I have been wondering for a few weeks now: Since we now own GM would our government be pressuring GM as vigorously as they are Toyota?
Not that I am defending Toyota. Nor am I say our government should not be pursing these safety issues.
But if you were the owner of a company would you pressure yourself? Would you make yourself testify before Congress? I am sure you would not. So it is a fair question.
Now the other question. Will Toyota point this out. That the U.S. Government is an owner of a competing car company? And if so does this cause a conflict of interest for the U.S. Government? Therefore, the United States cannot impose well...anything.
I don't know the answers to these questions. I am just asking. And if I am asking don't you think the Toyota lawyers are looking into it?
Monday, February 22, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Why do we have political parties?
If you are reading this hoping I will answer the question, I will not. I am really asking this question. Why do we have political parties?
I have heard for years that we need a two party system. A third party only messes things up. We don't need a third independent party but a revitalised Republican/Democratic party. Fine. But why do we need parties?
I am so tired of people voting for the "D" or the "R" after someone's name. Or listening to and disregarding others because they have a "D" or "R" by their name. We should asses each individual candidate on their merits. What they say. And more importantly what they do.
"Well we can't have a hundred candidates." You say. "We have to narrow down the field through primaries." You say.
Fine. Lets make some rules. And I am just spit balling here. If a candidate meets the criteria to run for office, the laws of the state, and the federal government; then they can run. Maybe they have to get 10,000 signatures. Maybe 100,000. Whatever the state puts out there. Then you have a primary and lets say the top three vote getters run for the office. No party just each candidate evaluated on their merit.
"It will never happen. Their is too much money and power wrapped up in the Democratic and Republican parties. Too much history." You say.
Right. And they won't let it happen. They will not go quietly into that good night. But do they run the country? Or do the people?
"Well, even our founders belonged to a political pary." You say.
True. But would they belong to either one of the parties we currently have?
I have heard for years that we need a two party system. A third party only messes things up. We don't need a third independent party but a revitalised Republican/Democratic party. Fine. But why do we need parties?
I am so tired of people voting for the "D" or the "R" after someone's name. Or listening to and disregarding others because they have a "D" or "R" by their name. We should asses each individual candidate on their merits. What they say. And more importantly what they do.
"Well we can't have a hundred candidates." You say. "We have to narrow down the field through primaries." You say.
Fine. Lets make some rules. And I am just spit balling here. If a candidate meets the criteria to run for office, the laws of the state, and the federal government; then they can run. Maybe they have to get 10,000 signatures. Maybe 100,000. Whatever the state puts out there. Then you have a primary and lets say the top three vote getters run for the office. No party just each candidate evaluated on their merit.
"It will never happen. Their is too much money and power wrapped up in the Democratic and Republican parties. Too much history." You say.
Right. And they won't let it happen. They will not go quietly into that good night. But do they run the country? Or do the people?
"Well, even our founders belonged to a political pary." You say.
True. But would they belong to either one of the parties we currently have?
Our Intentions were good.
"You choose a side...because you have to. It's not suppose to be the right one. The difference being...our...intentions were good." (Sgt Jim Raynor in the movie Rush 1991)
I was thinking about that line from the Movie Rush as I watched and read the news over the past week. It occurred to me than many people seem to think that way. As long as your intentions are good it does not matter. You can do anything as long as you have good intentions.
ACORN- Lie cheat steal. But we were trying to help the poor and helpless. Our intentions were good.
S.E.I.U - Beat down protesters at summer town hall meetings. But I our intentions were to help get health care passed. We had to stop those people from using their right to free speech. Our intentions were good.
I heard somewhere that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I am beginning to see how true that statement is.
The problem is this. Once you resort to lying, cheating, stealing, and ex specially violence you have lost the debate. If you have to do those things to accomplish your goals you need to examine your goals. And if you resort to using those tactics because the others side has then you are no better. Or as the character Christen Cates replied to Jim Raynor: The difference is there is no difference.
I was thinking about that line from the Movie Rush as I watched and read the news over the past week. It occurred to me than many people seem to think that way. As long as your intentions are good it does not matter. You can do anything as long as you have good intentions.
ACORN- Lie cheat steal. But we were trying to help the poor and helpless. Our intentions were good.
