How about frustrated?

There are some things that anger me--but it's mainly out of frustration.

Frustration that there are so many laws and regulations.

Frustration that the federal government is seeking to spend (at least) $3.1 trillion. On what? Part of my frustration stems from the fact I don't know where my money is going, or even why it is going.

Frustration that government does so little right and so much wrong.

Frustration that someone who's short on substance but great on style has a really good shot to become the next President of the United States.

I work for a living. I don't dig trenches or do anything which would be considered a hard living, but I do work. I provide for my family. I have bills and debts. I feel responsible. I feel like it's my obligation to take care of my wife and sons. I feel like no one else has the primary responsibility but myself and my wife.

So, it's hard when the federal government wants to do this or that. Be Big Brother, or the Nanny. It's frustrating when more of my tax dollars goes oversees in the way of aid to countries which later end up being our enemies, because we armed and fed them. It's frustrating when every new social or economic program gets sent out, or unfunded mandates get sent to the states.

Like the author of the article "Angry White Men" said, I want to make my own way in the world. I don't expect a handout, but I do expect a fair deal. Doesn't mean I'm guaranteed success, it just means I'm guaranteed to succeed or fail based on my own merits or lack thereof. I don't like regulations which inhibit what I want to do. I feel like I have common sense and the wherewithal to get something accomplished, and am not afraid to seek out guidance if I need it.

It frustrates me that so many of us are just letting things happen. Maybe we don't know how to stop it, but a lot of us either don't care, or somehow believe it's the role of the government to have such a say in everything we do.

It doesn't help that people aren't responsible. It's tragic when innocents are hurt because of this irresponsibility. Perhaps there are a couple of things government should jump in and take control of and do.

If businesses, for example, were self-regulating--or paid a third party perhaps to set and enforce standards, there wouldn't be others who felt government needed to keep a watchful eye. I don't buy completely the fact that the free enterprise system is infallible--but it's not because of the system itself. It's because, we, as consumers, don't do our due diligence when it comes to such things. We aren't all smart enough to be careful with the cup of coffee, and to not use products for what they were never intended to be, and we do sue over such things. Our health care system can point to all kinds of things. It happens to be the nexus for everything which can go wrong will go wrong. That said, we could have worth, and government owned health care is not the solution. Big business health care, at least for the common every day things, doesn't seem to be either.

We've been listening to the naysayers about the economy, as well as those who think things are just fine, and it's hard to know who to believe if you're not making money with your business, or you're going to be laid off or the company you've invested 10 years of your life is going out of business. There's some of that going on as always, just as there are those who are prospering despite of it all.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand we can't keep running up deficits on the federal government side, debt in our own personal lives, trade deficits, and whatever other negative growth we can think of before we'll be so far under we can't come back. There needs to be some restraint in spending on all levels. There needs to be some long term perspective and restraint, and to invest in a rampant consumption kind of system will eventually burn itself and cause even a harder crash. Resources are plentiful, but they are not infinite. Some moderation is essential.

So, there's plenty to be frustrated about. At the same time, we're the greatest country to ever exist, and continue to be the greatest country. People aren't looking anywhere else before they find out what we're doing our what our leaders think. We are the people the rest of the world turns to and depends on. If we're going to continue to be that world leader, we can't just run it into the ground, either through big government or free enterprise run amok. We've seen communism fall. We're witnessing socialism as it fails. We don't need to go that way.

We need to work on sustainable growth. We need to work on common sense and personal responsibilities, from the individual, to the family, to the community and all the way along the spectrum. If we don't, then we will fall, just as surely as other nations have fallen.

This is a choice land above all other lands, with a promise of protection and prosperity from the Divine. That promise is revoked if we don't keep our side of the promise.

So, am I frustrated? Yes, I am. I yet hold out hope, however, that we are not in a hole we cannot climb out of or a wrong course we cannot correct. It will take more than a president, or a Congress. It will take like-minded people everywhere to correct the course and keep the faith.

While the Democrat presidential candidates had their last debate yesterday, the Republican presidential candidates, those still in the race and a couple who are not, have been making news, but not necessarily in a positive way.

While the flap over the New York Times John McCain article is dying down somewhat, there is speculation that the Times does indeed have more and for whatever reasons is waiting to reveal it.

Meanwhile, coverage of McCain on the campaign trail is waning, because he doesn't have a viable contender. Supposedly, Huckabee is supposed to be doing that, but his coverage is also disappearing despite his reoccurring appearances on television. The debate of who made Huckabee between spoof artist Stephen Colbert and late late night talk show host Conan O'Brien may have been settled, but he was most recently on Saturday Night Live where, in the sketch, he didn't know when it was time to leave. Apparently, he's spending the money which finally started coming in, because as a sparring partner, he hasn't been much of one.

Then there was the interview with Josh Romney, who is contemplating a run for US Congress. He was asked if his father, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would rejoin the race if somehow McCain's campaign crashed and burned over the allegations of sex and corruption with a Washington lobbyist. The younger Romney said it was possible, but unlikely, his father would come back, but then stories emerged everywhere talking about the "possibility" of the elder Romney's return. More responsible journalism, I suppose.

There is a need to keep this exciting and at the forefront, apparently. With the surge working in Iraq, with Iran out of the news for the time being, and no other major threat on the horizon (remember all of the plagues from a year or so go--what's happened to Bird Flu and Mad Cow?) except for global warming, trying to spice up the nearly determined Republican primary and the clarifying Democrat primary would seem to be what some find newsworthy.

Don't know how many other people know this, but I just found out Janet Huckabee's maiden name is McCain. I haven't found anything that suggests that she and Senator McCain are somehow related, but boy, would that explain things. Even when trying to contrast himself with Senator McCain, Huckabee was nothing but congenial. Such couldn't be said with regards to Romney, who seemed to draw the ire of everyone, not just Huckabee.

Things have been downright tame over the last couple of weeks for the Republicans, whereas the Democrats have been all over the map as the Hillary Clinton campaign does everything they can to derail the Barack Obama express. If something doesn't happen to change things, it will be a McCain vs. Obama in the general election.

While conservatives have their differences with McCain or a few fronts, they will be virtually opposite on every issue with Obama. The Democrats don't seem to care about substance or experience. They want someone they can like, who can win based on style. They want change, regardless of what it is.

Coming under Jihad rule would definitely be change. So would higher taxes. So would a liberal Supreme Court, which has been steadily becoming constructionist.

Can a 72-year old straight talker with 20-plus years in the US Senate defeat a 46-year old with charm and grace who has yet to finish his first term in the Senate?

You would think experience and substance would win out over style. What in this election cycle has gone exactly according to plan. The inevitability of McCain apparently was true. The inevitability of Clinton isn't as evident, but she and her husband are attributed with enough underhandedness that she might yet steal the day.

There's an ad running on this site that says something to the effect, "What could be more conservative than conservation?"

I didn't click on it or read any more of it, but it did get me to thinking.

There is plenty that a conservative can like about getting off of foreign oil, even if most of ours comes from nations we're friends with. Given the nature of the Middle East, and the fact that so much oil is shipped around the world from there, it has become such the foreign policy issue that even Republicans have been talking about energy policies which include nuclear power, biodiesel and other green technologies.

When they talk about it in the context of global warning, most of us who are conservative start cringing and get very wary. But when they talk about it in terms of preventing our gas money from getting into the hands of terrorists, of creating cheaper and more efficient energy sources, I can't think of anything I would enjoy more.

As long as it doesn't derail the US economy in the process.

Petroleum products are in everything we do. It's not just about the energy. Plastics and all of their derivatives are involved, too. You can't go far without finding something that once came from petroleum. And just reducing pollution from cars is not going to do enough.

I have seen enough scientific evidence regarding climate change or global warming to question the level of man's role in any increases in temperature. Especially anything over the polar ice caps. There's just as much evidence to point towards an increase in solar activity being responsible than there is from relatively negligible carbon dioxide emissions.

That's not to say we should not push for more efficiency in our vehicles. A new German made car called the Loremo sports 150 miles to the gallon, and it looks straight out of I, Robot or Minority Report, even if it is minimalist on the inside and in power. I've always wondered, outside of any speed demon desire I might harbor as a male, why a street vehicle needs to propel itself from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. This one might take four times as long to accelerate, but it still will go the speed limit on the highway.

Last week there were youtube postings of a man who was able to ignite salt water using radio waves. We're talking a high burning flame capable of theoretically powering all kinds of things. Salt water is everywhere and renewable. It would be a great power source.

I don't think we need to spend exorbitant amounts on energy. I don't think we need to consume excessive amounts either. We should be good stewards of this earth.

You don't need to be a card carrying member of PETA, or hug trees or worship the earth rather than God to want clean, renewable energy. It does have to be done right. If car companies or some other energy driven industry starts developing and mass producing products that run off more efficient and cheap energy sources, they will sell. The government doesn't need to subsidize or fund it. And liberals will not be the only ones who get all over it.

I own two small weekly newspapers in neighboring rural towns. For the last 10 years, stories of all kinds have been written and published in them, ranging from the mundane to the controversial. Granted, in small towns, we're typically not talking about huge stories like the improprieties of a presidential candidate, but for the residents who live there, stories like this are no small thing.

Since I don't consider us to be a part of the liberal media, being as accurate, fair and sourced as possible is something we attempt to do. I think, by and large, we succeed, but there are times where we don't.

However, if a story on the level of the one printed in the New York Times about Republican presidential presumptive nominee John McCain came into our office, and we couldn't get anyone to talk on the record, and if we couldn't provide evidence either way, we wouldn't run the story. I can't say we've had any story to date regarding a public official having an affair in our towns, but we've had any number of complaints about what bodies of government, like the City Council, or City employees are doing or not doing, which could rival such a story, relatively speaking.

None of those stories have ever been written, let alone published, in our papers.

Alleged this and that works if there is a police report and enough evidence to file it. It doesn't work if an anonymous source says they think there may have possibly been an issue.

Libel laws do protect print media, and from my perspective, of course, it is warranted. We have, now and then, called into question the character of citizens through stories we've ran. In a couple of cases, we were taken to task and found it appropriate to write retractions, or at the very least, we offered an open forum for the person involved to rebut or offer more information over what we ran before it.

It is not an exact science, to be sure, but always we've attributed quotes or opinions to those who say it. We've battled to keep our own viewpoints out of stories, leaving them for editorials, letters to the editor or columns. Again, I don't know if we've been perfect at it, but we've kept to the rules of journalism as we know them, and if we've erred, we've done so out of ignorance rather than malicious intent.

There's been plenty of analysis about why the New York Times would run such a story. Much of it has to do with creating an image of McCain, false as it may be, in the public eye ahead of the general election. It also could be the New Republic story that would cast the NYT newsroom in a bad light. Personally, I find it all unfathomable.

Any newspaper, let alone a prestigious one, regardless of the political bent of their owners, publishers, editors or reporters, has a solemn obligation to report the news as it is, as it happens, untarnished and unspun. The mainstream media has been progressively getting away from such reporting. They like to tell us what to think, and support it with information they want us to hear, instead of letting those involved hang or vindicate themselves with their own words.

While there is plenty to point fingers at the MSM about, there is a general laziness amidst the citizenry, too, which allows this kind of thing to happen. There is a tabloid kind of mentality existing in our society, which is why sensationalism sells. So, as much as I would like to completely blame it on the MSM, the public has some blame to bear in this.

As we know from the recent hearings into the Roger Clemens controversy, Congress doesn't need much to get involved. They tend to go after things where they feel they have backing. While conservatives may jest that Congress has nothing better to do but waste their time with drugs in baseball, there are people who idolize these players and are completely let down when they fall from their pedestals. And then, of course, there are those who live to see our heroes, any hero, fall.

How that ever became news, is beyond me. If Clemens were making life and death decisions involving millions, then whether or not he was taking illicit drugs to enhance the carrying out of those duties would be big news and worthy of an investigation at the highest level. Short of that, it can only be considered salacious and a waste of taxpayer money. Let pro baseball take care of it. If fans are outraged, they can quit going to games or watching it on TV until players, managers, owners and baseball commissioners get the hint.

I've seen a couple of articles where it is surmised that McCain might actually benefit from this story. That it might actually make him bulletproof. I concur. If this is the worst skeleton that left-leaning reporters can dig up on him, then his integrity is safe. He's had enough of a fight with conservatives within his own party just to get out of the primary. They've done a great job of vetting him. While the election to date has been more about style than substance, the general will shift, and McCain, fortunately, has plenty he can go on the attack with, be it Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton.

If there is any more to the story, then we will undoubtedly hear it. If not, it will fade as the crush of stories from the election continue to unfold, and the only one hurt will be the New York Times.

A few days ago, Matt Lewis blogged about a tough decision involving ceding property rights to build a border fence.

In some instances, he said, that might mean giving up acres and acres of land.

Based on the response he received in comments, the overwhelming majority felt that property rights in this particular case should not matter. The security of the border and thus this nation trumped personal property rights.

In fact, many we're indignant that it should be considered otherwise. To the point where I wondered whether or not any rational consideration was given to just what ideals we're espousing here--liberal or conservative.

Apparently, it's okay for the government to take over property when it comes to border protection. Apparently, not only would it be selfish to not want land to be divided up by a fence, it would be unpatriotic and bordering on treason.

Sorry, but I can't see that way.

I don't live in a border state now, but I have lived in one. Illegal immigration has been an ongoing issue all throughout the United States. And if it weren't for 9/11 and how easily the hijackers were able to come into this country, the current crisis would not be as big an issue as it is. Tied into national security, it has been blown out of proportion.

Just as many things have. Security measures put in place in this country do more to infringe on the personal freedom of her citizens than truly protect us from threats. There's just too many ways to come in and out of this country. A free enterprise system and a global economy make it tougher to run inspections and put security measures in place when everything is dependent on the shipments arriving and the transactions taking place.

We head towards isolationism when we build a wall. If we do one on our southern border, it won't be long until we're building one on our norther border, too. And then we'll still have airports and international shipping yards to reinforce, along with train stations and trucking lines. It's already more restrictive to fly in, out and around this country than it was 10 years ago, and will continue to get more and more restrictive, all in the name of security.

Illegal immigration can be solved by reducing or eliminating the incentives that bring people here: work and free health care. That's not going to take place by building a border fence, because people will find other ways to get here.

If employers will actually enforce the current laws regarding documented labor, most if not all of those who are illegally here will move away, eventually back to their own country.

Whole industries will certainly be affected--construction, hospitality, restaurant, landscaping and agricultural, to name the big ones. Personally, I don't think there's a dearth of American workers for those industries. Where I live, there are plenty of teenagers complaining about never having enough to do. There's also plenty of people on welfare that need to transition into some kind of work experience so they can find a better paying job.

Low paying, low skilled labor can still be found in this country without hiring undocumented workers. There's also legal immigration to tap into.

The point isn't to blame our problems on our neighbors to the south, who by and large come here because we offer so many enticements. They want to work, and are willing to work hard for it. They are willing to make sacrifices. In return, those who do find work are rewarded with higher wages than they would back home, while their wives can tap into health care for pregnancies, so they can birth American citizens.

Legal immigration is not the same as illegal immigration. The undocumented do not have the same protections under the law that citizens or legal residents have. Yes, human rights still apply. The rights granted through the United States Constitution, however, do not. That is the difference between a nation of laws, and one without.

In the meantime, no one should be forced to have their property divided or taken away, not even in the name of border security. And especially by those who won't have to suffer the consequences. If someone wants to do so, for love of country or what have you, so be it. We should never be made to do anything against our will. And we should not take for granted what is not ours to grant in the first place.

When we make sacrifice compulsory, not willingly given, when we impose our definition of patriotism and exclude all others, when we mandate one good thing in violation of another, not only do we punish would be allies, people we'll need for another fight, and then another, we weaken the very sovereignty we're hellbent to protect, and we shred our Constitution just a little bit more.

Surely as Americans we can be more forward thinking and innovative than confiscating private property to build a fence. A fence that can be circumvented, scaled, dug under or maybe even knocked down. Surely we can provide a more rational argument for this subject than calling each other names, or worse, believing those who don't think like we do are traitors because they're not willing to give up even an inch of their property or livelihood for our crusade.

These are the United States of America. We are great together because we believe in freedom, even for those who think opposite of what we do. When we give those up, we become no better than those who would take them away from us. We can live in self-made cages, protected, but never free, or we can stand up for ourselves, our country, and all the founding fathers intended this nation to be, and we can live and die free.

Personally, I prefer the latter, because the enemy doesn't win if I remain free. The enemy wins when I no longer am free, either by force or by surrender. I will not give away my freedom, and it will not be taken from me without a fight.

I ended my first post on this subject without drawing any conclusions on the Fair Tax, so I'll do that here.

Is the Fair Tax a better way to go then our current system?

Perhaps the better question would be, is it worth a try? I would have to say yes.

Trying it would be the only way to find out if it indeed does all what its proponents say it will. That's a major overhaul to bring millions of people on line with, but of the alternative tax system proposals to date, it goes the farthest in eradicating everything that is wrong with the current tax system. Anything that takes 60,000 pages to explain is sorely and woefully awry.

The vast majority of states in the union have their own sales tax. Piggybacking onto those systems would seem to be appropriate. Enforcement would seem to be easier than what it is now, where you have millions who can potentially accidentally or purposefully withhold incorrect amounts of taxes, not file returns, and spend all kinds of taxpayer money and their own time getting it corrected.

Placing the tax on retail goods and services makes more sense in a free enterprise system then taxing someone's wages or assets. It would seem to encourage more consumption then less, which would seem to be good for the economy as well as good for the government. The more the economy grows, the chances of their being more consumers with more money to spend increases. Even if they do get money to spend via a prebate, even the poorest among us get an opportunity to contribute.

It will put more of the tax burden on those who are the wealthiest. It has that as a selling point on the homepage of fairtax.org.

The wealthiest among us are the ones who have the most capital to do things. They also tend to consume more. Where we might be fortunate to have one home, they might own two or more, and ones which are more expensive. They will have other toys and gadgets, employ others to make their lives easier, etc.

What if they decided to consume less? Because they can, what would happen if they were to take themselves off the grid--revert to their own means of generating energy to power their own homes and businesses? What if they started dealing exclusively in second hand yachts and homes?

In fact, what if the entire nation emphasized buying more used things then new things?

Well, it couldn't exclusively do that. The manufacturing of new items would not come to a screeching halt, but it could conceivably slow the new product business. It wouldn't all go away because eventually used things break down and would need to be replaced. Repair shops might make a comeback.

However, we've been trained since our infancy now to consume. Most of us living don't remember the depression. While there's been periods of bumps along the way, the United States has not experienced the likes of a decade long depression. We've become accustomed to our luxuries. Many of them we would call necessities.

Personally, I'm not going to feel bad if the federal government has to suddenly start downsizing because not enough revenue is coming in.

If this Fair Tax did do all that it says it would, then we wouldn't be able to borrow from China any more because we'd be competing more aggressively with them, and putting more of their factories and companies out of business in the process, because corporations would return to the US rather than shipping overseas.

I think the economy could thrive quite well on a second hand industry. While it's outgrown it's current model, eBay has been doing pretty well for itself, and so have places like Craigslist.

What I would wonder more about is if this went the other way. I'm not an environmentalist or a conservationist, but as a realist, there is a realization that there's a finite amount of resources. You either need to renew them quicker, or you need to consume at a lesser degree than what they would naturally renew, assuming they do.

We're already accused of being a consumer culture. We're already derided for being the most wasteful. Great strides have been made over the course of the last half century to work on pollution standards, and smaller footprints for all kinds of projects. The technology and know how is there, or being put into place. However, if consumption was unleashed on even greater scale than it is right now, and we all bought into it, at some point, as the population gets larger and human expansion continues, at some point, whether it be 10 years down the road or several centuries, you do come to the end of the road.

Most likely, that's too much to read into this. Rarely does anything have such transcending effect on a nation. Of course, that might have been what people thought when the income tax amendment was ratified, or when social security and medicare were mandated.

If the highest this Fair Tax can go is 24%--if it's actually written into law as the ceiling--and if a concerted effort will still be made to shrink the size of the federal government, not just grow it, then I can see this as being the best thing that could ever happen to us. Having the cost of living decreasing while our wages potentially increase, along with our savings and our investments, would all seem to be a good thing. The amount needed to run government could go down because fewer and fewer people would rely on social security and medicare. Less people would be on welfare. And, according the website, this would also discourage illegal immigration!

As I said at the top of this blog, it's hard to tell just what drastic effects this might have on us. While there may be negatives, they don't seem to outweigh the positives. Government, business and consumer would all have to do their part.

I think it's worth a try.