Are You A Closet Black Conservative?

On this the birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I feel it is highly appropriate to launch the inaugural posting of "The Brother on the Right". The objective of this blog is to give a voice to many black conservatives who don't feel that there are enough of us out there to stand up and be counted.

In reality, there are many of us out here it's just that we are hidden among the numbers of liberals or progressives as they've gone to calling themselves lately. Since we are black, upwardly mobile, intelligent and articulate or to put it more simply, since we are "black" it is generally assumed that we are therefore democrat and of course liberal.

Wrong! In fact, my sense is that many more blacks (notice the absense of "African-American" I address that in the video) are actually conservative than they realize. That was how I came to realize that I was conservative after all. In fact, when you take my little quiz below I think you may also realize some seeds of conservatism in yourself as well.

Don't be afraid, the quiz won't hurt you or convert you. It's there to help you realize your own God given potential and your constitutional rights as an American born in the land of the free and the home of the brave. When you take the quiz, if you answer yes to 85% or more of the questions, you just may be a budding conservative. Don't be angry, rejoice and be glad! There is much to be happy about as a conservative!

What exactly does it mean to be a conservative? Well my quiz below will give some serious insight into that question. Let me first state what it does not mean. It does not mean that you are now a part of some mean spirited right wing that has no compassion for your fellow human being. It does not mean that you blindly follow the thoughts and opinions of any republican or conservative leadership. It does not mean that you see no need whatsoever for an efficient and effective federal government. It doesn't mean that you dislike all gays or homosexuals because of their sexual orientation. It does not mean that you dislike all people who are on government assistance or support.

In fact friends, being a conservative means the exact opposite of all of those things. We believe that our best years as a nation are ahead of us. We believe in rugged individualism and the pursuit of prosperity. We believe in a strong free market economy. We believe in holding all of our leaders accountable for their actions and decisions. We believe in an efficient federal government and tax system that sets the stage for economic growth and prosperity.

We believe in equal rights so that all Americans regarding of their backgrounds or orientations can flourish in this the greatest country in the history of mankind. We believe that the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King is being realized every day in this country and that much more of it is yet to be realized. We believe in less governmental programs and bloat and more individual creativity and genius. We believe that the capitalist system and only the capitalist system is the best system for bringing out the best in all of us.

We believe in a strong military that protects our interests all of the world as well as helps to protect the weak. We believe in promoting democracy as a form of government and not fascism, dictatorships, communism or socialism. We believe "In God We Trust" and that our country is at its best when we keep God included in our belief systems. We believe in lower taxes on all Americans and corporations as the best means to increase and sustain economic growth in this country.

Friends, like President Ronald Reagan, we look forward to the future with optimism and a spirit of enthusiasm. As conservative Americans we believe that we have the finest country that mankind has ever seen and it is worth defending the principles and values that made us the country that all other peoples of the world look to for answers and support.

I understand your dilemma however. As a black conservative you probably get a lot and I mean a LOT of angry looks if you even act like you support any conservative principles. I've lost a few friends because I dared to think independently for myself and not blindly subscribe to whatever radio talks show hosts or the good Reverends have to say. How dare I not agree with Jesse or Al? It's tantamount to moral blasphemy to disagree with our self appointed leaders who are supposed to do all of our thinking for us.

They would have us believe that God gave them all of the collective black brain cells and that the rest of us are robots who should blindly follow their edicts from their radio shows. "What do you mean we don't need bigger government and more programs to get us out of this rut? Who do you think you are?" They'd have us believe that without them fighting for more programs us poor black folk couldn't do anything without them.

Friends, its time to think for ourselves. Realize that God gave YOU a brain and he gave it to you to use; not wait to hear what Jesse has to say. That's why Bill Cosby called us "intellectually lazy" and he was right. Dead on right.

So take the quiz. Give honest answers to the questions, and I think we may soon discover that we have a few black conservatives in the closet!

Do you favor lower taxes which means more $ in your pocket and less in the governments? Who is more capable of making important financial decisions for your family? You or the government? Do you favor a medical savings account that allows you to put aside money (in an interest bearing account) for unplanned medical expenses or do you need the government to solve your medical problems?

Do you favor broad tax cuts for corporations which will motivate them to invest in jobs and grow their businesses thereby strengthening the economy? Should the USA run from terrorism or stand up to it as a strong undivided front? Do you favor allowing the US to be pushed around by the international community?

Would you be willing to allow for oil exploration to reduce our nations dependence on foreign oil? Do you want strong, effective border control or are you ok with anyone crossing our borders at anytime? Should illegal aliens be allowed to put a strain on our infrastructure with no means of documenting them and taxing their income?

Are you ok with working harder and harder to make less and as the government continues rampant spending and tax hikes? Do you like having to get up and go to work everyday to support unmotivated individuals who don't want to get up and go to work?

Are more and bigger government programs the answer or should we allow the capitalist system to do its job? Do you favor a socialized health care system (similar to Canada and the UK) which means you may have to wait up to 6 months to see a doctor? (that you can't choose). Do you favor abortion over adoption?

Should members of Congress have term limits like the President does? Should we continue our insatiable focus on identification of ethnicities and races in America?

Should we all just be Americans or do we need to continue to sub-identify ourselves as African-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc? Who is more capable of determining your family's future, you or an elected official? Do elected officials, i.e. "The Government" know what's best for you and your family?

Is the role of government to "set the stage for individual achievement", "create the environment for success" or make sure that there's a "chicken in every pot." Be careful: one scenario sets us up for unlimited success as a nation and the other sets us up for mediocrity. If you're a minority do you attribute your success to Affirmative Action programs or to receiving God's Favor and making the most of your God-given potential? Would Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. support large government programs and redistribution of wealth or creating an environment where everyone is playing on a level playing field?

Should we restrict oil exploration so that we don't inconvenience our furry friends? In other words should we pay higher prices at the pump and remain dependent upon Arab oil in order to keep things comfy for the squirrels? Should the United States maintain a strong and active defense or retreat behind our oceanic borders and hope no one bothers us here? Is the United States an active force for good in this world or are we the cause of the world's problems and should be sorry for all that we've done?

Are we right to remove prayer from the schools, "Christ" from Christmas, scripture readings and verses from statehouse steps, and to attempt to disassociate our nation from all that is Godly? Do you agree with a former Vice-President who is so concerned with global warming that he is compelled to fly around the world in a private jet and arrive by stretch limousine to tell us all that we are consuming too much fuel? Do you also agree with him when after all his globe trotting he goes home to a mega-mansion (heated by pine needles, I guess) to plan his next excursion?

Do our self appointed black leaders (no names here but their initials are Jesse and Al) know what is best for the black, oops African American community? Have all the government programs they say we need actually helped anybody? I guess we should thank them that there is less gang violence, black on black crime, drug use and teenage pregnancy...oh, that's right there isn't less, it seems like more to me!

As a minority, have most of the bad or disappointing things that have happened to you been as a result of your own lack of preparation or diligence or something that "The Man" did to you? Have the good things happened as a result of your preparation and hard work or because a government program did it for you?

