Unhinged

It's shaping up to be the ugliest campaign season I've ever seen.

The ongoing dirty tricks campaign against Michael Steele in Maryland continues. He's endured racial slandering from his opponents, Senator Schumer's staff got caught illegally stealing his credit report, campaign activists trail him everywhere and film everything he says and does, trying to splice together misleading footage to discredit him, and the latest case the Dem hit team was filming him trying to offer private condolence to parents of a soldier killed in Iraq.

Then there's an ugly attack ad against JD Hayworth in Arizona. Bad enough it smeared him with a lie about ties to Abramoff. That's a reality of politics these days. But it also ran a picture of his head centered in crosshairs of a rifle scope. Unbelievable.

Even locally, today Baron Hill announced that Mike Sodrel should return money from the Republican National Campaign Committee because of the Foley mess. What a sad and disgusting example of political opportunism.

What ever happened to campaigning on issues? Why can't Hayworth's opponent simply say that JD's a supporter of the war in Iraq and a leader on Border security, among other positions he opposes? Could it be because he can't win on the issues?

What else can Baron Hill do? The reality is that when you get into an actual issues discussion, Baron comes pretty close to Mike on most of them. And where he doesn't agree, he probably doesn't want to mention it because his stance is opposite of the voters.

OK, now tell me that both sides use dirty tricks in campaigning. Maybe so. But so far I haven't seen any from the Republicans. Of course, the real campaign is only beginning; just wait until the TV and radio ads come in full force.

Tell you what. As soon as I see a Republican ad that's unfairly trashing the Democrat, I'll post it.

Hostility Against Religion

When explaining my rightward-leaning viewpoints to Democrat acquaintences, I've cited the left's hostility toward Christianity as one of the most important reasons. In response, Democrats will usually scoff, and say there's no campaign against Christians. They claim to simply believe in the "Separation between Church and State".

I beg to differ. Check out this story from the Washington Post. Sure, you might make the case that the Assistant Principal involved stepped over the line, and it's just an isolated case. I don't think so.

Across the country there have been cases of school administrators shutting down religious expression, either out of contempt for such expression or fear of ACLU lawsuits. This is just the latest of many examples ranging from schools kicking out small student-led bible studies to shutting off the microphone of a student attempting to cite her faith in God in a graduation speech to suspending students for praying.

Then there's the general attitude toward Christians from the left as expressed in recent days by Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher. If that's not hostility, then we need a new definition of the word.

Also today came the news that the Senate failed to achieve cloture to move a simple parental notification abortion measure. What parent could possibly be comfortable with the fact that their 14-year-old daughter can be transported across state lines, for example from Indiana to Illinois, by another adult for the purpose of obtaining an abortion without the parents' knowledge or consent?

Apparently 45 Democrats in the Senate are or would be such parents. And I haven't even started on the Partial-Birth abortion topic.

How could anyone with a conscience affiliate with a political party that is so clearly wrong on so many issues of faith and morality?

Book Review

I picked up Flags of our Fathers by James Bradley at the airport.

It's about Iwo Jima. As someone who has always had a particular interest in the many stories of WWII, of course it didn't take me long to grab it off the shelf and take it to the checkout counter.

I knew the basic story of Iwo Jima, and have been moved at the sight of the half dozen soldiers hoisting the flag atop Mount Suribachi, knowing a bit about the tremendous cost in lives spent in taking that summit.

But the book takes the reader much deeper into the campaign for that tiny hunk of rock in the Pacific. It introduces the flag-raisers and tells each of their stories: Ira Hayes, Franklin Sousley, Harlon Block, Mike Strank, Rene Gagnon, and the author's father, John Bradley.

Using what is described as exhaustive research combining military records and interviews with survivors, the book weaves a compelling tale of this group of ordinary American kids who lived through unimaginable events.

Whether you're interested in WWII stories or not, I'd highly recommend you get your hands on this book. There is much to be learned in its pages, about war, courage, and men.

I understand it's coming out in movie form. Assuming the movie is true to the story, I believe I would find it difficult to watch. But I'll probably be in line at the theatre when it opens.

Breathe

Returned from a week-long trip to Canada, which seemed longer.

Dropped by the office after the Colt's game (a great game, by the way), just to take care of a couple of pressing items before the new week starts. I'm now very happy not to be traveling again this week, which actually was planned up until about a week ago when the client cancelled.

The piles on my desk have reached critical mass, and this week has to be dedicated to digging out of the hole created by what's been a crazy month. There's unopened mail, which I hope isn't anything terribly important. There are unreturned phone calls, most of which are probably too late to return anyway. Then there's just piles of administrative work that make me wish I could afford an assistant.

Did I mention that TV in Canada is terrible? They've got the basic US networks and CNN, and that's about it. Aside from my usual (and seemingly never-ending) evening online work, there wasn't much to do besides sleep. CNN is already in election mode, with almost every story designed to convey just how rotten Bush is. Doesn't anybody else get tired of that, over and over and over and over ...?

During the Colts' game this afternoon, they did a short ad for 60 Minutes. What do you know, here's the almost verbatim pitch:

"Is Bush lying to the American People about the Iraq war? Bob Woodward says he is. Tune in tonight to hear us trash Bush on another 60 Minutes."

OK, that last sentence wasn't verbatim. But it's close enough. What's that they say? Repeat a lie often enough and most people will begin to accept it as the truth? With the news dominated by crusading leftists who care more about influencing people than about reporting facts, as I've said before, our grand American experiment is over. The power-hungry left is taking charge, and before long the rest of us will just be hungry.

Consequences

Election time is about here.

I think there used to be a time where it made sense to vote for the person and not the party. That's what I did most elections, and still do in the local city and county offices. But at the national level, I don't think that works too well anymore.

Maybe you are influenced by all the flack and spin out there that successfully gave you the idea that it's time to kick out everybody. Maybe you think that means voting for the Democrat who wants the seat of a sitting Republican in your district for the Federal House or Senate.

Go ahead, vote for the Democrat, but make sure you understand what you're voting for.

Let me use the example of my House district. Baron Hill, the Democrat, was narrowly defeated 2 years ago by Mike Sodrel, a Republican owner of a trucking company from down south. Baron's what is known as a "Blue Dog" Democrat, and I have no idea what "Blue Dog" is supposed to mean, but it refers to a group of relatively conservative Democrats.

Baron's a bit more refined, a better public speaker, and sounds like a reasonable guy. But a big reason he lost his job last time around was that he voted way too often with the Democrats, which included voting the opposite way of what most Hoosiers want.

The reason he votes so often against his constituents probably isn't because he disagrees with his constituents. The reason is because if he dares defy his party on votes they deem important and demand unity from their members, they will punish him severely. So whether he likes what they're doing or not, he goes along to get along.

So if you like Baron and want to give him another chance simply because you're being told that Mike Sodrel's just a Bush lap dog, it will help the Democrats gain a majority. When they get the majority, they have already told us what they plan to do; understand, these aren't made up, but are what the Democrat leaders are actually telling everyone.

Their priorities if they get power are:

Impeach Bush
Pull out of Iraq
Shut down terrorist surveillance
Open the borders
Re-Institute the "Fairness Doctrine"
Repeal all Tax Cuts
Implement Major Initiatives Toward Slowing Global Warming
Pushing Gay Rights and Gay Marriage Legislation
Pushing Universal Government Healthcare Legislation
Defunding the Military
Pushing a Miriad of Social Welfare Legislation

I know there are some people who think everything on the above list would be fantastic. That's too bad, because those people haven't thought through the consequences of these actions.

I lived through the reaction to the Nixon impeachment that resulted in Jimmy Carter as President and a Democrat-controlled legislature. Believe me, if that history repeats itself, we all will suffer not only economically, but physically.

What happened under Carter?

Inflation was in double-digits
Unemployment was in double-digits
Mortgage rates were 16%, and peaked at 19%
Carter helped the Ayatollah Khomeini oust the Shah of Iran, and was rewarded with the invasion of the US Embassy in Tehran, where embassy staff were killed and held hostage.
Top marginal income tax rates were 80%
The "Fairness Doctrine" effectively muzzled any speech deemed irrelevant by the 3 TV networks. (Read Conservative speech)

I'm sorry for my college-age children, who will have to live a repeat of those bad old days. Fortunately, within a couple of years of Reagan taking over from Carter, the job market opened up, interest rates came down, taxes came down, the hostages were freed from Iran, and later the Cold War ended.

Some say maybe the American people need to suffer under a modern Jimmy Carter era to understand how good they have it now. Maybe so.

I just hope, if it happens, it doesn't last long.

