I am currently re-reading Rush's books. It is amazing how after 15-17 years they are all still relevant today. I think that Rush was reading my mind because he brought up Gorbasms today, the first time in a long time, and a chapter in "The Way things Ought to Be."
The last time I read the books was high school, so it is like reading them for the first time. I will be posting blogs of my observations.
I am also working on a blog-essay on Federalism.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
The tale of two states
Author Mark Steyn was the guest host for Rush Thursday. Although I always miss him when he is away, I enjoy a fresh perspective. And if Rush is willing to risk his career with this guy, then he can't be bad.
Steyn brought up an interesting point on large versus small countries. There are small wealthy nations such as Luxembourg and Norway. Many large countries in past and present history have been unsuccessful and split up. For example USSR, Czechoslovakia. The exception is the United States of America. We have a de-centralized government, or at least we used to. Everyday management is left to the states where bureaucracies are (for the most part) smaller, and the federal government handles the national security and disputes between the states. That was the original plan of the Founding Fathers. The states were very independent before the Constitution was written, and it took a very restricting Bill of Rights to convince the states to sign it.
If America had been set up as a centralized country like France, we would have split up by now.
About 100 years ago, our country started shifting towards a centralized government, brought on by crisis and people forgetting their roots. The federal government started adding bureaucracies and taking away the rights of the states to govern themselves. The NANNY STATE is growing and the MILITARY is shrinking. The very opposite direction of our origins. What is happening to our great nation? Are we doomed to the same fate - splitting up - as other large countries that got too big for their britches?
Check out Mark Steyn at http://www.steynonline.com
Steyn brought up an interesting point on large versus small countries. There are small wealthy nations such as Luxembourg and Norway. Many large countries in past and present history have been unsuccessful and split up. For example USSR, Czechoslovakia. The exception is the United States of America. We have a de-centralized government, or at least we used to. Everyday management is left to the states where bureaucracies are (for the most part) smaller, and the federal government handles the national security and disputes between the states. That was the original plan of the Founding Fathers. The states were very independent before the Constitution was written, and it took a very restricting Bill of Rights to convince the states to sign it.
If America had been set up as a centralized country like France, we would have split up by now.
About 100 years ago, our country started shifting towards a centralized government, brought on by crisis and people forgetting their roots. The federal government started adding bureaucracies and taking away the rights of the states to govern themselves. The NANNY STATE is growing and the MILITARY is shrinking. The very opposite direction of our origins. What is happening to our great nation? Are we doomed to the same fate - splitting up - as other large countries that got too big for their britches?
Check out Mark Steyn at http://www.steynonline.com
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
My banner caption, Expanded.
Here is an expanded version of my banner caption.
I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh, making me an official "Rush Baby." My Dad started listening to him from day one. He never pushed Rush on me; I just listened, asked questions, and formed my own opinions. I read Rush's books when I was in high school and wrote conservative papers in government class. (And somehow I graduated without having to argue for any grades on those papers).
And now, 20+ years later, I still listen to Rush every day. I am not a writer, but I need an outlet. I live in Charlottesville, the most liberal place I have ever lived (except for Ann Arbor, MI where I lived for a summer while interning for Ford). I am constantly having to bite my tongue in everyday conversation for fear of losing a friendship or acquaintance.
Charlottesville is a very politically charged town. Last summer I drove past war protesters in front of the federal building. This is NOT something you ever see in Hampton Roads, where I grew up.
Luckily we have a good local conservative radio personality - Joe Thomas. More on him later.
I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh, making me an official "Rush Baby." My Dad started listening to him from day one. He never pushed Rush on me; I just listened, asked questions, and formed my own opinions. I read Rush's books when I was in high school and wrote conservative papers in government class. (And somehow I graduated without having to argue for any grades on those papers).
And now, 20+ years later, I still listen to Rush every day. I am not a writer, but I need an outlet. I live in Charlottesville, the most liberal place I have ever lived (except for Ann Arbor, MI where I lived for a summer while interning for Ford). I am constantly having to bite my tongue in everyday conversation for fear of losing a friendship or acquaintance.
Charlottesville is a very politically charged town. Last summer I drove past war protesters in front of the federal building. This is NOT something you ever see in Hampton Roads, where I grew up.
Luckily we have a good local conservative radio personality - Joe Thomas. More on him later.
Auto companies and unions
Rush said from the beginning that Obama's mission is to "return the wealth of America to it's rightful owners."
I have dealt with auto companies and unions throughout my engineering career. I have seen first hand what the unions have done to the auto industry. What happens when the auto company wants to upgrade their technology to improve their competitiveness, possibly changing or erasing a union job role? The union workers will do anything, including sabotaging their own company, to prevent the advancement. And the auto company can't do anything to help themselves.
As I watch the demise of Chrysler unfold before our very eyes, encouraged by the Obama administration, I can't help but not be surprised. The irony is that the union was given a 55 percent stake in the company as part of the bankruptcy deals. Chrysler's creditors got 20 cents on the dollar for their risk. Rush was right again. Wealth was taken from the "rich," people who took risk in loaning money to the auto company, and given to the "poor," the auto workers who were "rightful owners."
I have dealt with auto companies and unions throughout my engineering career. I have seen first hand what the unions have done to the auto industry. What happens when the auto company wants to upgrade their technology to improve their competitiveness, possibly changing or erasing a union job role? The union workers will do anything, including sabotaging their own company, to prevent the advancement. And the auto company can't do anything to help themselves.
As I watch the demise of Chrysler unfold before our very eyes, encouraged by the Obama administration, I can't help but not be surprised. The irony is that the union was given a 55 percent stake in the company as part of the bankruptcy deals. Chrysler's creditors got 20 cents on the dollar for their risk. Rush was right again. Wealth was taken from the "rich," people who took risk in loaning money to the auto company, and given to the "poor," the auto workers who were "rightful owners."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
