Truly Diverse

Truly Native American

2010-06-27T16:14:00.000-07:00

by Pat Styers

Psychology of Diversity sounded like a very interesting subject to me. I love diversity and always have. Throughout my life, I have had a very diverse group of friends and acquaintances. They have been different races, cultures, ethnicities, different religious and non-religious backgrounds, heterosexuals, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, diverse political backgrounds, etc. I find that differences in people make the world a much more interesting place.

I remember as a very young child (I am 57 now) when I was going to get a drink from a water fountain and my Mom told me I could not drink from that one. I asked why and was told it was for Negros (the acceptable term for African Americans at that point). I did not understand why. I wanted to sit in the back seat of the bus and was told I could not. I asked why and was told that was for Negros. I did not understand why. As a young child, I thought that it was not fair that they got to sit in the back and I couldn’t. Of course I understood when I was older that it was not considered a privilege to sit in the back of the bus. I never understood why they were treated differently. I have always seen people as people and not their skin color. As I got older, I heard people speak of Negros in slang terms that I knew were disrespectful terms and I hated to hear people speak of other people like that. I was in seventh grade when our Junior High School (yes, I am dating myself but you already know I’m old!) was integrated and I thought it was great. Many however, did not think it was great.

When the mini-series Roots came on, I watched every episode and watched in horror and grief seeing how slaves had been treated. I still did not understand why. To this day, I don’t understand why. The only thing I attribute it to is ignorance and the culture at the time. Some people grew up in homes with bigotry and that is how they were trained.

I am so glad for the changes that I have seen as I have grown older. I am not saying that all is great now because unfortunately, there will always be racists but it is much better than when I was a child.

That was just some background on what I have seen throughout my life. Because of that, I understand some of what African Americans have endured but as a lily white person, I have never had to endure it myself.

The diversity course covers race but I was very surprised that I have seen very little about Native Americans. There are a couple books in the additional book lists about Native Americans but it seems that other issues and groups way surpass them on the various lists. Native Americans have suffered great injustices and more people need to be aware of this and that their plight continues to this day. I am of European descent and my fore-fathers came here and occupied this land. In doing that, they fought the Native Americans over their land. I remember watching television as a child (yes, we did have television way back then although it was a black and white picture and got maybe two channels).

There would be shows about cowboys and Indians and the cowboys were always the good ones and the Indians were all vicious savages that killed and scalped the “good” people. That was always the way it seemed to be portrayed. I remember that Daniel Boone came on and he had a friend that was an Indian (I don’t really agree with the term Indian but that is what the shows all called them). His friend happened to be a “good” Indian but the impression was that it was rare for an Indian to be good.

Native Americans got a really bad deal and went through so many things. Strange white people from another land came and fought them and took their land. They made treaties with the Native Americans and then broke them. The Cherokee’s endured what is known as the Trail of Tears and many of them died during that journey. It was a terrible injustice. I believe in trying to put yourself in the other persons’ shoes (or in this case, the saying “walk a mile in their moccasins” would fit) to try to imagine what they were thinking and feeling. Of course they would not have had kind feelings towards people that were trying to take their land, move them into certain designated areas and “educate” them so they would change in order to act “civilized” like the whites. They could not change the color of their skin though so they suffered many offenses and persecution. If people that you did not know came to fight you and take your land away, would you fight back? I don’t think we would sit idly by and let them try to kill us and take what we own.

I would encourage everyone to learn about what Native Americans have endured. There are some books on Amazon that I am going to order and I will let you know more after I have read them. I am especially interested in the ones that were authored by Native Americans. Any suggestions of good books would be appreciated.

In Praise of the Entrepreneur

2009-08-18T15:19:00.000-07:00

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.

A STUDENT'S QUESTION ABOUT THE FUTURE

2009-08-05T17:12:00.000-07:00

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

Gender Diversity: Women Speak Out

2009-08-03T17:08:00.001-07:00

STAGES OF SPIRITUAL GROWTH

2009-07-22T21:48:00.000-07:00

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.

University Excludes Prospective: How diverse is that?

2009-06-30T19:09:00.000-07:00

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.

A REVIEW OF "RICH DAD, POOR DAD"

2009-06-30T17:39:00.000-07:00

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).

GREAT WEBSITE/ORGANIZATION I RECENTLY DISCOVERED

2009-06-04T12:44:00.001-07:00

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).

A RISING TIDE LIFTS ALL BOATS, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IN ACTION

2009-05-13T07:55:00.000-07:00

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."

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

2009-05-11T14:52:00.000-07:00

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.

PROUD TO BE PART OF THE PARTY OF "NO"

2009-05-05T18:15:00.001-07:00

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."

2009-05-01T12:48:00.000-07:00

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."

Justice Kennedy: Voting Rights Act might now be unfair

2009-04-29T11:09:00.000-07:00

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

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.

THOMAS PAINE RETURNS TO ENLIGHTEN US

2009-03-28T17:48:00.001-07:00

POLITICAL CORRECT ATTACK ON FREESPEECH: ROUND 2

2009-02-21T19:12:00.000-08:00

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!

The Philosophy of Liberty

2009-02-21T16:55:00.000-08:00

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?

CONFUSED BY THE STIMULUS BILL?

2009-02-20T17:47:00.000-08:00

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?

LINCOLN EXPOSED

2009-02-20T13:18:00.001-08:00

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?

