Tuesday, August 18, 2009

In Praise of the Entrepreneur

Walter Williams: The Entrepreneur As American Hero

Dr. Walter Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980; from 1995 to 2001, he served as department chairman. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College, California State University Los Angeles, and Temple University in Philadelphia, and Grove City College, Grove City, Pa.







Watch this excellent video below, if you cannot see it, you may view it by clicking this Link: The Entrepreneur

In Praise of Capitailism, Enlightened Capitailism: Please read the following Article on Capitalism: Reinventing Capitalism: Putting Soul in the Machine, A Quick Re-Vision of Western Civilization by Howard Bloom.

It is remarkable in it's defense of the Western Way of life as well as clear in the power of economics. Bloom reports, "Here's a basic fact of the Western way of life: Hard as we may find it to conceive, capitalism offers more things to believe in than any system that has come before. Nearly every faith, from Christianity and Buddhism to Islam and Marxism, promises to raise the poor and the oppressed. But only capitalism delivers what these ideologies and religions profess, century after century. Capitalism lifts the poor and helps them live their dreams. The proof is in the mega-perks we tend to take for granted."
Healthcare

Review this excellent 20/20 Report on the Comparision between the United States superior healthcare and that of the Nationally run healthcare of Canada.



Why the Bailouts are a Bad Idea (The Psychology of Panic)


A French Surprise: Politicians Don't 'Grow' Economies

by John Stossel

When I read last Friday’s headlines about Europe’s economy recovery, I thought it was odd that the MSM didn’t mention Europe’s resistance to America’s massive stimulus proposals. Was there a relationship?

Once again, the WSJ editorial board puts things into perspective:

We witnessed that rarest of things last week—a politician's public humility. When France, along with Germany, reported an unexpected uptick in economic growth for the second quarter, French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde called the return to growth "very surprising." Imagine that—a major global economy stops shrinking, without the benefit of trillion-dollar stimulus packages or major reforms, and a politician doesn't rush to claim credit for the achievement.

Politicians don't "grow" an economy like a vegetable garden, and the reasons behind economic growth in the global economy are at least as mysterious to our political class, if not more so, than they are to the rest of us.

…it's refreshing to hear the minister responsible for France's economy speak the truth about growth. It is the product of literally millions of decisions made by millions of people about what to produce, buy and sell. Politicians can influence all that decision making, especially by increasing or decreasing the incentives to produce, work and innovate. But they can't control today's multi-trillion-dollar economies, no matter how much they'd like to take credit for doing so …

France and Germany were among the countries in Europe that resisted Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's imprecations to join the U.S. on the megastimulus bus, and on present evidence this fiscal restraint does not appear to be hurting their chances for recovery.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

A STUDENT'S QUESTION ABOUT THE FUTURE

Reprinted with permission from the student:

From Katlyn
August 4 at 10:46am
Dr S,
I am sorry to bother you but you are the only person who I think will be able to answer my questions. I am worried about the state our government is in and want to know what I can do to change things? I am watching the American people hand over their freedom with ignorant smiles! Of course, I know you work in health care and I was planning on it myself, but is that really a way I can support my family with this up coming nightmare?
I cannot, by any means, call myself an extremist when it comes to politics but I do believe in freedom and the preservation of it. Thank you for your time, I hope to take another class of your soon :)
Thank you,
Katlyn



Dear K :
Wow, what a great series of questions. I know it can be difficult in these trying times for anyone who loves freedom and liberty to watch what has become of our beloved nation. But it is not too late! Firstly let me see if I can answer your questions one at a time.

1. First You asked, " I am worried about the state our government is in and want to know what I can do to change things?" Get involved! It's really that simple. You can get involved on a number of levels. The first thing that must be done is ask yourself some hard questions about what you believe. Then be able to articulate those beliefs to others. When you base your arguments or decisions upon a set of values, then you can better stand up to those who want to debate you. On a personal level, I have one simple "core" belief, Personal Liberty. I always ask, when thinking about or debating any policy, proposed bill or law, does this further the cause of personal liberty or restrict it? If it restricts it, then why? I believe in freedom to the extent that you can do anything you want as long as you do not interfere with another's personal liberty. This video is a great one that simply puts the Philosophy of Liberty beliefs in a way that is easy to understand:

After you know what you believe and can defend it, then begin talking about. First with others who think like you then with those that do not. Always debate with respect when confronting another's belief, even if you do not understand it right away. Try to use some empathy to figure out why they believe differently. Try to debate the other side of what ever policy or issue that is in the argument, this allows you to see all sides and become better informed. I find when I simply "follow the money" I find the answer as to why a person may take a given stance. Often, those of us who grew up with a family that ran small businesses understandably decide to vote for people and policies that are friendly to small business (less taxes, less government regulation, less interference in our lives). Because that's where our resources came from. We were rewarded for hard work. Conversely, if a person comes from a family where they got their money from some Gov. entity or program (i.e. the school system, state or Federal Jobs), then they'll likely advocate for more Gov. money to fund these institutions (which means more Gov. taxes, more Gov. regulation, more interference in individual lives). I don't blame those who advocate the latter not the former, I just try to challenge their beliefs and help them to see that they're desires are interfering with my freedom. This is a general idea though and isn't always the case. I have friends who work for the state who are arch Conservatives/Freedom advocates. (I haven't met anyone who owns their own business though that advocates for more Gov. control and taxes). Another of my favorite ways to articulate what they Government should be doing is through this analogy:

You have a problem. You wish to solve this problem. To solve it begin by thinking and asking yourself all the various ways you as an individual could solve it. If you cannot, then go ask your immediate family if they can help solve it. If they cannot help solve it, then ask your extended family. Then your closest friends, then any friend, if that doesn't solve it, then go to your Church or civic group or organization. If that doesn't work, go to your Neighborhood, then City, then County, then State, then FINALLY, if the combined efforts of all those people cannot help you solve the problem, THEN and only then go to the Federal Government to help you solve it. Unfortunately, many these days are solving problems using this method but in reverse. Those in power do not want anyone to believe they, as an individual, can do anything for themselves.