The Secret to Success and Happiness

I have reached a firm belief that all any man needs to do to be successful and happy is cultivate these qualities:

Intelligent, approachable, personable, moral, ethical, faithful, honest, empathetic, firm, industrious, witty, trim, fit, pleasant, friendly, positive, energetic, self-assured, consistent, assertive, well-read, helpful, well-spoken, never intimidated, confident, even-tempered, logical, competent.

Every day I think about these attributes and try to exemplify as many as possible. The only item holding me back is my lask of industriousness (OK, you can call it laziness if you must.)

If I could ever consistently achieve every attribute, I have little doubt that my success and happiness will indeed know no limit.

Celebrity Politicians

It seems these days the prevalence of actors and musicians in the political arena has exploded. I wonder sometimes why it seems the vast majority of them hang on the far left wing.

Part of the answer to that is obvious. “Artists” have always been the type of people to push the envelope, seek out new avant garde ideas. They are naturally attracted to “free thinkers” and anti-establishment rhetoric.

Along with that inclination comes what I see as a complete lack of common sense. If I ever found myself thrust into celebrityhood, the last thing I would want to do is run out and trash the President or be a frontman for radical groups. Even though I do tilt right in my philosophy, you wouldn’t see me denouncing John Kerry or Al Gore or Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton from the stage or David Letterman’s couch. I’d quietly contribute to candidates I like, and would accept invitations to perform for anybody from either political party who asks, but the general public would never really know where I stood politically.

Because if you are an entertainer, why cut your own throat to grab a political spotlight? Look at Barbra Streisand, the Dixie Chicks, Bruce Springsteen, Linda Ronstadt, and a near-endless list of Bush-hating musicians who spout their political invective everywhere they go. How many people stopped buying their music out of distaste for what they were doing politically? More to the point, was it worth the loss of sales, given the reality that their activism did little or nothing to help there cause? They have become so arrogant as to think their mere celebrity is enough to change a conservative’s mind to suddenly become a pacifist Bush-hater.

Celebrities live in an insular world, where they never get a chance to meet real people. I suspect they view most of the rest of us as some unwashed ignorant mob, that they spend most of their time trying to avoid. Many of them probably don’t have even a single acquaintance who goes to church every Sunday and is raising 3 or 4 kids in a traditional family setting. Those people (like me) might as well be from Mars, as far as a Susan Sarandon is concerned. These celebrities have no idea what the lives of most of us are like, but instead have formed attitudes based on ridiculous stereotypes promoted by their small circle of rich and famous friends.

I believe that celebrities are so accustomed to being worshipped and adored by all the fans they see at their concerts or public appearances that they begin to believe they are worthy of such worship. They’re not just attractive and talented, they’re smart and witty and wise. Why not, isn’t that what virtually everyone tells them every day of their pampered lives?

So celebrities are clueless about how stupid they really look when they parrot left-wing platitudes or come up with a cute new euphemism to equate the President with Hitler. They arrogantly spout Michael Moore-ism's on talk shows when they really don't have the slightest idea about the actual truth of the topic.

How many of them make a show of driving their expensive new hybrid automobile to the airport to fly to their next gig in their personal Gulfstream jet, completely oblivious to their comical hypocrisy. How many of them expend more energy to heat, cool, and light their various estates for a week than most people use over an entire year? They still don’t stop railing against oil and coal and nuclear, somehow instead choosing to believe the only reason we don’t convert to “alternative” and environmentally-friendly energy sources is some sort of Republican conspiracy.

They get homicidally angry thinking about Christians who they believe are "judging" them for their serial marriages, homosexuality, abortions, and general bacchanalia lifestyles. So angry that they have convinced themselves that Christians are more dangerous than the Radical Islamists who are the only ones blowing people up in the name of their religion.

What really floors me is a celeb like Danny Glover, hugging Hugo Chavez like he’s some sort of hero. Is Danny so stupid as to not know that Hugo is a Communist Dictator? Does he not know what Communists do when they take power? I assume Danny’s pretty well heeled, given his status as a Hollywood star. Has he ever even considered asking Hugo what would happen to his wealth if Hugo were made the Communist Dictator-for-Life of the United States? Would he be happy to hand over all his money and property to Hugo in return for a government-owned efficiency apartment, perhaps receiving a bicycle and subway pass in place of his collection of luxury and classic automobiles? What if Danny didn’t like something about Hugo’s new government and decided to speak out? Doesn’t he know that saying anything at all critical of Hugo’s government would get him an immediate ticket to prison? A prison where mistreatment, malnutrition and torture are standard operating procedure, he’s locked up for an indeterminate amount of time on charges never fully explained, and where its more likely he will die in prison than return to his life?

Celebrities, if you want a good example of how to make your mark on society without alienating half the country, may I suggest you observe the Manning brothers. After Katrina, Peyton and Eli didn’t go on a bunch of TV talk shows to trash Bush and accuse him of wanting to kill off poor black folks in New Orleans. Instead, they got together and shipped as many supplies as they could to the area and passed them out to people in need.

Stop talking politics, celebrities. You are just actors and singers, not experts in government policy. What you do will tell the world more about you than anything you say.

Kick out the United Nations?

The theatrics of this week at the United Nations has gone way over the line, and I think maybe the time has come to kick them out and stop giving them money. At least until they grow up and decide to become a truly effective international body.

Just a reminder. Without the United States, there would be no United Nations. We rescued the world from Hitler and Hirohito, only to see them replaced by Stalin and Mao. Yet we founded and hosted the UN out of the fervent hope that nations that keep talking to each other might be less likely to start fighting with each other.

Today that seems to have changed. The UN is now a corrupt den where enemies of the US do their level best every day to undermine and embarrass their host. Where "humanitarian relief" has been changed into "UN Officials' relief" with everybody up to and including the Secretary General's son skimming off most of the money meant for the poor, starving, and oppressed throughout the world. Where Saddam Hussein successfully paid off key government officials in France, Germany, and Russia so they would not support any US-led effort to crack down on his regime.

Thus this week's outrageous events. Fiction writers would never make up a story like this week, as they would dismiss it as totally implausible. In a transparent move to embarrass President Bush, the UN invited two of the United States' worst enemies, Ahmadinejad and Chavez, to speak right after him. This week the UN came to our home and defecated all over the living room carpet.

Who gives more money than everyone else combined to help the poorest of third world nations and bail the world out of natural disasters? US.

Where does the UN get most of it's money? US.

Who has the largest and strongest military on the planet so countries from Canada to Germany to Japan can rest secure in our protection and spend all of their own money on socialist programs? US.

Who will the world run to for protection as soon as Iran or Venezuela or North Korea starts launching nukes at their neighbors? US.

We're like the long-suffering father of a bunch of ungrateful and unruly children. Maybe it's time to kick them out of the house and let them fend for themselves for awhile.

Taking Jobs from Canadians

So I got the permit after a 2-hour wait at the border this morning. The best part is that I no longer have to sweat whether they're going to let me in or turn me away every time I come up here.

The immigration attorney that helped me get the permit said the basic issue is that there are some "union types" working in Canadian immigration that are really tough on anybody they think might be taking work from Canadians. Which I'm not, because there isn't anybody in Canada who can do what I do.

The funny thing is I really don't care whether I work in Canada or not. I find Windsor a boring place, and feel as though I always lose on the currency exchanges. It's really just about the client, helping them get what they need from their systems.

For those who have done much air travel, have you ever noticed these irritating things at the airports?

Now that everybody has to check a bag or leave behind anything liquid, the baggage carousels are jammed with people. They line up right against the carousel all the way around. So unless I squeeze in with the rest of the human wall, I can't even see if my bag's coming around. I tried to figure out some way to lead by example, standing about 6 feet away from the carousel. See, if everyone did that, there would be plenty of room, everyone could see the bags coming off, then move forward to grab their bag when it comes around. But apparently nobody else sees the wisdom in that system. Rather than play the rude game of shouldering people aside for a place at the carousel, I just wait until the crowd thins enough so I can see and grab my bag.

Then there's the rental car bus. So many times I get on the bus to the car rental lot and wait. People keep coming out of the airport and getting on the bus. After awhile the driver tries to close the doors to drive us to the lot, but just then two more people walk up and bang on the doors. So we have to wait for them to get on, then more people show up and get on. And so on, until it's seemingly an hour before the driver finally just shuts the doors and drives off to the lot. Even then, sometimes people run up to the bus that's driving away and scream and hammer on the doors! Really irritating - they should wait for the next bus like everyone else.

The good thing about everyone having to check their bags: Plenty of overhead space. I don't have to worry about getting on the plane as early as possible so I don't get stuck having to put the laptop case under the seat, which makes the already cramped legroom even more cramped. It's incredible how empty those overhead bins are these days.

