There has been a lot of talk - and concern - about all the pork-barrel spending in Washington. "Pork" is when Congress takes money from all of us, and funnels it back to just a few of us, in "special" projects. Some bright person decided to check on just how much pork each of our presidential candidates has actually requested.
In the 941 days that Barack Obama has been in the Senate, he has requested 931 million dollars in pork. About a million dollars a day.
In the 7000+ days that John McCain has been in the Senate, he has asked for - are you ready for this? - he has requested ZERO dollars for pork.
The Democrats are telling us that Mr. Obama will cut pork. The Republicans are saying Mr. McCain will cut pork.
Who do you suppose I am more apt to believe?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Survival
I was listening to the co-founder of Code Pink the other day. Code Pink and several other far-left looney groups have all stated as part of their mission that America should get rid of its military, or keep only a token military to keep order in America, so there can be "peace on Earth". Never has there been a more naive, nor dangerous thought.
Let's assume we did become a nation of peace, without any substantial military strength. Does anyone really believe there would be peace? Particularly since all other countries - and some that hate us - would still have a military. What would prevent them from just walking in and taking over? Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, Syria would all race to see who could get here first and plant their flag on the White House lawn.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's go to La-La land with the far left and assume Code Pink could convince ALL countries to give up their military. Then we would have peace, right?
Wrong! Because then the crime lords, drug lords and street gangs would take over. Who would stop them? Code Pink? Michael Moore? Mayor Newsom? Nancy Pelosi? Barak Obama? Not likely.
The far left needs to come into the real world, a world where there are good people, and there are bad people. And you simply cannot make bad people into good people by smiling, holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" around the campfire.
They need to understand that the universe is ruled by natural laws. And the first law of nature is "survival of the fittest". And that is, indeed, a law, not just a suggestion. And as long as survival depends upon fitness and competition, there can never be peace. Nor should there ever be any lasting peace.
War is ugly. War is painful. But war is a necessary part of life. It is one of the mechanisms that nature created in us, as a driving force, to help keep the population weeded. To separate the wheat from the chaff. To determine who is strong enough to carry on the race. And to keep us from over-populating the Earth. And as the population grows, and resources become more scarce and incapable of sustaining everyone, war will become even more prevalent - and more necessary. It is nature's way.
The issue I have with Code Pink and their looney compadres is the simple fact that they want us to lose the race for survival, by default. They want us to give up our teeth, and our claws. And even a 5 year old understands that anything that has no teeth or claws is called "PREY".
In nature, you can be predator, or you can be prey. Being a predator can be a bloody choice, to be sure. But regardless of which you are, there will be bloodshed. The objective should be that the blood is someone else's.
I will be a predator, thank you. Then the blood will not be my own. Survival of the fittest. I would rather be the one to eat the rabbit than to be the rabbit that gets eaten. And don't anyone dare ask me to feel guilty about that.
Let's assume we did become a nation of peace, without any substantial military strength. Does anyone really believe there would be peace? Particularly since all other countries - and some that hate us - would still have a military. What would prevent them from just walking in and taking over? Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, Syria would all race to see who could get here first and plant their flag on the White House lawn.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's go to La-La land with the far left and assume Code Pink could convince ALL countries to give up their military. Then we would have peace, right?
Wrong! Because then the crime lords, drug lords and street gangs would take over. Who would stop them? Code Pink? Michael Moore? Mayor Newsom? Nancy Pelosi? Barak Obama? Not likely.
The far left needs to come into the real world, a world where there are good people, and there are bad people. And you simply cannot make bad people into good people by smiling, holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" around the campfire.
They need to understand that the universe is ruled by natural laws. And the first law of nature is "survival of the fittest". And that is, indeed, a law, not just a suggestion. And as long as survival depends upon fitness and competition, there can never be peace. Nor should there ever be any lasting peace.
War is ugly. War is painful. But war is a necessary part of life. It is one of the mechanisms that nature created in us, as a driving force, to help keep the population weeded. To separate the wheat from the chaff. To determine who is strong enough to carry on the race. And to keep us from over-populating the Earth. And as the population grows, and resources become more scarce and incapable of sustaining everyone, war will become even more prevalent - and more necessary. It is nature's way.
The issue I have with Code Pink and their looney compadres is the simple fact that they want us to lose the race for survival, by default. They want us to give up our teeth, and our claws. And even a 5 year old understands that anything that has no teeth or claws is called "PREY".
