Figuring out why Hollywood's disappointed isn't hard. They keep churning out left-wing "message" films and America just ignores them.
The latest examples are The Lone Ranger, White House Down, and Pacific Rim.
Just watch, Elysium will stink up the box office as well, as it looks like the most in-your-face liberal fantasy of the bunch.
Let the Lone Ranger actually be a hero and Tonto an actual Comanche who becomes the Ranger's best friend and partner and more people might have shown up.
Making Conservatives the terrorists who take over the White House and trying to portray Jamie Foxx as a heroic stand-in for Obama is just too much to take.
OK, I really have no idea what Pacific Rim is about. So I'll fess up that it may or may not be fairly stuck in this group. But I don't plan to see it either.
But the trailers for Elysium make it clear that it's a liberal fantasy about what could happen if they fail in their incessant efforts to cut the rich down to size. Here's an idea - portray the government living on Elysium while the regular folks suffer down on Earth. That's more believable, and I might just go see that version.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
Problems are Easy, Solutions are Not
The problems with healthcare are pretty easy to understand. We all have friends and relatives that have gone through serious health issues, and many of us have walked through the flawed medical delivery systems right next to someone.
End of life care is outrageously expensive. Just like treatment of serious disease, which becomes more likely as we age. As my baby boom generation ages into retirement, most of us expect the government to take care of our healthcare issues with Medicare. Our problem is that our own children are unemployed and underemployed. And they're not having children.
So that Medicare system that was created when more than 5 wage earners paid in taxes to care for a single senior. That ratio has now dropped to about 3, and it projected to fall to 2 in a decade or so (See www.Heritage.org)
Add in the burden of taxpayers funding Medicaid for the unemployed, and the whole system is upside-down.
So what should be done? President Obama's solution is already melting down before it's even fully implemented.
One day I know I'm going to get sick. I don't know what my illness will be, whether cancer or a diseased organ or some sort of orthopedic problem. But whatever it is, the treatment is likely going to cost well into six figures. As a middle-class ordinary man, that kind of money just isn't available.
So who's going to pay for my treatment? That's the big question.
Democrats say, "Let us take care of you". In return they want the power to tax me into oblivion and insert themselves between me and my doctors, making all the decisions for me based on statistical formulas that completely disregard my individual needs. They can and probably will, at least in some cases, make decisions for us that say, "just give him a pain pill and try to keep him comfortable until he dies".
I don't like that option.
Republicans say, "We'll give you a tax-free medical savings account to help you save up for an eventual disease". Sure, I like that better, but if my eventual disease generates bills in excess of, say, a half-million dollars, I might as well plan to buy a seat on the NASA spaceship going to Mars. That solution is terrific for high earners, but for folks like me means I'd have to save every single discretionary dollar and still risk coming up short when the money's needed.
No solution is going to be ideal. But I firmly believe the best solutions may lie somewhere between the two put forward by the parties. I am still sold on the idea of everyone having a simple Major Medical plan that takes care of our treatment for serious illness or injury. We then need to take responsibility for ourselves for everything short of major health issues.
Yes, I know that poor folks, both seniors and non-seniors, need care too. A revitalized economy is really the only answer. If we can get the percentage of able-bodied workers gainfully employed, then we will be able to afford to chip in a few dollars to help cover the truly poor and needy. Democrats will never achieve a revitalized economy. Republicans might, but only if they can resist their natural impulse to get drunk on power and act like Democrats again like they did in George W Bush's first term.
Right now I don't hold out much hope for a reasonable solution from Washington. Maybe if Americans band together and defy Washington, we can find solutions without them.
End of life care is outrageously expensive. Just like treatment of serious disease, which becomes more likely as we age. As my baby boom generation ages into retirement, most of us expect the government to take care of our healthcare issues with Medicare. Our problem is that our own children are unemployed and underemployed. And they're not having children.
So that Medicare system that was created when more than 5 wage earners paid in taxes to care for a single senior. That ratio has now dropped to about 3, and it projected to fall to 2 in a decade or so (See www.Heritage.org)
Add in the burden of taxpayers funding Medicaid for the unemployed, and the whole system is upside-down.
So what should be done? President Obama's solution is already melting down before it's even fully implemented.
One day I know I'm going to get sick. I don't know what my illness will be, whether cancer or a diseased organ or some sort of orthopedic problem. But whatever it is, the treatment is likely going to cost well into six figures. As a middle-class ordinary man, that kind of money just isn't available.
So who's going to pay for my treatment? That's the big question.
Democrats say, "Let us take care of you". In return they want the power to tax me into oblivion and insert themselves between me and my doctors, making all the decisions for me based on statistical formulas that completely disregard my individual needs. They can and probably will, at least in some cases, make decisions for us that say, "just give him a pain pill and try to keep him comfortable until he dies".
I don't like that option.
Republicans say, "We'll give you a tax-free medical savings account to help you save up for an eventual disease". Sure, I like that better, but if my eventual disease generates bills in excess of, say, a half-million dollars, I might as well plan to buy a seat on the NASA spaceship going to Mars. That solution is terrific for high earners, but for folks like me means I'd have to save every single discretionary dollar and still risk coming up short when the money's needed.
No solution is going to be ideal. But I firmly believe the best solutions may lie somewhere between the two put forward by the parties. I am still sold on the idea of everyone having a simple Major Medical plan that takes care of our treatment for serious illness or injury. We then need to take responsibility for ourselves for everything short of major health issues.
Yes, I know that poor folks, both seniors and non-seniors, need care too. A revitalized economy is really the only answer. If we can get the percentage of able-bodied workers gainfully employed, then we will be able to afford to chip in a few dollars to help cover the truly poor and needy. Democrats will never achieve a revitalized economy. Republicans might, but only if they can resist their natural impulse to get drunk on power and act like Democrats again like they did in George W Bush's first term.
Right now I don't hold out much hope for a reasonable solution from Washington. Maybe if Americans band together and defy Washington, we can find solutions without them.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Be Like Larry
I daydreamed about being able to play basketball like Larry Bird 30 years ago. Now I'd like to be like him in another way.
He left his position as the GM of the Indiana Pacers a year ago, citing health reasons. He took a year off, and now he's back. He indeed seems healthier, happier, and has a new enthusiasm for the task of trying to build the Pacers into a Championship contender.
Larry doesn't need the money, at least as far as I can tell. He's racked up enough millions as a player and with countless endorsements and probably a number of savvy investments along the way. He probably doesn't need a job of any kind, but he loves running the Pacers, so most likely he came back for love and not money.
I would like to take some time off myself. I'm tired and unhealthy and really would like to get a chance to catch my breath and spend a few months concentrating on getting healthier. Assuming after the sabbatical was over I wanted to return, I'm sure I would return to work energized and enthusiastic. Maybe not as much as Larry, but well enough.
Then again, I used to daydream about being a great basketball player too.
He left his position as the GM of the Indiana Pacers a year ago, citing health reasons. He took a year off, and now he's back. He indeed seems healthier, happier, and has a new enthusiasm for the task of trying to build the Pacers into a Championship contender.
Larry doesn't need the money, at least as far as I can tell. He's racked up enough millions as a player and with countless endorsements and probably a number of savvy investments along the way. He probably doesn't need a job of any kind, but he loves running the Pacers, so most likely he came back for love and not money.
I would like to take some time off myself. I'm tired and unhealthy and really would like to get a chance to catch my breath and spend a few months concentrating on getting healthier. Assuming after the sabbatical was over I wanted to return, I'm sure I would return to work energized and enthusiastic. Maybe not as much as Larry, but well enough.
Then again, I used to daydream about being a great basketball player too.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Hello, I'm a Right-Wing Extremist
Of course, I've always considered myself a normal American man. Some would say the world has passed me by, and others in that group would suggest I'm more dangerous than Islamic Terrorists.
But if I'm to be labeled as a Right-Wing Extremist, I prefer to embrace that title rather than knuckle under to the new Politically Correct liberalism.
I'm a Right-Wing Extremist because:
I believe in God, go to Church every Sunday and actually listen and participate, and even pray and study the Holy Bible on my own time.
