Ever notice the mind-boggling inconsistencies by our elites?
The old one that continues to be true, "Save the Whales. Kill the babies."
Some that I'm noticing:
Ban tobacco, legalize pot.
Rehabilitate and release rapists and murderers. Unless it was a "Hate Crime", then go ahead and throw the book at them.
Abortion pills are a right. Guns must be banned.
Religion is banned from all schools. Marxism is an important part of the curriculum.
Tolerance and diversity are to be celebrated. Except in the case of white Christians.
Everyone must be forced to reduce their "carbon footprint". Except for Al Gore, who has the companies that get the exclusive government franchise to enforce energy restrictions on everyone else.
Science rules. Except when it differs from our most firmly held beliefs.
Free healthcare is a right. But we get to decide what healthcare you can or can't have.
We are the World. Of course, we're just talking about China or France.
Raise taxes on the evil rich. Um, unless they're one of Us, Hollywood or other celebrities, or big donors to Us.
Equal Rights is our top priority. Except for white or asian hetero males.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Friday, March 06, 2009
The Age of Celebrity Worship
Apparently we're such a celebrity obsessed society that we can't tell the difference between celebrities and statesmen.
Obama is the Celebrity-in-Chief. He was elected largely on his looks, charisma, and speaking ability (albeit only with a teleprompter). Washington is awash in celebrities for the American people to gawk at and gush over. White house performances by celebrity musicians like Stevie Wonder and Earth, Wind & Fire seem to be developing into a regular occurrence.
Got a problem with Obama and his minions spending the country into bankruptcy? Stop being a wet blanket; gee, isn't Michelle's fashion sense just awesome?!
Brad and Angelina hit town, and everyone's ga-ga. I wonder what area of expertise they bring to congressional hearings? Whatever they say must be amazing and inspiring, right?
So I'm seeing Springsteen, Bono, Daryl Hannah, George Clooney, Robbins & Sarandon, and on and on, saying whatever stupid things might be on their minds and being hailed as prophets.
The country is now in the hands of people who make their livings trying to look good and pretending to be somebody else. But somehow this makes them smarter than the rest of us. I keep wondering whether there's fine print in the new tax laws that exempts them from that rich class of people who deserve to have their wealth taken away?
I'm sorry to suggest this, but it seems our citizens are now getting what they deserve. It's certainly what they asked for, whether they realized it at the time or not.
Obama is the Celebrity-in-Chief. He was elected largely on his looks, charisma, and speaking ability (albeit only with a teleprompter). Washington is awash in celebrities for the American people to gawk at and gush over. White house performances by celebrity musicians like Stevie Wonder and Earth, Wind & Fire seem to be developing into a regular occurrence.
Got a problem with Obama and his minions spending the country into bankruptcy? Stop being a wet blanket; gee, isn't Michelle's fashion sense just awesome?!
Brad and Angelina hit town, and everyone's ga-ga. I wonder what area of expertise they bring to congressional hearings? Whatever they say must be amazing and inspiring, right?
So I'm seeing Springsteen, Bono, Daryl Hannah, George Clooney, Robbins & Sarandon, and on and on, saying whatever stupid things might be on their minds and being hailed as prophets.
The country is now in the hands of people who make their livings trying to look good and pretending to be somebody else. But somehow this makes them smarter than the rest of us. I keep wondering whether there's fine print in the new tax laws that exempts them from that rich class of people who deserve to have their wealth taken away?
I'm sorry to suggest this, but it seems our citizens are now getting what they deserve. It's certainly what they asked for, whether they realized it at the time or not.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Socialism
Part of the argument being put forward against Obama's agenda centers around the undeniable fact that his policies are overwhelmingly Socialist in nature.
But America's been Socialist for a long time, with much of it established under the Father of American Socialism, FDR. The Great Depression opened the door for Roosevelt to implement federal socialism that has expanded over the generations into the entrenched socialist programs we take for granted today.
Social Security was sold as a national retirement savings and disability insurance plan. It's nothing of the sort, but merely a Ponzi scheme taking money from working families to give to retirees. Perhaps it served as the inspiration for Bernie Madoff.
How many of us rely on the government for at least part of our livelihood? Let me see if I can tick off some socialist programs without looking them up.
Seniors get a pension from Social Security.
Minor children receive benefits from Social Security if a parent died.
Sick or disabled people receive benefits from Social Security.
HUD gives housing assistance, either partial or full rent payments.
Food Stamps give groceries to families.
Medicare gives healthcare, and now prescription drugs, to people over 65.
Medicaid gives healthcare, drugs, and even taxi rides to the doctor for those who earn less than the threshold.
SCHIP gives healthcare to nearly all children not otherwise covered by employer plans.
State health insurance plans subsidize health insurance for people who can't buy insurance on the market as individuals and aren't covered by a corporate plan.
Farmers get subsidies for growing or not growing certain crops.
Companies get subsidies to help them sell their products outside the US.
Pro Sports teams get stadiums and team facilities built to keep them from leaving their city for another willing to build them a nicer stadium or better facilities.
Utilities are paid for people who can't afford them.
College Education is subsidized for many, mostly based on "need".
Roads, bridges, sewer systems, and utilities are provided to incent business to locate and/or stay in a community.
I've only scratched the surface. Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of providing any of these benefits for people. There are other, better, less costly ways to solve problems without citizens becoming wholly owned and controlled by the government.
Sure, Obama's put the pedal to the metal to implement deeply socialist and redistributionist policies. But if you think we're not already a socialist country, you must live in a cave somewhere.
But America's been Socialist for a long time, with much of it established under the Father of American Socialism, FDR. The Great Depression opened the door for Roosevelt to implement federal socialism that has expanded over the generations into the entrenched socialist programs we take for granted today.
Social Security was sold as a national retirement savings and disability insurance plan. It's nothing of the sort, but merely a Ponzi scheme taking money from working families to give to retirees. Perhaps it served as the inspiration for Bernie Madoff.
How many of us rely on the government for at least part of our livelihood? Let me see if I can tick off some socialist programs without looking them up.
Seniors get a pension from Social Security.
Minor children receive benefits from Social Security if a parent died.
Sick or disabled people receive benefits from Social Security.
HUD gives housing assistance, either partial or full rent payments.
Food Stamps give groceries to families.
Medicare gives healthcare, and now prescription drugs, to people over 65.
Medicaid gives healthcare, drugs, and even taxi rides to the doctor for those who earn less than the threshold.
SCHIP gives healthcare to nearly all children not otherwise covered by employer plans.
State health insurance plans subsidize health insurance for people who can't buy insurance on the market as individuals and aren't covered by a corporate plan.
Farmers get subsidies for growing or not growing certain crops.
Companies get subsidies to help them sell their products outside the US.
Pro Sports teams get stadiums and team facilities built to keep them from leaving their city for another willing to build them a nicer stadium or better facilities.
Utilities are paid for people who can't afford them.
College Education is subsidized for many, mostly based on "need".
Roads, bridges, sewer systems, and utilities are provided to incent business to locate and/or stay in a community.
I've only scratched the surface. Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of providing any of these benefits for people. There are other, better, less costly ways to solve problems without citizens becoming wholly owned and controlled by the government.
Sure, Obama's put the pedal to the metal to implement deeply socialist and redistributionist policies. But if you think we're not already a socialist country, you must live in a cave somewhere.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Interesting Stuff
While traveling this week, I hit the 'Scan' button on the radio in my rental car, looking for something interesting. I found a few things.
Cruising down the highway, I stumbled on some guy named Mike Malloy, who within the first 5 seconds was unquestionably identified as an Air America type. I thought I'd listen for a bit to see how he spun the Obama agenda.
He had no interest in the Obama agenda. Actually, he didn't have anything at all to say about current events. He was obsessing with Bush. Angry that Pelosi didn't move impeachment forward before Bush left office, he was declaring his deepest hope that Bush and Cheney might still get locked up for their "crimes". He actually believes John Conyers' quest to hold hearings on the Bush administration will somehow satisfy his apparent one and only wish, the persecution and prosecution of the object of his most intense hatred.
Then I found it interesting to hear later in a snippet from another channel that the same Mike Malloy was having fun at the expense of Bobby Jindal. His sidekick was doing a caricature impression of Jindal, portraying him as an Indian phone center worker. The segment was repeated, and it was pretty shocking. More evidence of the double standard. Get a Limbaugh or Hannity doing this sort of racist stuff (which I've never heard them or anybody else on the right do, unless you think Imus is a right-winger), and everyone knows what would happen.
A second interesting piece was an interview with noted atheist Christopher Hitchens. He was attempting to make the case that religion in general, and Christianity specifically, is the root of all evil in the world. He supports the idea that government needs to drive religion from society.
What I found most interesting was that Hitchens' animus against Christians is tied to his observations of the bad behavior of some who profess to be members of the faith. That's something I have noticed in every atheist argument I've ever heard. At the root of their denial of even a possibility of the existence of God is the fact that some people who claim to be believers do evil.
Hitchens and others like him must have had a very bad experience in life, most likely in childhood, where a Christian adult mistreated them. It saddens me to find so many alienated from the Church because someone in that Church offended or mistreated them. It isn't fair to the true nature of the faith.
I would like to have asked Hitchens a few questions, like:
If there is no God, then who gets to define what's good and what's evil? You? Me? The Government?
Putting aside the evil done by people in the name of God, what is it about the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as documented in the four Gospels, do you find offensive?
By focusing on those who corrupt the Church for their own gain, you are ignoring the massive good done by Christians. Is there any group of people in the history of the world who have fed, clothed, educated, healed, and helped more people in need than Christians?
