How to Solve the Gay Marriage Problem

This is my brilliant plan for solving the Gay Marriage problem in a way that may not please anybody, but at the same should stop the public argument about the subject.

It's simply this: Take the institution of Marriage away from the government.

The idea is to eliminate all the government benefits extended to married couples, thus putting the whole institution back where it belongs; as a sacramental commitment.

Suppose you could file a joint tax return with any other adult, where there's no reference to "Married filing jointly", just merely "Filing jointly". You could file jointly with a parent, sibling, spouse, or roommate - the government doesn't care.

You buy your insurance for yourself only or yourself plus one other adult. The other adult could be anybody, as long as he or she lives in your household. Even more importantly, whether or not you and the other adult are having sex is irrelevant to the relationship.  Employers would provide health insurance options for Employee Only, Employee Plus One Adult, or Employee Plus Family (including one adult).

You can name anybody you want in your will, partner with anybody you want for all financial transactions, even name anybody you want as a surviving beneficiary for your Social Security death benefits.

If you have children, you will always be financially responsible for them. Whether you are married to the other parent or not. That goes for adopted as well as natural children.

If you live with someone under a spousal-type arrangement, a civil contract must be in place that defines what happens if the two of you split up. Then instead of divorce court, the only legal activity would be suits brought by one party or the other to enforce the civil contract - whatever it says.

So churches remain free to decide for themselves whether or not to bless same-sex "marriages". Everyone else is free to decide for themselves whether to enter into the civil and sacramental marriage contract.

I do think adoption agencies should be free to decide their own screening process for adoptive parents. If an agency discriminates against single adoptive parents or same-sex partners or wierd people, that's their right.

It won't make the gay activists happy, because for some of them the agenda is less about an actual "marriage right" and more about getting government to force those who think it's aberrant to shut up and give them preferencial treatment.

It may not make religious conservatives happy, who believe traditional marriage and the nuclear family is the foundation of a moral and harmonious society. But they can't argue that this plan forces them to support gay marriage in any specific way.

Wouldn't this make for an interesting debate? I know, dream on.

Irrational Hatred

I had an interesting conversation with someone this week about the divisiveness and hatred apparent in the political system. We agreed that each side of the political divide strive to paint their opponents as evil personified.

Naturally, the first case in point was President Bush, who was demonized by the Left even when he did things they would otherwise support. Also noted is the hypocrisy, as we recalled, the Left was apoplectic with the terrorist surveillance program, which they were absolutely certain was designed to listen in on their Bush-hating telephone rants with like-minded irrationals. But now that their messianic president has Homeland Security openly surveilling "potential terrorists" like pro-lifers, NRA members, and, well, conservatives, they agree wholeheartedly.

The latest example is Sarah Palin. We agreed that leftist hatred for her and its accompanying meanness is baffling. What is it about the soon-to-be-former governor of Alaska that sends left-wingers and especially radical feminists off the cliff?

Interestingly, when she abruptly announced her resignation from the governorship of Alaska, the usual kooky lefts in the blogs and MSNBC automatically dreamed up all sorts of nasty fantasies in explanation. Which of course are all patently false, but when has that ever stopped folks like the straightjacket-needing Olberman.

Even David Letterman famously got in the act, trashing Palin at every turn with unfunny "jokes" and crossing the line with a particularly crude one about her daughter. What exactly is it about Sarah that drives even Dave running down the road to the funny farm?

Does the hatred come from her looks? That she's demonstrated solid pro-life values? That she's attractive? Could it be it's just because she's conservative?

From Katie Couric to Dave Letterman to the entire lineup on MSNBC to even some Republican pundits, the mere mention of Sarah makes veins pop out on their foreheads and vile words pour out of their mouths.

Maybe it's a female thing we men (at least conservative or moderate men) will never understand. I sure don't.

Hill Responds

So I got an answer from congressman Hill on my letter pleading with him to vote against the Cap & Trade bill. If anybody happens to read this and got the same letter, I'd appreciate it if you leave a comment and let me know. I really want to know whether this was a response to my letter or a form letter he sent to everybody.

Draw your own conclusions on the main question; is he a "true believer", had his head turned by The Great and Powerful OB, been threatened by Boss Pelosi, or all of the above?

Dear Mr. S******,

Thank you for writing to express your concerns about the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important matter.

We cannot continue to push the issue of addressing climate change onto future generations. It would be a complete shirking of my responsibilities as your Member of Congress to do that. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently moving forward to regulate green house gases as a pollutant, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA.

It is important that Congress set up a reasonable system to regulate emissions from all sectors of our economy, and ensure that targets and timetables included are feasible. Yes, this is a complex issue, and with something of this magnitude the details are absolutely critical. In fact, the original proposal was simply not achievable for Indiana. But, I worked with the Committee to significantly change the bill into a more realistic plan, and that process will continue as the bill moves through Congress. I believe that, although it is not currently a perfect product, the issue is too important to stop the legislative process.

I believe we made several important improvements to the draft. First, in order to cushion our transition to a clean energy economy, the majority of allowances were given to affected industries. These allowances, given to regulated entities, will ensure that prices do not spike and that companies do not receive windfall profits. Second, manufacturing industries will be compensated for their cost of compliance, and countries that do not adopt green house gas standards will face trade consequences from the United States to ensure the continued competitiveness of American manufacturing. Third, the original renewable energy standard was not practicable for Indiana, but it was moderated to a level at which Indiana can achieve results.

Regarding the details, I have worked diligently to safeguard the taxpayers' of Southern Indiana from being unfairly penalized by the bill. For example, I secured language in the legislation that will allow waste-to-energy to count as a source of renewable energy, thus making the overall Renewable Electricity Standard more attainable for Indiana. In addition, I was able to get a provision in the bill that develops a rebate program to make the purchase of energy-efficient manufactured homes more affordable and accessible.

Southern Indiana possesses the tools to play a key role in this process, and I believe our manufacturing base will attract clean energy jobs. Technological advances in clean energy, such as carbon capture and storage technology, can and will be exported all over the world. Our agriculture community will play a vital role in offsetting green house gases, and will also play a crucial role in cost containment. Finally, our universities, such as Indiana University, are well poised to be at the leading edge of our technological future.

I have been in touch with stakeholders in Southern Indiana, working to ensure that our goals and aspirations in this bill are both well intentioned and achievable. I am happy to report that a major power supplier in Indiana is supportive of the bill continuing to make its way through the legislative process. Again, this bill is at the start of a long process. I look forward to making additional improvements to this bill that will strengthen protections for Hoosier families, our agriculture community and local industries.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. Please feel free to call me at 202.225.5315 if you have any further questions or comments. If you would like to receive periodic email updates on my Congressional activities, please visit http://baronhill.house.gov.

Analyzing the Supreme Court Firefighter Decision

The general topic is fascinating, as is what has become all too routine in the Supreme Court; a 5-4 decision. My interest in this particular case includes several facets, from the law, what is fair or unfair about the case, and the remarkable tendency of the court to split along ideological lines on nearly every major decision these days.

So if you don't already know the basics of the case, here's what I've gathered from my reading about it:

The case arose when the city of New Haven, Connecticut, chose to deny promotions for qualified people within it's fire department. The specific reason for denying those promotions was that there were not enough minorities qualified for promotion, therefore the city would not promote anyone. The reason given was fear of legal action by minority firefighters, as no blacks and two hispanics passed the qualification examination.

So the firefighters who passed the examination and reportedly qualified in every objective measure for promotion to leadership positions in the department filed suit.

What makes the case interesting to many is the involvement of Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, who issued a summary judgement in favor of the City. In other words, she essentially decided without any hearing or serious review of the facts of the case that it did not have merit.

So what did the court say about the law? Basically, my understanding of the ruling is that the court narrowly struck down Sotomayor's appeals court ruling because the Civil Rights Act does not permit such public employee policies being denied simply because of a fear of a lawsuit. Unless the testing and qualifications process in place at New Haven is found to unfairly favor majority candidates (which was never alleged), the City cannot arbitrarily refuse to promote the candidates who qualified for promotion under the City's own criteria.

