Maurice Enchel

“… ‘til there are no poor no mo’….”

2010-04-29T10:41:00.001-07:00

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531278

Maurice,

Interesting article. I was shocked when I heard the news a while back

that more than 50% of Americans don't pay taxes. That just isn't fair.

While I'm all for making sure the rich don't take advantage of the poor,

I'm also against the poor taking advantage of the rich.

With the EIC, the child tax credit, the additional child tax credit, and

all the other tax credits for various financial decisions (like buying

an alternate fuel vehicle), we have seriously eroded our tax base. I

think we should scrap the whole tax code and just have a flat tax. No

exemptions, no credits. Just a flat tax based on your income/profit. Any

money that comes in qualifies as income, including inheritance. And no

corporation tax. Just tax the individuals when they get distributions

from the corporation (i.e., salary, dividends, etc.)

If we had a flat tax, it would be lower for everyone. I just want to

make sure that both the rich and the poor pay their fair share. Using

the tax law to incent various personal/business behaviors or to help out

people who need a leg up isn't what tax is for. If we need other

safety-net programs to help people rejoin the economy, we should make

those programs tailored to the individual issues in a way that builds

self-sufficiency. But to just send out blanket tax credits is

counter-productive.

Perhaps if all the single parents out there didn't have access to the

EIC, etc., they wouldn't be so lax about being single. They would see

marriage as a financial necessity like it used to be.

---

Tim

Glad you enjoyed it.

I am a Fair Tax man myself. It makes no sense taxing labor productivity.

Who are the poor and how do the rich take advantage of them?

I don't have a negative view of the rich. They drive industry and econ growth. That's an advantage to 'the poor'.

The erosion of our tax base is purposeful redistribution.

Two quotes I like to keep in mind from Alexis De Tocqueville:

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

This is 'the poor' taking advantage of the rich. Something conservatives in politics are always working against and they're always demonized for it.

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Stimulus, 'Free' Healthcare, 'Free' Tuition, subsidized agricultural products and fuel etc. When everything becomes a constitutional right, well then....

Other safety-net programs were custom tailored to specific situations, individuals and families. They were called extended families, neighbors and Churches... Government is tearing at that fabric of society. It's a harsh reality, but what builds more self-sufficiency than the threat of starvation?

Yes, tax credits are counterproductive as is all government directed welfare.

The cultural relativism that children don't need both a mother and a father, and the idea that government provides more effectively and efficiently than the nuclear family for the needs of humanity, is the biggest reason for the size and scope of the federal government.

From Wikipedia:

Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline is a 1996 book by former United States Court of Appeals
judge
Robert H. Bork. Bork's thesis in the book is that American and more generally Western
culture is in a state of decline and that the cause of this decline is modern liberalism and the rise of the New Left. Specifically, he attacks modern liberalism for what he describes as its dual emphases on radical egalitarianism and radical individualism. The title of the book is a play on the last couplet of W. B. Yeats's poem The Second Coming: "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" Bork contends that the "rough beast of decadence … now sends us slouching towards our new home, not Bethlehem but Gomorrah."

Bork first traces the rapid expansion of modern liberalism that occurred during the Sixties, arguing that this legacy of radicalism demonstrates that the precepts of modern liberalism are antithetical to the rest of the American political tradition. He then attacks a variety of social, cultural, and political experiences as evidence of American cultural decline and degeneracy. Among these are affirmative action, increased violence in and sexualization of mass media, the legalization of abortion, pressure to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia, feminism and the decline of religion. Bork, himself a rejected nominee of President Ronald Reagan to the United States Supreme Court, also criticizes that institution and argues that the judiciary and liberal judicial activism are catalysts for American cultural corruption.

In this light, Bork advocates an amendment to the United States Constitution which would allow Congressional supermajorities to override Supreme Court decisions.

Tiresome Distortions

2010-04-22T07:25:00.001-07:00

I was asked by the father of a young man, a U of U student in Comparative Cultures, to read the Bob Herbert Column below from the New York Times and comment.

Op-Ed Columnist: An Absence of Class

Yeah… young, impressionable college students with no real world experience really go in for the inflammatory rhetoric, but you?

Bob's pejorative is juvenile and much more severe than what he is accusing the right of. This man is not a journalist. He gets air time because he can expertly turn a phrase, incite racist sentiment and indict Republicans without a modicum of honest guilt. His world, like Jesse Jackson Jr.'s and Rev. Al Sharpton's, is not necessarily black and white, but black vs. white. His columns and the profligate diatribes of others at The NYT are a big reason why it is no longer relevant.

Though I have not seen the video, it would be unfortunate that the older man with Parkinson's would be taunted in the way Herbert describes. I'm sure if you asked a thousand Republicans, including me, we'd tell you that teasing on account of disability is shameless behavior.

However, I've found no accounts of physical violence of any kind during Tea Party rallies. A far cry from the recent 'mishap' perpetrated by anti-GOPers in New Orleans just two weekends past. Perhaps this was fueled by The New York Times's "insane, nauseating, nonstop commitment to hatred and bigotry"?

If you can't bother to follow the link, here is the Headline: Republican Activist and Friend Savagely Beaten in New Orleans. They were mobbed by anti-Republican protestors outside of a restaurant on Friday after attending a GOP fundraiser.

Shameful that Bob Herbert didn't bother to comment on the real classless violence of his own party. Nor did The NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC etc., it simply wasn't news worthy. Their focus is on making the Republicans out to be racists so they can sequester the minority vote and, it appears, the college student vote.

Appalling you say? But it's par for the course for Republicans, snubbed by the media again.

Examples abound of this type of violent behavior from leftwing protestors. Have you forgotten? Show me one incidence where 'Tea Party Radicals' behaved so abhorrently. C'mon, conservatives are fathers and mothers with bills to pay and mouths to feed. Jail time causes real problems for them.

Finally, let me dispel a few of Herbert's assertions. Andrew Breitbart is offering cash to anyone who has a recording - video, audio or otherwise - of the N'word, other "racial slurs" or "the vilest of epithets" Herbert purports to have been shouted during the CBC's brazen parade through the Tea Party rally. So far no one has come forward to claim the prize. You'd think with more than a few TV cameras, personal video cameras, and what, thousands of cell phones, someone would have something on someone. (Crickets)

Too, video has been circulating on the real news network, Fox, of the spitting incident. It clearly shows a protestor shouting from a rope-line at congressman Cleaver, but even Cleaver now admits that it was likely an accident.

Lastly, I know your 8^th grade history teacher and textbook didn't bother reporting it to you this way, and we're all supposed to believe it was John Kennedy and the 'Demoncats' who gave blacks their civil rights, but you see, it was the segregationist Democrats in the south who stalled the bill for weeks with a filibuster. And Kennedy was lukewarm on the issue throughout his campaign for president.

History, often spun by progressive academicians (Democrats), isn't always what it seems. However, a look at the numbers reveals more than what the average public high school graduate has been led to believe. Regarding The Civil Rights Act, it was the Republicans, as a percentage of the seats held in the Senate and House, who overwhelmingly embarrassed the Democrats to pass the legislation. I'll break it down for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The original House version:^[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:^[10]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version:^[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:^[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

*History 101 – Republicans freed the slaves while the Dem's fought to hold them, and then showed overwhelming support for their 'equal rights.' The Dems, especially those in the south, including Al Gore Sr. … not so much.

Bob Herbert is an irresponsible firebrand who counts on his reader's academic torpor and shiftless ignorance to rally to his cause. Those who really care about the Truth and unifying instead of dividing society, see Bob as the reckless malcontent he is.

Find the Bias

2010-03-23T08:22:00.001-07:00

This article by the BBC is clearly biased against Israel. Can you find the smoking gun?

Channeling Neville Chamberlain

2010-03-22T12:05:00.001-07:00

September 30, 1938 Neville Chamberlain addressed the crowds at Heston Aerodrome with what is known as his "Peace in our Time" speech. Waving the Munich agreement he had signed with Hitler in which the Furor gave his word that he would not war with Britain, Chamberlain intoned:

"…This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you (Reads the agreement). We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again."

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., announces he will vote to pass the health care reform bill after President Obama agreed to sign an executive order reaffirming the ban on the use of federal funds to provide abortions as the house prepares to vote on health care reform in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Sunday, March 21, 2010. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)

American Welfare State

2010-03-17T06:22:00.001-07:00

"The government has continually expanded the value of benefits such as the earned income tax credit to the point where you get a check from Uncle Sam even if you paid no taxes during the year. That's what made it so laughable when the administration claimed it was cutting taxes for most Americans when nearly 40% pay no taxes to start with. These are in essence welfare checks."

FDR Prolonged the Depression

2010-03-04T11:03:00.001-08:00

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

The advent of the internet has given Truth an avenue broad and expeditious.

Within hours we are able to review the differing political opinions of both left and right and draw thoughtful, personal conclusions. What a blessing it is to have the clarity of free and open debate on such a grand scale. How better to distill truth than to have access to everyone's opinion; weigh objectivity, appraise rationality, atomize substance, assess relevance, and compare those opinions with raw data.

Why only now, nearly seven decades hence, are we, as a general public, gaining access to information dispelling the myth of the New Deal as the salvager of the depression era? Only now because we are able to bypass academia and the progressive episteme of the Keynesian epoch which says that government is the answer to the human condition.

"Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt."

Maurice Enchel

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

2010-03-04T06:43:00.001-08:00

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522844

If you've a tough time seeing through to the tyranny gun bans create over the average Joe, this sentence should enlighten you.

City politicians, he noted, used their influence to "become deputized peace officers so they can carry" or "often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll."

Political Elitism Explained

2010-02-05T23:29:00.000-08:00

Tim says:
I thought it was very interesting that Obama talked with the House Republicans. That never would have happened if he didn't have to do it.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the "party of elite power" having issues with capitalism. Which party do you think that is? Most people would say it's the Republicans. If you mean it's the Democrats, I'd like to hear why. Also, doesn't it seem that the ruling class uses capitalism to its advantage? Why would they have issues with capitalism when capitalism helps them stay on top?

I'm not sure you can say that the ruling class is either Republican or Democrat. It seems that the rich are the ruling class. It seems to me that there are just as many rich Democrats in power as there are rich Republicans....

Maurice Says:
Since the catholic church in the 17th century, through the English and European monarchies of the 18th and 19th centuries, ‘Elite’ rule has always been associated with intellectual hegemony, an authoritarian ruling class which dictates political and cultural attitudes through executive privilege. Since the enlightenment, this group has been characterized by liberal arts academics, scientists, lawyers, artists, and political ‘thoroughbreds’. Starting with the New Deal in America this elite class has put forth the “premise that Americans value the wrong things, that the view the American people have of the good life is wrong, and that Americans must give up the low-density living arrangements they have preferred since colonial days and live like Europeans, closely packed and using primarily public transportation.” (Angelo Codevilla – The Character of Nations) Hence the critique not about how to increase or even maintain America’s prosperity, but about redefining it to fit an economically incongruent narrative. (Repair America’s infrastructure? Was it government that built America?) Capitalists, pure capitalists, Atlas Shrugged, are repelled by the bureaucracy of government. You are not wrong that the ruling class can use capitalism to its advantage. No finer example than the Obama takeover of GM and Chrysler, AIG, Fanny and Freddie, heck Goldman Sachs is so tight with the Democrats; it gave nearly 70% of its political contributions to them. Why not, Clinton bailed them out in the 90’s and Rahm Emanuel is ensuring their continued success. But this is bigger than political party necessarily. Look to the ideologies in both camps. Which party has a platform of smaller government and which promotes expansion? Which talks of deregulation and tort reform and which of regulation and litigation? The meaning of free enterprise differs radically for people of different moral dispositions. While leftists in the elite bureaucracy chart a new “path to riches by knowing what the government wants, ever greater attention and effort being shifted away from production and toward fitting into government schemes” (Codevilla), capitalists expect to succeed or fail on their own ethic. Their interest in government, an interest reflected in originalist interpretations of the Constitution, is to maintain equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. They prefer private to public investment, free trade to managed trade, and low taxes to high ones. Success will be achieved by a free exchange of ideas and capital. Can you say that the US Auto industry is truly a free market any longer? (Ironic isn’t it that Toyota, a competitor of Barack-O-Motors, is facing congressional investigations?) What about banking?

Wealth is not a determinant of ‘Elite’ status, ideology is. As noted, ‘Elitism’ is perceived by ‘commonality’ as an authoritarian, intellectual movement in politics which seeks control of the governmental and/or cultural apparatuses in an effort to fix the status quo or radically alter it against common sentiment. The nearest example of elite establishment conservatism, the Soviet nomenklatura. The nearest example of elite radical progressivism, the American Democrat party.

Glacial Science Myopia

2010-02-04T12:28:00.001-08:00

Recently I quipped on fb that Glen Beck was one of only a handful of people practicing real journalism.

If a handful is two, the other is Mark Steyn.

Steyn has uncovered the source of the glacial melting myth fueling leftwing 'end of times' irrationality.

It appears the 'science', the catalyst for the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Nobel Peace Prize winning Fourth Assessment Report, which predicts Himalayan glacial disaster by 2035, comes from a World Wildlife Fund (not a science org., but an activist one) article recounting a 1999 interview conducted by a British journalist, Fred Pearce, of a 'researcher' in Delhi India. The researcher, Syed Hasnain, now working for a 'melting glacier' research institution funded by the Carnegie Corporation, taking full advantage of the myth it seems he created, ironically admits he was "speculating" about the demise of the glaciers. He confesses he conducted no research.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/03/credibility-is-what-is-really-melting/print/

Healthcare for thee, but not for me…

2010-02-03T13:50:00.001-08:00

This certainly doesn't bode well for those pushing for a public healthcare system. Canada is supposed to have the best socialized care in the world.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/01/nl-williams-heart-201.html

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is set to undergo heart surgery this week in the United States.

CBC News confirmed Monday that Williams, 60, left the province earlier in the day and will have surgery later in the week.

The premier's office provided few details, beyond confirming that he would have heart surgery and saying that it was not necessarily a routine procedure.

Deputy Premier Kathy Dunderdale is scheduled to hold a news conference Tuesday morning.

She's expected to provide more details about Williams's condition, as well as how the provincial government will function during his absence.

CBC reporter David Cochrane said Williams appeared to be in good health recently. He described the premier as "fairly active," playing pick-up hockey at least once a week when work permits.

U.S. Wealth Redistribution

2010-02-03T12:18:00.001-08:00

Creative accounting UN style.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551480,00.html

Led by a shock-wave of developing countries, the U.N. General Assembly abandoned a 20-year tradition of adopting its budgets only by consensus — a custom that gave major donor countries like the U.S., which enjoy only one vote, unofficial clout on budgetary matters in keeping with their financial contributions

In 2007, however, the General Assembly took an official vote on the 2008-2009 budget — and approved it, 142-1. The only No vote came from the U.S. — under the Bush administration.

That result, according to Heritage's Schaefer, meant that "the majority of UN member states who contribute very little to the budget no longer feel the need to listen to the concerns of its largest contributor."

Misery and woe to the world if America should realize the lefts' utopian dream and revert to the horse cart and subsistence farming.

Two Economies

2009-12-31T11:47:00.001-08:00

Two Economies: Government Workers Optimistic, Private Sector Not

Monday, December 28, 2009

Email to a Friend
ShareThis

Government employees are much more bullish about the economy than those who work in the private sector. That's a big change from the beginning of the year when those on the public payroll were a bit more pessimistic than private sector workers.

Data from the Rasmussen Consumer Index
from the past seven days shows that a plurality of government workers think the economy is getting better while those who work in the private sector tend to have the opposite view. Those in the government sector are also more upbeat about the current state of the economy and their own personal finances.

Today, 46% of government employees say the economy is getting better while just 31% say it's getting worse. Among those who work in the private sector, the numbers are reversed: 32% say better and 49% worse.

Twenty-four percent (24%) of government employees rate the economy as good or excellent while just nine percent (9%) of those in the private sector are so upbeat.

Fifty-five percent (55%) in the private sector rate the economy as poor, a pessimism shared by 38% of those on the public payroll.

Forty-four percent (44%) of government employees rate their own personal finances as good or excellent while 33% of private sector workers do the same.

Among those on the government payroll, 31% say their finances are getting better, and 40% say they're getting worse. The comparable private sector numbers are 23% better and 47% worse.

These figures reflect a dramatic change from January 2009, with a growing optimism among government workers. During the course of this year, there has been a significant increase in government spending and a government takeover of General Motors.

The Obama administration estimates that federal spending will reach 28% of GDP in 2009, up from 19% a decade ago. It's the largest share of the economy consumed by the federal government since the fighting stopped in World War II.

In the private sector, such growth would be considered boom times for any industry, and government employees have undergone a remarkable change in attitude over the course of the year. In January, just 22% of government workers thought the economy was getting better, a figure that has jumped to 46% today. The number of government workers who think the economy has gotten worse has fallen in an equally dramatic manner, from 61% in January to 31% today.

Among those who work in the private sector, however, the change has been far less significant. In fact, the number of private sector workers who think things are getting better has improved just six points, from 26% up to 32%.

Most Americans (51%) believe that government employees are paid too much.
Not surprisingly, those who work for the government disagree. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of all Americans say the average government worker earns more annually than the average taxpayer.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of government workers expect to have the same employer in five years. Only 27% of those who work for someone else expect such job longevity.

Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters nationwide expect government spending to go up during the Obama years, but 59% believe that an increase in government spending will hurt the economy.

Most voters say tax cuts are a better way to create jobs and fight unemployment

Joe Wilson Speaks For Me... Too.

2009-09-11T09:14:00.001-07:00

From the transcript posted online by CBS, these were the words spoken by the President just prior to Joe Wilson's exclamation, "Lie ! You Lie!". I was listening on the radio and heard every word. Pure demogoguery that made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end... literally. It was not the particular statement on illegals which prompted Rep Wilson's response, it was these statements in total.

