I just wanted to tell you that I love you. I appreciate all you do and I am thankful to Heavenly Father for the chance I be had to be a part of your life. Of course, I loved you yesterday and I will love you tomorrow. But yesterday I was doing laundry and dishes and tomorrow I’ll be buying groceries. It’s not that I don’t want you to know that I love you every day. I am grateful to have a day set aside to remember and celebrate all the people I love.
I feel like I have been surrounded by a barrage of people telling me what a horrible, commercialized holiday Valentine’s Day is. Ironically, the most frequently cited argument for this contention is that we should show our love everyday, not just on holidays. It seems like the people who feel this way ought to love Valentine’s Day the most. After all, it’s the people who think about Jesus everyday that love to celebrate his birth at Christmas. I pray in gratitude every night for my beautiful children. That is why I am so glad they have a birthday once a year where I can set aside the everyday struggles and simply celebrate their births. I am disturbed by all the people who think being ornery and feeling pestered by a holiday meant to honor the people we love is a better expression of love then being excited at the opportunity to set aside the mundane. I was even more disturbed to open up foxnews.com this morning and find a story about why everyone hates this holiday. Valentine’s Day is not about flowers and chocolates. Think about it as an opportunity to reflect on all the people who wish they had someone to celebrate with, rather than feeling bothered that you’re expected to say “I love you.” Remember how lucky and blessed you are to have love. And remember, as always, that I love you.
Happy Valentine’s Day,
Amy
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Ignorance and Autism
I have always thought the title of my blog, "Tyrants are but the spawn of ignorance, begotten by the slaves they trample on," had many different applications. One of these is that people often become slaves to ideas that simply aren't true because they do not or cannot find out the truth.
My sister has a beautiful little boy with autism. I cannot begin to explain the struggle she went through before she had a diagnosis or the heartache she's had to endure since. But she said something very interesting to me once when we were discussing the autism/vaccination link. She said, "I really don't understand all the details of the arguments. What I do know is that I can't let myself make decisions concerning my children based on fear and that's what all the hype is." Her children have all received their vaccinations on schedule. You see, fear is probably the worst tyrant of all and it's nemesis is education.
Today, there was a great victory for freedom from fear. A federal court ruled that autism is not caused by vaccinations and that parents of autistic children cannot claim money set aside for those who have had serious reactions to vaccines. And since I believe that knowledge is what eliminates fear, I want to share a few fact on this matter.
The original scare came in 1998 when a study was released analyzing 12 children. The study claimed that the MMR shot was to blame for the rising rates of diagnosed Autism. The study has never been duplicated, despite multiple tries. 10 of the 13 authors of the study has since recanted their findings, citing problems with the science or sample.
When I asked my husband what he had learned in medical school, he said this, "There is no link. There has not been one study that conclusively proves a cause effect link." Oh sure, there are studies that claim that they found children who developed autism after receiving the MMR. But I once read a study that proves that the fall in the level of the Great Salt Lake causes more crime. It was proven by association. Of course, a logical person would see that the warmer weather caused both the change in the lake and the change in crime. The studies linking autism to MMR are similar in their logic. In fact, the information in favor of a link comes from self-reporting studies. In other words, the parents of the children talked about the changes their child underwent after receiving their immunizations. Sadly, at least one survey has shown that the same parents reported different results before and after the media hype about the supposed link. I don't think they meant to change their stories. I just think that they were subconsciously effected by the coverage.
"A worrying feature of this study, revealed by detailed review of the case records, was that in 13 children the history given by parents had changed after publicity about MMR vaccine and autism. Before the publicity the parents often reported concerns early in their children’s life, usually before the first birthday; the current history for the same children recorded symptoms as developing only after MMR vaccination, in some cases shortly after"
Yes, children are diagnosed with autism after they have their immunizations, however, there is no clustering in symptoms. In other words, the children are just as likely to begin exhibiting symptoms of autism after their immunizations as at any other time during early childhood. There are plenty of studies that show the number of children diagnosed with the disease is actually lower in immunized populations. That doesn't prove anything either. But more telling, is a recent study done in Japan after they banned the MMR shot. Autism rates continued rising, despite that. Here's the article: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7076
It's certainly indisputable that autism is on the rise, although several studies accredit this increase to increased awareness and diagnosis rather than an actual increase in cases. But the accepted research has not found any reason to think that there is a link between having your child immunized and autism. Those people who believe that there is a link frequently complain that the government is part of some conspiracy to keep it quiet. That's why it's nice to hear it from someone who has nothing to gain by sharing the info.
When you choose not to immunize, you choose to put your child and those around him/her at risk. So, are you going to base you choice on fear or on facts. I adore my autistic nephews. They are a gift from God and there is no reason to find blame for their conditions.
Sometimes the government does something right. Today's ruling is a step toward liberty by being a step away from fear. Top scientists declared it a "victory for science." I am declaring it a victory for freedom.
On a personal note, please visit my nephew's blog: http://gavinrausch.blogspot.com/ . It means a lot to my sister when people take the time to comment.
Just for Smiles
Okay, I promised to keep this blog positive. Because of that, I do try to ignore much of the political scene because it is so negative. As everyone knows by now, Tom Daschle recently withdrew his name after Obama nominated him as Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department. There have now been three cabinet nominees who have faced tough criticism because they were caught cheating on taxes. Tom Daschle is my favorite, though, because the whole situation is so hilarious. How did he cheat on his taxes? He didn't pay them on a limo and driver given to him by his employer. Why does that make me laugh so hard I can't see straight? Check out this real campaign ad from the 80's...
That's not all folks, 1998 Mr. Daschle gave a passionate speech on the senate floor during which he said, "Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter."
Okay, if that didn't brighten your day, then I don't know what's wrong with you. Politics can be fun!
That's not all folks, 1998 Mr. Daschle gave a passionate speech on the senate floor during which he said, "Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter."
Okay, if that didn't brighten your day, then I don't know what's wrong with you. Politics can be fun!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Saving the Earth
Today is Sunday, so you'll have to forgive me for being a little more philosophical than usual. I don't usually take the time to write on Sunday, but I read something this morning that made me need to share a few thoughts.
As the mother of four amazing children, I have, on occasion, faced some people who think that I am trying to destroy the world. The most frequent opposition to my family is the argument that the education system should not be over burdened by my desire to have kids. I brush these naive arguments off. I know these people will stop their griping the minute they realize that it's my children who are providing their social security.
But this morning, I read an article that gives voice to Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the British government’s Sustainable Development Commission. This man wants to save the Earth and he believes that he can do it by proving to the rest of the world that it is irresponsible to have more than two children (ironically, the number that he has). He states, as proof of this problem, “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers."
WHAT?
Now listen, I am not making a secret of how I feel about abortion. I cannot be happy about the mass genocide of unborn children because I believe that children are the greatest of God's gifts. But, pro-choice vs pro-life isn't even in it here. This is not someone saying that women should have the right to choose about abortion. This is someone arguing that abortion is a moral obligation and that it is, in fact, "irresponsible" to carry a child to term.
Why? Because of global warming. Yes, we must wipe out the children in order to save the children. Here is the real problem I have with this entire issue. It seems to always be those who have no religious footing that want so desperately to SAVE the planet for future generations. LET'S BE QUITE CLEAR ON THIS ARGUMENT. Life on this planet is an accident. It climbed out of the slime and progressed over billions of years through a series of genetic mutations (aka: more accidents). There is no divine purpose, no life after death, and nothing special about humans. We must consider ourselves equal with the mosquitoes, because they have the same right to be here that we do. Of course, that means no right at all. It's simply coincidence. BUT, in a few million years we may have, though our irresponsibility, used up this Earth's resources and caused a disaster for the planet. Life may, in fact, be utterly wiped away. This, of course, would leave us right back where we stared. And, I must say, "Who cares?" There was nothing divine about that life we destroyed anyway!