The court steered clear of the larger constitutional issue, which of course most conservatives have hoped to see addressed for years; the 14th amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the law. Affirmative Action programs across the country are designed not to provide equal opportunity, but instead preference in hiring, promotions, and university admissions to members of racial minorities. The left-wing argument for this practice is that such preferences are remedies for past discrimination.

So even though the law seemingly could not have been clearer on the subject, Judge Sotomayor and the 4 liberal justices who banded together in support of Justice Ginsberg's dissent would prefer to ignore the law in favor of their ideology.

As a simple matter of fairness, it is astounding to me that anyone would think it fair to slam the door on the most qualified candidates for promotion in any situation for the plain and simple reason that the candidate does not have the right skin color or ethnic background. It seems to me that such discrimination is always unfair, regardless of the individual victimized by it.

What other conclusion can any resonable observer reach from this decision, other than this: Barack Obama, Sonya Sotomayor, and the 4 liberal justices on the court, are driven by political and left-wing ideological priorities only. When the law on a specific issue before the court is crystal clear and without ambiguity, they will manufacture their own logical pretzels in pursuit of an outcome that fits their ideology.

That's what is called "Judicial Activism". And that's one more item on the Obama agenda to remake America. Apparently part of remaking America is destroying its constitution and rule of law. I'm not even certain the objective is their socialist utopia, but it seems more likely that dream is absolute power.

Thus my somewhat mixed feelings on this judgement, somewhere between relief that reason and sound interpretation of the law prevailed and disappointment that the court failed to address the underlying constitutional issue.

Do I think Sotomayor should be stopped from taking her seat on the court? Actually, I wish it were possible, but it's not. There aren't enough senators with the courage to stop her, the President was elected and has the right to pick his appointments, my interpretation of the constitutional role of the Senate to "advise and consent" doesn't mean blocking a nominee on ideological grounds, and blocking Sotomayor will simply lead to Obama naming another justice just as bad or worse.

Then again, if she can be proven to be incompetent, unqualified, or openly hostile to the oath of preserving and protecting the constitution of the United States, then shame on any senator who allows her nomination to be approved.

He probably will ignore me, but I wrote this anyway.

Dear Congressman Hill:

I recognize that my position on the healthcare reform initiatives currently pushed by the White House is not consistent with yours. So I hope you will consider my argument that other reforms can be much more effective than the proposed government-centered proposals.

I believe that as a small business owner who has struggled to obtain and keep a painfully expensive health insurance plan that has to date paid almost nothing for my actual healthcare services, I have standing to make a case in this area.

The fundamental problem with the system today boils down to cost. Physician friends tell me the biggest drivers of cost in their businesses are malpractice insurance premiums, patients who fail to pay, Medicare and Medicaid payments that are often late and more often not enough to cover the actual costs of care, and filing claims with many insurance companies with a different form or requirement for each and hounding them for late payments.

In business, we solve problems in a very different way from government. Since we don't have unlimited taxpayer resources to build a bureaucracy and task it to "solve" the problem, we actually have to understand and solve it on our own. The standard approach is to define the problem, identify alternative solutions, then implement those solutions.

So instead of a government healthcare takeover, why not simply help solve the problems?
Implement a serious Tort Reform that requires malpractice suits actually demonstrate that malpractice has occurred before the case actually gets heard.

Get the insurers to form an industry standards group that establishes a universal electronic claims reporting system, so any provider can simply submit online claims in the same way for all insurers. Permit providers to charge insurers interest on past-due payments, so they stop playing the float on the backs of the providers.

Let private insurers play in the Medicare and Medicaid space, so those who qualify can choose the plan that works best for them individually. My preference would be to outsource Medicare and Medicaid entirely, changing it to a simple voucher that allows qualified families to buy their own insurance in the market.

I believe a bold plan would propose detaching health insurance from employers. Everyone should be free to choose their own health plans on the open market, where insurers may not pick and choose only the healthiest for their plans. In other words, everyone buys their health insurance just like they buy auto insurance. If they want a major medical plan only to save cost, they simply pay cash for routine services.

Ultimately, giving people more control is better than giving them less control (per the government model). The market will compete, people will discover that changing their lifestyles can help them cut their premiums, and insurers will have to compete for customers.

Thank you for considering my ideas, and my hope is that you will vote against any plan that promises a federal bureaucracy that imposes their healthcare decisions on all of us.

Doomed to Repeat?

The exact quote escapes me, as does its attribution, but it's something along the lines of, "Those who do not understand History are doomed to repeat it."

Boy is it ever true!

Here we are repeating history in so many ways. I have to wonder, is the Great and Powerful OB really aware of what utter failures his policies were in the past? Does he know that and just not care, because power is his ambition? Or does he think they somehow did it wrong back then, and he knows how to do it right this time? Or is he simply ignorant and dismissive of history?

I can't think of any alternatives to those questions, which gives me heartburn.

Let's go back.

FDR took office shortly after the economic collapse that spurred the Great Depression. His response was to implement massive new socialist programs. Many citizens apparently loved him for that, but did they actually work? As far as I can tell, and from what a pretty high number of economists smarter than I have determined, they did not. In fact, they served to deepen and entrench the Depression. It took World War II and the optimism in its aftermath that turned things around.

Now some say that the GI Bill was responsible for that turnaround, and perhaps it had a positive impact. But raising taxes on the rich to an 80% top marginal rate and giving it to politicians and bureaucrats to dole out a small sliver to the needy obviously did much more damage.

What about LBJ and his Great Society? Did it work? Definitively not. Welfare programs that hand out a subsistence-level lifestyle create a permanent underclass of dependents. It's so amazingly clear, yet so many refuse to acknowledge the truth of it.

Then there's Jimmy Carter and his weak, naive foreign policy. There's no way to spin the fact that Jimmy's weakness led to the regime change in Iran that's front and center in today's immediate threats to our own security.

So the Great and Powerful OB is eager to assume the mantle of FDR, LBJ, and the peanut farmer. Luckily his poll numbers are falling, indicating more Americans are catching on. But it seems still over half the population is happily skipping behind his pied piper tune toward the cliff.

Next up, 10% unemployment. Devalued Dollar. Federal bankruptcy, along with bankruptcy in many states. Attacks on the homeland by nuclear Iran and North Korea, not to mention the odd terrorist bombings. Illegal immigrants flooding over open borders to either accept under-the-table jobs or terrorize the citizenry with drug trafficing and gang violence. All while the military and defense systems are de-funded to clear the way for federal socialized medicine.

Our only hope is that those Emerald City OB worshippers awaken from their trance in time.

Base Discourse

There are a number of examples of the most base forms of discourse in the country lately. Rather than improving, it seems to be getting worse, as disgusting and demeaning language is used to destroy people who are guilty of nothing more than having a particular worldview.

The David Letterman "jokes" about Sarah Palin and her daughter illustrate this point. Calling Palin a "slutty flight attendant" is certainly disgusting and disrespectful, not only to her but to women in general. Then going after her daughter, regardless of which daughter he actually meant to insult, was out of bounds.

The best way to answer his semi-apology splitting hairs about which daughter he was trashing is this simple question: Dave, would you have ever in a thousand years considered telling the same or a similarly vile joke about Chelsea Clinton? Or the Obama daughters?

We all know the answer. Somehow in the leftwing mindset of which Dave is clearly a member, only members of your own ideology deserve respect. As the MSNBC pundits and Bill Maher are saying, Sarah and her daughters are "fair game". Sure, and just imagine Rush Limbaugh saying anything remotely similar about a prominent daughter of a Democrat politician. I wonder what the same folks on the Left would have to say about that. The answer's pretty obvious to anybody who would be honest.

Then there's the story about the Inspector General that got fired by Obama for doing his job. Apparently he uncovered corruption and misappropriation of funds in Sacramento. But the culprit was a good friend of the President. We couldn't have that, so he was unceremoniously fired without notice, which just happens to be against the law.

So how does the Obama team respond to questions about this firing? Well, the guy's an old geezer who is losing his mind. Rather than answering the question truthfully, they chose to add insult to injury by destroying the poor guy's reputation. Does this really happen in America?

Even the CBS Evening News anchor recently got in the act at a College Commencement, where she trashed Sarah Palin. This is what passes for the head of the objective journalism at a major network news organization? A rabid partisan basking in left-wing adoration by personally attacking a conservative politician is supposed to be credible the next day on the Evening News? And they wonder why nobody watches CBS News anymore?

