I love newspapers. Always have. While I have read literally thousands of books, my love and passion for reading was actually nurtured by newspapers.
My first real job was selling newspaper subscriptions for the now defunct Boston Traveler. Back in 1972 the paper merged with the Boston Record American and at the ripe old age of 14, I was laid off.
I then took on my first paper route in Springfield, MA, growing the route until I could no longer deliver all the papers myself. I took on a couple to assist in deliveries, then started selling sections of the routes while continuing to sell subscriptions.
In high school I started writing for the school paper and quickly became the editor. I worked on my college newspaper. I have since been a stringer for the Boston Globe, the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, a freelance journalist with work being published all over the world, and even owned my own paper for a while.
My appetite for news has never been quenched. Nor has my love for newspapers.
But, despite this love for the printed word, I could never sell out my principles or the truth, and I never really made it to the mainstream, even with many guest appearances on radio and television. The problem has never been those who have heard, seen or read me, but those in charge of the organizations. I have been told I am too far to the right, that no one would share my "extremist" views, and even that the world does not need, "Another white conservative commentator!"
Thanks to the Internet though, as well as some limited circulation trade periodicals, there but for the Grace of God go I!
As much as I would love to get my own regular column, be able to have the resources to investigate several important stories I have been documenting and more, I still have an outlet to do what I love, even if I cannot make a living doing so.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Why School Vouchers?
When the public schools in our country were first proposed, it was said that this should be done so no American child would be without an education. The new country needed educated people to insure its success and growth. At the time, the only real education was for those who could afford it, and most were sent overseas because what few schools we had were insufficient.
People like Jefferson argued for American schools because he felt that the American children educated abroad were indoctrinated against the idea of democracy and they would return only to undermine what we were building here in the form of what is now the greatest nation on the planet.
Educators were hard to find though and many of the best came from religious institutions. As this country was formed with religious principles, (never intending to separate Church and State, but instead prevent government from establishing a national religion,) and most state constitutions required a representative to be of good moral character, (meaning a member of a church in good standing,) many of the schools were run by the various denominations, and supported with monies collected from the citizens for such purposes.
Today in many states, taxpayer monies are given in the form of vouchers for religious based private schooling. This includes Michigan where taxpayers are actually paying for a charter school run by Muslims, and specifically for Muslim students. The school even includes a Mosque where the students are required to worship several times each day.
In San Diego, taxpayers pay for Muslim students to worship and be taught by Islamic teachers right in the public schools while at the same time Christian observances are prohibited. Taxpayers are even paying for prayer rugs and Korans, yet Bibles are against the law!
(I believe an argument can be made that this constitutes an establishment of a government sponsored religion and thereby unconstitutional.)
Our taxes are taken from us and we have no choice but to pay them even if we have no children in the public school system. We are not even given much say in how our monies are spent. This is about as close to taxation without representation as we can get without actually crossing the lines. I would actually like to see a case brought before the Supreme Courts.
As a free American, I have no problem requiring our children to obtain a good education. This is for the benefit of the children and the country as a whole.
But as to how this is done should be my choice as a parent. I should be able to direct the monies taken from me for this purpose so my children can be educated the way I want them educated. If this means private school or even home schooling, it should be my choice and my money should be used toward this end.
People like Jefferson argued for American schools because he felt that the American children educated abroad were indoctrinated against the idea of democracy and they would return only to undermine what we were building here in the form of what is now the greatest nation on the planet.
Educators were hard to find though and many of the best came from religious institutions. As this country was formed with religious principles, (never intending to separate Church and State, but instead prevent government from establishing a national religion,) and most state constitutions required a representative to be of good moral character, (meaning a member of a church in good standing,) many of the schools were run by the various denominations, and supported with monies collected from the citizens for such purposes.
Today in many states, taxpayer monies are given in the form of vouchers for religious based private schooling. This includes Michigan where taxpayers are actually paying for a charter school run by Muslims, and specifically for Muslim students. The school even includes a Mosque where the students are required to worship several times each day.
In San Diego, taxpayers pay for Muslim students to worship and be taught by Islamic teachers right in the public schools while at the same time Christian observances are prohibited. Taxpayers are even paying for prayer rugs and Korans, yet Bibles are against the law!
(I believe an argument can be made that this constitutes an establishment of a government sponsored religion and thereby unconstitutional.)
Our taxes are taken from us and we have no choice but to pay them even if we have no children in the public school system. We are not even given much say in how our monies are spent. This is about as close to taxation without representation as we can get without actually crossing the lines. I would actually like to see a case brought before the Supreme Courts.
