Jesus Christ: Victim of Stolen Identity! > The Good News: March/April 2010
Posted using ShareThis
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Frivolous Lawsuits (ie Tort Reform)
The more I ponder President Obama's words at yesterday's Health Care Summit regarding frivolous lawsuit legislation being handed over to the states, the more it makes less sense to me.
Truth be told, zero sense.
Especially if one of the driving forces behind effective national healthcare reform is to lower costs to Main Street USA.
The insurance business is one of the riskiest businesses around.
Think about it. A company takes what is, in reality, a small amount of money from each of many people and ends up paying out money to cover whatever is insured.
In the health field, that particular cost is incredibly compounded by frivolous lawsuits and tort awards that are way out of line.
In order to protect themselves, and stay in business, insurance companies charge higher premiums.
There are major flaws with trying to pawn this area off to the states.
In the first place, consider the fact that not every state may enact any legislation at all. And, because it is being left up to the states, the laws themselves will vary (probably greatly) and provide different levels of protection.
Unless, of course, it is mandated that all states enact legislation. And, if that ends up being the case, why not do it at the national level?
Possibly the biggest factor, however, is that if a plaintiff does not like the award received in their judgment, even if it was at the uppermost limit a state allowed, it would be appealed. First to the state Supreme Court and, ultimately, to the US Supreme Court, where a decision would be made.
And that decision would affect all states.
Thus, all that would be accomplished by pushing this particular area of responsibility and legislation to the states is clogging the courts with appeals that eventually end up in our highest court in the land for a decision.
As a note, that would, of course, be after each state spent countless hours, days, weeks - i.e., taxpayer dollars - in order to craft and pass legislation. Yet, another cost for Main Street USA to carry.
Therefore, all of this means, in the end, that there would be more burdensome costs for the good ole middle class. (And this is a hidden cost, not covered in either the House or Senate healthcare reform legislation.)
Another item to consider is that many elected (and appointed) representatives on Capitol Hill totally vilify the insurance companies as greedy, making too much money off of the middle class, etc., etc.
Think about this for a minute...how much money does an attorney make who wins a frivolous lawsuit or a suit that awards monetary damages in the hundreds of millions to someone?
A bundle, to be sure.
As an example, perhaps the attorney is working on a 30 or 40 percent retainer and the award comes in at $100 million. The plaintiff gets $60 or $70 million and the attorney walks away with a cool $30 or $40 million.
The lawyer will defend this and speak of all the time and costs involved that he/she must pay out of their portion of the settlement. But how many of those attorneys have to worry about health insurance, making their mortgage payment, putting food on the table? How many of them live in million-dollar-plus homes and drive cars that the vast majority of Main Street USA can only dream about?
It is still this Main Streeter's opinion that this issue is being relegated to the states because attorneys and law firms are some of the biggest contributors to campaigns and spend millions of dollars lobbying.
Thus, by not tackling Tort Reform at the Federal level our elected public servants are irresponsible in this area.
America does not need bigger, expanding government. America needs fair and equitable government representing the best interests of the People.
For Healthcare Reform, that starts with Tort Reform and putting an end to frivolous lawsuits and outlandish settlements at the Federal, not State, level. And not attempting to rid the country of insurance companies so that we end up with socialized medicine.
If that happens, what is next? Uncle Sam's Gas Stations?
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Truth be told, zero sense.
Especially if one of the driving forces behind effective national healthcare reform is to lower costs to Main Street USA.
The insurance business is one of the riskiest businesses around.
Think about it. A company takes what is, in reality, a small amount of money from each of many people and ends up paying out money to cover whatever is insured.
In the health field, that particular cost is incredibly compounded by frivolous lawsuits and tort awards that are way out of line.
In order to protect themselves, and stay in business, insurance companies charge higher premiums.
There are major flaws with trying to pawn this area off to the states.
In the first place, consider the fact that not every state may enact any legislation at all. And, because it is being left up to the states, the laws themselves will vary (probably greatly) and provide different levels of protection.
Unless, of course, it is mandated that all states enact legislation. And, if that ends up being the case, why not do it at the national level?
Possibly the biggest factor, however, is that if a plaintiff does not like the award received in their judgment, even if it was at the uppermost limit a state allowed, it would be appealed. First to the state Supreme Court and, ultimately, to the US Supreme Court, where a decision would be made.
And that decision would affect all states.
Thus, all that would be accomplished by pushing this particular area of responsibility and legislation to the states is clogging the courts with appeals that eventually end up in our highest court in the land for a decision.
As a note, that would, of course, be after each state spent countless hours, days, weeks - i.e., taxpayer dollars - in order to craft and pass legislation. Yet, another cost for Main Street USA to carry.
Therefore, all of this means, in the end, that there would be more burdensome costs for the good ole middle class. (And this is a hidden cost, not covered in either the House or Senate healthcare reform legislation.)
Another item to consider is that many elected (and appointed) representatives on Capitol Hill totally vilify the insurance companies as greedy, making too much money off of the middle class, etc., etc.
Think about this for a minute...how much money does an attorney make who wins a frivolous lawsuit or a suit that awards monetary damages in the hundreds of millions to someone?
A bundle, to be sure.
As an example, perhaps the attorney is working on a 30 or 40 percent retainer and the award comes in at $100 million. The plaintiff gets $60 or $70 million and the attorney walks away with a cool $30 or $40 million.
The lawyer will defend this and speak of all the time and costs involved that he/she must pay out of their portion of the settlement. But how many of those attorneys have to worry about health insurance, making their mortgage payment, putting food on the table? How many of them live in million-dollar-plus homes and drive cars that the vast majority of Main Street USA can only dream about?
It is still this Main Streeter's opinion that this issue is being relegated to the states because attorneys and law firms are some of the biggest contributors to campaigns and spend millions of dollars lobbying.
Thus, by not tackling Tort Reform at the Federal level our elected public servants are irresponsible in this area.
America does not need bigger, expanding government. America needs fair and equitable government representing the best interests of the People.
For Healthcare Reform, that starts with Tort Reform and putting an end to frivolous lawsuits and outlandish settlements at the Federal, not State, level. And not attempting to rid the country of insurance companies so that we end up with socialized medicine.
If that happens, what is next? Uncle Sam's Gas Stations?
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Early Health Care Summit Notes
Writing this as the Summit is taking place.
Senator Lamar Alexander brought up the basic Republican platform. Most sounded pretty good. Once again, Tort Reform was on the list.