In nature, you can be predator, or you can be prey. Being a predator can be a bloody choice, to be sure. But regardless of which you are, there will be bloodshed. The objective should be that the blood is someone else's.
I will be a predator, thank you. Then the blood will not be my own. Survival of the fittest. I would rather be the one to eat the rabbit than to be the rabbit that gets eaten. And don't anyone dare ask me to feel guilty about that.
Getting it Straight
Let me see - correct me if I am wrong (I'm not, because I have the videos):
2007, Biden says, "Obama is totally unqualified to be President."
2007, Biden says, "Obama's position on the war, and funding it, is 100% wrong."
June, 2008, Biden says, "I will never consider accepting the nomination for VP."
Last night, during his debate with Palin, Biden said, "Obama is the person most qualified to be President, he was 100% right on the war, and I am proud to be the VP nominee."
My question: where am I supposed to find credibility in Biden, or his ticket?
I don't really care which party holds the office. But I DO insist that whoever it is, they are HONEST, and CREDIBLE, and someone I can TRUST be be straight with me.
Of the 4 people - Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin - the only one that meets that criterion seems to be Palin. So that is where my vote must go. But please note - my vote for McCain is not a vote for McCain - it's a vote for Palin. She'll keep McCain on the straight and narrow. She must, because she plans on being America's first woman President. If McCain gets elected, and fouls it up, her future is over. So I trust she will keep his eye on the ball, and get the job done.
2007, Biden says, "Obama is totally unqualified to be President."
2007, Biden says, "Obama's position on the war, and funding it, is 100% wrong."
June, 2008, Biden says, "I will never consider accepting the nomination for VP."
Last night, during his debate with Palin, Biden said, "Obama is the person most qualified to be President, he was 100% right on the war, and I am proud to be the VP nominee."
My question: where am I supposed to find credibility in Biden, or his ticket?
I don't really care which party holds the office. But I DO insist that whoever it is, they are HONEST, and CREDIBLE, and someone I can TRUST be be straight with me.
Of the 4 people - Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin - the only one that meets that criterion seems to be Palin. So that is where my vote must go. But please note - my vote for McCain is not a vote for McCain - it's a vote for Palin. She'll keep McCain on the straight and narrow. She must, because she plans on being America's first woman President. If McCain gets elected, and fouls it up, her future is over. So I trust she will keep his eye on the ball, and get the job done.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Henry Ford's Success
Many successful people know the story of Henry Ford, the 4th grade drop-out who built one of the biggest business empires in the world. When asked how he did it without a good education, he simply said, "I don't need to know anything except how to surround myself with people who do."
In other words, he was too busy focusing on being a leader to waste his time with menial tasks. Those tasks were delegated to others. Henry did not need to understand accounting, but his accountants did. He did not need to know how to weld, but his welders did. Henry knew that leadership was its own job, and if he weighted himself down with menial tasks, he would get nowhere.
Now the Obama campaign has put out an ad that belittles McCain's inability to learn how to use a computer, or to send email. This ad is most unwise, and shows Obama's lack of understanding of the role of leadership. McCain has been busy in his role as a leader. Using computers and sending email are tasks delegated to staff and assistants, so the leader can put his time into leading.
I'm not saying McCain is another Henry Ford. But I am saying that he understands the role of a leader while Obama apparently does not.
Obama needs to pull that dumb ad. But he won't, because he just doesn't understand. And therein lies the problem with the Democratic nominee.
You want success. Great! Follow the lead of Henry Ford and John McCain - don't waste your time on any task not directly required in the role of being a leader. Delegate everything that does not require your absolute control.
Yogi Berra said it well: "If you are an orange, don't try to be a banana. Just be the best orange you can be."
In other words, he was too busy focusing on being a leader to waste his time with menial tasks. Those tasks were delegated to others. Henry did not need to understand accounting, but his accountants did. He did not need to know how to weld, but his welders did. Henry knew that leadership was its own job, and if he weighted himself down with menial tasks, he would get nowhere.
Now the Obama campaign has put out an ad that belittles McCain's inability to learn how to use a computer, or to send email. This ad is most unwise, and shows Obama's lack of understanding of the role of leadership. McCain has been busy in his role as a leader. Using computers and sending email are tasks delegated to staff and assistants, so the leader can put his time into leading.