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

Many independent organizations have confirmed that bureaucratic panels will be set up to determine life's solemnity, that illegals will not be excluded from participating in the program, and that abortions, addressing the President's comments which directly followed the retort from Rep Wilson, will be federally funded under the current version of legislation to which the President refers.

Who believes that Republican politicians and conservative talk show hosts want to "kill reform at any cost"? Is reiterating concerns being raised and cases being documented by British and Canadian citizens who live with Socilized healthcare cynical and irresponosible? Is it "lying, plain and simple"?

You can argue that the decorum of the chamber was disrupted, but Bob Lonsberry provides a great rebuttal.

http://snipurl.com/rr76z [www_lonsberry_com]

Liberal Sciolism

2009-09-11T07:03:00.001-07:00

I have been asked to post these liberal arguments in their entirety so that they can me dissected:

Argument I

It is good to hear from, just to get things clarified I am not an Obama
> > "maniac" like many of my peers. I just tend to agree with his policies which
> > is generally directed towards the common "man"; he is still a politician
> > nonetheless. Also to be noted I am doing a research paper on this topic, and
> > when I get my results I can give you more information(My paper is what
> > promotes economic stability). Anyways...
> > I see your concern with Obama, like many other conservative Americans.
> > The stimulus is a scary thought because it's creating more debt and
> > inflation, but inflation is not always bad. If our currency is valued lower
> > then another country's, it will promote exports from our country(because are
> > products will be a lot more affordable on the
> > market) which we do need badly.
> > One of our reasons for the collapse of our economy was the trade deficit. We
> > as a country were buying much more then selling. A good example of this was
> > with GM, many Americans because of cost resorted to buying foreign cars.
> > Also to add on to stimulus argument, I am a big believer in Keynesian
> > economics. John Maynard Keyes believed that investment by government injects
> > income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn
> > stimulates more production and investment involving more income and spending
> > and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose
> > total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original
> > investment.
> >
> > I hope this helps explain why I am a supporter of Obama, but I only tackled
> > the economic aspect of his policies since I figured this is of most worry to
> > you. If you have any other concerns feel free to let me know? I love
> > debating politics and hope to hear from you soon.
> >
> > Thanks-

> >
> > Also, it may seem like the stimulus is like a dead fish, but just give it
> > time.

Argument II

First off I wasn't given you advice about Obama's policy. As I recall you asked me verbatim "maybe you know something I don't. Why do you think he won't?" I merely answered your question. Second to say you know more about Obama's policies then me is not a good way to start off an argument. I will however, acknowledge you may have the upper hand in Economics, since my area of study is comparative relations.
>
> Now to answer your question on the "common man", from your description you are the common man. The worker, proletariat,the third estate, etc that is you. The policies of free market and/or Laissez-faire policies benefit the few. Obama's policy is directed towards individuals like yourself, with a somewhat wealth distribution. In the United States we have the highest income disparity (a ratio of 45%) out of any developed country. You need to tell me how this is OK? There are extreme amounts of poverty in the United States, (in 2007, 37.3 million Americans lived in poverty) this can be attributed to one of the reasons the United States is one of the most dangerous developed countries in the world! Obama's policy is to lower the gap to promote a more equal SES and to give the middle class a helping hand. This philosophy or agenda favors the middle class, like yourself, however, you just don't agree with it. Also to be noted, centering a countries economy exclusively on a back of businesses is unhealthy. Granted free market does promote tremendous growth, and this is where you and I differ. I am a believer in slow progress and stability, rather then high growth but the foundation is shaky.
>
> After the great depression our government moved towards a more regulated economy, until Reagan came to office and promoted "Reagan Economics." His philosophy was based on 4 pillars. 1. Reduce the growth of government spending. 2 Reduce marginal tax on income from labor and capital. 3 Reduce government regulation of the economy. 4 Control the money supply to reduce inflation. Reagan's policies pushed both the international transactions current account and the federal budget into deficit and led to a significant increase in public debt. Debt exploded from 900 billion dollars before Reagan's tenure to 2.8 trillion dollars after his tenure; an increase of over 200%. This overspending would be continued in later presidents, with the result that debt 20 years later would jump to over 10 trillion.
>
> Now back to the current crisis and what caused it. It started in 1992, when Congress and the Clinton administration weakened regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the goal of making available more money for the issuance of home loans, which I believe to be the big reason for this recent collapse. In 1999 (by this time the Republicans had the majority), Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (By the way the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act was led by two Republicans, Phil Gramm of Texas and Representative Jim Leach of Iowa). This repeal has contributed to the proliferation of the complex and smeared financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis. Another probable cause of the crisis was the widespread miscalculation by banks and investors of the level of risk inherent in the unregulated collateralized debt obligation and Credit Default Swap markets. Under this theory, banks and investors systematized the risk by taking advantage of low interest rates to borrow tremendous sums of money that they could only pay back if the housing market continued to increase in value.
>
> Furthermore the housing bubble grew up alongside the stock bubble of the mid-1990s. People who had increased their wealth substantially with the extraordinary run-up of stock prices were spending based on this increased wealth. This led to the consumption boom of the late 1990s, with the savings rate out of disposable income falling from five percent in the mid-90s to two percent by 2000. The stock-wealth induced consumption boom led people to buy bigger and/or better homes, since they sought to spend some of their new stock wealth on housing. The bubble began to burst in 2007, as the building boom led to so much over-supply that prices could no longer be supported. Prices nationwide began to head downward, with this process accelerating through the fall of 2007 and into 2008. As prices decline, more homeowners faced foreclosure.
>
>
> Now for the argument of stimulus, it is necessary because we can't let business fall. I know many believers like yourself believe that the markets will work themselves out. This is true, but only to a certain clarification of "work themselves out". By letting business fall it will create less income for a country and less jobs. GM for example is a perfect example. If we let GM fall(along with Ford and Chrysler) there will be less jobs created and less revenue for our country. The new car manufactures would be foreign owned and made, and would not produce any jobs in the states. Now Granted, Toyota has a plant in the Unites States but the revenue would not go to our country. Also by promoting tax breaks, it takes for an axiom that people will spend more money on the economy. When the economy is struggling people are very hesitant to spend. One could give tax breaks, but what if very few people spend and invest it on the economy? A stimulus accounts for this variable, and gives money directly to business and government to invest. Government can use the money for infrastructure of a state, and by doing so create jobs.
>
> It seems that I have said a little to much. I hope to hear soon your arguments. To sum up what I am trying to get after. I believe that stability is more important then quick growth. The whole of citizens should grow together, instead of a few. Obama is hoping to bring more equal SES, then we have had before and I just agree with it.
> Hear from you soon-

Argument III

Good to hear from you again. I agree with you on staying more centered on our original topic. However, I must respond to some of the things you said. First and I want to get this clear. You probably think I have professors at the U telling me what to believe regarding politics. This simply is not true, my beliefs are my own because I have agreed with the philosophy of a collective whole growing together. I agree with less poor even if it means sacrificing in some ways. You claim that Europe is doing bad. Yet their poverty rate is nowhere near the rate of America. When I meant extreme poverty, I did not mean compared to African or other developing countries. I meant that the poor in America is more extremely prevalent then other developed countries, and the poor in America is a lot worse then in Europe.

Now for my correlation of poverty and crime rate. The more poverty a state has, the more crime will occur. Out of 8 countries the United States had the highest crime homicide rate of 5.5, while Germany and other European countries was around 0.9. Now you may say that is coincidence or whatever. However, if only one country had a low rate, I can see your argument, but 12 of the EU countries have a lower rate and are more socialist geared. When I mentioned dangerous I meant in terms of crime rate. This means something. Furthermore the United States is only 4% of the world's population, but contains one-quarter of the worlds entire prison population! The U.S. averages 685 prisoners per 100,00 people, compared to 87 in EU countries.

In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all. The middle 50% of the country held 13% or $6.5 trillion of the total household net wealth. [The previous data are taken from analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) which over samples wealthy households. This over sampling more accurately represents the true wealth distribution (since most of the wealth is concentrated at the top)]. This data shows that the top 25% of American society holds on average a net wealth of $1,556,801 which is 33 times more than those of the lower middle class, or the 25th-50th percentile. In addition to unequal wealth distribution, it is also difficult for individuals in the lower income distributions to gain economic mobility which inhibits their ability to accumulate wealth. In 2006, children in the lowest 20% of the income distribution only had a 17% chance of making it to the upper 40% of the income distribution. In 2004, children in the lowest 20% of the wealth distribution had only a 7% chance to make it to the top wealth distribution. In other words, wealthy parents tend to produce wealthy children, and poor parents tend to produce poor children. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics shows how stratification is becoming worse and worse since 1984. The lowest percentile has become worse, and the highest percentile has become wealthier. The fifth percentile has dropped further into negative net worth, while the 90th percentile has gained over four hundred points within the last twenty-one years. This doesn't sound like a subjected class with no mobility? The word proletariat is still relevant.

You said "The Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity, not equality of income."

There is no more equal opportunity. One tries to have a thriving self-owned store, and Walmart comes along and buys them out ( or any other corporate business), is that equal opportunity? America is ruled buy the business elites; the corporate cultures. There is no chance nowadays to achieve the American dream and have that opportunity. Business is too strong and should be regulated more. Another example is with Thatcher Pharm. How is there equal opportunity? There is hardly anyway of getting a product out there, because the bigger businesses have more money and means of making sure there is no competition in their way. Is this the American Dream? You may tend to think that capitalism promotes the best products , however, it can also promote lethargy. Microsoft for example, their software remained the same year after year, because their was no competition till Apple. Sometimes the business with the better product will not be able to get their name out, because of the big corporate giants. There could be a better product, but if one does not have the money how can they get it out there? So instead we are stuck with the same old product with no innovation.

You said "You pay no taxes and yet are comfortable advocating that others, hard working mothers and fathers, pay an undue burden in the name of fairness"

Now to answer this question. The hard working mothers and fathers have less tax to pay. It is the wealthy who will be taxed. The hard working mothers and fathers cannot even send their kids to college, while the kids of the wealthy have no idea what hard work is about, because they fell entitled; didn't work for anything. Kids in the 12 EU countries have their school paid for, even up to college. That might explain why an average European is more literate and more fluent in math and science then the average American. Wow, capitalism worked their. Yes, granted the growth would be tremendous of the few, but the majority of citizens would suffer from lack of knowledge and their best hope after high school is not going to be a college degree. It will be working a 9-5 job with barely any money to get by. The American Dream is lost, 1/3 of Americans do not believe in the dream anymore. The rich live in gated communities, while large sections of the population are left with decaying public infrastructure, declining incomes, and increased unemployment. Another note to say, is that people belong in a poverty situation because of choice is wrong and inconsiderate. Some put themselves in those situations granted, however, for others that is all they have known (gangs, single mother/father, born into a poverty circumstance, etc). Also not to mention inner-city schools, which don't help much to educate a youths mind. Someone in a poverty situation as a much harder time then someone who as attended a private school and has the means. You are a product of your environment and that has been psychologically proven.

Also you say that with more government regulation, companies will move their business else where. I must say this is not true. Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S.. Companies will move their business to where the economy is the most stable. Also the EU eclipsed the U.S. GDP, before the market meltdown, at 19.5 trillion, this made it one of the worlds largest economy. That sure is a decaying culture for you. Also the EU would still be growing if it wasn't for the debt the European banks bought from the United States, which turned out to lose value, which hurt their economy. The matter of fact is Europe will(when they get out of their economic situation) be a huge contender in term of economic powers, not a decaying culture. You also claim that with a more government driven economy innovation would go down. However, Germany, which has more socialized agendas then the United States, is recognized as a scientific and technological leader in several fields. German cars are top worldwide. They are the world's market leader in eighteen of thirty-eight technical branches of machinery and plant manufacturing. Also The EU has more ethical driven policies when it come to scientific research, so their quickness is lacking, which is not necessarily a bad thing. EU citizens prefer to have science delayed for the protection of animal rights and so on.

You said "I am happy for the filthy rich. They invent, innovate, and employ. They raise my standard of living and the standard of living of my brothers and sisters worldwide."

I am glad you like to think your standard of living (and by this I am assuming you mean quality of life) is so high while Europeans are so low. Here are some quick facts. In the EU there are approx. 322 physicians per 100,00 people, where in the United States it is only 279. Furthermore, the United States ranks 26th among the industrial nations in infant mortality. This is well below the EU average. The average life span in the developed countries of the EU is now 78.01 compared to 76.9 in the U.S. Europe is the future. Further more, a measure done by the Human Development Index ranks America only 15th in terms of standard of living. Some countries ranked above America are France,Denmark, The Netherlands, and Ireland; all EU countries. Also to note, the countries listed are still growing, while the U.S. has remained neutral. The poor Americans wish they could have the benefits that "socialist" Europe has. What luxuries do the poor in America have, it doesn't make sense; explain this logic? See I thought the poor in America work minimal wage jobs, live in violent crime ridden neighborhoods, have little or no access to health insurance, live on 5,000 a year, poor education opportunities( as mentioned several times), and so on. Also European life is more clustered in cities. They don't have the space that we Americans enjoy, because there simply is not the room. Anyone living in a big city will pay rent and not have the same access to the things suburban Americas have, with less space cost raises. You are generalizing to much between Europeans and Americans. To compare in a better way is to observe Americans living in big cities with Europeans, this will be a better measure.

Americans are so engrossed in autonomy as being true freedom, whereas European find it in embodiment . Europeans value more for the community then themselves. For Americans wealth comes exclusivity. One is self-reliant and like unto an island, all to oneself. Europeans value belonging, not belongings. So they don't have five cars and two plasma screen TVs. Yet, they are able to have enough money for food, give their child a proper education, have financial security, and so forth. European culture is a life of simplicity that Americans can't understand, because of entrapment in material objects to give true happiness. Also European life is more clustered in cities. They don't have the space that we Americans enjoy, because there simply is not the room. Anyone living in a big city will pay rent and not have the same access to the things suburban Americans have; with less space cost raises. You are generalizing to much between Europeans and Americans. To compare in a better way is to observe Americans living in cities with Europeans, this will be a better measure.

Last matter of clarification. When I talked about tax breaks being an axiom. I went on to explain why it was invalid thinking. "When the economy is struggling people are very hesitant to spend. One could give tax breaks, but what if very few people spend and invest it on the economy? A stimulus accounts for this variable, and gives money directly to business and government to invest. Government can use the money for infrastructure of a state, and by doing so create jobs." When I mentioned "what if very few people spend it on the economy" I was showing why this thinking is wrong logic. In another-words disproving the axiom. Twisting my words around is not going to help, I know what I said.

Now for the stimulus and why it is better. You mention above that Barack Obama as increased debt just like Reagan. Yes, this is true, however, Reagan was not in a dire economic situation like Obama is. Obama is raising the debt to get us out of our poor economic situation. How else can you stimulate growth? You can give tax breaks, but this gives no power to the government, who should have power. When one gives tax-breaks we are solely relying on businesses to get us out. As I recall the banks over lending (which are businesses) put us in this problem. Also by creating inflation, which Obama is essentially doing, will lower currency value, which in turn will promote more growth through exporting. Where do you think China is getting its revenue? It's called trade and lots of it. They are exporting huge amounts of products, which in turn is creating growth. Why do you think China is resistant to raising their currency value? Its because their exports will not be has cheap. Essentially, Obama by creating inflation is doing the opposite. Lower the value of currency to promote exports, which in turn will bring in revenue, which in turn will feed back into the economy, which in turn will stimulate growth. The EU is also doing the same, but in a little different ways. The main point is both the U.S. and EU are promoting stimulus concepts, because they work. In addition, the stimulus helped save the U of U from talking massive budget cuts, and yes massive. If there was no stimulus, the U would be lowing admittance, cutting classes, and jobs. I don't want to take three hour classes which I have no interest in, who would? The stimulus also prevented tuition rates from going up a colossal amount. Tuition will still be raised by 9%, but not as much as it would if there was no stimulus helping, which would have been 42%! With your idea of no stimulus, students of the U would be paying outrageous sums of money, and classes would be cut more then they are now, in the name of accountability...

With clarification on GM, if their product is in such high demand. Then how come they needed a bailout? GM was not selling anything because their trucks and gas guzzling cars were not bought. They were outsold buy other car companies. Also what about competition? We need to be competitive with other businesses, more competition the lower the price. What about jobs, if we let GM and other businesses fall, where goes the job? Thousands will be unemployed, can we afford that? Many dealers will be put out of business if GM falls, because their hunk of metal will be collecting rust in the lot. A consumer would not in the right mind buy a car, whose company is bankrupt; there is no consumer confidence. We need to keep all businesses afloat, so they can produce more jobs and be competitive, including the car dealerships who create many jobs. This is especially true with AIG. If we would let AIG fall, it will cause of ripple effect across the entire nation and even the world. AIG insures 180,000 entities which employs around 106 million people in the U.S. alone. It would be unbearable for the economy if it failed or any other major corporate businesses. Everything is connected in the business world. Do you see where I am going with this? It would be a domino effect that would hurt and destroy businesses and jobs. Were is economic growth with no jobs, how can there be? The fact of globalization and interconnectedness is the reasons for no accountability. You can let them fall, but it will hurt everyone; not just them.

Regarding the Great Depression argument, FDR refused to run up the deficits that ending the depression required. Only when the federal government imposed rationing, recruited 6 million defense workers, drafted 6 million soldiers, and ran massive deficits to fight World War II did the Great Depression finally end. "Massive deficits to fight WW2 did the Great Depression finally end." Massive deficits brought us out of the G.D. FDR prolonged the G.D. by not willing to raise debt.

Touching on the topic of Reagan, I disagree with Reagan because he raised debt when there was no need to. During Reagan's term we were not facing a recession like we are today. He raised debt when there was no need to. Obama is raising debt, because that is the way out of an economic downturn. Just like mentioned above, debt is what got us out of the Great Depression. Every developed country is having their own version of a stimulus, because it works. Tax breaks in truth is only a theory and has not been implemented into an economic downturn successfully. I can't see in reality how it works. Most people are scarred to spend money while the economy when it is tanking. Give them tax breaks and will they truly spend it. With this philosophy, you concentrate growth in the middle class and above. This will in turn alienate the poor population, who are struggling and have no money. You give money to governments to invest and create jobs. Also you save business from falling, so they can create jobs and revenue.

Just for your own comfort, America will never become socialized like Europe. Americans mentality is different from that of Europeans. Like you have stated in your last email, the U.S. constitution will never allow extreme amounts of government. America will always be a capitalist economy, maybe more regulated and more driven by the lower classes, but still on the essence capitalist. It seems, from reading your last email, that you are worried that a socialized agenda will be the new norm for America, but it won't. Obama's plan for healthcare is not going to be government run; it will still be privatized. His plan is to have many insurance companies compete for health care plans, by doing this. It will create more competition and the price will be more reasonable. I wanted to clarify this, because I could sense you thought we were heading the direction of Europe ( and sorry for the extended talks on Europe listed above). Regarding the stimulus, this is only temporary, until we are out of the recession. There will nonetheless, be more regulation of business, but not in the socialism sense. Privatized agendas will remain and even though there will be little changes (which in all honesty are needed) including increased taxes on the wealthy and more concentration on the poor; free market will still exist. This is not say however, that I am in complete support of this economic philosophy(capitalism). Hence, why I only prefer Obama over the other guy(McCain). I like the set up of Europe, a more harmonious and collective system. I like the fact of low counts of poverty and more equalized distribution of wealth. I like the fact that attaining a valuable education is more of a reality instead of an illusion, and leisure time is more easy to come by(albeit lack of material possessions). In my opinion the economic and political setup of Europe is very progressive and I agree with it.

Thanks-James

NOTE: Forgive the jumpiness of my response. Finals are coming soon, so I have not had the time to give you a fluid response.

My Final Argument Interspersed (Remember, the liberal argument comes from the U student)

-Not exactly, I just think you aren't reading very widely and from what I know of the public school system, haven't been for most of your young life.

This simply is not true, my beliefs are my own because I have agreed with the philosophy of a collective whole growing together.

- I don't dispute that they are your beliefs. You are the one professing them. I'm just pretty confident that you haven't been exposed to the alternative universe of conservatism which is more rational.... and sane. Remember, I was once your age. It took a lot of discovery to find the true message. Believe me, your university, and the culture around you, is insulation from what is right and true.

I agree with less poor even if it means sacrificing in some ways.

-sacrifice away. No one is stopping you. what I fail to understand is the mindset that you have. forcing people like me to be charitable. Governments are instituted to protect my rights against forcible seizure of private property, but you prefer to use it coercively. Read The Law, Frederic Bastiat

You claim that Europe is doing bad. Yet their poverty rate is nowhere near the rate of America. When I meant extreme poverty, I did not mean compared to African or other developing countries .

-Then don't use the word extreme. Words have value. Extreme means extreme. It does not change meaning with context.

I meant that the poor in America is more extremely prevalent then other developed countries, and the poor in America is a lot worse then in Europe.

-This simply is not true. The poor in America enjoy a far more comfortable lifestyle than the poor in Europe. The middle class is the same way. Per capita GDP in the US, applying Purchasing Power Parity, is around $45,000 per year. The EU on the other hand, if you exclude Luxembourg which absolutely skews the stat, has a per capita GDP (PPP) of $22,000 per year. You simply cannot make this case. Middleclass Euros don't even own property. Their living quarters on average are a percentage of that of Americans. They are relegated to public transportation.... etc.. No freedom.

Now for my correlation of poverty and crime rate. The more poverty a state has, the more crime will occur.

-Correlation does not prove causation. That poverty causes crime is a myth. The high crime rate can be attributed to fatherless households and lack of character. Statistically, to avoid poverty, all one has to do is graduate highschool, marry before having children, and produce any children after the age of twenty.

Out of 8 countries the United States had the highest crime homicide rate of 5.5, while Germany and other European countries was around 0.9. Now you may say that is coincidence or whatever. However, if only one country had a low rate, I can see your argument, but 12 of the EU countries have a lower rate and are more socialist geared. When I mentioned dangerous I meant in terms of crime rate. This means something. Furthermore the United States is only 4% of the world's population, but contains one-quarter of the worlds entire prison population! The U.S. averages 685 prisoners per 100,00 people, compared to 87 in EU countries.

-The Bureau of Justice Statistics paints a complete picture. Homicide rates are high because of black on black crime. Like I said, poverty doesn't cause it, family disorganization and a failure of the culture to meet critical Judeo-Christian expectations does. Much of this stems from the liberal policies of the 1960's and 1970's, no fault divorce and irresponsible welfare policies which made the father of the black family obsolete. Read any number of books on the subject. Slouching toward Gomorrah and The Dream and the Nightmare are the two best I've read so far. Incarceration is high because we take crime seriously. Read the report.)

-You copied all of this from Wikipedia without citing it or even putting quotes around it. Some would think you came up with all of this on your own. Is that ethical? The Panel Study of Income Dynamics's neutrality, as Wikipedia notes, is disputed. In a separate entry summary titled "Changes in Wealth, 1989-2001" it states that much of the disparity in income results from the large population of Boomers who are at their prime earnings age. It also states that the wealth and economic health of the entire country has increased. "When observing the changes in the wealth among American households, one can note an increase in wealthier individuals and a decrease in the number of poor households... Overall the percentage of households with a negative net worth (more debt than assets) declined from 9.5% in 1989 to 4.1% in 2001." "...more and more households have achieved comfortable levels of wealth.^[1] Zhu Xiao Di (2004) notes that household wealth usually peaks around families headed by people in their 50s, and as a result, the baby boomer generation reached this age range at the time of the analysis." These are positive trends. Long term, where will the wealth go when the baby boomers are gone? In a capitalist society, we should see a boom in growth of the free market. Business expansion, jobs, new technology, new industries. In a quasi socialist economy, more bureaucracy, corruption, and a stagnant economy.

This doesn't sound like a subjected class with no mobility? The word proletariat is still relevant. You said “The Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity, not equality of income.”

There is no more equal opportunity. One tries to have a thriving self-owned store, and Walmart comes along and buys them out ( or any other corporate business), is that equal opportunity?

-Yeah... look up 'opportunity'. Of all of the responsibilities you could assign to government, protecting lazy Joe's trash hauling business from competitors is not one of them.

America is ruled buy the business elites; the corporate cultures. There is no chance nowadays to achieve the American dream and have that opportunity.

-"Ruled by business elites"? America is a free society. Business elites operate in a free enterprise system. What part of that don't you understand? You would rather the country be 'ruled' by Political Elites? At least the business men create jobs and are responsible for the products and services they offer. Their capital fuels growth and innovation. What do political elites create but more law, more restrictions on private enterprise, and corrupt syndicates. Long live PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

Business is too strong and should be regulated more. Another example is with Thatcher Pharm. How is there equal opportunity? There is hardly anyway of getting a product out there, because the bigger businesses have more money and means of making sure there is no competition in their way.

-I don't think you fully understand 'business'. What you do on a daily basis is what? Your business. Yeah, that's right. You want your neighbor in your business? James, honestly, this is a ridiculous statement. What do the other companies do to keep Thatcher down? There are, ultimately, only two things that can prevent a company in a free market from growing; the executive philosophy and government regulation.

Is this the American Dream? You may tend to think that capitalism promotes the best products

-Capitalism doesn't promote anything. Capitalism supports innovation and efficient resource allocation. Are you saying that a government bureaucracy will do a better job of identifying needed technology and promoting the most successful products in an economy? Government can't even successfully run a postal service or a division of motor vehicles. Your form of government failed to feed the proletariat after its revolution. They failed to maintain industrial centers and to develop needed technology. The USSR was a failure and that seems to me to be your ideal model?

however, it can also promote lethargy. Microsoft for example, their software remained the same year after year, because their was no competition till Apple. Sometimes the business with the better product will not be able to get their name out, because of the big corporate giants.

-You should study the history of the development of Apple and Microsoft. Steven Jobs had a workable OS before Gates, but didn't have the vision to get it to market. Or maybe it was lethargy, you tell me. What would your solution be, take profits from Microsoft to fund Apple's effort? That would be both unethical and slow the progress of both.

There could be a better product, but if one does not have the money how can they get it out there?

-It is your opinion that Apple is a better product. Because of the vision of Gates, the PC revolutionized the last four decades. Should we have waited longer for Jobs to get his crap together? This is basic econ. Eighth grade stuff. You borrow the money in the financial marketplace. That is capitalism. You work with others with capital who have an interest in your product's success. You form partnerships and relationships. Free and voluntary relationships for the purpose of offering goods and services.

So instead we are stuck with the same old product with no innovation.

-There has never in history been more tech innovation than in the last 40 years. How will you explain your philosophy that the government is more creative and innovative than private industry? Marx laid the groundwork. Where has it worked?

You said “You pay no taxes and yet are comfortable advocating that others, hard working mothers and fathers, pay an undue burden in the name of fairness” Now to answer this question. The hard working mothers and fathers have less tax to pay. It is the wealthy who will be taxed.

-Obama's policies will tax everyone. If you'd like we can focus on this topic specifically. I'd like that.

The hard working mothers and fathers cannot even send their kids to college

-You assume that the 'wealthy' do not work hard? I would say often, they work harder than most.

while the kids of the wealthy have no idea what hard work is about, because they fell entitled; didn't work for anything. Kids in the 12 EU countries have their school paid for, even up to college.

-The US taxpayer pays for the education for all US kids up to college. Just like the "Kids in the 12 EU countries".

That might explain why an average European is more literate and more fluent in math and science then the average American.

-(Cite your source on please. I'm not buying it. And don't say, "My poli-sci professor." LOL)

Wow, capitalism worked their.

-I agree that the US education system is failing. That is not a reflection on capitalism, however, but on poor management by the government. A capitalist system encourages competition. The success of the private sector in education is reflected in the ability of private and charter schools, and voucher programs to significantly outperform their public counterparts.

Yes, granted the growth would be tremendous of the few, but the majority of citizens would suffer from lack of knowledge and their best hope after high school is not going to be a college degree.

-Once again, I will refer you to college enrollment statistics. Post secondary institutions are growing and their tuitions keep climbing. You can blame government for the lack of affordability in higher education.

It will be working a 9-5 job with barely any money to get by. The American Dream is lost, 1/3 of Americans do not believe in the dream anymore.

-That third have never believed in it. They are the entitlement third. They are they who think it is everyone elses (government's) obligation to provide them a living.

The rich live in gated communities, while large sections of the population are left with decaying public infrastructure, declining incomes, and increased unemployment. Another note to say, is that people belong in a poverty situation because of choice is wrong and inconsiderate.

-I assure you, I have considered the situation intently. I would assert that you are inconsiderate. I would assert that you have spent little time reading on the theories which outline poverty's true causes and affects.

Some put themselves in those situations granted, however, for others that is all they have known (gangs, single mother/father, born into a poverty circumstance, etc). Also not to mention inner-city schools, which don't help much to educate a youths mind. Someone in a poverty situation as a much harder time then someone who as attended a private school and has the means.

-At the core of poverty is the disregard for a cohesive family, education, and elemental Judeo-Christian morals and ethic.

You are a product of your environment and that has been psychologically proven.

-Your notion of the American dream is skewed. The American dream is above all, the ability to live free of government intrusion and oppression. The correct interpretation includes the idea of equal justice, free speech, free enterprise, and free association. It includes an objective and constructionist view of the Constitution which was intended to put restrictions on socialist thinkers like you who advocate the usurpation of my private property and the private property of free people. You don't even see the inconsistency in your argument. You talk about providing some with the American dream by taking it from others. That is completely incongruent. Conservatives are mean aren't they? They just hate the poor don't they? James, I agree that people are a product of their environment and that children born into poverty are likely to be impoverished. But it is by their values. They've rejected the value of marriage and family, hard work, clean and virtuous living. These will lift anyone out of poverty. We need to reinforce these as the key. Bill Cosby knows it. All black conservative scholars know it. You should look up John McWhorter and Thomas Sowell. You will find their arguments very persuasive.

Also you say that with more government regulation, companies will move their business else where. I must say this is not true.

-Let me rephrase that. In a free economy, one where the government doesn't provide protection against competition, a business that is overly burdened by taxation will relocate to maximize their profit taking. In an economy which is highly regulated by the government, large concerns often benefit from the regulation, presiding over favorable monopolies.

Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S..

-So you are cherry picking from the report? It is the Fortune 500, not 140. What about the top ten? Top 25? Top 50? Out of all 500 how do we fair? I would say better than the EU. Regardless, the Fortune 500 EU companies do well because, like I said, there are very strong restrictions to competition. A better statistic that will reflect the strength of a society's business climate might be to show how many small cap companies exist in each of the two compared, and how successful they are. Do that for me will ya?

are USCompanies will move their business to where the economy is the most stable.

-You mean where the government protects them from competition? Like in France or Germany where government regulation is so stringent it is virtually impossible to start your own business.

Also the EU eclipsed the U.S. GDP, before the market meltdown, at 19.5 trillion, this made it one of the worlds largest economy. That sure is a decaying culture for you.

-Culture and economy are two different things. The fact that there are successful elite monopolies acting globally from an EU position does not reflect on the health of the culture. Europeans are not actively persuing policies whereby their population is sustained. Only through immigration, particularly muslim 3rd world labor, is their workforce and economy sustaining their government pension and entitlement programs. The growing muslim populations in Europe will soon become majorities there. Will there a beloved Italy, France, England, Spain in 20 to 30 years? With that, what happens to the legacy of western philosophy and thought?

The GDP is not a measurement of the culture. Also the EU would still be growing if it wasn't for the debt the European banks bought from the United States, which turned out to lose value, which hurt their economy. The matter of fact is Europe will(when they get out of their economic situation) be a huge contender in term of economic powers, not a decaying culture. You also claim that with a more government driven economy innovation would go down. However, Germany, which has more socialized agendas then the United States, is recognized as a scientific and technological leader in several fields. German cars are top worldwide.

-Top what? How does BMW's or Mercedes's sales compare to GM and Ford globally? How many people do they employ compared to GM, Ford? These are elite market vehicles. Careful James, while you're decrying the poor you may not want to reveal your true identity as an elitist ideologue.

They are the world's market leader in eighteen of thirty-eight technical branches of machinery and plant manufacturing.

-Cite your study please so I can review it.

Also The EU has more ethical driven policies when it come to scientific research, so their quickness is lacking, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

-Unless someone in your family is dying of cancer. What is ethical about putting flowers and snails before people?

EU citizens prefer to have science delayed for the protection of animal rights and so on.

-Yeah, they've gone so far away from God and the love of human life that they would rather gramps take a dirt nap than have to submit Chuck the hamster to any clinical testing. (See above where I talk about them destroying their culture.

You said “I am happy for the filthy rich. They invent, innovate, and employ. They raise my standard of living and the standard of living of my brothers and sisters worldwide.” I am glad you like to think your standard of living (and by this I am assuming you mean quality of life) is so high while Europeans are so low. Here are some quick facts. In the EU there are approx. 322 physicians per 100,00 people, where in the United States it is only 279. Furthermore, the United States ranks 26th among the industrial nations in infant mortality. This is well below the EU average. The average life span in the developed countries of the EU is now 78.01 compared to 76.9 in the U.S.

-So we eat a bunch of crap and sit around a little more. We own cars and don't have to walk everywhere. Is it a bad thing? Maybe so. Do you want the government telling you what to eat? When and where you can drive? hmm. .

Europe is the future. Further more, a measure done by the Human Development Index ranks America only 15th in terms of standard of living. Some countries ranked above America are France,Denmark, The Netherlands, and Ireland; all EU countries.

-Since the UN seeks to level the world economy with American tax dollars, I'm not fully confident in this study. However, giving it the benefit of the doubt, you can see that the most successful countries on this list are radically homogenized. That means they don't entertain the diversity of races, cultures, and ethnicities which the US "enjoy's". This has an overwhelming influence on life expectancy, literacy, and income. Remember though that by applying the PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) to the per capita GDP, the US kicks Europe's hiney. (US $44k per capita income vs. EU (excluding Luxembourg's, which is unusually high at $70k), comes in at a measily $22k.) That's how I mark standard of living.

Also to note, the countries listed are still growing, while the U.S. has remained neutral.

-US GDP growth was consistent between 3 and 5% since 1980. The EU 2% is a good year in the EU.

The poor Americans wish they could have the benefits that "socialist" Europe has.

-You mean like free education, Medicaid and Medicare, welfare payments, food stamps?

What luxuries do the poor in America have, it doesn't make sense; explain this logic? See I thought the poor in America work minimal wage jobs, live in violent crime ridden neighborhoods, have little or no access to health insurance, live on 5,000 a year, poor education opportunities( as mentioned several times), and so on.

-I just don't know what to say to you. People who can only make $5,000 per year need to be institutionalized not subsidized to continue their poor habits. Don't you see that?

-Wait a minute, you just wrote 3 paragraphs comparing US and EU through nebulous UN issued statistical groupings and obscure rankings without considering the factors which lead to the results... and I'm generalizing too much?

To compare in a better way is to observe Americans living in big cities with Europeans, this will be a better measure.

-I don't care about land area, population demographics, whatever. If Europe is so great, why do fewer Europeans have ownership of particular things which even the lowest classes in the US have ownership of? Homes, or condos if you will, multiple cars per family, quality living space, affordable utilities and gasoline, affordable and accessible products and services?

