Send As SMS

Friday, February 27, 2004

IT'S ALMOST BEYOND FUNNY, NOW

Okay, Democrats...you're officially a bunch of nut-cases. I can understand a few of the more memorable conspiracy theories on both the right and the left. JFK - which I believed for a while before I wised up; UFO's in Mexico - which I believed for about the same length of time; VietNam Military Industrial Complex - which John Kerry can attest to personally; Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefellers' one-world government - which is even more looney than Looney Tunes...

I can respect there being an actual at-length discussion about the possibilities of a conspiracy...I can even take some of the "missing" information angle for a while when someone offers a conspiracy theory. But the absolute lack of any evidence whatsoever has led a number of people to believe all kinds of nutty things.

The company I work for recently enacted a "zero-tolerance" policy regarding indecent material on the airwaves. It's their right to do that, since they hold the license of the stations. While I think this is dangerous territory to go down and I'm personally opposed to a "zero-tolerance" policy (especially since no one wants to define "indecent material" other than "I know it when I hear it"), I will obey it until I feel that it is no longer to my advantage or natural instincts and style when it comes to doing my daily show. I've never considered what I do to be in any way indecent, so it shouldn't be too difficult for me to follow the policy (especially after I see it).

This brings me to the latest looney liberal nutcase theory being floated on blogs and newsgroups...I'll do my best to illustrate it for your benefit with nothing but short text because it's easy to understand...which means it's likely very looney:

Clear Channel = Bush supporter
2004 = Election Year
Howard Stern = recently bashing Bush for the past few weeks on his radio show
Clear Channel Radio Stations owned = 1200
Number of Clear Channel Stations that dropped Howard Stern = 6
California + Florida + New York = a whole pile of Electoral Votes
California + Florida + New York = 3 of the radio markets in which Clear Channel dropped Stern from

Get it? If you don't, you're not thinking way way way way way outside the box. Or you're not thinking with enough venom and hate for someone who is doing better with his ideas than you are with yours. I have a conspiracy, too...but I've collected a lot of facts to back it up.

Democrats + Bush = Hate

Thursday, February 26, 2004

THE PASSION OF THE ALAN

The cold is slightly better today. Thanks.

I'm going to give you my honest review of the movie, "The Passion of the Christ"...in light of belief #5 from yesterday's post, I think I'm more right than ever. I'll present my views in much the same way.

1. The violence is overstated.

I expected a lot of gore, but it wasn't that bad. It's interesting to hear the sudden concern from long-time movie reviewers (the pros, as it were) about the violence. I've seen violent movies before, and this isn't one of them...or as bad as some. Most of the offense might be because it's happening to a person a lot of us know, personally...it's a real historical figure (if you're a New Testament believer, that is). Some of the Christian reviewers, I bet, haven't been in a movie theatre much in the past - if at all - and they might find it more violent than they expected, but I didn't. I can't prove it, but I sensed that a fair number of people seeing this movie can't recall the last time they were IN a movie theatre.

2. It IS anti-semitic.

But it's the truth. Jews, in fact, DID shout "crucify him" according to the Bible. The Jewish leaders at the time were, in fact, jealous and fearful of Jesus. It ISN'T anti-semitic towards ALL Jews...just those who took part in convincing Pilate to crucify him. The scene where Pilate offers Jesus or Barrabas to the crowd was proof enough for me. I couldn't get over the look on the faces of the Jewish leaders when Pilate released the murderer instead of Jesus out of my mind. For a moment, I sensed that they "knew not what they did"...

3. It is beautiful.

The photography, realism, mood, acting...everything is nearly perfect. It's gorgeous to watch. A movie-goer simply interested in seeing well-done art, will leave happy from the experience of seeing this movie. For me, it ranks right up there with Lawrence of Arabia. It's especially surprising given the use of languages that haven't been heard in nearly 2-thousand years. Think of how difficult it was for Kevin Costner to pull off an English accent (which he didn't), and you'll understand how nearly impossible this was for the actors in the movie to do...to carry the feeling, inflections, and passion in a language you don't speak. Astounding.

4. The hype is a bit too much.

I was expecting a life-changing experience...I didn't come away from the movie with any other feeling other than appreciating a great film. I was expecting to be shocked, emotional...weeping (which is news the elite media seems to love reporting)...but none of that happened. I wasn't stone-silent...I wasn't introspective...none of that. I AM a little more curious and maybe could use a refresher course on the New Testament. That may be the danger the elite media see in this movie that I outlined yesterday. I will attempt to put the movie in the context of the Word, now. Who knows? I may become a better person...is that so bad?

5. This movie is a one-timer.

For other "big movies," I'm usually one of those people that wants to take a second trip down the aisle - so to speak. I may not do that with this movie. When news of the movie was building, I was excited only to the point of wanting to see what all the fuss was about. Unlike Lord of the Rings or something, I don't feel a need to go back and discover what I may have missed in seeing it the first time. The only reason I may want to return another time or two, would be to take my wife - and maybe so I could learn a bit more about the movie to include in my knowledge base...the knowledge base about THE MOVIE.

Well...that's all for now. Tomorrow, I take up the issue of the "new indecency standards" in the media...specifically, RADIO and Howard Stern and...(If I wasn't actually working for them)...a certain mega-media company.

