It is time to avoid watching news programs on TV. They do nothing but raise my blood pressure. For example, my flight into O'Hare was delayed Friday night, so I took a break from reading and watched CNN in the terminal for awhile.
It was OK for awhile. This new guy, Glenn Beck, was on first. He was goofy, but sort of likeable in a way. But after his show was over, I found myself wondering what it was about. Maybe I missed it, but I couldn't come up with the point after it ended.
But then the guy shows up, I think John Roberts. Apparently he didn't get the anchor job back at, where was it, NBC? So here he's doing a "news" program on CNN. And it is a one-hour advertisement that could have (and maybe was?) produced by the Democrat National Committee. An unbelievable hour of propaganda, complete with one-sided reporting and the presentation of opinions as facts.
I have been sort of avoiding the mainline networks as far as new programming lately, because of their obvious bias. But this was outrageous. At first, I was thinking, "How stupid do they think we are?". But by the end I was thinking, "Maybe most of us really are as stupid as they think."
I haven't figured out whether to be angry or frightened. But if the polls and pundits are right, we won't have much longer to wait to see what happens when the Democrats take charge of the war on terror. That's what frightens me.
Then there's this thing that looks like a public service commercial. It's about HPV. I've been aware that HPV is probably the largest epidemic viral disease we've got these days, so at first I thought it was about time for public service messages.
But then the shocker. The commercial, or psa, or whatever it was, never mentioned what HPV is. Not one word. Nothing telling us that it's an STD. It was even misleading, in that it seemed to suggest it was a relatively benign virus like the common cold. Oh, but it can lead to cervical cancer in women, so women should get their pap tests regularly. No biggie.
What is wrong with this picture?! Like AIDS, HPV is a disease nobody needs to get! Simple monogamy is the best and guaranteed way that nobody will get HPV. What the heck is wrong with saying that?! Why suddenly decide that something needs to be done about the biggest epidemic in our society, then mislead everyone about what the disease is and how it is transmitted?
Unbelievable.
I've got to stop thinking about this stuff, in addition to tuning out the news media. It's bad for my health.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Monday, May 29, 2006
World Gone Mad
Generally one to look on the positive side of things, lately I've felt a bit discouraged.
Always in search of objective truth, I've recently found that there may be too many people out there who for whatever reason can't see truth even if it slaps them in the face. I suppose they are too invested in what seems to be an almost religious fervor to believe their heroes, even when those heroes tell them it's raining on a bright and sunny day.
Name me an issue and I'll point out the lies you've been fed:
Illegal immigration: First of all, you're not even being told that all these people here from foreign countries are here illegally. The euphemism I keep hearing is "undocumented workers". The US Senate passed a bill that completely ignored all of their constituents in an outrageous pander to corporate interests, future voters, and Mexico. But they completely ignored a super-majority of their actual tax paying constituency, who they must think of as ignorant fools.
Iraq: I'll let you in on a big secret: Iraq has a government now, they are standing up their own military and police force, and American casualty rates have been decreasing steadily over the last several months. But somehow talking heads continue to suggest we're losing? And get off the "Bush lied" stupidity. Disagreement with the war for actual geopolitical reasons or general pacifistic philosophies is one thing, but the whole "Bush lied" line is tired and just plain false. Not to mention moot.
Iran: We should be very worried about Iran. Because they have openly thumbed their nose at the world and are working feverishly to build nuclear weapons. The UN won't do anything about it, and it looks like the US won't either because of all the Iraq angst and general war weariness. What's Iran going to do when they get the weapons? At minimum, they will use them to hold the world hostage. Most likely they will give small portable nuclear bombs to their many terrorists to sneak into our country and set them to explode in our cities. And right now it seems most of our population has chosen to pretend there is no risk.
Energy: So all of a sudden the oil companies just decided arbitrarily to ratchet up oil prices just so they could stick it to all of us and make obscene profits? And somehow Bush is involved in the conspiracy to enrich his friends in the oil business. So now we demand price controls or windfall profits taxes on those nasty oil companies. Anybody remember Nixon, who established price controls back in the 70's? It failed miserably, and just made things worse. What about Carter, who got a Democrat congress to pass a windfall profits tax on oil companies in the late 70's. Again a miserable failure that economists agree just made things worse. The secret? Iran's a destabilizing force in the middle east, China's buying up more oil than ever to support their exploding economy as they now make everything we buy at WalMart. Venezuela's gone Communist, Russia is creeping back toward Communism. And we in the US aren't allowed to drill for more oil anywhere or build new refineries. All put tremendous pressure toward limiting supplies, therefore higher prices. Oh yeah, alternative fuels. Sure, we could start producing cars that run on ethanol, and the farmers love the idea. Guess what ethanol costs to produce? And how long it takes to build the capacity and roll out new vehicles engineered to burn it? And hydrogen fuel cells? Way down the road, if at all. Yeah, the whole conspiracy theory stuff saying somebody already has invented 70 mpg engines but it's being suppressed by the mighty oil companies is the same stupid idea that was running around in the 70's.
Health Care: OK, we can all agree it's a mess. So what should we do about it? Canada-style socialized medicine? Tax money collected to pay for everyone's health care sounds great to people who don't pay taxes. To the rest of us who already see between 40 and 50 percent of our earnings confiscated by the government, it's a frightening idea. But even those who don't get that much taken away, just wait until you find out what socialized medicine really means. Think you wait a long time at the doctor's office today? As they say, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
There are plenty more issues, but I don't feel like writing any more.
Always in search of objective truth, I've recently found that there may be too many people out there who for whatever reason can't see truth even if it slaps them in the face. I suppose they are too invested in what seems to be an almost religious fervor to believe their heroes, even when those heroes tell them it's raining on a bright and sunny day.
Name me an issue and I'll point out the lies you've been fed:
Illegal immigration: First of all, you're not even being told that all these people here from foreign countries are here illegally. The euphemism I keep hearing is "undocumented workers". The US Senate passed a bill that completely ignored all of their constituents in an outrageous pander to corporate interests, future voters, and Mexico. But they completely ignored a super-majority of their actual tax paying constituency, who they must think of as ignorant fools.
Iraq: I'll let you in on a big secret: Iraq has a government now, they are standing up their own military and police force, and American casualty rates have been decreasing steadily over the last several months. But somehow talking heads continue to suggest we're losing? And get off the "Bush lied" stupidity. Disagreement with the war for actual geopolitical reasons or general pacifistic philosophies is one thing, but the whole "Bush lied" line is tired and just plain false. Not to mention moot.
