About Me

Name: The Gadfly
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

U.S. Economy in a Nutshell

The Brittle Piece

Once upon a time, there was a humble candy maker named Buddy Smack who specialized in making peanut brittle. Unless one was allergic to them or simply detested the taste of peanuts, one would soon discover the irresistible quality in just a very few bites of brittle. Old Man Smack was very guarded when questioned about the recipe. He usually answered inquiries by stating, "What goes into Buddy's brittle, will sit well in your middle."

As word spread of Mr. Smack's famous brittle, the demand for the stuff nearly caused riots in some of the bigger cities across the country. Supplies of the brittle simply flew off of the shelves almost as quickly as they arrived by truck to the stores. Anyone who knew a thing or two about a good thing (and Buddy's Better Brittle was a really good thing) took stock in Smack's Incredible Confectionery Company by investing as shareholders.

Within a few short months, Mr. Smack's profits were soaring. He was able to build other factories across the country, creating thousands of jobs for peanut-pickers, peanut-shellers, and brittle-bakers. Local economies were booming with the sales of the stuff. After years of perfecting his secret formula for peanut brittle, Buddy Smack had finally struck it rich!

But things were not as well as they might have appeared. Because of Mr. Smack's great success with his world-famous brittle, his competitors in the confectionery cartels suffered heavy losses in the marketplace. Workers in the Sour Sucker Ball factories were being laid off by the hundreds. The Gooey-Grimey Gummy-Glop Gloopers Union Local #80 marched on several of Mr. Smack's factories in protest, harassing brittle-workers and blocking distribution centers.

It simply was not fair that Mr. Smack, through his own talent, abilities, and hard work could be allowed to make so much money. So, the unions and the cartels sought relief from their respective legislators. What was the answer to their problem? Regulation and taxation: the two best friends a politician ever had!

Senator Jack Hass passed a regulation requiring all peanut-shellers to participate in 80 hours of mandatory fire prevention training (for we all know how friction could cause a peanut-sheller to spontaneously burst into flames.) Congresswoman Ema Bovine proposed a bill to impose a sales tax on every third peanut found in each brittle consumer's stool. Of course such a bill would require the need for inspections, and inspections meant the need for inspectors, and that would mean the introduction of every politician's third-best friend: Bureaucrats!

And in short order, all of the efforts to bring fair play to the marketplace only resulted in closing all the doors to Mr. Smack's successful business. Soon all of his investors sold off what remained of their plummeting shares in Buddy's brittle business. As taxation and regulation established a firm grip on Mr. Smack's assets, it became increasingly more unprofitable to produce and sell peanut brittle.

Yet the politicians delighted in the harvest of tax dollars gained from Smack's brittle ventures. The size of government soon expanded. So as Mr. Smack's business began to fail, the politicians realized something had to be done to rescue their cash cow before it collapsed and died. And so it was that the government reached into its own treasuries and began buying up all the peanut brittle stock shares from Mr. Smack it could acquire.

Mr. Smack was no fool. Every package of brittle he sold meant more of his profits going into the government coffers. So,without fanfare, Mr. Smack closed up his business quickly and moved out of the country. And with him went all the jobs, investment capital, and good business sense.

Mr. Smack opened up a new factory overseas and exported his brittle all over the world. He became wealthier than he could have ever imagined. Meanwhile, the government officials back home held Congressional hearings to determine the cause of the collapse of their brittle candy markets. Congress held so many televised hearings and pointed so many fingers that the voters re-elected almost all of them back into office just so they would stop interrupting "American Idol" with all the hearings.

The moral of this story is as plain as the peanut in your brittle. Politicians don't know peanuts about what is good for business, Buddy, but they sure can talk smack about it.

