The Watchmaker:

 

Until we are able to explore far beyond our solar system, I think it would be naïve in the extreme to assume that there are no other life forms out there, no Creator waiting and watching and anonymously helping. I think it would be utterly ridiculous to assume that we are the only life forms in a universe so vast.

 

The link below has a presentation that sums up everything pretty well… it’s one of the most extraordinary view points I’ve ever seen actually.

 

You’ll be watching a video and narrative so turn up your sound!

 

http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html

The art of fund raising:

 

Having worked for a non-charitable organization for many years (and previously in state government), I am quite accustomed to going out into the world and being one of those millions of cogs in the great wheel of commerce that keeps America functioning. I also like to take some of my monthly spending money (granted, a lower percentage of my budget than I would like) and donate it to worthwhile causes.

 

Americans are some of the most generous people in the world, particularly those who have made a rich living off of our continually growing economy.

 

Giving to charity is important for a variety of reasons: (a) your money helps others who are genuinely in need (temporarily or on a long-term basis), (b) taxes can stay reasonable when private citizens help out by giving over and above what they are asked, and (c) if you keep receipts then your contribution is often tax deductible.

 

However, having contributed to many different charities over the years I have come to some common sense conclusions for anyone who wants to donate. I also would like to offer a few suggestions to those who are seeking donations by telephone and/or mail.

 

Charitable Organization Ettiquette Tips:

 

1. I suggest you have your employees give up (once and for all) the telemarketing thing.

 

     a. Please notice that you call folks at your convenience and not theirs. Thus when most people get interrupted during their busy day your call is likely to cost you a lot more than just a polite or impolite “No”.

 

     b. If you do call folks, keep it short. Some of the stuff that my organization does requires a lot of community participation (from businesses and government). Thus when making new contacts I have prepared a printed packet of information in advance. I proceed by giving them a brief minute or two overview of what my organization is all about and then offer to fax them the packet info so that they can review it as their time permits. This will not get you a lot of new recruits to your cause, but you have to remember that organizations and private citizens are probably already supporting their favorite charities. They’re all great causes trying to help people and animals… thus it is vitally important not to make a bad impression.

 

     c. Never use guilt. Lots of folks like to call me and tell me that I should buy tickets to their charity concert because it’s a benefit for a bunch of needy or retarded kids. If I don’t want to go, then I am encouraged to buy tickets so that the kids can go. Hey! If the performer and staff want to truly help needy kids, then they should throw a concert for all those needy individuals among us for free. If you do ten normal concerts and one for the needy, I think the performers are still making plenty of dough to keep for themselves. Tactics like this are why I use my caller ID meticulously these days… I work hard for myself and for my family, so I don’t need to listen to someone’s exaggerated sob story.

 

2. Reward your regular contributors, not with junk mail but with something they can actually use.

 

     a. Don’t give out sets of cards or huge envelopes with lots of stuff in them. This is an immediate warning sign to your potential contributors that their money will be used for printing and sending you junk mail, not to help the people the cause serves. With postage costs constantly increasing you’re telegraphing that you’re only after money, unconcerned with overhead, and not using money raised responsibly. Even if you're a "nonprofit" licensed to send mail with a permit instead of a stamp, wasting a lot of paper doesn't impress most folks these days.

 

     b. Do send your regulars something. My favorites are a nice set of mailing labels with the contributor’s name and address on it, small notepads, or a simple set of stickers that can be used to dress up your contributors’ outgoing mail. If it can’t fit in a standard size envelope you’re entering the danger zone… refer to item 2a above.

 

     c. Don’t stamp your logo all over anything you send. Particularly with the cards that can be sent to others, you don’t want to make your donor an extension of your fund raising process. I have received huge sets of cards that have gone in the garbage because the charity’s logo, website etc. were stamped all over the “gift”. The last thing I want to do is hit up my family and friends for money when I’m wishing them a Merry Christmas. Sorry, that is just not gonna happen; I’m quite capable of printing or buying my own cards thank you very much. Your pre-stamped requests for chain donations go directly in the trash, and it is money that the sender wasted… not me.

 

3. The biggest turn-offs for me that almost guarantee a negative response have to be those pre-printed “Emergency” envelopes and spam snail mail requesting that money be sent “as soon as possible”.

 

     a. Hey… pretty much everyone knows that if you have the time to get pre-printed envelopes from a professional printer with the words “Emergency Relief Fund” stamped on them that there probably isn’t a true emergency in progress. Genuine emergencies happen quickly and are handled by the National Guard, American military, FEMA, the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, and other organizations specifically set up to handle disasters.

