Voting is serious business

What is wrong with our country today: People being stupid in the voting booth. They go in uninformed and are later surprised to learn things about the people they voted for.  If you voted for a race and 30 minutes later can't remember who you voted for, you are an uninformed voter.

There are many voter guides out there. The homosexual groups have several. The guides are prepared by groups (Unions, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, environmental, "build the bridge", NRA,  and many others) all with single issues. One guide may not be enough.

If you use a guide, know the group preparing it. Know what  their issue is. More importantly what do they ignore.

Everyone should vote. Voting for someone because their last name is the same as your mother maiden name is irresponsible. So is I'm voting for him because he has a biblical name. I'll vote for him because of his party affiliation is also naive. The person on the ballot has no requirement to adhere to part policy. Don't expect them to do so.

 NO ONE should get your vote unless you feel they are worthy to be in authority over you. You are much better off to leave that ballot choice blank. Better yet, don't leave it blank. Write in your name. Or, the name of someone you would like to have in that office. This has the effect of voting for none of the above.

Voting for a minor party or independent is not a wasted vote. When people complain afterwards about the elected person you will know you voted responsibly.

If you can't find the information yourself, talk to someone you trust.  Do not go into the booth a vote based on a coin flip or worse.

Please vote Tuesday. But only those races where you are informed.

Multiculturalism is divisive not bonding

I was thinking about the Labor Day Louisville world fest celebration held on the water front. People got to enjoy ethnic food and visit exhibits on various cultures. All of which was good. It was no doubt an enjoyable weekend for those attending.

This event would be more meaningful if it wasn't such an everyday occurrence. Ethnic groups today tend to congregate and socialize together in a way to exclude others. Prior to the Cubans of the early 1960's immigrant ethnic groups clung together until assimilated into the American culture. Although some parents never truly assimilated the children nearly always did. The children left the ethnic neighborhood and as new immigrants of that ethnicity declined the neighborhood was assimilated.

The things of value provided by an ethnic group was absorbed and Americanized (pizza or tacos anyone).  The Americanized items are altered enough that the ethnic purist raise their nose in disdain. But it is the Americanization of these things that makes America the melting pot. Being American isn't about who you were, it is about who you are.

When individuals in an ethnic group cling together and don't assimilate, their uniqueness is not Americanized and isn't added to the American culture. They stagnate rather than grow.

Multiculturalism encourages ethnic groups to cling. Repeatedly telling them their ethnicity has value. I agree it has value. If you think it is better than America then go back and enjoy it. However, you came to America to get something different. How do you expect to get that difference hiding yourself in your ethnic culture.

Multiculturalism is a ploy of liberals to keep groups segregated. Being divided they can exploit them one against the other. If they assimilate to being American, they have common interest and are difficult to exploit.

Remember embracing your past limits your future.

 

 

Fixing FEMA

FEMA's roots were with the Flood Insurance Program (FIP). The FIP didn't help communities. It also was intended for one time relieve. The President would declare a Federal disaster requested by a State Governor. This onetime event should apply to any disaster.

Reoccurring events are north east snow storms, mid-west flooding, west coast fires, west coast earthquakes, tornados, and hurricanes. Many communities have had multiple hits of the same type disaster. Why should the rest of the nation pay to help them again?

A southern Indiana town called English was prone to flooding. After a particularly bad flood the decision was made to move the town. It was moved about a mile from its old location to high ground.

I am particularly incensed about New Orleans. The devastation there a few years ago was because money scheduled for flood protection was diverted to social causes like midnight basketball. Many of those politicians diverting the funds are still being elected and not held responsible.

Twice last century San Francisco area communities suffered devastating earth quakes. Both times National resources and funds were used to rebuild the communities. What did the rest of the nation get? Nancy Pelosi.

Once is enough. And even then it should be limited to Federal interest, i.e. Federal government buildings and installations. It may seem harsh but if they can't fully rebuild, they probably shouldn't since as history shows, it will happen again.

If I was rebuilding New Orleans, I would be creating a lake on the west to match Pontchartrain on the east. The removed earth would be used to raise New Orleans and provide suitable site drainage. Of course this makes sense and would never be allowed because of digging up wetlands.

Let the communities decide how to protect and use resources. There are enough square miles of wetland in Louisiana that a 1% loss would not be noticed.

