On Cecil the Lion and the Resulting Outrage

Recently, my social media feeds have exploded with people expressing outrage and deep sadness over the killing of Cecil the lion. You might be led to think that they were best friends with this beast, although none of these people have ever met or scene Cecil in person, as he lived on the other side of the planet.  But they have seen pictures and videos of him and I can tell you that they appear to have been very deeply impacted by the story of his demise. Petitions! Blog posts! Status Updates! Exclamation Points!!!!

Meanwhile, in our own little corner of the planet, we are completely passive about the premeditated slaughter of millions of innocent humans. We have pictures and videos of these little babies in the womb, yet do not raise our voices to protect them. To speak critically of the immoral practice of abortion is not the current trending topic on the web, and has not been for quite some time. I wonder where the outrage is over the 1 human life that is purposefully ended in utero every 30 seconds in America. Every day that passes on the calendar is another 2,899 people that will never breathe their first breath in the Land of the Free. Over 1 million babies a year are killed and yet it is an acceptable practice. (abortion clock)

If we lined up 120 lions and killed them all in 1 bloody hour, you can be sure that the entire world would demand justice. And yet, we do something far worse every hour here in the United States. 21 percent of ALL pregnancies in our country are terminated by an abortion. 1 in 5. Over 58 million Americans have been murdered in this fashion since 1973. That’s an immediate population loss of over 18%, which does not include possible future generations.  Dwell on that. These aren’t just numbers  - they are little lives that are being purposefully extinguished.

As a father of three children, I truly cannot understand how anyone who has ever stared at a live monitor feed of an ultrasound can defend this practice. How do you deny that the heartbeat that can be measured and seen at 8 weeks post conception is human? I cannot.

I have seen people express anger and outrage over the fact that this animal was hunted just for sport. I understand the emotion and do not disagree with the anger over luring a protected animal to its death. I’m all for obeying the laws that exist and protecting the creatures that have been designated as requiring that protection.

To all the people outraged in general over the hunting/raising of any animal, specifically for food: If you commit wholeheartedly to this thought and stop eating all poultry, pork, red meat, fish and their eggs then I will acknowledge that the outrage you have expressed has prompted life-altering action. To do any less would be picking and choosing what animals are more valuable than others and that doesn’t seem like a valid option to me.

To all the Christians who are outraged by the death of a lion you’ve never met, in a place you’ve never been: Please take that passion and purpose and pour it into defending the lives of the babies who are dying as a result of “choice”. Be willing to take a bold stand in the social arenas for those who do not have the ability to scream for themselves.

To all the Christians who support abortion: Please study the Bible and attempt to reconcile your stance on abortion with what God says about a person’s worth, their creation, Him physically knitting them together and, knowing them in the womb, etc. I don’t understand how the two can be reconciled. I welcome your emails and private messages to begin a 1 on 1 dialogue.

Dead lions don’t have souls and Christ didn’t come to die for them.

Let’s be more outraged about the death of millions of people in our country than that of a lion in a far off land.

Ethanol and The Dust Bowl

Lisa and I recently watched the Ken Burns' documentary "The Dust Bowl". It was very interesting, very informative and very moving. The stories featured told of the causes of that environmental catastrophe, the impact of the event on the people in the area and the fragility of the land. It featured a lot from Timothy Eagan's wonderfully written book on the subject "The Worst Hard Time" - I highly recommend reading it.


Today I read this article "The Secret, Dirty Cost of Obama's Green Power Push" which details how the EPA, Department of Agriculture and the White House have pursued pushing ethanol as a sustainable biofuel, when the evidence is more and more to the contrary.

There are several things stated in the article that brought to mind the Dust Bowl, but this one really stood out to me:

Investors from as far away as Maryland and Pennsylvania have bought thousands of acres in Wayne County, sending prices skyrocketing from $350 per acre a decade ago to $5,000 today.