My third example is a PBS special I happened upon recently about the murder of Dr. Tiller. The program made me physically nauseous, and so upset I turned off the television for the night. The entire "documentary" was designed as an undisguised propaganda piece to deliver a horrible message: Tiller and his colleagues are heroes and martyrs for the cause of women's health and even women's rights. Their services are necessary for women, as if somehow if Tiller and his ilk were not there for women, they might just die from some horrible disease (is a baby some sort of tumor now?). And those Anti-Abortion fanatics (no mention of Pro-Life allowed here) are all nothing but hypocrites and murderers who can't wait to shoot down all the doctors who so compassionately and bravely provide healing healthcare for women. The explicit message from this sickening propaganda piece was that all pro-life activists must be locked up. It added more fuel to my ongoing concern that I may yet become imprisoned, along with many like me, for simply refusing to abandon my faith and moral code.

What is it with everybody? When did it become OK to demean and spread evil lies and rumors and launch baseless investigations against people just because they happen to express a certain political point of view, mostly from a conservative perspective?

Who decided that the best way to make an argument was to destroy the credibility of the person making the opposing argument? How many times must we be subjected to the canard, "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party". He's no more the leader of that party than I am. It's as ridiculous as a Republican going in front of the press and proclaiming that Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann or Michael Moore is the leader of the Democrat party. I'm guessing there would be as many Democrats offended by that suggestion as most Republicans are by the Limbaugh stuff. It is as untrue as it is meaningless.

There is talk of a groundswell of backlash against the extremes of the leftist power base that's taken over our government and society. We can only hope that the movement succeeds in recruiting fresh talent for our elective offices and sweeps aside the totalitarian Left before they are able to harden the foundation of permanent iron-fisted rule.

No Psychic Powers Required

It doesn't take psychic powers to predict what's going to happen as a direct result of the Obama-led redefinition of America into a socialist utopia. In fact, all it takes is a modest understanding of history. Who was it that said, "There's nothing new under the sun"? There's nothing new about Obama's socialist agenda, nor will there be anything new about its result.

Let's start with taxing the rich and giving to the poor. The poor generally see that as a pretty good idea, but what if they knew the real consequences of that part of the plan?

Although the number seems to keep coming down, let's just use Obama's original number of $250K. The idea is, if an individual earns more than $250K, somehow that's not good citizenship. Therefore, the government has the right to confiscate most of the earnings in excess of that amount.

So, let's say I've got my small business going great guns, and am on track to earn $500K this year. But Obama's new tax plan will take 70 cents on the dollar for the second $250K. Adding in State & Local Taxes, I would end up keeping a tiny fraction of those earnings for myself; possibly approaching 10%.

Being a rational person, I will do whatever I must to avoid those confiscatory taxes. Since I'm a consultant, with earnings based on hourly fees, once I realize there's no profit in working for that second $250K, I just won't. I'll cut my hours in half, or I'll work until I've earned $250K and take the rest of the year off. Then I'll resign myself to the fact that my earnings will be capped at $250K, at least until somebody from the conservative philosophy takes office. And I'll continue limiting my efforts to earning $250K and only $250K.

The Obama crowd might say that's a good thing. More work for other consultants, and isn't it great for me to earn so much money and still be able to get so much time off?

Maybe there's a personal attraction to making pretty decent money and still having lots of free time. But compare that to what I would have done without the confiscation:

I would have looked at expanding my business or investing in another business. After all, what if I could invest that second $250K into something that might pay off in bringing me an additional $250K a couple of years down the road?

Having the freedom and incentive to invest the profits from my success opens all sorts of possibilities. Maybe I am able to open a new business that employs lots of people. Maybe I'm able to invest in the development and sale of a new invention that makes everybody's lives better. I certainly will contribute a nice chunk of that income toward my church and favorite charities.

All it takes is the smallest bit of thought, which even the tiniest mind would be able to grasp. Obama thinks he will get 70% of that second $250K to pay for his universal healthcare and general income redistribution. But in reality, all he'll get is the 35 or 40% of the first $250K. Because it's not worth anybody's time to simply have the fruits of their labor confiscated by the government, which will waste most of it anyway on the bureaucracy and lining pockets of Democrat cronies.

It didn't work in the Jimmy Carter 70's. And it won't work in the Barack Obama 00's and 10's.

And the worst part, I'm pretty sure he knows it. What conclusion might that thought lead you to?

Me too.

Observable Results of Racial Preference

Commencement season has just ended. I attended two, for a child and for a nephew. To deny an evident fact of those commencement ceremonies would be to feign blindness.

The freshmen gathered to begin their undergraduate journeys four years ago. The incoming class was plainly racially diverse, proving the success of the university's efforts to attract and recruit students of various backgrounds.

Four years later, how diverse was the graduating class? If you count the Asian, Indian, and to a lesser extent Hispanic graduates, you might say pretty diverse. But what about Black?

The entering freshmen had a significant population of black students, perhaps close to a third of the matriculating class. But the graduating seniors were missing most of them. Sure, there were Black graduates, but as a percentage of the whole could not have been more than a low single-digit. And surnames of those graduates strongly suggested a significant part of that small successful group were from countries other than the United States.

Which naturally leads to the question: How does the practice of giving preferences and lowering admission standards for the purpose of building diverse university classes help those in the preferred group succeed, if obvious success rates for those students are so dismally small?

Would it not be better to make university admissions color-blind? Would it not be better to focus our efforts on improving education at the lower levels? If a racially identified sub-culture in America has rejected the education system as run by racist white guys, and shuns anyone in their group daring to excel in school, calling him "Uncle Tom"?

We should strive to support success not for a single racial group, but for all who grow up in poverty and without strong adult role models. We should focus on positive messages that tell young people they can succeed beyond their wildest dreams, if they only show up and study hard in school. We should encourage young women to pursue an education and career as the far superior option to dropping out and having babies out of wedlock.

This is why I could never be a politician in today's world. When you dare speak the truth, especially about issues such as this one, those who prefer the status quo will attack you personally and viciously.

But truth is.

Things I Will Never Understand

My brain just doesn't work the way so many others seem to these days. Here's a quick list of things I won't ever understand.

The idea that we're all entitled to healthcare paid for by someone else. I do understand the frustration with the high cost, but that's a different and solvable problem.

The argument that courts can make law on their own authority.

The idea that the US Constitution is a musty and obsolete old 18th century document that has no relevance to second millennium society.

The idea that it's OK to impose discrimination in hiring or higher education if the discrimination is in favor of members of selective racial, gender, or deviant behavioral groups.

The idea that harsh sentences must be meted out only for offenders who seem to have committed the violent offense based on the victim's membership in one of those favored groups.

The strident demands that those who dare oppose candidates for the country's highest positions on grounds of merit and constitutional principles must remain silent or be persecuted as racists/bigots/homophobes.

Instead of keeping sexual behavior private, we're asked to embrace and give special protection to practitioners of a myriad of deviancy.

Free speech only applies to the Left. Christians, radio talk-show hosts, and one cable television news network must be silenced.

American prosperity must be destroyed for the good of the planet.

No criminal deserves capital punishment, but abortion is nothing more than one of many effective methods of birth control.

Marriage is not a lifetime commitment between a man and woman creating a foundation for the nuclear family; instead it's an open partnership between any two individuals that provides special benefits from employers and the government. And any marriage may be dissolved and transferred on the whim of the partners.

Keeping the people safe isn't a military function; instead our leaders need to show the world we mean no harm, so they'll like us and will no longer threaten us.

Anybody who smokes tobacco or is overweight must be marginalized, but tokers are only using alternative medicine. Those hooked on "recreational" drugs deserve compassion not earned by the smokers and overweight, but must be given free access to drug rehab programs.

Terrorists who have actually committed violent terrorist acts are only responding to the abuse of American criminal politicians of the past. The "real" terrorists are Christians, NRA Members, military veterans, and Ron Paul supporters.

The definition of "Economic Stimulus" is giving billions of dollars to individuals and groups that will help make sure the party in power stays in power.

There's more, but I can't continue or I'll bring my mood down too low.

