I supported robber barons!

After all of the comments on my posting yesterday, I thought it's be worthwhile to take another stab at the "controversial" subject of Evolution.

A new Zogby Poll commissioned by the Discovery Institute suggests that the majority of people want to see “both sides” of evolution debate taught in our schools.

Some findings:

According to the poll, Democrats (82%) and liberals (86%) are even more likely than Republicans (73%) and conservatives (72%) to support the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution.”

The poll also shows a dramatic 9-point increase over 2006 in the percentage of likely voters who agree that “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.” Support for that position has jumped to 78%, up from 69% in 2006. The percentage of likely voters who favor teaching only the evidence for evolution suffered a corresponding decline of 7 points, from 21% in 2006 to just over 14% this year.

Dr. John West, of the Discovery Institute; “Clearly, the Darwin-only crowd is losing public support,” said West. “There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”

Now, those who follow my blog know where I stand in the argument; However, I feel that presenting all sides as possibilities helps students engage in critical thinking. I recall a debate class I once took, and I was given the daunting task of “supporting the robber baron’s” of the 19th century. I was clearly against this side of the argument, and felt it was unfair to put me in the position of support; however, through that exercise I was required to do the research and found some very interesting, and supporting elements, of how the robber barons helped shape our country. Though it was a team effort, we won the debate. I thought to myself, how could this happen? How did we win? Even after the debate I felt the great Robber Barons did more harm than good. It was then that I realized an incredibly persuasive argument, regardless of personal feelings, will sway popular opinion. This was a very necessary lesson.

My biggest concern, regardless of which side you support, is the fear of our future generations learning environment will be controlled by political correctness. This is in regards to all aspects of a student’s curriculum.

Ben Stein, expelled from U. of Vermont!

Ben Stein was expelled from University of Vermont’s graduation speaking list. Why? Per the University it was due to a flood of complaints. I believe this happens more often than we know about, where the liberal voice on a campus will strongly oppose a conservative viewpoint to the point of disruption. Ben’s opinion on evolution just so happens to go against the generally accepted view. So? What part of Ben’s graduation speech would have affected these graduating students’ minds? Didn’t they just complete (4) years of liberal education? Are they not completely brainwashed already?

The issue I have is that these Universities publicly promote “Tolerance”, “Acceptance”, and “Diversity”; but when it comes to actually applying them they cave under the guise of “political correctness”.

Here’s something to chew on; just a few years ago this same University welcomed Congressman John Lewis (D - GA), who has compared Republicans to Nazis.

Yay Tolerance!

What is so scary?

Making his case in the most dire terms, President Barack Obama said that if Congress does not quickly pass an economic stimulus package, the nation will slip into a crisis so deep that "we may be unable to reverse" it.

Obama, please tell us, in detail (for once), about the dire economic forecasts behind the stimulus plan. All I hear from you is how "it’s going to get worse before it gets better", and that without a $ trillion of new spending we are headed for a catastrophe. Are you just lowering our expectations so it’s easier to claim success? I want to know why I am supposed to be so scared.

Since we are apparently headed for the end-times here, how aboutsome clear benchmarks, so we all know if the government is succeeding or failing. Especially since we have no idea what happened to the 1st $350 Billion to bail out the banks. You know, the one that apparently was overpaid. We can’t tell if the first half of the financial rescue package is working or not is we don’t really know what it was supposed to accomplish.

If the rescue plan was to restore the banks to health and pave the way for normal lending, then it failed. And, there’s another $350 billion worth of financial rescue funds just lying around. Now we have a $ trillion plus spending spree all but passed. Are you going to put the CEO’s who are managing all of these pet projects through the same public groveling that GM, Chrysler, and Ford had to go through? I think you should.

I’d like to know what exactly this spending bill is supposed to accomplish: How exactly will you measure the success of the new spending bill? Are we going to see one of those huge ‘thermometer’ gauges on the whitehouse.gov site to measure all of the new jobs we are creating? On your campaign trail you spoke of transparency, when it comes to my money (and yes, as a taxpayer I consider this my money) I think you should show us all what transperency really means. Let’s open up the ledger to the public. Additonally, I want to see Specific, Measurable, Time-bound goal setting and actual accountability.

If you can’t, then I suggest you just write us all a $9k check; that is essentially what the $850 Billion divided by the roughly 92 million US taxpayers would net.

