Sure, the fact that my views on almost every issue are diametrically opposed to those Hillary espouses could be enough to justify my principled avoidance of any support for her as a candidate. After all, there's more than enough evidence to prove that Hillary is, at her very core, a Communist. No, I'm not name-calling like the left likes to do when they call Bush a fascist (I'm not sure they even know what fascism is, but that's another topic). I'm stating a simple fact. Just listen to her talk or read something she's written; she can't stop herself from revealing her Marxian belief system by often paraphrasing or even quoting Comrade Karl at every opportunity.
Sealing the deal for me is her own history. I still can't understand why those who support her, even if they agree with her on political policy, can stomach the litany of unethical, immoral, and even illegal behavior behind her dogged pursuit of the most powerful office in the world.
How about a reminder:
Her activism and radicalism as a college student
The Travel Office firings
Vince Foster
Susan McDougal
FBI Files
Whitewater Billing Records
Cattle Futures
Johnny Chung to Norman Hsu and Other Fundraising Scandals
And the above are only the more egregious. I could drill down further into her habitual lying, telling small lies to whoppers simply to endear herself to whatever audience she finds.
No other candidate for President, Democrat or Republican, has such a colorful history of scandal and hint of scandal. Not to mention no other candidate gets the free pass from the media on all this baggage like Hillary continues to enjoy.
I am disappointed that so many people have been fooled or simply don't care, because Hillary's nomination is a fait accompli.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Labor Unions
The UAW strike against GM has raised some interesting issues about the general question of big business and big organized labor. Each side characterizes the other in ways that are both partly right and partly wrong.
The corporate side says that the labor unions will kill their business with their demands for expensive healthcare and pension benefits, plus overly restrictive work rules. They also suggest that the unions exist more for the benefit of corrupt mobster leaders than for the rank and file.
The unions say that if they didn't exist, employers would exploit workers with unsafe working conditions, unfairly low wages, little or no assistance with high healthcare costs and no retirement benefits. They suggest that corporations exist for the sole purpose of maximizing profits, even if their workers are abused to meet that end.
There is truth to be found in the arguments on both sides. Having worked in a union manufacturing company in the 80's, I saw firsthand how damaging it is to productivity for the company to have to deal with the work rules and liberal benefits demanded and given to the unionized employees.
On the other hand, the employers now have a global labor market they are gladly exploiting, with most manufactured goods now coming from China.
I'm neither anti-union nor anti-corporation. I believe that the best governance of these entities is to promote policies that allow neither side to become more powerful than the other.
On the corporate side, I believe that it can be reasonable to enforce rights of labor to organize for the purpose of bargaining with the company for fair pay, benefits and working conditions. I also believe that it would be reasonable to create certain incentives for business to keep their operations in the United States, and protect workers who are laid off so their jobs can be transferred to a cheaper worker.
On the labor side, I believe unions should be required to have wide open books that can be analyzed by their union membership and anyone else to keep corruption down. I believe no worker should be compelled to allow their dues to be spent in sweetheart deals with the Democrat party. I believe union members should be empowered to elect their own leadership.
On the corporate side, I believe the laws regarding freedom of their employees to organize should be upheld and the often extreme and illegal methods often employed to intimidate workers from joining union efforts prosecuted. I think that employers should accept mediation and arbitration where indicated if they need assistance in resolving contract negotiations. I also believe corporations should not be allowed to underfund pensions they committed to in previous union contracts - if they want out of the pension business, they should negotiate the terms with their union employees and convert the pensions into fully funded 401K's.
The impossible dream, of course, is that employers and their unions find a way to work together to share success or failure for the common good of the company and its employees. Wouldn't it be nice if negotiations for pay and benefits focused on a baseline, plus certain bonuses and incentives that reward the workers for helping the company achieve their profitability goals?
Too bad neither side would ever consider such a radical idea.
The corporate side says that the labor unions will kill their business with their demands for expensive healthcare and pension benefits, plus overly restrictive work rules. They also suggest that the unions exist more for the benefit of corrupt mobster leaders than for the rank and file.
The unions say that if they didn't exist, employers would exploit workers with unsafe working conditions, unfairly low wages, little or no assistance with high healthcare costs and no retirement benefits. They suggest that corporations exist for the sole purpose of maximizing profits, even if their workers are abused to meet that end.
There is truth to be found in the arguments on both sides. Having worked in a union manufacturing company in the 80's, I saw firsthand how damaging it is to productivity for the company to have to deal with the work rules and liberal benefits demanded and given to the unionized employees.
On the other hand, the employers now have a global labor market they are gladly exploiting, with most manufactured goods now coming from China.
I'm neither anti-union nor anti-corporation. I believe that the best governance of these entities is to promote policies that allow neither side to become more powerful than the other.
On the corporate side, I believe that it can be reasonable to enforce rights of labor to organize for the purpose of bargaining with the company for fair pay, benefits and working conditions. I also believe that it would be reasonable to create certain incentives for business to keep their operations in the United States, and protect workers who are laid off so their jobs can be transferred to a cheaper worker.
On the labor side, I believe unions should be required to have wide open books that can be analyzed by their union membership and anyone else to keep corruption down. I believe no worker should be compelled to allow their dues to be spent in sweetheart deals with the Democrat party. I believe union members should be empowered to elect their own leadership.
On the corporate side, I believe the laws regarding freedom of their employees to organize should be upheld and the often extreme and illegal methods often employed to intimidate workers from joining union efforts prosecuted. I think that employers should accept mediation and arbitration where indicated if they need assistance in resolving contract negotiations. I also believe corporations should not be allowed to underfund pensions they committed to in previous union contracts - if they want out of the pension business, they should negotiate the terms with their union employees and convert the pensions into fully funded 401K's.
The impossible dream, of course, is that employers and their unions find a way to work together to share success or failure for the common good of the company and its employees. Wouldn't it be nice if negotiations for pay and benefits focused on a baseline, plus certain bonuses and incentives that reward the workers for helping the company achieve their profitability goals?
Too bad neither side would ever consider such a radical idea.
Monday, September 24, 2007
One Question
Suppose you could ask one question of a well-known or powerful person. And the person receiving the question is obligated to give a truthful and complete answer. Who would you want to ask your question of, and what would it be?
I've thought of a few:
George W Bush: Clearly you have resisted all pressure to close the borders to illegal immigrants. What is the real reason you've so obviously shirked your duties in border enforcement, especially given the current terror threats we face as a country?
Hillary Clinton: Why do you want to be President?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Where and when do you plan to detonate your nuclear weapons?
Vladimir Putin: Is your ultimate goal the re-establishment of the old communist Soviet Union?
Michael Moore: You are known for praising totalitarian communist regimes such as Cuba and Venezuela. Given that fact, are you suggesting you would have no problem if the government confiscated all of the proceeds from your latest film, "Sicko", redistributing the money to government bureaucrats who skim as much as they can off the top before giving the rest to poor people for welfare and healthcare?
Al Gore: Do you actually believe everything you're presenting in your movie and your speeches around the country about global warming, or is it just a highly lucrative gig for you and you know most of it is BS?
Any member of the United States Congress: For your next vote on whatever bill is brought to the floor, what is the primary influencer on your vote - what your party tells you to do, what your biggest campaign donors tell you to do, or what's best for the country and/or your district as a whole?
Any Prime Minister or President of a European Country (or Canada): Suppose the United States as a country decided we would no longer be the world police force. Suppose we brought our military home from around the world and changed their mission to simply protect our own borders against foreign attack. Suppose we told the rest of the world, "You're on your own. From now on, no military aid, no disaster relief, no food aid, etc. will be provided from the USA." Would you be comfortable with that decision?
Dan Rather: Are you really that delusional, or are you playing your current games for the benefit of the loonies who think you're out to prove their wild conspiracy theories might be true?
I've thought of a few:
George W Bush: Clearly you have resisted all pressure to close the borders to illegal immigrants. What is the real reason you've so obviously shirked your duties in border enforcement, especially given the current terror threats we face as a country?
Hillary Clinton: Why do you want to be President?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Where and when do you plan to detonate your nuclear weapons?
Vladimir Putin: Is your ultimate goal the re-establishment of the old communist Soviet Union?
Michael Moore: You are known for praising totalitarian communist regimes such as Cuba and Venezuela. Given that fact, are you suggesting you would have no problem if the government confiscated all of the proceeds from your latest film, "Sicko", redistributing the money to government bureaucrats who skim as much as they can off the top before giving the rest to poor people for welfare and healthcare?
Al Gore: Do you actually believe everything you're presenting in your movie and your speeches around the country about global warming, or is it just a highly lucrative gig for you and you know most of it is BS?
Any member of the United States Congress: For your next vote on whatever bill is brought to the floor, what is the primary influencer on your vote - what your party tells you to do, what your biggest campaign donors tell you to do, or what's best for the country and/or your district as a whole?
Any Prime Minister or President of a European Country (or Canada): Suppose the United States as a country decided we would no longer be the world police force. Suppose we brought our military home from around the world and changed their mission to simply protect our own borders against foreign attack. Suppose we told the rest of the world, "You're on your own. From now on, no military aid, no disaster relief, no food aid, etc. will be provided from the USA." Would you be comfortable with that decision?
Dan Rather: Are you really that delusional, or are you playing your current games for the benefit of the loonies who think you're out to prove their wild conspiracy theories might be true?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
It's About Fairness
In my profession I see the strange traditions and strategies used by companies that are real head-scratchers when I take just a few moments to think about them.
Tips, for example. Companies are allowed to employ food and beverage servers, porters and bellmen, valets, and such with very little requirement they pay them. These employees are expected to make their money from customer tips - otherwise, the employer is just required to at least guarantee them minimum wage.
What about tips is so sacred? Why can't employers simply pay their service workers a decent wage and leave tips the way they should be - a way for a customer to voluntarily reward their server for exceptional service! Instead, we customers are expected to cough up the price of the restaurant meal, plus hand over money to the kid who parks our car and the girl who brings us our food. Because if we don't, nobody else will.
I think it's ridiculous.
Then there's the one that really bugs me. Some may remember that the corporate revolution in the 80's was to "flatten" the organization, cutting out all of the so-called "middle management" positions. Some of that was because some of those middle managers became unnecessary with the advent of powerful and efficient data processing systems.
The other thing that happened was that jobs formerly held by professional people are now held by clerks.
Consider this common scenario:
Company ABC has lost their long-time Manager of Accounts Payable, let's say to early retirement (euphemism for a white-collar layoff aimed at cutting out the high salary of the 30-year professional manager). The company changes the position title from Manager of Accounts Payable to A/P Supervisor. The newly designed position pays maybe 50-60% of the old position, and the company promotes the most reliable Accounts Payable clerk to the new position.
The A/P Supervisor position is still a Salaried Exempt job, which means the clerk now responsible for the department is required to work around 50 hours per week. Of course, the 50 hours can go up to 60 or more during certain times of the year, when the activity gets high or new systems and processes are implemented. The catch is that if you break down the new supervisor's effective hourly pay, it is actually lower than their more experienced direct-reports.
So this clerk, who used to like her job as the lead A/P clerk, now can never seem to get away from the office. Her boss won't let her take all her earned vacation; not by directly denying her requests for vacation time, but by making it crystal clear to her that if she takes all of her vacation, it will be impossible for her to meet her job objectives and will either have no salary increase or possibly be fired. So she gives up 2 weeks of vacation every year, which the employer takes back in their "use it or lose it" vacation policy.
To me, it's morally repugnant. But nobody even knows the definition of morality these days. The government can't fix it with legislation, because such legislation would be micro-management. I only hope that companies rediscover that simply being fair and caring about the welfare and personal needs of their employees can pay off with better and more loyal employees.
Tips, for example. Companies are allowed to employ food and beverage servers, porters and bellmen, valets, and such with very little requirement they pay them. These employees are expected to make their money from customer tips - otherwise, the employer is just required to at least guarantee them minimum wage.
What about tips is so sacred? Why can't employers simply pay their service workers a decent wage and leave tips the way they should be - a way for a customer to voluntarily reward their server for exceptional service! Instead, we customers are expected to cough up the price of the restaurant meal, plus hand over money to the kid who parks our car and the girl who brings us our food. Because if we don't, nobody else will.
I think it's ridiculous.
Then there's the one that really bugs me. Some may remember that the corporate revolution in the 80's was to "flatten" the organization, cutting out all of the so-called "middle management" positions. Some of that was because some of those middle managers became unnecessary with the advent of powerful and efficient data processing systems.
The other thing that happened was that jobs formerly held by professional people are now held by clerks.
Consider this common scenario:
Company ABC has lost their long-time Manager of Accounts Payable, let's say to early retirement (euphemism for a white-collar layoff aimed at cutting out the high salary of the 30-year professional manager). The company changes the position title from Manager of Accounts Payable to A/P Supervisor. The newly designed position pays maybe 50-60% of the old position, and the company promotes the most reliable Accounts Payable clerk to the new position.
The A/P Supervisor position is still a Salaried Exempt job, which means the clerk now responsible for the department is required to work around 50 hours per week. Of course, the 50 hours can go up to 60 or more during certain times of the year, when the activity gets high or new systems and processes are implemented. The catch is that if you break down the new supervisor's effective hourly pay, it is actually lower than their more experienced direct-reports.
So this clerk, who used to like her job as the lead A/P clerk, now can never seem to get away from the office. Her boss won't let her take all her earned vacation; not by directly denying her requests for vacation time, but by making it crystal clear to her that if she takes all of her vacation, it will be impossible for her to meet her job objectives and will either have no salary increase or possibly be fired. So she gives up 2 weeks of vacation every year, which the employer takes back in their "use it or lose it" vacation policy.
To me, it's morally repugnant. But nobody even knows the definition of morality these days. The government can't fix it with legislation, because such legislation would be micro-management. I only hope that companies rediscover that simply being fair and caring about the welfare and personal needs of their employees can pay off with better and more loyal employees.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Absolute Disgust
My disgust is aimed squarely at the Democrats who choose politics over common sense and civility in the Petraeus hearings today. The behavior of some of them in their posturing and disrespect in calling the General everything from a liar to a Bush hack was outrageous.
They've been clear from the beginning that no matter what General Petraeus has to say this week, they will accept nothing but immediate abandonment of Iraq. The consequences of their loudly trumpeted demands for surrender matter not at all to them.
As one who pays attention, I've no doubt that whether we like it or not, we've got to finish the job. Whether we should have invaded and ousted Saddam is not today's argument. Today's argument instead is about Iraq's future, the future of the Middle East, and the future of Islamic terror.
Surrender creates a certain vacuum in Iraq that Iran and Syria will move quickly to fill. Any Iraqis not in league with the Iranians will be dead. Israel will become the next target of the new powerful Iranian regime, and the same characters believe firmly that continued terrorism against American citizens has been proven to cow America into staying out of their way.
It is saddened that elected representatives in congress are really and truly American traitors. Did anybody notice that Bin Laden's latest video sounds just exactly like the rhetoric of our political left? Haven't the Democrats who continue to undermine the effort in Iraq noticed that that they are being cheered on by our country's enemies?
People need to figure out which politicians have our country's best interests at heart and which only care about their own.
Disgusting.
They've been clear from the beginning that no matter what General Petraeus has to say this week, they will accept nothing but immediate abandonment of Iraq. The consequences of their loudly trumpeted demands for surrender matter not at all to them.
As one who pays attention, I've no doubt that whether we like it or not, we've got to finish the job. Whether we should have invaded and ousted Saddam is not today's argument. Today's argument instead is about Iraq's future, the future of the Middle East, and the future of Islamic terror.
Surrender creates a certain vacuum in Iraq that Iran and Syria will move quickly to fill. Any Iraqis not in league with the Iranians will be dead. Israel will become the next target of the new powerful Iranian regime, and the same characters believe firmly that continued terrorism against American citizens has been proven to cow America into staying out of their way.
It is saddened that elected representatives in congress are really and truly American traitors. Did anybody notice that Bin Laden's latest video sounds just exactly like the rhetoric of our political left? Haven't the Democrats who continue to undermine the effort in Iraq noticed that that they are being cheered on by our country's enemies?
People need to figure out which politicians have our country's best interests at heart and which only care about their own.
Disgusting.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Observations
Feeling ill. Allergy season always seems to bring on something nasty. It makes work much more difficult when I'm feeling miserable.
Watched the GOP President wannabe debate last night. Disappointing says it best. I actually wasn't impressed with the way Fox handled it, although they were certainly more serious and capable than those who have run the Democrat debates.
