Inevitable

The mess in the middle east continues. An emboldened Hamas ratchets up the conflict with Israel, which in turn emboldens Hezbollah to do the same. Is peace in that region a pipe dream, or has everyone just been looking in the wrong places for peace?

Going back to the original speech by the President in the buildup to the Iraq war, we can still point to the forces of evil in the world named by him: Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea. The only thing that has changed is Iraq, which isn't a state sponsor of terrorism but is going through the birth pains of a democratic state. Iran and Syria are still out there, arming and moving "insurgents" into Iraq and pulling the strings of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

The constant warring and turmoil could be stopped in a number of ways. For example, if the UN was an effective organization rather than the corrupt and dysfunctional waste of money it is today, they should get together to solve the problem.

The solution is simple: Work with Israel to draw the lines between Israel and Palestine, then send a multinational force to enforce those borders indefinitely. And enforcement doesn't mean a bunch of unarmed blue helmets standing around making good targets for terrorists. It means a force armed to the teeth that puts up with no nonsense. Anybody who violates the border or tosses rockets across the border or otherwise threatens the peace is dealt with swiftly and ruthlessly until such activities cease.

Iran stops building nukes or we take out the facilities. They and Syria stop supporting terrorists or we build a big wall around their countries through which nothing comes out or goes in.

Basically, the US could do all these things all by ourselves if we wanted to, but such an action will be so opposed as to make the Iraq war opposition look trite. Because too many people in this country and the world live in a fantasy world where all that needs to be done is discuss these things reasonably with combatants until they see the light and voluntarily choose peace.

Iran and Syria are behind an Islamic jihad. There is a clearly stated goal of erasing Israel from the planet, then bringing about a world dominated by Islam. From Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, talks and peace plans and "frameworks" have taken place on a nearly continuous basis until Israel was finally convinced to give up territories to the Palestinians in return for peace. See what that got them.

My reading of history suggests that no aggressor has never been successfully appeased. They either attack and win or are defeated. Peace must be won, not negotiated.

As much as we wish there was another way, there is not. We can solve the problem through strength and resolve now, or be pulled into a long, difficult, and costly war later. Unfortunately the world's leaders are committed to later.

American Mythology

There is a great deal of mythology happening in the American public discourse. Any reasoned and logical analysis of the kinds of political arguments being made these days would have to conclude that the most commonly held beliefs held by people and promulgated by those who stand to benefit from them are mythological rather than factual.

Here's a long list of mythological theories held by huge segments of the population:

• "Bush lied" - complete myth promulgated by the anti-war crowd, continuing in spite of direct evidence to the contrary.
• Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al broke the law by exposing the name of Valerie Plame.
  
• High oil prices are because of some Bush/Cheney scheme to enrich their buddies in the oil business.
• Illegal immigrants do jobs Americans won't do.
• Raising the minimum wage to $6 or $6.50 would wreck the economy.
• There are no anti-trust violations in corporate America, or mega-monopolistic corporations aren't a problem.
• Tax cuts only benefited the "rich".
• Network and NY Times reporting is fair and unbiased.
• Republicans are more fiscally responsible than Democrats.
• Democrats are more fiscally responsible than Republicans.
• The US Senate is in touch and cares about what's best for their consituents.
• Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats.
• Right-wing conservatives want to make the US a theocracy.
• Democrats have a plan for victory in Iraq and the War on Terror.
• Bush has no plan for victory in Iraq and the War on Terror.
• There were no WMD in Iraq.
• If we just stop "meddling" in the middle east, the terrorists will become our friends, or at least leave us alone.
• The Iranian nuclear threat is Bush's fault.
• The Iranian nuclear threat is Clinton's fault.
• The North Korean nuclear threat is Bush's fault.
• The French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese are our friends.
• The French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese would be our friends if it wasn't for Bush.
• Government deficits exist because the rich aren't taxed enough.
• 9/11 was an "inside job".
• All conservatives are racists or fascists.
• All liberals are communists.
• Prisoners in Iraq and Gitmo are routinely tortured by American troops under the direction of the Bush administration.
  
• Abortion is a fundamental human right, not infanticide.
• It's not possible to secure the borders.
• It's not possible to enforce laws against employers hiring illegal immigrants.
• Politicians refust to solve the illegal immigration problem because they care about the welfare of immigrants.
• The Supreme Court makes all decisions strictly on interpretation of U.S. law and the constitution.
• American "war criminal" troops routinely murder, rape, and loot innocent Iraqis.
  
• Bush "stole" both his elections for President.
• Colleges and Universities are havens for diversity of thought and freedom of expression of all ideas and philosophies.
• The NY Times has the right to publish details of classified intelligence programs to expose a president that has overreached his powers, even if such publication damages efforts to protect the country from terrorist attack.
• Congressmen aren't beholden to big special-interest donors, and don't pass or block legislation to favor those who help keep them in office. Such as coporate interests, foreign interests (China), trade unions, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, banks and investment firms, environmental organizations, George Soros, etc.
  

