Discrimination

A topic came up this week discussing discrimination. The discussion was centered around the typical message which says it's bad to discriminate against people based on their appearance.

I wanted to ask my questions about that to the speaker, but of course didn't want to cause trouble and stayed silent. But I can ask my questions here.

In the context of the general principle of non-discrimination on the basis of appearance, it's fairly easy to agree that people should not be excluded from a job, housing, a loan, or a school based on their race. Sure, if you have good credit you should get the loan or mortgage or be able to rent the apartment regardless of how you look. If you are the most qualified for the job among the applicants, you should get the job.

Here's where I have an issue. Discrimination happens every day and for a multitude of reasons. Who hasn't been in the market for a new job and found out they can't get many jobs for which they are highly qualified because the company decides to hire a friend or relative of a manager or executive?

When I was in college during the tight job market and awful Jimmy Carter economy, I had a couple of friends who lost great jobs simply because the company was under pressure to comply with affirmative action. Later, a terribly unqualified person was hired in the computer lab in which I worked because she threatened to bring a discrimination suit against the college for having no black employees in that department.

If I am interviewing applicants for a job, I would tend to discriminate against these types of people:

• Women that wear too much perfume or men too much cologne (I'm allergic)
• Anyone who does not wear clean and professional clothing to the interview
• Anyone who cannot speak clearly using proper English grammar
• Anyone who is militantly __________(fill in the blank)
• Those with personalities I don't like (extreme arrogance, fail to make eye contact, foul-mouthed, etc.)

So when is it acceptable to discriminate? If the person is or has -

obese?
a smoker?
a harelip or cleft palate?
bad acne?
bad breath?
discolored, broken, or missing teeth?
a deformity or birthmark?
poor personal hygiene?
a 70's style wardrobe?


What if the person is -

a fundamentalist evangelical Christian?
a Muslim?
a Mormon?
a Catholic?
a Buddist?
an Atheist?
a variant of Paganism, like Wicca?

Back to the basics, is it OK to discriminate based on race if

• it's combined with other factors like appropriate dress and speech?
• the intent is to give underprivileged minorities an opportunity?
• the company is owned by a racial minority who wants to hire just members of his own race?
• the company is owned by an immigrant who hires only other immigrants from his country of origin?

Is it OK to discriminate against smokers and overweight applicants to save money on health insurance?

Is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals if it's combined with other factors like inappropriate dress and behavior?

What's the point I'm trying to make?

Discrimination happens every day. Many times we can all agree that the discrimination in company hiring is unfair.

The problem is that when the government is asked to step in and force it to be fair, it can never work. Because the government then gets into the business of choosing winners and losers.

What Tax Relief?

So the Democrats in the statehouse have successfully derailed property tax reform. Nobody seems surprised.

If I understand it right, here's what happened.

The State Senate passed a bill pretty close to the one proposed by the Governor, capping property taxes at 1% for private homeowners. The narrowly Democrat-controlled House tabled it and decided to start over with their own bill.

The school superintendents and mayors have objected to the caps, claiming they will force them to cut local budgets. Rather than responding that a bit of belt-tightening is a pretty good idea, the state was working on a plan to make up the difference out of state revenues. That most likely included a 1% increase in the sales tax.

It's a fairly typical idea from the Dems. They have thrown out the cap. But they still eagerly accept the sales tax increase anyway. Their new idea comes from the Democrat playbook, which has two fundamentals:

1. Never cut taxes or social programs
2. Soak the rich

They've decided it would be better to eliminate the property tax caps but change the formula for homestead exemptions. The change would tie the homestead exemption to the income of the homeowner. In effect, it simply shifts the burden to the wealthy. Their version caps property taxes for lower-income folks but allows them to increase without limit on the higher-income taxpayers.

Wait a second - didn't the whole property tax mess begin with a court ruling that said the state's property tax system violated equal treatment by giving preferential treatment to some property owners over others? Doesn't the Democrat proposal do that all over again?

The end result is nothing gets done.

Trying to Understand

That sums up my feeling about the mess with Kelvin Sampson and the Indiana University basketball program. All told, I'm struggling to understand.

How is it that a coach that got caught making recruiting phone calls to high school recruits from his previous head coaching job at Oklahoma still is hired by Indiana, when Indiana knew all about the infractions?

Not only that, Indiana willingly accepted NCAA sanctions to its own program in order to hire the coach. Even though the sanctions were relatively light, it begs the question, why?

Now it comes out that Sampson continued talking to recruits on the phone at Indiana, even though he was clearly prohibited from doing so. If I read the report correctly, something like 10 times. Now 1 or 2 phone conversations could maybe be chalked up to a mistake, but 10?

Finally, the biggest question of all: Why would Kelvin Sampson throw away his coaching career for 10 telephone calls?

Was he the subject of some sort of NCAA witch hunt, where the accusations aren't true? Based on the reports, it sure doesn't appear so. His calls were verified and documented. Did he somehow misunderstand the phone restrictions placed on him by the NCAA? I sure don't see how; even I understood the restrictions, apparently better than he did.

Or did he simply think he could get away with it? How in the world did he think he would pull that off when he had to know he was under a microscope by the NCAA?

The tragedy is that a few phone calls can hardly be characterized as a huge case of cheating. Sampson's only public defense has been to deny he lied to the NCAA, which is the charge that has them more upset than the calls themselves.

But he knew he was under the sanctions and did it anyway. And that I still can't understand.

I feel for Dan Dakich. If he can actually pull off a good end to this disaster by winning the Big 10 and/or going deep into the NCAA tournament, he deserves all the accolades that could be given him. I can't imagine stepping into a more difficult situation. I wish him luck.

How to Solve Problems

It can be reasonably stated that my profession is one of problem solving. On a nearly daily basis I talk with clients about what they need and help find ways to meet the need in their use of software.

As a professional problem solver, I know intimately the cardinal rule of problem-solving. The problem cannot be solved unless or until it is well understood. In other words, before I can actually solve a problem, I must first understand what the problem is, why it is a problem, and how it became a problem.

Which brings us to one of my most frustrating political issues as demagogued by the Democrats in their presidential debate. There's a pretty major problem in our country's healthcare "system". Democrats promise to "solve" the problem through "Universal Healthcare". What frustrates me about Democrats is their inability to find a solution to any problem that doesn't involve a Federal Government taxpayer funded program.

Not that the Republicans don't also frustrate me in this area. Their solutions include some decent ideas, but would make very little difference in addressing the underlying problems.

I met a physician on my flight this week and had an interesting conversation. This individual is a surgeon and has never been hit with a malpractice suit. Even so, the malpractice insurance premiums ate one-third of total income from the practice. The doctor suggested that nobody should go into the profession if they are motivated by money; in addition to malpractice insurance, whatever comes in has to go toward maintaining medical records and insurance filing and collection efforts from the insurance companies or individuals. Add to this the spiraling incidence of uninsured patients who do not pay their bills, and it all adds up to the profession as a losing proposition.

Where physicians make their money is through business savvy. Many invest in high-tech equipment and diagnostic labs. The six-figure student loan debts nearly all of them have coming out of medical school have to be paid somehow.

Why can't we find leaders capable of understanding the problem and proposing solutions that are sensible? Because everybody's got to have the millions of dollars it takes to run the campaigns. And their best contributors are those who most want to keep the status quo.

So the problem won't be solved. I think Hillary or Barack (most likely Barack at this point) are more likely to make it worse. But they won't solve the problem, either because they don't understand it or because they want to gain and keep power for themselves more than they want to solve a problem for the people of the country.

Then there is the long-shot McCain candidate. If he's elected by some miracle, it doesn't appear that healthcare is close enough to the top of his list for anything other than one or two of the small steps would happen. Although there will certainly be enough Dems in congress to make sure nothing happens anyway.

Dangerous Schools

Now a grad student stops taking his medication and guns down a half-dozen kids at Northern Illinois.

Why do the crazy shooters seem to be students these days? Will we have to worry about sending our kids to college these days? How likely is this school or that school to produce a homicidal maniac?

What can be done to stop this trend? What should be done?

The left says outlaw guns. Seems naive to me.

The right says allow concealed carry permits for professors, staff and students on campus. Evokes the wild west in a way.

How about armed security guards all over campus? Not a great image either.

There is plenty of violence in the public schools as well these days. High schools where the biggest student offenses in the 50's were gum chewing and running in the hallways have changed into places where students assault each other, take and sell illicit drugs, commit rape, steal, and do many other shocking and illegal things.

We don't hear as much about that, because school administrators have become quite skilled at keeping such events out of the news.

What's causing it all? Could it be rampant permissiveness? The "anything goes" philosophy that tells kids to explore their feelings. To experience life. To honor diverse beliefs and behaviors and never judge another.

Seen any studies comparing public places of learning to private, and the relative incidence of crime and violence among them? I wonder, would we find a correllation between a school's emphasis on morality and it's experience with student violence and criminality?

