Friday, November 17, 2006

Conservatives are more generous. Like I been tellin ya ....

Read an interesting news story today:


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More
Generous
By Frank Brieaddy Religion News
Service


SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about
to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him
nervous. The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in
the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious
conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of
charitable activities, irrespective of income.


This begins to address what I’ve always wondered about “advocacy” groups, causes or protestors. In TOS episode of Star Trek (Mirror, Mirror), a time-pressed Capt. Kirk hurriedly tries to convince the Alternative Universe Mr. Spock to start an overthrow immediately rather than wait hundreds of years for it to happen inevitably. "The illogic of waste, Mr. Spock."

Kirk's point was why waste time? Why wait for somebody else to do it? Kirk's point is instructive here to the present-day, "real" Alternative Universe (Lefties).

Which is easier, to continually –year-after-year-after-year – lobby, beg, moan, plead for funding from someone else or rally those that think as you do to address the problem as you see it? Then you’ll not run the risk of mean, nasty conservatives cutting budgets or blocking your initiatives.

Instead of going to all the trouble to organize opposition, staging events, funding lobbying campaigns, to get at public money, why not take collections, donate funds or profits from any number of revenue generating mechanisms known in this world and raise all the money you want (or can) and do with it what you want—like help the cause you believe in.

Why wait? Why wait for something to come from the public trough? Why “wait until next election”? Why “wait until we take back control….” Why wait “until we overcome”? If its so important, and if you (believe) you’re getting the run-around or somebody is stopping your funding—why wait? Go out and do it yourself. Foil their evil plot by not waiting for them to stop, give up or go away.

Want to stop forests from being harvested for lumber? Buy them off the people who own them & let them grow all you want. (And pay taxes on the land, or give it to a non-profit or charity.)

Want to pay teachers more? Take a collection from Hollywood, or The Village, or at this year’s Sundance – or better yet, whatever you were going to spend on Sundance only spend a fourth, at most a half – and spend those funds on teacher bonuses. I don’t think there’s any regulation that prohibits public school teachers from receiving gifts or grants or “bonues” from independent sources, is there? If it’s important enough for you to march in the streets hoping to get funding for “some day”, why isn’t it important enough for you to do something about it right now?

Want to help the homeless? Instead of teaching them how to safely eat out of garbage bins (True: Google "Dumpster Dining" and see what you come up with), how about the next time you sell that $20 million home in the Hollywood Hills, how about endowing a homeless shelter in your name and get a 2.000 sq.ft. single family house in the 'Burbs like the rest of us.

Think of all the money that's wasted on organizing plans to get grubby hands on someone else's money! How stupid is that?

Cut out the wasted time, energy and MONEY that’s aimed at getting grubby hands on the Public’s time, energy and money. Do something TODAY that really and actually helps those poor underserved constituents that you claim to speak for or serve. Don’t make them languish in their horrible conditions another day longer—do it yourself or get others who you can convince to help you.

And do it today. I can hardly wait.

Friday, November 03, 2006

How can $4 prescriptions be a bad thing? Just wait.

In case you missed it in the run-up to the midterm elections, a tremendous example of the consumer benefits of free market enterprise is at hand. While it’s possible that you may NOT have heard about it, a better guess is that most folks simply haven’t heard ENOUGH news about it -- in sufficient amounts and in several formats and venues -- for it to truly register.

Lukewarm news reports have been circulating since September about one of the most profound events in recent memory regarding national healthcare debate: Wal-mart has entered the generic drug supply business.
http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4464.aspx

Almost immediately, competitors joined the fray, bringing not only more outlets for such products, but C-O-M-P-E-T-I-T-I-O-N to Wal-Mart’s gambit.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-09-21-walmart-drugs_x.htm

The reason you haven’t heard more about it is that opponents of the free market, American consumerism, and the usual lineup of self-appointed Big Government healthcare advocacy groups, special interests and the usual cabal of Wal-Mart haters (labor unions, Democrats, AARP, etc.), haven’t yet devised a response. But rest assured, after the distraction of the election is over and there’s more time to devise a campaign against it, you’ll start seeing more news coverage.

Then it will be a bad thing.

Take for example, the whole Medicare Part D Coverage advocated by President Bush and signed into law. Remember how much effort was put into defeating it (which didn’t work)?

Why would anybody who proports to be a big advocate of such entitlements work against something like this? OK, not to your liking... change it or add to it (if you can) later. Is it not important that at least some of our Medicare recipients get additional coverage? Must we wait until all get blanket coverage or nothing until then?

Sounds like either someone's afraid the pricetag will get noticed by somebody.

Recall all the media coverage about the program’s deficiencies, its registration complexities and confusion, and the looming reasons why recipients should think twice about signing up for it?
Since when has the Party of FDR or the news media EVER seen an entitlement program that they DIDN’T like?

This is the first one that I can remember EVER in my lifetime. (I’m in my 40s) Even though it helps an additional amount of people who aren’t already receiving benefits, if it’s not totally 100% free healthcare, it’s not a good thing. Wouldn’t you think that if this party really cared about people, if the program helped even one old person with their drugs, that the Dems would support it?

I guess the message is if the Donkeys didn’t give it to you, it’s not a good thing.

The pre-election Democrat Party funded ad campaign run in selected tightly contested districts about the poor old lady who attempts to pay for her prescriptions only to be informed by the kindly and caring pharmacist that she’s fallen into the dreaded gap of “Medicare Part D coverage.” HORRORS!

