The most troubling part of our current situation in America is the realization that our President is a man of low character. American Presidents are supposed to be shining examples of honesty and integrity that all citizens can hold up as a model for their children.
For the last couple of weeks, Obama's been on a tour of the country demagoguing the "sequester" as some kind of draconian spending cut that will make lines longer, hamper our police and fire departments, lay off teachers, and perhaps even starve poor children. I think it was former New York mayor Giuliani who illustrated it this way:
Suppose you make 100 grand a year and your boss promised you a ten percent raise next year. So you're looking forward to receiving 110 grand next year. Then your boss comes back and says, "Sorry, we can't afford to give you a 10 thousand dollar increase next year, but we will give you about 8 thousand."
Do you rant and rave about the unfairness of it all and tell your boss your children will starve and have to stay home from school if he doesn't give you the full 10 grand? No, you're a bit disappointed that you'll get a smaller raise. But you will adjust.
Giuliani's illustration is exactly right. Obama's over-the-top chicken little act is dishonest. He even sent Arne Duncan out to talk about the thousands of teachers that will be laid off because of the sequester over the weekend. Some intrepid reporters decided to check that one out, and found one school district in West Virginia that is reassigning some teachers. Turns out that school district's actions have nothing to do with the sequester, but a need to reorganize within their own organization for better efficiency. Add to that fact that there may not be any teachers terminated, merely reassigned to new jobs, and the whole story is proven false.
The report came out this week that ICE is releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants from detention, to be followed by as many as 10,000. The releases being attributed to the sequester, of course. But when it came out that such unlawful acts may be impeachable offenses, all of a sudden the White House said they knew nothing about the releases, and laughably even Janet Napolitano denied knowing anything about it either. They'd have us believe a decision to release thousands of illegal immigrants from custody and blame a sequester that hasn't even taken effect yet was made by some mid-level manager in ICE? We don't need proof to presume they're lying once again.
Top it off with the iconic Washington Post reporter, Bob Woodward, who brought down Richard Nixon with his Watergate reporting and can in no way be called a Republican tool. He merely told the truth, that the sequester was an idea created by Obama, who then insisted on its inclusion in last year's debt deal. Of course, that means he's been lying when he constantly tries to blame the sequester as a GOP scheme. Woodward was harrassed to stop telling that story by the White House, then he was threatened in an email.
You don't do that to Bob Woodward, even if you're aligned with him as a Democrat. Bob went public with the email, proving that the White House is entering dangerous territory that suggests they are willing to use their power to suppress the first amendment freedoms of the press and expression. Could you imaging George W Bush, George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan doing anything like that to a reporter that's printing stories that cast them in a bad light? Notice that the "mainstream" networks have been ignoring Woodward and his experience.
Bill Clinton was also a president of low character. Not just because of Monica Lewinsky, although that's enough of a sin for me. But he then used the immense power of his office to force her and others to lie to investigators, and repeatedly lied himself in his attempt to cover up the whole affair. He was impeached, but the Senate decided to ignore the facts of the case and refused to convict him out of fear of the violence that may have occurred from liberal Americans who love the Clintons.
I sort of think it would be better to have a Jimmy Carter in office rather than Obama or Clinton. Carter was incompetent on domestic governace because of his socialist worldview, and inept on foreign policy because of a stunning naievete. But at least I don't recall him lying as a matter of course or strong-arming the press or other citizens to force favorable treatment of his administration.
We re-elected a man of low character, either because slightly more than half of voters were ignorant of that fact or because they don't care. If the truth is the latter, the country is already beyond hope.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
What Can You Wear to a Costume Party?
Driving to lunch today I heard some talk radio host discussing a story from New York. I don't know any details beyond the little bit I heard while driving, but what got me thinking was just the general question about what's acceptable to wear to a costume party?
The story was about some New York Assemblyman who showed up at a party dressed in blackface and an afro wig. The uber-sensitive New Yorkers were aghast. According to the talk show host, they were so upset they accused the guy of being a Conservative! He probably just said, "shoot me now" when he heard that one. The host said the guy's just another New York Democrat, so the conservative accusation sounds like it's an attempt to suggest that only conservatives would do something so racist as to show up to a party dressed up as a black man.
Rather than discuss the politics and rampant PC nature of the story, this got me thinking something else. Suppose you received an invitation to a costume party. What costumes are "safe", and which will earn you a "racist" label?
Let's start with the blackface question. Suppose you're a chubby dude who can do a reasonably good Bill Cosby imitation. So you dress up as Fat Albert and show up at the party with a hearty, "Hey, Hey, Hey!". Does that make you racist no matter what, is it racist only if your impression stinks, or is it not racist at all but merely an homage to Bill Cosby and one of his best cartoon characters?
Here's another one. You put on mocassins and buckskins, add a headband with a colored feather, and maybe a few fingers of "warpaint" across your cheeks. You do a reasonable imitation of Tonto as you enter the party, calling everyone "Kemosabe". Is that racist? If it is, then what about the ourtrageous costume worn by Johnny Depp in his portrayal of Tonto in the upcoming Lone Ranger movie? If it's racist to show up to a party as Tonto in a less outrageous costume, then what would you call Depp's portrayal?
It just occurs to me that creating a costume for a party should not be a career-ending move. Because I don't see any racism there. If it somehow involves an elaborate insult to somebody at the party, which I can't imagine precisely how that would work, maybe it could be interpreted as racist. But this guy in New York deserves a lot more ridicule for how silly he probably looked in blackface and an afro wig than being crucified for racism. Perhaps either case might be a career-ender, but I don't see racism in what he did. Of course I didn't see a picture of him in costume either - perhaps that could change my mind.
The story was about some New York Assemblyman who showed up at a party dressed in blackface and an afro wig. The uber-sensitive New Yorkers were aghast. According to the talk show host, they were so upset they accused the guy of being a Conservative! He probably just said, "shoot me now" when he heard that one. The host said the guy's just another New York Democrat, so the conservative accusation sounds like it's an attempt to suggest that only conservatives would do something so racist as to show up to a party dressed up as a black man.
Rather than discuss the politics and rampant PC nature of the story, this got me thinking something else. Suppose you received an invitation to a costume party. What costumes are "safe", and which will earn you a "racist" label?
Let's start with the blackface question. Suppose you're a chubby dude who can do a reasonably good Bill Cosby imitation. So you dress up as Fat Albert and show up at the party with a hearty, "Hey, Hey, Hey!". Does that make you racist no matter what, is it racist only if your impression stinks, or is it not racist at all but merely an homage to Bill Cosby and one of his best cartoon characters?
Here's another one. You put on mocassins and buckskins, add a headband with a colored feather, and maybe a few fingers of "warpaint" across your cheeks. You do a reasonable imitation of Tonto as you enter the party, calling everyone "Kemosabe". Is that racist? If it is, then what about the ourtrageous costume worn by Johnny Depp in his portrayal of Tonto in the upcoming Lone Ranger movie? If it's racist to show up to a party as Tonto in a less outrageous costume, then what would you call Depp's portrayal?
It just occurs to me that creating a costume for a party should not be a career-ending move. Because I don't see any racism there. If it somehow involves an elaborate insult to somebody at the party, which I can't imagine precisely how that would work, maybe it could be interpreted as racist. But this guy in New York deserves a lot more ridicule for how silly he probably looked in blackface and an afro wig than being crucified for racism. Perhaps either case might be a career-ender, but I don't see racism in what he did. Of course I didn't see a picture of him in costume either - perhaps that could change my mind.
Why Government Can't Run Anything
The worst example of the petualant government punishing us for daring to try reeling them in just a bit was reported today. Janet Napolitano has decided to release detained illegal immigrants, claiming the pending "sequester" as the cause. This is why we shouldn't let the government run anything, because they aren't focused on doing the best thing for America, but on piling up as much personal power and wealth as they possibly can at the expense of the rest of us.
Some examples of bureaucratic dysfunction from personal experience:
Post Office: Can we feel sorry that they're going bankrupt? I have multiple experiences that went something like this: I decide to run to the Columbus Post Office at lunchtime to mail a package or two. But lunchtime is when everybody else goes to the Post Office, so the line goes out the door and way down the hall. As I make my way slowly through the line, I observe that there are two clerks serving the line of what I've estimated to be about 50 customers. When I'm almost at the front of the line, one of the two clerks finishes with a customer then puts the "Closed" sign up at his station and leaves. Now there's only one clerk, and the line's still extended out the door and down the hallway. You don't mess with a union worker's scheduled break - no matter what! I learned to use my small-town branch, which has extremely limited hours and is actually closed at lunchtime, but if you catch them open there's never a line.
College: Got kids that went to private colleges. Dealing with private colleges on tuition bills and financial aid questions is pretty nice. They're very accessible, friendly, and helpful. But if your kid goes to a public university, just flip that on its head. Did they make a mistake on the tuition bill? You probably will have to go ahead and just pay the mistake, because you'll never be able to resolve it. It takes herioc persistence to actually get somebody in the Bursar's office to take your call. If you do get that State employee on the phone, you'll be stunned at her attitude; she will make it clear to you that she really does not care in the slightest whether there was a mistake on your bill, she will be defensive in making it crystal clear to you that the mistake wasn't her fault, then she will show little to no interest in fixing the error.
Medicare and Medicaid: We've just recently had more experience with these government organizations than anybody should be saddled with in a lifetime. I won't go into detail, but just imagine all the worst stereotypes of the uncaring government bureaucrat rolled into one beastly government employee. Its as if they've been trained to make any contact with them the most painful experience anyone could possibly imagine. Excessive rules and regulations, most of which are unfathomable and random. No compassion, no empathy, and certainly no attempt to be helpful in finding a way through the regulatory tangle to solve a problem. I'd call Medicare and Medicaid bureaucrats bloodsucking trolls who practice Senior Abuse. Just think, Obamacare mainly expands these programs to affect every one of us.
Now the idea of cutting back the growth of the bureaucracy about 2 percent has caused Obama to go on a campaign tour scaring everybody about all the government programs that will get worse because they can't spend all of the additional budget they were supposed to automatically receive next year. The King of the Bureaucrats says, "How dare you cut back on my money. If you don't give it back, I'm going to make your lives even more miserable than I do already."
Is that even possible?
Some examples of bureaucratic dysfunction from personal experience:
Post Office: Can we feel sorry that they're going bankrupt? I have multiple experiences that went something like this: I decide to run to the Columbus Post Office at lunchtime to mail a package or two. But lunchtime is when everybody else goes to the Post Office, so the line goes out the door and way down the hall. As I make my way slowly through the line, I observe that there are two clerks serving the line of what I've estimated to be about 50 customers. When I'm almost at the front of the line, one of the two clerks finishes with a customer then puts the "Closed" sign up at his station and leaves. Now there's only one clerk, and the line's still extended out the door and down the hallway. You don't mess with a union worker's scheduled break - no matter what! I learned to use my small-town branch, which has extremely limited hours and is actually closed at lunchtime, but if you catch them open there's never a line.
College: Got kids that went to private colleges. Dealing with private colleges on tuition bills and financial aid questions is pretty nice. They're very accessible, friendly, and helpful. But if your kid goes to a public university, just flip that on its head. Did they make a mistake on the tuition bill? You probably will have to go ahead and just pay the mistake, because you'll never be able to resolve it. It takes herioc persistence to actually get somebody in the Bursar's office to take your call. If you do get that State employee on the phone, you'll be stunned at her attitude; she will make it clear to you that she really does not care in the slightest whether there was a mistake on your bill, she will be defensive in making it crystal clear to you that the mistake wasn't her fault, then she will show little to no interest in fixing the error.
