Archive for March 2009
Lately, since we’ve seen our new president make sweeping changes to the way our country does business. We’ve watched him take over a major American company, fire it’s CEO and add "back your car warranty" to the list of governmental responsibilities. We’ve watched him threaten small businesses by hiking up taxes on their owners, making the spectre of bankruptcy.
All of this, in this Rabid Conservative’s opinion, has to do specifically with the abundance of sentiment that is feeding what I call, the Loser Nation. Here are the symptoms:
1. The potential for failure is being replaced with an abundance of safety nets.
2. Getting ahead because of hard work, ingenuity, talent, and a little luck (or God’s grace), is being replaced with people working at different levels of difficulty and skill, yet all getting the same result, mostly undeserving of the results they receive.
3. The government enabling and rewarding those who have made poor decisions with opportunities to continue to make poor decisions, even if those decisions cause damage to others.
I told my kid once that failure is just as essential success, because without it, there are lessons we just cannot learn. Science is all about understanding what fails and what succeeds. Abe Lincoln failed at most everything he attempted. Failure has a place in our lives and it’s how we learn what doesn’t work.
But today, we’re trying to eliminate failure from our lives. More and more, people cannot stand the prospect that if they attempt something, they may fail.
Take school, for example. Today, the liberals are saying that failure, namely the "F" grade is psychologically scarring and things like red pens hurt kids. I had two college students in my classes just this quarter, one who didn’t turn in a final exam, another who turned in no work since Week 2 of a 12 week course. When both were faced with either F or D- grades, they complained to the department chairs and I was forced to grant them concessions. Why? Because both of these two lacked the intestinal fortitude to accept their failure – failure they brought upon themselves.
When I played little league softball, we kept score. There wasn’t any of this rubbish about how "we’re just playing to have fun"; we kept score! And while we were disappointed when we would lose the game, we knew that meant we needed to play harder, try new things, and do better the next time. It’s not like today where kids don’t improve because there is no motivation for them to do so.
Failure is a necessary part of life. When we get an "F", it means, "you didn’t do it right". Red pens are
And by the way, a dirty little secret, even during those YMCA kids games where they "don’t keep score", well, they’re keeping score. The kids, the parents, the officials…everyone is. So the sentiment is dishonest at best. More like total crap to me.
America was built on blood, sweat, and tears, hard work done by the hands of many created the golden city on the hill that is the envy of all the world. It wasn’t built by the government handing out money to people. It was built by the people, daring to dream of something far bigger than what they had and what they were.
Does the world clamour on about the Spanish, French, or Croatian Dream? No. Not to say that Spain, France, or Croatia aren’t good places to create a life, but we don’t see flocks of people beating on the doors to enter those countries. However, the hope of the American Dream has been in the eyes of millions for over two hundred years.
Yet today, the American Dream is fading away because there are forces at work that seek to dispel the concept of hard work, personal sacrifice, and life’s reward.
You see, I was taught in school that if you were willing to work hard for something, you could get it, which also meant the inverse was also true. However, today the hard work of millions is being taken and given to those who aren’t working as hard.
Those that work hard produce. Those that don’t work hard have nothing. So those that don’t have anything complain about not having anything, yet are not willing to get up and make something happen. They cry foul about how unfair the system is or how that they didn’t lose, they were cheated. And like little bratty children, they complain to the only power capable of giving them something for nothing, the government.
So the government sees the product of those hard working people and determines that they have too much – that they don’t deserve the reward from the sweat of their brow. And out of a false sense of compassion, wealth is spread around…from the winners to the losers, so that the losers won’t clamour on to the government – or worse, politicians will get their vote.
The Loser Nation
Today, we are rewarding those who fail, either because they made poor decisions, such as buying a house they couldn’t afford, investing in this fund or that market that turned out to be a bad choice
You see, losers clamour on about intentions rather than results. Losers gripe and whine because they don’t have, rather than pulling up their bootstraps and making something happen. Losers offer excuses about their failures and don’t take ownership and responsibility for their own incompetence and ineptitude. And yet, today, we are giving into losers.
Losers do nothing but consume the product that is created by those who win and cry like a newborn when they don’t get what they want. They come to hate the winners, to resent them, and to strip them of their product because losers can’t exist on their own. They consume themselves into oblivion, while the winners build greater.
We are slowly becoming the Loser Nation.
The Signs You Are a Loser
1) If you refuse to hold to your conviction, but rather change because it makes you feel better, you’re a loser.