 

     b. That said, many of these organizations love to spam you… be it using the phone, mail, or E-mail. It often seems like you’ve barely sent them a check and there are two or more additional mailings from them in my mailbox. Don’t be greedy and don’t waste money on postage. I like the American Red Cross and I like the Salvation army, but if they get too greedy then I feel just as frustrated with them as with telemarketers. When this happens I usually switch to another organization that behaves itself responsibly… or with the more reputable charities I at least wait until the mail slows back down to the occasional request. If you spam me, you’re telling me you have plenty of money.

 

Tips for charitable giving:

 

4. If you don’t mind being contacted by phone, then you’re one of the few who don’t mind telemarketing. Be careful about giving to anybody… I strongly suggest you check them out, ask who they are, and request that they fax or mail you information on their organization. You’ll be able to tell a lot about them based on how often they call you and how much mail they send. Some charities are so aggressive that they will do both at the same time.

 

     a. If someone is badgering you on the phone, remember that they called you at their convenience and interrupted what you were doing. It is perfectly acceptable to politely say “I’m not interested” and hang up… even if they’re still talking. Many phone callers like to filibuster you in the hopes that if the conversation lasts long enough, you’re less likely to reject them.

 

     b. If you value your privacy, don’t be afraid to sign up for the national “no-call” list. Keep yourself registered there and you’ll eliminate a great deal of calls… some states even offer a special “no call” list of their own. That way, if telemarketers violate the law your state’s attorney general can go after them.

 

     c. If someone tries to use guilt against you remember that you worked hard to earn your money, and that the government has already taxed it. You’re already contributing to the betterment of others just by paying taxes. So pick and choose causes that you or your family have a personal interest in… don’t just give because someone tries to make you feel bad because you have a good life. If you work hard every day then you have earned your lifestyle.

 

5. Whether you pay bills on-line or not, having mailing labels with a return address on them sent to you can be a great thing… it’s one of those little things that you no longer have to print or order for yourself.

 

     a. That’s why I like charities that send a reasonable gift that I can really use. Some of them don’t even have to send a gift… all they have to do is send me they’re quarterly newsletter. When I receive that, I usually write them a check and send it in.

 

     b. Watch very carefully and immediately identify gimmicks. For example: Recently folks have been sending me stuff with a nickel showing through the address window of the envelope. The form letter stamp-signed by the company’s leader states “I did that to get your attention.” Well, he did… he immediately demonstrated to me that he has way too much money to work with if he’s putting a nickel on everything he sends out in addition to paying the postage costs. Pre-printed “Emergency” envelopes, using guilt with requests to buy tickets to concerts for needy people… those kind of tactics usually don’t cut it with me. I don’t get angry at the people who do this, but I certainly don’t reward them for using these kinds of fund raising maneuvers.

 

     c. If people send you stuff when you haven’t donated, remember you are under no obligation to reply if you don’t like their cause. It’s a free country and folks who try to recruit with foolish marketing decisions should not be rewarded for their bad marketing decisions.

 

6. I usually look to the home town area first. Local charities that support the people in your city, town and neighborhood are usually much more effective and have lower overhead.

 

     a. Causes that help people with ongoing medical conditions are a priority for me. Some folks are in the hospital a lot… it’s expensive and so are the medicines they need to treat their lifelong conditions like cystic fibrosis, MS, or other developmental disabilities.

 

     b. Usually my donations are budgeted and split between local and national causes. The American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and other stalwart organizations that are always on the scene in true emergencies constantly need to replenish their funds. So be generous all year round, not just during the holiday season. Funds raised usually skyrocket during Christmas, so you can actually assist lots of these agencies much more by continuing to contribute all through the New Year.

 

7. Beware of on-line E-mails or fund raising efforts conducted using the Internet. Cyberspace is a dangerous place and anyone can pretend to be someone they’re not.

 

 

With all of that said, I strongly urge everyone to send your money to the people who say thank you, treat you respectfully, and run solid charitable organizations that you know will truly provide help to needy people or homeless cats and dogs.

 

All of the wonderful causes, local and national, that we as Americans support reduces the need for the politicians to tax us more. So give from your heart and consider volunteering as well… giving of your time, talent, and treasure is even more rewarding, even if it’s only a part-time basis!

