Saturday, April 19, 2008


---------I Went to see Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled”, which opened yesterday. I didn’t know what to expect. I thought it would be a funny satirical type of thing. I was wrong. But let me set the stage. I chose a matinee (3:40 to be exact) at a multi theatre movie house. I wondered if I should call ahead to make sure I could get in. I didn’t. I pulled into the parking lot and decided I had made the right decision, there were very few cars there. They had 16 different shows on the venue. When I went and found the theatre with Expelled, I went in and not a soul was there nor did anyone come in later. It was great. A private showing for me.
---------I hear however that it did pretty good the first day and is expected to do well this weekend. I think it came in 8th the first day (pretty good for a documentary). Below is a link to some facts on the movie and it’s numbers.
---------The movie was not a comedy, although with Ben Stein asking questions along with some of the answers I must admit to some laughter on my part. The basic theme of the movie was to reveal the bias that has evolved in the scientific disciplines against outside theories challenging however slightly the orthodoxy. There were several interviews with people in various science fields that had lost their jobs and reputations because they had mentioned “Intelligent Design” in a paper they wrote ect. Not defended it but just mentioned it as a possible solution for a problem there was no solution to. In other words a new area to explore that might shed some light. These people were not talking about “Creationism” just bringing up “Intelligent Design” as another possible way to explain the start of life as we define it.
------------Also interviewed were people who were responsible for those people’s firings. That’s where I had to laugh. Not at the people who were fired, but at the garbled logic used to fire them. I’ve seen that basic type of logic a lot lately in all aspects of debate. It starts with the use of phrases like, well you know we all think, or it’s completely insane to think that could be true, or they are just trying to create headlines for themselves, or everybody else thinks its wrong, or better yet there is a consensus. Always it seems the people who make the new claims get labeled. The list is endless. Anyone who has been discriminated against however quickly gets the meaning. The point Ben was making however was that the people fired were not trying to prove that Darwinism couldn’t explain change in animals. Only that Darwinism couldn’t explain how life started. They were only trying to put another alternative out there about how that happened. All the people interviewed about why Darwinism should be the only true theory explaining not only how life evolved over time but actually started all admitted that they didn’t know for sure how life actually started. But they also would not accept the theory of “Intelligent Design”. The leader of the group against “Intelligent Design” actually came up with a solution that we may have been seeded by an alien race from another world. WOW he actually said that. Well that got another laugh out of me. They have “Intelligent Design” so tied up with God that they just can’t get passed that.
-----------Ben brought out the total lack of an argument to back up Darwinism as the start of life. I enjoyed learning the scientific knowledge about how complex the most basic molecule that would be accepted as life really is. Before I thought that a molecule just might have really bubbled up out of the primordial ooze and been hit by lightning to form life. Ben showed the complexity of that first molecule and how the odds against life forming that way were so astronomical as to be non-existent.
----------We all hear about the insidiousness of the PC movement especially within the areas of higher learning. Well this movie and Ben Stein really brings this to the forefront and his linking the PC thought idea to Nazi methods and their consequences, showed the dangerous consequences of this kind of the “we are the great ones we know better than you, bow down before us, never question us or we will squash you”. If you think that this is too far fetched on my part check my links below.
----------Kind of like a meteorologist asking if the facts behind global warming were valid.
----------Below I have some links about the ravages and results of the PC thought police.
The first is about a charter school that is reported to be public funded and teaching religion and carrying out prayer during school hours.
The latest on that story is that the religious political action org. of that religion has asked the FBI to investigate “Hate crimes” against the school.
The next link is to Michelle Malkin’s blog all about Canadian Conservative bloggers being sued to shut them down for being not PC
If you still don’t think PC poses a threat, Hear is an idea, actually go see the movie.??
There are countless stories out there about big and little groups that try to ridicule or intimidate new comers with new ideas. I see it in the Federal government. Or in the local Neighborhood Improvement group. Our constitution wasn’t written just to protect us from Religious fanatics, but more importantly from our selves. That’s right from each and every one of us. It set up a system to curb the gathering of too much power. All it took was the citizens to use it. We all have different ideas, those ideas should all have a chance to be heard fairly. People who state those ideas should not have to do so in fear of their life or person, if they do so then I have pride in them. Power corrupts, total power corrupts completely. Free people always need to be vigilant to keep the curbs on power. Always remember all corrupt systems started with good ideas and were corrupted by too much power in the hands of too few without any recourse from us the voters.
---------Of course the other way systems get corrupted through gaining too much power, is that we the people did nothing. If you think you can’t do anything that would make a difference. Think what Gandhi did, or what Lech Walesa did, or the Dali Lama is doing, or even “five feet of furry” in Canada is doing. If you don’t want to give up your whole life to a cause (BTW their cause was freedom of their people). Do something small. Just try standing up for some one who is putting out an idea different from you and your buddies if your buddies are making fun of him. That alone takes guts, but there is a wonderful sense of empowerment just by doing it. Or pick one local thing that is important to you and go to a city commission meeting and speak up about it. We the people have to start to take this country back like it is being taken away, bit by bit, battle by battle, never giving up.
Well good luck.
Live Dangerously be a Conservative.