2) If you complain about life’s difficulty, rather than realise that it’s no one’s fault but rather, it’s your challenge before you, you’re a loser.
3) If you make excuses for your own stupidity, incompetence, or ineptitude, you’re a loser.
4) If you blame others when things go wrong for you, particularly when you screwed them up, you’re a loser.
5) If you afraid to ask someone else if you do these things, for fear that they will say yes, you might just be a loser.
I challenge you – think about how you perceive life and whether or not this mentality is present in your mind.
If America is ever to succeed through the tribulation of a poor economy, we have to stop acting and thinking like losers. We have to take responsibility and stop empowering people who continuously fail and empower those who are succeeding. No company is too big to fail, but we all will fail if we don’t turn away from this madness and get back to what we do best – winning.
President Obama this week is clamoring on restricting the pay of corporate executives, riding on the coattails of the corporate populist ballyhoo of AIG paying out bonuses to people who were contractually entitled to the bonus. Lately, though, the liberal government’s need to regulate how companies pay their people is really approaching socialism. Now I can see the government stepping in with a voice when federal taxpayer money has been committed to bailing our a company that’s deemed ‘too big to fail’. But Obama wants to do this across the board.
Of course, we don’t worry about limiting the pay of professional athletes who make $5 million to hit or throw a ball as a pro sports all star, but the Dems want to penalize corporate all-starts/executives by capping their pay.
Anyway, here’s an idea. Since America’s political strength is in our ability to reach compromise, I propose the following as a solution:
Any company receiving TARP or whatever Federal bailout money should agree that, within 90 days, they call a meeting of their shareholders and put the subject of executive compensation on the meeting agenda. The shareholders vote as to whether the CEO making $800,000/year is too much. The results of the vote are reported back to the government before any dispersal of money.
To me, this sounds reasonably fair. The decision of compensation is left to the one to make the decision – the corporate shareholders, and the government can call it regulated because it ensured that the people who make the decision are given the opportunity to make the choice for themselves.
Think I’m off base? Shoot me a comment.
(Side note: The Dems have been squawking about corporate bonuses being paid out by contract to AIG employees, yet we don’t give any consideration that UAW and other unions are basically extorting the auto makers for nearly half of their revenue to pay for people who no longer produce anything. Yet we don’t see the Dems all over that)
OK..OK, no one actually said this to me, but having a difficult name makes it harder for people to find you on the web. And being the somewhat of a cheapskate, anti-tax, save-it-all-before-Obama-steals-it, gives it to Tim Geithner and Chris Dodd, who’ll hand it over to AIG before taxing it back (as if they really didn’t know) – anyway, I held off on the domain name until I decided the blog project was worth some real investment.
So, I’ve spent a few bucks (and may my wife not kill me..it was $31), and secured a domain, linked it up here, and now, for the next year, I have a real domain. If you got here using the old link, it will still work. But it’s much better for all of us to use the new URL:
So there it is, in all of it’s wonderful glory. And as if I wasn’t sounding narcissistic enough (anyone with a blog has a touch of narcissism in them) now I have a real domain for it.
Anyway, if you’re enjoying the blog, feel free to leave a comment. And if you’re not enjoying it, leave a comment anyway.
The one question that liberals simply will not answer – the one in which they fear: “When does life begin?”
As many of you have read, somberly, President Obama signed an Executive Order to reallocate federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell (ESCR) research. It’s a sad day because now the human embryos who are being held in frozen stasis will be used for experimentation in hopes of bringing a cure to Type 1 Diabetes, cancer, or the like. Essentially, as far as this Rabid Conservative is concerned, ESCR is nothing short of murder.
Now before the haters start going all in a tizzy, I’m not against stem cell research. I’m against harvesting embryos for it. In fact, there is a wealth of information out there that reports the advantages of adult stem cells over their embryonic counterparts. Read this article to understand more: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research.
Anyway, my point here today is not to do the comparative but rather, to talk about the reason why liberals have to have embryonic stem cells. Liberals aren’t looking at the research about adult stem cells because, to the liberals, the subject of stem cells isn’t about saving lives, curing disease, or relieving infirmity; it’s about maintaining some sort of precedent with respect to the legal status of an embryo. From all the rhetoric, I’ve been able to boil down to two fundamental reasons why liberals are determined to maintain ESCR:
- Losing the ESCR war would lead to a serious undermining of the entire abortion issue as far as liberalism is concerned.