I believe that I have a responsibility to care for myself and my family. Asking the government for help would be a source of shame. I'll do whatever it takes to earn a living for my loved ones, even if I have to take a job digging ditches or washing dishes.
I believe that killing babies is murder, whether it's done inside or outside her mother's womb.
I believe rampant divorce is the result of people who decided to be fundamentally dishonest with themselves, their spouse, their families and friends, and most of all God. Divorce is the breaking of the most sacred and significant promise one makes in his or her lifetime. When a man or woman breaks that vow, he or she has proven to everyone that since they're untrustworthy in the biggest things, they will also be untrustworthy in small things.
I believe homosexuality is disordered and wrong. I do not condemn individuals who may experience homosexual attraction or desires, even though I do not understand them. But acting on those desires without restraint, then insisting that others validate that aberrant behavior, is wrong. Just like adultery is wrong. Even though those behaviors are morally wrong, I do not propose prosecution or imprisonment or other government-imposed sanctions (unless of course the behavior involves children). But I do oppose the path we are on, which seeks to marginalize and eventually prosecute those of us who express disapproval and opposition.
I believe that war is a horrible thing. America should go to great lengths to avoid war, but when the safety of her citizens is at risk, war is sometimes the only option. Once America decides to go to war, the military should not be micromanaged by politicians, but allowed to prosecute the war in the way they deem necessary to win as quickly as possible while minimizing the loss of American lives.
I believe in Federalism and the United States Constitution. I understand that the Federal Government has usurped so much power for itself that the Constitution has nearly been rendered meaningless. That's why we now have a president who has systematically attacked the bill of rights; if we've ignored all of the other amendments, then freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to bear arms, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure are also fair game.
I believe healthcare is between my doctor and me. I oppose a Big Brother government inserting itself between us, grabbing the doctor's fees from me then deciding how much they will pass on to the doctor for his services.
I believe in freedom. Freedom to live my life as I choose without government interference. Freedom to obtain property and use it as I see fit. Freedom to raise and educate my own children as I see fit. Freedom to drive the car I choose, eat and drink what I choose, build the house I choose, grow my own produce if I want, and travel wherever I like.
If all of these things make me a Right-Wing Extremist, then I'll proudly wear the title as a badge of honor.
But if I'm to be labeled as a Right-Wing Extremist, I prefer to embrace that title rather than knuckle under to the new Politically Correct liberalism.
I'm a Right-Wing Extremist because:
I believe in God, go to Church every Sunday and actually listen and participate, and even pray and study the Holy Bible on my own time.
I believe that I have a responsibility to care for myself and my family. Asking the government for help would be a source of shame. I'll do whatever it takes to earn a living for my loved ones, even if I have to take a job digging ditches or washing dishes.
I believe that killing babies is murder, whether it's done inside or outside her mother's womb.
I believe rampant divorce is the result of people who decided to be fundamentally dishonest with themselves, their spouse, their families and friends, and most of all God. Divorce is the breaking of the most sacred and significant promise one makes in his or her lifetime. When a man or woman breaks that vow, he or she has proven to everyone that since they're untrustworthy in the biggest things, they will also be untrustworthy in small things.
I believe homosexuality is disordered and wrong. I do not condemn individuals who may experience homosexual attraction or desires, even though I do not understand them. But acting on those desires without restraint, then insisting that others validate that aberrant behavior, is wrong. Just like adultery is wrong. Even though those behaviors are morally wrong, I do not propose prosecution or imprisonment or other government-imposed sanctions (unless of course the behavior involves children). But I do oppose the path we are on, which seeks to marginalize and eventually prosecute those of us who express disapproval and opposition.
I believe that war is a horrible thing. America should go to great lengths to avoid war, but when the safety of her citizens is at risk, war is sometimes the only option. Once America decides to go to war, the military should not be micromanaged by politicians, but allowed to prosecute the war in the way they deem necessary to win as quickly as possible while minimizing the loss of American lives.
I believe in Federalism and the United States Constitution. I understand that the Federal Government has usurped so much power for itself that the Constitution has nearly been rendered meaningless. That's why we now have a president who has systematically attacked the bill of rights; if we've ignored all of the other amendments, then freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to bear arms, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure are also fair game.
I believe healthcare is between my doctor and me. I oppose a Big Brother government inserting itself between us, grabbing the doctor's fees from me then deciding how much they will pass on to the doctor for his services.
I believe in freedom. Freedom to live my life as I choose without government interference. Freedom to obtain property and use it as I see fit. Freedom to raise and educate my own children as I see fit. Freedom to drive the car I choose, eat and drink what I choose, build the house I choose, grow my own produce if I want, and travel wherever I like.
If all of these things make me a Right-Wing Extremist, then I'll proudly wear the title as a badge of honor.
Friday, July 26, 2013
You Can Fool Half the People All the Time
My revision of the famous quote from Abraham Lincoln is the principle that has been adopted by Obama and his comrades in Washington.
The President has rolled out a new campaign he says is focused on the economy. Only those who are paying attention, have a smidgen of intelligence, or are left-wing true believers actually understand his true agenda. The rest are blissfully ignorant and thus easily fooled by the party's dishonest and often slanderous message.
Now that message is talking about "phony scandals". It's the Democratic catch phrase of the moment, designed to be repeated over and over again by the president and his press secretary, congressional leaders, and all the talking heads at NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC. We found out long ago about the weekly conference calls with most of those networks to define the White House's theme for the week. MSNBC in many cases doesn't even bother to write their own stories - they've been caught reading directly from the White House-issued script.
So the campaign now has these simple objectives:
1. Spread disdain among the people for any news organization with the audacity to cover the ongoing scandals. It's just like how the "cool" kids in school use the considerable power of peer pressure to dictate what their classmates are permitted to say and do. The compliant media have received the message, and will no longer report on any hearings or investigative stories about Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, even NSA Surveillance.
2. Keep the theme going that the president really wants to fix the economy, but the Republicans are blocking him our of purely partisan motivations. The denizens of the politburo in the white house know that most people will never hear or understand anything about the details of the president's plan. But they'll certainly absorb the message about GOP obstructionism being the cause of continued economic malaise. They're hoping their loyal half of the country can be motivated to show up at the polls next year to give Nancy Pelosi the speaker's gavel again.
Half of America remains blind to the fact that the President and his followers have never been interested in fixing the country's broken economy. Instead they're laser-focused on consolidating their power and holding it absolutely for generations to come.
The President has rolled out a new campaign he says is focused on the economy. Only those who are paying attention, have a smidgen of intelligence, or are left-wing true believers actually understand his true agenda. The rest are blissfully ignorant and thus easily fooled by the party's dishonest and often slanderous message.
Now that message is talking about "phony scandals". It's the Democratic catch phrase of the moment, designed to be repeated over and over again by the president and his press secretary, congressional leaders, and all the talking heads at NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC. We found out long ago about the weekly conference calls with most of those networks to define the White House's theme for the week. MSNBC in many cases doesn't even bother to write their own stories - they've been caught reading directly from the White House-issued script.
So the campaign now has these simple objectives:
1. Spread disdain among the people for any news organization with the audacity to cover the ongoing scandals. It's just like how the "cool" kids in school use the considerable power of peer pressure to dictate what their classmates are permitted to say and do. The compliant media have received the message, and will no longer report on any hearings or investigative stories about Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, even NSA Surveillance.
2. Keep the theme going that the president really wants to fix the economy, but the Republicans are blocking him our of purely partisan motivations. The denizens of the politburo in the white house know that most people will never hear or understand anything about the details of the president's plan. But they'll certainly absorb the message about GOP obstructionism being the cause of continued economic malaise. They're hoping their loyal half of the country can be motivated to show up at the polls next year to give Nancy Pelosi the speaker's gavel again.
Half of America remains blind to the fact that the President and his followers have never been interested in fixing the country's broken economy. Instead they're laser-focused on consolidating their power and holding it absolutely for generations to come.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Reading Ender's Game
The book was apparently a huge hit with my boys. At least two out of three, anyway. So when I heard it was coming out as a movie, I thought I'd download it to my Kindle Fire and check it out.
