In reference to Peter Heck's 4/12/2009 column...
The majority of Mr. Heck's column is an emotional appeal. As a conservative (I am called a "conservative" by others so I will identify with that label for the purposes of this discussion) I will NOT go silent when my party stops thinking critically and resorts to emotional pleas and logical fallacies. If you want to be a conservative then great, but make sure it is logically and empirically accurate.
Here are just a few of the errors I noticed...
My grandfather, who served during Korea, taught me to be a Christian man and own up to my mistakes and apologize. Did the United States or did it not, cause the sub-prime crisis which has dragged the world into a recession?
The US does snub Europe? Remember the stink the right-wing of politics made a few years ago when France didn't see enough evidence to invade Iraq... and some Americans wanted to rename French Fries... Freedom Fries? How sophomoric can we Americans become?
There is not blood on the Normandy beaches... this emotional statement is designed to short-cut the route to your brain and take the appeal straight to your heart.
"When an entire continent was overwhelmed with famine and hunger, Americans gave of themselves to sustain it."
Oh yeah? Why hasn't the US kept it's commitment to the UN then on fighting global famine? Does the US assist the world? Sure... because our economy is by far the biggest... but proportionally we are not at all the biggest donors.
The conservative party needs better than this Mr. Heck...
Lastly, I read a lot of Christ-name dropping but I do not hear any love in what these people say. I read Christ saying to forgive your brother, turn the other cheek, store up treasures in Heaven, be the LAST if you want to be the first... but I don't hear these same themes from those using His name? I am confused. I want to challenge all people who name drop God's/Christ's name to read His actual words and be consistent. The unbelieving world begs you... please... be a Christian because it is reflected in how you live and speak... not simply because you call yourself one.
As for you Mr. Beck... the United States do not need emotionally polarizing editorials... they need people to step up to the helm armed with compassion, wisdom, and truth. Will you be such an individual?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Want to end this recession?
I recently posted a comment on this Business Week article. See the link to read the article
Zhe Fuego Mar 7, 2009 1:14 PM GMT America has been saving -1% or worse in recent memory. Eventually there comes a time where people stop spending and start paying off debt. The sub-prime mess was the catalyst that woke people up... "Crap, I am in debt and have no savings!" That's why Pres. Bush's last tax stimulus failed... everyone realized their savings were minuscule. When my fellow Americans stop going into credit card slavery and instead spend out of surplus... then the U.S.A. will emerge from this predicament.
To add to that, I need to clarify. Pres. Bush's tax stimulus (not saying it was a good idea) was suppose to get people to spend. But since most Americans saw the coming economic gloom, they mostly saved the tax stimulus or paid off debt. They didn't do what the Pres. wanted them to do which was go out and spend it.
President Obama needs to encourage TRUE fiscal responsibility. Americans need to STOP going into debt. Why is the "richest" country in the world one of the worst savers? We have created this problem and caused the world to suffer because of our mistake. Even though I am frustrated at the Democrats for lowering the mortgage borrowing standards which led to the sub-prime crisis, maybe that was what had to happen to wake this country up and re-arrange their fiscal priorities.
Cut the credit cards Americans or it will get worse... things could get REALLY bad...
For further reading:
http://www.iousathemovie.com/
http://www.daveramsey.com/
Zhe Fuego Mar 7, 2009 1:14 PM GMT America has been saving -1% or worse in recent memory. Eventually there comes a time where people stop spending and start paying off debt. The sub-prime mess was the catalyst that woke people up... "Crap, I am in debt and have no savings!" That's why Pres. Bush's last tax stimulus failed... everyone realized their savings were minuscule. When my fellow Americans stop going into credit card slavery and instead spend out of surplus... then the U.S.A. will emerge from this predicament.
To add to that, I need to clarify. Pres. Bush's tax stimulus (not saying it was a good idea) was suppose to get people to spend. But since most Americans saw the coming economic gloom, they mostly saved the tax stimulus or paid off debt. They didn't do what the Pres. wanted them to do which was go out and spend it.
President Obama needs to encourage TRUE fiscal responsibility. Americans need to STOP going into debt. Why is the "richest" country in the world one of the worst savers? We have created this problem and caused the world to suffer because of our mistake. Even though I am frustrated at the Democrats for lowering the mortgage borrowing standards which led to the sub-prime crisis, maybe that was what had to happen to wake this country up and re-arrange their fiscal priorities.
Cut the credit cards Americans or it will get worse... things could get REALLY bad...
For further reading:
http://www.iousathemovie.com/
http://www.daveramsey.com/
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Obama versus Ramsey
Zhe Fuego's not-so-original thought on Obama's proposed economic stimulus plans
The older I get the more I like quotes because I realize there are more and more people out there smarter than I am who can put into words those thoughts / feelings that I have but come out only as a barely comprehensible... "No" or "Yea" or some other simple 1st grade response. So here is Dave Ramsey with his thoughts on President Barack Obama’s plans. I could be wrong but considering how the evidence for this economic mess points to debt as the major cause, I can't fully back a plan that calls for more debt. The United States can't do the one thing it needs to do... live frugally. Dave Ramsey says to, "Live like no one else so that later you can live like no else." That is what our country needs... live like its suppose to and not subject to trend and desire. While the U.S. econom does need production and entrepreneurs, most importantly it needs the restraint of the individual. Not just another government law but actual restraint of the person. God, we need you... Enough of my thoughts... Dave... please...
http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/newsletters/company/013009.cfm?ectid=cnl0901.1_05#1
The older I get the more I like quotes because I realize there are more and more people out there smarter than I am who can put into words those thoughts / feelings that I have but come out only as a barely comprehensible... "No" or "Yea" or some other simple 1st grade response. So here is Dave Ramsey with his thoughts on President Barack Obama’s plans. I could be wrong but considering how the evidence for this economic mess points to debt as the major cause, I can't fully back a plan that calls for more debt. The United States can't do the one thing it needs to do... live frugally. Dave Ramsey says to, "Live like no one else so that later you can live like no else." That is what our country needs... live like its suppose to and not subject to trend and desire. While the U.S. econom does need production and entrepreneurs, most importantly it needs the restraint of the individual. Not just another government law but actual restraint of the person. God, we need you... Enough of my thoughts... Dave... please...
http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/newsletters/company/013009.cfm?ectid=cnl0901.1_05#1
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Make love, not gongs
I will scratch my original idea about writing on Fridays and will instead write whenever I feel moved to do so.
Recently I saw an email about the direction the American government is going. I don't want to post the long email here but you can read a copy of it on another blog: http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=12120.0 While I understand what the writer is trying to say, the part of the diatribe that really makes me cringe is this:
"The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country."
This writer and all propagators of this email just became clanging symbols. In an ancient Greek letter, the writer Paul says, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." This email lacks any sense of love and is thus one long clang on an incredibly complex issue. You see, this email is a polarizer. It's going to make people deal with each other out of fear, not love. It's going to push people to extremes, not bring them together. It seeks to over-simplify and not discuss how difficult the issue really is.
You see, that single mother with four children probably grew up as a single child. Did she deserve to be born in that situation? No. Why she grew up there is a mystery of God. The pompous boss probably grew up in a loving and hard working family. Did he deserve to grow up there? No. Why he was born into that family and not some poor family in Africa is a mystery of God. Did he work hard? I am sure of it and he is apparently very proud of it. But he also had supportive parents who nurtured him. His parents probably knew that the first three years of his life were the most important in regards to cognitive development. The single mother possibly grew up in a family that had no idea what cognitive development event meant. Did he deserve his nurturing home environment and she deserve her poverty stricken environment? No. Should I go on?
Everything we have in life is a gift. A free gift. Just because one person seems to have more gifts than another does not mean they deserved more gifts because that’s called a fancy term by theologians: works righteousness. Dave Ramsey is this personal financial guy I enjoy listening to and when someone on his radio program asks how he is doing, he always responds, “Better than I deserve.”
The issue is complex. Not simple. Why that woman is at home, dependant on welfare, is not a simple issue, it is complex. The email attempts to oversimplify the situation and paint her (and all similar poverty-stricken people) broadly with a single lazy brush. There is no love. Only a harsh clanging tirade is heard and only appreciated by those whose ears are still ringing with the ignorant reverberations of other bigoted propaganda laden with fear tactics.
Additionally, we don’t even know the accomplishments that the young woman has made. C.S. Lewis challenges this email writer when he said:
C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity' page 86-87
Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God's eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C. When a man who has been perverted from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God's eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a friend.
It is as well to put this the other way round. Some of us who seem quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and a good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as friends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw material. But god does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological make-up is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or worst of this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought our own, but which were really due to good digestion, will fall off some of us: all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health will fall off others. We shall then, for the first time, see every one as he really was. There will be surprises.
http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/cslewis.html
So to the writer and promoters of this email, please stop. This is not the type of rhetoric that is going to win anyone to your side. It’s only going to further darken the perspectives of a people already possessing a fading view of love. While I may find myself agreeing with much of the political reasoning of the email, I find myself completely devaluing the email due to its fear laden and distasteful approach.
Recently I saw an email about the direction the American government is going. I don't want to post the long email here but you can read a copy of it on another blog: http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=12120.0 While I understand what the writer is trying to say, the part of the diatribe that really makes me cringe is this:
"The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country."
This writer and all propagators of this email just became clanging symbols. In an ancient Greek letter, the writer Paul says, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." This email lacks any sense of love and is thus one long clang on an incredibly complex issue. You see, this email is a polarizer. It's going to make people deal with each other out of fear, not love. It's going to push people to extremes, not bring them together. It seeks to over-simplify and not discuss how difficult the issue really is.
You see, that single mother with four children probably grew up as a single child. Did she deserve to be born in that situation? No. Why she grew up there is a mystery of God. The pompous boss probably grew up in a loving and hard working family. Did he deserve to grow up there? No. Why he was born into that family and not some poor family in Africa is a mystery of God. Did he work hard? I am sure of it and he is apparently very proud of it. But he also had supportive parents who nurtured him. His parents probably knew that the first three years of his life were the most important in regards to cognitive development. The single mother possibly grew up in a family that had no idea what cognitive development event meant. Did he deserve his nurturing home environment and she deserve her poverty stricken environment? No. Should I go on?
Everything we have in life is a gift. A free gift. Just because one person seems to have more gifts than another does not mean they deserved more gifts because that’s called a fancy term by theologians: works righteousness. Dave Ramsey is this personal financial guy I enjoy listening to and when someone on his radio program asks how he is doing, he always responds, “Better than I deserve.”
The issue is complex. Not simple. Why that woman is at home, dependant on welfare, is not a simple issue, it is complex. The email attempts to oversimplify the situation and paint her (and all similar poverty-stricken people) broadly with a single lazy brush. There is no love. Only a harsh clanging tirade is heard and only appreciated by those whose ears are still ringing with the ignorant reverberations of other bigoted propaganda laden with fear tactics.
Additionally, we don’t even know the accomplishments that the young woman has made. C.S. Lewis challenges this email writer when he said:
C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity' page 86-87
Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God's eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C. When a man who has been perverted from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God's eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a friend.
It is as well to put this the other way round. Some of us who seem quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and a good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as friends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw material. But god does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological make-up is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or worst of this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought our own, but which were really due to good digestion, will fall off some of us: all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health will fall off others. We shall then, for the first time, see every one as he really was. There will be surprises.
http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/cslewis.html
So to the writer and promoters of this email, please stop. This is not the type of rhetoric that is going to win anyone to your side. It’s only going to further darken the perspectives of a people already possessing a fading view of love. While I may find myself agreeing with much of the political reasoning of the email, I find myself completely devaluing the email due to its fear laden and distasteful approach.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Women's lives saved around world... babies lives forfeited
It is not my wish to begin this blog by focusing on an over-discussed issue such as abortion, but because this issue is current, pertinent, and I seem to have trouble deciding on a topic in general, I have chosen this one.
I will be brief. US money will now help an untold number of mothers discontinue the life of their unborn child. (I used thesaurus.com to try and find a suitable synonym to 'stop') I will not go into a complex argument against abortion. I have a very simple point. Draw the line. On a simple life continuum illustrating a person's life from conception to death, I want a pro-abortionist to draw a simple vertical line at the life intersection point where before the line it is morally acceptable to stop life and after the line it is morally wrong. (there is a whole other issue on what the word "moral" is... perhaps another night?) Please draw that line for me. I beg you to draw that line and provide me with a decent justification of why you chose to draw the line at that point. I don't think a pro-choice person can draw and line and rationally justify it. Once life is conceived, any line drawn after that is stopping, terminating, murders, etc... that life.
As quoted in the 1/23/09 Cnn.com article below, "The group Population Action International praised Obama's move, saying in a statement that it will 'save women's lives around the world.'" President Obama's recent move may be preserving the lives of sexually active females, but it's costing innocent lives in the process. From a very worldly viewpoint, I guess the poor baby is going to suffer either which way... either be murdered before birth or potentially grow up in poverty. (since that is the demographic this UN fund focuses on)
I have a care for both the women and unborn babies. I want neither to suffer. I want them both to know Jesus. But I also don't want, in the short term, for defenseless children to lose their lives. They did nothing to deserve their fate. They have no choice. But the adults do have a choice. What is your choice?
For me, there is no political discussion here. Just a question. Just a line. Just a challenge... can you draw it for me?
"http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/obama.abortion/index.html
I will be brief. US money will now help an untold number of mothers discontinue the life of their unborn child. (I used thesaurus.com to try and find a suitable synonym to 'stop') I will not go into a complex argument against abortion. I have a very simple point. Draw the line. On a simple life continuum illustrating a person's life from conception to death, I want a pro-abortionist to draw a simple vertical line at the life intersection point where before the line it is morally acceptable to stop life and after the line it is morally wrong. (there is a whole other issue on what the word "moral" is... perhaps another night?) Please draw that line for me. I beg you to draw that line and provide me with a decent justification of why you chose to draw the line at that point. I don't think a pro-choice person can draw and line and rationally justify it. Once life is conceived, any line drawn after that is stopping, terminating, murders, etc... that life.
As quoted in the 1/23/09 Cnn.com article below, "The group Population Action International praised Obama's move, saying in a statement that it will 'save women's lives around the world.'" President Obama's recent move may be preserving the lives of sexually active females, but it's costing innocent lives in the process. From a very worldly viewpoint, I guess the poor baby is going to suffer either which way... either be murdered before birth or potentially grow up in poverty. (since that is the demographic this UN fund focuses on)
I have a care for both the women and unborn babies. I want neither to suffer. I want them both to know Jesus. But I also don't want, in the short term, for defenseless children to lose their lives. They did nothing to deserve their fate. They have no choice. But the adults do have a choice. What is your choice?
For me, there is no political discussion here. Just a question. Just a line. Just a challenge... can you draw it for me?
"http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/obama.abortion/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama struck down a rule Friday that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family-planning clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services.
President Obama says he doesn't want family planning to be used as a "political wedge."
Obama said in a statement that family planning aid has been used as a "political wedge issue," adding that he had "no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate."
The policy says any organization receiving U.S. family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development cannot offer abortions or abortion counseling.
"It is time we end the politicization of this issue," Obama said. "In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world."
Obama's memorandum reversing the policy comes the day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment. The ruling gave a woman autonomy over her pregnancy during the first trimester.
The memorandum reverses the "Mexico City policy," initiated by President Reagan in 1984, canceled by President Clinton and reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001.
The policy, referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was initially announced at a population conference in Mexico City.
Reversing the previous administrations' stance on the policy was one of Clinton's first acts as president in January 1993 and the very first executive order issued by Bush on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Don't Miss
Critics, including Planned Parenthood, called Bush's move a "legislative ambush."
He defended his action, saying, "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion."
The group Population Action International praised Obama's move, saying in a statement that it will "save women's lives around the world."
"Family planning should not be a political issue; it's about basic health care and well-being for women and children," the group said.
"Women's health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama's actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."
Republican lawmakers were critical of the new president's action.
"Not even waiting a week, the new administration has acted to funnel U.S. tax dollars to abortion providers overseas," Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, said in a written statement.
"This is a stunning reversal of course from the president's campaign statements that he hoped to reduce the number of abortions. Just a day after thousands of Americans came to Washington to celebrate the principle of life, President Obama has made it clear that reducing abortions is not one of his priorities."
In his statement, however, Obama said he had directed his staff "to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies."
"They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls."
The president added that he looked forward to "working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund."
The Bush administration has repeatedly withheld funding authorized by Congress for the U.N. fund, saying the agency has funded a forced sterilization program in China. The fund has repeatedly denied that accusation.
"By signaling his intention to restore U.S. funding for UNFPA, the UN Population Fund, President Barack Obama is signaling his re-engagement with the international community on the critical challenge of improving reproductive health around the world," UN Foundation President Timothy Wirth said.
"For the past seven years, UNFPA funding has been a victim of false accusations and misinformation that had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with sound policy," he said.
"Approximately 180 industrialized and developing countries, including all the countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, contribute to UNFPA. The United States was the only country to withhold funding for political reasons." "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