As a free American, I have no problem requiring our children to obtain a good education. This is for the benefit of the children and the country as a whole.
But as to how this is done should be my choice as a parent. I should be able to direct the monies taken from me for this purpose so my children can be educated the way I want them educated. If this means private school or even home schooling, it should be my choice and my money should be used toward this end.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Who Is Better For The Economy?
This is a question we are now hearing, and will be hearing much more of once the Democrats finally decide who is going to be their nominee. Like Rush Limbaugh and his Operation Chaos, I could care less who it is. The Republican nominee has already been chosen by the Democrats, so one might suspect, and they would at least be partially correct, that there is some amount delight stemming from revenge as we watch the democratic party self destruct.
Be that as it may, many at this point have crowned Obama as the nominee, so the question of who would be better for the economy is aimed at Obama and McCain. For the point of this commentary, it would not matter much if Clinton was the nominee.
For some time now people have been recirculating a quote from McCain stating that he knows nothing about economics. By the time this circulated down to the average person on the streets, this now means that McCain is an idiot who cannot even add two plus two.
As for Obama, he claims to care about people and wants to provide for them. This translated to the streets as Obama will give you money! This, of course, makes him some sort of economic guru!
Of course both of these conclusions are wrong. McCain is not a genius when it comes to economics, but then, neither is Obama. Obama in fact, has little to no experience in economic matters, except maybe when it comes to use people for personal gain. This does not translate into national economic gain.
But while McCain is not now, nor ever will be an economics major, he at least understands some of the basics. Lower taxes has always translated into economic growth and increased revenues in the government coffers. Allowing more people, including businesses, to keep more of their own money spurs investments that grows the economy. Individuals tend to spend more when they can keep more. This grows the retail and service sectors of the economy. Increases in both of these sectors increases the wholesale sector which in turn spurs growth in manufacturing, all of which grows the transportation sector. This all translates into jobs.
Obama on the other hand, wants to give more, but in order to do so, he has to take more. The only place to take more money is from those who pay taxes. This decreases the money supply, which usually tends to make people like Obama demand more money be put into the economy which always reduces the value of the dollar and creates inflation. Inflation in turn causes people to have to spend more on basic staples of life so they lose confidence in the economy and they stop spending on other goods that they do not really need.
When people stop buying, warehouses back up with goods and the warehouses stop ordering replacement stock. When this happens, manufacturers stop producing and they lay people off. This tends to domino and the economy starts into a downward spiral that is difficult to turn around.
But, Obama cares, and this seems to be all that matters.
So, while neither is really qualified to run an economy, McCain gets the fact that we need to get the government out of the way so people can produce and grow the economy, because after all, the government does a very poor job of this. Just ask Jimmy Carter! McCain also understands that one of the biggest problems we had over the last eight years is that while we had record revenues pouring into the government thanks to the Bush tax cuts, there was also a huge increase in government spending and he knows this must stop.
Now if we could get him to understand that his stance on immigration and global warming will harm the economy much more than all of the earmarks combined, and the economy will do just fine under him, even with a lack of specific economic knowledge!
Be that as it may, many at this point have crowned Obama as the nominee, so the question of who would be better for the economy is aimed at Obama and McCain. For the point of this commentary, it would not matter much if Clinton was the nominee.
For some time now people have been recirculating a quote from McCain stating that he knows nothing about economics. By the time this circulated down to the average person on the streets, this now means that McCain is an idiot who cannot even add two plus two.
As for Obama, he claims to care about people and wants to provide for them. This translated to the streets as Obama will give you money! This, of course, makes him some sort of economic guru!
Of course both of these conclusions are wrong. McCain is not a genius when it comes to economics, but then, neither is Obama. Obama in fact, has little to no experience in economic matters, except maybe when it comes to use people for personal gain. This does not translate into national economic gain.
But while McCain is not now, nor ever will be an economics major, he at least understands some of the basics. Lower taxes has always translated into economic growth and increased revenues in the government coffers. Allowing more people, including businesses, to keep more of their own money spurs investments that grows the economy. Individuals tend to spend more when they can keep more. This grows the retail and service sectors of the economy. Increases in both of these sectors increases the wholesale sector which in turn spurs growth in manufacturing, all of which grows the transportation sector. This all translates into jobs.