(copyright 2008, Gregory Allen Doyle)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

God Bless Sarah Palin

With all the hoopla and septic-tank-diving-nuggets being dredged up by the mainstream American press, it is a wonder any human being in the United States of America would consider running for the highest national office in this country. Consider the recent Jacques-Cousteau-like expedition led by the mainstream press into the murky depths of a candidate's personal family crisis. Alaskan Governor and Vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, has a pregnant, unwed teenage daughter. Anyone else want to have their child humiliated on national television and in every newspaper around the world? No thank you, Madam Editor.

This same national press has catered ad naseum to the mantra of a "woman's right to choose" concerning the hotly-debated abortion issue for decades. Each year the national media brow-beats the public into submission regarding how the goverment should stay out of a woman's body;  how the insensitivity of mainstream Christianity and the pro-life movement is tantamount to invasion of privacy; how abstinence-based education programs in schools are archaic and ineffective; how smart the elite left IS and how stupid the rest of the popultaion must be to believe otherwise.

Now the media shamelessly abandons their own advocacy (when a viable conservative contender for VP appears) and climbs right into Governor Palin's daughter's womb, as if it was the latest fashion in swimming apparel. What happened to protecting minors from public scrutiny and disgrace? Heck, even juvenile delinquents who commit murder have a better chance of not having their names printed in the press than Sarah Palin's daughter. What was her crime?  She did not wait to have sex until she was married. Does anyone else see a double-standard here?
 
Shame on the Democratic National Committee for tacitly condoning such vile bloggers (who, for the sake of winning the presidency at-all-costs, started the ugly and untrue rumor campaign on the Internet about Governor Palin's youngest child.) Shame on the major newspapers for leaping to conclusions with the rumors and broadcasting unsubstantiated whispers before looking at the hard facts. Shame on the television and cable networks who thrive on gossip and innuendo (instead of truth) for ratings. Shame on the radio stations for parroting the same tripe as if it were newsworthy and reliable. Shame on all the advertisers who sponsor this crap. Shame on all of us who support these sponsors.

What is Sarah Palin's daughter to do now that all those responsible have torn her reputation and personal life to shreds? In spite of all the cacophonous media gossip and back-biting, she plans on having her baby. It is her right to choose; REMEMBER? If the baby is a girl, I hope she names her Integrity. If it is a boy, I hope she will name him Courage. These are two character traits the Palin family clearly embrace.
 
My prayers are with the Palin family for a healthy pregnancy, delivery, and life. God Bless her daughter and God Bless Sarah Palin.
 
 
The Gadfly
(copyright 2008, Gregory Allen Doyle)
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Great Non-Announcement

Senate-Fest 2008

What in the world was the Obama camp thinking?

In one of the most anti-climactic and myopic revelations of the 2008 election season, Democratic presidential hopeful, Senator Obama (of Illinois) announced Senator Joe Biden (of Delaware) as his vice-presidential running mate. In an apparent admission of NO foreign diplomacy experience, Mr. Obama reached into the shallow gene-pool of DNC hopefuls and pulled out a semi-hawkish potato (without the "e"), instead of a plum. While certainly a colorful figure in his career in the Senate, Mr. Biden has never made a first-rate bid as a viable candidate for the presidency, since 1988. Joe's mouth always seems to get him in trouble. This might be a key to understanding the Obama strategy.

If  there was no one more qualified in the Democratic Party to run with Mr. Obama, other than Joe Biden, what does this say about the Dem-Party elites? It will be interesting to see how the left-leaning media spins this un-dynamic duo. Perhaps Biden received the nod based on his propensity for stepping on his own tongue. It would certainly improve Mr. Obama's image as an unabashed blatherer. What do you get when you place a dim bulb next to a fading ember? Dim and Dimmer.

If the Obama campaign was pondering damage control after a recent drop in Zogby polling, they'd best seriously consider acquiring a stronger safety net to buffet their impending plummet. The Obama-Biden ticket should be headed for the tank in short order once Jabbering Joe opens his big mouth to speak on any issue. He can't help himself.

