Saturday, March 17, 2007
Just in case you've never seen the map of the 2004 presidential race by county.
As you can see, outside of a few isolated blocks in the Southwest, nearly all the country is red except for the various urban counties around the country.
While I don't have hard evidence handy, I believe most reasonable people can agree with the following comparison between the urban blue areas and the suburban/rural red areas.
The blue areas, in general, have higher taxes than the red areas
They have higher unemployment
They have more crime
They have poor quality schools
They have higher homeless populations
Blue areas are predominately governed by Democrats
Red areas are predominately governed by the GOP.
Remind me why we should vote for democratic policies?
Friday, March 16, 2007
States can have a great public education system and the best roads in the country, but if a state's tax system hinders growth and job creation, Michigan's highly educated graduates are going to use the well-paved roads to drive to job opportunities in other states.
For our neighboring friends to the north; misery loves company and Ohio will be jumping right off the cliff with you.
When thinking ideologically, you have two clear and distinct choices 1) you either believe that it's the state's role to rule to manage every problem or injustice around and can therefore use all it's citizen's resources to accomplish such or 2) you believe in individual liberties and the market place to manage such cares.
Unfortunately, too many people believe there is a gradation between the two and there really is not. Let me provide some back up information first.
Once the citizenry decides that it's OK to take another citizen's money for whatever benevolent purpose, they have employed moral relativism. For instance, state steals my money for someone's health care, well, why can't I steal another person's money for drugs when they were just going to use it for a new car? In my mind, my purpose is just as valid and real to me than the government's established moral code. And in reality it is. After all, who is this arbiter of what's supposed to be important for everyone.
I challenge anyone that reads this blog or any congressman in Washington to tell me what my biggest fears, my wants and desires, my familial concerns are and how they are going to address it through the state. Yet we expect politicians to do this for 300 million people?
You make your first dollar at a fast food job and what does the government say you need pay for first.
Gordon, the government doesn't tell you what to do with your money.
Of course they do, they tell you that you need to save for your retirement through the social security tax and your medical care at retirement regardless of whether your paycheck is enough to even pay for child support, student loans, or feeding yourself. First and foremost is your retirement.
What if you had an idea that you believed would make you the next Bill Gates and you were willing to forgo any social security to make that dream happen what does society tell you? Make sure you fund your retirement first! It's lunacy.
Now the Democratic party is essentially a variety of socialism. They make no bones about the fact they'll take your money and use it for the "benevolent" purposes of their choice.
Republicans on the other hand are "socialist light". They believe in taking less of your money because there are fewer benevolent purposes to care for. Unfortunately, Libertarians , like myself have no one to turn to so we end up having to party with the GOP, simply because they are closer ideologically than socialists.
As a result, the GOP ends up with politicians all over the political spectrum. From Steve Chabot, a budget hawk to Olympia Snowe, a socialist.
In the past few years, the media has portrayed GOP as becoming a party of power not of principle. But really, the party was never anything but a party of power. Only during the Reagan years did Reagan inspire a sense of principle into the party and Newt Gingrich kept the legacy alive through most of the 90's. It's what put the GOP into power for most of a decade.
Unfortunately power corrupts, especially when you have no guiding principle to adhere to. Why not take some more of the taxpayer's money and load up the highway bill with billions of dollars of pork? Let's go ahead and build that bridge to no where. We'll say " at least we're more fiscally responsible then Democrats and, by the way, did you know they believe in gay marriage".
The result is a pack of RINO's the likes of Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, Bob Taft, George Voinovich, Mike Dewine et al. It has libertarians, like myself, wondering why we ever supported this party in the first place.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
After she referred to this blog as a a "hilariously misguided", I offered my thoughts on all these subjects and instead of engaging in the debate and maybe winning someone over to his/her beliefs, I got..... nothing.
I love the debate, for a few reasons 1) I may learn something 2) It challenges my own beliefs and my ability to convey my ideas 3) I always hope to change someone else's viewpoint.
Just as I indicated in my post on the seven dirty words, the liberal cause cannot win the debate. I believe that's because there's no controlling moral authority or principles other than moral relativism which can change as often as I change my underwear, at least weekly.
So Mr./Ms. anonymous basically pulled the little liberal debate method, don't answer the questions posed, just make a few snarky and arrogant comments and then disappear. Just like Air America.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
"We had a chance to have a reasonable debate," Linden replied. "Instead we had denial. The Bush administration and a Republican Congress had years and years to frame a response to global warming that doesn't involve government regulation," Linden continued.So let me get this right.... as a society we've had an industrial revolution in excess of 150 years but it's only been the last seven years where we've had global warming because the Bush administration didn't act.
My prediction... If a democrat is elected to president in 2008, global warming will be solved by January 31, 2009 give or take a few days after the inauguration.
So I started Valentine Tax & Financial Tips. Every Monday, I'll attempt to post a personal financial/health tip, Wednesday's a tax tip and Friday's will be a business tip/advice.
