My brain just doesn't work the way so many others seem to these days. Here's a quick list of things I won't ever understand.
The idea that we're all entitled to healthcare paid for by someone else. I do understand the frustration with the high cost, but that's a different and solvable problem.
The argument that courts can make law on their own authority.
The idea that the US Constitution is a musty and obsolete old 18th century document that has no relevance to second millennium society.
The idea that it's OK to impose discrimination in hiring or higher education if the discrimination is in favor of members of selective racial, gender, or deviant behavioral groups.
The idea that harsh sentences must be meted out only for offenders who seem to have committed the violent offense based on the victim's membership in one of those favored groups.
The strident demands that those who dare oppose candidates for the country's highest positions on grounds of merit and constitutional principles must remain silent or be persecuted as racists/bigots/homophobes.
Instead of keeping sexual behavior private, we're asked to embrace and give special protection to practitioners of a myriad of deviancy.
Free speech only applies to the Left. Christians, radio talk-show hosts, and one cable television news network must be silenced.
American prosperity must be destroyed for the good of the planet.
No criminal deserves capital punishment, but abortion is nothing more than one of many effective methods of birth control.
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment between a man and woman creating a foundation for the nuclear family; instead it's an open partnership between any two individuals that provides special benefits from employers and the government. And any marriage may be dissolved and transferred on the whim of the partners.
Keeping the people safe isn't a military function; instead our leaders need to show the world we mean no harm, so they'll like us and will no longer threaten us.
Anybody who smokes tobacco or is overweight must be marginalized, but tokers are only using alternative medicine. Those hooked on "recreational" drugs deserve compassion not earned by the smokers and overweight, but must be given free access to drug rehab programs.
Terrorists who have actually committed violent terrorist acts are only responding to the abuse of American criminal politicians of the past. The "real" terrorists are Christians, NRA Members, military veterans, and Ron Paul supporters.
The definition of "Economic Stimulus" is giving billions of dollars to individuals and groups that will help make sure the party in power stays in power.
There's more, but I can't continue or I'll bring my mood down too low.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Basketball Coach
Lately I've thought a bit about my favorite sport, and considered what my philosophy and strategy would be if I happened to become a high school basketball coach. Not that there's even the most remote possibility that would ever happen - in fact, I don't believe I have the right personality to be successful in the job.
Even so, it's sort of fun to ruminate on what I might do to build a program. The local high school presents an interesting challenge. There hasn't been a winning basketball program there in decades. In my opinion not because of a lack of talent, but a lack of the kind of program that identifies and develops the players that can result in a competitive team.
The program has to start with development. One of the first things I'd do as the new coach is go meet the coaches from the feeder schools. I'd talk with them about a vision for the program that starts in the 5th grade, even though at least half of the best prospects will choose the other local high school.
Currently the coaches in the early grades are free to build their own teams without regard for how their choices impact the eventual high school rosters. Good basketball teams need height, speed, and athleticism. Slow little guys who happened to develop basketball skills, did so either from a natural talent and love of the game or because gung-ho parents got them to camps and clinics and even private coaching.
But those little slow guys aren't the ones who will make your team successful when they get to the 11th and 12th grades.
The tall kids are gangly and uncoordinated. When the coaches have tryouts in the 5th or 6th or 7th grade, those tall kids who can't dribble, can't shoot, and trip over their big feet barely get a look. What the leader of a successful basketball program needs to recognize is that boys develop at very different rates. That gangly tall kid who doesn't get a second look in the 7th grade has the potential to blossom into a Division I college prospect by the time he's a Senior. That super fast kid who can't dribble or shoot very well has the potential to become the best point guard in the conference by the time he's a Junior.
So I'd plead with the coaches in the lower grades to do the following:
At the call-out meeting I'd make it clear that the roster is wide open. We will take the best 12 players on the varsity roster. We'll take up to 15 of the best players on the junior varsity roster, and up to 15 of the best freshmen for the freshman roster. Nobody who played last year is guaranteed a spot.
After picking the rosters for the 3 high school squads, I'd help organize an intramural league and encourage those who didn't make it to participate. I'd keep an eye on the kids in that league to look for young up-and-coming prospects.
My emphasis for building a competitive team would be on practice. I would not be a great game coach, and am not a great motivator. But I can be methodical and intelligent about focusing on the keys to success:
Practice will be sort of like learning to play the piano. Every fundamental will start with the simple and build up to more and more complex skills. For example, players will learn to shoot by starting under the basket and gradually moving out. When a player can dribble with the left hand, they'll be challenged to learn behind-the-back and between-the-legs. The same approach to learning the offense - start with the simple placement and options, and gradually introduce more and more wrinkles.
I'd use mostly a man-to-man defense, relying on the players' speed and conditioning. Zone defenses will be used either to confuse the opponent or when matchups make it a more effective strategy.
I'd utilize a motion offense with lots of screens, constant player cutting, and an emphasis on playing fast and finding the highest percentage open shot. I'd have the basic motion offense with multiple options against man-to-man, and an inside-out offense with lots of options against zone. I'd look for big and dominant big men in the middle with quick, sharpshooting guards and small forwards that will force opponents to pick their poison; let the big man score under the basket or let the sharpshooters pop from outside - you can stop one but not the other.
I'd implement a rigorous offseason training program, designed for speed, agility, and max verticals. Players who show up for tryouts out of shape risk their spot on the roster, regardless of natural talent. I wouldn't necessarily run a lot of fullcourt press, unless I felt it gave us a definitive advantage against a slower or lesser conditioned team.
I'd foster team unity with time spent outside of practice, but be careful not to overdo it so players still have quality family time at home. Every player will know exactly where they stand with the coaches and their role on the team, and any attitude problems with their role won't be tolerated. On the other hand, every bench player will understand that they can earn their way onto the court during games through exhibiting outstanding effort in practice.
A special reward for one Junior Varsity player allowed to dress with the Varsity will be based on practice effort. One JV player will dress for each regular season varsity game, chosen the day before each game and based solely on the coaches' choice of which player exhibited the best attitude and gave the best effort for the given week of practice.
The day after each game (typically Saturday morning) will be a light workout and film session. Reviewing game film will identify the most critical problems in that game, and the specific fundamental skills will become the primary emphasis for the next week of practice.