Will such studies be performed by academics who are monolithically liberal? Not as long as they don't want to know the answer.

Quick Hits

It's over. Obama will be President. Just get used to the idea. Tell me in 2010 how that worked out for you.

I don't understand Kelvin Sampson. Getting slapped for illegal recruiting calls at Oklahoma, then going right ahead and violating his probation by setting up 3-way calls. And how is it he thought he would get away with that?

Obviously he seems to be a very good coach. The team and its record don't lie. But what was the guy thinking?

O boy, maybe I'll get a tax rebate check. That is, if I didn't make too much money last year. Anybody think that will result in a miraculous turnaround to the slumping economy?

Me neither.

So Russia decided to go back to the bad old Cold War days. Iran and North Korea are building nukes and thumbing their noses at us with the tacit support of the rest of the world. The Central American and Caribbean Communist Dictators Club, led by Hugo Chavez, are hatching plans to inflict as much damage as they can to our country. Anybody can cross the border and bring whatever nasty stuff they want to wreak havoc within our borders.

And America elects leaders who would dismantle the military, throw the borders open wider, and redistribute the money earned by hard work to their bureaucrat minions and those who won't work.

Like I said, in 2010 please visit my blog and tell me how that worked out for you.

City Slickers and Country Bumpkins

Ruminating on the stark relationship between political attitudes and geography, I've reached some fairly obvious, if unscientific conclusions.

The most liberal citizens are generally found in the big cities. Places like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago. Conversely, the most conservative folks tend to live far away from the big cities.

It evokes the old caricatures of the city slicker and the country bumpkin. The city slicker is smug, self-absorbed, superior, worldly. The country bumpkin is simple, unfashionable, unsophisticated, and to the city slicker, rather ignorant.

These attitudes are directly related to the great political divide. I have spent a lot of time in both worlds, but I am most comfortable with country bumpkins. I live on a small farm in Indiana, so I think I qualify as a member of the bumpkin club.

Which brings me to the fundamental question: why are slickers nearly all liberal and bumpkins mostly conservative? It's all about their environments and daily experience.

Slickers are either city dwellers or commute to the city center every day for work. In the city, they see plenty of evidence of poverty. Panhandlers are on every street corner begging for spare change. Their daily commute probably takes them through some terribly run-down slum areas. These sights are offensive to slickers, who think daily that something should be done about these people! But slickers, a self-absorbed lot, don't think to make an effort to get involved themselves and try to understand the problem and help those poor homeless and slum dwellers. Rather, they vote Democrat, then congratulate themselves on caring enough to elect people who promise to use the government to help out those poor folks.

Interesting how that still hasn't worked after all these years.

Slickers also see the polluted river flowing through and the smog blanketing the city. This naturally makes them environmentalists. They see folks in the traffic jams riding alone in their Hummers and become angry, thinking those arrogant fools are polluting the city and they don't need to drive that big tank. Why don't they ride the subway like we do?

Slickers see the daily press of masses of people and traffic jams every day and think there are way too many people on this planet. That, along with the fact that single slickers (and sometimes married slickers as well) tend to be somewhat promiscuous, makes them "pro-choice".

Slickers were in favor of battling terrorists after 9-11, but after six and a half years without another attack, they're anti-war. Partly because everybody they know in the city is also anti-war, and besides, they passionately hate that bumpkin president who their friends say started the war for his own and his friends' benefit. They hope the next Democrat president will stop the war and reallocate the war funds to clean up the slums and get the panhandlers off the streets.

Slickers feel superior to non-slickers, and look with disdain on religious bumpkins. They might discuss some deep pantheistic cosmic philosophies with their friends over drinks after work, but otherwise just think religion is for the weak-minded. They're offended by their perception that religious bumpkins have a sinister goal to control their lives by outlawing abortion and birth control and even maybe sending storm troopers to arrest them if they're having sex with somebody outside a traditional marriage relationship. Slickers have lots of gay friends, who they find to be funny and delightful people. They are offended in their belief that religious bumpkins want to persecute gays and prevent them from marrying each other.

Bumpkins live in a far different world. They drive to work every day, or go out to work on the farm. Bumpkins don't encounter panhandlers much, and the closest thing to a slum where they live is the occasional run-down trailer park.

As far as the poor, bumpkins see it as their responsibility to help folks get on their feet. They volunteer and contribute to their church and other charitable organizations. They help find jobs for those who need them, and don't have much respect for the poor that won't take a job to support themselves.

Bumpkins view government as an obstacle. They prefer to be left alone to work or build their small businesses, and chafe at the constantly growing tax burden and list of regulations.

Bumpkins are religious. They believe that there's a higher authority and that humans are on this planet for a purpose beyond simple self-aggrandizement. They belong to the local churches, spend free time helping out charitable causes, and hope someday the holocaust of abortion is ended. They see slicker campaigns to make gay marriage equivalent to God's sacred sacramental foundation of the family as obscene.

They often need the big truck for their farms that slickers want to outlaw or tax heavily. They need the large van or SUV to carry their family safely through snow-covered country roads. They understand that high gas prices are caused by oil cartels run by middle-eastern sheiks and communist dictators who hold down production to enrich themselves with American dollars. At the same time, they are puzzled by the slickers' powerful opposition to developing new oil reserves and refinery capacity within our own borders.

Bumpkins are true environmentalists. They live in the country, and know and care a great deal about keeping the waterways clean and the game plentiful but not overpopulated for hunters. Bumpkins don't see much smog, and sometimes wonder what the slickers are so upset about.

It's the bumpkins whose sons and daughters make up the majority of the military. Bumpkins don't like war, and certainly are frightened that their sons and daughters might be killed by a terrorist bomb somewhere in Iraq. But they understand that the country must be protected from enemies who wish to destroy it. They don't understand the slickers' war protests, when the slickers mostly don't have family members fighting. They are upset by slickers' accusations that bumpkins serving in the military are bloodthirsty torturers and murderers.

I'm proud to be a bumpkin. I would like to invite all slickers to come to the country and stay awhile. Maybe we'll become a bit less polarized if they accepted the invitation.

Hardly a Pundit, but this is easy

Amidst all the conservative angst over McCain all but locking up the GOP nomination, I'm amazed that the professional pundits don't seem to have a clue. Democrat pundits gleefully proclaim the Republicans to be demoralized and fractured, and the big radio talkers irrelevant. Republican pundits plead with their base to get behind McCain, and don't seem to understand why so many conservatives won't support him.

Both are partially right, but mostly wrong. From my perch as an observer without any punditry credentials, I think the big picture is pretty easy to understand.

The Republican field started out with some "real" conservatives in the field, namely Tancredo and Hunter. Later, many conservatives were excited when Fred Thompson joined the field. The moderates had Sam Brownback, the evangelicals had Mike Huckabee, and the liberal-leaning Republicans had a choice between McCain and Giuliani.

Why didn't I mention Mitt Romney? Because nobody knew for sure where he fit. Many were uncomfortable, fairly or unfairly, with his Mormonism. Nobody knew for sure whether he was truly a social conservative or not, because he ran as a social liberal for Massachusetts governor. He projected an image as a rich corporate bigshot, and I never really felt he connected with ordinary people in his television and debate appearances.

So the networks made sure the public never found out who Hunter and Tancredo were. So those guys were gone. Brownback went pretty much the same way.

Thompson thought he could win just by putting together a good website and being the low-key no-nonsense guy. People don't bother reading policy statements for the most part, and didn't get to see him speak outside the debates, so he's gone.

Giuliani became nearly indistinguishable from McCain, and waited for Florida to kick his campaign into gear. Too late. He's gone.

So Super Tuesday came along. There were four candidates left; Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul. Paul's got a dedicated bunch of followers but will never attract enough support to win anything. So people essentially had to choose between the other three.

McCain now had the liberal and moderate wings of the party pretty much in his pocket, now that Giuliani was out. So where does everybody else (other than the Paul folks) go?

Many voted for Romney despite his liabilities. Those who put values first went for Huckabee, along with those who just weren't convinced Romney really did convert as he claims. National Security voters felt they had no real choice but to join the liberals and moderates and vote for McCain.

So why are the true blue conservatives so upset? If they don't like McCain, they had plenty of opportunity to get behind Thompson or Hunter early. They didn't. I noticed that Democrats are already throwing the message out there on their media megaphones that McCain will be just like Bush. In many ways, they're kind of right about that. McCain's fundamental policies, including the ones conservatives most dislike about Bush, are pretty much the same.

So the Republicans will have to decide whether to vote for McCain in November, who is somewhere between Bush and Clinton politically, stay home and grumble, or vote for the Democrat. We already know the Democrat will be either Clinton or Obama, and there seems to be a strong possiblity both will be on that ticket.

If conservatives really don't want McCain as their president, they could throw support behind Huckabee. But they won't.

Maybe the GOP decided a long time ago to let the Democrats have the presidency this time around. They certainly seem to be acting like that's the case.