There are too many guys on the stage. Instead of learning something about the candidates, I just heard boring sound bites. Rudy was the worst, answering every question directed his way with "I sure was a great Mayor of New York!". !Yawn!
They didn't even bring up the topics that interest me. And other than the insane Ron Paul, nobody has much of anything different to say than anybody else on most topics. Nothing new, no creative ideas, not even much wit.
Before I get too down about the dearth of good candidates, I have to remind myself that an actual leader would never get elected. Nobody can lay out a strong and certain vision without being crucified, so we're stuck with a bunch of limp girly-men. Sometimes I think Hillary is more manly than most of the men running for President this year.
The hotel puts the NY Times outside my door every morning. I haven't read that rag much, but it's striking how far left the entire paper slants. Forget the editorials, all their news reports serve as left-wing editorials themselves. I've decided that in New York, if they even become aware of a different point of view on any topic, they apparently discard it out of hand. They can't imagine any sane person would view the world through any lens other than their own.
Their lens must have psychedelic colors and fun-house mirrors, they're so out of touch in most areas.
Must rest and watch Colts-Saints.
Watched the GOP President wannabe debate last night. Disappointing says it best. I actually wasn't impressed with the way Fox handled it, although they were certainly more serious and capable than those who have run the Democrat debates.
There are too many guys on the stage. Instead of learning something about the candidates, I just heard boring sound bites. Rudy was the worst, answering every question directed his way with "I sure was a great Mayor of New York!". !Yawn!
They didn't even bring up the topics that interest me. And other than the insane Ron Paul, nobody has much of anything different to say than anybody else on most topics. Nothing new, no creative ideas, not even much wit.
Before I get too down about the dearth of good candidates, I have to remind myself that an actual leader would never get elected. Nobody can lay out a strong and certain vision without being crucified, so we're stuck with a bunch of limp girly-men. Sometimes I think Hillary is more manly than most of the men running for President this year.
The hotel puts the NY Times outside my door every morning. I haven't read that rag much, but it's striking how far left the entire paper slants. Forget the editorials, all their news reports serve as left-wing editorials themselves. I've decided that in New York, if they even become aware of a different point of view on any topic, they apparently discard it out of hand. They can't imagine any sane person would view the world through any lens other than their own.
Their lens must have psychedelic colors and fun-house mirrors, they're so out of touch in most areas.
Must rest and watch Colts-Saints.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Rambling on Labor Day
Traveling on Labor Day. Oh well, you do what you have to.
Notre Dame looked worse than I expected on Saturday. Either Georgia Tech is on their way to a National Championship or the Irish have fallen very hard. The Irish defense clearly hasn't improved from last year, when I'd suggest that porous defense was the reason ND couldn't make the mix for the top tier.
Now they need to break in a new offense. It was completely rattled by Tech. I'm thinking the best ND fans can hope for this year is one game over .500 and a minor bowl. The question is whether Charlie can build on his young guys for next season. We'll see.
An emotional Indiana football team had their memorial for Coach Hep, then proceeded to steamroll poor Indiana State. It's nice that they got the first win of the season, and the memorial was moving. But we won't know whether they're any better this year until they get into the Big Ten season. It might be nice to see them spring a suprise on one or two Big Ten teams this year. We'll see.
It was a bit surprising to find Air America on the radio when I got to my destination today. I thought they'd gone bankrupt. Anyway, I was curious enough to listen for a few minutes. It really struck me that they live in some sort of alternate universe. I figured they'd be over the constant Bush hatred thing, but no - impeaching Bush and Cheney remains their obsession.
It was interesting to hear the guys on the program (I didn't catch either person's name - neither was anybody I'd ever heard of before) go on and on about their impeachment dream, but then actually they briefly admitted that there was no specific charge that could be used. They even mentioned, in perhaps the most honest moment I heard, that Clinton was impeached for specific crimes of perjury and suborning perjury and obstructing justice. I about keeled over to hear somebody from their side actually admit as much.
But they really went off the tracks talking about how Bush has rolled back civil rights and is just a dictator. Wierd from people who love Cesar Chavez and Fidel Castro. I had a desire to ask them for an example of such civil rights violations by Bush and Cheney - can they produce a single American citizen who has been denied rights by the government in the name of fighting terrorism? Hmm, if it's true that Bush is guilty of illegal surveillance of guys like them who talk to each other every day about how much they hate him, why haven't they been arrested by this dictatorial regime? Or harrassed? Or even questioned?
Wow. These guys should go ahead and move to Venezuela or Cuba. I'd like them to experience first-hand what it's like to live under such benevolent regimes without Bush or Cheney around.
So bizarre.
Notre Dame looked worse than I expected on Saturday. Either Georgia Tech is on their way to a National Championship or the Irish have fallen very hard. The Irish defense clearly hasn't improved from last year, when I'd suggest that porous defense was the reason ND couldn't make the mix for the top tier.
Now they need to break in a new offense. It was completely rattled by Tech. I'm thinking the best ND fans can hope for this year is one game over .500 and a minor bowl. The question is whether Charlie can build on his young guys for next season. We'll see.
An emotional Indiana football team had their memorial for Coach Hep, then proceeded to steamroll poor Indiana State. It's nice that they got the first win of the season, and the memorial was moving. But we won't know whether they're any better this year until they get into the Big Ten season. It might be nice to see them spring a suprise on one or two Big Ten teams this year. We'll see.
It was a bit surprising to find Air America on the radio when I got to my destination today. I thought they'd gone bankrupt. Anyway, I was curious enough to listen for a few minutes. It really struck me that they live in some sort of alternate universe. I figured they'd be over the constant Bush hatred thing, but no - impeaching Bush and Cheney remains their obsession.
It was interesting to hear the guys on the program (I didn't catch either person's name - neither was anybody I'd ever heard of before) go on and on about their impeachment dream, but then actually they briefly admitted that there was no specific charge that could be used. They even mentioned, in perhaps the most honest moment I heard, that Clinton was impeached for specific crimes of perjury and suborning perjury and obstructing justice. I about keeled over to hear somebody from their side actually admit as much.
But they really went off the tracks talking about how Bush has rolled back civil rights and is just a dictator. Wierd from people who love Cesar Chavez and Fidel Castro. I had a desire to ask them for an example of such civil rights violations by Bush and Cheney - can they produce a single American citizen who has been denied rights by the government in the name of fighting terrorism? Hmm, if it's true that Bush is guilty of illegal surveillance of guys like them who talk to each other every day about how much they hate him, why haven't they been arrested by this dictatorial regime? Or harrassed? Or even questioned?
Wow. These guys should go ahead and move to Venezuela or Cuba. I'd like them to experience first-hand what it's like to live under such benevolent regimes without Bush or Cheney around.
So bizarre.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The Poor
I noticed some discussions around a new study just released that says the proportion of poor, at least as defined by the Federal government, has declined somewhat over the last few years.
Naturally, the Left is invested in the idea that conservative policies make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The Right believes freedom and lower taxes create more opportunities for the poor to pull themselves up to prosperity.
Another interesting trend is among new Christian socialists, who have somehow decided that Jesus was a socialist. Their simplistic idea is that Jesus exhorted his followers to help the poor, so that somehow morphed into the position that Christians today should petition their government to confiscate more money from everyone else and redistribute it to the poor.
Actually, Jesus never told anybody to go to Rome and lobby Ceasar to tax the rich and give the money to the poor. He told individuals to help the poor. One poor rich fellow he challenged to sell everything, give the money to the poor, and follow him. That fellow walked away shaking his head, because that was the only thing in his life he couldn't do for Christ.
No, Jesus wasn't talking about helping the poor by trying to influence the government to confiscate the money from other people. He was talking about each of us caring about others and doing what we can to help those in need.
It's interesting to me that "poor" is in the eye of the beholder. Those in the United States labeled "poor" would be considered to be living high on the hog by the actual poor in third-world countries. Recently there have been studies trying to find people who are homeless and starving, and they struggled to find anyone. Homelessness would seem to be a choice these days rather than a forced condition - government housing programs, shelters, and all sorts of public assistance are accessible for anyone willing to seek them out. Food stamps and community food banks and school lunch programs and churches with free meals abound.
I've seen and met several members of the American poor underclass. They tend to be third or fourth generation poor, living as their parents and grandparents did since the start of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society welfare programs. They tend to be experts at working the system, knowing all of the government aid programs and local charities and taking advantage of them all. Mostly, they would be physically and mentally able to work, but holding a full-time job is the last thing they aspire to do.
The key to receiving housing, healthcare, food stamps, and cash, as most of these folks know, is children. Make sure there are a couple of dependent children in the household and there are agencies and charities all over the place eager to provide assistance and services.
Why work for a living if you can have a home, food, clothing, medical care, and some spending money by just learning to exploit the social services system? These "poor" folks have cable television and often even big-screen televisions. They have cars. For them, it's a better life than having to punch a timeclock every day and struggle to make house payments, car payments, buy insurance, pay for medical care and prescription drugs, etc.
Want a government approach to helping the poor that really works? Take the money out of the system. Transform social services to be there to help, but those who need help must come to them and ask for it. If people need food, it will be given to them. If they need a place to stay, a temporary room will be provided. Mainly, they need a job, so every person accessing services will receive assistance in finding a job.
Social services should exist for the purpose of helping the poor and needy become independent, not keeping them dependent. The approach is common sense, and it cannot fail. But politicians are more interested in buying votes than in solving problems, and Democrat politicians in particular have found a gold mine of votes among the poor. Get them a roof and food and some cash so they don't have to get a job, and they'll vote for you the rest of their life.
Naturally, the Left is invested in the idea that conservative policies make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The Right believes freedom and lower taxes create more opportunities for the poor to pull themselves up to prosperity.
Another interesting trend is among new Christian socialists, who have somehow decided that Jesus was a socialist. Their simplistic idea is that Jesus exhorted his followers to help the poor, so that somehow morphed into the position that Christians today should petition their government to confiscate more money from everyone else and redistribute it to the poor.
Actually, Jesus never told anybody to go to Rome and lobby Ceasar to tax the rich and give the money to the poor. He told individuals to help the poor. One poor rich fellow he challenged to sell everything, give the money to the poor, and follow him. That fellow walked away shaking his head, because that was the only thing in his life he couldn't do for Christ.
No, Jesus wasn't talking about helping the poor by trying to influence the government to confiscate the money from other people. He was talking about each of us caring about others and doing what we can to help those in need.
It's interesting to me that "poor" is in the eye of the beholder. Those in the United States labeled "poor" would be considered to be living high on the hog by the actual poor in third-world countries. Recently there have been studies trying to find people who are homeless and starving, and they struggled to find anyone. Homelessness would seem to be a choice these days rather than a forced condition - government housing programs, shelters, and all sorts of public assistance are accessible for anyone willing to seek them out. Food stamps and community food banks and school lunch programs and churches with free meals abound.
I've seen and met several members of the American poor underclass. They tend to be third or fourth generation poor, living as their parents and grandparents did since the start of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society welfare programs. They tend to be experts at working the system, knowing all of the government aid programs and local charities and taking advantage of them all. Mostly, they would be physically and mentally able to work, but holding a full-time job is the last thing they aspire to do.
The key to receiving housing, healthcare, food stamps, and cash, as most of these folks know, is children. Make sure there are a couple of dependent children in the household and there are agencies and charities all over the place eager to provide assistance and services.
Why work for a living if you can have a home, food, clothing, medical care, and some spending money by just learning to exploit the social services system? These "poor" folks have cable television and often even big-screen televisions. They have cars. For them, it's a better life than having to punch a timeclock every day and struggle to make house payments, car payments, buy insurance, pay for medical care and prescription drugs, etc.
Want a government approach to helping the poor that really works? Take the money out of the system. Transform social services to be there to help, but those who need help must come to them and ask for it. If people need food, it will be given to them. If they need a place to stay, a temporary room will be provided. Mainly, they need a job, so every person accessing services will receive assistance in finding a job.
Social services should exist for the purpose of helping the poor and needy become independent, not keeping them dependent. The approach is common sense, and it cannot fail. But politicians are more interested in buying votes than in solving problems, and Democrat politicians in particular have found a gold mine of votes among the poor. Get them a roof and food and some cash so they don't have to get a job, and they'll vote for you the rest of their life.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Bias Evidence
Have you seen the ads with the diabled Iraq veterans talking about the importance of success in Iraq and encouraging people to contact their congressmen to support that message?
Apparently MSNBC and CNBC refused to allow those ads on their networks. They claimed a previously unknown policy against running "controversial issue advertising". Interesting, since they seem to have had no hesitation in running controversial ads from the left wing.
For networks that run anti-Bush, anti-War, anti-Everything-slightly-conservative 24/7, this would appear to confirm that they are not legitimate news outlets, but propaganda mills.
If anyone would like to suggest they're not any different from Fox News Channel, let me ask this question: What do you think would happen if Fox News refused to air issue ads on, say, Global Warming?
The answer is easy: Blaring headlines. The primary topic for all the talking heads at places like MSNBC outraged at such blatant censorship.
Double standard.
Apparently MSNBC and CNBC refused to allow those ads on their networks. They claimed a previously unknown policy against running "controversial issue advertising". Interesting, since they seem to have had no hesitation in running controversial ads from the left wing.
For networks that run anti-Bush, anti-War, anti-Everything-slightly-conservative 24/7, this would appear to confirm that they are not legitimate news outlets, but propaganda mills.
If anyone would like to suggest they're not any different from Fox News Channel, let me ask this question: What do you think would happen if Fox News refused to air issue ads on, say, Global Warming?
The answer is easy: Blaring headlines. The primary topic for all the talking heads at places like MSNBC outraged at such blatant censorship.
Double standard.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Football Friday Night
Tonight's the big game in Columbus with North playing at East. East has won something like 4 in a row, but all of them were close and exciting to watch.
I haven't seen the North team play, but they apparently looked dominant in their first game last Friday, a 55-0 win against Seymour.
It's a senior laden team, starting a senior at nearly every position on offense and defense. I'm told those seniors are a strong and athletic group of guys, with an especially impressive group of linemen on both offense and defense.
There are high expectations for both teams this year, after both made it to the semistate last season. North knows that the only way to get to the RCA Dome for the Thanksgiving weekend championship is if they can get past the semi-pro team from Warren Central. Two times in the last three years, North has made impressive runs through the playoffs only to be humiliated by the giant Indy-area school that has dominated the state for so many years.
Even though East was a senior-heavy team last year and is breaking in new starters at many positions, that should not be interpreted as making a North win tonight any more likely. The game is always very close and hard-fought, and entertaining for the huge turnout of fans every year.
North's got Mike Hladik returning at QB and Alex Turner at Running back, both seniors and 3-year starters. Turner racked up 197 yards against Seymour, and Hladik had an efficient night with 9 for 12 for 159 yards and 2 TD's. Hladik is a tall kid with a great arm capable of making big plays, but has tended to overthrow receivers in big games or under a pass rush in past years. Turner's a fast and shifty runner who can get big yards when he has a gap to run through, but has not been one that can overpower a tackler.
Both these key offensive players are stronger and more mature this year, and I think they'll both have notable seasons, barring injury. It will be interesting to see if Hladik has a new receiver to replace his best target, Brandon Butler, who graduated last year. If the running game continues to be as dominant as it was against Seymour, the question may not be that important.
Tonight I'll just enjoy being a fan and taking in all the excitement of the big Columbus crowds.
I haven't seen the North team play, but they apparently looked dominant in their first game last Friday, a 55-0 win against Seymour.
It's a senior laden team, starting a senior at nearly every position on offense and defense. I'm told those seniors are a strong and athletic group of guys, with an especially impressive group of linemen on both offense and defense.
There are high expectations for both teams this year, after both made it to the semistate last season. North knows that the only way to get to the RCA Dome for the Thanksgiving weekend championship is if they can get past the semi-pro team from Warren Central. Two times in the last three years, North has made impressive runs through the playoffs only to be humiliated by the giant Indy-area school that has dominated the state for so many years.
Even though East was a senior-heavy team last year and is breaking in new starters at many positions, that should not be interpreted as making a North win tonight any more likely. The game is always very close and hard-fought, and entertaining for the huge turnout of fans every year.
North's got Mike Hladik returning at QB and Alex Turner at Running back, both seniors and 3-year starters. Turner racked up 197 yards against Seymour, and Hladik had an efficient night with 9 for 12 for 159 yards and 2 TD's. Hladik is a tall kid with a great arm capable of making big plays, but has tended to overthrow receivers in big games or under a pass rush in past years. Turner's a fast and shifty runner who can get big yards when he has a gap to run through, but has not been one that can overpower a tackler.