Medicare and Medicaid: We've just recently had more experience with these government organizations than anybody should be saddled with in a lifetime. I won't go into detail, but just imagine all the worst stereotypes of the uncaring government bureaucrat rolled into one beastly government employee. Its as if they've been trained to make any contact with them the most painful experience anyone could possibly imagine. Excessive rules and regulations, most of which are unfathomable and random. No compassion, no empathy, and certainly no attempt to be helpful in finding a way through the regulatory tangle to solve a problem. I'd call Medicare and Medicaid bureaucrats bloodsucking trolls who practice Senior Abuse. Just think, Obamacare mainly expands these programs to affect every one of us.
Now the idea of cutting back the growth of the bureaucracy about 2 percent has caused Obama to go on a campaign tour scaring everybody about all the government programs that will get worse because they can't spend all of the additional budget they were supposed to automatically receive next year. The King of the Bureaucrats says, "How dare you cut back on my money. If you don't give it back, I'm going to make your lives even more miserable than I do already."
Is that even possible?
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Sharing the Misery
For many years now, I've heard and mostly agreed with the theme about what Liberal governance brings; not an improvement in poor people's lives, but misery shared equally by all.
So now we get Forbes' list of the most miserable cities in America.
1. Detroit
2. Flint
3. Rockford, IL
4. Chicago
5. Modesto, CA
6. Vallejo, CA
7. Warren, MI
8. Stockton, CA
9. Lake County, IL
10. New York
11. Toledo, OH
12. St Louis
13. Camden, NJ
14. Milwaukee
15. Atlantic City
16. Atlanta
17. Cleveland
18. Poughkeepsie, NY
19. Gary, IN
20. Youngstown, OH
The obvious conclusion that can be reached with this list is related to the consequences of unfettered Liberal governance. With Rockford, Chicago, and Lake County all in the top 10, it should give everyone pause about the president we somehow elected twice who is a product of that Chicago machine.
Certainly California and New York fit the bill in terms of unfettered liberal socialist governance. But I see other trends.
What ties these cities together - Detroit, Flint, Warren, Toledo? The auto manufacturing industry. Wait, isn't Obama out there telling everyone he saved that industry? Dirty little truth - he didn't save it, be merely extended and deepened the misery. Bailing out the union pension funds and beefing up GM's balance sheet did nothing to address the structural failures of GM. Giving Chrysler away to Fiat hardly qualifies as "saving" that company.
Fact is, Henry Ford's American automotive juggernaut is dead. The Japanese, Koreans, and Germans are all building better cars cheaper. Because they don't face the same obstacles the U.S. Government places in front of the American manufacturers. Fortunately Henry's company continues to survive despite all the efforts of Washington bureaucrats to kill it.
Another group of cities - Cleveland, Gary, Youngstown. Those cities have long been known as Steel Cities. What has killed them? Federal Environmental Regulation. Gary was once a thriving metropolis with jobs for the taking that paid wages well above those people could get anywhere else. But they were dirty jobs. Dangerous jobs. So the Steel Industry is all but gone from North America, moved overseas to countries who don't mind putting their poor folks to work in dirty, dangerous steel plants.
So yes, every city on the list can track its demise straight back to government. Sometimes it's local government corruption (Gary, Cleveland), sometimes it's City and State corruption (Rockford, Chicago, Lake County, California). Mostly it's all of the above.
Want to find out where people are thriving? The Dakotas, where Obama hasn't figured out how to shut down their oil shale boom. Most of the states with Republican governors. Perhaps except for New Jersey, where we're learning that Chris Christie is not a Republican. In Ohio, even with a Republican Governor, it doesn't seem possible to overcome the longstanding domination of places like Cleveland by liberal Democrats. One of the most notorious places for Democrat voter fraud in this year's election was Cleveland.
Certainly Gary has always been influenced much more by Chicago politically than Indianapolis.
The trends can't be more stark.
So now we get Forbes' list of the most miserable cities in America.
1. Detroit
2. Flint
3. Rockford, IL
4. Chicago
5. Modesto, CA
6. Vallejo, CA
7. Warren, MI
8. Stockton, CA
9. Lake County, IL
10. New York
11. Toledo, OH
12. St Louis
13. Camden, NJ
14. Milwaukee
15. Atlantic City
16. Atlanta
17. Cleveland
18. Poughkeepsie, NY
19. Gary, IN
20. Youngstown, OH
The obvious conclusion that can be reached with this list is related to the consequences of unfettered Liberal governance. With Rockford, Chicago, and Lake County all in the top 10, it should give everyone pause about the president we somehow elected twice who is a product of that Chicago machine.
Certainly California and New York fit the bill in terms of unfettered liberal socialist governance. But I see other trends.
What ties these cities together - Detroit, Flint, Warren, Toledo? The auto manufacturing industry. Wait, isn't Obama out there telling everyone he saved that industry? Dirty little truth - he didn't save it, be merely extended and deepened the misery. Bailing out the union pension funds and beefing up GM's balance sheet did nothing to address the structural failures of GM. Giving Chrysler away to Fiat hardly qualifies as "saving" that company.
Fact is, Henry Ford's American automotive juggernaut is dead. The Japanese, Koreans, and Germans are all building better cars cheaper. Because they don't face the same obstacles the U.S. Government places in front of the American manufacturers. Fortunately Henry's company continues to survive despite all the efforts of Washington bureaucrats to kill it.
Another group of cities - Cleveland, Gary, Youngstown. Those cities have long been known as Steel Cities. What has killed them? Federal Environmental Regulation. Gary was once a thriving metropolis with jobs for the taking that paid wages well above those people could get anywhere else. But they were dirty jobs. Dangerous jobs. So the Steel Industry is all but gone from North America, moved overseas to countries who don't mind putting their poor folks to work in dirty, dangerous steel plants.
So yes, every city on the list can track its demise straight back to government. Sometimes it's local government corruption (Gary, Cleveland), sometimes it's City and State corruption (Rockford, Chicago, Lake County, California). Mostly it's all of the above.
Want to find out where people are thriving? The Dakotas, where Obama hasn't figured out how to shut down their oil shale boom. Most of the states with Republican governors. Perhaps except for New Jersey, where we're learning that Chris Christie is not a Republican. In Ohio, even with a Republican Governor, it doesn't seem possible to overcome the longstanding domination of places like Cleveland by liberal Democrats. One of the most notorious places for Democrat voter fraud in this year's election was Cleveland.
Certainly Gary has always been influenced much more by Chicago politically than Indianapolis.
The trends can't be more stark.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
False Assumptions Blindly Accepted
Claudia had her ETWN Catholic Radio streaming this morning, and I heard some women in a conversation about Pope Benedict's retirement. What I picked up on was their discussion about somebody on MSNBC who was hassling a Catholic guest (I didn't pick up on who the guest was or who the MSNBC host was) about Pope Benedict's possible successor.
It was the narrative we can expect from the Left Wing people who dominate the MSNBC lineup. Harrass the Catholic guest about the need for the new Pope to be more "moderate". The ladies were reacting to the host's caricature of Pope Benedict as a "Conservative", and that host's insistence that the Church should be more flexible and elect a "moderate" or "liberal" replacement.
The ladies were saying that the Church doesn't care about today's divisive labels like "Conservative" or "Liberal". The Church holds to the teachings of Jesus Christ, which do not change along with popular secular values. Where I thought they went off the rails a bit was when they used an invalid assumption to argue that the Church is not "Liberal" because they care about the poor, just as they are not "Conservative" because they honor the sacrament of marriage.
They've fallen into the popular culture trap that suggests that Liberals have the exclusive franchise for the characteristic called "Caring for the Poor". That suggestion is so ingrained that I don't think the ladies have the slightest awareness of how terribly untrue it is.
Liberal socialist government gains and holds power by creating dependency among the highest possible number of citizens. So now we hear that somewhere around half of the total United States population gets a check or some other form of subsidy from Washington every month. Did that happen because they "care" more about poor people than conservatives?
No. It happened because the most important goal of a liberal politician is always to gain office, then make sure he or she stays in that office in perpetuity. They create massive new programs under the guise of "helping the poor" which simply allow them to hire lots of their friends into overpaid positions in the bureaucracy, where those friends are empowered to write all the rules and regulations about who qualifies, how much they get in their check, and often what they can use the money to buy. The goal of these programs is not to move people back to self-sufficiency; rather it is to continue to grow the rolls of beneficiaries so they can hire more buddies and write more rules.
Meanwhile, Conservatives actually find ways to help people with their actual problems. Rather than a monthly check with strings attached, a conservative prefers to deal with a poor person one at a time. Find out who the poor person is, and what he needs. If he needs a meal, a conservative feeds him through his church's soup kitchen or food pantry. If he needs a job, a conservatives refers him to placement agencies. Overall, the conservative rejects the centralized monthly check approach in favor of helping the poor person solve whatever problem is standing between him and self-sufficiency.
So the only government program a conservative might support to deal with the poor would be an agency designed to meet the immediate need, prepare the poor person through education to be able to find and hold a job, then transition that poor person into a life of self-sufficiency. No strings attached, other than a message to the person that was helped that they should show their appreciation by contributing to help others benefit from their experience.
I'm tired of this narrative that Liberals are the only ones who care about the poor. Who cares more about a poor man? The one who demands the government levy higher taxes on somebody else so they can send the man a monthly check, keeping him poor and helpless his entire life? Or the one who prefers to go out and help the man escape his poverty and become successful, independent, and free?
It was the narrative we can expect from the Left Wing people who dominate the MSNBC lineup. Harrass the Catholic guest about the need for the new Pope to be more "moderate". The ladies were reacting to the host's caricature of Pope Benedict as a "Conservative", and that host's insistence that the Church should be more flexible and elect a "moderate" or "liberal" replacement.
The ladies were saying that the Church doesn't care about today's divisive labels like "Conservative" or "Liberal". The Church holds to the teachings of Jesus Christ, which do not change along with popular secular values. Where I thought they went off the rails a bit was when they used an invalid assumption to argue that the Church is not "Liberal" because they care about the poor, just as they are not "Conservative" because they honor the sacrament of marriage.
They've fallen into the popular culture trap that suggests that Liberals have the exclusive franchise for the characteristic called "Caring for the Poor". That suggestion is so ingrained that I don't think the ladies have the slightest awareness of how terribly untrue it is.
Liberal socialist government gains and holds power by creating dependency among the highest possible number of citizens. So now we hear that somewhere around half of the total United States population gets a check or some other form of subsidy from Washington every month. Did that happen because they "care" more about poor people than conservatives?
No. It happened because the most important goal of a liberal politician is always to gain office, then make sure he or she stays in that office in perpetuity. They create massive new programs under the guise of "helping the poor" which simply allow them to hire lots of their friends into overpaid positions in the bureaucracy, where those friends are empowered to write all the rules and regulations about who qualifies, how much they get in their check, and often what they can use the money to buy. The goal of these programs is not to move people back to self-sufficiency; rather it is to continue to grow the rolls of beneficiaries so they can hire more buddies and write more rules.
Meanwhile, Conservatives actually find ways to help people with their actual problems. Rather than a monthly check with strings attached, a conservative prefers to deal with a poor person one at a time. Find out who the poor person is, and what he needs. If he needs a meal, a conservative feeds him through his church's soup kitchen or food pantry. If he needs a job, a conservatives refers him to placement agencies. Overall, the conservative rejects the centralized monthly check approach in favor of helping the poor person solve whatever problem is standing between him and self-sufficiency.
