The people in charge are really feeling their oats. It's hard to miss them when channel-surfing, crowing in front of the cameras about how they will use their new power to change things.
But I'm confused. I keep trying to understand what they believe in, but keep getting mixed messages. Maybe somebody with insider knowledge can explain these apparent contradictions to me:
They say they believe in free speech. Except that speech they find offensive. Burning American flags and publicly wishing for the assasination of the President and Vice President are not offensive. But a cross or monument containing the Ten Commandments are offensive, and must be removed from public sight post-haste.
They care about all forms of life. Some of them would like to force us all to become vegetarians so we don't kill any more cows and chickens and pigs. They despise the death penalty for our most hardened criminals. But they vigorously defend the "right" of a woman to kill her own baby anytime up until it emerges from her womb. And they want to help the sick and elderly die early so they are less of a burden on the rest of us.
They despise war and are pacifists. Those who threaten us from abroad must be negotiated. If we give them what they want and try to make them like us, there will never be a need for war. But they love United Nations Peacekeeping missions, where soldiers in blue helmets go to third world countries for show while mostly unarmed and trying to avoid being shot.
They support legalization of so-called "recreational" drugs from marijuana to cocaine. At the same time, they pass laws against smoking and certain foods that contain trans-fats. So do I understand this correctly? I can shoot up with my drug of choice even if it kills me, but I can't smoke tobacco (but a joint would be OK), and I can't eat a cheeseburger and fries?
They claim that the evil rich don't pay their fare share in taxes, even though the rich actually pay more of the national tax burden than everyone else combined. But the evil rich somehow don't include these elites who inherited their wealth or acquired it through political activities. Hollywood celebrities are also exempted from the evil rich category. It seems that the evil rich who are paying the freight on everything the government spends should be punished. But if they're punished, where will the government go next to get their money? Because the rich won't have it anymore after the government takes it from them, and the poor don't pay any taxes.
Finally, somewhat related to the last item, these people fancy themselves as the modern verions of Robin Hood. They claim to want to take vast amounts of money from the wealthy to "help" the poor with everything from housing to food to welfare. Yet somehow most of the money they collect doesn't go to the poor. Instead, it goes to political pet projects and the bloated bureaucracies managed by the friends of the elites, where most of it is spent on salaries for bureaucrats who sit around thinking up new rules for the programs and documenting them in voluminous books nobody reads or understands.
I'm very curious. Why again do Americans vote these people into power?
I just can't figure it out.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Adventures in the Southwest
It's pretty nice staying at the client's resort here in the Albuquerque area. Great time of year to visit the area, too. The only problem is I'm working 12-hour days and can't enjoy it beyond the morning and evening drives.
It's probably not the place to live, though. The locals tell me the area's got pretty serious crime issues. It seems most of them have had their homes or their neighbors' homes broken into, which isn't something I'd want to face.
The really bizarre thing about this area is I've had two strange women try to flirt with me this week. Albuquerque women must be really wierd. Or blind.
Every day, despite working 12 hours, I keep falling further behind. All of a sudden I seem to be popular. Previous clients are calling to ask for me again for new projects, and I think my summer will be fully booked within a week or so. Plus I keep getting pressure to "please, can you just squeeze in a couple days for ...?" I'm buried and in danger of sinking deeper if I'm not careful.
This client wants me to look into a later flight, which I have. I could go home later for about double the original airfare, which of course means I wouldn't get home until around 3AM Saturday. Topping that off, I set an appointment for Saturday at 10. I think I'll try to talk these guys out of the flight change. I like to sleep sometimes, and have to drive to Chicago on Sunday anyway.
It's good to be busy and in demand. It's not so good to be stressed and overworked. Everything in life is a trade-off.
It's probably not the place to live, though. The locals tell me the area's got pretty serious crime issues. It seems most of them have had their homes or their neighbors' homes broken into, which isn't something I'd want to face.
The really bizarre thing about this area is I've had two strange women try to flirt with me this week. Albuquerque women must be really wierd. Or blind.
Every day, despite working 12 hours, I keep falling further behind. All of a sudden I seem to be popular. Previous clients are calling to ask for me again for new projects, and I think my summer will be fully booked within a week or so. Plus I keep getting pressure to "please, can you just squeeze in a couple days for ...?" I'm buried and in danger of sinking deeper if I'm not careful.
This client wants me to look into a later flight, which I have. I could go home later for about double the original airfare, which of course means I wouldn't get home until around 3AM Saturday. Topping that off, I set an appointment for Saturday at 10. I think I'll try to talk these guys out of the flight change. I like to sleep sometimes, and have to drive to Chicago on Sunday anyway.
It's good to be busy and in demand. It's not so good to be stressed and overworked. Everything in life is a trade-off.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Evangelical Conservatives?