The basic philosophies of cultivating talent and recognizing that boys develop physically at different rates will ensure the best possible roster each season. A strong conditioning program will ensure that physical stamina is never a reason for losing a game. Players will respect themselves, their coaches, and each other, and will be models for the rest of the school.
I'd try to find assistant coaches who are good at the things I'm not good at. Starting with great motivators. But I also need assistants who know how to teach, since they'll be tasked with player skill development.
I think it's a pretty good strategy. If the local high school gets a coach who lasts more than 2 years, maybe they'll land one that would use something similar. Maybe someday I could catch on as an assistant somewhere, maybe when I don't have to work as much.
Even so, it's sort of fun to ruminate on what I might do to build a program. The local high school presents an interesting challenge. There hasn't been a winning basketball program there in decades. In my opinion not because of a lack of talent, but a lack of the kind of program that identifies and develops the players that can result in a competitive team.
The program has to start with development. One of the first things I'd do as the new coach is go meet the coaches from the feeder schools. I'd talk with them about a vision for the program that starts in the 5th grade, even though at least half of the best prospects will choose the other local high school.
Currently the coaches in the early grades are free to build their own teams without regard for how their choices impact the eventual high school rosters. Good basketball teams need height, speed, and athleticism. Slow little guys who happened to develop basketball skills, did so either from a natural talent and love of the game or because gung-ho parents got them to camps and clinics and even private coaching.
But those little slow guys aren't the ones who will make your team successful when they get to the 11th and 12th grades.
The tall kids are gangly and uncoordinated. When the coaches have tryouts in the 5th or 6th or 7th grade, those tall kids who can't dribble, can't shoot, and trip over their big feet barely get a look. What the leader of a successful basketball program needs to recognize is that boys develop at very different rates. That gangly tall kid who doesn't get a second look in the 7th grade has the potential to blossom into a Division I college prospect by the time he's a Senior. That super fast kid who can't dribble or shoot very well has the potential to become the best point guard in the conference by the time he's a Junior.
So I'd plead with the coaches in the lower grades to do the following:
- Take at least 3 or 4 of the tall, uncoordinated kids on your 15-member roster.
- Take one or two of the super fast kids who can't dribble or shoot.
- Then go ahead and take the best 10 of the rest.
- But encourage those who didn't make the roster not to give up. Create and support an intramural program, encourage kids to play in the PAL or FFY leagues. Get Senior players from the High School to coach those kids and keep the coaches informed on which kids are beginning to show promise.
- Get an assistant coach on those lower grade teams that works specifically with the big men, teaching them the fundamentals. Give the big men a taste entering games whenever possible to get some experience and motivation.
- Emphasize summer camps to bring out the local kids. The primary goal of the summer camps should be finding and developing the local talent, not making extra money for yourself.
- Stay engaged, and get to know every kid playing basketball in the community, whether on the school teams or the other programs.
At the call-out meeting I'd make it clear that the roster is wide open. We will take the best 12 players on the varsity roster. We'll take up to 15 of the best players on the junior varsity roster, and up to 15 of the best freshmen for the freshman roster. Nobody who played last year is guaranteed a spot.
After picking the rosters for the 3 high school squads, I'd help organize an intramural league and encourage those who didn't make it to participate. I'd keep an eye on the kids in that league to look for young up-and-coming prospects.
My emphasis for building a competitive team would be on practice. I would not be a great game coach, and am not a great motivator. But I can be methodical and intelligent about focusing on the keys to success:
- Fitness: Everybody on the team will find games to be physically like a vacation compared to practice. No rubber legs in the fourth quarter will ever be blamed for a loss.
- Fundamentals: Every team member will go through very structured drills every day to develop their fundamentals. Dribbling, footwork, shooting, passing, rebounding, discipline. No loss will ever be blamed on a lack of discipline or poor fundamentals.
- Standards: Strict rules will be established and enforced uniformly on standards of appearance, sportsmanship, language, and conduct. This will be a class program.
Practice will be sort of like learning to play the piano. Every fundamental will start with the simple and build up to more and more complex skills. For example, players will learn to shoot by starting under the basket and gradually moving out. When a player can dribble with the left hand, they'll be challenged to learn behind-the-back and between-the-legs. The same approach to learning the offense - start with the simple placement and options, and gradually introduce more and more wrinkles.
I'd use mostly a man-to-man defense, relying on the players' speed and conditioning. Zone defenses will be used either to confuse the opponent or when matchups make it a more effective strategy.
I'd utilize a motion offense with lots of screens, constant player cutting, and an emphasis on playing fast and finding the highest percentage open shot. I'd have the basic motion offense with multiple options against man-to-man, and an inside-out offense with lots of options against zone. I'd look for big and dominant big men in the middle with quick, sharpshooting guards and small forwards that will force opponents to pick their poison; let the big man score under the basket or let the sharpshooters pop from outside - you can stop one but not the other.
I'd implement a rigorous offseason training program, designed for speed, agility, and max verticals. Players who show up for tryouts out of shape risk their spot on the roster, regardless of natural talent. I wouldn't necessarily run a lot of fullcourt press, unless I felt it gave us a definitive advantage against a slower or lesser conditioned team.
I'd foster team unity with time spent outside of practice, but be careful not to overdo it so players still have quality family time at home. Every player will know exactly where they stand with the coaches and their role on the team, and any attitude problems with their role won't be tolerated. On the other hand, every bench player will understand that they can earn their way onto the court during games through exhibiting outstanding effort in practice.
A special reward for one Junior Varsity player allowed to dress with the Varsity will be based on practice effort. One JV player will dress for each regular season varsity game, chosen the day before each game and based solely on the coaches' choice of which player exhibited the best attitude and gave the best effort for the given week of practice.
The day after each game (typically Saturday morning) will be a light workout and film session. Reviewing game film will identify the most critical problems in that game, and the specific fundamental skills will become the primary emphasis for the next week of practice.
The basic philosophies of cultivating talent and recognizing that boys develop physically at different rates will ensure the best possible roster each season. A strong conditioning program will ensure that physical stamina is never a reason for losing a game. Players will respect themselves, their coaches, and each other, and will be models for the rest of the school.
