Coarse and Ignorant

I just deleted a crude comment from one of my posts that ironically proved the point of the post. Folks like my commenter proudly wear their profane ignorance like a badge of honor. My curiosity is what exactly in that post did he (I assume it was a male based on the profanity) found so personally objectionable.

When reading through articles on the web, I often scan some of the comment postings. It's sort of shocking but fascinating to read through the coarse language used by those who disagree with the premise of the posted article. I find both ends of the political spectrum capable of some disgusting ad-hominems, but it seems to me the most profane spew from the keyboards of leftists.

A strongly-held belief of mine is that profanity is the refuge of those who lack the vocabulary to make a compelling argument. That's certainly true of the web. How many of these folks would use the same language if they were discussing an issue face-to-face? I'm guessing not many.

Indiana's bringing back the Right to Work legislation. The union left is convinced those evil Republicans are bent on forcing a return of sweatshops, rock-bottom wages and 80 hour workweeks. The business-friendly right is convinced that unions exist only to enrich the union bosses and fund Democratic Party candidates in elections.

Those who work in a vanishing union shop certainly appreciate the employee benefit packages negotiated by the unions. Who wouldn't like the extra paid time off and the Cadillac health plans?

I take the issue at face value. If you get a job with a unionized company, the new law says you can decide whether or not you want to join the union. Individual choice in such matters seems to me to be a very American value. Opponents way that people will choose not to join for the sole reason that they'll get a few bucks more in their paychecks, even though they will still be represented by the union.

I've been there as a beginning teacher. I had the choice to join the union or not, and chose not. Teacher salaries had bottomed out back in those days, and I couldn't live on the paltry salary (which is why I only taught for one year). I wasn't eligible to get union representation or assistance on any issues I might have had with the school district, but I did get to take advantage of whatever employee pay benefits the union had negotiated. I didn't believe anybody in the teacher's union had the right to brag about that pay schedule or the barely-there benefits. Mostly I just didn't think I could afford the union dues.

Posting a rude comment calling me nasty names because I don't have a problem with Right to Work isn't going to change my mind. A well crafted rebuttal explaining exactly why Right to Work is a bad idea might at least have a chance of affecting my attitude on the subject.

Looking for a Leader that Doesn't Exist

Most conservative types in the country, including me, are disappointed in the field of presidential candidates. I think I have enough insight to be able to describe that "perfect" GOP candidate.

The conservative base wants a candidate with
Michelle Bachman's energy
Mitt Romney's smoothness
Newt Gingerich's wit
Rick Santorum's integrity


They don't want Mitt because he's too liberal.
They don't want Newt because he's got way too much moral baggage.
They don't want Bachmann because she's been Palin-ized by the media.
They don't want Perry because he's not very good in debates, and is way off the reservation on illegal immigration and the forced innoculations of little girls against STD's.

Based on ideology and personal features, my guy is Rick Santorum. But nobody seems to be willing to get behind him because they think he's a loser. One pundit called him a whiner.

Romney's being pushed by the "establishment" as the only guy who can beat Obama. I'm far from sold. He seems like just another northeastern liberal, who seems only a little bit right of the president. He still says he's proud of the Massachusetts healthcare law that forces citizens to purchase insurance and has placed a very high and expensive burden on the people of that state. Obama loves to praise it as the template for his healthcare law. I don't think we should be forced to purchase insurance or any other product or service; auto insurance mandates included. (Although I think it's OK to be required to post a bond if you choose to be self-insured against automobile accidents).

I think the main reason for our current economic distress is the over-reaching government. It's clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their sponsors in Congress are at the root of the mortgage meltdown. Global Anthropogenic Climate Change is merely a pseudo-scientific theory dreamed up by New World Order types to push a global socialism agenda.

My choice for president is the person who can and will roll back the entire Obama/Democratic Party agenda, gut unnecessary federal agencies, and give everyone the freedom from over-regulation to once again be productive, innovative, and prosperous.

I don't care whether the "rich" pay 40 or 50 percent in Federal Income Taxes, and think the entire argument was created by Obama to change the subject. The false message that if only the rich paid their "fair share", we wouldn't have all these budget problems, is designed to mislead the ignorant and trap the envious.

The spectacle they treated us to right before Christmas, when the Republican House balked at the Senate "deal" to extend Social Security withholding rate reductions was nothing but a Democrat pander. The night Boehner came out and announced the House was going to "cave", I saw the CNN talking heads crowing about the tremendous political victory scored by Obama and the Democrats. Not a word about the wisdom or potential impact of the deal, just the political "win" was all they cared about.

The core problem in the country's messaging in this campaign season is its complete lack of serious discussion of imporant issues. The networks mislead us into focusing on individuals instead of issues. Philandering by Newt, "extremism" by Bachmann, bumbling by Perry, and the constant drumbeat that all the Republican candidates are extreme, stupid, or both dominate the conversation. If only to avoid actually having to confront the country's decline and hopelessness, because such is a direct result of the current president's leadership or lack thereof.

Where's the candidate with the spotless record, both politically and personally, who can step forward and enunciate a positive vision for the future? I'm still looking for him (or her).

Rich

Flipping channels the other night, I heard Chris Matthews say it on his Hardball show. To paraphrase,

"The rich achieved their wealth on the backs of the poor and middle class"

This is one of the cardinal beliefs of the Left. But is it true?

Mathews and his Democrat colleagues would argue that when a businessperson chooses to maximize profits through layoffs and paying most of his workers minimum wage, he's indeed making his fortune at the expense of the people who make his company successful. When a Wall Street firm buys up companies then closes them down and sells off the assets to pocket the difference, that also qualifies. When companies shut down their manufacturing plants in the US and move the operations to China or India or Mexico, that certainly qualifies.

To the extent that those things happen, I can sympathize with those who decry the capitalist system that permits them. Certainly I have been concerned about the dramatic loss of our country's manufacturing base over the last 30 years. Even in my own experience, where I am able to see firsthand the hourly margin between what the company that helps me find my consulting contracts and the leftover amount I actually receive for my efforts, it's tempting to rail against greedy and unreasonable profits. But then I consider the alternative those on the Left would propose to address them, and am convinced we're seeing how their solution leaves us much worse off.

How do you make a business owner pay his employee fair wages? The minimum wage already sets the floor, then the business is able to pay whatever the labor market will bear. Stop the under-the-table use of illegal immigrants to stay below market wages, and I think that will solve much of the problem. A good economy is the ultimate solution, when employers must compete in the labor marketplace for good employees.

How do you keep these investor groups from buying and liquidating companies? You can't, unless you want to give bureaucrats the power to decide what business owners are allowed to do with their own enterprises. Government control over this activity is frighteningly dangerous, and smells like tyranny. What Democrats don't understand is that in order for any worker to get paid, he or she must deliver a higher value for their efforts than the employer is paying them. A "living wage" isn't available just because someone thinks it is fair, but is given in exchange for the value provided by the worker to the employer. If there is no profit in the activity, there's no point engaging in that activity - ie, no job at any wage.

How do you stop companies from moving their operations overseas? I'd even extend that question by asking how do you stop companies from importing foreign workers to displace Americans? Government can't and shouldn't stop it, but could limit the number of foreign workers allowed based on reasonable labor market criteria.

The alternative that the Left is proposing only guarantees more severe economic suffering, while Obama and his army of bureaucrats replace the corporate titans as those who control the country's wealth and power. Given the choice between continuing to be a free agent, able to offer my services to any company willing to hire me, or becoming a ward of the state, with a bureaucrat making most of my life decisions for me, my choice requires not even a second of contemplation.

The next question is, can we solve these problems without Obama's transformation to Socialist government control? I believe the answer is never completely, but we can definitely do things that will reduce their prevalance and impact.

We can certainly begin taking AntiTrust laws seriously again to encourage competition. We can implement stronger and fairer trade policies and stop giving away the store to China and India. We can cut back on excessive regulation, especially in the EPA, to make it easier to start and expand business of all kinds.

And we can change welfare programs to incentivize and reward self-sufficiency instead of dependence.

I only wish we were hearing these kinds of thoughtful arguments from our candidates.

Paying Attention

The ongoing search for understanding about how it's possible that there are still loyal Democrats out there that polls suggest may still turn out to re-elect Obama next year has gradually uncovered some insights.

First and foremost, they aren't really paying attention. The typical Democrat has never heard of Solyndra, Fast & Furious (they think it's a movie), the EPA crackdowns gone wild, Obama's unilateral authorization to wage war against Gaddafi (which I thought Democrats were adamantly against when the President's name was Bush). They don't care to hear about them either ("you probably heard that on Limbaugh")

What they actually believe is a laundry list of Democrat talking points that they accept completely and without question. Just a few of them:

If it hadn't been for the Stimulus, we'd be in a Depression.

The 1% have all the money because they somehow stole it from the 99%, and they don't pay their fair share in taxes and deserve to be punished.

We can solve the budget problem tomorrow if the GOP just stops blocking Obama from hiking the taxes on the rich. By the way, the economic problems wouldn't even exist if the GOP would just stop blocking Obama's policies.

