It likely is surprising to most faithful JMO readers that I've been holding my tongue with such a close, contentious, and convoluted campaign season. Well, with only three more days until we know who will take the oath of office in January it is time for me to share my thoughts.
My purpose for the following multi-post adventure is two-fold: Primarily, if there are any "undecided" voters reading this, I hope to provide you with well thought-out, reasoned, logical, and persuasive arguments to cast your vote for any candidate other than Barack Obama. Secondarily, I hope that the opinions and facts that I will be sharing would cause some voters who consider themselves supporters of the President to actually consider changing their minds regarding the candidate for whom they will vote. I believe the latter to be less likely, but a blogger can dream, can't he?
Table of Contents:
Why We Voted for President Obama
Things Said During the 2008 Campaign
Scare Tactics
Time's Up
Unity and Disunity
Questionable Definitions
Obama's Record
Michelle's Spending
Lawn Signs
Why We Voted for President Obama
I'd like to direct the first portion of this post to those of my readers who voted for Barack Obama in 2008. In 2008, we were looking at unemployment at completely unacceptable levels, rising gas prices, a weak housing market, a stock market that was struggling, an economy headed in the wrong direction, and we could point to specific policies put in place by the party in power and reasoned that they neeed to go. The reason I mention is this: We have the exact same reasons to vote Barack Obama out of office.
Things Said During the 2008 Campaign
The truth of the matter is that, in the past, President Obama has said some very true things. Particularly while campaigning for, and early in his term as, President in 2008 and 2009. In the speech he gave accepting the Democratic nomination for President he said this, "If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." Does this resonate with anyone? Does this not sound like nearly every strategy eminating from the Obama campaign since day one of this election season?
Scare Tactics
All I've heard from Obama is scare tactics regarding his opponent. "A $5 Trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy." "No real plan." "He won't deal harshly with China." "He'll ship our jobs overseas." "He's a Mormon." "He'll end Medicare as we know it." "He'll outlaw abortion." etc etc etc. Barack Obama doesn't have a record to run on, so he's trying to frighten people away from voting for Mitt Romney. He's trying to create a scenario where staying with the person who hasn't done the job as well as we'd hoped is still better than someone who will really foul things up. But this is completely illogical. "The devil we know..." We know that the President has been unable to right the economy in a reasonable amount of time; so, clearly, it makes more sense to bring in someone new. The chance of improvement is better than the guarantee of status quo. Bringing this full circle back to my first point: Obama's philosophy behind his original election campaign is the exact philosophy that should unseat him on Tuesday. The sitting party couldn't get us out of this mess, we need a change.
Look, if Mitt is elected, doesn't live up to his campaign promises, and ends up doing all of the things that Obama is claiming he's going to do, then I'll vote him out of office myself.
Time's Up
Which is exactly what President Obama predicted very early in his tenure as President. He admitted that he had three years to turn this ship around and if he was unable to do so, this would be a "one term proposition." Well, let's hold him accountable to that. Four years is more than enough time to turn an economy around. Even if it isn't back to where it started, the trending should be upward. Which it's not.
Let's take this out of the policital realm for a moment. The Boston Red Sox recently fired Manager Bobby Valentine after just one season. They said the following regarding their decision: "Bobby was dealt a difficult hand. He did the best he could under seriously adverse circumstances... He was dealt with a lot of difficult issues and things happened outside of his control. But we are where we are, and the results weren't good and we are looking to move forward." Even the Red Sox understood that, regardless the hand that was dealt ("It's Bush's Fault"), it is appropriate to expect a certain level of results in a certain amount of time. Bobby didn't meet the Red Sox expectations and the President hasn't met ours.
And for those who like to point the finger at the Republicans in the House for standing in the President's way, don't forget he had two years of complete control. The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and they did next to nothing.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
2012 Voting Booth Vol. V
Unity and Disunity
In 2008 President Obama achieved votes through a message of unity. "Change we can believe in." I find it very telling that the only way President Obama can achieve votes this time around is by creating disunity among the American electorate. He declares that there is a "war against women" by the Republicans. He pits the lower, and middle class against the "super rich." He squares "The working man" against evil "huge corporations." And then he declares that "Voting is the best revenge." Revenge against what? Against your fellow American's who see things differently than you?! Nothing like bringing the country together by tearing it apart to stay in office.
The disunity that he is projecting is so great it permeates other public arenas. Following Hurricane Sandy a reporter asked the utilities representative if they were dragging their feet regarding the restoration of power to a major Connecticut city because they were focusing more on the wealthier areas of the state (What liberal media?). This doesn't even make any sense! Cities are more densely populated. Restoring power to a city block brings in much more income from kilowatt hours than restoring power to a single big house. But this class warfare is what the country's "leadership" is spouting and it trickles down to all areas.
Questionable Definitions
One tactic that the Democrats are exercising to create this disunity is by using familiar words with unique definitions. A prime example is the term "access." President Obama and his liberal friends have been fond of phrase "The Republicans want to take away your access to birth control." Bing defines "access" (as it applies in this sentence) as "opportunity to use." The President defines "access" in this sentence as "paid for by the Federal Government." No Republican is going to remove birth control from the shelves of CVS and Walgreens around the country. That's removing our access. No Republican is going to prevent hospitals from offering emergency contraceptives to rape victims. That's removing access. Not paying for it is not removing access. It's removing government funded access.
Another unique definition was used by the President during the first speech when he was discussing his grandmother. He said of her, "[My grandmother] was fiercely independent. She worked her way up, only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. And she ended up living alone by choice. And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare." Apparently, according to liberals. "Fierce independence" means complete dependence on the Federal Government. If his grandmother truly were independent, she would not have had to rely on anyone (or any program) because of her own responsible planning and saving while she was the VP of the bank. And this is the end goal of the Democrats. Complete and utter dependence on the Federal Government. They believe this is the answer to our country's issues. The problem is: dependence does not breed opportunity.
These are just a few examples of how President Obama is using questionable definitions (basically lying to the American public) in a attempt to cling to power.
In 2008 President Obama achieved votes through a message of unity. "Change we can believe in." I find it very telling that the only way President Obama can achieve votes this time around is by creating disunity among the American electorate. He declares that there is a "war against women" by the Republicans. He pits the lower, and middle class against the "super rich." He squares "The working man" against evil "huge corporations." And then he declares that "Voting is the best revenge." Revenge against what? Against your fellow American's who see things differently than you?! Nothing like bringing the country together by tearing it apart to stay in office.
The disunity that he is projecting is so great it permeates other public arenas. Following Hurricane Sandy a reporter asked the utilities representative if they were dragging their feet regarding the restoration of power to a major Connecticut city because they were focusing more on the wealthier areas of the state (What liberal media?). This doesn't even make any sense! Cities are more densely populated. Restoring power to a city block brings in much more income from kilowatt hours than restoring power to a single big house. But this class warfare is what the country's "leadership" is spouting and it trickles down to all areas.
Questionable Definitions
One tactic that the Democrats are exercising to create this disunity is by using familiar words with unique definitions. A prime example is the term "access." President Obama and his liberal friends have been fond of phrase "The Republicans want to take away your access to birth control." Bing defines "access" (as it applies in this sentence) as "opportunity to use." The President defines "access" in this sentence as "paid for by the Federal Government." No Republican is going to remove birth control from the shelves of CVS and Walgreens around the country. That's removing our access. No Republican is going to prevent hospitals from offering emergency contraceptives to rape victims. That's removing access. Not paying for it is not removing access. It's removing government funded access.
Another unique definition was used by the President during the first speech when he was discussing his grandmother. He said of her, "[My grandmother] was fiercely independent. She worked her way up, only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. And she ended up living alone by choice. And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare." Apparently, according to liberals. "Fierce independence" means complete dependence on the Federal Government. If his grandmother truly were independent, she would not have had to rely on anyone (or any program) because of her own responsible planning and saving while she was the VP of the bank. And this is the end goal of the Democrats. Complete and utter dependence on the Federal Government. They believe this is the answer to our country's issues. The problem is: dependence does not breed opportunity.
These are just a few examples of how President Obama is using questionable definitions (basically lying to the American public) in a attempt to cling to power.
2012 Voting Booth Vol. VI
President Obama's Record
President Obama has four major "accomplishments" on which he's attempting to rest his laurels:
First: the stimulus package. President Obama theorized that the stimulus package would halt unemployment and bring it back down to a more reasonable level much faster than without a stimulus. Here is a graph showing what unemployment would have done without the stimulus, what President Obama told the American public would happen with his stimulus, and what actually happened.
This isn't something to be proud of. It's something to shy away from. What can we expect if reelected? Another stimulus.
Second: President Obama clearly enjoys stating that he saved GM from bankruptcy while Mitt Romney would have allowed them to go through bankruptcy. Here's the difficulty with that. GM was not saved from bankruptcy; it was merely delayed for a while. GM is headed back into bankruptcy. I hope Obama liked giving a bailout to GM, because if he's reelected, he'll likely do it again.
Third: President Obama brought down Osama Bin Laden. Whomever created the following analogy hit the nail right on the head: "Barak Obama taking credit for killing Bin Laden is like Richard Nixon taking credit for the moon landing." Yes, this happened on your watch, no you can't take credit for it. Just like Grant couldn't take credit for the transcontinental railroad just because he was sitting in the Oval Office when they drove in the golden spike. If Obama wants to run for reelection on those laurels he might as well add "Kentucky is the NCAA Final Four Champion." It happened, and you watched it, but you didn't have a whole lot to do with it.
Fourth: Obamacare. First it's not a tax. Then the only way it's Constitutional is by being a tax. Not only that, but a tax with no fewer than 20 tax increases. And as if that weren't enough. American's don't want it.
The four legs on which President Obama has built his reelection record are either splintered, weak, or missing.
Of course, for some reason I don't hear much from the "non-liberal" media regarding the President's failures. One of the most egregious being the issue in Libya. Report after report expose that the security forces asked for more support and were flatly denied. And because of this four American citizens were killed on American soil by terrorists. And when asked about this travesty and tragedy in regards to the overall "Arab Spring" the President referred to these murders as "Bumps in the road." He has allowed his Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to end her own Presidential aspirations by "taking responsibility" for the Libyan failure. Of course, no one has been fired or relieved of command. So while she may be "taking responsibility." No one is being held accountable.
President Obama has four major "accomplishments" on which he's attempting to rest his laurels:
First: the stimulus package. President Obama theorized that the stimulus package would halt unemployment and bring it back down to a more reasonable level much faster than without a stimulus. Here is a graph showing what unemployment would have done without the stimulus, what President Obama told the American public would happen with his stimulus, and what actually happened.
Second: President Obama clearly enjoys stating that he saved GM from bankruptcy while Mitt Romney would have allowed them to go through bankruptcy. Here's the difficulty with that. GM was not saved from bankruptcy; it was merely delayed for a while. GM is headed back into bankruptcy. I hope Obama liked giving a bailout to GM, because if he's reelected, he'll likely do it again.
Third: President Obama brought down Osama Bin Laden. Whomever created the following analogy hit the nail right on the head: "Barak Obama taking credit for killing Bin Laden is like Richard Nixon taking credit for the moon landing." Yes, this happened on your watch, no you can't take credit for it. Just like Grant couldn't take credit for the transcontinental railroad just because he was sitting in the Oval Office when they drove in the golden spike. If Obama wants to run for reelection on those laurels he might as well add "Kentucky is the NCAA Final Four Champion." It happened, and you watched it, but you didn't have a whole lot to do with it.
Fourth: Obamacare. First it's not a tax. Then the only way it's Constitutional is by being a tax. Not only that, but a tax with no fewer than 20 tax increases. And as if that weren't enough. American's don't want it.
The four legs on which President Obama has built his reelection record are either splintered, weak, or missing.
Of course, for some reason I don't hear much from the "non-liberal" media regarding the President's failures. One of the most egregious being the issue in Libya. Report after report expose that the security forces asked for more support and were flatly denied. And because of this four American citizens were killed on American soil by terrorists. And when asked about this travesty and tragedy in regards to the overall "Arab Spring" the President referred to these murders as "Bumps in the road." He has allowed his Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to end her own Presidential aspirations by "taking responsibility" for the Libyan failure. Of course, no one has been fired or relieved of command. So while she may be "taking responsibility." No one is being held accountable.
2012 Voting Booth Vol. VII
My final two thoughts are admittedly not as crucial, but still interesting.
Michelle's Spending
The President's irresponsible spending doesn't end with him and his policies. It extends to his wife. She has spent over $10 million of public money on vacations. And her spending doesn't end there. She has more assistants than any other First Lady in history. To top it all off, the salaries of those assistants is notably higher than any previous administration. You can compare Michelle Obama's staffs' salaries to those of Laura Bush's here.
Lawn Signs
Finally, I find it curious as I drive around all areas of Connecticut that the businesses brave enough to display political lawn signs on their property are nearly unanimously for Romney/Ryan (and Linda McMahon, the Republican running for Senate). These are small businesses run by middle class people. Why is it that the people who know how to run a business, and who know a thing or two about money and finances are not supporting the President?
We gave him a chance, and he gave it the "ole college try." His best wasn't good enough and it's time for new leadership.
Honestly, I'd be amazed if anyone has joined me for this entire adventure. You've read my opinions. What are yours?
Michelle's Spending
The President's irresponsible spending doesn't end with him and his policies. It extends to his wife. She has spent over $10 million of public money on vacations. And her spending doesn't end there. She has more assistants than any other First Lady in history. To top it all off, the salaries of those assistants is notably higher than any previous administration. You can compare Michelle Obama's staffs' salaries to those of Laura Bush's here.
Lawn Signs
Finally, I find it curious as I drive around all areas of Connecticut that the businesses brave enough to display political lawn signs on their property are nearly unanimously for Romney/Ryan (and Linda McMahon, the Republican running for Senate). These are small businesses run by middle class people. Why is it that the people who know how to run a business, and who know a thing or two about money and finances are not supporting the President?
We gave him a chance, and he gave it the "ole college try." His best wasn't good enough and it's time for new leadership.
Honestly, I'd be amazed if anyone has joined me for this entire adventure. You've read my opinions. What are yours?
Thursday, June 14, 2012
2012 Voting Booth Vol. III
"It's like somebody goes to a restaurant, orders a big steak dinner, martini all that stuff ... And then, just as you're sitting down ... they leave ... and accuse you of running up the tab."
~President Barak Obama on the National Debt.
This is a very good analogy, but he didn't finish it. Here's the rest of the analogy:
"As soon as they stand up you realize that you don't have your wallet! You can't pay for your meal, let alone what this irresponsible person who just left ordered. So what do you do? You order a lobster, caviar, and the house specialty. And to wash it all down? A 100 year old bottle of brandy. Then when the tab comes in, you point to the person who ordered the steak and say, 'Well, he started it.'"
The premise of his original analogy is that the irresponsibility of the first party excuses the irresponsibility of the second. And not just similar irresponsibility, but excessive and boarder-line obscene irresponsibility on the part of the second party.
On the right is a graph of the National debt from 1940 through 2011. Take a look at how this president has exponentially increased the national debt in his single term! (click on the image for a larger view)
What can we see from this graph? We borrowed for WWII. Then Carter and Reagan started the modern practice of over spending. Bush I continued it. Clinton leveled it off. Bush II built a skyscraper. And Obama sent it to the moon!
Perhaps this is an easier way to understand the situation: 
There are lots of things that this country needs to be worried about right now: The environment, Equal Rights, Terrorism, and Healthcare to name a few. But the most pressing, the most important, the one that needs to take top billing is the massive budget deficit and the monstrous national debt. We cannot continue to exist borrowing 43 cents of every dollar that the US Government spends!
If Obama wants to be taken seriously, he needs to stop trying to justify is adolescent-like spending by continuing to blame the previous administration and do the responsible thing with the national budget. I know the old saying goes "Dance with the one that brought you" and the "Blame Bush" mantra got him into the White House but now it's old, stale, and worn out. Let's try something new.
~President Barak Obama on the National Debt.
This is a very good analogy, but he didn't finish it. Here's the rest of the analogy:
"As soon as they stand up you realize that you don't have your wallet! You can't pay for your meal, let alone what this irresponsible person who just left ordered. So what do you do? You order a lobster, caviar, and the house specialty. And to wash it all down? A 100 year old bottle of brandy. Then when the tab comes in, you point to the person who ordered the steak and say, 'Well, he started it.'"
The premise of his original analogy is that the irresponsibility of the first party excuses the irresponsibility of the second. And not just similar irresponsibility, but excessive and boarder-line obscene irresponsibility on the part of the second party.
On the right is a graph of the National debt from 1940 through 2011. Take a look at how this president has exponentially increased the national debt in his single term! (click on the image for a larger view)What can we see from this graph? We borrowed for WWII. Then Carter and Reagan started the modern practice of over spending. Bush I continued it. Clinton leveled it off. Bush II built a skyscraper. And Obama sent it to the moon!
There are lots of things that this country needs to be worried about right now: The environment, Equal Rights, Terrorism, and Healthcare to name a few. But the most pressing, the most important, the one that needs to take top billing is the massive budget deficit and the monstrous national debt. We cannot continue to exist borrowing 43 cents of every dollar that the US Government spends!
If Obama wants to be taken seriously, he needs to stop trying to justify is adolescent-like spending by continuing to blame the previous administration and do the responsible thing with the national budget. I know the old saying goes "Dance with the one that brought you" and the "Blame Bush" mantra got him into the White House but now it's old, stale, and worn out. Let's try something new.
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Who Runs America?
Consider this: A politician runs for office promising to balance the budget without raising taxes. Impossible. Some might be reluctant to even cast a vote for this optimistic statesman considering his questionable touch on reality. If he were to be elected, he'd get a pass from most voters if he wasn't completely able to fulfill this campaign promise provided he gave it the ole 'college try.'
Now imagine that he was able to follow through on this promise! A year into his first term he has a balanced budget and has not raised taxes! What do the citizens do? A week of parades in his honor? Rename the capitol after him? Alter the constitution so he can serve more than two terms?
Force a recall election to try to get him out of office?
You didn't misread that. Wisconsin residents were the recipients of a balanced budget without an increase in taxes (which proves it can be done, by the way) and they thanked their Governor Scott Walker by trying to vote him out of office.
Their biggest beef with Gov. Walker is that he encouraged a bill be passed that limited the most government employee union's collective bargaining ability (not including Police or Fire Fighters). According to Gov. Walker, this was necessary in order to balance the budget so that some of the overly inflated salaries of public workers could be brought back in line with the national average. (Teachers were fairly heavily hit in this budget).
Does this make Wisconsin the only state in the union where public employees are not allowed to bargain collectively? (This does not mean that individual unions are not allowed to collectively bargain, just that employees of the DMV cannot bargain along side those who work for the department of children and families. The teacher's union, for example, can still go on strike.) Hardly. In fact there are 5 states where collective bargaining is illegal and 11 where it is merely permissible. Wisconsin joins 32% of states that do not require collective bargaining. (This is likely as much for the state as it is for the employees. Who wants to bargain with every union individually?)
Now, the government employees of Wisconsin claim that they had already agreed to all of the proposed cuts that Gov. Walker wanted to make in order to balance the budget. It is their contention that the removal of the collective bargaining rights of the state's employees was not a budgetary move, but rather a political one. Of course, if that is indeed the case, then the very thing they are shaming the governor for is the exact thing those that desire to recall him are doing: making a boldly political act.
Of course, this brings up a very important question: Just who runs the government? The voters who elected Scott Walker or the members of the unions who didn't like his solution to their state's budget crisis? The fact that they were even able to get sufficient signatures to hold a recall election is fairly troubling. I find it interesting that Gov Walker's opponents were able to get over 1 million signatures in order to force this recall election and yet with just about 80% of the votes counted, Gov Walker's challenger has only managed to get just over 800 thousand votes.
This may be an encouraging turn of events for those hoping to see a change in the White House in November. President Obama campaigned (albeit somewhat passively as he didn't even visit the state much to the chagrin of his Democratic teammates) for the challenger Tom Barrett. Hopefully, this means that the citizens of Wisconsin value economic responsibility in the face of governmental entitlement.
As I conclude this post, I'm happy to say that it appears as though Gov Walker will be the first sitting governor in US history to win a recall election. I looks like the answer to the most important question raised by this political wrangling is that the voters of Wisconsin run their government, and they've made it known that it's gonna stay that way for a while.
Now imagine that he was able to follow through on this promise! A year into his first term he has a balanced budget and has not raised taxes! What do the citizens do? A week of parades in his honor? Rename the capitol after him? Alter the constitution so he can serve more than two terms?
You didn't misread that. Wisconsin residents were the recipients of a balanced budget without an increase in taxes (which proves it can be done, by the way) and they thanked their Governor Scott Walker by trying to vote him out of office.
Their biggest beef with Gov. Walker is that he encouraged a bill be passed that limited the most government employee union's collective bargaining ability (not including Police or Fire Fighters). According to Gov. Walker, this was necessary in order to balance the budget so that some of the overly inflated salaries of public workers could be brought back in line with the national average. (Teachers were fairly heavily hit in this budget).
Does this make Wisconsin the only state in the union where public employees are not allowed to bargain collectively? (This does not mean that individual unions are not allowed to collectively bargain, just that employees of the DMV cannot bargain along side those who work for the department of children and families. The teacher's union, for example, can still go on strike.) Hardly. In fact there are 5 states where collective bargaining is illegal and 11 where it is merely permissible. Wisconsin joins 32% of states that do not require collective bargaining. (This is likely as much for the state as it is for the employees. Who wants to bargain with every union individually?) Now, the government employees of Wisconsin claim that they had already agreed to all of the proposed cuts that Gov. Walker wanted to make in order to balance the budget. It is their contention that the removal of the collective bargaining rights of the state's employees was not a budgetary move, but rather a political one. Of course, if that is indeed the case, then the very thing they are shaming the governor for is the exact thing those that desire to recall him are doing: making a boldly political act.
Of course, this brings up a very important question: Just who runs the government? The voters who elected Scott Walker or the members of the unions who didn't like his solution to their state's budget crisis? The fact that they were even able to get sufficient signatures to hold a recall election is fairly troubling. I find it interesting that Gov Walker's opponents were able to get over 1 million signatures in order to force this recall election and yet with just about 80% of the votes counted, Gov Walker's challenger has only managed to get just over 800 thousand votes.
This may be an encouraging turn of events for those hoping to see a change in the White House in November. President Obama campaigned (albeit somewhat passively as he didn't even visit the state much to the chagrin of his Democratic teammates) for the challenger Tom Barrett. Hopefully, this means that the citizens of Wisconsin value economic responsibility in the face of governmental entitlement.
As I conclude this post, I'm happy to say that it appears as though Gov Walker will be the first sitting governor in US history to win a recall election. I looks like the answer to the most important question raised by this political wrangling is that the voters of Wisconsin run their government, and they've made it known that it's gonna stay that way for a while.
Thursday, May 03, 2012
2012 Voting Booth Vol. II
It's election time and you know what that means: 'Tis the season for quippy and annoying bumper stickers! And this will be the focus of the second installment of the Voting Booth for the 2012 election season. We're going to look at one bumper sticker that the Obama campaign is using, and two that are incredibly more accurate regarding some of their campaign strategies and platforms.
Here is the first:
When I first saw this bumper sticker I had three separate thoughts. First: If that's all the President has to show for his first four years then, boy, is he in trouble! Second: (And I can't take credit for this idea, nor can I credit the original analogy creator as my research has turned up several people saying it) Whomever created the following analogy hit the nail right on the head: "Barak Obama taking credit for killing Bin Laden is like Richard Nixon taking credit for the moon landing." Yes, this happened on your watch, no you can't take credit for it. Just like Grant couldn't take credit for the transcontinental railroad just because he was sitting in the Oval Office when they drove in the golden spike. If Obama wants to run for reelection on those laurels he might as well add "Kentucky is the NCAA Final Four Champion." It happened, and you watched it, but you didn't have a whole lot to do with it. Third: Why is President Obama celebrating a massive bailout of a huge corporation? Aren't some of his staunchest supporters the members of the "Occupy" movement who are constantly pontificating about the evil of giant corporations? Seems to me this should enrage his base supporters, not energize them!
Here is a bumper sticker that is much closer to the truth regarding what will happen if the President gets reelected:
The country is trillions of dollars in debt with no end in sight to the rampant spending! There will come a day in the very near future where we are borrowing more than we take in each year! And what's the President's solution? Raise taxes! And he claims that Romney will cost the government money by extending the "Bush-era" tax cuts. I believe that Philip Klein at The Examiner succinctly responded to this fuzzy math when he wrote: "to portray any tax cut as a cost to government is to assume that the government is the rightful owner of 100 percent of the wealth created in society, and that every dollar that isn't spent by government is somehow a giveaway." If Obamacare is not repealed (or at the very least made impotent through the availability of state level waivers) this country will be bankrupt by the end of Obama's second term. Recession? You ain't seen nothin' yet!
Here is a bumper sticker that exposes the bizarre thinking of some of the more religious citizens who are concerned about the faith of the President:
Today is the fourth National Day of Prayer for which Obama has been President. It also marks the fourth National Day of Prayer where the Executive Branch of the government was the only branch not to send a representative to "stand in the gap" at Washington D.C.'s Day of Prayer Assembly. The Legislative and Judicial Branches each sent someone to represent them and be prayed over. The Military sent someone to represent the armed forces. I believe the accusations that he is a Muslim are fear based and false, but people would rather support a man who is evasive (at best) about his faith because "at least he isn't a Mormon!"
When all is said and done, I'm sure President Obama would like to use this next bumper sticker but I'm afraid it won't get him into the White House this time:
Here is a bumper sticker that is much closer to the truth regarding what will happen if the President gets reelected:
Here is a bumper sticker that exposes the bizarre thinking of some of the more religious citizens who are concerned about the faith of the President:
When all is said and done, I'm sure President Obama would like to use this next bumper sticker but I'm afraid it won't get him into the White House this time:
Thursday, April 12, 2012
2012 Voting Booth Vol. I
And so it has begun. And, as with every election: JMO does the research, so you don't have to! (but feel free to check my facts. Good research always stands up to scrutiny.)
With Santorum finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel (which was the on-coming Romney train) and derailing his own campaign before Mitt, and the GOP voters, could do it for him - we finally have a two person race. (Of course, a two candidate system creates its own issues, but those are for another day.)
The day after Santorum conceded to Romney I saw this image spring up on Facebook:
I restrained myself from commenting on this image on Facebook for a few reasons:
1) It was posted by people who were too young to vote and I didn't feel like taking any action that would make them feel bad about being interested in politics. They are young and misguided, but good for them for being interested.
2) I've found that people don't really pay attention to comments in Facebook. They are typically quippy, brief, and either ignored or misconstrued. This is a much better venue for my thoughts.
3) I had much to say and didn't want to bog down the comments section of the image. But, with as much as I need to say, let's get to it. I'll be refuting each point one at a time (This went longer than anticipated. You'll find the most amazing aspect of this entire situation after each point):
Point 1:
He'd repeal Obamacare and take away health care for millions:
Obamacare doesn't take effect until 2014, so he can't exactly away something they don't have. Obamacare hasn't even survived the Supreme Court test, so Romney may not have to repeal it, the courts may do that for him. I find it interesting that the creators of this document feel the need to specify why this is a bad thing. They couldn't just put "He'd repeal Obamacare." They had to add "and take away health care for millions." Why is that? Is it because the majority of national polls show that American's don't want it?! That if the average American reads "He'd repeal Obamacare" their first thought is: "good?" (Even the pollsters who are in bed with the left can't muster more than a 47% approval rating for this bill. Out of 298 polls only 92% had Americans opposing this bill by an average margin of over 11 points! Even if every "undecided" person polled were lumped into the "in favor" camp that would still leave fewer than half of those polled in favor of this bill. Not only that, but 57% of the polls would still show that Americans don't want this bill. Source
Point 2:
He opposes the President's plan to end the war in Afghanistan and would leave troops there indefinitely:
Romney has taken only one stance on Afghanistan: The top military leaders involved in the conflict should be the ones making the decision. So if Romney's plan is in opposition to the President's plan, that would mean that the President's plan is in opposition to the military's plan. Last I checked, President Obama didn't have any military experience. I suppose that "indefinitely" is accurate if there isn't a scheduled withdrawal date, so that much could be true. Romney has also stated that he would caution against making a similar commitment in the future, as we have in Afghanistan.
Point 3:
He'd cut taxes for millionaires, paid for by cutting the programs that middle-class families rely on:
Once again, as in point one, this is a distortion of the truth based on planned future events. Romney would "cut taxes for millionaires" by continuing the Bush-era tax cuts that cut taxes for everyone who pays them, so, yes, that includes millionaires. Romney also wants to cut taxes for businesses to stimulate job growth and revive the economy. How will he off-set the loss of income for the Federal Government? By cutting services. What puzzles me is this: How many families making between $32,000 and $36,000 a year (the low end of the "middle class" depending on your source) rely on government programs? Now, I understand that there are those that earn less than those figures that do rely on government programs, but... the middle class? I don't think so. Additionally, Romney would return the responsibilities for these services where they belong: to the state governments. Perhaps if we weren't seeing 20% of our income go to the Federal government we wouldn't be as up in arms if we see our property taxes go up a little. (Side note: The average American is working for the government until April 17th, this year before they begin to work for themselves.)
Point 4:
He'd end Medicare as we know it:
I'm not going to lie: I laughed out loud when I read this one. On the one hand, it is completely and utterly true: Mitt Romney would end Medicare as we know it. Sounds like he'd completely do away with it, doesn't it? That a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote to condemn Medicare. Clever wording, no? Of course, what is actually behind this sound-byte is that Romney will suggest reforms to Medicare that we haven't tried yet so, yes: Medicare would no longer be "as we know it." Romney has stated that he desires to "ensure that both Medicare and Social Security are made sustainable for future generations." Seriously, laughed out loud.
Point 5:
He'd get rid of Planned Parenthood and outlaw abortion:
Once again, this point is based on very clever wording and fuzzy deduction (Similar to when then-senator Obama said that he would not "repudiate" Rev Wright). Romney would not look to (nor would he be legally able to) "get rid of Planned Parenthood." Romney would remove Planned Parenthood's Federal funding. Now, if that action results in the dissolution of Planned Parenthood, then I'd have to believe that most American's wouldn't want their tax money subsidizing abortion to begin with. Otherwise, Planned Parenthood, like other private prenatal charities would be able to raise their own support. Oh, and no President can simply "outlaw abortion" or Regan, Bush I, or Bush II would have done it long before Romney got an opportunity.
Most amazing aspect of this situation:
This image originated fromPresident Obama's Campaign Facebook Page!
What does this mean? Well, this wasn't some grass-roots effort to bolster support for President Obama. This came directly from his re-election campaign! Why is this a such a big revelation? It means they recognize that the President has done so little for them to rest their laurels on that they are forced to resort to fear tactics. And not only fear tactics, but deceptive fear tactics at that! [if you skipped the refutation of the points, just check out points 2, 4, and 5. (well, every point has some deception to it but those are the most egregious)].
Bottom line: The Obama campaign is resorting to (at the very least) misleading fear tactics, and not all of them are so terrible!
With Santorum finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel (which was the on-coming Romney train) and derailing his own campaign before Mitt, and the GOP voters, could do it for him - we finally have a two person race. (Of course, a two candidate system creates its own issues, but those are for another day.)