Michigan and Detroit
A Case Study
--------- I would like to share some facts from a book I read called Real Change by Newt Gingrich about Michigan and Detroit. He has used Michigan and its political leadership as an example of the “impact of bad policies”. Detroit as an example of “bad outcome from bad policies”.
--------- He compares statistics between the Engler and the Granholm eras. Our bond rating of AAA the best there is was lost, hence more money needed to service the debt. “From 2000 to 2006, Michigan lost 336,000 jobs and is predicted to lose an additional 33,000 by the end of 2008” pp48. The unemployment rate has doubled. In 2007 a poll of the big 3 universities found that over half of the graduates were planning to leave the state. In the 2006 Census Michigan was the ONLY state to lose population.
--------- To help offset the extra cost to service the debt and loss of tax revenue due to the loss of business, Granholm raises taxes on those still making money. This would provide the needed monies for the state employee union and state government to keep happy at the expense of the rest of the state.
--------- Detroit is even a better example of a city run of by and for the government bureaucracies it represents. It has lost 50% of its pop. Since 1950. The public school system and the Detroit city government are the 2 largest employers in the city. Of the 25 biggest employers, 40% of the jobs are hired out by the city county and state government. The number of individuals per city employee is 50, Chicago is 68, LA is 108, Indianapolis is 223..
--------- I called the civil service department of Muskegon, Finance director of Muskegon and researched the 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan. For Muskegon I came up with the number of Muskegonites served by one city employee was 151. That’s counting every employee. Also found or figured out from the budget and # of employees ; one employee of Muskegon costs all told for the services and wages ect about $127,000 of the Budget. Seems reasonable to me. Remember that includes all the overhead a fraction of which is actual salaries.
--------- With the number of jobs in Detroit paid for by government almost even with the number of jobs in the private sector which provides the tax base, is it any wonder jobs are leaving Mi. or that Granholm has to raise the taxes of those in the private sector left behind to pay the wages of government? Of the people left. 1/3 are under the poverty level, and unemployment is higher than any other major Metropolitan city.
--------- The Detroit City school system is just as bad. It only graduated on time in 2006, 22%, the national average was 70% ( Critics say it’s because they need more money). They spent $7,469.00 per pupil. Teachers are paid the highest of all major metropolitan cities $47.28 per hour.
--------- I got hold of the Muskegon public schools and all I could dig up was that we graduated in 4 years around half of the kids. Again not good but better than 22% Twice as good. I think the amt. per pupil was around $7,200, This figure was an estimate.
--------- The whole deal is that bad policies don’t work as far as creating better education of the children. It has worked extremely well though for the enhancement of and funding for the bureaucracy (unionized). This dedicated focus on the betterment of the Bureaucracy is based upon the assumption that the bureaucracy is the best way to better the education of our youth. I believe the record speaks for itself. This approach has led to this top heavy and inefficient system at the expense of our children.
--------- It is time to start replacing the old with models from the private sector that have shown they work. Fed ex for example. Newt cited in Real Change the example of Katrina of bad policies on the National level run of by and for bureaucracy with little thought for the victims. One example was that Fed ex was on the ground and in business within 2 weeks, while the Post Office had an embargo on magazines, newspapers ect for 6 months. Then the tragically funny expenditure of $67 million by FEMA to buy ice which they did then they stored it around the country which after a time (but before it all melted) they decided it had lived past it’s shelf life and spent another 3.4 million to melt it. I try to compare what a private co. would do. They would distribute it I’m sure but I imagine a big deal would have been made about real or perceived irregularities. Gee the guy across the street got his earlier than I did and my children were thirsty and on and on. True grievances perhaps but the alternative is no water.
--------- The metric in my opinion then should be based on actual results. Not the Nirvana always promised before a new government program is started. There should always be built into each program a clear set of standards to judge performance and have the yearly funding tied to it.
That’s it for today
Regards, Live Dangerously

