Physicist, cosmologist, and undisputed genius, Stephen Hawking, in a recent documentary, proposed that time travel might one day be possible, but only in the "forward" direction.  As one who has spent a lifetime studying such things, any sensible person must give Mr. Hawking's opinion a lot of weight.  But as a skeptic, armchair philosopher, and rational thinker, I can't entirely agree with Mr. Hawking's statement.

I must start by saying that the point is probably moot because nobody living today is ever likely to see anything remotely resembling time travel.  However, I don't think it is very useful to completely rule out a possibility until there is some empirical means of ruling it out.  Since we can only travel through time at the constant rate at which we are accustomed at the moment, we can't very well say for sure one way or another.

Based on my limited understanding, it would take a very major shift in scientific thought to even approach the issue of time travel - at least regarding any object large enough to be seen by the naked eye.  The march of time seems to be an immutable law of the universe, though Einstein, and now Hawking, both propose ways of basically "cheating" time.  Though I am not fully acquainted with Hawking's version, I don't disagree that forward time travel should be immeasurably easier than backward time travel.

I've always had a problem with Einstein's theory because it involved light and travel, neither of which does anything to break the flow of actual time.  Granted, if you could travel a light-year distant at a speed faster than light and return again, you would outrace light.  As the theory goes, the faster you travel over the speed of light, the more time appears to flow in reverse, because the flow of light would reverse, thus time would as well.

I am not convinced that light and time are inexorably linked.  I suspect that even if you could alter the flow of light, time would most likely continue to march forward.  For example, if a ball is bouncing, you may leave as the ball is descending from its apex and return faster than the light which reflects the event.  The result would likely be a visual blur disconnected from the actual position of the ball because there is no evidence that time and light are intertwined.

One of the theories that may shed light on this seeming contradiction is the Heisenberg uncertainty principal.  We know that electrons move extremely quickly around the nucleus of an atom - so much so that under magnification they would appear to form a cloud, though there may only be a few electrons in orbit.  Heisenberg stated that you cannot simultaneously measure both the momentum and position of an electron.  This is because by measuring the position, you inevitably alter the momentum, and by measuring the momentum, you inevitably alter the position.

Equating this to our bouncing ball, light is simply a subjective measure of momentum and position.  If you remove light from the equation by blindfolding the observer, then the observer would need to physically touch the ball to measure the ball's position or momentum.  But by touching the ball, you alter both.  Similarly, by toying with the speed of light, we have simply altered our perception of the ball's position and momentum.  By taking a physical measurement, we would find that light has nothing to do with the ball's actual position relative to time.

No, if anything is to be done to affect time travel, I suspect that we would need to radically alter our concept of time itself.  One analogy that may be useful (albeit simplistic), is to think of time as a flowing river.  As hard as it is to stop a river by erecting a dam, it would be immensely more difficult to stop the flow of time.  As far as we are aware, time permeates or flows through all matter down to the quantum level.  Even if we could somehow build a time dam to stop whatever time actually is, it would be exponentially harder to reverse it - much as would be nearly impossible to reverse the Mississippi river.

I say nearly impossible because a river's forward movement is determined by planetary and cosmic factors.  It is a given that if the rotation of the earth were to change, poles were to reverse, and various other cosmic events were to occur, a river could, indeed, flow in the opposite direction.  I propose that time may operate similarly.  Again, the point being nearly moot because humans haven't the technology to reverse the flow of a river, much less the flow of time.  But not completely - in theory, a reversal of the flow of time may not be impossible, though much like the events that could reverse a river's flow, the events that spur the change may be catastrophic.

In practical terms, I won't disagree with Hawking.  Much as a twig floating on the river of time, it is much more likely that we may find some means to propel us forward than to be able to fight the current and travel upstream.  Even if we could exit the flow of the river for a time and reenter it at the same position, we would very likely find that the "past" water will have changed entirely.  This is because the position of the water has changed relative to time.  In the steady march forward, the water will have picked up minerals, debris, or changed in other ways because the position of the water continues forward.

By the same token, traveling into the future would not necessarily put us into the same time stream as we would be in had we simply floated lazily along the time stream.  Equate this to picking up one of two sticks floating down a river and throwing the stick some distance downstream.  Yes, the thrown stick has moved forward, but the new water is not the same as the old water upon which the unthrown stick still floats.  Having reentered the stream some distance ahead of the unthrown stick, the thrown stick is now surrounded with an entirely different reality.

As I said, I don't think even forward time travel is possible given our current understanding.  I don't think we even perceive the river of time in which we float, much less understand it.  But one thing I am not prepared to say is that there can never be a possibility of altering our course in the stream of time, either forwards, or back.

The left asserts that the reason that healthcare costs are so high is because a relatively high percentage of people have no insurance.  Many of our politicians in the right have even bought into this idea, or at least tacitly ceded the point.  The only problem is that the idea of higher numbers equals lower costs is a big lie and I am going to prove it to you using logic.

First, let me take you back to your high school economics class where you were taught about the rules of supply and demand.  What happens when demand increases?  That's right - the price increases.  But let's pretend that the lesson doesn't apply to the healthcare industry.  Instead, let's look at another insurance industry - the auto insurance industry.

