President George W. Bush will be treated far kinder in the history books than he is today; I think even liberals would have to agree with that. He has done his job extremely well, and again even liberals can't argue against the fact he has restored a strong sense of respect and morality to the Oval Office, which his predecessor surrendered. But the polls strongly say they disapprove of his job performance, and clearly Democratic congressional leaders say and do anything to minimize him--even at the detriment of our country (in my opinion, anyway). So why is he hated so? Because of his policies? Because his speech isn't so eloquent? Because "the buck stops here" with the President? I think the answer is simple: His faith.
Jesus said in Matthew 10:22, "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." Our President understands the importance of having the Almighty a part of every decision he makes, because the impacts can affect so many. By some he is known as the "praying President", and for that we should be thankful. Is George W. Bush fallible? Certainly. With God as an integral part of his life, though, we can trust that the impact of his mistakes will be minimized.
So you say, "What about Iraq?" Well, what about it? Before we took out Saddam Hussein, even the Democrats supported removing him from power, and "regime change" was a policy set forth by the Clinton administration. The United Nations proved itself spineless and was going to do nothing to enforce resolutions, so the US under President Bush's guidance did the enforcement they should have. After 9/11, we went to war with Al Qaeda almost a decade after they declared "jihad" on us. President Bush's doctrine called for "preemption", which in this war to me is simply going on the offensive: go after terrorists and any country that harbors them. Evidence shows that Iraq hosted Al Qaeda training camps; further, over 500 metric tons of yellow cake, used to produce weapons-grade uranium, was recovered. All of this going on during the 1990s while the US expended the life of its tactical fighter force drilling holes in the sky over the Iraq "no fly zones." Yet with these slivers of evidence, and certainly more to come, he's hated and accused of taking on an "illegal war". It's not about the war, it's about his faith. Show me one Christian that spews this kind of hate, and I'll show you a living oxymoron.
I even heard for a while a few evangelists giving the President a hard time for his decisions, but then they quited down. One spoke openly about how he realized he shouldn't question what God was doing with the President. Maybe that was contagious. We all see through "peep holes", God has the big picture. If our President is seeking the Lord for guidance, and is surrounding himself with people who do the same, we should know our place behind that peep hole and have faith God will guide the hand and decisions of our President.
Little, if anything, has been said about the legacy of George W. Bush. I got so sick of hearing about what Clinton's legacy would be eight years ago. I believe the war on terror is Clinton's legacy, because he literally had his entire two terms (after the WTC attack of 1993) to take care of business. I would say, beyond the wisdom he left with us, Reagan's legacy was the prosperity of the 1990s. Reagan never took his coat off in the Oval Office, he revered the Presidency so much. I do not believe God will let our current President have an empty legacy, but a fruitful one. While the situation is not inclined to it now, I believe America's best days will be seen in the next ten years. The United States will (finally) experience energy independence, and tell Saudi Arabia and Venezuela where they can stick their oil. Federal spending will be reeled in and the debt reduced. Why do I say these things? Because while George W. Bush was hated, he stood firm. And I have faith that God's Word does not return void.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
No Business Acumen!
Sorry I've been off the blog for a while ... I've been sitting back and taking things in. This Joe the plumber got me out of my chair.
Of course I don't know Joe, but I bet we would hit it off just fine. I'll take cutting to the chase over "elegant" any day. As soon as Joe, this middle class working American who wants a better life for himself asks a perfectly legitimate question of Sen. Obama--when the Presidential candidate comes to his neighborhood--he's held in high regard for a couple of days, and is now a "target" for what should be obvious by now is a left wing national media. He's making intelligent points people can understand, and those points won't incline them to support "The Chosen One".
What really rubs me the wrong way is how Joe is getting belittled by the very people who boast they look out for the "middle class American." Both Obama and Biden proclaimed that they don't know of any plumber who makes $250,000 a year. Apparently, they have no idea what it takes to run a small business--no business acumen. Perhaps they are thinking of people like me who supplement my primary job with a "home business". I'm talking about the small businesses who actually give people jobs and depend on it for their livelihood. Big difference.
Now I don't run a small business myself; however, I have managed projects within my job that were at least $125K. The skills required for managing a task like that are not all that different between managing $50K or $500K--the differences are in time, staff needs, and of course the funding. Based on my own experience, where I am having to manage down to the last dime, running a small business can easily require $250,000 a year or more.
What Obama and Biden don't want people to know--or are completely ignorant of--is this thing called overhead. Starting out, Joe may want to buy into a franchise, which will be an up front cost of 5 digits, pushing 6 in some cases. Over time, he will have to pay that off. He will have to hire, train (possibly), and equip staff. He will have to provide them benefits, and he will pay half of their Social Security tax. (I'm sure there is more, but you get the idea). All of this gets rolled into the fee charged per hour or per job. And don't forget profit ... Yes, profit will enable Joe's business to grow because if he is a smart business man, he won't hoard his earnings, but use them to better his company through keeping his assets current or give a plumber a job.
I've concluded by observation that liberals think business owners will hoard their profit, conservatives think business owners will grow their business as their profit grows. Following this logic, liberals will then raise the taxes on business owners, thinking they will just collect that "excess" profit ... but what happens? Prices go up, as you the taxpayer pay that extra tax, or someone will lose a job "in the name of taxes". I can see competition creating the willingness to take a profit hit, but not much beyond that.
Joe the plumber made a good point about this $250K limit. People who make $150K make a lot of money, too, so why not use that value? How about $100K? What's to keep the government from getting on this slippery slope? I'll answer that: Us. On election day.
On a closing note, this artificial ceiling of $250K is a ceiling on the human spirit. What's the incentive to grow a business past $250K? Once you get there, you will have to work really hard to get past the hump of just entering the "upper tier" before you see the same level of profit as before. Whatever "ceiling" is set, people will continue to work and grow their businesses, not because of the government looking out for them, but in spite of them.
Of course I don't know Joe, but I bet we would hit it off just fine. I'll take cutting to the chase over "elegant" any day. As soon as Joe, this middle class working American who wants a better life for himself asks a perfectly legitimate question of Sen. Obama--when the Presidential candidate comes to his neighborhood--he's held in high regard for a couple of days, and is now a "target" for what should be obvious by now is a left wing national media. He's making intelligent points people can understand, and those points won't incline them to support "The Chosen One".
What really rubs me the wrong way is how Joe is getting belittled by the very people who boast they look out for the "middle class American." Both Obama and Biden proclaimed that they don't know of any plumber who makes $250,000 a year. Apparently, they have no idea what it takes to run a small business--no business acumen. Perhaps they are thinking of people like me who supplement my primary job with a "home business". I'm talking about the small businesses who actually give people jobs and depend on it for their livelihood. Big difference.
Now I don't run a small business myself; however, I have managed projects within my job that were at least $125K. The skills required for managing a task like that are not all that different between managing $50K or $500K--the differences are in time, staff needs, and of course the funding. Based on my own experience, where I am having to manage down to the last dime, running a small business can easily require $250,000 a year or more.
What Obama and Biden don't want people to know--or are completely ignorant of--is this thing called overhead. Starting out, Joe may want to buy into a franchise, which will be an up front cost of 5 digits, pushing 6 in some cases. Over time, he will have to pay that off. He will have to hire, train (possibly), and equip staff. He will have to provide them benefits, and he will pay half of their Social Security tax. (I'm sure there is more, but you get the idea). All of this gets rolled into the fee charged per hour or per job. And don't forget profit ... Yes, profit will enable Joe's business to grow because if he is a smart business man, he won't hoard his earnings, but use them to better his company through keeping his assets current or give a plumber a job.
I've concluded by observation that liberals think business owners will hoard their profit, conservatives think business owners will grow their business as their profit grows. Following this logic, liberals will then raise the taxes on business owners, thinking they will just collect that "excess" profit ... but what happens? Prices go up, as you the taxpayer pay that extra tax, or someone will lose a job "in the name of taxes". I can see competition creating the willingness to take a profit hit, but not much beyond that.
Joe the plumber made a good point about this $250K limit. People who make $150K make a lot of money, too, so why not use that value? How about $100K? What's to keep the government from getting on this slippery slope? I'll answer that: Us. On election day.
On a closing note, this artificial ceiling of $250K is a ceiling on the human spirit. What's the incentive to grow a business past $250K? Once you get there, you will have to work really hard to get past the hump of just entering the "upper tier" before you see the same level of profit as before. Whatever "ceiling" is set, people will continue to work and grow their businesses, not because of the government looking out for them, but in spite of them.
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Scientific Method--Revisited
During the Vice Presidential debate, the subject of "climate change" came up once again. I had to hear Senator Biden tell me the polar ice caps are melting, and Governor Palin balance reasons of why this "climate change" exists. To both of them I ask, "How do you know 'climate change' is significant?"
Supposedly, we have ample research, studies, and analyses addressing this issue that concerns the "health of our planet". Let me assure you that this data is inconclusive, because of a thorough failure to apply the scientific method. You remember that from school days, right? Well, let's recount it, in my own words anyway ...
The scientific method takes a situation and comes up with a theory--a hypothesis--to explain it. Then, the hypothesis is tested to see if it is true, using a "control" and an "experiment". Crafting a hypothesis can be a complex exercise, if you take the time to consider all the variables involved. I have to apply the scientific method all the time in my daily job--I'm an analyst. Granted, I am analyzing Defense issues, but the same principles apply.
My "formula", which applies the principles of the scientific method for the work I do, is: 1) Define the critical issues to address, 2) Develop a process/plan to address the issues, 3) Determine the metrics that will provide insight to the critical issues, 4) Establish expected standards for the metrics, 5) Collect data to use in determining the results of the metrics (through means to include experimentation), and 6) Present the results in a format the decision maker will understand.
For Climate Change, here's a question to address: "What is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?" We all know the Earth's history has seen rises and falls in temperature, so what is "ideal?" (This relates to Step 4). Another question: "If changes in temperature are resulting from some outside factors, what are they? And to what extent do they impact the climate?" (Consider Step 3). Many say man's actions are at fault, but certainly in Earth's history significant climate changes occurred without man and his "emissions". So what else is there? Let me offer up a big one that is a variable left out of kids' science experiments: the SUN. The star of our solar system does not burn with a constant heat output; it fluctuates. The sun's impact has been underestimated and should be reconsidered when climate change is addressed.
Laying out all the variables to be considered is incredibly important to the process--even if you can do nothing with some of them. Better to be up front and state assumptions than try to adjust results to meet the needs of the hypothesis. The United Nations did this with the data they had. After a review of all the data and the "conclusion" global warming was a "fact", two major points were omitted (here paraphrased): 1) None of the studies cited showed clear evidence that observed climate changes are attributed to increases in greenhouse gases, and 2) No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man-made causes. So, given this, what am I supposed think? That's easy: garbage in, garbage out.
Presentation of results with flawed data supporting it can be overcome with strong passion and enthusiasm of the presenter. We will simply be less inclined to double check the data/results if the person comes across as confident and sure. And if enough presenters do this, people will be lulled into believing it. As was said by a Supreme Court Justice in the 1960s, "If we keep saying 'Separation of Church and State' is in the Constitution, people will start to believe it." (Go check--it's not there). From what I have seen with the evidence provided, this is going on with "climate change" as well. And if changes are found, what constitutes a significant difference? And can future trends be accurately projected based on that significance?
I simply have too many questions. This blog should be obvious in showing I am a skeptic when it comes to "climate change". And so what if there is? The Earth has had temperature ups and downs before man was around, which leads me to think the Earth may be a system constantly adjusting to find an equilibrium. Let's be intellectually honest and seek scientific truth in the best data we can collect, and not be beholden to a foregone conclusion many seek to justfiy--for whatever reason.
Supposedly, we have ample research, studies, and analyses addressing this issue that concerns the "health of our planet". Let me assure you that this data is inconclusive, because of a thorough failure to apply the scientific method. You remember that from school days, right? Well, let's recount it, in my own words anyway ...
The scientific method takes a situation and comes up with a theory--a hypothesis--to explain it. Then, the hypothesis is tested to see if it is true, using a "control" and an "experiment". Crafting a hypothesis can be a complex exercise, if you take the time to consider all the variables involved. I have to apply the scientific method all the time in my daily job--I'm an analyst. Granted, I am analyzing Defense issues, but the same principles apply.
My "formula", which applies the principles of the scientific method for the work I do, is: 1) Define the critical issues to address, 2) Develop a process/plan to address the issues, 3) Determine the metrics that will provide insight to the critical issues, 4) Establish expected standards for the metrics, 5) Collect data to use in determining the results of the metrics (through means to include experimentation), and 6) Present the results in a format the decision maker will understand.
For Climate Change, here's a question to address: "What is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?" We all know the Earth's history has seen rises and falls in temperature, so what is "ideal?" (This relates to Step 4). Another question: "If changes in temperature are resulting from some outside factors, what are they? And to what extent do they impact the climate?" (Consider Step 3). Many say man's actions are at fault, but certainly in Earth's history significant climate changes occurred without man and his "emissions". So what else is there? Let me offer up a big one that is a variable left out of kids' science experiments: the SUN. The star of our solar system does not burn with a constant heat output; it fluctuates. The sun's impact has been underestimated and should be reconsidered when climate change is addressed.
Laying out all the variables to be considered is incredibly important to the process--even if you can do nothing with some of them. Better to be up front and state assumptions than try to adjust results to meet the needs of the hypothesis. The United Nations did this with the data they had. After a review of all the data and the "conclusion" global warming was a "fact", two major points were omitted (here paraphrased): 1) None of the studies cited showed clear evidence that observed climate changes are attributed to increases in greenhouse gases, and 2) No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man-made causes. So, given this, what am I supposed think? That's easy: garbage in, garbage out.
Presentation of results with flawed data supporting it can be overcome with strong passion and enthusiasm of the presenter. We will simply be less inclined to double check the data/results if the person comes across as confident and sure. And if enough presenters do this, people will be lulled into believing it. As was said by a Supreme Court Justice in the 1960s, "If we keep saying 'Separation of Church and State' is in the Constitution, people will start to believe it." (Go check--it's not there). From what I have seen with the evidence provided, this is going on with "climate change" as well. And if changes are found, what constitutes a significant difference? And can future trends be accurately projected based on that significance?
I simply have too many questions. This blog should be obvious in showing I am a skeptic when it comes to "climate change". And so what if there is? The Earth has had temperature ups and downs before man was around, which leads me to think the Earth may be a system constantly adjusting to find an equilibrium. Let's be intellectually honest and seek scientific truth in the best data we can collect, and not be beholden to a foregone conclusion many seek to justfiy--for whatever reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)