitted to an interviewer that he practiced more now that he had reached the top of his profession than at any other time in his career.  Why?  Because he wanted to stay at the top and he knew that the only way to do so, was continual work.  The same is true of any profession.
            So why are we so lazy about our lives?  Why are we willing to put so little effort into where our lives are headed?  Why do we continually decide to take the easiest route even though we know that it leads us nowhere at best?  I can't understand it and I find it unnerving that so many people are willing to go there.
           I am going to leave you with a challenge.  Look deep within yourself and find one thing that you think is worth standing for.  It could be a belief in the constitution, a moral stance on nudity, a belief in God, or simply the belief that your diet is the right one.  Just pick one thing.  Now, ask yourself if you are willing to stand for that one thing no matter what is thrown at you.  If all your friends and family take the opposite stance, are you going to waiver or continue to stand for your belief?  Are willing to maintain that regardless of societal change?  The final part of this is do you apply your morals and standards equally across the board?  Think about it.  To stand for nothing is to allow everything.  We all have to make a stand somewhere on something.  Whatever we allow will eventually come into our homes.  It may not be this generation, but someday it will come in.
                Thank you for reading and, as always, thanks for reading.

Paying for what we want.

           I came to a realization this weekend and it is so overwhelming that I felt I had to share it.  When the government is asked to give something to the people, it must raise taxes in order to pay for it.  To some of you, this is an obvious statement and you just said, "Well, duh," to me.  The rest of you need to take heed.  No one wants to pay taxes and we get our politicians to agree to cut our taxes.  We then turn around and start yelling that we want special programs to fix some problem, we want lawmen to protect us, teachers to teach us, soldiers to defend us, doctors to heal us, and roads to drive on.  These all cost us.  Yet, no one wants to pay for them.
          We have a deficit, not because our government can't do math, but because we the people refuse to.  We the people demand that our government give us all these things and while refusing to allow it to tax us.  The fact that our politicians are elected, leads to their desire to give us what we want so they can be re-elected.  This leads to a deficit as we demand bigger government oversight and lesser taxes.  You can't have both.  If we were to take the annual budget and ensure it was fully funded, everyone would have to pay their fair share.  For some reason, we the people have decided that those who were either born into money or made their own fortunes should pay for those of us who aren't as well off.  Tax the rich has become the mantra we live by.  We should be living by the standards of pay equally.  If every American paid his or her fair share we could kick this deficit, we just refuse to.
            I always felt that it was an obvious statement that you don't buy more than you can afford.  It always amazed me when the government continued to pay for things it couldn't afford.  Then I took a closer look.  I found out that we continued to expand to give more to programs people wanted and then gave them tax breaks because they wanted that as well.  And so we ended up where we are today, deep in a hole with only ourselves to blame.
          Allow me to make a confession; I am one of those that take advantage of our current tax system.  I have been receiving tax refunds for years and have actually been getting more back than I pay into it because of all the breaks and credits I receive.  I am at the low end of the middle class with four children and thus get a lot of deductions.  In other words, if we were suddenly made to pay our fair share, my tax bill would go up significantly.  I am still for paying our fair share.  We need these programs.  Our teachers, firefighters, policemen, and military need paid.  Our roads and infrastructure needs repaired, maintained, and built.  There are a ton of programs that we need to continue.  Sure, we could work to make them more efficient, and that should definitely be one of our goals, but we still need to pay for them.  We need to trim some of the excess, but we still have to pay for the necessary.
           We all have the same problem.  I call it the gimme syndrome.  We all want the government to ”gimme, gimme, gimme," just doesn’t want to pay for it.  You don't walk into a grocery store and expect to walk out without paying for your groceries, so why should we expect our government to give us all that it does without paying for it?  This is something we all need to remember as we move into this election season.  If a politician promises a ton of new programs, reduced taxes, and a reduced budget, you know he/she is lying.  It just isn't possible.  You can do 2 of the three but the other has to go a direction you probably don't want.  New programs and reduced taxes means an increased deficit; reduced deficit and new programs means increased taxes; and reduced taxes and reduced deficit means, not only no new programs, but a reduction in existing programs. 
             This is something every American needs to understand.  We can't end the cycle without understanding the truth of the matter.  We can't solve the problems by turning a blind eye and using wishful thinking.  We are supposed to be about equality, yet we continually strive to punish those who, using the rules established, have made their fortune.  In order for America to be truly equal and to have the same rights, we must stop the inequality in what we pay in taxes.  Be honest, what percentage of your income do you actually pay?  I don't mean adjusted or what the government says you pay, I mean the money that you get before anything is removed, what percentage of that, do you pay?  I am willing to bet that it is less than 10%.  Why should we throw a fit when a millionaire pays 15%?  Fair isn't fair when we use different standards.  That's my two cents.
               Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Why I hate Politics.

