I am about to offend a fair number of people; however, I could not care less. At lunch today I enter the men's restroom urinal. I proceeded to do my business. Another individual approached the urinal next to me and out of the corner of my eye; I saw that he was fooling with his Blackberry....really?!? Now obviously, many thoughts are running through my head: (1) no body is that damn important that they cannot go pee with checking mail, (2) the whole benefit of email is that people can give you a message when you are away (i.e. peeing), (3) he must not need two hands like me (how sad).
This has not been my first experience with electronics in places they shouldn't be. I first discovered my annoyance with the iPod while at college. Students were paying for an education; however, were sitting in class with the iPod in their ears. It gets better.... There were other students who at the close of class immediately put their ear phones in so that they could enjoy a minute and a half of some song while they walked to their next class. It gets better... a dumbass punk skater 18 yr. old at ASU was looking for something in a convenience store line, I had some trouble getting by him and politely said "excuse me" I received no response. Loader and a bit more firmly I said "excuse me", still no response. At this time I moved my position to get with in his sight at which time I mouthed "excuse me" he then pointed to his ears, with his iPod unremoved and said "I can't hear you". At this point I had lost it... I then informed the young man that we were having a miscommunication and proceeded to be on my way. He might have heard me say, "Dumbass that's because you have your ear phones in, (with a slight shove) shithead".
Worst of all some time ago while my wife and I were at dinner I saw a young man with his iPod in his ears and his PSP in his hands while his family was enjoying the evening. I pointed this maladjusted child to my wife and informed her that should one of our children try this I would destroy EVERY piece of electronic equipment our child owned and would well "blow my bloody lid".
So what? Well the so what is that these wonderful marvels are ruining communication abilities in our children. We are a generation away from people who are without feeling people they only know how to associate with those things without feeling. This is a sad sad situation.
So keep your phone in your damn pocket while you pee. Take your ear phones out when someone takes to you.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Paying Attention
For awhile now, work has been slow. I attempt to study more tax law; however, I find that every 10 minutes or so I am circling between Google Finance, ESPN, & the local paper. Is tax law that boring that it can only be consumed in 10 minute intervals? Not really...but I definitely have a problem.
On the radio this morning the talk show host said something very profound. I did not catch the context nor the aftermath because it hit me like a ton of bricks. He said (and I paraphrase) that "successful people are successful because they can focus". And here I am only able to focus in 10 minute intervals. Yes, I understand that "success" is a broad term...congratulations for the stating the obvious. But the fact remains that I no am aware that my success here at work is well nonexistent partly because I can't focus. I can't focus because I feel no urgency nor motivation. It's not because I was abused as a child, it's not because I have ADD, and its not because I smoked pot. It is simply because I don't want it bad enough. But I think I do now, why because I have recognized (or remembered) that there is a connection between focus and success.
On the radio this morning the talk show host said something very profound. I did not catch the context nor the aftermath because it hit me like a ton of bricks. He said (and I paraphrase) that "successful people are successful because they can focus". And here I am only able to focus in 10 minute intervals. Yes, I understand that "success" is a broad term...congratulations for the stating the obvious. But the fact remains that I no am aware that my success here at work is well nonexistent partly because I can't focus. I can't focus because I feel no urgency nor motivation. It's not because I was abused as a child, it's not because I have ADD, and its not because I smoked pot. It is simply because I don't want it bad enough. But I think I do now, why because I have recognized (or remembered) that there is a connection between focus and success.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Stimlus or Subsidy
Both words start with S and both smell like another word that smarts with an S. A stimulus should be an infrequent action to get something to get over a hump or an obstacle. For example, long distance runners will use "Gu" to stimulate their bodies with quick burst of calories. This quick burst has the ability to help the body maintain its level to complete its task. A subsidy would an I.V. in a hospital or the "Iron Lung" to help somebody breathe. Do we see the difference?
In one instance the action is injection to assist through an unusual or unseen instance to assist until normality returns (stimulus). The other is allowing something to operate in a sphere that is no sustainable.
While I recognize I think the need for some things to operate under subsidy, I do not feel that an entire government should. If we can not sustain our current "normality' then maybe just maybe we need to step away from the flat-screen TV's and the new cars. Maybe we should eat in a little more, play more board games, and heaven forbid spend more time with our families.
In one instance the action is injection to assist through an unusual or unseen instance to assist until normality returns (stimulus). The other is allowing something to operate in a sphere that is no sustainable.
While I recognize I think the need for some things to operate under subsidy, I do not feel that an entire government should. If we can not sustain our current "normality' then maybe just maybe we need to step away from the flat-screen TV's and the new cars. Maybe we should eat in a little more, play more board games, and heaven forbid spend more time with our families.
Monday, December 8, 2008
What is going to happen when ...... ?
