80's theme tonight (actually from the year their birth which mostly means 80's). The top ten starting tonite means we get lots of bios.
Ramielle Maluaby. How Do I Get You Alone. She was flat thru most of the song and she was virtually stationary even with a big 80's song. Simon and Randy's little tiff was fun.
Jason Castro. Fragile. Sting doesn't connect well with the kids of today. I dug it but I don't know about the texting crowd. He did it well but it was boring.
Syesha Mercado. If I Were Your Woman. She sang it really well but I still didn't think it was fun. The 80's were such a fun a poppy time but so far all ballads? She is going to sail thru the next few weeks regarless though.
Chickizie. If Only For One Night. His jacket was so cool. I asked my wife to buy it for me. He is completely in his element with an r&b arrangement. He still will have trouble relating with the kids on this one. But everyone has been dull so he may be fine. Could be in danger.
Brooke White. Every Breath You Take. The false start heard around the world. She is going to be fine because she did well the rest of this song. Finally, someone brought in some fun. She didn't do the best performance of all time but it was good stuff still.
Michael Johns. We Will Rock You. A great performance and a ton of fun. Rocked everyone's socks off at the house I was watching it from.
Carly Smithson. Turn Around. An great performance. She nailed the ending. Really did well with the rock edge second week in a row. Hopefully the obvious stress she was feeling won't affect her to much next week.
David Archuleta. He sang a pretty obscure song. It was very happy and fun, but a bit cheesy.
Kristy Lee Cook. God Bless the USA. She got to do her country song and it went well. Sounded great and no one hates God Bless the USA. You can't say you dislike it even if you did.
David Cook. Billy Jean. Played it up as a rock ballad. It was incredible. The big note was amazing. Very original and a huge risk and it worked. Risks, new arrangements and solid performances thats how you win AI.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Family Mission Statement
About a year ago at the prodding of some wise friends from church my wife and I set out to establish our family mission. I helped with a lot of the wording and my wife supplied a beautiful and creative way to display it so that all who enter our home can know what we are all about and hold us accountable. It has been very useful to look at from time to time to make sure that our decisions are in line with our values. Personally, I find it especially useful with regards to parenting decisions. In light of comments by friends and family who liked the idea as well as it being featured in some premarital and marital counseling curriculum I thought it may be useful to post here. Most businesses set out to determine what they are all about pretty early on, but our families tend to shoot from the hip and play it by ear.
Obviously should your family decide to do something like this you would want to sit down and talk with everyone to decide what is important to you and how you envision life together. For us, what follows is our family's mission...
We desire to passionately pursue...
Creativity in all areas of life...
Justice and Mercy with a focus on the disenfranchised and ignored both locally and globally...
Knowledge and Wisdom seeking to grow in maturity and ability...
...and to cultivate...
Independence-working towards personal growth and integrity; taking initiative.
Peace-a spirit of contentment and satisfaction.
Community-an enviornment built on trust, openness and fun.
...And above all...
We will love God and love people.
Could your family use something to help you all focus and unify, help to guide in decisions? Maybe take a Saturday coming up and set aside sometime to talk about your thoughts. The impact can be pretty profound.
Obviously should your family decide to do something like this you would want to sit down and talk with everyone to decide what is important to you and how you envision life together. For us, what follows is our family's mission...
We desire to passionately pursue...
Creativity in all areas of life...
Justice and Mercy with a focus on the disenfranchised and ignored both locally and globally...
Knowledge and Wisdom seeking to grow in maturity and ability...
...and to cultivate...
Independence-working towards personal growth and integrity; taking initiative.
Peace-a spirit of contentment and satisfaction.
Community-an enviornment built on trust, openness and fun.
...And above all...
We will love God and love people.
Could your family use something to help you all focus and unify, help to guide in decisions? Maybe take a Saturday coming up and set aside sometime to talk about your thoughts. The impact can be pretty profound.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Consequences of Learning How to Fly
I am standing at a fork in the road in my life. For quite some time now I have recognized how I want to spend my life and why, but always ran into obstacles and could not quite get there. Quite suddenly and relatively unexpectedly I am in a position to realize my call and pursue the vision that others, and myself at times, have seen in my life.
And yet, there is fear. Why fear? For so long I have been stuck on the ground and yet now, I can fly. I can go where I feel led and pursue my passion. This should be the most exciting week of my life. But fear? Fear is the antithesis of what I expected to feel should this day ever arrive.
Do big and exciting opportunities ever make you fearful? How do you deal with these feelings? What do you think they mean?
I think that with any big change, and especially if there is risk it can be scary. But do you push on? Do you use that fear to be smarter, wiser, stronger? Or do you clip those wings and kick back, hanging out on the safe and solid ground?
I think this is what seperates the greats from goods. Many never take the big jump, the big risk...And they do just fine, but never fly, they never soar. I think I am ready to deal with the consequences of learning how to fly. How about you?
And yet, there is fear. Why fear? For so long I have been stuck on the ground and yet now, I can fly. I can go where I feel led and pursue my passion. This should be the most exciting week of my life. But fear? Fear is the antithesis of what I expected to feel should this day ever arrive.
Do big and exciting opportunities ever make you fearful? How do you deal with these feelings? What do you think they mean?
I think that with any big change, and especially if there is risk it can be scary. But do you push on? Do you use that fear to be smarter, wiser, stronger? Or do you clip those wings and kick back, hanging out on the safe and solid ground?
I think this is what seperates the greats from goods. Many never take the big jump, the big risk...And they do just fine, but never fly, they never soar. I think I am ready to deal with the consequences of learning how to fly. How about you?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Top 11
The Beatles are the theme for the evening, a bit different than last week but for most people pretty much a rehashing of the Lennon McCartney theme from last week. A very cool mini documentary on the Beatles. It will be interesting to see what happens this week as song choice and arrangment last week was so hit and miss. The Beatles is a tough theme as they are almost all iconic songs and many of them are bandcentric rather than vocalcentric. Right now strategy isn't as important but starting next week contestants need to start thinking about fans. People will all have chosen their fave from the top 10 next week. This means that everytime someone is eliminated about 3 million people will be looking for a new favorite. The contestants have to start looking at song choice and arrangement even more closely to make sure that they keep their fans and bring in some of those from the outgoing contestants.
Amanda Overmeyer. Back in the USSR. Amanda is great at setting up arrangements that highlight and complement her bluesy rock vocal style. I still think that she is going to struggle for relevance. She won't win, but if she did would go the way of Taylor and Reuben. Simon mentioned something I have mentioned several times with regards to changing things up.
