I just finished watching "The Day the Earth Stood Still." I thought it would be a good thriller about aliens and such. Man was I wrong. I don't think I have ever seen such a tree-hugger, hippie, Sierra Club movie before. I know that Hollywood has been on a kick in the past few years making movies about saving the earth, but this one went above and beyond any effort in memory.
The original movie was an anti-war film about an alien sent to earth to persuade the human race to stop killing each other. That plot could actually be considered right of center compared to the recent version. The 2008 version had similar plot, but instead of an anti-war message, the alien messenger came to convince humans to stop killing the planet, decided that humans could not be persuaded, and resolved himself to wipe out the human population in order to save the planet which, "is not [ours]." It was your typical liberal message of: humans are the enemy to the planet, and the only way we can live in harmony with nature is to live like Thoreau and be hunter/gatherers again.
Yeah. Let's throw away a a few thousand years of technological advancements, clothe ourselves in leaves, and live in mud-huts. I get so frustrated listening to this B.S. Pardon my abbreviations, but there really is no better way to describe it. The "save the earth" cry has evolved from a moderate concern about pollution and excess waste to an all out anti-technological orgy. We are at the fittest creatures on this planet for a reason. Why? You ask. Because we have the ability to reason. This ability to reason gives us the ability to invent things and in turn, make our lives better. Technological advancements have lengthened the life expectancy of humans in many ways, not just in the medical field. Hey, hippie enviro-maniacs, get a freakin' grip on reality. If you want to live in your communes and be merry, go ahead. But leave us that live in modern society, and actually enjoy it, alone.
I keep hearing that we, the United States, are the largest consumers of energy in the world. To an environmentalist, this statistic is embarrasing. To me, this statistic is a badge of honor. This means that we have more "stuff" that sucks up the energy. Yay America! We have become the world's largets consumers because we can buy more things, afford more food, and own more cars. We are the richest nation in the world. Energy consumption is an indicator of national wealth, so I say, the more energy we consume, the better off we are.
The environmentalist will tell you that statistics such as this mean that we are the single largest detremental factor to the planet's welfare, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for killing Mother Earth. Well, in case you haven't noticed, the earth is one tough mother. This giant rock on which we live is not fragile. And Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. We breathe it out a few thousand times a day. Plants need it like we need oxygen. Who gives a flying ferret fart if fossil fuels emit CO2 when they are burned. This stuff isn't killing the planet any more than a man with a rock hammer could take down the entire Appalacian Mountain chain.
I can't put up with stupid. Please, people, use your brains. Those of you who have already been fleeced in this sham, think about it with a little bit of logic for a few minutes. Those of you who aren't sure about it, don't let a bunch of pseudo-scientists with agendas tell you what to believe, and especially don't let a bunch of interest groups and legislators convince you to forfeit your own ability to reason for yourself. I promise you, this entire scare is a tool that is being used as grounds for anti-technological legislative change. Don't buy into it.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
On Entitlement
From the time we are born into this world up until the time we reach a certain age of reason and self-reliance, we have a sense of entitlement. We feel entitled to the necessities that keep us alive and well, such as food, shelter, clothes, etc. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the author of a book called The Social Contract and a man whose writings had an influence on the founders of this country, a child's entitlement should end when he reaches the age of reason, and any extension of this relationship between parent and child is done so because of agreement, not obligation. In other words, a parent is only required to sustain its offspring until the children reach this age of reason. At that point, the parent's obligation is over, but the parent a child may agree to extend this relationship, as many parents do today when they provide monetary support for their children through college or other circumstances. We have this same mentality with our parents today, as we realize that adulthood begins at the age of eighteen, and any further support from our parents after this age is solely at the discretion of our parents.
