Is there such a thing as a moral dilemma? Of course there is. We deal with it every day. If I put my mind to it I can give you numerous hypothetical examples. However, my mind does not want to work that hard today. Suffice it to say, moral dilemmas exist.

My most recent short story creation focuses on a moral dilemma. It is based on a true story. If you are at all interested you can find it listed as: "The Lie That Never Was" . Is it possible for a lie to be morally acceptable? I think there are situations where that may be true. For example, my mother-in-law was 96-yrs old and in very tenuous health. Her favorite son-in-law died and the entire family withheld that information from her. She would have been devastated. What would be the good in sharing that distressful information in a person's final moments. Would that lie be wrong?

As indicated in the above referenced story, I recently experienced a situation that presented me with a moral dilemma. I made my decision, but now I wonder about it. What is the right decision? Nevertheless, I must now live with it. I can do that.
 

OK, rarely do I get pissed to the point where I call people names. But, this is one of those times. There is a real jerk out there in WDC-land. Of the hundreds of thousands who wander in and out of this site, I'm sure it is not surprising to find one. I mean, I knew it before...I'm just confirming it now.

Like many of you, I check in to my site periodically. I usually check the summary stats to see how many visits my material has had and to see what is being read. I have a piece ("Footprints in the Sand" ) that is apparently featured on some newsletter or other such site, because for the last week it has sported several visits daily. Yesterday it had sixteen visits. That's not a lot, but when a piece receives that kind of attention over a week or so, it tells you that a few folks out there are looking at it.

Occasionally, only occasionally, one of the viewers stops and gives a review and a rating. That is always appreciated. It isn't necessary at all. In fact the reviews and ratings are not as important to me as the fact that someone is reading my stuff and appears to enjoy it. That's my reward. Now, I noticed that someone, yesterday, had rated the piece. In fact they rated the piece but did not review it. More so, they rated it anonymously. And that is where I got pissed off. The jerk rated it as a 1-Star. In other words it's a piece of junk that is unworthy of the English language. Fortunately, up to this point the piece carried a 4.5-Star rating and could withstand this pompous idiot's thoughtless act.

Now, I don't think I have ever rated a piece with a 1-Star...never. I have never, ever seen anything so poorly written in WDC such that it deserved a 1-Star. I don't have a problem with anyone thinking my work is junk. Everyone is subject to their own tastes. I have definitely seen work in here that certainly is not my "cup of tea." When I stumble into something like that I usually back out of the site as tactfully as I can, keeping my opinions to myself. But, I have never, ever, never rated a work with a negative rating and not provided a review supporting my reasons. And, I have NEVER given a One-Star. I mean, one of the purposes of this site is to help us become better writers. The only way we can do that is if we give each other constructive criticism. I don't know your position, but what this jerk did isn't it. Especially, anonymously...now, how constructive is that?

My only saving thought is that that jerk of a person was mistaken. I mean, could it be that he was confused and thought One-Star was the best and a 5-Star was terrible? I would like to think that, because the only other alternative is that somewhere out in WDC-land we have a lazy, cowardly, sniveling jerk running up and down the halls making a complete ass of him/herself. Surely, that isn't the case. Hmmm...does this qualify as a rant?


 

         There are a lot of good spots in our house. There’s the spot upstairs in my study under the big picture window. If you choose to camp out there you can sit in the easy chair and watch the world pass by from that elevated viewpoint. The Crepe Myrtle trees are big enough now that they frame the windows with scores of lovely purple flowers. And there is the space downstairs next to the piano. You can snuggle into one of the captain’s chairs by the window looking to the street. That’s the most likely space to steal time alone out of the hustle and bustle of the commotion in the house. Then there is the spot next to the fireplace in the family room. Although we seldom have the fire going, it still affords a comfortable environment being next to the massive inside tree and the windows looking out into the garden. Of course you can always settle in to the spot in the bedroom, where it is kept dark enough to sleep and light enough to read, which usually lends itself to doing a little bit of both on rainy days.

