I keep hearing about Paula Deen, who has basically lost everything for reasons I can't exactly grasp.
Perhaps since I don't really know much about her and never watch cooking shows, I also didn't catch enough about the story to understand what's happened to her. So maybe if I outline what I think I know about her story, somebody will tell me what I'm missing.
Paula's a very successful chef who has a cooking show on the Food Network (or had until now). She recently went public with a mea culpa about her past racial sin, which consisted of her using the "N word". She apologized for her past stupidity and promised the world that she's a changed woman.
For that she's been banished forever. Her cooking show is cancelled, her several endorsement deals with a variety of companies are gone. She's blackballed from ever being a celebrity chef again.
That's why my head is spinning. So any famous person who admits they used to be somewhat racist but have repented and reformed still must be shunned? I thought offering a public apology meant you deserve forgiveness and credit for your courage.
Don't Democratic politicians get away with that all the time? Isn't Anthony Weiner the latest example? I suppose in his case we'll find out if he wins his race to replace little Napoleon as the Mayor of NYC.
Not that I feel any obligation to defend Deen. As I mentioned above, I really don't know much of anything about her. I have no idea whether she's a sweet down-home southern gal who can cook up a great meal and may have held a few outdated southern attitudes in the past, or if she's some sort of dragon lady who deserves all the contempt that's coming her way.
But generally I am picking up the vibe that all this persecution of the lady is hypersensitive, way over the top, and probably more than a little hypocritical.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Litany of Lies
There are so many, I doubt I can list them all. Bald-faced lies, every one.
Abortion doesn't kill a baby; it just removes a small mass of tissue that has the potential of becoming a baby.
The immigration bill has the strongest border security provisions in history.
11 million hispanics living in the United States illegally must "come out of the shadows" and be given legal status to improve the economy.
Voter ID laws are about denying minorities their rights to vote. (Only not a lie if they mean the laws stop illegal immigrants, felons, dead people, and people who moved away from voting)
The IRS targeting of conservative groups was not politically motivated.
Republicans hate blacks, hispanics, gays, union workers, bureaucrats, single mothers, welfare recipients.
The Republican War on Women is about denying women their right to basic preventative health care.
Obamacare will lower medical costs for Americans by an average of $2,500 per year.
Opposition to Gay Marriage seeks to deny homosexuals the right to love whomever they choose.
35 percent is an unfairly low tax rate. 39 percent still isn't high enough, but it's more fair than 35.
Deficits and debt are no cause for concern.
Government doesn't spend enough - if they just spend another trillion per year, all of America's economic problems will be solved.
The Arab Spring was a great thing, putting the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood in charge.
Christians and Tea Party members are a higher terrorism risk in America than Islamist radicals.
Under the control of the Federal Government, General Motors has become a huge success!
Global Warming skeptics are members of the Flat Earth Society.
The Keystone Pipeline is an environmental disaster waiting to happen.
The Coal Industry must be destroyed in order to save the planet.
Drilling oil wells in Alaska will endanger the Caribou.
Violent crime can be eliminated if only guns are banned.
Planned Parenthood provides essential services for Women's health.
The Benghazi massacre happened because of a spontaneous protest over an obscure video insulting to the Prophet Mohammed.
Nobody ordered the commandos to stand down just as they were ready to deploy on a Benghazi rescue mission.
Hillary Clinton did not lie to Congress when she said she knew nothing about the Benghazi events.
Eric Holder knew nothing about Fast & Furious or the unlawful surveillance on AP and Fox or the request for a warrant to surveil Fox's reporter based on allegations that he was a co-conspirator in a criminal scheme.
George Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder because he racially profiled then killed Trayvon Martin for no legitimate reason.
Is anyone in Washington even aware that there is such a thing as truth? Lies have become second nature to Senators and the Administration especially.
Abortion doesn't kill a baby; it just removes a small mass of tissue that has the potential of becoming a baby.
The immigration bill has the strongest border security provisions in history.
11 million hispanics living in the United States illegally must "come out of the shadows" and be given legal status to improve the economy.
Voter ID laws are about denying minorities their rights to vote. (Only not a lie if they mean the laws stop illegal immigrants, felons, dead people, and people who moved away from voting)
The IRS targeting of conservative groups was not politically motivated.
Republicans hate blacks, hispanics, gays, union workers, bureaucrats, single mothers, welfare recipients.
The Republican War on Women is about denying women their right to basic preventative health care.
Obamacare will lower medical costs for Americans by an average of $2,500 per year.
Opposition to Gay Marriage seeks to deny homosexuals the right to love whomever they choose.
35 percent is an unfairly low tax rate. 39 percent still isn't high enough, but it's more fair than 35.
Deficits and debt are no cause for concern.
Government doesn't spend enough - if they just spend another trillion per year, all of America's economic problems will be solved.
The Arab Spring was a great thing, putting the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood in charge.
Christians and Tea Party members are a higher terrorism risk in America than Islamist radicals.
Under the control of the Federal Government, General Motors has become a huge success!
Global Warming skeptics are members of the Flat Earth Society.
The Keystone Pipeline is an environmental disaster waiting to happen.
The Coal Industry must be destroyed in order to save the planet.
Drilling oil wells in Alaska will endanger the Caribou.
Violent crime can be eliminated if only guns are banned.
Planned Parenthood provides essential services for Women's health.
The Benghazi massacre happened because of a spontaneous protest over an obscure video insulting to the Prophet Mohammed.
Nobody ordered the commandos to stand down just as they were ready to deploy on a Benghazi rescue mission.
Hillary Clinton did not lie to Congress when she said she knew nothing about the Benghazi events.
Eric Holder knew nothing about Fast & Furious or the unlawful surveillance on AP and Fox or the request for a warrant to surveil Fox's reporter based on allegations that he was a co-conspirator in a criminal scheme.
George Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder because he racially profiled then killed Trayvon Martin for no legitimate reason.
Is anyone in Washington even aware that there is such a thing as truth? Lies have become second nature to Senators and the Administration especially.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Saturday, June 22, 2013
The Republic is Lost
The primary evidence supporting my conclusion is the Immigration bill. America is united against this law that the Senate seems poised to ram through next week. But those entrenched elitists who haven't seen their own constituents in decades are poised to pass it while fully aware the majority of their constituents hope to unseat them for their arrogance.
Democrats will vote for it because that's how they roll. Regardless of how the Democrat senator personally feels about the bill, he knows that his party leaders will punish him mercilessly and he'll probably lose his seat for bucking his party. With a Democrat, his personal opinions are irrelevant and he knows it. So he toes the line and parrots the party talking points and votes according to what Harry Reid and Dick Durbin and Chuck Shumer dictate. Then he doesn't worry about angry constituents back home, because his party won't allow anybody to challenge him in a primary and he represents a deep blue state that will continue voting for him no matter what.
Republicans are a different story. The old guard is led by John McCain, who is often indistinguishable from a Democrat. McCain gets stroked by the Washington establishment for being a "maverick", and he likes it.
McCain represents a state (AZ) overrun by illegal immigrants. But in his Washington cocoon he's told every day that Jan Brewer's some sort of racist who wants to persecute people of hispanic origin. So rather than take a weekend to fly home and try to find the truth behind what's happening there, McCain accepts the slander and repeats it, to the delight of the Washington media.
The Senate this week just thumbed their noses at nearly 70 percent of Americans, who told at least one pollster that they want the border secured before any sort of amnesty is offered to illegals already here. They're ramming through a repeat of the 1986 law, with which they completely fooled Ronald Reagan with empty promises that the border would be secured. Later.
So when government succeeds in creating a ruling class that can never be removed, tyranny is next. Indiana citizens succeeded in removing Dick Lugar last time around, but failed to choose a viable replacement and ended up electing a Democrat who fits my above characterization of Democrats like a glove. So we went from bad to worse here in my home state.
I wrote to my two senators and my representative about the Immigration bill, pleading with them to stop it from passing. All three responded with form letters that made it obvious neither they nor their staff had read my actual letter, but they simply checked the box "Immigration" and sent the pre-written letter that thanks me for my letter and vaguely describes the legislator's views on the subject. So I have to conclude that constituent feedback is meaningless to those guys.