Kristy Lee Cook. You've Got to Hide Your Love Away. She never heard this song before. That was a shock. Seems like she worked a little bit better with the band to make the arrangement her own but still sound good. She messed with the melody a bit and didn't hit all the notes. It was a tad dull, but all in all it was a good performance and the ending was excellent. It was pretty safe though, so if someone else does poorly she will do move on, but again, she will be at risk.
David Archuleta. The Long and Winding Road. What can I say? He is amazing. Just absolutely nailed it. Hit every note, showed some emotion, took some risks with some runs but remained true to the song, wow. David will probably be the next American Idol unless he has a repeat of last weeks performance blunders. He has not just the performance and the skill, but also the youth and boyish good lucks that will drive young girls to text 6 million times a piece.
Michael Johns. A Day in the Life. This is such a long theatrical and multi layered song his arrangement ended up sounding a bit schizophrenic and difficult to understand. A few pitch problems as well made for a pretty blah performance. He will be ok tonite, but needs to pull off a great song next week. Not wearing an earpiece on a stage that size and with that huge of an audience seems crazy to me especially since they don't have any stage monitors. Could explain the pitch problems.
Brooke White. Here Comes the Sun. She always adds a touch of folksy coffeshop sensibility to the songs. Its fun and so is she. The performance might have overpowered the vocals tonite which can then appear cheesy. She can't dance. I think that she could be in danger if there are alot more great performances, but she certainly was not bad. She should be doing more emotional ballads. She has a lot of potential after the show ends whether she wins or not.
David Cook. Day Tripper. Awesome choice to find someone else's unique arrangement that the vast majority of AI viewers probably haven't heard. I mean really, aside from me how many American Idol fans are listening to White Snake. The talk box solo was awesome. The arrangement was awesome. A ton of fun and a workable single. To Simon's point, David is predicatable. He comes out and does a fun rock and roll show. This was not a song with a ton of vocal range as last weeks was. So while it was a great performance it didn't stand out as better than previous performances or even neccesarily as good. Again, song choice and arrangements make the difference between the good and the great. He definitley has the arrangements down. Not totally consistent on the song choice.
Carly Smithson. Blackbird. Ballads are always a risk as they can come across boring. She did it in such a low key that it didn't give her a chance to show off her skills up until the key change. It was pretty good after that but still not that much fun. Very understated and low key. She has a great voice and the vocalists were probably pretty impressed but the general viewing audience were probably using it as an opportunity to run to the restroom or grab a beer or a soda. She didn't gain any new fans tonight. But she will be fine.
Jason Castro. Michelle. No guitar tonight. He has a great voice. Sounds a bit like a Jack Johnson or a Ben Harper. Add to that the language of love and his looks and I am sure the ladies are swooning. He did the song very laid back and relaxed. He will be just fine this week but needs to nail the next performance to keep it going to battle David A. in the end.
Syesha Mercado. Yesterday. Very cool to bring the guitar player up front and do the song as such an understated ballad but then nail some of those high notes. She has no concerns for next week. A lot of emotion. She really put a lot of thought into how to do a big song and sell it well. Many times songs like this bite contestants in the rear because you either do a carbon copy of the original and come across kareoke or you flub the arrangement and it doesn't hold a candle to the original but she nailed it.
Chickizie. I've Just Seen a Face. Did really well vocally, but it seemed a bit like he just rehashed last week. The two parts didn't really match up. His harmonica playing was silly. Came across as being all over the place. He may be at the bottom next week. I like Chickizie alot but he doesn't seem to have a knack for arrangement and song choice. Since every liked last week he just tried to revisit it rather than catch on to what everyone liked, which was uniqueness and excitement. Its no longer new and exciting the second time in a row.
Ramiele Malubay. Should Have Known Better. She sang it really well but their was a disconnect between the arrangement and her vocals. She doesn't work well with the band. They played the song just about identical to the original but she was singing more of a country feel. She needs to work on song choice and arrangement big time to stay in for more than a few weeks.
Amanda Overmeyer. Back in the USSR. Amanda is great at setting up arrangements that highlight and complement her bluesy rock vocal style. I still think that she is going to struggle for relevance. She won't win, but if she did would go the way of Taylor and Reuben. Simon mentioned something I have mentioned several times with regards to changing things up.
Kristy Lee Cook. You've Got to Hide Your Love Away. She never heard this song before. That was a shock. Seems like she worked a little bit better with the band to make the arrangement her own but still sound good. She messed with the melody a bit and didn't hit all the notes. It was a tad dull, but all in all it was a good performance and the ending was excellent. It was pretty safe though, so if someone else does poorly she will do move on, but again, she will be at risk.
David Archuleta. The Long and Winding Road. What can I say? He is amazing. Just absolutely nailed it. Hit every note, showed some emotion, took some risks with some runs but remained true to the song, wow. David will probably be the next American Idol unless he has a repeat of last weeks performance blunders. He has not just the performance and the skill, but also the youth and boyish good lucks that will drive young girls to text 6 million times a piece.
Michael Johns. A Day in the Life. This is such a long theatrical and multi layered song his arrangement ended up sounding a bit schizophrenic and difficult to understand. A few pitch problems as well made for a pretty blah performance. He will be ok tonite, but needs to pull off a great song next week. Not wearing an earpiece on a stage that size and with that huge of an audience seems crazy to me especially since they don't have any stage monitors. Could explain the pitch problems.
Brooke White. Here Comes the Sun. She always adds a touch of folksy coffeshop sensibility to the songs. Its fun and so is she. The performance might have overpowered the vocals tonite which can then appear cheesy. She can't dance. I think that she could be in danger if there are alot more great performances, but she certainly was not bad. She should be doing more emotional ballads. She has a lot of potential after the show ends whether she wins or not.
David Cook. Day Tripper. Awesome choice to find someone else's unique arrangement that the vast majority of AI viewers probably haven't heard. I mean really, aside from me how many American Idol fans are listening to White Snake. The talk box solo was awesome. The arrangement was awesome. A ton of fun and a workable single. To Simon's point, David is predicatable. He comes out and does a fun rock and roll show. This was not a song with a ton of vocal range as last weeks was. So while it was a great performance it didn't stand out as better than previous performances or even neccesarily as good. Again, song choice and arrangements make the difference between the good and the great. He definitley has the arrangements down. Not totally consistent on the song choice.
Carly Smithson. Blackbird. Ballads are always a risk as they can come across boring. She did it in such a low key that it didn't give her a chance to show off her skills up until the key change. It was pretty good after that but still not that much fun. Very understated and low key. She has a great voice and the vocalists were probably pretty impressed but the general viewing audience were probably using it as an opportunity to run to the restroom or grab a beer or a soda. She didn't gain any new fans tonight. But she will be fine.
