Thursday, March 31, 2005

God Bless, Terri

Well Terri Schiavo has died today. It is a sad state of affairs we've come to in this country. We have begun a dangerous precident of killing those we do not want to care for. Giving someone water and nurishment has become medical treatment. Now what is to stop a disgruntled husband from ordering no food and water for his wife any time she cannot speak for herself or feed herself? What is to stop a teenage mother from refusing food and water from her unwanted child? People with multiple sclurosis cannot take care of themselves. I guess we should deny them food and water and "let them die". The consequences of this are scary. We'll see more and more cases like this in the years to come. I assure you that.

I read an interesting article yesterday. (I would link it, but I forget the author and where I found it.) It talked about the effect the baby boomers have had on this country. Throughout their history they have worked to turn this country to their advantage with great success. It talked about how when baby boomers were teenagers, the pill was invented. When they turned 50, viagra was invented. When they came of political age in the 60's they fought to have the legal drinking age lowered to 18. When their kids were teenagers they raised it back up to 21. Their care-free sex of the 60's and 70's brought about abortion on demand. They author went on the predict that the last great fight the boomers will take on in the coming decades will be death rights. I firmly agree with this.

Look at how many boomers treat their parents now. When their parents get old and can't take care of themselves they put them into homes so someone else can deal with it. My own parents are guilty of this. I think they all see this and I expect them to work to prevent their kids from doing it to them. They are already trying to milk the younger generations to secure themselves as much in government entitlements as they possibly can. Look at recent pushes to get medicare increases and government funded prescription drug programs. Now they're worried they aren't going to have social security so they're looking to sure that up. Basically, they are looking to stay as independant for as long as possible because they fear what their kids are going to do to them when they get old. I also think boomers will look to push through laws that will allow them to die with dignity. I'm not sure what is going to happen, but I look for more and more fights over euphanasia and spousal rights. Basically, as boomers approach death, look for death related issues to move to the forefront.

Personally, I will be glad when the boomers finally step aside and retire to the great green pasture. Don't get me wrong, I love my parents and all my boomer family and friends. I just think the boomers have totally screwed up this country. I think they resent the fact they never had a "great cause" like their parents did with the great depression and world war II. I think they have spent their entire lives devoted to finding the "great cause" and they have torn this country apart in doing it. They thought it was Vietnam, but that ended. Then they turned toward the sexual revolution, but all that gave us was AIDS and abortion. Most of them turned toward their careers at the expense of their kids. I think boomers were raised spoiled and irresponsible and the way they run this country now reflects that. Unfortunately, my generation, Generation X, will never hold significant power in this country. There just aren't enough of us. The boomers will hold power for probably another 15-20 years. Then it will be passed off to the Millenials, which is the generation after X, because they far outnumber the X'ers. So we'll never know what the X'ers could do and we will forever be doomed as the "do nothing" generation. Sad, but we'll never get a chance to prove ourselves.

Anyway, this post started out as a tribute to Terri. So let's end on that note. Hers is a sad story of an innocent person killed by selfish people who didn't care about her. God bless, Terri. And I hope where ever you rest now, you are at peace.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Separation of Church and State

My wife scolded me on a previous post about my admiration for Pat Buchanan. This week he wrote a magnificent article on the IRS, freedom of speech, and the separation of church and state. Maybe if she reads this she will have a little more appreciation for one of the greatest conservative minds in our country.

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Impeach the Judges!

Phyllis Schlafly has an excellent idea to reign in activist judges. Congress should pass a law to allow for the impeachment of judges who cite international law to override the constitution as well as federal and state laws.

Read her article.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005


Nathan and Pepper!

Nathan is my 6 month old son. So far he and my dog, Pepper, have gotten along fabulously. Their relationship has mostly been Pepper sniffs Nathan and Nathan laughs. Now Nathan has decided to take their relationship "to the next level." When Pepper comes close he wants to grab her nose and ears and hair. Occassionally he wants a little taste too.

Nathan attacking Pepper Posted by Hello

Monday, March 07, 2005

Death of the Filibuster

There is a lot of talk about the President's judicial nominees and how the democrats are filibustering them to keep them from coming to a vote. The republicans are considering the "nuclear option" which would change Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster and only require a majority vote to end debate on a nominee. Democrats vow to shut down the Senate if this occurs and Republicans are worried about the political backlash. But would the backlash be as bad as they think?