Okay...count to 10...Let me tell you what I know. I know that we are Children of God. As such, we have a divine purpose and an eternal destiny. We should be good stewards of the world we have been given precisely for this reason. But, killing, devaluing, or simply detesting children is the FARTHEST thing from a solution. Be grateful, Mr. Porritt, that there are those of us who value our children so much that we are willing to sacrifice careers, money, trips and other luxuries to raise them and teach them of their divine worth. Be glad that we aren't all teaching our children that the human race has no inherit worth. Be glad, because the values that I am trying to instill in my beautiful children are the ones that will make this world livable for yours.
As the mother of four amazing children, I have, on occasion, faced some people who think that I am trying to destroy the world. The most frequent opposition to my family is the argument that the education system should not be over burdened by my desire to have kids. I brush these naive arguments off. I know these people will stop their griping the minute they realize that it's my children who are providing their social security.
But this morning, I read an article that gives voice to Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the British government’s Sustainable Development Commission. This man wants to save the Earth and he believes that he can do it by proving to the rest of the world that it is irresponsible to have more than two children (ironically, the number that he has). He states, as proof of this problem, “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers."
WHAT?
Now listen, I am not making a secret of how I feel about abortion. I cannot be happy about the mass genocide of unborn children because I believe that children are the greatest of God's gifts. But, pro-choice vs pro-life isn't even in it here. This is not someone saying that women should have the right to choose about abortion. This is someone arguing that abortion is a moral obligation and that it is, in fact, "irresponsible" to carry a child to term.
Why? Because of global warming. Yes, we must wipe out the children in order to save the children. Here is the real problem I have with this entire issue. It seems to always be those who have no religious footing that want so desperately to SAVE the planet for future generations. LET'S BE QUITE CLEAR ON THIS ARGUMENT. Life on this planet is an accident. It climbed out of the slime and progressed over billions of years through a series of genetic mutations (aka: more accidents). There is no divine purpose, no life after death, and nothing special about humans. We must consider ourselves equal with the mosquitoes, because they have the same right to be here that we do. Of course, that means no right at all. It's simply coincidence. BUT, in a few million years we may have, though our irresponsibility, used up this Earth's resources and caused a disaster for the planet. Life may, in fact, be utterly wiped away. This, of course, would leave us right back where we stared. And, I must say, "Who cares?" There was nothing divine about that life we destroyed anyway!
Okay...count to 10...Let me tell you what I know. I know that we are Children of God. As such, we have a divine purpose and an eternal destiny. We should be good stewards of the world we have been given precisely for this reason. But, killing, devaluing, or simply detesting children is the FARTHEST thing from a solution. Be grateful, Mr. Porritt, that there are those of us who value our children so much that we are willing to sacrifice careers, money, trips and other luxuries to raise them and teach them of their divine worth. Be glad that we aren't all teaching our children that the human race has no inherit worth. Be glad, because the values that I am trying to instill in my beautiful children are the ones that will make this world livable for yours.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Parable of the Government Bailout
For some reason that drives my husband absolutely crazy, I think of everything in metaphor. When I am explaining my perspective to my friends, conversations all too often turn in to the resuscitation of trite comparisons and word pictures. Perhaps I am all little over-zealous as a consumer of news and I certainly spend too much time talking to pre-schoolers, but these two elements mesh together to make me want to simplify complicated politics into nursery rhymes for children to understand. In the end, I am forced to conclude that sometimes these parables make me see through all the crap and really understand the heart of the situation, so it’s not all bad. That’s why I can’t help seeing the baby bird breaking out of its shell every time I close my eyes lately.
This is not a new analogy; we’ve all heard it before. If you let that bird break itself loose, it will be strong and prepared to live a good life. If you give into the temptation to crack the shell for the miserable creature, it won’t be prepared to survive in the world you are welcoming it into and probably die. Thank goodness that in the real world that bird doesn’t whine and beg for help.
I am convinced that this “economic crisis” will pass. But I truly believe that how we handle the difficult times will render us better, stronger people or dependent whiners looking ahead for the next bail out. Physical therapy is difficult and painful, but without it, muscles will never heal (See?? There's another one!). Likewise, once people become satiated with the idea of leaning on the government they stop wanting to support themselves. As the title of this blog suggests, all forms of government bailouts are the new slavery.