Iran: We should be very worried about Iran. Because they have openly thumbed their nose at the world and are working feverishly to build nuclear weapons. The UN won't do anything about it, and it looks like the US won't either because of all the Iraq angst and general war weariness. What's Iran going to do when they get the weapons? At minimum, they will use them to hold the world hostage. Most likely they will give small portable nuclear bombs to their many terrorists to sneak into our country and set them to explode in our cities. And right now it seems most of our population has chosen to pretend there is no risk.
Energy: So all of a sudden the oil companies just decided arbitrarily to ratchet up oil prices just so they could stick it to all of us and make obscene profits? And somehow Bush is involved in the conspiracy to enrich his friends in the oil business. So now we demand price controls or windfall profits taxes on those nasty oil companies. Anybody remember Nixon, who established price controls back in the 70's? It failed miserably, and just made things worse. What about Carter, who got a Democrat congress to pass a windfall profits tax on oil companies in the late 70's. Again a miserable failure that economists agree just made things worse. The secret? Iran's a destabilizing force in the middle east, China's buying up more oil than ever to support their exploding economy as they now make everything we buy at WalMart. Venezuela's gone Communist, Russia is creeping back toward Communism. And we in the US aren't allowed to drill for more oil anywhere or build new refineries. All put tremendous pressure toward limiting supplies, therefore higher prices. Oh yeah, alternative fuels. Sure, we could start producing cars that run on ethanol, and the farmers love the idea. Guess what ethanol costs to produce? And how long it takes to build the capacity and roll out new vehicles engineered to burn it? And hydrogen fuel cells? Way down the road, if at all. Yeah, the whole conspiracy theory stuff saying somebody already has invented 70 mpg engines but it's being suppressed by the mighty oil companies is the same stupid idea that was running around in the 70's.
Health Care: OK, we can all agree it's a mess. So what should we do about it? Canada-style socialized medicine? Tax money collected to pay for everyone's health care sounds great to people who don't pay taxes. To the rest of us who already see between 40 and 50 percent of our earnings confiscated by the government, it's a frightening idea. But even those who don't get that much taken away, just wait until you find out what socialized medicine really means. Think you wait a long time at the doctor's office today? As they say, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
There are plenty more issues, but I don't feel like writing any more.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Funny and Sad
Sometimes things strike me as funny, then sad.
This week it's the Dixie Chicks and their (air)head chick, Natalie Maines. She came out with this sort of retraction of her previous apology for saying hateful things about the president.
So, if I follow the story right, Natalie fancies herself as some sort of crusading anti-Bush spokeswoman who dissed the president a few years back during a concert. Lots of Americans took offense at her offensive remarks and led a boycott of Dixie Chicks music.
She was amazed and appalled that her political ranting would actually cost her money, so at first she went around trying to suggest that there was some sort of Nazi-style censorship going on. That flopped, so eventually she offered a vague apology for having offended anyone.
I'm guessing sales are up these days - I wouldn't know, and could not identify a Dixie Chicks song if you played it for me - so I suppose she feels like it's OK to go back to dissing Bush.
It's funny because she is such a dim bulb but somehow thinks people actually care what she has to say. As if there's anybody on the planet who would listen to her talk, if they could ever decipher the lingo filled with "like, you know" and "whatever"; and suddenly realize, "how stupid I've been to not hate Bush all these years. Why, if Natalie says he sucks, then she must be right!". Think of the millions of people who are now liberal Democrats just because of Natalie. (me laughing)
It's sad because she is such a dim bulb that she can't even see that all this behavior does is make her prove just how dim she is to the entire country. And who knows how many offended people who might have been fans of her little country girl band will never buy another CD because of her hateful and ignorant trash talk.
When will entertainers get it? If they want to get politically active, they should do so by giving some of their fortunes to their favorite candidates behind the scenes. Even showing up to perform for a politician they like would be something they could get away with now and then. But to run around spewing hatred against a president not only changes nobody's mind, but makes about half the country nauseous and hurts the entertainer's business.
Funny and sad.
This week it's the Dixie Chicks and their (air)head chick, Natalie Maines. She came out with this sort of retraction of her previous apology for saying hateful things about the president.
So, if I follow the story right, Natalie fancies herself as some sort of crusading anti-Bush spokeswoman who dissed the president a few years back during a concert. Lots of Americans took offense at her offensive remarks and led a boycott of Dixie Chicks music.
She was amazed and appalled that her political ranting would actually cost her money, so at first she went around trying to suggest that there was some sort of Nazi-style censorship going on. That flopped, so eventually she offered a vague apology for having offended anyone.
I'm guessing sales are up these days - I wouldn't know, and could not identify a Dixie Chicks song if you played it for me - so I suppose she feels like it's OK to go back to dissing Bush.
It's funny because she is such a dim bulb but somehow thinks people actually care what she has to say. As if there's anybody on the planet who would listen to her talk, if they could ever decipher the lingo filled with "like, you know" and "whatever"; and suddenly realize, "how stupid I've been to not hate Bush all these years. Why, if Natalie says he sucks, then she must be right!". Think of the millions of people who are now liberal Democrats just because of Natalie. (me laughing)
It's sad because she is such a dim bulb that she can't even see that all this behavior does is make her prove just how dim she is to the entire country. And who knows how many offended people who might have been fans of her little country girl band will never buy another CD because of her hateful and ignorant trash talk.
When will entertainers get it? If they want to get politically active, they should do so by giving some of their fortunes to their favorite candidates behind the scenes. Even showing up to perform for a politician they like would be something they could get away with now and then. But to run around spewing hatred against a president not only changes nobody's mind, but makes about half the country nauseous and hurts the entertainer's business.
Funny and sad.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Action and Adventure
Things have really popped today. All of a sudden my summer is within maybe a couple of weeks of being filled up with consulting work, it looks like I'm going to hit the road this Wednesday after all, and there's a company that seems to be interested in hiring me full-time.
With everything else, I'm beginning to think the full-time job option will get turned down pretty quickly, unless it's some kind of dream job. At the same time, I've got to get on the stick to get some of my website work finished before I get buried in other things.