Friday, April 18, 2008


I heard a young man talk of hope, I was happy. He talked of Change, I was beginning to see the light. He claimed he wanted to bring politicians together to act in a non-partisan way for the American good, he was starting to capture my soul. He wanted to lead his fellow Americans towards a bright and glorious future. There was a palpable sense of Deja vu in the air. I was getting excited. I decided to keep my eyes on this man. I listened he sounded sincere as only the young can. In my heart this too could be another point in his favor.
--------The young man of course was Barack Obama. I started really looking at and listening to him trying to make a decision about him. What were his good points, what were his bad points. Being young is not bad in and of itself. By definition there is a presumption of lack of experience which has to be overcome. That too isn’t a handicap by itself and can be a blessing. Look at John F. Kennedy. In that man they were beautiful things. One needn’t look far to see the downside when that style is imitated in a cold calculated way. Visions of John Kerry leap to mind. Also youth and it’s lack of experience can bring with it at least the opportunity to be flexible to have an open mind, to be able to make decisions unencumbered with the baggage of old failed ideas. One has a freedom to set up a new metric in which to frame the decision process. This too can be good or bad and examples of each abound.
-------I had a decision to make, what metric would I use to frame my decision? I decided to look at what his decisions he had made in the past; that is all I had to go on to decide on the credibility of his promises for the future. Were his past actions consistent with what he is saying now? How has he handled the unavoidable bumps in the road that is American politics? I think that under scrutiny his past is not consistent with what he is saying now. A recent study showed that he is the most liberal member of Congress. I cannot think that would be a benefit in enabling him to better reach out across the divide to the other side. Will he disregard his past record? Will his record have nothing to do with how he acts in the future as a President? If he has changed what does this say of his character. Surely he doesn’t think that he will unite Americans by changing their way of thinking; especially if they think by his actions that he is not consistent in his own mind.. I think the “bitter” remarks are telling in this regard. The condescension was obvious. I feel he believes that if the people could just understand what he has to say that they would change their views. The condescension comes in the idea that if they don’t change their views, the problem lies in the fact that they are not able to understand him, not that his ideas might be wrong. It looked like to me the “bitterness” was in him. I felt a sense of frustration and "bitterness" as he tried to explain to a third party, his party elite, why a group of people would not come around to his views. The brashness of youth I can understand and even applaud for it’s energy and vitality; knowing that it will smooth out with experience, but the arrogance of youth I don’t have to put up with. I have that right.
-------One major problem I have with him is how hard he tries to be “one of the people” one of the unwashed masses, how he alone can understand what they want and desire. Hillary is not any better at the charade and probably worse. But so what? I don’t think the choice for who is to be the spokesperson for what is to be the "good of the American people" should hinge upon who is the greatest imitator of the everyday Joe or whomever, you pick a name. Again the key for me is whether a person knows himself and believes in himself enough to let us know who he really is; and not a person trying to give us only what he or she thinks we want.
-------Is he one of the underprivileged? No. Are the other candidates? No. Definitely not. So what’s the problem? Simply stated the other candidates don’t seriously try to come off as one the masses. Even Hillary with her corny accent realized people knew it as a weird joke. Is it wrong to having the candidates emulate the masses? Well again let’s look at JFK. He was never one of the lower class. Never wanted to be, never tried to hide his family’s success. Gloried in his personnel achievements. Looking at him one felt that he was comfortable with what he had, what his family was. In short, who he was. and we admired him all the more for it.
------ I don’t get that same feeling from Obama. I see only the downside of the attributes he could be using in a better way for the higher purposes he so eloquently at times talks of. Am I Bitter, no. But I do feel a sense of disappointment.
Regards, Live Dangerously

