Single Issue Vote

There was only one issue that influenced my vote, and only one race that counts toward that issue.

That issue is the war on terror. No, not Iraq per se, but the terror war overall. My vote cast to re-elect Mike Sodrel was primarily based on the knowledge that he supports victory in Iraq. His opponent, like most of the Democrats, wants us out of Iraq.

When Democrats say they support a "new direction" or a "smarter strategy" or "redeployment", they mean retreat. They want the troops to get out, and don't care about the consequences. Those consequences will be horrible for the Iraqis, the middle east in general, and us.

I'm saddened to hear the Bush haters who have bought the story made up by the left wing and nurtured by the Democrat leadership. Bush lied, Iraq had no WMD, Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. We've all heard it ad nauseum. Unfortunately, Vladimir Lenin's idea that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth seems to have been validated.

The terrorists themselves have openly stated that they support Democrats, and will consider a Democrat victory today as a major victory for their jihad. It will embolden them to expand their terrorist activities, because we will have proven to them that terrorism works.

You see, all the other issues are moot if our country is no longer secure from terrorist attack. How important are arguments about minimum wage and universal healthcare when we are all wondering when and where the next car bomb will go off in our own cities? All of the Democrats' positions on the war promise that we will be attacked. We can't fight the terrorists in Iraq. We can't listen to their phone calls. We can't monitor their financial transactions. We have to give terrorist prisoners the same rights as American citizens. We can't interrogate captured terrorists. On and on and on ...

So what happens if Democrats win and they enforce their will to abandon Iraq?

Iraqis will die. You think a lot of them have died already? You haven't seen anything yet. The civil war will explode for control of the country as soon as we leave. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, will be killed in a bloody civil war.

Iran will take control. Iran will cross the border with their full military might when we leave and take control of the country, partnering with their Shiite friends in Iran to form a powerful militant Islamic block which includes Iran, Iraq, Syria, and possibly Lebanon. Everyone who stands in their way will be brutally killed.

Meanwhile, our Democrat leaders will wring their hands at the United Nations, pleading with the rest of the world to do something. Which, of course, the rest of the world will refuse, while the terrorists and their sponsor countries gloat.

Once the united forces of those countries have stabilized, they will take control of the other countries in the region, either through force or threat of force. And when they are ready, they will move all of their combined military might against Israel. There, millions more people will die. We may see the first use of an offensive nuclear weapon against an Israeli city within 5 years.

In the meantime, the Iranian-led coalition will send all sorts of bombers into a naive and politically correct America. They will bomb our cities incessantly, all along proclaiming that the bombing will stop if we cease all involvement in the middle east and all support for Israel. They believe this will work, as evidenced by the Democrats' campaign against the war on Terror these past 5 years. The Democrats will respond by attempting to negotiate.

Think I'm wrong? It is my most fervent wish to be wrong. It is my greatest fear that I am not only right, but underestimating the consequences.

That's why I voted for Mike Sodrel. But if the Democrats take control of the government, I will be tempted to hope I'm at ground zero when the first terrorist nuke is exploded in what used to be the best and proudest nation on the planet.

Mystery

There's a local story that has me fascinated. It involves the suspension and firing of the new high school basketball coach for misappropriation of funds. I'm fascinated because the newspaper has been doling out tiny bits of information over the course of the past week, but still has not told the whole story.

The coach's name is Barry Huckaby. He was just hired this year to take over what has been a dismal basketball program at Columbus North. I was planning to follow his progress, to see whether he could actually bring the program back to respectability.

So far, all the newspaper has said is that he was suspended by the school on suspicion that he took a little under $3,000 from the gate proceeds at a recent football game. The story seems to say that they discovered the receipts were short by about that amount, Barry was in charge of the gate receipts, the case was turned over to local police, and they have named him a "person of interest" in the ongoing investigation. They also have sent him a notice of termination.

There's plenty missing from the story. Are they withholding the information because of the ongoing investigation, or because they don't have it? Just a few of my questions -

Where is that money now? Is it still missing?

How do they know the exact amount that is missing?

What evidence has made them so certain Barry is guilty that they have suspended him and are firing him before he's even been charged?

The idea that someone in his position thought he could possibly get away with just walking off with that amount of cash is puzzling. Is it possible that he didn't actually steal it, but maybe was careless and lost it? Or that someone else stole it? Or that he simply took it home that night, fully intending to bring it back to deposit the next day?

There's an interesting little item in the newspaper that suggested things need to be calmed down for awhile to let the authorities complete their investigation. That there are some "strong personalities" in the North Athletic Department involved. I wonder what that's all about?