It's sort of a mixed blessing. I like getting busy because it means good steady income. I dislike getting too busy because it wears me out. Too bad I can't even out all the peaks and valleys and just keep a nice, easy, even pace.
Better get back to work.
With everything else, I'm beginning to think the full-time job option will get turned down pretty quickly, unless it's some kind of dream job. At the same time, I've got to get on the stick to get some of my website work finished before I get buried in other things.
It's sort of a mixed blessing. I like getting busy because it means good steady income. I dislike getting too busy because it wears me out. Too bad I can't even out all the peaks and valleys and just keep a nice, easy, even pace.
Better get back to work.
Friday, May 19, 2006
TGIF
I haven't had a day off since Christmastime, I have most of the urgent stuff done for today, and it looks nice outside. So I'm considering taking off early to go play a little golf.
Tim & I had time to kill waiting for Chris to be done with his basketball camp in Seymour last night, so we wandered around a couple of car lots. We decided that the only used car lots worthy of our business are those that post their prices. What an idiotic tradition to make you ask a salesman for a price on a vehicle, who is likely to withhold the information in an attempt to get you to test drive it and get all excited before trying to close the deal that's great for his commission but not so great for your pocket. For me, wandering around looking at vehicles and prices had the effect of making me feel better about hanging on to ol' Jed awhile longer.
The kooks who keep saying our government is somehow torturing prisoners in Gitmo despite investigations that reported the contrary have friends in the UN, which is calling for the closing of the camp and release of prisoners there. The question is, release them to where? I'd suggest just dropping them off in Cuba to become guests of Fidel when we close the camp, but that's just me.
I was sort of wondering, since most of the Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants from Afghanistan, why not just turn them over to the Afghan government? I may have found the answer at PowerLine - check out their article titled The UN Keeps its Eye on the Ball
Tim & I had time to kill waiting for Chris to be done with his basketball camp in Seymour last night, so we wandered around a couple of car lots. We decided that the only used car lots worthy of our business are those that post their prices. What an idiotic tradition to make you ask a salesman for a price on a vehicle, who is likely to withhold the information in an attempt to get you to test drive it and get all excited before trying to close the deal that's great for his commission but not so great for your pocket. For me, wandering around looking at vehicles and prices had the effect of making me feel better about hanging on to ol' Jed awhile longer.
The kooks who keep saying our government is somehow torturing prisoners in Gitmo despite investigations that reported the contrary have friends in the UN, which is calling for the closing of the camp and release of prisoners there. The question is, release them to where? I'd suggest just dropping them off in Cuba to become guests of Fidel when we close the camp, but that's just me.
I was sort of wondering, since most of the Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants from Afghanistan, why not just turn them over to the Afghan government? I may have found the answer at PowerLine - check out their article titled The UN Keeps its Eye on the Ball
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Musings
The depth of ignorance I encounter seems to be bottomless. Just when I think I've heard the most ignorant ideas possible, somebody proves me wrong just by speaking.
Had an unscheduled visit to the dentist yesterday afternoon. Gave in and scheduled the work they told me I needed done a year ago. Trips to the dentist for me are torture sessions. And I don't even have any national secrets to protect. (Ever seen Marathon Man? "Is it safe?")
Got a call about a 6-month full-time contract possibility in Cincinnati. Could be very nice, but would not allow me to do anything else for 6 months. Not sure it will happen, though.
Summer movie season is arriving. Cars looks like fun.
Too bad Dickie Lugar was unopposed in the primary. If a credible candidate had decided to take him on this year, I would have happily voted for him (or her). Unfortunately, when we get to November I'll probably have to hold my nose and vote for Lugar anyway. Frustrating.
Would vote against Bayh too anyway, but he's not running this time around. Both Indiana Senators have lost touch with their constituents. And their party machines don't care.
I've been home all week, which was nice for the first few days. But I'm ready to go out again. Maybe this traveling stuff is in my blood. I'm restless and bored. (And some other things, not for public consumption.)
I noticed something about the CSI shows. Not sure about Miami, but doesn't it seem like New York and Las Vegas have almost the same storyline for thier "Season Finale"? Are they using the same writers or stealing ideas from each other?
So what about The DaVinci Code? Is it heretical and anti-Christian? Yeah. I read the book, and it certainly is a novel written based on some pretty wild theories that seem to have originated from a book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". Treated simply as a work of fiction, it's a great read, and probably made a pretty good movie as well. But it's unfortunate that Dan Brown chose to promote the book as based on some serious questions, rather than solely a work of fiction. That makes me suspect that Brown may, for reasons I can't know, have an anti-Christian agenda in promoting information in his novel as "factual", when most every idea presented has been proven either completely false or badly distorted.
Would watching that movie be some sort of unpardonable sin? Nah, I don't think so. Watch it solely as fiction, and it is nothing more than another good movie. Watch it with the idea that it has some sort of underlying "truth" about Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the early Catholic Church, and maybe so. Want to boycott the movie to send a message about not supporting such anti-Christian stuff, like happened with the horrible Last Temptation of Christ? Go ahead, but I'm not sure it will succeed.
I want to go on vacation. Somewhere warm, on the ocean.
Better get back to work then.
Had an unscheduled visit to the dentist yesterday afternoon. Gave in and scheduled the work they told me I needed done a year ago. Trips to the dentist for me are torture sessions. And I don't even have any national secrets to protect. (Ever seen Marathon Man? "Is it safe?")
Got a call about a 6-month full-time contract possibility in Cincinnati. Could be very nice, but would not allow me to do anything else for 6 months. Not sure it will happen, though.
Summer movie season is arriving. Cars looks like fun.
Too bad Dickie Lugar was unopposed in the primary. If a credible candidate had decided to take him on this year, I would have happily voted for him (or her). Unfortunately, when we get to November I'll probably have to hold my nose and vote for Lugar anyway. Frustrating.
Would vote against Bayh too anyway, but he's not running this time around. Both Indiana Senators have lost touch with their constituents. And their party machines don't care.
I've been home all week, which was nice for the first few days. But I'm ready to go out again. Maybe this traveling stuff is in my blood. I'm restless and bored. (And some other things, not for public consumption.)
I noticed something about the CSI shows. Not sure about Miami, but doesn't it seem like New York and Las Vegas have almost the same storyline for thier "Season Finale"? Are they using the same writers or stealing ideas from each other?