Please check it out.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
His name is Isiah Thomas. Why do you need to know him? Well he single handedly ruined a professional basketball league (the CBA) into extinction, the Toronto Raptors NBA franchise, the Indiana Pacers, and most recently the NY Knicks.
Why do you need to know him? Because despite the fact that this guy has this incredible resume of failure, the Knicks thought it appropriate to give him a contract extension.
Apparently, the pictures this guy has of NBA executives in compromising positions has netted him millions of dollars of unearned income. That's why you need to know him. Maybe he'll drop some of those pictures.
Al Sharpton ripping Barack Obama... Why would someone who champions the plight of African Americans slam Obama.
Consider that Obama represents the possibility that African Americans can "make it" in an Anglo dominated culture.
African Americans - no longer victims to white oppression. That slogan will never keep Reverends Al & Jesse in the spotlight.
The Reverends' only power comes from the message that black America can only do from what white America is willing to give... the culture of victimhood. If it becomes clear that white America is willing to embrace a black candidate how do you parade your same old dog and pony show in front of the TV cameras?
Monday, March 12, 2007
"He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic. A lot of people back then  said, 'America will never elect a Catholic as president,' " the White House hopeful told the New Hampshire Democrats' 100 Club fund-raiser here.
"But those who gathered here almost a half century ago knew better," she said. "They believed America was bigger than that and Americans would give Sen. John F. Kennedy a fair shake, and the rest, as they say, is history."
My general philosophy about politicians is..... if they have to say it, then it's probably not true.
For those teams whining as to why they're not in. Here's a clue. Play somebody and beat them; preferably on the road.
But Gordon, Syracuse is in the Big East, they have to play a brutal conference schedule. Really, Nearly every team in the Big East (all power conferences for that matter) fattens up on non-league opponents at home so we have all kinds of 10-0, 9-1, 8-3 records before conference play so they all look like good teams. Most of the teams don't leave their home courts until January, it's rigged.
In fact, I'd be willing to wager a lot of money that if the Big East, the Big Eleven (Big Ten for those who can't count), and the ACC played a home and home schedules with MVC, Mountain West or MAC teams those non conference records would look more like 7-3, 6-4, 5-5.
That aside look for a great tournament full of upsets. My pick, Go Gators.
Of course I'm the same guy who predicted
1) GOP keeps Congress
2) Bears win the Super Bowl.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
First, Gays. I have friends and clients that are gay. I've been to two gay weddings. I don't hate gays. Do I believe they should be allow to marry? No, but as a libertarian I also don't believe the government should be in the business of sanctioning any marriage. It's a contract like any other in my mind and the government should not be in the business of deciding which contract is acceptable and which ones are not.
I do believe gay sex is a sin but no better or worse than extramarital or premarital heterosexual sex.
Again, I don't have the answers but I have lot's of question. First, if gays are "born that way" what about bisexuals? What about pedophiles.... are they born that way? Why shouldn't we give them a pass. If I see a 85 year old guy with Anna Nicole, I think it's disgusting, why? Wasn't he just born that way.
If we allow gay marriage, why not polygamy? Are you not infringing on the rights on certain religions by prohibiting it? If I'm bisexual shouldn't I be allow to marry one woman and one man? What if I want to marry my sister just so she can go on my insurance? is that OK? I'm a 40 year old + man, shouldn't I be allowed to marry a fifteen year old girl? The fact is we have lot's of prohibition on marriage and it's not exclusive to homosexuals. How do we justify allowing any one of these without allowing the others?
There is more evidence of a gene that can predetermine alcoholism and drug addiction than sexuality. Given that, should we just excuse alcoholics and tell them it's OK to drink. Afterall, he was just "born that way"? Hey Joe how about another shot of Wild Turkey.
Do I think homosexuality is a choice, probably not. I don't think someone would choose a lifestyle that would create much angst for themselves and families, as a result, I have compassion for many gay struggles.
As for Global Warming.... again let's go back to Theory versus Law. Given the fact set we now have, scientist should be able to predict what the earth's temperature is going to be next year. To my knowledge they can't..... they throw out numbers over decades that we will not be able to evaluate until the time is over.
Also, what bothers me most is the debate itself. Do you remember "acid rain" and sulfur dioxide emissions... what about flourocarbons from aerosol cans and freon discharges, then it was carbon monoxide and now it CO2 emissions. Just what the hell is the problem? Twenty years ago, Time and Newsweek were reporting on the coming "Ice Age", so within 20 years we're now in a global warming period despite tremendous reductions in airborne pollutants.
I don't consider myself one of the smartest people on earth but I watch what the "experts" do and I see Al Gore jet setting across the globe getting this award and that award and he could be the perfect person to show how satellite technology can negate transcontinental flight and yet he doesn't. He also manages to heat four and cool four homes. So just how real is it?
Is global warming yet another Y2K, alar, or daycare abuse, scare to give the media something to bait the public? Just call me skeptical.