Obviously, there are some differences between healthcare and auto insurance.  For one thing, you are required by law to have auto insurance before you can drive a car.  The healthcare industry doesn't have a similar mechanism to force people to be insured.  I might argue that some people still drive and crash without having auto insurance, but the differences between the industries are peripheral to my point.  All you need is a little experience with shopping for auto insurance to expose the lie.

If you've shopped around for a better auto insurance rate as I have, consider this: Allstate Insurance claims to insure more drivers than Geico and Progressive combined.  Now ask yourself whose rates are the lowest.  Hint: it isn't Allstate.  Yes, the smaller insurance companies offer better rates.  Why is that?  By the leftist assertion that more people insured means lower prices, shouldn't Allstate have the lowest rates?

The reason that those smaller companies have lower rates has nothing to do with the number of drivers they insure.  It has everything to do with competition.  In order to compete in a free market, smaller companies must offer something that the larger companies don't have - in this case, lower rates.  Larger companies can and often must charge higher rates.  They can because they have a fairly loyal customer base and it is somewhat of a hassle to change insurance companies.  They must because the larger a company gets, the more wasteful it becomes.

Now consider how this principle in relation to national healthcare insurance.  By subsidizing national healthcare using your tax dollars, the government can offer a better price on insurance than any private company.  But confiscating money and then offering me a lower price on a dubious product is not what I call "saving money."  Taking more of my money as a penalty for not buying a dubious product begins to look a lot more like highway robbery in a very literal sense.

Unfortunately, the cycle is infinitely sustainable because politicians do not have to be accountable for their tricky accounting.  They can continue offering you the same low price, but they must take more and more of your money.  In fact, since the government is filled with waste and corruption far beyond the free market, the ultimate cost of your healthcare will skyrocket.  And there will be no companies able to compete at any price because the private sector can't simply confiscate your money to subsidize their own products.

So what is the real problem?  It's the same problem that republicans have proposed fixing: government regulation.  Nobody is suggesting deregulating the entire industry, but one regulation in particular has done more to harm competition in the healthcare industry than almost any other industry.  That is the prevention of healthcare companies from going national.  There is no national competition in the healthcare industry.  There is no large healthcare firm for local businesses to compete against.  There is no Allstate for a Geico or a Progressive to compete against in the healthcare industry.

Worst of all, insurance rates vary wildly from state to state because every state has different regulations on healthcare.  As an individual, you cannot shop for healthcare rates outside of your state.  What other industries do we limit to state lines?  What if you were limited to buying cars produced in your own state?  Would cars cost more or less to produce if they couldn't be produced nationally?

It is obvious that the free market has never had a chance to work properly to reduce the cost of healthcare because regulations have prevented it.  Instead of tricking people into thinking that healthcare subsidized with their own confiscated money is somehow a bargain because it costs less, why not let the market do its job for a change?

It is the 4th of July - Independence Day. I previously made a conscious decision this year not to watch the local fireworks display. At the time, I couldn't quite say why I had no desire to see the same fireworks which used to delight and awe me as a child and still holds some fascination to me as an adult. I just wasn't in the mood this year.

 

The time came and the rest of my family went to take in the display. I went home, but it was impossible to miss the display in the distance, less than a mile from my home. In spite of my reluctance, I was drawn to the bursts of light in the sky. As in a trance, I walked from my house to an open field where I could get a full view of the colorful shells exploding in the sky.

 

I watched for a few minutes, feeling something was missing. It wasn't family or friends - those would have only been distractions to the realization of what was truly missing - the feeling that others who were watching that same display felt any kind of appreciation for what Independence Day represents.

 

As I watched, my mind was whisked back to the event which America originally celebrated on July 4^th, 1776 – the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It was with much pride and joy that the Second Continental Congress finally signed the declaration which officially announced America's independence from the tyrannical rule of Great Britain. I thought of how the words they crafted must have still been ringing in their ears, “...that all men are created equal...with certain inalienable rights...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”

 

As my mind snapped back to the present, the contrast between the ideals which formed our government and the style of government we have now gained new clarity. No longer, it seems, is the purpose of the government to secure the right of liberty. Instead, our current government offers ever-decreasing freedom in exchange for ever-increasing assurances that equality will be enforced.

 

But equality was not our founder's goal. It is merely our birthright. Men cannot, and will not ever remain equal in all things. Even in the strictest of slavery, there will is always someone to wield the whip. Though we are not at the point of abject slavery in this country, that is the direction we are headed.

 

Freedom is quickly being eroded in the name of security, stability, and equality – promises which the type of government we are headed for will not be able to keep. Most disturbingly, it is the American people who have authorized it, and in many cases, demanded it. The words of one celebrant on the day of Barack Obama's election to the presidency has haunted me since I heard them: “I'm so proud of America. Now I won't have to work and I can still take care of my family.” The subtle tyranny in these words was obvious to me from the outset. What I heard was, “Now I will be able to enslave the rest of the American people into taking care of my needs before their own.”

 

Make no mistake, this is a popular sentiment. For who would not like to be taken care of in the pursuit of their personal interests? Indeed, this is the mechanism whereby countless government officials maintain their life-long positions. These officials buy their constituents loyalty at the expense of the rest of the nation in the form of “pork”. As long as the money continues to flow and prosperity seems apparent to the common man, the common man asks no questions.