I don't know the guy, and am not at all involved with the basketball program. Maybe he stole the money and deserves full prosecution. Maybe it's a big misunderstanding, or even a nasty political battle within the athletic office as hinted by the newspaper. The people close to the situation probably know the answers to all of my questions.

From my reading of the news articles, I think everyone in the community should hold to the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy and see how this plays out. It should continue to be fascinating.

Choices

There are so many choices made by people that are obviously wrong from the point of view of others, but the individual making the choice is either blind or refuses to look.

I'm sort of a casual observer noticing many of these bad choices in people around me. Not that I've always made the best choices myself, but the reasons I don't do anything about my bad choices are my own. And maybe others would say the same about theirs:

Dropping out of school because, well, you hate school.

Taking a bad job because it was the best you could do at the time, or someone pressured you into it, or because you thought the money would make up for the misery.

Quitting a good job because someone pressured you, a "grass is greener" situation, or impulsively walking out when you were having a bad day.

Jumping into a bad relationship because you were lonely, or because you thought you could change the other person, or because you were afraid the music had stopped and she was the only chair left.

Getting hooked on drugs or alcohol because you wanted to seem cool for your friends. Then choosing your drug over everyone else; parents, spouse, children, friends.

Picking an abusive boyfriend over your own children.

Working as many hours as possible so you don't have to go home. Or hiding out in front of the TV to avoid family interaction.

Fighting too much over unimportant matters. Refusing to fight for important matters.

Rejecting people because of they way they look, what they do, how much money they have, or because they're boring. Wondering why you have no real friends, only superficial and self-absorbed social companions who wouldn't give you the time of day if you hit a rough patch.

Divorcing a spouse for the tired old, "The spark is gone." So much for promises made before God. What exactly could you be trusted to do?

Rationalizing bad behavior. "Those people over there do something even worse, so don't hassle me."

Missing key words from vocabulary: Empathy, Respect, Responsibility.

Losing faith.

Weekend Thoughts

It was a busy weekend, then I was knocked off my feet by some sort of virus. Skipped rehearsal and slept a lot, and feel almost human this morning.

Caught the Sectional final at Bloomington South after wondering whether it would be worth the trip. It was, in a tight and fun-to-watch game with the Columbus North guys winning their second sectional title in 3 years.

The Colts knocked off the Patriots last night. I didn't believe it would happen, and am appropriately chastened for my lack of faith. Surprisingly, the Colt's defense was the story of that game.

There was lots of angst over the weekend about the negative ads the politicians have been running this year. Both parties are involved. It was interesting to sit through a string of about 5 ads last night, with all but the very last a negative about some candidate. Some of them didn't even mention the candidate they were supporting.

Interestingly, I found I actually knew which negative ads were true, partly true, or completely false. Maybe I've been paying too much attention to this stuff. Want to know what ads are true and which are false? Just give me a call and I'll let you know.

The excuse given by the parties for this mudslinging approach was basically that it works. Or that the other candidate did it first, and they had to respond. It reminds me of kids fighting; the defense is always, "He started it!". So our politicians appear to suffer from arrested development.

I wonder what would happen if a politician simply ran an ad something like this: "If you want low taxes, an aggressive war against terrorism, keeping traditional marriage, pro-life, free trade, less government, etc., vote for me. If you want high taxes, retreat from the terror war, gay marriage, abortion, protectionism, more government, etc., vote for the other guy."

Interestingly, almost everyone would probably find some things they like and other things they don't about the candidate. But at least they would be able to decide which candidate is closer to their own opinions, instead of voting (or not) based on which candidate had the more disgusting negative ads.

Consequences of our Election

I know there are lots of you out there that want to bail out of Iraq. I hear it all the time - Iraq didn't attack us, it's not part of the war on terror, it's just about Bush and oil, and so on.

Suppose somebody went out and asked the terrorist leaders directly about what would happen to the US if we elected the Democrats and abandoned Iraq.

Somebody did. His name is Aaron Klein. And here's what he found out:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

While the terror leaders each independently urged American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Democrats keep saying they would be "smarter" about the terror war and Iraq. But the only specifics I've ever heard from them involve retreat and surrender, or in their terms, "redeployment".

How do you think that smart redeployment strategy will work for them?

Clarity

The strange thing going on inside my head these days is this frightening clarity. It's as if I know all the answers, everything makes sense, and I understand everything that's going on. At the same time, I feel completely powerless to affect any of it.

Somehow it seems I understand everyone I know who's more than a casual acquaintance. I understand, but in the cases where I know they're messed up, am powerless to help them.

When two people I know well are in conflict, I understand both sides of the conflict, but can't do a thing to make either of them reconcile. Maybe because they don't want to reconcile. I just don't like it when they try to stick me in the middle. Because the truth is, they're both wrong more than either of them is right. And nobody likes being told they're wrong. And reconciliation requires humility and remorse, which proud and stubborn people will never express.