Republicans want people to lose their retirement, healthcare, homes, and food to make themselves richer.

High energy prices aren't Obama's fault, but the fault of the greedy oil companies who are just overcharging because the Republicans enable that.

Republicans hate everybody who isn't like them and want to persecute them. The list of targets of Republican Tea Party haters includes blacks, hispanics, gays, unions, and single mothers.

There's a willful blindness among these folks to the degree that I'm convinced if Obama announced tomorrow that terrorism is over, the economy is booming, the debt is wiped out, and everybody can get Social Security and Medicare starting at age 50, they'd cheerfully believe him and denounce anyone who would dare suggest otherwise.

Willful ignorance by a plurality of the citizenry is the cause of our country's decline.

Colts Really a 1-Man Team?

It would seem so.

During the Peyton Manning era, the Colts defense was only good in the latter part of the Super Bowl winning season with Bob Sanders playing so well at Safety and pulling his teammates to a new level. Otherwise, the team has relied on Peyton to simply outscore the opponents.

The other guys scored 28 points on the Colt defense? No problem, Peyton will get 35.

Still, to be hit with the harsh reality of just how awful this team is without Mr. Manning at quarterback is rather stunning. Against the Saints, the team did something I never expected to see - they quit.

Most everyone has the same list of questions:

Are they really that bad without Manning?

Is the fundamental problem a lack of talent or coaching?

Why did Bill Polian, with the genius reputation, allow all these years to go by without even trying to find a quality backup at quarterback?

Let me take a stab with my own theories.

The fundamental problem is coaching. On both sides of the ball, but especially defense. We've suffered through the first half of the season watching the same scenario play out with the Colts defense time and time again. They make 2 stops and get the opponent into a third and long. The opposing quarterback then simply drops back and pops a quick pass over the middle to his tight end or running back, who only had to curl around behind the linebackers and in front of the safeties to get wide open and snag the first down toss.

Game after game, the Colt defense hands first downs to their opponents like candy to a baby. Are they physically incapable of making the read and covering receivers in that void in the middle of the field? Actually, it has to be coaching - the players have 2 arms and 2 legs and are reasonably athletic, so why would they make the same mistakes over and over and over again, game in and game out, unless the coaches were at fault?

But its not the coaches who gave up this week against the Saints. (Or who knows, maybe they did). I'm surprised the players don't show just a bit more pride. Aren't they humiliated at hearing from just about everyone with an opinion that the only reason the team used to be good is Peyton Manning? Shouldn't these guys be a bit insulted by the implication that they're just the supporting cast for the superstar?

Ultimately the responsibility is Jim Caldwell's. He's got to figure this out or turn in his resignation. He shouldn't go so far with this dismal performance that he waits for the pink slip. He should challenge his team in the same way - tell every player that if they're not willing to give maximum effort, he will waive him and find somebody who will. His job's at stake, and he should make it clear that therefore so is the job of every player on the team.

He should fire Larry Coyer and hire somebody who knows how to coach a defense. He should shuffle his staff to find somebody who can effectively get Curtis Painter and the offense executing better.

Peyton should not come back and play this year until or unless the team turns around. At least the Offensive Line.

Will the Colts boot the rest of the season, or will they find their pride and at least compete the rest of this year's Sundays?

Fans can only hope.

I'm Still Here

It might seem I've been missing in action for awhile, as I haven't posted anything in quite some time. The reasons are nothing more than the fact I've been extremely busy and mostly out of town all summer.

I still don't really have time for posting, but thought I'd do something quickly while I have about 15 minutes before my next conference call.

The main thoughts I've had lately on the national scene are pretty easy to summarize:

The fact that Obama is an absolute disaster as president seems to be dawning on more people every week, but I'm still somewhat amazed at the percentages pollsters still report are doggedly hanging onto that sinking ship that is the Obama administration and Democratic senate.

But so far I have mixed feelings on the current Republican field. Romney continues to fail to prove he deserves the job. Perry's done more to suppress my enthusiasm than encourage it. I really like Bachman's boldness, but now and then she drops a rhetorical bomb that makes me cringe. Ron Paul's simply out of the question. As is Jon Huntsman. Newt is a lot of fun to watch in the debates, but he's got way too much baggage.

My favorite ideologically happens to be Rick Santorum, but even if others begin to notice him, I fear the press is determined to keep him from gaining traction. Ignoring a candidate may be a more effective means of removing him from the race than attacking him - and it's working very well in Santorum's case.

I wish Mitch Daniels were in the race. Even though he has flaws of his own, I believe him to be the most level-headed, intelligent, experienced and honest choice. I respect his decision to protect his wife by staying out of the race, but find it a sad commentary on the political process that he had to worry about that.

Time to get on the next teleconference. I will try to be back soon to write about something that interests me - probably getting away from politics for awhile.

A Matter of Faith

To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.

- Jon Huntsman

In just one of the latest statements that echoes those made by the American political Left. (I know, Huntsman is running for the GOP nomination, but for reasons that escape me.)

The key phrase so often repeated is "I believe".

It seems to me everybody believes in something. Even atheists.

According to Hebrews 11:1,

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

So faith or belief is a personal assurance that something is true, even though that something cannot be scientifically proven. Ergo, Jon Huntsman has faith in the theories of evolution and anthropogenic global warming.

When Huntsman or Gore or Chris Matthews/Rachel Maddow or any other person you care to name on the atheist Left heap scorn on superstitious believers in God who are also skeptics about claims that each of us is descended from ancient primates that descended from more ancient amphibians that descended from unimaginably ancient single-celled organisms, isn't their faith in the origin of life springing up all by itself from nothing at all requisite of just as firm a faith in the unprovable as that faith others of us hold that there was a designer involved?

When there is a very large and growing crowd of climate scientists presenting cogent arguments that "global warming" is wildly overblown and more attributable to cyclical climate patterns than to human behavior, isn't a closed-minded commitment to the climate change theory more about faith than science?

I admit that science was my worst subject in school. But I do remember the fundamental mission of science is to gather knowledge about the nature of the universe through observation and experimentation without bias.

When there is no evidence of evolution of one species into another new species through gradual mutation, science cannot claim it as fact. But those who desperately wish to erase God from the human experience do so because of their own biases and indeed a sort of anti-faith that closes off completely from even a possibility of a creator and designer that might be greater than they.

Democrats put their faith in an all-powerful government, led by themselves. The foundation of their faith is that if only the world would put them in charge, they'd do a better job than anyone else in creating a utopian society by making most of the important decisions for the rest of us, resulting in their fantasy of having heaven on earth. But history shows that that heaven is realized only by and for that ruling class, who only succeed in creating a heaven on earth for themselves while imposing something closer to hell for everyone they keep out of their politburo clicque. They think they're the "cool" people from high school who form an exclusive club to rule the school, demeaning and belittling everyone else who fails to live up to their artificial standards of what constitutes coolness.

Conservatives put their faith in God and the moral code He gave us. The government should limit itself to protecting us from the barbarians, building roads, and locking up our criminal deviants, but otherwise keeping their noses out of our business.

Science requires evidence. My faith does as well, but faith in general does not. I would say there is more than enough evidence to satisfy my faith in God and his earthly son, the Christ. Jesus' life has more documentary evidence than most other famous historical figures, and his resurrection affirmed by hundreds of eyewitnesses. His Church has thrived for over 2,000 years. That's faith that is far from pure superstition.

Who's more superstitious, Huntsman or me?

Debate Night Impressions

Chris Wallace is quite the provocateur as the main questioner in tonight's GOP debate. He asked questions designed to create newsworthy responses, and certainly should be loved by Rupert Murdoch for creating an entertaining evening.

I'm just looking for a candidate.

Strictly based on debate performance, I'm ready to go with my personal rankings from tonight:

1. Santorum

2. Gingerich

3. Bachmann

4. Cain

5. Paul

6. Pawlenty

7. Romney

8. Huntsman

I admit to having a positive predisposition toward Rick Santorum, but even so, his sincere fealty to social conservatism mixed with economic conservatism are closest to my own perspectives. But even though the panel relegated him to the background by assuming he's destined to be an "also-ran", when he did get his chances, I thought he communicated very well.

Gingerich was also strong and brought down the house with his challenge to Chris Wallace to get away from "gotcha" questions and bring serious questions. He also did his best to bring in specific solutions to the conversation, even though it's nearly impossible to communicate anything specific in this format.

I like both Bachmann and Cain, and could very easily have flipped their positions. Even though I thought some of the Wallace-bating negative comments from her fellow Minnesotan were rather petty, I also thought they still stung her a bit. It was interesting to see her get a bit uncomfortable with the question about wives submitting to their husbands.

I hesitated to rank Ron Paul as high as I did, because some of his libertarian ideas are beyond the pale for me. There are lots of attractive ideas from Paul, but also some very uncomfortable ones. Even a bit frightening when he tosses aside Iran's nuke program as inconsequential and scoffs at the notion they might use them against Israel.