Jason Castro. Michelle. No guitar tonight. He has a great voice. Sounds a bit like a Jack Johnson or a Ben Harper. Add to that the language of love and his looks and I am sure the ladies are swooning. He did the song very laid back and relaxed. He will be just fine this week but needs to nail the next performance to keep it going to battle David A. in the end.
Syesha Mercado. Yesterday. Very cool to bring the guitar player up front and do the song as such an understated ballad but then nail some of those high notes. She has no concerns for next week. A lot of emotion. She really put a lot of thought into how to do a big song and sell it well. Many times songs like this bite contestants in the rear because you either do a carbon copy of the original and come across kareoke or you flub the arrangement and it doesn't hold a candle to the original but she nailed it.
Chickizie. I've Just Seen a Face. Did really well vocally, but it seemed a bit like he just rehashed last week. The two parts didn't really match up. His harmonica playing was silly. Came across as being all over the place. He may be at the bottom next week. I like Chickizie alot but he doesn't seem to have a knack for arrangement and song choice. Since every liked last week he just tried to revisit it rather than catch on to what everyone liked, which was uniqueness and excitement. Its no longer new and exciting the second time in a row.
Ramiele Malubay. Should Have Known Better. She sang it really well but their was a disconnect between the arrangement and her vocals. She doesn't work well with the band. They played the song just about identical to the original but she was singing more of a country feel. She needs to work on song choice and arrangement big time to stay in for more than a few weeks.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The Politics of God
Over the past several decades numerous books, lectures and conferences have attempeted to define or otherwise extrapolate what it means to be a Christian in the United States of America in regards to politics, voting and civic duty.
From Jerry Falwell, Hugh Hewitt, James Dobson, etc. to Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Rick Warren, etc.; everyone seems to know the heart and mind of God for the next election.
The 2008 election is no different and may even be more faith centric than previous cycles. We have had Mitt Romney (a Mormon elder), Mike Huckabee (a Southern Baptist preacher), and most recently gracing the headlines, Obama's church with a controversial pastor.
What role does faith play in leading? In voting? In our daily life? For everyone these answers will be different. I think it is clear that our values are defined largely by our religious background. What I think is not so clear (as evidenced by the wide body of work on the topic and no concensus) is how that manifests itself into politics.
I would like to change the dialogue a bit and venture a new approach. People who feel life begins at conception mostly believe that they should be opposed to legalized abortion. People who feel a yearning to see an end to poverty tend to believe in socialized welfare programs. The list goes on and on as most people want to see the law dictate the values they cherish. And that is ok. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and approaches and their strategies. No one is entitled to speak for God as to which political position is the right one. (The one exception to this would be in Catholocism, but one chooses to submit to Papal Authority by being a Catholic and in turn accepts that the Pope speaks on behalf of God so the political portions of the new seven deadly sins would apply to you.)
What is not ok is the infighting and the claims that those who disagree with your politics somehow have less faith. Politics is largely about strategy not values. Some believe that outlawing things they feel are immoral is a good strategy to stop them. Others feel that it is not. CS Lewis once said that it would be a bad thing to try to legislate divorce out of existence. It was not the role of the Church to change peoples morals it was to change their hearts. Given the esteem he is given within most churches this should be seen as at least an acceptable and defensible position.
Grace, one of the hallmarks of the Christian faith seems to be lost in the world of faith and politics. Maybe this should be examined. Disagreements will happen. How we handle these disagreements should be a reflection of our values.
From Jerry Falwell, Hugh Hewitt, James Dobson, etc. to Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Rick Warren, etc.; everyone seems to know the heart and mind of God for the next election.
The 2008 election is no different and may even be more faith centric than previous cycles. We have had Mitt Romney (a Mormon elder), Mike Huckabee (a Southern Baptist preacher), and most recently gracing the headlines, Obama's church with a controversial pastor.
What role does faith play in leading? In voting? In our daily life? For everyone these answers will be different. I think it is clear that our values are defined largely by our religious background. What I think is not so clear (as evidenced by the wide body of work on the topic and no concensus) is how that manifests itself into politics.
I would like to change the dialogue a bit and venture a new approach. People who feel life begins at conception mostly believe that they should be opposed to legalized abortion. People who feel a yearning to see an end to poverty tend to believe in socialized welfare programs. The list goes on and on as most people want to see the law dictate the values they cherish. And that is ok. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and approaches and their strategies. No one is entitled to speak for God as to which political position is the right one. (The one exception to this would be in Catholocism, but one chooses to submit to Papal Authority by being a Catholic and in turn accepts that the Pope speaks on behalf of God so the political portions of the new seven deadly sins would apply to you.)
What is not ok is the infighting and the claims that those who disagree with your politics somehow have less faith. Politics is largely about strategy not values. Some believe that outlawing things they feel are immoral is a good strategy to stop them. Others feel that it is not. CS Lewis once said that it would be a bad thing to try to legislate divorce out of existence. It was not the role of the Church to change peoples morals it was to change their hearts. Given the esteem he is given within most churches this should be seen as at least an acceptable and defensible position.
Grace, one of the hallmarks of the Christian faith seems to be lost in the world of faith and politics. Maybe this should be examined. Disagreements will happen. How we handle these disagreements should be a reflection of our values.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Congress on the Economy
Both sides of the aisle in Congress discussing the failure of Bush's economic policies...
Economic Foundations
``I believe that we're a resilient economy,'' Bush said. ``In the long run. I'm confident our economy will continue to grow because the foundation is solid.''
This is such an incomprehensible piece of rubbish quote that I am loathe to even begin and try to analyze it...But you know what a glutton for pain that I am so here goes...
First and foremost their is a drop of truth in the first part of the quote. Over the last 100 years since 1913 when the government took control with the Federal Reserve Banking Act and all of the socialist central economic planning that came with it, we have only had one worldwide depression and a small handful of recessions. It takes a lot of resiliency to remain in good shape when central planners are constanty tweaking and fiddling with the market. So while Bush was thinking that somehow the he and his planners we to credit for American economic resiliency, I would say that it probably has more to do with the remnants of a free market standing up to tremendous pressure to fall under socialist pressures.
As far as confidence in the economy's foundation though, it just begs the question: What foundation?!! Fiat currency, debt financed gov't, gov't funding huge amounts of unemployed and underemployed workers, huge trade deficits, budget deficits, etc. Which one of these elements of our economy is the foundation? The crashing dollar? The crashing stock market? The crashing housing market?
