How Fair are Elections?

The rulings in the Minnesota case of the Senate election contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken would appear to grant the seat to Franken. I've read as much as I can find on the interesting race, recount, and subsequent legal challenge. My conclusion is that Franken will get the seat, not because he polled more Minnesota votes, but because he had a more aggressive legal team and stronger Democratic machine behind him.

The best analysis of the whole controversial election can be found at powerlineblog.com. I'll try to summarize the essential story on my own.

The election ended with Coleman ahead by only a few hundred votes. The recount required by statute was completed by each county election board, with an aggressive and well-funded team of Franken lawyers looking over their shoulders. Apparently, Coleman's camp was much less aggressive, and somehow the recount tipped the scales to a razor-thin margin for Franken.

Coleman's court contest of the election focused on the fact that Democrat dominated counties deviated from Minnesota state law in counting ballots, while Republican dominated counties held to the letter of the law. In other words, if an absentee ballot was not filled out, signed, and filed per Minnesota election law, the Democrat electors often counted it anyway, while Republicans did not.

Stories have surfaces throughout the process of precincts turning in more votes than they had registered voters; a couple hundred ballots suddenly turned up in a Democrat elector's trunk a couple of days after the election and were counted, even though 100% of those ballots happened to be marked for Franken; and another hundred-some votes were run through the machine twice at a Democrat precinct.

The election court ruled that about 400 previously rejected ballots were to be counted, but I haven't found the specific reasons why they were rejected or why they now must be counted. Those ballots apparently added another 100 votes net for Franken.

So Coleman is appealing to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the case could eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court. Coleman's argument is that the process violated Equal Protection under the Law, because Democrat precincts were allowed to count ballots technically in violation of election law while Republican precincts followed the letter of the law. Coleman's case says that the local election boards were allowed to use their own judgement, and the lack of uniform standards applied to which ballots were counted and which were not amounts to an unfair application of the law which clearly favored the Democrat candidate.

There is no provision in Minnesota law for remedies to this situation. There also is no way to review all of those votes that have already been counted to throw out those that were illegally cast. So the court's ruling decided that since the only legal remedy is not available, there is no remedy but to seat Franken on the basis of the 350 or so vote differential he currently holds. The problem with Coleman's suggested remedy, which is to include 4,000 rejected ballots to make up for the fact that the Democrat precincts counted some significant but unknown number of ballots with the same flaws, is that the remedy would actually cause Minnesota's laws to be broken in order to count them.

Of course, there's the whole other issue in Minnesota of voting fraud. Everyone has by now heard of Obama's ACORN machine's vote fraud activities, which were just as prevalent in Minnesota as anywhere. Minnesota hasn't implemented Indiana's solution to voting fraud, simply requiring voters to show a valid identification when they appear at the polls.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of college students from Wisconsin fraudulently registering and voting, along with illegal immigrants, convicted felons, dead people, fictional characters, and other well-publicized tricks so favored by that party.

But again, there is no law on the books in Minnesota that permits or even makes possible a review of fraudulently cast votes. If somebody showed up at the polls and voted, or submitted an absentee ballot filled out properly, whether or not the voter was eligible matters not.

So can it be said that Franken won fairly? I don't think so.

Then there's the prosecutorial misconduct discovery against Ted Stevens in Alaska. His charges were dropped and his conviction overturned, and the prosecutors in that case may be prosecuted themselves. The FBI agent who uncovered this misconduct may have uncovered a broad Democrat conspiracy that caused the overzealous prosecution with the goal of gaining the magical filibuster-proof majority for the party.

And the New York race that is apparently still to close to call is another to be monitored to see whether we actually have free and fair elections in this country. Could it be that we've already become like China, Cuba, or the old Soviet Union, where elections are predestined by the ruling party?

Possibly.

I seem to have started something

So the editorial has taken a life of its own. This Sunday there was a response, and today there were two more.

The guy who wrote the original letter that elicited my response sent in a rebuttal. Well, sort of. Interestingly, he seemed to capitulate from his original assertion that the old free market system is dead (hallelujah!). I got a chuckle because his attempt at rebuttal was pretty feeble.

He backpedaled and tried to say he wasn't suggesting socialism, just "reasonable" regulation. Then he reverted back to his straw man, trying to suggest that those free marketeers he was railing against wanted to do away with all government oversight. His examples, such as social security, unemployment insurance and antitrust laws, were laughable. Nobody I've heard on the capitalist right has ever seriously suggested anything more than reform of those programs. Not to mention that he completely missed my comment about lack of enforcement of antitrust law at the root of these institutions deemed "too big to fail".

I guess I won the argument without even trying very hard. But since when is it my job to put forward such arguments? Don't we have so-called "leaders" who are supposed to do that? I'm just a lowly software consultant who lives in the boonies.

Unfortunately, the other two guys writing on the topic were not easy to decipher. I'm pretty sure both of them were generally supportive of my thesis, but they probably should stick to their day jobs.

I don't think it necessary to write in again, at least not on that topic.

Solving Terrorism

When it comes to solving problems, I've learned that the first rule is to understand and deal with the root cause. Unfortunately, most people can't solve big problems because they try to fix the symptoms, missing or ignoring the underlying disease.

When considering the problem of Muslim terrorism, we see the Great and Powerful OB in full "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" mode. Not only is he trying to deny the very existence of Muslim terrorism, he pretends to ignore the elephant in the room. That elephant being the fact that the root of Muslim terrorism is the very existence of the State of Israel.

Hamas used the naive institution of "Democracy" in the Palestinian territories to gain political power. Hamas has made no attempt to hide its strong commitment to eradicate Israel and kill every non-Muslim in the region.

The simple conclusion is that the terrorists dedicated to that cause, supported by oil-rich Iran, Syria, and a quiet Saudi Arabia, will never accept any negotiated peace. They've promised their followers to never participate in the two state solution pushed by Clinton and Bush, and presumably supported by the Great and Powerful OB.

So what's the answer?

There's only one practical solution (Unless you consider running away and hiding from the problem a solution). An enforced peace. Pax Americana, if you will.

Get a coalition of allies to partner with the United States to force peace in the region. Here's how it works:

Freeze the borders where they are today. Palestinians can have a semi-autonomous state within the borders of the current Palestinian Territories. They can elect their own civil government, assess taxes, and handle the day-to-day administration of their state. Israel's borders are permanently set; no more negotiations or pressure on Israel to give more land for peace (like it's ever worked anyway).

Jerusalem belongs to neither state. The holy city belongs to the world. Citizens of Jerusalem may hold dual citizenship in Jerusalem and their country of origin. It will be extremely difficult for someone not already living and working in Jerusalem today to become a citizen. The US-built coalition commits to proving security in Jerusalem for 20 years, renewable if necessary at that time. Any Jerusalem citizen convicted of a violent crime faces eviction and loss of citizenship, as well as a lifetime ban from ever entering the city again.

The coalition will also provide a substantial number of troops to secure and protect each state. The troops will bring a martial law to the Israel-Palestinian border areas, cracking down on all cross-border violence. The martial law will last until the violence stops, then a gradual draw-down and handover of security to the respective governments will take place.

Any trouble-making by Iran will be dealt with harshly by the coalition. The message to Iran is this: "Stop supporting terrorism, do not deploy nuclear weapons, and we'll leave you alone. Continue those destructive actions and we'll crush you."

It might sound harsh, but it's true. The beauty of this idea is that it can be delivered to the parties as a sort of ultimatum: Either get together and negotiate your own peace deal, or peace will be imposed on you as of a date certain.

The belief in a diplomatic solution to this problem is pure fantasy.

Worse than I Thought

I stumbled across this article today. Even though I knew there was a problem, I didn't actually understand the scope until seeing these statistics.

The unhappy truth is that Catholics are ignorant about their own faith. My experience through just casual conversations with fellow parishioners seems to confirm this fact. The survey is particularly shocking in the number of Catholics who have no problem with abortion, divorce, and adultery.

As a convert from the Brethren Church, the most striking difference I've noted, with some disappointment, is the fact that Roman Catholics focus all of their faith formation on the children. Adults, for the most part, either never actually learned anything in their childhood catechism, or have forgotten.

Although my childhood Protestant church certainly has plenty of flaws, one thing I think they understand well is that study of the faith is a lifelong endeavour. Sunday School, Bible Study, various men's and women's service groups, and unending pitch-in dinners build better understanding of the faith as well as strong connections between the congregants.

It's disappointing to see that young adults leave the church behind. There are many underlying reasons, I think:

Too few overworked priests, among whom too many choose to ignore Catholic values and teaching.