Thursday, April 17, 2008


LINK McCain’s speech in Brooklyn 4/10/08
A genuine alternative to tax and spend and making government bigger?
In his speech 4/10/08 John McCain talks about his plan for the economy and stresses free enterprise as playing a big part in the solutions to our economic problems. Through jobs and achievement oriented projects. He stated that, “For Americans, a good job is the best program for housing, education, clothing, health care and transportation ever devised.”
Further he said, “Small business creates the majority of new jobs in America every year.”
McCain offers next short and long term goals. I noticed he didn’t offer these in terms of solutions, but framed them in more success oriented language. A pleasant change IMO. In explaining the way to fix the short term problems in housing, I was pleased to see this. “And it is not the responsibility of the American public to spare them from the consequences of their own bad judgment. The goal should be to help homeowners who are struggling, and only about $5 billion of the bill addresses their concerns in any way. I believe we can do better.” The bill he mentioned was the bipartisan bill just passed by Congress.
His plan for immediate help to the home mortgage owner is to partner with lenders to facilitate restructuring home mortgages based on basic sound economic principles such as ability of home owner to pay and market value of house resulting in as McCain stated --- “ Homeowners would end up with a 30-year mortgage and an equity stake in their home. The new lender would receive a federal guarantee of the mortgage. And the taxpayer gets a benefit if the sale value ever recovers.”
As an example of doing that was beefing up programs like “NeighborWorks America“. From their web site,
I found this quote
“ Just Price Solutions delivers Web-based automated underwriting that digitally connects NHSA’s safe, responsible loan products and long-term borrower support system with ground-breaking alternative credit analysis and centralized back office processing. The result is a quick, easy way to provide low-cost mortgages to a wider range of responsible borrowers. What was once a manual and tedious transaction is now handled by a streamlined, cutting-edge solution.” Also from their site was the following which talks about result oriented methodology. “Results: We are accountable for achieving excellence through measurable, impactful outcomes. “ I also liked the next quote. “Integrity: We will foster an environment of transparency and honesty that is built on respect and openness.”
These In my opinion are laudable things. Using the private sector, based on “result orientated” metrics, and streamlining the process. A primary goal should be to set up the mechanisms to keep this from turning into another “bureaucratic orientated” monster. “The result is a restructured financial arrangement for the homeowner. Over the long term, financial institutions must follow suit, writing off losses, restructuring their balance sheets, and raising more capital.”
This to me offers a better option than just giving more tax money to already bloated and inefficient bureaucracies.
Also McCain is calling for legal action. Making companies accept responsibility for wrong doing. “I am also calling for an immediate DOJ task force to aggressively investigate potential criminal wrongdoing in the mortgage lending and securitization industry. If there were individuals or firms that defrauded innocent homeowners or forged loan application documents, then the punishments of the market are not enough, and they must answer for their conduct in a court of law.”
In this speech he talks of remaking the unemployment insurance program into a more streamlined efficient “result orientated” system.
He ends the speech with this.
“Much work remains to be done on addressing the issues and challenges that will ensure we remain the largest and strongest economy in the world in the future. I believe that in order to accomplish this we must do three things. First, we must invest in the greatest resource we have, the American people. Second, we must reignite and drive a spirit of innovation in America. And third, we must foster growth and economic freedom, which really means low and effective taxes, free trade on a level playing field, small government and a smart, enforceable regulatory and legal framework.”
I heartily agree. I answer YES to the question of whether there is a genuine choice in the election of 2008. None of the above is not a solution.. I believe McCain is.
I hope he flushes out his specifics for this economic plan in the near future am looking forward to it. He is definitely not only offering a genuine alternative to the Democrats but to the current Republican leadership as well. I Truly hope my optimism is justified.
Regards, Live Dangerously be a Conservative.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008


Should be fun to watch inbetween the Tiger's game.

Have fun, Live Dangerously be a Conservative


People when asked if they are selfish they will indignantly tell you that they are not. If you then ask them if they try to do what is in their best interest they will say “well of course, doesn’t everybody” Following that idea if I say everyone is selfish I will get a lot more denials than if I say that people act in their own best interest. It makes sense then that if you base a system upon people achieving their best interests something good and workable will be accomplished.
----------This shows how a word can change how a message is received. The above comparisons are of the same idea, one is considered bad the other not. Call it spin,
Below is a link to a dictionary that will help explain it.
We see that selfish was from and colored by Protestant religious attitudes. Basically saying that a person is full of himself (prideful) and not caring for others, considered a sin by most religious people, and most people today also.
-----------I bring this up to illustrate a basic conservative (or constrained) tenet. Conservatives believe that man does indeed look after his own best interests.
-----------We don’t believe that will ever change. It is a fact of life that has to be dealt with. We do not think that people will overcome this because it is a basic drive or instinct. Conservatives try to direct that instinct into making a society that allows freedom to the most at the least expense to all. We do not believe in complete freedom for everyone to act as they desire, not because it is a wrong or immoral idea. We conservatives don’t believe in it, simply stated, because it is impossible to achieve.
----------It is my opinion that this basic human nature trait if used properly can get us closer to an actual utopia on earth than all the utopias based on the other idea that somehow Man will change or be changed into a selfless person (by Drugs, or God or Congressional Statute!)
How do we use this instinct then in constructive ways. First, I believe all extremes will eventually lead to ruin and lack of freedom. History is littered with examples of great ideas gone bad. Both liberal and Conservative examples. They went bad I believe not because they weren’t adhered to fully but because they were; to the total disregard for human nature. Man in his self interest will lead to the “power corrupts” idea, until it corrupts completely and the system falls apart. We as conservatives need to understand that fact.
----------At this point (the recently dirty word) compromise must enter. Our system of government is a compromise as talked about earlier between constrained and unconstrained visions. People on either side did not give up their core ideas, but were able to find common ground upon which they could both further their beliefs, which led to constructive compromise not appeasement. Then they were able to function and the constitution was created and has given rise to more individual freedom than otherwise would have been possible.
----------My conclusion is that freedom still to this day has a better chance to survive if we follow the basic reason why the constitution was able to be even written. The desire for men with a goal to find common ground from which both sides at the same time were able to further their self interest together. A desperate need drove these different minded individuals together to find common ground. If Conservatives are to reassert their common ground with the electorate, then we must listen learn and then use that knowledge gained to find constructive conservative solutions to America’s problems.
Regards, Live Dangerously be a Conservative

