WUI (Writing under the influence)

Somebody once said we are all Americans, sometimes born in the wrong places.
On a warm autumn day in 1986, while enjoying beer with my college buddies,
I decided to join my new homeland.

I've come to appreciate the ideals that helped create this great country.
Liberalism, political-correctness, multiculturalism and moral equivalence
are destroying it.

This old house Grovenet Wal*Mart Visiting Poland American wine better than French.

Sunday, November 19, 2006


It's not all about intentions. Actions matter.

It's easy to be "generous" with somebody else's money but it's something I've long suspected liberals of doing. Now there is proof. And it comes from somebody who was disappointed in his findings.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.


When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."


The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.


Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.


"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

The following paragraph makes me a little angry.
"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

Why would anybody yell at him? If what he writes is fact and can be defended (and it should be easy to defend) everybody should embrace his work. There may be some explanation that would exonerate liberals. For example, I will never vote to in any way to do anything for public education until at least vouchers and preferably school choice become reality. Liberals may say that they are willing to pay more taxes to pay for government programs because they don't believe charity can do as good of a job. I think they are wrong but at least they would have an excuse.

My favorite paragraph:
One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.


First Indians, now us? Why? Don't we learn anything anymore?

So just because we "overran" Indians now we have to suffer the same consequences? Because of some strange sense of guilt? Also, it's not about immigration; it's about illegal immigration. And immigration is good only as long as we "import" people we really need and people who do not frequently rely on our welfare system.

The rest is here.

Friday, November 10, 2006



Not all news is bad. In fact, since I believe all politics are local, there is a lot of good news.

Like 2 years ago, local referenda that would cost me a lot of money for nothing in return, didn't pass:

City of Forest Grove Measure 34-135
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,619 49.34
No. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,689 50.66

Forest Grove School No. 15 Measure 34-136
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,133 46.24
No. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,805 53.76

The failure of the "safety" levy, I hope, will result in fewer cops ticketing us for speeding on our way to/from work instead of busting illegal aliens. If worse comes to worse, I may excercise my 2nd amendment rights and start carrying.

The failure of the school levy may not be permanent but it's good to see it fail so miserably. Even some good liberals can't stand paying for illegal aliens' children.

Thursday, November 09, 2006



Twice a year, WM allows us to put several loads of garbage at the curb for free. In six years, I never took advantage of this service. I kept my house pretty clean and the weekly allowance was enough to get rid of the garbage our household produced.

Until yesterday. Several projects over the summer had produced too much garbage for the weekly pickup so we waited until the next chance to get rid of it.

As I was placing the garbage bags along the curb, I had this strange impression I had just seen it somewhere....


Two headlines

Dems' Wins in U.S. Races Concern Israel

World Welcomes Shift in U.S. Politics

Somehow I don't feel comfortable with what the "world welcomes."

Tuesday, November 07, 2006



It's not over yet in many places but the results are not as bad (or good) as the opposition predicted. On one hand, I would have liked to keep the power but the narrow the narrow loss will hopefully teach Republicans some lessons. As long as we keep the Senate and the veto power we should be fine for the next two years.

Monday, November 06, 2006



It's downhill from here. But I will be happy if I can write 82 in this blog.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006



The best thing I heard about it somewhere -- not sure where -- on the Internet:

"He misquoted himself."

What a dolt! And he was supposed to be our president. There must be a God.


October 2004   November 2004   December 2004   January 2005   February 2005   March 2005   April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010   May 2010   June 2010   July 2010   August 2010   September 2010   October 2010   November 2010   December 2010   January 2011   February 2011   March 2011   April 2011   May 2011   June 2011   July 2011   August 2011   September 2011   October 2011   December 2011   January 2012   February 2012   March 2012   April 2012   May 2012   June 2012   August 2012   September 2012   October 2012   November 2012   January 2013   February 2013   March 2013   May 2013   July 2013   September 2013   October 2013   November 2013   December 2013   January 2014   March 2014   April 2014   May 2014   June 2014   July 2014   August 2014   September 2014   October 2014   November 2014   December 2014   May 2015   September 2015   November 2015   December 2015   March 2016  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?