And these were just off the top of my head.

Back to Work

Getting a four day weekend after not a day off all year was fantastic. Trip to Goshen and a lazy 4th were a nice combination to recharge batteries a bit. The main problem was that I really didn't want to go back to work on Wednesday.

Wednesday was crazy enough that it seemed to justify my reluctance to return.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could just work whenever we felt like it and still be able to pay the bills? There's a dream job for ya. Show up whenever you like, leave when you're done or just have had enough. If you wake up one morning and the sun is shining, just skip work and go play golf. Or you wake up and feel rotten, just turn over and go back to sleep.

How many days would we work per month if we had such dream jobs? Or would they really be dream jobs after awhile? If the job isn't important enough that you can just skip out whenever you feel the urge, would you ever really want to show up? I think eventually most of us would end up trying to find something more challenging, or we would just show up every day and try to make something out of the job that makes us feel useful.

Life's dilemma, I suppose. What's worthwhile is very difficult. What's easy is boring and unsatisfying. We can choose.

Boy Do I Need a Vacation

The last time I had a day off that wasn't on a weekend was back around Christmastime. I recall looking forward to Memorial Day, because finally I could have a 3-day weekend. But something came up, and I worked Memorial Day.

So this long holiday weekend has got me sort of excited. I plan to take the whole weekend, including a trip to Goshen on Sunday and Monday. Back to work Wednesday, which will be quite a busy return.

Actually went on an interview today. Confirmed it's too far to commute, and although if they offer me a solid salary and benefits package it will be tempting, my gut tells me I don't want to uproot for it. No need to worry about it now. They will either offer or they won't. If they do, then I have to decide. I'd rather convince them to contract me, which seems the best solution for both parties.

On the drive, I picked up Air America on the radio. Talk about a parallel universe. The nicest thing I can say is, those people are nuts. I couldn't listen very long, because the whole thing was bizarre and just a bit scary.

How to describe Air America? The bottom line of the radio network starts from a visceral and irrational hatred of the President. The host started off her show by crowing (yes, it did sound like a crow) about how the Supreme Court "slapped down Bush". She was so excited, you would have thought the President had actually been physically assaulted. No analysis of the decision, no factual or thoughtful analysis of the decision itself. Just celebration, because the hated Bush didn't get his way on how to try the terrorists held in Guantanamo.

Oh, by the way, from Air America's perspective, the "detainees" at Gitmo aren't terrorists. They are just unfortunate slobs that got caught up in George Adolph Hitler Bush's reign of terror. I couldn't tell for certain whether she thought they were innocent, or just supported them because they would jump at the chance to shoot or blow up the President.

Clearly she lives her life on emotion, the foremost of which is hatred. Why does she (and her cronies at Air America) hate Bush so much? I think I listened long enough to figure that out. She hates him because he stole the presidency from her beloved Al Gore, then added insult to injury by stealing it again from John Kerry. So it really doesn't matter much what he does, she will assume it is done with the worst possible motives.

In her sad world, Bush manufactured the "war on terror" as a key strategy for a carefully planned power grab. Then he pushed through the Patriot Act, uses the NSA to spy on Americans, tracks everybody's financial transactions, incarcerates and tortures innocent people for no good reason, and generally created an intrusive dictatorship designed to control and suppress the population. If there is any justice in the world, Bush will not only be impeached, but tried in the Hague as a war criminal. Everything he does, in her delusional mind, is to advance his evil plan to become dictator.

I wonder what she will say in 2008 when a new president is elected. Gee, if Bush was all about this dictatorial power, why did he give it up? What if a Democrat wins? If Bush is actually spying on you, why haven't you been arrested or harrassed? So it would be OK with you, then, if we just let everybody in Gitmo loose in your home city? Oh yeah, one more thing - if Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq, how do you explain the reports coming out now about the 500+ chemical warheads found and the Iraqi government documents describing specific plans to use a variety of such weapons on the US?

Facts are funny things when they refute such deeply held beliefs.

Pharmacist Persecution?

Heard something briefly that seemed to suggest that Illinois is either considering or has already passed a law forcing pharmacists to dispense abortion drugs. Yes, it's an abortion drug - I think we should call things what they are rather than use euphemisms.

The issue got me thinking. I don't know any specifics about such a law, or even whether it's being seriously considered or already in force in Illinois. But if such a law exists, I have to assume it will and should be challenged to the Supreme Court, as it's clearly unconstitutional.

To me, a pharmacy should have every right to sell or not sell whatever drugs they please. Refusing to dispense an abortion pill because of moral objection to me is no different from refusing to sell tobacco products because they cause cancer or Yoo-Hoo drinks because they are fattening. If you want that stuff, you're just going to have to go somewhere else that will happily take your money.