Pawlenty I've honestly wanted to like, but find that I don't. He took Wallace's bait to go after Bachmann but was a bit softer when later offered the chance to go after Romney. It made him look petty. He never showed the slightest personal appeal over the course of the evening, and to me increasingly seemed the generic shallow, pandering politician. Ron Paul may scare me at times, but at least I know he's genuine.

Romney remains too smooth and tries so hard to stay above the fray that he doesn't seem like a real person. There's no connection, no identifiable personality, and I just don't feel I can trust him.

Huntsman is the worst of the bunch and deserves his last-place ranking.

If Romney's indeed the party's choice and they foist him on the rest of us, I'll vote for him. Although more enthusiastically than when I pulled the lever last time for McCain, not because I think he's that much better than McCain, but that Obama's that much worse.

My ranking is about my perception of the debate performance. It certainly doesn't mean I've picked my candidate. This post I made sure to write without seeing or hearing anything from anyone else, just to make sure my impressions aren't influenced by anybody.

Then again, if we could move the election up to tomorrow, I'll gladly pull the lever for any one of these 8 just to get a merciful and much-needed end to the awful reign of Obama.

When the Argument Loses Me

Flowing from the argument over raising the debt ceiling to the argument over downgrading the country's credit rating, it's reaching the stage that is not about losing the argument, but where the argument is losing me.

The DOW crashes today about 635 points. So Obama goes on TV, supposedly to calm everyone down and says ... nothing. All he had to say was, let's see:

S&P was just wrong.

It's the Tea Party's fault.

We still need the rich to chip in more to save us.

Nothing new. Nothing specific. So the DOW plummeted even faster with his silly talking points.

I try to be fair whenever there's an argument, and at least try to understand the other side of the argument. OK, on the debt ceiling, the other side said everything the government is spending is necessary - there is nothing to cut, in fact they think the government should be spending more. As far as the debt problem, they just deny it exists and say fix it by raising taxes on rich folks.

OK, that I can understand. I think they're terribly and obviously wrong, but I also know that party consists mainly of government employees and government dependents, and understand they won't stand for any attempted solution that involves cutting or eliminating their salary (or benefit checks).

But with the new, seemingly obvious consequence of the failure of the government to do anything serious to solve the problem, the other side seems to be just burying their head in the sand and pointing at the Tea Party.

It has been so bizarre to watch how Democrats have united together to brand the Tea Party as the enemy. Interestingly, they're never specific about what's exactly wrong with the Tea Party, because if they actually tell the truth about them, more people would probably flock to Tea Party rallies.

The only common goals of the Tea Party are focused on helping elect candidates who will shrink the size of the Federal government, get spending and debt under control, keep taxes low, and return to founding Constitutional principles. What's so sinister about that? If you don't agree with those principles, then exactly what principles would you proposed to replace them?

Where can we find a single lawmaker or even candidate who has put forward a proposal that even starts to roll back the excesses of this era? Ryan's budget was no more than a down-payment, and he was attacked viciously and unfairly by even some in his own party. Boehner sold the plan that Obama signed to trigger the downgrade which had only pretend spending cuts. Did Boehner, Reid, Obama, and Biden actually believe they could trick the country into believing they even tried to solve the problem? If so, every citizen who realizes the whole thing was a trick should express their frustration at the polls to turn them all out (too bad it's another 6 years before Nevada gets a chance to turn out Reid).

I experienced Jimmy Carter. Until the last few months, I was noticing that, policy-wise, Barack Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Now it seems that Obama has succeeded in leaving his pal from Plains, GA in the dust as the most hopelessly inept and destructive president of the last 50 years, perhaps even in the country's history.

The only hope is for the second coming of Ronald Reagan to win through in November 2012. Nobody seems fit to wear that mantle among the current crop of candidates, but perhaps one will step forward in time.

The Only Way

As nearly aspect of American life continues to tumble into the abyss, I've tried to make use of this blog to suggest root causes and point out the only way out. That only way out of course is a return to Christian principles by the plurality of the country, but I realize that I can't make that argument without preaching to the choir. So instead, I must try to make the point from a practical, commen sense approach to make the point to the current plurality of Americans who can be classified as only marginally Christian or non-Christian.

The lessons I was taught as a child came from my parents, grandparents, and sunday school teachers. It's difficult to find people who still teach or even marginally acknowledge these lessons. That's why we're all spiraling into Hell together here on America's earth.

As children, we were taught to aspire to being faithful, hard-working, caring, strong, honest, and responsible. Our careers were important, but only as the means to provide for our families. Life's priorities were clearly defined: God first and foremost, then family, then neighbors, and down ths list until we got the end of the list, where sits self. The definition of a good man is simple and easy to understand, yet anathema to today's American sensibilities.

The lesson that is now called "hate speech" is that the family is the foundation of a good society, the man is the head of the family, and the extended family gathering together in the Church forms the most important and effective institution for peace and happiness.

A man finds a woman with whom he wants to partner to create a family. They participate together in the sacrament of marriage, where each makes a series of solemn promises to each other, to their extended families and friends, and to God Himself that are binding on both for life.

I've never been to a wedding ceremony where caveats were added to the vows of "better or worse, sickness and health, till death do us part". Nobody has ever said,

"Unless she nags too much"
"Unless he is a slob who leaves his underwear and socks all over the floor"
"Unless somebody cuter and sexier comes along"
"Unless she keeps maxing out the credit card on clothes and shoes"
"Unless he starts neglecting me to hang out with his buddies every night"

or the one that seems to be the favorite these days,

"Unless we just fall out of love".

A man of character takes his promises seriously and doesn't invent rationalizations to get him off the hook if he wearies of his wife.

But today it's even worse than the appalling divorce rate and tragic level of broken and single-parent families. Today men don't even feel a sense of responsibility to care for their own children. Young men pursue the self-centered lifestyle with multiple partners and convince their girlfriends to cohabitate without a marital commitment, then seem to have no compunction over moving onto the next shack-up while leaving his children to be cared for by the State.

Likewise, young women have taken the feminist message to heart that they "can have it all". Who needs a man other than as a sperm donor. Women now who never married live with their four children by four different sperm donors in a State-subsidized home, eating meals bought with food stamps, and getting free taxi rides to the free medical care for her children. Meanwhile the sperm donors are gone and forgotten, and don't know or care about their illegitimate offspring.

Even those in the older generations still living who taught me these principles have succumbed to the culture of "me first". Ask any senior about Social Security and Medicare going bankrupt, and you're likely to get an angry response something like this:

"I worked my whole life and paid into those programs. Now that I'm retired, I've earned my share."

The attitude can at least partly be attributed to the dishonesty of government when they sold those programs originally, gulling our "greatest generation" into beleiving they were contributing to their own retirement with that lifetime of payroll taxes, when in reality their money was simply being siphoned off to pay other benefits and whatever other government programs needed funding at the time.

But it's not just the abandonment of family values at fault. Business and professional leaders have redefined ethics to be how far they can go without getting punished by the government, rather than what's right or wrong. Profit is king, and if destroying the lives of hundreds or thousands of your employees by moving their jobs overseas can contibute another 10 percent to the bottom line, then get it done today!

Our elected representatives in government increasingly seem to be representing those who fund their expensive campaigns with money they use for advertisements designed to fool enough voters with false promises to buy enough votes to keep them in Washington another term. Many high-level elected officials have demonstrated that they would open the gates to barbarian horde invaders if it benefits them personally to do so, yet they somehow manage to mislead enough folks to hang onto their office the next election cycle.

So today we have passed the tipping point, where government dependents have outstripped private wage earners. Those dependents vote, and they vote for the candidates who make the empty promise to keep and increase their gravy train. So men can continue to impregnate as many women as will have them and let the State raise the children, women can get a life of leisure courtesy of the State, and the shrinking population of faithful and responsible families are called evil by the President of the United States as rich, greedy, and uncaring about the poor, only because they oppose massive tax hikes and continued government excess.

There is no politician who can save us, and no man for that matter. There is no solution to our problems short of a major old-fashioned Christian Revival that shakes everyone up and opens their eyes to the truth. Only when men become real men of faith and character again will we begin to solve our problems.

When accepting charity becomes a stigma, not a "right" to get free stuff just because you're poor. When those who accept charity do so with humility and a determination to use it to become independent and someday pay it back or "pay it forward".
When illegitimate children are scandalous, not a feminist ideal.
When charity returns to communities and churches and is designed to help people get on their feet rather than perpetuate dependency.
When the nuclear family once again becomes the rule, not the exception.
When love and sex are no longer confused as meaning the same thing.
When business leaders treat their employees as people to be treated fairly and with respect.
When employees dedicate themselves to providing a fair day's hard work for a fair day's pay.
When medical professionals put healing first and personal profits last.
When patients act on their responsibility to remit fair compensation for their medical treatments.
When legal professionals dedicate themselves to justice, not trolling for deep pockets to sue.

When men put themselves last instead of first.

Cynical Manipulation

So far the ongoing arguments over federal budgeting and debt ceilings have drawn little interest from me. With Dems in control of the presidency and senate and GOP the house, neither can get their way. So both sides instead are choosing to play the issues for votes.

