Watching the GOP debate last night was terribly discouraging. A huge chunk of valuable time that could have been used learning about specific policy ideas from the candidates was wasted in the spat between the two front-runners about McCain's misleading charge that Romney called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
Meantime, the other two candidates, Huckabee and Paul, sat and fumed about being mostly ignored. If CNN didn't intend to let them speak, they should not have invited them to participate. It was the most poorly moderated debate I've ever seen.
The saddest realization for me was that we will most likely have to choose between the Democrat Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket and a McCain/?Huckabee? ticket. There is really no substantive difference between McCain and Clinton, other than McCain might be less corrupt than Hillary.
There is no candidate for me in this race. If Indiana was involved in Super Tuesday, I'd probably consider casting a protest vote for Huckabee. Not that it would matter.
How is it that Republicans are getting behind a candidate that is only Republican in the sense that he's hawkish on Iraq. In most other matters, McCain's mostly a Democrat. Not to mention part of the Washington establishment we're all so incensed about being out of touch. McCain's the poster child for out-of-touch senators.
The conventional wisdom is that the Democrat nominee, whether it's Clinton or Obama, will win in the fall because Democrats are energized and Republicans are demoralized. I'm thinking that's probably true.
The country's about to re-learn a painful lesson most people seem to have forgotten from the Jimmy Carter days. I'm actually hearing some who actually are suggesting that's the only way to wake up the population.
Disappointing.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
How Much Tax?
One of those confluences of events merged President Bush's final State of the Union address with news of the Property Tax Reform efforts now underway in the Indiana statehouse. Both brought out the fundamental questions of taxes and government.
How much tax is enough?
How much government is really needed?
The consistent theme on taxes both nationally and locally clearly breaks along party lines. Democrats fret that lower taxes must translate to fewer government services. Republicans maintain that government is bloated and is overdue for some belt-tightening, plus taxpayers who get to keep more of their own money will use it to grow the economy.
Property Taxes went through a reassessment, which increased the tax bill for every property owner. Some poor homeowners were hit with new property tax bills double or even triple their previous obligations. Most everybody else saw increases of about one third. It resulted in a citizen tax revolt, which has driven Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson out of office and threatens to do the same for a wide range of state and local officials.
So the Indiana legislature is working on a bill proposed by Governor Daniels to cap property tax rates at 1% for homeowners, 2% for landlords, and 3% for businesses. The bill looked like it would sail through until local officials began an impassioned opposition. They checked their budgets and found out their tax revenue would be reduced if this law is passed. That means they would have to cut their budgets.
It seems that those areas in the state hit hardest by the property tax mess were where school boards approved major construction projects without really considering the tax impact of those projects. It's a case of communities spending beyond their means for ostentatious school buildings. Now they're paying for their irresponsible decisions with an outraged citizenry.
Likewise at the national level, President Bush appealed to the congress to make his tax cuts permanent. Even though any serious analysis of the tax cuts has to conclude they were very effective in the very strong economy the country has enjoyed for the past seven years, Democrats made their intentions clear. The Democrats expect to control the government beginning next year, and have made it clear they not only plan to cancel the Bush tax cuts, but also plan to increase taxes.
Government is inherently an inefficient provider of services. The Federal Government consists of huge and cumbersome bureaucracies that would not survive the first month if their services were offered for profit in the private sector. Bureaucrats build empires that accomplish little and are not held accountable for results.
If the government, whether federal or state, really wanted to serve the public, they would eliminate earmarks and political favors and patronage. An even better idea would be to require every social program cooked up by politicians to prove every 5 years that they are meeting their mission, or the program will be defunded.
Maybe instead of spending so much time talking about how much tax should be paid by the "rich", the focus should be more toward what can we accomplish with the limited resources available to government?
If only.
How much tax is enough?
How much government is really needed?
The consistent theme on taxes both nationally and locally clearly breaks along party lines. Democrats fret that lower taxes must translate to fewer government services. Republicans maintain that government is bloated and is overdue for some belt-tightening, plus taxpayers who get to keep more of their own money will use it to grow the economy.
Property Taxes went through a reassessment, which increased the tax bill for every property owner. Some poor homeowners were hit with new property tax bills double or even triple their previous obligations. Most everybody else saw increases of about one third. It resulted in a citizen tax revolt, which has driven Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson out of office and threatens to do the same for a wide range of state and local officials.
So the Indiana legislature is working on a bill proposed by Governor Daniels to cap property tax rates at 1% for homeowners, 2% for landlords, and 3% for businesses. The bill looked like it would sail through until local officials began an impassioned opposition. They checked their budgets and found out their tax revenue would be reduced if this law is passed. That means they would have to cut their budgets.
It seems that those areas in the state hit hardest by the property tax mess were where school boards approved major construction projects without really considering the tax impact of those projects. It's a case of communities spending beyond their means for ostentatious school buildings. Now they're paying for their irresponsible decisions with an outraged citizenry.
Likewise at the national level, President Bush appealed to the congress to make his tax cuts permanent. Even though any serious analysis of the tax cuts has to conclude they were very effective in the very strong economy the country has enjoyed for the past seven years, Democrats made their intentions clear. The Democrats expect to control the government beginning next year, and have made it clear they not only plan to cancel the Bush tax cuts, but also plan to increase taxes.
Government is inherently an inefficient provider of services. The Federal Government consists of huge and cumbersome bureaucracies that would not survive the first month if their services were offered for profit in the private sector. Bureaucrats build empires that accomplish little and are not held accountable for results.
If the government, whether federal or state, really wanted to serve the public, they would eliminate earmarks and political favors and patronage. An even better idea would be to require every social program cooked up by politicians to prove every 5 years that they are meeting their mission, or the program will be defunded.
Maybe instead of spending so much time talking about how much tax should be paid by the "rich", the focus should be more toward what can we accomplish with the limited resources available to government?
If only.
Monday, January 28, 2008
New Perspectives on Healthcare
Last week was spent working with a group of people who work for a healthcare organization in Canada. Although the subject of my visit wasn't related to healthcare policy, I was drawn into some interesting discussions on the topic.
As a group, the Canadians seem to believe every citizen should have access to healthcare. They have a sense of security in the fact that they will never have to face the possibility of being turned away from treatment for any illness or injury, since their government-controlled system will provide the care they need. The people I was working with are somewhat appalled at their media-induced vision of U.S. healthcare as available only to the rich and those lucky enough to be employed by companies who provide them with good insurance.
I explained that while it is true that a very high number of U.S. citizens are not covered by any sort of health insurance, that doesn't mean they all do not have access to healthcare. In fact, most places in the country are prohibited by law from denial of emergency medical treatment to anyone, insured or not.
