How slippery has our slope become?

There seems to be drastic shift in some of the basic tenets of our society.

• Right and wrong have been replaced by an infinite number of shades of gray.
• Fair has morphed from making sure everyone has the equal opportunity into the quest for equal results.
• Honesty for its own sake has developed into anything is OK if you don't get caught.
• Integrity has been replaced by naked ambition.
• Compassion has changed from empathic kindness into a self serving search of love from anyone who wants something.
• Being humble has become an embarrassment instead of a virtue.
• Patience has given away to impulsiveness.
• Peace has changed from a goal worth fighting for (no, peace and fighting are not mutually exclusive concepts) into an excuse for avoiding conflict at all costs.

We must take it upon ourselves to teach our children and each other what is really important in this life. The alternative is one that I would rather not encounter.

Datadiver08

Liberal / Democratist compassion, I think not!

The thought of liberals / Democratists showing true compassion is as absurd as trying to fly a kite to Mars (which is also going through planetary warning). True compassion is composed of;

• Telling the truth. Without one knowing the truth, there can be no improvement.
• Doing the hard work of determining who really cannot help themselves versus those who will not help themselves. If this hard work is done, there are enough funds to help. If the hard work is not done, there are insufficient funds and no one is really helped.
• After deciding, being willing to let the group who will not help themselves live or die by their own efforts.

If you know any democratists, you know that they don't want to do the hard work of determining those who cannot versus those who will not. This means that they will not really help anyone, but they will still manage to feel good about themselves because they tried.

It's time for tough love welfare.

Datadiver08

E-mail to Gevernor Doyle

Below is a copy of the e-mail I sent to Governor Doyle earlier today. If I get a response, other than the bland auto reply platitude that thanks me for my interest, I will post it. ************************************************************ Governor Doyle, in your proposed budget you stated that “big oil” company profits would be taxed. I will use “big oil” in my example below, but it would equally apply to any other type of business large or small.

PLEASE PAY ATTENTION.

BUSINESSES DO NOT PAY TAXES!

This is a basic economic absolute. If you didn't know this you should, and if you do know this, you shouldn't lie to the people of Wisconsin. If you think you can keep "big oil" from passing the tax along to the consumer, you are quite naive. To even try to do this is would be a very socialistic action. Increased taxes to “big oil” are simply a cost of goods sold. Any business bases the retail price of the goods they are selling on the all costs to bring their goods to market. Taxes are simply another cost. Any time you do something that takes money from my pocket and it ends up in the state’s coffers, it is a tax on my income. What makes this situation worse is that we are paying this increased cost (read tax) with income on which we have already paid taxes. ************************************************************ Datadiver08

Good words gone missing!

Last Nov 24 I wrote about good words gone bad. Now it's time to look at good words gone missing.

• Pursue

Webster's dictionary defines pursue as "employing measures to obtain". The related word pursuit has the same meaning. You may have heard this word in the Declaration of Independence. The entire sentence is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There is no guarantee of happiness, no right of happiness, no entitlement of happiness and no assurance of happiness. Don't wait around for someone else to get it for you. Go pursue it!

• Self Esteem

While technically not a single word, in common usage it's treated as a single word. Webster's dictionary defines self esteem as " a confidence and satisfaction in oneself ". Far to many people are waiting around for someone to give them self esteem. This is especially true in our school systems. Self esteem is best found and kept by treating others in a respectful manner. A person who does not act respectfully does not deserve any self esteem and I certainly an not worried about giving it to them.

• Work

Webster's dictionary defines work as " a duty that is one's accustomed means of livelihood ".

Unfortunately the more common definition is "the measure of effort one makes to avoid doing any useful activity" or "the measure of effort one makes to live by means of using money taken from others against their will". The modern phrase used is working the system.

Enough for now. Sorry for the gap between the last log and this one. I was having a bout of OID (Obama Induced Depression).

Datadiver08

Global Warming, what's really happening.