The GOP likes to talk a lot about a balanced budget amendment as the main thing they want to get in return for agreeing to extend the debt ceiling. Not that such a constitutional amendment wouldn't be desirable - of course it would. But there's no way it will happen. From my perspective it's like negotiating with a mugger, saying "you can have my wallet now if you promise never to rob me again". Completely meaningless.

On the other hand, the outrageous rhetoric from the Democrats is led by none other than the President himself, who never seemed to get the memo that American presidents are supposed to be above such extreme partisan demagoguery as threatening to withhold Social Security checks if he doesn't get is way.

Which reportedly led to seniors flooding the phone lines of congressional republicans, scaring the digested and undigested waste from their bowels by demanding they don't let Obama's threat become a reality.

It seems pretty clear at this stage that those ideas popular on the right will simply not happen in this divided government. There won't be a balanced budget amendment, which can only pass the house. Spending won't be cut to levels that allow the debt limit to be held at current levels. Obamacare won't be repealed to help cut its trillion or two from spending projections. Paul Ryan's proposals won't see the light of day in the senate.

All the GOP can hope to accomplish is a modest package of spending cuts with some so-called "tax reform" that closes some loopholes but doesn't increase anybody's rates. And nothing substantial will take place to fix the underlying problem.

The Democrats on the other hand won't get their tax increases on the evil "rich". They can't lean on their favored dishonest definition of spending cuts, which to them is defined as deciding not to increase expenditures quite as much as they hoped.

Something will get done that will turn out to be mostly meaningless. Then the campaign season will kick off in earnest, with each side's message already set:

Democrats will campaign by saying that if you elect the Republican, seniors will lose their social security and medicare, kids won't be able to pay back their student loans, children will starve and catch terrible diseases because the republicans won't let them see a doctor.

Republicans will campaign on the 9.2% unemployment rate, the horrible Obama economy, oppressive government regulation, and a free-spending Democrat party machine that will bankrupt the country and drive us into anarchy while exposing us to a terrorist invasion.

Whether or not the problem is actually solved and the average American's life has a chance to improve instead of decline in the rest of the decade depends on whether there are enough voters who cut through the bull excrement and vote in the person more likely to help solve the problem instead of make it worse.

Which for me means anybody who is not Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Durbin, or their partisan friends. The recent special election in New York, where the false characterization of Ryan's Medicare proposals actually worked to elect the Democrat doesn't seem to bode well.

Shallow

I know I'm not brilliant, unusually wise or extremely knowledgable. So why do I increasingly get the feeling most everyone I encounter is incredibly shallow in their ideas and beliefs?

Most current events fall into that category, but a good example today seems to be the arguments over Afghanistan.

Before I get into my illustration, my up-front statement is that I'm personally undecided about my position on the topic. The reason I haven't settled on a specific opinion is that I don't have enough information.

So why does seemingly everybody else think they have all the information they need to hold a strong position either for or against continuing the fight in Afghanistan? Do they somehow know more about it than I do? Or do they make their decisions as simply parrots of whichever prominent political figure they trust and admire?

Here's what I want to know before I make a decision. Tell me if these questions have been answered definitively somewhere, and I've somehow just missed them.

One argument is that we need to stay until we win the war, finish the job, defeat the Taliban, or whatever interchangeable phrase anyone wishes to substitute. Fine, I agree with the sentiment. But I want to know:

What is the job there? How do we know when we're done? How do we define success? After we win, what does Afghanistan look like?

The other argument is that we need to get out now. Declare victory and leave, bring the troops home safely, stop nation-building, take care of our own and stop foreign adventures that are none of our business, or whatever interchangeable phrase anyone wishes to substitute. Sure, that sounds kind of good too. But I want to know:

If we abruptly pull out, what will happen to the Afghans who worked with us? Are they strong enough to protect themselves from the Taliban now, or will the Taliban slaughter them shortly after we leave? How likely is it that Afghanistan will once again become a safe haven from where a fresh 9/11 attack will be planned and carried out? Do we bear any responsibility if the Taliban reassert their power and once again kill, oppress, mistreat, and take away the freedom we helped their women realize for education and freedom?

I also need help understanding how our leaders plan to overcome the incredible obstacles to victory. Guerilla warfare is difficult enough to overcome with conventional military means, let alone when the Taliban can strike our forces from the mountains then simply run across the Pakistan border where they're apparently harbored. If we can't pursue them across the border out of some sort of diplomatic agreement with the Pakistanis, how will we ever defeat them? If the entire region is full of radical muslims who sympathize with or support groups like the Taliban and Al Quaeda, how will we ever succeed at pacifying what seems to be a never-ending stream of enemy combatants?

Everybody else seems to think they already know the answers to these questions, or they don't think beyond the surface to even consider the questions, or they completely trust those from their "side" and attribute evil motives to the other side so the questions don't matter.

If someone wants to argue this question with me, they would first have to prove they have access to inside information. Except for absolute pacifists, who hold that war is never permissible under any circumstances, which at least is a respectable position but leaves no room for debate on any factual information.

The only persons who might qualify to influence me to take a position on this topic would be those who are directly involved in the conflict itself and have the intelligence and strategic knowledge to tell me honestly the answers to all of my questions.

My Candidate's Speech

The speech I need to hear from the presidential candidates would go something like this.

[Intro]

The first question people ask of a presidential candidate is, "Why do you want to be President?"

My answer is this: in any other time, I would never consider applying for the job. I like what I do in the private sector, and would rather stay there than take a relatively low-paying, thankless job that requires full attention 24/7, the responsibility for making difficult decisions that can affect millions on a daily basis, and being hated by half the world seemingly just for holding the title with either an 'R' or a 'D' next to your name.

But over the last 3 years I've seen my country go through a shockingly rapid decline because we chose to hand power to a bunch of naieve and irresponsible adolescents. It's past time for the adults to come back home and clean up after our home has been trashed.

You've heard the old story about the teenage kids who manage to convince their parents to take a nice vacation and leave them at home alone for awhile. "We can handle it", they said. "We promise we'll be responsible and take good care of the house for you while your gone".

So the parents go on the vacation, even with that uneasy feeling they just might be making a decision they will come to regret. And sure enough, Mom and Dad come back home unexpectedly to find their home trashed. The kids threw a huge party, and the gangs of teens that showed up looted everything of value and destroyed everything else in your beautiful property.

So the parents do what any parent would do. They try to use the experience to teach their children a lesson about responsibility. In the meantime, they get to work cleaning up and recovering from the disastrous losses that happened when their naieve children invited people to their party who didn't have good intentions and ended up looting everything.

I am asking the adults of the United States to join with me to clean up the mess created by the adolescent goverment we put in charge over the past few years. I am asking that you help me teach those adolescents the lessons they need to learn, such as

There's no such thing as free healthcare. You can't pass a massive new government-controlled medical plan designed to move us to a mythological "univeral" healthcare program without having it bankrupt the country.

The economy doesn't grow by punishing job creators with high taxes and threats of high taxes combined with oppressive government regulation.

Energy independence doesn't happen by shutting down all untapped sources of domestic energy reserves while promoting expensive government boondoggles and pipe dreams euphemistically called "clean, renewable energy".

Effective foreign policy and National Security are not achieved through the force of any president's personality.

I can promise one thing above all others. That I will be honest with you. And this basic honest truth is that I can't clean up this mess by myself. You all need to join me. We all need to work together to help America remember how great we once were, and how we can become even greater as soon as we realize those things that make us great.

First and foremost, we all must participate and contribute to the success of our country. We literally can't afford to continue the trend where more folks of able bodies and minds sit at home collecting government checks funded by the labor of the rest of us supplemented by loans from China.

We must move our social safety net closer to those most in need instead of administered by high-paid bureaucrats ruling from the comfort of their Washington stone and marble palaces.

When government gets involved in helping the poor and sick among us, shouldn't the goal be to help them become self-sufficient and healthy? It seems that government agencies are incentivized to keep their clients on the rolls rather than getting them off the rolls. Why not change all of our social programs to reward success by defining success as reducing the number of sick and needy that must be served?

In my experience, people with good jobs don't need public assistance. So why can't government focus on helping everyone find a good job instead of handing out homes and food and medical care to create and maintain a huge and growing dependent class?

Tax rates don't have to go up to solve the budget crisis. When people get good jobs, we won't need to spend as much taxpayer money taking care of them. When those same people get good jobs, they not only no longer need government assistance, they become taxpayers themselves. Government should spend no more than is required and tax no more than is required. Government must spend only what it brings in. These are not difficult ideas for anybody, except apparently so many who live within the beltway.

I'm a supporter of all Americans. My constituency as president isn't designed to favor big business over labor unions, trial lawyers over physicians and drug companies, blacks or latinos or asians over whites, women over men, or any group over any other group. Such political games are horribly devisive and must stop.

My administration will be a friend to all Americans, period. I don't care what economic level, race, creed, or association - every American citizen is a friend of my administration. That doesn't mean everybody gets whatever they want - in fact, pretty much everybody will find they no longer can get benefits for their special interest group that elevates them at the expense of anybody else.