Taking it to the next level, what if a pharmacy that does sell abortion pills has a pharmacist employee with a moral objection? Would firing that pharmacist for refusing to fill prescriptions of the abortifacient fairly represent religious persecution?

Maybe, maybe not.

Here's one example where I would think the firing of a pharmacist refusing to fill such prescriptions might be justified:

During the hiring process, the pharmacy owner or manager was clear with the pharmacist employee on the fact that this pharmacy dispenses abortion pills. As such, they understand that some pharmacists may have a moral problem with providing the means to an abortion to any customer. Therefore, in the interest of full disclosure, they tell the new pharmacist that it is their company's policy that no prescriptions may be refused except under specific circumstances such as suspicion of fraud, etc.

Under this scenario, the new pharmacist agrees to the terms of employment, then begins refusing to fill abortion pill prescriptions. I'd say it's OK to fire the pharmacist in this situation, because he or she knowingly accepted the position and confirmed that they understood the conditions of employment included dispensing drugs they might find morally offensive.

It would be no different from a retail store with their biggest sales day on Saturday that could not hire or keep a seventh day adventist or observant jew who cannot disobey their religious admonition against working on the Sabbath. Or the restaurant that's biggest day is Sunday, which would not be able to hire or keep wait staff that cannot work Sunday because of their deeply held Christian values. The employer has a choice to either hire someone and accept the fact of one day a week they will not work, or the employee has the choice to take the job and work on the Sabbath or find a job that does not include that requirement.

But other scenarios seem somewhat less clear-cut. Consider an older pharmacist who has been at the same pharmacy for 20 or 30 years. When the abortion pills were approved and began to be distributed, the pharmacist went to management and explained his moral objection to this particular drug. Management at that time was understanding and agreed that they would not force the pharmacist to dispense this particular drug.

Then new management took over, whether through a merger or just turnover of management staff. And the new management has no patience for the older pharmacist, telling him he will dispense the drug from now on or face termination. That I think is religious discrimination.

I suppose there could be plenty of scenarios in between my two examples. But generally, I believe there should be no laws aimed at forcing people to break their own moral laws.

Global Warming: Science or Politics?

There's too much to absorb in this topic if you're someone like me who likes to decide for himself about the issues of the day by researching the underlying data, finding out what "experts" think, listening to arguments pro and con, then making an informed decision.

With the topic of global warming, it's impossible. Based on all the information I've been able to gather, I'm close to concluding the "experts" don't really have a definitive answer either.

The unanswered questions about this topic are legion, but here are the important ones:

1. Is global warming really happening?
2. If so, is it caused by human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, other natural causes, or just normal climate cycles?
3. If it is cause by human invention, is it possible to reverse by some aggressive "green" policies that significantly reduce human-generated greenhouse emissions?

I can see how a resident of Los Angeles can go outside and look at the brown haze covering the valley and believe that humans are destroying the earth with their cars, trucks and suv's. Maybe they don't escape that smog bowl often enough to see that the rest of the country isn't really all that bad.

The most overwrought of greenies predicted global calamities, such as coastal cities under water. But they also predicted those events would occur several years ago, if I remember correctly. And that didn't happen.

We had a heavy hurricane season last year. Who can forget Katrina? Plenty of green alarmists are still screaming that it was caused by global warming. But the guys at the National Hurricane center, who I assume to be the leading experts on hurricanes, have been adamant and authoritative in stating that global warming had nothing to do with it. Hurricane seasons go in cycles, they say, and we're in a peak cycle.

Other seemingly sane scientists, according to what I've read, have said those who predict doom for the planet based on rising temperatures just don't know their climate history very well. If I understood correctly, as recently as 1930 we had a nearly identical melting of arctic glaciers. And global temperatures got colder than usual in the 60's and 70's. I've even come across alarmists in the 70's who were claiming catastrophic global cooling that was certain to lead to a new ice age.

So what to believe? Who to believe?

Here's my thought for now. Look at the loudest proponents of one side or the other, and think about what they might have to gain.

Al Gore: The self-anointed global climatologist who wants to be President. Hmm, the core Democrat base are greens, which means he could grab the extra votes from radical greens away from Ralph Nader and maybe get just enough from them to put him over the top against whoever the Republicans run. Yeah, I'd say he has ulterior motives. And I also think he's a nutcase.

Radical Environmentalists: They come from all sorts of places, like the Green Party and Earth First and The Sierra Club and PETA. All of those organizations are not only radical environmental groups that worship Mother Earth like pagans; they also are uniformly communist in their political philosophy. So their agenda may include a pristine environment, but it also includes the overthrow of our Republic in favor of Soviet-style communism.

Bush, Cheney, et al: They come from Texas and the oil industry. Therefore, the assumption is made that they will be happy to sacrifice the well-being of the planet to keep their beloved oil industry fat and wealthy. The evidence? Why, the war in Iraq, their political enemies will say.
"Blood for Oil". Trying to get approval to drill in the ANWR.