Senator Coats sent me a physical letter through the mail, which was a better touch than an email. But he was condescending, as he always is in his responses anytime I send him something. His letter sort of pats me on the head and says, "Don't worry about it, I'm in the Senate and much smarter than you, so you need to trust me to do the right thing". Needless to say I'm not a fan of Dan Coats.
Donnelly, the Democrat we allowed to take Dick Lugar's seat because we couldn't field a better candidate than Mourdock, basically said that he's still evaluating the proposed legislation but is probably going to vote for it whether I like it or not. One thing Democrats are good at is knowing who their constituents are and are not, so I'm pretty sure he knows I'm a conservative who won't ever vote for him anyway. So he doesn't feel any need to appease me or listen to my opinions.
Luke Messer is my new congressman, who took over for Mike Pence when Pence became our Governor. Luke is the only one of the three that expressed the security-first commitment. Although his letter did not address any specifics from my letter, it seemed to acknowledge that I had expressed some specific ideas and recommendations. His letter indicated that he would consider my ideas as the issue progressed through the House. So either his letter was brilliantly worded to make me think he paid attention, or he or a member of his staff may have actually read mine.
Luke Messer at least has given me a ray of hope that he might just be a representative who actually takes time to listen to his constituents.
So the only way to prove to me that our Representative Republic is not lost to the mists of history is if serious, non-elitist candidates can be recruited to take on both Donnelly and Coats next time they come up (which I think is two more cycles for Coats and 3 more for Donnelly, so it will be awhile). They're both Washington elitists who fail to represent their home state. Coats hasn't lived in Indiana for decades, and I don't think he feels the slightest sense of responsibility to those he's supposed to represent.
Democrats will vote for it because that's how they roll. Regardless of how the Democrat senator personally feels about the bill, he knows that his party leaders will punish him mercilessly and he'll probably lose his seat for bucking his party. With a Democrat, his personal opinions are irrelevant and he knows it. So he toes the line and parrots the party talking points and votes according to what Harry Reid and Dick Durbin and Chuck Shumer dictate. Then he doesn't worry about angry constituents back home, because his party won't allow anybody to challenge him in a primary and he represents a deep blue state that will continue voting for him no matter what.
Republicans are a different story. The old guard is led by John McCain, who is often indistinguishable from a Democrat. McCain gets stroked by the Washington establishment for being a "maverick", and he likes it.
McCain represents a state (AZ) overrun by illegal immigrants. But in his Washington cocoon he's told every day that Jan Brewer's some sort of racist who wants to persecute people of hispanic origin. So rather than take a weekend to fly home and try to find the truth behind what's happening there, McCain accepts the slander and repeats it, to the delight of the Washington media.
The Senate this week just thumbed their noses at nearly 70 percent of Americans, who told at least one pollster that they want the border secured before any sort of amnesty is offered to illegals already here. They're ramming through a repeat of the 1986 law, with which they completely fooled Ronald Reagan with empty promises that the border would be secured. Later.
So when government succeeds in creating a ruling class that can never be removed, tyranny is next. Indiana citizens succeeded in removing Dick Lugar last time around, but failed to choose a viable replacement and ended up electing a Democrat who fits my above characterization of Democrats like a glove. So we went from bad to worse here in my home state.
I wrote to my two senators and my representative about the Immigration bill, pleading with them to stop it from passing. All three responded with form letters that made it obvious neither they nor their staff had read my actual letter, but they simply checked the box "Immigration" and sent the pre-written letter that thanks me for my letter and vaguely describes the legislator's views on the subject. So I have to conclude that constituent feedback is meaningless to those guys.
Senator Coats sent me a physical letter through the mail, which was a better touch than an email. But he was condescending, as he always is in his responses anytime I send him something. His letter sort of pats me on the head and says, "Don't worry about it, I'm in the Senate and much smarter than you, so you need to trust me to do the right thing". Needless to say I'm not a fan of Dan Coats.
Donnelly, the Democrat we allowed to take Dick Lugar's seat because we couldn't field a better candidate than Mourdock, basically said that he's still evaluating the proposed legislation but is probably going to vote for it whether I like it or not. One thing Democrats are good at is knowing who their constituents are and are not, so I'm pretty sure he knows I'm a conservative who won't ever vote for him anyway. So he doesn't feel any need to appease me or listen to my opinions.
Luke Messer is my new congressman, who took over for Mike Pence when Pence became our Governor. Luke is the only one of the three that expressed the security-first commitment. Although his letter did not address any specifics from my letter, it seemed to acknowledge that I had expressed some specific ideas and recommendations. His letter indicated that he would consider my ideas as the issue progressed through the House. So either his letter was brilliantly worded to make me think he paid attention, or he or a member of his staff may have actually read mine.
Luke Messer at least has given me a ray of hope that he might just be a representative who actually takes time to listen to his constituents.
So the only way to prove to me that our Representative Republic is not lost to the mists of history is if serious, non-elitist candidates can be recruited to take on both Donnelly and Coats next time they come up (which I think is two more cycles for Coats and 3 more for Donnelly, so it will be awhile). They're both Washington elitists who fail to represent their home state. Coats hasn't lived in Indiana for decades, and I don't think he feels the slightest sense of responsibility to those he's supposed to represent.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
One of My Favorite Authors Passes
Vince Flynn passed away this week. Even though I never met him, I almost felt like I knew him a little bit from his books. Vince created a larger-than-life hero Mitch Rapp, who was a CIA assassin who was highly patriotic and incorruptible. I've got Flynn's Memorial Day loaded on my Kindle Fire right now.
Vince Flynn was too young to be taken by cancer. Unfortunately Vince turned out to be the only man on the planet who could defeat Mitch Rapp. I think I heard that Rush Limbaugh was also a fan, and said that Rapp was Flynn and Flynn was Rapp.
Too bad we've lost them both.
My condolences and prayers go out to Vince Flynn's family. Even if they don't know.
Vince Flynn was too young to be taken by cancer. Unfortunately Vince turned out to be the only man on the planet who could defeat Mitch Rapp. I think I heard that Rush Limbaugh was also a fan, and said that Rapp was Flynn and Flynn was Rapp.
Too bad we've lost them both.
My condolences and prayers go out to Vince Flynn's family. Even if they don't know.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Hatred?
Politics has become about hate. Democrats insist on pushing the idea that Republicans hate them. The claim is that Republicans hate blacks, women, gays, immigrants, union members, bureaucrats.
This is why Left-Wing talk radio and MSNBC can't attract an audience. Because their caricature of conservatives must always fit the hatred template I outlined above. The problem with that approach is all but the most insulated progressives know those allegations to be false.
I'm a conservative. In both political and personal matters. It's an integral part of who I am as a person. For me it means I have a strong belief in the idea of America as expressed in the Constitution. I believe in liberty, capitalism, and the Democratic Constitutional Republic. I am pro-life, strongly Christian, and hold traditional values as the values that made the United States of America the strongest, free-est, and most prosperous country in the history of the world.
Democrats say that for those values I must be hated. Because I believe in self-reliance and small government I must be racist because somehow that means I want to cut off welfare programs for the poor. But that's a caricature, not an accurate description of who I am. My firm belief is that the way to help the poor is to help them find a career that allows them to escape poverty, not give them a taxpayer-subsidized subsistence living and call it compassion. Socialism is the opposite of compassion.
They say I must be hated because I am pro-life and pro-marriage and support "family values". The common phrase I remember from college was that I and my fellow troglodytes desire to keep women "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen". It was a silly phrase then and it's silly now. Absolutely I'm perfectly fine with women who want to pursue a career.
The most important factor in raising responsible and successful children is an intact family. I know that many Democrats don't like facing this truth, as many female Democrats are also single mothers. But facts are stubborn things - children are best raised by two committed adults, not by divorced or never-married moms. Especially moms who happen to also be sexually promiscuous.
It's not up to me to set the standard for other men, but for me, I need a wife and partner who is willing to stay home with our children during their formative years. What she wears on her feet or how much time she spends in the kitchen is not really a concern.
They call me "homophobic". My translation of that strange word seems to tell me it means I am afraid of homosexuals. That's certainly not true, I don't cower or run away when I come into social contact with a homosexual. I actually often find them delightful in conversation or other social settings.
