The Poor

I noticed some discussions around a new study just released that says the proportion of poor, at least as defined by the Federal government, has declined somewhat over the last few years.

Naturally, the Left is invested in the idea that conservative policies make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The Right believes freedom and lower taxes create more opportunities for the poor to pull themselves up to prosperity.

Another interesting trend is among new Christian socialists, who have somehow decided that Jesus was a socialist. Their simplistic idea is that Jesus exhorted his followers to help the poor, so that somehow morphed into the position that Christians today should petition their government to confiscate more money from everyone else and redistribute it to the poor.

Actually, Jesus never told anybody to go to Rome and lobby Ceasar to tax the rich and give the money to the poor. He told individuals to help the poor. One poor rich fellow he challenged to sell everything, give the money to the poor, and follow him. That fellow walked away shaking his head, because that was the only thing in his life he couldn't do for Christ.

No, Jesus wasn't talking about helping the poor by trying to influence the government to confiscate the money from other people. He was talking about each of us caring about others and doing what we can to help those in need.

It's interesting to me that "poor" is in the eye of the beholder. Those in the United States labeled "poor" would be considered to be living high on the hog by the actual poor in third-world countries. Recently there have been studies trying to find people who are homeless and starving, and they struggled to find anyone. Homelessness would seem to be a choice these days rather than a forced condition - government housing programs, shelters, and all sorts of public assistance are accessible for anyone willing to seek them out. Food stamps and community food banks and school lunch programs and churches with free meals abound.

I've seen and met several members of the American poor underclass. They tend to be third or fourth generation poor, living as their parents and grandparents did since the start of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society welfare programs. They tend to be experts at working the system, knowing all of the government aid programs and local charities and taking advantage of them all. Mostly, they would be physically and mentally able to work, but holding a full-time job is the last thing they aspire to do.

The key to receiving housing, healthcare, food stamps, and cash, as most of these folks know, is children. Make sure there are a couple of dependent children in the household and there are agencies and charities all over the place eager to provide assistance and services.

Why work for a living if you can have a home, food, clothing, medical care, and some spending money by just learning to exploit the social services system? These "poor" folks have cable television and often even big-screen televisions. They have cars. For them, it's a better life than having to punch a timeclock every day and struggle to make house payments, car payments, buy insurance, pay for medical care and prescription drugs, etc.

Want a government approach to helping the poor that really works? Take the money out of the system. Transform social services to be there to help, but those who need help must come to them and ask for it. If people need food, it will be given to them. If they need a place to stay, a temporary room will be provided. Mainly, they need a job, so every person accessing services will receive assistance in finding a job.

Social services should exist for the purpose of helping the poor and needy become independent, not keeping them dependent. The approach is common sense, and it cannot fail. But politicians are more interested in buying votes than in solving problems, and Democrat politicians in particular have found a gold mine of votes among the poor. Get them a roof and food and some cash so they don't have to get a job, and they'll vote for you the rest of their life.

Bias Evidence

Have you seen the ads with the diabled Iraq veterans talking about the importance of success in Iraq and encouraging people to contact their congressmen to support that message?

Apparently MSNBC and CNBC refused to allow those ads on their networks. They claimed a previously unknown policy against running "controversial issue advertising". Interesting, since they seem to have had no hesitation in running controversial ads from the left wing.

For networks that run anti-Bush, anti-War, anti-Everything-slightly-conservative 24/7, this would appear to confirm that they are not legitimate news outlets, but propaganda mills.

If anyone would like to suggest they're not any different from Fox News Channel, let me ask this question: What do you think would happen if Fox News refused to air issue ads on, say, Global Warming?

The answer is easy: Blaring headlines. The primary topic for all the talking heads at places like MSNBC outraged at such blatant censorship.

Double standard.

Football Friday Night

Tonight's the big game in Columbus with North playing at East. East has won something like 4 in a row, but all of them were close and exciting to watch.

I haven't seen the North team play, but they apparently looked dominant in their first game last Friday, a 55-0 win against Seymour.

It's a senior laden team, starting a senior at nearly every position on offense and defense. I'm told those seniors are a strong and athletic group of guys, with an especially impressive group of linemen on both offense and defense.

There are high expectations for both teams this year, after both made it to the semistate last season. North knows that the only way to get to the RCA Dome for the Thanksgiving weekend championship is if they can get past the semi-pro team from Warren Central. Two times in the last three years, North has made impressive runs through the playoffs only to be humiliated by the giant Indy-area school that has dominated the state for so many years.