I'd try to find assistant coaches who are good at the things I'm not good at. Starting with great motivators. But I also need assistants who know how to teach, since they'll be tasked with player skill development.
I think it's a pretty good strategy. If the local high school gets a coach who lasts more than 2 years, maybe they'll land one that would use something similar. Maybe someday I could catch on as an assistant somewhere, maybe when I don't have to work as much.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Healthcare Post
The President asked for ideas that might help solve the healthcare problem. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, so I know any ideas I would present would be the last ever to be considered by someone of his leftist and power-mad bent.
All the same, I have a lot of insight on the topic. My business is closely tied to consulting with companies on their employee benefit programs, so I know a lot about how most people get health insurance. I am a small independent businessman, so I know a lot about the difficulties involved in obtaining healthcare for anything close to a reasonable cost.
So, based on my own life and business experience, here's how I think the healthcare problem might be solved.
1. Break health insurance away from employer plans and transfer it to each individual or family. I think employers in general would be happy to get the monkey off their back, allowing their employees to simply purchase their own health plans on the open market. If employers want to subsidize health insurance and/or help collect premiums through payroll deductions, fine. But make health insurance work for everyone the same way as auto or life or homeowner's insurance. Everybody just goes out and buys their own. Employers would then naturally increase employee salaries by the amount they're saving by getting employees off their insurance rolls.
2. Let insurance companies compete for the business. They can bundle the health insurance with auto, home, and life. They can sell products like healthcare savings accounts or combine healthcare and life insurance into new blended plans. What they can't do is turn down anyone. The only rule for purchasing health insurance is that someone can be denied a new policy with another company if they're currently in treatment for a major disease that's covered under their current policy.
3. Health insurance for the majority of people would likely be focused on a Major Medical plan. In other words, routine exams, treatment for common conditions, and routine prescription drugs would be paid out-of-pocket unless the individual chooses a plan that covers those expenses. Full coverage of such expenses would be available, probably with choices to blend medical savings accounts and insurance.
4. Insurance filing by medical providers will use a standardized electronic form. The insurance industry will be asked to form a standards board to define the electronic standard, which is provided by any of a wide choice of commercially-available software packages used by the providers.
5. For low-income individuals and families, a revamped MedicAid program administered by the states can be accessed. Application can be made to the program for assistance with medical bills and insurance premiums. A low-interest loan program will also be available for anyone faced with a budget-busting medical bill, that can be paid off when the borrower is more financially able.
6. Tort Reform, specifically MalPractice Reform, would generally work as follows: Medical Review Boards would be formed in each state, charged with a review of the facts surrounding a possible malpractice case. If the board, made up of an impartial group of professionals and non-professionals, finds the case has merit, it can be referred to civil litigation, or the parties involved can utilize mediation with the review board before moving into court.
7. All medical costs, including fee-for-service, prescription drugs, and insurance premiums, are fully tax deductible for all individuals and families. The 10% threshold will be eliminated. Medical Savings Accounts can be funded with pre-tax earnings, and are not taxed when used for medical expenses. Tax on earnings from medical savings investment accounts is only assessed on money taken out of the accounts for non-medical use.
8. The government has a very limited role in this proposal. They will make sure insurance companies agree on an electronic standard, enforce rules around universal eligibility, administer the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the Medicaid Loan program, and provide regulatory oversight to make sure insurers treat their clients fairly.
I think this framework will result in lower costs, better accessibility, and a healthier population. Rather than allowing insurers to punish clients for bad health habits, they would be permitted to offer rebates or prizes to their clients for things like losing weight, stopping smoking and drinking, lowering blood pressure, controlling diabetes, etc.
If the onerous burdens on providers are reduced, specifically malpractice lawsuit threats, 20 different insurance filing forms, having to constantly negotiate rates with every insurance provider, having to treat one-third of patients without collecting any fees, etc., the cost of treatments will go down.
If an office visit costs $30 to $40 instead of $60 to $80, most people will be able to pay out of pocket. If diagnostic testing costs less than $100 instead of hundreds or even thousands of dollars, again more people will be able to pay.
Providers have much less paperwork and get to collect most of their fees immediately, while patients know what things cost, can afford them, and will ask better questions and be able to work with their physicians to avoid unnecessary and defensive diagnostic testing.
Finally, everyone will have at least a Major Medical plan, that pays for all hospitalization, trauma treatments, cancer treatments, rehabilitation, and any costs related to a critical disease or injury. Spreading the risk across the entire population lowers the cost for everyone, and protects the providers from today's high percentage of uninsured who pay little or no part of the cost.
I'm absolutely against the idea that the government needs to take over, building a bureaucracy to decide what treatments people can and cannot have, adding a layer of cost without addressing root causes of already out-of-control costs, and trying to build punitive taxes on the "rich" to pay for free healthcare for everybody else.
All the same, I have a lot of insight on the topic. My business is closely tied to consulting with companies on their employee benefit programs, so I know a lot about how most people get health insurance. I am a small independent businessman, so I know a lot about the difficulties involved in obtaining healthcare for anything close to a reasonable cost.
So, based on my own life and business experience, here's how I think the healthcare problem might be solved.
1. Break health insurance away from employer plans and transfer it to each individual or family. I think employers in general would be happy to get the monkey off their back, allowing their employees to simply purchase their own health plans on the open market. If employers want to subsidize health insurance and/or help collect premiums through payroll deductions, fine. But make health insurance work for everyone the same way as auto or life or homeowner's insurance. Everybody just goes out and buys their own. Employers would then naturally increase employee salaries by the amount they're saving by getting employees off their insurance rolls.
2. Let insurance companies compete for the business. They can bundle the health insurance with auto, home, and life. They can sell products like healthcare savings accounts or combine healthcare and life insurance into new blended plans. What they can't do is turn down anyone. The only rule for purchasing health insurance is that someone can be denied a new policy with another company if they're currently in treatment for a major disease that's covered under their current policy.
3. Health insurance for the majority of people would likely be focused on a Major Medical plan. In other words, routine exams, treatment for common conditions, and routine prescription drugs would be paid out-of-pocket unless the individual chooses a plan that covers those expenses. Full coverage of such expenses would be available, probably with choices to blend medical savings accounts and insurance.