He quoted many past and current political figures as he presented his case, many of which were very relevant.
Speaker Pelosi pleading her case was interesting.
Yes, Main Street USA wants much of what she mentioned, but not at the cost being proposed.
Yes, Senator Reid, Americans do want healthcare reform, but not the reform that has been passed in the House and the Senate.
Why cannot the Democrats allow Tort Reform in the healthcare package?
In terms of facts that Senator Reid brings up, anyone can bring up a "fact" that supports their cause.
There is a fact that 10 million people who are not covered have decided, themselves, not to purchase it, even though they can.
Why do people sitting on Capitol Hill think they can force people to do something?
And, why is it that they feel that they can then force these people to obtain insurance or be fined?
Reid seemed to start on a bit of an attack mode, and kept it up.
As President Obama brings up issues where Democrats and Republicans agree and disagree it seems as if he would like to work together, but it is ironic that, in a national stage such as this, Democrats do not answer or respond to Tort Reform.
Cost control is definitely a concern as the president brought up in remarks, yet his only response to Tort Reform (ie frivolous lawsuits, etc.) is to have Secretary Sebelius is working on something that allows the states to do that. Why, on Earth, would that be a state matter, when many of the earmarks (to be funded by all of Main Street USA) should be, in this taxpayer's opinion, handled by their own means?
Dr./Senator Coburn was brilliant in his presentation on how to lower healthcare costs 15% on a right now, immediate basis; fraud in medicare and medicaid, extortion on medical malpractice, no new government programs, etc.
This forum seems as if it will, at some point, heat up quite a bit.
Initital thoughts and ideas as to how this is developing.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Senator Lamar Alexander brought up the basic Republican platform. Most sounded pretty good. Once again, Tort Reform was on the list.
He quoted many past and current political figures as he presented his case, many of which were very relevant.
Speaker Pelosi pleading her case was interesting.
Yes, Main Street USA wants much of what she mentioned, but not at the cost being proposed.
Yes, Senator Reid, Americans do want healthcare reform, but not the reform that has been passed in the House and the Senate.
Why cannot the Democrats allow Tort Reform in the healthcare package?
In terms of facts that Senator Reid brings up, anyone can bring up a "fact" that supports their cause.
There is a fact that 10 million people who are not covered have decided, themselves, not to purchase it, even though they can.
Why do people sitting on Capitol Hill think they can force people to do something?
And, why is it that they feel that they can then force these people to obtain insurance or be fined?
Reid seemed to start on a bit of an attack mode, and kept it up.
As President Obama brings up issues where Democrats and Republicans agree and disagree it seems as if he would like to work together, but it is ironic that, in a national stage such as this, Democrats do not answer or respond to Tort Reform.
Cost control is definitely a concern as the president brought up in remarks, yet his only response to Tort Reform (ie frivolous lawsuits, etc.) is to have Secretary Sebelius is working on something that allows the states to do that. Why, on Earth, would that be a state matter, when many of the earmarks (to be funded by all of Main Street USA) should be, in this taxpayer's opinion, handled by their own means?
Dr./Senator Coburn was brilliant in his presentation on how to lower healthcare costs 15% on a right now, immediate basis; fraud in medicare and medicaid, extortion on medical malpractice, no new government programs, etc.
This forum seems as if it will, at some point, heat up quite a bit.
Initital thoughts and ideas as to how this is developing.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Pre-Health Care Summit Arrogance by Dodd
In an Associated Press release regarding today's Health Care Summit being held by President Obama there is a quote from Senate Democrat Chris Dodd (CT) which I found quite offensive.
Not that it was vulgar in the four-letter word way.
Vulgar in Dodd's arrogance.
Dodd said, "We'll have that meeting. But far more important, after that meeting, you can either join us or get out of the way."
Excuse me, did he say, "Join us or get out of the way?"
Interesting terminology from an elected representative of the People.
The People being Main Street USA, of course.
That the People have spoken in opinion poll after opinion poll that they do not need or want a Trillion dollar healthcare overhaul, where some of the provisions do not even kick in for eight long years (after President Obama no longer occupies the WH), where Billions in earmarks were added to achieve votes from within their own party (earmarks that were promised would not be in any legislation), where buying healthcare coverage may be forced on 10 million Americans who may not want it at this point in their lives (or risk being "fined"), and where it does appear that non-citizens may be afforded coverage (ambiguous wording, at best), to name but a few points of contention.
Thus, for senator Chris Dodd to state, "Join us or get out of the way" is arrogance at its best (or worst, actually).
An elected representative of the People speaking in this manner does not deserve to be in public office, does not deserve the perks and benefits he is given (or takes), does not deserve his fabulous healthcare plan nor his retirement benefits.
More to the point, though, as was mentioned earlier, Americans do not want what has been proposed by the House or the Senate.
Yes, we do want and need healthcare reform.
But not at the price that is forecast (and, we all know, our government does not always make its budget projections).
And, not without Tort Reform, first.
In this American's opinion, Dodd simply deserves to be shown the door and asked to leave (without retirement benefits). That kind of arrogance has no place in statesmanship, from a "representative" of the People.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Not that it was vulgar in the four-letter word way.
Vulgar in Dodd's arrogance.
Dodd said, "We'll have that meeting. But far more important, after that meeting, you can either join us or get out of the way."
Excuse me, did he say, "Join us or get out of the way?"
Interesting terminology from an elected representative of the People.
The People being Main Street USA, of course.
That the People have spoken in opinion poll after opinion poll that they do not need or want a Trillion dollar healthcare overhaul, where some of the provisions do not even kick in for eight long years (after President Obama no longer occupies the WH), where Billions in earmarks were added to achieve votes from within their own party (earmarks that were promised would not be in any legislation), where buying healthcare coverage may be forced on 10 million Americans who may not want it at this point in their lives (or risk being "fined"), and where it does appear that non-citizens may be afforded coverage (ambiguous wording, at best), to name but a few points of contention.
Thus, for senator Chris Dodd to state, "Join us or get out of the way" is arrogance at its best (or worst, actually).
An elected representative of the People speaking in this manner does not deserve to be in public office, does not deserve the perks and benefits he is given (or takes), does not deserve his fabulous healthcare plan nor his retirement benefits.
More to the point, though, as was mentioned earlier, Americans do not want what has been proposed by the House or the Senate.
Yes, we do want and need healthcare reform.
But not at the price that is forecast (and, we all know, our government does not always make its budget projections).