Can someone explain to me like a 5th grader (e.g. Michael from "The Office' about budgeting) what is going to happen when all of the money that has been pumped into the economy is running after too few of goods?
Well I can kind of explain what is going to happen....its called inflation. The layman's definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few of goods. Inflation is what Jimmy Carter brought with his quick fix government programs (a la Pres. Obama). Inflation is also what brought Ronald Reagan into office (Republicans have nobody...although after voting for an African American, maybe a Mormon can also be acceptable???).
I guess my point is that these quick fixes are going to intially help some families financial but what happens when inflation creaps up to the high teens as seen with Carter? Who does inflation hurt more? While it is nearly impossible to argue the marginal benefit of a dollar, I would venture to say that the high cost of money hurts those without and it simply hinders those with it.
Well I can kind of explain what is going to happen....its called inflation. The layman's definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few of goods. Inflation is what Jimmy Carter brought with his quick fix government programs (a la Pres. Obama). Inflation is also what brought Ronald Reagan into office (Republicans have nobody...although after voting for an African American, maybe a Mormon can also be acceptable???).
I guess my point is that these quick fixes are going to intially help some families financial but what happens when inflation creaps up to the high teens as seen with Carter? Who does inflation hurt more? While it is nearly impossible to argue the marginal benefit of a dollar, I would venture to say that the high cost of money hurts those without and it simply hinders those with it.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Change or Clinton part III
Now obviously by it's title I intend to be a little inflammatory; yet, I do not feel that I am completely off base. I will presume that rational people will agree that the President is a figure head in reality and that a Presidency’s image is the President but the Presidency is will most likely the 50 closest people to the President calling the shots. For a biblical reference the President is Aaron and the other 50 people are Moses.
You see when we voted for the President this time around we voted for a mouth piece with little thought those that will be appointed to receive revelation in their respective spheres. I am not going to say that Pres. Obama is not smart enough to appointment qualified people, I am just saying that we as a nation did not recognize or view this principle as important, which is should have been. Anyway that is water under the bridge.
Yes, Pres. Obama’s is appointing many of Pres. Clinton’s top advisors and aides, who will in reality give the same advice they gave before, which is why I feel that “C” in Obama’s “Change” really stands for “Clinton”. I think some of this is smart. The people he is appointing do have experience and can get the “job” done, but stupid Republicans are jumping all over this negatively. Listen, I would rather have proven credentials in turmoil like this, enough said. But, I would like to see some fresh ideas in Washington and restoration of former policy.
(Changing gears a little)
I think Pres. Obama was able to spin a concept so well as it is boarder line deceptive. But in that deception he was able insight correct behavior, but not consequence. Essentially, Pres. Obama’s rhetorical ‘means’ have justified my ‘end’. My ‘end’ is that I want people to get involved with the political process. It’s about time the people started to hold elected officials accountable. It’s not the politicians’ fault it’s the people. For too long the term “Washington” has been aligned with lies, deception, mistrust and the like…great then do something about it. The people have finally done something about it. But they could have also brought the same change with Pres. McCain or a Pres. Huckabee (idiot) or a Pres. Romney, etc… So when Pres. Obama says he’s change and change is coming to Washington, all I can say is no $hit you’re not Pres. Bush there is only one Pres. Bush, thanks for the heads up. My point is that “change” happens every time there is a different person elected. Heck there was change between each of Clinton and Bush’s presidency’s.
The bottom line is this; we are going to get a semi Clinton presidency with the appointments that will bring little fundamental change. The only “change” that will be had, is depending upon where you are on the spectrum of conservative to liberal, democrat to republican the new government (house, senate, & Presidency) will cater to your needs. That is not the deceptive change people were led to believe in! In this Presidency they will encourage action with out consequence (i.e. through bailing out everyone). This Presidency will most typically frustrate growth by support of stupidity and NOT holding people accountable. Is there a difference between a President who caters to the oil companies that employee 1,000’s or the President who caters to the car manufacture’s who employee 1000’s. It all depends on where you are. But there is a much easier argument to make for the many ancillary benefits for supporting the math and sciences field of oil & gas over the assembly line “benefits”
You see when we voted for the President this time around we voted for a mouth piece with little thought those that will be appointed to receive revelation in their respective spheres. I am not going to say that Pres. Obama is not smart enough to appointment qualified people, I am just saying that we as a nation did not recognize or view this principle as important, which is should have been. Anyway that is water under the bridge.
Yes, Pres. Obama’s is appointing many of Pres. Clinton’s top advisors and aides, who will in reality give the same advice they gave before, which is why I feel that “C” in Obama’s “Change” really stands for “Clinton”. I think some of this is smart. The people he is appointing do have experience and can get the “job” done, but stupid Republicans are jumping all over this negatively. Listen, I would rather have proven credentials in turmoil like this, enough said. But, I would like to see some fresh ideas in Washington and restoration of former policy.