           The one thing I hate about elections is the never ending rhetoric.  The thing that is different this year than from 4 years ago is the profuse use of face book in the campaign.  This means I see a ton of posts attacking each party.  What it comes down to is the fact that there is no real positive message from any candidate.  I have heard a few statements on what they intend to do in office, but usually it is over run by negatives on either side.  It has become of a game of who is less evil instead of who is better and it makes me sad.
         The question is, if a law were passed that required a week of positive messages only during each campaign, would we hear anything from either candidate?  It seems that they have taken the old adage of "if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything," and turned it around to say, "If you don't have anything good to say about someone, put it on air."  It is a sad state of affairs.  What really makes it suck is that it has become what people expect.  If we got a politician that was honest (yes, I know, honest politician is an oxymoron), I think people wouldn't vote for him on the grounds that he was too different.
       Speaking of honest politicians, growing up, I actually knew one.  He was our local state representative.  The story goes that he was first elected without campaigning because the people in his district knew him and felt he would do right by them.  He was a farmer and was one of the people.  Between sessions he actually returned to his farm and worked, politics was something he did as an extra duty and he claimed his profession as farmer.  You actually had to point out that he was a representative because he looked at it as a side gig.  The funny thing is, he never campaigned but he was re-elected year after year.  One year he even had an opponent.  The funny thing was the opponent got 5 votes, his, his wife’s, his campaign manager, his campaign manager’s wife, and the incumbent.  The sitting representative said he voted for his opponent because he didn't really want the job but would continue to do it as long as the people wanted him to and he was competent to do it.  He finally resigned at 82 or so and it was a loss.
       I used to say I was a republican and would never agree with a democrat.  I have sense come to realize that that mind set is exactly what is wrong in government.  The largest problem we have in our government is that we have become polarized with very few exceptions.  Either you are a republican or a democrat; if you claim to be independent you are labeled as indecisive.  What further complicates this is that if you have convictions and stand by them no matter what, you are a radical and a hatemonger; if you go with the current trends, you are pandering; and if you compromise you are a traitor to your party or an indecisive fool.  We have decided it is better to give negative labels to people rather than look at what their decisions are based on.  I would rather vote for a man that follows his convictions and votes against his party than for a man that follows the party line no matter what.  I would rather vote for a man that compromises to get things done over a man that refuses to listen to the opposing party because they are the opposing party.  We as a people have allowed this to happen and we as a people have directed it.  It is no coincidence that the very people we complain about hold the power to limit what we can do about it.  The saddest part is that the independents have very little influence.  They are such a minority that the only influence they have is when the parties are deadlocked and even that is rare.
            The one thing that makes this worse is that the politicians start looking at the next election almost as soon as they are elected.  Instead of looking at what this country needs, they are looking at what will make them look good for the next election.  The only regular exceptions are a second term president or a senator that has decided to retire.  It is a rare politician these days that repeatedly does what is best for the country over what his party wants. 
               Am I to critical of all this?  Maybe, but then again, if I weren't wouldn't I be like most of us who just take what the media gives us as truth and move on.  Sure, most of what the media says is true, but then a half truth is still true even if it isn't the whole story.  The media takes some flak, but most of it is directed at the "extreme" media.  Those sources that make no secret of their political leanings and jump on anything that helps their party affiliation are targeted most harshly allowing the more subtle sources to be taken at face value. 
               The most interesting part is that, with a little research, you can find the truth and it usually isn't what you are led to believe.  Both sides use statistics and numbers that, while true, only tell a part of the story at best or are downright misleading.  Take the "discretionary spending" argument used to cut the DOD budget.  In budget speak, discretionary means anything not specified by amount to be spent.  In other words, if the amount to be spent is estimated, it is discretionary.  Since caring for personnel (medical, logistical, pay, etc.) is estimated it is discretionary.  This means the department uses its discretion to ensure the people are paid and cared for properly.  So is it right to say that the DOD has a large discretionary budget?  Yes it is very true.  But then, by the budgetary definition of discretionary, teachers, policemen, firefighters, roads, electrical power, and the air traffic controllers are all discretionary as well. 
            The problem isn't what it means; it is how it is used.  The politicians use it knowing that most people will read it as the department has a choice on whether they spend it or not and thus can just cut it.  To most people, discretionary means that part of the budget spent on extras.  Discretionary means to them the excess after bills are paid, not the portion used to pay bills that are in flux.  If we used discretionary the way the government uses discretionary, our electrical, gas, water, grocery, and clothing would be a discretionary part of our budget.  I don't know about you, but I think I would be in a little bit of trouble if I just stopped using or paying for all of that. 
          I guess what I am saying is that we as Americans have to stop looking at the surface of what we are told by the media and politicians.  It is our responsibility to dig deeper and find the truth in what is being said and discover where it is we really fall on the issues.  What is said may be true, but that doesn't mean it is the truth of the matter.  A twisted truth may still be true, but it becomes a lie when it is interpreted wrongly.  Take the time to look into the truth.
        Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