All policy is about lifting all Americans and what's best for America. Nobody gets special priviledges. Crony Capitalism will go into the history books. Equal opportunity and a color-blind society without preferences to anyone will be the rule of the day. Integrity, honesty, fairness, and civility will be a quality of America at which the world will marvel.

This vision for the re-emergence of the America we all know and believe in will not happen because I'm elected President. Instead, it will happen because each and every citizen buys into the ideals of America. We all do our part, we all strive to pull ourselves up and give others a hand up along the way.

All of us men can and must take responsibility for ourselves and our families. No more making our girlfriends pregnant and walking away to leave our families to be cared for by the government. Women can and must take the same responsibilty by never choosing to have sex with men with whom they would not have children. When we both make those marriage promises to each other, "till death do us part", we have the integrity to consider that a promise worth keeping, "for better or worse, in sickness and in health", instead of casting each other aside the moment we spot a little greener patch of grass somewhere.

Liberal or conservative, we all want the same thing in the end - a better life for ourselves and our families. Join me and let's work together to solve our problems and I guarantee we will all find that better life.

Another Sign of the Apocalypse

The disgusting case of Anthony Wiener isn't something I care to get into, but the poll that got reported this week is at least equally disturbing as his depraved behavior.

The poll seemed to suggest that a plurality of his constituents don't think he should resign.

The New Yorkers that elected him don't care. It seems that as long as he remains a crusader for the cause of progressivism, they'll overlook any depravity. Which since he's also a lying sociopath, means they'll also overlook any issues of corruption that are reasonably predictable from his obvious lack of character.

The Republicans who got caught falling down morally resigned immediately, including Wiener's own colleague from upstate, who quit even before his story hit the media. And as far as I can tell, all he was doing was trolling for love online with a picture of himself shirtless. Gone.

The guy from Fort Wayne, Sauder, was discovered to have had an affair with a staffer. He quit. It made me wonder at the time how many other congressmen, if they were honest, have been or are currently guilty of the exact same offense?

The Democrat twisted logic is that somehow when Republicans do this stuff they deserve whatever they get because their sin isn't the sin, but hypocrisy. Since Democrats don't really have any moral standards, there's no reason for them to face any consequences (remember Bill Clinton?).

The sign of the apocalypse? That Wiener's still in congress, and his constituents don't care.

Random

Just a few random thoughts for a Tuesday.

Caught Netanyahu's speech to Congress. It made me wish there was a candidate for the American Presidency with his bearing and forthrightness. Still hoping somebody like that steps up, but haven't seen him (or her) yet.

Tornado season is pretty awful this time around. Barely catching our breath from Joplin, there seem to be a rash of new tornados running through Oklahoma.

Which somehow brings me to the end-time subject. I sort of feel sorry for the guy who predicted the "Rapture" this past Saturday, but can't really figure out what motivated him.

Just walking through some basic stuff in that area: The Bible's pretty explicit that we won't know the day or hour, thief in the night, and all that stuff. So if he is a committed evangelical, why did he overlook that?

Then, just suppose for a moment that he had some sort of divine inspiration that it was happening on Saturday. Think about it, whether he was right or not, his widely publicized predictions were widely and pretty much universally mocked and ridiculed, as was he. So even if he did predict it correctly and all the worthy followers of Christ disappeared from the earth Saturday. The only possible motivation he could have had for warning everyone about it in advance would have been the hope that one or two people out there would have taken him seriously and got right with God in time for the event. But from what I hear, he sort of seemed to expect to just be vindicated, sort of like "ha, ha, nya, nya, I was right and you're left behind to suffer the Great Tribulation!" That's not really very Christian either.

Then there's the little problem that as I understand it, most theologians think the whole "Rapture" concept is sort of bunk, just made up by misreading and out-of-context interpretations of various passages in the Bible. Oh well.

It's intriguing to see those sensationalist programs on the History and Discovery channels about end times prophecy, tying apocalyptic prophecies together to conclude they all have similar end of the world stories and all seem to point to it happening by next year.

Intriguing, but not important. As a believer, I'm looking for Christ's return like anybody, and understand I should try to be a solid citizen of the faith regardless of whether it happens in my lifetime. But it doesn't make sense to get all absorbed in the whole thing - we all need to live our lives as best we can and let what happens happen.

Looking around the world, it's still easy to be a bit concerned with all the stuff going on. We're in the middle of the disintegration of America, Iran seems likely to have nuclear weapons very soon that they can't wait to lob into Israel, the so-called "Arab Spring" seems more likely to turn the rest of the region into little Irans with the same goals, the little Communist Chavez in Venezuela is reportedly setting up missiles he's aiming at the United States. Tornados and earthquakes and volcanos, Oh My! The country is broke, gas costs 4 bucks a gallon, food prices are skyrocketing, our kids graduate from high school without being able to read a newspaper or balance a checkbook, more people now live off the government than by private means, and half the country is more interested in arguing about whether gay people should get married.

Put them all together, and the end of the world seems inevitable. Maybe the Rapture would be a good thing, but then again only if I qualify and can somehow get my loved ones to jump the line and come with me.

Maybe that's it - the guy was right about the Rapture happening on Saturday! It just turned out that Jesus arrived but couldn't find anybody worthy enough to take to Heaven, so he just called the whole thing off.

Obama All In

The fitting analogy comes from the ubiquitous televised poker tournaments, where a player about to lose decides to go "All In", betting everything he has left on the current hand, knowing he'll either lose and be out of the tournament or win and have a chance to keep playing.

Even though it seems a bit early, Obama seems to be going All In right now, presumably as part of his re-election campaign. In only the last couple of weeks, he's taken stunning leftism to new and unprecedented levels.

He's been demagoguing the immigration and energy issues, shamelessly lying and distorting both issues in the apparent belief that you can fool just enough of the people to get re-elected. Claiming to be championing expanded domestic energy production and declaring the borders secure when everyone knows the opposite is true would have the media screaming "liar!" if he were a Republican.

We're all (except perhaps the most hard-line Leftists) happy he allowed the Seals to take out bin Laden, but he seems to have used that PR victory as impetus for pushing boldly ahead with his incomprehensible foreign policies. This guy the Left holds up as the smartest President decides on his own that Israel should unilaterally pull back to pre-1967 borders to appease the Arab world, as if that will magically pacify Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other groups bent on wiping them off the map.

That's either naive in the extreme or he's playing for the other team. I'm rapidly coming to conclude that it's the latter.

Then there's the healthcare mess and the government spending mess and the explosion of regulation, crises he and his party refuse to even acknowledge. Take a look at this article for the latest on the disaster that is Obamacare.

What is most difficult to understand is how polls still seem to show that half the country still supports the narcissist-in-chief. I realize there isn't a clear and strong leader out there yet, and it will be next summer before one emerges. Still, if you're not to the point yet of supporting anybody but Obama, you're either a card-carrying socialist/communist revolutionary or you're just not paying attention.

Book Review

Actually, this post might more accurately be described as a commentary more than a review of the autobiography by Dick Van Dyke called My Lucky Life in and Out of Show Business.

I picked up the book on my Kindle because I'd always sort of admired Van Dyke as an immensely talented entertainer, mainly through his original TV show with Mary Tyler Moore and his amazing performance in Mary Poppins. I wanted to find out whether he really was as nice a guy as he seemed to project on screen, and just to get an idea of who the man was away from the camera.

My conclusions are mainly these: Yes, he apparently is a very nice and appealing person in real life, but sadly is also another one of those cliche'd Hollywood narcissists. While if I ever had the chance to meet him, I'm certain that I would find him likeable and engaging, I'm disappointed in how little he's seemed to learn over his long and blessed life.

Dick was a very well-grounded man of integrity through much of his life, until he fell victim to Hollywood. He was a devoted man of God, an elder in his church until the day his developing liberal sensibilities were insulted by one or two of his fellow elders. Their offense was in opposing an idea he proposed for some kind of racial church exchange program between his upscale Brentwood congregation and a black church from Watts.

Rather than being patient and understanding of what obviously was an expression of fear by his colleagues in the church, Dick stormed out of the meeting and never darkened the door of that or any other church again.

What happened in his life after that major turning point is interesting.

He became an alcoholic, even though previously he had never even touched alcohol.

The man who admitted having a crush on Mary Tyler Moore made a point of doing nothing about it because of his commitment to his marriage. But by severing that anchor that was his Christian faith, he changed that particular principle when he became attracted to the younger woman during his inevitable mid-life crisis. He left the wife with whom he had raised four children and broke his solemn vows to her, God, and everyone else so he could live out an adulterous affair with the younger woman, Michelle Triola of "Palimony" fame.

His clumsy rationalizations for his adultery used every cheap Hollywood line you'd expect to hear. They'd just grown apart, they both changed, they both wanted different things from life, he was experiencing a new chapter of self-discovery, the new girl (Michelle) understood him so well, blah, blah, blah. Megan Fox could invent more intelligent rationalizations. I would have appreciated him more if he'd just been honest; pure and simple, he got bored with his aging wife and hooked up with an exciting younger model.

