Geez.. did I really just rant about fast food drive-thrus?!?

First, I think a handful of people are only liberal because they derive some sort of power from being that way. I think a lot of these type of people migrate to political positions either by being elected or by being appointed to positions. They use a liberal agenda to get votes and/or influence.

Second, I think there are some liberals who are only liberal because of one or two issues that mean something to them and just fall in line with everything else in order to support those one or two causes. For example, there may be a person who believes very strongly in the right of a woman to have an abortion that they put all other issues on the back burner or ignore them completely, in order to support those who agree with them on this issue.

Lastly, I think a good number of liberals actually have good intentions. They see what they perceive as a need and assume it can be fixed with government’s help. I think the problem comes from what I call the “One Step Problem”. I’ll explain:

The “One Step Problem” is simply this: I believe that most liberals do not have the ability to think beyond one step or at least refuse to do so. Take electric cars for example. In theory, an electric car is better for the environment because it does not burn “fossil fuels”. Leaving the problem at this step makes you feel good and it makes you feel as though you are making a small difference in our world. However, reality doesn’t stop there. First, of course, is the problem of where does the electricity to power your car come from? More than likely, it comes from a power plant powered by fossil fuels. Check out this quote from an article on Yahoo News:

“Many states still rely on coal power to meet a large portion of their electric needs,” writes Rachel Krech of Yahoo! News. “If more electric cars hit the roads, then they will require an increase in electricity production to charge the batteries. In many cases, states may resort to increased coal production since they already utilize their coal-powered plants to begin with. Coal plants alone are a major contributor to widespread pollution problems.”

So, basically by having an electric car, more than likely you are simply moving the burning of fossil fuels from your car to a power plant, but that is beyond the one step of most liberal thinkers either because they choose not to think about that and push it out of their mind, or they simply lack the capacity for reasoning beyond that first step. This, of course, does not also take into the account the environmental impacts of creating the various parts of the electric cars, most notably the batteries. Of course, this does not concern a One Step Liberal because that happens away from them at the mines and the factories and so they can easily let those facts slip from their minds.

Another example is welfare. It is easy for a One Step Liberal to see the US Treasury as a supply of money just waiting there to be tapped into to pay for social programs that supposedly help the poor. One Step Liberals, however, are once again unable to see beyond this first step. First, there is the issue of getting the money in the first place. One Step Liberals can’t seem to figure out that taking money from someone to give it to someone else can have a negative effect on the economy as a whole. The money that is taken can now no longer be used to produce a product, hire someone to perform a service, hire more labor, or give to charity. On the other side of the coin, the One Step Liberal also can not see what effect welfare has on the individuals who are getting the so-called help. They cannot see beyond the first step of the money changing hands to see the self-confidence eroding from those getting the handouts, to see the dependence being created (if they do see this, they are in one of the other categories above, remember, this does not apply to ALL liberals), or to see how this undermines the American dream.

I think you get the idea of how the One Step Problem works. If we, as conservatives, can recognize this problem in those liberals we come in contact with, I believe we can show them the light and win the hearts and minds of those who are able to see beyond the One Step.

Please Note: I in no way expect Sen. Lugar to answer these questions. Please don’t think I’m egotistical enough to think that Sen. Lugar gives a monkey’s big toe about what I think. I’m merely using the only medium I have to share my thoughts as always.

In the email I received, it alluded to an editorial that Sen. Lugar wrote for the Indianapolis Business Journal. The first paragraph reads as follows:

True conservatism embraces core economic and cultural beliefs that center on individual liberty, the freedom to believe, say, and do what your conscience dictates, without reprisal from any government or group.  This liberty extends to property and every individual’s right to own and protect property against its theft by government, gang or bully. Culturally, this right is balanced by an equally important individual responsibility best articulated by the golden rule.  No person’s individual liberty can be at the expense of others.

So, based on this paragraph I would like to ask the senator these questions:

1. In your answers to the ‘Congressional Election 2006 National Political Awareness Test’ posted at www.votesmart.org, for the “Budget Priorities” sub-category, you repsonded ‘Greatly Increase’ once, ‘Slightly Increase’ 8 times, ‘Maintain Status’ 6 times, and ‘Slightly Decrease’ once. Do you think these answers are in line with the statement “True conservatism embraces core economic and cultural beliefs that center on individual liberty..”?
2. In the same test, in the ‘Taxes’ sub-category, you answered ‘Maintain Status’ for all taxes except ‘Cigarette taxes’ which you chose ‘Greatly Increase’ and ‘Inheritance taxes’ which you chose ‘Eliminate’. How does keeping the status quo with our current taxing system fit with your statement above? How does ‘Greatly Increasing’ cigarette taxes fit in with your statement on individual liberty? (I’m not a smoker, by the way.)
3. How does your past support of the ‘Brady Bill’ and other gun control measures fit with your statement on individual liberty?
4. How does your sponsorship and support of the DREAM Act fit with your statement on individual responsibility? Doesn’t allowing individuals who have committed an illegal act to benefit from this act fly in the face of individual responsibility?
5. How does your support of the bailout of the auto industry  and the financial industry fit with your statement on individual responsibility and your statement “This liberty extends to property and every individual’s right to own and protect property against its theft by government, gang or bully.” Is this taking of other’s property (taxpayers) not simply a theft of one’s property to give to another?
6. Why are you opposed to eliminating earmarks? Is that not one of the ways in which government takes money from taxpayers in a government sanctioned theft?
7. Here’s a question that I’ve wanted answered for a long time. It was my first ‘red flag’ for Sen. Lugar. Why do you support such hardcore environmental restraints based on shoddy science that is at best a drain on the already fragile US economy?

