On the last day of 2010, I look back on a busy but generally good year, and forward to a year that holds lots of questions.
Will 2011 be another good year personally, or will hard times come?
Will the country pull back from the brink politically and at least begin to restore reason, or will it be business as usual?
Will terrorism, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, et al threaten us, or will we keep them at bay another year? If we are attacked again, will our leaders choose to do anything about it, or seek to pacify our enemies?
I'm hopeful the Obamacare constitutional challenges will succeed. It is clearly unconstitutional. But what concerns me is that most of what today's Federal Government does today is also unconstitutional, so how can we go after one unconstitutional element of the Obamacare law (insurance purchase mandate), while we ignore all the other agencies and laws that are also unconstitutional but have stood for decades?
Unconstitutional federal things abound, here are just a few off the top of my head:
Social Security, Medicare, Federal Unemployment
The departments of Health & Human Services, Agriculture, Education, Energy, Housing & Urban Development, EEOC, and Labor
Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Boosted by FDR and the New Deal, the feds have siezed extra-constitutional power and the citizens have made no move to stop them.
Whether or not you believe some of the agencies and programs created in Washington since the 1930's serve a useful purpose, they are not permitted by the constitution. If we can't draw the line somewhere, there is no line.
The result is an overbearing, Big Brother government.
Our choice is clear in this new decade: We can either choose to take the crumbs from the government table so we at least don't starve to death, or we decide to risk starvation in search of freedom - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Happy New Year!
Friday, December 31, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Simplest Constitutional Question
With the latest ruling in Virginia declaring the health insurance purchase by all citizens under Obamacare unconsitutional, the only question should be why it took so long. The ruling is simple and evident.
If the feds can force us to buy health insurance, then why can't they also force us to:
Purchase an electric vehicle
Replace our Coal, Oil, or Gas furnace with Solar Panels
Stop buying things they think are bad for us, like soft drinks and french fries
Apply for permission to travel out of our state
Give up our home and move if the house is bigger than they think we should have
Wait 6 months to a year for the surgery that can save our life, while we hope we can live that long?
No, this isn't a stretch. Obamacare is the definition of government oppression and tyranny.
It needs to be ended, now.
If the feds can force us to buy health insurance, then why can't they also force us to:
Purchase an electric vehicle
Replace our Coal, Oil, or Gas furnace with Solar Panels
Stop buying things they think are bad for us, like soft drinks and french fries
Apply for permission to travel out of our state
Give up our home and move if the house is bigger than they think we should have
Wait 6 months to a year for the surgery that can save our life, while we hope we can live that long?
No, this isn't a stretch. Obamacare is the definition of government oppression and tyranny.
It needs to be ended, now.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Core Principles
It is puzzling to hear the angry denouncements against the president by most of his party over their belief that he "caved" on a core principle in agreeing to the tax compromise.
What exactly is the core principle, and why is it a core principle?
I'm searching for an answer to that question that makes sense, but the search is in vain. I simply can't figure out why Democrats hold as a core fundamental tenet of political philosophy the requirement that people who make over 200 thousand have to fork over 40% to the government instead of 35%.
Angry Dems are suggesting that Republicans are hypocrites for decrying deficits, while refusing to consider increasing tax rates to at least try to close that gap. Of course, Republicans respond that it's not a tax problem, but a spending problem.
The larger question is why, while the Democrats had the majorities in both houses of Congress, didn't they simply pass a tax plan that fits their philosophy? Why is it that less than 2 weeks out from the expiration of the current tax rates, they suddenly discover their core prinicples, which appear to be based on little more than the old Robin Hood myth?
If a Democrat who defines their core principle as one that taxes the "rich" at 40% instead of 35% happens to be reading this, would you please help me understand by answering these questions?
1. How does it help the failing economy to raise the top tax rate to 40%?
2. Do you earn more or less than $200K? If more, why don't you voluntarily send the extra 5% to the Treasury to help out the government? If less, explain how making those other people pay extra taxes make your life better?
3. What exactly do you think the government will do with the extra tax revenue? Have you heard anybody in government say that it will be earmarked for unemployment benefits only? Or do you just want it to go toward deficit reduction?
4. The "deal" apparently includes reinstatement of the inheritance tax. How do you feeel about a government policy that prohibits you from inheriting the family business or family farm, because the inheritance tax burden forces you to sell out?
5. What if the "rich" decide not to participate, by simply capping their annual income at $200K, so almost nobody pays the 40%? What has it achieved?
6. If you had your way and could dictate tax rates, what would your brackets and rates be, and why?
I'm sincerely curious, and hope somebody answers my questions.
What exactly is the core principle, and why is it a core principle?
I'm searching for an answer to that question that makes sense, but the search is in vain. I simply can't figure out why Democrats hold as a core fundamental tenet of political philosophy the requirement that people who make over 200 thousand have to fork over 40% to the government instead of 35%.
Angry Dems are suggesting that Republicans are hypocrites for decrying deficits, while refusing to consider increasing tax rates to at least try to close that gap. Of course, Republicans respond that it's not a tax problem, but a spending problem.
The larger question is why, while the Democrats had the majorities in both houses of Congress, didn't they simply pass a tax plan that fits their philosophy? Why is it that less than 2 weeks out from the expiration of the current tax rates, they suddenly discover their core prinicples, which appear to be based on little more than the old Robin Hood myth?
If a Democrat who defines their core principle as one that taxes the "rich" at 40% instead of 35% happens to be reading this, would you please help me understand by answering these questions?
1. How does it help the failing economy to raise the top tax rate to 40%?
2. Do you earn more or less than $200K? If more, why don't you voluntarily send the extra 5% to the Treasury to help out the government? If less, explain how making those other people pay extra taxes make your life better?
3. What exactly do you think the government will do with the extra tax revenue? Have you heard anybody in government say that it will be earmarked for unemployment benefits only? Or do you just want it to go toward deficit reduction?
4. The "deal" apparently includes reinstatement of the inheritance tax. How do you feeel about a government policy that prohibits you from inheriting the family business or family farm, because the inheritance tax burden forces you to sell out?
5. What if the "rich" decide not to participate, by simply capping their annual income at $200K, so almost nobody pays the 40%? What has it achieved?
6. If you had your way and could dictate tax rates, what would your brackets and rates be, and why?
I'm sincerely curious, and hope somebody answers my questions.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Pacers Monday
Nick said he had to work late, so Claudia and I braved the freezing temperatures and made the trip to Conseco to take in the Pacers.
You've got to give the organization credit in several areas. Despite their struggles to put a decent team on the court in the post-Reggie Miller era that doesn't include a bunch of delinquents, the Pacers organization is finally showing signs of life.
They're pushing a bunch of promotions to get more people in the fieldhouse, such as the one that I used to get a pretty good deal on Club-level seats last night.
They're doing their best to make the games a fun and family-friendly experience, with lots of entertainment promotions during breaks in play.
And most importantly, they've got a team that might actually be competitive. The Pacers are only a game out of first in the Central division, and would make the playoffs if the season ended now. The team seems to be playing better than even the earlier game I visited, sharing the ball better on offense and playing a bit tighter on defense.
If anybody wants a family-friendly evening of entertainment at a reasonable price, this is a good year to catch the Pacers.
You've got to give the organization credit in several areas. Despite their struggles to put a decent team on the court in the post-Reggie Miller era that doesn't include a bunch of delinquents, the Pacers organization is finally showing signs of life.
They're pushing a bunch of promotions to get more people in the fieldhouse, such as the one that I used to get a pretty good deal on Club-level seats last night.
They're doing their best to make the games a fun and family-friendly experience, with lots of entertainment promotions during breaks in play.
And most importantly, they've got a team that might actually be competitive. The Pacers are only a game out of first in the Central division, and would make the playoffs if the season ended now. The team seems to be playing better than even the earlier game I visited, sharing the ball better on offense and playing a bit tighter on defense.
If anybody wants a family-friendly evening of entertainment at a reasonable price, this is a good year to catch the Pacers.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Boy is it Cold Out
Better not try that global warming line on me this week. It's hard to get warm this week.
I'm not really very interested in the stuff going on in the Lame Duck session in Washington. It's sort of surreal that they can't get something as seemingly simple as extending the tax rates for 2011.
The thing that's a bit puzzling about the heated rhetoric on the topic comes from the Democrat side, who keep saying Republicans are holding up tax breaks for the middle class by insisting on massive give-backs to "millionaires and billionaires".
A couple things interesting about that argument:
First, the fact that nobody's talking about giving anybody an actual tax cut - not middle class or millionaires. All they're fighting about is whether or not to keep the existing tax rates in effect.
Second, my first-grade arithmetic tells me that 200 thousand is about 800 thousand short of 1 million. So how exactly are they defining a millionaire?
At least the GOP's message is simpler. Keep the tax rates the same permanently.
The only problem with that is the "permanent" idea. It seems to me Congress can no more make tax rates "permanant" than keep it from raining in DC in April.
I'm a bit puzzled by the Democrat rhetoric, embodied by some overwrought woman I caught on MSNBC the other night. Her impassioned speech decried this "massive handout to the rich, while so many middle-clase Americans are suffering".
Huh? Is she suggesting that keeping the top income tax rate at 35% instead of increasing it to 40% (OK, 39.6%, if you must be precise) is going to somehow cause millions of unemployed Americans to starve to death?
Unless she's suggesting a linkage between that 5% tax increase and the extension of unemployment benefits past 99 weeks. The only problem is that nobody has suggested earmarking those tax revenues for that purpose.
Otherwise, how is it that having people who make more than you pay more in taxes or not pay more in taxes affect your well-being one way or the other? And I haven't even moved into the fact that tax policy affects behavior of the taxed, which means it's unlikely the projected income to the government expected from this tax increase will materialize.
Probably the most disappointing aspect of the argument is that our partisan leaders have so little respect for the intelligence of their constituents.
Extend the tax cuts or don't. Besides the rhetoric, I think both parties know how it will impact the economy.
I'm not really very interested in the stuff going on in the Lame Duck session in Washington. It's sort of surreal that they can't get something as seemingly simple as extending the tax rates for 2011.
The thing that's a bit puzzling about the heated rhetoric on the topic comes from the Democrat side, who keep saying Republicans are holding up tax breaks for the middle class by insisting on massive give-backs to "millionaires and billionaires".
A couple things interesting about that argument:
First, the fact that nobody's talking about giving anybody an actual tax cut - not middle class or millionaires. All they're fighting about is whether or not to keep the existing tax rates in effect.
Second, my first-grade arithmetic tells me that 200 thousand is about 800 thousand short of 1 million. So how exactly are they defining a millionaire?
At least the GOP's message is simpler. Keep the tax rates the same permanently.
The only problem with that is the "permanent" idea. It seems to me Congress can no more make tax rates "permanant" than keep it from raining in DC in April.
I'm a bit puzzled by the Democrat rhetoric, embodied by some overwrought woman I caught on MSNBC the other night. Her impassioned speech decried this "massive handout to the rich, while so many middle-clase Americans are suffering".
Huh? Is she suggesting that keeping the top income tax rate at 35% instead of increasing it to 40% (OK, 39.6%, if you must be precise) is going to somehow cause millions of unemployed Americans to starve to death?
Unless she's suggesting a linkage between that 5% tax increase and the extension of unemployment benefits past 99 weeks. The only problem is that nobody has suggested earmarking those tax revenues for that purpose.
Otherwise, how is it that having people who make more than you pay more in taxes or not pay more in taxes affect your well-being one way or the other? And I haven't even moved into the fact that tax policy affects behavior of the taxed, which means it's unlikely the projected income to the government expected from this tax increase will materialize.
Probably the most disappointing aspect of the argument is that our partisan leaders have so little respect for the intelligence of their constituents.
Extend the tax cuts or don't. Besides the rhetoric, I think both parties know how it will impact the economy.
Friday, December 03, 2010
No Glee
I watched 'Glee' for the first time.
The musical performances are outstanding.
Everything that happens in between performances is trash. Nothing redeeming whatsovever.
The only way I watch again would be to DVR the show and skip over everything except the music.
If this is supposed to represent the attitudes and mores of high schoolers, we're even worse off than I thought. And I already thought things were pretty bad.
The musical performances are outstanding.
Everything that happens in between performances is trash. Nothing redeeming whatsovever.
The only way I watch again would be to DVR the show and skip over everything except the music.
If this is supposed to represent the attitudes and mores of high schoolers, we're even worse off than I thought. And I already thought things were pretty bad.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
An Alternative Perspective on DADT
The military policy called "Don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise that was crafted during the Clinton administration. The Left wanted gays to serve openly in the armed forces, while the Right wanted to maintain the longstanding traditions banning homosexuals from military service.
My beef with Democrats is mainly the fact that this issue is front-and-center as a policy initiative, while they ignore the truly important issues. The country's bankrupt, healthcare is being destroyed, unemployment is approaching depression-era levels. Yet what is the President and his friends in Congress focused on? DADT.
Besides that, I'm forced to deal with the issue itself.
My personal philosophy is pretty well aligned with the existing policy. How somebody might feel or think about their sexuality should no more be a disqualification from service than their religion or political affiliation. Rather, that disqualification should absolutely take place if they act on those feelings, whether it's beating up another soldier because he's a member of the other political party, spying for jihadists, or propositioning other soldiers for sex.
I've read conflicting accounts of the military's current enforcement of DADT. Activists who want it repealed claim that gays are purposely harrassed and drummed out even when they try to abide by the policy. Alternative sources suggest that in most cases, known gays are allowed to remain as long as they are not flamboyant or militant about their orientation.
In cases like this, I tend to assume that both characterizations can be true, and it depends on the people involved. It's not difficult to imagine that there's one unit that is hyper-sensitive about gays, and will aggressively move to drum out all those who may be suspected of that orientation. It's also easy to imagine there are units with known gay folks, where nobody cares and there's no effort to discharge them as long as they do their job and don't damage the unit's cohesiveness.
The fear is that allowing gays to serve openly might create a culture and atmosphere that might actually be repressive of heterosexuals in units. The fear is that it will result in widespread same-sex harassment, break down unit cohesiveness with divisiveness between the straight and gay components of the unit, and lead to the creation of "pink" barracks, units where heteros are discriminated against and sexual behavior is rampant.
I'm actually so old-fashioned in my thinking that I still oppose women in combat. My position on that would seem tbe be supported by reports of frighteningly high incidences of pregnancies among women during tours of duty on naval ships, reports of widespread sexual harassment, unreported and unprosecuted instances of rape, and unchecked fraternization that flies in the face of military regulation.
The fear of many is that repeal of DADT will explode the problems of harassment and rape and violence among military units, adding the component of HIV epidemics in close quarter deployments. There may become widespread "pink barracks", with units made up primarily with gays that will not be open to heteros. That there will be pockets in the military of unrestricted same-sex behavior, bringing shame and disrepute to the reputation of military branches.
Ultimately I believe that congress and the courts should stay out of this policy altogether. The military leaders know best what's best for their troops, and should be premitted to implement the policies they need to accomplish their mission without meddling from outsider politicians who know nothing about what it's like to send soldiers to war.
My beef with Democrats is mainly the fact that this issue is front-and-center as a policy initiative, while they ignore the truly important issues. The country's bankrupt, healthcare is being destroyed, unemployment is approaching depression-era levels. Yet what is the President and his friends in Congress focused on? DADT.
Besides that, I'm forced to deal with the issue itself.
My personal philosophy is pretty well aligned with the existing policy. How somebody might feel or think about their sexuality should no more be a disqualification from service than their religion or political affiliation. Rather, that disqualification should absolutely take place if they act on those feelings, whether it's beating up another soldier because he's a member of the other political party, spying for jihadists, or propositioning other soldiers for sex.
I've read conflicting accounts of the military's current enforcement of DADT. Activists who want it repealed claim that gays are purposely harrassed and drummed out even when they try to abide by the policy. Alternative sources suggest that in most cases, known gays are allowed to remain as long as they are not flamboyant or militant about their orientation.
In cases like this, I tend to assume that both characterizations can be true, and it depends on the people involved. It's not difficult to imagine that there's one unit that is hyper-sensitive about gays, and will aggressively move to drum out all those who may be suspected of that orientation. It's also easy to imagine there are units with known gay folks, where nobody cares and there's no effort to discharge them as long as they do their job and don't damage the unit's cohesiveness.