4. Insurance filing by medical providers will use a standardized electronic form. The insurance industry will be asked to form a standards board to define the electronic standard, which is provided by any of a wide choice of commercially-available software packages used by the providers.
5. For low-income individuals and families, a revamped MedicAid program administered by the states can be accessed. Application can be made to the program for assistance with medical bills and insurance premiums. A low-interest loan program will also be available for anyone faced with a budget-busting medical bill, that can be paid off when the borrower is more financially able.
6. Tort Reform, specifically MalPractice Reform, would generally work as follows: Medical Review Boards would be formed in each state, charged with a review of the facts surrounding a possible malpractice case. If the board, made up of an impartial group of professionals and non-professionals, finds the case has merit, it can be referred to civil litigation, or the parties involved can utilize mediation with the review board before moving into court.
7. All medical costs, including fee-for-service, prescription drugs, and insurance premiums, are fully tax deductible for all individuals and families. The 10% threshold will be eliminated. Medical Savings Accounts can be funded with pre-tax earnings, and are not taxed when used for medical expenses. Tax on earnings from medical savings investment accounts is only assessed on money taken out of the accounts for non-medical use.
8. The government has a very limited role in this proposal. They will make sure insurance companies agree on an electronic standard, enforce rules around universal eligibility, administer the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the Medicaid Loan program, and provide regulatory oversight to make sure insurers treat their clients fairly.
I think this framework will result in lower costs, better accessibility, and a healthier population. Rather than allowing insurers to punish clients for bad health habits, they would be permitted to offer rebates or prizes to their clients for things like losing weight, stopping smoking and drinking, lowering blood pressure, controlling diabetes, etc.
If the onerous burdens on providers are reduced, specifically malpractice lawsuit threats, 20 different insurance filing forms, having to constantly negotiate rates with every insurance provider, having to treat one-third of patients without collecting any fees, etc., the cost of treatments will go down.
If an office visit costs $30 to $40 instead of $60 to $80, most people will be able to pay out of pocket. If diagnostic testing costs less than $100 instead of hundreds or even thousands of dollars, again more people will be able to pay.
Providers have much less paperwork and get to collect most of their fees immediately, while patients know what things cost, can afford them, and will ask better questions and be able to work with their physicians to avoid unnecessary and defensive diagnostic testing.
Finally, everyone will have at least a Major Medical plan, that pays for all hospitalization, trauma treatments, cancer treatments, rehabilitation, and any costs related to a critical disease or injury. Spreading the risk across the entire population lowers the cost for everyone, and protects the providers from today's high percentage of uninsured who pay little or no part of the cost.
I'm absolutely against the idea that the government needs to take over, building a bureaucracy to decide what treatments people can and cannot have, adding a layer of cost without addressing root causes of already out-of-control costs, and trying to build punitive taxes on the "rich" to pay for free healthcare for everybody else.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Terrorism Post
The whole topic of terrorism, national security, 9/11, Gitmo, interrogations, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, etc., is one that hasn't really been a major theme for me in this blog. But the dueling speeches yesterday offered such a clear demonstration of the near opposite approaches from the two administrations that it seemed to present a good opportunity for me to add my two cents.
Cheney and Obama were about as different from each other in their passionate rhetoric on this topic as could be imagined. Cheney is a no-nonsense, unapologetic believer, and many suggest architect, of President Bush's strategies in the War on Terror. Obama is fond of vague rhetorical flourishes, always seeking the oohs and aahs from his adoring fans.
Cheney was the same guy that drove the left crazy with his unflinching commitment to an offensive strategy to root out terrorists where they live so they can never again repeat devastation like 9/11. He refuses to apologize for that strategy, denying that "enhanced interrogation techniques" even approximate torture, and pointing out that those techniques were used only rarely and on a small number of high-ranking al-Quaeda members to obtain information that helped stop planned terrorist attacks, saving thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.
Obama is dismayed by the aggressive approach so vigorously defended by Cheney. Aside from asserting that the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11, he has outlawed all use of the phrase, "war on terror". He claims that aggressive pursuit of terrorists only creates more terrorists, "enhanced interrogation techniques" is indeed torture and illegal, and those interrogations, along with the very existince of Gitmo, make our country less safe.
The big difference between the two, from my perspective, is that one is open, honest, and very specific about what was done and how it succeeded in averting all terrorist attacks that were planned after 9/11. The other uses vague rhetoric about American values and unsupported claims that his predecessor's tactics made us less safe.
Either Cheney's right about the interrogations helping avert more terrorist attacks or he's not. Since Obama offers no evidence to the contrary, we must accept Cheney's very specific case.
Enhanced interrogation techniques are designed to instill fear, discomfort, and humiliation on those captured terrorists we know have information that can be used to save lives. I don't think fear, discomfort, and humiliation are torture. I think attempting to criminalize everyone involved over a disagreement over interrogation methods is dangerous banana republic politics.
But mainly, it is easy for me to break the interrogation down into a simple analogy. One I wish someone would pose to President Obama to get his response. Mr. President, suppose your lovely daughters were kidnapped by a ring of ruthless rapists and murderers, and one of the leaders of that ring were captured. If you were allowed a half hour alone in an interrogation room with him, what would you be willing to do to make him disclose all the information he has about the location and condition of your daughters?
I know what my answer to that question will always be. And I think those "enhanced interrogation techniques" described in the memos stupidly made public by the President would be a day at the beach compared to what I'd be willing to do to save my kids.
Cheney is right about his characterization of Obama on this issue. Obama cares more about his own political power and aggrandizement than the security of his country.
The only other explanations are too frightening to contemplace. Because if it's not just about him, then he's either incompetent and stupid, or he's an agent of our enemies.
I don't need the powers of Nostradamus to see what's coming. We will be struck again, and soon. Israel will be attacked by Iran soon, possibly with a nuclear bomb. Our country will be broken and bankrupt, watching hopelessly as the world explodes and our President continues to appease and hope he can stop the carnage by force of his personality.
Cheney and Obama were about as different from each other in their passionate rhetoric on this topic as could be imagined. Cheney is a no-nonsense, unapologetic believer, and many suggest architect, of President Bush's strategies in the War on Terror. Obama is fond of vague rhetorical flourishes, always seeking the oohs and aahs from his adoring fans.