Both these key offensive players are stronger and more mature this year, and I think they'll both have notable seasons, barring injury. It will be interesting to see if Hladik has a new receiver to replace his best target, Brandon Butler, who graduated last year. If the running game continues to be as dominant as it was against Seymour, the question may not be that important.
Tonight I'll just enjoy being a fan and taking in all the excitement of the big Columbus crowds.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Reading Test
There's this survey in the news about people who read books. The study said that on average, a liberal reads one more book per year than a conservative, so of course some point derisively and shout, "See, we told you conservatives were stupid!"
Hmm, a typical liberal claims to read 1 more book than a typical conservative. It makes me wonder if liberals taking the survey asked how many books conservatives claim to read every year before answering the question, so they could be sure to one-up their rivals. There was no discernable political affiliation one way or the other with those who didn't read any books at all. Political moderates read the least.
Would that mean that moderates are the stupidest? Or maybe the most honest?
The survey said women read more than men. Does that mean men are stupid?
It also said whites read more than blacks and hispanics. Does that mean blacks and hispanics are stupid?
Suburbanites read more than urban or rural residents. Does that mean farmers and city dwellers are stupid?
Among the readers, the Bible and other religious books are the most popular, with about two-thirds choosing them. Interestingly, non-readers are most likely to be non-religious. What does that say about atheists? Stupid, maybe?
The types of books other than religious read by most people are popular fiction, biographies, mysteries, and romance novels. The survey found that an insignificant number of people read political books or classical literature or poetry.
It's funny to observe that there really isn't anything that can be drawn from this study correlating intelligence with political leanings. It anything at all can be said about the study, the most consistent readers of books seem to be people of faith.
If the small difference in the number of books claimed by liberals and conservatives was based on the number of Harlequin Romances read by liberal women, what would that say about intelligence and political persuasions?
Did they count comic books? What political beliefs are held by comic book readers?
If they had surveyed me, they'd find me at the top of the scale. I read about a book a week on average. Mostly popular fiction, but I can also be found reading religious books and biographies and political books that interest me. I even pick up a classic literary work from time to time. Historical fiction is a favorite.
But I'm a rural male, so according to those who might choose to lump me with the stupid and illiterate, I might present a conundrum.
I like that idea.
Hmm, a typical liberal claims to read 1 more book than a typical conservative. It makes me wonder if liberals taking the survey asked how many books conservatives claim to read every year before answering the question, so they could be sure to one-up their rivals. There was no discernable political affiliation one way or the other with those who didn't read any books at all. Political moderates read the least.
Would that mean that moderates are the stupidest? Or maybe the most honest?
The survey said women read more than men. Does that mean men are stupid?
It also said whites read more than blacks and hispanics. Does that mean blacks and hispanics are stupid?
Suburbanites read more than urban or rural residents. Does that mean farmers and city dwellers are stupid?
Among the readers, the Bible and other religious books are the most popular, with about two-thirds choosing them. Interestingly, non-readers are most likely to be non-religious. What does that say about atheists? Stupid, maybe?
The types of books other than religious read by most people are popular fiction, biographies, mysteries, and romance novels. The survey found that an insignificant number of people read political books or classical literature or poetry.
It's funny to observe that there really isn't anything that can be drawn from this study correlating intelligence with political leanings. It anything at all can be said about the study, the most consistent readers of books seem to be people of faith.
If the small difference in the number of books claimed by liberals and conservatives was based on the number of Harlequin Romances read by liberal women, what would that say about intelligence and political persuasions?
Did they count comic books? What political beliefs are held by comic book readers?
If they had surveyed me, they'd find me at the top of the scale. I read about a book a week on average. Mostly popular fiction, but I can also be found reading religious books and biographies and political books that interest me. I even pick up a classic literary work from time to time. Historical fiction is a favorite.
But I'm a rural male, so according to those who might choose to lump me with the stupid and illiterate, I might present a conundrum.
I like that idea.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Super Bowl Champs
The question for the Indianapolis Colts is, can they repeat last year's Super Bowl championship season?
It's unlikely, but certainly possible.
Watching them play the Bears last night, it's difficult to tell much. The majority of the game was played by the backups and those trying to make the team, so all that could be said about the Bear's 27-24 win is that their rookies and free agents are a bit better than the Colts'.
And the Colts' special teams stink. Why they can't seem to find a decent kickoff team year after year puzzles me.
The Colts' first teams looked pretty sharp in the first quarter. The offense failed to score twice when they probably should have, but otherwise Peyton and the boys look like they'll continue to be one of the league's best offenses.
The Colt defense is questionable, just as they were last year. Last night, they looked good at times and not so good at other times. Which is also the same as last year. Will they miss their starting corners from last year? Somewhat. Will they miss Cato June? Not really. Will they miss Booger McFarland? Yes.
The same question asked about the Colts' chances in the last 4 or 5 years still applies this year. Can the defense manage to give up a few less points than the offense puts up this year?
They have a pretty good chance of winning their division again this season, although Tennessee should be a lot better this year. New England will probably be back as a major challenge to the Colts' Super Bowl hopes. It will be interesting to find out what other AFC teams rise to the top this year - will Pittsburgh be back with their new coach? Cincinnati should be strong as usual. Can San Diego break through? Did Kansas City improve or get worse with their QB shuffle and running back problem? Jacksonville and Baltimore could easily rejoin the elite.
For me, it's just fun to watch it all develop.
I'm not sure that Indy will be able to win their first regular season game against New Orleans. That's a pretty good team that might be able to run through the Colts' porous defense and keep the ball away from Peyton.
It's fun to move into the best season of the year. I also enjoy football at the high school and college levels, so that HD flat screen I've been saving up to purchase hopefully will be in place just in time for the regular season.
It's unlikely, but certainly possible.
Watching them play the Bears last night, it's difficult to tell much. The majority of the game was played by the backups and those trying to make the team, so all that could be said about the Bear's 27-24 win is that their rookies and free agents are a bit better than the Colts'.
And the Colts' special teams stink. Why they can't seem to find a decent kickoff team year after year puzzles me.
The Colts' first teams looked pretty sharp in the first quarter. The offense failed to score twice when they probably should have, but otherwise Peyton and the boys look like they'll continue to be one of the league's best offenses.
The Colt defense is questionable, just as they were last year. Last night, they looked good at times and not so good at other times. Which is also the same as last year. Will they miss their starting corners from last year? Somewhat. Will they miss Cato June? Not really. Will they miss Booger McFarland? Yes.
The same question asked about the Colts' chances in the last 4 or 5 years still applies this year. Can the defense manage to give up a few less points than the offense puts up this year?
They have a pretty good chance of winning their division again this season, although Tennessee should be a lot better this year. New England will probably be back as a major challenge to the Colts' Super Bowl hopes. It will be interesting to find out what other AFC teams rise to the top this year - will Pittsburgh be back with their new coach? Cincinnati should be strong as usual. Can San Diego break through? Did Kansas City improve or get worse with their QB shuffle and running back problem? Jacksonville and Baltimore could easily rejoin the elite.
For me, it's just fun to watch it all develop.
I'm not sure that Indy will be able to win their first regular season game against New Orleans. That's a pretty good team that might be able to run through the Colts' porous defense and keep the ball away from Peyton.
It's fun to move into the best season of the year. I also enjoy football at the high school and college levels, so that HD flat screen I've been saving up to purchase hopefully will be in place just in time for the regular season.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Staying Positive
Busy times. Not much time to post these days.
Lately I've found new perspectives and continue to learn. Some things fascinate me, and when I pick up new perspectives that deepen understanding, it gives me a feeling of satisfaction.
Frustration with things political has almost led me to give up caring. For example, I recently heard a member of the Dem leadership admit that the party will attempt to force an exit from Iraq regardless of progress that will be reported next month. In other words, facts don't matter, security and stability don't matter; only political power for the party matters. It saddens me.
Candidates win by saying nothing of substance. When they speak in vague, blue sky utopian dreams, they can make people feel good. People vote for who makes them feel good. The last thing a presidential candidate wants to do is take an actual clear position on some issue. Because whatever the issue and whatever the position, half the voters won't like it.
We're in the most partisan and acrimonious time since the Civil War. All that's missing is the shooting. I wonder if the shooting will start after next year's elections? I'm not sure, but I am nearly sure that the freedoms of speech, religion, and possibly arms will be denied us very soon. I'm also pretty sure that government bureaucrats will make our healthcare decisions for all of us within the next decade.
The path is set. The next decade will be interesting, to say the least.
All I can do is stay positive. It helps to limit time spent watching television news, which drives up blood pressure. Better yet, football season is starting, creating my favorite diversion from more serious things.
Will the Colts win their opening game against the Saints? Too early to tell, but my early bet is no. Maybe when I have a chance, I'll post my preseason football thoughts.
Lately I've found new perspectives and continue to learn. Some things fascinate me, and when I pick up new perspectives that deepen understanding, it gives me a feeling of satisfaction.
Frustration with things political has almost led me to give up caring. For example, I recently heard a member of the Dem leadership admit that the party will attempt to force an exit from Iraq regardless of progress that will be reported next month. In other words, facts don't matter, security and stability don't matter; only political power for the party matters. It saddens me.
Candidates win by saying nothing of substance. When they speak in vague, blue sky utopian dreams, they can make people feel good. People vote for who makes them feel good. The last thing a presidential candidate wants to do is take an actual clear position on some issue. Because whatever the issue and whatever the position, half the voters won't like it.
We're in the most partisan and acrimonious time since the Civil War. All that's missing is the shooting. I wonder if the shooting will start after next year's elections? I'm not sure, but I am nearly sure that the freedoms of speech, religion, and possibly arms will be denied us very soon. I'm also pretty sure that government bureaucrats will make our healthcare decisions for all of us within the next decade.
The path is set. The next decade will be interesting, to say the least.
All I can do is stay positive. It helps to limit time spent watching television news, which drives up blood pressure. Better yet, football season is starting, creating my favorite diversion from more serious things.
Will the Colts win their opening game against the Saints? Too early to tell, but my early bet is no. Maybe when I have a chance, I'll post my preseason football thoughts.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Predicting the Future
My predictions are logical conclusions based on today's trends. Everyone says it's a foregone conclusion that the Democrat left will control the Federal Government after the next election. A simple analysis of their own words results in the following predictions.
The economy will go into the tank sometime in the next 3-4 years. Unions will regain the power they lost in the 70's and will drive many companies out of business and/or out of the country. Unemployment will skyrocket, and the move to socialism will be complete.
Healthcare will be free or very cheap from the government, which means every visit to the doctor's office requires several hours waiting to be seen. Surgeries won't be accessible for many months, and many people will die awaiting the surgery they need to save their lives.
High marginal tax rates on income over $100K could reach 70 or 80 percent. Taxes will increase for everyone else less dramatically but just as certainly.
Gas will rise above $4 a gallon, maybe even $5. Part of the increase will come from expanded federal gasoline taxes at the pump. Imports of oil and refined fuels will skyrocket as domestic production will be discouraged through high targeted taxes on the industry and additional restructions on domestic exploration and production.
Policies will be implemented that punish families with more than 2 children. With taxes at first, growing into serious proposals to follow China's forceable abortion policies. Abortions will be widely available and federally funded for anyone seeking one. Pro Life activists will be arrested and prosecuted wherever they are found demonstrating, and their pregnancy crisis centers will be forced to close through edict of the federal judiciary.
Public schools will descend to unprecedented depths, with violence and failing academic performance spreading to nearly all communities. Priorities in public schools will be to drive out all religious speech and increasing sex education, particularly focusing on teaching a gay-friendly agenda.
Domestic terrorism will explode across the country, as the war on terror is abandoned and jihadists aggressively pursue the bombing and killing of as many American infidels as they can. Political leaders will blame George Bush for the terrorism while trying to appease radical Islamists by choosing negotiation over military power.
Christianity will be driven underground. Any church that insists on discriminating against homosexuals on the basis of moral principals will lose their tax exempt status, then be prosecuted for violating federal civil rights laws. Mainline denominations will remain in place, but will abandon all moral teachings and abandon the basic tenets of the faith. Their services will become concerts with sermons about tolerance and diversity and self-discovery.
Crime will spiral out of control, as drug laws are relaxed or left unenforced and people lose jobs. Convicted criminals will spend increasingly less time in prison, instead receiving counseling and drug treatment in the misguided belief they will reform and can be released back to a vulnerable public that can not protect themselves due to new laws criminalizing the possession of firearms.
Will Americans figure it out in time to change this future? Right now it doesn't appear likely.
The economy will go into the tank sometime in the next 3-4 years. Unions will regain the power they lost in the 70's and will drive many companies out of business and/or out of the country. Unemployment will skyrocket, and the move to socialism will be complete.
Healthcare will be free or very cheap from the government, which means every visit to the doctor's office requires several hours waiting to be seen. Surgeries won't be accessible for many months, and many people will die awaiting the surgery they need to save their lives.
High marginal tax rates on income over $100K could reach 70 or 80 percent. Taxes will increase for everyone else less dramatically but just as certainly.
Gas will rise above $4 a gallon, maybe even $5. Part of the increase will come from expanded federal gasoline taxes at the pump. Imports of oil and refined fuels will skyrocket as domestic production will be discouraged through high targeted taxes on the industry and additional restructions on domestic exploration and production.
Policies will be implemented that punish families with more than 2 children. With taxes at first, growing into serious proposals to follow China's forceable abortion policies. Abortions will be widely available and federally funded for anyone seeking one. Pro Life activists will be arrested and prosecuted wherever they are found demonstrating, and their pregnancy crisis centers will be forced to close through edict of the federal judiciary.
Public schools will descend to unprecedented depths, with violence and failing academic performance spreading to nearly all communities. Priorities in public schools will be to drive out all religious speech and increasing sex education, particularly focusing on teaching a gay-friendly agenda.
Domestic terrorism will explode across the country, as the war on terror is abandoned and jihadists aggressively pursue the bombing and killing of as many American infidels as they can. Political leaders will blame George Bush for the terrorism while trying to appease radical Islamists by choosing negotiation over military power.
Christianity will be driven underground. Any church that insists on discriminating against homosexuals on the basis of moral principals will lose their tax exempt status, then be prosecuted for violating federal civil rights laws. Mainline denominations will remain in place, but will abandon all moral teachings and abandon the basic tenets of the faith. Their services will become concerts with sermons about tolerance and diversity and self-discovery.
Crime will spiral out of control, as drug laws are relaxed or left unenforced and people lose jobs. Convicted criminals will spend increasingly less time in prison, instead receiving counseling and drug treatment in the misguided belief they will reform and can be released back to a vulnerable public that can not protect themselves due to new laws criminalizing the possession of firearms.
Will Americans figure it out in time to change this future? Right now it doesn't appear likely.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Junk Science
Judge science by application of its own method. Those who hoist the banner of science to support political activism on issues like global warming and evolution should be judged on facts and observable data. The scientific method demands that any theory be supportable or refutable on the empirical data.
Which brings us to a new revelation in the global warming arena. It would appear that the measurements used to support noted climate scientist Al Gore's chicken little act were flawed.
When science is trotted out by politicians to make a case for social policy, I get extremely skeptical. The Kyoto climate treaty so touted by the left was little more than an extortion scheme designed to extract hefty payments from the US to other countries to punish us for our prosperity. Al's solutions run in a similar vein; his euphemistic "Carbon Credit" scam is nothing more than a back-door tax that solves not a single environmental problem.
A telling sign for me of scientific quackery is the language I hear from the Al Gore acolytes. Those who don't "believe" in global warming are called "Global Warming Deniers", an ingenious wordplay that subtly suggests such "deniers" are the equivalent of Nazi symphathizers who deny the Jewish Holocaust ever took place.
When they talk about a belief in global warming, it makes me want to ask, "I thought Global Warming was based on science - belief is about faith in something that can't be objectively proven. So are you suggesting that it requires a leap of faith to accept that there is a developing planetary climate crisis?"
Also, Gore and his followers like to claim that human-induced global warming is "Settled Science". That all the scientists who matter have formed a consensus, and the argument is over. It's strange, because I read stuff all the time from people who seem to be highly credible and well-credentialled climate scientists, who are increasingly contradicting Al Gore's expert analysis. These scientists point out problems with the data collection; the fact that data can be and often is manipulated to "prove" a preconceived outcome; and that the planet always has and always will go through cyclical climate changes, and human effect on such macro climate trends is negligible at best.
Moving on to another science-related subject, I recently saw a story about the discovery that two ancient hominid finds were discovered to be contemporaries. That appears to blow their previous idea that the two pre-human species represented evidence of human evolution. Creationists of course were happy to say, "I told you so", while the evolutionists sniffed, "This in no way casts any doubt on the reality of evolution".
Which I find kind of laughable. The most ardent apologists for Darwin's macro evolutionary theories sound just like (and might be the same people) those who call human-caused global warming "settled science". Last time I heard, Darwin's theory of evolution was still a "theory". That means it seems as good a guess as any, since we can't really objectively explain the origin of the species on this planet any other way.
It seems pretty simple to me. It's long been observable that species adapt to their environment. The problem is, nobody has ever observed that adaptation extending to the emergence of a brand new species. The old poster showing the amoeba morphing into a fish morphing into an amphibian morphing into a small mammal morphing to a chimp morphing to a neanderthal morphing into a modern human cannot be demonstrated either with a fossil record or laboratory observation.
So being a macro evolutionist requires just as much faith as being a creationist. So this whole argument is not about science versus faith. It's about faith versus faith. Faith in a godless world populated by creatures that appeared completely at random versus faith in an unseen God who created all life. Both sides are so deeply invested in their brand of faith that they must fight their ideological foes with everything they have, because if one side or the other could be objectively proven wrong, the losing side would have their entire existence shattered.
All I ask is that science do what science does well, and be humble enough to admit that some answers remain elusive. For the religion side of the aisle, go ahead and believe as you do, but recognize that science is not necessarily an adversary to faith. I rather think current theories about the formation of the universe are fairly consistent with the Bible's account. But none of us was there, and we really can't do more than theorize and wonder.
Maybe if we understand each other just a bit better, we all can get along.
Which brings us to a new revelation in the global warming arena. It would appear that the measurements used to support noted climate scientist Al Gore's chicken little act were flawed.
When science is trotted out by politicians to make a case for social policy, I get extremely skeptical. The Kyoto climate treaty so touted by the left was little more than an extortion scheme designed to extract hefty payments from the US to other countries to punish us for our prosperity. Al's solutions run in a similar vein; his euphemistic "Carbon Credit" scam is nothing more than a back-door tax that solves not a single environmental problem.
A telling sign for me of scientific quackery is the language I hear from the Al Gore acolytes. Those who don't "believe" in global warming are called "Global Warming Deniers", an ingenious wordplay that subtly suggests such "deniers" are the equivalent of Nazi symphathizers who deny the Jewish Holocaust ever took place.
When they talk about a belief in global warming, it makes me want to ask, "I thought Global Warming was based on science - belief is about faith in something that can't be objectively proven. So are you suggesting that it requires a leap of faith to accept that there is a developing planetary climate crisis?"
Also, Gore and his followers like to claim that human-induced global warming is "Settled Science". That all the scientists who matter have formed a consensus, and the argument is over. It's strange, because I read stuff all the time from people who seem to be highly credible and well-credentialled climate scientists, who are increasingly contradicting Al Gore's expert analysis. These scientists point out problems with the data collection; the fact that data can be and often is manipulated to "prove" a preconceived outcome; and that the planet always has and always will go through cyclical climate changes, and human effect on such macro climate trends is negligible at best.
Moving on to another science-related subject, I recently saw a story about the discovery that two ancient hominid finds were discovered to be contemporaries. That appears to blow their previous idea that the two pre-human species represented evidence of human evolution. Creationists of course were happy to say, "I told you so", while the evolutionists sniffed, "This in no way casts any doubt on the reality of evolution".
Which I find kind of laughable. The most ardent apologists for Darwin's macro evolutionary theories sound just like (and might be the same people) those who call human-caused global warming "settled science". Last time I heard, Darwin's theory of evolution was still a "theory". That means it seems as good a guess as any, since we can't really objectively explain the origin of the species on this planet any other way.
It seems pretty simple to me. It's long been observable that species adapt to their environment. The problem is, nobody has ever observed that adaptation extending to the emergence of a brand new species. The old poster showing the amoeba morphing into a fish morphing into an amphibian morphing into a small mammal morphing to a chimp morphing to a neanderthal morphing into a modern human cannot be demonstrated either with a fossil record or laboratory observation.
So being a macro evolutionist requires just as much faith as being a creationist. So this whole argument is not about science versus faith. It's about faith versus faith. Faith in a godless world populated by creatures that appeared completely at random versus faith in an unseen God who created all life. Both sides are so deeply invested in their brand of faith that they must fight their ideological foes with everything they have, because if one side or the other could be objectively proven wrong, the losing side would have their entire existence shattered.
All I ask is that science do what science does well, and be humble enough to admit that some answers remain elusive. For the religion side of the aisle, go ahead and believe as you do, but recognize that science is not necessarily an adversary to faith. I rather think current theories about the formation of the universe are fairly consistent with the Bible's account. But none of us was there, and we really can't do more than theorize and wonder.
Maybe if we understand each other just a bit better, we all can get along.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Short Subjects
I've lost patience with all the "Yellow Page" advertisers. This week I've been in the office, so I get two or three calls a day from them. I'm now hanging up on them, because I've had it with people from India calling to "verify my information".
They're wasting my time, for one. The whole thing is a racket, for another. If it's legal for all these bogus companies to pose as the "Yellow Pages" and send out bogus invoices for listings never ordered, it shouldn't be. As a green new business owner I got taken by one of their scams. I got what looked like an invoice for a yellow page ad, which I thought was for the ad I took out in the local telephone directory. So I paid it. A few weeks later I found out I paid the wrong company.
I tried to get a refund, but couldn't even get anybody to take a call or respond to my email. It would have been too difficult and time-consuming to badger them for my money back, which would never have been probable anyway, so I gave up and chalked it up to experience. I think that's the whole idea of these rogue companies to rip off small businesses that haven't caught on to their game.
It wasn't my local "Yellow Pages", but some other rip-off company touting some other directory called "Yellow Pages" that had nothing to do with the local phone company. I was scammed. These days I don't bother to buy any listing in any Yellow Page directory, not even the local book. It doesn't bring me business anyway, so there is no point.
The car lot on the corner has this on their sign:
Beware of becoming too open-minded; your brains might fall out.
Exactly.
They're wasting my time, for one. The whole thing is a racket, for another. If it's legal for all these bogus companies to pose as the "Yellow Pages" and send out bogus invoices for listings never ordered, it shouldn't be. As a green new business owner I got taken by one of their scams. I got what looked like an invoice for a yellow page ad, which I thought was for the ad I took out in the local telephone directory. So I paid it. A few weeks later I found out I paid the wrong company.
I tried to get a refund, but couldn't even get anybody to take a call or respond to my email. It would have been too difficult and time-consuming to badger them for my money back, which would never have been probable anyway, so I gave up and chalked it up to experience. I think that's the whole idea of these rogue companies to rip off small businesses that haven't caught on to their game.
It wasn't my local "Yellow Pages", but some other rip-off company touting some other directory called "Yellow Pages" that had nothing to do with the local phone company. I was scammed. These days I don't bother to buy any listing in any Yellow Page directory, not even the local book. It doesn't bring me business anyway, so there is no point.
The car lot on the corner has this on their sign:
Beware of becoming too open-minded; your brains might fall out.
Exactly.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Let Me Try
I'm sorry to read what seems to be a rather bitter tone in the comment to the previous post. All I can do is try to respond. I'm no trained theologian, but let's see:
Point-by-Point:
1. there is still no better theory put forth by christians than evolution
From my point of view, it's not necessary or required that a Christian prove scientific arguments for or against evolution. That's not the business of religion. Strict literalists may interpret Genesis to say that the earth is no more than 7,000 years old. For me, I can't say because I wasn't there.
I understand the arguments being made by some that the idea of "Intelligent Design" should be presented alongside Macro Evolutionary theories, suggesting that both theories rely as much on faith as measurable science.
I see an observable and solid case for adaptation of species to changing conditions - those species that do not adapt to their environment tend to be doomed to extinction. It seems to me it requires a great deal more faith to believe all life evolved from single-celled organisms that evolved from a chemical soup than to believe there was some divine influence.
On the other hand, it does not seem particularly antireligious to me to consider that God simply followed His own rules in enabling creation of life, including the amazing ability of life to sustain itself against all odds.
2. when we die, there's no one who can justify the assertion that that is NOT it except by saying "you have to have faith"
This touches on something that is core to Christianity - the idea of an eternal spirit and life after death. If Jesus did not die on the cross and rise from the dead, then Christianity would not exist. He is the proof, but absolutely - it is difficult 2,000 years later for people to believe the story really happened. Without getting into all the potential evidence for thinking people on this topic, my first thought is to look at his disciples. If Jesus was crucified and was not resurrected, why would every single one of them become his evangelists to the known world, causing all but one to be killed for their preaching? Many of them by horrific and painful means. Would they subject themselves to such torture for no good reason?
Ultimately, yes, you have to believe the story. That's where our personal search for the truth and our life experiences come into play.
3. show me a miracle, performed recently, that cannot be easily explained by rational means.
I've had events and experiences in my life that I feel were somewhat miraculous. So have other family members. But outside those, let me use some Catholic miracles. Mother Teresa was about the best example of true Christianity in modern times, and she will be canonized by the Church as a saint soon, if not already. To be canonized, miracles must be attributed to the saint, and such miracles are reportedly being investigated by the Church. The miracles attributed to intervention of saints are typically unexplained healings of severe illnesses, where the patient may have asked, say, Mother Teresa to intervene for them with God.
Do you think that when Mother Teresa is canonized, the Church lied about the miracles claimed to be based on Mother Teresa's intercession on behalf of the patient(s)? Essentially, your comment suggests that the Church not only has been lying about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for 2,000 years, and also has lied about miracles attributed to hundreds of saints over that time.
Is it reasonable to accuse the entire Catholic Church of 2,000 years of deceit? If it's all a big lie, how has the Church been able to avoid exposure through all those generations?
4. a vocal portion of Christians ARE ignorant superstitious sheep
A vocal portion of Americans are ignorant about their constitution and form of government. Does that make the constitution invalid? Vocal groups of all kinds are ignorant about all manner of things.
People are what they always have been. The ignorant will always be with us, boldly proclaiming their ignorant ideas as truth. As will those who seek to profit from them. Those truths do not invalidate the truth that can be found in the Christian faith as defined pretty well in an old book called The Bible.
5. have you seen televangelists... ever?
Honestly, I don't pay them much attention. Some are money-grubbing charlatans, I'm sure. Tammy Faye just died. Do you think she was sincere, at least when she and her (then) husband Jim Bakker started their TV empire? Do you think they went into televangelism with a cynical profit motive, or did they fall victim to the greed and power they found when their TV empire took off?
I don't know. But I tend to believe the latter.
More importantly, do you watch televangelists? If so, do you think their message is inherently evil? Do you think their programs are worse than the trashy stuff on commercial television?
What have they done to you to make you so bitter, hateful, and angry? As far as I know, not a thing.
if christians want respect, they need to start earning it.
True. Ultimately, non-Christians judge the faith not on its true teaching, but on the people who profess to be Christians. If such people are mean, pushy, unethical, immoral, etc., then they are doing more damage to the Church than they will ever know.
I wonder if you are making the comment because you have seen too many such hypocrites. If so, I only hope I can offset them just a little.
God Bless.
Point-by-Point:
1. there is still no better theory put forth by christians than evolution
From my point of view, it's not necessary or required that a Christian prove scientific arguments for or against evolution. That's not the business of religion. Strict literalists may interpret Genesis to say that the earth is no more than 7,000 years old. For me, I can't say because I wasn't there.
I understand the arguments being made by some that the idea of "Intelligent Design" should be presented alongside Macro Evolutionary theories, suggesting that both theories rely as much on faith as measurable science.
I see an observable and solid case for adaptation of species to changing conditions - those species that do not adapt to their environment tend to be doomed to extinction. It seems to me it requires a great deal more faith to believe all life evolved from single-celled organisms that evolved from a chemical soup than to believe there was some divine influence.
On the other hand, it does not seem particularly antireligious to me to consider that God simply followed His own rules in enabling creation of life, including the amazing ability of life to sustain itself against all odds.
2. when we die, there's no one who can justify the assertion that that is NOT it except by saying "you have to have faith"
This touches on something that is core to Christianity - the idea of an eternal spirit and life after death. If Jesus did not die on the cross and rise from the dead, then Christianity would not exist. He is the proof, but absolutely - it is difficult 2,000 years later for people to believe the story really happened. Without getting into all the potential evidence for thinking people on this topic, my first thought is to look at his disciples. If Jesus was crucified and was not resurrected, why would every single one of them become his evangelists to the known world, causing all but one to be killed for their preaching? Many of them by horrific and painful means. Would they subject themselves to such torture for no good reason?
Ultimately, yes, you have to believe the story. That's where our personal search for the truth and our life experiences come into play.
3. show me a miracle, performed recently, that cannot be easily explained by rational means.
I've had events and experiences in my life that I feel were somewhat miraculous. So have other family members. But outside those, let me use some Catholic miracles. Mother Teresa was about the best example of true Christianity in modern times, and she will be canonized by the Church as a saint soon, if not already. To be canonized, miracles must be attributed to the saint, and such miracles are reportedly being investigated by the Church. The miracles attributed to intervention of saints are typically unexplained healings of severe illnesses, where the patient may have asked, say, Mother Teresa to intervene for them with God.
Do you think that when Mother Teresa is canonized, the Church lied about the miracles claimed to be based on Mother Teresa's intercession on behalf of the patient(s)? Essentially, your comment suggests that the Church not only has been lying about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for 2,000 years, and also has lied about miracles attributed to hundreds of saints over that time.
Is it reasonable to accuse the entire Catholic Church of 2,000 years of deceit? If it's all a big lie, how has the Church been able to avoid exposure through all those generations?
4. a vocal portion of Christians ARE ignorant superstitious sheep
A vocal portion of Americans are ignorant about their constitution and form of government. Does that make the constitution invalid? Vocal groups of all kinds are ignorant about all manner of things.
People are what they always have been. The ignorant will always be with us, boldly proclaiming their ignorant ideas as truth. As will those who seek to profit from them. Those truths do not invalidate the truth that can be found in the Christian faith as defined pretty well in an old book called The Bible.
5. have you seen televangelists... ever?
Honestly, I don't pay them much attention. Some are money-grubbing charlatans, I'm sure. Tammy Faye just died. Do you think she was sincere, at least when she and her (then) husband Jim Bakker started their TV empire? Do you think they went into televangelism with a cynical profit motive, or did they fall victim to the greed and power they found when their TV empire took off?
I don't know. But I tend to believe the latter.
More importantly, do you watch televangelists? If so, do you think their message is inherently evil? Do you think their programs are worse than the trashy stuff on commercial television?
What have they done to you to make you so bitter, hateful, and angry? As far as I know, not a thing.
if christians want respect, they need to start earning it.
True. Ultimately, non-Christians judge the faith not on its true teaching, but on the people who profess to be Christians. If such people are mean, pushy, unethical, immoral, etc., then they are doing more damage to the Church than they will ever know.
I wonder if you are making the comment because you have seen too many such hypocrites. If so, I only hope I can offset them just a little.
God Bless.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Just Pity
That's mainly what I feel about the angry atheists who seem to have ascended to political and social power these days.
How desolate and hopeless it must be to believe that
humans are just more highly evolved mammals
when we die, that's it
there are no miracles, only coincidences
Christians are ignorant superstitious sheep
Christian leaders are evil greedy burgeoisie happy to clip the sheep to fill their own desires for wealth and power
religion is nothing but a set of arbitrary rules enforced only for the benefit of Christian leaders (interesting that the only Christian "rules" that really upset these folks are related to sex; they seem more upset at those than Muslim Jihad)
government should replace religion and control every aspect of human life (except sex, of course)
that stamping out religion will somehow lead to a peaceful, utopian planet
I indeed only feel pity for such people, who for their own reasons have become bitter and angry crusaders against God. It must be a sad and empty existence.
How desolate and hopeless it must be to believe that
humans are just more highly evolved mammals
when we die, that's it
there are no miracles, only coincidences
Christians are ignorant superstitious sheep
Christian leaders are evil greedy burgeoisie happy to clip the sheep to fill their own desires for wealth and power
religion is nothing but a set of arbitrary rules enforced only for the benefit of Christian leaders (interesting that the only Christian "rules" that really upset these folks are related to sex; they seem more upset at those than Muslim Jihad)
government should replace religion and control every aspect of human life (except sex, of course)
that stamping out religion will somehow lead to a peaceful, utopian planet
I indeed only feel pity for such people, who for their own reasons have become bitter and angry crusaders against God. It must be a sad and empty existence.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Tax
Indy has been in turmoil lately over their property tax reassessments. Most people don't pay much attention to such things until they get a tax bill with a big increase, which is pretty much what happened in Indy. And down here everybody's nervous, because our bills haven't been sent yet. It's almost certain that the property taxes here will go up for almost everybody, and people are hoping they don't double like the poor residents in the Indianapolis area.