The fear is that allowing gays to serve openly might create a culture and atmosphere that might actually be repressive of heterosexuals in units. The fear is that it will result in widespread same-sex harassment, break down unit cohesiveness with divisiveness between the straight and gay components of the unit, and lead to the creation of "pink" barracks, units where heteros are discriminated against and sexual behavior is rampant.
I'm actually so old-fashioned in my thinking that I still oppose women in combat. My position on that would seem tbe be supported by reports of frighteningly high incidences of pregnancies among women during tours of duty on naval ships, reports of widespread sexual harassment, unreported and unprosecuted instances of rape, and unchecked fraternization that flies in the face of military regulation.
The fear of many is that repeal of DADT will explode the problems of harassment and rape and violence among military units, adding the component of HIV epidemics in close quarter deployments. There may become widespread "pink barracks", with units made up primarily with gays that will not be open to heteros. That there will be pockets in the military of unrestricted same-sex behavior, bringing shame and disrepute to the reputation of military branches.
Ultimately I believe that congress and the courts should stay out of this policy altogether. The military leaders know best what's best for their troops, and should be premitted to implement the policies they need to accomplish their mission without meddling from outsider politicians who know nothing about what it's like to send soldiers to war.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Faith in a Paragraph
The author is Amy Welborn, writing about Pope Benedict XVI in today's USA Today.
The thing is, he really believes the stuff. Really. He believes that God exists and we exist because God loves us. We're free to love him back, or not. So the basic job of the church is to be Christ in the world, inviting human beings to find love and truth. To find themselves.
Exactly.
The thing is, he really believes the stuff. Really. He believes that God exists and we exist because God loves us. We're free to love him back, or not. So the basic job of the church is to be Christ in the world, inviting human beings to find love and truth. To find themselves.
Exactly.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Happy Thanksgiving
It's the time of year to take a break, spend time with family, and count our blessings.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Ranking the Twelve
Sort of like the twelve disciples, Fox is looking at a group of potential candidates for President on the Republican side. I'm not sure how they picked these twelve exactly, but it's an interesting list.
Just for grins, here's my ranking of the 12 as of today.
1. Mitch Daniels - He's what we need. A no-nonsense CEO of America. Plus he's a Hoosier.
2. Mike Pence - I really like Mike. He's a decent guy and has Reagan's quality of an ability to disagree without being disagreeable. He also is an unabashed Christian, which will earn him vilification by the media if he becomes the nominee.
3. Mike Huckabee - Tough call, but again I think he's genuine and honest. Not sure he has the foreign policy chops, but he'd still be better than the guy sitting in the Oval Office today.
4. Newt Gingerich - Smart guy, you should find a way to catch a policy speech from this guy. Way too much personal baggage, and the press hates him.
5. Mitt Romney - I actually have serious issues with him being too moderate. But he might have the best chance to win in the general election, so we have to consider him.
6. Sarah Palin - She's in my top half partly to tweak all the Palin haters out there. I like the lady, and find it weird that she's hated so viscerally by the Left. I'd prefer someone higher on the list, but again, she's still way better than the current guy.
7. John Thune - From here on down I don't see much difference. The little bit of exposure I've had with him is positive, so I decided to give him the first pick in the second half.
8. Tim Pawlenty - He's got good reviews for his job as Minnesota Gov.
9. Chris Christie - Come on, he's from New Jersey. I can't help but wonder if he's being overrated.
10. Bobby Jindal - Another governor who seems like a decent guy.
11. Haley Barbour - Another southern governor I must admit I know very little about.
12. Jim DeMint - Seems like a great guy for energizing the conservative base, but I have trouble picturing him in the top spot.
Maybe I'll come back in 6 months and resequence the list after we start learning more about all these folks. I admit to putting our Indiana guys first, partly because I know them best and partly because I'm being loyal to fellow Hoosiers.
It will be interesting to see how it shakes out. Somehow I hope we can avoid the stupid process of last time, when the party cooked the process to make sure we didn't get to choose anybody but McCain.
Just for grins, here's my ranking of the 12 as of today.
1. Mitch Daniels - He's what we need. A no-nonsense CEO of America. Plus he's a Hoosier.
2. Mike Pence - I really like Mike. He's a decent guy and has Reagan's quality of an ability to disagree without being disagreeable. He also is an unabashed Christian, which will earn him vilification by the media if he becomes the nominee.
3. Mike Huckabee - Tough call, but again I think he's genuine and honest. Not sure he has the foreign policy chops, but he'd still be better than the guy sitting in the Oval Office today.
4. Newt Gingerich - Smart guy, you should find a way to catch a policy speech from this guy. Way too much personal baggage, and the press hates him.
5. Mitt Romney - I actually have serious issues with him being too moderate. But he might have the best chance to win in the general election, so we have to consider him.
6. Sarah Palin - She's in my top half partly to tweak all the Palin haters out there. I like the lady, and find it weird that she's hated so viscerally by the Left. I'd prefer someone higher on the list, but again, she's still way better than the current guy.
7. John Thune - From here on down I don't see much difference. The little bit of exposure I've had with him is positive, so I decided to give him the first pick in the second half.
8. Tim Pawlenty - He's got good reviews for his job as Minnesota Gov.
9. Chris Christie - Come on, he's from New Jersey. I can't help but wonder if he's being overrated.
10. Bobby Jindal - Another governor who seems like a decent guy.
11. Haley Barbour - Another southern governor I must admit I know very little about.
12. Jim DeMint - Seems like a great guy for energizing the conservative base, but I have trouble picturing him in the top spot.
Maybe I'll come back in 6 months and resequence the list after we start learning more about all these folks. I admit to putting our Indiana guys first, partly because I know them best and partly because I'm being loyal to fellow Hoosiers.
It will be interesting to see how it shakes out. Somehow I hope we can avoid the stupid process of last time, when the party cooked the process to make sure we didn't get to choose anybody but McCain.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Indy Teams
I took in a Pacers game last night, the second in this early season. They may be mariginally better than last year, but if they manage to make the playoffs, I doubt they survive the first round.
My assessment of the team is middle of the pack. Danny Granger and Mike Dunleavy are their main guys, and both were inconsistent in the two games I saw. Granger's a decent player, but isn't built to carry a franchise. Dunleavy's a streaky shooter who wasn't hitting much in the two games I've seen.
Roy Hibbert shows tremendous promise in the middle. He looks at times like a big man who can dominate. Then on other times he looks lost. Coaches should work with him every day on post moves, and make him shoot 100 hooks a day. Get him playing with some consistency, and develop a couple of go-to post moves, and he could be a star. But not this year.
Collison is a good looking point guard with obvious skills. But he doesn't seem to know when to pass and when to take the shot. I saw him run a number of fast breaks, where there were two defenders ready to stop his drive to the basket, but teammates running the floor with him. In every case, instead of dishing to the big man for the dunk, he decided to take on the two defenders. Sometimes he drew the foul, and the other times he turned the ball over. I also observed him missing open guys on the pick and roll, again while trying to force his own shot. Collison seems to need badly to learn that winning is better than personal stats.
Tyler Hansbrough tends to play like a rookie, but I appreciate his hustle. He plays hard and hungry, and makes plays through force of will. Like Hibbert but in a different way, he shows promise for the future, but probably won't take the Pacers to a competitive level this year.
The entire team stinks on the defensive end. They're burned on weak-side rebounds so often I wonder if they've ever heard words like "weak side help" from a coach. They're embarassingly easy to break down off dribble penetration by their opponents' point guards.
Moving on to the Colts.
I'm not sure I want to put myself through the pain of watching the Colts play New England this weekend. The crippled team barely survived the Bengals last weekend, a game the Colts of the past several seasons would have blown out of the stadum.
Jacob Tamme is playing bravely in place of Dallas Clark, but alas is no Dallas Clark. Pierre Garcon drops more passes than he catches. The Colts are down to their fourth-string running back, which doesn't give them much punch there either.
All defenses have to do is double-team Reggie Wayne and contain Tamme, and they can shut down Peyton.
The only questions left for the Colts this year are, how many starters will be back off the injury list this season, and when they come back, will they be able to ramp back up in time to make the Colts a Super Bowl contender?
It doesn't look like a good sports year in Indy.
My assessment of the team is middle of the pack. Danny Granger and Mike Dunleavy are their main guys, and both were inconsistent in the two games I saw. Granger's a decent player, but isn't built to carry a franchise. Dunleavy's a streaky shooter who wasn't hitting much in the two games I've seen.
Roy Hibbert shows tremendous promise in the middle. He looks at times like a big man who can dominate. Then on other times he looks lost. Coaches should work with him every day on post moves, and make him shoot 100 hooks a day. Get him playing with some consistency, and develop a couple of go-to post moves, and he could be a star. But not this year.
Collison is a good looking point guard with obvious skills. But he doesn't seem to know when to pass and when to take the shot. I saw him run a number of fast breaks, where there were two defenders ready to stop his drive to the basket, but teammates running the floor with him. In every case, instead of dishing to the big man for the dunk, he decided to take on the two defenders. Sometimes he drew the foul, and the other times he turned the ball over. I also observed him missing open guys on the pick and roll, again while trying to force his own shot. Collison seems to need badly to learn that winning is better than personal stats.
Tyler Hansbrough tends to play like a rookie, but I appreciate his hustle. He plays hard and hungry, and makes plays through force of will. Like Hibbert but in a different way, he shows promise for the future, but probably won't take the Pacers to a competitive level this year.
The entire team stinks on the defensive end. They're burned on weak-side rebounds so often I wonder if they've ever heard words like "weak side help" from a coach. They're embarassingly easy to break down off dribble penetration by their opponents' point guards.
Moving on to the Colts.
I'm not sure I want to put myself through the pain of watching the Colts play New England this weekend. The crippled team barely survived the Bengals last weekend, a game the Colts of the past several seasons would have blown out of the stadum.
Jacob Tamme is playing bravely in place of Dallas Clark, but alas is no Dallas Clark. Pierre Garcon drops more passes than he catches. The Colts are down to their fourth-string running back, which doesn't give them much punch there either.
All defenses have to do is double-team Reggie Wayne and contain Tamme, and they can shut down Peyton.
The only questions left for the Colts this year are, how many starters will be back off the injury list this season, and when they come back, will they be able to ramp back up in time to make the Colts a Super Bowl contender?
It doesn't look like a good sports year in Indy.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Root Causes - Education
There was an article in today's Republic that, without realizing it, represented just one more direct linkage between a major societal problem and it's root cause.
We're a nation of people who insist on burying our collective heads in the sand, failing to recognize that almost every serious problem we face today can be linked directly to our precipitous moral decline.
Today it's about education.
I wish I could link to the article, but can't locate it online. Substantially the story outlined the results of a study of failing students. In a result that surprised me not one bit, it discovered that children without stable homes and parents are most likely to fail in school.
The story went on to describe the "typical" dysfunctional family, for some reason most prevalent in cities. Child is born to an unwed mother, who most of the time is still at least friendly with the child's father. He might even provide some financial support, and sometimes lives with mother and child. For awhile, anyway.
But there's no marriage tying the couple together, so pretty soon Dad's gone. Interstingly, the article suggested that lots of those Dad's want to stay involved with their child, but go away when Mom hooks up with a new guy.
The most shocking finding was that most of these women were likely to have a few more children by different Dads within the first 5 years of that first baby's life.
These kids are confused, angry, undisciplined, and get worse with each turn of Mom's revolving door. Not to mention that some of the guys going through her revolving (bedroom) door will abuse her children, which naturally makes things even worse.
Education is a big topic in Indiana, and Republicans have the power to implement their will. They want to build lots of new Charter schools, implement a merit pay system for teachers, and possibly begin experimenting with vouchers.
But the fundamental question comes down to this: If a kid isn't being raised by parents who care even a litle bit, how could any of these programs make a difference? If a child comes to school angry, hungry, abused, and broken, you can't fix it with any teacher or special school - you need a miracle worker.
Maybe it sounds harsh, but if these irresponsible and narcissistic mothers aren't separated from their children until they decide to grow up and become a parent, nothing is going to help their children succeed in school. If nobody's allowed to mentor children and try to instill basic values in them without facing a lawsuit from the ACLU, who is going to teach them right from wrong?
When will people pull their heads out of the sand and realize that all of our problems - Education, economic, healthcare, crime, etc., all boil down to the same root cause?
The only way to solve a problem is to understand it.
We're a nation of people who insist on burying our collective heads in the sand, failing to recognize that almost every serious problem we face today can be linked directly to our precipitous moral decline.
Today it's about education.
I wish I could link to the article, but can't locate it online. Substantially the story outlined the results of a study of failing students. In a result that surprised me not one bit, it discovered that children without stable homes and parents are most likely to fail in school.
The story went on to describe the "typical" dysfunctional family, for some reason most prevalent in cities. Child is born to an unwed mother, who most of the time is still at least friendly with the child's father. He might even provide some financial support, and sometimes lives with mother and child. For awhile, anyway.
But there's no marriage tying the couple together, so pretty soon Dad's gone. Interstingly, the article suggested that lots of those Dad's want to stay involved with their child, but go away when Mom hooks up with a new guy.
The most shocking finding was that most of these women were likely to have a few more children by different Dads within the first 5 years of that first baby's life.
These kids are confused, angry, undisciplined, and get worse with each turn of Mom's revolving door. Not to mention that some of the guys going through her revolving (bedroom) door will abuse her children, which naturally makes things even worse.
Education is a big topic in Indiana, and Republicans have the power to implement their will. They want to build lots of new Charter schools, implement a merit pay system for teachers, and possibly begin experimenting with vouchers.
But the fundamental question comes down to this: If a kid isn't being raised by parents who care even a litle bit, how could any of these programs make a difference? If a child comes to school angry, hungry, abused, and broken, you can't fix it with any teacher or special school - you need a miracle worker.
Maybe it sounds harsh, but if these irresponsible and narcissistic mothers aren't separated from their children until they decide to grow up and become a parent, nothing is going to help their children succeed in school. If nobody's allowed to mentor children and try to instill basic values in them without facing a lawsuit from the ACLU, who is going to teach them right from wrong?
When will people pull their heads out of the sand and realize that all of our problems - Education, economic, healthcare, crime, etc., all boil down to the same root cause?
The only way to solve a problem is to understand it.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Defining My Version of Conservatism
Whether or not this attempt to explain my personal views succeeds in finding agreement, I somehow seem to have failed thus far with this blog's total body of work in getting across the fundamental definition of my personal conservative beliefs. So let's give it a shot:
Social: Conservative
I don't think there's any question that I'm a Social Conservative. I believe that what made America great is its founding under Judeo-Christian fundamental values. And that America's decline is due to its abandonment of those values.
However, you are badly mistaken if you think that means I think the government should somehow impose those values on its citizens. And there is no contradiction in that statement.
Government can and should be thankful and friendly with Christian churches across the country, but should not either hand out taxpayer dollars to those churches or invite church leaders to set the legislative agenda directly.
However, tax exemptions for churches and their charities should remain. The government should step in on behalf of those who must fight constant ACLU lawsuits that seek to intimidate them from expressing their faith in public; whether at public school events or on their city hall lawns.
Because the historically proven source of the best and brightest citizens of our country is the nuclear family, the intact, undivorced, committed family unit should be the first to benefit from tax incentives. That policy will pay for itself many times over with well-adjusted, intelligent, and productive citizens from one generation to the next.
I do not believe that gays should be persecuted by anyone. Neither do I believe that gays have the right to take federal benefits out of my pocket for their partners. I have what I think is an interesting solution in this area, which if you missed it can be found here.
Healthcare, education, welfare, and any related social programs now run by massive Federal bureaucracies are outside the mandated constitutional role of the Feds, and should be solely the province of the individual states.
That does not lead to the common Democrat charge against people who hold that view that I don't care about the poor. States have every right to tax their citizens as they see fit to fund these programs in whatever forms they choose. If New York and California want to be havens for the chronic poor, that's their choice. If the heartland prefers to develop welfare-to-work programs such as those that proved so successful in the 90's, that's also their choice.