That does not preclude the fact that I consider their sexual behavior fundamentally disordered and immoral. But then again, I also have known delightful people who are also unreconstructed philanderers and adulterers. Because I also find that behavior disordered and immoral, why am I not allowed to hold the same consistent point of view about other sexual behavior?
Because my faith teaches me that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, does that mean I need to be crucified for failing to have my mind right? Even if I don't need religion but my own observations to tell me that nothing good comes of such behavior? Must I also deny that gay sex leads to AIDS plus a number of other Sexually Transmitted diseases? That heterosexual promiscuity leads to a laundry list of diseases plus "unwanted" pregnancy?
So why am I worthy of hatred and disdain for merely recognizing the truth?
If you're a Democrat and you think you hate me, I think you actually hate only a caricature of me that is grossly distorted. If you have a chance to meet and talk with me, I don't think you'll hate me.
I don't hate anybody, except the truly hateful (Bill Maher). And my faith teaches me I must not hate even the hateful, but must love them and pray for them. So that's what I do.
This is why Left-Wing talk radio and MSNBC can't attract an audience. Because their caricature of conservatives must always fit the hatred template I outlined above. The problem with that approach is all but the most insulated progressives know those allegations to be false.
I'm a conservative. In both political and personal matters. It's an integral part of who I am as a person. For me it means I have a strong belief in the idea of America as expressed in the Constitution. I believe in liberty, capitalism, and the Democratic Constitutional Republic. I am pro-life, strongly Christian, and hold traditional values as the values that made the United States of America the strongest, free-est, and most prosperous country in the history of the world.
Democrats say that for those values I must be hated. Because I believe in self-reliance and small government I must be racist because somehow that means I want to cut off welfare programs for the poor. But that's a caricature, not an accurate description of who I am. My firm belief is that the way to help the poor is to help them find a career that allows them to escape poverty, not give them a taxpayer-subsidized subsistence living and call it compassion. Socialism is the opposite of compassion.
They say I must be hated because I am pro-life and pro-marriage and support "family values". The common phrase I remember from college was that I and my fellow troglodytes desire to keep women "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen". It was a silly phrase then and it's silly now. Absolutely I'm perfectly fine with women who want to pursue a career.
The most important factor in raising responsible and successful children is an intact family. I know that many Democrats don't like facing this truth, as many female Democrats are also single mothers. But facts are stubborn things - children are best raised by two committed adults, not by divorced or never-married moms. Especially moms who happen to also be sexually promiscuous.
It's not up to me to set the standard for other men, but for me, I need a wife and partner who is willing to stay home with our children during their formative years. What she wears on her feet or how much time she spends in the kitchen is not really a concern.
They call me "homophobic". My translation of that strange word seems to tell me it means I am afraid of homosexuals. That's certainly not true, I don't cower or run away when I come into social contact with a homosexual. I actually often find them delightful in conversation or other social settings.
That does not preclude the fact that I consider their sexual behavior fundamentally disordered and immoral. But then again, I also have known delightful people who are also unreconstructed philanderers and adulterers. Because I also find that behavior disordered and immoral, why am I not allowed to hold the same consistent point of view about other sexual behavior?
Because my faith teaches me that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, does that mean I need to be crucified for failing to have my mind right? Even if I don't need religion but my own observations to tell me that nothing good comes of such behavior? Must I also deny that gay sex leads to AIDS plus a number of other Sexually Transmitted diseases? That heterosexual promiscuity leads to a laundry list of diseases plus "unwanted" pregnancy?
So why am I worthy of hatred and disdain for merely recognizing the truth?
If you're a Democrat and you think you hate me, I think you actually hate only a caricature of me that is grossly distorted. If you have a chance to meet and talk with me, I don't think you'll hate me.
I don't hate anybody, except the truly hateful (Bill Maher). And my faith teaches me I must not hate even the hateful, but must love them and pray for them. So that's what I do.
Student Loans
Although well down the list of critical issues in America, the Student Loan arguments have irritated me just enough to warrant a spot in today's topic.
The Democrats are using the issue to attack Republicans, which of course is nothing new. But it is interesting that I've heard and read virtually nothing from the Republican side about where they stand on the subject.
Once again, the Democrats use their typical distract and divide strategy rather than honestly deal with the core problem. They claim that if nothing is done immediately, interest rates on student loans will double. The first proof that they're misleading us on their claim is that those rates only double on government-subsidized Stafford loans. Those loans are a relatively small component of the average college graduate's total student loan debt.
Since the Democrat congress passed the law nationalizing Student Loans, the most irritating result I get to experience personally is the aggressive collection efforts made by Sallie Mae. All it takes is for my college-graduate son to be a day late on a payment, and collection calls come to my home phone and cell phone every day until they process his payment. I no longer answer those calls, as I now recognize the number on the caller ID and let it go to voicemail, where I delete it without listening.
So it's offensive to my conservative sensibilities that the government chose to nationalize student loan processing and has implemented abusive collection practices. But that's nothing compared to the underlying problem that same federal government has encouraged in the University system.
The underlying problem is skyrocketing college costs. The federal government has encouraged universities across the country to hike their tuition and fees beyond anything that might be affordable for the average American family. The attitude of Democrats in Washington seems to be, "Just get more student loans".
So college grads are facing the weakest employment outlook in 30 to 40 years and are being asked to make $400 to $600 monthly payments against starting salaries in the 20's and 30's. They're delaying marriage, can't buy cars, and have to live with their parents because they can't afford to be self-sufficient in the government-imposed double whammy of record student loan debt in a horrible economy.
Can't we at least put caps on student indebtedness, perhaps indexed to the student's major? Art History and Elementary Education majors shouldn't be allowed to borrow more than, say, $20K. So if those students can't afford the astronomical tuition at their chosen school, maybe they need to transfer to a more affordable university.
Maybe if student indebtedness were capped based on their projected career earnings, they would make their college choices based on what they can afford rather than what's the most prestigious or "cool" place to go to school.
It's not about the interest rates, but at what point borrowing becomes insane. Maybe if there were caps on the loans, schools would work a little harder to make their fees a bit more affordable. Maybe quality and affordability should be the measure of a good university instead of how well regarded the school is among the cultural elites.
The truth of the matter is that young students don't really care much about how much debt they're incurring while they're in college. They're too busy having a great time. The debt's sort of an abstraction until they leave school and the bills start coming in. It's a very tough way for a young adult to start their working life.
The Democrats are using the issue to attack Republicans, which of course is nothing new. But it is interesting that I've heard and read virtually nothing from the Republican side about where they stand on the subject.
Once again, the Democrats use their typical distract and divide strategy rather than honestly deal with the core problem. They claim that if nothing is done immediately, interest rates on student loans will double. The first proof that they're misleading us on their claim is that those rates only double on government-subsidized Stafford loans. Those loans are a relatively small component of the average college graduate's total student loan debt.
Since the Democrat congress passed the law nationalizing Student Loans, the most irritating result I get to experience personally is the aggressive collection efforts made by Sallie Mae. All it takes is for my college-graduate son to be a day late on a payment, and collection calls come to my home phone and cell phone every day until they process his payment. I no longer answer those calls, as I now recognize the number on the caller ID and let it go to voicemail, where I delete it without listening.
So it's offensive to my conservative sensibilities that the government chose to nationalize student loan processing and has implemented abusive collection practices. But that's nothing compared to the underlying problem that same federal government has encouraged in the University system.
The underlying problem is skyrocketing college costs. The federal government has encouraged universities across the country to hike their tuition and fees beyond anything that might be affordable for the average American family. The attitude of Democrats in Washington seems to be, "Just get more student loans".
So college grads are facing the weakest employment outlook in 30 to 40 years and are being asked to make $400 to $600 monthly payments against starting salaries in the 20's and 30's. They're delaying marriage, can't buy cars, and have to live with their parents because they can't afford to be self-sufficient in the government-imposed double whammy of record student loan debt in a horrible economy.
Can't we at least put caps on student indebtedness, perhaps indexed to the student's major? Art History and Elementary Education majors shouldn't be allowed to borrow more than, say, $20K. So if those students can't afford the astronomical tuition at their chosen school, maybe they need to transfer to a more affordable university.
