Modeling / Rendering Politics & More
RSS icon Email icon Home icon
  • More Tea?

    Posted on August 7th, 2010 Redeyes No comments

    My local tea party group sent out a questionnaire. Attendance is down, people don’t seems to be quite as interested. The question is, now what?

    From my perspective, the tea parties came together for people to send a clear message to both Republicans and Democrats alike, conservative values are not held only by fringe groups. The idea of limited government, individual liberties and self-determination are common across all party, racial and social groups. Figure it out or we’ll throw you out. Did we succeed? Possibly, fresh new voices like Rick Snyder, Rocky and Justin Amash are on the ballot for November. (On the down side, 25% was considered a pretty good turnout, why should anyone believe people have had enough?)

    What now? Now, we tea partiers need to get behind the candidates that best reflects our views and get them elected in November. The tea party pushed a set of ideals, not specific candidates, and rightly so. I don’t care if they are Republican or Democrat, if they have a conservative agenda I’ll consider them. A conservative leaning democrat may well be a better choice than a RINO republican. In my case it’s an easy choice though, Rick Snyder is running against a democrat that has fully endorsed the Detroit style of politics and agenda. For congress, it’s Rocky versus the Obama / Pelosi / Reid lackey Gary Peters. That choice is no choice at all. The tea parties are not dead, but they have done what they can for now. They must come back after the election to remind these new candidates why they are there, regroup and prepare for the all important push for 2012.

    As tempting as it might be to look at a third party candidate, now is not the time to splinter. That time was in 2010 when we knew who was going to win and the Republican party lost it’s way. This time we have affected the choices, the people we will vote for this November. .Even if our preferred candidate didn’t win, a candidate we can live with did. Except in extreme cases, a third party can not win. We MUST take enough seats in November to stop the Obama agenda until it can be put out of our misery in 2012. We MUST have governors that believe in the States and People’s rights and will fight for them.  I can not and will not support a third party candidate in my district races, It is to important a time to jeopardize the future on a wasted vote to make a point. The idea that someone like Peters would return to DC to represent me is repugnant, it can not happen.

    So, let’s get the Rick and Rocky show on the road, where are my lawn signs!?

  • Born In The USA

    Posted on June 12th, 2010 Redeyes No comments

    Soon it will be the 4th of July, America’s Independence Day. You can expect to hear Born In The USA played that entire week. Who doesn’t know this song by the ‘Boss’, Bruce Springsteen? I remember when it came out, people singing it with vigor, waving the American flag high and proud. But, did you know that it was intended to be a indictment of the USA and it’s people on the treatment of Vietnam veterans? It is widely regarded as the most misinterpreted song ever written. 

    How could this have happened? How did millions of Americans listen to this song, listen to the lyrics and come away with such a different feeling than the writer intended? Instead of being disappointed and angry with their country, Americans embraced this song, it made them proud to be Americans.

    I believe the answer takes us back to the core of what it means to be an American. Forget about what you see on TV, what you hear in the media. Go back to when you were growing up. What did America mean to you? You might not have thought about it in those terms, but think back. Who did you root for, the underdog or the team that you knew was going to win? (Why do so many people hate the NY Yankees?) Who intrigued you more, the self made millionaires or the aristocrats? When you told someone what you wanted to be when you grew up, what did they say? “Hey, if you work hard, you can be whatever you want to be” was the standard answer. In much of the world, that isn’t the answer you would get, or if someone did say it, the examples around you would tell you it just wasn’t likely to happen. America is different. You are surrounded by people who worked hard and made something of themselves from nothing. Many of them will tell you stories about how they hit bottom, lived out of their cars, and came back to be a success. It can be done and we admire those who make it happen. Little pity is given to someone who falls and stays down, instead, we get behind those that fall and get back up. We help them, we celebrate their achievements, they become our role models. It’s what we do, it’s what we are.

     When Americans heard this song… “Born down in a dead man’s town, the first kick I took was when I hit the ground” … we heard an underdog. We heard someone to get behind, someone to root for. Where the song lyrics end… “Nowhere to run, aint got nowhere to go” … Springsteen’s vision ended, but not ours. In Springsteen’s interpretation we are left with a sad soul that has no chance in a country that didn’t care. What most Americans heard was a man trying to get back up, to fight to make something of himself in a country where that is not only possible, but likely. He’ll struggle, he won’t get many hand outs, but he’ll get what he needs if he has a mind to. We’re behind him, we want him to make it and we’re proud to live in a place where he’ll be able to do it.