A public education system that is committed to driving faith and religion out of every child.

Popular Culture that hammers a secular "anything goes" message every hour of every day.

Political Correctness, which demands no one "judge" another's chosen behavior and "lifestyle choices".

The culture's successful effort to confuse people on the difference between tolerance and permissiveness.

The popular idea that the Church is a staid, stuffy, rules-obsessed institution full of phonies.

I think that a positive sign is in the young priests who are gradually working their way into the parishes. Many of these energetic young men have embraced the Church's foundational tenets and appreciate its history. Perhaps they are the best hope of revitalizing the Church in these difficult times.

Still Unsure

The letter got published yesterday (Sunday, 3/29), somewhat surprisingly in its entirety and as the only letter to the editor appearing in that edition.

I was somewhat surprised to get phone calls and messages from people who read it and wanted to express their appreciation. Fortunately there were no calls expressing the opposite sentiment.

Whether or not it was a good idea I still am not sure. But I don't expect to attract much attention. Sticking my neck out still might invite the axe. Whether or not I submit more letters in the future remains to be seen.

Sticking My Neck Out

I had to respond to a letter to the editor in today's newspaper (Columbus Republic), although now that I have, I'm wondering whether it was a good idea.

Oh well, too late now. Here's what might be showing up in the paper in the next few days.

To: editor@therepublic.com
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 10:45:54 AM
Subject: Freedom

Dear Editor:

Tom Lane's straw man case about the uncaring and unfeeling free market invites a thoughtful response.

Yes, the idea of free markets has no regard for persons. Free markets choose winners based on qualities like ingenuity, productivity, and creativity. Efficient free markets led to an unprecedented run of prosperity for America over the last 25 years or so.

Was it the free market capitalist system that led to the suffering we are all experiencing with today's economic meltdown?

No.

Irresponsible behavior by companies in a free market rightly leads to their failure, after which they are replaced by more responsible and better-run companies. In the case of the current economic crisis, the systemic failures can be laid at the feet of government.

The blame rests with both political parties, who actively encouraged financial firms to over-leverage themselves with extremely risky investments, while conveniently forgetting about existing antitrust law that should have guaranteed there were no American companies "too big to fail". Ironically, the very same congressional players most responsible for creating these conditions remain in charge of the "recovery".

Tom does not propose an alternative solution to the free market capitalist system, so I must assume he supports the socialist alternative, which the ruling party is quick-marching us to as I write this letter.

America was founded on the fundamental principle of freedom. The inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness remain the heart and soul of what has been the most successful and prosperous nation in world history.

Tom's leaders have demonstrated their disdain for these principles. Radical changes either already passed into law or working their way through our one-party ruling class guarantee a laundry list of abrogations to these founding principles.

Our freedoms are being rapidly replaced with a paternalistic government that will dictate how much money we can earn, whom we must hire and may fire, which medical treatments and procedures we are permitted and which are dictated to be performed and funded without regard to moral objection, what we may eat or drink, what sort of car we may drive, what property we may own and how we may use that property, how much of our accumulated wealth may be passed to our heirs, and perhaps even what we are permitted to think, believe, and say in public.

Mr. Lane's straw man of an unfettered capitalism forming the root cause of today's economic ills seems to be covering up the fact that the cure is much worse than the disease. His ideological alternative will confiscate from the productive and give to the non-productive, skimming a healthy amount off the top for the new ruling class of government apparatchiks.

My humble suggestion for a better way out of our economic mess is, rather than "bail out" the irresponsible players and sell our country to the Chinese to finance opportunistic national transformation into a leftist utopia, perhaps we should rely on ourselves and each other. How can a government that is proven corrupt and more adept at creating problems than solving them suddenly be trusted to manage some of our largest and most important industries, let alone each of our individual lives?

Let the bad players in the market fail, and sell them off piece by piece to more responsible companies instead of nationalizing them under government-appointed political operatives. Encourage invention and innovation by entrepreneurs to provide plentiful, cheap, clean energy, instead of nationalizing the energy industry and imposing painfully high consumer costs under the dishonest "cap and trade" policy. Fix the underlying problems that led to the high cost of healthcare to make it accessible and affordable for everyone, rather than simply adding cost and harming access by nationalizing that entire industry.

Tom and his half of the country live in an alternate universe, where it seems emotion rules and common sense is unwelcome.

Thank you,

Our 5 Year Old Leader

Little Barry got caught by his mother hiding in his room and stuffing cookies in his mouth from the cookie jar he managed to pilfer from the kitchen.

"But Mom!", Barry wailed, "Last week I saw Georgie take a cookie!".

Is 2010 Too Late?

Our only hope to halt the Obama transformation of America into Communism is to purge congress of his minions in 2010. But even that may be too late.

I don't make the Communist charge lightly. I've hesitated to do so until the preponderance of the evidence has proven the case. Obama's agenda clearly intends to nationalize commerce, build a welfare state, drive Christianity underground, and persecute political opponents.

After the election, I decided to wait awhile and see whether Obama was the extreme leftist ideologue I feared or a more moderate leader. I'm somewhat surprised that he's even worse than I ever expected. It's actually very difficult for me to find a single initiative he is pushing I can agree with, or even have no serious objection to.

He's the antithesis of everything I believe.

He's not only pro choice, but on the extreme fringe. He supports partial-birth abortion and abortion on demand without parental notification for minors, without waiting periods, without counseling, basically without restriction of any sort. As if that's not bad enough, he has proposed to force doctors and hospitals to perform abortions on demand, even if they have a personal moral objection.

He's incompetent and dangerous on foreign policy. Closing Gitmo without any plan for the prisoners held there, all appearances are that he will turn those terrorists loose in the United States. In only a couple of months, he's managed to insult our allies and embolden our enemies. We're becoming frighteningly vulnerable to new terror attacks in our own country, while he gives millions to Hamas and seems unconcerned about nuclear missiles in Iran and North Korea.

He is even more determined than Bush was to throw open the borders. There's a war happening in Mexico and spilling across our southern border, but he has no interest in protecting us from it. He can't wait to legalize millions of illegal immigrants so he can fold them into his new welfare state and add their votes to keep him in office.

He gutted the welfare-to-work policies that have been so successful to return us to the bad old days of generations eking out a living on the government dole.

He is looking forward to stacking the Supreme Court with leftist judges that will ignore the constitution to codify any parts of his agenda that he can't accomplish legislatively. Likely first on the docket will be the discovery of a new "right" to gay marriage. Then vast expansion of eminent domain powers as the government takes private property from citizens. The rulings will continue until the country is fully communist and individual freedoms are gone.

He found out that the "fairness doctrine" was highly unpopular, so he changed tactics to something called "localization" of radio station management. What that means is local boards will be appointed (by his party) to decide what subject matter is appropriate for the radio airwaves. All designed, of course, to get those people who oppose him, like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., off the air.

He is building local gestapo organizations under Homeland Security to "gather local intelligence on possible domestic terrorists". The definition of "domestic terrorists"? "Militia members", pro-life activists, Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, constitutionalists, evangelicals, etc. (Frightened yet?)

He is bankrupting the country. It can't be that he is ignorant of that fact, so the only logical conclusion is that his goal is to destroy the economy so he can build his new socialist utopia from the ashes.

May God have mercy on us all.

Twisted Logic, Twisted Morality

The article this morning was written by PBS' Bonnie Erbe, amplifying the outrage of the elitists against Pope Benedict's suggestion that free condoms aren't the solution to the African AIDS epidemic.

Bonnie piled on the Pope with charges that he was hopelessly ignorant for suggesting that responsible monogamy is the most effective and moral strategy for guaranteeing protection from the terrible virus.

She railed that African women are sold against their will into marriages with older men who have been sexually promiscuous and already infected. Those men refuse to use any protection against the disease, thus their young brides are sentenced to death when sold into these arranged slavish marriages.

Um, Bonnie, did you happen to notice that in your argument you actually confirmed the papal point that condoms aren't the answer? In your twisted logic defending the UN policy of distributing free condoms to Africans, you actually confirmed that it doesn't work; ahem, men refuse to use them.

It seems that your anger toward the pontiff may be based more on your distaste for Catholicism than any reasoned argument about the topic of AIDS prevention.

Studies have come up with about an 80% effectiveness rate in preventing STD's for those using condoms. Monogamy is 100% effective.

