'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.'
'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'
'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. Was too strong.'
'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.'
'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.'
'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'
'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.'
'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.'
'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'
'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.'
'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'
Taken from: http://boortz.com/more/reagan_quotes.html
Friday, June 20, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Whew...
Senate Blocks "Windfall Profits" Tax
I've posted about this in the past here and Greg has a good post on it here.
This morning, a cloture vote on the Democrats' scheme to impose a "windfall profits tax" on America's oil companies failed on a 50-44 vote. The bill would have imposed a 25% surtax on any "unreasonable" profits being earned by the oil companies, among other provisions. The roll call is here. Several of the usual suspects--Corker, Smith and Snowe--voted with the Democrats. Every Democrat who was present voted in favor of the measure, but four Democrats, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, didn't show up; John McCain was absent as well.
I've posted about this in the past here and Greg has a good post on it here.
Friday, June 6, 2008
$4 Gas
First of all, it's not good for me to actually have time to post on this blog, and now I've been challenged to post some things... ;)
While we're talking politics here, someone asked in a previous thread why I focused on something so minor. First of all, lately I haven't focused on much of anything here! But let's talk about "$4+/gallon gas" here for now.
For my part in this, I recently traded a gas-guzzling, supercharged, 93 octane drinking car that I really liked for a much more economical compact car (30mpg city now versus 18). So, I guess you could say I'm doing my part in reducing how much gas I'm using. (As an aside, Daimler-Chrysler should focus on fuel economy and not $2.99/gallon gas guarantees...)
But the blame on $4/gallon gas can't be laid squarely on the shoulders of those in the Executive Branch. We now have a problem with an ineffective Legislative Branch with empty promises. My pal Greg just posted a timely post regarding this yesterday. Let's look at what Greg wrote there:
Greg, you're right. The Democrats ran on this platform back then and they're running with this as part of the platform again. And to address the comment ahead of time, it will be pointed out that if they did introduce legislation that President Bush would just veto it. Well they should have at least tried it. I'm really open to comments on some of the bills that were introduced. The Democrats control both Houses, so they obviously could have forced some legislation through. If any of you are aware of them, please let me know. But you can also feel free to see the list of vetoes that President Bush has made. There's even a veto that the Senate overrode back in 2007 after the Democrats had control, so that argument really doesn't hold water.
While there are a lot of people who place the blame for high prices on the War in Iraq or just poor policies by the President, what if a lot of what we're seeing is just Capitalism (gone awry)? What if those who pump the crude oil have decided that it would be a great time to hike the prices and have the perfect scapegoat in the Bush Administration? It's just a theory of mine. Some people have conspiracy theories about the Administration, and I have mine... ;)
By the way, here are a couple of good articles by economists regarding recent pricing.
"What Are Just Prices?"
"The Oil-Price Bubble"
While we're talking politics here, someone asked in a previous thread why I focused on something so minor. First of all, lately I haven't focused on much of anything here! But let's talk about "$4+/gallon gas" here for now.
For my part in this, I recently traded a gas-guzzling, supercharged, 93 octane drinking car that I really liked for a much more economical compact car (30mpg city now versus 18). So, I guess you could say I'm doing my part in reducing how much gas I'm using. (As an aside, Daimler-Chrysler should focus on fuel economy and not $2.99/gallon gas guarantees...)
But the blame on $4/gallon gas can't be laid squarely on the shoulders of those in the Executive Branch. We now have a problem with an ineffective Legislative Branch with empty promises. My pal Greg just posted a timely post regarding this yesterday. Let's look at what Greg wrote there:
April 24, 2006, [Nancy Pelosi] released another [statement about a gas plan]:
“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”
Let me get this straight, according to Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats had a plan in April of 2006 to lower gas prices if they became the majority. Well, in November of 2006, the Democrat party came into the majority position.
As of this writing, it has been 779 days since Nancy Pelosi pledged to lower prices at the pump.
Greg, you're right. The Democrats ran on this platform back then and they're running with this as part of the platform again. And to address the comment ahead of time, it will be pointed out that if they did introduce legislation that President Bush would just veto it. Well they should have at least tried it. I'm really open to comments on some of the bills that were introduced. The Democrats control both Houses, so they obviously could have forced some legislation through. If any of you are aware of them, please let me know. But you can also feel free to see the list of vetoes that President Bush has made. There's even a veto that the Senate overrode back in 2007 after the Democrats had control, so that argument really doesn't hold water.
While there are a lot of people who place the blame for high prices on the War in Iraq or just poor policies by the President, what if a lot of what we're seeing is just Capitalism (gone awry)? What if those who pump the crude oil have decided that it would be a great time to hike the prices and have the perfect scapegoat in the Bush Administration? It's just a theory of mine. Some people have conspiracy theories about the Administration, and I have mine... ;)
By the way, here are a couple of good articles by economists regarding recent pricing.
"What Are Just Prices?"
We all have strange and contradictory wishes concerning what prices should be. We are outraged at what is happening to the price of gas and food. We don't think they should go up. In real terms, we want them to fall, and they have fallen in the last decade and a half. That's a good thing, right? That's how the world should work.
But housing? Now, that's a different matter. When the prices fall, people freak out. It's like the end of the world. How is it possible that my own home would fall in price?! That's not the way the world should work. Everyone knows that house prices are suppose to go up up up, all the time, without fail, until the end of time.
"The Oil-Price Bubble"
We suggest that there is a high likelihood that the massive increase in the price of oil is the manifestation of a severe misallocation of resources. The loose monetary policy of the Fed from January 2001 to June 2004 is the likely key factor behind this misallocation. (The federal funds rate was lowered from 6% to 1%.) The tighter Fed stance from June 2004 to September 2007 should undermine the existence of various nonproductive activities and in turn reduce upward pressures on the price of oil.
Regrettably, the loose monetary stance that the Fed has adopted since September of last year, coupled with still very buoyant Chinese economic activity, is likely to counter any downward pressure on the price of oil. The Fed's current policy of fighting an emerging economic slump is, in fact, a policy of deepening the misallocation of resources, thereby promoting higher prices for oil. If our thesis regarding the oil market bubble is valid, then it is the Fed's policies that must be blamed for the erosion in consumers' living standards and not the rising price of oil.
UPDATE This is the best Democrats can do?