Now I'm just trying to regain my elite status on the airlines so I get the automatic upgrades again. You can't beat first class.

Terrorist Interrogation

Aside from the whole argument about whether turning up the air conditioner in the cell and playing the Red Hot Chili Peppers constitutes torture, I'm curious about something else.

Tell me the truth.

Suppose a close family member of yours - husband, wife, son, daughter, parent - has been kidnapped by Al Quaeda. Based on what they've done to most of their other western captives to date, there isn't much doubt about the horrible death your loved one faces.

Now imagine that a key Al Quaeda leader has been captured. There is no doubt that he knows where your loved one is being held, but he's not talking. You have been permitted 15 minutes alone with him in an interrogation room. What would you do?

I know what I'd do.

WHATEVER IT TAKES

To get the information I need to find and rescue my loved one before it's too late. I wouldn't worry about whether the terrorist is uncomfortable with my methods of extracting the information so vital to saving my family member.

Do you think the US military and CIA should be stopped from any terrorist interrogation that some leftist pacifist might deem "torture"?

Seems like a simple decision to me.

Radical Christianity equals Radical Islam?

So Rosie O'Donnell is more worried about "radical Christians" than terrorism I guess. But she's not the only person out there saying this stuff. Bill Maher says it all the time. Air America reportedly says it too.

Just wondering - how many Christians, radical or not, have captured and beheaded innocent people lately? Have any Christians flown airplanes into big buildings? Maybe they've strapped explosives to their bodies and blown themselves up on buses or trains?

Heard any Christians say that all who refuse to convert to Christianity will be destroyed? Has anyone performed any violent act specifically in the name of Jesus Christ?

The more "moderate" and "reasonable" people have been out telling us how we should change our policies in the war on terror. A long line of mostly Democrat politicians are laying out their alternatives to the war, and it goes something like this.

America should stop waging an offensive war, and change our focus on hearts and minds. Somehow if we can prove our moral superiority and better way just by being nice and friendly and negotiating in good faith with the terror sponsor states, they will suddenly see the light. We have to stop fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and turn to diplomacy. This will be successful solely through the force of personality from nice people like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, booting George Bush from office first, of course, and replacing him with a Democrat. Then everyone will gradually learn to love us and the world will be a wonderful place.

The naivete of it all is stunning.

Minimum

Waiting for someone to finish something so I can proceed. In the meantime I've got a break, spent here.

There was some ranting going on today about the minimum wage. Something about it's a moral duty for employers to pay a living wage to their employees. And congress keeps voting themselves fat raises and lifetime benefits better than just about anybody else on the planet can get.

I can't say I disagree with the sentiments. Sure, an ethical employer should pay their employees enough to be able to provide for their families. I'm also disgusted at the self-serving congress who give themselves whatever they desire, even though for the most part very few of them deserve half.

But the topic is minimum wage, and it's an old rhetorical trick to try making some political point by trying to link some unrelated problem. So let's decouple the whole argument and just look solely at minimum wage.

It's 5.15 an hour, and has been for (without looking it up) maybe close to a decade. No doubt it would be nearly impossible to support even yourself at that hourly rate, although the illegal immigrants are finding ways by sharing housing and transportation expenses.

How many people work full-time jobs that pay $5.15 an hour? I know of nobody, although some say that lots of illegals are working for that rate. Now I do see tipped employees getting less per hour on their base rate, but tips put them well over the minimum and they must be guaranteed the minimum wage if the tips don't cover.

The factories and retailers in this area offer starting rates well over the minimum, so nobody in the larger companies is getting that rate. Around here, it seems to me that the effective minimum wage is somewhere around $6.50, which is the starting advertised rate for pretty much every part-time entry-level job.

The real question that needs to be asked is, what should the minimum wage be? Lots of states have their own minimums, with California and Massachusetts the highest at $8. I don't believe this issue is even any business of the Federal government, and constitutionally is something that should be left to the states. But then again, the Feds have gotten away with sticking their noses in so much of states' business that there isn't much point to that argument.

A single person could live decently, if frugally, at around $8-$10 per hour, from my general knowledge of housing, food, and transportation costs. To support a family of four, I suppose it would take at least $15, maybe up to $20. So should minimum wage be set at $8 or $20?

Suppose minimum wage was set at the California rate of $8. What would happen to the workforce in general? Well, those making less than $8 will be happy with the raise, assuming they don't lose their jobs. And some number of them will lose their jobs, because employers will be forced to lay off people to cut costs.

Those already making $8 or more are going to be unhappy at first. Because they will be angered at having worked for some period of time, maybe years, to work up to their current pay rate and newer employees have just been granted a raise that brings them up to a level matching the longer-time employee. So they will demand a correspondingly higher wage, and are much more likely to seek that raise elsewhere if their current employer doesn't act quickly.

All that is inflationary. As workers across the country suddenly get higher wages across the salary scale, they will compete for better housing and buy more stuff. Prices go up both to cover the new higher wage costs and higher demand for all products and services.

This leads to a spiral, where the cost of living rapidly escalates and employees demand wage adjustments to keep up, so costs go up and prices go up and it continues until the country hits the inevitable recession. We end up with high unemployment, a stagnant economy, etc.

Again, I'm not necessarily against a minimum wage. There are too many employers who will pay their workers as little as they can get away with, and would only pay the minimum wage if forced to do so. Students are most commonly abused by minimum wage, as seasonal businesses and fast food and, ironically, government, hire them part-time or in the summer with no benefits, minimum wage, and often even get exemptions from paying time and a half for overtime.

Politically, there's plenty of criticism for both parties. Democrats demagaogue the issue in an attempt to make the Republicans look bad, while their actual policies would do little or nothing to actually improve the lives of unskilled workers. Republicans know that minimum wage is only paid to illegals, and are pandering to the corporate interests that want to continue employing them.

It seems to me that there would be little or no impact on the economy to raise the minimum wage immediately to $6.50. If it were phased in over several years, I think you could even end up as high as $7 or $7.50 without significant economic problems. What the two parties should do is negotiate: For example, Democrats would permit a repeal of the inheritance tax (aka "Death Tax") in return for a minimum wage increase like I described.

But the parties aren't interested in making deals or compromising on much of anything these days. So from that standpoint, the entire argument is moot anyway.

Want Government Healthcare? Talk to a Senior

I've written about the healthcare mess in this country a few times in the past, and you can check out the archives to see what I think.

If you want an idea of what universal government care will be like, just talk to any senior on the new Medicare prescription drug program. They'll tell you that an arbitrary and inflexible bureaucracy has taken over their medical decisions, and they don't like it. From what I've heard, it sounds like plenty of seniors are wondering if they would be better off to go back to just paying for their prescriptions rather than continue to be subjected to the bureaucrats.

Here's the gist of what I'm getting. Shortly after signing up for the federal drug program, your prescriptions will be subject to review. Then you'll be told that one or two of those prescriptions you've been taking for years aren't necessary. So you can't have them anymore.

You say, OK, fine, I'll just buy them on my own. You might actually be told no; you can't buy that drug because the government has decided you don't need it. You have to get your physician to help fight the battle on your behalf.

Even more commonly, a bureaucrat will tell you to replace a prescription with either a generic or another brand that's cheaper. The alternatives may or may not be the same as what you've been taking. But the bureaucrat says it's basically the same thing, so you give it a try.

But the alternate drug gives you horrible side effects. Whether pain and numbness in extremeties or indigestion or diarrhea, you tell your doctor this new drug is terrible and you want to go back to the old one. Again, the bureaucrat says no, you can't go back to that drug; so what if the generic is making you sick. So again, you fight for the right to go ahead and purchase it at full price.

But the final insult: Since the federal prescription drug program pays whatever the drug companies want to charge, and the government is not allowed to flex their giant group purchasing power to negotiate lower prices, the price of those drugs you're back to buying at full price has gone up another 20 or 30 or 40 bucks a month.

No question the healthcare system is in crisis. No question that the healthcare lobbies, the most powerful being the drug companies, insurance companies, and trial lawyers, will make sure that no congressperson will dare do anything to fix it.

But do you really want the government to run healthcare?

The very definition of being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Sometimes I want to turn it all off

Watching the news and reading the newspaper have been getting to me lately. Today I almost wish I could turn it all off for awhile and remain blissfully ignorant just like what seems to be 90 percent of the rest of the population.

News programs pretend to be informing us of the news but are really trying to brainwash us.