Many uninsured simply pay for their own healthcare. Many providers offer substantial discounts to their uninsured customers who pay for their own care.
The poor are covered by the version of Medicaid provided by their state.
So those who are suffering the most right now are people who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, not quite wealthy enough to pay for their own care, and not employed by a company that provides them with good health insurance.
The problem for these folks tends to be that if they encounter a major injury or illness that requires surgery and hospitalization, they are effectively bankrupt as soon as the diagnosis is made. The doctors and therapists and radiologists and labs and hospitals will certainly sue them for payment of medical bills they cannot possibly pay. Therefore, they lose everything, go bankrupt, and must concern themselves with both their physical recovery and starting over from zero financially.
Personally, although I am paying huge premiums for a health insurance plan that has never contributed a penny of benefits, I fear even having the insurance will not protect me from bankruptcy if I become seriously ill or injured. Because such an event would mean I would be unable to work during whatever period of time I am undergoing treatment for whatever might occur, which after some period of time would find me bankrupt anyway.
But that does not mean I support the Democrat goal of socialized medicine. First of all, such healthcare is not "free". It will most certainly involve an increase in the percentage of my earnings confiscated by the government to pay for their grand industry takeover.
Next, the same goverment will seek to control costs by implementing several policies that will ultimately harm the patients they claim to want to help. They will arbitrarily reduce the fees providers will be allowed to bill for patient care, which will make such care scarce as the providers close or sell their businesses because they can no longer make a profit.
As healthcare providers become more and more scarce, access to those remaining will become increasingly difficult. Patients will be forced to wait weeks or months for an appointment. As we've found with the recent addition of prescription drug coverage for seniors under Medicare, bureaucrats will deny medications to patients based on arbitrary rules designed to save money.
Government control isn't the answer. I think the answer is only partially offered by Republicans, who continue to stress the expansion of healthcare savings accounts. Those are great for small business people or others who actually have the ability to save enough money to cover their care. But it doesn't help the bigger majority of uninsured, who just can't earn enough to save the kind of money they need for healthcare.
If the government wants to help, they should address the root causes of our healthcare problems:
Wait until those people find out just how "free" their new healthcare program is.
As a group, the Canadians seem to believe every citizen should have access to healthcare. They have a sense of security in the fact that they will never have to face the possibility of being turned away from treatment for any illness or injury, since their government-controlled system will provide the care they need. The people I was working with are somewhat appalled at their media-induced vision of U.S. healthcare as available only to the rich and those lucky enough to be employed by companies who provide them with good insurance.
I explained that while it is true that a very high number of U.S. citizens are not covered by any sort of health insurance, that doesn't mean they all do not have access to healthcare. In fact, most places in the country are prohibited by law from denial of emergency medical treatment to anyone, insured or not.
Many uninsured simply pay for their own healthcare. Many providers offer substantial discounts to their uninsured customers who pay for their own care.
The poor are covered by the version of Medicaid provided by their state.
So those who are suffering the most right now are people who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, not quite wealthy enough to pay for their own care, and not employed by a company that provides them with good health insurance.
The problem for these folks tends to be that if they encounter a major injury or illness that requires surgery and hospitalization, they are effectively bankrupt as soon as the diagnosis is made. The doctors and therapists and radiologists and labs and hospitals will certainly sue them for payment of medical bills they cannot possibly pay. Therefore, they lose everything, go bankrupt, and must concern themselves with both their physical recovery and starting over from zero financially.
Personally, although I am paying huge premiums for a health insurance plan that has never contributed a penny of benefits, I fear even having the insurance will not protect me from bankruptcy if I become seriously ill or injured. Because such an event would mean I would be unable to work during whatever period of time I am undergoing treatment for whatever might occur, which after some period of time would find me bankrupt anyway.
But that does not mean I support the Democrat goal of socialized medicine. First of all, such healthcare is not "free". It will most certainly involve an increase in the percentage of my earnings confiscated by the government to pay for their grand industry takeover.
Next, the same goverment will seek to control costs by implementing several policies that will ultimately harm the patients they claim to want to help. They will arbitrarily reduce the fees providers will be allowed to bill for patient care, which will make such care scarce as the providers close or sell their businesses because they can no longer make a profit.
As healthcare providers become more and more scarce, access to those remaining will become increasingly difficult. Patients will be forced to wait weeks or months for an appointment. As we've found with the recent addition of prescription drug coverage for seniors under Medicare, bureaucrats will deny medications to patients based on arbitrary rules designed to save money.
Government control isn't the answer. I think the answer is only partially offered by Republicans, who continue to stress the expansion of healthcare savings accounts. Those are great for small business people or others who actually have the ability to save enough money to cover their care. But it doesn't help the bigger majority of uninsured, who just can't earn enough to save the kind of money they need for healthcare.
If the government wants to help, they should address the root causes of our healthcare problems:
- Tort Reform
- Standardization of Electronic Insurance Claims & Payments
- Competition in Diagnostic Services
- Making Medical School less expensive so graduating physicians don't have six-figure debts to pay off
- Availability of affordable Major Medical insurance for the uninsured.
- Simple dollar-for-dollar tax deductions or credits for actual out-of-pocket expenses
Wait until those people find out just how "free" their new healthcare program is.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Thoughts on Racism
Since there's been a lot of racial and racism talk lately because of the Martin Luther King holiday and the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it's given me occasion to think about the overall racism issue.
What is racism, who is a racist and who is not, to what extent does it remain as a social problem in the United States?
How about starting with the definition. Here's what I found at Dictionary.com
rac·ism
[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
Based on the above definition, am I racist? Let's see: I don't believe that any one race is superior or has an inherent right to rule others, I don't support government systems that foster racial discrimination, and I don't find myself feeling hatred or intolerance of other races.
So I'm not a racist, right?
Well, there may be some who look at my actual political beliefs and say I am racist.
For example, I don't believe in affirmative action or racial preference programs in hiring, college admission, or government contracts. I believe such government policies actually violate part #2 of the above definition, because they place race above merit in such decisions.
The difference between my philosophy and those of our liberal folks is that I believe in equality of opportunity, while they hope to enact laws that seek equality of outcomes. Such policies don't work, but are still pursued with religious fervor by the Left.
Remember when the courts went beyond the very good civil rights laws that outlawed discrimination in education with racially segregated public schools to creating laws out of the ether for enforced desegregation through something called busing?
The theory was that if schools were desegregated, inequalities of outcomes between the mostly white suburban schools and the mostly black urban schools would be remedied. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. The actual result of this social experiment forced upon the population by liberal elites was a drastic reduction in outcomes from all of the schools. The inner-city schools got worse and the suburban schools got worse.
Those who could afford to left the public schools for private and parochial schools. Today it's hard to find excellence in public schools, which in many urban areas are not only poor performers but dangerous places for the students.