At this point, when you know what you believe. Write to your Congressional Representative, Senator, And President. Write the Governor, State Rep. and Senator. Write you county commissioner, the Mayor of your city, the city commission. Write them all about issues you want to advocate for or against. Go to Town hall meetings, and bring as many people who think like you do with you. Respectfully ask to talk and have a 4 or 5 sentence statement prepared. Call your Gov. representative and schedule a meeting. I've lobbied a number of times on various issues. You'll be surprised how much you'll be able to say in 5 minutes. Use all the Social networking sites you can to articulate your beliefs and challenge others. Start a blog or pop-cast or make a video and upload it to You tube. For example, last year I asked all my friends who voted for Obama to give me 5 positive, non-Bush hating reasons they were voting for him. Not even one could do this. This told me alot about the election and prepared me for what is happening now.

2. Second you asked, "Of course, I know you work in health care and I was planning on it myself, but is that really a way I can support my family with this up coming nightmare?" As my grand-daddy always said, "The cream will rise to the top." So don't worry about a given profession or what others might say about it. If you have passion for it, then you'll certainly find a way to make a living in it. But let's look deeper into the issue. When debating another person (including congressional member or Gov. employee), ask them why they think like they do. For example, if they believe in nationalized health care ask them why? Ask them to provide examples of where Gov. run health care has worked else where. If they say something like, "It's barbaric not to provide health care." Then ask them who is going to pay for it? Many times, asking simple child-like questions helps to get to the heart of the matter. I use my Philosophy of Liberty to debate this. In order to make any Gov. run health care system work, the Gov. MUST take away someone else's Freedom (by limiting choice), or their Property (by imposing draconian taxes during a time when we can least afford them), and most of all Life (By denying care to the elderly or others who have "little chance to benefit from expending costly health care dollars").

I try to defend Individual Freedom where-ever I go or in whatever capacity I find myself. This may sometime get you into trouble but one of my favorite quotes is from the 19th century economist, "I wish that I may never think the smiles of the great and powerful a sufficient inducement to turn aside from the straight path of honesty and the convictions of my own mind."

Finally, read, read, read! Here's a great list I put together to help anyone get an education in Conservative/Libertarian thought: http://www.amazon.com/Truly-Diverse-or-How-you-can-Survive-any-Diversity-College-Course/lm/R1YHOLBYTZOGL7/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full

Believe me, few Professors and fewer Universities will take the time to educate you in the Philosophy of Liberty. This is a task you'll have to undertake on your own. But once you embrace a world-view, you feel very comforted by it. It gives you a feeling that you know where you are going in life and how to get there. You have a firm foundation to stand upon and will not be swept away by the next political or even religious so-called messiah, guru, or policy-wonk. You'll have the convictions of your own mind and the freedom to live your life on your own terms.


Katlyn

Dr S,
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions. I am inspired and ignited in the thought that I can get involved to create a positive change! I am not proud to admit it, but I am often guilty of purposeful ignorance of American politics, it seems I can no longer afford to be silent. Edmund Burke was completely right when he said “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” The link you provided examines that issue and really hit a nerve in my belief system. I have decided to reevaluate what I believe to be important and what I want for my future and the future of America. It appears that so many are uniformed and willing to be bulldozed by the “social contract” and what they believe to be “fairness.”

I am saddened by the complete absence of truth I have found talking to my peers. I recently discussed the issue of the health care reform with a friend and was shocked when the only pro they could give me was, “It cost too much to go to the hospital.” I empathize with those who have less and are suffering because of the how expensive it is to get medical care (I am going through the same situation in my life right now). The problem is no one is taking the time to understand what government controlled health care really means. My father was a Vietnam vet, my whole family received health care at the VA hospital, basically government controlled health care. Yes, I got to see a doctor and yes, it was cheap or free BUT when my mother had a serious health condition or my father became ill, the VA did not (and could not) provide us with immediate help. My father passed away in the care of a physician we paid and my mother finally had to give up waiting because her condition was urgent, and see another doctor not associated with the VA. It seems no one I know understands that it is impossible for the government to give you health care and actually be able to take care of you.