I'm not saying McCain is another Henry Ford. But I am saying that he understands the role of a leader while Obama apparently does not.
Obama needs to pull that dumb ad. But he won't, because he just doesn't understand. And therein lies the problem with the Democratic nominee.
You want success. Great! Follow the lead of Henry Ford and John McCain - don't waste your time on any task not directly required in the role of being a leader. Delegate everything that does not require your absolute control.
Yogi Berra said it well: "If you are an orange, don't try to be a banana. Just be the best orange you can be."
Friday, September 5, 2008
Calibre
This is about the calibre of media reporting, and of party affiliation. It will be simple and sweet.
Over the 16 months of Obama's campaign, I have not seen a single news story about anything his kids may heve done wrong. I have not seen any pundit pull them into the spotlight in anything but a positive way. They have not been attacked by the media, nor by conservatives.
In the 6 days that Palin has been campaigning, all the liberal news media, and the liberal pundits, and the liberals, themselves, have relentlessly attacked Palin's children. Headlines like, "Palin Daughter Does Drugs at 13", or "Palin Daughter Pregnant & Unwed" have been everywhere.
This speaks loudly of the scruples (or lack thereof) of the liberal media and the liberal pundits. While conservatives have kept Obama's children as "off-limits", the liberals have constantly and viciously attacked Palin's kids.
This shows the calibre of people. And I would be completely disgusted and ashamed if I were a Democrat, since all liberals are Democrats (but not all Dems are liberals). But since this very thing helps prove that liberals have few, if any moral values, I am sure they feel neither disgust nor shame for their immoral antics.
And please do not waste your time defending the "moral fabric" of liberals, as their leaders have often admitted that they have few morals, because it is morals that hold us to traditions. And liberals, by nature and definition, are not tradition-bound. The very word liberal means to be open to anything new or different (whether good or bad does not seem to matter). So I am not being intentionally insulting when I say that liberals tend to have the morals of a junkyard dog. I am just stating the facts of life.
If you doubt that, look upon the 10 Commandments (note that they are NOT the "10 Suggestions"). Thou shalt not murder - yet liberals hold to abortion - even live birth abortion. Thou shalt not covet - liberals make no secret of coveting that which is ours, by taxation and wealth re-distribution. Thou shalt not commit adultery. When Clinton and other Dems did this, the liberals said "This is not an issue. Just forget it. Big deal!" When a Republican is caught doing it, Republicans find it morally reprehensible (and so do liberals, suddenly). Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Almost all atheists are liberals. Thou shalt not steal. The liberals constantly attempt to take what we have earned, without our permission, and give it to others.
Face it, anyone who wants to vote for a party that works at (but sometimes fails at) maintaining the high moral ground would vote Republican. Yes, sometimes they fail - they are only human. But at least they HAVE moral values, and TRY to honor them, for the most part.
Over the 16 months of Obama's campaign, I have not seen a single news story about anything his kids may heve done wrong. I have not seen any pundit pull them into the spotlight in anything but a positive way. They have not been attacked by the media, nor by conservatives.
In the 6 days that Palin has been campaigning, all the liberal news media, and the liberal pundits, and the liberals, themselves, have relentlessly attacked Palin's children. Headlines like, "Palin Daughter Does Drugs at 13", or "Palin Daughter Pregnant & Unwed" have been everywhere.
This speaks loudly of the scruples (or lack thereof) of the liberal media and the liberal pundits. While conservatives have kept Obama's children as "off-limits", the liberals have constantly and viciously attacked Palin's kids.
This shows the calibre of people. And I would be completely disgusted and ashamed if I were a Democrat, since all liberals are Democrats (but not all Dems are liberals). But since this very thing helps prove that liberals have few, if any moral values, I am sure they feel neither disgust nor shame for their immoral antics.
And please do not waste your time defending the "moral fabric" of liberals, as their leaders have often admitted that they have few morals, because it is morals that hold us to traditions. And liberals, by nature and definition, are not tradition-bound. The very word liberal means to be open to anything new or different (whether good or bad does not seem to matter). So I am not being intentionally insulting when I say that liberals tend to have the morals of a junkyard dog. I am just stating the facts of life.
