Republican vs. Democrat

First, I'll start by saying that politics is one of the most annoying subjects around. Just like money and religion, everyone thinks that they know everything, and that their opinion just graces the world around them, blessing everyone that hears them speak.  However, most people could not pass a test in Political Science 101 by the time you get to chapter 2.  In recent studies in the children of various countries of the world, the American children were by and large number 1 in one category - confidence.  Not intelligence, understanding, mathematics, science, etc., but confidence.  Its good to have confidence, but at the same time, is it good to have a bunch of "know-it-all's" running around with superiority complexes without a good enough reason to have one?

Politics is not economics.  Politics is, according to http://www.dictionary.com,  "the practice or study of the art and science of forming, directing, and administrating states and other political units; the art and science of government; political science."  Politics is not the "what", it is the "how".  If you have not taken a basic college economics class, you probably should not be allowed to discuss whats best for the country.


An Understanding of Party Beginnings
With that said, let's break down each party.  (In case some of you don't understand the basic fundamental principles of each party, let's start with that.) Republicans generally believe in a small central government, allowing the people to have more sway.  Democrats believe in a big, central government, that from their current explanation is to be able to have the power to help those in need.  Here is a little history on each theology - Thomas Jefferson would be considered by today's principles, and in my opinion, a Democrat with a Republican ideology - a "give back to the people" attitude through a small government practice.  He believed in the common man, definitely considered to be agrarian, and believed in the power of democracy, which in the Greek means "mob-rule."  Alexander Hamilton is considered to be the ring leader of the opposing ideology in wanting a huge central government, by which we would be a large world power to be reckoned with. He also believed that the common man, without specific education, had no business or ability in the affairs of governing over himself or anyone else.  He was fairly elitist, and had a very aggressive desire to be of a new aristocracy here in America that would rival England.  He did not want, in essence, a "new world"; he wanted a world to compete with England, but of the same nature - ambitious and dominating.  Hamilton, one could say, was a believer of "survival of the fittest".  Jefferson was more a lover of the arts, the creative mind, and the ability to "live and let live."  So, Jefferson has a monument in D.C., and Hamilton was shot by his Vice President in a duel.

(For a more in-depth understanding of the Founding Fathers, read "Revolutionary Characters" by Gordon Wood, and "American Creation" by Joseph Ellis.)


An interesting note is that one can make this argument:  if you understand that most people are not "money-motivated", then by allowing free-reign to the market-place, you are allowing a "survival of the fittest" theology to govern our people economically.

Today's Crisis
With that said, let's examine today: We are currently in a state of emergence from an economic crisis.  Why do we have this crisis?  Is it because of Obama?  Bush?  This is where I would really appreciate the American people pulling their heads out of their hind parts:

We are in this because of us.

It started as a landslide of the crashing housing market.  It began because of the greed of people - it was because of greedy loan agents, greedy money lenders and money changers, and because of the stupid, ignorant financial decisions of borrowers - namely, "the people."  If people bought a house they could afford, made their payments, and paid off their homes instead of refinancing four or five times, we would not be here today.  People, take responsibility.  Quit blaming the government, the president, etc.  If someone lends you $500,000, do yourself a favor and read the fine print of the loan.  And loan officers, quit telling people that by refinancing their home and taking out their equity that they can finally buy that boat, plane, pool, or private whiskey-brewing operation for their backyards.  Nevermind that their adjustable rate means they might have to move out of such home in four years.  These statements that it is Obama's fault that we are in this predicament is one of the dumbest, most politically tainted arguments today.  As a Republican, I am hereby stating that it is not Obama's fault whatsoever that we are where we are today.  Done.  Obama, you're off the hook.

Republican vs. Democrat

Here is what I am struggling with now (besides the constant remarks of those who are rather uneducated, but all-too-eager to sprout and advertise their catchy bumper-sticker worthy slogans of each party) - which side do we vote with?

If you at all take this seriously, and desire to find the wisest decision, then please give attention to this portion:

I am all-for less government; but in having less government interference, that also means giving free reign to the market place for businesses.  So, what we're saying from the Republican side is essentially "lets give the decision making power back to those who are 50% responsible for our current situation."  The market-place, the big business corporations, Wall Street, are "in it" for one reason - profits.  They have time, and time again, commits acts of fraud and have taken advantage of the American people in the name of profits.  Are these the people that we want to have the power today?  If you vote Romney, that is what you are saying.  You are acknowledging that the housing market, the big banks, Wall Street, etc., all had major hands in our economic crisis, and we would now be placing them back into a leading role.