So what about The DaVinci Code? Is it heretical and anti-Christian? Yeah. I read the book, and it certainly is a novel written based on some pretty wild theories that seem to have originated from a book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". Treated simply as a work of fiction, it's a great read, and probably made a pretty good movie as well. But it's unfortunate that Dan Brown chose to promote the book as based on some serious questions, rather than solely a work of fiction. That makes me suspect that Brown may, for reasons I can't know, have an anti-Christian agenda in promoting information in his novel as "factual", when most every idea presented has been proven either completely false or badly distorted.
Would watching that movie be some sort of unpardonable sin? Nah, I don't think so. Watch it solely as fiction, and it is nothing more than another good movie. Watch it with the idea that it has some sort of underlying "truth" about Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the early Catholic Church, and maybe so. Want to boycott the movie to send a message about not supporting such anti-Christian stuff, like happened with the horrible Last Temptation of Christ? Go ahead, but I'm not sure it will succeed.
I want to go on vacation. Somewhere warm, on the ocean.
Better get back to work then.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Economics
I've got to admit that I wasn't the greatest Econ student back in grad school. Macro Economics in particular just about killed me, and Micro was taught by a foreign professor nobody could understand.
But I got enough out of those classes to be able to view today's big issues through an economic lens.
Take illegal immigration. Emotional topic, with lots of arguing and demonstrating and demagoguery about the legal and moral issues. Which by the way I am on the law-and-order side of the argument, and agree with those who think we need strong border enforcement and to deal harshly with employers who cheat by hiring illegal immigrants. But that's not what this post is about.
What this post is about is the economic impact of illegal immigration on our society. Let's assume for a moment that the estimate of 12 million illegals in the USA is fairly accurate. That's a staggering number, which can't help but have a real impact on the nation's economy. What is that impact?
Basically, a large influx of workers who are willing to work for below-market wages impacts many sectors of the economy. Those workers take jobs many native-born citizens consider beneath them. They take jobs for lower wages than would be acceptable to citizens. That lowers cost of production, thus lowers consumer prices and increases company profits. It is quite a testament to the strength of the American economy that we have absorbed these gigantic numbers of illegal immigrants in addition to the many legal immigrants that came in the front door and still have a healthy and growing economy with low unemployment rates.
The downside of this trend is that American citizens are now finding that jobs they want are also being given to illegal immigrants. Traditionally higher-paying jobs in the construction trades and manufacturing are now being given preferentially to illegals by companies who have discovered that they can hire those workers at much lower hourly rates without fear of government sanctions. And the traditional student employers in fast food, lawn care, and other services are abandoning their student workers in favor of illegals who accept lower wages and don't have school schedules to work around.
Let's say that tomorrow our government answered the demands of those who want the border sealed and all illegal immigrants rounded up and deported. Note that when the President says it's impossible, he can't really mean it's impossible, because if our government had the will it absolutely could be done. What he really means is that it would shock the economy too much to undertake. Here's why.
Suppose that tomorrow we find and deport all 12 million or so illegals. The immediate effect is a void in the jobs those people were filling. Companies will have two choices: either recruit new employees to fill those jobs at market rates, or close. It is safe to assume that most of the companies will raise their wages to attract workers.
Higher wages sounds great for the workers, right? Sure, it would be. For a very short time. But think about it for a minute. Let's say millions of jobs that were being filled by illegals at $5 per hour now must be filled at twice that, or $10 per hour. That means everybody else who is currently earning $6 to $10 per hour in more highly skilled jobs will demand they be paid equitably in comparison to the entry-level people now making more than them. And so on, throughout the entire salary scale, bottom to top. Great for everyone, right?
Not so great. It's called inflation. Upward pressure on wages due to a lack of supply in the labor market will place a corresponding upward pressure on prices. As prices rise, demand will decrease for the end products. With reduced demand for products comes reduced demand for workers to produce those products. Higher wages will bid up prices for everything, inflating the economy throughout. The inevitable result is recession. And given the relatively significant percentage of the workforce today that may be illegal, the recession could be deep and long-lasting.
That's why Bush wants a guest worker program. Such a program guarantees a permanent entry-level underclass of $5 per hour workers. Morally I have a major problem with creating such a permanent poverty-level working class just to prop up the economy. Moreover, the cynical reality of the guest-worker concept understands that if these low-wage visitors are given a path toward citizenship, they will become Americans in many ways, including becoming activists demanding higher wages and benefits for themselves. Thus the guest worker program instead of easier immigration policies.
Therefore, my preference would be a gradual change that protects borders, admits immigrants based on carefully designed limits, and over time eliminates the illegal class. I also have a major problem with importing high-tech workers from India and the Far East to take jobs of native-born Americans simply because they will accept a fraction of Americans' salaries. If these trends continue, eventually there will no longer be a middle class, because even the most highly skilled workers increasingly have to compete with people from around the globe for their jobs.
I've been installing payroll systems for companies of all kinds around the country for about 25 years now, and the trends I've seen over the years are disturbing. Back in the '80s and early 90's, payrolls had a nice wage distribution. The exectives brought in the nice 6 figure salaries, followed by managers in the 70's to 100K, then supervisors in the 40's to 50's, then the line workers from the 30's to 50's. Now those payrolls have changed. Executives now pull in high 6-figures and often 7 figures. The Manager class has been slashed to a small fraction of people compared to the past, and their salaries have not increased. Supervisors are no longer professionally trained and certified, but are better described as "Lead Clerks" or "Team Leaders", which means they are more like senior front-line workers placed on salary so they can be forced to work uncompensated overtime. For example, companies used to employ a Payroll Manager who was a highly professional and often certified expert in payroll. Today, instead of a Payroll Manager there is a Payroll Supervisor or Payroll Coordinator who earns half what the Payroll Manager was paid, is not a certified professional, and knows only what she was taught by the Controller about processing the company payroll using advanced software systems that make everything nearly foolproof. And finally, the front-line workers have not gained any noticable wage increases, and generally earn the same or even less than the same groups did 20 years ago.
The weakening of labor unions, the introduction of new technologies, outsourcing, offshoring, and the influx of low-wage legal and illegal immigrants all contributed to these trends. And it is true, based on my actual observations at so many companies around the country, that the average American worker may be able to stay employed, but has not made any real gains in wages. No doubt, the typical American household needs 2 full-time incomes to maintain a middle-class lifestyle, whether they are educated and skilled or not.