I am definitely going to start getting involved in a productive way and appreciate the tips on how to do so. I am taking your advice and I am going to start with talking to the people around me, a single voice has so many times changed the masses.
Katlyn Sphere: Related Content

Monday, August 3, 2009

Gender Diversity: Women Speak Out

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

STAGES OF SPIRITUAL GROWTH

Stages...
by Sarah

M. Scott Peck is an author who is not at all unfamiliar to me. In fact, his works have likely heavily affected my upbringing in ways that I can only imagine. As is the case with most people, my spiritual journey was shaped early by my parent’s relationship with each other and with God. I remember the days and evenings spent at the local Baptist church with my family. My Mother ran the Mother's Day Out program at the church-and so I spent every weekday and often weekends at the church. I remember grape juice and crackers on Sunday mornings and summer camps with religious-themed activities and lessons. I read the Bible every day and we prayed and held hands around the dinner table and before bed each night. I would have to say, I have read the Bible cover to cover an innumerable number of times in my 32 years. Each time since the age of 18 (and the discovery of true critical thought), I have read it with a always different perspective in terms of It’s historical and political content.

Here, in this course, I have engaged in several debates on such topics as religion and homosexuality... I have tried to express my opinions with grace and candor (often a difficult undertaking when the topics are so personal) and have been pleased to find that many people here are open minded, intelligently critical and willing to agree to disagree when necessary. I have been called a hypocrite... told that my opinions are obtuse and that I am just interested in hearing my own arguments and am not willing to listen to reason. Such an accusation is hurtful... but I understand from where it came. As I mentioned above, I come from a family that was once traditionally very conservative and religious, and so I understand most of the dogmatic arguments that are flung every which way during debates that include religion or sexuality. I understand, also, what it is to watch a parent, mired in a lifelong expectation as laid out by abusive and intolerant parents and role models, come out of her shell and find psychological continuity and freedom.

As I grew up in my Baptist household, under the watchful eyes of the Lord, I saw my Mom struggle in her movement from the second stage of spiritual growth and into the third stage. My Father's drinking had a lot to do with Mom's decision to read her first M. Scott Peck book. When I was five years old, she began attending meetings at another church. She was participating in groups (A Course in Miracles) that centered on Peck’s “The Road Less Traveled” and also began to participate in Al-Anon meetings and the like. Once an avid reader of the Bible, to the point that she carried it with her at all times, I noticed a different sort of literature was always in my Mother’s hands.

Only as a teenager and young adult could I understand that my Mom was searching for something more than what she had found behind the doors of the home and the church in which I had spent so much of my childhood. She was seeking reconciliation between the marvel of God and the questions that were unanswerable via her religion. She was actively learning that her psychology and her God were not entities at odds with one another; rather they were much the same in their degree of importance within her everyday life.

My Mom has told me several times that she feels guilty for the timing of her search for psychological continuity—that she wishes she had known earlier that the misery she felt inside could not be lessened via a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and was due to stuff that she needed to work through psychologically-stuff that involved her family and childhood. She has said she wished that the changes that happened in our family life were not a direct result of her unwillingness to stay within the fold… that the devastation that became my childhood between the ages of seven and fifteen were not merely the result of her unwillingness to swallow the bitter taste of knowing there was something better for her… that she should have accepted her role was pre-established and unyielding—Mother, Lover of God, Sinner. She has cried to me, and said she was selfish… and I have adamantly disagreed-saying that I am able to be myself, today, because she was willing to question that which was bitter, but comfortable but unyieldingly stifling.

It is not merely the break from religious tradition that tore my family apart. My Mother’s unwillingness to live with my Father’s drinking led to a separation and divorce. My parent’s divorce led to estrangement between all members of my family, for religious and addiction reasons. My Mother’s (alcoholic) parents, siding with my Father, decided to help him petition for custody of us kids. Luckily, sober Mom won. The resultant division meant that I had no family except my Mother and my brothers. No aunts or uncles. No cousins. No grandparents. And no religion. See, every member of my now lost family spouted religious doctrine as the reason for their abandonment. It is with great pain that I realize now, I come form a family of alcoholics who, unwilling to accept that they had a problem that had torn a family apart, turned to religious dogma as a defense against change.

By the time I was ten my Mom was, in my eyes, the opposite of the Mother I had known before the age of seven. She was still loving and supportive-her expectation that we be patient and communicative with one another was always a well-established paradigm within the household. We sometimes openly cried over the fact that our entire family had abandoned us… I still struggle with the understanding of that kind of love… Or lack thereof.

Had my parents stayed together, had my Mother never searched for her truth… I don’t think I would be alive today. As a lesbian, I know that my Mother’s decision to change the course of her life made my life as a psychologically contiguous person possible. Had things remained as they were when I was little, I could be another teenage homosexual suicide statistic. The Baptist religion, my grandparents and estranged family—all saw homosexuality as a sin and high in the list of deviancy. I remember hearing them speak of it, but never questioned what they meant when they talked about abnormal sexuality and the like. I saw my “normal” Mother and Father, my aunts and uncles as the ideal. And yet, even as a small child I can remember feeling “special” connections with females. My first crush was when I was four years old and it was on the sister of the girl from our neighborhood who babysat us when my parents were out. Her name was Helen, and she may as well have been Helen of Troy for how my heart flip-flopped when I looked at her or heard her voice. Yeah, I was a church-going four year old with no concept of sexuality… my parents were very much together, I had grandparents who made Sunday dinners at their house in the neighborhood, and I had no clue what “gay” meant. Born this way? Emphatically, yes.