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

SHORT AND SWEET

I've got a cold...and I feel horrible. But I press on.

I thought I would just outline a few beliefs I have regarding the current topics of the day.

1. Being gay is a choice, not genetic.

Proof? Evolution...if it were genetic, evolution would have weeded it out a long time ago since they can't procreate through normal means in order to continue the species and the genetic inheritance.

2. Marriage is being DEFINED, not banned or outlawed for some.

Proof? The amendment proposed simply defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. See?

3. People like Kerry because they hate Bush.

Proof? Number one reason people are supporting Kerry? Because he's the most electable...not the most agreeable to their principles.

4. Democrats don't hate BUSH...they hate how he keeps winning.

Proof? Ask any Boston Red Sox fan how they feel about the Yankees and you'll understand. Democrats think Bush stole their prize...and to some degree he has...immigration, prescription drug bill, no child left behind education, etc. But what they really can't stand is losing...losing on the issues and losing power. Why? Because it proves that Americans don't like them anymore.

5. The Passion of the Christ will be a big hit and this is a problem.

Proof? Read some of the reviews and pre-release hype. Every one of them focuses on the so-called "anti-semitism" of the movie. They don't dare touch the "truth" of the movie...they can't review it along those lines because they don't believe in it. The elite media can't stand the fact that intelligent people continue to believe in God or Jesus Christ...and they fear that this will solidify people's beliefs or re-invigorate a movement toward religion. You see, they're smarter than you and they shake their heads in bewilderment at the idea of people worshipping or praying to something they believe is just a nice story. This is the secular media: If you can't join them, beat them.

That's all I can report for today...I'm wiped...should be an interesting radio show today...

EMAIL ME WITH COMMENTS? Cool...

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

THE RULES OF MARRIAGE

Maybe it's just me, but life is really unfair. Gay couples say it's unfair to allow straight couples to marry, but prohibit gays to marry. First of all, as I pointed out yesterday...you have equal rights. I, as a straight person, am prevented from marrying another man. If I want to marry, I must marry a woman. Simple. There's no difference between the rights I have and the rights some gay couples are seeking. They can marry like anyone else...they just have to be someone of the opposite sex.

Besides, there are a lot of OTHER rules associated with marriage that I have to follow. For instance:

You can only marry if you are currently unmarried.

You can only marry a person that wants to marry you back.

You can only marry someone deemed mentally competent to enter into a contract.


Being required to marry someone of the opposite sex is simply another rule that those who want to engage in the process must follow. Maybe I should also start listing the various other rules you must follow AFTER you get married too...adultery, custody in divorce, alimony issues, divorce, etc.

I've said on the program a number of times that the whole issue of gay marriage is about money. What tips me off is the fact that the "marriage penalty" standard deduction has now finally been changed in this current tax year to $9,000. Isn't it curious that the fight is being engaged in NOW and not 20-years ago? But it's more than just the better tax benefits. The reason I say this is due to an interesting article from the Family Research Council citing statistics about the current status of marriage.

The highlights:

The proportion of American women 25 to 29 years old who have never married, slightly below 10 percent in 1965, reached 39 percent in 2000

Among men of the same age, the "never married" category increased from 18 percent in 1965 to 44.4 percent in 2000

What the Census Bureau now calls "unmarried partner households" have climbed in number from 523,000 cohabitating heterosexual couples in 1970 to 4,900,000 in 2000


Bottom line: Marriage isn't hip anymore. In fact, that's the common tactic for the gays who say they want to join in the fun..."Marriage is already falling apart, why would we damage it any more?" they say.

Then, it hit me...we need more kinds of marriage.

Think of all the fresh legal ground that can be covered if gay marriage were to be finally allowed. Since it's open territory for lawyers to set new rules, new precedents, new case law with respect to gay marriage...THE RULES CAN BE RE-WRITTEN! Finally, lawyers won't have to resort to calling themselves, "The Heavy Hitter" or "The Strong Arm" and hawk their wares at un-suspecting insurance company victims!!! Welcome back, ARNIE from L-A Law!!! We all know that gays proportionally have higher standard incomes than straights...think of all that fresh new cash out there waiting to be claimed!!

Just a theory? Well...the American Law Institute (ALI) issued last November...urged that adultery be eliminated as a factor in deciding custody or property claims in divorce settlements. Saying that, "...justice is hardly served by treating one spouse's adultery as relevent to the alimony inquiry..."

Now, why would they go and do that?

Monday, February 23, 2004

A GOOD DEFINITION...

This is the best example of a definition I can live with...with one small detail to include.

I got this from a listener on James Island...

"...Allright, you want a potential definition of marriage, I will suggest one: Two, and not more than two, consenting adult human beings of legal age, and not related to each other by blood. Together in a legally recognized union of love and commitment.

Does that cover all the bases for you? Not many people are going to want to marry their fathers, their baby sisters, or their pet hamsters, but if you are afraid that line would try to be crossed, I have remedied that possibility for you by covering all of that in my definition.

I'm not going to berate you or try to change your opinion on this matter, let me just suggest that allowing gay people to get married is not going to be end the world; and if you don't agree with these relationships on a personal or religious basis, I respect that. Maybe some personal reflection on this matter would help you to decide why this matter is so important to you, and why the sanctity of marriage is really at risk..."