So the only government program a conservative might support to deal with the poor would be an agency designed to meet the immediate need, prepare the poor person through education to be able to find and hold a job, then transition that poor person into a life of self-sufficiency. No strings attached, other than a message to the person that was helped that they should show their appreciation by contributing to help others benefit from their experience.
I'm tired of this narrative that Liberals are the only ones who care about the poor. Who cares more about a poor man? The one who demands the government levy higher taxes on somebody else so they can send the man a monthly check, keeping him poor and helpless his entire life? Or the one who prefers to go out and help the man escape his poverty and become successful, independent, and free?
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
This Stuff Doesn't Happen in America
At least that's what I used to think, until Kathleen Sebelius and Barack Obama announced their Contraceptive Mandate under ObamaCare. I just read the letter sent out by David Green, the founder of Hobby Lobby, looking for support in his newly filed lawsuit against the Feds. He already filed a suit earlier, but a liberal judge threw it out without considering it. So he's back to square one with the courts.
Only dictators did this kind of stuff to their own citizens. People like Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Over the past few years I have been reading and listening to current and former members of the Obama cabinet as they express admiration for Mao and Stalin.
Hobby Lobby is facing fines well in excess of a million dollars per day for refusing to comply. Sebelius says that the "Morning After Pill" is not an abortifacient. Is that a lie or a technical misinterpretation of the definition of "abortifacient"?
Germans elected an evil dictator who burned down the planet and killed millions while he tried to create his perfect society. Americans have elected and re-elected a man no less evil who hasn't started killing people already born, but clearly has the annihilation of all "unwanted" (read: undesirable) children at the top of his list.
What will it take for Americans to wake up to the tyranny? The contraceptive mandate isn't a big deal to them because they use them, and think religious objections are silly. The destruction of the coal industry they don't know much about, because the news media refuses to report it. The efforts to block all other carbon-based energy sources they also remain oblivious and willfully ignorant about, even as the new Secretary of State uses his very first public speech after taking over the office to promote - guess what? - Global Climate Change! See, he says it's the single most critical threat to national security that's out there.
So the two top priorities for the Obama government are:
1. Stop everyone not in the bureaucrat class from having children!
2. Stop everyone who refuses to comply with the tyrant bureaucracy from earning a living, heating and cooling their homes, or driving their vehicles so they can't escape to a place of freedom.
The old movie "The Time Machine" played on a cable channel over the weekend. The one made in the 60's, not the more recent version. And I thought about today's America when I watched the scene in which all of the Eloi marched to their slaughter as if in a trance as the Morlocks sounded the air raid sirens. The poor sheep-like Eloi had been conditioned by the Morlocks to be complient that they didn't even really understand what they were doing, nor that by obeying their conditioned response they were willingly walking to their death.
Will it be too late to save our grand country before we find outselves being marched to our own destruction by our own Morlocks? Perhaps if we started calling Federal Bureaucrats "Morlocks" from now on, people will begin to figure it out. Barack Obama is King of the Morlocks. Kathleen Sebelius is the leader of the Morlock bereaucrat class, who live underground and feast on poor unsuspecting Eloi citizens.
Only dictators did this kind of stuff to their own citizens. People like Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Over the past few years I have been reading and listening to current and former members of the Obama cabinet as they express admiration for Mao and Stalin.
Hobby Lobby is facing fines well in excess of a million dollars per day for refusing to comply. Sebelius says that the "Morning After Pill" is not an abortifacient. Is that a lie or a technical misinterpretation of the definition of "abortifacient"?
Germans elected an evil dictator who burned down the planet and killed millions while he tried to create his perfect society. Americans have elected and re-elected a man no less evil who hasn't started killing people already born, but clearly has the annihilation of all "unwanted" (read: undesirable) children at the top of his list.
What will it take for Americans to wake up to the tyranny? The contraceptive mandate isn't a big deal to them because they use them, and think religious objections are silly. The destruction of the coal industry they don't know much about, because the news media refuses to report it. The efforts to block all other carbon-based energy sources they also remain oblivious and willfully ignorant about, even as the new Secretary of State uses his very first public speech after taking over the office to promote - guess what? - Global Climate Change! See, he says it's the single most critical threat to national security that's out there.
So the two top priorities for the Obama government are:
1. Stop everyone not in the bureaucrat class from having children!
2. Stop everyone who refuses to comply with the tyrant bureaucracy from earning a living, heating and cooling their homes, or driving their vehicles so they can't escape to a place of freedom.
The old movie "The Time Machine" played on a cable channel over the weekend. The one made in the 60's, not the more recent version. And I thought about today's America when I watched the scene in which all of the Eloi marched to their slaughter as if in a trance as the Morlocks sounded the air raid sirens. The poor sheep-like Eloi had been conditioned by the Morlocks to be complient that they didn't even really understand what they were doing, nor that by obeying their conditioned response they were willingly walking to their death.
Will it be too late to save our grand country before we find outselves being marched to our own destruction by our own Morlocks? Perhaps if we started calling Federal Bureaucrats "Morlocks" from now on, people will begin to figure it out. Barack Obama is King of the Morlocks. Kathleen Sebelius is the leader of the Morlock bereaucrat class, who live underground and feast on poor unsuspecting Eloi citizens.
Good Basketball Night
Indiana and Butler were playing simultaneously. So I used the "Previous Channel" button last night to pop back and forth between the games. I didn't need to spend a lot of time with Butler, as they dispatched Duquesne pretty easily. Indiana didn't have such an easy time with Michigan State, which was as expected.
Magic Johnson was highly complimentary of the Hoosiers, calling out Victor Oladipo for special recognition. Victor was absolutely the Indiana player most worthy to be featured as the catalyst who led the Hoosiers to victory. The Spartans made a serious bid late in the game to grab the win and consequently the sole lead of the Big 10. But Oladipo's steals, dunks, and free throws allowed the Hoosiers to reclaim a lost lead and pull away from the Spartans at the end.
Even as a lifelong fan of Indiana basketball, I have to confess that I expected them to fall at Michigan State. The Spartans looked fantastic in recent victories over Michigan and Ohio State. Add the home-court advantage that is so evident in the Big 10, and I figured the Hoosiers would not be able to overcome.
Now Indiana retains their top national ranking and is very likely to be awarded a top seed in the tournament. Unless the wheels come off and the Hoosiers suddenly go on a losing streak in their last 3 or 4 games of the season. They may drop a game, perhaps to Minnesota or Ohio State. But after last night's performance, I sort of doubt they'll stumble the rest of the way. I would like to see Cody Zeller become a bit more assertive on offense, something Magic Johnson pointed out last night. If the Hoosiers go into the tournament with Cody dominating the paint, Vic Oladipi creating and slashing to the hoop, Jordi Hulls burying 3's, Yogi distributing the ball and eliminating turnovers and looking more like Isaiah, Watford hitting open shots and dunking offensive rebouds, and Sheehy going on scoring tears off the bench, they've got to be a favorite for the national championship.
As Magic said last night, "Indiana has to be a favorite in the tournament, because they have it all". Sure, they do have all the pieces to win, but all those pieces don't quite show up as expected every game.
Butler looks healthy and they're certainly rediscovering their signature tough team defense and dead-eye shooting. They still struggled in some areas against Duquesne last night, but played the best I've seen since before their loss in St. Louis.
The Bulldogs get the Billikens next at home. I hope to have a chance to see that game, and am curious to see whether Hinkle Fieldhouse will help them find their game and reverse the effects of that Billiken blowout of a couple of weeks ago. They need to beat STL at home to convince me that they really might have a chance to go deep into the tournament next month.
The tournament will be more fun than it's been in many years, if my predictions hold true. Especially if my final four picks actually make it through. Butler has to beet the Billikens to win my confidence for them, Duke and Indiana must close out their conference titles, and Michigan must start playing a lot better. If Michigan doesn't improve, I may have to replace them with Michigan State in my Final Four. Whatever Butler does, I'll still root for them to make it through because I'm a fan, even though their performance against STL will tell me a lot about their chances.
Magic Johnson was highly complimentary of the Hoosiers, calling out Victor Oladipo for special recognition. Victor was absolutely the Indiana player most worthy to be featured as the catalyst who led the Hoosiers to victory. The Spartans made a serious bid late in the game to grab the win and consequently the sole lead of the Big 10. But Oladipo's steals, dunks, and free throws allowed the Hoosiers to reclaim a lost lead and pull away from the Spartans at the end.
Even as a lifelong fan of Indiana basketball, I have to confess that I expected them to fall at Michigan State. The Spartans looked fantastic in recent victories over Michigan and Ohio State. Add the home-court advantage that is so evident in the Big 10, and I figured the Hoosiers would not be able to overcome.
Now Indiana retains their top national ranking and is very likely to be awarded a top seed in the tournament. Unless the wheels come off and the Hoosiers suddenly go on a losing streak in their last 3 or 4 games of the season. They may drop a game, perhaps to Minnesota or Ohio State. But after last night's performance, I sort of doubt they'll stumble the rest of the way. I would like to see Cody Zeller become a bit more assertive on offense, something Magic Johnson pointed out last night. If the Hoosiers go into the tournament with Cody dominating the paint, Vic Oladipi creating and slashing to the hoop, Jordi Hulls burying 3's, Yogi distributing the ball and eliminating turnovers and looking more like Isaiah, Watford hitting open shots and dunking offensive rebouds, and Sheehy going on scoring tears off the bench, they've got to be a favorite for the national championship.
As Magic said last night, "Indiana has to be a favorite in the tournament, because they have it all". Sure, they do have all the pieces to win, but all those pieces don't quite show up as expected every game.
Butler looks healthy and they're certainly rediscovering their signature tough team defense and dead-eye shooting. They still struggled in some areas against Duquesne last night, but played the best I've seen since before their loss in St. Louis.
The Bulldogs get the Billikens next at home. I hope to have a chance to see that game, and am curious to see whether Hinkle Fieldhouse will help them find their game and reverse the effects of that Billiken blowout of a couple of weeks ago. They need to beat STL at home to convince me that they really might have a chance to go deep into the tournament next month.
The tournament will be more fun than it's been in many years, if my predictions hold true. Especially if my final four picks actually make it through. Butler has to beet the Billikens to win my confidence for them, Duke and Indiana must close out their conference titles, and Michigan must start playing a lot better. If Michigan doesn't improve, I may have to replace them with Michigan State in my Final Four. Whatever Butler does, I'll still root for them to make it through because I'm a fan, even though their performance against STL will tell me a lot about their chances.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Drones in Our Skies
There are recent stories about drones being deployed here in the United States. The stories I've seen so far are vague about the purpose of the drones, aside from suggesting they might be used in law enforcement.
The brand new policy and practice of the Obama admnistration is to use unmanned Drones extensively to kill enemy terrorists in the middle east. My initial reaction was that it sounds like a good idea. If we can get the intelligence that helps us figure out exactly where an Al Quaeda leader is hanging out, a drone strike can kill him without risking the lives of American military personnel who would otherwise be called upon to mount a risky commando raid to accomplish the same thing.
But then I hear that the drone strikes routinely take out not only the Al Quaeda leader, but also lots of people who happen to be in his vicinity. Including women and children. In war, women and children get killed if they're in the way - I understand that. But if I think for a moment about how I'd feel if a Drone strike killed my children who just happened to be in the way when it took out a terrorist target, it certainly wouldn't endear the country that's operating that drone to me.
