There's going to be a lot of people this coming November 2nd that will just choose to shut up, to be lazy and selfish and sit at home rather than exercising their taken-for-granted right to vote for the leaders of our country.
Other people in other countries would kill for this right, because they realize the power. Don't be lazy this year. This is likely THE most important election our generation has faced, including presidential elections. We have one shot to enact a much-needed change in this country.
DON'T LET OTHERS DO THIS FOR YOU! SPEAK UP!
How do you think people liked living under Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao? Those leaders promised everything our current leaders promise: fairness, equality, feel-good-communism tied up in a pretty package of "post-racism" and "spreading the wealth." We are on a slippery slope to oblivion if these runaway liberals are not checked. They've already shown their predisposition to trample the constitutional checks and balances and ignore the voice of the people.
Take a stand and make that voice LOUD! Vote on November 2nd!
Below are some helpful links for voting. I found all this by Googling "vote November 2," and there's lots of good stuff out there so you can know:
Who's on my ballot?
Where can I go to vote?
What about voting early/absentee?
Who is the best candidate to accomplish my priorities?
Who has a limited view of government?
Who does the NRA endorse?
You will have no excuse for NOT voting except to admit you're a lazy indecisive pig, so get out there and VOTE!!!
Who's Running?
http://www.nrapvf.org/
http://www.unctv.org/election/candidates/Wake/index.html#us_house
http://votesmart.org/voteeasy/#
Good information on voting
Trigger the Vote!
Tell your friends and family to vote too! Bribe them, guilt them, do whatever it takes, but help get people out there!
Lastly, I'll leave you with a humorous pointed message from Chuck Norris:
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Sir Ken Robinson on Creativity and Education
This guy blows my mind. He is absolutely brilliant in these two, 4-years-apart seminars at TED on how we grow out of creativity, and how we can and should recapture that for ourselves and the next generation.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Colosseum from Glyphs
Cameron Moll is a very accomplished designer, speaker, and writer. I was watching a recent presentation he gave for LessConf3010 where he highlighted several of his views and theories when it comes to great, as opposed to merely good, design.
The entire presentation is wonderful to watch, not least of which is for the slideshow itself, which is a truly great slideshow (just take note of how many bullets you see in the whole thing: none), but one thing captured my attention that is the main point of this post.
A while back Cameron decided to challenge himself to create a poster of the Colosseum in Rome using glyphs. He brought this up as an example of his drive to do hard things, and that, in setting out to do something you think you can't do, you thereby learn how to do it and expand your capabilities and gain practice with stretching yourself.
Cameron's self-made video on the process can be found at ColosseoType.com. It's an incredible inspiration to me, and a reminder that the fear of messing up or doing well is never a good reason for not trying. Fear breeds complacency, and complacency kills creativity.
I hope this inspires you to go out and accomplish something you think you can't do.
The entire presentation is wonderful to watch, not least of which is for the slideshow itself, which is a truly great slideshow (just take note of how many bullets you see in the whole thing: none), but one thing captured my attention that is the main point of this post.
A while back Cameron decided to challenge himself to create a poster of the Colosseum in Rome using glyphs. He brought this up as an example of his drive to do hard things, and that, in setting out to do something you think you can't do, you thereby learn how to do it and expand your capabilities and gain practice with stretching yourself.
Cameron's self-made video on the process can be found at ColosseoType.com. It's an incredible inspiration to me, and a reminder that the fear of messing up or doing well is never a good reason for not trying. Fear breeds complacency, and complacency kills creativity.
I hope this inspires you to go out and accomplish something you think you can't do.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Friends and Fiends
I recently picked up a new book that has proven so far to be an eye-opening read for me. The book is "Conservative Victory" by Sean Hannity. It recently came out, it's a quick read, and I would highly recommend it if, like me, you don't spend a ton of time watching TV or listening to the radio.
I just finished Chapter 2, which, to put it mildly, was shocking in the extreme. In this chapter, a brief summary is given of Obama's close acquaintances and confidants, giving a chilling glimpse into just what kind of man we elected.