My response:

Good one...not bad.

Still can't live with it, though. It's not anything against gays...I just have a problem with our Court system finding rights and privileges in our Constitution that aren't there (while curiously eroding the ones that are there).

In the specific case of gay marriage, many states have laws against it...or already defining "marriage" for their respective states...by finding a "right" in the Constitution, ALL states are subject to a ruling in another state (Mass) thanks to the full faith and credit clause. In your example, you're creating a law -- not a right. The Mass. Supreme Court says they found a right to gay marriage in the Constitution...they chose not to define it themselves -- forcing the legislature to define it by law.

BUT, I would agree to let your definition stand up in a Constitutional Amendment process. Ratify it in the House, Senate, then 2/3rds of the states...if it passes, fine...I'm cool with it. Let the people decide...the way the Founding Fathers intended. That's been my point from the beginning. (end excerpt)

It was a good try...but I wonder why people are so opposed to using the Constitutional process? Because they know what the result will be, and they can't live with what democracy provides. That is key to understanding this whole issue.

Besides, this isn't about discrimination to begin with...as a "straight" person, I can't marry another man. Neither can homosexuals...

What's the problem?

Friday, February 20, 2004

LOVE AND MARRIAGE...PART 2

Google has a very neat tool on their website...you can define words. As long as we seem to have some confusion about who or what is "changing the definition of marriage"...

Thanks to a listener, I went to my dictionary and found the actual definition of marriage. Websters lists it as "a union between a man and a woman"...several others say the same thing. I guess they'll all have to be recalled after we "redefine" marriage in our constitutions and court systems in the various states. They better hurry though, with the way things are going, they risk being called 'homophobic' and 'bigoted'

From Google (define: marriage)...here are the range of confusing definitions. Get a load of the ones I've highlighted in bold:

Definitions of marriage on the Web:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
(www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn)

two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
(www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn)

the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
(www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn)

a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
(www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn)

A man and woman legally living together as husband and wife.
(www.taxcentral.co.uk/taxcentral/home/glossary/glossarym/default.asp)

The act of uniting a man and woman for life... Marriage was instituted by God himself. . . . "Marriage is honorable in all. . . ." Heb. 13. Marriage: ...men and woman are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. . . an intimate or close union
(www.face.net/Webster's_1828.html)

A legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
(www.hrblock.com/taxes/partners/aol/glossary/tax_glossary_m.html)

It's an agreement in which a man loses his bachelor degree and woman gains her master's.
(www.crr.com.my/joke318.html)

a King and a Queen of the same suit. See common marriage, royal marriage.
(www.pagat.com/marriage/pingloss.html)

The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life
(elo.legalaid.qld.gov.au/asp/glossary/glossary.asp)

A set of cultural rules for bringing men and women together to create a family unit and for defining their behavior toward one another, their children, and society.
(highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html)

the only permanent cure for love
(www.qis.net/~jimjr/marr57.htm)

a sacrament, when two people are joined in wedlock.
(www.southern-artist.com/VMEGglossary.htm)

An ancient practice of taking a life's companion or long term sexual/social partner. (see Marriage.)
(www.aznewage.com/dictionary%20m-n.htm)

the ceremony of union of man and wife was a sacrament of the church
(www.anu.edu.au/history/medieval/resources/churchglossary/glossaryi.htm)

a civil contract between a man and woman.
(www.mgrlaw.com/familylaw/FamilyLawDefinitions.html)

A legally recognized and/or socially approved arrangement between two or more individuals that carries certain rights and obligations and usually involves sexual activity.
(www.nelson.com/nelson/sociology/sociologyinourtimes2/glossary4.html)

What you really need after you no longer need personal freedom.
(www.ups.edu/faculty/phuo/diction.htm)

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

THERE THEY GO AGAIN...

Apparently, someone noticed the rant of the biased press from yesterday's post, because the local Post and Courier did a little better job on the story of Governor Sanford's tax cut plan. At least they have more than one source and a few economists included in the story...but it's still not good enough.

To recap: The Governor of South Carolina wants to lower income taxes across the board. From 7-percent to 4.75-percent over the next 10-years. All of these cuts would be made if AND ONLY IF revenues for the state are in excess of 2-percent each year. This is not hard to figure out for most people, but those that stand against any reduction of political power (the power to spend your money for you) are still scrambling to find anything to use against the basic logic of the plan. I'll do this one more time for you, so you get the message:

1. The Governor wants to lower the income tax by 2.25 percent over the next ten years (beginning in 2005). Less than 1/4 of 1-percent each year.

2. He would do this ONLY if revenues to the state are growing at more than 2-percent. Anything less than that, and there would be no tax cut for that year.

Let's say for the sake of argument, revenues ONLY grow 2.25-percent each year. The government would be able to increase spending by 2-percent each year, and give back the 1/4 of 1-percent left over. If revenues increase 4-percent, the government would be able to increase spending 3.75-percent, and give back the same 1/4 of 1-percent.

See? It's simple...effective, and logical. Perhaps that's why the usual emotionally challenged liberal socialists are fighting so hard against it?

So once again, the press is a willing accomplice to the liberal message. Some selected clips from the story:

"...the cuts he has in mind could damage the state's long-term fiscal well-being, a range of economists and policy experts say..."