This is why I am delighted to share with you a few findings from a recent foxnews.com survey. It turns out that most of the people in this country think that fueling government spending is not the answer to the current recession. In fact, only 45 % of those polled think the current proposal will help at all. Personally, I am not taking a position on that. I am no economist and don’t really know whether spending $825 billion will help the economy recover any faster. I do believe that:
1) It’s NOT worth it. If you asked me whether a sandwich would make me less hungry, I would answer “yes.” Just don’t ask me whether I’m willing to spend $1000 on that sandwich no matter how hungry I am. (I can't stop!!!)
2) It will hurt us A LOT more than it helps, in the long run. Not just because of the ripping away of liberty, also because artificial messing with the economy tends to just band-aid the problem, not heal it as natural market forces can. Please see my article on the cows.
3) It will guarantee that our children will have to deal with our self-inflicted problems of inflation, overwhelming debt and the weakening of the American dollar.
4) We would be feeding the tyrant and creating new ones.
But there is even better news. I like the way Fox’s Chris Anderson wrote it, “Just 27 percent of Americans think elected officials in Washington are part of the solution when it comes to improving the economy, while 61 percent think they are part of the problem. Republicans (75 percent) and independents (66 percent) are more likely than Democrats (46 percent) to think politicians are part of the problem.” Good work people! I am very pleased to hear that the people of this country are not anxiously looking for someone to solve their problems. You see, we are strong and resilient. We will struggle through this with our freedom in tact and we will be stronger for it.
Please read more on this survey here.
This is not a new analogy; we’ve all heard it before. If you let that bird break itself loose, it will be strong and prepared to live a good life. If you give into the temptation to crack the shell for the miserable creature, it won’t be prepared to survive in the world you are welcoming it into and probably die. Thank goodness that in the real world that bird doesn’t whine and beg for help.
I am convinced that this “economic crisis” will pass. But I truly believe that how we handle the difficult times will render us better, stronger people or dependent whiners looking ahead for the next bail out. Physical therapy is difficult and painful, but without it, muscles will never heal (See?? There's another one!). Likewise, once people become satiated with the idea of leaning on the government they stop wanting to support themselves. As the title of this blog suggests, all forms of government bailouts are the new slavery.
This is why I am delighted to share with you a few findings from a recent foxnews.com survey. It turns out that most of the people in this country think that fueling government spending is not the answer to the current recession. In fact, only 45 % of those polled think the current proposal will help at all. Personally, I am not taking a position on that. I am no economist and don’t really know whether spending $825 billion will help the economy recover any faster. I do believe that:
1) It’s NOT worth it. If you asked me whether a sandwich would make me less hungry, I would answer “yes.” Just don’t ask me whether I’m willing to spend $1000 on that sandwich no matter how hungry I am. (I can't stop!!!)
2) It will hurt us A LOT more than it helps, in the long run. Not just because of the ripping away of liberty, also because artificial messing with the economy tends to just band-aid the problem, not heal it as natural market forces can. Please see my article on the cows.
3) It will guarantee that our children will have to deal with our self-inflicted problems of inflation, overwhelming debt and the weakening of the American dollar.
4) We would be feeding the tyrant and creating new ones.
But there is even better news. I like the way Fox’s Chris Anderson wrote it, “Just 27 percent of Americans think elected officials in Washington are part of the solution when it comes to improving the economy, while 61 percent think they are part of the problem. Republicans (75 percent) and independents (66 percent) are more likely than Democrats (46 percent) to think politicians are part of the problem.” Good work people! I am very pleased to hear that the people of this country are not anxiously looking for someone to solve their problems. You see, we are strong and resilient. We will struggle through this with our freedom in tact and we will be stronger for it.
Please read more on this survey here.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The GOOD News
“Not a single Republican voted for an $819 billion version of the plan when it passed the House on Wednesday.”
