House Republicans roll out alternative budget – CNN.com
House Republicans roll out alternative budget - CNN.com.
I'll comment more on this later but here's one gem from the article: "Democrats were quick to criticize the GOP proposal as little more than a way to help the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the rest of the country."
Let me get this straight. Democrats criticize the Republicans for spending far less ($3.6 trillion less borrowed over 10 years) than the Democrat proposal by saying that the Republicans only want to help the wealthy. And what exactly is all of the deficit spending of the Democrats doing for anyone? Who's going to pay for the all the spending? Just the wealthy? Not a chance; all Americans will be paying in some form or another. Democrats asked for an alternative plan (the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, actually took some time to craft their budget proposal. They took time to read it over and talk about it, unlike the Democrats who rushed their bill through so quickly no one had time to actually read the whole thing.) and their first reaction when a plan is presented is the stale, incorrect, and whiny "It only benefits the rich."
Further, the result of the G20 summit is that the U.S. will spend an additional $400 billion or so to help shore up the international economy. We are spending money we don't have. We need to stop this wasteful spending. While some may be necessary in order to help stabilize the economy, we need to take some time and figure out better ways to stabilize instead of just throwing as much money as we can at companies.
The Gay “Marriage” Slippery Slope
One common logical fallacy is that of the slippery slope. It goes something like this, "If we allow X, then Y, which is much worse, is soon to follow. This will be followed by Z, which is even worse." While this is a logical fallacy (in part because you assume a worst-case scenario in predicting the future), on occasion it does represent the actual order of events in real life.
Here's an example of a slippery slope. In 2000 the Vermont legislature approved civil unions for same-sex couples. While some were content with the law, others kept hoping it led to a new definition of marriage. They wanted to be fully "married" and not just "unionized." They were honest about the slippery slope - they never denied it exists, although many downplay the significance of redefining marriage (civil unions are just a small step away).
In one news article back in 2000, we read: "'All of the horrible things that opponents say will happen are not going to happen,' adds David Smith, a spokesman for The Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights group in America. 'Hopefully, by example, many parts of the country and many people will become more comfortable with the idea.'" This reminds me of Alexander Pope's immortal quote: "Vice is a monster of so frightful mein, as, to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace." That's what same-sex "marriage" advocates want. They want the public to be familiar with the idea of gay "marriage" then we will eventually embrace it fully.
Here's a similar quote in a New York Times article: "Gay rights advocates say they are eager to show that the sky will not fall. 'Same-sex couples will be forming civil unions and the state's not going to fall apart,'' said Beth Robinson, a lead lawyer in the case that prompted the civil unions law. ''It's just going to be better, and that's going to be the most helpful part of this dialogue. Because the longer we go with the law in effect, the more incredible the claims of our opponents will be exposed as being." Yet, proponents of same-sex "marriage" have no problem trying to force acceptance of their immorality on society as a whole.
Now the Vermont senate just approved gay "marriage"; it is expected that the bill will pass through the house without a hitch. The governor may veto the bill though - he supports traditional marriage. However, it is likely that the legislative branch could override the veto. This case of the legislative branch trying to redefine marriage is different from what has been done in other states - the legislative branch, for once, is actually making the law; it's not a court ruling legislating from the bench.
However, a caption from the CNN.com article about the issue is a little misleading though: "Vermont could become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage without prompting from courts." Even though the courts were not involved directly, they were in the 2000 legalization of same-sex civil unions. Back then the state supreme court forced the legislature to pass something on the matter; instead of gay "marriage" they allowed civil unions. So, it really was court action that lead to the recent passed bill allowing same-sex "marriages".
We just need to hope that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stands so other states (and the federal government) are not forced to recognize same-sex "marriages" (or even civil unions). We also need to deliberate very carefully about same-sex civil unions because a slippery slope really does exist in this case. As a nation, we've slid from view marriages as sacred institutions for raising children, to viewing them as little more than legal arrangements then to not really valuing them other than as self-serving ways to enhance personal satisfaction (hence all the divorces when people feel justly or unjustly victimized), then to inconveniences (and we certainly can't have any inconviencing children!), and lastly to any relationship between any two (or more, in some cases) people, regardless of gender. The majority of people in the U.S. still believe that marriage should be just between a man and a woman but the times, they are a'changin', as Bob Dylan sings. This change is not progress; it's immoral.
