Monday, February 20, 2012


Who decides rights? The problem is that the term "Rights" has too many implied definitions. Rights are not given they are imbued. I believe a right can not be legislated in or out of favor. Babies have a right to be taken care of. All men and women should be equal under the eyes of the law. We have a right to seek happiness which ends when we violate another's right to not be harmed by the actions of someone else. Society has a right to determine its own laws and decide what the consequences are for violating those laws. Rights cannot be taken away only violated. To answer your question, No one. To address the issue, society decides which rights it wants to value and which rights it chooses to violate. The individual chooses which society they want to belong to, which laws they want to obey and whether to try and change a law or regulate a behavior they do not like.

Answer submitted to Question on Big Think


I don't believe marriage was instituted to protect the rights of the woman or the man but the offspring of such a union. If procreation or adoption is contrived by a homosexual couple that is simply a contractual issue and both can be facilitated by a civil union.
It is the "Right" of a child who is born into this world to be protected and nurtured by those responsible for its existence. The word marriage has been articulated throughout history to mean exactly that.
To try to pervert the term to include homosexual unions diminishes the rights of a child. It does not enhance the union of homosexuals. It endangers the sanctity of a heterosexual union and diminishes the moral value of a child by delegating it to a contractual obligation which can be legally dissolved.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Stupid People

Greece is descending into chaos and the only thing its residents can do is destroy their country. What a bunch of imbecilics. There isn't enough money to keep the doors open so they decide to burn them. There isn't enough money to pay their state employees so their actions are to consume millions of borrowed dollars by rioting in the street. The tourist industry is a valuable source of income so they are making sure that there is no incentive for the tourist to come and making sure that there is nothing left to attract the tourists, or any way to collect the money the visitors would have brought with them. Private enterprise is the only viable alternative to state run bankruptcy and these idiots are actually destroying the few business who had the will and love for their country to try and exist in the socialist state. Instead of working together to deal with the incompetence of their leaders, the greed of their unions, and entitlement mentality of their citizens these morons are engaged in creating the conditions where even the rich will be affected, the average Greek is going to suffer and the poor Greeks are going to starve.

What is really unfortunate is that there doesn't appear to be enough collective intelligence to realize that enterprise, industry, prudence, and charity are the avenues to a solution where the wise Greeks will make the most of their opportunities providing opportunities for their fellow Greeks, the average Greeks could learn that honest work is rewarding, teach their children to live within their means, and aspire to a comfortable life by saving their money, the needy and young Greeks would have incentive to learn a skill and work their way out of poverty without actually starving. The tourists would come and the country could be an acceptable even a desirable place to live, work and play.

Friday, February 10, 2012


I agree your efforts are worthy, the battle just, and a righteous outcome may not be as hopeless as it seems.

However, my concern is that making the argument for life, after a woman discovers that she has an unwanted pregnancy, is fighting a defensive battle in which abortion seems to have the upper hand to gestation and adoption.

I advocate that a women's right to choose should end at conception. As soon as that legal distinction can be made then it will be easier to promote prevention and abstention. Once that happens then your daily battles might be made easier because you would be trying to convince fewer women, irresponsible or not and too many ignorant men, that a baby should be allowed to be born and adopted as opposed to being killed and disposed of in the trash.

The efforts of life-advocates would be to mitigate the impacts of a pregnancy and cost of a birth on the harried, difficult, sometimes hopeless lives of of a woman or child even a resident-father or semi-responsible boyfriend who discover too late that their opportunity to choose has past them by.

comment on Kristen Walker Blog Live Action

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Credit Crunch

While traveling the aisles of Costco, or any store for that manner, I was impressed by the quantity and diversity of products and produce all available for sale, supposedly, at a profit for the store, the producers, the manufacturers, and the growers. In addition all of those people who have handled and transported the merchandise are supposedly making a profit.  I wondered how it would be possible for all of this commercialism to fail? Why would all of that profit making come to a stop?

It donned on me that much, if not all, of the merchandise was produced, transported, and purchased on credit. The transportation corridors, the financial systems, the safety and security measures and practically everything else is subsisting on subsidies provided by tax dollars and paid for by the consumer, to a large extent, with credit.