One in every four acres of in the county is now owned by an out-of-towner.
Those who still own land often rent it to farming companies offering $300 or more per acre. Perkins could make perhaps $27,000 a year if he let somebody plant corn on his land. That's nothing to dismiss in a county where typical household income is $36,000.
But he knows what that means. He sees the black streaks in his neighbor's cornfields, knowing the topsoil washes away with every rain. He doesn't want that for his family's land.

This is similar to what happened in the 1920s when the cost of grain skyrocketed and the government expanded homestead settlement programs. Investors from the big city or even out of state would purchase acreage or pay to farm someone's previously untouched existing acreage. The land hadn't previously been planted with crops because it was unsuitable for that type of farming. The huge increase in demand and price led to a boom of converting prairie land to farm land. Yet the fact remained, the newly converted land was historically known as not being suitable for crops. When the unusually wet years turned back to the normal dry years, the ground dried out and the soil began to erode and blow. When the drought of the 30s hit the former prairie lands, there was nothing to hold the soil down and it literally took off with the wind.

It would behoove us to learn from past mistakes and not farm land that is not meant to be farmed. It would be wise for our government to eliminate subsidies for programs that produce little benefit, encourage a misuse of the land and place us in a position that could lead to another environmental disaster.

In short, it would be beneficial for us as a country to learn from our own not-too-distant history.

Stillness at the Super Bowl Half-Time Show

I found myself reflecting on the Super Bowl this morning and wondering when the Half-Time Show became a part of the entire event. Because I like to look into such things, here's a brief history of the event:

In 1993, the NFL decided it would, for the first time in its history, have only one person perform during the Half-Time show of the Super Bowl. Due to his increasing popularity around the world, they chose Michael Jackson. Little did they expect that, for the first time in the history of the game, the viewing audience would actually increase during the Half-Time show. This set a precedent that has been followed ever since, with each band or performer attempting to capture and draw in viewers during the game break.

I watched Michael Jackson's performance when it happened and I just watched it again:

There's so much that I could discuss about this performance, but I want to point out a few things that I find absolutely incredible about the opening 2 minutes.

- To start it off, Jackson does what, to my limited knowledge, had never been done before - utilizing the two mega screens as an integral part of his entrance.
- He used these two screens and two decoy performers to tease the crowd for the first 32 seconds of the show. Using the decoys at the opening only further built up the anticipation of his arrival and performance.
- Jackson is launched up through the smoke onto stage at the 34 second mark and adopts the "Dangerous" pose. There is no music. There is no light show. It is just him standing there. Jackson makes it a point to prove that he is the show. For an absolutely astonishing seventy-four seconds, Jackson does not move. He is still. The crowd grows anxious and I am certain that the organizers of the event were not feeling quite as confident in their choice at this point.
- Then he turns his head to the left in one quick motion. He holds this pose for sixteen seconds. That brings his total time on stage as a statue to exactly a minute and a half. Not a beat of music has played. Jackson hasn't said or sang a single word and yet the crowd is growing in its intensity.
-  Finally, at just over two minutes into the performance, the music starts and Jackson become animated. The crowd goes wild. Before he has even begun, Jackson has given the attendees a memorable experience.

For those of you who have never been on stage in front of a group of people (large or small), every second that goes by silently can seem like an eternity. To hold a pose for a few seconds can be a challenge. To let a line linger for a moment after it is spoken for effect takes a certain will that some people cannot master. How Jackson could stand as still as he did for as long as he did in that moment is totally beyond me. Here he was on the biggest stage in the world, in front of the largest crowd in the world, to perform a show that had been hyped through the media for months leading up to this moment, and he just stands there stiff as a board. I'm sure his adrenaline was cranked and that he was excited to deliver an amazing once-in-a-lifetime performance, but he chose to stand still to start it all off.

In today's environment, Jackson's stillness would have cost the broadcasters $15,000,000 in airtime. And yet, would the performance have been as memorable if he hadn't started it that way? I doubt it. The still, slow beginning made it that much more memorable.

Reflecting on other Super Bowl performances, there are few moments that I can think of with any great amount of clarity. The Jackson/Timberlake "wardrobe malfunction" in 2004 doesn't really count as the memory is linked to the activity at the end as opposed to the performances themselves. I think the 2007 performance by Prince was pretty entertaining, but I understand that many people don't like him or his music all that much - even though his musicianship is hard to be topped by anyone. Some people will say "But what about Paul McCartney in 2005?!??" I understand that people love the music, and Sir Paul did a fine job, but I wouldn't say it was memorable from a "Wow!" perspective.

I'll leave you with what I think is the best performance during the Super Bowl Half-time show since Michael Jackson broke the mold in 1993. It's a superb performance that is very entertaining and incredibly memorable, as U2 rocked the Superdome in 2002 and then brought everyone to tears with their tribute to 9/11 victims:
 

For your reference, here's a complete list of Super Bowl Half-Time Shows.

On the Fiscal Cliff

Thomas Sowell expresses his thoughts about the Fiscal Cliff, and these portions echo exactly what I think and feel:

First of all, despite all the melodrama about raising taxes on "the rich," even if that is done it will scarcely make a dent in the government's financial problems. Raising the tax rates on everybody in the top two percent will not get enough additional tax revenue to run the government for ten days.

No previous administration in the entire history of the nation ever finished the year with a trillion dollar deficit. The Obama administration has done so every single year.

Referring to the Federal Reserve System's creation of hundreds of billions of new dollars out of thin air as "quantitative easing" makes it seem as if this is some soothing and esoteric process, rather than amounting essentially to nothing more than printing more money.
Debasing the value of money by creating more of it is nothing new or esoteric. Irresponsible governments have done this, not just for centuries, but for thousands of years.
It is a way to take people's wealth from them without having to openly raise taxes. Inflation is the most universal tax of all.

But it is not the same politically, so long as gullible people don't look beyond words to the reality that inflation taxes everybody, the poorest as well as the richest.

And there are these nuggets from Part 2:

A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" cost the government so much lost tax revenue that this added to the budget deficit-- so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for "the rich."

What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama's argument is.

What both the statistical tables in the "Economic Report of the President" and the graphs in Investor's Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up-- not down-- after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.  

And here are the table and images referred to above:

The Importance of Knowing Where We Are

As I read this quote, I wondered if most Americans truly know where we are as a nation, where they are as individuals and the impact they can have in the culture and economy at large.

"As for blame, who can be blamed for inheriting a culture that existed before they were born?  But, while nothing can be done about the past, much can be done in the present to prepare for the future. Whatever we wish to achieve in the future, it must begin by knowing where we are in the present- not where we wish we were, or where we wish others to think we are, but where we are in fact." - Thomas Sowell in Economic Facts and Fallacies, p186

The Election's Undecided

I'll start with letting you know this post does not endorse or oppose either candidate...

Tonight is the first Presidential debate for the 2012 election cycle. I have yet to determine if I will attempt to watch it live or in my usual, after-the-fact YouTube manner. I'm sure everyone reading this is just dying to find out what I think of it all, so I might update the page tomorrow with some of my thoughts.

One thing that seems clear to me with this election is that it seems to me that there are two very different candidates and agendas on this year's ballot. In some circles I am sure that is frowned upon, but I'm okay with the seemingly simplistic choices that are set before us as voters.

Is either candidate perfect? No. Candidates never are.
Do they represent everything everyone in their respective party believes in? No. Presidential candidates never represent the entirety of the party and never will be able to.

And then I read this today:

The "undecideds" make up roughly 6 percent of the electorate, with a slightly higher concentration in an Upper Midwest region including Ohio and Wisconsin, swing states that could determine the outcome of a close election.

What? How is this possible?
How do you look at the two candidates and not already know who you are going to pick?
I seriously have no idea how anyone could not have already formed their vote in this election.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this fact, but I am.

If you don't know who you are going to vote for, do a little research.
It won't be hard, I promise.
You can start with the candidate websites.
You can perform news searches on each candidate.
You can watch hours of video containing campaign speeches, interviews and other information.