By the way, I'm not blaming any race for the decline. I blame the liberal establishment who enacted laws reflecting their well-meaning but misguided ideas about racial reconciliation. Racial peace can't be accomplished with heavy-handed court orders and legislation from elite ivory towers, but have to be accomplished by influencing hearts and minds of people of each race, one at a time.
Finally, would I vote for Barack Obama? No.
But the reason has nothing to do with his race. I'd actually prefer him as President to Hillary. Because even though I disagree almost completely with those policy statements he has made, I believe he's sincere and a genuinely nice guy. Does that make me a sexist? That's a question for another day.
Actually, I'd happily vote for a black presidential candidate. Tony Dungy could easily get my vote if he were qualified and running (by the way, I'm happy to learn he decided to come back for another season with the Colts after all). Condi Rice could get my vote (does that answer the sexist question?) I'm also a huge admirer of Clarence Thomas.
I can't tell what will happen in this year's Presidential campaign. But I do think the Democrats might be a bit overconfident in their belief that either Hillary or Barack will win easily. Half the country will never vote for Hillary, and her supporters might stay home if Obama gets the nomination. If the Republican nominee runs an effective campaign, I think he could win, although I'm not naive enough to predict it will be easy.
What is racism, who is a racist and who is not, to what extent does it remain as a social problem in the United States?
How about starting with the definition. Here's what I found at Dictionary.com
rac·ism
[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun | 1. | a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. |
| 2. | a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. |
| 3. | hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. |
Based on the above definition, am I racist? Let's see: I don't believe that any one race is superior or has an inherent right to rule others, I don't support government systems that foster racial discrimination, and I don't find myself feeling hatred or intolerance of other races.
So I'm not a racist, right?
Well, there may be some who look at my actual political beliefs and say I am racist.
For example, I don't believe in affirmative action or racial preference programs in hiring, college admission, or government contracts. I believe such government policies actually violate part #2 of the above definition, because they place race above merit in such decisions.
The difference between my philosophy and those of our liberal folks is that I believe in equality of opportunity, while they hope to enact laws that seek equality of outcomes. Such policies don't work, but are still pursued with religious fervor by the Left.
Remember when the courts went beyond the very good civil rights laws that outlawed discrimination in education with racially segregated public schools to creating laws out of the ether for enforced desegregation through something called busing?
The theory was that if schools were desegregated, inequalities of outcomes between the mostly white suburban schools and the mostly black urban schools would be remedied. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. The actual result of this social experiment forced upon the population by liberal elites was a drastic reduction in outcomes from all of the schools. The inner-city schools got worse and the suburban schools got worse.
Those who could afford to left the public schools for private and parochial schools. Today it's hard to find excellence in public schools, which in many urban areas are not only poor performers but dangerous places for the students.
By the way, I'm not blaming any race for the decline. I blame the liberal establishment who enacted laws reflecting their well-meaning but misguided ideas about racial reconciliation. Racial peace can't be accomplished with heavy-handed court orders and legislation from elite ivory towers, but have to be accomplished by influencing hearts and minds of people of each race, one at a time.
Finally, would I vote for Barack Obama? No.
But the reason has nothing to do with his race. I'd actually prefer him as President to Hillary. Because even though I disagree almost completely with those policy statements he has made, I believe he's sincere and a genuinely nice guy. Does that make me a sexist? That's a question for another day.
Actually, I'd happily vote for a black presidential candidate. Tony Dungy could easily get my vote if he were qualified and running (by the way, I'm happy to learn he decided to come back for another season with the Colts after all). Condi Rice could get my vote (does that answer the sexist question?) I'm also a huge admirer of Clarence Thomas.
I can't tell what will happen in this year's Presidential campaign. But I do think the Democrats might be a bit overconfident in their belief that either Hillary or Barack will win easily. Half the country will never vote for Hillary, and her supporters might stay home if Obama gets the nomination. If the Republican nominee runs an effective campaign, I think he could win, although I'm not naive enough to predict it will be easy.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Defining Mental Illness
Picking up some groceries last night, I noticed one of the supermarket tabloids had a headline that was something like, "Britney's Mental Illness". It got me thinking, how do they know she's mentally ill?
Expanding on my line of thought, it seems that whenever someone exhibits aberrant behavior, everyone just assumes they're mentally ill. Perhaps it's a good assumption, but I wonder. In Britney's case, does her bizarre behavior indicate she has some sort of chemical imbalance, injury, or illness affecting her brain?
Or is it something much more simple? Could it be that Britney's simply a spoiled, narcissistic brat child who is acting out with a litany of bizarre behaviors just because she wants attention? Could it be that she's acting like the rebellious teenager who thinks she's punishing her parents and other adults who have placed restrictions on her?
Consider that her mindset might go something like this: My (parents, managers, etc) controlled every aspect of my life from the time I was ten years old. Now that I'm an adult and free to do whatever I want, I'll show them! No more wholesome, virginal Britney - I'll shock them! I'll shock the world!
Just wondering, is Britney, and by extension her friends and contemporaries Paris and Lindsey, simply a rich, spoiled brat who has made her own bad choices and should be allowed to suffer whatever the consequences?
I know the drugs can certainly contribute to an artificially induced mental illness, but it's temporary and can be overcome by simply stopping the drugs. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think she's not mentally ill, unless we decide that extreme narcissism is a mental illness.
Generally, my reaction to all the stories swirling around Britney and the other starlets is disgust. But I can see how they pull people in, sort of like rubbernecking a gruesome accident on the highway. You shouldn't look, but it's hard not to.
I think she'll drop out of sight one of these days, when the media gets tired of covering her antics. Then after a few years, she'll reappear in a story that could go one of two ways: She's sent to prison or is found dead of an overdose, or she cleaned up and maybe found God and is working to start fresh on a new career.
Perhaps a law should be passed that forbids children from being used as movie or music stars. Most of their stories don't end well.
Expanding on my line of thought, it seems that whenever someone exhibits aberrant behavior, everyone just assumes they're mentally ill. Perhaps it's a good assumption, but I wonder. In Britney's case, does her bizarre behavior indicate she has some sort of chemical imbalance, injury, or illness affecting her brain?
Or is it something much more simple? Could it be that Britney's simply a spoiled, narcissistic brat child who is acting out with a litany of bizarre behaviors just because she wants attention? Could it be that she's acting like the rebellious teenager who thinks she's punishing her parents and other adults who have placed restrictions on her?
Consider that her mindset might go something like this: My (parents, managers, etc) controlled every aspect of my life from the time I was ten years old. Now that I'm an adult and free to do whatever I want, I'll show them! No more wholesome, virginal Britney - I'll shock them! I'll shock the world!