Mitch ordered a review of the assessments in Indy, plus a couple of other counties. It could partially be a political decision to dampen down the level of anger, but he says there seems to be some evidence that commercial property was undervalued, shifting a bigger burden to homeowners.
The larger problem of taxation goes to all levels of government and all types of taxes. Government exists to perpetuate itself, and bureaucrats are driven by a desire for personal power rather than the public good. Politicians argue about how high the tax rates should be on "rich" folks, but are strangely silent on the question of whether they're spending the tax money wisely.
The proponents of the "Fair Tax" plan, which would eliminate federal income taxes and replace them with a national sales tax, have some decent ideas. But they're fighting an impossible battle against the very system used by our politicians to keep them in office. It's not going to happen.
I think the best solution is a very simple one. It would probably require a constitutional amendment at the Federal Level to be enforceable, but here's the idea: The law of the land should simply say, "No citizen or for-profit organization may be exempted or relieved of any tax levied by federal, state, or local government entities."
Ever seen the Federal Tax Code? Know why it's contained in such a gigantic volume? Because it's loaded with exemptions, rebates, credits, and other considerations given to specific individuals and businesses. Not by name, because that would be gauche. But with a description of the person or entity being exempted worded in such a way as to remove all uncertainty about who's getting the special exemption.
Why do they exempt certain corporations and individuals from taxes? Because those individuals and corporations help insure the congressperson who inserted the exemption in the tax code is re-elected. Not a bad deal for a businessperson, really - all he has to do is contribute $100,000 to the campaign, and he'll get a $200,000 tax break. It's corrupt. And it's a way of life for our legislators.
It happens at the state and local levels too. Honda is building a new plant nearby in Greensburg. The governor and other state and local politicians get to crow about their great success in attracting this big Japanese automaker to Indiana. What do you think they offered to help incent Honda to locate in Greensburg? Tax exemptions, of course. Ever heard the term "Tax Abatement"? It's a simple device used to favor certain businesses. Honda's probably getting free infrastructure (roads, power, water & sewer, etc.) from the state as an added bonus.
Imagine what would happen if the law were written as I suggested? Nobody - no congressman, governor, mayor, city councilman, could hand out any tax favors to anybody. Honda would have to choose their sites based simply on the best place overall for them, not on how much of a tax break they're getting. I think it would force legislators to be more responsible in their tax policies, and maybe even rethink their wasteful spending habits.
Unfortunately, this idea likely has no better chance of passing than the "Fair Tax". For the same reasons.
Mitch ordered a review of the assessments in Indy, plus a couple of other counties. It could partially be a political decision to dampen down the level of anger, but he says there seems to be some evidence that commercial property was undervalued, shifting a bigger burden to homeowners.
The larger problem of taxation goes to all levels of government and all types of taxes. Government exists to perpetuate itself, and bureaucrats are driven by a desire for personal power rather than the public good. Politicians argue about how high the tax rates should be on "rich" folks, but are strangely silent on the question of whether they're spending the tax money wisely.
The proponents of the "Fair Tax" plan, which would eliminate federal income taxes and replace them with a national sales tax, have some decent ideas. But they're fighting an impossible battle against the very system used by our politicians to keep them in office. It's not going to happen.
I think the best solution is a very simple one. It would probably require a constitutional amendment at the Federal Level to be enforceable, but here's the idea: The law of the land should simply say, "No citizen or for-profit organization may be exempted or relieved of any tax levied by federal, state, or local government entities."
Ever seen the Federal Tax Code? Know why it's contained in such a gigantic volume? Because it's loaded with exemptions, rebates, credits, and other considerations given to specific individuals and businesses. Not by name, because that would be gauche. But with a description of the person or entity being exempted worded in such a way as to remove all uncertainty about who's getting the special exemption.
Why do they exempt certain corporations and individuals from taxes? Because those individuals and corporations help insure the congressperson who inserted the exemption in the tax code is re-elected. Not a bad deal for a businessperson, really - all he has to do is contribute $100,000 to the campaign, and he'll get a $200,000 tax break. It's corrupt. And it's a way of life for our legislators.
It happens at the state and local levels too. Honda is building a new plant nearby in Greensburg. The governor and other state and local politicians get to crow about their great success in attracting this big Japanese automaker to Indiana. What do you think they offered to help incent Honda to locate in Greensburg? Tax exemptions, of course. Ever heard the term "Tax Abatement"? It's a simple device used to favor certain businesses. Honda's probably getting free infrastructure (roads, power, water & sewer, etc.) from the state as an added bonus.
Imagine what would happen if the law were written as I suggested? Nobody - no congressman, governor, mayor, city councilman, could hand out any tax favors to anybody. Honda would have to choose their sites based simply on the best place overall for them, not on how much of a tax break they're getting. I think it would force legislators to be more responsible in their tax policies, and maybe even rethink their wasteful spending habits.
Unfortunately, this idea likely has no better chance of passing than the "Fair Tax". For the same reasons.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Overblown
All the hand-wringing over child obesity is getting out of control. Maybe more kids are fat than ever before. It's a sign of prosperity. To me, some kids are going to be fat; so what?!
What is more disturbing is what some in positions of power are doing about it.
Taking the candy and soda machines out of the schools. What a joke. As if fat kids won't be fat anymore if they can't buy Mountain Dew and a Baby Ruth at school?
Passing laws against restaurants serving food with trans fats. Big Brother is alive and well and living in our big cities.
The worst idea: Removing fat children from their homes under the philosophy that the parents of fat kids are guilty of abuse and neglect. If the government can define child abuse any way they choose, what's next? Removing children from Christian homes where they are taught intolerance of homosexuals and skepticism of Darwinian Evolution? Totalitarianism.
Do we really want to find ways to solve the problem, assuming it's really a problem? How about some practical ideas -
Stop the practice of washing out kids from sports by the fifth grade. Get everybody playing their favorite sports on organized teams without slamming the door on them before they even got the chance to develop! Make active sports and games a required hour in every school day, then let everybody play on a school team that practices every afternoon. If 100 boys want to play basketball, then form 10 teams.
See, all the Big Brother policies will ever accomplish is denial of everybody's freedom to do whatever they want with their lives. We live in a society of rampant permissiveness in all areas, including raising of children. Parents don't want to do the hard parenting stuff, so they let their kids eat whatever they want, play stupid video games all day, and pretty much do whatever they please. No wonder lots of them get fat. They also fail to learn the most basic concepts of morality and civility.
So government can't fix that problem except through long-term policies that value and support those institutions that teach morality. But they can provide plenty of opportunities for kids to do active things that are fun. And if they have the courage to buck the ACLU, maybe even provide teachers and coaches who serve as strong role models for the kids while giving them outlets for healthy physical activities.
It's just one of the many issues of our age with a huge disconnect between the common-sense solutions that can work and the non-solutions proposed and implemented by the ignorant elites.
What is more disturbing is what some in positions of power are doing about it.
Taking the candy and soda machines out of the schools. What a joke. As if fat kids won't be fat anymore if they can't buy Mountain Dew and a Baby Ruth at school?
Passing laws against restaurants serving food with trans fats. Big Brother is alive and well and living in our big cities.
The worst idea: Removing fat children from their homes under the philosophy that the parents of fat kids are guilty of abuse and neglect. If the government can define child abuse any way they choose, what's next? Removing children from Christian homes where they are taught intolerance of homosexuals and skepticism of Darwinian Evolution? Totalitarianism.
Do we really want to find ways to solve the problem, assuming it's really a problem? How about some practical ideas -
Stop the practice of washing out kids from sports by the fifth grade. Get everybody playing their favorite sports on organized teams without slamming the door on them before they even got the chance to develop! Make active sports and games a required hour in every school day, then let everybody play on a school team that practices every afternoon. If 100 boys want to play basketball, then form 10 teams.
See, all the Big Brother policies will ever accomplish is denial of everybody's freedom to do whatever they want with their lives. We live in a society of rampant permissiveness in all areas, including raising of children. Parents don't want to do the hard parenting stuff, so they let their kids eat whatever they want, play stupid video games all day, and pretty much do whatever they please. No wonder lots of them get fat. They also fail to learn the most basic concepts of morality and civility.
So government can't fix that problem except through long-term policies that value and support those institutions that teach morality. But they can provide plenty of opportunities for kids to do active things that are fun. And if they have the courage to buck the ACLU, maybe even provide teachers and coaches who serve as strong role models for the kids while giving them outlets for healthy physical activities.
It's just one of the many issues of our age with a huge disconnect between the common-sense solutions that can work and the non-solutions proposed and implemented by the ignorant elites.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Better than Hotels
This week and next I get to work in my own office, which means no airplanes or hotels. It's nice to have an almost normal working schedule and sleep in my own bed at night.
Even though I usually get rental cars much nicer than my old beat-up Jed. Sometimes the hotel rooms can be very nice, with some recent examples with flat panel HDTV and kitchenette and big beds. I still prefer home.
This web training is a pretty decent gig. It will never be as effective as face-to-face classroom instruction, but the more I do it the better I get. Been teaching classes over the web all week, and today I felt like I am really getting the hang of it. I'll be doing a lot of it through the end of this year, so we'll see how that works out. So far not bad.
I need a secretary.
Even though I usually get rental cars much nicer than my old beat-up Jed. Sometimes the hotel rooms can be very nice, with some recent examples with flat panel HDTV and kitchenette and big beds. I still prefer home.
This web training is a pretty decent gig. It will never be as effective as face-to-face classroom instruction, but the more I do it the better I get. Been teaching classes over the web all week, and today I felt like I am really getting the hang of it. I'll be doing a lot of it through the end of this year, so we'll see how that works out. So far not bad.
I need a secretary.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Destiny
There's a strange feeling nagging at me today that something momentus is about to happen. I can't identify what or when or even if it's a good or bad thing.
Then again, these days I don't really think about events so much in terms of good and bad. Sure, I have days that are better than others. I don't especially care for things that cause me physical or emotional pain. I can get irritated by stupid and unreasonable people.
But I've never really been one to get terribly worked up worrying about things. I never felt like I feared my own death, but I did fear intense pain and suffering. I have feared disability. But these no longer elicit fear for me. Not that I'd welcome them, but neither do I worry much about them.
Maybe its the age I'm reaching, but I've come to realize that I am the culmination of my life experiences. The pleasant experiences leave nice memories I can recall to cheer me up. The unpleasant experiences, in most cases, led to something better. Or they made me more resilient, perhaps a bit less fearful.
I've been taught from an early age in Sunday School that God doesn't give any of us more than we can bear. Now the way I think of that old idea is that we don't have much choice in the matter - whatever happens, we must accept and find a way to deal with or overcome.
Even though I'm disheartened at the state of today's world and the corrupt people who run it, I no longer fear the collapse I think is imminent. Sort of like Sodom and Gomorrah, perhaps the only way to cleanse the world of its corruption is some major catastrophe. Not that I wish for it, but it seems somehow natural and inevitable.
So whether my strange feeling involves a momentus success or catastrophe in my personal life, my community, nation, or the world, I can accept it. Whatever occurs, assuming I survive, I will simply re-evaluate the situation and make the best choice I can to move forward.
Is that destiny? Is the course of life preordained, or do we choose our own? Is there a destiny out there for each of us, but only a select few have the courage to find it?
I can't say. But whatever is coming, let it come.
Then again, these days I don't really think about events so much in terms of good and bad. Sure, I have days that are better than others. I don't especially care for things that cause me physical or emotional pain. I can get irritated by stupid and unreasonable people.
But I've never really been one to get terribly worked up worrying about things. I never felt like I feared my own death, but I did fear intense pain and suffering. I have feared disability. But these no longer elicit fear for me. Not that I'd welcome them, but neither do I worry much about them.
Maybe its the age I'm reaching, but I've come to realize that I am the culmination of my life experiences. The pleasant experiences leave nice memories I can recall to cheer me up. The unpleasant experiences, in most cases, led to something better. Or they made me more resilient, perhaps a bit less fearful.
I've been taught from an early age in Sunday School that God doesn't give any of us more than we can bear. Now the way I think of that old idea is that we don't have much choice in the matter - whatever happens, we must accept and find a way to deal with or overcome.
Even though I'm disheartened at the state of today's world and the corrupt people who run it, I no longer fear the collapse I think is imminent. Sort of like Sodom and Gomorrah, perhaps the only way to cleanse the world of its corruption is some major catastrophe. Not that I wish for it, but it seems somehow natural and inevitable.
So whether my strange feeling involves a momentus success or catastrophe in my personal life, my community, nation, or the world, I can accept it. Whatever occurs, assuming I survive, I will simply re-evaluate the situation and make the best choice I can to move forward.
Is that destiny? Is the course of life preordained, or do we choose our own? Is there a destiny out there for each of us, but only a select few have the courage to find it?
I can't say. But whatever is coming, let it come.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Stuff that Wastes Time
Being independent implies that I don't have to answer to anyone.
But that's not the reality.
I answer to my customers every day. And my biggest customer is the one that supplies me with the bulk of my work. So in that sense, I regularly answer to them.
Lately they've been getting irritating, asking for extra time-consuming things that they of course don't pay for. Stupid little administrative rules designed to shift paperwork from their staff down to me. Playing games with what they will and won't accept in terms of billing, expenses, and so forth. It all costs me, in time or money or both.
The essential problem of a small business is that you must constantly make your biggest customer happy. Knowing that, the big customer raises the bar and lowers the pay. And the small business person, despite seeing all his (my) other costs continue to grow year after year, just has to accept the fact that the trend will continue until it becomes so one-sided that there's no longer any point to continuing the business relationship.
The only avenue open to me is to do my best to be more sought-after than any of the customer's other contractors, which hopefully grants some small bit of leverage to push back against the next list of silly rules and requirements. The ability to just be able to say, "Sure, we would be happy to comply with your new requests. To cover our cost of providing these additional services, our rate will be increased to $X."
I know. Dreaming again.
But that's not the reality.
I answer to my customers every day. And my biggest customer is the one that supplies me with the bulk of my work. So in that sense, I regularly answer to them.
Lately they've been getting irritating, asking for extra time-consuming things that they of course don't pay for. Stupid little administrative rules designed to shift paperwork from their staff down to me. Playing games with what they will and won't accept in terms of billing, expenses, and so forth. It all costs me, in time or money or both.
The essential problem of a small business is that you must constantly make your biggest customer happy. Knowing that, the big customer raises the bar and lowers the pay. And the small business person, despite seeing all his (my) other costs continue to grow year after year, just has to accept the fact that the trend will continue until it becomes so one-sided that there's no longer any point to continuing the business relationship.
The only avenue open to me is to do my best to be more sought-after than any of the customer's other contractors, which hopefully grants some small bit of leverage to push back against the next list of silly rules and requirements. The ability to just be able to say, "Sure, we would be happy to comply with your new requests. To cover our cost of providing these additional services, our rate will be increased to $X."
I know. Dreaming again.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Faulty Logic
I've listened closely, and the point about the Iraq war is that Bush should be forced to end it. Because war is bad, people die, we never should have started it, and so on.
So I think, sure war is bad. Nobody likes a war, except maybe people who like to watch war movies in the safety of their living room. Was Iraq a bad idea? I didn't know when it started, and still don't know. I don't think all of us ordinary people get in on the information that led to our leaders (not just Bush, but an overwhelming majority of congress, democrats included, by the way) to decide we needed to take on Saddam.
But then I start to get lost. See, they tell us the war should end because we shouldn't have started it in the first place, Saddam wasn't that bad a guy and wasn't really a threat, and now our soldiers are just stuck in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shia.
From what I'm able to discern, it's true that lots of the current violence involves turf wars between the Sunni and Shia. And our soldiers probably are unfortunately caught in the crossfire from time to time. But aren't they mostly killing each other? And if we just leave, won't they kill each other in massive numbers until one side or the other wins?
See, I'm confused by the left side's position on that, given they've been clamoring for us to intervene in Darfur for years. Isn't the situation in Iraq likely to become a repeat of Darfur the minute our soldiers leave the country? So what are you saying, anti-war lefties? That people in Darfur are more valuable than Iraqi people?
