States I've been to (even if only briefly aka airport)

visited 25 states (50%)
Create your own visited map of The United States or Best time to visit Milan

Reasoning with the Unreasonable

President Obama and his administration have been largely silent regarding the brewing revolution in Iran. The fear is that, if the administration comes out in favor of the freedom fighters, they will tick off the current regime and will be seen as "meddling" in their affairs. This fear comes without regard to the fact that the current Iranian regime is a violent, fear-mongering, hate-filled group that hates the West and hates, especially, the US. My fear is that, by not fighting alongside the freedom fighters, we are complicit in the devastating tactics taken by the current regime in putting down this revolution.

The message we are sending to all oppressed people is, we're not willing to risk a "working relationship" (read, a relationship where we allow regimes to get away with murder and oppression in the name of 'rebuilding our image' in the world) with an oppressive regime in order to support a people who wants to enjoy the same God-given freedoms that we Americans enjoy.

That is a dangerous message.

This is the problem with moral relativism. Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

In this instance, the essential liberty we are giving up is the liberty of the Iranians fighting for a democratic regime, and the little temporary safety is that which we hope to gain by appeasing an historically violent and defiant regime.

My guess is that we will end up regretting our failure to support those who are seeking those inalienable rights that we hold dear - or at least we used to.

Mr. Huntsman goes to China

There has been much speculation regarding Gov. Huntsman's intentions in accepting the ambasadorship to China. Some question how he plans to launch a bid for the Republican presidential nomination when he has been out of the country serving a Democrat. I think, however, Gov. Huntsman's ambitions are a little more humble.

When he first mentioned the ambasadorship, Gov. Huntsman stated that when the President asks you to serve, you serve. It seems he is willing to put the country's needs above his own political ambitions. If this is truly his motivation, and I believe it is to a certain extent, then you have to admire Gov. Huntsman's acceptance even more. After all, as has been debated time and time again, taking this position does little to advance his political career - but the President believes that he is the best man for the job. Given Gov. Huntsman's resume, the President is probably right.

There is something else to take into consideration, however. Huntsman has positioned himself as a moderate Republican who is willing to come out with stances that go against the hard-core right wing of the party. He has been true to himself, but doing so has potentially damaged any run for the presidency.

Yet, Huntsman has positioned himself very nicely for the two-spot on a ticket. Granted, few, if any politicians, want the vice-presidency. Most who take it, do so begrudgingly. Back when the vice-presidency was the booby prize in the presidential election, John Adams called it "the most insignificant office ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." One might say that anyone campaigning for the vice-presidency would be crazy.

I think Huntsman might be crazy like a fox.

Huntsman, as the number two man on a ticket, would bring in a lot of moderates. His foreign experience would be unquestionable. A run for the presidency would be hampered by a lot. Granted, he is an executive, but of a relatively small state-population wise. We saw, through Gov. Romney's run, that the Mormon factor would cause a lot of people to think twice about voting for Huntsman. Those on the right and the left would not think twice about attacking Huntsman for his mormonism.

However, the effect of the Mormon factor is muted when he is up for the number two slot. After serving as the vice-president for four to eight years, Huntsman becomes a known entity and voters will be more likely to dismiss his mormonism as a non-issue.

This ambassadorship may be the perfect ticket for Huntsman to become a very viable asset to a strong presidential candidate. His moderate stances may round out a ticket, his foreign experience puts him in a great spot to be a strong foreign diplomat from the White House, and spending a few years as the vice president on a Repulican ticket will allow people to see beyond his Mormon faith and will allow him to repent of his service under a Democrat administration.

Huntsman's reason for taking this ambassadorship is likely very basic - the president asked, so Huntsman will serve. Regardless of the reasoning, Huntsman may be solidifying his best path to the presidency, and that path leads him through the vice-presidency.

Miss California

A thank you goes out to Mario Armando Lavandeira (aka Perez Hilton). His response to Miss California's answer to the "gay marriage question" in the Miss USA is exactly the evidence we conservatives needed to prove our point.