Are you capable of thinking for yourself or do you need the government or Rev. so and so to tell you what to think? Do you have an optimistic outlook on the future of our people and believe that our best years are head of us?

Roderick Armstrong is a veteran of the US Army and a successful businessman and real estate investor.

He has been blessed with many diverse experiences, including witnesses refugees fleeing the Iron Curtain at the end of the Cold War, operating successful multi-unit business models, helping families start their own franchise businesses, and even losing over 100 pounds on two separate occasions.
By Roderick Armstrong

Why I Am A Conservative

First, let us start with the dictionary definition of conserve: to keep from being damaged, lost or wasted; to save keep, or preserve. In politics, a conservative is defined as someone tending to conserve or preserve established traditions or institutions.

Now let us ask a leading question. Is it worthwhile to conserve or be a conservative? George Santayana, Spanish-American poet and teacher of philosophy at Harvard University, wrote in his book Reason in Common Sense: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I am a child of the Great Depression - oldest child of a mother set adrift in that economic disaster with three youngsters. One week we lived on a peck of dried peas - morning, noon and night - which my mother, in great humiliation, obtained from the government surplus food depot.

I mention these painful, personal memories so that you will understand I am not unmindful of the hardships of poverty and circumstance, or the role of government in mitigating disaster.

I cast my first vote for Franklin Delano Roosevelt - believing then, and still today - that government has a responsibility to "prime the pump" in great emergencies.

Unfortunately, when Democrats discovered the vote - getting power of free, social services, they would not return to the requirement of individual responsibilities. In 1951, while lunching at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., President Truman and his press secretary came in and took stools at the bar next to our table. After sandwich and soup, the president turned and said hello to my host. With this we engaged the president in conversation.

That morning, a headline on the front page of the "Washington Post" was -- "Inflation Hits 3 percent." None of us in the group had ever heard of inflation. So I said, "Mr. President, excuse my ignorance, but what is inflation?

Mr. Truman smiled and replied, "Don't apologize. I was asked that same question at the cabinet meeting this morning. I explained it was like a hunter stung by a bee -- and here he told a locker-room joke, the gist of which was the hunter's desire for a salve that would remove the sting but leave the swelling.

I laughed, but I realized he was deliberately pumping up inflation for political gain - by running the printing presses overtime at the Bureau of Engraving.

Truman already had confiscated the real cash in the Social Security Insurance Fund to help pay for World War II, replacing the insurance reserve with I.O.U s. Thus, the hedge against old age retirement ceased being insurance and became a "trust." Some of you may recall the liberal argument: "There is nothing to worry about. We owe it to ourselves."

I became alarmed, because common sense told me that Social Security, and even the nation, would go bankrupt if inflation - at 1 percent, or whatever - continued indefinitely. That's when I became a conservative.

When Social Security approached its first short-fall in the early sixties, I wrote a column warning about the impending crisis. The amount of angry response by readers, including some close friends who should have grasped the facts, astonished me. I was called irresponsible for suggesting that Social Security was in trouble.

However, the Washington politicians fessed up a year later and raised the employee/employer Social Security taxes for the first time. Such increases have occurred periodically every since. Another is needed right now, as is Medicare and Medicaid.

The critical problem is that working-and-saving Americans now must cough up to government - federal, state, and local - at least a third of what they earn. I am a student of history, and I have learned that all previous civilizations have collapsed when approximately 40 percent of the fruits of producers go to support non-producers - government functionaries being the largest non-productive consumers.

We are closer to the edge than our politicians like to admit. In our time, the Soviet Union slipped over the edge. The Communist Manifesto - "to each according to need, from each according to ability" - has a wonderful, compassionate ring. But socialism always has been a nation-killer, and liberalism is nothing more than slow-motion socialism.

The United States national debt is 5 and 1/2 trillion dollars. Interest on this debt takes the top 35 percent of federal taxes. Social services that the borrowed money provided has been consumed and forgotten.

If we balanced the federal budget next year, and every year forever, we would never escape the 35 percent overburden on our federal revenue without repudiating the debt, or confiscating your and my savings by drastic devaluation of our money.

Don't laugh! President Nixon did it overnight in a small way. Mexico and Russia did it last year big time. Inflation does it more slowly, but just as surely. How much did you pay for your last home or car that 20 years ago cost one-fourth as much?

We must move on from balancing the budget and start working earnestly toward reducing the national debt. It's the economy, stupid.

After the economy, the principal problems plaguing the nation center around the liberal dissipation of established traditions and institutions.

We have destroyed the family and the work ethic with no-questions-asked welfare, encouragement of out-of-wedlock teen-age pregnancies with free condoms in school and welfare after delivery that rewards the disappearance of impregnators We have dumbed down education with the hope of keeping kids in school - but, still, the drop-out rate in inner-city schools is 45 percent and unemployment of young, black males is 55 percent. A lost generation.

Pornography and gutter language is common on prime- time television. Teen-age drug addiction is soaring. Street violence is commonplace.

Liberals laugh at morality, family values, religious faith, hard work, high educational standards, courtesy, patriotism, chaste sexual conduct, individual responsibility, pre-marital abstinence, polite language.

To conserve, one has to be smart enough to know what to keep and preserve from 10,000 years of civilization, so we don't keep repeating grievous mistakes. Our nation, our culture, our civilization depends on conservatism - either to save what is good and workable, or to rescue us from anarchy when the nation goes belly up.

I close by recommending the "Serenity Prayer" delivered at the height of the Great Depression - by Reinhold Niebuhr, the famous American clergyman:

"God grant us the courage to change things we can, accept the things we cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference."

September 25, 1996

Click here to see this article on Lindsey Williams's website

Book Review - A New Kind of Conservative by Dr Joel C Hunter

My first thought when I picked up Dr. Hunter's book, A New Kind of Conservative, was, Here we go again; another ultra-right wing, evangelical preacher on his soap box, ranting and railing against the sins of our society and the failures of our secular government. But I soon realized that he is nothing of the sort. Instead, in this thoughtful and extremely well written book, he challenges the status quo among conservative Christians by asking such questions as: can a Christian/biblical world view effectively mesh with postmodern society and secular government? and; should Christians be involved in political action and if so, how?

The role of Christian conservatives, or the Religious Right, in the political process surfaces regularly in the public consciousness, especially when such hot button issues as abortion and gay rights are debated. How effective are they in promoting their cause within government and society? According to Dr. Hunter, not as effective as they could be. To make his case, he provides a list of five myths and three truths all imbedded in their efforts. Christian conservatives who continue to promulgate the former become less effective over time, while those that ignore the latter miss valuable opportunities to influence the political process in a more productive way.

Dr. Hunter is eminently qualified to address Christian conservative issues. He is the pastor of a church that administers to approximately 12,000 people who worship together in real time at multiple distribution sites throughout Central Florida and at hundreds of smaller sites throughout the world via the internet; he is an internationally known spokesman for compassion issues outlined in scripture; and he serves on the board of six organizations, including the National Association of Evangelicals. And while he speaks to, rather than for, Christian conservatives his ideas merit close attention; for what he is proposing is a shift away from the extreme right of the political spectrum, to a place less confrontational and more conducive to productive dialogue with other players in the political arena.