Now, of course the liberals start crying at this point that it's unfair "guilt by association" and that in many cases Obama had "no idea" about these people's radical leanings. However, this isn't a court of law, we're not trying to put Obama in jail, but it is an undeniable fact that a person can be known by the company he keeps. No one purposely surrounds themselves and looks for advice from people with whom they adamantly disagree, so we can safely infer (there's no other logical conclusion, really) that Obama shares most of the views of these people who have taken very powerful positions in this brave new world of "change" that Obama is so keen to push on the unwilling citizenry of this great country.
So, who are these people and what are they like? Let's see...
David Axelrod
Axelrod is one of Obama's closest advisers, Hannity calls him "the man who feeds his teleprompter...the significance of his role cannot be overstated." He, like Obama, was brought up by radical leftists in Chicago, chief of whom was Don Rose, a man who, among other things, was sympathetic to hard core riot by the Students for a Democratic Society in Chicago in 1968.
Mark Lloyd
Lloyd was appointed Obama's "diversity czar," who has been described by NewsBusters.org as "virulently anti-capitalist...and exuberantly pro-regulation." To that effect, he composed a report called "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," offering solutions to quiet those he disagrees with. According to Lloyd, the constitutional right to free speech is "all too often an exaggeration" and it's purpose is warped to "block rules that would promote democratic governance." My response to that is "DUH!" In fact, I could go for a bit more blocking of rules that would try to impose further democratic governance in this already highly bureaucratic, "the government knows what's best for you" federal government of ours. As always, we must be wary of people who are so eager to twist the Constitution of our forefathers.
In describing Hugo Chavez' "progress" in Venezuela, Lloyd says it is "really an incredible revolution-a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela." Lloyd goes on to make the point that if Chavez' victims would just shut up and quit complaining, and if the media was wholeheartedly on his side (all opponents quieted), then things could really start to happen. Hannity closes the Lloyd introduction best when he says, "These are the kind of positive steps our new diversity czar applauds in Chavez's so-called 'democratic revolution.'"
Then we have Cass Sunstein, who has strong opinions on the First Amendment, as well as animal "rights." Regarding our right to free speech, the New York Post reported that Sunstein believes it is the duty of the courts to impose a chilling effect on speech that would hurt someone's feelings, and that it should be more heavily regulated by government (New York Post, July 11, 2009).
As to animal "rights," Sunstein believes animals have the same rights as humans and that people should be able to open lawsuits on behalf of animals. However touching his concern for the downtrodden animal is, he has no such concern for the unborn human, being a staunch supporter of abortion "rights" as well.
Ron Bloom
On the economics side of things, we have Ron Bloom, Obama's "manufacturing czar," who is of the opinion that creating jobs is primarily the duty of the federal government, not the many brilliant and entrepreneurial types this country's free market economy allows to flourish. No, to Bloom, the "free market is nonsense...we kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun." Did you see that? What kind of president appoints a man to Bloom's position who believes that you should be governed at gunpoint? I'll tell you what kind: a socialist, simple as that. Hurray for change!
Hannity keeps the hits rolling by continuing to describe these people in great positions of power, unaccountable to the system of checks and balances, who know have a huge say in the policies and opinions our president espouses, people who are openly socialist, communist, God-haters, and America-haters. They have rejected any kind of moral compass, along, usually, with sound economics and quite often sound logic. I want to talk about just one more person that Hannity brings up in his book, just because it so utterly appalled me.
Kevin Jennings is Obama's "safe schools czar," but his views on what is appropriate for education are shockingly, openly, and unashamedly awful that I want to quote this section so as not to miss any of the good stuff:
(from "Conservative Victory" ch. 2)
That coming from a chief adviser to this nation's leader? And are we to believe that Obama has no clue about these kind of views of his followers? Are we to think that, despite their beliefs, Obama is a true Christian, a patriot, a capitalist, a saviour?
Along with his kind speeches, Jennings is also active in "educating" the elementary-aged youth of America. He wrote a forward to the book Queering Elementary Education, the chapters of which include "Locating a Place for Gay and Lesbian Themes in Elementary Reading, Writing, and Talking." Now, I'm not suggesting we keep our kids sheltered until they're 18 and then presume we can tell them something they don't know about sexuality at that point, but I hardly think this book would do a good job of explaining a healthy view of sexuality.