There it is, folks, and it almost brought a tear to my eye. When I started writing this blog, it was because I felt that people were hearing enough negative. I felt like the media was fueling a sense of helplessness by promoting fear and negativism. I was heartbroken by the results of the 2008 elections. But, I also recognized that it was no time to give up on America. I recognized that the future of our children was worth fighting for and so is the legacy of our forefathers in amazing country.
My plan was to try and write out the good things that were happening, rather than complaining about my frustrations. It turns out, that goal is much harder than I imagined. Mostly, because the things that make me want to commentate are the things that frustrate and anger me. I am a debater at heart and find myself wanting to argue with the bad decisions of politicians. I know that I do not always succeed in my goal to embolden and inspire, rather than contributing to the growing fear and frustration. But today there is good news.
There were two stories in the news that caught my eye yesterday. First, a couple from Florida spent $155,000 on a clone of a beloved pet. The reaction to this news was fairly uniform. People expressed shock, irritation and even outrage at such a ridiculous use of money. The Humane Society didn’t waste time in condemning the decision to clone a pet when the couple could have adopted a homeless dog or, one commentator suggested, funded spaying and neutering operations at the local Humane Society for 6 months.
My objection was only at the folly of paying so much money for something without checking it out. You see, this couple opted not to have the dog’s DNA tested. They trusted the Korean scientist, despite the fact that he had lost his research professorship at Seoul National University in 2004 after claiming he had cloned human embryos and stem cells. He, in fact, had done no such thing. If you were buying a house for 155 grand, you’d certainly have it inspected first.
But the simple fact that the couple spent an insane sum of money on a dog didn’t bother me at all. Why? It was their money. It’s sort of a moot point, but it was reported that, despite the controversy, this couple had paid out more than double what they paid for their cloned dog in donations to the humane society over the years. Still, people are criticizing them. Why do we live in a world where people think they have the right to say what others should and should not do with the money they earn?
Interestingly, the other big news story that caught my attention was that the House passed the so-called “stimulus” bill. I hope you’re catching the relationship between these stories. You see, I have a little less tolerance for the government wasting taxpayer money. But don’t get all indignant, thinking it’s your money being wasted. It’s not. It’s your childrens' money. Be indignant because the government is putting my 12-month-old into debt.
This bill includes $25 million dollars for new ATV trails, government checks to illegal immigrants, and money for STD prevention programs. For more of a breakdown, look here.
In the end, the only thing this bill is going to provide is bigger government. You see, my friends, there is always a trade off. The more your government “gives,” the more it takes in return. And I am not talking about money. I am taking about your rights and liberty. I’m talking about choices.
The Democrats are making long, elaborate speeches about how the Republicans are supposed to “come together” with them. They are targeting conservative commentators and pointing out how this destructive ideology is standing in the way of their ultimate progress. President Obama, himself, has lashed out publicly against both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity since his inauguration. And it all tends to paint a picture of loving Democrats trying so hard to help people while conservatives are objecting simply because of politics. Meanwhile, the media seems to be doing the bobble-head thing to everything the politicians say.
This is not about politics. This is about principles. This is about freedom. The Democrats are using the economic downturn to try to push through all the bigger government programs they’ve wanted for years while the people are looking for a savior. They are making a grab for more power and never bothering to point out that once freedom is surrendered it is nearly impossible to get back. They are using the guise of “stimulating the economy” to take a wide step toward socialism.
By now, you are probably wondering why in the world I called this news article "good news." There has been a trend recently for Republicans to bow to the pressure. The media has painted them as politically divisive when they are simple representing what the people of this country want. In the past, some Republicans have been swayed. I was honestly scared that with the liberals controlling both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch, Republicans would be influenced by the inevitable “call for unity.” (even though it’s really just a call for doing what the liberals want.) My friends, yesterday, every Republican in the house voted against the bill.