So, where is this place Doctor Hunter suggests Christian conservatives go and how do they get there? It's all spelled out in the chapters describing the Pilate Process, so named because the goal of this process is to learn from the mistakes Pontius Pilate made when judging Jesus. What could today's Christian conservative possibly learn from the Pontius Pilate of biblical times? As it turns out, quite a lot. After describing the process in precise and very understandable detail, Doctor Hunter summarizes by listing six easy to remember principles that will make us good at politics when we follow them. It all made good sense to me, and my gut feeling is that he is on to something profound.

The bible says "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's (Matthew 22:21). For Christian conservatives who are struggling to find their political voice in these trying times while heeding that admonition, A New Kind of Conservative is mandatory reading,

And now, for an admonition of my own. If you do decide to read "A New Kind of Christian," be sure to fully engage your brain before beginning and read it with slow deliberation letting the full weight of its logic sink in. If you do, you will be rewarded many times over.

Ron Standerfer is a freelance writer and photographer who is a frequent contributor to Ezine Articles as well as numerous other online news sites. His latest novel, The Eagle's Last Flight chronicles the life of an Air Force fighter pilot during the Cold War and Vietnam years. Details of his book can be found at http://www.theeagleslastflight.com

Mrs. Clinton the Progressive

They have gotten themselves into a terrible mess. The Democratic Party has turned their fate over to uncertainty because they have allied themselves with less than moderate people. Many people complain about how the Republican Party listens to religious voters a lot these days. Whether it is true or not, there is another side to this issue you might not notice as much. If the Republicans Party is supposedly listening to religious voters more and more in this day and age, then there can be no doubt the Democratic Party is listening to the far left wing of this country.

Case in point: Senator Joe Lieberman. The senator from Connecticut, one of the few Democratic senators I respect, is fighting in the primaries against Ned Lamont, a white guy. Mr. Lamont touts himself as a Democrat “…who will stand up for Connecticut and stand up for our progressive democratic values.” Now in most political circles, progressive is still a title that one does not want to shoulder. However, this politician believes he will win with such a title. Whether he will win or not is not the point, however. If Senator Lieberman fails in the Democratic primaries, he has stated he will run under the banner of an independent. This is all fine and groovy; however, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a moderate with rightward leanings (if you can believe her talk), has stated she will not support such a candidacy by Senator Lieberman.

Consider what this means for just a moment. If Mrs. Clinton does not support Senator Lieberman and instead pledges her support for Mr. Lamont, a man who is an anti-war progressive, it shows us that all of Mrs. Clinton’s tough talk on the war is as dependable as Windows ME. In fact, such support for a progressive should send off warning flags to the country that Mrs. Clinton is in fact as liberal as “foaming at the mouth” Randi Rhodes and The Daily Kos. Of course, if you listened to her, you would think she is simply a moderate politician who happens to have been associated with very liberal policies in the past.

Without a doubt, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is in league with the far left. That is why the Democratic Party is in a mess. Mrs. Clinton’s positions demonstrate one of two possible situations she and the Democratic Party find themselves in today. She is either part of the far left or she is terrified of this new powerful political body within the Democratic Party. I suspect she is a far left politician naturally, but it shows you that even she cannot escape their grasp. The far left is far more powerful in fact that the religious right when it comes right down to it. When was the last time you saw Republicans as a whole actually doing what religious conservatives wanted them to do?

Whether or not Lieberman wins his reelection (personally, I doubt he will), the point here is that you must watch who your politician supports. Looking at these type of facts will point you toward the real intent of someone like Hillary Clinton. Time will tell whether Mrs. Clinton’s deception holds for the 2008 elections. Whether it does or not, however, the Democratic Party will have to deal with this ever growing problem of being controlled by radio show hosts who have audiences that can barely support them in the ratings.

Anther fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

Burned

Hi folks. I know today I was supposed to post my weekly article, but I burned my hand a little bit (nothing serious, just can't use it because it HURTS BAD). So I can't finish my article that I had begun earlier today. I'll post in a few days when I can touch my keyboard. Sorry about this.

Another fine injury report from Conservative Textbook

PS - For those of you wondering why it is I can't write a blog article but I can write this, that's because I had someone else write this injury report.

2006 Part I

Seems like just yesterday I was getting emails about the 2005 elections. Yet here we are again in a far more important election year. It’s time to start up the campaign machine, so to speak.

The question of the year is simple – who will be in power in 2007? On a national level (I can’t speak for any local elections except those in Colorado), things look grim. Indeed, they look very grim for the Republican AND Democratic Parties. The media, for what it’s worth, says the country is in an anti-incumbent mode this year. I suspect that is relatively correct. The media, for what it’s worth, claims that will devastate the Republicans who are in control of Congress. I suspect that could be possible. While I am not blindly optimistic about the elections this November, I am not running around in terror like some conservatives are this year. An anti-incumbent attitude will hurt the Democrats too.

Neither party has done a good job this session. The Republican majority has fumbled, crashed, and burned their most opportune session in decades. The Republicans had a chance and the numbers to get some real work done on the national level. They lost that chance nearly the minute they got it. I blame Senators McCain, Specter, Graham, Chafee, and various other Republicans for a great deal of the blunder that has occurred this past session. On the other side of the aisle, however, the Democrats have done a nearly equally poor job. Their far left fringe base that controls most of the party’s elected officials is just as angry with their senators as the conservatives are their own senators. Neither party seems to be able to stand up for what their constituents desire. Neither party seems to be able to legislate what they were voted to legislate.

Why, you may ask yourself, has this happened? Why is it that our elected officials on both sides seem to be unable to stand up for what their supporters want? I believe it is because they are listening to the wrong sources. On the Republican side, our elected officials who are not doing what we want them to do are listening to the older media such as newspapers, CBS, ABC, and other sources that are reserved for liberals and old people. Of course, to please The New York Times AND conservatives is impossible. It is easier to please The New York Times, however, because results are seen immediately in the editorials and on the front page. However, in the long run, Republicans will only lose ground if they try to please The New York Times. On the Democratic side, a similar problem exists. Democrats are listening to far left wing pundits such as Air America, the Daily Kos, and Al Gore. Such sources are out of the mainstream of American culture, and thus the Democrats find themselves serving a base that is not quite compatible with American culture (to be absolutely accurate, that base hates Americans, American culture, and even themselves when you get right down to it). They can’t please foaming at the mouth Randi Rhodes and America at the same time.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what I believe the problem is at this time with our elected officials on both sides. Will 2006 fix this problem? No. This disconnect with our politicians will only change after we slowly weed out politicians that don’t legislate what we put them in office to do. It will take time and effort, but that is the only solution.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

Stop The ACLU Blogburst

Responding to reports that phone companies are turning over private details about Americansí telephone calls to the National Security Agency, the American Civil Liberties Union today launched a nationwide initiative to end illegal government spying.

