Globalism

What's the real reason for the Iraq war?
Why is almost everything we buy these days made in China?
Why won't the politicians in Washington do anything about illegal immigration?
Why are gas prices so high?

I could come up with more questions, but those are the hot ones these days. And the answer isn't because Bush sucks, as so many ignoramuses are fond of repeating.

The more correct answer is - globalism. Bush Sr. was a globalist. So was Bill Clinton. And the current president continues the tradition.

The basic goal of the globalist is to make all the countries in the world so economically intertwined that nobody will want to go to war with anybody else again. The U.S. invests heavily in third world countries around the world, not out of altruism, but in an attempt to keep them relatively stable and beholden, and help their regimes hold off the anarchists and radical Islamists that seek to destabilize them.

Are you worried about Red China deciding to attack the U.S.? Not that they absolutely will not, but the economic ties between China and the world's largest consumer market will at least make the communist government think twice about biting the hand that feeds their own growing economy. Ever hear of the National Debt? Guess what foreign country holds a significant portion of our country's debt? You got it - China.

Which brings us to Iraq. Why did we choose Iraq for invasion after we drove the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan? Because of Saddam's complicity in 9/11? No. Even though Saddam harbored and financed Al Quaeda, so do Syria and Iran. Because of Saddam's possession of WMD? Partly. And yes, he had WMD and badly wanted nuclear weapons. The issue isn't that we didn't find them because Bush lied, but that we didn't find them most likely because he moved them into Syria, Iran, or both.

The bottom line is that Iraq, Iran, and Syria all represent rogue regimes bent on world destabilization. Iraq and Saddam were merely the most obvious choice. If we removed Saddam in Iraq, it would send a message to his neighbors that they can't get away with their destabilizing agendas. Which are the destruction of Israel and expanding Islamic rule throughout the world.

Endangering the mission in Iraq is the American anti-war left. Their continuous Bush bashing and demonstrations and anti-war rhetoric has been successful only in encouraging the so-called insurgents. But right now it seems we may succeed in Iraq despite their efforts to undermine the war. U.S. casualties are way down, the Iraqi government is on the brink of becoming organized and capable, and there's an excellent chance that Iraq will become a stable ally in the middle east. That is, unless the wackos get enough power in Washington to mess things up.

I would argue that the anti-war left created the current problems in Iran. Iran has been emboldened by the internal strife in America, which has led them to believe that we are so divided over Iraq that we won't have the will to stop Iran from pursuing their own evil agenda. I'm not sure, but they may be right.

Now oil prices. If you watch TV, you would think that fat oil company executives sit around their offices every day thinking, "How can we screw more people today and make even more money?". The reality is that oil is a commodity sold on the world market. The market sets the prices, so when Iran refuses to stop their uranium enrichment along with open threats of their intent to destroy Israel, the market gets nervous and bids up prices.

Then there's the new communist dictator in Venezuela, which has fairly significant oil supplies, but their new dictator is destabilizing the market. Or Russia, where Putin took over oil production and handed it over to the corrupt and inefficient government, slowing output well below levels available previously.

Finally, there are America's own environmentalists, who are so powerful that they have successfully blocked further development of our country's own oil supplies. There is potentially enough oil offshore and in other parts of the country that could have a great impact on supply. But we can't drill for any of it because the powerful environmental lobby has effectively blocked it. (Who said oil companies were so powerful?) Add to this the lack of refinery capacity, also blocked by environmental hurdles, and you have $3 gas.

Illegal immigration? Of all the other globalist policies you want to blame on Bush, I'd say this might be the most legitimate example. Illegal immigrants lower wages for the rest of us, place a big burden on taxpayers by swamping our education, healthcare, law enforcement, and social services agencies, and threaten sovereignty. It's not that our laws are inadequate - there are actually plenty of laws on the books related to border enforcement, sanctions against employers who hire illegals, etc. It's just that the government chooses to look the other way, for a variety of their own reasons, none of which have anything to do with the overall welfare of the country they are supposed to protect and serve.

Bush is a globalist. That means he might dream of a united world someday, where there are no borders, no war, and economic opportunity for every person on the planet. You may have heard about his ideas for creating a European Union-style economic trade bloc of the Americas. His goal is to build a single currency and cooperative government structure for all countries from Canada in the north through Central America to the south. Open borders is only one part of that dream.

What I'm getting at is this: If you want to hate Bush, at least know why. You don't really have much of a choice on the globalist agenda; it has been steadily moving forward for the last 20 to 25 years. If you don't like it, here's a news flash: Electing a Democrat president won't change that. Kerry is also a globalist. So is Hillary. And pretty much everybody else who wants to be president in 2008.

I believe we can stop illegal immigration only if enough Americans band together and demand it of our politicians. That doesn't appear to be happening, so get ready for it to get worse instead of better.

We will either have to go to war with Iran (and possibly Syria) in the next few years, or face the alternative which includes nuclear war with Israel and nuclear terrorism here in the U.S. I wonder if we have the will to stop Iran in time, or if we'll have to live through an episode worse then 9/11 before we act?

We can't make gas prices lower, unless we somehow get our own oil fields opened up to exploration and drilling again. Stabilizing the middle east could also help, but that's a long-term solution. But there are too many ignorant citizens and politicians that put their own power ahead of the interests of the country for that to happen.

We can't bring manufacturing back home from China. Because we like buying cheap stuff at Wal Mart. And China won't let us, because they own a big chunk of our country already.

Weekend Update

It was a pretty good week. Spent in the Carson Valley, which is the Carson City area (Nevada). Surrounded by mountains, and a short scenic drive up over the mountain to Lake Tahoe. Very nice.

Hotel was OK, but it's got a casino and the cigarette smoke permeates the entire place, even up to my room on the third floor. And the bed is old and saggy, so I have the worst cramps behind my shoulder blades. And you can't get a newspaper anywhere, which feels sort of like withdrawal to have to go a full week without being able to read the paper with breakfast.

Working on the Canadian issue, I had a conversation with someone who said one of the attorneys they talked to just said I should try again. That according to Canadian laws, there's no reason they should have turned me around in the first place. I suggested that I wouldn't do that, given they told me I was subject to arrest if I tried again without the appropriate permits. I'm trying to force them to get me that permit.

Driving around, I found a radio station that was all liberal talk. Decided to give it a chance, you know, find out whether they had anything to say. An hour was all I could stand. There was never a substantive discussion of a single issue. Not one. Unless you consider Bush-bashing an issue. The entire hour - and I am in no way exaggerating - was all about the evil George W. Bush. The host went on and on, then had guests on the show to continue the process.

Here's the theme for the hour:

Bush is stupid
Bush is a criminal
Bush is a torturer of innocent Muslims
Bush has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people
Bush spies on his political enemies
Bush should be impeached and imprisoned
Bush is a war monger
Bush stole both elections. Therefore he isn't really the President.
Bush caused global warming and is bent on destroying the planet
Bush is incompetent
Bush hates blacks, gays and poor people in general
Bush's policies are all about making his fat cat friends rich
Bush is a fascist dictator

And the one I found most ironic: Bush is divisive, a hater, and suppresses free speech.

So my attempt to understand what liberals would do differently if they were in charge, listening to this radio station didn't provide a single answer. Unless you consider hatred of Bush a political philosophy.

Time to pack up and head to the airport. Home for Easter, hoping the boys show up.

Friday Ramblings

So happy for Friday after a bizarre week.

Got a call late last night asking me to take on the Dubois Seven Last Words of Christ on Good Friday. I'm a last minute replacement, and won't be able to rehearse because I'll be in Nevada all week. But it's kind of cool to be asked. As I recall, there's a dramatic ending that's very difficult, and I have to be on my toes to pull it off, or risk booting the whole performance if I don't get it right. Better take it with me to practice this week.

Heard the Senate compromise on their immigration bill fell apart because of the usual partisan maneuvering. That's good, because it was a stupid bill. I'm wondering if the majority of the senate are idiots, if they think most of us are idiots, or most of us really are idiots. It's frustrating to see them posturing and trying to play to varied constituencies by building new expensive bureaucracies and set rules that the illegal immigrants and companies that employ them will ignore.

If we weren't all a bunch of idiots, we should fire every Senator (bye-bye, Lugar and Bayh) and replace them with people who actually look out for us.

Been feeling isolated and ignored lately. I don't know, maybe it's because I've been isolated and ignored lately.

I want a new car.

Lake Tahoe should be beautiful this time of year. I'll be there Sunday, I think.

Wetback

So I got turned away at the border. I went across and showed the customs agent my letter, which was supposed to guarantee me entry. Instead it got me an unpleasant interrogation by an ugly woman with an attitude in Canadian Immigration.

It ended with, "You can't just come to Canada and work. Don't come back without the proper documents or you will be subject to arrest." So much for our friendly neighbors to the north.

So now I have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get proper documentation under NAFTA to enter Canada. On the positive side, once I have those papers I should never have to worry again about getting hassled at the border. But it sort of blew up my plans for this week.

Nothing like being stuck in Detroit for two days. I couldn't even go to the Henry Ford museum because I had to be ready to get a possible phone call telling me all was clear to try again. So I sat in the rental car all day Monday and for two or three hours on Tuesday, just hanging out and listening to the radio and waiting for my cellphone to ring.