The other side of the coin:

Obama is putting plans in place that will spend more money because it takes money to pay these government employees to instill these plans of regulation, and it costs businesses more money to follow these regulations, putting a strangle-hold on the expenses of small businesses, making it harder for more small-businesses to get off the ground.  Obama also likes the "Robin Hood" theory of taking more from the rich and distributing it to the poor.  The only problem is that the Robin Hood story shows us taking money from a couple of financial hyenas like the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John, when in reality, we're taking money from hard-working successful Americans and giving it to people who are down on their luck, sometimes sick, and sometimes are just plain lazy and looking for a handout.  (I'm all for the first and second, but the third can "kick rocks".)  However, Obama's big-business regulation policies will make it more difficult for a recurrence of the 2007 crash.  It will help to prevent businesses from taking advantage of the people, and I'm definitely all for this theology.

Obama Care

Misconception: Obama-Care is going to make health care more expensive.
Truth:  Health care is already too expensive.

Misconception: health insurance should be like car insurance.  You shouldn't have to have it because you can choose not to drive.
Truth:  If you have a heart attack in public, get into a car accident and go unconscious, you do not have the choice of not going to the hospital.  One week in the hospital might result in a $100,000 bill.

Misconception:  Everything is fine the way it is.
Truth(s):
1.  Although we are number 1 or 2 in medical technology, we are around number 50 in infant deaths, all because the other countries have better health care plans.

2.  a) Because people go to the hospitals without insurance, they stiff the hospitals with large bills.
     b) The hospitals then jack-up the prices for those who are insured, making it ridiculously high to compensate for those who don't pay.
     c) The insurance companies and hospitals then have huge disputes over payments.

3.  A country where everyone is insured will result in hospitals no longer getting "stiffed on the bill", will in-theory take away the pricing wars between insurance companies and hospitals, and as well as improve the health of the country.  Win, win, and win again.



November 2012 Election

Please keep in mind America: in this coming election, you are voting for one of two things:

Romney:  Big business, I believe in your good intentions; I believe that you have learned from your mistakes over the past 150 years and will no longer put profits in front of people.  I believe that you should be granted free reign to do business as you wish, and strip the government of all unnecessary employees and bureaucracy, lowering our taxes to pay for such regulation.

Obama:  Big business, you have time, and time again, run us into the ground with your greed.  We do not have faith that you will not do it again.  We vote instead for the government to step in and regulate you, in order to prevent us from another economic catastrophe, acknowledging that means a raise in taxes to fund more government employees and workload to accomplish this.


History

I do not have the intention to persuade you in any way, but I will, in conclusion, point out something that should be noted.  History is a wonderful teacher; unfortunately, it does not have enough students.  Here is what we can learn:

We have had 3 notably poor economics situations in the past 100 years:
The Great Depression
The Recession of the late 80's early 90's
The Housing Crash Recession of 2007-2010.

What do all 3 have in common?

They were all preceded by at least two terms of Republican Presidents.

Why would that make a difference?

Historically, when you give free reign to the market place, big business, etc., they will eventually find a way to exploit the system, and the people, and their quick profits will result in some kind of bubble-burst, affecting everyone.

It is up to you to choose.  But do so wisely, and put down the bumper stickers... before I shoot you.

Global Warming?

So, I've been thinking. Is the world's temperature really increasing? I'm not a scientist, environmentalist, meteorologist, etc., so, I'm really just going off of the opinions of the experts. Also, I can't really say I'm going completely off their opinion because its not like I'm devoting hours and hours of study to their findings either. So, how am I to form a semi-educated opinion?

Well, I can't go purely off of my friends. Sorry guys, but you're ranging opinions of "we must save the trees!" vs. "there is no such thing as global warming, stop being a pansy" aren't exactly creditable. Plus, with few exceptions, I doubt any of my friends are too far off from my own education; some more, some less. So, onto the next list of possibilities: the media.

For one, the media is largely liberal (save Fox News), and therefore largely "Earth Friendly". I tend to agree with the latter part, but I'd really like my opinion to be unbiased. So, I'd like to avoid the liberal slant. On the other side, we have corporations. If there is damage to the Earth through global warming, they're the ones making profit from it. Can't go that route either. I'd ask Al Gore, but... What to do...