 

Have a great and wonderful holiday season this December of 2007! My best wishes to EVERYONE! May God continue to bless America!

Happy Thanksgiving 2007 Everybody!!!!


I hope you all have a great and wonderful Holiday Season this year, share these days with people you love and have a warm and healthy home with plenty to eat!

God Bless America!!


1. You can test your knowledge by taking the "Great American Turkey Quiz". Click on the link below:

http://home.aristotle.net/Thanksgiving/trivia.asp

(If you get more than 12 right, you're much more knowlegeable about Thanksgiving than muah...)


2. After the quiz, reward yourself with a holiday message and some "pumpkin pie"...

http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=HY27482779


3. Since I'm new to "Townhall", perhaps someone will post a comment telling me how to hide the ugly links inside of normal, clickable text like "Thanksgiving Quiz".

a. The normal [url=] [/url] tags I use on most chatboards aren't recognized here.

b. Also, can we link to pictures from an on-line host such as Photobucket?

A comprehensive analysis:

Unlike a lot of folks on chatboards I don't name call, I just analyze things from as objective a perspective as I can. Since I am in my forties, I was around during the 1980’s and the 1990’s when the Middle East was pretty much a lost cause and nothing there had changed for about 3,000 years or so.

Thus it was obvious to everyone that the roadmap to peace in the Middle East would have speed bumps and be difficult. There was no way to complete it in a manner pleasing to today's drive-thru, “instant gratification” society, but I think our progress in that most troubled region of the world has been remarkable to say the least.

Rudyard Kipling is famous for saying…

“Force without justice is tyranny, and justice without force is powerless.”

Iraq and Iran fought a war with each other in the 1980's while in competition to be the first terrorist nation to build or buy nuclear weapons. Israel bombed Iraq's nuke capabilities shortly after Ronald Reagan took office. So nothing much really changed in the aftermath over the next thirty years. Each country sat back and waited, and the “axis of evil” consisting of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq & Syria thrived. Even if they didn’t like each other, they still cooperated in their efforts to kill people from free nations.

Remember when we invaded Iraq in the 1^st Gulf War and Saddam ordered his Mig jet fighters to fly to Iran – a country he had just waged war against – so that we wouldn’t be able to destroy them?
 
People who lead violent dictatorships aren’t dealing with a full deck of cards, you see, and they must be treated a little more harshly than your average criminal.

I remember during that time when Saddam and the neighboring rogue nations repeatedly tried to start conflicts and escalate them to destabilize the region and monopilize oil. We played right into their hands, you see, by listening to our environmentalists and not drilling and refining oil here at home. We allowed ourselves to become dependent on THEM because a minority of Americans raised a fuss about pollution. Now the pollution is elsewhere in the world, but it's still there and it's still affecting the entire planet. (Supposedly).

I regularly chuckle at how fully the current Democrat-led Congress has completely misread the voter mandate of 2006. Polls have repeatedly shown that a majority of Americans don’t think the war is going well, and that in hindsight perhaps it wasn’t a good idea given the cooperation we have received from our new allies. But partisan eyes don't see facts, nor do their thoughts push aside political rhetoric and address reality.

 

Perhaps I missed them, but I haven’t seen any polls specifically indicating that we give up on the billions spent and simply QUIT. That would bring back a horrible return on our overseas investment and is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever seen. And this agenda comes from the Democrats - a party that claimed to have answers… claimed to be able to lead better than President Bush. Well in 2006 they got their chance. What super-genius advice did they give the President?

 

QUIT!

 

Is America acting unilaterally? Not from where I’m sitting:

 Once again Saudi Arabia and Turkey cooperated with us, not to mention our great friends in the U.K., Denmark, Australia, Spain (until recently) and now France. Many people point out that the coalition this time around is not nearly as large as during the 1st Gulf War. That's fine with me too. Too many cooks, you know...

But when you take a step back and examine this situation HONESTLY, we have actually significantly increased our coalition by recruiting former enemies to help us. These include:

 

1. Qatar.

2. The newly democratized Afghanistan.

3. The newly democratized Iraq.

4. Pakistan.

5. Jordan.

6. Kuwait.

In less than five years the “axis of evil” has been reduced from FIVE to TWO. For crying out loud, not only is North Korea cooperating with us but even LIBYA has renounced terrorism. Even Moamar Quadaffi can read the writing on the wall... perhaps he should contact the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader.

 

Not only is America safer but the WORLD is safer.