If you notice, the House of Representatives do not have filibusters due to House rules. Many people (myself included up until a few minutes ago) do not realize that wasn't always the case. The House used to have "silent filibusters". They crippled the House and prevented the majority from pushing its agenda. But all that changed when Rep. Brackett Reed of Maine became Speaker of the House in the 51st Congress of 1889.

John Barnes does an excellent job of telling the story here.

It is an excellent look into an important part of the history of our elected government.

Thursday, March 03, 2005

The Age of the Apology

Have you noticed how everybody wants an apology these days? We are becoming a culture where everything you say offends somebody, and that offense warrants an apology. Take the recent events at Havard.

First, the president of the university suggests that men and women are different. And as part of that difference, perhaps men are more inclined to pursue careers in math and science. Many women in the audience were offended and some even said they were on the verge of vomitting.

Now, Jada Pinkett Smith was giving a speech and in her speech she discussed the roles of males and females in relationships. Now, I was not there and I have not seen a transcript from her speech, but I have not heard that she said anything bad about homosexual relationships. From what I understand she just didn't include them in her speech and that offended some homosexual people in the audience.

In both of these instances, the offended party has demanded an apology. And in both of these instances they have gotten their apology. Summers has apologized over and over and it still isn't enough. Many people are demanding he be fired. And in the case of Smith, the foundation that was giving her an award on the night of her speech and basically set up the entire evening has offered an apology and promised to be more sensitive in the future. But what's interesting is that we seem to have a paradox in these two cases. On one hand, Summers offered an opinion about a minority group and he was chastised. On the other hand, Smith neglected to mention the minority and she too was chastised. So what is a person to do? If you say anything critical about a minority party you can expect a backlash, but if you don't include the minority in your speech it is considered just as bad.

What's happening here is a systematic effort on the part of minorities in this country to suppress the majority. Majorities are feeling more and more gun-shy about speaking out because they fear the political backlash. The problem is that everyone is part of some kind of majority. If you are white, you are considered a majority. If you are male, you are considered part of a majority. If you are heterosexual, you are considered part of a majority. If you are American, you are considered part of a majority. What's happening is free speech is being killed. Anything anyone says can be spun around to offend someone. So minorities use that to make the majority feel guilty. This guilt leads to peer pressure within the majority to accept the minority opinion thus giving the minority what they want.

And what they want is power. Now I'm all in favor of protecting the rights of the minorities. But I believe the only rights people are garuanteed in this country are those listed in the Bill of Rights. People have the right to freely assemble, to vote, to live where you want to live, to work where you want to work, to practice the religion of their choice, to speak your mind, to own firearms, to have a fair trial, etc. The problem is that minorities want more than this. They want to profit at the expense of the majority. They want free education, they want a government paycheck, they want good jobs, and they want to do whatever they want to do and they want the majority to accept it.

The framers of the constitution were smart in that they realized in order for a government for the people by the people to work, the majority must rule and the minority must accept it. When a minority defies the majority it is the beginning of the end of the republic. The minorities of this country are beginning to defy the majority in small ways. One of those is by suppressing free speech.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

An American Patriot

If anyone ever actually reads this blog, I'm going to take some serious heat for this post (my wife included). But here goes. I think Pat Buchanan is one of the most brilliant minds in this country. I'm convinced if Buchanan had been alive 230 years ago his name would be on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It's a shame this country couldn't see it when he ran for president.

I faithfully catch Buchanan's article on WND every Monday and Wednesday. Here is his latest article.

Somehow this fine man got a reputation as being a racist, a bigot, an isolationist (as my wife loves to call him), and a radical. I must admit I held these views of him in the past as well. I kind of looked at him like people view Howard Dean today. Kind of like a nut-job. But I challenge anyone to read his articles and his book and see what you think. After reading him for quite some time I've come to see that Pat Buchanan is a fine patriot who believes in freedom, limited government, and U.S. soveirgty. People view him as a talking head for the Republican party, but this is not the case. Buchanan is on record as being against the Iraq war (for reasons other than the democrats mantra of "Bush lied"), against Bush's Medicare expansion, and against No Child Left Behind. These are widely considered three of the Bush administrations greatest accomplishments.

I can only imagine what this country would be like if we had elected him president. He would have insisted in eliminating government waste and I have no doubt we would have been balancing budgets for years now. The borders would be safe and protected because that is the primary job of the federal government as stated in the Constitution. The economy would be booming from low taxes. Our schools would be the finest in the world because he would have kicked the federal government out and forced local communities to run their own schools. I am without a doubt that this country needs more men like Pat Buchanan.