The modern examples of what happens to people in officially atheist countries clearly show millions murdered, imprisoned, and persecuted simply because they refuse to give up their faith. How can you suggest that these regimes are more desirable than the American nation that was founded on Christian principles and religious freedom?
When you die, consider that you come face to face with God and must come to grips with the fact you've willfully rejected Him? What would you say in your defense?
Hitchens doesn't know who I am, and would certainly not appreciate it, but I'm going to pray for him anyway.
Cruising down the highway, I stumbled on some guy named Mike Malloy, who within the first 5 seconds was unquestionably identified as an Air America type. I thought I'd listen for a bit to see how he spun the Obama agenda.
He had no interest in the Obama agenda. Actually, he didn't have anything at all to say about current events. He was obsessing with Bush. Angry that Pelosi didn't move impeachment forward before Bush left office, he was declaring his deepest hope that Bush and Cheney might still get locked up for their "crimes". He actually believes John Conyers' quest to hold hearings on the Bush administration will somehow satisfy his apparent one and only wish, the persecution and prosecution of the object of his most intense hatred.
Then I found it interesting to hear later in a snippet from another channel that the same Mike Malloy was having fun at the expense of Bobby Jindal. His sidekick was doing a caricature impression of Jindal, portraying him as an Indian phone center worker. The segment was repeated, and it was pretty shocking. More evidence of the double standard. Get a Limbaugh or Hannity doing this sort of racist stuff (which I've never heard them or anybody else on the right do, unless you think Imus is a right-winger), and everyone knows what would happen.
A second interesting piece was an interview with noted atheist Christopher Hitchens. He was attempting to make the case that religion in general, and Christianity specifically, is the root of all evil in the world. He supports the idea that government needs to drive religion from society.
What I found most interesting was that Hitchens' animus against Christians is tied to his observations of the bad behavior of some who profess to be members of the faith. That's something I have noticed in every atheist argument I've ever heard. At the root of their denial of even a possibility of the existence of God is the fact that some people who claim to be believers do evil.
Hitchens and others like him must have had a very bad experience in life, most likely in childhood, where a Christian adult mistreated them. It saddens me to find so many alienated from the Church because someone in that Church offended or mistreated them. It isn't fair to the true nature of the faith.
I would like to have asked Hitchens a few questions, like:
If there is no God, then who gets to define what's good and what's evil? You? Me? The Government?
Putting aside the evil done by people in the name of God, what is it about the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as documented in the four Gospels, do you find offensive?
By focusing on those who corrupt the Church for their own gain, you are ignoring the massive good done by Christians. Is there any group of people in the history of the world who have fed, clothed, educated, healed, and helped more people in need than Christians?
The modern examples of what happens to people in officially atheist countries clearly show millions murdered, imprisoned, and persecuted simply because they refuse to give up their faith. How can you suggest that these regimes are more desirable than the American nation that was founded on Christian principles and religious freedom?
When you die, consider that you come face to face with God and must come to grips with the fact you've willfully rejected Him? What would you say in your defense?
Hitchens doesn't know who I am, and would certainly not appreciate it, but I'm going to pray for him anyway.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Critical Thinking
In my continuing quest to influence somebody to use their brain just a bit, here are some basic questions to consider.
Is it better to have the government take money away from other people so you can have "free" medical care, which will include a government bureaucrat deciding what treatments and medications you may and may not have; or is it better to find ways to make medical care more affordable and available for everyone with minimal government meddling?
Whose rights are more important - those of homosexuals who want to get their "marriages" recognized and elevated to equal status with traditional marriage, or those of churches, clergy, and individuals of faith to avoid the force of government dictating for whom they may provide the marriage sacrament or employ as clergy, staff, or school teachers?
Would you prefer winners and losers in society to be chosen by the marketplace based on productivity, creativity, and industriousness, or chosen by the government based on race, sex or sexual orientation, and political affiliation?
Should taxes be taken by force of government from people to pay for programs they find morally represhensible?
Should individual health professionals be forced under threat of government sanctions to perform procedures or prescribe drugs they find morally reprehensible?
Should parents be denied the ability to raise their children according to their religious beliefs if those beliefs are in conflict with the government's philosophy? Does the government have the right to force children into government-run schools to insure they are indoctrinated into such philosophies?
Understanding that the big things in churches and charities get done because of generous contributions from the wealthiest among us, is it a good idea to remove all tax deductions for charitable contributions from those individuals?
Should the government give billions of taxpayer funds to organizations created for the express purpose of placing and keeping a single political party in power?
Is it more racist to strive for a truly color-blind society where anyone can succeed based on their individual merit and character, or to tell certain races that since society is somehow oppressing them, that they need to be jumped artificially to the top of the list for admission to medical or law school, given hiring preferences based on their skin color, and have the right to a government handout confiscated from working people?
If you think Global Warming is real and man-made, would it give you pause to find out that the "solutions" being implemented are designed to entrench socialist government control over your own use of energy, while enriching the proponents of these new policies (i.e. Al Gore) beyond your wildest imagination?
Does the government have the right to fund and encourage a counselor at your daughter's middle or high school to take her to an abortion clinic to vacuum out her developing fetus without your own knowledge or consent?
Is it OK to kill an otherwise viable child by collapsing its skull just before delivery simply because the mother decided she didn't want to be a parent? Is this a private matter between the mother and her abortion doctor, or first-degree homicide?
If you can't tell which political ideology I'm talking about in this post, perhaps you should try educating yourself. If you recognize the political party policies I've talked about above and don't believe I've represented their policies accurately, perhaps you need to educate yourself. If you recognize the political policies and still agree with them, please stay away, you're scaring me.
Is it better to have the government take money away from other people so you can have "free" medical care, which will include a government bureaucrat deciding what treatments and medications you may and may not have; or is it better to find ways to make medical care more affordable and available for everyone with minimal government meddling?
Whose rights are more important - those of homosexuals who want to get their "marriages" recognized and elevated to equal status with traditional marriage, or those of churches, clergy, and individuals of faith to avoid the force of government dictating for whom they may provide the marriage sacrament or employ as clergy, staff, or school teachers?
Would you prefer winners and losers in society to be chosen by the marketplace based on productivity, creativity, and industriousness, or chosen by the government based on race, sex or sexual orientation, and political affiliation?
Should taxes be taken by force of government from people to pay for programs they find morally represhensible?
Should individual health professionals be forced under threat of government sanctions to perform procedures or prescribe drugs they find morally reprehensible?
Should parents be denied the ability to raise their children according to their religious beliefs if those beliefs are in conflict with the government's philosophy? Does the government have the right to force children into government-run schools to insure they are indoctrinated into such philosophies?
Understanding that the big things in churches and charities get done because of generous contributions from the wealthiest among us, is it a good idea to remove all tax deductions for charitable contributions from those individuals?
Should the government give billions of taxpayer funds to organizations created for the express purpose of placing and keeping a single political party in power?
Is it more racist to strive for a truly color-blind society where anyone can succeed based on their individual merit and character, or to tell certain races that since society is somehow oppressing them, that they need to be jumped artificially to the top of the list for admission to medical or law school, given hiring preferences based on their skin color, and have the right to a government handout confiscated from working people?
If you think Global Warming is real and man-made, would it give you pause to find out that the "solutions" being implemented are designed to entrench socialist government control over your own use of energy, while enriching the proponents of these new policies (i.e. Al Gore) beyond your wildest imagination?
Does the government have the right to fund and encourage a counselor at your daughter's middle or high school to take her to an abortion clinic to vacuum out her developing fetus without your own knowledge or consent?
Is it OK to kill an otherwise viable child by collapsing its skull just before delivery simply because the mother decided she didn't want to be a parent? Is this a private matter between the mother and her abortion doctor, or first-degree homicide?
If you can't tell which political ideology I'm talking about in this post, perhaps you should try educating yourself. If you recognize the political party policies I've talked about above and don't believe I've represented their policies accurately, perhaps you need to educate yourself. If you recognize the political policies and still agree with them, please stay away, you're scaring me.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Freedom of Conscience
There's too much missing from today's story about Obama's order to rescind Bush Administration rules relating to permitting Doctors and Pharmacists to refuse certain treatments or prescriptions to patients on the basis of conscience. Does Obama actually in effect remove Freedom of Conscience from health professionals, or is his goal more aimed at stopping random blocking of prescription sales by an individual clerk at Wal-Mart?
My reading of available information would seem to indicate the former.
There was a reported controversy a couple years back about Pharmacists who were refusing to fill prescriptions of abortifacients. It was interesting to me at the time how the Left twisted the story in an attempt to suggest that these Pharmacists were suddenly refusing to fill all sort of prescriptions based on weird cultish religious beliefs. In reality, some Christian pharmacists were refusing to dispense the new abortion pills. There were no reports I'm aware of where any drugstore employees were randomly picking prescriptions they suddenly would stop selling to make some point or other. Nobody was refusing to fill ordinary birth control or controversial antidepressants or ADHD medications. Nonetheless, a few Pharmacists were apparently fired for refusing to sell abortifacients. And Bush's order was basically designed to protect the freedom of conscience of those Pharmacists.
Obama would appear to be removing that freedom, and stories I'm reading suggest his goal would extend beyond just denying Pharmacists any rights of conscience in dispensing abortion medications. If stories are correct, his new rules might extend even to OB/GYN's, forcing them to perform abortions on demand.
I'm not sure how that could be accomplished. None but totalitarian, fascist eugenicist governments would go so far as to confiscate a physician's license or otherwise deny his or her freedom to practice medicine because they refuse to perform the abortion procedure. Can it be possible that this is actually our new President's intent?