Perhaps being in a clear minority will help the Republicans. Maybe they felt like while they controlled the Presidency, sticking with conservative values was kind of "bullying the little guy." Whatever the case, it was a good start and proof that some of us want to stick with the legacy of America. Remember that this country is still a place where a silly couple in Florida can waste their $155 grand on a cloned dog without even testing its authenticity. It’s their money. They earned it. As for the rest of us, let’s keep fighting the good fight to be certain our children can do the same. I hope my kids will make better choices. But, in the end, I simply want them to have those choices.
There it is, folks, and it almost brought a tear to my eye. When I started writing this blog, it was because I felt that people were hearing enough negative. I felt like the media was fueling a sense of helplessness by promoting fear and negativism. I was heartbroken by the results of the 2008 elections. But, I also recognized that it was no time to give up on America. I recognized that the future of our children was worth fighting for and so is the legacy of our forefathers in amazing country.
My plan was to try and write out the good things that were happening, rather than complaining about my frustrations. It turns out, that goal is much harder than I imagined. Mostly, because the things that make me want to commentate are the things that frustrate and anger me. I am a debater at heart and find myself wanting to argue with the bad decisions of politicians. I know that I do not always succeed in my goal to embolden and inspire, rather than contributing to the growing fear and frustration. But today there is good news.
There were two stories in the news that caught my eye yesterday. First, a couple from Florida spent $155,000 on a clone of a beloved pet. The reaction to this news was fairly uniform. People expressed shock, irritation and even outrage at such a ridiculous use of money. The Humane Society didn’t waste time in condemning the decision to clone a pet when the couple could have adopted a homeless dog or, one commentator suggested, funded spaying and neutering operations at the local Humane Society for 6 months.
My objection was only at the folly of paying so much money for something without checking it out. You see, this couple opted not to have the dog’s DNA tested. They trusted the Korean scientist, despite the fact that he had lost his research professorship at Seoul National University in 2004 after claiming he had cloned human embryos and stem cells. He, in fact, had done no such thing. If you were buying a house for 155 grand, you’d certainly have it inspected first.
But the simple fact that the couple spent an insane sum of money on a dog didn’t bother me at all. Why? It was their money. It’s sort of a moot point, but it was reported that, despite the controversy, this couple had paid out more than double what they paid for their cloned dog in donations to the humane society over the years. Still, people are criticizing them. Why do we live in a world where people think they have the right to say what others should and should not do with the money they earn?
Interestingly, the other big news story that caught my attention was that the House passed the so-called “stimulus” bill. I hope you’re catching the relationship between these stories. You see, I have a little less tolerance for the government wasting taxpayer money. But don’t get all indignant, thinking it’s your money being wasted. It’s not. It’s your childrens' money. Be indignant because the government is putting my 12-month-old into debt.
This bill includes $25 million dollars for new ATV trails, government checks to illegal immigrants, and money for STD prevention programs. For more of a breakdown, look here.
In the end, the only thing this bill is going to provide is bigger government. You see, my friends, there is always a trade off. The more your government “gives,” the more it takes in return. And I am not talking about money. I am taking about your rights and liberty. I’m talking about choices.
The Democrats are making long, elaborate speeches about how the Republicans are supposed to “come together” with them. They are targeting conservative commentators and pointing out how this destructive ideology is standing in the way of their ultimate progress. President Obama, himself, has lashed out publicly against both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity since his inauguration. And it all tends to paint a picture of loving Democrats trying so hard to help people while conservatives are objecting simply because of politics. Meanwhile, the media seems to be doing the bobble-head thing to everything the politicians say.
This is not about politics. This is about principles. This is about freedom. The Democrats are using the economic downturn to try to push through all the bigger government programs they’ve wanted for years while the people are looking for a savior. They are making a grab for more power and never bothering to point out that once freedom is surrendered it is nearly impossible to get back. They are using the guise of “stimulating the economy” to take a wide step toward socialism.
By now, you are probably wondering why in the world I called this news article "good news." There has been a trend recently for Republicans to bow to the pressure. The media has painted them as politically divisive when they are simple representing what the people of this country want. In the past, some Republicans have been swayed. I was honestly scared that with the liberals controlling both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch, Republicans would be influenced by the inevitable “call for unity.” (even though it’s really just a call for doing what the liberals want.) My friends, yesterday, every Republican in the house voted against the bill.