--A RANGE of economists and policy experts, eh? See the recap above and try to figure out how ANYONE could be against what the Governor wants to do.

"...But according to the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, state income and other tax cuts between 1994 and 2001 resulted in an annual tax-revenue loss of $40 billion..."

--At least they admit their liberal-leaning. So we actually shouldn't pay attention to them because of what we know about liberals...they LIE and they're WRONG.

"...states were able to justify the tax cuts they made because their revenues were inflated to unprecedented levels by the booming Internet economy..."

--Whoops...maybe they didn't listen to the "liberal-leaning" economists from the previous statement. I thought they had a revenue loss? This section says the same states had revenues that were inflated by the booming economy. Hmmm.

Finally, there's this from the story:

"...Citadel accounting professor Wes Jones, however, said the annual tax savings 10 years from now for a family of four earning $40,000 would be about $500, or an extra $9.60 a week. A family of four with annual income of $100,000 would get a bigger break, about $2,000 annually, or $38 a week..."

Now, a lot of people are going to look at those numbers and pooh-pooh them as being not enough to "stimulate the economy"...and to some degree, they might be correct. Let's take the smallest number (because the libs will make sure you only hear about this one) of $9.60 a week. What would you do with an extra 10-bucks a week? Would it pay for a tank of gas? A pizza? A higher bus fare to keep CARTA alive? Sure...but what if you put that 10-bucks a week automatically into a 401K or other retirement plan?

10-dollars a week...40-dollars a month...matched by an employer if you have such a plan...COULD be 80-dollars a month. Figure at 5-percent compound interest over the next 30-years before you retire. Tax free, of course...that's about 130-thousand dollars provided you start with nothing. If you already have a 401K or IRA plan, it's even more. Of course, that's IF YOU DON'T SPEND IT. If you're able to pay your bills NOW on the income you earn, then I suggest you set it up so that any tax cut you get does exactly as I pointed out. Think about it...you're not really going to miss the money, are you? The libs will make sure you know you're not REALLY going to miss the money, believe me...

They want to convince you that it's no big deal and government would do a lot better if they never gave it back to you. But if you did JUST as I suggest, that $9.60 a week is more like $115,000 over the next 30-years.

Are you sure you don't want the tax cut?

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

ANATOMY OF A BIASED PRESS...

I opened my State newspaper today and found one of the clearest examples of how the press can spin, confuse, misinform, and massage opinion toward a liberal bent. The State newspaper is South Carolina's largest newspaper. Interestingly, the Post and Courier does a pretty fair job of handling the very same issue of TAXES and Governor Sanford's plan to reduce income taxes incrementally over the next few years. So just how can the press "spin" a story? Here's the actual story....and below is a critique of how it's done.

First, the headline: Economists raise concerns about Sanford tax proposal

--notice the plural of economist...there's a whole slew of them, right? And they're ALL raising "concerns." So, let's see what those 'concerns' are...

Schools, local governments and state-supported services could be in for trouble if Gov. Mark Sanford and GOP legislators lower the state income tax, economists said Monday.

--Wow, they're ALL in for trouble. I can't wait to hear from all these economists...especially since they all agree on everything. When was the last time two economists agreed on anything?

Sanford and House Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, are expected to announce today a proposal to lower the 7 percent income tax by a third to 4.75 percent over the next decade.

The tax would be cut incrementally only in years when the state's revenue increased 2 percent or more. No other taxes would be levied or raised to make up for the lost revenue.

Experts say South Carolina is the only state considering a tax cut without a corresponding tax increase. Economists predict the state would have to reduce services if it did that.


--I'm still waiting to hear from these economists. In the second paragraph, notice the assumption they make that there would be no other taxes raised to make up for the lost revenue. Since we haven't heard from a single economist so far, what facts, relevant to the discussion have been presented to make that assumption? I guess we're to assume that this is common knowledge. In fact, it's not common knowledge...it's liberal spin and bias. THEN, we're treated with the fact that we're now qualifying these so far un-named economists, as experts. So we've got some 'expert economists' telling us of all these horrible things that will happen.

"Most people would not cut their income if they needed more money" said David Brunori, a George Washington University tax law professor and a contributing editor to the tax policy publication, State Tax Notes.

--So there you have it...the first economist cited by the State newspaper. (It happens to be the only one, too) It's curious he isn't identified as an economist...just a tax law professor. In fact, a tax law professor that works for a 'tax policy publication' called State Tax Notes. Well, I took some time today to check them out. Directly from their website, they admit that they are "...Tax Analysts is a nonprofit corporation whose mission is to help the country tax its citizens fairly, simply, and efficiently. Our job is to stir up great tax policy debate and fuel it with the best news and commentary around..." (Bold emphasis added) So, you see? They're in the business of spin too. I couldn't get much further on the website since you have to pay nearly $1,000 dollars for their publications. Let's continue with the "news story"...

Economists say the local officials have reason to worry.
South Carolina's budget has been in the same dire straits as other states for three years. This year, lawmakers must find about $350 million to balance the 2004-05 budget by raising taxes or cutting services.