You see, much of us argue that gay marriage opens the door to the justification of a lifestyle that we disagree with. We fight against gay marriage to ensure that the stigma against this lifestyle remains. After all, as we have seen through the abortion debate, it is never enough for liberals to simply live and let live. They want their view shoved down the throats of everyone.

Mr. Lavandeira has established this point. Miss California (Carrie Prejean) was asked regarding her opinion of gay marriage. She gave the honest answer that she was glad to live in a nation where the states could decide, but as far as she was concerned, she felt marriage should be between a man and a woman. According to Mr. Lavandeira, a judge at the event, this answer cost her the crown.

It is not enough for gay marriage to exist, people like Mr. Lavandeira want it to be accepted and pushed as an appropriate lifestyle, regardless of one's beliefs. For liberals, there is no live and let live - they push a zero-tolerance agenda where their beliefs are pushed as THE beliefs. Anyone who disagrees with them is a neanderthal who "bitterly clings to guns and religion."

It is this attitude that causes us conservatives to want to draw the line as early as possible. The sooner we can draw the line, the more likely we are to reach an acceptable common ground.

Has it really been that long?

I was on my sister's blog and there was a note stating that I hadn't written on this blog for a month. I couldn't believe it. I've certainly started or thought about a number of posts, but I haven't quite gotten them up.

So, here goes.

We live in West Valley City - we've been here for about a year now. We enjoy it for the most part. Recently, WVC politics have made some noise. First, the city council recently decided that, in lieu of seeking nearly $600K in back rent from the Utah Grizzlies (Utah's minor league hockey team - figured I should clear it up since, from the attendance, most people don't know about it), the City would instead take a piece of the team. That's right, WVC now owns 40% of the Utah Grizzlies.

This has caused a lot of opinions to be voiced. Some in favor, most opposed. I can see why people wouldn't want the city to take a piece of a franchise that is already having a hard time making ends meet.

However, it seems to me that the choice was pretty evident. Hockey has never been terribly popular in Utah. But, WVC essentially married the Grizzlies in 2001 when it beat out SLC for the hockey venue. WVC's $600K was illusory at best. The only way WVC would be getting the $600k is if things really picked up for the Grizzlies. In the instance that the Grizzlies' prospects really do improve, the City will be better off owning 40% of the franchise.

At the end of the day, it was a choice between two seemingly loser options. At the end of the day, WVC was either going to push for $600K that it wasn't going to get, or it would take a lot more than $600K by the time the Grizzlies would have been able to pay the $600K.

I see it as a good gamble.

HB 187

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist and I often find the SLTribune's hatred for the legislature ridiculous and usually not founded in the truth - or even rational thinking. But in reading this article, I couldn't help but find the distrust of the legislature warranted in the case of HB 187.

I am of the opinion that the state should generally allow people to live their lives without interference from the government. I whole-heartedly endorse man's right to property and feel that even CC&Rs can be too restrictive. Nevertheless, we have a recording system that allows people to purchase property with their eyes open and a full understanding of the nature of the property they are buying. Accordingly, those who buy land abutting public waterways know that their land will be exposed to those using the public waterway.

Like a street, the landowner may take the precautions deemed necessary to limit the exposure from the public waterways, but such precautions should be limited to the land itself.

HB 187 seems not only to destroy public right to the waterways, but also extends a land owner's right to place material over the waterway so as to prevent the public from using the waterway. HB 187 is a travesty for the right of the public to use land owned by the public. Further, in a year when the budget is crucial (as you point out on your blog), creating disincentives to tourists looking to capitalize on Utah's scenery and fishing only hurts the state as a whole.

I have contacted my legislators, Representative Kory Holdaway and Senator Karen Mayne, and have received their assurance that they plan to vote no on this bill - if the bill makes it in front of them on a vote. I have also contacted its sponsor, Representative Ben Ferry, and have asked him for his rationale for proposing the bill in the first place.

I should have received Rep. Ferry's response before jumping into this debate, but I do not see the merit of it. Perhaps Rep. Ferry will persuade me to change my mind. We shall see.