I believe that nobody should be given preference over anyone else because of their race, gender, sexual preference, religion, country of origin, eye color, hair color, weight, favorite movie or what car they drive.
If our society wishes to find ways to lift people out of poverty, I believe everyone in poverty should have access to the means to pull themselves out, and individuals who care should be encouraged to help guide them. Simply handing them money, patting them on the head and tut-tutting about how poor and unfortunate they are destroys them.
Economic: Conservative to Moderate?
I suppose the label for my economic beliefs depends on definition.
Some on the Right would call me a moderate for my view that completely unfettered capitalism is not ideal.
I support strong enforcement of AntiTrust law. I believe a lack of attention to these laws played a big role, along with government meddling, in our current economic crisis. There should be no American companies "Too big to fail", ever.
I also believe importing foreign workers simply because they work cheaper than their American counterparts approaches un-American. Our companies should be first-and-foremost Americans.
Being a realist, I know we can't simply dissolve the departments of Education, HHS, Agriculture, Homeland Security (an unnecessary and duplicative organization), and other expensive and counterproductive bureaucracies cannot be done overnight.
Neither can we simply cancel Social Security and Medicare.
But if enough people can be educated about the excesses of Washington, perhaps we can begin the siege and chip away at the walls little by little.
Let's take Social Security as an example. Start by admitting it's not a retirement and disability insurance program for all of us, but a plain and simple wealth redistribution from current working Americans to retirees, disabled, and dependents of deceased Americans.
Then start a program to transform the program from what it is today to an actual retirement savings, disability, and life insurance program with a cash-value account for every American. The account earns a guaranteed annual rate from the Federal Reserve, who uses those funds in place of bond sales or just as a giant money-market account with guaranteed returns.
Current retirees and those retiring in the next 10 years would see no change. Those retiring each decade following would see a gradual shift from the transfer program to individual accounts, until eventually the program covers everybody directly in individual accounts that they can will to their heirs with whatever remains unused at their death.
Oops, I didn't mean to go off on a tangent of specifics like that.
Let's back up to basic economic policy.
We need to balance Free Trade with Fair Trade. Our trade negotiations should be focused on opening the US market to foreign traders to the same extent those partners are open to US products.
Regulation of US business is necessary to protect employees and consumers from abuse and fraud, but must be reasonable and not unnecessarily onerous on employers.
Employees have the freedom to organize into unions if they choose. Union books should be subject to audit and scrutiny by members and open to prosecution if fraud is found. Union members should have a say in whether their dues are used to support political parties or candidates. Nobody should be forced to join a union.
Employers should be offered an exemption from Unemployment Insurance if they provide their own funded version of unemployment insurance: They fund an interest-bearing account with 2 percent of each employee's wages. When the employee terminates, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, they receive the proceeds from that account, and may choose either a lump sum or an annuity. Or they can roll it into an IRA or roll it into their Unemployment account at their next employer. If the employee chooses, they can contribute up to 2 percent of their earnings into the same account tax-free, just like a 401K. Simple solution, easy to administer by employers, and a great benefit for employees.
Close Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Stop using tax dollars to subsidize government cronies who pretend to be developing "Clean Energy". Open up the oil fields wherever they exist for exploration, under reasonable safety regulations. Open up all domestic sources of energy, whether natural gas, coal, oil shale, etc. If on Federal land, simply auction the rights. This is the path to true energy independence.
There's much more, but I'll end with a major one that I've proposed before: Pass a constitutional amendment regarding tax policy.
All taxes imposed on citizens, companies, or other organizations must apply to all equally without exceptions. Likewise all deductions, credits, deferrals, and abatements offered to any citizen, company, or organization must be available to any and all based on criteria that may be met by everyone if they choose to do so.
See, if you take away the ability of congress to provide special tax favors to constituents in return for campaign money, you solve a big piece of the campaign finance mess.
So much more, but if I kept going I'd be typing for days.
Social: Conservative
I don't think there's any question that I'm a Social Conservative. I believe that what made America great is its founding under Judeo-Christian fundamental values. And that America's decline is due to its abandonment of those values.
However, you are badly mistaken if you think that means I think the government should somehow impose those values on its citizens. And there is no contradiction in that statement.
Government can and should be thankful and friendly with Christian churches across the country, but should not either hand out taxpayer dollars to those churches or invite church leaders to set the legislative agenda directly.
However, tax exemptions for churches and their charities should remain. The government should step in on behalf of those who must fight constant ACLU lawsuits that seek to intimidate them from expressing their faith in public; whether at public school events or on their city hall lawns.
Because the historically proven source of the best and brightest citizens of our country is the nuclear family, the intact, undivorced, committed family unit should be the first to benefit from tax incentives. That policy will pay for itself many times over with well-adjusted, intelligent, and productive citizens from one generation to the next.
I do not believe that gays should be persecuted by anyone. Neither do I believe that gays have the right to take federal benefits out of my pocket for their partners. I have what I think is an interesting solution in this area, which if you missed it can be found here.
Healthcare, education, welfare, and any related social programs now run by massive Federal bureaucracies are outside the mandated constitutional role of the Feds, and should be solely the province of the individual states.
That does not lead to the common Democrat charge against people who hold that view that I don't care about the poor. States have every right to tax their citizens as they see fit to fund these programs in whatever forms they choose. If New York and California want to be havens for the chronic poor, that's their choice. If the heartland prefers to develop welfare-to-work programs such as those that proved so successful in the 90's, that's also their choice.
I believe that nobody should be given preference over anyone else because of their race, gender, sexual preference, religion, country of origin, eye color, hair color, weight, favorite movie or what car they drive.
If our society wishes to find ways to lift people out of poverty, I believe everyone in poverty should have access to the means to pull themselves out, and individuals who care should be encouraged to help guide them. Simply handing them money, patting them on the head and tut-tutting about how poor and unfortunate they are destroys them.
Economic: Conservative to Moderate?
I suppose the label for my economic beliefs depends on definition.
Some on the Right would call me a moderate for my view that completely unfettered capitalism is not ideal.
I support strong enforcement of AntiTrust law. I believe a lack of attention to these laws played a big role, along with government meddling, in our current economic crisis. There should be no American companies "Too big to fail", ever.
I also believe importing foreign workers simply because they work cheaper than their American counterparts approaches un-American. Our companies should be first-and-foremost Americans.
Being a realist, I know we can't simply dissolve the departments of Education, HHS, Agriculture, Homeland Security (an unnecessary and duplicative organization), and other expensive and counterproductive bureaucracies cannot be done overnight.
Neither can we simply cancel Social Security and Medicare.
But if enough people can be educated about the excesses of Washington, perhaps we can begin the siege and chip away at the walls little by little.
Let's take Social Security as an example. Start by admitting it's not a retirement and disability insurance program for all of us, but a plain and simple wealth redistribution from current working Americans to retirees, disabled, and dependents of deceased Americans.
Then start a program to transform the program from what it is today to an actual retirement savings, disability, and life insurance program with a cash-value account for every American. The account earns a guaranteed annual rate from the Federal Reserve, who uses those funds in place of bond sales or just as a giant money-market account with guaranteed returns.
Current retirees and those retiring in the next 10 years would see no change. Those retiring each decade following would see a gradual shift from the transfer program to individual accounts, until eventually the program covers everybody directly in individual accounts that they can will to their heirs with whatever remains unused at their death.
Oops, I didn't mean to go off on a tangent of specifics like that.
Let's back up to basic economic policy.
We need to balance Free Trade with Fair Trade. Our trade negotiations should be focused on opening the US market to foreign traders to the same extent those partners are open to US products.
Regulation of US business is necessary to protect employees and consumers from abuse and fraud, but must be reasonable and not unnecessarily onerous on employers.
Employees have the freedom to organize into unions if they choose. Union books should be subject to audit and scrutiny by members and open to prosecution if fraud is found. Union members should have a say in whether their dues are used to support political parties or candidates. Nobody should be forced to join a union.
Employers should be offered an exemption from Unemployment Insurance if they provide their own funded version of unemployment insurance: They fund an interest-bearing account with 2 percent of each employee's wages. When the employee terminates, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, they receive the proceeds from that account, and may choose either a lump sum or an annuity. Or they can roll it into an IRA or roll it into their Unemployment account at their next employer. If the employee chooses, they can contribute up to 2 percent of their earnings into the same account tax-free, just like a 401K. Simple solution, easy to administer by employers, and a great benefit for employees.
Close Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Stop using tax dollars to subsidize government cronies who pretend to be developing "Clean Energy". Open up the oil fields wherever they exist for exploration, under reasonable safety regulations. Open up all domestic sources of energy, whether natural gas, coal, oil shale, etc. If on Federal land, simply auction the rights. This is the path to true energy independence.
There's much more, but I'll end with a major one that I've proposed before: Pass a constitutional amendment regarding tax policy.
All taxes imposed on citizens, companies, or other organizations must apply to all equally without exceptions. Likewise all deductions, credits, deferrals, and abatements offered to any citizen, company, or organization must be available to any and all based on criteria that may be met by everyone if they choose to do so.
See, if you take away the ability of congress to provide special tax favors to constituents in return for campaign money, you solve a big piece of the campaign finance mess.
So much more, but if I kept going I'd be typing for days.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Projection
Flipping channels, I happened on Crazy Eddie, or Ed Schultz on MSNBC. I held it there for a minute to see how he reacted to the election. The main thing I got from the minute of Crazy Eddie's ranting was that John Boehner might need to take out a restraining order.
It sort of illustrated a psychological problem of the far-left folks like Ed, Olbermann, Behar, and Maher. Even Obama projected when he strongly suggested that the Republicans need to discover civility, even while he called them "enemies", and proclaimed they needed to be "punished".
Sure, folks like Limbaugh are the flame-throwers on the Right. But I've never heard Rush wish horrible illness and death on any liberals. I don't hear him viciously attacking people personally like Ed did with Boehner yesterday, or like Behar did with Sharon Angle.
I used to visit CNN and MSNBC a bit more often, back when I thought I would get serious policy discussions that would help me learn more about the arguments from the Left.
But even though I have tried to do that for a few years, I can't say that I've ever heard a reasoned, logical argument explaining why the policies of the Left would be good for the country as a whole. It seems the arguments always degenerate into personal attacks on the right-wing villain of the day, and I never get to hear the policy argument.
Most of the social arguments seem to be misleading at best.
Gay Marriage: People need equal freedom to choose who they love. (Huh?)
Abortion: Women have the right to control their own body. (Doesn't a baby have a body too?)
Legalize Pot: We can tax it! (That's your argument, really?)
Illegal Immigration: They just want a better life. (So why don't we invite everybody in and forget about our immigration laws?)
Voter ID Laws: They are designed to disenfranchise voters. (What voters? Illegals and Convicts? Dead people?)
Taxes: The rich don't pay their fair share. (What exactly is anybody's "fair share"? Fair share of what? If 35% isn't a fair share, what percentage is? Who is rich?)
Obamacare: It's good because it forces insurance companies to cover people and not drop people who get sick. (What about the massive new bureaucracy, Federal control of the entire system, Federal decisions about what companies are priviledged enough to be chosen to offer insurance, and the unconstitutional mandate?)
Deficits and Debt: Those were Bush's fault. (How is it that tripling it after Bush left office makes it still Bush's fault?)
Weak arguments devolving into ad-hominem incivility, then projecting that incivility onto your opponents is the rule of the day for Democrats.
It's very much like the bully who beats up a kid every day and steals his lunch money, so the victim gets some self-defense lessons and fights back one day. Then the bully screams to an adult, "He punched me!".
And the poor kid who was only fighting back gets punished.
It sort of illustrated a psychological problem of the far-left folks like Ed, Olbermann, Behar, and Maher. Even Obama projected when he strongly suggested that the Republicans need to discover civility, even while he called them "enemies", and proclaimed they needed to be "punished".
Sure, folks like Limbaugh are the flame-throwers on the Right. But I've never heard Rush wish horrible illness and death on any liberals. I don't hear him viciously attacking people personally like Ed did with Boehner yesterday, or like Behar did with Sharon Angle.
I used to visit CNN and MSNBC a bit more often, back when I thought I would get serious policy discussions that would help me learn more about the arguments from the Left.
But even though I have tried to do that for a few years, I can't say that I've ever heard a reasoned, logical argument explaining why the policies of the Left would be good for the country as a whole. It seems the arguments always degenerate into personal attacks on the right-wing villain of the day, and I never get to hear the policy argument.
Most of the social arguments seem to be misleading at best.
Gay Marriage: People need equal freedom to choose who they love. (Huh?)
Abortion: Women have the right to control their own body. (Doesn't a baby have a body too?)
Legalize Pot: We can tax it! (That's your argument, really?)
Illegal Immigration: They just want a better life. (So why don't we invite everybody in and forget about our immigration laws?)
Voter ID Laws: They are designed to disenfranchise voters. (What voters? Illegals and Convicts? Dead people?)
Taxes: The rich don't pay their fair share. (What exactly is anybody's "fair share"? Fair share of what? If 35% isn't a fair share, what percentage is? Who is rich?)
Obamacare: It's good because it forces insurance companies to cover people and not drop people who get sick. (What about the massive new bureaucracy, Federal control of the entire system, Federal decisions about what companies are priviledged enough to be chosen to offer insurance, and the unconstitutional mandate?)
Deficits and Debt: Those were Bush's fault. (How is it that tripling it after Bush left office makes it still Bush's fault?)
Weak arguments devolving into ad-hominem incivility, then projecting that incivility onto your opponents is the rule of the day for Democrats.
It's very much like the bully who beats up a kid every day and steals his lunch money, so the victim gets some self-defense lessons and fights back one day. Then the bully screams to an adult, "He punched me!".
And the poor kid who was only fighting back gets punished.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
What Happens Now?
The House went big time GOP, the Senate not so much.
My main objective in voting yesterday was to fire Baron Hill. Mission accomplished.
Disappointments were Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid, both of whom I thought were the most deserving of a pink slip.
But California is way too blue.
And reports are that the Casino bosses demaded that all their employees get out and vote for Reid. Plus rumors that there was a massive push to get illegals registered and voting. In a close race, all the Dems have to do is cheat, I suppose.
Which brings me to Washington State. It's too close for Rossi to win, given his own experience in the governor's race a few years back. King County (Seattle) miraculously "found" a few hundred ballots after the counting had Rossi winning the Governor race, they just happened to be enough to put his opponent in front, and what do you know, every one of them was for the Democrat!
Alaska is weird, with all the dirty tricks pulled against Joe Miller in the last couple of weeks. And Murkowski, who seems to believe it's her personal right to hold that Senate seate. What's strange is that Alaskans appear to have agreed with her and failed to recognize how they were manipulated into doing so.
The House will have a strong enough majority to make a difference, and even though Dems hold a smaller majority in the Senate, they will be forced to work with Republicans in both houses to get anything passed.
So I'm thinking that Obama's agenda is toast. Bush tax cuts will probably get extended. The budget will probably get pared down, but not enough. The House will vote to kill Obamacare, but the Senate won't go along. So the House will vote to defund Obamacare, but the President will veto, which could lead to an interesting fight and possible government shutdown.
It will be interesting, but I think better for the country in the long run.
My main objective in voting yesterday was to fire Baron Hill. Mission accomplished.
Disappointments were Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid, both of whom I thought were the most deserving of a pink slip.
But California is way too blue.
And reports are that the Casino bosses demaded that all their employees get out and vote for Reid. Plus rumors that there was a massive push to get illegals registered and voting. In a close race, all the Dems have to do is cheat, I suppose.
Which brings me to Washington State. It's too close for Rossi to win, given his own experience in the governor's race a few years back. King County (Seattle) miraculously "found" a few hundred ballots after the counting had Rossi winning the Governor race, they just happened to be enough to put his opponent in front, and what do you know, every one of them was for the Democrat!
Alaska is weird, with all the dirty tricks pulled against Joe Miller in the last couple of weeks. And Murkowski, who seems to believe it's her personal right to hold that Senate seate. What's strange is that Alaskans appear to have agreed with her and failed to recognize how they were manipulated into doing so.
The House will have a strong enough majority to make a difference, and even though Dems hold a smaller majority in the Senate, they will be forced to work with Republicans in both houses to get anything passed.