--Here we go AGAIN! More economists...(plural)...say everyone should worry. Then, they back it up with only TWO other possible alternatives: raising taxes, or cutting services. People have to consider that 'raising taxes' isn't the same as raising revenue. There are hundreds of examples of why this is wrong, but I'm not going to cite any "expert economists"...just history. JFK in the 60's...Reagan in the 80's...the "luxury tax" debacle of the 90's...and even the current Bush tax cuts of 2000. ALL RAISED REVENUE by CUTTING TAXES. More? Good...back to the 'story'...

States got into financial trouble after 2000, Brunori said, partly because they cut taxes during good economic times.

--So, PARTLY, because they cut taxes, eh? I would say, MOSTLY because they INCREASED SPENDING. But, I'm not an economists...especially a tax law professor pretending to be an economist...and getting paid money $1,000 for it.

But economists and tax experts said they haven't seen proof that the tax base would grow enough to pay for services.

--and later in the story...

But economists Monday said they couldn't name a state cutting income taxes now -- without increasing another tax to make up for the lost revenue -- on the tail end of a recession.

--This is getting strange. They couldn't name a state? or WOULDN'T name a state cutting income taxes now -- oh, without increasing another tax to make up for the lost revenue -- oh...AND at the tail end of a recession. Gee, with aqualifiersualifyers, I'd be hard pressed to name a state that's cutting income taxes without naming a state tree on a holiday that follows a Friday the 13th.

Bottom line, folks. Read your newspapers carefully. This kind of bias isn't hard to spot. It's sloppy journalism and downright dishonest.

It kind of makes the idea of a little fat gopher in a hole predicting the weather -- a little easier to believe.

Monday, February 16, 2004

IT'S SOMETHING CALLED PRESIDENT'S DAY...

Once again, we use the Uniform Holidays Act of 1968 to change our nation's character. Because we can't bring ourselves to single out individual accomplishment anymore, what with the PC police running around, we lump all Presidents - good, bad, and indifferent - into a nice three day weekend. I know this sounds silly to be complaining about, but the disinformation from our major media has got to stop somewhere, right? We have too many children today who couldn't name a President whose picture doesn't appear on our currency...we have to subject them to a campaign that seeks to claim all Presidents deserve our praise. Prepare for the truth....

TODAY IS WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY...NOT PRESIDENT'S DAY.

For some strange reason, we keep referring to it as President's Day...when there, in fact, is no such federal holiday. The holiday was, is, and always has been known as Washington's Birthday...nothing else. I dare you to look it up if you like...you'll find no such designation of President's Day...only Washington's Birthday. There's even a rumor that President Nixon declared in an Executive Order that we refer to it as "President's Day," but there's NO EVIDENCE to prove it. Presidential records indicate that Nixon merely issued an Executive Order (11582) on 11 February 1971 defining the third Monday of February as a holiday, and the announcement of that Executive Order identified the day as "Washington's Birthday."

So where did this "President's Day" come from?

Throughout the 19th century, George Washington was THE towering figure of U.S. history to the American public. In honor of the man who commanded the Continental Army and led the American colonies to victory in the Revolutionary War, served as first President of the United States of America, and earned the sobriquet "The Father of Our Country," Washington's Birthday, February 22, was celebrated with more patriotic fervor than any holiday save the Fourth of July. Accordingly, the observance of Washington's Birthday was made official in 1885 when President Chester Alan Arthur signed a bill establishing it as a federal holiday. (Washington was actually born on February 11, 1731, under the Julian calendar in effect at the time of his birth, but his birth date is reckoned as February 22 under the Gregorian calendar adopted in 1752.)

However, the seeds of confusion were sown in 1968 with the passage of a piece of legislation known as Uniform Holidays Bill, intended to create more three-day weekends for federal employees by moving the observance of three federal holidays (Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, and Veterans Day) from fixed calendar dates to designated Mondays, and by establishing Columbus Day (also to be observed on a Monday) as a new federal holiday. Under this act, from 1971 onwards the observance date of Washington's Birthday would be relocated from February 22 to the third Monday in February. (Oddly enough, this change guaranteed that Washington's Birthday would never again be celebrated on his "actual" birthday of February 22, as the third Monday in February cannot fall any later than February 21.)

Washington's Birthday has become Presidents' Day (or President's Day, or even Presidents Day ? the usage is inconsistent) for many of us because federal holidays technically apply only to persons employed by the federal government (and the District of Columbia). Individual state governments do not have to observe federal holidays ? most of them generally do (and most private employers and school districts follow suit), but federal and state holiday observances can differ. For example, former Confederate states have observed several holidays not recognized at a federal level (such as June 3, Jefferson Davis Day), and controversial Arizona governor Ev Mecham drew headlines in 1987 when one of his first official acts upon inauguration was to rescind an Executive Order issued by the previous governor that had established the Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (a federal holiday) as an Arizona state holiday.

Although Lincoln's Birthday had never been designated as a federal holiday, it was observed as a state holiday in many parts of the country. However, after additional federal holidays were created for Columbus Day and the Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (in 1971 and 1986, respectively), some states dropped the observance of Lincoln's Birthday as a separate holiday in order to maintain a fixed number of paid holidays per year. (And, of course, some states never observed Lincoln's Birthday in the first place.)