Basketball Coach

Lately I've thought a bit about my favorite sport, and considered what my philosophy and strategy would be if I happened to become a high school basketball coach. Not that there's even the most remote possibility that would ever happen - in fact, I don't believe I have the right personality to be successful in the job.

Even so, it's sort of fun to ruminate on what I might do to build a program. The local high school presents an interesting challenge. There hasn't been a winning basketball program there in decades. In my opinion not because of a lack of talent, but a lack of the kind of program that identifies and develops the players that can result in a competitive team.

The program has to start with development. One of the first things I'd do as the new coach is go meet the coaches from the feeder schools. I'd talk with them about a vision for the program that starts in the 5th grade, even though at least half of the best prospects will choose the other local high school.

Currently the coaches in the early grades are free to build their own teams without regard for how their choices impact the eventual high school rosters. Good basketball teams need height, speed, and athleticism. Slow little guys who happened to develop basketball skills, did so either from a natural talent and love of the game or because gung-ho parents got them to camps and clinics and even private coaching.

But those little slow guys aren't the ones who will make your team successful when they get to the 11th and 12th grades.

The tall kids are gangly and uncoordinated. When the coaches have tryouts in the 5th or 6th or 7th grade, those tall kids who can't dribble, can't shoot, and trip over their big feet barely get a look. What the leader of a successful basketball program needs to recognize is that boys develop at very different rates. That gangly tall kid who doesn't get a second look in the 7th grade has the potential to blossom into a Division I college prospect by the time he's a Senior. That super fast kid who can't dribble or shoot very well has the potential to become the best point guard in the conference by the time he's a Junior.

So I'd plead with the coaches in the lower grades to do the following:

• Take at least 3 or 4 of the tall, uncoordinated kids on your 15-member roster.
  
• Take one or two of the super fast kids who can't dribble or shoot.
• Then go ahead and take the best 10 of the rest.
• But encourage those who didn't make the roster not to give up. Create and support an intramural program, encourage kids to play in the PAL or FFY leagues. Get Senior players from the High School to coach those kids and keep the coaches informed on which kids are beginning to show promise.
• Get an assistant coach on those lower grade teams that works specifically with the big men, teaching them the fundamentals. Give the big men a taste entering games whenever possible to get some experience and motivation.
• Emphasize summer camps to bring out the local kids. The primary goal of the summer camps should be finding and developing the local talent, not making extra money for yourself.
  
• Stay engaged, and get to know every kid playing basketball in the community, whether on the school teams or the other programs.

As far as the first year at the high school, I'd start with the call-out meeting within the first couple weeks after school starts in August or September. I'd roam the halls looking for the tall kids. I'd talk to the football, baseball, and track coaches about the most athletic kids in those programs. I'd invite every one of them to the basketball tryout.

At the call-out meeting I'd make it clear that the roster is wide open. We will take the best 12 players on the varsity roster. We'll take up to 15 of the best players on the junior varsity roster, and up to 15 of the best freshmen for the freshman roster. Nobody who played last year is guaranteed a spot.

After picking the rosters for the 3 high school squads, I'd help organize an intramural league and encourage those who didn't make it to participate. I'd keep an eye on the kids in that league to look for young up-and-coming prospects.

My emphasis for building a competitive team would be on practice. I would not be a great game coach, and am not a great motivator. But I can be methodical and intelligent about focusing on the keys to success:

• Fitness: Everybody on the team will find games to be physically like a vacation compared to practice. No rubber legs in the fourth quarter will ever be blamed for a loss.
• Fundamentals: Every team member will go through very structured drills every day to develop their fundamentals. Dribbling, footwork, shooting, passing, rebounding, discipline. No loss will ever be blamed on a lack of discipline or poor fundamentals.
• Standards: Strict rules will be established and enforced uniformly on standards of appearance, sportsmanship, language, and conduct. This will be a class program.

I would assign assistant coaches to primary duties: One in charge of post player development, another in charge of guards. Post players will become outstanding defenders, experts at blocking out and controlling rebounds and near-perfect shooting inside 6 feet. Guards and small forwards must be quick, have great hands, and great passers. Only the sharpshooters will be allowed to take open 3-pointers. Everybody will shoot 200 free throws every day.

Practice will be sort of like learning to play the piano. Every fundamental will start with the simple and build up to more and more complex skills. For example, players will learn to shoot by starting under the basket and gradually moving out. When a player can dribble with the left hand, they'll be challenged to learn behind-the-back and between-the-legs. The same approach to learning the offense - start with the simple placement and options, and gradually introduce more and more wrinkles.

I'd use mostly a man-to-man defense, relying on the players' speed and conditioning. Zone defenses will be used either to confuse the opponent or when matchups make it a more effective strategy.

I'd utilize a motion offense with lots of screens, constant player cutting, and an emphasis on playing fast and finding the highest percentage open shot. I'd have the basic motion offense with multiple options against man-to-man, and an inside-out offense with lots of options against zone. I'd look for big and dominant big men in the middle with quick, sharpshooting guards and small forwards that will force opponents to pick their poison; let the big man score under the basket or let the sharpshooters pop from outside - you can stop one but not the other.

I'd implement a rigorous offseason training program, designed for speed, agility, and max verticals. Players who show up for tryouts out of shape risk their spot on the roster, regardless of natural talent. I wouldn't necessarily run a lot of fullcourt press, unless I felt it gave us a definitive advantage against a slower or lesser conditioned team.

I'd foster team unity with time spent outside of practice, but be careful not to overdo it so players still have quality family time at home. Every player will know exactly where they stand with the coaches and their role on the team, and any attitude problems with their role won't be tolerated. On the other hand, every bench player will understand that they can earn their way onto the court during games through exhibiting outstanding effort in practice.

A special reward for one Junior Varsity player allowed to dress with the Varsity will be based on practice effort. One JV player will dress for each regular season varsity game, chosen the day before each game and based solely on the coaches' choice of which player exhibited the best attitude and gave the best effort for the given week of practice.

The day after each game (typically Saturday morning) will be a light workout and film session. Reviewing game film will identify the most critical problems in that game, and the specific fundamental skills will become the primary emphasis for the next week of practice.

The basic philosophies of cultivating talent and recognizing that boys develop physically at different rates will ensure the best possible roster each season. A strong conditioning program will ensure that physical stamina is never a reason for losing a game. Players will respect themselves, their coaches, and each other, and will be models for the rest of the school.

I'd try to find assistant coaches who are good at the things I'm not good at. Starting with great motivators. But I also need assistants who know how to teach, since they'll be tasked with player skill development.

I think it's a pretty good strategy. If the local high school gets a coach who lasts more than 2 years, maybe they'll land one that would use something similar. Maybe someday I could catch on as an assistant somewhere, maybe when I don't have to work as much.

The Healthcare Post

The President asked for ideas that might help solve the healthcare problem. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, so I know any ideas I would present would be the last ever to be considered by someone of his leftist and power-mad bent.

All the same, I have a lot of insight on the topic. My business is closely tied to consulting with companies on their employee benefit programs, so I know a lot about how most people get health insurance. I am a small independent businessman, so I know a lot about the difficulties involved in obtaining healthcare for anything close to a reasonable cost.

So, based on my own life and business experience, here's how I think the healthcare problem might be solved.