Interesting Jefferson Quote

"It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, 19 August 1785

I just got done reading Joseph Ellis' "American Sphinx; The Character of Thomas Jefferson". It is the only Jefferson "biography" I've read (it was more of a character study as the name implies, than a biography). What makes the quote interesting is that, at least according to Ellis, Jefferson's life was often at odds with his political stances. He was a man who abhorred slavery, but who kept slaves; he berated those who practiced "politics", but was often the unseen hand in much of the political maneuvers that took place during the Washington presidency; he employed the media to attack his opponents, then deplored the same tactics when used against him.

In short, Jefferson appears to have been quite the enigma given his political stances vs. the way he conducted his life.

Perhaps there is something to be said for seeking the ideal while fostering an understanding attitude toward others. I could stand to learn that lesson.

"Bailout"

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...." --James Madison

Ronald Wilson Reagan

Happy Birthday to the greatest president of the 20th century!!

Does the President know what excuse means?

"Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter." --then-Sen. Tom Daschle on 7 May 1998

"As you can well imagine, I am deeply embarrassed and disappointed by the errors that required me to amend my tax returns. I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them." --Tom Daschle in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA)

"I disclosed this information to the committee voluntarily and paid the taxes and any interest owed promptly. My mistakes were unintentional." –Daschle

"Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I. But that mistake and this decision cannot diminish the many contributions Tom has made to this country." --President Barack Obama

By calling it a "mistake" (cough, yeah right, cough), Tom Daschle IS excusing his failure to pay taxes. To not excuse it would be to say, 'I failed to pay my taxes in accordance with the law. I am sorry.'

Instead, one of the many liberal hypocrites attempts to "make up" for his "mistake" by hiding behind the idea that he disclosed it "voluntarily" (read: I realized that this would be a problem when the Obama vetting team uncovered my "mistake" so it was decided that I'd better come clean).

I wonder if he paid the penalties as well as the interest owed. After all, he is a tax cheat and the IRS should enforce the laws to the letter.

Democrats and Taxes

I am amazed at the number of tax issues that President Obama's nominees have had during the nomination process. Democrats constantly rail against Republicans for their efforts to cut taxes across the board. Democrats usually claim that Republican tax cuts will only benefit the "wealthiest one half of one percent" of the population.

Considering that the wealthiest among us pay almost all of the income taxes, I'm ok with giving them a break every now and again.

Apparently, so are the Democrats. For Republicans, the wealthiest among us should get tax relief across the board. For Democrats, individuals among the wealthiest of us who don't pay taxes should also get relief - by being nominated to the Obama administration!!

Earlier Nancy Killefer, nominee for President Obama's Chief Performance Officer withdrew her name from nomination for that post due to "unspecified tax issues."

Tom Daschle has just announced his withdrawal from the nomination process for HHS secretary citing tax issues. The former senator had just recently filed amended returns wherein he had to pay around $140,000.00 in back taxes. Even with the amendments, Sen. Daschle apparently failed to report another $80K in income. Apparently this guy is making so much money, he just doesn't have time to figure out how to pay his taxes. Further, Daschle was criticized for lobbying in the health care field and then accepting the nomination for HHS secretary. This was a major facet of the Obama administration and, given the hypocrisy that abounded in sweeping this one under the rug, Daschle withdew his name.

The fun doesn't stop there!

New Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner also faced issues regarding his failure to pay taxes on his income.

This is troubling on a number of different levels. The least of these is the fact that it is Democrat policy to rely on the wealthiest to pay the vast majority of income taxes, yet the wealthiest of Democrats simply don't pay taxes.

Further, this does not bode well for this "New Era of Responsible Government." The Obama administration has touted its plan to reduce corruption in government by not employing lobbyists - yet it nominated two to its cabinet to work in the field where they lobbied. Obama highly touted the position of Chief Performance Officer to scrub the federal budget of nonsensical spending - yet his nominee has to withdraw due to "tax concerns."

Hopefully the administration can get its act together. I fear, however, that there is more lip service than real policy behind much of the administration's efforts.