Americans are so engrossed in autonomy as being true freedom,

-From Oxford dictionary (as EU as I could get): autonomy - freedom of action. How about that, 'freedom' is actually in the definition.

whereas European find it in embodiment. Europeans value more for the community then themselves.

-Does this explain why Europeans are so charitable? LOL. Is that why their immigrant populations riot daily? I like how you have such expertise into the psyche of the European. Perhaps you can recommend one of your books on the subject?

For Americans wealth comes exclusivity. One is self-reliant and like unto an island, all to oneself.

-Yeah, except for the daily exchange of ideas and the flow of money for goods and services, investments, capitalizations, etc.

Europeans value belonging, not belongings.

-All well and good until you need some nukes to deter rogue nations, or want to take a quick trip down to Sam's Club to buy your kids a trampoline.

So they don't have five cars and two plasma screen TVs. Yet, they are able to have enough money for food, give their child a proper education, have financial security, and so forth. European culture is a life of simplicity that Americans can't understand, because of entrapment in material objects to give true happiness.

-I assure you, most Americans understand the 'simple life' you embrace so heartily. Americans just chose to do better and if given the choice, many Europeans would also. Its so romantic to be untethered from modern convenience, until your government leaves you no choice but to be. You really ought to be careful when speaking for others. All this aside, American culture leaves it up to the individual to decide what is most desirous. If someone likes five cars and the 'entrapment of material objects', why is it any of your business to tell them that those arent' appropriate things to desire? Socialist thought runs contrary to liberty, freedom and autonomy.(This will be a recurring theme of mine, I can tell

Also European life is more clustered in cities. They don't have the space that we Americans enjoy, because there simply is not the room. Anyone living in a big city will pay rent and not have the same access to the things suburban Americans have; with less space cost raises. You are generalizing to much between Europeans and Americans. To compare in a better way is to observe Americans living in cities with Europeans, this will be a better measure. Last matter of clarification. When I talked about tax breaks being an axiom. I went on to explain why it was invalid thinking. "When the economy is struggling people are very hesitant to spend. One could give tax breaks, but what if very few people spend and invest it on the economy? A stimulus accounts for this variable, and gives money directly to business and government to invest. Government can use the money for infrastructure of a state, and by doing so create jobs." When I mentioned "what if very few people spend it on the economy" I was showing why this thinking is wrong logic. In another-words disproving the axiom. Twisting my words around is not going to help, I know what I said.

-Sorry, wasn't intentional. Just misread what you were saying. Wasn't that clear. Anyway, what would people do with the extra money they got in their paycheck every week, if not spend it? Save it? What does savings do? Reinforce bank liquidity? Lower interest rates? Sounds like a positive trend to me? Identify for me potential fraud and corruption situations in this model? I can identify scores in yours:

Government can use the money for infrastructure of a state, and by doing so create jobs.

-You want to give states who, irresponsibly year after year, pile on huge deficits... you feel good giving them more money that you've created out of thin air... money that will come from someone who, right now, is not even old enough to vote on whether or not they think it is a good idea to do. I call that slavery. You have taxed an American civilian without their approval. That is taxation without representation. And yet you Dems could do it all day long.

-I am not arguing that a stimulus might not have been necessary. What I am arguing is that Obamas stimulus is not good for the country... or rather, you are supposed to convince me that it is. So far you've only spoken in generalities, "… investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy,...". However, you've failed to underline specifically why his stimulus is a good idea. A stimulus should stimulate, not be an omnibus of spending on liberal programs that realise no potential until after 3 to 5 years or more. That is not stimulus. Stimulating exports through a week dollar needs to be measured with the rising prices of consumer goods here in this country. $1,000 actually worth $1,000 is better than $1,000 that is worth $650. Hurting the strength of the currency, hurts purchasing power and limits choices. Liberty, freedom and democracy are about expanding choices. I feel for you. I'm sure it would be like the end of the world for you to take classes which you have no interest in taking. I'm humbled that the U has accepted my hard earned money so that you have all the choice in education you could ever want. I'm glad the students at the U don't have to pay for their school and can rely on my kids to pay for their school for them. I can only hope that they are able to save enough for their own educations.

With clarification on GM, if their product is in such high demand. Then how come they needed a bailout?

-They don't need a bailout. They need to get rid of the unions which are bleeding them dry. They aren't a car company, they are a pension fund. They are paying 3 people who no longer work for them for every current employee. Union organization is killing the auto industry.

GM was not selling anything because their trucks and gas guzzling cars were not bought. They were outsold buy other car companies.

-Only Toyota my friend, whose own full size truck is selling quite well by the way. Must be a market for trucks somewhere.

Also what about competition? We need to be competitive with other businesses, more competition the lower the price.

-Now your a proponent of competition? So you want Barack to "poof" make GM more competitive at the same time he is mandating higher fuel standards, asking no concessions from the unions, and defining which cars to make (compact hybrids) when the market doesn't support it? Now that is a formula for success !!

What about jobs, if we let GM and other businesses fall, where goes the job? Thousands will be unemployed, can we afford that? Many dealers will be put out of business if GM falls, because their hunk of metal will be collecting rust in the lot. A consumer would not in the right mind buy a car, whose company is bankrupt; there is no consumer confidence. We need to keep all businesses afloat, so they can produce more jobs and be competitive, including the car dealerships who create many jobs. This is especially true with AIG. If we would let AIG fall, it will cause of ripple effect across the entire nation and even the world. AIG insures 180,000 entities which employs around 106 million people in the U.S. alone. It would be unbearable for the economy if it failed or any other major corporate businesses. Everything is connected in the business world. Do you see where I am going with this? It would be a domino effect that would hurt and destroy businesses and jobs. Were is economic growth with no jobs, how can there be? The fact of globalization and interconnectedness is the reasons for no accountability. You can let them fall, but it will hurt everyone; not just them.

-No pain no gain. Better that we adults take responsibility for our poor management than pawn it off on our kids who had nothing to do with it.

-I agree with a lot of this, although it was FDR's inconsistency which stalled the recovery. Making firm policy decisions and defining the new rules in the financial markets would have brought confidence back and hastened the recovery. It should not have taken as long as it did. I want you to know that I am not opposed to a stimulus plan. I fully understand the dangers of allowing influential companies to fail. My initial question to you was how will Barack's stimulus help the economy? Especially when their is so much pork in it? There is so much in it that would not be considered stimulus. It is, for all intents and purposes, a Democratic wish list of programs which belong in the budget proposal. He is using fear to further the democratic agenda under false pretense and is not being honest. I want an honest President.

-Oh, I see, you're not quite up to the 70's and 80's in your American history class yet. The economy that Reagan inherited was the worse since the Great Depression. It was worse than what Obama inherited, but may not be worse by the time Obama is done. I don't feel like I need to give you a history of Reagan's first years in office. Look it up for yourself.

Every developed country is having their own version of a stimulus, because it works. Tax breaks in truth is only a theory and has not been implemented into an economic downturn successfully.

-This is the most outrageous statement you've made so far. Both Reagan and Bush II implemented successful tax break strategies. Bush cut taxes on the wealthy so much that they went from paying 65% of the total US tax burden to over 70%.

I can't see in reality how it works.

-A quick glance at the Laffer Curve will help you out.

Most people are scarred to spend money while the economy when it is tanking. Give them tax breaks and will they truly spend it.

-What would happen to it otherwise? Their gonna put it under their mattresses? Even if they save it, they will be increasing bank deposits which lowers interest rates naturally and encourages lending. The theory behind Obamas stimulus is to restore confidence in lending. Instead of speculating that it won't work, give me a scenario?

With this philosophy, you concentrate growth in the middle class and above. This will in turn alienate the poor population, who are struggling and have no money.

-A tax break for the rich will actually help the poor before the rich, because the rich will spend the extra on business expansion, including primarily, job creation. Ofcourse, if you are unwilling to work, you should be in an institution.

You give money to governments to invest and create jobs. Also you save business from falling, so they can create jobs and revenue. Just for your own comfort, America will never become socialized like Europe. Americans mentality is different from that of Europeans. Like you have stated in your last email, the U.S. constitution will never allow extreme amounts of government. America will always be a capitalist economy, maybe more regulated and more driven by the lower classes, but still on the essence capitalist. It seems, from reading your last email, that you are worried that a socialized agenda will be the new norm for America, but it won't. Obama's plan for healthcare is not going to be government run; it will still be privatized. His plan is to have many insurance companies compete for health care plans, by doing this. It will create more competition and the price will be more reasonable.

-I see... No, wait, I don't see. You are saying that Obama wants to use his federal power to force health insurance companies to compete in what is already a free and competitive market. So he'll implement rules that will favor particular companies? ... He'll say, "you must compete at the most competitive level?",...He'll set prices which will force many insurers to leave the industry thus creating a monopoly... one insurer providing for the whole country... Like medicaid? One of the worst run programs in the federal government.

I wanted to clarify this, because I could sense you thought we were heading the direction of Europe

-I am so relieved. Boy, thanks James. In reality, socialism moves in steps. It just so happens this is the largest step this country has taken since the Lyndon Johnson. With every step, it erodes the Constitution's promise of equality before the law. You say that the "constitution will never allow extreme amounts of government", but I would say, the Constitution can't prevent the march of socialism. The constitution is only a piece of paper. It is the idea behind the Constitution only, that can protect the country from this form of immoral government. The explanation of that idea is being denied in public schools, the media, and at the University. I would hope you would take some time to read some other things besides what your school is providing.

( and sorry for the extended talks on Europe listed above). Regarding the stimulus, this is only temporary, until we are out of the recession. There will nonetheless, be more regulation of business, but not in the socialism sense. Privatized agendas will remain and even though there will be little changes (which in all honesty are needed) including increased taxes on the wealthy and more concentration on the poor; free market will still exist. This is not say however, that I am in complete support of this economic philosophy(capitalism). Hence, why I only prefer Obama over the other guy(McCain). I like the set up of Europe, a more harmonious and collective system. I like the fact of low counts of poverty and more equalized distribution of wealth. I like the fact that attaining a valuable education is more of a reality instead of an illusion, and leisure time is more easy to come by(albeit lack of material possessions). In my opinion the economic and political setup of Europe is very progressive and I agree with it.

-I am glad to finally get this off to you. Please forgive the sarcasm in places, I mean no harm. I can be harsh sometimes, but understand that I am passionate. I would really like to move the discussion at this point to ethics and your justification for your opinions and ideas. For instance, it is my contention that governments by the people are instituted to protect citizens from the intrusions of their neighbors. They are instituted to protect freedoms, liberties and properties. How do you justify using the government in a coercive way? How do you rebut these words from the great economic thinker F.A. Hayek that say true individualism "... can see no reason for trying to make people equal as distinct from treating them equally. While individualism is profoundly opposed to all proscriptive privilege, to all protection, by law or force, of any rights not based on rules equally applicable to all persons, it also denies the government the right to limit what the able or fortunate may achieve. It is equally opposed to any rigid limitation of the position individuals may achieve, whether this power is used to perpetuate inequality or to create equality. Its main principle is that no man or group of men should have power to decide what another man's status ought to be, and it regards this as a condition of freedom so essential that it must not be sacrificed to the gratification of our sense of justice or of our envy."

Obama Spending Debate

2009-06-19T09:35:00.001-07:00

I have had many requests to post full sections of the opinion of my liberal friend from the University of Utah so that everyone can see the insanity with their own eyes and make their own comments. So I will start at the beginning and post the most telling of his initial submissions followed by my specific rebuttal. I will then post the next communication thread on another day.

I hope this exercise will stimulate some dialogue… now get busy friends and tell this guy what you think. – Maurice

Maurice,

It is good to hear from, just to get things clarified I am not an Obama "maniac" like many of my peers. I just tend to agree with his policies which is generally directed towards the common "man"; he is still a politician nonetheless. Also to be noted I am doing a research paper on this topic, and when I get my results I can give you more information(My paper is what promotes economic stability). Anyways... I see your concern with Obama, like many other conservative Americans. The stimulus is a scary thought because it's creating more debt and inflation, but inflation is not always bad. If our currency is valued lower then another country's, it will promote exports from our country(because are products will be a lot more affordable on the market) which we do need badly. One of our reasons for the collapse of our economy was the trade deficit. We as a country were buying much more then selling. A good example of this was with GM, many Americans because of cost resorted to buying foreign cars. Also to add on to stimulus argument, I am a big believer in Keynesian economics. John Maynard Keyes believed that investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

I hope this helps explain why I am a supporter of Obama, but I only tackled the economic aspect of his policies since I figured this is of most worry to you. If you have any other concerns feel free to let me know? I love debating politics and hope to hear from you soon.

Thanks-

Also, it may seem like the stimulus is like a dead fish, but just give it time.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

You'll have to explain who the "common man" is, because I am a little confused. I thought I was the common man. At least the common American. I'm white, Christian, in a household, live in an urban area, make an average amount of money... What could be more common?

Anyway, I wasn't really writing to you for advice. I just wanted to open up a dialogue with you to try to broaden your perspective a little. Hope you don't mind.

I am very familiar with Keynesian theory. However, don't ascribe to it. I support a free market philosophically. Locke, Smith, De Tocqueville, Max Weber, Hayek, Friedman, Sowell... My kind of guys. Are you familiar with them?

I've done some research on economic stability. Perhaps I can recommend some books for you to refer to.

Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell.
Free to Choose, Milton Friedman
The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek

If you are interested in contemporary titles which address our current economic situation, you could glean some information from these recent works:

The End of Prosperity, Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore.
Meltdown: -- , Thomas Woods

Since you are such a big fan of Keynes, you must be prepared to defend the Keynesian policies which helped usher in this deep recession? The Fed's policy over the last 3 years, Greenspan in 2006 and now Bernanke, has been to stave off inflation by keeping interest rates low. It made everyone feel like they are Warren Buffett. Every time they lowered the lending rate, more people were encouraged to borrow and spend beyond their means. The areas of the economy that saw the most investment from this Keynesian, hands on, monetary inflation policy were capital markets and housing. Both sectors were devastated by reckless speculation with Keynesian 'free money'. If inflation was in the cards for the economy in 2006, and even before, we should have let that ride a little bit then and we wouldn't have seen such large bubbles in the economy burst all at once. That being said, who is to blame? It all starts with the Keynesians.

The trade deficit doesn't hurt the economy. So we by a lot of cheap stuff. Big deal. If even 25% are assets used in the production of more sophisticated products and technology for emerging markets the growth in GDP is sustained. So long as we continue to trade with those emerging markets. (See the Columbia Free Trade bill that has gone nowhere with this Democrat congress.) The US has assets totaling in the hundreds of trillions. That dwarfs those of our closest rivals. Its like Bill Gates buying toilet paper and pencils for Microsoft. The "tp" is cash literally thrown down the drain, but if the pencils are employed to create one groundbreaking idea... You see the analogy.

The economy was hurt by Keynesian regulation of the money supply (see argument above), socio-economic tinkering by liberal lawmakers ( (D) Barney Frank, (D) Chris Dodd etc.) and community activists who forced mortgage lenders to make a ton of risky loans to people who had no business buying houses or who bought homes beyond their means under the community Reinvestment Act, and reckless speculation in capital and real estate markets with the biggest risk takers being the quasi-governmental institutions of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac (See relationships with the aforementioned (D) Barney Frank, (D) Chris Dodd etc. ) who peddled off those
self-same risky mortgages with the confidence of knowing that the taxpayer would be the ultimate guarantor.

In my opinion, this stimulus is not a good thing. You'll have to explain in detail how it will help this economy. You'll have to drill down and make a detailed argument about how you believe the economy will benefit in order to persuade me. I know that an injection of cash into the economy stimulates activity, but keep in mind activity is not growth. Growth is wealth generation. The economy needs growth. It will always need growth. Health is sustained growth. The converse is death. Activity does not, in and of itself, create your 'multiple of the original investment', in other words wealth.

I look forward to hearing your arguments.

Rules?... What rules?

2009-06-19T06:01:00.000-07:00

More of the same from the Obama administration. Graft, corruption, then cover-up. This kind of politics is no different than that exhibited by the President when he was a lowly senator in Illinois. When we look back on the Obama presidency, we will see the most depraved executive administration in history.

Debating Liberal Sciolism Part II

2009-06-16T12:41:00.000-07:00

He:

Now for the argument of stimulus, it is necessary because we can't let business fall. I know many believers like yourself believe that the markets will work themselves out. This is true, but only to a certain clarification of "work themselves out". By letting business fall it will create less income for a country and less jobs. GM for example is a perfect example. If we let GM fall(along with Ford and Chrysler) there will be less jobs created and less revenue for our country.

Me:

If we let GM fail, it will merge with a more successfully managed auto company like Toyota or Nissan et al. It will shed jobs initially then reopen plants, in America, and rehire without the burdens of debilitating union contracts. You fail to see that the demand for GM cars and trucks is still one of the largest in the world. It is a problem that many like you have little confidence in the free market to develop new technologies and often completely new industries.

The US economy is not static. If we lose an industry to the third world, it is not always a bad thing. Before there were rubber tires, wheels were wooden. Americans’ had a thriving wooden wagon wheel industry no doubt. Do you want to bring that industry back? People like you decried the use of coal as an alternative to wood in the 18^th century. Could we have fueled the industrial revolution without coal? Often we move past and outgrow industries that have served a purpose, but are now more affordably imported. In a country where men are able to freely associate and capital is available, other industries develop to take the place of the old. (If we lose an industry to the third world prematurely, you can almost assuredly look, in part, to the government’s or collective bargaining’s culpability.) The US leads the world in patents, not because the government initiates new areas of research, but because private citizens do. By passing on industries to emerging countries and investing in those enterprises we, 1) grow economies outside the US, 2) Raise the standard of living for poor societies, 3) Create demand for other of our products, and 4) Create new and innovative products and services to support those growing economies.

Reminder: Scott invited you to join Facebook...