Honestly, I would have to say that Bush does appear to be overly friendly to Corporate interests. His position on illegal immigration is strong and visible proof of that. But from what I see, it's not focused just on the oil industry; he's obsequious to Corporate America in general. If there's evidence that some cheap alternative to gasoline is actually being suppressed by the government in order to keep us addicted to oil, show me. But people have had those conspiracy theories since the oil crisis in the 70's, and nobody ever found evidence to support them. Besides, suppose somebody came up with a fuel that burned clean and cost a fraction of gasoline to power vehicles. Does anybody really believe that any government on the planet could suppress such a breakthrough in technology, especially in a free market system such as ours?

If the Iraq war really was a simple grab for oil, why didn't we just take the oil when we ousted Saddam? Why are we helping a new government stand up there and helping them rebuild their own oil revenues without even asking for reimbursement for the heavy costs of the war?

And objecting to drilling for oil in ANWR doesn't make any sense to me. The environmental impact is negligible, including to the most highly publicized caribou herds. So why do the greens and their congressional lackeys continue to fight it? I suspect the reasons have little or nothing to do with environmental concerns, and everything to do with harming the economy and by extension the President.

Bottom line, I'm all in favor of reasonable steps to protect the environment. Interesting that even though the US refused to sign on to Kyoto, reports say we're actually closer to compliance with its goals than almost any other country that did sign. And it exempted the world's largest polluters, China and India, who just happen to be the biggest commercial competitors of the US these days because of their cheap labor and lax environmental laws.

You can't say "alternative fuels" and simply declare the problems of oil dependence solved. You can't declare that every car made has to get 50 miles to the gallon if the technology doesn't exist to meet that standard. You can't outlaw coal and nuclear power plants and expect the lights to stay on in everyone's homes for a price people can afford. You can't be a rich liberal proudly driving a Prius to the airport to get on your private jet to fly to your next concert or movie set while sneering at the poor slobs driving 10-year-old gas-guzzlers they can't afford to fill with $3 gas.

Monday Blog Break

This afternoon I'm writing for no better reason than I just wanted to take a break from the drudgery of work.

Let's go with some brief observations.

How can NBC credibly claim any sense of balance when Meet the Press this Sunday had not one single Republican or Conservative to respond to the litany of idiocy and pandering spouted by their left-wing guests? I turned it off after about 10 minutes of Russ Feingold demonstrating why he is the worst possible choice for the job of Commander in Chief in two years.

If Feingold is being honest, he's a dangerous idiot. If not, he's just a John Kerry clone. I saw Jack Murtha, and sure hope somebody's running against him in his district, because the old coot's senile. Hillary's pandering with her proposal that sounds a lot like what the President and his generals are actually doing, but at least she seems halfway logical.

I think it would be cool if we let North Korea shoot their missile across the Pacific, but take it out in flight with our "Star Wars" system. For one thing, I'm interested to see if the system actually works. For another, just think about the impact that would make on the rest of the world: Go ahead if you want to shoot at us, we'll just knock your missiles out of the air.

I'm wondering how anybody can possibly take the weekend attack in Israel as Israel's fault? Some Hamas militants build a tunnel under the fence from Gaza, which by the way was territory just given them by the Israelis in hope it would lead to peace. They engage the Israeli military in a shootout, then escape back to their territory with a captive Israeli soldier.

And this was Israel's fault how? And Israel should give them even more territory why?

Let's see if I can recap the facts:

Israel's a soverign nation. They have prospered and built an oasis in what used to be an impoverished desert region. They employ Palestinian Arabs and help them prosper as well, as long as those Arabs don't shoot at them or blow them up. They have agreed in principle, and have actually ceded big chunks of their territory to allow the Palestinians their own country.

Again, in what way exactly does this make Israel the villain in this conflict? Sometimes the road to peace isn't through pacifism, but victory. If the UN was anything close to an effective organization, here's what they should do:

1. Broker a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians for borders and peace.
2. Help both countries create that border and enforce it with International Troops. Bill both countries for the security forces.
3. Impose severe sanctions on anybody that disrupts the peace. Do this in every way possible, including incarceration of individual terrorists up to financial sanctions on the government that might have supported them in any way.

It could work. But not from the UN.

PC Religion

Something's been bothering me for a long time now. After reading an article in the local paper praising this trend I feel a strong need to vent. The article was from Mona Safley, a local religion writer who just last week wrote a piece about accepting and embracing homosexuals because Jesus would have. She has a habit of missing or distorting the truth.

PC is running amok in churches these days. The one place I had always hoped would remain a refuge from the insanity of popular culture has joined that very popular culture.

I'm talking about something called "inclusiveness".

A few activist feminists in churches have decided it's offensive that so much of what goes on there violates their sensitivities by calling God "The Father". 200 year old hymns contain lyrics referring to people as "men" or "mankind". (Show of hands, how many are offended by the phrase "good will toward men" in a hymn we all know by heart?)