In my opinion, there is no reason whatsoever to not know who you will be voting for at this point in the game. The only way I see this as being possible is if you are a single issue voter and you don't know where the candidates stand on that issue. Given the amount of time and coverage that has already been poured into this election cycle, it is hard to believe that you all important single issue has not already been discussed by either candidate.

So tonight two men will take a stage and talk to a camera about a lot of different issues.
Then each campaign will spin what the other guy said to maximize the "damage" to gain a few votes.
Then the pundits will chime in with their thoughts and opinions.

Is it worth watching/listening to the debates? I believe it is.
Should it help you determine in this election who you will vote for? I don't believe so.

That decision should be clear enough by now on its own merits.

Lincoln and Daniel Day-Lewis

There are several reasons why I am looking forward to this movie.
- I've heard good things about the book it is based on: Doris Kearns Goodwin’s biography, ‘Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln’. I hope to read it in the near future.
- I'm a fan of Spielberg. I hope to see how he captures this story.
- I think that Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest character actor of our time. The intensity that he devotes to studying and developing a character prior to setting foot on set is amazing. I simply cannot wait to see how he portrays the President.

Patriotism and the Christian

Kevin DeYoung on patriotism and the Christian:

"I understand the dangers of an unthinking “God and country” mentality, let alone a gospel-less civil religion. But I also think love of country–like love of family or love of work–is a proximate good. Patriotism is not beneath the Christian, even for citizens of a superpower.

So on this Independence Day I’m thankful most of all for the cross of Christ and the freedom we have from the world, the flesh, and the devil. But I’m also thankful for the United States and the freedoms we enjoy. I’m thankful for the big drops of biblical truth which seeped into the blood stream of Thomas Jefferson. I’m thankful for our imperfect ideals. I’m thankful for God-given rights and hard-fought liberty. I’m thankful for the idea of America."

Read the rest.

Our Current Position Visualized

This was the front page on CNN this morning and I couldn't resist capturing it and posting it here.

To me, this is a perfect example of what is wrong with our economy and country right now.
Warning: Generalized statements are about to be made which may not be true for all parties involved.

Standing for Nothing
There is a group of people who feel entitled to something without doing anything, or whatever it is they want. (see Occupy Something)

Speaking for Nothing
There is a group of wealthy people who feel that government should place even more of the burden on the rich. The fact that this call is now also coming from a couple dozen wealthier people does not change the fact that it is just another call to redistribute wealth. The fact that Warren Buffet is being used to champion this idea is simply ludicrous. (Buffet has sheltered his wealth from Federal Taxes and has admitted that he thinks the government would not handle the money as effectively and efficiently as a private organization.)

If the wealthy are so concerned with how much they have, they should stop making so much profit (money) or start giving a lot more of it away. This is their personal problem and not the government's problem. If they truly were struggling to sleep at night because they honestly believed that they had too much money and that it could be used to aid other people who desperately need it, they would have already set into motion the actions required to reconcile that conviction on their own. There is no role for the government required here. Thus, it is a cheap political stunt.


Neither of these groups represent a majority opinion. Far from it.

How did we end up here?
Our government has adopted the strategy of the one offered by the company to the right of the page. Spend what you do not have now, pay off less than the interest later and at some point down the line you will realize you are in way over your head and you will desperately need to change your behavior. However, like most Americans, our government refuses to change its spending behaviors, even after after the cost of continuing down the same road become patently clear and the outcome unavoidable.

How do I think we get out of this mess?
- We stop catering to the minority of the population  who screams the loudest. We stop handling them with soft gloves. If you want to protest anything, you need to do it within the bounds of the law. If you go beyond the law, then you should have the entirety of that law brought to bear against you and the organization you claim to represent.