Democrats should be scratching their heads about now, wondering what the Biden addition is saying to them about their miracle-man, Mr. Obama. He has about as much substance as an empty glass. Does anyone believe Joe Biden represents change? Small change seems to be Obama's forte.

John Mc Cain would be wise to hold his political cards even closer to his vest and let the Obama campaign check, pass, and fold. The only real "Change" Mr. Obama can hope for in November is enough spare change to secure bus fare back to his home state when he loses his shirt (among other things.) The Obama-Biden campaign appears to be "all-in," which is a great time to call their weak attempts to bluff.
 
 The Gadfly
(copyright 2008, Gregory Allen Doyle)
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Legislating Morality in California

Note: This article explores some probable impacts from the recent California Supreme Court decision, which allowed for same-sex marriages to be legalized. 

There is a popular saying which asserts, "You cannot legislate morality." I have heard this particular quote repeated ad nauseum over the years, particularly on hot-button topics like abortion, illegal drug use, prostitution, pornography, and (most recently) homosexuality. Many well-meaning advocates of this statement imply that, by establishing any law prohibiting a particular behavior, such established law will NOT prevent individuals from engaging in prohibited behaviors, regardless of the penalties. I wholeheartedly agree.

Yet following this same discourse and logic, one must eventually conclude the law NEVER prevents individuals from engaging in any prohibited activity whatsoever. One could easily defend a position that the establishment of laws defining and prohibiting murder have failed to prevent any murderer from committing homicide. So what purpose does establishing laws (prohibiting certain behaviors) accomplish?

The law only establishes limits of acceptable and unacceptable behavior in any society. The establishment of laws prohibiting specific acts sets parameters and sanctions for violations of those laws. Though many argue morality cannot be legislated, by its very nature of delineating right and wrong, the law indeed legislates morality. The question of establishing laws, then, boils down to the definitions of what constitutes right and wrong and who decides where the boundaries are placed.

The law does not protect law-abiders from law-breakers. It NEVER has. The law is merely the arbiter between two opposing factions. The law provides for redress, restitution, and retribution. It does not prevent crime from occurring anymore than placing a lock on a door guarantees the absolute safety of the persons or items secured behind it.

In June 2008, the California Supreme Court made a ruling of law which, by the nature of its ruling, legislated morality for all California citizens. Homosexuals have been granted the same marital status as heterosexual couples, overturning laws to the contrary. Ignoring the voter-approved initiative establishing marriage as solely between a man and woman (in 2000), the Court opened the door for gay-marriages to become legal. And long lines of eager gay couples lined up to be legitimized.

So how does allowing homosexuals to legally marry affect the institution of marriage? At first glance, the impact might appear negligible. However, for many who hold marriage as sacred and inviolate, legalizing sexual deviancy only serves to degrade holy matrimony. Perhaps polygamists can now gain legitimacy? How about allowing pedophiles to marry minor children? Maybe dogs can become more than just Man's best friend?

 In particular, churches will suffer from the Supreme Court ruling, if present attempts to amend California's constitution fail. Imagine in the future that a homosexual couple decides to get married in a local Baptist Church, in California. The pastor politely declines to perform the ceremony or allow the couple use of the church facility for the ceremony. This gay couple contacts an attorney and a lawsuit is levied against the pastor and the church for discrimination. Why? Because it is now legal for the homosexual couple to be married like any heterosexual couple. Never mind that homosexuality is taboo (sin) within established Baptist doctrine. The church must either relent or suffer a costly legal battle in the court system. As a result of the Court's ruling, Christian churches will be hard-pressed to defend themselves against these types of lawsuits based on religious grounds.

One need not be religious to see the California Supreme Court legislated morality in its ruling on homosexual marriage. Prior to the ruling, gays had the same rights and benefits afforded heterosexual married couples, through civil unions and domestic partnerships. In effect, it ruled that marriage between a man and a woman is nothing more than a tax-break or medical benefit. 

 Whether the high court made an appropriate judgment remains to be seen.

