Say Anything Blog

So there I am at lunch waiting for a few coworkers when I overhear a woman on a cell phone explaining her Christmas buying decisions:

“Well, I got my mom that CD player.  I put it on my credit card and now I’m tapped out because I had to buy that part for my truck.  Next week, I’m getting the rug and the I-POD for my dad.  I’ll have to see what happens the week after.  I might have to wrap an IOU to my brother and see if he’ll let me take him shopping the week after Christmas.”

At that point, I had to leave, but I was surprised at the ire roused in my chest. 

This woman, who is obviously living paycheck to paycheck, would squander her earnings on lavish gifts for her kin in the name of a holiday created to commemorate the birth of Christ.  She, like so many others, seems to think that the celebration is about the gifts that she provides to others.  It’s not.

The Christmas holiday is about celebrating the gift Christ gave.  It’s about celebrating life.  It’s about relationships.  Baubles and trinkets cheapen the intent of the celebration, and pulling valuable resources to buy fickle material items misses the point, entirely.

If she’s maxed out her credit card, then she is already over-extended beyond her means.  She is borrowing from others to generate her gifts.

I’m no expert on the matter, but Christ espoused charity and, as far as I know, decried stupidity. 
Charity is giving of what you have.  If you have to borrow to give, then you’re not being charitable or smart.

Innovation has been the life blood of the American success story.  Diverse individual ideas are the driving force behind innovation.  But the legacy of the United States of America may be at its apex.

We are dangerously close to a precipice.  The Federal US government determines more and more.  At some point, in the not-too-distant future, we will awaken to realize that we have become a socialized state. 

Innovation, through the years, has allowed us to devote more resources toward solving problems.  Nowhere is this more evident than in agriculture.  Previous to last century, 80% of the population was devoted to the production of food.  Innovative techniques and tools have reduced this man-power expenditure to a scant 20% of the population, while we export more food than ever before.  When there were only 20% of us doing everything other than agricultural work, there would have been less scientists and researchers.  Now that 60% of us are freed up from food production, a lot more of us can pursue our passions.

Massive shifts in the labor market helped to cause the great depression.  Once the labor was reabsorbed and people learned new skills, new technologies began to arrive in earnest.  Suddenly, our society could afford for people to sit around and day-dream.  We encouraged it.  Then something went awry.

At some time in the recent past, a large number of people in the US decided that security is more important than freedom.  They haven’t yet come to realize that you must sacrifice innovation when you opt for security. 

I work for a large corporation.  I have had several innovative ideas that I have not pursued for the security of working for a corporation.  My ideas may have been successful, but they may have failed.  I didn’t try them because I feel that I can’t risk the failure at this time in my life.  This might be a prudent choice.  It might be a terrible decision.  Time will tell.  I will serve as an example to others one way or the other.

Insecurity is one of the problems that we humans try to solve.  We give security blankets to babies.  We created Social Security for those that didn’t or couldn’t save for a retirement.  We create new laws, daily, designed to protect us from problems.

The problem is that a select few are solving these problems.  Is a group of 600 people more likely to develop, implement, and manage a solution to a problem than a group of millions?

When a few people are placed in charge of production and distribution, as with socialism, the drive to increase efficiency declines.  In my imagination, Jane Smith didn’t develop the new baby-wipe because one government bureau after another, just to get started, was too daunting a task.  But that’s what government intervention does to people; diminishes the drive to make things better.

If the government starts to control production (health care is a product, ladies and gentlemen) we will have shortages in supply or increase in cost.  Doctors are not robots.  The doctor’s staff needs to be paid.  When the government decides the price for the Doctor’s time, it is, in essence, stealing from the Doctor, and reducing the incentive for another doctor to compete based upon price.  This leads to a shortage in doctors and an increase in cost. 

Our way of life is under attack by those that, mostly with good intentions, have not thought through governmental control of our lives.

There have been quintillions upon quintillions of unique ideas through the passage of man’s time on Earth, and that’s probably a small estimate.  Some of these ideas were passed off as stupid but later were found to be great.  The personal computer was passed off on by the CEO of IBM as impractical because “no one would want one in their homes.  What would they use it for?” Yet the PC has been the driving force behind the greatest technological and information boon EVER.  Ideas come from individuals.  Some take an idea, that others think is stupid, and find a market. Innovation is powered by diversity. 

Not the diversity of skin color, but the diversity of thought.  Each of us has a unique set of experiences and see the world in a unique way.  Each of these unique people has strengths and weaknesses that compliment those of other people.  Using the power of diverse thoughts and ideas, we solve problems better and faster.  We develop tools to make us more efficient.  We do this because individuals are empowered to solve problems.  Humans solve problems for two reasons: To make our lives or other lives better or easier; and to be more efficient.

