Thursday, April 30, 2009

….I'm so depressed….

I am totally with that web server at I know that it has some issues that are beyond my understanding, but we are at day 101 of the transition to the evil empire. I know I'm over-exaggerating, but geez, go watch the first three Star Wars and see how the Emperor seizes command. It is scary in its similarities.

There was is great website that I saw today that talks about what has happened in the first 100 days. Personally, I don't think we have ever seen changes so drastic and extreme in the history of this nation. The thing is that they are all un-American - They are all based in this socialist power grabbing agenda.

Now we have a new bill to protect gays from speech. Homosexuality is purely a moral issue. It is not like being a certain race, or being a certain anything . . . it is a choice as is being sexual or celibate. There is a great book out there called "on liberty" by John Stuart Mills. In it he is talking about legitimate and illegitimate laws. He makes a great point. The only legitimate law is one designed to protect a person from another. Just because someone believes that something is "good" for you it doesn't have the authority to be a law. Hurting someone is a universal crime, regardless of what that reason should be. There should not be some special consideration for protecting someone more than another for whatever reason. However, with this law we not only give special consideration, but we theoretically restrict speech regarding this issue. We think it is for the good that people do not talk about against gays. That is not good enough to be a law. It is called tyranny of the majority and is as despicable as any despot.

Anyway, I'm just a web blogger. I'm depressed. . .

Now leave me to sulk alone. . .

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Arlen Specter (DB)

How is it that at 79 years old you decide that you are a democrat and not a republican? Is it that you have some end of life revelation? Or, is it that at this point in our history, out parties are so closely related that there is no difference?

    It is cliché to talk about how one dislikes politicians, but Arlen Specter and his likes are some of the worst humans around. To be fair, it takes a particular type of douche bag to be a politician in the first place. I liked how Kinky Friedman described them…to paraphrase…I've never liked politicians because to me Poly means many and Tics are blood thirsty little insects. However, theoretically there should be some fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats that really would only allow a change between parties after some sort of drastic change in your morals or outlook on life.

    So, when looking at this guy I would implore anyone who is in his constituency to seriously ask some tough questions about this guy as a basic honest, moral person. He has lied to the people of Pennsylvania about what he stands for and is therefore not a good representative of the people. The idea of being a representative of the people in Washington is the core aspect to our system. Your Congressman is a person who should closely represent you. They should be the people who are your voice to say the things that you want to say, to be a moral representation of you, to stand as an economic representation of you, to stand as a person who you hire to fight for the things that you believe in.

    I cannot help but to believe that a person who, at 80, has fundamentally changed his political stance is nothing more than a liar and is trying to win another term as a congressman than is a person who has had some fundamental change in his outlook. If this is true, then he is nothing more than a liar and if that is true, I cannot accept the possibility that the people of Pennsylvania hold a liar as a fair representation of their beliefs and values.

    The people of Pennsylvania need to rise up and reject him as a leader. Both Republicans and Democrats need to work to crush his run for office next year. It is time to find new blood. He is a representative of all that is wrong with politics and not the people of Pennsylvania. It would be better to have some, either Democrat or Republican, who is truly a representative of the people of Pennsylvania than this dirt bag. Get out and vote and help to end the debacle.

Monday, April 27, 2009


So, swine flu is on the way. Essentially, the people of the US are not really doing anything differently to protect ourselves from this issue. However, I did see that Novavax stock has hit a high level of interest with investors. It would be nice if the average Joe started to take note and precautions.

For some reason, we just don't seem to really believe that bad things can happen in the US. Mexico has shut down everything trying to contain this issue, but we are still letting people roll on through our borders and airports. I saw that even some Asian nations have set up check points for people entering their countries from Mexico and the US.

    I am not advocating for taking the steps that Mexico City has, at this point. However, shouldn't we be taking prudent steps that places like Europe and Aisa have? Shouldn't we be restricting travel or analyzing passengers coming from Mexico? What about a ban on pork products from Mexico? I don't know what the right steps are, but it seems we should take some steps.