So I'm thinking that Obama's agenda is toast. Bush tax cuts will probably get extended. The budget will probably get pared down, but not enough. The House will vote to kill Obamacare, but the Senate won't go along. So the House will vote to defund Obamacare, but the President will veto, which could lead to an interesting fight and possible government shutdown.
It will be interesting, but I think better for the country in the long run.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Football Sectional
For once I was home on Friday, and not sitting on an airplane somewhere. Both Columbus teams were playing in their respective Sectional SemiFinal games right here in town, and I had my first chance since they played each other way back in the second game of the season to catch a game.
I was tempted to visit the closer team on the East side, but decided to stay with the team I've followed for so many years, including those years my middle son was a team member, and head up to the North side.
The game opened up with an impressive touchdown drive by the North squad, leaving me the impression that this game could go pretty well. Then the opponents from Bloomington North got the ball and marched it down the field in the opposite direction for their own touchdown.
It was beginning to look like a shootout. Bloomington got up two scores, 28-14, but a nice Columbus touchdown drive followed by a quick Bloomington turnover and score brought the teams even at halftime, 28-28.
The third quarter was where things began to unravel for the Columbus team. Not at first, as Bloomington's first possession was stymied by a rededicated Columbus defense for a 3-and-out, and the Columbus offense drove down the field for what looked like the go-ahead score.
But a fourth down scramble by the quarterback, Kyle Kamman, was brought back on a holding penalty I didn't see from the stands. Now I'm generally a pretty good observer of such things, and if there was an obvious hold on the play, it seems I would have seen it. In any case, I didn't see it, but have to assume the referree did.
Instead of a go-ahead touchdown, Columbus North had to punt.
And Bloomington North scored almost immediately on their next possession. A short sideline pass led to a 66-yard scamper to the end zone that made the hapless Columbus defense look embarassingly like the Keystone Cops.
Columbus' offense struggled to regain momentum in the quarter, and would never be able to catch the Bloomington team, which seemed to get stronger as the second half wore on.
As in the drive-killing holding penalty, the officials contributed to the outcome at least twice more.
During the extra point following Bloomington's first third-quarter touchdown, a Columbus player dove across in front of the kicker to attempt a block and fell to the ground just in front of the holder. The kicker saw his opportunity and let his momentum carry him forward so he tripped over the crumpled Columbus player, drawing the "Roughing the Kicker" penalty.
Assessed on the kickoff, Bloomington went ahead and called for the Onside Kick, which was a low-risk, high-reward call. The onside kick was successful, but at least 3 of the Bloomington kickoff team members were clearly and obviously offside on the play. There was no official watching the kickoff line, so no penalty was called.
Bloomington North promptly scored again to go up by 2 touchdowns.
Then the Columbus speedster Trace Fetterer(sp?) caught the next kickoff near the goal line and raced the length of the field for an apparent touchdown that would have put his team right back in contention.
Except for the flag. Another holding call on Columbus North, again for what seemed to me a phantom hold, as I saw nothing of the sort.
In the end, that call was all that was needed to assure a Bloomington North victory. Columbus' defense was missing its two starting linebackers, and Bloomington could run the ball easily through the Columbus defense and run out the clock.
Columbus managed a late touchdown, but much too late, dropping the game by the final score of 45-35.
Crosstown rivals Columbus East were embarassed by Whiteland by a score too outrageous for me to reproduce.
So there will be no Columbus-based Sectional Championship game next week. At least I picked the better game of the two to shiver through on Friday night.
I was tempted to visit the closer team on the East side, but decided to stay with the team I've followed for so many years, including those years my middle son was a team member, and head up to the North side.
The game opened up with an impressive touchdown drive by the North squad, leaving me the impression that this game could go pretty well. Then the opponents from Bloomington North got the ball and marched it down the field in the opposite direction for their own touchdown.
It was beginning to look like a shootout. Bloomington got up two scores, 28-14, but a nice Columbus touchdown drive followed by a quick Bloomington turnover and score brought the teams even at halftime, 28-28.
The third quarter was where things began to unravel for the Columbus team. Not at first, as Bloomington's first possession was stymied by a rededicated Columbus defense for a 3-and-out, and the Columbus offense drove down the field for what looked like the go-ahead score.
But a fourth down scramble by the quarterback, Kyle Kamman, was brought back on a holding penalty I didn't see from the stands. Now I'm generally a pretty good observer of such things, and if there was an obvious hold on the play, it seems I would have seen it. In any case, I didn't see it, but have to assume the referree did.
Instead of a go-ahead touchdown, Columbus North had to punt.
And Bloomington North scored almost immediately on their next possession. A short sideline pass led to a 66-yard scamper to the end zone that made the hapless Columbus defense look embarassingly like the Keystone Cops.
Columbus' offense struggled to regain momentum in the quarter, and would never be able to catch the Bloomington team, which seemed to get stronger as the second half wore on.
As in the drive-killing holding penalty, the officials contributed to the outcome at least twice more.
During the extra point following Bloomington's first third-quarter touchdown, a Columbus player dove across in front of the kicker to attempt a block and fell to the ground just in front of the holder. The kicker saw his opportunity and let his momentum carry him forward so he tripped over the crumpled Columbus player, drawing the "Roughing the Kicker" penalty.
Assessed on the kickoff, Bloomington went ahead and called for the Onside Kick, which was a low-risk, high-reward call. The onside kick was successful, but at least 3 of the Bloomington kickoff team members were clearly and obviously offside on the play. There was no official watching the kickoff line, so no penalty was called.
Bloomington North promptly scored again to go up by 2 touchdowns.
Then the Columbus speedster Trace Fetterer(sp?) caught the next kickoff near the goal line and raced the length of the field for an apparent touchdown that would have put his team right back in contention.
Except for the flag. Another holding call on Columbus North, again for what seemed to me a phantom hold, as I saw nothing of the sort.
In the end, that call was all that was needed to assure a Bloomington North victory. Columbus' defense was missing its two starting linebackers, and Bloomington could run the ball easily through the Columbus defense and run out the clock.
Columbus managed a late touchdown, but much too late, dropping the game by the final score of 45-35.
Crosstown rivals Columbus East were embarassed by Whiteland by a score too outrageous for me to reproduce.
So there will be no Columbus-based Sectional Championship game next week. At least I picked the better game of the two to shiver through on Friday night.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
While I'm Tilting at Windmills
I might as well go ahead and post some other crazy ideas.
What if -
Everybody bought health insurance like they buy car insurance? And the government had nothing to do with it.
We could solve the massive budget and national debt problem by eliminating every federal agency and project that is not specifically and constitutionally their responsibility?
We capped government spending so it can never exceed, say, 20 percent GDP?
We changed welfare programs to cover only those to sick or otherwise disabled to function?
Churches help out their parishioners when in need as a front line of defense instead of government programs?
Those able-bodied persons who don't want to join a church and can't find employment can fall back on the government, but not for cash. Show up anytime you want and you can be given a minimum-wage job, baby sitting for your children if needed, and maybe some referral services for temporary housing and other assistance until you get on your feet?
Social Security was transformed into a personal account, gradually over the next generation. Then when you retire, it's your money. When you die, you can pass it on to your heirs?
Government configured tax policy to favor only the nuclear family and undivorced parents?
Government was friendly to the Church, recognizing it as the most important agent for solving poverty?
Congress is made up of ordinary people from our communities who go to Washington for no more than 4 years, then come home and resume their normal lives?
Government actually enforced important laws, such as AntiTrust and Immigration, for two examples?
The tax code was reduced from the corrupt mutli-thousand-page monstrosity to a simple law no more than 20 pages long?
Tax returns for everyone were 1 page long?
Mega Corporations get no more or less preferential treatment from the government than any other business or individual?
Calling people of the opposition party "Enemies" is an impeachable offense for the President or any other elected official?
I've got lots more, but that's all I feel like posting for tonight.
What if -
Everybody bought health insurance like they buy car insurance? And the government had nothing to do with it.
We could solve the massive budget and national debt problem by eliminating every federal agency and project that is not specifically and constitutionally their responsibility?
We capped government spending so it can never exceed, say, 20 percent GDP?
We changed welfare programs to cover only those to sick or otherwise disabled to function?
Churches help out their parishioners when in need as a front line of defense instead of government programs?
Those able-bodied persons who don't want to join a church and can't find employment can fall back on the government, but not for cash. Show up anytime you want and you can be given a minimum-wage job, baby sitting for your children if needed, and maybe some referral services for temporary housing and other assistance until you get on your feet?
Social Security was transformed into a personal account, gradually over the next generation. Then when you retire, it's your money. When you die, you can pass it on to your heirs?
Government configured tax policy to favor only the nuclear family and undivorced parents?
Government was friendly to the Church, recognizing it as the most important agent for solving poverty?
Congress is made up of ordinary people from our communities who go to Washington for no more than 4 years, then come home and resume their normal lives?
Government actually enforced important laws, such as AntiTrust and Immigration, for two examples?
The tax code was reduced from the corrupt mutli-thousand-page monstrosity to a simple law no more than 20 pages long?
Tax returns for everyone were 1 page long?
Mega Corporations get no more or less preferential treatment from the government than any other business or individual?
Calling people of the opposition party "Enemies" is an impeachable offense for the President or any other elected official?
I've got lots more, but that's all I feel like posting for tonight.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
My Vincennes Debate Adventure
A few weeks ago I caught wind of the Indiana Debate Commission's request for voters to submit questions for the Senate candidates. I happened to be sitting down at the computer at the time, so I dashed off a question.
Last week, I received a phone call from a member of the commission asking if I would present my question at the debate Monday night in Vincennes. I had to do some schedule rearranging, but freed up Monday afternoon and evening to make the long drive to Vincennes University last night.
My question was related to the following information I came across about 2010 H1B Visa Applications in Indiana.
Rank Company H1B Applications Avg Salary
1 Purdue University 548 64,001
2 Cummins 539 69,546
3 Indiana University 455 56,733
4 IUPUI 441 60,037
5 Eli Lilly/Notre Dame 264 92,426
6 Lac 211 58,245
7 Access Therapies 181 52,193
8 Kpit Infosystems 177 54,389
9 Pyramid Consulting 170 49,625
10 Pyramid Technology Solutions 131 48,377
11 LHP Software 105 60,822
12 Ryan Consulting Group 90 51,515
13 Satyam Computer Services 80 61,724
14 Midwest Independent Transmission Sys 61 75,701
15 Workhorse Custom Chassis 58 72,026
16 White Lodging Services 56 39,440
16 Ball State 56 56,381
18 IUPUI 54 59,769
19 SV Technologies 51 49,314
19 Thomson 51 77,296
21 ArcelorMittal USA 50 73,199
22 UST Global 49 56,757
23 Brite Systems 43 59,198
24 Conseco Services 42 71,074
25 Dow Agrosciences 38 90,543
26 Zimmer 37 74,492
27 Bucher and Christian Consulting 36 101,388
28 CVS Pharmacy 35 103,057
29 Q Edge 34 42,839
30 Kindred Rehab Services 32 50,490
30 Depauw University 32 53,310
30 Indiana State University 32 50,583
33 IBM 31 84,785
33 RCR Technology 31 72,669
35 Kindred Technology Nursing Centers 31 62,400
36 Telamon 26 42,987
37 Hill Rom 25 75,174
37 Cook 25 63,862
37 Interactive Intelligence 25 72,282
40 International School of Indiana 24 43,787
40 F1 24 49,875
40 Infosys Technologies 24 60,148
40 Boston Scientific 24 67,186
40 Carrier 24 66,371
40 Sabic Innovative Plastics 24 81,372
46 Redcats USA Management Services 23 89,065
46 MED Institute 23 69,234
46 Delphi 23 73,782
49 TheraCare 22 42,976
50 Novistar 21 69,261
50 Diverse Staffing Services 21 61,650
50 Fujitsu Consulting 21 69,828
54 Cummins Emission Solutions 20 71,656
54 Genesis Business Solutions 20 51,437
56 Intelligence 19 63,126
56 Gyansys 19 57,389
56 Aegis Therapies 19 72,894
56 EagleCare 19 74,453
56 Mphasis 19 60,963
56 University of Southern Indiana 19 56,016
56 Swift Solutions 19 55,326
63 Ospro Systems 18 57,800
63 Cognizant Technology Solutions 18 59,122
63 General Electric 18 81,818
63 Ibiz Group 18 52,070
63 Covance 18 75,541
68 Indiana Math and Science Academy 17 37,243
68 Lincoln National 17 93,548
68 Medical Specialists 17 183,885
71 Creative Health Solutions 16 74,100
71 IU Health Inc 16 137,668
71 Caterpillar 16 71,222
74 Clarian Health Partners 15 53,257
74 Rose Hulman Insititute of Technology 15 61,153
74 Saint Margaret Mary Helthcare Centers 15 156,883
74 Roche Diagnostics 15 75,523
78 Pegatron Technology Service 14 38,909
78 Tata Consultancy Services 14 54,700
78 Indiana Health Centers 14 123,822
78 Hoosier Wheel & Stamping Mfg 14 55,000
78 Adesa 14 77,486
78 Healthcare Therapy Services 14 61,054
84 Butler University 13 59,823
84 ATT 13 73,641
84 Mead Johnson 13 92,208
84 St Vincent Hospital 13 76,408
88 Rolls Royce 12 70,700
88 MedFocus 12 64,385
88 Proficient Business Systems 12 49,790
88 V Soft Consulting Group 12 56,750
88 Atlas Rehabilitation 12 54,080
88 Amatra Technologies 12 59,089
88 Apogee Medical Group Indiana 12 185,000
96 Autocar 11 78,230
96 Hook SupeRx dba CVS Pharmacy 11 50,003
96 Ernst & Young 11 61,189
96 Inventiv Clinical Solutions 11 61,669
96 Niagara Lasalle 11 77,850
The only candidate who gave me a definitive answer to my question was the Libertarian, Rebecca Sink-Burris. She said there's no problem with this, and it's really a positive thing. Strangely, she also cited some study that said for every foreign worker hired under H1B, there are 5 more positions filled in "Support".
I take that to mean Americans can't handle these professional, technical, programming, and scientific jobs anymore? That we're now reduced to "supporting" the foreign professionals brought in to do the jobs we can't do? Does anybody find that the least bit offensive?
Dan Coats verbally patted me on the head and dismissed me. "Go off and play so the adults can talk". H1B is a "side issue", according to Coats, and if we just get the government out of the way there will be plenty of jobs for everybody.
Brad Ellsworth was patronizing. He must have been thinking along the same lines as Ms. Sink-Burris, because he turned his answer into a need to improve education. Again the theme that we Americans are too, what, stupid, lazy, greedy? Importing professors into our colleges who can't speak clear enough English to be understood is helping education?
The guys from the Commission and the moderator, Ann Ryder, couldn't have been nicer. The candidates made no effort at all to meet our small group of 7 questioners after the debate, which I think speaks volumes. Neither did a single member of the press.
I sort of ended the night feeling foolish.
Last week, I received a phone call from a member of the commission asking if I would present my question at the debate Monday night in Vincennes. I had to do some schedule rearranging, but freed up Monday afternoon and evening to make the long drive to Vincennes University last night.
My question was related to the following information I came across about 2010 H1B Visa Applications in Indiana.