    Bruce, I am proud to be Born In The USA. Happy Birthday America!

  • I think I want one…..

    Posted on April 7th, 2010 Redeyes No comments

    Bev and I stopped in at the Apple store Saturday to see the iPad. I’ve haven’t wanted one up to this point since I have a net book I can carry around. (I originally bought it for work to replace my paper pad at meetings, but my job changed since then.) Then I played with the iPad and have to say it’s pretty cool. The people who say it’s just a big ipod touch are right, but that’s not a bad thing. The touch is very cool, but the small screen and keyboard have always limited it’s use as a computer / information device. In that role it’s more of a stop gap ‘twitter’ device as is the iphone.

    The iPad is different than the touch or iphone It’s not so big that the touch interface becomes a problem, try waving your hands to move things on your 24 inch monitor, in fact the extra size seems perfect for the ‘touchy movey slidey’ way to do things. It’s fast as well, truly blows the touch and iphone away in this regard. The screen will keep up with your typing, at least mine. The screen based keyboard is responsive, maybe not for a book but certainly fine for an extended email. Another big difference though is the speed of displaying internet information. It’s as fast as your computer, the limiting factor is your internet connection.

    So who will want one? It’s not a laptop replacement for someone who wants to work with it. Big spreadsheets, powerpoint presentations, video editing etc, don’t even stop to look, you’re losing valuable time. The iPad is the ultimate casual computing device. Check your email, read the news, watch a video, check. (I could add listen to music, but this isn’t an iPad strength. The ipod is better suited because of it’s size) That’s the obvious stuff, the difference to the laptop you might already have is that it’s made to carry around the house with you. No waiting for it boot up from sleep mode. It’s open, instant on and ready to go. Check the TV listing, read a book, check your calendar, pull up a recipe, remember a birthday and then play bejeweled for a little while. My mother recently passed away, but this is the device I would set her up with.

    I threw the recipe thing in there for everyone that remembers that selling point for computers. For 40 years salesmen have gone on about how you can put you recipes in the computer and access them later. Yes you can, but no one does because you quickly realize that the computer isn’t in the kitchen. It isn’t in the exercise room to use track your progress. It isn’t in the garage to read the assembly instructions. It isn’t on the deck to read the paper. It isn’t at the store with your grocery list. It isn’t in the car with your things to do list. It isn’t in the waiting room to pass the time with. The iPad is and that’s why you’ll want one too.

  • Constitutional Failure

    Posted on February 28th, 2010 Redeyes No comments

    Anyone who knows me is aware that I am a strict constitutionalist. The men who drafted it were clear in both language and intent. Language like ‘shall not be infringed’ and ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ isn’t ambiguous to me, as it seems to be to so many others. However, it was written by men. Men aren’t perfect, so there were bound to be mistakes. or areas where the language wasn’t clear enough. The amendment process is there to correct any mistakes, the Supreme Court is there to clear up any clarity issues. 

    Over the years I believe that this country has drifted farther and farther away from the ideals and intent that were so clearly and carefully written in to the Constitution. Liberty and freedom have been seriously curtailed, property rights trampled on, the power of the Federal branch has grown exponentially and States rights reduced at the same rate. What happened? What is missing in the Constitution that let this happen?

    The founding fathers clearly knew that people in power tend to want to keep and expand their power. This is why they put terms in for elected officials and used language that severely curtailed (in theory) the power of the central government. In order to make sure the elected officials power was kept in check a safety valve was put in place. When the people believe that the elected branches have trampled on the Constitution there is an appeals process that ends at the Supreme Court Of The United States. These are the men that are entrusted with keeping the elected officials in line with the Constitution in both letter and intent. It is this crucial piece of the puzzle that has been the single biggest failing of the founding fathers. They thought they had the answer in that the life time appointments would give these men the freedom and leeway and courage to read the Constitution and tell the elected branches no.