As an adult, I am in Stage III of my spiritual growth. I have been a Stage II, in fact, I began attending church again with friends in high school as I struggled with my identity and the non-acceptance of myself as a homosexual. In hindsight, a regression of spiritual growth occurred when I began insisting on a version of God as dictated via the churches I attended in high school. It was via the insistence by my Mother that I evaluate whether God could be more likely found within the walls of a building than within the shell of my consciousness that I was able to reconcile a relationship and knowledge of spirituality with non-attendance of a denominational church. It was through a very intense evaluation of my childhood that I was able to come to terms with the existence of a God who accepts and loves me as I am, regardless of where I speak with Him. My version of God may not be the version that is widely understood by organized religion, but I have an understanding and so feel that I respect the perspective of the very religious, no matter the denomination.

I have, within the past five years, begun to move toward Stage IV of my spiritual growth. The reading of books by authors of various religious affiliation has opened my eyes to not only the differences amongst such religion, but the similar tenets. I have been most affected by Krishnamurti’s Hindu philosophies. After reading Peck’s analysis of the stages of spiritual growth, I feel that Krishnamurti’s values espouse the goals of Stage IV spiritual growth: living comfortably in the unknown and incorporating inclusiveness and unconditional love, this, with the courage to be as oneself.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

University Excludes Prospective: How diverse is that?

by Deborah Seelinger

I agree with the statement of this news commentator in this video:

As a conservative student I have been made to feel as though it is only less than educated people who hold conservative views. One of my professors last semester actually said that "it was only uneducated people who believed the myths in the Bible." This professor would not acknowledge the Bible even as literature worthy of study. I noted that no one questioned the value of studying "The Epic of Gilgamesh" or works of Plato or Aristotle or many other books and authors of the ancient world. This same professor claimed that he was strongly supportive of tolerance and diversity. Why then was the Bible singled out for disparagement? Can we truly be diverse if we don't educate ourselves from all aspects of an issue? I find that the same kind of bad and misguided stereotyping of people of color, or who speak languages other than English, or even those who don’t fit the model proportions of a perfect size 2, is also done to Christian believers.

This video, which happens to be about homosexuality, actually addresses a more unsettling issue, which is the refusal to include conservative, Christian aspects in the university setting as a alternative point of view. Instead I find that people want to dismiss these views and label them as uneducated, old fashioned or flawed.

Keep in mind as you view the video that the "Love Won Out" conference is available for those people who are freely making the choice to exit the homosexual lifestyle. The participants are not being forced, condemned or shamed in any way. Is it not diverse to offer individuals an option that is led by others who have a plan that works for them? Is it not tolerant to allow these individuals the freedom to make this choice and to have this option represented as a choice for those university students who may want to make this choice? Are we not being single minded and judgmental to only represent homosexuality in a liberal fashion and not give people information that will help them make an informed decision that looks at the issue from every prospective?

An education is a costly endeavor and as an American, a Christian and an honor student with a 4.0 GPA, I want to learn every aspect of the subjects in my classes. I want to use the critical thinking skills I have acquired while at college in a way that will allow me to make educated choices that I temper with moral, ethical and personal faith.

I would like to point out that Focus on The Family is an organization of believers who choose to find ways that are peaceful solutions for the issues we face. They (FOTF) have given thousands of ultrasound machines to abortion clinics, because they have found that instead of screaming and yelling and condemning women who are in the conflict of making this kind of decision, that if you offer them an ultrasound so they can see that living, forming fetus, that 80% of those women choose life for their unborn child. Not all Christians are loud protesters. Most are working to try and find common ground and display the love of Jesus and are intelligent, forward thinking people who simply believe in the principle set forth in the bible, which BTW is still the number #1 selling book in America. Sphere: Related Content

A REVIEW OF "RICH DAD, POOR DAD"

by LaKeshia Martin-Ayers

A Review of:
“Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the rich teach their kids about money – That the poor and middle class do not!”
By Robert T. Kiyosaki
- With Sharon L. Lechter, C.P.A.


“Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the rich teach their kids about money – That the poor and middle class do not!” This title, which sets the tone for the whole book, presents a bold statement that could cause quite the controversy amongst the “rich”, the “poor”, and the far between. Although possibly bold and controversial, the statement holds that of substance and merit. What DO the rich teach their children about money that the poor and middle classes DO NOT? Answer: Financial Intelligence and Independence. The rich teach their children how to have “money work for them,” while the poor teach their children how to “make money.”

“Rich Dad, Poor Dad” is an educational, yet inspirational, account of a young man’s pursuit to riches that turns into a lesson which far surpasses “making money”, into a world of financial fear and desire. Contrary to common belief, nine-year-old, Robert T. Kiyosaki, was a “poor kid” yearning to get rich quick. By no means was he a “rich kid” coming for a wealthy family. Robert was content with his socioeconomic status. One day a “rich kid” didn’t extend an invitation out to Robert and his soon to be “business partner,” Mike, to go to his beach house for the weekend. This life altering event was the turning point for Robert Kiyosaki. He now wanted to become rich. Robert then presented his “poor dad” with the infamous question: “Can You Tell Me How to Get Rich? (Kiyosaki, 23)” His “poor dad” then proclaimed nonchalantly that he had to ‘learn to make money’ by using his head. Robert and Mike formed a partnership and adopted the literal meaning of “making money.” They took to making coins out of recycled lead toothpaste tubes, milk cartons, and plaster of Paris. Once Robert and Mike were informed by “poor dad” that this was counterfeiting and illegal, they had to resort to Plan B: refer to another “resource.” It wasn’t until Robert’s dad admitted to being financially illiterate, and suggesting that Robert go to Mike’s dad for guidance, that Robert learned the key to financial literacy. He then adopted Mike’s father, whom he later coined as his, “rich dad.” “Rich dad” then became “Mr. Miyagi” as Mike and Robert were his “karate kids.” [If you are not familiar with this 1984 classic, then here’s a glimpse: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087538/] This soon became a lesson on what the “rich dad” teaches his children that the “poor dad” does not. Through hard work, perseverance in his pursuit of financial wherewithal, and lesson, Robert T. Kiyosaki was on the road to become a “rich man.”