Obama on the other hand, wants to give more, but in order to do so, he has to take more. The only place to take more money is from those who pay taxes. This decreases the money supply, which usually tends to make people like Obama demand more money be put into the economy which always reduces the value of the dollar and creates inflation. Inflation in turn causes people to have to spend more on basic staples of life so they lose confidence in the economy and they stop spending on other goods that they do not really need.
When people stop buying, warehouses back up with goods and the warehouses stop ordering replacement stock. When this happens, manufacturers stop producing and they lay people off. This tends to domino and the economy starts into a downward spiral that is difficult to turn around.
But, Obama cares, and this seems to be all that matters.
So, while neither is really qualified to run an economy, McCain gets the fact that we need to get the government out of the way so people can produce and grow the economy, because after all, the government does a very poor job of this. Just ask Jimmy Carter! McCain also understands that one of the biggest problems we had over the last eight years is that while we had record revenues pouring into the government thanks to the Bush tax cuts, there was also a huge increase in government spending and he knows this must stop.
Now if we could get him to understand that his stance on immigration and global warming will harm the economy much more than all of the earmarks combined, and the economy will do just fine under him, even with a lack of specific economic knowledge!
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Boom Or Bust, Has Our Economy Been Destroyed By President Bush?
Our economy is much tougher and complex than can be summarized in a few comments in a local newspaper or blog, which is where all the discussion over this issue is being debated. That being said, it is far easier for a government to destroy such an economy than to fix it.
And our government has done plenty to influence the economy, all with good intentions I'm sure. But in the long run, their fixes have backfired. Most of the blame for this falls directly on the Congress as they are the one's who manufacture all of the legislation that meddled where private industry, left to their own devices, would have done a much better job.
The President does become responsible in two ways. One, for legislation and government action that requires the President's signature, such as the highly irresponsible and pork laden transportation bill, and the other simply because he is the President, even if he was unaware of some of the things Congress was doing such as loosening monies so people who should never have obtained mortgages could get them.
When you have such a boom as created by Congress with the housing situation, you see things such as rampant fraud and a market that becomes artificially robust, much more than would ordinarily have happened if the matter had been handled responsibly. Eventually, a correction in the market must be made. The larger the economic boom that has been created outside of natural circumstances, the larger the correction.
We are largely feeling the pain of this correction now, and it is a huge correction to be sure.
Add in the fact that the government is meddling once again where it should not in the form of ethanol and bio-diesel, and that they have acquiesced much power to minority environmental groups that have prevented exploration and drilling for new sources of domestic oil, the construction of new refineries and nuclear power plants, and the pain becomes more acute, especially to the poor and elderly, the groups the government always claims to help the most.
But our economy is strong, strong enough that these things and many more have not completely destroyed it. By all accounts, we should be deep into a depression right now, but we are not. As slight as it is, our economy is still growing, which tells us more about it's resiliency than anything else.
In addition, the growth numbers would have been much larger had our economy not grown as much as it did over the last few years. .04% of today's economy is actually more growth than .04% of the economy even six years ago as the economy is much larger than it was then.
And our government has done plenty to influence the economy, all with good intentions I'm sure. But in the long run, their fixes have backfired. Most of the blame for this falls directly on the Congress as they are the one's who manufacture all of the legislation that meddled where private industry, left to their own devices, would have done a much better job.
The President does become responsible in two ways. One, for legislation and government action that requires the President's signature, such as the highly irresponsible and pork laden transportation bill, and the other simply because he is the President, even if he was unaware of some of the things Congress was doing such as loosening monies so people who should never have obtained mortgages could get them.
When you have such a boom as created by Congress with the housing situation, you see things such as rampant fraud and a market that becomes artificially robust, much more than would ordinarily have happened if the matter had been handled responsibly. Eventually, a correction in the market must be made. The larger the economic boom that has been created outside of natural circumstances, the larger the correction.
We are largely feeling the pain of this correction now, and it is a huge correction to be sure.
Add in the fact that the government is meddling once again where it should not in the form of ethanol and bio-diesel, and that they have acquiesced much power to minority environmental groups that have prevented exploration and drilling for new sources of domestic oil, the construction of new refineries and nuclear power plants, and the pain becomes more acute, especially to the poor and elderly, the groups the government always claims to help the most.
But our economy is strong, strong enough that these things and many more have not completely destroyed it. By all accounts, we should be deep into a depression right now, but we are not. As slight as it is, our economy is still growing, which tells us more about it's resiliency than anything else.
In addition, the growth numbers would have been much larger had our economy not grown as much as it did over the last few years. .04% of today's economy is actually more growth than .04% of the economy even six years ago as the economy is much larger than it was then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