Don't panic just yet. We'll see how this plays out.
My reading of available information would seem to indicate the former.
There was a reported controversy a couple years back about Pharmacists who were refusing to fill prescriptions of abortifacients. It was interesting to me at the time how the Left twisted the story in an attempt to suggest that these Pharmacists were suddenly refusing to fill all sort of prescriptions based on weird cultish religious beliefs. In reality, some Christian pharmacists were refusing to dispense the new abortion pills. There were no reports I'm aware of where any drugstore employees were randomly picking prescriptions they suddenly would stop selling to make some point or other. Nobody was refusing to fill ordinary birth control or controversial antidepressants or ADHD medications. Nonetheless, a few Pharmacists were apparently fired for refusing to sell abortifacients. And Bush's order was basically designed to protect the freedom of conscience of those Pharmacists.
Obama would appear to be removing that freedom, and stories I'm reading suggest his goal would extend beyond just denying Pharmacists any rights of conscience in dispensing abortion medications. If stories are correct, his new rules might extend even to OB/GYN's, forcing them to perform abortions on demand.
I'm not sure how that could be accomplished. None but totalitarian, fascist eugenicist governments would go so far as to confiscate a physician's license or otherwise deny his or her freedom to practice medicine because they refuse to perform the abortion procedure. Can it be possible that this is actually our new President's intent?
Don't panic just yet. We'll see how this plays out.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Thought Police
I find myself moving away from the active frustration and desire to influence people to pay attention to what's going on to just sitting back and trying to be a sort of detached observer.
I've noticed the Thought Police are alive and well and flexing their muscles. Dare to put voice to the fact that the "stimulus" bill is a disaster? Apparently you're a racist. Think it's a stupid idea to pump billions of dollars into banks that behaved badly, only to see them toss the money in their vaults and change behavior not at all? You must be an idiot who just doesn't get it. Wonder how exactly giving billions of dollars to a list of leftist interest groups helps the economy? You're a fascist. Oh yeah, and a racist.
Now I hear that Republicans don't just have a political ideology that's opposed to Democrats. Republicans are now just evil people. I'm finding out they're heartless, would happily let people starve and become homeless. They somehow oppress people with their bible-thumping religious beliefs; why, these Christians are much more dangerous than those Muslim terrorists, who are only trying to fight against evil American imperialism.
I'm rather surprised to discover I'm a mean and evil individual. I guess thinking that there are actually behaviors that are morally wrong, preferring to keep my individual freedoms without the government telling me what I can and can't do with my life, believing in God, and voting mostly Republican makes me a pariah.
When this sort of thing has happened in other places throughout history, it usually results in those people like me who don't have their minds right getting locked up. Or executed.
I wonder.
I've noticed the Thought Police are alive and well and flexing their muscles. Dare to put voice to the fact that the "stimulus" bill is a disaster? Apparently you're a racist. Think it's a stupid idea to pump billions of dollars into banks that behaved badly, only to see them toss the money in their vaults and change behavior not at all? You must be an idiot who just doesn't get it. Wonder how exactly giving billions of dollars to a list of leftist interest groups helps the economy? You're a fascist. Oh yeah, and a racist.
Now I hear that Republicans don't just have a political ideology that's opposed to Democrats. Republicans are now just evil people. I'm finding out they're heartless, would happily let people starve and become homeless. They somehow oppress people with their bible-thumping religious beliefs; why, these Christians are much more dangerous than those Muslim terrorists, who are only trying to fight against evil American imperialism.
I'm rather surprised to discover I'm a mean and evil individual. I guess thinking that there are actually behaviors that are morally wrong, preferring to keep my individual freedoms without the government telling me what I can and can't do with my life, believing in God, and voting mostly Republican makes me a pariah.
When this sort of thing has happened in other places throughout history, it usually results in those people like me who don't have their minds right getting locked up. Or executed.
I wonder.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Whisper in the Wind
This blog is a metaphor for me standing on a mountaintop, whispering in the wind. Yet I persevere.
Tough times have just begun. I feel them personally and immediately, as do many others. So it was with a sort of resigned sadness I read the headlines this morning about the passing of the trillion-dollar social engineering bill falsely touted by the country's current leaders as "stimulus".
The bill is something like 1200 pages long. Perhaps nobody in Congress who voted, whether for or against, actually knows everything that's in it. There was no opportunity for them, the press, or the people to read it before it was rammed through by the Democrat leadership. Reportedly Obama will sign it without reading it either.
Republicans voted against it, except for the two ladies from Maine and the old fellow from Pennsylvania. But they've seldom shown any conservative tendencies or party loyalty. Contrary to the American Pravda media, they did not oppose it for mere political posture. Aside from those ivory tower liberal Republicans, the opposition simply presented these facts:
It's not a stimulus bill, but a government spending bill.
It was written in private by a very small cadre of Democrats who offered no opportunity for comment, suggestion, or amendment from any Republican, or apparently any rank and file Democrat. (But all but 7 Democrats voted for it anyway)
It's full of liberal social engineering mandates.
It is designed simply to enrich powerful Democrat constituents.
It ushers in brand new socialist initiatives in healthcare, energy, education, and finance.
It fails to address or even consider the impact of spending double the annual Federal budget this year without offsetting revenue.
It guarantees a transfer of power from Corporate captains to Democrat party bureaucrats.
As a whole, the bill is unconstitutional. (But congress threw away the constitution many years ago)
The famous quote that may or may not be accurate, but attributed to Ben Franklin in response to a question put to him after the Constitutional Convention was, "a Republic, if you can keep it". Today we lost it to the Socialist Party of America.
Whatever your party affiliation, as an American you must be outraged at things like a $5 Billion payout to ACORN, which has been proven to be an agency of the Democrat Party engaged in open voter fraud and corruption of the Democratic process. You must be worried that the new Health Information Czar is empowered to approve or deny any treatment that might be prescribed by your physician. You should be appalled that billions of dollars are going into the pockets of friends and supporters of powerful Democrat lawmakers.
Perhaps the wind will carry the truth somewhere it might be heard before someone from the Obama administration takes me from the mountaintop and locks me in a cell to stop my whispering.
Tough times have just begun. I feel them personally and immediately, as do many others. So it was with a sort of resigned sadness I read the headlines this morning about the passing of the trillion-dollar social engineering bill falsely touted by the country's current leaders as "stimulus".
The bill is something like 1200 pages long. Perhaps nobody in Congress who voted, whether for or against, actually knows everything that's in it. There was no opportunity for them, the press, or the people to read it before it was rammed through by the Democrat leadership. Reportedly Obama will sign it without reading it either.
Republicans voted against it, except for the two ladies from Maine and the old fellow from Pennsylvania. But they've seldom shown any conservative tendencies or party loyalty. Contrary to the American Pravda media, they did not oppose it for mere political posture. Aside from those ivory tower liberal Republicans, the opposition simply presented these facts:
It's not a stimulus bill, but a government spending bill.
It was written in private by a very small cadre of Democrats who offered no opportunity for comment, suggestion, or amendment from any Republican, or apparently any rank and file Democrat. (But all but 7 Democrats voted for it anyway)
It's full of liberal social engineering mandates.
It is designed simply to enrich powerful Democrat constituents.
It ushers in brand new socialist initiatives in healthcare, energy, education, and finance.
It fails to address or even consider the impact of spending double the annual Federal budget this year without offsetting revenue.
It guarantees a transfer of power from Corporate captains to Democrat party bureaucrats.
As a whole, the bill is unconstitutional. (But congress threw away the constitution many years ago)
The famous quote that may or may not be accurate, but attributed to Ben Franklin in response to a question put to him after the Constitutional Convention was, "a Republic, if you can keep it". Today we lost it to the Socialist Party of America.
Whatever your party affiliation, as an American you must be outraged at things like a $5 Billion payout to ACORN, which has been proven to be an agency of the Democrat Party engaged in open voter fraud and corruption of the Democratic process. You must be worried that the new Health Information Czar is empowered to approve or deny any treatment that might be prescribed by your physician. You should be appalled that billions of dollars are going into the pockets of friends and supporters of powerful Democrat lawmakers.
Perhaps the wind will carry the truth somewhere it might be heard before someone from the Obama administration takes me from the mountaintop and locks me in a cell to stop my whispering.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Emerging from the Flu
This was a nasty bug that knocked me off my feet on Saturday afternoon and didn't let me back up until today. The only positive I can think of is the 7 pounds I lost in those four lost days.
The hopelessness over the political and economic situation is complete. Mass insanity now rules. I tried watching the Terry Moran interview with the Great and Powerful OB on Nightline, and even though I expected an obsequious line of questioning, it exceeded even my worst expectations. The hardest hardball flung by the bowing, scraping reporter was approximately "Why are you being so nice to those evil Republicans?". There's journalism for you.
So February has shaped up to be a better month for me, but March is looking scary. It's hard to predict what the future holds. Maybe I can find a small amount of relief in the fact I'm far from alone in feeling the drastic effects of this worldwide economic free-fall. Because if the Reid-Pelosi-Obama "Stimulus" bill actually results in a major positive turnaround, I might have to become a Democrat. I'm pretty sure I'll be saying "told you so" with little relish in 6 months.
Keeping my head up (while blowing my nose).
The hopelessness over the political and economic situation is complete. Mass insanity now rules. I tried watching the Terry Moran interview with the Great and Powerful OB on Nightline, and even though I expected an obsequious line of questioning, it exceeded even my worst expectations. The hardest hardball flung by the bowing, scraping reporter was approximately "Why are you being so nice to those evil Republicans?". There's journalism for you.