Cheney was the same guy that drove the left crazy with his unflinching commitment to an offensive strategy to root out terrorists where they live so they can never again repeat devastation like 9/11. He refuses to apologize for that strategy, denying that "enhanced interrogation techniques" even approximate torture, and pointing out that those techniques were used only rarely and on a small number of high-ranking al-Quaeda members to obtain information that helped stop planned terrorist attacks, saving thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.
Obama is dismayed by the aggressive approach so vigorously defended by Cheney. Aside from asserting that the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11, he has outlawed all use of the phrase, "war on terror". He claims that aggressive pursuit of terrorists only creates more terrorists, "enhanced interrogation techniques" is indeed torture and illegal, and those interrogations, along with the very existince of Gitmo, make our country less safe.
The big difference between the two, from my perspective, is that one is open, honest, and very specific about what was done and how it succeeded in averting all terrorist attacks that were planned after 9/11. The other uses vague rhetoric about American values and unsupported claims that his predecessor's tactics made us less safe.
Either Cheney's right about the interrogations helping avert more terrorist attacks or he's not. Since Obama offers no evidence to the contrary, we must accept Cheney's very specific case.
Enhanced interrogation techniques are designed to instill fear, discomfort, and humiliation on those captured terrorists we know have information that can be used to save lives. I don't think fear, discomfort, and humiliation are torture. I think attempting to criminalize everyone involved over a disagreement over interrogation methods is dangerous banana republic politics.
But mainly, it is easy for me to break the interrogation down into a simple analogy. One I wish someone would pose to President Obama to get his response. Mr. President, suppose your lovely daughters were kidnapped by a ring of ruthless rapists and murderers, and one of the leaders of that ring were captured. If you were allowed a half hour alone in an interrogation room with him, what would you be willing to do to make him disclose all the information he has about the location and condition of your daughters?
I know what my answer to that question will always be. And I think those "enhanced interrogation techniques" described in the memos stupidly made public by the President would be a day at the beach compared to what I'd be willing to do to save my kids.
Cheney is right about his characterization of Obama on this issue. Obama cares more about his own political power and aggrandizement than the security of his country.
The only other explanations are too frightening to contemplace. Because if it's not just about him, then he's either incompetent and stupid, or he's an agent of our enemies.
I don't need the powers of Nostradamus to see what's coming. We will be struck again, and soon. Israel will be attacked by Iran soon, possibly with a nuclear bomb. Our country will be broken and bankrupt, watching hopelessly as the world explodes and our President continues to appease and hope he can stop the carnage by force of his personality.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Had Enough Yet?
Sometimes I've just got to vent.
How has it happened, that seemingly intelligent people refuse to acknowledge the irreparable harm being done to them and their way of life because they are hypnotized by the messianic President?
He goes to Notre Dame, which defied its own Roman Catholic benefactors to honor him and gasp at his awesomeness while he condescended and chided those who are appalled at his callous disregard for human life. Implicit in his speech was the message that he was the reasonable one on issues of life, while they (and I) are the shrill and ignorant radicals.
He has taken control of banking and automobile manufacturing, and can't wait to do the same with healthcare. He's declared war on the greedy, selfish rich capitalists but is best bud of greedy, selfish rich socialist elites.
He's singlehandedly dictating what cars we will be allowed to drive, in effect making only the ugly motorized rollerskates like the stupid "Smart Car" the sole and costly vehicle available.
He has stolen profitable auto dealerships in order to give them to other dealers he decided to spare. That happens in communist countries, not in America.
He has red-flagged conservatives for surveillance by Homeland Security as potential domestic terrorists. Offices are reportedly being opened and staffed right now by Obama's brownshirts who will be ready to move in on folks who are military vets, NRA members, pro-life advocates, even Ron Paul supporters. Yes, conservatives. How soon before people we know begin to disappear? Will they be checked into asylums, re-education camps, prison? Or will they simply disappear.
He has allocated billions for his personal army of "community organizers", aka ACORN. Any guesses how they plan to use that money?
He has co-opted the press. Unfettered corruption, from his own illegal relationship with ACORN, to sweetheart deals for friends and relatives of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jack Murtha, and many others, to tax evaders like Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, and about two-thirds of his cabinet nominees go unremarked and uninvestigated by the slavishly loyal third estate.
He will impose draconian taxes on energy that will make $4 gas seem cheap, freeze average families to death in their homes next February for lack of means to pay their heating bill, and cause commerce to grind to a stop as companies can no longer afford to make and ship products due to skyrocketing energy costs.
Please, somebody tell me you're not some sort of zombie, drugged out on this Obama worship happy gas to which only I seem immune.
How has it happened, that seemingly intelligent people refuse to acknowledge the irreparable harm being done to them and their way of life because they are hypnotized by the messianic President?
He goes to Notre Dame, which defied its own Roman Catholic benefactors to honor him and gasp at his awesomeness while he condescended and chided those who are appalled at his callous disregard for human life. Implicit in his speech was the message that he was the reasonable one on issues of life, while they (and I) are the shrill and ignorant radicals.
He has taken control of banking and automobile manufacturing, and can't wait to do the same with healthcare. He's declared war on the greedy, selfish rich capitalists but is best bud of greedy, selfish rich socialist elites.
He's singlehandedly dictating what cars we will be allowed to drive, in effect making only the ugly motorized rollerskates like the stupid "Smart Car" the sole and costly vehicle available.
He has stolen profitable auto dealerships in order to give them to other dealers he decided to spare. That happens in communist countries, not in America.
He has red-flagged conservatives for surveillance by Homeland Security as potential domestic terrorists. Offices are reportedly being opened and staffed right now by Obama's brownshirts who will be ready to move in on folks who are military vets, NRA members, pro-life advocates, even Ron Paul supporters. Yes, conservatives. How soon before people we know begin to disappear? Will they be checked into asylums, re-education camps, prison? Or will they simply disappear.
He has allocated billions for his personal army of "community organizers", aka ACORN. Any guesses how they plan to use that money?
He has co-opted the press. Unfettered corruption, from his own illegal relationship with ACORN, to sweetheart deals for friends and relatives of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jack Murtha, and many others, to tax evaders like Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, and about two-thirds of his cabinet nominees go unremarked and uninvestigated by the slavishly loyal third estate.