All that aside, my biggest concern is that now it seems Drones will be based domestically. Obama himself is said to identify all targets himself. So naturally the next question I have is, who will Obama target for death by Drone here in America? I'm having trouble finding a good rationale for using drones domestically, for any purpose.
Adding to my unease is all the talk I hear from folks like Janet Napolitano about "Domestic Terrorists". As far as I can tell, a domestic terrorist is some sort of right-wing anti-government activist who is willing to attack American government facilities and personnel. Beyond Timothy McVeigh, who is she talking about? Maybe abortion clinic bombers? It's frightening to think that the current Leftist administration seems to view Conservatives as dangerous enemies to their brand of governance.
Sure, we may be their political enemies, but we're not a physical threat to them. We're hoping to get a chance to remove them from power, not with bombs and bullets, but at the ballot box. Now, if they succeed in their efforts to overturn the second amendment, I can't guarantee there won't be some folks who will resist strongly - maybe even violently. But today's Liberal imagination about Conservative violence is no more than fantasy.
Here's the scenario I think we may see play out very soon. The news headlines report a disastrous explosion and fire at, say, Rush Limbaugh's home in Florida. It takes place at 3AM while Rush and his wife are sleeping. Neither of them survives. The official government explanation is that it was an accidental explosion caused by a gas leak.
Over the weeks that follow, an increasing number of people become skeptical about the government story. Local law enforcement and first responders were blocked from the scene by Feds, according to several reports. An eyewitness who happened to be on the beach nearby at the time of the explosion swears he saw a missile penetrate the Limbaugh home at 3AM, which ignited a fireball.
Would this President be so bold as to assassinate his political opponents, especially if he sees his power seriously challenged? Would Obama use drones against his political enemies if he believed he could get away with it?
I hope and pray he would not. Certainly if the same Drone program had been implemented by George W. Bush, there would be crowds of outraged liberals on the streets in protest. I remember when the far left folks, like actors and college professors, were telling everybody who would listen how absolutely certain they were that the Bush administration had them under surveillance. Those same people have no issue with Obama's surveillance programs supplemented now by the Drone program.
I think it's because they trust Obama. They trust Obama not to spy on them, because of course they are his ardent supporters. They don't care whether Obama is spying on Conservatives, because they seem to consider conservatives evil people who deserve to be watched closely. I wonder if they're blind support for Obama would be shaken if they were actually faced with strong evidence he was taking out his opposition with Drone strikes on Conservative activists? My guess is no.
There's plenty of precedent in the history of the world. Authoritarian dictators have often repeated the pattern of arresting and "disappearing" their political opponents with mass murders they try to cover up by lying to the general public.
I'm also expecting Obama to instruct his FCC to close down Fox News and various talk radio shows, using a cover story that claims these outlets promote violence or domestic terrorism. What I can't predict with any certainty is whether those actions will precede the assassinations, follow them, or run concurrently with them.
A Liberal would tell me to lighten up, none of this stuff will actually ever happen. To the Liberal I would say, "I hope and pray these things do not happen". But the actions and rhetoric I've seen from this President for 4 years suggests strongly that there is major cause for concern.
The brand new policy and practice of the Obama admnistration is to use unmanned Drones extensively to kill enemy terrorists in the middle east. My initial reaction was that it sounds like a good idea. If we can get the intelligence that helps us figure out exactly where an Al Quaeda leader is hanging out, a drone strike can kill him without risking the lives of American military personnel who would otherwise be called upon to mount a risky commando raid to accomplish the same thing.
But then I hear that the drone strikes routinely take out not only the Al Quaeda leader, but also lots of people who happen to be in his vicinity. Including women and children. In war, women and children get killed if they're in the way - I understand that. But if I think for a moment about how I'd feel if a Drone strike killed my children who just happened to be in the way when it took out a terrorist target, it certainly wouldn't endear the country that's operating that drone to me.
All that aside, my biggest concern is that now it seems Drones will be based domestically. Obama himself is said to identify all targets himself. So naturally the next question I have is, who will Obama target for death by Drone here in America? I'm having trouble finding a good rationale for using drones domestically, for any purpose.
Adding to my unease is all the talk I hear from folks like Janet Napolitano about "Domestic Terrorists". As far as I can tell, a domestic terrorist is some sort of right-wing anti-government activist who is willing to attack American government facilities and personnel. Beyond Timothy McVeigh, who is she talking about? Maybe abortion clinic bombers? It's frightening to think that the current Leftist administration seems to view Conservatives as dangerous enemies to their brand of governance.
Sure, we may be their political enemies, but we're not a physical threat to them. We're hoping to get a chance to remove them from power, not with bombs and bullets, but at the ballot box. Now, if they succeed in their efforts to overturn the second amendment, I can't guarantee there won't be some folks who will resist strongly - maybe even violently. But today's Liberal imagination about Conservative violence is no more than fantasy.
Here's the scenario I think we may see play out very soon. The news headlines report a disastrous explosion and fire at, say, Rush Limbaugh's home in Florida. It takes place at 3AM while Rush and his wife are sleeping. Neither of them survives. The official government explanation is that it was an accidental explosion caused by a gas leak.
Over the weeks that follow, an increasing number of people become skeptical about the government story. Local law enforcement and first responders were blocked from the scene by Feds, according to several reports. An eyewitness who happened to be on the beach nearby at the time of the explosion swears he saw a missile penetrate the Limbaugh home at 3AM, which ignited a fireball.
Would this President be so bold as to assassinate his political opponents, especially if he sees his power seriously challenged? Would Obama use drones against his political enemies if he believed he could get away with it?
I hope and pray he would not. Certainly if the same Drone program had been implemented by George W. Bush, there would be crowds of outraged liberals on the streets in protest. I remember when the far left folks, like actors and college professors, were telling everybody who would listen how absolutely certain they were that the Bush administration had them under surveillance. Those same people have no issue with Obama's surveillance programs supplemented now by the Drone program.
I think it's because they trust Obama. They trust Obama not to spy on them, because of course they are his ardent supporters. They don't care whether Obama is spying on Conservatives, because they seem to consider conservatives evil people who deserve to be watched closely. I wonder if they're blind support for Obama would be shaken if they were actually faced with strong evidence he was taking out his opposition with Drone strikes on Conservative activists? My guess is no.
There's plenty of precedent in the history of the world. Authoritarian dictators have often repeated the pattern of arresting and "disappearing" their political opponents with mass murders they try to cover up by lying to the general public.
I'm also expecting Obama to instruct his FCC to close down Fox News and various talk radio shows, using a cover story that claims these outlets promote violence or domestic terrorism. What I can't predict with any certainty is whether those actions will precede the assassinations, follow them, or run concurrently with them.
A Liberal would tell me to lighten up, none of this stuff will actually ever happen. To the Liberal I would say, "I hope and pray these things do not happen". But the actions and rhetoric I've seen from this President for 4 years suggests strongly that there is major cause for concern.
Monday, February 18, 2013
America's Leading Disorder
It's called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). The symptoms of this disorder have been defined by the Mayo Clinic as follows.
Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:
Another recent example I've noticed is in the racing world. Danica Patrick just divorced her husband to give herself permission to practice adultery with a young Nascar driver. It's very true that I know almost nothing about Danica, but I have seen her on television. Her persona oozes NPD.
Other famous folks I suspect of NPD:
Alec Baldwin
Donald Trump
Soledad O'Brien
Paris Hilton
Lindsay Lohan
Hillary Clinton
Madonna
Bill Clinton
Charlie Crist
John Edwards
Given a bit more time to think about it, I could probably expand the list to a pretty long one. But if you're not sure I'm on the right track with those on my list, just look at the list of symptoms and ask yourself if these folks seem to fit most of them? Certainly they do, the current President as much or more than most of the others.
I know some people who have the disorder. What they have in common is denial. Some brave soul at some point has accused them of NPD, and they have lashed out at them and branded them stupid or ignorant for daring to think so. The NPD may know the definition of the disorder, but refuse to consider that any part of that definition applies to themself. Their explanation for narcissistic attitudes and behavior is that it's not narcissism, but self-confidence, intelligence, or reason. The narcissist not only refuses to recognize it in themselves, but don't seem to recognize it in others either.
The narcissist has a self-image they don't believe is delusions of granduer, but that they really are superior to most everyone else. The narcissist doesn't just think she's better, she knows she's better than everybody else. She's the most intelligent, beautiful, and interesting person in any room in which she finds herself. She believes that her unique ideas are superior to anything anyone else is capable of creating, and therefore deserves to be put in charge.
The narcissist never fails. His failures are always caused by someone else who undermined his efforts with malicious intent to harm him personally. He is incapable of empathy. He loves the spotlight. He craves attention and praise. Perhaps that's why so many of our politicians and entertainers exhibit the disorder.
Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:
- Believing that you're better than others
- Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
- Exaggerating your achievements or talents
- Expecting constant praise and admiration
- Believing that you're special and acting accordingly
- Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
- Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
- Taking advantage of others
- Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
- Being jealous of others
- Believing that others are jealous of you
- Trouble keeping healthy relationships
- Setting unrealistic goals
- Being easily hurt and rejected
- Having a fragile self-esteem
- Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional
Another recent example I've noticed is in the racing world. Danica Patrick just divorced her husband to give herself permission to practice adultery with a young Nascar driver. It's very true that I know almost nothing about Danica, but I have seen her on television. Her persona oozes NPD.
Other famous folks I suspect of NPD:
Alec Baldwin
Donald Trump
Soledad O'Brien
Paris Hilton
Lindsay Lohan
Hillary Clinton
Madonna
Bill Clinton
Charlie Crist
John Edwards
Given a bit more time to think about it, I could probably expand the list to a pretty long one. But if you're not sure I'm on the right track with those on my list, just look at the list of symptoms and ask yourself if these folks seem to fit most of them? Certainly they do, the current President as much or more than most of the others.
I know some people who have the disorder. What they have in common is denial. Some brave soul at some point has accused them of NPD, and they have lashed out at them and branded them stupid or ignorant for daring to think so. The NPD may know the definition of the disorder, but refuse to consider that any part of that definition applies to themself. Their explanation for narcissistic attitudes and behavior is that it's not narcissism, but self-confidence, intelligence, or reason. The narcissist not only refuses to recognize it in themselves, but don't seem to recognize it in others either.
The narcissist has a self-image they don't believe is delusions of granduer, but that they really are superior to most everyone else. The narcissist doesn't just think she's better, she knows she's better than everybody else. She's the most intelligent, beautiful, and interesting person in any room in which she finds herself. She believes that her unique ideas are superior to anything anyone else is capable of creating, and therefore deserves to be put in charge.
The narcissist never fails. His failures are always caused by someone else who undermined his efforts with malicious intent to harm him personally. He is incapable of empathy. He loves the spotlight. He craves attention and praise. Perhaps that's why so many of our politicians and entertainers exhibit the disorder.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
The Cause that Never Ends
The Minimum Wage is back. Democrats have been pushing to increase it as long as I've been alive. Now Obama's telling us we can solve poverty simply by pushing it up to 9 bucks an hour. Isn't that amazing!? All this time the only reason people were poor is because the minimum wage was too low? So why don't we raise it immediately? Instead of 9 bucks an hour, why not 20? Or 40 even? Why, if everybody made over 40 bucks an hour, there would be no poor.
What further evidence do we need that the Democrat constituency is ignorant, gullible, and just plain stupid? Is it even necessary to point out the disastrous consequences of jacking up the minimum wage in these ecomonically horrible conditions? It shouldn't be necessary, but sadly it is.
