About Me

Name: GregB
Email: gregtca@earthlink.net Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

The Essence of Thanksgiving

Posted by GregB on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 2:54:52 PM
I am sure that most of us have something to be thankful for this Thanksgiving season.  But being thankful for something is not the true essence of why we celebrate Thanksgiving.  To remember its true essence, we need only remember the first thanksgiving that started this tradition.  After arriving offshore in Massachussets in 1620, the first settlors,Pilgrims, were helped by an English speaking Indian named Squanto.  The Pilgrims planted their first crops in the spring of 1621 and reaped their first harvests that fall, a great blessing considering they endured hunger and disease the previous year.  This first harvest was a combined celebrationw of the native Indians who helped the Pilgrims adapt to the harsh winters of New England.  Lincoln saw the importance of the celebration that had been loosely celebrated by various states and colonies the previous 200 plus years and proclaimed Thanksgiving a national holiday and celebration in 1863 at the height of the Civil War.  Lincoln admonished all Americans to remember the great roots and blessings that God had provided and called upon all to pray for the blessings of God on America. 
 
Thanksgiving has devolved in a catch all feast where we are thankful for family and various other blessings.  But we must not forget that were it not for the providence of God, the intervention of God through the hands of an Indian servant of God (Squanto), we wouldn't have seen the roots of this great country.  The Christian community must continue the traditions of thankfulness for God's blessings and must continually seek God for his intervention in this great country.  We are facing many challenges to our religious heritage and traditions that founded this country as a place of peace for all peoples and for all faiths who seek refuge within our boarders.  We are blessed because our founders sought to build this country on the basic principles that were enlightened by their faith and religious values.  These values have been applicable to all who have lived and who will continue to live in this great country. 
 
So with this short and quick history lesson, lets give thanks not only for the nearness of family and blessings of food, but for God's providence in establishing this great country and lets pray for his continued providence in this era. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The good,bad and ugly after the election.

Posted by GregB on Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:22:23 PM
I have refrained from an immediate analysis of the election results.  I wanted to let it all soak in before I begin to share my two-cents worth, and it probably isn't worth that much any way.  Additionally, I really want to take more time for reflection so my thoughts are really only impressions and not much more. 
 
The Good
Republican control, and mostly conservative control, give hope a new definition.  Hopefully Obama will pull back from his extremely liberal agenda. 
 
Conservatives seem to have revived a new "back bone".  This is good as it is needed to confront the still liberal policies that will need refinement and even repeal on the federal level. 
 
Good by Nancy Pelosi.  Harry Reid - you gotta watch your political back. 
 
More Governorships will mean that redistricting will be more fair and balanced, giving R's a better chance to make more gains in 2012 in the house.  This will also give more impetus to taking more Senate seats in 2012. 
 
CA defeated Prop 19.  A stupid idea that would have cost us billions in social costs. 
 
The Bad.
California voters seem to be stuck in the 90's with the reelection of Jerry Brown and Barabara Boxer.  Liberalism is dying except for its last breaths in California.  R's will have a hard time winning state wide elections when the D's out number R registrations by a margin of 2 to 1.  The R leadership in CA has got to address this issue. 
 
CA stupidly passed Prop 25.  But we also passed the proposition that required voter approval to increase fees and taxes.  We just made the budget process complicated and draconian.  Expect Jerry Brown to put tax increase propositions on the ballot.  Why do we have state legislators? 
 
The R's lost the U.S. Senate because the Tea Party movement wasn't sophisticated.  There I said it.  The Tea Party movement lost the senate in its push for a very incompetent Christine O'Donnell and a very poor candidate in Sharon Angle.  The R's will have to also eat crow and restore their relationship with Aka's Murkowski. 
 
The Ugly
A Jerry Brown governorship will bring us back to the days of Gray Davis. 
 
A Barbara Boxer incumbency will mean that jobs in the San Juaquin Valley won't come back for a long time.  I really think that a lawsuit should be started to overturn the legislation that has caused this disaster. 
 
Gavin Newsome.  Enough said. 
 
CA will recover economically but it will lag behind any national recovery just because our state government leadership won't do what is necessary from a fiscal point to make CA financially solvent.  If you have a state government pension, you need to be very careful. 
 
On The Economy.
 
Obama's recent admission that he will consider a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts will encourage some money that has been sitting on the sidelines to enter the game.  I said some, not all.  Reports from Wall Street indicate that there is about $2 Trillion sitting in cash and being held by corporations because they have been reticient about future costs due to the lack of government leadership on the tax cuts and due to the as yet uncertain rise in medical health insurance costs from Obamacare. Well, the extension of the tax cuts will give them some certainty to take some of that money and begin to hire and invest.  If we begin to reform Obamacare, that will encourage more money to flow back into the economy.  Nationally, it won't surprise me if our unemployment drops below 8% but I really expect CA's unemployment to stay around 10% because we don't have good political leadership that is committed to doing what is needed to make CA's economy stronger and to cut government expenses at the state level. 
 