The last remnant of a foundation were shattered in 1971 when Nixon severed the ties to gold so that he was able to raise of debt load higher to finance more troops for Vietnam's civil war.
Without a foundation economies are left at the whims of the central economic planners. Having an administration who is unwilling to challenge our monetary policy will continually lead to questions like this? Infusions of capital, credit and additional regulations only artificially prop up a flawed system.
For further info google Mises, Friedman, Hayek.
Free people making free choices in a free world allows the maximum good for the maximum amount of people. All government interference leads to oppression.
This is such an incomprehensible piece of rubbish quote that I am loathe to even begin and try to analyze it...But you know what a glutton for pain that I am so here goes...
First and foremost their is a drop of truth in the first part of the quote. Over the last 100 years since 1913 when the government took control with the Federal Reserve Banking Act and all of the socialist central economic planning that came with it, we have only had one worldwide depression and a small handful of recessions. It takes a lot of resiliency to remain in good shape when central planners are constanty tweaking and fiddling with the market. So while Bush was thinking that somehow the he and his planners we to credit for American economic resiliency, I would say that it probably has more to do with the remnants of a free market standing up to tremendous pressure to fall under socialist pressures.
As far as confidence in the economy's foundation though, it just begs the question: What foundation?!! Fiat currency, debt financed gov't, gov't funding huge amounts of unemployed and underemployed workers, huge trade deficits, budget deficits, etc. Which one of these elements of our economy is the foundation? The crashing dollar? The crashing stock market? The crashing housing market?
The last remnant of a foundation were shattered in 1971 when Nixon severed the ties to gold so that he was able to raise of debt load higher to finance more troops for Vietnam's civil war.
Without a foundation economies are left at the whims of the central economic planners. Having an administration who is unwilling to challenge our monetary policy will continually lead to questions like this? Infusions of capital, credit and additional regulations only artificially prop up a flawed system.
For further info google Mises, Friedman, Hayek.
Free people making free choices in a free world allows the maximum good for the maximum amount of people. All government interference leads to oppression.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Historical Ignorance
Is it possible Rove actually believes that 700 bases in 130 countries really represents any form of isolationism? Has anyone heard Obama say the reason we should focus on diplomacy prior to military action as being soley a financial decision? And really does no one remember that oil was less than half of what it is today prior to the Iraqi invasion? What use is Rove as a commentator if he is completely ignorant of history and of the actual positions of the people he is commenting on?
Karl Rove to Chris Wallace on March 2nd
ROVE: Well, Obama -- it's a good argument for Obama, but I'm wondering where it goes, because it really is a very neo-isolationist argument. It basically says, you know, "We should not be involved in the world because of the consequences to the budget here at home."
Well, we were not involved in the world before 9/11, and look what happened. Look at the cost to the American economy after a terrorist attack on the homeland. We lost a million jobs in 90 days after 9/11.
If we were to give up Iraq with the third largest oil reserves in the world to the control of an Al Qaida regime or to the control of Iran, don't you think $200 a barrel oil would have a cost to the American economy?
So you know, it's a cute thing in a primary. I'm not certain over an 8-month general election that you can make the argument that we ought to take a look at every foreign policy commitment in the United States and measure it on the basis of the number of dollars that we've got there.
Well, we were not involved in the world before 9/11, and look what happened. Look at the cost to the American economy after a terrorist attack on the homeland. We lost a million jobs in 90 days after 9/11.
If we were to give up Iraq with the third largest oil reserves in the world to the control of an Al Qaida regime or to the control of Iran, don't you think $200 a barrel oil would have a cost to the American economy?
So you know, it's a cute thing in a primary. I'm not certain over an 8-month general election that you can make the argument that we ought to take a look at every foreign policy commitment in the United States and measure it on the basis of the number of dollars that we've got there.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
McCain on "National Security"
A great article looking at many of his positions on countries around the world.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080312/pl_bloomberg/apzut4blweek
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080312/pl_bloomberg/apzut4blweek
Medicine, Money and Power
One of the reasons the differences between the parties are getting slimmer and slimmer is the influence of lobbyist money in politics. If we follow the 9th and 10th amendments and we stand up for the system of checks and balances and the enumerated powers defined in the Constitution, most of these things would be handled on a local level as they are outside of the purvue of the Federal Gov't. Regardless of your politics though, an enlightening article on how Washintion is working.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031102620.html?nav=rss_politics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031102620.html?nav=rss_politics
Climate Change
A very interesting article on climate change. Especially in light of the Vatican saying that not addressing climate change is a Mortal Sin.
Check it out here http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba609/
The best way to protect our enviornment is through private conservation like the Santa Catalina Island Conservancy, Big Game Ranches in Africa, etc. When individuals care about or have a vested interest in the ecology of their own property, they will take great care of it. And if your neighbor is polluting your private property, you have a legitimate claim against him. Beyond that you eliminate the need for the EPA (whose 2009 budget in brief of $7 billion, 78 pages). The saved money is given back to us through tax breaks and we in turn support causes we care about. For me, big cats and suburban hiking trails.
McCain's use of Pascals Wager with regards to political solutions to climate change is completley faulty in its premises by claiming that there are only two options. Free market enviormentalism meets everyone's needs. Check it out here http://www.perc.org/ and here http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/
Check it out here http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba609/
The best way to protect our enviornment is through private conservation like the Santa Catalina Island Conservancy, Big Game Ranches in Africa, etc. When individuals care about or have a vested interest in the ecology of their own property, they will take great care of it. And if your neighbor is polluting your private property, you have a legitimate claim against him. Beyond that you eliminate the need for the EPA (whose 2009 budget in brief of $7 billion, 78 pages). The saved money is given back to us through tax breaks and we in turn support causes we care about. For me, big cats and suburban hiking trails.
McCain's use of Pascals Wager with regards to political solutions to climate change is completley faulty in its premises by claiming that there are only two options. Free market enviormentalism meets everyone's needs. Check it out here http://www.perc.org/ and here http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The Top 12
The new set is great looking and huge. I imagine it would be rather difficult to be the band spread out as they are in the sky. Ryan's Beatles biography seemed out of place. Beatles have such an expansive catalog of songs so song choice was interesting for me. Seems like it would be tough not to find a song you could nail.
Syesha Mercado. Got to Get You Into My Life. Did it a little disco/r&b. I don't see this being a hit. The Beatles don't do disco and neither does the American Idol demographic. Simon's response was incredibly puzzling as she did hit some bad notes in the begining.
Chickizie. She's a Woman. Bluegrass intro was incredible. Loved his voice in his upper range. Awsome bluesy rock arrangement for the rest. I was anticipating "his own funk" was going to be yet another 60s 70s throwback...but wow....He knocked my socks off as well as the judges. I would buy this track. Guaranteed to be a hit.