 

The problem with this cycle is that is it not sustainable. As the popular phrase goes (commonly, but questionably, ascribed to Margaret Thatcher), “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.” For to keep one constituency happy, you must tax another – and as the burden of those taxes increase, the ability and willingness of people to pay them decreases. So socialism becomes a great balancing act, paying one group today, and another group tomorrow – no group benefiting except those who confiscate and redistribute the money. French political thinker and historian, Alexis de Tocqueville termed this as the “tyranny of the majority.”

The knowledge that is lost on a majority of the American people is that government is overhead. In other words, government, in and of itself, has never, and will never, be profitable. It does not create products or offer services which may be traded on the open market for wealth. Nor would government deem to return that wealth to taxpayers if it did. Government cannot, and will not ever create prosperity among its people, much less can it ensure it.

 

Industry is the only mechanism of prosperity in this world. The creation of goods and services which can be sold and traded is that which creates profit. And, contrary to popular belief, this profit radiates out to the masses. For example, a man who sells his corn at market decides he needs a road and builds one. In building that road, he enables others in his community to move about more easily, enriching their lives as well. Or in a more modern example, a man moves into a community and builds a fancy house and a business. That house improves property values in the community and that business provides employment for local people and an incentive for other businesses to begin there as well. Most, if not all, industry benefits everyone in its area of influence.

 

The upshot of this is that when your government promises to give you wealth or other benefits, it is not the government's wealth that it is promising. It is yours, and your neighbor's and your local businessman's. And in confiscating that money, the government promotes it's own self-interests. Government removes it from doing you any earthly good. Then when it deigns to return a small portion of it to us under the guise of “economic stimulus”, we are expected to thank our lucky stars that our government is so kind and thoughtful in taking care of our needs. Yet if our leaders honestly wanted to help, they would take less money out of our pockets and let it work to improve our families and communities.

 

Yet somehow this lesson has escaped the majority of the American people, who continually overlook their politician's personal and political ideals, opting instead to elect those whose fancy speeches and appealing presence lull them into a false sense of security. Phrases such as, “I just want to spread the wealth around a little,” raise not a single warning bell in most American's minds. Not once did the majority of Americans stop to think that the analogous phrase would be, “I just want to confiscate your money and give it to whomever I deem worthy of it (while also profiting personally from the transaction).”

 

Somehow the connection between higher taxes and less freedom eludes people. Simply taken to the extreme, if a person has every penny confiscated, where is that person's freedom then? What can that person do with nothing? Where may that person go without a single penny? As unpopular as the notion may be, money is the cornerstone of freedom. Remove a person's money, and you restrict the activities which that person may pursue.

 

Why is this an unpopular notion? Because many years of liberal thought has made it so. Wealthy people are demonized as being outside of the law, and yet the law always seems to overcome wealth in the end. From Wall Street tycoons to massive corporations, all seem to be falling before the law at an alarmingly increasing rate. But the notion isn't entirely off-base; wealthy celebrities seem to frequently get a pass from the law and the American people. It isn't because they are wealthy – it is because they are popular. But we are to believe that money is at the root of this evil injustice.

 

It isn't just the confiscation of wealth that enslaves us, though. It is also the willingness of Americans to give up personal freedoms for assurances of security – most notably in the form of government-provided healthcare. It doesn't seem to matter to most Americans that they will no longer be able to choose for themselves what is best for themselves and their family, as long as the government assures us that we will be taken care of.

 

It is also the tolerance of government interference in the free market that enslaves us. Today we give the leave to government to run car companies and banks in the name of ensuring that they run well, and tomorrow it is our own businesses that the government will run. When the government can take charge of a company that makes a mistake, what's to stop them from taking charge of yours? Is there any among us that haven't ever made mistakes?

 

It is also the willing belief in a socialist-leaning media that enslaves us. The founders of our country put a strong emphasis on state's rights to govern themselves. Why? Because it tends to translate into personal rights as well. Yet when a state government, backed by popular sentiment, decides it is time to police it's own border with a foreign nation, socialist media creates an uproar, followed by a popular uproar among the ignorant, followed by a federal government that intends to challenge, and perhaps override, the rights given to the states in the Constitution as a protection against tyranny from an expansive government.

 

It is all these things and more. Americans have abandoned the idea that personal freedom is paramount above all. This is not a new problem. In his 1960's book, Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater observes, “The delicate balance that ideally exists between freedom and order has long since tipped against freedom practically everywhere on earth...In our country, the trend is far less advanced, but it is well along and gathering momentum every day.”

 

I propose that never in America's history has the trend gained as much momentum as it has since Obama took office. At every turn, our freedoms are being eroded in the name of the public good. If people would just stop and think what is truly good for the public, they would line the streets in protest. Indeed, some brave souls are, but it isn't enough.

 

Suffice to say until Americans take a stand against a government bent on curtailing personal freedom, this country will no longer “trend” towards tyranny, but barrel wildly towards it. It is this which has ruined my celebration of our country's celebration of independence. For independence is freedom, and freedom is that which is in short supply in America today.

In order to deal with the enourmouse state deficit, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn claims he must raise Illinois income taxes by 50%. The legislation, defeated by Illinois House GOPs, follows a prior tax and fee increases, which passed in March of this year. Gov. Quinn continues to appeal to voters for the increase by suggesting that programs for children and the elderly will otherwise have to be cut by as much as 50%. 