    What the founding fathers failed to consider is that a time would come when people would elect officials with no integrity that would appoint judges solely based on their politics and with little regard to their ability read the Constitution. Today judges are picked based on their ability to miss-interpret the Constitution and twist it to fit their own political and social beliefs. When these judges are put in place, the very language that was supposed to ensure their impartiality instead permits them to be partial with complete impunity. They are never held accountable for their failure to uphold the intent of the Constitution and have little reason to make sure that justice is blind and based only on the facts. This needs to change.
    There is a way to remove members of the Supreme Court. They can be impeached. The rules for impeachment are written primarily to remove an elected official for doing an illegal or treasonus act. It is very hard to apply the term “illegal” to a judge who is twisting words and using past bad-precedence cases to come to a political conclusion. So, can we apply treason to their actions? It’s worth some thought. Doing a job poorly would never be considered treason for the average elected official. Only a malicious act that compromised the safety of the United States would warrant that. The Supreme Court however has a very specific charge to preserve the intent of the Constitution and to do so to the letter and intent of the authors of the Constitution. Failing to do this job to the very best of one’s ability, failing to follow the letter and intent of the Constitution could be considered sedition, an attempt to illegally overthrow the government. In order to apply this, we need to review individual judges opinions and identify those which clearly violate the letter and intent of the Constitutions. (Note I wrote opinions, not decisions. The idea is to remove judges that aren’t able to keep their feelings and politics from influencing their interpretations of the Constitution, not remove the entire court) 
     
    In order to make this work though, we the people need to elect Congressman and Senators that believe in the Constitution of the United States as it was written. People that believe the correct way to change a part of the Constitution is to propose and ratify an amendment. (It’s not impossible, it’s been done 27 times so far.) When we the people have done this and people of integrity hold a clear majority, then we can correct the problems in the SCOTUS and hold them accountable to uphold the Constitution.
     
    Read YOUR Constitution. Understand it. Ask any candidate what their position is on property and states rights. Ask them to read it and see if they know the difference between ‘promote the common welfare’ and provide for the common welfare’. It’s up to you. Do YOU believe in the Constitution?
  • Tiger Woods

    Posted on December 7th, 2009 Redeyes No comments

    As the count is now up to 10, does anyone believe he’s sorry? You can be sorry after one affair and wish it never happened, but this guy isn’t sorry. Only that it went public. Only that his life got complicated. This is one of those cases where the pre-nup should be thrown out of court for infidelity. She should get 50% + child support clean and simple. He’s a scum bag and should be treated as such.

    That being said, can we get CNN to move on to something else? There’s this little health care thing and an energy policy this dope of a president is getting us in to that we need to pay attention to!

  • Paradigm Shift

    Posted on September 26th, 2009 Redeyes No comments

    While we have seen evidence in the past of the schism between the right and the left, it has never become as clear and defined as it has during the debate on Obamacare and nationalized health care in general. It often strikes me as amazing how people can look at the same question in the same setting and come up with such different answers. Clearly there is a difference in the base definitions that the two sides are using and how they see the world. I was listening to a radio program the other day that helped me understand it. It was a right wing radio host interviewing a left wing book author and the host asked if he supported Obamacare. Predictably the answer was yes, but it was the reason why that was interesting. The author said he believed that it was part of doing what the US Constitution prescribed, to provide for the common welfare. The radio host corrected him and quoted the correct language, that the government is to PROMOTE the common welfare, but it had no effect on the author. That an author, someone who makes their living with words, would completely disregard the differences between “provide” and “promote” is perhaps a ponter as to why people who read the constitution see issues differently than those who interpret the constitution, such as the book author in this interview. (Link to the US Constitution is in the upper right corner if you would like to see it.)

    The definitions…
    Promote: contribute to the progress or growth of
    Provide: give something useful or necessary to

    Synonyms for these words……
    Promote:Advance, Boost, Further, Encourage
    Provide: Supply, Render, Furnish

    If, and this is another question, the American people decide that it is in the general welfare for everyone to have health insurance, the governments role is not to provide it, but rather to encourage it and help it become available. Nothing in the constitution says anything about taxing everyone to provide heath insurance to those that don’t have it.

    There are examples of the government looking out for the general welfare in a positive way. The interstate highway system in an excellent example of the government promoting the general welfare. This system opened up opportunities across the country, single handedly creating new industries and jobs. (Not without a cost however. It also brought about the demise of the local economy since it was now just as fast and even cheaper to buy from across the country) In the early history of the United States this clause in the constitution was used to promote the growth of the country and providing it’s citizens with opportunities through actions such as the Lousiana Purchase and other land annexations that eventually redefined the United States’ borders.

    On the other side we have examples of the government providing for the common welfare and they are all disasters. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Public Housing, the list of failures is as long as the list of attempts. I would prefer that the federal government start to act on the issues that the constitution requires, securing the borders from terrorists and illegal entry, defense and insuring our freedoms are protected and apply to every citizen. Leave the rest to us, the States and the People.

  • Wilson was wrong?