As I plundered through the book list for our Diversity of Psychology class, I stumbled across this book. The title of the book caught my eye. To be honest, at first glance I was reasonably skeptical about its contents. I wondered what insight it would offer me on the world of the “Rich and Poor.” I believe some people’s first perception of the book, is that it will be a fast guide to get rich quick. I most definitely held this notion. What I failed to realize was that I was in for a rude awakening. This book is by far NOT a “get rich quick scheme for dummies.” It opens doors to the “good”, the “bad”, and the “ugly” of the pursuit to financial literacy.

“Rich Dad, Poor Dad” has many focuses, but a few significant objectives. I believe Robert Kiyosaki’s main objectives are to:

1. First and foremost, encourage the reader to get out of the “Rat Race.” “Rich dad” defines the “Rat Race” as, “the pattern of get up, go to work, pay bills, get up, go to work, pay bills... Their lives are then run forever by two emotions, fear and greed. Offer them more money, and they continue the cycle by also increasing their spending (Kiyosaki, 42)” The poor and middle class fall into this trap of “habit” (borrowing and taking from savings) and desire to keep up with the Joneses, while the rich know how to manage their money, allocate it to assets, THEN spend their assets on luxuries. Self- discipline is key. The poor and middle class become slaves to this so-called “Rat Race,” while the rich are on the “Fast Track.” “The poor and the middle class work for money. The rich have money work for them (Kiyosaki, 35).” “Rich dad” stated that “fear is what keeps most people working at a job (Kiyosaki, 36).” I’d have to agree. People let fear dictate every step they make. The fear of not being able to pay their bills. The fear of not having money. The fear of being fired. The fear of not having food on the table for their children. These are some of the reasons people spend their lives running the “Rat Race.” Why not let the fear of being poor, be motivation to increasing one’s financial literacy?

2. Expand the reader’s understanding of “Cash Flow.” The formula for an ideal “cash flow” is, assets [yields] income [yields] expenses = wealth. Formulate assets, use those assets to increase income and use the money gained from assets to pay expenses. He also suggests enlisting a highly educated team of expensive bankers, accountants, brokers, etc. to educate oneself. If these people are indeed professionals, they’ll make you money. The more money they make, the more money you’ll make. It’s a give and take relationship. Furthermore, he suggests that “the real skill is to manage and pay well the people who are smarter than you in some technical area (Kiyosaki, 178).” One may ask: if the goal is to gain more assets, why would one spend money on bankers, etc.? Allow them to be your educators, and use that education to gain more money in assets than you spent on their services. I personally like that idea. What I found interesting in regards to cash flow, is Kiyosaki’s take on paying taxes. He follows the saying “pay yourself first,” in which he pays himself and then pays the government. One may find this quite strange, as did I, but it’s actually a smart idea. Being that we all fear the IRS, creditors, and tax collectors, if we pay ourselves first, then it forces us to seek out other means of income. The pressure to pay our bills becomes our motivation. Here’s the kicker: Self-motivation is hard to come by for some people. I wouldn’t suggest taking the “pay yourself first” path for those people who aren’t easily motivated.

3. Defines assets and liabilities. I’ll elaborate on this later. Hang tight.

4. Build the reader’s confidence, in order to not become a “Chicken Little.” The “Chicken Littles” of life are those who, when it comes to money and investments, always fear the worst. They always scream, “The sky is falling.” No matter how promising the investment might appear, they’re always assuming the worst. “They can always tell you why something won’t work (Kiyosaki, 170).” Don’t let fear control you. You control fear. There’s plenty of “Chicken Littles;” don’t jump on the bandwagon.

5. Finally, to become a more financially literate and educated asset to society. He wants the reader to understand that he/she can’t afford mental laziness when it comes to finance. The reader has to overcome the fear of losing money, and gain the bravado to have money work for them. Don’t allow oneself to be pushed around by life. One has to not only become a creative investor, but also someone who can spot a “diamond in the ruff” out of any investment opportunity. [Remember that saying: “One wo[man]’s trash is another wo[man]’s treasure”] Exercising your mind, exercises your wealth.

Rummaging through these objectives, I chose what I have reason to believe is the most important and the main focus of this GREAT book: “Assets and Liabilities.” I believe that understanding their difference is by far the most important information you can get out of this book. Why, might one ask? Simple, EVERY decision someone makes in regards to finance, even life itself, has the potential to either become an asset or a liability to one’s future. The most pressing problem with poor and middle class today is their inability to understand the difference between assets and liabilities [myself included]. Robert T. Kiyosaki simply defines assets and liabilities by stating the following: ‘assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.) put money in your pocket. A liability (mortgage, consumer loans, and credit cards) is something that takes money out of [your] pocket.’ Assets are essential, liabilities are detrimental. Many people consider their homes their biggest “asset,” when in retrospect it’s their biggest liability. When Robert Kiyosaki brings this idea up, while focusing on the difference between a liability and an asset, he is by no means saying that someone should never own a home. What he is trying to portray is that one should build up his/her “asset column” before adding a home to his/her “expenses column”. Once the person’s assets are built up, then he/she can allocate that money to homeowner expenses. By doing so, this will save oneself from being pushed deeper into the “Rat Race” and he/she won’t be coming out of pocket (his/her “income column”) to purchase a home. I believe that once this is properly executed, one’s home will indeed be he/her biggest asset.