Was scanning radio stations over the weekend, which was mostly spent in the car. NPR was interviewing some guy that was supposed to represent an organization called the National Organization of Evangelicals. They were talking politics, and the evangelical guy shocked me.
Shocked because of his positions, which sounded just like Al Gore and John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Glossing over the sticky abortion issue, he proceeded to declare that Evangelical Christians are on board with Al on the Global Warming thing, with Hillary on Universal Healthcare, and with Edwards on the "Two Americas" theme.
The guy covered a wide ranging set of Democrat themes, from the "mistake" in Iraq to torture to mercury poisoning to environmental and economic rape by evil big oil to businesses who refuse to pay a living wage or provide health insurance to their employees. And of course, any poor person from south of the border should be welcomed without restriction.
So either he's some sort of renegade, or the folks you would think are the most reliable conservatives have gone over the cliff.
Whenever somebody keeps going on and on about those themes, I just want to ask them a few questions -
If we do what you want and run away from Iraq, what exactly do you think will happen next? To the Iraqis, the Israelis, Us?
Where's everybody that's supposedly being poisoned by mercury? Do you know anywhere in the US that mercury levels are even close to harmful levels? Do you know how the whole mercury story came about? (Bill Clinton left it as a political land mine for Bush when he left office, signing an executive order in his last days requiring impossible and arbitrary mercury standards that Bush would have no choice but to rescind. There's more to the story, if you have enough curiosity to do a bit of research)
Al Gore and his Global Warming alarmists said our coastlines would be under water years ago. Actual serious scientists dispute both the degree and the level of human contribution. Politicians are drooling at the "Carbon Credits" idea as a great new taxation source. Guess how much their solutions will actually impact greenhouse emissions. Are you a sheep?
Ever take economics? Heard of Supply and Demand? What depresses wages? Evil employers who refuse to pay their employees, or politicians who purposely fail to do their jobs enforcing existing immigration laws so millions of poor people stream across happy to take jobs for $5 an hour or less that used to pay two or three times that?
What prisoners are being tortured? What's your definition of torture? What exact forms of torture can you say for certain are currently authorized and utilized?
Health insurance for everybody! Who could be against that? I'm just a bit curious about something, though. The only way you can guarantee universal coverage is to have the government take over. How do you feel about a government bureaucrat making all the decisions about your healthcare, from what medications you can have to what surgeries you can have and when? Do you know anything that the government does efficiently or well? And you want to trust your life to bureaucrats? What are you thinking?
Things are no longer about conservative or liberal. They're now about common sense versus ignorance and stupidity.
Ignorance and stupidity have won.
Shocked because of his positions, which sounded just like Al Gore and John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Glossing over the sticky abortion issue, he proceeded to declare that Evangelical Christians are on board with Al on the Global Warming thing, with Hillary on Universal Healthcare, and with Edwards on the "Two Americas" theme.
The guy covered a wide ranging set of Democrat themes, from the "mistake" in Iraq to torture to mercury poisoning to environmental and economic rape by evil big oil to businesses who refuse to pay a living wage or provide health insurance to their employees. And of course, any poor person from south of the border should be welcomed without restriction.
So either he's some sort of renegade, or the folks you would think are the most reliable conservatives have gone over the cliff.
Whenever somebody keeps going on and on about those themes, I just want to ask them a few questions -
If we do what you want and run away from Iraq, what exactly do you think will happen next? To the Iraqis, the Israelis, Us?
Where's everybody that's supposedly being poisoned by mercury? Do you know anywhere in the US that mercury levels are even close to harmful levels? Do you know how the whole mercury story came about? (Bill Clinton left it as a political land mine for Bush when he left office, signing an executive order in his last days requiring impossible and arbitrary mercury standards that Bush would have no choice but to rescind. There's more to the story, if you have enough curiosity to do a bit of research)
Al Gore and his Global Warming alarmists said our coastlines would be under water years ago. Actual serious scientists dispute both the degree and the level of human contribution. Politicians are drooling at the "Carbon Credits" idea as a great new taxation source. Guess how much their solutions will actually impact greenhouse emissions. Are you a sheep?
Ever take economics? Heard of Supply and Demand? What depresses wages? Evil employers who refuse to pay their employees, or politicians who purposely fail to do their jobs enforcing existing immigration laws so millions of poor people stream across happy to take jobs for $5 an hour or less that used to pay two or three times that?
What prisoners are being tortured? What's your definition of torture? What exact forms of torture can you say for certain are currently authorized and utilized?
Health insurance for everybody! Who could be against that? I'm just a bit curious about something, though. The only way you can guarantee universal coverage is to have the government take over. How do you feel about a government bureaucrat making all the decisions about your healthcare, from what medications you can have to what surgeries you can have and when? Do you know anything that the government does efficiently or well? And you want to trust your life to bureaucrats? What are you thinking?
