Recent Postings from the region United States at VocalNation.net http://vocalnation.net/user/ Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:09:29 +0100 http://www.vocalnation.net/images/promote/vn_feed_image.png http://www.vocalnation.net Feed provided by vocalnation.net. Click to visit. Subscribe to this feed by copying the URL from your browser's address bar into your feedreader of choice. You may choose to use a web-based feedreader such as Google Reader, NewsGator, Rojo, etc. or one of the many browser-plugin feed readers. http://vocalnation.net/posting/196453/Technological+Parking+Meters+Manifest+Statist+Mindset/
However, it seems that technology is being used once more to tighten the noose of government around the neck of the law abiding citizen.  

According to a Washington Post story titled “Meters Deny Parking Handouts“, a number of companies are developing devices sensitive enough to reset themselves once they detect that the space is no longer occupied.  Instead of harassing motorists, perhaps these tech-heads should turn their sophisticated detection sensors towards securing America's border.

Especially revealing is the statist mentality of those supporting these Cylon parking meters (it's a wonder they don't have that little red light pulsating back and forth).  The chief executive of IntelliPark (one of these companies out to get rich dreaming up new ways to further curtail human liberty) told the Washington Post, "You take away that free lunch, but on the other hand that's tax revenue."

If the primary concern here is that no one should get a "free lunch", wouldn't research efforts be better directed towards not developing a meter that resets itself as soon as a vehicle pulls away but rather makes change from the unused time?

"Why you skin-flint Conservative or tight-fisted Libertarian, how miserly of you to want back a few messily cents.”  If we are to happily relinquish what is rightfully ours simply because it is just a few mere cents, just see what happens should you skimp on your IRS tax bill by the same amount.

If we are to view the motorist sneaking onto a spot where the meter has not yet run out of time as taking something out of the coffers of the state, why shouldn’t we cast the same glare of disapproval upon the state for pocketing a profit from time in which it’s space is not leased?

After all, to whom does the coinage for the unused time ultimately belong?  For does it not actually belong to the original motorist that has since driven off?

Thus, it is the state (not the driver “sneaking” into the space) that is actually the small scale thief.  Shouldn’t technology allow the original motorist to decide who gets to keep the change?

by Frederick Meekins

]]> Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:19:43 +0100 Posting196453-1230473983 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196452/Have+Yourself+A+Theistic+%28Not+Atheistic%29+Little+Christmas/
Though the American people have been manipulated and their resistance worn down on a number of fronts to the point that they now let slide any number of outrages that would have caused considerable uproar in the past, for the most part citizens have been quite vocal about attempts by secular leftists to ban acknowledgement of the Christmas season.  However, now that traditionalists have asserted the right to publicly affirm their god-given heritage, secularists are responding with alternative displays of their own promoting their own particular worldview.

Foremost among these is an ad campaign targeted at Washington, DC’s public transportation system.  The posters sponsored by the American Humanist Association read, “Why believe in a god?  Just be good for goodness’ sake..”  This simple question and accompanying reply are in need of a complex response.

For starters, whether we like it or not, if an atheist front group wants to pony up the cash, they have the same right to buy public advertising space like any other organization with too much money on its hands.  Responses such as the one presented in a 11/17/08 USA Today article titled “Atheism: A Positive Pillar” where an Illinois state legislator told an atheist activist, “It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!...You have no right to be here!  We believe in something.  You believe in destroying.”

Such an attitude may itself be of a greater danger than the outright atheism.  For it is wrong on a number of philosophical and apologetic grounds.

For starters, it is not really all that dangerous for children to know atheism exists. Granted, one might not want to, as in the example used by D. James Kennedy in a classic sermon, hand one’s child over to a thoroughgoing secularist who on the first day of kindergarten proceeds to indoctrinate the hapless pupil as to the alleged reasons why God does not exist and why Jesus Christ is not His Son.

However, part of protecting children is to warn them of the dangers out there bent on destroying them in body and soul.  Thus, just as parents eventually one day have to have that discussion with their young ones about the existence of pedophiles and where to aim the kick should some sicko every try to rob the young ones of their innocence, parents also have the obligation to warn to warn that there are those out there that hate God so much that they’d like nothing more than to persuade you to give up your belief in Him as well.

The cause of Christ is not served by hiding these things from young minds and then finally exposing them to such apostasies upon adulthood.  It’s challenging enough when you are taught about these things and then find your self surrounded by the products of an education system advocating such a viewpoint reeking of what you always heard pot smelled like and another hooligan wearing a t-shirt with decals of copulating skeletons as I remember the first day of college.

Secondly, lack of a belief in something is a belief about it.  For too long, Christians and allied theists have played into the hands of atheists and agnostics by going along with the notion that those professing unbelief are objective and unfettered by preconceived epistemological commitments and that the believers are the ones holding onto bedrock dogmatic foundations.  Many atheists are just as rabid in their assumptions as the most zealous of pulpit-pounding evangelists.

The anti-God Christmas placards intone the reader to "Just be good for goodness sake."  But without God, can good truly exist?  For if He does not, mankind is left with the alternatives of either nihilistic anarchy or regimented totalitarianism.

For example, if God does not exist, who is to say whatever the individual thinks or does is right or wrong?  As has been said, in some cultures they are suppose to love their neighbors and in others they eat them.  To the cannibal the adage is not so much finger licking good but rather good to lick fingers.

Furthermore, if God does not exist, on what grounds do the institutions of society such as the government have the right to tell you to do anything whatsoever?  Without God and His revelation, the "IS" automatically becomes the "OUGHT" with rules and laws merely being those promulgations which keep the strongest in power.

But what about the individual, the timid may ask unsettled by the door that has been opened but too prideful to grasp Christ's outstretched hand.  What about the individual?

If the individual is no better than all the other animals who are themselves just products of random chance, his welfare means nothing in comparison to the welfare and even the convenience of the larger group.  Though it is a somewhat different philosophy, according to a  Caryl Matrisciana column titled  “An Enlightened Race?” New Agers who believe similarly to atheists that there are no absolutes rooted in the character of an eternal personal God don’t even want to say Hitler did anything wrong but rather merely things that were misguided at worst.

The New Atheists claim that the suspicions their worldview elicits are unfounded because as humanists they only have the betterment of the species in mind and that traditional religions are the ones responsible for the atrocities of history.

Margaret Downey of the Atheist Alliance International is quoted in the USA Today article as saying, "We atheists simply add an 'o' to our belief system --- we believe in good."  However, that is in spite of rather than because of their unbelief.

If anything, what atheists exhibit when they manifest goodness is remaining Judeo-Christian moral capital.  These individuals professing godlessness remain largely good because they have been acculturated in a milieu largely Biblical in its underlying ethical orientation.

However, as time marches on and these foundations are eroded as succeeding generations will become less familiar with this heritage.  Future atheists will not be as eager to embrace the balanced approach to life we in the West have come to categorize as good.

Incidents where traditional forms of religion have been invoked to justify abridgements of individual liberty are horrifically tragic but because they betray the values espoused by the founders of these systems of belief.  However, by default, that does not make those claiming to lack a religious faith are not necessarily more laid back in their approach to life and less prone to violence.

If anything, lack of divine restraints seems to send man's compulsion to prey (not pray) upon his fellow man into overdrive.  One only need to look at the histories
of regimes with an explicit antipathy towards the God of the Bible such as Soviet Russia, Red China, and Nazi Germany.  And even in the United States where human dignity is for the most parts respected, numbers are appallingly high in terms of the millions slaughtered in the names of abortion and so-called “reproductive rights”, a charge led primarily by the godless along with the wishy-washy easily whipped up into a frenzied enthusiasm over the joys of baby-killing.

As commuters putter about this Christmas season and viewers watch the battle of the broadsides, there is more at stake than an esoteric debate as to the nature and origins of goodness.  Both our very lives and our eternal destines could very well be on the line.

by Frederick Meekins

]]> Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:59:02 +0100 Posting196452-1230073142 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196449/You+wouldn%27t+buy+our+shitty+cars+-+Big+Three+ad/ ...]]> Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:13:59 +0100 Posting196449-1228853639 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196448/Thanksgiving+Turkeys+Not+The+Only+Ones+In+America/
According to a Fox News account, after the White House ceremony the turkey was to be flown first class to Disneyland in California.  There the gobbling celebrity was to serve as the grand marshal of the park's Thanksgiving parade.

Many would dismiss this story as something not to get worked up over.  Yet in this dawning era where we are constantly reminded how our very way of life must change or face collapse along various fronts, escorting a turkey to Disneyland in stratospheric luxury raises a number of questions.

First, is the turkey being sent there at taxpayer expense?  If Disney wants the bird, that corporation is the party that should pick up the airfare.

Relatedly and even more importantly, shouldn't those that have set themselves up as our betters and the ones out to impose the new paradigms upon the rest of us have to live by their own standards?

For example, a letter to the editor published in the Prince George's Sentinel attempts to guilt-trip the reader into foregoing the turkey dinner by insinuating that this traditional culinary centerpiece is somehow bad for the environment.  But what about the resources expended to get the turkey from Washington to California, and, even more importantly, what about the "carbon footprint" (the term used by beatniks of expanding girth like Al Gore to make themselves feel better about their own ostentatious consumption) left behind each year by the Disney corporation.

I for one have no problem with amusement parks and similar resorts.  However, I am not the one haranguing the average American, who can hardly afford luxury vacations these days, into giving up one of the few remaining pleasures available, namely a reasonably priced turkey dinner.

Often, America’s Puritan and Separatist founders are depicted as absolutely joyless and not having much fun in their lives.  And maybe so by out standards. However, these solemn patriarchs are party animals in comparison to the glum-faced busybodies out to control in the name of the environment all aspects of the food you consume from what can go into your mouth and,  increasingly as in regards to proclamations regarding no flush toilets, what is to be done with it once it comes out.

by Frederick Meekins

]]> Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:14:21 +0100 Posting196448-1228706061 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196446/Long-term+benefit+in+%27magic+mushroom%27+drug+-+John+Hopkins+Study/
"Two-thirds of them also said the drug had produced one of the five most spiritually significant experiences they'd ever had."
...
"The study involved 36 men and women during an eight-hour lab visit. It's one of the few such studies of a hallucinogen in the past 40 years, since research was largely shut down after widespread recreational abuse of such drugs in the 1960s."

"The project made headlines in 2006 when researchers published their report on how the volunteers felt just two months after taking the drug. The new study followed them up a year after that."
...
"Yet "it was a joyful, ecstatic thing at the same time, like the joy of being alive," she said. She compared it to birthing pains. "There was this sense of relief and joy and ecstasy when my heart was opened.""
...
"Fourteen months after taking the drug, 64% of the volunteers said they still felt at least a moderate increase in well-being or life satisfaction, in terms of things like feeling more creative, self-confident, flexible and optimistic. And 61% reported at least a moderate behavior change in what they considered positive ways."]]> Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:34:08 +0100 Posting196446-1228426448 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196445/Too+Big+Not+To+Fail+-+Eliot+Spitzer+++Slate/ ...

"A more sensible approach would focus not just on rescuing pre-existing financial institutions but, instead, on creating a structure for more contained and competitive ones. For years, we have accepted a theory of financial concentration�not only across all lines of previously differentiated sectors (insurance, commercial banking, investment banking, retail brokerage, etc.) but in terms of sheer size. The theory was that capital depth would permit the various entities, dubbed financial supermarkets, to compete and provide full service to customers while cross-marketing various products. That model has failed. The failure shows in gargantuan losses, bloated overhead, enormous inefficiencies, dramatic and outsized risk taken to generate returns large enough to justify the scale of the organizations, ethical abuses in cross-marketing in violation of fiduciary obligations, and now the need for major taxpayer-financed capital support for virtually every major financial institution."

"But even more important, from a structural perspective, our dependence on entities of this size ensured that we would fall prey to a "too big to fail" argument in favor of bailouts."

"Two responses are possible: One is to accept the need for gigantic financial institutions and the impossibility of failure�and hence the reality of explicit government guarantees ... The better policy is to return to an era of vibrant competition among multiple, smaller entities�none so essential to the entire structure that it is indispensable."

"...imagine if instead of merging more and more banks together, we had broken them apart and forced them to compete in a genuine manner. Or, alternatively, imagine if we had never placed ourselves in a position in which so many institutions were too big to fail. The bailouts might have been unnecessary. "

"It is time we permitted the market to work: This means true competition with winners and losers; companies that disappear; shareholders and CEOs who can lose as well as win; and government investment in the long-range competitiveness of our nation, not in a failed business model of financial concentration and failed risk management that holds nobody accountable."
]]> Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:30:37 +0100 Posting196445-1228426237 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196444/President+Jimmy+Carter+-+Address+to+the+Nation+on+Energy/ Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:30:20 +0100 Posting196444-1227857420 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196443/Nation%27s+Capital+Implements+Measures+Violating+Rights+%26+Property/
In the episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" titled "Past Tense", areas called Sanctuary Districts were established in mid-21st century America as places in major cities in which to corral the economically challenged irrespective of their criminal status.  Though initially established in the name of the well being of those assigned to reside there, according to the entry at Star Trek Wiki Memory Alpha, "This internment, in fact, amounted to nothing less than imprisonment."

Those thinking their feet are more firmly planted on the ground and heads out of the clouds will no doubt respond that all that is just a story that could never become reality.  Think again.

In order to curb the crime in the Trinidad neighborhood of Northeast, Washington, DC, police established  "Neighborhood Safety Zones" where checkpoints were set up blocking access.  It's bad enough if law enforcement just about literally points a gun at the head of everyone coming into the neighborhood compelling motorists to permit officers to ransack through vehicles regardless of whether or not anything suspicious is going on.

However, things have gone beyond the limits of conscience when American citizens that have neither been convicted nor accused of a crime are then forbidden from proceeding down a free public street.  Supporters of these police state tactics will counter that those entering the neighborhood with a “legitimate purpose” such as “going to a doctor, to church, or visiting a relative” could be granted access.

For starters, who are police to determine if an activity that does not violate pre-established law is of a legitimate purpose or not?  Secondly, people that must divulge their law abiding activities to law enforcement who then pass judgment as to whether or not such innocent undertakings are appropriate are dangerously close to losing one of the most basic of fundamental liberties that at one time set this country apart from the lesser nations of the earth.  Do we really want to further condition the American people into embracing their status as docile little Pavlovians who eagerly wag their tails every time the government blows its whistle and demands that we reveal additional information about ourselves?

Though it was claimed motorists would be granted access if they had legitimate reasons to enter the neighborhood, individuals with valid reasons in fact claim they were turned away.  What part of public in "public street" don't these Keystone Cops not understand?

For now, these blockades are often temporary.  What is to prevent them from being made permanent and expanded in the future?  

What is to stop authorities from turning the entire federal city into a Neighborhood Safety Zone with anyone barred entry that cannot prove either residency or occupational status in the district?  Already in the name of preventing terrorism,  Americans are denied access to structures we are repeatedly told through propaganda belong to all of us such as the Capitol building in Washington, DC and the Statue of Liberty in New York City.  

If there is power now to tell us whether or not we are to be granted access to structures belonging to "the people" and once deemed public, makes you wonder if there might come a day that they might tell you what otherwise lawful discretionary activity you can and cannot enjoy in your own home.  Wait, they are already trying to do that now.

If these checkpoints are constitutional, what is to stop them from being implemented across the United States either independently by various municipalities or through the promulgation of a presidential executive order such as those already quietly drafted basically saying the government can essentially take from you anything it wants and do to you anything it wants including compulsory civilian involuntary servitude during a time of so-called "national emergency".  Through implementing nationwide "safety zones", only those granted police or bureaucratic approval would be permitted to move within or without specified jurisdictions.  There are likely those such as Al Gore and even Barack Obama (who chastised Americans for eating too much and driving SUV's even though he has been seen locomoting in this particular kind of vehicular conveyance on numerous occasions who would probably have no qualms about implementing such measures in the name of the environment.

The way in which the Nazi and Soviet regimes were implemented would not be successful here in the United States.  Those seeking to control every last aspect of people's lives have noticed that at least here in America they must quietly implement their policies step by step so that Americans are stealthfully goaded into eventually embracing the future being planned for them by the elites of the New Order.

According to social planning, the new urbanism, sustainable development, or whatever other flurdelore you want to dress it up with, it is no longer satisfactory to allow concentrated areas of population to develop, expand, or contract in compliance with forces attributed to Adam Smith’s invisible hand.  Rather, these areas are to be remodeled into the image seen fit by heavy-handed public-private partnerships even if it means ruining the lives of upstanding citizens in the process so long as it gives corporate tycoons what they want and makes politicians intoxicated on the narcotic of media attention look good in the press.

Social welfare programs instituted by government are often justified on the grounds of improving the lives of those experiencing hardship.  However, often such assistance has very little to do with getting the unfortunate back on their feet but rather about fostering a state of dependence that will keep the tentacles of the government expanding often at the price of the individual's well-being, especially if the individual could actually get their life back together though private charity rather than public means.

In the District of Columbia where the city government is dominated by Democrats and the like who claim government's most important function is safeguarding the economically disadvantaged, it seems playgrounds for the hyperrich (commonly referred to as ball stadiums) are a greater priority than those struggling to make it on their own.  According to a March 26, 2008 Washington Post article titled "Straining In The Stadium's Shadow", a number of those providing charitable and business services in the vicinity of the Nationals' stadium where in fact forced out using a variety of strategies.

One of the hardest hit is the group known as Positive Nature, which counsels troubled youth.  In the course of about two years, taxes on the organization's property went  from $9000 to $83,000.  As a result, Positive Nature may have to close up shop, possibly causing those getting assistance from the organization to be taken away from their parents and placed in a variety of state run institutions such as psychiatric hospitals and possibly even in prison.

Maybe that is exactly what those thinking government is the only solution for what's plaguing the human condition want.  Instead of providing for oneself or seeking assistance from other private sources, the individual is to seek purpose and solutions to life's problems from the state.

Others already capable of sustaining themselves through the efforts of their own toil might no longer be able to do so.  Those trained to salivate on cue for their government handout might snap businesses ought to be soaked to provide for the havenots.

Oh really?  Does this include small businesses and sole proprietorships with tax bills that went from $600 to $16,000 and from  $1500 to $22000.  If that is the bribe one must pay to the state, why not just throw in the towel and become a welfare leech and suckle off the system as well?

According to the Washington Post story, the stadium was marketed to citizens forced to pick up the tab for this playground for millionaires as a way to raise revenue for schools, roads, and subsidized housing.  But as with all the other grandiose promises made by tax boosters throughout history, downplayed is how these assessments are also enacted as a means of social and economic engineering with any money raised a secondary matter compared to the implementation of a far more comprehensive agenda.

Considerable grassroots backlash has arisen against the Kelo decision in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of forcing owners to sell property to developers in the name of economic improvement.  But now, instead of drawing out this process as reluctant owners might put up a fight in an attempt to retain homes and businesses, all governments have to do to get people out is to raise taxes to either force owners to sell or (even better in the eyes of bureaucrats)  get the owner to fall behind in their taxes so revenuers can move in to seize the property without having to pay a dime in order to acquire it.

Furthermore, by tinkering with tax rates and the like, governments, developers, and other organizational monstrosities such as public-private partnerships can economically corral undesirable populations into parts of town deemed appropriate for those not deemed worthy of living amongst the elite even if those no longer deemed worthy of an area have lived their for decades.  Ultimately, such populations can be forced into low-cost housing where the movements of such individuals can be more effectively monitored, controlled, and even curtailed.  Thus establishing, in essence, “sanctuary districts” quite similar to those described earlier in this essay in a manner less shocking than they may have sounded initially.

The concepts of private property and freedom of movement as we once knew them are endangered species going out of existence.  In their place will arise a new system where those once knowing liberty will be manipulated into clamoring for more and more control all for the rotting pottage of prosperity and security.

By Frederick Meekins

]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:16:54 +0100 Posting196443-1227305814 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196442/Bailout+to+Nowhere+-+David+Brooks/
"But this, apparently, is about to change. Democrats from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi want to grant immortality to General Motors, Chrysler and Ford. They have decided to follow an earlier $25 billion loan with a $50 billion bailout, which would inevitably be followed by more billions later, because if these companies are not permitted to go bankrupt now, they never will be."

...

"This is an excruciatingly hard call. A case could be made for keeping the Big Three afloat as a jobs program until the economy gets better and then letting them go bankrupt. But the most persuasive experts argue that bankruptcy is the least horrible option. Airline, steel and retail companies have gone through bankruptcy proceedings and adjusted. It would be a less politically tainted process. Government could use that $50 billion — and more — to help the workers who are going to be displaced no matter what."]]> Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:45:32 +0100 Posting196442-1226691932 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196441/Barack+Obama%27s+Chicago+2004+Victory+Speech+/ Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:38:55 +0100 Posting196441-1226475535 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196440/The+Obama+Realignment+-+Wall+Street+Journal/
"This is a man who defended the right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment; who arguably ran to the right of McCain on broader-based tax cuts for the middle class; who defied his left-purist base by supporting (with more controls) the president's terrorist surveillance program; who talked of pay-as-you-go fiscal policies aimed at restoring balanced budgets; who insisted to black audiences that black men take more responsibility for their families; and who talked boldly of aggressive military action in Pakistan to take out al Qaeda and bin Laden."

"How do you ideologically pigeonhole this Obama ideological mix? You don't, at least not easily."

"In fact, President-elect Obama presents an ideological mix of social liberalism, fiscal conservatism and cultural moderation..."  

"...standing up to his liberal base on the three critical issues of balanced budgets/fiscal responsibility, welfare reform and free trade."]]> Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:27:23 +0100 Posting196440-1225999643 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196438/John+McCain%2C+T.+Roosevelt++%26+Adam+Smith+All+Support+Progressive+Taxation/
Most economists, and even Adam Smith have argued for progressive taxation. From the Wealth of Nations

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

And Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican President who McCain model's himself after, said this one the subject of the progressive income tax:

"At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth......

"No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered?not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

]]> Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:27:53 +0100 Posting196438-1225412873 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196437/+David+Brooks%3A+Patio+Man+revisited+-+International+Herald+Tribune/
He lives in northern Virginia, along the I-4 corridor near Orlando, Florida, in or near Columbus, Ohio, along the Front Range of Colorado, in the converging megalopolis between Albuquerque and Santa Fe and in many other places.

He has a house - worth less and less - in a relatively new development. He's holding off on the new car. He's trying not to look at his retirement account balance. But he's happy with the new streetscape shopping area where he and his family can stroll before a movie."
...
"He doesn't expect much of government. He believes that he is responsible for his own economic destiny. But he does expect government to provide him with a background level of order.

In times of turmoil, he has gravitated toward the party that could restore his sense of order. In the 1970s, crime and social breakdown seemed like the biggest threats to order, and he gravitated to the Republicans.

In the late 1990s, Republican revolutionaries seemed to bring instability, and he softened on Clinton. Then terrorism threatened his equilibrium and he helped re-elect Bush. Then, post-Iraq and post-Katrina, administrative incompetence led him a bit the other way.

Now disorder has come from an unexpected direction - not from foreign enemies or domestic zealotry but from a society-wide contagion of financial risk-taking. Government programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac seduced people into homes they could not afford. Private bankers took on too much risk with too little capital. Consumers - including Patio Man himself - racked up an enormous personal debt.

The effects threaten everything he has achieved. There are foreclosures in his neighborhood. Like all taxpayers, he's been asked to backstop Wall Street's losses. He braces for recession."]]> Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:57:14 +0100 Posting196437-1224637034 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196436/Price+Of+Olympic+Gold+Growing+Too+High/
On the surface, it would be easy to conclude that the success of a country's Olympic efforts would be determined by its medal count, particularly gold.  If that is the case, the world is once again presented with contrasting examples provided by the United States and Red China.

On the one hand, China won the most gold but the United States won the most medals overall if silver and bronze are also factored into the tabulation.  To some athletic diehards, though, it is only the gold that counts.

A story titled "U.S. Will Be Rocked By China's Heavy Medals" by Yahoo Sports posted 8/22/08 analyzes the situation as follows: "The difficult thing for the Americans to stomach is this is unlikely to change in future games.  This isn't a one-time surge by a host nation...Whether the U.S. holds on this time or not, eventually China's system, coupled with it 1.3 billion people, should be unstoppable."

Of this development, Peter Uberroth of the United States Olympic Committee said in the story, "It's going to be difficult (to dislodge China).  The resources that they put toward their Olympic team and the population base and the dedication is fantastic."

Even though it is inspirational when Americans take the gold in these events and our flag and national anthem are lifted above all others for the world to see and hear, this country needs to stop and think for a moment if emulating the Chinese approach to obtain gold is really worth it.  For if we do, we will have turned our backs on the values that made America --- not China --- the beacon of hope to the world.

In the United States, individuals pursue athletic glory because that is that they want to do with their lives free of state coercion.  In China, there is no such choice.

In “U.S. will be rocked by China’s heavy medals”, Dan Wetzel writes, “In China, they wouldn’t have had a choice.  A sports star, like the property a house is built on, is owned by the government...China selects athletes at young ages and pushed them into sports in which their expected body types might thrive.  In the U.S., an athlete is allowed to follow his own path to success and failure.”

Those having embraced the communitarian outlook growing in popularity in this country that conditions us more and more into accepting the arbitrary whims of the group as superior to the prerogatives of the individual might not be able to fully grasp what this means really without explanation.

Though even in America those aspiring to athletic greatness must dedicate a seemingly inordinate amount of time to perfect their skills, often family especially in the form of parents are there in the background providing the kind of emotional and logistical support necessary to obtain this goal.  However, things are quite different in China.

One report that aired on the NBC Nightly News during the course of the Olympic games showed a training facility where children no more than six or seven years old were warehoused around the clock like livestock as they were drilled in gymnastics by their Communist taskmasters.  These children detained at the training camp were permitted to see their families only a couple of times per year.

Some made uncomfortable by such living arrangements that defy God’s intentions for the family of parents being the primary caretakers and source of guidance in a child’s life will try to console their consciences by positing that, even if we don’t like it, it might be the only path to a better life for these children.  Even through this grueling toil, there is little chance of that.

In the United States, since the interests of the individual also carry weight and just not those of the larger group, there is emphasis (even if there are instances where the results have fallen short of this goal) of cultivating athletes capable of providing for and looking after themselves once their time in the limelight has transpired even if the life the athlete ends up with is less than the one dreamed of.  However, in China where the individual is viewed primarily as a cell within the broader social organism,  this aptitude is honed at the expense of other skills since under Communism the person's worth is derived from what they can contribute to the overall group or nation.

Some will argue that this is all merely the rantings of an individualistic borderline-libertarian conservative who doesn't like Communism very much reading back into all of this.  However, a quote from a 5/6/07 Los Angeles Times store titled "Athletes Are Run Into The Ground In China" proves that my assessment is not all that far off the mark: "The athlete's entire training is financed by the state, and successful athletes...are considered government properties who must do as their leaders say.  Their job is about gaining glory for the country, not pursuing personal interests."

Some today who have an admittedly milder and diluted philosophy similar this pounded into their heads by government, academia, and increasingly even by the nation's churches might initially respond, "What's so wrong with that" as they proceed to spout rhetoric about the wonders of community and the evils of self interest.  However, in a land of over one billion people where the government owns you, once you break or are outdated by the newer model rolling off the assembly line, there is nothing to protect you from being tossed aside like yesterday's garbage.

For example, marathon runner Guo Ping thought that, once her days as an athlete were over, the government would reward her with a position as a police officer as her coach (who also beat those training under him with a whip or knocked them to the ground with the bumper of his car) promised.  The coach's defense in court was that the beatings "weren't severe".

Unfortunately, such a case is not so much a rarity as it is the norm.  According to a similar article titled "China's Disposable Athletes" published in the 7/17/07 issue of Time Magazine, nearly 3000 athletes retiring each year in China end up unemployed with educations barely beyond the primary level.    One distraught female Chinese athlete lamented, "I gave my youth to sport, but in return, I was thrown out like garbage with no knowledge, no skill, and a barren womb."

However, the liberal media is only willing to take its critique of world socialism so far.  It has been jokingly said that the few remaining Communists in the world can be found on American college campuses;  however these subversives and their fellow travelers can still be found in many more places, especially among the ranks of prestigious journalists

For instead of blaming these outrages on the systematic dehumanization inherent to all forms of collectivism, the Times article says, "The root of Zou's troubles, like so many things in China today, can be traced back to the country's wholesale adoption of capitalism."

Are you going to tell me things were hunky-doory under Communism when millions were starving to death and the hungry resorted to cannibalism?  Are you going to tell me it's Capitalism's fault today that house church pastors rot in prison?

What links each and everyone of these is a fundamental devaluation of the individual.
Frankly, if that is what it takes to excel in the Olympic games of the 21st century, perhaps the United States should be proud of its diminished Olympic prospects.

Dan Wetzel writes, "In the U.S., the athlete's goal is most often himself," and in appraising the decision of an athlete that pursues opportunities other than the Olympics, "No one in their right mind in the States would expect him to do anything else."  Who needs a gold-plated trinket when you can buy the real thing?

by Frederick Meekins

]]> Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:31:01 +0100 Posting196436-1224534661 http://vocalnation.net/posting/196433/Speaker+Pelosi+on+the+Financial+Crisis%2C+Energy%2C+and+the+Future+-+Charlie+Rose/ Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:01:10 +0100 Posting196433-1224277270