Just wondering, is Britney, and by extension her friends and contemporaries Paris and Lindsey, simply a rich, spoiled brat who has made her own bad choices and should be allowed to suffer whatever the consequences?
I know the drugs can certainly contribute to an artificially induced mental illness, but it's temporary and can be overcome by simply stopping the drugs. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think she's not mentally ill, unless we decide that extreme narcissism is a mental illness.
Generally, my reaction to all the stories swirling around Britney and the other starlets is disgust. But I can see how they pull people in, sort of like rubbernecking a gruesome accident on the highway. You shouldn't look, but it's hard not to.
I think she'll drop out of sight one of these days, when the media gets tired of covering her antics. Then after a few years, she'll reappear in a story that could go one of two ways: She's sent to prison or is found dead of an overdose, or she cleaned up and maybe found God and is working to start fresh on a new career.
Perhaps a law should be passed that forbids children from being used as movie or music stars. Most of their stories don't end well.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Bogeyman
He is now very different, depending on each person's political beliefs and affiliations. Both sides have them, but neither has any in common.
Democrat Bogeymen:
Right-Wing Radical Christians
George W. Bush
Oil Companies
Corporate CEO's (Excepting some they like who happen to share their leftist views)
Republican Bogeymen:
Radical Islamic Terrorists
Iran and Ahmadinejad
Communists (often a synonym for Democrats)
Hillary Clinton (hmm, would that be Bogeywoman?)
Whom do you fear the most?
Just saying -
Which group has killed more innocent people in the last 10 years? Islamic terrorists or Right-Wing Christians?
Yeah, I'm frustrated by high gas prices too. But what is it Democrats want to do about it? Levy punitive taxes on Oil Companies, as far as I can tell. So that brings my gasoline prices down exactly how?
Hillary or Bush: Who would be the worse President? Does it frighten you that we might actually get to find out? Sorta scares me.
Just wondering about the whole rich leftist thing. So actors who make millions of dollars per movie - should they pay more, less, or the same taxes as the evil corporate CEO's the Democrats are so ready to punish? Let's put it in real terms:
A CEO and movie star both make $10 Million in 2009 after Hillary becomes President. How much Federal Income Tax should be taken from them? Following the rhetoric of the left, I'm guessing the CEO will have about $7 Million confiscated, but the Democrat movie star who gave a bunch of money to Hillary's campaign would only pay, what, about $2 Million?
See, back in the dark days of Jimmy Carter, which amazingly seem to be the golden age by Democrats, the $7 Million number is exactly what would have been taken from the CEO and the Hollywood actor. Unless, of course, they found a loophole in the tax code that let them hide some of that money. Democrats back then thought that was perfectly OK - their argument was something along the line of, "3 Million is plenty of money! Allowing anybody to have 10 Million dollars is just obscene and unfair."
The idea is that anyone who earns that kind of money, no matter how they did so, can't possibly deserve it. They must have cheated somebody or paid underlings slave wages to get it. So they deserve to have it taken away from them by the benevolent government to give to some poor person. Said poor person theoretically is so grateful to the government for the handout, they become a life-long Democrat voter.
If we're headed back to a repeat of the Jimmy Carter era, I just have one request: Please wait just a few more years until I retire. Then I'll let you pay me to sit at home and live off your Social Security benefits and let somebody else struggle to find a job and make a decent living off their after-tax income.
Democrat Bogeymen:
Right-Wing Radical Christians
George W. Bush
Oil Companies
Corporate CEO's (Excepting some they like who happen to share their leftist views)
Republican Bogeymen:
Radical Islamic Terrorists
Iran and Ahmadinejad
Communists (often a synonym for Democrats)
Hillary Clinton (hmm, would that be Bogeywoman?)
Whom do you fear the most?
Just saying -
Which group has killed more innocent people in the last 10 years? Islamic terrorists or Right-Wing Christians?
Yeah, I'm frustrated by high gas prices too. But what is it Democrats want to do about it? Levy punitive taxes on Oil Companies, as far as I can tell. So that brings my gasoline prices down exactly how?
Hillary or Bush: Who would be the worse President? Does it frighten you that we might actually get to find out? Sorta scares me.
Just wondering about the whole rich leftist thing. So actors who make millions of dollars per movie - should they pay more, less, or the same taxes as the evil corporate CEO's the Democrats are so ready to punish? Let's put it in real terms:
A CEO and movie star both make $10 Million in 2009 after Hillary becomes President. How much Federal Income Tax should be taken from them? Following the rhetoric of the left, I'm guessing the CEO will have about $7 Million confiscated, but the Democrat movie star who gave a bunch of money to Hillary's campaign would only pay, what, about $2 Million?
See, back in the dark days of Jimmy Carter, which amazingly seem to be the golden age by Democrats, the $7 Million number is exactly what would have been taken from the CEO and the Hollywood actor. Unless, of course, they found a loophole in the tax code that let them hide some of that money. Democrats back then thought that was perfectly OK - their argument was something along the line of, "3 Million is plenty of money! Allowing anybody to have 10 Million dollars is just obscene and unfair."
The idea is that anyone who earns that kind of money, no matter how they did so, can't possibly deserve it. They must have cheated somebody or paid underlings slave wages to get it. So they deserve to have it taken away from them by the benevolent government to give to some poor person. Said poor person theoretically is so grateful to the government for the handout, they become a life-long Democrat voter.
If we're headed back to a repeat of the Jimmy Carter era, I just have one request: Please wait just a few more years until I retire. Then I'll let you pay me to sit at home and live off your Social Security benefits and let somebody else struggle to find a job and make a decent living off their after-tax income.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Coach Dungy Retiring
It's not official yet, in fact the last report said an announcement would be made on Monday. But reports are out already with the news that Tony Dungy is retiring.
There have been previous reports that his children have already been enrolled in Tampa schools, which made it seem pretty definite that Tony was going to go ahead with his retirement. Colts fans can hope the report is false, but it seems more likely to be correct.
Apparently the Colts have already decided to name the assistant head coach Caldwell to replace him. That would seem to provide continuity that may not shake up the team as much as hiring a new head coach from outside who might bring in a brand new staff.
That makes two very disappointing events for Colts fans this week. They blew the game against the Chargers, then lost perhaps the best human being in the league with Dungy's retirement. If nothing else, he will be missed as a beacon of light in an otherwise disappointing world of drug abuse, cheating, felons, and miscreants.
Tony Dungy did it right.
So long, coach. Happy Retirement.
There have been previous reports that his children have already been enrolled in Tampa schools, which made it seem pretty definite that Tony was going to go ahead with his retirement. Colts fans can hope the report is false, but it seems more likely to be correct.