The possible upside to this bad experience is that once I have the right paperwork, I might be able to get all the Canadian accounts for the software company. Because they laid off all their Canadian consultants and don't have anybody to serve the clients up there anymore. I never expected to be a Canadian specialist, but whatever pays the bills.

Yellow Pages Scam

How many business telephone directories do you think are out there calling themselves "Yellow Pages", or some variation thereof?

I don't exactly know the answer, but there are far too many, and most of them are scammers.

For my business, I willingly pay for a small yellow pages ad in our local telephone book. When I started, that seemed like a fairly simple venture, right? Wrong.

Ever since I opened the business, I have been inundated with mail and phone calls from people from "Yellow Pages" or "Yellow Book" or "Yellow Page Directories" or "Yellow Pages Online", ad nauseum. And they all seem to have picked up on the fact that we little business owners can't tell one from the other.

So they call me, and I say, "Didn't I already pay for my Yellow Page ad this year?". They try to change the subject, which I've learned means they're not from the same company that publishes our local phone book. I'm still kicking myself for one that fooled me into buying something, which meant I was suddenly getting invoices from them every month for an ad I didn't even know how to find that produced exactly zero customer calls. It took me 2 months, 3 letters, and about 5 phone calls to finally find the right person who actually said, "Yes, sir, I can cancel this for you."

Then there are the others that keep sending me invoices, even though I never signed up for anything. It's a scam based on the fact that they know we can't tell one yellow page company from another, and they think if they just send out a credible-looking invoice, they can trick us into putting it into our regular payment stack. And end up paying for some yellow page service that may or may not even exist.

Here's my current attitude on the subject: No more Yellow Page ads from me. I'm going to focus my advertising on direct mail, networking, and the internet. Don't call me, don't send me stuff, leave me alone. Your industry has been turned into one big scam, which I refuse to be associated with from now on.

The New Constitution

THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

---

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
New Interpretation: Keep your religion to yourself, unless it's something besides Judaism and Christianity. Free exercise of religion means only in the privacy of your home and church (for now). Freedom of speech is to be respected, unless you're a Christian or Jew (especially one who supports Israel), a conservative talk show host, or Fox News. Freedom of peaceful assembly is to be upheld, unless you are protesting abortion.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
New Interpretation: Militas are outmoded and irrelevant and guns kill people, so all firearms may be outlawed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
New Interpretation: Abuse those war-mongering soldiers and disrupt their funerals whenever possible.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

New Interpretation: This amendment now applies to enemies and terrorists overseas, who are being subjected to such unreasonable telephone wiretaps simply because they wish our country harm. Oh, and if the President is a Democrat, it's OK to perform unreasonable searches and seizures against Republicans (see Bill & Hillary Clinton, 1993-2000)

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
New Interpretation: Private property may be taken for any use, public or private, with or without just compensation, at the discretion of the local authorities. (See Supreme Court of the United States, 2005)

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
New Interpretation: Speedy trials can be construed as anything between 1 week and 20 years, especially when they involve Federal Special Prosecutors and Capital Murder cases.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
New Interpretation: The right is extended to that of defense attorneys hiring consultants to help them choose jury members most likely to return the verdict sought by the defense.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
New Interpretation: "Cruel and Unusual Punishments" has been redefined as imprisoning people more than one to a cell, failing to provide sumptuous meals, and requiring prisoners to work.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
New Interpretation: Except for religious freedom (See Amendment I). And Abortion (the "inalienable right to life ..." - Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.)

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
New Interpretation: HaHaHa, that's a good one! NOT. (See past 100 years of Presidents and Congresses)

Choices

I would submit that all of these choices are available to each of us:

Life: Short and eventful, or long and unremarkable

Love: Brief and passionate or a long loveless parntnership

Wealth: Great wealth with extreme stress and loneliness, or subsistance living with little stress

Career: Do what you love, Love what you do, or survive a daily grind

Wisdom: Gained from a life of challenge and heartache, or Lost in blissful ignorance

Morality: Try to live a straight and honest life, or enjoy worldly pleasures and worry about consequences later

Faith and Religion: Constant search for God and the Truth, or disregard God as for the weak-minded

Family: Build, belong, and nurture a family or be alienated from your family

Involvement: Seek out ways to help others or focus on your own needs

Politics: Socialist or Capitalist

Friendship: Do anything for true friends or remain a loner

Outlook: Enthusiasm, Hope, and Love or Anger, Hopelessness, and Despair

Want to be happy in life? It's all up to choices you make every day about how to live your life.

The United States of Mexico?

What exactly should we take from the massive demonstrations over the weekend, the largest in LA? Something close to a million latinos marching through the streets of Los Angeles waving Mexican flags to protest the move in Congress to crack down on illegal immigration was supposed to make the rest of legal citizens in the US more sensitive to the plight of illegals?

I don't think so.

I've been to LA. I worked with a company in the LA area that was 99% latino, with a majority of those in the country illegally. Did the managers of the company worry about that fact? No. In fact, I received this bit of unsolicited information from a senior manager at the company:

"You watch, we (Mexican immigrants) are taking over. Soon we will run this country."

And it was no joke.

If you think I'm overly harsh or insensitive or even racist, let me give you my answer to all the arguments for maintaining the status quo:

1. "Illegal immigrants are only trying to find a better life for themselves and their families." For many, I'm sure that's true. But does that justify our looking the other way while those immigrants are scammed and robbed and even killed by the "Coyotes" who prey on them? Does it mean we let drug dealers and gangs and terrorists walk across the border with them? And most importantly, it is outrageously unfair to those legal immigrants who fight to meet all of the requirements for entry into the country while illegals are let through with a wink and a nod.

2. "It's impossible to stop them." Thoroughly untrue. Border enforcement is completely possible, and the cost of fences, guards, and technology to secure the border is a drop in the bucket compared to the social services and healcare costs we are bearing right now taking care of illegals and trying to protect ourselves against the gangs and drug runners. We are failing to stop them because too many politicians want it that way: Some Republicans are catering to business owners who hire illegals because they will work for $5.15 and hour or less. Democrats just expect to grant them all citizenship so they can vote for Democrats every election cycle (see the Clinton administration).

3. "We are unfairly singling out Latinos for enforcement, and that's racist." Not true. The first and most obvious refutation is the sheer numbers of illegals from Mexico and Central America. If we were discriminating against them, you couldn't tell it from the sheer numbers. But there are also untold thousands of illegals entering the country from all over the world; they don't have to just sneak across the border, but arrive on tourist or education visas and just disappear. Like the 9/11 terrorists, for example.

4. "They do work nobody else will do." That's a myth perpetuated by the corporate farm owners and big business people. The reality is that it's just an incomplete sentence, which would be more correct if it read, "The do work nobody else will do for $5.15 or less per hour." Whether or not we need low-skilled workers from poor countries to take these sorts of jobs is a separate issue from illegal immigration. If we successfully stop the influx of illegals, then we could put a logical immigration policy in effect that meets the needs of employers legally while protecting citizens' rights to be the first in line for employment.

5. "We can't just deport 30 million people." Maybe not, but that's not really what we're trying to do. There's a lot of discussion remaining on this part of the policy, but the basic idea is this: If local law enforcement is empowered to arrest illegals and turn them over to INS for processing and deportation, that can happen over time. If employers are forced to stop employing illegals, many of their illegal employees will return to their home country on their own when they no longer have a job here. The bottom line is that we will find a way to deal with those already here, but the fact that so many are here does not mean we should give up the goal of gaining control over our country's borders.

The Congress is finally dealing with the issue, which is a positive. However, in today's polarized political climate, I fear we won't get a meaningful program out of Washington. We'll see.

Calm Before the Storm

Bought my airline ticket for next week, meaning I have one more week of relative boredom before kicking into high gear. The month of April is booked. And every week but one involves a plane trip to elsewhere: Mostly Canada and Nevada.

Which reminds me, I have one week to get a letter from somewhere that won't get me held up at the border when I go to Canada. Gives me a kind of funny thought - me, a US wetback crossing into Canada to take work from a Canadian. Makes me laugh.

The interesting thing about this turn of events is that I'm actually looking forward to a jam-packed schedule that takes me far away every week. There's even a possible trip to Botswana out there this summer sometime. Two years ago I was so sick of airports and hotels that I quit my job with the intention of never getting on a plane again, except maybe for vacation.

But lately I've been bored and restless. I find myself somewhat excited to get back on the road. Not to mention my discovery that the old gypsy lifestyle is a lot more lucrative, hour-for-hour, than what I am doing back home in Indiana.

So here's to late flights, overbooked hotels, stupid TSA drones, bad rental cars, middle seats in coach, obnoxious clients, lost luggage, and bad restaurants. After two years in exile, I have returned.

I Apologize

I am so sorry. I've been blind, but now I see the light. I hereby declare that the days of my disrespect for the tenets of the theology of Political Correctness have ended.

I have much to apologize for, so let's get started:

I'm sorry for:

Supporting the Iraq War. I now understand that war is never justified. Only United Nations led "Peacekeeping" missions are an acceptable use of military force, and even then they should not be allowed to carry weapons. So I now understand that 9/11 was a justifiable reaction from oppressed Muslims, and if we just stop being the bullies of the world they will be our friends.

Respecting and Supporting the President. I'm sorry that I have been so blind as to miss that Bush is the most vile, evil President in the History of this country. Why, he's killing and torturing innocent people all over the world to enrich Halliburton. And he's starving and denying healthcare to millions of Americans. Sorry for not believing all of this simply because I haven't seen any evidence; I must trust the word of the priests of PC from now on. Impeach Bush Now!

