writing.ebdean.com

2010-02-15T19:56:00.002-05:00

In America you can always pack up and leave. http://ping.fm/0hnVI

What Should an eBook Cost?

2010-01-08T14:36:00.005-05:00

I've been hearing from people that they think e-books cost too much. Someone actually said to me, "Why should I have to pay six dollars for a book when there is no paper? They should just sell the books for ninety-nine cents like iTunes sells music." The author in me wanted to punch him in the nose.

First of all, ninety-nine cents for a song is not cheap. It's roughly the same price we paid for songs when we bought them on compact discs. Books, however, should not be sold by the chapter. We are always going to want the 'whole album' when we buy books.

Second of all, the cost of a book is not found in the paper. (Heck, you can buy a ream of paper at Office Max for a couple of dollars, and I'm sure publishers buy in bulk.)

Money Magazine did a breakdown of the cost of a typical book. They used John Grisham's novel, The Associate:

Hardcover list price $27.95

$4.19 to the author. (He pays his agent, publicist, etc…)
$3.55 to pre-production. (editors, graphic designers, proofreaders, etc…)
$2.83 to printing. (ink, glue, paper, etc…)
$2.00 to marketing. (book tour, ads, printing/shipping pre-release to journalists, etc…)
$2.80 to wholesalers. (distribution to retailers)
$12.58 to retailers. (This is not all profit; they have overhead and personnel costs.)

From this we can see that it costs $15.37 to make this book. An e-book won't require printing or wholesaler costs and will only cost $9.74 to make. IT'S ONLY SIX DOLLARS CHEAPER TO MAKE AN E-BOOK!

Of course the retailer is entitled to a reasonable amount of profit. (Barnes and Noble stores routinely sell new release hard cover books for 40% off the list price. In this case bringing their cut from $12.58 per book down to $1.40; hardly price gouging.) Let's guess that their overhead eats away half of that, so we could expect that savings to be passed along to the e-book purchaser, giving only seventy cents profit per e-book sold.

So, allowing for a very slight amount of profit, we should see the e-book price at about $10.44.

Now, this is a specific example. Costs are going to vary based on the size of the book, the popularity of the author, and other factors. Also not included in this analysis is the cost of creating the digital version of the book, (although this is probably only a minimal cost.) And if a retailer wanted to increase their profit margin a bit by raising prices slightly it wouldn't be evil.

Once a book is no longer a new release, the cost of the e-book should fluctuate based solely on demand. The phenomenon of 'clearance' prices doesn't apply to digital media. With retailers already slashing their cut to be competitive there is not a ton of room for discounting.

So let's give e-book publishers a break. Electronic publishing is fantastic and more convenient, and overall, cheaper. Count your blessings and keep in mind that profitable publishers will bring you more books in the future.

Georgia Super Speeder Law

2009-12-28T09:38:00.003-05:00

Beginning January First the Georgia Super Speeder Law goes into effect. If you exceed 85 miles an hour on any road, under any driving conditions, you will be fined an extra $200 on top of the usual speeding fine. The same add-on fine applies to driving in excess of 75 miles per hour on any two-lane highway. There are also additional fines of either $200 or $300 to have your license reinstated if it has been suspended for various reasons.

This law is being imposed, we are told, because traffic accidents burden our trauma care centers. The law will keep many people from dangerously speeding, and those who continue to break the law will then pay these new fines which will be used to pay for trauma care.

There are no scientific studies that show that speeding of this kind is a major cause of traffic accidents in Georgia. There are no studies that show the impact of reducing such behavior on the cost of trauma care.

In Germany people drive on freeways everyday at speeds of up to 120 miles an hour and they consistently have a much lower accident and fatality rate than we have in America. Indeed, in America there are millions of people who exceed the speed limits in a safe, albeit illegal, manner. It is a myth, plain and simple, that speed - by itself - is dangerous.

People who speed in congested traffic conditions while weaving in and out of lanes, or in bad weather conditions, or in construction zones, or through school zones are driving dangerously. That is why we have increased fines for reckless driving, and special zone violations.

It is unlikely that punishing 'super speeders' is going to make Georgia's roadways safer. Nor will it reduce the amount of people in trauma centers due to traffic accidents.

It will, however, increase the number of people in traffic court. These fines will be contested, and people will be demanding their day in court if nothing else in hopes the judge will allow them to plead to a lesser offense. The burden on the local courts comes with a cost to the taxpayers, both in money and in time spent in line.

Oh, and let's not forget the cost to public safety. When a traffic ticket is contested the issuing officer must take a morning off and spend it testifying in court. This is time that could be spent on the street being a visible deterrent to real crime - or is overtime being billed to the taxpayer.

So, if a reasonably thinking person can deduce that this new law will not make things safer, and may increase the costs to our local governments, why would the State Government impose it?

The answer is simple. It is a hidden tax increase.

You see the Georgia State Constitution does not allow the legislature to impose fines and use the money for any pet projects - such as trauma care. The estimated $30 million dollars a year this law will generate will be simply dumped into the general fund. Maybe they'll spend it on trauma care, maybe they'll spend it on salary increases for legislators, maybe they'll spend it on education, who knows; all we can do is wait and see.

Maybe you don't drive over 75 miles per hour and think this law doesn't affect you. But keep in mind that this is not a conservative way of running the government. We should be outraged. Such laws further the 'nanny state' mentality that is destroying our personal liberties and making Americans into weaklings who look to government to solve all of their day to day problems and to provide for their day to day needs. This is a law that gives politicians a way to spend even more money, without officially raising taxes, instead of rolling up their sleeves and doing something to reduce the size of government and lower taxes.

And this came straight from the Governor's office, folks. Sonny Perdue is behind this, and the Republican controlled legislature passed it. Why even bother electing Republicans if they are going to behave like liberals?

To Be a Writer or . . .

2009-12-23T13:12:00.004-05:00

I know it is a bit early to be tossing out New Year's resolutions, but I'm feeling convicted now. What exactly is it that keeps me from sitting down and actually writing my novel? Certainly it's not a lack of time or opportunity, nor does it stem from lack of support from my lovely bride or children. When I lie awake at night, it is more often than not because I am drawn into this fantasy world that seems so real and tangible to me that it is more like recalling memories than creating fiction. The truth is, I love this story. And perhaps it is that love that keeps me from writing it - because while it is all shiny and perfect now, I know that once I put pen to paper I can do nothing but scar and tarnish it. But one cannot bring a beautiful child into the world by keeping her in the warm protective confines of the womb. Risk must be taken, and the reality of growing up will scar and tarnish even when the best care is taken.

So, here is my sole resolution: I will finish my novel by December 23, 2010 - at least a first draft - or I will stop telling people I am a writer.

Lord, Save Us From The Christian Film Industry

2009-10-13T13:28:00.002-04:00

I went to see Dan Merchant's, Lord, Save Us From Your Followers, on Sunday. The sound quality was terrible, but otherwise this was as decent a low-budget documentary as anything I've seen on IFC. It was enjoyable, humorous at moments, visually creative, and when you get right down to it, thought-provoking.