I wonder if any of this is discussed in college economics classrooms? Because I sure don't hear it discussed in the American media.
But I got enough out of those classes to be able to view today's big issues through an economic lens.
Take illegal immigration. Emotional topic, with lots of arguing and demonstrating and demagoguery about the legal and moral issues. Which by the way I am on the law-and-order side of the argument, and agree with those who think we need strong border enforcement and to deal harshly with employers who cheat by hiring illegal immigrants. But that's not what this post is about.
What this post is about is the economic impact of illegal immigration on our society. Let's assume for a moment that the estimate of 12 million illegals in the USA is fairly accurate. That's a staggering number, which can't help but have a real impact on the nation's economy. What is that impact?
Basically, a large influx of workers who are willing to work for below-market wages impacts many sectors of the economy. Those workers take jobs many native-born citizens consider beneath them. They take jobs for lower wages than would be acceptable to citizens. That lowers cost of production, thus lowers consumer prices and increases company profits. It is quite a testament to the strength of the American economy that we have absorbed these gigantic numbers of illegal immigrants in addition to the many legal immigrants that came in the front door and still have a healthy and growing economy with low unemployment rates.
The downside of this trend is that American citizens are now finding that jobs they want are also being given to illegal immigrants. Traditionally higher-paying jobs in the construction trades and manufacturing are now being given preferentially to illegals by companies who have discovered that they can hire those workers at much lower hourly rates without fear of government sanctions. And the traditional student employers in fast food, lawn care, and other services are abandoning their student workers in favor of illegals who accept lower wages and don't have school schedules to work around.
Let's say that tomorrow our government answered the demands of those who want the border sealed and all illegal immigrants rounded up and deported. Note that when the President says it's impossible, he can't really mean it's impossible, because if our government had the will it absolutely could be done. What he really means is that it would shock the economy too much to undertake. Here's why.
Suppose that tomorrow we find and deport all 12 million or so illegals. The immediate effect is a void in the jobs those people were filling. Companies will have two choices: either recruit new employees to fill those jobs at market rates, or close. It is safe to assume that most of the companies will raise their wages to attract workers.
Higher wages sounds great for the workers, right? Sure, it would be. For a very short time. But think about it for a minute. Let's say millions of jobs that were being filled by illegals at $5 per hour now must be filled at twice that, or $10 per hour. That means everybody else who is currently earning $6 to $10 per hour in more highly skilled jobs will demand they be paid equitably in comparison to the entry-level people now making more than them. And so on, throughout the entire salary scale, bottom to top. Great for everyone, right?
Not so great. It's called inflation. Upward pressure on wages due to a lack of supply in the labor market will place a corresponding upward pressure on prices. As prices rise, demand will decrease for the end products. With reduced demand for products comes reduced demand for workers to produce those products. Higher wages will bid up prices for everything, inflating the economy throughout. The inevitable result is recession. And given the relatively significant percentage of the workforce today that may be illegal, the recession could be deep and long-lasting.
That's why Bush wants a guest worker program. Such a program guarantees a permanent entry-level underclass of $5 per hour workers. Morally I have a major problem with creating such a permanent poverty-level working class just to prop up the economy. Moreover, the cynical reality of the guest-worker concept understands that if these low-wage visitors are given a path toward citizenship, they will become Americans in many ways, including becoming activists demanding higher wages and benefits for themselves. Thus the guest worker program instead of easier immigration policies.
Therefore, my preference would be a gradual change that protects borders, admits immigrants based on carefully designed limits, and over time eliminates the illegal class. I also have a major problem with importing high-tech workers from India and the Far East to take jobs of native-born Americans simply because they will accept a fraction of Americans' salaries. If these trends continue, eventually there will no longer be a middle class, because even the most highly skilled workers increasingly have to compete with people from around the globe for their jobs.
I've been installing payroll systems for companies of all kinds around the country for about 25 years now, and the trends I've seen over the years are disturbing. Back in the '80s and early 90's, payrolls had a nice wage distribution. The exectives brought in the nice 6 figure salaries, followed by managers in the 70's to 100K, then supervisors in the 40's to 50's, then the line workers from the 30's to 50's. Now those payrolls have changed. Executives now pull in high 6-figures and often 7 figures. The Manager class has been slashed to a small fraction of people compared to the past, and their salaries have not increased. Supervisors are no longer professionally trained and certified, but are better described as "Lead Clerks" or "Team Leaders", which means they are more like senior front-line workers placed on salary so they can be forced to work uncompensated overtime. For example, companies used to employ a Payroll Manager who was a highly professional and often certified expert in payroll. Today, instead of a Payroll Manager there is a Payroll Supervisor or Payroll Coordinator who earns half what the Payroll Manager was paid, is not a certified professional, and knows only what she was taught by the Controller about processing the company payroll using advanced software systems that make everything nearly foolproof. And finally, the front-line workers have not gained any noticable wage increases, and generally earn the same or even less than the same groups did 20 years ago.
The weakening of labor unions, the introduction of new technologies, outsourcing, offshoring, and the influx of low-wage legal and illegal immigrants all contributed to these trends. And it is true, based on my actual observations at so many companies around the country, that the average American worker may be able to stay employed, but has not made any real gains in wages. No doubt, the typical American household needs 2 full-time incomes to maintain a middle-class lifestyle, whether they are educated and skilled or not.
I wonder if any of this is discussed in college economics classrooms? Because I sure don't hear it discussed in the American media.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
If you can't say anything nice ...
My Mom used to say it to us, as many other mothers said to their children:
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all
Lately I've been subjected to incessant negativity from people I care about, talking about other people I care about. Or even talking about others I don't know or care about personally. Such vitriol does nothing but upset me. When I blurted out, "Just stop! I don't want to hear any more.", I got the response, "You are so naive. Wake up! Get your head out of the sand!"
Want to call me naive? Go ahead. I still don't want to hear it. Save it for somebody who loves gossip. I'll make my own judgements about others' characters, thank you.
Unfortunately I can't change the behavior of others. But I can renew and strengthen my promise to myself: I will not speak negatively about anyone, nor will I listen to anyone who desires to poison my relationship with another. Why do you want so badly to spoil my opinion of another, anyway?
I'm sorry for so many people who seem to live their lives in hatred and anger. What a waste of time and emotion. If one really can't stand to be around an individual for whatever reason, just avoid that person; why go beyond and attempt to impose your hatred or bias on others?