Maybe if student indebtedness were capped based on their projected career earnings, they would make their college choices based on what they can afford rather than what's the most prestigious or "cool" place to go to school.
It's not about the interest rates, but at what point borrowing becomes insane. Maybe if there were caps on the loans, schools would work a little harder to make their fees a bit more affordable. Maybe quality and affordability should be the measure of a good university instead of how well regarded the school is among the cultural elites.
The truth of the matter is that young students don't really care much about how much debt they're incurring while they're in college. They're too busy having a great time. The debt's sort of an abstraction until they leave school and the bills start coming in. It's a very tough way for a young adult to start their working life.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Sports Notes
Although I'm still recovering from my disappointment over the Pacers' failure to show up for Game 7 against the Heat, the NBA Finals are turning into a pretty entertaining series. What's strange about it is that only game 1 was competitive, then the Spurs and Heat have taken turns blowing each other off the court since.
I'm leaning toward the Spurs taking the title this year, but then I thought the Pacers had a chance to take the Eastern Conference title in Game 7. It's an entertaining series even for folks that don't care much who wins.
The Blackhawks and Bruins have a great series going. Too bad most people don't know, since the geniuses at NBC keep insisting on broadcasting the games on NBC Sports Channel, which must have a subscriber base of about 10 people. I wonder whether the NHL brass has any idea how many of us would be watching the series if it were just broadcast on a channel we actually can get on our televisions.
I think the NHL Finals is going to be a coin flip. Overtimes the first two games seems to predict what will probably happen for the duration. Whichever team can still put a healthy team on the ice by Game 7 will win. It's a brutal series.
Congratulations to Indiana University, who sent their baseball team to the College World Series for the first time ever. I got to see game 1, where the Hoosiers beat Louisville 2-0 behind a terrific pitching performance. They could have easily given the game away with a few base running errors, which may be cause for concern in games to come.
Usually there isn't much in the sports world to capture any of my interest this time of year, which is usually the Sports Desert between the Final Four and the NFL's Preseason. But fortunately there are a few things still worthy of attention.
I'm leaning toward the Spurs taking the title this year, but then I thought the Pacers had a chance to take the Eastern Conference title in Game 7. It's an entertaining series even for folks that don't care much who wins.
The Blackhawks and Bruins have a great series going. Too bad most people don't know, since the geniuses at NBC keep insisting on broadcasting the games on NBC Sports Channel, which must have a subscriber base of about 10 people. I wonder whether the NHL brass has any idea how many of us would be watching the series if it were just broadcast on a channel we actually can get on our televisions.
I think the NHL Finals is going to be a coin flip. Overtimes the first two games seems to predict what will probably happen for the duration. Whichever team can still put a healthy team on the ice by Game 7 will win. It's a brutal series.
Congratulations to Indiana University, who sent their baseball team to the College World Series for the first time ever. I got to see game 1, where the Hoosiers beat Louisville 2-0 behind a terrific pitching performance. They could have easily given the game away with a few base running errors, which may be cause for concern in games to come.
Usually there isn't much in the sports world to capture any of my interest this time of year, which is usually the Sports Desert between the Final Four and the NFL's Preseason. But fortunately there are a few things still worthy of attention.
Friday, June 14, 2013
GOP Losing My Respect
I've long been suspicious that the Republican "Establishment" does not really hold to the principled conservative standards of those of us out here in the hinterlands. Now with the Immigration bill, they're proving to be untrustworthy.
Those ads that play every day touting Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan supporting comprehensive immigration reform is the proof. OK, I know the ads are being run by a third party special interest organization that happens to be focused on passing an amnesty bill.
The ad is a lie. It says that the bill forces border security first: Lie. That illegal immigrants have to learn English, pay a fine, and go to the back of the line for citizenship consideration. Learning English is a toothless provision. The reality of the fine is also questionable. Back of the line means they get a green card but can's apply for citizenship for maybe a decade.
What really angers me is the opening of the ad, referring to our "broken" immigration system. The only reason it's broken is because the President refuses to enforce the law. Congress already passed laws to build fences and beef up border security, which were promptly ignored. Bush ignored it, then Obama illegally rewrote the laws to suit his own political agenda.
The system isn't broken. What's broken is the lawless Whitehouse and Homeland Security Department.
When will somebody speak up and tell Americans the truth? The truth is that we have plenty of laws on the books to solve the illegal immigration problem - we don't need a new "reform" law. The truth is that Obama does what he wants and ignores the law, so the only choices to fix the broken system are to figure out a way to force Obama and Napolitano to follow the law or impeach them both and replace them with competent people who will respect and enforce the laws as written.
They won't force Obama to enforce anything he doesn't want to enforce, and the Democrat-controlled Senate won't allow an impeachment measure to even make it onto the floor for debate. So just stop lying about this new legislation and drop it until we get a new President. (I'm talking to you, Marco Rubio.)
I'm picking on Rubio because he's the Republican who has disappointed me the most. I lost respect for John McCain and Lindsey Graham years ago, but it saddens me that Rubio is willing to lie to us to move this bill forward.
I feel like the voice crying out in the wilderness.
Please, for once, just enforce the laws!
Those ads that play every day touting Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan supporting comprehensive immigration reform is the proof. OK, I know the ads are being run by a third party special interest organization that happens to be focused on passing an amnesty bill.
The ad is a lie. It says that the bill forces border security first: Lie. That illegal immigrants have to learn English, pay a fine, and go to the back of the line for citizenship consideration. Learning English is a toothless provision. The reality of the fine is also questionable. Back of the line means they get a green card but can's apply for citizenship for maybe a decade.
What really angers me is the opening of the ad, referring to our "broken" immigration system. The only reason it's broken is because the President refuses to enforce the law. Congress already passed laws to build fences and beef up border security, which were promptly ignored. Bush ignored it, then Obama illegally rewrote the laws to suit his own political agenda.
The system isn't broken. What's broken is the lawless Whitehouse and Homeland Security Department.
When will somebody speak up and tell Americans the truth? The truth is that we have plenty of laws on the books to solve the illegal immigration problem - we don't need a new "reform" law. The truth is that Obama does what he wants and ignores the law, so the only choices to fix the broken system are to figure out a way to force Obama and Napolitano to follow the law or impeach them both and replace them with competent people who will respect and enforce the laws as written.
They won't force Obama to enforce anything he doesn't want to enforce, and the Democrat-controlled Senate won't allow an impeachment measure to even make it onto the floor for debate. So just stop lying about this new legislation and drop it until we get a new President. (I'm talking to you, Marco Rubio.)
I'm picking on Rubio because he's the Republican who has disappointed me the most. I lost respect for John McCain and Lindsey Graham years ago, but it saddens me that Rubio is willing to lie to us to move this bill forward.
I feel like the voice crying out in the wilderness.
Please, for once, just enforce the laws!
Thursday, June 13, 2013
A Liberal Agreement
Today I have a shocking revelation. I've actually found a liberal idea with which I can agree.
It's about Unpaid Student Internships.
Unpaid internships amount to a legal form of slavery. Interns are brought into companies and organizations across America and given low-level jobs. Many internships give their students close to zero relevant experience in their field of study, but instead merely use them to get mundane and dirty jobs done.
College tuition and fees have escalated into the stratosphere with no measurable improvement in their ability to prepare their students. Escalating costs instead seem to be mostly going into paying escalating salaries for left-wing elitist professors. They also seem to go into the latest trend of building Taj Mahal student fitness facilities. But the colleges have created a new "Activity Fee" to help pay for those, I think on top of the tuition increases.
So it's insulting that students and their parents are further abused by the colleges and their corporate partners that offer unpaid internships. Working in an unpaid internship for the summer removes the student's ability to earn money in a summer job to help defray their education costs for the upcoming school year.
I think all internships should pay minimum wage at the very least, and comply with wage and hour regulations as well. I was shocked many years ago when I started a summer job and discovered that the company was able to pay me an hourly rate under the Federal Minimum Wage plus did not have to pay me time-and-a-half for my overtime hours. There was no logical reason for the exception beyond whatever misguided idea was behind it.