A good general rule of thumb

I was in class yesterday (like the good Mormon boy I am) and couldn't help but reflect on a comment made. We were discussing how to better treat the women in our lives (it was in Elders Quorum - side note, what is the proper name of that quorum? Is it Elders' Quorum or Elders Quorum??). One of our quorum members mentioned that, in his teaching career, he often hears language that blows him away. When such language came out of a student whose parents this good man knew, he pulled the student aside and asked him where he had heard such language. The student stated that it had come from tv or his friends.

The teacher then said, "When it comes to the language you use, you can always guarantee that it is safe to use an expression if you've heard your parents use it."

Now, obviously this only worked because the teacher knew this students' parents. But it remains a pretty good rule of thumb (depending on your parents).

What hurt is realizing some of the things my kids might say that they could honestly tell their teachers they HAD heard come out of my mouth. It made me a little nervous about how I talk to/about people and some of the phrases I employ at times. While I am not one for much swearing (a few gros mots slip out every now and again), I often employ other terms that are not the best.

One my son has picked up on is the word idiot. I've heard him use it occasionally and realize that I'm setting myself up for that classic retort that comes from the first anti-smoking commercial I believe I ever saw - "I learned it from watching you!" I've since tried to eliminate my use of that word (stupid is another word we are working on).

For most this may seem rather innocuous, mundane even, but in my efforts to be more civil (see previous post), I am attempting to eliminate those words from my vocabulary that really do nothing to add any substance. Hopefully, then, some day I'll be able to be sure that my kids won't return home from school with a note explaining some phrase they used at school knowing full well that they learned it from me.

A Call to Civility I Can Agree With

Senator John Valentine has proposed a Senate Concurrent Resolution entitled "A Call to Civility." You can read the full text here.

In all, it is a good resolution. I've debated this issue with Ethan Millard (or rather, debated it on his blog) and with my good friend, A.W..

To avoid any implications that I am opposed to civility, I wanted to repeat that I fully support voluntary measures to increase civility in public discourse. I think SCR2 is a good start. Some of the provisions in that Resolution include the following:

WHEREAS, the Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 1 observes that, among our "inherent and inalienable" constitutional rights is the fundamental right "to communicate freely about our thoughts and opinions";

WHEREAS, we may also be "responsible for the abuse of that right";

WHEREAS, there should be a renewal of respectful discourse and behavior in civic and
public settings in Utah;

WHEREAS, this is not an appeal for all citizens of the state simply to get along;

WHEREAS, there are profound differences among Utahns, and spirited debate is a vital
part of American democracy;

WHEREAS, participation in American civic and public life does not require that we sacrifice our deepest convictions but that we best protect our own rights by protecting the rights of others and adhering to high ethical standards;

WHEREAS, the following ground rules of civic and public engagement recognize the important place of the rights, responsibilities, and respect inherent in our civic and constitutional compact;

The resolution then goes on to suggest certain ground rules about respecting one another and understanding that different viewpoints do not enemies make.

In all, I think it is a good focus on the need for spirited but civil debate in public discourse. I think such a resolution is a worthy effort by Sen. Valentine and I would support passage of such a non-binding resolution.

What I am opposed to is government mandating that some obscure, slanted definition of "civil" becomes the measuring stick by which we are allowed to engage in public discourse. What is likely to result is not a free exchange of ideas, but rather an imposition of one opinion over the others. Essentially, such measures would become a government created shout down that prevents certain individuals from having their voices heard. Or, as Ethan Millard fears, such measures would prevent tough questions from being posed to those who hold elected office.

However, I do not see such measures in SCR2. Rather, I think this is a resolution that A.W., Ethan, and I could all agree on. I may be wrong, and you can bet that if this is used in any way as a foundation for measures to abridge our freedoms, I will vehemently oppose them. Until that happens, though, I think measures such as the passage and publication of SCR2 are worthwhile ventures that will hopefully lead to the voluntary adoption of a more civil tone in all public discussions.

Agreeable Disagreement

Ethan Millard recently posted on his blog at www.slcspin.com a brief paragraph indicating his opposition to recent efforts to force "civil discourse" into public debate. His reasoning, while not stated on his blog, appears to be that the measures likely to be taken are more likely to create a sort of affirmative action in public debate with political correctness being codified. Efforts to improve the tone of public debate are always appreciated, but should be self-produced, not forced from the top down.

