ARE GOVERNMENT WORKERS OVERPAID?

Are government workers overpaid? Maybe they are, at least their pension plans are way outside the bounds of reality. But I still have to wonder, besides pensions, are government workers overcompensated? Or, is it more accurate to say that private workers are undercompensated?

When I was a kid most tradespeople, hell, most skilled blue collar workers, could live a decent middle class lifestyle on one income. My parents did and so did the families of a large number of my friends. But now, after 40 years of inflation, competition with slave labor and lack of regulation from foreign countries and wages that have declined in real terms, a blue collar guy can't do that anymore.

A government worker, on the other hand, just might be able to because his wages have in part kept up with inflation.

So is that government guy overpaid? Or is he being paid a wage more in line with economic reality? One that hasn't been depressed by the greed and manipulation that is part and parcel of our hyper-competitive, winner take all, debt based capitalism?

And if he's not overcompensated then I have to wonder why it is that so many, apart from the pension crap, think he is? Or do they? I wonder how many of my conservative brothers and sisters have thought this one through? Is it possible that capitalism, at least as it's understood in today's economy, really isn't the best way? I'm not saying Marxism is good. It's not. In fact, I'd argue that it's intrinsically evil, something that you can't say about capitalism.

Still, there's something really wrong with our system. Capitalism, left to it's own devices, will always result in the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. And as wealth accumulates so does power. Over time the majority of the people end up as wage slaves carrying crushing debt, owning no property and left to beg at the feet of the wealthy for jobs, loans to rent houses (mortgages) and little or no real ability to change much of that. The best most of us can hope for is to work all our lives to pay off our mortgage so that we can live at least a couple years on property of our own, which in reality still isn't ours. Just don't pay the real estate tax and see what happens.

Sure, some few break out and make a success of themselves and gain some level of independence but even they, the small business owners, are still chasing dollars to service debt in one form or another. Because unless a person is independently wealthy (free) they will at some point borrow money to grow their business. And generally that debt isn't dependent on the success or failure of the business. It isn't an investment by a third party willing to take a risk. It's a noose around your throat supplied by a friendly banker, all smiles and handshakes. Your business succeeds and you share the profit. It fails and the bank still profits- you take the loss.

Pretty much the same way the banks have worked us over in the public sector, too. They make themselves too big to fail, or at least they sell that lie to the public, so they can privatize their gains and socialize their loses. They always win, we always take the risk.

And now the people with the wealth and the power have been busy selling a new meme, the one that is meant to convince us that it's right and proper to take an ever decreasing wage for the same work while the price of everything we buy goes up. And they're doing it by stirring up jealousy and resentment towards government employees. Really, isn't this the same game the Marxists always play with their eat the rich crap. Looks to me like in the end there's very little difference between the strategy of the left and the right. Which makes me wonder just how different their end goals are, too.

While there are some very legitimate questions to ask about government employee compensation there's no reason for us to get all pitch forky on 'em.

We're being played by the same people that are stripping us of our own freedom and we're too blinded by ideology to see it.

I TORE 'EM UP

I stole this from my wife's blog Moving On To The Past. She writes better than I do so why I figure why not just steal her stuff?

I pushed off from shore, stepping into the khaki green jon boat at the last minute, completely unaware of the struggle that would shortly ensue.  The jet skipped us over the rocks and barely submerged logs in mere inches of Meremac river water, glistening as the early evening sun reflected images of trees and sheer bluffs on its banks.

I sit at the bow facing the stern, hair tentatively pinned atop my head, loosening strands whipping in the wind.  I shut my eyes as the boat approaches the most shallow areas.  I can see the pebbles on the bottom.  If we stop, we're stuck.  Finally we reach Fish Trap Rapids where we meet up with neighbors also enjoying the quiet evening.  The girls are innocently playing on the gravel beach, swim suits damp from water play.  We're going fishing, slowly following the banks rich with grassy vegetation, fallen boulders and trees, bark peeling and sun bleached.

I am trying artificial bait, using something tiny and white with a treble hook.  It has a nickname, which I won't mention in polite company-or impolite for that matter.  At any rate, I don't typically use anything but worms so I'm not optimistic but I like to cast, particularly with a spinning  reel. It's light, you can feel everything, even the smallest nibble and control is much better.  I seem to have pretty good hand-eye coordination.  I can usually put it exactly where I am aiming (as long as I don't have a moving target)!  

Suddenly I have a hit.