1. Break health insurance away from employer plans and transfer it to each individual or family. I think employers in general would be happy to get the monkey off their back, allowing their employees to simply purchase their own health plans on the open market. If employers want to subsidize health insurance and/or help collect premiums through payroll deductions, fine. But make health insurance work for everyone the same way as auto or life or homeowner's insurance. Everybody just goes out and buys their own. Employers would then naturally increase employee salaries by the amount they're saving by getting employees off their insurance rolls.
2. Let insurance companies compete for the business. They can bundle the health insurance with auto, home, and life. They can sell products like healthcare savings accounts or combine healthcare and life insurance into new blended plans. What they can't do is turn down anyone. The only rule for purchasing health insurance is that someone can be denied a new policy with another company if they're currently in treatment for a major disease that's covered under their current policy.
3. Health insurance for the majority of people would likely be focused on a Major Medical plan. In other words, routine exams, treatment for common conditions, and routine prescription drugs would be paid out-of-pocket unless the individual chooses a plan that covers those expenses. Full coverage of such expenses would be available, probably with choices to blend medical savings accounts and insurance.
4. Insurance filing by medical providers will use a standardized electronic form. The insurance industry will be asked to form a standards board to define the electronic standard, which is provided by any of a wide choice of commercially-available software packages used by the providers.
5. For low-income individuals and families, a revamped MedicAid program administered by the states can be accessed. Application can be made to the program for assistance with medical bills and insurance premiums. A low-interest loan program will also be available for anyone faced with a budget-busting medical bill, that can be paid off when the borrower is more financially able.
6. Tort Reform, specifically MalPractice Reform, would generally work as follows: Medical Review Boards would be formed in each state, charged with a review of the facts surrounding a possible malpractice case. If the board, made up of an impartial group of professionals and non-professionals, finds the case has merit, it can be referred to civil litigation, or the parties involved can utilize mediation with the review board before moving into court.
7. All medical costs, including fee-for-service, prescription drugs, and insurance premiums, are fully tax deductible for all individuals and families. The 10% threshold will be eliminated. Medical Savings Accounts can be funded with pre-tax earnings, and are not taxed when used for medical expenses. Tax on earnings from medical savings investment accounts is only assessed on money taken out of the accounts for non-medical use.
8. The government has a very limited role in this proposal. They will make sure insurance companies agree on an electronic standard, enforce rules around universal eligibility, administer the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the Medicaid Loan program, and provide regulatory oversight to make sure insurers treat their clients fairly.

I think this framework will result in lower costs, better accessibility, and a healthier population. Rather than allowing insurers to punish clients for bad health habits, they would be permitted to offer rebates or prizes to their clients for things like losing weight, stopping smoking and drinking, lowering blood pressure, controlling diabetes, etc.

If the onerous burdens on providers are reduced, specifically malpractice lawsuit threats, 20 different insurance filing forms, having to constantly negotiate rates with every insurance provider, having to treat one-third of patients without collecting any fees, etc., the cost of treatments will go down.

If an office visit costs $30 to $40 instead of $60 to $80, most people will be able to pay out of pocket. If diagnostic testing costs less than $100 instead of hundreds or even thousands of dollars, again more people will be able to pay.

Providers have much less paperwork and get to collect most of their fees immediately, while patients know what things cost, can afford them, and will ask better questions and be able to work with their physicians to avoid unnecessary and defensive diagnostic testing.

Finally, everyone will have at least a Major Medical plan, that pays for all hospitalization, trauma treatments, cancer treatments, rehabilitation, and any costs related to a critical disease or injury. Spreading the risk across the entire population lowers the cost for everyone, and protects the providers from today's high percentage of uninsured who pay little or no part of the cost.

I'm absolutely against the idea that the government needs to take over, building a bureaucracy to decide what treatments people can and cannot have, adding a layer of cost without addressing root causes of already out-of-control costs, and trying to build punitive taxes on the "rich" to pay for free healthcare for everybody else.

The Terrorism Post

The whole topic of terrorism, national security, 9/11, Gitmo, interrogations, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, etc., is one that hasn't really been a major theme for me in this blog. But the dueling speeches yesterday offered such a clear demonstration of the near opposite approaches from the two administrations that it seemed to present a good opportunity for me to add my two cents.

Cheney and Obama were about as different from each other in their passionate rhetoric on this topic as could be imagined. Cheney is a no-nonsense, unapologetic believer, and many suggest architect, of President Bush's strategies in the War on Terror. Obama is fond of vague rhetorical flourishes, always seeking the oohs and aahs from his adoring fans.

Cheney was the same guy that drove the left crazy with his unflinching commitment to an offensive strategy to root out terrorists where they live so they can never again repeat devastation like 9/11. He refuses to apologize for that strategy, denying that "enhanced interrogation techniques" even approximate torture, and pointing out that those techniques were used only rarely and on a small number of high-ranking al-Quaeda members to obtain information that helped stop planned terrorist attacks, saving thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.

Obama is dismayed by the aggressive approach so vigorously defended by Cheney. Aside from asserting that the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11, he has outlawed all use of the phrase, "war on terror". He claims that aggressive pursuit of terrorists only creates more terrorists, "enhanced interrogation techniques" is indeed torture and illegal, and those interrogations, along with the very existince of Gitmo, make our country less safe.

The big difference between the two, from my perspective, is that one is open, honest, and very specific about what was done and how it succeeded in averting all terrorist attacks that were planned after 9/11. The other uses vague rhetoric about American values and unsupported claims that his predecessor's tactics made us less safe.

Either Cheney's right about the interrogations helping avert more terrorist attacks or he's not. Since Obama offers no evidence to the contrary, we must accept Cheney's very specific case.

Enhanced interrogation techniques are designed to instill fear, discomfort, and humiliation on those captured terrorists we know have information that can be used to save lives. I don't think fear, discomfort, and humiliation are torture. I think attempting to criminalize everyone involved over a disagreement over interrogation methods is dangerous banana republic politics.

But mainly, it is easy for me to break the interrogation down into a simple analogy. One I wish someone would pose to President Obama to get his response. Mr. President, suppose your lovely daughters were kidnapped by a ring of ruthless rapists and murderers, and one of the leaders of that ring were captured. If you were allowed a half hour alone in an interrogation room with him, what would you be willing to do to make him disclose all the information he has about the location and condition of your daughters?

I know what my answer to that question will always be. And I think those "enhanced interrogation techniques" described in the memos stupidly made public by the President would be a day at the beach compared to what I'd be willing to do to save my kids.

Cheney is right about his characterization of Obama on this issue. Obama cares more about his own political power and aggrandizement than the security of his country.

The only other explanations are too frightening to contemplace. Because if it's not just about him, then he's either incompetent and stupid, or he's an agent of our enemies.

I don't need the powers of Nostradamus to see what's coming. We will be struck again, and soon. Israel will be attacked by Iran soon, possibly with a nuclear bomb. Our country will be broken and bankrupt, watching hopelessly as the world explodes and our President continues to appease and hope he can stop the carnage by force of his personality.

Had Enough Yet?

Sometimes I've just got to vent.

How has it happened, that seemingly intelligent people refuse to acknowledge the irreparable harm being done to them and their way of life because they are hypnotized by the messianic President?

He goes to Notre Dame, which defied its own Roman Catholic benefactors to honor him and gasp at his awesomeness while he condescended and chided those who are appalled at his callous disregard for human life. Implicit in his speech was the message that he was the reasonable one on issues of life, while they (and I) are the shrill and ignorant radicals.

He has taken control of banking and automobile manufacturing, and can't wait to do the same with healthcare. He's declared war on the greedy, selfish rich capitalists but is best bud of greedy, selfish rich socialist elites.

He's singlehandedly dictating what cars we will be allowed to drive, in effect making only the ugly motorized rollerskates like the stupid "Smart Car" the sole and costly vehicle available.

He has stolen profitable auto dealerships in order to give them to other dealers he decided to spare. That happens in communist countries, not in America.

He has red-flagged conservatives for surveillance by Homeland Security as potential domestic terrorists. Offices are reportedly being opened and staffed right now by Obama's brownshirts who will be ready to move in on folks who are military vets, NRA members, pro-life advocates, even Ron Paul supporters. Yes, conservatives. How soon before people we know begin to disappear? Will they be checked into asylums, re-education camps, prison? Or will they simply disappear.

He has allocated billions for his personal army of "community organizers", aka ACORN. Any guesses how they plan to use that money?

He has co-opted the press. Unfettered corruption, from his own illegal relationship with ACORN, to sweetheart deals for friends and relatives of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jack Murtha, and many others, to tax evaders like Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, and about two-thirds of his cabinet nominees go unremarked and uninvestigated by the slavishly loyal third estate.

He will impose draconian taxes on energy that will make $4 gas seem cheap, freeze average families to death in their homes next February for lack of means to pay their heating bill, and cause commerce to grind to a stop as companies can no longer afford to make and ship products due to skyrocketing energy costs.

Please, somebody tell me you're not some sort of zombie, drugged out on this Obama worship happy gas to which only I seem immune.

Book Review

I'm a pretty voracious reader, especially when I'm traveling. Getting on an airplane without a book puts me into a state just short of panic. With a book, long plane rides are almost bearable.