The day after Santorum conceded to Romney I saw this image spring up on Facebook:
I restrained myself from commenting on this image on Facebook for a few reasons:
1) It was posted by people who were too young to vote and I didn't feel like taking any action that would make them feel bad about being interested in politics. They are young and misguided, but good for them for being interested.
2) I've found that people don't really pay attention to comments in Facebook. They are typically quippy, brief, and either ignored or misconstrued. This is a much better venue for my thoughts.
3) I had much to say and didn't want to bog down the comments section of the image. But, with as much as I need to say, let's get to it. I'll be refuting each point one at a time (This went longer than anticipated. You'll find the most amazing aspect of this entire situation after each point):
Point 1:
He'd repeal Obamacare and take away health care for millions:
Obamacare doesn't take effect until 2014, so he can't exactly away something they don't have. Obamacare hasn't even survived the Supreme Court test, so Romney may not have to repeal it, the courts may do that for him. I find it interesting that the creators of this document feel the need to specify why this is a bad thing. They couldn't just put "He'd repeal Obamacare." They had to add "and take away health care for millions." Why is that? Is it because the majority of national polls show that American's don't want it?! That if the average American reads "He'd repeal Obamacare" their first thought is: "good?" (Even the pollsters who are in bed with the left can't muster more than a 47% approval rating for this bill. Out of 298 polls only 92% had Americans opposing this bill by an average margin of over 11 points! Even if every "undecided" person polled were lumped into the "in favor" camp that would still leave fewer than half of those polled in favor of this bill. Not only that, but 57% of the polls would still show that Americans don't want this bill. Source
Point 2:
He opposes the President's plan to end the war in Afghanistan and would leave troops there indefinitely:
Romney has taken only one stance on Afghanistan: The top military leaders involved in the conflict should be the ones making the decision. So if Romney's plan is in opposition to the President's plan, that would mean that the President's plan is in opposition to the military's plan. Last I checked, President Obama didn't have any military experience. I suppose that "indefinitely" is accurate if there isn't a scheduled withdrawal date, so that much could be true. Romney has also stated that he would caution against making a similar commitment in the future, as we have in Afghanistan.
Point 3:
He'd cut taxes for millionaires, paid for by cutting the programs that middle-class families rely on:
Once again, as in point one, this is a distortion of the truth based on planned future events. Romney would "cut taxes for millionaires" by continuing the Bush-era tax cuts that cut taxes for everyone who pays them, so, yes, that includes millionaires. Romney also wants to cut taxes for businesses to stimulate job growth and revive the economy. How will he off-set the loss of income for the Federal Government? By cutting services. What puzzles me is this: How many families making between $32,000 and $36,000 a year (the low end of the "middle class" depending on your source) rely on government programs? Now, I understand that there are those that earn less than those figures that do rely on government programs, but... the middle class? I don't think so. Additionally, Romney would return the responsibilities for these services where they belong: to the state governments. Perhaps if we weren't seeing 20% of our income go to the Federal government we wouldn't be as up in arms if we see our property taxes go up a little. (Side note: The average American is working for the government until April 17th, this year before they begin to work for themselves.)
Point 4:
He'd end Medicare as we know it:
I'm not going to lie: I laughed out loud when I read this one. On the one hand, it is completely and utterly true: Mitt Romney would end Medicare as we know it. Sounds like he'd completely do away with it, doesn't it? That a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote to condemn Medicare. Clever wording, no? Of course, what is actually behind this sound-byte is that Romney will suggest reforms to Medicare that we haven't tried yet so, yes: Medicare would no longer be "as we know it." Romney has stated that he desires to "ensure that both Medicare and Social Security are made sustainable for future generations." Seriously, laughed out loud.
Point 5:
He'd get rid of Planned Parenthood and outlaw abortion:
Once again, this point is based on very clever wording and fuzzy deduction (Similar to when then-senator Obama said that he would not "repudiate" Rev Wright). Romney would not look to (nor would he be legally able to) "get rid of Planned Parenthood." Romney would remove Planned Parenthood's Federal funding. Now, if that action results in the dissolution of Planned Parenthood, then I'd have to believe that most American's wouldn't want their tax money subsidizing abortion to begin with. Otherwise, Planned Parenthood, like other private prenatal charities would be able to raise their own support. Oh, and no President can simply "outlaw abortion" or Regan, Bush I, or Bush II would have done it long before Romney got an opportunity.
Most amazing aspect of this situation:
This image originated from
What does this mean? Well, this wasn't some grass-roots effort to bolster support for President Obama. This came directly from his re-election campaign! Why is this a such a big revelation? It means they recognize that the President has done so little for them to rest their laurels on that they are forced to resort to fear tactics. And not only fear tactics, but deceptive fear tactics at that! [if you skipped the refutation of the points, just check out points 2, 4, and 5. (well, every point has some deception to it but those are the most egregious)].
Bottom line: The Obama campaign is resorting to (at the very least) misleading fear tactics, and not all of them are so terrible!
Sunday, April 08, 2012
Easter Reflections
As dawn broke on the third day, Jesus arose and walked out of the tomb. He greeted the angel sitting on the stone and the prostrate soldiers by name as he passed them. He found a quiet place to sit and wait for the women and then chuckle as He watched two of His disciples race to the tomb. What an amazing day in the history of humanity! The curtain was torn, God was accessible to all, Hallelujah!
But why did Jesus go to the cross to begin with? The answer seems obvious. Jesus died on the cross for me, right? I have bad news:
Jesus did not die for you.
It's difficult to convey intonation in written form so perhaps it would be better if I "said" it like this: Jesus did not die for you.
That is to say, we are not the primary reason that Jesus allowed himself to be nailed to a cross. Jesus didn't die for me and, I'm sorry to say, not for you, either.
Like any complex human decision, Jesus had many reasons why he chose to tolerate the plight of a Roman cross. But when we discuss the "why's" of things, we focus on the primary reason. And the message we receive all too often is that we are the primary reason that Jesus died. I can say conclusively, we are not.
Jesus went to the cross in order to bring glory to God the Father. Jesus allowed himself to stand before six illegal assemblies, before three different judges, before soldiers to be scourged, beaten, tortured, and before the public to be insulted, humiliated, pierced, and asphyxiated for the primary reason of glorifying His Father in heaven. Not for me. What am I but a worm that He would die for me? Who am I that my King should die for me?
Jesus endured this horrific experience to bring glory to God the Father and we are the unworthy, undeserving, infinitely blessed, grateful beneficiaries of His sacrifice.
This amounts to a complete reversal of everything we've been taught in our American churches: Jesus died for me. "If I were the only person on the face of the planet, Jesus still would have died for me." These statements aren't necessarily false. But they are (at the very least) out of order. If these statements are true, they were driven by His desire to bring glory to the Father, not principally for our benefit.
This may not sit well so allow me to provide some scriptural backing:
Exodus 14:4 "And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD." Did God free His people from Egypt for their benefit? No, he did it to bring glory to himself. The exodus is a prophetic example of God saving his people from their sins. Why would His reasons be different from one salvation to another?
Daniel 2:28-29: "Then Nebuchadnezzar said, “Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God. Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can save in this way.” What is God's motive here? For a pagan King to glorify the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.
What was God's principal motive in each of these? His own glory! Were the Israelites, along with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, peripheral beneficiaries of God's actions? Absolutely! Would they have been in error to say that God did what He did for their benefit? Yeah, kinda. And I can guarantee it would have affected how they each responded to their experiences.
So how does a proper understanding of Jesus' motives color our daily actions and attitudes? If I am the object of Jesus' dedication, and not God the Father, then my motivation to live a life of righteousness, generosity, and Christ-likeness is diminished. After all, Jesus went to the cross for me! He died to forgive me of my sins.
Imagine Meshach says "Praise God, he saved us!" but Abednego says, "Praise God, he brought glory to Himself and we had the privilege of being allowed to be a part of it!" Which attitude results in more praise, gratitude, and adoration?
What is our attitude with this proper understanding? Jesus died for the Father and I am the cursory recipient of the resulting grace; a planned recipient, but still the secondary purpose. Jesus chose to give glory to the Father through obedience even to death on a cross, (John 10:17-18, Philippians 2:8) and I have the privilege of being allowed to be a part of it through the salvation that I unjustly receive! How much greater is my praise? How much deeper is my gratitude? How much fuller is my adoration of the only One worthy of Glory?
Let us worship anew this Easter with a fuller understanding of the primary reason Jesus suffered. Let us recognize our proper position in God's plan of salvation: The grateful, unworthy people, the privileged beneficiaries of the grace made available by Jesus' righteous desire to bring His Father glory by becoming the final sacrifice for sin.
He is risen! He is risen indeed! Hallelujah!
But why did Jesus go to the cross to begin with? The answer seems obvious. Jesus died on the cross for me, right? I have bad news:
Jesus did not die for you.
It's difficult to convey intonation in written form so perhaps it would be better if I "said" it like this: Jesus did not die for you.
That is to say, we are not the primary reason that Jesus allowed himself to be nailed to a cross. Jesus didn't die for me and, I'm sorry to say, not for you, either.
Like any complex human decision, Jesus had many reasons why he chose to tolerate the plight of a Roman cross. But when we discuss the "why's" of things, we focus on the primary reason. And the message we receive all too often is that we are the primary reason that Jesus died. I can say conclusively, we are not.
Jesus went to the cross in order to bring glory to God the Father. Jesus allowed himself to stand before six illegal assemblies, before three different judges, before soldiers to be scourged, beaten, tortured, and before the public to be insulted, humiliated, pierced, and asphyxiated for the primary reason of glorifying His Father in heaven. Not for me. What am I but a worm that He would die for me? Who am I that my King should die for me?
Jesus endured this horrific experience to bring glory to God the Father and we are the unworthy, undeserving, infinitely blessed, grateful beneficiaries of His sacrifice.
This amounts to a complete reversal of everything we've been taught in our American churches: Jesus died for me. "If I were the only person on the face of the planet, Jesus still would have died for me." These statements aren't necessarily false. But they are (at the very least) out of order. If these statements are true, they were driven by His desire to bring glory to the Father, not principally for our benefit.
This may not sit well so allow me to provide some scriptural backing:
Exodus 14:4 "And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD." Did God free His people from Egypt for their benefit? No, he did it to bring glory to himself. The exodus is a prophetic example of God saving his people from their sins. Why would His reasons be different from one salvation to another?
Daniel 2:28-29: "Then Nebuchadnezzar said, “Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God. Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can save in this way.” What is God's motive here? For a pagan King to glorify the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.
What was God's principal motive in each of these? His own glory! Were the Israelites, along with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, peripheral beneficiaries of God's actions? Absolutely! Would they have been in error to say that God did what He did for their benefit? Yeah, kinda. And I can guarantee it would have affected how they each responded to their experiences.