Things are no longer about conservative or liberal. They're now about common sense versus ignorance and stupidity.
Ignorance and stupidity have won.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Almost Free
Just a few minutes and I'll be locking the office for a long weekend.
It's my first break since the Christmas holiday, and it feels very overdue.
One stop before the day is over, to present a proposal and hopefully gain some business locally. It's always good when I can work in my own office instead of some random city in North America.
The temperature actually got to 70 today, making this an even better time to take a break.
Off to New Mexico and the old grind Sunday.
It's my first break since the Christmas holiday, and it feels very overdue.
One stop before the day is over, to present a proposal and hopefully gain some business locally. It's always good when I can work in my own office instead of some random city in North America.
The temperature actually got to 70 today, making this an even better time to take a break.
Off to New Mexico and the old grind Sunday.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Missing the Point
I've heard and read various discussions on Education, and find it interesting to hear all the theories about what's wrong and how to fix it, since nobody has really found the point.
Just a few examples of pontifications on why our schools are messed up -
Too much emphasis on sports, especially boy's football and basketball
Too much extraneous politically correct stuff getting in the way of the basics
Bad teachers
Bad parents
Not enough money
God is banned
Distracted and disruptive students
There may be some basic truth to many of the theories presented above, but I think they all miss the larger point.
With the exception of the worse inner-city schools, most American schools turn out a few students who go on to excel in the best colleges in the world. To me, that seems to indicate they at least got something out of their education.
So what separates those high achievers from their non-achieving classmates?
You could say racism, but that wouldn't be correct. It doesn't explain why, for example, students from predominantly black inner-city schools tend to do much worse than their middle-class counterparts from the suburbs and countryside. It also doesn't explain why Asian students seem to do extremely well regardless of where they attended primary and secondary schools.
There does seem to be an economic variable, where it seems someone from a poor family is much less likely to excel in their education than someone from a middle or upper-class family. But even though it does show a trend, I don't think the problem is purely socio-economic.
I think it is simple individual motivation.
What kid who has no particular goals or dreams for himself will bother doing his Math homework? If someone feels abandoned or without personal value because nobody has expressed interest or caring for them as an individual, why would she care what grade she receives in Social Studies? If the kids one "hangs out with" treat anyone who studies and gets decent grades with derision, what's the likelihood he will want to make an effort in class?
The problem with education is that government schools cannot and should not be parents. And only parents can teach children to dream, to be disciplined, to set and achieve long-term goals, and to excel.
Unfortunately, with each passing generation, the dregs and dropouts of society reproduce offspring they teach to continue the family tradition. Unless someone, somewhere, can get hold of these children when they are very young and help them develop a curiosity about the world and big dreams for themselves, nothing will change. And expecting government institutions to do that is neither practical nor appropriate.
Not that it's hopeless. I have some ideas, some borrowed, others my own, that I think could really make a difference. Almost none of them have been proposed by anyone I've ever encountered. Maybe someday I could whisper them into the ear of someone with enough influence to drive them forward.
But not now. Now it's more important to be a Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, and blame each other for the problems as they continue to deteriorate.
Too bad.
Just a few examples of pontifications on why our schools are messed up -
Too much emphasis on sports, especially boy's football and basketball
Too much extraneous politically correct stuff getting in the way of the basics
Bad teachers
Bad parents
Not enough money
God is banned
Distracted and disruptive students
There may be some basic truth to many of the theories presented above, but I think they all miss the larger point.
With the exception of the worse inner-city schools, most American schools turn out a few students who go on to excel in the best colleges in the world. To me, that seems to indicate they at least got something out of their education.
So what separates those high achievers from their non-achieving classmates?
You could say racism, but that wouldn't be correct. It doesn't explain why, for example, students from predominantly black inner-city schools tend to do much worse than their middle-class counterparts from the suburbs and countryside. It also doesn't explain why Asian students seem to do extremely well regardless of where they attended primary and secondary schools.
There does seem to be an economic variable, where it seems someone from a poor family is much less likely to excel in their education than someone from a middle or upper-class family. But even though it does show a trend, I don't think the problem is purely socio-economic.
I think it is simple individual motivation.
What kid who has no particular goals or dreams for himself will bother doing his Math homework? If someone feels abandoned or without personal value because nobody has expressed interest or caring for them as an individual, why would she care what grade she receives in Social Studies? If the kids one "hangs out with" treat anyone who studies and gets decent grades with derision, what's the likelihood he will want to make an effort in class?
The problem with education is that government schools cannot and should not be parents. And only parents can teach children to dream, to be disciplined, to set and achieve long-term goals, and to excel.
Unfortunately, with each passing generation, the dregs and dropouts of society reproduce offspring they teach to continue the family tradition. Unless someone, somewhere, can get hold of these children when they are very young and help them develop a curiosity about the world and big dreams for themselves, nothing will change. And expecting government institutions to do that is neither practical nor appropriate.