2009-06-07T20:22:00.001-07:00

facebook

Hi Mauriceenchel.igster,

The following person recently invited you to be their friend on Facebook:

Scott Cogswell
96 friends

Other people you may know on Facebook:

	Thomas Young Salt Lake City, UT		Tiffany Adams Boase
	Donny Ford SLCC		Chad Crawford Salt Lake City, UT
	Heather Bitter Freeze		Brian Nichols

Facebook is a great place to keep in touch with friends, post photos, videos and create events. But first you need to join! Sign up today to create a profile and connect with the people you know.

Thanks,
The Facebook Team

Facebook is free and anyone can join.

To sign up for Facebook, follow the link below:

http://www.facebook.com/r.php?re=6a1a1a094d54c7f298c0ec682b17b80c&mid=968114G65c778caG4f8e5G46

This message was intended for mauriceenchel.igster@blogger.com. If you do not wish to receive this type of email from Facebook in the future, please click here to unsubscribe.
Facebook's offices are located at 1601 S. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304.

Debating Liberal Sciolism

2009-05-20T14:13:00.000-07:00

In an effort to point out the lack of intellectual diligence exhibited by the liberal youth movement, the constituency some would credit with the election of Barack Obama, I will share excerpts from an ongoing debate I am having with a student of Comparative Cultures from the University of Utah. My goal in sharing some of this debate is to placate friends who have asked me to share it, but more importantly, to illuminate the general propensity liberals have to take statistics at face value rather than pursue the more diligent and tedious course of discovering the driving characteristics behind them. The contrasting arguments should also reveal the power liberal academics and the mainstream media command over people apathetic about the difficult work necessary in understanding our world. The unwillingness of modern Americans to delve deeply into comparative histories and the palpable economic verities that informed the founders of this nation has given rise to the neo-Marxian policies currently being enacted by the executive and legislative branches. A ten second media spot seems to be all it takes to make the average American feel informed. Sciolism seems acceptable in this techno age.

The first entry:

He: Out of 8 countries the United States had the highest crime homicide rate of 5.5, while Germany and other European countries was around 0.9. Now you may say that is coincidence or whatever. However, if only one country had a low rate, I can see your argument, but 12 of the EU countries have a lower rate and are more socialist geared. When I mentioned dangerous I meant in terms of crime rate. This means something. Furthermore the United States is only 4% of the world's population, but contains one-quarter of the worlds entire prison population! The U.S. averages 685 prisoners per 100,00 people, compared to 87 in EU countries.

Me: The Bureau of Justice Statistics paints a complete picture. Homicide rates are high because of black on black crime. Like I said, poverty doesn't cause it, family disorganization and a failure of the culture to meet critical Judeo-Christian expectations does. Much of this stems from the liberal policies of the 1960's and 1970's, no fault divorce and irresponsible welfare policies which made the father of the black family obsolete. Read any number of books on the subject. Slouching toward Gomorrah and The Dream and the Nightmare are the two best I've read so far. Incarceration is high because we take crime seriously. Read the report.

Check out my photos on Facebook

2009-04-19T21:31:00.001-07:00

facebook

Check out my photos on Facebook

Hi Mauriceenchel.igster,

I set up a Facebook profile where I can post my pictures, videos and events and I want to add you as a friend so you can see it. First, you need to join Facebook! Once you join, you can also create your own profile.

Thanks,
Scott

To sign up for Facebook, follow the link below:

http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=1765441388&k=ZW12YWV5U5WEUCC1VGX4UTS&r

mauriceenchel.igster@blogger.com was invited to join Facebook by Scott Cogswell. If you do not wish to receive this type of email from Facebook in the future, please click here to unsubscribe.
Facebook's offices are located at 156 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301.

The Reprimitivized Future -- Mark Steyn

2009-04-16T12:17:00.001-07:00

Mark Steyn exhibits a sense for and a vision of world politics beyond the horizon of the common enthusiast. And his style imposes upon you to feel and live it.

“Civilization is not an evolution of mankind but the imposition of human good on human evil. It is not a historical inevitability. It is a battle that has to be fought every day, because evil doesn’t recede willingly before the wheels of progress.” -- Andrew McCarthy, former federal prosecutor, senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.

DHS Enlists Local Authorities to Profile Conservative America

2009-04-15T08:57:00.001-07:00

'Liberals' have their transformational faith in the bureaucracy of the Executive and oppose other institutions, particularly those "non-liberal social forces" like Church and family that often find expression in the organizations of neighborhoods, small cities, and even several States. Modern liberalism sees "central government as the more promising instrument of progress, and the others as obstacles."

This administration has been successful in casting dispersion on the free market, and will now attempt to do the same to conservative society.

San Francisco Values

2009-04-03T08:05:00.000-07:00

WSJOnline -- April 3, 2009

News From Nancy Pelosi's District
Government schools in San Francisco are trying to boost their students' aspirations, the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

"Remember the first time you heard Jimi Hendrix?" reads the cover of the district's new 51-page education guide. "Our plan is as transformational now as his music was then!"

The manifesto is aimed at transforming the educational "experiences for every child in each of our schools."

To drive home the point, a portrait of the '60s rocker--looking somewhat pensive, somber and perhaps stoned--graces the cover and every page of the manual.

The book also comes with a Hendrix poster and Hendrix-emblazoned canvas bag, which were handed out to a couple hundred administrators at Superintendent Carlos Garcia's back-to-school confab in September.

An editorial in the same day's Chronicle faults the San Francisco school board for defying the will of the voters and refusing to preserve the city's Junior ROTC program:

The program will come to a halt in June unless board members vote to reverse a November 2006 decision to end it. Last November, San Francisco voters endorsed an advisory measure, Proposition V, in support of keeping JROTC.

The usual complaint--opposition to the federal law barring open homosexuals from serving in the military--doesn't apply here: "Young people of all sexual orientations are welcome in the San Francisco program." But ultraliberal school board members still object to JROTC as, in the Chronicle's words, "an indoctrinating recruiting tool."

So in San Francisco, if you're willing to risk your life for your country, you must be brainwashed. If you choke to death on your own vomit, you're a role model.

The Elite Culture of American Democrats

2009-03-13T06:36:00.000-07:00

Democrats: feeding the hungry… clothing the naked…

WSJonline – Best of the Web Today, 3/12/2009

Your Tax Dollars at Work
"More than one out of every five dollars of the $126 million Massachusetts is receiving in earmarks from a $410 billion federal spending package is going to help preserve the legacy of the Kennedys," the Associated Press reports from Boston:

The bill includes $5.8 million for the planning and design of a building to house a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate. The funding may also help support an endowment for the institute.

The bill also includes $22 million to expand facilities at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum and $5 million more for a new gateway to the Boston Harbor Islands on the Rose Kennedy Greenway, a park system in downtown Boston named after Kennedy's mother and built on land opened up by the Big Dig highway project.

We suppose if you can't make history, you might as well buy it with other people's money.

Wage Protection Will Slow Recovery

2009-03-11T11:45:00.000-07:00

Since the federal government has decided to expropriate the future earnings of America's children to avert an economic 'catastrophe', its only fitting that these resources be used most efficiently, guaranteeing a rapid return on investment. Otherwise, what we will see is the debilitatingly prolonged recovery of the depression era.

Even government bureaucracies should use sound market principles and fiscal responsibility in dealing with crisis. Meaning Davis-Bacon policies should have no place in the effort to restore our country's economic stability.

Just as the Bush administration suspended the Act in Katrina ravished Louisiana to facilitate rapid response and recovery, so the Obama administration and Congress should do the same for the sake of our national economy.

In conservative circles, wage standards discriminate against poor communities and drive up unemployment in general. With unemployment climbing of its own, job protectionism and labor unions as the primary beneficiaries of stimulus contracts, will retard growth.

Beware Of The Counselor

2009-02-24T11:38:00.000-08:00

... passing along some information that we all should be concerned about.

If allowed by the respective state governors, the country's 'child advocate' NGOs and Government run orgs like CPS will get millions from the PelObamaReid federal stimulus.

Nothing like bolstering an already powerful and potentially dangerous taxpayer funded, government led syndicate chalk full of 'academic experts'; teachers, school administrators, counselors, psychologists, sociologists, lawyers, judges, etc., who view the family as an impediment to the proper socialization of children.

Disclaimer:

To be clear... the argument is with the anti-family syndicate, not you the upstanding teacher, administrator, counselor, psychologist, sociologist, lawyer, judge, etc.

Family & Friends,

I recently attended court as a supporter for a dear friend of mine who lives in a nearby town. She and her husband have four children, the oldest of which is a typical 13 year old girl. Like most girls her age, she is testing her limits. She tries manipulating, “stretching” the truth, and trying to get her way. She is a good girl, but definitely pushing the envelope. Her parents are good parents and they don’t take garbage from their kids.

Last November, this 13 year old was irritated that her mother took her cell phone privileges away until her grades improved, so she made an appointment with the school counselor and ranted and raved that her mother was unfair, she exaggerated and got carried away about the situation, and complained her mother had “hurt her feelings.” The counselor contacted my friend and made her recommendations about the situation to which my friend basically told her it was none of her business. Then, when her daughter got home they had a discussion and the mother told the daughter not to go to the counselor anymore.

Late January, Child Protective Services (CPS) came to the house and took all four children from the babysitter at the house and charged both parents with “emotional abuse.” Apparently, the counselor had tried to set up another appointment with this 13 year old, who said “my mom says I shouldn’t talk to you anymore.” The counselor determined, from that statement, that there must be something wrong at home…otherwise there wouldn’t be any reason they couldn’t talk. She then contacted CPS and thus the removal of the children.

It has now been three weeks, the parents cannot see or talk with their children because the parents “may influence the children’s version of events,” even though this is all based on the eldest’s meeting with the counselor. My friend and her husband have had three previous court dates during which they have never been allowed to speak to the judge. The system has them trapped and their lawyer estimates it will take 4-6 months to get this resolved and their children home. They have boundaries, expectations, and limitations for their children and they are being charged with “emotional abuse”.

Our laws are giving children all the power. Being a good parent is at the mercy of the observer, many of which do not like the moral stance we teach our children, especially in light of Proposition 8. Beware the counselor. They tell our children they only want to help, and I mean no disrespect, but their job entirely depends on people having problems! For example:

My own daughter, Evelyn, made an appointment with the school counselor just before winter break because she was having problems with the kids in her table group. She got back from winter break and her table group had changed (it does every month) and the counselor called her in. Evelyn couldn’t even remember why she had made the appointment, so the counselor began fishing around. By the end of the appointment, Evelyn’s best friend had been called into the office and they were both crying over some event in Kindergarten (4+ years ago). The counselor seemed very pleased when she called to tell us she had taken care of a “little problem” between these two! Seriously!? Dredging up problems from Kindergarten and making little girls cry over it is a good thing? I think you see my point.

Please talk to your children about this. I know we have.

Government 'Spend-on-us' Bill

2009-02-23T10:54:00.000-08:00

http://snipurl.com/chznw

"Disgraced Democratic Sen. John Edwards was right about one thing: There are two Americas. One America is full of moochers, big and small, corporate and individual, trampling over themselves with their hands out demanding endless bailouts. The other America is full of disgusted, hardworking citizens getting sick of being played for chumps and punished for practicing personal responsibility."

-- Michelle Malkin

maurice enchel

An Abortive Abortion

2009-02-12T10:19:00.000-08:00

Best of the Web: Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 2009

The Associated Press reports from Tampa, Fla., on an abortion that went awry:

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

The AP reports that "the case has riled the anti-abortion community, which contends the clinic's actions constitute murder." There was a time when even people outside "the anti-abortion community" would have agreed that killing a baby after birth constitutes murder.

animal farm

2009-01-23T14:25:00.000-08:00

http://snipurl.com/alipa [www_ibdeditorials_com]

Animal Farm -- George Orwell, 1945

from a summary of themes with my edited notations: sparknotes.com

The Windmill

The great windmill symbolizes the pigs' manipulation of the other animals for their own gain. Despite the immediacy of the need for food and warmth (strong economy, freedom, liberty, & independence), the pigs exploit Boxer and the other common animals (naïve working class) by making them undertake backbreaking labor (income, payroll, capital gains, estate taxes, etc.) to build the windmill, which will ultimately earn the pigs more money and thus increase their power. The pigs' declaration that Snowball (George W. Bush (Republicans)) is responsible for the windmill's first collapse constitutes psychological manipulation, as it prevents the common animals from doubting the pigs' (Obama, Reid, Pelosi et al (socialist Democrats)) abilities and unites them against a supposed enemy. The ultimate conversion of the windmill to commercial use (stimulus spending buys preferred stock in American companies whose future dividends will not go to repaying the American taxpayer, nor will they be available to fund the companies' growth, but will instead be reinvested in a new, new deal.) is one more sign of the pigs' betrayal of their fellow animals. From an allegorical point of view, the windmill represents the enormous modernization projects undertaken in Soviet Russia after the Russian Revolution (which failed and will fail our economy -- Federal 'infrastructure, uneconomical 'green' industries, universal healthcare, etc.).

http://snipurl.com/ama9v [www_dickmorris_com]

"...but some are more equal than others."

2008-12-05T11:15:00.000-08:00

There is no greater example of hypocrisy than opponents of school choice preferring an alternative to public education for their children.

Why I can't vote for a Democrat

2008-11-20T07:39:00.000-08:00

Why I can't vote for a Democrat.

Conservatives & Republicans give more in charity and offer their time and service to others most consistently, regardless of income (Arthur Brooks). Democratic Socialists, who now have come to power with the election of Barack Obama, don't because they can't confirm whether or not everyone else is, nor can they be sure of the magnitude. Mere compassion is not as important to them as 'fairness in giving' as they've defined it. This is the distinction.

Socialists are not sufficiently humble to give for the sake of giving. They envy those who horde wealth, therefore, remain uncharitable. The perception that others of similar social status are not givers precludes them from considering personal generosity. It is of a sense that it is unfair that while they might give, others keep. They protect vehemently their discontent with inequity and use government to ameliorate it because they are conflicted. On the one hand they see the need for generosity, even their own gifts and sacrifices, and yet they vanquish the guilt of inaction by citing injustice. Which is the moral position, to give without conscience or demand fairness at the end of the barrel of a gun?

Herd Mentality

2008-08-05T14:28:00.001-07:00

This is a very interesting topic. 'Nature' follows a complex of reactionary behaviours at the subconscious level. This subconscious conformity or 'tyrrany of the mind' must also stem from the same psychology.

Scientifically it may be encoded in DNA, but ultimately its power is metaphysical.

Put the question of safety in numbers to Carl Jung, or before him Gottfried Leibniz and others, and you might get an answer more compelling. All, understood and respected the perennial philosophy,

"that recognizes the divine Reality substantial to the world of things
and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to,
or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man's final end in
the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent ground of all being; the thing is
immemorial and universal."

'Jung emphasized
the importance of balance and harmony. He cautioned that modern people rely too
heavily on science and logic and would benefit from integrating spirituality and
appreciation of unconscious realms.'

Human societal behaviour is not unlike that of a school of fish; reactionary in the fulfillment of existential responsibility. What is unique is that 'human society', especially in the west, has conquered much of the predation. This success in overcoming our environment is paramount to societal growth. The freedom of the individual to push societal restrictions in accordance with Divinely guarded transcendence is the progression of civilization. An individual or societal resistence to the Divine then is detrimental to either or both. Wierdos, deviants and loners are ostracized for good reason. When society does reach out to them it is always with the intention to bring them into conformity. Who associates with such for another reason but those same conflicted souls?

Of course we emulate those we perceive to be more successful. Ultimately 'our' success depends on it.

The 'tyrrany of the mind' can only be true tyrrany when the ideology or behaviour we are to emulate is not in accordance with the Divine. (Certainly it is tyrrany when others mandate it through government and make its nonconformance punishable.)

Divine law and truth, and obedience to them, is liberating.

The key phrase you've mentioned Brian is, "... as it [rigid confomity] becomes more and more detached from reality." This is then a discussion on the nature or reality. Certainly rigid conformity with the fundamental nature of reality is not dangerous, but essential. The fact that you have put quotes around the tribe's 'truth' shows me you understand this.

Divine Intelligence encompasses every aspect of the universe including our proclivity for particular behaviour as individuals and as societies.

Thanks for this topic Brian. It has strengthened my testimony of a living God.

Make Your Argument

2008-06-06T06:11:00.000-07:00

In the reluctance of the left in our culture to defend their positions fairly, they have resorted to tactics which seek to redefine certain english words and terms to their advantage.

We must guard against the tendency toward political correctness.

If the 'Right' allows the left (particularly in academia) to continue to define our positions by redefining certain words like, argument, intolerance, profiling, marriage etc., we will have no recourse. Already, our society has been so influenced by this political correctness that it is uncivilized, particularly from the right, to enter into argument on issues dear to them.

Look at the definition of the word argument. Its root is from latin argūmentum, from arguere, to make clear. Clarity, like Truth, is God. To argue for clarity should be encouraged. It is a catalyst of further enlightenment. Without it, our advanced society will not progress. But ask any child what he has been taught about argument.

Another example that really bothers me is the left's redefinition of the word intolerance to denote hatred. Teachers are using it to label conscientous objectors as either racist, homophobic or just plain haters in their plans to teach global and community peace projects. I have to combat this at home.

I tell my son that intolerance to misguided and unseemly behavior and situations is not wrong and is actually an important survival instinct. It means unendurable. Certainly there are important ideas and behaviors that should not be tolerated. The left has so confounded the definition that intolerance in any situation is hate filled.

Our culture is so concerned with people's values and ideologies being challenged, but it is very important that we make these challenges. The left is tired of their iniquity being challenged.

I told my father that there is not enough argument in our society anymore. The free exchange of ideas and opinions is what is being protected by the first amendment. But the left is seeking to close argument and debate down, or atleast close the 'Right's' ability to make argument by characterizing ours as fascist, fundamentalist, and out of the mainstream.