When (less than one term) Senator Obama had his huge 75,000 person rally in Oregon, this is where someone decided to place the port-a-potties?!? What in the world were they thinking? This is truly sad.
Update: Apparently Senator Obama hasapologized for this incident and his campaign claims that they had nothing to do with it. However, everyone should be offended that someone thought it was a good idea to do this. The first I heard about this incident was yesterday, so thanks for the update Brian...
By the way, here is some good commentary on Obama's "acceptance speech" recently.
Maybe he should wrap up his tour of the States. I guess he has visited 58 of them so far...
Friday, May 30, 2008
Great Quote!
While reading God in the Dock: The Apologetics of C.S. Lewis by Roger Nicole, I stumbled on a wonderful quote by C.S. Lewis from The Screwtape Letters
Wow, that is so true. Sometimes we think about the "big sins". Like the "Seven Deadly Sins" or the list of sins we see the Lord hates from Proverbs 6:16–19, etc... But Lewis tells us that if even the small things in our lives are dragging us from the Light of Christ that the net effect may be the same on our souls. I do not believe I have The Screwtape Letters, I should probably pick it up sometime...
"It does not matter how small the sins are, provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one" (p. 56).
Wow, that is so true. Sometimes we think about the "big sins". Like the "Seven Deadly Sins" or the list of sins we see the Lord hates from Proverbs 6:16–19, etc... But Lewis tells us that if even the small things in our lives are dragging us from the Light of Christ that the net effect may be the same on our souls. I do not believe I have The Screwtape Letters, I should probably pick it up sometime...
Sunday, May 25, 2008
My Guitar Hero Rig...
Yep, here is what my guitar hero rig looks like... :) But it probably cost a lot more than a game, right Jen?

Just another reason to take a pic of Blondie! By the way, I just picked up the Line 6 PodXT Live in the picture. Got a great deal on it on eBay. I should have bought it a few years ago, but my Korg AX1500G was sufficient. I have always been impressed with the Line 6 stuff, so I finally broke down and got one.
Just another reason to take a pic of Blondie! By the way, I just picked up the Line 6 PodXT Live in the picture. Got a great deal on it on eBay. I should have bought it a few years ago, but my Korg AX1500G was sufficient. I have always been impressed with the Line 6 stuff, so I finally broke down and got one.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Let me know if you still think it was a hoax
This one's for all of the conspiracy theorists out there. At the link, you can watch videos of this test performed in 1988, but here are the results.