I did the blog entry the other day noting the irony of Bill Clinton and his Democrat leadership buddies trying to get ABC to censor or pull their little 9/11 docu-drama. It's gone beyond just the funny irony to frightening. The Dem congressional leaders have proceeded to threaten Disney/ABC to pull or significantly censor the film "or else". It really is heavy-handed government censorship in plain daylight!

Worse yet, nobody seems to care.

Remember when the Dixie Chicks (watch out, here comes the Dixie Chicks fan again) went off on Bush and ordinary citizens gathered together to smash their CD's? The Chicks called that censorship and did their best to fan outrage that somehow that little demonstration was the equivalent of a Nazi book burning.

Yet here we have, not private citizens, but powerful government officials, threatening ABC with serious consequences if they air this little miniseries. They can make good on those threats by holding up renewal of ABC's FCC licensing, for example. You can't get any more clear first amendment violation than that!

And the proof is that ABC has admitted to caving under the pressure by Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, et al, and have cut the scenes Bill and the Dems find so objectionable. Even though, according to an interview I happened to stumble across with the writer and producer of the film, the substance of what they so vigorously objected to was true!

That producer also noted that the miniseries is every bit as tough on the Bush administration. Heard any GOP demands that those scenes be cut? Anyone?

And scariest of all, we're being told by just about all the "experts" that those same Democrat leaders who have so willfully violated the free speech rights of those who created this film will be in control of the country starting next year.

It's too late already. Here's what will happen over the next decade when the left wing takes over:

Churches will go underground because anyone caught practicing real Christianity within earshot of an atheist will be deemed a dangerous radical.

Taxes will go out of sight, possibly even as high as they were under Jimmy Carter. Make a decent middle-class salary? Watch out, the government is going to continue to take half of the first $100K, they they'll take about 80% of anything above that. If you die worth over, say, a quarter-million, they'll confiscate at least half that from your heirs.

Gas will go to $4 or $5 a gallon. Domestic oil exploration will be stopped. No new refineries will be built, and some existing refineries will shut down because of severe new environmental restrictions.

The welfare state will return in force, and will openly include illegal aliens (a term which, by the way, will be outlawed). Illegal immigrants will also be given the right to vote along with convicted felons, thus insuring that the left will never lose power in America again.

Unemployment will top 10% and may even see 15 or 20%.

Terrorism will skyrocket after we make an early exit from Iraq and fail to respond to Iran and Syria and North Korea. Bombs will go off in cities across America while the government continues to combat terrorism as a "law and order" problem and creates expensive new "programs" designed to teach people "tolerance".

America will be notably absent from the war between Israel and Iran, Iraq (after Iran takes control when America pulls out), and Syria. Iran detonates their first nuke in an Israeli city while the US continues to petition the UN to impose economic sanctions.

The standard of living for everyone but the very poor will fall precipitously. Crime will increase in inverse proportion.

"Recreational" drugs will be legalized so the government can tax them, leading to unprecedented levels of addiction, especially among young people between 14 and 24. Who of course will require continuously expanding taxpayer-supported social services that ineffectively try to help them overcome those government-sponsored addictions.

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Pornography, Pedophilia, will gleefully resume their ascendancy to become commonplace throughout society. Ordinary broadcast TV will no longer be restricted from portraying and celebrating graphical sexual content, obscene language, and gay-friendly messages 24/7.

Everyone will have "low cost" access to low-quality healthcare. Hospitals will close and frustrated physicians will find new careers. Drug companies will drastically cut back on R&D as they try to avoid bankruptcy selling their existing drugs at government-imposed prices.

Bush will finally leave office after 2 years of accomplishing little besides vetoing the most egregious of legislative initiatives from the Democrat-controlled congress and fighting impeachment proceedings and enduring a multitude of "special investigations".

I'm sorry for the kids who will never know the greatness this country once represented.

Decision Making Process

It seems that very little of life is planned, or at least very little goes as planned.

From today's somewhat reflective mood, I've been looking back and thinking about the fact that I never really had control over my own life. It feels like I'm a ship without sail or rudder, just riding the waves to wherever they happen to take me. Some places good, others bad, but most neither good nor bad. But the bad places have been the hardest to escape - I seem to get beached when that happens.

I went to college without much of a clue what I wanted to "be". So when I found myself spending most of my time in the Music department, I just went with the flow to become a music major. When I got to the Student Teaching term as a senior, it no longer seemed such a great choice. What I could have done back then, and in hindsight believe I should have done, was immediately switch majors (I discovered Computer Science as a college senior) and take another year to graduate with the "right" degree.

Did I learn from that experience? Not really. Most key decisions since then could be described as "go with the flow". Job offers came along and I accepted them, sometimes only because I felt flattered that the company wanted to hire me.

Now there is a new choice to be made. Keep doing what I'm doing or take the job?

Arguments for keeping the status quo:
Nobody owns me or my schedule.
Business is pretty good.
There are no office politics.
I'm not yet convinced I really want to work for that specific company.
Pride makes me want to keep the business going.

Arguments for taking the job:
Secure and steady paycheck that's not bad.
Benefits, especially healthcare! (The health insurance costs I pay now are killing me)
I could actually get time off for vacations and holidays.
I'll probably work less hours overall.
Travel will be much less.
I could have a budget for a change with less worry about keeping money back for when business is slow.

This time I hope to make a solid decision based on the real pros and cons of each choice. At the moment I can't predict which way it will go.

Double Standard?

Reading through various news reports today, I noticed that Bill Clinton and the Democrats are outraged over a 9/11 miniseries produced by ABC. They're demanding it either be changed or pulled from the schedule because apparently it casts Clinton and his gang in a negative light.

Reading further, I find that the miniseries is tough on the Bush administration as well, but strangely there doesn't seem to be anyone from that camp demanding it be changed or cancelled.

The producers of the "docu-drama" say it was developed from the 9/11 commission report and a variety of other inside sources. It uses some composite characters and creates some fictionalized scenes to support the overall story. Sort of like the movie "Black Hawk Down", I gather.

Let me get this straight. The same Democrats who are howling about this "inaccurate" film and demanding it be cancelled lined up to see the Bush hit piece called Farenheit 911. They touted that film despite its gross distortions and outright lies, and if I remember correctly, Michael Moore never claimed to be using any composite characters or fictional scenes. I also seem to recall that although conservatives were pretty outraged at the propaganda piece, nobody I remember demanded it be changed or cancelled. In fact, President Bush never said anything at all about it as far as I can tell.

The Democrat leadership is screaming that the timing is unfair and politically motivated because it's coming out right before the elections. Well, in contrast to Farenheit 911, which was purposely released on a schedule intended to affect a Presidential election, this miniseries was scheduled to coincide with the fifth anniversary of 9/11. And we're not electing a President this year. That seems to me to blow up the whole "politically motivated" argument.

Isn't what Clinton and his Democrat buddies doing right now exactly what they would call "censorship"? If the GOP had demanded Farenheit 911 be pulled from distribution, dare anyone suggest the other party would have done anything else but scream "Censorship!" from the rooftops? So the First Amendment only applies when the speech is trashing the other side?
I don't know, and for the moment don't much care, how "accurate" the film is. Is the fundamental story accurate and Bill and the gang are obfuscating by claiming that dramatized scenes created to help tell the story didn't happen, even though the decisions made and actual outcomes were accurate? I won't even attempt to guess, but I have a suspicion that may be the case.

But what gets me thinking that this isn't some right-wing hatchet job are some basic facts: It's not being released by "Rush Limbaugh Productions" or "American Nazi Films". It's ABC! Since when did anybody accuse them of being right-wing activists? That certainly stands in sharp contrast to Farenheit 911, which was clearly the product of the proudly anti-American rabid pink liberal Moore.

This should be great news for ABC, assuming they don't cave. They'll get a huge audience for this mini-series just because everyone will want to tune in to find out what all the fuss is about.

Could it be balanced?

Channel surfing last night, I stopped at Katie Couric's first big event on CBS. It was that special about the 9-11 anniversary, asking whether we are safe. My expectations were that I'd watch just long enough to get disgusted with the one-sided storyline and partisan spin, then turn it off and go to bed.

But I was surprised. Of course, I only watched the first 30 minutes of the thing, but in that 30 minutes I was amazed to find Katie was actually fairly balanced. She interviewed the President without being confrontational and insulting (like she would in the past on Today). She portrayed supporters of Iraq (Iraq is a central front to the war on terror) and detractors (Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror) in a way that seemed, wow, even-handed.

So is she trying very hard to finally be the single news anchor that provides a factual and balanced look at the issues of the day? In this 30 minutes, she sure seemed to be. I wondered if it was killing her inside to be nice to the President and let people speak that she personally abhors.

