So the Democrats in the statehouse have successfully derailed property tax reform. Nobody seems surprised.
If I understand it right, here's what happened.
The State Senate passed a bill pretty close to the one proposed by the Governor, capping property taxes at 1% for private homeowners. The narrowly Democrat-controlled House tabled it and decided to start over with their own bill.
The school superintendents and mayors have objected to the caps, claiming they will force them to cut local budgets. Rather than responding that a bit of belt-tightening is a pretty good idea, the state was working on a plan to make up the difference out of state revenues. That most likely included a 1% increase in the sales tax.
It's a fairly typical idea from the Dems. They have thrown out the cap. But they still eagerly accept the sales tax increase anyway. Their new idea comes from the Democrat playbook, which has two fundamentals:
1. Never cut taxes or social programs
2. Soak the rich
They've decided it would be better to eliminate the property tax caps but change the formula for homestead exemptions. The change would tie the homestead exemption to the income of the homeowner. In effect, it simply shifts the burden to the wealthy. Their version caps property taxes for lower-income folks but allows them to increase without limit on the higher-income taxpayers.
Wait a second - didn't the whole property tax mess begin with a court ruling that said the state's property tax system violated equal treatment by giving preferential treatment to some property owners over others? Doesn't the Democrat proposal do that all over again?
The end result is nothing gets done.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Trying to Understand
That sums up my feeling about the mess with Kelvin Sampson and the Indiana University basketball program. All told, I'm struggling to understand.
How is it that a coach that got caught making recruiting phone calls to high school recruits from his previous head coaching job at Oklahoma still is hired by Indiana, when Indiana knew all about the infractions?
Not only that, Indiana willingly accepted NCAA sanctions to its own program in order to hire the coach. Even though the sanctions were relatively light, it begs the question, why?
Now it comes out that Sampson continued talking to recruits on the phone at Indiana, even though he was clearly prohibited from doing so. If I read the report correctly, something like 10 times. Now 1 or 2 phone conversations could maybe be chalked up to a mistake, but 10?
Finally, the biggest question of all: Why would Kelvin Sampson throw away his coaching career for 10 telephone calls?
Was he the subject of some sort of NCAA witch hunt, where the accusations aren't true? Based on the reports, it sure doesn't appear so. His calls were verified and documented. Did he somehow misunderstand the phone restrictions placed on him by the NCAA? I sure don't see how; even I understood the restrictions, apparently better than he did.
Or did he simply think he could get away with it? How in the world did he think he would pull that off when he had to know he was under a microscope by the NCAA?
The tragedy is that a few phone calls can hardly be characterized as a huge case of cheating. Sampson's only public defense has been to deny he lied to the NCAA, which is the charge that has them more upset than the calls themselves.
But he knew he was under the sanctions and did it anyway. And that I still can't understand.
I feel for Dan Dakich. If he can actually pull off a good end to this disaster by winning the Big 10 and/or going deep into the NCAA tournament, he deserves all the accolades that could be given him. I can't imagine stepping into a more difficult situation. I wish him luck.
How is it that a coach that got caught making recruiting phone calls to high school recruits from his previous head coaching job at Oklahoma still is hired by Indiana, when Indiana knew all about the infractions?
Not only that, Indiana willingly accepted NCAA sanctions to its own program in order to hire the coach. Even though the sanctions were relatively light, it begs the question, why?
Now it comes out that Sampson continued talking to recruits on the phone at Indiana, even though he was clearly prohibited from doing so. If I read the report correctly, something like 10 times. Now 1 or 2 phone conversations could maybe be chalked up to a mistake, but 10?
Finally, the biggest question of all: Why would Kelvin Sampson throw away his coaching career for 10 telephone calls?
Was he the subject of some sort of NCAA witch hunt, where the accusations aren't true? Based on the reports, it sure doesn't appear so. His calls were verified and documented. Did he somehow misunderstand the phone restrictions placed on him by the NCAA? I sure don't see how; even I understood the restrictions, apparently better than he did.
Or did he simply think he could get away with it? How in the world did he think he would pull that off when he had to know he was under a microscope by the NCAA?