Apparently the Colts have already decided to name the assistant head coach Caldwell to replace him. That would seem to provide continuity that may not shake up the team as much as hiring a new head coach from outside who might bring in a brand new staff.
That makes two very disappointing events for Colts fans this week. They blew the game against the Chargers, then lost perhaps the best human being in the league with Dungy's retirement. If nothing else, he will be missed as a beacon of light in an otherwise disappointing world of drug abuse, cheating, felons, and miscreants.
Tony Dungy did it right.
So long, coach. Happy Retirement.
Sticky Internet Issues
Lately the significant and growing issues with the internet have become hot topics, both in news reports and personal experience. The benefits of the internet, which has given the world so much in terms of communication and access to information, carry a heavy cost and many serious problems.
Recent news stories have highlighted efforts to solve the problem of sexual predators lurking in social networking sites. Some are introducing legislation that would attempt to deny access to those sites, or perhaps even the internet itself, to convicted sexual predators.
Scammers and spammers have grown to epidemic proportions. The personal impact of this hits me every day, with two of my email accounts filling up with hundreds of spam emails every week. My email accounts segregate what spam they can identify into a separate folder I can clear, but many make it through to my inbox. My daily ritual now begins with deleting all the spam so I can read the "real" emails.
There is one email account that is heavily filtered, in which I have never seen a piece of spam. But that's a mixed blessing, because I often hear from clients who wonder why I didn't respond to an email I never actually received. Aggressive spam filters often end up blocking legitimate email messages.
Companies are building highly restrictive firewalls that trap their employees from being able to access the web. A paranoia at many companies over the potential of an employee visiting a site that could infect the network, plus the assumption that employees would waste valuable work hours surfing the web, have virtually locked employees out of important and helpful internet resources.
Today, part of the reason I'm posting is my web-based training class had to be cancelled. Half of the students scheduled to attend my online class were unable to access the training site, and were unable to find timely IT support to solve the problem. So we rescheduled today's session for Friday.
The internet has become both an invaluable resource and a dangerous path through a medieval forest full of marauders who will steal your identity and your money, vandalize your computer and enslave it to vandalize others', surreptitiously install software on your system to spy on everything you do, and flood your email with unwanted advertisements and pornographic materials.
Legislatures don't seem concerned about solving the real problems of the web, but rather seem more focused on finding ways to tax our use of it and protect the movie and music industries from internet-based copyright infringement. A cynic might suggest that congress is doing their best to arrest 17-year-olds for downloading a music file while ignoring the pedophiles who entice children to meetings that will end up scarring their psyche forever.
But what can really be done? I have some ideas.
Rather than looking to the government to solve the problem which always seems to result in high taxes, bureaucracy, and loss of freedom, why not let the users of the internet solve the problem? Here's how:
1. If you are sending advertising email, you must register with an internet-based clearinghouse. If you are not registered, your email will be flagged as such when it is sent through the web to the recipient address. The flag can then be read by the receiving email program, which can be configured to reject or segregate those emails as spam. This way, no unwanted or unsolicited email has to ever make it through.
2. With registered advertisers, consumers have the ability to easily report them as spammers. This would result in a rating that is also placed in the emails sent from the advertiser, say 1 to 5, where 1 indicates little or no spamming complaints and 5 indicates this is a major spammer. Email systems could be configured to accept or reject these emails based on the rating.
3. Users of social networking sites can already simply report those they suspect of being predators or of misusing the site. The site managers can then act on those reports by suspending access to the predators.
4. Companies should loosen their restrictions on employee web surfing. There's nothing wrong with an employee reading a news site in the morning or shopping on ebay during their lunch break. If an employee is wasting valuable work time surfing the net, that's a management issue that should be addressed by the supervisor with the offending employee. Shutting down internet access for employees simply equates with lazy managers who don't want to deal with the problem directly.
I think that if everyone who uses the net has the opportunity and ability to stop abuse with an easy reporting mechanism, we could all solve most of the problems ourselves.
Recent news stories have highlighted efforts to solve the problem of sexual predators lurking in social networking sites. Some are introducing legislation that would attempt to deny access to those sites, or perhaps even the internet itself, to convicted sexual predators.
Scammers and spammers have grown to epidemic proportions. The personal impact of this hits me every day, with two of my email accounts filling up with hundreds of spam emails every week. My email accounts segregate what spam they can identify into a separate folder I can clear, but many make it through to my inbox. My daily ritual now begins with deleting all the spam so I can read the "real" emails.
There is one email account that is heavily filtered, in which I have never seen a piece of spam. But that's a mixed blessing, because I often hear from clients who wonder why I didn't respond to an email I never actually received. Aggressive spam filters often end up blocking legitimate email messages.
Companies are building highly restrictive firewalls that trap their employees from being able to access the web. A paranoia at many companies over the potential of an employee visiting a site that could infect the network, plus the assumption that employees would waste valuable work hours surfing the web, have virtually locked employees out of important and helpful internet resources.
Today, part of the reason I'm posting is my web-based training class had to be cancelled. Half of the students scheduled to attend my online class were unable to access the training site, and were unable to find timely IT support to solve the problem. So we rescheduled today's session for Friday.
The internet has become both an invaluable resource and a dangerous path through a medieval forest full of marauders who will steal your identity and your money, vandalize your computer and enslave it to vandalize others', surreptitiously install software on your system to spy on everything you do, and flood your email with unwanted advertisements and pornographic materials.
Legislatures don't seem concerned about solving the real problems of the web, but rather seem more focused on finding ways to tax our use of it and protect the movie and music industries from internet-based copyright infringement. A cynic might suggest that congress is doing their best to arrest 17-year-olds for downloading a music file while ignoring the pedophiles who entice children to meetings that will end up scarring their psyche forever.
But what can really be done? I have some ideas.
Rather than looking to the government to solve the problem which always seems to result in high taxes, bureaucracy, and loss of freedom, why not let the users of the internet solve the problem? Here's how:
1. If you are sending advertising email, you must register with an internet-based clearinghouse. If you are not registered, your email will be flagged as such when it is sent through the web to the recipient address. The flag can then be read by the receiving email program, which can be configured to reject or segregate those emails as spam. This way, no unwanted or unsolicited email has to ever make it through.
2. With registered advertisers, consumers have the ability to easily report them as spammers. This would result in a rating that is also placed in the emails sent from the advertiser, say 1 to 5, where 1 indicates little or no spamming complaints and 5 indicates this is a major spammer. Email systems could be configured to accept or reject these emails based on the rating.
3. Users of social networking sites can already simply report those they suspect of being predators or of misusing the site. The site managers can then act on those reports by suspending access to the predators.