I'm fighting it.  The rod is bending and my husband is yelling, "Keep the rod tip up" to keep the tension tight. I'm thinking, "Don't lose him!"  as I reel and pull.  I'm wishing our boat had those deep sea fishing straps,what if this guy starts pulling me in!   My brow is full of sweat, I'm bracing myself against the side of the boat.  I'm winning.

The river is pretty clear, aside from the mystery foam, seeds and occasional leaves that float down with the current,  I can start to see the beast beneath, struggling as much as I am.  I am confident now, I can do this. He breaks the water, caught solidly through the lip. I yell to get the camera, I can't let this opportunity go undocumented. 

I'll warn you, scroll down to see the photo.  I'm a mess by this time.  My hair is trashed and I'm exhausted.  I look like crap. 

S

C

R

O

L

L

I hope you enjoyed my Big Fish Story!  LOL  :)

I did catch the first, in fact four of them.  We would be lucky to have popcorn fish bites from this but it was fun!  A bald Eagle flew overhead.  He must live here because the guys tell me he is there every time they go fishing, which is often.  A beautiful heron was posing on the beach as we passed, watching us as much as we were marveling at him.

Neighbor's boat 

One of the many beaches

Have a wonderful weekend.

OUR PROBLEM IS NOT IMMIGRANTS

"And why should Hispanics vote Republican? 

The majority of Hispanics are among that half of the population that pays no income tax. Why should they vote for a party whose major plank is that it will cut income taxes? 

Hispanics benefit disproportionately from government programs." 

Has The Bell Begun To Toll For The GOP?

If the Republicans want to get the Hispanic vote there's one sure way to do it; embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church instead of Ayn Rand. Unlike many Americans, for the most part Mexicans are very serious about faith and that faith is Catholicism. If the GOP would only stop playing games with the faith issue and embrace it they'd get the Mexican vote. Paul Ryan has been explicit in how his Catholic faith influenced his budget plan. The leader of the house, also a Catholic, should take that ball and run with it. The GOP needs to understand Catholic social teaching and how government properly exercises it's responsibilities. If it can both talk the talk and walk the walk it'll get the Mexican vote and make America a far better country.

Buchanan is right. America is no longer the white Protestant stronghold it was and it'll never be that again. But that doesn't mean it should lose it's soul, it's historic Christian nature, the thing that has allowed it to prosper. In fact, I'd argue that to embrace Catholicism is to embrace true Christian thought and the philosophical muscle that tore down the pagan world.

Our real problems today are of a spiritual nature, not a material one. The material problem derives from the breakdown of Christendom. We've moved away from God and towards mammon. We've thrown aside the traditions that supported our society. And with them we've thrown away any chance of an ordered and productive world.

It doesn't make any difference whether America is white, black or brown. What does matter is that the ideals that America was founded on are preserved and applied. And those ideals are the ideals of Christendom, the ideals of the Catholic Church. Sure, they may have been brought here by Protestants but those Protestants were the beneficiaries of the 1500 years of Western thought that was developed by the Church and before her by the Greeks and the Jews, all the way back to Abraham.

Our system and the parties that benefit from it are corrupt. They've been corrupted by materialism - power and profit taking the front while the people and their God given rights and responsibilities are trod into the dust. The problem isn't the Mexicans or any other group that comes here. The problem is us. We've bought into the promise of material salvation and now we're going to reap the results of that decision in collapse and misery. America has become a hollow shell. We're no better than all the material wonders we advertise, all glitter and promise but nothing of substance.

We've gladly traded the transcendence and freedom of Christendom for the rot and decay of materialism. We follow Rand or Marx, both promising happiness through the material world. One holds up the corporation and the other the state, like a priest raising the Blessed Sacrament above the altar.

So get ready because like the Jewish people in the Old Testament we're about to reap the fruits of our disobedience and disbelief. We have free will and we can choose our own path. But there are consequences for choosing poorly. Salvation doesn't come from a material choice, from politics, power or wealth. It comes from a spiritual choice, choosing truth over lies.

We've made our choice and we're about to get what we asked for.

FOLLOWING THE LOGIC

Republican Security Council

STOP PLAYING THEIR GAME - FIGHTING THE CONTRACEPTION MANDATE

It's time our side stops engaging these people on the left in this way and here's the reason why. We're playing into their strength, just as they want us to. We need to make our case, which we have, inform the government that we will not follow their dictate, which we have, move on and prepare for the arrests and other persecutions that will come.

By continuing to have these arguments, both in the Congressional hearings and on news outlets, we're allowing the administration to keep every one focused on social issues and away from the economic issues they fear most. In the end, I believe this is the real reason, or at least the primary reason at this point in time, for this attack on the First Amendment. It's mostly about re-election and getting us to watch the one hand while the other hand does the magic. Classic misdirection.