The problem with the misnamed Affordable Health Care Act.

          Seems that everyone is talking about yesterdays SCOTUS decision on the affordable health care act.  Guess that means that I need to weigh in as well.  Let's clear something up first.  The first thing I need to tell you is that , for the most part, I agree with what is in the act.  What I don't agree with is the mandate that everyone have health insurance, the misnaming, and the lack of protection from the insurance companies.  These all go hand in hand so I will start with the most basic problem, the name.
           This act does nothing to affect the cost of health care.  Why do I say this?  Firstly, it does nothing to address the issue of health care costs.  The bill deals almost exclusively with health insurance and provision of care.  In otherwords, who pays for the health care.  Either insurance companies, the states, or the federal government.  The same as it was before.  This has no effect on the cost of health care.  At best, the name should be the health insurance reform act.
           Now for the meat of the problem, the mandate.  The supreme court ruled that there will be a fine for those who don't have health insurance.  The first thing you need to realize is when this fine is levied.  It isn't on your tax form or by the policeman pulling you over, it is levied when you visit a doctor without health insurance.  This means that you still visited the doctor without health insurance and have to pay that bill and now you have an additional fine on top of it.  So lets figure out who wouldn't have health insurance. 
           When it comes to health insurance, There are several categories.  There are those that can afford it and pay for it.  Those that can afford it, think they are healthy enough not to need it and thus don't buy it (a minority).  Those that can't afford it and qualify for state or federal health care (Va, Medicare, etc.) and are on it.  Then there is the last 2 categories.  These two are the ones hurt most by this bill.  The first category is those that can't afford health insurance but aren't poor enough to get government health care.  Then there are those that have been denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions.
             Let's talk about those with pre-existing conditions and how this bill does nothing to help them.  While it is true that health insurance companies cannot deny coverage to someone with preexisting conditions, there is no provision to make that affordable.  We are talking about private comanies here.  They exist to make money, not to care for people.  Everything they do needs to be profitable.  They aren't going to offer insurance at reasonable rates for everyone if it affects their bottom line.  Here is what I see happening.  A person with a pre-existing condition applies for health insurance and the company, because they have to offer insurance, quotes them an annual rate that will cover their costs and then some (for profit, remember).  Now, the applicant can't afford the coverage and thus declines it.  The insurance company complied with the law and offered to cover you, you chose to decline it adn thus it is your fault you aren't insured.  Nowhere in this law is that prevented. 
             As for those who couldn't afford health insurance already, once again, there is no provision to make it affordable or get them on government programs.  All we've done is make criminals out of people who are just trying to survive and increase the profits of a bunch of health insurance companies.
             The idea that your health insurance will go down as a result of this law is highly laughable.  The reason is simple.  These companies are making huge profits on those who are already paying, they aren't going to jeopardize them for this law.  They will make up the costs in whatever way they can.  This means by raising rates for those of us that are healthy should their lawyers advise them to insure the previously uninsurable.  What motivation do they have to lower rates?  To be nice?  They're trying to make profits.  If they can increase rates to increase profits they will.  At some point someone is going to mention auto insurance, so I will address that right now.  Yes, there are a ton of auto inurance companies out there and they all claim to save money.  The fact is, auto insurance rates have gone up signaificantly over the years at a rate higher than inflation.  But yours has gone down?  Has your driving record improved?  Did you get older?  If you compare apples to apples, auto insurance has gone up, not down.  Sure people are always saving according to the commercials, but what they don't tell you is that people don't switch unless they are going to save money or their insurance dropped them (in which case, they usually don't save money).  The reason these people save money is because, for the most part, they haven't reviewed there policy in years and were getting charged at the rate they started in which didn't reflect there current status (good driving, accident free, getting older, etc.).  Health insurance will be no different.  Why should it be?  They both are working for profit.
           Now for the solution.  In order to make health care affordable, there has to be a baseline alternative.  Something everyone can afford and sets a bar that the health insurance companies need to meet.  The only way to do this is through a government offered insurance plan.  The way that would work of there is an allowable deduction for health care.  If you take the deduction, you are saying you have purchased health insurance from a private company.  If you opt to not take the deduction, you are enrolled in the government health insurance which is a basic insurance (regular preventative medicine, emergency care, etc.) for one year (your next tax return).  Then, if you go to the doctor and you don't have health insurance, instead of a fine, you get and IRS audit, are investigated for tax fraud/evasion, and face jail time.  This would increase tax revenues, make health insurance affordable for all, and allow freedom of choice of providers.
            Let's go back to the point I made about the unisured visiting hte hospital.  Under this bill, a fine is levied if you visit a doctor, for any reason, without insurance.  Those that are currently visiting doctors wihtout insurance usually do so via the emergency room.  This wouldn't change.  Those without insurance would visit the ER and then have a fine to pay ontop of an ER bill.  As I mentioned before, the primary group that does not have insurance are those that can't afford it.  If they can't afford health insurance, what makes the politicians think they will pay for an ER visit and a fine.  They would already ignore the bill from the ER so what is ignoring a fine.  Health care costs stay the same and insurance goes up.  We all lose.
         This is my opinion and I take responsability for it.  If you can dispute any of this, I welcome it.  I love being proven wrong.  OK, I don't love it, I do accept it though and learn from it. 
          Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Why cut the pay for those that work and not those that don't?