Thinking the Gay lifestyle is immoral. How dare I apply Christian principles to judge anyone else's behavior. How outrageous for me to suggest that many in the Gay community are predators who lure young teens and impressionable college students into their "cause" by preying on their vulnerability and search for personal identity. How outrageous were my criticisms of those who have been knowingly spreading AIDS to multiple partners as if it were some sort of initiation.

Being a White Male Christian and Catholic. I am ashamed to be a member of the race and religion that has brutally suppressed so many people on this planet over the centuries. How could I live with myself to be associated with such repressive, judgemental, oppressive, polluting, and insensitive groups. We should all be rounded up and executed or imprisoned.

Being Rich. Until now, I never thought of myself as rich. I have a modest house in the country, drive a 7-year-old SUV, and my wife drives an 11-year-old minivan. But according to those who know, I'm unfairly wealthy. It's so unfair that I work all these hours to earn money when others who don't work only get the 50 percent of my earnings that the government took to redistribute to them. I now understand that I'm not paying my fair share. I deserve to be driven into bankruptcy for my insensitivity and unwillingness to share more of my money with those more deserving of it than me.

Underpaying Taxes. How could I have been so callous as to express frustration with the fact that the government takes nearly half of everything I earn in taxes. I didn't understand that the government is much better qualified to spend my money than I. It's the American Way to freely give up half my earnings to the government so they can give it to others who are more deserving.

Opposing Abortion. I'm a man. How can a man possibly understand the issue of abortion? I should butt out and leave the decisions up to women, who are the only ones qualified to make such decisions. What a horrible person I've been to be outraged and call "barbaric" the current practice of killing a full-term infant right before delivery by sticking a syringe into it's cranium and extracting the brain matter so the dead baby can then be fully delivered and disposed of. I've been so judgemental in believing that it might be immoral to kill an unborn baby just because one got pregnant by accident. So I now understand that it's none of my business, and it's wrong for me to judge any woman for a decision she makes about her own body.

Opposing Illegal Immigration. How racist of me to believe it unfair to legal immigrants that we allow millions of people to sneak into the country from Mexico. How stingy to suggest that the massive influx of illegals is bankrupting our social and healthcare services, making life worse for legal taxpaying citizens. How misguided my belief that all manner of criminals, gang members, drug runners, and maybe even terrorists could be sneaking across the border along with the poor people just looking for a better life for themselves and their families.

So you see, I understand now, and have bowed to the altar of Political Correctness. Anyone care to join me?

Math Morons

Why do American students stink in Math?

This might have something to do with it:

As it is now, fewer than a third of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students score at the proficient level in math. And U.S. students score below the international average on tests of math and science knowledge.

Inadequate instruction is at least part of the reason for those scores. An estimated 38% of math teachers in grades 7-12 lack either a major or minor in math.

- USA Today

The article this came from says that the teachers unions believe the solution to the problem is higher salaries for teachers.

I believe everybody is missing the larger points. While I'd certainly agree that teacher competence in the subject area is critically important, addressing that problem alone will do little to solve the problem.

Even highly competent Math teachers can't produce better results if they are imprisoned in a system that tolerates mediocrity, places "self-esteem" above results, and punishes teachers for setting high standards.

Let's say your local High School has on its faculty the best Math teacher in America. He has advanced degrees in Mathematics, along with the unique ability to make his classes interesting and challenging for his students.

But to really excel, he knows that Math education requires effort and attention from students. Not an extreme effort; merely the expectation that each student complete a daily assignment of between 1 and 2 hours. Without this daily homework practice, students cannot possibly absorb the material as they must to advance in the subject.

Inevitably, students complain to their parents that the teacher is unfairly loading them down with homework. Parents complain to administrators that the Math teacher is unfairly assigning too heavy a homework burden on their children. The parents are even more perturbed that their children are suddenly receiving C's in Math, when they have always been given A's in the past. Local activists petition the School Board to censure the teacher, because minority students are unable to complete assignments and are therefore failing his Math classes. And the High School coaches complain to the administration that their star players are in danger of becoming academically ineligible because they are failing his Math class.

What happens next? The Math Teacher is summoned to the Principal's office, where he is given a choice: He can either lower his standards so that 95% of his students pass the class, or he can be reassigned to teaching in the Learning Disabled program and become the Detention Supervisor and Lunchroom Supervisor. (We'll assume he is tenured, so they can't fire him.)

The result: A disillusioned Math Teacher who may no longer challenge his students to excellence, but must accept mediocrity and pass nearly everyone. He marks the rest of his teaching career by doing his best to teach and inspire students who don't want to be inspired and giving away inflated grades to students who never really learned the subject matter. If he's lucky, he finds a way to be encouraged by the handful of truly motivated and talented students who pay attention in class and absorb what they need from him to succeed in College.

So if you think increasing the numbers of qualified Math and Science teachers in schools will solve the problem, go right ahead. Will that action bring results? Not so much as 1 percentage point.

The Diversity Lie

Diversity is a code word. Everyone has to be in favor of diversity, or risk being called nasty names.
If the true meaning of the word is that we all need to respect each other, regardless of our race or religion or economic background, then it's a worthy concept. But if you listen to the thought police who currently define the word, you'll find out that it is just a big lie.

Diversity is one-sided. Today's definition of diversity is absolute support and embrace of gay rights, with hatred and vilification of any people of faith that have the temerity to suggest it's not a healthy lifestyle. Another definition is that we must embrace and respect diverse religions, except of course Christianity and Judaism, which can be vilified freely. Diversity means that immigrants should not be forced to learn English or be folded into the great American "melting pot", but should join their homogeneous communities that don't embrace American language, culture, or values.

And, of course, diversity means opposing the government, especially if it's Republican. It means fomenting communist, anarchist, socialist, and other anti-American political views. It means suppressing any sort of conservative thought in the Universities, to the point of banning conservative student groups or in extreme cases expelling students who simply voice an opinion they deem "anti-diversity".

I saw an article today about a group of University Professors who have joined some other far-left organizations to fight back against David Horowitz's campaign for a "College Student's Bill of Rights". This new group claims to be fighting against Horowitz's repressive ideas that will stifle diversity of thought in the Universities.

That's funny, because Horowitz's campaign is all about diversity of thought. He's not saying that the communist college professors should shut up about their views. He's actually saying that those professors should stop punishing students that don't subscribe to those views. Plus that a half-hour diatribe with the tired old "Bush sucks" and "Bush is Hitler" rhetoric is probably not appropriate in an English or Math class; if you're going to have political discourse, save it for the political science, current affairs, and similar classes in which the topic is actually relevant.

Parents like me who are being hammered with outrageous tuition and fees for college-age kids don't want to hear that their kids are sitting in their English or Math or Science classes getting some communist indoctrination instead of what we're paying for them to study. Fortunately I don't think there's much of that going on with my two collegians.

If you're really sold on the concept of diversity, let me make just one request. Go right ahead and respect people of all races, cultures, sexual orientations, religions, and political views as much as you like. But do just that - respect them all! Don't exclude those whose diverse opinions and lifestyles you disdain.

I'll bet that's hard for you, isn't it? Still believe in the lefty definition of diversity?

Wired Differently

I've concluded that conflict between people happens for a simple reason: We are all wired differently. Our attitudes, opinions, beliefs, passions, and behavior is driven by who we are, and who we are is determined by a combination of nature and nurture.

There are certain traits and characteristics in each of us that are most definitely hard-wired. I know that my basic personality was there from birth. As were the personalities of my sisters, my brother, my childhood friends, my own children. How else can one explain the varied personalities of all these people, who were essentially born and raised in a relatively homogeneous environment?

I can attest through my own observation to a number of general tendencies:

Women are driven by emotion. Men are more rational (except when it comes to women).

Having an extensive education doesn't guarantee common sense. Just observe the average college professor.

Little education doesn't necessarily mean one is stupid. With the exception of those who coasted through school and never learned to read. There are plenty of relatively uneducated people I've met in my life that have an inspiring amount of wisdom and common sense.

Introverts are born introverts. Extroverts are born extroverts. Introverts can learn to be a little better socially, while extroverts don't believe they have a problem.

Anybody can find God. Anybody can reject God. Everybody has their own reasons.

Talented writers, artists, and musicians generally aren't very good at math. Mathematic geniuses generally have no talent whatsoever.

Great athletes generally aren't very good students. Perhaps it's just a matter of time management. Perhaps they are wired that way.

Me? I have always been the proverbial jack of all trades, which also means master of none.

I was a good student, but not exceptional (too lazy). I was quite good at the humanities, could handle math OK as long as I kept up with the homework, but was awful in science and art.

I was a decent athlete, but not exceptional (too lazy). I'm a pretty good singer, but will never make prime time (too lazy? not sure).

I'm more analytical than creative.

I'm introverted and have no problem with that.

I'm a person of faith.

I'm capable of being the best friend you ever had, but am waiting for you to discover that fact.

I'm not very good at saying "No".

In High School, I belonged to almost all the groups: Eggheads (now called 'geeks', I think), Musicians (now called 'bandies'?), Jocks (still called 'jocks' as far as I know). Well, then again, I sort of belonged to them all but then again belonged to none of them. I stayed away from the drama and choir groups in High School because of the perceived stigma of being a guy in that scene, but when I got to College, I got involved in both, deciding that I wasn't going to let the presence of a few sexual deviants stop me from doing what I found enjoyable.