The tragedy is that a few phone calls can hardly be characterized as a huge case of cheating. Sampson's only public defense has been to deny he lied to the NCAA, which is the charge that has them more upset than the calls themselves.
But he knew he was under the sanctions and did it anyway. And that I still can't understand.
I feel for Dan Dakich. If he can actually pull off a good end to this disaster by winning the Big 10 and/or going deep into the NCAA tournament, he deserves all the accolades that could be given him. I can't imagine stepping into a more difficult situation. I wish him luck.
Friday, February 22, 2008
How to Solve Problems
It can be reasonably stated that my profession is one of problem solving. On a nearly daily basis I talk with clients about what they need and help find ways to meet the need in their use of software.
As a professional problem solver, I know intimately the cardinal rule of problem-solving. The problem cannot be solved unless or until it is well understood. In other words, before I can actually solve a problem, I must first understand what the problem is, why it is a problem, and how it became a problem.
Which brings us to one of my most frustrating political issues as demagogued by the Democrats in their presidential debate. There's a pretty major problem in our country's healthcare "system". Democrats promise to "solve" the problem through "Universal Healthcare". What frustrates me about Democrats is their inability to find a solution to any problem that doesn't involve a Federal Government taxpayer funded program.
Not that the Republicans don't also frustrate me in this area. Their solutions include some decent ideas, but would make very little difference in addressing the underlying problems.
I met a physician on my flight this week and had an interesting conversation. This individual is a surgeon and has never been hit with a malpractice suit. Even so, the malpractice insurance premiums ate one-third of total income from the practice. The doctor suggested that nobody should go into the profession if they are motivated by money; in addition to malpractice insurance, whatever comes in has to go toward maintaining medical records and insurance filing and collection efforts from the insurance companies or individuals. Add to this the spiraling incidence of uninsured patients who do not pay their bills, and it all adds up to the profession as a losing proposition.
Where physicians make their money is through business savvy. Many invest in high-tech equipment and diagnostic labs. The six-figure student loan debts nearly all of them have coming out of medical school have to be paid somehow.
Why can't we find leaders capable of understanding the problem and proposing solutions that are sensible? Because everybody's got to have the millions of dollars it takes to run the campaigns. And their best contributors are those who most want to keep the status quo.
So the problem won't be solved. I think Hillary or Barack (most likely Barack at this point) are more likely to make it worse. But they won't solve the problem, either because they don't understand it or because they want to gain and keep power for themselves more than they want to solve a problem for the people of the country.
Then there is the long-shot McCain candidate. If he's elected by some miracle, it doesn't appear that healthcare is close enough to the top of his list for anything other than one or two of the small steps would happen. Although there will certainly be enough Dems in congress to make sure nothing happens anyway.
As a professional problem solver, I know intimately the cardinal rule of problem-solving. The problem cannot be solved unless or until it is well understood. In other words, before I can actually solve a problem, I must first understand what the problem is, why it is a problem, and how it became a problem.
Which brings us to one of my most frustrating political issues as demagogued by the Democrats in their presidential debate. There's a pretty major problem in our country's healthcare "system". Democrats promise to "solve" the problem through "Universal Healthcare". What frustrates me about Democrats is their inability to find a solution to any problem that doesn't involve a Federal Government taxpayer funded program.
Not that the Republicans don't also frustrate me in this area. Their solutions include some decent ideas, but would make very little difference in addressing the underlying problems.
I met a physician on my flight this week and had an interesting conversation. This individual is a surgeon and has never been hit with a malpractice suit. Even so, the malpractice insurance premiums ate one-third of total income from the practice. The doctor suggested that nobody should go into the profession if they are motivated by money; in addition to malpractice insurance, whatever comes in has to go toward maintaining medical records and insurance filing and collection efforts from the insurance companies or individuals. Add to this the spiraling incidence of uninsured patients who do not pay their bills, and it all adds up to the profession as a losing proposition.
Where physicians make their money is through business savvy. Many invest in high-tech equipment and diagnostic labs. The six-figure student loan debts nearly all of them have coming out of medical school have to be paid somehow.