I was impressed, however, with the tone of debate that President Obama and the congressional Republicans had over the president's "stimulus package." Both the Deseret News and the SLTribune ran stories on the encounter.

This is the type of debate that is necessary to truly produce the best results. People shouting one another down or ambushing each other with sneak attacks in political discourse rarely do anyone any good. Usually the attacker ends up looking shallow and afraid of what the opposition might say. (Think Rosie O'Donnell both on The View and with her "interview" of Tom Selleck on her now defunct talk show.)

We really don't need statutes or rules of etiquette pushing agendas on anyone. What we need is general common sense. No one likes a bully, and everyone gains from a full discussion of all opinions.

I generally believe that the best thing the federal government can do in most circumstances is stand out of the way. However, when there is action taken at this, or any level of government, it should be with a full, open, and honest debate with each side presenting their views.

I appreciate President Obama's willingness to discuss his ideas with his political opposition. Like the Republicans in Utah's congressional delegation, I am opposed to this "stimulus package," but I appreciate the tone set and appreciate that President Obama is willing to listen to those who agreeably disagree with him.

Republican Resurgence

I just read this article from David Frum at Newsweek.com. Given its source (Newsweek), I was prepared to hear about how Republicans essentially need to shift to the center and start to realize that this is a center-left nation. I was surprised, then, when I read the article and found it to be a fairly good assessment of four areas where the GOP can improve its relationship with the voters.

Americans are, in general, conservative. These next four years we will see a push toward the left on issues such as health care and welfare programs. However, as we have seen in the past, such a push generally leads to a strong rebound by conservatives who can cash in on the failures of liberal policies. 1984 wasn't a fluke. It was the prime example of a conservative leader who communicated Republican ideals coherently and with a connection to the populace as a whole.

This past election cycle was not so much a perfect storm for the Republican party as it was a Titanic-type accident. Arrogance, failure to heed and respond to rising concerns with a well-balanced conservative approach, and an apparent lack of conservative leadership left the party at the mercy of the waves and winds. This listless approach allowed our party to sink after running into the economic situation that befelled the American public in 2008.

It is no wonder that a completely unproven, un-accomplished neophyte such as Obama was able to sweep in and appear as intelligent and levelheaded as he did to as many people as he did. That is not to say that Obama is not intelligent or levelheaded. But it does go a long way to demonstrate how easily someone, whose only extensive writing to date has been about himself, was able to rise from obscurity to take the White House.

I sincerely hope that President Obama succeeds. However, I only see his success through, what to his supporters would deem to be, selling out the left. If Obama fails to shift significantly to the center (although he has already), we will see one of the most liberal agendas legislated over the next four years in over 70 years. At that point, I believe it won't take long for the country to see how liberal policies fail - but this point will only be made if the GOP is ready to stand up and act as intelligently and level-headed as Obama seemed to be during this past election cycle.

BCS Sucks!

I just got done watching "The Greatest Game Ever Played." It's a fantastic show that chronicles Francis Ouimet's story in the 1913 U.S. Open. Prior to 1913, Golf was largely a game for the wealthy. There were few courses and most Americans did not play.

Ouimet was an American of immigrant parents. He had caddied and knew the game well, but the idea that he could compete at the same level as the "gentlemen" was unthinkable. The fact that he had been a caddy demonstrated to most who watched that Ouimet simply wasn't a player to be taken seriously.

When Ouimet sunk his last putt on the second day he found himself in a three-way tie for the lead. A playoff was held the third day and Ouimet held his own. For the two of you who may read this, I won't spoil the end if you haven't seen the movie, but whether he won or not, Ouimet changed Americans' view of the game of golf just by getting to the playoff.

Americans love an underdog. Rudy, Hoosiers, We Are Marshall, Invincible, Rocky, the list goes on. These are all great stories about underdogs who overcame the odds to win big. The stories are loved because people love to see the little guy win. Everyone loves to hear a story of a Cinderella team winning against the odds.