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all
Lately I've been subjected to incessant negativity from people I care about, talking about other people I care about. Or even talking about others I don't know or care about personally. Such vitriol does nothing but upset me. When I blurted out, "Just stop! I don't want to hear any more.", I got the response, "You are so naive. Wake up! Get your head out of the sand!"
Want to call me naive? Go ahead. I still don't want to hear it. Save it for somebody who loves gossip. I'll make my own judgements about others' characters, thank you.
Unfortunately I can't change the behavior of others. But I can renew and strengthen my promise to myself: I will not speak negatively about anyone, nor will I listen to anyone who desires to poison my relationship with another. Why do you want so badly to spoil my opinion of another, anyway?
I'm sorry for so many people who seem to live their lives in hatred and anger. What a waste of time and emotion. If one really can't stand to be around an individual for whatever reason, just avoid that person; why go beyond and attempt to impose your hatred or bias on others?
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Questions
Just wondering ...
How is it that the very people who have successfully shut down domestic oil exploration through environmental laws are now the most vocally angry about high gas prices?
If your contention that major US oil companies are sticking it to all of us just because they can, then how do you explain the late '90s, when gas was under $1 a gallon and oil companies were hurting and going out of business?
If we do what you want and immediately and abruptly pull all our troops out of Iraq, do you really believe there will be no consequences for either us or the Iraqis? Would you be OK with the results, which would almost certainly be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis in a civil war, a takeover of Iraq by Iran, and a major escalation in the jihad against us almost immediately?
Just how do you think diplomacy will actually stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and launching them at Israel and sending them over here with their terrorist cells to detonate in our own cities? So we just say, "we want to be your friends, please don't make nukes", then they will say, "why didn't you say something? Of course, we'll stop building nukes right now!"?
What is congress doing about illegal immigration? Who said we need a new law, when there are plenty of existing laws that just haven't been enforced? Isn't the only thing needed just appropriation of money to seal the borders, prosecute employers who knowingly employ illegals, and simply process and deport those here illegally? Do you think your favorite Senators who are more focused on amnesty than enforcement really have any intention to solve the problem?
The economy is better than it's been in a decade, so why is everyone so spitting angry?
Why does the "culture of corruption" keep playing prominently about two or three Republican indictments that are seriously weak, when there are far more serious credible charges against Democrat lawmakers that aren't even mentioned on the evening news? Wouldn't you say at a minimum that corruption happens in both parties among corrupt individuals?
Seniors now get their prescription drugs paid for by the government, so why are they so angry about it?
What's all this ugliness against Christians? Are those of us who happen to be believers blowing up more people than Islamic terrorists? If you can call the President all manner of vile and profane names and accuse him of awful and untrue things, why can't Christians simply mention that, uh, you know, some behaviors are wrong and sort of disgusting.
You think everybody who hates Bush is being secretly and illegally surveilled? If so, would you mind giving me a name of a single person who has been unfairly arrested, imprisoned, questioned, harrassed, fired, ridiculed, audited? Just one name?
If you're going to be angry at the president or congress, don't you think you should at least find out the facts to make sure what exactly you should be angry about?
How is it that the very people who have successfully shut down domestic oil exploration through environmental laws are now the most vocally angry about high gas prices?
If your contention that major US oil companies are sticking it to all of us just because they can, then how do you explain the late '90s, when gas was under $1 a gallon and oil companies were hurting and going out of business?
If we do what you want and immediately and abruptly pull all our troops out of Iraq, do you really believe there will be no consequences for either us or the Iraqis? Would you be OK with the results, which would almost certainly be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis in a civil war, a takeover of Iraq by Iran, and a major escalation in the jihad against us almost immediately?
Just how do you think diplomacy will actually stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and launching them at Israel and sending them over here with their terrorist cells to detonate in our own cities? So we just say, "we want to be your friends, please don't make nukes", then they will say, "why didn't you say something? Of course, we'll stop building nukes right now!"?
What is congress doing about illegal immigration? Who said we need a new law, when there are plenty of existing laws that just haven't been enforced? Isn't the only thing needed just appropriation of money to seal the borders, prosecute employers who knowingly employ illegals, and simply process and deport those here illegally? Do you think your favorite Senators who are more focused on amnesty than enforcement really have any intention to solve the problem?
The economy is better than it's been in a decade, so why is everyone so spitting angry?
Why does the "culture of corruption" keep playing prominently about two or three Republican indictments that are seriously weak, when there are far more serious credible charges against Democrat lawmakers that aren't even mentioned on the evening news? Wouldn't you say at a minimum that corruption happens in both parties among corrupt individuals?
Seniors now get their prescription drugs paid for by the government, so why are they so angry about it?
What's all this ugliness against Christians? Are those of us who happen to be believers blowing up more people than Islamic terrorists? If you can call the President all manner of vile and profane names and accuse him of awful and untrue things, why can't Christians simply mention that, uh, you know, some behaviors are wrong and sort of disgusting.
You think everybody who hates Bush is being secretly and illegally surveilled? If so, would you mind giving me a name of a single person who has been unfairly arrested, imprisoned, questioned, harrassed, fired, ridiculed, audited? Just one name?
If you're going to be angry at the president or congress, don't you think you should at least find out the facts to make sure what exactly you should be angry about?
Friday, May 05, 2006
Picking the right Customs Agent
So this week I returned to the border to try again. And the guy in the customs booth this time barely gave me a second look. All I went through to find my old diplomas and degrees, even ordering replacements for the ones I lost, was for nothing.
Instead of paying the (reportedly) exhorbitant fee to expedite some sort of Canadian work permit, the company was advised by their attorney to write a better letter and have me try again. Yes, the new letter is better and more clearly written, but it still doesn't say much of anything that's different than the original letter that got me turned away last month.
I wonder, every time I go to Canada am I going to have to worry about which customs agent looks over my passport? That's the theory of the people at the client - it's all just who you get. They even theorized that it might be a gender thing, since the agent that turned me away last month was a female, and the one that waved me on through was male.
The only thing I can say for sure is that the female agent that turned me away definitely seemed to have an attitude. Exactly what her problem was, I can't guess. Because I'm male? Because I'm white? Because I remind her of somebody she hates? Because she's angry at all the people from the US coming to Canada to make money?
Beats me. If only I could peer into the booth before driving up and switch to the "right" one every time.