First, you have to understand that this was a post-modern approach to filmmaking. Dan Merchant did not intend to give us his conclusions or suggestions, but rather to expose an issue and then guide us toward a place of understanding in the hopes that this will result in meaningful discussion or debate. It begins with the question, "So why is the Gospel of Love dividing America?" The goal, it seems, is to show that we can have discussions about faith, even with non-believers, without being contentious.

In my opinion, the film really misses the mark. It does a fine job of showing that people, in general, are distrustful of Christians and view us as judgmental hypocrites. However, the examination of why this is true and whether or not it can be changed, I found to be disjointed, confusing, strangely homosexuality-centric, and ultimately incomplete. Like those liberals who assume America must be doing something wrong if the whole world hates us, Dan Merchant seems to begin from the assumption that the Church is doing something wrong if the non-believers hate us. I'm not saying the Church doesn't have some changes to make, but the reality is the non-believers hated Jesus and he got it perfectly right. In fact, Jesus pointed out that the world is definitely going to hate us just because we follow him.

The film also completely glosses over, or outright ignores, crucial elements that should be included in any discussion about the collision between faith and culture. Hollywood's deliberate and frequent false portrayal of Christians in movies and on television, the liberal media's selection of spokespeople for all of Christianity, the mandate for Christians to participate in political debate and policy, the inclusion of heretics in the reputation of the Church both presently and throughout history, revisionism of history and anti-Christian education within the government schools, and I could go on. All of these factors shape how the culture views Christians, and impose boundaries on how we are able to behave as believers.

Overall, I'll give the movie a decent review. It suggests we should be loving and grace-filled and well I can't argue with any of that. There was nothing cheesy about the movie, which is an accomplishment for a Christian film. (Kirk Cameron wasn't in it, and that's an accomplishment for a Christian film as well.) I've already seen people having discussions about it, so I guess it's accomplishing its purpose in that regard. On a scale of LEFT BEHIND to PASSION OF THE CHRIST, I'd give it about a FACING THE GIANTS.

I Don't Understand Hollywood

2009-10-01T13:50:00.001-04:00

If I found out one of my friends used my house to rape a teenager I would be livid. I want to hear Jack Nicholson and Angelica Huston stand up and say, “Roman Polanski deserves to spend the rest of his days in Chino Prison finding out what it feels like to be on the receiving end of anal rape.” The support for this rapist is outrageous and unjustifiable. Who cares if he was arrested at an international film festival? Who cares if this somehow hurts our ‘friendship’ with France? He anally raped a teenager! This is not a travesty of justice – the travesty of justice was the plea bargain he was offered when he pled guilty to a lesser charge – the travesty of justice was letting this bastard live in luxury in Europe giving him awards for filmmaking when he was guilty of rape and making child pornography.

And would someone, anyone, please, slap Whoopie Goldberg.

Do We Change Course Now?

2009-10-01T13:11:00.001-04:00

Let’s face it, this country has problems. We have poverty, slavery, oppression, discrimination, addictions, inequality, violence, thievery, dishonesty, promiscuity, and unhappiness. It is not necessary to travel to a third-world country to see the worst of mankind – we have issues right here at home. I believe we live in the greatest nation in the world, but we are far from perfect.

Our founding fathers fought tyranny and established freedom and liberty as the foundation of our society. However, that system, while it has served us well in many ways, is imperfect as well. It has failed to prevent a number of ailments that plague our culture and thus we find ourselves at a crossroads of sorts. Do the ills of society justify a deviation from our original boundaries established to protect ourselves from oppression? It seems, after all the rhetoric of previous decades, we have actually arrived at a decision point: do we still believe in the vision of the founding fathers or do we need to make drastic changes?

Over the past several decades we have divorced ourselves, somewhat, from a strict interpretation of the Constitution thus apparently giving us the option to transition to a more socialist state. Indeed, we have elected a President who campaigned on the promise to bring change to our nation. However misinformed the populace may have been, President Obama’s socialist ideology was not a secret. He is doing exactly what we elected him to do.

The ills that plague us need to be addressed. Neither liberals nor conservatives desire to turn a blind eye to the suffering of the people. If we stand at a fork in the road, which path do we choose? (For we have certainly limited ourselves to only two choices haven’t we?)

I think it comes down to our understanding of the depravity of mankind.

Generally, liberals see and admit the depravity of mankind: the common man cannot be relied upon to be generous, law-abiding, or equitable. It is with well-intentioned desire to achieve fairness and alleviate suffering that liberals turn to the government as the answer. If mankind cannot be trusted, then some empowered governing body must intervene to ensure the safety and equality of society as a whole. Thus, everyone pays their fair share and everyone is given equal treatment.

Conservatives also see and admit the depravity of mankind: those with power will tend toward tyranny and oppression seeking to improve their own situation and serve their own causes. To avoid anarchy and chaos, some form of government is necessary, but it must be limited in scope and power. Individual people will see the value in ensuring the safety and equality of society as a whole.

Liberals, at some point, are forced to ignore the very same depravity of mankind they use to justify the need for an empowered government. It must be believed that the right leaders exist, who will act selflessly and only for the good of all people, or it must be believed that the majority of voters will act selflessly and only for the good of all people.

Conservatives also must blind themselves a bit. If government cannot be trusted with the power to act to resolve the problems facing society, then it must be believed that the people will be moved to address injustice and inequality though personal ambition, generosity, and charity.

Here’s the truth: neither path will take this nation to a place where we no longer have poverty, slavery, oppression, discrimination, addictions, inequality, violence, thievery, dishonesty, promiscuity, and unhappiness. There are plenty of socialistic nations we can look at and see that each and every one of them has these same problems. The fact that the problems exist today, is proof that the founding father’s system of limited government doesn’t work any better. We live in a fallen world, people are depraved, the ills of society will continue no matter what goofy scheme mankind employs. Man is simply not equipped to undo the effects of sin in the world – this is why we need a Savior.

It’s right to want things to change, because things are not right with the world. But no system of government is the answer. Our need for government comes from the fact that with sin in the world, we cannot be relied upon to do the right thing. But this is a problem we cannot solve on our own, because no matter which system of government we choose, it will be made up of people who cannot be relied upon to do the right thing.

Of course we are only talking about the issue of societal ills. Which path do we take? In my opinion we ought to reject the change being offered by our current President and Congress. While a capitalist government is no more effective at alleviating the suffering of the people than a socialist one, it leaves the people themselves open to address those issues individually. The citizen of a capitalist society may frown at government’s inability to help the suffering and then reach into his pocket and do something about it. The citizen of a socialist nation frowns at government’s corruption and inefficiency in addressing suffering and finding his pocket empty can do nothing about it.

Going Green Requires Sacrifice

2009-01-08T12:49:00.005-05:00

I read today that burning one gallon of gas produces ten times the amount of carbon dioxide as one person produces in an entire day.

This means that a person existing for 10 days = using 1 gallon of gas.

The Hummer H3 has a 23 gallon gas tank and gets 18 miles per gallon. Thus, the H3 gets 414 miles per tank. Assuming you drive 15,000 miles per year (41 miles a day) you will go through a tank of gas in 10 days.

1 person existing for 10 days = using 1 gallon of gas.

1 H3 driven for 10 days = using 23 gallons of gas.

Therefore, 23 people existing for 10 days = driving an H3 for 10 days.