And, not without Tort Reform, first.
In this American's opinion, Dodd simply deserves to be shown the door and asked to leave (without retirement benefits). That kind of arrogance has no place in statesmanship, from a "representative" of the People.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
You make me want to be a better man.
I'm presently preaching through the book of Judges on Sunday mornings at Providence Church. Consequently, I've spent more time in Judges the past few months than ever before and I've had to rethink some things.One thing that has become clear to me is a misunderstanding of the role and significance of Deborah in the book of Judges and in the Bible in general.
In Judges 4 & 5 many see Deborah as God's leader appointed over the nation, primarily because there were no men willing to step up.
But, (1) rather than validating the leadership of women, she reveals how bad things are in Israel that the menfolk are such spiritual slackers. In other words, the text is not trying to normalize women in spiritual, military, or national leadership, but is criticizing the state of affairs in Israel.
Couple Deborah's role with that of Jael in Judges 4-5 and you see a woman rallying the men to fight (Deborah) and one getting the glory for killing the enemy leader (Jael), instead of Barak (Judges 4:9).
(2) Deborah is not actually the hero of the stories; Jael is. Jael kills the enemy commander, but she does so using her skills acquired as a housewife. Why doesn't anyone want to emulate she who is "most blessed" among women? (Judges 5:24)
(3) Deborah does not see a lack of leaders and take charge. Deborah is not actually the leader, but God's spokes(wo)man to the leader (i.e., Barak). God uses her, not to lead, but to get the leader to do his job.
"Deborah does not take over when men don't lead. She inspires men to lead. There is a world of difference in those two statements."
- Bob Deffinbaugh
That being said, although Deborah doesn't seem to aspire to leadership in Israel, she is the most spiritual person around. That's why they go to her for a word from God, as His prophetess. She's pretty much the lone spiritual light shining in that darkened land.
In fact, I would submit that God raised up Deborah and Jael to shame Israel and to humiliate Israel's enemies (e.g., Sisera, the enemy commander).
"it was also an act of humiliation for the Jews, for they lived in a male-dominated society that wanted only male leadership. ... For a captain to flee from a battle was embarrassing; for him to be killed while fleeing was humiliating; but to be killed by a woman was the most disgraceful thing of all (9:54)."
- Warren Wiersbe (cf. Is 3:12)
The role of women in Scripture should not be denigrated, but rather applauded, especially the deeds of Deborah and Jael in Judges 4-5. At the same time, we shouldn't make the text say what we want, what it doesn't, in order to make a point of our own.
Click to listen to my sermon on Judges 4, "Girl Power."
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Media & The "News"
One has to wonder at the intentions of the media when a headline such as this appears:
"New senator helps Democrats advance jobs bill"
Such a headline floated across cyberspace from Reuters yesterday evening.
To this Main Streeter, it is just another example of how media try to manipulate truth.
What is true is that Scott Brown, the newly elected Republican Senator from MA, did vote for the jobs bill, proposed and backed, in the main, by Democrats.
What is missing from the headline, one designed to make Senator Brown appear as though he is the lone Republican, is that there were five from the right side who voted for the bill.
Also absent from the headline, there were a couple from the left who voted against the bill.
In the first paragraph of the story it states that Brown "bucked his party." (Let us create a bit of controversy here!)
The article, let alone the first paragraph, does not name the other four Republicans who also "bucked" their party, nor even of the two Dems who, conversely, "bucked" theirs by voting against it.
Why would it be that way?
This example of "news reporting" is an example of sensationalism, media bias, and media trying even harder to push the divide.
All of Main Street USA knows that for major pieces of legislation (in every administration) there is a divide, left vs right. What is not needed by anyone is media sensationalism to try and create a bigger gap.
Maybe Reuters could issue a story showing, for each and every piece of legislation introduced during the past year, how the individual Senators voted so America can see how many of them "buck" their party, based on who introduced the bill in the first place.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
"New senator helps Democrats advance jobs bill"
Such a headline floated across cyberspace from Reuters yesterday evening.
To this Main Streeter, it is just another example of how media try to manipulate truth.
What is true is that Scott Brown, the newly elected Republican Senator from MA, did vote for the jobs bill, proposed and backed, in the main, by Democrats.
What is missing from the headline, one designed to make Senator Brown appear as though he is the lone Republican, is that there were five from the right side who voted for the bill.
Also absent from the headline, there were a couple from the left who voted against the bill.
In the first paragraph of the story it states that Brown "bucked his party." (Let us create a bit of controversy here!)
The article, let alone the first paragraph, does not name the other four Republicans who also "bucked" their party, nor even of the two Dems who, conversely, "bucked" theirs by voting against it.
Why would it be that way?
This example of "news reporting" is an example of sensationalism, media bias, and media trying even harder to push the divide.
All of Main Street USA knows that for major pieces of legislation (in every administration) there is a divide, left vs right. What is not needed by anyone is media sensationalism to try and create a bigger gap.
Maybe Reuters could issue a story showing, for each and every piece of legislation introduced during the past year, how the individual Senators voted so America can see how many of them "buck" their party, based on who introduced the bill in the first place.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Monday, February 22, 2010
Education Re-reform
At first glance a lot of what is proposed by President Obama in his education reform plans looks promising.
Sure, there were a few questions people would ask, such as, if, in order for a state to qualify for federal funding they would have to adopt and certify that they have "college- and career-ready standards in reading and mathematics," how is that defined?
What exactly does "college- and career-ready standards" mean?
Would those be nationally set standards to which all states must adhere?
Perhaps those questions are easy enough to answer.
One thing is certain, our educators must get back to the basics - teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. There are far too many middle and high school students these days reading and performing math far below their grade level in school.
Yes, students must be prepared for the 21st Century. Do not the basics above underscore being able to learn these skills?
Thus, while President Obama is seriously increasing funding for pre-school and early year school children, something effective must be done for current students, those graduating high school in 2011, 2012 and so on.
More importantly, in an article by The Associated Press, there was an interesting point brought up:
"Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Education Reform, a nonprofit think tank, said Obama deserves credit for seeking higher academic standards. But she said his proposal would pay states for proposing programs, not showing success.
" 'The outcome of how well kids do is when we see graduation rates and the careers kids are going into,' Allen said. 'It's not in the input side. It's on the output'."
The point Ms. Allen brings up is something that many people would have missed.
She is totally correct. That states merely propose programs should not be a deciding factor for anything, other than, perhaps, initital federal funding. But the results should be evident almost immediately and, thus, results should be the guiding factor.
One other point to bring up is that, per the AP article, "Obama wants to expand the federal government's role in education, which traditionally is a state and local responsibility. His approach has been to use the federal purse as leverage to encourage states to adopt his ideas."
The federal government is using taxpayer dollars to fund education "which traditionally is a state and local responsibility."
Why cannot the feds simply get agreement on a national standard and let the state and local education agencies perform their job?
We do not need more oversight and regulatory bodies at the federal level, which there would have to be to ensure compliance, especially over the potentially 15,700 school districts that exist in America.
Food for thought.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Sure, there were a few questions people would ask, such as, if, in order for a state to qualify for federal funding they would have to adopt and certify that they have "college- and career-ready standards in reading and mathematics," how is that defined?
What exactly does "college- and career-ready standards" mean?
Would those be nationally set standards to which all states must adhere?
Perhaps those questions are easy enough to answer.
One thing is certain, our educators must get back to the basics - teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. There are far too many middle and high school students these days reading and performing math far below their grade level in school.
Yes, students must be prepared for the 21st Century. Do not the basics above underscore being able to learn these skills?
Thus, while President Obama is seriously increasing funding for pre-school and early year school children, something effective must be done for current students, those graduating high school in 2011, 2012 and so on.
More importantly, in an article by The Associated Press, there was an interesting point brought up:
"Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Education Reform, a nonprofit think tank, said Obama deserves credit for seeking higher academic standards. But she said his proposal would pay states for proposing programs, not showing success.
" 'The outcome of how well kids do is when we see graduation rates and the careers kids are going into,' Allen said. 'It's not in the input side. It's on the output'."
The point Ms. Allen brings up is something that many people would have missed.
She is totally correct. That states merely propose programs should not be a deciding factor for anything, other than, perhaps, initital federal funding. But the results should be evident almost immediately and, thus, results should be the guiding factor.
One other point to bring up is that, per the AP article, "Obama wants to expand the federal government's role in education, which traditionally is a state and local responsibility. His approach has been to use the federal purse as leverage to encourage states to adopt his ideas."
The federal government is using taxpayer dollars to fund education "which traditionally is a state and local responsibility."
Why cannot the feds simply get agreement on a national standard and let the state and local education agencies perform their job?
We do not need more oversight and regulatory bodies at the federal level, which there would have to be to ensure compliance, especially over the potentially 15,700 school districts that exist in America.
Food for thought.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
I don't know what the beef is between you, but you better grill it up and eat it
BBQ RULES (HT Jade)We are about to enter the BBQ season. Therefore, it is important to refresh your memory on the etiquette of this sublime outdoor cooking activity. When a man volunteers to do the BBQ the following chain of events are put into motion:
Routine...
(1) The woman buys the food.
(2) The woman makes the salad, prepares the vegetables, and makes dessert.
(3) The woman prepares the meat for cooking, places it on a tray along with the necessary cooking utensils and sauces, and takes it to the man who is lounging beside the grill - beer in hand.
(4) The woman remains outside the compulsory three meter exclusion zone where the exuberance of testosterone and other manly bonding activities can take place without the interference of the woman.
Here comes the important part:
(5) THE MAN PLACES THE MEAT ON THE GRILL.
More routine...
(6) The woman goes inside to organize the plates and cutlery.
(7) The woman comes out to tell the man that the meat is looking great. He thanks her and asks if she will bring another beer while he flips the meat.
Important again:
(8) THE MAN TAKES THE MEAT OFF THE GRILL AND HANDS IT TO THE WOMAN.
More routine...
(9) The woman prepares the plates, salad, bread, utensils, napkins, sauces, and brings them to the table.
(10) After eating, the woman clears the table and does the dishes.
And most important of all:
(11) Everyone PRAISES the MAN and THANKS HIM for his cooking efforts.
(12) The man asks the woman how she enjoyed 'her night off' and, upon seeing her annoyed reaction, concludes that there's just no pleasing some women!
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Long Ago Words Even More True Today
It offends me when speaking about our Founding Fathers to hear someone say, "But that was over two centuries ago, they had no idea what the world would become."
Is that so true?
One of the most insightful of our early visionaries of freedom was Thomas Jefferson.
Below are a few quotes from Jefferson that are even more appropriate to today's world than they were in his own time (all emphasis added):
"I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes."
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
It is rather remarkable that words from a man more than 200 years ago could resonate so loudly and so true today.
The Founding Fathers did know exactly of what they spoke.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Is that so true?
One of the most insightful of our early visionaries of freedom was Thomas Jefferson.
Below are a few quotes from Jefferson that are even more appropriate to today's world than they were in his own time (all emphasis added):
"I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes."
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
It is rather remarkable that words from a man more than 200 years ago could resonate so loudly and so true today.
The Founding Fathers did know exactly of what they spoke.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Friday, February 19, 2010
And What Else Don't We Know?
This taxpayer is not particularly a subscriber to the conspiracy theories that abound.
However, when one reads a news article such as the below from the Associated Press, it really makes one pause.
"PHILADELPHIA – A federal lawsuit accuses a suburban Philadelphia school district of spying on students at home through school-issued laptop webcams.
"The suit says Lower Merion School District officials can activate the webcams remotely without students' knowledge. The lawsuit alleges the cameras captured images of Harriton High School students and their families as they undressed and in other compromising situations.
"Families learned of the alleged webcam images when an assistant principal spoke to a student about inappropriate behavior at home.
"The school district says it has deactivated a security feature intended to track lost or stolen laptops.
"The district says the tracking feature would not be reactivated without 'written notification to all students and families'."
Wait one minute. No, two minutes.
Supposedly there was a security feature in the laptop designed to track it.
How is it that this "security feature" was a webcam? It would seem as if a device, more like LoJack (which is made for laptops), would "track" a lost or stolen laptop to a location.
Perhaps it was someone's bright idea that installing the webcam would then also provide the identity of the thief.
But, more importantly, why would an assistant principal even be involved with what he/she considered inappropriate behavior by a student, in the student's home?
That certainly oversteps any and all authority that school district personnel have with students. (What does the U.S. Department of Education have to say about this district's antics?)
This action tramples all over our Bill of Rights.
Thankfully, for all the families in Lower Merion, PA, the assistant principal acted inappropriately and confronted the student - and that the student had the presence of mind to report such a gross invasion of privacy.