The recent world-wide technological explosion was due, in large part, to the form of government set up by the founders of the United States of America. 

The framers of the Constitution figured that development and progress in the US was to be heralded by the masses, not from a single “decider”.  If “Average Joe” thinks he can make a better meatball sub, then he opens a restaurant to sell his subs.  Even if some people don’t like his subs, other people may. A better process or product might be created.  An environment where it is EASY to test a theory, more theories are tested.  Where it is EASIER for people to start a business, more businesses are started… More innovation is attempted.

Socialism’s weakness is this lack of diversity.  Socialism is the system of government where the State regulates trade and property, restricting the ability of new business creation pending review by a select few.  This constricts innovation by making it harder for individuals to solve problems.  (As I read this, I realize how close to socialism the US has become.)

Governmental control over supply and distribution of goods does little to spur someone into making the process more efficient.  Government involvement tends to inhibit efficiency rather than foster it.

How many ideas have you had that you gave up on because it was too hard?  Our market environment is EASY compared to China (though, they are getting smarter about the market while we get dumber). 

This country has come far in 200 years.  Remarkably far in 200 years… but the reasons for our progress are not due to the Federal Government’s involvement in our lives… it was precisely the opposite.

but the surprise is “why"…

From an e-mail today.

The Republican Party would be self-destructive (not for the first time, either) if they did not let the immigration compromise negotiated by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) pass and become law. The hopes of the entire Latino community are pinned to immigration reform and, if the GOP is seen as blocking it, the consequences for the indefinite future will be horrific. The Republican Party will lose Hispanics as surely as they lost blacks when Barry Goldwater ran in 1964 against the civil rights bill (even though a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats backed the bill in each house).

So Dick would rather disregard our laws and offer amnesty for the potential political gain.  This idea seems stupid to me for a few reasons.

1. Hasn’t Bush tried to extend the hand of friendship across the isle several times?  McCain-Feingold, NCLB, Prescription Drugs, etc… these were all Democrat ideas.  Bush thought he’d make friends, but after they passed, the Democrats used these programs to beat on the President.

2. Should we abandon our principles for political gains?  In my mind this is what led to the Republicans defeat last fall.  They abandoned their core values in vote buying schemes that were completely transparent to true conservatives.

The Latinos that I have spoken with respect staying true to your values more than they respect appeasement.  Pandering to the illegals to buy votes is appeasement and I don’t think this will play out the way Dick thinks.

I’m hopeful that few senators listen to Dick… but I hoped that the Republicans would maintain the “contract with America” too…

As head of the executive branch of the US Government, President Bush oversees the “enforcement” branch of our legal framework.  President Bush is responsible for the enforcement of the laws that govern our border policy.  The president is culpable in the illegal egress of millions of undocumented illegal trespassers.

Is there any doubt that the Federal government has completely ignored our border laws?  The 1986 immigration reform act was supposed to seal the borders.  That didn’t seem to work… did it?

There should be no legislation affecting the status of the people here illegally until the Federal Government stops the influx and the enforcement of the “return policy”. 

Senator Bill Nelson of Florida has been trying to impeach President Bush for some time.  His issue has been intelligence on Iraq.  I think he stands a better chance with ‘enforcement’ as his issue.

I’d rather that it not come to an impeachment… but I’d rather impeach the president than grant amnesty of our laws.

I’m not sure what to do with the people who are here illegally today, but that’s not my concern.  We need to get the borders under control.

If you feel remotely the same, please call your Senator and Representative!
Since Senators don’t represent the states anymore, they need to hear from you in order to form an opinion.

We need to start calling our representatives and senators (the other representative) about this:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans and Democrats struggled Wednesday over the final details of an elusive deal that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. and fortify the border with Mexico.

They’re trying to get an amnesty plan through congress and it needs to stop.  I called my congresspeople and told them to 1. enforce the borders and 2. enforce the existing laws. 

I’m not sure they listened to me though… maybe if all of you did that too?!?

Two big bombs in Iraq take out people on a bridge, the bridge and a couple of law makers.

The charges were dropped against the Duke Lacrosse guys… Apologies are flooding the networks… well.. maybe…

Anna Nicole Smith’s kid has a daddy, and it only took a month to figure out who it is…

We killed 35 suspected Talibani head-cases.

Musharraf’s guys killed 300 militants.

Imus was cut from MSNBC for a “racial slur.” (what part of “knappy headed ho’s” indicates race?)

And I have made my decision about Mitt. 

NO WAY!