Then are the other questions the anti-war people never seem to want to answer. Like Al Quaeda. They're the ones who blew up the towers in New York - you know, September 11th? They're making Iraq their central front in their war on America. They say so, openly and often. Then there's Iran. They're arming and training people and sending them into Iraq to blow up our soldiers, so they're actually at war with us too.
So here's my big question for the get out now folks: How exactly does it help protect our country from terrorism if we just drop everything, say "never mind", and bug out of Iraq? As soon as we do that, doesn't it seem reasonable to predict that a holocaust will soon follow among the Iraqi people? That Iran will move swiftly in alliance with the Shia to rule what used to be Iraq? That Al Quaeda will strengthen with the aid of Iran and immediately begin hatching plans to bring Iranian nukes into America to set off in our cities?
Oh yeah, you guys say those are just scare tactics by the Nazi Republicans. Just let me get this straight - you're saying that if we leave Iraq immediately, somehow all those radicals that want to kill us will suddenly like us and leave us alone?
Please explain it to me. Because I don't get it.
So I think, sure war is bad. Nobody likes a war, except maybe people who like to watch war movies in the safety of their living room. Was Iraq a bad idea? I didn't know when it started, and still don't know. I don't think all of us ordinary people get in on the information that led to our leaders (not just Bush, but an overwhelming majority of congress, democrats included, by the way) to decide we needed to take on Saddam.
But then I start to get lost. See, they tell us the war should end because we shouldn't have started it in the first place, Saddam wasn't that bad a guy and wasn't really a threat, and now our soldiers are just stuck in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shia.
From what I'm able to discern, it's true that lots of the current violence involves turf wars between the Sunni and Shia. And our soldiers probably are unfortunately caught in the crossfire from time to time. But aren't they mostly killing each other? And if we just leave, won't they kill each other in massive numbers until one side or the other wins?
See, I'm confused by the left side's position on that, given they've been clamoring for us to intervene in Darfur for years. Isn't the situation in Iraq likely to become a repeat of Darfur the minute our soldiers leave the country? So what are you saying, anti-war lefties? That people in Darfur are more valuable than Iraqi people?
Then are the other questions the anti-war people never seem to want to answer. Like Al Quaeda. They're the ones who blew up the towers in New York - you know, September 11th? They're making Iraq their central front in their war on America. They say so, openly and often. Then there's Iran. They're arming and training people and sending them into Iraq to blow up our soldiers, so they're actually at war with us too.
So here's my big question for the get out now folks: How exactly does it help protect our country from terrorism if we just drop everything, say "never mind", and bug out of Iraq? As soon as we do that, doesn't it seem reasonable to predict that a holocaust will soon follow among the Iraqi people? That Iran will move swiftly in alliance with the Shia to rule what used to be Iraq? That Al Quaeda will strengthen with the aid of Iran and immediately begin hatching plans to bring Iranian nukes into America to set off in our cities?
Oh yeah, you guys say those are just scare tactics by the Nazi Republicans. Just let me get this straight - you're saying that if we leave Iraq immediately, somehow all those radicals that want to kill us will suddenly like us and leave us alone?
Please explain it to me. Because I don't get it.
Monday, July 09, 2007
If Asked for Advice
Interesting that lately I've been watching the political scene in sort a detached, analytical manner. Deeply disappointed by Republicans on the Immigration issue and dumbfounded by the antics of the Democrats, I've lost any hope for reason or common sense to prevail.
So instead, here are some of my suggestions for the outgoing President and those who want to be President when he leaves.
Bush only has one chance to salvage his presidency, and that's a miracle in Iraq. The miracle has to be in the form of a great success with his surge and actual progress in stabilizing a US-friendly government there. Problem is, even if the surge becomes a resounding success, we'll never get to hear about it, because the Bush-haters between congress and the news media are way to deeply invested in failure.
Hillary can win if she succeeds at shutting up those who mention her personal inconvenient truths. You know, her baggage from the years she spent with Bubba in the White House. Like the travel office firings, the Whitewater billing records, Vince Foster, the FBI Files, HillaryCare. Stuff like that.
Oh yeah, she's already succeeded. Nobody is talking about that stuff. So she wins, unless Obama can knock her off.
Speaking of Obama, all he has to do is say something really good. So far, he's an empty suit, but is doing well partly because of that. He needs to verbalize some bold plan for something or other that nobody else has, but can get people excited.
I don't know what that is, but it might not matter. The media are drooling over both Obama and Hillary, and don't really care which one wins - as long as one of them wins. Probably both, because I think the Dems will end up with a Hillary/Obama ticket.
The rest of the Democrat candidates are window dressing.
On the Republican side, Rudy could wrap it up with a simple strategy: He should clearly define his stance on the two big social issues he's on the wrong side of the party on - abortion and gay marriage. If he suddenly does an about-face on those issues (ala Romney), nobody will believe him. But if he tells everyone something like he can't force abortion law to be changed himself, but will use the bully pulpit as president to educate women and encourage alternatives to abortion, it could go a long way. On gay marriage, hmm, I think he's got a problem there.
Romney just has to get past the Mormon thing. I think that instead of running away from the issue, he should take it head-on and challenge those who want to make it an issue. He needs lots of prime-time publicity letting everyone know that his religious faith will influence him no more and no less than the faith of any president before him. Those who keep hammering him on it should put up or shut up.
Fred Thompson has a great opportunity. When he gets in the race, he has to personify the image he currently has as a common-sense, no-nonsense guy. Like Reagan, he can draw on his acting talents to project a straight-shooter that never backs down on his principles. But also like Reagan, he can somehow make his critics and enemies with nowhere to go by meeting their attacks head-on.
If Fred does it right, I think he might be the only Republican who can beat Hillary/Obama. Or I could just be fantasizing.
McCain's already done because of Immigration. And nobody else has a chance, even if there are a couple of them that deserve one. Because the Media chooses the candidate, not the rest of us.
By the time Indiana has primaries next summer, the choices will have already been made. So I'll only be a spectator anyway.
So instead, here are some of my suggestions for the outgoing President and those who want to be President when he leaves.
Bush only has one chance to salvage his presidency, and that's a miracle in Iraq. The miracle has to be in the form of a great success with his surge and actual progress in stabilizing a US-friendly government there. Problem is, even if the surge becomes a resounding success, we'll never get to hear about it, because the Bush-haters between congress and the news media are way to deeply invested in failure.
Hillary can win if she succeeds at shutting up those who mention her personal inconvenient truths. You know, her baggage from the years she spent with Bubba in the White House. Like the travel office firings, the Whitewater billing records, Vince Foster, the FBI Files, HillaryCare. Stuff like that.
Oh yeah, she's already succeeded. Nobody is talking about that stuff. So she wins, unless Obama can knock her off.
Speaking of Obama, all he has to do is say something really good. So far, he's an empty suit, but is doing well partly because of that. He needs to verbalize some bold plan for something or other that nobody else has, but can get people excited.
I don't know what that is, but it might not matter. The media are drooling over both Obama and Hillary, and don't really care which one wins - as long as one of them wins. Probably both, because I think the Dems will end up with a Hillary/Obama ticket.
The rest of the Democrat candidates are window dressing.
On the Republican side, Rudy could wrap it up with a simple strategy: He should clearly define his stance on the two big social issues he's on the wrong side of the party on - abortion and gay marriage. If he suddenly does an about-face on those issues (ala Romney), nobody will believe him. But if he tells everyone something like he can't force abortion law to be changed himself, but will use the bully pulpit as president to educate women and encourage alternatives to abortion, it could go a long way. On gay marriage, hmm, I think he's got a problem there.
Romney just has to get past the Mormon thing. I think that instead of running away from the issue, he should take it head-on and challenge those who want to make it an issue. He needs lots of prime-time publicity letting everyone know that his religious faith will influence him no more and no less than the faith of any president before him. Those who keep hammering him on it should put up or shut up.
Fred Thompson has a great opportunity. When he gets in the race, he has to personify the image he currently has as a common-sense, no-nonsense guy. Like Reagan, he can draw on his acting talents to project a straight-shooter that never backs down on his principles. But also like Reagan, he can somehow make his critics and enemies with nowhere to go by meeting their attacks head-on.
If Fred does it right, I think he might be the only Republican who can beat Hillary/Obama. Or I could just be fantasizing.
McCain's already done because of Immigration. And nobody else has a chance, even if there are a couple of them that deserve one. Because the Media chooses the candidate, not the rest of us.
By the time Indiana has primaries next summer, the choices will have already been made. So I'll only be a spectator anyway.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Scent Sensitivity Rights
Check out this story.
Some people would scoff and say Ms. McBride is just creating a stupid issue.
Not me, because I share her pain. Fortunately I'm not in a situation where I need to share a small office space with a woman that bathes in perfume or lathers her hands in pungent lotions several times a day. If I were, I would be forced to resign the job, because such things make me violently ill.
Our society has gone smoke-free almost everywhere to protect people from secondhand smoke. What's wrong with sensitive people like us being protected from toxic perfumes?
My bigger question is, why is this woman's co-worker so insensitive that she refuses to skip the perfume out of respect for her office mate? She certainly can pour it on as much as she likes on her own time, and it's hardly an imposition on her to skip it at work. Unless she's got a bad case of B.O. and uses the perfume in lieu of a daily shower (?)
I'm not big on Ms. McBride getting damages, but I do think it would be reasonable to accomodate her need for a perfume-free workplace.
Some people would scoff and say Ms. McBride is just creating a stupid issue.
Not me, because I share her pain. Fortunately I'm not in a situation where I need to share a small office space with a woman that bathes in perfume or lathers her hands in pungent lotions several times a day. If I were, I would be forced to resign the job, because such things make me violently ill.
Our society has gone smoke-free almost everywhere to protect people from secondhand smoke. What's wrong with sensitive people like us being protected from toxic perfumes?
My bigger question is, why is this woman's co-worker so insensitive that she refuses to skip the perfume out of respect for her office mate? She certainly can pour it on as much as she likes on her own time, and it's hardly an imposition on her to skip it at work. Unless she's got a bad case of B.O. and uses the perfume in lieu of a daily shower (?)
I'm not big on Ms. McBride getting damages, but I do think it would be reasonable to accomodate her need for a perfume-free workplace.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Happy Independence Day
This will be a very nice day for the July 4th holiday. I'm looking forward to a relaxing day off.
Whenever I read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I am reminded of what an amazing group of guys our founders were. To think that they created this system of government in a world where nothing like it existed adds to my awe and respect for this group of gentlemen. To think that the Brits regarded them as nothing but rabble and hayseeds from the colonies who didn't have the sense to govern themselves. I think they were proven wrong.
The very act of signing that Declaration they knew to be very likely their own death warrants, but they stepped up and did it anyway.
Happy 4th!
Whenever I read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I am reminded of what an amazing group of guys our founders were. To think that they created this system of government in a world where nothing like it existed adds to my awe and respect for this group of gentlemen. To think that the Brits regarded them as nothing but rabble and hayseeds from the colonies who didn't have the sense to govern themselves. I think they were proven wrong.
The very act of signing that Declaration they knew to be very likely their own death warrants, but they stepped up and did it anyway.
Happy 4th!
Monday, July 02, 2007
Must be Racist
The elite media and government types are angry. They're angry that the American people overwhelmingly panned their very complex legislation dealing with immigration.
Anger makes people lash out. When it comes to our Washington elites, lashing out usually means wielding the racist club. All over the airwaves are angry legislators and media types, blaming racist Americans enflamed by racist AM Radio talkers.
The either refuse to look past their idealistic noses to find out the real reasons behind the public outcry, or they actually understand that outcry but prefer to ignore it in favor of propagandist messages designed to club people with accusations they hate the most - that they must be a bunch of racists.
From my point of view, I don't care if it's a bunch of poor Mexicans or Swedish Swimsuit Models; if they are in the country illegally, they should be just as subject to enforcement of our laws as anyone else.
The opposition to the bill is not some simplistic xenophobic fear. It's based simply on the reported content of the bill itself. The Washington ivory tower residents say it isn't an amnesty bill, but their own defense of the bill admits it is. Only those illegal immigrants who want to climb on the yellow brick road also known as the "path to citizenship" are required to do anything at all. Everybody else here illegally gets essentially an unlimited free pass, as long as they don't want to apply for citizenship.
There were lots of other things reportedly in that monstrosity, such as a deal-killer national id card. But mainly, niether congress nor the president have the slightest hint of credibility in this area. They can promise they will secure the borders, but their actions to date seem to prove those are the emptiest of promises.
I think there is a very easy, common-sense solution to the problem. Once again, common sense is a foreign concept in Washington, but I'll outline it here anyway.
First, put everyone on notice. Run an ad campaign in all the media telling illegal immigrants and employers who hire them that time is running out. The ads say this:
The United States Immigration and Naturalization Agency is implementing new policies and procedures for enforcing our immigration laws.
Employers, within 6 months you will be asked to submit a full roster of your employees, with monthly updates to follow with new employees hired.
New government systems will be implemented to confirm your employees are legally entitled to live and work in the United States. You will be notified on a monthly basis of those of your employees that do not appear to hold valid social security or work permit documentation. Once notified of a discrepancy, you have 30 days to either correct the information, provide copies of proof of citizenship or current work permits, or terminate employment of the employees in question.
Immigrants, if you are in the country illegally, you have 6 months to return to your country of origin. If you do so within this 6 month period, you will not be subject to fines or imprisonment in the United States, unless you have committed punishable offenses other than your illegal immigrant status.
Once you have returned to your country of origin, you may make application to return to the United States through your consulate. If your application for legal entry into the United States demonstrates you are proficient in English, have a written recommendation and job offer from a United States employer, and have no serious criminal record, your application is likely to be approved on an expedited basis. If your application is approved, you will be permitted to return to the United States under a 2-year work permit.
Any employers found to be in violation of the law with respect to ongoing employment of illegal aliens after the afore-mentioned 6 month period will be subject to fines of up to $10,000 per illegal employee. Repeat offenses will be subject to higher fines and imprisonment of those company officials involved in such illegal employment.
Any persons remaining in the country illegally after this 6 month period are subject to arrest and immediate deportation to their country of origin, with a permanent flag attached to their record, indicating they cannot re-enter the United States under any circumstances.
Of course, the other piece of this is shutting down the borders - both northern and southern. Fences, cameras, agents - whatever is necessary.
Simple, common-sense, very fair I think. I know some would object to the part about letting them apply to get back in, but if they can show they're already pretty well assimilated, know the language, and have a company sponsoring them for return, I don't think it's unreasonable.
Anger makes people lash out. When it comes to our Washington elites, lashing out usually means wielding the racist club. All over the airwaves are angry legislators and media types, blaming racist Americans enflamed by racist AM Radio talkers.
The either refuse to look past their idealistic noses to find out the real reasons behind the public outcry, or they actually understand that outcry but prefer to ignore it in favor of propagandist messages designed to club people with accusations they hate the most - that they must be a bunch of racists.
From my point of view, I don't care if it's a bunch of poor Mexicans or Swedish Swimsuit Models; if they are in the country illegally, they should be just as subject to enforcement of our laws as anyone else.
The opposition to the bill is not some simplistic xenophobic fear. It's based simply on the reported content of the bill itself. The Washington ivory tower residents say it isn't an amnesty bill, but their own defense of the bill admits it is. Only those illegal immigrants who want to climb on the yellow brick road also known as the "path to citizenship" are required to do anything at all. Everybody else here illegally gets essentially an unlimited free pass, as long as they don't want to apply for citizenship.
There were lots of other things reportedly in that monstrosity, such as a deal-killer national id card. But mainly, niether congress nor the president have the slightest hint of credibility in this area. They can promise they will secure the borders, but their actions to date seem to prove those are the emptiest of promises.
I think there is a very easy, common-sense solution to the problem. Once again, common sense is a foreign concept in Washington, but I'll outline it here anyway.
First, put everyone on notice. Run an ad campaign in all the media telling illegal immigrants and employers who hire them that time is running out. The ads say this:
The United States Immigration and Naturalization Agency is implementing new policies and procedures for enforcing our immigration laws.
Employers, within 6 months you will be asked to submit a full roster of your employees, with monthly updates to follow with new employees hired.
New government systems will be implemented to confirm your employees are legally entitled to live and work in the United States. You will be notified on a monthly basis of those of your employees that do not appear to hold valid social security or work permit documentation. Once notified of a discrepancy, you have 30 days to either correct the information, provide copies of proof of citizenship or current work permits, or terminate employment of the employees in question.
Immigrants, if you are in the country illegally, you have 6 months to return to your country of origin. If you do so within this 6 month period, you will not be subject to fines or imprisonment in the United States, unless you have committed punishable offenses other than your illegal immigrant status.
