Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Why I Do This
I've had more than one person ask my why after ending my last program, Foundations, I'm back on the air with a different program. Some are asking why I didn't just restart the old program. Others want to know why go back on the air at all with all the great talkers out there already.
I'll answer the second question first. I have followed politics for well over twenty years and studied history even longer. I attribute my love of history and patriotism largely to two men both of them history teachers. The first was my Eighth-grade teacher back in Oswego, Mr. Thompson. Not only did he love history to the point that he was a Civil War Reenactor, his passion came through in his teaching. Of all that he taught me, one statement stood out. He asserted that American history began in 1066 when William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings. That took me to places in history where the foundations of liberty were laid by visionaries well before their time. The other was Ron Lowry, my high school history teacher at Dunlap HS. He was an army veteran who had lived history. His patriotism was evident even to a the teenage punk I was at the time. He was central to my decision to enlist in the Navy after graduation.
That's a lot of words to not answer the question. Besides my absolute love of radio since I was a kid, I can think of no other reason to go back on the air than the fact I have something to say. Several friends lamented that I removed all political content from Foundations back in the beginning of 2010. I lost a lot of listeners when I stopped mixing politics into the program schedule. I needed to do it at the time because politics was getting in the way of my relationship with God and the constant attention to it was making me harsh and critical in my personal life. I have since begun to find a good balance. The key ingredient is that I don't listen to other talk shows. Despite learning a lot from the greats not only about liberty and politics but about how to do a program well, I can't listen without getting angry.
That still doesn't answer the question, does it? Ok, here it is. I am different from anyone I've ever heard. One, my study of history goes back thousands of years not just hundreds. I've seen it done right over the centuries but, more importantly, I've seen it done wrong and the results of the wrong decisions by leaders and governments. I strive to bring that perspective to every program and the modern issues we face. Human nature hasn't changed since the bite of a piece of fruit in the Garden so how people are best governed hasn't changed either.
Ultimately, the Lens of Truth is what sets me apart. Many hosts have pieces of it but few if any have all of it. Everything I read passes through the three part filter of The Bible (as written without any other so-called holy books to filter it through), The U.S. Constitution (along with the other founding documents), and a lifetime of historical and economic study. I know that kinda makes me a geek to read this stuff for fun but, hey, I'm good with that label.
My humor is also different. I make a lot of jokes during the course of the program. After all, I am a comic. However, one of the lessons I learned doing Foundations is that honor must be given where honor is due. (That's in the Bible, by the way.) No matter how outrageous the behavior of an elected official, I will never mock them personally. I may point out the stupidity of their behavior or humorously knock their ideas but I will never use derogatory language or nicknames. Whether we like it or not, all authority comes from God even the ones we didn't vote for. We have to treat them with the respect their office deserves no matter how much they are perverting the country. Their character can be questioned, their policies challenged, and their ideas demolished but never can they be personally ridiculed. Disagreement does not have to lead to hate.
As to the first question, Foundations needed to end. It was a program directed specifically at a Christian audience. It was a mix of teaching and commentary on the church and our role in culture. Over the last year, I have been less engaged in talking to the church and more engaged in reaching beyond the four walls. If I'm going to do a program, it must appeal outside the church. The new program is not under the not-for-profit corporation but is completely separate. Not only does that help spread the potential reach of the show but it removes the limitations on free speech that are enforced on religious not-for-profits. To do Madman in CrazyTown right, there can be no restrictions.
Maybe that answers the questions. The bottom line, I've got something to say and if I keep quiet, I will lose my mind. Some say I already have lost it but I'm ok with that. Just keep listening and keep reading!
I'll answer the second question first. I have followed politics for well over twenty years and studied history even longer. I attribute my love of history and patriotism largely to two men both of them history teachers. The first was my Eighth-grade teacher back in Oswego, Mr. Thompson. Not only did he love history to the point that he was a Civil War Reenactor, his passion came through in his teaching. Of all that he taught me, one statement stood out. He asserted that American history began in 1066 when William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings. That took me to places in history where the foundations of liberty were laid by visionaries well before their time. The other was Ron Lowry, my high school history teacher at Dunlap HS. He was an army veteran who had lived history. His patriotism was evident even to a the teenage punk I was at the time. He was central to my decision to enlist in the Navy after graduation.
That's a lot of words to not answer the question. Besides my absolute love of radio since I was a kid, I can think of no other reason to go back on the air than the fact I have something to say. Several friends lamented that I removed all political content from Foundations back in the beginning of 2010. I lost a lot of listeners when I stopped mixing politics into the program schedule. I needed to do it at the time because politics was getting in the way of my relationship with God and the constant attention to it was making me harsh and critical in my personal life. I have since begun to find a good balance. The key ingredient is that I don't listen to other talk shows. Despite learning a lot from the greats not only about liberty and politics but about how to do a program well, I can't listen without getting angry.
That still doesn't answer the question, does it? Ok, here it is. I am different from anyone I've ever heard. One, my study of history goes back thousands of years not just hundreds. I've seen it done right over the centuries but, more importantly, I've seen it done wrong and the results of the wrong decisions by leaders and governments. I strive to bring that perspective to every program and the modern issues we face. Human nature hasn't changed since the bite of a piece of fruit in the Garden so how people are best governed hasn't changed either.
Ultimately, the Lens of Truth is what sets me apart. Many hosts have pieces of it but few if any have all of it. Everything I read passes through the three part filter of The Bible (as written without any other so-called holy books to filter it through), The U.S. Constitution (along with the other founding documents), and a lifetime of historical and economic study. I know that kinda makes me a geek to read this stuff for fun but, hey, I'm good with that label.