Why can't we find leaders capable of understanding the problem and proposing solutions that are sensible? Because everybody's got to have the millions of dollars it takes to run the campaigns. And their best contributors are those who most want to keep the status quo.
So the problem won't be solved. I think Hillary or Barack (most likely Barack at this point) are more likely to make it worse. But they won't solve the problem, either because they don't understand it or because they want to gain and keep power for themselves more than they want to solve a problem for the people of the country.
Then there is the long-shot McCain candidate. If he's elected by some miracle, it doesn't appear that healthcare is close enough to the top of his list for anything other than one or two of the small steps would happen. Although there will certainly be enough Dems in congress to make sure nothing happens anyway.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Dangerous Schools
Now a grad student stops taking his medication and guns down a half-dozen kids at Northern Illinois.
Why do the crazy shooters seem to be students these days? Will we have to worry about sending our kids to college these days? How likely is this school or that school to produce a homicidal maniac?
What can be done to stop this trend? What should be done?
The left says outlaw guns. Seems naive to me.
The right says allow concealed carry permits for professors, staff and students on campus. Evokes the wild west in a way.
How about armed security guards all over campus? Not a great image either.
There is plenty of violence in the public schools as well these days. High schools where the biggest student offenses in the 50's were gum chewing and running in the hallways have changed into places where students assault each other, take and sell illicit drugs, commit rape, steal, and do many other shocking and illegal things.
We don't hear as much about that, because school administrators have become quite skilled at keeping such events out of the news.
What's causing it all? Could it be rampant permissiveness? The "anything goes" philosophy that tells kids to explore their feelings. To experience life. To honor diverse beliefs and behaviors and never judge another.
Seen any studies comparing public places of learning to private, and the relative incidence of crime and violence among them? I wonder, would we find a correllation between a school's emphasis on morality and it's experience with student violence and criminality?
Will such studies be performed by academics who are monolithically liberal? Not as long as they don't want to know the answer.
Why do the crazy shooters seem to be students these days? Will we have to worry about sending our kids to college these days? How likely is this school or that school to produce a homicidal maniac?
What can be done to stop this trend? What should be done?
The left says outlaw guns. Seems naive to me.
The right says allow concealed carry permits for professors, staff and students on campus. Evokes the wild west in a way.
How about armed security guards all over campus? Not a great image either.
There is plenty of violence in the public schools as well these days. High schools where the biggest student offenses in the 50's were gum chewing and running in the hallways have changed into places where students assault each other, take and sell illicit drugs, commit rape, steal, and do many other shocking and illegal things.
We don't hear as much about that, because school administrators have become quite skilled at keeping such events out of the news.
What's causing it all? Could it be rampant permissiveness? The "anything goes" philosophy that tells kids to explore their feelings. To experience life. To honor diverse beliefs and behaviors and never judge another.
Seen any studies comparing public places of learning to private, and the relative incidence of crime and violence among them? I wonder, would we find a correllation between a school's emphasis on morality and it's experience with student violence and criminality?
Will such studies be performed by academics who are monolithically liberal? Not as long as they don't want to know the answer.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Quick Hits
It's over. Obama will be President. Just get used to the idea. Tell me in 2010 how that worked out for you.
I don't understand Kelvin Sampson. Getting slapped for illegal recruiting calls at Oklahoma, then going right ahead and violating his probation by setting up 3-way calls. And how is it he thought he would get away with that?
Obviously he seems to be a very good coach. The team and its record don't lie. But what was the guy thinking?
O boy, maybe I'll get a tax rebate check. That is, if I didn't make too much money last year. Anybody think that will result in a miraculous turnaround to the slumping economy?
Me neither.
So Russia decided to go back to the bad old Cold War days. Iran and North Korea are building nukes and thumbing their noses at us with the tacit support of the rest of the world. The Central American and Caribbean Communist Dictators Club, led by Hugo Chavez, are hatching plans to inflict as much damage as they can to our country. Anybody can cross the border and bring whatever nasty stuff they want to wreak havoc within our borders.
And America elects leaders who would dismantle the military, throw the borders open wider, and redistribute the money earned by hard work to their bureaucrat minions and those who won't work.
Like I said, in 2010 please visit my blog and tell me how that worked out for you.