The book is about a genius child who gets tabbed for military leadership training in some future society. I don't relate to the story or the main character much at all. In fact, I find the story more than a little disturbing.
Ender's a genius whose life before and after military school is full of bullying and loneliness and isolation. The only part of all that to which I can relate is the loneliness and isolation, which I admit to experiencing as a child. But in my case it wasn't because I was a geek, but because I was painfully and hopelessly shy and lacking in self-confidence.
The book is way ahead of its time, with its focus on computers and gaming. Orson Scott Card seemed to foresee much of the technology that has become today's reality back in the 70's when he wrote the first iteration of this story.
So I need to find out from my sons what they found so compellingly relatable about Ender's Game. Was it the gaming and computers? Was it the way geeky child geniuses are shunned by their peers? Is it because they feel they can't talk to anyone else about serious things, because they think everyone else is an idiot unable to understand their depth of intelligence?
Perhaps I'll go ahead and catch the movie when its released, but unfortunately not because I'm a member of the Ender's Game Fan Club.
The book is about a genius child who gets tabbed for military leadership training in some future society. I don't relate to the story or the main character much at all. In fact, I find the story more than a little disturbing.
Ender's a genius whose life before and after military school is full of bullying and loneliness and isolation. The only part of all that to which I can relate is the loneliness and isolation, which I admit to experiencing as a child. But in my case it wasn't because I was a geek, but because I was painfully and hopelessly shy and lacking in self-confidence.
The book is way ahead of its time, with its focus on computers and gaming. Orson Scott Card seemed to foresee much of the technology that has become today's reality back in the 70's when he wrote the first iteration of this story.
So I need to find out from my sons what they found so compellingly relatable about Ender's Game. Was it the gaming and computers? Was it the way geeky child geniuses are shunned by their peers? Is it because they feel they can't talk to anyone else about serious things, because they think everyone else is an idiot unable to understand their depth of intelligence?
Perhaps I'll go ahead and catch the movie when its released, but unfortunately not because I'm a member of the Ender's Game Fan Club.
Historical Perspective
As Barack Obama struggles to move ahead with his desire to transform America into a fully Socialist state, there's a sort of inevitability to his power grab that is consistent with history.
Societies were led by kings throughout history. Kings were leaders who achieved their power by being stronger and/or smarter than the rest of their tribe. And for most of human history, a king was nothing but a tribal chieftain or warlord.
The idea of a democratic republic seems to have originated with the Greeks. But their unique form of government didn't last long, as they became complacent and sex-obsessed once they achieved the prosperity that the government they conceived practically guarantees for every country that's tried it. So their historic experiment in representative government crumbled from within, making it easy for the Romans to defeat and enslave them.
The Romans tried to apply what the Greeks learned, but failed miserably. The assassination of Julius Caesar was their last, desperate attempt to preserve their representative republic against a reversion to the dictatorship of kings (or in their case, emperors). By executing their first emperor, they merely delayed the inevitable consolidation of power to the next strongman emperor.
Pax Romana lasted longer, but also crumbled from within because of complacency, corruption, and sex obsession.
It took over a millennium before America rose from the ashes of Rome to inherit the mantle of representative government. And America prospered spectacularly for 200 years. But just like the Greeks and Romans, Americans also became corrupt and complacent and sex-obsessed. And the greatest, most prosperous nation in the history of the planet is crumbling from within in front of our eyes.
The Socialist Obama may imagine that he's ushering in a more "fair" society by using the power of government to punish the rich and reward the poor. But history also provides a clear message for what happens when the Socialists and Communists take over. Brutal dictatorships take control and murder or imprison the dictator's political rivals. They install tyrannical kings as leaders, but instead of calling them kings or emperors, they call them General Secretaries and Presidents and Premiers.
Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro consolidated power, nationalizing all businesses and killing or imprisoning any who object. They keep most of the confiscated wealth for themselves and their inner circle, then dole out just enough to the poor citizens to make sure they establish and maintain total dependence to stave off revolution.
Ronald Reagan's "Shining City on a Hill" is crumbling and turning gray. Detroit is leading the way, with Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago to follow very soon. The complacent citizens are now adopting an attitude of hopelessness, lacking the emergence of true leaders who are able to inspire them to reclaim America's greatness.
The destruction of America now seems inevitable. My generation is to blame. Our entitled children demand government handouts, murder their own children, and refuse to take responsibility for themselves and their own families.
Maybe Obama will succeed, or maybe some Republican will slow the destruction by replacing him for a few short years. But I see no evidence that America can produce a leader who will lead us out of the mess created by my generation. Either Obama will become our next dictator or someone else in his party will. I'm sure Hilary is salivating at the prospect of being the first major world dictator who is female.
The only question that remains to be answered is how many of us will be executed and imprisoned in the purge to come?
Societies were led by kings throughout history. Kings were leaders who achieved their power by being stronger and/or smarter than the rest of their tribe. And for most of human history, a king was nothing but a tribal chieftain or warlord.
The idea of a democratic republic seems to have originated with the Greeks. But their unique form of government didn't last long, as they became complacent and sex-obsessed once they achieved the prosperity that the government they conceived practically guarantees for every country that's tried it. So their historic experiment in representative government crumbled from within, making it easy for the Romans to defeat and enslave them.
The Romans tried to apply what the Greeks learned, but failed miserably. The assassination of Julius Caesar was their last, desperate attempt to preserve their representative republic against a reversion to the dictatorship of kings (or in their case, emperors). By executing their first emperor, they merely delayed the inevitable consolidation of power to the next strongman emperor.
Pax Romana lasted longer, but also crumbled from within because of complacency, corruption, and sex obsession.
It took over a millennium before America rose from the ashes of Rome to inherit the mantle of representative government. And America prospered spectacularly for 200 years. But just like the Greeks and Romans, Americans also became corrupt and complacent and sex-obsessed. And the greatest, most prosperous nation in the history of the planet is crumbling from within in front of our eyes.
The Socialist Obama may imagine that he's ushering in a more "fair" society by using the power of government to punish the rich and reward the poor. But history also provides a clear message for what happens when the Socialists and Communists take over. Brutal dictatorships take control and murder or imprison the dictator's political rivals. They install tyrannical kings as leaders, but instead of calling them kings or emperors, they call them General Secretaries and Presidents and Premiers.
Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro consolidated power, nationalizing all businesses and killing or imprisoning any who object. They keep most of the confiscated wealth for themselves and their inner circle, then dole out just enough to the poor citizens to make sure they establish and maintain total dependence to stave off revolution.
Ronald Reagan's "Shining City on a Hill" is crumbling and turning gray. Detroit is leading the way, with Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago to follow very soon. The complacent citizens are now adopting an attitude of hopelessness, lacking the emergence of true leaders who are able to inspire them to reclaim America's greatness.
The destruction of America now seems inevitable. My generation is to blame. Our entitled children demand government handouts, murder their own children, and refuse to take responsibility for themselves and their own families.
Maybe Obama will succeed, or maybe some Republican will slow the destruction by replacing him for a few short years. But I see no evidence that America can produce a leader who will lead us out of the mess created by my generation. Either Obama will become our next dictator or someone else in his party will. I'm sure Hilary is salivating at the prospect of being the first major world dictator who is female.
The only question that remains to be answered is how many of us will be executed and imprisoned in the purge to come?
Monday, July 22, 2013
Living in a Hurry
This post may push the envelope a bit on my cardinal rule of not sharing personal information. But to the extent this includes personal information, I imagine none of it is particularly unique or anything that might be used against me. I only hope it can help support the thesis of this topic.
It wasn't until recently that I realized something important. That I've lived my life in a hurry, always focused on a future goal or rite of passage. Seldom, if ever, have I managed to be satisfied with the life that was happening at the moment.
As a pre-schooler, I couldn't wait to go to school.
I couldn't wait to get big enough to ride the roller coasters at Cedar Pointe.
I dreamed about making the varsity basketball team in High School.
I became bored and unmotivated early in my Senior year in High School and couldn't wait to graduate and start College.
There were girls. That's all I will say about that.
I couldn't wait to graduate from College and find out what sort of career would develop.