OK, let's say the law passes. Minimum wage is 9 bucks.
You own a small business. You've been hiring college kids in the summer to do various menial tasks. Not because they're critical to your operations, but because you have kids yourself, and feel like they need the opportunity to earn some money over the summer to help them cover some expenses in the next school year. At $7.25 it's a pinch over the old minimums in the $5 range, but you figure it's worth it to help the kids and their families out.
But $9 is another matter. At 9 bucks, you have to seriously rethink your policy on summer help, because it takes your expenses too high and threatens profits. So you'll have to cut back on the student program or maybe cut it out entirely.
Think about all the municipalities and counties who hire dozens of students every summer at minimum wage. The kids are summer camp counselors, lifeguards, umpires, city parks gardeners, library aides, and fill many other roles for the town. The city budget for summer student workers has just gone up 24 percent overnight. If you're the mayor, county commissioner, or someone holding an office with responsibility for these programs, you're stuck with few solutions. You've either got to cut back on your summer student workforce by about 24 percent, cut hours for students to 32 or 35 hours per week from 40, or get tax increases passed to fund the mandated increases.
Just about everybody can understand what it will do to the fast food business. Pretty much everybody in your local McDonalds or Wendy's or Burger King makes minimum wage or not much more. Suddenly your store's payroll costs jump 24 percent. Because it isn't just the people making minimum wage that have to get a raise, but virtually everyone else has to get a proportionate raise as well. So the Assistant Manager who was making about 9 bucks an hour is now going to be satisfied making the same as the minimum wage people she supervises? No way. So she's got to get bumped to 11 or 12 bucks. And so on up the ladder.
How does the restaurant absorb the additional cost? They can't absorb it, because their margins are already paper-thin. So everything on the menu gets more expensive. The $6 combo meal now has to cost $8. In this bad economy, folks who could manage to take the kids to McDonalds for lunch on the weekend could find $6 for each one to have a Happy Meal. But now that it's $8, it could become just enough of a price hike to cause Mom and Dad to decide to stay home and make a pot of Mac & Cheese for the kids.
So it sounds like good news - everybody gets a raise! But it's not such good news, because the price of pretty much everything is going up to eat every penny of your newfound raise. But then if you got the raise in the first place, you're one of the lucky ones. Because depending on the size of your community, hundreds to thousands of your neighbors just lost their jobs. And not just the minimum wage teens, but people in jobs across the spectrum.
Because the unavoidable fact of economic life is that when costs go up for business, business is forced to economize. And the first place businesses economize is their workforce. The owners and managers of your employer and all of your neighbors' employers will scrutinize their workforce in every department and every position, looking for which employees they think they could live without.
So if you're excited about Obama's utopian plan to get everybody a living wage, just hope you're a productive and irreplaceable employee. Because what good is a government-mandated pay raise if you end up losing your job because of it?
They say there's no way that proposal will see the light of day in congress. But what if Obama simply imposes it by dictatorial edict through his Labor Department? He's discovered that he can pass all kinds of laws without any help from congress, and all that happens is a lawsuit that takes years to make its way through the courts. By then he will have a Supreme Court majority in place that will uphold everything he tells them to uphold, so in effect the transition from a Republic to a Dictatorship will be complete.
What further evidence do we need that the Democrat constituency is ignorant, gullible, and just plain stupid? Is it even necessary to point out the disastrous consequences of jacking up the minimum wage in these ecomonically horrible conditions? It shouldn't be necessary, but sadly it is.
OK, let's say the law passes. Minimum wage is 9 bucks.
You own a small business. You've been hiring college kids in the summer to do various menial tasks. Not because they're critical to your operations, but because you have kids yourself, and feel like they need the opportunity to earn some money over the summer to help them cover some expenses in the next school year. At $7.25 it's a pinch over the old minimums in the $5 range, but you figure it's worth it to help the kids and their families out.
But $9 is another matter. At 9 bucks, you have to seriously rethink your policy on summer help, because it takes your expenses too high and threatens profits. So you'll have to cut back on the student program or maybe cut it out entirely.
Think about all the municipalities and counties who hire dozens of students every summer at minimum wage. The kids are summer camp counselors, lifeguards, umpires, city parks gardeners, library aides, and fill many other roles for the town. The city budget for summer student workers has just gone up 24 percent overnight. If you're the mayor, county commissioner, or someone holding an office with responsibility for these programs, you're stuck with few solutions. You've either got to cut back on your summer student workforce by about 24 percent, cut hours for students to 32 or 35 hours per week from 40, or get tax increases passed to fund the mandated increases.
Just about everybody can understand what it will do to the fast food business. Pretty much everybody in your local McDonalds or Wendy's or Burger King makes minimum wage or not much more. Suddenly your store's payroll costs jump 24 percent. Because it isn't just the people making minimum wage that have to get a raise, but virtually everyone else has to get a proportionate raise as well. So the Assistant Manager who was making about 9 bucks an hour is now going to be satisfied making the same as the minimum wage people she supervises? No way. So she's got to get bumped to 11 or 12 bucks. And so on up the ladder.
How does the restaurant absorb the additional cost? They can't absorb it, because their margins are already paper-thin. So everything on the menu gets more expensive. The $6 combo meal now has to cost $8. In this bad economy, folks who could manage to take the kids to McDonalds for lunch on the weekend could find $6 for each one to have a Happy Meal. But now that it's $8, it could become just enough of a price hike to cause Mom and Dad to decide to stay home and make a pot of Mac & Cheese for the kids.
So it sounds like good news - everybody gets a raise! But it's not such good news, because the price of pretty much everything is going up to eat every penny of your newfound raise. But then if you got the raise in the first place, you're one of the lucky ones. Because depending on the size of your community, hundreds to thousands of your neighbors just lost their jobs. And not just the minimum wage teens, but people in jobs across the spectrum.
Because the unavoidable fact of economic life is that when costs go up for business, business is forced to economize. And the first place businesses economize is their workforce. The owners and managers of your employer and all of your neighbors' employers will scrutinize their workforce in every department and every position, looking for which employees they think they could live without.
So if you're excited about Obama's utopian plan to get everybody a living wage, just hope you're a productive and irreplaceable employee. Because what good is a government-mandated pay raise if you end up losing your job because of it?
They say there's no way that proposal will see the light of day in congress. But what if Obama simply imposes it by dictatorial edict through his Labor Department? He's discovered that he can pass all kinds of laws without any help from congress, and all that happens is a lawsuit that takes years to make its way through the courts. By then he will have a Supreme Court majority in place that will uphold everything he tells them to uphold, so in effect the transition from a Republic to a Dictatorship will be complete.
Friday, February 15, 2013
A Story I Almost Missed
Sure, I noticed the news coverage of that former Los Angeles cop, Chris Dorner, seemed to snap and began shooting people. I sort of dismissed it due to lack of interest, thinking it just another deranged shooter that will eventually be cornered and killed or arrested. Which of course he was.
But then I started wondering, where is all the outcry from the usual media types about how this is just one more example of why America needs to confiscate guns from its citizens. This morning I seem to have found out why, in a story I completely missed while the hunt for Dorner was going on.
Apparently, Dorner's not just another deranged shooter. He's a cult hero. The message seems to be that he was so maltreated by the racist LAPD that he became angry enough to fight back. Sort of like "Django Unchained". Sorry, I haven't seen that movie and don't plan to, so the reference is mostly lost on me. All I've gathered is Django is some black man that shoots a bunch of white men that were mistreating him. The movie looks like an 19th century era western.
These CNN/MSNBC types say, "we don't condone what he did, but think he can teach us a lesson about the state of race relations in the country".
Um, really? Exactly what state are you talking about? You mean the mostly imaginary idea that people with black skin are still treated no better than their slave ancestors were 200 years ago? That the "Black Community"s failure to prosper is evidence of that institutionalized racism, and has nothing to do with the black population's family breakdown, hip-hop "gangsta" culture, and peer influence on the children to be sure not to excel in school because that's "acting white"?
So if I understand the message, it goes something like this: If Dorner had been white, well, he would have been portrayed as another crazy white man who went off his meds and started shooting people. Why haven't we already taken the guns away from everybody so this won't happen again? But since Dorner was black, he is a crusading misunderstood hero who managed to hold out against all the resources the LAPD could muster against him. Then those evil cops and politicians (read: white) were too cowardly to take him alive, but purposely burned him to death in that cabin.
Just the basic notion that so many people think this way saddens me.
But then I started wondering, where is all the outcry from the usual media types about how this is just one more example of why America needs to confiscate guns from its citizens. This morning I seem to have found out why, in a story I completely missed while the hunt for Dorner was going on.
Apparently, Dorner's not just another deranged shooter. He's a cult hero. The message seems to be that he was so maltreated by the racist LAPD that he became angry enough to fight back. Sort of like "Django Unchained". Sorry, I haven't seen that movie and don't plan to, so the reference is mostly lost on me. All I've gathered is Django is some black man that shoots a bunch of white men that were mistreating him. The movie looks like an 19th century era western.
These CNN/MSNBC types say, "we don't condone what he did, but think he can teach us a lesson about the state of race relations in the country".
Um, really? Exactly what state are you talking about? You mean the mostly imaginary idea that people with black skin are still treated no better than their slave ancestors were 200 years ago? That the "Black Community"s failure to prosper is evidence of that institutionalized racism, and has nothing to do with the black population's family breakdown, hip-hop "gangsta" culture, and peer influence on the children to be sure not to excel in school because that's "acting white"?
So if I understand the message, it goes something like this: If Dorner had been white, well, he would have been portrayed as another crazy white man who went off his meds and started shooting people. Why haven't we already taken the guns away from everybody so this won't happen again? But since Dorner was black, he is a crusading misunderstood hero who managed to hold out against all the resources the LAPD could muster against him. Then those evil cops and politicians (read: white) were too cowardly to take him alive, but purposely burned him to death in that cabin.
Just the basic notion that so many people think this way saddens me.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
A Great Topic for Study
If I didn't have to work for a living, I'd be tempted to take on the project myself. These days I constantly hear stories about how there are mass migrations of companies and people out of blue states and into red ones. Most notably out of California and into Texas, as has been highlighted by this week's high-profile recruiting trip taken by Rick Perry to pitch Texas to a bunch of California companies.
Indiana has been claiming a nice influx of companies relocating out of places like Illinois and Michigan. I'd like to find some actual numbers that would tell me how many companies, how many people came with them, and how much the move is contributing to their bottom lines.
Certainly if I were a rich guy like Phil Mickelson, I'd be putting my SoCal mansion up for sale and shopping for a new place somewhere in Florida. The savings for somebody like Phil are huge, and my only question for him would be why he didn't move a long time ago. He got hammered so hard for making his offhand comment about having to make some changes that he actually apologized. There was absolutely nothing he needed to apologize for. At least he just said he shouldn't have said it publicly, so I take that to mean he isn't backing off the basic message - he just regrets all the public attention he drew to himself.
Back home in Indiana, our new governor, Mike Pence, is planning to cut state taxes by about 10 percent. Democrats call that everything from grandstanding to irresponsible. I merely think Mike needs to be careful. Don't cut taxes unless at the same time you change the structure of spending to protect the budget from the potential of reduced revenue from the cuts.
Economics and historical evidence from Reagan suggest that lower taxes stimulate private investment, which ends up returning more revenue to the government in total, not less. It's true, despite decades of Democrat denial and ridicule. Certainly Indiana could use a rethinking of its tax structure, given what I think is an unnecessary level of taxation when you add together the State income tax, local income tax, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, inventory taxes, and so on ad-infinitem.