I understand every problem related to my business. Those problems I can solve, I solve. Those I can't, I just do the best I can.

I understand what people think about politics and next week's elections. But there's no way I can affect anybody else's voting decisions. Because everyone has chosen sides. Most are voting emotionally instead of logically, and that frightens me a bit.

I'm in a room full of people who are discussing something, which maybe is some sort of problem or decision they can't seem to solve. I understand their problem completely and know exactly what they need to do - I have the perfect answer. But I'm invisible. I try to get their attention, but they ignore me like I'm not there.

So with a sad shake of the head, I just leave the room and leave them to what I'm sure will be a bad decision for everyone. Including me.

Why Apologize?

The reaction to Senator John Kerry's slam on military people has been even more strident than I expected. Naturally, the whole story is buried or spun into some sort of Bush attack by the leftist media, but I imagine it's the lead story for the right radio talkers.

My take, as usual, is different from the talking heads from both sides. The lefties say it was just a botched joke about Bush. There's no way you can possibly twist his words into any conceivable Bush joke unless you just didn't see the video. Everyone else is demanding he apologize, while Kerry himself went insane in a press conference, where he blamed Bush. I like the trend of most Democrats, who automatically fall back to "it's Bush's fault" whenever something goes wrong, even when it was their own gaffe.

What I would suggest is that there's no need to demand Kerry apologize. If he were to apologize for stating his true belief, it would be a false and meaningless act. Kerry's statement that basically labels military personnel as a bunch of losers simply represents his true belief. The best and most believable apology he could make would be, "I'm sorry if I offended anyone in the military with my statement, but I stand by my belief that the military is the last resort for people who can't cut it anywhere else."

Politically, there's a pretty good comparison that illustrates the double standard among the press. A few years back, Trent Lott gave a speech at Strom Thurmond's retirement party, and got driven from his position as a Senate GOP leader just because he said something nice about Strom. He just said that the country might be better off today if Strom had been President. The Democrats and their media megaphone twisted that into the idea that Trent was a racist, because Strom was a civil rights opponent (and a Democrat) back in the days when he had Presidential aspirations. Trent didn't say anything at all racist, and certainly demeaned no one in his speech, but was driven out of his position.

What a contrast with Kerry, who simply says what he believes, which offends most of the population, but gets a pass from a press desperate to contain the damage less than a week before elections.

No apology required. Just let the man keep talking.

Voted

I voted today, because I might be out of town next Tuesday.

It was easy, and didn't take long. I don't see what the flap is all about with having to show an ID. No problem.

As far as the new computer terminal, it seemed to work OK. I can understand where people might get concerned about hacking, but it seems to me that with adequate security measures and other checks and balances, like making sure the number of people who voted on the machine matches the number of people who showed up to vote, should help insure it doesn't get hacked.

I took my own advice. There was a local board that I didn't know anything about, and didn't know anybody running for it. So I didn't vote for anyone for that board. Otherwise I had done my homework and voted for the best options in each race.

It will be interesting to see how I did after all the votes are in next week.

Contradiction

Does anybody else wonder about contradictions? I was just thinking about several:

Why protest against killing animals and serial killers, then fight to keep infanticide a basic right?

Why block all domestic oil exploration, power plants, and refineries, then accuse others of jacking up energy prices to enrich their friends in the energy business?

How can one be a socialist and be filthy rich?

Why demagogue the Kyoto treaty when one knows it exempts the world's greatest polluters while just picking America's pocket?

Why demagogue government-funded embryonic stem cell research when there hasn't been a single success with them?

Why pass laws to keep people from smoking and eating fatty foods, while demonstrating for legalization of recreational drugs?

Why continue to harrass Christians to keep them from expressing their faith anywhere in public, yet promote atheism, paganism, buddism, and even Islam in public schools?

How do pacifists decide to demand military intervention in Darfur?

How is it inclusive to support preferences based on skin color? How does granting preferences in college admissions to government contracts to wealthy non-white and non-asian people advance any social good?

Why does science only count if at least one scientist claims to have proven one's view?

How can supporting illegal immigration be in the interest of labor unions?

If the minimum wage isn't enough to live on at $5.15, would you suggest it is enough at $6.50?

Just wondering.

You better not vote if ...

You form all your impressions of the candidates from their TV ads

You have no idea where each candidate stands on the key issues they will vote on as your representative

You're voting against someone instead of for someone

Your opinions on issues were formed by watching CNN or CBS, or what people you know say.