So they went about rewriting everything they could get their hands on. Ancient hymns I used to be able to sing without cracking the hymnal have now been rewritten so thoroughly that sometimes they don't even convey the same message. (Some hymnals have replaced or rewritten verses that refer to uncomfortable issues like "sin" and "repentance" because we don't want any sinners to feel bad)

They've even rewritten the entire Bible into the New Revised Standard Inclusive Edition, which has completely neutered God.

Our singing group did a kind of tour of local churches over the last few weeks. In two of these churches, the theology of inclusiveness was in full display. The first church's female pastor was making opening remarks before the service, during which she apologized to the congregation because that day's service included the singing of the Gloria Patri. The apology was that this ancient piece of sacred music was not "as inclusive as we here at (church name) prefer". But she went on to explain that it was an ancient traditional song that had long been sung on this particular Sunday. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

Another church had the "inclusive" hymnals of course, which isn't really all that unusual. I did get sort of caught singing a favorite old hymn without looking at the words, but nobody seemed to notice when I sang the offensive male-gender lyric in place of its neutered replacement.

But it was during the sermon that it hit like fingernails on the chalkboard. The pastor (a male this time) on several occasions chose to refer to God as "she" or "her". Why wreck an otherwise good sermon with such hubris?

I cantor regularly in the Catholic Church, which officially frowns on the "inclusive language" movement. But that doesn't stop local parishes from forging ahead. My personal little act of disobedience in the big church that we mostly don't attend anymore was to ignore the instructions to replace the text in the Gloria. I refused to change "and peace to His people on earth" to "and peace to God's people on earth". But nobody ever confronted me about it.

Here's my bottom line. God self-identifies himself in the masculine. The Bible is full of teaching on the roles of men and women that our modern feminist society can't accept. What people fail to recognize most of all is that Christianity in no way seeks to demean or oppress women. What it clearly does instead is honors women, and teaches that men and women were created to complement each other.

The truth, even though it may offend modern feminists, is this: Men are given certain abilities and strengths and women are given other abilities and strengths. Together, a man and woman can make a great team if they recognize and honor the capabilities of each other.

And if people spend all their time being offended at hearing God referred to as Father, then I suggest they may be more focused on things temporal than things divine.

Consulting Kookiness

Got a rather funny email today originating from the software company I do a lot of my contract consulting for these days. New rule: If you pay for a meal with a credit card, the receipt can't be the credit card receipt. It has to be one that shows what you actually ordered.

What's funny about that is the idea that somebody out there searches through every receipt from every consultant expense invoice, looking for something to question. It's an old practice that is really kind of ridiculous, where somebody actually gets paid (or maybe gets some odd kick) to look at every single receipt.

It's not because they are being thorough, although it is partially to keep consultants honest. The real reason, as I discovered back in my consulting management days, is to delay payment as long as humanly possible.

Here's how it works:

Consulting delivered, expense report processed, invoice sent to customer. Customer demands copies of all receipts in order to approve any expenses for payment.

Photocopies of receipts sometimes don't come out very clearly. So they reject the entire expense invoice until the company provides a legible receipt.

Receipts sometimes are handwritten. Rejected for illegibility.

The receipt doesn't match the invoice. For example, the consultant forgot to include the tip when charging a meal. Rejected for unmatched amount. (even though it's in the customer's favor)

So imagine what the game is now, with this new demand to see the actual meal. Let me guess: An alcoholic beverage with dinner - rejected. Meal included steak, or heaven forbid, veal - rejected by the vegan chick who reviews the receipts! Ordered dessert - rejected. The tip for the waitress was more than 10% - rejected!

You see, there's already a sort of daily meal maximum. Most reasonable customers don't mind if you exceed it now and then - say you're in town for the whole week and you want to have dinner at a decent restaurant one night. Generally no sweat. You only spent $20 to $30 bucks a day, and on one day it went up to $50. No biggie.

Except for the type of customer that makes these sorts of demands. They will hold up payment on every invoice you sent them over the last 6 months because they are questioning a $2 discrepancy on a single expense report. You think I'm exaggerating? Nope, I've actually seen it happen. Again, not because they're worried about getting ripped off by shady consultants padding their expenses. The real truth is they just use it as an excuse to keep from paying their bill.

Personally, if I had a contract opportunity with a company I knew played such games, I wouldn't take it. Or I'd demand a rate high enough to compensate for the hassle, not to mention make up for the slow-paying customer.

Friday Not Really

Normally I'd be happy for Friday. Not this week, because it's not a normal Friday. I've got so much work to do that I'll be late again today, then have to come back in to the office on Saturday. But not Sunday - that's a non-workday no matter what.

Sad to see the US out of the World Cup. Since I got home after 10 last night, I just replayed the first half. Apparently that's all I really needed to see, as no other goals were scored.