Rank Company H1B Applications Avg Salary
1 Purdue University 548 64,001
2 Cummins 539 69,546
3 Indiana University 455 56,733
4 IUPUI 441 60,037
5 Eli Lilly/Notre Dame 264 92,426
6 Lac 211 58,245
7 Access Therapies 181 52,193
8 Kpit Infosystems 177 54,389
9 Pyramid Consulting 170 49,625
10 Pyramid Technology Solutions 131 48,377
11 LHP Software 105 60,822
12 Ryan Consulting Group 90 51,515
13 Satyam Computer Services 80 61,724
14 Midwest Independent Transmission Sys 61 75,701
15 Workhorse Custom Chassis 58 72,026
16 White Lodging Services 56 39,440
16 Ball State 56 56,381
18 IUPUI 54 59,769
19 SV Technologies 51 49,314
19 Thomson 51 77,296
21 ArcelorMittal USA 50 73,199
22 UST Global 49 56,757
23 Brite Systems 43 59,198
24 Conseco Services 42 71,074
25 Dow Agrosciences 38 90,543
26 Zimmer 37 74,492
27 Bucher and Christian Consulting 36 101,388
28 CVS Pharmacy 35 103,057
29 Q Edge 34 42,839
30 Kindred Rehab Services 32 50,490
30 Depauw University 32 53,310
30 Indiana State University 32 50,583
33 IBM 31 84,785
33 RCR Technology 31 72,669
35 Kindred Technology Nursing Centers 31 62,400
36 Telamon 26 42,987
37 Hill Rom 25 75,174
37 Cook 25 63,862
37 Interactive Intelligence 25 72,282
40 International School of Indiana 24 43,787
40 F1 24 49,875
40 Infosys Technologies 24 60,148
40 Boston Scientific 24 67,186
40 Carrier 24 66,371
40 Sabic Innovative Plastics 24 81,372
46 Redcats USA Management Services 23 89,065
46 MED Institute 23 69,234
46 Delphi 23 73,782
49 TheraCare 22 42,976
50 Novistar 21 69,261
50 Diverse Staffing Services 21 61,650
50 Fujitsu Consulting 21 69,828
54 Cummins Emission Solutions 20 71,656
54 Genesis Business Solutions 20 51,437
56 Intelligence 19 63,126
56 Gyansys 19 57,389
56 Aegis Therapies 19 72,894
56 EagleCare 19 74,453
56 Mphasis 19 60,963
56 University of Southern Indiana 19 56,016
56 Swift Solutions 19 55,326
63 Ospro Systems 18 57,800
63 Cognizant Technology Solutions 18 59,122
63 General Electric 18 81,818
63 Ibiz Group 18 52,070
63 Covance 18 75,541
68 Indiana Math and Science Academy 17 37,243
68 Lincoln National 17 93,548
68 Medical Specialists 17 183,885
71 Creative Health Solutions 16 74,100
71 IU Health Inc 16 137,668
71 Caterpillar 16 71,222
74 Clarian Health Partners 15 53,257
74 Rose Hulman Insititute of Technology 15 61,153
74 Saint Margaret Mary Helthcare Centers 15 156,883
74 Roche Diagnostics 15 75,523
78 Pegatron Technology Service 14 38,909
78 Tata Consultancy Services 14 54,700
78 Indiana Health Centers 14 123,822
78 Hoosier Wheel & Stamping Mfg 14 55,000
78 Adesa 14 77,486
78 Healthcare Therapy Services 14 61,054
84 Butler University 13 59,823
84 ATT 13 73,641
84 Mead Johnson 13 92,208
84 St Vincent Hospital 13 76,408
88 Rolls Royce 12 70,700
88 MedFocus 12 64,385
88 Proficient Business Systems 12 49,790
88 V Soft Consulting Group 12 56,750
88 Atlas Rehabilitation 12 54,080
88 Amatra Technologies 12 59,089
88 Apogee Medical Group Indiana 12 185,000
96 Autocar 11 78,230
96 Hook SupeRx dba CVS Pharmacy 11 50,003
96 Ernst & Young 11 61,189
96 Inventiv Clinical Solutions 11 61,669
96 Niagara Lasalle 11 77,850
The only candidate who gave me a definitive answer to my question was the Libertarian, Rebecca Sink-Burris. She said there's no problem with this, and it's really a positive thing. Strangely, she also cited some study that said for every foreign worker hired under H1B, there are 5 more positions filled in "Support".
I take that to mean Americans can't handle these professional, technical, programming, and scientific jobs anymore? That we're now reduced to "supporting" the foreign professionals brought in to do the jobs we can't do? Does anybody find that the least bit offensive?
Dan Coats verbally patted me on the head and dismissed me. "Go off and play so the adults can talk". H1B is a "side issue", according to Coats, and if we just get the government out of the way there will be plenty of jobs for everybody.
Brad Ellsworth was patronizing. He must have been thinking along the same lines as Ms. Sink-Burris, because he turned his answer into a need to improve education. Again the theme that we Americans are too, what, stupid, lazy, greedy? Importing professors into our colleges who can't speak clear enough English to be understood is helping education?
The guys from the Commission and the moderator, Ann Ryder, couldn't have been nicer. The candidates made no effort at all to meet our small group of 7 questioners after the debate, which I think speaks volumes. Neither did a single member of the press.
I sort of ended the night feeling foolish.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
I Get to Ask a Question
I've been invited to ask a question of the Indiana Senate candidates Monday night. It's kind of exciting, and I'm curious to find out how they will answer. I think it's a unique, challenging, and important question nobody's been talking about in this campaign cycle.
Tune in Monday night to hear my question and the debate.
I'll post the question, the more detailed reasons for the question, and a paraphrase of the candidates' responses after the debate.
It should be an interesting evening in Vincennes.
Tune in Monday night to hear my question and the debate.
I'll post the question, the more detailed reasons for the question, and a paraphrase of the candidates' responses after the debate.
It should be an interesting evening in Vincennes.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Uncivil War
The wierd story of the two liberal ladies on the View walking off the set in a huff during a discussion with O'Reilly combines with a couple of big debates this week to illustrate that there's a chasm between conservative and liberal philosophies that cannot be bridged.
The two debates I noticed were senatorial debates in Nevada and Delaware. I caught a bit of both, and both highlighted the stark differences in left and right philosophies. Harry Reid and Chris Coons espoused govenment-centric control to restore "fairness", which they claim will eventually help the economy recover. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell espoused freedom and smaller government to allow the private sector to restore prosperity through business activity.
On economic, social, environmental, national defense, and foreign relations issues, conservatives and liberals are diametrically opposed. Which makes me wonder about self-identified "moderates", because there is no real middle ground in most of these topics.
You prefer socialism or capitalism. You're for or against gay marriage and abortion. You think a strong national defense and secure borders are vital, or you believe we need to open the borders and show our enemies that we're really nice people. You want to develop all available energy options or drive the cost of carbon-based energy beyond affordability in the hope that "clean" energy will come along to replace oil and coal.
I suppose a moderate agrees with conservatives on some issues and with liberals on others.
The difference between the two camps is in their approach. My observation is that the conservative candidates are focused on policy. Liberal candidates are focused on slinging mud.
Points of proof: The View walkout, Jerry Brown's unapologetic defense of his staffer calling Meg Whitman a "whore". Everybody on the Left and their willing "journalist" friends going on TV to deride Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Sarah Palin (who isn't running for anything) as idiots.
The country is reaping exactly what it sowed. The question is whether or not the citizenry can figure that out in time to make a correction.
The two debates I noticed were senatorial debates in Nevada and Delaware. I caught a bit of both, and both highlighted the stark differences in left and right philosophies. Harry Reid and Chris Coons espoused govenment-centric control to restore "fairness", which they claim will eventually help the economy recover. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell espoused freedom and smaller government to allow the private sector to restore prosperity through business activity.
On economic, social, environmental, national defense, and foreign relations issues, conservatives and liberals are diametrically opposed. Which makes me wonder about self-identified "moderates", because there is no real middle ground in most of these topics.
You prefer socialism or capitalism. You're for or against gay marriage and abortion. You think a strong national defense and secure borders are vital, or you believe we need to open the borders and show our enemies that we're really nice people. You want to develop all available energy options or drive the cost of carbon-based energy beyond affordability in the hope that "clean" energy will come along to replace oil and coal.
I suppose a moderate agrees with conservatives on some issues and with liberals on others.
The difference between the two camps is in their approach. My observation is that the conservative candidates are focused on policy. Liberal candidates are focused on slinging mud.
Points of proof: The View walkout, Jerry Brown's unapologetic defense of his staffer calling Meg Whitman a "whore". Everybody on the Left and their willing "journalist" friends going on TV to deride Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Sarah Palin (who isn't running for anything) as idiots.
The country is reaping exactly what it sowed. The question is whether or not the citizenry can figure that out in time to make a correction.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Weary of Arguments
Up to this point, most of the arguing has been about the economy. The party of corporate fat cats versus the party of government fat cats.
As if that wasn't getting tired enough, along comes New York's gubernatorial candidate, Palladino, saying he didn't want children indoctrinated to regard gay relationships in a moral equivalency with traditional nuclear families.
I don't find the statement all that controversial, but it's got the gay community screaming. I saw Ron Reagan briefly on CNN so angry he seemed to be about to cry. You would have thought Palladino called for having Ron and his gay friends hanged in Times Square.
Another divisive issue is immigration and the Arizona law. Again, what Arizona did I don't consider controversial at all. They merely passed a law permitting local law enforcement to assist in identifying and holding people here illegally and holding them for ICE processing.
I saw a panel of regular folks arguing about that, and as with the gay issue, those on the pro-illegal side of the argument were extremely angry and hostile to Arizona and the others in the room on the other side.
Is it really necessary for me to go into the simple truth of each issue?
Gay rights are not about the "right" for gay people to love whomever they choose, which is a silly statement clearly designed to obscure the issue. It's about benefits. The basic question here is whether I should be forced to submit my tax dollars to provide government benefits to homosexual partners.
Since my moral equivalence is not between gay couples and married couples, but between the gay lifestyle and Tiger Woods' skirt-chasing lifestyle, my answer is no.
Supporters of rights for illegal aliens contend that they're hard workers, and are only here illegally because it's too hard to obtain legal immigration approval. The basic question isn't whether illegals work hard or want a better life; it's about whether or not we choose to uphold our country's laws and secure the border.
Our choice is to either open up the borders for everyone and stop trying to enforce the law, or to seal the border and solve the problem once and for all. My answer is solve the problem.
Palladino apparently has a reputation for being very non-PC. Will this anti-PC comment lose him the election? In deep blue New York, perhaps. Politically, he probably shouldn't have said it. But his honesty is sort of refreshing for a politician.
I just heard Palladino was apologizing for his comments. That's too bad. Apologizing would seem to mean he's had a change of heart on the matter. It won't win over anybody he's apologizing to - they will reject the apology as politically expedient. So it doesn't seem like a productive response.
As if that wasn't getting tired enough, along comes New York's gubernatorial candidate, Palladino, saying he didn't want children indoctrinated to regard gay relationships in a moral equivalency with traditional nuclear families.
I don't find the statement all that controversial, but it's got the gay community screaming. I saw Ron Reagan briefly on CNN so angry he seemed to be about to cry. You would have thought Palladino called for having Ron and his gay friends hanged in Times Square.
Another divisive issue is immigration and the Arizona law. Again, what Arizona did I don't consider controversial at all. They merely passed a law permitting local law enforcement to assist in identifying and holding people here illegally and holding them for ICE processing.
I saw a panel of regular folks arguing about that, and as with the gay issue, those on the pro-illegal side of the argument were extremely angry and hostile to Arizona and the others in the room on the other side.
Is it really necessary for me to go into the simple truth of each issue?
Gay rights are not about the "right" for gay people to love whomever they choose, which is a silly statement clearly designed to obscure the issue. It's about benefits. The basic question here is whether I should be forced to submit my tax dollars to provide government benefits to homosexual partners.
Since my moral equivalence is not between gay couples and married couples, but between the gay lifestyle and Tiger Woods' skirt-chasing lifestyle, my answer is no.
Supporters of rights for illegal aliens contend that they're hard workers, and are only here illegally because it's too hard to obtain legal immigration approval. The basic question isn't whether illegals work hard or want a better life; it's about whether or not we choose to uphold our country's laws and secure the border.
Our choice is to either open up the borders for everyone and stop trying to enforce the law, or to seal the border and solve the problem once and for all. My answer is solve the problem.
Palladino apparently has a reputation for being very non-PC. Will this anti-PC comment lose him the election? In deep blue New York, perhaps. Politically, he probably shouldn't have said it. But his honesty is sort of refreshing for a politician.
I just heard Palladino was apologizing for his comments. That's too bad. Apologizing would seem to mean he's had a change of heart on the matter. It won't win over anybody he's apologizing to - they will reject the apology as politically expedient. So it doesn't seem like a productive response.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Defining Evil
Channel surfing in the hotel room, I picked up on the current political story about campaign funding. The Democrats, led by the President and Vice President, have gone after Carl Rove and the Chamber of Commerce, suggesting that they have raised millions to support Republican candidates from questionable sources.
I've noticed that when a party or candidate is having trouble attracting enough support to keep their office, they will typically turn to demonization of their opponent. I suppose if they can make everyone think the other guy is worse, the people will either reluctantly vote their way once more, or just stay home.
It's rather unseemly for the President and Vice President to drop down into the mud. I don't recall this degree of raw partisanship from any President, at least as long as I've been paying attention.
It's also more than a little dishonest for the President to decry the big money going to Republicans from oil companies and Wall Street, when he was elected with big money from George Soros, trial lawyers, unions, and quite possibly Chinese "bundlers" (they caught one spreading Chinese cash around for Hillary in 2008, but we never heard much about that case).
From my side of the political spectrum, I have to admit at least a suspicion of evil about certain characters. My jailhouse lineup would be headlined by Barney Frank, and include Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, and Alan Grayson.
Although I would quietly celebrate if Nancy Pelosi loses her gavel, I don't actually put her in the murderer's row above. Not because she's not guilty - she certainly is; but my impression is that she really believes in what she's been doing. From my perspective, she is terribly dangerous not because she's corrupt per se (although she certainly may be corrupt); but because she's clueless and immensely powerful.
I also don't necessarily consider the President evil. I'm appalled by his callous attitudes toward abortion, including partial-birth abortion. And I am suspicious that he may have a supremely corrupt motive in pushing Cap & Trade. But I also think he truly believes in a socialist/communist utopia. Simply reading his biography makes that abundantly clear; his parents, his education, his Chicago cronies, his mentors, all are far-left socialist/communists. I'm not convinced he even knows or understands the perspective of anyone right of center.
Evil or not, we should begin right now as a country holding our politicians to the highest standards. We should not overlook corruption simply because the corrupt politician happens to belong to the correct party. We must never again permit our representatives to sell themselves to the highest bidder.
All that requires paying attention. Many more folks are starting to pay attention now, because they're feeling the pain of government malfeasance. The only way we can avoid the next meltdown is to shut down any possibility that such malfeasance can ever happen again.
I've noticed that when a party or candidate is having trouble attracting enough support to keep their office, they will typically turn to demonization of their opponent. I suppose if they can make everyone think the other guy is worse, the people will either reluctantly vote their way once more, or just stay home.
It's rather unseemly for the President and Vice President to drop down into the mud. I don't recall this degree of raw partisanship from any President, at least as long as I've been paying attention.
It's also more than a little dishonest for the President to decry the big money going to Republicans from oil companies and Wall Street, when he was elected with big money from George Soros, trial lawyers, unions, and quite possibly Chinese "bundlers" (they caught one spreading Chinese cash around for Hillary in 2008, but we never heard much about that case).
From my side of the political spectrum, I have to admit at least a suspicion of evil about certain characters. My jailhouse lineup would be headlined by Barney Frank, and include Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, and Alan Grayson.
Although I would quietly celebrate if Nancy Pelosi loses her gavel, I don't actually put her in the murderer's row above. Not because she's not guilty - she certainly is; but my impression is that she really believes in what she's been doing. From my perspective, she is terribly dangerous not because she's corrupt per se (although she certainly may be corrupt); but because she's clueless and immensely powerful.
I also don't necessarily consider the President evil. I'm appalled by his callous attitudes toward abortion, including partial-birth abortion. And I am suspicious that he may have a supremely corrupt motive in pushing Cap & Trade. But I also think he truly believes in a socialist/communist utopia. Simply reading his biography makes that abundantly clear; his parents, his education, his Chicago cronies, his mentors, all are far-left socialist/communists. I'm not convinced he even knows or understands the perspective of anyone right of center.
Evil or not, we should begin right now as a country holding our politicians to the highest standards. We should not overlook corruption simply because the corrupt politician happens to belong to the correct party. We must never again permit our representatives to sell themselves to the highest bidder.
All that requires paying attention. Many more folks are starting to pay attention now, because they're feeling the pain of government malfeasance. The only way we can avoid the next meltdown is to shut down any possibility that such malfeasance can ever happen again.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Choices
In less than a month to the elections, it seems likely that most folks are already settled on their candidates. As far as I can tell from everything I've read, the difference is likely to come down to turnout.