You haven't bothered to at least read the newspaper profiles on the candidates for local offices.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not that difficult, you know. The internet is a very fast resource to find out who's running for what, their qualifications (or lack thereof), their positions on important issues, and what they've promised to do if you elect them.

It's funny - I saw some political ads up in Northern Indiana this week, then a couple over the weekend after I got home. I can't see how anybody could take these ads seriously.

For example, up north there was an ad against congressman Chocola. I don't really know anything about the guy, but the ad was kind of funny. The basic message from the ad was, "Don't vote for Chocola, who's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". It made me curious about how much his opponent is worth.

Even funnier was when I got home and saw virtually the same ad here against Sodrel. "Don't vote for Sodrel because he's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". I guess they just produced the same ad across the country and substituted the candidate name for each campaign.

But then I saw a couple of Sodrel's ads. One was a pleasant surprise, showing Sodrel with some of the reasons he should be re-elected. That's the kind of ad I wish every candidate would run.

But then I saw an ad against Sodrel's opponent, Baron Hill. It accused him of "cashing in" on his position as a former congressman by taking a job with a Washington lobbying firm. Yawn. I can't imagine that ad would influence anyone's vote one way or the other.

Why can't both candidates just do what Sodrel did with his positive ad? Better yet, why not just show the voters where each of them stands? Wouldn't the best approach be to just show us the facts and let us decide? Very simply, all we really need to know is:

Abortion: Hill Pro-Abortion, Sodrel Pro-Life
Iraq: Hill Pro-Withdrawal, Sodrel Pro-Win first
Taxes: Hill Pro-Repeal Bush's Tax Cuts, Sodrel Pro-Keep Bush Tax Cuts
Healthcare: Hill Pro-Socialized Medicine, Sodrel Pro-Private System

You get the idea.

Apparently, both sides seem to be afraid to put their positions out there. By attempting to trash the other, they hope to gain a protest vote, or at least disgust voters from the other side into staying home.

If I were to run for office, I'd want to run that way. Here's my position on the issues, and here's how my position is different from that of my opponent. Vote for me if you agree with me; vote for my opponent if you agree with him (her).

I think we would end up with a much better government if that happened.

Language

Last week's assignment was an assessment of a company's use of software. The goal was to solve their biggest problems and identify efficiencies they could realize through better use of available features in the product.

Naturally, I found a plethora of opportunities for improvement. That's not particularly unusual, because most companies don't deign to use their software consultants in a way that brings them true value; their attitude is usually, "Just give us a couple of weeks training, and we'll take it from there, thanks." The decision-making process most favored is generally known as "penny-wise, pound foolish".

I wrote a 30-page tome with all my findings and solutions, and shared it with the client group. I also shared it with the managers at the software company, suggesting that they have an opportunity to do some more business with this client.

The funny part of the story is that the software company manager sent me an email. The report was "OK". Actually, it was better than anything anybody else at the company ever created, but "OK" will do. I laughed when I read her feedback that notified me of a "typo". My "typo" was the use of "en masse" in a phrase, related to an alternative method for entry of data. Apparently she is unfamiliar with the common usage of "en masse". Do you suppose she missed the fact that Microsoft Word didn't even give it the red underline?

It's not all that unusual to get asked what I meant by a word or phrase. Perhaps it is a fault of mine to sometimes exploit an extended vocabulary in expressing myself. I truly never use vocabulary to impress; I merely choose the words I feel best fit the message. It's funny when someone tells me a perfectly appropriate word or phrase is a typo.

Not to pick on this individual, in fact, you should have seen what I saw back when I was myself a manager for the software company. Part of my role back then was to review reports created by consultants, mainly to keep up with what was happening in the various projects. They were mostly awful. Most of these folks couldn't pass a Freshman Composition class. Freshman in High School. That is, depending on what high schools are teaching these days - you never know. I often found myself wondering, while reading a particularly poor example of a consultant status report, how in the world this consultant actually graduated from a real university. Maybe I should send the consultant's alma mater English department a copy of one of their status reports, along with a letter asking whether this was a representative writing example of their university graduates.

Some of them couldn't put a coherent sentence together if their job depended on it. And they're professional, highly-paid consultants? So glad I'm not responsible for that anymore.

Wouldn't it be nice if the average person had at least enough education to be able to express themself in a reasonably coherent sentence? With at least most words spelled correctly?

Recalling Professor Henry Higgins about the English language; "In America, they haven't spoken it in years."

Movie Review

I caught Flags of our Fathers on opening night. I was stuck in Kansas anyway, and had stayed in the hotel and worked pretty much every night this week. So for my big Friday night outing, I naturally chose to see the movie based on the book I enjoyed so much.