And, just as astonishing, the district says that the tracking feature "would not be reactivated without 'written notification to all students and families'."
Written notification?
What gives the school district the right to have a webcam in a taxpayer's home? There is no issue with something like LoJack, but this citizen has grave concerns about a school district even having the idea that it is okay to place a webcam in someone's home.
From there, the leap begins.
Are the urban legends true that the webcam in my laptop is monitored by someone, somewhere without my knowledge, let alone consent? That the reason cable/FIOS boxes are bigger (when almost all electronic equipment has become smaller) is that they are hiding cameras that capture my every move?
When something as atrocious as this story are proven to be real, it does make one wonder.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
However, when one reads a news article such as the below from the Associated Press, it really makes one pause.
"PHILADELPHIA – A federal lawsuit accuses a suburban Philadelphia school district of spying on students at home through school-issued laptop webcams.
"The suit says Lower Merion School District officials can activate the webcams remotely without students' knowledge. The lawsuit alleges the cameras captured images of Harriton High School students and their families as they undressed and in other compromising situations.
"Families learned of the alleged webcam images when an assistant principal spoke to a student about inappropriate behavior at home.
"The school district says it has deactivated a security feature intended to track lost or stolen laptops.
"The district says the tracking feature would not be reactivated without 'written notification to all students and families'."
Wait one minute. No, two minutes.
Supposedly there was a security feature in the laptop designed to track it.
How is it that this "security feature" was a webcam? It would seem as if a device, more like LoJack (which is made for laptops), would "track" a lost or stolen laptop to a location.
Perhaps it was someone's bright idea that installing the webcam would then also provide the identity of the thief.
But, more importantly, why would an assistant principal even be involved with what he/she considered inappropriate behavior by a student, in the student's home?
That certainly oversteps any and all authority that school district personnel have with students. (What does the U.S. Department of Education have to say about this district's antics?)
This action tramples all over our Bill of Rights.
Thankfully, for all the families in Lower Merion, PA, the assistant principal acted inappropriately and confronted the student - and that the student had the presence of mind to report such a gross invasion of privacy.
And, just as astonishing, the district says that the tracking feature "would not be reactivated without 'written notification to all students and families'."
Written notification?
What gives the school district the right to have a webcam in a taxpayer's home? There is no issue with something like LoJack, but this citizen has grave concerns about a school district even having the idea that it is okay to place a webcam in someone's home.
From there, the leap begins.
Are the urban legends true that the webcam in my laptop is monitored by someone, somewhere without my knowledge, let alone consent? That the reason cable/FIOS boxes are bigger (when almost all electronic equipment has become smaller) is that they are hiding cameras that capture my every move?
When something as atrocious as this story are proven to be real, it does make one wonder.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Americans Are Dissatisfied With Government
According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll surveying 1,004 randomly selected citizens on February 11, 2010, "two-thirds of Americans are either dissatisfied or downright angry about the way the federal government is working."
The poll further revealed, per the article appearing in the Washington Post, that, "on average, the public estimates that 53 cents of every tax dollar they send to Washington is wasted."
The level of dissatisfaction by Main Street USA with our government (and, hence, the elected officials "leading" us) is at its highest level in 14 years.
Of significant note is that eight in 10 people who identify themselves as conservative Republicans hold negative views about the way our government is currently working, while just shy of six in 10 (59%) of the people who called themselves liberal Democrats responded they were "enthusiastic or satisfied about the role government was playing."
In order to have the total poll results at 67% negative that leaves the middle ground, the moderate Democrats, Republicans and Independents, as the group of citizens who tipped, and kept, the dissatisfied balance at a "super-majority-plus."
As stated earlier, it would be nice if our elected officials, from President Obama, to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, as well as each and every member of Congress, listened to what America has to say.
Main Street USA does not want, or need, a super-size government that regulates every little thing or decides that a government-run activity can do something better than the private sector.
The most recent examples are state-run pension plans, now one trillion dollars in debt. And, that is not from the 2008 economic collapse.
The super-majority-plus of taxpayers does not desire a government that does not spend within its budget with no thought of the future consequences and has, in reality, absolutely no accountability.
That an elected representative may get voted out of office due to voters being upset with their actions is not really accountability. Afterall, that deposed member of Congress will still reap the rewards of handsome retirement pay and benefits (courtesy of Main Street USA).
A person who uses credit to the maximum, and more, pays the piper in the end, either in the form of excessively high interest rates with loans and cards never being paid in full, or ends up having to file bankruptcy.
And, based on months of polling American citizens, it is not a desire that the federal government be our healthcare provider. Period.
So, why is Washington trying to ram this down our throats?
Whose agenda is it that this occur?
The US Government, in the immortal words of President Abraham Lincoln, is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people.
Does today's leadership, despite Main Street USA flatly stating that we do not want government-run healthcare, feel that American Citizens do not know what is in our own best interest? That only those who sit on Capitol Hill know what is good and best for its voting public (i.e., taxpayers)?
Wake Up Everybody!
The people have spoken.
Many times.
Start listening to your constituency.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
The poll further revealed, per the article appearing in the Washington Post, that, "on average, the public estimates that 53 cents of every tax dollar they send to Washington is wasted."
The level of dissatisfaction by Main Street USA with our government (and, hence, the elected officials "leading" us) is at its highest level in 14 years.
Of significant note is that eight in 10 people who identify themselves as conservative Republicans hold negative views about the way our government is currently working, while just shy of six in 10 (59%) of the people who called themselves liberal Democrats responded they were "enthusiastic or satisfied about the role government was playing."
In order to have the total poll results at 67% negative that leaves the middle ground, the moderate Democrats, Republicans and Independents, as the group of citizens who tipped, and kept, the dissatisfied balance at a "super-majority-plus."
As stated earlier, it would be nice if our elected officials, from President Obama, to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, as well as each and every member of Congress, listened to what America has to say.
Main Street USA does not want, or need, a super-size government that regulates every little thing or decides that a government-run activity can do something better than the private sector.
The most recent examples are state-run pension plans, now one trillion dollars in debt. And, that is not from the 2008 economic collapse.
The super-majority-plus of taxpayers does not desire a government that does not spend within its budget with no thought of the future consequences and has, in reality, absolutely no accountability.
That an elected representative may get voted out of office due to voters being upset with their actions is not really accountability. Afterall, that deposed member of Congress will still reap the rewards of handsome retirement pay and benefits (courtesy of Main Street USA).