I couldn't wait to get a decent job that paid enough so I wouldn't have to sweat the monthly bills.
I couldn't wait to be a father.
I was impatient to achieve that promotion to Manager.
I couldn't wait for the boys to start playing sports at a competitive level. I dreamed about each of them becoming a top contributor to their varsity teams.
I looked forward to the boys graduating college and moving into adult life.
I looked forward to getting all three through college so I could shift my financial focus to retirement savings.
As the job becomes more and more routine, I have begun to long for retirement.
Wait a minute! Once I reach retirement, what will I look forward to? Joining family and friends who have passed on before me? No, I don't think it's quite time to start anticipating that.
You know, all that stuff I couldn't wait for throughout my life never quite matched my dreams of what life would be like once the time came. Nothing ever satisfied my desires, but rather my biggest achievements and milestone events fell well short. I can't say I was disappointed neccessarily, but instead led to the question, "Is this all there is?".
It's too bad it took me so long to learn this important lesson. Embrace your life today and let tomorrow take care of itself. Don't live your entire life believing happiness is just around the corner with that next promotion or recognition. That attitude merely causes true happiness to be always just beyond our reach - instead we can choose to be happy with where we are today.
Today I resolve to be content. I will no longer waste time dreaming, scheming, and planning for the next milestone of my life. The next milestone will arrive when its ready, and how terrific it is depends mainly on my attitude at that time. I'll strive to keep a positive attitude every day, and let the next milestone come when it will.
It wasn't until recently that I realized something important. That I've lived my life in a hurry, always focused on a future goal or rite of passage. Seldom, if ever, have I managed to be satisfied with the life that was happening at the moment.
As a pre-schooler, I couldn't wait to go to school.
I couldn't wait to get big enough to ride the roller coasters at Cedar Pointe.
I dreamed about making the varsity basketball team in High School.
I became bored and unmotivated early in my Senior year in High School and couldn't wait to graduate and start College.
There were girls. That's all I will say about that.
I couldn't wait to graduate from College and find out what sort of career would develop.
I couldn't wait to get a decent job that paid enough so I wouldn't have to sweat the monthly bills.
I couldn't wait to be a father.
I was impatient to achieve that promotion to Manager.
I couldn't wait for the boys to start playing sports at a competitive level. I dreamed about each of them becoming a top contributor to their varsity teams.
I looked forward to the boys graduating college and moving into adult life.
I looked forward to getting all three through college so I could shift my financial focus to retirement savings.
As the job becomes more and more routine, I have begun to long for retirement.
Wait a minute! Once I reach retirement, what will I look forward to? Joining family and friends who have passed on before me? No, I don't think it's quite time to start anticipating that.
You know, all that stuff I couldn't wait for throughout my life never quite matched my dreams of what life would be like once the time came. Nothing ever satisfied my desires, but rather my biggest achievements and milestone events fell well short. I can't say I was disappointed neccessarily, but instead led to the question, "Is this all there is?".
It's too bad it took me so long to learn this important lesson. Embrace your life today and let tomorrow take care of itself. Don't live your entire life believing happiness is just around the corner with that next promotion or recognition. That attitude merely causes true happiness to be always just beyond our reach - instead we can choose to be happy with where we are today.
Today I resolve to be content. I will no longer waste time dreaming, scheming, and planning for the next milestone of my life. The next milestone will arrive when its ready, and how terrific it is depends mainly on my attitude at that time. I'll strive to keep a positive attitude every day, and let the next milestone come when it will.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Might be Evil
The answer to the question of whether there is true evil in the world seems to be getting more and more support in the affirmative.
Just maybe the women who mocked Pro-Life advocates outside the Texas Statehouse by chanting, "Hail Satan!" might be evil?
Is it possible that Bill Maher, who says really nasty, evil stuff every week on his HBO program, might be evil?
Perhaps the race hucksters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Tavis Smiley might be evil?
Certainly it's hard to make a case that the abortionists like Kermit Gosnell isn't purely evil?
How many Senators just might be evil? Are just Democrats evil, or might some Republicans also have evil tendencies?
There are plenty of ignorant people, misguided people, unintelligent people, lost and confused people. They're not all evil. But perhaps some of them might be evil?
It looks like it may just be evil people who don't believe that evil exists.
Just maybe the women who mocked Pro-Life advocates outside the Texas Statehouse by chanting, "Hail Satan!" might be evil?
Is it possible that Bill Maher, who says really nasty, evil stuff every week on his HBO program, might be evil?
Perhaps the race hucksters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Tavis Smiley might be evil?
Certainly it's hard to make a case that the abortionists like Kermit Gosnell isn't purely evil?
How many Senators just might be evil? Are just Democrats evil, or might some Republicans also have evil tendencies?
There are plenty of ignorant people, misguided people, unintelligent people, lost and confused people. They're not all evil. But perhaps some of them might be evil?
It looks like it may just be evil people who don't believe that evil exists.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Movie Review
I ended up at the theatre tonight and picked the film that was starting soonest. It was The Lone Ranger. Bad reviews and all, I thought I'd take a chance.
Yeah, it was partly a liberal fantasy. You know, the one about how the capitalists from the railroad teamed up with the troopers to commit genocide on the local Comanches. Just to satisfy their insatiable desire for wealth and power. We've seen it all before, so many times.
And yeah, Johnny Depp played an off-kilter, way over-the-top Tonto. Depp was the star of the movie, and Armie Hammer played a naive and bumbling John Reid, aka Lone Ranger. Absolutely, I would have much preferred a less eccentric Tonto. The movie explained the crow on his head, but I still could have lived without that wierd plot device. The white makeup made no sense, unless you combine it with the crow to round out just how nuts Depp's Tonto must be.
Clearly Disney was hoping to turn The Lone Ranger into the next franchise like Pirates of the Carribean. It doesn't seem like that's going to work, since this movie has tanked. But you never know, they might try again.
The positives lie in the action scenes, which are very creatively choreographed and mostly fun to watch. It's the story itself that probably doomed this movie's box office.
The Ranger and Tonto built a relationship that for most of the movie portrayed Tonto as the hero and the Ranger as a bumbling and clueless white dude who finds success only out of pure luck and/or because he kept getting bailed out by Tonto. The only explanation for the Ranger's lucky breaks is a strange spiritual thing Tonto seems to believe. Tonto tells his partner several times that the Ranger can't be killed because he's some kind of Spirit Walker. Whatever that is.
The white horse that eventually becomes the famous "Silver" is fun. Depp certainly is a great comic actor, even though I was never quite able to look past his ridiculous costuming and makeup.
Besides a toned-down Tonto, I certainly would have preferred to see at least a buddy relationship between the two main characters. I would have been fine with the Ranger being a bit bumbling and naive at first, but think the film should have transitioned him into an hero much sooner. The movie makers never did satisfactorily explain why the two guys stayed together - there certainly was almost no evidence of a developing friendship between them. And Tonto kept calling the Ranger "stupid".
Finally, I found the ending rather disappointing.
Go see it. Don't expect anything beyond a bit of escapist entertainment, and you'll have a good time.
Yeah, it was partly a liberal fantasy. You know, the one about how the capitalists from the railroad teamed up with the troopers to commit genocide on the local Comanches. Just to satisfy their insatiable desire for wealth and power. We've seen it all before, so many times.
And yeah, Johnny Depp played an off-kilter, way over-the-top Tonto. Depp was the star of the movie, and Armie Hammer played a naive and bumbling John Reid, aka Lone Ranger. Absolutely, I would have much preferred a less eccentric Tonto. The movie explained the crow on his head, but I still could have lived without that wierd plot device. The white makeup made no sense, unless you combine it with the crow to round out just how nuts Depp's Tonto must be.
Clearly Disney was hoping to turn The Lone Ranger into the next franchise like Pirates of the Carribean. It doesn't seem like that's going to work, since this movie has tanked. But you never know, they might try again.
The positives lie in the action scenes, which are very creatively choreographed and mostly fun to watch. It's the story itself that probably doomed this movie's box office.