 
The Gadfly

(copyright 2008, Gregory Allen Doyle)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

John Edwards and the Bridge of Opportunity

A few months back, I read an AP wire story about parting comments presidential candidate John Edwards made, as he pulled the plug on his bid for the Democratic nod. An anecdote he offered made me so mad, I wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper to ask why no one in the press questioned Edwards' ridiculous (and I believe concocted) story. The newspaper never printed my letter.
 
Once upon a time, John Edwards told an audience that he was on the way to give his supporters his farewell speech, when he saw some homeless people living under a bridge. He stopped his vehicle, got out, spoke to several of them and was emotionally moved by the encounter. As Edwards returned to his car, he recalled one woman said to him, "Remember us, please." Mr. Edwards drove to his destination and gave his speech, which included the story of his encounter under the bridge. He reassured his supporters both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had pledged to fight poverty, if elected to office.
 
Here is where the rubber meets the road in incredulity on the campaign trail in 2008. Granted John Edwards had about as much chance of being elected president as do the Dixie Chicks. But the fact that the media, in general, rarely ever questions these types of stories offered by the Democrats, gives rise to further outcry from conservatives about liberal bias in the media.
 
Two distinct impressions were intended for the reader of that AP story on Edwards, if no questions were ever raised in the article (which they were not): 1) Democratic candidates reach out to the needy, and 2) Democratic candidates have good intentions to help the poor, if elected. As a conservative, I know this is a partial truth if, in fact, the story Mr. Edwards told was not a complete fabrication.
 
Imagine for a moment that you were the person passing those homeless people under the bridge, instead of someone hoping to curry favor with a political party. Perhaps you have seen a homeless person in your travels and felt compassion for them. I know I have. Let's examine for a moment some probable responses in this scenario:
 
1) You ignore the person.
2) You roll down the window and drop money in the street.
3) You call the authorities to complain about people camping in a public thoroughfare.
4) You stop and offer to give the person something to eat, at the very least.
 
While there are other possible responses, these seem to be the most likely for the majority of people. Yet what does John Edwards tell us about his encounter? He stops and talks to them, then tells a story about them to others, and persuades his political allies to end poverty. Meantime, he left those homeless people under that bridge with nothing but an empty political promise.
 
And just what does a pledge to "end poverty" from a liberal politician usually mean? Raise taxes, increase government entitlement programs, and increase spending at the bureaucratic trough with other people's money (yours and mine.) The story offered by John Edwards is indicative of the liberal way of thinking. Instead of stopping and using his own money and resources to reach out to the homeless folks, he prefers to spend your money to help people like them.
 
The truth is, even if he really stopped to talk to them, John Edwards ignored those people under that bridge. Think about it. Even if a Democrat won the White House in November 2008 and was inaugurated in January 2009, how much longer would it take a president to persuade Congress to pass a homeless aid package? By the time any really help might be realized, those folks under that bridge could be dead or displaced.
 
Aren't Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Obama senators? Don't they have the power of the purse strings to end poverty now? What good would the presidency gain them to end poverty other than a bully pulpit?
 
By the way, has anyone heard much discussion from either Clinton or Obama on ending poverty, since John Edwards dropped out? Did John remember to get that homeless woman's name so anyone could truly remember her after the elections? It may seem a trivial matter in the greater scheme of the political campaign season, but I am reminded that but for the grace of God, I might be living under that bridge someday.
 
If the Democrats fool the electorate and gain more power to raise taxes, we all might be.
 
 
The Gadfly
(copyright 2008, Gregory Allen Doyle)
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's "Love" got to do with it?

There has been a lot of misleading talk about love these days, especially in the print media. Women's magazines seem to drip and ooze a mushy, pungent (and sometimes noxious) swill of feminized and sexualized love, while men's magazines shift to an objectification of love in the form of lust for the flesh. The Scriptures tell of a different kind of love, which from the very beginning was NOT meant to be expressed strictly in terms of feelings.