I'm bored with the subject. Let's see how things worked out for everyone about 2 to 3 years from now.

America's Pravda

Back in Canada, where the only news I can see is on CNN. I should stop watching, because increasingly I find the network to be the near equivalent of the old Soviet Union's official news outlet. Except the weird twist is they're actually virulently opposed to the country's current President.

They're mostly talking election politics today, which of course is "Super Tuesday". Their coverage is about 70 percent cheerleading for Barack Obama. They're clearly excited by the guy, but are also very friendly toward Hillary Clinton. They openly express their hope for their "dream ticket" (yes, this is their term), which of course is either Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.

The 30 percent of the time they talk about Republicans is generally split between trashing the President, strangely even though he's not running, and cheerleading for John McCain. They were discussing the angst by the right wing of the GOP who don't want McCain in a way that sort of reminded my of National Geographic adventurers trying to understand some isolated native culture in the wilds of a remote jungle somewhere.

Their attempts to analyze Republicans are so ridiculously ignorant they're actually funny. To these guys, liberalism isn't just a political philosophy; it's the only political philosophy. For them, "evangelical Christians" are some sort of obscure tribal culture that needs to be kept as far away from politics as possible. Anybody who is socially conservative, supports lower taxes and less government, and doesn't want the Federal Government imposing healthcare on them are viewed by the CNN talking heads as the equivalent of Nazis or KKK members.

I'm rather stunned to discover that, according to CNN, I'm a right-winger who is way out of the mainstream. It seems that faith and common sense are no longer mainstream.

Entirely Worthwhile

I just moved into my new office space. Same building and a few dollars more per month, but I've been bowled over by how well worthwhile this decision has proven.

The old space was a dungeon-like windowless room near the building's loading dock. It had old dingy mismatched tile on the floor, walls in need of paint, and big standpipes in the corner. Add to that the uninsulated walls that let me hear everything happening outside at the dock, and it was a generally gloomy place to work.

Now I'm in a pleasant space on the second floor. It's quiet, carpeted, well-lit, and has a huge 12-foot window. Carpeting, nicely paneled walls, and a drop ceiling with florescent lighting make me feel comfortable, relaxed, and perhaps even more productive.

It may wear off quickly, but I'm actually looking forward to going into the office in the morning. There's still plenty to file and put away to complete the move, but I expect to have that handled relatively soon.

Amazing how your workspace can make such a dramatic difference in attitude and productivity.

A Population of Fools

Watching the GOP debate last night was terribly discouraging. A huge chunk of valuable time that could have been used learning about specific policy ideas from the candidates was wasted in the spat between the two front-runners about McCain's misleading charge that Romney called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Meantime, the other two candidates, Huckabee and Paul, sat and fumed about being mostly ignored. If CNN didn't intend to let them speak, they should not have invited them to participate. It was the most poorly moderated debate I've ever seen.

The saddest realization for me was that we will most likely have to choose between the Democrat Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket and a McCain/?Huckabee? ticket. There is really no substantive difference between McCain and Clinton, other than McCain might be less corrupt than Hillary.

There is no candidate for me in this race. If Indiana was involved in Super Tuesday, I'd probably consider casting a protest vote for Huckabee. Not that it would matter.

How is it that Republicans are getting behind a candidate that is only Republican in the sense that he's hawkish on Iraq. In most other matters, McCain's mostly a Democrat. Not to mention part of the Washington establishment we're all so incensed about being out of touch. McCain's the poster child for out-of-touch senators.

The conventional wisdom is that the Democrat nominee, whether it's Clinton or Obama, will win in the fall because Democrats are energized and Republicans are demoralized. I'm thinking that's probably true.

The country's about to re-learn a painful lesson most people seem to have forgotten from the Jimmy Carter days. I'm actually hearing some who actually are suggesting that's the only way to wake up the population.

Disappointing.

How Much Tax?

One of those confluences of events merged President Bush's final State of the Union address with news of the Property Tax Reform efforts now underway in the Indiana statehouse. Both brought out the fundamental questions of taxes and government.

How much tax is enough?

How much government is really needed?

The consistent theme on taxes both nationally and locally clearly breaks along party lines. Democrats fret that lower taxes must translate to fewer government services. Republicans maintain that government is bloated and is overdue for some belt-tightening, plus taxpayers who get to keep more of their own money will use it to grow the economy.

Property Taxes went through a reassessment, which increased the tax bill for every property owner. Some poor homeowners were hit with new property tax bills double or even triple their previous obligations. Most everybody else saw increases of about one third. It resulted in a citizen tax revolt, which has driven Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson out of office and threatens to do the same for a wide range of state and local officials.

So the Indiana legislature is working on a bill proposed by Governor Daniels to cap property tax rates at 1% for homeowners, 2% for landlords, and 3% for businesses. The bill looked like it would sail through until local officials began an impassioned opposition. They checked their budgets and found out their tax revenue would be reduced if this law is passed. That means they would have to cut their budgets.

It seems that those areas in the state hit hardest by the property tax mess were where school boards approved major construction projects without really considering the tax impact of those projects. It's a case of communities spending beyond their means for ostentatious school buildings. Now they're paying for their irresponsible decisions with an outraged citizenry.

Likewise at the national level, President Bush appealed to the congress to make his tax cuts permanent. Even though any serious analysis of the tax cuts has to conclude they were very effective in the very strong economy the country has enjoyed for the past seven years, Democrats made their intentions clear. The Democrats expect to control the government beginning next year, and have made it clear they not only plan to cancel the Bush tax cuts, but also plan to increase taxes.

Government is inherently an inefficient provider of services. The Federal Government consists of huge and cumbersome bureaucracies that would not survive the first month if their services were offered for profit in the private sector. Bureaucrats build empires that accomplish little and are not held accountable for results.

If the government, whether federal or state, really wanted to serve the public, they would eliminate earmarks and political favors and patronage. An even better idea would be to require every social program cooked up by politicians to prove every 5 years that they are meeting their mission, or the program will be defunded.

Maybe instead of spending so much time talking about how much tax should be paid by the "rich", the focus should be more toward what can we accomplish with the limited resources available to government?

If only.

New Perspectives on Healthcare

Last week was spent working with a group of people who work for a healthcare organization in Canada. Although the subject of my visit wasn't related to healthcare policy, I was drawn into some interesting discussions on the topic.

As a group, the Canadians seem to believe every citizen should have access to healthcare. They have a sense of security in the fact that they will never have to face the possibility of being turned away from treatment for any illness or injury, since their government-controlled system will provide the care they need. The people I was working with are somewhat appalled at their media-induced vision of U.S. healthcare as available only to the rich and those lucky enough to be employed by companies who provide them with good insurance.

I explained that while it is true that a very high number of U.S. citizens are not covered by any sort of health insurance, that doesn't mean they all do not have access to healthcare. In fact, most places in the country are prohibited by law from denial of emergency medical treatment to anyone, insured or not.

Many uninsured simply pay for their own healthcare. Many providers offer substantial discounts to their uninsured customers who pay for their own care.

The poor are covered by the version of Medicaid provided by their state.

So those who are suffering the most right now are people who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, not quite wealthy enough to pay for their own care, and not employed by a company that provides them with good health insurance.

The problem for these folks tends to be that if they encounter a major injury or illness that requires surgery and hospitalization, they are effectively bankrupt as soon as the diagnosis is made. The doctors and therapists and radiologists and labs and hospitals will certainly sue them for payment of medical bills they cannot possibly pay. Therefore, they lose everything, go bankrupt, and must concern themselves with both their physical recovery and starting over from zero financially.

Personally, although I am paying huge premiums for a health insurance plan that has never contributed a penny of benefits, I fear even having the insurance will not protect me from bankruptcy if I become seriously ill or injured. Because such an event would mean I would be unable to work during whatever period of time I am undergoing treatment for whatever might occur, which after some period of time would find me bankrupt anyway.

But that does not mean I support the Democrat goal of socialized medicine. First of all, such healthcare is not "free". It will most certainly involve an increase in the percentage of my earnings confiscated by the government to pay for their grand industry takeover.

Next, the same goverment will seek to control costs by implementing several policies that will ultimately harm the patients they claim to want to help. They will arbitrarily reduce the fees providers will be allowed to bill for patient care, which will make such care scarce as the providers close or sell their businesses because they can no longer make a profit.

As healthcare providers become more and more scarce, access to those remaining will become increasingly difficult. Patients will be forced to wait weeks or months for an appointment. As we've found with the recent addition of prescription drug coverage for seniors under Medicare, bureaucrats will deny medications to patients based on arbitrary rules designed to save money.

Government control isn't the answer. I think the answer is only partially offered by Republicans, who continue to stress the expansion of healthcare savings accounts. Those are great for small business people or others who actually have the ability to save enough money to cover their care. But it doesn't help the bigger majority of uninsured, who just can't earn enough to save the kind of money they need for healthcare.

