Consequences

Election time is about here.

I think there used to be a time where it made sense to vote for the person and not the party. That's what I did most elections, and still do in the local city and county offices. But at the national level, I don't think that works too well anymore.

Maybe you are influenced by all the flack and spin out there that successfully gave you the idea that it's time to kick out everybody. Maybe you think that means voting for the Democrat who wants the seat of a sitting Republican in your district for the Federal House or Senate.

Go ahead, vote for the Democrat, but make sure you understand what you're voting for.

Let me use the example of my House district. Baron Hill, the Democrat, was narrowly defeated 2 years ago by Mike Sodrel, a Republican owner of a trucking company from down south. Baron's what is known as a "Blue Dog" Democrat, and I have no idea what "Blue Dog" is supposed to mean, but it refers to a group of relatively conservative Democrats.

Baron's a bit more refined, a better public speaker, and sounds like a reasonable guy. But a big reason he lost his job last time around was that he voted way too often with the Democrats, which included voting the opposite way of what most Hoosiers want.

The reason he votes so often against his constituents probably isn't because he disagrees with his constituents. The reason is because if he dares defy his party on votes they deem important and demand unity from their members, they will punish him severely. So whether he likes what they're doing or not, he goes along to get along.

So if you like Baron and want to give him another chance simply because you're being told that Mike Sodrel's just a Bush lap dog, it will help the Democrats gain a majority. When they get the majority, they have already told us what they plan to do; understand, these aren't made up, but are what the Democrat leaders are actually telling everyone.

Their priorities if they get power are:

Impeach Bush
Pull out of Iraq
Shut down terrorist surveillance
Open the borders
Re-Institute the "Fairness Doctrine"
Repeal all Tax Cuts
Implement Major Initiatives Toward Slowing Global Warming
Pushing Gay Rights and Gay Marriage Legislation
Pushing Universal Government Healthcare Legislation
Defunding the Military
Pushing a Miriad of Social Welfare Legislation

I know there are some people who think everything on the above list would be fantastic. That's too bad, because those people haven't thought through the consequences of these actions.

I lived through the reaction to the Nixon impeachment that resulted in Jimmy Carter as President and a Democrat-controlled legislature. Believe me, if that history repeats itself, we all will suffer not only economically, but physically.

What happened under Carter?

Inflation was in double-digits
Unemployment was in double-digits
Mortgage rates were 16%, and peaked at 19%
Carter helped the Ayatollah Khomeini oust the Shah of Iran, and was rewarded with the invasion of the US Embassy in Tehran, where embassy staff were killed and held hostage.
Top marginal income tax rates were 80%
The "Fairness Doctrine" effectively muzzled any speech deemed irrelevant by the 3 TV networks. (Read Conservative speech)

I'm sorry for my college-age children, who will have to live a repeat of those bad old days. Fortunately, within a couple of years of Reagan taking over from Carter, the job market opened up, interest rates came down, taxes came down, the hostages were freed from Iran, and later the Cold War ended.

Some say maybe the American people need to suffer under a modern Jimmy Carter era to understand how good they have it now. Maybe so.

I just hope, if it happens, it doesn't last long.

The Secret to Success and Happiness

I have reached a firm belief that all any man needs to do to be successful and happy is cultivate these qualities:

Intelligent, approachable, personable, moral, ethical, faithful, honest, empathetic, firm, industrious, witty, trim, fit, pleasant, friendly, positive, energetic, self-assured, consistent, assertive, well-read, helpful, well-spoken, never intimidated, confident, even-tempered, logical, competent.

Every day I think about these attributes and try to exemplify as many as possible. The only item holding me back is my lask of industriousness (OK, you can call it laziness if you must.)

If I could ever consistently achieve every attribute, I have little doubt that my success and happiness will indeed know no limit.

Celebrity Politicians

It seems these days the prevalence of actors and musicians in the political arena has exploded. I wonder sometimes why it seems the vast majority of them hang on the far left wing.

Part of the answer to that is obvious. “Artists” have always been the type of people to push the envelope, seek out new avant garde ideas. They are naturally attracted to “free thinkers” and anti-establishment rhetoric.