The Tea Party is not Republican

The Tea Party is still misunderstood. The Tea Party candidates are almost exclusively Republican. But, to the Tea Party it is a matter of convenience rather than philosophical agreement. The Tea Party has drawn their members from the fiscally conservatives regardless of their political registration.

The Tea Party is a philosophy of small government, low taxes, and Constitutional fidelity. Except for a few scattered cases, it is not an official political party to have registered members. Democrats who would never vote for a Republican may do so this November if the candidate is the one supported by Tea Party.

Many of the Tea Party candidates are not avowed social conservatives. For instance many do not support a Pro-life agenda. They are not for abortion. They simply don't see it as a legislative issue. Under Federal law this type of issue should be precluded by the 10^th Amendment giving the States the legislative power on the issue. A Tea Party Candidate would not support Federal legislation to overturn Roe vs Wade. They would support legislation repealing Supreme Court Decisions not consistent with the 10^th Amendment.  Thus, Roe Vs Wade would be null and void by fiat.

The liberals have pushed social legislation. None of it should be allowed under the 10^th amendment.  If a candidate has a narrow view of things applicable under the 10^th amendment it doesn't matter what is particular view is on a social issue they will vote in agreement with conservative social viewpoint.

A fiscal conservative and strict constitutional interpretation candidate will produce conservative social aligning votes. This type candidate would see education, health issues (including abortion), "the Arts", retirement (including social security), Fannie and Freddie, and the National  Flood Insurance Program as unfounded government intrusion.

Phasing government out of those programs will boost the economy.

Activist atheists are liars

Atheists were behind the elimination of prayer in school. They are the impetus behind the movement to eradicate "In God We Trust" from our money and "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.  They say they do not believe in God and find the reference offensive.

Their reasoning is illogical. How is someone offended by something that doesn't exist? Since they believe God doesn't exist what is the nexus for the offense. A true atheist could not be offended.

If I proclaimed I got heartburn from drinking distilled water, people would know I was lying or woefully misinformed. Distilled water is one of the few substances that cannot produce heartburn. It may manifest itself by moving heartburn causing material to a sensitive area of the stomach, but water was not the cause.

I believe the activist atheist is offended because he does believe in God. They don't like God's moral standards and thus repudiate God. These activist atheist are offended every time they see the word "God" because it mocks their public profession of non-belief.

Another lie of the activist atheist is their desire to help others see the truth. To what purpose? Without God there are no moral standards. Without God there is nothing after an earthly death. An atheist thus has to live in the now. Why would an atheist have altruistic tendencies? If they receive no benefit from an action what is their motive?

A true atheist would only debate the existence of God as a dispassionate intellectual pursuit. Any other form of discussion is evidence of being  in denial about their belief. Witnessing about Christ to them doesn't start with Jesus. It starts with how did this world come into existence?

When they agree to some "unknown cosmic force. " You reply "Like God?"

BP hayride clean up

Using straw to clean up the BP oil spill has received a lot of play. It seems so institutive to use. The Utube renditions all used small containers to demonstrate the technique. The conditions around the  demonstrations were tightly controlled.

The demonstrations all showed oil on water. Straw was added. The straw absorbed the oil. The straw was removed. A filtering display showing a substantially reduced quantity of oil ended the demonstration. It appeared to be a sure fire clean up method.

The obvious problem using straw is how to apply it. With a spill area expressed in square miles how do you get straw put onto the oil? The oil doesn't travel to the straw. Boats do not want to enter the spill area because of the high potential to ignite the oil which is now surrounding the vessel. Air drop of straw still as spreading issues as a plane has a narrow path.

If the application issue is solved the next problem is recovery of the straw. What is the mechanism for retrieving the straw and where do you store it until it can be delivered to shore? The reluctance to put a vessel in jeopardy would still apply.  

Straw floats because there are air pockets between the cells of the plant. A large portion of the absorbed oil replaces the air. This changes the buoyancy of the straw. If the air pockets are filled with oil, the straw is now heavier than water and sinks. Straw entrained with oil would adversely impact shrimp, oyster, and other fishery beds.

If the oil doesn't fill the air space, sea water will. The straw then becomes water logged. Straw in this condition probably will not sink to the bottom. But it probably doesn't float on the surface either.