The sense of entitlement today, however, seems to be expanding to the government. Many people feel entitled to things, and if they are not able to acquire these things themselves, or if they are not willing to work hard enough to acquire these things, they think that someone should step in and do it for them. We have been guaranteed rights in our Constitution. These rights are considered to be inalienable, meaning they can not be taken away as long as we do not breech the social contract in a severe way. For instance, we have the right to life, but even that right can be taken away under certain circumstances as we see with murderers who are sentenced to death. We also have privileges. These are not rights. A privilege would be a driver's license. We have a privilege to drive, but this is not a right. If an individual can not pass a driver's exam, he will not be awarded a license to drive. Far too often, individuals get these two concepts confused.
In the case of health care, some individuals are given assistance with health care costs. This is a privilege. Our government is not obligated to give health care to anyone, but for some individuals who can not afford health care costs, tax payer money is used to provide assistance. Many people have legitimate reasons why they need assistance, and as long as this assistance does not become cumbersome to the tax payers, and as long as the government can reasonably afford to do it, then this sort of support can continue. Some people, though, have come to feel that they are entitled to such privileges. I can not say this loudly enough, but THEY ARE NOT!
This goes beyond health care, though. A largely growing population of individuals are feeling this sense of entitlement on a large array of issues. The United States of America is not a nanny-state. The government is not required to ensure that all citizens live an equally comfortable life. The government is designed to ensure that all citizens have an equal opportunity to achieve a comfortable life. The government has taken on the role now to provide comfortable lives for its citizens. This is backwards from how it was intended. Instead of coddling its citizens and providing things for them, it should simply protect their rights to insure that no unnatural impediments are placed upon them. If individuals are unchained from government-reliance, they can be free to enjoy self-reliance. Unbridled human potential is a powerful thing, but anything other than self-reliance can only stifle the amazing human mind and ability and hold it back.
We must realize that our nation has become as great as it is not because our government takes care of its people, but because we have always rewarded hard work. Rewarding hard work breeds harder work. When individuals are allowed to make no contributions to society, yet still reap the benefits of others' hard work, how can we expect them to find their way out of their situation and work themselves into a better situation. Not only does it perpetuate poverty, but it also discourages affluency. The more individuals work to increase wealth, the more they are penalized through taxes. Something is inherently wrong with a system that causes people to refuse advancement in the workplace for fear of jumping into a higher tax bracket.
Along with this gained sense of entitlement is a lost sense of accountability. Far too many people do not think that they should be held accountable for their actions. This has become all too clear with the recent bailouts that we have seen. We have rewarded bad behavior and punished good behavior. The people who have signed on mortgages that they could not afford have been saved from foreclosure while the individuals who make their payments have to suffer by getting stuck with the bill. This concept confuses me.
We have the moral obligation to stop this from spreading any more than it already has. We have the power to do this through our votes. I can't stress enough the importance of these principles and the need to come back to them. I have never liked the term "activist" because there are usually liberal connotations that are associated with that word, but that is what we have to be, activists. We have to actively pursue our cause and let those in Washington know that we want them out of our business, and we want them to take their hands out of our pockets.
The sense of entitlement today, however, seems to be expanding to the government. Many people feel entitled to things, and if they are not able to acquire these things themselves, or if they are not willing to work hard enough to acquire these things, they think that someone should step in and do it for them. We have been guaranteed rights in our Constitution. These rights are considered to be inalienable, meaning they can not be taken away as long as we do not breech the social contract in a severe way. For instance, we have the right to life, but even that right can be taken away under certain circumstances as we see with murderers who are sentenced to death. We also have privileges. These are not rights. A privilege would be a driver's license. We have a privilege to drive, but this is not a right. If an individual can not pass a driver's exam, he will not be awarded a license to drive. Far too often, individuals get these two concepts confused.
In the case of health care, some individuals are given assistance with health care costs. This is a privilege. Our government is not obligated to give health care to anyone, but for some individuals who can not afford health care costs, tax payer money is used to provide assistance. Many people have legitimate reasons why they need assistance, and as long as this assistance does not become cumbersome to the tax payers, and as long as the government can reasonably afford to do it, then this sort of support can continue. Some people, though, have come to feel that they are entitled to such privileges. I can not say this loudly enough, but THEY ARE NOT!