Here's what I was worried about going into the movie:

That the story would be used for some sort of political statement,

That the story wouldn't stay true to the story, becoming "Hollywoodized" and therefore ruined like other great stories that get shredded by the movie interpretation,

That the depiction of the battle for Iwo Jima would be too graphic.

I was relieved to find none of the above happened in the movie. I found it moving and compelling and well acted. I enjoyed the way it told the story by intertwining scenes from the Bond Tour with flashbacks to battle scenes. I appreciated the fact that the violence depicted was enough to convey the brutality of the battle, but was never gratuitous. For example, when Doc finally finds his buddy Iggy, they don't even show Iggy's body - just Doc's reaction.

If you want to see this movie, I suggest you first pick up and read the book. I believe the film is much easier to follow and understand if you've already read the book. There are lots of subtleties you will find and appreciate in the movie depiction only if you have read the book.

Don't worry about the book spoiling the movie. It's not that kind of story. It's no problem if you already know how it turns out.

If you follow my advice, you will find the combined experience of both the book and the movie provide a great sensitive, multilayered look at war and heroes. After the movie, let me know who your heroes are, and what your definition of a hero is.

Grease - The Rest of the Story

I just happened to catch the movie Grease on TV, the one from 1978 with John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John. It just hit me as the movie was ending to write the rest of the story about Danny Zuko and Sandy (what is her last name?)

So, here you go - picking up where the movie left off:

Sandy graduates from Rydell with Honors and Danny barely gets a diploma. They're inseparable, and Danny likes her new biker-chick attitude, but is kind of uncomfortable with it because part of what attracted him to Sandy was her straight-laced, upper-middle-class status.

Sandy's parents are beside themselves. Their terrific daughter, straight-A student who's destined for the Ivy League, is now dressing like a prostitute and hanging out with a gang banger from the wrong side of town. Now she's staying out all hours at night, has started smoking, has new piercings in strange places, and her mother is pretty sure she spotted a tattoo!

The parents both keep trying to convince Sandy that there's nothing but bad that can happen, and she should dump Danny immediately. But the more they press her, the more she rebels, until she is barely speaking to her parents. At least she's headed for Princeton at the end of the summer, then maybe she'll get over this temporary stage.

But Sandy misses her monthly time in July. Only a couple of weeks before she is scheduled to leave for college, she gets confirmation - she is pregnant. Danny is the only person she tells, and he steps up bravely and offers to marry her. After all, he's got a job down at the shop pumping gas and working on cars.

She can't tell her parents; it would be unbearable to hear their wrath. So she and Danny decide to elope. They get married one night after she sneaked out of the house, then for their honeymoon went out for dinner and stayed at the little motel in the next town over.

Danny rented a trailer from Kinicki's uncle, and they set up housekeeping. Sandy tries to keep house as best she can on Danny's small income. Of course, they let her distraught parents in on the wedding almost right away, but wait a month before telling them about the pregnancy. Sandy figures when the baby arrives, it will be close enough to nine months to partially allay suspicion.

At first, Danny and Sandy are ecstatic. But it doesn't take long before Sandy's showing, and Danny starts losing interest and spends more and more nights hanging out with the T-Birds. And he's started drinking heavily. But if Sandy tries to talk with him about the late nights, the drinking binges, being late for work, he just tells her to mind her own business and stays out even later.

When Danny Junior is born, things seem to improve for awhile. Danny starts to take his responsibilities as a father more seriously. Even though he got fired from the garage, he found another garage to take him on, and had not been late or missed work yet.

After awhile, Sandy decides to get a job of her own. After all, she was the fastest in her high school typing class, and is very intelligent. She's a terrific clerk/typist for a local business, and their finances start to improve gradually. But Danny doesn't like the idea of Sandy working, and especially doesn't approve of Sandy's parents watching little Danny Junior while Sandy's at work.

Gradually, Danny starts to fall back into his old habits. He spends more time with his old T-Bird pals, getting drunk just about every night now. And he's been late for work a lot lately, and has been given an ultimatum by his boss; one more time and he will be fired.

That was a bad day. He went straight to the bar after work and got drunk as he angrily thought about how unfair his boss was, what a jerk he was for threatening him over showing up a little late once in awhile. When the bar closes and kicks him out, he finally goes home, still boiling over with anger over his boss.

Sandy's waiting for him with her hands on her hips, and he's sure she's about to lay into him. His own wife is against him. He is so angry that before she says anything, he starts yelling at her and throwing things. Then he starts hitting her.

Worse yet, Sandy's pregnant again. She leaves with Danny Junior and moves in with her parents. A despondent Danny loses his job and drinks more than ever.