He will impose draconian taxes on energy that will make $4 gas seem cheap, freeze average families to death in their homes next February for lack of means to pay their heating bill, and cause commerce to grind to a stop as companies can no longer afford to make and ship products due to skyrocketing energy costs.
Please, somebody tell me you're not some sort of zombie, drugged out on this Obama worship happy gas to which only I seem immune.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Book Review
I'm a pretty voracious reader, especially when I'm traveling. Getting on an airplane without a book puts me into a state just short of panic. With a book, long plane rides are almost bearable.
I'm normally not in the habit of reviewing books here, but this week's tome seemed to inspire this short review.
I picked up a book by Lee Child, titled Nothing to Lose. I've read a couple of other Jack Reacher books by this author, and rather enjoyed them.
This one was disappointing.
Lee's alter ego protagonist, the strange loner Jack Reacher, is in this story the embodiment of the author's angst and seething rage. Over the war in Iraq, George W. Bush, environmentalism, and especially born-again Christians.
The author apparently couldn't help himself from creating this sort of leftwing political rant in the form of a novel. Too bad, because otherwise I find Lee to be an engaging storyteller.
In this book, the immediate villain is a sort of crazy born-again businessman who doubles as a sort of Christian svengali. He manages to create in this single villain every evil fantasy of the modern American Left.
The villain, you see, is into apocalyptic prophecy. Plus he happens to be an accomplished businessman who knows a lot about chemistry and metals recycling. So he basically recruits an insulated town full of sycophantic followers to help him hurry Armageddon along a bit.
It's fascinating to see how Child's alter ego has his own selective brand of morality. His definition of morality is severely anti-materialist, anti-Christian, and seriously environmentalist. Jack Reacher isn't much into more traditional moral codes, actually disdaining them. Then there's the terrorism angle; in Lee's world there aren't really any Muslim terrorists, he's more worried about his fantasies about Christian terrorists who try to stage mass murder and pin it on Muslims.
My hope is that if I pick up another book by Child, he will have expended his pent-up energy on Nothing to Lose and reverts back to the more entertaining and less self-serving stories I know he can produce.
I'm normally not in the habit of reviewing books here, but this week's tome seemed to inspire this short review.
I picked up a book by Lee Child, titled Nothing to Lose. I've read a couple of other Jack Reacher books by this author, and rather enjoyed them.
This one was disappointing.
Lee's alter ego protagonist, the strange loner Jack Reacher, is in this story the embodiment of the author's angst and seething rage. Over the war in Iraq, George W. Bush, environmentalism, and especially born-again Christians.
The author apparently couldn't help himself from creating this sort of leftwing political rant in the form of a novel. Too bad, because otherwise I find Lee to be an engaging storyteller.
In this book, the immediate villain is a sort of crazy born-again businessman who doubles as a sort of Christian svengali. He manages to create in this single villain every evil fantasy of the modern American Left.
The villain, you see, is into apocalyptic prophecy. Plus he happens to be an accomplished businessman who knows a lot about chemistry and metals recycling. So he basically recruits an insulated town full of sycophantic followers to help him hurry Armageddon along a bit.
It's fascinating to see how Child's alter ego has his own selective brand of morality. His definition of morality is severely anti-materialist, anti-Christian, and seriously environmentalist. Jack Reacher isn't much into more traditional moral codes, actually disdaining them. Then there's the terrorism angle; in Lee's world there aren't really any Muslim terrorists, he's more worried about his fantasies about Christian terrorists who try to stage mass murder and pin it on Muslims.
My hope is that if I pick up another book by Child, he will have expended his pent-up energy on Nothing to Lose and reverts back to the more entertaining and less self-serving stories I know he can produce.
Monday, May 11, 2009
It's the Boomers' Fault
So said Gov. Mitch Daniels at the Butler commencement this weekend.
It was surprising and perhaps a bit shocking to hear Mitch give a very unconventional commencement speech. The generally expected stuff about achievement and making the world a better place were tossed aside by the gov in favor of a harsh, but fundamentally true indictment of the selfishness and irresponsibility of the boomer generation.
His message to the graduates: Don't follow in your parents' footsteps, but be responsible, care for somebody other than yourself, keep your family together and take responsibility for raising your children, and rediscover basic morality. It's the only possible way the next generation can clean up the mess created by their hippie parents.
It was interesting to note that the students and the other honoree speaking at the event made a point of praising the new President. Mitch instead offered a veiled but true criticism; our president's primary accomplishment before taking office was the publication of two books. Both about him.
My guess is that half the crowd were offended, and the other half able to acknowledge the truth of his words. I am a bit conflicted between the acknowledgement and the idea that perhaps his message could have been a bit more positive and uplifting in the spirit of the occasion.
There's a lot that could be cited as examples of the decline in morality initiated by my generation. What's interesting to me is the polar opposite attitudes about this topic held by the two halves of the population.
One side defines morality in a favorite buzzword, "tolerance". Tolerance means no behavior may be condemned, and people should be free to live their lives as they choose. Even if it's destructive to themselves or others. The only exceptions to this catechism are the "intolerant" and the greedy. If someone holds a faith that teaches a set of moral standards, that person is guilty of greater sin than any murderer, thief or rapist. If someone is wealthy, and not an athlete, musician, actor, or member of the orthodoxy, that person is guilty of greed.
The other side defines morality according to the ancient Judeo-Christian traditions. They are accused of their opposites of ignoring tolerance and greed, and are themselves automatically held up in contempt for holding beliefs that are somehow repressive of the tolerants.
Morality and responsibility were the cornerstone of the success and prosperity of this greatest country in history. I'd agree with Mitch's point that the blessings of this society are seriously endangered, unless this new generation awakens to the truth.
Perhaps experiencing a repeat of my generation's grandparents' Great Depression and parents' Great World War is the only hope for a retreat from our excesses and a return to the foundational source of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
A terrible cost will be paid in any event. Unfortunately it won't be paid by the guilty members of the generation who ran up that debt, but the generation to which we've bequeathed it.
It was surprising and perhaps a bit shocking to hear Mitch give a very unconventional commencement speech. The generally expected stuff about achievement and making the world a better place were tossed aside by the gov in favor of a harsh, but fundamentally true indictment of the selfishness and irresponsibility of the boomer generation.