 

When people vote against America at the U.N. I wonder why because we are renowned for bending over backwards to appease people. So I usually look deeper when weird things happen, and this is the way I see it (after of course viewing the EVIDENCE firsthand on Fox news)… the only trustworthy news network that really bothered to look into WHY our allies weren't supporting us.

Because they were paying LESS for their Iraqi scammed oil than the rest of the world and robbing the civilian people of Iraq.

I think all countries should have to pay MARKET price for oil. That's only fair.

Saddam was given a chance he didn't deserve to stay in power at the end of the first Gulf War and he rewarded everyone for their generosity by starting an Oil for Food scandal that prevented the U.N. from acting unilaterally against him a second time. He shouldn't have gambled, because the man just didn't realize he was dealing with people who DO NOT like allowing cold-blooded killers to recruit cold blooded killers while running a country. When you lose a war you do whatever you’re told to do if you want to stay in power and Saddam chose poorly.

Unfortunately for him, we elected President Bush, a man who expects other nations to behave as responsibly as we do and keep their word. It astonishes me how critics tried to codemn him for not serving in Viet Nam. Those who serve in the Presidency are already taking a major risk with their life for the ENTIRE rest of it. If you don't believe that statement, talk to the families of JFK or Ronald Reagan.

A few observations:

 

1. Scuds are WMD's, especially when dropped on large populated cities. Attacks against our bases overseas or the friendly nations in which those bases are located count as a threat against us because – under NATO treaty – an attack against one country is an attack against all member nations. Read the treaty.

 

2. Shortly after deposing Saddam, our forces discovered the fuselage of a jumbo jet that was being used to train hijackers. Perhaps I’m reading too much into this discovery because the news didn’t consider it a big deal. I did for the following reasons: (a) They weren’t training stewardesses on that thing, and (b) Jumbo jets are a PROVEN weapon of mass destruction. Ahem. (c) Were all those Fedayeen going to travel the world and hand out flowers at airports? I don’t think so… perhaps opponents of the war are that naïve.

In case everyone hasn’t noticed, our GNP and economy has soared to new highs. I agree that Bush spends too much, but I haven't seen a politician in Congress or the White House yet who didn't. Until Congress is tagged with term limits and the threat of a line item veto they will continue to approve major spending. It’s how they get re-elected and why there’s rarely turnover once people get into office.

Bill Clinton tried to restrict spending and cut the deficit and I respect him for that. But he tried appeasement as a foreign policy and it didn’t work. Working for the short term is okay, but you have to keep the long term in your line of sight too. If the world economy suffers or is unstable WE ALL suffer because we are all linked together.

If you think a deficit is bad, imagine an unstable Middle East, where the supply of oil is unreliable because countries led by people like Saddam and Ahmadinejad are calling the shots. I think a lot of Americans would complain a lot worse if they had $5 or $6 a gallon oil. They would cry out even louder these days if a repeat of the 1970's happened and we actually had to RATION it again. Those same people in larger cities who are whining about the war had better watch it... they have a long way to walk to work on all those highways they rely upon.

 
But hey, we've got to keep those environmentalists happy don't we? No nuclear power and no more refineries on our soil. But they all still want the oil for their cars to somehow magically arrive in America, mind you! To say we don't have a direct involvement and stake in what happens in the Middle East is naive in the extreme. It is DENIAL.

Our dependence on unstable countries to meet our energy needs is as much OUR fault as a consumer, environmentalist and private citizen as it is any specific politician’s.

George W. Bush and his staff got quite a lot accomplished those first 4 years: No child left behind, tax cuts, Medicare Part D, taking out Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11. But Congress refused to pass his energy policy because part of it meant drilling in Alaska and the environmentalists didn’t like it. Even though we now have the technology to drill down and then sideways they still opposed it and the bill never got passed.

 

So Congress voted (by not voting) to retain our CURRENT energy policy instead of passing a new one. (The current one, by the way, is buying oil from countries that regularly war with each other instead of creating new jobs here by producing more domestic energy).

 

Right now our soldiers are right where we most need them to be! Helping the Middle East calm down and end its thousands of years of violence.

Look around at how America has changed!

People who don't want to fight don't have to anymore. Viet Nam is OVER. That was the big beef in the 1960’s wasn't it… the cries of  "I don’t want to fight in somebody else’s war."

 

Now folks don’t have to… but STILL people complain about combat operations instead of letting the leaders of the combat operations run them.

How mad would the anti-war crowd be if Saddam’s attempt to start WWIII by attacking Israel in the 1^st Gulf War had actually escalated the conflict globally and we would have had to start DRAFTING people again. Thank God for George HW Bush!

 

Critics of Bush are angry because we can’t somehow magically find a way to fight a war without casualties. I have listened to the Democratic leadership in Congress, the debates between the 2008 Presidential candidates and I have some unplanted questions for them.

 

1. What do they LIKE about America, besides other Democrats who hate Bush?

2. Why are they opposed to completing our agreements with the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan and cementing their place as allies in a free world?

 

3. What other options do they have for Mid-East foreign policy other than QUIT?

 

4. If they close down Gitmo, outlaw LIMITED unwarranted wiretapping, etc. then WHAT tools are they going to substitute in their place to defend America?

As a voter I want SPECIFIC answers to these questions, NOT “Bush’s plan sucks.” That doesn’t cut it with me and it shouldn’t for you either. It's very difficult to criticize the Democrats on the Iraq situation because they really haven't contributed a whole lot to the effort that CAN be criticized. While they've been repeatedly complaining that "there's no plan to win the peace" the Bush Administration has been busy implementing THIS:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/2207_report2.pdf

A strategic plan for success implemented in TWO countries at the same time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have you not noticed that Israel is now in a position to defend ITSELF against Hezbollah, Hamas, and other lurking threats? Have you not noticed that Pakistan and Afghanistan are helping us identify and target our enemy? We're not the world's police force any longer... we have ALLIES in almost every country helping us fight the global war on terror.

The reason this type of thing takes time is because we're NOT just rolling over people and killing them. Insurgents have been given lots of time to lay down their guns and blend back into the crowd of peace. Only now are we really cracking down on the ones determined to kill and really pushing to finally wipe them out. Enemies of peace must die or they will keep killing and the Mid-East will never change.

I love America and think our nation is stronger than ever!!!!!!!!!

 

We sat back for years while Israel had their buses and restaurants bombed. Hamas getting elected to lead Palestine was the greatest thing that could have happened. Now they can’t blame anyone any longer… those hooded killers can’t govern their way out of a paper bag!

 

People actually defend these terrorists as freedom fighters, men who shoot missiles over the top of a military to kill civilians, wait a bit, and then shoot more missiles over the top of a military to try and kill the Doctors that show up.

 

Yes, that’s right… people actually DEFEND these terrorists because they don’t happen to like our current President.

 

The world is being transformed before our very eyes. Afghanistan, Iraq, and now even North Korea are actually cooperating because the alternatives they are faced with are less than pleasant. Diplomacy is not effective against tyrants unless you use both the carrot AND the stick.

Is our military over-extended? Hmmmm...

1. Aircraft carriers.
2. Spare National guard at home.
3. Submarines.
4. Air force and other military bases around the world.
5. ICBMs.

Nope. I feel pretty safe.

And I think our soldiers are brave, courageous people who have minds of their own. I also predict that if THEY didn't believe in the war they were fighting and the progress they were making we would know it. Unhappy soldiers are very grumpy soldiers and I don't think that they would fail to convey the message that they are fighting a lost cause if they truly felt that way. They want to accomplish their mission and make two former enemies are allies. I think we should support them and not say really ridiculous things like “there’s no light at the end of the tunnel.”

 

We don’t elect our leaders to be quitters.

 

We elect them to adapt to changing conditions, compromise, and come up with realistic ideas.

 

I would rather look at all the good things in life, enjoy them to the fullest, and say THANK YOU as often as I can to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and the people who are serving in our armed forces. Because of their career choice, we don't have to stick guns in the hands of people who don't want to fight and order them into battle. As Viet Nam proved, that doesn't work.

I will never be able to thank or pray enough for our folks who continue to serve in harm’s way.

Think about it... You live in America and have the freedom and extra electricity available to log onto the Internet and complain about any topic you want… it doesn’t have to be Iraq.

But did you ever wonder how many POSITIVE things you could accomplish if you tried to be part of the solution instead of just a voice of dissent?.

Life is tough and it isn't fair... that's why we have to support and help the people who make the greatest sacrifices for us.

GOD BLESS AMERICA, all members of our military and our ALLIES!!!!

(And thanks sincerely if you stuck with me through such a long winded blog!)

 

Why can’t we change it?

 

Every time an election year rolls around, I spend much of my time scratching my head at the vast array of attack advertising that campaigns use to “sling mud” at each other. Some of them get pretty down and dirty… often times I’m tempted to take a shower after watching these low-brow tactics.