Just some thoughts. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Living in So Cal

Posted by GregB on Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:49:58 PM
I have lived in southern California since 1988 but I am a transplant from the great state of Washington.  When I go back to my home state, I love the feeling of trees, mountains and moderate weather but after a while I do get restless for my actual home.  I have grown accustomed to living in southern California.  But, I am amazed at the number of people who have no conception of what life is like outside of Los Angeles.  So here is my ode to living in southern California titled, "You know you have lived in southern California to long if..."
 
1.  You actually begin to believe the chihuahas are cute dogs.
2.  Your choice of footwear is casual flipflops, formal flipflops, platform flipflops, beach flipflops, gym flipflops, casual Friday flipflops, fur-lined flipflops for cold weather and water-proof flipflops for rain.
3.  Your first choice of condiment is salsa that is not from New York city.
4.  You actually believe that LA's professional football team is the USC trojan football team.
5.  You put on a sweater when the weather outside dips below 75.
6.  You actually understand the person at the other end of the drive-through when they ask you for your order.
7.  When you leave southern California, you can't wait to get back to go to In-N-Out.
8.  You would rather have a breakfast burrito then a breakfast sandwich.
9.  You haven't been outside of southern California and you can't understand why others would want to leave here.
10.  You actually believe that Barbara Boxer deserves to be called Senator. 
 
OK, Now its your turn.  Send me your thoughts of "You know you've been in southern California too long when..."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

California's Propositions

Posted by GregB on Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:08:27 PM
On November 2, California will be faced with some very important issues through our unique proposition process.  Here are my suggestions on all of the propositions on the November 2  ballot
 
Proposition 19  Vote No.  This is the marijuana proposition.  Why do we need to have marijuana distributed and placed in the same category as the sale of liquor and alcohol?  We don't!  Alcohol sales already take a steep toll on our culture and alcohol is the leading cause of teen deaths.  Will marijuana help this?  Of course not.  Besides the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has already stated that he will attempt to block Prop 19 as marijuana is a federally regulated drug. 
 
Proposition 20.  Vote Yes.  This is the proposition that will complete the redistricting proposition 11 that was passed a few years ago.  Congressional districts are disproportionately structured.  Many districts do not adequate represent the population base.  California's population has shifted since the last time we drew district lines and we need to redo these districts.  This proposition is in conflict with Prop 27 which is a bad proposition supported by George Soros. 
 
Proposition 21.  Vote No.  This proposition would place an additional $18 fee on each auto registration in California to pay for our state parks. We don't need any new fees in California.  We should be better managers of our money in the state legislature and payment of user fees to pay for the cost of running our state parks.  We can't continue to add fees as substitutes for taxes to pay for basic priviledges in California. 
 
Proposition 22.  Vote Yes.  This is the "other" proposition 22 - not the one currently on appeal in the federal courts.  This proposition would protect funding designated for local and municipal projects from being hijacked by state legislators to balance the state budget at the expense of local government. 
 
Proposition 23.  Vote No.  This proposition got Meg Whitman into hot water.  A few years back, we enacted AB (Assembly Bill) 32 that set new standards for green jobs in California.  That proposition has produced a half billion dollars in revenue from green jobs.  AB32 has a provision in it that give the governor power to set it aside for 1 or 2 years if the governor perceives that AB would hurt jobs and would prevent us from lowering our unemployment rate.  Whitman has already said she would suspend AB 32 which in effect would be the same as if Prop 23 passed, until we can figure out how to keep the green job revolution going without hurting traditional job development. 
 
Proposition 24.  Vote No.  This proposition is an attempt to stop the implementation of corporate tax breaks that are scheduled to go into effect in 2011.  If prop 24 passes, it will hurt the development of jobs in California.  We don't need this proposition. 
 
Proposition 25 Vote No.  This proposition is a wolf in sheeps clothing.  It is tempting to vote for a proposition that would penalize state legislators for not passing a budget but behind this proposition is the poison pill that would give our state legislators the authority to raise taxes and fees on a simple majority vote.  Right now taxes cant be raised unless there is a 66% majority vote.  Lets keep it that way. 
 
Proposition 26  Vote Yes.  This proposition is a redux of a proposition that was narrowly defeated previously known as Prop 37.  This proposition would put into law as a state constitutional amendment the requirement that ALL fees, taxes, etc would require a 66% supermajority vote of our state legislators.  Enough said. 
 
Proposition 27.  Vote No.  This is the competing propostion to Prop 20.  Prop 27 would put a stop to California's redistricting project.  The fact that George Soros supported this proposition with a gift of $100,000 should be enough to convince you that this is just wrong.  The Dems want to keep everything the same.  There is a poison pill in both Prop 27 and Prop 20 if both of these should be passed by the California voters.  Here is the kicker.  If both 20 and 27 pass, the proposition that has the higher percentage of yes vote will trump the other proposition.  Don't let this happen.  Vote no and 27. 
 