Tuesday, April 15, 2008


Time to get out the vote

Found this site. Polling for the RNC
Talks of McCain’s pull with the independents in regards to his military background ect.
From flaring violence in Iraq to an economy sliding into recession, from sky-high gas prices to President Bush’s rock-bottom approval ratings, events seem to be conspiring against Republicans’ electoral hopes. Against this dismal backdrop, it’s no wonder Democrats come out well ahead when voters are asked which party they would like to see win the White House this fall.
Yet in head-to-head matchups, Sen. John McCain is running either even or slightly ahead of his Democratic opponents. What explains this paradox?
For one thing, Americans aren’t Europeans; we vote mainly for people, not for party

I do think that people will vote for a party if it represents those markers that they use to help decide which candidate to vote for. A party could win if a leader with those markers took over the party, at least in the minds of the voters. Reagan showed that IMO.

Election polling.
I learned from this that the range of 36-40 was pretty standard for the last 8 elections for both Repubs and Dems. It was the Independents that really swung the elections.
This poll is from March 31 and shows McCain still ahead by a small margin over Obama or Hillary, in Michigan
I learned that Michigan has been slowly trending Republican in recent Presidential races.
Michigan has cast its Electoral College votes for the Democrats in four straight Presidential elections and it would be difficult for Obama or Clinton to reach the White House without carrying the state. However, the economically devastated state has been trending Republican in recent elections—Bill Clinton won Michigan by thirteen points in 1996, Al Gore won by five in 2000, and John Kerry won by just three points in 2004
Next from the Rasmussen poll showing just how tight the national election is. Republicans actually have more safe electoral votes than the Democrats but the leaning states are for now putting the Democrats in the lead. Michigan is one state listed as a toss up.
Thirteen states with 159 Electoral Votes are either a pure Toss-Up or just slightly leaning to one party or the other. These are likely to be the early battleground states of Election 2008: Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), and New Hampshire (4).
The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator will be updated daily until Election Day. More information below table.
Balance of Power Calculator - Electoral College
Safe Republican 168
Likely Republican 21
Leans Republican 51
Toss-Up 38
Leans Democratic 70
Likely Democratic 33
Safe Democratic 157

Time to start thinking ahead and get out the vote. Talk with people start offering your ear to hear their problems, learn what THEY want. THINK study research. Think of ways that conservative ideas will help. Be considerate. Above all be honest.
(Don't be so damn partisan.)
Regards, Live Dangerously