(Changing gears a little)
I think Pres. Obama was able to spin a concept so well as it is boarder line deceptive. But in that deception he was able insight correct behavior, but not consequence. Essentially, Pres. Obama’s rhetorical ‘means’ have justified my ‘end’. My ‘end’ is that I want people to get involved with the political process. It’s about time the people started to hold elected officials accountable. It’s not the politicians’ fault it’s the people. For too long the term “Washington” has been aligned with lies, deception, mistrust and the like…great then do something about it. The people have finally done something about it. But they could have also brought the same change with Pres. McCain or a Pres. Huckabee (idiot) or a Pres. Romney, etc… So when Pres. Obama says he’s change and change is coming to Washington, all I can say is no $hit you’re not Pres. Bush there is only one Pres. Bush, thanks for the heads up. My point is that “change” happens every time there is a different person elected. Heck there was change between each of Clinton and Bush’s presidency’s.
The bottom line is this; we are going to get a semi Clinton presidency with the appointments that will bring little fundamental change. The only “change” that will be had, is depending upon where you are on the spectrum of conservative to liberal, democrat to republican the new government (house, senate, & Presidency) will cater to your needs. That is not the deceptive change people were led to believe in! In this Presidency they will encourage action with out consequence (i.e. through bailing out everyone). This Presidency will most typically frustrate growth by support of stupidity and NOT holding people accountable. Is there a difference between a President who caters to the oil companies that employee 1,000’s or the President who caters to the car manufacture’s who employee 1000’s. It all depends on where you are. But there is a much easier argument to make for the many ancillary benefits for supporting the math and sciences field of oil & gas over the assembly line “benefits”
Monday, November 10, 2008
Redistribution Retarding Reconstruction
In the period shortly after the Civil War known as the "Reconstruction" power and authority was given to those who demonstrated that they could with such power create and rebuild. The power was segregated from the masses because, and properly so, the masses were seen as unstable, unreliable, and quite frankly unable to make correct decisions.
Has this inability or ability changed?
I argue that the masses still are unable to divorce their own interest for those of the Union. This is not to say that I call for only white male land owners to be the only voters. I am drawing attention to the theory that redistribution of wealth can create more wealth. In essence, we are saying that by taking capital from those who know how to create more capital and giving it to those who do not we will in some way be able to create more capital. If that sentence was confusing to read then you are like the many who cannot understand the logic of the incoming party with their tax and fiscal policies.
In another example more personal to all of us it would be equivalent to ask a 3rd grade math student to perform calculus.
A larger more looming problem, which I believe to be the harbinger of it all which is the masses requesting indirectly a quick fix. "Quick fix"...is that not a neo-American principle circa 1960 that has driven everything from energy production to domestic cooking in America? Unfortunately, the masses want it and they want it now. The masses have spoken and they will get a quick fix; however, that is all it will be. Those who will be on the receiving end of the new policies (which I am apart of) will typically squander away whatever "leg up" is gifted, jolting the markets and industry only to face the same problems in another decade. Unfortunately, the concept of deferral in politics is rampant, so as to say not on my watch. It would be refreshing for a politician to take responsibility and do the hard thing, thus securing the American future as well as their name with the likes of Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln.
In short we are and will be facing serious problems in America until the tide of entitlements rescinded into the ocean me first's. Our legacy is built upon federalism or lack their of, state rights, separation of powers, capitalism, and liberty. These principles are in the very DNA that is America and the carcinoma that is socialism can and will destroy everything has been fought for.
President-elect Obama was correct a house divided against it's self will fall. Socialism vs. American values will divide and conquer all that we hold truly "American". Akin to Patrick Henry I say, give me capitalism, protestant work ethic, honesty, and liberty or give me death.
Has this inability or ability changed?
I argue that the masses still are unable to divorce their own interest for those of the Union. This is not to say that I call for only white male land owners to be the only voters. I am drawing attention to the theory that redistribution of wealth can create more wealth. In essence, we are saying that by taking capital from those who know how to create more capital and giving it to those who do not we will in some way be able to create more capital. If that sentence was confusing to read then you are like the many who cannot understand the logic of the incoming party with their tax and fiscal policies.
In another example more personal to all of us it would be equivalent to ask a 3rd grade math student to perform calculus.
A larger more looming problem, which I believe to be the harbinger of it all which is the masses requesting indirectly a quick fix. "Quick fix"...is that not a neo-American principle circa 1960 that has driven everything from energy production to domestic cooking in America? Unfortunately, the masses want it and they want it now. The masses have spoken and they will get a quick fix; however, that is all it will be. Those who will be on the receiving end of the new policies (which I am apart of) will typically squander away whatever "leg up" is gifted, jolting the markets and industry only to face the same problems in another decade. Unfortunately, the concept of deferral in politics is rampant, so as to say not on my watch. It would be refreshing for a politician to take responsibility and do the hard thing, thus securing the American future as well as their name with the likes of Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln.