This goes beyond health care, though. A largely growing population of individuals are feeling this sense of entitlement on a large array of issues. The United States of America is not a nanny-state. The government is not required to ensure that all citizens live an equally comfortable life. The government is designed to ensure that all citizens have an equal opportunity to achieve a comfortable life. The government has taken on the role now to provide comfortable lives for its citizens. This is backwards from how it was intended. Instead of coddling its citizens and providing things for them, it should simply protect their rights to insure that no unnatural impediments are placed upon them. If individuals are unchained from government-reliance, they can be free to enjoy self-reliance. Unbridled human potential is a powerful thing, but anything other than self-reliance can only stifle the amazing human mind and ability and hold it back.
We must realize that our nation has become as great as it is not because our government takes care of its people, but because we have always rewarded hard work. Rewarding hard work breeds harder work. When individuals are allowed to make no contributions to society, yet still reap the benefits of others' hard work, how can we expect them to find their way out of their situation and work themselves into a better situation. Not only does it perpetuate poverty, but it also discourages affluency. The more individuals work to increase wealth, the more they are penalized through taxes. Something is inherently wrong with a system that causes people to refuse advancement in the workplace for fear of jumping into a higher tax bracket.
Along with this gained sense of entitlement is a lost sense of accountability. Far too many people do not think that they should be held accountable for their actions. This has become all too clear with the recent bailouts that we have seen. We have rewarded bad behavior and punished good behavior. The people who have signed on mortgages that they could not afford have been saved from foreclosure while the individuals who make their payments have to suffer by getting stuck with the bill. This concept confuses me.
We have the moral obligation to stop this from spreading any more than it already has. We have the power to do this through our votes. I can't stress enough the importance of these principles and the need to come back to them. I have never liked the term "activist" because there are usually liberal connotations that are associated with that word, but that is what we have to be, activists. We have to actively pursue our cause and let those in Washington know that we want them out of our business, and we want them to take their hands out of our pockets.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Get Your Priorities in Line, Mr. President
I read an article on the Drudge Report tonight that caught my attention fairly quickly. The headline read, "Jesus missing from Obama's Georgetown Speech." This article was posted on the NBC Washington news website. The article reports that a monogram displaying Jesus' name behind a podium at Georgetown university was requested to be covered by the Whitehouse before President Obama gave an economic speech this week.
As I read through the article, I began to think to myself, "Have we really digressed this much in America? Is this the very sight of Christ, the word Jesus so offensive that we can't speak his name at a publicly sponsored function or even have a picture of his name displayed in the background of a presidential speech at a Christian university?" This is utter lunacy. The vast majority of the American population personally claims to be born-again Christians, yet our president is too scared to have Christ's name in view at a speech.
I am a religious man, a young religious man--only 23 years old, and I have religious tolerance instilled into my very conscience because I understand why our nation was founded. Most, not all, but most of the original settlers that colonized this very soil that we walk on everyday came to this place to escape religious persecution. So I have no problem with any man or woman worshipping in the manner that he or she sees as the best way to do so, nor do I have a problem with anyone chosing not to worship. That is your perrogative as an American. But to be ashamed of your belief, to go to such lengths as to hide the Man on whose principles we based our laws and social morals is to begin a path toward societal decay.
I can already predict the arguments from the leftists. "Well our Constitution clearly states that Congress shall pass no law establishing an official religion, so we aren't a Christian nation, and we shouldn't have any mention of God or symbols of religion in government affairs."