Even though East was a senior-heavy team last year and is breaking in new starters at many positions, that should not be interpreted as making a North win tonight any more likely. The game is always very close and hard-fought, and entertaining for the huge turnout of fans every year.

North's got Mike Hladik returning at QB and Alex Turner at Running back, both seniors and 3-year starters. Turner racked up 197 yards against Seymour, and Hladik had an efficient night with 9 for 12 for 159 yards and 2 TD's. Hladik is a tall kid with a great arm capable of making big plays, but has tended to overthrow receivers in big games or under a pass rush in past years. Turner's a fast and shifty runner who can get big yards when he has a gap to run through, but has not been one that can overpower a tackler.

Both these key offensive players are stronger and more mature this year, and I think they'll both have notable seasons, barring injury. It will be interesting to see if Hladik has a new receiver to replace his best target, Brandon Butler, who graduated last year. If the running game continues to be as dominant as it was against Seymour, the question may not be that important.

Tonight I'll just enjoy being a fan and taking in all the excitement of the big Columbus crowds.

Reading Test

There's this survey in the news about people who read books. The study said that on average, a liberal reads one more book per year than a conservative, so of course some point derisively and shout, "See, we told you conservatives were stupid!"

Hmm, a typical liberal claims to read 1 more book than a typical conservative. It makes me wonder if liberals taking the survey asked how many books conservatives claim to read every year before answering the question, so they could be sure to one-up their rivals. There was no discernable political affiliation one way or the other with those who didn't read any books at all. Political moderates read the least.

Would that mean that moderates are the stupidest? Or maybe the most honest?

The survey said women read more than men. Does that mean men are stupid?

It also said whites read more than blacks and hispanics. Does that mean blacks and hispanics are stupid?

Suburbanites read more than urban or rural residents. Does that mean farmers and city dwellers are stupid?

Among the readers, the Bible and other religious books are the most popular, with about two-thirds choosing them. Interestingly, non-readers are most likely to be non-religious. What does that say about atheists? Stupid, maybe?

The types of books other than religious read by most people are popular fiction, biographies, mysteries, and romance novels. The survey found that an insignificant number of people read political books or classical literature or poetry.

It's funny to observe that there really isn't anything that can be drawn from this study correlating intelligence with political leanings. It anything at all can be said about the study, the most consistent readers of books seem to be people of faith.

If the small difference in the number of books claimed by liberals and conservatives was based on the number of Harlequin Romances read by liberal women, what would that say about intelligence and political persuasions?

Did they count comic books? What political beliefs are held by comic book readers?

If they had surveyed me, they'd find me at the top of the scale. I read about a book a week on average. Mostly popular fiction, but I can also be found reading religious books and biographies and political books that interest me. I even pick up a classic literary work from time to time. Historical fiction is a favorite.

But I'm a rural male, so according to those who might choose to lump me with the stupid and illiterate, I might present a conundrum.

I like that idea.

Super Bowl Champs

The question for the Indianapolis Colts is, can they repeat last year's Super Bowl championship season?

It's unlikely, but certainly possible.

Watching them play the Bears last night, it's difficult to tell much. The majority of the game was played by the backups and those trying to make the team, so all that could be said about the Bear's 27-24 win is that their rookies and free agents are a bit better than the Colts'.

And the Colts' special teams stink. Why they can't seem to find a decent kickoff team year after year puzzles me.

The Colts' first teams looked pretty sharp in the first quarter. The offense failed to score twice when they probably should have, but otherwise Peyton and the boys look like they'll continue to be one of the league's best offenses.

The Colt defense is questionable, just as they were last year. Last night, they looked good at times and not so good at other times. Which is also the same as last year. Will they miss their starting corners from last year? Somewhat. Will they miss Cato June? Not really. Will they miss Booger McFarland? Yes.

The same question asked about the Colts' chances in the last 4 or 5 years still applies this year. Can the defense manage to give up a few less points than the offense puts up this year?

They have a pretty good chance of winning their division again this season, although Tennessee should be a lot better this year. New England will probably be back as a major challenge to the Colts' Super Bowl hopes. It will be interesting to find out what other AFC teams rise to the top this year - will Pittsburgh be back with their new coach? Cincinnati should be strong as usual. Can San Diego break through? Did Kansas City improve or get worse with their QB shuffle and running back problem? Jacksonville and Baltimore could easily rejoin the elite.

For me, it's just fun to watch it all develop.