What's wrong with telling the truth, Bonnie? Given the facts and making a purely logical decision, would you feel safer practicing the 80% or the 100% prevention strategy? Would you knowingly have sex with someone who has AIDS if there's a 20% chance of infection, or would you take a pass?

Let's assume for argument's sake that your depiction of women enslavement to infected men is true. It's certainly tragic, if true. How exactly does it invalidate Pope Benedict's statement?

On another topic, what's the best way to stop an epidemic? Removing the infected from the general population can be pretty effective. Nobody really wants to do that, so the next best approach is to tell everyone to stop exchanging body fluids with people that may be infected.

I don't care whether you're approaching this topic from a religious perspective or not. The 100% effective strategy isn't that hard to comprehend. Why not educate everyone about it?

Pinochio

How fitting is the Pinochio story as an analogy for our own current dilemmas.

Pinochio and lots of other children were enticed to this place called Pleasure Island, where they could do whatever they wanted. Pleasure Island promised to fulfill all of their desires, while requiring no personal responsibility or adult supervision.

Of course, it all turned into a mirage, as Pinochio and his other misguided friends' excesses at Pleasure Island placed them into a stupor. The evil people who created Pleasure Island then were able to easily turn them into asses and enslave them.

Sound familiar? I suppose you might have a good guess at who runs America's Pleasure Island right now.

On another topic, I've been following the case of the election contest in Minnesota between Coleman and Franken. The vote counts are so close and the issues so complex that I'm convinced the only fair resolution is a runoff election.

Which of course is why there will not be a runoff election.

Ultimately the courts are going to decide the winner in this one. That's a shame.

It seems to me that all States should provide for a runoff in any election that has more than 2 candidates and the vote differential between the top 2 is less than, say, half a percent.

Apparently the Franken side is dead-set against a runoff, because they'd likely lose. I guess part of the reason it was so close, according to my friends in Minnesota, is that a third-party candidate siphoned off a significant number of what would otherwise have been Coleman votes. There seems to be a pretty major beef among Minnesotans toward Coleman, but I haven't got a clear understanding of the reasons. It must be pretty serious if it resulted in such a close contest with somebody as ridiculously unfit, amoral and corrupt as Stuart Smalley.

Perfect Storm Swamped Economy

60 Minutes isn't a program I've tuned into for quite some time, but I couldn't miss their story with Ben Bernanke. It was a fascinating story, where Bernanke was quite circumspect about the root causes of the worldwide crisis but pretty open about his belief in what solutions are best.

The chairman kept studiously away from political statements, but did point out that massive amounts of investment cash over the last dozen years or so drove the investment companies to find homes for that cash. Places like China and the oil-rich middle east were looking for safe places to invest their money with good return on investment.

My own expansion on that, based on extrapolation of other sources of information, is that these investment companies were highly motivated to find a home for all this investment cash. That motivation is what led to the bubble that burst last year.

When mortgage brokers have almost unlimited sources of cheap money to lend, they go looking for people to lend it to. The creation of the mortgage-backed securities market allowed them to package the risky mortgages with less risky mortgages and sell them to investment firms that really didn't know what they were buying.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were heavily invested in the bloated mortgage market, moving beyond their congressional mandate to insure every mortgage they could find. With the approval and encouragement of their congressional supporters, and to the extremely lucrative benefit of the Democrat operative CEO's who became very rich in bonuses.

So when the variable-rate subprime mortages converted from the teaser rates to the much higher market rates, the borrowers began to default in droves. Oil prices spiked due to a combination of prices bid up with concern over expansion of the Iraq war, OPEC production reductions, and American politicians shutting down domestic oil exploration and production.

The energy prices drove many marginal borrowers over the edge. Suddenly many areas of the country saw real estate values plunge, as underwater homeowners defaulted. Investors became very conservative, holding onto what cash they had left and abandoning the real estate and stock markets en masse. The stock market crashed, and an estimated one-third of American wealth has vanished.

The government has spent 2 trillion dollars it doesn't have, partially to keep the financial system afloat, which Bernanke believes has averted a second Great Depression. The new President is jumping on the opportunity ("we can't let a good crisis go to waste") to implement his vision of "change", which is taking the final steps away from a free and open society into a cradle-to-grave European-style socialist society.

The giant ship of the economy now seems to be slowly turning around, but will do so ever so slowly. Unfortunately, it is unlikely return to the prosperity of the 90's and 2000's anytime in the next decade. Perhaps never, as wealth redistribution in the last steps into socialism will ensure all will have to adjust to a new lower standard of living.

Alternatives

As the leftist government continues their quest to make the most of this good crisis, to paraphrase the White House Chief of Staff, the most common charge made against the weak opposition posed by the right is that they aren't offering substantive alternatives.

Although I'd have to agree that there is no visible leadership or coherent message coming from the Republican Party, I tend to think the charge is somewhat unfair; Republicans have been offering alternatives, but have been ignored by the media perhaps because the talking heads prefer to help the left make their point.

So if I were crafting public policy in this disastrous time, what would be my priorities?

In the short term, my priorities would be to turn around the economy. Here are the basics of my own economic recovery plan:

Temporary tax breaks for companies that hire Citizen employees. Tax increases for companies that hire foreign workers during the same time period.

A reduction in the Corporate Tax Rate, from today's 35% to maybe 15%.

A reduction in the Capital Gains Tax Rate.

Make sure the funds of depositors are insured, but stop bailing out financial institutions that made bad business decisions.

Allowing everyone to temporarily deduct their investment losses, at least equal to the amount of interest and dividend income for 2009.

Begin enforcement of Anti-Trust laws.

Step up the sale of leases for oil and natural gas development, making sure profits from the oil and gas production are shared.

Freezing all salaries for Federal employees for 2 years. Eliminating non-essential government programs. Forcing all Federal programs to prove they are meeting their express goals within 2 years or be closed. Freezing growth in all other government agencies budgets, unless growth is required for national security.

Long-term priorities:

Trade policies must be focused on free and fair trade. The US market will be open to the extent that the trading partner's market is open. A trade court will be established where US businesses can file complaints about unfair practices by foreign competitors; tariffs for imports from those competitors will be implemented for those cases proven by civil standards.

Welfare will be transformed away from today's transfer payments program to a non-cash assistance program. People who need food will be given food; if they need a place to stay, they can get a temporary place to stay; if they need a job, they will get a job with the government if a private job can't be found; if they need healthcare, they will get temporary insurance. A system designed to keep people dependent will be transformed into a system designed to help people become self-sufficient.

Healthcare will be transformed into a pay-for-service model and away from today's third-party payer system. Insurance for "major medical" must be accessible for everyone, so hospitalization and rehabilitation are covered when needed. Pay-for-Service for all routine medical care and prescription drugs will lower costs for all.

The military will remain the best and strongest and most technologically advanced in the world, but the mission will gradually change to a focus on defense of our own country. Foreign military interventions will be, by policy, limited to those cases where America's own security is directly threatened.

Illegal immigrants will be given 2 years to correct their status or face deportation. Anyone in the country illegally must return to their home country and apply for a "Green Card". The application for the permit requires the applicant present a notarized statement from the employer that will employ them, pass an English proficiency exam, and have committed no felonies. After the 2 year grace period, all employers will be forced to verify their employees' qualifications or face serious fines and/or prosecution for knowingly employing illegals. Illegal immigrants found in the country after that time, whether in routine traffic stops, arrests, or other means, will be deported to their home country within 48 hours.

Education will be transformed, with emphasis on strategies that work and a compensation system that rewards the best teachers. The best proven programs able to turn around at-risk students will be implemented wherever possible. However, the federal government will serve an advisory role only; each state has total control over their own educational systems and programs.

The First Amendment will once again reign supreme. No more persecution of people for their expression of religion or political opinion.

Notice my policies can't really be portrayed as either Democrat or Republican. I'm not a left-wing socialist like most Democrats, nor am I a free-trader at all costs like many Republicans. I believe in freedom and fairness. Fairness isn't taking wealth away from some citizens to give to others, nor is it giving unfettered government support and preference to big business.

The only way any of this stuff can happen is by a combination of a great awakening of the public to the truth of how business is done in Washington by both parties, and the election of people to national offices that put the country over their own desire for personal power.

You Sure We're Talking About the USA?

The concluding paragraph from John Hinderaker at Powerlineblog.com is chilling. He's talking about the ongoing election contest in Minnesota between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. And we thought such things couldn't happen in the United States, but only in third-world totalitarian regimes? I suppose not.