The energized conservative base can't wait to vote against all that's happened over the last two years. Many independents didn't get what they thought they were voting for two years ago. The core liberal base will turn out for their candidates even though they're unhappy for different reasons.
Even though it typically makes me nauseous, I've been checking out the left-wing messages to try to find out what they're thinking. Like conservatives, they're upset with the Democrats who have been in charge for two years. Unlike conservatives, their unhappiness isn't about what the Democrats have done, but what they have failed to do over that time.
CNN likes to have left-wing commentators on to speculate about those weird Tea Party folks, as if they're some sort of isolated tribe. Following their tradition, I've set out to try to understand who these Democrat activists are, and what it is they want.
Here's what I think I've learned.
The Left Wing has a vision of their ideal America that looks something like this:
They don't like ObamaCare, but want Medicare for everybody. Basically nationalize the system and insure everybody under Medicare. (Interestingly, in some ways I actually think that would have been better than the awful boondoggle of ObamaCare)
They believe the rich became so at the expense of the poor. In their world, a rich person in some way stole their money from poor people. Strangely, they generally seem to exempt politicians, pro athletes, trial lawyers, union bosses, entertainers, and George Soros.
Their definition of freedom is abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy, legal weed, and government benefits for gay couples. At the same time they have no problem with banning firearms, dictating what we are allowed to eat or drive, and banning Christianity completely.
They think national security is irrelevant. If we're just nice to our enemies, they'll be our friends. The military is evil, but maybe if they repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", maybe they'll be just a little less evil. As long as they recruit plenty of openly gay folks and illegal immigrants then never send them anywhere they might possibly come under fire.
They don't understand why we can't just open up the borders and let everyone in who wants to come. And those who are already here illegally are just ordinary people looking for a better life, right? So we should just let them become citizens, and just make sure they are registered to vote, as long as they promise to pull the Democrat lever.
Their definition of fairness is that if somebody (other than the exempt groups I mentioned earlier) makes more than they do, the government must confiscate it and give it to them.
More simply stated, the average Democrat votes for whomever they believe will deliver the most goodies. It's all about them, and (insert expletive of your choice) everybody else. (By the way, have you ever noticed that Democrats have filthy mouths?)
That's why this election is so important. I just haven't figured out whether there are enough folks left who understand that and will show up to vote accordingly.
The energized conservative base can't wait to vote against all that's happened over the last two years. Many independents didn't get what they thought they were voting for two years ago. The core liberal base will turn out for their candidates even though they're unhappy for different reasons.
Even though it typically makes me nauseous, I've been checking out the left-wing messages to try to find out what they're thinking. Like conservatives, they're upset with the Democrats who have been in charge for two years. Unlike conservatives, their unhappiness isn't about what the Democrats have done, but what they have failed to do over that time.
CNN likes to have left-wing commentators on to speculate about those weird Tea Party folks, as if they're some sort of isolated tribe. Following their tradition, I've set out to try to understand who these Democrat activists are, and what it is they want.
Here's what I think I've learned.
The Left Wing has a vision of their ideal America that looks something like this:
They don't like ObamaCare, but want Medicare for everybody. Basically nationalize the system and insure everybody under Medicare. (Interestingly, in some ways I actually think that would have been better than the awful boondoggle of ObamaCare)
They believe the rich became so at the expense of the poor. In their world, a rich person in some way stole their money from poor people. Strangely, they generally seem to exempt politicians, pro athletes, trial lawyers, union bosses, entertainers, and George Soros.
Their definition of freedom is abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy, legal weed, and government benefits for gay couples. At the same time they have no problem with banning firearms, dictating what we are allowed to eat or drive, and banning Christianity completely.
They think national security is irrelevant. If we're just nice to our enemies, they'll be our friends. The military is evil, but maybe if they repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", maybe they'll be just a little less evil. As long as they recruit plenty of openly gay folks and illegal immigrants then never send them anywhere they might possibly come under fire.
They don't understand why we can't just open up the borders and let everyone in who wants to come. And those who are already here illegally are just ordinary people looking for a better life, right? So we should just let them become citizens, and just make sure they are registered to vote, as long as they promise to pull the Democrat lever.
Their definition of fairness is that if somebody (other than the exempt groups I mentioned earlier) makes more than they do, the government must confiscate it and give it to them.
More simply stated, the average Democrat votes for whomever they believe will deliver the most goodies. It's all about them, and (insert expletive of your choice) everybody else. (By the way, have you ever noticed that Democrats have filthy mouths?)
That's why this election is so important. I just haven't figured out whether there are enough folks left who understand that and will show up to vote accordingly.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
What Makes a Good Year?
Going into October, I did a quick projection for 2010. And it would appear this may be the best year since I became an independent businessman. At least in terms of gross revenue.
It got me thinking, was this a good year?
The earnings haven't made a difference in my life in any way I can identify. I suppose it's helped me cover the spiking healthcare expenses and some home repairs, which were all just things that were needed regardless.
I haven't spent anything on myself. Actually, I've been hoarding cash like a miser because it's scary to watch the overall economy tank.
There hasn't been much free time, because of course I can't have a great earnings year without working. And I've been working much harder than normal this year. Summer went past and I barely noticed.
That hoard of cash (don't get any ideas that it's such a big hoard, because it's not) is going to have to take a really big hit, because I also just realized I'm going to have to send a major percentage of it to the government this month or they'll be coming after me. So even that's not such a great thing.
It seems I should feel great about my successful business year.
Instead I feel guilty.
Guilty for failing to appreciate being busy when so many are out of work.
Guilty for being absent.
Guilty for losing track of what's really important.
Maybe I need to force a break in my work schedule to re-evaluate. Or should I just toughen up, keep making hay while the sun shines, and put enough back to relax when the tough times hit?
It got me thinking, was this a good year?
The earnings haven't made a difference in my life in any way I can identify. I suppose it's helped me cover the spiking healthcare expenses and some home repairs, which were all just things that were needed regardless.
I haven't spent anything on myself. Actually, I've been hoarding cash like a miser because it's scary to watch the overall economy tank.
There hasn't been much free time, because of course I can't have a great earnings year without working. And I've been working much harder than normal this year. Summer went past and I barely noticed.
That hoard of cash (don't get any ideas that it's such a big hoard, because it's not) is going to have to take a really big hit, because I also just realized I'm going to have to send a major percentage of it to the government this month or they'll be coming after me. So even that's not such a great thing.
It seems I should feel great about my successful business year.
Instead I feel guilty.
Guilty for failing to appreciate being busy when so many are out of work.
Guilty for being absent.
Guilty for losing track of what's really important.
Maybe I need to force a break in my work schedule to re-evaluate. Or should I just toughen up, keep making hay while the sun shines, and put enough back to relax when the tough times hit?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Balanced News
On a rare occasion, I took in the Fox News Sunday program this weekend. For those who would claim Fox News is merely the conservative opposite of MSNBC, Chris Wallace proved that false; at least when it comes to Sunday shows.
Wallace had Boehner on to talk about their newly released outline of promises if the GOP gets returned to power. He was tough on Boehner, asking good questions that Boehner mostly ducked.
Then he had on the Democrat Hoyer, and proceeded to ask him equally tough questions. And of course got Democrat talking points in return.
So neither really answered the questions; Boehner ducked them and Hoyer prevaricated.
The panel discussion was balanced with representatives of both sides of the political divide, which was actually fairly interesting.
It's simply wrong to suggest Fox is the same as MSNBC, just the other side of the same coin. MSNBC is populated with certifiable crazies and offers little to no balance. Every Fox program, except maybe Beck, brings on people to express both sides of most every issue. (And Beck's program is really not comparable to anything anywhere else)
Wallace should have a higher profile. I want someone who doesn't take sides, and asks tough questions that need to be asked no matter who comes in.
We can learn from that.
Wallace had Boehner on to talk about their newly released outline of promises if the GOP gets returned to power. He was tough on Boehner, asking good questions that Boehner mostly ducked.
Then he had on the Democrat Hoyer, and proceeded to ask him equally tough questions. And of course got Democrat talking points in return.
So neither really answered the questions; Boehner ducked them and Hoyer prevaricated.
The panel discussion was balanced with representatives of both sides of the political divide, which was actually fairly interesting.
It's simply wrong to suggest Fox is the same as MSNBC, just the other side of the same coin. MSNBC is populated with certifiable crazies and offers little to no balance. Every Fox program, except maybe Beck, brings on people to express both sides of most every issue. (And Beck's program is really not comparable to anything anywhere else)
Wallace should have a higher profile. I want someone who doesn't take sides, and asks tough questions that need to be asked no matter who comes in.
We can learn from that.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Missing the Point
It seems like most everybody's missing the point. It's sort of disappointing, because those missing the point are the ones who are being hurt most by everything that's happening.
What point am I talking about?
Well, primarily it's morality. But it's also common sense.
What's better for everyone -
Being sensitive to gay people's feelings or securing the country against its enemies?
Rewarding and honoring those who behave irresponsibly and neglect the next generation, or rewarding the nuclear family, from which come the most responsible and productive citizens?
Confiscating hard-earned dollars from people who work to give it to people who dont?
Disrespecting Christians and making sure all our students are converted to the religion of Atheism, or honoring our First Amendment freedoms that built the foundation of solid families and honorable citizens?
Trying to impose goverment control over every aspect of our lives, including what we can eat, drive, where we live, and what we can do with our own property; or giving us the freedom to live our lives as we choose without bureaucratic interference?
Are business people to be regarded as greedy money-grubbers who abuse the poor, or the engine of a vibrant economy who need to be encouraged to innovate and expand?
Hasn't anybody these days read anything about the fall of the Roman Empire? History is indeed repeating itself.
What point am I talking about?
Well, primarily it's morality. But it's also common sense.
What's better for everyone -
Being sensitive to gay people's feelings or securing the country against its enemies?
Rewarding and honoring those who behave irresponsibly and neglect the next generation, or rewarding the nuclear family, from which come the most responsible and productive citizens?
Confiscating hard-earned dollars from people who work to give it to people who dont?
Disrespecting Christians and making sure all our students are converted to the religion of Atheism, or honoring our First Amendment freedoms that built the foundation of solid families and honorable citizens?
Trying to impose goverment control over every aspect of our lives, including what we can eat, drive, where we live, and what we can do with our own property; or giving us the freedom to live our lives as we choose without bureaucratic interference?
Are business people to be regarded as greedy money-grubbers who abuse the poor, or the engine of a vibrant economy who need to be encouraged to innovate and expand?
Hasn't anybody these days read anything about the fall of the Roman Empire? History is indeed repeating itself.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Poison Pills in Politics
Harry Reid used a cynical and obvious ploy his position as Senate Majority Leader permits to stuff unrelated poison pills into the Defense Authorization Bill. The DREAM Act and repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.
Harry knows he's going to lose if he can't figure out a way to energize the Democrat base. So his desperate attempt to prod gays and hispanics to the Nevada polls is an example of why people across the country are sick of the process.
Unfortunately, Indiana's own Dick Lugar is a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which serves as further evidence that Lugar is out of touch. It seems he's either been in Washington so long that he doesn't even know how folks in Indiana think anymore, or he's old and senile and his office is being run by insider Washington staffers who couldn't find Indiana on a map.
The DREAM Act is merely a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants combined with financial benefits for their offspring. An aspect that would seem to be unpalatable to Liberals and Conservatives alike is the promise it makes to illegals who sign up for the military.
"Hey, illegal immigrant, want a chance to become an American citizen? Go fight in Afghanistan for a few years, and you've got it!"
Then of course it forces the dwindling numbers of us who still pay taxes to cover college tuition for illegals.
Who supports this law actually? Maybe just those who don't know about it?
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a Clinton-era policy that represented a compromise. Prior to that policy, the military simply would not allow homosexuals to serve. It's perhaps a simple way of avoiding the obvious problems that can happen with a bunch of guys in close quarters and in combat.
Gays have been pushing in the years since to repeal the policy, because they want to be allowed to serve in the military and be open about their orientation. I don't really understand why, since acting out sexually in the military, no matter what your orientation, will get you busted and dishonorably discharged if it continues.
My reading of the current military practice of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is pretty loose. The military won't discharge those they know are homosexual unless the individual happens to be flamboyantly or militantly so. Which seems practical to me in an organization where teamwork and unit cohesiveness is life-and-death.
What disappoints me about both of these issues is that there were Republicans who would have supported them, and all but two Democrats went on record for them. That's abusive to the general public.
Harry knows he's going to lose if he can't figure out a way to energize the Democrat base. So his desperate attempt to prod gays and hispanics to the Nevada polls is an example of why people across the country are sick of the process.
Unfortunately, Indiana's own Dick Lugar is a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which serves as further evidence that Lugar is out of touch. It seems he's either been in Washington so long that he doesn't even know how folks in Indiana think anymore, or he's old and senile and his office is being run by insider Washington staffers who couldn't find Indiana on a map.
The DREAM Act is merely a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants combined with financial benefits for their offspring. An aspect that would seem to be unpalatable to Liberals and Conservatives alike is the promise it makes to illegals who sign up for the military.
"Hey, illegal immigrant, want a chance to become an American citizen? Go fight in Afghanistan for a few years, and you've got it!"
Then of course it forces the dwindling numbers of us who still pay taxes to cover college tuition for illegals.
Who supports this law actually? Maybe just those who don't know about it?
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a Clinton-era policy that represented a compromise. Prior to that policy, the military simply would not allow homosexuals to serve. It's perhaps a simple way of avoiding the obvious problems that can happen with a bunch of guys in close quarters and in combat.
Gays have been pushing in the years since to repeal the policy, because they want to be allowed to serve in the military and be open about their orientation. I don't really understand why, since acting out sexually in the military, no matter what your orientation, will get you busted and dishonorably discharged if it continues.
My reading of the current military practice of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is pretty loose. The military won't discharge those they know are homosexual unless the individual happens to be flamboyantly or militantly so. Which seems practical to me in an organization where teamwork and unit cohesiveness is life-and-death.
What disappoints me about both of these issues is that there were Republicans who would have supported them, and all but two Democrats went on record for them. That's abusive to the general public.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Popularity Double Standard
In the wake of the political earthquake of the Delaware Senate Primary, I've been noticing a pretty amazing double-standard when it comes to female politicians.
We all know how much the Left despises Sarah Palin. The list of hated conservative women is growing to include Sharon Angle in Nevada and now Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. What's somewhat new is the anger being shown by GOP establishment types who have openly derided the young lady who knocked the old man from Washington out of the race.
O'Donnell isn't the first insurgent Tea Party candidate to unseat a party favorite. We only need to look at the very recent result in Alaska, where a new guy named Joe Miller dumped the incumbent Lisa Murkowski. Miller hasn't received the vitriol from the party leaders.
OK, so Miller's going to win the Alaska seat unless something truly horrible surfaces about him. O'Donnell will supposedly need a miracle to get Joe Biden's old seat in deep blue Delaware. Point made.
But what's beginning to show is a sort of sexism. What is the biggest complaint of those who don't like O'Donnell, Palin, and Angle? They're all painted as airheads. Dumb blondes (even though as far as I can tell, only Angle is actually guilty of being blonde). Unserious thinkers.
Why is it that the stupid charge only applies to conservative female candidates?
When's the last time you heard the Speaker of the House say anything remotely intelligent? And to be fair to both sexes, might I also place into evidence the Vice President?
I didn't really know the name Christine O'Donnell until a couple of weeks ago, and it would be unfair to offer any opinion on her mental capacity. Same holds for Angle.
Palin is an undeniable force in this political season, something you have to credit, which seems to give at least some lie to the stupid charge.
Here's my working theory on how O'Donnell might actually pull out a win and give the party establishment their wish, making Mitch McConnell the Senate Majority Leader:
O'Donnell's campaign reportedly got over a million dollars immediately after she won the primary. She's energized not only Tea Party folks, but also people across the country who find it refreshing that a regular person was able to break through the wall for a nomination in spite of the establishment.
She's running against a guy who calls himself "The Bearded Marxist". Even in Delaware, I would be surprised if even the blue Democrats would be comfortable pulling a lever from an avowed Marxist.
First, the energized conservative base in Delaware, plus "moderates" who sort of like the idea of an insurgent candidate, turn out big on election day.