 

As a boy I asked my Dad just why we have to go through this – over and over repeatedly during each campaign cycle. We looked back through history and found that “mud slinging” is as old as the Constitution itself. Today with the vast array of electronic media at our disposal, it’s even easier to pour heat on your opponents. One can even do so by proxy using vulnerable folks who are completely loyal to your campaign and thus easily manipulated. Choosing this method is the preferred approach, since the candidate can spread lies and deception yet still appear to take the high road by stamping “I am Joe Schmoe and I approve of this message” on an advertisement depicting the beautiful landscape of America. Note: Add patriotic music too and you’re well on your way to getting elected by trampling all over your opponent.

 

Both parties do it and I have to ask myself WHY do we the taxpayer and constituent allow it?

 

Folks like John Edwards astonish me. He can help the poor, but only if he gets elected President is the message I'm getting from him. Well I’ve never had fifty million dollars at my disposal, but I’m reasonable certain that if I did have that kind of money my middle-class background would prevent me from getting too high on my horse. I think I would use a lot of that money to help an awful lot of people... especially since I'm already used to a smaller home.

 

Why doesn’t Mr. Edwards take a couple of million for tax purposes and support the poor in his community?

Why doesn’t he take a larger portion of his vast fortune and share it with those who have less?

Oprah Winfrey donates millions every year. But then, she's an entrepreneur and not a politician.
 

That has always been my problem with the Democratic party… they have all these great plans for changing America and helping people. BUT they want to accomplish everything using money taxed from we the little people rather than investing a percentage of their own personal fortunes in the issues most important to them. You have to have that private yacht, I guess, rather than simply rent one the two days a year you would use it.

 

Irony times two…

 

So thus we arrive at my biggest beef with politics in America today. Not only do candidates ignore the plight of the poor as they give in to their ambition to be popular leaders, but they always promise more than they can deliver. Vote for me and I will make certain you’re taken care of, they claim.

 

Instead of listening to what they say, more and more I have found myself watching what they actually do instead. President Bush, for example, has a much more energy efficient home than Al Gore does. But that’s not what we hear reported in the news.

 

www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

 

To further degrade the dignity of the most poor among us, campaigns (especially in Presidential years) raise millions and millions of dollars that are spent on useless attack advertising. With any luck, those dollars spent will successfully distort or outright lie about an opponent’s record significantly enough to give the winning candidate a margin of victory large enough to brag about.

 

So why do we have to do this?

 

Why can’t we change it?

 

It’s not a perfect world, but in a perfect world I would like to see those dollars spent more efficiently. Yes advertising companies might not get the revenue boost from all those hastily assembled commercials, but I have confidence that there are plenty of “Geico” and “Doublemint” type clients out there to keep advertisers in business.

 

Perhaps those donations might drop a bit if they weren’t used to attack an opponent, but wouldn’t a better use of those funds be to actually help the poor that everyone talks about? Wouldn’t it be better to use all those millions to offset programs we can’t totally fund as much as we would if money grew on trees?

 

S-Chip anyone?

 

People are calling the President cold-hearted because he won’t hand out health care to families fully capable of affording it. Many of these are the same candidates who are accepting millions of dollars in campaign funds (some of it our tax dollars) so that they can try and defeat an opponent. I find these people – who care more about denigrating the credibility of their opponent as they attempt to rise to power - to truly be the cold hearted ones.

 

Why?

 

Because most of these candidates use other people’s money in an attempt to get elected to positions of power where they can tax more of our money. And why do they want to do this? Because they want to tinker with the greatest economy in the world.

 

I don’t like Federal-level politics because it is way too complicated.

 

Simple, easy to understand solutions are almost always more effective. They’re a lot cheaper too, in the long run.

 

Candidates tossing all this donation money around while families on our streets need our help is much more of an ethical problem in my opinion than elected officials forced to hold to a budget.

 

So why don’t candidates make use of television, radio and the Internet to debate the issues? Why not have their actual stand on the issues decide who gets elected as opposed to who more successfully portrays their opponent in a bad light?

 

Fund raising efforts for campaigns SHOULD be used solely to supplement programs that the Federal government can’t totally fund. That would reduce our deficit spending and (along with reforms in Congress) possibly even eliminate it entirely.

