The real philosophical issue that government and religion has always battled with is exactly when a human life begins. Of course the government, being totally separate from religion, cannot depend on any argument of the soul. However, genetic observation is perhaps the definite classification of a human. And since the Constitution protects all human beings and their naturally given rights (actually God-given rights), then I can definitely support this type of legislation.
The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
This makes me happy
Anyone who has heard me talking about my beliefs about why the government should not condone abortion knows that it follows this line of reasoning. So props to North Dakota House of Representatives. A quick except:
Friday, February 13, 2009
Reagon vs. Obama
Found this via Instapundit. Watch the entire thing.
I now find it sad that I grew up too late to appreciate Reagon. So many of us who were born in the early 80's were able to enjoy great cartoons (Transformers, G. I. Joe, etc), but of course a 5 year old (my age when Reagon left office) just cannot be forced to watch politics. But now that I do appreciate Reagon's words I am simply amazed. No, he didn't understand the insides of any one subject, but he was committed to keeping the nation on the track that the founding fathers had started. He was able to define his opposition and oppose it with logical and intelligent arguments. (Take for instance his slippery-slope argument for socialistic healthcare found in the video.)
I know a lot of people who dislike Reagon. I can only try to guess why, but most cite reasons that inner-city conditions took a downward spiral during the 80's. Oh, and of course the classic "rich get richer, poor get poorer" argument. I don't understand either really. Why was it Reagon's responsibility to take care of the poor instead of providing conditions so that the poor might have a chance without government intervention? And why is people getting richer a bad thing, when people have more chances to make more money? (I usually ignore any arguments constituting racism or gender inequality being enforced during the 80's. There are plenty of examples of how opportunities opened up for all people during the 80's, and unless one is presupposed to find discrimination whereever they look they cannot be taken very seriously.)
There are many of us who are looking for the next Reagon. But I note Roger Kimball's post (which also provides a great collection of quotes as well.) "The real problem for conservatives today is not their nostalgic admiration of Reagan, but their distance from Reagan’s moral clarity." I'll leave with what I think are a couple of crucial soundbites.
Obama: “At this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy..." (I also like this cartoon.)
Reagon: "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
I now find it sad that I grew up too late to appreciate Reagon. So many of us who were born in the early 80's were able to enjoy great cartoons (Transformers, G. I. Joe, etc), but of course a 5 year old (my age when Reagon left office) just cannot be forced to watch politics. But now that I do appreciate Reagon's words I am simply amazed. No, he didn't understand the insides of any one subject, but he was committed to keeping the nation on the track that the founding fathers had started. He was able to define his opposition and oppose it with logical and intelligent arguments. (Take for instance his slippery-slope argument for socialistic healthcare found in the video.)
I know a lot of people who dislike Reagon. I can only try to guess why, but most cite reasons that inner-city conditions took a downward spiral during the 80's. Oh, and of course the classic "rich get richer, poor get poorer" argument. I don't understand either really. Why was it Reagon's responsibility to take care of the poor instead of providing conditions so that the poor might have a chance without government intervention? And why is people getting richer a bad thing, when people have more chances to make more money? (I usually ignore any arguments constituting racism or gender inequality being enforced during the 80's. There are plenty of examples of how opportunities opened up for all people during the 80's, and unless one is presupposed to find discrimination whereever they look they cannot be taken very seriously.)
There are many of us who are looking for the next Reagon. But I note Roger Kimball's post (which also provides a great collection of quotes as well.) "The real problem for conservatives today is not their nostalgic admiration of Reagan, but their distance from Reagan’s moral clarity." I'll leave with what I think are a couple of crucial soundbites.
Obama: “At this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy..." (I also like this cartoon.)
Reagon: "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
The sad thing is, he doesn't know why it was a bad idea to begin with!
Well, after almost starting a trade war with the world, President Obama will have to backtrack a bit on his own stimulus package.
Free trade makes it easier and cheaper to get foreign products. These products may be better than American products, but that just means we can trade our (better) products for higher profit.
In this case, the issue was about American steel. Obama wanted only American steel used in projects. Good for unions who need jobs, right? Well, if we buy Canadian steel (40% of their exported steel comes to America) at a cheaper price, then the overall cost of the project is lower. It might hurt Pittsburg, but the point of stimulus is to increase economic growth. (It is not to ensure that a person is able to have their dream job with good pay and benefits.) And since the entire world is trying to increase each countries overall economic growth at the moment... well, I hope President Obama won't lose sleep over trying to figure out why we almost had a trade war. (If he wants the answer, he should read Adam Smith. One might to tempted to forget that it was President George W. Bush who had the MBA. It is President Obama who is playing catch-up on economic principles.)
Free trade makes it easier and cheaper to get foreign products. These products may be better than American products, but that just means we can trade our (better) products for higher profit.
In this case, the issue was about American steel. Obama wanted only American steel used in projects. Good for unions who need jobs, right? Well, if we buy Canadian steel (40% of their exported steel comes to America) at a cheaper price, then the overall cost of the project is lower. It might hurt Pittsburg, but the point of stimulus is to increase economic growth. (It is not to ensure that a person is able to have their dream job with good pay and benefits.) And since the entire world is trying to increase each countries overall economic growth at the moment... well, I hope President Obama won't lose sleep over trying to figure out why we almost had a trade war. (If he wants the answer, he should read Adam Smith. One might to tempted to forget that it was President George W. Bush who had the MBA. It is President Obama who is playing catch-up on economic principles.)
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Two for One Special
Here's the link.
So I get to bitch about both parties today, including a Senator from my current state (P. Murray-D) and my former state (M. McConnell-R).
My concerns are the same as what I've been saying all along. None of the proposed projects are expected to begin anytime soon. The same would be true of any new projects. How does this stimulate the economy if it isn't getting back to work within the next 12 months? As nice as it would be to have the government pay for our transit around Seattle, how is this not just getting Kentuckians, Georgians, Iowans, etc, to pay for our stuff?
As well I am beginning to fear the implementation of a program to "encourage" transit use. How does the government encourage the public to do anything these days? Taxation! Besides hiking taxes on fuel (giving discounts to Seattle Metro of course), there has already been a mileage tax in Oregon that taxes you on how far you drive. (Anyone who thinks that this will replace the gas tax is a dolt. It is a way to increase the government coffers.) To encourage transit, you hike the mileage tax, but only after cleverly implementing the mileage tax. Our liberty to live apart from government's eyes becomes almost non-existent, and we pay more to get anywhere.
Patty Murray-D, we're coming for you!
The other piece comes because the article contains very little about Murray's plans. Instead the article goes on to explain the Republican rebuttal against all the "stimulus pork."
Can someone please remind Sen. McConnell how we got into the housing bubble please? Was it not forcing banks to give sub-prime lending to people who could not afford the houses? Don't get me wrong, mortgages at 4-4.5% look great. Who gets to define what "creditworthy" is in this instance? A 4-4.5% interest on a mortgage with a small down-payment from a family which meets sub-standard (re: dangerous) definitions of "creditworthy" only gets us into the exact same trouble as before. Add into the fact that Fannie and Freddy, backed by the US government, would be forced to buy up these (toxic) mortgages, we return to Feb. 2008 all over again.
I slap my forehead on this one. Mitch, you've done some good stuff for KY in the past, but drop this one please.
And of course the disclaimor... if you find yourself agreeing with the opinions presented above, feel free to call your respective Senators and let them know how you feel.
Update: Suck on it Murray!
So I get to bitch about both parties today, including a Senator from my current state (P. Murray-D) and my former state (M. McConnell-R).
Top Democrats hope to add $25 billion in highway and mass transit funds to President Barack Obama's economic recovery program, despite complaints from lawmakers in both parties that the legislation already is too expensive.So exactly how much of this money will be going to WA state? Good question. It would also be nice to know exactly what projects Ms. Murray wishes to use this money for. The new Seattle tunnel perhaps? Expanding the Mass Transit around Seattle perhaps? The inclusion of Sen. Feinstein on this one almost makes it seem like they want to upgrade I-5."Our highways are jammed. People go to work in gridlock," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Tuesday as she and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., advanced their proposal.
...
The proposed increase in highway funding would raise spending to $40 billion, reflecting complaints from lawmakers in both parties that Obama's plan doesn't do enough to relieve a backlog of unfinished projects. Mass transit programs would get a $5 billion boost, while water projects would get $7 billion more.
My concerns are the same as what I've been saying all along. None of the proposed projects are expected to begin anytime soon. The same would be true of any new projects. How does this stimulate the economy if it isn't getting back to work within the next 12 months? As nice as it would be to have the government pay for our transit around Seattle, how is this not just getting Kentuckians, Georgians, Iowans, etc, to pay for our stuff?
As well I am beginning to fear the implementation of a program to "encourage" transit use. How does the government encourage the public to do anything these days? Taxation! Besides hiking taxes on fuel (giving discounts to Seattle Metro of course), there has already been a mileage tax in Oregon that taxes you on how far you drive. (Anyone who thinks that this will replace the gas tax is a dolt. It is a way to increase the government coffers.) To encourage transit, you hike the mileage tax, but only after cleverly implementing the mileage tax. Our liberty to live apart from government's eyes becomes almost non-existent, and we pay more to get anywhere.
Patty Murray-D, we're coming for you!
The other piece comes because the article contains very little about Murray's plans. Instead the article goes on to explain the Republican rebuttal against all the "stimulus pork."
Republicans, for their part, readied a plan to lower mortgage costs to try to jolt the housing market out of its slump.
...Officials said the GOP was uniting behind a proposal designed to give banks an incentive to make loans at rates currently estimated at 4 percent to 4.5 percent. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were seized by the federal government in September, would be required to purchase the mortgages once banks have made them to consumers.
Officials said loans to creditworthy borrowers on primary residences with a mortgage of up to $625,000 would qualify, including those seeking to refinance their current loans.
Can someone please remind Sen. McConnell how we got into the housing bubble please? Was it not forcing banks to give sub-prime lending to people who could not afford the houses? Don't get me wrong, mortgages at 4-4.5% look great. Who gets to define what "creditworthy" is in this instance? A 4-4.5% interest on a mortgage with a small down-payment from a family which meets sub-standard (re: dangerous) definitions of "creditworthy" only gets us into the exact same trouble as before. Add into the fact that Fannie and Freddy, backed by the US government, would be forced to buy up these (toxic) mortgages, we return to Feb. 2008 all over again.
I slap my forehead on this one. Mitch, you've done some good stuff for KY in the past, but drop this one please.
And of course the disclaimor... if you find yourself agreeing with the opinions presented above, feel free to call your respective Senators and let them know how you feel.
Update: Suck on it Murray!
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Wait... I thought only neocon dictators did this!
If I may be allowed to complain about the lack of action by the federal government in the KY ice storm crisis for a moment. How long did it take for the infamous "George Bush hates black people" to come during the Katrina crisis? Do we see anything like this in KY now? I find it amazing that the outrage at the inaction of the federal government during Katrina gave rise to FEMA- a total waste of money in my opinion- and now there is no move to step in by Obama or FEMA. See here and here.
And of course we hear reports that Obama has the temperature in the White House up to sweltering levels! Way to commiserate.
Now if can be serious... Being from KY it has been at the front of my mind this past week. I thank God my family-and most of South Central KY-was spared. But I have many friends in Louisville and Lexington which was supposedly hit hardest. Let me assure you that we are praying for you guys. As well, my particular focus is KY, but this extends to the other areas hit and still struggling: Arkansas, Tennessee, etc. Stay warm guys. I will give a great shout out to the state response in KY and the hard work by the National Guard. God bless you people!
It does irk me that nobody is calling Obama or FEMA out on this though. I am never so cynical as to think this is intentional, but a comparison of Katrina is vital here. Where is the cry that Obama ought to be doing something- despite the fact that he can't without the state asking first? As well though, where is the Hollywood response? The same happened during the Mississippi River flooding last year in Iowa, Missouri, etc. The total lack of response is surely telling of the cultural difference, even elitism, in America. As nice as it is to be jodded by people because of my accent (as slight as it might be), I am disgusted at the elitist attitude people have towards the poorer South. Perhaps its just because I encounter it more up here in the Northwest/Canada. Anyways, guess my "bitching" is done.
And of course we hear reports that Obama has the temperature in the White House up to sweltering levels! Way to commiserate.
Now if can be serious... Being from KY it has been at the front of my mind this past week. I thank God my family-and most of South Central KY-was spared. But I have many friends in Louisville and Lexington which was supposedly hit hardest. Let me assure you that we are praying for you guys. As well, my particular focus is KY, but this extends to the other areas hit and still struggling: Arkansas, Tennessee, etc. Stay warm guys. I will give a great shout out to the state response in KY and the hard work by the National Guard. God bless you people!
It does irk me that nobody is calling Obama or FEMA out on this though. I am never so cynical as to think this is intentional, but a comparison of Katrina is vital here. Where is the cry that Obama ought to be doing something- despite the fact that he can't without the state asking first? As well though, where is the Hollywood response? The same happened during the Mississippi River flooding last year in Iowa, Missouri, etc. The total lack of response is surely telling of the cultural difference, even elitism, in America. As nice as it is to be jodded by people because of my accent (as slight as it might be), I am disgusted at the elitist attitude people have towards the poorer South. Perhaps its just because I encounter it more up here in the Northwest/Canada. Anyways, guess my "bitching" is done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