I'm normally not in the habit of reviewing books here, but this week's tome seemed to inspire this short review.

I picked up a book by Lee Child, titled Nothing to Lose. I've read a couple of other Jack Reacher books by this author, and rather enjoyed them.

This one was disappointing.

Lee's alter ego protagonist, the strange loner Jack Reacher, is in this story the embodiment of the author's angst and seething rage. Over the war in Iraq, George W. Bush, environmentalism, and especially born-again Christians.

The author apparently couldn't help himself from creating this sort of leftwing political rant in the form of a novel. Too bad, because otherwise I find Lee to be an engaging storyteller.

In this book, the immediate villain is a sort of crazy born-again businessman who doubles as a sort of Christian svengali. He manages to create in this single villain every evil fantasy of the modern American Left.

The villain, you see, is into apocalyptic prophecy. Plus he happens to be an accomplished businessman who knows a lot about chemistry and metals recycling. So he basically recruits an insulated town full of sycophantic followers to help him hurry Armageddon along a bit.

It's fascinating to see how Child's alter ego has his own selective brand of morality. His definition of morality is severely anti-materialist, anti-Christian, and seriously environmentalist. Jack Reacher isn't much into more traditional moral codes, actually disdaining them. Then there's the terrorism angle; in Lee's world there aren't really any Muslim terrorists, he's more worried about his fantasies about Christian terrorists who try to stage mass murder and pin it on Muslims.

My hope is that if I pick up another book by Child, he will have expended his pent-up energy on Nothing to Lose and reverts back to the more entertaining and less self-serving stories I know he can produce.

It's the Boomers' Fault

So said Gov. Mitch Daniels at the Butler commencement this weekend.

It was surprising and perhaps a bit shocking to hear Mitch give a very unconventional commencement speech. The generally expected stuff about achievement and making the world a better place were tossed aside by the gov in favor of a harsh, but fundamentally true indictment of the selfishness and irresponsibility of the boomer generation.

His message to the graduates: Don't follow in your parents' footsteps, but be responsible, care for somebody other than yourself, keep your family together and take responsibility for raising your children, and rediscover basic morality. It's the only possible way the next generation can clean up the mess created by their hippie parents.

It was interesting to note that the students and the other honoree speaking at the event made a point of praising the new President. Mitch instead offered a veiled but true criticism; our president's primary accomplishment before taking office was the publication of two books. Both about him.

My guess is that half the crowd were offended, and the other half able to acknowledge the truth of his words. I am a bit conflicted between the acknowledgement and the idea that perhaps his message could have been a bit more positive and uplifting in the spirit of the occasion.

There's a lot that could be cited as examples of the decline in morality initiated by my generation. What's interesting to me is the polar opposite attitudes about this topic held by the two halves of the population.

One side defines morality in a favorite buzzword, "tolerance". Tolerance means no behavior may be condemned, and people should be free to live their lives as they choose. Even if it's destructive to themselves or others. The only exceptions to this catechism are the "intolerant" and the greedy. If someone holds a faith that teaches a set of moral standards, that person is guilty of greater sin than any murderer, thief or rapist. If someone is wealthy, and not an athlete, musician, actor, or member of the orthodoxy, that person is guilty of greed.

The other side defines morality according to the ancient Judeo-Christian traditions. They are accused of their opposites of ignoring tolerance and greed, and are themselves automatically held up in contempt for holding beliefs that are somehow repressive of the tolerants.

Morality and responsibility were the cornerstone of the success and prosperity of this greatest country in history. I'd agree with Mitch's point that the blessings of this society are seriously endangered, unless this new generation awakens to the truth.

Perhaps experiencing a repeat of my generation's grandparents' Great Depression and parents' Great World War is the only hope for a retreat from our excesses and a return to the foundational source of freedom, peace, and prosperity.

A terrible cost will be paid in any event. Unfortunately it won't be paid by the guilty members of the generation who ran up that debt, but the generation to which we've bequeathed it.

When They Call Truth Lies and Lies Truth

Too many have fallen for the trick.

The serpent in Eden convinced Eve to break God's only rule through the cunning use of a small truth to divert her from the whole truth and ignore the consequences.

Such is the situation today. Millions of Americans have fallen for the serpent's tantalizing use of small truths taken out of context, giving the serpent absolute power over them without even realizing it before it's too late.

They've been told every day that:

Bush was a torturer

Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war simply to enrich his friends

Bush purposely withheld aid to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina because he wanted to wipe out poor black people

Conservatives who express opposition to Obama's policies are racist

Opponents of illegal immigration are racist

Opponents of gay marriage are bigots

Opponents of socialized medicine are heartless

Opponents of massive government spending are racist and heartless

Opponents of government takeover of the financial, automotive, and healthcare industries are greedy and selfish

People who are Pro-Life, members of the military, anti-illegal immigration, Christians, pro-second amendment, and Tea Party supporters are dangerous potential terrorists

Every one of these statements is a big lie. It's the path of smaller truths the serpent uses to get to that big lie that hoodwinks the ignorant.

For example, the serpent says that homosexuals are born that way; they live their lives the way they do simply because it's part of who they are as individuals. Therefore, anyone who denies them rights equal to heterosexual couples to marry and receive all the same recognition and benefits of a married couple is a bigot.

Whether or not anyone is born gay is debatable, but even if somehow that's acknowledged to be true, it certainly does not imply that those who oppose granting them special treatment and benefits are bigoted.

Everything else has a similar background, where the serpent used small truths to twist into a huge lie. Unfortunately, the gullible masses have yet to understand that the serpent is not campaigning for their benefit; rather, the serpent's agenda is absolute power over every person.

The serpent is making huge strides toward the ultimate goal, which is removing freedom from all citizens and forcing each and every person to turn away from God, but to worship and obey the serpent.

Would You Invest in This Company?

Unless it's been totally mis-reported, it seems that Chrysler is about to be controlled by a partnership between the UAW and the Federal Government.

Let's think about that for a moment.

The Federal Government, now wholly owned by the Democrat party, exists to gain and build political power for the benefit of an entrenched and growing bureaucracy.

The UAW's mission is to obtain the best possible pay, benefits, and working conditions for its membership while enriching its leadership.

Would you invest in a company who has Barack Obama as the de-facto Chairman of the Board, and the leadership of the UAW constituting the Board of Directors?

My first thought was, what a great opportunity for Ford. Ford refused the federal bailout, which Chrysler and GM have discovered was a Faustian bargain. So it would seem that Ford now has the opportunity to dominate the domestic automobile market, since their American competitors will from here on be run like the US Postal Service.

Of course, the foreign auto makers must also be drooling over the prospect. Toyota and Honda would seem to be guaranteed domination of the auto market for the foreseeable future.

Then again, maybe not. Because the new owners of Chrysler, who presumably are on a path to also control General Motors, won't be happy about the prospect of competing against independent, more efficient, higher quality automobile companies.

So before you run out and invest what's left of your IRA in Ford, consider that the new owners of the other two car companies won't enjoy competing against a private car company. They have the power of a single-party government that will set its sights on the competition, if not determined to shut them down, at least making sure any of their competitive advantages are taxed and regulated away.

Look out Ford, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Volkswagen, Kia, Hyndai, Mazda, and everybody else out there with the gall to take on Obama and the UAW. Your days of competing in the US market selling vehicles consumers want may be numbered.

To Be Honest,

People who routinely use that preamble to their statements drive me a little nuts.

Whenever I hear that, or the many variations on the same theme, I think, "What, you mean you haven't been honest with me before?".

The actual definition of this, and similar phrases like "To tell you the truth", "The truth is", "If I may be honest", or "Let me be straight", goes something like this:

"You may not agree with what I'm about to say, but ..."

Now if people actually used that translation, I could respect that much more.

Then there are variants, like "I won't lie", "I'm not gonna lie", "If you want to know the truth", "The honest truth". These seem to be the same, but I've noticed a subtle difference in their meaning. The translation of this variation is something like this:

"You're probably going to be disappointed or offended by what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway."

This variation is actually somewhat worse than the first, because it's a stronger wording that carries with it a certain insensitivity, condescension, and disregard for the feelings of the receiver. It's akin to telling them that you know what you're going to say might hurt them, but you really don't care.