Second, the soft and disgruntled Left and the left-leaning folks who don't like O'Donnell, but aren't enamored with the bearded Marxist either, just stay home.
Not only in Delaware can this happen, but also in Nevada, and California, and Washington, and in many other races that currently are polling somewhere between "Toss-Up" and "Leans Democrat".
Which means that if O'Donnell wins that seat, I think every other federal congressional office within shouting distance also tips Republican.
We'll see.
We all know how much the Left despises Sarah Palin. The list of hated conservative women is growing to include Sharon Angle in Nevada and now Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. What's somewhat new is the anger being shown by GOP establishment types who have openly derided the young lady who knocked the old man from Washington out of the race.
O'Donnell isn't the first insurgent Tea Party candidate to unseat a party favorite. We only need to look at the very recent result in Alaska, where a new guy named Joe Miller dumped the incumbent Lisa Murkowski. Miller hasn't received the vitriol from the party leaders.
OK, so Miller's going to win the Alaska seat unless something truly horrible surfaces about him. O'Donnell will supposedly need a miracle to get Joe Biden's old seat in deep blue Delaware. Point made.
But what's beginning to show is a sort of sexism. What is the biggest complaint of those who don't like O'Donnell, Palin, and Angle? They're all painted as airheads. Dumb blondes (even though as far as I can tell, only Angle is actually guilty of being blonde). Unserious thinkers.
Why is it that the stupid charge only applies to conservative female candidates?
When's the last time you heard the Speaker of the House say anything remotely intelligent? And to be fair to both sexes, might I also place into evidence the Vice President?
I didn't really know the name Christine O'Donnell until a couple of weeks ago, and it would be unfair to offer any opinion on her mental capacity. Same holds for Angle.
Palin is an undeniable force in this political season, something you have to credit, which seems to give at least some lie to the stupid charge.
Here's my working theory on how O'Donnell might actually pull out a win and give the party establishment their wish, making Mitch McConnell the Senate Majority Leader:
O'Donnell's campaign reportedly got over a million dollars immediately after she won the primary. She's energized not only Tea Party folks, but also people across the country who find it refreshing that a regular person was able to break through the wall for a nomination in spite of the establishment.
She's running against a guy who calls himself "The Bearded Marxist". Even in Delaware, I would be surprised if even the blue Democrats would be comfortable pulling a lever from an avowed Marxist.
First, the energized conservative base in Delaware, plus "moderates" who sort of like the idea of an insurgent candidate, turn out big on election day.
Second, the soft and disgruntled Left and the left-leaning folks who don't like O'Donnell, but aren't enamored with the bearded Marxist either, just stay home.
Not only in Delaware can this happen, but also in Nevada, and California, and Washington, and in many other races that currently are polling somewhere between "Toss-Up" and "Leans Democrat".
Which means that if O'Donnell wins that seat, I think every other federal congressional office within shouting distance also tips Republican.
We'll see.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Debating Ideological Purity
The biggest arguments Republicans are having with each other these days is focused on the Delaware Senate Primary. It happens to be the race to choose a senator that will take Joe Biden's place.
The argument is about ideological purity, and I find it fascinating.
Should conservatives go ahead and vote through the veteran lawmaker Mike Castle, who most believe would win Biden't seat easily, or vote for the "true conservative" and Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, who the Republican establishment in Delaware have been trying to discredit ostensibly because she can't win?
It would seem that Castle would idealogically fall somewhere between the two ladies from Maine and Alen Specter, which naturally causes conservatives lots of heartburn. Castle might sink a hoped-for Republican ascendancy to the majority in the Senate by aligning himself with the Democrats on key legislative issues such as national healthcare and cap & trade.
Republican muckety-mucks say it's better to have a "moderate" Castle in the Senate as perhaps the seat that tips the scale for the GOP than to lose the seat, and thus the majority, by nominating O'Donnell.
O'Donnell supporters insist she is eminently electable, and decry the smears against her from her own party establishment as sexist and perhaps even driven a bit by corrupt motives. Delaware may be a Blue State, but the voters already know the Democrat candidate as a big-time tax & spend guy, and are ready to choose a new direction, they claim.
I'm not from Delaware, nor can I say I even know anybody from Delaware. So I can't make any judgements at all about the character, ideology, or electability of either candidate versus the Democrat. But given a choice between a RINO that hands the Senate Majority over to the GOP and a True-Blue Conservative that may end up losing to the Democrat, I'd say it's a tough call.
But I expect if I were voting in Delaware's primary, I'd probably go for the fresh blood and let the chips fall where they may.
The argument is about ideological purity, and I find it fascinating.
Should conservatives go ahead and vote through the veteran lawmaker Mike Castle, who most believe would win Biden't seat easily, or vote for the "true conservative" and Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, who the Republican establishment in Delaware have been trying to discredit ostensibly because she can't win?
It would seem that Castle would idealogically fall somewhere between the two ladies from Maine and Alen Specter, which naturally causes conservatives lots of heartburn. Castle might sink a hoped-for Republican ascendancy to the majority in the Senate by aligning himself with the Democrats on key legislative issues such as national healthcare and cap & trade.
Republican muckety-mucks say it's better to have a "moderate" Castle in the Senate as perhaps the seat that tips the scale for the GOP than to lose the seat, and thus the majority, by nominating O'Donnell.
O'Donnell supporters insist she is eminently electable, and decry the smears against her from her own party establishment as sexist and perhaps even driven a bit by corrupt motives. Delaware may be a Blue State, but the voters already know the Democrat candidate as a big-time tax & spend guy, and are ready to choose a new direction, they claim.
I'm not from Delaware, nor can I say I even know anybody from Delaware. So I can't make any judgements at all about the character, ideology, or electability of either candidate versus the Democrat. But given a choice between a RINO that hands the Senate Majority over to the GOP and a True-Blue Conservative that may end up losing to the Democrat, I'd say it's a tough call.
But I expect if I were voting in Delaware's primary, I'd probably go for the fresh blood and let the chips fall where they may.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Delusion as Policy
The irony of today's headlines side-by-side is striking. One is about Obama's pleading with everyone to separate Islamic terrorism from the Islamic faith, while the other is about the number of people who died in violent protests over the cancelled Quran-burning event in Florida.
Is Obama practicing an official policy of delusion, when he proclaims all followers of the Prophet Mohammed to be peaceful in the face of such extreme reactions over a non-protest by a hayseed in Florida?
His delusion seems evident in all of his related policies. Iran is moving their nuclear weapons program forward at an accelerated pace while they perceive the weak American president will do nothing to stop them. While the President begs them to negotiate, they proclaim their peaceful intentions while the nuclear bombs are being constructed in plain sight. And for all the President's rhetoric, they must be stunned at his naivete.
He badgers Netanyahu and Abbas to agree to talk, even though there is no way either can or will be able to achieve even minimal progress on Israeli/Palestinian peace. Abbas is a weak leader over a people who are largely committed to the utter and complete destruction of the State of Israel, even if Israel gives them all of Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel's last unilateral concession toward peace, when they abandoned much of Gaza to the Palestinians, was repaid by daily rocket and mortar attacks across the border.
The official delusion is that anything at all can be accomplished through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The only available solution to the problem is an imposed solution. It would require cooperation, or at least acquiescence, of Israel's neighbors. It would require an end to the arming and financing of Hamas from Iran and the Saudis. It would require a permanent multinational force protecting Israel from Palestinian terrorism with an iron fist.
That won't happen.
If the President has any desire at all to put substance ahead of style, he should be working hard to win the support of as many countries as possible toward forcing the Palestinians into negotiations that include guarantees backed by the military might of the world that will protect Israel from attack in exchange for granting a permanent Palestinian State with clearly defined borders and no chance of ever attacking their Israeli neighbors.
Otherwise, the only thing America can do, or maybe should do, is continue to support Israel with the means to defend itself. And keep working on Israel's neighbors, using America's markets as the carrot and allies as the implied stick, to achieve the cooperation needed to move the region toward a hoped-for future peace.
But a delusional President may be incapable of practical solutions to problems.
Is Obama practicing an official policy of delusion, when he proclaims all followers of the Prophet Mohammed to be peaceful in the face of such extreme reactions over a non-protest by a hayseed in Florida?
His delusion seems evident in all of his related policies. Iran is moving their nuclear weapons program forward at an accelerated pace while they perceive the weak American president will do nothing to stop them. While the President begs them to negotiate, they proclaim their peaceful intentions while the nuclear bombs are being constructed in plain sight. And for all the President's rhetoric, they must be stunned at his naivete.
He badgers Netanyahu and Abbas to agree to talk, even though there is no way either can or will be able to achieve even minimal progress on Israeli/Palestinian peace. Abbas is a weak leader over a people who are largely committed to the utter and complete destruction of the State of Israel, even if Israel gives them all of Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel's last unilateral concession toward peace, when they abandoned much of Gaza to the Palestinians, was repaid by daily rocket and mortar attacks across the border.
The official delusion is that anything at all can be accomplished through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The only available solution to the problem is an imposed solution. It would require cooperation, or at least acquiescence, of Israel's neighbors. It would require an end to the arming and financing of Hamas from Iran and the Saudis. It would require a permanent multinational force protecting Israel from Palestinian terrorism with an iron fist.
That won't happen.
If the President has any desire at all to put substance ahead of style, he should be working hard to win the support of as many countries as possible toward forcing the Palestinians into negotiations that include guarantees backed by the military might of the world that will protect Israel from attack in exchange for granting a permanent Palestinian State with clearly defined borders and no chance of ever attacking their Israeli neighbors.
Otherwise, the only thing America can do, or maybe should do, is continue to support Israel with the means to defend itself. And keep working on Israel's neighbors, using America's markets as the carrot and allies as the implied stick, to achieve the cooperation needed to move the region toward a hoped-for future peace.
But a delusional President may be incapable of practical solutions to problems.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
I didn't want to comment on this, but ...
Once again I find myself with a completely different take on the Quran (Koran) burning preacher than all the silly pundits who have so badly overexposed the story.
First of all, why did the pastor from Florida with a congregation reported to be around 50 even make the local news? He represents pretty much nobody outside his little congregation, and if the 50 number was ever accurate, I can't help but wonder if all the negative publicity has trimmed it down to 5.
On the other hand, if his point was to expose the silliness of the arguments about the Ground Zero Mosque, just maybe he might be brilliant. The whole mosque argument is about the perception that the Muslims behind it's intention is to rub 9/11 in the faces of the country by building a big place named after the Cordoba Mosque (see my earlier post on the history of the Cordoba Mosque). The Left, who are notorious for blocking anything Christians want to do, suddenly find an opportunity to demonstrate their tolerance and peaceful intentions by campaigning in favor of the mosque and wagging their fingers at those who find the act of building the mosque and opening it on the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 provocative and disrespectful.
Now the same folks are challenged by this little hayseed pastor from Florida to step up and show their boundless tolerance and understanding when he decides to perform his own public spectacle with the Quran burning event this 9/11. Am I the only one who sees this stunning inconsistency? It doesn't take too much of a brain to see the hypocrisy.
I have to wonder if the pastor has something surprising in mind. Maybe when Saturday rolls around and all the cameras gather to record his symbolic event to return insult for insult, he will suddenly pull a switch and find a great way to convey a different message. Something that expresses to the world the fact that Muslims can wreak all the murder and mayhem they like, but Christians will continue to pray for them and demonstrate the contrast between radical Muslims' interpretation of Mohammed's teachings and the incontrovertable teachings of Jesus the Christ.
I suspect such a changeup will enrage the media who show up to cover the event even more than the Muslims who don't need any help being enraged.
First of all, why did the pastor from Florida with a congregation reported to be around 50 even make the local news? He represents pretty much nobody outside his little congregation, and if the 50 number was ever accurate, I can't help but wonder if all the negative publicity has trimmed it down to 5.
On the other hand, if his point was to expose the silliness of the arguments about the Ground Zero Mosque, just maybe he might be brilliant. The whole mosque argument is about the perception that the Muslims behind it's intention is to rub 9/11 in the faces of the country by building a big place named after the Cordoba Mosque (see my earlier post on the history of the Cordoba Mosque). The Left, who are notorious for blocking anything Christians want to do, suddenly find an opportunity to demonstrate their tolerance and peaceful intentions by campaigning in favor of the mosque and wagging their fingers at those who find the act of building the mosque and opening it on the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 provocative and disrespectful.
Now the same folks are challenged by this little hayseed pastor from Florida to step up and show their boundless tolerance and understanding when he decides to perform his own public spectacle with the Quran burning event this 9/11. Am I the only one who sees this stunning inconsistency? It doesn't take too much of a brain to see the hypocrisy.
I have to wonder if the pastor has something surprising in mind. Maybe when Saturday rolls around and all the cameras gather to record his symbolic event to return insult for insult, he will suddenly pull a switch and find a great way to convey a different message. Something that expresses to the world the fact that Muslims can wreak all the murder and mayhem they like, but Christians will continue to pray for them and demonstrate the contrast between radical Muslims' interpretation of Mohammed's teachings and the incontrovertable teachings of Jesus the Christ.
I suspect such a changeup will enrage the media who show up to cover the event even more than the Muslims who don't need any help being enraged.
Football Season
Just in time for the first games in the NFL, it's time to do my annual prognostication.
Will the Colts find their way back to the Super Bowl this year, fall short once again, or just be an also-ran?
First of all, we know Peyton Manning simply won't allow them to be a bad team. But neither can he win a Super Bowl all by himself.
Peyton has some pretty good depth around him at wide receiver and tight end, and even injuries to the starters at those positions shouldn't hurt the team much. Of course, a season-ending injury to Peyton would be disastrous.
Preseason games seemed to suggest to me that Brandstater might be a slightly better backup QB than Curtis Painter, but Painter held on to the clipboard-toting job. Past history has shown Peyton's perhaps the most durable QB in the game, so the odds are pretty good that he'll be there for the season.
The question on offense is the O-Line. Even without the injury bug to linemen in the preseason, there are lots of questions about whether the line is good enough. None of the injuries appear to be serious, and although Jeff Saturday may not make the first game against the Texans, he should be around for most of the season.
If we see the O-Line springing Addai and Brown for lots of rushing yards, I think that's the measuring stick we can use to determine whether they're good enough. The preseason didn't give me a good feel for that question one way or the other. The Texans game this Sunday will.
Defense is supposed to be better. Again, with the Colts, it's almost impossible to judge that fact, because the Colts use preseason to evaluate players, not to polish the starters. But they would seem to be in good shape for this season, with healthy ends Freeney and Mathis and Bob Sanders back to join an already solid group of Safeties.
I haven't been sold on the linebackers the last couple of years. They have seemed susceptible to getting pancaked by blockers from teams with solid running games. The rookie linebacker from Iowa shows some promise, and we will see if the unit is stronger this year.
The interesting thing about the new season is that nobody really knows what's going to happen. A win against the Texans might have been a pretty good bet in previous years, but this year the Texans look like a better team. I can't say I would be surprised if the Texans were able to beat the Colts in game 1. Disappointed, sure, but not surprised.
That's why we watch.
Will the Colts find their way back to the Super Bowl this year, fall short once again, or just be an also-ran?
First of all, we know Peyton Manning simply won't allow them to be a bad team. But neither can he win a Super Bowl all by himself.
Peyton has some pretty good depth around him at wide receiver and tight end, and even injuries to the starters at those positions shouldn't hurt the team much. Of course, a season-ending injury to Peyton would be disastrous.
Preseason games seemed to suggest to me that Brandstater might be a slightly better backup QB than Curtis Painter, but Painter held on to the clipboard-toting job. Past history has shown Peyton's perhaps the most durable QB in the game, so the odds are pretty good that he'll be there for the season.
The question on offense is the O-Line. Even without the injury bug to linemen in the preseason, there are lots of questions about whether the line is good enough. None of the injuries appear to be serious, and although Jeff Saturday may not make the first game against the Texans, he should be around for most of the season.
If we see the O-Line springing Addai and Brown for lots of rushing yards, I think that's the measuring stick we can use to determine whether they're good enough. The preseason didn't give me a good feel for that question one way or the other. The Texans game this Sunday will.