The best argument against the administration is to stand quietly against them. Just refuse to move. Now, they've tried to sidestep this tactic by making sure enforcement of their dictates won't happen until after the election. That's why they gave the Church a year to fall in line. So the way around that is to force the issue of government over reach but from different directions. Begin to exercise REAL freedom of religion. Speak directly against the administration from the pulpit. Draw the ire of the IRS and all the other dogs of government that will be set lose. Jab and punch but stay on our toes, bob and weave, don't let 'em rest.

Make them follow their nature and open the door to the real beast that they've kept bottled and in the closet. Let the people see what we've put into power. Not the sugar coated "social justice" - kumbya lie of Progressivism but the dark Hitler/Stalin reality. We'll never remove the cancer if we don't know it's there.

UPDATE ON GINGRICH AND WHEN LIFE BEGINS

Lifenews.com posted an article today with this clarification of the implantation issue by Gingrich:

"“As I have stated many times throughout the course of my public life, I believe that human life begins at conception,” Gingrich said in the statement. “I believe that every unborn life is precious, no matter how conceived. I also believe that we should work for the day when there will be no abortions for any reason, and that every unborn child will be welcomed into life and protected by law.”

“That is why I have supported, and will continue to support, pro-life legislation that not only limits, but also reduces, the total number of abortions, with a view to the eventual legal protection of all unborn human life,” Gingrich continued."

I have to wonder if the most brilliant man in the room is really capable of being so clear and unambiguous in his comments regarding implantation only to turn around, and doing his best Emily Latilla, say, "Never mind!"

Something's just not right here. Either he was caught with his pants down and let the truth show or he's really not as brilliant as he'd like us all to believe. That the implantation remark could be just a simple foul up is impossible for me to believe, at least if he has any real convictions or principles regarding life issues.

And that's why I don't trust him. He's just another politician looking for votes and he'll say anything he has to or sit next to Pelosi on any couch he needs to if it'll help him get those votes.

In the end, all of the candidates have strengths and weaknesses. All I'm looking for is the one that is honest, that shows true character and that says what they believe and believes what they say. Gingrich isn't the one.

GINGRICH ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE - POLITICS OR PRINCIPLE?

ABC News is reporting that in an interview with Jake Tapper, Newt Gingrich states that he believe life begins at implantation, not conception, a break with both Catholic teaching and many if not most in the anti-abortion movement.

"TAPPER: Abortion is a big issue here in Iowa among conservative Republican voters and Rick Santorum has said you are inconsistent. The big argument here is that you have supported in the past embryonic stem cell research and you made a comment about how these fertilized eggs, these embryos are not yet “pre-human” because they have not been implanted. This has upset conservatives in this state who worry you don’t see these fertilized eggs as human life. When do you think human life begins?

GINGRICH: Well, I think the question of being implanted is a very big question. My friends who have ideological positions that sound good don’t then follow through the logic of: ‘So how many additional potential lives are they talking about? What are they going to do as a practical matter to make this real?’

I think that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life. because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions"

Many may see this as a case of semantic silliness but it isn't. In my opinion it signifies a certain cowardice which is betrayed by the last sentence in the quote above. Gingrich is right that to believe life begins at conception does open the door to many questions that are difficult, questions that have a direct bearing on whether the many medical procedures that create embryos for implantation or in fact creating babies, tiny human beings that are then used as things to be implanted, frozen, thrown away or experimented on.

For a man like Gingrich, one that never seems to shy from a fight about ideas, it's nearly impossible to believe that just the fact that difficult questions are created would be enough to preclude him from accepting something as true. I don't believe this is the reason he takes the stand that he does in the interview.

Gingrich goes on to say:

"Implantation and successful implantation. In addition I would say that I’ve never been for embryonic stem cell research per se. I have been for, there are a lot of different ways to get embryonic stem cells. I think if you can get embryonic stem cells for example from placental blood if you can get it in ways that do not involve the loss of a life that’s a perfectly legitimate avenue of approach.

What I reject is the idea that we’re going to take one life for the purpose of doing research for other purposes and I think that crosses a threshold of de-humanizing us that’s very very dangerous."

This is where we get to the heart of the matter; he's trying to have it both ways. If he honestly accepts the argument that he's put forth, that life begins at implantation, not conception, then he shouldn't have any problem at all with any use of none implanted embryos. But in the above quote he says that he's nearly always opposed embryonic stem cell research. Why?