2009-01-21T10:43:00.001-08:00

THE PRICE OF LIBERTY

2008-11-11T18:13:00.001-08:00

Archive.org has some great old videos, many of which were put out by the government and some private funding by the "National Education Foundation." This film below is one in which I could find no fault. Why isn't it being taught today? Perhaps we should re-film it and send it free to schools. I wonder how many would actually use it? Notice that they never mention "God" as the foundation of our society, but the "Building blocks" metaphor he uses that is displayed on his desk has as it's foundation "Fundamental Belief in God" on the bottom, followed by "US Constitution." It was just assumed by the "WW2" generation that "Of course belief in God is the foundation." Today, we can't even get a majority and many on the Supreme court to agree that the US Constitution should be the foundation much less God. If it isn't, then what is? Unfortunately, it looks like we went through 75 years of Cold War struggle against the Red Menace only to have them freely elected here in 2008. Again my fellow Americans, the price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance.

Uncommon Knowledge: Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions

2008-11-09T19:31:00.001-08:00

APALACHICOLA OYSTERS

2008-11-09T13:59:00.000-08:00

November rolls around and I start to get that yearning feeling. That primal need many Floridians feel (and especially Panhandle Natives) for fresh, salty, right from the bay Oysters. Oysters are certainly an acquired taste but they also must be consumed in the proper atmosphere for optimal enjoyment. When I was just a lad living in Bonifay, FL, my dear father would take me to "Grady's Oyster Bar." This was always a treat on many levels. Firstly, it was a treat because it meant time spent with my Dad and secondly because we got to sit at the bar where I was given permission to consume obscene amounts of Coca Cola out of a glass bottle. The right kind of atmosphere most conductive to Oyster consumption is a sort of "dive" or "hole in the wall" with a TV blaring or a Jukebox playing. Often the jukebox is so old you can't quite believe such a mechanical device is still in service or how they could possibly still get parts for it. Grady's was located on Highway 90 and was owned by the Grandfather of my good friend "John Paul." The Bar was a former drive-in built in the 50's that had been added on to and was also the residence of the purveyors. When you went into the front door, sometime (if business was slow) there would be no one up front so you had to yell for Mr. Grady to come up from whatever he was doing to serve you. He would often come through the back door that led to their home, sleepy eyed or with a tired expression. But he would quickly settle into his work and would always have a joke or two for you. You would begin your order with a "dozen" and go from there to judge the freshness and quality of this particular batch. Professional Oyster Shuckers pride themselves on telling a good from bad oyster and we would rarely, if ever, get served a bad one. The first oyster would be shucked and served on the half-shell in front of you. You then looked at it. The oyster should look plump and full. It should be running with juices and very wet. (A dry looking or shriveled oyster is considered a bad one and should be avoided). Next you smell the oyster. It should have a nice salty-sea smell. (If it's fishy or pungent, it's no good, move on to the next). Finally, you prepared the oyster for consumption. You take your tooth-pick and gentle guide the oyster onto a saltine cracker. You then can salt it just a tad; a little pepper if you are so inclined, and then add the hottest Tabasco sauce known to man. Pop the whole thing into your mouth. The first bite tells all. It should burst with flavor and juices, a nice sea-food crustation flavor, salty and delicious. Once the first one passes the visual, olfactory, and taste tests, you know you likely have a good batch.

Yesterday I made my pilgrimage to the local Oyster bar in Leesburg, FL. It's the only one I've found in Central, Florida that reminds me of Grady's (Poor Mr. Grady passed on a few years ago, God rest his soul). I had an excellent batch of Oysters on the half-shell and a dozen steamed jumbo shrimp to boot. My obscene Coca Cola consumption has given way to moderate Beer consumption followed by a single diet coke (I'm going soft in my old age). I loved sitting in this smoky, seedy bar with AC/DC blaring, bikers and blue collar gentleman getting off work sitting around trying to drink the hard week away. When I sat down the Server asked, "What'll you have?" To which I replied, "A Dozen Oysters, raw on the half-shell." The burly mechanic looked up from his beer and gave me a smile and nod as if to approve. I sat there eating, thinking of Dad, and looking forward to seeing him Thanksgiving where we can shuck a few together and remember simpler times.

2008-11-05T14:15:00.000-08:00

A LETTER TO MY VERY DISAPPOINTED SON

Dear Donovan:

I know you are sad about the outcome of the election. Son, firstly we have to remember that God is still on the throne, he still answers prayers, and Jesus is the answer and true hope for our salvation. I do agree with you that this election is an outcome that many of us, especially in the conservative community would have rather not experienced, but we have to keep working! What is the alternative? Give up? Never! What happened in this election was not an acceptance of ultra-left politics by the American People, it was an Anti-Bush, Anti-Big Spending, Fix this economy now, get us out of war, coalition. Now that they've won, that coalition will fall apart. Barack has his work cut out for him. And it won't be easy. He'll have to do all the things that he's promised and more. The same thing happened in 1992. Bill Clinton promised a middle class tax cut, he ran against George Bush, Sr. , on the basis that Bush, Sr. had raised taxes against his own pledge not to do so. The Democrats promised Bush, Sr. that if he would just agree to raise taxes for "the good of the country" they wouldn't use it against him in the election. They lied to Bush, Sr., they did use it against him and Clinton didn't or couldn't keep his promises. In 1992 I was a student in my Masters degree program in Springfield, Massachusetts. One of the big campaign issues was that Bill Clinton often lied. But the media told us that character didn't matter. I remember over hearing two professors discussing the outcome of the election. They said, "Yeah, he's a Liar but at least we'll get universal health care." Son, as I've taught you many times, character does matter, and telling the truth is always more important than just being popular or getting ahead at any cost. In 1992, the media said it was the death of the "Reagan Era" and the death of "Conservative and Libertarian ideas" and the death of "Small Government". They were wrong then, they are so very wrong now. So what happened is that the year you were born, in 1994, the most conservative and freedom loving congress in a generation was swept into power, this happened only two years after electing the previous Charlatan who made a lot of promises that were empty and without merit. It wasn't conservative ideas that were defeated in 1992 and it isn't conservative ideas that were defeated in 2008. On the contrary, Obama ran on Tax cuts, Family Values, Personal Responsibility, Hope and Liberty, and Christian values, which are all Conservative ideas. In fact, he could not have been elected if he had been honest about his own true philosophy or World view. The ultra-Left world view, when correctly and accurately and honestly articulated, has never won in this country. Just ask Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale. The only way Barack and the Democrats will stay in office is if they can be successful. But you can't cut taxes and raise spending by what Barack has promised and keep the economy going. Just research Milton Friedman or better yet read his book, "Free to Choose." Liberal Keynesian Economics will never work, it never has. It always leads to the path of ruin at worst and stagnation at best. Therefore, it is only a matter of waiting for their failure and working to help in the ushering of those who will be the champions of free thinking back to the noble halls of our vibrant democracy. But in the meantime, we also pray. We pray and truly wish that the Democrats will be successful and the nation will get back on it's feet and all the good things they promised will happen, which will still be great for America. In the end, we are truly all Americans and either way, we win. Ironically, with the election of Barack Obama, we must have hope! We must hope that the ember of Liberty and Freedom that has almost died out, can once again be fanned into a roaring flame. We must hope that the small business person who sets out toward prosperity can do so without the oppressive hand of Big Government on their back. We must hope that the Shining City on a Hill that Ronald Reagan so artful spoke of, can once again be the symbol of the America that once was, and can be again. We must hope that we can keep the faith, fight the good fight, and finish the race so we can have both our reward and the good knowledge that we are following our steadfast principles. Son, you come from a good and noble lineage. A family line that stretches back to the founding of this great nation. When you feel down and despair, think of John and Robert Saunders as they fought against British oppression and threw off the chains of a heavy monarch; think of James Saunders who left Virgina and headed west with his family to settle a new frontier; think of John Thomas Saunders who held the line at Appomattox and had to watch one of the noblest men ever to walk the face of the Earth, Robert E. Lee, surrender to an invading army; think of Bartow Saunders, Sr. who survived the worst economic Depression of the 20th century and died a millionaire after a lifetime of hard work, struggle, and determination; think of your Great-Grandfather Tup McWaters who risked his life in the South Pacific, who spent 4 years of lonely nights in a fox hole not knowing if the next moment might be his last, who fought against an Empire so mighty that America feared she might not ever be able to overcome it. Yet we did! We overcame it all. Son, our family and our nation has endured much and overcome obstacles that make this current "let down" pale in comparison. And finally my dear sweet son, we must not tire, we must fight on, as was said in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to his beloved wife Martha, "Determine never to be idle. No person will have occasion to complain of the want of time, who never loses any. It is wonderful how much may be done, if we are always doing. And that you may be always doing good, my dear, is the ardent prayer of yours affectionately."

With my dearest love and prayer for strength for you, Yours truly,

Dad

A CLASS ACT ALL THE WAY

2008-11-05T10:23:00.000-08:00

What the mainstream media will not say is what a class act President Bush is now and through the transition. Unknown to most, is that he signed the Executive Order: (for the) Facilitation of a Presidential Transition. This is the first time in history that so orderly and formal a transition is being conducted. If you recall in 2000, President Bush went into the shortest transition in history. Further, he went into the White House that looked like a night-after Frat-boy party. Then, as a "funny joke", the Clinton staffers at Clinton's insistence removed all the "W's" from the typewriters and computer keyboards. President Bush had to spend $18,000 of taxpayer money to repair the damage and clean up after Clinton. This will certainly not happen now. As Bush-1 said when conceding to Bill Clinton, America is "the envy of the world", because of our peaceful transitions. This shows that history will indeed vindicate President George W. Bush on many levels. Truly, a class act all the way.

SOCIALISM MADE SIMPLE

2008-10-27T17:55:00.000-07:00

Often what is happening in the world can seem complex and overwhelming. When politicians throw words around like capitalism and socialism, we often aren't sure what to make of it. I would like to assist you in understanding these complex concepts with a few simple, straightforward examples.

SOCIALISM: an economic system based on state ownership of capital. Meaning, the Government owns the means of production. You can't buy, sell, make, or do most anything, without approval. In many ways, it is what is going on now, just degrees of freedom.

CAPITALISM: an economic and social system in which individuals can maximize profits because they own the means of production. Wow, gee, imagine that. You mean there is such a thing as an economic system where the individual actually has the freedom to choose and create their own destiny? Yes, that is the essence of capitalism, freedom.

Now here are a few simple examples to help you fully comprehend these complex concepts.

EXAMPLE #1:
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from each persons share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each and up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20, 'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

EXAMPLE #2: Redistribution of Wealth

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money". I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" Button, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--I pointed out the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was very grateful.At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Example #3: Joe Biden is Interviewed by local Orlando Newscaster:

MOST UNDER-REPRESENTED GROUP OF ALL

2008-10-14T15:11:00.000-07:00

When it comes to under-representation, likely the most ignored segment of our society are those living in the rural areas of our great nation. Who are the rural folks? The Daily Yonder, a rural advocacy group, is my favorite source of news and information when contemplating rural issues. I've thought long and hard about small-town life and rural America this election season. There was a time when I turned my back on my small-town roots, happy to be rid of what I once saw as silly and ignorant "one-horse" town. Ironically, it wasn't until I moved to Chicago (the 3rd largest city in the US) that I finally realized how lucky I had been. Particularly one day when I had to physically fight off a mugger attempting to rob a friend of mine (but that's another story). Years later, I returned to Florida and after bringing my son into the world, I looked for a small town to raise him (and later my second son as well). I was recently back in my small town of Bonifay, Florida where I grew up for the annual "Championship Rodeo" which is always just an excuse to go back home, see my parents, brother and his family, and take my kids to play with their cousins. There is a sense of safety and belonging in Bonifay. There is great comfort having skills that none of my city-dwelling friends have. Like knowing I can fish, hunt, farm, and make a living off the land if I ever had to. I think that is why I often can take swings in the market or "economic" disaster in stride because I know I could survive and feed my family without a Government handout (or even without a Government) no matter what may happen. When back for the rodeo, we always watch the parade (which is held on Friday and Saturday afternoon). We sit out on the front lawn of my grandparents home (which is still in the family) and wait for the fire engines to start up which typically are what begins the parade. You see every business, church, civic group, and school represented in floats that go by, all of them homemade and hilarious to see. For me, small towns represent true hope, family, goodness, virtue, truth and honesty, integrity, and a straight forward sense of knowing who you are. It always makes me smile when city-dwelling politicians try to either pander to the small-town vote (thinking all those from small towns are simple minded imbeciles) or being critical of traditions they cannot understand (spiritual values, Gun-ownership, or hunting rights) and disparaging them by labeling small town people as "bitter." It makes me really smile to know that if society collapses, the economy goes to nothing, and the cities are burning from rioting, Bonifay and thousands of small towns like it, will continue because of the very traditions, values, and people that make them great now.

In celebration of small towns everywhere, here are my two favorite songs about small towns, enjoy!

SOCIALISM: SO?

2008-10-13T14:41:00.000-07:00

So many socialist influences, and so little caring. The 1980s were not so long ago, much less the 60s and 50s. Yet, so few of the ideas that came from the so-called Conservative Revolution remain. Why? It is important to know what socialism truly is. If you choose to vote into office those that promote socialist ideas, then do yourself a favor and research the basic ideas of socialism.

The following was posted at American Thinker by Paul Kengor of Grove City College, who wrote GOD AND RONALD REAGAN, one of my favorites.

Capitalism is based on private ownership; communism on public ownership. Capitalism thrives on small government and taxes; communism on large government and taxes, typically progressive income-tax rates and estate taxes -- both advocated explicitly by Marx -- and much more.

This stuff isn't rocket science. It is easy to teach, if the professor desires. The problem is that it isn't being taught. Consequently, Americans today do not know why communism is such a devastating ideology, at both the level of plain economic theory and in actual historical practice. It is a remarkably hateful system, based on literal hatred and targeted annihilation of entire classes and groups of people. (Nazism sought genocide based on ethnicity; communism sought genocide based on class.)

Most Americans generally know that the USSR was a bad place and that it was good that the Berlin Wall fell; they lived through that. But they know little beyond that, especially young Americans in college today, born around the time the wall fell -- Obama's biggest supporters. Nowhere in America is Barack Obama worshipped as he is on college campuses, by students and professors alike.

What does it all mean for November 2008? It means that millions of modern Americans, when they hear that Barack Obama has deep roots with communist radicals like Bill Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis, don't care; they don't get it. Moreover, the leftist establishment -- from academia to media to Hollywood -- will not help them get it. To the contrary, the left responds to these accusations by not only downplaying or dismissing them but by ridiculing or even vilifying them, given the left's reflexive anti-anti-communism. The left will create bad guys out of the anti-communists who are legitimately blowing the whistle on the real bad guys.

When the leftists of the ‘60s took over higher education and the media, they really knew what they were doing. This was brilliant, masterful, a tactical slam-dunk, a tremendous coup for them and their worldview, with ripple effects we can scarcely imagine.

Does this mean that the McCain camp, talk radio and conservatives generally shouldn't bother exposing these things? Not at all. The truth is the truth, and needs to be told. Moderates especially need to be informed that Barack Obama is not your typical liberal: he is the most hard-left Democrat that his party has ever nominated for the presidency. It is absolutely not a coincidence that the man with these far-left associations just so happens to be ranked -- quantifiably, objectively, by non-partisan, respected sources like National Journal -- the most far-left member of the U.S. Senate, which is no small thing given the leftward drift of the modern Democratic Party. In other words, Obama's extremist associations matter; they are fully revealing, illustrative of the political-ideological realities that the pro-Obama media will not expose. His voting record bears this out.

That said, I warn my fellow conservatives: Be prepared to be really, really frustrated when few people seem to care.

It is a sad day when we must live in the shadow of oppression instead of the sweet sunshine of Liberty. As for me? I had rather scratch out a living in the soil of my ancestral homeland, living day to day in poverty and yet be free, than have an oppressive world government micromanage my life, deny my family even the most basic of freedoms, but still have my IPOD. How about you?

Another way to look at Bill Ayers and those radical 60's terrorists is to ask, "How would the media treat McCain if it were to come to light that he had started his presidential campaign in the living room of Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma city bomber)? Or David Duke (who never actually bombed anyone but simply said things people didn't like)?

BAILOUT IS DEFEATED BY FREE MARKET CONSERVATIVES

2008-09-29T13:49:00.000-07:00

In September 1999, the New York times printed an interesting article. The beginning is quoted here:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

This is an excellent article for understanding the source of the current Housing and Economic crisis. It is a prime example of how Government interference in the Free Market never works, always destabilizes, and creates a dependant class (and with this current bailout the dependants are wealthy Millionaires!). When well meaning diversity ideas wrongly applied become public policy, then we create a terrible system that winds up actually seriously hurting (via lost jobs, less credit available, etc.) the very people that the government was supposed to help to begin with. Here is the link:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

For an alternative to the current Welfare for Millionaires Bailout plan go to:
Newt Gingrich.org

At that link, you can also download the FULL TEXT of the Bailout Bill and read it for yourself. I did read it and it's a mess. Thankfully, the House Republicans along with over 90 Democrats helped to defeat it. This is a great reminder to the arrogant Senate that the founding fathers created TWO chambers of congress for this very reason.

For those who want the Cliff Notes version: Here is a Video News Report:

Think about it! We all live in this country and it's our money they (the Congress) are spending. Thankfully today, we've seen democracy in action. Now, I'm going to sharpen up my Hunting, Fishing, and Farming skills and get ready for the coming economic depression.

IDENTITY POLITICS CONTINUES TO BACKFIRE

2008-09-10T12:52:00.000-07:00

Shepherd Smith on FOX News reported (as did the Blog POLITICO) today:

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate " whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.” Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.

Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women. “Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said.

Told of McCain's boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: "Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway."

When the Democrat Convention began there was a hint of justice that hasn’t been much discussed even by political pundits. The Clintons rode into Washington almost 16 years ago. It doesn’t seem like a longtime ago, but it is the equivalent to when Barry Goldwater lost and Ronald Reagan won.

Further, favorite Political Pundit, Thomas D. Stamper reports:

It wasn’t enough for the Clintons to occupy the White House. They also needed to occupy the moral high ground. These children of the 1960s were going to right the wrongs of their parents and grandparents except when they were useful as some sort of prop so that Clinton could refer to himself as a child of WWII or the Depression or whatever real challenge his parents generation lived through, he skipped the hard road. His cabinet would look like America, meaning that he would scrape three deep to get a female Attorney General, going all the way to a Miami prosecutor. If you were a minority and a female, the staff of Clinton would refer to you as a "twofer." Jocelyn Elders was the most famous of the twofers according to Clinton insiders at the time. Realistically, it was Clinton’s right as President (according to the US Constitution) to pick who he wanted and let Congress decide if they were qualified, but it did no honor to those chosen to say they were considered for their looks. Isn’t that just what Gloria Steinem didn’t want?

The Clintons brought a lot of baggage into 2008. They probably didn’t think that their “looks like America” stance would be anything but a positive. After all, they were here to let you nominate the first female president. But what happened? Hilary has always been a smart political ideologue and she saw it as her strength. And she decided to run a campaign based on experience and the issues, two things decidedly not superficial. But along comes Barack Obama, a Charismatic, intelligent, and politically savvy candidate who just looks like he should be President according to the Clinton's own standard, which has become the standard of the political left. He’s warm and she’s cold. He’s new and she’d old. But even more important, he comes from a demographic background more victimized than hers, a background less represented in society.

How many times do you think during the debates that Hilary wanted to blurt out that Democrats were choosing symbols over substance? Yeah, and who taught them that? And when would Democrats ever get another chance after all these years of having the radical left spoiling things?

Hilary had her opportunity it 2004 and she skipped it hoping for a wide open race in 2008. She did everything right, even sending her operatives down to Iowa to get the dour Kerry nominated. You could make a case that Hilary’s pragmatic approach to the war could have beat Bush in 2004. She would have easily won the nomination in that crowd, but she ducked it.

The Clintons brought identity politics into the mainstream and finally poetic justice makes them a victim of it.

Now in the most ironic twist of all, the victim centered politics of the left is being used against them by the McCain campaign. Poor Barack Obama cannot even get a word in edge wise since Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated without charges of sexism. It is a shame. The American people would be better served if we would live up to our own ideals during campaigns and judge our potential future leaders not by the color of their skin (or their Gender) but by the content of their character.

THE "OLD" SOUTH MORE PROGRESSIVE AND CHARMING THAN STEREOTYPE

2008-09-08T15:41:00.000-07:00

According to a recent article by AP writer, Jay Reeves a Jewish Community, Group dangles $50K for Jews who move to Ala. town

Larry Blumberg is looking for a few good Jews to move to his corner of the Bible Belt. Blumberg is chairman of an organization offering Jewish families as much as $50,000 to relocate to Dothan, an overwhelmingly Christian town of 58,000 that calls itself the Peanut Capital of the World. Get involved at Temple Emanu-El and stay at least five years, the group's leaders say, and the money doesn't have to be repaid...
"The biggest thing Dothan has to offer is that it's just a very family-oriented community," said Barnes, who directs a hospital foundation. "Our congregation is very vibrant, and we have a lot of things that we get involved in."
Rabbi Lynne Goldsmith didn't know quite what to expect when she moved to Dothan a year ago to lead the congregation at Temple Emanu-El, which was founded in 1929. She came with her husband, who directs the Jewish community services group.
A Connecticut native, the rabbi halfway expected the Alabama of old with wide-open racism and dirt roads. "The Northeast has a really warped perception of what the South is all about, and I found out it was all wrong," she said. "The South is a wonderful place to be. The people are warm and friendly. There's very little traffic. And best of all, there's no snow."