It's a sad story I hear often from college students. A student can't earn money over the summer because he's been offered an unpaid internship. The internship offers no promise of employment after graduation, and the only benefit to the student for accepting it is for the slight possibility he may be able to observe some of the activities he's studying to be able to do. He won't be tasked with anything remotely related to his field of study, though.
But one situation I knew about awhile back was even more egregious. The intern was working 50 to 60 hours per week through the summer. He asked for a couple of days off to attend his sister's wedding. The request was denied, and he was told his internship would be given to another student if he took the days off. I think it's a horrible idea that a company can fire a slave because there's a long line of other willing slaves available to take his place.
I firmly believe that internships should be paid. Just as I think medical students who have reached the intern stage of their education must be paid. If you're performing a service for an employer, just being a student does not grant that employer license to treat you like a slave. Perhaps the courts are about to force colleges and employers to stop this terrible practice.
It's about Unpaid Student Internships.
Unpaid internships amount to a legal form of slavery. Interns are brought into companies and organizations across America and given low-level jobs. Many internships give their students close to zero relevant experience in their field of study, but instead merely use them to get mundane and dirty jobs done.
College tuition and fees have escalated into the stratosphere with no measurable improvement in their ability to prepare their students. Escalating costs instead seem to be mostly going into paying escalating salaries for left-wing elitist professors. They also seem to go into the latest trend of building Taj Mahal student fitness facilities. But the colleges have created a new "Activity Fee" to help pay for those, I think on top of the tuition increases.
So it's insulting that students and their parents are further abused by the colleges and their corporate partners that offer unpaid internships. Working in an unpaid internship for the summer removes the student's ability to earn money in a summer job to help defray their education costs for the upcoming school year.
I think all internships should pay minimum wage at the very least, and comply with wage and hour regulations as well. I was shocked many years ago when I started a summer job and discovered that the company was able to pay me an hourly rate under the Federal Minimum Wage plus did not have to pay me time-and-a-half for my overtime hours. There was no logical reason for the exception beyond whatever misguided idea was behind it.
It's a sad story I hear often from college students. A student can't earn money over the summer because he's been offered an unpaid internship. The internship offers no promise of employment after graduation, and the only benefit to the student for accepting it is for the slight possibility he may be able to observe some of the activities he's studying to be able to do. He won't be tasked with anything remotely related to his field of study, though.
But one situation I knew about awhile back was even more egregious. The intern was working 50 to 60 hours per week through the summer. He asked for a couple of days off to attend his sister's wedding. The request was denied, and he was told his internship would be given to another student if he took the days off. I think it's a horrible idea that a company can fire a slave because there's a long line of other willing slaves available to take his place.
I firmly believe that internships should be paid. Just as I think medical students who have reached the intern stage of their education must be paid. If you're performing a service for an employer, just being a student does not grant that employer license to treat you like a slave. Perhaps the courts are about to force colleges and employers to stop this terrible practice.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
On Government Surveillance
I've been trying to follow all of the details on the controversy over the government grabbing all of our telephone records. The spin has two themes: either it's an egregious violation of citizen privacy and dangerous government overreach that will lead to tyranny, or it's a relatively innocuous data mining project intended to uncover potential terrorist communications.
I remember during the Bush years when Liberals (including Obama) were convinced that the Bush administration was spying on them. I remember overwrought college professors going on television to decry their certainty that somebody in the Bush Administration was listening into their conversations. I imagined some analyst sitting in a cubicle listening to these blowhard academics railing on and on to their friends about the evil George W Bush and just yawning.
Back then I went in search of actual stories about people who had been arrested, harassed, or even interviewed about something they had said in a private conversation on the telephone. I didn't find a single example. So I decided that, most likely, the Bush people were telling the truth. That they were only listening to conversations involving known foreign terrorists.
Then the congress passed a law tightening the rules and requiring FISA court approval before the government could listen to conversations.
The current issue is different. It doesn't appear to be about listening in, but just collecting data on all of our phone calls. Who we called or received calls from, how long we talked, when the call took place, etc.
So what do I think? I have trouble imagining how it's constitutionally permitted for the government to gather and store this information. What I can imagine is hanky panky of the sort we've recently learned the IRS has been up to.
Suppose we get into campaign season again. Let's say I decide to run for Congress. The Democrats decide to try to destroy my reputation so their candidate can win that particular seat. So one of their willing accomplices in the Obama administration signs onto the telephone database and looks up my call history. Suppose they find somebody in my call history that's been a conservative activist, in my case most likely somebody active in the Pro Life movement.
They use that information to run ads that claim that that Pro Life activist and I are tight. Maybe that person has been arrested at some point in the past when picketing Planned Parenthood. All of a sudden their ads tell everybody that I'm a woman hater and support rape and want to deny medical care to women.
And that's the mildest form of hanky panky they would use to destroy me based on those telephone records. Imagine a government that goes the rest of the way to totalitarianism. At that point, all they would need to raid my house and take me away to prison in the middle of the night is to find a single telephone call I may have had with someone else they deem a threat to their authority.
So I believed that when the issue of surveillance came up during the Bush years that it should be narrowly targeted to terrorist organizations. I still believe that. And I'm convinced that this latest issue is overreach and can easily lead to tyranny.
I'm disappointed in the legislators who are now working overtime to convince us that this is no big deal, we can trust them, and it's only being used to catch terrorists. Sorry, no sale.
I remember during the Bush years when Liberals (including Obama) were convinced that the Bush administration was spying on them. I remember overwrought college professors going on television to decry their certainty that somebody in the Bush Administration was listening into their conversations. I imagined some analyst sitting in a cubicle listening to these blowhard academics railing on and on to their friends about the evil George W Bush and just yawning.
Back then I went in search of actual stories about people who had been arrested, harassed, or even interviewed about something they had said in a private conversation on the telephone. I didn't find a single example. So I decided that, most likely, the Bush people were telling the truth. That they were only listening to conversations involving known foreign terrorists.
Then the congress passed a law tightening the rules and requiring FISA court approval before the government could listen to conversations.
The current issue is different. It doesn't appear to be about listening in, but just collecting data on all of our phone calls. Who we called or received calls from, how long we talked, when the call took place, etc.
So what do I think? I have trouble imagining how it's constitutionally permitted for the government to gather and store this information. What I can imagine is hanky panky of the sort we've recently learned the IRS has been up to.
Suppose we get into campaign season again. Let's say I decide to run for Congress. The Democrats decide to try to destroy my reputation so their candidate can win that particular seat. So one of their willing accomplices in the Obama administration signs onto the telephone database and looks up my call history. Suppose they find somebody in my call history that's been a conservative activist, in my case most likely somebody active in the Pro Life movement.
They use that information to run ads that claim that that Pro Life activist and I are tight. Maybe that person has been arrested at some point in the past when picketing Planned Parenthood. All of a sudden their ads tell everybody that I'm a woman hater and support rape and want to deny medical care to women.
And that's the mildest form of hanky panky they would use to destroy me based on those telephone records. Imagine a government that goes the rest of the way to totalitarianism. At that point, all they would need to raid my house and take me away to prison in the middle of the night is to find a single telephone call I may have had with someone else they deem a threat to their authority.
So I believed that when the issue of surveillance came up during the Bush years that it should be narrowly targeted to terrorist organizations. I still believe that. And I'm convinced that this latest issue is overreach and can easily lead to tyranny.
I'm disappointed in the legislators who are now working overtime to convince us that this is no big deal, we can trust them, and it's only being used to catch terrorists. Sorry, no sale.
Friday, June 07, 2013
Known Truths of Scandals
We know all we need to know about the Benghazi, IRS, and Press investigation scandals. The truths that are known are enough to disqualify both the President and his Secretary of State from continuing to hold their offices. I'll explain.
The easiest truth is the answer to the question, "Did Eric Holder lie to congress about investigating James Rosen and other reporters?"
The answer is an unqualified YES. Attempts to expain it away by trying to suggest that Holder never intended to bring charges is merely a distraction. The question wasn't asking if he intended to bring charges, but if his organization ever targeted reporters for criminal investigation and surveillance. The answer to the question is yes, but Holder said no. He lied to congress.
Next, Benghazi.
Everybody's focused on the "smoking gun" that names the President, Hillary, or members of either of their senior staff with concocting the lie that was spread for over a month after the 9/11 incident about a spontaneous protest over a video that insulted Mohammed. That whole story was manufactured from scratch, and we know that high level staffers under Hillary and at the White House were behind it.
Whether Hillary and Barack were involved in creating the message themselves is not something that needs to be proven. Both ran with the story even after everybody in the world knew it was false, and it became clear that even they had to know it was false.
They lied to the American people and were guilty of failure to protect their own Ambassador from being brutally abused and murdered when the entire incident could have been avoided to begin with, then the commandos that were locked and loaded and ready to proceed on a rescue mission were ordered to stand down.
There's no need to find out whether Obama issued the stand down order. It's his job, therefore it's his failure.
Finally, the IRS.
Once again, the focus seems to be on finding another "smoking gun" that directly ties the illegal harrassment by the IRS of groups considered hostile by the Administration. No smoking gun is required.
We know that Lois Lerner ran the program. She was put into that position by the White House. Can we pretend for a moment that she proceeded with this comprehensive program to damage Tea Party groups and cause their funding to dry up so they could not effectively spread their message that would have been harmful to Obama's re-election efforts?
At a minimum, we can say that since Obama benefited from her activities, there was little motivation to put a stop to them as soon as congressional inquiries began to be launched. All the White House had to do was delay and deny, and order their appointed IRS Commissioners to do the same. It is impossible for the two administrators to have been ignorant of these practices, as they attempted to claim in their testimony before congress.
They lied.
It is also impossible to believe that the first commissioner visited the White House nearly 150 times and did not discuss groups and individuals the President wanted targeted. Otherwise, beyond the simple keywords of "Tea Party", "Patriots", and "Constitution", how would the IRS have known to audit True the Vote and individuals that were disliked by the Administration?
The IRS continues to lie.
One final point:
If Obama indeed is shocked and appalled at the behavior of the IRS and his Attorney General, what has he done about it? He announced that his IRS Administrator was asked to resign. But the guy was within a month of leaving that post anyway, and by the way is receiving full federal government retirement benefits.
He's done nothing else. Not one thing. He's reaffirmed his confidence in Eric Holder. Lois Lerner at least has been placed on Leave, but she pulls her full salary.
Corruption. Dishonesty. Unethical and illegal behavior. The hallmarks of the Obama presidency.
If Congress had an ounce of character, Impeachment would already be on the floor.
The easiest truth is the answer to the question, "Did Eric Holder lie to congress about investigating James Rosen and other reporters?"
The answer is an unqualified YES. Attempts to expain it away by trying to suggest that Holder never intended to bring charges is merely a distraction. The question wasn't asking if he intended to bring charges, but if his organization ever targeted reporters for criminal investigation and surveillance. The answer to the question is yes, but Holder said no. He lied to congress.
Next, Benghazi.
Everybody's focused on the "smoking gun" that names the President, Hillary, or members of either of their senior staff with concocting the lie that was spread for over a month after the 9/11 incident about a spontaneous protest over a video that insulted Mohammed. That whole story was manufactured from scratch, and we know that high level staffers under Hillary and at the White House were behind it.
Whether Hillary and Barack were involved in creating the message themselves is not something that needs to be proven. Both ran with the story even after everybody in the world knew it was false, and it became clear that even they had to know it was false.
They lied to the American people and were guilty of failure to protect their own Ambassador from being brutally abused and murdered when the entire incident could have been avoided to begin with, then the commandos that were locked and loaded and ready to proceed on a rescue mission were ordered to stand down.
There's no need to find out whether Obama issued the stand down order. It's his job, therefore it's his failure.
Finally, the IRS.
Once again, the focus seems to be on finding another "smoking gun" that directly ties the illegal harrassment by the IRS of groups considered hostile by the Administration. No smoking gun is required.
We know that Lois Lerner ran the program. She was put into that position by the White House. Can we pretend for a moment that she proceeded with this comprehensive program to damage Tea Party groups and cause their funding to dry up so they could not effectively spread their message that would have been harmful to Obama's re-election efforts?
At a minimum, we can say that since Obama benefited from her activities, there was little motivation to put a stop to them as soon as congressional inquiries began to be launched. All the White House had to do was delay and deny, and order their appointed IRS Commissioners to do the same. It is impossible for the two administrators to have been ignorant of these practices, as they attempted to claim in their testimony before congress.
They lied.
It is also impossible to believe that the first commissioner visited the White House nearly 150 times and did not discuss groups and individuals the President wanted targeted. Otherwise, beyond the simple keywords of "Tea Party", "Patriots", and "Constitution", how would the IRS have known to audit True the Vote and individuals that were disliked by the Administration?
The IRS continues to lie.
One final point:
If Obama indeed is shocked and appalled at the behavior of the IRS and his Attorney General, what has he done about it? He announced that his IRS Administrator was asked to resign. But the guy was within a month of leaving that post anyway, and by the way is receiving full federal government retirement benefits.
He's done nothing else. Not one thing. He's reaffirmed his confidence in Eric Holder. Lois Lerner at least has been placed on Leave, but she pulls her full salary.
Corruption. Dishonesty. Unethical and illegal behavior. The hallmarks of the Obama presidency.
If Congress had an ounce of character, Impeachment would already be on the floor.
Thursday, June 06, 2013
Life Academy
I've been getting tired of all the complaining about the government. Yes, I'm one of the biggest complainers. But at some point, we've got to stop belly-aching and do something about it.
Thus the outline of my idea of a Not-for-Profit organization designed to actually solve our country's problems from the source. Since I'm convinced that most of our problems would not exist if only people took responsibility for their own lives, my new organization would be designed to deal with exactly that problem.
Tentatively called "Life Academy", my new organization would be a community-based educational facility with this mission:
Empowering everyone in our community to become self-sufficient by learning how to avoid self-destructive lifestyles and live healthy, happy lives.
We'll get started by acquiring and rehabilitating a closed public school. Declining birth rates have already led to declining enrollment in our public schools, thus schools are being closed everywhere.
When open for business, Life Academy will welcome everyone in the county. It is a place for the community to come, regardless of their background, race, religion, or income level. People can come to play, but mostly they can come to learn something and make new friends.
Life Academy will have as its primary focus programs to help the poor and unemployed to develop the life skills they need to find employment and escape poverty permanently to become a member of the productive class.
Every person needing a boost up the ladder to self-sufficiency will be assigned a mentor as soon as they appear at the door of the Academy. We'll make every effort to match them with the right mentor, who will counsel the individual and guide them through a curriculum of courses and advocate for their student for placement in a good job within the community.
Key courses that will be offered for free at Life Academy:
Partnerships will be formed with area businesses and churches and other organizations who wish to become involved. Referrals are expected from the courts and other social services organizations. Sponsorships will be offered that allow any business or organization to present classes. Religious classes offered by area churches will be welcomed.
Every night there would be a convocation in the auditorium to which all are invited. The convocation will have a consistent agenda:
Each evening ends with a brief meeting between enrollees and their mentors. Handouts will be distributed at the doors as people leave that communicate upcoming programs and class schedules.
There will be no fees, but everyone will be asked to contribute as much as they can to help keep Life Academy open. The program will never allow itself to be mired in the quicksand of bureaucracy and excessive rules.
People who sign up for the Life Academy program will follow a specific curriculum created with each individual's mentor that will send them through a series of classes that specifically address their needs. Graduation occurs when all of the courses have been completed and the individual has gainful employment and is moving rapidly into a life of self-sufficiency.
Everyone will be encouraged every day to support the programs of Life Academy by telling others about it and sharing their personal story and of course contributing financially.
Themes at Life Academy will be Family, Faith, Responsibility, Self-Sufficiency. All for a satisfying, happy, and productive life. I'd expect many graduates to return to teach classes themselves to share with others how they were successful.
Twice a year Life Academy will have a Graduation Ceremony to recognize the latest crop of graduates. The gym or auditorium will be filled with Academy members and supporters, all there to cheer on those who succeeded.
The start-up costs will be whatever is required to acquire, equip and rehabilitate the school building. I envision only a skeleton paid staff to start, with most other instructors and staff being volunteers. As the program grows, it might be able to add more full and part time paid staff.
My vision is a vibrant program that brings everyone in the community together to have fun and learn things. Not just the poor, but everybody can use Life Academy to learn something new, work out or have fun. Churches are welcome to participate and may use the Academy to attract new members as long as those efforts aren't disruptive to everyone's enjoyment of all the activities and classes.
Someday the Life Academy might show dramatic results in nearly eliminating public assistance and food stamps in the county, because everybody's got a good job and lives productive and healthy lifestyles. Maybe someday there could be a Life Academy in every county in America, although I'm sad to say I think the Blue States will likely outlaw it. But if Life Academy succeeds in its mission, watch all of our serious national issues evaporate.
Thus the outline of my idea of a Not-for-Profit organization designed to actually solve our country's problems from the source. Since I'm convinced that most of our problems would not exist if only people took responsibility for their own lives, my new organization would be designed to deal with exactly that problem.
Tentatively called "Life Academy", my new organization would be a community-based educational facility with this mission:
Empowering everyone in our community to become self-sufficient by learning how to avoid self-destructive lifestyles and live healthy, happy lives.
We'll get started by acquiring and rehabilitating a closed public school. Declining birth rates have already led to declining enrollment in our public schools, thus schools are being closed everywhere.
When open for business, Life Academy will welcome everyone in the county. It is a place for the community to come, regardless of their background, race, religion, or income level. People can come to play, but mostly they can come to learn something and make new friends.
Life Academy will have as its primary focus programs to help the poor and unemployed to develop the life skills they need to find employment and escape poverty permanently to become a member of the productive class.
Every person needing a boost up the ladder to self-sufficiency will be assigned a mentor as soon as they appear at the door of the Academy. We'll make every effort to match them with the right mentor, who will counsel the individual and guide them through a curriculum of courses and advocate for their student for placement in a good job within the community.
Key courses that will be offered for free at Life Academy:
- Parenting
- Marriage
- Home Maintenance and Repair
- Cooking
- Personal Finance
- Health and Fitness
- Drug and Alcohol Cessation
Partnerships will be formed with area businesses and churches and other organizations who wish to become involved. Referrals are expected from the courts and other social services organizations. Sponsorships will be offered that allow any business or organization to present classes. Religious classes offered by area churches will be welcomed.
Every night there would be a convocation in the auditorium to which all are invited. The convocation will have a consistent agenda:
- Welcome and Introduction to Life Academy - the Master of Ceremonies welcomes everyone, and asks new visitors to introduce themselves. He (or she) explains the purpose and mission of Life Academy and offers success stories from recent graduates (who can offer their stories in person whenever possible)
- Tonight's Classes - A quick rundown of available classes to be presented that evening will be explained. Instructors from new classes might be invited to introduce their class to everyone.
- Entertainment - A half-hour concert or entertaining presentation will be presented before dismissing everyone to their classes and activities.
Each evening ends with a brief meeting between enrollees and their mentors. Handouts will be distributed at the doors as people leave that communicate upcoming programs and class schedules.
There will be no fees, but everyone will be asked to contribute as much as they can to help keep Life Academy open. The program will never allow itself to be mired in the quicksand of bureaucracy and excessive rules.
People who sign up for the Life Academy program will follow a specific curriculum created with each individual's mentor that will send them through a series of classes that specifically address their needs. Graduation occurs when all of the courses have been completed and the individual has gainful employment and is moving rapidly into a life of self-sufficiency.
Everyone will be encouraged every day to support the programs of Life Academy by telling others about it and sharing their personal story and of course contributing financially.
Themes at Life Academy will be Family, Faith, Responsibility, Self-Sufficiency. All for a satisfying, happy, and productive life. I'd expect many graduates to return to teach classes themselves to share with others how they were successful.
Twice a year Life Academy will have a Graduation Ceremony to recognize the latest crop of graduates. The gym or auditorium will be filled with Academy members and supporters, all there to cheer on those who succeeded.
The start-up costs will be whatever is required to acquire, equip and rehabilitate the school building. I envision only a skeleton paid staff to start, with most other instructors and staff being volunteers. As the program grows, it might be able to add more full and part time paid staff.
My vision is a vibrant program that brings everyone in the community together to have fun and learn things. Not just the poor, but everybody can use Life Academy to learn something new, work out or have fun. Churches are welcome to participate and may use the Academy to attract new members as long as those efforts aren't disruptive to everyone's enjoyment of all the activities and classes.
Someday the Life Academy might show dramatic results in nearly eliminating public assistance and food stamps in the county, because everybody's got a good job and lives productive and healthy lifestyles. Maybe someday there could be a Life Academy in every county in America, although I'm sad to say I think the Blue States will likely outlaw it. But if Life Academy succeeds in its mission, watch all of our serious national issues evaporate.
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
The Age of Ignorance
What if your government is persecuting Christians? Suppressing the speech of groups that oppose the President? Subjecting news reporters to illegal surveillance? Lying to the citizens about the events surrounding a terrorist attack that killed an Ambassador for the first time in 30 years?
Would that upset you? Would it cause you to join millions of American voices demanding that those guilty of these illegal, unethical and immoral breaches of trust be removed from office immediately?
For most Americans, apparently not.
Perhaps a third of us know about these things and are outraged.
Another third know a little about them, but discount them because
a. They refuse to believe it and chalk it up to partisan politics
b. They don't see anything wrong with it
c. They might have heartburn over it, but consider the alternative (a Conservative government) to be unacceptable.
The last third knows nothing and cares even less.
Watching excerpts of the Capitol Hill hearings last night brought it home to me that this government considers me their enemy. Because I tend to share the outlook of the groups represented in the hearing and heard the insulting comments from McDermott and Blumenauer, who expressed an attitude that those groups and viewpoints have no right to exist.
Would that upset you? Would it cause you to join millions of American voices demanding that those guilty of these illegal, unethical and immoral breaches of trust be removed from office immediately?
For most Americans, apparently not.
Perhaps a third of us know about these things and are outraged.
Another third know a little about them, but discount them because
a. They refuse to believe it and chalk it up to partisan politics
b. They don't see anything wrong with it
c. They might have heartburn over it, but consider the alternative (a Conservative government) to be unacceptable.
The last third knows nothing and cares even less.
Watching excerpts of the Capitol Hill hearings last night brought it home to me that this government considers me their enemy. Because I tend to share the outlook of the groups represented in the hearing and heard the insulting comments from McDermott and Blumenauer, who expressed an attitude that those groups and viewpoints have no right to exist.
Tuesday, June 04, 2013
A Notable Irony
Two headlines listed one above the other at RealClearPolitics
Obama's Economic Triumph - by Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast
Manufacturing Declines to a 4 Year Low - by Michael Fletcher, The Washington Post
A tale of two Michaels. One (Tomasky) is a purely leftwing political piece, crowing that the economy is all but booming again. Obama's the architect of this wonderful recovery of course. It would have happened so much sooner had it not been for those evil Republicans.
The second (Fletcher) is mostly a news report. Although avoiding the temptation to be overtly political, the author still does his best to put a good face on the report. (Finding somebody to say it's merely a "blip")
To the extent the economy is marginally better than it was in the dark days of 2008-2009, does Obama deserve the credit? Is the manufacturing decline a signal that we're going to end the summer in another recession, or was it correctly characterized as a "blip"?
I suppose to those who are gainfully employed, the economy is pretty good. To those who aren't, it's not so good. My own observation is that it's certainly better, but in no way would I characterize it as a strong recovery. The weak recovery characterization is the most accurate.
Obama's Economic Triumph - by Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast
Manufacturing Declines to a 4 Year Low - by Michael Fletcher, The Washington Post
A tale of two Michaels. One (Tomasky) is a purely leftwing political piece, crowing that the economy is all but booming again. Obama's the architect of this wonderful recovery of course. It would have happened so much sooner had it not been for those evil Republicans.
The second (Fletcher) is mostly a news report. Although avoiding the temptation to be overtly political, the author still does his best to put a good face on the report. (Finding somebody to say it's merely a "blip")
To the extent the economy is marginally better than it was in the dark days of 2008-2009, does Obama deserve the credit? Is the manufacturing decline a signal that we're going to end the summer in another recession, or was it correctly characterized as a "blip"?
I suppose to those who are gainfully employed, the economy is pretty good. To those who aren't, it's not so good. My own observation is that it's certainly better, but in no way would I characterize it as a strong recovery. The weak recovery characterization is the most accurate.
Disappointing
Miami's intensity and energy was too much for the Pacers. Disappointing, since I was expecting a very close and competitive game. Would have been happier if the Pacers had lost with a last-second Lebron clutch shot.
This was still a successful season for the Pacers.
This was still a successful season for the Pacers.
Sunday, June 02, 2013
The Deciding Factor
It was one day in March, 1971. Our Towncrest Trojan basketball team was trailing the Braves from Pierre Moran Middle School in the conference tournament semifinal. Pierre Moran had the best regular season record in our conference, and were ahead of us by 10 mid-way through the third quarter.
Coach Streit grabbed me by the jersey and pulled me off the bench. He leaned in to say,
"Get on those boards!" and pushed me toward the scorer's table.
I can't say that my entry into the game made all the difference, but I did my best. I pulled down rebounds, shut down my opposite number defensively, knocked the ball away from Braves players at least a couple of times, and perhaps stuck a couple of balls through Towncrest's net.
Suddenly our defensive full court press forced a turnover and I caught Coach out of the corner of my eye excitedly calling for a timeout. I looked up at the scoreboard to realize for the first time that we had closed the gap to 2 points. It was 45-43 with 3 seconds remaining on the clock. My Trojans team needed a single basket to tie the game and send it into overtime.
Coach Streit drew up the play in the huddle. I feared he might take me out for that last play, but he kept me in the game. We went back on the court and Dave Stewart took the ball on the sideline from the referree. The whistle blew, and I broke away from my defender and saw the pass coming into my hands.
I took 3 quick dribbles toward our basket, counting 1,2,3 in my head and stopped on the right side of the lane, just about 6 or 7 feet from the hoop. I picked up the dribble and went straight up for a jump shot.
The shot felt good. Basketball players will tell you that most of the time you can sort of feel it when the ball rolls off your fingertips just right. It felt like it was going in. I watched it arch toward the basket as if it were in slow motion. It struck the front, then the back of the rim before bouncing straight up in the air and coming down as the buzzer sounded.
I missed. We lost. I carried the pain of that failure with me for many years.
This story isn't just a reminiscence of an old schoolboy memory. Instead it is meant to illustrate the key deciding factor that will determine the winner of Game 7 between the Heat and the Pacers.
Why did I miss that shot that could have sent the game to overtime and given us a strong chance to defeat our conference leaders and advance to the championship?
Because of my mind. I could hit that shot 9 out of 10 times in practice, and that's on a bad shooting day. But there's no pressure involved in popping 6-foot jumpers in practice. Take that shot to the last second of the playoff game in front of a standing-room-only crowd, and those practice statistics go out of the window.
Mental toughness will win Game 7. We've seen what the Heat and Pacers can do. We know that the Pacers are capable of dominating the glass. We know the Heat have shooters that can get hot and bury the Pacers behind wide open 3 point shots. We know that Lebron James has a way of taking over a game and winning all by himself.
Lebron unquestionably has the mental toughness to help insure a Heat win. The Heat have no doubt of that fact, and he can probably lead his team to the game 7 victory whether or not his teammates are mentally tough.
The Pacers have been given the opportunity I had way back in Junior High School. Lance Stevenson and George Hill are the two guys that have this opportunity; the two Indiana guards have generally played well on their home court but have struggled in Miami.
The Heat have taken advantage of the two young guards in at least 2 of their 3 victories. The Heat succeeded by getting Hill and Stevenson into foul trouble, forcing them to turn the ball over, and clamping down defensively to deny them points. In game 5, both Indiana guards were shell-shocked in Miami's dominant third quarter.
When Miami comes after them on Monday night once again, how will Hill and Stevenson react? Will they gather themselves to stiffen their defense and nail some critical shots to hold off the Heat bid to send them home early? Or will they become rattled and allow a repeat of Game 5?
George Hill said it well when asked about the inconsistent play of Lance Stevenson. "When Lance plays like Lance, we're are a tough team to beat". The same applies to Hill.
Hibbert and West will be there to keep the Heat out of the paint and off the boards. Paul George has an opportunity of his own to prove to the world that he's got the mental toughness to hold Lebron down and lead his team. Game 7's outcome rests on Lance and George, and whether they can withstand all of Miami's efforts to rattle them once again and carry away the Eastern Conference title.
That's why we'll be watching. It's better drama than any TV writer can concoct for a primetime network series.
Coach Streit grabbed me by the jersey and pulled me off the bench. He leaned in to say,
"Get on those boards!" and pushed me toward the scorer's table.
I can't say that my entry into the game made all the difference, but I did my best. I pulled down rebounds, shut down my opposite number defensively, knocked the ball away from Braves players at least a couple of times, and perhaps stuck a couple of balls through Towncrest's net.
Suddenly our defensive full court press forced a turnover and I caught Coach out of the corner of my eye excitedly calling for a timeout. I looked up at the scoreboard to realize for the first time that we had closed the gap to 2 points. It was 45-43 with 3 seconds remaining on the clock. My Trojans team needed a single basket to tie the game and send it into overtime.
Coach Streit drew up the play in the huddle. I feared he might take me out for that last play, but he kept me in the game. We went back on the court and Dave Stewart took the ball on the sideline from the referree. The whistle blew, and I broke away from my defender and saw the pass coming into my hands.
I took 3 quick dribbles toward our basket, counting 1,2,3 in my head and stopped on the right side of the lane, just about 6 or 7 feet from the hoop. I picked up the dribble and went straight up for a jump shot.
The shot felt good. Basketball players will tell you that most of the time you can sort of feel it when the ball rolls off your fingertips just right. It felt like it was going in. I watched it arch toward the basket as if it were in slow motion. It struck the front, then the back of the rim before bouncing straight up in the air and coming down as the buzzer sounded.
I missed. We lost. I carried the pain of that failure with me for many years.
This story isn't just a reminiscence of an old schoolboy memory. Instead it is meant to illustrate the key deciding factor that will determine the winner of Game 7 between the Heat and the Pacers.
Why did I miss that shot that could have sent the game to overtime and given us a strong chance to defeat our conference leaders and advance to the championship?
Because of my mind. I could hit that shot 9 out of 10 times in practice, and that's on a bad shooting day. But there's no pressure involved in popping 6-foot jumpers in practice. Take that shot to the last second of the playoff game in front of a standing-room-only crowd, and those practice statistics go out of the window.
Mental toughness will win Game 7. We've seen what the Heat and Pacers can do. We know that the Pacers are capable of dominating the glass. We know the Heat have shooters that can get hot and bury the Pacers behind wide open 3 point shots. We know that Lebron James has a way of taking over a game and winning all by himself.
Lebron unquestionably has the mental toughness to help insure a Heat win. The Heat have no doubt of that fact, and he can probably lead his team to the game 7 victory whether or not his teammates are mentally tough.
The Pacers have been given the opportunity I had way back in Junior High School. Lance Stevenson and George Hill are the two guys that have this opportunity; the two Indiana guards have generally played well on their home court but have struggled in Miami.
The Heat have taken advantage of the two young guards in at least 2 of their 3 victories. The Heat succeeded by getting Hill and Stevenson into foul trouble, forcing them to turn the ball over, and clamping down defensively to deny them points. In game 5, both Indiana guards were shell-shocked in Miami's dominant third quarter.
When Miami comes after them on Monday night once again, how will Hill and Stevenson react? Will they gather themselves to stiffen their defense and nail some critical shots to hold off the Heat bid to send them home early? Or will they become rattled and allow a repeat of Game 5?
George Hill said it well when asked about the inconsistent play of Lance Stevenson. "When Lance plays like Lance, we're are a tough team to beat". The same applies to Hill.
Hibbert and West will be there to keep the Heat out of the paint and off the boards. Paul George has an opportunity of his own to prove to the world that he's got the mental toughness to hold Lebron down and lead his team. Game 7's outcome rests on Lance and George, and whether they can withstand all of Miami's efforts to rattle them once again and carry away the Eastern Conference title.
That's why we'll be watching. It's better drama than any TV writer can concoct for a primetime network series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)