You see once again, I've got all these questions (and you can read all of them in my earlier posts) and yet I'm just ridiculed as "hilariously misguided" like some kind of doofus instead of engaging in the debate. Well why the hell doesn't a liberal answer these questions? or maybe they can't.
So here's the deal, all comments on this blog, except for spam get posted. My request is that all comments either bring some element of wit or something new to the debate.
First, I grew up as a lower middle class youth in central Ohio. My Father, a former Teamster, was and still is the hardest working guy I know. I witnessed him doing paint jobs with a broken neck while our family was on food stamps so I know what hard times and work ethic are.
I always had it that rich guys were out to hold the poor working guy down. My friends are always surprised when I tell them I voted for Jesse Jackson, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Howard Metzenbaum and worked briefly on Jerry Springer's gubernatorial campaign.
But after I reached adulthood and a level of maturity I started to question the conventional wisdom of certain aspects of life, namely, under who or what moral authority is it OK to take someone's money and give it to someone else; regardless of the benevolent purpose? I also started to hang out with rich people and you know what, they don't have time to hold down poor people..... they are too busy working.
Well Gordon, it's a democracy, it's the consensus of the public to take wealth and use it for benevolent purposes. Is that right. Then please invite me to your house some night and me, Tony, Sal, and Fredo will take a vote on whether or not you should deed your home over to us so we can make sure we provide for some construction workers' pensions. My guess is that you'll decline.
In my profession, I am bombarded with clients, middle class schleps just trying to make it in life, crushed with back tax debt. I want any liberal out there to tell me what's fair to those people and where do they come up that number.
Yeah, but Gordon, we vote to put leaders with wisdom to take and allocate those funds. Rightttt! All those clowns in Congress are full of collective wisdom. Like Sheila Jackson-Lee's quest to make sure African American's have hurricane's named after them or maybe the wisdom of Ted Steven's bridge to nowhere when the money could be spent more wisely, like say, schools.
Therefore, I ultimately came to the conclusion that government cannot do something for someone without causing harm to someone else. You want to know how SUV's came into existence... look no further than CAFE standards that forced automakers to build more efficient vehicles, notice how we no longer have station wagons.
From a social perspective, I then started to question the theory (note, theory, not scientific law) of evolution and I've never had anyone answer this question..... Before there was anything in the universe, there was nothing, who or what happened to create something from nothing? In addition, I have yet to hear of a scientist that could take a combination of dirt, heat, air and water and make living organism out of it. If you are a believer in the big bang and a primordial soup, how did living organisms just pop up out of it. You see, it's a theory, not law. To be law, one has to be able to repeat the experiments and predict the results before they occur. That has never occurred with evolution.
I do believe in micro evolution; the process where species change as a result of changes in environments. But there is no evidence of macro evolution; the process whereby new species are created out other species' gene mutation(s). I'm sure everyone has heard of the "missing link" but no one really understands what that means. It appears, that from the beginnings of human life we cannot find a link to other animal species. If we are so close to the chimp family (or any species for that matter), why haven't they managed to find a way to build skyscrapers or airplanes after all these eons of evolution. Heck for that matter, no other species has found a way to be a Congressman, the rock bottom of basic human intelligence.
Humans have all this technology to clone yet no one, to date, has ever been able to mutate a gene from a pig and make it anything other than a pig. In addition, if one were to believe that all life began out of one primordial soup it would make sense to me that there would be a common DNA strand among all humans, crocodiles, whales, trees, tulips. To my knowledge, that link does not exist.
Maybe the most influential turning of my social outlook was the behavior of liberals themselves. In college I was always struck as to why the champions of free speech were always shouting down or ridiculing conservative thought in a way that those thoughts could not be heard. What were they afraid of? I was shouted down and ridiculed myself by a professor even though I was a card carrying liberal (see my post on Pygmalian effect) simply for questioning the conventional wisdom.
As far a being Bush's towel boy. Far from it. I'm really not a big Bush fan because he's a big government conservative. At the same time, I also feel obligated to defend his position on the war because, frankly, there are lot's of people taking pot shots at him but no one has offered a solution. Bush lied! is not a solution to the war as it stands today and if you are one of those people firing out that answer what is you opinion of the link on the video I posted below where everyone prior to 9/11 assumed that Saddam had the WMD capability, including the liberals GOD, Bill Clinton.
Finally this is the thing I've always noticed about liberals, they are the first to have compassion as long as they don't have to get their hands dirty. When it comes to actually doing something you'll find that it's God fearing conservatives doing the heavy lifting. I didn't hear of the giant pack of atheists heading down to Katrina to take care of people down there. There were plenty of them on TV asking why the government wasn't doing something.
I did see Matthew 25 ministries down there. You see, like most Christians, I believe that God commands us to be charitable, individually. Jesus never said one word about the government doing anything in the Gospels but he did call each of us out individually to help the "least of us".
I can be very compassionate about every problem in the world as long as you pay for it but is that really compassion?
So for the person who wants to call me out and ridicule me (anonymously, of course) what solutions do you offer or is it just your deal to sit back and take shots while everyone else carries the bucket?