Dick's religion these days appears to be Liberalism, although I don't get the sense that he's obnoxious about it like many of his colleagues. Instead of gaining wisdom with age, he seems instead to have regressed. He comes across as the typical shallow California liberal; as long as he supports liberal candidates and causes, he can assuage his guilt over his wealth and success.

I had hoped to find someone in this book I could admire as a man who overcame his mistakes and personal failures to emerge as a great example to the rest of us of wisdom and integrity. Instead, I just found a likeable and very talented entertainer that is sadly just as narcissistic and self-absorbed as seemingly every other talented entertainer. That's disappointing.

This post didn't start out with the intention of being as hard on Dick as it turned out. I still think I'd like him a lot if I ever got to meet him. It is striking to me that he never seems to have made the connection that's so obvious from his own book; every one of his life's biggest problems, except for the tragic loss of his teenage granddaughter, happened as a direct consequence of his abandoning God and the Church. My prayer is that God finds a way to hold up that mirror for him someday before he passes.

Handicapping Early Debate

I checked out the too-early debate last night with five of the GOP presidential hopefuls. It seems to have been an opportunity for the lesser-known candidates to get exposure, and because the top contenders didn't show up, it was also a chance for top-tier candidate Tim Pawlenty to test his debate chops.

From my perspective, Pawlenty succeeded. He seemed poised and confident, and provided plenty of red meat for the Republican audience in South Carolina. His performance ranked him first on my scorecard.

The sneering Left will accuse Fox News as being too cozy with the candidates, but the panel did a great job feeding tough questions. This was no softball MSNBC-hosted Democrat debate, nor was it Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann throwing 'when did you stop beating your wife' spitballs. The Fox panel asked pertinent and challenging questions, sparing no one and following up to demand substantive answers from the candidates.

Ron Paul is certainly consistent, reprising his role in the debate as the maverick libertarian in the race. I know he excites a certain segment of young libertarians, but he's still a little too far out there for my tastes.

Herman Cain is an interesting candidate, and I thought he did well in the debate. He's the exact sort of black conservative we'd love to see running against Obama to put the lie to the constant drumbeat over the course of Obama's presidency that conservatives who oppose his policies do so only because of racism.

Rick Santorum tried to convey strong convictions and the mythical "fire in the belly" as the social conservative champion. But I thought he seemed nervous, and had some difficulty putting the right words together; I felt like I could see him fighting an internal losing battle with himself to suppress those nerves. I've heard him speak before and like him, so I could tell he wasn't totally on his game on this important stage.

Gary Johnson turned in the worst performance of the night, to the degree that he's the one candidate of the five I've already scratched off the list. Besides my disagreement with many of his ideas, I wasn't impressed with him in the way he looked or talked, and was irritated at his carping over not getting enough attention from the panel.

When the rest of the field gets in, I don't look forward to the cattle-call debates. When you get much beyond last night's 5 candidates, debates don't really work, because there's no way anyone can have enough time to give people a true sense of who they are and what they believe. I wonder how future debate organizers will address that problem, or if they will even try.

At least there will be something for everyone in the Republican field. Ron Paul the libertarian, Santorum, Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann the social conservatives, Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels joining Romney as the fiscal conservatives downplaying the social angle to court moderates, Herman Cain the anti-Obama, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump the celebrity candidates.

I'm not ready to support anybody yet, willing to let things play out. Although I do profess a strong leaning in favor of Daniels just because I know him as my home state's governor.

Polling suggests it's Romney's to lose, in a race with Huckabee, Trump and Palin. But I think those polls are more about name recognition than anything else at this point, and don't really believe those are the main contenders. Not to mention I'm not all that comfortable with any of those top-polling candidates.

My prediction is that the race will eventually come down to the establishment candidates, who will have the party machinery solidly behind them. Romney, Daniels, and Pawlenty are the three most likely to win the nomination in my opinion, with Huckabee the dark horse. Despite all the buzz around folks like Trump and Palin, I don't see them appealing to a broad enough base of GOP voters to succeed.

Now we'll see who proves me wrong.

Seeing Both Sides of an Argument

When an argument takes place between two people, I've mostly felt that if I can understand each position well, in the end I can understand and empathize with both sides. The exception to this rule is when one side is not dealing honestly, which I find frustrating and disappointing when I learn that one side of the argument is distorting and lying about their position in a dishonest attempt to wring personal benefit.

Which brings me to my search for cogent arguments from the Democrat side of the budget arguments.

Reading several left-wing articles, I was unable to find an honest argument in favor of continuing annual trillion-and-a-half dollar deficits. The only cuts they are willing to embrace are in military spending, while the only other solution to deficit cutting is increasing taxes on "millionaires and billionaires".

Neither will succeed in solving the problem, and the so often repeated line about "millionaires and billionaires" is fundamentally dishonest. Obama's tax increases target everyone making over $200K, so last time I looked, 200 thousand is only 20 percent of a million. And if they really wanted to close tax loopholes so that companies such as General Electric would actually pay something other than zero on their multi-billion dollar profits, wouldn't they have already closed them in the tax code they themselves wrote the last 4 years? Meanwhile, GE is the poster child for the modern phenomenon called "Crony Capitalism".

The ideological position of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats is otherwise pretty clear. Socialism is the easiest way to summarize the ideology. It includes high tax rates designed to "level the playing field" by transferring wealth and narrowing the gap between rich and poor. It means shutting down "dirty" energy no matter how much it hurts average people. It means forcing people to cluster in the cities and give up their cars to ride government-subsidized mass transit to and from work (or the welfare office).

The only conclusion I can reach is that their ideology trumps everything else. Their sacred cows are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare, which must be protected at all costs. Even if those costs mean bankruptcy.

There is no middle ground in this argument. Either we adhere to founding principles of liberty or give in and become a fiefdom of Red China.

For me, that means there can be no compromise on these issues. If we fail to stop the outrageous spending and regulation of Obama and company, we lose everything. I'm not worried for myself so much as for my children and future grandchildren, who will never know the faith, freedom, and prosperity of America that I got to experience.

Religion is Based on Understanding Human Behavior

Something I always understood at a basic level, but has become increasingly apparent in what many are now calling the Post-Christian Era, is that Judeo-Christian Religious rules are solidly based on a clear understanding of human behavior.

The story of Moses is a great example. Moses obviously recognized the need to establish laws to manage his very large contingent of former Egyptian slaves. I don't dismiss the biblical account of God writing the law on stone tablets on top of Mount Sinai, but what better way to introduce laws to an unruly mob of thousands of ex-slaves suddenly set free than to obtain them directly from God on the mountain-top?

A recurring theme used by modern gay rights advocates is that we wouldn't stone them for their sexual behavior today, therefore why would we place any credence in the old Mosaic laws condemning that behavior? It's a specious argument that could be applied to any illegal behavior; if their contention about gay activity is accepted, then wouldn't it also apply equally to adultery, polygamy, even murder?

Harsh punishment was deemed necessary for the nomadic Hebrew tribes to keep them from destroying themselves from within. Adultery in that infant society might lead to inter-tribal wars, therefore a strict law was imposed to make it clear that the leadership would handle violations so the tribes would not be tempted to seek revenge themselves.

Homosexual behavior, not to mention heterosexual promiscuity, has always come with an extremely high risk of disease. Therefore as a practical matter, strict rules favoring monogamy and punishing risky behavior make a lot of sense.

In the Exodus accounts, the Israelites were constantly losing faith and falling back on their old, bad habits. And they always suffered the consequences.

Just listen to "Doctor Laura" on the radio for ten minutes, and you'll get a modern real-life example of what happens universally to those of us that make bad choices. How often are the bad things that happen to us today directly traceable to our own poor judgement? Sure, it's possible to be victimized by unscrupulous business people, and there are many diseases that are not tied to our behavior. But the vast majority of people's problems these days are self-inflicted by a simple abandonment of commonsense morality.

The fundamental point is about the value of morality coming from God. Those who seem to have succeeded in removing God from America bear the greatest blame for our country's decline. Because without God, there's no reason to behave.

Apply the most obvious example, smoking. The health risks of tobacco use are well known, so why do so many people choose to smoke? Because they attach no moral stigma to the behavior.

Isn't the same true of illegal drugs, promiscuity, homosexuality, reckless driving, insurance scams, welfare fraud, theft, murder? If there's no God, no heaven, no hell, and no severe punishment for behavior that's destructive to ourselves and others, then why not do whatever makes us feel good?

This is the place America has arrived. I am certain that a horrible catastrophe is near, which was the only way to bring the ancient Israelites back to God, is the only way to bring America back to God.

Budget Cutting for Dummies

It's stunningly easy if those who write the tax law aren't influenced by the obvious quid-pro-quo.

Going back to the law I feel most strongly about, but will never happen because it takes away their job security. It probably has to be a constitutional amendment. The law is simply this: No tax, and likewise no tax credit, deferral, deduction, or any other adjustment may be passed without every citizen being eligible. No tax exemptions for specific corporations, members of congress, or individuals. No targeted tax credits, exemptions, deferrals or deductions.

Taxes apply to everyone equally, likewise tax reductions are available to everyone who chooses to take advantage of them.

That takes care of the revenue side.