Monday, April 14, 2008


At the Cinema Carousel 16 Opens April 18. I called.
Live Dangerously

As a conservative I’m always being accused of wanting to do away with government.
A couple of things up front. My basic ideas.
I think government is too big
I think government is necessary.
Government is the means through which the people of this country manage to live together and thrive and seek those unalienable rights they initially enumerated in the Declaration they wrote being desirous of a government to protect those rights.
As I tried to point out in my blog “visions” two competing groups compromised with each other in the writing of the Constitution.
Constrained=Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Federalist papers, Hamilton and Adams
Unconstrained=Thomas Paine, Godwin, Rousseau, Jefferson, Condorce
The Constitution was written as a compromise between these two ideas and the result was a set of checks and balances.
With that said, I favor things that I believe will lead to better leaner more efficient government. Anything that cuts down on duplicitous red tape. Anything that private companies can do vs. the government I say let them. I think anything that allows individual voters to see the facts of how the government actually works will benefit all.
The current catch phrase for one tool to help accomplish this is “Transparency” How do we do this?? Let us look at a model that works. That is the free enterprise model. I’m talking here of Google, Fed-ex and the like. The time is now to put the government into the 21 Century. Set things up with “access of the citizenry” as the goal. Not only after the fact but so that the Citizenry can see the facts before a bill is voted on allowing informed input from the Citizenry vs. rhetoric. Imagine if Google could set and organize all of the information in the government. Their search engines would enable the Citizenry at a single click to search all relevant facts on a bill up for consideration. Gee even the congressmen could too. We could even end up with an informed Congress. And an informed Citizenry.. Below is from Jack’s Blog. Jack Hoogendyke is in the process of running for the US Senate.
Next is his petition to run site if you feel so inclined.
Getting back to my stuff. Below is from his blog site about “Transparency”
You can see where I get some of my ideas. Lol
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Transparency Update
HB5137 was introduced last August. It requires the state to put all expenditures on a searchable database. It has been sitting in the House Oversight Committee ever since. Yesterday, I moved to discharge the bill from the committee to the House floor. The motion passed. The floor leader immediately moved to send the bill to the Appropriations Committee.The only reason (excuse) we have heard from House "leadership" and the Governor are that it costs too much to implement. In fact, the State Department of Information Technology, a department with a $37 million budget and over 1500 employees, sent a letter that says it could cost up to $150 million to implement this for Michigan Government! While DIT makes that outrageous claim:
Kansas and Missouri ( have done it within existing budget. No additional expense.
Google has written to each state informing them that they are willing to partner with governmental agencies to implement searchable database technology.
The Texas state comptroller has written in a letter to Americans for Tax Reform that her state has saved millions of dollars as a result of transparency implementation. They have found duplicate contracts and have consolidated functions or purchasing practices.
The federal government has offered their software, which was used to create a website for the $3 trillion budget, to the states as open source software, FREE OF CHARGE!
There can only be one explanation for the Governor and Dem leadership's refusal to move this bill, they are hiding millions of dollars in waste and mismanagement.
Posted by Jack Hoogendyk at 1:36 PM 0 comments
Hoogendyke and Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox joining forces on this
Terri Lynn Land our Secretary of State also is a fan of “Transparency” in her department.
Ralph Nader and Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox agree!!!! oho no Mr. Bill
In my opinion: if anything should be nonpartisan it should be this. If any state needs “Transparency” to be able to see where the money goes it is Michigan.
Regards, Live Dangerously
PS. On the lighter side.

Sunday, April 13, 2008



We Conservatives embrace the environment in our own Conservative way.
Consider Newt’s recent sit down with Nancy Pelosi. Haven’t found a link to it yet, but it will probably be at the site below when it happens, or I flat out missed If anyone has it please let me know. This is the Sharpton and Robertson sit down. The same program by Algore that Newt and Pelosi are on. The ad is not very long, as they probably don’t have much else to talk about. LOL but hey it’s a start.
There has been all sort of gnashing of teeth, pulling of hair and just plain disagreement over Newt doing the ad. It’s strange enough with Pelosi, but sponsored by Algore? Well I like the idea of working with the opposition as long as we don’t sell our core beliefs down the road. I’m sure the libs are thinking the same thing. This however could be a start in a real dialogue if we can leave the rhetoric behind. If anyone can IMO Newt can. After all, a reasoned debate is what the Constitution was established to facilitate. Newt wrote a book with Terry L. Maple called “A Contract With the Earth” written BTW last year, which explains it pretty well. Also Newt set up a web site about it, below is the link.
As I posted previously, I ordered a copy from Amazon and just got it. Need time to read it.
About the connection between the Constitution and the 2 opposing “visions” that created the checks and balances that it has see my post on the book “Conflict of Visions”
We as Conservatives always have to be careful that when we “compromise” with the libs that we don’t end up selling out and get the short end of the stick. There are plenty of instances when well meaning compromises have resulted in real harm to us. We have made efforts in the past to determine our role in environmental matters but to date haven’t been successful in shaping the debate. Below is a link to something from 12 years ago. It makes sense, but without action accomplishes nothing.
I’m hoping that if enough of us get off our butts and become active, we can start to shape the debate. Now Newt’s plan is the only one I see around. Time to get out of theory and into practice. Hopefully I can follow my own advice.
Regards, Live Dangerously