Then again, I didn't see the rest of the program, so I don't know what conclusions it reached. Maybe at the end she reverted to her old insular liberal elitism, but that didn't seem to be where the program was headed.

Am I going to start watching CBS News? Not just yet.

I don't do movie reviews

But this is an exception. I saw Invincible last night. Loved it.

Right off the bat the movie starts with Jim Croce's "I've Got a Name". You couldn't have picked anything better to set the tone. The music throughout the film was perfect.

The film was inspiring but low-key. I thought it was masterful the way they didn't slap you across the face with sappy dialogue. Instead, Wahlberg really doesn't say much at all throughout the movie. You get to know his character instead through his expressions and body language and some great camera work.

I have some vague memories of the story that provided the inspiration for this movie. I do remember there was a guy who got on the Philadelphia Eagles team through an open tryout. Otherwise I didn't pay much attention. I've never had much use for the Eagles.

I can't imagine anybody disliking this film. Best movie I've seen in a long time. Is it better than "Rudy"? Hard to say definitively, but it's definitely in the same league.

Stupid Stuff

Just for fun, today we will think about stupid stuff. The sad thing about these stupid things is that somewhere over 50 percent of the population actually seems to believe in them.

"Hate Crimes" - This is the idea that we should only punish criminals if they killed or maimed or raped somebody out of hate. It requires courts to try figuring out what was in the criminal's head when the crime was committed, because if there was some sort of racial or sexual orientation element, the punishment must be severe. If it was drug-induced or the perp was just a little crazy, well that's OK. And if the victim is a white christian, that doesn't count as a hate crime, because it's perfectly understandable to hate them.

Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Sure, and Ahmadinejad is telling the truth when he says his nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

If we stop all oil drilling and stop importing foreign oil and switch to "alternative energy", all our political and environmental problems will be solved. That one's so ignorant it's funny.

The way to improve the lives of poor and middle-class people is to stick much higher taxes on rich people. Wierd.

Having moral values these days is evil. How dare anyone "judge" others by suggesting that adultery, homosexuality, drug abuse, serial marriage and divorce, abortion, vulgar language, gambling, etc. are wrong. Those who participate in those behaviors are not the problem, but just try to say out loud that they are wrong and you find out very quickly who is labeled "evil".

The belief that illegal immigrants are necessary for our economy and take jobs citizens don't want. It doesn't require membership in either political party to see through this big lie.

Global Warming is going to kill us all. Please.

"Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution. Ever read the constitution? Try reading the first amendment and see what it actually says about religion.

I've got more, but it's time to pack up and head to the airport.

Marry a Career Woman? This is hilarious.

I stumbled across this only because I happened to be channel-surfing on Friday morning while getting ready for work and found a heated discussion taking place with Matt Lauer and some women.

It's about an article in Forbes by a guy suggesting men should avoid marrying career women. The link is here.

What was so hilarious about the argument on the Today show was the extreme level of outrage shown by the token feminist Matt had on to discuss the article. Even funnier was that he had another woman on who more or less agreed with the basic idea. The problem with the feminist's argument was that she ignored the facts of the studies that formed the thesis of this article (don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument).

So it got even more ridiculous and hilarious when she started to sputter something like, "well, if America was more like Europe, where women can take a whole year off for having children and still draw 60 to 90 percent of their salaries, there wouldn't be the stresses on women that cause all this divorce."

Forbes got so much heat for printing the article that they posted a second article right beside it that purports to refute it. The second article is from a woman who attempts to prove the theory wrong on the basis that she herself is a career woman and has been married for 18 years to the same man. This just adds to the humor, because she completely misses the point.

I just find all this so incredibly funny. The article simply boils down the essence of social science studies which pretty much reach the obvious conclusion that marriage to a career woman is more likely to end in failure. As if that isn't patently obvious to anybody who thinks about it for more than 5 seconds.

Just to add my own little observations, I'd expand the advice to say men should probably avoid marrying militant feminist career women. Because many women obviously come out of college thinking they are career women.

But there are plenty of career women who, after giving birth to their first child, suddenly discover they'd rather be a great mother than a great manager/lawyer/accountant/etc. But I would suggest that the militant feminist career woman may be less likely to allow her maternal instincts to override her chosen life views which for what ever reason drive her to compete with men in the working world.

The bottom line in this whole manufactured controversy is this: If you marry a woman who is focused on her career, then what happens if each of you gets a terrific job offer, but yours is on the west coast and hers is on the east coast. Who sacrifices their career to accomodate the other? And more importantly, if one of you makes that sacrifice, how long will it be before the bitterness sets in as the one making the sacrifice begins to wonder why?

What happens when the husband feels well established in his career and is ready to start a family, but the wife is working long hours toward that promotion she's got her eye on and doesn't want to disrupt her career with a child?

What happens when a child arrives, whether planned or not, and both parents begin to feel some guilt at leaving that child to be raised by somebody else while they're at work? When the child gets sick, who takes time off to care for him or her? Later, which parent leaves work early to drive the child(ren) to their activities (sports, music lessons, birthday parties, etc.)?

See what I mean? It's just common sense. I'm convinced that the worst thing that could happen to a child is to be raised by a minimum-wage day care worker. Somebody's got to stay home with the kids as much as possible. And here's the inescapable fact: men and women are different. Men just aren't good at the whole child care thing. We're just not wired to be nurturing. Women, on the other hand, have the nurturing ability implanted.

Sure, some men may have been successful "stay-at-home dads". But I would make a considerable bet that the vast majority of them would admit privately that they find the Mr. Mom gig demoralizing. They most likely feel they've given up their masculinity to their wife. After all, she's out slaying dragons in the business world while he's home cooking and changing diapers. How could that be good for a marriage?

Anyway, good premarital advice is that all couples should figure out the answers to these critical questions before they tie the knot. And I would suggest that if the woman is adamant that her career will always come first, the man should probably do what's best for both of them and move on.

If CNN was all there was, I'd be ignorant too

Spending the week in Canada, the only news I've been able to see is CNN.

For a person like myself who wants the facts, and only the facts, so I can make up my own mind about the news, it feels sort of like what it must have been like in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Or today in places like Cuba and China and Iran.

CNN does every story with a backdrop message about Bush. Like I've written before, whatever is going wrong in the world is Bush's fault.

There was this panel discussion on Iran and their nuclear program, their support for Hezbollah, and their designs on becoming the dominant power in the middle east. Surprisingly, two of the three guys on the panel were discussing their opinions about what can and should be done to try to solve the problem before Iran gets out of control and starts blowing up the planet.

But the third guy, identified as a "Democrat Strategist", didn't want to talk about solutions. He only wanted to talk about Bush. He held a little contest for himself to see how many negative adjectives he could throw out disparaging the President before the discussion ended. He was challenged by the host, then later by another panelist, to get off the President for a moment and tell everyone what should be done about the problem. He didn't have a solution of his own, unless you consider impeachment or some other means of removing Bush from office a solution.

I laughed out loud when caught by surprise by one of the panelists, who got so frustrated with the guy that he basically called him a naive idiot. On CNN, no less! I guess he won't be asked back on any panels anytime soon.

In case you were wondering, I have a solution for Iran and North Korea that nobody's talking about. I think it's a very simple solution that doesn't require military action. President Bush should go to Russia and China and tell them straight: As clients and arms suppliers to both Iran and North Korea, we will hold you responsible for any aggressive moves made by either country. That means if you don't lead the effort to stop the craziness of Ahmadinijad and Kim Jong Il, we will impose economic sanctions, not just on those countries, but on you!

Close the American consumer market to Russia and China even for a little while and see how fast they shut the lid on those rogue states.

It seems to me that if we had the courage to take out Saddam in Iraq, surely we've got the guts to get tough on trade with Russia and China to get what we need from them to assure peace.

But of course, the stupid and ignorant and CNN viewers can't think for themselves about solutions. They're only capable of yelling "Bush S*^ks" and blaming him, the military, and the oil companies for all the world's problems.

Still Alive

So if there was a major terrorist event planned for today, I guess we missed it. Some have guessed that the big flap with liquid explosives a couple weeks back was the actual plan.

In the meantime, I'm back in Canada. At the border I got sent into Immigration again, and was afraid they'd kick me out again. But this time they waved me through. I just never know what's going to happen here. September might be interesting, since I'm supposed to be up here most of that month.

So there were two guys applying for the same position with Cummins. One was a Yankee from New York and the other a Bubba from Arkansas. Their qualifications looked almost identical, they both interviewed well, then they both were given the same pre-employment test, on which they received an identical score.