A person who uses credit to the maximum, and more, pays the piper in the end, either in the form of excessively high interest rates with loans and cards never being paid in full, or ends up having to file bankruptcy.
And, based on months of polling American citizens, it is not a desire that the federal government be our healthcare provider. Period.
So, why is Washington trying to ram this down our throats?
Whose agenda is it that this occur?
The US Government, in the immortal words of President Abraham Lincoln, is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people.
Does today's leadership, despite Main Street USA flatly stating that we do not want government-run healthcare, feel that American Citizens do not know what is in our own best interest? That only those who sit on Capitol Hill know what is good and best for its voting public (i.e., taxpayers)?
Wake Up Everybody!
The people have spoken.
Many times.
Start listening to your constituency.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Thursday, February 18, 2010
State Pension Plan Fallout
As reported by the Associated Press, the Pew Center on the States released a report citing that there is at least a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR deficit in state pension plans.
The article by AP begins by stating, "States may be forced to reduce benefits, raise taxes or slash government services..." due to the billion dollar gap.
More than likely, it will be a combination of all three.
The study, unfortunately, does not include any county, city or municipal pension programs.
The most troublesome news about the study, however, is that AP says the report does not necessarily include pension plan losses from the 2008 economic downfall.
Thus, the trillion dollar gap is, in all reality, much more.
According to the AP article, "The report said policy makers have exacerbated the problem by expanding benefits, relying on overly optimistic assumptions about investment returns and failing to sufficiently fund the programs."
That phrase "relying on overly optimistic assumptions about investment returns" is scary.
This sort of financial mis-management, regardless of the 2008 financial market crash (as the Pew study does not take ramifications of that into account), heightens concern for Main Street USA that the public sector (i.e., the federal government) should take over healthcare or any other services they may be considering, for that matter.
The phrase "expanding benefits" is also worrisome. Why is it that public sector executives feel that they have the right to expand benefits if money is not there to cover the obligation?
Does the thought process during public sector budget meetings run along the lines of, "Oh, not to worry, we can always raise taxes, or charge new fees for services to make up for that gap."
And then to top it off, "failing to sufficiently fund the programs" simply means that, come budget time, those in charge decided that certain budget items would be covered with money that is currently available while leaving the pension plan with less money than called for, thus widening the deficit even more.
That sort of "planning" is simply policy-makers not taking any responsibility for actions taken, but, rather, pushing the problem off to the next generation.
That is criminal.
As more and more services are performed by the public sector, which seems to have no real rules against operating with massive debt obligations or not meeting financial projections, the burden will ultimately fall on the US taxpayer.
And, while the White House Administration and Congress continue to implement, or strongly suggest the need for, more government oversight in and on the private sector, who is it that is running oversight on their own financial misdeeds?
Food for thought.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
The article by AP begins by stating, "States may be forced to reduce benefits, raise taxes or slash government services..." due to the billion dollar gap.
More than likely, it will be a combination of all three.
The study, unfortunately, does not include any county, city or municipal pension programs.
The most troublesome news about the study, however, is that AP says the report does not necessarily include pension plan losses from the 2008 economic downfall.
Thus, the trillion dollar gap is, in all reality, much more.
According to the AP article, "The report said policy makers have exacerbated the problem by expanding benefits, relying on overly optimistic assumptions about investment returns and failing to sufficiently fund the programs."
That phrase "relying on overly optimistic assumptions about investment returns" is scary.
This sort of financial mis-management, regardless of the 2008 financial market crash (as the Pew study does not take ramifications of that into account), heightens concern for Main Street USA that the public sector (i.e., the federal government) should take over healthcare or any other services they may be considering, for that matter.
The phrase "expanding benefits" is also worrisome. Why is it that public sector executives feel that they have the right to expand benefits if money is not there to cover the obligation?
Does the thought process during public sector budget meetings run along the lines of, "Oh, not to worry, we can always raise taxes, or charge new fees for services to make up for that gap."
And then to top it off, "failing to sufficiently fund the programs" simply means that, come budget time, those in charge decided that certain budget items would be covered with money that is currently available while leaving the pension plan with less money than called for, thus widening the deficit even more.
That sort of "planning" is simply policy-makers not taking any responsibility for actions taken, but, rather, pushing the problem off to the next generation.
That is criminal.
As more and more services are performed by the public sector, which seems to have no real rules against operating with massive debt obligations or not meeting financial projections, the burden will ultimately fall on the US taxpayer.
And, while the White House Administration and Congress continue to implement, or strongly suggest the need for, more government oversight in and on the private sector, who is it that is running oversight on their own financial misdeeds?
Food for thought.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Time for Our Elected Representatives to Listen
According to a report by the Associated Press, earlier this month there was a New York Times/CBS poll regarding how Main Street USA views the size of government.
Not surprizingly, the poll showed that 56 percent of the Americans surveyed said that they prefer "a smaller government providing fewer services," compared to 34 percent who are in favor of "a bigger government providing more services."
Considering that, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers and framed in our country's most valuable documents, our government is doing a whole lot more than it should be doing.
And, in some cases, doing it very badly.
According to James Madison, and the very laws and spirit underlying all of our guiding principles, "Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one."
If that is the case, why are not our elected officials listening to what Main Street USA has to say?
It has to do with job security.
As newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh stated in a recent interview, our politicians are in full-time campaign mode, i.e., "permanent campaigning."
And, much of the time, that operating basis by those who "serve" Main Street USA includes giving away the farm in order to buy votes and stay in their comfortable DC offices, with a substantial paycheck, job perks the likes of which we will never experience, a great healthcare and insurance package and a fabulous retirement plan.
All of which we, the US taxpayers (i.e., voters), underwrite.
We have spoken.
We continue to speak.
So, please, listen up, WH Administration and Congress, the people desire a smaller government, not a larger, more-controlling one.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Not surprizingly, the poll showed that 56 percent of the Americans surveyed said that they prefer "a smaller government providing fewer services," compared to 34 percent who are in favor of "a bigger government providing more services."
Considering that, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers and framed in our country's most valuable documents, our government is doing a whole lot more than it should be doing.
And, in some cases, doing it very badly.
According to James Madison, and the very laws and spirit underlying all of our guiding principles, "Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one."
If that is the case, why are not our elected officials listening to what Main Street USA has to say?
It has to do with job security.
As newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh stated in a recent interview, our politicians are in full-time campaign mode, i.e., "permanent campaigning."