I grew up in Bonifay, FL about 40 minutes just south of Dothan, AL. For us, Dothan was the "big city." It was the closest place we could drive to see a mall and a movie. What is wonderful about Southern folks is that you'll find them accommodating and very open to new people and individuals. It has been my experience that unlike many left-wing Northerners who will "fight" for whole groups but do very little for a single individual (i.e. homeless) that they see everyday, Southerners will help, and demonstrate compassion through the actions of individual relationships. Just look at the vast migration patterns of recent decades with the North losing population and the South continues to grow. We must be doing something right (no pun intended).

AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL, AND NOT ASHAMED OF IT

2008-08-27T17:26:00.000-07:00

Peggy Noonan weighs in on the real problem of immigration. Unfortunately she does not offer a solution, and maybe there isn't one.

It's the broad public knowledge, or intuition, in America, that we are not assimilating our immigrants patriotically. And if you don't do that, you'll lose it all. We used to do it. We loved our country with full-throated love, we had no ambivalence. We had pride and appreciation. We were a free country. We communicated our pride and delight in this in a million ways--in our schools, our movies, our popular songs, our newspapers. It was just there, in the air. Immigrants breathed it in. That's how the last great wave of immigrants, the European wave of 1880-1920, was turned into a great wave of Americans. We are not assimilating our immigrants patriotically now. We are assimilating them culturally. Within a generation their children speak Valley Girl on cell phones. "So I'm like 'no," and he's all 'yeah,' and I'm like, 'In your dreams.' " Whether their parents are from Trinidad, Bosnia, Lebanon or Chile, their children, once Americans, know the same music, the same references, watch the same shows. And to a degree and in a way it will hold them together. But not forever and not in a crunch. So far we are assimilating our immigrants economically, too. They come here and work. Good. But we are not communicating love of country. We are not giving them the great legend of our country. We are losing that great legend. What is the legend, the myth? That God made this a special place. That they're joining something special. That the streets are paved with more than gold--they're paved with the greatest thoughts man ever had, the greatest decisions he ever made, about how to live. We have free thought, free speech, freedom of worship. Look at the literature of the Republic: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist papers. Look at the great rich history, the courage and sacrifice, the house-raisings, the stubbornness. The Puritans, the Indians, the City on a Hill. The genius cluster--Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Franklin, all the rest--that came along at the exact same moment to lead us. And then Washington, a great man in the greatest way, not in unearned gifts well used (i.e., a high IQ followed by high attainment) but in character, in moral nature effortfully developed. How did that happen? We fought a war to free slaves. We sent millions of white men to battle and destroyed a portion of our nation to free millions of black men. What kind of nation does this? We went to Europe, fought, died and won, and then taxed ourselves to save our enemies with the Marshall Plan. What kind of nation does this? Soviet communism stalked the world and we were the ones who steeled ourselves and taxed ourselves to stop it. Again: What kind of nation does this?
Only a very great one. Maybe the greatest of all. Do we teach our immigrants that this is what they're joining? That this is the tradition they will now continue, and uphold? Do we, today, act as if this is such a special place? No we don't. American exceptionalism is so yesterday. We don't want to be impolite. We don't want to offend. We don't want to seem narrow. In the age of globalism, honest patriotism seems like a faux pas. And yet what is true of people is probably true of nations: if you don't have a well-grounded respect for yourself, you won't long sustain a well-grounded respect for others.

DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT IS MOST PARAMOUNT

2008-08-27T17:18:00.000-07:00

REPRINTED FROM COLLEGIATETIMES.COM

Lacking a major diversity in ideas
Allison Aldrich, CT Regular Columnist
Monday, September 10; 5:34 PM

In the months after April 16, campuses across the country began scrambling to create programs that encourage diversity and ensure that students have an effective way to report discrimination. To its credit, Virginia Tech has been at the forefront of this movement.
The MOSAIC program was established this year (after a couple years of planning) with the purpose of creating dialogue between participants about race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, political views and numerous other differentiating characteristics.
We also now have SafeWatch, a program launched to reduce harassment and encourage harmony among all groups. These new measures show that as a community we are taking positive steps to support diversity in all its forms among the student body. Despite this progress, I believe the campus has fallen short in promoting the diversity of opinions among professors and in the classroom.
Many professors proudly place "Safe Zone" stickers on their doors, promising that their office is a place free from discrimination regardless of whether a student is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Students should never feel threatened or intimidated by entering a professor's office just because of their sexual orientation. Having said that, how do conservative students feel when they meet with professors whose doors are plastered with bumper stickers, political cartoons and news articles, all of which make fun and are intolerant of their political views?
Students enter college hoping to expand their horizons and learn from the knowledge and experiences of others. We all expect to discover and reflect on new theories and concepts that will help mold us into unique and thoughtful individuals. The diversity essential in the learning process includes hearing from people with all different ideological viewpoints — not just ones based on differences in skin color or sexual orientation.
I doubt you can find an argument that communism, for example, should never be taught in classrooms just because as a political ideology it is responsible for more deaths of its own citizens than any other form of government. Likewise, socialism should be taught, but not because a professor believes it to be a better form approach than "evil" capitalism. It's one thing to teach various political theories, but it's quite different when a professor becomes the champion of an ideology or the scold for political or economic views he or she does not favor.
When a diversity of ideas is absent among professors at Tech, a great disservice is done to students. When professors become apologists, where is the education?
A recent report by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign contributions, exposes the liberal-leaning bias of academia in America. The report states, "College professors and others in the education field have contributed more money than the oil industry and drug makers, with the nearly unanimous goal of putting a Democrat in the White House." Professors should be allowed to support whomever they wish, but when 76 percent of professors' political donations are going to Democrats, I begin to wonder where the conservative representation is in academia.
Many people today seem to think college campuses are one-party environments, and the statistics seem to bear that out. Are colleges places of learning for students who are hungry for knowledge so that they can make informed choices? Or, have they become cushy soapboxes-for-life for tenured professors with a political agenda?
Personally, I have made it through two years as a political science major without being assigned one conservative book to read. Although I have become well acquainted with Marxist thought, had an entire exam devoted to Watergate, and read countless essays against our foreign policies in the Middle East, I have yet to discuss F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Frédéric Bastiat or any other influential conservative thinker in any political science class I have taken.
It is encouraging to see Tech embracing programs that promote diversity on campus. I hope that we can begin to make the same strides with intellectual diversity and create a community where politics, economics, and other such ideas can be intelligently debated no matter what ideology a professor might hold true.

GOD AND THE ACADEMIC WORLD

2008-06-18T20:59:00.001-07:00

Late one winter afternoon in Chicago during my graduate school days, a terrible blizzard arose. I sat in the classroom along with my fellow classmates listening to a lecture from our professor and watching the snow come down in white sheets. Then about a third of the way into our class, a tremendous thunderclap arose. Very unusual to hear thunder during a snowstorm. The class grew very tense. As is my nature in such a time, I made a joke. "Wow, God must be angry." There were a few snickers, but instead of the Professor moving on or rolling his eyes and dismissing my rude interruption, he stopped his lecture and immediately launched into a very different lecture. He began in his crisp English accent, with an air of condescending self-importance, "You see Steven, what has obviously happened is that a warm air mass has just bombarded this cold air front we are now seeing that is causing both this precipitation..." and on and on and on and on he went for at least 15 minutes talking about all the scientific knowledge he could remember on meteorology and perhaps trying to explain away his own anxiety (and this was supposed to be a psychology course?). After he was finished he smiled and looked at me and said, "What to you think of that Steven?"

"Wow, God must be really smart to know how to do all that." I said as the class burst into uncontrolled laughter.

True story. But it expresses the depth many in the academic world will go to quite those who believe. Ironically, their disbelief is felt with more of a fervent zeal than most religious adherents. Ben Stein, in his movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", has done a great service to all those who feel the same and have experienced persecution or ridicule for their beliefs. The move doesn't ask you to believe, but merely asks, why can't I question? Why are some questions or some lines of thought not allowed in some academic environments and universities? My little story above, is certainly the merest vapor of a hint of what others have experienced. I've been very blessed to have a supportive environment to teach my classes and express my questions as I saw fit. Truly I feel academically free. But many other professors, particularly those who want to ask questions about intelligent design do not have that freedom or luxury. May God be with those who truly believe and those who choose not to.

BARACK CAN SAY IT, BUT CAN YOU?

2008-06-16T11:33:00.000-07:00

It is interesting to listen to Barack Obama discuss a subject that when others have brought it up, they have been called "racist" or "traitors." From the Associated Press:

CHICAGO — Barack Obama celebrated Father’s Day by calling on black fathers, who he said are “missing from too many lives and too many homes,” to become active in raising their children.

“They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it,” the Democratic presidential candidate said Sunday at a largely black church in his hometown.

Reminding the congregation of his firsthand experience growing up without a father, Obama said he was lucky to have loving grandparents who helped his mother. He got support, second chances and scholarships that helped him get an education. Obama’s father left when he was 2.

“A lot of children don’t get those chances. There is no margin for error in their lives,” said Obama, an Illinois senator.

“I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle — that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls,” added Obama, whose daughters, Sasha and Malia, and his wife, Michelle, watched from the audience.

In my first child development class in my Doctoral program we read a terrible book entitled, "There are No Fathers Here" about the plight of two young boys in the intercity Chicago housing projects (now which have been torn down). After reading the book and being a new father I simply asked myself, "Where is their father?" It seemed to me that my own sons would have been in an equally dire situation had I abandoned them at birth. However, through hardwork, family support and committment to my responsibilities, my sons are thriving. When I brought this fact up in class, I was nearly kicked out of school for my obvious "racist" ideas. Wow! It's nice to be proven correct, even if it is 15 years after the fact. What I was saying and what Barack is saying now, are about the same, in fact Barack Obama is even more harsh than I was.

Recently, Juan Williams NPR commentator in his book "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It " comments about this issue. Bill Cosby also had much to say on this subject at the NAACP meeting last year and was labeled a "traitor."

So how is it that Obama is now being cheered for his "leadership" on this issue?

DIVERSITY MEANS DIVERSE IDEAS OF THOUGHT

2008-06-11T22:06:00.000-07:00

Diversity means diverse ideas and diverse cultural experience (or at least that is what it should mean) not beating you down into guilt-ridden submission. Here is what the President of the University of Pennslyvania & Political Theorist, Amy Gutmann, has to say about Diversity.