    Maybe some of that Mexican abortion money that Obama has spent would have been better spent saving lives by vaccinations in Mexico City, instead of taking lives of the unborn. I guess we will all know in time how this will play out. Just as a reminder, 50,000,000 were killed from the flu in 1918. Wiki tells me that was somewhere between 2.5-5% of the world's population. If that happened again, on the low end (2.5%), we are talking somewhere around 170,000,000 deaths. To put that in perspective, there are only 5 nations in the world with populations of more than 170mm.

    Well, good luck to you. Good luck to us all. Buy your Novavax stock and make sure you get yourself a mask. As for me, I'm going to stay away from the pork tacos for awhile.

Friday, April 24, 2009

The Murder of Timothy Wright

I noticed that Timothy Wright passed away today. He was killed when a drunk driver hit him and his family head on last year. Though he died today, let's not forget that he was murdered a year ago. It is coming up on the 3rd anniversary of my wife being murdered by a drunk driver. She was hit head on when a five time drunk driver crossed the lane and hit her head on, as well.

When are we going to make laws tougher on these people? In both cases these people were minding their own business, doing the things that they were suppose to do and were killed by someone who had no regard for the lives of others. They are, in many ways, more dangerous than people with guns. They kill people at random. Driving down the street you could be hit a called in the same manner; your children, your parents, or anyone who have not otherwise put themselves in a position to be killed.

We need tougher, mandatory laws to make take these murders off the streets. The person who killed my wife had been in court the day before. He had test positive for cocaine and was allowed to walk. The cocaine was a violation of his probation. I guess he was just the loveable town drunk, so they let him go. Well, my wife was driving at 6 in the afternoon, sober, minding the speed limit and was met with a violent death.

We need to force the hand of the judges and make these people pay for their crimes, but more importantly take them off the road. Take away their weapons. We do not allow people to run around firing guns, why do we act so carelessly with people wielding weapons which are just as dangerous? First offenses should have serious repercussions. People should do some small amount of jail to try to wake them up – Maybe a week or month. Second offense should be jail for a year, loss of license for a year after that. Third offense should be jail for five years and permanent loss of driving privileges. Fourth offense should be ten years behind bars.

I know some people would say these penalties are harsh, but let me ask you this: If someone was walking the street shoot off guns randomly in the air, the ground, etc. and they did it around your children what would you want done to protect your family? It is no difference. Every time you get in your car, day or night…that person is out there firing his gun.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

100 Days of Darkness

Well, another milestone for the country. We are at the marker of the first 100 days of the Obama regime. I guess we have seen some change, but hope is a thing that seems to be waning from the population. Yesterday, GM announced that they are going to close down their plants for the summer. Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but my first thought was "how many of these aren't going to reopen?"

I was clicked open the Drudge Report and was a little humored at the headline proclaiming Obama the greatest President ever. I don't know what world these people live in, but it seems that in my little world people are more pessimistic about the future of this country more than ever. That can't possibly be a good indicator of a great President.

Undoubtedly, the greatest factor in this rise in pessimism is our current economic policies. We seem to have grabbed on to the reigns of a train heading to Keynesian-town. Although, Keynesian economics have been the bane of the US for years and generally discredited, we are going to go on with the greatest blind experiment of such policies in the history of the nation. I'm not positive, but I bet sales of "Atlas Shrugged" are through the roof. What is funny is that it seems Ayn Rand has been naming the bills passed by this idiot. Is it too much to ask that the leader of our nation have some leadership experience? Some idea of economics? – something better than "In the long run, we're all dead."

Personally, I'm still very concerned with his moves to increase funding to foreign nations. This funding includes his spending on abortions abroad. Why is it that the US is spending any money on any other country, much less spending money on funding something so morally divisive? When we are concerned about our people paying their mortgages, or governments making their budget, the first thing that we could cut out is spending abroad. I've been coerced to give my tax dollars to this country, and they have decided to give it to some person or organization in Africa? How does that make sense? There should not be a dime of tax money sent abroad. There is no real justification for this action that is legitimate in any manner. I have no problem with private people deciding to give their money to really anyone, but for you to force me to give my money to ideals or people that I disagree with morally and ethically? That is insane and unjust.