If you doubt that, look upon the 10 Commandments (note that they are NOT the "10 Suggestions"). Thou shalt not murder - yet liberals hold to abortion - even live birth abortion. Thou shalt not covet - liberals make no secret of coveting that which is ours, by taxation and wealth re-distribution. Thou shalt not commit adultery. When Clinton and other Dems did this, the liberals said "This is not an issue. Just forget it. Big deal!" When a Republican is caught doing it, Republicans find it morally reprehensible (and so do liberals, suddenly). Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Almost all atheists are liberals. Thou shalt not steal. The liberals constantly attempt to take what we have earned, without our permission, and give it to others.
Face it, anyone who wants to vote for a party that works at (but sometimes fails at) maintaining the high moral ground would vote Republican. Yes, sometimes they fail - they are only human. But at least they HAVE moral values, and TRY to honor them, for the most part.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Why Don't They Get It?
Still hearing from "green" people about increasing sources of ethanol - corn, switchgrass, stinkweed - the list goes on. And these people actually believe this is a sound, "green" alternative. Why have they not thought it through? Why do they ignore the facts?
Let's start with the most obvious point - lack of arable land to use for ethanol production. If we were to use EVERY acre of tillable land in America for growing ethanol sources, it still would not produce enough ethanol to keep our cars going. And even if it could, we would be able to drive to the supermarket, but the shelves would be empty because there is no land being farmed for FOOD. It is just plain stupid to burn your food supply. Because of ethanol production, the cost of food worldwide has risen sharply - and the poor, already hungry, are now starving.
But it gets even worse. For every gallon of ethanol produced, it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuels to produce it. So, it is not even green. It actually INCREASES the CO2 levels.
It takes fuel to till the soil. Fuel to fertilize. Fuel to irrigate. Fuel to harvest. Fuel to transport to the processing plant. Fuel to process into ethanol. Isn't it strange that somehow the "greenies" overlook such things. Instead, all they can see is the end product - "WOW! Fuel from weeds!"
And what about those "electric" cars? Again, it's "WOW! Run cars without burning fossil fuels!" The problem lies in the simple fact that it takes fuel to create the electricity! Simple physics teaches us that there is ALWAYS some loss when you change from one energy to another. So, it takes more fuel to create the electricity than it would have taken to simply fuel the car in the first place.
Sure, perhaps the electricity comes from nuclear, or water. But currently, most of our electricity comes from oil, gas and coal. And we already suffer "brownouts" - a lack of sufficient electricity. Imagine if all vehicles used electricity - we would be living in the dark.
The folks who want "green" solutions are correct in believing our future depends on green solutions. But they are absolutely looking in the wrong direction. They are not thinking things through. They are going forth while wearing blinders. And ignorance is even worse than burning oil.
Let's start with the most obvious point - lack of arable land to use for ethanol production. If we were to use EVERY acre of tillable land in America for growing ethanol sources, it still would not produce enough ethanol to keep our cars going. And even if it could, we would be able to drive to the supermarket, but the shelves would be empty because there is no land being farmed for FOOD. It is just plain stupid to burn your food supply. Because of ethanol production, the cost of food worldwide has risen sharply - and the poor, already hungry, are now starving.
But it gets even worse. For every gallon of ethanol produced, it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuels to produce it. So, it is not even green. It actually INCREASES the CO2 levels.
It takes fuel to till the soil. Fuel to fertilize. Fuel to irrigate. Fuel to harvest. Fuel to transport to the processing plant. Fuel to process into ethanol. Isn't it strange that somehow the "greenies" overlook such things. Instead, all they can see is the end product - "WOW! Fuel from weeds!"
And what about those "electric" cars? Again, it's "WOW! Run cars without burning fossil fuels!" The problem lies in the simple fact that it takes fuel to create the electricity! Simple physics teaches us that there is ALWAYS some loss when you change from one energy to another. So, it takes more fuel to create the electricity than it would have taken to simply fuel the car in the first place.
Sure, perhaps the electricity comes from nuclear, or water. But currently, most of our electricity comes from oil, gas and coal. And we already suffer "brownouts" - a lack of sufficient electricity. Imagine if all vehicles used electricity - we would be living in the dark.
The folks who want "green" solutions are correct in believing our future depends on green solutions. But they are absolutely looking in the wrong direction. They are not thinking things through. They are going forth while wearing blinders. And ignorance is even worse than burning oil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)