If the government wants to help, they should address the root causes of our healthcare problems:

• Tort Reform
• Standardization of Electronic Insurance Claims & Payments
• Competition in Diagnostic Services
  
• Making Medical School less expensive so graduating physicians don't have six-figure debts to pay off
• Availability of affordable Major Medical insurance for the uninsured.
  
• Simple dollar-for-dollar tax deductions or credits for actual out-of-pocket expenses

I've always felt that problems should be understood before they can be solved. Pandering politicians want to fool voters into believing they can get free healthcare if they simply vote for the Democrat.

Wait until those people find out just how "free" their new healthcare program is.

Thoughts on Racism

Since there's been a lot of racial and racism talk lately because of the Martin Luther King holiday and the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it's given me occasion to think about the overall racism issue.

What is racism, who is a racist and who is not, to what extent does it remain as a social problem in the United States?

How about starting with the definition. Here's what I found at Dictionary.com

rac·ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1.	a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.	a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.	hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Based on the above definition, am I racist? Let's see: I don't believe that any one race is superior or has an inherent right to rule others, I don't support government systems that foster racial discrimination, and I don't find myself feeling hatred or intolerance of other races.

So I'm not a racist, right?

Well, there may be some who look at my actual political beliefs and say I am racist.

For example, I don't believe in affirmative action or racial preference programs in hiring, college admission, or government contracts. I believe such government policies actually violate part #2 of the above definition, because they place race above merit in such decisions.

The difference between my philosophy and those of our liberal folks is that I believe in equality of opportunity, while they hope to enact laws that seek equality of outcomes. Such policies don't work, but are still pursued with religious fervor by the Left.

Remember when the courts went beyond the very good civil rights laws that outlawed discrimination in education with racially segregated public schools to creating laws out of the ether for enforced desegregation through something called busing?

The theory was that if schools were desegregated, inequalities of outcomes between the mostly white suburban schools and the mostly black urban schools would be remedied. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. The actual result of this social experiment forced upon the population by liberal elites was a drastic reduction in outcomes from all of the schools. The inner-city schools got worse and the suburban schools got worse.

Those who could afford to left the public schools for private and parochial schools. Today it's hard to find excellence in public schools, which in many urban areas are not only poor performers but dangerous places for the students.

By the way, I'm not blaming any race for the decline. I blame the liberal establishment who enacted laws reflecting their well-meaning but misguided ideas about racial reconciliation. Racial peace can't be accomplished with heavy-handed court orders and legislation from elite ivory towers, but have to be accomplished by influencing hearts and minds of people of each race, one at a time.

Finally, would I vote for Barack Obama? No.

But the reason has nothing to do with his race. I'd actually prefer him as President to Hillary. Because even though I disagree almost completely with those policy statements he has made, I believe he's sincere and a genuinely nice guy. Does that make me a sexist? That's a question for another day.

Actually, I'd happily vote for a black presidential candidate. Tony Dungy could easily get my vote if he were qualified and running (by the way, I'm happy to learn he decided to come back for another season with the Colts after all). Condi Rice could get my vote (does that answer the sexist question?) I'm also a huge admirer of Clarence Thomas.

I can't tell what will happen in this year's Presidential campaign. But I do think the Democrats might be a bit overconfident in their belief that either Hillary or Barack will win easily. Half the country will never vote for Hillary, and her supporters might stay home if Obama gets the nomination. If the Republican nominee runs an effective campaign, I think he could win, although I'm not naive enough to predict it will be easy.

Defining Mental Illness

Picking up some groceries last night, I noticed one of the supermarket tabloids had a headline that was something like, "Britney's Mental Illness". It got me thinking, how do they know she's mentally ill?

Expanding on my line of thought, it seems that whenever someone exhibits aberrant behavior, everyone just assumes they're mentally ill. Perhaps it's a good assumption, but I wonder. In Britney's case, does her bizarre behavior indicate she has some sort of chemical imbalance, injury, or illness affecting her brain?

Or is it something much more simple? Could it be that Britney's simply a spoiled, narcissistic brat child who is acting out with a litany of bizarre behaviors just because she wants attention? Could it be that she's acting like the rebellious teenager who thinks she's punishing her parents and other adults who have placed restrictions on her?

Consider that her mindset might go something like this: My (parents, managers, etc) controlled every aspect of my life from the time I was ten years old. Now that I'm an adult and free to do whatever I want, I'll show them! No more wholesome, virginal Britney - I'll shock them! I'll shock the world!

Just wondering, is Britney, and by extension her friends and contemporaries Paris and Lindsey, simply a rich, spoiled brat who has made her own bad choices and should be allowed to suffer whatever the consequences?

I know the drugs can certainly contribute to an artificially induced mental illness, but it's temporary and can be overcome by simply stopping the drugs. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think she's not mentally ill, unless we decide that extreme narcissism is a mental illness.

Generally, my reaction to all the stories swirling around Britney and the other starlets is disgust. But I can see how they pull people in, sort of like rubbernecking a gruesome accident on the highway. You shouldn't look, but it's hard not to.

I think she'll drop out of sight one of these days, when the media gets tired of covering her antics. Then after a few years, she'll reappear in a story that could go one of two ways: She's sent to prison or is found dead of an overdose, or she cleaned up and maybe found God and is working to start fresh on a new career.

Perhaps a law should be passed that forbids children from being used as movie or music stars. Most of their stories don't end well.

The Bogeyman

He is now very different, depending on each person's political beliefs and affiliations. Both sides have them, but neither has any in common.

Democrat Bogeymen:
Right-Wing Radical Christians
George W. Bush
Oil Companies
Corporate CEO's (Excepting some they like who happen to share their leftist views)

Republican Bogeymen:
Radical Islamic Terrorists
Iran and Ahmadinejad
Communists (often a synonym for Democrats)
Hillary Clinton (hmm, would that be Bogeywoman?)


Whom do you fear the most?

Just saying -

Which group has killed more innocent people in the last 10 years? Islamic terrorists or Right-Wing Christians?

Yeah, I'm frustrated by high gas prices too. But what is it Democrats want to do about it? Levy punitive taxes on Oil Companies, as far as I can tell. So that brings my gasoline prices down exactly how?

Hillary or Bush: Who would be the worse President? Does it frighten you that we might actually get to find out? Sorta scares me.

Just wondering about the whole rich leftist thing. So actors who make millions of dollars per movie - should they pay more, less, or the same taxes as the evil corporate CEO's the Democrats are so ready to punish? Let's put it in real terms:

A CEO and movie star both make $10 Million in 2009 after Hillary becomes President. How much Federal Income Tax should be taken from them? Following the rhetoric of the left, I'm guessing the CEO will have about $7 Million confiscated, but the Democrat movie star who gave a bunch of money to Hillary's campaign would only pay, what, about $2 Million?

See, back in the dark days of Jimmy Carter, which amazingly seem to be the golden age by Democrats, the $7 Million number is exactly what would have been taken from the CEO and the Hollywood actor. Unless, of course, they found a loophole in the tax code that let them hide some of that money. Democrats back then thought that was perfectly OK - their argument was something along the line of, "3 Million is plenty of money! Allowing anybody to have 10 Million dollars is just obscene and unfair."

The idea is that anyone who earns that kind of money, no matter how they did so, can't possibly deserve it. They must have cheated somebody or paid underlings slave wages to get it. So they deserve to have it taken away from them by the benevolent government to give to some poor person. Said poor person theoretically is so grateful to the government for the handout, they become a life-long Democrat voter.

If we're headed back to a repeat of the Jimmy Carter era, I just have one request: Please wait just a few more years until I retire. Then I'll let you pay me to sit at home and live off your Social Security benefits and let somebody else struggle to find a job and make a decent living off their after-tax income.

Coach Dungy Retiring

It's not official yet, in fact the last report said an announcement would be made on Monday. But reports are out already with the news that Tony Dungy is retiring.

There have been previous reports that his children have already been enrolled in Tampa schools, which made it seem pretty definite that Tony was going to go ahead with his retirement. Colts fans can hope the report is false, but it seems more likely to be correct.

Apparently the Colts have already decided to name the assistant head coach Caldwell to replace him. That would seem to provide continuity that may not shake up the team as much as hiring a new head coach from outside who might bring in a brand new staff.

That makes two very disappointing events for Colts fans this week. They blew the game against the Chargers, then lost perhaps the best human being in the league with Dungy's retirement. If nothing else, he will be missed as a beacon of light in an otherwise disappointing world of drug abuse, cheating, felons, and miscreants.

Tony Dungy did it right.

So long, coach. Happy Retirement.

Sticky Internet Issues

Lately the significant and growing issues with the internet have become hot topics, both in news reports and personal experience. The benefits of the internet, which has given the world so much in terms of communication and access to information, carry a heavy cost and many serious problems.

Recent news stories have highlighted efforts to solve the problem of sexual predators lurking in social networking sites. Some are introducing legislation that would attempt to deny access to those sites, or perhaps even the internet itself, to convicted sexual predators.

