Election observations

We have purposely avoided discussing the election the past several months, not because we didn’t have any opinions about the issues and persons on the ballot but because the focus for this blog is to share experiences from our life on the road.

Now that the election is over, however, we would like to share a few of our observations about the results. While are disappointed in the results, we are more disappointed in what appears to have motivated so many of the voters. From what we’ve seen and heard, far too many of them based their votes on emotion and the promise of “change,” even though very few of them could express exactly what the change would be or exactly how it would come about.

Also disappointing is the fact such large number of voters can be swayed by superficial promises. More often than not, the candidates are promising exactly the same sorts of things. What they don’t tell us – and what most voters don’t take the time to understand – are the fundamental philosophical differences that shape how they plan to deliver on those promises.

We would hope that more voters would do some serious self-examination about what they believe is the proper role of government in the lives of its citizens. Not until they have a clear understanding of what they want and expect from their government can they be sure they’re voting for a politician that shares those same views.

Satire that hits a little too close to home

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines “satire” as;
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

This piece by Gerard Baker, US Editor and an Assistant Editor for “The Times” (the one in London, not New York) fits this definition “to a T.” Mike and Lori find this particular piece to be effective satire because it builds on a perception that some people have about Barack Obama and takes it to its logical conclusion. And that’s where the sarcasm comes in, because there is no way that Obama – or any human – can “save” the world.

The sad part is that many people do believe that the salvation of mankind will come through the work of human beings, that we can save the world if we all just work together. The reality is that nothing can save the world from its ultimate fate. But that’s not bad news (as we’ll explain later).

What we are seeing now (and have seen for the past several decades) is the continuing move toward a “one world” system prophesied in the Bible. Suffice it to say that the establishment of this final one world system – headed by a world leader that will speak of world peace and broker a 7-year treaty that will allow the re-construction of the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem – marks the beginning of the end (read about it here).

In his recent comments in Berlin, Obama said “Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity… This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace.”

Wow.

Now Mike and Lori aren't saying that Obama is the Antichrist, or that any of this is going to happen tomorrow or the next day. The "who and when" aren't for mankind to know. But it's crucial that we all be ready now.

Fortunately, you don’t have to worry about it. If you’re a Christian you won’t be here to see the worst of it (read about it here.) Of course, that requires that you accept the gift of salvation that God makes available to each and every one of us. It’s easy (read about it here.)

Nanny State

For those of you who wonder what it would be like to have Democrats completely in control of Washington after this November's election, you need look no further than how they plan to run their National Convention in Denver this summer.

As part of their efforts to make their convention the "greenest" ever, they have created a laundry list of rules, regulations, and requirements that highlights just how far they will go to make sure everyone "does the right thing"...or at least what they believe is the right thing. You can get the details from an article appearing on one of the Wall Street Journal's blogs. (Read it by clicking here.)

From requiring that the fanny packs and baseball caps given to the delegates be made in the U.S.A. by union laborers out of organically-grown cotton, all the way to banning fried foods, the Democrats have proven once again they have no problem imposing their values on others through the use of heavy-handed regulations.

We're not saying some of the objectives they would like to acheive with these rules aren't worthy; eating healthy foods, reducing waste, and making efficient use of resources all provide real benefits to individuals and society. But what if I want to eat a corn dog or I like the way a nylon fanny pack looks? It doesn't matter; the convention's "Director of Greening" (yes, that's a real position) has decided those things are bad for you so you can't get them. I shudder to think about how that approach would play out on a national policy level.

Realizing that he may not have the liberty to eat some of the things he likes after November's election, Mike had chili cheese fries for lunch today. He's also thinking about getting the Krispy Kreme street cart concession in front of the Denver convention hall. He suspects that even Democrats like a warm glazed donut every once in a while.

Misplaced faith

Mike came across an Associated Press article today that started out by asking the question, "Is everything spinning out of control?" It went on to list all of the challenges facing Americans today and the resulting feelings of helplessness and discouragement. The answer, it seems, is that most Americans do think things are out of control. (Read the article here.)

While it's disheartening to know that so many people feel so hopeless, what Mike found even more troubling was the implication that most Americans expect to find the solutions to these problems by making "...a change in the party controlling the White House."

That's not to say it doesn't matter who leads our country. Those we select to represent us in Washington can have a tremendous impact - positively and negatively - on the quality of our lives.

But ultimately our hope for the future shouldn't be in any person or group of people. Who better to rely on than the One who knows what we need and is willing and able to provide it. As Jesus has assured us:

"...do not be worried about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? You of little faith! Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?' For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself." Matthew 6:25-34

Mike's newest "hero"

I (Mike) really like the writings of Thomas Sowell (so much so that I've added a link to his website on our "Favorite Links" menu on the right). I stumbled across a commentary of his related to gas prices a few weeks back and have been checking his website ever since.

His style is easy to understand and he cuts right to the heart of whatever topic he's discussing. For those of you who would like to get the conservative point-of-view on today's issues, I encourage you to read Mr. Sowell's pieces.

More on gas prices

Ask people why they think gas prices are so high and most of them will answer "greedy oil companies." Commentator Thomas Sowell has written a great article explaining why they think that, and it's not because it's true. Instead, Mr. Sowell says the real reason - the laws of supply and demand - isn't as "emotionally satisfying" as having a villian to blame and bring to justice.

Click here to read the article.

Education - Who Knows Best; Father or Big Brother?

A couple of recent news items have attracted my (Mike's) attention so I'd like to share them with you and offer my opinion (for what it's worth!).

A recent article from USA Today (click here to read it) talks about a study that has found that more and more of today's teens probably wouldn't understand the title of this post because they've never been exposed to a significant part of America's cultural, political, and social history.

I believe this knowledge is important because it is part of what creates and maintains a "culture." Part of being an American is sharing a basic understanding of things that are uniquely American, including literature, movies, historical events, TV shows, music, etc.

Personally, my day-to-day conversations and much of my writings are filled with references to American culture. For example, anybody who knows me has probably heard me say "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" more than once. Few movies are more beloved in America than the Wizard of Oz. And even fewer phrases can instantly convey - at least to people who know the movie - the concept of imperfect human beings trying to cover up their shortcomings by projecting a strong, intimidating persona. How sad would it be if we as a culture no longer shared that common ground. I'm afraid this study shows we are headed down a path that leads to an America that is less united by common understandings and values.

The question then is how best to pass along that cultural knowledge? The USA Today article talks about a group that believes the answer is to increase the teaching of humanities in our public schools. While I agree our schools should increase the study of classic American literature and place more focus on the social and political context of historical events, I do not believe we should place full responsibility for educating our children on schools - particularly public schools.

That is not to say I think poorly of the people entrusted with teaching our kids. On the contrary, I know many educators - including our daughters Shannon & Elizabeth - who have a God-given gift for teaching and nurturing children. I am thankful there are people like them who are willing to take on this important role in society.

What I am saying is that parents have the ultimate responsibility for the quality of their children's education. That responsibility can be exercised in a number of ways, from supplementing what their kids are learning in public school all the way to home schooling. And exercising that responsibility requires they have the freedom to do so without undue government interference.

Which brings me to the second news item. A recent ruling by California's 2nd District Court of Appeal could have significant impact on parents' ability to home school their children. (Read about it here.) The implications of this ruling are huge. On a practical basis, not only could it mean the end of homeschooling in California, it could significantly impact the ability of private schools to operate (which currently can hire non-credentialed teachers) and independent study programs offered through "charter schools" within the public school system (which have parents supervise their children's education at home).

There is, however, a more frightening "Big Brother" component to this ruling. (If you don't understand the reference, you should read George Orwell's novel 1984 - click here to see the Wikipedia entry about the book.) I believe this ruling by the appeals court is based on the idea that government, not parents and families, should have full responsibility for educating our children; that "they" know best when it comes to what and how our children should be taught and that anything that contradicts the government's approach is, at best, ignorant, and at worst, illegal.

I couldn't disagree with that philosophy more, especially in light of recent California legislation (SB 777) that forbids any materials in California’s public schools that “promote discriminatory bias” toward forms of sexual deviancy, including homosexuality and bisexuality. The practical effect of this law is that phrases like "Mom and Dad" and "husband and wife" and the concept of the traditional family could disappear from public schools, replaced by the idea that homosexuality is a valid, healthy lifestyle without any negative impacts. God's Word says otherwise, a concept that has been backed up by numerous studies. (Click here for a look at the Myths and Facts of homosexuality.)

Homosexuality is just one topic about which I and many other parents feel public schools are sharing wrong - even harmful - information with our children. Parents have a God-given responsibility to raise their children in a way that accuractely reflects His commandments to "Love God" and "Love your neighbor." Therefore, parents should have the right and ability to ensure their children are being educated in whatever way they feel is most appropriate to fulfill that responsibility.

Rest in Peace, Mr. Buckley

William F. Buckley, the person credited with laying the groundwork for modern American conservatism, died today. You can read articles here and here describing Mr. Buckley's life and accomplishments.

My Brother's Keeper

Mike has shared his concerns about the growing sense of entitlement people have about the role of government. People are expecting more from government and less from themselves. The result has been the creation of what radio host Larry Elder calls "victicrats:" "Victi" as in victim, and the suffix "-crat" as in a supporter of a certain kind of ruling body.

The politics of seeing yourself and/or others as victims (as opposed to someone who is responsible for the consequences - good or bad - of their own decisions and actions) have become a very powerful force in America. As a result, more and more tax dollars are being used to fund welfare or entitlement programs. While I agree there are people that truly need help because of circumstances over which they have no control, I don't believe government has the primary obligation to provide that help.

This article from the website of the Heritage Foundation is an excellent discussion of why it's NOT government that should bear the responsibility of being my "brother's keeper."

What does this have to do with trucking? Well, not much except to say Mike and Lori have also seen many employees, including truckers, who bring the entitlement mindset to the workplace, who think the company they work for has an obligation to employ them and to do so in a way that suits them, not the company. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you don't like the work environment, then don't let the door hit you on the way out. At the same, an employeer that truly abuses its employees soon won't have any.