It has even had influence in The Church. The last place it should happen.

We must ever keep in mind that collectivized socialism is part of the communistic strategy. Communism is fundamentally socialism. When socialism is understood, we will realize that many of the programs advocated, and some of these already adopted in the U.S., fall clearly within the category of socialism. What is socialism? It is simply governmental ownership or management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods ((CN: or services?)). The socialistic-communistic conspiracy to weaken the U.S. involves attacks on many fronts. Their press and other propaganda media are therefore constantly selling the principles of centralized or federal control of farms, railroads, electric power, schools, steel, shipping, and many other aspects of the economy - but always in the name of public welfare.. ((Compiler's Note: Medicine?))

What can priesthood holders do? We should become informed about communism, socialism and about Americanism. What better way can one become informed then by first studying the inspired words of the prophets and using them as a foundation against which to test all other material? We should know why collectivism or unnecessary federal supervision will hold our standard of living down and reduce productivity. We should know why the communist leaders consider socialism the high road to communism. We should treat socialistic-communism as the tool of Satan. We should follow the counsel of the President of the Church and resist the influence and policies of the conspiracy wherever they are found in the schools, in the churches, in government, in unions, in business, in agriculture.

We should help those who have been deceived or who are misinformed to find the truth. Unless each person who knows the truth will stand up and speak up, it is difficult for the deceived or confused citizen to find his way back. Thousands of patriotic Americans, including Latter-day Saints, have helped the communists without realizing it. Each priesthood holder should use his influence in the community to resist the erosion which is taking place in our political and economic life. He should see that his party is working to preserve freedom, not destroy it. He should join responsible local groups interested in promoting freedom and free competitive enterprise, in studying political issues, promoting good men in public office and scrutinizing local, state, and federal agencies. He should not wait for the Lord's servants to give instruction for every detail. In doing these things, a member of the Church is not only making himself an opponent of the adversary, but a proponent of the Lord. May God give us the wisdom to recognize the threat to our freedom and strength to meet this danger. (Pres. Ezra Taft Benson - CR Oct 1961)

Speaking of Dubai's Planned Development and High Gas Prices

2008-05-14T07:23:00.000-07:00

What a successful example of human ingenuity and capitalism. Think of the individuals whose ancestors spent centuries in such a God forsaken place. Now look at it. It took people to build that. And it will take people to run it. People who just 20 years ago had nothing. Now they are certainly enjoying hot and cold running water, air conditioning, satellite television. Should everyone around the globe someday enjoy such fruits of human invention. Should everyone have the hope that their communities should thrive thusly.

Did anything exist here for even thousands of years but sand? Now there are jobs and a thriving economy. This is good for people.

If there is blame to be had for our high gas prices, it should pass to China and India where people are actually beginning to enjoy the kinds of technology that we've had for almost a century now. But mostly it should pass to those in wealthy Western societies who have little faith in the ability of free men to utilize the earth's resources and, simultaneously, develop technologies to mitigate their affects on human communities and the environment.

Clarity Resolves Differences

2007-10-25T13:46:00.000-07:00

“Hillary is for abortion, gun control, gay rights, and so is Gulliani [sic]…”

The comparison of Rudy to Hillary in such flippant terms is dangerous.

It is my understanding that satan has successfully employed academia and the media in undermining what was once the desire of intelligent, thoughtful people in discerning and conveying objective Truth.

In reality, Giuliani is not for 'gun control' in the context of what many people understand it to mean, that by which a socialist or dictatorial regime intends on eliminating any private gun ownership. Certainly, in attempting to eradicate violent crime from the streets of NY, restricting access to and distribution of guns by unsavory characters by making the licensing procedures a little more demanding does not compare to the prescriptions of the particular ideologies and governmental philosophies that Hillary manifestly represents.

As far as the abortion issue goes, I believe that there is a real fine line one is forced to walk if one wants to participate in earthly governance.

It is the decision one makes to fight on earth for a position of authority in order to influence the course of human events for good, even if that fight forces one to observe cultural perversities which run counter to personal principle. The opposite is the abandonment of the fight all together for the sake of celestial principle, and to suffer the designs of tyrants.

I know, as a personal testimony, that Giulianni believes abortion to be an abomination. He has said so himself. He does not believe it to be a good policy in any respect. But for him to be able to make a difference and to attain a leadership role in a city that had virtually lost all morality, he had to make a sacrifice. In following the law - what all good men must do according to the LDS Church’s 12th article of faith - he had to say, as any man would say who really cares to win and as even Mitt Romney, when running for a Senate seat and the governorship of MA, had to say, that he would support the right (not a supernal right, but a terrestrial right by earthly law) of a woman to seek an abortion. If he could not say this, there would never have been an opportunity to use the influence of the position to make the needed difference.

This position stands in stark contrast to that of Hillary Clinton who fully supports abortion as a sound policy for ridding a woman of an unwanted and accidental burden, and has expressed, through her promotion of organizations like NOW and NARAL, her unconditional defense of abortion itself, not just the choice of it.

I have not studied Giulianni's position on gay rights because the executive branch of government has very little jurisdiction there. The way Rudy, or the President elect, will have any influence is through the selection of Supreme Court justices. Make no mistake, this issue alone is the most important issue facing our country's domestic policy with the potential retirement of 4 judges in the next 10 years. I am certain that he is not for redefining 'Marriage' to include gay relationships. He understands that it is individual liberty, family and small government that are the foundations of strong societies. Hillary on the otherhand, well we don't have to guess where she stands.

My point, really, and again I want to stress that I am very impressed with your knowledge on these issues. I appreciate those who take seriously the admonishment in Doctrine and Covenants 88: 118 - "...seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.", but I worry about how, as a society, we tend not to discern differences clearly. And then to make matters worse, we communicate poorly about those details and differences, such as I have outlined above. It ruins the strength of our arguments. I see a great gulf between the ideas and policies of Rudy Giulianni and Hillary Clinton and I need to make it clear. You know, I tell my kids all the time to think clearly about what they want to say and then find the right words which will convey most effectively their message. I think it is one of the most important things we can teach our kids in order to restore a living God to this planet.

Indulge me to give a real clear example: A friend, in Church, was talking about the Constitution. He expressed that it was a 'living and breathing' document. Now, I know for a fact that he does not think that the Constitution should be interpreted differently by elite tribunals, age upon age, based on the progressive circumstances of the current society. His intent was to express that through an appropriately rigorous process, it could be amended. But this term, 'living and breathing document' was coined by the factions on the left to mean just that, that the Constitution is not a legal document defining societal order into perpetuity, but that it really is open to interpretation by the powerful Judiciary in order to prevail upon society the agendas of multi-culturists and egalitarians. So why would he use such a term in front of not a few otherwise ignorant and impressionable minds who would, having respect for his intellect and upon hearing the term somewhere else connoting the opposite of his intention, not conclude that he believes just this about it?

This is how satan works, therefore we must be very careful about the arguments we make. satan will ensure that everything we hear, see and say is somehow miscontrued (Reference C.S. Lewis - The Screwtape Letters) to benefit his annilihation of Truth, which is God.

I hope you can respect my concern?

Modern 'Liberalism' is irrational

2007-08-15T09:46:00.000-07:00

Liberalism is a mental disorder. – Michael Savage

Extreme liberalism exists in the inability of an individual to rationalize empirical evidence throughout a greater human context. Its values are perception and emotion based. It does not generalize data across the greater spectrum of human understanding.

It is an immaturity; a state of being that, for some, never progresses to the higher state of rational human.

It is an inability to associate historical empirical evidence with modern outcomes. It is a state of ignorance to ‘what has been’, ‘what will be’, and ‘what will always be’, and perpetuates an impossible idealism.

When a human refuses to accept raw data, but rather sustains and guards a belief about some character of earthly existence at the superficial level of emotions and feelings, there will never be personal enlightenment.

Human enlightenment comes, and positive change can only occur, once one is able to accept the most basic understandings of how the world works.

These experiments and tests have continued for the thousands of years of human existence, and the outcome never changes. The whole thing has been recorded by successful civilizations; first the Hebrews, then the Greeks, then the ‘Catholics’, then the ‘Protestants’. Nothing has changed… except for human understanding to depths and degrees beyond what was available before.

It is liberalism’s unwillingness to accept this ‘doctrine of humanity’ that holds it beyond rational thought. It is not so much an acceptance of Evolution that they purport, but the denial of historical, societal empiricism.

One very clear example:

Animals will die… Children too… No matter how much one cares. However, one has to realize that fewer children will die when the most productive in society are allowed to be as ‘selfish’ as they wish. That without the greedy desire to be better or richer, to have a better technology or own a bigger house, the truly talented who drive industry cannot help, in a circuitous way, the poorest ascend to new echelons of existence.

Nevertheless, in order to support this idea, one has to realize that, although one is taught to be all you can be, and that the riches of the earth are the right of every individual to pursue, not all pursues them in the same way, and not all achieve in the same way. Sometimes a bitter pill to swallow.

Rational humans realize that if they are to make up the disparity, that it is up to them, but ultimately count their blessings at the end of the day…. Irrational humans seek justification for their inabilities and demand compliance to egalitarian demands, at the expense of the society as a whole.

--
Posted By Maurice Enchel to Maurice Enchel at 8/15/2007 09:40:00 AM

Mind your P's and Q's

2007-06-08T15:04:00.000-07:00

One thing I try to express to my children is the importance of saying precisely what you mean.

Truth and clarity are the goal of righteous men. We must use specific language at every opportunity to express and clarify our ideas. We should communicate without false intention, but in truth.

Language is a way we express what we think and feel. Through language we are able to expedite activity that becomes either productive or nonproductive, based on the clarity of the message. It also allows us to express ideas that are consistent with our understanding of things, and more importantly, our understanding of truth.

If you think about it, it is through the words we use and the intentions we exhibit that we are able to come to much of the consensus that makes our free society possible.

I have become increasingly aware, however, of how the progressive culture has removed the importance of meaning from language and purposefully alters reality by employing bombast and distortion as tools of persuasion. It is rhetorical knavery perpetrated by radical groups in our society who have the support of liberal factions in academia, news media, and law. All are perceived as authorities presiding with influential power over the mass of information age consumers, holding sway over popular opinion.

Their flippant use of rhetorical propaganda and demagoguery tells me they have no interest in discovering truth, only that they are concerned with protecting their own selfish ideologies, lifestyles and habituations.

Clearly, the example from this column portraying Kenneth R. Willard as "against the teaching of evolution" is, least of all, a disqualification of his true intent. Aren't reporters taught to report openly and without bias? Likely the distortions in the piece have nothing to do with the quality of education Ms. Dean received, but are deliberate perversions by Ms. Dean and the editorial staff of the New York Times to put forward a position which paint a picture of Mr. Willard as a crank.

He will surely spend a lifetime justifying his position as not against the teaching of evolution, but for free speech rights in schools, and for the introduction of competing philosophies. Ideas that are being barred from intelligent debate by the radical secularists who have come to power in education and media.

This article by Cornelia Dean is just another gross example of the venality so prevalent in popular print and television media. An example of the plain and unabashed deception and word play that they'll employ in order to dominate cultural perceptions.

It is much more common from the right that statements are clearly communicated; where words are chosen carefully which express ideas and viewpoints that are consistent with reason and logic, and which tend not to embellish on particular understandings.

In another example easily defined, a phrase like "anti immigration" applied broadly to refer to anyone who opposes an open border policy is ludicrous. But this kind of rhetoric is used everyday in the press to demonize those who believe in a sane, responsible legal immigration and documentation policy.

In another example where the perpetrator was not so witting, I present a previous post which includes a note to a colleague who used the term "the Constitution is a living and breathing document" to express an idea about how revelation from God could clarify gospel doctrine. While we do have a living God that testifies his truth to each and every one of us through the holy ghost, the constitution is a legal document whose reinterpretation requires supermajorities for ratification. It should not be subject to tyrannical trifles.

I found out later that he meant that at some point the Constitution could be amended and ratified by the community of citizens. This explanation does not absolve this individual from the linguistic misstep which will have lasting effects. When we use words or phrases that have been adopted by counter cultural factions to delineate destructive positions and ideologies, we are perpetuating these harmful ideas regardless of our intent. It is so important that we remain conscious of the rhetoric used by the counter-culture and resist the temptation to duplicate it in conversation simply for its familiarity.

So the next time someone wants to talk with you about the 'ban on gay marriage', please remind them that what is proposed is not a ban on gay marriage, but a clarification of what civilized societies have deemed marriage to be for thousands of years, a union between one man and one woman for the blessings of procreation and the perpetuation of the species. 'Ban on gay marriage' assumes there is such an institution as gay marriage which has the support of law through a legislative process. No such thing exists except by judicial fiat which is not characteristic of our democratic heritage.

So you see how simple words, used either purposefully or unintentionally, can have a dramatic impact on the morality and sanity of our culture.

Foot in Mouth

2007-05-25T07:04:00.000-07:00

"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker.

One of the most telling revelations of this war era; an illustrative admission by the left that setting deadlines, even in the battle of ideas, is perceived as a prelude to surrender.

(htip: Opinion Journal – James Taranto 5/25/2007)

The Left's Inclination?

2007-05-08T13:15:00.000-07:00

Struggling for a foundational explanation of anti-American, left-wing behaviour, I came across this comprehensive study that puts the root in social rejection.

In Laymen's Terms

2007-05-07T11:10:00.000-07:00

I have been hoping to write a comprehensive treatise (longer than an essay, and I like the word) on the harmonious relationship that scientific discovery and Christian theology historically share. I would set out clearly the divergence that science, or many of the scientific mind, has taken away from the very foundation of scientific inquiry, once firmly rooted in Christianity, and toward an inimical dichotomy that has become permanent lore in this modern age.

I would laud history's greatest scientific minds and the free societies of western civilization which reflected a deep faith in an intelligent creator, and decry erroneous doctrines of relativism, humanism and, particularly, social-Darwinism.

In an effort to clarify the dangerous ideologies of the left in our society today which relate to 'secular scientism'; socialism, radical environmentalism and the attack on free speech, free association, and capitalism, I would employ discouraging statistics which reflect the human toll of its raw power politics, and reveal an ignorance of science as a magnanimous application for the betterment of mankind.

... but alas... it has been done.

Tres Bon !!!

2007-05-07T07:06:00.000-07:00

Even the French can no longer afford being... well... French.

Oil Profits Good for America and Americans

2007-05-04T07:26:00.000-07:00

People, threatening boycotts and government sanctions to punish oil companies for taking record profits is biting the hand that feeds you.

Oil is the biggest industry in our country. It employs hundreds of thousands of Americans directly, and millions more are employed in industries that rely on its profitability. Hundreds of thousands of people are invested in it and they're not all 'fat cats' sitting around at the horse track smoking cigars and drinking Mint Juleps. They are people like you and I. Their trying to feed their families, provide their kids the opportunity for a good education and pay the mortgage.

This society has been so corrupted by conspiracy theories and distrust of Business. What other country's people would you put more faith in than in the values and integrity of Americans? This country was built with the capital generated by industries like petroleum. The application of the Judeo-Christian principles of personal integrity and responsibility, free enterprise and private property, and the humbling commandment "Though Shalt Not Covet", tell us to respect the rights of individuals (corporations are simply individuals working together for a common goal) to take profits.

What has happened in our culture when we no longer champion the achievements of the most successful American businesses and celebrate the blessings they bring to the whole of mankind?

Where would 80% of the world be if it weren't for the pioneering efforts of Americans in the Oil and Gas industries?

For the last 30 years American refineries have suffered tremendously and have taken nothing in the way of solid profits. Layoffs and plant closings were the norm. There was little complaint from Americans when gas prices were low, even though we couldn't refine petroleum in our own country and thousands lost jobs.

'But you have to remember that for most of the last 30 years, Wall Street valued refineries as if they were future hazardous waste sites. It made sense to keep money-losing refineries operating in order to avoid the cleanup costs of shutting one down. Refining industry profits seemed to be perennially stuck at low levels due to excess capacity that wouldn't go away.'

'Barring a recession, refining profits look pretty solid -- which is a far cry from the industry's historical profit levels...'

I know that you'll agree that restoring refining capabilities in this country is an important step in becoming energy independent, let alone creating employment opportunities where none have existed for years.

Most of the profits we are seeing are coming from this resurgence in the refining industry. This should be viewed as a good thing considering the potential for growth in markets for refined components, considered 'downstream' profits in this citation.

'But downstream earnings, from oil refining and petrochemical production, shot up 50% to $1.92 billion. Non-U.S. downstream profit rose 81%, to $1.1 billion. U.S. downstream profit grew 23% to $839 million.'

Alternative fuel formulas required in highly regulated states and countries, have spurred refining profits as well.

This is good news. It means that other markets are finding American refined oil products and petrochemicals affordable again, fueling a different segment of the economy.

Your model is overly simplistic. When oil companies take profits they invest them. This does not count as research and development dollars, but the investments go heavily into companies all over the globe who further the interests of the company in effect extending the capabilities of the company itself. Its called Capital Spending and its not just stuffing profits under a mattress.

Even so, the oil companies face credible obstacles. The market will allow them to take profits only so long until such a time as, I suppose the Lord, sees fit. Here is an example of one such.

'Oil and gas producers also face the threat of rising prices from within industry ranks. The race to produce while prices are high has driven rates for equipment and expertise to historic levels.

Prices for services and equipment leases continue to squeeze exploration margins. In Western Canada, a region particularly sensitive to cost hikes, producers including Apache APA, Devon DVN and ConocoPhillips have shut down various drilling operations to protest high prices.

"There is no love lost between drillers and operating companies," said analyst Fadel Gheit with Oppenheimer. "They really hate them, they call them parasites."