Republican leader Christine Radogno condemns the tax hike, as well as Gov. Quinn’s threats as being fear tactics and called them, “wrong, wrong, wrong.”

I disagree with Radogno. In fact, taking a page from Governor Quinn’s book, I have told my teenage daughter that she doesn’t contribute enough to the household budget. She has been threatened that if she doesn’t earn more money for the household, I will have to sell the house, kill the dog, and stop buying groceries.

I will not be cutting back on satellite television, internet service, cell phones, or entertainment.  After all, you can only do so much!

I am really sick of hearing about the number of "jobs" that have been/will be created by government. Even conservatives have imbibed the liberal-speak cool-aid on the idea of "job creation." Once again, we have allowed liberals to define our language much in the way we let them define our language on the topic of "gay marriage" (an obvious contradiction) or "animal rights" (when an animal requests rights, I'll consider giving it some).

Let's make this very clear: Government does not now and will not ever create jobs. It isn't the nature of government to create jobs. What government creates is called "work".

What's the difference between "jobs" and "work"? The primary difference is that jobs are self-sustaining. Work is simply an economic black hole - you can pour money into work, but you never get a monetary return on your investment.

Why can't government create jobs? Because politicians are not interested in return on investment, at least not as far as dollars and cents. The only return a politician is concerned about is a return to the polls. The only question a politician asks when spending money is how many votes it will garner or lose them.

The evidence on this is very clear - just look at some of the alleged "jobs" created by the recent trillion-plus economic stimulus created: building roadway turtle crossings (are we charging the turtles to cross?), renovating state parks (which, last I checked, were free), swine odor research (how do we make that pay back?), etc. Almost none of the WORK government spends money on has any hope of a return on investment - except in votes. After all, nobody wants to run over turtles crossing the road, and everyone loves a state park, and who wants to smell swine? It's all very "nice", but it all amounts to public works projects that will never earn back what we spend on them.

Jobs, on the other hand, are self-sustaining. Private businesses almost never hire employees that have no hope of ever earning back what they are paid. Salespeople are expected to sell, construction workers are expected to build, and investment is expected to pay off - not in good will, but in actual dollars. If workers do not pay off, they are fired and someone has to work a little bit harder to make up for the loss. Only businesses can create jobs because businesses are concerned about making money - not earning votes.

I am calling on all conservatives to dispense with the liberal concept of "jobs" and start referring to it as "work". Let's not let liberals define the language we use for debate because that concedes the idea that their premise is valid, which it isn't.

Harsh as this statement may seem to the "well-meaning" liberal, it is nonetheless true.  Here's how it works:

First, think of the most fundamental and traditional social unit.  Did you think of a family?  Civilization has been structured around the family “unit” since the dawn of man, so I’m guessing you did.  Even animals recognize the value of family-style relationships as they roam in packs, flocks, or even traditional families.  You might say that a family is a basic form of socialism; members share property, responsibility, and often individuals are required to bear the burdens of others in the group.

Political socialism, a more “respectable” version of communism (Friedrich Engels, 1947), requires individuals to bear the burdens of society.  Socialism replaces the family as the basic socioeconomic unit with a vast group of strangers. There is no affinity among these strangers, and indeed, many wouldn’t hesitate to bite the hand that feeds them. Both socialism and the family cannot exist equally because socialism drains the resources of the family by taxing the individuals who contribute to the household.  This “spreading of the wealth” is a stated objective of socialism. The unstated objective is to destroy the family by shifting your personal economic reliance away from the family.

Let’s look at a very hot topic in terms of the family: socialized medicine. The healthcare industry currently centers on the family. There are family doctors, family healthcare plans, and family-oriented facilities. While some individual care exists, a growing number of individuals without families choose not to purchase healthcare insurance and avoid getting medical attention for less than a major event.

Assuming democrats may one day socialize medicine in the U.S., the medical industry’s family-orientation would be gone forever. Each individual would be born with the right to healthcare. Nobody would be dependent on their family for their health and well-being. The government would take over that role of the family, making the family unit substantially less important to individuals.

Let’s look at something that has already been socialized: education. How many parents’ responsibility for parenting is taken over by the schools? Sex is taught by the school. Politics are taught by the school. Schools influence a child’s entire belief system. In the words of Hillary Clinton, “It takes a village to raise a child.” This is the socialist ideal.

Many parents attempt to fight the system but in the end, many parents simply turn their children’s education over to the state. The numbers of children who aren’t raised by the state grow fewer and fewer and adult freethinkers are becoming scarce. The unique ideas that come from the family microcosm have been diminished through nationalized education.

It is no mystery that when social conservatives react strongly when they hear the term, “gay marriage.” Americans that have been raised with strong family values are naturally averse to such a cheapening of the concept of family. While no different in practice, “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” garner much less resistance simply because they don’t appear to intrude on the endangered institution of marriage.

The most interesting phenomenon is how many Americans are in denial about the advance of socialism. Weakening the family is a concept right out of the Karl Marx handbook, “The Communist Manifesto”. As stated therein, “The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.”

This brings us to our final anti-family concept, “spreading the wealth around” (Barak Obama to Joe “the Plumber”, campaign 2008). The principal of property ownership is a concept that is constantly being threatened by the liberal “progressive movement.” The fruits of your labors should not be yours to keep, but should be shared with the entire country, primarily via a multi-tiered tax system. If someone lacks the talent or ambition to work as hard as you do, then you should work incrementally harder so those less gifted don’t have to. Indeed, no aspect of who you are should be allowed to prosper at the expense of someone else.