           So I missed yesterday's post because I got sent home to deal with my Septic system.  Turns out, I shouldn't have worried.  Hopefully it happens today.  Unfortunately, I have duty so I will not be able to be there and my wife will have to take care of it.  She worries about it, but I think she will do fine.
            As I was looking at various things, I came to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with politicians.  How else do you explain the idea that in order to save money, you cut pay and wages from working people (military, federal workers, etc) in order to maintain pay to those not working (welfare, jobless benefits, etc.)  Don't get me wrong, I think that these programs are necessary to a point, but to justify cutting pay from those who work and not to those that don't at the same time is ludicrous.  We cut jobs for the sake of savings only to have those whose jobs we cut end up on unemployment and other costly programs as they search for jobs to replace the job we cut to save money.
            Now comes the fun part.  I was always taught that if you don't have a solution or aren't willing to discuss one, don't bring up the problem.  So here goes.  I say put the people on welfare to work.  Set up day care that is open only to those on welfare and staff it with those on welfare.  Next, put those who now have free time to work in jobs appropriate to their physical abilities.  If they don't know how to do the job, they get trained.  If they don't want to work, they don't get welfare.  I can hear some of you saying, "what about those who are disabled?"  I didn't say anything about those on disability, I said welfare.  But they can work too.  There are phones that need answered, data that needs inputted, etc.  There are jobs out there for all disability levels.  Just as there are jobs out there for all ability levels.  Streets need cleaned, ditches need dug, parks need mowed.  Fences need built.  Fences need painting.  Trees need planting.  I could go on and on.  But we continually complain about those on welfare and the job market.  But no one wants to do the jobs that are available, either because the job is not at their particular "skill level" or because it doesn't pay as well.  I think that if you gave people a choice of working for their welfare and unemployment checks on these needed government jobs that they would either work or get off of welfare. 
              The other side of this is that the work we are either not doing or contracting out at exhorbant rates would get done rather cheaply.  One other thing to throw out there.  Because they are working and may actually want to better themselves, you put into place a policy that gives them the freedom to job hunt while doing the work.  What I mean is, you give them the flexibility of schedule that allows them to better themselves.  If they want, you give them the option of going to school on the governments dime with the agreement that they will stop getting welfare in 5 years.  This gives them the time to get a degree and another year for the following job search.  Once they sign up and take money, there is no turning back.  They are off of welfare regardless of whether they finished school or not.  Of course this means we supply tutoring, but in the long run, it saves us a ton of money.
             This is all my opinion and you can take it however you want, but we have a problem here in the US and it is a selfish problem.  No one wants to take responsibility for themselves.  Everyone wants the government to provide for their comfort.  And it does, as long as you are willing to claim that you can't do anything else and throw everything away and start over.  Do that and you will find that you can live pretty well on the government dime.  Especially if you combine programs properly.  If you give something to someone for Free without any end in sight, you find that there is no reason for them to take a risk and get off of it.
             Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