One more thing: Coleman didn't make this point, but Franken's lead is but a fraction of the number of votes that were illegally cast by illegal aliens, students from Wisconsin, and so on. If only qualified voters had been allowed to cast ballots, Coleman would have won by a margin far greater than Franken's razor-thin 225-vote lead. If Franken ultimately becomes a United States Senator, he will owe his seat to the Democratic Party's deliberate strategy, here in Minnesota as around the country, of facilitating voter fraud by frustrating all efforts to require voter identification.

Being Consistent

Ever notice the mind-boggling inconsistencies by our elites?

The old one that continues to be true, "Save the Whales. Kill the babies."

Some that I'm noticing:

Ban tobacco, legalize pot.

Rehabilitate and release rapists and murderers. Unless it was a "Hate Crime", then go ahead and throw the book at them.

Abortion pills are a right. Guns must be banned.

Religion is banned from all schools. Marxism is an important part of the curriculum.

Tolerance and diversity are to be celebrated. Except in the case of white Christians.

Everyone must be forced to reduce their "carbon footprint". Except for Al Gore, who has the companies that get the exclusive government franchise to enforce energy restrictions on everyone else.

Science rules. Except when it differs from our most firmly held beliefs.

Free healthcare is a right. But we get to decide what healthcare you can or can't have.

We are the World. Of course, we're just talking about China or France.

Raise taxes on the evil rich. Um, unless they're one of Us, Hollywood or other celebrities, or big donors to Us.

Equal Rights is our top priority. Except for white or asian hetero males.

The Age of Celebrity Worship

Apparently we're such a celebrity obsessed society that we can't tell the difference between celebrities and statesmen.

Obama is the Celebrity-in-Chief. He was elected largely on his looks, charisma, and speaking ability (albeit only with a teleprompter). Washington is awash in celebrities for the American people to gawk at and gush over. White house performances by celebrity musicians like Stevie Wonder and Earth, Wind & Fire seem to be developing into a regular occurrence.

Got a problem with Obama and his minions spending the country into bankruptcy? Stop being a wet blanket; gee, isn't Michelle's fashion sense just awesome?!

Brad and Angelina hit town, and everyone's ga-ga. I wonder what area of expertise they bring to congressional hearings? Whatever they say must be amazing and inspiring, right?

So I'm seeing Springsteen, Bono, Daryl Hannah, George Clooney, Robbins & Sarandon, and on and on, saying whatever stupid things might be on their minds and being hailed as prophets.

The country is now in the hands of people who make their livings trying to look good and pretending to be somebody else. But somehow this makes them smarter than the rest of us. I keep wondering whether there's fine print in the new tax laws that exempts them from that rich class of people who deserve to have their wealth taken away?

I'm sorry to suggest this, but it seems our citizens are now getting what they deserve. It's certainly what they asked for, whether they realized it at the time or not.

Socialism

Part of the argument being put forward against Obama's agenda centers around the undeniable fact that his policies are overwhelmingly Socialist in nature.

But America's been Socialist for a long time, with much of it established under the Father of American Socialism, FDR. The Great Depression opened the door for Roosevelt to implement federal socialism that has expanded over the generations into the entrenched socialist programs we take for granted today.

Social Security was sold as a national retirement savings and disability insurance plan. It's nothing of the sort, but merely a Ponzi scheme taking money from working families to give to retirees. Perhaps it served as the inspiration for Bernie Madoff.

How many of us rely on the government for at least part of our livelihood? Let me see if I can tick off some socialist programs without looking them up.

Seniors get a pension from Social Security.
Minor children receive benefits from Social Security if a parent died.
Sick or disabled people receive benefits from Social Security.
HUD gives housing assistance, either partial or full rent payments.
Food Stamps give groceries to families.
Medicare gives healthcare, and now prescription drugs, to people over 65.
Medicaid gives healthcare, drugs, and even taxi rides to the doctor for those who earn less than the threshold.
SCHIP gives healthcare to nearly all children not otherwise covered by employer plans.
State health insurance plans subsidize health insurance for people who can't buy insurance on the market as individuals and aren't covered by a corporate plan.
Farmers get subsidies for growing or not growing certain crops.
Companies get subsidies to help them sell their products outside the US.
Pro Sports teams get stadiums and team facilities built to keep them from leaving their city for another willing to build them a nicer stadium or better facilities.
Utilities are paid for people who can't afford them.
College Education is subsidized for many, mostly based on "need".
Roads, bridges, sewer systems, and utilities are provided to incent business to locate and/or stay in a community.

I've only scratched the surface. Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of providing any of these benefits for people. There are other, better, less costly ways to solve problems without citizens becoming wholly owned and controlled by the government.

Sure, Obama's put the pedal to the metal to implement deeply socialist and redistributionist policies. But if you think we're not already a socialist country, you must live in a cave somewhere.

Interesting Stuff

While traveling this week, I hit the 'Scan' button on the radio in my rental car, looking for something interesting. I found a few things.

Cruising down the highway, I stumbled on some guy named Mike Malloy, who within the first 5 seconds was unquestionably identified as an Air America type. I thought I'd listen for a bit to see how he spun the Obama agenda.

He had no interest in the Obama agenda. Actually, he didn't have anything at all to say about current events. He was obsessing with Bush. Angry that Pelosi didn't move impeachment forward before Bush left office, he was declaring his deepest hope that Bush and Cheney might still get locked up for their "crimes". He actually believes John Conyers' quest to hold hearings on the Bush administration will somehow satisfy his apparent one and only wish, the persecution and prosecution of the object of his most intense hatred.

Then I found it interesting to hear later in a snippet from another channel that the same Mike Malloy was having fun at the expense of Bobby Jindal. His sidekick was doing a caricature impression of Jindal, portraying him as an Indian phone center worker. The segment was repeated, and it was pretty shocking. More evidence of the double standard. Get a Limbaugh or Hannity doing this sort of racist stuff (which I've never heard them or anybody else on the right do, unless you think Imus is a right-winger), and everyone knows what would happen.

A second interesting piece was an interview with noted atheist Christopher Hitchens. He was attempting to make the case that religion in general, and Christianity specifically, is the root of all evil in the world. He supports the idea that government needs to drive religion from society.

What I found most interesting was that Hitchens' animus against Christians is tied to his observations of the bad behavior of some who profess to be members of the faith. That's something I have noticed in every atheist argument I've ever heard. At the root of their denial of even a possibility of the existence of God is the fact that some people who claim to be believers do evil.

Hitchens and others like him must have had a very bad experience in life, most likely in childhood, where a Christian adult mistreated them. It saddens me to find so many alienated from the Church because someone in that Church offended or mistreated them. It isn't fair to the true nature of the faith.

I would like to have asked Hitchens a few questions, like:

If there is no God, then who gets to define what's good and what's evil? You? Me? The Government?

Putting aside the evil done by people in the name of God, what is it about the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as documented in the four Gospels, do you find offensive?

By focusing on those who corrupt the Church for their own gain, you are ignoring the massive good done by Christians. Is there any group of people in the history of the world who have fed, clothed, educated, healed, and helped more people in need than Christians?

The modern examples of what happens to people in officially atheist countries clearly show millions murdered, imprisoned, and persecuted simply because they refuse to give up their faith. How can you suggest that these regimes are more desirable than the American nation that was founded on Christian principles and religious freedom?

When you die, consider that you come face to face with God and must come to grips with the fact you've willfully rejected Him? What would you say in your defense?

Hitchens doesn't know who I am, and would certainly not appreciate it, but I'm going to pray for him anyway.

Critical Thinking

In my continuing quest to influence somebody to use their brain just a bit, here are some basic questions to consider.

Is it better to have the government take money away from other people so you can have "free" medical care, which will include a government bureaucrat deciding what treatments and medications you may and may not have; or is it better to find ways to make medical care more affordable and available for everyone with minimal government meddling?

Whose rights are more important - those of homosexuals who want to get their "marriages" recognized and elevated to equal status with traditional marriage, or those of churches, clergy, and individuals of faith to avoid the force of government dictating for whom they may provide the marriage sacrament or employ as clergy, staff, or school teachers?

Would you prefer winners and losers in society to be chosen by the marketplace based on productivity, creativity, and industriousness, or chosen by the government based on race, sex or sexual orientation, and political affiliation?

Should taxes be taken by force of government from people to pay for programs they find morally represhensible?

Should individual health professionals be forced under threat of government sanctions to perform procedures or prescribe drugs they find morally reprehensible?

Should parents be denied the ability to raise their children according to their religious beliefs if those beliefs are in conflict with the government's philosophy? Does the government have the right to force children into government-run schools to insure they are indoctrinated into such philosophies?