         With all these prime places to snuggle up and snooze away your idle moments it amazes me that my dog Max chooses none of them. Rather, he chooses the one underneath my feet at my desk—close enough that I can reach down and stroke his back and scratch him behind the ear. I suppose I should consider myself a lucky man, indeed, that that silly dog would rather be nowhere else except with me. Every time I prepare to leave the house I see him watching me with expectation, waiting for me to say, “OK, you can go.” And as I drive down the road with him propped up next to me watching the birds on the power lines and looking for cows in the passing fields, I know he is there because he wants to be with me. And in his own way he has done what many have never done—he makes me feel very special.

         He’s lying there beneath my feet as I write this—sound asleep, occasionally snoring, trusting and content with his world. He’s where he wants to be, and I’m glad and very grateful that he is there.

 

A fellow writer, Dennis Page, recently penned an excellent article stating how lucky he felt for finding ViewsHound. His words were eloquent, truthful, appropriate, and garnered agreement and praise from scores of viewers, as well they should. However, they also touched a nerve in me. I've long had a reluctance regarding the word 'luck.'

It is overused and misused often. Although considered as being a synonym for the word 'fortune,' there is a subtle shade of difference between the two words. The best way I can describe it is by the use of a few analogies.

Luck is randomly choosing a series of winning numbers for the lottery. Even more luck is having those numbers selected. While on the other hand, fortune is having the ability to reason and choose those numbers. Luck is finding a parking space up front near the restaurant entrance. Even more luck is having it remain open as you successfully negotiate your way to claim it. On the other hand, fortune is being able to drive your car to the restaurant. Luck is finding the last music box in the store for your wife for Christmas. Even more luck is having them wrap it for you at no charge. And, most importantly, fortune is having her as your wife and knowing she doesn't care what the wrapping looks like.

Fortune, like luck, is the presence of rewarding, gratifying, and often pleasant conditions or experiences. However, different than luck, fortune is often the product of our actions—not always, but sometimes. For example, I am fortunate to live in a nice home. And, although I believe I am fortunate to be an American, that was totally out of my control, being I was born American. However, the fact that I live in a nice home has much to do with the commitment and persistence I dedicated to education and vocation. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to study and work, but my current status is due to neither fortune or luck, but hard work. Coming from a dirt-poor background, I can assure you luck had little to play in this; however fortune was abundant.

This was driven home to me recently, actually several years ago, as I was sharing a private moment with my eight-year-old granddaughter.

Out of the blue she replied, "Granpa, you sure are lucky."

Somewhat surprised I asked, "Why do you say that Lauren?"

"Well, you and Granma live in this big house and have all this stuff."

Considering the source, I smiled and agreed, "Yes, darling, Granpa is surely lucky."

However, I realized luck had very little to do with it. Fortune abounded, but work and dedication was fortune's team-mate. Through decades I lived and toiled, experiencing the down times as well as the rewards. There were many times when we had to decide which bill to pay: the water or the electricity. I stood with my hat in my hand many times asking creditors for patience while I met my obligations. I stood at the graveside of loved ones wondering how in the world I could continue without them. Until eventually I found myself in the presence of an adorable little girl who proclaimed I was lucky to have what I had. I could not disagree; however, a part of me wanted to strongly protest that luck had little to do with it. I am what I am by doing it the old fashioned way; I earned it. I was supremely fortunate to have the opportunity and ability to work; however, luck had little to do with it.

So, with unbridled love and devotion, I can hold that precious little girl, who is today sixteen, and whisper, "Yes, Lauren. Granpa is very very lucky." However, I know the score. I know the difference between luck and fortune. I'm sure that in time she will also.
 

I understand a Brahma cow has free reign in the Hindu world. Brahmas are treated with respect and permitted to go and do as they wish. They are untouchable—sacred. It appears that the same sentiment is applied in our own country regarding the Social Security program. Running the risk of tampering with this sacred cow and bringing down the wrath of the multitude, I'd like to discuss it in relation to trading in the stock market.

I'm convinced people don't want to read articles about trading stocks. I've reached that conclusion because every article I've ever written about investing in stocks has taken a nose-dive. No one cares. So, I've decided to write this one to prove my point. Anyway, I've come to the end of another year of investing in the stock market. Now, I'm no Donald Trump, so my portfolio is rather limited. But I have a mixture of stocks and mutual funds, which are invested in a number of growth products.

