|
 |
RSS Feed  |
a playground of art, photos, videos, writing, music, life |
|
|
You are here
|
Creativity!
|
Get it!
|
I like it!
|
Fun stuff!
|
About me...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Random Quote
Whether we are describing a king, an assassin, a thief, an honest man, a prostitute, a nun, a young girl, or a stallholder in a market, it is always ourselves that we are describing.
-- Guy De Maupassant
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page Through Blog: << More Recent Posts | Home Page | Earlier Posts >>
Blog Archive by Month | Blog Archive by Story or Tag | Search Blog and Comments
Mike Renzulli writes a good blog. His two latest posts are a great juxtaposition of the reactions of two religious parents to a child being gay. He gives the stories of Marie Osmond and Alan Keyes. One embraces and celebrates their child, and the other disowned their child. The faith of both parents castigates homosexuality. What would you do? |
|
|
Here are two of my favorite women, Tamara and my mom:  And of course, my grandmother:  One woman who was like a second mother to me was my great-great-aunt, Onie.  If there's a heaven just for rock solid human goodness, she's in it. And finally, my fantastic mother-in-law, Frances:  It's cool to be surrounded by amazing and loving people. |
|
|
Was the US Ever Intended to be a Judeo-Christian Nation? |
In probably the most well-written exposition I've seen, no, the US was not established as a Judeo-Christian nation. In fact, in a treaty signed by 23 senators and President John Adams, you'll find these words: As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion... Does it get any clearer than that? And what was the public reaction to these very clear words?I found the treaty and Adams' statement reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City and, in one case, held the actual newspaper (the Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser for Saturday, 17 June 1797) in my hands. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers. So let's hear it for freedom of religion in this country!If God himself didn't see fit to coerce anyone into a religion, then it's certainly antithetical to what God himself practices that some people would try to force others into their beliefs. Freedom of will - an oversight by God, or a wise practice? The nation was founded on individual liberty. Liberty in speech, religion, assembly, property, etc. Therein lies the basis for this nation's morality. Live free, and respect the right of others to live free as well. If our nation's laws were based on biblical law, well, we're missing quite a few. Where's that "Honor your parents" law? Where's that "Keep the sabbath holy" law? The pentateuch is hardly represented in American law - at any point in history. Yes, murder is against the law here in the US, and murder is against the commandment of a biblical God. But it's US law not because God said so, but because it robs a man of his liberty. As does stealing. And while a few laws might appear to be based on Judeo-Christian laws, was it because God said so, or was it because that simply looked like best practice and common sense, based upon our nation's foundation of protecting individual liberty? The words in that treaty were "quite well accepted, only a few years after first the Constitution and then the First Amendment were ratified, that 'the Government of the United States of America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.' After a bloody and costly civil war and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment determined that citizens of the United States cannot have their rights abridged by state or local governments either, religious liberty for all was established. Governmental neutrality in matters of religion remains the enduring basis for that liberty." A government neutral in matters of religion is the most sound basis for protecting religious freedom. If you choose to believe that government should be used to coerce Christianity into law, then you're no different than the socialist who wants to use government to limit a person's income. You're both statists, and neither of you believe in liberty. (And for those who trot out the canard about "license," I challenge you to show me where license is discussed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The country's founding documents are not living documents for you to alter as you wish. They weren't concerned about license, and from a civic perspective, you shouldn't be either. The founding fathers considered liberty to be sacred, and so should you, even if it means that people might choose behaviors that you don't approve. I'll refer back to God's everlasting best practice of giving us freedom of will...) |
|
|
Been There, Done That, Didn't Learn the Lesson |
From a great blog on local politics I recently discovered:  This was published in the Chicago Tribune on April 21, 1934. Notice the guy (one of the "young pinkies from Columbia and Harvard") who is drunk on Power. "Spend! Spend! Spend under the guise of recovery. Bust the government. Blame the capitalists for the failure. Junk the constitution and declare a dictatorship." I asked a friend of mine a few days ago, what's the tipping point? At what point do people become political activists and get involved? Most people would rather just do polite conversation and suggest that this is all getting out of hand in a wink/wink, nudge/nudge kind of way. A trillion is a million millions, and Obama and Congress are spending trillions of dollars. Our kids don't have that kind of money. It is immoral to ruin their future with this.  What's your tipping point? |
|
|
Don't Cause "Emotional Distress" |