Education was made a priority by Mitch Daniels. The first education voucher system in the country is showing some positive early signs, but those may be offsite by the fact that the State elected a new Education Superintendent who is a teacher's union shill who is determined to overturn the voucher system.
Imagine Indiana were to become the place with one of the lowest tax burdens, with the best-educated population in America. The smartest thing Pence can do as governor is to make those two goals the centerpiece of his agenda over the next 8 years.
I'm sort of looking forward to finding out what happens in my state over the next few years.
Indiana has been claiming a nice influx of companies relocating out of places like Illinois and Michigan. I'd like to find some actual numbers that would tell me how many companies, how many people came with them, and how much the move is contributing to their bottom lines.
Certainly if I were a rich guy like Phil Mickelson, I'd be putting my SoCal mansion up for sale and shopping for a new place somewhere in Florida. The savings for somebody like Phil are huge, and my only question for him would be why he didn't move a long time ago. He got hammered so hard for making his offhand comment about having to make some changes that he actually apologized. There was absolutely nothing he needed to apologize for. At least he just said he shouldn't have said it publicly, so I take that to mean he isn't backing off the basic message - he just regrets all the public attention he drew to himself.
Back home in Indiana, our new governor, Mike Pence, is planning to cut state taxes by about 10 percent. Democrats call that everything from grandstanding to irresponsible. I merely think Mike needs to be careful. Don't cut taxes unless at the same time you change the structure of spending to protect the budget from the potential of reduced revenue from the cuts.
Economics and historical evidence from Reagan suggest that lower taxes stimulate private investment, which ends up returning more revenue to the government in total, not less. It's true, despite decades of Democrat denial and ridicule. Certainly Indiana could use a rethinking of its tax structure, given what I think is an unnecessary level of taxation when you add together the State income tax, local income tax, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, inventory taxes, and so on ad-infinitem.
Education was made a priority by Mitch Daniels. The first education voucher system in the country is showing some positive early signs, but those may be offsite by the fact that the State elected a new Education Superintendent who is a teacher's union shill who is determined to overturn the voucher system.
Imagine Indiana were to become the place with one of the lowest tax burdens, with the best-educated population in America. The smartest thing Pence can do as governor is to make those two goals the centerpiece of his agenda over the next 8 years.
I'm sort of looking forward to finding out what happens in my state over the next few years.
Slow Sports Week
It's not really that slow of a week in sports. But for Mike & Mike on ESPN, it sure seems like it's terribly slow.
But Greenberg and Golic are NFL guys. They will talk other sports on occasion, but clearly their passion and expertise is for the NFL. I tune in to them on ESPN2 while getting ready for work in the morning, and enjoy them during the NFL season.
But now that the NFL is done, and there's nothing happening until the Scouting Combine and the Draft, the guys just can't find anything interesting to talk about.
The last 2 days represents a case to prove my point.
First, they jumped into a silly discussion about South Carolina's Javeon Clowney. They guy's an awesome specimen of a defensive football player. He's big, he's fast, he's powerful. If he were in this year's draft, he'd likely be chosen in the top 5. But NFL rules say he's got to wait one more year before they'll allow him to enter the draft.
So Greenburg decides to posit the question, would Clowney be better off to take this year off and hire a top-notch trainer to whip him into NFL shape to maximize his value in next year's draft? He cites Clowney's teammate, running back Marcus Lattimore. Lattimore is one of the most talented running backs in college football, but he blew out his knee this season. He's entering the NFL draft, but won't get picked nearly as high as he would have without the injury.
The question is ridiculous. Regardless of the sport, players are going to play. Clowney is more interested in helping the Gamecocks to an SEC and possible National Championship next year than in improving his draft position.
I think Golic was a bit irritiated with the premise, as he didn't have much to add to the conversation beyond a simple statement, "players play". Whether the topic was pushed by Greenberg or by their producers, it wasn't even worthy of passing mention - let alone monopolizing their sports talk show for at least an hour.
Day 2 topic: Is LeBron better than Michael Jordan? Another ridiculous topic. They're two different people and two different players. They have two different styles.
I'm not a fan of people who try to compare professional athletes from different eras. There's no point. The only comparison that makes any sense at all is statistics. The player who scored the most points, won the most championships, etc. wins. Because there isn't any other way to measure athletes against each other. Beyond statistics, there's no point in comparing them across eras.
My advice for the Mikes? Stay with the NFL, or learn something about basketball, hockey, soccer, baseball, and other sports so you have something relevant to talk about in the offseason.
Above all, please stop hammering silly topics that mean nothing.
But Greenberg and Golic are NFL guys. They will talk other sports on occasion, but clearly their passion and expertise is for the NFL. I tune in to them on ESPN2 while getting ready for work in the morning, and enjoy them during the NFL season.
But now that the NFL is done, and there's nothing happening until the Scouting Combine and the Draft, the guys just can't find anything interesting to talk about.
The last 2 days represents a case to prove my point.
First, they jumped into a silly discussion about South Carolina's Javeon Clowney. They guy's an awesome specimen of a defensive football player. He's big, he's fast, he's powerful. If he were in this year's draft, he'd likely be chosen in the top 5. But NFL rules say he's got to wait one more year before they'll allow him to enter the draft.
So Greenburg decides to posit the question, would Clowney be better off to take this year off and hire a top-notch trainer to whip him into NFL shape to maximize his value in next year's draft? He cites Clowney's teammate, running back Marcus Lattimore. Lattimore is one of the most talented running backs in college football, but he blew out his knee this season. He's entering the NFL draft, but won't get picked nearly as high as he would have without the injury.
The question is ridiculous. Regardless of the sport, players are going to play. Clowney is more interested in helping the Gamecocks to an SEC and possible National Championship next year than in improving his draft position.
I think Golic was a bit irritiated with the premise, as he didn't have much to add to the conversation beyond a simple statement, "players play". Whether the topic was pushed by Greenberg or by their producers, it wasn't even worthy of passing mention - let alone monopolizing their sports talk show for at least an hour.
Day 2 topic: Is LeBron better than Michael Jordan? Another ridiculous topic. They're two different people and two different players. They have two different styles.
I'm not a fan of people who try to compare professional athletes from different eras. There's no point. The only comparison that makes any sense at all is statistics. The player who scored the most points, won the most championships, etc. wins. Because there isn't any other way to measure athletes against each other. Beyond statistics, there's no point in comparing them across eras.
My advice for the Mikes? Stay with the NFL, or learn something about basketball, hockey, soccer, baseball, and other sports so you have something relevant to talk about in the offseason.
Above all, please stop hammering silly topics that mean nothing.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Something I Just Realized
I skipped that SOTU speech, and don't regret it. I saw the big USA Today article this morning that recapped Obama's agenda from the speech. As I read through point-by-point, my internal response was No, No, No Way!, Hell No!, No, No ...
That's when I realized something. When Bill Clinton was in office and I caught his SOTU, my internal responses were more like, No, No, Yes, Maybe, Hmm, No, No, Yes. Bill actually used to say some things I agreed with. Barry, not a single one.
I saw something comparing his long, boring speech to those for which Fidel Castro was well known. I'm thinking the substance probably tracked closely with Fidel too.
That's when I realized something. When Bill Clinton was in office and I caught his SOTU, my internal responses were more like, No, No, Yes, Maybe, Hmm, No, No, Yes. Bill actually used to say some things I agreed with. Barry, not a single one.
I saw something comparing his long, boring speech to those for which Fidel Castro was well known. I'm thinking the substance probably tracked closely with Fidel too.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Some Basketball
Indiana didn't get punished much by the polls for quitting early at Illinois last week. It was stunning that they failed to defend a simple pick - I learned how to do that when I was in the 6th grade. But that's not the only reason they lost that game. They failed on multiple levels, primarily by deciding the game was already in hand way too early.
The preseason marquee player at Indiana, the Big 10, and even nationally, was Cody Zeller. He's certainly a terrific big man. But I think the Big 10 and possibly National player of the year is one of Cody's teammates. Victor Oladipo has been fantastic.
Vic can leap higher than Superman, he has a decent 3-point shot, and is the fastest guy I've seen in college basketball. I think if I was an NBA coach or GM I might consider taking Vic over Cody in the draft, assuming they both decided to enter this year. He's like Ron Artest (Metta World Peace) without the attitude. He'll have a long and successful career in the NBA, assuming he stays healthy and doesn't lose his mind.
The more immediate question is this year. Can Indiana win another National Championship?
The question isn't "can they?", but "will they?". Two different questions. They've got all the elements - they can lock teams down defensively. They have a great 3-point shooter in Jordi Hulls. They have the best Center in the country in Cody. They have the slasher-playmaker-rebounder-defender in Vic. They have a freshman point guard in Yogi Ferrell that looks a bit like Isaiah Thomas. They have a deep bench, with maybe the NCAA's sixth man of the year in Will Sheehy. They have a hyperactive coach who seems to be able to inspire them.
But they can get rattled by aggressive opponents (see Wisconsin). They can get out-hustled by teams they seem to take lightly (see Illinois, Butler).
But when they're on their game, they can beat anybody. They might get away with an off game in the first round, but by the time they reach the Sweet 16, they've got to bring the game they brought to Michigan and Ohio State to every single game the rest of the tournament. They can, but will they?
The Final Four I'd most like to see is Indiana, Duke, Michigan, and Butler. I'd love to see Butler get revenge on Duke in one semifinal, then an Indiana repeat of their recent defeat of Michigan in the other. Then in the championship game, I'd like a game in which the winning team hits the shot at the buzzer to take the title. Andrew Smith is down with an injury for Butler, but hopefully he'll be recovered fully in time for the tournament.
It's a little tough to pick which team I want to hit that buzzer-beater, but I'd kind of like to see Butler break through and get their first title in 3 tries. But I wouldn't grieve too much if it turned out to be Indiana. It's sort of a dream matchup.
The final four probably will be significantly different. But I think there's as good a chance for my four to make it as any other group of four teams.
This is fun.
The preseason marquee player at Indiana, the Big 10, and even nationally, was Cody Zeller. He's certainly a terrific big man. But I think the Big 10 and possibly National player of the year is one of Cody's teammates. Victor Oladipo has been fantastic.
Vic can leap higher than Superman, he has a decent 3-point shot, and is the fastest guy I've seen in college basketball. I think if I was an NBA coach or GM I might consider taking Vic over Cody in the draft, assuming they both decided to enter this year. He's like Ron Artest (Metta World Peace) without the attitude. He'll have a long and successful career in the NBA, assuming he stays healthy and doesn't lose his mind.
The more immediate question is this year. Can Indiana win another National Championship?
The question isn't "can they?", but "will they?". Two different questions. They've got all the elements - they can lock teams down defensively. They have a great 3-point shooter in Jordi Hulls. They have the best Center in the country in Cody. They have the slasher-playmaker-rebounder-defender in Vic. They have a freshman point guard in Yogi Ferrell that looks a bit like Isaiah Thomas. They have a deep bench, with maybe the NCAA's sixth man of the year in Will Sheehy. They have a hyperactive coach who seems to be able to inspire them.
But they can get rattled by aggressive opponents (see Wisconsin). They can get out-hustled by teams they seem to take lightly (see Illinois, Butler).
But when they're on their game, they can beat anybody. They might get away with an off game in the first round, but by the time they reach the Sweet 16, they've got to bring the game they brought to Michigan and Ohio State to every single game the rest of the tournament. They can, but will they?