As if anyone who knows me well doesn't already know all of this ...

IyamwhatIyamandthatsallthatIyam. Popeye

Defining Extremism

Reading a letter to the editor in this morning's newspaper from the Indiana Director of Planned Parenthood sort of got under my skin.

Her letter was decrying the South Dakota abortion ban, suggesting that those who support that law and might hope for something similar in Indiana are ignorant knucle-draggers. The additional gist of her letter was that to deny women access to "reproductive healthcare" was somehow akin to the worst sort of abuse and repression.

The solution to the abortion problem, according to her, is not to outlaw abortions but to provide sex education and birth control. She railed against those who restrict access to "emergency contraception", which I assume is either the "morning-after pill" or just another euphamism for abortion. And of course, it would be so horrible if women were forced to give birth to "unwanted children".

Reading the letter, I thought that if one didn't know better, it would seem that women just going about their lives minding their own business might suddenly wake up one morning to discover they're pregnant. Like an epidemic of immaculate conceptions, if women can't get abortifacient drugs or easy access to surgical abortion, there would be unwanted pregnancies cropping up everywhere like a rogue viral disease.

Might I suggest a simple sex education curriculum that takes no time at all to present to students everywhere. Here it is in the simplest of terms: If a male and a female have intercourse, it is highly likely to produce offspring. So, boys and girls, if you aren't ready to be parents, it might be a good idea to avoid sexual intercourse. And, by the way, aside from the whole baby-making thing, having sex also includes a relatively high risk for contracting one of many nasty and incurable diseases.

Class dismissed.

Natural Disasters

The spring floods were the worst this year since we moved to the farm. The first spring in the house we got lots of water in the basement, but this time it just won't go away. Every night we're all in the basement, baling and pumping and mopping. By the next morning, it's all flooded again.

It got bad enough that we lost the water heater on Monday. I absolutely had to shower yesterday morning, which must fit the definition of torture. Especially rinsing my hair, which felt like thousands of icicles assaulting my scalp. And my fingers and toes felt frostbitten when I finally stepped out to dry off.

So we finally gave in and called a professional. Someone should show up today, hopefully at least to fix the sump. I was able to get the water heater re-lit last night, and it's so great to have a hot shower when you have been without for a few days. One of those simple things we all take for granted.

Rain in the forecast today. Oh no.

Major Moves

It's quite a catchy name for the deal to lease the Indiana Toll Road to an Australian-led consortium for 75 years. The deal seems to have passed narrowly last night on a party-line vote in the State House. The lease deal is a front-loaded payment of 3.8 billion dollars, which is a lot of money for Indiana, even though not all that much by Washington DC standards.

The deal is supposed to fund the I-69 project that finally provides interstate access to the Evansville area. Without the lease deal, the I-69 project was not going to happen for at least another 10 years, and maybe never. And the governor and his supporters are crowing about all the other road projects this deal will fund.

It seems that most of the state doesn't really care one way or another who runs the Toll Road. It crosses the northernmost part of the state, practically within sight of the Michigan border. It's used by plenty of Hoosiers who live in places like Valparaiso, South Bend, Elkhart, my home town of Goshen, and Fort Wayne as a quick route to Chicago or Cleveland.

The people most affected by this deal are those Northern Indiana residents who use the Toll Road routinely, some to get to work every day. They will most likely see their tolls go up, and they will go up dramatically. They can choose to pay the increased tolls or take alternate routes.

I've been on that Toll Road many times in my lifetime, and the major advantage is that it's generally been a fairly clear highway. Traffic on that highway has never been terribly heavy in my experience, and it is a fast means of crossing northern Indiana. Personally, it's not that important to me whether the lease deal happened or not. I am curious to see how the new managers do with the deal, like just how high they will raise tolls, whether the higher tolls will cause already light traffic on the highway to get even lighter, how well or poorly they maintain the road, and what sort of roadside rest stops and food services they offer.

My predictions on the outcome of this deal are these:

1. Tolls will go up rapidly, and within a couple of years we will probably hear about the new managers approaching the State asking them to authorize toll hikes above even those they are allowed by the contract, complaining that their costs somehow turned out to be higher than they expected.

2. We will probably see the I-69 project completed, but we won't hear much about all the other road and bridge improvements the governor promised. That's because if you give any legislature that much cash, they are guaranteed to find plenty of ways to blow it on pet projects that have nothing to do with infrastructure.

3. In about 20 years, there will be some sort of crisis over the unforseen consequences of this deal. The crisis will have something to do with a cash-strapped legislature looking around for new sources of revenue and cursing former governor Daniels for giving the Toll Road away back in '06. Of course, by then they will have forgotten the fact that the Indiana Toll Road under government management never turned a profit.

One thing is becoming apparent. Whether all of the changes Gov. Daniels has pushed through in his brief time in office benefit Indiana in the long run will take the long run to find out. And that's too far in the future to give him much of a shot at re-election to a second term. Between the huge numbers of Hoosiers upset with him over Daylight Savings Time and the controversy of the Toll Road deal, it doesn't seem possible for him to hold the governor's seat against any credible opponent next election.

Story Time

Here's a funny story from my trip to the grocery store yesterday.

After work, I stopped in at the grocery to pick up just a few things before going home. Trying to get in and out quickly, I walked fast until I was forced to fall in behind an older woman who was moving rather slowly.

She looked rather like Miss Gulch. Think this picture without the hat. But less attractive.

Grocery store aisles are generally about 2 people wide, but my slow-moving and oblivious friend was meandering straight down the middle, stopping every few steps to examine some bit of produce. And there was simply no way I could get past her, until finally a detour opened up around one of the produce tables.

I proceeded to grab the oranges and bananas I wanted from the produce aile, then moved further into the store. But almost immediately after moving away from the fresh fruits, she somehow caught up with me and pushed her cart directly into my path. I had to stop in mid-stride, finding myself once again caught in her very own bizarre grocery store traffic jam. Although she showed no sign of even sensing my presence behind her, I couldn't help but wonder if she was secretly reveling in her successful obstruction of my progress.

Patiently, I waited for another opportunity to get around her, by this time thinking (rather uncharitably, I admit), "What a hag". And finally the opportunity presented itself, and I proceeded into the next aisle in search of the rest of my shopping list.

But my encounter with the Wicked Witch of the West wasn't over yet. I arrived at the back of the store and walked past the meat cases toward the cheese and butter, and there she was. She was stopped in front of the beef, talking with someone on her cellphone. Now, the aisle is extra wide in the back, probably enough for 3 people with carts. But she had the whole thing covered. She was standing next to the beef case, with the cart positioned diagonally to her left and across the entire aisle. My first thought was wondering who in the world would voluntarily chat with that woman on the phone?

Between me and Madam Gulch was a young mother with a toddler in her cart, looking somewhat perplexed. I imagined that she was considering whether to intrude on Ms. Gulch's conversation to request passage through the aisle. I couldn't help myself, and briefly let out a laugh. That drew a smile from the young mother and even a glance from Ms. Gulch, who nonetheless seemingly remained oblivious to the plight of the shoppers she was inconveniencing. Two other shoppers approached behind me, and I wondered how long the line would become before Lady Gulch got the hint.

Instead of waiting around to find out, I ducked into another aisle to go around. And felt fortunate when I picked up my last items without a further encounter with Ms. Gulch. That is, until I approached the checkout lanes.

But this time I would not be blocked again. I spotted her several feet away, and so quickened my step and ducked into the self-service checkout. "Hah!" I thought to myself. I had foiled her evil plans.

I scanned and bagged my groceries, headed to the parking lot and home.

Busy Times Ahead

It looks like a large new project is starting up for me in a little over a week. That's good news, as it looks like it will keep me busy for the next 3-4 months, at least. Maybe it's a good time to start shopping for a car.

I've been reasonably busy the last few weeks, but somehow kind of bored at the same time. There just doesn't seem to be all that much going on, aside from work. No big news events, no great movies coming out, and nothing really to get me excited or interested.

Some of you might think there's political stuff happening of interest. I don't. Dubai and the ports? Big deal. I knew that was doomed when I first heard about it.

The stupid communist high school geography teacher caught on tape (what's his name, Jay Bennish or something like that?). Like it's some surprise that lots of high school teachers are communists? Want to guess why? Ever heard the phrase, "those who can, do. Those who can't, teach?". He's just another bitter outcast hoping to someday be a communist official forcibly taking for himself the money and possessions some "capitalist" bully went out and earned by unfairly exploiting losers like him. And people still don't understand why we graduate so many idiots from our public schools.

Illegal immigration? Congress is nothing but, to quote, "... sound and fury, signifying nothing". The Oscars? Come on. Eminent Domain abuse? Same thing. The Iraq war? Almost over. Iran? Yep, they're probably next, unless we're stupid enough to elect Hillary. But nothing's going to happen either way for awhile yet, at least until they try to blow up New York or LA with a nuke. Abortion ban in North Dakota? Mildly interesting, but I won't really pay attention unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. The 2006 election? I'm actually pleasantly surprised that we're not being barraged with campaign ads already.

Boring can be good, because excitement can come from either good or bad events. I'll count my blessings for now that the bad events will stay away awhile longer.