The Ranger and Tonto built a relationship that for most of the movie portrayed Tonto as the hero and the Ranger as a bumbling and clueless white dude who finds success only out of pure luck and/or because he kept getting bailed out by Tonto. The only explanation for the Ranger's lucky breaks is a strange spiritual thing Tonto seems to believe. Tonto tells his partner several times that the Ranger can't be killed because he's some kind of Spirit Walker. Whatever that is.
The white horse that eventually becomes the famous "Silver" is fun. Depp certainly is a great comic actor, even though I was never quite able to look past his ridiculous costuming and makeup.
Besides a toned-down Tonto, I certainly would have preferred to see at least a buddy relationship between the two main characters. I would have been fine with the Ranger being a bit bumbling and naive at first, but think the film should have transitioned him into an hero much sooner. The movie makers never did satisfactorily explain why the two guys stayed together - there certainly was almost no evidence of a developing friendship between them. And Tonto kept calling the Ranger "stupid".
Finally, I found the ending rather disappointing.
Go see it. Don't expect anything beyond a bit of escapist entertainment, and you'll have a good time.
What They Want
The deepest desires of the Left is starting to come into focus. I for one don't want to live in their dream country. Let's see if I can recap.
The way-out left women personified by Wendy Davis want to kill children. I can't find any other conclusion. I hear them screaming about their "rights" to "healthcare", which in practice can only mean they would go to an abortion doctor on the day they deliver to have the baby's spinal cord snipped just before he or she emerges from the birth canal. I've even heard some on that "pro-choice" side suggest that babies aren't really human until they're ready for kindergarten. Does that mean that if we put them in charge, they'd let mothers take their pre-schoolers into a clinic to have them put down?
The racist left personified by Al Sharpton want to put a stop to law enforcement, especially if the perpetrator happens to be black. My interpretation of Al's rhetoric is that he desires a country where young black men can rob, beat, shoot, steal, and rape without fear of consequences. Al and his ilk seem to be saying that Zimmerman should have passively allowed Trayvon Martin to beat him to death. Al certainly doesn't believe that Americans should have the right to protect themselves and their families from violent crime.
The pacifist left led by Hollywood would prefer Mullahs and the Taliban wantonly killing Christian and burning churches throughout the middle east to doing anything that might make a Muslim mad. Sometimes their rhetoric seems to suggest they agree with the terrorists that there can be no peace until Israel is a smoking hole in the ground and America is weak and unable to protect itself.
The atheist left led by the majority of elected Democrats want to drive the Christian faith underground permanently. They've removed any whisper of God from schools, courthouses, public parks, and in some extreme cases even private property. They continue to attempt shutting down all prayer and religious expression anywhere that one of them might hear it. They've declared atheism the official religion of America, and although they encourage open religious expression by Muslims, will not tolerate it from Christians.
The socialist left has imposed a horrible government-run healthcare law and see nothing wrong at all with government dictating the health choices of all individual Americans. They feel justified in setting rules and laws about what we may and may not eat, drink, and drive. They want to return to top marginal tax rates of 80 to 90 percent. After all, how much money does one person need? They can't wait to confiscate money from those who earn it, then give it to those who didn't and skim a healthy commission off the top along the way.
The environmental left hopes to dictate the temperature we're permitted to set our thermostats. They hope to ban any energy source completely and permanently that involves burning something, which means they're fine with rationing of all energy sources to heat or cool our homes, fuel our cars, even run our computers.
The gun control left hopes to confiscate guns from everybody without giving any thought to the fact that the criminals will be easily able to hide their guns from the home invasions. So defenseless unarmed citizens will be subjected to a crime spree never seen before in America. Is it related to the agenda of the racist left? Maybe we'll find out.
Sounds like a lawless place that punishes the principled and productive while coddling the amoral and criminal. We will lose our freedom, our property, and our security. For what?
The way-out left women personified by Wendy Davis want to kill children. I can't find any other conclusion. I hear them screaming about their "rights" to "healthcare", which in practice can only mean they would go to an abortion doctor on the day they deliver to have the baby's spinal cord snipped just before he or she emerges from the birth canal. I've even heard some on that "pro-choice" side suggest that babies aren't really human until they're ready for kindergarten. Does that mean that if we put them in charge, they'd let mothers take their pre-schoolers into a clinic to have them put down?
The racist left personified by Al Sharpton want to put a stop to law enforcement, especially if the perpetrator happens to be black. My interpretation of Al's rhetoric is that he desires a country where young black men can rob, beat, shoot, steal, and rape without fear of consequences. Al and his ilk seem to be saying that Zimmerman should have passively allowed Trayvon Martin to beat him to death. Al certainly doesn't believe that Americans should have the right to protect themselves and their families from violent crime.
The pacifist left led by Hollywood would prefer Mullahs and the Taliban wantonly killing Christian and burning churches throughout the middle east to doing anything that might make a Muslim mad. Sometimes their rhetoric seems to suggest they agree with the terrorists that there can be no peace until Israel is a smoking hole in the ground and America is weak and unable to protect itself.
The atheist left led by the majority of elected Democrats want to drive the Christian faith underground permanently. They've removed any whisper of God from schools, courthouses, public parks, and in some extreme cases even private property. They continue to attempt shutting down all prayer and religious expression anywhere that one of them might hear it. They've declared atheism the official religion of America, and although they encourage open religious expression by Muslims, will not tolerate it from Christians.
The socialist left has imposed a horrible government-run healthcare law and see nothing wrong at all with government dictating the health choices of all individual Americans. They feel justified in setting rules and laws about what we may and may not eat, drink, and drive. They want to return to top marginal tax rates of 80 to 90 percent. After all, how much money does one person need? They can't wait to confiscate money from those who earn it, then give it to those who didn't and skim a healthy commission off the top along the way.
The environmental left hopes to dictate the temperature we're permitted to set our thermostats. They hope to ban any energy source completely and permanently that involves burning something, which means they're fine with rationing of all energy sources to heat or cool our homes, fuel our cars, even run our computers.
The gun control left hopes to confiscate guns from everybody without giving any thought to the fact that the criminals will be easily able to hide their guns from the home invasions. So defenseless unarmed citizens will be subjected to a crime spree never seen before in America. Is it related to the agenda of the racist left? Maybe we'll find out.
Sounds like a lawless place that punishes the principled and productive while coddling the amoral and criminal. We will lose our freedom, our property, and our security. For what?
Monday, July 15, 2013
Further Evidence that the Left is Driven by Emotion
Traveling today allowed me plenty of time to play with the Scan button on my car radio. I heard a bit of talk radio along the way and was struck by a couple of things:
1. All the talk shows were pretty much All Zimmerman All the Time.
2. Callers to the shows who believed Zimmerman should have been convicted were hysterical. (And I don't mean the word as a substitute for "Hilarious")
I didn't really want to dwell on the case. It's over, the right verdict was reached, and it's time to move on to other topics. So I really didn't want to spend the entire trip listening to overwrought rhetoric on both sides of the debate.
There were two callers in particular I heard on two different talk radio shows that really caught my attention. Both were highly emotional about the case and made it sound as if their world had been shattered because Zimmerman was exonerated.
Why was their world shattered? In both cases because they believed certain characterizations of the case itself that were either not true or never proven by any tangible evidence. Running through their basic mindsets, they were absolutely certain that Zimmerman was a racist wanna-be cop out to make a name for himself.
They believe that he got out of his car to follow Trayvon Martin after being told not to by the dispatcher. The parts of the case I did catch included Zimmerman's television interview with Hannity, where he said he was following Martin while talking to the dispatcher on the phone. Then when the dispatcher told him to stop following the kid, he put the phone away and headed back to his car. It was on his way back to the car that Martin confronted him and started punching.
They believe that Martin was just an innocent child who was shot by Zimmerman only because he was black and Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious. The facts of the case don't support that belief in any way.
So what I think I learned is that these folks, whom I presume were black, are so deeply ingrained with the belief that white and law enforcement people are out to oppress and persecute them, they have a default setting that means no facts or circumstances can ever change their belief that any case like this is because of those beliefs.
It is sad.