Understanding that the big things in churches and charities get done because of generous contributions from the wealthiest among us, is it a good idea to remove all tax deductions for charitable contributions from those individuals?

Should the government give billions of taxpayer funds to organizations created for the express purpose of placing and keeping a single political party in power?

Is it more racist to strive for a truly color-blind society where anyone can succeed based on their individual merit and character, or to tell certain races that since society is somehow oppressing them, that they need to be jumped artificially to the top of the list for admission to medical or law school, given hiring preferences based on their skin color, and have the right to a government handout confiscated from working people?

If you think Global Warming is real and man-made, would it give you pause to find out that the "solutions" being implemented are designed to entrench socialist government control over your own use of energy, while enriching the proponents of these new policies (i.e. Al Gore) beyond your wildest imagination?

Does the government have the right to fund and encourage a counselor at your daughter's middle or high school to take her to an abortion clinic to vacuum out her developing fetus without your own knowledge or consent?

Is it OK to kill an otherwise viable child by collapsing its skull just before delivery simply because the mother decided she didn't want to be a parent? Is this a private matter between the mother and her abortion doctor, or first-degree homicide?

If you can't tell which political ideology I'm talking about in this post, perhaps you should try educating yourself. If you recognize the political party policies I've talked about above and don't believe I've represented their policies accurately, perhaps you need to educate yourself. If you recognize the political policies and still agree with them, please stay away, you're scaring me.

Freedom of Conscience

There's too much missing from today's story about Obama's order to rescind Bush Administration rules relating to permitting Doctors and Pharmacists to refuse certain treatments or prescriptions to patients on the basis of conscience. Does Obama actually in effect remove Freedom of Conscience from health professionals, or is his goal more aimed at stopping random blocking of prescription sales by an individual clerk at Wal-Mart?

My reading of available information would seem to indicate the former.

There was a reported controversy a couple years back about Pharmacists who were refusing to fill prescriptions of abortifacients. It was interesting to me at the time how the Left twisted the story in an attempt to suggest that these Pharmacists were suddenly refusing to fill all sort of prescriptions based on weird cultish religious beliefs. In reality, some Christian pharmacists were refusing to dispense the new abortion pills. There were no reports I'm aware of where any drugstore employees were randomly picking prescriptions they suddenly would stop selling to make some point or other. Nobody was refusing to fill ordinary birth control or controversial antidepressants or ADHD medications. Nonetheless, a few Pharmacists were apparently fired for refusing to sell abortifacients. And Bush's order was basically designed to protect the freedom of conscience of those Pharmacists.

Obama would appear to be removing that freedom, and stories I'm reading suggest his goal would extend beyond just denying Pharmacists any rights of conscience in dispensing abortion medications. If stories are correct, his new rules might extend even to OB/GYN's, forcing them to perform abortions on demand.

I'm not sure how that could be accomplished. None but totalitarian, fascist eugenicist governments would go so far as to confiscate a physician's license or otherwise deny his or her freedom to practice medicine because they refuse to perform the abortion procedure. Can it be possible that this is actually our new President's intent?

Don't panic just yet. We'll see how this plays out.

Thought Police

I find myself moving away from the active frustration and desire to influence people to pay attention to what's going on to just sitting back and trying to be a sort of detached observer.

I've noticed the Thought Police are alive and well and flexing their muscles. Dare to put voice to the fact that the "stimulus" bill is a disaster? Apparently you're a racist. Think it's a stupid idea to pump billions of dollars into banks that behaved badly, only to see them toss the money in their vaults and change behavior not at all? You must be an idiot who just doesn't get it. Wonder how exactly giving billions of dollars to a list of leftist interest groups helps the economy? You're a fascist. Oh yeah, and a racist.

Now I hear that Republicans don't just have a political ideology that's opposed to Democrats. Republicans are now just evil people. I'm finding out they're heartless, would happily let people starve and become homeless. They somehow oppress people with their bible-thumping religious beliefs; why, these Christians are much more dangerous than those Muslim terrorists, who are only trying to fight against evil American imperialism.

I'm rather surprised to discover I'm a mean and evil individual. I guess thinking that there are actually behaviors that are morally wrong, preferring to keep my individual freedoms without the government telling me what I can and can't do with my life, believing in God, and voting mostly Republican makes me a pariah.

When this sort of thing has happened in other places throughout history, it usually results in those people like me who don't have their minds right getting locked up. Or executed.

I wonder.

Whisper in the Wind

This blog is a metaphor for me standing on a mountaintop, whispering in the wind. Yet I persevere.

Tough times have just begun. I feel them personally and immediately, as do many others. So it was with a sort of resigned sadness I read the headlines this morning about the passing of the trillion-dollar social engineering bill falsely touted by the country's current leaders as "stimulus".

The bill is something like 1200 pages long. Perhaps nobody in Congress who voted, whether for or against, actually knows everything that's in it. There was no opportunity for them, the press, or the people to read it before it was rammed through by the Democrat leadership. Reportedly Obama will sign it without reading it either.

Republicans voted against it, except for the two ladies from Maine and the old fellow from Pennsylvania. But they've seldom shown any conservative tendencies or party loyalty. Contrary to the American Pravda media, they did not oppose it for mere political posture. Aside from those ivory tower liberal Republicans, the opposition simply presented these facts:

It's not a stimulus bill, but a government spending bill.
It was written in private by a very small cadre of Democrats who offered no opportunity for comment, suggestion, or amendment from any Republican, or apparently any rank and file Democrat. (But all but 7 Democrats voted for it anyway)
It's full of liberal social engineering mandates.
It is designed simply to enrich powerful Democrat constituents.
It ushers in brand new socialist initiatives in healthcare, energy, education, and finance.
It fails to address or even consider the impact of spending double the annual Federal budget this year without offsetting revenue.
It guarantees a transfer of power from Corporate captains to Democrat party bureaucrats.
As a whole, the bill is unconstitutional. (But congress threw away the constitution many years ago)

The famous quote that may or may not be accurate, but attributed to Ben Franklin in response to a question put to him after the Constitutional Convention was, "a Republic, if you can keep it". Today we lost it to the Socialist Party of America.

Whatever your party affiliation, as an American you must be outraged at things like a $5 Billion payout to ACORN, which has been proven to be an agency of the Democrat Party engaged in open voter fraud and corruption of the Democratic process. You must be worried that the new Health Information Czar is empowered to approve or deny any treatment that might be prescribed by your physician. You should be appalled that billions of dollars are going into the pockets of friends and supporters of powerful Democrat lawmakers.

Perhaps the wind will carry the truth somewhere it might be heard before someone from the Obama administration takes me from the mountaintop and locks me in a cell to stop my whispering.

Emerging from the Flu

This was a nasty bug that knocked me off my feet on Saturday afternoon and didn't let me back up until today. The only positive I can think of is the 7 pounds I lost in those four lost days.

The hopelessness over the political and economic situation is complete. Mass insanity now rules. I tried watching the Terry Moran interview with the Great and Powerful OB on Nightline, and even though I expected an obsequious line of questioning, it exceeded even my worst expectations. The hardest hardball flung by the bowing, scraping reporter was approximately "Why are you being so nice to those evil Republicans?". There's journalism for you.

So February has shaped up to be a better month for me, but March is looking scary. It's hard to predict what the future holds. Maybe I can find a small amount of relief in the fact I'm far from alone in feeling the drastic effects of this worldwide economic free-fall. Because if the Reid-Pelosi-Obama "Stimulus" bill actually results in a major positive turnaround, I might have to become a Democrat. I'm pretty sure I'll be saying "told you so" with little relish in 6 months.

Keeping my head up (while blowing my nose).

Friday Musings

Trying to avoid tedious paperwork, I've been daydreaming about what I'd do if a pile of money dropped out of the sky. To make the dream worthwhile, I'm thinking the pile should be around $2 Mil.

I wonder what others would do with such a windfall, but I'm pretty sure how I'd allocate it.

The first 10 percent would go to charity. Since the missus and I wouldn't agree on what charities to support, I'm thinking I'd let her give away half of the 10 percent and I'd take care of the other half. My approach would be to identify specific projects to underwrite, definitely for my home church and possibly for my family's churches. I'd invest in remodeling projects or a new organ or generally the music program. I'd help out the priests/pastors, maybe with a vehicle or vacation or something like that. Generally, I'd just look around and see what was needed, then fill the need.

I'd throw a party for family and friends. What might be fun is to book a bunch of rooms at some resort and pay for everybody to get there for a week. I'd have to limit it somewhat, because it would be easy to go overboard with too large a guest list and/or too fancy a resort. But it's a particular priority of mine that I've always hoped to pull off.

Spending on personal stuff would not start with a car. I like my Volvo, and would not be in a hurry to go trade it for something hot and fancy. I would fix the cracked bumper and get it detailed, though.

Instead I'd focus on the home. A decision would need to be made whether to remodel the current homestead or sell it and buy something I like better. I'd have to check out the market to see if there might be my dream house already out there somewhere that would be a better option than the expense of turning my own cracker box into the dream. Again it would have to fit the budget, because I can't let it eat too much of the cash.

The rest gets invested. It could be fun to make it my full time job to find the best possible investments that will earn my living from then on. I'm thinking difersification, everything from real estate to other tangible assets to business ventures, stocks, bonds, etc.

OK. Time to wake up now and get back to real life.

Thoughts on Management and Labor

Of the many pendulums (pendula?) about to swing the opposite direction is the balance of power between Management and Labor.

Many of those who voted Democrat in the most recent election did so primarily out of a belief that big corporations have become too powerful, to the point of abusing their workers in the name of free-market capitalism.

Fundamentally a conservative, I've paid close attention to this particular issue over the years. And the conclusions I've reached don't toe the party line for either side. Actually, I find myself agreeing with each side about 50 percent. If that makes me an economic moderate, maybe so.

Business executives are driven by the bottom line. They are mostly compensated on their ability to grow their companies and maximize profit. Therefore, if they can get the job done by implementing lower cost alternatives to the means of production, they will do so. Concern for individual worker welfare has no seat in today's board room.

In the 80's and 90's I was personally involved in displacing perhaps hundreds of clerical and data processing workers through installation of new systems that improved efficiency overnight. I remember one particular project I led in the 80's that replaced the old "batch" system for Accounts Payable with an efficient new interactive solution. Less than a week after the new system went "live", 80 percent of the Accounts Payable department were laid off.

I felt badly, as if I was personally responsible for each of those people losing their livelihood. But after awhile, I realized it was the price of progress. If the company failed to implement these new systems, they would fall behind the competition and eventually be forced out of business because they could no longer produce their products profitably.

The next stage happened in manufacturing, where US plants closed and relocated in third-world companies across the globe. Plants relocated to places like Mexico failed due to massive corruption that made it impossible to do business, and now the vast majority of manufactured products seem to come from the Far East. Especially Communist China.

These days the technology advances have slowed somewhat, with technological efficiencies less dramatic than in the 80's and 90's. But what we have seen in this decade is a move to replace the high-tech workers like myself with cheaper alternatives. India has become the new center for technology workers, as corporate America has dumped their high-salaried U.S. techs for Indians, saving as much as 70 or 75 percent.

The Bush Administration famously told us for the past 8 years that all this progress was good for us. Globalization and free trade ultimately lifts all boats.

I'm not sold. If China, which is an adversary of the United States politically, has succeeded in replacing the manufacturing sector of this country with their own, then what happens if we suddenly find our relations deteriorating? All of a sudden, we can't produce our own manufactured products or war materiel that might be needed to protect ourselves.

There's Free Trade and there's Fair Trade. Free Trade has meant unfettered trade, with little regard for the fact that China steals trade secrets, software, entertainment, and intellectual property from America with impunity. The Bush government cared not at all that China manipulated their currency to make sure nobody could compete with them on the price for their goods.

Many suspect that NAFTA is designed more for the benefit of Mexico and Canada than for the U.S. To the extent that may be true or not, I can't say. I do think the silliness of the hassles I get at the border when entering Canada to do my software consulting are sort of ridiculous - If I was entering Canada for a job, then absolutely I should be scrutinized. But entering for a few days to teach people how to use software developed in the US should not be at issue.

I could go on, but want to get down to the real issue of Management versus Labor.

The "Card Check" legislation being pushed in Washington on behalf of the Labor Unions is designed to tilt the balance of power away from corporate management toward labor unions in a return to the 70's. I remember those days, with the bad economy made worse by incessant union strikes. So many companies had to close simply because their Unions demanded too high a price to keep the companies solvent.

I worked in a Union shop in the 80's and was stunned at the gross inefficiencies embedded into the daily activities at the company because of union work rules. I have a funny story about getting the florescent light bulbs changed in my office (it took over a week), but will get to that later.

Don't get me wrong, I fundamentally have no issue with the idea that employees can form a union for the purpose of negotiating fair pay, benefits, and working conditions with their employer.

But I do object to the business-killing effect of unions that become so powerful that they can practically dictate those terms to the employer. And I object to the pervasive corruption inherent in the Union bosses. Want to put yourself in danger of physical violence? As a member of a union, just ask the union boss for a financial statement showing how the members' dues are spent.

Management hates unions, understandably. I've been in the room to hear executives proclaim that they will close the company before they will allow a union to get in. I've been privy to unceremonious firing of employees based on no more than a rumor that they might have been overheard discussing unionization with a co-worker in the break room.

I had a friend back in the 70's and early 80's who told me that if he could just get into a certain Union, he could land a job that would pay double his current rate and be secure for life (that turned out to be wrong). But to get into the union, he had to know the right people. Because, to get on that gravy train, you had to be brought in by a friend or relative. The union was the gatekeeper to those high-paying jobs with amazing benefits.

There's the problem. Give either side too much power, and they're probably going to abuse it. If Management and Labor were both always fair-minded, honest, and ethical, there would be no problem.

Hmm, back to that morality theme again. What was that about all our societal problems sharing the same root?

Who Said,

Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result?

If only I could ignore the insanity of our government and join the masses of blissful ignorance. At least that might let me keep more hair and lower my blood pressure.

Last year we all got our little bonus check from the Federal government, ostensibly to help stimulate the economy. It didn't work. So the House, supported by the Great and Powerful OB, passed a bill to do it again.

The government decided to give 700 billion dollars to big banks and brokerage houses and insurance companies, no strings attached. The idea was that would loosen up credit to stimulate the economy. But the recipients gratefully accepted the money, salted it away in their vaults, paid out fat bonuses, took elaborate vacations, and/or bought other banks. It didn't work. So again, the Great and Powerful OB and his minions are continuing to dole out money by the billions to the same people with no change in the result.

So we move on with a trillion dollars the citizens don't have slated to satisfy a liberal Christmas wish list. Oh wait, they don't believe in Christmas; so let's just call it a general wish list. Eugenics, ACORN, Illegal Immigration, Fraudulent Global Warming pseudo scientists, windmill and solar panel boondoggles and political payback.

It takes some gall to introduce an openly fraudulent trillion dollar spending proposal labeled as an emergency plan to save the failing economy. And there seems to be nothing that can be done by the minority of the population that see what's happening but are ignored by the leftist government that ascended to power by fooling enough people.

The beginning of the 21st century dark ages is upon us.

The Only Hope

for Republicans to slow down the Democrat juggernaut is to become the source of common-sense alternatives.

It's a faint hope at best. On the whole, Americans have proven themselves shallow, ignorant, and self-absorbed. Facts are easily obscured by emotional appeal with empty nonspecific promises of "change" to bring about "hope".

Then there is the media, which will continue to wield its overwhelming power to filter information to cast everything the Dems push through in the best possible light while ignoring any and all contrary facts and positions.

The last and only hope, then, is the strongest possibly Public Relations Campaign from the GOP and their supporters to counter the Obama juggernaut with a positive alternative.

Instead of saying "no" to the radical plans being railroaded through Congress under the guise of "economic stimulus", an alternative stimulus plan must be detailed and rolled out to the public with an advertising blitz.

Instead of saying "no" to government control of healthcare, develop and present details of the GOP's preferred "market-based" approach. Stop just saying "market-based", but present exactly how the GOP's plan would keep medical decisions between the patient and doctor while making access to care affordable for all.

Bypass the media in this PR blitz to point out the moral hazards already evident in the power-drunk party in power. Let the public know about radical policies being entrenched by the majority such as overturning bans on infanticide (aka late-term or partial-birth abortions), parental consent for minors seeking abortion, and eliminating all education and waiting periods imposed by states.

Unless the GOP can regain a moral high ground and demonstrate to Americans that they can introduce common-sense policies that solve problems without massive government bureaucracies, they will be irrelevant as a party for at least a generation.

Three at a Time

The magic number 3 strikes again. 3 vehicles in the family need repair at the same time.

On the bright side, theoretically other things should improve after we get past these 3 bad ones.

We're overdue for a break, I think.

How Bad?

My consulting trip this week was a shocking example of how bad the economy has tanked. Although I certainly have seen a frightening slowdown in my business and have heard and read the bad economic news every day, my trip this week provided tangible proof.

It started with my Sunday departure from Indy. Parking in the "Economy" lot at the airport, there seemed to be a relatively small number of vehicles parked. But it's a new airport where I haven't had a chance to compare, plus this is traditionally a slow travel period, so I didn't think much of it.

I have settled on my new habit of parking close to the last bus stop in the lot, which I've decided is the best strategy for getting to the terminal fastest. Of course, it takes the longest to get back to my car when I return, but that's less important. I was the only person on the bus to the terminal, which was surprising.

Then I walked to the check-in counter and found myself the only passenger there. It was eerie, almost as if I was the only customer at Northwest this particular Sunday afternoon. The agents were hanging out, talking with each other or looking bored.

Walking through the main terminal to the security checkpoint, there was a noticeably small number of people waiting for arriving passengers or sitting at the tables fiddling with their laptops. The stores and restaurants were empty aside from the workers.

Once again, I was the only person present at the security checkpoint. TSA agents were also just hanging out, shooting the breeze or looking bored. The guy checking my ticket and drivers license seemed happy to have something to do.

Walking to my gate, all the stores and restaurants were empty except for the clerks. Even Starbucks, which has had a line a the counter every time I've walked by in the past, was empty of coffee connoisseurs.

As I waited to board my flight, I noticed other flights departing with unusually small passenger loads. Strangely, my flight turned out to be the only full flight in the concourse. I'm not sure why the only full flight of the afternoon was to Minneapolis, although I overheard the people around me talking about their final destinations, which were California and Florida.

I picked up my rental car in the Avis area of the garage, seeing my name on the renter's directory list that was smaller than I'd ever seen it. There were no empty parking spaces, and I was again the only traveler driving out of the garage with my rental. I grumbled a bit to myself that with all the cars they had available, they gave me a Kia. Oh well.

I arrived at the hotel, where it seemed the only people there were the desk clerk and me. The next morning I was the only guest in the breakfast room. Nobody else came in the 30 minutes I was there.

The second night and following morning I did notice a few guests had arrived, and there were maybe a dozen guests at breakfast Tuesday morning. Which was still a small group for the size of the hotel and its dining room.

The client's office showed a continuation of the trend. About half the offices and cubicles were empty. The people I worked with were a bit demoralized, mentioning they had just done a big layoff right before I arrived. It was their second round of layoffs in 3 months.

My trip home was perhaps the most shocking. Of course, checking in my rental car at MSP took place in record time. I was the only customer returning at the time, so the Avis agent was at my door ready to check me in the minute I shifted the car into Park.

The convenient check-in on the lower level at MSP was closed for the first time in years of so many trips I've lost count. I had to go upstairs to the main check-in counter. Where I was the only passenger checking in.

Again I was the only passenger walking through security, the shops and restaurants were mostly empty, and the concourse had fewer people than I have ever seen. The flight back to Indy had a light load as well.

I know that January and February are the slowest travel months of the year. But to see the airports practically ghost towns is frightening.

Everyone I talk to recently is saying the same things. Business everywhere is in the tank. Nobody's spending money, therefore nobody's hiring or starting any new projects or investing in anything. Everyone is keeping their head down and hoping things turn around before they lose everything.

And the first substantive act of the messiah President is overturning the restrictions placed by Bush on Federal support to UN organizations providing abortions to women around the world.

That's change. But hope?

Stark Contrast

It's a lonely feeling I was expecting, which is why I did my best to avoid the news yesterday. But there is no avoiding the over-the-top giddiness of the media over the inauguration. The messiah is King, and anyone not celebrating the fact should be ashamed.

The things I noticed were the stark contrasts between previous presidential transitions and this one.

Even the leftist media have acknowledged that the efforts made by the outgoing Bush administration to transfer information and assist the incoming Obama administration in every possible way were admirable. President Bush was gracious and open, wished Obama well, and smoothed the way. George and Laura Bush exemplified class in their gracious exit into a private life. The Senate Republicans are offering little to no resistance in confirmations of Obama's cabinet, despite publicly aired ethical, legal, and competence issues with key appointees.

Contrast this with the transition of Bush into the White House replacing Bill Clinton. The Clintons reportedly were not only cool to the Republican president, but did very little to assist in the transition. Their staff famously looted the White House on their way out, stealing everything that wasn't nailed down. The Democrat Senate blocked and delayed and fought nearly every Bush appointment for apparently no reason other than spite. Appointees with the most minor past issues had to withdraw and be replaced.

Bush left with a relatively small number of pardons and clemencies, none that can be seriously challenged as self-serving or ethically questionable. The Clintons left office with a record number of pardons, with some shamelessly self-serving and quid-pro-quo (Marc Rich and FALN).

Most telling was the disrespectful behavior of the partying crowds as they mocked, booed, and chanted obscenities at the departing Bush family. Was there a single conservative singing "Na Na Na Na, Hey, Hey, Hey, Goodbye" at Clinton during Bush's inauguration? And that was one of the milder classless offenses by the Obama crowds.

Bush took office with hordes of Democrats hating him. Personally. Hear any hatred of Obama from the right?

Finally, a group of congresspeople including the Speaker of the House are determined to hound the Bushes and members of their administration for the foreseeable future in an endless series of investigations designed to make their lives miserable and hoped to uncover some justification for jailing them. Simply out of spite.

When called on by some conservatives to investigate the many obvious legal and ethical lapses by the Clintons, Bush declined. There was nothing to be gained, in his opinion, by investigating past corruption.

I don't hate the new president. I simply disagree with nearly every policy he has promised to implement. Even if I'm the only person left who hasn't succumbed to the national infection that is Obamamania. It's easier to understand how someone like Hitler could ascend to power in Germany. Not that Obama is another Hitler. Vladimir Lenin or Hugo Chavez maybe, but not Hitler.

Post-Racial?

A side discussion that seems to be happening out there with the Obama inauguration is concerned with whether or not America has moved on from racism, or if in large part we have become a "Post-Racial" society.

So it seemed the best place to start in thinking about the whole idea was to grab the definition of racism. Here's the definition from Dictionary.com

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races

So has our society largely moved on in terms of the above definition?

Well, nobody that's taken seriously believes the first point. In fact, the level of political correctness we find ourselves in today would cause anyone expressing racial superiority for any race to be ostracized or possibly even jailed.

I'm aware of no government policy based on the first idea. In fact, there's plenty of accepted discrimination in government and big business. When it's racial it's discrimination that hires and promotes based on race where the "majority" race is the one discriminated against. Other types of discrimination happen every day against people of all races, except perhaps those given favoritism: it's considered perfectly acceptable to discriminate against smokers, overweight, unattractive, uneducated or undereducated, speech impaired, etc. But none dares discriminate against black or mixed-race individuals, at least not where such discrimination can be detected.

Hatred and intolerance is the most interesting part of the definition for me. Does anyone actually "hate" an entire race? None but perhaps the most extreme paranoids.

So, based on the above definition, I'd say we have been "post-racial" for a very long time.

I hear some continue to suggest that the mere fact that black people are statistically more likely to be poor, unemployed, and/or incarcerated is enough to prove that an invisible institutional racism is still in play.

Any reasonable analysis of the root causes of these problems in the black community would have to assume that the blame is misdirected. Although it can be said that government policies beginning with LBJ's "Great Society" either caused or exacerbated the problems in the black community just as it caused today's ongoing problems in all communities, the problem is mainly cultural.

The "Great Society" led to welfare programs that rewarded single mothers, with greater benefits based on the number of children in the home. Husbands were a detriment to getting so many benefits, including housing, food stamps, medical care, free education, and even a paycheck. So women of all races abandoned marriage and the nuclear family to get the government free ride. This devastated both black and white communities, but especially the black community.

Asians, Hispanics, Carribean Islanders, and even African immigrants arrived by the millions and found great success. People from places like Korea and India opened businesses in the black neighborhoods and found success, albeit sometimes angering some in those communities who somehow felt victimized by those entrepreneurs.

Affirmative Action and the simple attitudes of people trying to help the black community escape poverty led to companies scouring the country for qualified black candidates. But qualified candidates were hard to find, because so much of the black community rejected American Public Education as white institutions. Somehow excelling in school became akin to playing "Uncle Tom", knuckling under to some sort of oppressive system set up by some invisible white conspiracy.