There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste – WSJ.com
There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com.
This Op-Ed article in the Wall Street Journal clearly explains why we should build new nuclear power plants and allow the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. Pres. Obama at best said that he's open to nuclear energy but he's not very keen about it. That's unfortunate. He has the opportunity to completely pull the United States away from dependence on foreign oil by embracing and pushing for more nuclear energy. We could build more nuclear plants and allow the reprocessing of fuel and have more energy than we know what to do with. If Pres. Obama pushed for electric cars (more importantly, if consumers and manufacturers pushed for them), we could in effect have nuclear-powered automobiles.
Nuclear plants are safe. They are much safer than just about any other power plant. In my opinion, radical environmentalists of the 1960s and 1970s (even continuing on to today) did far more damage to the global environment than any other group. Because of radical environmentalists' scare-mongering and lies (or at least gross misrepresentations), Pres. Ford and Pres. Carter effectually killed off nuclear energy. The last new nuclear power plant went online in 1996 (although there have been a few new ones approved recently). It was designed using nuclear technology from the 1970s. Nuclear power technology has advance considerably since then. Because our use of nuclear energy stagnated in the 1970s, we've had large increases of reliance on coal and oil for energy. As a result, we've had years of fossil fuels and carbon-dioxide emissions that otherwise could have been reduced by allowing more nuclear power and the reprocessing of spent fuel rods. Additionally, coal plants dump many tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere every year as well.
Nuclear power was never the problem; the hatred of nuclear power and the very successful but untrue propaganda campaign of the radical environmentalists is the problem. The environmentalists even convinced the general public that the nuclear meltdown at 3 Mile Island was a major catastrophe (it didn't help to have The China Syndrome come out shortly before the partial meltdown). Many of us are exposed to higher levels of radiation every day than were leaked at 3 Mile Island. It's time for the U.S. to stop believing the lies of the radical environmentalists and start building more nuclear power plants. At the very least, they provide a very clean and reliable short and long-term source of energy until other technologies such as wind and solar become more economically feasible and able to provide a majority of our energy needs (which isn't likely for many years). The problem is that it takes many thousands (6-7 thousand at least) of wind generators to produce the same amount of energy 1 modern nuclear can produce. Wind generators also have variable rates of production. The same is true with solar generators. While I think wind and solar generators are wonderful ways to convert energy to electricity, they just are not as feasible as nuclear generators.
Pres. Obama and Congress are missing a major opportunity to push for nuclear energy and electric cars (and hydrogen fuel cells as well). Many Democrats (and Republicans too) are blinded by the craftiness of radical environmentalists. We as citizens generally are likewise blinded. Nuclear power is not something to be feared; it's powerful and it can be dangerous but so are all other forms of energy. Nuclear energy is about as green as energy can be. We could build many nuclear plants within a short time-frame and have more than enough cheap energy. We have the technology now; it's good and safe technology too. We need to stop being afraid of nuclear energy.
If you want to see how safe nuclear power plants are from terrorist or military attacks, watch this video of a jet crashing into a concrete wall (much like ones built to encase nuclear reactors).
6 years later, progress and doubts are legacy of Iraq war – CNN.com
6 years later, progress and doubts are legacy of Iraq war - CNN.com.
The war in Iraq started 6 years ago. As is noted in the CNN article, it is one of America's longest wars. However, it is one of the least deadly wars we've fought. There have been 4,261 American fatalities in just under 2200 days. That's less than 2 deaths a day (of Americans - there have been many more Iraqis killed). Any death is too much but we have to face the truth that as far as America is concerned, this has been a very "safe" war. It cost us a lot of money but can you put a price tag on freedom and democracy? I have to add that I don't think we should have started the war in Iraq but we did so the point is moot.