- We need to stop listening to people who claim to offer solutions that appear selfless, when the reality is that their "solution" will not solve the problem. In fact, their path only leads to people other than themselves having more money taken away from them, thus increasing the gap between the ultra-rich and the wealthy.
- We stop spending money we do not have. We force our government to work for us, as it was intended. I do not work in order to pay for a government program. I work in order to have the ability to provide for my family's current and future needs. I am planning for my own future, as best as I can. It would be a lot easier for me if the government that is charged with protecting me woudl stop attacking me financially.
- We stop putting people in positions of power that cannot balance a budget. If you cannot run a household or business without going into debt, we do not need you attempting to guide the country. If you cannot run an election campaign without bungling your finances, we don't need you "helping" solve the crisis we have placed ourselves in as a nation.
- We stop electing people because they seem nice or energetic or young or whatever. We need to elect good, strong people to lead this country in a new direction. We need politicians who see it as being allowed to offer their services to their country and fellow citizens for a season, instead of having politicians who see it as the ultimate SWAG party and ridiculous retirement plan.
- We need to stop electing non-representatives. You work for me as well as the guy who disagrees with me. I am a fellow citizen of yours, just like he is - we are not just your constituents. You answer to me, even when you don't want to. If you make a choice that I find different from my desire, I have the right to express that opinion, regardless of how it might make you feel. If you do not want to hear the opinions of those that you claim to represent, then you have no right to claim to be their representative.
- We need to throw political correctness and sensitivity in the trash can. At the moment, there is very little room in political discourse for us to skirt around certain issues on our tippy toes because you or one of your lobbyist friends might take offense. Please be offended. Be offended that it took so long for you to feel or recognize how poorly you have done your job. Be offended at the fact that many of your actions have led us to this place. If you are too sensitive to deal with these very real, very large issues without getting your feathers ruffled through a lively, boisterous and heated debate, then there is no place for you in politics. Go home and cry in your bed for a while - the country will be better off with you there. This isn't to say that we should be hateful or disrespectful, but we should get fired up about what you are and are not doing with and to our country. That is patriotic. If you cannot handle grown up conversation in a real world that isn't filled with fairies and color-blindness, then you should go write children's stories and not attempt to tell us what stories we can and should read to our children.
- See Why I Think America is in Deep Trouble

Sorry about the length of this post. I got a bit carried away here. It started out as a quick picture and ended with me getting all riled up. I do not apologize for my convictions nor my vocalization of those beliefs, merely for the length of the content.

I hate politics as they are and dream of how I think they could be.
There are so many people on both sides of the aisle that do not deserve to be called representatives or leaders of our country. I am hoping that real world Americans begin to be better represented in the Washington DC.
That starts with you in the voting booth.
Get informed.
Get fired up.
Get represented.
Get America back on track.

Virtue is Not Hereditary

Today's quote comes from the section entitled "OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLEXIONS":

We ought to reflect, that there are three different ways, by which an independancy may hereafter be effected; and that ONE of those THREE, will one day or other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the people in Congress; by a military power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual.

- Above quote is Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"

This is the fifth and final post in a series of my favorite portions of Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense". It is a worthwhile read and is available free from Amazon for download to Kindle or other device.

An Apostate From Manhood

Today's quote comes from the section entitled "OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLEXIONS":

The Speech if it may be called one, is nothing better than a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants.
...
And he who can so calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to rationality—an apostate from the order of manhood; and ought to be considered—as one, who hath, not only given up the proper dignity of a man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawls through the world like a worm.

- Above quote is Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"

This is the fourth post in a series of my favorite portions of Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense". It is a worthwhile read and is available free from Amazon for download to Kindle or other device.

Debt Without Advantage

Today's quote comes from the section entitled "OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLEXIONS":

But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which, they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a pedling politician.

- Above quote is Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"

This is the third post in a series of my favorite portions of Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense". It is a worthwhile read and is available free from Amazon for download to Kindle or other device.

The Present State of American Affairs

Today's quotes come from the section entitled "THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS":

The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent—of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now.

And:

Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because, it is the interest of all Europe to have America a FREE PORT.