I agree. Congress can't pass any legislation to establish a religion in the United States. But who said anything about that? This is a sign with Jesus' name on it. Nobody is asking president Obama to get in front of a crowd and say that the Christian religion is the official religion of the United States and if you don't like it, then go somewhere else. He was speaking at a Christian college for cryin' out loud. What did you expect, oh Great Leader Obama? Would you rather it be your name up there behind you on display at a Christian college? Or maybe you want fine Obamian universities to spring up across this great nation. Maybe that's what this is about. Maybe our wonderful and great leader is jealous that Jesus has a higher approval rating than he does. Apparently he feels subservient to Saudi King Abdullah and bows (I thought he was about to kneel to the ground and kiss his hand), but he can't share the spotlight with Jesus. This is definitely the man I want leading the free world and protecting us from radical Islam.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Obama is a Muslim. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when he says he is a Christian. But, by God, don't go to another country and bow to a leader like that, in a gesture insinuating that you are inferior to him, then hide the name of Jesus in a religious learning intsitution. Get your priorities in line, Mr. President.
As I read through the article, I began to think to myself, "Have we really digressed this much in America? Is this the very sight of Christ, the word Jesus so offensive that we can't speak his name at a publicly sponsored function or even have a picture of his name displayed in the background of a presidential speech at a Christian university?" This is utter lunacy. The vast majority of the American population personally claims to be born-again Christians, yet our president is too scared to have Christ's name in view at a speech.
I am a religious man, a young religious man--only 23 years old, and I have religious tolerance instilled into my very conscience because I understand why our nation was founded. Most, not all, but most of the original settlers that colonized this very soil that we walk on everyday came to this place to escape religious persecution. So I have no problem with any man or woman worshipping in the manner that he or she sees as the best way to do so, nor do I have a problem with anyone chosing not to worship. That is your perrogative as an American. But to be ashamed of your belief, to go to such lengths as to hide the Man on whose principles we based our laws and social morals is to begin a path toward societal decay.
I can already predict the arguments from the leftists. "Well our Constitution clearly states that Congress shall pass no law establishing an official religion, so we aren't a Christian nation, and we shouldn't have any mention of God or symbols of religion in government affairs."
I agree. Congress can't pass any legislation to establish a religion in the United States. But who said anything about that? This is a sign with Jesus' name on it. Nobody is asking president Obama to get in front of a crowd and say that the Christian religion is the official religion of the United States and if you don't like it, then go somewhere else. He was speaking at a Christian college for cryin' out loud. What did you expect, oh Great Leader Obama? Would you rather it be your name up there behind you on display at a Christian college? Or maybe you want fine Obamian universities to spring up across this great nation. Maybe that's what this is about. Maybe our wonderful and great leader is jealous that Jesus has a higher approval rating than he does. Apparently he feels subservient to Saudi King Abdullah and bows (I thought he was about to kneel to the ground and kiss his hand), but he can't share the spotlight with Jesus. This is definitely the man I want leading the free world and protecting us from radical Islam.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Obama is a Muslim. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when he says he is a Christian. But, by God, don't go to another country and bow to a leader like that, in a gesture insinuating that you are inferior to him, then hide the name of Jesus in a religious learning intsitution. Get your priorities in line, Mr. President.
The Introduction
Hello to everyone joining me on this experiment. For me, blogging is a new thing. Yeah, I know. I'm way behind the times. But I've felt for some time that I have so many things that I want to talk about, and not enough people that are willing to listen. I don't claim to have some incredible insight that needs to be heard for the sake of humanity. No. In fact, my opinions are fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. And the things that I will be writing about are analyzed much more thoroughly--and accurately I'm sure--by conservative radio talk show host and political pundits who will reach a far greater audience than my feeble efforts will be able to procure. I am, nevertheless, compelled to write about these things, if for no other reason than to vent. If I gain some small reader support in the process, then all the better, but I am not holding my breath.
If you find something that interests you, provokes thought, or ignites rage, or if by some chance you agree with me, then feel free to pass the word on to others, make comments (I always welcome a debate), or print my writings out and burn them (or shoot them if you are a fellow gun owner like myself). But either way, thank you for visiting my site, and God bless you.
If you find something that interests you, provokes thought, or ignites rage, or if by some chance you agree with me, then feel free to pass the word on to others, make comments (I always welcome a debate), or print my writings out and burn them (or shoot them if you are a fellow gun owner like myself). But either way, thank you for visiting my site, and God bless you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)