My humor is also different. I make a lot of jokes during the course of the program. After all, I am a comic. However, one of the lessons I learned doing Foundations is that honor must be given where honor is due. (That's in the Bible, by the way.) No matter how outrageous the behavior of an elected official, I will never mock them personally. I may point out the stupidity of their behavior or humorously knock their ideas but I will never use derogatory language or nicknames. Whether we like it or not, all authority comes from God even the ones we didn't vote for. We have to treat them with the respect their office deserves no matter how much they are perverting the country. Their character can be questioned, their policies challenged, and their ideas demolished but never can they be personally ridiculed. Disagreement does not have to lead to hate.
As to the first question, Foundations needed to end. It was a program directed specifically at a Christian audience. It was a mix of teaching and commentary on the church and our role in culture. Over the last year, I have been less engaged in talking to the church and more engaged in reaching beyond the four walls. If I'm going to do a program, it must appeal outside the church. The new program is not under the not-for-profit corporation but is completely separate. Not only does that help spread the potential reach of the show but it removes the limitations on free speech that are enforced on religious not-for-profits. To do Madman in CrazyTown right, there can be no restrictions.
Maybe that answers the questions. The bottom line, I've got something to say and if I keep quiet, I will lose my mind. Some say I already have lost it but I'm ok with that. Just keep listening and keep reading!
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Economics: Foundations and Fallacies
Americans do still have some common sense. Granted, it's diminishing, but it's still there. The people know that the economy stinks on ice and is getting worse. Of course, the administration and their allies in the press haven't quite figured that out. All their rhetoric won't change the reality.
How do they make their claims that the recession is over? What is all this talk about a "double-dip" recession? What does it mean? How does it feel to have them try to pull the wool over your eyes because they know that the basics of economics aren't taught in school anymore?
Here's the scoop. Recessions are measured by increases and decreases in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This you may already know because they talk about it. They are telling the truth when they say that the GDP has gone up so, by this measure, the recession did indeed end. Unfortunately, the GDP is not the best barometer of real economic performance. The reason for this can be found in the formula. Math is at the root of the deception behind the stories.
GDP has a complex and almost incomprehensible formula. Only the greatest mathematical minds in the country can comprehend its calculation. Here is the formula:
I know it's difficult. The variables are Consumer Spending (C), Business Investment (I) and Government Spending (G). As a matter of explanation, business investment is spending money to purchase equipment, expand operations, or other use of available resources. It is not the stock market. To an economist, the stock market is savings not investment.
Ok, now here's the tricky part. Let's take a look at some real world applications for the formula. What would happen to GDP if, just for the sake of argument, that C goes down by 15%, I goes down by 15%, but G goes up by almost 100%? Assuming that G is a large component (which it is), GDP would go up despite the fact that the two private sector components decreased. This is pretty much what happened.
In the real world where most of us live and work, the economy still stinks and we see no benefit from the increased GDP. That means the so called recovery is bogus. It is an artificial creation of the government to fool us into thinking they did something. The only people who have benefited have been the ones receiving federal assistance (at the highest percentage of the economy in U.S. history) and the special interest groups of the Democrat party.
Given this, there isn't going to be a double-dip recession. We never really came out of one in the first place. The government and their allies in the press are making a lot of noise lately that the private sector hasn't stepped up to the plate after the government did it's job. If you actually believe the stimulus package worked, then the private sector would have seen the growth. Consumer spending and business investment would both have seen an increase. We know that they did not. Hmm. Did it work? You tell me.
How do they make their claims that the recession is over? What is all this talk about a "double-dip" recession? What does it mean? How does it feel to have them try to pull the wool over your eyes because they know that the basics of economics aren't taught in school anymore?
Here's the scoop. Recessions are measured by increases and decreases in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This you may already know because they talk about it. They are telling the truth when they say that the GDP has gone up so, by this measure, the recession did indeed end. Unfortunately, the GDP is not the best barometer of real economic performance. The reason for this can be found in the formula. Math is at the root of the deception behind the stories.
GDP has a complex and almost incomprehensible formula. Only the greatest mathematical minds in the country can comprehend its calculation. Here is the formula:
C + I + G = GDP
I know it's difficult. The variables are Consumer Spending (C), Business Investment (I) and Government Spending (G). As a matter of explanation, business investment is spending money to purchase equipment, expand operations, or other use of available resources. It is not the stock market. To an economist, the stock market is savings not investment.
Ok, now here's the tricky part. Let's take a look at some real world applications for the formula. What would happen to GDP if, just for the sake of argument, that C goes down by 15%, I goes down by 15%, but G goes up by almost 100%? Assuming that G is a large component (which it is), GDP would go up despite the fact that the two private sector components decreased. This is pretty much what happened.
In the real world where most of us live and work, the economy still stinks and we see no benefit from the increased GDP. That means the so called recovery is bogus. It is an artificial creation of the government to fool us into thinking they did something. The only people who have benefited have been the ones receiving federal assistance (at the highest percentage of the economy in U.S. history) and the special interest groups of the Democrat party.
Given this, there isn't going to be a double-dip recession. We never really came out of one in the first place. The government and their allies in the press are making a lot of noise lately that the private sector hasn't stepped up to the plate after the government did it's job. If you actually believe the stimulus package worked, then the private sector would have seen the growth. Consumer spending and business investment would both have seen an increase. We know that they did not. Hmm. Did it work? You tell me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)