In short we are and will be facing serious problems in America until the tide of entitlements rescinded into the ocean me first's. Our legacy is built upon federalism or lack their of, state rights, separation of powers, capitalism, and liberty. These principles are in the very DNA that is America and the carcinoma that is socialism can and will destroy everything has been fought for.
President-elect Obama was correct a house divided against it's self will fall. Socialism vs. American values will divide and conquer all that we hold truly "American". Akin to Patrick Henry I say, give me capitalism, protestant work ethic, honesty, and liberty or give me death.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Sustainability- Abstain to Sustain
Sustainability is the new dot com. So much so that Arizona State University along with others is offerings Baccalaureate degrees in the "science". But I ask at what point does one abstain to sustain? At what put are we sustaining the unsustainable?
These questions are the byproduct of a new Washington D.C. politics as usual proposal. The Big 3 automakers are asking for more assistance from the federal government. While I recognize that government short term aid can assist in consistency, I do not believe that the federal government should have place in private business other than what rights they already posses under the Commerce Clause. I do not believe it is right that the US government with there asymmetric information has the ability to print money and invest in a broken negligent company, only to receive a return on an "investment" that never existed.
I apologize for the government interference tangent but the relativism of ridiculous. The same party that blasted the Big 3 for so long because of their large profits and their environmental neglect is the same party that wished to be their knight in shining armor. What part of this is truly American? What part of this is at all consistent with what the founding fathers preached?
Big 3 make billions of dollars, ruin the environment, neglect change, smash new concepts with their lobbying efforts; essentially easting their cake, your cake, and my cake. Only to ask the Federal government if they can have some of their cake too. How is this right? Is can we stand for an industry that for so many years said, "...screw you, we are going to do what we want, how we want, and you have to take because...hey you have no other choices. Have fun riding the bus." Only then have superior products, many of which they were presented with be neglected because they weren't as profitable. Why sould the government through means of loans sustain a company/industry that has purposely driven down the road of unsustainability? Why should we sustain them? We have other choices, where is the benefit?
Hey Detroit how are those profits now? Are you enjoying the Unions? How is paying an assembly line worker with no formal education, with no education to contribute to society at large six figures?
Are we not experiencing the parable of the 10 Virgins? (If you don't know it, sorry it’s in the Bible...it’s a good read).
As Larry the Cable Guy says..."it's like wiping before you poop, it just doesn’t make any sense". And it doesn't make any sense to reward malicious premeditated neglectful behavior.
Every American child is taught at an early age the parable of The Grasshopper and The Ant. In this parable we learn a number of lessons, with the major theme being hard work and conservation. So why not do what we teach? I'll tell you why because life sucks! There is pain in life. Life is one giant cow pasture after a heavy rain where we are asked to sprint across wearing nothing but sandals and a bathing suit. We are going to fall down, we are going to step in the crap, and we are going to get dirty. But that is ok so long as you get up and keep moving.
My advice to the Federal government and the automakers.
Dear Government(Democrats specifically), you have already stepped into a "financial crisis" which you caused (remember when you thought it was good that everyone should own a home, yes I know some Republicans did as well....but that is another post...no more country club republicans) and your bailout isn't working, (banks are just hording the money improving their own situation and not lending) so please let the automakers learn the hard way that they can't screw the American people and get away with it. Do not sustain them, do not reward them. Let them consolidate and go back to the drawing board and learn that this country is about its people not its industry. Remember you are for the people and by the people and we need change. So "yes we can" tell them 'sorry I'm not going to allow you to hurt innocent people without penalty'.
Automakers don't screw over the American people! We are some of the greatest nicest friendliest people until you take advantage of us. Thanks for taking advantage of us for so long. Now please accept our apologizes with regards to your crap hole of a town and state. Please accept our desire to use buy something that is well made by smart people. Please accept our actions as a sign that reads..."Don't *&^) with America".
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Catalyst
On my drive home from my homogeneous think tank I was fortunate and blessed to listen to President Obama. I did not vote for him. When it came time to cast my ballot I could only think of the change that he will bring to this country and I was afraid. After listening to his acceptance speech I feel no fear but peace. I feel excited, I feel the need to act. President Obama has an amazing ability, to incite feelings. He has branded this with words like change and hope. President Obama has incited a previously apathetic, lazy, entitlement driven generation to move for change and to serve. I am not convinced that all of the change promised is going to be good. But I am excited.
President Obama will become the greatest catalyst for change this country has seen from a leader. He inspires me with hope, but not with his hope....He inspires me to become more active in my civic duties and that is a great thing regardless of what direction your civic compass points.
It is apprent that people voted with a lot of feeling. I simply hope that America is ready for as a French philospher Bainville put it..."One must want the consquences of what one wants." I do not believe that we will want the consequences of one party having supreme power. I do not believe that we will want a bigger government. I do not believe that we will want Universal health care. I do not think that we will want this change because it will come with a heavy upfront cost I do not believe people will want to make.
Finally to you President Obama...I support you because you are my President, so long as you support the Constitution. You have a long road ahead, but I am inspired to forge ahead. However long and hard the road...
President Obama will become the greatest catalyst for change this country has seen from a leader. He inspires me with hope, but not with his hope....He inspires me to become more active in my civic duties and that is a great thing regardless of what direction your civic compass points.
It is apprent that people voted with a lot of feeling. I simply hope that America is ready for as a French philospher Bainville put it..."One must want the consquences of what one wants." I do not believe that we will want the consequences of one party having supreme power. I do not believe that we will want a bigger government. I do not believe that we will want Universal health care. I do not think that we will want this change because it will come with a heavy upfront cost I do not believe people will want to make.
Finally to you President Obama...I support you because you are my President, so long as you support the Constitution. You have a long road ahead, but I am inspired to forge ahead. However long and hard the road...
Vote
This not a call to one party or the other. While I am a registered Republican I am not a dyed in the wool Republican. I think to believe that I am independent as possible. Having said that I strongly urge everyone who may read to take the time and vote. You do matter!
I want to take just a minute to get involved with a moral matter and not a political one. Props 8 (in CA) & Prop 102 (in AZ). These props seek to establish marriage between men and women only. Regardless of your religious beliefs the success of these props will effect everything that your society stands for. Your children will be forced to learn that gay relations are normal and acceptable.
Every argument that I have heard has used the phrase "fundamental right". What is a fundamental? A fundamental is a building block of a foundation. The foundation of the U.S. is the Constitution and Judeo-Christian beliefs. I am fairly confident in my studies that neither philosophies nor documents purpose a this practice as defined by marriage. Marriage after all for many of is a biblical social practice. As such I believe there is no fundamental right for homosexuals to be "married". Moreover, governments throughout history have never defined the practice of marriage but merely respected the religious act. Marriage is again a biblical principle and not a social nor governmental.
I want to take just a minute to get involved with a moral matter and not a political one. Props 8 (in CA) & Prop 102 (in AZ). These props seek to establish marriage between men and women only. Regardless of your religious beliefs the success of these props will effect everything that your society stands for. Your children will be forced to learn that gay relations are normal and acceptable.
Every argument that I have heard has used the phrase "fundamental right". What is a fundamental? A fundamental is a building block of a foundation. The foundation of the U.S. is the Constitution and Judeo-Christian beliefs. I am fairly confident in my studies that neither philosophies nor documents purpose a this practice as defined by marriage. Marriage after all for many of is a biblical social practice. As such I believe there is no fundamental right for homosexuals to be "married". Moreover, governments throughout history have never defined the practice of marriage but merely respected the religious act. Marriage is again a biblical principle and not a social nor governmental.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Agency vs. Freedom
Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending our quarterly meeting for the Society of Statesman (SOS). SOS is essential a network of masterminds built on the principles of helping us (young spirited professional become the best that they can be…a Statesman). We were fortunate at this meeting to be taught by an Arizona congressman. The topic was a little pie in the sky at first meaning all theory no practical. We then discussed the bailouts which this individual is vehemently against as well as taxes. We cited philosophers; we cited books, prophets, and everything else going tit for tat. The last hour seemed to be me vs. him. This was not my intention however I was having difficulty accepting many of the premises he was teaching, i.e. very small government (which I kind of like) and the tax penalty concept. I know I have spoken of this before however he took it to the agency level.
He said speaking hypothetically “If I make $500,000 and the government through of its taxes (51%) leaves me with $250,000, I am less free”. He then began to correlate our agency as given by a creator and liberty. He believed that they were one in the same and that taxes imposed on his liberty, his agency. Assuming the words are the same I will concede that I see his point while ignorant I see the logical argument. Here is my problem…
When did freedom become extrinsic? Was it not every man’s hero, William Wallace, who said that the British could take their lives, land, and families but never their freedom? I believe that agency is intrinsic and that freedom is just a tool. Moreover, I believe there is a difference between agency and liberty. The difference between to the two is by what authority it’s given. Agency is given by God; liberty is given by man (or governments). Regardless of semantics we are free choose anything and everything; however, under either agency or liberty we are not free from consequence. I believe best said that we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (I am not professing that good economic policy is high tax rates!).
I was then told that I was a moral relativist and that that was a slippery slope. I am not sure if I am or not; however, if by moral relativism he meant I don’t walk through life with blinders on and my 3 cookie cutters for every situation then yes I am a moral relativist. Yes, I weigh the facts on consequences of life. I am against abortion! Except, when the mother’s life is in danger…I guess that is relative. You damn right! My wife’s life is far more precious to me than that of my unborn child. I digress. It is interesting that I am a relativist by weighing pros and cons, yet this individual also succumbed to relativism when he defined his freedom/agency monetarily. I would like to think that my agency is priceless (although it did take a 1/3 part…..NOT 1/3 of children for those reading who are LDS).
Obviously these thoughts can continue and make for interesting conversation. But my last thought concerning this “principled” non-relative thinking is that at what point do principals become pride? During the VP debate the moderator asked the candidates if they have changed any of their principles or ideas since entering politics. Joe Biden said yes. He said it was hard for him to change his conditioning, but that we felt that he have received more information and that information changed his viewpoint. I respect that entirely! The media’s biggest argument against Mitt Romney was that he is a “changer”. I have a news flash of my own, if you are not changing you are not learning and if you are not learning you are not progressing and if you are not progressing you are a detriment. Sarah Palin said that she hadn’t changed and didn’t think she should and that she was “worked across the aisle” but that she never really changed. Really Gov. Palin, you won’t change? You’re going to be a maverick? Great, I really hope that we can continue to stay the course. Staying the course is a great philosophy for golf or horse racing not for life.
I am saying that many things are worth fighting for (WWII, Revolution, education, etc..) My favorite quote says…”…However long and hard the road…”. So you fight. You fight for that which is good and you don’t stop until you learn that it’s not good or until it is finished. And some principals are great. I have some of my own principals and many of which I hope to never change because they are from God and I love them. But I have other principals that I hope to change because I feel they have become weaknesses.
He said speaking hypothetically “If I make $500,000 and the government through of its taxes (51%) leaves me with $250,000, I am less free”. He then began to correlate our agency as given by a creator and liberty. He believed that they were one in the same and that taxes imposed on his liberty, his agency. Assuming the words are the same I will concede that I see his point while ignorant I see the logical argument. Here is my problem…
When did freedom become extrinsic? Was it not every man’s hero, William Wallace, who said that the British could take their lives, land, and families but never their freedom? I believe that agency is intrinsic and that freedom is just a tool. Moreover, I believe there is a difference between agency and liberty. The difference between to the two is by what authority it’s given. Agency is given by God; liberty is given by man (or governments). Regardless of semantics we are free choose anything and everything; however, under either agency or liberty we are not free from consequence. I believe best said that we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (I am not professing that good economic policy is high tax rates!).
I was then told that I was a moral relativist and that that was a slippery slope. I am not sure if I am or not; however, if by moral relativism he meant I don’t walk through life with blinders on and my 3 cookie cutters for every situation then yes I am a moral relativist. Yes, I weigh the facts on consequences of life. I am against abortion! Except, when the mother’s life is in danger…I guess that is relative. You damn right! My wife’s life is far more precious to me than that of my unborn child. I digress. It is interesting that I am a relativist by weighing pros and cons, yet this individual also succumbed to relativism when he defined his freedom/agency monetarily. I would like to think that my agency is priceless (although it did take a 1/3 part…..NOT 1/3 of children for those reading who are LDS).
Obviously these thoughts can continue and make for interesting conversation. But my last thought concerning this “principled” non-relative thinking is that at what point do principals become pride? During the VP debate the moderator asked the candidates if they have changed any of their principles or ideas since entering politics. Joe Biden said yes. He said it was hard for him to change his conditioning, but that we felt that he have received more information and that information changed his viewpoint. I respect that entirely! The media’s biggest argument against Mitt Romney was that he is a “changer”. I have a news flash of my own, if you are not changing you are not learning and if you are not learning you are not progressing and if you are not progressing you are a detriment. Sarah Palin said that she hadn’t changed and didn’t think she should and that she was “worked across the aisle” but that she never really changed. Really Gov. Palin, you won’t change? You’re going to be a maverick? Great, I really hope that we can continue to stay the course. Staying the course is a great philosophy for golf or horse racing not for life.
I am saying that many things are worth fighting for (WWII, Revolution, education, etc..) My favorite quote says…”…However long and hard the road…”. So you fight. You fight for that which is good and you don’t stop until you learn that it’s not good or until it is finished. And some principals are great. I have some of my own principals and many of which I hope to never change because they are from God and I love them. But I have other principals that I hope to change because I feel they have become weaknesses.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Too Far
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What have we done with this? We have justified a lot! We have given voices to the minorities (some deservedly some not). We have also segregated or rather passively enforced self-segregation. We have allowed a platform for the squeaky wheel to get the grease. Most dangerously he have allowed activists to control destiny.
A context of history should teach us that the founding measures were more in response to overcoming tyranny an oppression. But I wonder if that is good in all accords? Tyranny by definition I believe to be immoral, wrong, impractical, and should be eliminated. But oppression? Why shouldn't we oppress? I will presume that many of your first thoughts are Civil rights related or women's suffrage; however, that is not the oppression that I am speaking about.