Not that it's hopeless. I have some ideas, some borrowed, others my own, that I think could really make a difference. Almost none of them have been proposed by anyone I've ever encountered. Maybe someday I could whisper them into the ear of someone with enough influence to drive them forward.
But not now. Now it's more important to be a Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, and blame each other for the problems as they continue to deteriorate.
Too bad.
Monday, March 19, 2007
March MadFun
Saw some good basketball over the weekend. As I've always said, College Basketball always beats the NBA hands-down in terms of entertaining basketball.
It was cool to see Butler take down Maryland to advance to the Sweet 16. It's always great to get a smaller school in the mix, especially one from Indiana. I was thinking that Maryland fans must have been upset with the color commentator calling the game for CBS, because he sounded like a Butler fan. Why not? Everybody should be Butler fans, because here's a small school with a bunch of small guys who don't look like they belong on the same court with the big boys, yet they play hard, disciplined basketball and can shoot like, well, Indiana farmboys. Wouldn't it be great if they could somehow find a way to steal their next game from Florida?
Bad news for the Big Ten, though. Indiana was clearly outclassed by UCLA in talent, but showed pure guts in getting a tie with under a minute left. Then they couldn't get the ball inbounds. Game Over.
It really seemed for awhile that Purdue was going to pull off the upset against Florida, but just seemed to fold at the end of the game. It's amazing how far Purdue has come after their last two dismal seasons.
Wisconsin and Illinois and Michigan State all were unceremoniously dumped, although Michigan State played a tough game.
Only Ohio State remains alive, and needed overtime to accomplish that.
Who will be the Final Four? Your guess is as good as mine. That's why this tournament is so much fun.
This is supposed to be Spring Break. But I'm working, as usual. Except Thursday and Friday, when I do expect to be off.
It was cool to see Butler take down Maryland to advance to the Sweet 16. It's always great to get a smaller school in the mix, especially one from Indiana. I was thinking that Maryland fans must have been upset with the color commentator calling the game for CBS, because he sounded like a Butler fan. Why not? Everybody should be Butler fans, because here's a small school with a bunch of small guys who don't look like they belong on the same court with the big boys, yet they play hard, disciplined basketball and can shoot like, well, Indiana farmboys. Wouldn't it be great if they could somehow find a way to steal their next game from Florida?
Bad news for the Big Ten, though. Indiana was clearly outclassed by UCLA in talent, but showed pure guts in getting a tie with under a minute left. Then they couldn't get the ball inbounds. Game Over.
It really seemed for awhile that Purdue was going to pull off the upset against Florida, but just seemed to fold at the end of the game. It's amazing how far Purdue has come after their last two dismal seasons.
Wisconsin and Illinois and Michigan State all were unceremoniously dumped, although Michigan State played a tough game.
Only Ohio State remains alive, and needed overtime to accomplish that.
Who will be the Final Four? Your guess is as good as mine. That's why this tournament is so much fun.
This is supposed to be Spring Break. But I'm working, as usual. Except Thursday and Friday, when I do expect to be off.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Age of Feelings
I seem to be a member of a small and shrinking group of people that believe reason should be the basis of decisions in life and politics. It seems that there may be a majority of people these days who draw their conclusions about a variety of issues from how they feel about each issue instead of trying to understand pesky little elements like facts and root causes.
Name any issue bandied about in the public square today. One side embraces a point of view with religious fervor because they think they're being compassionate, while the other takes a position based on available fact and historical experience. The religious (and I'm not talking about Jews, Muslims, Christians, or Hindus) become highly offended when one of the tenets of their faith is challenged.
Here's a quick rundown of the big issues of today.
War: You could say it's the war in Iraq, but I think that's morphed into war in general. The acolytes of the new religion say that war is universally bad. In the words of Seymour Indiana's great musician-philosopher John Mellencamp, no war is morally justifiable. So in their world, if we just pull all the soldiers out of Iraq and stop harassing the people there, peace will reign. All that is needed is communication and understanding.
When I read the history books, every single case I've seen where one side stopped fighting and laid down their arms for peace has a name: Surrender.
Gay Marriage: The priesthood of the new religion says that homosexuality is not a behavior, but an intrinsic part of a person, like hair or eye or skin color. Therefore, if two people of the same gender want to marry each other, anybody who says "no" is just a mean bigoted homophobe on par with the old KKK.
Actually, marriage is a holy sacrament that the government has come to recognize as a positive foundation for forming stable families that produce solid citizens. Nobody ever raided any ceremony where two people of the same gender chose to make marriage-like promises to each other, and there's no law against same. If the gay marriage issue is really about obtaining marital benefits from employers and the government, then why limit those rights to gays? Any and every possible alternative definition of a family should then also be given equal rights to marital benefits. If you allow gays, why not grant the same benefits to any other arrangements, whether the people involved are having sex with each other or not? If the government is going to recognize gay unions and say there is no moral standard allowed, then why continue to discriminate against polygamy?