The Blogging Revolution

Johan Goldberg has an interesting column posted on today. It's about the "Blogging Revolution".

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Why Pharmaceutical Companies Should be Protected

American pharmaceutical companies are under attack in this country and we need to protect them. Unfortunately the political left in this country is winning the battle with the help of a friendly media. With the cost of prescription drugs rising and medicare coverage getting more and more expensive, there is a popular rally cry to import drugs from Canada. This would be competely disasterous.

To get a drug on the market takes hundreds of millions of dollars. Extensive research has to be done to first find out a drug's effect of the body. Then it must undergo testing and scrutiny from the FDA before the drug is ok'd for sale and consumption. Next the drug company must invest hundreds of millions of dollars to create manufacturing facilities for the new drug.

When a drug company sells their new drug, obviously they hope to recover the costs of all their research, testing, and manufacturing costs. To do this they first apply for patent protection. This is a must because why would anyone invest millions of dollars to have their product imitated and sold be another company? The problem with patents is they are issued by the US government, and while we have treaties with other governments promising to protect each other's patents, other governments are really under no obligation to do so. So foreign governments have the leverage to tell US companies to either give them the drug at the price they want or they will allow their companies to violate the US patent. And as you would expect, foreign companies do not wish to pay for the research and testing costs of medicine. They are only willing to pay for the manufacturing costs. This is why a drug sold in the U.S. can cost $100 while it only costs $5 in Canada.

But getting back to the topic, importing drugs from Canada would be a catastrophic mistake. Not only would we be undermining the FDA and disregarding safety, but we would be undermining the U.S. drug company that did all the research to discover the medicine. As a result, private medical research in this country would stop. There would no longer be any incentive to invest in a drug. And the sad thing is, with the onslaught of socialized medicine in Europe and around the globe, the U.S. is the only country left in the world with any kind of privately funded medical research on a large scale. To kill the U.S. drug companies would mean killing off almost all drug research on the planet sending us effectively into a medical dark ages.

To prevent this there are several things we must do. First, we must prevent importing drugs from Canada or anywhere. Second, U.S. pharmaceutical companies must stand up to foreign governments and stick firm to their pricing. Third, the U.S. government must protect U.S. patents and threaten any violating country with trade sanctions.

Big Government

You know, for the life of me I cannot figure out why anyone would be in favor of increasing the size of government. Our liberal friends are always in favor of raising taxes and promising new government programs to help us run our lives. To those who would say, "Let's give it a try." To them I say we don't need to. Let's just look at countries who have.

Germany is a country well rooted in socialism. Their so-called right wing party makes Ted Kennedy look like Ronald Reagan. They have huge taxes and redistribution of wealth. Socialized medicine is their claim to fame. Remember how the Clintons held up the German Health Care system as the model to imitate? How is all this working out for Germany?

Germany's unemployment rate has hit an astounding 12.6% today. For all those crying about our "jobless recovery", double our unemployment rate and we're still not as high as Germany. Their economic growth rate this year is projected to be 1%. With 5 million people unemployed they created 14,000 jobs last month. It is growth, but not much considering the economic boom this planet is seeing with the explosion of the Asian market and the US market recovering nicely.

And how about France? Again, the model socialist achievement. Chirac had this great idea to make it law that no citizen can work more than 35 hours in a week. He thought this would force companies to hire more people, but all it did was make French companies less productive and it has been a miserable failure. The French unemployment is worse than ours, but not as bad a Germanys. Now France is looking at new "reforms" (i.e.-government regulations) to correct the problem.

My friends, Ronald Reagan summed it up best when he said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." The key to ending poverty is a robust economy. In order to do that government must be pro corporation. Liberals pitch a fit when they hear the word "corporation". They are eternally accusing republicans of being in bed with the big drug companies and the big oil companies and any other company that makes money. The fact of the matter is, these big companies are the ones who employ millions of people. These big companies invest billions of dollars into the economy. Without them there would be no jobs, there would be no goods and products, and there would be no trade with other countries.

So once again, if we want to avoid double digit unemployment rates, we must keep government out of our lives. Let the free markets decided who sinks and swims. Yes, some people will get rich (heaven forbid!) and some people will go broke. But overall an abundance of corporations means an abundance of jobs and that is the key to prosperity.