Next:

What happens to Sandy and Danny? Do they divorce? Can Sandy salvage her life and move ahead with her two kids? Can Danny overcome his alcoholism and recover his family?

End of Quarter Rant

Very little gets me in a bad mood like the end of the quarter. Once again, I say everyone should pay their own taxes every quarter. Then there would be the most gigantic tax revolt in history, when people actually have to write a check to the Federal, State, and Local goverments.

The high taxes is part of it, but the bigger thing is the stupid paperwork. I need somewhere between 8 and 12 hours at the end of each quarter to file all of the stupid little forms and reports. Last quarter I got blind-sided with some worker training tax I never heard of, but has to be paid by every "employer" once a year. The notice came about 2 weeks before the payment was due, and I didn't open the envelope until the actual due date. So I paid it right away, but too late - I got a bill for a late charge that was more than the tax itself. Arrgghh!

So you see it blows my mind that, at least according to the news media, the country is dead set on giving control of the federal government to the people who don't think we pay enough. They think we "fat cats" who happen to run our own small businesses aren't paying enough, plus we should be filling out more stupid forms and paying more "special" socialist taxes.

Don't get me wrong, I happen to think there are plenty of Republican jerks in office. But to cut my own throat to kick them out by electing a Democrat that's even more of a jerk? Get real!

Seriously, to anybody reading this who wants Democrats in charge, please answer these questions for me:

Do you pay taxes? Do you think you pay too much or not enough? Are you OK with paying more taxes starting next year? And that wouldn't make you just a little bit angry with those who stuck you with those taxes?

How much tax do you suppose the rich pay? What do you think the definition of "rich" is? I mean in terms of annual income, or total net worth? Is somebody who makes $50K a year rich? If somebody's worth a half million total, is he rich? How much do you think the rich should pay in taxes, total? What's a fair percentage, 50%? 60%? 80%? 100%?

If you're rich and still vote Socialist (oh, I mean Democrat), does that mean you want the government to have most of what you earn? If so, you know you could just make it a gift to the government - I'm sure they'd be happy to take it. Rich actor, how much of that $10mil per picture do you get to keep, after taxes? If you're not cheating, I'm thinking you can't possibly keep more than about 4 or 4.5 mil of that 10. Especially if you live in NY or LA. So you're saying you are not only OK with that, but you think they should take more? How much more?

Rich heir or heiress, you're voting Democrat. I can sort of understand you better than the entertainers, because Democrats like to tax productivity instead of wealth while we're alive. And you don't produce anything, you just party hard and look down your nose at the rest of us poor slobs who have to work for a living. You inherited yours, so it's pretty safe from taxes except for your capital gains, and of course you don't have a problem paying that tax. I'm guessing you keep most of your "real" wealth offshore to hide it from the government. Yeah, I know, you're a hypocrite. I just wonder how many others know that too. But besides that, you're really OK with letting the government take most of your estate when you die, leaving the short end of the stick for your own kids? All I can figure out is that you've got so much hidden offshore that you don't care, or you hate your kids and won't let them see a penny of your estate if you can help it.

Somebody explain it to me. It just blows my mind.

On Ambition

Had a discussion with someone this week about the trade-offs ambition requires. We agreed that there's a real conflict between keeping the relatively stress-free 9 to 5 job and striving for the better job that brings great stress along with the higher pay and prestige.

I've been warned by my own father many times about getting so wrapped up in career and monetary success that everything else gets left behind. I think he's right.

Just as in the other conversation, the person I was talking with stated the dilemma very clearly. The better job is stimulating and challenging and pays more, which are all good things. But the job also can be all-consuming. You're at work all the time, and when you're home, you still are working, or at least thinking about work. You miss family events. Errands don't get run, little broken things around the house don't get fixed, you lose touch with your spouse and kids.

Sometimes you want to go back to that old job, where you simply showed up and did your work. It was easy, relatively stress-free, and very boring. Back then you knew you had so much more to contribute. You were pretty sure you could do your boss's job better. You sometimes envied the higer-ups for their bigger houses and nicer cars.

Now you've got the better job and the responsibilities and the prestige. Sure, the money's better, but somehow it hasn't made you happier. You find that even though you bend over backward to be fair and respectful to your subordinates, they don't appreciate it. In fact, some of them are always undermining or disrespecting your leadership. There's no way to get all of the work done.

You work extra hours at the office and take work home, but it seems you continue to fall farther behind. Your superiors don't seem to notice how hard you've been working, but keep the pressure on by asking you to do even more. They also hold you accountable when one of your staff makes a mess of things.

In the meantime, things aren't so great at home. Your spouse is giving you grief about "always" working and never being there for the family. You miss the soccer or football games, music performances, plays, or spelling bees your kids are in more and more often. You're mostly not home for dinner these days.