And, much of the time, that operating basis by those who "serve" Main Street USA includes giving away the farm in order to buy votes and stay in their comfortable DC offices, with a substantial paycheck, job perks the likes of which we will never experience, a great healthcare and insurance package and a fabulous retirement plan.
All of which we, the US taxpayers (i.e., voters), underwrite.
We have spoken.
We continue to speak.
So, please, listen up, WH Administration and Congress, the people desire a smaller government, not a larger, more-controlling one.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
I just can't help thinking that somewhere in the universe there must be something better than man.
A passage of Scripture often referred to in order to remind us of our inability to understand the complexities of God and His plans, which we don't understand is Isaiah 55:8-9.For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (ESV)
I almost referred to it in Sunday's sermon at Providence Church when speaking of how we often disagree with how God runs His universe. However, I spent a significant amount of time in the chapter and studying the context of these verses.
While I still believe the fault lies with us, and not God, when His ways of doing things don't measure up to ours, I don't think that's a valid application of Isaiah 55:8-9.
Let me give the verses with the preceding context:
6 “Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near;
7 let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts. (ESV)
(emphasis mine)
The emphasis is not on God's transcendence and imperceptibility because of our small brains, but rather on His prescribed patterns of behavior and righteous thinking which are in stark contrast to the ways of wicked, depraved humans and the devious thinking that leads to such devious behavior.
Rather than a self-revelatory description of God's incomprehensibility, it's an admonition to repentance, to changing thoughts and actions to bring them into conformity with those of a holy God.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
For The Good of Main Street USA
Something you do not see every day, or shall we say, any day...
The following is an excerpt from the Yahoo! newsroom:
"In an interview on MSNBC this morning, newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh declared the American political system "dysfunctional," riddled with "brain-dead partisanship" and permanent campaigning. Flatly denying any possibility that he'd seek the presidency or any other higher office, Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a "shock" to Congress by voting incumbents out in mass and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups."
Dysfunctional.
Brain-dead partisanship.
Permanent campaigning.
Voting incumbents out in mass.
Governing for the good of the people (that would be Main Street USA).
He has hit the nail on the head!
What happened to the Statesman (i.e., a person who exhibits great wisdom and ability in directing the affairs of a government or in dealing with important public issues)?
Why do we have so many Politicians (i.e., a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles)?
Former President John F. Kennedy summed the above up in a short quote: "Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be president, but they don't want them to become politicians in the process."
A LOT of food for thought.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
The following is an excerpt from the Yahoo! newsroom:
"In an interview on MSNBC this morning, newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh declared the American political system "dysfunctional," riddled with "brain-dead partisanship" and permanent campaigning. Flatly denying any possibility that he'd seek the presidency or any other higher office, Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a "shock" to Congress by voting incumbents out in mass and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups."
Dysfunctional.
Brain-dead partisanship.
Permanent campaigning.
Voting incumbents out in mass.
Governing for the good of the people (that would be Main Street USA).
He has hit the nail on the head!
What happened to the Statesman (i.e., a person who exhibits great wisdom and ability in directing the affairs of a government or in dealing with important public issues)?
Why do we have so many Politicians (i.e., a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles)?
Former President John F. Kennedy summed the above up in a short quote: "Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be president, but they don't want them to become politicians in the process."
A LOT of food for thought.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Monday, February 15, 2010
Tough guys don't do math. Tough guys fry chicken for a living.
After being interviewed by the school administration, the prospective teacher said:Let me see if I've got this right.
You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.
You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self esteem and personal pride.
You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, and how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, and apply for a job.
You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams.
You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English, Spanish or any other language, by letter, telephone, email, newsletter, and report card.
You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletin board, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps.
You want me to do all this and then you tell me . . . I CAN'T PRAY?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Short and Sweet from James Madison
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
"Equal laws protecting equal rights are the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country."
"Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one."
"The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
"It is the reason alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government."
"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
Over For Now.
Main Street One
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
"Equal laws protecting equal rights are the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country."
"Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one."
"The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
"It is the reason alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government."
"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Patrick Henry on Democracy & Individual Rights
Patrick Henry did not support the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
The reason was simple; the document did not protect the citizen and gave too much power to centralized government.
The following excerpt is from his speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention held on June 5, 1788, whereby Founding Father, Patrick Henry, speaks of democracy:
"What, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the bill of rights of Virginia which relates to this: 3d clause: — that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
"This, sir, is the language of democracy — that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority!" (He was speaking of the language regarding amendments whereby, in reality, ten or twenty percent of the population could effectively stop any amendement to the Constitution. Thus "We the people..." would have become very meaningless without protection of the rights espoused in the Declaration of Independence.)
While Patrick Henry failed to convince the Virginia convention to defeat ratification, his pursuit of individual liberty was relentless and led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
We need people such as Patrick Henry in government today fighting for Main Street USA. For true democracy. For smaller, less controlling government. For speaking up, against any odds, for the rights of each individual American.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
The reason was simple; the document did not protect the citizen and gave too much power to centralized government.
The following excerpt is from his speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention held on June 5, 1788, whereby Founding Father, Patrick Henry, speaks of democracy:
"What, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the bill of rights of Virginia which relates to this: 3d clause: — that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
"This, sir, is the language of democracy — that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority!" (He was speaking of the language regarding amendments whereby, in reality, ten or twenty percent of the population could effectively stop any amendement to the Constitution. Thus "We the people..." would have become very meaningless without protection of the rights espoused in the Declaration of Independence.)
While Patrick Henry failed to convince the Virginia convention to defeat ratification, his pursuit of individual liberty was relentless and led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
We need people such as Patrick Henry in government today fighting for Main Street USA. For true democracy. For smaller, less controlling government. For speaking up, against any odds, for the rights of each individual American.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Monday, February 8, 2010
It seems that whenever you ask me a question, you already have the answer.
For your Monday, some good bull I received from Tim "Oilcan" Murray in an email entitled, "Rhetoric Fun for Gunny." He was right; this is right in my rhetorical wheelhouse.1. Is it good if a vacuum really sucks?
2. Why is the third hand on the watch called the second hand?
3. If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?
4. If Webster wrote the first dictionary, where did he find the words?
5. Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?