Scammers and spammers have grown to epidemic proportions. The personal impact of this hits me every day, with two of my email accounts filling up with hundreds of spam emails every week. My email accounts segregate what spam they can identify into a separate folder I can clear, but many make it through to my inbox. My daily ritual now begins with deleting all the spam so I can read the "real" emails.

There is one email account that is heavily filtered, in which I have never seen a piece of spam. But that's a mixed blessing, because I often hear from clients who wonder why I didn't respond to an email I never actually received. Aggressive spam filters often end up blocking legitimate email messages.

Companies are building highly restrictive firewalls that trap their employees from being able to access the web. A paranoia at many companies over the potential of an employee visiting a site that could infect the network, plus the assumption that employees would waste valuable work hours surfing the web, have virtually locked employees out of important and helpful internet resources.

Today, part of the reason I'm posting is my web-based training class had to be cancelled. Half of the students scheduled to attend my online class were unable to access the training site, and were unable to find timely IT support to solve the problem. So we rescheduled today's session for Friday.

The internet has become both an invaluable resource and a dangerous path through a medieval forest full of marauders who will steal your identity and your money, vandalize your computer and enslave it to vandalize others', surreptitiously install software on your system to spy on everything you do, and flood your email with unwanted advertisements and pornographic materials.

Legislatures don't seem concerned about solving the real problems of the web, but rather seem more focused on finding ways to tax our use of it and protect the movie and music industries from internet-based copyright infringement. A cynic might suggest that congress is doing their best to arrest 17-year-olds for downloading a music file while ignoring the pedophiles who entice children to meetings that will end up scarring their psyche forever.

But what can really be done? I have some ideas.

Rather than looking to the government to solve the problem which always seems to result in high taxes, bureaucracy, and loss of freedom, why not let the users of the internet solve the problem? Here's how:

1. If you are sending advertising email, you must register with an internet-based clearinghouse. If you are not registered, your email will be flagged as such when it is sent through the web to the recipient address. The flag can then be read by the receiving email program, which can be configured to reject or segregate those emails as spam. This way, no unwanted or unsolicited email has to ever make it through.
2. With registered advertisers, consumers have the ability to easily report them as spammers. This would result in a rating that is also placed in the emails sent from the advertiser, say 1 to 5, where 1 indicates little or no spamming complaints and 5 indicates this is a major spammer. Email systems could be configured to accept or reject these emails based on the rating.
3. Users of social networking sites can already simply report those they suspect of being predators or of misusing the site. The site managers can then act on those reports by suspending access to the predators.
4. Companies should loosen their restrictions on employee web surfing. There's nothing wrong with an employee reading a news site in the morning or shopping on ebay during their lunch break. If an employee is wasting valuable work time surfing the net, that's a management issue that should be addressed by the supervisor with the offending employee. Shutting down internet access for employees simply equates with lazy managers who don't want to deal with the problem directly.

I think that if everyone who uses the net has the opportunity and ability to stop abuse with an easy reporting mechanism, we could all solve most of the problems ourselves.

Two Worldviews

The striking thing about watching the debates with the presidential candidates is the very different worldviews of the candidates from each party. It seems after watching the Democrats debate, then the Republicans, that there are two different countries electing a president.

In the Republican world, the most important issues are national security, the economy, taxes, and illegal immigration.

In the alternative universe occupied by the Democrats, the most important issues are healthcare, foreign policy, and absolute destruction of George W. Bush.

I've been struck by the misleading simplicity of candidates' so-called "solutions". On the GOP side, candidates play king of the hill trying to prove who will be the toughest in solving the illegal immigration problem. The problem is, from McCain to Giuliani to Romney to Huckabee, most of them have identifiable past records that belie their newfound commitment to the issue.

On the Democrat side, the success of the Iraq Surge has them looking rather foolish in continuing to promise to destroy that success with an immediate and abrupt withdrawal of troops. Or is that really what they plan to do? The front-runners, Hillary and Barack, actually have indicated they wouldn't abruptly remove the troops. So they're lying about it one way or the other - we just can't tell which way.

But I'm especially disturbed by the demagoguery of Democrats on Healthcare and economic policy. They either aren't smart enough or are too power-hungry to recognize that a federal government takeover of healthcare would be disastrous; I'm the first to admit that healthcare is a major problem for the country, but simply funding it for everyone through taxation and government micromanagement won't solve it.

Their economic policy seems to be little more than punitive. They appeal to the masses with their class envy message that the "rich" have had a free ride for too long and need to be punished with much higher taxes. The logic-defying approach goes like this:

Oil companies are making billions of dollars and deserve to be punished with a Jimmy Carter style "windfall profits tax". OK, so how is it exactly that an attempt by the government to confiscate a major percentage of profits from global oil companies going to lower gas prices at the pump? Better yet, since Jimmy Carter tried it back in the 70's, how did that work out?

Not well, as I recall.

There are very simple choices coming up in this presidential election.

Vote for the Democrat (Hillary or Barack, there's not much difference) if you:
Think Christians are a major problem in America whose influence needs to be lessened or eliminated,
Think it's a great idea to tax rich people, defined as everyone who makes more than you do. I wonder, how much should they pay? The 70% they paid under Jimmy Carter? How much should the government confiscate from Americans?
Think the only solution to the healthcare mess in the country is government-run healthcare paid for by taxes levied on everybody who makes more than you do. I wonder, how do you feel about a bureaucrat in Washington, DC deciding whether or not you need a certain surgery or treatment or prescription drug instead of your doctor? How would you feel about fat people and smokers being denied healthcare entirely because of their unhealthy behavior (This is actually being proposed by some on your side).
Think that we should just pull the troops out of Iraq, and probably Afghanistan as well. Then let the new Democrat president work his or her magic through negotiations and diplomacy and the United Nations to achieve world peace. While we're at it, I've got a bridge in New York I can sell you - hurry before somebody else jumps on this deal!

Vote for a Republican if you:
Think the status quo is best and don't want anything changed substantially in government.
Think healthcare is fine as it is and doesn't need any solutions.
Think free trade is the single most important value to be protected by government; even if it entails importation of foreign workers, legal and illegal, and indiscriminate closings of US-based businesses to move the operations to a third-world country where they can make their products much more cheaply.

Sorry, you don't have any candidate to vote for if you:
Think illegal immigration is a major problem and needs to be solved through aggressive border enforcement and deportations.
Think terrorism is a real threat and rogue nations developing nuclear weapons must be stopped before they detonate one in Israel, Europe, or here in the US.
Think the tax code is outrageously corrupt and should be scrapped and rewritten based on a simple law: No tax can be levied unless it applies to everyone - no exceptions allowed.
Think fiscal responsibility and openness is important, and the practices of earmarks and political payoffs with taxpayer funds should be eliminated.

Sorry, the best presidential candidate will never be elected. There are too many people with too much power and money because of the current system who will never allow it.

More Football

Can't help myself; I'm just a fan.

The NFL is shaking out toward the interesting playoff weekend, with the intriguing questions to be answered:

Do the Jaguars have a prayer of knocking out the perfect Patriots in bad weather in Massachusetts?

Can the Chargers knock off the Colts in Indy? Was their victory over Indy in San Diego an indicator of what could happen this weekend, or did the Chargers simply catch a battered Colts team after their physically and emotionally damaging loss to the Patriots less than a week before?

Can the Seahawks follow up their pounding of Washington to upset Brett Favre and the Packers? Have the Packers been slumping with late-season losses, or were they just keeping their powder dry for the playoffs?

Are the Cowboys still the anointed favorites of the NFC for the Super Bowl, or are they vulnerable with a missing or weakened T.O.? Can anything be made of the Cowboys' late-season slump and the corresponding Giants surge? Can Eli Manning play well enough to beat the Cowboys in their stadium?

As a fan, I'm hoping for a Colts-Packers Super Bowl. Barring that, I could also enjoy a Colts-Giants Super Bowl with the Manning brothers in a repeat of the season opener.

The worst case scenario is the Patriots and Cowboys, as far as I'm concerned. Even though the national sports networks might view that as the dream matchup, I'd be extremely disappointed to see it come about.

I think the Colts will have little trouble with the Chargers, and will most likely have to face the Patriots for the AFC Championship. The Colts have a chance to beat the Pats, but they will have to play their best game of the year to do so. I think the Colts beat the Chargers about 28-13.

I think the Patriots will beat Jacksonville, but in a very close game. My prediction is a fourth-quarter touchdown drive engineered by Tom Brady to come from behind to beat the Jags. Score in this one I think will be 21-17.

I don't think the Giants will have enough firepower to beat the Cowboys, as much as I'd like to see it happen. It could be a close, low-scoring game. Score 17-14.

And I'm counting on the home-field frozen tundra advantage to propel the Packers over the Seahawks. If the weather's bad, I think it will be 20-10.

We'll see how my predictions hold up this weekend.

And the Winner is ... Oprah?