I don't understand Kelvin Sampson. Getting slapped for illegal recruiting calls at Oklahoma, then going right ahead and violating his probation by setting up 3-way calls. And how is it he thought he would get away with that?
Obviously he seems to be a very good coach. The team and its record don't lie. But what was the guy thinking?
O boy, maybe I'll get a tax rebate check. That is, if I didn't make too much money last year. Anybody think that will result in a miraculous turnaround to the slumping economy?
Me neither.
So Russia decided to go back to the bad old Cold War days. Iran and North Korea are building nukes and thumbing their noses at us with the tacit support of the rest of the world. The Central American and Caribbean Communist Dictators Club, led by Hugo Chavez, are hatching plans to inflict as much damage as they can to our country. Anybody can cross the border and bring whatever nasty stuff they want to wreak havoc within our borders.
And America elects leaders who would dismantle the military, throw the borders open wider, and redistribute the money earned by hard work to their bureaucrat minions and those who won't work.
Like I said, in 2010 please visit my blog and tell me how that worked out for you.
Friday, February 08, 2008
City Slickers and Country Bumpkins
Ruminating on the stark relationship between political attitudes and geography, I've reached some fairly obvious, if unscientific conclusions.
The most liberal citizens are generally found in the big cities. Places like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago. Conversely, the most conservative folks tend to live far away from the big cities.
It evokes the old caricatures of the city slicker and the country bumpkin. The city slicker is smug, self-absorbed, superior, worldly. The country bumpkin is simple, unfashionable, unsophisticated, and to the city slicker, rather ignorant.
These attitudes are directly related to the great political divide. I have spent a lot of time in both worlds, but I am most comfortable with country bumpkins. I live on a small farm in Indiana, so I think I qualify as a member of the bumpkin club.
Which brings me to the fundamental question: why are slickers nearly all liberal and bumpkins mostly conservative? It's all about their environments and daily experience.
Slickers are either city dwellers or commute to the city center every day for work. In the city, they see plenty of evidence of poverty. Panhandlers are on every street corner begging for spare change. Their daily commute probably takes them through some terribly run-down slum areas. These sights are offensive to slickers, who think daily that something should be done about these people! But slickers, a self-absorbed lot, don't think to make an effort to get involved themselves and try to understand the problem and help those poor homeless and slum dwellers. Rather, they vote Democrat, then congratulate themselves on caring enough to elect people who promise to use the government to help out those poor folks.
Interesting how that still hasn't worked after all these years.
Slickers also see the polluted river flowing through and the smog blanketing the city. This naturally makes them environmentalists. They see folks in the traffic jams riding alone in their Hummers and become angry, thinking those arrogant fools are polluting the city and they don't need to drive that big tank. Why don't they ride the subway like we do?
Slickers see the daily press of masses of people and traffic jams every day and think there are way too many people on this planet. That, along with the fact that single slickers (and sometimes married slickers as well) tend to be somewhat promiscuous, makes them "pro-choice".
Slickers were in favor of battling terrorists after 9-11, but after six and a half years without another attack, they're anti-war. Partly because everybody they know in the city is also anti-war, and besides, they passionately hate that bumpkin president who their friends say started the war for his own and his friends' benefit. They hope the next Democrat president will stop the war and reallocate the war funds to clean up the slums and get the panhandlers off the streets.
Slickers feel superior to non-slickers, and look with disdain on religious bumpkins. They might discuss some deep pantheistic cosmic philosophies with their friends over drinks after work, but otherwise just think religion is for the weak-minded. They're offended by their perception that religious bumpkins have a sinister goal to control their lives by outlawing abortion and birth control and even maybe sending storm troopers to arrest them if they're having sex with somebody outside a traditional marriage relationship. Slickers have lots of gay friends, who they find to be funny and delightful people. They are offended in their belief that religious bumpkins want to persecute gays and prevent them from marrying each other.
Bumpkins live in a far different world. They drive to work every day, or go out to work on the farm. Bumpkins don't encounter panhandlers much, and the closest thing to a slum where they live is the occasional run-down trailer park.