So February has shaped up to be a better month for me, but March is looking scary. It's hard to predict what the future holds. Maybe I can find a small amount of relief in the fact I'm far from alone in feeling the drastic effects of this worldwide economic free-fall. Because if the Reid-Pelosi-Obama "Stimulus" bill actually results in a major positive turnaround, I might have to become a Democrat. I'm pretty sure I'll be saying "told you so" with little relish in 6 months.
Keeping my head up (while blowing my nose).
Friday, February 06, 2009
Friday Musings
Trying to avoid tedious paperwork, I've been daydreaming about what I'd do if a pile of money dropped out of the sky. To make the dream worthwhile, I'm thinking the pile should be around $2 Mil.
I wonder what others would do with such a windfall, but I'm pretty sure how I'd allocate it.
The first 10 percent would go to charity. Since the missus and I wouldn't agree on what charities to support, I'm thinking I'd let her give away half of the 10 percent and I'd take care of the other half. My approach would be to identify specific projects to underwrite, definitely for my home church and possibly for my family's churches. I'd invest in remodeling projects or a new organ or generally the music program. I'd help out the priests/pastors, maybe with a vehicle or vacation or something like that. Generally, I'd just look around and see what was needed, then fill the need.
I'd throw a party for family and friends. What might be fun is to book a bunch of rooms at some resort and pay for everybody to get there for a week. I'd have to limit it somewhat, because it would be easy to go overboard with too large a guest list and/or too fancy a resort. But it's a particular priority of mine that I've always hoped to pull off.
Spending on personal stuff would not start with a car. I like my Volvo, and would not be in a hurry to go trade it for something hot and fancy. I would fix the cracked bumper and get it detailed, though.
Instead I'd focus on the home. A decision would need to be made whether to remodel the current homestead or sell it and buy something I like better. I'd have to check out the market to see if there might be my dream house already out there somewhere that would be a better option than the expense of turning my own cracker box into the dream. Again it would have to fit the budget, because I can't let it eat too much of the cash.
The rest gets invested. It could be fun to make it my full time job to find the best possible investments that will earn my living from then on. I'm thinking difersification, everything from real estate to other tangible assets to business ventures, stocks, bonds, etc.
OK. Time to wake up now and get back to real life.
I wonder what others would do with such a windfall, but I'm pretty sure how I'd allocate it.
The first 10 percent would go to charity. Since the missus and I wouldn't agree on what charities to support, I'm thinking I'd let her give away half of the 10 percent and I'd take care of the other half. My approach would be to identify specific projects to underwrite, definitely for my home church and possibly for my family's churches. I'd invest in remodeling projects or a new organ or generally the music program. I'd help out the priests/pastors, maybe with a vehicle or vacation or something like that. Generally, I'd just look around and see what was needed, then fill the need.
I'd throw a party for family and friends. What might be fun is to book a bunch of rooms at some resort and pay for everybody to get there for a week. I'd have to limit it somewhat, because it would be easy to go overboard with too large a guest list and/or too fancy a resort. But it's a particular priority of mine that I've always hoped to pull off.
Spending on personal stuff would not start with a car. I like my Volvo, and would not be in a hurry to go trade it for something hot and fancy. I would fix the cracked bumper and get it detailed, though.
Instead I'd focus on the home. A decision would need to be made whether to remodel the current homestead or sell it and buy something I like better. I'd have to check out the market to see if there might be my dream house already out there somewhere that would be a better option than the expense of turning my own cracker box into the dream. Again it would have to fit the budget, because I can't let it eat too much of the cash.
The rest gets invested. It could be fun to make it my full time job to find the best possible investments that will earn my living from then on. I'm thinking difersification, everything from real estate to other tangible assets to business ventures, stocks, bonds, etc.
OK. Time to wake up now and get back to real life.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Thoughts on Management and Labor
Of the many pendulums (pendula?) about to swing the opposite direction is the balance of power between Management and Labor.
Many of those who voted Democrat in the most recent election did so primarily out of a belief that big corporations have become too powerful, to the point of abusing their workers in the name of free-market capitalism.
Fundamentally a conservative, I've paid close attention to this particular issue over the years. And the conclusions I've reached don't toe the party line for either side. Actually, I find myself agreeing with each side about 50 percent. If that makes me an economic moderate, maybe so.
Business executives are driven by the bottom line. They are mostly compensated on their ability to grow their companies and maximize profit. Therefore, if they can get the job done by implementing lower cost alternatives to the means of production, they will do so. Concern for individual worker welfare has no seat in today's board room.
In the 80's and 90's I was personally involved in displacing perhaps hundreds of clerical and data processing workers through installation of new systems that improved efficiency overnight. I remember one particular project I led in the 80's that replaced the old "batch" system for Accounts Payable with an efficient new interactive solution. Less than a week after the new system went "live", 80 percent of the Accounts Payable department were laid off.
I felt badly, as if I was personally responsible for each of those people losing their livelihood. But after awhile, I realized it was the price of progress. If the company failed to implement these new systems, they would fall behind the competition and eventually be forced out of business because they could no longer produce their products profitably.
The next stage happened in manufacturing, where US plants closed and relocated in third-world companies across the globe. Plants relocated to places like Mexico failed due to massive corruption that made it impossible to do business, and now the vast majority of manufactured products seem to come from the Far East. Especially Communist China.
These days the technology advances have slowed somewhat, with technological efficiencies less dramatic than in the 80's and 90's. But what we have seen in this decade is a move to replace the high-tech workers like myself with cheaper alternatives. India has become the new center for technology workers, as corporate America has dumped their high-salaried U.S. techs for Indians, saving as much as 70 or 75 percent.
The Bush Administration famously told us for the past 8 years that all this progress was good for us. Globalization and free trade ultimately lifts all boats.
I'm not sold. If China, which is an adversary of the United States politically, has succeeded in replacing the manufacturing sector of this country with their own, then what happens if we suddenly find our relations deteriorating? All of a sudden, we can't produce our own manufactured products or war materiel that might be needed to protect ourselves.
There's Free Trade and there's Fair Trade. Free Trade has meant unfettered trade, with little regard for the fact that China steals trade secrets, software, entertainment, and intellectual property from America with impunity. The Bush government cared not at all that China manipulated their currency to make sure nobody could compete with them on the price for their goods.
Many suspect that NAFTA is designed more for the benefit of Mexico and Canada than for the U.S. To the extent that may be true or not, I can't say. I do think the silliness of the hassles I get at the border when entering Canada to do my software consulting are sort of ridiculous - If I was entering Canada for a job, then absolutely I should be scrutinized. But entering for a few days to teach people how to use software developed in the US should not be at issue.
I could go on, but want to get down to the real issue of Management versus Labor.
The "Card Check" legislation being pushed in Washington on behalf of the Labor Unions is designed to tilt the balance of power away from corporate management toward labor unions in a return to the 70's. I remember those days, with the bad economy made worse by incessant union strikes. So many companies had to close simply because their Unions demanded too high a price to keep the companies solvent.
I worked in a Union shop in the 80's and was stunned at the gross inefficiencies embedded into the daily activities at the company because of union work rules. I have a funny story about getting the florescent light bulbs changed in my office (it took over a week), but will get to that later.
Don't get me wrong, I fundamentally have no issue with the idea that employees can form a union for the purpose of negotiating fair pay, benefits, and working conditions with their employer.
But I do object to the business-killing effect of unions that become so powerful that they can practically dictate those terms to the employer. And I object to the pervasive corruption inherent in the Union bosses. Want to put yourself in danger of physical violence? As a member of a union, just ask the union boss for a financial statement showing how the members' dues are spent.
Management hates unions, understandably. I've been in the room to hear executives proclaim that they will close the company before they will allow a union to get in. I've been privy to unceremonious firing of employees based on no more than a rumor that they might have been overheard discussing unionization with a co-worker in the break room.
I had a friend back in the 70's and early 80's who told me that if he could just get into a certain Union, he could land a job that would pay double his current rate and be secure for life (that turned out to be wrong). But to get into the union, he had to know the right people. Because, to get on that gravy train, you had to be brought in by a friend or relative. The union was the gatekeeper to those high-paying jobs with amazing benefits.
There's the problem. Give either side too much power, and they're probably going to abuse it. If Management and Labor were both always fair-minded, honest, and ethical, there would be no problem.
Hmm, back to that morality theme again. What was that about all our societal problems sharing the same root?
Many of those who voted Democrat in the most recent election did so primarily out of a belief that big corporations have become too powerful, to the point of abusing their workers in the name of free-market capitalism.
Fundamentally a conservative, I've paid close attention to this particular issue over the years. And the conclusions I've reached don't toe the party line for either side. Actually, I find myself agreeing with each side about 50 percent. If that makes me an economic moderate, maybe so.
Business executives are driven by the bottom line. They are mostly compensated on their ability to grow their companies and maximize profit. Therefore, if they can get the job done by implementing lower cost alternatives to the means of production, they will do so. Concern for individual worker welfare has no seat in today's board room.
In the 80's and 90's I was personally involved in displacing perhaps hundreds of clerical and data processing workers through installation of new systems that improved efficiency overnight. I remember one particular project I led in the 80's that replaced the old "batch" system for Accounts Payable with an efficient new interactive solution. Less than a week after the new system went "live", 80 percent of the Accounts Payable department were laid off.
I felt badly, as if I was personally responsible for each of those people losing their livelihood. But after awhile, I realized it was the price of progress. If the company failed to implement these new systems, they would fall behind the competition and eventually be forced out of business because they could no longer produce their products profitably.