Now an example of this manner of speech can be found in the words of Jesus throughout the New Testament. Jesus seemed to like the preface that is variously translated as, "Amen, Amen, I say to you", "Verily I say to you", and "Truly I say to you".

Clearly, his intent is somewhat different from the two previous examples. Jesus used this preface as a way to say, "Pay attention! What I'm about to say is important."

Overall, I would prefer people say what they mean and mean what they say. As a rule, I would suggest it is best to say "Listen to this", or "I've got something important to say", when you want to make sure somebody hears and understands you.

Say "I have a different take on that", or "Here's my opinion on that" when you are about to express an opinion that might be controversial. It's OK to disagree respectfully when it comes to deeply held beliefs.

Don't say anything if you're tempted to say something offensive. If you must disappoint someone, rather than the condescending "I'm not gonna lie", simply say something like, "Thanks very much for your invitation, but I will not be able to attend".

People will continue using these phrases, and I'll continue cringing inside when they do. But I wish they could learn from this.

Radical or just Informed?

According to pretty much every poll and "news" report, I now find myself solidly in the "Radical" category. What I always though was radical is now considered mainstream or "moderate". Even the government's own Department of Homeland Security has identified people sharing my beliefs potential domestic terrorists.

Let me try to figure this out. Do these beliefs make me a right-wing radical or just better informed than the mainstream?

I believe the US Constitution is there for a reason, and should not be violated routinely just because politicians and their judicial appointees find it inconvenient.

I believe in the First Amendment, specifically Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. The mainstream now says I'm not permitted to say I'm opposed to Gay Marriage or the words "Jesus Christ" in any context other than swear words. Simply being a Christian, and especially a Catholic, makes me a pariah to the mainstream.

I believe in the Second Amendment. Although I don't actually own a firearm now, I'm seriously considering joining the rush to the gun store to get one before they're banned. (Not to use in terrorist activities, just to protect myself and my family). There has never been a case in history, as far as I know, where a gun jumped up and shot somebody all by itself. There is a long history in places that confiscate guns from the population where violent crime skyrockets because armed criminals know their victims are guaranteed to be unarmed. But the mainstream believes that taking guns away from everybody will end violent crime.

I believe in freedom of conscience. It turns out that physicians will not be forced to perform abortions, but they will be forced to prescribe abortifacient drugs and refer pregnant females to abortionists. Med students, nurses, and pharmacists do not even have the physician's option, and must participate if ordered on pain of loss of their career.

I believe in Equal Protection under the law. A violent crime is abhorrent and deserves swift and harsh judgement regardless of the victim. The mainstream believes that the punishment for such crimes should be more severe only if the offender held specific hatred against the special group in which the victim happened to claim membership.

I believe voting should be fair and just, with only legally authorized citizens eligible. I don't believe the government should give millions or billions to organizations whose primary mission is to help insure a certain party or specific individuals are guaranteed election. The mainstream has no problem with election fraud, as long as they approve of the winner.

I believe that abortion is infanticide. Legal abortion violates the primary right defined by the founders, life. The mainstream thinks it's OK to kill a baby at any time as long as they're not fully emerged from the mother's womb. The President even believes it's OK to kill them even after that.

I believe that foreign policy is best practiced by walking softly and carrying a big stick. Those who choose to be our friends will find us the best friends they could ever hope to have, while those who choose to be our enemies will find us their worst nightmare. But now the standard is apology, weakness, indecisiveness, appeasement, and chopping up the stick.

I believe the government exists to protect us against foreign and domestic enemies, regulate interstate commerce, facilitate international commerce, and facilitate national transportation infrastructure. The constitution is quite specific on the limited powers of the federal government, and the fact that no powers not specified are permitted. But the mainstream thinks it's fine for the federal government to do anything they want without restriction.

I believe the government should be held to the spending standard every household must maintain. They may only spend the money they have. The mainstream has no problem with the government spending every one of us into bankruptcy in the interest of consolidating permanent power.

There are many more beliefs, but the bottom line is this: I believe in freedom, self-determination, personal responsibility, and a non-intrusive government. The mainstream believes the federal government is responsible for taking care of them, cradle to grave. Even when that means none are free to live and work where they want, spend their own money as they see fit, choose their own doctors and medical treatments, and use their property as they please.

But I'm told that is radical. These beliefs make me a right-wing nutcase.

Unless, of course, nobody in the mainstream actually knows what's going on these days.

How did this happen?

Counterintuitive

When times get tough, the government likes to do the exact opposite of rational response.

When times are great, sensible families make sure to put money away against the possibility of hard times. The government spends every dime of their increased tax revenue, even to the point of big deficits they have to finance with debt.

When the economy goes in the tank, families tighten their belts. We cut out all unnecessary spending and focus our limited resources on the basics of housing and food. The government pushes ahead with opportunistic massive spending based on the discredited Keynesian philosophy of the 1030's.

As times get even tougher, families will find a way. We try to find extra money through second jobs, plant gardens to save on food costs, and sell possessions to stay afloat. The government uses the power only they have to raise taxes on those struggling families, exacerbating the downturn by undermining the population's ability to recover.

Recasting the government's behavior in terms of the average American illustrates sheer insanity.

Jack, husband of Jane and father of 3 children, loses his job. He goes home to assess his situation, and it is dire. He hasn't got much in the bank, and between the mortgage, car loans, and credit card balances, he's already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

So he and Jane decide to follow the government's model. Jack hires a contractor to remodel his home and build a new in-ground swimming pool in the backyard. He goes to the local Lexus dealer and purchases a brand new luxury car with 100% financing.

Jane walks through the neighborhood to all the neighbors she knows that still have income. She forces each neighbor to produce their financial statements, and takes about 50% from most of them. She explains to each, at the point of her gun, that since they have more money than she and Jack, it's only fair that they share the wealth.

The neighbors, realizing that half of everything they make is going to Jack and Jane for their remodeled home and swimming pool and Lexus, decide it's not worth all that hard work to only get half of their earnings. So many of them move away to escape their thieving neighbors. Others cut back on their hours or quit their jobs altogether. They plant gardens, no longer visit the doctor but try to manage their own health as best they can, and spend as little as possible on only the most basic needs. Because they realize that if their income falls below a certain level, Jack and Jane will at least leave them alone.

Pretty soon the whole neighborhood is bankrupt. Half the homes are empty, and the other half are in poor condition. At first, only Jack and Jane have the nice home in the neighborhood, but eventually, their source of income from working neighbors dries up. Finally, even Jack and Jane are bankrupt.

Irony

It's interesting to track the irony.

Democrats campaigned on the promise they would be scandal-free, ethical, and transparent. Obama promised to end earmarks.

So, how are they doing?

There's a great and growing list of reports of corruption. Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Murtha, Harman, Biden, and others have all been tied to various corrupt influences to benefit themselves, family, supporters, or close associates. Interestingly, each Democrat's response when they get tied to corruption is not the Republican trend of resigning in disgrace, but fiercely denying everything and blaming some faceless conservative conspiracy.

Is the party powerful enough to squash all investigation and prosecution? So far it would seem so. But they're eager to prosecute all Republicans for the sin of disagreeing with them on policy. It almost seems dangerous to be a former member of the Bush Administration, who all are now at risk of prosecution and imprisonment. The former White House butler and mailroom guy might find themselves locked up before they even realize what happened.

Obama's promise to end earmarks got turned on its ear with the last spending bill - 9,000 of them, give or take. And he didn't even blink.

As far as transparency, it turns out Obama meant transparency only for selected classified documents that might shed a poor light on the Bush administration. Most of his own activities seem to be highly secretive, unless somebody leaks.

Speaking of leaked documents, perhaps the most ironic is the one about Janet Napolitano's plan to implement suveillance on possible domestic terrorists drips with irony.

Remember during the Bush years, when all sorts of left-wing activists, college professors, and fellow travelers were outraged at what they called illegal spying on US Citizens without a warrant? I recall hearing various professors railing on the TV news programs about their absolute certainty that the evil Bush was spying on them solely because of their political views.

