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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?