Mitt Romney is not my candidate.  No way, no how. 

(I’ll write in “Fred Thompson” if Mitt is on the ticket.)

From John Stossel

This week another politician said “enough” to politicians’ self-glorification. Probable presidential candidate Fred Thompson asked a legislator to withdraw his plan to name a stretch of U.S. Highway 43 “Fred Thompson Boulevard.”

I like everything I’ve heard from this guy.

I support the Fair Tax. 

Most of you know me as rational, right? I don’t have time to post every reason for the Fair Tax, but I’ve put a lot of thought into it, and it would be the biggest boost to the US economy ever. 

Companies would fight to return to the US…

Innovation would sky-rocket…

The Stock Market would boon…

People would experience greater control over their future…

Americans for Fair Taxation are looking for 100,000 signatures on a petition to co-sponsor the bill.  Please sign it.

Thanks,

Seth

Most of us don’t have time in the day to read all of the details of news stories.  A lot of us get our “knowledge” from headlines. 

Headlines are designed to generate “feelings”. 
Feelings are the left’s best friend.

Decisions based upon “feelings” are often the wrong decisions.  The editors of the MSM know that feelings drive a lot of people to buy their products.

Most people don’t have time to read the whole article, but if the headline generates “feelings” you might buy the paper or watch a little more TV. 

The MSM can control the population to some degree with the wording of a headline. 

I’ve seen more examples of this on this blog than I thought were possible… and this blog doesn’t specialize in exposing this sort of manipulation.

I just like to say that now and then: Atheism is a religion too.

It seemed apt today.

A lack of a belief is still a belief.

There are extremist atheists who want to ban all religious expression.

The butterfly effect – The Butterfly Effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. The idea is that small variations in the initial conditions of a dynamical system produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system.

Feelings of guilt can change behavior.  Guilt can make a person dour.  Guilt tends to reduce self esteem.  Guilt can manifest physical ailments.  Guilt can manifest emotional and mental conditions.  Guilt can cause death.

When a person feels guilty about a situation, they tend to avoid the people they feel guilt about.  A guilty person will develop a negative aura that others try to avoid.

A guilty person is less likely to be involved in business or social opportunities. 

One of the things I love about most religions is the notion of forgiveness.  Forgiving yourself can remove guilt.  Removing guilt can be the single biggest improvement any of us can ever make in our lives.

Excuse me if I copy anyone… I searched…

On February 7th, 2007 Byron York wrote and article about how Joe Wilson was picked to go to Niger.

According to the Senate report, Valerie Plame Wilson sent her e-mail on February 12, 2002 — the day before the vice president was briefed on the African uranium matter. The discrepancy between the two dates seems glaring, but was not included in the Senate report. That is because, according to a source familiar with the committee’s investigation, the CIA did not include the document in the materials it turned over to the committee. Senate investigators apparently never knew the exact date of the vice president’s request, so they never knew it came after Plame’s e-mail.

What does the new information mean? On February 12, 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency released — inside the government, not publicly — a report covering the Africa uranium issue; its title said that Niger had “signed an agreement to sell 500 tons of uranium a year to Baghdad.” CIA officials told Senate investigators the report spurred requests for information from both the State Department and the Department of Defense. Knowledgeable sources speculate — and they stress, they are speculating — that those inquiries from State and Defense were made on the 12th, the day the Defense Intelligence Agency report was sent around, and that Valerie Plame Wilson, in suggesting her husband be sent to investigate, was reacting to those requests, and not to the vice president’s question, which came the next day. In this new version of events, Dick Cheney was the last guy to request more information, not the first; the notion that his request started the whole affair seems wrong.

Read the whole thing… It’s like she lied or something…

Muslim’s don’t like pigs, right? So a school in England though… “Hey, let’s change the ‘Three Little Pigs’ to the ‘Three Little Puppies’.

Story Here

The Honley Church of England Junior School in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, decided that since pigs are offensive to Muslims, it should rework the classic tale and call it “The Three Little Puppies” instead, according to the Daily Mail of London.

Did it work? Did the act of capitulation make Muslims feel more at home?

Islamic leaders, however, condemned the move as misguided and said decisions like this were turning Muslims into “misfits” in society.

The moral? Changing everything in an attempt to NOT offend is, perhaps, MORE offensive than not changing…

This line of thinking:

“We have to be sensitive if we want to be multi-cultural. It was felt it would be more responsible not to use the three little pigs,” said committee member Gill Goodswen, head teacher of Stile Common Junior School.

is likely to do more harm than good, but is indicative of the left’s desire to make sure that no one has hurt feelings.

Morons!