Ramiele Malubay. In My Life. A very soft ballad. A pitch problem here and there but overall a very sweet performance. Runs the risk of being viewed as dull. Safe songs put you in danger of being forgotten and going home.
Jason Castro. If I Fell in Love With You. Lots of falcetto. Sounded good. Played guitar well. Had a very Jack Johnson feel to it.
Carly Smithson. Come Together. Did it as Amanda Overmeyer. If Carly can out bluesyrocker Amanda what use is it to have Amanda in the competition. Carly named it tonite and I think that she directly challenged her roomie for bluesyrocker supremacy.
David Cook. Eleanor Rigby. The begining was good but the bridge into ending build was just incredible. His voice has a very cool safe for the mainstream radio appeal. He is going to be a contender for a top spot.
Brooke White. Let It Be. Pretty piano arrangement. She has a great imperfect sounding voice which lends itself well to the message of this song. Sounded like she believed what she was singing, really connected with the emotion of the song. It is hard to do a ballad without sounding boring. She really did well and then ended so humbly.
David Hernandez. I Saw Her Standing There. A lot of energy. He puts those stripper dance moves to work. Knows how to move and how to work the crowd. I wonder if her is bummed they aren't tipping. He did the song pretty much like the original. He thru out a few falcetto runs. All in all a good performance but he might not have made a bigger impact than some of the others tonight. I think he came off a bit cheesy but still will be around next week.
Amanda Overmeyer. You Can't Do That. Adding the bluesy element almost made it sound like an Elvis song. Again she is great at this style of music. I just don't know if she can make it to the top couple without bringing something different. She has no pop sensibility. Pat Benatar and Janis Joplin have not been chart toppers for a little while now.
Michael Johns. Across the Universe. Didn't change it up it all, but he didn't need to. It was the perfect song for his voice. And the lighting effects showing the limitless love swirling about him was pretty cool too. The song was simple and understated. He could get dinged for playing it safe though. I personally really liked it though.
Kristy Lee Cook. 8 Days a Week. Finally realized she is a country singer. She might have done this song just a tad fast, but it was pretty good. The risk was good but didn't pull it off. She is a good country singer but the cadence and rythem of this song did not work well with the fast blue grass arrangement. Sounded like 2 different songs at the same time. She could be in trouble.
David Archuleta. We Can Work It Out. He forgot his lyrics. Went for the Stevie Wonder route. He had a lot of trouble hitting some of Stevie's runs. He tried to mimick Stevie and just doesn't have it in him. He probably is not in trouble (everyone loves him and he is great) but he should be.
Syesha Mercado. Got to Get You Into My Life. Did it a little disco/r&b. I don't see this being a hit. The Beatles don't do disco and neither does the American Idol demographic. Simon's response was incredibly puzzling as she did hit some bad notes in the begining.
Chickizie. She's a Woman. Bluegrass intro was incredible. Loved his voice in his upper range. Awsome bluesy rock arrangement for the rest. I was anticipating "his own funk" was going to be yet another 60s 70s throwback...but wow....He knocked my socks off as well as the judges. I would buy this track. Guaranteed to be a hit.
Ramiele Malubay. In My Life. A very soft ballad. A pitch problem here and there but overall a very sweet performance. Runs the risk of being viewed as dull. Safe songs put you in danger of being forgotten and going home.
Jason Castro. If I Fell in Love With You. Lots of falcetto. Sounded good. Played guitar well. Had a very Jack Johnson feel to it.
Carly Smithson. Come Together. Did it as Amanda Overmeyer. If Carly can out bluesyrocker Amanda what use is it to have Amanda in the competition. Carly named it tonite and I think that she directly challenged her roomie for bluesyrocker supremacy.
David Cook. Eleanor Rigby. The begining was good but the bridge into ending build was just incredible. His voice has a very cool safe for the mainstream radio appeal. He is going to be a contender for a top spot.
Brooke White. Let It Be. Pretty piano arrangement. She has a great imperfect sounding voice which lends itself well to the message of this song. Sounded like she believed what she was singing, really connected with the emotion of the song. It is hard to do a ballad without sounding boring. She really did well and then ended so humbly.
David Hernandez. I Saw Her Standing There. A lot of energy. He puts those stripper dance moves to work. Knows how to move and how to work the crowd. I wonder if her is bummed they aren't tipping. He did the song pretty much like the original. He thru out a few falcetto runs. All in all a good performance but he might not have made a bigger impact than some of the others tonight. I think he came off a bit cheesy but still will be around next week.
Amanda Overmeyer. You Can't Do That. Adding the bluesy element almost made it sound like an Elvis song. Again she is great at this style of music. I just don't know if she can make it to the top couple without bringing something different. She has no pop sensibility. Pat Benatar and Janis Joplin have not been chart toppers for a little while now.
Michael Johns. Across the Universe. Didn't change it up it all, but he didn't need to. It was the perfect song for his voice. And the lighting effects showing the limitless love swirling about him was pretty cool too. The song was simple and understated. He could get dinged for playing it safe though. I personally really liked it though.
Kristy Lee Cook. 8 Days a Week. Finally realized she is a country singer. She might have done this song just a tad fast, but it was pretty good. The risk was good but didn't pull it off. She is a good country singer but the cadence and rythem of this song did not work well with the fast blue grass arrangement. Sounded like 2 different songs at the same time. She could be in trouble.
David Archuleta. We Can Work It Out. He forgot his lyrics. Went for the Stevie Wonder route. He had a lot of trouble hitting some of Stevie's runs. He tried to mimick Stevie and just doesn't have it in him. He probably is not in trouble (everyone loves him and he is great) but he should be.
The Dumbing Down of America
A frightening article with implications dor all areas of life. You must act. Encourage your friends, family, coworkers, employees, congrgations, students, etc. to read, study, pursue learning with a passion.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Congressman Paul's statement on House Resolution 951
Statement on Gaza Bill
March 5, 2008
Madam Speaker: I rise in opposition to H. Res. 951. As one who is consistently against war and violence, I obviously do not support the firing of rockets indiscriminately into civilian populations. I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.
Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention – particularly when it appears to be one-sided – that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement.
Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria , as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria . This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the United States and Iran and Syria . My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the US attack on that country.
I strongly believe that we must cease making proclamations involving conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States . We incur the wrath of those who feel slighted while doing very little to slow or stop the violence.
March 5, 2008
Madam Speaker: I rise in opposition to H. Res. 951. As one who is consistently against war and violence, I obviously do not support the firing of rockets indiscriminately into civilian populations. I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.
Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention – particularly when it appears to be one-sided – that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement.
Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria , as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria . This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the United States and Iran and Syria . My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the US attack on that country.
I strongly believe that we must cease making proclamations involving conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States . We incur the wrath of those who feel slighted while doing very little to slow or stop the violence.
Iran and Iraq
Interesting insight from Middle Eastern leaders...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/03/iraq.iran/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/03/iraq.iran/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Friday, March 7, 2008
Why I Ceded Control to a Stranger (and how you can get others to do the same)
My son, Jedidiah was born in January of 2007. He spent his first 3 weeks in an intensive care unit. The first couple days were very scary. There was a lot of uncertainty regarding the future. Since then he has made a remarkable and full recovery. He is a happy and healthy little boy full of energy with a short attention span (I wonder where he gets that from? Do you like turtles?).
I learned alot during that time. Medical terms, how to sleep for 12 minutes at a time twice a day, how to hold a baby on a respirator and iv's, lots of interpersonal relationships skills, so on and so forth.
But I also learned something about leadership and the art of influence. In the midst of all that chaos, the doctor never seemed stressed, but still seemed to genuinely care for my son and my family.
As I reflect back on the three weeks in the hospital, I only remember being asked one single question. Everything else was told to me. Not in a pushy forceful way, but in such a way as I understood the unspoken, "It is whats best for your son, I'm the expert." The doctors and nurses told me what they were doing, what they hoped to accomplish, and why. All of this was not presented as options and price was never even mentioned. (Later when I recieved the bill I nearly had a heart attack, but then heard my son laugh and realized that it didn't matter.) Budgets were not talked about.
I never questioned the doctors. They said this is what is happening and I believed that they were making the right decision. I trusted them not with an arbitrary decision, but with my son's life.
The question remains, why? Why would I let a stranger make some of the most important decisions I have ever been faced with? Why would I entrust my son's life to someone who to this day I still could not tell you his name? And more importantly, why can you not command that same respect from those whom you lead, your clients, even your coworkers?
The answer I believe lies in the doctors demeanor from the moment I first met him. Confident, caring, concerned. I knew he was the expert even though I had no evidence. Some of you are already complaining, but Scott, he's a doctor I'm just a _______(fill in your career here). But, that misses the point, I never saw his medical degree, I don't know if he was a resident, a fellow, the chair of the dept, or a nurse practitioner. I know he presented himself as a the one who had the answers; answers I desperatley needed.
So what did I learn from this? I learned that a genuine desire to help people, coupled with a sincere belief that I can help people, along with a dash of ability to help those people, will give me unlimited opportunity to lead, influence, sell, persuade, teach...You should get the idea.
I learned alot during that time. Medical terms, how to sleep for 12 minutes at a time twice a day, how to hold a baby on a respirator and iv's, lots of interpersonal relationships skills, so on and so forth.
But I also learned something about leadership and the art of influence. In the midst of all that chaos, the doctor never seemed stressed, but still seemed to genuinely care for my son and my family.
As I reflect back on the three weeks in the hospital, I only remember being asked one single question. Everything else was told to me. Not in a pushy forceful way, but in such a way as I understood the unspoken, "It is whats best for your son, I'm the expert." The doctors and nurses told me what they were doing, what they hoped to accomplish, and why. All of this was not presented as options and price was never even mentioned. (Later when I recieved the bill I nearly had a heart attack, but then heard my son laugh and realized that it didn't matter.) Budgets were not talked about.
I never questioned the doctors. They said this is what is happening and I believed that they were making the right decision. I trusted them not with an arbitrary decision, but with my son's life.
The question remains, why? Why would I let a stranger make some of the most important decisions I have ever been faced with? Why would I entrust my son's life to someone who to this day I still could not tell you his name? And more importantly, why can you not command that same respect from those whom you lead, your clients, even your coworkers?
The answer I believe lies in the doctors demeanor from the moment I first met him. Confident, caring, concerned. I knew he was the expert even though I had no evidence. Some of you are already complaining, but Scott, he's a doctor I'm just a _______(fill in your career here). But, that misses the point, I never saw his medical degree, I don't know if he was a resident, a fellow, the chair of the dept, or a nurse practitioner. I know he presented himself as a the one who had the answers; answers I desperatley needed.
So what did I learn from this? I learned that a genuine desire to help people, coupled with a sincere belief that I can help people, along with a dash of ability to help those people, will give me unlimited opportunity to lead, influence, sell, persuade, teach...You should get the idea.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Reagan on Being Conservative and Libertarian
This artice was published in 1975 when Reagan ran all the way to convention against Ford. As some of you may know recently deceased WFB supported Reagan for the Republican nomination and founded the well known National Review in order to bring libertarians and conservatives together. In this article Reagan addresses his personal views on politics as well as times he had to compromise for the greater good. It is interesting to note that many of his positions are now viewed as extreme just 30 years later. Check it out and let me know what you think.
On Beer and Politics
A word of encouragement from a patriot. In light of the discontent among the various conservative groups over John McCain's nomination, I thought that this quote is timely. So to all you Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee fans out there, crack open a Sam Adams and remember:
"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." -Samuel Adams
What Happened to Conservatives?
With John McCain now clinching the nomination, and 2 decades of having the most fiscally conservative person in the Presidency be a Democrat, it is time that those of us who are not happy with him to begin to take a look at the movement and see what went wrong. It is also time to start looking at our local congressional races so that we can get a solid majority of TRUE conservatives making decisions that represent us. Here is a great article at The Prometheus Institute addressing at least one line of thinking on how to reclaim conservativsm.
Politics Etymology
The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'. - Larry Hardiman
On Baseball and Protectionism
A great parable from the folks over at Cato. Fun for fans of baseball, trade or the Clinton's.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/03/05/clinton-promises-to-protect-yankees-from-unfair-trade-practices/#more-3283
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/03/05/clinton-promises-to-protect-yankees-from-unfair-trade-practices/#more-3283
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Top 8 Ladies
Asia'h Epperson. I Wanna Dance with Someone. My 1 year old son was dancing and clapping. The outfit was very ugly, but it was very 80's. The vocals were pretty good. A fun performance.
Kady Malloy. Forever. Awful song choice. Last week they told her to let her personality show and choose a fun song. The 80's had so much energy but the closest she gets is matching purple with red. Could be in trouble.
Amanda Overmeyer. Hate Myself for Loving You. Fun arrangment. Great ending. She also looked very pretty.