What will you do? You can't quit; your income is badly needed to support the lifestyle your family enjoys. You can't spend less time at work; you're already in trouble with your boss for problems in your department.

So you resolve to just try to become more efficient, and do a better job budgeting your time to get more quality time at home. Only that never seems to quite work out.

Ambition. Do you still have it?

Clarity

Events are so simple, transparent, and easy to understand. But it seems most of the time I'm one of a very tiny group of people that understand. Right now may be a critical stage in history, and the future of the world could hang in the balance.

North Korea is throwing a gigantic tantrum. The nuclear test that maybe they thought would yield 4 kilotons actually might have been below 1 kiloton, but they did get an explosion. They continue to jump up and down to get the attention of the United States. Why? Extortion. They want us to pay them off in food, money, and technology. Sort of like a mob protection racket. We just have to keep them isolated and try to figure out how to keep them from selling nukes to Iran or Al Quaeda or Hezbollah. And hope Kim Jong Il isn't stupid enough to try tossing a nuke over the DMZ into South Korea.

Iran's a different problem. They are building nukes, and have a stated purpose which involves wiping Israel off the map and driving the United States completely out of the Middle East. As soon as they have nukes, it seems pretty certain that they will use them as soon as they think they can get away with it. They've infiltrated heavily into Iraq, and some who seem to know are saying they are orchestrating much of the current violence there. It's turning out to be a pretty good strategy for them, because here at home, people seem to be blaming Bush instead of Iran for that violence.

Ultimately, Iran wants to build their grand caliphate, making all of the middle east and northern Africa part of their own brand of Islam. When they have consolidated power, they will proceed to expand toward world domination. Very Hitleresque, don't you think?

In the meantime, we in the US are war weary. Not that any combat death should be shrugged off, but we lose more people to car accidents every month in California than we lose in a year in Iraq. People who don't really know, or perhaps don't care to know the stakes in Iraq and Iran and Syria and North Korea, just want to give them their wish. I hear them all the time, once they're done calling Bush some sort of profanity, saying we should just pull the troops home and turtle up. Just create some sort of big shell around the United States and hope we don't get another 9/11. Then the Democrats can take control of the government and try to get Iran and North Korea to like us, using Clinton diplomacy to give them that protection payoff for a promise to leave us alone.

So my crystal ball is clearer than it's ever been on this stuff. If Democrats take over Congress next month, they will start with myriad investigations of the Bush Administration, possibly including a bill of impeachment. They will move ahead with defunding of the war in Iraq and increasing demands we get out of there, plus of course a rollback of everything else that happened during the Bush years.

Then we'll get attacked again. I'm not sure when, or where, or even how. The Democrats will of course blame the Bush administration for not doing enough to stop the attack. Gas prices spike again, taxes go out of site, unemployment gets out of control, and terrorism increases steadily across the country. Iran takes control of Iraq, and with their Syrian alliance begins to threaten the rest of the middle east. Maybe they take over Kuwait first, then cast their evil eye on Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

North Korea will likely be allowed to develop their nukes, and will demand and receive their protection deal from the U.S. It might keep them at bay for a couple years, but pretty soon they will demand more protection money. They will continue to ratchet up their demands as time goes on: Give us what we want or we'll toss a nuke at South Korea or Japan. Maybe they'll give a nuke to somebody who can sneak it into a major US city.

What I'm not completely sure about is what the Democrats will do when things go south. I'm pretty sure they'll leave Iraq to the Iranians. There's precedent for that - Jimmy Carter is the one who gave Iran to the Ayatollahs to begin with. What I don't know is what they will do when terrorists once again begin to successfully blow things up here at home. Again, precedent and their rhetoric throughout the war on terror suggests that they will take no action beyond trying to find the individuals responsible for each attack, and if they find them, hauling them in for prosecution in US courts.

It is all so clear and simple. But so many don't understand. Perhaps they choose not to understand. Or maybe they just don't care. Either way, give it a year and then come back to this post to see if I was prophetic.

Creating Our Own Problems

The more direct experience I have with the "system", the more convinced I am that it desperately needs an overhaul.

Nobody wants others to suffer. We're largely a compassionate people, turning to both the government and private charities to take care of the "less fortunate".

Well, I've been seeing a lot of the "less fortunate" through my work with CASA. And I've gotta say, the way our government "helps" them is making their problems worse, not better.

Here's the reality. Social welfare programs have created generations of leeches. There's a whole class of people that don't get educated, have kids in poverty and out of wedlock, and make a career out of getting the maximum in benefits from the government and local charities.