ACLU affiliates in 20 states today filed complaints with Public Utility Commissions or sent letters to state Attorneys General and other officials demanding investigations into whether local telecommunications companies allowed the NSA to spy on their customers.

"We cannot sit by while the government and the phone companies collude in this massive, illegal and fundamentally unAmerican invasion of our privacy," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "And unfortunately, we cannot wait for Congress to act. The ACLU is mobilizing its members and supporters nationwide to demand investigations into this shocking breach of trust. And we are asking the FCC to use its authority to uncover the facts about how far the president's illegal spying has gone. The American people want answers."

True to form, Romero has twisted the facts of this case around to scare the unsuspecting liberal minded, apathetic imbecile who supports him and his anti-American organization. To this point, each and every legal scholar who has looked at the program has agreed that no laws have been broken.

Congressional leaders, including Dick "the dick with the turban" Durban have come out in favor of changing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to cover this type of operation. Each one has touted the benefits and necessities of this program for the national security of the United States and its people.

Democrats are approaching this from the oversight angle. That if the President was given authority to conduct this operation in just the same manner that it already has been, it would provide some oversight with teeth under which the President is less likely to abuse the power.

Republicans are approaching this from the stand point that the President needs this program and having it written into FISA would provide him with the tools to conduct it.

I agree with both actually. No matter who is in power, it is always possible for power to be abused. But as both parties have recognized the need for the program and both have expressed the need for it to continue, what is the ACLU's beef?

I'll tell you what their beef is. They are the perpetual fly in the ointment. If they aren't causing trouble over each and every thing the federal government does, they feel as though they aren't doing anything at all. After all, if they agreed with the stance the government takes, their significance would be non-existent.

This is a fund raising campaign. If they make a big enough stink about this, the apathetic morons will give them more money. If by chance they prevail in any one of these many lawsuits that they are planning, then they can circumvent the legislative process and again, they make money off the government.

The ACLU is listed as a non-profit organization. They claim to be non-partisan. But it seems awfully odd that the only members of Congress that are members of the ACLU are Democrats and that the ACLU publicly opposes any proposal sponsored by Republicans. And it seems awfully odd that each time they win a case, they take a larger cut of the settlement than their clients.

The ACLU feeds of the weak minded. They rely on the apathetic uniformed morons who fill out the little form and send it in with their $25 each year to get their little card in the mail so that they can go around saying that they are "card carrying members of the ACLU". If these people had half the intelligence that they claim to have, they would look into the dealings of the ACLU and come to the same conclusions that we have. That their actual goal is destruction of the United States as we know it.

President Bush and other administration officials have neither confirmed nor denied a USA Today report that the NSA is collecting the calling records of ordinary Americans in its effort to detect the plans of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations.

Bush has said the administration's anti-terror surveillance programs are legal and constitutional.

The ACLU was planning to file actions with state utility commissions in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. Other states were expected to be added later. Source

So the ACLU will sue these companies for helping our government to detect terrorists? All the while, the ACLU has a massive database of its own members, their financial information, and much more private details than the NSA could ever hope for.

Sign the Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of the ACLU.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board

Odd

Odd, isn’t it, that people can complain about their position in the world, and yet at the same time, demand to maintain the status quo that is keeping them in their pitiful position in the world. In France, protests are of course occurring. However, instead of Muslims protesting the bigotry of the progressive French, it is students and union bosses who are protesting the likely passage of the First Job Contract.

The First Job Contract passes revolutionary measures in France, namely that of allowing employers to fire workers under 26 without cause during their first two years of employment. French President Jacques Chirac has been caught in a firestorm between the two opposing sides of this bill. There are those who want the bill applied and enforced, and there are liberals who want the bill destroyed. Chirac has decided, according to reports, to proceed with signing the bill; however, he will amend it nearly immediately.

By now you should be asking yourself a question – why is this bill even is existence in the economic paradise of France where welfare, guaranteed jobs, long vacations, and less work for the same pay are the rule of the land? While the liberals in this country bemoan our 4.8% unemployment rate, the French are enjoying an unemployment rate of 9.6%. However, please recall that one of the primary protestors of this new law is the student population. The French student population currently enjoys an unemployment rate of 22.2%.

What is wrong with France? Why is this country of unions, socialism, liberalism, and bigotry against Muslims and Christians having these unemployment problems? The answer to that is very simple – unions, socialism, and liberalism. The First Job Contract allows employers to fire unproductive workers under the age of 26 during their first two years on the payroll. Currently, if an employer hires someone under 26, that person basically can’t be fired (red tape the size of Texas gets in the way). Therefore, what is an employer going to do if he or she can’t trust a new worker? That employer is going to hire someone over 26 who he can eventually fire (remember though, it’s very hard to fire anyone in France). If employers aren’t going to fire young people, the youth population is going to be severely unemployed (22.2% to be exact). Even though it is easier to fire someone over 26, it is still very hard to fire someone in France. The unemployment rate over 26 will also be high because of these rules (9.6% high to be exact).

I would like to draw you back to the beginning of this article. It is the students who are protesting this new law. It is also the students who are in dire need of jobs. If this law were to pass in its true form (which it won’t, according to Chirac), my prediction is that unemployment for those under 26 would drastically decrease. Why worry about hiring someone if they can be fired easily? It would cause those under 26 to be a very attractive demographic to employers, and it would cause the brats under 26 to develop a work ethic not unlike that of the American youth (that shows how far gone the French really are in the first place).

Odd, isn’t it, that the people protesting this new law are the exact people the law would benefit the most.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

We're All Dead!

Since I am on spring break, I have decided it is the appropriate time to discuss something dire. Ladies and gentlemen, we are doomed. In fact, we are so doomed that I don’t think it really matters anymore.

Allow me to explain myself. Actually, allow someone else to explain it to you. Senator John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), explained on the radio that, “I can say to an absolute certainty that if things stay exactly as they are today absent some unpredictable change in what's going on, within the next 30 years the Arctic ice sheet is gone… Already you have the Greenland ice sheet beginning to melt ... If that melts, you have a level of sea level increase that wipes out Boston Harbor, New York Harbor - I mean, it's just stunning what we're looking at.”

Good glory! Sounds awful, doesn’t it? Now of course, that would be simply a disaster. However, I’m not worried about it. You see, we don’t even have to worry about the ice caps. Our planet will be long dead by that point. Al Gore, by way of his friend, explained to us some time ago that he “… believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.” This frying pan would be the result of global warming.

Good glory! That is even worse. Forget about melting ice caps, we’re all going to be dead 20 years before that happens. I’ve got a question about all this, especially Al Gore’s revelation – what’s the point? Do you really think it will be possible for us, even with the Kyoto Treaty, to mend this damage before we all die? Seems to me that even in the dreams of liberals, we’re already dead! Maybe that’s why John Kerry’s family (a separate entity from John Kerry, as we all know) owns several SUVs, five obscenely large mansions, a jet liner, and a yacht, all of which are polluters. John Kerry knows it is futile to try to stop our inevitable death.