I think I know. He's trying to walk a fine line. He doesn't want to offend the pro-aborts in the Republican party, the big pharma and medical research firms that donate money or the Dems that just might cross the line because they've become so frustrated with the direction their party has taken. But at the same time he's throwing a bone to the pro-life camp, giving them something to hang their hats on so they can still vote for him with a clear conscience. He figures he's probably got their vote anyway when it comes right down to it so he just has to give 'em a friendly nudge.

This is the kind of thing I'm watching for with Gingrich. He's showing his true colors here. He's more interested in politics than principle in the abortion battle.

And, if he's willing to throw babies under the bus to get elected, what else will he do?

So the question remains - has Gingrich changed? It's not looking good so far.

HAS GINGRICH CHANGED?

OK, so the player doesn't fit the page. Honestly, I'm not much in the mood to figure out the code changes I need to make to fix it. And it's an audio file once you get past the commercial anyway so who cares.

I've been listening to a lot of Gingrich over the past few weeks. I gotta admit that I'm a bit leery of him. Fool me once... Anyway, after listening to this clip and reading his comments on the Eucharist I have to wonder - has he changed?

I'm Catholic. I was born Catholic and raised, more or less (probably less in the long run) Catholic. By the time I was thirteen we no longer went to church. I grew up, got married, had kids and still I didn't really go to church any more than absolutely necessary. Too busy drinking and smoking dope, working, dealing with life and all the other excuses one normally comes up with.

I did come back, though. There were a number of reasons, some powerfully spiritual and some purely based on reason. It's the latter that makes me think that Gingrich may have undergone a profound change.

Gingrich is a man of letters. He writes and lectures. He seems to be deeply attracted to debate, both as sport and as a learning tool. He generally uses logic in his arguments which is why he is so very good at winning them. I've watched him systematically dismantle the arguments of others by finding the weaknesses and exploiting them simply by pointing them out and opening them to question. Very much like so many great Catholic scholars have over the last 2000 years, Aquinas coming immediately to mind.

In this love of logic and argument Gingrich and I are very similar. Obviously, he's way smarter than I am (not false modesty but observable reality). And in the end, it's my personal predisposition towards debate that brought me back to the church and created a fundamental change in me.

I was challenged by co-workers, all of a Pentecostal persuasion, about the legitimacy of Catholic belief. Not being one to shy from an argument but also not being one to advance into battle without arms, I set about to learn as much about the faith of my birth as I could. Not because I planned on returning to it but because I wanted to win a fight.

What I found was not some superstitious, lock step belief system based on power and authority of the political or human type but a system of teachings over 2000 years old, never changing but always growing, based first on logic and reason but then, based on the irrefutable findings of that reasoning, willing to step off the cliff of faith, knowing that no other honest response was possible. I found a faith that worships God, not because a book of dubious origin (at least that's what I thought when I heard the Protestant explanation for why I should trust it) commands it, but because reason, moving in the river of revealed knowledge, demands it.

This changed me and everything about me, completely and irrevocably. I would never be able to think or act the same way again. Once presented with truth we are forced to decide whether to follow it or not. We're either all in or out. There's no middle ground. That doesn't mean we don't fall every now and then. It means we keep our eyes on the prize, get up and keeping working towards the truth.

I'm not the same guy I was 20 years ago. Not by a long shot.

Which forces me to ask this question about Gingrich; has he undergone the same sort of fundamental change because of his faith? If he has then I would have to think that he isn't the same person that lived the life he lived long ago and that knowing what he knows and understands to be the truth now he wouldn't have done many of the things he did.

That doesn't mean he won't do them again. I know I have certain predispositions built into me by constant involvement in pointless stupidity over a big chunk of my life. We all have weaknesses and we all have certain responses that we fall back on in given situations that need to be unlearned. And that's a time consuming process.

I know that in my case, learning to think like the Church after these last 10+ years of reading Church history, Papal Encyclicals and so many of the works of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church has fundamentally altered the way my brain works. I think in a different way now. Catholicism does that to you if you avail yourself of the treasure trove of knowledge it's generated over 2000 years.

I'm thinking, based on what I know about Gingrich, that his journey to the Church probably involved a good deal of reading, research and debate. And I would guess that all of this has caused a change in him that will be reflected in his life, his decisions and the way he sees everything around him.

I'll be watching him more closely. I still have a bunch of questions. But the things I'm hearing from him on issues such as immigration make me think that he's been changed, that the teachings of Holy Mother Church have taken root.

I may find myself able to vote for him after all.