I'm not sure that Indy will be able to win their first regular season game against New Orleans. That's a pretty good team that might be able to run through the Colts' porous defense and keep the ball away from Peyton.

It's fun to move into the best season of the year. I also enjoy football at the high school and college levels, so that HD flat screen I've been saving up to purchase hopefully will be in place just in time for the regular season.

Staying Positive

Busy times. Not much time to post these days.

Lately I've found new perspectives and continue to learn. Some things fascinate me, and when I pick up new perspectives that deepen understanding, it gives me a feeling of satisfaction.

Frustration with things political has almost led me to give up caring. For example, I recently heard a member of the Dem leadership admit that the party will attempt to force an exit from Iraq regardless of progress that will be reported next month. In other words, facts don't matter, security and stability don't matter; only political power for the party matters. It saddens me.

Candidates win by saying nothing of substance. When they speak in vague, blue sky utopian dreams, they can make people feel good. People vote for who makes them feel good. The last thing a presidential candidate wants to do is take an actual clear position on some issue. Because whatever the issue and whatever the position, half the voters won't like it.

We're in the most partisan and acrimonious time since the Civil War. All that's missing is the shooting. I wonder if the shooting will start after next year's elections? I'm not sure, but I am nearly sure that the freedoms of speech, religion, and possibly arms will be denied us very soon. I'm also pretty sure that government bureaucrats will make our healthcare decisions for all of us within the next decade.

The path is set. The next decade will be interesting, to say the least.

All I can do is stay positive. It helps to limit time spent watching television news, which drives up blood pressure. Better yet, football season is starting, creating my favorite diversion from more serious things.

Will the Colts win their opening game against the Saints? Too early to tell, but my early bet is no. Maybe when I have a chance, I'll post my preseason football thoughts.

Predicting the Future

My predictions are logical conclusions based on today's trends. Everyone says it's a foregone conclusion that the Democrat left will control the Federal Government after the next election. A simple analysis of their own words results in the following predictions.

The economy will go into the tank sometime in the next 3-4 years. Unions will regain the power they lost in the 70's and will drive many companies out of business and/or out of the country. Unemployment will skyrocket, and the move to socialism will be complete.

Healthcare will be free or very cheap from the government, which means every visit to the doctor's office requires several hours waiting to be seen. Surgeries won't be accessible for many months, and many people will die awaiting the surgery they need to save their lives.

High marginal tax rates on income over $100K could reach 70 or 80 percent. Taxes will increase for everyone else less dramatically but just as certainly.

Gas will rise above $4 a gallon, maybe even $5. Part of the increase will come from expanded federal gasoline taxes at the pump. Imports of oil and refined fuels will skyrocket as domestic production will be discouraged through high targeted taxes on the industry and additional restructions on domestic exploration and production.

Policies will be implemented that punish families with more than 2 children. With taxes at first, growing into serious proposals to follow China's forceable abortion policies. Abortions will be widely available and federally funded for anyone seeking one. Pro Life activists will be arrested and prosecuted wherever they are found demonstrating, and their pregnancy crisis centers will be forced to close through edict of the federal judiciary.

Public schools will descend to unprecedented depths, with violence and failing academic performance spreading to nearly all communities. Priorities in public schools will be to drive out all religious speech and increasing sex education, particularly focusing on teaching a gay-friendly agenda.

Domestic terrorism will explode across the country, as the war on terror is abandoned and jihadists aggressively pursue the bombing and killing of as many American infidels as they can. Political leaders will blame George Bush for the terrorism while trying to appease radical Islamists by choosing negotiation over military power.

Christianity will be driven underground. Any church that insists on discriminating against homosexuals on the basis of moral principals will lose their tax exempt status, then be prosecuted for violating federal civil rights laws. Mainline denominations will remain in place, but will abandon all moral teachings and abandon the basic tenets of the faith. Their services will become concerts with sermons about tolerance and diversity and self-discovery.

Crime will spiral out of control, as drug laws are relaxed or left unenforced and people lose jobs. Convicted criminals will spend increasingly less time in prison, instead receiving counseling and drug treatment in the misguided belief they will reform and can be released back to a vulnerable public that can not protect themselves due to new laws criminalizing the possession of firearms.

Will Americans figure it out in time to change this future? Right now it doesn't appear likely.

Junk Science

Judge science by application of its own method. Those who hoist the banner of science to support political activism on issues like global warming and evolution should be judged on facts and observable data. The scientific method demands that any theory be supportable or refutable on the empirical data.