The next stage happened in manufacturing, where US plants closed and relocated in third-world companies across the globe. Plants relocated to places like Mexico failed due to massive corruption that made it impossible to do business, and now the vast majority of manufactured products seem to come from the Far East. Especially Communist China.
These days the technology advances have slowed somewhat, with technological efficiencies less dramatic than in the 80's and 90's. But what we have seen in this decade is a move to replace the high-tech workers like myself with cheaper alternatives. India has become the new center for technology workers, as corporate America has dumped their high-salaried U.S. techs for Indians, saving as much as 70 or 75 percent.
The Bush Administration famously told us for the past 8 years that all this progress was good for us. Globalization and free trade ultimately lifts all boats.
I'm not sold. If China, which is an adversary of the United States politically, has succeeded in replacing the manufacturing sector of this country with their own, then what happens if we suddenly find our relations deteriorating? All of a sudden, we can't produce our own manufactured products or war materiel that might be needed to protect ourselves.
There's Free Trade and there's Fair Trade. Free Trade has meant unfettered trade, with little regard for the fact that China steals trade secrets, software, entertainment, and intellectual property from America with impunity. The Bush government cared not at all that China manipulated their currency to make sure nobody could compete with them on the price for their goods.
Many suspect that NAFTA is designed more for the benefit of Mexico and Canada than for the U.S. To the extent that may be true or not, I can't say. I do think the silliness of the hassles I get at the border when entering Canada to do my software consulting are sort of ridiculous - If I was entering Canada for a job, then absolutely I should be scrutinized. But entering for a few days to teach people how to use software developed in the US should not be at issue.
I could go on, but want to get down to the real issue of Management versus Labor.
The "Card Check" legislation being pushed in Washington on behalf of the Labor Unions is designed to tilt the balance of power away from corporate management toward labor unions in a return to the 70's. I remember those days, with the bad economy made worse by incessant union strikes. So many companies had to close simply because their Unions demanded too high a price to keep the companies solvent.
I worked in a Union shop in the 80's and was stunned at the gross inefficiencies embedded into the daily activities at the company because of union work rules. I have a funny story about getting the florescent light bulbs changed in my office (it took over a week), but will get to that later.
Don't get me wrong, I fundamentally have no issue with the idea that employees can form a union for the purpose of negotiating fair pay, benefits, and working conditions with their employer.
But I do object to the business-killing effect of unions that become so powerful that they can practically dictate those terms to the employer. And I object to the pervasive corruption inherent in the Union bosses. Want to put yourself in danger of physical violence? As a member of a union, just ask the union boss for a financial statement showing how the members' dues are spent.
Management hates unions, understandably. I've been in the room to hear executives proclaim that they will close the company before they will allow a union to get in. I've been privy to unceremonious firing of employees based on no more than a rumor that they might have been overheard discussing unionization with a co-worker in the break room.
I had a friend back in the 70's and early 80's who told me that if he could just get into a certain Union, he could land a job that would pay double his current rate and be secure for life (that turned out to be wrong). But to get into the union, he had to know the right people. Because, to get on that gravy train, you had to be brought in by a friend or relative. The union was the gatekeeper to those high-paying jobs with amazing benefits.
There's the problem. Give either side too much power, and they're probably going to abuse it. If Management and Labor were both always fair-minded, honest, and ethical, there would be no problem.
Hmm, back to that morality theme again. What was that about all our societal problems sharing the same root?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Who Said,
Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result?
If only I could ignore the insanity of our government and join the masses of blissful ignorance. At least that might let me keep more hair and lower my blood pressure.
Last year we all got our little bonus check from the Federal government, ostensibly to help stimulate the economy. It didn't work. So the House, supported by the Great and Powerful OB, passed a bill to do it again.
The government decided to give 700 billion dollars to big banks and brokerage houses and insurance companies, no strings attached. The idea was that would loosen up credit to stimulate the economy. But the recipients gratefully accepted the money, salted it away in their vaults, paid out fat bonuses, took elaborate vacations, and/or bought other banks. It didn't work. So again, the Great and Powerful OB and his minions are continuing to dole out money by the billions to the same people with no change in the result.
So we move on with a trillion dollars the citizens don't have slated to satisfy a liberal Christmas wish list. Oh wait, they don't believe in Christmas; so let's just call it a general wish list. Eugenics, ACORN, Illegal Immigration, Fraudulent Global Warming pseudo scientists, windmill and solar panel boondoggles and political payback.
It takes some gall to introduce an openly fraudulent trillion dollar spending proposal labeled as an emergency plan to save the failing economy. And there seems to be nothing that can be done by the minority of the population that see what's happening but are ignored by the leftist government that ascended to power by fooling enough people.
The beginning of the 21st century dark ages is upon us.
If only I could ignore the insanity of our government and join the masses of blissful ignorance. At least that might let me keep more hair and lower my blood pressure.
Last year we all got our little bonus check from the Federal government, ostensibly to help stimulate the economy. It didn't work. So the House, supported by the Great and Powerful OB, passed a bill to do it again.
The government decided to give 700 billion dollars to big banks and brokerage houses and insurance companies, no strings attached. The idea was that would loosen up credit to stimulate the economy. But the recipients gratefully accepted the money, salted it away in their vaults, paid out fat bonuses, took elaborate vacations, and/or bought other banks. It didn't work. So again, the Great and Powerful OB and his minions are continuing to dole out money by the billions to the same people with no change in the result.
So we move on with a trillion dollars the citizens don't have slated to satisfy a liberal Christmas wish list. Oh wait, they don't believe in Christmas; so let's just call it a general wish list. Eugenics, ACORN, Illegal Immigration, Fraudulent Global Warming pseudo scientists, windmill and solar panel boondoggles and political payback.
It takes some gall to introduce an openly fraudulent trillion dollar spending proposal labeled as an emergency plan to save the failing economy. And there seems to be nothing that can be done by the minority of the population that see what's happening but are ignored by the leftist government that ascended to power by fooling enough people.
The beginning of the 21st century dark ages is upon us.
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Only Hope
for Republicans to slow down the Democrat juggernaut is to become the source of common-sense alternatives.
It's a faint hope at best. On the whole, Americans have proven themselves shallow, ignorant, and self-absorbed. Facts are easily obscured by emotional appeal with empty nonspecific promises of "change" to bring about "hope".
Then there is the media, which will continue to wield its overwhelming power to filter information to cast everything the Dems push through in the best possible light while ignoring any and all contrary facts and positions.
The last and only hope, then, is the strongest possibly Public Relations Campaign from the GOP and their supporters to counter the Obama juggernaut with a positive alternative.
Instead of saying "no" to the radical plans being railroaded through Congress under the guise of "economic stimulus", an alternative stimulus plan must be detailed and rolled out to the public with an advertising blitz.
Instead of saying "no" to government control of healthcare, develop and present details of the GOP's preferred "market-based" approach. Stop just saying "market-based", but present exactly how the GOP's plan would keep medical decisions between the patient and doctor while making access to care affordable for all.
Bypass the media in this PR blitz to point out the moral hazards already evident in the power-drunk party in power. Let the public know about radical policies being entrenched by the majority such as overturning bans on infanticide (aka late-term or partial-birth abortions), parental consent for minors seeking abortion, and eliminating all education and waiting periods imposed by states.
Unless the GOP can regain a moral high ground and demonstrate to Americans that they can introduce common-sense policies that solve problems without massive government bureaucracies, they will be irrelevant as a party for at least a generation.
It's a faint hope at best. On the whole, Americans have proven themselves shallow, ignorant, and self-absorbed. Facts are easily obscured by emotional appeal with empty nonspecific promises of "change" to bring about "hope".
Then there is the media, which will continue to wield its overwhelming power to filter information to cast everything the Dems push through in the best possible light while ignoring any and all contrary facts and positions.
The last and only hope, then, is the strongest possibly Public Relations Campaign from the GOP and their supporters to counter the Obama juggernaut with a positive alternative.
Instead of saying "no" to the radical plans being railroaded through Congress under the guise of "economic stimulus", an alternative stimulus plan must be detailed and rolled out to the public with an advertising blitz.
Instead of saying "no" to government control of healthcare, develop and present details of the GOP's preferred "market-based" approach. Stop just saying "market-based", but present exactly how the GOP's plan would keep medical decisions between the patient and doctor while making access to care affordable for all.
Bypass the media in this PR blitz to point out the moral hazards already evident in the power-drunk party in power. Let the public know about radical policies being entrenched by the majority such as overturning bans on infanticide (aka late-term or partial-birth abortions), parental consent for minors seeking abortion, and eliminating all education and waiting periods imposed by states.
Unless the GOP can regain a moral high ground and demonstrate to Americans that they can introduce common-sense policies that solve problems without massive government bureaucracies, they will be irrelevant as a party for at least a generation.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Three at a Time
The magic number 3 strikes again. 3 vehicles in the family need repair at the same time.
On the bright side, theoretically other things should improve after we get past these 3 bad ones.
We're overdue for a break, I think.
On the bright side, theoretically other things should improve after we get past these 3 bad ones.
We're overdue for a break, I think.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
How Bad?
My consulting trip this week was a shocking example of how bad the economy has tanked. Although I certainly have seen a frightening slowdown in my business and have heard and read the bad economic news every day, my trip this week provided tangible proof.
It started with my Sunday departure from Indy. Parking in the "Economy" lot at the airport, there seemed to be a relatively small number of vehicles parked. But it's a new airport where I haven't had a chance to compare, plus this is traditionally a slow travel period, so I didn't think much of it.