The flaw in this liberal belief is that one must ALWAYS prosper at the cost of someone else. Yet in practice, we know that when a man paves a road to benefit himself, it can serve everyone around him as well. When people have money to spend to enhance their own lifestyle, there is always someone selling to them who, in turn, enhance their own lifestyle. Economics is NOT a “zero-sum game.” You CAN enrich your own life while enriching the lives of others as well. The buyer and the seller both gain from a transaction (barring government intervention, of course).

Still, America rushes headlong into socialism – unaware of the forces working to undermine the most fundamental and traditional social unit. Some might say, “Well, it obviously hasn’t happened!” Yet. A pig may be gluttonous, but even a pig will refuse food if it is forced down the pig’s gullet. Democrats are well aware of this principal, and are leading us down the primrose path to the slaughter. I pray that the majority of Americans can see the end of the road before it is too late to turn back.

In spite of the rising swine flu pandemic in Mexico, which is now spilling over into the U.S., Obama and Pelosi stated yesterday that they will not shut down the U.S./Mexican border. The excuse given is that “it’s already here”, which apparently means we should just come to accept the inevitability rather than trying to fight this flu pandemic through quarantines and other outbreak control methods.

This reluctance to fight the outbreak comes as a shock to many, leaving people only the hope that the pandemic won’t be as severe as predicted if, god forbid, they should happen to contract this terrible and potentially deadly virus. But the democrat position of inaction shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. The position is rooted deep in democrat philosophy: We, here in America, have not suffered with the rest of the world – and now we can. Yes, we can!

Why should such a position be any surprise after Obama’s “Apology to the World Tour”? After all, America is evil and selfish! The rest of the world is suffering and we refuse to help - at least in the government-mandated way that democrats insist on. Even at the potential cost of thousands of American lives, we still must give our neighbors south of the border full access to all the benefits of American citizenship.

Yes, immigrants and illegal immigrants alike generally support the democrat party, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that the reluctance to close the border is politically motivated. It is all based on a deeply-rooted democrat ideal – Americans should be forced to “spread the wealth around”, and we are expected to happily accept hatred, disease, terror, and death in return. The old adage is especially alive in the democrat ideology – no good deed should go unpunished.

In the wake of the republican’s loss of the presidency as well as both houses of congress, many are scratching their heads wondering what went wrong. Most blame the series of bad decisions made by the Bush administration. Others blame McCain’s pathetic presidential campaign. Still others have more complex causes in mind. All of these arguments have merit, but I propose that these are all merely symptoms of the real problem: an abdication of personal responsibility.

I am an independent voter because I believe that a dogmatic vote is an irresponsible vote. So after long and careful consideration, I bit my tongue and voted straight republican in 2008. I knew that an Obama presidency would usher in many more socialist policies than would a McCain presidency. But the national electorate apparently wasn’t as worried about socialism as I was. They are now.

Obama has been true to his campaign promises. Banks and brokers have been effectively nationalized. Financial losers can now enjoy windfalls thanks to Obama’s redistributionist policies. The country’s financial future is being sacrificed now to provide a modicum of relief to a minimum of people. As hard as the recession is on some, Obama is determined to make it equally hard on everyone. Obama’s policies all come down to one thing: abdication of personal responsibility. He believes nobody should suffer the consequences of their own actions. People are starting to wake up to the horrors of socialist policy, and they are starting to react.

But the problem is that McCain wouldn’t have done much better with the financial crisis. He fought for the first major bail-out of the financial industry, and he campaigned on policies of convoluted healthcare credits and one-time tax credits. The icing on the cake is that his campaign overspent, and now he is asking for a bailout from anyone that initially supported him. Not only did he fail to represent personal responsibility in his campaign, but he continues to abdicate responsibility for himself.

Given the choice between Obama and McCain, I admit I had a difficult time deciding. Had I been given the choice between Hillary and McCain, it would have been even more difficult. In spite of some of the goofy socialist nonsense Hillary has written, I believe she may have governed more towards the center than McCain would have (and certainly more than Obama has).

The solution for republicans is staring them in the face: come back to the ideal of personal responsibility. I’m not saying that there can be no societal safety nets. The safety nets are already in place: bankruptcy, unemployment compensation, churches, community centers, and homeless shelters. If these systems can’t handle the influx, shore them up! Repeal the 2005 bankruptcy act if necessary. Increase unemployment contributions if necessary. But there is a big difference between social safety nets and socialism.

Republicans face a wide spectrum of differences within their party. There is the religious right and there is the agnostic center and everything in between. The republican “base” has been marginalized into irrelevancy. Somehow, the party needs to come together. The issue we all share in common is personal responsibility.

There are very few people in this country that want their money redistributed to the undeserving minority. Few Americans believe that people with no motivation, talent, or skill should rule over those who have earned their lifestyle. No sane person would hand a loaded gun to someone who has sworn to murder anyone who gets in their way. Every American has some sense of personal responsibility; even the socialist left believes in a moral imperative, misguided though they may be.

 

If you are confused by the complexities of the current market crisis, you are not alone. The American economy is a delicate and complicated machine. Like a stone dropped in a pond, there can be ripples caused by the slightest disturbance. However, the current market crisis can be boiled down to some very basic events.