If the troops had been home instead, quite a few of them would have died in car accidents or other accidents, statistically speaking. 18-30 year old men are naturally quite accident-prone so it's a statistical given that there would be many accident-related and natural deaths in that group. There are about 42,000,000 people between the ages of 15 and 25 in the United States. While that include people a little younger (and not quite as old as some of the soldiers in Iraq, it will serve as a decent estimate for this post). Roughly 162 per 100,000 people between 15 and 25 die each year in the United States (Source). According to one NewsWeek source, by December 2007 there had been 1.5 million troops deployed to Iraq. This number is higher than another one I found (500,000 by July 2006); it doesn't seem likely that there were 1,000,000 different troops deployed in the subsequent 16 months.
For my analysis, I'll make an estimate and say there have been 1,100,000 deployments since the start of the war. That means that at those numbers, if the soldiers were all home from Iraq (and not deployed elsewhere) we would expect approximately 1,800 deaths. That's possibly high because the number of deployments does not equal number of people. I'll be a little more conservative and say there have been 900,000 different people from the U.S. deployed. That means there would have been about 1450 deaths over the same time period if all the troops were home.
My numbers could be off because I haven't found a good definitive source for the number of individuals deployed in the past 6 years in Iraq. The number could be anywhere between 700,000 and 1,700,000, which is not very precise. My numbers are also off because the demographic data I used to calculate my numbers was a combination of 15-19 and 20-24 age groups. The military tends to be 18-25 with a significant number on into their 30s. Most are in their 20s though. The numbers should be accurate enough for this informal analysis.
In any case, this means that of the 4,261 deaths in Iraq, the number of deaths above and beyond a national baserate of death for that age group is about 2,700. That's still a lot of people but overall it's been a fairly "safe" war. [Note: I know there have been many physical and psychological injuries caused by the war; my post was focused strictly on deaths].
Just Say No! (To Primates)
In a brilliant move of solidarity with the victim of the recent chimpanzee attack, the U.S. House of Representatives, rather than focusing on important issues, passed a bill that would make it illegal for private persons to own primates - not just apes but all primates (e.g., lemers and monkeys). I believe the bill technically only forbids selling primates across state lines, but that would in practicality ban all private primate ownership. Such dangerous creatures as pygmy marmosets 
would be outlawed (this particular one might be outlawed already if it is an endangered creature but my point remains the same). Just look at that thing - it probably has laser beams that shoot from its eyes; it's just deceptively cute - it might kill you with cuteness overload.
This whole bill is ludicrous. Now, I don't think most people should own primates - they require a lot of care and space and money (but so do kids) but if someone can afford it and provide good care, why shouldn't they be able to own one?
Our government just keeps finding new ways to regulate us to death. Pretty soon our houses will be built exclusively from red tape. We'll have Frosted Red Tape Flakes for breakfast, and red tape for toilet paper. Our government is becoming oppressive (some would argue that they have been for a long time but compared to most other governments around the world, the U.S. government is not very oppressive).
How many primate attacks are there every year in the U.S.? How big of a problem is this? Our legislators are spending our tax dollars and their time trying to protect us from the dangers of primates? The next thing that will happen is outlawing cars because they can be so dangerous. Then they'll outlaw the sun because it gives people cancer. We can ride this slippery slope all the way down. We might as well outlaw all people because people can hurt others. Maybe robots should rule the earth and keep a few humans in carefully controlled cages for observation.
I don't deny that primates can be dangerous. They are strong and can carry diseases but if someone wants to own one and can care for it - let him own a primate (even a gorilla if they have the space and money for it). The legislation is silly. Then again, maybe the ban is good. It might just prevent something like this from occuring many years in the future.
Mitt Offers His Sage Advice
Once again, Mitt Romney, a successful businessman and former governor of Massachusetts, offers his insightful advice about how to best stimulate the economy. His theory toward economic policies is much more Smithian than Keynesian. His tagline is Stimulate the Economy, Not the Government.
Quoting the CNN article: "In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector -- entrepreneurs and businesses large and small -- can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government" (emphasis added).
Lastly, in a letter to supporters he stated, "This is a time of hardship and uncertainty for millions of Americans. Unfortunately, the new President and the Democratic Congressional majority seem more concerned with stimulating the government than stimulating the economy."
We need to stimulate the economy by freeing up more money from the clutches of our inefficient government. Our government needs to gain inspiration from Smith and Friedman (as far as arguing for smaller government), not Eva Perón's welfare program or her husband Juan's economic policies that led to the downfall of the Argentinian economy (please read the comments to this post for more about Argentinian economics).