It all comes back to the skepticism that is the hallmark of the left and the influence they exert through the media and academia. One can observe profit as an overarching benefit to society when wielded by exceptional men with exceptional ideas running exceptional companies, allowing the markets associated to regulate who is getting what when, as do supporters of capitalism, or one can observe profit taking as a bad thing and attribute some kind of dishonorable and crooked practice to it, leaving the whole thing open to the consideration of reparations, represented through regulation and taxation where the power of bigger and bigger government is exerted. I tend to trust markets to self regulate. I figure if a company, or an industry, which has taken it in the shorts for quite a while, is blessed with a profitable season, so be it.

Ecclesiastes 3:1

OReilly v Rivera

2007-04-13T10:45:00.001-07:00

Letter to Joanne Ostrow regarding her column, reproduced in the previous blog below.

I've read your poor critique of the O'Reilly v. Rivera dust up from 'The Factor' and watched the video footage of the event.

Your characterization of it is completely wrong and driven by your craven hatred of conservative perspectives on what are rational and sensible principles of justice.

You claim that the debate had little substance and shed more heat than light, but this is shallow and partisan.

Comparing postures such as "spewing bile" to "forceful objection" is pure sophistry. Both men were equally vehement. Of course, we all know that males engaged in passionate argumentation can only be, if not simply scary, dangerous from a radical feminist position.

It is unfortunate for the left, who battle to stifle debate, that the debate medium is so popular with the right and becomes more so with the general population every day. It flourishes while established media dries and dies on the vine of tacit acquiescence. The value of what you consider unrefined "modern political discourse", "today's cable chat", and "overwrought exchange" is precisely what perturbs propaganda proprietors such as yourself. As opposed to somber studio diatribes with edited positions, debate shines light on conflicting views, giving consumers clear alternatives from which to refine and enhance their values. Yet you deride that.

Pity you have so little desire to discern truth.

The truth is Bill remained calm throughout the interview. Commendable, having been subjected as he was to Rivera's defensive badgering and filibustering. (It's typical of the left to belittle with incessant meaningless chatter and then cry when someone dares speak over them.) Rivera's defense of this criminal's behavior was devoid of logic, reason and force of law. Only insanity defends such repetitiously illicit behavior without applying appropriate and serious consequence.

I might have had some sympathy for the guy and could understand, perhaps, the leniency he received after an initial offense of public intoxication, but to allow such an infraction as driving intoxicated to happen more than once is irresponsible and falls at the feet of the mayor as O'Reilly suggested.

Rivera brought up an interesting point, "had the perpetrator been Ramoski [sic]", would anyone have cared? The pertinent detail would be whether or not Jaime Ramoski - in my scenario, a Jewish immigrant - were here illegally. If so, I guarantee O'Reilly would still line up on the side of deportation and justice. You and Heraldo probably would also, revealing your bias to make this issue about pc Hispanic sympathy and not immigration or law.

Scott Cogswell

2007-04-11T13:27:00.000-07:00

O'Reilly meltdown a new low

Fox News talker comes unglued

By Joanne Ostrow
Denver Post Television Critic
The Denver Post

When Bill O'Reilly nearly came out of his chair and across the desk at Geraldo Rivera on his Fox News show this week, he marked a new low in what passes for modern political discourse. Even by the shallow standards of cable news--and "The O'Reilly Factor" in particular--it was a stunningly foul performance. The clip quickly became the talk of YouTube (click here to see the video).
When a girl was killed by a drunk driver in Virginia, a driver who happened to be an undocumented immigrant, O'Reilly seized the moment to turn the issue into a tirade against illegal aliens. O'Reilly spewed racist bile; Rivera objected forcefully. When Geraldo is the voice of reason driving home solid points, you know things are out of hand.
Today's cable chat shows encourage this kind of overwrought exchange, shedding more heat than light and putting the star opinion-meisters front and center. The fact that the clip drew traffic on the internet only enhances its value. You don't see thoughtful analyses from BBC World News or the PBS NewsHour attracting clicks on YouTube.
As the election cycle ratchets up, the provocateurs of cable will be angling for more attention. But they shouldn't be allowed to steer the conversation. Let's take it as an encouraging sign that the O'Reilly outburst is being laughed at in cyberspace more than it's being seriously considered.

When Joanne Ostrow writes about the incident on the O’Reilly Factor where Bill O’Reilly and Heraldo Rivera both nearly come out of their chairs and across the table at each other over the issue of the recent arrest of an illegal immigrant who, with prior convictions for drunken driving, killed a girl with his car while intoxicated (Bill taking the conservative line that this menace should be deported), she marks a new low in what passes for analysis of open and free debate.

Even by her shallow, left-bent standards, it was a stunningly foul and agenda driven investigation.

Who wants to be the star opinion-meister now?

The fact that analyses from the BBC and PBS aren’t highlighted by YouTube, should be a clear sign that you are not getting anything valuable in the way of a cross-section of societal values and perspectives. Opposing positions fuel debate and debate clarifies and unifies understanding.

What should be clear to sensible consumers now living in the 21st century, having access to all manner of opinion, conjecture and sentiment, not to mention good hard data, is the fact that the format of televised debate, which Ms.Ostrow decries as unrefined modern political discourse, today’s cable chat, and overwrought exchange, actually gives consumers a fuller spectrum of ideas and views; a more colorful palette with which to hue the depths of the socio-political canvas.

Thanks to Fox News, and this debate format, intelligent consumers of news no longer need rely on somber studio diatribes with edited positions.

The fact that this ‘critic’ feels it necessary to comment on this ‘laughable’ episode, shows that she is not beyond her own shallow standards, and is no better than her counter parts at avoiding debate.

Joanne Ostrow is clearly partisan and her comments reflect the need to tear down conservative perspective. She has no intention of shining any light of her own, but prefers, or rather, her intellect will not allow, further inspection of the issue at a level beyond her craven hatred of what are rational and sensible principles of justice.

Apparently, male passion, exhibited in the heated exchange of ideas and opinions, is valuable for entertainment, but worthless, perhaps even frightening, at the level of what this female perceives as thoughtful analysis. Of course, the progressive opinion of Heraldo was only “forceful objection” to Bill’s “spewed racist bile.”

From the dissection of this last sentence alone, I see clearly the attitude and poorly guarded ideology of this hateful leftist.

Typical of Democracy

2007-04-03T12:31:00.000-07:00

"I will put my family's safety above sensitivity."

The problem is my US senators and representatives don't. Daily.
My local senator and representative don't. Daily.
My governor doesn't. Daily
My local mayor doesn't. Daily. (hourly if you live in SLC)

Every city leader decries racial profiling (only because they have to get votes from those races.) But, guess what... racial profiling works. It works better than any system we have now. Yes, it might not have stopped McVeigh, but it would have stopped or hindered 9/11, and scores of other problems.
Start profiling if it protects my family.
Guess what, if the profile says that white males are the number one terrorist, fine, send me through the extra search line. And if you are one of the white male terrorist, look out, because I'll be the first one condemning you and screaming for the death penalty or worse. I will not be the one whining that you had a rough childhood, or that you didn't get any scholarships because the minorities gobbled them up, or that you lost your job to affirmative action.(these are what Jesse Jackson would be promoting if he was white) I'm tired of the whining. I'm tired of the hypocrisy. I'm tired of the corruption.

Here's the problem. I think government is screwed up.
I'm fed up with it, and I want to do something about it.
But, where to begin. Also, if I do begin, I am one voice and still live in a democracy. How do I convince my neighbors to speak up when I can't even convince my wife that the conversation is important?
There is an epidemic of apathy in this country that is going to be the death of it.

Take heart my friend... This is the war that your Gospel teaches you about.

It won't end today nor tomorrow... Your children will have to engage it once they come of age... And your grandchildren as well.

I can sympathize with your frustration... My wife will have none of it... She thinks it is my hobby, and not a popular one.

You'll help your cause when you realize that we do not live in a pure democracy, but in a democratic republic... We must sustain and preach about our country in that way in order to minimize the affects of radical libertinism.

Russell Kirk said, "Of all the terrors of democracy, the worst is its destruction of moral habits." He then goes on to quote Fisher Ames, "A democratic society will soon find its morals the encumbrance of its race, the surly companion of its licentious joys."

Many of the Christian founders saw the dangers in the Democracies of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. Where there is no prescription, no formal moral or orthodox duty to code, where men happen along their own abandon, the adversary will have strong influence. They had a great example in the French revolution. Based on the enlightenment thought of Rousseau and Condorcet, men had abandoned reverence for antiquity and decorum.

Fisher Ames also said, "Our country is too big for union, too sordid for patriotism, too democratic for liberty. Its vice will govern it, by practicing upon its folly. This is ordained for democracies."

Many of the conservative thinkers in the early founding of the country recognized the importance of enlightened leadership and understood that the success of democracy, and federalism, were based on a fallacious premise: "the supposed existence of sufficient political virtue, and on the permanency and authority of the public morals."

"On the contrary however, passion, deluded sentiment, and a destructive yearning for simplicity are characteristics of peoples who have exchanged the leadership of the good, righteous and enlightened, for the intoxication of self-expression and the negation of discipline." "The people, as a body cannot deliberate; therefore their appetites are flattered by demagogues, who satisfy the popular impulse toward action by the exhibition of violence and the spectacle of incessant change."

The way to combat this change as I see it, would be to give up your glamorous life as an IT Administrator and go into teaching. Our schools are woeful, and corrupted by progressive thought which undermines enlightened and reasoned learning. We will not change our generation, but can be hopeful that persistent effort will reward us with future generations of moral and upright citizens.

One more very interesting quote from this man Fisher Ames: "Popular reason does not always know how to act right, nor does it always act right, when it knows. The agents that move politics, are the popular passions; and those are ever, from the very nature of things, under the command of the disturbers of society... Few can reason, all can feel; and such an argument is gained, as soon as it is proposed."

Much ado about nothing

2007-04-02T12:38:00.000-07:00

As a fastener salesman, how would your boss like it if you refused to sell his nails?

Would that be grounds for termination? I suppose it would...

You see, in my opinion, and the opinion of those on the right who respect the constitution, it is the right of the owner of the company to do what he wishes with regard to the decisions he makes... Now, they may be poor decisions, but that doesn't give me the right to interfere with those decisions because it is his business... you know,,, mind your own 'business'.

The same applies with the appointment of federal employees in the Justice Department. The Justice Department is an office within the Executive Branch of government, over which the President presides,,, like your boss, He has the right to hire and fire within his branch as he sees fit.

It has always been the case and should always be the case. The President, who is chosen by the people and is representative of the views and values of the population who elected him, has the right to employ and work with the people within his 'company' that he feels most confident with until which time that he is no longer employed by the people as President. This case is no exception...

Now, there is no one with any standing within the Washington DC community that will say that anything illegal has taken place. So why the big stink by the Democrats? Just another deliberate waste of your tax money, all in an attempt to smear the President,,, and Republicans in general.

The appointment to Federal Prosecutor is a political appointment... meaning that you are appointed there by the President and his staff for your qualifications, politics not excluded.

It can be expected then, that if you refuse to pursue the cases that the administration wishes you to pursue, then yeah, you could and should be fired.

You do know that Clinton fired all 93 Federal Prosecutors in 1993 when he took office...

This is a witch hunt buddy... The Clinton's wrote the book on it and have employed it within the Dem party since Gingrich was shamed out of office in 1997.

The Dems are all about changing the rules and get a lot of help fooling the public from the mainstream news outlets.

The only wrong done here is that an incompetent Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, began apologizing for something which he had no obligation to apologize for in the first place. If he would have come out and made a statement like, "The administration has made some changes within the Justice Department that will more readily address the issues that it feels important to address at this time.", and not said a single thing more, this whole thing would be over.

His incompetence on that level should cost him his job, but it won't happen for the reasons the Democrats desire and it certainly won't stop their incessant hunger for Bush's head.

PS - Howard Dean does not reflect the moderation within the Democratic Party which will be required to win a national election.

Passive Parenting

2007-03-28T15:01:00.000-07:00

Passive parenting... a critique of a Kelsey Grammer poem.

Don't take offense, but it is this kind of understanding of the role of the parent that is wrong with the liberal progressive movement in our culture. It has profoundly affected individual perceptions on moral behavior and natural truth.

The reticence of the Liberal left to make moral distinctions, set strict behavioral limits, and impart traditional wisdom in the way of orthodox values and moral principles, leads children to ambiguity.

We are not instinctually good animals. Left to instincts, we would behave with moral repugnance. It is through the principles in Jewish and Christian Gospel that we as man are able to sustain and extend civilized society.

Quite to the contrary, children need the imposition of moral leaders (preferentially parents) and guidance in making specific life choices that will be beneficial, or atleast not harmful to further development.

A parent should not be a passive bystander, available only for those instances where a child is seeking comfort for a poor and undirected decision, but an active participant and advocate for a course of action that will ultimately lead to righteous and moral behavior.

Kelsey, and people like him - based on the errant theories of enlightenment philosophers like Jean Jacques Rousseau and influential psychologists like Dr. Sigmund Freud and Dr. Benjamin Spock - believe that a child should be left alone to develop their own individual ideas and understanding of the world based on some genetic or inherent character. The only inherent character a child has is that of the Holy Ghost which resides in his soul, but if the child is not coached on how to be attentive to its promptings, the child will fail to make valuable behavioral and moral decisions.

Kelsey would rather, based on this poem, leave it up to his daughters 'innate character' to combat the influence of demoralizing television programming, gangster fashion and Ebonics, and the liberal socialist culture of the public school system.

The idea that a child develops its character primarily from the inside out is ridiculous. A child seeks guidance and tutelage from birth. It requires feedback from its environment to learn and grow and if one as parent is not providing such, the child will find that feedback somewhere else. In this society of violence, sexual explicitness, strong cultures of drug use and disrespect for authority, sorry, I would choose to hold a little influence over my Childs development.

...But that's just me, the fundamentalist Christian that I am.

Individualism doesn't come from filling the human brain with ideas, notions, and options without any underlying property or principle which discerns a common and beneficent goal suitable for both the individual and society.

It comes as the combined understanding of such in a uniform and cohesive ideology reflective of successful societal prescriptions, historical contexts, and individual standards, and in the ability to make the distinctions that further advance society's cooperative progress.

Media Influence Demoralizes Culture

2006-11-10T12:34:00.000-08:00

In response to a letter from a friend who critiques Michael Medved's evaluation of media bias. Michael's column is linked in the title of this post.

The basic assertion is that Michael is wrong and that news purveyors are only giving news consumers what they want.

I disagree...

We all understand that news agencies and corporations need to make money and are in competition for viewer/readership.

If you want to say that consumers drive news I have no problem with that as long as you can define news effectively for me and as long as you consider the various factors that affect their choices.

If you define news the way I would, you would have to give it the value of neutrality. News, like ‘data’, is anemic. It only derives value based on context. It is animated and made dynamic by the purveyor’s rhetoric and the consumer’s pre-existing disposition.

The persuasion of rhetoric can be so subtle in news it seems even you have fallen prey. A glowing adjective to describe the ‘committed’ relationship of a gay couple here (though contrary to statistical analysis), a repugnant adjective describing the ‘debacle’ of a war there; this dogma dropped often enough in the casual parlance of newspeak is enough to convince those out of touch with decorum that they have accepted these as truths, or at least ought to.

It is in this way that Old Media, which includes Hollywood and its influence, defines culture. It is through consistent redefinition of liberal culture that the consumer, without alternatives, acquiesces, his old morals replaced is obliged to accept the new.

Like it or not, the bias exists and exists for ‘progressive’ thought and against conservative thought.

Consumers drive the news only with respect to acceptability (see previously - ‘pre-existing disposition’), and cultural acceptability is driven by media if you partake and lack principled perspective, and personal morality and historical context if you do not.

The introduction of greater and greater levels of negativity and pessimism (not to mention perversity, licentiousness and a prevalent disrespect for refinement) degrades democratic society through news outlets and television programming in general.

It should be apparent that it is the views of the ‘newsmen’ that drive cultural positions to the extent that the culture is unprepared or unwilling to recognize or reason an alternative.

I can state a myriad of examples where this is the case, but the most obvious is the Iraq war. According to the media, consistently and verifiably pacifist, this war is a failed policy. But would the public view it as such if the reporting were not so defeatist, or perhaps were even sometimes optimistic?

Briefly, I think you underestimate its influence. If ‘news’ were to reject the current trend of vulgarity and champion the ideas that make society more principled, refined and virtuous, the consumer would accept them wholeheartedly.

Was it Public Education?

2006-11-03T13:55:00.000-08:00

[excerted from an email conversation with a High School friend]

I too was proud then of my Reagan vote and even more so now.

I'm sorry for the questions, but finding someone who actually understands and cares about the state of the culture and affairs of the country, especially in this time where I believe so much is at stake, is a treasure. So many don't realize that when they are not engaged, they allow the most radical in society to determine the course of national ethos. Alarmingly, those are they who loath American institutions and moral culture.

My father was fairly ambivalent with regard to politics. I didn't really pick much of it up from him, other than his value for self preservation.

Looking back I think just living in a family where the mother and father are committed and loving parents and where personal responsibility plays a big part, generally gives one good perspective.

I really wanted to find out if you would give some credit to your education in the public school system.

I figured since we went to most of the same schools we would have the same opinion. Mine is not a good one. I think there are lots of problems there. We no longer teach values, morality, preservation and esteem for democratic principles. Shouldn't we have known who Edmund Burke was by 6th or 7th grade? What about key Supreme Court decisions that impacted the country in profound ways? I don't even remember studying the Constitution that completely... ever. Am I mistaken?

I've learned so much more on my own. I cannot say enough for books, the internet, and talk radio. I have a television, matter of fact I have three, but do you think they're ever on? Its like a sewer pipe. Every image attempting to turn my son into a 'playa', my girls into Paris Hilton, and my wife and I into prescription drug addicts.

We've let the 60's radical culture do so much damage to this country. Drugs, sex, Rock-n-Roll!!!

