2009-5-25 07:03:00
[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog, and were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group.]
JJ:
It is amazing how many people fall for everything Congress puts forward that sounds good on the surface. Unfortunately the media is not doing its job and reporting both sides of various proposals so its up to us citizens to do our own digging.
HR 1388 (Obama's plan for a volunteer corps) is another big spending bill that gives Big Brother more power to indoctrinate and control our youth, veterans, and seniors.
For one of the few places you can find the potential downside of this bill go to:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92288
Once you find out some details you'll realize that Crapo and Risch are not so "un-American" as Artley rudely insinuates.
JJ:
From the text of HR 1388 at:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388
"Special Consideration -- To the extent practicable, in making grants and entering into contracts [...] including, institutions serving primarily low-income populations, including --
"(1) Alaska Native-serving institutions;
"(2) Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions;
"(3) Hispanic-serving institutions;
"(4) Historically black colleges and universities;
"(5) Native American-serving, nontribal institutions;
"(6) Native Hawaiian-serving institutions;
"(7) Predominantly Black Institutions;
"(8) Tribally controlled colleges and universities; and
"(9) Community colleges serving predominantly minority populations."
There will be a "special consideration" for grants to these minorities to create Obama's army of volunteers.
What do they have in common?
They are Democrat voters and easily subject to the influence and mobilization for Obama and the Democrat party. Republicans and Libertarians are paying for their own demise.
JJ:
Mr. Hall says, "the possibility of the biblical God existing is nil."
Maybe the possibility is that we do not understand what God or Divine Intelligence even is.
If the Bible stories are true then there is definitely some powerful Dude or Power that can part the Red Sea and raise the dead back to life. Some cruel things attributed to God could be decisions of mere mortals who say they came from God.
Consider this. The sun is a million times larger than earth. There are two hundred billion star systems in this galaxy. There are billions of galaxies that we can see and billions more we cannot. As a speck of dust is to the earth, even so is our planet in relation to the universe.
Maybe we are not that important to the Life who created all there is, but are of importance to other beings who are powerful enough to part the Red Sea. Look how much we have advanced in 100 years. Imagine what others lives have done in a thousand million or a billion years.
JJ:
A reader complains that too many phonebooks is disturbing her life.
Wow, if you think your safety and peace of mind is threatened by a phone book how would you handle a real crisis? The neighbor's dog doing business on your lawn must cause a heart attack.
Now "flatline" has the right idea -- turn a lemon into lemonade. Burning phonebooks instead of wood is a great idea. A guy could go door to door collecting and probably get a cord of burning material in a few hours.
JJ:
Good letter by Bob McFarland. It is amazing how many people think that Federal money is "free money" as if it just fell out of the sky. It's about time that politicians realized that all tax money (state and federal) was earned by the hard work of some taxpayer.
It would be nice if we could earmark some money to help one-legged people learn to ski, but just as we cannot as individuals pay for everything we want that sounds good, neither can we the people through the government.
We just cannot borrow forever for every project that sounds benevolent. Instead, we must spend the money we have as wisely as possible realizing many good spending projects just have to stay on the back burner until we get the money to pay for them.
Grandjester writes:
"Obviously neither of you understand the concept, nor do you understand that even at their most outrageous, 'earmarks' only compose one half of one percent of the federal budget."
JJ:
So because that's only a mere $15 billion or so we should just not be concerned. That type of thinking is what has gotten this country in the trouble it is.
The Left likes to define earmarks down to the smallest hole possible to make critics look ridiculous, but it could be argued that most of the $750 billion stimulus was earmarks by some bureaucrat.
The bottom line is this.
If we do not have the money then we shouldn't be borrowing from the Chinese for feel good partisan projects.
How someone can disagree with that is an amazing thing.
JJ:
It is really getting old hearing the unthinking accusing anyone who disagrees with the Left as being as pawn of talk radio and Fox News, as if they are unable to think for themselves.
The Right could do the same thing if they were so small minded and in every other sentence accuse anyone left leaning of being a pawn of MSMBC, NYT, Michael Moore, etc. I'm glad most conservatives use reason instead of this primitive tactic.
I tune into talk radio and Fox for the same reason I watch NBC News and read the Idaho Statesman. The reason is not to be told how to think, but to get accurate news and insights so I can form my own opinion.
The next time you hear someone say: "you are just parroting Limbaugh and Fox" you've got to realize what you are really hearing. They are really saying:
"I'm not smart enough to give an intelligent response because I'm just a wind up doll for the Left."
"TWall":
"To me real people are mostly liberal because to me generosity is a liberal quality based on the idea that helping others is something that liberals are politically inclined to do."
JJ:
Read this from the New York Times and weep:
"Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, 'Who Really Cares,' cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
Notice none of the sources are from Fox or talk radio. Instead the sources are a liberal newspaper and a liberal columnists commenting on a book written by a Democrat.