And finally:

As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that THIS GOVERNMENT is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully.

- All quotes are from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"

This is the second post in a series of my favorite portions of Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense". It is a worthwhile read and is available free from Amazon for download to Kindle or other device.

An Honest Man Versus the Crown

This week, I feel like sharing some of my favorite portions of Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense". It is a worthwhile read and is available free from Amazon for download to Kindle or other device.

Today's quotes come from the section entitled "OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION":

Male and female are distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

And:

Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.

Finally, his conclusion on this topic:

Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

- All quotes are from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"

Occupying Something

I've resisted posting anything about the Occupy Wall Street protests to this point, but I wanted to say something about it today.

Here in St. Louis, we have our version of it currently operating on downtown St. Louis. Even the local newspaper can't figure out what the fuss is about. With that being said, it seems that one of the common themes of these activities is to make the wealthy pay their "fair share", which apparently translates into simply meaning they need to "pay more". If the some of the people doing the protesting are, in fact, currently unemployed, then they are essentially working against themselves.

Let's say that the politicians adopt the strategy of taxing the wealthier even higher rates. Inevitably, this will lead to the wealthy moving their financial assets from the American economy to another economy with less exorbitant taxes. In doing so, the American government will take a massive hit on tax income. The result of that income loss will lead to program cuts. Undoubtedly, some of those program reductions/eliminations could be in the welfare programs that currently support the unemployed, although knowing that politicians recognize this program as a way to maintain/buy voter support for re-election, I doubt many drastic measures would be taken. In the above scenario, if cuts do happen in these programs, the unemployed will be the ones paying the price, not the wealthy. And if they didn't happen, the politicians would be scrambling to find other areas to reduce their expenditures. Given Washington's track record of late, I think it is more likely that they would borrow against the future even more and drive the country towards a place where unemployed protestors in a park are the least of our worries as a nation.

In the meantime, the lack of a clear agenda and recognized leader of the movement provide little reason to listen to them at all.

Get organized (beyond union lines), figure out what your issue is that you want changed, offer several viable solutions and work towards influencing people in a positive direction. At the moment, it would seem that this is a bunch of unhappy people ready to protest anything. And that is fine, because they have that right. And they have that right, because other people are working hard and paying their taxes. But that doesn't mean they should be given the power to dramatically impact the lives of others or the future of our nation.

We'll see how the protest hold up when the weather turns much colder.

- Oh, and with the St. Louis Cardinals going to the World Series, I'd like to see the fans of the game reclaim the public property that has been used as a rally area for years and, prior to Wednesday's game 1, take back Kiener Plaza from the "99%" that are currently monopolizing it.

Why I Think America Is In Deep Trouble

Last week I was thinking about all of the hype surrounding the debt-ceiling when it occurred to me that I haven't check the status of the Federal Reserve's Monetary Base lately. What follows is a lengthy post where I try to recapture all of my thoughts on this and various topics that I have written about over the course of the past few years.

I started tracking the Monetary Base prior to attending the April 15, 2009 Tea Party in downtown St. Louis, after which I posted my reasons for attending the tea party event. Included in that post was a graph showing the National Debt Per Capita and the Adjusted Monetary Base.

Tyrannosaurus Debt

From Schoolhouse Rocks:

Federal Government Intervention

Here's another snippet from another great article from Thomas Sowell:

The idea that the federal government has to step in whenever there is a downturn in the economy is an economic dogma that ignores much of the history of the United States.

During the first hundred years of the United States, there was no Federal Reserve. During the first one hundred and fifty years, the federal government did not engage in massive intervention when the economy turned down.

No economic downturn in all those years ever lasted as long as the Great Depression of the 1930s, when both the Federal Reserve and the administrations of Hoover and of FDR intervened.

The myth that has come down to us says that the government had to intervene when there was mass unemployment in the 1930s. But the hard data show that there was no mass unemployment until after the federal government intervened. Yet, once having intervened, it was politically impossible to stop and let the economy recover on its own. That was the fundamental problem then-- and now.