The pay gap that isn't

              As you may have noticed, I haven't posted in a couple days.  There is one good reason and one bad reason for this.  The bad reason is that, on Tuesday, I didn't feel like it.  It wasn't anything in particular, I just didn't have anything constructive to say so I chose not to post.  In retrospect I should have posted another answer that I gave my sons as I have done in the past, but I failed.  The good reason is that, yesterday, the guys came to put in my septic tank so I was involved in that all day.  Which turned out to be a bit of a waste as the only thing they got done was removing my old oil tank.  That was a bit angering, We replaced the tank based on information that it was leaking because sediment was found in the oil filter during servicing.  When the tank was pulled, it looked good.  In fact, it still had oil in it and didn't leak.  talk about a bummer.  Oh well, one less thing to mow around.
                Now for today's post.  There is a piece of legislation going around that the Democrats would have us believe is part of the Republican's war on women.  You may have heard of it, it is the pay equality act, or something similar.  It is supposed to ensure women get equal pay.  This is a piece of useless legislation at best and downright political maneuvering in any other case.  Why?  First off, let's get the idea that I am against equal pay for women out of the way.  I am not.  I have always been a big supporter of equal pay for equal work.  It is right and what is fair and I won't deny it. 
                 Now on to why this is a piece of legislation that makes no sense.  I would like someone to show me a job that women get paid less for doing the same work as their male counter parts.  I couldn't find one.  I found stats showing that over all women got paid less than men, on average, across the US, including all jobs.  But when you delve into it the average used is done wrong.  First off it includes all jobs including ones that are typically avoided by women, such as construction, deep sea fishing, window cleaning (I am kidding there), and other high risk jobs.  I am not saying that women don't or can't do them, I am saying they are typically avoided by women.  Secondly, the average does not take into account for longevity.  This is a major factor in a lot of jobs.  For instance, until recently, the majority of CEO's were men.  This wasn't because of sexism as feminists would have you believe, but because the position of CEO is typically filled by someone that has a track record of efficient leadership.  This can only be achieved through experience and time.  In other words, in order for there to be women as CEO's there have to have been women as VP's and on down the line.  Of course there is going to be a disparity here since men have been in the work place longer.  Factor in the fact that a lot of women leave the work place to have a family and that those that stay are outnumbered as they move up the ladder and you can see why this may be.
              Now for the real shocker.  For the most part (professional sports excluded), women get paid as much, or more than their male counter parts.  This is from data that compares job to job.  It took an average of all men and women working in the same area in the same jobs during the same time frames.  Which makes sense as it is comparing the same things.  Think about it, if you compared your end of year totals with your coworker and you worked twice as many hours as he did, would you consider it fair if your boss paid him the same amount based on pay equality?  Or what if you went in to work one day and found that the new intern was getting the same pay as you, even though you were a manager, because there is a pay gap.  This is what the act to fix the purported pay gap is trying to do.
                  Overall, it was a piece of legislation that served no purpose, wasted time and money, and was strictly to give the appearance that Republicans hate women.  Oh, did I mention that the bill required added funding in a time when we are trying to make budget cuts?  So the Republicans voted against wasting tax payer money on a bill that served no purpose and they are being castigated for it.  Makes sense to me (please note that the last statement was made with the highest level of sarcasm possible).
                Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Secret Service Scandal: What else would you expect?