In the mean time, before I die of heat stroke from Al Gore’s frying pan or drown from John Kerry’s floods, I’m going to go up and enjoy several days of snowboarding in the above average snow pack of several world class Colorado ski resorts (I snowboard, I don’t ski – skiers are crazy and unsafe on the slopes, so I refuse to be a part of them).

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

Ready, Set, They're Off!

If you are a regular reader of my blog, you are aware an organization that I believe holds great promise is in the works. This organization is Regenerate Our Culture. As a launch sponsor of this new website, I am please to announce that it has gone live! Regenerate Our Culture is ready to rock!

Regenerate Our Culture is managed by several recognized bloggers including Tim Sweetman of Agent Tim, Kristin Braun of Spunky Jr., Alex King of Smarthomeschool, and Jake Smith of Mission36Teen. Regenerate Our Culture is dedicated to the purpose of regenerating our culture into one that is based on a Biblical world view.

Now that their website is up and running, make sure to stop by on a regular basis to check out the new materials and opinions they post.

Another fine announcement from Conservative Textbook.

The United States and Protectionism

Dubai Ports World is a company we are all quite familiar with due to recent media and political coverage. Dubai Ports World has now agreed to sell its operations to a U.S. owned entity. Is this a victory for America? In my opinion, this is by no means a victory; it is nothing less than a startling defeat for America. Allow me to explain my position.

I could care less about who ran the loading and unloading of our ports. It really doesn’t matter that much to me as long as that entity does not take the security duties that are currently executed by the port authorities and the United States Coast Guard. However, what is startling about Dubai Ports World’s defeat is that it signals something far larger than many people realize. Primarily, it signifies a renewed birth of a dangerous economic ideal – protectionism. Protectionism is a twisted form of nationalism. Nationalism is a philosophy I subscribe to on nearly all levels; however, protectionism is a branch of capitalism that does not follow the guidelines of a prosperous economy. Protectionism occurs when a country ends all (or nearly all) foreign investment in favor of producing all goods and services within itself.

Protectionism was a viable economic policy centuries ago when we did not have the ability to transport goods and services long distances. Countries had to be self sufficient in order to survive. In our modern world, protectionism no longer is a viable option to maintain our standard of living. The American standard of living, by far the highest standard of living in the world, is built upon not only our (generally) business friendly laws, but also by foreign investment. Many of the products we enjoy, such as clothing, iPods, tools, and computers (people don’t enjoy Windows, but they do enjoy Macs) are made outside of America. This lowers their costs. When their costs are lower, we are able to buy other products ands services with the saved cash. This in turn increases the standard of living.

What would happen if we stopped allowing foreign investment in America? Clothing, iPods, tools, computers, and countless other products would increase in price. This, of course, would make it more expensive for families to buy these important products (who can live without an iPod?). They would either continue to buy these more expensive products and have less money available for other needs, or they would forego buying these products in the first place. In any case, the standard of living would decrease.

Do you now see where the danger in the Dubai Ports World situation lurks? Protectionists are taking the leading role in forcing foreign investment to think twice about coming to America. This is not an isolated case. In fact, other foreign companies have been forced to not invest in America in recent months. These are signs of protectionism, and they signify possible dangers for the future economic strength of America.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

The Future

I have talked about my optimism for the conservative movement in America. My belief is that this movement, grounded in the ideals of freedom, equality, and self-motivation, is poised to be in the forefront of American politics for many decades to come. As a philosophy, the conservative movement is still very young. Most consider the modern conservative movement to have gained the majority rule when President Ronald Reagan took the office of the presidency.

I would like to address the topic of college students and the conservative movement. As many of you know, college professors (and high school teachers) are likely to be liberals. Though this is not a crime, many times professors will add a little political spice to their lectures where it is inappropriate. It is at this point that these professors become activists, giving a political tirade to a captive audience. Now before I go on, I wish to say that there are many excellent teachers and professors out in the field. Three of my community college professors fit into this category. One in particular (my accounting professor) is the best professor any student could wish to have in a class. All three of these professors keep their political views to themselves in the classroom. In fact, I have no clue as to the political orientation of one of the three. This is how it should be in the academic world. Unfortunately, it is not always so with professors.

What about the professors who become left wing activists in front of students? What is to be done with these professors? In my opinion, the best thing to do is to expose them. Such was the case with Sean Allen of Aurora, Colorado. Sean produced proof positive that exposed his geography teacher as abusing his privilege to teach the young kids in his class. Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado at the People’s Republic of Boulder was also exposed, though not quite in the same way. Students must take the lead and begin to alert the school officials to these teachers. Unfortunately, many times academia will not take actions against such abuses of power by teachers and will subsequently dismiss students who alerted them to such situations. When that point is reached, it is the duty of the student and the family to take more drastic measures, such as alerting the news media to such incidences of unnecessary politics in the classroom.

Of course, this sounds all fine and dandy, but will it work? Will students really stand up for what they believe at the risk of a grade in the class? I have to admit, this would be difficult even for me. A good portion of my self-esteem comes from straight A’s in my classes (there are other activities, of course ☺). However, when push comes to shove, I believe most conservative students would address the issue. If not directly in front of the professor, in other ways such as alerting the proper school authorities to such grievances.

It can be done. The conservative movement has come so far in the past decades. It has grown from a significant minority with no voice or power into the majority political force in the nation. The conservative movement has broken down the stronghold of the liberal media. It has beaten back many of the unrelenting attacks of communism in disguise (socialism). Conservatives now have a voice in nearly all aspects of the culture. Academia is one of the last spider-holes of liberal dominance with no conservative outlet. Along with many other conservatives, I believe we are beginning to see the slow erosion of that monopoly in the form of students taking a stand. All movements start out small and isolated as in the cases of Professor Ward Churchill, Professor John Daly, and Jay Bennish. However, these cases show that some students are willing to stand up to liberals. When young people see others doing something, it is much easier to follow suit. These instances will no doubt embolden conservative students to insist on fair and balanced school lectures and studies. These instances will, in time, create a movement in the academia to chip away at this last bastion of the liberal monopoly.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

Regenerate Our Culture

As I was reading other blogs today, I stopped by The Rebelution. It was here I discovered a new and very promising organization – Regenerate Our Culture. This organization is headed by bloggers I highly respect such as Tim Sweetman of Agent Tim, Kristin Braun of Spunky Jr., Alex King of Smarthomeschool, and Jake Smith of Mission36Teen. This organization is dedicated to the purpose of regenerating our culture into one that is based on a Biblical worldview. Regenerate Our Culture, once launched (check out their button in my sidebar under Announcements to watch the countdown), will bring together the best posts from the teen blogosphere and will create a network of blogs. Be sure to check them out often!

Another fine announcement from Conservative Textbook.

Rock The Vote At Rock Bottom

And so ends Rock The Vote. Rock The Vote, a political action group dedicated to registering high school seniors and college students to vote, is just about bankrupt at this current point. Now that seems like a tragedy until you consider what Rock The Vote stood for when it came to how those young voters should vote. Rock The Vote was basically a liberal-voter registration aimed at recruiting young voters who did nothing but party and get them to vote on election days for those candidates who were worthy of the youth vote – liberals. This is evidenced not only by their website’s themes (tax cuts for the rich chatter) but also by the organizations they supported. Of particular interest was when Rock The Vote joined with AARP to attack Social Security reform, even though the majority of the youth vote supported Social Security reform.