A couple of years ago I was very fortunate in that my portfolio grew at a rate of 23% that year—not a bad annual growth rate. However, that was then; this is now. After twelve months of watching, studying, charting, selling, and buying I find that I am right where I began on the first day of 2011—no growth from my growth products. Although the market has created quite a commotion by taking historic falls and perplexing recoveries, it remains even in the last moments of this year. A roller-coaster is an apt comparison.

Bear with me now; this is where this discussion gets sort of tedious. If you look at a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial averages (DOW) from 1900 to the present (http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html) you will understand better the relationship of the stock market and financial history of our nation. In the time period, exceeding 100 years, the definitive event was the Crash of 1929. Interestingly, the Crash did not occur on that date; it simply began then. Over a period of a few years it plummeted to its all-time low, which interestingly was not lower than the high recorded for 1900. However, it took forty-six years to recover to the place it held on Black Thursday, October 29, 1929.

Nevertheless, if you had had a hundred dollars to invest in the stock market in 1933, you would have seen your investment steadily increase in market value all the way till around 1962, where it would have been worth almost eighteen times its original value. There was a plateau in the market from 1962 till 1983 and then it once again began climbing rapidly. That one-hundred dollar investment in 1933, the very depth of the depression, would be worth $31,000 today. Had the investment been one-thousand dollars, of course the amount would be $310,000. And, of course, that's not including any investments added to the original one-thousand dollars.

The recent stock market drops following 9-11 and in 2008 after the housing crisis are certainly significant. However, in the scheme of things, when considering the historic trends of the stock market, they are little more that corrections in the market. They have not represented a full-fledged crash. They are rather a sideways movement with volatile falls and rises, similar to what was experienced between 1962 and 1983. Now, this is not to say times are not bad. They most certainly are. What it implies is, that as bad as times are, the market is still tracking true to its history. That means in the future we should expect a steady upward movement of the market for a number of years. The big question for us who are living in this particular moment in history is when will that upward movement begin?

Now all this brings me to the topic I really wanted to discuss. For fifty years the Social Security Administration has had my money to invest. The money in my SS account is principal deducted directly from my paycheck; the federal government has not added one penny to it. I can't see that they have done much better than I have done myself. Upon my retirement, the federal government will allocate funds back to me that I have put in over my working years. It is doubtful I will receive the total amount I put in. In fact, the federal government is betting that I will not. They intend for me to die before I receive the complete amount. They will still dole some out to my wife, but they are betting she won't last long either. And that is what we call social security.

I suspect you recognize this as being a conservative position. But I was wondering; why not let each citizen manage a portion of what they pay into the Social Security System? It is their money after all. I assure you, each of us has our own best interest at heart. Whereas the federal government cares little about our personal interest but rather is busy mismanaging the mega-bucks pouring into Social Security from all of us.

Now, I suspect there are many folks who contend that, although I may be capable of managing my own money, there are many people who can't. That's very true. For those folks, let professional money managers, much like mutual fund managers, manage the money. Large corporations do this with 401K funds every day. Or, a novel idea would be to let those folks with queasy stomachs simply opt out and leave well enough alone. Just do it like it's done today. But, at least give us the option. I can assure you there would be more money in the system to spread around. There certainly would not be less.

By all means the stock market is complicated. However, it is not that difficult once you do a little study—especially in this age of the Internet. With training and a little experience, even a novice can invest wisely and make more money than the Social Security Administration does. I've never understood why people revolt against managing their own stocks. If I could show you how you could make as much money as you do now and spend half the time doing it, would you not consider it? The amazing thing is most folks would not, because they simply don't believe it. There is a phobia against dealing with the stock market. There are old wives tales of bankruptcy and financial ruin resulting from trading in the stock market, which when done wisely is simply not the case. Besides, all this talk of stocks is boring and tedious.

What happens is people get the idea imbedded in their minds that only a stock broker is qualified or smart enough to understand the market and they therefore leave it alone, as if it were a forbidden fruit? I can assure you, as nice as that broker may be—even if he's your brother—they are not as concerned with your personal finance as you are. Brokers make money by selling and buying stocks; it's that simple. Whether you gain or lose makes no difference to them; their money comes from moving stocks in or out of your portfolio—or administrating the fund. They may feel badly that you lose money, but they still get paid. Trust me; I had a very good friend who brokered our Simple IRA fund for our company, who placed the funds in very safe, low returning funds. Thank you for not losing our money, but shame on you for not taking advantage of solid growth opportunities where the return was double or triple. We were forced to take management of our own accounts to right the situation.

Social Security is starter money. Everyone I know has to subsidize that fund with some other retirement fund or income. If I were to retire solely on my Social Security benefit, I would be below the poverty level. Had I had control over that fund, it would have easily been doubled. I expect some folks to vehemently argue against me regarding this. Any system that permits an individual to manage his own Social Security funds would certainly have to have regulations controlling wild investment schemes. Fine, put those controls in place. Controls to protect against mismanagement is easily applied. Even with limited control over fund management, the returns would be much better than what the Social Security Administration has proven they can do. Why not provide that option for those who choose to do so? It really is their money after all. That's a little detail the federal government seems to keep forgetting.
 

Monday 19 Dec 2011

I’m a little confused. As I watch the news on television I am assailed with the woeful plight of the economy in America. Now, I know these people are not lying to me. When they tell me folks are out of jobs and there are few to be found, I believe them. When they tell me folks are losing their homes and foreclosures are running rampant like a wildfire through our nation, I believe them. When the protestors cry that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and jobs are nowhere to be found, I really want to believe them. Every day, pundits cite studies and figures proving we are in a recession and it’s getting worse. Surely the end of the economic world is precariously balanced on the edge of destruction.

So, why is it every teenager I see has an iPhone and drives a new car—or at least newer than mine. Why is it that the stores can’t keep up with sales of the latest Kindle Fire or iPad tablet? I know I can’t afford one. Who is buying that stuff? Who is spending that money? Surely it can’t be the downtrodden 99%.

My wife and I are semi-retired. I would be fully retired but just can’t afford it right now. But, being semi-retired, we splurge a little and eat out often. After spending forty-five years preparing meals for her family, I consider my wife has earned a vacation from the kitchen, unless of course she wants to be in there. As we visit our favorite restaurants I notice I am not dining alone. Heck, on most evenings we have to wait in line. The restaurants are full. Surely not all those folks are semi-retired old fogies like me. Someone is spending money on go-in-and-sit-down food.

This Christmas I made a visit to the mall to do a little shopping. Do you believe they had police officers directing traffic in and out of the malls? I had to park in the north-forty to get a parking space and then made a trek into the mall area, which was crowded with people. Do you suppose all those people were window shopping or do you think they were buying stuff, spending money? Well, by the evidence of the bags they were carrying, everyone bought something. That is everyone except me. I turned around at the door and came home to do my shopping on my computer, which by the way worked fine.

I see a few foreclosure signs in our neighborhood. That is so sad. I hate that someone has fallen on distressed times. However, I also see new folks moving into those houses. Someone is buying houses out there. Although, granted, there are parts of the Rust-Belt which have been devastated—places like Detroit. I suppose many of those folks have come down to where I live, looking for new opportunities.

And, lastly, the unemployment figure confuses me somewhat. Let’s see; according to the Bureau of Labor the unemployment rate nationally for November 2011 was around 8.6%. That means 91.4% of Americans had jobs. Certainly, some of those jobs were menial and low paying jobs; but they were jobs, nevertheless. Am I mistaken to understand that almost everyone has a job, at least 91.4% of the folks?

My quandary is this. I don’t doubt that some folks are experiencing exceedingly hard times. In fact, I suspect most folks have to be very prudent with their spending. And, I don’t doubt for a second that there are some folks out there who have lost their jobs and just can’t seem to find a new one. That certainly must be the case. However, when we compare this to the Great Depression, where there were soup lines stretched down the streets, where folks literally had no money for necessities, much less luxuries, and where life savings were wiped out by bank runs, our current condition just does not sync.

Somehow we are living in a different kind of poverty and distress—one where each member of the family has a car, communicates by iPhones, and has wireless Internet access. Most kids have a flat-screen TV in their room hooked up to a GameBoy. This modern depressed society waits in line for movies, concerts, and wears the latest clothing fad. But, rather than wait in a soup-line, they wait in Line at McDonald’s for a super-sized meal. Somehow the distressed multitude of our time are still able to spend money like it grows on trees. How do we do that? Do you think it is because we have developed a society which is used to spending someone else’s money—a society who thinks it is justified and entitled to go into debt just because everyone else is doing it? And, could it be because we have a corporate America who is more than willing to loan people money they don’t have for a small fee, knowing they will never collect on the loan? No wonder our government is in debt; it appears the people condone it.

I don’t know. I’m just confused with what I see and what I’m told. Am I the only one?
 

Sunday 18 Dec 2011

I read an article the other day addressing Internet compulsion/disorder … or something like that. That kernel of thought has planted itself in my mind and is germinating. I wonder if I am a casualty of such an affliction. Like any addict I disdainfully shake my head and say, “No that’s not me. I can stop anytime I want to.” However, I find myself behind this screen, banging on the keys, and putting out a new article to publish.

First response: I’m not wasting time; I’m being creative. I am a writer. Well, that’s not quite true. I am really a businessman—in fact, a pretty good one. Over the last thirty years I’ve formed a consulting firm and established a solid reputation with my clients. I have a wall covered with degrees and awards testifying to my commitment to my profession. And yet, I find myself putting off client deadlines as I edit and hone an article for ViewsHound which will earn me little, particularly in comparison with my fee as a professional consultant.

Second response: Writing and posting to the Internet fills a need to be creative. Ah, partial truth—see how we fool ourselves? As a child I wrote short stories. I have always enjoyed writing. With the advent of the Internet I have rekindled that passion, joining a few writer’s sites and sharing my written creations. Occasionally, someone outside my ring of influence offers encouraging accolades, praising some piece I’ve written, encouraging me, which is nice of them but not helpful in fighting my Internet compulsion. I have even become my own fan on occasion after reading something I thought was particularly well written. “Dang, that’s good!” I fawn dreaming of the Pulitzer Prize it will surely garner. I can’t understand why no one has contacted me to inform me of the Prize. Maybe they don’t have my address.

Third response: I really don’t spend that much time on the Internet. Well, I don’t know how to measure that. How much is too much? I suspect I spend more than I should because I feel guilty about it. Yeah, I know I should be cranking on that boring study for my client, racking up the billable hours. But, I still manage to pay the bills and meet the deadlines. However, I know I could have spent more time on my clients. I have long ago forsaken the 40-hour work week. I tell myself it’s because I’ve paid my dues. It’s now time to slow down—to do the things I enjoy like writing. True, but, how much of my slowing down is due to redirected interest in the Internet and how much is due to slowing for retirement?

Fourth response: It’s a good social thing—much like golf. It’s nothing like golf. Heck, I don’t even play golf, so how should I know. Social as the Internet may be, I don’t think it is the same. I do get to meet a lot of folks—well virtually at least. I’ve never been into the ‘chat’ thing, and the porn sites simply don’t interest me. I’m certainly not going to pay someone to talk dirty. What a waste of money. However, I do like meeting new talented and professional people. The writing sites have been ideal for that. Unfortunately, I’m a card carrying conservative and many of my writing friends are flaming liberals. Makes it interesting. Amazingly, I’ve actually made some very close friends through the writing sites; and managed to meet some of them face to face, which was a very rewarding experience, which both my wife and I enjoyed very much.

OK, I have candidly exposed my virtual belly. I admit I spend lots of time on the Internet—lots of time on these writing sites. Am I an addict? Oh, I don’t know. Maybe I spend too much time in here. But, counting this one, I only have eight articles published so far. My most read piece only has 225 views. I’ve got six followers and they don’t ever say anything to me. Now, how social is that? But, yet I come back every morning to check my site. And, I bang out an article or two occasionally. I must admit my other writing site (www.writing.com) has over 270 pieces and 30,000 views. That’s likely the reason I’ve gotten addicted (if I am.); people actually view my stuff—amazing.

I would pursue this in more length but I’ve got to go do some real work. I can’t stay on this thing forever. However, I will most certainly be back.
 

Saturday 17 Dec 2011

It was not my intent to become a conservative. Like most folks, I hate being labeled. My last article in ViewsHound attests to that. However, I suppose I really am a conservative, which is particularly worrisome in a writing community since it seems the lion’s share of folks are liberal minded. Now, don’t argue with me about that; it just appears to be so.

Unfortunately, as soon as I don the conservative label, people look at me strangely. Well maybe not all folks, but a bunch of them do; at least those from around here do. I want you to know right now I’m not particularly proud to be a conservative; I’m not ashamed of it either. I am proud of who I am. I am confident in what I believe, which just happens to measure out to be of the conservative ilk. And, although I am probably not the greatest champion of the conservative standard, I can hold my own when going toe to toe with one of those nasty liberals.

It has taken me sixty-three years of wandering through the mire of politics to finally set my feet on solid political ground. To my amazement I wonder why there are so few up here with me? Could it be there is more than one way of looking at things? Could it be there is more than one way of doing the right thing? Could it be that there are liberal folks standing on solid ground of their own? Of course there are. That’s the thing that amazes me—the great contradiction: there is more than one right answer.

Does simply being committed to my solid ground, when it is different than yours, make me a bad person? Regardless of what ground on which you stand, I believe you could be my friend—unless of course your intent is to harm my family or me out of malice and spite. I have to think that leaves ample opportunity for making lots of friends who stand on all kinds of different ground. However, some folks will not have me as their friend simply because of the conservative ground on which I stand. Some judge me simply because I stand here. Now, I know we all do that to some degree unconsciously. That’s just the way we are made—subjects of our environment and upbringing. But, at times the sentiment against conservative thinking is so venomous it pollutes the possibility of having a new friend. I hate that.

So, what is it I believe that makes me such a bad person? Perhaps I am a little sensitive. But, what do you expect of a person when they are called stupid, close-minded, insensitive, and retarded—all this simply because I’m conservative? I’ll briefly mention a few of the things I believe which seems to encourage this response. Of course, that leaves me open to someone criticizing me from their different solid ground. I’ll take that chance.

Up here on my solid ground I believe individuals are the greatest resources we have. Decisions should be made by individuals with as little interference from the federal government as possible. I believe government should help and protect us, but not provide for our every need. I have other resources for that, and I am an adult capable of directing my own affairs. I believe regulations should be established on the local and state level as much as possible; federal regulation should have a very limited place in my family or finance. Sure, there is a need for some taxes, a strong military to protect our shores, a judicial system to enforce our laws, and a police system to deal with interstate conflicts.

My argument is not whether a poor family deserves assistance; it is who should provide that assistance. Assistance to the poor and needy is all of our responsibility; not the federal government’s. In addition, assistance is not a right; it is a privilege. If and when I need assistance, I want it to be given to me by those who chose to do so, not because they are made to. I give because I care. Of course the question is how do we motivate individuals on the local level to accept that responsibility? That is a difficult task to be sure.

However, it is being done in myriad ways by state governments, civic and service organizations, charitable organizations, religious institutions, and philanthropy by the richest among us—the 1%. To simply pass it on to others is to ignore our responsibility by letting the other guy do it, which in this case is the federal government. We all realize it takes a large bureaucracy for the federal government to do this. And, we can never escape the fact that the larger government gets the more opportunity there is for graft, corruption and inefficiency. In addition, it is documented that as taxes increase, there is a proportional decrease in charitable giving.

Now, do I for an instant believe this can be done totally by individuals and local governments? Of course not—but the involvement of the federal government should be kept at a minimum, which means welfare efforts should focus first from the local level.

An example is the case of federal response to natural disasters. In 1900 the City of Galveston was devastated by a hurricane which was on the scope of Katrina. The estimated deaths were between 6,000 and 12,000 persons. The city was totally destroyed. However, out of the debris the residents rose, dusted themselves off, buried their loved ones and began rebuilding. Over 2,000 buildings were raised to a safe level; some of them being raised as much as seventeen feet. Victims of the Galveston hurricane did not receive federal relief. There were no trailer homes hauled in for temporary housing. Most assuredly there was significant hardship for the victims; some never recovered. However, out of the debris a new city rose which was a testament to the spirit of the individuals. There was no national outcry as to why FEMA did not respond, and the President was not criticized for moving too slowly. There was a national concern as to why there was no warning. But, it was a much different approach than what was witnessed with Katrina (see Isaac’s Storm by Eric Larson.)

A more personal example is of my family home. In 1975 a tornado ripped through central Oklahoma and destroyed our home and the homes of our neighbors. We were fortunate to escape with our lives. As we walked through the rubble of the aftermath, the first to arrive was the fire department followed by the Red Cross and National Guard. FEMA was not to be seen and was not even expected. Neighbors, friends, and the National Guard helped dig through the rubble and secured entry into the area. However, over time, our home was replaced by efforts of my family and friends, without any assistance from the federal government. And that is as it should be.

Those who stand on the ground upon which I stand have often been accused of being insensitive, uncaring, and hateful. Is it insensitive to believe that each of us has a responsibility to be all that we can be, to be productive, and to not expect a free lunch but to be grateful when one is offered to us? To reform the Social Security system does not mean I hate old folks. On the contrary, at sixty-three years of age I am rather fond of that demographic. Similarly, to reform the welfare system does not mean I hate the poor. What I hate is mismanagement of funds and abuse of the program. Reformation of both Social Security and Welfare programs which address mismanagement and abuse would save billions of dollars. And while we are at it, reformation of defense funding can realize significant savings. I am convinced we can still have a strong military and cut the budget.

To acerbate my position even more, I confess I am also a Christian. Goodness, a conservative and a Christian—what a handicap that must be. I don’t see it as such, but some folks do. To identify as being a Christian tells the world I believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and is the avenue to eternal salvation. Why then should it be so scandalous for me to admit that I disagree with the belief of a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, or atheist? I mean, doesn’t the fact that they identify other than I do mean they believe I am in error? I have no problem with them believing that, because they are truthful and faithful to what they believe. I cannot condemn them for what they believe. Just don’t ask me to accept it. I cannot be true to my own faith and believe otherwise.

But, more importantly, whether it is my faith or my political stand, it does not mean I hate those who do not believe as I do. There is room enough in this world for me to accept the right of others to believe as they wish. Just don’t require that I believe as they do. I cannot believe in, accept, or even condone that which I believe is not correct. I cannot believe they are right and remain true to what I believe. That in no way means I hate them. On the contrary I believe they are a creation of God, as am I. As such they are a person of worth, worthy of my respect and affection—until they prove otherwise. This holds true with my faith as well as the place on which I stand politically. That is who I am.

I don’t believe in Keynesian economics. I believe in pouring resources into both large and small businesses and letting them grow and fuel the economy. I believe in taking the shackles off of business which consists of onerous regulations, which doesn’t mean we give businesses license to rape and pillage the land. No, just give them a little slack. Growing businesses create jobs. I know a little about that. I don’t believe in socializing health care. Make health care competitive. Competition has a way of equalizing the field. This doesn’t mean we forget the poor who can’t afford health care. Nope, make it profitable for health care providers to serve the poor in innovative and affordable ways. I’ve found the marketplace is remarkably flexible and innovative in ways the federal government can never be. Let the market do what it does best.

OK, I’ve shown my spots. You see me as I am. I’m not a hateful person. I’m really not a redneck; nor am I some sort of religious fanatic. I do stand on ground that is conservative. But I contend that I can stand here and still be your friend; if you will have me. Oh, I don’t mind if you consider me as being misguided. I may even think the same of you. However, that doesn’t mean I consider any less of you. On the contrary, I value a friend wherever they may be found—on whatever ground they stand.