Apr 18th, 2011 | Uncategorized | No Comments
I am a hunter. I am not a vegan. But at the same time, I believe that farmers and consumers alike should care about and seek to improve the conditions of livestock. Recent bills being proposed in Florida and Iowa would make it illegal for someone to take pictures or video of farm activities or livestock without the expressed written consent of the farm owner. I have two different takes on this type of legislation. First, I can sympathize with the farm owners, because I wouldn’t want someone secretly videotaping me as I conduct activities on my own property. However, I do feel that the video and camera footage acquired from these so called animal rights activists has helped to bring to attention the level of cruelty that does occur on U.S. farms. Therefore, disallowing this type of footage would allow those farmers that do take part in varying levels of animal cruelty to continue such atrocious acts. 
We have to remember that the food we eat is derived from these farm animals, and allowing cruelty to continue not only breeches the ethical barrier (for most), but also poses health risks by allowing sick, mistreated, and disease ridden farm animals to be led to slaughter for our consumption. I realize farmers have to make money, but I do not think that money should mean a cruel life for animals with already short lifespans. I do believe that we cannot place all of the blame on the farmers, though. We as Americans consume far too much, and we should strive to buy locally grown plants and animals. Giving in to fast food and other restaurant chains simply feeds the cruelty fire by raising the demand for these large corporation farms, thus forcing them to take shortcuts in the care and raising of the animals. If the proposed bills in Iowa and Florida do pass, those living in those states will have to just get out and see for themselves the conditions the farm animals live so that the bills do not serve as a free ticket for the farmers to commit further cruel acts. Finally, some will say that animal rights activists are simply trying to further their socialist agendas, but in closing I will say that I can appreciate their efforts in part simply for the awakening movies like Food Inc. have given me in regards to the conditions of farm animals in our nation.
Feb 18th, 2011 | Uncategorized | No Comments
In my previous blog post, I mentioned that Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma was one of the politicians opposed to further regulatory measures in regards to pollution. From what I have gathered, he recognizes the fact that air quality in the U.S. has substantially increased over the past 20 years or so, and therefore does not support further EPA regulations on emissions (for example). I watched a video today posted by http://www.openmarket.com (http://goo.gl/WRWfx) and in that video Inhofe is approached by a few global warming supporters and thoroughly questioned on the matter. 
I thought Inhofe displayed exceptional courtesy, honesty and tact in answering their many questions. I do agree with Inhofe’s assertion that science is mixed in regards to global warming, and introducing potentially unneeded and altogether ill-considered legislation is not the answer. I am on the fence in regards to global warming, and lean to the argument that the Earth goes through gradual warming and cooling periods. I do not necessarily think that humans are causing global warming through emissions, etc. I do think that the subject should garner attention, mostly from scientists, but I do not think that we should try to push through ill-conceived legislation to appease the percentage of scientists and activists that do believe in global warming. As mentioned in my previous blog post, I do think that we should try to find new and innovative ways to address pollution in general to help protect the Earth, but legislation (or at least bad legislation) is not the answer.
I do not always agree with Senator Inhofe on various issues, but I do agree with his stance on global warming for the most part. I do not think global warming is necessarily a “hoax” because many respected scientists support the concept, but with many other scientists on the other side of the fence I cannot simply go “all in” on the global warming bandwagon and order up mass legislation on its behalf. I do commend Senator Inhofe, however, for the patience and respect he displayed in speaking with Mark Hertsgaard and his colleagues. On that note, I would also like to commend Mr. Hertsgaard for the respect and tact he used with Senator Inhofe in discussing the matter.
Feb 16th, 2011 | Politics | No Comments
First of all, let me state that by no means do I consider myself a hippie or tree-hugger. I have cut down many a tree in my day in order to fuel our fireplace growing up, and I love my gas-guzzling trucks. However, I am also able to realize that when billions of people are stoking their fires and burning gasoline as fast as they can get it pumped into their vehicles that the Earth’s ecosystems suffer. 
Unfortunately, many of my fellow republican (and other party goers alike) seem to be unwilling to submit to this rather common sense conclusion and instead stick by their proverbial guns insisting scientists are wrong and they in their limited knowledge of the physical sciences know what’s right for the Earth. The facts are that the more fossil fuels we burn, the more contamination is introduced into the air that we breathe. When these gases such as nitric and sulfuric acids react in the atmosphere, acid rain results. The greater the amount of these gases released into the atmosphere, the lower the pH of the acid rain (meaning the rain is more acidic). Acid rain contaminates our lakes and streams (our drinking water), and has been shown to stunt tree growth or kill forests altogether (read more here on air pollution and acid rain: http://goo.gl/Xk7MW). So given these three simple facts:
1) Burning fossil fuels causes harmful gases to be released into the atmosphere
2) When gases such as these (nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide) react in the atmosphere, acid rain forms
3) Acid rain is harmful to the lakes, streams, and forests
It only makes sense that we try to find ways to reduce air pollution. But many politicians seem to have a difference in opinion on the matter. They believe that we do not need to find new ways to reduce air pollution further because air pollution has been decreasing over the course of the last 20 years or so (Jim Inhofe is one such politician — he states that regulations do not need to be tighter because air pollution is at an “all-time low”). Here you can find evidence by the EPA that indeed air pollution has decreased substantially over the past 20 years: http://goo.gl/YVerD. However, just because our current regulations have helped to lower the dangerous gases in the air, that doesn’t mean we should cease in finding other ways to diminish them even further! Additionally, many politicians do not think we need to find ways to protect our sacred National Parks and the wild game and forests sprawling freely there within. Its seems as if many of those opposed to eco-friendly legislation are afraid they will look like a “tree-hugger” or a hippie if they vote in favor of pro-ecosystem legislation.
Again, I love my fossil fuel burning trucks and the logs in my fireplace, but I love our beautiful Earth (with its lush forests, beautiful lakes and streams, and wild game) more. I realize that I, much like many other people, will likely find it hard to break bad habits such as driving gas-guzzling vehicles unless there is some incentive or downside for not doing so. I am not saying we should prohibit anyone from driving a Ford F150 (such as I do), but I do think that legislation that makes it more profitable and beneficial not to do so would be very helpful.
To summarize, the U.S. is making great strides in reducing pollution. But, let us continue to seek new and innovative (or legislative) ways to reduce pollution even further so that our children may inherit a more beautiful Earth than what we found it to be.
On that note, please do all you can to plant a tree, hug a tree, whatever you feel is appropriate to get the message out that anti-Earth legislation or lack of pro-Earth legislation is not OK and you will not stand for it any longer.
Say no to deforestation.
Go Earth.
Feb 4th, 2011 | Uncategorized | No Comments
My core values and beliefs have evolved over time, and I feel like they have finally matured to a relatively concrete state. I am a registered Republican, but my values and beliefs do not quite fit under the “True Conservative” umbrella. Likewise, while many of my ideals are inline with the Libertarian party, certain stances they take (such as their take on defense) are unacceptable to me. Therefore, I am probably closer to a mix between Conservative Republican and Libertarian, so to label myself as one or the other just isn’t plausible. Below I will present my stances on the three major political areas (the three I find to be the major ones anyways). Before analyzing each one individually, I have provided a Venn diagram of the three areas (social issues, economic issues, and defense issues).
Fiscally Conservative
I believe in the free market, with as little government interference by way of regulations as possible. Economists I admire and whose ideals I adhere to are the likes of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman.
Defense Hawk
I believe that the United States should at all times have a strong military willing and able to defend the homeland and assist those abroad that are too weak to defend themselves. I am not okay with looking for reasons to go to war, but I will not hesitate to pull the trigger when necessary. As President Theodore Roosevelt once said: “A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guaranty of peace.”
Socially Moderate
Social issues are one area in which most of my beliefs are more inline with the Libertarian party. I basically take the stance of Americans should be allowed the freedom to do as they please as long as their actions do not affect others negatively (directly). Obviously this can be very subjective, but essentially I believe that the government should in no way bestow its idea of morals upon the citizens (such as the all-out blitz on American’s smoking habits). As for my choice of the term “Socially Moderate”, I feel that I definitely not socially liberal because I am an avid hunter on one hand, but am very sympathetic to animals in respects such as the mistreatment thereof (especially in the food industry). Another example that proves my moderation and lack of extremes would be that I am totally against most gun control legislation, but I can sympathize with the need to protect the fish and other aquatic life by regulations such as steel shot only requirement for hunters (duck hunters for example). I could go on and on about ways that I am socially conservative on one hand, and socially liberal on the other, but in the end you will find I am socially moderate once averaged out.
In a future post I will provide a detailed analysis of my views on all of the major topics and issues we are faced with today, but for now, this high-level overview should suffice.