- The embryo is not a human being and not entitled to rights or protections. As such, the embryo can be used for things for which a regular human being with legal protection cannot be used.
ESC is Linked to Abortion
You see, abortion and ESC research are linked. If the liberals get disproven that an embryo is, truly, a human life, they have to concede that an embryo in a womb is also a human life, which then, causes the abortion issue to fall apart.
Many people who argue over the abortion issue do so without a clear understanding of science – it’s all emotionalism to them. To liberals, the question of abortion is ‘doing what is right in one’s own eyes’, never once considering the destruction of humans as embryos in favor of sexual freedom.
One of the little known aspects of Roe v. Wade is the challenge provision. Basically, Roe v. Wade was passed because the court could not fully agree on when, exactly, life begins – or more appropriate to legal precedent, no definitive recognition in the eyes of the law that life begins at conception. Because of this, abortion was allowed by the High Court.
Recently, in North Dakota, the state House voted to declare that a fertilized egg is indeed human life and deserves the same protections under the law. This is significant because, if the ND Senate votes passage, North Dakota will be the first state in the Union to effectively bring a challenge against Roe v. Wade. Proponents against the measure whined that they ‘didn’t want to drag North Dakota into a legal fight with Roe v. Wade’. This tells me that the ND House liberals just don’t want to touch the issue in fear of losing their position on it.
And then, we get an interview like this with Der Schlick-meister that, once again, doesn’t seem to understand the fundamentals of basic reproductive biology.
Dude, an embryo is a fertilized egg. So, by your very own statement here, it’s a ‘little baby’. If that’s truly the case in your ‘more-than-once’ stated opinion, killing a fertilized egg is something that we do not want to do because it would grow to be a little baby or a human being, which is why they are ‘embryos’.
Again, Bill, embryos ‘are’ fertilized already.
Embryos Are Not Human (or Human Enough to be Protected)
One thing that Slickster does make in distinction, that somewhere along the way, there is a point when a human embryo is not a human being. He says twice – grow into a little baby/human being. Liberals must agree on this point so that they aren’t forced to concede to admit the humanity of an embryo.
The thing is, it stands in the face of sensible logic. For example, even a liberal couple that is desirous to have a baby will become pregnant – and what will they call that which grows within the mother? Will they say how proud they are of their ‘fetus’ or ‘embryo’?
“Hey Denise, you look great! When is your fetus due?”
Or, more somberly, if the couple loses the child to miscarriage or something, they don’t talk about losing the ‘embryo’; they lost the baby.
But yet, when the same is within a mother that doesn’t want to have the child, it’s not a baby – it’s not even considered human. It gets labeled as a fetus or embryo so the mother and doctor don’t have to deal with the moral implications of destroying a human life.
By not affording protection to the human embryo, what effectively is being said here is that embryos are not human, or human enough, and as such, justifies the using of these embryos for scientific research.
So When Does Life Begin
If you’re a man or woman of faith, life begins at conception, was created by God, and deserves to be protected like any other innocent life. However, I can also work with a secular definition, since many things occur in early gestation that have legal precedent for defining life.
For example, brain activity can be defined as a start of life. It can be argued that the human mind is encased in the human brain. If we go back and remember the case of Terri Schaivo, we remember that liberals clamored on about how she was not alive, because she was clinically brain dead. So, if we take that assumption that brain death is the cessation of life, then life must begin at the first signs of neurological activity. And if that is the case, any embryo greater than 24 days in age would have to be considered a life.
Perhaps the point in which life begins is when the baby can survive outside of the womb without the mother. Well, if we take that point, life would begin somewhere around, say age five. Previous to that, a toddler cannot last very long without intervention by a parent. And thinking along those lines, there are plenty of people who cannot survive without some sort of assistance. Does that mean they aren’t alive?
The one question that liberals simply will not answer – the one in which they fear: “When does life begin?” Liberals in support of abortion, ESCR, and the like avoid this question because to make a definitive statement of when life begins would cause them to give up something, in order to remain consistent. With a relative definition of when life starts, liberals can slide things around to fit the theory in which they are holding in order to permit the activity that they decide is right at the time.
The sad truth is that pro-choice liberals avoid even the accountability associated with changing the rules all the time. And with all rule changing, human embryos are the ones caught in the middle, and doomed to have their lives taken before ever getting the chance to live.
People don’t care enough to understand what’s really going on, who’s doing what, and why it’s happening to be able to talk about it. They don’t have the inclination or the time and unfortunately, the liberals are getting away with intellectual murder.
"Doctor… Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge… or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman! " – Dean Yeager, Ghostbusters 1984
Holy moley, people. Just when we thought we heard everything, some pinhead steps up and starts blaming…worms…for the causes of global warming. Burping worms.
Just when we thought we’ve heard it all.
Turns out, since worms excrete nitrous-oxide (laughing gas) as they munch on the microbes that hide out in the soil. The night crawlers munch soil and the soil becomes more nitrogen rich (btw, something that helps stimulate growth!)
Last year, though, the discussion wasn’t regarding earthworms, but cow flatulence. That’s right, the Left was blaming farting cows for causing CO2 emissions, which resonated with the Greens and the PETA-folks who seem to believe that we should all swear off Whoppers and go back to eating lemon grass and berries. With all the ranching and the thousands of bovine, the tons of methane and CO2 being emitted was going to ensure we all vaporize in the sun’s radiant heat.
But since the cow thing is about as stable as…well, a fart in the wind, people are now blaming earthworms (aside with all those greedy capitalist factories burping tons of waste gas into the atmosphere so we can line the pockets of Wall Street fat-rats.) Never mind the concept of cyclic weather patterns which have been written in the Farmer’s Almanac since the 19th century, the atmospheric pollution from one volcano erupting, or the evidence that the amount of sea ice in the Arctic was underestimated by the so-called experts.
So why the heck do we listen to these so-called scientists? To we trust them because they they "know so much more than we do"? I mean, the average joe doesn’t have the wherewithal to challenge their *theories* so, it would seem, we’re simply made to accept whatever tripe they think up.
For example, Stephen Hawking, for years, yammered on about how black holes completely absorb all energy and information that collects within them. But in July 2004, he made headlines by backpedalling on his black hole theory, conceding that black holes can release information. I guess for him, losing that bet meant eating some serious crow, but to us, it’s irrelevant in the great scheme of things.
Yes, Hawking lives on a completely different wavelength than us common folk with average IQ’s. But even if you rank among the gods in intellect, you can still be wrong.
This is the reason why Christians don’t drink the kool-aid of evolution. And this is why global warming (now called climate change – more politically friendly, in case the temps go the other way), is also a *theory*. No one has yet proven definitively, the case for global warming. Al Gore’s dumbkopf movie has already been debunked as unscientific (by real climate scientists – not some idiot, grandstanding, washed-up politician) with the polar bear scenes courtesy of PhotoShop. And in more hilarious, all the high-profile global warming conferences have been either poorly attended or cancelled – due to heavy snow and/or very cold temperatures.
Why are people still swallowing it up?
I’ve come to understand here recently that most of the people in the country don’t care for politics. Well, I knew that, but the issue is that they associate topics like global warming into politics. They associate law and rulemaking into politics. When you discuss the idea of teaching intelligent design in public school as a competing theory to evolution, people don’t want to talk about that because it’s politics. Politics has seem to become this catchall for everything non-religious that we don’t want to talk about, mostly because of a lack of prep study by the masses to be conversant in the topic. In other words, people don’t care enough to understand what’s really going on, who’s doing what, and why it’s happening to be able to talk about it. They don’t have the inclination or the time and unfortunately, the liberals are getting away with intellectual murder.
So, some scientist posts a theory and the world slurps it up because people don’t care to find out the truth. Instead, they say, "well, he’s a scientist; he should know how it all works.
The thing is, science is a process by which theories are tested and proven, not a conduit through which political policy is made. The way it’s supposed to work is the people make the policy, based on recommendations from science. But rather than take the time to educate us ‘ignorant masses’ on what’s going on, liberal macro-heads who are more like activist judges rather than objective scientists feed these ‘hair-on-fire’ theories to liberal policy makers who, in turn, make law based on theory, not objective facts.
And in the end, the rest of us just stand there, wondering what happened, like the ‘sucker’ in a Three-Card Monte.
Sort of like how that $787 billion porkulus package got ram-rodded through Congress without a single Senator or Representative even reading the thing.
By the way – I’ve got a better way to deal with the worm issue…go fishing. Or we can hook a billion of them up to a dragster car for that little extra added kick.
Late-Break Note: The Heartland Institute is hosting The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, which is going on in New York this week. On the bill are some of the global warming theory’s most harsh and notable critics, most are scientists who have disproven many of the theories of climate change. There’s also a link there for the 2008 conference remarks.