Once you have returned to your country of origin, you may make application to return to the United States through your consulate. If your application for legal entry into the United States demonstrates you are proficient in English, have a written recommendation and job offer from a United States employer, and have no serious criminal record, your application is likely to be approved on an expedited basis. If your application is approved, you will be permitted to return to the United States under a 2-year work permit.
Any employers found to be in violation of the law with respect to ongoing employment of illegal aliens after the afore-mentioned 6 month period will be subject to fines of up to $10,000 per illegal employee. Repeat offenses will be subject to higher fines and imprisonment of those company officials involved in such illegal employment.
Any persons remaining in the country illegally after this 6 month period are subject to arrest and immediate deportation to their country of origin, with a permanent flag attached to their record, indicating they cannot re-enter the United States under any circumstances.
Of course, the other piece of this is shutting down the borders - both northern and southern. Fences, cameras, agents - whatever is necessary.
Simple, common-sense, very fair I think. I know some would object to the part about letting them apply to get back in, but if they can show they're already pretty well assimilated, know the language, and have a company sponsoring them for return, I don't think it's unreasonable.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Healthcare Redux
Healthcare is a topic I've written about before, but since it's hot again, I'll see if I can add a bit to my previous thoughts on the subject.
Our favorite fat communist filmmaker, Michael Moore, released a film called "Sicko". I don't need to see it to know it's full of stories about poor people who can't get treated for their maladies, corrupt politicians supporting evil and greedy drug and insurance companies.
He wouldn't even need to make stuff up like he did in Farenheit 911 to be able to convince anybody that the system is broken. I already concede that point - it is broken. But where he runs off the rails is by suggesting that the only solution is to have the government take over.
Let's start at the beginning.
Sometimes we wish for the good old days, where the country doctor with his little black bag made house calls. He treated broken bones and illnesses, administered medication, then was paid in whatever the patients had to offer. If not a few dollars, he might get a couple of chickens.
Today every malady requires a specialist. The General Practitioner is almost a thing of the past. All manner of high-tech devices have been invented that can pinpoint your problem without the need to cut. Thousands of pharmaceuticals have been invented to treat all manner of problems.
All that was made possible by health insurance. Back in the days of 80 percent marginal income tax rates, companies needed to get creative in giving compensation packages to their employees to keep their taxable incomes under that outrageous 80% threshold. So one of the things they came up with was health insurance.
I've been around long enough to have seen the evolution of healthcare firsthand. When I first entered the workforce, my employers provided only "Major Medical" insurance. That meant that if you had to go into the hospital for an expensive surgical procedure, the insurance would pay for it. Otherwise, you paid everything else out of your pocket.
Early in my career I was dirt poor. But I could afford to pay for both the doctor visit and the prescription when I got sick. If I needed a higher level of care and couldn't afford to pay on the spot, the doctor's office would simply set me up on a payment program. The bill would be paid within a few months without a major strain on my small budget.
Then one day my employer came through with this new thing called an HMO. We loved it, because it was almost free. Anything we needed, we could just go to the doctor's office and get it. Our share was $5. When our first child was born, I happily pulled a five-dollar bill out of my wallet to pay my share of the bill.
What happened? Well, when something is free (or almost free), people will use it a lot more. Kid got a sniffle? Take her to the doctor. Pull a muscle playing basketball? Go see the doctor. When it's practically free, why not?
Everybody came to rely on that health insurance, and now most consider it some sort of fundamental human right.
Today, the insurance companies have become the gatekeepers to the healthcare system. They created bureaucracies designed to look over the shoulder of your doctor and decide whether or not they will pay for his recommended treatments. They all have their own unique filing and reporting systems that must be used by the providers in order to get paid. And they are for-profit business entities.
Bigger corporations are "self-insured", which basically means they hire a company called a TPA (Third-Party Administrator) to manage their health plans. As the costs have risen higher and higher, companies are now seeking to cut their healthcare expenses. They cut their expenses by raising the amount they charge their employees for coverage, cutting out selected diseases or accidents they will cover, and by firing or avoiding hiring of anyone that might be a higher risk for health problems.
I'm not sure how smokers or overweight people can find a job these days, because they are openly discriminated against by companies everywhere because they just might end up costing the company one day if they get cancer or heart disease or diabetes or stroke.
So these days we are already solidly entrenched in a government-run insurance system. Most everyone over 65 is under Medicare, and now is also covered under a very poorly conceived prescription drug program run by the Feds. Considered honestly, the elderly need more healthcare than the rest of the population, so it could be fairly stated that the taxes of all working Americans go to pay medical expenses for our retirees.
The other socialized medicine in place is MedicAid, or variations on that program administered by every state. These programs use our tax money to pay for medical treatment for the poor and indigent.
For the rest of us, we can get great health coverage if we work for the right company that provides great health benefits for an affordable price. But if you're out of work, work for a small business that doesn't offer health benefits, or are a small business owner yourself, you are very likely to be uninsured.
Yes there are millions of uninsured Americans, either because they can't afford to buy their own insurance, can't buy insurance even if they can afford it, or simply decided to save the high premiums and take their chances.
Just about everyone will need some sort of surgery or other expensive medical treatments sometime during their lifetime. Some small business owners choose to forego the $1,000 monthly premium for health insurance, knowing that if they have an accident or illness while uninsured, they will be bankrupt. They figure that the odds are higher that their business will fail and they'll be bankrupt anyway, so they take their chances on being uninsured until the business begins to be successful.
Someone who quits their job or gets laid off must be offered COBRA coverage by their employer. Family coverage premiums under COBRA range between $800 and $1200 per month. The average person simply doesn't have that kind of money, especially one who was terminated and hasn't yet found a new job.
I despise the fact that I've been paying outrageous monthly premiums for health insurance that hasn't actually paid for anything yet. Between my high deductible and the restrictions in the plan, it will never pay any of my family's medical bills unless or until a serious injury or illness were to occur.
But I still don't want some government bureaucrat deciding for me what doctor I can see, what drugs I'm allowed, or when I can get a needed surgery. That's what happens when the government runs the system.
If affordable insurance for major medical was available for everyone, nobody would have to go bankrupt if they have an auto accident or get cancer.
Then, if routine medical care and prescription drugs were taken completely out of the insurance system, I think almost everyone would be able to afford their routine doctor visits and prescriptions. Physicians I think would welcome office vist fees of $30 or $40 if they never had to file an insurance claim and wait to get paid. Drug companies would be forced to bring down their prices as well in return for getting cash for every prescription filled. No more bureaucracies, no more restrictions on physician treatment decisions.
It won't happen. Neither will government-controlled socialized medicine. Because the industry likes the status quo and has the money to make sure congress likes it too.
Our favorite fat communist filmmaker, Michael Moore, released a film called "Sicko". I don't need to see it to know it's full of stories about poor people who can't get treated for their maladies, corrupt politicians supporting evil and greedy drug and insurance companies.
He wouldn't even need to make stuff up like he did in Farenheit 911 to be able to convince anybody that the system is broken. I already concede that point - it is broken. But where he runs off the rails is by suggesting that the only solution is to have the government take over.
Let's start at the beginning.
Sometimes we wish for the good old days, where the country doctor with his little black bag made house calls. He treated broken bones and illnesses, administered medication, then was paid in whatever the patients had to offer. If not a few dollars, he might get a couple of chickens.
Today every malady requires a specialist. The General Practitioner is almost a thing of the past. All manner of high-tech devices have been invented that can pinpoint your problem without the need to cut. Thousands of pharmaceuticals have been invented to treat all manner of problems.
All that was made possible by health insurance. Back in the days of 80 percent marginal income tax rates, companies needed to get creative in giving compensation packages to their employees to keep their taxable incomes under that outrageous 80% threshold. So one of the things they came up with was health insurance.
I've been around long enough to have seen the evolution of healthcare firsthand. When I first entered the workforce, my employers provided only "Major Medical" insurance. That meant that if you had to go into the hospital for an expensive surgical procedure, the insurance would pay for it. Otherwise, you paid everything else out of your pocket.
Early in my career I was dirt poor. But I could afford to pay for both the doctor visit and the prescription when I got sick. If I needed a higher level of care and couldn't afford to pay on the spot, the doctor's office would simply set me up on a payment program. The bill would be paid within a few months without a major strain on my small budget.
Then one day my employer came through with this new thing called an HMO. We loved it, because it was almost free. Anything we needed, we could just go to the doctor's office and get it. Our share was $5. When our first child was born, I happily pulled a five-dollar bill out of my wallet to pay my share of the bill.
What happened? Well, when something is free (or almost free), people will use it a lot more. Kid got a sniffle? Take her to the doctor. Pull a muscle playing basketball? Go see the doctor. When it's practically free, why not?
Everybody came to rely on that health insurance, and now most consider it some sort of fundamental human right.
Today, the insurance companies have become the gatekeepers to the healthcare system. They created bureaucracies designed to look over the shoulder of your doctor and decide whether or not they will pay for his recommended treatments. They all have their own unique filing and reporting systems that must be used by the providers in order to get paid. And they are for-profit business entities.
Bigger corporations are "self-insured", which basically means they hire a company called a TPA (Third-Party Administrator) to manage their health plans. As the costs have risen higher and higher, companies are now seeking to cut their healthcare expenses. They cut their expenses by raising the amount they charge their employees for coverage, cutting out selected diseases or accidents they will cover, and by firing or avoiding hiring of anyone that might be a higher risk for health problems.
I'm not sure how smokers or overweight people can find a job these days, because they are openly discriminated against by companies everywhere because they just might end up costing the company one day if they get cancer or heart disease or diabetes or stroke.
So these days we are already solidly entrenched in a government-run insurance system. Most everyone over 65 is under Medicare, and now is also covered under a very poorly conceived prescription drug program run by the Feds. Considered honestly, the elderly need more healthcare than the rest of the population, so it could be fairly stated that the taxes of all working Americans go to pay medical expenses for our retirees.
The other socialized medicine in place is MedicAid, or variations on that program administered by every state. These programs use our tax money to pay for medical treatment for the poor and indigent.
For the rest of us, we can get great health coverage if we work for the right company that provides great health benefits for an affordable price. But if you're out of work, work for a small business that doesn't offer health benefits, or are a small business owner yourself, you are very likely to be uninsured.
Yes there are millions of uninsured Americans, either because they can't afford to buy their own insurance, can't buy insurance even if they can afford it, or simply decided to save the high premiums and take their chances.
Just about everyone will need some sort of surgery or other expensive medical treatments sometime during their lifetime. Some small business owners choose to forego the $1,000 monthly premium for health insurance, knowing that if they have an accident or illness while uninsured, they will be bankrupt. They figure that the odds are higher that their business will fail and they'll be bankrupt anyway, so they take their chances on being uninsured until the business begins to be successful.
Someone who quits their job or gets laid off must be offered COBRA coverage by their employer. Family coverage premiums under COBRA range between $800 and $1200 per month. The average person simply doesn't have that kind of money, especially one who was terminated and hasn't yet found a new job.
I despise the fact that I've been paying outrageous monthly premiums for health insurance that hasn't actually paid for anything yet. Between my high deductible and the restrictions in the plan, it will never pay any of my family's medical bills unless or until a serious injury or illness were to occur.
But I still don't want some government bureaucrat deciding for me what doctor I can see, what drugs I'm allowed, or when I can get a needed surgery. That's what happens when the government runs the system.
If affordable insurance for major medical was available for everyone, nobody would have to go bankrupt if they have an auto accident or get cancer.
Then, if routine medical care and prescription drugs were taken completely out of the insurance system, I think almost everyone would be able to afford their routine doctor visits and prescriptions. Physicians I think would welcome office vist fees of $30 or $40 if they never had to file an insurance claim and wait to get paid. Drug companies would be forced to bring down their prices as well in return for getting cash for every prescription filled. No more bureaucracies, no more restrictions on physician treatment decisions.
It won't happen. Neither will government-controlled socialized medicine. Because the industry likes the status quo and has the money to make sure congress likes it too.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Victory or Defeat
The headline was Senate hands Bush major defeat on Immigration.
I hear news reports on the radio with essentially the same headline.
I don't need to get into a discussion of the shenanigans in the Senate over this bad piece of legislation, but instead just find it rather interesting that its defeat was immediately laid at Bush's feet.
Sure, Bush supports and has done plenty of arm-twisting of the Republican senators to pass it, but it's hardly his bill. It's Kennedy's and McCain's. It's the only thing in recent memory that the Dems were able to agree with Bush about. The problem is that nobody else in the country agrees with either of them.
The characterization in the headlines of this as a major defeat for Bush is so misleading it's laughable. Sensational maybe, but dishonest.
It was killed because a number of senators in both parties received such overwhelmingly negative feedback from their constituents on this poorly conceived and politically motivated legislation that they voted against ending debate.
Those clueless senators, including both of Indiana's out-of-touch guys, Lugar and Bayh, deluded themselves into thinking that they could pass this turkey and their grassroots back home would quickly forget. I don't think so - everybody in Indiana has concluded that Lugar is old, lazy, and out of touch with his home state and needs to be retired. The problem is that he's got another 5 years before anybody has an opportunity to unseat him. That's 5 years he can either use to resurrect his image or bury himself.
Bayh's probably safer, because the fiercely partisan Dems will support him forever because he's attractive and almost always votes with his party leadership. So somebody would have a huge hill to climb to raise enough money to effectively take him on.
That's why I don't give much thought to the presidential race. The fact is that the candidates will be selected by those with enough money to buy them in the early primaries. By the time Indiana has our primary next summer, both parties will have already chosen their presidential candidate. The Dem candidate will be chosen by Soros, Trial Lawyers, and Labor Unions. The GOP candidate will be chosen by Big Business, Insurance, and Drug companies.
Because they provide the money to their favorite candidate. Soros seems to have already picked Hillary, so unless she screws up big time in the next 9 months, she's their candidate. The GOP money seems to like Giuliani, unless Romney can woo the big money or Fred Thompson gets them excited.
The winner will be elected by an ignorant population based on how they look and how they are portrayed by the media. Not on their position on any issues.
Chances of getting somebody who actually works for the rest of us? Approaching zero.
Update: To be fair, I jumped the gun on Bayh. He's voted with his party leadership so regularly I just assumed he would do so on this one. But he didn't - he actually helped sink the cloture on the Immigration bill. Gotta give him credit for being smarter than Indiana's senior senator.
I hear news reports on the radio with essentially the same headline.
I don't need to get into a discussion of the shenanigans in the Senate over this bad piece of legislation, but instead just find it rather interesting that its defeat was immediately laid at Bush's feet.
Sure, Bush supports and has done plenty of arm-twisting of the Republican senators to pass it, but it's hardly his bill. It's Kennedy's and McCain's. It's the only thing in recent memory that the Dems were able to agree with Bush about. The problem is that nobody else in the country agrees with either of them.
The characterization in the headlines of this as a major defeat for Bush is so misleading it's laughable. Sensational maybe, but dishonest.
It was killed because a number of senators in both parties received such overwhelmingly negative feedback from their constituents on this poorly conceived and politically motivated legislation that they voted against ending debate.
Those clueless senators, including both of Indiana's out-of-touch guys, Lugar and Bayh, deluded themselves into thinking that they could pass this turkey and their grassroots back home would quickly forget. I don't think so - everybody in Indiana has concluded that Lugar is old, lazy, and out of touch with his home state and needs to be retired. The problem is that he's got another 5 years before anybody has an opportunity to unseat him. That's 5 years he can either use to resurrect his image or bury himself.
Bayh's probably safer, because the fiercely partisan Dems will support him forever because he's attractive and almost always votes with his party leadership. So somebody would have a huge hill to climb to raise enough money to effectively take him on.
That's why I don't give much thought to the presidential race. The fact is that the candidates will be selected by those with enough money to buy them in the early primaries. By the time Indiana has our primary next summer, both parties will have already chosen their presidential candidate. The Dem candidate will be chosen by Soros, Trial Lawyers, and Labor Unions. The GOP candidate will be chosen by Big Business, Insurance, and Drug companies.
Because they provide the money to their favorite candidate. Soros seems to have already picked Hillary, so unless she screws up big time in the next 9 months, she's their candidate. The GOP money seems to like Giuliani, unless Romney can woo the big money or Fred Thompson gets them excited.
The winner will be elected by an ignorant population based on how they look and how they are portrayed by the media. Not on their position on any issues.
Chances of getting somebody who actually works for the rest of us? Approaching zero.