The hiring manager offered the job to the Yankee. Bubba, who was unhappy with the choice, stormed into the office and asked the hiring manager, "why did y'all hire the yankee when I was ever bit as qualified for the job?"

The hiring manager explained, "The test was what helped seal our decision."

Bubba said, "But we both got the exact same score on the test."

The hiring manager responded, "Yes, and in fact both of you missed only one question. It also happened to be the same question. The answer from our other candidate to that question was 'I don't know'. "

"Your answer to that question was, 'Neither do I'.

Kudos to the original author of the above, whoever you may be.

Football Season

The best part about this time of year? Football season!

Hard to tell watching pre-season NFL games. Except that if the Colts get any of their starters injured, they will be in big trouble. Because their backups have looked horrible. I'm sure Jim Sorgi's a great guy, but I have a feeling I could have done better than he did in the first two preseason games. Maybe it's time to pick up a competent backup at QB, but then again, if Peyton gets hurt we can pretty much write off the season regardless.

We haven't seen much from the running backs with the Colts yet. If they can't get the running game going with Edge gone to Arizona, it will make things a lot tougher on Peyton. I think early in the season teams will gear up to stop the pass and ignore the run until the Colt's prove they can run. We'll see.

Gotta get the Columbus North site up and running for this year. Just need to find the time. The first game's already in the books - yikes!

I was surprised to see Notre Dame ranked second preseason. Seems too high. I wonder if they'll be able to build on a pretty good season last year.

I wonder if Indiana will make more improvements this year. They started out somewhat promising, but folded when they got to the Big Ten schedule. This year they won't be contending for the Big Ten title, but maybe they could move from the bottom to near the middle.

If my favorite teams do well this year, I'll be happy.

Disappointment

How often are you disappointed by other people?

Never, seldom, sometimes, often, almost always, always?

Lately I'm finding myself in the "often" to "almost always" range. People consistently disappoint me. The question I've begun to ask myself is whether that is because of them, or is it because of me?

It is disturbing to find myself in this mindset. Because I know about the miserable people in the "always" category. Nobody measures up to the standards set by the "always" person. In fact, nobody could ever measure up, because the standards are impossible to understand, let alone meet. I don't want to be an "always".

How do they disappoint me? By failing to follow through on promises. By being unscrupulous in their dealings with others, whether or not with me. By taking advantage of my generosity, then giving me the impression they turned me into a chump. By showing themselves to be less honorable than I thought. By shallowness, arrogance, duplicitousness, self-centeredness. With vulgarity, immorality. With ignorance.

Some may tell me it's my problem. I'm not accepting enough. I haven't learned to be "tolerant" and "embrace diversity". I'm too judgemental. Maybe I have unrealistically high expectations of others.

On the other hand, maybe the time has come to find new friends. Friends who can prove to me that they can be trustworthy, moral, and ethical.

There's the dilemma. I'm back on the road. I'm home 2 days a week, sometimes less. I don't just feel isolated, I am isolated.

Maybe I just need to relax and try harder to find my own joy. Life is indeed short.

Sigh and Shake Your Head

That's all we can do.

The UN successfully got Israel to back off in Lebanon. Hezbollah claims victory. They are right. they did win. Israel lost. It remains to be seen how badly. Anybody remember their kidnapped soldiers? Care to guess their fate?

Iran continues their nuclear weapons development program. The UN continues to dither and do nothing.

Democrats are optimistically predicting they will own the congress at year-end, when they will impeach Bush and pull all our troops out of Iraq.

Major planned airliner attacks were foiled last week. Democrats blamed the Bush administration for failing to do the right things to protect us (say what?). The ACLU found a lefty judge that was happy to play along and order the government to suspend all international terrorist eavesdropping. Such eavesdropping which appears to have played a substantial role in foiling last week's attacks.

Our borders are still unsecured.

The courts say we can't hold enemy terrorist combatants.

Iran today sent soldiers out in Tehran to smash all the satellite dishes on top of the city's buildings.

August 22nd is a date of some significance for the Islamic terrorists.

Scared yet?

Barbarians at the Gate

The Roman Empire fell, leading to the period we today call the Dark Ages. According to historians, even though today's historians have a tendency to distort and revise to fit their personal biases, Rome established their far-reaching empire through the use of a ruthless imperialism. Pax Romana was the rule of the Romans across the western world, and as far east as that troubled middle eastern region from Israel to Iran.

The Romans enjoyed a long run of prosperity and peace. A peace achieved, in many cases, by ruthless oppression of their would-be enemies across the known world. But relative peace. They were the enforcers of peace across their empire.

But they got lazy and bored. They became debauched, corrupt. They ate, drank, engaged in all manner of sexual deviancy, and lined up to watch great spectacles in their coliseum. Their experiment with democracy degenerated into a succession of tyrannical emperor dictators, each seemingly worse then the last.

Eventually, the barbarians from the north overtook the depleted Roman armies to reach Rome itself. The Roman empire crumbled under its own weight. And it took a thousand years for the world to recover.

Has the human race learned anything from the Romans? Apparently not.

The United States ascended as the dominant global power. Not by invading the rest of the world, but by unleashing a new concept of freedom that incorporated some of the democratic ideas of the Greeks and Romans so long ago. The grand political experiment, along with the vast untapped resources of the North American continent, made the US the envy of the world.

The country held firmly to its ideals through a difficult Civil War, then bailed Europe out of two devastating world wars and held Soviet and Chinese communism at bay. The standard of living among Americans exploded to unprecedented levels of wealth and ease. Until now.

The barbarians are at the gates. Instead of the Huns, they are represented by the radical Islamic hordes born out of the oil-rich middle east. Their ancient hatred of Jews, dating back to when Ishmael was slighted by Abraham in favor of his first wife's son Isaac, inflamed when the United Nations allowed the Jews to return to their sacred homeland in a small strip of Palestine and establish their own nation.

The battles in the region would most likely been left alone to reach a conclusion on their own if it weren't for the vast oilfields. The rest of the world relies heavily on those oilfields to power their economic engines. So the West, mainly America and Europe, focused a great deal of attention and resources in the attempt to pacify the middle east powderkeg.

But those efforts are failing. Because the Western world is becoming weary of the unceasing violence and terrorism. And mistakenly thought they could buy off the middle-eastern barbarians by letting them control their own countries and oilfields without western "meddling". Evidenced by Jimmy Carter's enabling of the overthrow of the Shah in Iran, a liberal pacifist policy for which he was rewarded with the American embassy overrun and the staff taken hostage. And the takeover of the Iranian government by radical Ayatollahs.

Now the regimes of Iran and Syria are openly supporting one of their terrorist offshoots, Hezbollah, in an open war against Israel. Iran is building nuclear weapons. Iran and Syria are sending insurgents and resources into Iraq to undermine the new fledgling government there with the belief that the soft Americans will give up and leave if they keep the instability and violence there long enough.

And what is the biggest superpower on earth doing about all this? Surrendering.

I was in Washington state last week, where the only news I could see were the main networks and CNN. The propaganda from our own news media in those outlets about all these problems convinced me it is true. The barbarians are at the gates, and most Americans are in denial.

The news I watched last week was mostly CNN, with an occasional look at NBC. Both outlets have the same routine. Do a story about one of the big problems in the world, then do a follow-on story about why it's Bush's fault.

Sunnis and Shi'ites are killing each other in Iraq. Bush's fault.

Israel fighting Hezbollah. Bush's fault.

BP pipeline in Alaska being shut down for repairs, causing oil supply disruption. Bush's fault.

Joe Lieberman loses primary. Because he doesn't hate Bush enough.

Terrorist plan to crash airliners using liquid explosive materials thwarted. Bush got lucky, but the terrorists wouldn't be trying to blow them up if he wasn't president.

Instead of recognizing the threat and banding together as a country, here's what our citizens are focused on:

Celebrity gossip

Gay Marriage

Getting out of Iraq

Global Warming

The NFL season

Outrage at the kinds of surveillance and intelligence-gathering techniques that foiled this week's terrorist plot.

Forcing Israel into a unilateral cease fire.

Forcing oil companies to lower gas prices.

Outrage at Republicans who try to allow oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

Blaming Christians and Appeasing Muslims.

As I said, the Barbarians are at the Gate and the gate is unlocked.

Fiddler on the Roof - MatchMaker

Watched the video recently and thought it might be kind of cool if we went back to the old tradition of arranged marriages.

I think I could do a pretty good job with my boys. I especially like the dowry tradition, considering the fact I don't have any daughters.

So, if I was to seek out the right match for Nick, here's where I would start.

Physical attributes:

Cute, petite. Not necessarily athletic, but enjoys running, biking, and rollerblading enough to keep up with Nick. Prototypes are Emmy Rossum or maybe Natalie Portman.