1. All the talk shows were pretty much All Zimmerman All the Time.
2. Callers to the shows who believed Zimmerman should have been convicted were hysterical. (And I don't mean the word as a substitute for "Hilarious")
I didn't really want to dwell on the case. It's over, the right verdict was reached, and it's time to move on to other topics. So I really didn't want to spend the entire trip listening to overwrought rhetoric on both sides of the debate.
There were two callers in particular I heard on two different talk radio shows that really caught my attention. Both were highly emotional about the case and made it sound as if their world had been shattered because Zimmerman was exonerated.
Why was their world shattered? In both cases because they believed certain characterizations of the case itself that were either not true or never proven by any tangible evidence. Running through their basic mindsets, they were absolutely certain that Zimmerman was a racist wanna-be cop out to make a name for himself.
They believe that he got out of his car to follow Trayvon Martin after being told not to by the dispatcher. The parts of the case I did catch included Zimmerman's television interview with Hannity, where he said he was following Martin while talking to the dispatcher on the phone. Then when the dispatcher told him to stop following the kid, he put the phone away and headed back to his car. It was on his way back to the car that Martin confronted him and started punching.
They believe that Martin was just an innocent child who was shot by Zimmerman only because he was black and Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious. The facts of the case don't support that belief in any way.
So what I think I learned is that these folks, whom I presume were black, are so deeply ingrained with the belief that white and law enforcement people are out to oppress and persecute them, they have a default setting that means no facts or circumstances can ever change their belief that any case like this is because of those beliefs.
It is sad.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Today's Letter to the Editor
I seriously doubt this will be published at The Republic. It's way too long. But at least I can share it here on the blog:
Dear Editor:
If you choose not to publish the following, I understand. It's way too long, and I also work as a stringer for The Republic from time to time covering sports for Jay Heater. However, the article from Diana Wagman provided inspiration to me to create the following. If nothing else, I hope you find it interesting:
Diana Wagman’s article presents her hopeful but naïve desire to support the Affordable Care Act as a promising solution to her own family’s health insurance challenges. In many ways my own family shares a very similar scenario with Wagman’s: Both my wife and I are self-employed and therefore do not have access to employer-sponsored insurance benefits.
The difference between Wagman and me is our opposite views of the role of government in the larger dilemma of health insurance. She can’t imagine any solution that does not involve the federal government, while I believe the federal government is the last place in which anyone should want to rely for their family’s healthcare.
Wagman and I belong to the same generation, her frame of reference coming from a working life spent in the public sector. Mine has almost entirely been in the private sector, where I have experienced firsthand the silly regulations and associated extortion-like taxes dreamed up by bureaucrats from Washington and Indianapolis.
My personal experience with healthcare can be summarized as follows:
1. Shortly after forming my new corporation, I discovered that nobody in the private insurance industry would sell me health insurance at any price. My spouse and I were accused of the dreaded “pre-existing conditions”, sort of like modern lepers. Those conditions have never impeded our ability to go to work every day, and certainly don’t mean we go to doctors very often. But still, we found out that insurers will accept only those in perfect health – although we can’t be sure that if those past health issues never happened that we still wouldn’t have been rejected for some other equally nonsensical reason.
2. Indiana came to the rescue with the “high-risk”insurance pool called ICHIA. We could buy insurance that was certainly a budget stretcher, but at least gave us some peace of mind that if we got seriously injured or contracted a life-threatening disease we’d be covered.
3. Over the years two events happened in Washington that significantly impacted our healthcare costs. First was the Medicare Prescription Drug program. The day after it passed, the price of our prescription refills doubled. Later the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) passed, and they doubled again.
4. This year I received a letter from ICHIA informing me that at the end of this year, my policy will be cancelled. The letter said I must enroll in an “Insurance Exchange” by the end of 2013. By the way, the notice was followed up immediately after by one that informed me my premium had doubled.
So please explain to me, exactly how is it that the Affordable Care Act was designed to “help” people like us get affordable health insurance coverage? Among the articles I’ve found on the ACA that attempt to predict the cost of premiums in the “Exchange”, I’ve seen estimates of increased premiums in 2014 ranging from 30 percent (mostly from hopeful Democrats like Wagman) to 500 percent (mostly from Obamacare opponents). My reasoned prediction is that the actual increase will be between 50 and 100 percent over the premium I pay today (which, remember, is double last year's).
There seems to be nobody predicting my premiums will go down or even stay the same. How could they, with the thousands of new bureaucrats hired in Washington to administer the program and all of those mandates (Mandatory acceptance, free birth control, free screenings, keeping your adult children who can't find a job or afford to pay their student loan payments on your plan, and even paid community-organizer “Navigators” to help me figure out which insurance to buy from the Exchange)?
Don't forget the matter of conscience. As a practicing Roman Catholic, I have a pretty big problem with paying health insurance premiums that will be used to fund "free" contraception and abortifacent drugs. It seems abusive to force me through those high premiums to fund hormonal drugs that cause all sorts of maladies in women, including breast cancer. Not to mention denying a newly conceived child a chance at experiencing this life the rest of us take for granted. The government may disagree with my deeply held convictions, but does their disdain for my faith-inspired (and science-inspired) repect for life give them license to force me to violate them?
My message to Wagman, President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and the rest of the progressives who so badly feel a need to manage my personal healthcare is this:
Please, leave me alone!
All I ever wanted from the first day I became my own boss was to find and purchase a simple Major Medical plan. Hopefully one that doesn’t cost half of my annual gross revenue. I’ll cover my own routine doctor visits and medications. Come to think of it, if everybody else adopted the same approach, wouldn’t that put pressure on exorbitant medical costs to gradually shrink to more affordable levels for everyone? Wouldn’t it lead everyone like me who’s shopping for the highest quality care for the lowest reasonable cost inspire providers to compete a little bit more on their prices?
Mrs. Wagman instead longs for the opposite of what I wish for: Single-payer, nationalized, taxpayer-funded healthcare for everyone. May I propose an experiment: Grant her a universal single-payer plan in California for 5 years. Indiana gets my proposed Major Medical-only approach over the same period. Let’s find out which works better at the end of 5 years in terms of access, affordability, and quality.
I’m betting on Indiana.
Tuesday, July 09, 2013
The Travesty of Justice in Florida
Prosecutors had no intention of bringing charges against George Zimmerman. Because there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the altercation between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin that fateful night was anything other than self-defense.
But race-baters like Sharpton and Jackson got wind of the case and whipped up a racial angle. They managed to instill fear in the Florida Governor and Attorney General, who ordered Zimmerman indicted and prosecuted despite the lack of evidence. They feared race riots, so they sacrificed Zimmerman's rights to protect their own hides and avoid nightly news images of angry black men breaking windows, looting stores, and burning down buildings.
The little bit of the trial I've caught confirms that the prosecution is flailing. Their only hope for a conviction lies in "proving" that Zimmerman acted out of racial animus, not self-defense. Which requires getting into Zimmerman's head to find out what he was thinking. Their pitiful attempts included getting some forensics guy to say he didn't think Zimmerman's injuries were all that serious, so getting his head bashed repeatedley against the concrete sidewalk somehow didn't justify a lethal response.
Is it possible that Zimmerman shot Martin unnecessarily, even with evidence that seems to suggest otherwise? Yes, it is possible. But nobody witnessed the incident from start to finish. No matter how hard they try, the prosecution will never be able to prove that Zimmerman is guilty of second-degree murder. It doesn't matter that most black people are certain he's guilty, or that most non-black people are just as certain he's innocent. What matters is the evidence, and the evidence is more supporting of self-defense than of murder. How people "feel" about the case is irrelevant.
It is interesting to see that nearly every black person brought on television to comment about the case is absolutely certain that Zimmerman shot Martin out of a racial animus. A new term has been manufactured by the dishonest media, "White Hispanic". What does that mean? Does it mean that we should now refer to the president as a "White Kenyan"? I suspect that if George Zimmerman's name was Jorge Garcia, nobody outside of Florida would have ever heard of this case.
Some people believe that Zimmerman will be convicted. If so, his conviction will serve as proof that there is no longer Justice or the Rule of Law in America.