6. Why does "slow down" and "slow up" mean the same thing?
7. Why does "fat chance" and "slim chance" mean the same thing?
8. Why do "tug" boats push their barges?
9. Why do we sing "Take me out to the ball game" when we are already there?
10. Why are they called " stands" when they are made for sitting?
11. Why is it called "after dark" when it really is "after light"?
12. Doesn't "expecting the unexpected" make the unexpected expected?
13. Why are a "wise man" and a "wise guy" opposites?
14. Why do "overlook" and "oversee" mean opposite things?
15. Why is "phonics" not spelled the way it sounds?
16. If work is so terrific, why do they have to pay you to do it?
17. If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
18. If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
19. If you are cross-eyed and have dyslexia, can you read all right?
20. Why is bra singular and panties plural?
21. Why do you press harder on the buttons of a remote control when you know the batteries are dead?
22 Why do we put suits in garment bags and garments in a suitcase?
23. How come abbreviated is such a long word?
24. Why do we wash bath towels? Aren't we clean when we use them?
25. Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
26. Why do they call it a TV set when you only have one?
27. Christmas - What other time of the year do you sit in front of a dead tree and eat candy out of your socks?
28. Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?
29. If pro and con are opposites, wouldn't the opposite of progress be congress?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
What I've learned from you is that really one of the most important things in life is showing up. I'm blown away by your ability to show up ...
One of the Christianese words that I really don't like is the verb "to minister." I think it's become so cliche' and a word used instead of "serve" because it seems more holy. You know, "I really ministered to her today" or "Come be ministered unto by brother Some Such."That being said, I realize it's likely here to stay. But, I wonder what constitutes a "ministry" in church. There seems to be the teaching ministry and the music ministry and nursery ministry and youth ministry and children's ministry and deacon ministry, etc.
I'd like to contend for another ministry, the ministry of showing up.
A temptation common to those involved in those various other ministries is to become bitter (or even envious) of those who "just" show up. In my church years, I've even heard sentiment that the church would be better off without those who just show up, as though they're dead weight.
Not only do I disagree, but I appreciate those with the ministry of showing up ... and if you're involved in one of those other ministries, you probably do also.
You know what a whippin' it is to prepare a sermon or a Sunday school lesson and "nobody" shows up. You know how frustrating it can be to prepare a church special event and have a poor turn out, because you weren't ministered to by the show uppers.
Don't get me wrong, the goal is to move those with the ministry of showing up to add other ministries to their church plates, but the church needs people to serve and they serve ... excuse me ... they minister to us when they do indeed show up.
To those of you who think whether or not you show up at church is irrelevant, I heartily disagree. You are needed, even if you have no ministry outside of showing up. In short, we are counting on you to minister to us by your presence, which is an encouragement to those ministers who are ministering in those other ministry areas.
And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
~ Hebrews 10:24-25, ESV
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Media Spins
Whenever I read an article that speaks of the unanimous (or near unanimous) Republican opposition to something that is proposed by President Obama I have to chuckle.
Why?
Because the media never mentions the unanimous (or near unanimous) Democrat support for the proposal.
And, to me, that is humorous.
Let's face it, when you are talking about one hundred or several hundred people discussing hot issues, it is very rare that there is 100% consensus on a given project, especially when one is dealing with a mix of conservatives, moderates and liberals.
Add to that the fact that the proposals are dealing with the economy, healthcare, and other major factors concerning Main Street USA and it is virtually guaranteed that there will be division amongst such a large group. Especially when the items under consideration are viewed as mostly liberal.
Do not forget that there was a group of moderate House Democrats who were not in favor of healthcare until earmarks were added (or whatever other secret deals transpired) and that the Senate only achieved their needed 60 votes with huge pork additions for a couple of holdout Democrats.
Thus, my chuckles whenever I see the phrase "near unanimous opposition" being voiced by the other party. Let us not forget the near unanimous support from the ruling party.
A final point...those that point the finger at the opposition are thus declaring that everything being proposed is the greatest good for America.
And, that may not always be the case.
Over For now.
Main Street One
Why?
Because the media never mentions the unanimous (or near unanimous) Democrat support for the proposal.
And, to me, that is humorous.
Let's face it, when you are talking about one hundred or several hundred people discussing hot issues, it is very rare that there is 100% consensus on a given project, especially when one is dealing with a mix of conservatives, moderates and liberals.
Add to that the fact that the proposals are dealing with the economy, healthcare, and other major factors concerning Main Street USA and it is virtually guaranteed that there will be division amongst such a large group. Especially when the items under consideration are viewed as mostly liberal.
Do not forget that there was a group of moderate House Democrats who were not in favor of healthcare until earmarks were added (or whatever other secret deals transpired) and that the Senate only achieved their needed 60 votes with huge pork additions for a couple of holdout Democrats.
Thus, my chuckles whenever I see the phrase "near unanimous opposition" being voiced by the other party. Let us not forget the near unanimous support from the ruling party.
A final point...those that point the finger at the opposition are thus declaring that everything being proposed is the greatest good for America.
And, that may not always be the case.
Over For now.
Main Street One
Monday, February 1, 2010
What's Another Trillion-Plus ? ? ?
The $3.8 Trillion Budget being presented to Congress calls for a deficit of $1.6 Trillion.
In other words, 42% of what is proposed to be spent is NOT covered by off-setting income.
And, according to the Associated Press, "...administration officials argued that Obama inherited a deficit from President George W. Bush's Republican administration that was already topping $1 trillion when he took office, and given the severity of the downturn, the president had to spend billions of dollars stabilizing the financial system and jump-start growth."
It is true to President Obama did inherit a deficit topping a Trillion Dollars (remember, that is One Million times One Million), but that is not a reason to triple that amount in two years (i.e., a $1.4 Trillion gap this year and $1.6 Trillion in the coming year).
If anything, the inherited deficit should be a call to arms to get spending under control.
In all areas.
How will any future Main Street USA generation be able to cope with such massive debt?
Over For Now.
Main Street One
In other words, 42% of what is proposed to be spent is NOT covered by off-setting income.
And, according to the Associated Press, "...administration officials argued that Obama inherited a deficit from President George W. Bush's Republican administration that was already topping $1 trillion when he took office, and given the severity of the downturn, the president had to spend billions of dollars stabilizing the financial system and jump-start growth."
It is true to President Obama did inherit a deficit topping a Trillion Dollars (remember, that is One Million times One Million), but that is not a reason to triple that amount in two years (i.e., a $1.4 Trillion gap this year and $1.6 Trillion in the coming year).
If anything, the inherited deficit should be a call to arms to get spending under control.
In all areas.
How will any future Main Street USA generation be able to cope with such massive debt?
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)