A side note, despite studies that support the opposite conclusion, most people seem to have been brainwashed into believing that gay is something one "is", rather than something one "does". The real story is that homosexuality is a chosen behavior, not a genetic feature.
Global Warming: The planet is burning! We must stop all carbon emissions immediately! The oceans are rising, the glaciers and icecaps are receding, and wildlife is dying! All because selfish Americans drive SUV's and like to heat and air condition their homes to a comfortable temperature.
Beware politicians (Al Gore) masquerading as climate scientists. Guess what his solution is - levying big taxes on people who exceed their allotted "Carbon Footprint". So what's this really all about? Saving the planet or empowering government? Given a few "inconvenient truths" that for every glacier and ice cap that's shrinking, there's one somewhere else that's growing; that no coastal areas I know of have gone underwater that Mr. Gore said should have done so years ago; and that the global warming priesthood has excommunicated all scientists who question their science (calling them "global warming deniers"); I don't think we need to trade our cars in for bicycles just yet.
I could do more, but I'm tired of writing and need to get some real work done.
Have a great weekend!
Name any issue bandied about in the public square today. One side embraces a point of view with religious fervor because they think they're being compassionate, while the other takes a position based on available fact and historical experience. The religious (and I'm not talking about Jews, Muslims, Christians, or Hindus) become highly offended when one of the tenets of their faith is challenged.
Here's a quick rundown of the big issues of today.
War: You could say it's the war in Iraq, but I think that's morphed into war in general. The acolytes of the new religion say that war is universally bad. In the words of Seymour Indiana's great musician-philosopher John Mellencamp, no war is morally justifiable. So in their world, if we just pull all the soldiers out of Iraq and stop harassing the people there, peace will reign. All that is needed is communication and understanding.
When I read the history books, every single case I've seen where one side stopped fighting and laid down their arms for peace has a name: Surrender.
Gay Marriage: The priesthood of the new religion says that homosexuality is not a behavior, but an intrinsic part of a person, like hair or eye or skin color. Therefore, if two people of the same gender want to marry each other, anybody who says "no" is just a mean bigoted homophobe on par with the old KKK.
Actually, marriage is a holy sacrament that the government has come to recognize as a positive foundation for forming stable families that produce solid citizens. Nobody ever raided any ceremony where two people of the same gender chose to make marriage-like promises to each other, and there's no law against same. If the gay marriage issue is really about obtaining marital benefits from employers and the government, then why limit those rights to gays? Any and every possible alternative definition of a family should then also be given equal rights to marital benefits. If you allow gays, why not grant the same benefits to any other arrangements, whether the people involved are having sex with each other or not? If the government is going to recognize gay unions and say there is no moral standard allowed, then why continue to discriminate against polygamy?
A side note, despite studies that support the opposite conclusion, most people seem to have been brainwashed into believing that gay is something one "is", rather than something one "does". The real story is that homosexuality is a chosen behavior, not a genetic feature.
Global Warming: The planet is burning! We must stop all carbon emissions immediately! The oceans are rising, the glaciers and icecaps are receding, and wildlife is dying! All because selfish Americans drive SUV's and like to heat and air condition their homes to a comfortable temperature.
Beware politicians (Al Gore) masquerading as climate scientists. Guess what his solution is - levying big taxes on people who exceed their allotted "Carbon Footprint". So what's this really all about? Saving the planet or empowering government? Given a few "inconvenient truths" that for every glacier and ice cap that's shrinking, there's one somewhere else that's growing; that no coastal areas I know of have gone underwater that Mr. Gore said should have done so years ago; and that the global warming priesthood has excommunicated all scientists who question their science (calling them "global warming deniers"); I don't think we need to trade our cars in for bicycles just yet.
I could do more, but I'm tired of writing and need to get some real work done.
Have a great weekend!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Hump Day Musings
Taxes are done. The rest of the mountain is being moved one shovelfull at a time. The good news is I've shut off any further booking between now and late May. There's comfort in knowing I'll be staying busy for awhile. Now if I could just get the comfort that I'll stay busy for the next 10 years, I've got it made.
Talked with an old co-worker today, who filled me in on the current state of corporate politics. It's nice to be reminded how blessed I am to be immune from the machinations of real-life caricatures from Dilbert land.
The silliness of state and national governments still keeps me on a tightrope between guffaws and sobs, but I'm ignoring it more all the time. I know that when too many people like me tune out it just helps the kooks gain even more power, but how much silliness can a citizen take? The silliness either means most of our country is stupid or that they aren't paying attention. I'm hoping it's the latter.
Posting only because of a lull in the storm that has been today. After juggling several things all day long, suddenly I'm now waiting for others to do their part before I can continue. Just the nature of this business, I suppose.