 

Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of overspending, and that’s a direct result of the structure of our current political system. Everyone re-elects their Senators and Representatives time and again unless they do something completely outrageous. Why? Because each state is competing against each other for seniority in that branch of government and each state wants to be certain it gets the most pork. Republicans, however, are the only officials I have seen actually lower taxes… first Ronald Reagan did it and then our current President, George W. Bush.

 

It’s a good country but not a perfect one. If I could change three key things and move toward a better system I would start with the following:

 

1. The immediate and strict limitation of campaign advertising.

 

a. Candidates would have to hold regular scheduled debates.

 

b. No rhetoric at the debates. Each candidate would be asked the same questions on major issues as identified by the voters. Want to use your time to filibuster? Fine… just don’t expect to win a majority of votes.

c. Anyone who chooses not to take a stand on a particular issue should be free to do so, and the voters could decide for themselves whether or not to be turned off by the answer.

d. These are adults who have known for years what the major issues are. They should be willing to go on the record at any time. Most voters are smart people... if they need to change their position later then that would be fine - just provide a reasonable explanation for the change in stance.
 

e. The bulk of their money raised would be used to help fund programs that regular tax revenue couldn’t cover… programs cut because of budgetary limits. The candidates could still compete with each other to see who raises the most. That would be quite a badge of honor… being able to claim that you raised the most millions to help the poorest among us. Voters could then truly throw support behind their candidates and know that the money would be used to help the needy.

 

2. Add the “line item veto” into the Presidential veto pen.

 

a. Critics regularly argue that this would give the President too much power. Well, right now Congress has too much power as our deficit spending has proven year after year. Not a dollar is spent without their direct approval, and spending has been out of control for as long as I can remember.

 

b. Attack advertising has completely and utterly polarized the country. Each party has set themselves up as totally for or totally against most of the major issues.

 

c. A line item veto would force Congressional officials to return to the spirit of compromise. It would require that they work together the way colleagues in private industry are required to work together, even if they don’t always get along.

 

3. Term limits in both the Senate and the House. People who are still raising taxes and treat our economy like it’s still in the 1950’s need to retire.

 

Think about it.

 

Our current political system has been in place for over two centuries.

 

It has never been more dark, angry and bitter. Most of it is I attribute directly to attack advertising.

 

 

Brief history:

Hi everyone! It's nice to find a friendly place on the Internet where blogging is respectful and the people are friendly. I am a 40 year old ex-programmer/analyst from North Dakota, now working for a charitable organization that helps needy people of all ages. Managing large projects is tough and very stressful, which is why I have repeatedly sent President Bush and his staff letters of encouragement for the astonishingly huge and risky endeavor they are undertaking in an attempt to interrupt the non-stop cycle of violence that has been the Middle East for as long as history has known it.

Head shaking:

Nothing great is ever achieved overnight, and thus I have found myself watching the news and taking a more vested interest in the major issues of our time ever since 9/11. The fact that someone has finally decided to do something about the instability of our global economy makes my heart soar. The observation that so many people are opposing President Bush's policies purely for political reasons, because such massive change cannot be accomplished in a short span of time, or simply because they don't want a "war for oil" baffles me.

The fallacy of the environmentalist:

On several occasions I have pointed out to "environmentalists" I have met via the Internet that they are not truly for the environment unless they live like the Amish. It may sound a little strong, ridiculous and even ridiculous for me to make this argument until you realize that we live in a very modern society that runs on gadgets. The energy these cars and electronics run on comes from coal, oil, natural gas, wind, nuclear or hydroelectric power. We don't have a choice in the matter and - many times - the environmentally conscious will try and criticize our government because we are fighting wars in other countries to protect our oil interests.

It would seem to me that we kind of need to, and that it is one of the simple realities of life that many folks need to work harder to accept.

Willie Nelson can burn "used restaurant grease" in his vehicles and Al Gore can add solar panels to his huge palatial home. But until those super-rich folks come up with some affordable solutions for the rest of us, I hope they don't mind if we live a decent life too.

I have been critiqued in posts I have made on chatboards because I firmly support our President, our country, and our soldiers. When pressed on my support of our peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East, I have often asked people who counter me how they define "environmentalist". I have done so because of the following issues:

1. States that plant trees and repeatedly refuse to drill for new sources of oil or build new refineries/nuclear power plants are often the very states that use the most energy. Whether you make your own energy or import it from other states, I've noticed they're still using a remarkable amount of it!