Sure, the penalty kick was a terrible call. So was at least one, if not both of the red cards in the Italy game. It does seem rather suspicious to see the US singled out for so many bad calls. But they can't totally blame the referees for being out of the running.

They wouldn't have beaten Ghana even without the penalty kick. A 1-1 tie would have knocked them out of the competition just as effectively as the loss. The referees didn't really need their terrible calls, if indeed their objective was to drum the US out of the competition, because this US team just couldn't score. One goal in 3 games actually scored by the US team tells the whole story.

The US team plays a ball-control style that kept them in possession most of all 3 games. That's great if you want to play keep-away at midfield all day, but it doesn't get the ball in the net. In every game, whenever the US moved toward the opponent's goal, the other team just stacked up in a human wall. The US guys couldn't get quality shots, let alone score.

Were they not good enough for the World Cup? Results say yes. Was it Bruce Arena's fault? In the sense that he's the head coach, who sets the strategy and chooses the players, sure. This was probably the best team the US could put on the field, but would better coaching have brought out the best of the talent?

Who knows.

Godless

It's the title of a book by Ann Coulter that seems to be getting a lot of attention lately. Seems pretty provocative, as she uses "godless" to describe the political left.

My curiosity to see the book came about when I saw a segment on TV, then heard another on the radio where Ann was invited to defend her book against liberal critics. Both times I sort of expected the liberal critic to dispute the basic assertion that they were "godless". I was surprised when neither did.

OK, so maybe they wanted to take issue with some of the statements made in the book. But they only had a problem with one specific line, which says something about the women in New Jersey (called the "Jersey girls") "enjoying their husbands' deaths". What a mean and insensitive thing to say, they sniffed. It sounded kind of mean and insensitive to me, too.

But was that all they had to say about the substance of the book? Apparently. Because the liberal talking heads didn't want to get into anything else in the book itself, but instead talked about how it was "divisive". It only deepens the chasm between conservatives and liberals. It's mean-spirited.

So I got my hands on the book. And I read most of it last night. These are some general observations.

Those who want to say it's mean and divisive may not have read the book. Because the remark about the Jersey Girls, taken in context, was just the conclusion Ann reached after telling their story of opportunism. Other than that, the closest she comes to "personal attacks" are a jab or two at Michael Moore's weight, mentioning that Ted Kennedy is a drunk who got away with drowning a young woman, referring to the "moonbat" Cindy Sheehan, and rehashing Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior.

Otherwise, the book is just full of examples of bad liberal ideas. Furlough programs for convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles who do it again as soon as they're released. Outrageous examples of judicial misconduct. Misuse of tax dollars on meaningless featherbedding pet social projects that create more problems than they solve. Shunning and even firing scientists from academia who dare to present results that refute liberal beliefs. News people who don't care about the actual story, but choose to "report" only Democrat talking points. Attacking anyone who disagrees with abortion on demand or partial-birth abortion.

Ann is generally known as the right's answer to Michael Moore. I suppose she is, in the sense that she's anabashedly partisan and doesn't seem to care much if she offends people on the other side.

On the other hand, Michael Moore is a propagandist. In the pure definition of the term, his business is to distort and make up facts to support the message he hopes to market to the masses. The question is, if Ann uses actual facts without distortion or lies to present her message, can she fairly be compared to Moore?

When Farenheit 911 came out, conservative critics quickly responded with all sorts of factual refutation on nearly every point he tried to make. If Coulter used the same propagandist methods with "Godless", why doesn't her opposition try to make their own point-by-point refutation of her supporting facts? Could it be because they can't?

Interesting book, though. I'd recommend it to anybody, regardless of political persuasion.

Ancient Brilliance

I wonder how many people realize that modern society and law are based on the ancient law of Moses? Of which the essentials were boiled down to the 10 commandments.

Now for sake of argument, let's say that Moses wrote them by himself without God's help. (although as a Christian, I tend to believe otherwise).

He then was the most brilliant leader in world history, at least as far as we know.

Because the 10 commandments is a social code of behavior developed to bring order to a very large body of ethnic Jews who suddenly found themselves free in the desert and without any sort of government structure.

So where's the brilliance, you ask? Let me show you:
(paraphrasing)

1. Have no other gods before me: They lived in Egypt, where there were all sorts of gods. Imagine the conflicts that might have caused between people. One God, that's it. Brilliant.

2. No graven images: Don't waste your gold and other precious materials making stupid gods to try to win their favor. Very good idea for a bunch of people wandering the desert with limited resources.

3. Don't take God's name in vain: Watch your mouth. Don't curse or disrespect God. Foul language is offensive in general, but disrespecting God is the worst.

4. Remember the Sabbath and Keep it Holy: Take a day off every week to rest and gather together for nice peaceful worship. Great for building a unified community. And makes sure everybody, even slaves, get a day off once a week.