Representative Braley is a Congressman here in Iowa, representing Iowa's northeast corner. He is a co-sponsor of HR 1966, which is the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. Megan, a teenager, was tragically bullied online by an adult and finally committed suicide. This legislation seeks to prevent that sort of thing from happening. But the bill, in its current form, contains this language: Sec 881 (a):"Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." The problem with the bill is that the language is loose enough that anyone who leaves a comment on a web site, posts a blog, or writes a difficult opinion online can potentially be punished under the act. In its current form, this is a clear violation of free speech, allowing the courts to decide whether you went too far in what you said.I'm sure that Rep. Braley means well, and perhaps didn't consider this part of the proposed legislation. But if you feel strongly about this, you might contact the congressman to reconsider his sponsorship and support for the bill or to work to revise the language to protect free speech. Here is Rep. Braley's web site. And you can contact his offices, as I did, here: Washington: (202) 225-2911
Waterloo: (319) 287-3233 Be polite, let his people know that you're watching this. And forward this to whomever you think should know about this. |
|
|
Private property isn't really private. It's public, and the government will take it over and put its own people in place. In the public interest, of course... Enjoy the CEO Graveyard. Is your company's CEO next? |
|
|
Today, I learn that Ford beat GM in Q1, 2009. That's never happened before. Does it surprise anyone that Government Motors lost marketshare to the car manufacturer that didn't take the money? Another thing I learned today: Bank of America sponsored a poll at CNN that showed that 65% of respondents don't trust US banks. Can you say TARP? I recently found a list of all of the banks that took TARP money and put it into a spreadsheet with an autofilter. In this way, I could see which banks took money in Iowa.  (Click here for the spreadsheet if you'd like to see it for yourself.) Yesterday's news release of the so-called bank stress tests indicated that banks need to find $65 billion in capital shortfall. Over half of that is Bank of America alone. Wells Fargo needs $15 billion. Now it might be me, but when I look at which bank to place my accounts, TARP factors into my decision. I bank at two banks. One is Wells Fargo, with which I'm content, but make no money in interest. The other is Charles Schwab, which gives me a decent interest rate with no minimum balance and I pay no ATM fees at all. Charles Schwab, which I confirmed today, took no TARP money. Personally, I think that they ought to use that to their competitive advantage and put that in a commercial. "Independent, strong... We're our own bank - let us be your bank." I'm not sure that banks see this coming yet, but TARP was bad for branding, and this administration and congress are no partners for success. |
|
|
Via HotAir, I learned today that Joe the Plumber made some disparaging remarks about gays, saying that he wouldn't let them near his children. What an ugly thing to say... You know, given the increasing fervor on the right for spouting anti-gay bigotry, I'm gonna give the Democrats a second look. At some point, there has to be some fiscal sense within the Democrat party... right? Why is it that as a citizen of this "free" country, I have to choose between a political party that hates people for their sexual preference and a political party that hates people for their success and productivity? It's a shame that neither party can claim to be a champion of individual liberty, which was the foundation of this country. How very far we have strayed... |
|
|
45 Senators Plot to Kill Home Mortgages |
Last week, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin put forward a bill that would allow a judge to reduce mortgage principle during bankruptcy proceedings. Thankfully, it failed to gain enough votes, although 45 Senators voted to affirm the measure, including Iowa's Tom Harkin. Much-maligned (deservedly) Chris Dodd co-sponsored this atrocity. If you don't know how mortgage loans work, it's pretty simple: the bank acts as a broker between investors and and the person seeking the loan. The loan is then sold to investors, who believe that they will make their money on the investment plus interest. If a judge can arbitrarily reduce the amount due on the mortgage, it means that the investor eats that money, and makes the possibility of a loss on any given mortgage more likely. Question: What investor would put money into such a low-interest investment? Answer: None. Which then means that there are no investors for home mortgages. Home lending stops. Completely. Or, this would raise interest rates to cover the risk of loss on the investment. Which slows the economy greatly. (All of you who miss Carter-era interest rates, raise your hand...) This is the fastest way to kill the housing industry and the economy. The bill was cutely called "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009." More accurately it was "Assuring Nobody Can Obtain an Affordable Mortgage in the Future Act of 2009." Fortunately, 51 senators know enough about these simple economics, but frankly, it's damn frightening that 45 senators thought this was a good idea. All Democrat, I might add. "Oh, but look at how they care!" says the die-hard Democrat. Oh but look at what the "good intentions" of fools can do, say I. |
|
|
 Oprah is worth $2.5 billion. It has taken her a lifetime to accumulate that, and there is no one like her. Few have succeeded as she has.
Completely liquidating Oprah 4,000 times would net $10 trillion, the amount that Obama and Congress have spent. That money will have to be paid back, and Oprah won't liquidate her assets to help out. And there aren't 4,000 of her even if she would. Trillions in gov't spending will bankrupt kids. Do you love kids? They deserve to live their best life too... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