As far as the poor, bumpkins see it as their responsibility to help folks get on their feet. They volunteer and contribute to their church and other charitable organizations. They help find jobs for those who need them, and don't have much respect for the poor that won't take a job to support themselves.
Bumpkins view government as an obstacle. They prefer to be left alone to work or build their small businesses, and chafe at the constantly growing tax burden and list of regulations.
Bumpkins are religious. They believe that there's a higher authority and that humans are on this planet for a purpose beyond simple self-aggrandizement. They belong to the local churches, spend free time helping out charitable causes, and hope someday the holocaust of abortion is ended. They see slicker campaigns to make gay marriage equivalent to God's sacred sacramental foundation of the family as obscene.
They often need the big truck for their farms that slickers want to outlaw or tax heavily. They need the large van or SUV to carry their family safely through snow-covered country roads. They understand that high gas prices are caused by oil cartels run by middle-eastern sheiks and communist dictators who hold down production to enrich themselves with American dollars. At the same time, they are puzzled by the slickers' powerful opposition to developing new oil reserves and refinery capacity within our own borders.
Bumpkins are true environmentalists. They live in the country, and know and care a great deal about keeping the waterways clean and the game plentiful but not overpopulated for hunters. Bumpkins don't see much smog, and sometimes wonder what the slickers are so upset about.
It's the bumpkins whose sons and daughters make up the majority of the military. Bumpkins don't like war, and certainly are frightened that their sons and daughters might be killed by a terrorist bomb somewhere in Iraq. But they understand that the country must be protected from enemies who wish to destroy it. They don't understand the slickers' war protests, when the slickers mostly don't have family members fighting. They are upset by slickers' accusations that bumpkins serving in the military are bloodthirsty torturers and murderers.
I'm proud to be a bumpkin. I would like to invite all slickers to come to the country and stay awhile. Maybe we'll become a bit less polarized if they accepted the invitation.
The most liberal citizens are generally found in the big cities. Places like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago. Conversely, the most conservative folks tend to live far away from the big cities.
It evokes the old caricatures of the city slicker and the country bumpkin. The city slicker is smug, self-absorbed, superior, worldly. The country bumpkin is simple, unfashionable, unsophisticated, and to the city slicker, rather ignorant.
These attitudes are directly related to the great political divide. I have spent a lot of time in both worlds, but I am most comfortable with country bumpkins. I live on a small farm in Indiana, so I think I qualify as a member of the bumpkin club.
Which brings me to the fundamental question: why are slickers nearly all liberal and bumpkins mostly conservative? It's all about their environments and daily experience.
Slickers are either city dwellers or commute to the city center every day for work. In the city, they see plenty of evidence of poverty. Panhandlers are on every street corner begging for spare change. Their daily commute probably takes them through some terribly run-down slum areas. These sights are offensive to slickers, who think daily that something should be done about these people! But slickers, a self-absorbed lot, don't think to make an effort to get involved themselves and try to understand the problem and help those poor homeless and slum dwellers. Rather, they vote Democrat, then congratulate themselves on caring enough to elect people who promise to use the government to help out those poor folks.
Interesting how that still hasn't worked after all these years.
Slickers also see the polluted river flowing through and the smog blanketing the city. This naturally makes them environmentalists. They see folks in the traffic jams riding alone in their Hummers and become angry, thinking those arrogant fools are polluting the city and they don't need to drive that big tank. Why don't they ride the subway like we do?
Slickers see the daily press of masses of people and traffic jams every day and think there are way too many people on this planet. That, along with the fact that single slickers (and sometimes married slickers as well) tend to be somewhat promiscuous, makes them "pro-choice".
Slickers were in favor of battling terrorists after 9-11, but after six and a half years without another attack, they're anti-war. Partly because everybody they know in the city is also anti-war, and besides, they passionately hate that bumpkin president who their friends say started the war for his own and his friends' benefit. They hope the next Democrat president will stop the war and reallocate the war funds to clean up the slums and get the panhandlers off the streets.
Slickers feel superior to non-slickers, and look with disdain on religious bumpkins. They might discuss some deep pantheistic cosmic philosophies with their friends over drinks after work, but otherwise just think religion is for the weak-minded. They're offended by their perception that religious bumpkins have a sinister goal to control their lives by outlawing abortion and birth control and even maybe sending storm troopers to arrest them if they're having sex with somebody outside a traditional marriage relationship. Slickers have lots of gay friends, who they find to be funny and delightful people. They are offended in their belief that religious bumpkins want to persecute gays and prevent them from marrying each other.
Bumpkins live in a far different world. They drive to work every day, or go out to work on the farm. Bumpkins don't encounter panhandlers much, and the closest thing to a slum where they live is the occasional run-down trailer park.
As far as the poor, bumpkins see it as their responsibility to help folks get on their feet. They volunteer and contribute to their church and other charitable organizations. They help find jobs for those who need them, and don't have much respect for the poor that won't take a job to support themselves.
Bumpkins view government as an obstacle. They prefer to be left alone to work or build their small businesses, and chafe at the constantly growing tax burden and list of regulations.
Bumpkins are religious. They believe that there's a higher authority and that humans are on this planet for a purpose beyond simple self-aggrandizement. They belong to the local churches, spend free time helping out charitable causes, and hope someday the holocaust of abortion is ended. They see slicker campaigns to make gay marriage equivalent to God's sacred sacramental foundation of the family as obscene.
They often need the big truck for their farms that slickers want to outlaw or tax heavily. They need the large van or SUV to carry their family safely through snow-covered country roads. They understand that high gas prices are caused by oil cartels run by middle-eastern sheiks and communist dictators who hold down production to enrich themselves with American dollars. At the same time, they are puzzled by the slickers' powerful opposition to developing new oil reserves and refinery capacity within our own borders.
Bumpkins are true environmentalists. They live in the country, and know and care a great deal about keeping the waterways clean and the game plentiful but not overpopulated for hunters. Bumpkins don't see much smog, and sometimes wonder what the slickers are so upset about.
It's the bumpkins whose sons and daughters make up the majority of the military. Bumpkins don't like war, and certainly are frightened that their sons and daughters might be killed by a terrorist bomb somewhere in Iraq. But they understand that the country must be protected from enemies who wish to destroy it. They don't understand the slickers' war protests, when the slickers mostly don't have family members fighting. They are upset by slickers' accusations that bumpkins serving in the military are bloodthirsty torturers and murderers.
I'm proud to be a bumpkin. I would like to invite all slickers to come to the country and stay awhile. Maybe we'll become a bit less polarized if they accepted the invitation.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Hardly a Pundit, but this is easy
Amidst all the conservative angst over McCain all but locking up the GOP nomination, I'm amazed that the professional pundits don't seem to have a clue. Democrat pundits gleefully proclaim the Republicans to be demoralized and fractured, and the big radio talkers irrelevant. Republican pundits plead with their base to get behind McCain, and don't seem to understand why so many conservatives won't support him.
Both are partially right, but mostly wrong. From my perch as an observer without any punditry credentials, I think the big picture is pretty easy to understand.
The Republican field started out with some "real" conservatives in the field, namely Tancredo and Hunter. Later, many conservatives were excited when Fred Thompson joined the field. The moderates had Sam Brownback, the evangelicals had Mike Huckabee, and the liberal-leaning Republicans had a choice between McCain and Giuliani.
Why didn't I mention Mitt Romney? Because nobody knew for sure where he fit. Many were uncomfortable, fairly or unfairly, with his Mormonism. Nobody knew for sure whether he was truly a social conservative or not, because he ran as a social liberal for Massachusetts governor. He projected an image as a rich corporate bigshot, and I never really felt he connected with ordinary people in his television and debate appearances.
So the networks made sure the public never found out who Hunter and Tancredo were. So those guys were gone. Brownback went pretty much the same way.
Thompson thought he could win just by putting together a good website and being the low-key no-nonsense guy. People don't bother reading policy statements for the most part, and didn't get to see him speak outside the debates, so he's gone.
Giuliani became nearly indistinguishable from McCain, and waited for Florida to kick his campaign into gear. Too late. He's gone.
So Super Tuesday came along. There were four candidates left; Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul. Paul's got a dedicated bunch of followers but will never attract enough support to win anything. So people essentially had to choose between the other three.