The Stone - Improper Lending Policies

There is little doubt what triggered this crisis. Banks and brokers were encouraged by the government to make unreasonable loans and they stumbled over themselves to make it happen. In 2003, the Bush administration warned that these bad loans would lead to a financial crisis, but the warning was ignored by congress. Democrat Barney Frank ridiculed the administration's notion:

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (From U.S. News & World Report)

Congress pushed the "feel good" measures to allow the undeserving-of-credit to obtain a mortgage. Not everyone believed it was a good idea, but most Americans can't accept the concept that the majority of poor people deserve to be poor. Popular demand allowed the liberal measures to pass without serious contest.

The First Ripple - Foreclosures

True to form, the majority of those who didn't deserve a mortgage in the first place defaulted on their loans. Hundreds of thousands of loans went into foreclosure. Banks found themselves holding paper and property with little to no value.

Some assert that adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) are to blame, and that lenders acted in a predatory manner. As someone who has experienced an ARM, I admit it isn't the most fun loan to repay. However, I wouldn't blame the lender if I wasn't able to pay it. If I know payments on a loan can increase by two percent per year up to a maximum percent, I'm going to figure out if I can pay the maximum percent, not the current percent. That's just common sense. I feel no sympathy for people with no common sense.

The Second Ripple - Fannie May and Freddie Mac

As the top two mortgage lenders, these two institutions found themselves holding the majority of the worthless loans. Investors in these two companies, as well as a number of other financial institutions, lose confidence. They start pulling money. Seemingly overnight, America's financial giants are brought to their knees.

A few CEOs may have caught on and pulled out at the last minute, taking huge investment profits and walking away. Smaller investors wake up one morning to find that many of their investments were worthless. Some people raise an outcry against "corrupt" CEOs that pull out and leave investors holding the bag.

The Third Ripple - A Banking Crisis

No longer assured of any value in a large quantity of their mortgages (referred to as "worthless paper"), banks are also in trouble. People who had no part in the bad investments find that their banks are in trouble. The government at this point steps in because the crisis threatens to overwhelm those who are innocent in the whole mess.

The Fourth Ripple - The Bail-out

This is where we are now. The federal government is now trying to figure out how to fix the national problems that they previously caused by their insistence that everyone deserves a mortgage. Americans are worried that any fix will end up benefitting those who deserve it least. In addition, Americans worry that the fix will be worse than the problem. Any mishandling of the crisis could commit the U.S. economy to a generation-long recession.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is pushing for 700 billion dollars to prop up the failing financial institutions by buying out those worthless mortgages. Cautionary legislators are reluctant to dump that much money into a currently-worthless investment and leave the American people holding the bill for the next fifty years. Somewhere in the middle, an agreement may eventually be reached.

If we are all very lucky, Congress will act rationally and build some controls into whatever they decide to do. These controls need to include accounting reform, industry oversight, and some guaranteed return-on-investment. The last is the most important here. It is possible that by holding the "worthless paper" long enough to ride out the crisis, the paper may increase in value and possibly be sold back at a profit. There needs to be some guarantee that that profit won't go to line someone's pocket, or to pork barrel spending, or to implement some new social program. The only way that money should be used is against the federal deficit or otherwise returned to those who fronted the money in the first place - you and I.

MTV was once the quintessential bastion of youth angst.  I remember as a teenager being told it was "smut" and not to watch it.  I still watched it.  I was a teenager, after all.  It was all about expressing my generation's culture, although for some it probably dictated rather than expressed.

Back then, I thought of MTV as saying "no" to the media censors and airing edgy content.  But I was young then, and I haven't had much reason to revisit the MTV world in the last 20+ years.  That only changed recently because I wanted to see the much-maligned Britney Spears 2007 VMA appearance and it was removed from You-Tube due to copyright concerns.  So I had to see it on MTV's website.

I won't go into depth about what I thought of Britney's performance here, nor am I a Britney fan, but I do want to say that most of the criticism over it was totally undeserved.  It irks me a bit that we treat celebrities as if they were not real people with real feelings and personal problems.  But that is neither here nor there.

The point I want to make here is that political correctness is alive an well, and has overtaken that former bastion of free expression, MTV.  I know this because I wanted to leave a comment about this video, and my comment was censored.  Here is the relevant portion of the comment as it appeared after I posted it:

"Britney (looked) SMOKING HOT! I loved her outfit, and I love her body. I $~*$ the currently popular anerexic look, and I think it does a terrible disservice to America's youth."

(Go here (page 354) for the full commentary.)

Hmm...what did I say there that was so offensive?  Was it something off-color?  Was it something patently offensive?  I didn't think so, but apparently it was too offensive for our sensitive young culture.  What word was it...?

"HATE"

Yes, I could see how this word could be offensive.  The term "hate crime" for example, offends me deeply - not because of the word "hate", but the idea that a crime is more destructive based on the thinking behind it.  I'm sure the victim of a rape will be less traumatized by a rape committed out of love than one committed out of hate.  Yeah, that makes sense...

But in spite of the context, what exactly is offensive about the word "hate"?  Are we not free to love or hate who or what we choose in this country?  Is it really offensive to have somebody hate you?  If that is true, then there's a good chance that George Bush is the most offended man in America.  Would it be okay to censor all the Bush-haters in America?  I'm sure that wouldn't go over so well.