4. Companies should loosen their restrictions on employee web surfing. There's nothing wrong with an employee reading a news site in the morning or shopping on ebay during their lunch break. If an employee is wasting valuable work time surfing the net, that's a management issue that should be addressed by the supervisor with the offending employee. Shutting down internet access for employees simply equates with lazy managers who don't want to deal with the problem directly.
I think that if everyone who uses the net has the opportunity and ability to stop abuse with an easy reporting mechanism, we could all solve most of the problems ourselves.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Two Worldviews
The striking thing about watching the debates with the presidential candidates is the very different worldviews of the candidates from each party. It seems after watching the Democrats debate, then the Republicans, that there are two different countries electing a president.
In the Republican world, the most important issues are national security, the economy, taxes, and illegal immigration.
In the alternative universe occupied by the Democrats, the most important issues are healthcare, foreign policy, and absolute destruction of George W. Bush.
I've been struck by the misleading simplicity of candidates' so-called "solutions". On the GOP side, candidates play king of the hill trying to prove who will be the toughest in solving the illegal immigration problem. The problem is, from McCain to Giuliani to Romney to Huckabee, most of them have identifiable past records that belie their newfound commitment to the issue.
On the Democrat side, the success of the Iraq Surge has them looking rather foolish in continuing to promise to destroy that success with an immediate and abrupt withdrawal of troops. Or is that really what they plan to do? The front-runners, Hillary and Barack, actually have indicated they wouldn't abruptly remove the troops. So they're lying about it one way or the other - we just can't tell which way.
But I'm especially disturbed by the demagoguery of Democrats on Healthcare and economic policy. They either aren't smart enough or are too power-hungry to recognize that a federal government takeover of healthcare would be disastrous; I'm the first to admit that healthcare is a major problem for the country, but simply funding it for everyone through taxation and government micromanagement won't solve it.
Their economic policy seems to be little more than punitive. They appeal to the masses with their class envy message that the "rich" have had a free ride for too long and need to be punished with much higher taxes. The logic-defying approach goes like this:
Oil companies are making billions of dollars and deserve to be punished with a Jimmy Carter style "windfall profits tax". OK, so how is it exactly that an attempt by the government to confiscate a major percentage of profits from global oil companies going to lower gas prices at the pump? Better yet, since Jimmy Carter tried it back in the 70's, how did that work out?
Not well, as I recall.
There are very simple choices coming up in this presidential election.
Vote for the Democrat (Hillary or Barack, there's not much difference) if you:
Think Christians are a major problem in America whose influence needs to be lessened or eliminated,
Think it's a great idea to tax rich people, defined as everyone who makes more than you do. I wonder, how much should they pay? The 70% they paid under Jimmy Carter? How much should the government confiscate from Americans?
Think the only solution to the healthcare mess in the country is government-run healthcare paid for by taxes levied on everybody who makes more than you do. I wonder, how do you feel about a bureaucrat in Washington, DC deciding whether or not you need a certain surgery or treatment or prescription drug instead of your doctor? How would you feel about fat people and smokers being denied healthcare entirely because of their unhealthy behavior (This is actually being proposed by some on your side).
Think that we should just pull the troops out of Iraq, and probably Afghanistan as well. Then let the new Democrat president work his or her magic through negotiations and diplomacy and the United Nations to achieve world peace. While we're at it, I've got a bridge in New York I can sell you - hurry before somebody else jumps on this deal!
Vote for a Republican if you:
Think the status quo is best and don't want anything changed substantially in government.
Think healthcare is fine as it is and doesn't need any solutions.
Think free trade is the single most important value to be protected by government; even if it entails importation of foreign workers, legal and illegal, and indiscriminate closings of US-based businesses to move the operations to a third-world country where they can make their products much more cheaply.
Sorry, you don't have any candidate to vote for if you:
Think illegal immigration is a major problem and needs to be solved through aggressive border enforcement and deportations.
Think terrorism is a real threat and rogue nations developing nuclear weapons must be stopped before they detonate one in Israel, Europe, or here in the US.
Think the tax code is outrageously corrupt and should be scrapped and rewritten based on a simple law: No tax can be levied unless it applies to everyone - no exceptions allowed.
Think fiscal responsibility and openness is important, and the practices of earmarks and political payoffs with taxpayer funds should be eliminated.
Sorry, the best presidential candidate will never be elected. There are too many people with too much power and money because of the current system who will never allow it.
In the Republican world, the most important issues are national security, the economy, taxes, and illegal immigration.
In the alternative universe occupied by the Democrats, the most important issues are healthcare, foreign policy, and absolute destruction of George W. Bush.
I've been struck by the misleading simplicity of candidates' so-called "solutions". On the GOP side, candidates play king of the hill trying to prove who will be the toughest in solving the illegal immigration problem. The problem is, from McCain to Giuliani to Romney to Huckabee, most of them have identifiable past records that belie their newfound commitment to the issue.
On the Democrat side, the success of the Iraq Surge has them looking rather foolish in continuing to promise to destroy that success with an immediate and abrupt withdrawal of troops. Or is that really what they plan to do? The front-runners, Hillary and Barack, actually have indicated they wouldn't abruptly remove the troops. So they're lying about it one way or the other - we just can't tell which way.
But I'm especially disturbed by the demagoguery of Democrats on Healthcare and economic policy. They either aren't smart enough or are too power-hungry to recognize that a federal government takeover of healthcare would be disastrous; I'm the first to admit that healthcare is a major problem for the country, but simply funding it for everyone through taxation and government micromanagement won't solve it.
Their economic policy seems to be little more than punitive. They appeal to the masses with their class envy message that the "rich" have had a free ride for too long and need to be punished with much higher taxes. The logic-defying approach goes like this:
Oil companies are making billions of dollars and deserve to be punished with a Jimmy Carter style "windfall profits tax". OK, so how is it exactly that an attempt by the government to confiscate a major percentage of profits from global oil companies going to lower gas prices at the pump? Better yet, since Jimmy Carter tried it back in the 70's, how did that work out?
Not well, as I recall.
There are very simple choices coming up in this presidential election.
Vote for the Democrat (Hillary or Barack, there's not much difference) if you:
Think Christians are a major problem in America whose influence needs to be lessened or eliminated,
Think it's a great idea to tax rich people, defined as everyone who makes more than you do. I wonder, how much should they pay? The 70% they paid under Jimmy Carter? How much should the government confiscate from Americans?
Think the only solution to the healthcare mess in the country is government-run healthcare paid for by taxes levied on everybody who makes more than you do. I wonder, how do you feel about a bureaucrat in Washington, DC deciding whether or not you need a certain surgery or treatment or prescription drug instead of your doctor? How would you feel about fat people and smokers being denied healthcare entirely because of their unhealthy behavior (This is actually being proposed by some on your side).