Defense is supposed to be better. Again, with the Colts, it's almost impossible to judge that fact, because the Colts use preseason to evaluate players, not to polish the starters. But they would seem to be in good shape for this season, with healthy ends Freeney and Mathis and Bob Sanders back to join an already solid group of Safeties.
I haven't been sold on the linebackers the last couple of years. They have seemed susceptible to getting pancaked by blockers from teams with solid running games. The rookie linebacker from Iowa shows some promise, and we will see if the unit is stronger this year.
The interesting thing about the new season is that nobody really knows what's going to happen. A win against the Texans might have been a pretty good bet in previous years, but this year the Texans look like a better team. I can't say I would be surprised if the Texans were able to beat the Colts in game 1. Disappointed, sure, but not surprised.
That's why we watch.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Let Me Explain
Just in my own way of trying another angle to somehow help more people understand what's wrong and why it's so wrong, how about an explanation?
Morality: I'm not always harping on morality because I want America to become a "Theocracy". Here's why morality is a good thing, regardless of whether you accept my brand of Religious philosophy or not:
Committed, "till death do us part" marriage between one man and one woman, produces children who are more responsible, better educated, better adjusted, and overall better contributors to American society. Promiscuity, "Alternative Lifestyles", multiple marriage and divorce, having children out of wedlock, etc., lead to children who are either killed before they even get a chance at life or are abandoned to the world while their amoral and self-absorbed parents seek their own "fulfillment".
Government: The government exists to keep invading marauders from killing us, make sure we don't kill or cheat each other, and maybe build some roads. Whenever they do more than that, they consume far more resources than they return in value, and they chip away at our personal liberty. The founding fathers had it right - the Federal Government needs to stay out of what is clearly the business of the States and Individuals.
Welfare: Charity has always done the best job of helping provide the basic necessities for the neediest among us. Government institutionalizes neediness by giving people enough to live on, so they don't have to use their own initiative to take responsibility for their own lives. The only government welfare program I could get behind is locally administered, and is strictly measured on their achievement of a primary mission: getting their clients off Welfare and into self-sufficiency.
Economy: The President and his fellow travelers have been lamenting, why are all the companies just sitting on their money? Why won't they hire some people, invest in new projects, generally help the economy get back on track?
Seriously, our super-smart President can't understand this? What business is going to make major investments in hiring new employees when they're about to get hammered with major new taxes, skyrocketing healthcare costs, skyrocketing energy costs (via Cap & Trade), and a significant increase in their marginal personal income tax rates? What, they're willing to risk bankruptcy just to help out the President?
Want to reinvigorate the economy? Just roll back everything you passed the last 2 years and cut federal spending by a trillion dollars. There ya' go.
Healthcare: Inserting the government at the top of the existing healthcare system does nothing but drive up cost and lower quality. Really want to fix healthcare? Stop trying to insure everybody for everything. Let us all pay out of pocket for everything except hospitalization, major illnesses or injuries. We can all buy our Major Medical plans in the open market, which is open to every insurance company that meets certain minimum standards and wants to compete for our business. Otherwise, we'll pay the doctor, the pharmacist, the lab with money from our own pockets - with tax-free money would be nice. For the poor and elderly who really can't afford it, they can apply for financial assistance locally, but the money goes to them and not the medical provider - even they are responsible for paying their own bills.
Immigration: Simply shut down the border. Enforce the laws and don't be so lax on people overstaying their visas. Stop letting companies import workers from abroad, whether legally or illegally, just because they think they will work harder for less money than their American-born workforce. If companies managed better, set their standards, and rewarded excellence, they will have no problem. When America returns to full employment, then we can talk about how many foreign workers we need to fill open jobs. People here illegally, first of all shouldn't have a job, because employers should have a strong disincentive to hire and keep them on the payroll. Secondly, rather than doing some massive nationwide round-up, once we've solved the border issue and the employer issue, all we have to do is send them home as we find them. Pulled over for speeding - deported. Caught selling weed - deported. Driving without a license or insurance - deported. Those that don't leave on their own will understand what's happening and mostly will go home on their own.
National Security: I like old Teddy's famous quote - "Walk softly and carry a big stick". That's a pretty good foreign policy. We simply let everybody know how great it is for them when they're our friend. And how horrible it is if they choose to be our enemy. Our friends help us and we help them in return, while our enemies find themselves surrounded by our friends and us, all carrying extremely big sticks, until they realize the error of their ways.
Get it yet?
Morality: I'm not always harping on morality because I want America to become a "Theocracy". Here's why morality is a good thing, regardless of whether you accept my brand of Religious philosophy or not:
Committed, "till death do us part" marriage between one man and one woman, produces children who are more responsible, better educated, better adjusted, and overall better contributors to American society. Promiscuity, "Alternative Lifestyles", multiple marriage and divorce, having children out of wedlock, etc., lead to children who are either killed before they even get a chance at life or are abandoned to the world while their amoral and self-absorbed parents seek their own "fulfillment".
Government: The government exists to keep invading marauders from killing us, make sure we don't kill or cheat each other, and maybe build some roads. Whenever they do more than that, they consume far more resources than they return in value, and they chip away at our personal liberty. The founding fathers had it right - the Federal Government needs to stay out of what is clearly the business of the States and Individuals.
Welfare: Charity has always done the best job of helping provide the basic necessities for the neediest among us. Government institutionalizes neediness by giving people enough to live on, so they don't have to use their own initiative to take responsibility for their own lives. The only government welfare program I could get behind is locally administered, and is strictly measured on their achievement of a primary mission: getting their clients off Welfare and into self-sufficiency.
Economy: The President and his fellow travelers have been lamenting, why are all the companies just sitting on their money? Why won't they hire some people, invest in new projects, generally help the economy get back on track?
Seriously, our super-smart President can't understand this? What business is going to make major investments in hiring new employees when they're about to get hammered with major new taxes, skyrocketing healthcare costs, skyrocketing energy costs (via Cap & Trade), and a significant increase in their marginal personal income tax rates? What, they're willing to risk bankruptcy just to help out the President?
Want to reinvigorate the economy? Just roll back everything you passed the last 2 years and cut federal spending by a trillion dollars. There ya' go.
Healthcare: Inserting the government at the top of the existing healthcare system does nothing but drive up cost and lower quality. Really want to fix healthcare? Stop trying to insure everybody for everything. Let us all pay out of pocket for everything except hospitalization, major illnesses or injuries. We can all buy our Major Medical plans in the open market, which is open to every insurance company that meets certain minimum standards and wants to compete for our business. Otherwise, we'll pay the doctor, the pharmacist, the lab with money from our own pockets - with tax-free money would be nice. For the poor and elderly who really can't afford it, they can apply for financial assistance locally, but the money goes to them and not the medical provider - even they are responsible for paying their own bills.
Immigration: Simply shut down the border. Enforce the laws and don't be so lax on people overstaying their visas. Stop letting companies import workers from abroad, whether legally or illegally, just because they think they will work harder for less money than their American-born workforce. If companies managed better, set their standards, and rewarded excellence, they will have no problem. When America returns to full employment, then we can talk about how many foreign workers we need to fill open jobs. People here illegally, first of all shouldn't have a job, because employers should have a strong disincentive to hire and keep them on the payroll. Secondly, rather than doing some massive nationwide round-up, once we've solved the border issue and the employer issue, all we have to do is send them home as we find them. Pulled over for speeding - deported. Caught selling weed - deported. Driving without a license or insurance - deported. Those that don't leave on their own will understand what's happening and mostly will go home on their own.
National Security: I like old Teddy's famous quote - "Walk softly and carry a big stick". That's a pretty good foreign policy. We simply let everybody know how great it is for them when they're our friend. And how horrible it is if they choose to be our enemy. Our friends help us and we help them in return, while our enemies find themselves surrounded by our friends and us, all carrying extremely big sticks, until they realize the error of their ways.
Get it yet?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Gathering of a Quarter Million Subversives
The fascinating result of an event in Washington that was organized by Glenn Beck caught my attention. The event was called "Restoring Honor", and was a gathering of a huge crowd in the Mall, led from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
Checking out the theme of the event, I found it studiously avoided overt political rhetoric, but rather was about returning to the values upon which our country was founded and became great. As far as I can tell, Sarah Palin was the only speaker who flirted with the political line, with some unsubtle references to the current anti-constitutional government attitudes.
The Left is apoplectic. To them, it was nothing but a large gathering of angry white racists converging on Washington to express a shared hatred of the President.
The only problem is that nobody on the stage ever even mentioned the President, aside from Sarah's indirect references.
The event seemed mostly like a Christian Revival Meeting, exhorting everyone to rediscover their roots of faith, honor, family, responsibility. To find fault with that message and use name-calling against those who attended is pretty absurd and insulting. Not to mention the horrible aspersions being cast on Martin Luther King's niece, who was a prominent speaker at the event and has been shunned and destroyed by those who consider her a traitor to her race.
The President himself showed utter disdain for these folks and everyone else who shares their values. He dismissed us all by calling us a bunch of folks ginned up by Beck, then went further in his attempt to discredit a major segment of the population with a bad joke about walking around with his birth certificate plastered to his forehead.
The event itself gives me hope that perhaps enough folks have been awakened to the the left-wing agenda enough to undo that damage in November. But it also disappoints me to see the President so clearly dismissing and attempting to marginalize so many people for simply standing up and exhorting Americans to restore the greatness through reviving our own sense of honor and morality.
It was an opportunity for him to show leadership, but he failed miserably. What if he had said, "I completely agree with those who came to Washington this weekend, that faith, family, honor, and integrity are the most important qualities of Americans. I'm all for those who would remind us of those American qualities."
But his hatred for Beck and the conservative Christian Right he is helping to awaken trumps any ability to reach out to them.
So my hope is that change happens in November, that repudiates the Obama government and gives our country at least a chance to pull ourselves out of the terrible hole we're in.
Checking out the theme of the event, I found it studiously avoided overt political rhetoric, but rather was about returning to the values upon which our country was founded and became great. As far as I can tell, Sarah Palin was the only speaker who flirted with the political line, with some unsubtle references to the current anti-constitutional government attitudes.
The Left is apoplectic. To them, it was nothing but a large gathering of angry white racists converging on Washington to express a shared hatred of the President.
The only problem is that nobody on the stage ever even mentioned the President, aside from Sarah's indirect references.
The event seemed mostly like a Christian Revival Meeting, exhorting everyone to rediscover their roots of faith, honor, family, responsibility. To find fault with that message and use name-calling against those who attended is pretty absurd and insulting. Not to mention the horrible aspersions being cast on Martin Luther King's niece, who was a prominent speaker at the event and has been shunned and destroyed by those who consider her a traitor to her race.
The President himself showed utter disdain for these folks and everyone else who shares their values. He dismissed us all by calling us a bunch of folks ginned up by Beck, then went further in his attempt to discredit a major segment of the population with a bad joke about walking around with his birth certificate plastered to his forehead.
The event itself gives me hope that perhaps enough folks have been awakened to the the left-wing agenda enough to undo that damage in November. But it also disappoints me to see the President so clearly dismissing and attempting to marginalize so many people for simply standing up and exhorting Americans to restore the greatness through reviving our own sense of honor and morality.
It was an opportunity for him to show leadership, but he failed miserably. What if he had said, "I completely agree with those who came to Washington this weekend, that faith, family, honor, and integrity are the most important qualities of Americans. I'm all for those who would remind us of those American qualities."
But his hatred for Beck and the conservative Christian Right he is helping to awaken trumps any ability to reach out to them.
So my hope is that change happens in November, that repudiates the Obama government and gives our country at least a chance to pull ourselves out of the terrible hole we're in.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A Different Perspective on Cordoba
The big flap over the so-called "Ground-Zero Mosque" has seemingly become a political fight between the oh-so-tolerant liberals and the islamophobic conservatives.
My preference is to bypass the Red/Blue civil war and get down to what I find much more interesting. And that's the fundamental questions of:
Why exactly do they want to build it there?
Why do they want to name it the "Cordoba Mosque"?
So checking out my history, it would seem that the Cordoba Mosque in the city of the same name in Spain was build in 784, after the Muslim Berbers from north Africa invaded and conquered most of the Iberian peninsula from the Christian Visigoths.
The Cordoba Mosque was built on the site of what was previously a Visigoth Christian Church in part to celebrate the victory and dominance of the Islamic kingdom and it's victory over the infidels. The mosque was an elaborate piece of architecture, expanded on over the years of Islamic domination.
The Spanish Reconquista eventually recaptured the city more than 4 centuries later, and sort of remodeled the mosque back into a beautiful cathedral.
Which has me wondering, what's the significance of naming the NYC version the "Cordoba Mosque"? It seems no explanation makes more sense than the obvious one: The Cordoba Mosque is a celebration of an Islamic victory and dominance over an infidel kingdom.
Islamists around the world would seem to agree. The Cordoba Mosque to be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero is to be a symbol of their great victory on 9-11 over the infidel American empire. It's been reported that Islamic folks everywhere are referring to it openly as a "Victory Mosque".
I wonder whether the hyper-tolerant elites who would suggest those who find this particular project offensive are, let's see, bigoted, intolerant, racist, or anti-American, are ignorant of this easily discovered historical information? Are they choosing to ignore these inconvenient facts, or denying their veracity? Or are they simply bending over backwards to accomodate those Islamists who celebrate 9-11 and are happily using their tolerance and naive pacifism against them?
I also find it rather interesting that the same folks who pride themselves so much on their tolerance toward Islam can be found campaigning to remove every vestige of Christianity from public view. I can't wait to hear that particular contradiction explained, but so far the explanation has eluded me.
Isn't it also rather strange that this Islam-embracing crowd has nothing to say about the intolerance and even violence that accompanies Sharia, while they loudly decry Christians for, say, mildly suggesting that adultery and homosexuality might be morally ill-advised? Let me get this straight - Christians are evil people for wanting to help folks find the joys of moral clarity through simple persuasion, while Islamists who will execute the same folks for the same sins are just observing a cultural practice we need to respect?
The contradictions are dizzying.
My preference is to bypass the Red/Blue civil war and get down to what I find much more interesting. And that's the fundamental questions of:
Why exactly do they want to build it there?
Why do they want to name it the "Cordoba Mosque"?
So checking out my history, it would seem that the Cordoba Mosque in the city of the same name in Spain was build in 784, after the Muslim Berbers from north Africa invaded and conquered most of the Iberian peninsula from the Christian Visigoths.
The Cordoba Mosque was built on the site of what was previously a Visigoth Christian Church in part to celebrate the victory and dominance of the Islamic kingdom and it's victory over the infidels. The mosque was an elaborate piece of architecture, expanded on over the years of Islamic domination.
The Spanish Reconquista eventually recaptured the city more than 4 centuries later, and sort of remodeled the mosque back into a beautiful cathedral.
Which has me wondering, what's the significance of naming the NYC version the "Cordoba Mosque"? It seems no explanation makes more sense than the obvious one: The Cordoba Mosque is a celebration of an Islamic victory and dominance over an infidel kingdom.
Islamists around the world would seem to agree. The Cordoba Mosque to be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero is to be a symbol of their great victory on 9-11 over the infidel American empire. It's been reported that Islamic folks everywhere are referring to it openly as a "Victory Mosque".
I wonder whether the hyper-tolerant elites who would suggest those who find this particular project offensive are, let's see, bigoted, intolerant, racist, or anti-American, are ignorant of this easily discovered historical information? Are they choosing to ignore these inconvenient facts, or denying their veracity? Or are they simply bending over backwards to accomodate those Islamists who celebrate 9-11 and are happily using their tolerance and naive pacifism against them?
I also find it rather interesting that the same folks who pride themselves so much on their tolerance toward Islam can be found campaigning to remove every vestige of Christianity from public view. I can't wait to hear that particular contradiction explained, but so far the explanation has eluded me.
Isn't it also rather strange that this Islam-embracing crowd has nothing to say about the intolerance and even violence that accompanies Sharia, while they loudly decry Christians for, say, mildly suggesting that adultery and homosexuality might be morally ill-advised? Let me get this straight - Christians are evil people for wanting to help folks find the joys of moral clarity through simple persuasion, while Islamists who will execute the same folks for the same sins are just observing a cultural practice we need to respect?
The contradictions are dizzying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)