There are too many 21-year-old girls who already have 4 kids. She has never worked, never married, and gets by on handouts. She can get a decent house from the government, or if she's really lucky, a charity like Habitat for Humanity will build her a really nice one.

In the meantime, her boyfriends will move in and are likely to physically or sexually abuse her kids. She doesn't much care, either because she wants the man around (even if he's an abusive bum), or because she's so stoned she hasn't noticed.

She gets food stamps, but is as likely to sell them for drugs as use them for groceries for her children. She gets regular government checks, which of course are as likely to be spent on the drugs as anything else.

Eventually somebody will catch up with her and get her children out of there. "There" being the home that she got for free, that in only a few months' time has been utterly trashed. Her children probably will have to be split up between foster homes. The foster parents may not be able to deal with the destructive behaviors of the children, who are already at risk to stay in the system until they end up in prison as adults.

These programs are well-meaning, but terribly misguided. Here's what I would do, assuming you put me in charge:

No more cash payments. If you're poor, you can't get cash from the government.

Instead, the government will partner with charities to provide services. Need help? Come on in, and we'll help.

But first, you have to help yourself. If you need emergency shelter, food, or clothing, it will be provided. But going forward, you have to work for whatever benefits you get. If you don't work for a local business, we'll give you a job. Show up and you'll get paid; fail to show up, tough luck.

If you're strung out, we'll get you into a rehab program. Need someone to take care of your kids while you dry out? We'll take care of the kids. If and when you're through rehab and demonstrate you can hold a job and stay clean, you get your kids back. That's assuming you can do that in less than 2 years, by the way.

Bottom line, if you've fallen on hard times, we'll be there to help. But the help won't be free houses, free food stamps, or checks. It will be in drug and alcohol treatment, education or job training, job placement, and whatever you need to become self-sufficient. No more government coddling.

It might sound kind of tough, and it is. But this approach is the only way to make sure people take responsibility for themselves, instead of adding themselves to the ever-increasing rolls of leeches on the rest of us. Nobody starves, and nobody has to be homeless; but if turning to the government for those needs is less desirable than going to work and taking care of themselves, I believe most will choose self-sufficiency.

Observations on People and Places

Did I mention I've been pretty much everywhere?

Everywhere in the Continental United States, that is. I've never been to Alaska, Idaho, or Vermont. Or Puerto Rico, if that counts. But I've been in every other state, and in pretty much every major city.

I've been in most Canadian provinces, but admit that I haven't explored Canada much beyond the offices and hotels. There is just a bit of hesitation in striking out to explore a different country on my own. I have explored Toronto, and wandered around Montreal a bit.

My conclusions, if you're interested, are these.

No matter where I go, the bottom line is that people are people. I don't find a fundamental difference between Argentines and Californians, in the sense that they are all just living their lives and doing the best they can to take care of their families.

That said, I found different attitudes and group personalities in different places. From my personal experiences,

New Yorkers are the rudest and most profane.

Bostonians aren't far behind New Yorkers.

Texans are the friendliest and most hospitable.

Californians are the strangest.

Midwesterners are the most taciturn, but warm up to people after they get to know them.

Florida's a fascinating blend of southerners and midwestern snowbirds and New Yorkers, depending on where you are.

The southwest is hard to pin down. For example, Phoenix is full of people from somewhere else. Then there are the indians, with their own fiercely guarded heritage and interesting attitudes toward "white men".

The southeast is friendly and very laid back. They do things there on their own time. It's nice, if you can put aside your frenetic pace and go with the flow.

The mountain states seem to attract the hardcore skiers and mountian biker types. Not to mention Mormons, who are wonderfully friendly, hospitable, and family-oriented people.

People in major cities seem edgier. They're less trusting, and unfortunately many are also less trustworthy. They're always watching to make sure you're not taking advantage, while also watching for opportunities to take advantage of you. I'm glad I'm not a city dweller.

But of all the big cities, I think Chicago and Atlanta are less deserving of the previous characterization.

My favorite big cities are Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago. Maybe Seattle.

My least favorite big cities are Los Angeles, New York, Miami. Maybe Boston.

I feel like I can place people from listening to them speak for a few minutes. I can definitely pick out a Chicagoan, Bostonian, New Yorker, Texan, Dakotas/Minnesota, Wisconsin, Southeasterner (Georgia/Alabama/Carolinas). I could place a Californian sometimes.

Since I've been everywhere, why do I choose to live in Indiana? Honestly, I don't believe there's anywhere else in the country I would prefer. Partly it's home for me. But mostly, Indiana has low cost of living, is quieter, has no traffic to speak of, is a hospitable and simple place to live and raise a family. There are lots of other places in the country that are great to visit, but when the visit is over, I want to come back home to Indiana.

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.