As I watched the results from the Iowa caucuses last night, I just found it interesting that Obama broke away from the 3-way pack to win over Edwards and Hillary. I figured he must have had a good campaign in Iowa to get so many to support him over the other two Democrats.

After all, Edwards has virtually lived in Iowa the last four years, and it seems in that time he must have met virtually every Democrat in the state. And Hillary's formidable machine with its inexhaustible millions from MoveOn and China would seem to have made her inevitable.

But then I heard something that explained it all. Who came out to the caucuses in Iowa in record numbers? Middle-aged women. As I understand the story behind the Iowa caucus story, the Democrat caucus sites were jammed with unprecedented numbers, almost all of them 50-60 year old women.

What could possibly have motivated so many middle-aged women to turn out in such record-breaking numbers to support Barack Obama for President?

Oprah, of course!

Middle-aged women watch Oprah. They love Oprah. They watch her TV show. They subscribe to her magazine. Those who read buy the books she recommends.

So, when Oprah tells them to get out and vote for Obama, what do these women do? See Iowa.

Think Rush Limbaugh is the most influential Republican? Nah, he doesn't even like Huckabee, who won big in Iowa. He can't hold a candle to Oprah.

Could it be, that our next president will be chosen by a TV talk show host?

Interesting. And a bit frightening.

Yin and Yang for President

It seems that some of the presidential candidates are almost mirror opposites of each other, which gave me the idea of Yin and Yang.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, for example. They're both wild-eyed little guys who represent the outliers in their respective parties. Although Paul isn't really representative of the Republican party so much - he's actually a Libertarian. They would both agree on immediate abandonment of Iraq, although for very different reasons. Admittedly, Ron Paul has much greater support than Dennis Kucinich will ever get, but I still think they might be the best yin-yang combo in the field.

Next I'll pick Mike Huckabee and John Edwards. Two populists, and two sides of the same coin. They market themselves to the masses, telling people they're just like them. They seem to understand the worries and problems of ordinary people that the rest of the politicians seem to ignore. Personally, I've got to admit my amazement that Edwards' supporters have actually fallen for that, as Huckabee seems at least more believable.

Then I'm going with Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Both are camera-friendly, smooth operators. At the same time, both are a bit hard to pin down on where they really stand on certain issues. There is a contrast, in that Obama hasn't got much of a record that allows definition beyond his own stated ideas, while Romney has had to do a makeover to morph from a Massachusetts liberal governor into a conservative reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. Both are battling voter consternation over their religion, with Obama dogged by whispers that he might actually be a Muslim, and Romney by those who suggest he belongs to a fringe Christian cult.

In the biggest stretch on my yin-yang comparison, there's Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. They're both popular New Yorkers, even though Hillary's actually a carpetbagger. They both have reputation as tough, take-no-prisoners politicians. One thing that can be said about the general campaign is that it could be the most fascinating matchup between the two candidates least likely to play nice or fair.

My last comparison is between Joe Biden and Fred Thompson. These are the two guys who have the best party credentials and are most focused on policy. They're the straightest talkers in the race on each side, even though they're diametrically opposed in their policy ideas. They both seem to get lots of respect from their traditional party bases, but can't get arrested in the press.

I just find it interesting. Picking the winners for this year's general election race feels a bit like picking the winners in the NFL playoffs. How about my comparisons between the NFL teams and the candidates?

New England Patriots = Hillary Clinton. Evil but widely picked to win it all.
Indianapolis Colts = Barack Obama. Looks good, but good enough to get to the Super Bowl?
San Diego Chargers = John McCain. Slow start, but surging.
Pittsburgh Steelers = Joe Biden. Struggling
Jacksonville Jaguars = Mike Huckabee. Surprising dark horse.
Tennessee Titans = Chris Dodd. No chance.
Dallas Cowboys = Rudy Giuliani. Super Bowl Favorite, but with challenges.
Green Bay Packers = Fred Thompson. Sentimental favorites.
Washington Redskins = John Edwards. Flashy but lacking winning talent.
Seattle Seahawks = Bill Richardson. Also-ran status.
New York Giants = Tom Tancredo. One-dimensional.
Tampa Bay Bucs = Ron Paul. Can't get to Super Bowl, but have devoted fans.

Using or Abusing Science

The political Left has been laying claim to science as the basis for much of their agenda, but I've been doing some reading over the holidays that suggests otherwise. In fact, the science they're so openly promoting is mostly in the realm of "junk science" rather than the actual scientific method.

Darwinian evolution is one example. In an interesting case of projection, there's a zeal that seems almost religious by those most intent on imposing the idea of evolution providing the unquestioned proof that all life evolved from single-celled organisms. The problems remain that there is no clear evidence of any interspecies evolution in an extensive fossil record, and the fundamental question of the origins of all things remains a scientific mystery.

Not that I would make an argument for teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools. Religion doesn't belong in a science classroom. What I would argue, however, is that evolution be taught honestly, including the areas of the theory that are observable as well as those areas that remain questionable and unproven.

The coordinated silence and misinformation on the actual science of abortion is troubling. Abortion has been clearly established as a strong cause of breast cancer among women, but that information has been suppressed by abortion-rights advocates with the willing assistance of media and the government. Demonstrable impact on the mental health of women who have exercised their "choice" is also swept under the rug.

With advanced technologies, we now know much about the development of the fetus in the womb. The fetus can no longer be honestly characterized as just some tissue that can simply be removed before an actual human infant is formed.

An amazing program of propaganda has successfully obfuscated all science on the causes of homosexuality. Most people believe in a "gay gene" that doesn't exist, but has been successfully spread by dishonest, agenda-driven advocacy organizations that set out to "prove" something that doesn't exist.

The simple facts of serious and unbiased studies on the subject universally show that homosexuality is a result of a number of environmental factors. There is no "gay gene". Studies that make the gay advocacy community most angry have found that those who receive proper treatment can actually change their attractions and successfully form strong heterosexual relationships.

Also swept under the rug are the important facts that homosexual behavior includes extremely high risks of a wide range of diseases, above and beyond the most prevalent and well-known HIV/AIDS.

Then there's the overall epidemic of STD's. How many Americans actually know there's an epidemic of STD's? Not many, I imagine. The numbers are staggering. The infection rates for the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) alone are so high that an entire generation may find themselves dealing with the consequences over the next 20-30 years.

What made me angry were the recent commercials touting a treatment for HPV to prevent cervical cancer for women that never once mentioned what HPV is, or how it is contracted. Even when the government tries to act on the public health issue, they can't bring themselves to be honest about what causes the disease.

Finally, of course, there's Global Warming, which has now been renamed Global Climate Change. The political juggernaut led by Al Gore is unstoppable, as serious scientists who dare to refute any part of the religion of Global Climate Change are censured, denied tenure by their universities, and in some cases, fired.

Want a reason to be skeptical about Global Climate Change? Just look at the facts:

Those who lead the movement actually leave a "carbon footprint" hundreds of times bigger than those of use who will suffer under their heavy-handed "solutions".

The "solutions" Al and his friends at the UN are proposing have little or nothing to do with reducing emissions, but a great deal to do with taking money and sovereignty away from Americans and giving it to the rest of the world.

All I ask is honesty. For all of us, a healthy skepticism is not just advisable - it' a requirement. Otherwise, those who would force us all into submission for totalitarianism will use their pseudoscience to fool us into accepting their grab for power over our lives.

Huckeby Saga Draws to a Close

The Barry Huckeby story is ending quietly, with the recent news that he's reached a plea agreement with prosecutors. Basically, he's pled guilty to a lesser charge, something along the lines of mishandling of public funds. The theft charge is being dropped, and his sentencing will be in February.

This isn't particularly surprising, given the facts of the investigation by the State. The findings of the investigation, as I detailed in my previous post (See December 4th), seem to indict the school administration for gross mismanagement as much as it did Huckeby.

So I suspect the school administration want the whole thing to just go away. I sent a letter to the School Board President, Ms. Pia O'Connor, expressing my concerns about the mismanagement and unforgivably poor controls by the Columbus North Athletic Department. She responded in general terms that she is now satisfied that proper controls have been implemented there. Lacking any specifics or independent confirmation, I must admit to being more than a little skeptical.

Either way, the story is coming to an end very quietly. Barry Huckeby will move on with a small blemish on his record, and although he could do a month in jail, I doubt that will happen. Perhaps he'll get a new chance to coach basketball at another high school; that might even work out fine, as long as the new school keeps him far away from any money-handling responsibility.

It remains regrettable that the people who created the environment that led to this mess will escape the scrutiny they deserve.

Merry Christmas

My best wishes to everyone for a Merry Christmas!

Things are winding down quickly, as today I've seen my email and voicemail and telephone messages trickle to a near dead stop. Everyone is in the holiday mode, some taking off early for their Christmas celebration and others spending time in office parties or just goofing off as the week winds down.

Naturally, the whole thing stems from the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ something over 2,000 years ago. Today we have a large and vocal group of atheists who may like having the time off, but rail against the remembrance of the birth of this founder of the Christian faith.

Unfortunately, today we also have a large and growing number of church leaders who seem to be joining the atheists in equivocating or denying the fundamental stories so important to that faith in the divine who became human to teach us humanity and thus save us from darkness.

Ours is a faith of simplicity and poetry on the surface, but to those who choose to study in greater detail, an amazing continuity can be found with the ancient monotheistic God worshipped by Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike.

Back to the simple: Jesus was miraculously conceived by the virgin Mary or he was not. He performed hundreds of miracles during his roughly three and a half decades on earth, or he did not. He gave a number of inspirational sermons to thousands of people, mostly on the themes of loving and caring for each other, or he did not. Finally, and most importantly, he was viciously tortured and killed in a most barbaric practice known as crucifixion, was buried in a garden tomb near Jerusalem, and physically returned to life three days later. After which he was seen and preached to hundreds of people until he was whisked away on a cloud. Or none of that happened.

Nobody's ever observed a virgin birth. Nobody's ever seen a person that was dead and buried for 3 days return to life (unless you count the biblical story of Lazarus in addition to Jesus, of course). Most have never seen a miraculous healing without the use of science, whether sight or hearing or deformity or leprosy. Therefore, many simply refuse to believe any of that actually happened.

Sure, it is very hard to believe all that based simply on someone else's word. But Christians don't believe all this because of some sort of brainwashing or coercion. Most believe because of their own life experiences, in which they found that faith in the story of Jesus Christ with the study and commitment to following his example leads to inner peace and contentment and the belief it will all lead someday to a joyful reunification with Christ and the loved ones who passed on before. Many also believe because of the example of Christ's apostles and members of the early Church. If His story wasn't true, would it not seem logical that at least one of his disciples would have renounced it, rather than suffer abuse, imprisonment, exile, torture, and death? The disciple called John was the only surviving member of Christ's inner circle who was not killed for spreading the story to everyone who would listen.

If the story of Christ is not true, then all those disciples died for nothing. All the Christians that have been jailed and killed for nothing more than their faith over the years, even today in the Middle East, died for nothing. All the priests and religious who voluntarily chose to abandon normal lives for poverty and chastity to help the faith wasted them. Anyone who shows charity and kindness to others and tries to share their faith is wasting their time. Because, if the story of Christ is not true, then there is no reason for people to love each other, be compassionate for the needs of others, or help each other. Because if there is no God, and Jesus was just an ordinary man, then our lives are meaningless. Therefore, if our lives are meaningless, then we should get everything we can while we live so we can at least enjoy ourselves.

Unfortunately, that seems to be exactly where most people are these days.

To those who want to outlaw Christmas and stop people from this annual celebration of the faith, I'd like to offer my humble request: Go ahead and regard us as a bunch of ignorant superstitious fools if you like, but do we not have just as much right to believe as we choose as you have to believe in your own gods? (because as far as I can tell, you're not really an atheist, but worship things like animals and the environment, and ideas like Darwinian evolution and Socialism and the Big Bang.)

Once again, Merry Christmas to All! May your Christmas be everything you hope it will be.

Mounting Evidence of a Broken Government

Things continue to get worse in Washington. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that next year's elections will make any difference.

After wasting most of the past year in endless investigations of the President and continuous attempts to de-fund and undermine the Iraq war, the Democrats have finally gotten something done. It's hard to decide which is more discouraging - the fact they've passed some of their socialist legislation, or the fact that Republicans and the President have helped them do so.

All you folks out there who voted the bums out in 2006, handing control of congress to the Dems: What were you upset about? Sure, many thought the Iraq war was a mess. But most of you were frustrated at the lack of action to stop illegal immigration. Angry about irresponsible pork-barrel spending. Frustrated by the failure of elected representatives to care even minimally about the true needs of their constituents.

So how did that go?

Well, despite all the efforts of the Democrat congress, Iraq's turned around and is winding down on its own. But that's the only good news.

What has our government done about illegal immigration? Nada. In fact, they just slipped into their latest spending bill a significant backtrack on the famous border fence that still isn't being built.

What about pork-barrel spending? Think Dems are more responsible than the GOP? If you thought they would be, the joke's on you! The latest spending bill has as much or more pork in it than the worst of the GOP's bills. It's just that the earmarks in this one are designed to help their newest Democrats bring enough bacon back to their districts to entrench them for next year's re-election. Our's is included: Baron Hill won his seat back from Republican Mike Sodrel, and has been rewarded by millions in special funding for his district awarded by his party to help him keep his seat next year.

Then there's the Energy Bill. What an obscene, patently obvious sop to Democrat special interests that travesty represents! How does mandating 35 miles per gallon from the auto industry help energy or the environment? NOT AT ALL! It simply creates artificial shortages in the market for trucks, vans, and suv's. What gives any government the right to tell anyone what they can drive? This government does so by telling the auto makers what they can sell.

Add to that the Bali conference on "Climate Change". Notice they aren't calling it "Global Warming" anymore, because the science on that isn't as settled as Al Gore would have us believe. Is anything the conference is doing going to improve the climate of earth, give us more clean air or clean water, eliminate droughts and blizzards and hurricanes and tornadoes? There's another big joke being played on the ignorant populace. NOT AT ALL!

What Bali's really all about is globalism, socialism, and taking the USA down a notch or two. These guys want us to give them the right to tax us! That's right, they want to tax American Citizens for our wicked and unfair consumption of much more than our share of the earth's resources, and give the money to, well, them! Just forget about the earth and climate and the environment - the whole thing is a scheme by people in the UN to get rich off taxing Americans for their use of energy.

It's so frustrating, all the more so that there's so little I can do about it. Common sense has been co-opted by special interests, whose main special interest is in getting rich. And in return for making them rich, they offer our politicians the kick-backs they need to keep their misleading campaign ad machines running so they can stay in office and continue serving their wealthy minders.

Want a good energy policy? Lease ANWR to the highest bidder to extract the oil there. Open the continental shelf to exploration. Build nuclear power plants. Encourage an increase in refinery capacity. Stop the madness on ethanol - an inefficient fuel made from food is about the dumbest thing I think we can do. Go ahead and continue development of alternative energy technologies - sponsor contests, give tax incentives, and all that to encourage inventors to find ways to power cars with hydrogen and generate electricity with wind and solar. But stop acting as if those alternatives are already fully viable, because they are far from that!

I want them all gone. Senators Lugar and Bayh need to go. Congressman Hill needs to go. But they need to be replaced with sensible people who cannot be bought, and that's the hard part.

More Football

The Colts and Patriots have wrapped up the top two spots in the playoffs. As of this weekend, nothing can change the fact that the Patriots are seeded first and the Colts second. Which means both teams get to await the winner of the first round of AFC playoff games in the semifinal.

Most expect the "real" Super Bowl this year will be played in Massachusetts in the dead of winter between the Colts and Pats. Yes, the Jags and Chargers have been playing pretty well lately, and the Steelers are always a threat despite their recent stumble. But the Colts and Pats still look like the two best teams in the entire league.

It seems the Colts may have learned a hard lesson two years ago, when they wrapped up the first seed early in their exceptional season. They pulled the starters and let backups get knocked around at the end of the season, which meant the starters didn't play in a real game for about a month.

That showed, with a rusty Colts offense taking a bit too long to get things untracked against the Steelers, who of course went on to win the Super Bowl that year.

This year it could be tempting to sit Peyton and Joseph and Dallas and Reggie. The idea would be to make sure they don't get injured, and keep them fresh and well-rested for the playoffs. Maybe it would be OK to pull them in the fourth quarter of their last two games, but hopefully Tony and the coaching staff learned their lesson. It's important to keep them playing and keep them sharp going into the playoffs.

One could wonder about the Patriots, and whether they will take the opportunity to protect their starters in their last two games, which also are meaningless except for the chance to go undefeated. The reputation of the Patriots would seem to dispel any thoughts of resting starters. They've been known for running up the score on weaker teams throughout the season, leaving Brady and his cast on the field even after building insurmountable leads.

It's playing out as the good guys (Colts) against the bad guys (Patriots) for the Super Bowl. If the Colts are able to get everyone back from injury, it should be a great game. The winner is expected to get the Cowboys or Packers in the Super Bowl. Everyone who's not a Cowboys fan is rooting for Brett Favre to make it back to the big game.

I'm just a fan coming along for the ride.

Christmas Thoughts

Here we live in a time that has unnecessarily complicated Christmas. It has become a stressful holiday for many, who become obsessed with making the right impressions with their gifts to family, friends, and co-workers. Who dread the obligatory family gatherings where they must interact with those family members they have come to detest for some reason or other. Who may or may not make the once-a-year trip to church for Christmas Eve services out of grudging honor of an old tradition.

The idea of Christmas is very simple, and it can be a joyful occasion if simply approached in the right spirit. What I've learned is this:

Christmas is about giving, not getting.