Perhaps those same folks figure turnabout is fair play. Despite the fact they had not a shred of evidence for their paranoia, they are universally silent on the new domestic terrorist surveillance. I guess they don't have a problem with warrantless wiretaps when it comes to people who are pro-life, Christian fundamentalists, Catholics and evangelicals, ex-military, NRA members, anti-illegal immigration, Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists, or Libertarians.

This time there is actual evidence, although so far nobody's been arrested in any of those groups, at least as far as I know.

Please write to me or visit me when I'm in prison. Wait, that's not the right term; Oh yes, Re-Education Camp.

Think they'll waterboard me?

Why Can't Telecoms Do Customer Service?

I noticed an article some time ago that cited a study where the telecommunications companies hold the distinction as the worst industry for customer service.

My experiences with AT&T over the past 3 weeks would seem to bear this out.

The DSL connection at home was driving us nuts for a few weeks. We'd go online and be OK for awhile, then suddenly the connection would fail. So I'd unplug the modem, let it rest a bit, plug it back in, reboot, and the connection would be working again. But whatever the person using the computer was doing typically was lost, and the process had to be started again.

I found out that a neighbor was having the same trouble, and they paid an AT&T service person for the service call and a new modem. Which seemed a bit unfair to me, having to pay the technician to come out and tell you your modem's bad, then add insult to injury by charging you for that "service" plus an overpriced replacement modem.

I called the service line and reported my problem, and of course, they called back a few hours later and said the line tested fine. That was expected. So I asked them for a new modem.

Too bad, the 1 year warranty just expired last month. So I'd have to purchase the new modem. But if I agreed to keep the service for 1 year, they'd waive the charge and ship me the new one for free. I wasn't terribly pleased with that idea, but under the misguided idea that it would at least solve the problem quickly, I told them to go ahead.

About 10 days later, the new modem still hadn't arrived. By now the internet is completely unusable, as at best the modem will work for a couple of minutes before failing. So I called again, navigating through about the stupidest telephone automation system I've ever encountered until I finally got a human. The pleasant Indian customer service rep asked me all the questions I'd answered about 3 times while navigating through their stupid system, then had trouble understanding my problem.

So when I finally got through to him that a modem was supposed to have been shipped and I still didn't have it, he got around to telling me that I can order one with a credit card. I responded, of course, by pointing out the fact that I'd already been told the new one would be free with a 1 year service commitment.

Well, that offer has ended. Apparently there were way too many people having trouble with those low-quality modems AT&T has been sending out all over the country. I'm guessing somebody found out they were giving thousands of new modems away, and of course before that cuts into profits and hurts some executive's bonus, it was decided to quickly do away with that bad idea.

So I took a deep breath, tried to remain patient, and suggested to the pleasant young Indian that it seemed to me the agreement was already in place for me to receive a replacement. Just because the previous customer service rep failed to properly process the order or the shipping department lost it or whatever other possible reason, should not mean the agreement was void.

Well, that's above his pay grade, so he puts me on hold while he tries to find a supervisor. When he returns, he says he was unable to get his supervisor. But he's a creative fellow, so he said he'd just call shipping and see if they could locate the original order.

I was back on hold for awhile, and was getting tired of holding the handset. So I tried to activate the speaker phone to free up my hands while I waited and accidentally hung up. Arrgh.

I called back, navigated through the stupid telephone maze again, answered all the same questions 3 times, then instead of a customer service rep I somehow got a salesperson. Who promptly tried to sell me an "upgrade" to make my internet faster (only $5 more per month!), tried to sell me a mobile phone, tried to sell me Cable TV, and generally harassed me before finally transferring me to Customer Service.

So after giving my information yet again to the new Customer Service rep, then re-explaining everything a couple of times before he understood, the long and painful ordeal finally ended. He informed me the new modem will be shipped today, and I should receive it Monday.

What would you be willing to wager that a new modem will actually appear at my home sometime Monday?

Yeah, I don't think I'd take that bet either.

Musings on Tea Party

I had considered stopping by Donner park yesterday to check out the Tea Party event there, but ended up working late (Never thought I'd be thrilled to be working late, but boy was I ever!)

So when I did wrap up in the evening, I drove by just to see what was happening. It looked like the crowd was breaking up, with lots of folks walking to their cars. I couldn't tell much about turnout, but noticed cars parked in unusual places, so it seemed there were enough to strain available parking.

I watched some of the Fox News coverage, and noticed several things.

The crowds seemed substantially white, middle-class, and clean-cut. These folks aren't your typical protesters. They aren't into chanting slogans that much. They listen to the speakers and cheer a lot, but if a speaker gets partisan they might boo him.

The events apparently weren't covered by anybody other than Fox News, except maybe for local press and media. There's a clip from CNN with one of their reporters starting to interview a Tea Party attendee then rudely cutting him off and insulting him when he tried to answer her condescending question (Why are you here protesting taxes, when Obama's plan actually gives you a tax cut?)

The local newspaper did a front-page photo but a fairly small and dismissive article. Obviously the reporter wasn't a fan. The photo seemed designed to project a negative image - it showed an angry-looking unattractive woman holding a sign and yelling something.

Either the press doesn't understand or chooses not to understand the driving force behind this movement. They echo the Obama talking points, that everybody except the "rich" are getting a break, so what's the problem?

Then there's the vulgar stuff, that I was very surprised showed up on CNN as well. Imagine if Fox News used a vulgar sexual reference to describe a leftist protest.

The important questions are whether this is a one-time thing, or the start of a movement that will bring government back to reality; and will this gain enough momentum to actually reconfigure the membership of congress?

It would be nice, but the country's still pretty much polarized around 50-50. We shall see next year.

Paying Attention

An unfortunate fact lately is I have time to pay attention to things going on in the world. I think I'd rather be busy working and oblivious, but at least it gives my mind something to do during quiet times.

Some things I noticed:

Obama wanted to name Caroline Kennedy Ambassador to the Vatican. Naturally, the Vatican politely declined. I wonder what the true explanation might be for why The Great and Powerful OB made such a stupid choice?

The first explanation is that he's simply ignorant. With his faux Roman Catholic friends, like the Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, John Kerry, et al, perhaps he thought she was a typical Catholic?.

Maybe he did it on purpose to tweak Pope Benedict. He thought everybody would be outraged that he would reject Princess Caroline. Perhaps it might be true for the atheists and faux Catholics in Obama's inner circle, but actual Catholics are pretty happy the Vatican held firmly to their faith and principles.

Thinking a bit further on the subject, it seems that Obama will have a very difficult time with this appointment. Because I'm not sure he even knows anybody that would be acceptable to the Vatican. He certainly doesn't seem to understand or respect anybody who actually practices their faith.

Another thing I noticed was related to the successful rescue of the captain from the Somali pirates. Not the rescue itself, which is actually a rare example of Obama doing the right thing.

What I noticed are three stories. The first was the unseemly media blitz from the White House that commenced immediately after the captain was rescued by Navy Seals. Apparently, White House staffers called all their media buddies to crow that it was all Obama. He ordered it, coordinated it, perhaps even micro-managed the operation from the White House, according to his in-house spin machine.

They have no class.

The second story I noticed was that Obama only gave approval for force to be used in the rescue shortly before it took place. The story seemed to suggest that he was hesitant and indecisive, and only gave the Navy a green light to act if the captain's life was in imminent danger. That is a concern for future and probably much more serious terrorist crises that will certainly present themselves.

The third story is about the recent photo op for Obama when he visited the troops in Iraq. I saw that picture, which showed a crowd of adoring soldiers fawning over The Great and Powerful OB, shooting pictures and getting autographs. I was a bit surprised when I saw that photo, because I had always held the general impression that the military wasn't particularly enamored of the Great & Powerful Wizard.

So today I heard the explanation. An advance team carefully screened the soldiers to make sure only strong Obama supporters got in when he made his visit. Then they gave them cameras to shoot their pictures, and photos to get autographed.

The visit was staged for purely propaganda purposes. I seem to recall that the Soviets used to do that sort of thing. Other totalitarian regimes do the same around the globe. Now the Great and Powerful OB is getting in on the game.

By the way, the elimination of the conscience rule for healthcare professionals is done. I'm waiting to see what happens when the first doctor or pharmacist refuses to participate in an abortion.

Is anybody else paying attention?

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.