Well, I'll tell you what occurs to me:  I'm in Rancho Cucamonga off of Haven and Baseline. To the North of me, about 5 miles away, are a series of mountains that are at least a couple thousand feet above us in elevation and are regularly easy to see from about 100 miles away.  But today, because its a "smoggy day", I can barely see them 5 miles away.  ?  So... is it okay that we have become so used to the idea of pollution in the air that we just shrug our shoulders and say "that's just how it is."  Well, its only been that way for about 50 years, and the planet has been for what scientists say is 4 billion... I think its safe to say there's a problem.

Look, I don't know for sure if there is officially "Global Warning."  What I do know is that we are definitely contaminating the Earth in a very irresponsible fashion.  Its fairly ridiculous.  Anyone who thinks its not ridiculous is someone who's opinion I just really don't think I want to hear.  We've got animals going extinct fairly regularly; smog filling the air so bad that in places like Phoenix there are actual "smog warnings" where they suggest you don't let your kids go outside to play. Really?  Now they are saying that we are heating the Earth.  (I did take an Astronomy class in college that stated very clearly that two things trap heat in an atmosphere: carbon dioxide, and water vapor.  If we're sending billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air through various refineries...)

So, instead of saying there either is or isn't global warning, maybe we should just agree that there is a lot of irresponsible behavior going on in the name of money, and that maybe we should find a better way to do things?  Maybe in this case we should just focus on the solution of the symptoms instead of arguing over the definition of the problem?  I just don't want to lose my polar bears before I have the time to find one and domesticate it.  How else am I supposed to get my own show on the Discovery Channel?

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

This very common, very familiar phrase, that one is "innocent until proven guilty", is spoken of these days only in books, not in action. Although for large cases in which the consequence is high, it is given much more attention; it is barely even a forethought for the every day judicial incident.

Let us call upon the phrase "your actions speak so loud, I can't even hear what you are saying" to help prove the point: It is easy to get a traffic ticket, but very difficult to prove your innocence once its written.  If you want to fight a parking ticket, good luck. They issue them out freely, knowing its cheaper for you to pay them than to miss a day of work and fight it in court. I am currently struggling with a case in which I did not include certain information regarding a past incident with the State of California due to a misunderstanding of what category it fell into. The State now, in all of its wisdom, has declared that I purposely withheld information, and now I must defend my integrity. What I find interesting is that they claimed dishonesty as opposed to misunderstanding, as if they were there, and they presume to know my intention. I bring this up because I am clearly not being treated as someone who is innocent, or being given the benefit of any doubt. I am being treated as if I am most certainly guilty, and they could care less about what really happened.

This attitude with our government is not new. I have witnessed multiple courtroom sessions in which the judge has clearly stated that if you simply say that you're guilty or plead no contest the minimum fine will be  given. But, if you fight it and you lose, the absolute maximum fine possible will be given. This does not sound at all that innocence is presumed, nor does it seem that they would even care to hear your explanation.  It sounds more like they are very busy, and lets face it - you are most likely guilty, and they would rather you not waste their time. Our judicial system is now mirroring a fast-food drive-thru, being that they can process your case and issue your sentence just as quickly as you can order, pay for, and drive off with a double-cheeseburger and chocolate shake.

Although we can appreciate their frustration with having such a heavy work load, and of course hearing every excuse known to man for every illegal act; it shows a very real disconnect with our basic constitutional rights. It also exposes a huge hole in the efficiency of our legal process. How on Earth to fix it is unknown, save waiting for the Lord to take his place as ruler of this world promised in Ephesians 1:10.

Until that happens, we must face a brutal fact:

We no longer have a justice system; we simply have a legal system.

Free Speech?

There was a Supreme Court ruling in 2011 that still bothers me. It stated that the extremist Baptist church in the midwest had the right to picket a military funeral, because of the first amendment.

We are so far away from where the forefathers of this country intended us to be, it's sad really. We have out-smarted our own common sense. Let me site three issues which I believe demonstrate how far away we have drifted from where we began as a country, and a people.

First, the one at hand. Do we have total free speech? No. Try speaking your mind with "colorful metaphors" in the middle of a court room during a judge's ruling, and let me know if you don't end up detained for the evening. Can you speak up during a high school class without ending up in the principles office?  Of course not. Why is this? Because we would be a ridiculous, uneducated mob if we could. Order is important. My point is, how can you recognize the importance and/or sanctity of a classroom, or a court room, and not a funeral? That our "Supreme" Court does not immediately see the need to send this extremist group packing to the hills with this ridiculous need to publicly hate others is a frightening and ridiculous thing. (And make no mistake, they do hate others. Jesus would never take any actions like they do, and that should really be a sign to us, and them.)