I suppose, at the risk of offending you, it has to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has taught me the most. It has been the catalyst for the kinds of changes I've made in my life that have led to the clarity with which I see the designs of evil among men. Two forces exist and are in constant opposition to each other in all things. When one makes scriptures a companion, and sincerely understands that man has poured centuries of civilization, history of thought, and divine translation into these books, one must come to the same conclusions about our temporal existence.

God wanted all of us to return to live with him again, but made men free to decide their fate. He offered them a way to return to him that would exalt them, but it required self restraint, integrity, morality and personal accountability. Satan had a plan too. He would guarantee that all souls returned, but through deceit, coercion and intimidation.

Apply this to the opposite forms of government, democracy and communism (tyranny... despotism), and you begin to see the distinction I am making.

The danger is that Americans will not endeavor to remain free by staying informed and educated, but will slowly acquiesce to subtly greater and greater levels of constraint and captivity. It is an historical cycle.

When education fails to teach this principle, or even denies its transcendent quality in an effort not to offend, then it becomes worthless.

I am sorry for going on and on, but I'm just so fired up about the elections coming up and all. We stand to lose a lot.

I appreciate your complement. I simply express my feelings and try to look deeply for the right words. When you know that words have meaning and can elicit certain responses and feelings, it should be important for you to use them effectively.

Rhetoric persuades and I wish to be persuasive.

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
- James Madison

Media Matters

2006-10-25T10:42:00.000-07:00

Our perceptions frame our reality. When what we choose to perceive in this age of unlimited opportunities for clarification is only partial truth, or perhaps outright deceit, well then we our fools.

A Letter to a Friend

2006-10-23T13:47:00.000-07:00

Hey, listen… I only bring this up ‘cause I care deeply about the perceptions people have of this country, its history and founding, and current understanding of its institutions.

It would not have had any affect on me otherwise were I not so respectful of you, your faith in the gospel, and your intellect and acumen in general.

However, I was miffed to hear you say that you believed the Constitution to be a living, breathing document open to interpretation.

Was it your intent to declare that this democracy would be better served by a handful of unelected expositors than by a representative congress?

I know that it’s a fashionable meme of the progressive movement, but may I say that this is a dangerous argument.

Perhaps you will accept my defense that the Constitution is a legal document and is binding on all men who would avow to live under its authority and that scholarly honors are not prerequisite for its understanding or application.

It is fixed in time certainly by divine consent and is not amenable but by the weight of a righteous and scrupulous citizenry who endeavor to maintain the liberties and agency of man, and who seek to preserve, protect and extend civilization with respect to supernal law.

Interpretations of the Constitution by secular humanists interjecting rights and permissions simply not contained in the document is not what was intended of the Judiciary. Its prescribed process was to apply the law as written by the democratic representatives in our congressional houses. It is tragic the way it has fabricated from whole cloth a leading role in the legislative process overarching democratic rule and subverting the system for laws formulation.

The battle now waged by the conservative movement is for a more subordinate and resigned Judiciary; a Judiciary that understands its role as applicator; fully supportive and subservient to the democratic process of rules making.

We simply cannot have the will of a democratic people being thwarted by the ideals of a handful of unelected elite.

For clarification’s sake… I happen to think that it is of the upmost importance to advance truth and to cut away the clouds of misunderstanding; and in all respects of course, the nascency of evil formulations.

Take it a step further...

2006-09-20T06:32:00.000-07:00

Jim Calkins, the self-described self-interested blogger (It’s all about ME!), goes a long way in explaining the concept of ‘sight conditioning’, parlaying the psychology into a discussion on television viewing and its influence on perception.

In a talk I gave to a congregation in an LDS conference a month ago, I referred to a phrase, coined by the 19th century computer scientist Charles Babbage that has applications in social science and psychology. Mr. Babbage posited that a computer would only produce results concordant with the quality of data that is input, hence the phrase Garbage In, Garbage Out.

In an effort to explain the benefits of scripture study, I hypothesized about the importance of ‘good input’ in developing a healthy psyche or moral opinion, and further inferred, logically, that if the scriptures are the Word of God, and, God is Truth, it therefore stands that there is not a more pure form of Truth available to man than what is contained in the Bible and what are considered the standard works of the restored Church.

It is my opinion, and the opinion of many prophets and leaders of the Mormon religion that our sole spiritual endeavor on this earth is to know God more fully, which means he has called us to undertake a serious and inexorable search for Truth.

Jim has attacked specific media fare that he feels is explicitly detrimental to the mind and applies his understanding of the nature of 'sight conditioning' reasoning that “every single time we compromise with sin is when Satan gains more power over us. We get conditioned., and in short, we get duped.”

This evaluation is more relevant than ever given the preponderance of retrograde and fallacious dogma. Man’s general understanding, without the exercise of the Light of Christ - an inherent and divine elemental safeguard – and a commitment to heed the promptings of the Holy Ghost, is a product of empirical evidence. The counter culture of the 50’s and 60’s foisted upon us much in the way of false and dangerous doctrine and ideology which has been extremely persuasive and continues to re-invent the spiritual and moral righteousness of Americans particularly.

Our culture has become increasingly accepting of ideas, behaviors, and movements which, when subjected to the lens of God’s righteous desires, appear as malignant and metastasizing tumors of deceit and moral corruption. Spurious ideas of multiculturalism, tolerance of deviancy, and compassion for ignorant, destructive, even violent behavior, are peddled on the television and in academia reinforcing the selfish and nihilistic modern man to the exclusion of the paramount principles of unification, moral and civilized behavior, and the rule of law.

What must be taken from this critique, and from the further investigation of this psychology of ‘human’ and, subsequently ‘cultural', conditioning is the understanding that at the most subconscious level our perceptions, values and behaviors are being continuously modified either toward or away from those that our Heavenly Father has designed. Therefore, if it is not edifying it is not doing anyone any good and is certainly not challenging us to greater humanity, civility, or spirituality.

One World Socialism Equals Tyranny

2006-09-07T14:32:00.000-07:00

Where do you put your faith? In the sovereignty of the nation that made men free… or in the conglomeration of nations, many whose leader’s human rights atrocities go undetected, are ignored, or even often are explained or excused away.
You had better believe that Western Civilization is under attack like never before. The influence of millions, if not billions of dollars, appropriated to spread the ideas of World Socialism and Communism, is corrupting our Congress. By lining the pockets of Congressional Democrats, Soros will attempt to usurp American sovereignty and convince us that through coercive taxation only will we manage the hardships that exist in the world.
Certainly, Americans bear a great burden in the advance of civilization and the progress of humankind, but this vehicle is nefarious. We must maintain our sovereignty to ensure that no 'One World' body, whose members include some of the worst regimes and examples humanity has to offer, ever becomes so powerful as to relieve us of the rights set forth in our constitution.
It is our responsibility to beat back this agenda and to recommit to a level of humble respect and appreciation for what liberty truly means. We need to continue to support the leadership role America plays in global politics by bringing its values to the rest of the world. We cannot be successful by subverting the goodness of this country through legislated coercion at the hands of a world body, but can only realize the dream of a world brotherhood through America’s continued prosperity.

Republican Legacy

2006-08-25T08:48:00.000-07:00

Rebuttal worth noting:

Keith’s post linked in title:

Stats Don’t Lie in Civil Rights Voting

Keith Baker, in a public forum posting of 8/24/06 - Salt Lake Tribune - criticizes Craig Monson’s post in the forum 8/12, by first stating that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not, as Mr. Monson attempts to point out, a Republican triumph but, through failed logic of his own, reverses the success of the project and awards it to the Democrats. Secondly, he attempts to peg Abraham Lincoln as a modern day Howard Dean. Does anybody buy that?

Keith’s assessments are shallow and un-researched perspectives typical of the left and their tendency for an emotional conception of history.

Though John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, presided over the Act for most of its process, he was not, based on his record as a senator and subsequent campaign for the Presidency, particularly fond of the issue and much like the rest of the nation had complicated and sometimes contradictory views about civil rights.

Keith’s citation of congressional voting statistics to bolster his argument is fragmented and is camouflage for the deeper truths. Simply stating that 19 more Senate Democrats and 17 more House Democrats voted for the Act is misleading and reveals an elementary level assessment. Considering there were 248 Democrats and only 178 Republicans in Congress, a majority by a third, it is inevitable that there would be more “aye” votes cast by Democrats. With that said, the figures that bear out the truth more fully are that 80% of Republicans in both houses voted for, with only 19% against, contrasting that with 61% of Democrats for and an astounding 38% against.

A stronger case is made by reviewing the voting records of congress prior to the building social unrest over the civil rights issue that began in the 1950’s and culminated in the early 60’s with the passing of the Act. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80% of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96% of the votes.

To address the second issue, Lincoln’s primary requisite as President was the unification of the Republic in the face of pressure from the south to secede. Though he was keenly aware of the battle waging to free the slave, his focus was on preserving the nation in its expansion. Keith’s assertion that Lincoln belongs in a class with the gay rights activists of this day is absurd. Though he presided over a war, as much economic as it was ideological, that emancipated thousands, his intellect and respect for moral traditions would have him viewing today’s moral dilemma with an eye to the appalling.

Vice and the Careless Man.

2006-08-23T07:39:00.000-07:00

My buddy Jim - jimcalkins.blogspot.com - blogging about the snare of ignorance and the attempts by a certain evil force to use particularly influential people and their promotion of vice to subdue human reason, alludes to the example of television as a narcotic for the masses in dulling their senses to the current dangers of liberal ideologies.

What is ironic about Jim's argument is that, at the same time 'television' is numbing the human mind to the realities of an existential war with Islamo-nazism, a culture war with 'progressive academic groupthink', and the advocacy of a multi-cultured America with values no greater respected than those of the worst dictatorships, 'the programming' is promoting the self-same ideas in a subsconscious 'mind-meld' with the viewer.

Looking more clearly at the issue we see that the situation is always agenda driven. We can no more blame the television for the morose attitude against nationalism than we can the bottle which contained the vodka which quashed the libertarian desire in Russia.

Just as Lenin and Stalin attempted to dull the perspective of the Russian people through its influenc, and as Soros - wielding the heavy weight of the Democratic Party - attempts to use the legalization of Marijuana to captivate and usurp the agency of the American people, so the adversary, employing the apple polishers in Hollywood and main stream media, bids for our collective soul.

The Radical Left and the New Dems

2006-08-18T13:18:00.000-07:00

VIEW THESE PHOTOS AT YOUR OWN RISK! THERE IS SOME NUDITY.

Anti Americanism runs deep on the left.

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

The Democratic Party will tell you that the anti-war movement is mainstream. That the majority of moderate Americans support it.

Look closely at these people. They do not represent me, my extended family, my neighbors, friends nor community... nor do the ideas presented represent anything in the way of general knowledge or moral judgement. Fabricated conspiracies and wildly exaggerated tales of American deceipt and national corruption quash rational evaluation, and blind hatred fuels a marginalized constituency which will only become angrier and more violent.

This is the radical left, supported by; The New Democratic Party, (see Lieberman vs. Lamont - http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06226/713379-152.stm) with special recognition going to Howard Dean, John Kerry, and (don't let her fool you) Hillary Clinton, and funded by George Soros and moveon.org. These are the 'useful idiots' defined in American history as early as 1948 who's job it is to assist in the advancement of socialism/communism.

This is not mainstream America. Mainstream America has an education not obscured by drug use, is family oriented, and lives by a moral code - also not obscured by drug use. But the radical voice of this very small minority enjoys a predominance in the media. It is scary to think of the influence it has on an ambivilent mind.
-Maurice

Benighted Cultures

2006-08-16T10:52:00.000-07:00

It is unfortunate that man has not matured at the same rate across the globe, but that we must, so vehemently, defend liberty and agency.

What should be apparent to all is lost on those whose heritage has existed under an oppressive doctrine, a religion based on conquest and the subversion of the spirit of God.

Like all failed hypotheses, there is little doubt that this too should come to some ultimate demise but for the immutability of sin; the pride and covetousness… envy and anger.

Jim's Blog: Death of a salesman

2006-08-15T14:21:00.000-07:00

Jim's Blog: Death of a salesman

This guy definately has a lew fews scroose.

Liberal 'Boomers' take credit for others hard work.

2006-07-25T14:29:00.000-07:00

This contains a great analysis by Shelby Steele of current liberal psychology on the subject of war.

James Taranto gives an historical snippet of the civil rights movement which the Boomers take undue credit for.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008452

-Maurice Enchel

Renaissance of the Homeless

2006-07-19T06:58:00.000-07:00

This article provides the consummate clarification of the failure of Secular Humanism and its derisory quest for a societal canon.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=65000507

Man, ever striving to construct a top-down working societal discipline in an effort to replace God’s law, creates only anomie. Why? Because man is not accountable to man. It is as simple as that. “I’ll not have you tell me what to do!”

“But God… God holds the key to your salvation young man and you better shape up or there’ll be hell to pay.”

You cannot hold man accountable to the rule of law when the consequences are so moderated or even repealed as the humanists have done over several decades.

The founders of America were successful because they recognized their inability to develop something more suitable than the doctrine found in the old and new testaments so used IT for the basis of law, referring to God often.

Dharma Bums relent

2006-07-10T14:05:00.000-07:00

The debate over the SWIFT program’s utterly contemptuous disclosure by the Venerable – see ‘Godless’ by Ann Coulter – NY Times, is, in my estimation, over.

The logic follows that if we are at war with a murderous ideology that could well last for decades - putting a burgeoning generation of children at risk of increasingly devastating attacks on their economic inheritance and Constitutional patrimony - then proper action should be taken to frustrate, subdue, and eventually retire all aspects of this religious hegemony.

Americans are progressively concluding that the actions undertaken by this subversive organization, and liberal media in general, are bare knuckled assaults on this elected administration’s effort to prosecute this war contending nothing else but the sheer hatred for the ideologies of conservative politics and religious values for which it stands.

The liberal meme; lie, cheat and steal to get your way or otherwise follow the radical play book, courtesy Alinsky (see ties with Hillary Clinton), is rapidly being exposed by the ‘Radio Patriots’; Hewitt, Limbaugh, Medved et alii, and by the internet blogosphere. These mediums provide the magnification and illumination required for rooting out false doctrines and dangerous gospels, and for propelling an invigorated morality.

The gig is up on the mouvement progressif. The Democrats have animated this philosophy to its breaking point with diminishing returns and now it’s time for the sleeping giant of reason, thoughtfulness, and the overall tenability of conservatism, to dwarf this shallow, dishonorable and nefarious Beat-ism.

-Maurice Enchel

Jake is cool

2006-07-01T20:15:00.000-07:00

I think Jake is the best son in the whole world.

DAD.

NYT Subversion

2006-06-28T10:26:00.000-07:00

Alberto Gonzalez has an obligation to prosecute on this matter. This is the second time that this subversive organization has seriously hindered our country's efforts to prosecute the War on Terror.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12385&R=ECD324B9A

The final sentence in Gabriel's column is the cornerstone of what this argument is about.

"Can it really be the government's position that, in the middle of a war in which we have been attacked on our own soil, the power to classify or declassify vital secrets should be taken away from elected officials acting in accord with laws set by Congress and bestowed on a private institution accountable to no one?"

I voted for this administration. I voted for it because I want this cult of death - no different than the fascism of Hitler - brought to justice and I, and millions like me, handed the power for their prosecution to the man and the philosophy that we felt would effectively handle the situation.

As a voting block, millions concerned about the future of this country for the sake of their children, pledged to bring this ideology to ruin. We did so with the confidence that the administration we hired would use all the tools available to its greatest advantage.

We did not foresee, however, this usurpation of authority by false patriotism and adulterated constitutional largesse.
The first amendment does not give this institution the right to highjack my efforts to provide for the common defense nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Conservative Revival

2006-03-21T09:40:00.000-08:00

An indication that a disregard for certain human disciplines is, ideologically, a failure.

John 8:32 - King made it famous... but what does it mean

2006-02-14T10:11:00.000-08:00

If you are not a truth seeker, you will fail to make distinctions like the one Kevin has made in this piece.

In defense of this effort the Lord has commanded we seek truth and knowlegde in all things.

Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

How have we allowed such a large part of our population -- professed followers of God and our saviour Jesus Christ -- to be so ignorant, and for that matter indignant of the most profound and influential of revelations?
It is time we stop apologizing for contrary behaviour, behaviour unbecoming of an enlightened civilization.

An enlightened civilization which is well aware of truth and the consequences we face when we deny or ignore it.

There are no excuses... we can't claim naivete... Either we are being edified by it or we are denying its existence.

Liberal Nonsense

2006-02-13T13:17:00.000-08:00

Liberals will believe any ‘expert’… they have no moral compass.

The aim is for kids to understand that having sex is serious business and to help them become utterly at ease with condoms, right down to unrolling them correctly and learning to check the expiration date. Mickey Morgan, a social studies teacher at Oakwood who helps organize the event, says that's especially important for girls "so that it's not awkward for them to talk about safe sex with boys — when the time comes."

What better way to ensure that teens have more sex than to help them become “utterly at ease with” the process. We wouldn’t want a conversation about sex between two 8th graders to be awkward now would we?

But as schools wrestle with the question of how much information is too much, many health experts insist that the answer is clear: At a time when HIV and teen pregnancy are so prevalent, educators can't do enough to demystify condoms, even for eighth-graders who may be just beginning to explore their sexuality.

… And as an expert, tell me, why are issues such as HIV and teen pregnancy so prevalent?

Could it be because we talk about it so much… and treat sex like a fun little pastime by using phrases and words like ‘condom party’ and ‘gent tent’…? It makes me feel even that much more comfortable having religious endorsement of the program with the ‘Rubber Bible’.

Think about the mentality supporting these statements…

This is our culture… morons on parade… People who clearly do not understand the role of parent.

PS – Driving 125mph is dangerous… but it becomes much safer if you wear your seatbelt.