    Posted on September 11th, 2009 Redeyes No comments

    Here is a pretty good article that states at the beginning that he was wrong to call Obama a liar. The rest of the article goes on to explain why he wasn’t wrong. I’m not sure how they can make the first statement knowing what they clearly know….
    Link to Original Story

    WASHINGTON – Rep. Joe Wilson is wrong.

    In his speech to Congress Wednesday, President Barack Obama said the changes to health care that he’s proposing “would not apply to those who are here illegally.” That prompted Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, to shout “You lie!” from his seat in the House chamber. Wilson later apologized for the outburst, but he didn’t back down from his claim.

    THE FACTS: The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn’t get federal subsidies to help them. The bill’s exact language: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States.” Health care legislation in the Senate is also being crafted to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage.

    However, Wilson is far from alone in thinking that the prohibition in the House bill doesn’t go far enough. For him and other Republicans, the problem is not what’s in the bill, it’s what the bill leaves out. There’s no provision for how the prohibition would be enforced, or any requirement for people to prove they are citizens or legal residents before getting health care benefits. In fact, Democrats on the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees defeated Republican-offered amendments that would have required people to verify their legal status before getting care, with some Democrats saying such requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome for people legally entitled to coverage. Wilson cited the defeat of those two amendments Thursday when he discussed his outburst with reporters.

    “I will tell you this, that it was spontaneous. It was when he stated, as he did, about not covering illegal aliens, when I knew we’d had those two amendments,” Wilson said.

  • Chappaquiddick would have destroyed a better man…

    Posted on August 27th, 2009 Redeyes No comments

  • Time to let your feelings be known!

    Posted on August 21st, 2009 Redeyes No comments

    776-41266391f1eb851fThere is a protest scheduled for tomorrow that is being supported by the groups that setup the original tea parties.  See you there?

    Representative Gary Peters (D – 09)

    The rally for this district will not be held at the congressional office, but in an alternate location:
    - Location: Intersection of Woodward Ave. & Old Woodward Ave. (south of Maple Rd.), Birmingham, MI 48009
    - Time: Noon
    - Contact: Lynn Ellen
    - Email: lynn@actionstrat.com

  • Terminator – Salvation

    Posted on June 6th, 2009 BillC No comments

    Hadn’t planned on writing anything, but I’ve heard a number of people who haven’t seen it recommending not to see this movie based on what someone told them. Hopefully most people will ignore this third person advice and give this movie a chance. If you’re a fan of the first movie but less of the second and third you’re likely to enjoy this one. In many ways Salvation returns to the gritty feel of the original movie, machines that can’t be stopped and the T-800 is not your friend.

    T-S opens by introducing a new character, one that bridges the present with the future and lets you see the post judgment day world from the eyes of someone from the present day. John Connor isn’t leading the resistance just yet. (Everyone who thought the world would immediately follow a 20 year old with no track record please stand up and head for the back row) In the original movie Kyle Reese said that the war was lost, humans were on the brink, then John Connor came. The writers of T-S watched the first trilogy and worked within that framework. This is not a reboot like Star Trek, exactly the opposite. You’re expected to be very familiar with the first three films, there isn’t much character development in between the Skynet plots and non-stop action. If you haven’t seen the first three, see them before seeing this one or you will miss the nuances that help make the film entertaining. (For that matter, watch the Sarah Connor Chronicles. I’m not sure who pulled from who, but it’s there) This might be one of the reasons for the bad reviews. It is a fast paced action movie, but has plenty of plot holes taken on it’s own, which I’m not going to detail to avoid any spoilers.  It will, however, really do well as part of a Terminator marathon after the DVD comes out.

    The special effects are top notch, it’s hard to tell the CG most of the time. Some of the new Skynet creations are excellent, some will make you scratch your head. (Why build a giant human shaped machine?) The acting is passable, Christian Bale isn’t bad as Conner and plays it somewhere in the middle of the whiny impulsive kid from the first movies and the leader he is to become.  Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese is okay, but didn’t really grab the role. Sam Worthington carries the first half of the movie along with Moon Bloodgood.

     To summarize, Terminator Salvation continues the series admirably, but not perfectly. It assumes you know the back story well and doesn’t waste time helping anyone catch up. Given that, it’s a must see for Terminator fans, passable summer entertainment for everyone else. I give it a 7 out of 10 and look forward to a fifth movie that picks up where this left one left off. (Personally I’d like to see the next one end with Kyle heading back and a last movie that ends with the fall of Skynet.)