Along with that inclination comes what I see as a complete lack of common sense. If I ever found myself thrust into celebrityhood, the last thing I would want to do is run out and trash the President or be a frontman for radical groups. Even though I do tilt right in my philosophy, you wouldn’t see me denouncing John Kerry or Al Gore or Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton from the stage or David Letterman’s couch. I’d quietly contribute to candidates I like, and would accept invitations to perform for anybody from either political party who asks, but the general public would never really know where I stood politically.

Because if you are an entertainer, why cut your own throat to grab a political spotlight? Look at Barbra Streisand, the Dixie Chicks, Bruce Springsteen, Linda Ronstadt, and a near-endless list of Bush-hating musicians who spout their political invective everywhere they go. How many people stopped buying their music out of distaste for what they were doing politically? More to the point, was it worth the loss of sales, given the reality that their activism did little or nothing to help there cause? They have become so arrogant as to think their mere celebrity is enough to change a conservative’s mind to suddenly become a pacifist Bush-hater.

Celebrities live in an insular world, where they never get a chance to meet real people. I suspect they view most of the rest of us as some unwashed ignorant mob, that they spend most of their time trying to avoid. Many of them probably don’t have even a single acquaintance who goes to church every Sunday and is raising 3 or 4 kids in a traditional family setting. Those people (like me) might as well be from Mars, as far as a Susan Sarandon is concerned. These celebrities have no idea what the lives of most of us are like, but instead have formed attitudes based on ridiculous stereotypes promoted by their small circle of rich and famous friends.

I believe that celebrities are so accustomed to being worshipped and adored by all the fans they see at their concerts or public appearances that they begin to believe they are worthy of such worship. They’re not just attractive and talented, they’re smart and witty and wise. Why not, isn’t that what virtually everyone tells them every day of their pampered lives?

So celebrities are clueless about how stupid they really look when they parrot left-wing platitudes or come up with a cute new euphemism to equate the President with Hitler. They arrogantly spout Michael Moore-ism's on talk shows when they really don't have the slightest idea about the actual truth of the topic.

How many of them make a show of driving their expensive new hybrid automobile to the airport to fly to their next gig in their personal Gulfstream jet, completely oblivious to their comical hypocrisy. How many of them expend more energy to heat, cool, and light their various estates for a week than most people use over an entire year? They still don’t stop railing against oil and coal and nuclear, somehow instead choosing to believe the only reason we don’t convert to “alternative” and environmentally-friendly energy sources is some sort of Republican conspiracy.

They get homicidally angry thinking about Christians who they believe are "judging" them for their serial marriages, homosexuality, abortions, and general bacchanalia lifestyles. So angry that they have convinced themselves that Christians are more dangerous than the Radical Islamists who are the only ones blowing people up in the name of their religion.

What really floors me is a celeb like Danny Glover, hugging Hugo Chavez like he’s some sort of hero. Is Danny so stupid as to not know that Hugo is a Communist Dictator? Does he not know what Communists do when they take power? I assume Danny’s pretty well heeled, given his status as a Hollywood star. Has he ever even considered asking Hugo what would happen to his wealth if Hugo were made the Communist Dictator-for-Life of the United States? Would he be happy to hand over all his money and property to Hugo in return for a government-owned efficiency apartment, perhaps receiving a bicycle and subway pass in place of his collection of luxury and classic automobiles? What if Danny didn’t like something about Hugo’s new government and decided to speak out? Doesn’t he know that saying anything at all critical of Hugo’s government would get him an immediate ticket to prison? A prison where mistreatment, malnutrition and torture are standard operating procedure, he’s locked up for an indeterminate amount of time on charges never fully explained, and where its more likely he will die in prison than return to his life?

Celebrities, if you want a good example of how to make your mark on society without alienating half the country, may I suggest you observe the Manning brothers. After Katrina, Peyton and Eli didn’t go on a bunch of TV talk shows to trash Bush and accuse him of wanting to kill off poor black folks in New Orleans. Instead, they got together and shipped as many supplies as they could to the area and passed them out to people in need.

Stop talking politics, celebrities. You are just actors and singers, not experts in government policy. What you do will tell the world more about you than anything you say.

Kick out the United Nations?

The theatrics of this week at the United Nations has gone way over the line, and I think maybe the time has come to kick them out and stop giving them money. At least until they grow up and decide to become a truly effective international body.

Just a reminder. Without the United States, there would be no United Nations. We rescued the world from Hitler and Hirohito, only to see them replaced by Stalin and Mao. Yet we founded and hosted the UN out of the fervent hope that nations that keep talking to each other might be less likely to start fighting with each other.