I believe in a God and such I accept that there is good and evil in this world. Because I recognize their is evil I feel it important to suppress evil, to oppress evil. You are correct in that "my evil" may not be "your evil", but should we both concede to a higher authority we might find some "common evils". Yet, "your authority" is not "my authority" and as such commonality might be more difficult then deciding on what to eat for breakfast.
Likewise, we have taken this too far: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
How so? Well my authority tells me that former governments based on religion were based on incorrect religion. So I understand the comment..."Do not build a government upon the foundation of incorrect religious teaching". What is ironic is that almost every "major" religion believes in some degree of ultimate salvation where their leader will reign over a 'government' built upon it's religious tenants. So if we do subscribe to that philosophy maybe we should let Mr. Jefferson's letter go quietly into the night seeing that no "religious" person truly believe there should be such a separation. I do not believe their should be.
It is sad to me to that to bear a standard is synomous with segregation, intolerance, hate, close-mindedness and the like.
So, I will not separate but I will accept our current system so far as it has been inspired by "my higher authority" and I will with all of my ability oppress those movements that seek to oppress "my good".
What have we done with this? We have justified a lot! We have given voices to the minorities (some deservedly some not). We have also segregated or rather passively enforced self-segregation. We have allowed a platform for the squeaky wheel to get the grease. Most dangerously he have allowed activists to control destiny.
A context of history should teach us that the founding measures were more in response to overcoming tyranny an oppression. But I wonder if that is good in all accords? Tyranny by definition I believe to be immoral, wrong, impractical, and should be eliminated. But oppression? Why shouldn't we oppress? I will presume that many of your first thoughts are Civil rights related or women's suffrage; however, that is not the oppression that I am speaking about.
I believe in a God and such I accept that there is good and evil in this world. Because I recognize their is evil I feel it important to suppress evil, to oppress evil. You are correct in that "my evil" may not be "your evil", but should we both concede to a higher authority we might find some "common evils". Yet, "your authority" is not "my authority" and as such commonality might be more difficult then deciding on what to eat for breakfast.
Likewise, we have taken this too far: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
How so? Well my authority tells me that former governments based on religion were based on incorrect religion. So I understand the comment..."Do not build a government upon the foundation of incorrect religious teaching". What is ironic is that almost every "major" religion believes in some degree of ultimate salvation where their leader will reign over a 'government' built upon it's religious tenants. So if we do subscribe to that philosophy maybe we should let Mr. Jefferson's letter go quietly into the night seeing that no "religious" person truly believe there should be such a separation. I do not believe their should be.
It is sad to me to that to bear a standard is synomous with segregation, intolerance, hate, close-mindedness and the like.
So, I will not separate but I will accept our current system so far as it has been inspired by "my higher authority" and I will with all of my ability oppress those movements that seek to oppress "my good".
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Idealist, The Stock Market, and Me
The last time I checked I had money in the stock market. I checked back a few moments later and I had more. Later in the day I checked back and lost more than I had in the previous 3 weeks. So I ask myself…Is the stock market a good investment me? Maybe.
I know it’s not the answer one wants to here; however, I recognize that institutional investors, hedge funds, and sovereign funds, rule the market and I am just along for the ride. Along for the ride? Is that what I am basing my retirement off of? Here’s a thought why not put one’s money to work over something one can control…you! I do not think (maybe an absolute) that there is a more superior investment that human capital. The investment in my own personal education has and will continue to pay dividends far greater than any amount of capital gains I could have garnered from the stock market. Which only leads me to wonder, is there a way to invest in human capital? Is there a way to invest in people? Is it possible for me to “buy” part of someone’s future? Have you ever wondered how many other Bill Gates’ or LeBaron James’ there are? I would be will to say that there are far more than we realize. I bet many stars are snuffed out by the demands of the world before they are able to become stars.
Example, I have a friend who is currently in medical school. Before this individual could get into medical school he needed to get good grade and test scores. This individual had financial assistance that enabled him to focus. Coupled with his desire he achieved. What about the individual who doesn’t have the assistance? I know what you are thinking…J there are banks…get a loan. But why have the system based off a spread? Shouldn’t there be a system where funds or support are available with the understanding that the individual simply returns what is borrowed. Let me ask you…when was the last time you donated to a bank? Never! Really, you’ve never thought... “Hey the bank loaned me money for the car and now that it is paid off I should thank them by giving them more”. I can imagine an individual being grateful for the assistance received only to become a life long giver to “cause”. Maybe we should do something about this, we wouldn’t be the first other people have done something similar…the Carnegies’, Rockefellers’’, Vanderbilt’s’….etc.