It's sad that the Left automatically discounts anything that are not from Leftists sources and is quick to even discount these if quoted by the Right.
JJ:
"TWall" is concerned that conservatives give so much to religion. This is true that a lot of their giving goes to their religion, but then a lot of that religious giving goes to religious charities that help the disadvantaged -- like feeding poor kids in third world countries and supplying an education.
On the other hand, giving from the Left often goes to their religious type beliefs such as Geenpeace, Sierra Club, ACLU, etc. As far as liberals giving to the arts and research -- that does little to help those who are in real need.
It is interesting that during the 2000 election Bush's tax returns showed he gave about 14% to charity and Gore only gave about $250.
"Twall":
"Joseph, what is sad to me is that no matter what I say or how much we do this you do not waver because as you have said before 'facts prove little or nothing.'"
JJ:
I said facts prove little unless they are related to the argument. The fact that the clock says it is noon proves nothing about your weight, but it is evidence of the time of day. That was my point and I cannot believe you would not agree with this.
"Twall":
"It says to me that you have no regard for my opinions or research."
JJ:
I think we all concentrate on our disagreements here than our agreements -- it makes more interesting dialog.
I can find things you say that has value. For instance you just said that giving is a liberal trait. You are correct if we use the classic definition of liberal, but the political world has turned the meaning of conservative/liberal upside down.
I am a Libertarian, and as liberal as you can get by strict definition, but most here would label me conservative.
"Twall":
"'Lefties discount all from non lefty sources,' you discount heavily (not all) from 'non Righty sources.'"
JJ:
You say this just after I quote from a liberal source. I do not think you have any evidence to back up your statement. I attempt to draw on the true facts no matter what the source.
"Twall":
"The problem is when the 'unthinking' confront you with a little reason you completely discount."
JJ:
If it makes sense I will accept, if it makes no sense I will reject no matter what the source.
"Twall":
"That's fine with me, but at least I read your story with an open mind."
JJ:
And I have read every link given by a liberal here connected with anything I write. I have sometimes quoted from them. I also agreed with you on overpopulation, but you were too bullheaded to admit that the US Post Office has a monopoly on first class mail even though the Post Office itself admits it.
"Twall":
"I didn't discount like you have always done with differing opinions."
JJ:
The facts in the article I referenced are pretty ironclad -- to the extent that the Democrat researcher changed his mind.
If an opinion disagrees with my own and it makes no sense then of course I will not accept it. What sane person would? I am sure you have the same approach as me here -- do you not?
On the other hand, if some disagree and they have facts to back them up I will change my mind.
I appreciate the exchange and do value your opinion, but will not change my own unless you present a good reason to do so. I'm sure the same is true of you.
"Twall":
"Since my opinions disagree with yours and I have backed them up with facts why haven't you changed your mind in some cases? Are you afraid to admit I may be right or does my 'argument make no sense.'"
JJ:
Just saying this does not make it so. You must give me an example.
We are supposed to stay with the current topic here so this is probably not the place to rehash the past disagreements.
If you find some fact I do not accept just corner me with it at the time.
JJ:
Even though I am big on low taxes and less spending one of the few taxes I support is for transportation.
I find it irritating though that we are faced with another tax increase after we recently had a sales tax increase from 5 to 6%. You'd think we could cut some spending on other programs and move the needed money to transportation.
Since I realize this is wishful thinking at the present I would support a tax increase on fuel.
We've going to have to figure out a new tax soon, however, when we convert to hybrid and electric cars. Big Brother will want to install a monitoring device in every car and charge us by the mile -- either that or create a big tax on electricity itself.
"Grandjester" wrote:
"Ms. Davis, Let me tell you about a man, who has literally lived off the government teat since the moment he was born. Born on a US base, everything in his early life was paid for by our government. Other than a brief period in the private sector, he has been paid or cared for by or tax dollars for the last three quarters of a century. He collects THREE checks from the US Government every month, including his substantial salary (which includes the best health care plan in America), a healthy government pension (he'll get another BIGGER pension when he leaves his current Govt. job) AND Social Security. ALL of this despite the fact that he married a multi-millionaire heiress thirty years ago. Do you know who this man is?"
JJ:
Obviously you are talking about McCain here and you want to peg him as a hypocrite because he receives income from the government.
This is not only an illogical accusation, but silly.
First, McCain (or any Republican I know) has never taught that government employees should not be paid by for their service.
He has never said we should not receive Social Security.
Just because a person may believe in smaller government does not mean there is any hypocrisy in being paid for your service or taking back the money paid into Social Security.
To be a hypocrite one has to do something contrary to what one teaches or believes in. McCain has his faults, but he is not a hypocrite in this area.
"What this country needs is more free speech worth listening to."
-- Hansell B. Duckett
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved