Olympics Observations

Watching the Olympics over the last couple of weeks has been fairly entertaining. The US has been impressive in events like basketball and volleyball, gymnastics, and track and field. It's actually been encouraging to see more overt patriotism from the American athletes than we've seen in previous games.

That patriotism seems to bug the NBC commentators. Chris Collinsworth seems to be one of them, based on his nauseating interview with Kobe Bryant. Too bad, because I've always thought Collinsworth was a pretty good NFL commentator. Maybe he fancies himself turning into the next Olbermann. Hope not.

The flap over the Chinese gymnasts, who certainly look closer to 12 than the minimum 16, is sort of interesting. Is anybody surprised that the Chinese cheat? Remember how the Soviets and East Germans were masters of cheating in the 60's and 70's? They had team scientists feeding their athletes all sorts of performance-enhancing drugs with the precision that guaranteed they wouldn't turn up positive when tested at the games. I remember the East German bearded women who were built like men taking the gold medals.

It's what communists do. They lie and cheat. Think anybody can prove those Chinese girls are under 16? Not in a society where the government can compel everyone to lie, and create all the false documents they want to "prove" whatever they need. The investigators have to find the evidence of cheating to make a charge, which won't happen.

It has been disappointing, especially in the case of Marion Jones, that US athletes have cheated from time to time. But at least that's because of their individual bad decisions, not because of a government athletic drug program.

Better than the Olympics, football is about to start.

My Gas Story

The gauge on my Volvo S80 was brushing the red at the bottom eighth, so I pulled into the station on the way to the office this morning. Despite the pain of the high gas price, I was still encouraged by the fact that the posted price this morning was lower than I've paid all summer.

I followed the usual procedure and began pumping the mid-grade fuel into my nearly empty tank. Things went along normally until I glanced at the pump. The dollars and cents were rolling along very slowly, which initially made me think the pump must be extremely slow. I had a mildly irritated thought that I'd have to wait a long time for my tank to fill.

But then I looked a bit closer, and noticed that the gallon counter was moving pretty fast. I quickly discovered that instead of $3.87.9, the gas was actually pumping at $0.387. When the tank was filled, I saw that instead of costing more than $60, the tank only cost a bit more than $6.

It didn't require much thought for me to conclude that the right thing was to inform someone at the station about what was obviously a mistake. So I walked into the convenience store and handed my receipt to the clerk, saying, "Either I just won some sort of contest, or the pump price isn't set right."

The clerk's eyes opened wide, and she said, "I can't deal with this." She immediately handed the receipt to someone else behind the counter, who must have been a supervisor.

The supervisor looked at the receipt with a sigh, apparently thinking she was about to have to handle some sort of customer complaint. She asked without looking at me, "What am I looking at?"

"The price."

Suddenly her expression changed, I heard "What!?", and she quick-marched over to the machine that I presume manages the gas pumps at the other end of the counter.

While the supervisor was busy punching buttons on the machine, I stood at the other end of the counter, unsure whether I should wait for her to return. After about a minute, I picked up my receipt, which she had put down on the counter in front of me, and walked to where she was continuing to work on the machine.

I asked her, "Do you need anything else from me?".

Again without looking up, she said, "Nope. Ain't nothin I can do with yours anyhow."

I thanked her and left, wondering a bit at the bizarre experience but thankful for the 1960's gas price.

Energy Truth

In the energy debate, Pelosi and Obama have both made anti-oil statements in defense of their blockade of any legislation that includes permission for domestic exploration and drilling. There are only two possible explanations for their outrageous statements; either they are astoundingly ignorant, or they are lying through their teeth.

They've been caught in some whoppers.

First, I heard Natasha spit a venomous statement about the group of GOP congressmen using the floor of the house to continue to demand a vote on their comprehensive energy bill. She called them the "handmaidens of the oil companies".

Mike Pence from Indiana is one of the leaders of the little energy revolt in the House. He's from Indiana, which is hardly an oil state. I looked up his political contributors - it's public information after all. He's taken in about a million dollars this past year, which is nothing in this age of big money politics. The top 5 industries contributing to his campaign?

Retirees
Israel Supporters
Real Estate
Investment
Lawyers

And the biggest group, retirees, barely topped $50K in contributions. So Ms. Pelosi, how again is Rep. Pence a Big Oil toady? Could it be you've told a whopper of a lie in that statement? You certainly have convinced me you're jaw-droppingly stupid, so I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt that the statement wasn't an outright lie, just dumb.

Speaking of stupid, how about Obama's speech yesterday where he proposed a goal of eliminating oil completely in 10 years? Does he have the slightest clue how much of all our daily lives are impacted by oil, both for energy and in the products we use?

During this whole debate, Democrats across the board have been speaking loftily about eliminating fossil fuels in favor of clean, renewable energy. I've been wondering something - how many people drive cars that aren't powered by gas or diesel? Aside from an infinitesimal number using natural gas or batteries, pretty much nobody.

Do Obama and his disciples really believe we can eliminate all coal, oil, gas, and nuclear power and replace them with wind and solar? In 10 years? Hundreds of millions of Americans will have to scrap their gas-powered vehicles and buy new miracle cars within 10 years using what money? Millions will have to replace their oil and gas furnaces with new miracle solar panels that, last time I checked, didn't really work?

So Obama's either frighteningly stupid and naieve, or he's lying through his teeth. No other option is possible.

But his disciples have blind faith in The Great and Powerful OB. Will that faith continue when the country falls into a deep depression after access to energy is shut down by OB and his minions, Boris and Natasha?

Boris and Natasha

I loved Rocky and Bullwinkle when I was a kid. That's why it was so easy to figure out that the Democrat dictators of the House and Senate are actually Boris (alias Harry) and Natasha (alias Nancy).

What's hilarious about Boris is that he shut down all debate over domestic oil production while pretending he was being reasonable and the other side was the one playing politics. I'm not sure that would even be believed by his own base, although I'm sure that base is happy with anything he does to stop the evil "Big Oil".

But the biggest belly laugh was provided by Natasha, who vindictively shut down the House and turned the lights, cameras, and microphones off on the Republicans.

Meantime Barack has lost his lead in the Presidential race. Worthy of a chuckle is that Boris and Natasha are oblivious to the fact that their own actions blocking even debate of energy policy are responsible.

What a great corner Boris and Natasha have painted themselves into; if they allow debate and a vote on energy, they force the Great and Powerful OB to cast a vote that will be used against him in the campaign.

If they continue to block any votes, they are rightly vilified for doing so, taking the Great and Powerful OB down with them in public (dis)approval.

Just like poor Boris and Natasha, suffering defeat and humiliation every time they try to destroy that heroic little flying squirrel.

Warehousing Children

The front page photo in this morning's Republic newspaper sent a shiver down my spine. The image showed a baby lying in one of those infant carriers in the foreground, with a rank of infant cribs and a daycare worker sitting in a rocking chair with another infant in her arms.

The photo was intended by the newspaper to depict a positive image of the local daycare center that was the subject of the article. That made me shudder every bit as much as the image itself - most people seem oblivious to the terrible implications of these child warehouses.

The article itself decried the fact that this daycare center, perhaps the largest in Columbus, was closed indefinitely because of the recent flood. How were these mothers going to find "quality daycare" to replace what had previously been provided by the center?

My fervent hope is that at least some of these mothers will come to their senses and realize their children need them more than the big house and new car and fulfilling career.

I've blogged before about the epidemic level of narcissism we've reached in this country. This article hit me like a bolt of lightning with the primary root cause of our societal illness; children raised by minimum-wage workers in baby warehouses.

If there's one thing I know from my life experience, it's this simple fact. Children need their mothers. They need their mothers to feed them, teach them, protect them, love them.

What's the lesson a child learns when their mother races back to work within a few weeks of giving birth?

That Mom's car, the nice house, her career, the resort vacations, her social status, are all more important than you, her child. So you grow up ingrained with the idea that life means getting all you can for yourself. Children are inconvenient, so they must be warehoused in daycare, then preschool, then school, so you can be free to be, and get, all you can.

Relationships are fleeting, because there's no such thing as lifetime commitment to anybody else. Sacrificing for somebody else is unnecessary. Why commit to a husband (or wife) when somebody better might come along?

I grew up before this sickness took hold, but I fear my generation may be the the first to become infected with the narcissism virus. We were given prosperity by our parents and grandparents, who learned the importance of family and morality from the hard times of the Great Depression and WWII. But like the rebellious children we were, we rejected and ridiculed the lessons they tried to teach us and spawned the amoral "me first" disease with which the majority of Americans are now infected.

Those who run the child warehouses are nurturing the disease by teaching the children how to be good little narcissists so they can grow up to protect and nurture the virus for the next generation. These factory babies learn less about traditional skills like reading and math and history, and much more about celebrating diversity and Darwinian evolution and hatred for religion, capitalism, and the white male.

All the while their parents trade partners and pursue their next big house, nice car, expensive vacation, and are irritated that their children come out of the warehouse so unruly.

Marketing Genius

Recent events in the presidential campaign have led me to conclude that the Obama campaign may be the best-organized and well-conceived marketing campaign ever. The armies of adoring media types who represent the vanguard of Obama's army have created an amazing image-making machine that is now telling the world that the great and mighty BH Obama is already a shoo-in for January's inauguration.

By comparison, McCain's marketing seems inept. If you were visiting the US from another country where you didn't know or care anything about American politics, a few minutes watching TV news would convince you that OB was already the country's president. And McCain's some old coot who snipes at the Great and Powerful OB now and then.

Interestingly, the marketing campaign has been very careful and successful at avoiding specifics. Keeping it at the level of "Hope" and "Change" without getting into any specific message about whose "Hope", or what "Change" seems to be working marvelously.

Not to belabor the obvious, but it's become painfully obvious that the marketing wizards behind the campaign includes all the major Television and Newspaper "news" outlets. It seems they're all donating their own free services to the marketing juggernaut so determined to place the Great and Powerful OB on the throne.

The election has become not between the Great and Powerful OB and John McCain, but a simple referendum, yes or no, whether the American people (plus the illegal immigrants and dead people the Democrats can find to vote) want the Wizard of OB as president.

The marketing campaign says the "Yes" votes are leading.

All Thumbs

I allowed myself to be cornered into a little home improvement project. Making the purchase of the needed materials at the local home improvement store, I spent the afternoon fretting over my usual fear that I would make a mess of the project.

And what a mess I made. Spending well into the evening, the project blunders got progressively worse. The only good news was that I had Chris to help me. With no experience with these things, he's already better at them than I. At least we got more accomplished than I would have on my own. Still, the project was a disaster. A day later, sitting at my computer, I'm still upset by the whole ordeal.

These little projects look easy when everybody else does them. Like on the TV home improvement shows, or when other people do it, or even when I help somebody else do it.

Not for me. I'm so horribly deficient in all things mechanical that I now have an ugly mess that I may have to pay somebody else to clean up. Nearly every step that looks so easy when done by others is for me a herculean task.

See, I married a fearless do-it-yourself-er who would never pay somebody to do anything to her home. But she'll happily browbeat her incompetent husband into making a fool of himself and making the project cost twice as much.

See, this is why I went to college (for 3 different degrees). So I wouldn't have to get stuck in these situations. So I could hire people who actually know how to do these things while I go to work pounding a computer keyboard and wrecking my eyesight all day.

Now I suppose anybody who happens to read this who also knows who I am now knows my terrible secret. I'm a mechanical idiot incompetent.

Our Societal Epidemic

Narcissism. Selfishness and self-centeredness. Ruthless and heartless disregard for others. Always asking, "What's in it for me?".

The somewhat sobering realization that has been taking hold of me lately is that it's not just a phenomena of the younger generation. Nor is it just the atheistic and non-religious. It seems just about everybody has contracted the disease.

It's understandable that the large and growing anti-religious crowd would tend to be self-indulgent. After all, where there is no morality there is nothing more important than oneself.

But these days it seems this disease also infects the religious. This is just an individual's observation, certainly completely absent any sort of scientific study, but it seems the more someone wears their religion on their sleeve, the more likely they are infected.

My own lifelong study in the Christian faith informs me that the behavior of those professing the faith is far more important than the act of profession itself. Those uber-Christians (or uber-Catholics) I encounter these days have confused Christian Witness with Pharisaic elitism. They show off their piety and austerity and moral superiority, while separating themselves from the world full of people less worthy. And in so doing, they lose the entire point of the Gospel.

Unfortunately, I have seen and experienced firsthand more backstabbing, slander, gossip, and plain meanness from the Pharisaic Christians than those without faith. It seems to come from the elitist attitude that gives them license to mistreat others whom they deem inferior.

The lesson I will try to reflect in my own dealings with others is simply to abide by the golden rule. I will neither bury my faith nor wear it on my sleeve, hoping that my decent behavior will somehow counterbalance that of my Pharisaic brethren.

The only hope for our way of life is that the citizens rediscover the light of faith and truth, and thus inoculate themselves against the epidemic of narcissism. To do so, the light must be rekindled by the few remaining who can reflect it.

History

Maybe it's a sign of age, but my interest in history grows in direct relationship to my advance in age. I have been reading some historical books, and find it remarkable how little things have changed. Particularly remarkable is how people learn nothing from the experience of their forefathers.

The ancient Greeks were being invaded by the Medes and Persians. They had a sort of political party back then that strongly protested going to war against the invaders, preferring to negotiate peace. They didn't want to fight, did not believe their democratic society deserved to survive the invaders, and some of their numbers actually allied themselves with the invaders. Only the strong leadership and heroic exploits of some notable generals saved them from slavery and domination by the repressive rule of Darius.

But of course the Greeks still eventually lost their civilization to an increasingly comfortable and slothful population that was easily defeated later. But that civilization became at least an inspiration for the Romans, who of course also lost their empire due to the same sorts of sloth and decadence that brought down the Greeks.

The parallels with today's America are striking, and the enemies who would destroy this country all too evident. They may not be massing as armies along our borders this time, but with the technology of nuclear and biological weaponry, they don't need an army. And we have an entire political party that hopes to negotiate peace rather than fight for our continued freedom. Even some notable advocates in that party have gone so far as to ally themselves with the country's declared enemies while the government fears to even speak out against their seditious rhetoric.

America has reached the depths of the same sloth and decadence that led to the destruction of the Greeks and Romans. Citizens are no longer permitted to speak out against such things, lest they be persecuted as "intolerant". The decadent plurality now in charge of the government will not tolerate any call for return to the core values that founded America, nor will they tolerate any military action against the country's declared enemies.

The destruction of America and enslavement to a totalitarian government seems imminent. It may come to pass before I pass.

All substantially because the citizens have been systematically brainwashed by government schools that fail to teach history. In its place they teach a socialistic version of history that calls western society evil and repressive to all those who are not members of their race and religion.

My Chicago Adventure

I snagged a ticket to the Cubs versus Reds since I was in Chicago anyway. It turned into an interesting adventure that I mostly enjoyed, even the parts that I normally wouldn't normally find enjoyable.

About an hour before gametime, I went down to the hotel lobby and asked the bellman how to get to Wrigley field. He pointed to the stairway right outside the door and told me to take that train north. Wow, that was too easy.

The underground train station was like an urban cave. It was dirty, smelly, and full of a mix of other fans going to the game with businesspeople and others headed to their own destinations.

The train arrived, the doors opened, and people crowded in. I held back a bit, and feared I wouldn't make the train because it didn't look like there was room for everyone on the platform. But somehow, right before the doors closed, I saw a small gap and jumped in.

The ride was maybe 20 minutes, and I stood in the aisle with the crowds the entire way. If a seat opened up, I tried to be chivalrous and help any nearby woman take over the seat. Handholds were minimal, and it was challenging at times to stay on my feet when the train rounded corners, accelerated, or braked. At the same time I had to focus on keeping my big feet from stepping on the feet of the seated passengers.

Arriving at the Addison Street stop, I emerged from the train station to find the stadium only a block away. I found the ticket window and picked up my "Will-Call" ticket and proceeded to my seat on the lower level, third base side.

The stadium was packed. I didn't see a single empty seat anywhere, including the rooftops outside the stadium. I wondered how that worked, buildings outside the Wrigley outfield placing bleachers on their roofs and selling tickets. I wonder how much the building owners have to pay to the Cubs for selling tickets to their rooftop bleachers.

The game was fairly entertaining, with some highlight-quality defensive plays and a couple of home runs. The fans were enthusiastic, and more into the game than any other sporting event I can recall attending.

Remarkably, as the game approached its end with the Cubs leading 7-1, I looked around and saw very few heading to the exits. The vast majority of the crowd stayed to the last pitch. Another unique observation, as pretty much every other professional sporting event will see the stadium or arena empty out as soon as the outcome is settled.

Then there's the singing. The CSI actor William Peterson led the crowd in "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" during the seventh inning stretch, and it was remarkable to hear the whole stadium singing the song loudly and enthusiastically. And as soon as the last out was made in the 9th inning, a Cubs song began, and I was astounded to find nearly everyone around me singing it loudly, with many dancing to the song. And the crowd began moving toward the exits, but there was no sense of any racing to be first out of the park.

The huge crowd jamming into the train station caused me to wonder how long it was going to take for me to get a spot on the train. Surprisingly, it wasn't as long as I expected, and once again I was jammed into a train car where I tried to keep from stepping or falling on someone as it transported me back to my hotel.

I think I'd do it again. It would be a lot more fun if somebody was with me next time, but I still enjoyed my little Chicago adventure.

Trying to Buck Up

Hopelessness, helplessness, a little fear. All of it I'm feeling lately. Because apparently it's true that ignorance is bliss, as a plurality of Americans appear to be in a state of pure bliss. That bliss named Barack Obama, of course.

My discomfort comes from many areas of observation and conversation, what I read, and what I experience directly. For the first time in my adult life, I truly believe we have reached a crossroads. To the right lies freedom and security and continued prosperity. To the left lies misery, war, and oppression.

Don't get me wrong, as I'm neither a McCain supporter nor an Obama detractor. The bottom line is that both are poor choices for the most powerful office in the world. It's not just those two individuals, though. The fact is that our entire democratic system of government has been co-opted. It has been taken over by the elites in both political parties who, I am now convinced, are driven by a long-term vision of a single, socialist, worldwide government.

No more pride in American exceptionalism. No more freedom. America will become indistinguishable from Canada or Europe. The European Union started something that will gradually lead to the North American Union, African Union, Far East Union, and eventually the model of global governance. Which will be oppressive, restrictive, and brutal to its detractors.

And political talk around this presidential election centers around whether McCain is too old (maybe) or whether his captivity and torture in Viet Nam is an asset or detriment to his ability to hold the presidency (I think asset); or whether Obama is a "flip-flopper" on issues like Iraq (I think he said whatever made his audience happy) or if his association with Rev. Wright is an indication that he shares his pastor's rather extreme anti-American views (I think he pretty much does).

Nobody has much of anything to say about actual policy. And the news there is bad. Both are open borders advocates, both are globalists, both are environmentalists demonstrably willing to destroy the economy in the name of stopping the mythical "global warming". And, as far as I can tell, both are socialists. McCain just a bit less than Obama.

But nobody seems to understand issues and ramifications. Those who want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq are naieve both about what such an action will cause in terms of terrorism and war and genocide, but also naieve that their candidate (Obama) will grant their wish. Those who think we can somehow eliminate oil as a source of energy in the forseeable future are jaw-droppingly naieve, and unfortunately both candidates and a plurality in Congress share in that mass stupidity.

Of course, when the topic of the war on terror comes up, an entire political party says either "what war? there's no terrorism." or "America is the real terrorist!".

It doesn't take much. All anybody has to do is a bit of reading. It is possible to find facts, as long as you exercise a bit of discernment between fact and spin (or lie). Then just apply a bit of logic and common sense to carry forward the facts and analyze the political positions and figure out how they'll impact the country and its citizens.

Evidence is clear. We are in for an extremely painful, expensive, difficult, divisive, and possibly disastrous next four years. Almost certainly under President Obama. Very probably also under President McCain.

Defining Social Justice

As the left continues its political ascendancy, their boldness increases to the point where I'm hearing more and more about how they plan to wield their power. One of the catch-phrases I keep hearing is Social Justice.

I've been hearing the term for just about as long as I can remember, but never really figured out how it was defined. My vague understanding was that it must have something to do with treating everyone fairly and not allowing the poor to be abused by evildoers.

Ask me to define Social Justice, and I might suggest it might be efforts at insuring that everyone have fair access to freedom and the American Dream. Nobody should be forced to live anywhere, told where or when to travel, what to eat or drink (aside from reasonable restrictions on public drunkenness), what they read or believe, or with whom they associate. Pretty much the Bill of Rights.

But as I've come to understand it, the prevalent definition of Social Justice by the Left is simply Socialism. They seem to be saying that Socialism is the only "fair" path to Social Justice. But Socialism by its very nature is opposed to freedom.

When the government bestows the "rich" label on certain citizens and proclaims all "rich" are evil and deserve to have their wealth confiscated, that's antithetical to Justice. When the government takes over half the income of the majority of its citizens, keeps most of it, and gives the rest to those who do not produce anything, that's not Justice.

When the government decides to give special privileges to certain people based on their skin color or behavior, threatening to prosecute churches who preach the behavior is immoral and businessmen who don't hire specific quotas of those groups regardless of qualifications and suitability for the jobs, that certainly isn't Justice.

We will always have poor. It seems to me that Socialism simply makes the poor minimally less poor in return for complete and total dependence on the government, while making everyone else much more poor by confiscating their wealth and taking their freedom.

It seems to me that instead of promoting Socialism and its direct opposition to the American Constitution, maybe government should focus on working with the citizenry to make sure the doors are open for anyone from any race, class, or gender to walk through if they're willing to work hard and prove themselves. Then perhaps others would be inspired to achievement based on the pioneering example of those who successfully pulled themselves up from poverty to success and happiness.

Sadly, it seems that most of our citizens have decided they are willing to lose their constitution, freedom and wealth to a corrupt Socialist government that will become the new "rich". And by then it will be too late to go back.

Stream of Consciousness

Even though I have work to do, it's mid-evening and I'm avoiding it.
So here I am on my blog, but I don't really have any burning topics to write about.

There's the flight yesterday where I was stuck on the plane while it sat on the tarmac in Indy for about 3 hours. Believe it or not, I actually arrived at my destination, even though it was about midnight.

TV is the default passive activity for the evenings out of town. But the primetime lineup is inane, and baseball's the only sport available. And I care about baseball, well, not really at all.

Something that worries me lately is that I find most of the people I meet on the road nice enough, but mostly stupid. Today I had a sort of secret panic that I might somehow let that attitude show, which doesn't bode well for a consultant. Are people really getting more stupid, or am I just getting intolerant? I really don't know.

Something sort of related to that last ramble is that lately everything has taken on a certain clarity. I feel like I understand things on an incredibly deep level, and suspect nobody else has a clue. It's not some sort of sudden arrogance; I despise arrogant people and hope never to come across as such. But I seem to have gained some weird insight on the world and God and history and people. But at the same time I feel constrained against sharing it.

I was really hungry last night. Probably from traveling 12 hours without the benefit of a meal. But tonight my survival instinct must have kicked in, because I've had dinner but still think I could eat another one. So part of the blogging is trying to stop thinking about eating, but you can see how well that's working.

Many times I have thought, wouldn't it be cool if I could go back to about age 14 and relive my life knowing everything I know now? But that's not the way life works, and instead of thinking about that, maybe I should start thinking about living the rest of my life the way I could look back and be pleased about. So when I realize how difficult that is, at least for me, I realize the whole going back to childhood idea wouldn't work.

Iyam what Iyam and thats All that Iyam. - Popeye the Sailor Man.

What I Know

Given the many years I've been around so far, there are a few things I know.

People are capable of great good or great evil. Most of us are a little bit of both.

There is a God. Everybody knows it; some merely spend their lives hating or avoiding Him.

The world is an incredibly beautiful and amazing place.

Everybody mostly wants intimacy. I don't mean sex. Happiness is family and close friends.

Careers don't matter, unless you have one that impacts people in a significant positive way. Most of us have jobs to provide our family a roof, food, clothing, and hopefully a decent education and occasional nice vacation.

People live until they're done. Somehow it makes sense for most I've known who have passed.

We don't mourn our dead. We mourn for ourselves because we miss them terribly. Or didn't say or do something we should have before they passed.

Hatred is born of misunderstanding. Hateful people usually are too proud to put it aside.

Women and men are quite different. By design, to complement each other, not to fight over dominance.

Life is hard. If it were not, what would be the point? Then again, if we think we have it tough, we should try living 200 years ago. Or 1,000 or 2,000 or 4,000.

Even those who reject God adopt their own religions. Atheism seems the most dogmatic of religions.

Conflict is inevitable. It exists everywhere, only separated by degree. Conflicts cannot be resolved when the resolution chooses a winner and loser. We model conflict through sport, where each participant gives their all in a fair arena and the best competitor wins. The loser is able to say, "we'll get them next time". More serious conflicts don't offer that option.

The best legacy most of us could ever leave behind are our children. We don't take enough time to realize this fact and act accordingly.

America the Mental Hospital

Things continue to spiral out of control in this country, and it seems most of the citizenry is enjoying the ride.

Not me. It's already having an effect on my livelihood. Six months ago I had more work than I could accept. Suddenly I have to take less attractive assignments and go digging to just try to keep my calendar full enough to make ends meet.

Who is at fault? Our very own elected government. Yes, the same government that responds to $4 gas by promising to confiscate the profits of the oil companies while they stand guard over fields of oil and gas reserves within our own borders. They promise to raise taxes on me so everybody else can have free healthcare and college and whatever else buys them the votes of the ignorant.

Oh well, pretty soon there won't be anything left of me to tax. I suspect the same will be true of lots of other evil businesspersons. The cynic in me wonders whether it's all by design - once we're all forced to place ourselves at the mercy of our government for our very lives, they have achieved their objective.

Why, except for the price of gas, aren't millions of Americans converging on Washington to surround Capitol Hill to blockade congress until they come to their senses? Like opening up every possible source of energy to drilling and mining. Like allowing new refineries to be built across the country to meet the needs of our citizens and economics. Like putting a stop to the ridiculous spending that's killing every one of us.

Instead I see the masses of zombies drooling at the very sight of Barack Obama. They cannot possibly be using any faculties of reason, or they would understand he promises to make our lives much worse, not better.

Zombies, a few basic questions. Are you better off having your healthcare paid for by other people, but being unable to afford the car that would take you to the hospital? Are you better off having more of your paycheck confiscated by the government than already is today? Are you better off with all the new rules about what you can drive, eat, drink, do with your property, what ideas you may see on TV or listen to on the radio, or even where and when you can travel?

How do you like the ideas of illegal immigrants being given special rights, possibly even taking your job? In a broader sense, how do you like the idea of people getting preference over you for jobs and benefits based on their skin color or sexual orientation? How do you feel about new laws that punish your church for its "intolerant" teachings?

Don't believe me? Try reading some stuff. Not just blogs like mine, but actual statements by people like Obama, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the gang on Capitol Hill.

Or you can continue the zombie thing. Maybe somebody from the government will take pity on you someday and reward you with a free appendectomy. Or lobotomy.

Fooling People is Easy

While at lunch yesterday, I happened on a speech Barack Obama was giving, I believe in Troy, Michigan. And I got a first-hand reminder of what serves as a winning strategy for winning the Presidency these days.

Speak clearly, sound intelligent, look good, and most importantly, promise heaven on earth.

Barack's message is simple. End war, improve education, give healthcare to everyone, give jobs to those who don't have one and higher wages to those who do, give every child a great education and pay for their college tuition, solve energy and environmental problems, right every wrong and punish every evildoer.

It's mesmerizing and easy to be fooled by a smooth-talking candidate. He tells us it won't cost us anything - the money will come from ending war and making the evil rich pay taxes.

I imagine that's the sort of rhetoric that led to the rise of the Soviet Union and Communist China. Since they don't really teach history in the schools anymore, I suppose most of the foolish people worshiping at Obama's feet don't know anything about such things.

It seems we're all about to get a firsthand look at what happens when Socialist/Communist politicians take control of government. Maybe I'll get to spend my golden years in some Alaskan Gulag where the Obama government hopes to get my mind right.

Sounds chilly.

Stupid Pop Culture

While flying home this weekend, the flight attendants were discussing the Sex in the City movie that must have just hit theatres. They were gushing over it, talking about how the women cheered and clapped. They also said the vast majority of people in the theatre were women, with only a few unhappy boyfriends that got dragged in and some gays.

As an actual guy, I clearly don't get it. And if you're guessing I won't be caught anywhere near that movie, you can bank on it.

I admit I've never invested time in the HBO series on which this thing was based, other than surfing past it enough to pick up my perception that it's a shallow, amoral, hedonistic and narcissistic portrayal of single women in New York. If it's anything close to an accurate portrayal of actual women in New York or anywhere else, well, I'm glad I'm not young and single.

Why can't there be movies that both men and women can see where they're cheering and applauding heroic or uplifting stories instead of a gang of NYC rich single sluts?

Just asking.

Misplaced Anger

Tell me whether any of this is factually untrue:

The United States has vast untapped oil reserves in Alaska and just off our coastlines.
We also have vast coal reserves that can be converted to a synthetic oil for well under half of today's market price.
There's oil shale in the west ready to be dug up and added to the oil supply.
Refinery capacity has been exceeded, forcing the US to import refined gasoline to make up the difference in demand.

I think I've got the facts right.

So why aren't we exploiting every possible option like those listed above to ease the burden on every one of us of $4 a gallon gas?

Because our own Congress won't allow it.

OK, so why haven't millions of Americans marched on Washington and blockaded Capitol Hill until our elected representatives finally pass changes to the laws that would permit us to use our own country's oil reserves?

Could it be because the country is populated by idiots who think the high prices are nothing more than "big oil" greed? The same idiots that will vote for Barack Obama, thinking when he slaps down those greedy oil companies with confiscatory "windfall profits taxes", that will somehow bring back $1 gasoline?

In the meantime, the same congress mandates most of our food go to making ethanol, driving food prices through the roof and starving people all over the third world. And they're proud of that!?

The congress and their elitist minders try to tell us that we will just stop using gasoline when the new "alternative" fuels are ready? Does anybody out there drive a car or truck that will run on any of these mythical "alternative" fuels? No, the only way we get to move to, say, a Hydrogen Fuel Cell or Electric vehicle is to buy one after they come on the market.

Who but the elites will have the cash to pay, what, double? triple? the price of a gas-powered new car if and when these amazing new vehicles appear?

Does anybody out there have a brain?

What, me worry?

Worry is a waste of emotional energy, but many of us do it anyway.

How much time is spent stewing about things that might or might not happen? I wonder, if someone were to keep track of everything they worried about for a year, what percentage of those worries actually came to pass? And those that did, were the consequences worthy of the amount of time and emotional energy spent worrying about them?

I wonder how often our worries become self-fulfilling prophecies?

Sure, it's easy for me to point out a number of very legitimate worries in my own life. After all, I'm self-employed with no guarantee I'll have enough work to pay the bills. Health insurance is a nightmare. I'm one lawsuit or accident or illness away from bankruptcy.

I'm pretty sure this year's elections will install a government that will be hostile to business. The new President and congress are most likely going to be socialists who may damage the economy enough to dry up my business, not to mention will probably raise taxes to a level I can't sustain.

But do I lose sleep over all that? Ha! Me, lose sleep? You probably don't know me if you think that.

Sure, I think about those things sometimes. I also have a variety of concerns about my family. But I don't let any of it dominate my thoughts or interfere with my day.

I've learned this simple truth about worrying. There's absolutely nothing worry can do to help avoid something bad. If you work hard and pay attention to detail, you've already done all you can to keep the bad things you can control from happening. All that's left are the bad things you can't control. If those happen, you just deal with them. Worrying didn't help.

So now the economy has slowed considerably, and it's beginning to show in my business activity. Sure, I'm concerned, and it is only prudent to begin thinking about what options I should consider if things slow down to the point where I have to close down. But I'm not worrying or stressing over any of it.

Maybe it's time to think about getting a job to tide me through to retirement anyway. All will work itself out in time.

Web Control

The various companies I visit in the course of my profession range across the entire spectrum when it comes to granting employees access to the internet.

At one extreme, I have a client that only allows web access to Managers and above. They won't even give email to the rest of their staff.

At the other extreme are clients who place no restrictions at all on their employees related to internet activities. However, I believe some of those clients do monitor web activities of employees and will deal with excessive browsing or visits to inappropriate sites.

For me, the restrictive companies seem counterproductive. I've directly observed the inefficiency of being unable to communicate with staff members in the company that denies all web access to employees.

Many companies restrict access to certain types of sites, such as game sites, porn sites, social networking sites and blogs.

It reminds me of when an old employer of mine implemented a no-smoking policy. Employees could not smoke in the office, but could only smoke in designated outdoor smoking areas.

There was a high percentage of smokers in the operations department. Since it was a trucking company, those employees were responsible for taking customer and driver calls, coordinating pickups and deliveries and giving instructions to drivers.

So the smoking ban sent those folks outside for their nicotine fix. Problem was that they were spending almost as much time away from their post on smoke breaks as at their desk performing their duties. Naturally, their non-smoking co-workers became offended by a perceived special treatment that allowed the smokers much longer and more frequent breaks.

Of course, technically those smokers were not permitted any more or longer breaks than anyone else. They simply were taking them on their own initiatives to feed their nicotine addictions.

So rather than dealing with the problem by cracking down on enforcement of scheduled breaks, their managers decided to rescind the non-smoking policy for that department. By allowing the smokers to resume their habits at their desks, important calls were no longer missed and business went back to normal.

One little problem with their approach to that problem: People were hired during the non-smoking policy under the promise of a smoke-free workplace. Some of those people were intolerant of cigarette smoke with specific respiratory problems. Guess what happened when the managers of the operations department rescinded the non-smoking policy.

I think restriction of web access for employees is something of a parallel to the smoking ban. Shutting down web access is lazy management. Managers don't want the responsibility or the conflict of having to deal with an employee who might be abusing the priviledge of web access at work, so they choose to shut it down completely.

I like to listed to web radio at work, which is blocked by many companies. Perhaps if it's blocked due to a possible bandwidth problem, I could see the logic of that policy.

But otherwise, employees should be treated like adults. Tell them up-front that they will have web access, but are expected to limit web browsing and avoid inappropriate sites. If they visit inappropriate sites or their web browsing affects their job performance, they will be verbally warned the first time, receive a written warning to go into their Personnel file the second time, and will be terminated the third time.

Very simple, but lazy managers don't want to be bothered.

Supreme Insight

What was most troubling for me about the Supreme Court decision to uphold Indiana's voting identification law was that three justices actually dissented.

As I do with any issue, I searched for arguments on the side against the law, which simply requires voters to present a photo ID when they arrive at the precinct to vote in an election. If someone shows up without a photo ID, they can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted as long as the individual shows up at the courthouse within 10 days to prove they are who they claim and are indeed eligible to vote. In addition, anyone who doesn't have a drivers licence may obtain a free photo ID from the BMV with proof of citizenship.

The ACLU and their Democrat Party allies brought the suit against Indiana, claiming it would disenfranchise a substantial number of poor voters who don't have a valid photo ID.

Naturally, my question for them was, who exactly? I searched in vain for an answer to that simple question. The only people I could think of that could possibly be affected negatively by the law are the Amish, who have a religious objection to having their photos taken. Since Indiana dealt with that issue long ago when it came up in a licensing law for their buggies, I'm pretty sure the Amish issue is addressed. Even if it's not, my knowledge of the Amish would seem to indicate they would be more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, so I'm also pretty sure the ACLU wasn't trying to protect their voting rights.

So the court essentially said that there was no evidence presented that identified a single voter who was unreasonably denied their right to vote because of this law.

News reports also said there also was very little evidence presented suggesting any widespread voter fraud, which the voter ID law was designed to stop. I am curious about that, but suspect the reason is because any effort to find voter fraud is certain to result in angry charges of "disenfranchisement" and "harrassment".

Stories have abounded here in Indiana for years about busloads of people in Indianapolis and Gary and East Chicago being ferried around to the various precincts by Democrat Party officials. According to the stories, at each precinct, each person on the bus is handed a name, which is the name they assume when they enter and sign in at the precinct. They cast their votes and move on to the next precinct, where the process is repeated.

Also often repeated are the stories about Democrats registering illegal immigrants and taking them to the polls to vote as well. Poll workers often report hispanics who obviously can't speak English signing in and voting. It's not too difficult to figure out that someone who can't speak English is almost certainly not a citizen.

So the only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that the real objection to Indiana's voter ID law is that these longtime Democrat practices of fraudulent voting will be mostly stopped.

Which is the reason I'm very troubled that 3 Supreme Court justices actually dissented. What that tells me is that those 3 justices could care less about the constitution or rule of law, and are unqualified to hold their positions on the court.

Just a brief reminder to those who are ready to vote for Hillary or Barack; those 3 unqualified justices will almost certainly be joined by 2 to 3 more just like them within the next few years should either of those Democrats win the Presidency. If they can't get a clear-cut ruling like this one right, imagine what havoc they can create for our country if they are able to become the majority of the court.

Academic Freedom?

I had a chance to see the Ben Stein film, Expelled.

Rather than summarizing the film here, I'll just suggest you go see it yourself. For me it clarified an issue that had intrigued and puzzled me before.

Now that I know what Intelligent Design actually is, I have perhaps a better perspective on why it is so loudly vilified and excoriated by academics.

The larger story is about academic intolerance. Academia has become the home for left-wing radicalism, and Ben Stein's exploration of the big flap about ID is merely a single example.

How many times have you heard the phrase,

The science on this matter is settled.

or

This is the consensus of the scientific community.

If you are a scientist who dares question one of these "settled" or "consensus" hot button issues, you do so at the risk of your career.

How can you be denied tenure? By sexual harrassment of students in your class? Probably not. By pointing out the flaws in Darwin's Origin of the Species? In a heartbeat.

How can you be fired from your position in government or even The Weather Channel? By pointing out the flaws in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? Unemployment line, here we come.

How many scientists have lost tenure or research funding at our universities only because they've tried to stay true to the mission of science; which is to always question and explore? I'm not sure anybody knows for sure, but Ben Stein seems to suggest it's widespread and endemic.

I wonder how much this academic intolerance spills over into other courses of study? If biologists and climatologists are not permitted to pursue their professions unless they toe the party line, how about others? Are musicians, historians, engineers, chemists also required to fall into lockstep with the Marxist politics of today's universities if they hope to attain and keep their tenured positions?

It would seem so.

Messianic

Starting Saturday, when I returned home from my last work trip, through today, the local Republic newspaper has been running one fawning story after another on Barack Obama. The candidate visited Columbus last Friday and spoke at East High School.

All the newspaper articles, dominating the front page through the weekend and continuing to take space on Monday and Tuesday, have been uniform in their worship of the Democrat candidate from Illinois. They feature quotes from teachers and students, local Democrat politicians and activists, all gushing over Senator Obama. The praise for the candidate is so over the top that one would believe he is a Messianic figure. The star-struck supporters believe he will end war, end poverty, end racial divisions, and right all wrongs.

What's interesting is that there is not a single word in any of the articles from Obama's opponents, whether from supporters of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Which brings me to wish for a visit from John McCain.

If such a visit were to take place, how much would you be willing to bet on something I think would be inevitable? That the Republic's coverage of the event would be remarkably different. I'd bet that the newspaper would first of all restrict their coverage to the day after the event, rather than the next 5 days. I'd also bet that the articles would be much less star-struck, and would be salted heavily with negative comments from local Democrat Party activists.

Too bad it's an empirical study that won't be possible. But I'm guessing nobody will be willing to take me up on my bet.

The other striking observation I made after reading every one of the newpaper articles was their total lack of coverage of Obama's actual policy proposals. I found it hilarious that one of the Obama worshippers interviewed gushed about how clearly he stated his positions on important issues. The natural question arising from that quote was, "and what positions were those, exactly?".

All that newsprint, and somehow the Republic managed to forget to share with us the specifics of Obama's policies. Aside from the famous Obama stuff about "hope" and "change". Or was it "change" and "hope"?

Have we really become so shallow and ignorant as a people?

Thought Police

Homosexual behavior is deviant and morally wrong.

By posting the above statement in this public forum, I have now subjected myself to the sanctions of a very real Thought Police.

If I were a holder of public office, I could be driven from that office because I wrote that sentence. If I were to decide to run for public office in the future, that sentence in the blog post would most certainly be used against me by political rivals to ascribe a wide range of horrible and untrue characterizations of my beliefs.

If I were an employee of one of a list of certain corporations, I would be subject to sanctions or possibly termination, should a co-worker report my posting of that sentence to management. A gay co-worker would likely be successful in charging me with sexual harassment for that one-sentence statement.

It is even conceivable that this blog could be blocked or flagged as one containing offensive material because of that sentence.

For evidence, a relevant case. It's from Canada, which is admittedly well to the left of the United States on the liberal scale.

During my rather long wait for my flight out of Toronto yesterday, I spent some time watching the news reports on the flat screen television next to my gate. The lead story was about a member of the Canadian parliament who had been embarrassed by a 17 year old video in which he reportedly made offensive remarks about homosexuals.

The report showed clips from the video without sound, but did not provide any information about what the unfortunate politician actually said. His remarks from the old video were simply characterized as insensitive, intolerant, hurtful, and offensive. The reporter, who could be reasonably described as exhibiting the appearance and mannerisms consistent with the homosexual community, seemed emotionally involved in the story, reporting that "people" were terribly upset by the remarks and wanted the offending politician to resign his office.

The politician made a very public, very humble apology on the floor in front of the entire assembly, but of course it made little or no difference to his political foes and the reporter.

A contextual hint in the story was that the video was made during a party 17 years ago. Although no attempt was made in the report to put the fellow's comments in context, it seems reasonable to consider they could have been an off-color joke or a drunken faux-pas. Maybe he was simply stating something similar to the opening sentence in this post. The reporters of the story have no curiosity about any of that.

Here's where we've arrived. We live in a society where one is more likely to be severely punished for their words than for their actions. The idea is further illustrated by the modern prevalence of "Hate Crime" laws, where a crime is punished severely only if the perpetrator can be presumed to have committed the crime because of hatred of the victim because the victim belonged to a specific interest group.

Have sex with an intern, commit perjury about it and persuade others to lie about it in court? No problem, assuming you're of Liberal persuasion. Say something that might offend someone who is a member of an aggrieved interest group? Off with his head! (Assuming you're of Conservative persuasion.)

Gotta go now. I think the cops are knocking on my door.

Throwing things at CNN

Why do I let it get to me? Whenever I go to Canada, my only source for news is CNN. Even knowing that CNN is the United States' modern equivalent to the Soviet Pravda, I watch anyway. Eventually after awhile I can't stand it anymore and turn it off or turn to something else.

This week I decided to try an experiment. On the news programs, whenever they did a segment on politics and the presidential race, I decided to try keeping track of some basic questions:

Did they spend more time on Democrats or Republicans?
Did they present any usable information about candidates' stands on issues?
Did they tend to be positive or negative in reporting about each candidate?

Here's what I gathered, between their morning program with John Roberts and Kieren Chetra (sp?) and Wolf Blitzer's program in the evening.

From a time perspective, they spend more time talking about Hillary and Barack than about McCain. My estimate on the ratio is about 4 to 1.

Issues? No. I learned nothing about any candidates' positions on issues. With the two Democrats all they talked about the fighting between the Obama and Clinton campaigns and fretted about how it was bad for the Democrat party. I laughed in one segment where they had all their "policital analysts" on, not one of them a conservative, and the "analysts" let slip more than once an "us" or "our" when referring to the Democrat party.

When they talk about the flaps over Barack's pastor or Hillary's big Bosnia lie, they are mostly focused on urging the campaigns and the rest of the media to shut up about both. They fret openly that the big fights on the Democrat side might open the door to a McCain victory, which they have made clear is their vision of Hell on Earth.

Interestingly, the only policy stuff I got to hear was a sound bite from McCain. He was talking about why he feels it is so important not to abandon Iraq at this critical time. I thought, "wait for it..." and they didn't disappoint. They brought in their "panel", the most vocal of whom was their own communist curmudgeon Cafferty, who pretty much just made fun of McCain's stance and denounced him as just another George W. Bush. With nobody even giving a thought to offering a counter argument to his rants.

Policy information about Obama and Clinton? None. Nada. Oh sure, platitudes like Obama's continued themes on "hope" and "change". And general vague statements about Hillary's wonderful plan to fix Healthcare. Nothing of substance.