Think that we should just pull the troops out of Iraq, and probably Afghanistan as well. Then let the new Democrat president work his or her magic through negotiations and diplomacy and the United Nations to achieve world peace. While we're at it, I've got a bridge in New York I can sell you - hurry before somebody else jumps on this deal!
Vote for a Republican if you:
Think the status quo is best and don't want anything changed substantially in government.
Think healthcare is fine as it is and doesn't need any solutions.
Think free trade is the single most important value to be protected by government; even if it entails importation of foreign workers, legal and illegal, and indiscriminate closings of US-based businesses to move the operations to a third-world country where they can make their products much more cheaply.
Sorry, you don't have any candidate to vote for if you:
Think illegal immigration is a major problem and needs to be solved through aggressive border enforcement and deportations.
Think terrorism is a real threat and rogue nations developing nuclear weapons must be stopped before they detonate one in Israel, Europe, or here in the US.
Think the tax code is outrageously corrupt and should be scrapped and rewritten based on a simple law: No tax can be levied unless it applies to everyone - no exceptions allowed.
Think fiscal responsibility and openness is important, and the practices of earmarks and political payoffs with taxpayer funds should be eliminated.
Sorry, the best presidential candidate will never be elected. There are too many people with too much power and money because of the current system who will never allow it.
Monday, January 07, 2008
More Football
Can't help myself; I'm just a fan.
The NFL is shaking out toward the interesting playoff weekend, with the intriguing questions to be answered:
Do the Jaguars have a prayer of knocking out the perfect Patriots in bad weather in Massachusetts?
Can the Chargers knock off the Colts in Indy? Was their victory over Indy in San Diego an indicator of what could happen this weekend, or did the Chargers simply catch a battered Colts team after their physically and emotionally damaging loss to the Patriots less than a week before?
Can the Seahawks follow up their pounding of Washington to upset Brett Favre and the Packers? Have the Packers been slumping with late-season losses, or were they just keeping their powder dry for the playoffs?
Are the Cowboys still the anointed favorites of the NFC for the Super Bowl, or are they vulnerable with a missing or weakened T.O.? Can anything be made of the Cowboys' late-season slump and the corresponding Giants surge? Can Eli Manning play well enough to beat the Cowboys in their stadium?
As a fan, I'm hoping for a Colts-Packers Super Bowl. Barring that, I could also enjoy a Colts-Giants Super Bowl with the Manning brothers in a repeat of the season opener.
The worst case scenario is the Patriots and Cowboys, as far as I'm concerned. Even though the national sports networks might view that as the dream matchup, I'd be extremely disappointed to see it come about.
I think the Colts will have little trouble with the Chargers, and will most likely have to face the Patriots for the AFC Championship. The Colts have a chance to beat the Pats, but they will have to play their best game of the year to do so. I think the Colts beat the Chargers about 28-13.
I think the Patriots will beat Jacksonville, but in a very close game. My prediction is a fourth-quarter touchdown drive engineered by Tom Brady to come from behind to beat the Jags. Score in this one I think will be 21-17.
I don't think the Giants will have enough firepower to beat the Cowboys, as much as I'd like to see it happen. It could be a close, low-scoring game. Score 17-14.
And I'm counting on the home-field frozen tundra advantage to propel the Packers over the Seahawks. If the weather's bad, I think it will be 20-10.
We'll see how my predictions hold up this weekend.
The NFL is shaking out toward the interesting playoff weekend, with the intriguing questions to be answered:
Do the Jaguars have a prayer of knocking out the perfect Patriots in bad weather in Massachusetts?
Can the Chargers knock off the Colts in Indy? Was their victory over Indy in San Diego an indicator of what could happen this weekend, or did the Chargers simply catch a battered Colts team after their physically and emotionally damaging loss to the Patriots less than a week before?
Can the Seahawks follow up their pounding of Washington to upset Brett Favre and the Packers? Have the Packers been slumping with late-season losses, or were they just keeping their powder dry for the playoffs?
Are the Cowboys still the anointed favorites of the NFC for the Super Bowl, or are they vulnerable with a missing or weakened T.O.? Can anything be made of the Cowboys' late-season slump and the corresponding Giants surge? Can Eli Manning play well enough to beat the Cowboys in their stadium?
As a fan, I'm hoping for a Colts-Packers Super Bowl. Barring that, I could also enjoy a Colts-Giants Super Bowl with the Manning brothers in a repeat of the season opener.
The worst case scenario is the Patriots and Cowboys, as far as I'm concerned. Even though the national sports networks might view that as the dream matchup, I'd be extremely disappointed to see it come about.
I think the Colts will have little trouble with the Chargers, and will most likely have to face the Patriots for the AFC Championship. The Colts have a chance to beat the Pats, but they will have to play their best game of the year to do so. I think the Colts beat the Chargers about 28-13.
I think the Patriots will beat Jacksonville, but in a very close game. My prediction is a fourth-quarter touchdown drive engineered by Tom Brady to come from behind to beat the Jags. Score in this one I think will be 21-17.
I don't think the Giants will have enough firepower to beat the Cowboys, as much as I'd like to see it happen. It could be a close, low-scoring game. Score 17-14.
And I'm counting on the home-field frozen tundra advantage to propel the Packers over the Seahawks. If the weather's bad, I think it will be 20-10.
We'll see how my predictions hold up this weekend.
Friday, January 04, 2008
And the Winner is ... Oprah?
As I watched the results from the Iowa caucuses last night, I just found it interesting that Obama broke away from the 3-way pack to win over Edwards and Hillary. I figured he must have had a good campaign in Iowa to get so many to support him over the other two Democrats.
After all, Edwards has virtually lived in Iowa the last four years, and it seems in that time he must have met virtually every Democrat in the state. And Hillary's formidable machine with its inexhaustible millions from MoveOn and China would seem to have made her inevitable.
But then I heard something that explained it all. Who came out to the caucuses in Iowa in record numbers? Middle-aged women. As I understand the story behind the Iowa caucus story, the Democrat caucus sites were jammed with unprecedented numbers, almost all of them 50-60 year old women.
What could possibly have motivated so many middle-aged women to turn out in such record-breaking numbers to support Barack Obama for President?
Oprah, of course!
Middle-aged women watch Oprah. They love Oprah. They watch her TV show. They subscribe to her magazine. Those who read buy the books she recommends.
So, when Oprah tells them to get out and vote for Obama, what do these women do? See Iowa.
Think Rush Limbaugh is the most influential Republican? Nah, he doesn't even like Huckabee, who won big in Iowa. He can't hold a candle to Oprah.
Could it be, that our next president will be chosen by a TV talk show host?
Interesting. And a bit frightening.