His message to the graduates: Don't follow in your parents' footsteps, but be responsible, care for somebody other than yourself, keep your family together and take responsibility for raising your children, and rediscover basic morality. It's the only possible way the next generation can clean up the mess created by their hippie parents.
It was interesting to note that the students and the other honoree speaking at the event made a point of praising the new President. Mitch instead offered a veiled but true criticism; our president's primary accomplishment before taking office was the publication of two books. Both about him.
My guess is that half the crowd were offended, and the other half able to acknowledge the truth of his words. I am a bit conflicted between the acknowledgement and the idea that perhaps his message could have been a bit more positive and uplifting in the spirit of the occasion.
There's a lot that could be cited as examples of the decline in morality initiated by my generation. What's interesting to me is the polar opposite attitudes about this topic held by the two halves of the population.
One side defines morality in a favorite buzzword, "tolerance". Tolerance means no behavior may be condemned, and people should be free to live their lives as they choose. Even if it's destructive to themselves or others. The only exceptions to this catechism are the "intolerant" and the greedy. If someone holds a faith that teaches a set of moral standards, that person is guilty of greater sin than any murderer, thief or rapist. If someone is wealthy, and not an athlete, musician, actor, or member of the orthodoxy, that person is guilty of greed.
The other side defines morality according to the ancient Judeo-Christian traditions. They are accused of their opposites of ignoring tolerance and greed, and are themselves automatically held up in contempt for holding beliefs that are somehow repressive of the tolerants.
Morality and responsibility were the cornerstone of the success and prosperity of this greatest country in history. I'd agree with Mitch's point that the blessings of this society are seriously endangered, unless this new generation awakens to the truth.
Perhaps experiencing a repeat of my generation's grandparents' Great Depression and parents' Great World War is the only hope for a retreat from our excesses and a return to the foundational source of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
A terrible cost will be paid in any event. Unfortunately it won't be paid by the guilty members of the generation who ran up that debt, but the generation to which we've bequeathed it.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
When They Call Truth Lies and Lies Truth
Too many have fallen for the trick.
The serpent in Eden convinced Eve to break God's only rule through the cunning use of a small truth to divert her from the whole truth and ignore the consequences.
Such is the situation today. Millions of Americans have fallen for the serpent's tantalizing use of small truths taken out of context, giving the serpent absolute power over them without even realizing it before it's too late.
They've been told every day that:
Bush was a torturer
Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war simply to enrich his friends
Bush purposely withheld aid to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina because he wanted to wipe out poor black people
Conservatives who express opposition to Obama's policies are racist
Opponents of illegal immigration are racist
Opponents of gay marriage are bigots
Opponents of socialized medicine are heartless
Opponents of massive government spending are racist and heartless
Opponents of government takeover of the financial, automotive, and healthcare industries are greedy and selfish
People who are Pro-Life, members of the military, anti-illegal immigration, Christians, pro-second amendment, and Tea Party supporters are dangerous potential terrorists
Every one of these statements is a big lie. It's the path of smaller truths the serpent uses to get to that big lie that hoodwinks the ignorant.
For example, the serpent says that homosexuals are born that way; they live their lives the way they do simply because it's part of who they are as individuals. Therefore, anyone who denies them rights equal to heterosexual couples to marry and receive all the same recognition and benefits of a married couple is a bigot.
Whether or not anyone is born gay is debatable, but even if somehow that's acknowledged to be true, it certainly does not imply that those who oppose granting them special treatment and benefits are bigoted.
Everything else has a similar background, where the serpent used small truths to twist into a huge lie. Unfortunately, the gullible masses have yet to understand that the serpent is not campaigning for their benefit; rather, the serpent's agenda is absolute power over every person.
The serpent is making huge strides toward the ultimate goal, which is removing freedom from all citizens and forcing each and every person to turn away from God, but to worship and obey the serpent.
The serpent in Eden convinced Eve to break God's only rule through the cunning use of a small truth to divert her from the whole truth and ignore the consequences.
Such is the situation today. Millions of Americans have fallen for the serpent's tantalizing use of small truths taken out of context, giving the serpent absolute power over them without even realizing it before it's too late.
They've been told every day that:
Bush was a torturer
Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war simply to enrich his friends
Bush purposely withheld aid to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina because he wanted to wipe out poor black people
Conservatives who express opposition to Obama's policies are racist
Opponents of illegal immigration are racist
Opponents of gay marriage are bigots
Opponents of socialized medicine are heartless
Opponents of massive government spending are racist and heartless
Opponents of government takeover of the financial, automotive, and healthcare industries are greedy and selfish
People who are Pro-Life, members of the military, anti-illegal immigration, Christians, pro-second amendment, and Tea Party supporters are dangerous potential terrorists
Every one of these statements is a big lie. It's the path of smaller truths the serpent uses to get to that big lie that hoodwinks the ignorant.
For example, the serpent says that homosexuals are born that way; they live their lives the way they do simply because it's part of who they are as individuals. Therefore, anyone who denies them rights equal to heterosexual couples to marry and receive all the same recognition and benefits of a married couple is a bigot.
Whether or not anyone is born gay is debatable, but even if somehow that's acknowledged to be true, it certainly does not imply that those who oppose granting them special treatment and benefits are bigoted.
Everything else has a similar background, where the serpent used small truths to twist into a huge lie. Unfortunately, the gullible masses have yet to understand that the serpent is not campaigning for their benefit; rather, the serpent's agenda is absolute power over every person.
The serpent is making huge strides toward the ultimate goal, which is removing freedom from all citizens and forcing each and every person to turn away from God, but to worship and obey the serpent.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Would You Invest in This Company?
Unless it's been totally mis-reported, it seems that Chrysler is about to be controlled by a partnership between the UAW and the Federal Government.
Let's think about that for a moment.
The Federal Government, now wholly owned by the Democrat party, exists to gain and build political power for the benefit of an entrenched and growing bureaucracy.
The UAW's mission is to obtain the best possible pay, benefits, and working conditions for its membership while enriching its leadership.
Would you invest in a company who has Barack Obama as the de-facto Chairman of the Board, and the leadership of the UAW constituting the Board of Directors?