Ah…now I'm just ranting…sorry. Overall, we are in a very depressing place. The first 100 days of the reign of the emperor have left us in a weak and scary place. We have taken huge steps to financial ruin. We have increased our federal funding for morally wrong crusades. We have created a rift in society which is growing day by day. Where is this going to leave us? I don't know, but if we continue to think that this path can continue we will be proven wrong. Nations great and as great have failed, we can't afford to be so arrogant to believe that we can do anything and can live without consequences.

I think back to my childhood and remember that there were two great nations. Some might argue that they were the two greatest nations in the history of mankind. One of those nations is gone.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

No Hope

What a crazy time we live in. I just got through reading about David Kellermann. He was the 41 year old CFO from Freddie Mac. Apparently, he has committed suicide. One of his employees called him a hard working guy, with a positive attitude. How does a person who has worked his way to such an esteemed position end his life like this?

Times are tough, there is no doubt, but I think when you finally hit the point of suicide you have to believe that the future is holds no hope. This is a guy who, from all outward appearances, worked at trying to make this company a viable working entity. He was brought into the fold in 1992 as part of a restructuring effort and had been given charge over fixing broke aspects of the company in the recent days. He had gone to U of Michigan and received an MBA from George Washington. After all of that work, he had over 30,000 shares of Freddie Mac which are now worth about $30K.

I know there are probably a lot of spiteful people out there who say good riddance, but I can't help but take time to think about where there person must have been in there mind to take this measure. I don't find it to be some noble move from a person who realizes his failures, but a final desperate act of a person who is so disappointed in their own life and can't see any future worth fighting for.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hold that this person is a victim. It is just the nature of life that we face adversity – God knows we have all faced our own. It is just a reminder to take time and think about your own life, and how you stand. Time to make plans to overcome the trials we face. More importantly, remember that a year from now, this guy will be forgotten by most, but if he had continued to fight, he may have been able to better off than he was today. Once you are out of the game, there is no way in turning things around.


Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Remember San Jacinto

Today, one hundred and seventy-three years ago, Texas won its struggle for independence from Mexico. After a long retreat, not dissimilar to the one that Washington led from Massachusetts to New York in 1776, Sam Houston found a plot of ground at a place now known as San Jacinto and faced the pursuing Army of Mexico. In a short battle, the Texans managed to send the Mexicans into disarray and eventually capture Santa Anna, thereby securing sovereignty from the oppressive Mexican government. With such a momentous day in history, it is still shocking that it is barely mentioned in even local Texas news. The issue resides in some sort of revisionist history, that the Texas revolution is somehow based in race. Today, in Texas, Cinco De Mayo is a bigger celebration than the very war that brought freedom to the people of this land.

The reason for this discrepancy lies in sort of a revisionist view of the reasons for the revolution. Now, there exists some sort of race component to the whole discussion which was truly not at the heart of the conflict. If one looks back at the writings, the people and the political and economic situation of the times, it is pretty clear that the struggle was not one of race, at all. In fact, some of the issues are ones that are still familiar.

The Mexicans had fallen into a state of economic despair following their own struggle for independence from Spain (which is widely celebrated – but isn't as racists as the Texas revolution). As a way to rebuild the economy, the Mexicans established an active colonization of Texas. The original colonists generally were happy about the ability to begin something new, under the ideals that were established under the new Mexican constitution. (This is why you see some of the earlier flags of the revolution displaying the year 1824)

Around 1830, the Mexican government became alarmed at the idea of so many immigrants coming from the United States; in fact they were particularly concerned because the majority was of European descent. To curb this influx of Americans, the Government went back on a major incentive for immigration and that was a tax-free ten year period following any new colonist's move to Texas. This turn, coupled with religious intolerance (forced membership and tithes to the Catholic Church), anti-slavery, corruption of the local government (the capital of the state wasn't even in Texas, and the soldiers garrisoned in the state were mostly "go to war or go to jail" soldiers) and lack of a free economy (settlers were told what to grown and not allowed to grow products based on demand) – all led to a growing dissatisfaction. With these issues in mind, one of the biggest champions for Mexico, Stephen F. Austin, went to Mexico City to address the grievances of the people of the state.