As a result, we now have a hodgepodge of state holiday schedules in the USA: some states still observe Lincoln's and Washington's birthdays as separate holidays, some states observe only Washington's Birthday, some states commemorate both with a single Presidents' Day (or Lincoln-Washington Day), and some states celebrate neither. And there are odd exceptions such as Alabama, which has designated the third Monday in February as a day commemorating both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, even though Jefferson was born in April. (A few states have even moved their observances of Washington's Birthday, Lincoln's Birthday, and Presidents' Day to November or December in order to lengthen the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday periods without creating additional paid holidays.)

Translation? It has no other meaning than any other holiday designed to get federal employees an extra long weekend. In other words, we'd rather devalue individual accomplishment in order to take a long weekend. It's kind of sad when you think about it that way...

Happy Birthday, George Washington...your country misses you.

Friday, February 13, 2004

SEE WHAT I MEAN? EVEN THE DEMS LIKE MONEY...

Yesterday (below) I went to great pains to point out another reason (other than lower labor costs) WHY companies are choosing to move their headquarters overseas to countries like Germany, France, Canada...and especially (in the example of Stanley Works Tool company) to BERMUDA.

Well...well...well...it seems I was more right than I imagined. You see, you do a little research and what do you find? A presidential candidate who takes advantage of the "loophole" he complains about...JOHN KERRY. Actually, it's a trust operated by his wife Teresa Heinz...

Although, I don't subscribe to Newsweek magazine, I've heard they have the story in this week's edition. Here's a similar report.

"US Presidential hopeful, Senator John Kerry, has been hauled over the coals for his anti-Bermuda stance - after it was discovered his wife's trust made a killing on Ingersoll-Rand redomesticating to the Island.

Sen. Kerry, of Massachusetts, has been loudly denouncing US companies moving offshore to save on their taxes calling them “Benedict Arnold” firms after the notorious American traitor.

Now the latest edition (Feb 16th) of Newsweek has revealed that in 2002 the conversion and sale of up to a million dollars of stock in Ingersoll-Rand made between $100,000 and $200,000 after stock rose in price following the company's move to Bermuda."


There is no corporate income tax in Bermuda and under a treaty with Barbados, profits are taxed at one percent.

So again...do as I say, not as I do...eh?

Thursday, February 12, 2004

ANOTHER LETTER TO THE CANDIDATES

I was thinking about yesterday's Presidential Quiz and the theoretical problem it poses for the current liberal Democrat candidate field. Well, I've come up with another...only this time, I'd like them to imagine (and they'd REALLY have to imagine this one since none of them have worked a day in their lives) they're the President all right...but the President of a major manufacturing company.

Dear Mr. CEO,

As your chief financial officer I have to inform you if you move the company from the United States to Bermuda the company will have a 20 percent increase in net profits. With the increased profits, the company will be able to expand production, hire more workers, do more R&D, and pay stockholders a higher dividend.

Your VP for government relations says that if the company changes its legal home you, as the CEO, will be accused of being unpatriotic by some members of Congress and certain presidential candidates. Even worse, these same politicians will threaten to bar your company from obtaining U.S. government contracts, and demand that the IRS and government regulatory agencies single out your company for special scrutiny.

As the CEO of the company, you know you have a fiduciary responsibility to your stockholders to maximize their economic return by all legal and ethical means. You also know that the proposal to move your company is entirely legal and would be considered good management practice.

My question to you is this:
What would you like to do? Move to Bermuda, or lay off 1-thousand of our workers in the next quarter?

The problem the above poses is real by the way. The Stanley Works (tools) company planned to reincorporate in Bermuda in 2002. However, political pressure was brought to bear, and the company layed off 1-thousand workers from their jobs instead. You see, the United States corporate tax is the fourth highest in the world. And unlike most other countries, we tax them on WORLDWIDE earnings. German, French, Canadian, even Swedish countries ONLY TAX CORPORATIONS ON EARNINGS IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES. We have a problem, all right...but it's not just cheap labor as many of the liberals would like you to believe.

Sleep well tonight...

Wednesday, February 11, 2004

A LETTER TO THE CANDIDATES

In the continuing controversy over the WMD charges, CIA information, and an apparent lack of will on behalf of liberal Democrats like John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards and pretty much every other "questioner" of our policy against terrorism - I've developed a simple test for Presidential worthiness. Here goes:

Dear Mr. President,

As your CIA director, it’s my duty to inform you of the information we have gathered on a confirmed member of Al Quida. With a high degree of probability, we have determined the following:

We believe Terrorists have constructed a so-called “dirty nuke” with a 70-percent degree of probability they have the device in hand.

We also believe this device has made it’s way into the United States in a major city – perhaps Los Angeles, Chicago, or Washington DC. We don’t believe with high confidence that New York is a suspected target.

If used, we believe an estimated 2-thousand Americans will lose their lives in the immediate blast radius, and perhaps as many as 10-thousand may lose their lives in the radioactive fallout.

There is a 75-percent degree of probability this device will be used within the next 5-hours.

We have confirmed, with 90-percent probability, that the members of Al Quida are currently housed in a location within Iran. We have satellite information that shows a rough outline of their training area. We have stationed quick strike response teams to react at your discretion with overwhelming force.

What would you like us to do?

Act pre-emptively? Or wait until the bomb goes off?