Perhaps being in a clear minority will help the Republicans. Maybe they felt like while they controlled the Presidency, sticking with conservative values was kind of "bullying the little guy." Whatever the case, it was a good start and proof that some of us want to stick with the legacy of America. Remember that this country is still a place where a silly couple in Florida can waste their $155 grand on a cloned dog without even testing its authenticity. It’s their money. They earned it. As for the rest of us, let’s keep fighting the good fight to be certain our children can do the same. I hope my kids will make better choices. But, in the end, I simply want them to have those choices.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Govern, not Give
Today the media had a field day with the “wonderful” news that President Obama had changed the policy that kept the United States from giving aid to organizations in foreign countries that provided or counseled toward abortions. This was hailed as a step towards helping poor women because many health clinics which provided basic services could not get the taxpayer money simply because they allowed abortions. Naturally, being pro-life, I did not applaud this change. You see, since there is a finite amount of money available, and since so many of the taxpayers providing that money don’t approve of abortions, it seems reasonable to funnel our money toward the clinics that are in line with the beliefs of the givers. I can remember how my friend felt when she discovered that the union she was required to belong to because of her job started giving her money to Planned Parenthood.
The problem is that the American government doesn’t consider its money to be the money of the American people. And me, being me, my first thought was, “The government is giving how much money to foreign clinics (whether they provide abortions or not)?” Before you decide that I am a heartless beast, hear me out on this one.
I decided to investigate this issue further and found several very ornery articles about the stingy, self-centeredness of the American government. One, very shocking article purported, “Nations where fewer people attend church tend to be more generous in their support for development in poor countries than those where church attendance is much greater.” Could it be so? It seems to contradict everything that we believe about religion. The article went on to explain… “In aid terms Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands led the other 17 donor countries by a wide margin. The worst performer was Japan, followed by Italy, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia in that order.”
Could it be that we are a country full of selfish people? Could it be that we don’t care about the poor? Um…no. The fact remains that the US Government gives more than twice as much aid as any other country in pure dollars. The statistics showing us toward the bottom are based on official government aid spending based on a percentage of the GDP.
I am happy to admit that the government of Denmark gives away way more of its citizens’ money, per capita than ours does. Believe it or not, I am proud of that fact. Would you like to know why? Because the people of the United States give away far more of their own money than the people of other countries do. In 2005, private citizens gave away 1.67% of the GDP without any help from the government. The closest country behind us was Great Britain with .73% of their GDP. For disaster relief, people of the United States gave an estimated $7.37 billion dollars: $5.3 billion for Hurricane Katrina, $1.92 billion for the Tsunami relief, and $0.15 billion for the India-Pakistan earthquake relief. The United States Government was highly criticized for the measly $350 million it gave to tsunami victims. No one wanted to give credit the evil capitalists credit for the $1.92 billion donated by private citizens and corporations.
I guess the point is that the rest of the country can fight over whether it’s prudent to give millions of tax payer’s dollars to abortion clinics in foreign countries. For me, the question is a little different: “Why don’t we trust the American people to decide who they should give their money to?” To me, the purpose of a government is to govern, not to give. The people of this great nation have proven we can give on our own. It’s a lesson in personal responsibility. Let’s not push our leaders to take over our charity, we can do it ourselves. In fact, we can do most things ourselves.
The problem is that the American government doesn’t consider its money to be the money of the American people. And me, being me, my first thought was, “The government is giving how much money to foreign clinics (whether they provide abortions or not)?” Before you decide that I am a heartless beast, hear me out on this one.
I decided to investigate this issue further and found several very ornery articles about the stingy, self-centeredness of the American government. One, very shocking article purported, “Nations where fewer people attend church tend to be more generous in their support for development in poor countries than those where church attendance is much greater.” Could it be so? It seems to contradict everything that we believe about religion. The article went on to explain… “In aid terms Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands led the other 17 donor countries by a wide margin. The worst performer was Japan, followed by Italy, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia in that order.”