Solutions frequently  only produce more problems.

 

1970’s School Busing Goal

Equal education for all races was the goal. The statistics today of achievement by race are essentially unchanged from the 1970's. So, either busing didn't work or it was unnecessary.

It was unnecessary and known to be unnecessary in the 1970's. The true goal of Louisville busing was to financially bail out the city school system. This was done under the guise of court ordered busing, merging the county schools (88% white) with the city schools (35% black). The resultant black ratio was 17%. Over the next three years that grew to 19% because of "white flight" (white families moving to surrounding counties and private schools).

The unstated goal was societal tinkering. The theory was:

1)      By better mixing the races the children would learn tolerance.

2)      As adults they would better tolerate having mixed race neighborhoods.

3)      Racial based bias would fade away.

The first graders of that initial busing year are 41. Black children are still involuntarily bused more than white children. Most unincorporated Jefferson County neighborhoods are still less than 5% black. The predominately black neighborhoods have grown in area not shrunk. The merged school system needs more money.

I see no success from busing.  What have we learned?

·         Individual preference is subservient to the government.

·         You can't make peoples of different heritage voluntarily mix.

·         The school system will never have enough money.

There are 35 people in JCPS department called transportation. There are separate departments for bus maintenance and bus driver training. So what else is there for these 35 people to do except layout busing routes? Then there are the departments of demographics and diversity.  What is their purpose, other than continue failed policy connected to busing?

The State legislature wants to effectively end busing. The school system should embrace the idea. They can eliminate over 50 positions and move those resources to areas that are more important.

God is God

Perhaps it is a good thing the ACLU and other groups are trying to remove God from our society. Don't get me wrong, I don't like what they are doing. What I wonder, do people who oppose the ACLU understand who God is?

My title "God is God" is profound, not cliché. Any definition of a god will reference some type of mystical power and an ability to control human behavior.  The God I know created the universe around us. He created everything we can see or touch. He created us; but, not as puppets. God gave us free will and the ability to reason.

We applied our reasoning ability to time and developed the concepts of hours in day and the days in a year. We have developed other time concepts: decades, centuries, and the average life span of a man. But we do not have a grasp of eternity.

Eternity does not include this universe which we can see and touch. God's plan is to destroy it and establish a new earth, a new universe. A display on a wall today is dust in eternity. The only transition to the new universe are those individuals who know God and have accepted his plan for redemption.

To fight to keep a display of the Ten Commandments or to acknowledge God in the pledge of allegiance as part of our heritage is a noble and just cause. To fight because you honor and respect God is good and demonstrates your values and character. However, if the fight is for God, you do not understand God.

The God who created the earth can etch the Ten Commandments on the wall in a manner that cannot be erased. When we fight for God we are denying His ability.

Our fight should be a witness about His ability to redeem man.

 

Gas mileage requirements

Technology has surpassed the benefit of measuring gas mileage.  Now that we know crude oil is a renewable resource, reducing consumption with known huge reserves is pointless. Supply and demand will dictate mileage standards by users instead of arbitrary government requirements.

The pollution related aspects of gas mileage are institutionalized  in engine design. Changes would require substantial infrastructure investment. Pollution control  features are not just a design concern, but it also impacts maintenance and repair.

The computer controlled ignition system optimizes fuel usage. As a result the gas molecule is efficiently reduced  to its basic elemental parts. The most prominent compounds are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water vapor, and nitric oxide. The pollution control devices with the computer assisted air and fuel mixture does a good job of filtering and containing the emission of deleterious compounds like ozone and nitrogen dioxide.

Government regulations are never economical. The government cost of printing and distributing the regulations cost several million a year. The government employed regulators will easily exceed one billion a year. The regulated industry, in this instance, automobile manufacturers, refineries, and repair shops expend manpower in documenting compliance with the regulations. This cost is nearly incalculable. Leaving aside the auto manufacturers and refineries the repair shops across the country must be able to document their compliance. If these repair shops do only 2 hours each a month in compliance the cost substantial. I believe one trillion dollars would not be an over estimate for the entire private sector.

Roughly four million new vehicles are produced each year for use in the United States.  That represents about $300 per new vehicle in tax money spent by the government for regulatory compliance. The private sector cost is probably equivalent. For the private sector repair industry it represents over $3,000 per vehicle.