And what’s worse, “President Bush and his allies” made sure that Congress couldn’t negotiate with “Big Drug Companies” for lower costs. What can the old woman do? “There’s nothing you can do about it, . . . except vote for change in November.”

Nowhere is it mentioned, of course, that this little bennie alone will cost taxpayers $400 Billion (with a B) over 10 years. Still Not Enough.

Doensn't mention that without Medicare Part D she wouldn’t have had the prescription coverage in the first place and whatever she’s saved to date is money she didn’t have to spend.
Still Not Enough.

You see? $4 perscriptions aren't a very good thing after all.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Madonna and Child

How gracious. How generous. How touching.

How sad.

It's really a Hobson's Choice to live a life of wealth and privilege among strangers or be third-world poor but live with people of you heritage and perhaps even blood relatives who love you --or at least care for you -- unconditionally?

Is it better to be "a nobody" living in anonymity but not realizing how poor you are than to be a tabloid media curiosity, hounded by the paparazzi for the rest of your life, and surrounded by other spoiled celebrity rich kids in a culture of low morals and the temptations of all sorts of excess (drugs, alcohol, etc.)?

Was the child richer in terms of what really matters in life -- a sense of place, living with your own kind, finding your own destiny -- than what he'll inherit by being "David Richey?"

Is she really doing him that much of a favor? Who's to say, as Madonna did say, that he would "never have a life" if she had not denighed to rescues the boy from that orphanage? Who's to say that he COULDN'T rise from those depths on his own someday, perhaps to be a great leader of his own people or country? Maybe he could work and study hard and be a brilliant scholar or scientist or industrialist or artist, etc.

I think its just another example of something rich and powerful celebrities do to appear that "they care." Even if she spent eight days visiting orphanages supported by her charity. Its' my impression is that the child is just Madonna's "flavor of the month." Like she needed to get herself one of those to keep up with the Joneses, or in this case the Pitts. Right up there with the trendy designer dogs now all the rage in Hollywood and on 5th Avenue.

This child's life won't be the bed of roses most think it will be. True, the baby won't grow up in the poverty he apparently was born into, but what about the love of a family? He won the lottery in that sense.

Who believes Madonna is actually going to raise the child? She won't--her nannies and personal assistants and "staff" will do most of the work and probably most of the parenting. Just look at the news coverage so far--the baby was being carried through the airport by one of Madonna's "entourage." It would be a slight improvement if the child was completely parentless or totally abandoned -- an orphan -- but its still sad.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

What good will it do? Oh, brother.

The president’s critics crack me up. They can't bring themselves to admit even the death of Terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a good thing.

For how long have we heard critics say, "What progress are we making?" "Bin Laden is still loose. Zarqawi is still loose." "Bombings are still happening....etc."

(As if the two dead Hussein brothers, Saddam caught in a rat hole and in jail for genocide, two overwhelmingly successful free & fair elections, ratification of a democratic-style constitution, seating of a government and selection of a prime minister weren't enough "progress".)

Well, here is good news--demonstrated progress. He was here yesterday, he's not around today. That's good.

But the echo of the bombs hasn't yet faded, and what do we hear & see on CNN? "Will Zarqawi's death even mean anything?"

The answer is, YES, all these things DO matter, especially for all those who are so concerned about “bringing the troops home."

If Zarqawi’s not around to plan one more suicide attack or engineer one more IED, isn't that a good thing?

If people want the troops home, stop aiding & abetting the enemy (who watch the news more than most Americans) by giving them encouragement that we'll turn tail and run when things get difficult.

These things ARE progress because once done, it's one less thing that NEEDS to be done. And that is truely what's going to bring the troops home.

This is ESPECIALLY good news if -- IF -- what CNN and others are reporting is true--that Zarqawi was "ratted-on" by someone in his own organization! If that doesn't point to hope & signs of break-down among the terrorists, what does?

Critics need to take a chill. Give W his moment. Enjoy an American victory as an American instead of joining the chorus of our enemies. (Yes, enemies. The people killing & maiming all those soldiers critics are supposedly so concerned about AREN'T Cheney, Rummy, and W –they are people like Zarqawi.)

To those critics, I say: Stop being a bunch of bitter, obstinate critics. Be happy for the country that this guy won't be killing anyone again. You can go back to hating George Bush again tomorrow, because that’s what you really are concerned about anyway.

Monday, March 27, 2006

"Tolerance for me but not for thee."

Ever notice how the most intolerant tend to be those who cry "free-speech" only when it comes to their point of view?

More than 25,000 evangelical Christian youth landed Friday in San Francisco for a two-day rally at AT&T Park against "the virtue terrorism" of popular culture, and they were greeted by an official city condemnation and a clutch of protesters who said their event amounted to a "fascist mega-pep rally."
SF Chronicle, 3/25/06

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/MNG6OHU6RR1.DTL

I find it ironic that SF's Board of Supervisors produced an official document denouncing a particular group for exercising their right to peaceful assembly and free speech.

A city that supposedly prides itself for embracing diversity reverts to judgmental (and childish) name-calling such as "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting."

In "America's most tolerant and progressive city" about the ONLY thing that draws a governmental condemnation and is categorized as "provocation" is 25,000 youths celebrating their free observance of religious beliefs, and finding solutions to "the spread of sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, drug abuse and suicide..."

I guess it's "tolerance only for me and not for thee."