Got a big check in the mail but I don't know what it's for. Too bad it's probably a mistake. Otherwise, I think I'd take it out and plop it down on a new car.
Talked with an old co-worker today, who filled me in on the current state of corporate politics. It's nice to be reminded how blessed I am to be immune from the machinations of real-life caricatures from Dilbert land.
The silliness of state and national governments still keeps me on a tightrope between guffaws and sobs, but I'm ignoring it more all the time. I know that when too many people like me tune out it just helps the kooks gain even more power, but how much silliness can a citizen take? The silliness either means most of our country is stupid or that they aren't paying attention. I'm hoping it's the latter.
Posting only because of a lull in the storm that has been today. After juggling several things all day long, suddenly I'm now waiting for others to do their part before I can continue. Just the nature of this business, I suppose.
Got a big check in the mail but I don't know what it's for. Too bad it's probably a mistake. Otherwise, I think I'd take it out and plop it down on a new car.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Good Weather and No Travel Just What Doc Ordered
It's not a week off, because I'm still way behind, but it's shaping up to be a decent week. No travel and the weather's great. What more could I ask for?
Looks like I'll have a back-to-back next month again. Tim thought it sounded great, since it's in Jamaica, but I'm a bit concerned whether I'll be in an area that's safe. My luck I'll get put up in a shack somewhere, have no beach access, and have to watch out for muggers on the way to and from the client every day. I guess Tim thinks that's how an old guy would think.
Maybe so. On the other hand, maybe it will be fun. We'll see.
The air's beginning to smell like spring, and we can finally air out the house. It's probably the old stale inside air that made us all sick last month.
Maybe I can find a way toward a personal attitude change. Things I used to think were fun now just seem tiring. That's how my energy level is (or isn't) these days.
Looks like I'll have a back-to-back next month again. Tim thought it sounded great, since it's in Jamaica, but I'm a bit concerned whether I'll be in an area that's safe. My luck I'll get put up in a shack somewhere, have no beach access, and have to watch out for muggers on the way to and from the client every day. I guess Tim thinks that's how an old guy would think.
Maybe so. On the other hand, maybe it will be fun. We'll see.
The air's beginning to smell like spring, and we can finally air out the house. It's probably the old stale inside air that made us all sick last month.
Maybe I can find a way toward a personal attitude change. Things I used to think were fun now just seem tiring. That's how my energy level is (or isn't) these days.
Friday, March 09, 2007
When the Story isn't the Story
The disturbing trend of a monolithic news media acting more like the Soviet's Pravda than a free press was fully evident with the conviction of Scooter Libby this week.
How many people actually know the true story behind unfortunate Scooter's indictment and conviction?
How about you? Do you think that Scooter was:
1. Found guilty of knowingly leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent in an attempt to discredit her husband, who proved that George Bush lied in a speech where he said that Saddam's Iraq tried to purchase mass quantities of yellow-cake uranium from Niger?
2. Was a pawn in the whole affair, taking the fall for Carl Rove and Vice President Cheney, who were really behind the "leak" but pushed Libby under the bus to save themselves?
3. Was the victim of an overzealous special prosecutor determined to make a name for himself, who caught Scooter making an inaccurate statement about when he first learned of the CIA agent's involvement, and prosecuted him simply for lying to investigators and the grand jury?
If you get your news from the three networks or CNN, you are probably somewhere between number 1 and 2.
Just in case you want some basic facts on the case that you never heard from news reporting, let me try to be concise.
1. In the buildup to the Iraq war, the White House asked the CIA for an analysis of whether British intelligence reports that Iraq was working on a trade relationship with Niger for the purpose of acquiring Yellow-Cake Uranium were accurate.
2. A woman named Valerie Plame worked as some sort of analyst in the CIA, and recommended her husband, a guy named Joseph Wilson, to go to Niger and talk with government officials there to see if he could substantiate the story.
3. Joe Wilson was a former low-level State Department employee that served as an assistant to an Ambassador to a country I don't recall. He is a Democratic political operative who hates Bush and his administration, and worked for the Kerry campaign for President.
4. Wilson went to Niger, where he actually found out that Iraqi government representatives had met with Niger officials to discuss establishing a trade relationship. Niger's only unique export of value is Uranium.
5. Wilson came back and gave a verbal report to someone at the CIA, which never went to the White House. Then he wrote an Op-Ed for the NY Times, claiming that he was sent by Vice President Cheney to investigate the uranium intelligence, and found no evidence, therefore Bush lied.
6. That became a big story, amplified by an incurious media, who for the most part didn't try to find out who Wilson really was, who sent him to Niger, or where the uranium story came from. Instead, they focused heavily on supporting Wilson's claim that Bush lied.