I know it’s not the answer one wants to here; however, I recognize that institutional investors, hedge funds, and sovereign funds, rule the market and I am just along for the ride. Along for the ride? Is that what I am basing my retirement off of? Here’s a thought why not put one’s money to work over something one can control…you! I do not think (maybe an absolute) that there is a more superior investment that human capital. The investment in my own personal education has and will continue to pay dividends far greater than any amount of capital gains I could have garnered from the stock market. Which only leads me to wonder, is there a way to invest in human capital? Is there a way to invest in people? Is it possible for me to “buy” part of someone’s future? Have you ever wondered how many other Bill Gates’ or LeBaron James’ there are? I would be will to say that there are far more than we realize. I bet many stars are snuffed out by the demands of the world before they are able to become stars.
Example, I have a friend who is currently in medical school. Before this individual could get into medical school he needed to get good grade and test scores. This individual had financial assistance that enabled him to focus. Coupled with his desire he achieved. What about the individual who doesn’t have the assistance? I know what you are thinking…J there are banks…get a loan. But why have the system based off a spread? Shouldn’t there be a system where funds or support are available with the understanding that the individual simply returns what is borrowed. Let me ask you…when was the last time you donated to a bank? Never! Really, you’ve never thought... “Hey the bank loaned me money for the car and now that it is paid off I should thank them by giving them more”. I can imagine an individual being grateful for the assistance received only to become a life long giver to “cause”. Maybe we should do something about this, we wouldn’t be the first other people have done something similar…the Carnegies’, Rockefellers’’, Vanderbilt’s’….etc.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Penalty and theTax-Gap
On Yahoo's homepage this morning and throughout last night’s debate we heard about Joe "the plumber". Joe said (I will paraphrase)...'if I work harder and earn more why should I be penalized.' Joe believes that taxes are a penalty. When did supporting an organization that allows you the freedom to do what you do become a penalty?
Let's say that one morning some of Joe's plumbing vans were stolen. What would Joe do? I bet Joe would call the police and have then resolve the issue; however, Joe that will cost you. Joe purports the same ignorant attitude that I hear over and over again...'give me something and I'll give nothing". Oh and I know your argument Joe creates jobs! Yes he does, but when the economy slows down whom do you think fires more people...Joe. The simple truth is we owe our government the funds necessary so that they can provide the services we need, so that they can provide an environment where Joe can make his money. In return, they owe it to us to be good stewards of those funds particular in many cases where those funds represent the widow’s mite.
Taxation is game theory at its finest. Because individuals feel that the government is going to misuse their funds, individuals decide not to give the funds. What makes this little dichotomy even better is that the same individuals who complain that "foreigners own America" i.e. "China owns all of our debt"....that is true in some regards but we should ask ourselves how did China become such a larger debtor? The answer is politicians misusing funds and individuals not paying (the Tax-Gap is est. $350 billion). Do you want to know how to fix the problem....honesty. Isn't it funny that the only way to fix the giant financial problem that looms over America has nothing to do the scarcity of funds but honesty; politicians not being honest and people not being honest. So before demand that Washington change, maybe we should change. And I would bet that once we change and when we then change our communities and our communities change our areas that we will elect in a natural process Rep. and Sen. whom like us have our best interests at heart even if we need to be penalized.
Let's say that one morning some of Joe's plumbing vans were stolen. What would Joe do? I bet Joe would call the police and have then resolve the issue; however, Joe that will cost you. Joe purports the same ignorant attitude that I hear over and over again...'give me something and I'll give nothing". Oh and I know your argument Joe creates jobs! Yes he does, but when the economy slows down whom do you think fires more people...Joe. The simple truth is we owe our government the funds necessary so that they can provide the services we need, so that they can provide an environment where Joe can make his money. In return, they owe it to us to be good stewards of those funds particular in many cases where those funds represent the widow’s mite.
Taxation is game theory at its finest. Because individuals feel that the government is going to misuse their funds, individuals decide not to give the funds. What makes this little dichotomy even better is that the same individuals who complain that "foreigners own America" i.e. "China owns all of our debt"....that is true in some regards but we should ask ourselves how did China become such a larger debtor? The answer is politicians misusing funds and individuals not paying (the Tax-Gap is est. $350 billion). Do you want to know how to fix the problem....honesty. Isn't it funny that the only way to fix the giant financial problem that looms over America has nothing to do the scarcity of funds but honesty; politicians not being honest and people not being honest. So before demand that Washington change, maybe we should change. And I would bet that once we change and when we then change our communities and our communities change our areas that we will elect in a natural process Rep. and Sen. whom like us have our best interests at heart even if we need to be penalized.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Absolutes
Is there anything that is absolute? When speaking to friends, listening to the news, or reading articles I realize that people often speak in absolutes. Maybe this is a practice to incite emotion or "to get a reaction". Or maybe its the byproduct of laziness. Maybe, just maybe, there are individuals who make conscience decisions to not think and either side black or white, republican or democrat, etc.. So I ask why not more independence? Why not more thought before decision? We established a country on independence or the ability not to have to follow the majority or the "establishment". Where has our spirit of independence gone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)