Man made global warming proponents think that everyone who doesn't agree with them are ignoring the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and consensus of scientists. Is global warming real, or man made? Let's take a look. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. National Geographic News - Feb 28, 2007. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming030207.htm Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus". Canada Free Press - Mar 2, 2007. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1 The fundamentalist doom mongers also ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas said added CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert. Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it." ABC 2020 - Apr 20, 2007 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/16/global-warming-myth/ On May Day, Noah Keenlyside of Germany's Leipzig Institute of Marine Science, published a paper in Nature forecasting no additional global warming "over the next decade." Al Gore and his minions continue to chant that "the science is settled" on global warming, but the only thing settled is that there has not been any since 1998. Washington Times - May 16, 2008 The national review posted the top 10 myths on Feb 20, 2007. Here are the top 10 in brief. You can read the full story at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19468 10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol’s energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world’s population, economic activity and projected future growth. 9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment. Proponents candidly admit desires to control others’ lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make millions off the deal. 8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor. Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that calculus, however. 7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms. Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and politicized “Summary for Policy Makers” of the UN’s IPCC to support this favorite chestnut of the press. 6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears! For some reason, Al Gore’s computerized polar bear can’t swim, unlike the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus. On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling). 5. Climate change is raising the sea levels. Even the distorted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over the past century of man’s greatest influence. 4. The glaciers are melting! The glacial retreat we read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. 3. Climate was stable until man came along. Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and science text, just as “witches” were burned in retaliation for changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. 2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming. What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made global warming. 1. It’s hot in here! The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous obvious factors. “On record” obviously means a very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age. I could go on and on, but this is already long enough. Datadiver08

What if?

The government is proposing the registration of guns and a ban on certain types of firearms. If this happens the citizens of our land will be denied the right to protect themselves, their family and their community. The government wants to control who has firearms so they will be the sole authority of the society in which we live. To which government am I referring? The British. If the British could have imposed the control President Obama wants to establish, the revolution could not have taken place and the United States would still be a British Colony. For this exact reason the framers of our government included the following in some of our most revered documents.

• ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (second amendment to the constitution, ratified December 15, 1791. http://www.usconstitution.net/
• ...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. (the Declaration of Independence) http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

We must all be watchful of creeping government control. If the U.S. government is really a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" (the Gettysburg address) such control is not necessary. However, …………………………

Datadiver08

A new way of voting

Now that the election is over (except Minnesota) I thought I would take a few moments to tell you all one of the best ideas that came to me during the past election season. As with most good ideas they are not created in a total vacuum, but also through observation of others.

We now can only vote for someone. I think we should be able to vote against a candidate. When faced with a choice among candidates have you ever thought I could support anyone expect that one.

An example to illustrate my idea.

If there were 4 candidates and one, in your opinion, would be outstandingly bad but you could live with any of the other 3, why shouldn't you be able to cast a vote against the bad one?

• Candidate 'A' 413,500 votes.
• Candidate 'B' 339,785 votes.
• Candidate 'C' 98,667 votes.
• Candidate 'D' -87 votes.

With this way of voting, the winning candidate 'A' would feel confident that they have broad support since they either received a large number of positive votes signaling they were liked by a larger number of voters, or a large number of voters though candidate 'A' would be acceptable so they cast a vote against one of the other candidates.

It would also give a clear message to candidate 'D' that they should look for another line of work.

I think it could work.

Do any of you have ideas you would like to share?

Datadiver08

Obama's sly plan

Barak Obama is one sly fox. All the discussions of where the unnecessary "stimulus" package funds will be distributed is a red herring. All of this time President Obama has been concentrating on the question of "where will the money come from". He has found, and is beginning to tap, a heretofore unexploited revenue source. The potential of this source of income is like comparing a drop of oil on the garage floor to an Anwar gusher. The source is, of course, unpaid taxes owed by his Democrat appointees. Let's take a closer look. Within a short period of time Tim Geithner, Nancy Killifer and Tom Daschle have coughed up about $167,084 for an average of $55,695 each. The reported size of the "stimulus" package is one trillion dollars. Here is the math. One trillion divided by $55,695 means 17,955,041 individuals are needed to meet this expense. It has been reported that the popular vote for President Obama was 69,456,897 so he should not have a problem paying for the stimulus package without raising taxes. In fact, he should be able to pay off the national debt if these three are representative of his supporters. The one possible downfall to his plan is that it is likely most of the persons (alive, dead, legal, illegal, etc...) who voted for President Obama aren't required to pay taxes. Maybe he's not so smart after all. Datadiver08