The Final Four I'd most like to see is Indiana, Duke, Michigan, and Butler. I'd love to see Butler get revenge on Duke in one semifinal, then an Indiana repeat of their recent defeat of Michigan in the other. Then in the championship game, I'd like a game in which the winning team hits the shot at the buzzer to take the title. Andrew Smith is down with an injury for Butler, but hopefully he'll be recovered fully in time for the tournament.
It's a little tough to pick which team I want to hit that buzzer-beater, but I'd kind of like to see Butler break through and get their first title in 3 tries. But I wouldn't grieve too much if it turned out to be Indiana. It's sort of a dream matchup.
The final four probably will be significantly different. But I think there's as good a chance for my four to make it as any other group of four teams.
This is fun.
Monday, February 11, 2013
JoePa
I felt sorry for Joe Paterno. When Penn State fired him along with the AD and the official in charge of the Campus Police for covering up the Sandusky scandal, I told others that it would kill Joe. It did.
Joe wasn't prosecuted, but the others were. Did he deserve to be prosecuted? Probably not. Because it doesn't appear that he was an active participant in the efforts to sweep Sandusky under the rug like the others clearly were.
But I think he did fail to do the right thing. His family is stressing the point that Joe did nothing illegal. True, Pennsylvania law isn't like Indiana law, where one can be prosecuted for knowing about a case of abuse and failing to report it to Child Protective Services.
There's a question about how much Paterno knew about the original investigation of Sandusky, around 1998. That investigation didn't get off the ground because the prosecutors couldn't gather enough solid evidence. So whether he knew about that case is an important factor in how culpable he was when McQueary walked in on Sandusky abusing a boy in the shower. Was McQueary telling him something utterly new and shocking, or something Joe already had a sneaking suspicion about?
If the coach knew about '98, he would have realized McQueary's encounter was probably not a coincidence. And he would have known the right thing to do would be to report the incident to Child Protective Services immediately - no hesitation. Many people have trouble believing that Paterno had never heard about that previous incident, let alone the rumors that floated around campus for years about Sandusky's sordid affinity for young boys.
So I feel sorry for JoePa. I'd like to think that at best he's guilty of letting the other guys proceed to cover up the Sandusky abuses and hoping things would work out. But it seems somewhere between possible and likely that he knew more than he admitted, and also knew the right thing to do would have been to call Child Protective Services. From the office at the moment McQueary showed up.
McQueary has a lesson to teach all of us. If you see something like he saw, don't go to your boss and ask him what to do. Call it in immediately. Then go see the boss if you feel the need. Poor McQueary still can't find a job, last I heard. Maybe he can get a high school job and work his way back from there.
Joe wasn't prosecuted, but the others were. Did he deserve to be prosecuted? Probably not. Because it doesn't appear that he was an active participant in the efforts to sweep Sandusky under the rug like the others clearly were.
But I think he did fail to do the right thing. His family is stressing the point that Joe did nothing illegal. True, Pennsylvania law isn't like Indiana law, where one can be prosecuted for knowing about a case of abuse and failing to report it to Child Protective Services.
There's a question about how much Paterno knew about the original investigation of Sandusky, around 1998. That investigation didn't get off the ground because the prosecutors couldn't gather enough solid evidence. So whether he knew about that case is an important factor in how culpable he was when McQueary walked in on Sandusky abusing a boy in the shower. Was McQueary telling him something utterly new and shocking, or something Joe already had a sneaking suspicion about?
If the coach knew about '98, he would have realized McQueary's encounter was probably not a coincidence. And he would have known the right thing to do would be to report the incident to Child Protective Services immediately - no hesitation. Many people have trouble believing that Paterno had never heard about that previous incident, let alone the rumors that floated around campus for years about Sandusky's sordid affinity for young boys.
So I feel sorry for JoePa. I'd like to think that at best he's guilty of letting the other guys proceed to cover up the Sandusky abuses and hoping things would work out. But it seems somewhere between possible and likely that he knew more than he admitted, and also knew the right thing to do would have been to call Child Protective Services. From the office at the moment McQueary showed up.
McQueary has a lesson to teach all of us. If you see something like he saw, don't go to your boss and ask him what to do. Call it in immediately. Then go see the boss if you feel the need. Poor McQueary still can't find a job, last I heard. Maybe he can get a high school job and work his way back from there.
Boycott SOTU
We already know what he's going to say. There's no point in tuning in.
Let's run through it.
Another Trillion for "Stimulus" that will dig the recession hole even deeper. Money to prop up Union Pensions, hiring more bureaucrats, building railroads, windmills, and solar panels, funding more abortions at Planned Parenthood, paying off more cronies. Same song, second verse.
More taxes for Millionaires and Billionaires - the one just passed isn't enough.
Open the border, grant citizenship and a voter id to every illegal immigrant. Take the guns away from everybody. Cozy up to Hezbollah and Iran while disrespecting Israel. So what if Iran builds a bunch of nuclear warheads? There's no such thing as terrorists - they're just poor innocent people that have been abused by the colonialists from Europe and America. Besides, he'll say Al Quaeda is finished because he killed bin Laden.
All couched in coded language, of course. So the average "low information voter" (as Rush calls them) will hear a wondrous soaring speech about making the country fairer for the middle class. They'll come away with the impression that somehow their bosses will be nicer, pay them better, give them more time off, and give them better benefit packages; all because Obama inspired them to do so. And they'll believe him when he says Obamacare will miraculously grant high quality medical care to everyone. Like they'll believe him when he says it will cost all of us less.
If only everyone would join me in my boycott, then help make sure not a single one of his initiatives is passed out of congress - it will be bad enough that many of them will be dictated directly from the White House without even asking congress for their opinion, let alone approval.
Maybe there's something else on TV.
Let's run through it.
Another Trillion for "Stimulus" that will dig the recession hole even deeper. Money to prop up Union Pensions, hiring more bureaucrats, building railroads, windmills, and solar panels, funding more abortions at Planned Parenthood, paying off more cronies. Same song, second verse.
More taxes for Millionaires and Billionaires - the one just passed isn't enough.
Open the border, grant citizenship and a voter id to every illegal immigrant. Take the guns away from everybody. Cozy up to Hezbollah and Iran while disrespecting Israel. So what if Iran builds a bunch of nuclear warheads? There's no such thing as terrorists - they're just poor innocent people that have been abused by the colonialists from Europe and America. Besides, he'll say Al Quaeda is finished because he killed bin Laden.
All couched in coded language, of course. So the average "low information voter" (as Rush calls them) will hear a wondrous soaring speech about making the country fairer for the middle class. They'll come away with the impression that somehow their bosses will be nicer, pay them better, give them more time off, and give them better benefit packages; all because Obama inspired them to do so. And they'll believe him when he says Obamacare will miraculously grant high quality medical care to everyone. Like they'll believe him when he says it will cost all of us less.
If only everyone would join me in my boycott, then help make sure not a single one of his initiatives is passed out of congress - it will be bad enough that many of them will be dictated directly from the White House without even asking congress for their opinion, let alone approval.
Maybe there's something else on TV.
Fuzzy Thinking
Obamacare is going to fall on its face before it gets fully started. Because the government itself has just realized that the numbers don't work - and will never work. Without dealing with the biggest driver of the problem - spiraling costs - a government based solution simply can't work.
Millions are set to lose their insurance coverage by the end of this year. At the same time, those who toe the line and buy insurance from the "exchange" will pay $20K for the insurance alone, plus another $10-15K on out-of-pocket medical expenses. Those numbers are real, just ask me.
Doctors won't be there to provide the care anyway. HHS is driving General Practitioners out of business by slashing their reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid patients. On purpose. The Catholic hospitals will be gone as well, unless the courts step in and rule the free contraceptives mandate unconstitutional.
The best healthcare in the world will become the worst by next year.
But the fuzzy thinking liberal chooses to ignore the facts. Their feelings are more important than inconvenient facts, and their feelings tell them that Obamacare is a compassionate attempt to get medical care to those who don't have insurance. As if they are shut out of medical care today. These liberals who support Obamacare are members of two camps: The ignorant who bought the party line that the law is compassionate, and the power-hungry legislators and bureaucrats who lust after the power to control the people to their own benefit.
I guess the fuzzy thinking applies to every other liberal cause. Like these:
Giving taxpayer benefits to people simply for their aberrant sexual behavior.
Offering generous checks to the unemployed so they can remain unemployed as long as they wish.
Dismantling the military because they find it distateful.
Pretending that their out-of-control spending will be solved by taking another 5% out of the pockets of the "rich".
Passing "hate crime" laws, because what the criminal was thinking when he killed, maimed, or raped somebody should determine his sentence, not the heinousness of the crime itself.
Legalizing drugs for "recreational" use, because addicts aren't hurting anybody. The "war on drugs" is a waste of time anyway. (Tell all the victims of crime perpetrated by drug addicts that)
Government exists to take care of its people. They're so much smarter than everyone else, don't you see. People are too stupid and helpless to make their own decisions, and need a wise leader like Obama to direct their poor miserable lives.
There are many other examples. America is repeating history, just like the Romans who destroyed themselves from within. If only a true leader would appear to wake the country up. Even if such a leader were out there somewhere, the Democrat-controlled Press would chew him up and spit him out, while the ignorant masses follow along happily to their doom.
Millions are set to lose their insurance coverage by the end of this year. At the same time, those who toe the line and buy insurance from the "exchange" will pay $20K for the insurance alone, plus another $10-15K on out-of-pocket medical expenses. Those numbers are real, just ask me.
Doctors won't be there to provide the care anyway. HHS is driving General Practitioners out of business by slashing their reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid patients. On purpose. The Catholic hospitals will be gone as well, unless the courts step in and rule the free contraceptives mandate unconstitutional.
The best healthcare in the world will become the worst by next year.
But the fuzzy thinking liberal chooses to ignore the facts. Their feelings are more important than inconvenient facts, and their feelings tell them that Obamacare is a compassionate attempt to get medical care to those who don't have insurance. As if they are shut out of medical care today. These liberals who support Obamacare are members of two camps: The ignorant who bought the party line that the law is compassionate, and the power-hungry legislators and bureaucrats who lust after the power to control the people to their own benefit.
I guess the fuzzy thinking applies to every other liberal cause. Like these:
Giving taxpayer benefits to people simply for their aberrant sexual behavior.
Offering generous checks to the unemployed so they can remain unemployed as long as they wish.
Dismantling the military because they find it distateful.
Pretending that their out-of-control spending will be solved by taking another 5% out of the pockets of the "rich".
Passing "hate crime" laws, because what the criminal was thinking when he killed, maimed, or raped somebody should determine his sentence, not the heinousness of the crime itself.
Legalizing drugs for "recreational" use, because addicts aren't hurting anybody. The "war on drugs" is a waste of time anyway. (Tell all the victims of crime perpetrated by drug addicts that)
Government exists to take care of its people. They're so much smarter than everyone else, don't you see. People are too stupid and helpless to make their own decisions, and need a wise leader like Obama to direct their poor miserable lives.
There are many other examples. America is repeating history, just like the Romans who destroyed themselves from within. If only a true leader would appear to wake the country up. Even if such a leader were out there somewhere, the Democrat-controlled Press would chew him up and spit him out, while the ignorant masses follow along happily to their doom.
Saturday, February 09, 2013
Dr. Ben Carson
I kept hearing about a speech by a Pediatric Neurosurgeon at the National Prayer Breakfast. Many were impressed, but the Left was insulted and outraged. Apparently they thought he was disrespecting the President, who was sitting very nearby on the dias.