You want to stimulate the economy? You want to think big? Send us all a big fat check…I’d certainly endorse that!

Who's angry?

I feel horrible that I took pleasure in Obama’s angry fist speech last evening. Forgive me. But hey, I’m angry too. This bill is junk…! I don’t need a teleprompter to tell you that. I also think the language of this bill needs to reflect exactly what it is, spending, not stimulus.

$142 Billion for “education”. An unprecedented federal spending increase for education will not improve economic growth. Moreover, past experience strongly suggests that this plan will not improve American educational performance. Since 1985, actual federal spending on K–12 education has increased 138%. But higher federal spending has not increased American educational performance, long-term test scores, or graduation rates. Here’s the kicker, there are procedures in place to request increases in spending outside of this bill. The only reason this is in the Spending (Stimulus) Bill is that it will pass quicker, without voter accountability. That’s it. But, don’t question it, because you’ll be accused of hurting the children.

More waste? Given all of the warnings and health research out there about the dangers of smoking. If you still chose to smoke, you should suffer the consequences. I know that sounds harsh, but if I chose to eat acid…well, there you go. Why do I bring this up? Well, in direct opposition to the $75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking.

$335 million for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. Same deal here, especially since this benefit traditionally goes to the free clinics out there not folks who have jobs, and traditional health insurance. This bill gives relief to the unemployed or underpaid worker who simply cannot afford the consequence of their actions (Pregnancy, STD) but still want to enjoy the activities. I blame this on the continued ‘sexualization’ of society and the decline of moral values. Specifically, the removal of religion from our schools and households. Also, again, if you chose to sleep around…well there you go; enjoy your ‘living’ gift. You thought watching Sea Monkey’s grow was cool, wait until you see….ok, ok, I’ll stop there.

Look at me, by introducing this phenomenal new concept called “accountability” I just saved the taxpayer $1.8 Billion dollars. I’ll take my commission, now, please, in gold or another precious metal since I can tell you with this type of spending being introduces as cures those dollars you have will soon be as valuable as a Mexican Peso.

I can save much more, $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts. Let’s create two columned checklist, a really simple one. In one column we write “items that will create jobs” the next we write “useless pork”. Or, for my illustrative purposes, “somewhat helpful stuff” and “pure crap”.

Somewhat Helpful stuff	Pure Crap
$2 billion to help subsidize child care. (if you need Childcare, hopefully you are going to work)	$400 million for research into global warming. (isn’t this referred to as climate change now?, maybe it’s $400 mil for a name change and branding issues) CRAP
$32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste. (weird, but will probably create jobs hopefully not at the expense of jobs within the coal industry)	$2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere. (Really? Now?)
$87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states (I hate it, but I also have met a few Medicaid dependant seniors and I feel for them)	$650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion. (When did it become the Government’s responsibility to provide TV?)
$53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs. (should boost the IT industry, the word miscellaneous scares me though)	$600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments. (What? Why should you get a new car when the rest of America is forced to repair theirs to save money, subsidize mechanics, that will save jobs and cars)
10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the cost of college tuition. (Yay!, should exclude any liberal colleges, but I know I’m just being picky here)	$21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration. (have you seen my lawn? Obama’s campaign $ should pay for any damages)
	$2.25 billion for national parks. ($2.25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget, what’s going on here?)
	$13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes. (How about spend the same amount on equipping out homeless to find jobs, maybe train them to weatherize public housing, which they can later live in…)
	$20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment. (What?...I don’t get this one $20 bill to write of junk? Here’s an idea, auction it…have a yard sale…)
	$20 billion over five years for an expanded food stamp program. (I hate it to the core, there are enough gov’t handouts, and too much abuse. Nearly everyone knows someone who has abused this system in some fashion…if you don’t I’ll introduce you to a few)
	$44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department. (Is it falling apart?)
	$1 billion for Amtrak (I beg you to tell me when the last time this industry reported a profit…you can’t, can you…let’s not reward anymore corporate mismanagement. I know someone is going to try to point out that this money is actually to provide mass transit options in metropolitan areas. I argue that if there are no jobs to go to, then why do we need mass transit to get to them? Seriously, the roads will be empty ;-) Realistically, what did the interstate project due for the depression? )

Justice Department’s pro-family issues.