2. Here in my state we have reasonable sized cities and relatively minor commute time.

3. Yes, we use more energy during our -40 degree (wind chill) winters but we shouldn't have to worry about that for very long because of global warming, right? If the temperature rises globally, we will use less energy up here in the winter. Right? * wink *

4. Seriously... most of our President's strongest critics have leveled their arguments against him while living in the strongest, best protected country in the world behind firmly protected borders. Their freedom to use gadgets and energy during the course of their everyday lives is limited only by the financial resources at their disposal.

5. Those I have seen join the "hate America" crowd I regularly call out on chatboards - sometimes a bit too bluntly. But I take issue with the weakness of their argument, always attempting to utilize a no nonsense, common sense approach that most critics of the President seem to lack. That's why Bill O'Reilly's "no spin" zone appeals to me. Yes or no Congress person... which is it?

Why we should be grateful:

If President Bush's critics are so concerned about the environment, I have repeatedly wondered:

1. How come they waste so much energy using laptops to post anger-filled posts about him on the Internet?
 
2. Why do they own TVs, drive SUVs and make use of all the other luxuries that our modern society offers? Heck, some of 'em make more in a year than I will ever make in a lifetime.

3. If states choose to practice environmentalism and force us to get our oil from other nations (many of which have unstable governments), should they blame OUR government when those same countries dissolve into chaos and we need to intervene?

4. Are the barrels of oil just supposed to magically appear out of nowhere at a reasonable price?

America the beautiful:

I love my country and the NATO alliances that we have in place around the world with other friendly, free nations. I think those alliances are much more effective than anything the United Nations has achieved. The Mid-East should look very closely at how well former enemies in the free world now work together and actively help each other... it really can be a win-win situation for all of us.

When we discovered all of the things that Saddam Hussein was up to (oil for food, violent oppression of citizens without guns, pursuit of a way to destroy Israel) I do not in the least feel sorry for the man. America and the world are a safer place with him gone and I have supported President Bush's decision to remove him from power through thick and thin... even when things weren't going well. Iraq is already a much better place for most of its people... in another 4 years it will be stronger still.

We live in a great country with lots of diversity. WIth that come quite a few goofballs who try and take advantage of our free system and its laws. For that, I would like to extend a grateful "thank you" to other people with traditional values for making certain that the core of this country remains strong and our backbone firm.

Let the oddballs have their sanctuary cities and low rated television programs... the rest of us can finally speak out on our own behalf. As a kid I remember watching the Presidential debates and wondering how Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush kept winning the presidency when - according to the mainstream media - they performed so badly. During that time, my local newspaper listed daily updates regarding the Scuds that Iran and Iraq were throwing at each others' cities, even though they couldn't aim them. I remember thinking that if they ever got their hands on a nuclear device of some sort there would be terrorism of a whole new kind.

I am glad I live in America and am glad there are people who are doing something about the problems in the Middle East. Until those people are content, they will continue to be resentful and hate. So free nations are being the role model, and helping them over the very same speed bumps that we ourselves have overcome.

God bless America, land of the free and home of the brave. And may he work hard to keep our soldiers safe and working hard to share our great accomplishments with the people of ALL nations, especially the troubled ones!

In me President Bush will always have at least one American citizen who appreciates the risks he took, knows that nothing that large can ever be run perfectly, and appreciates his leadership.

Even his critics owe him a great deal, which they should realize when the buildings they work in remain intact and their cars start each morning because they have enough fuel.

I would comment a litle bit more on the left-wing critics, but will see how my this blog goes first and leave those folks for another time.

Suffice it to say that I noticed from 2003 on that the Democrats kept claiming they could run the Iraq campaign a lot more effectively than President Bush. Yet they used their minority status to sit back and complain instead of help for political reasons. So I don't feel a bit sorry for them now that they have been pushed to the forefront of Congressional leadership and been forced to admit that their only solution thus far remains a one word one... Quit. After all that time to plan their own options while still a minority, I somehow expected a little bit more from them.

We have the right President to lead our great nation, and I am so glad that I live here! If political partisanship is the price we pay for our freedom, then I hope that we can work to reduce the bitterness of it. The mainstream media will remain biased to the left, which is why I am glad that those of us who are traditional now have places to go like Fox news, conservative talk radio and web blogs.

Diversity is the key to keeping America strong.

Perhaps my first blog seems to lean a little bit to the right. Perhaps some would claim that it falls completely over to the right.

After years of reading liberal bias in the newspapers even here in rural America, I'm glad that I finally get to make a few points of my own.

What a great website!

Sincerely,
SonOfTed