I have settled on my new habit of parking close to the last bus stop in the lot, which I've decided is the best strategy for getting to the terminal fastest. Of course, it takes the longest to get back to my car when I return, but that's less important. I was the only person on the bus to the terminal, which was surprising.
Then I walked to the check-in counter and found myself the only passenger there. It was eerie, almost as if I was the only customer at Northwest this particular Sunday afternoon. The agents were hanging out, talking with each other or looking bored.
Walking through the main terminal to the security checkpoint, there was a noticeably small number of people waiting for arriving passengers or sitting at the tables fiddling with their laptops. The stores and restaurants were empty aside from the workers.
Once again, I was the only person present at the security checkpoint. TSA agents were also just hanging out, shooting the breeze or looking bored. The guy checking my ticket and drivers license seemed happy to have something to do.
Walking to my gate, all the stores and restaurants were empty except for the clerks. Even Starbucks, which has had a line a the counter every time I've walked by in the past, was empty of coffee connoisseurs.
As I waited to board my flight, I noticed other flights departing with unusually small passenger loads. Strangely, my flight turned out to be the only full flight in the concourse. I'm not sure why the only full flight of the afternoon was to Minneapolis, although I overheard the people around me talking about their final destinations, which were California and Florida.
I picked up my rental car in the Avis area of the garage, seeing my name on the renter's directory list that was smaller than I'd ever seen it. There were no empty parking spaces, and I was again the only traveler driving out of the garage with my rental. I grumbled a bit to myself that with all the cars they had available, they gave me a Kia. Oh well.
I arrived at the hotel, where it seemed the only people there were the desk clerk and me. The next morning I was the only guest in the breakfast room. Nobody else came in the 30 minutes I was there.
The second night and following morning I did notice a few guests had arrived, and there were maybe a dozen guests at breakfast Tuesday morning. Which was still a small group for the size of the hotel and its dining room.
The client's office showed a continuation of the trend. About half the offices and cubicles were empty. The people I worked with were a bit demoralized, mentioning they had just done a big layoff right before I arrived. It was their second round of layoffs in 3 months.
My trip home was perhaps the most shocking. Of course, checking in my rental car at MSP took place in record time. I was the only customer returning at the time, so the Avis agent was at my door ready to check me in the minute I shifted the car into Park.
The convenient check-in on the lower level at MSP was closed for the first time in years of so many trips I've lost count. I had to go upstairs to the main check-in counter. Where I was the only passenger checking in.
Again I was the only passenger walking through security, the shops and restaurants were mostly empty, and the concourse had fewer people than I have ever seen. The flight back to Indy had a light load as well.
I know that January and February are the slowest travel months of the year. But to see the airports practically ghost towns is frightening.
Everyone I talk to recently is saying the same things. Business everywhere is in the tank. Nobody's spending money, therefore nobody's hiring or starting any new projects or investing in anything. Everyone is keeping their head down and hoping things turn around before they lose everything.
And the first substantive act of the messiah President is overturning the restrictions placed by Bush on Federal support to UN organizations providing abortions to women around the world.
That's change. But hope?
It started with my Sunday departure from Indy. Parking in the "Economy" lot at the airport, there seemed to be a relatively small number of vehicles parked. But it's a new airport where I haven't had a chance to compare, plus this is traditionally a slow travel period, so I didn't think much of it.
I have settled on my new habit of parking close to the last bus stop in the lot, which I've decided is the best strategy for getting to the terminal fastest. Of course, it takes the longest to get back to my car when I return, but that's less important. I was the only person on the bus to the terminal, which was surprising.
Then I walked to the check-in counter and found myself the only passenger there. It was eerie, almost as if I was the only customer at Northwest this particular Sunday afternoon. The agents were hanging out, talking with each other or looking bored.
Walking through the main terminal to the security checkpoint, there was a noticeably small number of people waiting for arriving passengers or sitting at the tables fiddling with their laptops. The stores and restaurants were empty aside from the workers.
Once again, I was the only person present at the security checkpoint. TSA agents were also just hanging out, shooting the breeze or looking bored. The guy checking my ticket and drivers license seemed happy to have something to do.
Walking to my gate, all the stores and restaurants were empty except for the clerks. Even Starbucks, which has had a line a the counter every time I've walked by in the past, was empty of coffee connoisseurs.
As I waited to board my flight, I noticed other flights departing with unusually small passenger loads. Strangely, my flight turned out to be the only full flight in the concourse. I'm not sure why the only full flight of the afternoon was to Minneapolis, although I overheard the people around me talking about their final destinations, which were California and Florida.
I picked up my rental car in the Avis area of the garage, seeing my name on the renter's directory list that was smaller than I'd ever seen it. There were no empty parking spaces, and I was again the only traveler driving out of the garage with my rental. I grumbled a bit to myself that with all the cars they had available, they gave me a Kia. Oh well.
I arrived at the hotel, where it seemed the only people there were the desk clerk and me. The next morning I was the only guest in the breakfast room. Nobody else came in the 30 minutes I was there.
The second night and following morning I did notice a few guests had arrived, and there were maybe a dozen guests at breakfast Tuesday morning. Which was still a small group for the size of the hotel and its dining room.
The client's office showed a continuation of the trend. About half the offices and cubicles were empty. The people I worked with were a bit demoralized, mentioning they had just done a big layoff right before I arrived. It was their second round of layoffs in 3 months.
My trip home was perhaps the most shocking. Of course, checking in my rental car at MSP took place in record time. I was the only customer returning at the time, so the Avis agent was at my door ready to check me in the minute I shifted the car into Park.
The convenient check-in on the lower level at MSP was closed for the first time in years of so many trips I've lost count. I had to go upstairs to the main check-in counter. Where I was the only passenger checking in.
Again I was the only passenger walking through security, the shops and restaurants were mostly empty, and the concourse had fewer people than I have ever seen. The flight back to Indy had a light load as well.
I know that January and February are the slowest travel months of the year. But to see the airports practically ghost towns is frightening.
Everyone I talk to recently is saying the same things. Business everywhere is in the tank. Nobody's spending money, therefore nobody's hiring or starting any new projects or investing in anything. Everyone is keeping their head down and hoping things turn around before they lose everything.
And the first substantive act of the messiah President is overturning the restrictions placed by Bush on Federal support to UN organizations providing abortions to women around the world.
That's change. But hope?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Stark Contrast
It's a lonely feeling I was expecting, which is why I did my best to avoid the news yesterday. But there is no avoiding the over-the-top giddiness of the media over the inauguration. The messiah is King, and anyone not celebrating the fact should be ashamed.
The things I noticed were the stark contrasts between previous presidential transitions and this one.
Even the leftist media have acknowledged that the efforts made by the outgoing Bush administration to transfer information and assist the incoming Obama administration in every possible way were admirable. President Bush was gracious and open, wished Obama well, and smoothed the way. George and Laura Bush exemplified class in their gracious exit into a private life. The Senate Republicans are offering little to no resistance in confirmations of Obama's cabinet, despite publicly aired ethical, legal, and competence issues with key appointees.
Contrast this with the transition of Bush into the White House replacing Bill Clinton. The Clintons reportedly were not only cool to the Republican president, but did very little to assist in the transition. Their staff famously looted the White House on their way out, stealing everything that wasn't nailed down. The Democrat Senate blocked and delayed and fought nearly every Bush appointment for apparently no reason other than spite. Appointees with the most minor past issues had to withdraw and be replaced.
Bush left with a relatively small number of pardons and clemencies, none that can be seriously challenged as self-serving or ethically questionable. The Clintons left office with a record number of pardons, with some shamelessly self-serving and quid-pro-quo (Marc Rich and FALN).
Most telling was the disrespectful behavior of the partying crowds as they mocked, booed, and chanted obscenities at the departing Bush family. Was there a single conservative singing "Na Na Na Na, Hey, Hey, Hey, Goodbye" at Clinton during Bush's inauguration? And that was one of the milder classless offenses by the Obama crowds.
Bush took office with hordes of Democrats hating him. Personally. Hear any hatred of Obama from the right?
Finally, a group of congresspeople including the Speaker of the House are determined to hound the Bushes and members of their administration for the foreseeable future in an endless series of investigations designed to make their lives miserable and hoped to uncover some justification for jailing them. Simply out of spite.
When called on by some conservatives to investigate the many obvious legal and ethical lapses by the Clintons, Bush declined. There was nothing to be gained, in his opinion, by investigating past corruption.
I don't hate the new president. I simply disagree with nearly every policy he has promised to implement. Even if I'm the only person left who hasn't succumbed to the national infection that is Obamamania. It's easier to understand how someone like Hitler could ascend to power in Germany. Not that Obama is another Hitler. Vladimir Lenin or Hugo Chavez maybe, but not Hitler.
The things I noticed were the stark contrasts between previous presidential transitions and this one.
Even the leftist media have acknowledged that the efforts made by the outgoing Bush administration to transfer information and assist the incoming Obama administration in every possible way were admirable. President Bush was gracious and open, wished Obama well, and smoothed the way. George and Laura Bush exemplified class in their gracious exit into a private life. The Senate Republicans are offering little to no resistance in confirmations of Obama's cabinet, despite publicly aired ethical, legal, and competence issues with key appointees.
Contrast this with the transition of Bush into the White House replacing Bill Clinton. The Clintons reportedly were not only cool to the Republican president, but did very little to assist in the transition. Their staff famously looted the White House on their way out, stealing everything that wasn't nailed down. The Democrat Senate blocked and delayed and fought nearly every Bush appointment for apparently no reason other than spite. Appointees with the most minor past issues had to withdraw and be replaced.
Bush left with a relatively small number of pardons and clemencies, none that can be seriously challenged as self-serving or ethically questionable. The Clintons left office with a record number of pardons, with some shamelessly self-serving and quid-pro-quo (Marc Rich and FALN).
Most telling was the disrespectful behavior of the partying crowds as they mocked, booed, and chanted obscenities at the departing Bush family. Was there a single conservative singing "Na Na Na Na, Hey, Hey, Hey, Goodbye" at Clinton during Bush's inauguration? And that was one of the milder classless offenses by the Obama crowds.
Bush took office with hordes of Democrats hating him. Personally. Hear any hatred of Obama from the right?
Finally, a group of congresspeople including the Speaker of the House are determined to hound the Bushes and members of their administration for the foreseeable future in an endless series of investigations designed to make their lives miserable and hoped to uncover some justification for jailing them. Simply out of spite.
When called on by some conservatives to investigate the many obvious legal and ethical lapses by the Clintons, Bush declined. There was nothing to be gained, in his opinion, by investigating past corruption.
I don't hate the new president. I simply disagree with nearly every policy he has promised to implement. Even if I'm the only person left who hasn't succumbed to the national infection that is Obamamania. It's easier to understand how someone like Hitler could ascend to power in Germany. Not that Obama is another Hitler. Vladimir Lenin or Hugo Chavez maybe, but not Hitler.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Post-Racial?
A side discussion that seems to be happening out there with the Obama inauguration is concerned with whether or not America has moved on from racism, or if in large part we have become a "Post-Racial" society.
So it seemed the best place to start in thinking about the whole idea was to grab the definition of racism. Here's the definition from Dictionary.com
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races
So has our society largely moved on in terms of the above definition?
Well, nobody that's taken seriously believes the first point. In fact, the level of political correctness we find ourselves in today would cause anyone expressing racial superiority for any race to be ostracized or possibly even jailed.
I'm aware of no government policy based on the first idea. In fact, there's plenty of accepted discrimination in government and big business. When it's racial it's discrimination that hires and promotes based on race where the "majority" race is the one discriminated against. Other types of discrimination happen every day against people of all races, except perhaps those given favoritism: it's considered perfectly acceptable to discriminate against smokers, overweight, unattractive, uneducated or undereducated, speech impaired, etc. But none dares discriminate against black or mixed-race individuals, at least not where such discrimination can be detected.
Hatred and intolerance is the most interesting part of the definition for me. Does anyone actually "hate" an entire race? None but perhaps the most extreme paranoids.
So, based on the above definition, I'd say we have been "post-racial" for a very long time.
I hear some continue to suggest that the mere fact that black people are statistically more likely to be poor, unemployed, and/or incarcerated is enough to prove that an invisible institutional racism is still in play.
Any reasonable analysis of the root causes of these problems in the black community would have to assume that the blame is misdirected. Although it can be said that government policies beginning with LBJ's "Great Society" either caused or exacerbated the problems in the black community just as it caused today's ongoing problems in all communities, the problem is mainly cultural.
The "Great Society" led to welfare programs that rewarded single mothers, with greater benefits based on the number of children in the home. Husbands were a detriment to getting so many benefits, including housing, food stamps, medical care, free education, and even a paycheck. So women of all races abandoned marriage and the nuclear family to get the government free ride. This devastated both black and white communities, but especially the black community.
Asians, Hispanics, Carribean Islanders, and even African immigrants arrived by the millions and found great success. People from places like Korea and India opened businesses in the black neighborhoods and found success, albeit sometimes angering some in those communities who somehow felt victimized by those entrepreneurs.
Affirmative Action and the simple attitudes of people trying to help the black community escape poverty led to companies scouring the country for qualified black candidates. But qualified candidates were hard to find, because so much of the black community rejected American Public Education as white institutions. Somehow excelling in school became akin to playing "Uncle Tom", knuckling under to some sort of oppressive system set up by some invisible white conspiracy.
Forced busing was tried, and didn't work. Now Charter Schools and Magnet Schools are popping up everywhere, but the jury's still out on their long-term prospects.
Truly there is a much greater number of successful people from the black community today than ever before. It just seems that the message hasn't fully reached the multi-generational welfare classes. Want to escape from the ghettos? Go to school, study hard, and get into college. It probably requires the strongest of wills and courage to buck the attitudes of others, but absolutely can be achieved by those willing to put forth the effort.
Unfortunately for many the "hope" and "change" promised by the new president isn't about equality, but socialism. The victimized underclass are poor not because of anything they did or failed to do, but because of some sort of national conspiracy designed to keep them poor and in the inner cities. So the answers they seek seem to revolve around new government "programs" that will simply re-emphasize the welfare state. The "change" many seem to "hope" for is ever expanding welfare checks that allow the poor oppressed to live a middle-class lifestyle without having to go to work every day.
And I promise I'm not being racist by suggesting that these may be underlying goals of many of those celebrating tomorrow's inauguration. Because those goals belong to millions of people of all races, who somehow think they will soon get free healthcare, higher wages, a nicer car, a better home, or low energy bills just because the almighty Obama will somehow make the evil capitalists stop gouging and exploiting everyone.
Such a letdown for all of those masses who believe the Obama fairy tales.
So it seemed the best place to start in thinking about the whole idea was to grab the definition of racism. Here's the definition from Dictionary.com
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races
So has our society largely moved on in terms of the above definition?
Well, nobody that's taken seriously believes the first point. In fact, the level of political correctness we find ourselves in today would cause anyone expressing racial superiority for any race to be ostracized or possibly even jailed.
I'm aware of no government policy based on the first idea. In fact, there's plenty of accepted discrimination in government and big business. When it's racial it's discrimination that hires and promotes based on race where the "majority" race is the one discriminated against. Other types of discrimination happen every day against people of all races, except perhaps those given favoritism: it's considered perfectly acceptable to discriminate against smokers, overweight, unattractive, uneducated or undereducated, speech impaired, etc. But none dares discriminate against black or mixed-race individuals, at least not where such discrimination can be detected.
Hatred and intolerance is the most interesting part of the definition for me. Does anyone actually "hate" an entire race? None but perhaps the most extreme paranoids.
So, based on the above definition, I'd say we have been "post-racial" for a very long time.
I hear some continue to suggest that the mere fact that black people are statistically more likely to be poor, unemployed, and/or incarcerated is enough to prove that an invisible institutional racism is still in play.
Any reasonable analysis of the root causes of these problems in the black community would have to assume that the blame is misdirected. Although it can be said that government policies beginning with LBJ's "Great Society" either caused or exacerbated the problems in the black community just as it caused today's ongoing problems in all communities, the problem is mainly cultural.
The "Great Society" led to welfare programs that rewarded single mothers, with greater benefits based on the number of children in the home. Husbands were a detriment to getting so many benefits, including housing, food stamps, medical care, free education, and even a paycheck. So women of all races abandoned marriage and the nuclear family to get the government free ride. This devastated both black and white communities, but especially the black community.
Asians, Hispanics, Carribean Islanders, and even African immigrants arrived by the millions and found great success. People from places like Korea and India opened businesses in the black neighborhoods and found success, albeit sometimes angering some in those communities who somehow felt victimized by those entrepreneurs.
Affirmative Action and the simple attitudes of people trying to help the black community escape poverty led to companies scouring the country for qualified black candidates. But qualified candidates were hard to find, because so much of the black community rejected American Public Education as white institutions. Somehow excelling in school became akin to playing "Uncle Tom", knuckling under to some sort of oppressive system set up by some invisible white conspiracy.
Forced busing was tried, and didn't work. Now Charter Schools and Magnet Schools are popping up everywhere, but the jury's still out on their long-term prospects.
Truly there is a much greater number of successful people from the black community today than ever before. It just seems that the message hasn't fully reached the multi-generational welfare classes. Want to escape from the ghettos? Go to school, study hard, and get into college. It probably requires the strongest of wills and courage to buck the attitudes of others, but absolutely can be achieved by those willing to put forth the effort.
Unfortunately for many the "hope" and "change" promised by the new president isn't about equality, but socialism. The victimized underclass are poor not because of anything they did or failed to do, but because of some sort of national conspiracy designed to keep them poor and in the inner cities. So the answers they seek seem to revolve around new government "programs" that will simply re-emphasize the welfare state. The "change" many seem to "hope" for is ever expanding welfare checks that allow the poor oppressed to live a middle-class lifestyle without having to go to work every day.
And I promise I'm not being racist by suggesting that these may be underlying goals of many of those celebrating tomorrow's inauguration. Because those goals belong to millions of people of all races, who somehow think they will soon get free healthcare, higher wages, a nicer car, a better home, or low energy bills just because the almighty Obama will somehow make the evil capitalists stop gouging and exploiting everyone.
Such a letdown for all of those masses who believe the Obama fairy tales.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Columbus Christian School Basketball
Today's Columbus Republic did a mid-season review of the local public high school basketball teams. Since there is no press given to the Columbus Christian School program, I thought it might be interesting to post my own mid-season review for the Crusaders.
First, the varsity roster. Pardon me if I made any errors - I'm creating this from memory.
The Crusaders are one game under .500 at mid-season, at 9 and 10. They use a small, quick lineup with a 3-guard and 2-forward offense. There are 7 players in the rotation, including starters Derek and Kyle Roth, Luke Mathis, Gavin Harvey, and Baxter Binnion. Coming off the bench are Nolan Andes and Alex Morrison. Among the rest of the roster, Tyler Schaub and Jacob Harvey see limited playing time, with the rest of the bench used rarely.
Luke Mathis is a quick, energetic player that is fun to watch and is the team's second leading scorer behind Derek Roth. Luke is often able to use his speed to create layup opportunities, force turnovers, and is the team's most prolific 3-point shooter.
Derek Roth is a powerful force in the post. When the team is able to feed him in the paint, Derek is able to score consistently, even against taller defenders.
Baxter Binnion and Kyle Roth are both quick ball-handling specialists who can both run the offense in a point guard role.
Gavin Harvey is energetic and enthusiastic, and is capable of hitting mid-range jump shots.
Alex Morrison and Nolan Andes both can provide a spark off the bench when needed. Alex has good defensive skills and can create shots in the paint, while Nolan is capable of disrupting the opponent on defense and can hit the occasional 3 point basket.
The team is close-knit and enthusiastic. They have a chance to improve their competitiveness, especially within their private school league, if they can develop some of these potentials:
Best of luck to the CCS Crusaders for the rest of the season!
First, the varsity roster. Pardon me if I made any errors - I'm creating this from memory.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Luke Mathis is a quick, energetic player that is fun to watch and is the team's second leading scorer behind Derek Roth. Luke is often able to use his speed to create layup opportunities, force turnovers, and is the team's most prolific 3-point shooter.
Derek Roth is a powerful force in the post. When the team is able to feed him in the paint, Derek is able to score consistently, even against taller defenders.
Baxter Binnion and Kyle Roth are both quick ball-handling specialists who can both run the offense in a point guard role.
Gavin Harvey is energetic and enthusiastic, and is capable of hitting mid-range jump shots.
Alex Morrison and Nolan Andes both can provide a spark off the bench when needed. Alex has good defensive skills and can create shots in the paint, while Nolan is capable of disrupting the opponent on defense and can hit the occasional 3 point basket.
The team is close-knit and enthusiastic. They have a chance to improve their competitiveness, especially within their private school league, if they can develop some of these potentials:
- Outside Shooting: Luke has been the most consistent, and Jacob Harvey is reputed to be the best outside shooter in practice, but the emergence of a consistent shooter would be a great complement to Derek's inside offense.
- Defense: The team's defense is inconsistent. Good teams are able to dribble-penetrate, draw the defense, then find an open man for an easy score a bit too often. Work on defensive fundamentals, help defense, and improved defensive schemes could improve the win/loss percentage.
- Matchups: The player rotation could be changed to better fit the lineup of the other team. Rather than always using the same rotation regardless of the opponent, a big lineup could be used against bigger teams and the smaller lineup against smaller teams. Size and talent among younger albeit less experienced players on the bench is ignored at times when some of those players could make a positive impact in certain game situations.
- Mental Attitude: There have been some close games that were lost because the Crusaders lost focus or became discouraged. Sometimes the response to such challenges is overcompensation or individuals trying to carry the team by themselves; other times the energy level is deflated when the opponent makes a run to pull ahead. The entire team must ignore real or perceived bad calls or mistakes and keep playing their game to the best of their ability. It's the coach's job to make any adjustments to the game strategy, and players should focus their energy on playing hard and avoiding mistakes rather than trying to be the hero of the game.
Best of luck to the CCS Crusaders for the rest of the season!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Interconnectedness
There is an unquestionable relationship between the health and prosperity of a society and its moral compass. It seems to be evident in the events of the past few months.
American traditional morality has been defined in lifelong committed marriages, the nuclear family, hard work, self-reliance, charity, temperance, and responsibility.
If applied within the mainstream of America, these values lead to low crime, high productivity, less poverty, and technological progress.
But a prosperous nation seems inevitably to abandon those principles, leading to America's current state.
In place of committed marriage, couples seem to treat marriage like teens treat "going steady", divorcing the moment things get rocky or a seemingly better partner appears on the scene. Extramarital sex cheapens the marital relationship and produces a whole new class of single-parent households, which are mostly stuck in permanent poverty without the benefit of the marital partnership. Then sex becomes an end unto itself, as those who sadly find their identity in their homosexual behavior.
All that has led to a quiet epidemic of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the scourge of the "gay disease" of AIDS. Rather than promoting the traditional marriage model which practically guarantees the solution to the problems of disease and illegitimate children, the society promotes gay marriage, abortion, and tax-supported research seeking to cure these behavior-driven diseases. Anyone trying to suggest the simpler traditional cure for these ills is vilified as a bigot, homophobe, or right-wing fundamentalist extremist.
Productive people see their earnings increasingly confiscated in a direct transfer to those who are not productive. After a featherbed bureaucracy takes their very large cut, of course. The unproductive, nonworking recipients of the transfer payments feel no shame in making a living on the back of another; instead, they actually feel entitled to the meager income. Certain political officeholders delight in continuing these transfers of income, as it builds their constituencies into a dependent class that will guarantee they remain in power indefinitely.
Business owners and managers abandoned any sense of responsibility to their workforces and communities, laying off longtime employees the moment it becomes profitable to do so. Importing workers from other countries to replace American workers at a lower rate, and exporting plants and operations to poorer countries to save costs has enriched the corporate elites at the expense of the rest of America, combining with the increasing high taxes to lower the standard of living for everyone but themselves.
Wealthy trial lawyers invest in keeping friendly politicians in office who continue to expand their opportunities to sue anybody anywhere, so even the innocent find themselves paying off their legal extortionists because it costs less than dragging the case through the inefficent and increasingly unjust judicial system.
Now an incoming president promises to confiscate unprecedented amounts of money from the approximate 60 percent of citizens that actually have some to give away to the other 40 percent in the name of "economic stimulus". Instead of solving the problems of runaway medical cost, even more income will be confiscated to establish a government-controlled insurance system that addresses none of the underlying causes of the problem.
Thus the greatest country in the history of the world is destroyed.
American traditional morality has been defined in lifelong committed marriages, the nuclear family, hard work, self-reliance, charity, temperance, and responsibility.
If applied within the mainstream of America, these values lead to low crime, high productivity, less poverty, and technological progress.
But a prosperous nation seems inevitably to abandon those principles, leading to America's current state.
In place of committed marriage, couples seem to treat marriage like teens treat "going steady", divorcing the moment things get rocky or a seemingly better partner appears on the scene. Extramarital sex cheapens the marital relationship and produces a whole new class of single-parent households, which are mostly stuck in permanent poverty without the benefit of the marital partnership. Then sex becomes an end unto itself, as those who sadly find their identity in their homosexual behavior.
All that has led to a quiet epidemic of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the scourge of the "gay disease" of AIDS. Rather than promoting the traditional marriage model which practically guarantees the solution to the problems of disease and illegitimate children, the society promotes gay marriage, abortion, and tax-supported research seeking to cure these behavior-driven diseases. Anyone trying to suggest the simpler traditional cure for these ills is vilified as a bigot, homophobe, or right-wing fundamentalist extremist.
Productive people see their earnings increasingly confiscated in a direct transfer to those who are not productive. After a featherbed bureaucracy takes their very large cut, of course. The unproductive, nonworking recipients of the transfer payments feel no shame in making a living on the back of another; instead, they actually feel entitled to the meager income. Certain political officeholders delight in continuing these transfers of income, as it builds their constituencies into a dependent class that will guarantee they remain in power indefinitely.
Business owners and managers abandoned any sense of responsibility to their workforces and communities, laying off longtime employees the moment it becomes profitable to do so. Importing workers from other countries to replace American workers at a lower rate, and exporting plants and operations to poorer countries to save costs has enriched the corporate elites at the expense of the rest of America, combining with the increasing high taxes to lower the standard of living for everyone but themselves.
Wealthy trial lawyers invest in keeping friendly politicians in office who continue to expand their opportunities to sue anybody anywhere, so even the innocent find themselves paying off their legal extortionists because it costs less than dragging the case through the inefficent and increasingly unjust judicial system.
Now an incoming president promises to confiscate unprecedented amounts of money from the approximate 60 percent of citizens that actually have some to give away to the other 40 percent in the name of "economic stimulus". Instead of solving the problems of runaway medical cost, even more income will be confiscated to establish a government-controlled insurance system that addresses none of the underlying causes of the problem.
Thus the greatest country in the history of the world is destroyed.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Holiday Hangover
The time off was very nice, making it all that more difficult to return to the real world.
Apparently the real world is now suffering mass hysteria. The insanity has gained momentum to the point I can't even begin to describe its many manifestations.
The national intelligence has apparently dropped to an all-time low. Nobody, as represented by our own congress and incoming President, seems to have the slightest clue about basic history, economics, or common sense.
Thus I watch helplessly as the inmates run the asylum. Fears of the Great Depression may be realized because of the very policies being implemented by the all-powerful Left.
I only wish I had the answer to my basic question: Are they really so insanely ignorant, or are they acting on this opportunity to destroy America as we know it so they can build their own Marxist society out of the ashes?
I can't help but suspect the latter.
Apparently the real world is now suffering mass hysteria. The insanity has gained momentum to the point I can't even begin to describe its many manifestations.
The national intelligence has apparently dropped to an all-time low. Nobody, as represented by our own congress and incoming President, seems to have the slightest clue about basic history, economics, or common sense.
Thus I watch helplessly as the inmates run the asylum. Fears of the Great Depression may be realized because of the very policies being implemented by the all-powerful Left.
I only wish I had the answer to my basic question: Are they really so insanely ignorant, or are they acting on this opportunity to destroy America as we know it so they can build their own Marxist society out of the ashes?
I can't help but suspect the latter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)