Could it be that we are a country full of selfish people? Could it be that we don’t care about the poor? Um…no. The fact remains that the US Government gives more than twice as much aid as any other country in pure dollars. The statistics showing us toward the bottom are based on official government aid spending based on a percentage of the GDP.
I am happy to admit that the government of Denmark gives away way more of its citizens’ money, per capita than ours does. Believe it or not, I am proud of that fact. Would you like to know why? Because the people of the United States give away far more of their own money than the people of other countries do. In 2005, private citizens gave away 1.67% of the GDP without any help from the government. The closest country behind us was Great Britain with .73% of their GDP. For disaster relief, people of the United States gave an estimated $7.37 billion dollars: $5.3 billion for Hurricane Katrina, $1.92 billion for the Tsunami relief, and $0.15 billion for the India-Pakistan earthquake relief. The United States Government was highly criticized for the measly $350 million it gave to tsunami victims. No one wanted to give credit the evil capitalists credit for the $1.92 billion donated by private citizens and corporations.
I guess the point is that the rest of the country can fight over whether it’s prudent to give millions of tax payer’s dollars to abortion clinics in foreign countries. For me, the question is a little different: “Why don’t we trust the American people to decide who they should give their money to?” To me, the purpose of a government is to govern, not to give. The people of this great nation have proven we can give on our own. It’s a lesson in personal responsibility. Let’s not push our leaders to take over our charity, we can do it ourselves. In fact, we can do most things ourselves.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Cows, Freedom, & the Economy
I read an interesting article today. Apparently the banking and auto industries are not the only ones who are in desperate need of a bailout. The dairy industry is struggling as a result of falling milk prices and congress needs to do something to save the embattled dairy farmers. Apparently, according to some, stimulus money must be put towards artificially inflating the price of milk. I want to say that this idea would be more attractive to me if I wasn’t struggling already to pay close to $4 dollars a gallon to keep my kids drinking the stuff, but that would be a lie. This idea sounds stupid no matter how you look at it.
According to the article, the first proposal being considered is to pay dairy farmers to take cows out of production. This is necessary, it asserts, because, “This time, falling milk prices come as the economy is in a tailspin and farmers have a harder time finding credit to buy equipment, expand their farms or otherwise improve their businesses.” Wait a minute…it seems to me that if there is an excess supply of milk, then farmers don’t need extra money to “buy equipment, expand their farms or otherwise improve their businesses.” In fact, those things seem to be things which would tend to improve efficiency and increase the milk supply. So, if we put money into buying cows to artificially inflate the cost of milk so farmers could have more money to use to help increase milk production, then we would end up in the same pickle again.
Is my logic flawed? Nope! The article actually explains… “Taking milk cows out of production as a way to control milk prices is a controversial approach. The federal government tried that in the 1980s through the whole herd buyout program, and while the policy worked for a time, milk production eventually bounced back and farmers were once again grappling with low milk prices.
“The buyout also sent beef prices crashing, as slaughtered cows entered the meat supply.
“Economists say the problem for the dairy industry is that when milk supplies fall, and prices climb, farmers generally push their cows to produce more to cash in. Then milk prices tumble again.”
Now, I’m no economist, but from the college classes I took on the subject, it seems to me that the way it’s supposed to work is this…When there is an excess supply of a product (and steady demand) the price of the product drops. Should the price drop far enough that making the product becomes unprofitable, then some of the suppliers are forced out of the industry. This causes the supply to decrease and the price to rise, making the production, once again profitable.
I suppose I’m a thoughtless, horrible person for being willing to let some of the nation’s dairy farmers be forced to seek a new industry. But, I believe in freedom. I also believe that the evidence seems to show the same thing happening in my scenario as in the one congress is considering. The only real difference is that my solution does not involve millions of tax payer dollars or the problem yo-yoing back into existence and requiring another set of millions of taxpayer dollars.
Say it with me people: “FREEDOM!” God bless
If you would like to read the article without my babbling commentary, you can find it here.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