Secondly, the second amendment, has been stretched far beyond it's original intention. We needed this because the English tried to keep us from being able to protect ourselves against them. Therefore, we have for ourselves the right to form militia - to band together, and arm ourselves for the need of protection. Now it's become this ridiculous attempt to arm ourselves with well beyond what is reasonable or necessary, for purposes of recreation. This law is now arming our criminals, arming our confused and deranged children who terrorize their own classmates, and is being used mainly as a crutch for gun companies to keep profits as high as possible. It is not my suggestion to remove the amendment, but rather, to ask the question as to whether some degree of restriction wouldn't be wise?

The last observation I will make is that the founding fathers had no intention of gaining wealth through public office. These were already wealthy men who felt it their civic duty to serve. That is obviously a far cry from today, where our public "servants" are paid very well with guaranteed salaries for life after serving a single term. Paid benefits for life, and automatic raises each year for inflation, are only a couple of the lasting benefits they experience. When I hear them discuss how they look at the founding fathers for guidance, I can't help but quietly suggest "try working for free." I think the time when our government was for the people is long since over. It is evident in many ways that our power as "the people" has greatly diminished, as it seems that we have a government that is there largely to please itself.

Just thinking out loud.

Is Peyton Manning ready to play?

Peyton had four surgeries last year, and as a result, he could not play. Jim Irsay is supposed to pay him $28 million in a few days to keep him unless they restructure his contract. In the news, there is so much buzz about what is going on around him that it has become unreliable, unbelievable, and frankly irresponsible journalism. Writer Bob Kravitz in Indianapolis won the "Supreme Jackass" award for his comment concerning Peyton's "noodle arm" a few weeks ago. I think it's about time to to write something that is just blunt common sense:

We'll just have to wait and see. There is nothing else to discuss. Period.

Manning is regarded as one of the best quarterbacks, let alone football players in general, to ever play the game. He's been playing for roughly 14 years professionally, and probably another 14 or so years before that. That's 28 years, approximately, of playing football. I think he's familiar with the game. Also, maybe I'm on my own here, but I also do believe he knows more about how he feels than we do.

Would it be smart to pay him $28 million without knowing for sure how he's going to do? Of course not. Would it be smart to cut him lose without knowing for sure how well he might be able to play next year? Of course not. Is it smart to put all of your eggs in one basket, especially if your not sure whether your basket can carry professional football-playing eggs? Luck might be great, he might not be. Again, let me make an outrageous comment:

We'll just have to wait and see. There is nothing else to discuss. Period.

Now, let's discuss some of the hype around the issue. Do I think Jim Irsay is a moron? Well, he is a billionaire in charge of a football team whose regular season record for roughly a decade was incredibly successful. So, I'm inclined to say absolutely not. Do I think he's made completely moronic decisions about how to broadcast this Peyton Manning situation? Yup. Has he acted kind of like a jackass by making Peyton seem like an expendable item, especially now that we see he's mainly responsible for that successful regular season success? Yup. Jim, how about a note-to-self: Pull your head out. Your reputation is heading south like a bowling ball dropped out of a commuter plane. The guy who has been taking your 2-14 team to the 11-5 average record is being treated like a distant excommunicated criminal in the media. The word here Jim, is "tact."

Bob Kravitz's comment was infuriating. After a couple of months of rehabilitation, he makes the comment that Peyton is nowhere near full-strength. Really Bob? Is that your genius contribution? Do you also go around calling pregnant women fat? What an amazing observation. The level of sophisticated and educated statements around here is just outstanding.

It looks like Peyton Manning will play next year. If he does, with his previous track record of consistent and outstanding performances, I imagine he will be fantastic. However, since, to my knowledge, nobody owns a working "Miss Cleo" crystal ball, and nobody can successfully predict the future,

We'll just have to wait and see. There is nothing else to discuss. Period.

For the next few months, all of you in the media, Señor Kravitz, Señor Irsay, please, for the love of all that is good and pure in football... just lock it up. Your speculative comments are driving us all crazy. Also, minor side note, you guys are all hanging your success on the efforts of other successful people who are actually doing something - how about a little more respect thrown their way?