‘Stay in school, get good grades, so you can find a safe, secure job (Kiyosaki, 45)’ This seems to be a lesson that poor and middle class families teach their children daily. The problem is, this notion might make a highly educated, multi-degree lugging businessman, but it won’t make that businessman make a savvy financier. Robert T. Kiyosaki reiterated numerous times in this book, that “One of the reasons the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class struggles in debt is because the subject of money is taught at home, not in school (Kiyosaki, 14).” He’s right; the only thing children are taught in school about money is how to count their dollars and coins. By no means are either Kiyosaki or myself saying that one should not pursue an education and a safe and secure job. Considering I was always taught that school was my job in order to get a better job in the future, I would not agree with dropping out and thinking that being financially savvy is going to help. I, along with Robert Kiyosaki, believe that children should also be educated on finance, if not in the school, at home. I find it unfortunate that our children are not properly being taught the fundamentals of money. Not how to make money, but how to have money work for them.

If the problem lies in our educational system, then how do we educate our educators, in order to enhance students’ fluency of financial literacy? Answer: build the educators’ knowledge of finance through schooling, seminars, and helpful books such as this one. Once this is accomplished, they can then incorporate the stages to financial knowledge in the school systems. Schools can start with the basic, elementary concepts of finance in our Primary Schools. Then work their way up to more in depth concepts in Secondary Schools. We need to educate the masses. Who might you ask are the masses? The masses are our future generations. Where do we start? It starts in our education system, the domain of “fresh,” young minds. If you’re wondering why I didn’t included adults as part of the masses, it’s because adults are stubborn (believe it or not). It’s harder to teach adults when their set in their ways. Their financial literacy/illiteracy is virtually set in stone. The only way this is at all possible, is if the adult is willing and determined to not only learn, but integrate what they’ve learned into his/her daily life. Therefore, why not star at minds we can mold: the minds of the youth? Education seems to be the biggest factor in our nation’s financial illiteracy. Our minds are our biggest asset (pun intended). UTILIZE IT! Until this is accomplished, we will always have a poor, middle, and upper class. You do the math! The first and most important investment one can make is their education.

“Rich Dad, Poor Dad” was overall a great read! At times I found it slightly repetitive and redundant, yet informative and educational. It still got the point across. I extend my recommendation of this book to anyone who wants to become financially independent and educated, and learn how to have money work for them. If one’s main objective is to “get rich quick” then this book isn’t the answer. This book was very well written and the objectives were executed. It was by far an easy read. Robert T. Kiyosaki speaks the truth, however controversial the truth may be. He made the words flow in a way that allowed the reader to understand the context. It had my “creative juices” churning and the nuts and bolts in my head in constant motion. This book has the potential of having the reader think: “If he can do it, I can do it too.”

I leave you with this quote to facilitate your mind:

“Happiness is not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt




Kiyosaki, Robert. Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids about Money - That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not!. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing, (1997,1998). Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 4, 2009

GREAT WEBSITE/ORGANIZATION I RECENTLY DISCOVERED

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

The Supreme Court on Free Speech: “[s]peech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.” Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

A RISING TIDE LIFTS ALL BOATS, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IN ACTION

Using your own money to empower those whom you feel are worthy of your time and efforts because they give you quality products and services, is a fantastic idea. This is a good example of using your personal liberty to empower those around you. How is another person's success lessening my own potential for success? It isn't. Simply put best by JFK, "A rising tide lifts all boats." However, I've heard many white folks complain about this? How come? This is a good example personal power in action. If only we could do more of this (personal empowerment via free choice) and end Government entitlements or contract favoritism that favors one race over another (which is clearly racist), then we could truly count our nation as being on the road to Individual Liberty.

Chicago Family's 'Buy Black' Experiment Becoming a Nationwide Movement

"When we were a community of black folks who could not go to the white stores, our community of black stores flourished," Brown said. "When we were given the opportunity to go into the white store, it was like nothing else mattered anymore and we wanted to go to the white store, regardless of what the black store provided. We could have the same or better products if we supported (black businesses) in the same way."

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, May 11, 2009

IF THIS DOESN'T WAKE YOU UP, WHAT WILL?

According to World News Daily:

A Louisiana driver was stopped and detained for having a "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his vehicle and warned by a police officer about the "subversive" message it sent, according to the driver's relative.

The situation developed in the small town of Ball, La., where a receptionist at the police department told WND she knew nothing about the traffic stop, during which the "suspect" was investigated for "extremist" activities, the relative said.

A man identifying himself as a police officer from Ball called WND later to report that the town's records of traffic stops did not include this situation. He suggested it might have involved one of several other agencies that work in the area.

It followed by only a few weeks the release of a Department of Homeland Security report, "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment", which prompted outrage from legislators and a campaign calling for the resignation of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The report, which cites individuals who sport certain bumper stickers on their vehicles as suspect, was delivered to tens of thousands of local law enforcement officers across the nation.