I found it at Powerline.
It is worth watching in its entirety. Disrespectful? Absolutely not. Uplifting and brilliant? Absolutely!
Michelle's hands can be seen at the edge of the frame, applauding the speaker often. At least until he started talking about deficits, debt, and healthcare.
The President paid attention until the Debt came up, then he started playing with his smartphone. America can only hope he got at least a smidgen of inspiration from Carson.
I found it at Powerline.
It is worth watching in its entirety. Disrespectful? Absolutely not. Uplifting and brilliant? Absolutely!
Michelle's hands can be seen at the edge of the frame, applauding the speaker often. At least until he started talking about deficits, debt, and healthcare.
The President paid attention until the Debt came up, then he started playing with his smartphone. America can only hope he got at least a smidgen of inspiration from Carson.
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
One of the Best
This is one of the best arguments for how Republicans can reverse their fortunes I've seen.
Today I'll let David Horowitz cover my blog post.
Today I'll let David Horowitz cover my blog post.
Sunday, February 03, 2013
The Most Interesting and Plausible Theory
Something I found online this weekend. Sorry I don't have a link, I failed to capture it as it was one of many articles I was reading on Saturday. But it contained the most plausible explanation for ObamaCare and its end game I've ever seen.
Since I don't have a link, let me just outline the essence of the theory:
The Obamacare legislation was designed to fail. Because the failure's being set up to support a narrative that goes sort of like this -
"Darn it, we tried, but you know capitalism and free markets just can't work when it comes to health care. We tried to partner with the insurance companies to cover everybody fairly through the exchanges, but you know those insurance companies are just too doggone greedy."
So the solution, naturally, is Government Controlled, Taxpayer Funded, Universal Health Insurance.
Hear about how those small General Practitioners are being driven out of business by Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates that don't even cover their costs? That might be on purpose. The "plan" is to move to the model of government-owned and -operated hospitals and clinics. Those formerly independent GP's will be offered a job at the government facility. For a salary, these GP's show up every day and see all the patients the bureaucrats running the place assign them. Whoops, look at that, now the doctors are forming a Union!?
How about the government forcing Catholic Hospitals to close because of the HHS Free Contraceptives mandate? The government doesn't want Catholic Hospitals to stay open. They don't want the competition. Perhaps when the Catholic Hospitals close, the government will come along and offer them some money to walk away with.
Here's the new Obama Healthcare system, coming to you by 2016: A National Health Insurance card for all citizens, just like the one Bill and Hillary tried to push on us way back in the old days. We all said, "No Way!". Hillary was angry, called us stupid.
The new system will be paid by new taxes. Multiple taxes from multiple sources. New income taxes, a Value-Added Tax, more made-up taxes and fees targeted to businesses. But of course all those new taxes won't come close to paying for the new government healthcare system.
After it's fully implemented, here's what we will all experience:
Sick and need to see a doctor? Call and maybe you'll get an appointment three months from now. By then you'll either be over the illness or dead. Can't go to the emergency room, because they'll have new rules about who can go to the emergency room, and your illness isn't on the list.
Will your care be free? No. Sure, you'll pay taxes for it. But you'll also have to pay a fee with each service. They might try to make the fee small at first, say 10 or 20 bucks. But when their numbers don't even come close to paying for their utopian new government plan, they'll apologetically explain that we all just have to pitch in a little bit more toward our healthcare. And that fee will probably spike very quickly to $100 or $200. Then they'll start dreaming up new "healthcare fee assistance programs", sort of welfare for healthcare, where the "poor" will get their fees subsidized or covered.
Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Americans will die while waiting for a surgery. Thousands of others will receive their care in the black market. New clinics and hospitals will spring up outside the country, advertising surgeries for published flat rates. Bring your family to a resort hotel in the Bahamas while you get your heart bypass surgery - all for one reasonable flat rate of $20,000!
Americans can rise up and stop all this in its tracks. But there don't appear to be enough of us left who understand the damage being done by this government to rescue our country from this destruction. As I approach my senior years, I understand that I may have to just die and get out of the way when I get sick; it may just be that's what our president is asking of me and my generation.
Since I don't have a link, let me just outline the essence of the theory:
The Obamacare legislation was designed to fail. Because the failure's being set up to support a narrative that goes sort of like this -
"Darn it, we tried, but you know capitalism and free markets just can't work when it comes to health care. We tried to partner with the insurance companies to cover everybody fairly through the exchanges, but you know those insurance companies are just too doggone greedy."
So the solution, naturally, is Government Controlled, Taxpayer Funded, Universal Health Insurance.
Hear about how those small General Practitioners are being driven out of business by Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates that don't even cover their costs? That might be on purpose. The "plan" is to move to the model of government-owned and -operated hospitals and clinics. Those formerly independent GP's will be offered a job at the government facility. For a salary, these GP's show up every day and see all the patients the bureaucrats running the place assign them. Whoops, look at that, now the doctors are forming a Union!?
How about the government forcing Catholic Hospitals to close because of the HHS Free Contraceptives mandate? The government doesn't want Catholic Hospitals to stay open. They don't want the competition. Perhaps when the Catholic Hospitals close, the government will come along and offer them some money to walk away with.
Here's the new Obama Healthcare system, coming to you by 2016: A National Health Insurance card for all citizens, just like the one Bill and Hillary tried to push on us way back in the old days. We all said, "No Way!". Hillary was angry, called us stupid.
The new system will be paid by new taxes. Multiple taxes from multiple sources. New income taxes, a Value-Added Tax, more made-up taxes and fees targeted to businesses. But of course all those new taxes won't come close to paying for the new government healthcare system.
After it's fully implemented, here's what we will all experience:
Sick and need to see a doctor? Call and maybe you'll get an appointment three months from now. By then you'll either be over the illness or dead. Can't go to the emergency room, because they'll have new rules about who can go to the emergency room, and your illness isn't on the list.
Will your care be free? No. Sure, you'll pay taxes for it. But you'll also have to pay a fee with each service. They might try to make the fee small at first, say 10 or 20 bucks. But when their numbers don't even come close to paying for their utopian new government plan, they'll apologetically explain that we all just have to pitch in a little bit more toward our healthcare. And that fee will probably spike very quickly to $100 or $200. Then they'll start dreaming up new "healthcare fee assistance programs", sort of welfare for healthcare, where the "poor" will get their fees subsidized or covered.
Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Americans will die while waiting for a surgery. Thousands of others will receive their care in the black market. New clinics and hospitals will spring up outside the country, advertising surgeries for published flat rates. Bring your family to a resort hotel in the Bahamas while you get your heart bypass surgery - all for one reasonable flat rate of $20,000!
Americans can rise up and stop all this in its tracks. But there don't appear to be enough of us left who understand the damage being done by this government to rescue our country from this destruction. As I approach my senior years, I understand that I may have to just die and get out of the way when I get sick; it may just be that's what our president is asking of me and my generation.
Sports Weekend
Let's start the weekend with Thursday night. As I drove home (or tried to) from St. Louis, I spent most of the miles on I-70 between Terre Haute and Indianapolis scanning my radio channels for the Butler-SLU game.
I didn't start hearing it clearly until I was passing alongsite Indianapolis International Airport. I was surprised that 1070 (The Fan) was the only station in the area that seemed to be carrying the game, and even more surprised that the former home of Indy's famous WIBC had such a weak signal.
But the station came in clearly for the entire second half, while I was marooned on I-65 on a road that seemed more like a hockey rink in the horrible Thursday night weather.
Butler's Bulldogs performed even worse than the weather. They had obviously been knocked in the teeth by the Billikens in the first half, then were abused like a mouse being slowly toyed with by the cat that's about to kill it. I listened as the Bulldogs made a couple of valiant runs to get the score back in range, but as soon as Butler threatened to close the gap to less than 10 points, SLU would slam the door on them and run their lead back up to 16 or 18.
Saturday afternoon the Rhode Island Rams arrived at Hinkle Fieldhouse, and the Bulldogs played the first half looking like they were still hung over from their thrashing of Thursday. Butler played very poorly and fell behind early to the Rams in the first half. But late in the half, Rotnei Clarke seemed to take control of the team, hitting some shots and finding open shooters to help his team erase the Rams' lead and allow Butler to start the second half with essentially a clean slate.
The second half I saw the old Butler team that had disappeared for nearly a game and a half. They were aggressive, physical, deadly from 3-point range, and smothering the Rams' offense.
Are the Bulldogs back on track, or do they have deeper trouble they need to overcome between now and the NCAA tournament? We'll find out.
Then there was the game of the weekend, Michigan at Indiana. Just a great game all around. The Hoosiers pulled away for the win, but it seemed they rode the wave of a wild home crowd. If Indiana's really going to challenge for the national championship, they are going to have to prove that they can go into the gyms at Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio State, Michigan State, and of course Michigan and still find a way to win.
The Hoosiers will get the chance to prove it in the coming weeks. I think at the end of the regular season, there won't be very many Big 10 teams left in the top 10 nationally. They're going to keep knocking each other out, while teams like Florida, Kansas and Duke cruise past weaker opponents in their respective leagues.
No doubt the NCAA tournament's going to be a lot of fun this spring. If I could pick my perfect Final Four, it would be Indiana, Michigan, Duke, and Butler. The best Final Four ever.
I didn't start hearing it clearly until I was passing alongsite Indianapolis International Airport. I was surprised that 1070 (The Fan) was the only station in the area that seemed to be carrying the game, and even more surprised that the former home of Indy's famous WIBC had such a weak signal.
But the station came in clearly for the entire second half, while I was marooned on I-65 on a road that seemed more like a hockey rink in the horrible Thursday night weather.
Butler's Bulldogs performed even worse than the weather. They had obviously been knocked in the teeth by the Billikens in the first half, then were abused like a mouse being slowly toyed with by the cat that's about to kill it. I listened as the Bulldogs made a couple of valiant runs to get the score back in range, but as soon as Butler threatened to close the gap to less than 10 points, SLU would slam the door on them and run their lead back up to 16 or 18.
Saturday afternoon the Rhode Island Rams arrived at Hinkle Fieldhouse, and the Bulldogs played the first half looking like they were still hung over from their thrashing of Thursday. Butler played very poorly and fell behind early to the Rams in the first half. But late in the half, Rotnei Clarke seemed to take control of the team, hitting some shots and finding open shooters to help his team erase the Rams' lead and allow Butler to start the second half with essentially a clean slate.
The second half I saw the old Butler team that had disappeared for nearly a game and a half. They were aggressive, physical, deadly from 3-point range, and smothering the Rams' offense.
Are the Bulldogs back on track, or do they have deeper trouble they need to overcome between now and the NCAA tournament? We'll find out.
Then there was the game of the weekend, Michigan at Indiana. Just a great game all around. The Hoosiers pulled away for the win, but it seemed they rode the wave of a wild home crowd. If Indiana's really going to challenge for the national championship, they are going to have to prove that they can go into the gyms at Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio State, Michigan State, and of course Michigan and still find a way to win.
The Hoosiers will get the chance to prove it in the coming weeks. I think at the end of the regular season, there won't be very many Big 10 teams left in the top 10 nationally. They're going to keep knocking each other out, while teams like Florida, Kansas and Duke cruise past weaker opponents in their respective leagues.
No doubt the NCAA tournament's going to be a lot of fun this spring. If I could pick my perfect Final Four, it would be Indiana, Michigan, Duke, and Butler. The best Final Four ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)