But race-baters like Sharpton and Jackson got wind of the case and whipped up a racial angle. They managed to instill fear in the Florida Governor and Attorney General, who ordered Zimmerman indicted and prosecuted despite the lack of evidence. They feared race riots, so they sacrificed Zimmerman's rights to protect their own hides and avoid nightly news images of angry black men breaking windows, looting stores, and burning down buildings.
The little bit of the trial I've caught confirms that the prosecution is flailing. Their only hope for a conviction lies in "proving" that Zimmerman acted out of racial animus, not self-defense. Which requires getting into Zimmerman's head to find out what he was thinking. Their pitiful attempts included getting some forensics guy to say he didn't think Zimmerman's injuries were all that serious, so getting his head bashed repeatedley against the concrete sidewalk somehow didn't justify a lethal response.
Is it possible that Zimmerman shot Martin unnecessarily, even with evidence that seems to suggest otherwise? Yes, it is possible. But nobody witnessed the incident from start to finish. No matter how hard they try, the prosecution will never be able to prove that Zimmerman is guilty of second-degree murder. It doesn't matter that most black people are certain he's guilty, or that most non-black people are just as certain he's innocent. What matters is the evidence, and the evidence is more supporting of self-defense than of murder. How people "feel" about the case is irrelevant.
It is interesting to see that nearly every black person brought on television to comment about the case is absolutely certain that Zimmerman shot Martin out of a racial animus. A new term has been manufactured by the dishonest media, "White Hispanic". What does that mean? Does it mean that we should now refer to the president as a "White Kenyan"? I suspect that if George Zimmerman's name was Jorge Garcia, nobody outside of Florida would have ever heard of this case.
Some people believe that Zimmerman will be convicted. If so, his conviction will serve as proof that there is no longer Justice or the Rule of Law in America.
Monday, July 08, 2013
Why Do We Tolerate This?
Everywhere I turn, I encounter people sighing and shaking their heads about the state of America. Obamacare. the crumbling Obama-supported "Arab Spring". EPA destruction of energy. Benghazi. Fast & Furious. Intimidation and investigation of reporters. Harassment by the IRS of Conservatives and Christians. Heavy-handed violations of the First Amendment by Kathleen Sebelius. Open hostility to Catholics and Evangelicals. Stomping on States' Rights when they try to secure the border when the President refuses to do so, when they pass Voter ID laws to try to reduce Democratic cheating at the Polls, when they pass restrictions on late-term abortions.
Everybody reacts with a shrug, a sigh, and a regretful head shake. Who says we have to sit still for the destruction of our own country? Isn't America founded of, by, and for the people? And who are the people if not us? Why do we just go about our daily business, which is crumbling under the ever-increasing tyranny of Obama's government?
Why have we not seen massive demonstrations surrounding the US Congress and White House by the millions, demanding the resignation of Barack Obama? Why have we allowed ourselves to be cowed by a media establishment that has been corrupted by the Democrat Socialist Left? The dishonest news media paints ordinary Americans who only believe in liberty and the American Dream as bible-thumping, shotgun-wielding rednecks who hate gays, blacks, hispanics, and union organizers.
So what? They're going to accuse us of all those things no matter what we do or say. So why don't we stand up and demand a government that is responsive to the needs of the country, not just the needs of those willing to finance their next re-election campaign? Why don't we demand that the unwieldy government be slashed to a level where it returns to doing only those essential things the founding fathers defined in the constitution? Why don't we demand that they stop focusing on distractions like gay marriage and amnesty for illegal aliens, and start focusing on the important things like national security and the economy?
Am I the only one who is fed up? Where are the leaders that can heroically wade through the storm of a Politically Correct Media to rally the true American people to set the country back to the greatest, most prosperous country in the history of the planet? Where's courage, principle, morality?
Will we all just continue to shake our heads and shrug our shoulders all the way to the new American Gulags?
Everybody reacts with a shrug, a sigh, and a regretful head shake. Who says we have to sit still for the destruction of our own country? Isn't America founded of, by, and for the people? And who are the people if not us? Why do we just go about our daily business, which is crumbling under the ever-increasing tyranny of Obama's government?
Why have we not seen massive demonstrations surrounding the US Congress and White House by the millions, demanding the resignation of Barack Obama? Why have we allowed ourselves to be cowed by a media establishment that has been corrupted by the Democrat Socialist Left? The dishonest news media paints ordinary Americans who only believe in liberty and the American Dream as bible-thumping, shotgun-wielding rednecks who hate gays, blacks, hispanics, and union organizers.
So what? They're going to accuse us of all those things no matter what we do or say. So why don't we stand up and demand a government that is responsive to the needs of the country, not just the needs of those willing to finance their next re-election campaign? Why don't we demand that the unwieldy government be slashed to a level where it returns to doing only those essential things the founding fathers defined in the constitution? Why don't we demand that they stop focusing on distractions like gay marriage and amnesty for illegal aliens, and start focusing on the important things like national security and the economy?
Am I the only one who is fed up? Where are the leaders that can heroically wade through the storm of a Politically Correct Media to rally the true American people to set the country back to the greatest, most prosperous country in the history of the planet? Where's courage, principle, morality?
Will we all just continue to shake our heads and shrug our shoulders all the way to the new American Gulags?
Wednesday, July 03, 2013
Does Egypt Have an Idea for America?
Egyptians won't stand for the regime of Mohammad Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government. They've turn out in massive numbers to demand he either moderate his heavy-handed dictatorial government or leave.
Perhaps they're showing America how to reclaim our own country from Morsi's best buddy Barack Obama?
We the People have the power to rescue our country if only we choose to do so.
Without the violence shown by some of the Egyptians, of course.
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
Makes Me Nauseous
Those images that have been broadcast on the news the last few days showing Wendy Davis and a crowd of screaming pro-abortion women gave me that tickle in the back of my throat signaling a percolating up-chuck.
Wendy's a liberal heroine for loudly and stridently demanding that abortions of fully-formed babies past 20 weeks continue. As far as I can tell, she has offered no specific arguments about why such abortions are necessary.
If it saves the mother's life? No, that's excepted in the bill.
If the baby's got a serious defect? No, that's also excepted.
What then?
All I ever heard her do was conflate the law as a denial of basic rights to medical care to women. So for her, a pregnant woman has the absolute right to kill her healthy, fully-formed child?
As I said, not just Wendy but all the members of her radical, cheering mob make me want to puke.
Has America really become this selfish and heartless?
Wendy's a liberal heroine for loudly and stridently demanding that abortions of fully-formed babies past 20 weeks continue. As far as I can tell, she has offered no specific arguments about why such abortions are necessary.
If it saves the mother's life? No, that's excepted in the bill.
If the baby's got a serious defect? No, that's also excepted.
What then?
All I ever heard her do was conflate the law as a denial of basic rights to medical care to women. So for her, a pregnant woman has the absolute right to kill her healthy, fully-formed child?
As I said, not just Wendy but all the members of her radical, cheering mob make me want to puke.
Has America really become this selfish and heartless?
Monday, July 01, 2013
What is Marriage?
Yes, I'm a Christian. Therefore I subscribe to the Christian viewpoint on the subject of Marriage. It is a sacrament created by God, and no government (or court) has the right to redefine it.
But the principles behind Christian marriage do not need the Christian Faith to be valid. I'm going to define what marriage is in terms of the family and how a stable marriage is at the core of a healthy and vibrant society.
Marriage transcends history, going back to Adam and Eve. Nearly every culture on the planet has embraced marriage as the natural partnership between a man and a woman formed for the purpose of raising a family. So although my monotheistic bias says that God is God and he created marriage for all mankind but some cultures forgot about Him but didn't forget about marriage.
Traditional marriage was demonstrated as recently as with my own grandparents, who were farmers. My grandparents married at a very young age, somehow acquired a small farm with a run-down shack without plumbing or electricity. They didn't just love each other, but they needed each other. Not in the sense conveyed by a country song, but they needed each other to perform a specific and vital set of responsibilities.
Grandpa planted and cultivated the crops, practiced animal husbandry, kept the fences in good repair, and kept the family shack sound enough to shelter his brood.
Grandma managed the chickens, raised 5 children, kept the shack as clean as she could, and cooked for her family.
The children were vital parts of the family farm as well. As soon as they could walk, they were given simple chores such as collecting eggs and feeding chickens and taking out the trash. As the children grew, they were given increasingly complex and demanding chores.
My grandparents would never have imagined today's pressures on married couples. They didn't have time or the slightest inclination to take up extramarital affairs. They didn't have enough wealth to fight over. Life on the farm was a continuous struggle to bring in a big enough crop to keep the family afloat through the winter. Getting enough money together to buy shoes or Sunday clothes for the children was a luxury mostly hoped for.
After World War II, things started to change. Soldiers came back from war and used the GI Bill to go to college. The former soldiers found employment in industry, where for the first time they were proudly able to become the sole support for their families in a brand new suburban lifestyle. My own parents were too young for the war, but still shared the same vision for the American Dream as those returning soldiers. That suburban life was easy. That generation worked hard and achieved nice homes, television sets, indoor electricity and plumbing, two cars in the garage, and all the food they could eat.
Dad worked hard while Mom stayed home and raised my generation in the same spirit as my grandparents. But my generation didn't appreciate their sacrifices that led to their success. We felt entitled to our parent's newfound luxury. We didn't learn the lessons of our parents about hard work and Christian values.
As I coasted through High School and College, I dated lots of girls who were modern and "liberated". I lost count of the number of young ladies who would sneer at her parents' old-fashioned attitudes and values. How many times did I hear something like,
"I refuse to conform to a society that forces women to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen".
I found it just a bit ironic that a number of the women who had expressed that attitude getting married only a few short years later (in some cases a few short months).
I got the point. They were mainly saying that they didn't want their mothers' lives, stuck at home raising a brood of children. They wanted their own careers. And many of them achieved their own careers, but they also got married and had children of their own.
Along came daycare. All these women in my generation wanted a career. But they also wanted families. The culture told them at every turn, "You can have it all!". They embraced that message.
But their families paid a terrible price. The children were raised by minimum-wage daycare workers instead of their parents. There was no time to instill any values. These children became practically feral, raised only by television and popular culture.
And as families became more and more dysfunctional, unhappy couples looked for a way out. Men started trolling for women in the office for a fling, and women started looking for greener pastures with men in their own workplaces. So by the time I came of age and was married, the news was that the milestone had been reached where approximately half of all marriages ended in divorce.
Divorce became commonplace to the point where many couples divorced as easily as high school sweethearts "broke up". Only there were usually children involved in most divorce cases, and the children were emotionally devastated by their parent's inability to keep the family together.
Now we live in a time where the intact, stable, nuclear family is an anachronism. Women who choose to stay home to raise their children are ridiculed. Especially those who birth more than 2 children. The family isn't "cool". 40 percent of children are born to unmarried mothers, something that in my grandparents' generation would have been considered scandalous in every case.
My case is that the Christian view of marriage is something that desperately needs a comeback. Men have to lead this comeback by demanding that their future wife:
Yes, I know. Modern folks who might read all this would laugh and make fun of me. Some would accuse me of hateful things like sexism and say they think I'm some sort of abuser of women.
My defense is that these principles have worked wonderfully well throughout the history of man. They lead to healthy and successful families and stable, prosperous societies. Sexually transmitted diseases would be eliminated for all who choose this path, and children will be happy, healthy, intelligent, and emotionally stable.
But the principles behind Christian marriage do not need the Christian Faith to be valid. I'm going to define what marriage is in terms of the family and how a stable marriage is at the core of a healthy and vibrant society.
Marriage transcends history, going back to Adam and Eve. Nearly every culture on the planet has embraced marriage as the natural partnership between a man and a woman formed for the purpose of raising a family. So although my monotheistic bias says that God is God and he created marriage for all mankind but some cultures forgot about Him but didn't forget about marriage.
Traditional marriage was demonstrated as recently as with my own grandparents, who were farmers. My grandparents married at a very young age, somehow acquired a small farm with a run-down shack without plumbing or electricity. They didn't just love each other, but they needed each other. Not in the sense conveyed by a country song, but they needed each other to perform a specific and vital set of responsibilities.
Grandpa planted and cultivated the crops, practiced animal husbandry, kept the fences in good repair, and kept the family shack sound enough to shelter his brood.
Grandma managed the chickens, raised 5 children, kept the shack as clean as she could, and cooked for her family.
The children were vital parts of the family farm as well. As soon as they could walk, they were given simple chores such as collecting eggs and feeding chickens and taking out the trash. As the children grew, they were given increasingly complex and demanding chores.
My grandparents would never have imagined today's pressures on married couples. They didn't have time or the slightest inclination to take up extramarital affairs. They didn't have enough wealth to fight over. Life on the farm was a continuous struggle to bring in a big enough crop to keep the family afloat through the winter. Getting enough money together to buy shoes or Sunday clothes for the children was a luxury mostly hoped for.
After World War II, things started to change. Soldiers came back from war and used the GI Bill to go to college. The former soldiers found employment in industry, where for the first time they were proudly able to become the sole support for their families in a brand new suburban lifestyle. My own parents were too young for the war, but still shared the same vision for the American Dream as those returning soldiers. That suburban life was easy. That generation worked hard and achieved nice homes, television sets, indoor electricity and plumbing, two cars in the garage, and all the food they could eat.
Dad worked hard while Mom stayed home and raised my generation in the same spirit as my grandparents. But my generation didn't appreciate their sacrifices that led to their success. We felt entitled to our parent's newfound luxury. We didn't learn the lessons of our parents about hard work and Christian values.
As I coasted through High School and College, I dated lots of girls who were modern and "liberated". I lost count of the number of young ladies who would sneer at her parents' old-fashioned attitudes and values. How many times did I hear something like,
"I refuse to conform to a society that forces women to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen".
I found it just a bit ironic that a number of the women who had expressed that attitude getting married only a few short years later (in some cases a few short months).
I got the point. They were mainly saying that they didn't want their mothers' lives, stuck at home raising a brood of children. They wanted their own careers. And many of them achieved their own careers, but they also got married and had children of their own.
Along came daycare. All these women in my generation wanted a career. But they also wanted families. The culture told them at every turn, "You can have it all!". They embraced that message.
But their families paid a terrible price. The children were raised by minimum-wage daycare workers instead of their parents. There was no time to instill any values. These children became practically feral, raised only by television and popular culture.
And as families became more and more dysfunctional, unhappy couples looked for a way out. Men started trolling for women in the office for a fling, and women started looking for greener pastures with men in their own workplaces. So by the time I came of age and was married, the news was that the milestone had been reached where approximately half of all marriages ended in divorce.
Divorce became commonplace to the point where many couples divorced as easily as high school sweethearts "broke up". Only there were usually children involved in most divorce cases, and the children were emotionally devastated by their parent's inability to keep the family together.
Now we live in a time where the intact, stable, nuclear family is an anachronism. Women who choose to stay home to raise their children are ridiculed. Especially those who birth more than 2 children. The family isn't "cool". 40 percent of children are born to unmarried mothers, something that in my grandparents' generation would have been considered scandalous in every case.
My case is that the Christian view of marriage is something that desperately needs a comeback. Men have to lead this comeback by demanding that their future wife:
- Is a virgin
- Is committed to having children and staying home to raise them in their formative years
- Will promise to be his wife until death, and actually mean it.
- Absolute Fidelity
- Will agree to accept the husband's decision on the big things if they disagree
- Unconditional love for his wife, also keeping himself from sexual experiences until marriage
- Considering her feelings and opinions in every big decision and make the big decisions wisely
- To be her husband until death, and actually mean it
- Absolute Fidelity
- To provide for her and the children for life
Yes, I know. Modern folks who might read all this would laugh and make fun of me. Some would accuse me of hateful things like sexism and say they think I'm some sort of abuser of women.
My defense is that these principles have worked wonderfully well throughout the history of man. They lead to healthy and successful families and stable, prosperous societies. Sexually transmitted diseases would be eliminated for all who choose this path, and children will be happy, healthy, intelligent, and emotionally stable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)