Careers, Interests, Hobbies:
Good career choices would be English, Literature, or Spanish teacher, psychologist, nurse. Has to love music - if she's a great singer and/or musician, that would be perfect. Must like going to concerts. Should be intelligent enough to hold her own or challenge Nick with discussions on philosophy and music.

Personal Traits:
Cheerful, upbeat, positive. Steady, not moody. Able to pick Nick up when he's way down and pull the reigns back on him a bit when he's soaring too high. Also able to understand and accept his mood swings without judgement but with empathy and support. Likes long walks and deep conversation, equally mixed with fun.

Preferred Role:
Good housewife desirable, but not required. Willing to share housework and cooking with Nick. Willing to trade cooking duties with Nick and appreciates his culinary ability. Got to be great with children.

With Nick:
Is completely dedicated and committed to Nick through good and bad, but not smothering or possessive. Knows when to get close and when to give him space.

That was fun, now let's do Tim:

Physical Attributes: Pretty, athletic, preferably blonde. Prototype is Maria Sharapova.

Careers, Interests, Hobbies:
Doctor or Nurse, teacher or coach, Personal Trainer. Loves sports. Likes to stay active, try new things, play games. Must love animals, especially dogs. Loves movies.

Personal Traits:
Fun-loving, bit unpredictable, adventurous. Likes to keep things light, never too serious. Sees Tim as the only guy that can keep up with her. Loves to laugh. Social and outgoing, but not dominating. Cannot be hard-headed or opinionated.

Preferred Role:
Traditional housewife. Willing to take on household chores and cooking, because Tim won't. Leaves maintenance and yard work to Tim, which he can be convinced to do. Should want lots of kids and plenty of animals in the house.

With Tim:
Keeps the relationship fresh, fun, and adventurous. Is devoted to Tim but not posessive or smothering. Strong ability to influence Tim to see things her way by making him think it's his idea. Tim's partner in social activities, work, home, and family.

I'd do pretty well, don' t you think?

The Case for Chastity

This isn't intended to be preachy or prudish or anything of the sort. In fact, let's just take for granted that the Christian religion generally suggests that sex outside of marriage is considered sinful.

Instead of going into the obvious religious arguments, let me try to make the argument from a practical point of view. There are lots of things that can result from sexual activity outside of marriage. And most of them are bad.

The case for chastity:

1. There is absolutely no risk of contracting one of the many sexually transmitted diseases.
2. There is absolutely no risk of unplanned pregnancy.
3. The corollary to #2; there is no risk of compounding the problem with an abortion, or having to give up a child forever to adoption.
4. There is no risk of a shotgun wedding.
5. A man and woman can date without pressure for sex.
6. A dating relationship without sex lets the couple focus on their compatibility instead of their libido. The couple can discover much more quickly whether or not they are compatible, and the breakup is much less painful and difficult.
7. The anticipation related to waiting for marriage is the definition of "marital bliss".
8. Those couples who save it for marriage are must more likely to be highly compatible, committed, and disciplined, which serves both very well for their lifetimes together.
9. Side effects, cancer, sterility and diseases caused by artificial birth control are absent.
10. Divorce is much less likely when a couple marries because of mutual love and understanding not clouded by sex.
11. Those who have had multiple partners tend to view sex as "no big deal", therefore they are much more likely to continue side affairs after marriage.
12. The memory of previous sexual partners doesn't hang over the couple's marriage like a black cloud.

As you see, I've made a compelling case for chastity without bringing religion into the argument. From my perspective, to whatever degree one's faith is important, it should only enhance the practical reasons presented for waiting. Sure, supposedly strong and committed Christian young people have been reported in studies to be just as sexually active as their less religious peers. I attribute that more to the strength of the natural reproductive drive than anything else. Deciding on chastity and sticking to that choice might be one of the most difficult but rewarding ventures anyone ever undertakes in life.

If this post just gets one or two people thinking, I'll be thrilled.

You Cannot Solve any Problem Unless You Understand It

The standard line most news outlets want to feed us these days is that the world would be a much more peaceful place if not for President Bush. It's not a terribly cogent or well-supported argument, but it goes something like this:

Bush's invasion of Iraq enraged the Islamic world, which led to the Iraqi insurgency and the ascension of Ahmadinijad in Iran and the election of Hamas in the Palestinian authority. His heavy-handed foreign policy also somehow inspired North Korea's dangerous nuclear activities and missile tests.

Basically, it's all Bush's fault, including the Sunni-Shi'ite turf war in Iraq, Hamas tossing rockets into Israel from the area in Gaza they were voluntarily given only a few months earlier to buy peace, and both Hamas and Hezbollah raiding Israel to kill and capture soldiers.

I have this little character flaw, where I want to hear the facts to support whatever conclusion is being made about any issue. The Hate Bush movement has been so relentless that it seems to permeate everything these days, and the impression is that most Americans seem to agree that he's somehow responsible for all these problems in the world.

My own search for facts, while not completely exhonerating Bush, doesn't make him the villain either. Here are a few basic facts:

Iran and Syria are the two most prominent terrorist states. They fund and support Hamas, Hezbollah, and anybody else who shares their goal of wiping Israel off the map. Hezbollah's weapons are supplied by Iran with logistical support from Syria. (And most of the weapons are purchased from Russia and China.)

The Hezbollah incursion into Israel that started the current war in Lebanon just happened to take place within a day of Iran's deadline for responding to the UN on the demand they stop nuclear weapons development. Could it reasonably be concluded that the Hezbollah agression was ordered by Iran as a distraction?

Most of the escalating violence in Iraq is Sunni vs. Shi'a. It's not so much an insurgency as it is a civil war to determine which sect will rule Iraq. I think both sides see what's happening in America and figure our troops will be gone by the next presidential election, if not shortly after this year's elections. So they are trying to establish an advantage for when the power vacuum occurs after our troops leave. If and when we leave Iraq, the most likely outcome will see the Iranian-backed Shi'ites taking over. Want Ahmadinijad in charge of Iran and Iraq? Vote Democrat.

Everyone but the US and Israel is yelling at Israel to "cease fire". As if Israel's the culprit in the conflict. It conjures and image of the referee at a boxing match (the UN) grabbing the winning fighter's arms and pinning them behind his back so the losing fighter can pummel him at will. It seems to me that everybody knows that's not the way to stop a fight. This weekend, Israel saw rockets being launched from that Lebanese town and bombed it, killing some civilians in the process. What incredible outrage was leveled at Israel. But what about the outrage toward Hezbollah, who routinely targets civilians and launches their rockets at Israeli towns indiscriminately every day? CNN bends over backward to present both sides of the conflict equally?

Finally, what the critics seem to be saying is that Bush should essentially give the rogue countries what they want. Stop helping Israel. Leave Iraq. Leave the entire middle east alone. Make a deal with Ahmadinijad so he'll stop building nuclear weapons. Make a deal with Kim Jong Il so he'll stop building nuclear weapons and trying to launch them at us.

Let's see, how has that worked in the past? Well, as I mentioned before, Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians for peace, and how did the Palestinians respond? In case you haven't heard, by daily rocket and mortar attacks across the border into Israeli towns and a cross-border raid that killed soldiers and captured others. Then there's North Korea, where Bill Clinton gave them food and nuclear technology in exchange for a promise they wouldn't use it for weapons. How did they respond? By immediately breaking the agreement to feverishly develop a nuclear weapons development program.

Finally, there's the Islamic radical agenda. They haven't been secretive about their goals. First, they want to wipe Israel off the map and remove all western influence from the middle east. Then they want to spread Islam, by force if necessary, across the planet. To be specific, that means that governments around the world will be run by the Ayatollahs. Islam is the only religion permitted by law. Anyone holding onto any other religion will be executed, or if they are lucky, enslaved.

And what was that you were saying again? Oh yeah, all this is Bush's fault.

Good luck in your fantasy world. Elect your favorite liberal pacifist to congress this fall and see what happens. You might want to get a head start on those Koran studies and go shopping for a prayer rug and burkha.

Who is Responsible?

Conventional wisdom these days says that we are all responsible for our own successes and failures. We create our own problems, and have the capacity to solve them. That the measure of a man is how effective he is at meeting life's problems head-on and turning problems into opportunities.

I keep trying to tell myself the same thing. My problems are really opportunities to grow and succeed in life. They are the hot flame that hardens and refines me. They help me grow in wisdom.

Thanks, but I'm at the point where I think it's time to turn down the heat a bit. There seems to be too much being thrown at me at once this summer, and I'm ready to surrender. Stress makes me stupid - I almost took a bad job just for the change, and health insurance. I've been working like a maniac, but somehow it's never enough. I've been trying to make everyone happy, but nobody is; especially me.