So how does a proper understanding of Jesus' motives color our daily actions and attitudes? If I am the object of Jesus' dedication, and not God the Father, then my motivation to live a life of righteousness, generosity, and Christ-likeness is diminished. After all, Jesus went to the cross for me! He died to forgive me of my sins.
Imagine Meshach says "Praise God, he saved us!" but Abednego says, "Praise God, he brought glory to Himself and we had the privilege of being allowed to be a part of it!" Which attitude results in more praise, gratitude, and adoration?
What is our attitude with this proper understanding? Jesus died for the Father and I am the cursory recipient of the resulting grace; a planned recipient, but still the secondary purpose. Jesus chose to give glory to the Father through obedience even to death on a cross, (John 10:17-18, Philippians 2:8) and I have the privilege of being allowed to be a part of it through the salvation that I unjustly receive! How much greater is my praise? How much deeper is my gratitude? How much fuller is my adoration of the only One worthy of Glory?
Let us worship anew this Easter with a fuller understanding of the primary reason Jesus suffered. Let us recognize our proper position in God's plan of salvation: The grateful, unworthy people, the privileged beneficiaries of the grace made available by Jesus' righteous desire to bring His Father glory by becoming the final sacrifice for sin.
He is risen! He is risen indeed! Hallelujah!
Friday, April 06, 2012
A Historical Rewrite
The following is my version of the beginning of the Declaration of Independence if it had been written today:
We hold these "truths" to be self-evident provided they align with your own personal paradigm, that all menare created have evolved equally, that they are arbitrarily endowed by their Creator the evolutionary process that has lead us to believe that "rights" exist with certain unalienable rights provided you aren't an enemy combatant or a member of the "1%", that among these are life as long as you've already been born, liberty in all things secular, there shall be no liberty to share one's governmentally defined religion in the public square and the pursuit of government provided happiness. That to secure these rights, powerful federal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed special interest groups who fund them. That whenever any form of government (not including ours, of course) becomes destructive to these ends for those not rich. The wealthy are out of luck, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it (remember, not our government), and to institute new government that will no longer ignore the will of the people, laying its foundation on such lack of principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their liberty-less safety and government funded, a moral happiness.
Somehow it just doesn't have the same ring to it...
We hold these "truths" to be self-evident provided they align with your own personal paradigm, that all men
Somehow it just doesn't have the same ring to it...
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wisdom Comes with Age Youth
Once again, (see previous rant here) a hidden society destroying agenda comes to light in something disguised as entertainment or advertising.
Kraft has launched a new ad campaign for their star product Miracle Whip with the tag-line "Keep An Open Mouth." The first version of this campaign features angry villagers with pitch-forks and torches converging on a colonial house. It has an intentionally distinct "Witch Hunt" tone (as is proven by the title of the ad). The door of the house is opened by a 13 or 14 year old girl. Well, here, you might as well watch it rather than have me describe it for you:
And what do we learn from this piece? Once again the youth of society are bestowing wisdom upon the aged. It is the very people in the community who should be most respected who are blinded by prejudice and rage. The youth challenges them and they answer with ignorance and hearsay. After scolding them for their closed-mindedness the youth turns and returns to the house. As the posse leaves the youngest of the adults begins to see the light.
Why does our society so worship at the alter of youth? What is it about postmodernism that it instructs us to exchange the wisdom that comes with age for the self-righteous sophomoric views that are prevalent in youth? And so the question becomes: Does the media shape our views on society or merely reflect them?
When researching this post I stumbled upon a site called The Inspiration Room. That is where I found the second installment of this ad campaign:
Surprisingly, this episode is not quite as egregious as the first. Here the person portrayed as being "in the right" appears to be approaching middle-age while the most out-spoken ignorant towns-people appear to be the political leaders. A potential redeeming aspect is that the Reverend of the community has actually kept an open mind. The manner in which the villagers react to the "MW" emblem, however, still makes it seem as though the Reverend has done something obscene, rather than leading his flock in something good and proper.
The most ironic aspect of all of this is the tag-line. "Keep an open mouth" is an obvious play on "keep an open mind." And the message is that we ought to keep an open mind regarding all things, except the wisdom and traditions of previous generations. If we aren't going to rebel against those, we should, at the very least, ignore them.
When we look around and wonder why our society shouts for entitlements, can't stay out of debt, and obeys its hormonal urges rather than controls them we need look no further than our unquestioned adoration and idolatry of youth.
Credits
The Open Mouth campaign was developed at mcgarrybown, Chicago, by chief creative officer Ned Crowley, group creative directors Dave Reger and Michael Straznikas, copywriter Tyler Campbell, and art director Brant Herzer. Filming was shot in Romania by director Joachim Back via Park Pictures with executive producer Jackie Kelman Bisbee, director of production Lisa Burke Snyder, producer Katie Juras. Editing was done at Whitehouse Post by producer Laurie Adrianopoli, editor Rick Lawley.
Kraft has launched a new ad campaign for their star product Miracle Whip with the tag-line "Keep An Open Mouth." The first version of this campaign features angry villagers with pitch-forks and torches converging on a colonial house. It has an intentionally distinct "Witch Hunt" tone (as is proven by the title of the ad). The door of the house is opened by a 13 or 14 year old girl. Well, here, you might as well watch it rather than have me describe it for you:
And what do we learn from this piece? Once again the youth of society are bestowing wisdom upon the aged. It is the very people in the community who should be most respected who are blinded by prejudice and rage. The youth challenges them and they answer with ignorance and hearsay. After scolding them for their closed-mindedness the youth turns and returns to the house. As the posse leaves the youngest of the adults begins to see the light.
Why does our society so worship at the alter of youth? What is it about postmodernism that it instructs us to exchange the wisdom that comes with age for the self-righteous sophomoric views that are prevalent in youth? And so the question becomes: Does the media shape our views on society or merely reflect them?
When researching this post I stumbled upon a site called The Inspiration Room. That is where I found the second installment of this ad campaign:
Surprisingly, this episode is not quite as egregious as the first. Here the person portrayed as being "in the right" appears to be approaching middle-age while the most out-spoken ignorant towns-people appear to be the political leaders. A potential redeeming aspect is that the Reverend of the community has actually kept an open mind. The manner in which the villagers react to the "MW" emblem, however, still makes it seem as though the Reverend has done something obscene, rather than leading his flock in something good and proper.
The most ironic aspect of all of this is the tag-line. "Keep an open mouth" is an obvious play on "keep an open mind." And the message is that we ought to keep an open mind regarding all things, except the wisdom and traditions of previous generations. If we aren't going to rebel against those, we should, at the very least, ignore them.
When we look around and wonder why our society shouts for entitlements, can't stay out of debt, and obeys its hormonal urges rather than controls them we need look no further than our unquestioned adoration and idolatry of youth.
Credits
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Fasting for Food
This is a new cruise ship called "The Freedom of the Seas." It holds five thousand (5000) passengers on any given trip. What does this cruise ship have to do with World Vision's 30 Hour Famine?
In 2009 twenty-six thousand (26,000) children were dying every day of hunger and preventable diseases. In just three short years, the work of charities like World Vision has decreased that number to twenty-one thousand (21,000). Is this still twenty-one thousand too many? Absolutely! But, together, our efforts have decreased the number of senseless deaths by the capacity of this cruise ship every day! There is still work to be done.
How amazing to be able to say that you are a part of putting an end to the needless suffering of children world-wide? How can you be involved? From noon on April 13th to 6 pm on April 14th, the youth group that my wife and I lead will be participating in World Vision's 30 Hour Famine: A planned fast to raise money for this worthy cause.
That's where you come in. We would like to give you the opportunity to sponsor my wife and I during our fast. Sponsoring us at $1 per hour that we fast would feed a child for 1 month. If $30 is not an option for you, any amount that you can give is greatly and sincerely appreciated. You do not need to feel bound by the "amount per hour" model, even if you can donate $2, that is money that will help those in need. (Donations of over $30 are also welcome).
Consider this: The least expensive cruise that I could find for "The Freedom of the Seas" was $1,373. That amount of money could feed 4 children for an entire year.
We're not asking for quite that much (unless you feel so lead!). My wife and I have set a fund raising goal of $720. That's enough to feed two children for a full year (or if you prefer: 24 children for 1 month). Would you consider partnering with us? You can donate on our 30 Hour Famine website here.
If you are unable to give financially, please pray for me, my wife, my fellow leaders, and the youth that will be participating. This can be a live changing event. It truly helps to put into perspective the abundance that we are blessed with in America.
Thank you for reading this post. Thank you for visiting my donation website. And thank you for your support.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Laws, Morals, & The Constitution
As we head into this election season I'd like to discuss a realization that I've been noticing more and more: As time goes on the size of our government increases. And as the size of our government increases, the character of our citizenship decreases. What is the cause of this? After much pondering I realized that I was looking at this issue backwards. The decreasing character of our citizenry is not caused by the increasing size of government, rather the inflation of government is in response to the systematic shedding of character by the average American!
This proper view of our national situation makes complete logical sense: When people can control themselves, external control is unnecessary. When people cease to exercise self-control the governing forces must increase in order to exert enough external force to bring about the appearance of "self-control" in its citizens.
The next logical question must therefore be: What has caused the erosion of character in our nation? I believe this is two-fold.
First, we no longer encourage people to believe in an absolute morality. Earlier in our country's history our government worked to frame laws that reflected our morality. Now, we base morality on the laws our country passes! We no longer uphold a morality against which our laws can be judged. Rather, people judge morality as compared to our laws! This has been exposed most recently when Piers Morgan said to Kirk Cameron regarding gay marriage, "And yet, some people would say that telling kids that being gay is a sin, or getting married is a sin or whatever – that in itself is incredibly destructive and damaging, in a country where seven states now have legalized it." Piers is questioning Kirk's standard of morality as compared to the laws of seven states! The law supersedes, or, perhaps more accurately, dictates morality. With laws that can vacillate from administration to administration, who can determine what is moral and what is not?
Second: We have forgotten the foundation on which this country was constructed. Regardless of their personal beliefs, whether they were deists, Christians, or simply savvy politicians, the founding fathers saw the wisdom in basing their designs for a new country on the blue print of Judeo-Christian values. James Madison wrote, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God with all of our heart." Once again, we find the urging for self-discipline which leads to a smaller government. With or without a personal belief in these values I do not understand why the majority of politicians do not strongly recommend living by these tenets. They encourage obedience, submission, volunteerism, compassion, and prayerful support of the government provided it does not contradict the law of God. What politician wouldn't want a multitude of citizens striving to uphold these virtues?