Today that seems to have changed. The UN is now a corrupt den where enemies of the US do their level best every day to undermine and embarrass their host. Where "humanitarian relief" has been changed into "UN Officials' relief" with everybody up to and including the Secretary General's son skimming off most of the money meant for the poor, starving, and oppressed throughout the world. Where Saddam Hussein successfully paid off key government officials in France, Germany, and Russia so they would not support any US-led effort to crack down on his regime.

Thus this week's outrageous events. Fiction writers would never make up a story like this week, as they would dismiss it as totally implausible. In a transparent move to embarrass President Bush, the UN invited two of the United States' worst enemies, Ahmadinejad and Chavez, to speak right after him. This week the UN came to our home and defecated all over the living room carpet.

Who gives more money than everyone else combined to help the poorest of third world nations and bail the world out of natural disasters? US.

Where does the UN get most of it's money? US.

Who has the largest and strongest military on the planet so countries from Canada to Germany to Japan can rest secure in our protection and spend all of their own money on socialist programs? US.

Who will the world run to for protection as soon as Iran or Venezuela or North Korea starts launching nukes at their neighbors? US.

We're like the long-suffering father of a bunch of ungrateful and unruly children. Maybe it's time to kick them out of the house and let them fend for themselves for awhile.

Taking Jobs from Canadians

So I got the permit after a 2-hour wait at the border this morning. The best part is that I no longer have to sweat whether they're going to let me in or turn me away every time I come up here.

The immigration attorney that helped me get the permit said the basic issue is that there are some "union types" working in Canadian immigration that are really tough on anybody they think might be taking work from Canadians. Which I'm not, because there isn't anybody in Canada who can do what I do.

The funny thing is I really don't care whether I work in Canada or not. I find Windsor a boring place, and feel as though I always lose on the currency exchanges. It's really just about the client, helping them get what they need from their systems.

For those who have done much air travel, have you ever noticed these irritating things at the airports?

Now that everybody has to check a bag or leave behind anything liquid, the baggage carousels are jammed with people. They line up right against the carousel all the way around. So unless I squeeze in with the rest of the human wall, I can't even see if my bag's coming around. I tried to figure out some way to lead by example, standing about 6 feet away from the carousel. See, if everyone did that, there would be plenty of room, everyone could see the bags coming off, then move forward to grab their bag when it comes around. But apparently nobody else sees the wisdom in that system. Rather than play the rude game of shouldering people aside for a place at the carousel, I just wait until the crowd thins enough so I can see and grab my bag.

Then there's the rental car bus. So many times I get on the bus to the car rental lot and wait. People keep coming out of the airport and getting on the bus. After awhile the driver tries to close the doors to drive us to the lot, but just then two more people walk up and bang on the doors. So we have to wait for them to get on, then more people show up and get on. And so on, until it's seemingly an hour before the driver finally just shuts the doors and drives off to the lot. Even then, sometimes people run up to the bus that's driving away and scream and hammer on the doors! Really irritating - they should wait for the next bus like everyone else.

The good thing about everyone having to check their bags: Plenty of overhead space. I don't have to worry about getting on the plane as early as possible so I don't get stuck having to put the laptop case under the seat, which makes the already cramped legroom even more cramped. It's incredible how empty those overhead bins are these days.

Now I'm just trying to regain my elite status on the airlines so I get the automatic upgrades again. You can't beat first class.

Terrorist Interrogation

Aside from the whole argument about whether turning up the air conditioner in the cell and playing the Red Hot Chili Peppers constitutes torture, I'm curious about something else.

Tell me the truth.

Suppose a close family member of yours - husband, wife, son, daughter, parent - has been kidnapped by Al Quaeda. Based on what they've done to most of their other western captives to date, there isn't much doubt about the horrible death your loved one faces.

Now imagine that a key Al Quaeda leader has been captured. There is no doubt that he knows where your loved one is being held, but he's not talking. You have been permitted 15 minutes alone with him in an interrogation room. What would you do?

I know what I'd do.

WHATEVER IT TAKES

To get the information I need to find and rescue my loved one before it's too late. I wouldn't worry about whether the terrorist is uncomfortable with my methods of extracting the information so vital to saving my family member.

Do you think the US military and CIA should be stopped from any terrorist interrogation that some leftist pacifist might deem "torture"?

Seems like a simple decision to me.

Radical Christianity equals Radical Islam?

So Rosie O'Donnell is more worried about "radical Christians" than terrorism I guess. But she's not the only person out there saying this stuff. Bill Maher says it all the time. Air America reportedly says it too.

Just wondering - how many Christians, radical or not, have captured and beheaded innocent people lately? Have any Christians flown airplanes into big buildings? Maybe they've strapped explosives to their bodies and blown themselves up on buses or trains?

Heard any Christians say that all who refuse to convert to Christianity will be destroyed? Has anyone performed any violent act specifically in the name of Jesus Christ?

The more "moderate" and "reasonable" people have been out telling us how we should change our policies in the war on terror. A long line of mostly Democrat politicians are laying out their alternatives to the war, and it goes something like this.

America should stop waging an offensive war, and change our focus on hearts and minds. Somehow if we can prove our moral superiority and better way just by being nice and friendly and negotiating in good faith with the terror sponsor states, they will suddenly see the light. We have to stop fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and turn to diplomacy. This will be successful solely through the force of personality from nice people like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, booting George Bush from office first, of course, and replacing him with a Democrat. Then everyone will gradually learn to love us and the world will be a wonderful place.

The naivete of it all is stunning.

Minimum

Waiting for someone to finish something so I can proceed. In the meantime I've got a break, spent here.

There was some ranting going on today about the minimum wage. Something about it's a moral duty for employers to pay a living wage to their employees. And congress keeps voting themselves fat raises and lifetime benefits better than just about anybody else on the planet can get.

I can't say I disagree with the sentiments. Sure, an ethical employer should pay their employees enough to be able to provide for their families. I'm also disgusted at the self-serving congress who give themselves whatever they desire, even though for the most part very few of them deserve half.

But the topic is minimum wage, and it's an old rhetorical trick to try making some political point by trying to link some unrelated problem. So let's decouple the whole argument and just look solely at minimum wage.

It's 5.15 an hour, and has been for (without looking it up) maybe close to a decade. No doubt it would be nearly impossible to support even yourself at that hourly rate, although the illegal immigrants are finding ways by sharing housing and transportation expenses.

How many people work full-time jobs that pay $5.15 an hour? I know of nobody, although some say that lots of illegals are working for that rate. Now I do see tipped employees getting less per hour on their base rate, but tips put them well over the minimum and they must be guaranteed the minimum wage if the tips don't cover.

The factories and retailers in this area offer starting rates well over the minimum, so nobody in the larger companies is getting that rate. Around here, it seems to me that the effective minimum wage is somewhere around $6.50, which is the starting advertised rate for pretty much every part-time entry-level job.

The real question that needs to be asked is, what should the minimum wage be? Lots of states have their own minimums, with California and Massachusetts the highest at $8. I don't believe this issue is even any business of the Federal government, and constitutionally is something that should be left to the states. But then again, the Feds have gotten away with sticking their noses in so much of states' business that there isn't much point to that argument.

A single person could live decently, if frugally, at around $8-$10 per hour, from my general knowledge of housing, food, and transportation costs. To support a family of four, I suppose it would take at least $15, maybe up to $20. So should minimum wage be set at $8 or $20?

Suppose minimum wage was set at the California rate of $8. What would happen to the workforce in general? Well, those making less than $8 will be happy with the raise, assuming they don't lose their jobs. And some number of them will lose their jobs, because employers will be forced to lay off people to cut costs.

Those already making $8 or more are going to be unhappy at first. Because they will be angered at having worked for some period of time, maybe years, to work up to their current pay rate and newer employees have just been granted a raise that brings them up to a level matching the longer-time employee. So they will demand a correspondingly higher wage, and are much more likely to seek that raise elsewhere if their current employer doesn't act quickly.

All that is inflationary. As workers across the country suddenly get higher wages across the salary scale, they will compete for better housing and buy more stuff. Prices go up both to cover the new higher wage costs and higher demand for all products and services.

This leads to a spiral, where the cost of living rapidly escalates and employees demand wage adjustments to keep up, so costs go up and prices go up and it continues until the country hits the inevitable recession. We end up with high unemployment, a stagnant economy, etc.

Again, I'm not necessarily against a minimum wage. There are too many employers who will pay their workers as little as they can get away with, and would only pay the minimum wage if forced to do so. Students are most commonly abused by minimum wage, as seasonal businesses and fast food and, ironically, government, hire them part-time or in the summer with no benefits, minimum wage, and often even get exemptions from paying time and a half for overtime.

Politically, there's plenty of criticism for both parties. Democrats demagaogue the issue in an attempt to make the Republicans look bad, while their actual policies would do little or nothing to actually improve the lives of unskilled workers. Republicans know that minimum wage is only paid to illegals, and are pandering to the corporate interests that want to continue employing them.

It seems to me that there would be little or no impact on the economy to raise the minimum wage immediately to $6.50. If it were phased in over several years, I think you could even end up as high as $7 or $7.50 without significant economic problems. What the two parties should do is negotiate: For example, Democrats would permit a repeal of the inheritance tax (aka "Death Tax") in return for a minimum wage increase like I described.

But the parties aren't interested in making deals or compromising on much of anything these days. So from that standpoint, the entire argument is moot anyway.

Want Government Healthcare? Talk to a Senior

I've written about the healthcare mess in this country a few times in the past, and you can check out the archives to see what I think.

If you want an idea of what universal government care will be like, just talk to any senior on the new Medicare prescription drug program. They'll tell you that an arbitrary and inflexible bureaucracy has taken over their medical decisions, and they don't like it. From what I've heard, it sounds like plenty of seniors are wondering if they would be better off to go back to just paying for their prescriptions rather than continue to be subjected to the bureaucrats.

Here's the gist of what I'm getting. Shortly after signing up for the federal drug program, your prescriptions will be subject to review. Then you'll be told that one or two of those prescriptions you've been taking for years aren't necessary. So you can't have them anymore.

You say, OK, fine, I'll just buy them on my own. You might actually be told no; you can't buy that drug because the government has decided you don't need it. You have to get your physician to help fight the battle on your behalf.

Even more commonly, a bureaucrat will tell you to replace a prescription with either a generic or another brand that's cheaper. The alternatives may or may not be the same as what you've been taking. But the bureaucrat says it's basically the same thing, so you give it a try.

But the alternate drug gives you horrible side effects. Whether pain and numbness in extremeties or indigestion or diarrhea, you tell your doctor this new drug is terrible and you want to go back to the old one. Again, the bureaucrat says no, you can't go back to that drug; so what if the generic is making you sick. So again, you fight for the right to go ahead and purchase it at full price.

But the final insult: Since the federal prescription drug program pays whatever the drug companies want to charge, and the government is not allowed to flex their giant group purchasing power to negotiate lower prices, the price of those drugs you're back to buying at full price has gone up another 20 or 30 or 40 bucks a month.

No question the healthcare system is in crisis. No question that the healthcare lobbies, the most powerful being the drug companies, insurance companies, and trial lawyers, will make sure that no congressperson will dare do anything to fix it.

But do you really want the government to run healthcare?

The very definition of being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Sometimes I want to turn it all off

Watching the news and reading the newspaper have been getting to me lately. Today I almost wish I could turn it all off for awhile and remain blissfully ignorant just like what seems to be 90 percent of the rest of the population.

News programs pretend to be informing us of the news but are really trying to brainwash us.

I did the blog entry the other day noting the irony of Bill Clinton and his Democrat leadership buddies trying to get ABC to censor or pull their little 9/11 docu-drama. It's gone beyond just the funny irony to frightening. The Dem congressional leaders have proceeded to threaten Disney/ABC to pull or significantly censor the film "or else". It really is heavy-handed government censorship in plain daylight!

Worse yet, nobody seems to care.

Remember when the Dixie Chicks (watch out, here comes the Dixie Chicks fan again) went off on Bush and ordinary citizens gathered together to smash their CD's? The Chicks called that censorship and did their best to fan outrage that somehow that little demonstration was the equivalent of a Nazi book burning.

Yet here we have, not private citizens, but powerful government officials, threatening ABC with serious consequences if they air this little miniseries. They can make good on those threats by holding up renewal of ABC's FCC licensing, for example. You can't get any more clear first amendment violation than that!

And the proof is that ABC has admitted to caving under the pressure by Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, et al, and have cut the scenes Bill and the Dems find so objectionable. Even though, according to an interview I happened to stumble across with the writer and producer of the film, the substance of what they so vigorously objected to was true!

That producer also noted that the miniseries is every bit as tough on the Bush administration. Heard any GOP demands that those scenes be cut? Anyone?

And scariest of all, we're being told by just about all the "experts" that those same Democrat leaders who have so willfully violated the free speech rights of those who created this film will be in control of the country starting next year.

It's too late already. Here's what will happen over the next decade when the left wing takes over:

Churches will go underground because anyone caught practicing real Christianity within earshot of an atheist will be deemed a dangerous radical.

Taxes will go out of sight, possibly even as high as they were under Jimmy Carter. Make a decent middle-class salary? Watch out, the government is going to continue to take half of the first $100K, they they'll take about 80% of anything above that. If you die worth over, say, a quarter-million, they'll confiscate at least half that from your heirs.

Gas will go to $4 or $5 a gallon. Domestic oil exploration will be stopped. No new refineries will be built, and some existing refineries will shut down because of severe new environmental restrictions.

The welfare state will return in force, and will openly include illegal aliens (a term which, by the way, will be outlawed). Illegal immigrants will also be given the right to vote along with convicted felons, thus insuring that the left will never lose power in America again.

Unemployment will top 10% and may even see 15 or 20%.

Terrorism will skyrocket after we make an early exit from Iraq and fail to respond to Iran and Syria and North Korea. Bombs will go off in cities across America while the government continues to combat terrorism as a "law and order" problem and creates expensive new "programs" designed to teach people "tolerance".

America will be notably absent from the war between Israel and Iran, Iraq (after Iran takes control when America pulls out), and Syria. Iran detonates their first nuke in an Israeli city while the US continues to petition the UN to impose economic sanctions.

The standard of living for everyone but the very poor will fall precipitously. Crime will increase in inverse proportion.

"Recreational" drugs will be legalized so the government can tax them, leading to unprecedented levels of addiction, especially among young people between 14 and 24. Who of course will require continuously expanding taxpayer-supported social services that ineffectively try to help them overcome those government-sponsored addictions.

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Pornography, Pedophilia, will gleefully resume their ascendancy to become commonplace throughout society. Ordinary broadcast TV will no longer be restricted from portraying and celebrating graphical sexual content, obscene language, and gay-friendly messages 24/7.

Everyone will have "low cost" access to low-quality healthcare. Hospitals will close and frustrated physicians will find new careers. Drug companies will drastically cut back on R&D as they try to avoid bankruptcy selling their existing drugs at government-imposed prices.

Bush will finally leave office after 2 years of accomplishing little besides vetoing the most egregious of legislative initiatives from the Democrat-controlled congress and fighting impeachment proceedings and enduring a multitude of "special investigations".

I'm sorry for the kids who will never know the greatness this country once represented.

Decision Making Process

It seems that very little of life is planned, or at least very little goes as planned.

From today's somewhat reflective mood, I've been looking back and thinking about the fact that I never really had control over my own life. It feels like I'm a ship without sail or rudder, just riding the waves to wherever they happen to take me. Some places good, others bad, but most neither good nor bad. But the bad places have been the hardest to escape - I seem to get beached when that happens.

I went to college without much of a clue what I wanted to "be". So when I found myself spending most of my time in the Music department, I just went with the flow to become a music major. When I got to the Student Teaching term as a senior, it no longer seemed such a great choice. What I could have done back then, and in hindsight believe I should have done, was immediately switch majors (I discovered Computer Science as a college senior) and take another year to graduate with the "right" degree.

Did I learn from that experience? Not really. Most key decisions since then could be described as "go with the flow". Job offers came along and I accepted them, sometimes only because I felt flattered that the company wanted to hire me.

Now there is a new choice to be made. Keep doing what I'm doing or take the job?

Arguments for keeping the status quo:
Nobody owns me or my schedule.
Business is pretty good.
There are no office politics.
I'm not yet convinced I really want to work for that specific company.
Pride makes me want to keep the business going.

Arguments for taking the job:
Secure and steady paycheck that's not bad.
Benefits, especially healthcare! (The health insurance costs I pay now are killing me)
I could actually get time off for vacations and holidays.
I'll probably work less hours overall.
Travel will be much less.
I could have a budget for a change with less worry about keeping money back for when business is slow.

This time I hope to make a solid decision based on the real pros and cons of each choice. At the moment I can't predict which way it will go.

Double Standard?