LDS Church Further Clarifies Its Role in Prop 8
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following article today on their newsroom site:
Media Reports on Proposition 8 Filing Uninformed
The article is fairly brief but very comprehensive. If anyone still doubts the Church's financial role in Prop 8, they are just willfully rebelling against the truth. The Church was always very open about its role, they never tried to hide any part of their involvement in Prop 8. LDS Church members were encouraged to vote in the election and to vote in defense of traditional marriage but no one was ever forced to vote a particular way. The LDS Church became involved in the issue because it is an important and fundamental moral issue. Marriage and family are the foundation of society. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is a radical shift that could have unintended negative consequences on society for generations. It is an attack on the sacred bond of marriage and family.
Prop 8 Spending Update (and Lies)
The final numbers are in. "The final tallies show that opponents of Proposition 8 raised $43.3 million in 2008 and had a little more than $730,000 left on hand at year's end. The measure's sponsors raised $39.9 million and had $983,000 left over." (Source). Many opponents of Prop 8 are bitter about the measure passing. Some say that the LDS Church bought Prop 8 (see below), yet opponents raised and spent more money on the measure than proponents did. The hatred toward the LDS Church is mind-boggling. I don't mind the hatred though but I do mind the lies.
Here are a few inaccurate headlines/articles describing the LDS Church's role in Prop 8.
How the Mormon Church Bought Prop 8 (this site is full of hatred; I just skimmed some of the comments to the article. They were appalling). If the LDS Church bought Prop 8 with their $190,000 of in-kind (non-monetary) donations, that's quite a good return on their money considering that is less than 0.44% of the total money spent by opponents of Prop 8. In other words, if the LDS Church bought the proposition then their $190,000 of non-monetary donations was more effective than the $43.3 million spent by opponents of Prop 8. That's quite a good return on money. So who bought the election (it of course begs the question that the election results were purchased)? Even if you factor in contributions by individual LDS Church members (and of course, church members do not equal the LDS Church in any political or legal sense), they still raised and spent less than half of the money opponents raised and spent.
Separation of Church and State...except in Utah and, Uh, California. I will not provide much commentary on this article (because their dishonest portrayal of the issue has already been addressed by the LDS Church). The author completely misunderstands the 1st Amendment (and separation of church and state, for that matter). I love this drossy gem: "There’s no point in asking if what LDS did is ethical; clearly, it is not. But that didn’t stop the church from intensifying its disregard for the rule of law and the political system in this country."
Mormons Caught in $188,000 Lie. I'm sorry but the only lies being told are by the opponents of the LDS Church on this matter. The LDS Church acted in accordance to law. The reported every expenditure within the time frame that they were legally required to. If you argue that the Church was trying to hide their involvement, then you have to argue just as strongly that all other groups on both sides of the issue who just reported their financial contributions were hiding their involvement as well.
There are more inaccuracies along the same lines. The LDS Church already responded to the issue. They hid nothing. They did not lie. They acted well within all legal, moral, and ethical bounds. The only lies being told are those who spread this misinformation about the LDS Church.
LDS Church Prop 8 Spending Update
From the LDS Church Newsroom site: "SALT LAKE CITY. 2 February 2009. Today The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints clarified erroneous news reports following the filing of its final report on donations to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition.
On Friday, 30 January, the Church filed the final report of its contributions (all of which were non-monetary) to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition. The report, submitted in advance of the 31 January deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.
The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution.
Because media coverage about this filing ran without a comment from the Church, the following statements of fact from the Church add context to this story and should help correct the record:
Fox13 (Utah): “The documents show the amount spent by the Mormon Church is greater than what was initially stated.”
Fact: The Church, like other organizations on both sides of the ballot issue, was required to publicly file these donations by the 31 January deadline. The Church has been filing required contribution reports throughout the campaign. Those earlier donations “initially stated” were filed for specific time periods prior to this last reporting period, as required by law. Other groups are also filing their final contribution reports to meet the same deadline.
San Francisco Chronicle : “Mormon church officials, facing an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, Friday reported nearly $190,000 in previously unlisted assistance to the successful campaign for Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.”