Which brings us to a new revelation in the global warming arena. It would appear that the measurements used to support noted climate scientist Al Gore's chicken little act were flawed.

When science is trotted out by politicians to make a case for social policy, I get extremely skeptical. The Kyoto climate treaty so touted by the left was little more than an extortion scheme designed to extract hefty payments from the US to other countries to punish us for our prosperity. Al's solutions run in a similar vein; his euphemistic "Carbon Credit" scam is nothing more than a back-door tax that solves not a single environmental problem.

A telling sign for me of scientific quackery is the language I hear from the Al Gore acolytes. Those who don't "believe" in global warming are called "Global Warming Deniers", an ingenious wordplay that subtly suggests such "deniers" are the equivalent of Nazi symphathizers who deny the Jewish Holocaust ever took place.

When they talk about a belief in global warming, it makes me want to ask, "I thought Global Warming was based on science - belief is about faith in something that can't be objectively proven. So are you suggesting that it requires a leap of faith to accept that there is a developing planetary climate crisis?"

Also, Gore and his followers like to claim that human-induced global warming is "Settled Science". That all the scientists who matter have formed a consensus, and the argument is over. It's strange, because I read stuff all the time from people who seem to be highly credible and well-credentialled climate scientists, who are increasingly contradicting Al Gore's expert analysis. These scientists point out problems with the data collection; the fact that data can be and often is manipulated to "prove" a preconceived outcome; and that the planet always has and always will go through cyclical climate changes, and human effect on such macro climate trends is negligible at best.

Moving on to another science-related subject, I recently saw a story about the discovery that two ancient hominid finds were discovered to be contemporaries. That appears to blow their previous idea that the two pre-human species represented evidence of human evolution. Creationists of course were happy to say, "I told you so", while the evolutionists sniffed, "This in no way casts any doubt on the reality of evolution".

Which I find kind of laughable. The most ardent apologists for Darwin's macro evolutionary theories sound just like (and might be the same people) those who call human-caused global warming "settled science". Last time I heard, Darwin's theory of evolution was still a "theory". That means it seems as good a guess as any, since we can't really objectively explain the origin of the species on this planet any other way.

It seems pretty simple to me. It's long been observable that species adapt to their environment. The problem is, nobody has ever observed that adaptation extending to the emergence of a brand new species. The old poster showing the amoeba morphing into a fish morphing into an amphibian morphing into a small mammal morphing to a chimp morphing to a neanderthal morphing into a modern human cannot be demonstrated either with a fossil record or laboratory observation.

So being a macro evolutionist requires just as much faith as being a creationist. So this whole argument is not about science versus faith. It's about faith versus faith. Faith in a godless world populated by creatures that appeared completely at random versus faith in an unseen God who created all life. Both sides are so deeply invested in their brand of faith that they must fight their ideological foes with everything they have, because if one side or the other could be objectively proven wrong, the losing side would have their entire existence shattered.

All I ask is that science do what science does well, and be humble enough to admit that some answers remain elusive. For the religion side of the aisle, go ahead and believe as you do, but recognize that science is not necessarily an adversary to faith. I rather think current theories about the formation of the universe are fairly consistent with the Bible's account. But none of us was there, and we really can't do more than theorize and wonder.

Maybe if we understand each other just a bit better, we all can get along.

Short Subjects

I've lost patience with all the "Yellow Page" advertisers. This week I've been in the office, so I get two or three calls a day from them. I'm now hanging up on them, because I've had it with people from India calling to "verify my information".

They're wasting my time, for one. The whole thing is a racket, for another. If it's legal for all these bogus companies to pose as the "Yellow Pages" and send out bogus invoices for listings never ordered, it shouldn't be. As a green new business owner I got taken by one of their scams. I got what looked like an invoice for a yellow page ad, which I thought was for the ad I took out in the local telephone directory. So I paid it. A few weeks later I found out I paid the wrong company.

I tried to get a refund, but couldn't even get anybody to take a call or respond to my email. It would have been too difficult and time-consuming to badger them for my money back, which would never have been probable anyway, so I gave up and chalked it up to experience. I think that's the whole idea of these rogue companies to rip off small businesses that haven't caught on to their game.

It wasn't my local "Yellow Pages", but some other rip-off company touting some other directory called "Yellow Pages" that had nothing to do with the local phone company. I was scammed. These days I don't bother to buy any listing in any Yellow Page directory, not even the local book. It doesn't bring me business anyway, so there is no point.

The car lot on the corner has this on their sign:

Beware of becoming too open-minded; your brains might fall out.

Exactly.