One final proof that our founding fathers believed that a society based on Judeo-Christian morals was best for all can be found in the preamble of the Constitution. This brief segment of the most important document of our government declares that two of the purposes of the government are to "provide for the common defense," and "promote the general Welfare." The wording here is intentional and not accidental. The government is not called to provide for the general welfare of its citizens. It is to provide defense. I mention both purposes as a juxtaposition to show that the mandate for our lawmakers is to promote the general welfare, not provide it. The mandate is to create an environment that encourages both micro and macro charity, enables churches and other religious institutions to provide care for the needy, helps corporations create job placement services, encourages restaurants to have soup kitchens to feed the hungry, etc, etc, etc. The forefathers were not looking to create a government that would provide these services. This just encourages people to ignore their destitute neighbor. "Don't worry about them, the government will take care of them."
The rebelliousness of human nature and the blindness of our so-called leaders to these society-building beliefs has caused what we are dealing with today: the steady and disturbing decline of individual and corporate character in our nation. In response, the continual bloating of the government in a vain attempt to create an external force designed to cause self-control which, in turn, leads to the disintegration of our civil liberties. And while the obese government may be able to prevent chaos, it is not able to compel it's citizens to care for each other and therefore, must also assume the role of provider of the general welfare.
Is there nothing that can save us from this perpetual downward spiral?
This proper view of our national situation makes complete logical sense: When people can control themselves, external control is unnecessary. When people cease to exercise self-control the governing forces must increase in order to exert enough external force to bring about the appearance of "self-control" in its citizens.
The next logical question must therefore be: What has caused the erosion of character in our nation? I believe this is two-fold.
First, we no longer encourage people to believe in an absolute morality. Earlier in our country's history our government worked to frame laws that reflected our morality. Now, we base morality on the laws our country passes! We no longer uphold a morality against which our laws can be judged. Rather, people judge morality as compared to our laws! This has been exposed most recently when Piers Morgan said to Kirk Cameron regarding gay marriage, "And yet, some people would say that telling kids that being gay is a sin, or getting married is a sin or whatever – that in itself is incredibly destructive and damaging, in a country where seven states now have legalized it." Piers is questioning Kirk's standard of morality as compared to the laws of seven states! The law supersedes, or, perhaps more accurately, dictates morality. With laws that can vacillate from administration to administration, who can determine what is moral and what is not?
Second: We have forgotten the foundation on which this country was constructed. Regardless of their personal beliefs, whether they were deists, Christians, or simply savvy politicians, the founding fathers saw the wisdom in basing their designs for a new country on the blue print of Judeo-Christian values. James Madison wrote, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God with all of our heart." Once again, we find the urging for self-discipline which leads to a smaller government. With or without a personal belief in these values I do not understand why the majority of politicians do not strongly recommend living by these tenets. They encourage obedience, submission, volunteerism, compassion, and prayerful support of the government provided it does not contradict the law of God. What politician wouldn't want a multitude of citizens striving to uphold these virtues?
One final proof that our founding fathers believed that a society based on Judeo-Christian morals was best for all can be found in the preamble of the Constitution. This brief segment of the most important document of our government declares that two of the purposes of the government are to "provide for the common defense," and "promote the general Welfare." The wording here is intentional and not accidental. The government is not called to provide for the general welfare of its citizens. It is to provide defense. I mention both purposes as a juxtaposition to show that the mandate for our lawmakers is to promote the general welfare, not provide it. The mandate is to create an environment that encourages both micro and macro charity, enables churches and other religious institutions to provide care for the needy, helps corporations create job placement services, encourages restaurants to have soup kitchens to feed the hungry, etc, etc, etc. The forefathers were not looking to create a government that would provide these services. This just encourages people to ignore their destitute neighbor. "Don't worry about them, the government will take care of them."
The rebelliousness of human nature and the blindness of our so-called leaders to these society-building beliefs has caused what we are dealing with today: the steady and disturbing decline of individual and corporate character in our nation. In response, the continual bloating of the government in a vain attempt to create an external force designed to cause self-control which, in turn, leads to the disintegration of our civil liberties. And while the obese government may be able to prevent chaos, it is not able to compel it's citizens to care for each other and therefore, must also assume the role of provider of the general welfare.
Is there nothing that can save us from this perpetual downward spiral?
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Wrongful Parents
It's been a while since something has fired me up enough to sit down and compose my thoughts. I usually prefer to respond to issues that are either egregious or have flown under the radar. The issue of this post, I believe, has done both.
A couple from Portland Oregon recently won $2.9 million dollars in a "wrongful birth" suit. That's right wrongful birth! Their daughter was born with Down Syndrome and the doctors misdiagnosed their baby as healthy during their prenatal visits. They argue that they were not given the opportunity to terminate their pregnancy due to the fact their daughter was going to be born with special needs.
After I cleaned up my vomit I sat down to write these thoughts:
First (and foremost): The Oregon department of Human Services: Children, Adults, and Family division needs to step in and immediately remove this child from that home. By the parent's own admission they do not want her. To what other conclusion can one come if these parents openly admit they would have aborted the child during pregnancy? That's only a few steps short of announcing "We would kill our child now if it were legal." If you would like to contact the Oregon DHS, you can do so at this email address: dhs.directorsoffice@state.or.us
Second: A higher court needs to overturn this travesty of a ruling. Doctors already "play it safe" with diagnosis, with referrals, with emergency room visits in a vain attempt to avoid malpractice suits. Now the misdiagnosis of "healthy" of an in-utero fetus has led to a massive award! Doctors can't even always accurately determine the gender of a baby, now we are expecting them to catch every possible prenatal complication? Consider the implications if doctors begin to "play it safe" in this arena as they do in most others: If there is even the hint of a problem, now it's a diagnosis. How many completely healthy babies will we abort because of this ground-breaking, precedent-setting decision? What are we, Sparta?
Third: I pray that this poor four-year-old girl never, ever learns how her parents got their money. Do we really believe that a person with Down Syndrome has less worth than someone who doesn't? "If you prick [her] do[es she] not bleed? If you tickle [her] do[es she] not laugh? If you poison [her] do[es she] not die? And if you wrong [her] shall [she] not revenge?" If you tell her that her parents would have aborted her if they'd known that she wasn't going to be perfect, what will that do to this poor girl who is already dealing with the fact that she isn't like everyone else?! This is where a god-less view of evolution has led us: a society that believes that a person's worth is determined solely by how we perceive "Natural Selection" would impact them. There is no God in whose image they were made. No one was "knit together in their mother's womb." There is no eternal purpose to our existence. In fact, parenthood, which ought to be the most selfless of acts, becomes something akin to buying a car. "This one's ok but I wanted one with a leather interior." What happens when their other child comes home with a C in Geometry? Do they sue the math teacher? Oh, no, they'd go after the doctor who didn't give them an opportunity to abort this less-than-perfect child.
Fourth: How is this possibly the doctor's responsibility to pay for the "additional costs of raising a special needs child?" (This was the "legal" basis of the suit.) I suppose it's more accurate to ask "How is this possibly the doctor's malpractice insurance policy's responsibility to pay for the 'additional costs of raising a special needs child?'" Down Syndrome is a genetic condition so why aren't they suing their own families? If they are serious about placing blame, they ought to be working to determine which parent caused their daughter to have an extra chromosome, and force that parent to work two jobs. Do you think the cost of health care is high now? Guess what this decision is going to do to those already sky-rocketing premiums? Sorry, Obama-care, you don't even touch this issue.
Fifth: Where is the ACLU?! The silent acceptance of the point-of-view of these parents is to encourage what amounts to nothing less than a genocide of children based solely on their disability! How is this not a complete trampling of their civil liberties?! Where is the outrage from organizations that defend the disabled? Is the ACLU finding difficulty determining which "civil liberty" they ought to defend: A woman's right tokill choose, or a fetus' right to live?
This issue is disgusting on so many levels: First, shame on the parents who brought this suit to court. Second, shame on the lawyer who put money ahead of morals. Third, shame on those that ruled in favor of these so-called parents who have forfeited their rights to their daughter simply by dreaming up this vile malpractice suit. And finally, shame on those that silently approve of the practice of killing unborn babies because they weren't "perfect." You will not find me among their ranks.
That's my opinion. What's yours?!
A couple from Portland Oregon recently won $2.9 million dollars in a "wrongful birth" suit. That's right wrongful birth! Their daughter was born with Down Syndrome and the doctors misdiagnosed their baby as healthy during their prenatal visits. They argue that they were not given the opportunity to terminate their pregnancy due to the fact their daughter was going to be born with special needs.
After I cleaned up my vomit I sat down to write these thoughts:
First (and foremost): The Oregon department of Human Services: Children, Adults, and Family division needs to step in and immediately remove this child from that home. By the parent's own admission they do not want her. To what other conclusion can one come if these parents openly admit they would have aborted the child during pregnancy? That's only a few steps short of announcing "We would kill our child now if it were legal." If you would like to contact the Oregon DHS, you can do so at this email address: dhs.directorsoffice@state.or.us
Second: A higher court needs to overturn this travesty of a ruling. Doctors already "play it safe" with diagnosis, with referrals, with emergency room visits in a vain attempt to avoid malpractice suits. Now the misdiagnosis of "healthy" of an in-utero fetus has led to a massive award! Doctors can't even always accurately determine the gender of a baby, now we are expecting them to catch every possible prenatal complication? Consider the implications if doctors begin to "play it safe" in this arena as they do in most others: If there is even the hint of a problem, now it's a diagnosis. How many completely healthy babies will we abort because of this ground-breaking, precedent-setting decision? What are we, Sparta?
Third: I pray that this poor four-year-old girl never, ever learns how her parents got their money. Do we really believe that a person with Down Syndrome has less worth than someone who doesn't? "If you prick [her] do[es she] not bleed? If you tickle [her] do[es she] not laugh? If you poison [her] do[es she] not die? And if you wrong [her] shall [she] not revenge?" If you tell her that her parents would have aborted her if they'd known that she wasn't going to be perfect, what will that do to this poor girl who is already dealing with the fact that she isn't like everyone else?! This is where a god-less view of evolution has led us: a society that believes that a person's worth is determined solely by how we perceive "Natural Selection" would impact them. There is no God in whose image they were made. No one was "knit together in their mother's womb." There is no eternal purpose to our existence. In fact, parenthood, which ought to be the most selfless of acts, becomes something akin to buying a car. "This one's ok but I wanted one with a leather interior." What happens when their other child comes home with a C in Geometry? Do they sue the math teacher? Oh, no, they'd go after the doctor who didn't give them an opportunity to abort this less-than-perfect child.