At 15000 miles per year, your H3 will probably only last 13 years or so. Generally people live longer than 10 days; indeed most adults will live at least another 13 years or so.

So, what does all of this mean? If you simply drive over 23 hippies on your way home from your first fill up, you can drive your H3 for the rest of its life and be completely carbon neutral.

in loco parentis

2008-11-28T15:42:00.002-05:00

My 12 year old daughter wants a handgun for Christmas. She had the opportunity to shoot rifles at summer camp and found out she's a good shot. I own a gun and look forward to making this an activity we do together. When the time comes for her to leave home, I'll feel a lot better about her safety and wellbeing knowing she knows how to take care of herself.

However some people, when they ask her what she wants for Christmas, feel they need to intervene on my behalf to explain to Madeline that she is not allowed to have a gun. It's a bit infuriating actually. Last week one woman went so far as to tell my daughter it was illegal for minors to own a gun. Maddy pointed out that the Second Amendment says differently and she was told that the Constitution does not apply to children.

Of course I don't expect a government school educated Obama supporter to know much about the Constitution, but if you want to shut down your brain and simply buy the anti-gun media hype, that's your prerogative, but please don't pass on your lazy opinions to my daughter.

The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that the Constitution offers its protections to every citizen regardless of age, race, or gender. Children exercise their legal standing via their parents, but they still have the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to be free from illegal search and seizure, the right to practice their religion, and there is no exception for their right to keep and bear arms. It certainly is NOT illegal for minors to own guns; just ask any 12 year old Tennessee boy with a hunting dog.

Statistically, assuming she doesn't join a gang, it is more likely my daughter will die in a car accident or a swimming pool than by being accidentally shot. This is why I have taught her to wear a seat belt and how to swim. Guns are no different; she will learn how to properly care for it, store it, and use it so that – like millions of children since the inception of our nation – she will be a safe and responsible gun owner.

Feel free to raise your children to be afraid, dependent on government, and willing to trade liberty for a false sense of security. I'm going to raise mine to enjoy her life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Georgia Court of Appeals Race

2008-11-24T13:03:00.002-05:00

Georgia Voters, On December 2, when you go to vote for Saxby Chambliss, you will also be asked to elect a judge to the Georgia Court of Appeals. This is a run off election between Sara Doyle and Mike Sheffield.

First, in the spirit of full disclosure, let me advise that Mr. Sheffield is a member at my church, Perimeter Church in Duluth, Georgia. However, I have never met Mr. Sheffield (not unusual in a church Perimeter's size) and have no personal knowledge about him.

EXPERIENCE

Mr. Sheffield has been an attorney more than twice as long as Ms. Doyle; 34 years compared to 15 years. Furthermore, Ms. Doyle has spent the last 14 years specializing in the representation of private schools in the civil courts. Mr. Sheffield is presently a criminal defense attorney, although for the first 9 years of his career he was a criminal prosecutor for Dekalb County. In short, Mr. Sheffield has vast experience with all types of criminal law, from both sides. Ms. Doyle has a limited, but no doubt expert, understanding of education law from the perspective of the institution's best interest. Additionally, Mr. Sheffield has filed over 60 cases with the Georgia Court of Appeals so he knows the Court's demands. He has tried over 300 jury trials at the Superior Court, from which the Court of Appeals gets its cases. Clearly, Mr. Sheffield is the more experienced candidate.

However, I have no doubt that both candidates understand the law sufficiently so that they would be able to handle the technical aspects of a judge's position. Frankly, I don't think experience is the major concern in a race like this.

JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY

More important than experience, in my opinion, is a judge's philosophy. Is a judge supposed to issue decisions to further a political cause or simply interpret the laws as written? What if the judge disagrees with the law personally but knows the law is constitutionally valid? What if a law is poorly worded so that a judge could 'technically' adhere to it while not interpreting it as the law was intended? What if another country interprets laws differently than the U.S.? I expect a judge to overturn unconstitutional laws and uphold constitutional laws according to the intentions of the legislature. I expect a judge to ignore cases and laws from other countries that are not a part of our common law. In recent years liberal judges have been ignoring the Constitution, deliberately misinterpreting laws, citing international cases as common law, and otherwise attempting to create, by precedent, liberal laws that would never be able to be passed in the legislature. Now more than ever, with a Democrat controlled Congress and White House and perhaps Supreme Court, we need to be picking our local judges with great care.

Mike Sheffield has clearly stated that he will be a conservative constitutionalist; he will not try to further any political agenda but interpret the law as written. Sara Doyle said that because she is not yet a judge, she doesn't have a judicial philosophy. I guess she wants us to just vote for her and 'wait and see' what kind of judge she will be.

SPECIAL INTERESTS

Voters want to know what the candidates' positions are on various issues. However, some people say that judicial candidates should not let their personal views be known or people will assume those views will affect their decision making.

Let's stop and think about this for a moment. Does anyone really believe that by keeping one's opinion a secret it removes their bias? Of course not. Does anyone really believe that by keeping one's opinion a secret it makes it possible for them to ignore their bias when trying a case? Of course not. Everyone has their own opinions, even judges. Everyone's own opinion affects their decision making, even judges. Pretending the bias doesn't exist only serves to keep the voters in the dark about who they are electing. I personally want to elect judges who think like I do; that the law should be strictly interpreted; that the Constitution should be upheld.

Sara Doyle refused to answer a questionnaire for Georgia Right To Life stating that it is not proper for judges to discuss issues that might come before them in court. (i.e. abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, etc…) Mike Sheffield reported he was pro-life, pro-death penalty; but that he would strictly interpret the law.

But Sara Doyle did not refuse to answer a questionnaire from Georgia Equality, a pro-homosexual special interest group. So what does this tell us? That Sara Doyle is not opposed to letting her views be known after all; they just have to be approved of by liberals.

I think the message is clear. Sheffield is committed to openness and strictly interpreting the law. Doyle is committed to secrecy and keeping the left happy. Let me say, I don't know Sara Doyle. As is typical of judicial races, the information available to me is thin. I am only able to glean from what is available and make the best decision I can.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Judges for the Supreme Court of both the State and Country are often pulled from the Court of Appeals. Substitutes for the Superior Court are pulled from the Court of Appeals as well. The political make-up and judicial philosophy of these candidates is very relevant in the long term.

I hope you will join me in voting for Mike Sheffield.

Why December 2nd Is Important

2008-11-20T15:54:00.003-05:00

If you live in Georgia please take out your calendar and clear your schedule on December 2, 2008 so you will be able to vote. This is of crucial importance.

Our system of checks and balances, what our forefathers intended to keep government from becoming too powerful, is not functioning.

Half of our nation is conservative in ideology, and presently the liberals are in power. The liberally-biased Press isn't going to keep government accountable for not representing conservative interests. (If President Obama signs the "Fairness Doctrine" it will diminish the only real conservative voice in the media – talk radio.) Our two-party system ensures that the party in the majority has nearly complete control. With a liberal president the power of veto means nothing to conservatives. And at some point in the near future President Obama will be able to appoint liberal justices to the Supreme Court stacking the deck in favor of liberals. For example, if the "Fairness Doctrine" is challenged as unconstitutional – as it should be – what difference does it make to a bench full of judges willing to set aside the Constitution?

Indeed, there is only one sliver of a check and balance left to ensure that conservatives are not completely unrepresented in our government; the filibuster.

In the Senate when the party in the minority strongly opposes a bill they can filibuster; refusing to allow debate to end so that no final vote can be made. A filibuster can only be broken if a supermajority of Senators (60) agree. Presently the Democrats hold 58 seats, (56 plus the two independent seats that usually vote with the Democrats), and there are two more to be decided.

In Minnesota; Al Franken, the maddeningly liberal SNL comedian turned politician, is following in Al Gore's footsteps demanding recounts. It is possible he will deliver a 59^th seat to the Democrats.

And then there is Georgia. Saxby Chambliss, FairTax supporter and conservative Senator, is being challenged by Jim Martin. Saxby only got 49.9% of the vote on Election Day, (a Libertarian candidate on the ballot leached enough votes to keep him from a 50%+1 win), and so we have a run-off election.

If conservatives are to have any voice at all – Saxby has to win.

So please, go vote. Don't allow the liberals to have a filibuster proof Senate and deny representation to half of Americans.

WTF Just Happened?

2008-11-05T10:25:00.005-05:00

I woke up this morning and recognized that I am in shock. My mind has realized that I have suffered a tremendous trauma, albeit mental and emotional, and has put me into this calm, surreal kind of daze similar to being in twilight sleep. At first I didn't want to get out of bed; there didn't seem to be much of a point. So I lay in my bed and thought for awhile, and prayed a little bit, and thought some more. Suddenly a disturbing thought crossed my mind – you haven't felt this way since September 12, 2001. Could that be true? Was the thought of an Obama presidency the equivalent of a political 9/11 in my mind?

Maybe I am a racist. I considered this thought for a moment or two and then dismissed it. Racism is the belief that some races of humans are genetically inferior to others. In all honesty, after searching the depths of my soul on that one, I don't believe such things. Maybe I am prejudiced. Prejudice is just that – pre-judging people based upon their race. I won't deny that I have my prejudices; we all do. However, when I look deep into myself I see that these prejudices are based upon cultural differences, not skin color. And my prejudices are never against someone's value – for example I wonder when I meet a black person if they are a Democrat or if they distrust me based on my color, but I never assume they are stupid or dangerous. No, I have examined myself and can say with certainty that I am not bothered in the slightest that our next president is black.

And slowly realization dawned on me, like a fog being lifted. Obama's election is the culmination of the Liberal Agenda – it is proof of the vast left-wing conspiracy – it is the eve of my worst fears being recognized.

The Liberals have been keeping minorities down for decades. How have they done this? They have repeatedly told minorities that no-one cares about them; they have insinuated racism and discrimination where it didn't exist; they have instituted welfare programs that do nothing to address the underlying needs of minorities; they have denied the existence of success by hard work replacing it with a myth that anyone with wealth lied, cheated, and stole to get it. Why would they do this? Because when minorities believe they are dependent on the government to solve the problems of discrimination and poverty they will support the party that offers government as a solution – the Democrats.

The Liberals have been poisoning the minds of our youth for decades. How have they done this? They have instituted government-run schools and insisted that they be devoid of conservative values; they have filled our high schools and colleges with liberal-minded professors who promote Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Atheism, and Globalism regardless of what subject they are teaching; they have effectively convinced the American people that a college education is the ultimate goal for ALL students; they have stripped the educational system of parental or church involvement. Why would they do this? Because when people do not learn to think for themselves and do not learn to have a healthy, respectful, fear of government they will follow the leaders who simply tell them what is best for them – the Democrats.

Finally, the Liberals have been manipulating the media for decades. How have they done this? They have created the myth of 'journalistic integrity' – the erroneous idea that a journalist can set aside all bias and simply report the facts and any journalist who admits bias lacks integrity; they have filled our newspapers, magazines, and newscasts with liberal-minded, liberally-educated journalists and editors; they report the news with a tremendous liberal bias while portraying it as trustworthily unbiased; they have filled the airwaves with entertainment shows written by liberal-minded, liberally-educated writers, performed by liberal-minded actors; they have ostracized journalists, actors, writers, editors, and directors who have displayed or admitted to holding conservative values; they have denied all of this and in fact have alleged that the media has been manipulated by a vast, right-wing conspiracy. Why would they do this? Because the liberally-educated masses have been trained not to think for themselves and are looking for a way to be spoon-fed their beliefs – most people get their political views from watching entertainment television and the media happily plays along promoting one political party – the Democrats.

And it has taken decades but this time it all came together; a perfect storm of minorities, liberally-educated youth, and television zombies all heading for the polls to elect the most liberal man in the Senate to the highest position of power on the Earth. Conservatives have been trying to get people to notice what is happening; to see the danger of entitlement programs, government schools, and television programming – but everyone just rolls their eyes and goes back to their lives. And although I am aware of the fact that we, as a nation, now stand on the edge with one leg extended over a very dark abyss, I'm not sure that America at large is aware of what just happened. We are going into the abyss; I just don't know how far we are going to fall and if we will be able to reach up and grab a ledge and hope to climb back out someday.

On September 12, 2001 I had many of the same feelings. People had been warning us of the threat of terrorism for years and we didn't heed those warnings, we just rolled our eyes and went back to our lives. We paid a dear price on 9/11 and I remember being in shock – wondering what happens next and how bad it will get. Back then I took solace that President George W. Bush was at the helm and America came together and did the right thing.

But on January 20, 2009 – Bush will no longer be at the helm. America is more divided than ever. And our new leader, President Elect Barack Obama, provides no solace.

A Walk through the Magical Land of My Sample Ballot…

2008-11-03T17:53:00.004-05:00

Let's go for a walk, shall we? Hand in hand, let's peruse the political landscape of my district and see who we encounter along the way.

President

This is a no-brainer. Obama will raise taxes. Obama will use those taxes to give free money to people who haven't earned it. He will give government control of our healthcare. He will surrender in the war on terror. He will cater to the unions, environmentalists, and pro-abortionists. If he also has a Democratically controlled Congress, he will do damage to our country that will be next to impossible to undo. I'm voting for John McCain.

Senate

The Democrats think they have a shot at gaining a super-majority in the Senate. This means they can do whatever they want and Republicans won't have enough votes to stop them. They are so desperate that they have been running ads lying about Saxby Chambliss and the Fair Tax. It is crucial that I get out and vote for Saxby Chambliss.

Public Service Commissioner

The Public Service Commission (PSC) regulates utilities. They will decide very soon whether or not to pursue nuclear power plants for Georgia. There are two seats open on the commission.

The first seat is between H. Doug Everett (Republican) and John H. Monds (Libertarian). Everett seems happy with the way things are right now. Monds would like to deregulate and let the free market have more control rather than government. Both favor nuclear power plants. I'm voting for Monds.

The other seat has a candidate from all three parties. Therefore, it is necessary to ignore the Libertarian so that the Democrat doesn't win by default. The Democrat thinks we should use biomass energy instead of nuclear despite the high amount of carbon pollution. The Republican, Lauren McDonald (a man), favors nuclear power as part of a diverse spectrum of energy. I'm voting for McDonald.

House Representative

It is important that the Democrats do not get a stronger hold on the House this election. Our current representative, John Linder, is also very important as he is the author of the Fair Tax. I'm voting for John Linder.

State Senator

Rene Unterman is running unopposed.

State Representative

Michael Coan is running unopposed.

District Attorney of Gwinnett County

Danny Porter is running unopposed.

Judge of the Probate Court

Walter Clarke is running unopposed.

Clerk of Superior Court

The Clerk of Superior Court is the official records keeper for the Superior Court. Tom Lawler, a Republican, is being opposed by Abby Alaoui, a Democrat. Ms. Alaoui's website includes a buttload of grammatical errors and misspelled words. If she can't even manage a simple website how can she be trusted with the Superior Court records? I'm voting for Tom Lawler.

Sheriff

Butch Conway is running unopposed.

Tax Commissioner

Katherine Sherrington is running opposed.

Chief Magistrate

George Hutchinson is running opposed.

County Commission Chairman

The County Commission is the legislative branch of our county government; they pass laws and levy taxes at a county level. Let's look at our contenders:

Charles Bannister (Republican): Is presently the Chairman. He is examining the county government to find places to cut spending so taxes won't be raised. He has authorized the Sheriff to deport illegal immigrant criminals. He eliminated illegal immigrants from getting County contracts and hopes to deny them business licenses in the future. His highest priority is continuing to reduce traffic and increase jobs.

Vincent Passariello (Democrat): He says he will avoid raising taxes by charging fees to developers to offset the government's cost to provide services to new developments. (BTW – fees are passed on to the consumer – so we end up paying them – these are called 'hidden taxes') On the illegal immigration front he suggests we simply have the Federal government reimburse us for our costs to jail them; (of course the Federal government get's its money from us through taxes, so this is not really saving us anything.) His highest priority will be slowing down development in Gwinnett so we have enough water.

My vote is going to Bannister.

County Commissioner

Shirley Lasseter and Michael Beaudreau are running unopposed.

Supreme Court Justice

Robert Benham and Harry Hines are running unopposed.

Appeals Court Judge

In Georgia, the Appeals Court does not hear cases that have any question of Constitutionality; those cases go to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Therefore, the Appeals Court is the last bit of hope for someone who is appealing a lower court's decision. It is the Appeals Court's job to ensure that the lower courts properly interpreted the law and afforded all parties due process.

There are three open seats in the Appeals Court this election:

Gary Andrews and Charles Mikell are both running unopposed for the first two seats.

The third seat is contested by seven candidates. Some would argue that knowing the judge's political stance is irrelevant as judges simply apply the law as written and their own personal opinions do not matter. I disagree. In recent years we have seen that liberals do not believe a judge should simply apply the law as written, but should interject their own beliefs and opinions, thus changing the 'common law'. Conservative judges understand that the law is sacred; if the law is wrong the legislature should fix it – judges should not interfere unless the law is unconstitutional. So, in my opinion the more we know about judges the better.

Of the seven candidates, three are conservatives: Christopher McFadden, Perry McGuire, and Mike Sheffield. Two are definitely liberals: Sara Doyle and Michael Meyer von Bremen. Bruce Edenfield and Tamela Adkins are not really giving enough information to know what they are about. In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that Mike Sheffield goes to my church.

I'm voting for Mike Sheffield.

Superior Court of Gwinnett Judge

Ronnie Batchelor, Michael Clark, Melodie Conner, Warren Davis, and Dawson Jackson are running unopposed.

There is one contested seat on the Superior Court. Karen Byers is running against Richard Winegarden, alleging that he is verbally abusive in court and neglects his family law cases. Judge Winegarden claims he is 'taking the high road' and only point out that Byers has no judicial experience and is running a 'slash and burn smear campaign'. There is little to no press on this race. I checked with the Georgia Bar Association and found that Winegarden is licensed in good standing with no public disciplinary history. Surely if he was as bad as Byers' claims there would be a complaint or two? As the District Attorney has endorsed him, I'm voting for Winegarden.

Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor

The Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission regulates the use and protection of soil and water resources. Three guys are running, and none of them have any information online. Charles Warbington, answered a questionnaire for the AJC and the other two declined. I'm voting for the guy who cared enough to tell someone who he is. I'm voting for Warbington.

State Court Judge

Randy Rich, Carla Brown, John Doran, and Robert Mock are running unopposed.

SPLOST- Special Election

Our current SPLOST (the extra 1 cent of sales tax in Gwinnett County) is due to expire in March of 2009. This will extend it for five years. The money is used for road improvements and things like that. I like the idea of SPLOST because it is minimal and doesn't really impact my budget, but it also gets the millions of people who shop in our county to help us pay for the roads and services that they use. I'm voting yes.

Amendment 1

Amendment 1 is a forest conservation act. It is very simple – if you own forested land that is at least 200 acres, and if you agree to keep that land forested for 15 years, then you get a break in your property taxes on that land. Consider this: you are a landowner and buy hundreds of acres of forested land for your own use. Years later suburban sprawl catches up with you and suddenly your land is worth a ton of money because developers want it. The county can then tax you on the present value of that land, even though it generates no income to you. You are then practically forced to sell the land, or develop it, into something that generates enough revenue to pay the taxes. Amendment 1 simply makes it legal for the government to give you a tax break if you decide to just leave it as forest. (We already do this for land areas of over 2000 acres.) It protects forest land, it gives land owners a break; I like the idea. What I don't like is the provision that would require the State to reimburse the County for the lost property tax income. The taxpayer is still footing the bill; which means now everyone in the state gets to help Joe Landowner pay his property taxes on forested land we are not even allowed to use because it is private property. I have to vote no on this amendment.

Amendment 2

Amendment 2 is a tax reallocation act. It is fairly simple – taxpayer money that is designated to go toward education will be diverted to development projects instead. THAT SOUNDS HORRIBLE! Here is the catch; education funds come from property taxes. Development of land usually results in higher property taxes and therefore more funds for schools. For years the schools have been voluntarily diverting their funds to development and then reaping the rewards of such investments in the long term. The problem is that last year the Supreme Court pointed out that doing so violated the Constitution which says that tax dollars for schools are to be spent IN THE SCHOOLS. Amendment 2 is an attempt to fix that constitutional problem. I think this is a bad idea. The problems with our schools are not caused by a lack of funding, but by a mismanagement of the funding they already receive and a philosophical misunderstanding of how people should be educated. I think the school boards have enough to think about without having to become financial investment experts as well. If the legislature wants to invest in development projects and then give that return on investment to the schools, then do it, but leave the school boards out of it. Why would we want to amend our constitution to make things more complicated? I'm voting no.

Amendment 3

Amendment 3 is a bit complicated. It reminds me of the "mello roos" we saw a lot of in California. Basically this amendment would allow land developers to issue bonds to get enough money to pay for the infrastructure of new development (water pipes, electricity, roads, etc…) so they would not have to burden the county or city. The bonds would be paid back by the people or businesses who eventually move in through a monthly fee paid to the developers. The local government (county or town) will be able to say no if they don't want a developer coming to their area. Proponents of the amendment point out that this would encourage building in the 'forgotten' parts of the state where connecting to existing infrastructure is difficult. Opponents say that the ability to tax people should not be given to developers. The truth is the only people really opposing this amendment are environmentalists who oppose development no matter what. The problem will be that the new development will be more expensive because of the fees; but if the developers think that they can find customers willing to pay, then what is the harm? We all pay for the infrastructure beneath our homes and businesses through taxes and fees anyway. The only difference here is that the developer is responsible for paying for it up-front and recouping the costs after-the-fact. I see no reason to oppose the amendment. I'm voting yes.

Well that concludes our walk. Please go to your county's website and download your sample ballot before you go to vote. If there is something on there you want my opinion on, let me know!

HANDY BREAKDOWN

PRESIDENT – McCain

US SENATE – Saxby Chambliss

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER – John Monds and Lauren McDonald

US REPRESENTATIVE – John Linder

STATE SENATOR – Rene Unterman

STATE REPRESENTATIVE – Michael Coan

DISTRICT ATTORNEY – Danny Porter

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT – Tom Lawler

SHERIFF – Butch Conway

TAX COMMISIONER – Katherine Sherrington

CHIEF MAGISTRATE – George Hutchinson

COUNTY COMMISSION CHAIRMAN – Charles Bannister

COUNTY COMMISSIONER – Shirley Lasseter

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE – Robert Benham, Harris Hines

COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE - Gary Andrews, Charles Mikell, Mike Sheffield

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE – Ronnie Batchelor, Michael Clark, Melodie Conner, Warren Davis, Dawson Jackson, Richard Winegarden

STATE COURT JUDGE – Carla Brown, John Doran, Robert Mock, Randy Rich

SOIL AND WATER ELECTION – Charles Warbington

AMENDMENT 1 – No

AMENDMENT2 – No

AMENDMENT3 – Yes

SPECIAL ELECTION - Yes

Polling Data

2008-10-16T16:07:00.005-04:00

The last few days I've heard nothing but the press reporting that Obama is doing well in the polls. People keep saying that McCain has an uphill battle to overcome Obama's lead. One lesson we have learned from the past few elections is that polls mean very little. Once again, this is because the mainstream media is distorting the truth in order to promote the liberal candidates.

Let me show you what I mean. Newsweek's October 11^th poll showed Obama in the lead by 11 points; 52% to McCain's 41%. If you assume that a well respected publication like Newsweek would poll a sample of potential voters that is representative of the American electorate, then you would believe that things look pretty bleak for conservatives. In our last Presidential election the data shows that 37% of the voters were Democrats, 37% were Republicans, and 26% were Independents. Newsweek decided to 'represent' the electorate with a polling sample comprised of 40% Democrats, 27% Republicans, and 30% Independents. So apparently we can't assume Newsweek knows how to do a poll. Perhaps the good folks at Newsweek don't understand that a skewed sample produces skewed results?

Newsweek reported a healthy lead for Obama. They failed to report that McCain showed a slight lead with Independent voters; the crucially important 'swing' voters that decide elections. 91% of Democrats support Obama; no surprise there. 89% of Republicans support McCain; also no surprise. But surprise, surprise – 45% of Independents support McCain compared to Obama's 43%.

So what happens if you take these percentages and apply them to an accurate sample of voters? (For the sake of an easy math example, let's assume 100 people were polled.)

As you can see, with a non-skewed sample, John McCain may very well be in the lead. Add to this the so-called "Bradley Effect" that supposedly skews polling data in favor of African-American candidates, and McCain's lead could be significant.

Just more evidence that we can't believe anything we read in the mainstream media.

Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave…

2008-09-30T18:12:00.003-04:00

We all remember when Hillary Clinton claimed to have landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. It was an inspiring story until Sinbad, the comedian who had accompanied Clinton on that USO trip, pointed out it was a total lie. Obama felt this was a valid issue to discuss and said, "She … believes that … the nature of politics is that you say what people want to hear." Before one of the primary elections Obama held a conference call press conference in which he presented veterans who had actually faced sniper fire; US Major General Walter Stewart and US Navy Chief Petty Officer Michael Kotyk. Kotyk stated, "If she's gonna tell stories like that as a candidate, what will she do when she's standing in front of Congress? How can you expect your troops to follow you if you're not providing good leadership?" Stewart said Clinton had shown a lack of moral authority and referred to her as dishonorable. "This isn't about misspeaking. This is about your character." The press also jumped all over this issue, because it forwarded their blatantly biased support of Obama.

Obama, and the press, were absolutely right to point out that Hillary's willingness to lie about her experience was a serious red flag that she doesn't have the good character we should value in our leaders. So why aren't we hearing anything about Obama's running mate, Joe Biden?

During a debate Joe Biden said, "Let's start telling the truth; Number one, you take all the troops out – you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die."

However, when questioned later about when he was shot at, Biden changed his answer to, "I was near where a shot landed." When pressed, he said that some kind of projectile landed outside a building he was in and he felt the ground shake. "No one got up and ran from the room – it wasn't that kind of thing."

That statement isn't as blatantly dishonest as Clinton's. But clearly he was trying to give the impression that he knows what it is like to be under fire, when in fact he doesn't.

Now Biden says that he intends to grill Sarah Palin about "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down." Earlier he told the National Guard Association, "If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me. Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."

What do these statements imply? That Joe Biden has more experience than Sarah Palin because he knows what it is like to be in a war zone. In fact, he's certain that when his chopper went down in the mountains of Afghanistan things were so tense that it was obvious that Bin Ladin was holed up in the area. This conjures up images of a helicopter under fire, being forced down by Bin Ladin and his merry men.

However, the truth is that inclement weather was the reason the chopper landed, without incident, in an open field while fighter jets patrolled overhead. Security vehicles then drove in and escorted Joe Biden and John Kerry out. John Kerry joked about the incident, "We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to. Other than getting a little cold, it was fine."

Biden apparently comes from the same camp as Hillary Clinton. It is okay to lie to the American people, to exaggerate the facts to make yourself look more experienced. I wonder why Obama has not trotted US Major General Walter Stewart and US Navy Chief Petty Officer Michael Kotyk out to give their opinions about Joe Biden. I wonder why the press isn't having a field day pointing out the similarities between Obama's campaign and Clinton's.

If Biden is going to tell stories like that, and Obama is going to sit back and let him, what will they do when they are standing in front of Congress? Will they exaggerate the facts to push through their agendas? Will they lie to make a point? This kind of behavior, and Obama's unwillingness to stand up to it, shows a lack of moral authority. It is dishonorable. This isn't about misspeaking. This is about Biden's and Obama's character.

Liberty and Justices for All

2008-09-29T17:02:00.003-04:00

The legislative branch of government is kept honest by the President's ability to veto, and by the Supreme Court's ability to toss out any law not consistent with the Constitution. The Constitution was written to protect the American People from the government. Our founding fathers knew that times were going to change and they made the Constitution amendable so that it could be added to, or modified, to address progress in our society. Giving minorities and women the right to vote occurred, not so very long ago, by an amendment to the Constitution.

In recent years, however, the liberal left has been frustrated. They believe very strongly that abortion, homosexuality, atheism, and gun control are issues that should no longer be controversial in today's modern society. But in reality these issues are very even divided, at worst, and opposed by a majority, at best. There simply isn't enough common public opinion supporting the liberal position for an amendment of the Constitution to be a possibility. So, the liberals, in order to further their agendas, have sought to bypass the Constitution by simply having judges appointed who are willing to ignore the Constitution. Anti-homosexuality laws have been thrown out by judges who cited a 'right to privacy' – something that is never mentioned in the Constitution. It is now illegal to teach creation in schools because a judge cited a 'separation of church and state' which is also not mentioned in the Constitution. Liberals believe that they know what is best for everyone, that their beliefs are the only true beliefs, and that justifies imposing their beliefs on the whole of America even though they can't get enough support to amend the Constitution.

If we allow judges to create rights, or change laws, with no consideration what-so-ever to the Constitution, we simply hand over control of our nation to these judges. Laws are supposed to be created by the legislature, by ELECTED officials acting on behalf of the people. Those laws, if appropriate, should be enforced by the judicial branch; if inappropriate should be overturned.

Many of the issues facing our nation today will be brought before the Supreme Court. Our next president is likely to have the opportunity to appoint one or two Supreme Court Justices. Do we want Justices that will make decisions based upon their own political beliefs, what they personally think the Constitution SHOULD say, or do we want Justices that will make decisions based upon what the Constitution ACTUALLY says?

John McCain says that nominations "should be based on the criteria of a proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America, and not legislating from the bench. Some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench."

Barrack Obama said he would not have nominated Antonin Scalia (a judge with a proven record of strict interpretation), "although I don't think there's any doubt about his intellectual brilliance – because he and I just disagree."

So, there you have it. Obama would not appoint a judge who disagrees with his ideology even if the judge was brilliant and consistently interpreting the Constitution. John McCain, would appoint judges that strictly interpret the Constitution.

If you believe that the people of America should be able to decide for themselves, through our representative government, what our laws are – then you should vote for McCain.

If you believe that a few appointed judges should be able to determine what our laws are without any concern for the will of the people – then you should vote for Obama.

The Party of the People

2008-09-29T15:54:00.002-04:00

There is an apparent financial crisis facing our nation. The proposed solution was a $700 billion dollar bailout plan. In short, the government wants to take money from the taxpayers and give it to corporations that are failing.

For decades the Democrats have put forth an image that they are the party who supports the 'little man' against the evil Republicans who will always sell them out to the evil corporate interests.

Today's vote in the House should be a real eye opener. Democrats supported this bill, and it was only the 133 Republicans willing to vote 'NO' that killed it. Despite the fact that even the most liberal Democrat representatives were admitting their phones were ringing off the hook with constituents begging them to vote NO, the Democrats, overall, supported the measure. In short, the Democrats decided to side with corporations, while the Republicans sided with the American people. (There were, of course, exceptions on both sides of the aisle.)

The people spoke clearly that they did not want this bailout bill to pass. Democrats ignored them. Republicans listened to them. Which is the party of large corporate interests? Which is the party of the people?

When you go to the polls this November and cast votes for various representatives in Congress ask yourself this question, "If I care about an issue strongly enough to call my representative – is this representative a member of a party that is going to care what I have to say?"

Abortion is Complicated

2008-08-01T11:49:00.002-04:00

Abortion is a tough issue for me. Not morally, but politically.

Morally I believe that abortion is horrible and should be avoided in just about every single situation. I make no exceptions for rape, incest, known deformities, or even suspected threat to the life of the mother. It is my heartfelt belief that when a woman is pregnant, regardless of whether she wants to be or not, she has been entrusted by God with the care of a person who is utterly vulnerable and utterly unable to speak for him/her self. If this woman doesn't want this responsibility it simply doesn't matter. Life is often unfair and we often have to do the right thing under very difficult circumstances. For at least 9 months, I believe, every pregnant woman is obligated to give her baby every chance at a good life. I think these situations are unfair to women. I acknowledge that many women will suffer dire consequences in their careers, families, and perhaps even physical health. Regardless of the negative consequences, I believe that every pregnancy is a blessing from God.

Politically I believe that as it is scientifically impossible to prove when the life of a baby begins that we are left with only common sense with which to make judgments. I believe that common sense tells us that once a baby is able to survive outside the womb, it is alive. Therefore, I believe that legislators should be able to reasonably declare such a person as having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness like any other person. Prior to that point, however, it is hard for me to insist that the government should have the ability to regulate abortion based upon my belief that life begins at conception. (I'm very upset that the Government is trying to regulate emissions based upon some people's belief that global warming is a problem; so why is abortion an exception to my conservative opinion that smaller government is better?)

When I really take the time to think it all the way through I find myself returning to my conservative ideals. I would like to see abortion eliminated, but not at the sacrifice of my freedom. Abortion should be fought on the cultural front, not on the legal front. The Church should be working to educate people about the dangers of abortion; physically, mentally, and spiritually. We should be finding ways to help people make better decisions BEFORE they get pregnant, and have better options AFTER an unwanted pregnancy occurs. We should be less quick to accuse people of murder and realize that most people are just trying to do the right thing, although their motives are no doubt tainted by the same selfishness, pride, and greed that accompany so many of my 'right' choices. And we should be willing to admit, at least, the possibility that we are wrong – that life may NOT begin at conception – that the Bible is NOT crystal clear on this point – and that we are in fact acting on a BELIEF.

Fortunately for me, conservatism solves this conflict rather nicely. I don't think the Government has any business regulating abortion based upon some people's beliefs. But there is a process, within our system of government, through which we can define when life begins based upon the moral consensus of the nation; by amending the Constitution. Furthermore, I believe that if we appoint Supreme Court Justices that will strictly interpret the Constitution that the cases keeping individual states from passing their own laws about abortion will be overturned. As state constitutions are amended to define life, then the battle against abortion can really be effectively fought.

So during this current election how do I know which candidate best represents me on the issue of abortion? I need to identify which candidate is most likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices that will strictly interpret the Constitution (rather than Judges that 'legislate from the bench' creating laws that the legislature didn't pass). In my next post I'll break down the candidates' leanings in this area.

Bully!

2008-08-01T09:54:00.003-04:00

I want to spend a moment to discuss one of the greatest powers the President of the United States enjoys – the Bully Pulpit. This isn't a power granted to the President by the Constitution, but rather a natural effect of the position he holds. The term "bully" used to be slang for "wonderful", and was commonly used by President Theodore Roosevelt who coined the term "bully pulpit". A "pulpit", of course, is a platform on which a person gives a sermon, just like in church. Roosevelt referred to the Presidency as a "Bully Pulpit" meaning that the President is able to bring attention to any issues he wants simply by giving a speech.

Did you know that major news outlets, and even many minor ones, have reporters whose whole job is to cover the President? When the President travels by Air Force One, reporters go with him. If the President is doing something in a public setting, there are definitely reporters around to capture every word he says. If the President wants to address the nation, most news organizations pre-empt all of their regular programming and show live coverage of his speech. If the President wants to call attention to something, he has the power to get the word out to just about every American within hours.

