Alternative Energy

"I don't mean to kvetch about this foreign oil thing, but I am becoming a meshuggener! I'm tired of listening to the constant megillah from the Washington schmos who shove their platforms up our tuchus! Oy vey! Alternative energy, is there an alternative worth all this energy?"

Discuss amongst yourselves!

Tyranny for Tolerance

This may not be my most thoroughly researched and well-thought-out post. My mind is overwhelmed with thoughts, concerns and fears that will be settled once I voice them. So please indulge me.

Over the past 10 days since the election, there has been a feeling of hope, pride and excitement resonating throughout the country. People on both sides have felt it, and see great possibilities for our country. However, there has been another movement that has exploded on the west and now east coasts. It takes it's forms in protests, propoganda posters, and angry shouts from a crowd of hundreds. I have previously posted about the passing of Proposition 8 thinking that it will soon die down, and yet the back-lash has continued. Who are they assigning the blame? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or better known as the Mormons, of course! Although Mormons made up 2% of the voting population in California, it is their fault. Why not blame the Catholics? Why not blame the 70% of black voters, or 53% of Latino voters?

I find it horribly ironic that whords of people are lining the streets in California, Utah, and New York protesting for tolerance, while holding banners and posters which exploit things that Mormons hold sacred. Pleading for understanding and equality, they use inflammatory language such as 'bigots' and 'hate'. It is upsetting to see places of worship turned into targets for protest. How valid is their argument when they can not practice it themselves? Where is the tolerance for our beliefs? Where is the acceptance for us as a people? Using tyranny to promote tolerance is contradictory and impedes any healing our country desperately needs.

PSA for AIG

Here is Edward Liddy. This unfortunate man is the CEO of AIG, an international insurance and financial services organization.

Without your help, he will no longer be able to afford simple necessaties such as corporate retreats at 5 star hotels, or spa packages, or someone feeding him grapes while lounging by a platinum plated pool filled with Cristal while listening to a live accoustic performance by John Mayer. Your first donation of $85 billion was clearly not enough. We are not asking much. It will only cost you $4756.46 each second of every day for an entire year, to pay the total needed funding of $150 billion.

Don't hesitate, pick up the phone and call our hotline:
1-866-SCREW-ED.
Have your credit cards ready, and generously give of the money you don't have.

Barstool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.'Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.!And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.'I only got a dollar out of the $20, 'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!''That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'*'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics,
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

Another post from a bigot

Proposition 8 passed. There is now an amendment to the California State Constitution which reads, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California". I discussed my view on this before the election, here. Although it is a victory, I believe it is short lived. The ACLU and a gay rights advocacy group has already initiated more legal proceedings, petitioning the Supreme Court the following:

"Contending the initiative was invalid because it improperly altered fundamental principles of the state Constitution. Taking away the right to marry from gays and lesbians violated the constitutional commitment to equality for all because straight couples can still marry. Proposition 8 should be struck down because it prevents courts from enforcing equal protection rights."

Proponents of Prop 8 have said that it is very unlikely that they will be able to undue a constitutional amendment through the legal system. My uneducated guess is that they will work to pass an amendment to repeal the previous amendment. (Like US Constitution's 19th and 21st amendments, prohibition and it's repeal).

The protesters are targeting the Catholic and LDS church sites specifically, calling them "Bigots, bigots, bigots!" as one protester told a reporter. I have seen commentators on CNN and other news shows compare the protest in West Hollywood to the Civil Rights march from Selma to Montgomery. Can you even imagine if Prop 8 was not passed, and it's proponents took to the streets carrying signs and jumping on cars. What would be said of them? At the very least, that they are sore losers. People who belong to my faith have been harrassed, ridiculed, picketed outside their homes. Where is the tolerance for our, and the majorities, differing opinion? We have a long road ahead, and I pray that protests and name-calling will be replaced with tolerance and respect. I typically don't share a quote, scripture or doctrine from my specific religion, I just found this quote to be too perfect not to share. It was given by a leader in our Church, an apostle, Neal A. Maxwell, in 1979. He states:

"This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened. Let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel".

Read the rest of the article here.

Out of line?

I heard about this story on Glenn Beck, and wanted to look into it. Here is the video, an excerpt from a Sweedish documentary about the US Presidential Election. As you see, Diantha Harris, is an obvious Barack Obama supporter and does not keep the political discussion neutral. What angers me, is when a daughter of a military officer is singled out, and told her daddy will be in Iraq for another hundred years because of the man they were voting for. Before I get worked up, I always try to think, "would it be ok if it was a teacher I agreed with?" What if it was the other way around? What if an elementary school teacher singled out an Obama supporter, and told them that Obama was going to take all of their daddy's money and give it to other people. It is an overexaggeration and wrong. Just like this teacher's actions.

School is a place where kids should be comfortable and confident to voice their opinions and be themselves completely. I don't worry about my kids being exposed to other view points or philosophies when they go to school, because they are being taught right from wrong in the home. But when a teacher singles them out, and belittles their beliefs, it crosses the line. The Superintendent released a statement, which said that this teacher created an "uncomfortable situation" and took "inappropriate actions". She is being investigated, and "appropriate action will be taken."

What if your child was in this situation? What would you do as a parent?

First glimpse...

Between all of the "umm's" and "uhhh's", was the message President-elect Barack Obama delivered in his first press conference today. I have stated, "We will see" if he lives up to his "yes, we can!" And I think we got a small glimpse into an Obama Administration. Here was his basic, prepared message regarding the economy. He gave a list of goals he wants to accomplish during the lame-duck few months.

• Stimulus Plan for the 'middle class'. What about the 'lower class', they deserve it the most right? Or is there no lower class? Just thought it was funny that the term has not been used by either party during the election. It's all about the 'middle class'. He hopes to get this done before he comes into office, but if not, it will be his first item of business. He also spoke about job creation, with unemployement at a new low.
• Aiding small businesses and American companies. He talked specifically about the auto industry needing some help. And to do so with what we currently have, and add to it if necessary. I do not agree with any corporate bail-outs, hence the free-market system.
• Bail Out Review. Make sure what Congress has done is still functioning properly.

My take: I was pleasantly surprised. And no, I did not think he would have the sickle and hammer flags hanging in the background, spouting off socialist or communist rhetoric! He had made the comment several times during his message and question/answer "see what we can do within current legislation" or "do with what you have". And I agree! I was also impressed that when Candee Crowley (I'm so familiar with the CNN commentators now!) asked about national security, and he wouldn't give her a response. Which makes me think he understands more fully what threat our country has been under and that you do need to be more cautious with foreign policy. Also, his response to Iran's President "Immaflamminwhacko" congratulatory letter needs to be 'deliberate'. He did not bash the 'current Bush administration', talked of bi-partisanship. He also showed a personable side, when Lynne asked a question and he wanted to know what happened to her bummed shoulder. The iRobot is human! He has always seemed too polished, and today he seemed human. But my favorite part was when he was asked about THE DOG, the all important presidential pet, and he referred to himself as a mutt. I thought that was great! Why couldn't he be this personable, self-depricating, and natural during the election?
My Conclusion: After a long 'take', here is the moral of the story. I want to give him every benefit of doubt, take him at his word. As far as today's message, I didn't find any red flags. If his actions meet his words from today, he might do well for our country. If his actions start matching his 'spread the wealth' comments, and turning to extreme left, I will be concerned. But so far, so good!