Fourth: How is this possibly the doctor's responsibility to pay for the "additional costs of raising a special needs child?" (This was the "legal" basis of the suit.) I suppose it's more accurate to ask "How is this possibly the doctor's malpractice insurance policy's responsibility to pay for the 'additional costs of raising a special needs child?'" Down Syndrome is a genetic condition so why aren't they suing their own families? If they are serious about placing blame, they ought to be working to determine which parent caused their daughter to have an extra chromosome, and force that parent to work two jobs. Do you think the cost of health care is high now? Guess what this decision is going to do to those already sky-rocketing premiums? Sorry, Obama-care, you don't even touch this issue.
Fifth: Where is the ACLU?! The silent acceptance of the point-of-view of these parents is to encourage what amounts to nothing less than a genocide of children based solely on their disability! How is this not a complete trampling of their civil liberties?! Where is the outrage from organizations that defend the disabled? Is the ACLU finding difficulty determining which "civil liberty" they ought to defend: A woman's right to
This issue is disgusting on so many levels: First, shame on the parents who brought this suit to court. Second, shame on the lawyer who put money ahead of morals. Third, shame on those that ruled in favor of these so-called parents who have forfeited their rights to their daughter simply by dreaming up this vile malpractice suit. And finally, shame on those that silently approve of the practice of killing unborn babies because they weren't "perfect." You will not find me among their ranks.
That's my opinion. What's yours?!
Monday, January 16, 2012
All Four Super Bowl Previews VI
It's that one week per year when I can sit down to write this: my most favorite of posts: A preview of the four possible Super Bowls! (Could this really be the sixth time I've written this post?)
If you'd like to see how I've done in the past, you can read my previous versions here (I'll list them with the year the Super Bowl happened along with the actual teams that faced off): 2007, Colts over Bears; 2008, Giants over Patriots; 2009, Steelers over Cardinals; 2010, Saints over Colts, and 2011, Packers over Steelers.
For those who read this years preseason predictions know that half of my Patriots/Eagles Super Bowl prediction is still in it, and for those who read my Playoff predictions know that half of my Ravens/Saints game is still alive. Let's see how I do now that there are only four teams left.
And now, as you've become accustomed, here are all four Super Bowl break-downs, from least compelling to most: (get your wallets out and call Vegas and Atlantic City. Put your money on the two teams I pick to win to lose BIG)
Ravens vs Giants
And the chant from rises from the stands and fans of both teams support their respective quarterbacks with the same mantra: "Just don't mess up! Just don't mess up!" The Ravens and the Giants are strangely similar. They can play amazingly well against excellent teams (Baltimore beat Pittsburgh twice this year and the Giants beat the Patriots in Foxboro and nearly handed the Packers their first loss of the season) but they both also play down to poorer teams! (The Giants lost to Washington and the Ravens caved to the Seahawks!) They both have strong defenses with inconsistent offenses. Nothing says a thrilling Super Bowl like great defense against mediocre offense. Sure it's a rematch of Super Bowl XXXV, but how many people even remember that the Ravens won that game? This is the game I predict. Winner: Giants (Loser: The grounds crew that has to returf between the 20's)
Ravens vs 49ers
There's something wrong with a match-up when the most compelling story is the fact that the head coaches are brothers. Besides, we already had the Harbaugh bowl, John won. [As you read this, hear the movie preview voice in your head]: "Coming this February... Joe "Listen, I'm elite too" Flaco and the Baltimore Ravens take on Alex "Seriously, I was the first pick of the draft" Smith and his 49ers. Listen as the balls hit the ground like the Battle of Britain as incomplete passes litter the field. Watch as the pigskin flies through the air off the foot of punters and field-goal kickers alike!" Winner: (John wins again) Ravens (Loser: Field Goal net operators)
Patriots vs 49ers
After much consideration, this is the game that I'd like to see. You'll find a further explanation of this below. There is an interesting, though lesser known angle to this game. Tom Brady grew up idolizing Joe Montana and was a huge fan of the 49ers. He was even in the stands to see "the catch" (the original catch that elevated the 49ers over the Cowboys in January of 1982). The seasoned veteran vs the rebirth of a former perennial powerhouse. Winner: Patriots (Loser: Casual football fans)
Patriots vs Giants
This is the game that everyone wants to see. A rematch of 2008. Brady seeks revenge, Eli seeks respect. Can Brady's amazing offense score on the Giants powerful D? Can New England's woeful defense stop Eli and his mediocre offense? If the Patriots win there will be "too little too late" talk, "too bad it wasn't 2008." If the Giants win, it will be a long time before we hear the end of it! "Eli's better than Peyton, Eli's better than Brady, the Giants stopped the perfect season and nearly did it again this year, they knocked the 15-1 team out of the playoffs and defeated the Patriots three times in their last three meetings, and on and on and on. The only thing that would make this game bearable is if the Patriots dish out another severe thumping akin to the one from which Tebow is now recovering. Bottom line, you don't beat Belichick twice in the same year. Winner: Patriots (Loser: Anyone standing near a Giants fan)
In years past, I've had a good feeling regarding who was going to win the Conference Championship games (regardless as to how wrong I turned out to be). Not so this year. I won't be surprised if any of these games took place.
That's my opinion, what's yours?
If you'd like to see how I've done in the past, you can read my previous versions here (I'll list them with the year the Super Bowl happened along with the actual teams that faced off): 2007, Colts over Bears; 2008, Giants over Patriots; 2009, Steelers over Cardinals; 2010, Saints over Colts, and 2011, Packers over Steelers.
For those who read this years preseason predictions know that half of my Patriots/Eagles Super Bowl prediction is still in it, and for those who read my Playoff predictions know that half of my Ravens/Saints game is still alive. Let's see how I do now that there are only four teams left.
And now, as you've become accustomed, here are all four Super Bowl break-downs, from least compelling to most: (get your wallets out and call Vegas and Atlantic City. Put your money on the two teams I pick to win to lose BIG)
Ravens vs Giants
And the chant from rises from the stands and fans of both teams support their respective quarterbacks with the same mantra: "Just don't mess up! Just don't mess up!" The Ravens and the Giants are strangely similar. They can play amazingly well against excellent teams (Baltimore beat Pittsburgh twice this year and the Giants beat the Patriots in Foxboro and nearly handed the Packers their first loss of the season) but they both also play down to poorer teams! (The Giants lost to Washington and the Ravens caved to the Seahawks!) They both have strong defenses with inconsistent offenses. Nothing says a thrilling Super Bowl like great defense against mediocre offense. Sure it's a rematch of Super Bowl XXXV, but how many people even remember that the Ravens won that game? This is the game I predict. Winner: Giants (Loser: The grounds crew that has to returf between the 20's)
Ravens vs 49ers
There's something wrong with a match-up when the most compelling story is the fact that the head coaches are brothers. Besides, we already had the Harbaugh bowl, John won. [As you read this, hear the movie preview voice in your head]: "Coming this February... Joe "Listen, I'm elite too" Flaco and the Baltimore Ravens take on Alex "Seriously, I was the first pick of the draft" Smith and his 49ers. Listen as the balls hit the ground like the Battle of Britain as incomplete passes litter the field. Watch as the pigskin flies through the air off the foot of punters and field-goal kickers alike!" Winner: (John wins again) Ravens (Loser: Field Goal net operators)
Patriots vs 49ers
After much consideration, this is the game that I'd like to see. You'll find a further explanation of this below. There is an interesting, though lesser known angle to this game. Tom Brady grew up idolizing Joe Montana and was a huge fan of the 49ers. He was even in the stands to see "the catch" (the original catch that elevated the 49ers over the Cowboys in January of 1982). The seasoned veteran vs the rebirth of a former perennial powerhouse. Winner: Patriots (Loser: Casual football fans)
Patriots vs Giants
This is the game that everyone wants to see. A rematch of 2008. Brady seeks revenge, Eli seeks respect. Can Brady's amazing offense score on the Giants powerful D? Can New England's woeful defense stop Eli and his mediocre offense? If the Patriots win there will be "too little too late" talk, "too bad it wasn't 2008." If the Giants win, it will be a long time before we hear the end of it! "Eli's better than Peyton, Eli's better than Brady, the Giants stopped the perfect season and nearly did it again this year, they knocked the 15-1 team out of the playoffs and defeated the Patriots three times in their last three meetings, and on and on and on. The only thing that would make this game bearable is if the Patriots dish out another severe thumping akin to the one from which Tebow is now recovering. Bottom line, you don't beat Belichick twice in the same year. Winner: Patriots (Loser: Anyone standing near a Giants fan)
In years past, I've had a good feeling regarding who was going to win the Conference Championship games (regardless as to how wrong I turned out to be). Not so this year. I won't be surprised if any of these games took place.
That's my opinion, what's yours?
Monday, January 02, 2012
2011 - 2012 Playoff Preview
Seems the only topic that brings me back to my blog is sports. (Politics will begins shortly, but it's just too far away for me right now.) So, time for me to review how my preseason predictions panned out. In this post I'll also be cursing at least four teams by predicting that they will do well in the playoffs!
You can find my preseason preview in the previous post (I haven't posted since September!). Here's how I did:
AFC
East
Prediction: Patriots
Actual: Patriots
And they are the #1 seed! One for one!
West
Prediction: Chargers
Actual: Broncos
It is a QB driven league, and somehow Tebow came out on top! (I have three friends who have agreed that if Denver wins it all, it confirms a higher power and they will come to church with me :D)
North
Prediction: Steelers
Actual: Ravens
I'm giving myself 3/4 of a point on this one because the Steelers grabbed a wild card spot I picked the Ravens as a wild card team. So I had both teams going to the playoffs, and both teams made it.
South
Prediction: Colts
Actual: Texans
No fair! Peyton had surgery on his neck the day after I made my predictions! I'm giving myself 3/4 of a point here as well because I accurately predicted that if Peyton wasn't effective that Houston would take the division.
Wild Card
Prediction: Jets & Ravens
Actual: Bengals & Steelers
Wow. Two teams from the AFC North. While the NFC East has done this in the past, this is no easy feat.
NFC
East
Prediction: Eagles
Actual: Giants
I drank the kool-aid. I believed the hype. I was wrong. Can I get some props for accurately predicting that the Eagles season will be a failure? (Of course, I thought they'd make it into the playoffs before collapsing.)
West
Prediction: Cardinals
Actual: 49ers
I picked the 49ers last year, does that count for anything? No. Ok.
North
Prediction: Packers
Actual: Packers
Hey, look! I got the gimme!