McCain now had the liberal and moderate wings of the party pretty much in his pocket, now that Giuliani was out. So where does everybody else (other than the Paul folks) go?
Many voted for Romney despite his liabilities. Those who put values first went for Huckabee, along with those who just weren't convinced Romney really did convert as he claims. National Security voters felt they had no real choice but to join the liberals and moderates and vote for McCain.
So why are the true blue conservatives so upset? If they don't like McCain, they had plenty of opportunity to get behind Thompson or Hunter early. They didn't. I noticed that Democrats are already throwing the message out there on their media megaphones that McCain will be just like Bush. In many ways, they're kind of right about that. McCain's fundamental policies, including the ones conservatives most dislike about Bush, are pretty much the same.
So the Republicans will have to decide whether to vote for McCain in November, who is somewhere between Bush and Clinton politically, stay home and grumble, or vote for the Democrat. We already know the Democrat will be either Clinton or Obama, and there seems to be a strong possiblity both will be on that ticket.
If conservatives really don't want McCain as their president, they could throw support behind Huckabee. But they won't.
Maybe the GOP decided a long time ago to let the Democrats have the presidency this time around. They certainly seem to be acting like that's the case.
I'm bored with the subject. Let's see how things worked out for everyone about 2 to 3 years from now.
Both are partially right, but mostly wrong. From my perch as an observer without any punditry credentials, I think the big picture is pretty easy to understand.
The Republican field started out with some "real" conservatives in the field, namely Tancredo and Hunter. Later, many conservatives were excited when Fred Thompson joined the field. The moderates had Sam Brownback, the evangelicals had Mike Huckabee, and the liberal-leaning Republicans had a choice between McCain and Giuliani.
Why didn't I mention Mitt Romney? Because nobody knew for sure where he fit. Many were uncomfortable, fairly or unfairly, with his Mormonism. Nobody knew for sure whether he was truly a social conservative or not, because he ran as a social liberal for Massachusetts governor. He projected an image as a rich corporate bigshot, and I never really felt he connected with ordinary people in his television and debate appearances.
So the networks made sure the public never found out who Hunter and Tancredo were. So those guys were gone. Brownback went pretty much the same way.
Thompson thought he could win just by putting together a good website and being the low-key no-nonsense guy. People don't bother reading policy statements for the most part, and didn't get to see him speak outside the debates, so he's gone.
Giuliani became nearly indistinguishable from McCain, and waited for Florida to kick his campaign into gear. Too late. He's gone.
So Super Tuesday came along. There were four candidates left; Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul. Paul's got a dedicated bunch of followers but will never attract enough support to win anything. So people essentially had to choose between the other three.
McCain now had the liberal and moderate wings of the party pretty much in his pocket, now that Giuliani was out. So where does everybody else (other than the Paul folks) go?
Many voted for Romney despite his liabilities. Those who put values first went for Huckabee, along with those who just weren't convinced Romney really did convert as he claims. National Security voters felt they had no real choice but to join the liberals and moderates and vote for McCain.
So why are the true blue conservatives so upset? If they don't like McCain, they had plenty of opportunity to get behind Thompson or Hunter early. They didn't. I noticed that Democrats are already throwing the message out there on their media megaphones that McCain will be just like Bush. In many ways, they're kind of right about that. McCain's fundamental policies, including the ones conservatives most dislike about Bush, are pretty much the same.
So the Republicans will have to decide whether to vote for McCain in November, who is somewhere between Bush and Clinton politically, stay home and grumble, or vote for the Democrat. We already know the Democrat will be either Clinton or Obama, and there seems to be a strong possiblity both will be on that ticket.
If conservatives really don't want McCain as their president, they could throw support behind Huckabee. But they won't.
Maybe the GOP decided a long time ago to let the Democrats have the presidency this time around. They certainly seem to be acting like that's the case.
I'm bored with the subject. Let's see how things worked out for everyone about 2 to 3 years from now.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
America's Pravda
Back in Canada, where the only news I can see is on CNN. I should stop watching, because increasingly I find the network to be the near equivalent of the old Soviet Union's official news outlet. Except the weird twist is they're actually virulently opposed to the country's current President.