Rock the Vote's fundraising fell by 22% in 2003 to $1.3 million. The group spent $1.66 million the same year, ending $241,000 in debt. Rock The Vote is currently $700,000 in debt and has been sued for the second time in less than a year. The financial tale at Rock The Vote for the past few years has been nothing but poor management, poor revenue, and expensive parties. Now, don’t get me wrong. I want my fellow youth to vote. It’s good for the country. However, I am in no way upset about the passing of Rock The Vote and its liberal ideologies.

Perhaps someone should attempt to try something similar to Rock The Vote again. This new organization would also aim for the hoodie and flip-flop clad American youth vote. However, this organization should stay away from endorsing particular candidates and philosophies. Instead of teaming up with (sorry, but I have to say it) the old folks and going against Social Security reform that will benefit the youth, this new organization should be neutral and spend its time registering voters and not promoting liberal ideals.

and some new What ever happens, there is no doubt that Rock The Vote is very near death currently and very likely won’t survive for the 2008 elections unless someone jump-starts Rock The Vote with cash. With lawsuits pending against the organization, mounting accounts payable credits (accounting lingo for debts), and only two employees, that jump-start will need to be soon. If not, someone else will have to take up the liberal flag and register the hoodie and flip-flop clad American youth vote. In the mean time, I have to head to American Eagle and buy a new hoodieflip-flops (I got this coupon in the mail from AE, so now I feel I should buy something, LOL).

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

Colorado, Democrats, and Smokers

For once there is truly something worthwhile to talk about in my state of Colorado. However, last week’s article and this article are topics I wish I did not have to talk about in the first place. The Democratic controlled Colorado State House (35-D, 30-R) passed a ban on smoking in indoor public places with exemptions for tobacco shops, casinos and the smoking lounge at Denver International Airport. Colorado State House Bill 1175’s sponsor, State Representative Mike May (a liberal Republican, as if Republicans in this state didn’t have enough problems to deal with already) claims the bill will help improve the health of the general public and that of restaurant workers who come into contact with smokers on a daily basis.

“Your rights end where my nose begins,” is a justification for this bill according to Rep. May of Parker, Colorado.

“It is really easy to decide the fate of others,” said State Representative Bill Cadman, a Republican from my hometown of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Representative Cadman, one of the most vocal opponents of the bill, says lawmakers would better serve the general public by creating air-quality standards for indoor public venues.

What is the right thing to do in this situation? I hate cigarette smoke. It has a sickening smell and reminds me of dirty hippies who go to concerts sponsored by Viagra. However, that is not a reason to ban smoking in public places. It comes down to the topic of rights. Where is the line after which my rights override the rights of others? Generally, I have always maintained that my rights override the rights of others only when their rights are causing me harm and at the same time cannot be adjusted to not harm me. Smokers are possibly harming those who are around second-hand smoke. However, this does not mean we should ban smoking in public places. If workers dislike the smoke and the possible effects of second-hand smoke, they can get a new job or transfer to another position. If the cost of second hand smoke outweighs the benefit of their current job, they will logically leave their current job and find a new one.

A previous argument that has died down is the argument that this ban will benefit the general public when out and about on the town. For instance, what happens when two 19-year-old college students go to a bar and order some drinks (yes Democrats, you haven’t defeated underage drinking yet). They are surrounded by smokers in this scenario. Is it right to ban smoking in bars for these two college students? Of course not! Instead, if the cost of inhaling smoke to these two college students outweighs the benefit of drinking, these two college students will leave the bar and drink illegally elsewhere.

If the cost of smelling smoke outweighs the benefit of attending the establishment that has smokers, then you simply leave that establishment. It is a simple economic theory that lends itself well to real life. My personal opinion is that cigarette smoking is a dying breed (except among liberal hippies and liberal college students, oddly enough). Fewer and fewer establishments are allowing smoking on their own. We do not need big brother to force businesses to change their legal practices. By forcing bars and other establishments to not allow smoking, many bars will be hard pressed to stay in business. It appears once again the Democrats, the crusaders against the evil corporations, are making it harder and harder for small “mom and pop” businesses to stay in business.

The bill is expected to pass the Democratic controlled State Senate (18-D, 17-R). Governor Bill Owens, a liberal Republican (who lost much of the Republican Party’s respect in the 2005 election with his support of Referendums C and D), is expected to sign the bill into law.

My opposition to this bill is in principle. I dislike the smell of cigarette smoke. However, the principle says that my rights in this case do not trump those of smokers. There is not a legal or economic reason for outlawing smoking in Colorado. This should be left up to businesses (and businesses are quickly ending smoking in this state in the first place). However, this is just yet another example of big government dictating to businesses how they should run their establishments.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

Colorado, Parents, and Democrats

Ever since the Democrats became the majority party in Colorado, the political and business climate has changed in this state. Normally I do not bring your attention to these facts because Conservative Textbook is a national-level focused blog. However, Colorado might soon be in the national news with a new law the Democratic-controlled state legislature is flirting with as we speak.

The Democrats are flexing their muscle over Colorado again – this time they are attacking the business community that not six months ago sided with them on the issue of raising taxes in the state (that was an odd marriage, believe me). Colorado State Senate Bill 66 would grant anyone who works for a company of 10 or more employees to take “unpaid parental leave” for "academic activities related to the educational advancement of the employee's child." Now there are restrictions on unpaid parental leave with this bill. No more than five hours could be used per month and parents could not exceed 30 hours total in an academic school year. Sounds fine and groovy, right?

It does until you think about the consequences. Let us take the example of a small 12-person business. They would be forced to comply with this new law. What happens when this 12-person company has only 2 people in the front office at a time and one of the employees decides to leave to attend his son’s basketball game? That leaves only one person in the office to manage the office and much of the responsibility of the company.

Or what happens when you have 2 people in the front office and one of them is single with no kids? The married one leaves to attend the basketball game while the single employee is forced to operate the office by him/herself. The single employee didn’t even have a say in the matter because the employee can’t take advantage of the parental leave option in the first place! This bill has the potential to be devastating for small and medium-sized businesses in Colorado.

If this bill passes (and since the Democrats have a strong foothold in Colorado, I suspect it will), what happens to the hiring process? What happens when you have two relatively equal job applicants, of which one is married with kids and the other is single? Who is going to be hired? Who is going to cause less stress and financial burden on the employer? Of course, the single one! Therefore, this bill has the potential to cause subtle discrimination among applicants to a company. Why would any company choose the parent over the single person if the single person has no risk of leaving one day to attend a poetry reading at the school with his kid?

Of course, it is quite amusing to see that it is the Democrats who are sponsoring this bill. As I said earlier, this bill could be devastating to small business in Colorado. In fact, the only businesses that will be able to neglect the effects of this bill to a moderate degree would be big businesses such as Qwest Communications and Wal-Mart. Large corporations have the luxury of backup employees to replace those workers who leave work for a day. However, I thought Democrats were friendly to small businesses? I thought they stood up against big corporations? Looks like the business community in Colorado might just get a wakeup call with this bill.

