#94 Sins of the Father

One of the problems of the world today is that people do not know how to take responsibility.  Everyone blames everyone else but for their own problems.  With all of the blaming going on in this world for all of its problems who should be blamed the most?  Here are the results from last month's poll:  Which generation is to blame for most of our problems?  This data was collected from three different websites.

• 8% said The Baby Builders, WWIers, (67-100 years old).
• 48% said The Baby Boomers, Post-WWII (45-67 years old).
• 6% said Generation X, Brat Pack (23-44 years old).
• 2% said Generation Y, ADHD Club (0-22 years old).
• 17% said Goes back even before all of these.
• 19% said The worst is yet to come.

Sure, there have problems in this world since the day that man was created.  So the 17% who said it goes back before all of the other choices are correct but that is ancient history.  Things could have and should have been able to change since then  But they haven't.  Who is to blame?

It was refreshing to see that the younger generation (Y) is not being blamed.  Too many times the phrase what is wrong with the kids these days is used.  Although there is something seriously wrong the kids these kids.  They are abused and spoiled at the same time.  They feel they deserve the world yet feel depressed as well.  They have their future ahead of them but they see no future for themselves.  They are a confused generation.  But maybe it's not really their fault.  Oh, they need to grow up and realize that they are the ones who control their destiny.   But there is truth to the fact that they were messed up before they came around.  As Billy Joel sang in the 80's (except his idea is misguiding), they didn't start the fire.  The world had been messed up for a while.  But it seems like things have been getting worse and worse over recent times.

The Baby Builders are not the ones to put most of the blame on. They lived through some horrible times. They went through two World Wars. They lived through the worst economic depression on record. But in all of this they held on to their morals. They kept their family values and in return were able to hold on to their families. They valued work and knew that recreation was in the spare time. Yes, they had their problems as well. They lived through two World Wars because they started them or at least were unable to stop them due to apathy. They were not highly educated and therefore ruined the environment without knowing the effects.

Are the Baby Boomers are to blame for most of the problems?  Well, they brought in civil rights.  They got the world to look at themselves a different way.  They started recycling and other programs that would take stress off mother earth.  But they had problems.  Their songs told of the these problems.  If you can't be with the one you love, then love the one you're with.  Sex, drugs, rock n' roll.  Woodstock.  Make love, not war.  But at the same time they were changing the values of marriage.  Not only make love, not war, but the idea of free love came around.  People became very promiscuous.  They got high and "fell in love".  They tried to hide their lifestyles by getting abortion to be legalized so they wouldn't have to face their consequence.  Then by the time they were 30 they realized to afford some of their lifestyles they needed to get real jobs and stop with the abuse of drugs.  When they came down from their highs they realized the person they fell in love with is not the person they love.  Divorce rates went to the highest levels in history.  Family values were starting to be destroyed.  God and country became unreal.  So unreal, prayer in school was stopped.  God was not allowed to be taught anymore in public schools.  And in return moral values were questioned and definitions of the American dream were changed. 

Generation X is not to take full blame for this mess.  Their main problem is they do not know how to be leaders.  Their parents raised them based on books and not reality.  Their butts were spared the rod and they became spoiled, hence the term Brat Pack.  But their parents gave them the wrong values.  Life didn't make sense anymore without values.  All they started to care about was having fun.  They couldn't make any connections with their parents.  And because of this separation they don't know how to be parents because their own parents wanted to be their friends instead of being disciplinarians.  If their children have problems they don't know how to deal with it so they take them to a doctor and them labeled as ADHD and give them drugs to feel and act normal.  Heavy Metal and Rap ruled because it was a way to show their anger against their parents.  But they do have their share of problems.  They have disregarded the optimism of making a better world that their parents offered.  They don't know how to keep commitments.  Now the divorce rate is sky high.  It's not as high as it was ten years ago but that is because this generation decided that marriage is not needed.  The idea of values is lost since they don't know who God is.

No, the answer is the Baby Boomers.  Although perhaps the worst is yet to come.

#93 The Conservative Field of Candidates

With only three days left to the Iowa Caucuses get underway, a process given too much importance to by the way,  here is a list of what to look for in a candidate.  Before you go on please do not think this will just be about the GOP.  Conservatives are not just from the GOP.  However since the opposition to conservatism is liberalism and the only candidate posing a threat to the Conservative field is Obama this paper will focus on most the GOP candidates.

• Michele Bachmann, Minnesota, three terms, chair of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus.  A tough conservative.  See political spectrum page.  But a little too tough.  She is hard-core.  She comes across as heartless until it comes to women's issues.  But the main problem with her is that she seems unreal.  She is monotoned and sounds like she is remembering her cue cards.  Her ideas on paper are good.  But we have seen what ideas off the paper can do in Wisconsin and Ohio.  These need to be toned down but with the same premise behind them. http://www.michelebachmann.com/issues/   Assessment:  Conservative values=10, Leadership ability=5.  She is a good idealist but doesn't seem to be a leader.
• John Huntsman, Former governor of Utah, Ambassador to China.  A good family man with seven children, two adopted.  Good conservative values. He is not too hard and not too soft.  The only problem with him is he doesn't act strong enough to get what he wants accomplished.  Would lawmakers back him up or  fight even more?  http://jon2012.com/issues Assessment:  Conservative values= 10, Leadership abilities= 6.  A good man but lacks the strength to get things done.  Sometimes a little pompousness goes a long way.
• Rick Santorum, Former Senator and Congressman from Pennsylvania. Another good family man with good values.  His leadership in the Senate was moderately successful.  One thing makes him unelectable though.  When he talks he does not look you in the face.  During the debates he would focus on the floor.  This personality flaw makes him seems weak if it came to confrontational situations.  http://www.ricksantorum.com/issues Assessment:  Conservative values=10, Leadership abilities=7.  A good man but just not the complete package of leadership.
• Ron Paul, Doctor and Congressman from Texas.  On paper it seems like this is the man to be the next president.  In reality, he's a nut.  Everything he stands for sounds like these are the ways things should be with a few exceptions.  But in reality if all he did was carried out into policy we are looking into borderline anarchy. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/  Assessment:  Conservative values: 8, Leadership abilities = 7.  He's more of a Libertarian on paper but more of a Democrat than Republican in his actions.
• Rick Perry, Governor of Texas.  Another man with strong conservative values, but more like Michele Bachmann than Ronald Reagan.  This is odd because he walks, talks, dresses, and responds like Reagan, without the personality though.  It seems like he is more about soundbites but not so quick with on the spot backtalk, which may be a positive actually.  A strong advantage he has is that he is governor of a large state, which is almost president of a medium sized country.  His disadvantage is those who hate the last governor of Texas to be president will not like him either.  http://www.rickperry.org/issues/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 10, Leadership abilities= 8.  A good man, too much of a robot.
• Mitt Romney, Businessman and Former Governor Massachusetts.  He is another one that on paper is conservative but a good label for him is that he is a Massachusetts conservative.  That is like saying a Californian Conservative.  He is more moderate.  This makes him more electable but it also shows he is more likely to be indecisive.  he has been on both sides of the fence on many issues.  Not so much a flip-flop like John Kerrey was but a mind changer.  This may be a positive thing in some cases but he needs to take a stand on more issues and stay with them.  http://www.mittromney.com/issues  Assessment:  Conservative values=7, Leadership abilities=8.  Massachusetts is not the place to raise politicians.
• Newt Gingrich, Professor and Former Speaker of the House from Georgia.  Not so much the traditional family man although he believes in traditional family values.  On paper he is a true conservative with enough gumption and at the same time compassion in reality.  He has foreign policy experience and even though he has never been a governor has enough know-how to get things done.  His age is the one main concern.  He would be the oldest president elected for the first term.  The one great thing about his ideas is shown on his website.  He doesn't call things issues, he calls them solutions.  http://www.newt.org/solutions  Assessment:  Conservative values=9, Leadership abilities=10.
• Randall Terry-Author and political activist Democrat from New York and DC.  Yes, there is someone running against Obama ob the DEM side.  And perhaps the better choice.  But he apparently was GOP once as well, making him like Mitt Romney.  He is the closest thing to the TEA Party that DEMs have, which may appeal to conservative DEMs.  One major problem is that he has no experience.  He is like Ross Perot minus the ears and business suave.  http://www.terryforpresident.com/documents/TFPplatformPlanks.pdf.  Assessment:  Conservative values:  9, Leadership abilities: 2.  Still, voting for him is better than the other DEM.
• Barack Obama- Senator, "President" of the US, from Illinois.  Short version, http://www.barackobama.com/record/economy  Assessment:  Conservative values=5, Leadership abilities= 6.

Add these all up and here are the rankings from worst to best:

1. Obama (11)
2. Terry (11)
3. Paul (15)
4. Bachmann (15)
5. Romney (15)
6. Huntsman (16)
7. Santorum (17)
8. Perry (18)
9. Gingrich (19)

Look at the candidates political spectrum below.  This one has a few changes from the one located on the political spectrum page since now they are campaigning.

#92 Hell is Getting Fuller

Seems like we're running out of dictators.  We either need a new list or just finish this one off.  Keep in mind America, this last one has vowed to destroy the United States and Israel and was one of the master minds for taking Americans hostage back in 1979.  Don't let the smile fool you.

#91 I Thought It Was Unprecedented

What happened?  President Obama no longer says he is the best at something.  Everything up to this point in his presidency has been "unprecedented".  Of course he would call all of those compliments.  But now apparently he has slipped in so many polls he even slipped in his own.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/17/obama_fourth_best_president_in_history_due_to_foreign_policy_achievements.html

What pompousness.  What arrogance.  What total stupidity.  What makes him think that he could put his name up there with the like of these men?  To say such a thing brings disrespect to those who have served before him.  Only history can judge these things.  One can not write his own name into the history books, only those who are effected by him.  This blog is the best ever, unprecedented, or at least in the top four of all time.

Now if he was referring to Andrew Johnson, then there is a case for that argument.  Of course, the Johnson he is referring to doesn't have the greatest of track records either.  Notice he did not say Jefferson, Washington, Reagan, or even TRoosevelt because it would be too easy to prove wrong.  And he didn't even use GWBush  because then he would have to explain his own failures and/or blame him for everything, again.

Clinton had statues made of him, but not of himself.  In about two years this man will erect one in his own name.  Hmmm, Obamanation maybe?  The only things he is top four in are:

1. Top four failures as president
2. Top four narcissistic presidents
3. Top four actors as president
4. Top four of expenditure of presidents
5. Top four lying presidents
6. Top four liberal presidents
7. Top four swaggers as president
8. Top four anti-American presidents
9. Top four divisive presidents
10. Top four black presidents (the next three have to be better)

Seriously, this man needs to be in one of the top shortest terms presidents we have had.

#90 Ninety-Nine Red Ballons Go By

Occupy Wall Street; the antithesis of the Tea Party.  They claim that they are against Wall Street because 99% of the people are being controlled by 1% of the population.  They claim this 1% include the big business CEO's, head of corporations, escape artists of the tax codes, hypocritical bourgeoisie extremists, and what Obama says are people who make $250,000 or more.  And of course this 1% is backed by the GOP and every conservative.  As with any political pundancy these are exaggerated numbers.

First of all the number of millionaires in this country is more than any other country.  But the percent is not 1%.  It is not 2%.  It is 5% of Americans are millionaires.  If we claimed that $250,000 is the cut-off for these problems we would have to raise the percent to a walloping 15%.

Secondly, who are these people that make over $250,000?  Sure, CEO's and people that own their own business, i.e., the entrepreneur.  But others that are included in this mess are professional sports figures, models, lucky lottery winners, authors, and the biggest number...Hollywood.  Yes, Michael Moore, you fat slothful, gluttonous piece of crap that uses the same capitalistic ways you argue against to make a living, you are one of the top 1%.  Notice though that politicians are not in that group.  But again this is misleading.  One reason why $250,000 was chosen as the cut off is because that is the highest amount that government employees (hmmm...Congress and the President) could make.  But that is just their income.  Most politicians are millionaires.  Most come from wealthy families, because that is how they could afford to run for office in the first place.

Thirdly, where are these people?  Oddly enough the most of the top ten places where millionaires live are in the area located around DC and Democratically controlled states.  http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/113718/states-most-millionaires-cnbc.  The only exception being Alaska.  The state where most businesses were started by individuals willing to go the extra mile and work for a living.  By shear numbers it doesn't look like the GOP or especially conservatives are the ones who keep backing this 1% up.

This current administration is demonizing and criminalizing those who built this country; small business owners and corporations, both who supply jobs for the people.  The four factors of production are capital, land, labor, and entrepreneurship.  These four things supply jobs for everyone else.  Yes, there are those who will get rich off of others, but it is only because we are stupid enough to keep buying their junk, watching their games, seeing their movies, and voting for them.  We are the problem.  Why don't we occupy Home Street?

The Occupy groups are just, should we say, terrorists groups.  Well, they were allowed to say it about the Tea Party (which again, is not the savior of anything by any means).