StooltimeCounseling's Blog

Roe v. Wade From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Roe v. Wade Supreme Court of the United States Argued December 9, 1971
Reargued October 11, 1972
Decided January 22, 1973
Full case name: Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County Citations: 410 U.S. 113 (see more...); 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159 Prior history: Judgment for plaintiffs, injunction denied, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970); probable jurisdiction noted, 402 U.S. 941 (1971); set for reargument, 408 U.S. 919 (1972) Subsequent history: Rehearing denied, 410 U.S. 959 (1973) Argument: Oral argument Holding Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part. Court membership Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices: William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist Case opinions Majority by: Blackmun
Joined by: Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
Concurrence by: Burger
Concurrence by: Douglas
Concurrence by: Stewart
Dissent by: White
Joined by: Rehnquist
Dissent by: Rehnquist
Laws applied U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 1191–94, 1196

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a controversial United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.[2]

Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’ The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability usually occurs at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These rulings affected laws in 46 states.[3]

The Roe v. Wade decision prompted national debate that continues today. Debated subjects include whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and  moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into pro-Roe (mostly pro-choice) and anti-Roe (mostly pro-life) camps, and inspiring grassroots activism on both sides.

My Questions:

• If the purpose of a court is to interpret the law rather than legislate a law, is the 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court ruling unconstitutional?
• Should each of the 50 states, by putting it up for a vote, decide if it wants legal abortion? This would be consistent with how gay marriage became a law in some states and not others. The matter was put up for a vote.
• Why do some people think Sarah Palin will advocate to overturn Roe vs. Wade if elected as VP, even though her thoughts and feelings about abortion are thus far limited to saying she is comfortable with her convictions and will not shove her faith down anyone's throat?
• How strong of an influence does Roe vs. Wade have on defining the Democratic party? Is this issue the major divide between the Republicans and Democrats or is it the tax and spend, socialism or capitalism thing?
• Does the term, "pro-choice", encompass all areas of a person's life or only on the abortion issue?

It looks like there may be some disagreement between the Founding Fathers and the ACLU:

Today's..."separation of church and state"...not the intent of America's founding documents...nor intended by the founders!

Amendment I"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances."

1.  Words "separation of church and state" are not in the First Amendment.

2.  The 90 founding fathers never mentioned even once during the framing of the First Amendment (June 7 - September 25, 1789) a "separation of church and state."  (See Congressional Record.)

3.  The same day Congress passed the First Amendment (Sept. 25, 1789); they approved a resolution requesting President George Washington to proclaim "...a day of public thanksgiving and prayer...."

4.  Thomas Jefferson wrote this phrase, "thus building a wall of separation between church and State...." on January 1, 1802, (11 years after the First Amendment was ratified) in a private letter to the Danbury Baptist Association to assure them that the federal government could not and would not try to establish a national denomination.  Jefferson was an ambassador in France during the time of the Constitutional Convention.  However, while President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson was
also made president of the Washington, DC public school system in which he placed the Bible and the Isaac Watt's hymnal as the two primary reading texts!  Jefferson's phrase was used only twice by the U.S. Supreme Court from 1802 to 1947; and it was not until 1947 (Everson case) that it was taken out of context and given a meaning never intended (first use was 1878 in Reynolds case).
 

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution  independent
of the powers of the General [federal] Government."
  (Thomas Jefferson, 1805, in his second Inaugural Address.)
 
"There is not a shadow of right in the general [federal] government to intermeddle with  religion....This
subject is, for the honor of America, perfectly free and unshackled."
  (The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 5, pp. 176, 132.)
 

5.  Applies to Congress, not the states.

6.  First English language Bible printed in America was by Congress in 1782 "for use of schools."

7.  The founding fathers gave speeches, read from the Bible, and prayed at public school graduations.

8.  The U.S. Capitol was used as a church building by the founding fathers.

9.  Founding father judges had prayer in their court rooms with the jurors.
 
10.  A view from the Washington Monument forms a perfect cross.

 Northwest Ordinance(requirements for statehood).SECTION 13, ARTICLE III"Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

(Passed from July 17 - August 7, 1789; during the midst of the framing of the First Amendment, which was June 7 - September 25, 1789.  Please note that the founding fathers used the word religion to mean Christianity.)
 

"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the  precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God."
          (Gouverneur Morris, 1792, Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France.)
Founding father who physically wrote the Constitution, and most active member of Constitutional Convention, spoke 173 times on the floor.
 
"Why...should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book?  Its morals are  pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the sacred book that is thus early  impressed last long; and, probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes hold of the  mind."
(Fisher Ames, The Works of Fisher Ames, 1809.)  Founding father who on September 20, 1789 helped provide the wording for the First Amendment.
 
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality  are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who  should labor to subvert these great pillars....  The mere politician, equally with the pious  man, ought to respect and cherish them....  Let it simply
be asked, ‘Where is the security for  property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?'  ...And let  us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.   Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds...reason and  experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of  religious principle."
  (George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address.)

  The Constitution of the United StatesPreamble"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this  truth-that God governs in the affairs of men.  And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground  without His notice, it is probable that an empire can rise without His aid?  We have been  assured in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labour in vain  that build it.'  I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall  succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel:"
  (Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787.)

Article I, Section 7"If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
 

"How comes it that Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, is recognized by all the departments of  Government?  In the law, Sunday is a ‘dies non;' it cannot be used for the service of legal  process, the return of writs, or other judicial purposes.  The executive departments, the  public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; ...neither House of Congress sits."
  (U.S. Senate, January 19, 1853, on Congressional Chaplains.)
 

Article IV, Section 4"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government,..."
 

"...I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them.     We...neglect...the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government...
the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible...."
(Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, A Defence of the Use of the Bible in Schools, 1830.)
 
"...it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the  genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament  or the Christian religion."
  (Noah Webster, History of the United States, 1832, public school textbook.)
 
"...the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."
  (Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.)

Article VI"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
 

"No person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall  hold any office in the civil department of the State."
  (Constitution of the State of Mississippi, 1817.  Other states had similar requirements.)
 

Article VII"DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."
 
(Dated recognizing the birth of Jesus Christ:  Anno Domini/Christmas!)
 

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His  Apostles....This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of  government."
  (Noah Webster, History of the United States, 1832, public school textbook.)
 

Declaration of Independence"...Laws of Nature and of Natures's God entitle them..."

"The laws of nature are the laws of God, Whose authority can be superseded by no  power  on earth."
  (George Mason, before the General Court of Virginia, 1772.)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis,  a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"
  (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781.)

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..."

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient, He reigns  in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."
  (Samuel Adams, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, August 2, 1776.)

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were....the general  principles of Christianity."
  (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813.)

******************************************************
******************************************
"It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine on a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history....  The establishment clause [of the First Amendment] has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years....  There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]....  The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the Framers."

 (Associate Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, Wallace v. Jafree, 1985.)

************************************************
************************************************
The majority of the information contained in "Today's...separation of church and state...!" was learned about and derived from resources by David Barton of WallBuilders (817-441-6044), Stephen McDowell of the Providence Foundation (804-978-
4535), John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute (804-978-3888), William Federer of AmeriSearch (314-621-6446), and Rus Walton and John Eidsmoe of the Plymouth Rock Foundation (1-800-210-1620):
 

 The Truth About Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment (pamphlet), The Changing First Amendment  (audio),  America, God Shed His Grace on Thee (tract): WallBuilders.
 Providential Perspective (Teaching Journal):  Providence Foundation.
 The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights (booklet), The Real Story Behind The Separation of Church  and State (audio):  The Rutherford Institute.
 America's God & Country (Encyclopedia of Quotations): AmeriSearch.
 Institute on the Constitution (audio and video):  Plymouth Rock Foundation.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the King's horses, And all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again!

Who was Humpty Dumpty?
Humpty Dumpty was a colloquial term used in 15th century England to describe someone who was fat or obese - giving rise to lots of theories pertaining to the identity of Humpty Dumpty. However, in this case the question should be not Who was Humpty Dumpty but What was Humpty Dumpty? Humpty Dumpty was in fact an unusually large canon which was mounted on the protective wall of "St. Mary's Wall Church" in Colchester, England. It was intended to protect the Parliamentarian stronghold of Colchester which was in the temporarily in control of the Royalists during the period of English history, described as the English Civil War ( 1642 - 1649). A shot from a Parliamentary canon succeeded in damaging the wall underneath Humpty Dumpty causing the canon to fall to the ground. The Royalists 'all the King's men' attempted to raise Humpty Dumpty on to another part of the wall but even with the help of ' all the King's horses' failed in their task and Colchester fell to the Parliamentarians after a siege lasting eleven weeks.

Credit for above goes to: http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/nursery_rhymes/humpty_du
mpty.htm

My opine:  And here I thought Humpty Dumpty was a metaphor for any politician who got caught up in a power-grabbing-term-of-office, often times generated by an over-inflated, grandiose, self-centered ego.

Silly, me. What was I thinking?

A link to the 7-25-08 Wall Street Journal Opinion page:

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12169424734348282
1.
html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

 The metaphors used in the op-ed piece to compare President Bush to Batman in the Dark Knight are remarkable.

* The movie has led in ticket sales at the box office 3 weeks in a row. Is it because movie goers want to see Heath Ledger's last great film before his untimely death or for the reasons mentioned in the Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed piece?

STC.

 While walking down the street one day a US senator is
 tragically hit by a truck and dies.
 
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the
 entrance.
 
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before
 you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a
 high official around these parts, you see, so we're not
 sure what to do with you."
 
"No problem, just let me in," says the senator.
 
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher
 up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and
 one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend
 eternity."
 
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in
 heaven," says the senator.
 
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
 
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he
 goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds
 himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the
 distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all
 his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
 
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to
 greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good
 times they had while getting rich at the expense of the
 people.
 
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster,
 caviar and champagne.
 
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly
 guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are
 having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is
 time to go.
 
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the
 elevator rises...
 
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven
 where St. Peter is waiting for him.
 
"Now it's time to visit heaven."
 
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of
 contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the
 harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he
 realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter
 returns.
 
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and
 another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."
 
The senator reflects for a minute, then answers:
 "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean
 heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better
 off in hell."
 
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down,
 down, down to hell.
 
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the
 middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
 
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the
 trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from
 above.
 
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his
 shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the
 senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf
 course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank
 champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's
 just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look
 miserable. What happened?"
 
The devil looks at him, smiles and says....... 
 
"Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted."

"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15th."

-Ronald Reagan

http://home.earthlink.net/~wk29003/id2.html

Come November, 2008 Presidential election, we will find out who America wants for our next president of the United States of America.

Be sure to vote!

One of the presidential campaign slogans in 1928 was, "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage". It worked to get Herbert Hoover elected as our 30th president in 1929.

Fast forward to today. What kind of idealistic campaign slogans are being made by the presidential candidates in 2008?

Once these idealistic slogans are identified, ask yourself the question: Do you buy into them?

It has been said by Dr. Leo Bascaglia, now deceased, but once a prominent self-help guru, that thinking idealistically helps to keep you young in a world that can rattle your cage at any given moment. 

Does idealism work in politics, though? It has its way of getting people elected as president, but what happens after the election? It's a seven letter word called, REALITY.

Think about the difference between idealism and reality come the November election. There's a time and place to be idealistic, and a time and place to be realistic. I'm having a difficult time figuring out how idealism works in the world of politics.

Can someone who is politically idealistic help me out?

By the way, despite the slogan of a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage in 1928, the United States became engulfed in the Great Depression when the stock market crashed on October 29th, 1929.

I'm much more inclined to vote for the candidate who can tell me how America will confront adversity and nurture its prosperity, both of which are underscored by the liberties, freedoms and responsibilities afforded to every American citizen. That might take some deliberate thought. I look forward to the debates between Senators McCain and Obama.

For people who think the Bush tax cuts are only for the rich, consider this: If the Bush tax cuts do not continue after they expire, a family of four with an annual household income of $50,000.00 will pay $2,500.00 more per year in taxes. That's about $220.00 per month. The Bush tax cuts are helping anybody who has gainful employment and pays taxes.

Obama says he will not financially penalize the middle class, only the rich. Why is there so much animosity for people who have achieved wealth in our country? Why does being rich need to be punished? I don't get it. Are people mad at rich people because there's a stereotype that rich people are snobs? Not all rich people are snobs. Some have a sense of entitlement, but so do some people in all classes.

I, for one, have a different definition for real wealth. It's not based on how much money I earn. Real wealth is being content with what I have. This could mean acknowledging the value of my family, friends, social network, having the freedom to express my opinions on Fox 2 blogs, my ability to work and earn a livelihood, etc.

Why punish people who have more money than me? From where is the anger coming? Why punish the family of four with a household income of $50,000.00 by letting the Bush tax cuts expire? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_ma
ss_destruction

Lots of blame to go around and still many unanswered questions!

The democrats, who desperately want a democrat administration in the white house, are saying loud and clear that the country is in a recession. The evidence is heard on CNN, a station with a democrat bias. The Fox News channel, slanted more toward the republican side, reports something different.

There's an old saying: 'Even if you lined up all the economists in the world, you still wouldn't reach a conclusion'.

I remember an economics teacher at Macomb Community College back in the late '70's tell his class: 'If you're out of work, it's a depression. If your neighbor is out of work, it's a recession'.

Who's a voter to believe in an age when so many people say whatever they want to get what THEY want?

Former Michigan Governor George Romney, God rest his soul, borrowed money from the State Employee Retirement Fund to balance the state budget a few decades ago. Was the money ever paid back? I could be wrong, but I heard it was not paid back.

If Mitt Romney is chosen as the Republican candidate for president, would he follow his dad's lead if faced with a federal budget crisis? 

There are many factors that contribute to a successful political campaign, one that leads to being elected. The "likeability" factor, love it or hate it, is one of them. I also believe that "authenticity" enhances a person's "likeability" factor.

Even though I'm not well versed in the world of politics like Colt, Ratt, Michigan Man, Carl, Kraniak The Maniak, Tim Skubick, Tall and many other fellow bloggers from our area, I do know something about human nature. What follows is an article I wrote in November, 2003 for my website, Stooltime Counseling. After reading it, you may better understand the value of authenticity, whether or not you're running for president of the United States.  

DO THE DRAPES MATCH THE CARPETING?

THE ART OF BEING AUTHENTIC, GENUINE AND REAL

What is the difference between the person who is born with blonde hair and someone else who dyes their hair to look blonde? One is real, the other is fake. Upon close observation, it is easy to tell the difference between the two. For the person who is the bottle blonde, the drapes don't match the carpeting. (Please use your imagination to figure-out the parallel). In this example, we have two people whose natural hair color is different, but look the same; however, one is authentic and the other is pretending. There is something to be said about both, but it has nothing to do with hair color. The focus of this article is on the subject of "authenticity." Authenticity may be related to honesty, self-disclosure, congruence, genuineness and realism. What does it mean to be an "authentic" human being? What is the value of being genuine and real in our relationships with others and ourselves? For people who are authentic, genuine and real, to use an analogy, the drapes do match the carpeting.

Lets use the political arena as a microcosm for our discussion on "authenticity." We can then apply what we learn from that example to our personal lives.

Question: "How do we know when a politician is telling a lie?"
Answer: "When he/she opens their mouth."

Does the above joke reflect an unfair stereotype and pre-judgement of politicians? Is it an oxymoron to say that politicians can be genuine and real people? Is it sad to even ask these questions? The truth: Not all politicians are liars. Many of them treat their constituents in authentic, genuine and real ways. To learn the difference between a deceitful politician and a real one, we must understand:

Authentic politicians accept the fact that not everybody will like them or their ideas, yet continue to be who they are and stand-up for what they believe to be an accurate reflection of their constituents' beliefs. This type of politician feels comfortable.

Genuine politicians do not try to impress people by pretending to be someone other than themselves. Rather, their personal core values are a good fit for their political party's agenda. There is consistency between personal beliefs and professional objectives.

Real politicians demonstrate an intellectual, emotional and behavioral consistency. This means that there is congruence between what they say and what they do. A dishonest politician says one thing, but does something else. An honest politician says one thing and does the same thing.

Lets apply the world of authentic, genuine and real politics to our personal lives:

Not everyone will like us all of the time.

Not everybody will always agree with us.

We do not have the power to make anybody else happy.

Despite the harshness of that reality, there is a socially redeeming value in learning how to develop authentic, genuine and real relationships with others and ourselves! It starts with realizing that the only people over whom we have control is ourselves. To be who we are is to be real. To pretend to be someone we're not is to be fake, someone who lacks substance.

The KEY WORDS here are: "BE YOURSELF" because that is what we can control. This means as adults, we have learned to think, feel and act for ourselves. We have learned to own our thoughts, feelings and actions rather than to blame others for what we think, what we feel and what we do. We are all accountable to ourselves. There is no deception. There is no hidden agenda when we genuinely present ourselves to others.

It takes courage to "be yourself" because we risk others not liking us. I don't know anybody who is liked by everybody. To be liked by everybody means we would need to be all things to all people, and that is an unlikely scenario. Comedian, Flip Wilson, had a more realistic scenario when he said, "What you see is what you get!"

We need to be authentic, genuine and real with ourselves before we can think, feel and act in kind to others. Otherwise, we are just pretending and trying to fool everybody including ourselves. If the goal is to match the drapes to the carpeting, "BE YOURSELF." Skeptics might ask, "What if we don't like ourselves?" That is an interesting question and worthy of further exploration. Counseling can help validate our worth and/or promote self-improvement!

Written by,
Mark S. Rogers, LPC.
Licensed Professional Counselor
(11/03)

Comedienne, Vicki Lawrence, gets the credit for using the "drapes and carpeting" analogy during her show at the Millennium Centre in Southfield, Michigan on February 1st, 2003.

I would like to give Governor Granholm some help.  Based on a news report I heard Wednesday morning on 950 AM, she wants it.  Lets brainstorm some ideas and offer our reasonable suggestions to her and the legislature before the October 31st deadline.

Governor Granholm says she is open to hearing some alternative ways of raising revenue for our state instead of raising taxes.  She adds that as of Wednesday, she has not heard any good ideas yet.

The only guideline I'd like to suggest is that our ideas be reasonable.

GO!

A one trick pony may be cute, but the act gets old after performing its one trick over and over.  Michigan is like the one trick pony because of its over-reliance on the auto industry to maintain a robust economy.  Michigan's economy needs to become diversified like the pony needs more than one trick to keep its act alive.

Diversification works well when developing a retirement portfolio, and it can work for Michigan's economy, too.  It is not smart to put all the eggs in one basket when planning for retirement.  So it is with Michigan's economy.  Michigan can no longer soley rely on its manufacturing base to keep its budget in the black.  Michigan needs to attract new businesses or face the same fate as the one trick pony that eventually loses its appeal with the crowd.

Revenue incentives for businesses (also known as corporate welfare or tax abatements) could again help attract new business to the state if the leadership would open their eyes.  Follow the money trail, Governor Granholm, and it will take you to the truth.  Offer tax abatements to businesses so they would want to set-up shop in Michigan.  The incentive has a history of attracting new money to our state, and offer some fiscal relief to already existing businesses who want to stay in Michigan.  We would hear less excuses to leave the state like offered by Volkswagon, who all of a sudden wanted to be closer to its customer base on the east coast.

Governor Granholm, no one will change your mind about your tax and spend philosophy.  You are a firm believer in redistributing the wealth so the basic needs of those-who-are-not-able-to-be-gainfully-employed can be met.  That is very compassionate of all of us.  However, if Michiganders want to be consistent, social welfare needs to be balanced with corporate welfare.  It will attract new businesses, new jobs, new tax payers, embolden the middle class, and the pony would have more than one trick.  Michigan needs new businesses to hire people and keep them working!

Governor Granholm, show all of us that you can teach an old pony new tricks. 

 

Money can buy a house, but not a home.

Money can buy entertainment, but not happiness.

Money placed in a church collection basket can buy heat and lights, but not salvation.

Money paid in taxes can buy entitlements for people, but not  guarantee to help someone function interdependently and responsibly.

Do people place too much faith in what money can buy?