I have plenty of others, but those are the first few off the top of my head. I’d be interested to hear what those of you who are Lugar supporters have to say, and those of you who aren’t. I don’t really have a dog in the hunt yet, but I’m pretty convinced that it’s time for Lugar to go. What do you think?

As a small business owner, it baffles me when I walk into someone’s office or home who has been a client of mine for several years or longer and they have a new product that is directly related to what I do and they didn’t even give me a chance to provide it for them. If one of the above things were true, I’d understand, but not even giving me a shot doesn’t make sense to me at all. Why not go to the business you already have a good relationship with?

Does anyone else feel the same way I do, or am I just weird?

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to see this Law in motion when I was flying across the country. My trip consisted of two flights with a short lay over in between. As you probably know, most airlines have started to charge for checked baggage on flights. I can understand how initially this makes sense from a business perspective. The initial price of the ticket is fairly low, but then you can tack on other fees for baggage, not to mention other ‘extras’ that used to be free like meals, snacks, drinks, pillows, etc., and then you have effectively raised the price of the ticket while keeping the perception of lower prices.

During preboarding of both of my flights, announcements were made begging passengers to please check in baggage at the gate for no charge because there wasn’t room for the carry-on luggage for all of the passengers. One flight was actually held up while the flight attendants arranged the overhead bins to fit as much in as possible.

This got me thinking about how the government seems to be surprised by the unintended consequences of its actions. Take the news that several major corporations took a hit on their
books for perceived future losses from the passing of the healthcare bill, for example. Members of the current administration seemed shocked by this news as if the projected increase in costs occur in a vacuum.

Or, take the current oil situation in the gulf. (As a side note, I refuse to call it a ‘spill’. What part of what happened even comes close to resembling a spill? Maybe ‘oil leak’ is better?) There are those who condemn BP, and with good reason, and there are those who want to blame various other organizations some for political gain and some for other reasons both good and not so good. One group often overlooked includes environmentalists. Ironically, by pushing the offshore drilling so far out into deep waters, they have unintentionally contributed to the mess we have today.

When you see a bill passed, a new policy enacted, or an organization make a change, do what most people fail to do and consider what the unintended consequences could be before you decide where you stand on the issue.

In a mathematically perfect universe, we would be less than dead; we would never have existed. According to the basic precepts of Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created in the Big Bang and then immediately annihilated each other in a blaze of lethal energy, leaving a big fat goose egg with which to make stars, galaxies and us. And yet we exist, and physicists (among others) would dearly like to know why.

So, according to science as we know it at this point in time, we aren’t supposed to be here. If the numbers are correct, and of course scientists are supposed to always be objective and never incorrect, then we shouldn’t even be here.

Of course, the one variable that science has a hard time accommodating is God.

To put it in perspective, though, the only other US presidents to win the Nobel were Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. Adding President Obama’s name to that list only proves that the only “peace” the Nobel committee acknowledges is peace through a progressive agenda, even when nothing has been accomplished.

Other US presidents that should have been considered:

Ronald Reagan: Ended the Cold War

George W. Bush: Brought most the of world together after 9/11

Of course, liberals/progressives don’t see those as positive things, so that will never happen.

I’m assuming, of course, that you don’t now live in public housing.  If you do, let me turn the question around.  Would you prefer to stay in public housing or own your own home?

Myself, I’ve never lived in any sort of government provided housing.  At least I don’t think I have.  My family certainly was not wealthy when I was growing up.  I’m sure we would not have been considered middle class, but I’m digressing here and getting off the point..

I have been around public housing.  I worked at a landscaping company in Dallas, TX and some of the work we did was at public housing facilities.  Let me tell you, most of them were scary places.  My dad (who owned part of the company) still makes fun of my reaction to being at some of those places.

I’ve also known people who have lived in subsidized housing, that is government doesn’t provide everything but just makes up the difference between what the tenant can pay in rent and what the landlord wants (or actually what the government says the landlord deserves.)  I’ve also known property owners who provide such housing.  Some owners I’ve known LOVES to provide the subsidize housing because they don’t have to maintain their property at a very high level because where else are the tenants going to go?  Now, the ethics of that aside, that is part of the problem with abandoning a free market economy in any industry.  See, property owners who rent property to the general public must provide a certain quality of dwelling or those general public people won’t rent the property, or at least won’t rent the property for a decent amount of money.  By providing tenants and a guaranteed amount of rent, the owners have no incentive to keep their property properly maintained, and vice versa. the renters have less of an incentive to maintain the property.

So.. here’s some Flyover Country homework for you.  Drive by some public housing this week.  No matter where you live it is there.  If you don’t know where it is, call your local HUD office and ask them where to find it.  Drive by and take a hard look at it.  Find more than one if you can.

The next step in our homework is to contrast and compare your current housing arrangements with what you see.  (Again, think in reverse if you currently live in public housing.  Compare with your desired housing arrangements.)  What is the quality differences between the two?  What are the visual differences?  Which looks safer to you?  What is the neighborhood like?  What are the schools like?

Now, having looked at public housing in person, are you SURE you want public health care?

Let’s not let the best health care system in the world turn into the equivalent of public housing!