We have woken up and do not recognize our country. When will enough be enough? How far must political correctness and extreme politics go before people rise up and demand freedom?

Say bye bye to your freedom. If the Department of Homeland Security guidelines are followed, then the entire Southeastern U.S. is a threat to national security (except for West Palm Beach of course). Are we headed for the thought police? Where is the 1st Amendment? This driver should sue the police officer for violation of his civil rights. How is this stop any different from stopping someone because they are Black? Or Arab? Or Latino? If the police, the government can do this to this person, they'll do it to anyone who doesn't agree with them.




Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

PROUD TO BE PART OF THE PARTY OF "NO"

Much has been made by the Democrats in their latest attempt to demonize the Republicans and create a new moniker for them. Their latest efforts is in calling the Republicans the "Party of No." But there is more to this than meets the eye. In fact the Democrats are correct in form if not in intent. When I first heard this statement I was immediately reminded of a wise saying by my old Philosophy Professor "To Know something first begin by no-ing it. To no it, is to Know it and vice versa." What does this mean precisely? When humans first begin to learn language and learn we have choices or determination we begin exerting these new powers by saying, "no." Any parent of a 2 year old will tell you one of the reasons the terrible 2's are so terrible is because the 2 year old is saying no to everything. We know what we don't want before we know what we do want. This cognitive propensity continues into our adulthood. For example, if you go to a restaurant with a large menu you may not be certain immediately what you want. You may begin with narrowing your options by eliminating what you know you do not want before you arrive at what you do want. This is a process that happens anytime that there are a large number of choices.

Likewise, when the framers of the U.S. Constitution met to explore precisely how they were to create a new government, they too had many choices from the present as well as historical forms of government. They began the process of framing the constitution by saying no. The U.S. Constitution is a document that uses the words "no" and "not" dozens of times. The Future of Freedom Foundation, a non-partisan think tank, reports that the U.S. Constitution was a terribly shocking document when it was first written, especially to rulers all over the world. Because here were a people who were placing themselves in the role of master and placing government in the role of servant. In other words, in one fell swoop, the American people had inverted the historical relationship between citizen and government.

But there was a logic behind their actions. Think back to the Declaration of Independence. Expressing the commonly held sentiments of the people in that document, Thomas Jefferson had said that man has been endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights and that governments are instituted to protect those rights.

That was why the people of the United States called into existence a federal government — to protect rights that preexisted the government they were calling into existence.

Notice that they could have called into existence a government that had omnipotent powers over the citizenry. They did not do that. After all, that was the nature of the government they had recently rebelled against.

Instead, they created a government whose powers were limited to those enumerated in a document. They told the Government NO! It was the first time in history that people had had the audacity to limit the powers of their own governmental officials, by repeatedly saying "NO" to the powers of the government.

For example, Article 1, Section 8, sets forth the powers of Congress. Whether you believe that all of these enumerated powers are proper or not, one fact is indisputable: that the powers of Congress were indeed limited. In other words, if the powers of Congress were unlimited, there would have been no reason to enumerate specific powers. By listing the specific powers, the Founders made it clear that the federal government’s powers over the people were not omnipotent.

To clarify matters even more, the Founders enumerated specific restrictions on the powers of both the federal and state governments. See, for example, Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, and notice the number of times that the words “no” and “not” are used.

Look at the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Founders didn't list every possible way religion or speech, or the press could be formed. They in their wisdom understood that was impossible. Rather, they limited the Government by saying "No." Most of the Bill of Rights are written this way.

Thomas Jefferson understood the sole purpose of good Government was to protect the freedom and liberty of it's people. When Government begins to grow beyond it's constitutional limits and threatens that very liberty it was originally designed to protect, it is then time for the American People to rise up and say with a loud and resounding voice, "No!"

And that is why, I am proud to be part of the party of "No." Sphere: Related Content

Friday, May 1, 2009

REASON MAGAZINE ONLINE

On the economy, and specifically on the economic crisis, Obama came to office promising a sharp break from the past. Instead, he has added so much fuel to the fires that George W. Bush ignited—exploding already swollen deficits, using TARP monies (which were statutorily provided for banks) not just for auto companies but minor auto parts manufacturers, and giving the federal government more power to seize private companies than even Henry Paulson dreamed of wielding. Such has been the extent of Obama's me-tooism that he's taken to defending his record by pointing out that, hey, Bush started it!

The latter was actually a rare moment of transparency; Obama's typical M.O. is to proclaim a new era of responsibility while ushering in a new era of irresponsible debt, promise to close the revolving door of lobbyists and government while keeping it open, and vow to post all bills online for five days without doing anything of the sort. He says the bailout is "not about helping banks—it's about helping people," then gives more of the people's money to banks. He says he doesn't want to run General Motors, then fires its CEO, guarantees its warranties, and wags his finger about the company's surplus of brands. He says he's taking a battle-axe to the budget, then offers to shave $100 million off a $3.4 trillion tab. At his gee-whiz, interactive, online town hall meeting, he laughed off the most popular question asked by web viewers—should marijuana be legalized—with a lame joke before embracing the status quo like Jimmy Carter hugging a Third World dictator.


All of this is so obvious to anyone with historical vision. Obama is Carter/Johnson Redux. Obama's great asset is that he is so darn likable and a great communicator, so he makes tired Liberal ideas seem fresh. But the policies themselves are very distructive and will do no good for our beloved Country. Further, the foundations of the Diversity Movement and Political Correctness have only served to scare his potential critics into silence. However, I agree with Jaun Willaims (NPR Commentator) when he said, "There is a lot more at stake now, and to allow criticism of Mr. Obama only behind closed doors does no honor to the dreams and prayers of generations past: that race be put aside, and all people be judged honestly, openly, and on the basis of their performance."

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Justice Kennedy: Voting Rights Act might now be unfair

WASHINGTON — In vigorous arguments over the scope of federal power to screen state election laws in states with a history of discrimination, the Supreme Court justice who could cast the deciding vote made clear his dueling concerns.

It's absurd, in light of a overwhelming majority of Americans voting for Obama, to see that these old laws are of any value now. To imagine that Chicago or Boston are somehow less racist than Birmingham or Biloxi is silly at best. Having lived in the North and South, I can tell you first hand that the racism of the North is far more prevalent. But it's racism of the individual, not the group. Liberal White Northern's love minorities in voting blocks of no less than 1 million. While Southerns just love individuals. Of course the "individual" is the most discriminated against minority of them all.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, March 28, 2009

THOMAS PAINE RETURNS TO ENLIGHTEN US

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, February 21, 2009

POLITICAL CORRECT ATTACK ON FREESPEECH: ROUND 2

NAACP wants NY Post editor, cartoonist fired

NEW YORK (AP) — The head of the NAACP on Saturday urged readers to boycott the New York Post, calling a cartoon that the newspaper published an invitation to assassinate President Obama.
Barack Obama is the President. To not be able to Satirize or make-fun or criticize him is in and of itself Racist. It implies that because he is Black, that somehow he is less capable and thus "inferior" to other Presidents and therefore should be treated with kid gloves. For better or worse, President Obama is just a man like any other with positives and negatives. I knew this would happen. But you can't call every article or every cartoon that criticizes him "racist." What is so funny about this article is the cartoon everyone is up and arms about, is actually about Congress, not Obama. Obama did not, nor did his staff write any part of the stimulus bill, it was Nancy and Harry who wrote it. If anyone should be outraged and upset, it's them! Look at this cartoon, where in the world does it even imply that this is Barack Obama. Ludicrous!


Sphere: Related Content

The Philosophy of Liberty

The philosophy of liberty is based upon Self-Ownership and self-responsibility. You own your own life and you own the right to run it in anyway you see fit. You do not own the lives of others and have no stake in how they run their lives. Top-down approaches to social change do not work. They never have. If we all lived by a simple rule life would be so much better. Imagine that you have a problem. In order to solve that problem, follow this flow of logic: First solve it yourself, if that is not possible then ask your family to help you solve it, if that is not possible then ask your neighbor, then ask your community, then ask your church/club/civic organization, then ask your town, then ask your county, then ask your state, FINALLY, if you can't solve it on any of those levels, THEN ask your Federal Government. Obama says do the opposite. Ask the Feds first and whatever you do, DON'T rely upon yourself. If you cannot rely upon yourself, have no family, or live in a neighborhood where no one cares about you, then ask yourself why that is? Is it societies fault? Are you really a helpless twig floating down a stream? Or are you at the helm of your own ship and can steer another direction? The choice is truly yours. Ironically, President Barack Obama, like that of no other individuals life, truly exemplifies how an individual can turn a series of bad circumstances into personal prosperity. Who would have thought that a mixed race minority child from a broken home, with a working class mother, with an absent father who abandoned him, would have the ability and determination to become President of the most powerful nation on the planet. He did it, why can't you?
Sphere: Related Content

Friday, February 20, 2009

CONFUSED BY THE STIMULUS BILL?

The best place to go for thoughtful analysis and the "Cliff-notes" version of these bills is the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/news/economic-stimulus.cfm) which is a think-tank that provides great policy analysis and good executive summaries of this stuff. For the best alternatives to the Democrat and the Political Left's ideas on re-engineering our economy, go to "American Solutions" (http://www.americansolutions.com/) run by the most successful Speaker of the House in American History, Newt Gingrich. They have a great way of condensing the issues. The best book on understanding economic Principles is Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose." There is also a great PBS series by the same name that is available online for free (http://www.ideachannel.tv/). I think you will agree that the Stimulus bill is confusing. But most all legislation that comes out of the US Congress is confusing. I think there should be a law that all bills must be able to be read and understood by a High School graduate! If the Democrats will not allow for School vouchers to give parents choice, then shouldn't they have write bills for graduates of the public school system? Why else would you write laws that no one can understand if your intent is not to steal, mislead, and misdirect the American People, whom you are supposed to serve? Sphere: Related Content

LINCOLN EXPOSED

The War of Northern Aggression (i.e. the Civil War) was never about slavery or freeing slaves. This refreshing video begins to expose the truth about the only American Dictator, Abraham Lincoln. In fact Abraham Lincoln wanted to repatriate African-Americans back to Africa! Amid all the Lincoln worship going on today, this is a fascinating fact. In addition, Lincoln is credited with ending the doctrine of "States Rights" and gave us the first example of centralized planning. In the words of Shelby Foote, we went from "These United States" to "The United States." For better or worse, we are certainly more unified, but are we really more free? Do we have more liberty?


Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 21, 2009


Sphere: Related Content

Share

Bookmark and Share