Austin, did not go to Mexico City in search of independence from Mexico, he instead went to find a compromise which would keep the people of Texas happy and the state part of the nation of Mexico. When Santa Anna turned down the idea that Texas should be its own state, Austin wrote to the people of Texas to continue to pursue their state sovereignty – with this letter, he was promptly jailed.

By 1834, Mexico had fallen into complete disarray. This prompted Santa Anna to seize power from not just Texas, but from all states. He dissolved the free constitution of Mexico and essentially assumed power as a dictator. From this point, things happened quickly and eventually led to April 21, 1836. Twelve years of failed promises and greed, by a man who saw himself as the Napoleon of the West, led to a new free nation. It wasn't race, but the will of the people to not submit to the tyranny of liar and power hungry dictator that brought about Texas' independence.

In 1834, the population was about 18% Mexican born citizens, 70% US born citizens, and 12% slaves. In fact, many Hispanic Texans fought for independence. Here is a good link that addresses the issue : .

The ideals of freedom and liberty are not those of one type of people. They are a core element to the nature of man, be him of European, Asian, African or even North American descent. The war for Texas Independence should be looked at, not only as those fateful few months, but what the State has become since then. Without the success that a free society has brought to the land that is Texas, the recent influx of Mexicans into the state would probably not have happened. The economic disaster that is today's Mexico would have a much larger reach. All Texans of today should be proud and thankful for the sacrifices of the men and women of all races that stood up against the evil of despotism.

Just go to El Paso, and take in the vast difference of the quality of life from one side to the other and know the difference that freedom can make in the lives of a people. It is not that the demographics of El Paso are so different than those of Juarez, it is that the freedom provided to one group is so vast than that provided to the other.

I guess the reason, I wanted to talk about this was brought up by a certain "celebrities" comments on the Tax-day tea party. She characterized it as a racist event. I can't be sure, but I doubt that she took the time to see the people who were protesting. I was at the one in Houston, and it is funny that I remember being stuck by the racial diversity of the people who were there. It was a slice of Texas and I was particularly proud, because it validated my idea that freedom is a desire of all peoples.

Upon arriving at the protest, I was excited because first off, I had never protested anything in my life and two, I was really interested in seeing what sort of people showed up for the event. With this in mind, I was in the observing mode upon my arrival. I first thing I noticed, was that there were many families there. A ton more kids than I would have ever imagined and many of those were in strollers. The second thing I noticed was the number of Hispanic peoples. I expected to see some people of African descent because I think that the Texas population of Blacks is pretty conservative religiously. The Hispanics were a surprise as I would estimate about 15% of the group was of this demographic. Lastly, I was not surprise but did take not of the amount of blue collar people who were there. These were not bubba and his boys; they were people from all races, wealth level, etc. It was very impressive.

I know I shouldn't, but I still find it amazing how people like this one celebrity are able to get any sort of public recognition for their sad, uneducated comments.

So anyway, I know this was a long post today, but I figure it was worth it as just a small remembrance of those who were willing to stand up and be counted when Liberty was on the line.

Happy San Jacinto day! To everyone who lives in this great state and is a beneficiary of those who went before.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

In Regards to the Houston Tea Party, April 15th, 2009

Ok, so I go out for a few beers and people get very fired up about this whole deal =)…which is great. I think I had over 30 emails in my inbox regarding these issues. For once, in our time people have begun to express their discontent – not with their fight against republicans or democrats, but with their concern as to where we are going as a nation. I think it is very impressive that people have begun to shake off these labels, which have bonded us…well, for my lifetime.


I would just caution that we need to not exclude anyone. The label of libertarian or Hindu priest makes no difference. Additionally, before it become vogue to bash anyone, specifically the libertarians in this instance, we need to remember that we need everyone – we can ill afford to alienate anyone from this event or from the future of this nation; that is a flaw that we are witnessing in our present government. I am sure some people who hold themselves as Libertarians are just as cautious as to be accidentally associated with Republicans, Democrats or Video Gamers. Humbly, I hold as my opinion that the success of this even or any other is in the perception of the unity of the people. I know in my experience that people are united in this, but we cannot afford to allow insignificant differences to well into rifts which our nay-sayers can latch on to. Like Maryann said, "Patriots before Party." Personally, I would love to see Ann Richards holding a sign at this event, standing right next to either of the President Bush's. =)


Please remember, like Juliane stated, this is really not an issue, people can easily take part in both events. I just simply wanted to throw the other event out there as a consideration. I had no idea it would be debated so passionately or so in-depth. It is actually very reassuring. I would just to state, that as with many of you, there are many things (many) with which I disagree with Rep. Paul about , yet there is not a more powerful proponent for ending the tyranny of the fed, then said congressman. . . so please, let's not be too hasty in passing judgment.