Forced busing was tried, and didn't work. Now Charter Schools and Magnet Schools are popping up everywhere, but the jury's still out on their long-term prospects.

Truly there is a much greater number of successful people from the black community today than ever before. It just seems that the message hasn't fully reached the multi-generational welfare classes. Want to escape from the ghettos? Go to school, study hard, and get into college. It probably requires the strongest of wills and courage to buck the attitudes of others, but absolutely can be achieved by those willing to put forth the effort.

Unfortunately for many the "hope" and "change" promised by the new president isn't about equality, but socialism. The victimized underclass are poor not because of anything they did or failed to do, but because of some sort of national conspiracy designed to keep them poor and in the inner cities. So the answers they seek seem to revolve around new government "programs" that will simply re-emphasize the welfare state. The "change" many seem to "hope" for is ever expanding welfare checks that allow the poor oppressed to live a middle-class lifestyle without having to go to work every day.

And I promise I'm not being racist by suggesting that these may be underlying goals of many of those celebrating tomorrow's inauguration. Because those goals belong to millions of people of all races, who somehow think they will soon get free healthcare, higher wages, a nicer car, a better home, or low energy bills just because the almighty Obama will somehow make the evil capitalists stop gouging and exploiting everyone.

Such a letdown for all of those masses who believe the Obama fairy tales.

Columbus Christian School Basketball

Today's Columbus Republic did a mid-season review of the local public high school basketball teams. Since there is no press given to the Columbus Christian School program, I thought it might be interesting to post my own mid-season review for the Crusaders.

First, the varsity roster. Pardon me if I made any errors - I'm creating this from memory.

# Name Yr Ht Pos 4 Andes, Nolan 10 5-8 G 45 Axsom, Nick 11 6-0 G/F 14 Binnion, Baxter 12 5-11 G 10 Harvey, Gavin 10 6-1 F 3 Harvey, Jacob 10 5-10 G 5 Mathis, Luke 10 5-8 G 24 Morrison, Alex 10 6-1 F 31 Roth, Derek 12 6-5 C/F 11 Roth, Kyle 10 5-11 G 20 Slabaugh, Christopher 11 6-6 C 32 Straub, Tyler 11 6-1 F 15 Sweet, Matthew 10 5-9 G 33 Sweet, Michael 11 6-0 F 25 White, Nathan 10 6-0 G 22 Wright, Caleb 9 5-11 F

The Crusaders are one game under .500 at mid-season, at 9 and 10. They use a small, quick lineup with a 3-guard and 2-forward offense. There are 7 players in the rotation, including starters Derek and Kyle Roth, Luke Mathis, Gavin Harvey, and Baxter Binnion. Coming off the bench are Nolan Andes and Alex Morrison. Among the rest of the roster, Tyler Schaub and Jacob Harvey see limited playing time, with the rest of the bench used rarely.

Luke Mathis is a quick, energetic player that is fun to watch and is the team's second leading scorer behind Derek Roth. Luke is often able to use his speed to create layup opportunities, force turnovers, and is the team's most prolific 3-point shooter.

Derek Roth is a powerful force in the post. When the team is able to feed him in the paint, Derek is able to score consistently, even against taller defenders.

Baxter Binnion and Kyle Roth are both quick ball-handling specialists who can both run the offense in a point guard role.

Gavin Harvey is energetic and enthusiastic, and is capable of hitting mid-range jump shots.

Alex Morrison and Nolan Andes both can provide a spark off the bench when needed. Alex has good defensive skills and can create shots in the paint, while Nolan is capable of disrupting the opponent on defense and can hit the occasional 3 point basket.

The team is close-knit and enthusiastic. They have a chance to improve their competitiveness, especially within their private school league, if they can develop some of these potentials:

• Outside Shooting: Luke has been the most consistent, and Jacob Harvey is reputed to be the best outside shooter in practice, but the emergence of a consistent shooter would be a great complement to Derek's inside offense.
• Defense: The team's defense is inconsistent. Good teams are able to dribble-penetrate, draw the defense, then find an open man for an easy score a bit too often. Work on defensive fundamentals, help defense, and improved defensive schemes could improve the win/loss percentage.
• Matchups: The player rotation could be changed to better fit the lineup of the other team. Rather than always using the same rotation regardless of the opponent, a big lineup could be used against bigger teams and the smaller lineup against smaller teams. Size and talent among younger albeit less experienced players on the bench is ignored at times when some of those players could make a positive impact in certain game situations.
• Mental Attitude: There have been some close games that were lost because the Crusaders lost focus or became discouraged. Sometimes the response to such challenges is overcompensation or individuals trying to carry the team by themselves; other times the energy level is deflated when the opponent makes a run to pull ahead. The entire team must ignore real or perceived bad calls or mistakes and keep playing their game to the best of their ability. It's the coach's job to make any adjustments to the game strategy, and players should focus their energy on playing hard and avoiding mistakes rather than trying to be the hero of the game.

Naturally as a father I have the opinion that #20 is a great potential asset to the team being squandered on the bench. Even though he's raw and still learning how to play, it seems any team with a 6-6 (now 6-7, I think) player would do whatever it takes to get him into the lineup at least for spot duty to help the team win. I'm biased, of course.

Best of luck to the CCS Crusaders for the rest of the season!

Interconnectedness

There is an unquestionable relationship between the health and prosperity of a society and its moral compass. It seems to be evident in the events of the past few months.

American traditional morality has been defined in lifelong committed marriages, the nuclear family, hard work, self-reliance, charity, temperance, and responsibility.

If applied within the mainstream of America, these values lead to low crime, high productivity, less poverty, and technological progress.

But a prosperous nation seems inevitably to abandon those principles, leading to America's current state.

In place of committed marriage, couples seem to treat marriage like teens treat "going steady", divorcing the moment things get rocky or a seemingly better partner appears on the scene. Extramarital sex cheapens the marital relationship and produces a whole new class of single-parent households, which are mostly stuck in permanent poverty without the benefit of the marital partnership. Then sex becomes an end unto itself, as those who sadly find their identity in their homosexual behavior.

All that has led to a quiet epidemic of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the scourge of the "gay disease" of AIDS. Rather than promoting the traditional marriage model which practically guarantees the solution to the problems of disease and illegitimate children, the society promotes gay marriage, abortion, and tax-supported research seeking to cure these behavior-driven diseases. Anyone trying to suggest the simpler traditional cure for these ills is vilified as a bigot, homophobe, or right-wing fundamentalist extremist.

Productive people see their earnings increasingly confiscated in a direct transfer to those who are not productive. After a featherbed bureaucracy takes their very large cut, of course. The unproductive, nonworking recipients of the transfer payments feel no shame in making a living on the back of another; instead, they actually feel entitled to the meager income. Certain political officeholders delight in continuing these transfers of income, as it builds their constituencies into a dependent class that will guarantee they remain in power indefinitely.

Business owners and managers abandoned any sense of responsibility to their workforces and communities, laying off longtime employees the moment it becomes profitable to do so. Importing workers from other countries to replace American workers at a lower rate, and exporting plants and operations to poorer countries to save costs has enriched the corporate elites at the expense of the rest of America, combining with the increasing high taxes to lower the standard of living for everyone but themselves.

Wealthy trial lawyers invest in keeping friendly politicians in office who continue to expand their opportunities to sue anybody anywhere, so even the innocent find themselves paying off their legal extortionists because it costs less than dragging the case through the inefficent and increasingly unjust judicial system.

Now an incoming president promises to confiscate unprecedented amounts of money from the approximate 60 percent of citizens that actually have some to give away to the other 40 percent in the name of "economic stimulus". Instead of solving the problems of runaway medical cost, even more income will be confiscated to establish a government-controlled insurance system that addresses none of the underlying causes of the problem.

Thus the greatest country in the history of the world is destroyed.

Holiday Hangover

The time off was very nice, making it all that more difficult to return to the real world.

Apparently the real world is now suffering mass hysteria. The insanity has gained momentum to the point I can't even begin to describe its many manifestations.

The national intelligence has apparently dropped to an all-time low. Nobody, as represented by our own congress and incoming President, seems to have the slightest clue about basic history, economics, or common sense.

Thus I watch helplessly as the inmates run the asylum. Fears of the Great Depression may be realized because of the very policies being implemented by the all-powerful Left.

I only wish I had the answer to my basic question: Are they really so insanely ignorant, or are they acting on this opportunity to destroy America as we know it so they can build their own Marxist society out of the ashes?

I can't help but suspect the latter.