Reading through various news reports today, I noticed that Bill Clinton and the Democrats are outraged over a 9/11 miniseries produced by ABC. They're demanding it either be changed or pulled from the schedule because apparently it casts Clinton and his gang in a negative light.

Reading further, I find that the miniseries is tough on the Bush administration as well, but strangely there doesn't seem to be anyone from that camp demanding it be changed or cancelled.

The producers of the "docu-drama" say it was developed from the 9/11 commission report and a variety of other inside sources. It uses some composite characters and creates some fictionalized scenes to support the overall story. Sort of like the movie "Black Hawk Down", I gather.

Let me get this straight. The same Democrats who are howling about this "inaccurate" film and demanding it be cancelled lined up to see the Bush hit piece called Farenheit 911. They touted that film despite its gross distortions and outright lies, and if I remember correctly, Michael Moore never claimed to be using any composite characters or fictional scenes. I also seem to recall that although conservatives were pretty outraged at the propaganda piece, nobody I remember demanded it be changed or cancelled. In fact, President Bush never said anything at all about it as far as I can tell.

The Democrat leadership is screaming that the timing is unfair and politically motivated because it's coming out right before the elections. Well, in contrast to Farenheit 911, which was purposely released on a schedule intended to affect a Presidential election, this miniseries was scheduled to coincide with the fifth anniversary of 9/11. And we're not electing a President this year. That seems to me to blow up the whole "politically motivated" argument.

Isn't what Clinton and his Democrat buddies doing right now exactly what they would call "censorship"? If the GOP had demanded Farenheit 911 be pulled from distribution, dare anyone suggest the other party would have done anything else but scream "Censorship!" from the rooftops? So the First Amendment only applies when the speech is trashing the other side?
I don't know, and for the moment don't much care, how "accurate" the film is. Is the fundamental story accurate and Bill and the gang are obfuscating by claiming that dramatized scenes created to help tell the story didn't happen, even though the decisions made and actual outcomes were accurate? I won't even attempt to guess, but I have a suspicion that may be the case.

But what gets me thinking that this isn't some right-wing hatchet job are some basic facts: It's not being released by "Rush Limbaugh Productions" or "American Nazi Films". It's ABC! Since when did anybody accuse them of being right-wing activists? That certainly stands in sharp contrast to Farenheit 911, which was clearly the product of the proudly anti-American rabid pink liberal Moore.

This should be great news for ABC, assuming they don't cave. They'll get a huge audience for this mini-series just because everyone will want to tune in to find out what all the fuss is about.

Could it be balanced?

Channel surfing last night, I stopped at Katie Couric's first big event on CBS. It was that special about the 9-11 anniversary, asking whether we are safe. My expectations were that I'd watch just long enough to get disgusted with the one-sided storyline and partisan spin, then turn it off and go to bed.

But I was surprised. Of course, I only watched the first 30 minutes of the thing, but in that 30 minutes I was amazed to find Katie was actually fairly balanced. She interviewed the President without being confrontational and insulting (like she would in the past on Today). She portrayed supporters of Iraq (Iraq is a central front to the war on terror) and detractors (Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror) in a way that seemed, wow, even-handed.

So is she trying very hard to finally be the single news anchor that provides a factual and balanced look at the issues of the day? In this 30 minutes, she sure seemed to be. I wondered if it was killing her inside to be nice to the President and let people speak that she personally abhors.

Then again, I didn't see the rest of the program, so I don't know what conclusions it reached. Maybe at the end she reverted to her old insular liberal elitism, but that didn't seem to be where the program was headed.

Am I going to start watching CBS News? Not just yet.

I don't do movie reviews

But this is an exception. I saw Invincible last night. Loved it.

Right off the bat the movie starts with Jim Croce's "I've Got a Name". You couldn't have picked anything better to set the tone. The music throughout the film was perfect.

The film was inspiring but low-key. I thought it was masterful the way they didn't slap you across the face with sappy dialogue. Instead, Wahlberg really doesn't say much at all throughout the movie. You get to know his character instead through his expressions and body language and some great camera work.

I have some vague memories of the story that provided the inspiration for this movie. I do remember there was a guy who got on the Philadelphia Eagles team through an open tryout. Otherwise I didn't pay much attention. I've never had much use for the Eagles.

I can't imagine anybody disliking this film. Best movie I've seen in a long time. Is it better than "Rudy"? Hard to say definitively, but it's definitely in the same league.