South
Prediction: Falcons
Actual: Saints
Another 3/4 of a point for getting both teams (Saints and Falcons) in the playoffs, just missing who'd take the division and who the wild card. Last year I picked the Saints and the Falcons took it. This year it was vise versa. So next year I'll pick the Saints because I want to see the Falcons take the division.
Wild Card
Prediction: Cowboys & Saints
Actual: Falcons & Lions
I predicted 6 of the 12 Playoff Teams. Three from each Conference. One better than last year! I guess I'm getting better. Only half of my predicted Super Bowl remains. Go Pats. :)
Playoff Predictions
Alright, so based on how I did this year we can expect 5.5 of my Playoff predictions to be accurate.
Alright, get ready to call Vegas and place your bets! Here we go:
AFC
Wild Card Round:
Steelers at Broncos
I'm most confident about this game. Broncos rely on the run, Steelers stop the run. If the game is on Tebow's shoulders he'll carry it all the way to the golf course. Give Reothlisberger the extra week of rest, play Batch. It will still be a blow out.
Winner: Steelers
Bengals at Texans
This is the hardest of the 1st round games to pick. I want the Bengals to win so that they go to New England. Both teams have been a surprise this year; The Bengals with how well they've done and the Texans with how well they've done considering their injuries. Unfortunately, I don't think the Bengals will be able to overcome Houston.
Winner: Texans
Divisional Round:
Steelers at Patriots
(If the Bengals could beat Houston, their post season ends here) The Patriots have been giving up huge leads, making amazing adjustments, and scoring tons of unanswered points. You don't win that way in the Playoffs and you don't win that way against the Steelers. I would have said that the Patriots would benefit from home field advantage if A) they hadn't given up a giant lead to the Bills last week, B) they hadn't been unable to overcome the Giants lead at home earlier this year, or C) they weren't facing another cold weather team in the Steelers. The deck is stacked against the Patriots in this match-up.
Winner: Steelers
Texans at Ravens
Houston was lucky to draw the Bengals in the Wild Card round. But Baltimore is too good for the wounded Texans. The only thing that makes this a close game is the fact that the Ravens play down to their opponents.
Winner: Ravens
Championship Round:
Steelers at Ravens
It's been said "You don't beat the same team three times in one year." The Ravens will. The just have the Steelers' number this year. This will be a great game and will go right down to the wire but Flaco will emerge victorious.
Winner: Ravens
NFC
Wild Card Round:
Falcons at Giants
Like the Steelers, the Falcons have a better record than the team they have to travel to face. And like the Steelers, it won't make a huge difference. It really didn't matter who won the Sunday night game week 17 because both the Giants and the Cowboys were losing to the Falcons this round.
Winner: Falcons
Lions at Saints
Another great match-up. This will be a very entertaining game to watch for those without a "horse in the race." It will be a great battle but in the end it will be very frustrating for Lions fans who will watch their team self destruct with penalties.
Winner: Saints
Divisional Round:
Saints at 49ers
The 49ers surprised a lot of people with the amount of success they had this year. Hosting a playoff game would normally be a big thrill for them. Unless they are facing the Saints. A record setting year for Brees and the Saints continues as they send San Francisco packing.
Winner: Saints
Falcons at Packers
Yet another great game! The first true test of the Packers since they nearly lost to the Giants. Some of you may be asking, what about the Chiefs? Shouldn't have been a test. Just goes to prove how difficult it is to go undefeated in a 16 game season. This is a tough game to call based on how potent Rodgers and the Packers offense has looked. But the Falcons may surprise a lot of people. It'll be very close.
Winner: Packers
Championship Round:
Saints at Packers
The last NFC game will be a rematch of the first game of the season. And what a rematch it will be. Brees' performance has been overshadowed by the Packers' nearly perfect season. Green Bay's loss may bump Brees to the front runner in the MVP race. Green Bay also faced weaker teams this year than the Saints did. Both Championship Games will rival the Super Bowl in excitement and intensity. Brees and the Saints will end the Packer's pursuit as repeat Champions.
Winner: Saints
Super Bowl
Saints vs Ravens
While not the game the network is hoping for, what a game to watch! The red hot offense of the Saints versus the Stifling defense of the Ravens! They say that defense wins Championships but the top teams this year have been doing it with offense. In the end, the pundits will start discussing the possibility of a dynasty as Brees brings the Lombardi Trophy back to New Orleans for the second time in 3 years.
Winner: Saints
There you have it. So now it's likely that the Giants will shock the world again and beat Tebow in the Super Bowl. (My ideal is Bengals over Houston, New England over Cincinnati, and New England over the Ravens. Then New England facing Green Bay. But this is all fairly unlikely.) Feel free to provide your predictions. What a great time of year!
You can find my preseason preview in the previous post (I haven't posted since September!). Here's how I did:
AFC
East
Prediction: Patriots
Actual: Patriots
And they are the #1 seed! One for one!
West
Prediction: Chargers
Actual: Broncos
It is a QB driven league, and somehow Tebow came out on top! (I have three friends who have agreed that if Denver wins it all, it confirms a higher power and they will come to church with me :D)
North
Prediction: Steelers
Actual: Ravens
I'm giving myself 3/4 of a point on this one because the Steelers grabbed a wild card spot I picked the Ravens as a wild card team. So I had both teams going to the playoffs, and both teams made it.
South
Prediction: Colts
Actual: Texans
No fair! Peyton had surgery on his neck the day after I made my predictions! I'm giving myself 3/4 of a point here as well because I accurately predicted that if Peyton wasn't effective that Houston would take the division.
Wild Card
Prediction: Jets & Ravens
Actual: Bengals & Steelers
Wow. Two teams from the AFC North. While the NFC East has done this in the past, this is no easy feat.
NFC
East
Prediction: Eagles
Actual: Giants
I drank the kool-aid. I believed the hype. I was wrong. Can I get some props for accurately predicting that the Eagles season will be a failure? (Of course, I thought they'd make it into the playoffs before collapsing.)
West
Prediction: Cardinals
Actual: 49ers
I picked the 49ers last year, does that count for anything? No. Ok.
North
Prediction: Packers
Actual: Packers
Hey, look! I got the gimme!
South
Prediction: Falcons
Actual: Saints
Another 3/4 of a point for getting both teams (Saints and Falcons) in the playoffs, just missing who'd take the division and who the wild card. Last year I picked the Saints and the Falcons took it. This year it was vise versa. So next year I'll pick the Saints because I want to see the Falcons take the division.
Wild Card
Prediction: Cowboys & Saints
Actual: Falcons & Lions
I predicted 6 of the 12 Playoff Teams. Three from each Conference. One better than last year! I guess I'm getting better. Only half of my predicted Super Bowl remains. Go Pats. :)
Playoff Predictions
Alright, so based on how I did this year we can expect 5.5 of my Playoff predictions to be accurate.
Alright, get ready to call Vegas and place your bets! Here we go:
AFC
Wild Card Round:
Steelers at Broncos
I'm most confident about this game. Broncos rely on the run, Steelers stop the run. If the game is on Tebow's shoulders he'll carry it all the way to the golf course. Give Reothlisberger the extra week of rest, play Batch. It will still be a blow out.
Winner: Steelers
Bengals at Texans
This is the hardest of the 1st round games to pick. I want the Bengals to win so that they go to New England. Both teams have been a surprise this year; The Bengals with how well they've done and the Texans with how well they've done considering their injuries. Unfortunately, I don't think the Bengals will be able to overcome Houston.
Winner: Texans
Divisional Round:
Steelers at Patriots
(If the Bengals could beat Houston, their post season ends here) The Patriots have been giving up huge leads, making amazing adjustments, and scoring tons of unanswered points. You don't win that way in the Playoffs and you don't win that way against the Steelers. I would have said that the Patriots would benefit from home field advantage if A) they hadn't given up a giant lead to the Bills last week, B) they hadn't been unable to overcome the Giants lead at home earlier this year, or C) they weren't facing another cold weather team in the Steelers. The deck is stacked against the Patriots in this match-up.
Winner: Steelers
Texans at Ravens
Houston was lucky to draw the Bengals in the Wild Card round. But Baltimore is too good for the wounded Texans. The only thing that makes this a close game is the fact that the Ravens play down to their opponents.
Winner: Ravens
Championship Round:
Steelers at Ravens
It's been said "You don't beat the same team three times in one year." The Ravens will. The just have the Steelers' number this year. This will be a great game and will go right down to the wire but Flaco will emerge victorious.
Winner: Ravens
NFC
Wild Card Round:
Falcons at Giants
Like the Steelers, the Falcons have a better record than the team they have to travel to face. And like the Steelers, it won't make a huge difference. It really didn't matter who won the Sunday night game week 17 because both the Giants and the Cowboys were losing to the Falcons this round.
Winner: Falcons
Lions at Saints
Another great match-up. This will be a very entertaining game to watch for those without a "horse in the race." It will be a great battle but in the end it will be very frustrating for Lions fans who will watch their team self destruct with penalties.
Winner: Saints
Divisional Round:
Saints at 49ers
The 49ers surprised a lot of people with the amount of success they had this year. Hosting a playoff game would normally be a big thrill for them. Unless they are facing the Saints. A record setting year for Brees and the Saints continues as they send San Francisco packing.
Winner: Saints
Falcons at Packers
Yet another great game! The first true test of the Packers since they nearly lost to the Giants. Some of you may be asking, what about the Chiefs? Shouldn't have been a test. Just goes to prove how difficult it is to go undefeated in a 16 game season. This is a tough game to call based on how potent Rodgers and the Packers offense has looked. But the Falcons may surprise a lot of people. It'll be very close.
Winner: Packers
Championship Round:
Saints at Packers
The last NFC game will be a rematch of the first game of the season. And what a rematch it will be. Brees' performance has been overshadowed by the Packers' nearly perfect season. Green Bay's loss may bump Brees to the front runner in the MVP race. Green Bay also faced weaker teams this year than the Saints did. Both Championship Games will rival the Super Bowl in excitement and intensity. Brees and the Saints will end the Packer's pursuit as repeat Champions.
Winner: Saints
Super Bowl
Saints vs Ravens
While not the game the network is hoping for, what a game to watch! The red hot offense of the Saints versus the Stifling defense of the Ravens! They say that defense wins Championships but the top teams this year have been doing it with offense. In the end, the pundits will start discussing the possibility of a dynasty as Brees brings the Lombardi Trophy back to New Orleans for the second time in 3 years.
Winner: Saints
There you have it. So now it's likely that the Giants will shock the world again and beat Tebow in the Super Bowl. (My ideal is Bengals over Houston, New England over Cincinnati, and New England over the Ravens. Then New England facing Green Bay. But this is all fairly unlikely.) Feel free to provide your predictions. What a great time of year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)