             For those of you isolated from the real world, there is a scandal going on with the secret service.  It involves legal activities in a foreign country.  Apparently, in their off time, a group of secret service members hired prostitutes and took them back to their room.  In the country they were in it is legal.  What brought this to the attention of the US is one of the girls brought a complaint against one of the Secret service members.  It then came out, that in another country a year earlier, another detail had gone to a strip club, got drunk and took strippers back to their hotel room.  Once again, nothing illegal happened.  The women were willing and the detail was off duty.
             Why am I mentioning all this?  Let me begin by saying I don't condone any of it.  The crux of this is that, we live in a society that hinges on the belief that it is your life, do what you want as long as it is legal.  Yet, when sex is involved, that same society, is decidedly fickle.  The real tragedy is that society doesn't even recognize it as hypocritical.  When you push for sexual freedom, freedom to do as you will in private (as long as it isn't rape and is legal), and freedom from responsibility for your sexual actions, it should come as no surprise when people exercise those rights.  How dare you castigate those who stand for sexual morality while crucifying those who practice sexual freedom.  This is the same as saying build roads where ever they are needed, but not here.  It's the same as saying treat animals as equals then euthanizing hundreds of stray pets because you don't have room to keep them.
              The men involved in this did nothing illegal.  One man had a complaint brought against him and we aren't even sure if it was legitimate or not.  Another group did absolutely nothing illegal, in fact, it was only brought to light because a reporter dug into it.  So either this is about the immorality, or something else, but for a society that embraces sexual freedom to investigate, punish, and revile those who practice it, is hypocritical in the extreme.
               Once again, I must iterate that this is not something I will ever condone.  I find it immoral and disgusting (apparently the sexually free society does as well, but they won't admit it) and think they are reaping what they sow.  This post isn't about defending them, it is about pointing out the hypocrisy society is displaying in pursuing them.
               This is the part where I preemptively answer a few possible comments.  The first being someone randomly pointing out various hypocrisies in various religions.  To that, I say, "that isn't me."  The second is someone randomly quoting scripture or saying something along the lines of who am I to judge.  To that, I say, "If I were to judge, I would have to pass sentence.  I am pointing out truth and hope that it may bring change to what is right.  It is not my place to judge, merely to point out the truth and allow it to be heard."  The third is someone who mentions that I am not perfect and who am I to speak.  To that, I say, "You are right, I am not perfect, never have been, never will be.  I have committed many sins of which I am not proud and have had them forgiven by my lord and saviour Jesus Christ.  I speak from experience and that gives me the insight to see it.  I will, most likely, sin again and he will forgive me again.  Once again, I point these things out merely to point out the irony and hypocrisy of it all." 
                 The final type of response is one which brings new information to the table or tries to brush this off.  To that, I add the following:  What we don't know is whether or not the resulting punishment to the secret service agents is due to an internal policy forbidding such activities while off duty in foreign countries or external pressure.  The news sources have only reported on the incidents and the results.  The fact that it has garnered such attention on such few details is what I comment on, not on the unknowns  of internal Secret Service policies.
                 Where do you stand on it?  Are you a proponent of the "sexual freedom" or are you against sexual immorality?  It isn't a gray area, either the men in question did nothing wrong, or they did.  If they did, how can doing legal acts that fit in with "sexual freedom" be wrong?  Just food for thought.
                Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Candidate report: Obama.

          I find myself in a peculiar position.  The following report on Obama is not as in depth as I wish but I feel compelled to share it anyway.  I ask that you read it all before you dismiss it and comment freely if you feel so lead.  I delineate between facts, conjecture, and opinion at the end.  I did not list the specific sites for my research as I didn't write them down as they were found via google searches and those searches are easy to duplicate (e.g. name/net worth or name/voting record).  I used government websites for the most part for my data as I don't trust most news outlets to be impartial.  So without further ado, please read on.
            As I did what little searching I could, I discovered somethings that were not telling nor useful.  For instance, Obama voted along hte party line nearly 100% of the time.  The few times he didn't did not stand out as a stance in any direction.  In other words, he has voted as one who seeks the party's nod for office.  He has played politics almost his entire career.  his monet comes mainly from books he has written.  Books which, on the surface, appear to be politcal retoric and self promotion.  This isn't to say he is poor, at a net worth of over 2 Million, he is better off than most Americans.  The funny thing is, through all of this, I found a picture of a man that is a politician.  He has a law degree, but really hasn't practiced law.  He taught law in Chicago for a while, but that is something that most politicians do as they start their careers.  In other words, Obama is a career politician.  I haven't really seen anything that tells me he is anything other than the Democrat Party mouth piece.  Nothing I have seen or read has convinced me he has anything he personnaly stands for.  The things he claims as successes were either started by other people or given to him by his party.
             As I read what I just typed, I find myself amaazed that what I typed is almost exactly what you would expect to find on a republican website.  I understand a lot of it is conjecture and opinion, but then most of it must be as there is a lot of contradicting reports out there.  The few facts I found (net worth and voting record) came off of government websites.  As for my thoughts on the books, they were based on the wikipedia article for them (and we all know how highly regarded that is as a source) and thus I call my stance on that conjecture.  As I put everything I had researched and everything I have seen and heard in the past 3 years from both sides (I do have democrat friends), I came to a personal belief (read also as opinion) that Obama is not a man of principles so much as a Democrat that has done well in his party.
         One final thing I feel I should point out here.  My research is not as in depth as I would like it to be.  Through out his carreer he voted on literally thousands of bills (96% of the time he voted with his party), I only reviewed the ones listed as important and based my opinion on those.  I welcome anything you may want to add, I just ask that you note what is fact, conjecture, and opinion and include sources with your facts.  I am not above changing my mind or my opinions if the situation warrants it, but in this case, I don't think Obama is the one I would vote for.
           Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Affirmative Action: Legalized discrimination.