5. Honor your father and mother: 'nuff said. What an excellent commandment, if I may say so.

6. Don't Murder: Duh. Strange thing, I get the idea these days it's more like, "don't murder anybody unless they are a total creep." Personally I tend to believe this is a pretty good commandment.

7. Don't commit adultery: Why is this a good commandment? Our society today has a particular problem with this one, because people don't like to be told what to do in this area. But think about it this way: what happens when a man or woman has sex with someone not his or her husband or wife? For starters, they break up their families. The distraught spouse might become suicidal or homicidal or both. They pass around all sorts of horrible diseases. You see, it's actually a very civilized rule.

8. Don't Steal: Seems obvious, but I notice people chip away at this one too. For example, some might find Robin Hood to be virtuous, even though he clearly violated this commandment. Lots of people steal stuff from their parents, siblings, or employers just because they can, or because they make up silly rationalizations for why it's not really "stealing". Bottom line, people going around stealing other people's stuff isn't a very good way to keep a stable society.

9. Don't Lie: It's sad that most people seem to have forgotten this one. Imagine, if like in the Jim Carrey movie nobody was able to tell a lie. It's OK to say nothing if the truth would hurt somebody, but generally speaking, little lies lead to bigger and bigger lies and then, well, it's just a mess.

10. Don't be jealous: Don't be a Democrat (just kidding, sort of). Don't spend all your time looking at somebody who has stuff you don't and thinking you are more deserving of all that stuff than he or she. It also mentions this about the other guy's wife (or woman's husband), which could lead to a violation of #7.

You see, I don't really understand the whole atheist hatred of people like me who take these rules seriously. Because, whether you want to follow the first three or not, they all really are extremely valuable for the building and maintenance of a stable and peaceful society. Not to mention good for everyone in general.

If more people just decided to go ahead and follow these rules for living, I can think of a whole host of social ills that would just go away. You know what I'm talking about - don't say you don't! Greatly reduced divorce, which in turn greatly reduces problem children that grow up to be problem adults who might do things like murder, steal, adulter (is that a verb?). Overall, better communication and unity, where people share common values, communicate better and focus more on God and others than themselves.

Want peace? Just follow the ten commandments and get 10 other people to do the same.

Ultimately most of these rules are hard to enforce. My reading of the context of the commandments is that they are meant to be internalized and followed by people out of free will. They're not rules designed to stop people from having fun, but to help people live full, happy, and peaceful lives.

Translating into morality, Jesus Christ himself said it best when he identified the two greatest commandments: Love God and Love One Another. See, if you internalize those two, the rest of the commandments are merely corollaries.

That's what morality means.

What If

Thinking about a few "What if"s:

What if indisputable evidence was found that Saddam had all sorts of WMD in Iraq?

What if that evidence showed that those weapons were in the hands of Iran's Dictator/President?

What if evidence of persecution of Christians in America was made public, such as the girl in Nevada who had her microphone turned off by administrators during her speech because she dared to suggest that her faith was an important part of her experience?

What if studies were publicized that strongly suggested homosexuality was not a natural preference, but was actually due to childhood abuse and disfunctional home environments?

What if every pregnant woman was given an ultrasound that showed her the growing child within before making an abortion decision?

What if the epidemic of STD's was made public and the truth simply stated that the only way to stop it was lifelong fidelity to a single mate?

What if everybody understood that a plurality of their political leaders were beholden to those who pay to keep them in office, not the people who voted for them?

What if every tax we pay was billed separately with everything we buy, and all of our income taxes were billed every month by the federal and state governments so that we had to write a check?

What if a law was passed that no government- federal, state, or local - may exempt or reduce taxes of any sort for any individual or corporation?

What if everyone no longer had any health insurance and had to pay for their health care out of their own personal funds?

What if government-run social programs were required to spend no more than 10% of their budget on administration?

What if companies could not fire or lay off anyone without paying severance based on years of service, especially if the purpose of the layoff is to replace them with illegal (or legal) immigrants who will work for less?

What if the people, through a plurality referendum, could recall their elected officials with a new election before their term ended?

What if there was a "Neither" option on the ballot, and when "Neither" gets the highest number of votes, both candidates are thrown out and new ones must campaign for the office?

Would these things change people's minds? Would they change people's behavior?

Would they make this a better country? A better world?

World Cup Musings

The best thing about the DVR is that it can capture all the World Cup matches during the day. Then I can speed-watch them at night. I haven't watched one live yet, but will try to catch the US against Italy this weekend.

I've seen some pretty amazing players, and some dramatic games. Like yesterday, when it looked like Poland had a 0-0 tie in the bag. They went into extra time just having dodged a major bullet with two German balls hitting the crossbar. But a perfect centering pass to a German who stretched out to redirect the ball into the net killed Poland. Wow.

The US didn't look like they belonged. Even though they controlled the ball for the majority of their match with the Czechs, they got no more than 1 serious scoring chance, while giving up 3. Granted, 2 of the 3 Czech goals were amazing. But isn't that what it takes to compete a the World Cup level?