Let's remember, this event can be historic. This is an event which is the epitome of what this country was founded on. This event is so important that it and other similar event were addressed first by our founding fathers when they approved "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." All of these other things are mere details, they are things which pull apart instead of bring together. At this perilous time in our history, we cannot afford to spend neither time nor effort to fight in our ranks over such minutiae. These minor details need to be washed aside and the rebirth of our nation needs to be held high as our greater goal.


So please, as we prepare our ransom to be paid to the looters on this April 15, 2009, set aside our minor differences of outlook or personalities and for the next couple of weeks focus on being the vocal majority instead of this innocuous silent majority that we have been for way to long.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Objectivist Religion

So, I've been away from the blog for a while. I had been reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and I really want to finish it. I was so mesmerized by the subjects and the similarities between what was going on in the story and the real life events going on in our world today. It is staggering to see the parallels between events. No doubt, there are a ton of things that I really disagree with her on, but I truly believe that the number of things that she is right about and how she presents them bring so much value to the reader that I would highly encourage reading it. In light of this, there are a few things I'm going to write about over the next few posts.

First, there is a very pressing one, which many conservative/republican…etc. people focus on and unjustly so. Even as she used this topic as what I view as sort of a marketing tactic to be controversial, I think that it really is sort of irrelevant. That is her issues with religion. It is relevant in that she attacks it and in bringing it up, therefore I guess it must be discussed. However, I'm going to just throw out my thoughts, address it and it get on down the road. There are many more issues that are much more important and relevant.

I feel that I've been driven to address the religious issue of Ayn Rand by a good friend of mine. He strikes me as an "Atheist-lite." By that term, I guess I maybe mean a person who is not sure, but is trying to convince himself based on some gut feeling. However, his nature is that he likes things to be black and white and with proof. Due to this nature, he loves logical arguments and like I said wants to prove his gut feeling. In this gut feeling, Rand resonates with him through her drive for rational objective thought and especially her anti-theism.

However, my friends ideas, coupled with her Christian symbolism in the story has really driven my mind to consider some points a lot more that I had initially set out to consider. I guess it is actually fitting in that she is an icon of Republican/Libertarian economics but really is at odds with the religious belief of most American's today and even more so at the time she was writing Atlas Shrugged.

Everything that Ayn Rand uses to sell her ideas is stolen from Christianity. The allusions used in the story coincide with central themes from Christian tales. It is funny, that she calls Galt, Prometheus when he is clearly her Jesus figure. Even when one of the characters is discussing Galt he talks of him in Greek mythological terms as springing forth. From the very beginning, this hints at a virginal birth. Such trends continue on throughout the story from Galt's Gulch representing heaven to Galt's final scene as the sacrificed due to the "betrayal" of one of his disciples.

There is no doubt that these similarities were intentional at the hands of Rand, but my question is why? Why would this person who is so adamant against religion and Christianity specifically, want to even grant them favor in her story. I also find it sort of perplexing in light of the conversation in Galt's Gulch when Kay Ludow talks about there not being stories which were new and creative and hadn't been taken from older themes. She obviously must have not that point to valuable.

Anyway, the structure of the story is one thing, but her attack on religion and its worthlessness is another. To be fair, she doesn't criticize the story of Christ, it is the religion as whole that she discounts. Personally, I feel that she has some merit in that religion today has many of the things wrong with it that are endemic to organizations throughout society. Those attacks are fair. Men of the cloth should strive for knowledge; strive for ideas…should think. Instead we have institutions that are run for some other goal than truth. This I think is a flaw, not of religion alone, but of most organizations run by man. However, I would say that growth of knowledge, the search for truth, and the like are more imperative in religion than any other. Religion falls into a nasty trap when it tries to hide and lie and the truth and facts … and needless to point out, lying isn't very Christian, anyways. Joking aside, I think that her search for facts and truth or I guess more appropriately, her value of those items is a value that all religions should not be afraid of and should embrace. If your religion is true, then it will stand the test. If God created something, it is not something that religion should hide from, but should more intensely strive to understand.

My friend likened her attack of religion to a slap in the face. That she had somehow taken her idea of the mystic lying for personal gain and validated so that it was discredited. This proverbial slap in the face, to me, is more of a slap that should awaken men of religion and not cause them to cower in the corner. As Fransico took the slap of Reardon and as Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, it is not a sign of weakness or acceptance of an insult that one should take the slap – it is strength. In this case, the slap should be to wake up the men of religion and take into consideration some things. Of these things, rational thought and fact are tools to be use and not threats to power as the pre-reform church believed. Where religions are losing the battles is in trying to mystify ideas and thoughts. These are not the times of man when we were denied the ability to read the bible or had to cower at the feet of a animatronics Zeus. We are in an unparalleled time of information and when people see these mystical practices the credibility of the religion is undermined.

Some other thoughts on her philosophy and how she holds it up as a discounting religion and in fact essentially calls religion immoral are actually things that are very close to the teachings of Christ. The interesting thing about this is that maybe she is doing a favor in that she is maybe pointing out some things that Christians have gotten away from, but should maybe reconsider. One thought, is that although Christ teachings are very altruistic, they still require man to not expect charity, nor force others to give charity. In fact, Christ teaches that you as an individual should give charity and love your brother. However, I believe that if Christ wanted us to force others into charity, he could very easily have led by example on that count – but he didn't. Additionally, of the idea of not expecting things to be handed down to you, but for you to earn them is a core belief. This is illustrated in the parable of the talents. This is also, apparent in that Christ teaches people to do these things; he never tells people that someone else owes them anything. I fear that we have lost these ideas in not only Christianity, but in society. I think Rand points these interesting phenomena out very well in Ragner's speech about Robin Hood. He is at war against what Robin Hood had become, not what the original idea had been. Robin Hood, had originally been after wealth unfairly taken from the poor, but it had been mangled into an idea that the poor were deserving of wealth they didn't earn.

A couple of other interesting ideas that she blatantly uses from Christianity -The idea that you must earn you interest into Galts' Gulch as Christ says of Heaven. That only the select can get into either. As I pointed out before -the idea that there is one savior out there working for mankind to save them, but only if they save themselves Is essential to both ideas.

A finally, remarkable idea that I think is a bit nuanced is the giving up of material things in the world for a greater treasure once you make the transition to either heaven or Galt's Gulch. She likes to use the disdain for materialism a lot to support her arguments. However, her protagonist requires the giving up of treasures acquired in the world. These treasures are bought and paid for by fiat currency and/ or were earned by the wrong means – an immoral means. I shake my head, because she turns around and uses this as a prod toward religion, but the reasons for disdain are essentially the same – actually, find it sort of interesting the idea of the use of gold in Christian descriptions of heaven. Could the good lord have been trying to say something? =) Anyway, the point is that I think is true in both cases is that gluttonous materialism is not the point of working. Even the so-called selfish heroes all live very Spartan lives. Their wealth is all tied up in production, not consuming. In fact, many people like to use the term the virtue of selfishness, but is James Taggart and Wesley Mouch not living just as selfish, if not more, lives? I really believe that Rand was using a lot of the talk about selfishness as sort of a sarcastic address to the accusers. Really, it is about the proper use of wealth, the idea that without really thinking about things, what seems selfish, actually benefits man as a whole. That profit is not really selfish, it is not immoral, it is actually moral as it allows man to benefit and grow. The ones with the material gluttony were James Taggart and Reardon's family – and is that not the most selfish of all acts? Jesus never taught the average man to not work and earn a living, he never taught that growing a business and wealth were evil. He asked the disciples to sell their things and follow him. Did he ask them to turn around and give away their money from those sales? No, he was telling them to simply pull up their roots. Did Jesus look down on work? No, he and his father were laborers. In fact, when Jesus talks about it is easier for a camel to jump through the head of a pin, than for a wealthy man to get into heaven. . . Maybe we should take Rand's advice and think, what did he mean? He didn't say impossible. But, maybe he had some sort of idea of the nature of man; that we are prone to gluttony, that most wealthy people amass wealth not for growing business or accomplishing anything at all with it, but for selfish gluttony of the type that the Reardon family knew. I find it sort of amusing that she or probably more accurately, her followers champion selfishness as the moral cause of man's actions throughout the book. However, the looters in the book are guilty of the same selfishness that the heroes are "guilty" of. The difference is simple, in that one group is driven by their selfishness and attain their goals of wealth and power, by means of hard honest work, while the other is driven by means not wanting to work.

It is remarkable that I've not seen anything written about these ideas anywhere on the internet. The symbolism she uses is so basic, that it shouts out for the comparison. The fact that there is nothing that I can personally find out there is maybe more of a tribute to her observations than anything. At the most basic start of her ideas is that man doesn't think. The simple labeling of her "school of objectivism" is that we should reason with the use of objective facts and shy away from subjective processes. There resounding level of truth in this idea. I think that this is probably a simple basis for her hate of disdain for religion. In my time, it seems that the people of the church blindly accept what is preached to them. In fact, many people aggressively attempt to turn away from doing any sort of thinking themselves. They refuse to read or research or take in facts in an effort to attain an objective conclusion. What is strange about Rand is that she takes the time to blatantly attack Religion when it really isn't important to her story in Atlas Shrugged. Her quarrel is clearly with any institution where these things are true.



Tuesday, February 24, 2009

When Monkeys Attack

Eight days after a chimpanzee kept as a pet attacked and critically injured a Connecticut woman, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Captive Primate Safety Act, H.R. 80, introduced by U.S. Reps. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., to stop interstate commerce in primates as pets. The bill passed by a vote of 323 to 95. The bill now moves for consideration to the U.S. Senate, where the effort to pass the legislation is being led by U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and David Vitter, R-La. – as quoted from the website in an article by Ben Smith on 2/24/2009

I just want to say, "Are you FREAKIN kidding me?" The Federal government of the United States has nothing better to do? We are apparently in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and they are worried about what one chimp has done? How many dogs mauled people on the same day? Why are we not passing the Captive Canine Safety act?

2% of the population will be attacked by dogs this year, while only about 1/300,000,000 people will be attacked by chimps. Now, you tell me where the threat is.

Maybe we should stimulate some research on the subject. Here is a check for $100,000,000 signed Obama.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Antiquated Dreams of the Postmodern Capitalist

Today I was watching Larry Kudlow on CNBC. He was in the middle of a fight with four guests over validity of free markets. It struck me that I never would have imagined that I would live in a time where people in the United States would have to be convinced that Capitalism and free markets were the direction we should pursue. To me, it was like watching people argue over the color of the sky. Kudlow up there trying to convince them it is blue, and they trying to convince him that really it something different and it used to be blue. Where are we going with this?

When I talk to people all over the country – Arizona, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio - they all state that they are against this bailout. I very rarely run across a person that is vehemently for this action. People want those who have gotten themselves into this pickle to be responsible for their own actions. In fact, a favorite quote I hear is that they have worked 10 or 15 years now and yet their investment accounts are down 40% or 50%. They want to know why their investments aren't being helped out.

When I hear half the politicians say they are against the bailout, but vote for it anyway I am hit with a sickening feeling. Additionally, when every politician who voted for or even against this action realistically didn't even know what they signed into law, where do you think this will lead us?

What is an amazing anomaly in this whole process is the media. What is interesting is that the media seems to be for it in a ratio of 5 or 6 to 1. They are spouting ideas such as how free markets don't work, there is need to regulate our ways out of this. What my reason shouts inside me is that regulation got us into this mess. How is regulation going to get us out of it?