Feb 2nd, 2011 | Politics | 2 Comments
First of all, I am certain that on some issues a majority of one party or another is going to see that the proposed legislation aligns (or not) with their own (not the party but the person) ideals and beliefs. For example, if the majority of the republicans in congress consider themselves to be “conservative” (and I use that term very loosely), then a proposed piece of legislation requesting a massive spending quest laden with “pork” will almost assuredly result in the majority of those republicans voting against the bill. But, I have become so jaded by the unrelenting party-line voting that has been occurring for sometime now. To me, it seems as if those we the constituents elect leave their brains at the front steps of Capitol Hill. I would dare to say that a majority of bills that are voted upon are not even read by the majority of the legislators. Essentially they wait for the wave to hit them and if their buddies on their side of the aisle voted aye, you can guess what they will be voting. On a more serious note, I do believe that the majority of our legislators are in fact bright and of relative sufficient intelligence. That being said, I believe that what happens is that those who vote aye when they feel they should vote nay (and vice versa) are doing so in order not to “be that guy.” Being singled out as the “renegade” or the one stirring the pot is not the forte or desire of most legislators. However, we the constituents elected each and every one of our representatives in order that they would represent our wants and needs. When that legislator chooses to verbally but not mentally agree on any legislation, that legislator has betrayed his constituents. A good example of late would be the vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). All 47 republicans voted to repeal, while not a single democrat voted to repeal. So let me get this straight. Every single republican is against the ACA, and every single democrat supports the act? The answer to that question is hell no. This type of party-line voting is exactly the sort of abomination that prevents good legislation from being passed, and bad legislation from being stricken down. Why can’t we have more Teddy Roosevelt’s in congress who are willing to stand up for what they believe in and go to battle on any issue regardless of what their own party believes? I just wish that our members of congress would keep the following quote by John Quincy Adams in mind the next time (and every other time) they vote:
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
Jan 20th, 2011 | Politics, economics | No Comments
Free is hardly the term I would use to describe the “market” in the U.S. these days. With red-tape abound, I think “bridled market” would be much more suited. When one thinks of capitalism, the free-market immediately comes to mind. When one thinks of the U.S. economy, capitalism immediately comes to mind. Therefore, the U.S. is a free-market capitalist state right? Once upon a time, yes we were. Have you ever read the recounts of how early settlers traded with the Indians (furs, grains, tobacco, etc.)? Do you think those transactions were hindered by red-tape? No, they were transactions resulting from a truly free market. Over the years, regulatory measures in regards to the market have piled up and have all but eradicated the idea of a free-market. The U.S. remains a capitalist state (for now), but not so much a free-market capitalist state. Personally, I believe the U.S. more resembles “state based capitalism.” To clarify consider this:
- Free-market capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated, profiting said private entity. In the free-market capitalist system, the state has very little say-so and control over the production and operation of goods and services. Supply and demand are the ultimate controllers in such a system.
- State-based capitalism is a system in which the means of production are privately owned (for the most part) and operated (for the most part), profiting said private entity AND the state under which the system presides. In the state-based capitalist system, the state has significant control over the production and operation of goods and services. You could consider the state-based capitalist system as an infant socialist system.
So which one sounds more like the U.S. to you? Especially with the legislation and government takeovers/bailouts of late, I would definitely side with state-based capitalism. So why does everyone just assume that capitalism is capitalism and the free-market is just a given characteristic of the capitalist system? Some may just do it unintentionally, but some are out to cast the “free-market” into the fire for causing all the problems in the U.S. economy (especially of late). But guess what? The U.S. really doesn’t operate under a purely free-market! At best, the U.S. should be considered a “mixed economy.” As the “free” characteristics of the market continue to disappear as a result of government takeovers of industry (healthcare, automobiles, banks, etc.), the U.S. is going to have to stop referring to themselves (ourselves) as a capitalist state. I bet you can guess what the new system will be called…
Jan 15th, 2011 | Politics | No Comments
I believe the words “Free” and “Protect” should serve as a basic blueprint for making decisions in our day-to-day lives individually, as well as a blueprint for decision-making in our governmental bodies (state and federal). In order to further explain this philosophy, consider the following examples:
- Economically, I believe the free-market should be protected from excessive regulations; otherwise the basic principles of the free-market will be rendered useless.
- Governmentally, I believe citizens should be afforded every ounce of freedom and liberty granted to them in the Constitution. The Constitutional rights of citizens should not only be protected, but guaranteed. The federal government must understand that they are to play a limited role in the lives of its citizens; especially economically and socially. The federal government should keep in mind that their job is to protect the citizens through the utilization of the military and other security forces, and observe the freedoms afforded by the Constitution as mentioned above. The founding fathers meant for the states to have the ultimate power when the Constitution could not provide an answer to a dilemma. However, more times than not, federal legislators are finding ways to bend and twist the original intentions of the founding fathers in order to serve up their own agendas. Our federal (and state) governments should bear in mind that the more legislation they produce, the less freedom the citizens enjoy. Therefore, stop contriving new and unnecessary laws, and start abolishing old and unnecessary ones!
- Morally, I believe that the state and federal governments should keep in place laws that protect the citizens from those that may be considered morally or ethically challenged. However, citizens should be left to their own vices as long as said vices do not negatively affect their fellow citizens. Case in point, in Oklahoma I can buy liquor on Saturday, but not on Sunday. This is just another example of the government forcing their moral values upon the citizens.
- Individually, I believe that we can all use the philosophy of free & protect to our advantage in our personal lives. For example, as a husband my primary goals should be to contribute/support financially for, protect the welfare of, and provide social freedom for my wife and children. I should not seek to limit their personal/social freedoms. I should not fail to protect them from harm (be it physical or psychological) at any time.
As you see, the principles of Free & Protect can be applied across the board to every aspect of our personal and professional lives. In the coming days/months/years I hope to provide further examples of adhering to these principles as well as examining failures by our peers and governmental bodies to provide freedom and protection.