Bush and Clinton

We went to the event at Butler last night to see George H. W. Bush. One of the major personal studies I looked forward to was comparing the crowds between the Bush event and Clinton's last Fall. What I observed was fascinating, although predictable.

The Clinton crowd was a visibly Democratic crowd. To illustrate that fact, I need only describe the people who sat directly on either side of me at the Clinton event. To my right was a lesbian couple. To my left was a College professor.

How do I know? OK, the prof was grading essays before the event started. And the lesbians - come on, all I needed was a glance in their direction.

The characteristics of the Clinton crowd were fairly easy to discern. The Clinton crowd was heavily populated with professors and teachers, gays and lesbians, whole sections of black folks that I guessed were from churches or other organizations that picked up their tickets in blocks, and lots of, hmm, how to describe? Let's go with strangely dressed and mannered young people who could be described variously as free spirits, hippies, artists, bohemians, etc.

In attitude, the Clinton crowd bordered on rowdy, and showed their love and approval for their favorite president loudly and enthusiastically. During the speech, whenever it seemed that Clinton might rip on current President Bush, they could barely contain their excitement, but it was often squashed when Clinton stopped short of a 2-barreled blast. But they certainly cheered loudest for Clinton's more subtle jabs at his replacement.

The contrast between the Clinton crowd and the Bush crowd was dramatic. The Bush crowd was more reserved, more polite. They were more conservatively dressed, and I saw a lot more suits and ties. There were more seniors, but also more children. There were blacks present, but in much fewer numbers. The strange looking young people from the Clinton event were nowhere to be seen at the Bush event.

The contrast between speeches was dramatic as well. Clinton's speech was heavy on globalism and government policy, while Bush's speech was mostly about people. While we all gathered from Clinton's speech all the things the government was doing or should be doing to solve problems and bring peace, Bush's speech was fundamentally about how each of us has a responsibility to get involved and do whatever we can to help make the world a better place.

In other words, the essence of each reflected the essence of their political philosophies: Clinton believes in government, and Bush believes in people.

I enjoyed the Bush speech, and found him surprisingly funny, especially during the early part of the speech. He was right on with comments about the lack of objectivity and civility in the press, and the inappropriateness of former president Carter's political demagoging at the funeral of Coretta Scott King. He talked about being a proud father and grandfather, and about how we all can make a difference just by getting involved.

There was one story that the Clinton crowd would have found objectionable, but I found rather funny. To paraphrase:

Once during my presidency, I had the opportunity to visit San Francisco. And you all know how dangerous it is for someone like me to show my face in that city. We were driving into the city, with two limosines, you know, the decoy and the real one, with all the armoring and security stuff. And of course, there were protestors everywhere. Suddenly, a woman - and I'm talking about probably the ugliest woman I ever saw in my life - jumps in front of my limo waving a sign. And the sign says, "Get out of my womb!". So I say, "Whoa, lady. OK, Believe me, No Problem!" (Hands in the air in a sign of surrender)

Writing that, I realized much of the effect is in the delivery, which was hilarious. But of course, the radical feminists and lesbians in the Clinton crowd would have been horribly offended. Because if something strikes too close to home, it is offensive to those living in the home. What makes it funny to the rest of us is that it's probably true.

Oh yeah, the other thing I had hoped to observe was the difference between the two crowds in their generosity. There were fraternity guys outside of Hinkle Fieldhouse again this time taking donations for Riley Hospital for Children. But we arrived a little early and left before the main crowd, so I didn't really have the opportunity to observe what happened with the large crowd of people passing the frat guys. Except there were some people walking in front of us to and from the Bush event, of which I observed several dropping dollar bills into the guys' buckets. Contrast that to the Clinton event, when there were probably 10 times the number of people in the crowd, and I didn't see a single person drop even spare change into the buckets.

Interpret that how you will.

Economics

I have to admit, I wasn't the best student ever when it came to my courses in Economics. In the MBA, I had to take macro and micro, and can't say I enjoyed either one. Especially the macro class, I had a sneaking suspicion that it was one of those academic disciplines created mainly for the purpose of employing college professors.

But lately I'm hearing a lot of debate about the US economy, basically with Republicans saying it's great and Democrats saying it stinks. At its most basic level, the debate is clearly one of perspective; Republicans see the glass as half full, while Democrats prefer to see it as half empty.

Let's see if I can apply my humble logic and reasoning skills to separate each side's truth from their BS.

Republicans say:

The economy is terrific! There is more home ownership than ever before. We have achieved full employment, with unemployment rates lower than they've been in the last decade. The stock market is strong, corporate profits are up. All true.

Why should Republicans and the President get credit? Because of the tax cuts. Tax cuts stimulate the economy by allowing companies and individuals to keep more of what they earn, which they in turn spend on things that help boost the economy. True, but there's room for debate on how significant the tax cuts were in boosting the economy.

Democrats say:

The economy is only terrific if you're rich. The poor and middle class are getting slammed with higher energy prices, higher education costs, out-of-control healthcare costs, and all this while their wages are declining. I can't deny that there is truth to all of this. It's easy to agree, because we're all experiencing firsthand or know plenty of others who lost jobs to outsourcing and offshoring, can't get or can't afford health insurance, and our household budgets are all getting slammed by high energy costs. And my consulting work is involved regularly with setting up payrolls for companies, and I see it all the time: A handful of executives are raking in outrageous salaries, bonuses, and stock options, while the vast majority of the employee base only gets somewhere between minimum wage and around $50-$60K per year. The middle pay grades are practically gone - I saw the transition from the 80's and 90's, as the whole group we used to call "middle management" disappeared. It's true, they are gone forever.

Democrats also say the tax cuts are responsible for today's struggle in the lower and middle class. That's bunk. First of all, the tax cuts went to everyone, not just the rich. The Democrats make their living on class envy, misleading their consitituents into believing that the rich are somehow getting away with avoiding their fair share of taxes. That's just not true, unless of course you consider socialism the model of "fair share", where we go back to the late 60's and early 70's with marginal tax rates at 70 to 80 percent.

The fundamental dilemma should be defined independent of the rhetoric of both sides. Sending high-tech and other formerly good-paying jobs to India is helping corporations post record profits on the backs of their own country's workers. Illegal immigration is taking entry-level jobs away from young Americans every day; it is misleading to suggest that they only do those jobs Americans won't take. Basic economic fact says that you can fill any job simply by paying the market wage, but that market wage is artificially skewed by uninvited foreign workers. Finally, I find it morally reprehensible to do what Cummins and other big companies all around the country have done to their high-tech workers: Fire them all and replace them with immigrants from India who will do the work for a fraction of the compensation.

What is the solution? I don't like the so-called "solutions" offered by either party. Of course, the Republicans have no solutions, because they don't believe there is a problem. And the Democrats' solution has nothing to do with solving the problem, because they are more focused on regaining their political power to move the country closer to European-style socialism than actually dealing with any problems.

I say we need to ignore the political parties and find leaders who actually have real positive ideas that solve the real problems. Those solutions have to include sealing the borders and revamping the immigration system so it makes sense for everyone. It's not necessary to punish corporations for doing what they do, but it's certainly a good idea to stop the current preferential treatment they are getting from the government and begin actually enforcing our anti-trust laws again.

Actual solutions to the healthcare crisis that make it possible for average citizens to afford medical care and prescription drugs without turning the whole system over to an inefficient and corrupt government bureaucracy are badly needed. Oil exploration and drilling wherever reserves are found on our own soil must be permitted, starting with ANWR and continuing with the vast reserves we already know are sitting just offshore. More refinery capacity should be encouraged, mostly by enforcing anti-trust laws on the oil industry to foster competition.

Education needs to be fixed. We should not longer accept the outrageous failure rate of our public schools, and must demand our schools produce results or we'll close them down and send the students to schools that work.

There's more, but I'm tired of writing and need to get some work done. But isn't it interesting how all these issues intertwine? We have two choices if we continue the status quo of the two political parties in America: We can either become like Europe, with a socialist society where nobody starves but nobody is allowed to earn much either, and we all can live in cramped little apartments while squeaking by on the government dole. Or we can continue the current course, with a gradual consolidation of business power into fewer and fewer mega corporations, who can reach around the globe for the cheapest workers and continue to chip away at employee health and retirement benefits.

There's a third way, and it requires a third party. My other blog talks about the tenets of this party, but it takes a huge number of people to band together to begin to make it a force for change. Maybe someday.

Testing Nonsense

Do you know what the big education news is in Indiana?

The ISTEP. Not the test itself, but when it should be administered.

Apparently there's a big lobby working in Indy to change the testing schedule from the fall to the spring. Supposedly it's better to do the testing in the spring because all of the students have been in school for several months and the material should be reasonably fresh. Those who want it changed think the teachers are having to scramble at the beginning of each school year to "cram" the material with their students to prepare for the test. All so they can get good scores for their school and the praise and other goodies that come with them.

The whole thing is ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned. The ISTEP isn't a GRE or MCAT or LSAT. It's not even close to the SAT or PSAT or any AP exam. The ISTEP is fundamental basics covering the 3 R's. And the tests are so simple only the severly learning disabled should have any trouble passing.

But Indiana kids don't pass. The failure rates are frighteningly high, which means that Indiana kids can't handle basic reading, writing, math and science. The numbers are somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of students fail. And the worst schools are in the larger cities - Indy, Gary, Ft. Wayne, Muncie, etc., where the failure rate is approaching half.

Whether they take the test in the fall or the spring is a stupid argument. The kids can read or they can't. They can perform simple computations or they can't.

The whole controversy is badly misplaced. How about discussing why so many can't read, write, or perform simple math? Why are the poor schools and city schools doing so badly? What can be done to improve those schools?

This is the frustrating thing about politics. Apparently the majority of the population is so shallow and stupid that they can be sidetracked on a stupid issue like when to give the ISTEP test without even understanding there's a major underlying problem making Indiana one of the worst states in the nation for education.

Reminds me of Forrest Gump. "Stupid is as stupid does." Sure seems to apply to our education system.

Free Speech Isn't Free

I saw a little article about somebody who got fired from a job because he was overheard expressing an opinion against gay marriage. Unless he expressed it directly to a gay person and threatened to beat them up over the issue, it seems to me he has a cause of action against his company.

It got me thinking about all the politically incorrect things I believe that would probably get me fired, if I worked for a university or a company with liberal Human Resources policies (like Cummins here in Columbus).

Here are the things I believe that could get me fired or otherwise persecuted if I happened to say them out loud.

1. Gay Rights: They don't have any special rights, nor do they deserve any. I don't support throwing them in jail, but there is no reason to pretend that their behavior merits special protections. They can do disgusting things with other consenting adults behind closed doors, but I don't have to hear about it. And I don't have to hire an openly gay employee any more than I should be forced to hire anyone I consider of questionable morality. Why should gays receive health benefits at work for their "domestic partner" when hetero couples or non-sexual partners and roommates can't? Want to call me a "homophobe"? Wrong term. I'm more of a "homopitier", because I feel sorry for anyone who is brainwashed into joining the lifestyle and making their sexual behavior their single defining characteristic.

2. I support the Iraq war. Actually, I had some reservations when the debate was happening before the congress actually approved the war. But I firmly believe that once our country votes to commit troops to war, we all must do whatever possible to help make sure the war ends quickly and in victory. In fact, I think political opposition has caused the Bush Administration to soften their execution of the war, which I firmly believe causes us to lose more soldiers to the bombs planted by the "insurgents". We should be enforcing martial law, sealing Iraq's borders, finding and confiscating all unauthorized weapons and bombs, and forcing peace as we transition control to the new Iraqi government. I also believe that we should present Iraq with a bill for our liberation services, to be repaid in preferential oil options, free military base leases for, say, 50 years, etc.

3. I believe that men and women are inherently different by design. And that there are certain things that, in general, are best done by men, just as there are other things best handled by women. Of course, I recognize that there are exceptions to every rule. So, fine: If women want to fight side-by-side with men in the military, they must meet all the same physical requirements as men. And there are plenty of other examples, but here's the one that would really get me in trouble in this PC world: There is no better way to raise children than to have their mother stay home with them. Day Care is harmful to child development, and having the father stay at home would be better, but men just aren't as good at nurturing children. It's all how we're wired, and that won't change just because we might wish it so.

4. The government has no business telling anybody against whom they may or may not discriminate. Affirmative Action is nothing more than a program to give rich black kids preference in university admissions and government jobs. My opinion is that you either outlaw all forms of discrimination or butt out. People are discriminated against every day for all sorts of reasons: She has an irritating personality. He looks like a hated ex-husband. She's too fat, so she must be lazy too. His pants are too short. I hear she's an awful gossip. He's a total klutz. Her hairstyle is hideous. He's got a bad acne problem. She just got married, so she'll probably just take off on maternity leave right after her health benefits kick in.

5. Abortion isn't a right, it's infanticide. No need to expand on that one.

The funny thought I just had - if somebody reads this entry who's on the opposite side of the philosophical fence, they might get so angry they might want to shoot me. But, too bad, that would mean they'd have to buy a firearm, but they can't because guns are offensive. So I'm safe from physical attacks and workplace harrassment. I could get some blog comment harrassment, but that would just be kind of fun to read. Unless it's vulgar, but I'd just click "Delete".

Academic Intolerance

There was a discussion I tuned into for a few minutes today about the fact that the vast majority of University professors are left-wingers, and there are a great many radically so. Apparently the person I was listening to was David Horowitz, who wrote the book called The Professors.

So I went to Amazon to check it out. Here's the gist of the book:

From the Inside Flap
Coming to a Campus Near You: Terrorists, racists, and communists— you know them as The Professors.

We all know that left-wing radicals from the 1960s have hung around academia and hired people like themselves. But if you thought they were all harmless, antiquated hippies, you’d be wrong. Today’s radical academics aren’t the exception—they’re legion. And far from being harmless, they spew violent anti-Americanism, preach anti-Semitism, and cheer on the killing of American soldiers and civilians—all the while collecting tax dollars and tuition fees to indoctrinate our children. Remember Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who compared the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks to Nazis who deserved what they got? You thought he was bad? In this shocking new book, New York Times bestselling author David Horowitz has news for you: American universities are full of radical academics like Ward Churchill—and worse.

Horowitz exposes 101 academics—representative of thousands of radicals who teach our young people—who also happen to be alleged ex-terrorists, racists, murderers, sexual deviants, anti-Semites, and al-Qaeda supporters. Horowitz blows the cover on academics who: — Say they want to kill white people. — Promote the views of the Iranian mullahs. — Support Osama bin Laden. — Lament the demise of the Soviet Union. — Defend pedophilia. — Advocate the killing of ordinary Americans.

David Horowitz’s riveting exposé is essential reading for parents, students, college alums, taxpayers, and patriotic Americans who don’t think college students should be indoctrinated by sympathizers of Joseph Stalin and Osama bin Laden.

The Professors is truly frightening—and an intellectual call to arms from a courageous author who knows the radicals all too well.

It's no surprise that so many in academia are so radical. It was pretty much true way back when I was in College, although I wonder if it hasn't gone even further over the top. We’ve already heard plenty of stories about the fact that students can and are ostracized and even kicked out of liberal schools for simply expressing views in support of the Bush Administration and the Iraq war, against homosexuality, or about their Christian faith.

Some people have tried to suggest that Horowitz is in favor of suppressing these profs' free speech rights. Not having read the book, I can't say whether or not they are right, but I have a feeling they're not. Because if he shares the view of most more conservative or moderate thinkers, he's not proposing that we make anybody shut up, but that we begin to let our universities - especially our State Universities that live on tax money - know that college should be about the exploration of knowledge and ideas, and not indoctrination of students by a bunch of leftover 60's communists and anarchists who somehow conned themselves into tenure.

My favorite professor at Ball State was a gregarious guy whose classes were always interesting and even entertaining. He was my Honors Humanities prof, and enjoyed creating lively debates in the classroom about various topics. To do this, he would sometimes bring in guests who held particularly radical points of view on the topic for the day. Or, in the absence of a guest, he would take it on himself to espouse a point of view deliberately chosen as most likely to be opposite of that of the majority of the class.

Spirited debates took place, with people in the classroom taking sides and expressing a variety of opinions on the topic. Sometimes the professor's arguments would evoke emotional responses from some class members, but at the end of class he would "come clean" and tell us that he really didn't personally hold those opinions, but wanted to present a controversial viewpoint for the sake of the discussion.

What I'm eventually getting to is this: Any professor worth his/her salt who engages their students in debate on the issues of the day must hold to some basic principles, regardless of their personal views. The discussion must be relevant to the course - it's obviously inappropriate to waste valuable classroom time in a math course debating, say, affirmative action.

The professor must not only permit, but encourage divergent opinions on the topic. Although the arguments made can be judged on their merits with good support, logic and reason. And the professor must never punish a student for offering an opinion in conflict with his own.

Finally, if public universities are employing terrorists and criminals, they are certainly more than justified in terminating such people. We're not talking about protecting free speech if there's an actual criminal on the faculty.

The sum of my argument on this topic is this: We should indeed do more to hold universities accountable for hiring and maintaining quality faculty that represent excellence in their instructional abilities. So it's OK to employ a Marxist professor of Political Science who lets his views be known in class, as long as he does not punish or suppress open disagreement and honestly presents the pros and cons of other non-Marxist models. But, if the professor is a rapist, drug abuser, and openly advocates the violent overthrow of the American government, they should be terminated.

The Good or Bad Old Days

There's a tendency to look at the past as somehow better. I remember when I was still a kid, there were lots of adults that talked about the "good old days". And back then, I wondered just what was so good about them.

The generation before mine lived through the Great Depression, WWII, and Korea. I suppose I'm sort of the tail end of the VietNam generation, but that war was basically over by the time I was 16. So when were their "good old days"? I'm thinking they were after V-E Day and V-J Day, up through the 50's and the first half of the 60's, which seem like idyllic times.

For me, what do I consider good about my own "good old days"? Here are some of them.

No crime. We kept our doors unlocked and the keys in the car and our bicycles outside the house, school, or library. Nothing ever was stolen. (Well, a delinquent kid down the street stole some stuff, but he got caught and had to spend a day shoveling rabbit manure to pay it back.)

Intact families. I remember my parents feeling very sorry for "broken families". The few kids I knew living with a divorced parent were messed up; if not actual delinquents, definitely in need of counseling.

Freedom. I rode my bicycle everywhere. Of course, my permitted range was controlled, but as I got older the range got expanded, until I was basically free to ride my bike anywhere in town. Today it's just the neglectful parents that give their kids that kind of freedom.

Friends. For me, the "good old days" were when I had friends. But before you start thinking I'm just feeling sorry for myself, let me explain what I mean by "friends". Friends were people you were so comfortable with that you could stop by their home or they yours at any time for any reason. They were sort of like a part of a big extended family. If that sort of thing happens anywhere today, it's either not happening here or the whole town is conspiring to keep it secret from me.

Simplicity. We never had much, but never needed much. The TV only got 3 channels, until PBS showed up to make if 4. Even then, the ABC station never really came in very well, so it didn't quite count. There were no computers or video games. Our lives were simple. We got our work done and then played until dinner. My mother was the best cook in the galaxy, and our entire family was almost always present for dinner (until we got to high school, which began to change that). Then before bedtime we might watch one or two television shows, unless it was summertime, when everything on TV was a rerun and it was more fun to go back outside to play. But when the TV was on, the adults-only content of today just wasn't there: Now you think it's safe to watch a family-oriented show, when suddenly it's wrecked by a bawdy "Desperate Housewives" commercial.

Innocence. Expanding on the theme that started above in "Simplicity", I never knew the first thing about promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, transgenders, etc. And today I wish I'd never found out. From a "good old days" perspective, I suppose this is the number one thing I want back: my innocence. And it's sad to see such cynicism in my own children, who found out about such things way too early.

So yes, I do sort of look back longingly at lots of things from the past, but I suppose Billy Joel got it close to the mark with "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems."

Funny or Sad?

This week in the news has lots of noise and fury but very little substance. Particularly with the Cheney hunting accident, it amazes me that the press doesn't seem to realize how stupid they look. But that's why I'm not sure whether to keep laughing at them or to start crying, because this is the most baldly obvious example of who our mainstream news reporters really are.

In case you've been in a cave or deserted island since last weekend, the Veep shot a hunting partner with birdshot in Texas on Saturday. The victim was rushed to the hospital for treatment, and last word was he had a mild heart attack due to a piece of birdshot that got too close to his heart, but has been treated and is apparently fine. The local Sheriff was informed and is satisfied that it was an accident, and that's about all there is to the story.

But it's created this gigantic furor in Washington among the press and the Democrats. Why? Because the Washington press didn't get in on the story immediately after it happened and had to find out by reading the local news accounts from the Corpus Christi newspaper. They're so ticked off about the whole thing that they're making absolute fools of themselves, yelling like lunatics at the White House spokesman.

That was funny enough to watch, but then it got funnier when the Democrats started in on the whole "culture of secrecy and cover-up" at the White House. Led by people like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, who apparently never heard the one about people in glass houses throwing stones.

But then they really got offended when Cheney went public at Fox News, which of course as far as they are concerned is just a tool of the Republicans. But who can really blame him? Let me see if I can come up with the questions he would have received from any one of the ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN anchors:

How many other people have you shot?
Were you drunk when you shot him?
Is it true that you shot your friend as a warning to anyone that might testify against you in the Valerie Plame case?
So will you finally resign now? Huh? Huh?
What were you trying to cover up by not talking with the press on Saturday?
Isn't this really just another example of your cavalier attitude toward guns and violence?
Aren't you lying about this incident just like you have continually lied about Iraq?
Do you still beat your wife?
Do you still abuse your dog?

You get the idea. Ever wonder what the press would have said if Bill Clinton had been involved in the same accident? Suppose Bill really was drunk at the time? How would the press coverage been different, do you think?

And that's why it might be more sad than funny. Not to mention that there are lots of really important stories out there right now that the press doesn't seem to care about, because they're more focused on their mission to destroy the President & VP.

By the way, so Mike Davis had apparently already worked out a deal for his resignation by the time I wrote yesterday's post. Let the speculation on Steve Alford begin. I've even already heard somebody suggesting that maybe the university could bring back Bob Knight. Either way, this season's a bust for the Hoosiers. They got beat by a mediocre Penn State team last night in pretty much the same way they lost most of their last 5 or 6 games.

By the way, if you wonder why I care, maybe I shouldn't. I never went to IU (I went to Ball State undergrad and South Carolina graduate). But I've been following Indiana basketball since I was a kid, and was hooked when a guy from my High School, John Ritter, was a 4-year starter for the Hoosiers under Knight. And Indiana is the team that represents the state, and residents of Indiana are rightfully proud of the state's long tradition in basketball. Which was wrecked by the switch to High School Class Basketball, but that's another topic for another day.

How Not to Deal with Pressure

Mike Davis is feeling the pressure, and isn't dealing with it very well. After missing Saturday's game against Iowa (a loss, but close) with the flu, there's been speculation that it was more of a "blue flu", where he skipped the game in a sort of snit or quasi-protest.

When he returned, he showed that there may be at least a little truth to the speculation, expressing disgust at the lack of fan support for the Hoosiers and throwing out a line that maybe Indiana needs to have "one of their own" running the show.

Now I can certainly appreciate the stress Mike's been under. He's under a well-known ultimatum from IU's Athletic Director this year; "win or else". And although the early season had the Hoosiers looking pretty good, they have stumbled badly over the past month or so. And not just because of DJ White's injury, because let's face it, DJ only played a few games, and contributed in even fewer, before his foot injury put him out for the year.

What has happened is fairly obvious to anybody who's watching and knows a little about basketball. To beat Indiana, all you have to do is pack in your defense and double-team Marco, while keeping somebody close to the team's best 3-point shooters. You can rattle and frustrate Marco, evidenced by the fact he fouled out in something like 3 of the last 4 or 5 games. And you can disrupt their offensive rhythm and get into the heads of the shooters, who will start forcing bad shots when they are behind.

The IU basketball team is the same group of guys that looked so good early in the season. The only differences are that, A) The rest of the Big Ten has found their weaknesses and they haven't adjusted, and B) The team in general has lost their swagger and are playing desperately instead of confidently.

Mike Davis, if you want some advice, here it is: Forget about the criticism and calls for your firing and work on bringing back the Indiana basketball team we saw earlier in the season. Indiana fans don't care who you are, where you came from, if you're a black man or a green midget. They just want to win. And they really know their basketball. Watch the last few games and see what I saw, recognize how teams are playing you, and adjust your offense to overcome that. Find ways to instill mental toughness and re-establish confidence in your players. Finally, just accept the simple fact that, if you turn the season around you'll keep your job; if you don't, it's time to update your resume. So stop blaming others and just coach. If you give it your best and fail, learn from it and move on. If you succeed, enjoy it and build on it.

That is, if it's not already too late.

Valentine's Day

So if you're curious about the origins of Valentine's Day, check this.

I find the passage about the birds intriguing, given the fact that I observed the very acts in my backyard before going to work this morning.

On an unrelated topic, remember that divergence in the path I was writing about? Well, it just diverged again into a third option. Now I'm totally confused.

Decisions

I've reached one of those metaphorical crossroads in my business, which became quite obvious in conversations I had today.

There are two distinct paths laid out before me. It's time to decide which path to follow. The one to the right looks fairly easy; it looks like a nice paved, flat, easy road that holds promise of easy money and relatively low stress. The one to the left doesn't look like it's so well paved, there could be potholes and maybe even cliffs I could fall off if I'm not careful, and there's a heavy fog concealing the path several yards ahead.

The easier path is so clear that I can predict with a fairly high degree of certainty where it will lead. And that path isn't bad at all, leading to a pretty good and steady income, at least for the next couple of years. That path will help me realize some financial goals and needs and is relatively risk-free.

So you might be thinking, "Sounds like a no-brainer. Take the easy path!" I wish it were so easy. Because the other, somewhat obscured path can lead to great things for me. Although I can't predict with any degree of certainty where that path will lead, I do know that if I can navigate it successfully, I won't just do "pretty well", but could find the means to fulfill my dreams. But with great reward comes risk. If I fall off that path along the way, even though it probably won't kill me, it will definitely be excruciatingly painful.

Ultimately it's a choice between taking the sure thing that's relatively secure and comfortable, or aiming higher for my dreams despite plenty of risk and danger.

Note that I speak in metaphors because I don't feel comfortable posting the actual situation I find myself considering. I'm glad it's Friday, because I want a weekend to think things over, then come back Monday and proceed with my chosen direction.

Life Paradox

Ever noticed how happiness and fulfillment in life never means that life is easy?

Suppose you have more money than you could ever spend, don't have to work, and could just hang out in your mansion or yacht all the time. To most of us, that sounds like a pretty good life, right? Sure, having the financial security to be able to do whatever I want would be great. And it might be fun for awhile to hang out in some monstrous mansion on the ocean, walking on the beach or swimming in my private pool.

But it would get boring within a couple of weeks. No challenges, no stimulation, no reason to get out of bed in the morning. If 100 million dollars dropped out of the sky tomorrow, I'd have quite a celebration. I'd buy a new home, a new car, and take a vacation. But then I'd come back to work and invest some of that money in my business, then see how far I can take the business.

Growing up in the 70's, the popular wisdom was "Don't worry about the money, just follow your passion." Sounded pretty good at the time, and so many of my friends and I did just that. We went to college to study music, art, history, and other liberal arts programs just because we bought the philosophy.

Then we graduated and faced the "real world". My complaint from those days is well remembered today; "Why didn't anybody tell me?". They didn't tell me that even though money isn't everything in life, it sure helps. How demoralizing to be struggling to make a subsistence-level living on my $10K teacher's salary, while seeing almost every low-level factory worker making 50 to 100 percent more for sweeping the floor or screwing widgets on dohickeys.

That's why I like sports. Sports is a metaphor for life. For example, let's say you're a member of a basketball team; high school, college or professional level are all relevant. You join the team with great dreams and expectations, as well as a love for the sport. You've spent lots of time in the driveway honing your shooting and dribbling skills, and it's paid off in a coveted spot on the team.

But it's difficult to be on that team - far more difficult than you ever expected. The coach is a jerk and a sadist. Practices are like torture sessions. Some of your teammates are arrogant jerks that you would never willingly hang out with otherwise. But you persevere, and somehow the practices become a little more bearable as you start to develop strength and stamina.

Then the season starts. You're on the bench, watching with increasing frustration as your teammates lose games that you know are winnable, if only the jerk coach would let you on the floor. You have a choice at this point; you can either sulk about the unfairness of being kept on the bench and give minimum effort at practice, or you can step up your dedication in practice and do extra work to help the team and develop your own skills.

Eventually, you get a chance on the court. If you make the most of that chance by playing solid fundamental basketball, hitting the open teammate for scores, rebounding, or sinking a few shots yourself, the coach is likely to try you again. And your court time begins to increase over time, and the wins begin to come - not because of your talent and contribution, but because the whole team is beginning to develop as an effective unit.

There are a select few key games that allow you and your team to test yourselves against the best. Somehow the team comes together and puts personal differences aside in order to achieve their shared goals. Maybe at first you just have to take some satisfaction in being competitive with the best, but one day you beat a team you really shouldn't have.

Then the tournament comes, with each successive win getting you and your team that much closer to the championship. If you can win through to the championship, the satisfaction of that achievement will remain for the rest of your life as a proud achievement nobody can take away from you. Even if nobody else really remembers that magical season, you know what a huge effort and sacrifice it took to achieve.

That's the essence of life. It's not just about you, but about those you journey beside. About the trials, difficulties, disappointments, sacrifices, and obstacles you endured along the way. And even if you didn't achieve the ultimate victory, you can feel good about the fact that you gave it everything and tasted success along the way.

Here I am at the age where I can look back and see a mixed bag of success and failure. And I realize that the successes were never mine alone and the failures were as much mine as anyone else's. But the biggest realization is that it's not over; I still have challenges I must face and give my all toward the next big victory or disappointing defeat. Either way, I'll persevere until I accomplish that next big victory, then begin working on the next season.

Paranoia

This whole business of NSA wiretapping got me curious, so I set about trying to find out about the "real" story. Here I am, shaking my head, because the story is either a non-story about eavesdropping on known Al Quaeda terrorists overseas who are making calls to people who happen to be in the US, which is perfectly legal, or Bush is some sort of evil dictator wiretapping all sorts of Americans for unfathomable reasons.

Among those who seem absolutely certain that Bush is somehow listening in on their conversations are the likes of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, and Julian Bond. Now I of course can't possibly say whether or not they are being monitored, but based on their public statements I'd say it would be prudent for the FBI to be keeping tabs on them. Oh yeah, perfectly legally with warrants and all that.

The weirdest of all was one I heard today from some bombastic leftie who is convinced that Bush is a reincarnation of Hitler. He claimed (or maybe a better term is "screamed") he could prove that the administration is wiretapping the Mormons. The Mormons? Huh? Sure has me scratching my head.

For those who have already gone off the deep end on this topic because of some premature and speculative press stories that have now been outrageously inflated beyond reason by the Bush-hater crowd, I suggest you Please Take a Breath!

Tell you what. As soon as you find a legitimate story from a "real" news outlet about somebody being detained for calling Bush a Nazi (or any expletive you wish to substitute) in a cellphone conversation with a non-Al Quaeda friend, please feel free to alert me right away. If the story turns out to be true, I'll be happy to agree that the pres has gone too far. But until then, I'm going to assume Bush and Negroponte and Goss are all telling us the truth. And I find nothing at all objectionable about what they have reported they are doing, not to mention am rather unhappy that classified information about this program was leaked, most likely by Democrat congress members (Jay Rockefeller, anyone?) who should know better.

No Smoking

Apparently, Columbus went smoke-free yesterday. The Republic did two or three stories on it today that were kind of fascinating, from a sociological viewpoint.

There are two local restaurant owners who fought the ordinance from the time it was proposed. They both cater to smokers and believed that the ban, which exempts bars and private clubs, would drive their business away to those other establishments. The Republic reporter went to some of the bars and clubs to check that out, but was told business was about the same.

As someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, I have the advantage of what I think is a pretty unbiased view of the whole issue. I agree that it seems a little unfair to exempt establishments from the ban just because they serve alcohol. But on the other hand, the exemption is based on the theory that restaurants are for families who generally would rather not have somebody at the next table blowing smoke at their kids, while bars are adults-only establishments that exist for the primary purpose of letting adults pickle their livers and pollute their lungs to their hearts' content. And private clubs are by definition outside of the public domain, and their members are presumably self-selected patrons that either smoke or don't mind others smoking in their club.

Good old Indiana has one of the highest smoking rates in the country, with our resident Hoosier Hicks viewing the habit as some sort of birthright. For the government to step in and tell these people they can't smoke somewhere is to them the equivalent of some sort of Nazi tyranny.

From a personal perspective, I'm happy for the ban. It's good to know that I can get a meal at just about any restaurant in town without any fear of having the meal ruined by a chain smoker 5 or 10 feet away. And I strongly support smoking bans in the workplace, having had the experience working in a smoke-filled room for a few years in the 80's to early 90's. I remember the constant stench of cigarette smoke permeating my clothing, the blue haze that was noticable whenever I entered the cubicle farm on my way to my pitiful workspace, and the unending scratchy throat and sinusitis from being forced to work in that environment 8 to 10 hours every day.

I find it interesting that smokers mostly are oblivious to how their smoke affects others around them. Ever been around a smoker and noticed how they blow the smoke up or to the side, as if that somehow is all they need to do to keep it from bothering you? Ever been with a smoker on a flight or in a no-smoking building, and noticed that they have the cigarette in their mouth and lighter at the ready as they quicken their pace to leave the building? These observations give proof to the addictive qualities of nicotine.

But for me, there are other observations that are really disturbing. At the county fair every summer, I'm almost guaranteed to see a young pregnant woman (or girl) puffing away on a cigarette. I want to go rip it out of her mouth and tell her the awful things her habit is doing to her baby. Driving around Columbus, I occasionally see a young mother with two or three very young toddlers to infants trapped in the car with her as she puffs away on her cancer stick. I have to resist the urge to force her off the road and take the children away.

I suppose there's no particular cohesive point I'm trying to make with this post. Only that after thinking about it, I've decided that smoking in public places is not some sort of civil liberty to be protected. That people are free to smoke if they want, but there's nothing wrong with enacting laws that keep the smoke away from their co-workers and co-diners. And that parents that smoke constantly at home and in the car around their kids are doing more harm to those children than they ever imagined, and maybe it's time to do more education to convince them to at least take it outside.

Gotta Comment

I've been trying to avoid politics here lately, but just had to comment on last night's State of the Union.

I was kind of surprised how he came out early and tweaked the Dems on their obstruction of the war efforts. But I couldn't help imagining the Bush supporters all cheering while all the Bush enemies yelling "shut up!". Somehow I sort of doubt he made any converts there, even though I sort of enjoyed it.

He seemed to find a bunch of proposals that nobody could really disagree with on principle. It could be a brilliant move politically, if it's followed up by introducing that legislation in congress right away (like this week), then letting the Dems respond with their normal angry obstruction. They don't look very good when they try to block Bush even on his good ideas, just because they came from him.

The cheering from the left side last night when Bush mentioned that they had blocked his efforts to reform Social Security made them look infantile and irresponsible. But a bipartisan commission isn't going to solve the problem. They'll meet for a long time and eventually come out with some proposal which will be mostly meaningless and dismissed before it's even presented. I don't see anything happening with Social Security unless a solid and practical proposal is developed by someone and sold to the majority of Americans.

The energy technology stuff is all well and good, but even in the best of scenarios is decades down the road. Even though he has been blocked on every attempt to open up more domestic oil resources, it's still the right thing to do whether the environmental lobbies like it or not.

The healthcare stuff sounded good, but it didn't sound to me as if Bush was prepared to do much more besides health savings accounts and tort reform. Those may be a start, but the system's in dire need of a lot more reform than just those two items.

Then the Democrat response was something I wasn't sure I wanted to watch, but I'd never heard Kean speak before, so I stayed for his speech. And was very impressed. The guy is smooth and a terrific orator. It was kind of surprising that he came out as a marked departure from the normal Democrat message of the last 5 years or so, stressing bipartisanship and common sense instead of trashing Bush at every turn. But on the other hand, he presented no real new ideas; in fact, his whole speech was centered around the "There's a better way" theme, which basically said Democrats would do a better job than Republicans doing pretty much the same things.

So I also heard Cindy Sheehan got invited to attend the speech by some stupid Democrat congressman. Apparently, she got arrested before it even started for getting her disruptive protests ready. If there's one thing we all know about Cindy, it's all about her. I think it's way past time for everybody to just ignore the dingbat.

It all makes for an interesting sort of theatre.