Offensively, the US seemed to spend most of their time playing keep-away at midfield. They were so plodding and methodical that whenever they began to try advancing the ball toward the Czech box, it was simply taken away by an obviously faster and more skilled team toward a good chance on the US end.

As one who was hoping to see a good effort by the US team in this event, I'm probably as disappointed in this team as anybody. The question is, is the US Team overrated and not good enough for the Cup? Or did they have a nervous and tentative first outing against a very good Czech team, and they can rebound to beat Italy and Ghana to advance to the next round?

I hope for the latter, but suspect the former.

The Pump Metaphor

A long time ago I spent some time in Real Estate. I got some sales training back then, where a metaphor of a manual garden water pump was used to describe the process of establishing yourself in the market.

I was thinking about that metaphor recently, and think it's a good one not only for salespeople, but for just about any human endeavor. It is certainly true in business. Unfortunately, anybody under 40 years old or has never spent time in the country might not know much about the pumps I'm talking about. Thus the picture.

When I jumped into opening my own business over 2 years ago, after getting my office set up and attending some training, I enthusiastically grabbed the pump handle and started pumping as hard as I could.

But nothing came out at first. "What am I doing wrong?", I wondered. I was working the pump so hard my shoulder was starting to hurt. I was told there is plenty of water in this well, so why can't I seem to get any?

I was out talking to people and business everywhere, using whatever marketing strategies I thought I could afford, joined networking groups, and spread around business cards. But it seemed that none of it was paying off. Everybody was nice, they seemed to appreciate my product and service offerings, but when it came time to decide whether to write the check and move forward, it usually came down to a polite "Not now".

Just as I was beginning to wonder if this endeavor was ever going to get off the ground, I began to get a trickle of water. I was considering giving up, and had actually begun to rest a bit, begin thinking about doing something that wasn't so difficult, and began to reduce my pumping intensity. But right about that time, suddenly a trickle appeared.

Some people began to trust me with small projects. The trickle wasn't getting me what I needed, but it gave me enough encouragement to renew my pumping efforts. After awhile the trickle increased to a stream, then almost before I realized it, a full flow of water. This was exciting and a big relief, because my reservoir was getting very low.

Pretty soon the water filled my containers to capacity. So I had to stop pumping for awhile to carry the water everywhere it needed to go. I worked hard and got the water I had pumped distributed and got high praise from those I served with the fresh water. It was a great feeling.

But then I finished. The water was all distributed and the pump was idle. I had to start over.

So I began pumping again. This time I found I was better at pumping, but it still took awhile before the water began flowing again. And because I was too busy taking care of the immediate needs from last time, I hadn't refilled my reservoir.

This continued through my second year in business. The cycle repeated itself: Pumping vigorously to get a good flow, filling my water capacity, leaving the pump to carry the water, then starting over at the pump. Each time I got better and the dry spells became shorter, but I realized this was a problem.

So here I am today with the dilemma probably most entrepreneurs face at some point. How can I keep the pump going and still get the water carried? The obvious answer is, I need help. I either need someone who's good at pumping to man the pump while I carry the water. Or I need someone who's a good reliable water carrier to carry the water while I keep the pump flowing.

The question is Who? How? When? What? Most importantly, Whether?

Got work to do. The water's overflowing.

See My Head Spinning

What a week.

I get a "free" week, with plans only to wrap up some administrative stuff, clean up the office, follow up on some marketing leads, that sort of stuff. I thought it would be a fairly easy and relaxed week.

No way.

My head is spinning from all that's happened in two days. All of a sudden I seem to have no less than three suitors; solid companies that are interested in either hiring me full-time or locking me into a big contract. How did that happen?

Not to mention I had my first meeting with a new prospective customer, who then said, "Let's go!". Wow, what if I could get one or two of those a week, I couldn't stand it.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next couple of weeks.

Had to visit the dentist this week. People who think the American military is torturing terrorist prisoners don't know what they're talking about. For me, the dentist chair is torture defined. I absolutely cringe at the very thought of somebody sticking their fingers into my mouth.

Want to get Al Quaeda prisoners to spill their guts? Just form the US 54th Dentist Brigade and send them to Gitmo or wherever. One look at a geeky dentist wielding a drill and the prisoner's will happily give up Osama himself.

And I had to pay an exhorbitant price for the priviledge of 2 hours of torture. It doesn't seem right.

Want to make me gag? Just douse yourself with perfume or cologne or hair spray in my presence, or stick a bite mold in my mouth. At least I didn't throw up all over the Dentist when he stuck that thing in yesterday.

Monday I went to the dentist and survived. Now I feel I can face anything. At least for this week.

For My Own Good

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Globalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weekend Update

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

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

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

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

Here's the theme for the hour:

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

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

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

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

Friday Ramblings

So happy for Friday after a bizarre week.

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

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

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

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

I want a new car.

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

Wetback

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

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

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

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

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