S.E.I.U - Beat down protesters at summer town hall meetings. But I our intentions were to help get health care passed. We had to stop those people from using their right to free speech. Our intentions were good.
I heard somewhere that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I am beginning to see how true that statement is.
The problem is this. Once you resort to lying, cheating, stealing, and ex specially violence you have lost the debate. If you have to do those things to accomplish your goals you need to examine your goals. And if you resort to using those tactics because the others side has then you are no better. Or as the character Christen Cates replied to Jim Raynor: The difference is there is no difference.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tim Tebow Commercial
WHERE WAS THE CONTROVERSY? There wasn't any. Just a sweet ad about a mother and her son. How proud she was of him and how glad that he was alive.
The controversy was that N.O.W., Planed Parenthood, and the pro-choice factions did not want the ad no mater what it said. They wanted to stop someones free speech without even knowing what the ad said. They don't like the people paying for the ad so we must shut them up.
If your argument is the right answer you should not care what the other side has to say. In fact when someone is wrong it is better to let them blabber on and on. But not these pro-choice lobbyist. Shut the other side up at all cost.
When they realised their was nothing in the add but a sweet story and a link to read the rest if YOU wanted to. The head of N.O.W. had to come out and say the ad promoted violence against women. She said nothing about the Betty White ad though. You see it is about who is saying it, not what is being said.
This hypocritical insanity is driving me....well...crazy!
This whole thing should give use great insight into who these people really are and what they really want. They want you to shut up if you do not agree with them. Well I for one will not.
The controversy was that N.O.W., Planed Parenthood, and the pro-choice factions did not want the ad no mater what it said. They wanted to stop someones free speech without even knowing what the ad said. They don't like the people paying for the ad so we must shut them up.
If your argument is the right answer you should not care what the other side has to say. In fact when someone is wrong it is better to let them blabber on and on. But not these pro-choice lobbyist. Shut the other side up at all cost.
When they realised their was nothing in the add but a sweet story and a link to read the rest if YOU wanted to. The head of N.O.W. had to come out and say the ad promoted violence against women. She said nothing about the Betty White ad though. You see it is about who is saying it, not what is being said.
This hypocritical insanity is driving me....well...crazy!
This whole thing should give use great insight into who these people really are and what they really want. They want you to shut up if you do not agree with them. Well I for one will not.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Entitled
This idea of entitlement is baffling to me. I was watching a news program where they were interviewing (mostly younger adults) on the street. The questions being asked was "What do you owe your country?" Every response was a variation of "Nothing." When asked what the country owed them the answers ranged from a education including college, to of course health care, to a job, to a place to live, even a car so one could get to work.
I just do not get it. Why are we entitled to everything because we were born here? In the age group I am in my great grandparents lived through the great depression. My grandparents were adults during World War II. Those two generations sacrificed. Saved. Skimped. Fought and died. They did all those things for my parents, myself, my kids, and future generations.
My parents generation seemed to go one of two ways. They either gave their kids everything they could afford. Or they took a cue from their parents and were thrifty and prepared for the next major crisis. A crisis which never really came...til now.
We are at the point now where my generation the 30 somethings and the 20 somethings are going to have to sacrifice. We are going to have to give up some of our entitlements for the next few generations to survive. If we don't, this country, and all it's greatness will be lost.
Yes I am one of those who believes in American exceptionalizm. I believe for several reasons this country has been blessed with greatness. This country has contributed more time, talent, and treasure to building up people all around the world than any nation has before. That is what we are suppose to do. To who much is given much is expected.
We as a generation need to start giving back. Serving our country by serving others. We are not entitled to all the riches just because we were born here. We are not entitled to everything this country can provide because our great grandparents, our grand parents, and our parents sacrificed for us. We must do the same to secure the future for our offspring.
I just do not get it. Why are we entitled to everything because we were born here? In the age group I am in my great grandparents lived through the great depression. My grandparents were adults during World War II. Those two generations sacrificed. Saved. Skimped. Fought and died. They did all those things for my parents, myself, my kids, and future generations.
My parents generation seemed to go one of two ways. They either gave their kids everything they could afford. Or they took a cue from their parents and were thrifty and prepared for the next major crisis. A crisis which never really came...til now.