Do we even have a right not to be offended in this country?  Because if we do, then there can be no freedom of expression at all.  We will all need to cover our entire bodies from head to toe so that nobody can be offended by what you are wearing or by how long your hair is or by the look on your face.  Nobody can speak because there are very few things anyone can say without offending somebody.  Civilization will have to come to a standstill, because any action you take could potentially offend someone.

No, we do not have the right not to be offended.  Perhaps we have the right to protect our children from certain offensive material, but there must be a limit to such protections.  Why?  Because when you protect your children from everything, they cannot learn.  If they never get burned, they will never know to stay away from fire.  By the same token, by protecting them from ever getting offended, they will never learn how to deal with an offense.

I've thought and thought, and the most offensive thing I can think of to say that includes the word "hate" is, "I hate you!"  Guess how many times I've heard somebody say that to me?  I've even heard that from my child.  I don't like to hear it from my child, but I want to hear it if that is how she feels.  I could care less about hearing it from strangers.  The only response I can think of is, "Oh, that's interesting."  Why would I care if a total stranger hates me?  If you are not in my circle of family and friends, I couldn't care less what you think.

So what is the motivation behind the MTV censorship?  Perhaps they are trying to prevent a gang war between the Bloods and the Crips.  Ya think?  Maybe the rap culture is just too hyper-sensitive and every negative word erupts into violence.  Possibly...but I'm guessing it is just one thing: PC gone awry.

Immigration Reform, like no issue in recent memory, continues to alienate the electorate from the elected. Yet for all the public polls, blogs, and public outrage heard in the media, politicians don’t seem to be catching on. The agenda on immigration, driven primarily by President Bush, keeps moving ahead in spite of strong public opposition. Why won’t our elected officials listen?

The disconnect seems to be a result of "situation-normal" in Washington. Lawmakers don’t understand why legislation on immigration can’t be wrapped up like every other congressional product: full of pork and pork byproducts. The problem is that the American public is wise to the backroom workings of Washington, and this is one area where backroom deals will not be tolerated. Americans want something done without all the fluff and fanfare; they want something that works. The legislation currently under consideration is just what we’ve come to expect from congress, and therein lies the problem.

Bush and the congress continues to bull ahead; Bush and followers with a goal of appeasement, and liberals with ballot signs in their eyes from the millions of illegals that will join their camp when they become legal. But neither side is considering what is best for the current American citizen. What would be best is to secure our borders, PERIOD. Then we can discuss immigration reform – indeed, we need to. But we need to not wrap up border security with hundreds of pages of other extraneous garbage. Only then will the American people be satisfied.

Are you listening, Washington?

I had an interesting conversation Sunday with an acquaintance of mine about job satisfaction and career goals.  Having had many different jobs during my life, as well as having studied career development in college, I just assumed everyone had the same wisdom about job satisfaction that I did.  I was wrong.

 

I had forgotten that some people will graduate from college and hold maybe two or thee jobs from that time forward, and won’t have experienced a truly crappy job (and I use that term with affection).  I have had many crappy jobs, including ones that are normally crappy but because of the environment turned out to be loads of fun.  I highly enjoyed waiting tables, but of course that was at an even more loosely-run Bennigan’s.  I enjoyed working at a nursery; even though I had to carry bags of manure in the hot summer (talk about crappy!).  I hated working at an apartment rental office, mostly because the boss was a drunk who berated me in front of potential renters.  I hated doing vending service, mainly because there were days when it nearly killed me to lug half a ton of soda around on a cart for twelve hours.

 

But all jobs have their ups and downs.  Most jobs have their good days and bad days.  I am currently working in the information technology industry, and in general, I love my job.  But I definitely have my bad days.  There are days when I screw up or everything goes wrong.  There are days when people are just especially annoying.  There are days when the job doesn’t end because as soon as I get home from work there are half a dozen friends, relatives, and acquaintances that need help with their home computers.

 

But in spite of these bad days, I am not going to be changing jobs any time soon, and I’m certainly not changing careers.  Even the best jobs have bad days.  Even dream jobs have bad days.  With that in mind, I try to ask myself a number of questions before I start making plans to change jobs:

 

1)     Are there any good days, or do I just dread going into work every day?

2)     Overall, do I derive satisfaction from the main duties of my job?

3)     What are my career goals, and can I meet them with my current employer?

4)     How will changing jobs/careers affect my family and lifestyle?

5)     How can I find out more about the desired job/career without leaving my current position?

 

We all know that the animal that thinks the grass is greener on the other side of the fence is often mistaken.  New jobs that are seemingly “dream jobs” at “dream companies” often come with their own down-sides.  The gentleman I spoke to Sunday shared his thought with me that working with a smaller company might be more satisfying.  I explained to him that there are pros and cons of working for small companies, just like the big companies.  Big companies often have better benefits, a more flexible career path, and more opportunities for growth.  Small companies are often friendlier and more personal, give you more opportunity to “shine”, and can give you a better sense that you are valued.

 

With all these benefits you need to keep in mind that there are also disadvantages.  You usually trade one set of problems for another when you change jobs.  Sometimes you forget about your career path in preference to a great “job”.  But do you really want to be stuck at a single job, with no hope of advancement for the rest of your life?  For me, the most important aspect of any job is what it offers in terms of my career; whether it is learning, experience, or advancement.