GREAT PROOF THAT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM WORKS

2008-06-11T22:00:00.000-07:00

Kenji Yoshino, Professor, Yale Law School and Author speaks about current Justice system issues and demonstrates through facts and sound reasoning how the rights of the minority are protected.

FORGOTTEN WISDOM OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS

2008-06-10T17:42:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year I was taking a course with a group of fellow Professors for UCF's online teaching program. Dr. Charles Dziuban, Director of the Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness at the University of Central Florida, was giving us a lecture on the differences in the American generations and how we had to adapt our teaching styles to accommodate the needs of each generation of student. To exemplify this he asked if anyone knew who had said this quote, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." I immediately recognized the quote and knew the author started with "N", I blurted out, "Nathanial Hawthorne." Which was incorrect, "No, it's Nathan Hale" said Dr. Dziuban. He went on to lecture about how in the Depression era generation, this sort of education was mandatory; but now this knowledge is being left behind. Ashamed and sad at not knowing this, I lapsed deep in thought. He was right, we are indeed losing something in our educational system. Due to political correctness and historical revisionism, the wisdom, sacrifice and courage of the Founding Fathers of our great nation is being lost. As penance for my own ignorance (and for great pleasure to my surprise), I've read both 1776 and John Adams both by David McCullough. Both are wonderful historical novels and teach you a bit to boot. For further enlightenment here are my personal favorite Founding Father quotes.

I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.
- Nathan Hale, before being hanged by the British, September 22, 1776

An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.
- John Marshall, McCullough v. Maryland, 1819

Give me liberty or give me death.
- Patrick Henry

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution

"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy."
- Ben Franklin

"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
- George Washington

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams

"The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought."
- Samuel Adams

"If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained _ we must fight!."
- Patrick Henry

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."
- Thomas Jefferson

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
- Zacharia Johnson

"There are more instances of the abridgement of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
- James Madison

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?."
- Patrick Henry

"...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
- Alexander Hamilton

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."
- Alexander Hamilton

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
- John Adams

"When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil."
- Thomas Jefferson

Click here many more Founding Father Quotes

BILL COSBY ON THE CURRENT STATE OF BLACK AMERICA

2008-06-06T18:02:00.000-07:00

CONDOLEZZA RICE SPEAKS ON OBAMA NOMINATION

2008-06-04T09:04:00.000-07:00

After Senator Obama's nomination, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice had the following to say:

...speaking at the State Department, said: "The United States of America is an extraordinary country. It is a country that has overcome many, many, now years, decades, actually a couple of centuries of trying to make good on its principles. And I think what we are seeing is an extraordinary expression of the fact that 'We the people' is beginning to mean all of us."

This is the greatness of this country, that an ordinary person can become the most powerful person in the nation. What other nation provides this opportunity?

THE POWER OF TRUE DIVERSITY

2008-06-03T17:55:00.001-07:00

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS on 60 Minutes

2008-06-03T17:37:00.001-07:00

HOW HOLLYWOOD VIEWS A DIVERSE PRESIDENT

2008-06-03T17:33:00.001-07:00

THE POLITICS OF FREEDOM

2008-06-03T16:26:00.000-07:00

From the CATO Institute:
"As Americans head into a crucial election year, pundits are coloring everything in red and blue. But according to David Boaz, the old labels of left and right don't tell us much any more. What we are witnessing is a contest of "Big-Government Conservatives" vs. "Big-Government Liberals." In The Politics of Freedom, David Boaz takes on both liberals and conservatives who seek to impose their own partisan agendas on the whole country."

DIVERSITY TRAINING GONE WILD?

2008-06-03T16:10:00.000-07:00

Newt Gingrich: An American Statesman

2008-05-31T20:27:00.000-07:00

UNCOMMON KNOWLEDGE: THOMAS SOWELL

2008-05-31T14:10:00.000-07:00

THE NEED FOR A NEW REVOLUTION

2008-05-31T10:33:00.000-07:00

My graduate student intern came bursting into my office sobbing in tears.

"What's wrong?" I inquired.

"That class, that class, that class..." She sobbed as she held her face in her hands.

Without even asking, I knew exactly what class she was referencing. I too had battled the oppressive ideology of this class and suffered the crippling emotional onslaught of name calling and the racist ranting at who I was perceived to be (rather than who I actually was) by the Professor and fellow students alike. The class was "Diversity" or "Treatment of Diverse Populations" and it goes by many other names depending on the College. No matter the name, all these classes usually have one thing in common. An tyrannical attempt at thought control and a unilateral imposition of extreme leftist political ideas. If one debates the ideas, one is labeled a racist. If one opposes the very foundational ideas of the course, then one is labeled "difficult" a "problem student" and "lacking in capacity to come to terms with identity." This is education? Where is the freedom of thought we were promised? Where is the academic freedom that is waved like a banner by the college or University?

I consoled my intern and vowed to begin a new dialogue. A dialogue about a new direction that this course should take. A new direction, nay a Revolution of thought, so that the Diversity debate itself may begin moving toward expanding our minds and uplifting our spirits. A direction away from indoctrination and toward true diversity of thought and culture. One that truly celebrates the differences among us and embraces our shared human values (you know those of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness). A debate that will hopefully lead to the creation of Diversity courses based upon compassion, understanding, love, and acceptance. This site is dedicated to that mission and I welcome a dialogue with you...