We are at the point now where my generation the 30 somethings and the 20 somethings are going to have to sacrifice. We are going to have to give up some of our entitlements for the next few generations to survive. If we don't, this country, and all it's greatness will be lost.
Yes I am one of those who believes in American exceptionalizm. I believe for several reasons this country has been blessed with greatness. This country has contributed more time, talent, and treasure to building up people all around the world than any nation has before. That is what we are suppose to do. To who much is given much is expected.
We as a generation need to start giving back. Serving our country by serving others. We are not entitled to all the riches just because we were born here. We are not entitled to everything this country can provide because our great grandparents, our grand parents, and our parents sacrificed for us. We must do the same to secure the future for our offspring.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Haitian Orphans
My wife and I have been talking about the orphans created by the earthquake in Haiti ever since the day of the quake. For the first 9 years of our marriage we were unable to have kids. Since then we have been entrusted with three of the most fun and inspiring individuals I have ever known. But before they came my wife and I had talked about adopting.
The last pregnancy was very high risk and hard on my wife. And although we would consider having more children I do not wish for her to got through that again. So the discussion of adoption had come up again. Naturally because of the situation our minds and hearts were drawn to Haiti.
Haiti has very restrictive adoption rules.
1. A married couple can adopt as long as one of the members is over 35 and they have been married at least 10 years. Okay I get that. They want a stable mature couple. Check.
2. A single woman can adopt as long as she is over 35. Again a mature grown up person. I get it.
3. The adoption process takes 2 years and must be approved by the Haitian president. Okay we don't want to rush things. Got it.
4. A married couple or single woman can only adopt a Haitian child if they have no biological children of their own. What?!!!
That I do not understand. If you have your own children you cannot adopt a Haitian orphan. I have tried to figure this out. The only thing I can come up with is they want to give children to people who really want a child and cannot have one on their own. But why keep children from parents who love their own children and want to care, love, and make another one their own. I do not understand that.
Maybe because of the sheer number of children that will be needing good homes they will loosen this restriction.
The last pregnancy was very high risk and hard on my wife. And although we would consider having more children I do not wish for her to got through that again. So the discussion of adoption had come up again. Naturally because of the situation our minds and hearts were drawn to Haiti.
Haiti has very restrictive adoption rules.
1. A married couple can adopt as long as one of the members is over 35 and they have been married at least 10 years. Okay I get that. They want a stable mature couple. Check.
2. A single woman can adopt as long as she is over 35. Again a mature grown up person. I get it.
3. The adoption process takes 2 years and must be approved by the Haitian president. Okay we don't want to rush things. Got it.
4. A married couple or single woman can only adopt a Haitian child if they have no biological children of their own. What?!!!
That I do not understand. If you have your own children you cannot adopt a Haitian orphan. I have tried to figure this out. The only thing I can come up with is they want to give children to people who really want a child and cannot have one on their own. But why keep children from parents who love their own children and want to care, love, and make another one their own. I do not understand that.
Maybe because of the sheer number of children that will be needing good homes they will loosen this restriction.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Liberal vs. Conservative thought
I was pondering today the differences between liberal and conservative thinking. Somehow I got around to the "Promote the general welfare" clause of the Constitution. This clause and the way the liberal and conservative interpret it are a defining area in the argument.
The liberal takes the clause to mean making sure everyone is taken care of. Health care, unemployment, minimum wage, social security, a chicken in every pot etc...
The conservative takes it to mean a law and order system which provides safety and then gets out of the way and lets people live, create, produce, invent, pursue happiness etc...
I think the word "promote" gives away what the founding fathers were thinking. They took a lot of time getting the wording just right in the Constitution. In another area they used the word "provide" in the "Provide for the common defense" clause. The meaning being clear. The government must provide security for the populace.
But why use "promote"? What does a promoter do? A promoter maybe reserves a venue for someone to entertain. Advertises for the entertainment. Makes sure everything is just the way the entertainment wants it. They do not entertain or perform. They do not give the entertainer or performer the skill to do their job. They do not create.