How should this affect your decision on whom to vote for in November? Simply ask yourself this question, "What issues are the candidates speaking about with passion and conviction?" And then ask yourself this follow-up question, "Do I agree with the message they are communicating?" Odds are, they will continue to talk about those issues once they are elected, keeping those issues at the forefront of the mind of the nation, and thus encouraging Congress to take action.

My First Political Cartoon

2008-07-12T14:04:00.005-04:00

Click image to view larger.

I made this cartoon this morning using my new Wacom tablet.

Picking Sides

2008-06-18T11:10:00.001-04:00

I suppose, since I already sided with the Republicans in my first post, that I should say something now.

I am not very happy with the Republican Party right now. I'm not very happy with President Bush right now. I have never liked John McCain.

So, why don't I teach them a lesson and vote for the other guys? Because the other guys are even worse.

If there was a third candidate, a third party, that had even a slight chance of winning the election – and was conservative – believe me I'd vote that direction. For now, I guess I just have to support the lesser of two evils.

That’s Our Grocery Budget for Nearly Half a Year!!!

2008-06-18T10:54:00.001-04:00

The Republicans managed to reduce taxes a bit over the past eight years. You will remember receiving checks in the mail from the government. These were rebates due to the fact that our taxes were reduced retroactively. By sending us rebate checks the government hoped to stimulate the economy by putting a good amount of cash in the hands of the people knowing that it would be spent on goods and services that we were unable to purchase when taxes were higher. This has confused some people; they only received the check once so it must be a 'one-time-deal'. (Actually it happened twice, but you get the point.) The truth is it is an ongoing tax cut – as long as it is in place we pay less in taxes. For most people that simply means that less money is deducted from your paycheck. That is good news! Did you know that these tax cuts are set to expire in 2011? That is bad news!

According to the Department of the Treasury (source) if you are a family of four that earns $50,000 a year, (which is roughly the description of my family), your family will pay an additional $2,092 in taxes when the tax cuts expire. (You may pay less or more depending on your exact tax bracket and number of people in your family.)

The Democrats have stated they intend to allow the tax cuts to expire. They say that the tax cuts only benefit the wealthy and there is no evidence that tax cuts help the economy. (DNC website sources)

The Republicans have stated they intend to make the tax cuts permanent. They point to historical evidence that tax cuts do help the economy. (source)

I am not wealthy, but the tax cuts helped me. My family has its needs met, but we live paycheck to paycheck like most Americans. There is no way that I can afford to have my income slashed by $2,092 beginning in 2011. Can you afford to give another $2,100 to Uncle Sam?

Think about it this way; if there was a proposition on the ballot this November that said, "Do you want to increase your personal taxes by $2,100 every year?" How would you vote? Yes or No?

To put it simply; if you vote for a Democrat in a congressional or presidential race this November, it is the same thing as voting YES on that proposal. If you vote for a Republican, it is the same thing as voting NO.

He’s Back

2008-06-18T10:49:00.001-04:00

Well, I kept my word to refrain from political blogging until we knew who was running. Now that we know the contenders, it is time to roll up our sleeves and do the research necessary to determine which candidate (and/or party) best represents us.

As always, I will admit my bias. I am a conservative; fiscally, socially, even philosophically. I am a Christian with a fully formed Christian worldview. I am registered Republican, but do not consider myself a member of the Republican Party. All of these factors affect my opinions, my writing, and my beliefs. I do not promise to be unbiased. I do promise to do my best to only give you accurate information, and to quickly admit any mistakes I am likely to make along the way.

My goal is to influence and educate the very small number of people in my own personal sphere of influence. I do this because not everyone has the copious amounts of free time that I enjoy and not everyone likes to do research. Feel free to argue, dispute, and complain. Also, feel free to give me encouragement, ask specific questions, or send me money…

Gwinnett County Schools Bond Measure

2008-02-04T16:12:00.001-05:00

Those of you who live in Gwinnett County will be faced with a School Bond Measure when you vote in the Georgia Primary tomorrow.

Gwinnett County Schools needs our permission to be able to sell $750 million dollars worth of bonds to fund classroom building projects. This is in addition to the $425 million in bonds we already authorized them to sell in 2006, and the SPLOST increase to our sales tax. The $425 million will not be paid back until 2012 at the time the SPLOST expires. Gwinnett County Schools says this will not mean any new taxes because they will repay the $750 million with money that is already coming in. Voting YES means that the District gets the money now, and can build now, and will pay it back with money that they already have coming to them.

But that money is coming to them over a period of several years. In the meantime the District will be in over a billion dollars of debt! Do we really think that no new building projects are going to arise before they have had a chance to pay off these bonds? How are they going to pay for those new building projects? They can issue new bonds. Or they can raise taxes. How much do you want to bet that in 2012 we are asked to extend the SPLOST again? The thing is, the District is going to continue to grow and financing the whole thing on debt is not the answer.

The District says the $425 million is no longer enough money for them because "sales tax collections have been slightly lower than expected and actual costs have been higher than anticipated." Actual school growth was LOWER than anticipated. But they are now asking for almost twice as much money as the first time. This just doesn't seem right to me. It sounds like they either do not know what they are doing, or they can't actually afford the growth in the County and need to consider some better solutions.

Right now they say we need the buildings because 1500 classrooms in the district are in trailers. I say, keep the kids in the trailers until you actually have the money in hand. Then build. This is fiscal responsibility. Elected officials need to learn to spend the money they have, to live within their means, just like the rest of us.

I'm voting NO.

Primary Election Discussion

2008-02-04T14:53:00.001-05:00

How am I going to vote in tomorrow's Primary Election? It is something I am giving a lot of thought to. To help you understand where I am coming from let's look at a couple of things:

Order of the Primaries

A lot of people are tempted to look at the results of the seven states that have already voted and try to make a prediction on how the final outcome will be. There are forty-three more states, and D.C., that have yet to vote. At this point the vote could really go in any direction. Even after tomorrow, when twenty four states will vote, there will still be nineteen states, and D.C., who haven't yet voted.

Polling Data

I remember last Presidential election, gritting my teeth as all the major networks were reporting that exit polling showed John Kerry winning the election handily. When the day was done, however, President Bush had won the election with enough votes to be able to declare he was given a mandate. The polls are frequently quite wrong, and in my opinion are generally liberally biased to begin with.

Strategizing

Some folks, especially those who have a penchant for following politics, want to strategize. These are the people who are convinced that Al Gore or John Kerry would have won if Ralph Nader hadn't been involved. These guys like to figure out which candidate is most like to beat the dreaded opposing candidate. For some of these political junkies, it is more important to win than to support the candidate who is best for the job.

Now I'm not going to say that I don't indulge in these practices. I certainly have paid attention to the primaries so far, I cringe at the polling data daily, and having voted for Ross Perot twice, I no longer think idealism should be the primary factor in selecting a candidate. But I just don't think that by Super Tuesday we have enough data to rely upon any of these factors to guide our decision.

So, I'm going to back my guy. Huckabee is who I think would do the best job as President. Huckabee is who I think God would like me to support. And I don't think we can rule him out as a viable candidate yet when only seven states have voted.