And just to make sure I'm clear - there are many who still believe that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't a plane at all. This is because they cite that there wasn't any debris left. Well, these videos and tests from 1988 prove that if a plane crashes into a concrete object that no debris will be left. So if for some reason you still don't believe it was a plane, then there's nothing else I can say to you...
Here's some info from the Sandia National Labs site:

And just to make sure I'm clear - there are many who still believe that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't a plane at all. This is because they cite that there wasn't any debris left. Well, these videos and tests from 1988 prove that if a plane crashes into a concrete object that no debris will be left. So if for some reason you still don't believe it was a plane, then there's nothing else I can say to you...
Here's some info from the Sandia National Labs site:
The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Some updates
Yes, I've been a slack blogger - both here and at BleedYellow... For those who really want to know what happens in the Nut House, you can keep up with my wife's blog - there are some great pics of the family this weekend!! She does much better at keeping everyone up to speed. It's been a little busy lately, and we do appreciate all of the thoughts and prayers for Jen's mom. We're all taking it a day at a time now with her on chemo. She has some ups and downs, but we're grateful and thankful that this weekend was one of ups.
Oh, here's one of me and the kiddos:
Oh, here's one of me and the kiddos:
The Imagination of C.S. Lewis
There is a great article over at the Ligonier Ministries blog by Leland Ryken titled The Imagination of C.S. Lewis. This article explores how the stories came about for Lewis and how they took on their Christian meaning. It's quite amazing actually:
There is an image posted at the article that details the Biblical themes of the stories - basically they are a walk through the Biblical narrative:
Lewis famously said that "all my seven Narnian books...began with pictures in my head. At first they were not a story, just pictures." Thus The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe "began with a picture of Faun carrying an umbrella and parcels in a snowy wood." Just as we are recovering from the shock of that revelation, Lewis adds, "This picture had been in my mind since I was about sixteen. Then one day, when I was about forty, I said to myself: 'Let's try to make a story about it.'"
Just in case we might think that we cannot possibly have heard things correctly, Lewis also gave us another passage of similar import -- only more shocking. In countering the assumption of some of his readers that he "began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children," Lewis claimed that "at first there wasn't even anything Christian about [the stories]."
The order of composition suggests an order of reading. If we follow the lead of Lewis himself, a major lesson we can learn from the Narnian stories is that they are first of all stories -- adventure stories, fantasy stories, children's stories. These narrative features are not simply "a disguise for something more 'adult'."
There is an image posted at the article that details the Biblical themes of the stories - basically they are a walk through the Biblical narrative:
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Congress - the real April Fool's joke
I saw this story that Congress is up in arms again over how much those evil oil companies are raking in. I'm pretty tired of hearing it - especially when the government makes more money off of the oil companies than the companies themselves. Yep, they take more from Big Oil in taxes than what those scoundrels are left with.
Anyway, the story linked to above had a funny line from an Exxon exec:
One thing that is becoming popular of late is wanting to force an earnings cap on private companies. It's under the guise of helping Americans because the "official" target is "Big Oil." Yesterday, I heard Rush Limbaugh give a statistic that "Big Oil" earns 10 cents on every gallon of gas sold and that "Big Government" earns 45 cents. I thought this was really strange and that Big Oil had to make more than this, but I didn't feel like researching it. Well, this morning I noticed The real windfall in my Bloglines from the Mises Institute (an economics website).
Last week, after Exxon Mobil (XOM) published record quarterly profits of $9.9 billion, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called for hearings to see whether a windfall profits tax should be imposed. Checking the SEC 10-Q filing reveals the following:

Now, let's break this down.
Exxon Mobil paid $25.8 BILLION in taxes the 3rd Quarter. They were in a 41.8% tax bracket. This means that they took in about $61.7 Billion and were left with around $35.9 Billion. After their expenditures, they profited less than 17% of their total earnings.
Finally, the citizens and government officials seem to be really upset that Exxon Mobil made nearly $10 Billion in the quarter. Putting this chart to practical use, please note that the Government profited $4 Billion more in 3Q 2005 than in 3Q 2004. We have to have some accountability here. The government took in nearly three times more money ($25 Billion) than Exxon's net profits ($9.9 Billion) and they are wanting more.
Anyway, the story linked to above had a funny line from an Exxon exec:
Alluding to the fact that Congress often doesn't rate very high in opinion polls, Cleaver told the executives: "Your approval rating is lower than ours, and that means you're down low."The following is a repost from November of 2005.
One thing that is becoming popular of late is wanting to force an earnings cap on private companies. It's under the guise of helping Americans because the "official" target is "Big Oil." Yesterday, I heard Rush Limbaugh give a statistic that "Big Oil" earns 10 cents on every gallon of gas sold and that "Big Government" earns 45 cents. I thought this was really strange and that Big Oil had to make more than this, but I didn't feel like researching it. Well, this morning I noticed The real windfall in my Bloglines from the Mises Institute (an economics website).
Last week, after Exxon Mobil (XOM) published record quarterly profits of $9.9 billion, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called for hearings to see whether a windfall profits tax should be imposed. Checking the SEC 10-Q filing reveals the following:
Now, let's break this down.
Exxon Mobil paid $25.8 BILLION in taxes the 3rd Quarter. They were in a 41.8% tax bracket. This means that they took in about $61.7 Billion and were left with around $35.9 Billion. After their expenditures, they profited less than 17% of their total earnings.
Finally, the citizens and government officials seem to be really upset that Exxon Mobil made nearly $10 Billion in the quarter. Putting this chart to practical use, please note that the Government profited $4 Billion more in 3Q 2005 than in 3Q 2004. We have to have some accountability here. The government took in nearly three times more money ($25 Billion) than Exxon's net profits ($9.9 Billion) and they are wanting more.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Ollie's First Birthday Party Yesterday!
We had a blast with his birthday party yesterday!! Here is a Flickr Slideshow and below are a few pictures.

Ollie wasn't too into smashing his smash cake...

My Dad got to be a conductor too!

Big Sis had a blue tongue!

Here were the awesome cakes!

Jen and Ashleigh being silly...

The 3 cousins (sort of) posing for a picture!
Ollie wasn't too into smashing his smash cake...
My Dad got to be a conductor too!
Big Sis had a blue tongue!
Here were the awesome cakes!
Jen and Ashleigh being silly...
The 3 cousins (sort of) posing for a picture!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Please Update Your Feeds
Looking at my feedburner stats, I see that a majority of my subscribers are still only subscribed to my blogspot RSS feed.
If you've been subscribing to my feedburner feed all along (http://feeds.feedburner.com/cwhisonant), then there's nothing you'll need to do. All of my posts at BleedYellow.com and those at cwhisonant.blogspot.com will appear in that feed.
I will likely post my "Yellow"-related stuff just at BleedYellow.com. I will post personal stuff at this blog. So please stay subscribed to that feed.
If you insist on just subscribing to my BleedYellow.com blog, that feed is:
http://www.bleedyellow.com/blogs/roller-ui/rendering/feed/lotusnut/entries/atom/
Also, if you want to subscribe to all blogs here at BleedYellow.com, that feed is:
http://www.bleedyellow.com/blogs/roller-ui/rendering/feed/bloghome/entries/atom/
If you've been subscribing to my feedburner feed all along (http://feeds.feedburner.com/cwhisonant), then there's nothing you'll need to do. All of my posts at BleedYellow.com and those at cwhisonant.blogspot.com will appear in that feed.
I will likely post my "Yellow"-related stuff just at BleedYellow.com. I will post personal stuff at this blog. So please stay subscribed to that feed.
If you insist on just subscribing to my BleedYellow.com blog, that feed is:
http://www.bleedyellow.com/blogs/roller-ui/rendering/feed/lotusnut/entries/atom/
Also, if you want to subscribe to all blogs here at BleedYellow.com, that feed is:
http://www.bleedyellow.com/blogs/roller-ui/rendering/feed/bloghome/entries/atom/
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Are you happy Mitch?!?
You (and Mike) should be - your Giants just knocked off the Pats!! Congrats!!
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Nice tunes
So cool - I've been to at least two sessions where the music playing
was Joe Satriani!! Lotusphere + Satch = :)
was Joe Satriani!! Lotusphere + Satch = :)
Monday, January 21, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
My New Blog
Please take a moment to check out my new blog at BleedYellow.com!!!!
Labels:
Lotus 911,
Lotus Connections
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