No wonder Canadians have such a skewed view of the US. CNN being their only source for US news, they have no idea how badly CNN and their media cousins distort things, let alone that there are actually points of view on current events that strongly differ from those so carefully propagandized at CNN 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Nobody Left for Hoosiers

It was exciting to have four Indiana schools in the NCAA basketball men's tournament. Unfortunately with the end of Easter weekend, none of the four have made it through to the Sweet 16.

Least surprising to me was Indiana University. The wheels came off that team when the Sampson scandal broke, and the team that played Arkansas this weekend barely resembled the team we saw pre-scandal. That team would have beaten Arkansas soundly, although they would have needed an inspired game to advance past North Carolina.

But the Indiana team that took the court against Arkansas probably didn't even deserve an entry into the tournament. They flatly aren't very good. They lost their energy and aggressiveness, which shows up on both defense and offense. Defensively they were disappointingly easy for Arkansas to break down for wide open baskets. Offensively most of the team stood around and waited for DJ White or Eric Gordon to make a play. DJ made his share, but Gordon has looked shellshocked over the last half-dozen games.

Purdue had a very nice outing for their first game, but their talented freshmen couldn't catch up with a very good Xavier team. The future is bright for Purdue, which I expect to contend for the Big Ten title next season and probably go farther in the tournament.

Notre Dame had a disappointing collapse, dropping their second-round game to Washington State by 20 points. It's hard to say what happened to the Irish, which I believed to be a better team than they showed in that game. Nerves, perhaps?

Finally, the team with the best chance of the four to make it through to next weekend was Butler. Butler's effort against Tennessee cannot be faulted, but I was surprised at the number of missed layups by Butler in the second half. Sometimes it's possible to give too much effort, which results in things like missed layups.

It was still a great and exciting game to watch, with Tennessee matching Butler's intensity. So close, but Butler just caught some bad breaks, missed some layups, and had a critical non-call on what looked like a goaltend late in the overtime period.

So I've got no teams left in the tournament to follow. Although I've considered a temporary adoption of Davidson. There's an underdog team that's been fun to watch.

The sports desert of spring and summer is otherwise here. I lost interest in baseball after their last strike, and no other summer sports appeal. So there's not much for me to follow in sports until football starts again at summer's end.

More on Root Causes

I've been on this theme lately of boiling problems down to their root causes. The mental exercise keeps expanding until I get to the root of all root causes. And the most obvious root causes for most of our modern problems can be found in our culture.

So much is evident from just simply reading the newspaper or watching television. Our society is now driven on a cultural phenomenon of narcissism.

Just a few examples.

The typical Obama supporter is drawn to the man's charisma. Some support him because of his race. But most support him because they think they'll get something for themselves out of his presidency. They hope it will be "free" healthcare, or higher wages, or debt forgiveness, or just simply the prospect he will slap rich people with high taxes to cut them down to size, then somehow give the money to those more deserving. Like the Obama supporters.

I read an article the other day about religion. It said most Americans still believe generally in the Judeo-Christian God, and consider themselves Christian. But an incredibly high percentage of Americans don't belong to a church. Many others have "shopped" churches until they find the one most palatable to their needs and desires. It seems to begin to explain the rise of the non-denominational megachurches, which don't adhere to any specific doctrine, but preach feel-good sermons about self-actualization.

Christians often call this massive and growing group "Cafeteria Christians". They like to choose just those elements of faith that make them feel good. Love and fellowship and forgiveness are embraced, but put aside uncomfortable things like sin and charity.

Then there's the occasional interview with some celebrity or another talking about their latest divorce. It fascinates me to hear them speak of ending a marriage as if they merely replaced an old pair of shoes.

A very apt observation I was given is that people used to pursue a profession to make a living. Now they pursue their professions to get rich.

It is an historical truth that when societies reach a high level of prosperity and peace, they tend to abandon the virtues that bought them that prosperity. Eventually the barbarians invade and the society is ruined.

It seems to me the question is not whether this will happen. In fact, the barbarians are already knocking at the gates. I find it fascinating that so many are either ignoring that fact or even campaigning to open the gates wide and let them all in. They actually desire the destruction of our country, but somehow think they can escape such destruction unscathed.

There are tough times ahead.

Economic Cycles

There is a natural cycle that trends up and down in the economy, which I've observed several times over my lifetime. Now that it's the political season, we hear lots of doom and gloom over the current slump.

The news media, shallow partisans as they happen to be these days, would have us believe the economic problems should all be hung on their public enemy #1, George Bush. But as we analyze some of the root cause problems, how many of them are Bush's fault?

Energy Prices. Why is oil over $100 a barrel and gas over $3 at the pump? Because of the Iraq war?
Partly, but it's a much deeper problem than that. I caught a report yesterday that basically said there isn't a supply and demand problem, but a problem with the US Dollar. So if you want to blame Iraq as a contributory factor to the out-of-control spending of our government that has weakened the dollar significantly, you would be partly right. But to do so would fairly need to include the Senate and House, where both Republicans and Democrats have spent wildly and irresponsibly over the past decade and contributed to the currency problem.

Credit Crisis. Why the big crisis that started with mortgage defaults and is apparently now extending into consumer credit? Is Bush responsible?
If you consider Bush's clearly stated goals of opening home ownership to the population as the reason, that might be partly correct. But did he force lenders to open up the subprime market as they did, leading to mortgages granted to a huge population that truly could not qualify? Who is really culpable in the mess, where unqualified borrowers were given adjustable and teaser rate mortgages that would increase beyond their ability to pay in two or three years?
Sure, the lenders are culpable. So are the borrowers, who should have known better. And even the government, which put pressure on lenders to make loans to high-risk borrowers because of their race.

Consumer Confidence. Who created the fear among consumers that has caused most of them to reduce spending? High energy prices contributed. But the biggest contributor was the media, so anxious to report hour-by-hour for the last two years that the economy's headed for the tank. Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? This is a terrific example.

You may recall there was a short recession at the end of the Clinton presidency, although it received almost no press coverage until after Bush was inaugurated. Then, of course, they immediately began hammering Bush as if he caused the recession instead of inherited it.

Then you also might recall that Bush got his tax cuts through congress and the economy improved dramatically. That also was barely reported. Just in time for 9-11. The economic slump that resulted from that event was very predictable, but again, we recovered in remarkable fashion.

Can the next president impact the length and depth of this recession?

I think only on the margins. If the president can get congress to spend less and tax less, that should improve the value of the dollar. Also, if the president can inspire confidence among the population to go out and start buying things again, that will help as well. But that's about it.

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.