My first thought was, what a great opportunity for Ford. Ford refused the federal bailout, which Chrysler and GM have discovered was a Faustian bargain. So it would seem that Ford now has the opportunity to dominate the domestic automobile market, since their American competitors will from here on be run like the US Postal Service.
Of course, the foreign auto makers must also be drooling over the prospect. Toyota and Honda would seem to be guaranteed domination of the auto market for the foreseeable future.
Then again, maybe not. Because the new owners of Chrysler, who presumably are on a path to also control General Motors, won't be happy about the prospect of competing against independent, more efficient, higher quality automobile companies.
So before you run out and invest what's left of your IRA in Ford, consider that the new owners of the other two car companies won't enjoy competing against a private car company. They have the power of a single-party government that will set its sights on the competition, if not determined to shut them down, at least making sure any of their competitive advantages are taxed and regulated away.
Look out Ford, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Volkswagen, Kia, Hyndai, Mazda, and everybody else out there with the gall to take on Obama and the UAW. Your days of competing in the US market selling vehicles consumers want may be numbered.
Let's think about that for a moment.
The Federal Government, now wholly owned by the Democrat party, exists to gain and build political power for the benefit of an entrenched and growing bureaucracy.
The UAW's mission is to obtain the best possible pay, benefits, and working conditions for its membership while enriching its leadership.
Would you invest in a company who has Barack Obama as the de-facto Chairman of the Board, and the leadership of the UAW constituting the Board of Directors?
My first thought was, what a great opportunity for Ford. Ford refused the federal bailout, which Chrysler and GM have discovered was a Faustian bargain. So it would seem that Ford now has the opportunity to dominate the domestic automobile market, since their American competitors will from here on be run like the US Postal Service.
Of course, the foreign auto makers must also be drooling over the prospect. Toyota and Honda would seem to be guaranteed domination of the auto market for the foreseeable future.
Then again, maybe not. Because the new owners of Chrysler, who presumably are on a path to also control General Motors, won't be happy about the prospect of competing against independent, more efficient, higher quality automobile companies.
So before you run out and invest what's left of your IRA in Ford, consider that the new owners of the other two car companies won't enjoy competing against a private car company. They have the power of a single-party government that will set its sights on the competition, if not determined to shut them down, at least making sure any of their competitive advantages are taxed and regulated away.
Look out Ford, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Volkswagen, Kia, Hyndai, Mazda, and everybody else out there with the gall to take on Obama and the UAW. Your days of competing in the US market selling vehicles consumers want may be numbered.
To Be Honest,
People who routinely use that preamble to their statements drive me a little nuts.
Whenever I hear that, or the many variations on the same theme, I think, "What, you mean you haven't been honest with me before?".
The actual definition of this, and similar phrases like "To tell you the truth", "The truth is", "If I may be honest", or "Let me be straight", goes something like this:
"You may not agree with what I'm about to say, but ..."
Now if people actually used that translation, I could respect that much more.
Then there are variants, like "I won't lie", "I'm not gonna lie", "If you want to know the truth", "The honest truth". These seem to be the same, but I've noticed a subtle difference in their meaning. The translation of this variation is something like this:
"You're probably going to be disappointed or offended by what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway."
This variation is actually somewhat worse than the first, because it's a stronger wording that carries with it a certain insensitivity, condescension, and disregard for the feelings of the receiver. It's akin to telling them that you know what you're going to say might hurt them, but you really don't care.
Now an example of this manner of speech can be found in the words of Jesus throughout the New Testament. Jesus seemed to like the preface that is variously translated as, "Amen, Amen, I say to you", "Verily I say to you", and "Truly I say to you".
Clearly, his intent is somewhat different from the two previous examples. Jesus used this preface as a way to say, "Pay attention! What I'm about to say is important."
Overall, I would prefer people say what they mean and mean what they say. As a rule, I would suggest it is best to say "Listen to this", or "I've got something important to say", when you want to make sure somebody hears and understands you.
Say "I have a different take on that", or "Here's my opinion on that" when you are about to express an opinion that might be controversial. It's OK to disagree respectfully when it comes to deeply held beliefs.
Don't say anything if you're tempted to say something offensive. If you must disappoint someone, rather than the condescending "I'm not gonna lie", simply say something like, "Thanks very much for your invitation, but I will not be able to attend".
People will continue using these phrases, and I'll continue cringing inside when they do. But I wish they could learn from this.
Whenever I hear that, or the many variations on the same theme, I think, "What, you mean you haven't been honest with me before?".
The actual definition of this, and similar phrases like "To tell you the truth", "The truth is", "If I may be honest", or "Let me be straight", goes something like this:
"You may not agree with what I'm about to say, but ..."
Now if people actually used that translation, I could respect that much more.
Then there are variants, like "I won't lie", "I'm not gonna lie", "If you want to know the truth", "The honest truth". These seem to be the same, but I've noticed a subtle difference in their meaning. The translation of this variation is something like this:
"You're probably going to be disappointed or offended by what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway."
This variation is actually somewhat worse than the first, because it's a stronger wording that carries with it a certain insensitivity, condescension, and disregard for the feelings of the receiver. It's akin to telling them that you know what you're going to say might hurt them, but you really don't care.
Now an example of this manner of speech can be found in the words of Jesus throughout the New Testament. Jesus seemed to like the preface that is variously translated as, "Amen, Amen, I say to you", "Verily I say to you", and "Truly I say to you".
Clearly, his intent is somewhat different from the two previous examples. Jesus used this preface as a way to say, "Pay attention! What I'm about to say is important."
Overall, I would prefer people say what they mean and mean what they say. As a rule, I would suggest it is best to say "Listen to this", or "I've got something important to say", when you want to make sure somebody hears and understands you.
Say "I have a different take on that", or "Here's my opinion on that" when you are about to express an opinion that might be controversial. It's OK to disagree respectfully when it comes to deeply held beliefs.
Don't say anything if you're tempted to say something offensive. If you must disappoint someone, rather than the condescending "I'm not gonna lie", simply say something like, "Thanks very much for your invitation, but I will not be able to attend".
People will continue using these phrases, and I'll continue cringing inside when they do. But I wish they could learn from this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)