Gifts don't have to be expensive. They're an expression of love, which requires only a bit of thought. They also don't have to be restricted to family and friends; Christmas is a great time to give to anyone needing help.

Maybe instead of dreading the family gathering, how about going with the objective of burying the hatchet and ending the feud? You may never become close with that relative, but you could certainly become civil for a few hours a year.

Christmas is about the children. There's nothing better than watching the sheer joy and excitement of the children as they enjoy every aspect of Christmastime.

So while it may be true that our society has taken the celebration of Christmas far beyond its original intent. Yes, Christ's birth probably didn't occur on December 25th, and the early church probably didn't make a big deal of celebrating it.

But it remains a very special event in the year, and if celebrated in the right spirit, can be a wonderful experience.

Agenda Films

These are the times rife with agendas, and this year has seen the release of a number of agenda-driven films. I find it somewhat encouraging that such films to this point have had rather dismal ratings. It seems that recent anti-war films, such as recent flops as 'Lions for Lambs' and 'Rendition', have flopped because they hold little entertainment value.

What movie-goer wants to go see a film that is preachy, shallow, and possibly even insulting to their intelligence. The message to Hollywood is, "You guys have been beating the drum for over six years now; Bush sucks, war is bad, Iraq war is bad, blah, blah, blah. You don't need to bludgeon us with the same message in your contrived on-screen fiction."

Now there's a release of the 'Golden Compass', a movie made based on the first book in a series called 'His Dark Materials' by crusading atheist author Philip Pullman. The movie has been watered down to obfuscate the most obvious of Mr. Pullman's agenda, but the core purpose of the film is to create demand for the books, which from all accounts depict vicious attacks on Christianity, especially aimed at the Catholic Church. Excerpts I've seen suggest not only an atheistic, but even a Satanic message.

Contrary to popular stereotype, Christians and Catholics aren't petitioning the government to censor the movie or the books. They're simply exercising their rights to shine the light on this movie's agenda, which in turn encourages parents to skip this film, which ironically has been released in the Christmas season.

Fortunately, the reviews I've seen of this agenda film have been pretty tepid. Reviewers who don't seem to care about the agenda or controversy are simply saying it's not a very good movie. Which of course remains consistent with the theory that agenda-driven films appeal to a narrow audience and won't do well commercially. Hopfully the trend holds with this film.

Some Interesting Information on the Huckeby Issue

I've written a couple of posts in the past about the Barry Huckeby case of misappropriation of funds at Columbus North High School. The stories I had access to raised a number of questions, some of which have been answered in the report released by the State Board of Accounts dealing with both the Football issue and a question also raised about accounting for a Golf Outing run by Mr. Huckeby.

My reading of the report seems to clear up several of my questions.

Barry Huckeby is astoundingly inept at recordkeeping.

He's also not very smart. How could he not have known that all his handling of funds would be scrutinized? Whether he is truthful or not in his response to the findings of the Board of Accounts, he shows a puzzling lack of judgement when it comes to minimally responsible recordkeeping. Ironically, he's a math teacher! For a math teacher, he seems incapable of basic addition and subtraction.

The Columbus North Athletic Department is not without culpability here, at least in terms of enforcing policies and procedures for handling of receipts from sporting events. It's unconscionable that the department had not even the most basic of controls in place to account for the ticket sales.

My reading of the report is that Barry's handling of the funds from the golf fundraiser could reasonably be attributed to sloppy recordkeeping. Did he siphon some funds from the golf outing? Since he's the only one with the checking account and can't produce several receipts to back up his claims, there's ultimately no way to prove it one way or the other. There can be no argument that his outrageously poor management alone builds a pretty strong case for his dismissal - at least from any position that involves handling money.

The case is pretty solid against him for the missing $3,436 in football receipts. He admitted pocketing a couple of $50's, and there isn't a reasonable explanation for the difference in receipts from the playoff game against Terre Haute North, which totaled $2,080. Barry's defense is that the whole system at Columbus North was in disarray, with season pass funds mixed with game receipts and moneys deposited into different accounts.

However, the playoff game against Terre Haute North was by IHSAA rules not covered by any season passes. Everyone had to purchase a ticket, either in advance or at the game itself. The receipts from the playoff game simply can be estimated based on the number of tickets collected at the gate. So there are only two explanations for the difference of over $2,000:

1) That's the amount collected prior to the game in ticket pre-sales that didn't get counted for the game, or
2) That's the amount Barry put in his pocket after the game.

To believe that over $2,000 in pre-sales was mishandled by the Athletic Director and the Department Secretary, one would also have to believe that both conspired to either steal the money themselves or destroy Barry for some sinister personal reason. I'm not prepared believe such a theory.

At trial, I'm thinking a good defense attorney can raise enough reasonable doubt in the case to get Barry a Not Guilty verdict or a hung jury. Unless compelling evidence is presented at trial of someone seeing Barry pocket the money or talk about pocketing the money, I think it will be hard to convict him. Reasonable doubt can certainly be raised based on the department's overall lax recordkeeping procedures.

On the other hand, I firmly believe his firing was proper. His extremely poor management and failure to follow even the most basic of controls is inexcusable. Discrepancies under $100 you can chalk up to human error; discrepancies over $3,000 point to something far more serious. Clearly, Barry cannot be trusted with handling money.

That doesn't mean the blame stops with Barry, however. I'd also recommend termination of the CNHS Athletic Director, who is culpable in her failure to implement such basic controls and procedures in the Athletic Department. It would not seem out of line to take a serious look at the culpability of the Principal as well.

With proper controls and oversight in place, the incident clearly would never have happened. And that begs an immediate termination of the Athletic Director and anyone else directly responsible for such obvious mismanagement.

Another Football Post

As a fan, I've got to slip in a bit of football now and then.

At the high school level, it was disappointing to see our local team, the Columbus North Bulldogs, drop a winnable state semifinal. They played exceptional defense and scored two touchdowns in the first half to seem well in control of the game that could qualify them for the state 5A championship in the RCA Dome.

Unfortunately, things unraveled late in the third quarter, when quarterback Mike Hladik threw an interception that led to a quick touchdown by Indianapolis Pike. That touchdown was followed by two more very quick touchdowns by Pike, which found its offense and rattled the North defense with some big plays. A missed extra point on their third touchdown left Pike ahead 20-14.

But North wasn't done yet. They managed a good kickoff return and had a solid drive going, finding themselves well within Pike territory with about 2 minutes remaining in the game. But their quest for a championship ended with two dropped first-down passes in their last four plays.

I could only imagine how difficult that was for the players and coaches, to see the victory within reach and lose because of a couple of dropped passes. Ouch.

In college, it's nice to see Indiana qualified for a Bowl game for the first time in many years. It was a great tribute to Coach Hef, who passed away before the season.

In the NFL, the hated Patriots have shown some chinks in their armor the last couple of weeks. They've begun to look beatable, and for once I sort of hope the Steelers take them down next week.

The Colts have struggled since their own loss to the Patriots, which left them physically and mentally crushed. The Colts lost some key players to injury, and the physically able played liked whipped dogs the following week in San Diego. Even so, they had the Chargers beaten except for a missed chip-shot field goal by Vinatieri. Since then, they've been gradually regaining their injured players and improving. But they're still not the same Colts we saw prior to the Pats game.

It will be fascinating to see what happens in the playoffs, where a rematch between the Colts and Patriots is very likely. The Steelers have a chance to play a role, but there doesn't seem to be any other team in the AFC able to compete with those powerhouse teams.

The sports commentators are sort of comical, as they root for the Cowboys and Packers and openly hope one of those teams can beat the AFC champ. Sorry guys, not going to happen. Whether the Patriots, Colts, or Steelers win through to the Super Bowl, I've got to predict the NFC team will lose again.

All that's left are the college bowls, then the NFL playoffs. After that, I'll have to catch some Indiana basketball to feed my sports addictions until the sports desert of spring and summer arrive.

Irony

The irony of two of the big stories this morning is fascinating. The British teacher who allowed her students to name a teddy bear "Mohammed" was released from jail, and Don Imus returned to the airwaves.

Although there's a big difference between spending a few days in what must have been a hellish jail in Sudan and getting what amounts to a paid vacation, both stories were about punishment for the most egregious sins in today's world; the sin of giving offense.

Both cases were, I believe, unintentional acts that caused a firestorm among the offended. The teacher had no idea she would be jailed and have her very life threatened when her students named a teddy bear after the founder of Islam. Imus thought he was being hip or relevant by making a statement about the women's basketball team that would have passed without notice if uttered by, say, Chris Rock.

It is a strange world where offending someone, even without realizing you were being offensive, is the most unforgivable sin. It's a strange world where people can get away with almost anything, up to and including murder, if they have a good enough rationalization. But get away with giving offense to an aggrieved group? You are forever painted with the scarlet letter, not "A", but "R"(racist) or "B"(bigot).

Be careful what you say, especially in public. The thought police are everywhere.