Know what's irritating about going to Canada? Coming home with a bunch of Canadian change in my pocket that isn't worth anything here. And it's not worth trying to exchange, especially because the currency exchange at the Indy airport has a $50 minimum and charges an exhorbitant fee. Anybody want to give me a couple bucks American for about 3 bucks in Canadian coins?
Instead of paying the (reportedly) exhorbitant fee to expedite some sort of Canadian work permit, the company was advised by their attorney to write a better letter and have me try again. Yes, the new letter is better and more clearly written, but it still doesn't say much of anything that's different than the original letter that got me turned away last month.
I wonder, every time I go to Canada am I going to have to worry about which customs agent looks over my passport? That's the theory of the people at the client - it's all just who you get. They even theorized that it might be a gender thing, since the agent that turned me away last month was a female, and the one that waved me on through was male.
The only thing I can say for sure is that the female agent that turned me away definitely seemed to have an attitude. Exactly what her problem was, I can't guess. Because I'm male? Because I'm white? Because I remind her of somebody she hates? Because she's angry at all the people from the US coming to Canada to make money?
Beats me. If only I could peer into the booth before driving up and switch to the "right" one every time.
Know what's irritating about going to Canada? Coming home with a bunch of Canadian change in my pocket that isn't worth anything here. And it's not worth trying to exchange, especially because the currency exchange at the Indy airport has a $50 minimum and charges an exhorbitant fee. Anybody want to give me a couple bucks American for about 3 bucks in Canadian coins?
Saturday, April 29, 2006
168
I'll leave you to guess the significance of the number.
Have I mentioned I'm sort of hooked on "24"? Even though it's gotten totally ridiculous the last few episodes, I still won't miss. Oh well, I guess I'm easily entertained.
Here's the week in review:
Last Saturday I put in 12 hours at the office trying to get everything done before my trip. Didn't get everything done but made progress. Then wondered where my weekend went.
Sunday I got up early to pack and head to the Indy airport. Tried to get Tim out of bed, because he said he wanted to get back to Butler early. But wasn't surprised when he wouldn't get up. Finished packing, drove to airport, flew to Reno, drove from there to Minden. Minden's near Carson City and Lake Tahoe. Got first class for both legs, but have no idea why. Makes the trip 10 times more comfortable though, so I'll take the upgrade anytime. Called home and found out Tim went back to school Sunday night because he slept all day. Hopefully that helped him recover from his illness.
Monday, got up at 5 and worked on the computer and made telephone calls until time to go to work at 8. Stayed in Monday night, partly to catch "24" and partly because I was tired. Went to sleep right after the show ended.
Tuesday, got up at 5 again and worked in the hotel room until 8. Went to work and worked all day. Found it strange that I kept sneezing throughout the day. People I was working with noticed, thought I was allergic to some of the desert plants that were blooming. Stayed in Tuesday night because was even more tired and sinuses were acting up, and made sure to catch Idol because they had Andrea Bocceli.
Wednesday woke up feeling rotten. Checked email and took my time getting ready, and was at least functional for the work day. But by mid-afternoon, was really suffering. Tried to pretend I was fine, but don't know if I pulled off the ruse with the clients. That night went straight back to hotel room after buying a couple bottles of gatorade and some benadryl. Popped the pills and marveled at the altered states they caused before falling asleep. But made sure to at least catch Bocelli's performance at the beginning of Idol first. I still admire his voice, but gotta say he doesn't sing English language songs well enough to be understood.
Thursday I felt a little better after sleeping in until 6. Didn't bother with email that morning, although found out later I should have. Of course. Made it through the day slightly better than Wednesday, said goodbye to the folks at the client. Nice people. Back to the hotel, called local movie theatre thinking about maybe catching a movie that night. Ultimately there was nothing playing that caught my interest and I didn't feel up to it, so I popped a couple benadryl and went to sleep after watching the Bulls embarrass the Heat.
Friday morning, slept in until 6 again, packed, went down to the restaurant for a nice big breakfast. On my way back to the room, a naked woman popped out of one of the rooms just as I was walking past in the hallway. Wierd. I just kept walking and tried to pretend I didn't see her. Even told myself, "You didn't just see that". Can't help wondering why she did that.
Checked out of the hotel, drove back to Reno, where I filled the rental car before returning it and checking in for the flight home. Flew home through O'Hare, watched "Narnia" onboard to pass the time. Right ear was increasingly difficult to keep clear, and descent into O'Hare was painful. For some reason, the descent into Indy was even more painful. Made it home by about 10PM, though, which was a lot better than the 1AM last trip. But I regret the illness a little, because otherwise I probably would have made another trip up to Tahoe, and possibly checked out Virginia City, although it looks like it might be a tourist trap.
It's Saturday afternoon, and I'm back in the office, wasting time with this post when I have several things that have to be done before Monday. Mostly all that's left of my illness is an earache and cough. And I won't be able to sing at church tomorrow. But I think I got off easy compared to poor Chris, who's had a bad time with the chicken pox all week.
That's my week. Think traveling sounds interesting or exotic? Sometimes it can be, but mostly it's more like this.
Have I mentioned I'm sort of hooked on "24"? Even though it's gotten totally ridiculous the last few episodes, I still won't miss. Oh well, I guess I'm easily entertained.
Here's the week in review:
Last Saturday I put in 12 hours at the office trying to get everything done before my trip. Didn't get everything done but made progress. Then wondered where my weekend went.
Sunday I got up early to pack and head to the Indy airport. Tried to get Tim out of bed, because he said he wanted to get back to Butler early. But wasn't surprised when he wouldn't get up. Finished packing, drove to airport, flew to Reno, drove from there to Minden. Minden's near Carson City and Lake Tahoe. Got first class for both legs, but have no idea why. Makes the trip 10 times more comfortable though, so I'll take the upgrade anytime. Called home and found out Tim went back to school Sunday night because he slept all day. Hopefully that helped him recover from his illness.
Monday, got up at 5 and worked on the computer and made telephone calls until time to go to work at 8. Stayed in Monday night, partly to catch "24" and partly because I was tired. Went to sleep right after the show ended.
Tuesday, got up at 5 again and worked in the hotel room until 8. Went to work and worked all day. Found it strange that I kept sneezing throughout the day. People I was working with noticed, thought I was allergic to some of the desert plants that were blooming. Stayed in Tuesday night because was even more tired and sinuses were acting up, and made sure to catch Idol because they had Andrea Bocceli.