I, too often, get caught up in the details. It’s one of my weaknesses, and I get that. However, when it comes to our President nominating the folks who are about to interpret and enforce our laws, it is absolutely imperative we look at the meat, rather than the fancy packaging. Therefore, the details are warranted. The only real measure of what someone can do is from what they have actually done in the past. It was my same argument regarding BHO and his bid for presidency. We really don’t know what kind of president he’ll be, considering he had so little experience to judge him on. What we did see was one of the most liberal voting records in history. Now we can see what that means. Take for example three of Obama’s Justice Dep’t nominees.

David Ogden, nominated to serve as deputy attorney general, has built a profitable career opposing the laws he now would be expected to enforce — including obscenity laws.

Thomas Perrelli, Obama’s nominee to serve as associate attorney general, represented Terri Schiavo’s husband as he fought to have food and water withheld from his disabled wife.

Dawn Johnsen, who hopes to serve as assistant attorney general, is the former legal director for NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“The one thing Barack Obama’s nominees to the Department of Justice seem to have in common is a disrespect for human life," Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

My only summary really has to do with Obama’s history on nominations. So far, looking at his recent history, he is not good at making nominations. Let’s hope these three folks actually paid their taxes; wait, then again, let’s not. There are plently of better nominations out there.

Stiiiirike threeeeeee!

Obama to Fox: "I take responsibility for this mistake." He vowed his best effort to "make sure we're not screwing up again."

Obama to ABC: "This is a self-induced injury that I'm angry about, and we're going to make sure we get it fixed."

Obama to CBS: "It's frustrating for me, and it's something that I take responsibility for."

I appreciate your honesty, and accept your apology. Now, either there is an issue with the vetting process or you really felt that there is a double-standard to which public officials are exempt. I suggest correcting the former as to not have to answer to the latter.

Here’s the deal, I’m tired of exceptions; whether it’s politicians, celebrities, athletes, etc. Equal rule under the law is imperative. Equal rules, ensure equal accountability. I recall the POTUS speaking about accountability in one of his many campaign promises. Of course, I remember Bill Clinton say emphatically that “his will be the most ethical administration ever”, and look how that turned out.

Let’s get real; you want to show me ethics? Accountability? Integrity? Then let’s have a few more conversations like these. However, I don’t care to hear that you screwed up; I want to hear what SPECIFIC actions you are taking to ensure these types of ‘errors’ are not repeated.

My wife taught me the definition of integrity a long time ago. She put it in the simplest terms so that I will never forget it.

“Do what it is you say you are going to do”

That’s it…really. It’s that easy. We all make mistakes, and can be forgiven. Let’s just ensure we’ve learned something from it. In manufacturing, you correct the error and ad a new QA stop to the process (either permanently or temporarily depending on the severity). In business you call it “a training session” and update your company policies. In private you can call it a “brain fart” and apologize profusely to your wife when you “accidentally” forget to claim appx $500k in earnings, then wait 6 months after you’ve discovered the ‘error’ to rectify it before you are sworn into a highly visible cabinet position (but I digress). Whatever you do…you learn from your mistakes, are forgiven, and move on. However, when you repeat these same mistakes…well, then you are just a dummy.

I’ve always measured issues as such:

One Time = Occurrence (Caution)
Two Times = Coincidence (Concern)
Three Times = Trend (Crisis)

Three times now for this administration. Let’s get on the ball here, eh?(Good thing we aren't playing baseball...3 strikes are only good in bowling)

What’s with Rush?

Since when can a President be immune to public criticism? From SNL through Liberal media it happened to the last Pres. Now it switches to Conservative radio and it’s an issue? I happen to enjoy Rush Limbaugh’s broadcasts. I’m not a regular listener, but tune in from time to time and am usually at the very least, entertained.

Recently, Obama told republicans to ‘quit listening to Rush Limbaugh if you want to get things done’. What’s next, don’t read the dictionary if you are looking to define: “liberal” ?

With the majority of the meat in this stimulus bill being pork, it is no surprise Rush called the president out. Sure it’s not the 1st time, and absolutely certain it will not be the last time he calls out the POTUS.

If I had a national radio show, with even ½ the audience Rush has, I’d have done the same.

However, the sad truth is it’s not about Mr. Limbaugh. It’s really a shot at conservative media. It’s the 1st real shot at the conservative voice. Mr. President, if you can’t take the criticism, you have chosen the wrong line of work. The First Amendment guarantees our right to free speech.

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I will accept no apologies when it comes to exercising my right, nor will I interfere with your right to counter my opinion.