I was at a luncheon the other day with a gentleman from the fed, he was saying that he really didn't believe in what we were doing was right. He made the point that this problem was brought on by a combination of artificially-low interest rates, lax lending and one more very interesting aspect that you don't hear discussed. This last element is rooted in governmental regulation of free markets. Many municipalities enacted regulations during the big housing boom that were designed to slow growth. These regulations included such acts as limiting the amount of building permits. Whereas, in a free market, demand would have driven new houses being built and maintaining a proper level of supply. These municipalities regulated the amount of supply available and thus artificially inflated the cost to the customer. Now we are going to attempt, as a federal entity, to put a floor under these artificially high home prices. Instead of correcting this initial problem and allowing the free market to correct the issues, we are doing nothing but exacerbating the problem. During the height of the boom, only 2% of Los Angles could afford the median priced home, now as the market has dropped prices that rate is up to closer to 40%...what our brilliant leaders want to do now, is to add regulations in an effort to increase home values again…do they want to get back to a place where nobody can afford an average priced home? This is insanity.

The following data is from OFEHO – Essentially, the federal housing index. If you notice that even with the big drop in values, the index is still almost double what it was in 2000. Now ask yourself, what has your 401(k) done since then?

…this is Chewbacca…


Tuesday, February 17, 2009


. . . As a sidebar. . . I just wanted to say that this blog is not intended to be anything other than what it might evolve into. Although, I sincerely want this blog to make some sort of difference in the way we view ourselves and our world, I do not want to give the false impression of some self-righteous know it all either. To that end, I am not looking to create some great work of writing, or some boring self-indulgent blog either. I just want to create an honest, thoughtful, exciting space for people of like mind to share ideas.

Having said that, a good friend of mine told me that the best way to stir up some interest is to state how dumb Keith Olbermann is. . . I am not sure how it works, but maybe its sort of like baseball fields in Iowa. . . I think in the spirit of the fairness doctrine, I should also state how dumb Rush Limbaugh is. . . ah yes, I believe I see the headlights make the turn around the last corn stalk.

Anyway, I hope this blog will make for good reading … Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Barrak Obama, George Bush, Libertarian, and Socialism…=) Now if that isn't some good marketing, I don't know what is.

Heracles Pillars

It seems fitting that along the time of the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth, the country is again faced with a great struggle. A struggle that threatens to tear our country apart, not by the sword by a much more insidious means perpetrated by men seeking ideals such as power and influence, all at the cost of the rest of us.

We are all guilty of throwing around statement of grandeur in concern for the coming demise of this country, but it has yet to come to pass. However, it is not to say that we have not faced periods in our past which could have led down that dark path if the proper action had not been taken. These labors were successfully prevailed over only through the leadership of great men rising to the challenge and bearing the burden of the masses. These men stood poised to act to ward off impending doom, by taking up the burdens that were laid upon them without seeking any special favors or accolades for their work. Without them, and their ideas, their sacrifices and their willingness to lead we may have strayed down that wrong path.

Today, as we stand face-to-face with challenges of immense proportion, we may not be looking at the right problem. The public thought seems to be focused on the emergency of the financial catastrophe that is either here, has been here, or may be here – depending on your point of view - but I propose that the true evil that we face is that of what actions some men who portray themselves as leaders are taking to "protect us" from this awful fate. When we have Congressmen and Presidents signing into law legislation that not only the public hasn't read, but more troubling, they haven't read, we are setting ourselves up for failure not only in this crisis, but as a sovereign nation.

It seems we like to believe that we are so advanced and our struggles are so different than those of our forefathers, but I believe it is a mistake to think that way. We are still a people who, at our core, love liberty and exist in a world not so advanced that we can afford to be negligent in its defense. While we must be mindful of new problems we face, we can ill afford to dismiss age old threats to Liberty.

I am starting this blog as a very informal place for people to come and discuss ideas for our Country, protecting our Liberty, and how we might truly seek a more perfect Union.

To that end, I only view myself as a moderator, at best. I foresee myself only throwing out thoughts on current events and my few opinions in hopes that people may find them as discussion points for the betterment of a good debate on the issues at hand.

There are men whom have hoisted the heavens on their shoulders for the betterment of us all. We owe it to them, to build on their works and preserve our great nation and enable our future generations the opportunities that we still enjoy to this day.