Carly Smithson. I Drove All Night. Too adult a song for the kiddies. Could be a liability with the amount of families watching. As long as she stays at the top of her range she sounds amazing. The low notes were rough.
Kristy Lee Cook. Forever Yours. Never a good call to go for a song that Randy has worked with. But she seemed to get away with it. A few rough spots but with some work could turn the song into a country hit. As I mentioned with the guys, working with the band on song arrangment is what differentiates the forgettable form the unforgettable. Had she brought a country feel to the music, couple with the country feel of her vocals it would have rocked.
Ramiele Malubay. Take a Look at me now. Such a cute girl. A good voice but she did not do anything special with it tonight. Her and Daniel can do a cool duet sometime.
Brooke White. Love is a Battlefield. Did it as acoustic folksy rock tune. Very cool, but she has turned a few songs that way, so it may be a little repetiive for some. She needs to do something soon to connect to the pop kids.
Syesha Mercado. Saving All My Love You. A great vocal. Felt canned, or predictictable to use Simon's word.
Kady Malloy. Forever. Awful song choice. Last week they told her to let her personality show and choose a fun song. The 80's had so much energy but the closest she gets is matching purple with red. Could be in trouble.
Amanda Overmeyer. Hate Myself for Loving You. Fun arrangment. Great ending. She also looked very pretty.
Carly Smithson. I Drove All Night. Too adult a song for the kiddies. Could be a liability with the amount of families watching. As long as she stays at the top of her range she sounds amazing. The low notes were rough.
Kristy Lee Cook. Forever Yours. Never a good call to go for a song that Randy has worked with. But she seemed to get away with it. A few rough spots but with some work could turn the song into a country hit. As I mentioned with the guys, working with the band on song arrangment is what differentiates the forgettable form the unforgettable. Had she brought a country feel to the music, couple with the country feel of her vocals it would have rocked.
Ramiele Malubay. Take a Look at me now. Such a cute girl. A good voice but she did not do anything special with it tonight. Her and Daniel can do a cool duet sometime.
Brooke White. Love is a Battlefield. Did it as acoustic folksy rock tune. Very cool, but she has turned a few songs that way, so it may be a little repetiive for some. She needs to do something soon to connect to the pop kids.
Syesha Mercado. Saving All My Love You. A great vocal. Felt canned, or predictictable to use Simon's word.
Barak "the savior" Obama
Check out the Cover Story in American Conservative Magazine.
http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_25/cover.html
Great article.
http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_25/cover.html
Great article.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Top 8 Boys
80's night. It seems like the judges worked hard to make sure that a lot of different styles of singers were represented this season and as they are getting more comfortable and taking more risks it is getting exciting.
One of the things that really seperates the good from the great is the ability to take period songs and make them contemporary. This requires both a good ear and understanding of music, but also the ability to communicate and lead a band.
Luke Menard. Jitterbug. The song suited his voice well. Don't here a pop sensibility in his voice. A cheesy song, but he did it well. At the end he says 'uptempo,' a very musical theatre term, not something you are going to here JT or Usher say for sure. Maybe in danger.
David Archuleta. Think Twice. Did it as a very soft ballad. Played his own accompaniment for the intro. Very impressive. Plus he has a great voice. He always hits one or two wrong notes but never gets nailed on it, so it was nice to hear the judges catch him tonite.
Danny Noriega. Tainted Love. He sounded awesome. Pulled the song off amazingly. Looked a bit creepy. TMTH !!!
David 'the stripper' Hernadez. Its All Coming Back to Me Now. Sounded awesome. Looks and sounds like a star. Did the song well not perfect but very well.
Michael Johns. Don't you. Good looking and has that Aussie accent may help him get thru the rough patches on the quiet parts of the song. Probably in a bit of danger. He seems to be a producers choice since he was given a virtual pass by the judges.
David Cook. Cool rock ballad. Great upper range. Good falsetto on the softer parts. Great arrangment. He made an older song very conteporary.
Jason Castro. Hallelujah. Very low key and understated performance. Really focused on his voice. Seemed to be a risky choice to go with such a low energy song but I think it served him well to show off his vocals.
Chickizie. She's Fills me Up. The build up to the ending were very good. The begining and ending was a little rough. He is still not sounding very contemporary. If he makes it through to next week he needs to start connecting the period songs with modern arrangments.
One of the things that really seperates the good from the great is the ability to take period songs and make them contemporary. This requires both a good ear and understanding of music, but also the ability to communicate and lead a band.
Luke Menard. Jitterbug. The song suited his voice well. Don't here a pop sensibility in his voice. A cheesy song, but he did it well. At the end he says 'uptempo,' a very musical theatre term, not something you are going to here JT or Usher say for sure. Maybe in danger.
David Archuleta. Think Twice. Did it as a very soft ballad. Played his own accompaniment for the intro. Very impressive. Plus he has a great voice. He always hits one or two wrong notes but never gets nailed on it, so it was nice to hear the judges catch him tonite.
Danny Noriega. Tainted Love. He sounded awesome. Pulled the song off amazingly. Looked a bit creepy. TMTH !!!
David 'the stripper' Hernadez. Its All Coming Back to Me Now. Sounded awesome. Looks and sounds like a star. Did the song well not perfect but very well.
Michael Johns. Don't you. Good looking and has that Aussie accent may help him get thru the rough patches on the quiet parts of the song. Probably in a bit of danger. He seems to be a producers choice since he was given a virtual pass by the judges.
David Cook. Cool rock ballad. Great upper range. Good falsetto on the softer parts. Great arrangment. He made an older song very conteporary.
Jason Castro. Hallelujah. Very low key and understated performance. Really focused on his voice. Seemed to be a risky choice to go with such a low energy song but I think it served him well to show off his vocals.
Chickizie. She's Fills me Up. The build up to the ending were very good. The begining and ending was a little rough. He is still not sounding very contemporary. If he makes it through to next week he needs to start connecting the period songs with modern arrangments.
Democracy in Action
Check out this article in the Washington Post from an older staff writer regarding deadlocked and brokered conventions of yesteryear. I am looking forward to seeing McCain, Paul and Huckabee come to blows. That sounds like fun. It would not be cool if Obama and Clinton got into a fistfight because of the gender differences (its pc for me to claim that at least) but my money would be on Clinton, I hear she packs a mean right cross.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030303277.html?nav=rss_politics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030303277.html?nav=rss_politics
Thomas Jefferson on the Housing Crisis
“If the American people ever alllow the banks to control the issuance of their currency (instead of Congress), first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of ALL PROPERTY until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. The issuing power of money should be taken from the banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs.”