Retaining unnecessary regulations is not good for the economy.

Impact of a hard nose president

The President administers the government. Congress establishes laws and creates a budget. Congress has no enforcement power. A budget doesn't demand the money be spent. A budget limits the way money is spent.

A hard nose President can make congress pass a balanced budget. When a budget has a deficient, it means more money is allocated for spending than there is revenue. A hard nose President instructs his chosen Secretary of the Treasury to not write checks if there are insufficient funds.

Having a budget allowing spending the check writer must decide which items in the budget don't get their checks written.  Having insufficient funds to meet all obligations you don't write checks to pay congressional salaries. Still can't meet obligations don't write checks to pay congressional staffers salaries. Next step don't pay for reimbursement or office expense for these individuals.

Now not paying congress will not make a dent in the month's deficit, so move on to pet projects of the congress. Earmarks are the obvious choice. Although rare, some earmarks can benefit the nation. As the administrator, use discretion and fund those projects.

These decisions are probably a cup of water in a five gallon bucket. The next step is to keep the American people on your side. So don't pay out money to the UN or any foreign nation except leases on military installations. The various ethnic groups usually have enough animosity against one another they will not join forces to form meaningful opposition.

Still lacking funds, stop paying National Public Radio, AMTRAK, or any of the nearly four dozen independent agencies (not under a Cabinet Secretary). Of course you do want to pay the Secret Service, Department of Defense, and Treasurary Cabinet. And, absolutely don't touch Social Security.

It is my opinion this approach would result in passage of a balanced budget.

God and politics

On the macro scale God doesn't involve himself directly in politics. On the micro scale God does involve himself in the lives of individuals. The involvement doesn't have to be the candidate. It could be a campaign staffer, monetary supporter, or a voter.

God's goal is to redeem every individual from their sin. God can easily make any government a God fearing institution.  To what purpose? Governments do things to people not things for them. Governments biased to God are the result of the Godly people within that society.

Societies form government to protect the members of the society. Christians already have God as their protector and are guaranteed membership in His heavenly and final society. Thus, the Godliness of a nation or its lack thereof is of little consequence to a Christian.

As a Christian we are to spread the Gospel of Jesus. That task is simplified if the nation is God fearing. Although we do not need a Godly nation on earth, it doesn't hurt anything if it is. In America using the voting booth to achieve that purpose is acceptable if within the scope of our duties to God.

I fully believe God does direct individuals to run for elective office. I find it difficult to believe God tells any candidate the decisive issue of the campaign is "God wants Christians in office". Well duh. God can put a Godly person in office without a self proclamation from that candidate.

I ran for office with a campaign button stating "Ask about Jesus."  I knew it to be a losing stigmatism. And it was. I didn't understand why God wanted me to do it. In the next election cycle I had several candidates say my campaign button gave them the courage to not be hesitant about being Christian.

As a voter know the issues and the morals of the candidate.

Mountain top mining

Mountain top mining is an aesthetic concern not an environmental issue. The mining is a straight forward engineering and construction process. Proven construction controls keep the material handled from impacting the environment. Under current law the mountain top must be restored.

Coal mining is the principle user of mountain top mining. A coal seam, be it two feet or twenty feet thick can be removed by auguring from the side. Columns of the coal must be left to support the undisturbed material above. Coal extraction from this method rarely exceeds 35%.

There is no inherent environmental harm from this type of mining. The removal of the overburden (rock and soil above the coal) does not release any gases. The over burden material now exposed to rainfall does not contain pollutants above background levels found in naturally occurring material. No Impact to air from gaseous releases; no impact to streams from runoff; and no impact to ground water from leachate. Where is the environmental harm?

The impact is simply aesthetics. My favorite reason for stopping the mining is, "That mountain has been in our family for over 150 years." No doubt true. There is also no doubt that sometime in that ownership period the mineral rights were sold. The family had been using those proceeds for years. Now the owner wants to claim the material.

One problem in mountainous areas is tillable land. Mountain top mining could create a plateau and fill part of the valley. Depending on the depth of the coal seam this could produce 1,200 to 4,000 tillable acres. A good size farm by anyone's definition.

You don't want that mountain mined. You don't want tillable land. Buy back the mineral rights.

I just plain get annoyed when people want to retain something they don't own or even control.