I wonder why it is so many of the liberals are "pre-emptive" with respect to the policy of abortion on demand for the sake of convenience...while at the same time they're willing to risk American lives for the sake of being absolutely sure we're doing the right thing.

Sleep well tonight...

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

NOW I HAVE TO QUOTE A DEMOCRAT AGAIN...

I received an interesting email the other day...having to do with "job creation" in this country. We have a rather stimulating debate going on right now, what with the Presidential election and all, about what government can do (or should be doing) to create jobs. One candidate says not enough are being created...they blame the current occupant. Another claims to have a plan to create the best kind of jobs. Still another says he's creating jobs, just not enough right now. Here's an part of the mail:

"...I am a local listener and agree w/many of your viewpoints. As a manufacturing industry headhunter/recruiter, I'm always trying to understand the "jobs creation" arguments...the recent closure...of the GT Steel plant, hundreds of existing hi-paying jobs lost because...? My question is what happened, the Governor, SCE&G, GT management all seemed to be trying....have you any ideas or follow-up on this?"

I am about to give those of you who want it, some very valuable information. I am by no means an expert, and I don't claim to know everything...but I've taken my share of hard knocks to know how things can be better in this country. Don't get me wrong, even I don't follow the advice I'm about to give you ALL the time. I backslide like anyone else, but the basics are VERY IMPORTANT. Do me a favor...before you start getting all offended that some middle-age radio whipper-snapper is attempting to tell you how to live your life...read everything through at least twice. Open your mind to the possibility that I'm right...or at least acknowledge that it can work if applied on a consistent basis. Not everything is perfect in this country, but with the advice below, you can weather any storm...prepare yourself for a life changing experience.

1. Don't wait on anyone else to help you. Whether it's government, family, social services, charity, or friends...if you wait and wallow in your own misery wondering where the help will come from, you'll be waiting a long time. What ever happened to the idea, "Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what you can do for your country?" In my view, this phrase has been used mostly for ill in this country. Some have used only the second half to promote responsibility on the part of taxpayers to fund some new government idea...others have mis-interpreted the first half to mean you should only complain about what government DOES to you.

2. The best thing you can do FOR yourself is to DO IT yourself. From the above, read the words of JFK again. This time, realize that the best thing you can do for your country is to join in the opportunity that this country provides you. You see, in America, you don't have to wait around for someone to create a job...you can create your own. It's tough sometimes, but with a burning desire and will power, you can do it.

3. Plan for success. If there's one book other than the Bible I can recommend, it's this one...THINK AND GROW RICH by Napoleon Hill. I'm not going to tell you the secret of what is in this book (and it's a BIG SECRET), but it's been around for more than 60-years and it works. I've read it at least 4-times and it will change your life...IF you apply the secret in the book to your life and situation. This is better than any Skull and Bones society or All Boys Club or anything you've experienced or despised of others. So many people wonder why it is some people are successful and end up being envious instead of being curious. They chaulk it up to favors, conspiracy, secret deals, whatever...they focus all of their time on worrying about how someone else got what you want. Always willing to fall prey to the "victimizers" in this country who want to exploit your envy and misery for THEIR own personal gain. READ THIS BOOK and you'll know the "Big Secret" that has prevented you from being successful.

4. Prepare for success. Pay yourself first. I know that sounds selfish, but it's not. Start with an investment account, 401K, IRA, whatever...have it automatically deducted from your pay so you never see the money and I guarantee that if you start early enough (even later if you're lazy)...you will not have to depend on anyone else in your later years. Put aside 10-percent every month FIRST...before you pay bills, before you spend it, make it automatic. It's easy if you don't see the money first...unless you make it automatic, you'll fail. I know personally of one person who started investing 25-dollars a month in a money market fund and stocks...they retired at age 40 with 3-million dollars in net worth. That was AFTER the dot-com bubble burst.

5. Education is not printed on a diploma. What you earn for staying in school or going to extra school is nice...but too many people think it means they're done with education and our society owes them a price for all that hard work. Not true. Education is not about getting a diploma or a degree...it's about preparing yourself for life-long learning. Education is free in this country...not the schools or universities...but in the availability of knowledge. You're free to explore whatever education you desire. No one can "re-train" you but yourself.

6. Use the geography of the United States as your home. If things aren't working as you planned, be prepared to pick up and go. I know it's nice to believe you can live in the same town and work for the same person or company for as long as you like...but honestly, you get stuck in the belief that you're owed something if something goes horribly wrong. Be willing to go somewhere else. In the Georgetown email from above my message to anyone affected by the Steel Mill shut-down. Get out of town if you have to...DON'T be wasting your time waiting for someone to save you. Cold? Disappointing? Sure...but it's the truth. I could spin you a bunch of stories about how you deserve to have the company open again and get your old job back at your old salary, but I'd be delaying your own success. I think it's the most irresponsible thing to do for a politician to come to a town like Georgetown and tell those poor folks that "help is on the way" if you just elect them...unfortunately, many people are now wasting their time believing it and waiting for that help. In the meantime, another mouse is going for their cheese.

That's NOT everything, but it should get you started. This is the greatest country on earth because you have the opportunity like no other...you can do whatever you want. If only our government leaders believed it...