-- Thomas Jefferson
letter to then Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, 1802
Not much to add to that. 200 years ago the solutions were out there. Look for people who understand how the economy works for congress, senate and potus.
-- Thomas Jefferson
letter to then Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, 1802
Not much to add to that. 200 years ago the solutions were out there. Look for people who understand how the economy works for congress, senate and potus.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Food, Fuel and Terror
A great article available over at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, looks at the damaging effects US subsidies for corn based ethanol are already having on the world food supply. Check it out here:
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/03/03/nyt-get-rid-of-corn-ethanol-subsidies/
One further point I would add to this...If the developing world already resents the impact many of the US gov'ts decisions have on them, how is our security enhanced by famine? How do you think young men will feel when they see their parents, sisters, family and friends die as a result of our policies? I am no foriegn policy expert but just maybe this may create some hostility...Does anyone think that breeds love and respect?
The idea that we must either subsidize, tax or regulate all areas of the world (not just our nation) leads directly to economic failure at home and breeds hatred and terrorism abroad.
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/03/03/nyt-get-rid-of-corn-ethanol-subsidies/
One further point I would add to this...If the developing world already resents the impact many of the US gov'ts decisions have on them, how is our security enhanced by famine? How do you think young men will feel when they see their parents, sisters, family and friends die as a result of our policies? I am no foriegn policy expert but just maybe this may create some hostility...Does anyone think that breeds love and respect?
The idea that we must either subsidize, tax or regulate all areas of the world (not just our nation) leads directly to economic failure at home and breeds hatred and terrorism abroad.
US Strike on Somalia
It is important to keep informed on what is going on in the world. This is why our founding fathers stressed the importance of the free press.
Figured this would have been all over TV and on the front page of all the newspapers. To my dismay, our attack on yet a 3rd Muslim country was backpage news.
Figured this would have been all over TV and on the front page of all the newspapers. To my dismay, our attack on yet a 3rd Muslim country was backpage news.
The Revolution: A Manifesto
The Preface of Ron Paul’s new book, The Revolution: A ManifestoCopyright © 2008 by Ron Paul, Courtesy Grand Central Publishing.
Every election cycle we are treated to candidates who promise us "change," and 2008 has been no different. But in the American political lexicon, "change" always means more of the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war, and more centralization of power.
Real change would mean something like the opposite of those things. It might even involve following our Constitution. And that’s the one option Americans are never permitted to hear.
Today we are living in a fantasy world. Our entitlement programs are insolvent: in a couple of decades they will face a shortfall amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, the housing bubble is bursting and our dollar is collapsing. We are borrowing billions from China every day in order to prop up a bloated overseas presence that weakens our national defense and stirs up hostility against us. And all our political class can come up with is more of the same.
One columnist puts it like this: we are borrowing from Europe in order to defend Europe, we are borrowing from Japan in order to keep cheap oil flowing to Japan, and we are borrowing from Arab regimes in order to install democracy in Iraq. Is it really “isolationism” to find something wrong with this picture?
With national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both parties continue to make multi-trillion dollar promises of “free” goods from the government, and hardly a soul wonders if we can still afford to have troops in – this is not a misprint – 130 countries around the world. All of this is going to come to an end sooner or later, because financial reality is going to make itself felt in very uncomfortable ways. But instead of thinking about what this means for how we conduct our foreign and domestic affairs, our chattering classes seem incapable of speaking in anything but the emptiest platitudes, when they can be bothered to address serious issues at all. Fundamental questions like this, and countless others besides, are off the table in our mainstream media, which focuses our attention on trivialities and phony debates as we march toward oblivion.
This is the deadening consensus that crosses party lines, that dominates our major media, and that is strangling the liberty and prosperity that were once the birthright of Americans. Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.
There is an alternative to national bankruptcy, a bigger police state, trillion-dollar wars, and a government that draws ever more parasitically on the productive energies of the American people. It’s called freedom. But as we’ve learned through hard experience, we are not going to hear a word in its favor if our political and media establishments have anything to say about it.
If we want to live in a free society, we need to break free from these artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions once again. I am happy that my campaign for the presidency has finally raised some of them. But this is a long-term project that will persist far into the future. These ideas cannot be allowed to die, buried beneath the mind-numbing chorus of empty slogans and inanities that constitute official political discourse in America.
That is why I wrote this book.
- - - - -Click here to order now, get 5% off, get a first edition and kick-start the sales on its debut day.
Every election cycle we are treated to candidates who promise us "change," and 2008 has been no different. But in the American political lexicon, "change" always means more of the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war, and more centralization of power.
Real change would mean something like the opposite of those things. It might even involve following our Constitution. And that’s the one option Americans are never permitted to hear.
Today we are living in a fantasy world. Our entitlement programs are insolvent: in a couple of decades they will face a shortfall amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, the housing bubble is bursting and our dollar is collapsing. We are borrowing billions from China every day in order to prop up a bloated overseas presence that weakens our national defense and stirs up hostility against us. And all our political class can come up with is more of the same.
One columnist puts it like this: we are borrowing from Europe in order to defend Europe, we are borrowing from Japan in order to keep cheap oil flowing to Japan, and we are borrowing from Arab regimes in order to install democracy in Iraq. Is it really “isolationism” to find something wrong with this picture?
With national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both parties continue to make multi-trillion dollar promises of “free” goods from the government, and hardly a soul wonders if we can still afford to have troops in – this is not a misprint – 130 countries around the world. All of this is going to come to an end sooner or later, because financial reality is going to make itself felt in very uncomfortable ways. But instead of thinking about what this means for how we conduct our foreign and domestic affairs, our chattering classes seem incapable of speaking in anything but the emptiest platitudes, when they can be bothered to address serious issues at all. Fundamental questions like this, and countless others besides, are off the table in our mainstream media, which focuses our attention on trivialities and phony debates as we march toward oblivion.
This is the deadening consensus that crosses party lines, that dominates our major media, and that is strangling the liberty and prosperity that were once the birthright of Americans. Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.
There is an alternative to national bankruptcy, a bigger police state, trillion-dollar wars, and a government that draws ever more parasitically on the productive energies of the American people. It’s called freedom. But as we’ve learned through hard experience, we are not going to hear a word in its favor if our political and media establishments have anything to say about it.
If we want to live in a free society, we need to break free from these artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions once again. I am happy that my campaign for the presidency has finally raised some of them. But this is a long-term project that will persist far into the future. These ideas cannot be allowed to die, buried beneath the mind-numbing chorus of empty slogans and inanities that constitute official political discourse in America.
That is why I wrote this book.
- - - - -Click here to order now, get 5% off, get a first edition and kick-start the sales on its debut day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