So using this idea the government should provide a country with laws that promote the success of it's populace. They should not provide the ideas, the financing, or the production. So lets promote the general welfare and give everyone the freedom to succeed. If we start promoting invention, creation, and producing more in this country that will provide people with jobs, health care, homes, and welfare.
The liberal takes the clause to mean making sure everyone is taken care of. Health care, unemployment, minimum wage, social security, a chicken in every pot etc...
The conservative takes it to mean a law and order system which provides safety and then gets out of the way and lets people live, create, produce, invent, pursue happiness etc...
I think the word "promote" gives away what the founding fathers were thinking. They took a lot of time getting the wording just right in the Constitution. In another area they used the word "provide" in the "Provide for the common defense" clause. The meaning being clear. The government must provide security for the populace.
But why use "promote"? What does a promoter do? A promoter maybe reserves a venue for someone to entertain. Advertises for the entertainment. Makes sure everything is just the way the entertainment wants it. They do not entertain or perform. They do not give the entertainer or performer the skill to do their job. They do not create.
So using this idea the government should provide a country with laws that promote the success of it's populace. They should not provide the ideas, the financing, or the production. So lets promote the general welfare and give everyone the freedom to succeed. If we start promoting invention, creation, and producing more in this country that will provide people with jobs, health care, homes, and welfare.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Scott Brown Win
I hope not only the Democrats get a message from the Scott Brown win. The Republicans need to get the message as well. We have had enough of party politics. Party DOES NOT come before country!
We are looking for REPRESENTATIVES that REPRESENT us. Not RESENT us. We have been urning for this for a long time. We gave the Republicans a chance and they blew it. The Democrats had their chance and immediately pushed and agenda unpopular with the American people. They decided they knew better.
We as a country are at a boiling point. You, the elected officials, will listen to us or you will loose your job.
We are looking for REPRESENTATIVES that REPRESENT us. Not RESENT us. We have been urning for this for a long time. We gave the Republicans a chance and they blew it. The Democrats had their chance and immediately pushed and agenda unpopular with the American people. They decided they knew better.
We as a country are at a boiling point. You, the elected officials, will listen to us or you will loose your job.
As I was looking at some of my children's toys today I began checking where they were all manufactured. China, India, Singapore, Korea and Mexico came up often. These were American owned things like Disney, United Features Syndicate (The Peanuts gang Snoopy and Charlie Brown) Tonka, Hot Wheels and others. All American owned invention's and ideas.
I began to think about the 30 million people without jobs in the United States. Then I put together that 30 million is about the number being thrown around of people without health insurance. That makes sense because most people get health coverage through their jobs.
I wondered what it would take to get those American owned companies to being their products back to the United States for production. I'm sure lowering the minimum wage would help. But we could not lower it enough to be competitive with the countries mentioned above. Tax incentives would be very helpful. Maybe loosening regulations a bit.
We wouldn't need all the jobs to come home. Just enough to cut the 10% unemployment back down to size. Of course we as a country would have to make some sacrifices. Like the minimum wage. Like paying a bit more for products. I think maybe it would be a small price to pay for getting America moving again and covering many people with health care.
I began to think about the 30 million people without jobs in the United States. Then I put together that 30 million is about the number being thrown around of people without health insurance. That makes sense because most people get health coverage through their jobs.
I wondered what it would take to get those American owned companies to being their products back to the United States for production. I'm sure lowering the minimum wage would help. But we could not lower it enough to be competitive with the countries mentioned above. Tax incentives would be very helpful. Maybe loosening regulations a bit.
We wouldn't need all the jobs to come home. Just enough to cut the 10% unemployment back down to size. Of course we as a country would have to make some sacrifices. Like the minimum wage. Like paying a bit more for products. I think maybe it would be a small price to pay for getting America moving again and covering many people with health care.
Monday, January 18, 2010
The First Thorne
I decided to start this blog to post random thoughts about life. I believe all of my interest will be addressed here at some point. Polticts and news but I do not want it to be a political blog. Family but that will be rare here. Music and movies but I do not want it to be just entertainment. Football is another major interest but that again will be a rare comment. I address faith issues in my other blog but I am sure it will come up here time and again. Most of all I just want a place to vent my random thoughts and ideas that I cannot express freely in other forms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