On the spending side, again it's easy.
Either shut down or reorganize these agencies into a small shadow of what they are today:
Education
Arts
Agrigulture
EPA

Reorganize and consolidate duplicative agencies.

Convert Commerce into a trade association with federal support, fully funded by its members' dues. Members of course would be any company that wants to export products and services.

Cancel anything called "Corporate Welfare". This is most easily accomplished by the first solution.

Stop funding Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting and all other unnecessary organizations that can continue to operate on their own as NFP's.

Cut federal salaries by 5 percent across the board. Maybe exempt those earning less than $40K, if there are such folks out there.

Convert all Federal Defined Benefit Pensions into 401Ks.

Restructure Medicare into a simple health insurance program with affordable premiums for seniors.

Take Medicaid away from the Federal Government entirely, because it's duplicative with State programs.

Repeal Obamacare, of course.

Open American oil and natural gas resources to American energy companies through auctions. Use tax incentives to help make sure most of those resources stay at home to meet domestic demand instead of being sold on the world market.

Remove all the uncertainty in government tax and regulatory policy, giving American companies the confidence to move forward with their plans without holding back for fear of unpredictable costs of Obamacare, taxes, and arbitrary federal regulation.

Gradually move Social Security from a welfare program to an actual retirement and insurance program, where every citizen has an individual cash-value account. Those who live their working lives on welfare won't have a retirement account, and can either rely on family or care in a modest group home or nursing home subsidized by the State, not the Feds.

Put some teeth into trade policies. Any country that wants to sell their goods in America must give equal access to their own market to American goods in return and must demonstrate reasonable control over theft of American inventions, art, and intellectual property.

Washington Theatre

The most disappointing thing about the theatrics in Washington about the battle over the budget and possible shutdown of the Federal government was the realization that hit me while it was underway.

The so-called "leaders" in Washington think we're all a bunch of ignorant fools.

Pretending like 38 billion dollars in budget cuts is a big deal. Sure to all of us, that's an awful lot of money. But compared to just the amount of the budget deficit for this year, it's barely noticable.

Democrats screaming outrageous nonsense about mean Republicans, from the mildest accusation of taking away "women's health services" to the most strident "killing women".

I was hoping somehow that Planned Parenthood would be defunded. But calling abortion "women's health" is like Animal Control claiming that putting down stray dogs and cats is "pet care".

The GOP side is telling its conservative base to be happy that Boehner got Obama and Reid to compromize from a budget cut of zero to 38. At least he got something done in the right direction.

Do both sides really think we're all drooling idiots? Balancing the budget may not be easy to do all at once, but it can be easily done in only a few years. Send me to Washington and I'll have that budget balanced without breaking a sweat. All it requires is an emptying of the featherbeds and revamping of the tax code.

Serious Analysis of Education

Indiana's in the midst of a bitter dispute about education vouchers. Teachers unions are fighting tooth and nail, and the Democrats fled to Illinois for over a month to deny a quorum in a failed attempt to halt the legislation.

In the 32 years since I was a public school teacher, I've watched as schools have received massive increases in funding to solve the problem of declining student performance. Now at least our failing schools look terrific on the outside and teachers get a pretty sweet deal financially.

None of that has resulted in improving the outcomes for kids.

There are basically two solutions being put forward by the two political ideological sides. Democrats and the teacher unions suggest we just haven't given them enough money yet, or pretend there is no problem. Republicans push for voucher programs that let lower-income families escape the dysfunctional public school in favor of a quality education in a private or parochial school.

While clearly the teachers unions simply have a goal of keeping the status quo for their members - tenure, high salaries, free health insurance, and generous pensions - Republicans at least sincerely want to find a solution.

But are vouchers the right solution?

I'm not so sure.

I don't like the idea of government handing out money to private institutions of any kind. What the government subsidizes they also control. And I don't want any hint of government control in Catholic or Christian schools.

It's very easy to imagine the next step after vouchers are instituted, which will be couched under "educational standards". The government can and I think will impose strings to those voucher payments, beginning with a "tolerance" curriculum that glorifies immoral sexual behavior to elementary school children.

Another concern I have with this idea is in the area of capacity. Vouchers are nearly certain to create an overwhelming demand of families applying to get their children out of the unsafe and failing public school, but there's not enough capacity in the local private schools to accomodate them all.

So what criteria are used to select students that will get the priviledge of escaping the bad school? A lottery? Some sort of merit or need-based formula set by the state? Let the private school choose?

No matter what the method, there are two bad outcomes to this process: Government dictates which students are to be considered for enrollment at the private school, and deserving students will inevitably be left behind in the failing school.

And those failing public schools won't get better - they'll get even worse. Because the first students they lose will be those whose parents care enough to fight to get their children a better education. And that means the best students will be the first to take advantage of vouchers to escape the failing school.

As the private schools add capacity, they'll seek out the best teachers for their added classrooms. The best teachers are likely to accept a slightly smaller compensation package in return for better working conditions, which can be assumed to include better school administrators and better motivated, better behaved students.

Republicans suggest this will force the failing public school to change its ways or shut its doors. I agree that a failing school should be shuttered, but am having difficulty understanding what happens to the students during the school's waning days, and where the students go after it closes.

So the question becomes, what is the solution? Everything that's been done over the past 30 years has cost taxpayers too much and produced no apparent improvements, so if vouchers aren't the answer, what is?

Thinking through every conceivable option, I keep settling on this one:

Privatize.

Sounds kind of radical, I know. But if it's done right, it can be great for everyone.

Let private companies bid for the existing school facilities and a per-student rate. Let them advertise and attract students based on their individualized programs. Parents choose the school they think is best for their child based on location, curriculum, and results. Companies compete for students by offering great programs, whether in the sciences, arts, athletics, or whatever. The companies are licensed by the state based solely on fundamental academic curricula - no social, religious, or political agendas (except perhaps teaching violent jihad) will be considered in granting of licensing. Of course, these schools have to be open to any and all applicants, except violent offenders.

Put antitrust safeguards in place to make sure there is plenty of competition among education companies, and any company can open a school in the area as long as it meets licensing standards.

Source of Polarization

Whether it's the frightening battle for dominance in Wisconsin or the budget showdown in Washington, I believe the country has never been more politically polarized in my lifetime. It seems likely we haven't seen this level of polarization since the Civil War, aka The War Between the States, aka The War of Northern Aggression, aka The War to End Slavery, all depending on the polarized points of view of those on either side back then.

From an historical perspective, I'd have been completely on the side of the North in that war if it were about ending the evil of slavery. But take out the slavery issue, and I have plenty of sympathy for the perspective of many in the south, who viewed the war in terms of freedom. Abe Lincoln was determined to use the Federal government to bigfoot the states, imposing the will of Washington on all of the states whether that will was appropriate for a given state or the citizens of a state wanted that Federal control.

These days, the states have seen most of their power to govern themselves confiscated by Washington. In many cases, Washington has accomplished this by addicting states to federal money. In other cases, Washington has used the courts to discover new rights and grant unfettered extraconstitutional authority to itself. In still other cases, the US Congress has simply taken that authority for themselves.

It was just a matter of time, and now that time has come. We're polarized once again in a fight that threatens to become violent.

The moral issue of slavery is replaced by today's fights over abortion and gay marriage.

The states' rights issue has resurfaced in today's fights over the size and scope of the federal government.

It's the Socialists against the Constitutionalists.
It's Trial Lawyers against Business.
It's women against men.
It's non-white races against white races.
It's atheism and Islam against Christianity and Judaism.
It's wage earners against welfare and social security dependents.
It's homosexuals against Christians.
It's abortionists against Hypocratic Oath physicians and pharmacists.
It's Socialists against Business.
It's Mega Corporations against Entrepreneurs.
It's Environmentalists against Manufacturing Business.
It's city against country.
It's the coasts against the heartland.
It's illegal immigrants against citizens.
It's revolutionary change against rediscovered founding principles.
It's pacifists against homeland defense.
It's government is the answer against government is the problem.
It's guns kill people versus people kill people.

The Left is in charge and has run the country off the cliff. They want us to give them more time to achieve their vision for utopian society.

The Right is on the ascendancy and wants us to accept them as our saviors. But last time they were in charge they became drunk on their power and were irresponsible - therefore the country ran them out.

The Republicans holding office cover a specturm of political beliefs, ranging from left of some Democrats to Conservative Purists.

Democrats claim to cover a similar spectrum, but the so-called "blue dogs" voted in lockstep with their party while they bankrupted the country to funnel money to constituencies that they hoped would keep them perpetually in power.

Votes on important issues in congress illustrate the polarized divide. Democrats passed the destructive healthcare law without a single Republican vote. The Republican budget bill passed the House without any help from even the Blue Dogs, who are supposed to care about spending and debt.

It's time to find principled lawmakers who vote for what's right, not what their party leaders demand. I fear that ship has sailed.

Real Problem-Solving or Grandstanding?

Awaiting what now seems to be an inevitable "government shutdown", it's interesting to take a step back and look at the whole fight from a distance.