7. Robert Novak wrote a column about the event, where he exposed the fact that Wilson made the trip to Niger on his wife's recommendation. He and other journalists more interested in the true story than the hyped one began to find out little things, such as the fact that most of Wilson's op-ed was inaccurate and untrue.
8. The media erupted in a firestorm when Wilson himself, disgruntled about his integrity being challenged by Novak, came up with the idea that releasing his wife's name to refute his story was a crime because she was a covert CIA operative.
9. Bush finally gave into extreme media and Democrat pressure, and appointed a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to investigate whether or not a crime may have been committed by someone in his administration.
10. The investigation dragged on for years. Eventually, there was only one person indicted in the affair, Scooter Libby, who was an aide to Vice President Cheney. Libby wasn't indicted for leaking the name of a covert CIA operative. He was indicted because he told investigators that he thought Tim Russert of NBC News was the person that first told him about Valerie Plame, the CIA agent in question.
11. Libby was tried and convicted of lying, because Tim Russert testified that he never even discussed the case with Libby.
So here's why the story isn't the story. It turns out that the original source who identified Valerie Plame was a guy named Richard Armitage, a State Department guy who has no love for the Bush administration. Fitzgerald knew about that almost from the beginning, but didn't allow it to become public until after Libby was indicted. Libby had no role in releasing Plame's name to the press.
As for the idea that the white house orchestrated some sort of illegal "leak" about Plame in an attempt to discredit Wilson, it actually was never illegal. Because Plame had not been a covert operative in many years, during which she has been working behind a desk at the CIA as an analyst. Fitzgerald claims her role was "classified", but whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant.
Even if people in the white house knowingly leaked her identity to discredit her husband, there's no crime. Even posed as an ethical question, why shouldn't any administration be able to tell reporters the truth about the story to offset the lies and deceptions put out publicly by Wilson? Are they not allowed to at least try to get the truth to the public, even if the majority of the press don't want that truth to get out?
Did Libby lie on purpose or have a faulty memory? I don't really think it matters. Is it obstruction of justice if someone lies, but the lies have no bearing on the facts of the case?
No, Libby isn't a white house scapegoat. He's simply a trophy for Fitzgerald's wall, celebrated by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
I feel sorry for Libby, and hope he gets a light sentence or even a pardon. Because what he did, even if he consciously lied, doesn't deserve a bunch of prison time. What I think is the bigger problem is the news media, who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in this case that they are incapable of unbiased, fair, and factual reporting.
How many people actually know the true story behind unfortunate Scooter's indictment and conviction?
How about you? Do you think that Scooter was:
1. Found guilty of knowingly leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent in an attempt to discredit her husband, who proved that George Bush lied in a speech where he said that Saddam's Iraq tried to purchase mass quantities of yellow-cake uranium from Niger?
2. Was a pawn in the whole affair, taking the fall for Carl Rove and Vice President Cheney, who were really behind the "leak" but pushed Libby under the bus to save themselves?
3. Was the victim of an overzealous special prosecutor determined to make a name for himself, who caught Scooter making an inaccurate statement about when he first learned of the CIA agent's involvement, and prosecuted him simply for lying to investigators and the grand jury?
If you get your news from the three networks or CNN, you are probably somewhere between number 1 and 2.
Just in case you want some basic facts on the case that you never heard from news reporting, let me try to be concise.
1. In the buildup to the Iraq war, the White House asked the CIA for an analysis of whether British intelligence reports that Iraq was working on a trade relationship with Niger for the purpose of acquiring Yellow-Cake Uranium were accurate.
2. A woman named Valerie Plame worked as some sort of analyst in the CIA, and recommended her husband, a guy named Joseph Wilson, to go to Niger and talk with government officials there to see if he could substantiate the story.
3. Joe Wilson was a former low-level State Department employee that served as an assistant to an Ambassador to a country I don't recall. He is a Democratic political operative who hates Bush and his administration, and worked for the Kerry campaign for President.
4. Wilson went to Niger, where he actually found out that Iraqi government representatives had met with Niger officials to discuss establishing a trade relationship. Niger's only unique export of value is Uranium.
5. Wilson came back and gave a verbal report to someone at the CIA, which never went to the White House. Then he wrote an Op-Ed for the NY Times, claiming that he was sent by Vice President Cheney to investigate the uranium intelligence, and found no evidence, therefore Bush lied.
6. That became a big story, amplified by an incurious media, who for the most part didn't try to find out who Wilson really was, who sent him to Niger, or where the uranium story came from. Instead, they focused heavily on supporting Wilson's claim that Bush lied.
7. Robert Novak wrote a column about the event, where he exposed the fact that Wilson made the trip to Niger on his wife's recommendation. He and other journalists more interested in the true story than the hyped one began to find out little things, such as the fact that most of Wilson's op-ed was inaccurate and untrue.