When there are too many problems that I can't solve, I feel out of control. This is one of those times. I know I must snap out of it, and solve the problems. But right now I'd rather just hide out for awhile.

Somehow over the course of the next few weeks I'll find a way to make things a little better. But just temporarily better, not solved.

Gotta stop before I give away what I must keep to myself.

Wishing for a Weekend

This whole exile thing doesn't seem such a good idea at this moment. Between the stress of working long hours for the clients I'm visiting, I've also been hit with a variety of urgent things I also have to do. It's too much work, too much stress, too much frustration.

Enough of that.

The last few days I've been at a casino. It's full of grey/white/blue-haired folks. There's a continental breakfast off the lobby that was so jammed with elders this morning I didn't get much and couldn't sit down to eat. Is that what retirees do these days? Go spend a weekend at some casino? That doesn't seem like much fun to me, but I guess the casinos love the old folks.

Between state lotteries and the spread of casinos across the country, I'm more than a little disgusted. I'm old enough to remember when gambling was considered a kind of lowbrow and sinful activity. Now everybody does it, and the government loves it.

Lotteries are taxes on poor and stupid people. I've met many folks during my lifetime who routinely buy their quota of lottery tickets in the sad belief that someday the numbers will come up and make them rich. Maybe it's not much to worry about for many of those people, but the really poor are getting poorer chasing that impossible dream.

The big secret about what happens to towns when casinos arrive isn't all the locals who get the low-paying jobs there. Is everybody really OK with the increase in crime that comes with the casinos? Is replacing the manufacturing jobs that went overseas with casino jobs at half the pay worth the side effects of drugs, theft, prostitution, etc.?

Yeah, I do a lot of consulting for casino companies. So it's true that I'm making part of my living in the same industry. It presents a bit of a dilemma for me, working for the very businesses I find distasteful.

Maybe I can fall into a pile of money so I don't have to work for the evil casinos. At least I, who never gamble, get about the same odds of coming into big money as those who spend money they don't have on lottery tickets and casino games.

Stem Cells and Terrorists and Gays (Oh my!)

The political stuff is beginning to bore me, but I'll go ahead and post my particular take on the things that have been happening over the last week.

How about using the order established in the title.

Stem Cells. The argument's been going on for several years. People like the late Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, and Nancy Reagan have all been publicly lobbying for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

I've heard both side of the argument. Proponents say that embryonic stem cells have a potential for curing damaged spinal cords, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. (See Reeve, Fox, Reagan). Their emotion-filled argument sounds full of hope that they or their family members could be (or could have been) cured of their terrible diseases, except the evil Bush refused to fund the research.

The other side fears a slippery slope. They have a somewhat cynical view that many proponents of this research are in it to further rationalize abortion than a sincere belief in cures. But their bottom line is that it is immoral to create a human embryo for the sole purpose of destroying (read, killing) it to search for a cure that isn't even likely.

Here's what I understand about the issue. Embryonic stem cells have not yet proven therapeutic for any disease, despite scientists worldwide apparently working hard in their labs to solve the puzzle. However, adult and placental stem cells, which by the way don't require killing anybody, are already being used successfully to treat all sorts of diseases.

What people on the "pro" side either miss or cynically avoid admitting are the basic facts I outlined above, plus the fact that Bush didn't "ban" stem cell research at all - he merely refuses to fund it with federal tax dollars.

What some people on the "con" side may miss is the fact that nobody is proposing the use of aborted fetuses for this research. They instead are asking permission to obtain unused embryos from fertility clinics. But those on this side who do understand that still oppose the research because #1: They have a moral objection to killing embryos under any circumstances, even from fertility clinics; #2: They are convinced that those who do the research will quickly be back demanding they be allowed to use aborted fetuses or even create embryos themselves for destruction in their research; and #3: They believe there are plenty of private biotech companies doing the research on their own without any help from Uncle Sam, and there's no reason to use tax dollars from people morally opposed to this research to support research that may eventually make some biotech company extremely rich.

So I've got no problem with Bush's veto of the bill out of congress today.

Next, terrorists. It's kind of scary to see the escalating conflict between Israel and their enemies. The crazy thing is everybody from Kofi Annan to CNN to Howard Dean running around blaming the current war on, you guessed it, President Bush. The twisted logic is that if Bush had somehow left Iraq alone, none of this stuff with Iran and Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas and North Korea would have happened.

Did our invasion of Iraq enrage a lot of radical Islamic terrorist types? Sure. News Flash! War usually does make the enemy hate you more when you fight them. The idea from the pacifists is that we could have somehow brought everyone in the world together to scold the terrorists, as if they were little children, to suddenly love us and stop trying to kill us. Iran, North Korea, and Syria were our enemies in 2001 and they remain our enemies today. Right now they've decided to take on Israel in full-on warfare through their proxies. Next they will do their best to attack American cities.

I know I said it before, but it's really very simple. Aggressors cannot be appeased. Never in history has anyone successfully appeased them. They are either defeated or they win.

Finally, gays. Congress tried to get the gay marriage amendment rolling and failed. They got lots of votes but not the two-thirds it requires. Why did they push this amendment? Was it some sort of campaign stunt, or were they serious?

I'd say both. Conservatives in the House can most definitely use their "Yes" votes to hold off their liberal challengers who mostly think Gay Marriage should be the law of the land. But the fundamental reason they tried the amendment was to keep the courts from forcing it on all of us without our approval. Massachusetts is the first example, and there likely will be other left-wing judges more than happy to dictate the subject against the wishes of the majority.

We live in interesting times.

Exile

My 2 week exile is underway. Just finished in DC with a day that went 8-8, and now here I am writing a blog entry for reasons I can't quite fathom. Maybe because I usually go 8-9 and feel like I have to do something with the extra hour.

Tomorrow an early-morning flight to Seattle. And I actually look forward to it a bit, because I don't have to do any actual work, and nobody will be able to reach me because the airlines make you turn off your cellphones during flight. Hopefully my upgrade went through and I can sit back in first class with a good book to pass the time.

Not that anybody cares, but the rest of my exile is a return flight to DC next weekend with the same trip back to Seattle again same time, next week. If I'm lucky, the exile will end before August rolls around.

This post was going to have a bit more, but I just got a big reminder from somewhere behind my navel that it's time to stop messing around and get some food.

Back to the 70's

Had an all-70's web radio playing while I worked yesterday, and it got me thinking about the evolution of popular music.

Call me biased, since of course the 70's is the decade in which I came of age, but I think it might be the best music decade in the modern era. Let me make the case.

Reason #1: Some of the greatest bands and artists made timeless classics.

Many of these are still around, and others are iconic. Just a short list:
Aerosmith, The Who, Elton John, Rolling Stones, Elton John, Electric Light Orchestra, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Eagles, Genesis, Boston, Nugent, Clapton, Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Bob Dylan. I probably forgot somebody important.

Reason #2: Music so good I personally haven't heard better since.
There were the bands and artists so well known that I listed above, but some of my favorites have never been duplicated.
My personal all-time favorites were Chicago, Harry Chapin, Jim Croce, and I, uh, had this crush on Olivia.

Reason #3: There was something for everyone.
From acid or metal to folk, there was a lot of great music for any taste. I was a great fan of Chapin's story songs. Others enjoyed Carly Simon and James Taylor (who by the way were married briefly back then).

We've gotta give Barry Manilow his due. I find it rather funny that nobody will admit to ever being a Manilow fan, but somebody had to be to explain his huge album sales and airplay. OK, I admit that I sort of liked Manilow. I listened to him when he came on the radio, saw him in concert once, and even did one of his songs as a solo in U. Singers.

Then there's disco. I think everybody who hates or makes fun of disco missed the point. Disco never tried to be about serious music. It was all about fun. And the girls were really into the disco dancing scene, which meant guys actually went out and learned the Hustle for the sole purpose of meeting them. Listen to the Bee Gees and Donna Summer and the Village People, and I think you'll hear that they're not about anything but having a good time.

Generally what I miss most about the music of the 70's in contrast to today's popular music is the spirit. In the 70's, music was about love and fun and hopefulness. Sure, lots of songs were kind of sappy by today's terms, but I don't have a problem with that. Today's music seems much more cynical and worldly and much less soulful. And in my humble opinion, it's hard to find an artist these days that can actually sing with range and pitch and tone. It seems like these days, good singers need not apply.

I think I'll listen to that 70's station some more. It takes me back, bringing some feelings and memories of people and events I haven't thought about in a long time.

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.