            Sorry it's been a while since my last post.  For some reason the computer wouldn't let me compose these past couple of days.  Anyway, here is something that caught my attention and I feel needs to be said.
           Recently, a case went befoer the supreme court on affirmative action.  The case involved a student trying to get into a university in Texas.  If you haven't heard of it you can look it up as I don't feel the need to rehash it.  This post is on my thoughts on affirmative action.  I feel that affirmative action, by its very nature, is discriminatory.  If you give someone preference based on the race or gender and it is considered discrimination, yet this is exactly what affirmative action does.  Based on the fact that you are a part of a minority, you are given "special consideration."  I don't understand the logic of using discriminatory actions to "ensure equality" by forcing quotas.  We have a system that is very sensitive to discriminatory issues.  In fact, if you are a minority and want to get a bunch of money, bring a lawsuit against any company for discrimination and see how fast it gets settled.  It doesn't matter how legitimate it is, even the hint of discrimination will open their checkbooks.  Yet, we still feel it is necessary to pass laws and make rules that give special considerations to minorities.
            So how do you make the process fair?  You may ask.  Simple, you remove any hint of a persons race, gender, etc. from the application process.  You take a look at their qualifications and choose the best based on that.  When it comes time for the interview, trust your interviewer to be fair and choose the best candidate.  If you suspect discrimination after that, then sue and be prepared to pay.  As I said, I can't think of any major company out there that doesn't fear a discrimination lawsuit.  Just the hint of impropriety is enough to get people fired.
            As is so often pointed out to me, this is the 21st century, the practices of 50 years ago are past.  It is time to move on and start allowing people to earn jobs based on merit, not whether or not they belong to a minority.  I am sure there are people out there that will decry me as being insensitive to the minority plight.  That couldn't be further from the truth.  I believe that race and gender have nothing to do with ability and skill.  They are completely seperate.  I don't think I could take a job that I knew I got because of my race or gender.  Yet, it happens all the time.  And not because the hired person is white, but because they are a minority and that is apparantly an OK form of discrimination.
               So ask yourself this, if discrimination is wrong, how is affirmative action legal?  In summary, it isn't.  Affirmative Action is discrimination.  Affirmative Action promotes racism by saying that a minority couldn't compete without preferential treatment.  I say it is time to do away with affirmative action and embrace a new concept of equal treatment for all, regardless of race or gender.  Then again, isn't that what the Civil rights movement of the 60s was after in the first place?
             Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

The news: if it bleeds it leads, if it doesn't bleed, cut it so it does.

           Today, I want to touch on a couple of things I read in the news.  The first is a non profit that changed its rules and thus eliminated its contributions to one charity.  I am sure you have heard of this.  I can't remember the non-profit's name, but the charity that got cut out was Planned Parenthood.  As I read the story, certain questions leaped out at me.  The first is, does the non-profit support other organizations or people?  The answer, by the way, is yes, a lot of them.  The second is did the non-profit cut any others out?  Once again, the answer is yes.  If you look up the non-profit, you find that they also directly supports women.  This means that they provide money for exams and treatment directly to women.  This means that the rule also applies to the women.  Would you want to give money to a woman who is under investigation for fraud, or any other reason for that matter?  Yet, for some reason, the news chose to concentrate on the loss to planned parenthood.  As I listened to the news programs, they made it sound like the non-profit changed their rules, just so they could target planned parenthood.  The news chose to do this because they get to mention abortion (always a hot topic) as a reason for the loss.  Maybe, in an indirect way, this is true.  The fact that Planned Parenthood is under federal investigation (the reason they lost funding) for using federal funds to provide abortions (illegal under current law).  So yes, in a round about way, Planned Parenthood lost funding due to abortion.  By those same terms we can say that Planned Parenthood condones underage sex, they provide contraception and sex ed to underage girls and boys so they must condone it.  Or is that to much of a stretch?
               Sorry, went off a little bit.  Now, I can't remember the second thing I was going to go off on.  I guess I can start with a quick update on a couple things.  It is official, I am not going to swings, I am going to graves.  It is only for a month, but at least it means that I can continue to be involved in AWANA without interruption.  This also means I should be able to do a good amount of research.  I did a little yesterday.I found that every single candidate for the presidency is independently wealthy.  And that is by their own admission.  for that reason, I decided to look at how they got their money.  Did they inherit it or did they "earn" it.  I will only touch on it briefly as I think it is important to understand just how much these candidates can sympathize with us common folk. 
             That's about it for today.  Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Military Intelligenc and Political Math: Oxymorons and Oddities