8. The media erupted in a firestorm when Wilson himself, disgruntled about his integrity being challenged by Novak, came up with the idea that releasing his wife's name to refute his story was a crime because she was a covert CIA operative.
9. Bush finally gave into extreme media and Democrat pressure, and appointed a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to investigate whether or not a crime may have been committed by someone in his administration.
10. The investigation dragged on for years. Eventually, there was only one person indicted in the affair, Scooter Libby, who was an aide to Vice President Cheney. Libby wasn't indicted for leaking the name of a covert CIA operative. He was indicted because he told investigators that he thought Tim Russert of NBC News was the person that first told him about Valerie Plame, the CIA agent in question.
11. Libby was tried and convicted of lying, because Tim Russert testified that he never even discussed the case with Libby.
So here's why the story isn't the story. It turns out that the original source who identified Valerie Plame was a guy named Richard Armitage, a State Department guy who has no love for the Bush administration. Fitzgerald knew about that almost from the beginning, but didn't allow it to become public until after Libby was indicted. Libby had no role in releasing Plame's name to the press.
As for the idea that the white house orchestrated some sort of illegal "leak" about Plame in an attempt to discredit Wilson, it actually was never illegal. Because Plame had not been a covert operative in many years, during which she has been working behind a desk at the CIA as an analyst. Fitzgerald claims her role was "classified", but whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant.
Even if people in the white house knowingly leaked her identity to discredit her husband, there's no crime. Even posed as an ethical question, why shouldn't any administration be able to tell reporters the truth about the story to offset the lies and deceptions put out publicly by Wilson? Are they not allowed to at least try to get the truth to the public, even if the majority of the press don't want that truth to get out?
Did Libby lie on purpose or have a faulty memory? I don't really think it matters. Is it obstruction of justice if someone lies, but the lies have no bearing on the facts of the case?
No, Libby isn't a white house scapegoat. He's simply a trophy for Fitzgerald's wall, celebrated by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
I feel sorry for Libby, and hope he gets a light sentence or even a pardon. Because what he did, even if he consciously lied, doesn't deserve a bunch of prison time. What I think is the bigger problem is the news media, who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in this case that they are incapable of unbiased, fair, and factual reporting.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
How to tell it's time for a new car
When you come out of the restroom in the interstate rest area to find a state police officer checking out your vehicle to see if it's abandoned.
The irony is that I've been working like a maniac - the fact I just finished working for the day at 10:30PM in evidence - and still don't feel like I can really afford to go buy a new car.
Just a little tidbit of information related to the new car idea: I got all my stuff together for tax preparation, and found that if not for all the money that went to Healthcare and College expenses last year, I could have bought a pretty decent new car for cash!
Gotta stop thinking about that.
After 2 straight 15 hour workdays, I think I'll cut off tomorrow's workday at 8. I don't care about all the work that's still waiting for me, I need a break!
Yes, there are still about 5 things I'm way behind on, but I'm burned out. I want to just disappear for about two weeks, somewhere warm where nobody can find me.
Gotta stop thinking about that.
Maybe I could apply for the WalMart Greeter job. Seems like a very low-stress job. What do you think it pays? Not quite six figures, is it?
Oh well.
This weekend I hope we have decent weather, because at the very least I better wash old Jed. If I don't get the jalopy washed pretty soon, some cop might decide it's junk and have it towed away.
Oh yeah, and the client I'm working with this week is the same one I worked with last year when Jed broke down. Twice. They asked me if I was still driving the same car, you know, the one that kept breaking down last year. I was kind of embarrassed to tell them, "Yes".
Gotta either laugh or cry.
The irony is that I've been working like a maniac - the fact I just finished working for the day at 10:30PM in evidence - and still don't feel like I can really afford to go buy a new car.
Just a little tidbit of information related to the new car idea: I got all my stuff together for tax preparation, and found that if not for all the money that went to Healthcare and College expenses last year, I could have bought a pretty decent new car for cash!
Gotta stop thinking about that.
After 2 straight 15 hour workdays, I think I'll cut off tomorrow's workday at 8. I don't care about all the work that's still waiting for me, I need a break!
Yes, there are still about 5 things I'm way behind on, but I'm burned out. I want to just disappear for about two weeks, somewhere warm where nobody can find me.
Gotta stop thinking about that.
Maybe I could apply for the WalMart Greeter job. Seems like a very low-stress job. What do you think it pays? Not quite six figures, is it?
Oh well.
This weekend I hope we have decent weather, because at the very least I better wash old Jed. If I don't get the jalopy washed pretty soon, some cop might decide it's junk and have it towed away.
Oh yeah, and the client I'm working with this week is the same one I worked with last year when Jed broke down. Twice. They asked me if I was still driving the same car, you know, the one that kept breaking down last year. I was kind of embarrassed to tell them, "Yes".
Gotta either laugh or cry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)