Here's hoping this will help you in your selections on November 2. 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Pro-Life Voter for Whitman

Posted by GregB on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 7:21:40 PM
The election for Governor in California is between Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown.  Sadly, some within the Christian community are electing to not vote for governor because both candidates have staked out a pro-choice position.  The only third party candidate has not made a definitive statement on the issue of abortion. 
 
I am support Meg Whitman for Governor of California.  I am an avid Pro-Life voter and a profound opponent of abortion.  This position is rooted deeply in my faith and world view.  On the surface it appears that this is a contradiction.  How could I, as a Pro-Life voter support a candidate for governor that is pro-life?  Its simple and I don't view this as a contradiction.
 
The office of Governor will have little effect on the national abortion debate and the push for the right to life.  Given the fact that the abortion issue is solidly entrenched in the debate and conversation of Supreme Court cases, the legal issues of abortion will be confined to the Supreme Court of the United States.  A state governor has no say in the selection of supreme court justices.  If and when a case makes it to the court system, it will have to be initiated within the federal court system to have any chance of effecting Roe v. Wade.  On the legal stage, the issue of abortion rights is limited to a federal court stage. 
 
If any legislative attempts to overturn Roe V. Wade are initiated, those attempts would also have to be within the context of an amendment to the constitution to which the state legislators, and not the governor, would have to ratify.  First, the chance that an amendment to the constitution would actually be passed by Congress is remote at best.  The possibility that 35 states would ratify just such an amendment is also remote and if it actually came down to that stage, the voters of CA would have more sway then the governor. 
 
California faces a financial crisis as its first and foremost struggle, not an issue of abortion.  Additionally, the issue of abortion is best fought by the Christian community in offering abortion alternatives and in presenting the Gospel and the ethics that would compel people to decide against abortion.  California faces, though an immediate crisis of its financial future that affects all Californians and it is this issue that I believe is most appropriate addressed by a governor who's policies are of primary importance in solving this crisis.  Whitman has the background to address these policies.  Her pro life position is of no consequence to these issues nor will she be able to do much, if anything, about the national abortion issue. 
Tags: abortion  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Corporation, Proft, Morality and the CA Elections

Posted by GregB on Friday, October 22, 2010 1:01:44 PM
First, I want this out in the open.  There is nothing wrong or immoral about corporations and their task of making profits from their goods and services.  Talking with people during this elections cycle, it amazes how many people have suspicions about candidates that come from the corporate environment.  There is an immediate suspicion that because of their corporate roots, then they are suspected of being greed or dishonest.  Case in point comes from people that I have communicated with regarding Meg Whitman. 
 
The commercial slams against Whitman in short imply that she profited from her position as CEO of E-Bay and is guilty of promoting corporate greed.  These ads play on the misconceptions of the general public about how corporations operate and the duty of corporations. 
 
Misconceptions that I commonly hear are that "fat cats" are the one who get paid, corporate profits go to line their pockets and the little man is the one who gets the shaft.  First, public corporations are owned by stockholders, not the board of directors or the CEO.  The largest class of stockholders in the US are pension funds, the same pension funds that have financial obligations to public employees and non-public union members.  Stockholders of public corporations are the  ones who elect those who serve on the board of directors.  Ergo, public corporations are owned and operated for the good of its stockholders. 
 
Salaries paid to executives are monitored by the board and the salaries and compensation paid to chief executives are approved by the board of directors.  No executive can determine their own salary.  In many cases, executives are paid partialy by stock options and "put" options.  These options are worthless until cashed by the executive.  Further any executive paid in these kinds of securities can only sell a small percentage at at time.  If they want to sell larger amounts, then they have to petition the SEC and receive approval to sell them.  The revenue is subject to capital gains and income tax rates applicable at the time of sale. 
 
Directors of corporations are subject to limits on compensation for their service.  They can't be paid salaries and are only paid for their costs associated with their service on the board.  These costs are further limited to travel expenses associated with attending board meetings. 
 
Corporate profits are not as large as the common person thinks.  Typically corporate profits range between 15 and 20% of revenue and thats before the corporations pay their corporate taxes and make interest payments on any loans the corporation has encumbered or debt that is owed.  This also does not include the amount of money that a corporation usually reserves for reinvestment to either retool its manufacturing operations, upgrade its equipment or expand its business operations.  Finally, corporations also owe its stockholders a duty to pay dividends if the amount of profit is large enough and it wouldn't impact the corporations cash flow and necessity of reserving funds for research and development.  Many years ago Ford Motor Company got dinged by a court lawsuit when Henry Ford wanted to reserve a large amount of cash for "a rainy day" (Ford was a very stingy person) for the corporation rather than pay out dividends to its stockholders.  A stockholder sued the company for payment of dividends and won the suit. 
 
I've posted on face book about the specific issues taging Whitman.  The issue regarding insider trading is not problematic.  First, insider trading is not a crime.  Second, insider trading is common because the regulations that control stock trading are so cumbersome that it is easy for major stockholders to do this without knowing that they have violated some obscure regulation regarding how they can and can't trade stocks.  Remember, Martha Stewart's problems?  Her trading problems hinged on the specific timing of when she came to to know certain information.  Oh, by the way, her crime was not insider trading but lying to a federal investigator.  The violation of insider trading is similar to being caught going 45 in a 35 mile per hour zone in your car.   You were probably speeding because you didn't pay attention to your spedometer.  No crime - just pay the fine and be more careful next time. 
 