After all, Edwards has virtually lived in Iowa the last four years, and it seems in that time he must have met virtually every Democrat in the state. And Hillary's formidable machine with its inexhaustible millions from MoveOn and China would seem to have made her inevitable.
But then I heard something that explained it all. Who came out to the caucuses in Iowa in record numbers? Middle-aged women. As I understand the story behind the Iowa caucus story, the Democrat caucus sites were jammed with unprecedented numbers, almost all of them 50-60 year old women.
What could possibly have motivated so many middle-aged women to turn out in such record-breaking numbers to support Barack Obama for President?
Oprah, of course!
Middle-aged women watch Oprah. They love Oprah. They watch her TV show. They subscribe to her magazine. Those who read buy the books she recommends.
So, when Oprah tells them to get out and vote for Obama, what do these women do? See Iowa.
Think Rush Limbaugh is the most influential Republican? Nah, he doesn't even like Huckabee, who won big in Iowa. He can't hold a candle to Oprah.
Could it be, that our next president will be chosen by a TV talk show host?
Interesting. And a bit frightening.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Yin and Yang for President
It seems that some of the presidential candidates are almost mirror opposites of each other, which gave me the idea of Yin and Yang.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, for example. They're both wild-eyed little guys who represent the outliers in their respective parties. Although Paul isn't really representative of the Republican party so much - he's actually a Libertarian. They would both agree on immediate abandonment of Iraq, although for very different reasons. Admittedly, Ron Paul has much greater support than Dennis Kucinich will ever get, but I still think they might be the best yin-yang combo in the field.
Next I'll pick Mike Huckabee and John Edwards. Two populists, and two sides of the same coin. They market themselves to the masses, telling people they're just like them. They seem to understand the worries and problems of ordinary people that the rest of the politicians seem to ignore. Personally, I've got to admit my amazement that Edwards' supporters have actually fallen for that, as Huckabee seems at least more believable.
Then I'm going with Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Both are camera-friendly, smooth operators. At the same time, both are a bit hard to pin down on where they really stand on certain issues. There is a contrast, in that Obama hasn't got much of a record that allows definition beyond his own stated ideas, while Romney has had to do a makeover to morph from a Massachusetts liberal governor into a conservative reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. Both are battling voter consternation over their religion, with Obama dogged by whispers that he might actually be a Muslim, and Romney by those who suggest he belongs to a fringe Christian cult.
In the biggest stretch on my yin-yang comparison, there's Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. They're both popular New Yorkers, even though Hillary's actually a carpetbagger. They both have reputation as tough, take-no-prisoners politicians. One thing that can be said about the general campaign is that it could be the most fascinating matchup between the two candidates least likely to play nice or fair.
My last comparison is between Joe Biden and Fred Thompson. These are the two guys who have the best party credentials and are most focused on policy. They're the straightest talkers in the race on each side, even though they're diametrically opposed in their policy ideas. They both seem to get lots of respect from their traditional party bases, but can't get arrested in the press.
I just find it interesting. Picking the winners for this year's general election race feels a bit like picking the winners in the NFL playoffs. How about my comparisons between the NFL teams and the candidates?
New England Patriots = Hillary Clinton. Evil but widely picked to win it all.
Indianapolis Colts = Barack Obama. Looks good, but good enough to get to the Super Bowl?
San Diego Chargers = John McCain. Slow start, but surging.
Pittsburgh Steelers = Joe Biden. Struggling
Jacksonville Jaguars = Mike Huckabee. Surprising dark horse.
Tennessee Titans = Chris Dodd. No chance.
Dallas Cowboys = Rudy Giuliani. Super Bowl Favorite, but with challenges.
Green Bay Packers = Fred Thompson. Sentimental favorites.
Washington Redskins = John Edwards. Flashy but lacking winning talent.
Seattle Seahawks = Bill Richardson. Also-ran status.
New York Giants = Tom Tancredo. One-dimensional.
Tampa Bay Bucs = Ron Paul. Can't get to Super Bowl, but have devoted fans.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, for example. They're both wild-eyed little guys who represent the outliers in their respective parties. Although Paul isn't really representative of the Republican party so much - he's actually a Libertarian. They would both agree on immediate abandonment of Iraq, although for very different reasons. Admittedly, Ron Paul has much greater support than Dennis Kucinich will ever get, but I still think they might be the best yin-yang combo in the field.
Next I'll pick Mike Huckabee and John Edwards. Two populists, and two sides of the same coin. They market themselves to the masses, telling people they're just like them. They seem to understand the worries and problems of ordinary people that the rest of the politicians seem to ignore. Personally, I've got to admit my amazement that Edwards' supporters have actually fallen for that, as Huckabee seems at least more believable.
Then I'm going with Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Both are camera-friendly, smooth operators. At the same time, both are a bit hard to pin down on where they really stand on certain issues. There is a contrast, in that Obama hasn't got much of a record that allows definition beyond his own stated ideas, while Romney has had to do a makeover to morph from a Massachusetts liberal governor into a conservative reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. Both are battling voter consternation over their religion, with Obama dogged by whispers that he might actually be a Muslim, and Romney by those who suggest he belongs to a fringe Christian cult.
In the biggest stretch on my yin-yang comparison, there's Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. They're both popular New Yorkers, even though Hillary's actually a carpetbagger. They both have reputation as tough, take-no-prisoners politicians. One thing that can be said about the general campaign is that it could be the most fascinating matchup between the two candidates least likely to play nice or fair.
My last comparison is between Joe Biden and Fred Thompson. These are the two guys who have the best party credentials and are most focused on policy. They're the straightest talkers in the race on each side, even though they're diametrically opposed in their policy ideas. They both seem to get lots of respect from their traditional party bases, but can't get arrested in the press.
I just find it interesting. Picking the winners for this year's general election race feels a bit like picking the winners in the NFL playoffs. How about my comparisons between the NFL teams and the candidates?
New England Patriots = Hillary Clinton. Evil but widely picked to win it all.
Indianapolis Colts = Barack Obama. Looks good, but good enough to get to the Super Bowl?
San Diego Chargers = John McCain. Slow start, but surging.
Pittsburgh Steelers = Joe Biden. Struggling
Jacksonville Jaguars = Mike Huckabee. Surprising dark horse.
Tennessee Titans = Chris Dodd. No chance.
Dallas Cowboys = Rudy Giuliani. Super Bowl Favorite, but with challenges.
Green Bay Packers = Fred Thompson. Sentimental favorites.
Washington Redskins = John Edwards. Flashy but lacking winning talent.
Seattle Seahawks = Bill Richardson. Also-ran status.
New York Giants = Tom Tancredo. One-dimensional.
Tampa Bay Bucs = Ron Paul. Can't get to Super Bowl, but have devoted fans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)