Email Greg Alan

Monday, February 09, 2004

THERE YOU GO AGAIN...IT'S LIKE THE PAST 40-YEARS OF AMERICAN HISTORY NEVER HAPPENED...

Headline #1: "Economic plan touted to fight crime" - Post and Courier

Again...since when have economic conditions had anything to do with crime? Shooting and killing someone because they "dissed" you has no relation to whether or not you need job training or affordable housing. It's a morality vacuum among our young people today...can't these liberals come up with a NEW idea? Or is it just that they don't have any ideas or aren't willing to admit they're wrong. They've been wrong for more than 40-years...it's time to be a man and admit it.

"...Two Charleston City Council members are dusting off an old economic development plan that proposes spending $800,000 in federal grants to cut the city's crime rate by giving youth job skills, building affordable housing and helping new businesses.
Council members James Lewis and Kwadjo Campbell said...based on research, when you give young men marketable skills they have alternatives and they turn to a productive life..."


What research? My research of the last 60-years or so shows NO relation to spending on affordable housing and job training and the crime rate. These people are tired, old, and in sore need of a reality check. Thankfully they admit themselves that it's an old dusty plan...so is the idea.

Speaking of which...

Still believe liberals don't rely on ignorance to get people to consider their stupid policies? Witness the following from the "Letters to the Editor" column of the Post and Courier (emphasis and commentary added):

Title, "Reality check" by John Manzi (Hollywood, SC)

"...let's look at the real state of the Union...First the economic recovery: well folks, there is no recovery without jobs, and there has not been one new net job gained since Bush took office..."

Wrong: Unemployment rate 5.6-percent...average Unemployment rate during 1990's? 5.8 percent. 112,000 jobs created (minimum) in January alone. Methinks it's HIS job that hasn't been created...so he sits around on his ass all day and writes crap like this...

"...How about the wonderful tax cut...the vast majority of which, the president promised, would go to middle- and lower-income families. Well, less than 20 percent of that tax cut went to them..."

Wrong (sort of): 20-percent of what? 20-percent of the money? Cause they only PAY 20-percent of the money...what a moron.

"...I think the president has played the terrorism card for everything it was worth. Certainly our response to the reprehensible actions of 9/11 should have been swift and effective. The Patriot Act, however, is the most blatant attack on American civil liberties since the McCarthy era..."

Does this deserve a response? Terrorism card? I doubt this moron knows anything more about the Patriot Act than he's heard from John Kerry or John Edwards. BOTH OF WHOM VOTED FOR THE PATRIOT ACT!!! Jeez this is frustrating. Good to know he still managed to work in the old, "McCarthy era" in there. Talk about playing cards...that one's getting a little old.

Ah, hell...should be a good show today.

Thursday, February 05, 2004

"HATE AND MARRIAGE...HATE AND MARRIAGE..."

Two things today...the first a continuation of yesterday's piece about Democrats being the party of "greed" and "selfishness"...not Republicans. I'll pause if you need to review...

(zzzz...)

Okay, welcome back...

The Washington Post has an interesting article to back up my claim that Democrats are in it for themselves...the party of "self-esteem" is taking it national by defining their candidate choice on the basis of whether or not he/she is electable...and who has the best chance of beating George W Bush. As a matter of fact, "defeating George W Bush" was the primary issue...not what's good for America, not what's good for their families, but beating a member of another party. You see...Democrats have been losing a lot lately. They don't like the fact that most Americans don't like them or their politics. So beating the representative of the party that HAS the majority opinion in the country will make them feel better about themselves...the hell with what it does for America. And one small prediction...if they don't win? Watch out, because they will use the court system to win anyway...

Which brings me to one quick comment about GAY MARRIAGE...

Massachusetts' highest court said Wednesday that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would be conform to the state's constitution. And they ordered the State Legislature to write a new law to be put into place by May of next year.

Without commenting on the folly of gay marriage and the issue itself...when was the last time a Court ORDERED a Legislature to PASS A LAW? Especially since they already determined that it's provided for in the Constitution? Aren't courts supposed to determine what the law means and apply the constitution to the law already written? Who's in charge in Massachusetts? Separate (branches of Government) but equal indeed...

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

THE END OF THE WAR ON TERROR

It's funny how the south is currently delighting in the turnout of the recent primary in South Carolina. Reading the exit poll information shouldn't give Democrats too much to crow about when the dust settles and there's a nominee. For instance:

In four of the five states for which there are exit poll figures, Democrats put "national security" at the bottom of their "issues they care about" list. There were six choices: taxes, education, health care, the war in Iraq, national security, and jobs and the economy.

Democrats don't care about national security...they care about jobs and the economy. In South Carolina, the state Edwards won with his "Two America" appeal, 47 percent of those polled said it was the most important issue. They chose health care/Medicare second, with 20 percent. The war in Iraq was third, with 10 percent, education with nine percent, and taxes with four percent. The issue of national security/terrorism was cited as most important by two percent of the voters.

Just who is the party of "selfishness" and "greed" again? I'm convinced that the current Democrat party is made up of a bunch of selfish whiners who have no idea how good they have it in the US. I find it funny that nearly the same percentage of Democrats cared about EDUCATION as cared about Iraq and national security...and we all know how well the SOUTH is doing in that category.