           So, it is Friday.  So many things to talk about.  I get to stand by an admirals car to make sure that the base police don't ticket it because the plan is to have him park illegally.  Never mind that the Captain could call base police and ask nicely.  Never mind that the cars will have their own drivers.  Never mind that these 4 cars will be next to each other.  I did mention they had detailed 4 of us to do this, didn't I?  Yup, Navy logic.  Better to keep 4 sailors out in the cold than to ask the Captain to ask another Captain for a favor for an Admiral.  There, I have it out of my system, sort of.
            I did a little looking and realized that the military could cut its budget drastically by simply returning classic duties to the military.  You know, like guarding our bases (currently contracted to civilians), maintaining the bases (contracted to civilians), and doing the admin (you know, what yeomen are for).  Instead we contract all that out.  The security of our bases is particularly galling.  When you think about it, we are being severely overcharged for something we can provide ourselves.  The contract to maintain our base security is in the millions.  When you figure out what it would cost to man the gates with military members, you find that they are less than half the cost of the civilians.  Even if you stood up an entirely separate division.  Yet, we are looking at cutting back more on the military side and giving more of our military duties to civilian contractors to "save money."  That was in quotes because I don't see how paying a civilian to do a military job at a higher rate than it would cost for the military member to do it saves money.  Then again, I am not a politician and I don't understand their math.
             Well, that's my two cents.  It was free of charge so there is no refund.  Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.

Voting: not just a right, a responsability

           I just noticed it has been over a week since my last post.  I apologize for that, it has been a busy and weird week.  Last week, it snowed as many of you know.  This prevented me from going to work and kept me at home with the wife and kids.  I had fun with them, but time got away from me and I was unable to post anything.  A quick update, the drier finally died and we have since replaced it.  In the process, we had to replace the vent ducting for it and decided to go with an indoor vent.  It is an interesting device and cut the replacement cost in half and does a great job of heating the boys bathroom and the dining room.  The only problem with it is that it also raises the humidity.  Now the Washer is threatening to go.  Oh well, at least the house is still standing. 
          I keep finding myself stuck in a quandary of what to post.  I have made my stance on many things known and do not feel the need to reiterate them again just to incite argument.  I think it would be wrong to do so as that is the only reason I can see to re post my stance on any one of these hot topic issues.  I try to keep myself up to date on current events and comment as I see appropriate, but I find myself hitting on the same issues again and again.  The only outcome of those posts is anger and disappointment.  Unless something new comes up or I get a request for a rehash, I think I will try to keep from revisiting those topics. 
          That leaves me with the question of what to write.  I think I will talk about voting.  This year it is obviously important to vote.  I intend to vote here in Washington for the first time as a Washingthon citizen.  It should be interesting.  I would encourage everyone to vote.  Not just to check a box, to make sure they are informed.  In other words, you need to make sure you know who you are voting for and why.  Further, the answer to why, should never be, because they belong to X party.  Learn about the candidates.  What qualifies them for the job.  If they are up for DA, how long have they been practicing criminal justice.  If they are up for the legislature, what qualifies them to lead?  How do they intend to do as they promise?  What is their track record and what has happened recently that might change how they act?  these are the important questions.
            As for the Presidential seat, you have to ask yourself, does the candidate really have a clue as how to lead or is he just a pretty face that can make a speech?  The president isn't just a bill signer, he is also the military's commander in chief.  When there are tough military decisions to be made, can you trust your candidate to make the right ones?  The president is also the face of America to many nations.  Can you trust him not to alienate allies and incite enemies?  Their are so many factors that go into who you vote for as the president, that you can't trust just the media.  All media has bias, some more obvious than others, and thus you need to research on your own.  Check sources, and compare.  Somewhere in the middle is the truth.  Just remember, three different sites is not necessarily three different sources.  Check the author and their sources. 
           Then you get to throw in ballot measures.  Those pesky little things that are put to the people.  Last year we had a measure that, when passed, allowed stores here in Washington to sell hard liquor for the first time (the state used to run liquor stores).  There was a lot of advertisements and hype from both sides.  Only by reading the actual initiative and summary, could you make an informed decision.
          The gist of all of this is simply, be informed.  You have homework before you vote, if you want to be a good and proper voter.  The upside is that after you vote, if the candidate/initiative you voted for wins, you won't be as surprised by his actions and can actually defend your decision.
          With this in mind, I think I will start researching on candidate per month starting next month and share my findings and views with you.  I will try and make sure that I state what is fact, what is conjecture, and what is opinion (min or otherwise) so that you can make informed decisions.  Unfortunately, we won't know who will actually be on the ballot for a few months so I will start with the incumbents as most are running again and will most likely be on the ballot.  That being said, expect to see my report on Obama by the end of February.
          That is about it for today.  Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.