There are far better ways to help your child and make sure he/she grows up to be a law abiding, productive, and patriotic (well, skip the last one if you’re a liberal) citizen. Get off the couch, stop watching CBS News, and go play ball with your kids. Or take them snowboarding at the Copper Mountain Resort (I suggest the American Eagle ski lift by the way). Or take them to see a movie at the mall (and stop by American Eagle Outfitters afterwards and get them an AE All Access account). Or even better, just sit down and TALK to them (this works even with teens such as myself). Believe me, they’ll whole-heartedly appreciate it even if they give you death glares (I mean, do you really expect any self-respecting teen to show in public that he truly loves his parents?).

As a side-note (for all my Colorado readers), maybe this bill will energize the Republicans enough to take back the State Legislature. My personal opinion is that if we don’t take it back in the 2006 elections, we will never take it back for the foreseeable future. That situation will give the Democrats their much-needed stable foothold in the western states.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

The State of the Union

As I watched the State of the Union address, I was pleased by nearly all I saw. One of the highlights of the speech for me was the topic of alternative energies. I am a huge fan of alternative energy for several reasons. The primary reason is because alternative energies hold the promise of being kinder on my wallet than oil currently tends to be. Two other reasons are that alternative energies typically are more environmentally-friendly and do not come from countries that harbor our sworn enemies.

“America is addicted to oil…” is probably the most remembered moment from the entire State of the Union speech. "America is addicted to oil" is an interesting way to put it; I prefer to think America is addicted to a high standard of living, and oil is one way we produce that unmatched standard of living. However, the quote gets the point across – America cannot survive without oil.

“Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources… So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.”

There is good and bad in this statement. I am fully behind the government encouraging alternative energies to lessen our dependence on oil imported from hostile countries. Importing is hurting my wallet and is hurting our economic and military positions in the world. However, I disagree with the president on the way to attain energy independence. I believe it is not the government’s job to do such research. There are several reasons for this. The government does not have funding deadlines. In most cases, the government can research for years and not uncover anything because they do not have to worry about projects and funding being canceled. This creates a disincentive to get useable results quickly.

A better way to go about researching for energy alternatives is to utilize the private sector to its fullest. The government should give tax credits to companies that invest time and resources into this research. These tax credits should be massive in size; these credits should be lucrative enough that energy and oil companies cannot help but research this technology. When the private sector puts its collective mind toward something, it works. That is what has made America great – the private sector. Just look at Europe, China, North Korea, and the former U.S.S.R. to see what a government-run society accomplishes.

Bush has done an amazing job. There is no doubt in my mind that, even with government research, we are well on our way to starting energy independence from the Middle East. The private sector will no doubt spearhead alternative energy research and will quickly come up with new and innovative ideas for our future. It takes someone to get the ball rolling; Bush has done a marvelous job in that area.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

WMD

I have sacrificed my precious social life to bring this week’s article to you, my readers. I should be up at the Winter X Games 2006 in the liberal and obscenely rich town of Aspen, Colorado. As anyone can guess, the Winter X Games for a snowboarder such as myself are the Olympics of the snowboard industry. I wanted to go watch a little bit, but I decided to stay at home and do my blog article this week (and get some study time in for several upcoming tests). With that said, let’s get to this week’s article.

Perhaps we finally are starting to see signs of the old adage “You cannot avoid the truth forever.” Recently el número dos general in Saddam Hussein’s military, General Georges Sada, revealed a bit of information that has proven to be acidic to the liberal story on weapons of mass destruction. General Sada explains that before the war, two airline pilots told him that Saddam's Republican Guard loaded chemical weapons onto two converted civilian aircraft, which the pilots then flew into Syria under the banner of humanitarian relief.

This makes sense to any reasonably open-minded person on several levels. First and foremost, it is still hard to believe the United States, France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain and Israel were all wrong concerning the weapons of mass destruction. However, feelings do not make evidence (that is hard for liberals to grasp, I know). However, we gave Saddam plenty of time to ship his weapons elsewhere. We openly debated with the world about the War On Terror’s Iraqi Theatre for months. It is logical, however, to assume Saddam would have shipped his weapons outside the country. By doing this, he would ensure his own survival. How so you may ask? It is simple if you think about it. If no weapons were ever found, Saddam could plead an illegal war removed him from power. Under a liberal court system, that could be enough to lighten his sentence (if he were in Vermont, that would be enough to clear him of all charges with an official apology from the State of Vermont). When you add these three events together (several intelligence agencies claiming he had weapons, months of debate prior to war, and survival in court), shipping the weapons off to another country not only seems plausible, but also logical.

Now, as this story gains more speed (like the snowboards at the X Games), the liberals will be faced with a slightly uncomfortable situation. Is it possible that President Bush told the truth after all? This would be a most unfortunate position for Mother Sheehan and the like. In fact, the only thing the liberals will be able to do in this situation is their standard approach – smear tactics. They will smear this general as a delusional right-wing agent of some sort. This is to be expected. But never fear, for as the old adage says, “You cannot avoid the truth forever.”

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

The Environment

he elevation is nearly 12,000 ft. above sea level. Surrounding me on three sides are towering mountains forming a bowl several miles in diameter. The bowl is buried beneath a double-digit snow pack. In all directions, the cliffs and mountains that reach to the sky create an eerie and beautiful landscape that is my own private world. Few venture this high; the snow is deep, the powder is high, the temperature is several degrees below 0 Fahrenheit. The wind blows at my face, its cold bite nips at my protective garb. I pull my goggles tighter around my eyes. They tighten against my helmet. My face mask keeps my face warm, yet I still feel the cold chill of the wind. Feeling ready, I take one last look at my thin air, treeless, Rocky Mountain alpine domain where I can count on my gloved hand how many other humans are in a 10 mile radius – five. I rise to my feet, adjusting momentarily to the awkward feeling of being nearly bolted to a board. Leaning forward, I begin to slide. As I quickly adjust from looking at the mountains and begin to look at the two-foot deep powder in front of me, I realize the cold, the wind, the merciless mountains, and the human devoid land I am in is what I live for during the winter months. It is at this point my snowboard begins to take true speed as I descend down the alpine mountains of Loveland Ski Area.

Sounds fun, doesn’t it? Snowboarding, one of the more dangerous sports a teen such as myself can choose from, is the most invigorating and adrenalin-rushing sport I have ever participated in during my brief life of 18 years. This sport, along with the older and more refined sport of skiing, is world famous and a cash machine for Colorado and other western states (although Colorado is the best for skiing/snowboarding).

It is not just the rush that I enjoy with snowboarding. The scenic opportunities are remarkable with the sport. Though I am a native Coloradoan, I would never venture into an alpine bowl during the winter months. It is simply not safe for your average hiker. The snow is too deep, the wind is too cold, and the threat of frostbite is always present. However with snowboarding, I can see sights that even my Colorado eyes would not normally see (let alone a tourist’s eyes!). Which brings up a good question – is it right to snowboard?