They're mostly talking election politics today, which of course is "Super Tuesday". Their coverage is about 70 percent cheerleading for Barack Obama. They're clearly excited by the guy, but are also very friendly toward Hillary Clinton. They openly express their hope for their "dream ticket" (yes, this is their term), which of course is either Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.
The 30 percent of the time they talk about Republicans is generally split between trashing the President, strangely even though he's not running, and cheerleading for John McCain. They were discussing the angst by the right wing of the GOP who don't want McCain in a way that sort of reminded my of National Geographic adventurers trying to understand some isolated native culture in the wilds of a remote jungle somewhere.
Their attempts to analyze Republicans are so ridiculously ignorant they're actually funny. To these guys, liberalism isn't just a political philosophy; it's the only political philosophy. For them, "evangelical Christians" are some sort of obscure tribal culture that needs to be kept as far away from politics as possible. Anybody who is socially conservative, supports lower taxes and less government, and doesn't want the Federal Government imposing healthcare on them are viewed by the CNN talking heads as the equivalent of Nazis or KKK members.
I'm rather stunned to discover that, according to CNN, I'm a right-winger who is way out of the mainstream. It seems that faith and common sense are no longer mainstream.
They're mostly talking election politics today, which of course is "Super Tuesday". Their coverage is about 70 percent cheerleading for Barack Obama. They're clearly excited by the guy, but are also very friendly toward Hillary Clinton. They openly express their hope for their "dream ticket" (yes, this is their term), which of course is either Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.
The 30 percent of the time they talk about Republicans is generally split between trashing the President, strangely even though he's not running, and cheerleading for John McCain. They were discussing the angst by the right wing of the GOP who don't want McCain in a way that sort of reminded my of National Geographic adventurers trying to understand some isolated native culture in the wilds of a remote jungle somewhere.
Their attempts to analyze Republicans are so ridiculously ignorant they're actually funny. To these guys, liberalism isn't just a political philosophy; it's the only political philosophy. For them, "evangelical Christians" are some sort of obscure tribal culture that needs to be kept as far away from politics as possible. Anybody who is socially conservative, supports lower taxes and less government, and doesn't want the Federal Government imposing healthcare on them are viewed by the CNN talking heads as the equivalent of Nazis or KKK members.
I'm rather stunned to discover that, according to CNN, I'm a right-winger who is way out of the mainstream. It seems that faith and common sense are no longer mainstream.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Entirely Worthwhile
I just moved into my new office space. Same building and a few dollars more per month, but I've been bowled over by how well worthwhile this decision has proven.
The old space was a dungeon-like windowless room near the building's loading dock. It had old dingy mismatched tile on the floor, walls in need of paint, and big standpipes in the corner. Add to that the uninsulated walls that let me hear everything happening outside at the dock, and it was a generally gloomy place to work.
Now I'm in a pleasant space on the second floor. It's quiet, carpeted, well-lit, and has a huge 12-foot window. Carpeting, nicely paneled walls, and a drop ceiling with florescent lighting make me feel comfortable, relaxed, and perhaps even more productive.
It may wear off quickly, but I'm actually looking forward to going into the office in the morning. There's still plenty to file and put away to complete the move, but I expect to have that handled relatively soon.
Amazing how your workspace can make such a dramatic difference in attitude and productivity.
The old space was a dungeon-like windowless room near the building's loading dock. It had old dingy mismatched tile on the floor, walls in need of paint, and big standpipes in the corner. Add to that the uninsulated walls that let me hear everything happening outside at the dock, and it was a generally gloomy place to work.
Now I'm in a pleasant space on the second floor. It's quiet, carpeted, well-lit, and has a huge 12-foot window. Carpeting, nicely paneled walls, and a drop ceiling with florescent lighting make me feel comfortable, relaxed, and perhaps even more productive.
It may wear off quickly, but I'm actually looking forward to going into the office in the morning. There's still plenty to file and put away to complete the move, but I expect to have that handled relatively soon.
Amazing how your workspace can make such a dramatic difference in attitude and productivity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)