Sacramento Bee : “The disclosure comes amid an investigation by the state's campaign watchdog agency into whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints violated state laws by not fully disclosing its involvement during the campaign.”
Fact: This filing is in no way prompted by an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Many organizations are filing this week to meet the deadline required by law. We believe we have complied with California law.
KFMB 760 AM (San Diego) :
“Mormon Church Misstated How Much It Spent in Prop 8 Fight.”
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints previously claimed only about $2,000 was spent in support of the measure.”
365Ga y : “Mormon Church admits it spent 100 times more for Prop 8 than reported”
Fact: Again, the previous disclosure of an in-kind donation was to meet an earlier deadline. In fact, previous filings detailed over $50,000 out of the total non-monetary contribution of $189,903.58. This week’s filing reported donations that fell within a different time period and required reporting by the 31 January deadline. Other groups also made their final contributions reports this week.
Understanding the extent of donations from other organizations may help the media and the public better understand the context in which the Church’s donations were made."
The LDS Church clearly acted in accordance to the law. The only reason this is an issue is because some people are so hateful of the Church that they try to do anything to discredit them.
The LDS Church Contributed $190,000 in “In-kind” Donations to Prop 8
UPDATE: I corrected the figures in this post now that we have the actual amounts. I will post a reprint of the LDS Church's clarification of news stories about the issue.
On Friday the LDS Church filed a report outlining their contributions to the Prop 8 campaign in California. They spent $190,000 (a GLBT site reports the amount was "more than $190 thousand." Notice how the amount creeps upward as sites become more pro-homosexual. Note: I don't know what the actual amount is; news sites have just been rounding the number - some up and some down). $96,000 of that was spent paying some church employees for their time (e.g., designing a website or things like that). The rest came from flying church officials to California (and putting them in hotels and renting cars and similar expenses). The Church did not donate any money directly. When a complaint was filed against the Church in November 2008, the LDS Church stated they would be making all required declarations by the time they were legally required to. They were not required by law to declare their contributions until February 2, 2009.
The articles I linked to generally do not give the LDS Church the benefit of the doubt (searching the related headlines in Google News reveals such biased gems as "Mormon Church Misstated How Much It Spent in Prop 8 Fight"). The news bias is not surprising given that all 10 major California newspapers editorialized against Prop 8. Only the SF Chronicle even bothers to mention the Feb. 2 deadline for reporting contributions. However, those who filed the complaint against the Church believe that the Church was required to report their contributions earlier.
The Yes on 8 campaign spent $39.2 million out of a total of about $41 million spent (Source). Older estimates had supporters of Prop 8 spending $35.8 million with opponents spending $37.6 million (Source). We'll see what the revised number is once opponents of Prop 8 declare all their contributions (it is likely higher than the $41 million spent to support Prop 8). While LDS Church members donated a sizable portion of the money spent to support Prop 8 (possibly as high as $20 million - but those are estimates are by anti-Prop 8 groups and so may be on the high end of the actual amount), the LDS Church as an entity donated a whopping 0.45% of the total money spent to support Prop 8!
True, individual LDS Church members might have donated 50% of the money spent in support of Prop 8 (again, this is based on unofficial estimates) but church members who donated are citizens and are allowed to donate however they want to. Hollywood celebrities contributed large of amounts of money to fight Prop 8 (for example, Brad Pitt donated $100,000). At least churches are Constitutionally-protected entities unlike Hollywood. The LDS Church encouraged time and money donations but never forced anyone to donate. It's ironic how some who "fight against hate" hate the LDS Church so much. Where are all the complaints against entities who made anti-Prop 8 contributions?
Showing their intense hatred of hate, Californians Against Hate has a "Dishonor Roll" that includes people who donated more than $5000 to support Prop 8. Way to fight hate! It's the kind of list I'd like to be on.
Tags
Blogroll
Recent Posts
- Which Party Ruined the Economy?
- Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns
- The Shooting of Rep. Giffords
- Truth, Freedom, and Religion
- Respecting the President
Recent Comments
- Miranda on Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns
- kem on Why McCain Should Not Pick Romney as VP
- Lonnie on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
- Tweets that mention Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties | US Political Scene -- Topsy.com on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
- Jonathan on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- January 2011
- April 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007