The current argument is about setting the budget for the remainder of the year. Republicans proposed cutting either 61 or 71 billion through the end of the year, but so far I'm not completely clear on which number is right. Democrats countered with a reported cut of $33 billion, but in typical Washington sleight-of-hand, they count their cuts against Obama's proposed budget instead of the current spending levels. Which some say is no cut at all in comparison to this year's reality.

The fight is over more than the numbers themselves. The Republican plan targets liberal sacred cows long hated on the right, specifically Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting. Democrats have promised to fight to the bitter end to protect those two pillars of liberalism.

Then there's the EPA. The GOP proposal rolls back Obama's unilateral imposition of suffocating fossil fuel restrictions enforced by the EPA through the concept that they now have the right to control CO2 emissions as a pollutant. Yes, that's the gas we all emit when we exhale. The bill strips the ability of the EPA to restrict, shut down, deny permits, and otherwise harrass energy companies in the pretense of saving the planet from global climate change (formerly known as global warming).

Obama's publicly dead set against having his EPA restrictions rolled back. The usual suspects, led by Reid and Pelosi, are already predicting widespread deaths from disease and starvation because the evil GOP somehow desires to shift money from the
"safety net" into the pockets of fat cat corporate types.

When in the end, the current fight is between an actual drop in the water bucket versus an imaginary one.

And the debate has barely started over the next budget, just unveiled by Paul Ryan and his GOP budget committee colleagues. Think fighting over CO2 regulation, Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting is tough? Just wait to see the fight that breaks out over the dismantling of Obamacare, shifting of Medicaid to the States, gradual increases in the retirement age, and pay freezes for Federal Employees.

Which of those will make Democrats angriest? I think it's close, but I'd pick a narrow victory of the Federal Pay Freeze over killing Obamacare. Because they'll always put their personal interests above their ideology - ergo the biggest fight will be to keep their own pay and benefits rolling in.

It's quite ironic to hear Obama blast the Republicans for being ideological in what he characterizes are their unwillingness to compromise. Does he really expect us to believe that he's the non-ideological, practical problem-solver adult in the room? Wow.

Falling Back into Recession

I'm not a researcher, and I don't have macro-level information to back me up, but I'm fairly convinced that we're already slipping back into another recession.

Plenty of folks probably think we never left the last one, and it certainly feels that way. High unemployment and even higher underemployment, a disastrous housing market, rising prices and our Federal, State and Local governments teetering on bankruptcy sure doesn't feel like a recovery.

I remember during the Bush years when the unemployment rate was in the 4's, some Bush-hating Democrats I know used to claim that the country was in dire financial straits. Their logic was based on a trumpeted Democrat talking point that said, sure, it may seem like there are plenty of people with jobs, but those jobs stink. The logic said that the average worker's effective wages were declining while the captains of big business were rolling in it. You know, the old rich-get-richer while poor-get-poorer theme.

So we put Democrats in charge. They celebrated a decline in the unemployment rate to 8.8 percent this week. While job losses have slowed, and some folks are returning to work, the underlying statistics suggest that 8.8 is a misleading number. Because so many have simply given up on their job search, so they get dropped from the statistics. Others take part-time minimum-wage jobs even though they obviously prefer a full-time job but can't find one, and they're also dropped from the statistics.

All of these statistics lag behind what's happening today. My personal feeling, based on the companies I work with around the country pulling back again and gas getting back around $4, tells me we're entering another recession period.

I am familiar with companies that will soon be going through layoffs. I know of companies that are cancelling capital projects because orders are slowing down. I know of companies that are scaling back because they can't get financing in a very tight loan market.

Executives openly talk about the only thing they think can get the economy back on track; an Obama defeat next year. And these guys aren't necessarily hyper-partisan types. They are very clear about the reasons they believe it's so critical to replace the president with someone to roll back the specific policies that are destroying their businesses.

The health care law, the suffocating regulations affecting many of my clients' businesses directly, the shutdown of all energy development in the country, the investment-killing budget deficits and debts being piled up, and the willful destruction of the dollar are all specific reasons behind their strongly held belief that removing this president is the only way to reverse this economic disaster.

It seems to me that people voted for Democrats thinking that somehow they'd make their employers pay them better. Instead, they destroyed their jobs by destroying the companies that used to employ them.

I tend to agree that the only real hope for better days lies in electing a new president next year, but I'd add to that the need to replace enough left-wing Senators to roll back the Obama agenda. Even then, recovery is only possible if we find and elect the right people to lead, with common sense, intelligence, and the integrity to put the country first; especially above their contributors and benefactors who hope to gain personal benefits by getting their guy (or gal) to Washington.

Chiming in on Education Vouchers

One of the reasons Indiana's Democrats ran away to Illinois for over a month to deny a quorum at the statehouse was their close ties to the Teachers' union, which was strongly demanding they do whatever it takes to stop the school voucher program being pushed by the newly minted GOP majority.

The basic concept is that those who want to escape a terrible public school and actually go somewhere else to get an actual education, but don't have the means to pay private school tuition, will now be able to apply for the State of Indiana to contribute a defined amount of cash to whatever school they choose to attend.

The teachers are scared to death by this initiative, and are convinced it will eventually lead to the collapse of the public school systems. The opposite side of the argument is that it will provide competition and incentive for school administrators and teachers to step up their game and improve the quality of education in their schools to keep those students from bolting to a private school.

The fundamental question comes down to whether or not the idea will work. Ultimately the only way we can find out is if we try it, which I'm willing to do. Because there's no question that public schools in general, and the big city schools in particular, are an unmitigated disaster. Why must we continue to throw money at the schools and teachers until we're almost bankrupt, only to see the quality of education decline year after year?

Look at the Indianapolis Public Schools. They have wonderful football stadia and fantastic basketball arenas. But their students can't manage an SAT score good enough to qualify them for any of the state universities (unless they're a blue-chip athlete, which is different).

We hear more and more frightening tales about the dangers and outrages taking place in the hallways and restrooms of these taj mahal buildings. Bullies assault kids for not being cool enough. Underage couples have sex in the alcoves and bathrooms, and we can't be sure how often it should be classified as rape or assault. Illicit drugs and gangs selling them in the stairwells are a serious problem. Teachers hide in their classrooms or the lounge because they're afraid of being assaulted themselves if they take the chance to roam the halls alone during the school day.

Do you want your kid to go to these schools? I can't imagine any sane parent who would.

Yes, there's a pretty good chance that the schools in IPS might lose enough of their funding and students with this program that they'll have to be closed. But unless the administrators and teachers are willing to step up and demand standards of discipline and behavior in their schools and take back the hallways and restrooms, perhaps they deserve to close.

I'm not insensitive to some of the challenges these public schools are facing. They tremble in fear that a parent will sue them if they dare to discipline an unruly student. They fear that their best students will be the first to take the vouchers and escape to the private schools, but who can blame them?

Only boldness, dedication, and determination by the teams of principals, deans, counselors, and teachers can turn the disastrous schools around. Students in the cities come from poor, broken and disfunctional homes where there is little to no caring adult supervision are the most difficult to reach and inspire.

But our country's future depends on someone finding a way to do it, and if our public schools can't, maybe the private schools can.

Is My Perception Accurate?

I didn't really want to, but somehow ended up watching Obama's speech on Libya last night. What has me thinking this morning isn't about what he said, but how I perceived his speech.

Unless I've missed it, I don't see others (at least on the Web) who share my perception of Obama's speech. Has my perception of the speech been influenced by a deep mistrust and ingrained negative perception of Obama himself, or is my analysis of his speech accurate?

Time to describe the speech and my interpretation: Obama was the angry stepfather scolding all of us for being too stupid to understand his greatness.

Throughout the speech, it seemed his attitude and bearing came across as angry, defensive, condescending, and superior. His main point was that Gaddafi was a bad guy who was killing his own people, therefore we have a moral responsibility to step in to protect those innocent victims. The point was delivered with an air that said, you're all such idiots for not understanding this and forcing me to be here to explain.

Then lest anyone have the temerity to point out his naked hypocrisy based on the similar case made by Bush for Iraq, he made sure to petulantly point out that unlike (the evil) Bush, he successfully convinced the United Nations to sanction the effort and created a coalition with NATO and a couple of Arab countries.

The natural follow-up question to his attempt at moral superiority over his predecessor is, what if you failed to get the UN to go along? (Actually, his success was in getting the dissenting members of the security council like Russia and China to abstain rather than vote no). Would that make the mission still morally imperative, even if the United States had to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people by ourselves?

But asking silly questions like that of the Narcissist-in-Chief is beside the point. He failed to even try answering the main complaint about Libya, which is that he's bound by law to ask Congress for their approval before beginning such a foreign military adventure.

Please tell me, does the perception I get from this President as a spoiled brat narcissist whining at his detractors on National Television instead of making a sober and reasoned case for his Libyan war accurate? Does anyone else perceive him the same way, or have I somehow been blinded by my opposition to his other policies?

My own conclusion is that yes, I am sometimes influenced by my strongly negative opinions of Obama's policy priorities, nearly all of which I couldn't be stronger in my opposition. On the other hand, I have to believe that any honest and unbiased analysis of the speech would have to agree with my own assessment.