Jennings is also associated with the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), who publish a recommended reading list for different grade levels. GatewayPundit.com published a story including the research that Scott Baker, co-founder of Breitbart.tv did into the GLSEN reading list for Grades 7-12. They found that:
So, to wrap up this admittedly long post, let's think. Is Obama an advocate for the change we need in this country? Is he fighting for "the American people"? I hardly thing so. His entire upbringing, his mentors (including his mother and Jeremiah Wright), and now, his close friends and advisers, all point to no other conclusion that our president is a liberal socialist radical with an agenda. This is a dangerous man. Obama isn't stupid by any means. He knows what he and his friends want and he's going to push to get it, even if that means saying one thing and doing the opposite. These people have no problem with that, they see no issue with lying, because they have a country to run. Their heroes are Mao, Lenin, Marx, and Bill Ayers.
Will America let itself continue to be occupied by this alien invasion?
I just finished Chapter 2, which, to put it mildly, was shocking in the extreme. In this chapter, a brief summary is given of Obama's close acquaintances and confidants, giving a chilling glimpse into just what kind of man we elected.
Now, of course the liberals start crying at this point that it's unfair "guilt by association" and that in many cases Obama had "no idea" about these people's radical leanings. However, this isn't a court of law, we're not trying to put Obama in jail, but it is an undeniable fact that a person can be known by the company he keeps. No one purposely surrounds themselves and looks for advice from people with whom they adamantly disagree, so we can safely infer (there's no other logical conclusion, really) that Obama shares most of the views of these people who have taken very powerful positions in this brave new world of "change" that Obama is so keen to push on the unwilling citizenry of this great country.
So, who are these people and what are they like? Let's see...
David Axelrod
Axelrod is one of Obama's closest advisers, Hannity calls him "the man who feeds his teleprompter...the significance of his role cannot be overstated." He, like Obama, was brought up by radical leftists in Chicago, chief of whom was Don Rose, a man who, among other things, was sympathetic to hard core riot by the Students for a Democratic Society in Chicago in 1968.
Mark Lloyd
Lloyd was appointed Obama's "diversity czar," who has been described by NewsBusters.org as "virulently anti-capitalist...and exuberantly pro-regulation." To that effect, he composed a report called "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," offering solutions to quiet those he disagrees with. According to Lloyd, the constitutional right to free speech is "all too often an exaggeration" and it's purpose is warped to "block rules that would promote democratic governance." My response to that is "DUH!" In fact, I could go for a bit more blocking of rules that would try to impose further democratic governance in this already highly bureaucratic, "the government knows what's best for you" federal government of ours. As always, we must be wary of people who are so eager to twist the Constitution of our forefathers.
In describing Hugo Chavez' "progress" in Venezuela, Lloyd says it is "really an incredible revolution-a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela." Lloyd goes on to make the point that if Chavez' victims would just shut up and quit complaining, and if the media was wholeheartedly on his side (all opponents quieted), then things could really start to happen. Hannity closes the Lloyd introduction best when he says, "These are the kind of positive steps our new diversity czar applauds in Chavez's so-called 'democratic revolution.'"
Then we have Cass Sunstein, who has strong opinions on the First Amendment, as well as animal "rights." Regarding our right to free speech, the New York Post reported that Sunstein believes it is the duty of the courts to impose a chilling effect on speech that would hurt someone's feelings, and that it should be more heavily regulated by government (New York Post, July 11, 2009).
As to animal "rights," Sunstein believes animals have the same rights as humans and that people should be able to open lawsuits on behalf of animals. However touching his concern for the downtrodden animal is, he has no such concern for the unborn human, being a staunch supporter of abortion "rights" as well.
Ron Bloom
On the economics side of things, we have Ron Bloom, Obama's "manufacturing czar," who is of the opinion that creating jobs is primarily the duty of the federal government, not the many brilliant and entrepreneurial types this country's free market economy allows to flourish. No, to Bloom, the "free market is nonsense...we kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun." Did you see that? What kind of president appoints a man to Bloom's position who believes that you should be governed at gunpoint? I'll tell you what kind: a socialist, simple as that. Hurray for change!
Hannity keeps the hits rolling by continuing to describe these people in great positions of power, unaccountable to the system of checks and balances, who know have a huge say in the policies and opinions our president espouses, people who are openly socialist, communist, God-haters, and America-haters. They have rejected any kind of moral compass, along, usually, with sound economics and quite often sound logic. I want to talk about just one more person that Hannity brings up in his book, just because it so utterly appalled me.
Kevin Jennings is Obama's "safe schools czar," but his views on what is appropriate for education are shockingly, openly, and unashamedly awful that I want to quote this section so as not to miss any of the good stuff:
(from "Conservative Victory" ch. 2)
As Jennings has written in his memoirs, as a young gay man he violently and blasphemously rejected his Christian upbringing. "Before, I was the one who was failing God; now I decided He was the one who had failed me. . . . I decided I had done nothing wrong: He had, by promising to 'set you free' and never delivering on His promise. What had He done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt? Squat. Screw you , buddy -- I don't need you around anymore, I decided." He retained hatred toward religious leaders into adulthood: At a meeting with fellow activists in 2000, he condemned the "religious right" as "hard-core bigots" who should "drop dead," and declared that he really wanted to tell them, "F--- you!"
That coming from a chief adviser to this nation's leader? And are we to believe that Obama has no clue about these kind of views of his followers? Are we to think that, despite their beliefs, Obama is a true Christian, a patriot, a capitalist, a saviour?
Along with his kind speeches, Jennings is also active in "educating" the elementary-aged youth of America. He wrote a forward to the book Queering Elementary Education, the chapters of which include "Locating a Place for Gay and Lesbian Themes in Elementary Reading, Writing, and Talking." Now, I'm not suggesting we keep our kids sheltered until they're 18 and then presume we can tell them something they don't know about sexuality at that point, but I hardly think this book would do a good job of explaining a healthy view of sexuality.
Jennings is also associated with the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), who publish a recommended reading list for different grade levels. GatewayPundit.com published a story including the research that Scott Baker, co-founder of Breitbart.tv did into the GLSEN reading list for Grades 7-12. They found that:
We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.(emphasis mine)
So, to wrap up this admittedly long post, let's think. Is Obama an advocate for the change we need in this country? Is he fighting for "the American people"? I hardly thing so. His entire upbringing, his mentors (including his mother and Jeremiah Wright), and now, his close friends and advisers, all point to no other conclusion that our president is a liberal socialist radical with an agenda. This is a dangerous man. Obama isn't stupid by any means. He knows what he and his friends want and he's going to push to get it, even if that means saying one thing and doing the opposite. These people have no problem with that, they see no issue with lying, because they have a country to run. Their heroes are Mao, Lenin, Marx, and Bill Ayers.
Will America let itself continue to be occupied by this alien invasion?
Saturday, February 27, 2010
A Bold New Plan
So I have a radical new idea for saving this country, not just economically, not just from the terrorists, but encompassing all of that.
No one will like this idea, yet it strikes me as the best idea for fixing this stinking mass of bureaucracy that is American politics. Are you ready for it??
Get Rid Of The Parties
That's it. Dump the party system. It's no longer applicable. This idea came to me while watching the President's most recent State of the Union address. In this speech, and in any other major one, there's the usual entreaties for "bipartisan action" and "reaching across the aisle." Well what if there were no party to part on? What if there was no aisle to reach across? What if it was just people with ideas about how to fix things, how to get and stay on track, instead of two parties forever bickering and name-calling? Actions instead of factions? Hey, now there's an idea...
Let me say right now by way of rebuttal that I can't see this ever happen; neither party has the guts to do it. Everyone would throw their own high-sounding arguments into the mix and probably call me a Nazi. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats would ever give up their positions, their status, their power, for the good of the country. Everyone wants to talk about the "greater good" for which things must be sacrificed, but when it comes down to it, it's mostly "I'm sticking with my party because I'm sure as heck not going to be seen on yours."
Meanwhile, while the politicians squabble and fight here, we've got thousands of courageous men and women all over the world sacrificing their lives to defend the freedom that these people are trying to destroy.
I imagine instead a country where the people voted into office are there because they were deemed to be the best man or woman for the job, not because their party had the biggest constituency or because their campaign had the most money. Dream with me! What if the people in office truly were the ones the American people had seen as the most qualified?
Granted, this means people would actually have to start giving a hoot instead of just voting a party ticket. The burden of responsibility would be on you to know the credentials, the worldview, of each candidate; no longer would you be able to vote your party because hey, better than voting for the other party's guy, right? People wouldn't get to be lazy with this system. You would actually have to reflect on what you value and vote for the person that best upholds those values.
I honestly cannot imagine how drastically this country could be changed for the good of all were people voted for simply for their ability to get the job done. Can I say that again? Their ability to Get The Job Done. The working populace is familiar with this idea. You interview for a job, and you promote yourself as the one who can do the job the best. If the company agrees, you're hired; if not, someone more qualified than you got the job. Of course, there are obvious exceptions.
Like I said, though I strongly believe in this idea, I don't believe it will ever happen, because neither party would let it. They'll continue their grasping, fighting, and tearing down of the other party at the expense of this country we call America and its citizens.
Want true bipartisanship? Don't expect to see it while there are two parties, especially from those advocating it; they really just want the other side to change and agree with them. Look instead for the people who advocate a team. A team can have vastly different people on it, but it's often that diversity, while working for a common goal, that generates the best ideas and solutions.
Anyone for a game of team Fix America?
No one will like this idea, yet it strikes me as the best idea for fixing this stinking mass of bureaucracy that is American politics. Are you ready for it??
Get Rid Of The Parties
That's it. Dump the party system. It's no longer applicable. This idea came to me while watching the President's most recent State of the Union address. In this speech, and in any other major one, there's the usual entreaties for "bipartisan action" and "reaching across the aisle." Well what if there were no party to part on? What if there was no aisle to reach across? What if it was just people with ideas about how to fix things, how to get and stay on track, instead of two parties forever bickering and name-calling? Actions instead of factions? Hey, now there's an idea...
Let me say right now by way of rebuttal that I can't see this ever happen; neither party has the guts to do it. Everyone would throw their own high-sounding arguments into the mix and probably call me a Nazi. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats would ever give up their positions, their status, their power, for the good of the country. Everyone wants to talk about the "greater good" for which things must be sacrificed, but when it comes down to it, it's mostly "I'm sticking with my party because I'm sure as heck not going to be seen on yours."
Meanwhile, while the politicians squabble and fight here, we've got thousands of courageous men and women all over the world sacrificing their lives to defend the freedom that these people are trying to destroy.
I imagine instead a country where the people voted into office are there because they were deemed to be the best man or woman for the job, not because their party had the biggest constituency or because their campaign had the most money. Dream with me! What if the people in office truly were the ones the American people had seen as the most qualified?
Granted, this means people would actually have to start giving a hoot instead of just voting a party ticket. The burden of responsibility would be on you to know the credentials, the worldview, of each candidate; no longer would you be able to vote your party because hey, better than voting for the other party's guy, right? People wouldn't get to be lazy with this system. You would actually have to reflect on what you value and vote for the person that best upholds those values.
I honestly cannot imagine how drastically this country could be changed for the good of all were people voted for simply for their ability to get the job done. Can I say that again? Their ability to Get The Job Done. The working populace is familiar with this idea. You interview for a job, and you promote yourself as the one who can do the job the best. If the company agrees, you're hired; if not, someone more qualified than you got the job. Of course, there are obvious exceptions.
Like I said, though I strongly believe in this idea, I don't believe it will ever happen, because neither party would let it. They'll continue their grasping, fighting, and tearing down of the other party at the expense of this country we call America and its citizens.
Want true bipartisanship? Don't expect to see it while there are two parties, especially from those advocating it; they really just want the other side to change and agree with them. Look instead for the people who advocate a team. A team can have vastly different people on it, but it's often that diversity, while working for a common goal, that generates the best ideas and solutions.
Anyone for a game of team Fix America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)