If credit were extend based on risk or lack thereof, budgets based on actual revenue instead of projections and unrestrained credit, and our taxes were calculated relative to actual cost of services rendered all of this consuming and manufacturing would grind to a creep or crawl and our standard of living would drop like a rock.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Cold Turkey

It is seriously doubtful that the American public is prepared for the austerity measures that will be required for this county to restore its fiscal order.  This country has been living beyond its means for more than 60 years. Its daily activity is based on expending 1/3 more than it is producing. The problem with that number is that is the average. Which means that more than half are spending more than that and they will be the loudest complainers and most vigorous protestors.

To drop our standard of living by 33% will result in a tantrum fit by the press and welfare recipients. It will result in protests by the entitled generation of little piggies, vociferous complaints by the average American, and unrest and discomfort for the political class. Given the irresponsible media and the entitlement mentality there will be nothing but screaming and hollering. There will be little if any discourse about the reason and purpose for the suffering and no suggestions or actions to mitigate the impacts.

If the next president, assuming that it isn't B.O., doesn't prepare the public, for what is coming, their term of election will be one with the voter's displeasure being registered at mid term. I honestly believe that the vast majority of American people have what it takes to get the job done. I just don't think the welfare recipients, union leadership, public sector employees, and political class do. Quite unfortunately they are the groups that seem to control America's political destiny.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Lazy,Suspect, Irresponsible

It is hard for me to imagine how, seemingly intelligent, people can actually come to the conclusion that socialism has anything to offer society.  I suppose that it is because they are intellectually lazy, morally suspect, and fiscally irresponsible.

It only takes the simplest amount of thought to understand that the lack of personal responsibility that socialists prescribe contributes to the delequency of the individual, the loss of freedom, and the sacrifice of liberty. Yet socialists continue to insist that a person's life is made better when there is a guaranteed equality of outcomes.  They just don't think long enough to consider the horrendous outcomes that are brought about by socialist governments. They refuse to see the injustices, inadequacies, inequities perpetrated upon the unsuspecting populous in the name of what's best for the collective. It amazes me how, in their superfiaical thinking, there can be some people "more-equal" than the rest of us and it doesn't upset their plans because they believe they are the ones.

Progressivies are devoid of morals except for the notion that "what is yours is ours". From the liberal stand point life has no sanctity, truth is relative, honesty is dependent upon whether or not you get caught, integrity only applies to the other guy, charity is an action enforced by law, if it feels good do it, and if I say it, it has to be true.

Additionally, money is no object to the progressive. It can be printed or digitized, checks written or grants given in spite of the bank balance.  As far they are concerned there are no consequences to the future and no circumstances where prudence applies.

Interestingly enough the socialist idiology benefits from the goodness of people because they subscribe to the sharing of wealth and support of those in need.The difference is that the goodness of man is given not taken as in the socialist methodology. Socialism benefits from the willingness of good people to sacrifice and accept less than desired because they understand the inequities life while the socalist seeks to gain an advantage by justifying their actions of retribution based upon the inequities of life.  Unfortunately, the future generations are not represented by anyone in the deliberations of indebtedness that the socialists are left unrestrained in their willingness to disregard the unintended consequences of socialist actions.

Letter to Congressman

It is becoming more disturbing as each day goes by. The Obama administration is out of control and you are my representative who has taken an oath and has the responsibility to stop it.

Eric Holder has shown not only contempt for congress but for a vast majority of the American people as well.  The department of Justice has refused to enforce duly passed election laws, is engaged in prosecuting state officials who are enforcing the immigration laws, is party to unethical behaviors in the fast and furious case, and is obstructing justice. I can only guess at what more he is affecting and how much unreported damage is being done to our order of law. What more does congress need before it will act?

Why are you not forefront in the efforts to stop the unashamedly blatant effort to marginalize even eliminate congress? Why are you not ringing the warning bell about the administration's behaviors which are aimed at the disregard of, even the displacement of, the constitution? Why are you not, if necessary, the lone voice in the forest alerting us of the corruption in congress and the willingness of the body to legislate separate laws for themselves in regards to, the most egregious, insider trading, as well voting for luxurious health benefits, retirement packages, and unconscionable self-approved compensation and perquisites.

If you are not willing to perform the single most important role of your position, protecting and preserving the constitution let alone upholding the honor and integrity of being an elected representative then I will be very happy to vote for your opponent if not become one.