There is a small movement afoot to end skiing and snowboarding for the very reason I just described. There are those who desire to close the ski slopes so as to keep humans from places that they would not normally go. This, of course, is the environmental movement. The answer that logically arises from the clashing of these two movements is where do we, as humans, draw the line? Where do we draw the line between economic prosperity and environmental protection?

Being a free market capitalist, I believe in pursuing activities that will further the benefit of those who are participating in that activity. At the same time, however, I am an avid outdoorsman who loves nature. I have found a balance between these two often-differing sides.

Nature is a beauty to behold. However, even in the communist U.S.S.R. you could enjoy nature as you worked hard in life to get nowhere due to the economic policy the U.S.S.R. had in place. Prosperous production facilities produce so many of the goods we have come to take for granted such as iPods, iMacs, iBooks, and those cool little Starbucks cups. However, many times these facilities will pollute the surrounding area and will cause nature to die on several levels.

The line must be drawn at a very distinct point. What liberals and environmentalists many times desire is a pristine world… where humans are not allowed to venture into nature and enjoy that pristine world. Ultimately, this philosophy leads to the idea that man is the problem on the Earth. It is therefore to nature’s benefit that we lessen man’s impact by lowering man’s numbers. This, of course, is a very dangerous policy. Under the right government, such a policy is a recipe for genocide.

I have come to the decision that the best balance between capitalism and environmentalism is freedom. It is paramount that the freedom to pursue activities that will benefit you stay intact. If people cannot freely go out and participate in something that will benefit them, then we are not much better than communists. However, such benefits must be taken into account in the light of the environment they very well might affect.

Let’s take an example I saw once in a textbook I had for school. Let us say that we have several factories that produce the all-important iPods. These factories, however, produce air pollution. This is very unfortunate. However, iPods are a titanic product that consumers desire. Therefore, the two sides in this situation are the producers and the environmentalists. What is the best way to solve such a problem? Believe it or not, I have come to the decision that the best way to solve a pollution problem such as the one described above is with taxation. Before you fall over in you seat, however, let me explain how this would work.

Legislation would be passed that increases a tax on pollution. The tax bill would simply say that producers have the option of either lowering their pollution or paying the tax and maintaining their pollution level. This is the capitalistic thing to do. The beauty of such a tax is that it is business-friendly. If a producer decides that is more costly to continue polluting than pay the tax, the producer will lower the pollution levels of the factory. When that occurs, the producer will no longer have to pay the tax. In this case, the producer is not penalized by taxes, and the environmentalists are satisfied.

What happens though when another factory finds it is more costly to lesson pollution than to pay the tax? Then the producer will simply pay the tax. In this case, the business is allowed to continue, but at the same time the producer is paying the public for the right to pollute.

There is one major distinction I must make before I leave this topic. Many of you might consider my idea of taxing pollution a liberal/socialist idea. A casual glance at it may produce such a feeling. However, there is a titanic difference between my tax idea and a standard liberal tax. Let us take the above example again. My tax on pollution can be avoided; if the business finds it more costly to continue polluting, then the business will find a way to stop polluting and will therefore not pay the tax. The pollution tax, therefore, is avoidable if the business finds the tax burdensome. A liberal, on the other hand, would prefer to place a tax not on pollution but on iPods (remember, this is a set of factories that produces iPods). How can the business avoid paying the iPod tax if it wants to produce iPods? It cannot avoid paying this tax. That is a liberal tax. Other examples of liberal taxes are income, Social Security, Medicare, FUTA, and SUTA taxes. The difference between a tax by a capitalist and a tax by a liberal is that the capitalist’s tax can be avoided if it makes economic sense to do so; the liberal tax cannot be avoided.

This very simple argument solves the questions it addresses. In real life, the problems of pollution and such are much larger than this example shows. However, the idea of taxing pollution is a start.

In summary, the best way to draw the line between business and the environment is to let businesses (and by extension people) decide where that point is. I believe it is completely within government’s rights to produced incentives for a clean environment. However, those whom the incentives are directed against must have an opportunity to avoid those incentives. That is the line, ladies and gentlemen. The taxed producers must be given the option to avoid the tax by changing their habits IF it is profitable to avoid the tax.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

Wrong, Wrong, And Again I Say Wrong

Has anyone noticed that the modern news media is not trustworthy anymore? Of course, conservatives have known this for quite some time (decades to be exact). The mainstream media has had a terrible set of years in the new millennium. In recent months, however, the mainstream media has made this most clear to any observer. Perhaps the best way to show this decline is to take you on a guided tour of a once great industry that now finds itself in the depths of embarrassment.

Let us begin with the 2000 United States Presidential Election. If you will recall, there was a slight mix-up with voter predictions in Florida that year. As you will also recall, the media declared Gore the winner of Florida’s electoral votes. However, as the truth eventually came out, it became clear that Bush had won the election. Nevertheless, the media declared a winner without all the facts. Keep that in mind as we continue on our journey.

During the months before the War on Terrorism’s Iraqi Theatre, the media had discovered the fact that this war could cost more lives in the American military than any other war in modern history. Of course, that didn’t quite happen after all. Nevertheless, the media declared the causalities for the war without consulting the military first (or waiting for the war to start).

Slightly before the 2004 Presidential election, the mainstream media executed a major mistake. This mistake consisted of Dan Rather, CBS, and Mary Mapes. Forged documents were found that claimed President Bush had left the military on several occasions when it was not lawful to leave. These documents were probably worked up on Microsoft Word as it turns out, not a typewriter. Odd, isn’t it, that the editors didn’t catch that little mistake.

When we finally came around to the 2004 United States elections, the media was in less than perfect shape. However, they opened their wounds even larger when they declared Kerry as president before the votes were even counted (do you see a pattern here?). The exit polls, which had been stocked with extra Democrats to throw off the results, were taken as fact by the media. When the real votes were counted and the results disagreed with what the media had been declaring all night as a Kerry victory, the media was speechless (some reports believed the real votes were wrong and the exit polls were correct, but that’s a different story).

Recently, we heard about "rape rooms" in the Superdome of New Orleans. As it turns out, the media was reporting on rumors that had not been confirmed by the proper processes. There were also rumors of over 100,000 deaths in New Orleans that also proved to be untrue. In this crisis, the media relied on rumors far more than facts.

Quite recently, the mining crisis in West Virginia proved to be very damaging on the media. In a rush to be the first with the status of the missing miners, the media outlets relied on shouts from the mines as their information source without first verifying that the miners had been found. As it turns out, these shouts were not good sources to use. The miners had been found, but they were not alive. This mess-up angered the nation and bloodied the nose of the media once again.

I could go on and on about media mistakes that have cost lives (Korans down the toilet), media ineptness on business reporting (this one strikes deep for me since my career will no doubt be in business), and a host of other issues. Perhaps this shows how important the new media of talk radio, blogs, and the Internet really is to the news. Perhaps this is just a sign that the old media is truly wallowing in the mud of their past, yet claiming glory.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.