I wish the federal government would just step away from this area.
It seems that doing nothing to "help" is the greatest aid in the recovery process.

The Healthcare End-Run Option

Thomas Sowell once again speaks the truth:

ObamaCare is another piece of Congressional legislation for which there is no federal authority in the Constitution. But when someone asked Nancy Pelosi where in the Constitution there was any authority for passing such a law, her reply was "Are you kidding?"

Two federal courts have now said that they are not kidding.

The ultimate question is whether the Supreme Court of the United States will back them up. That may depend on how soon the case reaches the Supreme court.

If the issue wends its way slowly up through the Circuit Courts of Appeal, by the time it reaches the Supreme Court, Obama may have put more of his appointees there-- and, if so, they will probably rubberstamp anything he does. He would therefore have done a complete end-run around the Constitution and be well on his way to becoming the Hugo Chavez of North America.

The State of the Union 2011

As is my annual ritual, I read through the President's State of the Union Address this morning. I haven't read or listened to any political commentary at this point, so my perspective is untainted and solely my own.

There are several portions of the speech that I could draw attention to, but I will choose only two.
Here's the first:

And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply can’t afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. (Applause.) Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It’s not a matter of punishing their success. It’s about promoting America’s success. (Applause.)
In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code. (Applause.) This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed an interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them. (Applause.)

Okay, where to start. If you truly care about the deficit, you will stop spending more than you have. Period. This isn't rocket science. Don't spend what you don't have. That means that you can't create new government institutions, agencies, positions and programs until you have funded existing programs. Since the existing programs were running a deficit when the President took office, he should have reigned in spending and reduced the size of the Federal government. But he didn't. He increased its size and scope and buried the nation under a crushing amount of debt that will cripple us in the coming years if the tough decisions aren't made.

The idea of sacrificing for the good if the nation is noble and all, but when the government doesn't choose to adopt the same strategy, one has to question the motivation behind this course of action. America's success isn't going to be determined by whether or not the wealthiest Americans are taxed higher. Her success will be determined by how well the Federal government allows the American people to innovate, create and prosper - including financially. When you tax the wealthiest people at an ever-increasing rate, what do you suppose the final outcome of that will be? Inevitably, the wealthy people find the loopholes, reinvest their finances in other places, or they simply move to a place that will not tax them so heavily.

I'm all for simplifying the tax code. What currently exists is so convoluted and complex that even the government institution chartered to enforce those regulations (the IRS) is having trouble keeping up.Contrary to what the President and members of the government believe, this is a fairly simple goal to accomplish. It's called a flat tax. The amount of paperwork and hassle that such a system would remove from businesses is huge. The reduction in size of the Federal government, by way of drastically reducing the size of the IRS, would be sizable. While I am open to the idea of reducing and removing large portions of the existing to tax code as a preliminary step, I cannot see how this type of effort would prove worthwhile over the course of time. Every year there are additions to the tax code. I am of the opinion that a flat tax would work and would allow the citizens and companies of this great land to prosper. The only way this would work is if the government is held accountable and sticks to a non-deficit increasing budget. (That's sounds a lot like common sense, doesn't it. Some might even say it's Constitutional.)

[Feel free to insert a rant about the Federal Reserve's ability to print an unlimited amount of currency here.]

Here's the second portion that I want to draw attention to:

And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this:  If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.  I will veto it.  (Applause.)

Let's see how long it takes to break this promise. I cannot imagine the President being able to stick to this. Now perhaps the senators and Congressman will find another way to tack on their pet projects, or call them by a different name, but I just don't see this being a line in the sand that the President is unwilling to withdraw from.

Overall, the speech read like most of the State of the Union speeches. Obviously, I cannot speak to the effectiveness of the President's delivery of these words, nor to the receptiveness of the blended-party crowd. I am sure there is plenty being said about all that extraneous stuff anyway. If I find anything worth linking to or pointing out as I read more and hear more today, I will add it to the bottom of this post.