Wednesday woke up feeling rotten. Checked email and took my time getting ready, and was at least functional for the work day. But by mid-afternoon, was really suffering. Tried to pretend I was fine, but don't know if I pulled off the ruse with the clients. That night went straight back to hotel room after buying a couple bottles of gatorade and some benadryl. Popped the pills and marveled at the altered states they caused before falling asleep. But made sure to at least catch Bocelli's performance at the beginning of Idol first. I still admire his voice, but gotta say he doesn't sing English language songs well enough to be understood.
Thursday I felt a little better after sleeping in until 6. Didn't bother with email that morning, although found out later I should have. Of course. Made it through the day slightly better than Wednesday, said goodbye to the folks at the client. Nice people. Back to the hotel, called local movie theatre thinking about maybe catching a movie that night. Ultimately there was nothing playing that caught my interest and I didn't feel up to it, so I popped a couple benadryl and went to sleep after watching the Bulls embarrass the Heat.
Friday morning, slept in until 6 again, packed, went down to the restaurant for a nice big breakfast. On my way back to the room, a naked woman popped out of one of the rooms just as I was walking past in the hallway. Wierd. I just kept walking and tried to pretend I didn't see her. Even told myself, "You didn't just see that". Can't help wondering why she did that.
Checked out of the hotel, drove back to Reno, where I filled the rental car before returning it and checking in for the flight home. Flew home through O'Hare, watched "Narnia" onboard to pass the time. Right ear was increasingly difficult to keep clear, and descent into O'Hare was painful. For some reason, the descent into Indy was even more painful. Made it home by about 10PM, though, which was a lot better than the 1AM last trip. But I regret the illness a little, because otherwise I probably would have made another trip up to Tahoe, and possibly checked out Virginia City, although it looks like it might be a tourist trap.
It's Saturday afternoon, and I'm back in the office, wasting time with this post when I have several things that have to be done before Monday. Mostly all that's left of my illness is an earache and cough. And I won't be able to sing at church tomorrow. But I think I got off easy compared to poor Chris, who's had a bad time with the chicken pox all week.
That's my week. Think traveling sounds interesting or exotic? Sometimes it can be, but mostly it's more like this.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
2B2B
Too busy to blog.
Way behind. Too much work, too little time. Saturday is trashed. Sunday is travel all day.
Be back in a week, maybe.
Way behind. Too much work, too little time. Saturday is trashed. Sunday is travel all day.
Be back in a week, maybe.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Observations
Through observation, I've learned that people are divided into two groups. Group 1 takes responsibility for their lives, while group 2 blames everybody else.
Examples:
Group 1 strives to improve their income or find a job they love by working hard, studying, and persistence. Group 2 is angry with their boss, government, parents, white men, or others for trapping them in their crappy, low-paying jobs.
Group 1 responds to needs of poor in their communities by volunteering and contributing to the most effective charity groups. Group 2 complain about the poor and think the government should take care of them using taxes confiscated from "rich" folks.
Group 1 knows that faith and family are what matter most in life. Group 2 hates the values of Group 1, are cynical toward religion, and feel religious "fundamentalists" are "judging" Group 2's for their sexual promiscuity, serial marriages, homosexuality, and abortion.
Group 1 loves freedom and respects those who protect that freedom. Group 2 would willingly trade freedom for a government dole and hate all things military.
I don't categorize people except by these groups. I've noticed real hatred seems to exist mainly with people from Group 2. Their hatred is generally directed at members of Group 1, and if racial, is mostly directed at white male "oppressors". They hate people of faith, political conservatives, members of the military, wealthy people, fat people, smokers, SUV owners, CEO's.
For me, hatred is not part of my emotional inventory. I don't feel hatred for anyone. Supporting border enforcement in no way means I hate hispanics. Opposing gay marriage, and for that matter believing homosexual behavior is wrong in no way means I hate gays. Supporting equal opportunity while opposing race-based preferences in no way means I hate black people. For people who act in a hateful manner toward me or in my presence, I generally feel sorry for them. I might even pray for them. Because hatred consumes people, prematurely ages them, and is generally a waste of time and emotion.
If you happen to read this and think you might fit at least some of my description of Group 2, might I suggest you give Group 1 a try? I think you will find it liberating.
Examples:
Group 1 strives to improve their income or find a job they love by working hard, studying, and persistence. Group 2 is angry with their boss, government, parents, white men, or others for trapping them in their crappy, low-paying jobs.
Group 1 responds to needs of poor in their communities by volunteering and contributing to the most effective charity groups. Group 2 complain about the poor and think the government should take care of them using taxes confiscated from "rich" folks.
Group 1 knows that faith and family are what matter most in life. Group 2 hates the values of Group 1, are cynical toward religion, and feel religious "fundamentalists" are "judging" Group 2's for their sexual promiscuity, serial marriages, homosexuality, and abortion.
Group 1 loves freedom and respects those who protect that freedom. Group 2 would willingly trade freedom for a government dole and hate all things military.
I don't categorize people except by these groups. I've noticed real hatred seems to exist mainly with people from Group 2. Their hatred is generally directed at members of Group 1, and if racial, is mostly directed at white male "oppressors". They hate people of faith, political conservatives, members of the military, wealthy people, fat people, smokers, SUV owners, CEO's.
For me, hatred is not part of my emotional inventory. I don't feel hatred for anyone. Supporting border enforcement in no way means I hate hispanics. Opposing gay marriage, and for that matter believing homosexual behavior is wrong in no way means I hate gays. Supporting equal opportunity while opposing race-based preferences in no way means I hate black people. For people who act in a hateful manner toward me or in my presence, I generally feel sorry for them. I might even pray for them. Because hatred consumes people, prematurely ages them, and is generally a waste of time and emotion.
If you happen to read this and think you might fit at least some of my description of Group 2, might I suggest you give Group 1 a try? I think you will find it liberating.
Monday, April 17, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, April 14, 2006
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.
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, April 07, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, March 31, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
The New Constitution
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:
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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)
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, March 27, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
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?
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?
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Math Morons
Why do American students stink in Math?
This might have something to do with it:
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.
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 TodayThe 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.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
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?
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?
Monday, March 20, 2006
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
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
Friday, March 17, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, March 10, 2006
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.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, March 03, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)