So, why on earth would the NCAA adopt a system that denies us the chance at having more of these stories. Boise State's overtime win against Oklahoma a couple of years ago was amazing. What would have made it more incredible is if they hadn't allowed Oklahoma to climb back into the game in the second half.

This year, we had the Utah Utes dominate a team that was at the top of the national rankings for five straight weeks. No one else sat atop the rankings as long as Alabama did this past year. Yet when they came into a game against a "mid-major" team, the Utes took it to them for four straight quarters. Alabama was the beneficiary of some questionable calls that changed some momentum at the end of the half, which allowed them to get closer to the Utes in score, but the final, 31-17, demonstrates that, even when the calls weren't going their way, the Utes could hold their own against a team that was supposed to be far superior.

Utah, arguably, is the best team in the nation. Rivals.com ranked Utah at number 5, one spot above Alabama, the team the Utes decimated in the Sugar Bowl. USA Today put the Utes at number 4. The AP had the Utes at number 2, right behind Florida. However, the Utes are the only undefeated team in the nation and their performance in the Sugar Bowl shows they can hang with "the best."

Rivals.com's rationale for ranking the Utes so low was that they would not have been undefeated had they played in the Big 12, the SEC, or even the PAC-10. That's nonsensical at best. Unfortunately, we'll never know exactly how good the Utes were this year because, in spite of going 1-0 against the Big 12 and 1-0 against the Pac-10, the Utes won't get a chance to go against those who, by the mere imagination of sports writers and conference officials, are considered "the best."

Utah's team this year, and in 2004, had the opportunity to produce one of the Cinderella stories that Americans love. Had they been given the opportunity to play the other conference champions, chances are they would be number 1 right now.

However, the NCAA has decided that they'd rather maintain the illusion that there are "major" conferences and teams, "mid-major" conferences and teams, and "minor" conferences and teams. Unfortunately, because the BCS plays favorites, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The BCS caste system is exactly the suffed-shirt mentality that Ouimet's performance was able to break through to bring the game of golf to millions of Americans. Utah's performance this year will hopefully have an effect similar to that of Ouimet's certainly all Americans are aware of college football, but the possibility of a national championship is something that should be introduced to all college football programs regardless of their conference.

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo!Sports has devised a great system that pits all conference champions against each other plus four "at-large" berths. You can read about it here. The only change I would suggest would be that all conference champions should get home-field advantage over any at-large berth team. If two conference champions are pitted against one another, then the higher seed gets to play at home. But a conference champion should get to play at home against a non-conference champion.

Demos poised to steal another

I read that Al Franken has closed to within 5 votes of Norm Coleman in the Minnesota Senate Race. I read about it here

Kennedy did it in 1960, Gore was poised to do it in 2000, and now Franken is looking to do it again in 2008. I'm constantly amazed at how these canvassing boards miraculously find so many votes for just one candidate - the Democrat candidate. It is a statistical anomaly that only one candidate would gain so many votes through these challenged ballots.

Something stinks, and it should follow Franken all the way to DC if he manages to pull off this fraud.

The Passing of a Giant

I just learned that Elder Wirthlin passed away yesterday. I re-read his talk given last General Conference titled "Come What May - And Love It!" What wise counsel he gave - much like every talk he has given over his long, illustrious life.

The world will miss this great man, this giant. But we can comfort in knowing that he is now with his Father.

Demos move left

Two years ago, the Republicans pushed hard on a platform that voters should not vote for the Democrats on their tickets because doing so would put liberals like Nancy Pelosi in power. The voters, for the most part, did not vote on this position and Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker of the House and third in line for presidential succession.

Most people who listened to, and denounced the Republican strategy felt that there was little Pelosi could do to really make a difference in politics. While she is an extreme liberal, voters felt that her influence was too limited to have an effect.

Representative Waxman, a California liberal, was just elected to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. His platform in seeking the post was that America was moving too slow on addressing issues combatting global warming. This man now sits at the helm of a very powerful committee and can control what bills hit the house floor from this committee.

It would appear that the liberals are coming home to roost. They not only have control over both chambers, they now control the White House and are dangerously close to a filibuster proof 60-vote majority in the Senate.

The election of Rep. Waxman to this post demonstrates that the liberals are controlling the Democrat Party and will start to hoist their deficit ballooning, socialist agenda on us all.

In a way I almost welcome it. Many people, at the defeat of McCain, stated that this was the end of conservativism. This death knell, however, is sounded prematurely given that McCain wasn't much of a conservative and Republicans have strayed far from true conservative principles. What I predict, however, is that the liberals will be in power for the next two years and will push a very progressive agenda. This will excite some, but will scare most others into voting for conservatives. The blowback will sound the death knell of liberal politics and those who are so desperate to look more like Europe.

Mitt Makes Sense

If there is anyone whose opinion should be considered in matters of turning things around, Mitt Romney is at or near the top of the list. His Op-Ed piece in the NY Times makes a lot of sense.

Read it here

Investments are not savings!

Not that it matters, but I congratulate President-elect Obama on a hard-fought win. I hope him, and all Americans, the best over the next four years.

As I perused different websites, I came across this little paragraph on Yahoo!'s website:

"After the longest and costliest campaign in U.S. history, Obama was propelled to victory by voters dismayed by eight years of Bush's presidency and deeply anxious about rising unemployment and home foreclosures and a battered stock market that has erased trillions of dollars of savings for Americans."

Now, I'm not bickering about people being fed up with President Bush. What I am bickering about is the difference between savings and investments.

If a bank went under, taking with it all of the deposit accounts it had, then people would have lost savings. However, a company's stock losing its worth is not a question of losing savings, but rather losing an investment. What's the difference? Savings is money you can count on - actually dollars put somewhere in an account that only gains interest.

Investments are never certain and there is always somewhat of a risk that the investment won't pay off. Some of us invest in less tangible things such as education. I know I will be paying for my education for years to come and the minimal interest I will pay (although it amounts to a tidy sum in the long run) is the cost of my investment. My hope is that, by buying my education on credit, the interest I pay will pale in comparison to the money I will be able to earn above and beyond what I would have earned had I not obtained a graduate degree.

Most investments, however, come in the stock market. If you invest $30,000.00 into various stocks and your investment gives a return of an additional $30,000.00, you have only made $30,000.00 if you pull that money out right then. If your "let your investment ride" and the return declines by $10,000.00, you haven't lost $10,000.00 - you have stil gained $20,000.00. Yet, the only thing most Americans would be talking about is how they "lost" $10,000.00.

Perhaps I'm still calloused by the Obama win last night, but it frustrates me to have people complain about losing money when it wasn't really theirs until they pulled it out of the stock market.

Obamanation - if it seems too good to be true...

Obama lied about public financing - he made a statement on principles when he originally pledged to limit his campaign to public financing. Once he saw how much money he could raise, he quickly abandoned his principled approach to his campaign and raked in hundreds of millions of dollars (the propriety of the donations remains in question). He claimed it was to counter the attacks from the 527s (like the "swift boat attacks" that plagued Kerry's lackluster failure of a campaign). However, those attacks never materialized and Obama isn't apologizing for raising such a high standard that public financing is no longer a viable option.

I didn't see Obama's infomercial last night. I had more important things to do than to watch a self-important socialist-in-denial offer praises of himself. However, the fact that his name hasn't been plastered all over the internet from some great prophesy or messianical message means that his millions of dollars were apparently not very well spent.

I did come across this newsstory demonstrating how Obama has recognized that, due to a little inconvenience called reality, he would have to scale back his proposed platform yet he continues to promise the moon to each group who may feel that they have gotten the shaft.

Once again, Obama shows his two-faced approach to campaigning. After all, if Obama knows that he can't afford to put a chicken in every pot, why does he continue to promise as much? Is it that he doesn't understand the reality of governing? Or is he simply too steeped in sycophancy that he can't help but say what needs to be said in order to get elected?

It's something to think about.

Bush will still get blamed

The Senate Site has reprinted this article as a demonstration that the Clinton administration was one of the major contributors to our current economic crisis.

Still, there is little doubt that Bush will not escape the lion's share of the blame.