 

Whatever you do, there are three cardinal rules when changing jobs or careers:

 

1)     Never quit your job until you have been officially hired elsewhere.

2)     Get as many job offers as possible before accepting any single job offer.

3)     Make sure you know everything you can about your new job before accepting the offer.

 

These three rules may seem like common sense, but I am always surprised at the number of people I know who have quit a job with nothing in reserve.  These are people with skills, but they don’t realize that skilled jobs take much longer to find than unskilled jobs.  Some employment experts say that for every $10,000 you expect to make, it will take you a month longer to find a job.  So those who want to make over $100k could be looking for a job for a whole year.  Can you or your family survive that long without an income?  Most can’t.

 

Nothing is worse than getting to a job and finding out it is ten times worse than the one you left.  It is imperative that you find out as much as you can about the company, the job description, the pros and cons of the job, the environment, and the people you will work with.  Don’t let dollar signs entice you to ignore these important job attributes because there are some jobs and work environments that aren’t worth any amount of money to deal with.

 

Don’t misunderstand me – I am not a “company man.”  I believe in the concept of self-promotion.  If a company offers me no advancement for my hard work, I will start looking for a job elsewhere that will.  I want my career to be constantly moving forward, and it is my responsibility to see that it does.  But I am mindful of continuity of my career.

 

Let me summarize it like this: when a potential employer looks at your resume and sees that you constantly advanced your career over the last ten years, he might be willing to overlook the fact that you changed employers seven times.  You just have to convince that employer that you did all that so that you could ultimately work for him or her!  But try to explain why you didn’t have a job for a year and a half, or why you worked at McDonalds in between accounting jobs, and you’re going to be facing a lot of rejection.

Sorry to do two tech posts right in a row, but I received an email scam that was too good to pass up commenting on.  It isn't all that unusual or anything, but once again I find myself surpised at the bold-faced attempt to scam money.  I won't go into detail here, but suffice to say I received an email telling me "My eBay account could be cancelled!" if I didn't verify my account information.

But not even Outlook was fooled since it ended up in my Junk Mail box where I usually delete things right away.  But then it occurred to me that not everyone has a Junk Mail box, and those that do might not have them set up to block these emails.  So with that in mind, please read the following article on eBay (note the actual eBay domain name, ensuring that this is not a spoof):

http://pages.ebay.com/help/confidence/spoof-email.html

Consider this article a good way to handle any email spoof, including those *supposedly from* other sites.

I have been in the information technology industry for about eleven years. But even with that said, I had to take a second look today when I received a brand-new scam email from overseas. The scam follows a pattern that would be familiar to any grifter (I know this because I used to be addicted to crime documentaries), but the length and complexity of the email is truly a wonder.

I have now received this scam twice from different people, and one of the insidious aspects of it is that neither was an exact duplicate of the other, but they followed an identical pattern. It goes something like this:

• - An overseas manager/bookkeeper contacts you that they have found a bank account containing millions of dollars.
• - The owner of the money died and there is no heir.
• - For whatever reason, the money cannot be touched unless it is deposited into a North American bank.
• - The scammer wants you to set up a bank account so they can transfer money into it, after which you get to keep a percentage.
• - You are urged to call an overseas number to coordinate the “exchange.” (this is the purpose of the scam, and will end up being a “gotcha” on your telephone bill).

(Read the full text of both here at my site: http://thinkitservices.com/articles/newscam.htm )

Now you’ve been educated on the latest scam, but what about the next one? Well, let me educate you further…

There are two rules that will serve you very well when it comes to email and internet scams, and they are:

1. 1)  Every email you get from anyone you don’t know will most likely bring you nothing but misery, so delete it immediately!
2. 2)  Half of the emails you get from people you know will bring you nothing but misery, so open them with extreme caution.

Now some might say this is paranoia. To that I say, so what? You cannot be too paranoid when it comes to email and the internet. Almost nothing is safe, but moreover, 95% of all gambling, porn, “free” game sites, and even anti-spyware sites exist to infect your computer with something. Very little is safe, and even commercial software can bring you misery.

So what is your best course of action? Be paranoid, back up your computer often, and put a competent computer geek’s name on speed dial!

I'm getting weary of the Imus controversy as I'm sure many others are, but I'd like to cap it off by making something clear about free speech. Some people have said, "Free speech isn't free." In the context in which these people mean it, that is true. There are certain things no American can say without legal consequences. But the Imus case isn't one where free speech was curtailed by law. Imus has every right to continue to refer to people as "nappy-headed ho's" every day of his life without the law stepping in to stop it.

However, free speech does not come without civil, occupational, or procedural consequences. So if you say “nappy-headed ho” on the public airwaves, Uncle Sam might give you a pass, but the black community might not. You might also find yourself fired and facing civil litigation. Why? Because those you speak about also have their right to free speech. People have a right not to be slandered or libeled (not all people, nor in every case, but generally).

So my final thought on this is that in spite of my feelings on the fairness of the results, and in spite of my feelings on the hypocrisy of certain black “leaders,” I am still proud of the fact that in America people are able to say rude, crude, and hurtful things without being dragged off to prison or worse. We do live in a land of freedom – but certain freedoms do not come without consequences.