What we fundametally also don't understand is that corporations exist to give people jobs and make money for its ownership.  Corporations are generally restrained by the values of our culture.  Corporates must balance the need to be profitable with the need to be competitive.  Their charge for services or products is balanced by these two competing factors.  They can't artifically set their prices high without understanding how this affects their competitiveness.  They can't set their prices artificially low to increase market share without understanding how this affects their profitability.  Without profit, they close.  People lose jobs.  Stockholders lose their investments.  That's bad for everyone. 
 
So, in this present election cycle, don't judge a person by their past corporate relationships.  In reality they were doing the general public a great service by making sure their corporations were profitable.  They were being responsble to their stockholders and probably to you, too!. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Saving Our Future Children Today

Posted by GregB on Monday, October 18, 2010 6:07:59 PM
 
This blog article is being written out of the frustration of a phone call I received today.  Generally, my frustration is focused on the total disintegration of society regarding parenthood and traditional values as evidenced in the tragedy of children born outside of the context of marriage. 
 
I got a call today from a 22 year old single mother.  She has a 3 year old boy.  It seems the father was attempting to gain primary physical custody of the child.  The mother and father were never married.  About now you are probably saying, "What's so frustrating about this?"  Here's the additional facts.  Father is 20 years old.  Do the math.  Yes, he was 17 when he fathered this child.  Father is living with his parents and not working full time.  Mother is going to move in with boyfriend number 3 who lives 2 counties away.  Mom is only working part time and mom has a younger (yes that's correct) daughter by a second dad/boyfriend.  Now you get the picture of the depth of my frustration and angst over this situation.  Mom was calling me to represent her because this 20 year old sperm doner, who isn't working and who is still living at home with his parents, some how thinks that he is the better parent. 
 
As I pondered this mess, I came to some conclusions.  We have failed our younger generation in that we havent taught them the value and supreme importance of birthing and raising children in a two parent home evironment.  We have developed a cultural environment that in essence damns marriage and have rewarded single parenthood caused by irresponsibility.  Now, I understand that single parenthood can't be avoided in some situations but this case is different and not unlike thousands of others that take place each day. 
 
There was a time when our culture frowned on those either got pregnant or got someone pregnant outside of marriage.  There was a general shame placed on women who habitually put themselves into situations where they were involved in multiple births without the context of marriage.  We shamed men who non-challantly engaged in sex and caused a pregancy without taking the responsibility of fatherhood and marriage. 
 
The answer to this is not abortion nor is it rewarding single mothers with additional support through welfare, unemployment or the defeating program of W.I.C.  I'm advocating that we destroy these public programs as there are many who receive these funds for very just reasons.  But when it comes to the irresponsibility as exhibited in my example above, when do we tell these people to grow up.  When do we say that it's better to place these small children into a guardianship while the birth parents decide to get their lives together.  Oh, and when do we start saying to these irresponsible baby-makers that they will have to pay for the support of these children - both the babybaker and the sperm donner. 
 
At the bottom of this mess, are two babies, children who will have to struggle with the immaturity of two "adults" who brought them into this world.  God can graciously protect them but these children deserve better.  Our society deserves better.  Lets return to some good old fashioned values. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why we shouldn't be burning the Book of Koran

Posted by GregB on Wednesday, September 08, 2010 6:00:05 PM
The news story of the Florida pastor who has scheduled a day of burning the Koran has gone viral.  The internet news sources, social networking and especially facebook postings have chattered about this for the past several days.  The emotional reactions are charged on both sides of this debate and often the rhetoric is ugly. 
 
I am both a conservative Republican and a Christian.  So, I watch this debate with keen interest.  I am disturbed by the level of hate in the language that I have seen from both sides of the issue but particularly I am disturbed by seemingly good Christians who have let their anger get in the way of integration of their faith on this matter.  The heated conversation that I am most concerned about are the words that this nutcase pastor is justified.  Comments such as "Its about time someone stood up and said something" to "We've got to stop letting these guys push us around" and "Let's stop being wimps on this" give me concern.  My position is that this pastor is out of line and what he is doing is contrary to what Christ calls Christians to be and do regarding our reactions to the evils of Islam.  One post demanded any scripture that says that we can't burn these books.  So, I am here trying to take up the gauntlet and here is the scripture that supports opposition to the wrong that this pastor is doing. 
 
First, let me give clarity.  I do not support Islam or the radical Islamic agression preached by such groups as Hamas or the Islamic enemies of the U.S.  I do see Islam as a threat to our country's freedom and we need to be vigilant.  But the reaction by this pastor must be critiqued within the contect of Christian faith.  Second., while this may seem arrogant, I do know a thing or two about scripture. I have an M.Div. from a leading seminary, served 18 years in ministry, taught New Testament in a Bible College and Seminary and engaged in Ph.D studies in New Testament before becoming an attorney.  I know my NT Greek and the basic fundamental of scripture exegesis.  I am no nephyte when it comes to scripture. 
 
I believe that the first and foremost teaching is Christs Sermon On the Mount as recorded in Matthew when it comes to the application of scripture to this situation.  The sermon is contained in Matt 5 through 7.  The intent of the sermon was to help the followers of Christ understand how the principles of His Kingdom applied to a secular society and to those who were enemies of the faith, namely the Romans and their control of anything that appeared to be antithetic to what Christ preached.  Not unlike the current situation where Islam is opposed to Christian faith. 
 
In Matt 5:9 Christ stated that "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God."  In verse 16 Christ admonished the hearers to let their light shine so that they may see their good works."  In verses 38 through 42 admonished the hearer to go an extra mile for those who would abuse them.  In verse 43 Christ commanded them to ". . .love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those tho hate you and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you."  Jesus then said that the result of this is that you may be sons of your Father in heaven
 
Paul taught that the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, longsuffering, etc. against such there is no law that forbids this but also taught that anger is an action of the flesh and not in line with those who live by the Spirit of God (Eph 4 and Gal 5).  Psalms 34 admonishes to seek peace and pursue righteous and do good to those who persecute us.  The Psalms are repleat with admonishions that it is God who will avenge our enemies and it is God who is ultimately the one who brings justice and that we are to trust God to do this.  So, in my opinion, this pastor in Florida is seeking to do what is contrary to God's word.  I pray that he sees the wisdom of God's word and changes his actions.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Racism, the Left and the Media

Posted by GregB on Tuesday, September 07, 2010 4:54:42 PM
The recent debate on the GZM (Ground Zero Mosque) has been interesting.  The leftists and the media have attempted to reshape the debate into a debate on racism.  They have tried to paint the opponnents of the GZM as racists.  The attempted to do the same with the Glen Beck rally the last weekend of August as an attempt to discredit its supporters.  Now comes a recent story about a crazy and stupid Florida pastor that wants to have Koran Burning day.  Again, the left and the media really wants to keep the issue of racism alive to justify their reason for their existence.  I suspect that Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson arent' too far behind as they also stand to profit from the continued racism debate and they certainly seek the limelight on these types of stories. 
 
Today, my wife and I were eating lunch in the hospital cafeteria while waiting for my mom to recover from some surgery.  We noticed groups of employees that were multi-ethnic in their make-up.  At a table next to us, a group of about 10 employees, some Afro-Americans, Hispanics and Asians along with just plain old white folks were sharing great conversations and friendship.  At a nearby table a white male was sharing friendship with an Afro-American female.  A few tables away, a white male was sharing lunch with a hindu male.  We saw other numerous examples of multi-ethnic friendships taking place.
 
It is my observation that the vast majority of Americans are not racists.  We work together, attend school together, go to little league together and generally co-exist in harmony in many aspects of our lives.  While many communities are still not integrated to the same extent as our work places, at to the same extent we still have work to do in integrating our churches, American's are racists.  For the most part, we don't really care about the color of another's skin or their ethnic roots. 
 
In large part, I attribute this to the broad foundation of shared judeo-christian values that we share as a blended country.  One constant of our culture is the affinity that we share in our religious experience.  While Christianity is not the religion of all, it has roots in the vast majority of our lives.  At some point we also had roots in other cultures and countries but have had to put those differences aside to blend and build our country.  Yes, we still have a few nook and crannies inour culture where racism is till alive, but by andlarge we get along just fine.  It is just a little discouraging when the media decides to highlight the few nutcases as if they were representative of the rest of us.  I also tire of the Al Sharptons and Jessie Jacksons who really don't want racism to end as it would threaten their own existence and dry up their cash cows of support.  We just need to keep on doing what we are really good at and that is treating people with respect and dignity and igorning the Left and its own left leaning media. 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Entrepreneurship and Public Education in California

Posted by GregB on Sunday, August 22, 2010 9:17:25 PM
 California is in deep trouble.  The state is virtually bankrupt.  Unemployment is at an all time high which adds to the state budget problems.  Public education is in deep trouble but we keep on crying for more money as if that will raise our graduation rates, reading proficiency, increase SAT scores and decrease our dreadful drop out rates.  More money would mean an increase in our budget and it would almost be followed by an increases in taxes.  Both of these options are not acceptable against the backdrop of our state's financial woes.  But there is hope. 
 
We are faced with an choice for governor.  I do have a choice but I don't want this post to degrade into a specific political endorsement.  Rather, I want to offer my suggestions on how California can improve its public educational services and be fiscally responsible at the same time. 
 
Here are my suggestions
First, 40% of our state's k-12 education budget is eaten up by bureaucratic costs in Sacramento.  60% of the educational budget actually goes to local schools.  That's unacceptable.  Public education is controlled from the top down.  That is also unacceptable as public education must respond to the local needs and be responsive to the uniqueness of each community.   It is impossible for the educational bureaucrats to make policy as a one size fits all for all of our schools.  Based on this we need to:
1.  Cut expenditures at the state level and push more money down to the local schools.
2.  While keeping general state curriculum standards, allow each school district to publish their own plans on meeting basic educational standards
3.  Give each school district a basic stipend for their basic educational needs by setting a minimum per pupil funding foundation.  Require each school district to state how it will improve its educational product in 5 key areas, Graduation rates, drop-out rates, SAT scores, 9th grade profiency exam scores and 12 grade proficiency exam scores.  Give each district a basic funding platform regardless of where it is at now.  But increase its per pupil funding if it increases these markers by say 5%. 
4.  If a school drops below its foundational standard, then require the school district to put together a basic Institutional Effectiveness Plan and have the plan monitored by peers. 
5.  Require each school to publish its record in each of the five key areas above.  Also require schools to inform its community how it has improved their baseline scores.  The three previous suggestions would be fair as some school find it harder to graduate students thenother school districts but they all start at the same basic per pupil funding rate.  They can increase their funding by their own  improvement and not worry about how they compare to other higher performing schools as to their own funding. 
6.  Allow schools to negotiate freely regarding teacher salaries without the pressure of having to entertain individual school unions. 
7.  Allow schools, if they meet their educational goals and also come under budget, to keep their budget  savings as a developmenetn fund for future school programs or faculty improvements. 
8.  Schools that exceed their budget will then be monitored and will not be allowed to increase their per pupil funding. 
 
 
The overall theory of these suggestions is to allow schools to be more entreprenurial and to stop the top-down socialism that pervades the socialistic approach to public education.  Another suggestion would be to allow individual schools to select their own textbooks rather than to be held to an ever strict list of books from Sacramento.  Giving more power, educationally and fiscally, to schools will make them more responsible to their individual constituents.  Its time to put public education back into the hands of the public and into the hands of each community. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Prop 8 and the betrayal of California

Posted by GregB on Friday, August 13, 2010 12:13:19 AM
 
I mentioned on my recent radio program, Law Talk on KSGVradio.com last Saturday at 10 a.m, that there was a possibility that an appeal of Judge Walker's decision would be allowed.  The reason for this is that when a government or government entity passes a law, that government agency can be sued under the 14th Amendment if that law discriminates against a protected class of Americans.  Prop 8 was a law of the state of California.  A law suit was filed against the state and the lawsuit named the Governor in his official capacity, the Attorney General in his official capacity and numerous other state agencies that had the responsibility for implementing Prop 8.  None of these governmental agencies filed a response to the lawsuit.  Governor Schwarzeneger declined to have his legal team file a response as he wanted to remain neutral.  (Note the governator has always support same sex marrriage).  California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown, flately refused to defend Prop 8 from the beginning even though it was his job and duty to defend the laws of this state as the attorney general. 
 
The only entity that defended Prop 8 was the privately funded group, Yes on Prop 8, that wrote the petition and spearheaded the drive to secure the minimum signatures to get it in front of the voters. 
 
The 14th Amendment basically states that any law that is passed by a government or government agency that discriminates is unconstitutional and in order for that law to pass the test of constitutionality, the government agency that passed it must show that it isn't a discriminatory law and there is a compelling government interest in preserving.  The problem here is that there was no government agency that provided a defense.  The theory, then is that because Prop 8 was not defended by a government agency or entity, then the private group, Yes on Prop 8, won't have legal standing to file an appeal. 
 
The bottom line, is that the elected officials of this state let down the majority of Californian's who believe that marriage is a sacred relationship to be reserved for only one man and one woman.  They let us down in what will be a tragic turn of civil procedure that came at us from left field.  The governor and Mr. Brown should be embarrassed to call themselves public servants.  Why now should Californians trust the ultimate key of leadership to a person who had no desire to defend the will of the people of this state. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bristol Palin and the evidence for adoption

Posted by GregB on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:04:57 AM
This week bring revelation that Bristol Palin has called off her second engagement to Levi Johnson.  This tragic situation gives evidence that this family tragedy shows why adoption is a viable choice to preserve and provide the best life situation for a baby born outside of marriage. 
 
First, this article is not intended to be a "Bash Sara Palin" article.  It is clear that Bristol Palin has been a handful and is acting independely of the family in which she was raised and operating out of impulsivness independent of her parents advice and counsel.  What we have seen, though are two young and immature adults mess up their lives and bring into the middle of all of this chaos, an innocent child.  The focus of this is what should have been the best moral environment for this child.  I contend that the Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson matter is a prime example of who adoption should be more highly promoted in our culture.  In short, it would have been better to have placed the child up for adoption then to have allowed this child to exist in a dysfunctional family environment.  My argument is a moral argument.
 
The research is clear in that the best environment for raising a child is one where there is a mother and father who can give the child the guidance and training needed for that child to grow up to be an independent and productive adult.  Children raised in this environment are less likely to be involved in drugs and crime and usually end up better at academic achievement and life success.  The most notable exceptions are those where children end up in single family homes due to the death of a parent.  Note that this statement is limited to children born into single parent environments and not where a child suddenly finds that they are in a single family due to death or divorce. 
 
I have heard the counter arguments.  The most popular is that the child born into this arrangement should be around their blood relationships and a child has a right to be around their blood parents and grandparents.  I have a saying for this.  Blood does not trump morality.  Blood affinity is only as good as the morality of those asserting blood ties.  In short, blood relationships are worthless if the character of those who want to assert it is of a low repute.  Those asserting this are viewing the situation from their own position rather then from the position of what the child needs most. 
 
  Another argument is similar to the previous in that some argue that there might be a disease or illness that will need to be treated by blood relatives and which can only be diagnosed by knowledge of blood relationships.  My usual counter to this is,what disease requires knowledge of blood and inherited genes?  I have never had someone tell me what disease they are talking about.  They believe an unsubstantiated myth.  Secondly, open adoptions will still allow knowledge of the birth parents so that if needed in the future, the parents of the adopted child can inquire if needed of any family disease.  Third, a full knowledge of the genetic family is still available to the parents of the adopted child.  I do not know of any disease that can't already be diagnosed through lab tests and from a history that is known already to the adoptive parents.  The potential of this is so remote, that the risk of not knowing a potential disease is outweighed by the tremendous upside of the benefits of adoption into a home with a mother and father. 
 
There is no doubt that a child born to single parents will experience with a higher degree of probability, poverty and domestic violence and sexual abuse then children from two parent families.  Not that this is an exclusive argument but the probability for success is higher for children of two parent families.  Again, please remember that my context is children born into single families. 
 
I have witnessed first hand situations where a child was born to a young mother and the families of these young mothers successfully negotiated the adoption of the young child into a two parent family.  It was a win-win-win situation for all involved.  On the other hand, as a family law attorney and former family pastor, I have witnessed too many situations where the single mother usually decides to keep the child but thereafter, unbelievable stresses have landed on the shoulders of the parent and children impacting their lives for the worse.  In all of these situations, the problems did not involve disease but character and life values were still vacant producing stresses and problems that  had the child been adopted into a proper home environemnt that would not have happened otherwise. 
 
I do hope and pray that both Bristol and Levi find the path to maturity that they need, not just for their lives, but for the life of the innocent child that their previous immaturity brought forth. 
Tags: adoption  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Tribute To a Saint - Don Peterson

Posted by GregB on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:51:16 PM
I received a communication that at first saddened me but then I realized that a saint had gome home to his well deserved reward.  Rev Don Peterson, a saint and long time warrior for the army of God, passed from this temporary existence into the arms of Jesus and received a richly deserved eternal reward.  Pastor Don was the pastor of a church that my family attended in the 60's and into the early 70's  He and "Sister" Carol, his wife were first missionaries to Indonesia during a very tumultous time in Indonesias history.  They returned to the Federal Way Washington area of greater Seattle and took on the job of pastoring our small congregation.  Their son Dan became a good friend of mine as we were only 2 years apart.  The Petersons were our next door neighbors as well.  In fact our families went on a very memorable camping trip.  Donna, their daughter was a few years younger than I but she was a very responsible young lady. 
 
Pastor Don and Carol took over our church and led into a very vital era and instituted spiritual growth and revival among the congregation and youth group.  They took a chance and hired a young and vibrant black man, Matt Lambert, to lead the youth of our white church and Matt was a great hit and success.  They gave us youth a chance to exercise our giftings and talents.  But most importatnly they were models of integrity and spirituality.  Pastor Don was truly a loving pastor who was dedicated to the preaching of the gospel and had a heart for sharing the gospel with the community.  Pastor Don and Carol left after a few years as it was my impression that the call of missions and Indonesia was too strong for them to say as the pastor of our church.  They returned to Indonesia but left a legacy in our congregation.  They successfully raised Dan and Donna, their children, to be secure and successful adults who are faithfully serving the church of God and are faithful to the calling of Christ.  "Sister Carol" will miss her beloved husband but I know that she will be comforted by family and friends.  I know that when Pastor Don entered the gates of heaven, he got a well deserved "Well done thou good and faithful servant." 
Tags: saint  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Immigration - Calling Out The Idiots

Posted by GregB on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:14:02 PM
Today's decision by a federal judge to issue an injunction on the implementation of Arizona's immigration law was a no-brainer.  But right after this decision was handed down, some of my fellow conservative personalities in the radio talk show arena immediately started to show their idiocy and ignorance on this matter.  

I am specifically calling out Rush Limbaugh and Mike Gallager.  While I agree with these two giants most of the time, I often find myself frustrated at their lack of understanding of the legal system in general and the illegal immigration debate in general.   Limbaugh railed against the judge today as if the judge had made a decision against the law and he was arguing that the judge's decision was an injustice against Arizona and it was wrong.  Gallager had been arguing for the law but his arguments were convoluted and it was clear he didn't have a clue as to what the real issues were.  

First, today's decision by the judge to issue the injunction was only the kindergarten version of a legal time out.   Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, there are some significant legal issues that need to be settled on this cutting edge law.  The Obama administrations suit against Arizona to have the law declared unconstitutional is on going.  It will undoubtedly go all the way to the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS).  The judge in today's decision was faced with a dilemma.  If Arizona is allowed to go ahead and implement the law, and then if SCOTUS determines the law to be invalid, then all of those who were arrested, sentenced and fined, would have claims against the government.  Additionally this would create an administrative nightmare of having to reverse all of these convictions, sentences and refunds of fines paid.  The judge had to do what is called a balancing of the hardships.  In the long run, if indeed Arizona is allowed to proceed and SCOTUS overturns the law, then these hardships were more inequitable then if Arizona is restrained but later it is found that the law is not unconstitutional.  

That is all that is going on.  The judge has not made any decision regarding the merits of the current lawsuit against Arizona filed by the Obama Administration.  The injunction does not in any way signal to the presiding judge in the federal lawsuit that the Obama Administration is right.  There are substantive issues that need to be decided.  

The purpose of this is to call out Rush Limbaugh and others who have overreacted due to ignorance on the law and the procedures.  It is my belief that they are hurting the cause of this law and inciting unneeded emotional reactions.  

While I believe that the law is probably constitutional, there are significant issues of preemption that must be looked at by the courts.  The last thing we need is state lawmakers and federal lawmakers getting in each other's way and in doing each other's work.    We all need to step back and take a deep breath and let the courts do what they are required to do constitutionally.  
Tags: immigration  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Legalize Marijuana -NO

Posted by GregB on Monday, July 26, 2010 10:30:58 PM
  A facebook friend recently asked other friends to wade in on the topic of whether we should legalize marijuana or keep it illegal.  I didn't have the time to respond to his facebook question at that time, but now's the time to post my opinions on this highly controversial issue. 
 
The authority to regulate drugs and drug distribution rests first in the Federal government through the department of alcohol, tobacco and firearms.  Additionally the constitution also allows individual states to pass laws where necessary concernin the health, safety and education of its citizens.  Currrent laws reflect the general opinion that drugs of the kind of which marijuana is part of, are not in the best interests of the public and do not promote the general welfare.  The general public recognizes that this drug does present a health hazard and therefore we have stated through our laws that this drug is harmfull to the general public.
 
Some have tried to argue that marijuana is no more intoxicating and no more harmful than alcohol and it is hypocritical to regulate marijuana but not alcohol.  This argument is wrong for a number of reasons.  First, while prohibition was generally looked down on an viewed as afailure, the record shows that indeed crime and alcohol related crimes plummeted during the prohibition.  Additionally it is unfair to look at that time period and compare it to our times given the fact that auto ownership was not as pervasive in our culture then as it is now.  But prohibition also led us to understand that the free flow of alcohol would be a general health problem and create safety problems.  We regulate alcohol in its sales and distribution.  We have come to understand that alcohol is dangerous when it comes to mixing it with driving and other activities.  We prohibit alcohol consumpion for pilots at least 8 hours prior to flying.  In my own profession. alcoholism could be the basis to suspend an attorney's license.  In short, alcohol presents problems for our society.  Marijuana would do the same.
 
On the effects of marijuana and alcohol, the immediate effect of marijuana on our physical performance is alot stronger and more potent than alcohol.  Smoking one small reefer or an ounce of marijuana has almost immediate effects on performance and physical functioning whereas an ounce of alcohol consumption, consumed in a normal fashion has almost no immediate effects.  The social drinking of a normal beer has very little effect on the consumer whereas smoking one joint will bring on mind altering effects almost from the first puff.  The lasting effects of an ounce of marijuana is alot longer and more devastating than the effects of drinking one beer or one bar/grain drink. 
 
The addictive effects of marijuana are potentially more problematic then the actual effects that happens to a smoker.  There is no question that marijuana is often a gateway drug to more menacing and harmful drugs.  Alcoholism addiction adds billions of dollars in health care costs.  Alcoholism is an evil that is  not totally communicated but its effects are deadly.  Alcoholism causes last wages, it divides families, it leads to potential domestic abuse, homelessness, and financial ruin.  Given the intensity and stonger effects of marijuana, is it really a good thing to legalize it?  I postulate that legalized marijuana will astronimically increase the social problems that alcoholism has already caused our culture. 
 
There is also scientific evidence that we dont' understand all of the harmfull effects and chemicals that come from smoking marijuana.  We understand the effects of alcoholism at it is costly and debilitating.  Why would we allow a drub to circulate in our society where we don't really understand its harmful effects.  We are already seeing that today's marijuana is far more potent then the marijuana that was dealt 20 years ago. 
 
Finally, there is no need to legalize marijuana as all of the alleged uses of it for good reasons are already encompassed with current drugs that have far less negative effects on us then the unknown and risky potential effects of marijuana.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »