Reading through recent posts, I've decided I'm getting way too serious. It's way past time to lighten up on my blogs.
There isn't really anything specific bugging me today, so I'll just run with some general stuff.
Know what the ACLU stands for? The Atheist Communist anti-Liberty Union
Now our school choirs can't sign Christmas music at their winter concerts anymore because it offends non-Christians? Give me a break! Carols are the most classic, uplifting music there is, and I'm getting really tired of the Grinches.
I just noticed a whole bunch of people who claim to be Christian Liberals and how they rationalize that. They've misinterpreted church teachings aimed at each of us as individuals and decided Jesus was talking about the Government when he said we should take care of the poor. They think since Jesus dined with sinners and saved the adulteress from stoning, he's "tolerant", ignoring the fact that he turned the lives of those sinners around and told the adulteress to, "Go, and sin no more". They all of a sudden have become Amish, embracing pacifism, but of course only when it's a Republican waging the war for our country's security. Funny how I never heard about their pacifist ideals back when we went to Bosnia and Somalia. All I wonder about is whether they're calculating rationalizers because of their political connections, or just ignorant about their faith.
Heard two funny stories today. Both about crazy people who shouldn't hold positions of authority. One was a city councilman in PA who tried to bully a booth vendor at a city market into taking down a picture of President Bush, because the councilman was offended by it. And the picture wasn't violent, pornographic, or anything - just your typical presidential portrait. The second was about the high school in GA that gives kids detention if they have to go to the bathroom during class. Hate to get diarrhea at that school; you could get a whole year of detention in a single day!
Thinking about the constant barrage of ads for viagara and related products for men of, well, my age. What is confusing is that since most guys our age were cut off by their wives years ago, what in the heck do they need these products for? (Don't answer that)
I'm looking forward to a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, a great 2005, and hopefully won't get thrown in jail for celebrating Christmas a year from now.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Why Civil Unions are Discriminatory
I'll bet you wonder what I'm talking about - discriminatory?
First of all, the talk of "Gay Marriage" is nothing but a transparent effort by the homosexual rights movement and their liberal friends to marginalize religion. You hear it in the constant barrage that says, "Nobody has the right to impose their morals on anyone else", or variations on that theme. I think the goal of the gay marriage proponents is probably more about removing religion from society than letting same-sex partners parade down the aisle and exchange rings, deciding which will wear the tux and which the white dress.
Taking away the whole religious disrespect aspect, the real remaining agenda is about benefits, which of course equals money. Gay couples want the same benefits of married families, like health insurance, survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc. I maintain that's discrimination, and here's why:
When considering these benefits that today are generally provided only to married couples, think about the reasons why those benefits should be extended to any other sort of couple. To do this, I'll use the same arguments used by the gay rights crowd:
First of all, the talk of "Gay Marriage" is nothing but a transparent effort by the homosexual rights movement and their liberal friends to marginalize religion. You hear it in the constant barrage that says, "Nobody has the right to impose their morals on anyone else", or variations on that theme. I think the goal of the gay marriage proponents is probably more about removing religion from society than letting same-sex partners parade down the aisle and exchange rings, deciding which will wear the tux and which the white dress.
Taking away the whole religious disrespect aspect, the real remaining agenda is about benefits, which of course equals money. Gay couples want the same benefits of married families, like health insurance, survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc. I maintain that's discrimination, and here's why:
When considering these benefits that today are generally provided only to married couples, think about the reasons why those benefits should be extended to any other sort of couple. To do this, I'll use the same arguments used by the gay rights crowd:
- A pair of adults committed to each other
- Both want to live in a "family" environment with full benefits to their family members
So, the question is, why should these benefits be provided to gay couples only? That is terribly discriminatory, just as the benefit plans of many corporations are already discriminating against other family units in favor of gay partnerships.
Let me create a scenario: Suppose due to tragic or unfortunate circumstances, my sister and I both were to find ourselves widowed or divorced, with minor children still in each of our households. So, to economize and regain a semblance of family life, my sister and I move into my home together and blend our children into a family unit. How would this situation differ from a homosexual couple in terms of access to family benefits?
The answer is that there is really only one difference, which is the presence or absence of sex in the relationship. (How many married people are already living in a partnership without sex? But, I digress.)
Ultimately, my point: To accord special status to homosexual couples at that very instant disenfranchises untold numbers of other family arrangements that in most cases would be more deserving of family benefits. Any committed family relationship living under the same roof, whether father/son, father/daughter., mother/son, mother/daughter, sister/brother, cousins, best friends, I could go on forever. Even hetero "shack-ups" aren't getting the corporate insurance benefits being given to homosexual couples already - that seems wildly discriminatory to me.
So, here's my take on the whole situation. Any unmarried adult should be able to name whomever they wish as their beneficiary or immediate family member without regard to gender or blood relationship. But I am strongly opposed to any special treatment for gay couples, because I will never believe that anyone is entitled to discriminatory rights just because of their chosen behavior. And that's not marriage, it's not even a civil union - it's just freedom.
(P.S. - Julie and Jill, don't worry, I'm not suggesting anything by the brother/sister household thing. I used it for illustration purposes only.)
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Baby Baby
Time for the abortion rant.
The so-called right to abortion was a fabrication of activist courts, when Roe v. Wade caused a lib supreme court to create a vague privacy right out of thin air.
If you want to talk constitutionality, the actual article that applies is the Equal Protection clause. Babies are people too, actually. In case anybody didn't know, science has proven it: A fetus is not some blob of tissue, but a living, feeling, heart-beating baby. Abortion is the barbaric practice of tearing that baby limb-from-limb out of it's mother's womb and tossing the remains in the trash.
OK, tell me all about how hard-hearted I am by ignoring the rights of women, being the insensitive male I am. No, don't say I don't understand - I understand completely. Pregnancies occur by mistake regularly, and can be incredibly inconvenient. These circumstances usually involve somebody who's made a mistake, and is unprepared financially or otherwise to birth, care for, and raise a child.
I heard someone say once during an abortion debate that most women would rather abort than give up a child for adoption. How can anybody who thinks about that for more than 2 seconds logically justify that choice? Here's the real choice for crisis pregnancy: have the child and give the best gift in the world to a young family who longs for that baby.
Of course, it sounds easier than it is. The embarrassment of letting friends and family know about a pregnancy, the likelihood that the boyfriend will run away faster than you can say "I'm pregnant", being in the middle of a challenging collegiate program or bidding for that job promotion, or possibly being disowned by unforgiving parents. It is all tough, I know.
But if that life growing inside is your little child, who is completely dependent on you and is already bonding to your voice, is important enough, there is a way. You can take a semester off and go live in a group home until the baby arrives. You can stay in school or at the job and plan a short vacation around the due date to give birth, then return immediately after recovery. You can live with friends or relatives who will gladly help in any way they can to make sure your child is healthy and well cared for. If all that fails, call me - I'll be happy to take your baby rather than see it aborted.
Recently I saw a story that pointed out that the vast majority of abortions in America are performed for racial minorities; particularly blacks. What a terribly racist system, supported by the libs who are supposed to be champions of minorities. Somebody needs to get the truth out about this, plus the lies being tossed around about "protecting the mother's health" to justify partial-birth abortion.
I hold no illusions of an overturn of the bad court decision anytime soon. But I was thinking about all the energy spent by the government under the Clintons around smoking. If the same energy was expended by national leaders in communicating the facts about abortion, alternatives to abortion, and promoting adoption, I believe it would be incredibly successful.
If we teach everyone about fetal development while removing all possible reasons women choose abortion today, there's a real chance we could nearly eliminate the practice in our lifetimes. I just hope we can find national leaders who are willing to take it on.
The so-called right to abortion was a fabrication of activist courts, when Roe v. Wade caused a lib supreme court to create a vague privacy right out of thin air.
If you want to talk constitutionality, the actual article that applies is the Equal Protection clause. Babies are people too, actually. In case anybody didn't know, science has proven it: A fetus is not some blob of tissue, but a living, feeling, heart-beating baby. Abortion is the barbaric practice of tearing that baby limb-from-limb out of it's mother's womb and tossing the remains in the trash.
OK, tell me all about how hard-hearted I am by ignoring the rights of women, being the insensitive male I am. No, don't say I don't understand - I understand completely. Pregnancies occur by mistake regularly, and can be incredibly inconvenient. These circumstances usually involve somebody who's made a mistake, and is unprepared financially or otherwise to birth, care for, and raise a child.
I heard someone say once during an abortion debate that most women would rather abort than give up a child for adoption. How can anybody who thinks about that for more than 2 seconds logically justify that choice? Here's the real choice for crisis pregnancy: have the child and give the best gift in the world to a young family who longs for that baby.
Of course, it sounds easier than it is. The embarrassment of letting friends and family know about a pregnancy, the likelihood that the boyfriend will run away faster than you can say "I'm pregnant", being in the middle of a challenging collegiate program or bidding for that job promotion, or possibly being disowned by unforgiving parents. It is all tough, I know.
But if that life growing inside is your little child, who is completely dependent on you and is already bonding to your voice, is important enough, there is a way. You can take a semester off and go live in a group home until the baby arrives. You can stay in school or at the job and plan a short vacation around the due date to give birth, then return immediately after recovery. You can live with friends or relatives who will gladly help in any way they can to make sure your child is healthy and well cared for. If all that fails, call me - I'll be happy to take your baby rather than see it aborted.
Recently I saw a story that pointed out that the vast majority of abortions in America are performed for racial minorities; particularly blacks. What a terribly racist system, supported by the libs who are supposed to be champions of minorities. Somebody needs to get the truth out about this, plus the lies being tossed around about "protecting the mother's health" to justify partial-birth abortion.
I hold no illusions of an overturn of the bad court decision anytime soon. But I was thinking about all the energy spent by the government under the Clintons around smoking. If the same energy was expended by national leaders in communicating the facts about abortion, alternatives to abortion, and promoting adoption, I believe it would be incredibly successful.
If we teach everyone about fetal development while removing all possible reasons women choose abortion today, there's a real chance we could nearly eliminate the practice in our lifetimes. I just hope we can find national leaders who are willing to take it on.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Basketbrawl
So everybody knows about the brawl in Detroit last weekend that has resulted in the "death penalty" for the Indiana Pacers. The incident has raised lots of questions and generated lots of opinions, many of which are ludicrous.
I've heard wild theories from people who want to sound smart, talking about coddled athletes, drunken fans, societal failures, the so-called hip-hop culture, and even the war in Iraq to try to explain what happened. It's laughable.
What happened is easily seen on the constant video replays our television networks are only too happy to provide, ad nauseum. Pacers player (Artest) fouls Pistons player (Wallace), who is frustrated anyway by the fact that his team is being beaten and doesn't personally like the player who fouled him. He reacts by trying to instigate an on-court fight, but the Pacers player retreats. Players and coaches from each side move in to assist the officials with restoring order.
That's where the story should have ended. Had the Pistons had adequate security in place, it would have ended there. As the players, coaches, and officials worked to calm down Wallace, who by the way was still trying to get to Artest, presumably to deliver a few punches, Artest made a show of being above the fray by lying down on the scorer's table.
This enraged nearby Pistons fans, at least one of which threw his full beer cup at Artest, which hit him sqarely in the mid-section. This set off the tempermental Artest, who immediately jumped into the seats to find the offending fan. Unfortunately, he had no idea which fan threw the beer, and began pummeling a fan who was probably innocent. (I don't know whether that particular fan was taunting him.)
The action of jumping into the stands triggered a general riot, with several drunken Pistons fans converging to try to get their own shots at Artest, again with no security personnel in sight. Another Pacer, Jackson, either trying to protect his teammate or caught up in the emotions of the moment, joined Artest in the stands and began pummelling fans that were attempting to attack Artest.
In the meantime, a few fans spilled onto the court, and O'Neal punched one that confronted him there. Apparently somewhere else in the arena a chair was thrown by a fan that missed his intended Pacer target and injured another fan.
Finally, the teams were escorted off the court. The Pacers made their way to the locker room through a gauntlet of beer cups, popcorn, and whatever else could be found by fans to hurl at the players.
So, is there some deeper meaning or explanation for this terrible incident? Not at all. How many men in this situation would react similarly? I consider myself to have a fairly cool head, but if I was assaulted by a full beer cup during a sporting event, I can't be absolutely certain that I wouldn't react with similar anger.
This incident has little to do with race, culture, "hip-hop", and certainly nothing to do with the Iraq war. It is simply a tragic combination of elite athletes in the heat of competition, an emotional contest between bitter rivals, drunken fans, and an inexcusable lack of security.
Do the offending players deserve to be punished? Absolutely. Is the punishment meted out by the Commissioner appropriate? I don't think so. In my opinion, Artest should receive a 20-game suspension with strict probation the rest of the season. In other words, any unacceptable behavior when he returns to the court would result in immediate suspension for a full year.
Jackson and O'Neal should also receive suspensions, but for fewer games.
Finally, the Detroit franchise should be fined heavily. I'm thinking in the millions of dollars. They should forfeit their remaining games to the Pacers this season, and be forced to hire security for all future games. They also should be forced to discontinue beer sales at their games, and all fans involved in assaulting players should be banned from attending any future events.
I've heard wild theories from people who want to sound smart, talking about coddled athletes, drunken fans, societal failures, the so-called hip-hop culture, and even the war in Iraq to try to explain what happened. It's laughable.
What happened is easily seen on the constant video replays our television networks are only too happy to provide, ad nauseum. Pacers player (Artest) fouls Pistons player (Wallace), who is frustrated anyway by the fact that his team is being beaten and doesn't personally like the player who fouled him. He reacts by trying to instigate an on-court fight, but the Pacers player retreats. Players and coaches from each side move in to assist the officials with restoring order.
That's where the story should have ended. Had the Pistons had adequate security in place, it would have ended there. As the players, coaches, and officials worked to calm down Wallace, who by the way was still trying to get to Artest, presumably to deliver a few punches, Artest made a show of being above the fray by lying down on the scorer's table.
This enraged nearby Pistons fans, at least one of which threw his full beer cup at Artest, which hit him sqarely in the mid-section. This set off the tempermental Artest, who immediately jumped into the seats to find the offending fan. Unfortunately, he had no idea which fan threw the beer, and began pummeling a fan who was probably innocent. (I don't know whether that particular fan was taunting him.)
The action of jumping into the stands triggered a general riot, with several drunken Pistons fans converging to try to get their own shots at Artest, again with no security personnel in sight. Another Pacer, Jackson, either trying to protect his teammate or caught up in the emotions of the moment, joined Artest in the stands and began pummelling fans that were attempting to attack Artest.
In the meantime, a few fans spilled onto the court, and O'Neal punched one that confronted him there. Apparently somewhere else in the arena a chair was thrown by a fan that missed his intended Pacer target and injured another fan.
Finally, the teams were escorted off the court. The Pacers made their way to the locker room through a gauntlet of beer cups, popcorn, and whatever else could be found by fans to hurl at the players.
So, is there some deeper meaning or explanation for this terrible incident? Not at all. How many men in this situation would react similarly? I consider myself to have a fairly cool head, but if I was assaulted by a full beer cup during a sporting event, I can't be absolutely certain that I wouldn't react with similar anger.
This incident has little to do with race, culture, "hip-hop", and certainly nothing to do with the Iraq war. It is simply a tragic combination of elite athletes in the heat of competition, an emotional contest between bitter rivals, drunken fans, and an inexcusable lack of security.
Do the offending players deserve to be punished? Absolutely. Is the punishment meted out by the Commissioner appropriate? I don't think so. In my opinion, Artest should receive a 20-game suspension with strict probation the rest of the season. In other words, any unacceptable behavior when he returns to the court would result in immediate suspension for a full year.
Jackson and O'Neal should also receive suspensions, but for fewer games.
Finally, the Detroit franchise should be fined heavily. I'm thinking in the millions of dollars. They should forfeit their remaining games to the Pacers this season, and be forced to hire security for all future games. They also should be forced to discontinue beer sales at their games, and all fans involved in assaulting players should be banned from attending any future events.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Weekend Update
Well, my analysis of the football game was correct in every respect but one; I predicted a close game, and it was a blowout in favor of the visiting team.
Columbus North was unable to stop Warren Central's potent triple-option, and the WC offensive line dwarfed and dominated the North defensive front 7. WC scored on every possession until late in the fourth quarter, when they had already emptied their bench. On many occasions throughout the game, North's defense seemed to have them stopped for a third-and-long, but each time WC broke a big play, in several cases for a TD.
North's offense didn't have a bad night - they actually proved that they could move the ball on WC, although they stalled drives with some mistakes and some good WC defensive plays.
It was still a great run, and the season provided lots of positive memories for the players, coaches, families, and the Columbus community.
Too bad it's over, but now we can turn our attention to other things.
Columbus North was unable to stop Warren Central's potent triple-option, and the WC offensive line dwarfed and dominated the North defensive front 7. WC scored on every possession until late in the fourth quarter, when they had already emptied their bench. On many occasions throughout the game, North's defense seemed to have them stopped for a third-and-long, but each time WC broke a big play, in several cases for a TD.
North's offense didn't have a bad night - they actually proved that they could move the ball on WC, although they stalled drives with some mistakes and some good WC defensive plays.
It was still a great run, and the season provided lots of positive memories for the players, coaches, families, and the Columbus community.
Too bad it's over, but now we can turn our attention to other things.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
High School Football Final 4
Yes, this is all about the Columbus North Bulldogs (Columbus, Indiana) playing Warren Central for the Semi-State title and the right to play for the 5A State Championship on Thanksgiving weekend in the RCA Dome.
Nobody around the state seems to believe the 'Dogs stand a chance against the perennial powerhouse Warren Central, who by the way is the defending state champion. Win or lose, our team has had a great, historic run, that has already made great memories for the players (including our own Tim).
Here's the game analysis for this Friday night:
Warren Central is a super-sized Indianapolis high school that has built a tradition of state champion football teams. They run a Wing-T Option offense that relies on speed and deception, with a gigantic offensive line and a group of 3 very talented speedy backs. They have one loss for the season, to Center Grove, a team that was beaten by Avon in the Sectional first round. Avon was defeated by Columbus North in a tough but convincing game in the Sectional Semifinal, where they were held to only 6 points. Warren Central and Columbus North have played and beaten three teams in common, with Warren Central owning the overall largest win margins. North beat one team by a wider margin, but Warren Central drubbed the other two with what look like running-up-the score games.
Warren Central got to this game by defeating fellow Indy powerhouse Ben Davis by two points with a late come-from-behind score. Columbus North comes off a convincing 24-0 shutout of Castle High School to earn the right to represent the southern half of the state in this semifinal matchup.
Game conditions are predicted to be wet and muddy, which many think slightly favors Columbus North. Apparently Warren Central has had some turnover and offensive production problems in wet and muddy conditions, while North's defense seems to thrive in those games.
To win, North must continue to play shut-down defense, as their run-oriented offense is unlikely to generate a lot of points. Offensively, if North cannot get their '3-headed monster' running backs going, they will have to be able to throw effectively. The expectation is that Warren Central has thoroughly scouted North's offense, and will probably pack 9 guys in the box on defense to stifle the run and dare them to throw down the field. That strategy was used to great effectiveness by Bloomington South last year in eliminating North from the playoffs, as well as by Columbus East in the second game of this season in handing the 'Dogs their only loss this year.
For Warren Central to win, they will have to first avoid overconfidence. It has been a very long time since a southern school has been competitive on a state level, and Warren Central doesn't appear to be giving Columbus North much respect. On the field, WC will probably find North to be much tougher on defense than they expect, just as their other playoff opponents have this post-season. WC will have to find a way to break some big plays with their running offense and rely on their defense to shut down North's offense, or they will have to throw the ball to win.
I won't make any predictions on the game, mainly because I haven't seen Warren Central play. I do expect it to be a close, hard-fought game, which will most likely be decided on one or two key big plays and/or turnovers.
Either way, it's fun and exciting, but what can be most fun and exciting is if North pulls out the victory and goes to the RCA Dome next weekend. What a great experience for the kids, and what fun for the parents!
Nobody around the state seems to believe the 'Dogs stand a chance against the perennial powerhouse Warren Central, who by the way is the defending state champion. Win or lose, our team has had a great, historic run, that has already made great memories for the players (including our own Tim).
Here's the game analysis for this Friday night:
Warren Central is a super-sized Indianapolis high school that has built a tradition of state champion football teams. They run a Wing-T Option offense that relies on speed and deception, with a gigantic offensive line and a group of 3 very talented speedy backs. They have one loss for the season, to Center Grove, a team that was beaten by Avon in the Sectional first round. Avon was defeated by Columbus North in a tough but convincing game in the Sectional Semifinal, where they were held to only 6 points. Warren Central and Columbus North have played and beaten three teams in common, with Warren Central owning the overall largest win margins. North beat one team by a wider margin, but Warren Central drubbed the other two with what look like running-up-the score games.
Warren Central got to this game by defeating fellow Indy powerhouse Ben Davis by two points with a late come-from-behind score. Columbus North comes off a convincing 24-0 shutout of Castle High School to earn the right to represent the southern half of the state in this semifinal matchup.
Game conditions are predicted to be wet and muddy, which many think slightly favors Columbus North. Apparently Warren Central has had some turnover and offensive production problems in wet and muddy conditions, while North's defense seems to thrive in those games.
To win, North must continue to play shut-down defense, as their run-oriented offense is unlikely to generate a lot of points. Offensively, if North cannot get their '3-headed monster' running backs going, they will have to be able to throw effectively. The expectation is that Warren Central has thoroughly scouted North's offense, and will probably pack 9 guys in the box on defense to stifle the run and dare them to throw down the field. That strategy was used to great effectiveness by Bloomington South last year in eliminating North from the playoffs, as well as by Columbus East in the second game of this season in handing the 'Dogs their only loss this year.
For Warren Central to win, they will have to first avoid overconfidence. It has been a very long time since a southern school has been competitive on a state level, and Warren Central doesn't appear to be giving Columbus North much respect. On the field, WC will probably find North to be much tougher on defense than they expect, just as their other playoff opponents have this post-season. WC will have to find a way to break some big plays with their running offense and rely on their defense to shut down North's offense, or they will have to throw the ball to win.
I won't make any predictions on the game, mainly because I haven't seen Warren Central play. I do expect it to be a close, hard-fought game, which will most likely be decided on one or two key big plays and/or turnovers.
Either way, it's fun and exciting, but what can be most fun and exciting is if North pulls out the victory and goes to the RCA Dome next weekend. What a great experience for the kids, and what fun for the parents!
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Got Healthcare?
How about some real solutions to problems for a change?
If you don't really care much for reading about healthcare, go ahead and stop reading now. If you are, and know somebody who might be able to do something about it, please send my blog link to them.
To solve any problem, you first have to understand it. Here are the basics of the healthcare problem:
1. It costs too much.
2. Individuals can't get insurance, especially if they already have a health problem.
3. Our life expectancy keeps rising, partly because we're able to use drugs, surgery, and technology to keep us alive a lot longer than in the past.
4. Providers are in the business for the money rather than more altruistic motives. Healthcare is a profit-making enterprise that's becoming a huge chunk of our GDP.
5. People who have disappointing results are egged on by trial lawyers to sue the doctors & hospitals, which drives up cost further.
6. Medicine is focused on treatment instead of prevention.
It's tempting to throw up our hands and admit defeat. The system is nearly broken, and there seems to be nothing we can do about it. I'd say there's plenty that can be done about it, but every solution has a rich and powerful anti-constituency that will fight to the bitter end to keep them from being implemented.
It's admittedly very high-level, and nothing here is an original idea. However, there isn't anybody on the national scene that I know who is promoting all of these solutions together.
Anyway, here's how we fix the system:
1. Provide employers with attractive tax incentives to cover their employees in comprehensive health plans, including prevention and wellness. I also like Bush's idea for health insurance portability, which allows individuals and families to keep their plan as they change jobs. The logistics might be tricky, but it could be an excellent idea.
2. Let small businesses band together to purchase health coverage for their employees at the same rates the big companies get.
3. Implement tort reform that takes the following form: Before a malpractice lawsuit may be brought against a doctor, hospital, hmo, etc., the complaint must first be presented to a medical review board for determination of whether there is reasonable evidence of malpractice. The board must be made up of a mix of medical professionals and laymen proven to have no conflict of interest, who review each case and the evidence and decide whether the suit has merit. Along with this, get rid of the silly restrictions against suing HMO's for malpractice or improper denial of care.
4. Set up clinics and hospitals and/or provide subsidies to community health service organizations that provide indigent and uninsured patient care. Anyone can avail themselves of the services at these identified providers, and will be asked to pay as much as they can afford up to the limit of standard usual, reasonable, customary established rates. Provide interest-free government-guaranteed loans to help patients pay for their care, and use tax dollars (gasp!) to fill the gaps. For the average person, the message is, "if you need care, come to this location and you'll receive it regardless of your insurance status or ability to pay. However, you will be asked to pay as much as you can afford toward your treatment."
5. At these government-supported public healthcare organizations, focus on teaching hospitals and utilize young medical students as much as possible, supervised of course by professional staff.
6. Provide attractive tax incentives for physicians and surgeons who provide indigent care with minimal or waived fees. For example, a heart surgeon who does 50 bypass surgeries per month could perform 5 per month for uninsured patients, taking whatever they can afford. The difference between what the patient pays and the normal fee for the surgery would be deductible on the surgeon's tax return.
7. Eliminate the mountains of paperwork. The government and private insurers have required such extensive paperwork that providers are getting buried in administrative overhead costs, not to mention delayed payments. A unified, standard electronic reporting form must be developed and accepted by all insurers, which all providers create on their computer system and transmit directly to the appropriate insurer. The technology exists, all that's needed is standards to eliminate the huge and growing costs of compliance with insurer's paperwork requirements.
Yes, my concept is a partnership between government and private healthcare companies. Let's not delude ourselves - we're going to provide these services to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. So we have to accept the fact that there will always be uninsured people who get sick and need treatment. Rather than turning them away, we should be prepared to subsidize their treatments, surgery and drugs. With help from private organizations, plus hospitals, physicians, and drug companies, along with making it as easy and attractive as possible for all employers to cover their employees, I think the tax-funded portion could be managed.
We've already got Medicare and Medicaid, which are both socialized medicine. All I'm suggesting is that we could manage these programs more efficiently by opening or subsidizing specific clinics, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. for those who don't have private coverage. By the way, these places would not be government-run, but managed by private companies licensed by the government who are encouraged to be efficient and keep costs down while maintaining a high level of service.
Seems pretty simple to me, but of course it isn't perfect. There is no perfect, but there can be pretty good - this approach I think is pretty good.
If you don't really care much for reading about healthcare, go ahead and stop reading now. If you are, and know somebody who might be able to do something about it, please send my blog link to them.
To solve any problem, you first have to understand it. Here are the basics of the healthcare problem:
1. It costs too much.
2. Individuals can't get insurance, especially if they already have a health problem.
3. Our life expectancy keeps rising, partly because we're able to use drugs, surgery, and technology to keep us alive a lot longer than in the past.
4. Providers are in the business for the money rather than more altruistic motives. Healthcare is a profit-making enterprise that's becoming a huge chunk of our GDP.
5. People who have disappointing results are egged on by trial lawyers to sue the doctors & hospitals, which drives up cost further.
6. Medicine is focused on treatment instead of prevention.
It's tempting to throw up our hands and admit defeat. The system is nearly broken, and there seems to be nothing we can do about it. I'd say there's plenty that can be done about it, but every solution has a rich and powerful anti-constituency that will fight to the bitter end to keep them from being implemented.
It's admittedly very high-level, and nothing here is an original idea. However, there isn't anybody on the national scene that I know who is promoting all of these solutions together.
Anyway, here's how we fix the system:
1. Provide employers with attractive tax incentives to cover their employees in comprehensive health plans, including prevention and wellness. I also like Bush's idea for health insurance portability, which allows individuals and families to keep their plan as they change jobs. The logistics might be tricky, but it could be an excellent idea.
2. Let small businesses band together to purchase health coverage for their employees at the same rates the big companies get.
3. Implement tort reform that takes the following form: Before a malpractice lawsuit may be brought against a doctor, hospital, hmo, etc., the complaint must first be presented to a medical review board for determination of whether there is reasonable evidence of malpractice. The board must be made up of a mix of medical professionals and laymen proven to have no conflict of interest, who review each case and the evidence and decide whether the suit has merit. Along with this, get rid of the silly restrictions against suing HMO's for malpractice or improper denial of care.
4. Set up clinics and hospitals and/or provide subsidies to community health service organizations that provide indigent and uninsured patient care. Anyone can avail themselves of the services at these identified providers, and will be asked to pay as much as they can afford up to the limit of standard usual, reasonable, customary established rates. Provide interest-free government-guaranteed loans to help patients pay for their care, and use tax dollars (gasp!) to fill the gaps. For the average person, the message is, "if you need care, come to this location and you'll receive it regardless of your insurance status or ability to pay. However, you will be asked to pay as much as you can afford toward your treatment."
5. At these government-supported public healthcare organizations, focus on teaching hospitals and utilize young medical students as much as possible, supervised of course by professional staff.
6. Provide attractive tax incentives for physicians and surgeons who provide indigent care with minimal or waived fees. For example, a heart surgeon who does 50 bypass surgeries per month could perform 5 per month for uninsured patients, taking whatever they can afford. The difference between what the patient pays and the normal fee for the surgery would be deductible on the surgeon's tax return.
7. Eliminate the mountains of paperwork. The government and private insurers have required such extensive paperwork that providers are getting buried in administrative overhead costs, not to mention delayed payments. A unified, standard electronic reporting form must be developed and accepted by all insurers, which all providers create on their computer system and transmit directly to the appropriate insurer. The technology exists, all that's needed is standards to eliminate the huge and growing costs of compliance with insurer's paperwork requirements.
Yes, my concept is a partnership between government and private healthcare companies. Let's not delude ourselves - we're going to provide these services to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. So we have to accept the fact that there will always be uninsured people who get sick and need treatment. Rather than turning them away, we should be prepared to subsidize their treatments, surgery and drugs. With help from private organizations, plus hospitals, physicians, and drug companies, along with making it as easy and attractive as possible for all employers to cover their employees, I think the tax-funded portion could be managed.
We've already got Medicare and Medicaid, which are both socialized medicine. All I'm suggesting is that we could manage these programs more efficiently by opening or subsidizing specific clinics, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. for those who don't have private coverage. By the way, these places would not be government-run, but managed by private companies licensed by the government who are encouraged to be efficient and keep costs down while maintaining a high level of service.
Seems pretty simple to me, but of course it isn't perfect. There is no perfect, but there can be pretty good - this approach I think is pretty good.
Friday, November 12, 2004
High School Football Fridays
It's regional championship night. For me, that means taking a bus full of parents way down to Indiana's toe to watch Columbus North and Castle. Should be fun, if rather chilly. There's something kind of special about watching the next generation play a sport you played about 30 years ago.
Even when I've got no more kids playing, I think I'll still try to make the time to get to the high school games on Friday nights. The whole experience of sitting in the bleachers, watching the kids on the field, their classmates in the stands, the band, the cheerleaders, the concession stands; it all evokes memories of special days that we can relive to some degree by revisiting that high school stadium on Friday night.
Tim's had ups and downs for his senior year. On the up-side, he's been on the field more than in any one of his 5 years playing football. A perennial benchwarmer, even though he still has been unable to break through the starting lineup, he has seen some decent playing time and been able to contribute with tackles, a fumble recovery, and even a touchdown catch! On the other hand, a sprained ankle and maybe a little time in the coach's doghouse has kept him off the field for 5 games.
As an admittedly biased Dad, it's been a little bit frustrating having him on the sidelines when healthy while believing he could be contributing on the field. Once the winning combination was identified by the coach, he's stayed with the starters only until a game is well out of reach, which means at least a 28-point lead. By then, Tim doesn't really care if he plays, because he feels the playing time is meaningless. I don't blame him.
Even though I may have had some more success as far as playing time in my high school football days, I certainly never caught a TD pass (I was a lineman). Our HS team, especially in my senior year, was in a rebuilding phase with a brand new coach. Coach Mirer was a great coach, though. It really didn't surprise me when just a few years after I graduated, my alma mater won the State Championship with my brother David on the team.
There are a few noticeable changes since my high school days. Weightlifting has become a huge factor - we just had a Universal machine, but even then conditioning was focused on leg strength, neck strength, and speed. It would be more difficult for me to play with these bulked-up weightlifters given my 1974 6'2" 180 lb playing size.
The CN Bulldogs are expected to beat Castle, but a business acquaintance in Bloomington who's son played the same team in the Regional a few years ago tells me it's a tough place to win. He felt their visiting Bloomington South team was hurt by "homer" officials who overlooked constant fouls by Castle while flagging non-existant violations on the visitors to wipe out big plays. I certainly hope that's not what we'll see tonight.
Even with a win tonight, virtually nobody gives the 'Dogs a chance against their Semi-State opponent, the winner between Warren Central and Ben Davis. On the other hand, nobody around the state really knows very much about this Columbus team that came out of nowhere to win a share of their conference championship and beat very good teams to get this far. Let's hope they can sneak up on that next powerhouse opponent to get into the dome Thanksgiving weekend.
Go Dogs - Beat Castle! Go Tim - show them your stuff!
Even when I've got no more kids playing, I think I'll still try to make the time to get to the high school games on Friday nights. The whole experience of sitting in the bleachers, watching the kids on the field, their classmates in the stands, the band, the cheerleaders, the concession stands; it all evokes memories of special days that we can relive to some degree by revisiting that high school stadium on Friday night.
Tim's had ups and downs for his senior year. On the up-side, he's been on the field more than in any one of his 5 years playing football. A perennial benchwarmer, even though he still has been unable to break through the starting lineup, he has seen some decent playing time and been able to contribute with tackles, a fumble recovery, and even a touchdown catch! On the other hand, a sprained ankle and maybe a little time in the coach's doghouse has kept him off the field for 5 games.
As an admittedly biased Dad, it's been a little bit frustrating having him on the sidelines when healthy while believing he could be contributing on the field. Once the winning combination was identified by the coach, he's stayed with the starters only until a game is well out of reach, which means at least a 28-point lead. By then, Tim doesn't really care if he plays, because he feels the playing time is meaningless. I don't blame him.
Even though I may have had some more success as far as playing time in my high school football days, I certainly never caught a TD pass (I was a lineman). Our HS team, especially in my senior year, was in a rebuilding phase with a brand new coach. Coach Mirer was a great coach, though. It really didn't surprise me when just a few years after I graduated, my alma mater won the State Championship with my brother David on the team.
There are a few noticeable changes since my high school days. Weightlifting has become a huge factor - we just had a Universal machine, but even then conditioning was focused on leg strength, neck strength, and speed. It would be more difficult for me to play with these bulked-up weightlifters given my 1974 6'2" 180 lb playing size.
The CN Bulldogs are expected to beat Castle, but a business acquaintance in Bloomington who's son played the same team in the Regional a few years ago tells me it's a tough place to win. He felt their visiting Bloomington South team was hurt by "homer" officials who overlooked constant fouls by Castle while flagging non-existant violations on the visitors to wipe out big plays. I certainly hope that's not what we'll see tonight.
Even with a win tonight, virtually nobody gives the 'Dogs a chance against their Semi-State opponent, the winner between Warren Central and Ben Davis. On the other hand, nobody around the state really knows very much about this Columbus team that came out of nowhere to win a share of their conference championship and beat very good teams to get this far. Let's hope they can sneak up on that next powerhouse opponent to get into the dome Thanksgiving weekend.
Go Dogs - Beat Castle! Go Tim - show them your stuff!
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
The Real Church
The level of hatred of Christianity by the election losers, now that the "blue states" folks feel free to show their true colors, is stunning. What horrible examples did these people have growing up that gave them such a negative perspective on people of faith? Is it a result of their actual first-hand experience with Christians, or perhaps more a misguided perception fed by their friends and acquaintances in those coastal megolopoles where the groupthink has taken over the mob?
As I try to sift through the vitriol from the Atheist Left, the main issues that seem to come through are that Christians want to round up gays, outlaw abortion and throw any Doctors and women who participate in them in jail, spy on adults in their bedrooms, etc. And of course, all of this comes from a bunch of evil hypocrites who engage in these activities themselves but want to pretend they're above reproach.
Christians need to engage in more introspection, and the Church as a whole (Catholic and Protestant) is badly in need of a revival. Truly the Church cannot decry ungodliness in this country without first looking inside itself. How many churches now either provide open or tacit approval to those in their midst who are living in a state of sin; to avoid the hypocrisy label, we must be equally strong in counseling against premarital relations, cohabitation, abortion, adultery, and homosexual behavior.
I think part of the hatred being expressed toward people of faith is based on the apparent hypocrisy of a church that is outspoken against Gay Marriage, but strangely silent on adultery and multiple marriages so prevalent in our society. Catholics have been harmed terribly by the horrible actions of a few priests, Episcopalians by the ordination of an openly Gay bishop, and many other sects by a watered down, feel-good approach trying to be relevant but teaching people nothing.
The answer is for the Church to be consistent on issues of morality, while being sure to make those cases in a loving manner. We have to be firm on issues of sin, but never strident or hateful. Our message to the world must be clear on the basic tenets of our faith; love and acceptance, redemption for sinners, and the joy of being part of the family of God.
As I try to sift through the vitriol from the Atheist Left, the main issues that seem to come through are that Christians want to round up gays, outlaw abortion and throw any Doctors and women who participate in them in jail, spy on adults in their bedrooms, etc. And of course, all of this comes from a bunch of evil hypocrites who engage in these activities themselves but want to pretend they're above reproach.
Christians need to engage in more introspection, and the Church as a whole (Catholic and Protestant) is badly in need of a revival. Truly the Church cannot decry ungodliness in this country without first looking inside itself. How many churches now either provide open or tacit approval to those in their midst who are living in a state of sin; to avoid the hypocrisy label, we must be equally strong in counseling against premarital relations, cohabitation, abortion, adultery, and homosexual behavior.
I think part of the hatred being expressed toward people of faith is based on the apparent hypocrisy of a church that is outspoken against Gay Marriage, but strangely silent on adultery and multiple marriages so prevalent in our society. Catholics have been harmed terribly by the horrible actions of a few priests, Episcopalians by the ordination of an openly Gay bishop, and many other sects by a watered down, feel-good approach trying to be relevant but teaching people nothing.
The answer is for the Church to be consistent on issues of morality, while being sure to make those cases in a loving manner. We have to be firm on issues of sin, but never strident or hateful. Our message to the world must be clear on the basic tenets of our faith; love and acceptance, redemption for sinners, and the joy of being part of the family of God.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Thankful it's almost over
I voted early after discovering I'd be out of town on Tuesday. It was fairly busy at the courthouse with other early voters, but I didn't have to wait too long.
The outcome of the election, if it is as close as the pollsters say it is, will be disappointing on many levels even if my choice wins. This election, I am convinced, represents a turning point in our country's history that will decide whether our country will continue to be the great success story or just another secular socialist country like those in Europe.
Whether he wins election or even comes close, all this support for Kerry tells us that somewhere close to half of the country believes these things:
1. Iraq is no threat to us, electing Kerry doesn't encourage terrorists, and the war was just about making Cheney & Haliburton rich.
2. Abortion on demand, no questions asked, paid for by taxpayers who morally object, provided to teen and pre-teen girls without their parent's knowledge, and available all the way up to killing a fully developed baby just before delivery, are all just part of a woman's right to choose.
3. People of faith, including Christians and Jews but excluding Muslims, Atheists, Humanists, Pagans, Wiccans, etc. should shut up and stop imposing their morality on everyone, their churches should be taxed on donations, and clergy should be forced to marry homosexuals even if their theology clearly teaches it to be antithetical to their faith.
4. The rich need to pay more taxes, notwithstanding that they already pay the lion's share and a huge segment of the population doesn't pay any at all. We should go back to Jimmy Carter's days with 80% marginal tax rates on earnings over $100K everyone except the liberal leadership and entertainers, even if it destroys our economy.
5. While we're at it, we should also destroy our economy with Kyoto-type environmental laws that shut down whatever's left of our industrial base and completes the transition of all of those jobs to places like China and India, then forcing us to ride bicycles to work and no longer be able to heat or cool our homes economically.
6. Now the FCC can finally be forced to stop hassling the Howard Sterns of the world and permit public radio and television programming that includes as much pornography, violence and vulgarity as the public will take. If parents don't want their kids to see it, they can always change the channel, right?
7. Finally we can fix healthcare, giving everyone full access to the system through a government-controlled single-payer system funded by those taxes on the rich. Of course it's worth the damage to the economy, and so what if people need the whole day off to see the doctor after waiting a month to get an appointment, then waiting a few more weeks to fill the prescription?
8. And now the trial lawyers will have the freedom they need to sue everyone with money for whatever wrong they might have committed on an unsuspecting public. Lawyers love Kerry & Edwards, who will make sure they can continue to get multi-million dollar settlements from corporations through class-action lawsuits where the victims get a little grocery money in compensation after the lawyers collect their one-third to one-half share of those millions they won for their clients.
9. Public schools will now be free and encouraged to teach all of the diversity-friendly values that conservatives have been blocking all these years. Elementary school kids all need to know how gay people have sex, that promiscuity is OK as long as you use a condom, that white males are the scourge of the planet and will be made to pay for their crimes, and that religion is for the weak minded.
I've got more, but I'm tired and sad. Good luck everybody with your new society, I'm praying for mercy.
The outcome of the election, if it is as close as the pollsters say it is, will be disappointing on many levels even if my choice wins. This election, I am convinced, represents a turning point in our country's history that will decide whether our country will continue to be the great success story or just another secular socialist country like those in Europe.
Whether he wins election or even comes close, all this support for Kerry tells us that somewhere close to half of the country believes these things:
1. Iraq is no threat to us, electing Kerry doesn't encourage terrorists, and the war was just about making Cheney & Haliburton rich.
2. Abortion on demand, no questions asked, paid for by taxpayers who morally object, provided to teen and pre-teen girls without their parent's knowledge, and available all the way up to killing a fully developed baby just before delivery, are all just part of a woman's right to choose.
3. People of faith, including Christians and Jews but excluding Muslims, Atheists, Humanists, Pagans, Wiccans, etc. should shut up and stop imposing their morality on everyone, their churches should be taxed on donations, and clergy should be forced to marry homosexuals even if their theology clearly teaches it to be antithetical to their faith.
4. The rich need to pay more taxes, notwithstanding that they already pay the lion's share and a huge segment of the population doesn't pay any at all. We should go back to Jimmy Carter's days with 80% marginal tax rates on earnings over $100K everyone except the liberal leadership and entertainers, even if it destroys our economy.
5. While we're at it, we should also destroy our economy with Kyoto-type environmental laws that shut down whatever's left of our industrial base and completes the transition of all of those jobs to places like China and India, then forcing us to ride bicycles to work and no longer be able to heat or cool our homes economically.
6. Now the FCC can finally be forced to stop hassling the Howard Sterns of the world and permit public radio and television programming that includes as much pornography, violence and vulgarity as the public will take. If parents don't want their kids to see it, they can always change the channel, right?
7. Finally we can fix healthcare, giving everyone full access to the system through a government-controlled single-payer system funded by those taxes on the rich. Of course it's worth the damage to the economy, and so what if people need the whole day off to see the doctor after waiting a month to get an appointment, then waiting a few more weeks to fill the prescription?
8. And now the trial lawyers will have the freedom they need to sue everyone with money for whatever wrong they might have committed on an unsuspecting public. Lawyers love Kerry & Edwards, who will make sure they can continue to get multi-million dollar settlements from corporations through class-action lawsuits where the victims get a little grocery money in compensation after the lawyers collect their one-third to one-half share of those millions they won for their clients.
9. Public schools will now be free and encouraged to teach all of the diversity-friendly values that conservatives have been blocking all these years. Elementary school kids all need to know how gay people have sex, that promiscuity is OK as long as you use a condom, that white males are the scourge of the planet and will be made to pay for their crimes, and that religion is for the weak minded.
I've got more, but I'm tired and sad. Good luck everybody with your new society, I'm praying for mercy.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Almost Polled
I was almost polled for the election.
Almost?
The pollster called me this weekend at my home phone. She went right into the questions - first the Presidential race, asking me my preference and attitudes toward the candidates.
But strangely, just as we were getting started, but after I'd made my strongly-held views clear, the call dropped. Did she hang up? Did the connection go down? I'll never know, but clearly the call ended before the poll was complete, and she made no attempt to call me back.
OK, this wasn't a cellular call, where disconnects are normal. It's extremely rare for a call to be lost on the land line, but it seems strange that it happened on this particular call. By the way, no calls since have had any problems whatsoever, and there were no weather problems or other circumstances that could have explained the failure.
Is it possible that they had their quota of respondents already who indicated a strong preference that matched mine? Do you think that the polling company, the supervisor, or the caller herself were disconnecting calls that didn't give them the results they were looking for to force the result to be what they wanted to report? What if the race isn't really close at all, but the polls are being manipulated to make people think it's close to make those on the opposing side turn out?
I guess we'll never know.
Almost?
The pollster called me this weekend at my home phone. She went right into the questions - first the Presidential race, asking me my preference and attitudes toward the candidates.
But strangely, just as we were getting started, but after I'd made my strongly-held views clear, the call dropped. Did she hang up? Did the connection go down? I'll never know, but clearly the call ended before the poll was complete, and she made no attempt to call me back.
OK, this wasn't a cellular call, where disconnects are normal. It's extremely rare for a call to be lost on the land line, but it seems strange that it happened on this particular call. By the way, no calls since have had any problems whatsoever, and there were no weather problems or other circumstances that could have explained the failure.
Is it possible that they had their quota of respondents already who indicated a strong preference that matched mine? Do you think that the polling company, the supervisor, or the caller herself were disconnecting calls that didn't give them the results they were looking for to force the result to be what they wanted to report? What if the race isn't really close at all, but the polls are being manipulated to make people think it's close to make those on the opposing side turn out?
I guess we'll never know.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Who are Catholics?
Given such clear-cut social and moral issues at stake right now - abortion/partial-birth abortion, gay marriage among the most prominent - you might think that Catholics would be united behind the candidate that's strongest on these issues.
Interestingly enough, that's not the candidate that claims to be a Catholic himself. After what appears to be a long record of supporting abortion rights and Planned Parenthood, Kerry came out during the campaign to say he personally believes in the teachings of his Church. I imagine that sort of contradiction would leave even his abortion-rights friends scratching their heads.
But doesn't Kerry sort of reflect a deeper problem in the Catholic Church? As an adult convert to Catholicism, one of the things that has troubled me most about the Church is their apparent weakness on issues of morality. Even though the Church officially strongly teaches moral principles of respect for life and personal chastity and responsibility, their membership is reported to be just as likely as the rest of the public to have an abortion.
How can we reconcile this contradiction? Let me try to suggest my own theory of the multiple reasons for Catholics who aren't really Catholic:
1. They really don't know any better: I'm surprised at how many fellow church members I've encountered who really don't know their Catechism. There isn't much emphasis on study of the faith or the Bible in the Church, which I believe results in an uninformed body.
2. They don't embrace the Church's teachings: The contrast is that there are lots of Catholics who nominally understand what the church believes, but don't feel obligated to follow those teachings. Many will pick and choose based on their own personal feelings or convenience; a great example is a majority of Catholics who oppose abortion yet use contraception. It seems that once the door is open to make individual choices on issues of morality, there's no limit to what teachings will be rejected because of thinking clouded by cultural norms.
3. They lack exemplary leadership: Incredibly distressing are the many stories of priests who have molested children, people who have become atheist at least partly due to experiences with sadistic nuns as children, and priests and religious today who publicly flaunt their apostacy without consequence from the Church itself.
A prominent argument taking place among Catholics today relates to ordaining women and accepting married priests. Both are aimed at addressing a near-crisis shortage of priests in our country. Before action is taken on these questions, I would hope that the Church will first ask the question, "Does this change serve God or is it just a capitulation to popular secular ideas?" Might I suggest that the real cause of the shortage is directly related to a Church that has lost its voice and moral authority, standing up for very little for fear of offending an increasingly secular congregation.
A Church focused on being a light to the world and a commitment to the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ never need fear a lack of priests. As soon as our Bishops gather the courage to discipline their parishes and teach their congregations what God wants from His people, there will be no more shortages.
Interestingly enough, that's not the candidate that claims to be a Catholic himself. After what appears to be a long record of supporting abortion rights and Planned Parenthood, Kerry came out during the campaign to say he personally believes in the teachings of his Church. I imagine that sort of contradiction would leave even his abortion-rights friends scratching their heads.
But doesn't Kerry sort of reflect a deeper problem in the Catholic Church? As an adult convert to Catholicism, one of the things that has troubled me most about the Church is their apparent weakness on issues of morality. Even though the Church officially strongly teaches moral principles of respect for life and personal chastity and responsibility, their membership is reported to be just as likely as the rest of the public to have an abortion.
How can we reconcile this contradiction? Let me try to suggest my own theory of the multiple reasons for Catholics who aren't really Catholic:
1. They really don't know any better: I'm surprised at how many fellow church members I've encountered who really don't know their Catechism. There isn't much emphasis on study of the faith or the Bible in the Church, which I believe results in an uninformed body.
2. They don't embrace the Church's teachings: The contrast is that there are lots of Catholics who nominally understand what the church believes, but don't feel obligated to follow those teachings. Many will pick and choose based on their own personal feelings or convenience; a great example is a majority of Catholics who oppose abortion yet use contraception. It seems that once the door is open to make individual choices on issues of morality, there's no limit to what teachings will be rejected because of thinking clouded by cultural norms.
3. They lack exemplary leadership: Incredibly distressing are the many stories of priests who have molested children, people who have become atheist at least partly due to experiences with sadistic nuns as children, and priests and religious today who publicly flaunt their apostacy without consequence from the Church itself.
A prominent argument taking place among Catholics today relates to ordaining women and accepting married priests. Both are aimed at addressing a near-crisis shortage of priests in our country. Before action is taken on these questions, I would hope that the Church will first ask the question, "Does this change serve God or is it just a capitulation to popular secular ideas?" Might I suggest that the real cause of the shortage is directly related to a Church that has lost its voice and moral authority, standing up for very little for fear of offending an increasingly secular congregation.
A Church focused on being a light to the world and a commitment to the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ never need fear a lack of priests. As soon as our Bishops gather the courage to discipline their parishes and teach their congregations what God wants from His people, there will be no more shortages.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Religion Musings
Religious __________;
Right
Zealots
Fanatics
Conservatives
Fundamentalists
Nuts
Just a few of the perjoratives I hear from the left wingers in our country today. I've even heard evangelical Christians referred to as the equivalent of the Taliban. How have we reached this place in our society?
There seems to be this irrational fear among the non-religious libs that somehow Christian Conservatives are out to "impose their views" on everyone. If a Christian suggests that adultery, homosexuality, and abortion are morally wrong, they are immediately slapped down by the "thought police" who are supremely indignant that anyone should dare to suggest anything is wrong on the basis of any religious belief.
We're supposed to be "tolerant" and to celebrate "diversity" in our culture today. Whenever I hear those two code words, I now experience an internal shudder. Those words don't mean repecting people of other races and religions anymore; they really mean embracing "alternative lifestyles" up to the point of this year's unbelievable debate about gay marriage.
It was interesting hearing about some reported "study" that seemed to find some specific genetic characteristic that was consistent among homosexuals. It made me wonder; if they looked hard enough, might they also find genetic characteristics for pedophilia, anti-social behavior, serial killers, etc.? It seems to me that if a suggestion can be made of a genetic pre-disposition to anything acts to remove personal responsibility and morality from the equation. Or is that ultimately the goal?
Let's be clear, just in case there happens to be a reader who's an atheist/agnostic that is frightened that Christians are going to take over the country and turn it into some sort of repressive Taliban-like regime:
First, Christians are completely supportive of the Constitution, which does not permit the Establishment of Religion. That doesn't mean what too many people have tried to make it mean, where the "Separation of Church and State" grants government the authority to deny people of faith their First Amendment rights. It simply means that the government cannot favor one religion over another, which I do not believe public displays of the ten commandments or creches violates in any way.
Second, Christianity itself is based on free will. Nobody is forced to join the faith, but must reach a sincere decision on their own. Sure, evangelicals see it as their mission to convert as many people as possible, but even they will not use force to accomplish that mission.
Finally, I believe any action by the government to force Gay Marriage on the country violates the Establishment clause of the Constitution. Think of it in this way: Marriage is one of the main sacraments of the Christian faith, and to force recognition of same-sex marriage is an affront to all members of the faith.
I'm very sorry to see that many Christian denominations have begun the slide down that slippery slope toward apostacy in the name of progressivism. Truth is truth, regardless of where our cultural values lead. Trying to "stay relevant" and "update to modern thinking" will make such churches irrelevant and lead many away from God. We can't ignore the fact that divorce and promiscuity are rampant, but not being addressed from pulpits out of fear people involved in these behaviors will take offense. The Church must refocus on being the light of the world rather than following the path of shades of gray that leads to darkness.
Right
Zealots
Fanatics
Conservatives
Fundamentalists
Nuts
Just a few of the perjoratives I hear from the left wingers in our country today. I've even heard evangelical Christians referred to as the equivalent of the Taliban. How have we reached this place in our society?
There seems to be this irrational fear among the non-religious libs that somehow Christian Conservatives are out to "impose their views" on everyone. If a Christian suggests that adultery, homosexuality, and abortion are morally wrong, they are immediately slapped down by the "thought police" who are supremely indignant that anyone should dare to suggest anything is wrong on the basis of any religious belief.
We're supposed to be "tolerant" and to celebrate "diversity" in our culture today. Whenever I hear those two code words, I now experience an internal shudder. Those words don't mean repecting people of other races and religions anymore; they really mean embracing "alternative lifestyles" up to the point of this year's unbelievable debate about gay marriage.
It was interesting hearing about some reported "study" that seemed to find some specific genetic characteristic that was consistent among homosexuals. It made me wonder; if they looked hard enough, might they also find genetic characteristics for pedophilia, anti-social behavior, serial killers, etc.? It seems to me that if a suggestion can be made of a genetic pre-disposition to anything acts to remove personal responsibility and morality from the equation. Or is that ultimately the goal?
Let's be clear, just in case there happens to be a reader who's an atheist/agnostic that is frightened that Christians are going to take over the country and turn it into some sort of repressive Taliban-like regime:
First, Christians are completely supportive of the Constitution, which does not permit the Establishment of Religion. That doesn't mean what too many people have tried to make it mean, where the "Separation of Church and State" grants government the authority to deny people of faith their First Amendment rights. It simply means that the government cannot favor one religion over another, which I do not believe public displays of the ten commandments or creches violates in any way.
Second, Christianity itself is based on free will. Nobody is forced to join the faith, but must reach a sincere decision on their own. Sure, evangelicals see it as their mission to convert as many people as possible, but even they will not use force to accomplish that mission.
Finally, I believe any action by the government to force Gay Marriage on the country violates the Establishment clause of the Constitution. Think of it in this way: Marriage is one of the main sacraments of the Christian faith, and to force recognition of same-sex marriage is an affront to all members of the faith.
I'm very sorry to see that many Christian denominations have begun the slide down that slippery slope toward apostacy in the name of progressivism. Truth is truth, regardless of where our cultural values lead. Trying to "stay relevant" and "update to modern thinking" will make such churches irrelevant and lead many away from God. We can't ignore the fact that divorce and promiscuity are rampant, but not being addressed from pulpits out of fear people involved in these behaviors will take offense. The Church must refocus on being the light of the world rather than following the path of shades of gray that leads to darkness.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
The Perfect President
No more debate watching for me. I've seen and heard all I need from the two candidates, and as you probably can tell from prior blogs, there's no way I'm voting for Kerry.
That's not to say I'm a great lover of W. I kind of like him, or at least his down-to-earth and no-nonsense persona. But I've got some serious issues with some of the things he's done.
So, here's the profile of what I think is the perfect president:
That's not to say I'm a great lover of W. I kind of like him, or at least his down-to-earth and no-nonsense persona. But I've got some serious issues with some of the things he's done.
So, here's the profile of what I think is the perfect president:
- Pro-Life, but realistic enough to know he'll be hated if he's too aggressive about reversing Roe v. Wade. How about a pres who asks the American people to join with him in encouraging alternatives to abortion and removing all the reasons women seek them to make it irrelevant?
- Resolute and tough in the war on terror.
- Solving the Illegal Immigration problem. It's not just a problem of poor immigrants streaming over the Mexican border, but is also part of the war on terror to keep criminals and terrorists from sneaking into the country and creating havoc. He must stop the unholy alliance between businesses who rely on the government to look the other way while they hire illegals at low wages, and Democrats, who have traditionally pandered to the illegal immigrants by offering them amnesty in return for their votes.
- Committed to appointing real judges who interpret law instead of trying to make it up on their own.
- Friendly to business and free trade, but in a balanced way that does not cater to the corporate world or the workers. Trade that's free but fair, labor rules that protect workers from harmful corporate practices and permit unions, but not to the point that it hurts our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
- Committed to Education at all levels, making sure kids get the best education possible even in poor and troubled districts, and helping make college more affordable and reducing massive student loan debts.
- Getting real Tax Reform done, removing pork-barrel and wasteful spending, simplifying the tax code, and making sure nobody's exempt from paying taxes just because they contributed to the right candidates.
- Finding real solutions to Health Care problems, again with a balanced approach that is focused on reducing costs and increasing accessibility without favoring any one constituency over another (Doctors, Hospitals, Lawyers, Patients, Insurers, Drug Companies, Government Bureaucracy)
- A friend of Religious institutions, working to stop the secularists from removing all references to God from the public square. People have the right to believe what they choose and tell others about their beliefs, but it's not right that some wish to silence them because they are "offended" by their speech.
- Fiscally Responsible, refusing to sign any spending legislation until all the pork is cut, priorities are taken care of, stupid programs are discontinued, and income at least equals (if not exceeds) spending.
- Committed to a gradual conversion of Social Security to become actually what it was created to be; a retirement and disability insurance program. Let American workers actually fund their own Social Security account, allowing investments in income-producing instruments and insurance in their own accounts which become available to them and their families upon retirement, death, or disability.
- A Sensible Foreign Policy that helps countries who need it in return for their alliance and friendship, leads the world in rewarding countries who value freedom and human rights while sanctioning those who do not, and continues to engage the world in initiatives for peace and stamping out disease, famine, and civil strife.
OK, tell me I'm dreaming. But is it really so hard to get leadership in this country that actually will work to implement these common-sense policies and protect our values and freedoms?
Friday, October 08, 2004
Just Bloggin'
How about some generalized bloggin' thoughts for a Friday.
Will probably miss the debate tonight to see the Bulldogs hopefully chalk up another win. Too bad Tim's down with an ankle sprain this week, but hopefully he'll be back for Pike next week.
Got the website posted finally. It's still in need of some work, but you might find it interesting. It's at http://www.bcsc.k12.in.us/northhs/athletics/football/
Here's what I'd like Bush to tell everyone tonight:
"During this election year, you have been hearing my opponent repeat as a mantra that my administration lied and misled the American people to rush into war in Iraq. What is most disappointing to me about his rhetoric is that I am certain he knows that those statements are completely and totally wrong."
"Given his poor attendance record in the Senate, and especially the Intelligence committee, I can't be sure he was there at the time, but Senator Kerry received every shred of intelligence available and reached the same conclusion I did at the time: Iraq possessed WMD's, supported terrorists, and presented a real and building threat to our security. Now he wants to pretend that he knew better how to deal with Iraq, even though he publicly stated his support for the war and voted for it."
"Now he's trying to tell you that he will take care of Iraq by getting the French and Germans involved, as if our coalition is invalid without their participation. What he's hoping you won't find out is that the report he's so fond of citing that declared there were no WMD's in Iraq at the time we began the war, but it also indicated that Saddam was actively bribing high-level officials in both countries to try to insure any action against him would be vetoed in the UN. In addition, the evidence clearly shows that he had definitive plans to rebuild his WMD capabilities, including Nuclear weapons, as soon as he was successful at getting the UN out of the way."
"The fact is that we're winning the war on terror. Yes, it's a tough road in Iraq, but we have succeeded in not only decimating the ranks of al Qaida, but also attracting them to fighting our troops there so they are unable to bring their terrorism to our own shores. Not only will we succeed in helping Iraq transform into a peaceful democracy, but the war on terror will be won as long as we stay the course and do not waver. Clearly, a Kerry presidency will place polling and political expedience above our country's security; something we cannot afford at this critical time."
OK, I'll never be a presidential speechwriter, but this is the general message that should be conveyed, along with lots of other messages about protecting the constitution, rebuilding the economy, dealing with the healthcare crisis, etc.
Will probably miss the debate tonight to see the Bulldogs hopefully chalk up another win. Too bad Tim's down with an ankle sprain this week, but hopefully he'll be back for Pike next week.
Got the website posted finally. It's still in need of some work, but you might find it interesting. It's at http://www.bcsc.k12.in.us/northhs/athletics/football/
Here's what I'd like Bush to tell everyone tonight:
"During this election year, you have been hearing my opponent repeat as a mantra that my administration lied and misled the American people to rush into war in Iraq. What is most disappointing to me about his rhetoric is that I am certain he knows that those statements are completely and totally wrong."
"Given his poor attendance record in the Senate, and especially the Intelligence committee, I can't be sure he was there at the time, but Senator Kerry received every shred of intelligence available and reached the same conclusion I did at the time: Iraq possessed WMD's, supported terrorists, and presented a real and building threat to our security. Now he wants to pretend that he knew better how to deal with Iraq, even though he publicly stated his support for the war and voted for it."
"Now he's trying to tell you that he will take care of Iraq by getting the French and Germans involved, as if our coalition is invalid without their participation. What he's hoping you won't find out is that the report he's so fond of citing that declared there were no WMD's in Iraq at the time we began the war, but it also indicated that Saddam was actively bribing high-level officials in both countries to try to insure any action against him would be vetoed in the UN. In addition, the evidence clearly shows that he had definitive plans to rebuild his WMD capabilities, including Nuclear weapons, as soon as he was successful at getting the UN out of the way."
"The fact is that we're winning the war on terror. Yes, it's a tough road in Iraq, but we have succeeded in not only decimating the ranks of al Qaida, but also attracting them to fighting our troops there so they are unable to bring their terrorism to our own shores. Not only will we succeed in helping Iraq transform into a peaceful democracy, but the war on terror will be won as long as we stay the course and do not waver. Clearly, a Kerry presidency will place polling and political expedience above our country's security; something we cannot afford at this critical time."
OK, I'll never be a presidential speechwriter, but this is the general message that should be conveyed, along with lots of other messages about protecting the constitution, rebuilding the economy, dealing with the healthcare crisis, etc.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Debate Thoughts
The presidential debate was interesting, and seemed to project a very clear picture of the differences between the two on Iraq. Kerry's taken up the pacifist position that we shouldn't be there at all, and if he'd been president we would still be talking and negotiating with Saddam. Bush counters that it was the right thing to do, has effectively taken the war on terror to the enemy and away from our shores, and our best approach to win is to stay steadfast and unwavering.
I'm very certain that each candidate appealed to their own base constituencies, but doubt that anybody was won over to either camp. Supporters of the President will continue to agree that he's taken the right course, although it can be fair to raise some criticism of some of the current tactics. Getting the Iraqis up to speed with their own security forces is definitely what we should be focused on right now, and I think it might be fair to criticize the President on not moving aggressively enough in that area.
That said, can Kerry do a better job of pacifying Iraq? Absolutely not. His approach is to hold endless "summits" and try to be the world's foremost statesman. Talking has its place, but my impression of Kerry is that, had he been President the last 4 years, he'd still be talking to the UN about Saddam and getting nowhere, and would probably still be working on his coalition to go into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. His simplistic, idealistic approach assumes that the terrorists can be pacified by being made to see that we're not such bad people, and other countries will come to our aid in Iraq simply because he asks them.
Bush missed some big opportunities. For example, Kerry referred to his refusal to sign the Kyoto accord. Bush could have scored big points by simply pointing out that Kyoto is an effort by other nations to decimate the US economy through outrageous environmental restrictions, which by the way would not apply to competitor nations such as China. Another example was when Kerry referred to his protest activities after he returned from Viet Nam. Bush could very easily have pointed out how that made Kerry the VietCong's greatest ally and led to resurgence by an enemy who was given hope by his activities. He also could have pointed out the suffering it caused for our POW's. Finally, he could have pointed out the obvious self-contradiction of Kerry in calling for direct talks with North Korea above the multilateral negotiations Bush is pursuing; it's funny that he criticizes the president about not bringing enough allies into the Iraq fight while suggesting we discard our partners in the Korean problem.
Finally, if style counts over substance, you'd have to say Kerry won the debate. Kerry was well prepared, articulate, and confident, in contrast to Bush, who was defensive, halting, stuttering, and irritable. If I were to give advice to the Bush campaign, I'd strongly suggest he work on eliminating those negatives and speak clearly, forcefully, calmly, and confidently in the next debate.
I'm very certain that each candidate appealed to their own base constituencies, but doubt that anybody was won over to either camp. Supporters of the President will continue to agree that he's taken the right course, although it can be fair to raise some criticism of some of the current tactics. Getting the Iraqis up to speed with their own security forces is definitely what we should be focused on right now, and I think it might be fair to criticize the President on not moving aggressively enough in that area.
That said, can Kerry do a better job of pacifying Iraq? Absolutely not. His approach is to hold endless "summits" and try to be the world's foremost statesman. Talking has its place, but my impression of Kerry is that, had he been President the last 4 years, he'd still be talking to the UN about Saddam and getting nowhere, and would probably still be working on his coalition to go into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. His simplistic, idealistic approach assumes that the terrorists can be pacified by being made to see that we're not such bad people, and other countries will come to our aid in Iraq simply because he asks them.
Bush missed some big opportunities. For example, Kerry referred to his refusal to sign the Kyoto accord. Bush could have scored big points by simply pointing out that Kyoto is an effort by other nations to decimate the US economy through outrageous environmental restrictions, which by the way would not apply to competitor nations such as China. Another example was when Kerry referred to his protest activities after he returned from Viet Nam. Bush could very easily have pointed out how that made Kerry the VietCong's greatest ally and led to resurgence by an enemy who was given hope by his activities. He also could have pointed out the suffering it caused for our POW's. Finally, he could have pointed out the obvious self-contradiction of Kerry in calling for direct talks with North Korea above the multilateral negotiations Bush is pursuing; it's funny that he criticizes the president about not bringing enough allies into the Iraq fight while suggesting we discard our partners in the Korean problem.
Finally, if style counts over substance, you'd have to say Kerry won the debate. Kerry was well prepared, articulate, and confident, in contrast to Bush, who was defensive, halting, stuttering, and irritable. If I were to give advice to the Bush campaign, I'd strongly suggest he work on eliminating those negatives and speak clearly, forcefully, calmly, and confidently in the next debate.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
News Nirvana
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the term "investigative journalist" was no longer an oxymoron?
Let's just imagine for a moment a world where journalists really had the integrity to report the news, interview all relevant sources, and give the public full disclosure without adding their own perjoratives. Just think how it would benefit all of us if, say 60 Minutes, did the following stories:
"Did President Bush Lie to get us into the Iraq war?": A story that actually interviews the Dem's making the charge and asks them 'tough' questions like, "What evidence do you have to show us that the president lied, what specific lies did he tell, and how do they invalidate the decision that was made to remove Saddam Hussein?" Then examine the actual facts to find out if there is any evidence to support the claim.
"Are the Swift Boat Veterans Lying about John Kerry?": A story that interviews all of those in the Swift Vets group about their specific observations and experiences with Kerry in VietNam, a review of all available documentation from the time, and interviews with Kerry himself.
"Did President Bush Steal the 2000 Election?": A story about the Florida recount(s), the court challenges, the eventual outcome, what specific voters were "disenfranchised" and how, and the results of the unofficial recounts done by news organizations after the fact.
"Haliburton - Proof of Corruption?": A story that examines once and for all Haliburton's contracts and Iraq involvement, and whether any evidence exists to support Dem claims it's corruption.
"Kerry - consistent or flip-flopper?": Examine John Kerry's Senate voting record and public statements and air answers to everyone's questions about what he really believes.
"Farenheit 911 - Documentary or Fiction?": An honest analysis of Michael Moore's movie that actually breaks down what's truth, lies, and propaganda.
and my favorite topic: "Media Bias": A story about the three broadcast network news organizations, the cable news channels, the political leanings of their reporters, and how often biased reports are aired and whether those reports lean to the left or right.
For a truly balanced and objective treatment of these and many other stories, I know I'd watch, and I'll bet lots of other Americans would as well. Given the truth on these and related important topics, I wonder how it would affect the outcome of the upcoming election? I have a pretty good guess.
Let's just imagine for a moment a world where journalists really had the integrity to report the news, interview all relevant sources, and give the public full disclosure without adding their own perjoratives. Just think how it would benefit all of us if, say 60 Minutes, did the following stories:
"Did President Bush Lie to get us into the Iraq war?": A story that actually interviews the Dem's making the charge and asks them 'tough' questions like, "What evidence do you have to show us that the president lied, what specific lies did he tell, and how do they invalidate the decision that was made to remove Saddam Hussein?" Then examine the actual facts to find out if there is any evidence to support the claim.
"Are the Swift Boat Veterans Lying about John Kerry?": A story that interviews all of those in the Swift Vets group about their specific observations and experiences with Kerry in VietNam, a review of all available documentation from the time, and interviews with Kerry himself.
"Did President Bush Steal the 2000 Election?": A story about the Florida recount(s), the court challenges, the eventual outcome, what specific voters were "disenfranchised" and how, and the results of the unofficial recounts done by news organizations after the fact.
"Haliburton - Proof of Corruption?": A story that examines once and for all Haliburton's contracts and Iraq involvement, and whether any evidence exists to support Dem claims it's corruption.
"Kerry - consistent or flip-flopper?": Examine John Kerry's Senate voting record and public statements and air answers to everyone's questions about what he really believes.
"Farenheit 911 - Documentary or Fiction?": An honest analysis of Michael Moore's movie that actually breaks down what's truth, lies, and propaganda.
and my favorite topic: "Media Bias": A story about the three broadcast network news organizations, the cable news channels, the political leanings of their reporters, and how often biased reports are aired and whether those reports lean to the left or right.
For a truly balanced and objective treatment of these and many other stories, I know I'd watch, and I'll bet lots of other Americans would as well. Given the truth on these and related important topics, I wonder how it would affect the outcome of the upcoming election? I have a pretty good guess.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Anybody trust the news now?
Wow, has Dan Rather gone completely off the deep end?
He rushes to get stuff on the air that seems to suggest Dubya shirked his duties in the Guard, then everyone who looks at the documents says they're not only forgeries, but bad ones. He won't give up, digging up so-called "experts" to back him up, then those same "experts" start complaining that he misled them to get what he wanted them to say.
I'm reading Bernie Goldberg's book about Dan and media bias, and it's chilling. Sure, Bernie's got a bit of an axe to grind, but who wouldn't under the circumstances? He simply wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal that pointed out a particularly egregious example of biased reporting at CBS, and pretty much lost his job and was black-balled for it. Amazing.
So, I'm thinking that we have to question everything, no matter what so-called "news" organizations are feeding us. Is anybody out there really fair and balanced? I don't get Fox News at home, but it's been amazing in the times I've been able to see it how much it contrasts with the other network news shows.
Once I saw a story about the Iraq war on CBS, then watched coverage of the same events on Fox. It was the same event, but the presentation of the story was completely different between the two reports. CBS basically seemed to be trying to suggest that US Soldiers caused the problem (I think it was another bombing in Fallujah) by their careless killing of innocent civilians. The take away from Fox was that a relatively small group of terrorists was making life miserable for Iraqi citizens, who actually support the efforts of American troops to root out the terrorist elements.
So, CBS wants us to see "Iraqi Insurgents" or "Iraqi Resistance" against evil American invaders, while Fox is showing us terrorists who are doing everything in their power to obstruct the creation of a free Iraq.
We can't go to Iraq ourselves to find out the truth, so we have to rely on journalists to tell us what's happening there. Unfortunately, CBS and their friends at NBC and ABC have muddied the waters so much that we can no longer trust anything they tell us. That's an extremely serious problem that will bring down our society if something is not done about it immediately. Their propaganda can lead only to an uninformed populace, which leads to tyranny and totalitarianism.
I'm very concerned, and hope others are as well.
He rushes to get stuff on the air that seems to suggest Dubya shirked his duties in the Guard, then everyone who looks at the documents says they're not only forgeries, but bad ones. He won't give up, digging up so-called "experts" to back him up, then those same "experts" start complaining that he misled them to get what he wanted them to say.
I'm reading Bernie Goldberg's book about Dan and media bias, and it's chilling. Sure, Bernie's got a bit of an axe to grind, but who wouldn't under the circumstances? He simply wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal that pointed out a particularly egregious example of biased reporting at CBS, and pretty much lost his job and was black-balled for it. Amazing.
So, I'm thinking that we have to question everything, no matter what so-called "news" organizations are feeding us. Is anybody out there really fair and balanced? I don't get Fox News at home, but it's been amazing in the times I've been able to see it how much it contrasts with the other network news shows.
Once I saw a story about the Iraq war on CBS, then watched coverage of the same events on Fox. It was the same event, but the presentation of the story was completely different between the two reports. CBS basically seemed to be trying to suggest that US Soldiers caused the problem (I think it was another bombing in Fallujah) by their careless killing of innocent civilians. The take away from Fox was that a relatively small group of terrorists was making life miserable for Iraqi citizens, who actually support the efforts of American troops to root out the terrorist elements.
So, CBS wants us to see "Iraqi Insurgents" or "Iraqi Resistance" against evil American invaders, while Fox is showing us terrorists who are doing everything in their power to obstruct the creation of a free Iraq.
We can't go to Iraq ourselves to find out the truth, so we have to rely on journalists to tell us what's happening there. Unfortunately, CBS and their friends at NBC and ABC have muddied the waters so much that we can no longer trust anything they tell us. That's an extremely serious problem that will bring down our society if something is not done about it immediately. Their propaganda can lead only to an uninformed populace, which leads to tyranny and totalitarianism.
I'm very concerned, and hope others are as well.
Friday, September 10, 2004
September 11th - Remembering
On September 11th three years ago, I got up early and hopped into a rental car to make the drive to Chicago for a client meeting, to be followed by an internal company meeting out in Lisle. Somewhere on the north side of Indianapolis, the first report came through the radio about an airplane that seemed to have crashed into a World Trade Center tower.
As I continued driving the story continued to unfold, including a chilling interview with a man on a cellphone within sight of the towers, who in near hysteria described seeing a second airplane crashing into the other tower. Then we heard about the plane crashing into the pentagon, followed by all kinds of speculation and unconfirmed rumors about other planes in the skies that may or may not be targeting other buildings. Everyone knows the rest of the story, heard on the car radio as I approached the Windy City.
I arrived in Chicago, where the local radio stations were broadcasting advice for people to leave the tall buildings in the city in case they were targeted as well. My meeting was scheduled in one of those big buildings, and I tried to call my colleagues, but was unable to reach them. So, I called our office in the suburb of Lisle, and reached my boss, who suggested I skip the meeting and come into the office.
It was an interesting contrast that while all this was going on that day, the newly hired VP, who was in town to meet with his management team, went on with business as usual and seemed unaffected by the events of the day. He even went forward that very day with the termination of my direct supervisor, who just before had told me to reschedule the client meeting and come on in.
Anyway, after completing a day of meetings that would be stressful enough, given the reorganizing and job uncertainty, not to mention losing the supervisor that had been a great mentor, I was sort of emotionally numb.
Jerry, a co-worker from Louisville who had flown into Chicago, now had no way to get home since all flights were suspended indefinitely. So I brought him as far as Columbus in my rental car, then he hired a taxi to take him the rest of the way. It was interesting that when we stopped for gas, I think around Lafayette, they were just cleaning up lots of cones and barricades at the station. We asked the guy what all that was for, and he explained that there had been a pretty serious run on the station that day from people who were filling up on gas, and the lines had been long.
What a day, the likes of which I hope we do not see again.
As I continued driving the story continued to unfold, including a chilling interview with a man on a cellphone within sight of the towers, who in near hysteria described seeing a second airplane crashing into the other tower. Then we heard about the plane crashing into the pentagon, followed by all kinds of speculation and unconfirmed rumors about other planes in the skies that may or may not be targeting other buildings. Everyone knows the rest of the story, heard on the car radio as I approached the Windy City.
I arrived in Chicago, where the local radio stations were broadcasting advice for people to leave the tall buildings in the city in case they were targeted as well. My meeting was scheduled in one of those big buildings, and I tried to call my colleagues, but was unable to reach them. So, I called our office in the suburb of Lisle, and reached my boss, who suggested I skip the meeting and come into the office.
It was an interesting contrast that while all this was going on that day, the newly hired VP, who was in town to meet with his management team, went on with business as usual and seemed unaffected by the events of the day. He even went forward that very day with the termination of my direct supervisor, who just before had told me to reschedule the client meeting and come on in.
Anyway, after completing a day of meetings that would be stressful enough, given the reorganizing and job uncertainty, not to mention losing the supervisor that had been a great mentor, I was sort of emotionally numb.
Jerry, a co-worker from Louisville who had flown into Chicago, now had no way to get home since all flights were suspended indefinitely. So I brought him as far as Columbus in my rental car, then he hired a taxi to take him the rest of the way. It was interesting that when we stopped for gas, I think around Lafayette, they were just cleaning up lots of cones and barricades at the station. We asked the guy what all that was for, and he explained that there had been a pretty serious run on the station that day from people who were filling up on gas, and the lines had been long.
What a day, the likes of which I hope we do not see again.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Saving Marriage
Given the controversy over gay marriage, I was thinking it was time to take the steps long overdue to help save the whole institution. Unfortunately, it seems to me that too many people get married sort of like teenagers "go steady". It's viewed as a commitment for the moment, but the whole lifetime aspect is not taken very seriously.
How can we fix this?
1. Reform divorce laws: No-fault divorces - what an incredibly stupid idea. Somebody's always at fault, and often there's an innocent spouse that gets destroyed in the process. Here's what should happen:
a. If one partner is dumping the other in favor of a new partner, they're free to leave with nothing. OK, they can take whatever they may have brought into the marriage and their personal effects, but that's it. The other spouse has no responsibility for spousal support and gets to keep the major marital assets.
b. Child custody decisions should favor the innocent party as well, regardless of whether that's the father or mother, as long as that party is capable of caring for the child(ren).
c. Make "irreconcilable differences" a very difficult process for divorce. Require spouses who wish to divorce on this vague reason enroll in mandatory counseling and agree to make every effort to reconcile, with a 1-year waiting period before the divorce is finally granted.
d. Physical abuse might be subject to the same consequences as (a.) above, but must be proven rather than just alleged by a vindictive spouse. Of course, physical abuse must dictate that the non-abusive partner gain custody of children.
e. Eliminate "emotional abuse". This would need an extremely heavy burden of proof, since any unhappy spouse would be likely to try using this argument.
2. Add premarital counseling to the requirement for obtaining a marriage license in every state. This could be tough to do, especially in Nevada where quickie weddings are a profitable industry, but is certain to make a great contribution to stronger marriages.
The counseling that is already taking place in churches could be supplemented by community or even commercial counseling programs, which will help prepare couples for marriage or possibly help them discover incompatibility before it's too late.
My summary point is that we need to get back to the traditional definition of marriage and teach people to understand and live that relationship. Then maybe it will become clearer to those who support the hijacking of the sacrament of marriage by homosexuals what the real definition has always been.
How can we fix this?
1. Reform divorce laws: No-fault divorces - what an incredibly stupid idea. Somebody's always at fault, and often there's an innocent spouse that gets destroyed in the process. Here's what should happen:
a. If one partner is dumping the other in favor of a new partner, they're free to leave with nothing. OK, they can take whatever they may have brought into the marriage and their personal effects, but that's it. The other spouse has no responsibility for spousal support and gets to keep the major marital assets.
b. Child custody decisions should favor the innocent party as well, regardless of whether that's the father or mother, as long as that party is capable of caring for the child(ren).
c. Make "irreconcilable differences" a very difficult process for divorce. Require spouses who wish to divorce on this vague reason enroll in mandatory counseling and agree to make every effort to reconcile, with a 1-year waiting period before the divorce is finally granted.
d. Physical abuse might be subject to the same consequences as (a.) above, but must be proven rather than just alleged by a vindictive spouse. Of course, physical abuse must dictate that the non-abusive partner gain custody of children.
e. Eliminate "emotional abuse". This would need an extremely heavy burden of proof, since any unhappy spouse would be likely to try using this argument.
2. Add premarital counseling to the requirement for obtaining a marriage license in every state. This could be tough to do, especially in Nevada where quickie weddings are a profitable industry, but is certain to make a great contribution to stronger marriages.
The counseling that is already taking place in churches could be supplemented by community or even commercial counseling programs, which will help prepare couples for marriage or possibly help them discover incompatibility before it's too late.
My summary point is that we need to get back to the traditional definition of marriage and teach people to understand and live that relationship. Then maybe it will become clearer to those who support the hijacking of the sacrament of marriage by homosexuals what the real definition has always been.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Labor Day thoughts - Here's to everyone who works for a living
Labor Day is that one-day holiday that marks the end of summer vacation, the start of school, and time for businesses to get busy.
It's always seemed to me that everybody kind of kicks back in the summer as a rule. Of course, the workplace keeps going along through summer, but seemingly at a slower pace. Now that I'm building a business of my own, it seems like the beginning of September has marked a definite increase in activity and interest in tackling those new computer projects that weren't there over the summer.
If the day comes that my business joins the big time, I hope I remember all of those years spent as a wage slave. Times have changed, but if ever given the chance, I hope I can influence in some way a change back to some basic principles:
1. Workers should be able to count on their job being there as long as they're showing up, doing good work, and helping the company stay profitable and successful.
2. Employers must foster that long-lost principle with their employees, called loyalty. Loyalty is a two-way street, and must be returned to those workers who display it toward their employers.
3. Employees should never be treated as faceless "Human Resources". Every individual has specific talents and abilities that should be tapped to make the company successful.
4. There is a direct correlation between employee and company performance. Instead of paying the obscene bonuses to top management and ignoring the front-line workers, company successes should be shared by all. The same goes for downward trends - if you ask the workers to sacrifice, management should sacrifice as well, but all promised appropriate rewards with the hard times are overcome.
5. Fairness means never loading excessive unpaid overtime on a low-level supervisor just to save money on overtime or adding staff to the department. It also means supporting employees in ways that help them succeed, and tailoring compensation to give incentives for them to achieve specific results.
6. Playing politics must be forbidden. Anyone trying to elevate their status within the company by undermining or criticizing others will be immediately reprimanded, and if it continues, terminated. Everyone in the organization must be committed to the same goals, and all focus must be on solving problems rather than assessing blame.
In summary, I commit that my organization, no matter how large or small, will always value employees and encourage them to treat the company as if it were their own. A goal for what I hope to be a strong, successful company is that all those who work here wholeheartedly refer to this as the best place they've ever worked.
It's always seemed to me that everybody kind of kicks back in the summer as a rule. Of course, the workplace keeps going along through summer, but seemingly at a slower pace. Now that I'm building a business of my own, it seems like the beginning of September has marked a definite increase in activity and interest in tackling those new computer projects that weren't there over the summer.
If the day comes that my business joins the big time, I hope I remember all of those years spent as a wage slave. Times have changed, but if ever given the chance, I hope I can influence in some way a change back to some basic principles:
1. Workers should be able to count on their job being there as long as they're showing up, doing good work, and helping the company stay profitable and successful.
2. Employers must foster that long-lost principle with their employees, called loyalty. Loyalty is a two-way street, and must be returned to those workers who display it toward their employers.
3. Employees should never be treated as faceless "Human Resources". Every individual has specific talents and abilities that should be tapped to make the company successful.
4. There is a direct correlation between employee and company performance. Instead of paying the obscene bonuses to top management and ignoring the front-line workers, company successes should be shared by all. The same goes for downward trends - if you ask the workers to sacrifice, management should sacrifice as well, but all promised appropriate rewards with the hard times are overcome.
5. Fairness means never loading excessive unpaid overtime on a low-level supervisor just to save money on overtime or adding staff to the department. It also means supporting employees in ways that help them succeed, and tailoring compensation to give incentives for them to achieve specific results.
6. Playing politics must be forbidden. Anyone trying to elevate their status within the company by undermining or criticizing others will be immediately reprimanded, and if it continues, terminated. Everyone in the organization must be committed to the same goals, and all focus must be on solving problems rather than assessing blame.
In summary, I commit that my organization, no matter how large or small, will always value employees and encourage them to treat the company as if it were their own. A goal for what I hope to be a strong, successful company is that all those who work here wholeheartedly refer to this as the best place they've ever worked.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Honest Politician - an oxymoron
I'm getting weary of the political morass, so I might take a break on that topic for awhile after this one.
I wonder if there was ever a time since the Civil War when the population was so divided politically? There are two distinct camps with almost polar opposite beliefs who really can't understand the other side's point of view. I admit to being on the Conservative side, and also admit to being completely unable to grasp why anyone would support the other side this election year.
Here's why -
My jury's in on the Swift Vets. After reading everything out there, both supportive and not, with the exception of the book itself, I'm satisfied that the Swiftees are telling the truth. At least as far as they are able to know what's true.
What really fascinates me is the mainline press treatment of the whole story. What I always used to believe about journalists was that they were dedicated to finding and reporting the truth. Amazingly, that's not the case with this particular story.
While the press vigorously pursues the President in every aspect from whether he was implicated in Abu Graib to Haliburton corruption to lying about Iraq's WMD's to stealing milk from babies, they do their level best to sweep the swift boat vets story under the rug or try to impugn their characters and motives.
Absolutely no mainstream reporter has ventured to do a thorough, objective, non-biased investigation on the claims made by those vets. Whenever an article or reporter takes on the topic, there is no analysis of the actual claims. Instead, the story is inevitably about the political motivation of the vets, who's paying for their ads, and quotes of blanket statements from Kerry's staff that the vets are liars.
Others say let's stop focusing on what happened 30 years ago, and the issues of today. I'm for that. Here are the issues of today and what you can expect from each candidate:
1. Iraq: Bush will see the campaign through no matter what, and Iraq will become a free friendly country. Kerry will hand Iraq over to the U.N., and doesn't really care if somebody like (like al-Sadr) turns the country into another Iran.
2. Social Issues: Bush is pro-life, supports a constitutional amendment that defends marriage, is friendly to our churches and people of faith, and believes we must continue to foster morality. Kerry is pro-choice to an extreme, supports gay marriage, aligned with ACLU efforts to turn our country into a secular society, and does not believe government has any moral authority.
3. Taxes: Bush got tax cuts done and wants them to stay in place. Kerry wants to not only repeal the tax cuts but raise them further on the "rich" (watch out, you might be rich and not know it). Never mind the tax cuts seem to have had a positive impact on the sluggish economy.
4. Spending: Actually, they're both big spenders. The deficits we've got today are somewhat unavoidable given the expensive Iraq war, but Bush could be doing more to encourage congress to sharpen their pencils and cut out pork. The Kerry difference is mainly that he wants to spend more - a lot more - expecially on Healthcare. I'm concerned about what are very serious healthcare problems in our country, but do not believe the answer is to simply tax and spend for socialized medicine.
5. Illegal Immigration: Sorry no help in sight from either candidate. Here's one I really wish we had a candidate focusing on, but there seem to be big political benefits on both sides to maintain the status quo.
6. Economy and Jobs: I understand the classic economic arguments that free trade benefits everyone. However, it pains me to see entire professions shipped to eastern countries simply because they're living standard allows them to provide those resources much more cheaply. Being an IT professional, all of a sudden what used to be a great job market has all but dried up: That means not only pain and suffering for everyone in that industry, but also means we're going to lose those skills entirely within our borders. That can't be good. Bush has presented no proposals to address this, and appears to be sticking with the economic theory. Kerry's promised to do something about it, but is suspiciously short on specifics.
7. Healthcare: A huge issue for our society, which is extremely complex and difficult to solve. Bush's proposals I think fall short, and I do not like the Socialized Medicine approach from Kerry. Again, I wish there was a candidate who had realistic plans and strategies that will move us in the direction of high quality, accessible healthcare that doesn't bankrupt people, businesses, and taxpayers.
8. Tort Reform: Clearly the proponent for this is Bush. The Dem Veep candidate is a classic tort lawyer and that party is heavily supported by the trial lawyers. Clear choice here.
Seems a simple voter guide to me. Once again, I'd love to have just one Kerry supporter explain to me why they think the above leftist positions make any sense. I'm in the group on the right that just doesn't get the other side...
I wonder if there was ever a time since the Civil War when the population was so divided politically? There are two distinct camps with almost polar opposite beliefs who really can't understand the other side's point of view. I admit to being on the Conservative side, and also admit to being completely unable to grasp why anyone would support the other side this election year.
Here's why -
My jury's in on the Swift Vets. After reading everything out there, both supportive and not, with the exception of the book itself, I'm satisfied that the Swiftees are telling the truth. At least as far as they are able to know what's true.
What really fascinates me is the mainline press treatment of the whole story. What I always used to believe about journalists was that they were dedicated to finding and reporting the truth. Amazingly, that's not the case with this particular story.
While the press vigorously pursues the President in every aspect from whether he was implicated in Abu Graib to Haliburton corruption to lying about Iraq's WMD's to stealing milk from babies, they do their level best to sweep the swift boat vets story under the rug or try to impugn their characters and motives.
Absolutely no mainstream reporter has ventured to do a thorough, objective, non-biased investigation on the claims made by those vets. Whenever an article or reporter takes on the topic, there is no analysis of the actual claims. Instead, the story is inevitably about the political motivation of the vets, who's paying for their ads, and quotes of blanket statements from Kerry's staff that the vets are liars.
Others say let's stop focusing on what happened 30 years ago, and the issues of today. I'm for that. Here are the issues of today and what you can expect from each candidate:
1. Iraq: Bush will see the campaign through no matter what, and Iraq will become a free friendly country. Kerry will hand Iraq over to the U.N., and doesn't really care if somebody like (like al-Sadr) turns the country into another Iran.
2. Social Issues: Bush is pro-life, supports a constitutional amendment that defends marriage, is friendly to our churches and people of faith, and believes we must continue to foster morality. Kerry is pro-choice to an extreme, supports gay marriage, aligned with ACLU efforts to turn our country into a secular society, and does not believe government has any moral authority.
3. Taxes: Bush got tax cuts done and wants them to stay in place. Kerry wants to not only repeal the tax cuts but raise them further on the "rich" (watch out, you might be rich and not know it). Never mind the tax cuts seem to have had a positive impact on the sluggish economy.
4. Spending: Actually, they're both big spenders. The deficits we've got today are somewhat unavoidable given the expensive Iraq war, but Bush could be doing more to encourage congress to sharpen their pencils and cut out pork. The Kerry difference is mainly that he wants to spend more - a lot more - expecially on Healthcare. I'm concerned about what are very serious healthcare problems in our country, but do not believe the answer is to simply tax and spend for socialized medicine.
5. Illegal Immigration: Sorry no help in sight from either candidate. Here's one I really wish we had a candidate focusing on, but there seem to be big political benefits on both sides to maintain the status quo.
6. Economy and Jobs: I understand the classic economic arguments that free trade benefits everyone. However, it pains me to see entire professions shipped to eastern countries simply because they're living standard allows them to provide those resources much more cheaply. Being an IT professional, all of a sudden what used to be a great job market has all but dried up: That means not only pain and suffering for everyone in that industry, but also means we're going to lose those skills entirely within our borders. That can't be good. Bush has presented no proposals to address this, and appears to be sticking with the economic theory. Kerry's promised to do something about it, but is suspiciously short on specifics.
7. Healthcare: A huge issue for our society, which is extremely complex and difficult to solve. Bush's proposals I think fall short, and I do not like the Socialized Medicine approach from Kerry. Again, I wish there was a candidate who had realistic plans and strategies that will move us in the direction of high quality, accessible healthcare that doesn't bankrupt people, businesses, and taxpayers.
8. Tort Reform: Clearly the proponent for this is Bush. The Dem Veep candidate is a classic tort lawyer and that party is heavily supported by the trial lawyers. Clear choice here.
Seems a simple voter guide to me. Once again, I'd love to have just one Kerry supporter explain to me why they think the above leftist positions make any sense. I'm in the group on the right that just doesn't get the other side...
Friday, August 20, 2004
Rules for Living
It's Friday! How about some of my own life rules. Just be sure to note that these are rules I might try to live by, but don't necessarily always succeed.
Start with God's rules. 10 Commandments and Golden Rule especially
In a disagreement never be disagreeable
Instead of arguing, ask why the other person thinks that
To get what you want, find a way to help get others what they want
pray daily
read as much as possible
sing daily
be honest unless it hurts someone - then just be quiet
at parties or gatherings, pick out the person that's by him/her self and learn something
never forget that your kids learn from what you do, not what you say
study before making decisions
hate no one
ask for help; ask to help
listen carefully, ask questions, and listen again
find out what you like to do, then do it as well as possible
seek out the other side of the story
free advice is worth the price
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Does Anybody Care about the Olympics?
Is it just me, or is the Olympic games becoming a big yawn?
I was just thinking about "Miracle", the movie that came out this year about the 1980 US Hockey gold medal team. That's a great story that really inspired a lot of national pride, with a group of college hockey players coming together to beat the best in the world.
Watching the Olympics this week, I can't seem to rouse anything close to the feelings of past Games. First, I can't relate to any of our athletes. Profiles done by NBC are trite and shallow, perhaps reflecting the personalities of the current batch of American "heroes". The profile of Amanda Beard was startling, then insulting, I would think as much to Amanda as to the audience. Rather than giving us insight into the talent, dedication, and sacrifice Amanda presumably brings to the representation of her country, we got instead a sort of tawdry Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition profile.
Then there's basketball. I never thought I would actually cease to care about the US Basketball team's success in the Olympics, but it has happened. We've got a bunch of rich, spoiled NBA guys who expect a gold medal just for showing up but are finding out that the rest of the teams in the event actually take pride in playing for their country and care about much more than picking up some more endorsement deals. Also notice the number of marquee NBA players that said "no thanks" this year; it speaks volumes about their priorities. Note to the US Olympic Committee - go back to College for your basketball team! They might lose, but at least they'll play with heart and pride.
OK, part of the problem is that the big, bad Soviet Union isn't there anymore. It's just not the same to root for the US to beat the "bad guys", when the baddest guys in the Games are China, Cuba, and N. Korea (are they even there?).
I hope next time around we'll see more athletes of great personal stature representing our country, which is exactly what we all want to root for. Give us real American Heroes!
August 19th Update: OK, there is a notable exception. Congratulations Paul Hamm on a gutsy comeback for the gymnastics gold!
I was just thinking about "Miracle", the movie that came out this year about the 1980 US Hockey gold medal team. That's a great story that really inspired a lot of national pride, with a group of college hockey players coming together to beat the best in the world.
Watching the Olympics this week, I can't seem to rouse anything close to the feelings of past Games. First, I can't relate to any of our athletes. Profiles done by NBC are trite and shallow, perhaps reflecting the personalities of the current batch of American "heroes". The profile of Amanda Beard was startling, then insulting, I would think as much to Amanda as to the audience. Rather than giving us insight into the talent, dedication, and sacrifice Amanda presumably brings to the representation of her country, we got instead a sort of tawdry Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition profile.
Then there's basketball. I never thought I would actually cease to care about the US Basketball team's success in the Olympics, but it has happened. We've got a bunch of rich, spoiled NBA guys who expect a gold medal just for showing up but are finding out that the rest of the teams in the event actually take pride in playing for their country and care about much more than picking up some more endorsement deals. Also notice the number of marquee NBA players that said "no thanks" this year; it speaks volumes about their priorities. Note to the US Olympic Committee - go back to College for your basketball team! They might lose, but at least they'll play with heart and pride.
OK, part of the problem is that the big, bad Soviet Union isn't there anymore. It's just not the same to root for the US to beat the "bad guys", when the baddest guys in the Games are China, Cuba, and N. Korea (are they even there?).
I hope next time around we'll see more athletes of great personal stature representing our country, which is exactly what we all want to root for. Give us real American Heroes!
August 19th Update: OK, there is a notable exception. Congratulations Paul Hamm on a gutsy comeback for the gymnastics gold!
Friday, August 13, 2004
Fun Stuff for Friday the 13th
Does anybody think Friday the 13th is an unlucky day? I don't recall it ever being either lucky or unlucky - just another day. But then, I've never been a lucky person as a rule.
Football is finally starting again! It seems interminable waiting for the season - I don't care what level, high school, college, NFL.
Just give me football.
Go Colts! Is their defense going to be good enough to get them to the Super Bowl?
Is Notre Dame going to be great again, or will they never again rise above mediocrity?
Will Indiana be at least respectable this year?
Go Columbus North! Go Tim! Have a great senior year. Can the Bulldogs go to state with a great running offense, solid defense, but below-average passing game?
Wouldn't football be more entertaining if none of the players took steroids?
What makes a great football team? Linemen. Big, strong, fast guys on the front o-lines open holes for the backs, give the QB time to find his receiver, make the offense work. Same on defense, with big, strong guys that can't be blocked, keep LB's free to roam, and put the pressure on the passer that makes him throw INT's.
2004 Predictions:
Columbus North: 10-2, make it to Semi-State.
Indiana Hoosiers: 3-8, but staying in more games.
Notre Dame Irish: 7-4, maybe a minor bowl. Won't meet expectations
Indianapolis Colts: 11-5, another loss in Eastern Conference Finals
Football is finally starting again! It seems interminable waiting for the season - I don't care what level, high school, college, NFL.
Just give me football.
Go Colts! Is their defense going to be good enough to get them to the Super Bowl?
Is Notre Dame going to be great again, or will they never again rise above mediocrity?
Will Indiana be at least respectable this year?
Go Columbus North! Go Tim! Have a great senior year. Can the Bulldogs go to state with a great running offense, solid defense, but below-average passing game?
Wouldn't football be more entertaining if none of the players took steroids?
What makes a great football team? Linemen. Big, strong, fast guys on the front o-lines open holes for the backs, give the QB time to find his receiver, make the offense work. Same on defense, with big, strong guys that can't be blocked, keep LB's free to roam, and put the pressure on the passer that makes him throw INT's.
2004 Predictions:
Columbus North: 10-2, make it to Semi-State.
Indiana Hoosiers: 3-8, but staying in more games.
Notre Dame Irish: 7-4, maybe a minor bowl. Won't meet expectations
Indianapolis Colts: 11-5, another loss in Eastern Conference Finals
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
The Truth about Social Issues
The clearest delineation between Republicans/Democrats, Conservatives/Liberals, or whatever label you prefer, is on social issues. One simple word describes the schism that is rapidly growing in our country: Morality.
Gay Rights and Gay Marriage, Abortion, STD's and AIDS, and the crisis of dysfunctional families are all built on the question of Morality.
The incredible rancor on the Left in all of these issues is toward people of faith who think morality matters. The Left, which supports the morally wrong side of each of these issues, loudly proclaims that nobody has the right to impose their morality on anyone else. What they are talking about, of course, is sex. The Left is made up by a giant population of sex-obsessed people who feel it is their right to not only be able to engage in it whenever and with whomever they wish, but the rest of us should be "tolerant" of their chosen "lifestyle". The current fight over gay marriage goes beyond even tolerance: What they wish to do is impose on the rest of us open recognition and even celebration of their pairings even though it runs contrary to the most basic of our principles.
The society we live in is based on personal freedom. I haven't met anyone who would want to spy on people in their bedrooms for the purpose of prosecuting and jailing them if they're engaged in immoral sexual behavior. Most people, whether they find such behavior abhorrent or not, simply would rather their acquaintances keep it to themselves. Isn't it funny that most heterosexuals prefer to keep their relationships private, but the gay crowd seems to want to tell everybody? Then if we happen to cringe or dare to suggest that's not morally acceptable behavior, the name-calling and censorship appears in full force.
Let's deal with these issues from both a religious and practical perspective. Religion clearly teaches that homosexuality is an abomination, abortion is murder, and a family is a union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation and the raising of children. What has to be remembered by everyone who takes these positions based on their religious values is that when it comes to sexual sin, we must not ignore other facets of that sin while speaking out against homosexuality. The unfortunate reality of today is a horrible epidemic of out-of-wedlock sex, adultery, and divorce. Even many people of faith have been divorced, and have been sexually active outside of marriage. The message has to be, "We have sinned and made mistakes for which we are truly sorry and are suffering the consequences, and are reaching out in love to other sinners to try to help them see their own error."
From a practical point of view, let's look at the common sense view of these issues. Regardless of anyone's religious belief, it has to be acknowledged that our society's "anything goes" mentality is harming huge numbers of the population. Whether one supports abortion rights or not, we all have to acknowledge it is a horrible tragedy. Every abortion takes the life of a valuable person, who could have been the next great leader, theologian, athlete, musician, inventor, or discoverer. What's wrong with two consenting adults having sex? They're not hurting anybody, right? Wrong. Let's look at all of the terrible consequences of this attitude:
Abortion
Broken homes, broken families
Unpaid child support
STD's
AIDS
Unloved, abused, and neglected children
Poverty
Mental and Psychological disorders
Crime
Drug Abuse
Disruptive students dragging down educational performance
High healthcare costs
All simply because people want to have sex without consequences.
Think about it.
Gay Rights and Gay Marriage, Abortion, STD's and AIDS, and the crisis of dysfunctional families are all built on the question of Morality.
The incredible rancor on the Left in all of these issues is toward people of faith who think morality matters. The Left, which supports the morally wrong side of each of these issues, loudly proclaims that nobody has the right to impose their morality on anyone else. What they are talking about, of course, is sex. The Left is made up by a giant population of sex-obsessed people who feel it is their right to not only be able to engage in it whenever and with whomever they wish, but the rest of us should be "tolerant" of their chosen "lifestyle". The current fight over gay marriage goes beyond even tolerance: What they wish to do is impose on the rest of us open recognition and even celebration of their pairings even though it runs contrary to the most basic of our principles.
The society we live in is based on personal freedom. I haven't met anyone who would want to spy on people in their bedrooms for the purpose of prosecuting and jailing them if they're engaged in immoral sexual behavior. Most people, whether they find such behavior abhorrent or not, simply would rather their acquaintances keep it to themselves. Isn't it funny that most heterosexuals prefer to keep their relationships private, but the gay crowd seems to want to tell everybody? Then if we happen to cringe or dare to suggest that's not morally acceptable behavior, the name-calling and censorship appears in full force.
Let's deal with these issues from both a religious and practical perspective. Religion clearly teaches that homosexuality is an abomination, abortion is murder, and a family is a union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation and the raising of children. What has to be remembered by everyone who takes these positions based on their religious values is that when it comes to sexual sin, we must not ignore other facets of that sin while speaking out against homosexuality. The unfortunate reality of today is a horrible epidemic of out-of-wedlock sex, adultery, and divorce. Even many people of faith have been divorced, and have been sexually active outside of marriage. The message has to be, "We have sinned and made mistakes for which we are truly sorry and are suffering the consequences, and are reaching out in love to other sinners to try to help them see their own error."
From a practical point of view, let's look at the common sense view of these issues. Regardless of anyone's religious belief, it has to be acknowledged that our society's "anything goes" mentality is harming huge numbers of the population. Whether one supports abortion rights or not, we all have to acknowledge it is a horrible tragedy. Every abortion takes the life of a valuable person, who could have been the next great leader, theologian, athlete, musician, inventor, or discoverer. What's wrong with two consenting adults having sex? They're not hurting anybody, right? Wrong. Let's look at all of the terrible consequences of this attitude:
Abortion
Broken homes, broken families
Unpaid child support
STD's
AIDS
Unloved, abused, and neglected children
Poverty
Mental and Psychological disorders
Crime
Drug Abuse
Disruptive students dragging down educational performance
High healthcare costs
All simply because people want to have sex without consequences.
Think about it.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Truth & Lies in Presidential Campaign
Isn't it fascinating to watch the Bush vs. Kerry campaign with the continuous charges of "lying to the American people" leveled by both parties at the other? Let's explore some of the more serious charges, shall we?
Kerry to Bush: "He misled the congress and the American people to get us into an ill-advised and poorly managed war in Iraq" (not a direct quote, but you can't dispute the sentiment). Kerry himself hasn't used the word "lied", but "misled" means the same thing in my dictionary, and most of his friends and supporters are not shy about using the "L" word.
Let's consider the facts as we think we understand them. Kerry's argument is based on the fact that we never did find the famous WMD's in Iraq, which admittedly were a cornerstone in the foundation of the Bush administration's argument for pre-emtive action to remove Saddam. If Kerry's telling the truth in saying that Bush lied about those, that assumes that the president was fully aware before launching Operation Iraqi Freedom that no WMD's existed, Saddam represented no threat to the United States, and there was absolutely no cooperation or support being provided from Saddam to Al Qaida.
First, the WMD's: Even Russia, Germany, and France acknowledged prior to the war that Iraq most likely did possess WMD's and was actively pursuing the development and manufacture of more. At this point, weapons searchers are saying they don't appear to be there now. Given the knowledge they existed in the past and the whole world believed Saddam was developing more, shouldn't that raise a more disturbing question than Kerry's intellectually dishonest thesis: If Iraq did have them before the war, what happened to them?
Next, the relationship (or lack thereof) between Iraq and Al Qaida: The 9/11 Commission found no involvement from Iraq with the actual 9/11 attack. However, the commission also stated that there was an established relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida, with multiple meetings between leaders. Iraq has also long been a refuge for Al Qaida and other terrorists. So, if the Kerry charge is that Bush lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11, he should first produce a tape or transcript with Bush stating that connection. The only truthful charge against Bush on this point is that he allowed the American people to believe there was a connection, but that's a far cry from lying about a specific hand in the 9/11 attack.
Here's the bottom line: If President Bush indeed knew that Iraq had no WMD, no ties to Al Qaida, and was no threat to the United States before launching the invasion, he should not only be voted out of office, but impeached. However, the available facts do not support any of these ideas; in addition, one would have to credit Bush with an astoundingly masterful ruse, since for Kerry's charges to be correct, Bush would have successfully misled not only our people, but his own cabinet and nearly every other country in the world to get to where we are today.
Verdict: Bush Not Guilty and a judge might even rule Kerry Guilty of false reporting - oh wait, that's lying!
Now let's look at an accusation of lying from the other side.
So far accusations of Kerry lying have not come from the official Bush campaign, which has rather been pointing out his voting record in the Senate, left-wing leanings, etc. No "Kerry lied" from them, but there is a recent book apparently coming out from a group of Vietnam Vets who are accusing Kerry of lying about his war record.
What are the facts about Kerry's war record? It seems that he was a "swift boat captain" patrolling the rivers of VietNam, served about four months, and was sent home with 3 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star.
What this group of veterans are saying is that Kerry lied about his heroism and war record, was awarded at least two of the purple hearts for self-inflicted and insignificant wounds, fabricated the story that got him the bronze star, shot a defenseless teenage VietCong in the back, and burned down a peaceful village with his Zippo.
Are they telling the truth? I don't know if we can fully answer that question just yet, as it seems to be a story that is still developing. To honestly analyze the accusations, what must be done is a thorough, impartial investigation. All documentation of Kerry's war record must be reviewed, all who served with him (all supporters, detractors, and neutral comrades-in-arms) must be interviewed, and a picture is sure to emerge of the truth.
Will that happen? Based on my observations of the press the last few years, don't be so sure. We've seen the "liberal" press repeat the Democratic party line daily while asking the hard questions of Republicans, while the "conservative" pundits and internet reporters also highlight the stories that best serve their cause. Whatever happened to unbiased investigative journalism? The American people deserve the truth about these issues and many more being tossed about in the media maelstrom. Where are the new journalistic heroes who are prepared to go find the real truth and report it to the world, no matter who it helps or harms?
Verdict: Not enough evidence to bring to trial (yet)
Kerry to Bush: "He misled the congress and the American people to get us into an ill-advised and poorly managed war in Iraq" (not a direct quote, but you can't dispute the sentiment). Kerry himself hasn't used the word "lied", but "misled" means the same thing in my dictionary, and most of his friends and supporters are not shy about using the "L" word.
Let's consider the facts as we think we understand them. Kerry's argument is based on the fact that we never did find the famous WMD's in Iraq, which admittedly were a cornerstone in the foundation of the Bush administration's argument for pre-emtive action to remove Saddam. If Kerry's telling the truth in saying that Bush lied about those, that assumes that the president was fully aware before launching Operation Iraqi Freedom that no WMD's existed, Saddam represented no threat to the United States, and there was absolutely no cooperation or support being provided from Saddam to Al Qaida.
First, the WMD's: Even Russia, Germany, and France acknowledged prior to the war that Iraq most likely did possess WMD's and was actively pursuing the development and manufacture of more. At this point, weapons searchers are saying they don't appear to be there now. Given the knowledge they existed in the past and the whole world believed Saddam was developing more, shouldn't that raise a more disturbing question than Kerry's intellectually dishonest thesis: If Iraq did have them before the war, what happened to them?
Next, the relationship (or lack thereof) between Iraq and Al Qaida: The 9/11 Commission found no involvement from Iraq with the actual 9/11 attack. However, the commission also stated that there was an established relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida, with multiple meetings between leaders. Iraq has also long been a refuge for Al Qaida and other terrorists. So, if the Kerry charge is that Bush lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11, he should first produce a tape or transcript with Bush stating that connection. The only truthful charge against Bush on this point is that he allowed the American people to believe there was a connection, but that's a far cry from lying about a specific hand in the 9/11 attack.
Here's the bottom line: If President Bush indeed knew that Iraq had no WMD, no ties to Al Qaida, and was no threat to the United States before launching the invasion, he should not only be voted out of office, but impeached. However, the available facts do not support any of these ideas; in addition, one would have to credit Bush with an astoundingly masterful ruse, since for Kerry's charges to be correct, Bush would have successfully misled not only our people, but his own cabinet and nearly every other country in the world to get to where we are today.
Verdict: Bush Not Guilty and a judge might even rule Kerry Guilty of false reporting - oh wait, that's lying!
Now let's look at an accusation of lying from the other side.
So far accusations of Kerry lying have not come from the official Bush campaign, which has rather been pointing out his voting record in the Senate, left-wing leanings, etc. No "Kerry lied" from them, but there is a recent book apparently coming out from a group of Vietnam Vets who are accusing Kerry of lying about his war record.
What are the facts about Kerry's war record? It seems that he was a "swift boat captain" patrolling the rivers of VietNam, served about four months, and was sent home with 3 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star.
What this group of veterans are saying is that Kerry lied about his heroism and war record, was awarded at least two of the purple hearts for self-inflicted and insignificant wounds, fabricated the story that got him the bronze star, shot a defenseless teenage VietCong in the back, and burned down a peaceful village with his Zippo.
Are they telling the truth? I don't know if we can fully answer that question just yet, as it seems to be a story that is still developing. To honestly analyze the accusations, what must be done is a thorough, impartial investigation. All documentation of Kerry's war record must be reviewed, all who served with him (all supporters, detractors, and neutral comrades-in-arms) must be interviewed, and a picture is sure to emerge of the truth.
Will that happen? Based on my observations of the press the last few years, don't be so sure. We've seen the "liberal" press repeat the Democratic party line daily while asking the hard questions of Republicans, while the "conservative" pundits and internet reporters also highlight the stories that best serve their cause. Whatever happened to unbiased investigative journalism? The American people deserve the truth about these issues and many more being tossed about in the media maelstrom. Where are the new journalistic heroes who are prepared to go find the real truth and report it to the world, no matter who it helps or harms?
Verdict: Not enough evidence to bring to trial (yet)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)