Update: To be fair, I jumped the gun on Bayh. He's voted with his party leadership so regularly I just assumed he would do so on this one. But he didn't - he actually helped sink the cloture on the Immigration bill. Gotta give him credit for being smarter than Indiana's senior senator.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Tragic Sign of Times
It was disturbing to see the story today of the 15 year old girl who stabbed her Mother's boyfriend to death over an argument about what to watch on television.
The story so far is that the mother and her boyfriend returned home together, where her twin 15-year-old daughters were watching television. The boyfriend wanted to switch to a news program, which triggered an argument that ended with one of the sisters stabbing him to death. When the police arrived and took the young murderess into custody, the officer was physically attacked by her twin sister. So both girls were arrested.
Sure, the first gut reaction would be, "what a brat". Killing someone over an argument about what to watch on television would seem to be the ultimate in spoiled brat behavior.
Probably so. But even with what little facts are available at this point in the story, I'm prepared to suggest that at least equal guilt should be assessed against the girls' mother.
It stretches credibility that even a self-centered and narcissistic teenager would go so far as murder unless there's a lot more than a simple television programming argument. Unless the girl has a serious mental illness, the only reasonable explanation for the extreme response of murder is abuse.
There would have been no argument over the television between the girls and their mother's boyfriend unless he felt some sort of entitlement. I'm guessing he's not just bringing the mother back from a date, but lives in the house. Otherwise, he would have no standing to demand that the channel be changed to what he wanted to watch.
Maybe the boyfriend has been abusive with the girls since he moved in. Perhaps he began beating one of the sisters when she refused to pass him the TV remote and the other sister stabbed him to stop him. Maybe he's been abusing them physically and/or sexually for months or years.
The young murderess must be held responsible for her actions, unless evidence does come out in the case that the boyfriend was stabbed in an act of self-defense. But I think the mother deserves at least equal punishment, whether for allowing her daughters to become such stupendous brats or for failing to protect them from this or maybe a string of abusive boyfriends. Either way, Mom can be presumed guilty of neglect based simply on the information available already.
The saddest part is that live-in boyfriends who may or may not abuse the children is an all-to-common occurrence in today's America. And people like me are vilified for "judging" their lifestyles.
The story so far is that the mother and her boyfriend returned home together, where her twin 15-year-old daughters were watching television. The boyfriend wanted to switch to a news program, which triggered an argument that ended with one of the sisters stabbing him to death. When the police arrived and took the young murderess into custody, the officer was physically attacked by her twin sister. So both girls were arrested.
Sure, the first gut reaction would be, "what a brat". Killing someone over an argument about what to watch on television would seem to be the ultimate in spoiled brat behavior.
Probably so. But even with what little facts are available at this point in the story, I'm prepared to suggest that at least equal guilt should be assessed against the girls' mother.
It stretches credibility that even a self-centered and narcissistic teenager would go so far as murder unless there's a lot more than a simple television programming argument. Unless the girl has a serious mental illness, the only reasonable explanation for the extreme response of murder is abuse.
There would have been no argument over the television between the girls and their mother's boyfriend unless he felt some sort of entitlement. I'm guessing he's not just bringing the mother back from a date, but lives in the house. Otherwise, he would have no standing to demand that the channel be changed to what he wanted to watch.
Maybe the boyfriend has been abusive with the girls since he moved in. Perhaps he began beating one of the sisters when she refused to pass him the TV remote and the other sister stabbed him to stop him. Maybe he's been abusing them physically and/or sexually for months or years.
The young murderess must be held responsible for her actions, unless evidence does come out in the case that the boyfriend was stabbed in an act of self-defense. But I think the mother deserves at least equal punishment, whether for allowing her daughters to become such stupendous brats or for failing to protect them from this or maybe a string of abusive boyfriends. Either way, Mom can be presumed guilty of neglect based simply on the information available already.
The saddest part is that live-in boyfriends who may or may not abuse the children is an all-to-common occurrence in today's America. And people like me are vilified for "judging" their lifestyles.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Radical
Radical is hardly a word I'd use to describe myself, but apparently those in power would use that precise label.
Apparently these things make me a radical.
I think our borders and immigration laws should be enforced. (gasp!)
I believe in freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
I believe that most abortion procedures are barbaric infanticide and are primarily used to help women avoid the inconvenience of raising (or offering for adoption) a child.
I think that if health insurance was eliminated for all but major medical surgery and hospitalization, other doctor and medication fees would become affordable. I also think that the best way to really wreck the healthcare system is to let the government run it.
I think that official recognition of gay marriage is designed to criminalize religious organizations that refuse to stop discriminating against homosexuals.
I think that neither Republicans nor Democrats represent the best interests of the American people who supposedly elected them. Instead, Republicans represent big business and Democrats represent the tyranny of repressive socialism.
I think the energy legislation just passed does nothing to solve the energy or environmental problems of the country. Instead, it enriches biofuel producers, will make trucks and suv's so scarce that the used market for such vehicles will explode, and benefits nobody but congresspersons and their best patrons.
I think the only way to win the war in Iraq, or for that matter, the war on Terror, is to turn the military loose. Ruthless and effective projection of power is the only way to defeat terrorism.
See what I mean? Radical.
I'm right. But right is radical these days.
Apparently these things make me a radical.
I think our borders and immigration laws should be enforced. (gasp!)
I believe in freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
I believe that most abortion procedures are barbaric infanticide and are primarily used to help women avoid the inconvenience of raising (or offering for adoption) a child.
I think that if health insurance was eliminated for all but major medical surgery and hospitalization, other doctor and medication fees would become affordable. I also think that the best way to really wreck the healthcare system is to let the government run it.
I think that official recognition of gay marriage is designed to criminalize religious organizations that refuse to stop discriminating against homosexuals.
I think that neither Republicans nor Democrats represent the best interests of the American people who supposedly elected them. Instead, Republicans represent big business and Democrats represent the tyranny of repressive socialism.
I think the energy legislation just passed does nothing to solve the energy or environmental problems of the country. Instead, it enriches biofuel producers, will make trucks and suv's so scarce that the used market for such vehicles will explode, and benefits nobody but congresspersons and their best patrons.
I think the only way to win the war in Iraq, or for that matter, the war on Terror, is to turn the military loose. Ruthless and effective projection of power is the only way to defeat terrorism.
See what I mean? Radical.
I'm right. But right is radical these days.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
They Merely Reflect Us
The government is corrupt. Lawmakers are in it for themselves, not their consituents and not their country. Anybody paying the slightest attention over the last few years is either angry enough that they want to clean out the whole lot in Washington and start over, or have just given up.
The illegal immigration issue is a great case in point. A perfect storm has put both political parties on the wrong side of this issue for different reasons. Dems love illegals and want to make them citizens as quickly as possible because they mostly vote for Dems. Republicans are beholden to corporate donors who also love illegals because they can hire them at $5 an hour. So they team up on a bill that gives immediate legal status to everybody here illegally, then makes a token effort at beefing up border patrols.
The last time they passed a bill like this, it gave legal status to a huge number of illegals and promised to shore up border and employer enforcement. Then they conveniently forgot about the enforcement part. They passed a bill just over a year ago to build a 700-mile border fence. It's not built, and there seems to be no intention to build it.
A huge majority of people, well over 70% of the citizenry, is outraged. But Congress and the President don't care. They think they can put one over on all of us and get away with it. Maybe they can - we'll soon find out.
Look at any other issue. Healthcare, Social Security, Iraq and the broader Terror War, Trade. On every single issue, you find both political parties wanting to do what's best for those who stuff their campaign chests rather than what makes sense for the country as a whole.
Suppose we elected a congressman from our area who is honest and smart and wants to do the right thing for all of us. He goes to Washington and his first reality check happens when a bill comes up that's being pushed by his party leadership. He knows it's a bad bill, and knows it was designed to satisfy a major donor to the campaigns of his party's leaders. This new congressman is told, "You better vote for this bill, or you can kiss anything you want for your district goodbye."
What will he do?
What will we do?
The illegal immigration issue is a great case in point. A perfect storm has put both political parties on the wrong side of this issue for different reasons. Dems love illegals and want to make them citizens as quickly as possible because they mostly vote for Dems. Republicans are beholden to corporate donors who also love illegals because they can hire them at $5 an hour. So they team up on a bill that gives immediate legal status to everybody here illegally, then makes a token effort at beefing up border patrols.
The last time they passed a bill like this, it gave legal status to a huge number of illegals and promised to shore up border and employer enforcement. Then they conveniently forgot about the enforcement part. They passed a bill just over a year ago to build a 700-mile border fence. It's not built, and there seems to be no intention to build it.
A huge majority of people, well over 70% of the citizenry, is outraged. But Congress and the President don't care. They think they can put one over on all of us and get away with it. Maybe they can - we'll soon find out.
Look at any other issue. Healthcare, Social Security, Iraq and the broader Terror War, Trade. On every single issue, you find both political parties wanting to do what's best for those who stuff their campaign chests rather than what makes sense for the country as a whole.
Suppose we elected a congressman from our area who is honest and smart and wants to do the right thing for all of us. He goes to Washington and his first reality check happens when a bill comes up that's being pushed by his party leadership. He knows it's a bad bill, and knows it was designed to satisfy a major donor to the campaigns of his party's leaders. This new congressman is told, "You better vote for this bill, or you can kiss anything you want for your district goodbye."
What will he do?
What will we do?
Monday, June 18, 2007
Success
How do you define success? What people do you know or know about that you would consider successful? Are you successful?
For myself, I have begun to realize that I've never really sat down and defined the meaning of success in my own life.
If I build my business into a large and profitable venture and become wealthy, is that success?
Or would the sacrifices that would have to be made to achieve that vision of success be too costly, meaning that success in business requires failure in all other aspects of life?
How many people do we look up to as the model for the success we hope to achieve? Business leaders? Politicians? Musicians? Actors? Sports stars?
How many of those so-called success stories have dark personal failures in their lives? Broken marriages, estranged children, addiction problems?
Whenever I read a biography of a famous person, it almost always includes failure. People who achieve great things in their endeavors almost always fail at first, or multiple times. Even when they achieve great success in their field, they often suffer terrible failure in other aspects of their lives. What sets them apart in their field of endeavor is typically a deep desire and the spirit to keep trying despite repeated failure.
I've had several devastating failures. When difficult times come, my first inclination is to give up. Failure gives a horrible feeling of hopelessness and deals a heavy blow to self-confidence. I don't even want to get out of bed in the morning at first, feeling sorry for myself.
Some successes provide an ecstatic feeling for awhile. Such things are fleeting, because life doesn't allow us to dwell on our successes. They are quickly forgotten as we must move on to the next endeavor.
Wealth is nice, but it doesn't mean success. At least not for me.
Success is not a destination, but an unattainable goal. When we die, if others say we made a difference, then maybe we achieved some success. The rest doesn't mean a thing.
For myself, I have begun to realize that I've never really sat down and defined the meaning of success in my own life.
If I build my business into a large and profitable venture and become wealthy, is that success?
Or would the sacrifices that would have to be made to achieve that vision of success be too costly, meaning that success in business requires failure in all other aspects of life?
How many people do we look up to as the model for the success we hope to achieve? Business leaders? Politicians? Musicians? Actors? Sports stars?
How many of those so-called success stories have dark personal failures in their lives? Broken marriages, estranged children, addiction problems?
Whenever I read a biography of a famous person, it almost always includes failure. People who achieve great things in their endeavors almost always fail at first, or multiple times. Even when they achieve great success in their field, they often suffer terrible failure in other aspects of their lives. What sets them apart in their field of endeavor is typically a deep desire and the spirit to keep trying despite repeated failure.
I've had several devastating failures. When difficult times come, my first inclination is to give up. Failure gives a horrible feeling of hopelessness and deals a heavy blow to self-confidence. I don't even want to get out of bed in the morning at first, feeling sorry for myself.
Some successes provide an ecstatic feeling for awhile. Such things are fleeting, because life doesn't allow us to dwell on our successes. They are quickly forgotten as we must move on to the next endeavor.
Wealth is nice, but it doesn't mean success. At least not for me.
Success is not a destination, but an unattainable goal. When we die, if others say we made a difference, then maybe we achieved some success. The rest doesn't mean a thing.
Monday, June 11, 2007
This Says it Better
The following is attributed to Paul Harvey, but the way things bounce around the web these days I can't be sure. I'll assume it's Paul unless I hear otherwise, but for now, this expresses my point of view about as well as anything I've come across.
Paul Harvey says :
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for
singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I
didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his
theory of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered
because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the
entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and
asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans
going home from the game.
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America and Canada, countries
founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book,
Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what
would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem , I would expect to hear a
Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim
prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone
pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome ...
But what about the atheists is another argument.
What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the
collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too
much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit
the concession stand. Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell
thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a
football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our
courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught
us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and
their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well .. just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long.. It's time we let that one
or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority don't
care what they want. It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell
them, you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of
allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that
honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right.. But by
golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting
back . .. and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all .. especially those who denounce Him. God
bless America and Canada, despite all their faults. They are still the
greatest nations of all.
God bless our service men and women who are fighting to protect our
right to pray and worship God.
May 2007 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as
the foundation of our families and institutions.
Keep looking up.
Paul Harvey says :
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for
singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I
didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his
theory of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered
because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the
entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and
asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans
going home from the game.
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America and Canada, countries
founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book,
Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what
would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem , I would expect to hear a
Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim
prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone
pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome ...
But what about the atheists is another argument.
What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the
collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too
much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit
the concession stand. Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell
thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a
football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our
courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught
us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and
their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well .. just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long.. It's time we let that one
or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority don't
care what they want. It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell
them, you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of
allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that
honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right.. But by
golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting
back . .. and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all .. especially those who denounce Him. God
bless America and Canada, despite all their faults. They are still the
greatest nations of all.
God bless our service men and women who are fighting to protect our
right to pray and worship God.
May 2007 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as
the foundation of our families and institutions.
Keep looking up.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Vacation Thoughts
The first "real" family vacation in many years, and most likely the last vacation we will all take together just wrapped up. Overall it was enjoyable. I came into the office today to just check email and pay some bills, and discovered things sort of went crazy while I was gone. Funny how that always seems to happen when I go on vacation for a week.
Even though the flights were covered by miles, taking 5 people on vacation is a rather expensive undertaking. Considering the fact that a week of vacation also costs a self-employed individual like myself a week of revenue, it could be said that the true cost of the trip was triple the amount I actually shelled out.
Something I noticed about this vacation was a rather new attitude about vacations in general. I've become rather jaded these days, and the sights, shows, and attractions we visit during the trip aren't particularly exciting to me anymore. When my participation in an activity, go-carting for example, was optional, I was more than happy to save the money and just watch the boys. The fishing trip might have been a bit more enjoyable if we'd caught more and/or bigger fish, but otherwise it was memorable more for how tired I was when we returned.
In the future, an ideal vacation for me might be just a chance to get away from everything and relax. Or there are some places I haven't seen and would like to someday. Most of those are overseas, because I've pretty much covered the continental US. History fascinates me these days, so I'd probably enjoy a vacation that involved visiting ancient sites or digs.
But for now, the important thing about a vacation isn't my own entertainment, but just being with my family. If they have a good time, that's good enough for me.
Now I have to jump back into work with both feet and earn back what was spent. If the activities that inundated me on my return are any indication, that shouldn't be difficult. Stressful for sure, but it looks like I'll be able to work as many hours as my old bones can handle.
Even though the flights were covered by miles, taking 5 people on vacation is a rather expensive undertaking. Considering the fact that a week of vacation also costs a self-employed individual like myself a week of revenue, it could be said that the true cost of the trip was triple the amount I actually shelled out.
Something I noticed about this vacation was a rather new attitude about vacations in general. I've become rather jaded these days, and the sights, shows, and attractions we visit during the trip aren't particularly exciting to me anymore. When my participation in an activity, go-carting for example, was optional, I was more than happy to save the money and just watch the boys. The fishing trip might have been a bit more enjoyable if we'd caught more and/or bigger fish, but otherwise it was memorable more for how tired I was when we returned.
In the future, an ideal vacation for me might be just a chance to get away from everything and relax. Or there are some places I haven't seen and would like to someday. Most of those are overseas, because I've pretty much covered the continental US. History fascinates me these days, so I'd probably enjoy a vacation that involved visiting ancient sites or digs.
But for now, the important thing about a vacation isn't my own entertainment, but just being with my family. If they have a good time, that's good enough for me.
Now I have to jump back into work with both feet and earn back what was spent. If the activities that inundated me on my return are any indication, that shouldn't be difficult. Stressful for sure, but it looks like I'll be able to work as many hours as my old bones can handle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)