The love of a parent for a child was clearly seen in the Creation account in Genesis. God carefully and patiently watched over and adored His first two human offspring (created in His image no less.) God's deep and abiding affection was sorely tested by their fall from grace, yet God's unconditional love continued to reach out to Adam and Eve and their offspring. Love required the use of discipline to correct wayward behavior, even when the consequences seemed severe.

Love also showed itself in the quality of God's mercy extended to His children in spite of their sins. God continues to provide air, rain, sunlight, food, and shelter among many other blessings to those he considers wicked, as well as righteous. Impartiality appears to be another quality, which love emulates.

Compassion for those in need is another hallmark quality of love. The blessings of healing, restoration, and reconciliation all spring from the deep well of empathy for the oppressed, misfortunate, and down-trodden. Reaching out in times of disaster to bring relief and aid to the dispossessed is a genuine expression of love.

The greatest of all qualities expressed through love is sacrifice. It is the conscious decision of the lover to forsake all selfish desires and selflessly give for the sake of the loved. It is the picture of Christ crucified, having suffered humiliation, torment, and death for the benefit of all condemned sinners. It is the unconditional nature of the lover to surrender the best in life to overcome the worst in death. It is the promise of hope and renewal through the resurrection from death to life.

Could the true picture of God’s love become any clearer? We humans have a lot to learn about the true meaning of love, don't you think?

God has been more than willing to show us, time and again.


The Gadfly
(copyright 2008, Gregory Allen Doyle)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Poetic Dig At Human Nature

A Hole Other Story

As Ned looked down atop a rock
In sand, he saw a soily sock.
“Who left this here?” old Ned inquired.
“Perhaps the owner has expired.”

An excavation soon revealed
a rusty saw and wagon wheel.
“I must dig deeper!” Ned implored.
“A find this good must be explored.”

He asked a friend to help him out.
“I’ll tell you, Mack, what it’s about.
The origin of what we know,
lies buried in this ground below.”

Though Mack was doubtful of Ned’s claim,
Mack grabbed a shovel just the same.
And bent on helping out his friend,
Mack shoveled dirt for days on end.

Then weeks passed by, each toiled and dug.
Ned found a coin, Mack found a mug,
unearthed two bones, and one loose tooth.
They found a lot, to tell the truth.

Still deeper down their shovels bit.
Ned marveled at the size of it.
A crater grew beneath their feet.
They called in Frank, then Jim and Pete.

Ned brought in cranes and dynamite
and blasted morning, noon, and night.
He rented trucks to haul the rest.
Perhaps they’d find a treasure chest?

A scholar stopped there by the rim.
“Who is your boss? I must see him!”
From Pete to Jim, to Frank then Mack,
each echoed, “Ned, will call you back.”

Reporters swooped down on the hole.
The cops showed up for crowd control.
Inquiring minds just had to know.
How far would Ned’s hole have to go?

A source who would not leave his name,
predicted power, wealth, and fame.
“Old Ned has something special here.
A fortune’s find is very near!”

Like locusts, hell-bent for a meal
Folks swarmed Ned’s dig with lust and zeal.
They picked each pile clean in pursuit.
In riot’s wake, each grabbed Ned’s loot.

Disgusted Mack walked off the dig.
Jim just got drunk. Frank took a swig.
Pete helped himself to Ned’s best wine.
Then up they staggered from the mine.

Now friendless and still in the hole,
Ned cried out for his weary soul.
He wept great tears in pained reprise
And filled the hole in several tries.

A two-day float up through the shaft,
Marked all his labors, fore and aft.
Ned perched again on that old rock
And spied a matching, soily sock.

Ben Franklin quotes Ned’s sorry plight;
In timeless words on wisdom’s flight.
“Soily to Ned, soily he cries
Hole he dug solely, socked in demise.”



The Gadfly
(copyright 2008, Gregory Allen Doyle)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »